e10vk
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
20549
Form 10-K
|
|
|
þ
|
|
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|
|
|
For the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
or
|
o
|
|
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|
|
|
For the transition period
from to
|
Commission file
number: 1-06732
COVANTA HOLDING
CORPORATION
(Exact name of registrant as
specified in its charter)
|
|
|
Delaware
|
|
95-6021257
|
(State or Other Jurisdiction
of
Incorporation or Organization)
|
|
(I.R.S. Employee
Identification No.)
|
|
|
|
40 Lane Road, Fairfield, N.J.
|
|
07004
|
(Address of Principal Executive
Offices)
|
|
(Zip
Code)
|
Registrants telephone number, including area code:
(973) 882-9000
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the
Act:
|
|
|
Title of Each Class
|
|
Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered
|
|
Common Stock, $0.10 par value per share
|
|
New York Stock Exchange
|
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the
Act: N/A
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known
seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities
Act. Yes þ No o
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file
reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the
Exchange
Act. Yes o No þ
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed
all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding
12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant
was required to file such reports), and (2) has been
subject to such filing requirements for the past
90 days. Yes þ No o
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers
pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained
herein, and will not be contained, to the best of
registrants knowledge, in definitive proxy or information
statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this
Form 10-K or any amendment to this
Form 10-K. þ
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. (Check one):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Large accelerated
filer þ
|
|
Accelerated
filer o
|
|
Non-accelerated
filer o
|
|
Smaller reporting
Company o
|
|
|
|
|
(Do not check if a smaller
reporting company)
|
|
|
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company
(as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange
Act). Yes o No þ
As of June 30, 2008, the aggregate market value of the
registrants common stock held by non-affiliates of the
registrant was $3,218,393,843. The aggregate market value was
computed by using the closing price of the common stock as of
that date on the New York Stock Exchange. (For purposes of
calculating this amount only, all directors and executive
officers of the registrant have been treated as affiliates.)
Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the
registrants classes of common stock, as of the latest
practicable date.
|
|
|
Class
|
|
February 12, 2009
|
|
Common Stock, $0.10 par value per share
|
|
154,280,908 shares
|
Documents
Incorporated By Reference:
|
|
|
Part of Form 10-K of Covanta Holding Corporation
|
|
Documents Incorporated by Reference
|
|
Part III
|
|
Portions of the Proxy Statement to be filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission in connection with the Annual Meeting of
Stockholders.
|
CAUTIONARY
NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
Certain statements in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K
may constitute forward-looking statements as defined
in Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 (the
Securities Act), Section 21E of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act), the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the PSLRA)
or in releases made by the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC), all as may be amended from time to time. Such
forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks,
uncertainties and other important factors that could cause the
actual results, performance or achievements of Covanta Holding
Corporation and its subsidiaries (Covanta) or
industry results, to differ materially from any future results,
performance or achievements expressed or implied by such
forward-looking statements. Statements that are not historical
fact are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements
can be identified by, among other things, the use of
forward-looking language, such as the words plan,
believe, expect, anticipate,
intend, estimate, project,
may, will, would,
could, should, seeks, or
scheduled to, or other similar words, or the
negative of these terms or other variations of these terms or
comparable language, or by discussion of strategy or intentions.
These cautionary statements are being made pursuant to the
Securities Act, the Exchange Act and the PSLRA with the
intention of obtaining the benefits of the safe
harbor provisions of such laws. Covanta cautions investors
that any forward-looking statements made by Covanta are not
guarantees or indicative of future performance. Important
assumptions and other important factors that could cause actual
results to differ materially from those forward-looking
statements with respect to Covanta, include, but are not limited
to, the risks and uncertainties affecting its businesses
described in Item 1A. Risk Factors of this Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2008 and in other filings
by Covanta with the SEC.
Although Covanta believes that its plans, intentions and
expectations reflected in or suggested by such forward-looking
statements are reasonable, actual results could differ
materially from a projection or assumption in any of its
forward-looking statements. Covantas future financial
condition and results of operations, as well as any
forward-looking statements, are subject to change and inherent
risks and uncertainties. The forward-looking statements
contained in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K
are made only as of the date hereof and Covanta does not have,
or undertake, any obligation to update or revise any
forward-looking statements whether as a result of new
information, subsequent events or otherwise, unless otherwise
required by law.
AVAILABILITY
OF INFORMATION
You may read and copy any materials Covanta files with the SEC
at the SECs Public Reference Room at
100 F Street, N.E., Room 1580,
Washington, D.C. 20549. Copies of such materials also can
be obtained at the SECs website, www.sec.gov or by
mail from the Public Reference Room of the SEC, at prescribed
rates. Please call the SEC at
1-800-SEC-0330
for further information on the Public Reference Room.
Covantas SEC filings are also available to the public,
free of charge, on its corporate website,
www.covantaholding.com as soon as reasonably practicable
after Covanta electronically files such material with, or
furnishes it to, the SEC. Covantas common stock is traded
on the New York Stock Exchange. Material filed by Covanta can be
inspected at the offices of the New York Stock Exchange at
20 Broad Street, New York, N.Y. 10005.
3
PART I
The terms we, our, ours,
us, Covanta and Company
refer to Covanta Holding Corporation and its subsidiaries and
the term Covanta Energy refers to our subsidiary
Covanta Energy Corporation and its subsidiaries.
About
Covanta Holding Corporation
We are a leading developer, owner and operator of infrastructure
for the conversion of waste to energy (known as
energy-from-waste), as well as other waste disposal
and renewable energy production businesses in the Americas,
Europe and Asia. We are organized as a holding company which was
incorporated in Delaware on April 16, 1992. We conduct all
of our operations through subsidiaries which are engaged
predominantly in the businesses of waste and energy services. We
also engage in the independent power production business outside
the Americas. We have investments in subsidiaries engaged in
insurance operations in California primarily in property and
casualty insurance.
We own, have equity investments in,
and/or
operate 60 energy generation facilities, 50 of which are in the
United States and 10 of which are located outside the United
States. Our energy generation facilities use a variety of fuels,
including municipal solid waste, wood waste (biomass), landfill
gas, water (hydroelectric), natural gas, coal, and heavy
fuel-oil. We also own or operate several businesses that are
associated with our renewable energy business, including a waste
procurement business, a biomass procurement business, four
landfills, which we use primarily for ash disposal, and several
waste transfer stations.
Revenues were $1,664 million, $1,433 million, and
$1,269 million and operating income was $256 million,
$237 million, and $227 million for the years ended
December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006, respectively. The
increase in revenues and operating income over the past three
years is primarily attributable to the successful execution of
our operating and growth strategies described below and in
Item 7. Managements Discussion and Analysis of
Financial Condition and Results of Operations
Overview Acquisitions and Business Development.
Our
Business Strategy
Our mission is to be the worlds leading energy-from-waste
company, with a complementary network of other renewable energy
generation and waste disposal assets. We expect to build value
for our stockholders by satisfying our clients waste
disposal and energy generation needs with safe, reliable and
environmentally superior solutions. In order to accomplish this
mission and create additional value for our stockholders, we are
focused on:
|
|
|
|
|
providing customers with superior service and effectively
managing our existing businesses;
|
|
|
generating sufficient cash to meet our liquidity needs and
invest in the business; and
|
|
|
developing new projects and making acquisitions to grow our
business in the Americas, Europe and Asia.
|
We believe that our business offers solutions to public sector
leaders around the world in two related elements of critical
infrastructure: waste disposal and renewable energy generation.
We believe that the environmental benefits of energy-from-waste,
as an alternative to landfilling, are clear and compelling:
utilizing energy-from-waste reduces greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions, lowers the risk of groundwater
contamination, and conserves land. At the same time,
energy-from-waste generates clean, reliable energy from a
renewable fuel source, thus reducing dependence on fossil fuels,
the combustion of which is itself a major contributor to GHG
emissions. As public planners in the Americas, Europe and Asia
address their needs for more environmentally sustainable waste
disposal and energy generation in the years ahead, we believe
that energy-from-waste will be an increasingly attractive
alternative. We will also consider, for application in domestic
and international markets, acquiring or developing new
technologies that complement our existing renewable energy and
waste services businesses.
Our business offers sustainable solutions to energy and
environmental problems, and our corporate culture is
increasingly focused on themes of sustainability in all of its
forms. We aspire to continuous improvement in environmental
performance, beyond mere compliance with legally required
standards. This ethos is embodied in our Clean World
Initiative, an umbrella program under which we are:
|
|
|
|
|
investing in research and development of new technologies to
enhance existing operations and create new business
opportunities in renewable energy and waste management;
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
exploring and implementing processes and technologies at our
facilities to improve energy efficiency and lessen environmental
impacts; and
|
|
|
partnering with governments and non-governmental organizations
to pursue sustainable programs, reduce the use of
environmentally harmful materials in commerce, and communicate
the benefits of energy-from-waste.
|
Our Clean World Initiative is designed to be consistent with our
mission to be the worlds leading energy-from-waste company
by providing environmentally superior solutions, advancing our
technical expertise and creating new business opportunities. It
represents an investment in our future that we believe will
enhance stockholder value.
Business opportunities also may be created as a result of policy
changes currently being considered by public officials,
particularly in the United States. We are actively engaged in
the current discussion among policy makers in the United States
regarding the benefits of energy-from-waste and the reduction of
our dependence on landfilling for waste disposal and fossil
fuels for energy. The extent to which we are successful in
growing our business will depend in part on our ability to
effectively communicate the benefits of energy-from-waste to
public planners seeking waste disposal solutions, and to policy
makers seeking to encourage renewable energy technologies (and
the associated green jobs) as viable alternatives to
reliance on fossil fuels as a source of energy.
Our senior management team has extensive experience in
developing, constructing, operating, acquiring and integrating
waste and energy services businesses. We anticipate that a
significant part of our future growth will come from acquiring
or investing in additional energy-from-waste, waste disposal and
renewable energy production businesses in the Americas, Europe
and Asia. Our business is capital intensive because it is based
on building and operating municipal solid waste processing and
energy generating facilities. In order to provide meaningful
growth through development, we must be able to invest our funds,
obtain equity
and/or debt
financing, and provide support to our operating subsidiaries.
In our domestic business, we are pursuing additional growth
opportunities through project expansions, new energy-from-waste
and other renewable energy projects, contract extensions,
acquisitions, and businesses ancillary to our existing business,
such as additional waste transfer, transportation, processing
and disposal businesses.
We are also pursuing international waste
and/or
renewable energy business opportunities, particularly in
locations where the market demand, regulatory environment or
other factors encourage technologies such as energy-from-waste
in order to reduce dependence on landfilling for waste disposal
and fossil fuels for energy production in order to reduce GHG
emissions. In particular, we are focusing on the United Kingdom,
Ireland and China, and are also pursuing opportunities in
certain other markets in Europe and in Canada and other markets
in the Americas.
During 2008 and 2007, we expanded our network of waste and
energy services businesses through acquisitions, equity
investments and additional operating and development contracts.
In our domestic business, we added four energy-from-waste
facilities, two ashfills, five transfer stations and four
biomass projects. In addition, we completed the expansion of the
energy-from-waste facility located in and owned by Lee County,
Florida, and continued to make progress on the expansion of the
Hillsborough County, Florida energy-from-waste facility. We also
entered into various contract extensions or new service
agreements with existing energy-from-waste facilities, such as
in Wallingford, Connecticut; Pasco County, Florida;
Indianapolis, Indiana; Kent County, Michigan; and Hempstead, New
York. In our international business, we announced that we have
entered into definitive agreements for the development of a
1,700 metric ton per day (tpd) energy-from-waste
project serving the City of Dublin, Ireland and surrounding
communities. We also purchased equity interests in three
companies which are located in China and will be used to develop
energy-from-waste projects in China, and one of which has equity
interests in two existing energy-from-waste facilities.
Additional information related to our acquisitions and business
development during 2008 and 2007 is described in Item 7.
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition
and Results of Operations Overview
Acquisitions and Business Development.
Business
Segments
Our reportable segments are Domestic and International, which
are comprised of our domestic and international waste and energy
services operations, respectively.
5
Additional information about our business segments is contained
in Item 7. Managements Discussion and Analysis of
Financial Condition and Results of Operations
Overview Business Segments and in Note 5.
Financial Information by Business Segments of the Notes to the
Consolidated Financial Statements (Notes).
DOMESTIC
BUSINESS
Energy-From-Waste
Projects
Energy-from-waste projects have two essential purposes: to
provide waste disposal services, typically to municipal clients
who sponsor the projects, and to use that waste as a fuel source
to generate renewable energy. The electricity or steam generated
is generally sold to local utilities or industrial customers,
and most of the resulting revenues reduce the overall cost of
waste disposal services to the municipal clients. These projects
are capable of providing waste disposal services and generating
electricity or steam, if properly operated and maintained, for
several decades. Generally, we provide these waste disposal
services and sell the electricity and steam generated under
contracts, which expire on various dates between 2009 and 2034.
Many of our service contracts may be renewed for varying periods
of time, at the option of the municipal client.
For all energy-from-waste projects, we receive revenue from two
primary sources: fees charged for operating projects or
processing waste received and payments for electricity and steam
sales. We also operate, and in some cases have ownership
interests in, transfer stations and landfills which generate
revenue from waste and ash disposal fees or operating fees. In
addition, we own and in some cases operate, other renewable
energy projects in the United States which generate electricity
from wood waste (biomass), landfill gas, and hydroelectric
resources. The electricity from these other renewable energy
projects is sold to utilities under contracts or into the
regional power pool at short-term rates. For these projects, we
receive revenue from sales of energy, capacity
and/or
renewable energy credits, and in some cases cash from equity
distributions.
We currently operate energy-from-waste projects in
16 states. Most of our energy-from-waste projects were
developed and structured contractually as part of competitive
procurement processes conducted by municipal entities. As a
result, many of these projects have common features. However,
each service agreement is different reflecting the specific
needs and concerns of a client community, applicable regulatory
requirements and other factors. The following describes features
generally common to these agreements, as well as important
distinctions among them:
|
|
|
|
|
We design the facility, help to arrange for financing and then
we either construct and equip the facility on a fixed price and
schedule basis, or we undertake an alternative role, such as
construction management, if that better meets the goals of our
municipal client.
|
|
|
|
For the domestic energy-from-waste projects we own, financing is
generally accomplished through tax-exempt and taxable revenue
bonds issued by or on behalf of the client community. For these
facilities, the bond proceeds are loaned to us to pay for
facility construction and to fund a debt service reserve for the
project, which is generally sufficient to pay principal and
interest for one year. Project-related debt is included as
project debt and the debt service reserves are
included as restricted funds held in trust in our
consolidated financial statements. Generally, project debt is
secured by the revenues pledged under the respective indentures
and is collateralized by the facility and the contracts and
other assets of our project subsidiary.
|
|
|
|
Following construction and during operations, we receive revenue
from two primary sources: fees we receive for operating projects
or for processing waste received, and payments we receive for
electricity
and/or steam
we sell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
We have 22 domestic energy-from-waste projects where we charge a
fixed fee (which escalates over time pursuant to contractual
indices that we believe are appropriate to reflect price
inflation) for operation and maintenance services. We refer to
these projects as having a Service Fee structure.
Our contracts at Service Fee projects provide revenue that does
not materially vary based on the amount of waste processed or
energy generated and as such is relatively stable for the
contract term. In addition, at most of our Service Fee projects,
the operating subsidiary retains only a small fraction of the
energy revenues generated, with the balance used to provide a
credit to the municipal client against its disposal
|
6
|
|
|
|
|
costs. Therefore, in these projects, the municipal client
derives most of the benefit and risk of energy production and
changing energy prices.
|
At projects we own where a Service Fee structure exists, a
portion of the revenue we receive represents payments by the
client community of debt service on project debt, which we pass
along to a bond trustee for payment to bondholders of principal
and interest when due. These payments will continue until cash
in project debt service reserves is sufficient to pay all
remaining debt service payments. Generally, this occurs in the
final year of the service contracts, and during that year we
will receive little or no payments representing project debt
principal, and as a result we record little or no cash provided
by operating activities during that period with respect to the
debt for such projects.
|
|
|
|
|
We also have 13 domestic energy-from-waste projects at which we
receive a per-ton fee under contracts for processing waste. We
refer to these projects as having a Tip Fee
structure. At Tip Fee projects, we generally enter into
long-term waste disposal contracts for a substantial portion of
project disposal capacity and retain all of the energy revenue
generated. These Tip Fee service agreements include stated fixed
fees earned by us for processing waste up to certain base
contractual amounts during specified periods. These Tip Fee
service agreements also set forth the per-ton fees that are
payable if we accept waste in excess of the base contractual
amounts. The waste disposal and energy revenue from these
projects is more dependent upon operating performance and, as
such, is subject to greater revenue fluctuation to the extent
performance levels fluctuate.
|
|
|
|
We generally sell the energy output from our projects to local
utilities pursuant to long-term contracts. Where a Service Fee
structure exists, our client community usually retains most
(generally 90%) of the energy revenues generated and pays the
balance to us. Where Tip Fee structures exist, we generally
retain 100% of the energy revenues. At several of our
energy-from-waste projects, we sell energy output under
short-term contracts or on a spot-basis into the regional
electricity grid. At our Tip Fee projects, we generally have a
greater exposure to energy market price fluctuation, as well as
a greater exposure to variability in project operating
performance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Under both structures, our returns are expected to be stable if
we do not incur material unexpected operation and maintenance
costs or other expenses. In addition, most of our
energy-from-waste project contracts are structured so that
contract counterparties generally bear, or share in, the costs
associated with events or circumstances not within our control,
such as uninsured force majeure events and changes in legal
requirements. The stability of our revenues and returns could be
affected by our ability to continue to enforce these
obligations. Also, at some of our energy-from-waste facilities,
commodity price risk is mitigated by passing through commodity
costs to contract counterparties.
|
|
|
|
We agree to operate the facility and meet minimum waste
processing capacity and efficiency standards, energy production
levels and environmental standards. Failure to meet these
requirements or satisfy the other material terms of our
agreement (unless the failure is caused by our client community
or by events beyond our control), may result in damages charged
to us or, if the breach is substantial, continuing and
unremedied, termination of the applicable agreement. These
damages could include amounts sufficient to repay project debt
(as reduced by amounts held in trust
and/or
proceeds from sales of facilities securing project debt) and as
such, these contingent obligations cannot readily be quantified.
We have issued performance guarantees to our client communities
and, in some cases other parties, which guarantee that our
project subsidiaries will perform in accordance with contractual
terms including, where required, the payment of such damages. If
one or more contracts were terminated for our default, these
contractual damages may be material to our cash flow and
financial condition. To date, we have not incurred material
liabilities under such performance guarantees.
|
|
|
|
The client community generally must deliver minimum quantities
of municipal solid waste to the facility on a put-or-pay basis
and is obligated to pay a fee for its disposal. A put-or-pay
commitment means that the client community promises to deliver a
stated quantity of waste and pay an agreed amount for its
disposal, regardless of whether the full amount of waste is
actually delivered. Where a Service Fee structure exists,
portions of the service fee escalate to reflect indices for
inflation, and in many cases, the client community must also pay
for other costs, such as insurance, taxes, and transportation
and disposal of the ash residue to
|
7
|
|
|
|
|
the disposal site. Generally, expenses resulting from the
delivery of unacceptable and hazardous waste on the site are
also borne by the client community. In addition, the contracts
generally require the client community to pay increased expenses
and capital costs resulting from unforeseen circumstances,
subject to specified limits. At three publicly-owned facilities
we operate, our client community may terminate the operating
contract under limited circumstances without cause.
|
Our service and waste disposal agreements, as well as our energy
contracts, expire at various times. The extent to which any such
expiration will affect us will depend upon a variety of factors,
including whether we own the project, market conditions then
prevailing, and whether the municipal client exercises options
it may have to extend the contract term. As our contracts
expire, we will become subject to greater market risk in
maintaining and enhancing our revenues. As service agreements at
municipally-owned facilities expire, we intend to seek to enter
into renewal or replacement contracts to operate such
facilities. We will also seek to bid competitively in the market
for additional contracts to operate other facilities as similar
contracts of other vendors expire. As our service and waste
disposal agreements at facilities we own or lease begin to
expire, we intend to seek replacement or additional contracts,
and because project debt on these facilities will be paid off at
such time, we expect to be able to offer rates that will attract
sufficient quantities of waste while providing acceptable
revenues to us. At facilities we own, the expiration of existing
energy contracts will require us to sell our output either into
the local electricity grid at prevailing rates or pursuant to
new contracts. See discussion under Item 7.
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition
and Results of Operations Overview
Contract Duration for additional information concerning the
expiration of existing contracts.
To date, we have been successful in extending our existing
contracts to operate energy-from-waste facilities owned by
municipal clients where market conditions and other factors make
it attractive for both us and our municipal clients to do so.
See discussion under Item 7. Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations Overview Acquisitions and
Business Development for additional information. The extent
to which additional extensions will be attractive to us and to
our municipal clients who own their projects will depend upon
the market and other factors noted above. However, we do not
believe that either our success or lack of success in entering
into additional negotiated extensions to operate such facilities
will have a material impact on our cash flow and profitability.
See Item 1A. Risk Factors We may face
increased risk of market influences on our revenues after our
contracts expire.
