Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company" in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

All shares of outstanding common stock of Nevada Power Company are held by its parent company, NV Energy, Inc., which is an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company. As of April 30,July 31, 2015, 1,000 shares of common stock, $1.00 stated value, were outstanding.

When used in Forward-Looking Statements, Part I - Items 2 through 4, and Part II - Items 1 through 6, the following terms have the definitions indicated.

This report contains statements that do not directly or exclusively relate to historical facts. These statements are "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Forward-looking statements can typically be identified by the use of forward-looking words, such as "will," "may," "could," "project," "believe," "anticipate," "expect," "estimate," "continue," "intend," "potential," "plan," "forecast" and similar terms. These statements are based upon the Company's current intentions, assumptions, expectations and beliefs and are subject to risks, uncertainties and other important factors. Many of these factors are outside the control of the Company and could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. These factors include, among others:

Further details of the potential risks and uncertainties affecting the Company are described in its filings with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, including Part II, Item 1A and other discussions contained in this Form 10‑Q. The Company undertakes no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. The foregoing factors should not be construed as exclusive.

To the Board of Directors and Shareholder of

Nevada Power Company

Las Vegas, Nevada

We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Nevada Power Company and subsidiaries (the "Company") as of March 31,June 30, 2015, and the related consolidated statements of operations for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, and of changes in shareholder's equity and cash flows for the three-monthsix-month periods ended March 31,June 30, 2015 and 2014. These interim financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our reviews in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). A review of interim financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our reviews, we are not aware of any material modifications that should be made to such consolidated interim financial statements for them to be in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

We have previously audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheet of Nevada Power Company and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2014, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in shareholder's equity, and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein); and in our report dated February 27, 2015, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements. In our opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2014 is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Las Vegas, Nevada

Nevada Power Company, together with its subsidiaries (collectively, the "Company"), is a wholly owned subsidiary of NV Energy, Inc. ("NV Energy"), a holding company that also owns Sierra Pacific Power Company ("Sierra Pacific") and certain other subsidiaries. The Company is a United States regulated electric utility company serving retail customers, including residential, commercial and industrial customers, primarily in the Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Henderson and adjoining areas. NV Energy is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company ("BHE"). BHE is a holding company based in Des Moines, Iowa that owns subsidiaries principally engaged in energy businesses. BHE is a consolidated subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. ("Berkshire Hathaway").

The unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America ("GAAP") for interim financial information and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission's rules and regulations for Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, they do not include all of the disclosures required by GAAP for annual financial statements. Management believes the unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements contain all adjustments (consisting only of normal recurring adjustments) considered necessary for the fair presentation of the unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements as of March 31,June 30, 2015 and for the three-monththree- and six-month periods ended March 31,June 30, 2015 and 2014. The results of operations for the three-month periodthree- and six-month periods ended March 31,June 30, 2015 are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the full year.

The preparation of the unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements and the reported amounts of revenue and expenses during the period. Actual results may differ from the estimates used in preparing the unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements. Note 2 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014 describes the most significant accounting policies used in the preparation of the unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements. There have been no significant changes in the Company's assumptions regarding significant accounting estimates and policies during the three-monthsix-month period ended March 31,June 30, 2015.

In April 2015, the Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB") issued Accounting Standards Update ("ASU") No. 2015-03, which amends FASB Accounting Standards Codification ("ASC") Subtopic 835-30, "Interest - Imputation of Interest." The amendments in this guidance require that debt issuance costs related to a recognized debt liability be presented in the balance sheet as a direct deduction from the carrying amount of that debt liability instead of as an asset. This guidance is effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2015, with early adoption permitted. This guidance must be adopted retrospectively, wherein the balance sheet of each period presented should be adjusted to reflect the new guidance. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of adopting this guidance on its Consolidated Financial Statements and disclosures included within Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-09, which creates FASB ASC Topic 606, "Revenue from Contracts with Customers" and supersedes ASC Topic 605, "Revenue Recognition." The guidance replaces industry-specific guidance and establishes a single five-step model to identify and recognize revenue. The core principle of the guidance is that an entity should recognize revenue upon transfer of control of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which an entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. Additionally, the guidance requires the entity to disclose further quantitative and qualitative information regarding the nature and amount of revenues arising from contracts with customers, as well as other information about the significant judgments and estimates used in recognizing revenues from contracts with customers. This guidance isIn July 2015, the FASB decided to defer the effective fordate one year to interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016. Early application is not permitted.2017. This guidance may be adopted retrospectively or under a modified retrospective method where the cumulative effect is recognized at the date of initial application. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of adopting this guidance on its Consolidated Financial Statements and disclosures included within Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

Nevada statutes permit regulated utilities to adopt deferred energy accounting procedures. The intent of these procedures is to ease the effect on customers of fluctuations in the cost of purchased natural gas, fuel and electricity and are subject to annual prudency review by the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada ("PUCN").

Under deferred energy accounting, to the extent actual fuel and purchased power costs exceed fuel and purchased power costs recoverable through current rates that excess is not recorded as a current expense on the Consolidated Statements of Operations but rather is deferred and recorded as a regulatory asset on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Conversely, a regulatory liability is recorded to the extent fuel and purchased power costs recoverable through current rates exceed actual fuel and purchased power costs. These excess amounts are reflected in quarterly adjustments to rates and recorded as cost of fuel, energy and capacity in future time periods.

In July 2010, regulations were adopted by the PUCN that authorizes an electric utility to recover lost revenue that is attributable to the measurable and verifiable effects associated with the implementation of efficiency and conservation programs approved by the PUCN through energy efficiency implementation rates ("EEIR"). As a result, the Company files annually in March to adjust energy efficiency program rates and EEIR for over- or under-collected balances, which are effective in October of the same year.

The PUCN's final order approving the BHE Merger stipulated that the Company would not seek recovery of any lost revenue for calendar year 2014 in an amount that exceeded 50% of the lost revenue that the Company could otherwise request. In February 2014, the Company filed an application with the PUCN to reset the EEIR and energy efficiency program rates. In June 2014, the PUCN accepted a stipulation to adjust the EEIR, as of July 1, 2014, to collect 50% of the estimated lost revenue that the Company would otherwise be allowed to recover for the 2014 calendar year. The EEIR was effective from July through December 2014, setreset on January 1, 2015 and remains in effect through September 2015. To the extent the Company's earned rate of return exceeds the rate of return used to set base general rates, the Company is required to refund to customers EEIR revenue collected. As a result, the Company has deferred recognition of EEIR revenue collected and has recorded a liability of $11$14 million, which is included in current regulatory liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of March 31,June 30, 2015.

In May 2014, the Company filed a general rate case with the PUCN. In July 2014, the Company made its certification filing, which requested incremental annual revenue relief in the amount of $38 million, or an average price increase of 2%. In October 2014, the Company reached a settlement agreement with certain parties agreeing to a zero increase in the revenue requirement. In October 2014, the PUCN issued an order in the general rate case filing that accepted the settlement. The order provides for increases in the fixed-monthly service charge for customers with a corresponding decrease in the base tariff general rate effective January 1, 2015. As a result of the order, the Company recorded $15 million in asset impairments related to property, plant and equipment and $5 million of regulatory asset impairments, which are included in operating and maintenance on the Consolidated Statements of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2014. Additionally, the Company recorded a $5 million gain in other, net on the Consolidated Statement of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2014 related to the disposition of property. In October 2014, a party filed a petition for reconsideration of the PUCN order. In November 2014, the PUCN granted the petition for reconsideration and reaffirmed the order issued in October 2014.

In May 2013, the Company, along with Sierra Pacific, filed an application with the FERC to establish single system transmission and ancillary service rates. The combined filing requested incremental rate relief of $17 million annually to be effective January 1, 2014. In August 2013, the FERC granted the companies' request for a rate effective date of January 1, 2014 subject to refund, and set the case for hearing or settlement discussions. On January 1, 2014, the Company implemented the filed rates in this case subject to refund as set forth in the FERC's order.