In conjunction with our domestic energy-from-waste business, we
also own
and/or
operate ten transfer stations, two ashfills and two landfills in
the northeast United States, which we utilize to supplement and
manage more efficiently the fuel and ash disposal requirements
at our energy-from-waste operations. We provide waste
procurement services to our waste disposal and transfer
facilities which have available capacity to receive waste. With
these services, we seek to maximize our revenue and ensure that
our energy-from-waste facilities are being utilized most
efficiently, taking into account maintenance schedules and
operating restrictions that may exist from time to time at each
facility. We also provide management and marketing of ferrous
and non-ferrous metals recovered from energy-from-waste
operations, as well as services related to non-hazardous special
waste destruction and residue management for our
energy-from-waste projects.
Biomass
Projects
We own and operate seven wood-fired generation facilities and
have a 55% interest in a partnership which owns another
wood-fired generation facility. Six of these facilities are
located in California, and two are located in Maine. The
combined gross energy output from these facilities is 191
megawatts (MW). We derive revenue from our biomass
facilities from sales of electricity, capacity, and where
available, renewable energy credits. Four of these facilities
sell their energy output at fixed rates pursuant to contracts,
while the other four facilities sell into local power pools at
rates that float with the market.
At all of these projects, we purchase fuel pursuant to short
term contracts or other arrangements, in each case at prevailing
market rates which exposes us to fuel price risk. The price of
fuel varies depending upon the time of year, local supply, and
price of energy. As such, and unlike our energy-from-waste
businesses, we earn income at our biomass facilities based on
the margin between our cost of fuel and our revenue from selling
the related output. In 2008, revenue from our biomass projects
represented approximately 6% of our domestic revenue.
8
Other
Renewable Energy Projects
We also engage domestically in developing, owning
and/or
operating renewable energy production facilities utilizing a
variety of energy sources such as water (hydroelectric) and
landfill gas. We derive our revenues from these facilities
primarily from the sale of energy, capacity, and where
available, renewable energy credits. We generally operate and
maintain these projects for our own account or we do so on a
cost-plus basis rather than a fixed-fee basis.
Hydroelectric We own a 50%
equity interest in two run-of-river hydroelectric facilities
which have a combined gross generating capacity of 17 MW.
Both facilities are located in the State of Washington and both
sell energy and capacity to Puget Sound Energy under long-term
energy contracts.
Landfill Gas We own and operate
four landfill gas projects located in California and one in
Massachusetts which produce electricity by burning methane gas
produced in landfills. The combined gross energy output from
these facilities is 17 MW. These projects sell energy to
various utilities. Upon the expiration of the energy contracts,
we expect that these projects will enter into new power off-take
arrangements or will be shut down.
Summary information with respect to our domestic projects that
are currently operating is provided in the following table:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contract
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Design Capacity
|
|
|
|
|
Expiration Dates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Waste
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
|
|
Service/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disposal
|
|
|
Electric
|
|
|
|
|
Waste
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Location
|
|
(TPD)
|
|
|
(MW)
|
|
|
Nature of Interest
|
|
Disposal
|
|
|
Energy
|
|
|
A.
|
|
ENERGY-FROM-WASTE PROJECTS
|
|
|
TIP FEE STRUCTURES
|
1.
|
|
Alexandria/Arlington
|
|
Virginia
|
|
|
975
|
|
|
|
22.0
|
|
|
Owner/Operator
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
|
2023
|
|
2.
|
|
Delaware Valley
|
|
Pennsylvania
|
|
|
2,688
|
|
|
|
87.0
|
|
|
Lessee/Operator
|
|
|
2017
|
|
|
|
2016
|
|
3.
|
|
Haverhill
|
|
Massachusetts
|
|
|
1,650
|
|
|
|
44.6
|
|
|
Owner/Operator
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
2019
|
|
4.
|
|
Hempstead(1)
|
|
New York
|
|
|
2,505
|
|
|
|
72.0
|
|
|
Owner/Operator
|
|
|
2034
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
5.
|
|
Indianapolis(2)(3)
|
|
Indiana
|
|
|
2,362
|
|
|
|
6.5
|
|
|
Owner/Operator
|
|
|
2018
|
|
|
|
2028
|
|
6.
|
|
Kent County(2)(4)
|
|
Michigan
|
|
|
625
|
|
|
|
16.8
|
|
|
Operator
|
|
|
2023
|
|
|
|
2023
|
|
7.
|
|
Niagara(2)
|
|
New York
|
|
|
2,250
|
|
|
|
50.0
|
|
|
Owner/Operator
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
2014
|
|
8.
|
|
Pittsfield
|
|
Massachusetts
|
|
|
240
|
|
|
|
8.6
|
|
|
Owner/Operator
|
|
|
2015
|
|
|
|
2015
|
|
9.
|
|
Southeast Massachusetts(5)
|
|
Massachusetts
|
|
|
2,700
|
|
|
|
78.0
|
|
|
Owner/Operator
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
2015
|
|
10.
|
|
Springfield
|
|
Massachusetts
|
|
|
400
|
|
|
|
9.4
|
|
|
Owner/Operator
|
|
|
2014
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
11.
|
|
Tulsa
|
|
Oklahoma
|
|
|
1,125
|
|
|
|
16.5
|
|
|
Owner/Operator
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
12.
|
|
Union County
|
|
New Jersey
|
|
|
1,440
|
|
|
|
42.1
|
|
|
Lessee/Operator
|
|
|
2023
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
13.
|
|
Warren County
|
|
New Jersey
|
|
|
450
|
|
|
|
13.5
|
|
|
Owner/Operator
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
|
SERVICE FEE STRUCTURES
|
14.
|
|
Babylon
|
|
New York
|
|
|
750
|
|
|
|
16.8
|
|
|
Owner/Operator
|
|
|
2019
|
|
|
|
2018
|
|
15.
|
|
Bristol
|
|
Connecticut
|
|
|
650
|
|
|
|
16.3
|
|
|
Owner/Operator
|
|
|
2014
|
|
|
|
2014
|
|
16.
|
|
Detroit(2)(5)(6)
|
|
Michigan
|
|
|
2,832
|
|
|
|
68.0
|
|
|
Lessee/Operator
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
2024
|
|
17.
|
|
Essex County
|
|
New Jersey
|
|
|
2,277
|
|
|
|
66.0
|
|
|
Owner/Operator
|
|
|
2020
|
|
|
|
2020
|
|
18.
|
|
Fairfax County
|
|
Virginia
|
|
|
3,000
|
|
|
|
93.0
|
|
|
Owner/Operator
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
2015
|
|
19.
|
|
Harrisburg(7)
|
|
Pennsylvania
|
|
|
800
|
|
|
|
20.8
|
|
|
Operator
|
|
|
2018
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
20.
|
|
Hartford(5)(8)
|
|
Connecticut
|
|
|
2,000
|
|
|
|
68.5
|
|
|
Operator
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
|
2012
|
|
21.
|
|
Hennepin County
|
|
Minnesota
|
|
|
1,212
|
|
|
|
38.7
|
|
|
Operator
|
|
|
2018
|
|
|
|
2018
|
|
22.
|
|
Hillsborough County(9)
|
|
Florida
|
|
|
1,800
|
|
|
|
46.5
|
|
|
Operator
|
|
|
2027
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
23.
|
|
Honolulu(5)(6)
|
|
Hawaii
|
|
|
2,160
|
|
|
|
57.0
|
|
|
Lessee/Operator
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
2015
|
|
24.
|
|
Huntington(10)
|
|
New York
|
|
|
750
|
|
|
|
24.3
|
|
|
Owner/Operator
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
|
2012
|
|
25.
|
|
Huntsville(2)
|
|
Alabama
|
|
|
690
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operator
|
|
|
2016
|
|
|
|
2014
|
|
26.
|
|
Lake County
|
|
Florida
|
|
|
528
|
|
|
|
14.5
|
|
|
Owner/Operator
|
|
|
2014
|
|
|
|
2014
|
|
27.
|
|
Lancaster County
|
|
Pennsylvania
|
|
|
1,200
|
|
|
|
33.1
|
|
|
Operator
|
|
|
2016
|
|
|
|
2016
|
|
28.
|
|
Lee County
|
|
Florida
|
|
|
1,836
|
|
|
|
57.3
|
|
|
Operator
|
|
|
2024
|
|
|
|
2015
|
|
29.
|
|
Marion County
|
|
Oregon
|
|
|
550
|
|
|
|
13.1
|
|
|
Owner/Operator
|
|
|
2014
|
|
|
|
2014
|
|
30.
|
|
Montgomery County
|
|
Maryland
|
|
|
1,800
|
|
|
|
63.4
|
|
|
Operator
|
|
|
2016
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
31.
|
|
Onondaga County
|
|
New York
|
|
|
990
|
|
|
|
39.2
|
|
|
Owner/Operator
|
|
|
2015
|
|
|
|
2025
|
|
32.
|
|
Pasco County(11)
|
|
Florida
|
|
|
1,050
|
|
|
|
29.7
|
|
|
Operator
|
|
|
2016
|
|
|
|
2024
|
|
33.
|
|
Southeast Connecticut
|
|
Connecticut
|
|
|
689
|
|
|
|
17.0
|
|
|
Owner/Operator
|
|
|
2015
|
|
|
|
2017
|
|
34.
|
|
Stanislaus County
|
|
California
|
|
|
800
|
|
|
|
22.4
|
|
|
Owner/Operator
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
35.
|
|
Wallingford(12)
|
|
Connecticut
|
|
|
420
|
|
|
|
11.0
|
|
|
Owner/Operator
|
|
|
2020
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SUBTOTAL
|
|
|
48,194
|
|
|
|
1,283.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contract
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Design Capacity
|
|
|
|
|
Expiration Dates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Waste
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
|
|
Service/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disposal
|
|
|
Electric
|
|
|
|
|
Waste
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Location
|
|
(TPD)
|
|
|
(MW)
|
|
|
Nature of Interest
|
|
Disposal
|
|
|
Energy
|
|
|
B.
|
|
ANCILLARY WASTE PROJECTS
ASH and LANDFILLS
|
36.
|
|
CMW Semass
|
|
Massachusetts
|
|
|
1,700
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
Operator
|
|
|
2016
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
37.
|
|
Haverhill
|
|
Massachusetts
|
|
|
555
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
Lessee/Operator
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
38.
|
|
Peabody (ash only)
|
|
Massachusetts
|
|
|
700
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
Owner/Operator
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
39.
|
|
Springfield (ash only)
|
|
Massachusetts
|
|
|
175
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
Owner/Operator
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SUBTOTAL
|
|
|
3,130
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TRANSFER STATIONS
|
40.
|
|
Braintree
|
|
Massachusetts
|
|
|
1,200
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
Owner/Operator
|
|
|
2015
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
41.
|
|
Canaan
|
|
New York
|
|
|
600
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
Owner/Operator
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
42.
|
|
Derwood
|
|
Maryland
|
|
|
2,500
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
Operator
|
|
|
2015
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
43.
|
|
Danvers
|
|
Massachusetts
|
|
|
250
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
Operator
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
44.
|
|
Essex
|
|
Massachusetts
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
Operator
|
|
|
2015
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
45.
|
|
Holliston
|
|
Massachusetts
|
|
|
700
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
Owner/Operator
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
46
|
|
Lynn
|
|
Massachusetts
|
|
|
885
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
Owner/Operator
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
47.
|
|
Mamaroneck
|
|
New York
|
|
|
800
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
Owner/Operator
|
|
|
2015
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
48.
|
|
Mt. Kisco
|
|
New York
|
|
|
350
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
Owner/Operator
|
|
|
2018
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
49.
|
|
Springfield
|
|
Massachusetts
|
|
|
500
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
Owner/Operator
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SUBTOTAL
|
|
|
7,791
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C.
|
|
OTHER RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS
BIOMASS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50.
|
|
Burney Mountain
|
|
California
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
11.4
|
|
|
Owner/Operator
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
2015
|
|
51.
|
|
Delano
|
|
California
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
49.5
|
|
|
Owner/Operator
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
2017
|
|
52.
|
|
Jonesboro
|
|
Maine
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
24.5
|
|
|
Owner/Operator
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
53.
|
|
Mendota
|
|
California
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
25.0
|
|
|
Owner/Operator
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
2014
|
|
54.
|
|
Mount Lassen
|
|
California
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
11.4
|
|
|
Owner/Operator
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
2015
|
|
55.
|
|
Pacific Oroville
|
|
California
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
18.7
|
|
|
Owner/Operator
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
2016
|
|
56.
|
|
Pacific Ultrapower Chinese
Station(13)
|
|
California
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
25.6
|
|
|
Part Owner
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
2017
|
|
57.
|
|
West Enfield
|
|
Maine
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
24.5
|
|
|
Owner/Operator
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SUBTOTAL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
190.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HYDROELECTRIC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
58.
|
|
Koma Kulshan(14)
|
|
Washington
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
12.0
|
|
|
Part Owner/Operator
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
2037
|
|
59.
|
|
Weeks Falls(14)
|
|
Washington
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
5.0
|
|
|
Part Owner
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SUBTOTAL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LANDFILL GAS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
60.
|
|
Haverhill
|
|
Massachusetts
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
1.6
|
|
|
Lessee/Operator
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
61.
|
|
Otay
|
|
California
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
7.4
|
|
|
Owner/Operator
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
2009-2015
|
|
62.
|
|
Oxnard
|
|
California
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
5.6
|
|
|
Owner/Operator
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
63.
|
|
Salinas
|
|
California
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
1.5
|
|
|
Owner/Operator
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
2012
|
|
64.
|
|
Stockton
|
|
California
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
0.8
|
|
|
Owner/Operator
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SUBTOTAL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
We entered into a new Tip Fee contract with the Town of
Hempstead for a term of 25 years commencing upon expiration
of the existing contract in August 2009. This contract provides
approximately 50% of the facilitys capacity. We also
entered into new Tip Fee contracts with other customers that
expire between February 2011 and December 2014. These contracts
provide an additional 40% of the facilitys capacity. |
|
(2) |
|
These facilities have been designed to export steam for sale. |
|
(3) |
|
We entered into a new Tip Fee contract with the City of
Indianapolis for a term of 10 years which commenced upon
expiration of the existing Service Fee contract in December
2008. This contract represents approximately 50% of the
facilitys capacity. |
|
(4) |
|
We entered into a new Tip Fee contract with Kent County in
Michigan which commenced on January 1, 2009 and extended
the existing contract from 2010 to 2023. This contract is
expected to supply waste utilizing most or all of the
facilitys capacity. Previously this was a Service Fee
contract. |
|
(5) |
|
These facilities use a refuse-derived fuel technology. |
|
(6) |
|
We lease these projects from third party lessors under
arrangements where the lease benefits and burdens are primarily
those of the related client community. |
10
|
|
|
(7) |
|
We entered into a ten year agreement to maintain and operate an
800 tpd energy-from-waste facility located in Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania and have a right of first refusal to purchase the
facility. See Note 3. Acquisitions, Business Development
and Dispositions of the Notes. |
|
(8) |
|
Under contracts with the Connecticut Resource Recovery
Authority, we operate only the boilers and turbines for this
facility. |
|
(9) |
|
With respect to this project, we have entered into agreements to
expand waste processing capacity from 1,200 tpd to 1,800 tpd and
to increase gross electricity capacity from 29.0 MW to
46.5 MW. The agreements also extended the contract term
from 2007 to 2027. Completion of the expansion, and commencement
of the operation of the expanded project, is expected in 2009. |
|
(10) |
|
Owned by a limited partnership in which the limited partners are
not affiliated with us. |
|
(11) |
|
We entered into a new Service Fee contract with the Pasco County
Commission in Florida which commenced on January 1, 2009
and extended the existing contract from 2011 to 2016. |
|
(12) |
|
We entered into Tip Fee contracts which will supply waste to the
Wallingford, Connecticut facility, following the expiration of
the existing Service Fee contract in 2010. These contracts in
total are expected to supply waste utilizing most or all of the
facilitys capacity through 2020. |
|
(13) |
|
We have a 55% ownership interest in this project. |
|
(14) |
|
We have a 50% ownership interest in these projects. |
INTERNATIONAL
BUSINESS
General
Approach to International Projects
We have ownership interests in
and/or
operate facilities internationally, including independent power
production facilities in the Philippines, Bangladesh and India
where we generate electricity by combusting coal, natural gas
and heavy fuel-oil, and energy-from-waste facilities in China
and Italy. We receive revenue from operating fees, electricity
and steam sales, and in some cases cash from equity
distributions. The projects sell the electricity and steam they
generate under either short-term or long-term contracts or
market concessions to utilities, governmental agencies providing
power distribution, creditworthy industrial users, or local
governmental units. Energy-from-waste facilities also sell waste
disposal services.
In developing our international business, we have employed the
same general approach to projects as is described above with
respect to domestic projects. We intend to seek to develop or
participate in additional international projects, particularly
energy-from-waste projects, where the regulatory or market
environment is attractive. The ownership and operation of
facilities in foreign countries potentially entails significant
political and financial uncertainties that typically are not
encountered in such activities in the United States, as
described below and discussed in Item 1A. Risk Factors.
With respect to some international energy-from-waste
projects, ownership transfer to the sponsoring municipality, for
nominal consideration, is required following expiration of the
projects long-term operating contract.
|
|
|
|
|
Some of the countries in which we currently operate are lesser
developed countries or developing countries where the political,
social and economic conditions are quite different, and are
often less stable, than those conditions prevailing in the
United States or other developed countries. In order to mitigate
these risks both at the outset of project development and over
time, we often develop projects jointly with experienced and
respected local companies.
|
|
|
|
When a project is developed, we undertake a credit analysis of
the proposed power purchaser
and/or fuel
suppliers (which for energy-from-waste projects are often
municipal governments).
|
|
|
|
We have typically sought to negotiate long-term contracts for
the supply of fuel with reliable suppliers. For our projects
that are not energy-from-waste facilities, we have sought, to
the extent practicable, to shift the consequences of
interruptions in the delivery of fuel (whether due to the fault
of the fuel supplier or due to reasons beyond the fuel
suppliers control) to the electricity purchaser or service
recipient by securing a suspension of the projects
operating responsibilities under the applicable agreements and
an extension of our operating concession under such agreements.
In some instances, we require the energy purchaser or service
recipient to continue to make payments of fixed costs if such
interruptions occur. In order to mitigate
|
11
|
|
|
|
|
the effect of short-term interruptions in the supply of fuel, we
have also endeavored to provide
on-site
storage of fuel in sufficient quantities to address such
interruptions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
For our energy-from-waste projects in international markets, we
expect that a significant portion of each projects waste
supply would be under long-term contracts with sponsoring
municipalities, thus reducing the risk of fuel supply
interruptions or price instability. Where market conditions are
favorable, we may also reserve a portion of a facilitys
capacity for shorter term contracts, or receive waste on a spot
basis.
|
|
|
|
At some of our international independent power projects, our
operating subsidiaries purchase fuel in the open market.
However, in most cases, the fuel price risk is borne by the
energy purchaser because such risk from changes in fuel prices
is passed through under the contract. In some of our
international projects, the project entity has entered into
long-term fuel purchase contracts that protect the project from
changes in fuel prices, provided counterparties to such
contracts perform their commitments.
|
|
|
|
Payment for services that we provide will often be made in whole
or in part in the domestic currencies of the host countries.
Local governments generally do not assure conversion of such
currencies into U.S. dollars, which may be subject to
limitations in the currency markets, as well as restrictions of
the host country. In addition, fluctuations in the value of such
currencies against the value of the U.S. dollar may cause
our participation in such projects to yield less return than
expected. Transfer of earnings, capital and profits in any form
beyond the borders of the host country may be subject to special
taxes or limitations imposed by host country laws. We have
sought to participate in projects where the host country has
allowed the convertibility of its currency into
U.S. dollars and repatriation of earnings, capital and
profits subject to compliance with local regulatory
requirements. In some cases, components of project costs
incurred or funded in U.S. dollars are recovered without
risk of currency fluctuation through negotiated contractual
adjustments to the price charged for electricity or service
provided. This contractual structure may cause the cost in local
currency to the projects power purchaser or service
recipient to rise from time to time in excess of local
inflation, and consequently there is risk in such situations
that such power purchaser or service recipient will, at least in
the near-term, be less able or willing to pay for the
projects power or service.
|
We have sought to manage and mitigate these risks through all
appropriate means, including:
|
|
|
|
|
developing projects jointly with experienced local partners;
|
|
|
political and financial analysis of the host countries and the
key participants in each project;
|
|
|
guarantees of relevant agreements with creditworthy entities;
|
|
|
political risk and other forms of insurance; and/or
|
|
|
participation by United States
and/or
international development finance institutions in the financing
of projects.
|
We determine which mitigation measures to apply based on our
ability to balance the risks presented, the availability of such
measures and their cost.
We have generally participated in projects which provide
services that are treated as a matter of national or key
economic importance by the laws and politics of the host
country. Therefore, there is a risk that the assets constituting
the facilities of these projects could be temporarily or
permanently expropriated or nationalized by a host country, made
subject to local or national control or be subject to
unfavorable legislative action, regulatory decisions or changes
in taxation. We believe that working with experienced and
reputable local joint venture partners mitigates this risk as
well.
In certain cases, we have issued guarantees on behalf of our
international operating subsidiaries with respect to contractual
obligations to operate certain international power projects and
energy-from-waste projects. The potential damages we may owe
under such arrangements may be material. Depending upon the
circumstances giving rise to such damages, the contractual terms
of the applicable contracts, and the contract
counterpartys choice of remedy at the time a claim against
a guarantee is made, the amounts owed pursuant to one or more of
such guarantees could be greater than our then-available sources
of funds. To date, we have not incurred any material liabilities
under such guarantees on international projects.
12
International
Projects
We presently have interests in international power projects with
an aggregate generating capacity of approximately 969 MW
(gross), with our portion of the ownership in these facilities
representing approximately 365 MW. In addition to our
headquarters in Fairfield, New Jersey, our international
business is facilitated through field offices in Shanghai,
Beijing and Guangzhou, China; Chennai, India; Manila,
Philippines; Dublin, Ireland; and Birmingham, England. The
following describes the important features of these projects, by
fuel type:
Energy-From-Waste
In
Operation
We purchased a 40% equity interest in Chongqing Sanfeng Covanta
Environmental Industry Co., Ltd. (Sanfeng), a
company located in Chongqing Municipality, Peoples
Republic of China. Sanfeng is engaged in the business of owning
and operating energy-from-waste projects and providing design
and engineering, procurement and construction services for
energy-from-waste facilities in China. Sanfeng currently owns
minority equity interests in two 1,200 metric tpd, 24 MW
mass-burn energy-from-waste projects (Fuzhou project and
Tongqing project). Chongqing Iron & Steel Company
(Group) Limited holds the remaining 60% equity interest in
Sanfeng. The solid waste supply for the projects comes from
municipalities under long-term contracts. The municipalities
also have the obligation to coordinate the purchase of power
from the facilities as part of the
long-term
contracts for waste disposal. The electrical output from these
projects is sold at governmentally established preferential
rates under
short-term
arrangements with local power bureaus. In December 2008, we
entered into an agreement with Beijing Baoluo Investment Co.,
Ltd. (Beijing Baoluo) to purchase a direct 58%
equity interest in the Fuzhou project for approximately
$14 million. This purchase is conditional upon various
regulatory and other conditions precedent and is expected to
close in early 2009.
We own a 13% equity interest in a 500 metric tpd, 18 MW
mass-burn
energy-from-waste
project at Trezzo sullAdda in the Lombardy Region of
Italy. The remainder of the equity in the project is held by a
subsidiary of Falck S.p.A. and the municipality of Trezzo
sullAdda. The project is operated by Ambiente 2000 S.r.l.,
an Italian special purpose limited liability company of which we
own 40%. The solid waste supply for the project comes from
municipalities and
privately-owned
waste haulers under
long-term
contracts. The electrical output from the Trezzo project is sold
at governmentally established preferential rates under a
long-term
purchase contract to Italys
state-owned
electricity grid operator, Gestore della Rete di Trasmissione
Nazionale S.p.A.
Under
Advanced Development/Construction
China
We and Chongqing Iron & Steel Company (Group) Limited
have entered into a 25 year contract to build, own, and
operate an 1,800 tpd
energy-from-waste
facility for Chengdu Municipality in Sichuan Province,
Peoples Republic of China. We have a 49% equity interest
in the project joint venture. The Chengdu project is expected to
commence construction in early 2009, and commence operations in
2011.
Ireland
We announced that we have entered into definitive agreements for
the development of a 1,700 metric tpd
energy-from-waste
project serving the City of Dublin, Ireland and surrounding
communities. The Dublin project, which marks our most
significant entry to date into the European waste and renewable
energy markets, is being developed and will be owned by Dublin
Waste to Energy Limited, which we control and
co-own with
DONG Energy Generation A/S. Under the Dublin project agreements,
several customary conditions must be satisfied before full
construction can begin, including the issuance of all required
licenses and permits and approvals.
We are responsible for the design and construction of the
project, which is estimated to cost approximately
350 million euros and will require 36 months to
complete, once full construction commences. We will operate and
maintain the project for Dublin Waste to Energy Limited, which
has a
25-year Tip
Fee type contract with Dublin to provide disposal service for
approximately 320,000 metric tons of waste annually. The project
is structured on a
build-own-operate-transfer
model, where ownership will transfer to Dublin after the
25-year
term, unless extended. The project is expected to sell
electricity into the local grid under
short-term
arrangements. We and DONG Energy
13
Generation A/S have committed to provide financing for all
phases of the project, and we expect to arrange for project
financing. The primary approvals and licenses for the project
have been obtained, and any remaining consents and approvals
necessary to begin full construction are expected to be obtained
in due course. We have begun to perform preliminary site
demolition work and expect to commence full construction during
the second quarter of 2009.
Hydroelectric
We operate two hydroelectric facilities in Costa Rica through an
operating subsidiary pursuant to
long-term
contracts. We also have a nominal equity investment in each
project. The electric output from both of these facilities is
sold to Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, a Costa Rica
national electric utility.
Coal
A partnership, in which we hold a 26% equity interest, owns a
510 MW (gross)
coal-fired
electric power generation facility located in Mauban, Quezon
Province, the Philippines (Quezon). The remaining
equity interests are held by an affiliate of International
Generating Company, an affiliate of Electricity Generating
Public Company Limited (a company listed on the Stock Exchange
of Thailand) and an entity owned by the original project
developer. The Quezon project sells electricity to the Manila
Electric Company (Meralco), the largest electric
distribution company in the Philippines, which serves the area
surrounding and including metropolitan Manila.
Under an energy contract expiring in 2025, Meralco is obligated
to
take-or-pay
for stated minimum annual quantities of electricity at an
all-in price
which consists of capacity, operating, energy, transmission and
other fees adjusted for inflation, fuel cost and foreign
exchange fluctuations. The Quezon project has entered into two
coal supply contracts expiring in 2015 and 2022. Under these
supply contracts, the cost of coal is determined using a base
energy price adjusted to fluctuations of specified international
benchmark prices. Our
wholly-owned
subsidiary, Covanta Philippines Operating, Inc., operates the
project under a
long-term
agreement with the Quezon project and we have obtained political
risk insurance for our equity investment in this project.
We also have a majority equity interest in a 24 MW (gross)
coal-fired
cogeneration facility in the Peoples Republic of China.
The project entity, in which we hold a majority interest,
operates this project. The party holding a minority position in
the project is an affiliate of the local municipal government.
While the steam produced at this project is intended to be sold
under a
long-term
contract to its industrial host, in practice, steam has been
sold on either a
short-term
basis to local industries or the industrial host, in each case
at varying rates and quantities. The electric power is sold at
an average grid rate to a subsidiary of the
provincial power bureau.
Natural
Gas
We hold a 45% equity interest in a
barge-mounted
126 MW (gross) diesel/natural
gas-fired
electric power generation facility located near Haripur,
Bangladesh. The remaining equity interests are held by Pendekar
Energy (L) Ltd (a consortium of Tanjong Energy Holdings Sdn
Bhd (Malaysia) and
Al-Jomaih
Group (Saudi Arabia)) and an affiliate of Wartsila North
America, Inc. The electrical output of the project is sold to
the Bangladesh Power Development Board (BPDB)
pursuant to an energy contract with minimum energy
off-take
provisions at an
all-in price
divided into a fuel component and an other
component. The fuel component reimburses the fuel cost incurred
by the project up to a specified heat rate. The
other component consists of a
pre-determined
base rate which is adjusted for the actual load factor and
foreign exchange fluctuations. The BPDB also supplies all of the
projects natural gas requirements at a
pre-determined
base cost adjusted for fluctuations on actual landed cost of the
fuel in Bangladesh. The Government of Bangladesh guarantees the
BPDBs contractual obligations. We operate the project
under a
long-term
agreement with the project company and we have obtained
political risk insurance for our equity interest in this project.
Heavy
Fuel-Oil
We hold majority equity interests in two 106 MW (gross)
heavy
fuel-oil
fired electric power generation facilities in India. We hold a
60% equity interest in the first project (the Samalpatti
project), which is located near Samalpatti, in the state
of Tamil Nadu. The remaining equity interests in the Samalpatti
project are held by affiliates of Shapoorji Pallonji
Infrastructure Capital Co. Ltd. and by Wartsila India Power
Investment, LLC. We hold a 77%
14
equity interest in the second project (the Madurai
project), which is located in Samayanallur, also in the
state of Tamil Nadu. The remaining equity interest in the
Madurai project is held by an Indian company controlled by the
original project developer. Both projects sell their electrical
output to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB)
pursuant to
long-term
agreements with a full
pass-through
all-in
pricing structure that takes into account specified heat rates,
operation and maintenance costs, and equity returns. TNEBs
obligations are guaranteed by the government of the state of
Tamil Nadu. Indian oil companies supply the oil requirements of
both projects through
15-year fuel
supply agreements based on market prices. We operate both
projects through subsidiaries under
long-term
agreements with the project companies.
Disputing several contractual provisions, TNEB has, since 2001,
failed to pay the full amount due under the energy contracts for
both the Samalpatti and Madurai projects. To date, TNEB has paid
the undisputed portion of its payment obligations (approximately
94% of total billings) representing each projects
operating costs, fuel costs, debt service and some equity
return. Similar to many Indian state electricity boards, TNEB
has also failed to fund an escrow account or post a letter of
credit required under the project energy contracts, which
failure constitutes a default under the project finance
documents. Project lenders for both projects have either granted
periodic waivers of such default or potential default
and/or
otherwise approved scheduled equity distributions. Neither such
default nor potential default in the project financing
arrangements constitutes a default under our financing
arrangements. It is possible that the issue of the escrow
account
and/or
letter of credit requirement will be resolved as part of the
overall negotiation with TNEB with respect to the disputed
receivables in both projects.
Summary information with respect to our international projects
that are currently operating is provided in the following table:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Design Capacity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Waste
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contract Expiration Dates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disposal
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
|
|
Service/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Metric
|
|
|
Electric
|
|
|
|
|
Waste
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Location
|
|
TPD)
|
|
|
(MW)
|
|
|
Nature of Interest
|
|
Disposal
|
|
|
Energy
|
|
|
A.
|
|
ENERGY-FROM-WASTE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TIP FEE STRUCTURES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.
|
|
Fuzhou(1)(2)
|
|
China
|
|
|
1,200
|
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
Part Owner
|
|
|
2032
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
2.
|
|
Tongqing(1)
|
|
China
|
|
|
1,200
|
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
Part Owner/Operator
|
|
|
2027
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
3.
|
|
Trezzo(3)
|
|
Italy
|
|
|
500
|
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
Part Owner/Operator
|
|
|
2023
|
|
|
|
2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SUBTOTAL
|
|
|
2,900
|
|
|
|
66
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B.
|
|
HYDROELECTRIC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.
|
|
Don Pedro(4)
|
|
Costa Rica
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
Part Owner/Operator
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
5.
|
|
Rio Volcan(4)
|
|
Costa Rica
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
Part Owner/Operator
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SUBTOTAL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C.
|
|
COAL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.
|
|
Quezon(5)
|
|
Philippines
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
510
|
|
|
Part Owner/Operator
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
2025
|
|
7.
|
|
Yanjiang(6)
|
|
China
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
Part Owner/Operator
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SUBTOTAL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
534
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D.
|
|
NATURAL GAS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8.
|
|
Haripur(7)
|
|
Bangladesh
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
126
|
|
|
Part Owner/Operator
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
2014
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E.
|
|
HEAVY
FUEL-OIL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.
|
|
Madurai(8)
|
|
India
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
106
|
|
|
Part Owner/Operator
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
2016
|
|
10.
|
|
Samalpatti(9)
|
|
India
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
106
|
|
|
Part Owner/Operator
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
2016
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SUBTOTAL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
212
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
We have a 40% equity interest in Sanfeng, which owns equity
interests of approximately 32% and 25% in the Fuzhou and
Tongqing projects, respectively. Sanfeng operates the Tongqing
project. The Fuzhou project company, in which Sanfeng has a 32%
interest, operates the Fuzhou project. Ownership of these
projects transfers to the applicable municipality at the
expiration of the applicable concession agreement. |
|
(2) |
|
In December 2008, we entered into an agreement with Beijing
Baoluo to purchase a direct 58% equity interest in the Fuzhou
project for approximately $14 million. This purchase is
conditional upon various regulatory and other conditions
precedent and is expected to close in early 2009. See
Note 3. Acquisitions, Business Development and Dispositions
of the Notes. |
15
|
|
|
(3) |
|
We have a 13% interest in this project and a 40% interest in the
operator Ambiente 2000 S.r.l. |
|
(4) |
|
We have nominal ownership interests in these projects. |
|
(5) |
|
We have an approximate 26% ownership interest in this project. |
|
(6) |
|
We have an approximate 96% ownership interest in this project.
Assets of this project revert back to the local Chinese partner
at the expiration of the Joint Venture Contract in 2017. |
|
(7) |
|
We have an approximate 45% ownership interest in this project.
This project is capable of operating through combustion of
diesel oil in addition to natural gas. |
|
(8) |
|
We have an approximate 77% ownership interest in this project. |
|
(9) |
|
We have a 60% ownership interest in this project. |
MARKETS,
COMPETITION AND BUSINESS CONDITIONS
General
Business Conditions
Our business can be adversely affected by general economic
conditions, war, inflation, adverse competitive conditions,
governmental restrictions and controls, changes in laws, natural
disasters, energy shortages, fuel costs, weather, the adverse
financial condition of customers and suppliers, various
technological changes and other factors over which we have no
control. As global populations and consequent economic activity
increase, we expect that demand for energy and effective waste
management technologies will increase. We expect this to create
generally favorable
long-term
conditions for our existing business and for our efforts to grow
our business. We expect that any cyclical or structural
downturns in general economic activity may adversely affect both
our existing businesses and our ability to grow through
development or acquisitions.
Conditions
Affecting Our Existing Business
We expect that our existing domestic businesses will experience
short-term
effects of the current economic dislocations and softening of
markets, primarily in the form of declining prices for recycled
metals, and for the portion of our energy sales and waste we
process at market rates (both of which represent a relatively
small portion of our 2008 domestic revenue).
With respect to our existing waste-related businesses, including
our energy-from-waste and waste procurement business, we compete
in waste disposal markets, which are highly competitive. In the
United States, the market for waste disposal is almost entirely
price-driven and is greatly influenced by economic factors
within regional waste sheds. These factors include:
|
|
|
|
|
regional population and overall waste production rates;
|
|
|
the number of other waste disposal sites (including principally
landfills and transfer stations) in existence or in the planning
or permitting process;
|
|
|
the available disposal capacity (in terms of tons of waste per
day) that can be offered by other regional disposal
sites; and
|
|
|
the availability and cost of transportation options (e.g., rail,
inter-modal, trucking) to provide access to more distant
disposal sites, thereby affecting the size of the waste shed
itself.
|
In the domestic waste disposal market, disposal service
providers seek to obtain waste supplies for their facilities by
competing on disposal price (usually on a per-ton basis) with
other disposal service providers. At all but thirteen of our
energy-from-waste facilities, we typically do not compete in
this market because we do not have the contractual right to
solicit waste. At these facilities, the client community is
responsible for obtaining the waste, if necessary by competing
on price to obtain the tons of waste it has contractually
promised to deliver to us. At thirteen of our energy-from-waste
facilities and at our waste procurement services businesses, we
are responsible for obtaining material amounts of waste supply,
and therefore, actively compete in these markets to enter into
spot, medium- and long-term contracts. These energy-from-waste
projects are generally in densely populated areas, with high
waste generation rates and numerous large and small participants
in the regional market. Our waste operations are largely
concentrated in the northeastern United States. See
Item 1A. Risk Factors Our waste operations
are concentrated in one region, and expose us to regional
economic or market declines for additional information
concerning this geographic concentration. Certain of our
competitors in these markets are vertically-integrated
16
waste companies which include waste collection operations, and
thus have the ability to control supplies of waste which may
restrict our ability to offer disposal services at attractive
prices. Our business does not include waste collection
operations.
If a long-term contract expires and is not renewed or extended
by a client community, our percentage of contracted disposal
capacity will decrease, and we will need to compete in the
regional market for waste disposal. At that point, we will
compete on price with landfills, transfer stations, other
energy-from-waste facilities and other waste disposal
technologies that are then offering disposal service in the
region. See discussion under Item 7. Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations Overview Contract Duration
for additional information concerning the expiration of
existing contracts.
With respect to our sales of electricity and other energy
products, we currently sell the majority of our output pursuant
to long-term contracts. Accordingly, we generally do not sell
our output into markets where we must compete on price. As these
contracts expire, we will participate in such markets if we are
unable to (or decide not to) enter into new or renewed long-term
contracts. In certain countries where we are seeking new waste
and energy projects, such as China and the United Kingdom, we
may sell our electricity output on short term arrangements to
local or regional government entities, or directly into the
local electricity grid, rather than pursuant to contract. In
these markets, we will have greater exposure to electricity
price fluctuations. As energy prices continue to fluctuate in
the United States and other countries, we may sell our output
pursuant to short-term agreements or directly into regional
electricity grids, in which case we would have relatively
greater exposure to energy market fluctuations. See discussion
under Item 1A. Risk Factors We may face
increased risk of market influences on our revenues after our
contracts expire for additional information concerning the
expiration of existing contracts.
The initial long term contracts we entered into when our
energy-from-waste projects were originally financed will be
expiring at various dates through 2017. As we seek to enter into
extended or new contracts following these expiration dates, we
expect that medium and long term contracts for waste supply, for
a substantial portion of facility capacity, will be available on
acceptable terms in the marketplace. We also expect that it may
be relatively more difficult to enter into medium and long term
contracts for sales of energy. As a result, following the
expiration of these initial long term contracts, we expect to
have on a relative basis more exposure to market risk, and
therefore revenue fluctuations, in energy markets than in waste
markets. By 2010, we expect approximately 50% of our domestic
energy revenue to be sold at market rates unless contractual
arrangements we put in place provide otherwise.
Conditions
Affecting Our Growth
Competition for new contracts and projects is intense in all
markets in which we conduct or intend to conduct business, and
our businesses are subject to a variety of competitive,
regulatory and market influences.
The domestic marketplace for new renewable energy projects,
including energy-from-waste projects, may be affected by the
current economic dislocations, as well as the outcome of current
policy debates described below under Regulation of
Business Regulations Affecting our Domestic
Business Recent Policy Debate Regarding Climate
Change and Renewable Energy. We are actively engaged in the
discussion among policy makers regarding the benefits of
energy-from-waste and other renewable energy technologies. The
extent to which any resulting legislation will affect the
markets in which we compete, including opportunities for new
projects, may depend in part on the extent to which any such
legislation recognizes those benefits.
Both domestically and internationally, we may develop or
acquire, ourselves or jointly with others, additional waste or
energy projects
and/or
businesses. If we were to do so in a competitive procurement, we
would face competition in the selection process from other
companies, some of which may have greater financial resources,
or more experience in the regional waste
and/or
energy markets. If we were selected, the amount of market
competition we would thereafter face would depend upon the
extent to which the revenue at any such project or business
would be committed under contract. If we were to develop or
acquire additional projects or businesses not in the context of
a competitive procurement, we would face competition in the
regional market and compete on price with landfills, transfer
stations, other energy-from-waste facilities, other energy
producers and other waste disposal or energy generation
technologies that are then offering service in the region.
17
In our international energy-from-waste business, we compete
principally for new energy-from-waste contracts and projects in
China and the United Kingdom, generally in response to public
tenders. In both of these markets, there are numerous local and
foreign companies with whom we compete for such contracts and
projects. If we were to be successful in obtaining such
contracts or projects, we expect that a significant portion of
each projects waste disposal capacity would be under
long-term contracts, thus reducing the competition to which we
would be subject in waste disposal markets.
Once a contract is awarded or a project is financed and
constructed, our business can be impacted by a variety of risk
factors which can affect profitability over the life of a
project. Some of these risks are at least partially within our
control, such as successful operation in compliance with laws
and the presence or absence of labor difficulties or
disturbances. Other risk factors are largely out of our control
and may have an adverse impact on a project over a long-term.
See Item 1A. Risk Factors for more information on
these types of risks.
Technology,
Research and Development
We have the exclusive right to market the proprietary mass-burn
technology of Martin GmbH fur Umwelt und Energietechnik,
referred to herein as Martin in the United States,
Canada, Mexico, Bermuda and certain Caribbean countries (the
Territory). Through our investment in Sanfeng, we
also have access to the Martin Sity 2000 mass-burn technology in
China. The principal feature of the Martin technology is the
stoker grate upon which the waste is burned. The patent for the
basic stoker grate technology used in the Martin technology has
expired and there are various other expired and unexpired
patents relating to the Martin technology. We believe that it is
Martins know-how and worldwide reputation in the
energy-from-waste industry, and our know-how in designing,
constructing and operating energy-from-waste facilities, rather
than the use of patented technology, that is important to our
competitive position in the energy-from-waste industry. We do
not believe that the expiration of the remaining patents
covering portions of the Martin technology will have a material
adverse effect on our financial condition or competitive
position.
Since 1984, our rights to the Martin technology have been
provided pursuant to a cooperation agreement with Martin which
gives us exclusive rights to market, and distribute parts and
equipment for the Martin technology in the Territory. Martin is
obligated to assist us in installing, operating and maintaining
facilities incorporating the Martin technology. The cooperation
agreement renews automatically each year unless notice of
termination is given, in which case, the cooperation agreement
would terminate ten years after such notice. Any termination
would not affect our rights to design, construct, operate,
maintain or repair energy-from-waste facilities for which
contracts have been entered into or proposals made prior to the
date of termination.
The cooperation agreement gives us exclusive rights to the
Martin technologies only in the Territory. We have pursued, and
intend to continue to pursue, opportunities in markets beyond
the Territory, and will seek to utilize the most appropriate
technology for the markets where these opportunities exist
(which may include Martin technologies or those of other
entities), and to obtain the necessary technology rights either
on an exclusive or project-specific basis.
We believe that mass-burn technology is now the predominant
technology used for the combustion of municipal solid waste. We
believe that the Martin technology is a proven and reliable
mass-burn technology, and that our association with Martin has
created significant name recognition and value for our domestic
energy-from-waste
business. Through facility acquisitions, we own
and/or
operate energy-from-waste facilities which utilize additional
technologies, including non-Martin mass-burn technologies and
refuse-derived fuel technologies which include
pre-combustion
waste processing not required with a mass-burn design. As we
continue our efforts to develop
and/or
acquire additional energy-from-waste projects internationally,
we will consider mass-burn and other technologies, including
technologies other than those offered by Martin, which best fit
the needs of the local environment of a particular project.