In September 2014, the Company, along with Sierra Pacific, filed an unopposed settlement offer with the FERC on behalf of NV Energy and the intervening parties providing rate relief of $4 million. The settlement offer would resolve all outstanding issues related to this case. In addition, a preliminary order from the administrative law judge granting the motion for interim rate relief was issued, which authorizes the Company to institute the interim rates effective September 1, 2014, and begin billing transmission customers under the settlement rates for service provided on and after that date. In January 2015, the FERC approved the settlement and refunds were issued.

The Company is a participant in benefit plans sponsored by NV Energy. The NV Energy Retirement Plan includes a qualified pension plan ("Qualified Pension Plan") and a supplemental executive retirement plan and a restoration plan (collectively, "Non‑Qualified Pension Plans") that provide pension benefits for eligible employees. The NV Energy Comprehensive Welfare Benefit and Cafeteria Plan provides certain postretirement health care and life insurance benefits for eligible retirees ("Other Postretirement Plans") on behalf of the Company. Amounts attributable to the Company were allocated from NV Energy based upon the current, or in the case of retirees, previous, employment location. Offsetting regulatory assets and liabilities have been recorded related to the amounts not yet recognized as a component of net periodic benefit costs that will be included in regulated rates. Net periodic benefit costs not included in regulated rates are included in accumulated other comprehensive loss, net.

Amounts receivable from (payable to) NV Energy are included on the Consolidated Balance Sheets and consist of the following (in millions):

The Company is exposed to the impact of market fluctuations in commodity prices and interest rates. The Company is principally exposed to electricity, natural gas and coal market fluctuations primarily through the Company's obligation to serve retail customer load in its regulated service territory. The Company's load and generating facilities represent substantial underlying commodity positions. Exposures to commodity prices consist mainly of variations in the price of fuel required to generate electricity and wholesale electricity that is purchased and sold. Commodity prices are subject to wide price swings as supply and demand are impacted by, among many other unpredictable items, weather, market liquidity, generating facility availability, customer usage, storage, and transmission and transportation constraints. The actual cost of fuel and purchased power is recoverable through the deferred energy mechanism. Interest rate risk exists on variable-rate debt and future debt issuances. The Company does not engage in proprietary trading activities.

The Company has established a risk management process that is designed to identify, assess, monitor, report, manage and mitigate each of the various types of risk involved in its business. To mitigate a portion of its commodity price risk, the Company uses commodity derivative contracts, which may include forwards, futures, options, swaps and other agreements, to effectively secure future supply or sell future production generally at fixed prices. The Company manages its interest rate risk by limiting its exposure to variable interest rates primarily through the issuance of fixed‑rate long-term debt and by monitoring market changes in interest rates. Additionally, the Company may from time to time enter into interest rate derivative contracts, such as interest rate swaps or locks, to mitigate the Company's exposure to interest rate risk. The Company does not hedge all of its commodity price and interest rate risks, thereby exposing the unhedged portion to changes in market prices.

There have been no significant changes in the Company's accounting policies related to derivatives. Refer to Note 7 for additional information on derivative contracts.

The following table, which excludes contracts that have been designated as normal under the normal purchases or normal sales exception afforded by GAAP, summarizes the fair value of the Company's derivative contracts, on a gross basis, and reconciles those amounts to the amounts presented on a net basis on the Consolidated Balance Sheets (in millions):

The following table summarizes the net notional amounts of outstanding derivative contracts with indexed and fixed price terms that comprise the mark-to-market values as of (in millions):

The Company is exposed to counterparty credit risk associated with wholesale energy supply and marketing activities with other utilities, energy marketing companies, financial institutions and other market participants. Credit risk may be concentrated to the extent the Company's counterparties have similar economic, industry or other characteristics and due to direct and indirect

relationships among the counterparties. Before entering into a transaction, the Company analyzes the financial condition of each significant wholesale counterparty, establish limits on the amount of unsecured credit to be extended to each counterparty and evaluate the appropriateness of unsecured credit limits on an ongoing basis. To further mitigate wholesale counterparty credit risk, the Company enters into netting and collateral arrangements that may include margining and cross-product netting agreements and obtain third-party guarantees, letters of credit and cash deposits. If required, the Company exercises rights under these arrangements, including calling on the counterparty's credit support arrangement.

In accordance with industry practice, certain wholesale derivative contracts contain credit support provisions that in part base certain collateral requirements on credit ratings for unsecured debt as reported by one or more of the three recognized credit rating agencies. These derivative contracts may either specifically provide rights to demand cash or other security in the event of a credit rating downgrade ("credit-risk-related contingent features") or provide the right for counterparties to demand "adequate assurance," in the event of a material adverse change in creditworthiness. These rights can vary by contract and by counterparty. As of March 31,June 30, 2015, credit ratings from the three recognized credit rating agencies were investment grade.

The aggregate fair value of the Company's derivative contracts in liability positions with specific credit-risk-related contingent features was $6$5 million and $4 million as of March 31,June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively, which represents the amount of collateral to be posted if all credit risk related contingent features for derivative contracts in liability positions had been triggered. The Company's collateral requirements could fluctuate considerably due to market price volatility, changes in credit ratings, changes in legislation or regulation or other factors.

The carrying value of the Company's cash, certain cash equivalents, receivables, payables, accrued liabilities and short-term borrowings approximates fair value because of the short-term maturity of these instruments. The Company has various financial assets and liabilities that are measured at fair value on the Consolidated Financial Statements using inputs from the three levels of the fair value hierarchy. A financial asset or liability classification within the hierarchy is determined based on the lowest level input that is significant to the fair value measurement. The three levels are as follows:

The following table presents the Company's assets and liabilities recognized on the Consolidated Balance Sheets and measured at fair value on a recurring basis (in millions):

Derivative contracts are recorded on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as either assets or liabilities and are stated at estimated fair value unless they are designated as normal purchases or normal sales and qualify for the exception afforded by GAAP. When available, the fair value of derivative contracts is estimated using unadjusted quoted prices for identical contracts in the market in which the Company transacts. When quoted prices for identical contracts are not available, the Company uses forward price curves. Forward price curves represent the Company's estimates of the prices at which a buyer or seller could contract today for delivery or settlement at future dates. The Company bases its forward price curves upon market price quotations, when available, or internally developed and commercial models, with internal and external fundamental data inputs. Market price quotations are obtained from independent brokers, exchanges, direct communication with market participants and actual transactions executed by the Company. Market price quotations are generally readily obtainable for the applicable term of the Company's outstanding derivative contracts; therefore, the Company's forward price curves reflect observable market quotes. Market price quotations for certain electricity and natural gas trading hubs are not as readily obtainable due to the length of the contract. Given that limited market data exists for these contracts, as well as for those contracts that are not actively traded, the Company uses forward price curves derived from internal models based on perceived pricing relationships to major trading hubs that are based on unobservable inputs. The estimated fair value of these derivative contracts is a function of underlying forward commodity prices, related volatility, counterparty creditworthiness and duration of the contracts. The model incorporates a mid-market pricing convention (the mid‑point price between bid and ask prices) as a practical expedient for valuing its assets and liabilities measured and reported at fair value. The determination of the fair value for derivative contracts not only includes counterparty risk, but also the impact of the Company's nonperformance risk on its liabilities, which as of March 31,June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, had an immaterial impact to the fair value of its derivative contracts. As such, the Company considers its derivative contracts to be valued using Level 3 inputs. Refer to Note 6 for further discussion regarding the Company's risk management and hedging activities.

The Company's investments in money market mutualinvestment funds and equity securities are accounted for as available-for-saletrading securities and are stated at fair value. When available, a readily observable quoted market price or net asset value of an identical security in an active market is used to record the fair value.

The following table reconciles the beginning and ending balances of the Company's commodity derivative liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis using significant Level 3 inputs (in millions):

The Company's long-term debt is carried at cost on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. The fair value of the Company's long‑term debt is a Level 2 fair value measurement and has been estimated based upon quoted market prices, where available, or at the present value of future cash flows discounted at rates consistent with comparable maturities with similar credit risks. The carrying value of the Company's variable-rate long-term debt approximates fair value because of the frequent repricing of these instruments at market rates. The following table presents the carrying value and estimated fair value of the Company's long‑term debt (in millions):

The Company is subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations regarding air and water quality, renewable portfolio standards, emissions performance standards, climate change, coal combustion byproduct disposal, hazardous and solid waste disposal, protected species and other environmental matters that have the potential to impact the Company's current and future operations. The Company believes it is in material compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.