We believe that energy-from-waste technologies offer an
environmentally superior solution to waste disposal and energy
challenges faced by leaders around the world, and that our
efforts to expand our domestic and international businesses will
be enhanced by the development of additional technologies in
such fields as emission controls, residue disposal, alternative
waste treatment processes, and combustion controls. During 2008
and 2007, we advanced our research and development efforts in
these areas, and have developed new and cost-effective
18
technologies that represented major advances in controlling
nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions. These technologies, for which
patents are pending, have been tested at existing facilities and
we are now operating
and/or
installing such systems at several of our facilities. We also
developed and have patents pending for a proprietary process to
improve the handling of the residue from our energy-from-waste
facilities. In 2008, we entered into various agreements with
multiple partners to invest in the development, testing or
licensing of new technologies related to the transformation of
waste materials into renewable fuels or the generation of
energy. We intend to maintain a focus in the years ahead on
research and development of technologies in these and other
areas that we believe will enhance our competitive position, and
offer new technical solutions to waste and energy problems that
augment and complement our business.
REGULATION OF
BUSINESS
Regulations
Affecting Our Domestic Business
Environmental
Regulations
Our business activities in the United States are pervasively
regulated pursuant to federal, state and local environmental
laws. Federal laws, such as the Clean Air Act and Clean Water
Act, and their state counterparts, govern discharges of
pollutants to air and water. Other federal, state and local laws
comprehensively govern the generation, transportation, storage,
treatment and disposal of solid and hazardous waste and also
regulate the storage and handling of chemicals and petroleum
products (such laws and regulations are referred to collectively
as the Environmental Regulatory Laws).
Other federal, state and local laws, such as the Comprehensive
Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act commonly
known as CERCLA, and collectively referred to with
such other laws as the Environmental Remediation
Laws, make us potentially liable on a joint and several
basis for any onsite or offsite environmental contamination
which may be associated with our activities and the activities
at our sites. These include landfills we have owned, operated or
leased, or at which there has been disposal of residue or other
waste generated, handled or processed by our facilities. Some
state and local laws also impose liabilities for injury to
persons or property caused by site contamination. Some service
agreements provide us with indemnification from certain
liabilities. In addition, our landfill gas projects have access
rights to landfill sites pursuant to certain leases that permit
the installation, operation and maintenance of landfill gas
collection systems.
The Environmental Regulatory Laws require that many permits be
obtained before the commencement of construction and operation
of any waste or renewable energy project, and further require
that permits be maintained throughout the operating life of the
facility. We can provide no assurance that all required permits
will be issued or re-issued, and the process of obtaining such
permits can often cause lengthy delays, including delays caused
by third-party appeals challenging permit issuance. Our failure
to meet conditions of these permits or of the Environmental
Regulatory Laws can subject us to regulatory enforcement actions
by the appropriate governmental unit, which could include fines,
penalties, damages or other sanctions, such as orders requiring
certain remedial actions or limiting or prohibiting operation.
See Item 1A. Risk Factors Compliance with
environmental laws could adversely affect our results of
operations. To date, we have not incurred material
penalties, been required to incur material capital costs or
additional expenses, or been subjected to material restrictions
on our operations as a result of violations of Environmental
Regulatory Laws or permit requirements.
Although our operations are occasionally subject to proceedings
and orders pertaining to emissions into the environment and
other environmental violations, which may result in fines,
penalties, damages or other sanctions, we believe that we are in
substantial compliance with existing Environmental Regulatory
Laws. We may be identified, along with other entities, as being
among parties potentially responsible for contribution to costs
associated with the correction and remediation of environmental
conditions at disposal sites subject to CERCLA
and/or
analogous state Environmental Remediation Laws. Our ultimate
liability in connection with such environmental claims will
depend on many factors, including our volumetric share of waste,
the total cost of remediation, and the financial viability of
other companies that have also sent waste to a given site and,
in the case of divested operations, our contractual arrangement
with the purchaser of such operations.
The Environmental Regulatory Laws may change. New technology may
be required or stricter standards may be established for the
control of discharges of air or water pollutants, for storage
and handling of petroleum products
19
or chemicals, or for solid or hazardous waste or ash handling
and disposal. Thus, as new technology is developed and proven,
we may be required to incorporate it into new facilities or make
major modifications to existing facilities. This new technology
may often be more expensive than the technology we use currently.
In 2006, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
issued revisions to the New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) and Emission Guidelines (EG)
applicable to new and existing municipal waste combustion
(MWC) units (the Revised MACT Rule). The
Revised MACT Rule lowered the emission limits for most of the
regulated air pollutants emitted by MWCs. The general compliance
deadline for the revised EG is April 28, 2009; however, the
actual compliance date for a particular facility may be earlier
or later depending on the state in which the facility is
located. Certain capital improvements to comply with revised EG
were required and are being implemented at one of our existing
energy-from-waste facilities, which we operate on behalf of a
municipality. Most existing facilities also will incur increased
operating and maintenance costs to meet the revised EG
requirements, none of which are expected to be material.
In February 2008, in response to a lawsuit, EPA was granted a
voluntary remand of the Revised MACT Rule for the purpose of
reconsidering the MWC emission limits. A new rulemaking is
expected which may result in more stringent MWC emission limits
than are currently included in the Revised MACT Rule; however,
pending any such revisions, the requirements and compliance
deadlines included in the Revised MACT Rule, discussed above,
would remain applicable to subject MWCs. We are not able to
predict the timing and potential outcome of any such new
rulemaking with respect to MWC emission limits at this time.
In 2006, EPA issued a final rule to implement the revised
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for fine particulate
matter, or PM2.5 (Revised PM2.5 Rule). Unlike the
Revised MACT Rule discussed above, the Revised PM2.5 Rule is not
specific to energy-from-waste facilities, but instead is a
nationwide standard for ambient air quality. The primary impact
of the Revised PM2.5 Rule will be on those counties in certain
states that are designated by EPA as non-attainment
with respect to those standards. EPAs Revised PM2.5 Rule
will guide state implementation plan (SIP) revisions
and could result in more stringent regulation of certain
energy-from-waste facility emissions that already are regulated
by the Revised MACT Rule. In December 2008, EPA issued
non-attainment
designations pursuant to the Revised PM2.5 Rule for 211 counties
in 25 states, including 8 states in which we operate;
however, those designations are subject to review by the Obama
Administration. SIP revisions to meet the Revised PM2.5 Rule
presently are not due until April 2012. We are not able to
predict the timing and potential outcome of any new PM2.5
emission control requirements for MWCs at this time.
The costs to meet new rules for existing facilities owned by
municipal clients generally will be borne by the municipal
clients. For projects we own or lease, some municipal clients
have the obligation to fund such capital improvements, and at
certain of our projects we may be required to fund a portion of
the related costs. In certain cases, we are required to fund the
full cost of capital improvements.
We believe that most costs incurred to meet the Revised MACT
Rule and Revised PM2.5 Rule at facilities we operate may be
recovered from municipal clients and other users of our
facilities through increased fees permitted to be charged under
applicable contracts.
The Environmental Remediation Laws prohibit disposal of
regulated hazardous waste at our municipal solid waste
facilities. The service agreements recognize the potential for
inadvertent and improper deliveries of hazardous waste and
specify procedures for dealing with hazardous waste that is
delivered to a facility. Under some service agreements, we are
responsible for some costs related to hazardous waste
deliveries. We have not incurred material hazardous waste
disposal costs to date.
Energy
Regulations
Our businesses are subject to the provisions of federal, state
and local energy laws applicable to the development, ownership
and operation of domestic facilities. The Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC), among other things,
regulates the transmission and the wholesale sale of electricity
in interstate commerce under the authority of the Federal Power
Act (FPA). In addition, under existing regulations,
FERC determines whether an entity owning a generation facility
is an Exempt Wholesale Generator (EWG), as defined
in the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005 (PUHCA
2005). FERC also determines whether a generation facility
meets the ownership and technical criteria of a Qualifying
Facility (cogeneration facilities and other
20
facilities making use of non-fossil fuel power sources such as
waste, which meet certain size and other applicable
requirements, referred to as QF), under the Public
Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA).
Each of our U.S. generating facilities has either been
determined by FERC to qualify as a QF or is otherwise exempt, or
the subsidiary owning the facility has been determined to be an
EWG.
Federal Power Act The FPA gives FERC
exclusive rate-making jurisdiction over the wholesale sale of
electricity and transmission of electricity in interstate
commerce. Under the FPA, FERC, with certain exceptions,
regulates the owners of facilities used for the wholesale sale
of electricity or transmission of electricity in interstate
commerce as public utilities. The FPA also gives FERC
jurisdiction to review certain transactions and numerous other
activities of public utilities. Our QFs are currently exempt
from FERCs rate regulation under Sections 205 and 206
of the FPA because (i) the QF is 20 MW or smaller,
(ii) its sales are made pursuant to a state regulatory
authoritys implementation of PURPA or (iii) its sales
are made pursuant to a contract executed on or before
March 17, 2006.
Under Section 205 of the FPA, public utilities are required
to obtain FERCs acceptance of their rate schedules for the
wholesale sale of electricity. Certain of our generating
companies in the United States have sales of electricity
pursuant to market-based rates authorized by FERC. FERCs
orders that grant our generating companies market-based rate
authority reserve the right to revoke or revise that authority
if FERC subsequently determines that we can exercise market
power, create barriers to entry, or engage in abusive affiliate
transactions. In addition, amongst other requirements, our
market-based sales are subject to certain market behavior rules
and, if any of our generating companies were deemed to have
violated any one of those rules, such generating company would
be subject to potential disgorgement of profits associated with
the violation
and/or
suspension or revocation of their market-based rate authority,
as well as criminal and civil penalties.
In compliance with Section 215 of the Energy Policy Act of
2005 (EPAct 2005), FERC has approved the North
American Electric Reliability Corporation, or NERC,
as the National Energy Reliability Organization, or
ERO. As the ERO, NERC is responsible for the
development and enforcement of mandatory reliability standards
for the wholesale electric power system. We are responsible for
complying with the standards in the regions in which we operate.
NERC also has the ability to assess financial penalties for non-
compliance. In addition to complying with NERC requirements,
each of our entities must comply with the requirements of the
regional reliability council for the region in which that entity
is located.
Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005
PUHCA 2005 provides FERC with certain authority over and
access to books and records of public utility holding companies
not otherwise exempt by virtue of their ownership of EWGs, QFs,
and Foreign Utility Companies, as defined in PUHCA 2005. We are
a public utility holding company, but because all of our
generating facilities have QF status, are otherwise exempt, or
are owned through EWGs, we are exempt from the accounting,
record retention, and reporting requirements of PUHCA 2005.
EPAct 2005 eliminated the limitation on utility ownership of
QFs. Over time, this may result in greater utility ownership of
QFs and serve to increase competition with our businesses. EPAct
2005 also extended or established certain renewable energy
incentives and tax credits which might be helpful to expand our
businesses or for new development.
Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act PURPA
was passed in 1978 in large part to promote increased energy
efficiency and development of independent power producers. PURPA
created QFs to further both goals, and FERC is primarily charged
with administering PURPA as it applies to QFs. FERC has
promulgated regulations that exempt QFs from compliance with
certain provisions of the FPA, PUHCA 2005, and certain state
laws regulating the rates charged by, or the financial and
organizational activities of, electric utilities. The exemptions
afforded by PURPA to QFs from regulation under the FPA and most
aspects of state electric utility regulation are of great
importance to us and our competitors in the energy-from-waste
and independent power industries.
PURPA also initially included a requirement that utilities must
buy and sell power to QFs. Among other things, EPAct 2005
eliminated the obligation imposed on utilities to purchase power
from QFs at an avoided cost rate where the QF has
non-discriminatory access to wholesale energy markets having
certain characteristics, including nondiscriminatory
transmission and interconnection services. In addition, FERC has
established a regulatory presumption that QFs with a capacity
greater than 20 MW have non-discriminatory access to
wholesale energy
21
markets in most geographic regions in which we operate. As a
result, many of our expansion, renewal and development projects
must rely on competitive energy markets rather than PURPAs
historic avoided cost rates in establishing and maintaining
their viability. Existing contracts entered into under PURPA are
not impacted, but as these contracts expire, a significant and
increasing portion of our electricity output will be sold at
rates determined through our participation in competitive energy
markets.
Recent
Policy Debate Regarding Climate Change and Renewable
Energy
Increased public and political debate has occurred recently over
the need for additional regulation of GHG emissions (principally
carbon dioxide
(CO2)
and methane) as a contributor to climate change. Such
regulations could in the future affect our business. As is the
case with all combustion, our facilities do emit
CO2,
however we believe that energy-from-waste creates net reductions
in GHG emissions and is otherwise environmentally beneficial,
because it:
|
|
|
|
|
Avoids
CO2
emissions from fossil fuel power plants,
|
|
|
Avoids methane emissions from landfills,
|
|
|
Avoids habitat destruction and contamination from
landfilling, and
|
|
|
Avoids GHG emissions from mining and processing metal because it
recovers and recycles scrap metals from waste.
|
In addition, energy-from-waste facilities typically are located
close to the source of the waste and thus typically reduce
fossil fuel consumption and air emissions associated with
long-haul transportation of waste to landfills.
For policy makers at the local level, who make decisions on
waste disposal alternatives, we believe that using
energy-from-waste instead of landfilling will result in
significantly lower net GHG emissions, while also
introducing more control over the cost of waste disposal and
supply of local electrical power. We are actively engaged in
encouraging policy makers at state and federal levels to enact
legislation that supports energy-from-waste as a superior choice
for communities to avoid both the environmental harm caused by
landfilling waste, and reduce local reliance on fossil fuels as
a source of energy.
During 2008, substantial debate occurred in United States
Congress and in the course of the Presidential election
regarding energy legislation and other policy changes designed
to encourage electricity generation from renewable sources.
Energy policy is expected to be a priority of the Obama
administration, and Congress is expected to continue to debate
and ultimately enact some form of legislation regarding the need
to encourage renewable electricity generation. Given the current
economic dislocations and related unemployment, the Obama
administration is also expected to focus on economic stimulus
and job creation. We believe that the construction and permanent
jobs created by additional energy-from-waste development
represents the type of green jobs, on critical
infrastructure, that will be consistent with the
administrations focus.
Many of these same policy considerations apply equally to other
renewable technologies, especially with respect to our biomass
business. The extent to which such potential legislation and
policy initiatives will affect our business will depend in part
on whether energy-from-waste and our other renewable
technologies are included within the range of renewable
technologies that could benefit from such legislation.
Congress is also expected to debate proposed legislation
addressing climate change, which would require regulation of a
broad range of activities affecting the climate, potentially
including the operation of our facilities. Certain proposed
legislation would establish a cap and trade program
for
CO2
emissions with a market-based emissions trading system aimed at
reducing emissions of
CO2
below baseline levels. We cannot predict at this time whether
our facilities would be included within the scope of potential
regulation under such climate change legislation, or whether our
business will otherwise be affected positively or negatively.
While the political discussion in Congress, as well as at the
state and regional levels, has not been aimed specifically at
waste or energy-from-waste businesses, regulatory initiatives
developed to date have been broad in scope and designed
generally to promote renewable energy, develop a certified GHG
inventory, and ultimately reduce GHG emissions. Many of these
more developed initiatives have been at the state or regional
levels, and some initiatives exist in regions where we have
projects. For example, during 2006, a group of seven
northeastern states,
22
including Connecticut, New Jersey and New York, acting through
the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI),
issued a model rule to implement reductions in GHG
emissions. The RGGI model rule also featured a cap and
trade program for regional
CO2
emissions, initially fixed at 1990 levels, followed by
incremental reductions below those levels after 2014. To date,
RGGI has been focused on fossil fuel-fired electric generators
and does not directly affect energy-from-waste facilities;
however, we continue to monitor developments with respect to
state implementation of RGGI and intend to participate in
rulemaking.
Efforts also are underway, through the Western Climate
Initiative (WCI), to devise a model rule
for GHG emission reductions, including mandatory reporting of
GHG emissions and a regional cap and trade program
in seven western states including California and Oregon, where
we operate energy-from-waste facilities, and four Canadian
provinces. Unlike RGGI, WCI is not limited in scope to fossil
electric generation and may subject our energy-from-waste
facilities in covered states to additional regulatory
requirements, although we cannot predict the outcome of the
rulemaking at this time. We continue to monitor developments
with respect to the developing WCI and intend to participate in
the rulemaking process.
We expect that initiatives intended to reduce GHG emissions,
such as RGGI, WCI and any federal legislation that would impose
similar cap and trade programs, may cause
electricity prices to rise, thus potentially affecting the
prices at which we sell electricity from our facilities which
sell into the market.
Among states, California has assumed a leadership role in
curtailing GHG emissions. During 2006, California enacted the
California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB
32). AB 32 requires annual reporting of GHG emissions for
sources deemed significant by Californias Air
Resources Board (CARB) and sets emission limits to
cut Californias emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. On
December 11, 2008, CARB issued its GHG emission reduction
Scoping Plan as required by AB 32. The measures approved by CARB
as part of the Scoping Plan will be the subject of regulations
to be in place by 2012. We continue to participate in the
evolving regulatory process by which the CARB will implement the
requirements of AB 32. Until CARB issues its final regulations
implementing the Scoping Plan, we cannot predict with certainty
the impact of AB 32 on our California facilities.
During 2006, we joined the California Climate Action Registry
(CCAR) for the purpose of voluntarily reporting and
certifying GHG emissions from our California facilities. We have
verified and reported our California GHG emissions for 2005,
2006 and 2007 with CCAR. In 2008, we have also joined The
Climate Registry (TCR), a voluntary, North American
GHG emissions reporting and verification program similar to
CCAR. TCR presently includes all states in which we operate
except Indiana. In 2009, we will voluntarily report our 2008 GHG
emissions from 19 energy-from-waste and other facilities located
in six states, including California. We also plan to participate
in rulemaking efforts at the state and federal level which may
rely on TCR as the basis for GHG regulation. To date,
approximately 300 corporations, state and local governments, and
other organizations have joined TCR as voluntary reporters of
GHG emissions.
Regulations
Affecting Our International Business
We have ownership and operating interests in energy generation
facilities outside the United States. Most countries have
expansive systems for the regulation of the energy business.
These generally include provisions relating to ownership,
licensing, rate setting and financing of generation and
transmission facilities.
We provide waste and energy services through environmentally
protective project designs, regardless of the location of a
particular project. Compliance with environmental standards
comparable to those of the United States are often conditions to
credit agreements by multilateral banking agencies, as well as
other lenders or credit providers. The laws of various countries
include pervasive regulation of emissions into the environment,
and provide governmental entities with the authority to impose
sanctions for violations, although these requirements are
generally different from those applicable in the United States.
See Item 1A. Risk Factors Exposure to
international economic and political factors may materially and
adversely affect our international businesses and
Compliance with environmental laws could
adversely affect our results of operations.
Climate
Change Policies
Certain international markets in which we compete have recently
adopted regulatory or policy frameworks that encourage
energy-from-waste projects as important components of GHG
emission reduction strategies, as well as
23
waste management planning and practice. For example, the
European Union has adopted regulations which require member
countries to reduce utilization of and reliance upon landfill
disposal. The legislation emanating from the European Union is
primarily in the form of Directives, which are not
directly applicable within the member countries. Rather, they
need enabling legislation to implement them, which results in
significant variance between the legislative schemes introduced
by member countries. Certain Directives notably affect the
regulation of
energy-from-waste
facilities across the European Union. These include
(1) Directive 96/61/EC concerning integrated pollution
prevention and control (known as the PPC Directive)
which governs emissions to air, land and water from certain
large industrial installations, (2) Directive 1999/31/EC
concerning the landfill of waste (known as the Landfill
Directive) which imposes operational and technical
controls on landfills and restricts, on a reducing scale to the
year 2020, the amount of biodegradable municipal waste which
member countries may dispose of to landfill, and
(3) Directive 2000/76/EC concerning the incineration of
waste (known as the Waste Incineration Directive or
WID), which imposes limits on emissions to air from
the incineration and co-incineration of waste. Member countries
have begun to implement measures such as imposing incremental
fees on landfill disposal and providing rate subsidies for
energy generated at energy-from-waste projects. Ireland is a
European Union member nation and is subject to the directives
above.
In response to these directives and in furtherance of its
policies to reduce GHG emissions, the United Kingdom now imposes
substantial taxes on landfilling of waste: £32/ton in the
2008/09 tax year, increasing annually by £8/ton to
£48/ton in 2010/11. In addition, each waste disposal
authority in the United Kingdom is limited in the amount of
biodegradable waste it may landfill each year by the Landfill
Allowance Trading Scheme (known as LATS). LATS is
structured as a cap and trade program which reduces
the capped amount of waste that can be landfilled each year,
through 2020 when capped amounts will be fixed at 35% of 1995
levels. LATS allowances are tradable with other waste
authorities, and substantial penalties of £150/ton are
levied against authorities not in compliance.
In the United Kingdom, energy-from-waste plants with combined
heat and power may also be eligible for various green
certificates which are designed to promote the contribution of
renewable sources to electricity production. These include
tradable (1) Renewables Obligation Certificates, which are
certificates issued in respect of eligible renewable source
electricity generated within the United Kingdom and supplied to
customers in the United Kingdom by a licensed supplier,
(2) Levy Exemption Certificates, which exempt the
holder from the United Kingdom Climate Change Levy, and
(3) Renewable Energy Guarantees of Origin, which constitute
evidence that electricity was generated from a renewable source.