In May 2014, the Company filed its Emissions Reduction Capacity Replacement Plan ("ERCR Plan") in compliance with Senate Bill No.SB 123 ("SB 123") enacted by the 2013 Nevada Legislature. The filing proposed, among other items, the retirement of Reid Gardner Generating Station units 1, 2 and 3 in 2014 and unit 4 in 2017; the elimination of the Company's ownership interest in Navajo Generating Station in 2019; and a plan to replace the generating capacity being retired, as required by SB 123. The ERCR Plan includes the issuance of requests for proposals for 300-MW of renewable energy to be issued between 2014 and 2016; the acquisition of a 272-MW272‑MW natural gas co-generating facility in 2014; the acquisition of a 210-MW natural gas peaking facility in 2014; the construction of a 15-MW solar photovoltaic facility expected to be placed in-service in 2015; and the construction of a 200-MW solar photovoltaic facility expected to be placed in-service in 2016. In the second quarter of 2014, the Company executed various contractual agreements to fulfill the proposed ERCR Plan, which are subject to the PUCN approval. The PUCN issued an order dated October 28, 2014 removing the 200-MW solar photovoltaic facility proposed by the Company from the ERCR Plan but accepting the remaining requests. In November 2014, the Company filed a petition for reconsideration, but in December 2014, the PUCN upheld the original order from October 2014 with respect to material matters. In December 2014, the Company filed its acceptance of the modifications to the ERCR Plan.

In October 2011, the Company received a request for information from the Environmental Protection Agency Region 9 under Section 114 of the Clean Air Act requesting current and historical operations and capital project information for the Company's Reid Gardner Generating Station located near Moapa, Nevada. The Environmental Protection Agency's Section 114 information request does not allege any incidents of non-compliance at the plant, and there have been no other new enforcement-related proceedings that have been initiated by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the plant. The Company completed its responses to the Environmental Protection Agency during the first quarter of 2012 and will continue to monitor developments relating to this Section 114 request. At this time, the Company cannot predict the impact, if any, associated with this information request.

The Company is party to a variety of legal actions arising out of the normal course of business. Plaintiffs occasionally seek punitive or exemplary damages. The Company does not believe that such normal and routine litigation will have a material impact on its consolidated financial results. The Company is also involved in other kinds of legal actions, some of which assert or may assert claims or seek to impose fines, penalties and other costs in substantial amounts and are described below.

In 2006, November 2005 Land Investors, LLC ("NLI") purchased from the United States through the Bureau of Land Management 2,675 acres of land located in North Las Vegas, Nevada. A small portion of the land is traversed by a 500 kilovolt ("kV") transmission line owned by the Company and sited pursuant to a pre-existing right-of-way grant from the Bureau of Land Management. Subsequent to NLI's purchase, a dispute arose as to whether the Company owed rent and, if it did, the amount owed to NLI under the right-of-way grant. NLI eventually "terminated" the right-of-way grant and brought claims against the Company for breach of contract, inverse condemnation and trespass. The Company counterclaimed for express condemnation of a perpetual easement over the right-of-way corridor. The matter proceeded to trial in the Eighth District Court, Clark County, Nevada ("Eighth District Court"). In September 2013, the Eighth District Court awarded NLI $1 million for unpaid rent and $5 million for inverse condemnation, plus interest and attorneys' fees, bringing the total judgment to $12 million. The Eighth District Court also found the Company was entitled to judgment in its favor on its counterclaim for condemnation of the right-of-way corridor. The Company has posted the required bond of $12 million and has appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court. In June 2015, the parties finalized a settlement in this matter, separate from the court order above, and final documents dismissing the claims have been filed with the Eighth District Court. The settlement did not have a material impact to the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements.