Similarly, China currently has a favorable regulatory
environment for the development of energy-from-waste projects.
The National Plan issued by the Ministry of Housing and
Urban-Rural Development sets guidelines for an increase in
energy-from-waste capacity from 2% (2005 estimate) to 30% by
2030. The Chinese central government has further called for an
increase in energy-from-waste output generation from 200 MW
(2005 estimate) to 500 MW by 2010, and to three gigawatts
by 2020. Energy-from-waste and municipal waste disposal services
are designated by the Chinese central government as
encouraged industries, and accordingly, China has
various promotional laws and policies in place to promote
energy-from-waste and municipal waste disposal projects
including exemptions and reductions of corporate income tax,
value added tax refunds, prioritized commercial bank loans,
state subsidies for loan interest, and a guaranteed subsidized
price for the sale of electricity.
EMPLOYEES
As of December 31, 2008, we employed approximately
3,700 full-time employees worldwide, of which a majority
are employed in the United States.
Of our employees in the United States, approximately 11% are
represented by organized labor. Currently, we are party to seven
collective bargaining agreements: two expired in 2008 and are
pending extensions; two expire in 2009, two expire in 2010, and
one expires in 2011. In 2008, approximately 140 employees
at a facility located in Rochester, Massachusetts elected to be
represented by organized labor. We are engaged in good faith
bargaining with the union representing these employees.
We consider relations with our employees to be good.
24
EXECUTIVE
OFFICERS
A list of our executive officers and their business experience
follows. Ages shown are as of February 20, 2009.
Anthony J. Orlando was named President and Chief
Executive Officer in October 2004. Mr. Orlando was elected
as one of our directors in September 2005 and is a member of the
Technology Committee, Public Policy Committee and the Finance
Committee. Previously, he had been President and Chief Executive
Officer of Covanta Energy since November 2003. From March 2003
to November 2003, he served as Senior Vice President, Business
and Financial Management of Covanta Energy. From January 2001
until March 2003, Mr. Orlando served as Covanta
Energys Senior Vice President, Waste-to-Energy.
Mr. Orlando joined Covanta Energy in 1987. Age: 49.
Mark A. Pytosh was appointed as Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer in December 2007. Mr. Pytosh
served as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
since September 2006. Previously, Mr. Pytosh served as
Executive Vice President from February 2004 to August 2006 and
Chief Financial Officer from May 2005 to August 2006 of Waste
Services, Inc., a publicly-traded integrated waste services
company. Prior to his tenure with Waste Services, Inc.,
Mr. Pytosh served as a Managing Director in Investment
Banking at Lehman Brothers where he led the firms Global
Industrial Group, from November 2000 to February 2004. Before
joining Lehman Brothers in 2000, Mr. Pytosh had
15 years of investment banking experience at Donaldson,
Lufkin & Jenrette and Kidder, Peabody. Age: 44.
John M. Klett was appointed as Executive Vice President
and Chief Operating Officer in December 2007. Mr. Klett
served as Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of
Covanta Energy since May 2006 and as Covanta Energys
Senior Vice President, Operations since March 2003. Prior
thereto, he served as Executive Vice President of Covanta Waste
to Energy, Inc. for more than five years. Mr. Klett joined
Covanta Energy in 1986. Mr. Klett has been in the
energy-from-waste business since 1977. He has been in the power
business since 1965. Age: 62.
Seth Myones was appointed as Covanta Energys
President, Americas, in November 2007, which is comprised
principally of Covanta Energys domestic business.
Mr. Myones served as Covanta Energys Senior Vice
President, Business Management, since January 2004. From
September 2001 until January 2004, Mr. Myones served as
Vice President, Waste-to-Energy Business Management for Covanta
Projects, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Covanta Energy.
Mr. Myones joined Covanta Energy in 1989. Age: 50.
Timothy J. Simpson was appointed as Executive Vice
President, General Counsel and Secretary in December 2007.
Mr. Simpson served as Senior Vice President, General
Counsel and Secretary since October 2004. Previously, he served
as Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of
Covanta Energy since March 2004. From June 2001 to March 2004,
Mr. Simpson served as Vice President, Associate General
Counsel and Assistant Secretary of Covanta Energy.
Mr. Simpson joined Covanta Energy in 1992. Age: 50.
Thomas E. Bucks has served as Vice President and Chief
Accounting Officer since April 2005. Mr. Bucks served as
Controller from February 2005 to April 2005. Previously,
Mr. Bucks served as Senior Vice President
Controller of Centennial Communications Corp., a leading
provider of regional wireless and integrated communications
services in the United States and the Caribbean, from March 1995
through February 2005, where he was the principal accounting
officer and was responsible for accounting operations and
external financial reporting. Age: 52.
The following risk factors could have a material adverse effect
on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Changes
in public policies and legislative initiatives could materially
affect our business and prospects.
There has been substantial debate recently in the United States
and abroad in the context of environmental and energy policies
affecting climate change, the outcome of which could have a
positive or negative influence on our existing business and our
prospects for growing our business. The United States Congress
has recently considered the enactment of laws that would
encourage electricity generation from renewable technologies and
discourage such generation from fossil fuels. Congress
considered proposed legislation which would have established new
25
renewable portfolio standards which are designed to
increase the proportion of the nations electricity that is
generated from renewable technologies. Congress has also
considered enacting legislation which sets declining limits on
greenhouse gas emissions, and requires generators to purchase
rights to emit in excess of such limits, and allows such rights
to be traded. This structure is sometimes referred to as
cap and trade. In addition, Congress has
periodically considered extending existing tax benefits to
renewable energy technologies, which would expire without such
an extension. Each of these policy initiatives, and potentially
others that may be considered, could provide material financial
and competitive benefits to those technologies which are
included among those defined as renewable in any legislation
that is enacted, or are otherwise favorably treated as
greenhouse gas reducing technologies in cap and
trade legislation. Our business could be adversely
affected if renewable technologies we use were not included
among those technologies identified in any final law as being
renewable
and/or
greenhouse gas reducing, and therefore entitled to the benefits
of such laws.
Weakness
in the economy may have an adverse effect on our revenue and
cash flow.
The recent economic slowdown, both in the United States and
internationally, has reduced demand for goods and services
generally, which tends to reduce overall volumes of waste
requiring disposal, and the pricing at which we can attract
waste to fill available capacity. At the same time, the sharp
declines in global oil and natural gas prices has pushed energy
pricing lower generally, and may reduce the prices for the
portion of the energy we sell under short term arrangements.
Lastly, the downturn in economic activity tends to reduce global
demand for and pricing of certain commodities, such as the scrap
metals we recycle from our energy-from-waste facilities. These
factors could have a material adverse effect on our revenue and
cash flow.
Weakness
in the economy may have an adverse effect on our ability to grow
our business.
The same economic slowdown may reduce the demand for the waste
disposal services and the energy that our facilities offer. Many
of our customers are municipalities and public authorities,
which are generally experiencing fiscal pressure as local and
central governments seek to reduce expenses in order to address
declining tax revenues, which may result from the recent
economic dislocations and increases in unemployment. These
factors, particularly in the absence of energy policies which
encourage renewable technologies such as energy-from-waste, may
make it more difficult for us to sell waste disposal services or
energy at prices sufficient to allow us to grow our business
through developing and building new projects.
We may
face increased risk of market influences on our revenues after
our contracts expire.
Our contracts to operate energy-from-waste projects expire on
various dates between 2009 and 2034, and our contracts to sell
energy output generally expire when the projects operating
contract expires. Expiration of these contracts will subject us
to greater market risk in entering into new or replacement
contracts at pricing levels which will generate comparable or
enhanced revenues. As our operating contracts at
municipally-owned projects approach expiration, we will seek to
enter into renewal or replacement contracts to continue
operating such projects. However, we cannot assure you that we
will be able to enter into renewal or replacement contracts on
favorable terms, or at all. We will seek to bid competitively
for additional contracts to operate other facilities as similar
contracts of other vendors expire. The expiration of existing
energy sales contracts, if not renewed, will require us to sell
project energy output either into the electricity grid or
pursuant to new contracts.
At some of our facilities, market conditions may allow us to
effect extensions of existing operating contracts along with
facility expansions. Such extensions and expansions are
currently being considered at a limited number of our facilities
in conjunction with our clients. If we are unable to reach
agreement with our municipal clients on the terms under which
they would implement such extensions and expansions, or if the
implementation of these extensions, including renewals and
replacement contracts, and expansions are materially delayed,
this may adversely affect our cash flow and profitability. We
cannot assure you that we will be able to enter into such
contracts or that the terms available in the market at the time
will be favorable to us.
26
Recent
dislocations in credit and capital markets may make it more
difficult for us to borrow money or raise capital needed to
finance the construction of new projects and/or the expansion of
our existing projects, as well as our ability to finance the
acquisitions of certain businesses.
Our business is capital intensive, and we typically borrow money
in the project debt markets to pay for a portion of the cost to
construct facilities. Recent dislocations in the credit markets,
including the project debt markets, have resulted in less credit
being made available by banks and other lending institutions. As
a result, we may not be able to obtain financing for new
facilities or expansions of our existing facilities, on terms,
and/or for a
cost, that we find acceptable, which may make it more difficult
to grow our business through new
and/or
expanded facilities.
We also intend to grow our business through opportunistic
acquisitions of projects or businesses. We are generally able to
finance acquisitions with cash on hand and by accessing our
revolving loan facility. Some acquisitions may be too large for
us finance in this manner and require us to obtain additional
financing in the credit
and/or
capital markets. Recent dislocations in these markets may
adversely impact our access to debt or equity capital, and our
ability to execute our strategy to grow our business through
such acquisitions.
Changes
in technology may have a material adverse effect on our
profitability.
Research and development activities are ongoing to provide
alternative and more efficient technologies to dispose of waste,
produce by-products from waste, or to produce power. We and many
other companies are pursuing these technologies, and an
increasing amount of capital is being invested to find new
approaches to waste disposal, waste treatment, and power
generation. It is possible that this deployment of capital may
lead to advances in these or other technologies which will
reduce the cost of waste disposal or power production to a level
below our costs
and/or
provide new or alternative methods of waste disposal or energy
generation that become more accepted than those we currently
utilize. Unless we are able to participate in these advances,
any of these changes could have a material adverse effect on our
revenues, profitability and the value of our existing facilities.
Operation
of our facilities involves significant risks.
The operation of our facilities involves many risks, including:
|
|
|
|
|
the inaccuracy of our assumptions with respect to the timing and
amount of anticipated revenues;
|
|
|
supply interruptions;
|
|
|
the breakdown or failure of equipment or processes;
|
|
|
difficulty or inability to find suitable replacement parts for
equipment;
|
|
|
increases in the prices of commodities we need to continue
operating our facilities;
|
|
|
the unavailability of sufficient quantities of waste or fuel;
|
|
|
fluctuations in the heating value of the waste we use for fuel
at our energy-from-waste facilities;
|
|
|
decreases in the fees for solid waste disposal and electricity
generated;
|
|
|
decreases in the demand or market prices for recovered ferrous
or non-ferrous metal;
|
|
|
disruption in the transmission of electricity generated;
|
|
|
permitting and other regulatory issues, license revocation and
changes in legal requirements;
|
|
|
labor disputes and work stoppages;
|
|
|
unforeseen engineering and environmental problems;
|
|
|
unanticipated cost overruns;
|
|
|
weather interferences, catastrophic events including fires,
explosions, earthquakes, droughts and acts of terrorism;
|
|
|
the exercise of the power of eminent domain; and
|
|
|
performance below expected levels of output or efficiency.
|
We cannot predict the impact of these risks on our business or
operations. These risks, if they were to occur, could prevent us
from meeting our obligations under our operating contracts and
have an adverse affect on our results of operations.
27
Development
and construction of new projects and expansions may not commence
as anticipated, or at all.
The development and construction of new waste and energy
facilities involves many risks including:
|
|
|
|
|
difficulties in identifying, obtaining and permitting suitable
sites for new projects;
|
|
|
the inaccuracy of our assumptions with respect to the cost of
and schedule for completing construction;
|
|
|
difficulty, delays or inability to obtain financing for a
project on acceptable terms;
|
|
|
delays in deliveries of, or increases in the prices of,
equipment sourced from other countries;
|
|
|
the unavailability of sufficient quantities of waste or other
fuels for startup;
|
|
|
permitting and other regulatory issues, license revocation and
changes in legal requirements;
|
|
|
labor disputes and work stoppages;
|
|
|
unforeseen engineering and environmental problems;
|
|
|
unanticipated cost overruns; and
|
|
|
weather interferences, catastrophic events including fires,
explosions, earthquakes, droughts and acts of terrorism.
|
In addition, new facilities have no operating history and may
employ recently developed technology and equipment. Our
businesses maintain insurance to protect against risks relating
to the construction of new projects; however, such insurance may
not be adequate to cover lost revenues or increased expenses. As
a result, a new facility may be unable to fund principal and
interest payments under its debt service obligations or may
operate at a loss. In certain situations, if a facility fails to
achieve commercial operation, at certain levels or at all,
termination rights in the agreements governing the
facilitys financing may be triggered, rendering all of the
facilitys debt immediately due and payable. As a result,
the facility may be rendered insolvent and we may lose our
interest in the facility.
Changes
in labor laws could adversely affect our relationship with our
employees and cause disruptions to our business.
Legislation has been proposed in Congress which would materially
change the labor laws in the United States. The proposed changes
would, among other things, allow labor unions to organize
employees without secret ballot employee protections; require
arbitrator-imposed contracts in the event good faith bargaining
was not successful within short time periods; and impose
significant fines on employers under certain circumstances. Our
business depends upon the professionalism, innovation, and hard
work of our employees and our ability to maintain a safe
workplace where employees are treated fairly, with respect, and
where we have the flexibility to make operating decisions. We
believe our success may be affected by the degree to which we
are able to maintain a direct relationship with our employees
without the imposition of third party representatives, such as
labor unions. We cannot predict if such legislation will be
enacted in its present form or whether and to what extent it may
affect our relationship with our employees, the cost of
operating our facilities and our operating discretion.
Construction
activities may cost more and take longer than we
estimate.
The design and construction of new projects or expansions
requires us to contract for services from engineering and
construction firms, and make substantial purchases of equipment
such as boilers, turbine generators and other components that
require large quantities of steel to fabricate. In part because
of the high world-wide demand for new energy generating
facilities and waste disposal facilities, steel prices have
risen sharply and may continue to do so. In addition, this
increased demand affects not only the cost of obtaining the
services necessary to design and construct these facilities, but
also the availability of quality firms to perform the services.
These conditions may adversely affect our ability to
successfully compete for new projects, or construct and complete
such projects on time and within budget. Even with the recent
economic downturn and reductions in world-wide demand,
reductions in steel prices and the cost of design and
construction generally may not occur immediately, if at all,
thereby hurting our ability to compete for the opportunities
that remain in the market for new energy generating facilities
and waste disposal facilities.
The
rapid growth of our operations could strain our resources and
cause our business to suffer.
We have experienced rapid growth and intend to further grow our
business. This growth has placed, and potential future growth
will continue to place, a strain on our management systems,
infrastructure and resources.
28
Our ability to successfully offer services and implement our
business plan in a rapidly evolving market requires an effective
planning and management process. We expect that we will need to
continually evaluate and maintain our financial and managerial
controls, reporting systems and procedures. We will also need to
expand, train and manage our workforce worldwide. Furthermore,
we expect that we will be required to manage an increasing
number of relationships with various customers and other third
parties. Failure to expand in any of the foregoing areas
efficiently and effectively could interfere with the growth and
current operation of our business as a whole.
Our
efforts to grow our business will require us to incur
significant costs in business development, often over extended
periods of time, with no guarantee of success.
Our efforts to grow our waste and energy services business will
depend in part on how successful we are in developing new
projects and expanding existing projects. The development period
for each project may occur over several years, during which we
incur substantial expenses relating to siting, design,
permitting, community relations, financing and professional fees
associated with all of the foregoing. Not all of our development
efforts will be successful, and we may decide to cease
developing a project for a variety of reasons. If the cessation
of our development efforts were to occur at an advanced stage of
development, we may have incurred a material amount of expenses
for which we will realize no return.
A
failure to identify suitable acquisition candidates and to
complete acquisitions could have an adverse effect on our
business strategy and growth plans.
As part of our business strategy, we intend to continue to
pursue acquisitions of complementary businesses. Although we
regularly evaluate acquisition opportunities, we may not be able
to successfully identify suitable acquisition candidates, obtain
sufficient financing on acceptable terms to fund acquisitions or
complete acquisitions.
Our
insurance and contractual protections may not always cover lost
revenues, increased expenses or liquidated damages
payments.
Although our businesses maintain insurance, obtain warranties
from vendors, require contractors to meet certain performance
levels and, in some cases, pass risks we cannot control to the
service recipient or output purchaser, the proceeds of such
insurance, warranties, performance guarantees or risk sharing
arrangements may not be adequate to cover lost revenues,
increased expenses or liquidated damages payments.
Performance
reductions could materially and adversely affect us and our
projects may operate at lower levels than
expected.
Most service agreements for our energy-from-waste facilities
provide for limitations on damages and cross-indemnities among
the parties for damages that such parties may incur in
connection with their performance under the service agreement.
In most cases, such contractual provisions excuse our businesses
from performance obligations to the extent affected by
uncontrollable circumstances and provide for service fee
adjustments if uncontrollable circumstances increase our costs.
We cannot assure you that these provisions will prevent our
businesses from incurring losses upon the occurrence of
uncontrollable circumstances or that if our businesses were to
incur such losses they would continue to be able to service
their debt.
We have issued or are party to performance guarantees and
related contractual obligations associated with our energy and
waste facilities. With respect to our domestic and international
businesses, we have issued guarantees to our municipal clients
and other parties that we will perform in accordance with
contractual terms, including, where required, the payment of
damages or other obligations. The obligations guaranteed will
depend upon the contract involved. Many of our subsidiaries have
contracts to operate and maintain energy-from-waste facilities.
In these contracts, the subsidiary typically commits to operate
and maintain the facility in compliance with legal requirements;
to accept minimum amounts of solid waste; to generate a minimum
amount of electricity per ton of waste; and to pay damages to
contract counterparties under specified circumstances, including
those where the operating subsidiarys contract has been
terminated for default. Any contractual damages or other
obligations incurred by us could be material, and in
circumstances where one or more subsidiarys contract has
been terminated for its default, such damages could include
amounts sufficient to repay project debt. Additionally, damages
payable under such guarantees on our owned energy-from-waste
facilities could expose us to recourse liability on project
29
debt. Certain of our operating subsidiaries which have issued
these guarantees may not have sufficient sources of cash to pay
such damages or other obligations. We cannot assure you that we
will be able to continue to avoid incurring material payment
obligations under such guarantees or that, if we did incur such
obligations, that we would have the cash resources to pay them.
Our
businesses generate their revenue primarily under long-term
contracts and must avoid defaults under those contracts in order
to service their debt and avoid material liability to contract
counterparties.
We must satisfy performance and other obligations under
contracts governing energy-from-waste facilities. These
contracts typically require us to meet certain performance
criteria relating to amounts of waste processed, energy
generation rates per ton of waste processed, residue quantity
and environmental standards. Our failure to satisfy these
criteria may subject us to termination of operating contracts.
If such a termination were to occur, we would lose the cash flow
related to the projects and incur material termination damage
liability, which may be guaranteed by us. In circumstances where
the contract has been terminated due to our default, we may not
have sufficient sources of cash to pay such damages. We cannot
assure you that we will be able to continue to perform our
respective obligations under such contracts in order to avoid
such contract terminations, or damages related to any such
contract termination, or that if we could not avoid such
terminations that we would have the cash resources to pay
amounts that may then become due.
We
have provided guarantees and financial support in connection
with our projects.
We are obligated to guarantee or provide financial support for
our projects in one or more of the following forms:
|
|
|
|
|
support agreements in connection with service or operating
agreement-related obligations;
|
|
|
direct guarantees of certain debt relating to our facilities;
|
|
|
contingent obligations to pay lease payment installments in
connection with certain of our facilities;
|
|
|
agreements to arrange financing for projects under development;
|
|
|
contingent credit support for damages arising from performance
failures;
|
|
|
environmental indemnities; and
|
|
|
contingent capital and credit support to finance costs, in most
cases in connection with a corresponding increase in service
fees, relating to uncontrollable circumstances.
|
Many of these contingent obligations cannot readily be
quantified, but, if we were required to provide this support, it
may be material to our cash flow and financial condition.
Our
businesses depend on performance by third parties under
contractual arrangements.
Our waste and energy services businesses depend on a limited
number of third parties to, among other things, purchase the
electric and steam energy produced by our facilities, and supply
and deliver the waste and other goods and services necessary for
the operation of our energy facilities. The viability of our
facilities depends significantly upon the performance by third
parties in accordance with long-term contracts, and such
performance depends on factors which may be beyond our control.
If those third parties do not perform their obligations, or are
excused from performing their obligations because of
nonperformance by our waste and energy services businesses or
other parties to the contracts, or due to force majeure events
or changes in laws or regulations, our businesses may not be
able to secure alternate arrangements on substantially the same
terms, if at all, for the services provided under the contracts.
In addition, the bankruptcy or insolvency of a participant or
third party in our facilities could result in nonpayment or
nonperformance of that partys obligations to us. Many of
these third parties are municipalities and public authorities.
Recent economic dislocations and disruptions in credit markets
have strained resources of these entities generally, and could
make it difficult for these entities to honor their obligations
to us.