The Company has six other rights-of-way located on the same 2,675 acres of land located in North Las Vegas, Nevada, commonly referred to as the Park Highlands properties. NLI purportedly also terminated the other six rights‑of‑way. On January 2, 2015, KBS SOR Park Highlands, LLC ("KBS") filed a complaint in the Eighth District Court relating to one of the six rights‑of‑way, specifically the right-of-way that relates to a 230‑kV line that traverses the property. In the complaint, KBS raised the same claims previously raised by NLI in the litigation relating to the 500‑kV line. On January 9, 2015, the Company filed an action in the Eighth District Court relating to the six rights-of-way on the Park Highlands properties. This action sought a declaratory order quieting the Company's title to the rights-of-way or in the alternative condemning an easement interest in the property. In June 2015, the parties finalized a settlement in this matter and final documents dismissing the claims have been filed with the Eighth District Court. The settlement did not have a material impact to the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements.

In 2005, the Bureau of Land Management sold at auction a parcel of land commonly known as the Skye Canyon properties. The property was sold subject to preexisting rights-of-way held by the Company for the placement of electric transmission and distribution facilities. On January 9, 2015, the Company filed an action in the Eighth District Court relating to 14 rights‑of‑way located within the Skye Canyon properties. The action sought a declaratory order from the court that the rights-of-way held by the Company are still valid, establish the proper rent, if any, payable by the Company and to identify the proper party to whom rent is due. In June 2015, the parties finalized a settlement in this matter and final documents dismissing the claims have been filed with the Eighth District Court. The settlement did not have a material impact to the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements.

In August 2013, the Sierra Club and Moapa Band of Paiute Indians filed a complaint in federal district court in Nevada against the Company and the California Department of Water Resources, alleging that activities at the Reid Gardner Generating Station are causing imminent and substantial harm to the environment and that placement of coal combustion residuals at the on-site landfill constitute "open dumping" in violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The complaint also alleges that the Reid Gardner Generating Station is engaged in the unlawful discharge of pollutants in violation of the Clean Water Act. The notice was issued pursuant to the citizen suit provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Clean Water Act. theThe California Department of Water Resources was named as a co-defendant in the litigation due to its prior co-ownership in Reid Gardner Generating Station Unit 4. The complaint seeks various injunctive remedies, assessment of civil penalties, and reimbursement of plaintiffs' attorney and legal fees and costs. In August 2014, the court dismissed without prejudice the plaintiff's amended complaint which sought civil penalties. The Company answeredIn June 2015, the complaint and has recently engaged in discussions with the plaintiffs to determine ifparties reached a settlement can be reached that avoidsin principle in this matter. The settlement will not have a material impact to the costs and burden of litigation. The Company cannot assess or predict the outcome of the case at this time.Company's Consolidated Financial Statements.

The Company's revenues and operating income are subject to fluctuations during the year due to impacts that seasonal weather, rate changes, and customer usage patterns have on demand for electric energy and resources. The Company is a summer peaking utility experiencing its highest retail energy sales in response to the demand for air conditioning. The variations in energy usage due to varying weather, customer growth and other energy usage patterns, including energy efficiency and conservation measures, necessitates a continual balancing of loads and resources and purchases and sales of energy under short- and long-term energy supply contracts. As a result, the prudent management and optimization of available resources has a direct effect on the operating and financial performance of the Company. Additionally, the timely recovery of purchased power, fuel costs and other costs and the ability to earn a fair return on investments through rates are essential to the operating and financial performance of the Company.

The following is management's discussion and analysis of certain significant factors that have affected the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of the Company during the periods included herein. Explanations include management's best estimate of the impact of weather, customer growth and other factors. This discussion should be read in conjunction with the Company's historical unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 1 of this Form 10-Q. The Company's actual results in the future could differ significantly from the historical results.

Net income for the firstsecond quarter of 2015 was $24$60 million, an increasea decrease of $18$2 million, or 3%, as compared to 2014 due to ON Line lease expense, which was deferred in 2014 but expensed in 2015, lower margins from decreased customer usage, and higher depreciation and amortization costs, partially offset by lower debt interest expense and customer growth.

Net income for the first six months of 2015 was $84 million, an increase of $16 million, or 24%, as compared to 2014 due to lower debt interest expense, higher margins from increased customer usage, growth and a rate design change from the 2014 rate case effective January 2015, changes in contingent liabilities lower debt interest costs, and the gain on sale of an equity investment. These increases were partially offset by ON Line lease expenses,expense, which werewas deferred in 2014 but expensed in 2015, and higher depreciation and amortization costs.

Operating revenue and cost of fuel, energy and capacity are key drivers of the Company's results of operations as they encompass retail and wholesale electricity revenue and the direct costs associated with providing electricity to customers. The Company believes that a discussion of gross margin, representing operating revenue less cost of fuel, energy and capacity, is therefore meaningful. A comparison of the Company's key operating results is as follows:

As of March 31,June 30, 2015, the Company's total net liquidity was $411$506 million consisting of $41$106 million in cash and cash equivalents and $370$400 million of revolving credit facility availability.

Net cash flows from operating activities for the three-monthsix-month periods ended March 31,June 30, 2015 and 2014 were $92$257 million and $33$148 million, respectively. The change was primarily due to higheran increase in collections for deferred energy costs, higher revenue collections as a result of a change in rate design and one-time bill credit of $15 million to retail customers refunded in 2014 in connection with the BHE Merger, lower compensation payments, lower energy efficiency program costs and higher revenue collections as a result of the 2014 general rate case effective January 1, 2015.Merger. The increase iswas partially offset by higher refunds to customers for conservation and renewable programs, settlement payments of contingent liabilities and lower collections of demand side management programs.

Net cash flows from investing activities for the three-monthsix-month periods ended March 31,June 30, 2015 and 2014 were $(49) million. Investing activities remained constant$(106) million and $(97) million, respectively. The change was primarily due to an increase in capital expenditures, partially offset by the cash received from the sale of securitiesassets and an equity investment.

Net cash flows from financing activities for the three-monthsix-month periods ended March 31,June 30, 2015 and 2014 were $(222)$(265) million and $(11)$(9) million, respectively. The change was due to repayments of long-term debt partially offset by proceeds from short-term borrowings.and dividends paid to NV Energy.

In January 2015, the Company repaid the aggregate principal amount outstanding of $250 million 5.875% Series L General and Refunding Mortgage SecuritiesNotes at 100% of the principal amount plus accrued interest with the use of cash on hand and short-term borrowings. The short-term borrowings were repaid in June 2015.

The Company's ability to issue debt is primarily impacted by its financing authority from the PUCN. As of March 31,June 30, 2015, the Company has financing authority from the PUCN consisting of the ability to: (1) issue additional long-term debt securities of up to $725 million; (2) refinance up to $423$553 million of long-term debt securities; and (3) maintain a revolving credit facility of up to $1.3 billion. The Company's revolving credit facility contains a financial maintenance covenant which the Company was in compliance with as of March 31,June 30, 2015. In addition, certain financing agreements contain covenants which are currently suspended as the Company's senior secured debt is rated investment grade. However, if the Company's senior secured debt ratings fall below investment grade by either Moody's InvestorInvestors Service or Standard & Poor's, the Company would be subject to limitations under these covenants.

The Company has available a variety of sources of liquidity and capital resources, both internal and external, including net cash flows from operating activities, public and private debt offerings, the use of its secured revolving credit facility, capital contributions and other sources. These sources are expected to provide funds required for current operations, capital expenditures, debt retirements and other capital requirements. The availability and terms under which the Company has access to external financing depends on a variety of factors, including the Company's credit ratings, investors' judgment of risk and conditions in the overall capital markets, including the condition of the utility industry.

The Company has significant future capital requirements. Capital expenditure needs are reviewed regularly by management and may change significantly as a result of these reviews, which may consider, among other factors, changes in environmental and other rules and regulations; impacts to customers' rates; outcomes of regulatory proceedings; changes in income tax laws; general business conditions; load projections; system reliability standards; the cost and efficiency of construction labor, equipment and materials; commodity prices; and the cost and availability of capital. Prudently incurred expenditures for compliance-related items such as pollution control technologies, replacement generation and associated operating costs are generally incorporated into the Company's regulated retail rates. Expenditures for certain assets may ultimately include acquisitionacquisitions of existing assets.