Concentration
of suppliers and customers may expose us to heightened financial
exposure.
Our waste and energy services businesses often rely on single
suppliers and single customers at our facilities, exposing such
facilities to financial risks if any supplier or customer should
fail to perform its obligations.
For example, our businesses often rely on a single supplier to
provide waste, fuel, water and other services required to
operate a facility and on a single customer or a few customers
to purchase all or a significant portion of a
30
facilitys output. In most cases our businesses have
long-term agreements with such suppliers and customers in order
to mitigate the risk of supply interruption. The financial
performance of these facilities depends on such customers and
suppliers continuing to perform their obligations under their
long-term agreements. A facilitys financial results could
be materially and adversely affected if any one customer or
supplier fails to fulfill its contractual obligations and we are
unable to find other customers or suppliers to produce the same
level of profitability. We cannot assure you that such
performance failures by third parties will not occur, or that if
they do occur, such failures will not adversely affect the cash
flows or profitability of our businesses.
In addition, we rely on the municipal clients as a source not
only of waste for fuel, but also of revenue from the fees for
disposal services we provide. Because our contracts with
municipal clients are generally long-term, we may be adversely
affected if the credit quality of one or more of our municipal
clients were to decline materially.
Our
waste operations are concentrated in one region, and expose us
to regional economic or market declines.
The majority of our waste disposal facilities are located in the
northeastern United States, primarily along the
Washington, D.C. to Boston, Massachusetts corridor. Adverse
economic developments in this region could affect regional waste
generation rates and demand for waste disposal services provided
by us. Adverse market developments caused by additional waste
disposal capacity in this region could adversely affect waste
disposal pricing. Either of these developments could have a
material adverse effect on our revenues and cash generation.
Some
of our energy contracts involve greater risk of exposure to
performance levels which could result in materially lower
revenues.
Some of our energy-from-waste facilities receive 100% of the
energy revenues they generate. As a result, if we are unable to
operate these facilities at their historical performance levels
for any reason, our revenues from energy sales could materially
decrease.
Exposure
to international economic and political factors may materially
and adversely affect our international businesses.
Our international operations expose us to political, legal, tax,
currency, inflation, convertibility and repatriation risks, as
well as potential constraints on the development and operation
of potential business, any of which can limit the benefits to us
of an international project.
Our projected cash distributions from most of our existing
international facilities come from facilities located in
countries with sovereign ratings below investment grade. The
financing, development and operation of projects outside the
United States can entail significant political and financial
risks, which vary by country, including:
|
|
|
|
|
changes in law or regulations;
|
|
|
changes in electricity pricing;
|
|
|
changes in foreign tax laws and regulations;
|
|
|
changes in United States federal, state and local laws,
including tax laws, related to foreign operations;
|
|
|
compliance with United States federal, state and local foreign
corrupt practices laws;
|
|
|
changes in government policies or personnel;
|
|
|
changes in general economic conditions affecting each country,
including conditions in financial markets;
|
|
|
changes in labor relations in operations outside the United
States;
|
|
|
political, economic or military instability and civil unrest;
|
|
|
expropriation and confiscation of assets and facilities; and
|
|
|
credit quality of entities that purchase our power.
|
The legal and financial environment in foreign countries in
which we currently own assets or projects could also make it
more difficult for us to enforce our rights under agreements
relating to such projects.
Any or all of the risks identified above with respect to our
international projects could adversely affect our revenue and
cash generation. As a result, these risks may have a material
adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial condition
and results of operations.
31
Our
reputation could be adversely affected if opposition to our
efforts to grow our business results in adverse publicity or our
businesses were to fail to comply with United States or foreign
laws or regulations.
With respect to our efforts to renew our contracts and grow our
waste and energy services business both domestically and
internationally, we sometimes experience opposition from
advocacy groups or others intended to halt a development effort
or other opportunity we may be pursuing. Such opposition is
often intended to discourage third parties from doing business
with us and may be based on inaccurate, incomplete or
inflammatory assertions. We cannot provide any assurance that
our reputation would not be adversely affected as a result of
adverse publicity resulting from such opposition. Some of our
projects and new business may be conducted in countries where
corruption has historically penetrated the economy to a greater
extent than in the United States. It is our policy to comply,
and to require our local partners and those with whom we do
business to comply, with all applicable anti-bribery laws, such
as the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and with
applicable local laws of the foreign countries in which we
operate. We cannot provide any assurance that our reputation
would not be adversely affected if we were reported to be
associated with corrupt practices or if we or our local partners
failed to comply with such laws.
Exposure
to foreign currency fluctuations may affect our results from
operations.
We have sought to participate in projects where the host country
has allowed the convertibility of its currency into
U.S. dollars and repatriation of earnings, capital and
profits subject to compliance with local regulatory
requirements. As we grow our business in other countries and
enter new international markets, currency volatility may impact
the amount we are required to invest in new projects, as well
our reported results.
In some cases, components of project costs incurred or funded in
the currency of the United States are recovered with limited
exposure to currency fluctuations through negotiated contractual
adjustments to the price charged for electricity or service
provided. This contractual structure may cause the cost in local
currency to the projects power purchaser or service
recipient to rise from time to time in excess of local
inflation. As a result, there is a risk in such situations that
such power purchaser or service recipient will, at least in the
near term, be less able or willing to pay for the projects
power or service.
Exposure
to fuel supply prices may affect our costs and results of
operations.
Changes in the market prices and availability of fuel supplies
to generate electricity may increase our cost of producing
power, which could adversely impact our energy businesses
profitability and financial performance.
The market prices and availability of fuel supplies fluctuate
for some of our international facilities, and for our domestic
biomass facilities. Any price increase, delivery disruption or
reduction in the availability of such supplies could affect our
ability to operate the facilities and impair their cash flow and
profitability. We may be subject to further exposure if any of
our future international operations are concentrated in
facilities using fuel types subject to fluctuating market prices
and availability. We may not be successful in our efforts to
mitigate our exposure to supply and price swings.
Our
inability to obtain resources for operations may adversely
affect our ability to effectively compete.
Our energy-from-waste facilities depend on solid waste for fuel,
which provides a source of revenue. For most of our facilities,
the prices we charge for disposal of solid waste are fixed under
long-term contracts and the supply is guaranteed by sponsoring
municipalities. However, for some of our energy-from-waste
facilities, the availability of solid waste to us, as well as
the tipping fee that we must charge to attract solid waste to
our facilities, depends upon competition from a number of
sources such as other energy-from-waste facilities, landfills
and transfer stations competing for waste in the market area. In
addition, we may need to obtain waste on a competitive basis as
our long-term contracts expire at our owned facilities. There
has been consolidation and there may be further consolidation in
the solid waste industry which would reduce the number of solid
waste collectors or haulers that are competing for disposal
facilities or enable such collectors or haulers to use wholesale
purchasing to negotiate favorable below-market disposal rates.
The consolidation in the solid waste industry has resulted in
companies with vertically integrated collection activities and
disposal facilities. Such consolidation may result in economies
of scale for those companies as well as the use of disposal
capacity at facilities owned by such companies or by
32
affiliated companies. Such activities can affect both the
availability of waste to us for disposal at some of our
energy-from-waste facilities and market pricing.
Compliance
with environmental laws could adversely affect our results of
operations.
Costs of compliance with federal, state, local and foreign
existing and future environmental regulations could adversely
affect our cash flow and profitability. Our waste and energy
services businesses are subject to extensive environmental
regulation by federal, state and local authorities, primarily
relating to air, waste (including residual ash from combustion)
and water. We are required to comply with numerous environmental
laws and regulations and to obtain numerous governmental permits
in operating our facilities. Our businesses may incur
significant additional costs to comply with these requirements.
Environmental regulations may also limit our ability to operate
our facilities at maximum capacity or at all. If our businesses
fail to comply with these requirements, we could be subject to
civil or criminal liability, damages and fines. Existing
environmental regulations could be revised or reinterpreted and
new laws and regulations could be adopted or become applicable
to us or our facilities, and future changes in environmental
laws and regulations could occur. This may materially increase
the amount we must invest to bring our facilities into
compliance, or impose additional expense on our operations, or
otherwise impose structural changes to markets which would
adversely affect our competitive positioning in those markets.
In addition, lawsuits or enforcement actions by federal, state
and/or
foreign regulatory agencies may materially increase our costs.
Stricter environmental regulation of air emissions, solid waste
handling or combustion, residual ash handling and disposal, and
waste water discharge could materially affect our cash flow and
profitability. Certain environmental laws make us potentially
liable on a joint and several basis for the remediation of
contamination at or emanating from properties or facilities we
currently or formerly owned or operated or properties to which
we arranged for the disposal of hazardous substances. Such
liability is not limited to the cleanup of contamination we
actually caused. Although we seek to obtain indemnities against
liabilities relating to historical contamination at the
facilities we own or operate, we cannot provide any assurance
that we will not incur liability relating to the remediation of
contamination, including contamination we did not cause.
Our businesses may not be able to obtain or maintain, from time
to time, all required environmental regulatory approvals. If
there is a delay in obtaining any required environmental
regulatory approvals or if we fail to obtain and comply with
them, the operation of our facilities could be jeopardized or
become subject to additional costs.
Energy
regulation could adversely affect our revenues and costs of
operations.
Our waste and energy services businesses are subject to
extensive energy regulations by federal, state and foreign
authorities. We cannot predict whether the federal, state or
foreign governments will modify or adopt new legislation or
regulations relating to the solid waste or energy industries.
The economics, including the costs, of operating our facilities
may be adversely affected by any changes in these regulations or
in their interpretation or implementation or any future
inability to comply with existing or future regulations or
requirements.
The Federal Power Act (FPA) regulates energy
generating companies and their subsidiaries and places
constraints on the conduct of their business. The FPA regulates
wholesale sales of electricity and the transmission of
electricity in interstate commerce by public utilities. Under
the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, our domestic
facilities are exempt from most provisions of the FPA and state
rate regulation. Our foreign projects are also exempt from
regulation under the FPA.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 enacted comprehensive changes to
the domestic energy industry which may affect our businesses.
The Energy Policy Act removed certain regulatory constraints
that previously limited the ability of utilities and utility
holding companies to invest in certain activities and
businesses, which may have the effect over time of increasing
competition in energy markets in which we participate. In
addition, the Energy Policy Act includes provisions that may
remove some of the benefits provided to non-utility electricity
generators, like us, after our existing energy sale contracts
expire. As a result, we may face increased competition after
such expirations occur.
If our businesses lose existing exemptions under the FPA, the
economics and operations of our energy projects could be
adversely affected, including as a result of rate regulation by
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, with respect to our
output of electricity, which could result in lower prices for
sales of electricity. In addition, depending on the terms of the
projects power purchase agreement, a loss of our
exemptions could allow the power
33
purchaser to cease taking and paying for electricity under
existing contracts. Such results could cause the loss of some or
all contract revenues or otherwise impair the value of a project
and could trigger defaults under provisions of the applicable
project contracts and financing agreements. Defaults under such
financing agreements could render the underlying debt
immediately due and payable. Under such circumstances, we cannot
assure you that revenues received, the costs incurred, or both,
in connection with the project could be recovered through sales
to other purchasers.
Failure
to obtain regulatory approvals could adversely affect our
operations.
Our waste and energy services businesses are continually in the
process of obtaining or renewing federal, state, local and
foreign approvals required to operate our facilities. While our
businesses currently have all necessary operating approvals, we
may not always be able to obtain all required regulatory
approvals, and we may not be able to obtain any necessary
modifications to existing regulatory approvals or maintain all
required regulatory approvals. If there is a delay in obtaining
any required regulatory approvals or if we fail to obtain and
comply with any required regulatory approvals, the operation of
our facilities or the sale of electricity to third parties could
be prevented, made subject to additional regulation or subject
our businesses to additional costs or a decrease in revenue.
The
energy industry is becoming increasingly competitive, and we
might not successfully respond to these changes.
We may not be able to respond in a timely or effective manner to
the changes resulting in increased competition in the energy
industry in both domestic and international markets. These
changes may include deregulation of the electric utility
industry in some markets, privatization of the electric utility
industry in other markets and increasing competition in all
markets. To the extent competitive pressures increase and the
pricing and sale of electricity assumes more characteristics of
a commodity business, the economics of our business may be
subject to greater volatility.
Our
substantial indebtedness could adversely affect our business,
financial condition and results of operations and our ability to
meet our payment obligations under our
indebtedness.
The level of our consolidated indebtedness could have
significant consequences on our future operations, including:
|
|
|
|
|
making it difficult for us to meet our payment and other
obligations under our outstanding indebtedness, including the
1.00% Senior Convertible Debentures (the
Debentures);
|
|
|
limiting our ability to obtain additional financing to fund
working capital, capital expenditures, acquisitions and other
general corporate purposes;
|
|
|
subjecting us to the risk of increased sensitivity to interest
rate increases on indebtedness under our credit facilities;
|
|
|
limiting our flexibility in planning for, or reacting to, and
increasing our vulnerability to, changes in our business, the
industries in which we operate and the general economy; and
|
|
|
placing us at a competitive disadvantage compared to our
competitors that have less debt or are less leveraged.
|
Any of the above-listed factors could have an adverse effect on
our business, financial condition and results of operations and
our ability to meet our payment obligations under our
consolidated debt, and the price of our common stock.
We
cannot assure you that our cash flow from operations will be
sufficient to service our indebtedness.
Our ability to meet our obligations under our indebtedness
depends on our ability to generate cash and our ability to
receive dividends and distributions from our subsidiaries in the
future. This, in turn, is subject to many factors, some of which
are beyond our control, including the following:
|
|
|
|
|
the continued operation and maintenance of our facilities,
consistent with historical performance levels;
|
|
|
maintenance or enhancement of revenue from renewals or
replacement of existing contracts and from new contracts to
expand existing facilities or operate additional facilities;
|
34
|
|
|
|
|
market conditions affecting waste disposal and energy pricing,
as well as competition from other companies for contract
renewals, expansions and additional contracts, particularly
after our existing contracts expire; and
|
|
|
general economic, financial, competitive, legislative,
regulatory and other factors.
|
We cannot assure you that our business will generate cash flow
from operations, or that future borrowings will be available to
us under our credit facilities or otherwise, in an amount
sufficient to enable us to meet our payment obligations under
our outstanding indebtedness and to fund other liquidity needs.
If we are not able to generate sufficient cash flow to service
our debt obligations, we may need to refinance or restructure
our debt, sell assets, reduce or delay capital investments, or
seek to raise additional capital. If we are unable to implement
one or more of these alternatives, we may not be able to meet
our payment obligations under our outstanding indebtedness, and
which could have a material and adverse affect on our financial
condition.
Our
debt agreements contain covenant restrictions that may limit our
ability to operate our business.
Our credit facilities contain operating and financial
restrictions and covenants that impose operating and financial
restrictions on us and require us to meet certain financial
tests. Complying with these covenant restrictions may have a
negative impact on our business, results of operations and
financial condition by limiting our ability to engage in certain
transactions or activities, including:
|
|
|
|
|
incurring additional indebtedness or issuing guarantees, in
excess of specified amounts;
|
|
|
creating liens, in excess of specified amounts;
|
|
|
making certain investments, in excess of specified amounts;
|
|
|
entering into transactions with our affiliates;
|
|
|
selling certain assets, in excess of specified amounts;
|
|
|
making cash distributions or paying dividends to us, in excess
of specified amounts;
|
|
|
redeeming capital stock or making other restricted payments to
us, in excess of specified amounts; and
|
|
|
merging or consolidating with any person.
|
Our ability to comply with these covenants is dependent on our
future performance, which will be subject to many factors, some
of which are beyond our control, including prevailing economic
conditions. As a result of these covenants, our ability to
respond to changes in business and economic conditions and to
obtain additional financing, if needed, may be restricted, and
we may be prevented from engaging in transactions that might
otherwise be beneficial to us, or in declaring and paying
dividends to our stockholders. In addition, the failure to
comply with these covenants in our credit facilities could
result in a default thereunder and a default under the
Debentures. Upon the occurrence of such an event of default, the
lenders under our credit facilities could elect to declare all
amounts outstanding under such agreement, together with accrued
interest, to be immediately due and payable. If the lenders
accelerate the payment of the indebtedness under our credit
facilities, we cannot assure you that the assets securing such
indebtedness would be sufficient to repay in full that
indebtedness and our other indebtedness, including the
Debentures, and which could have a material and adverse affect
on our financial condition.
We
cannot be certain that our NOLs will continue to be available to
offset tax liability.
Our net operating loss carryforwards (NOLs), which
offset our consolidated taxable income, will expire in various
amounts, if not used, between 2009 and 2028. The Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) has not audited any of our tax
returns for any of the years during the carryforward period
including those returns for the years in which the losses giving
rise to the NOLs were reported. We cannot assure you that we
would prevail if the IRS were to challenge the availability of
the NOLs. If the IRS were successful in challenging our NOLs,
all or some portion of the NOLs would not be available to offset
our future consolidated taxable income.
As of December 31, 2008, we estimated that we had
approximately $591 million of NOLs. In order to utilize the
NOLs, we must generate consolidated taxable income which can
offset such carryforwards. The NOLs are also used to offset
income from certain grantor trusts that were established as part
of the reorganization in 1990 of certain of our subsidiaries
engaged in the insurance business and are administered by state
regulatory agencies. As the administration of these grantor
trusts is concluded, taxable income could result, which could
utilize a portion of our NOLs and, in turn, could accelerate the
date on which we may be otherwise obligated to pay incremental
cash taxes.
35
In addition, if our existing insurance business were to require
capital infusions from us in order to meet certain regulatory
capital requirements, and we were to fail to provide such
capital, some or all of our subsidiaries comprising our
insurance business could enter insurance insolvency or
bankruptcy proceedings. In such event, such subsidiaries may no
longer be included in our consolidated tax return, and a
portion, which could constitute a significant portion, of our
remaining NOLs may no longer be available to us. In such event,
there may be a significant inclusion of taxable income in our
federal consolidated income tax return.
Our
controls and procedures may not prevent or detect all errors or
acts of fraud.
Our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer, believes that any disclosure controls and
procedures or internal controls and procedures, no matter how
well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not
absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system
are met. Further, the design of a control system must consider
the benefits of controls relative to their costs. Inherent
limitations within a control system include the realities that
judgments in decision-making can be faulty, and that breakdowns
can occur because of simple error or mistake. Additionally,
controls can be circumvented by the individual acts of some
persons, by collusion of two or more people, or by an
unauthorized override of the controls. While the design of any
system of controls is to provide reasonable assurance of the
effectiveness of disclosure controls, such design is also based
in part upon certain assumptions about the likelihood of future
events, and such assumptions, while reasonable, may not take
into account all potential future conditions. Accordingly,
because of the inherent limitations in a cost effective control
system, misstatements due to error or fraud may occur and may
not be prevented or detected.
Failure
to maintain an effective system of internal control over
financial reporting may have an adverse effect on our stock
price.
Pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
and the rules and regulations promulgated by the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) to implement
Section 404, we are required to furnish a report by our
management to include in our annual report on
Form 10-K
regarding the effectiveness of our internal control over
financial reporting. The report includes, among other things, an
assessment of the effectiveness of our internal control over
financial reporting as of the end of our fiscal year, including
a statement as to whether or not our internal control over
financial reporting is effective. This assessment must include
disclosure of any material weaknesses in our internal control
over financial reporting identified by management.
We have in the past discovered, and may potentially in the
future discover, areas of internal control over financial
reporting which may require improvement. If we are unable to
assert that our internal control over financial reporting is
effective now or in any future period, or if our auditors are
unable to express an opinion on the effectiveness of our
internal controls, we could lose investor confidence in the
accuracy and completeness of our financial reports, which could
have an adverse effect on our stock price.
Provisions
of our certificate of incorporation and Debentures could
discourage an acquisition by a third party.
Provisions of our restated certificate of incorporation could
make it more difficult for a third party to acquire control of
us. For example, our restated certificate of incorporation
authorizes our Board of Directors to issue preferred stock
without requiring any stockholder approval, and preferred stock
could be issued as a defensive measure in response to a takeover
proposal. These provisions could make it more difficult for a
third party to acquire us even if an acquisition might be in the
best interest of our stockholders. In addition, certain
provisions of the Debentures could make it more difficult or
more expensive for a third party to acquire us. Upon the
occurrence of certain transactions constituting a fundamental
change, the holders of the Debentures will have the right to
require us to repurchase their Debentures. We may also be
required to issue additional shares upon conversion or provide
for conversion based on the acquirers capital stock in the
event of certain fundamental changes. These possibilities could
discourage an acquisition of us.
36
The
market price of our common stock may fluctuate significantly,
and this may make it difficult for holders to resell our common
stock when they want or at prices that they find
attractive.
The price of our common stock on the New York Stock Exchange
constantly changes. We expect that the market price of our
common stock will continue to fluctuate. In addition, because
the Debentures are convertible into our common stock, volatility
or depressed prices for our common stock could have a similar
effect on the trading price of the Debentures. Consequently,
there can be no assurance as to the liquidity of an investment
in our common stock.
The market price of our common stock may fluctuate as a result
of a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control.
These factors include:
|
|
|
|
|
changes in the waste and energy market conditions;
|
|
|
quarterly variations in our operating results;
|
|
|
our operating results that vary from the expectations of
management, securities analysts and investors;
|
|
|
changes in expectations as to our future financial performance;
|
|
|
announcements of strategic developments, significant contracts,
acquisitions and other material events by us or our competitors;
|
|
|
the operating and securities price performance of other
companies that investors believe are comparable to us;
|
|
|
future sales of our equity or equity-related securities;
|
|
|
changes in the economy and the financial markets;
|
|
|
purchases or sales of large blocks of our stock by existing or
new holders of our common stock;
|
|
|
departures of key personnel;
|
|
|
changes in governmental regulations; and
|
|
|
geopolitical conditions, such as acts or threats of terrorism or
military conflicts.
|
In addition, in recent years, the stock market in general has
experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations. This
volatility has had a significant effect on the market price of
securities issued by many companies for reasons often unrelated
to their operating performance. These broad market fluctuations
may adversely affect the market price of our common stock,
regardless of our operating results.
Future
issuances of our common stock will dilute the ownership
interests of stockholders and may adversely affect the trading
price of our common stock.
We are not restricted from issuing additional shares of our
common stock, or securities convertible into or exchangeable for
our common stock. Future sales of substantial amounts of our
common stock or equity-related securities in the public market,
or the perception that such sales could occur, could materially
and adversely affect prevailing trading prices of our common
stock. In addition, the conversion of some or all of the
Debentures will dilute the ownership interests of our existing
stockholders. Any sales in the public market of our common stock
issuable upon such conversion could adversely affect prevailing
market prices of our common stock. In addition, the existence of
the Debentures may encourage short selling by market
participants because the conversion of the Debentures could
depress the trading price of our common stock.
Concentrated
stock ownership may discourage unsolicited acquisition
proposals.
As of February 12, 2009, SZ Investments, L.L.C., together
with its affiliate, EGI-Fund
(05-07)
Investors, L.L.C., referred to as
Fund 05-07
and, collectively with SZ Investments, L.L.C. SZ
Investments, and Third Avenue Trust, on behalf of Third
Avenue Value Fund, and their affiliates, referred to as
Third Avenue, separately own approximately 10.7% and
5.9%, respectively, or when aggregated, approximately 16.6% of
our outstanding common stock. Although there are no agreements
among SZ Investments and Third Avenue regarding their voting or
disposition of shares of our common stock, the level of their
combined ownership of shares of our common stock could have the
effect of discouraging or impeding an unsolicited acquisition
proposal. Further, as a result, these stockholders may continue
to have the ability to influence the election or removal of our
directors and influence the outcome of matters presented for
approval by our stockholders. Circumstances may occur in which
the interests of these stockholders could be in conflict with
the holders of the Debentures.
37
|
|
Item 1B.
|
UNRESOLVED
STAFF COMMENTS
|
None.
We own 5.4 acres in Fairfield, New Jersey where our
corporate offices reside. In addition, we lease various office
facilities in California aggregating approximately
25,539 square feet and we own undeveloped land in
Massachusetts and California aggregating approximately
95 acres. As of December 31, 2008, we owned, had
equity investment in
and/or
operated 64 domestic projects consisting of 35 energy-from-waste
operations, four landfills, ten transfer stations, eight wood
waste (biomass) energy projects, two water (hydroelectric)
energy projects, and five landfill gas energy projects.
Principal projects are described above under Item 1.
Business Domestic Business. Domestic projects
noted which we own or lease are conducted at properties, which
we also own or lease, aggregating approximately
1,674 acres, of which approximately 1,333 acres are
owned and approximately 341 acres are leased.
We operate our international projects through a network of
offices located in Shanghai, Beijing and Guangzhou, China;
Chennai, India; Manila, Philippines; Dublin, Ireland; and
Birmingham, England, where we lease office space aggregating
approximately 27,018 square feet. As of December 31,
2008, we are the part owner/operator of ten international
projects of which three are owned or controlled by subsidiaries
with businesses conducted at properties aggregating
approximately 89 acres. Principal projects are described
above under Item 1. Business International
Business.
|
|
Item 3.
|
LEGAL
PROCEEDINGS
|
For information regarding legal proceedings, see Note 21.
Commitments and Contingencies of the Notes to the Consolidated
Financial Statements in Item 8, which information is
incorporated herein by reference.
|
|
Item 4.
|
SUBMISSION
OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS
|
No matters were submitted to a vote of stockholders, through the
solicitation of proxies or otherwise, during the quarter ended
December 31, 2008.
38
PART II
|
|
Item 5.
|
MARKET
FOR THE REGISTRANTS COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER
MATTERS, AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES
|
Our common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under
the symbol CVA. On February 12, 2009, there
were approximately 1,640 holders of record of our common stock.
On February 12, 2009, the closing price of our common stock
on the New York Stock Exchange was $19.28 per share. The
following table sets forth the high and low stock prices of our
common stock for the last two years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
High
|
|
|
Low
|
|
|
High
|
|
|
Low
|
|
|
First Quarter
|
|
$
|
29.50
|
|
|
$
|
22.89
|
|
|
$
|
24.22
|
|
|
$
|
21.29
|
|
Second Quarter
|
|
$
|
30.37
|
|
|
$
|
26.03
|
|
|
$
|
26.35
|
|
|
$
|
21.69
|
|
Third Quarter
|
|
$
|
29.86
|
|
|
$
|
20.40
|
|
|
$
|
26.50
|
|
|
$
|
20.60
|
|
Fourth Quarter
|
|
$
|
23.78
|
|
|
$
|
15.46
|
|
|
$
|
28.82
|
|
|
$
|
23.16
|
|
We have not paid dividends on our common stock and do not expect
to declare or pay any dividends in the foreseeable future. We
currently intend to retain all earnings to fund operations and
expansion of our business. Under current financing arrangements,
there are restrictions on the ability of our subsidiaries to
transfer funds to us in the form of cash dividends, loans or
advances that would likely limit the future payment of dividends
on our common stock. See Item 7. Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations Liquidity and Capital Resources and
Note 6. Long-Term Debt of the Notes to the Consolidated
Financial Statements in Item 8.
|
|
Item 6.
|
SELECTED
FINANCIAL DATA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005(1)
|
|
|
2004(2)
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except per share amounts)
|
|
|
Statements of Operations Data
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating revenues
|
|
$
|
1,664,253
|
|
|
$
|
1,433,087
|
|
|
$
|
1,268,536
|
|
|
$
|
978,763
|
|
|
$
|
576,196
|
|
Equity in net income from unconsolidated investments
|
|
$
|
23,583
|
|
|
$
|
22,196
|
|
|
$
|
28,636
|
|
|
$
|
25,609
|
|
|
$
|
17,024
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
139,273
|
|
|
$
|
130,513
|
|
|
$
|
105,789
|
|
|
$
|
59,326
|
|
|
$
|
34,094
|
|
Income per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
$
|
0.91
|
|
|
$
|
0.85
|
|
|
$
|
0.73
|
|
|
$
|
0.49
|
|
|
$
|
0.39
|
|
Diluted
|
|
$
|
0.90
|
|
|
$
|
0.85
|
|
|
$
|
0.72
|
|
|
$
|
0.46
|
|
|
$
|
0.37
|
|
Weighted average common shares outstanding:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
|
153,345
|
|
|
|
152,653
|
|
|
|
145,663
|
|
|
|
122,209
|
|
|
|
88,543
|
|
Diluted
|
|
|
154,732
|
|
|
|
153,997
|
|
|
|
147,030
|
|
|
|
127,910
|
|
|
|
91,199
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005(1)
|
|
|
2004(2)
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except per share amounts)
|
|
|
Balance Sheet Data
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
192,393
|
|
|
$
|
149,406
|
|
|
$
|
233,442
|
|
|
$
|
128,556
|
|
|
$
|
96,148
|
|
Restricted funds held in trust
|
|
$
|
324,911
|
|
|
$
|
379,864
|
|
|
$
|
407,921
|
|
|
$
|
447,432
|
|
|
$
|
239,918
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
$
|
2,530,035
|
|
|
$
|
2,620,507
|
|
|
$
|
2,637,923
|
|
|
$
|
2,724,843
|
|
|
$
|
819,400
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
4,279,989
|
|
|
$
|
4,368,499
|
|
|
$
|
4,437,820
|
|
|
$
|
4,702,165
|
|
|
$
|
1,939,081
|
|
Long-term debt
|
|
$
|
1,012,887
|
|
|
$
|
1,019,432
|
|
|
$
|
1,260,123
|
|
|
$
|
1,308,119
|
|
|
$
|
312,896
|
|
Project debt
|
|
$
|
1,078,370
|
|
|
$
|
1,280,275
|
|
|
$
|
1,435,947
|
|
|
$
|
1,598,284
|
|
|
$
|
944,737
|
|
Stockholders equity
|
|
$
|
1,152,119
|
|
|
$
|
1,026,062
|
|
|
$
|
739,152
|
|
|
$
|
599,241
|
|
|
$
|
134,815
|
|
Book value per share of common stock(3)
|
|
$
|
7.47
|
|
|
$
|
6.67
|
|
|
$
|
5.01
|
|
|
$
|
4.24
|
|
|
$
|
1.84
|
|
Shares of common stock outstanding
|
|
|
154,280
|
|
|
|
153,922
|
|
|
|
147,500
|
|
|
|
141,166
|
|
|
|
73,430
|
|
39
|
|
|
(1) |
|
For the year ended December 31, 2005, Covanta ARC Holdings,
Inc.s results of operations were included in our
consolidated results subsequent to June 24, 2005. |
|
(2) |
|
For the year ended December 31, 2004, Covanta Energy
Corporations results of operations were included in our
consolidated results subsequent to March 10, 2004. |
|
(3) |
|
Book value per share of common stock is calculated by dividing
stockholders equity by the number of shares of common
stock outstanding. |
|
|
Item 7.
|
MANAGEMENTS
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF
OPERATIONS
|
The terms we, our, ours,
us and Company refer to Covanta Holding
Corporation and its subsidiaries; the term Covanta
Energy refers to our subsidiary Covanta Energy Corporation
and its subsidiaries.
OVERVIEW
We are a leading developer, owner and operator of infrastructure
for the conversion of waste to energy (known as
energy-from-waste), as well as other waste disposal
and renewable energy production businesses in the Americas,
Europe and Asia. We are organized as a holding company and
conduct all of our operations through subsidiaries which are
engaged predominantly in the businesses of waste and energy
services. We also engage in the independent power production
business outside the Americas. We have investments in
subsidiaries engaged in insurance operations in California
primarily in property and casualty insurance.
We own, have equity investments in,
and/or
operate 60 energy generation facilities, 50 of which are in the
United States and 10 of which are located outside the United
States. Our energy generation facilities use a variety of fuels,
including municipal solid waste, wood waste (biomass), landfill
gas, water (hydroelectric), natural gas, coal, and heavy
fuel-oil. We also own or operate several businesses that are
associated with our energy-from-waste business, including a
waste procurement business, a biomass procurement business, four
landfills, which we use primarily for ash disposal, and several
waste transfer stations.
We continue to focus on enhancing stockholder value by
implementing our financial, operating and growth strategies.
Revenues were $1,664 million, $1,433 million, and
$1,269 million and operating income was $256 million,
$237 million, and $227 million for the years ended
December 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006, respectively. The
increase in revenues and operating income over the past three
years is primarily attributable to the successful execution of
our operating and growth strategies.
Our mission is to be the worlds leading energy-from-waste
company, with a complementary network of renewable energy
generation and waste disposal assets. We expect to build value
for our stockholders by satisfying our clients waste
disposal and energy generation needs with safe, reliable and
environmentally superior solutions. In order to accomplish this
mission and create additional value for our stockholders, we are
focused on:
|
|
|
|
|
providing customers with superior service and effectively
managing our existing businesses;
|
|
|
generating sufficient cash to meet our liquidity needs and
invest in the business; and
|
|
|
developing new projects and making acquisitions to grow our
business in the Americas, Europe and Asia.
|
We believe that our business offers solutions to public sector
leaders around the world in two related elements of critical
infrastructure: waste disposal and renewable energy generation.
We believe that the environmental benefits of energy-from-waste,
as an alternative to landfilling, are clear and compelling:
utilizing energy-from-waste reduces greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions, lowers the risk of groundwater
contamination, and conserves land. At the same time,
energy-from-waste generates clean, reliable energy from a
renewable fuel source, thus reducing dependence on fossil fuels,
the combustion of which is itself a major contributor to GHG
emissions. As public planners in the Americas, Europe and Asia
address their needs for more environmentally sustainable waste
disposal and energy generation in the years ahead, we believe
that energy-from-waste will be an increasingly attractive
alternative. We will also consider, for application in domestic
and international markets, acquiring or developing new
technologies that complement our existing renewable energy and
waste services businesses.
Our business offers sustainable solutions to energy and
environmental problems, and our corporate culture is
increasingly focused on themes of sustainability in all of its
forms. We aspire to continuous improvement in
40
environmental performance, beyond mere compliance with legally
required standards. This ethos is embodied in our Clean
World Initiative, an umbrella program under which we are:
|
|
|
|
|
investing in research and development of new technologies to
enhance existing operations and create new business
opportunities in renewable energy and waste management;
|
|
|
exploring and implementing processes and technologies at our
facilities to improve energy efficiency and lessen environmental
impacts; and
|
|
|
partnering with governments and non-governmental organizations
to pursue sustainable programs, reduce the use of
environmentally harmful materials in commerce and communicate
the benefits of energy-from-waste.
|
Our Clean World Initiative is designed to be consistent with our
mission to be the worlds leading energy-from-waste company
by providing environmentally superior solutions, advancing our
technical expertise and creating new business opportunities. It
represents an investment in our future that we believe will
enhance stockholder value.
Also in order to create new business opportunities and benefits
and enhance stockholder value, we are actively engaged in the
current discussion among policy makers in the United States
regarding the benefits of energy-from-waste and the reduction of
our dependence on landfilling for waste disposal and fossil
fuels for energy. Given the current economic dislocations and
related unemployment, the Obama administration is also expected
to focus on economic stimulus and job creation. We believe that
the construction and permanent jobs created by additional
energy-from-waste development represents the type of green
jobs, on critical infrastructure, that will be consistent
with the administrations focus. The extent to which we are
successful in growing our business will depend in part on our
ability to effectively communicate the benefits of
energy-from-waste to public planners seeking waste disposal
solutions, and to policy makers seeking to encourage renewable
energy technologies (and the associated green jobs)
as viable alternatives to reliance on fossil fuels as a source
of energy.
Our senior management team has extensive experience in
developing, constructing, operating, acquiring and integrating
waste and energy services businesses. We intend to continue to
focus our efforts on pursuing development and acquisition-based
growth. We anticipate that a part of our future growth will come
from acquiring or investing in additional energy-from-waste,
waste disposal and renewable energy production businesses in the
Americas, Europe and Asia. Our business is capital intensive
because it is based upon building and operating municipal solid
waste processing and energy generating projects. In order to
provide meaningful growth through development, we must be able
to invest our funds, obtain equity
and/or debt
financing, and provide support to our operating subsidiaries.
Economic
Factors Affecting Business Conditions
The recent economic slowdown, both in the United States and
internationally, has reduced demand for goods and services
generally, which tends to reduce overall volumes of waste
requiring disposal, and the pricing at which we can attract
waste to fill available capacity. At the same time, the sharp
declines in global oil prices have pushed energy pricing lower
generally, and may reduce the prices for the portion of the
energy we sell under short term arrangements. Lastly, the
downturn in economic activity tends to reduce global demand for
and pricing of certain commodities, such as the scrap metals we
recycle from our energy-from-waste facilities. The combination
of these factors could reduce our revenue and cash flow.
The same economic slowdown may reduce the demand for the waste
disposal services and the energy that our facilities offer. Many
of our customers are municipalities and public authorities,
which are generally experiencing fiscal pressure as local and
central governments seek to reduce expenses in order to address
declining tax revenues which may result from the recent economic
dislocations and increases in unemployment. At the same time,
dislocations in the financial sector may make it more difficult,
and more costly, to finance new projects. These factors,
particularly in the absence of energy policies which encourage
renewable technologies such as energy-from-waste, may make it
more difficult for us to sell waste disposal services or energy
at prices sufficient to allow us to grow our business through
developing and building new projects.
41
Acquisitions
and Business Development
In our domestic business, we are pursuing additional growth
opportunities through project expansions, new energy-from-waste
and other renewable energy projects, contract extensions,
acquisitions, and businesses ancillary to our existing business,
such as additional waste transfer, transportation, processing
and disposal.
We are also pursuing international waste
and/or
renewable energy business opportunities, particularly in
locations where the market demand, regulatory environment or
other factors encourage technologies such as energy-from-waste
to reduce dependence on landfilling for waste disposal and
fossil fuels for energy production in order to reduce GHG
emissions. In particular, we are focusing on the United Kingdom,
Ireland and China, and are also pursuing opportunities in
certain markets in Europe and in Canada and other markets in the
Americas.
2008
acquisitions and business development
Domestic
Business
|
|
|
|
|
We acquired Indeck Maine, LLC from co-owners Ridgewood Maine,
L.L.C. and Indeck Energy Services, Inc. Indeck Maine, LLC owned
and operated two biomass energy facilities. The two nearly
identical facilities, located in West Enfield and Jonesboro,
Maine, added a total of 49 gross megawatts (MW)
to our renewable energy portfolio. We have begun to sell the
electric output and intend to sell renewable energy credits from
these facilities into the New England market. We acquired these
two facilities for cash consideration of approximately
$53.3 million, net of cash acquired, subject to final
working capital adjustments.
|
|
|
|
We acquired an energy-from-waste facility in Tulsa, Oklahoma
from The CIT Group/Equipment Financing, Inc. for cash
consideration of approximately $12.7 million. The design
capacity of the facility is 1,125 tons per day (tpd)
of waste and gross electric capacity of 16.5 MW. This
facility was shut down by the prior owner in the summer of 2007
and we returned two of the facilitys three boilers to
service in November 2008, and plan to return its third boiler to
service during 2009. During the year ended December 31,
2008, we invested approximately $4.9 million in capital
improvements to restore the operational performance of the
facility.
|
|
|
|
We acquired a landfill for the disposal of ash in Peabody,
Massachusetts for cash consideration of approximately
$7.4 million. We expect to utilize this landfill for
disposal of ash from energy-from-waste facilities in the
Northeast United States, including those that we own or operate.
|
|
|
|
We entered into new tip fee contracts which will supply waste to
the Wallingford, Connecticut facility, following the expiration
of the existing service fee contract in 2010. These contracts in
total are expected to supply waste utilizing most or all of the
facilitys capacity through 2020.
|
|
|
|
We entered into a new tip fee contract with Kent County in
Michigan which commenced on January 1, 2009 and extended
the existing contract from 2010 to 2023. This contract is
expected to supply waste utilizing most or all of the
facilitys capacity. Previously this was a service fee
contract.
|
|
|
|
We entered into a new service fee contract with the Pasco County
Commission in Florida which commenced on January 1, 2009
and extended the existing contract from 2011 to 2016.
|
|
|
|
We entered into a new tip fee contract with the City of
Indianapolis for a term of 10 years which commenced upon
expiration of the existing service fee contract in December
2008. This contract represents approximately 50% of the
facilitys capacity.
|
|
|
|
We entered into various agreements with multiple partners to
invest in the development, testing or licensing of new
technologies related to the transformation of waste materials
into renewable fuels or the generation of energy. Initial
licensing fees and demonstration unit purchases approximated
$6.5 million during 2008.
|
International
Business
|
|
|
|
|
We entered into an agreement with Beijing Baoluo Investment Co.,
Ltd. (Beijing Baoluo) to purchase a direct 58% equity
interest in the Fuzhou project, a 1,200 metric tpd 24 MW
mass-burn energy-from-waste project in China, for approximately
$14 million. This purchase is conditional upon various
regulatory and
|
42
|
|
|
|
|
other conditions precedent and is expected to close in early
2009. In 2007, we acquired a 40% equity interest in Chongqing
Sanfeng Covanta Environmental Industry Co., Ltd.
(Sanfeng), a company located in Chongqing
Municipality, Peoples Republic of China, which is engaged
in the business of owning and operating energy-from-waste
projects and providing design and engineering, procurement and
construction services for energy-from-waste facilities in China.
Sanfeng owns a 32% equity interest in the Fuzhou project.
|
|
|
|
|
|
We and Chongqing Iron & Steel Company (Group) Limited
have entered into a 25 year contract to build, own, and
operate an 1,800 tpd energy-from-waste facility for Chengdu
Municipality in Sichuan Province, Peoples Republic of
China. In connection with this award, we invested
$17.1 million for a 49% equity interest in the project
joint venture company. The Chengdu project is expected to
commence construction in early 2009, and commence operations in
2011.
|
2007
acquisitions and business development
Domestic
Business
|
|
|
|
|
We acquired the operating businesses of EnergyAnswers
Corporation (EnergyAnswers) for cash consideration
of approximately $41 million. We also assumed net debt of
$21 million ($23 million of consolidated indebtedness
net of $2 million of restricted funds held in trust). These
businesses include a 400 tpd energy-from-waste facility in
Springfield, Massachusetts and a 240 tpd energy-from-waste
facility in Pittsfield, Massachusetts. Both energy-from-waste
projects have tip fee type contracts. Approximately 75% of waste
revenues are contracted for at these facilities. In addition, we
acquired businesses that include a landfill operation for ash
disposal in Springfield, Massachusetts, and two transfer
stations, one in Canaan, New York, permitted to transfer 600 tpd
of waste, and the other located at the Springfield
energy-from-waste facility, permitted to transfer 500 tpd of
waste. We subsequently sold certain assets acquired in this
transaction for a total consideration of $5.8 million
during the fourth quarter of 2007 and during the first quarter
of 2008.
|
|
|
|
We acquired Central Valley Biomass Holdings, LLC (Central
Valley) from The AES Corporation. Under the terms of
the purchase agreement, we paid cash consideration of
$51 million, plus approximately $5 million in cash
related to post-closing adjustments and transaction costs.