The Company's historical and forecast capital expenditures, each of which exclude amounts for non-cash equity AFUDC and other non-cash items for the year ended December 31, 2015 are as follows (in millions):

As of March 31,June 30, 2015, there have been no material changes outside the normal course of business in contractual obligations from the information provided in Item 7 of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014.

The Company is subject to comprehensive regulation. The discussion below contains material developments to those matters disclosed in Item 7 of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014, and new regulatory matters occurring in 2015.

The PUCN's final order approving the BHE Merger stipulated that the Company would not seek recovery of any lost revenue for calendar year 2014 in an amount that exceeded 50% of the lost revenue that the Company could otherwise request. In February 2014, the Company filed an application with the PUCN to reset the EEIR and energy efficiency program rates. In June 2014, the PUCN accepted a stipulation to adjust the EEIR, as of July 1, 2014, to collect 50% of the estimated lost revenue that the Company would otherwise be allowed to recover for the 2014 calendar year. The EEIR was effective from July through December 2014, setreset on January 1, 2015 and remains in effect through September 2015. To the extent the Company's earned rate of return exceeds the rate of return used to set base general rates, the Company is required to refund to customers EEIR revenue collected. As a result, the Company has deferred recognition of EEIR revenue collected and has recorded a liability of $11$14 million, which is included in current regulatory liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of March 31,June 30, 2015.

In May 2013, in anticipation of ON Line's completion, theThe Company and Sierra Pacific filed withare currently parties to an Interim Joint Dispatch Agreement ("Interim JDA") which outlines the PUCN to combine their power supply resources for joint dispatch purposes and merge the two utilities into a single legal and jurisdictional entity. That filing was withdrawn in favor of continued operation of the utilities as separate legal entities, who would conduct joint dispatch of their combined power supply resources utilizing ON Line, governed by the terms of an Interim Joint Dispatch Agreement ("Interim JDA"). In seeking the PUCN's permission to withdraw the May 2013 filing, the Company and Sierra Pacific committed to return to the PUCN with a new application.Line. In March 2015, the Company and Sierra Pacific filed an application with the PUCN seeking approval of an indefinite Joint Dispatch Agreement ("Indefinite JDA"). The Indefinite JDA is intended to replace the currently effective Interim JDA, which terminates on December 31, 2015. Joint dispatch transactions addressed by the proposed Indefinite JDA include real-time, hourly and daily transactions. The Indefinite JDA also explicitly governs joint dispatch transactions between the Company and Sierra Pacific and the California ISO utilizing the California ISO's EIM.

The primary differences between the Interim JDA and the Indefinite JDA relate to EIM transactions with the California ISO. The Indefinite JDA establishes the Company as the EIM scheduling coordinator for both the Company and Sierra Pacific and recognizes that the joint dispatch costs and benefits associated with EIM transactions will be governed by the accounting protocols and allocations set forth in the Indefinite JDA, which are unchanged from those currently in effect under the Interim JDA. The Company and Sierra Pacific requestedIn July 2015, the PUCN to act on this application byapproved the JDA with minor modifications, and established December 31, 2019 as the termination date for the agreement. In July 2015, in time to file the Indefinite JDA was filed with the FERC and obtain FERC approval prior to the "go live" date for EIM transactions, which is October 1, 2015. The Indefinite JDA will continue in effect until terminated by mutual consent of the parties.approval.

In October 2014, the PUCN issued an order directing the Company to provide information relating to failures in certain remote disconnect/reconnect electric meters the Company has installed after media reports were published that electric meter failures may have resulted in fire events. The Company completed an internal review in response to this and other federal, state and local inquiries relating to these events. The information compiled and submitted indicates that no fire has resulted from the remote disconnect/reconnect electric meters. Additionally, in October 2014, the Nevada State Fire Marshal issued a report concluding that the incidents of electric arcing fires continue to decrease in Nevada and at this time there is no statewide fire problem related to the replacement of electric meters. In December 2014, the Company filed the requested information with the PUCN. In March 2015, the PUCN staff made additional requests and in May 2015, the Company will provideprovided the follow up items.items and has not received any additional requests pertaining to this item. Analysis and internal investigation is continuing, but the Company does not believe this will have a material adverse impact on the Consolidated Financial Statements.