Central Valley owned two biomass energy facilities and a biomass
energy fuel management business, all located in
Californias Central Valley. These facilities added
75 MW to our portfolio of renewable energy plants. In
addition, we invested approximately $8 million prior to
December 31, 2007, and approximately $11 million
during the year ended December 31, 2008, in capital
improvements to increase the facilities productivity and
improve environmental performance. These capital improvements
were completed prior to September 30, 2008.
|
|
|
|
We entered into a new tip fee contract with the Town of
Hempstead in New York for a term of 25 years commencing
upon expiration of the existing contract in August 2009. This
contract provides approximately 50% of the facilitys
capacity. We also entered into new tip fee contracts with other
customers that expire between February 2011 and December 2014.
These contracts provide an additional 40% of the facilitys
capacity.
|
|
|
|
We acquired two waste transfer stations in Westchester County,
New York from Regus Industries, LLC for cash consideration of
approximately $7.3 million. These facilities increased our
total waste capacity by approximately 1,150 tpd and enhance our
portfolio of transfer stations in the Northeast United States.
|
|
|
|
We acquired a waste transfer station in Holliston, Massachusetts
from Casella Waste Systems Inc. for cash consideration of
approximately $7.5 million. This facility increased our
total waste capacity by approximately 700 tpd. In addition, we
invested approximately $4.2 million prior to
December 31, 2007 and approximately $1 million during
the year ended December 31, 2008 in capital improvements to
enhance the environmental and operational performance of the
transfer station.
|
|
|
|
We completed the expansion and commenced the operation of the
expanded energy-from-waste facility located in and owned by Lee
County in Florida. We expanded waste processing capacity from
1,200 tpd to
|
43
|
|
|
|
|
1,836 tpd and increased gross electricity capacity from
36.9 MW to 57.3 MW. As part of the agreement to
implement this expansion, we received a long-term operating
contract extension expiring in 2024.
|
|
|
|
|
|
We entered into a ten year agreement to maintain and operate an
800 tpd energy-from-waste facility located in Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania and obtained a right of first refusal to purchase
the facility. Under the agreement, the term of which commenced
February 1, 2008 following satisfaction of certain
conditions precedent, we will earn a base annual service fee of
approximately $10.5 million, which is subject to annual
escalation and certain performance-based adjustments. We have
also agreed to provide construction management services and to
advance up to $25.5 million in funding for certain facility
improvements required to enhance facility performance, the
repayment of which is guaranteed by the City of Harrisburg. As
of December 31, 2008, we advanced $8.2 million under
this funding arrangement. The facility improvements are expected
to be completed by mid 2009.
|
|
|
|
We designed, constructed, operate and maintain the 1,200 tpd
mass-burn energy-from-waste facility located in and owned by
Hillsborough County in Florida. In August 2005, we entered into
agreements with Hillsborough County to implement an expansion,
and to extend the agreement under which we operate the facility
to 2027. During 2006, environmental and other project related
permits were secured and the expansion construction commenced on
December 29, 2006. Completion of the expansion, and
commencement of the operation of the expanded project, is
expected in 2009.
|
|
|
|
We acquired an additional 5% ownership interest in Pacific
Ultrapower Chinese Station, a biomass energy facility located in
California, which increased our equity ownership interest to 55%.
|
International
Business
|
|
|
|
|
In December 2007, we entered into a joint venture with Guangzhou
Development Power Investment Co., Ltd. through which we intend
to develop energy-from-waste projects in Guangdong Province,
Peoples Republic of China. We hold a 40% equity interest
in the joint venture entity, Guangzhou Development Covanta
Environmental Energy Co., Ltd (GDC Environmental
Energy), and on June 6, 2008, we invested
$1.5 million in this joint venture following receipt of
final government approvals. We expect to make additional
investments as and when GDC Environmental Energy is successful
in developing projects.
|
|
|
|
We purchased a 40% equity interest in Sanfeng, a company located
in Chongqing Municipality, Peoples Republic of China.
Sanfeng is engaged in the business of owning and operating
energy-from-waste projects and providing design and engineering,
procurement and construction services for energy-from-waste
facilities in China. Sanfeng currently owns minority equity
interests in two 1,200 metric tpd 24 MW mass-burn
energy-from-waste projects. Chongqing Iron & Steel
Company (Group) Limited holds the remaining 60% equity interest
in Sanfeng. We paid approximately $10 million in connection
with our investment in Sanfeng. We expect to utilize Sanfeng as
a key component of our effort to grow our energy-from-waste
business in China. We expect to make additional investments as
and when Sanfeng is successful in developing additional projects.
|
|
|
|
We announced that we have entered into definitive agreements for
the development of a 1,700 metric tpd energy-from-waste project
serving the City of Dublin, Ireland and surrounding communities.
The Dublin project, which marks our most significant entry to
date into the European waste and renewable energy markets, is
being developed and will be owned by Dublin Waste to Energy
Limited, which we control and co-own with DONG Energy Generation
A/S. Under the Dublin project agreements, several customary
conditions must be satisfied before full construction can begin,
including the issuance of all required licenses and permits and
approvals.
|
|
|
|
We are responsible for the design and construction of the
project, which is estimated to cost approximately
350 million euros and will require 36 months to
complete, once full construction commences. We will operate and
maintain the project for Dublin Waste to Energy Limited, which
has a
25-year tip
fee type contract with Dublin to provide disposal service for
approximately 320,000 metric tons of waste annually. The project
is structured on a build-own-operate-transfer model, where
ownership will transfer to Dublin after the
25-year
term, unless extended. The project is expected to sell
electricity into the local grid under short-term arrangements.
We and DONG Energy Generation A/S have committed to provide
financing for
|
44
|
|
|
|
|
all phases of the project, and we expect to arrange for project
financing. The primary approvals and licenses for the project
have been obtained, and any remaining consents and approvals
necessary to begin full construction are expected to be obtained
in due course. We have begun to perform preliminary site
demolition work and expect to commence full construction during
the second quarter of 2009.
|
Business
Segments
Our reportable segments are Domestic and International, which
are comprised of our domestic and international waste and energy
services operations, respectively.
Domestic
For all energy-from-waste projects, we receive revenue from two
primary sources: fees charged for operating projects or
processing waste received and payments for electricity and steam
sales. We also operate, and in some cases have ownership
interests in, transfer stations and landfills which generate
revenue from waste and ash disposal fees or operating fees. In
addition, we own and in some cases operate, other renewable
energy projects in the United States which generate electricity
from wood waste (biomass), landfill gas, and hydroelectric
resources. The electricity from these other renewable energy
projects is sold to utilities. For these projects, we receive
revenue from electricity sales, and in some cases cash from
equity distributions.
International
We have ownership interests in
and/or
operate facilities internationally, including independent power
production facilities in the Philippines, Bangladesh and India
where we generate electricity by combusting coal, natural gas
and heavy fuel-oil, and energy-from-waste facilities in China
and Italy. We receive revenue from operating fees, electricity
and steam sales, and in some cases cash from equity
distributions.
Contract
Structures
Most of our energy-from-waste projects were developed and
structured contractually as part of competitive procurement
processes conducted by municipal entities. As a result, many of
these projects have common features. However, each service
agreement is different reflecting the specific needs and
concerns of a client community, applicable regulatory
requirements and other factors. Often, we design the facility,
help to arrange for financing and then we either construct and
equip the facility on a fixed price and schedule basis, or we
undertake an alternative role, such as construction management,
if that better meets the goals of our municipal client.
Following construction and during operations, we receive revenue
from two primary sources: fees we receive for operating projects
or for processing waste received, and payments we receive for
electricity
and/or steam
we sell.
We have 22 domestic energy-from-waste projects where we charge a
fixed fee (which escalates over time pursuant to contractual
indices that we believe are appropriate to reflect price
inflation) for operation and maintenance services. We refer to
these projects as having a Service Fee structure.
Our contracts at Service Fee projects provide revenue that does
not materially vary based on the amount of waste processed or
energy generated and as such is relatively stable for the
contract term. In addition, at most of our Service Fee projects,
the operating subsidiary retains only a fraction of the energy
revenues generated, with the balance used to provide a credit to
the municipal client against its disposal costs. Therefore, in
these projects, the municipal client derives most of the benefit
and risk of energy production and changing energy prices.
We also have 16 energy-from-waste projects (13 domestic and 3
international) at which we receive a per-ton fee under contracts
for processing waste. We refer to these projects as having a
Tip Fee structure. At Tip Fee projects, we generally
enter into long-term waste disposal contracts for a substantial
portion of project disposal capacity and retain all of the
energy revenue generated. These Tip Fee service agreements
include stated fixed fees earned by us for processing waste up
to certain base contractual amounts during specified periods.
These Tip Fee service agreements also set forth the per-ton fees
that are payable if we accept waste in excess of the base
contractual amounts. The waste disposal and energy revenue from
these projects is more dependent upon operating performance and,
as such, is subject to greater revenue fluctuation to the extent
performance levels fluctuate.
Under both structures, our returns are expected to be stable if
we do not incur material unexpected operation and maintenance
costs or other expenses. In addition, most of our
energy-from-waste project contracts are
45
structured so that contract counterparties generally bear, or
share in, the costs associated with events or circumstances not
within our control, such as uninsured force majeure events and
changes in legal requirements. The stability of our revenues and
returns could be affected by our ability to continue to enforce
these obligations. Also, at some of our energy-from-waste
facilities, commodity price risk is mitigated by passing through
commodity costs to contract counterparties. With respect to our
other domestic renewable energy projects and international
independent power projects, such structural features generally
do not exist because either we operate and maintain such
facilities for our own account or we do so on a cost-plus basis
rather than a fixed-fee basis.
We generally sell the energy output from our projects to local
utilities pursuant to long-term contracts. Where a Service Fee
structure exists, our client community usually retains most
(generally 90%) of the energy revenues generated and pays the
balance to us. Where Tip Fee structures exist, we generally
retain 100% of the energy revenues. At several of our
energy-from-waste projects, we sell energy output under
short-term contracts or on a spot-basis to our customers. At our
Tip Fee projects, we generally have a greater exposure to energy
market price fluctuation, as well as a greater exposure to
variability in project operating performance.
We receive the majority of our revenue under short and long term
contracts, with little or no exposure to price volatility, but
with adjustments intended to reflect changes in our costs. Where
our revenue is received under other arrangements and depending
upon the revenue source, we have varying amounts of exposure to
price volatility. The largest component of this revenue is
comprised of waste revenue, which has generally not been subject
to material price volatility. Energy and metal pricing tends to
be more volatile. During the second and third quarters of 2008,
pricing for energy and recycled metals reached historically high
levels and has subsequently declined materially.
At some of our domestic renewable energy and international
independent power projects, our operating subsidiaries purchase
fuel in the open markets which exposes us to fuel price risk. At
other plants, fuel costs are contractually included in our
electricity revenues, or fuel is provided by our customers. In
some of our international projects, the project entity (which in
some cases is not our subsidiary) has entered into long-term
fuel purchase contracts that protect the project from changes in
fuel prices, provided counterparties to such contracts perform
their commitments.
Contract
Duration
We operate energy-from-waste projects under long-term
agreements. For those projects we own, our contract to sell the
projects energy output (either electricity or steam)
generally expires at or after the date when the initial term of
our contract to operate or receive waste also expires.
Expiration of these contracts will subject us to greater market
risk in maintaining and enhancing revenues as we enter into new
contracts. Following the expiration of the initial contracts, we
intend to enter into replacement or additional contracts for
waste supplies and will sell our energy output either into the
regional electricity grid or pursuant to new contracts. Because
project debt on these facilities will be paid off at such time,
we believe that we will be able to offer disposal services at
rates that will attract sufficient quantities of waste and
provide acceptable revenues. For those projects we operate but
do not own, prior to the expiration of the initial term of our
operating contract, we will seek to enter into renewal or
replacement contracts to continue operating such projects. We
will seek to bid competitively in the market for additional
contracts to operate other facilities as similar contracts of
other vendors expire.
Energy-from-Waste
Project Ownership
In our domestic business, we operate many publicly-owned
energy-from-waste facilities and own and operate many other
energy-from-waste facilities. In addition, we operate several
projects under a lease structure where a third party lessor owns
the project. Regardless of ownership structure, we provide the
same service to our municipal clients and customers.
Under any of these ownership structures, the municipalities
typically borrow funds to pay for the facility construction by
issuing bonds. In a private ownership structure, the municipal
entity loans the bond proceeds to the project subsidiary, the
facility is recorded as an asset, and the project debt is
recorded as a liability, on our consolidated balance sheet. In a
public ownership structure, the municipality would fund the
construction costs without loaning the bond proceeds to us.
46
At all projects where a Service Fee structure exists (regardless
of ownership structure), our municipal clients are generally
responsible contractually for paying the project debt after
construction is complete. At the 10 publicly-owned Service Fee
projects we operate, the municipality pays periodic debt service
directly to a trustee under an indenture. We own 13 projects
where a Service Fee structure exists, and at the majority of
these projects the municipal client pays debt service as a
component of a monthly service fee payment to us.
At projects we own where a Service Fee structure exists, a
portion of the revenue we receive represents payments by the
client community of debt service on project debt, which we pass
along to a bond trustee for payment to bondholders of principal
and interest when due. These payments will continue until cash
in project debt service reserves is sufficient to pay all
remaining debt service payments. Generally, this occurs in the
final year of the service contracts, and during that year we
will receive little or no payments representing project debt
principal, and as a result we record little or no cash provided
by operating activities during that period with respect to the
debt for such projects.
For all projects where a Tip Fee structure exists, neither debt
service nor lease rent is expressly included in the fee paid to
us. Accordingly, we do not record revenue reflecting principal
on this project debt or on lease rent. In most cases, our
operating subsidiaries for these projects make equal monthly
deposits with their respective project trustees in amounts
sufficient for the trustees to pay principal and interest, or
lease rent, when due.
The term of our operating contracts with municipal clients
generally coincides with the term of the bonds issued to pay for
the project construction. In many cases, the municipality has
contractual rights (not obligations) to extend the contract. If
a contract is not extended on a publicly-owned project, our
role, and our revenue, with respect to that project would cease.
If a contract is not extended on a project that we own, we would
be free to enter into new revenue generating contracts for waste
supply (with the municipality, other municipalities, or private
waste haulers) and for electricity or steam sales. We would, in
such cases, have no remaining project debt to repay from project
revenue, and would be entitled to retain 100% of energy sales
revenue.
Seasonal
Trends
Our quarterly operating income from domestic and international
operations within the same fiscal year typically differs
substantially due to seasonal factors, primarily as a result of
the timing of scheduled plant maintenance. We typically conduct
scheduled maintenance periodically each year, which requires
that individual boiler units temporarily cease operations.
During these scheduled maintenance periods, we incur material
repair and maintenance expenses and receive less revenue, until
the boiler units resume operations. This scheduled maintenance
typically occurs during periods of off-peak electric demand in
the spring and fall. The spring scheduled maintenance period is
typically more extensive than scheduled maintenance conducted
during the fall. As a result, we typically incur the highest
maintenance expense in the first half of the year. Given these
factors, we typically experience lower operating income from our
projects during the first six months of each year and higher
operating income during the second six months of each year.
Other
Factors Affecting Performance
We have historically performed our operating obligations without
experiencing material unexpected service interruptions or
incurring material increases in costs. In addition, with respect
to many of our contracts, we generally have limited our exposure
for risks not within our control. With respect to projects
acquired in acquisitions, we have assumed contracts where there
is less contractual protection against such risks and more
exposure to market influences. For additional information about
such risks and damages that we may owe for unexcused operating
performance failures, see Item 1A. Risk Factors. In
monitoring and assessing the ongoing operating and financial
performance of our businesses, we focus on certain key factors:
tons of waste processed, electricity and steam sold, and boiler
availability.
Our ability to meet or exceed historical levels of performance
at projects, and our general financial performance, is affected
by the following:
|
|
|
|
|
Seasonal or long-term changes in market prices for waste,
energy, or ferrous and non-ferrous metals, for projects where we
sell into those markets;
|
|
|
Seasonal geographic changes in the price and availability of
wood waste as fuel for our biomass facilities;
|
47
|
|
|
|
|
Seasonal, geographic and other variations in the heat content of
waste processed, and thereby the amount of waste that can be
processed by an energy-from-waste facility;
|
|
|
Our ability to avoid unexpected increases in operating and
maintenance costs while ensuring that adequate facility
maintenance is conducted so that historic levels of operating
performance can be sustained;
|
|
|
Contract counterparties ability to fulfill their
obligations, including the ability of our various municipal
customers to supply waste in contractually committed amounts,
and the availability of alternate or additional sources of waste
if excess processing capacity exists at our facilities; and
|
|
|
The availability and adequacy of insurance to cover losses from
business interruption in the event of casualty or other insured
events.
|
General financial performance at our international projects is
also affected by the following:
|
|
|
|
|
Changes in fuel price for projects in which such costs are not
completely passed through to the electricity purchaser through
revenue adjustments, or delays in the effectiveness of revenue
adjustments;
|
|
|
The amounts of electricity actually requested by purchasers of
electricity, and whether or when such requests are made, our
facilities are then available to deliver such electricity;
|
|
|
The financial condition and creditworthiness of purchasers of
power and services provided by us;
|
|
|
Fluctuations in the value of the domestic currency against the
value of the U.S. dollar for projects in which we are paid
in whole or in part in the domestic currency of the host
country; and
|
|
|
Political risks inherent to the international business which
could affect both the ability to operate the project in
conformance with existing agreements and the repatriation of
dividends from the host country.
|
RESULTS
OF OPERATIONS
The comparability of the information provided below with respect
to our revenues, expenses and certain other items for periods
during each of the years presented was affected by several
factors. As outlined above under Acquisitions and Business
Development, our acquisition and business development
initiatives in 2008 and 2007 resulted in various additional
projects which increased comparative revenues and expenses. The
Huantai and Linan coal facilities, both of which were located in
China, were sold in June 2006 and September 2007, respectively,
and were not included as consolidated subsidiaries since their
respective disposition dates. These factors must be taken into
account in developing meaningful comparisons between the periods
compared below.
48
RESULTS
OF OPERATIONS Year Ended December 31, 2008 vs.
Year Ended December 31, 2007
Our consolidated results of operations are presented in the
table below (in thousands, except per share amounts):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended
|
|
|
Increase
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
(Decrease)
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008 vs 2007
|
|
|
CONSOLIDATED RESULTS OF OPERATIONS:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating revenues
|
|
$
|
1,664,253
|
|
|
$
|
1,433,087
|
|
|
$
|
231,166
|
|
Total operating expenses
|
|
|
1,408,288
|
|
|
|
1,196,477
|
|
|
|
211,811
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
255,965
|
|
|
|
236,610
|
|
|
|
19,355
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other income (expense):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income
|
|
|
5,717
|
|
|
|
10,578
|
|
|
|
(4,861
|
)
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(46,804
|
)
|
|
|
(67,104
|
)
|
|
|
(20,300
|
)
|
Loss on extinguishment of debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(32,071
|
)
|
|
|
(32,071
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other expenses
|
|
|
(41,087
|
)
|
|
|
(88,597
|
)
|
|
|
(47,510
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before income tax expense, minority interests and equity
in net income from unconsolidated investments
|
|
|
214,878
|
|
|
|
148,013
|
|
|
|
66,865
|
|
Income tax expense
|
|
|
(92,227
|
)
|
|
|
(31,040
|
)
|
|
|
61,187
|
|
Minority interests
|
|
|
(6,961
|
)
|
|
|
(8,656
|
)
|
|
|
(1,695
|
)
|
Equity in net income from unconsolidated investments
|
|
|
23,583
|
|
|
|
22,196
|
|
|
|
1,387
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME
|
|
$
|
139,273
|
|
|
$
|
130,513
|
|
|
|
8,760
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
|
153,345
|
|
|
|
152,653
|
|
|
|
692
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted
|
|
|
154,732
|
|
|
|
153,997
|
|
|
|
735
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings Per Share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
$
|
0.91
|
|
|
$
|
0.85
|
|
|
$
|
0.06
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted
|
|
$
|
0.90
|
|
|
$
|
0.85
|
|
|
$
|
0.05
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following general discussions should be read in conjunction
with the above table, the consolidated financial statements and
the Notes thereto and other financial information appearing and
referred to elsewhere in this report. Additional detail relating
to changes in operating revenues and operating expenses, and the
quantification of specific factors affecting or causing such
changes, is provided in the Domestic and International segment
discussions below.
Consolidated
Results of
Operations
Comparison of Results for the Year Ended December 31, 2008
vs. Results for the Year Ended December 31,
2007
Operating revenues increased by $231.2 million primarily
due to the following:
|
|
|
|
|
increased waste and energy revenues at our existing
energy-from-waste facilities,
|
|
|
additional revenues from new businesses acquired in the Domestic
segment, and
|
|
|
increased demand from the electricity offtaker and resulting
higher electricity generation at our Indian facilities in the
International segment.
|
Operating expenses increased by $211.8 million primarily
due to the following:
|
|
|
|
|
increased plant operating expenses at our existing
energy-from-waste facilities resulting from increased plant
maintenance and cost escalations in the Domestic
segment, and
|
|
|
increased plant operating expenses resulting from additional
operating and maintenance costs from new businesses acquired in
the Domestic segment, and
|
|
|
higher fuel costs, resulting from increased demand from the
electricity offtaker and resulting higher electricity
generation, at our Indian facilities in the International
segment, and
|
|
|
higher general and administrative expenses primarily due to
increased efforts to grow the business and normal wage and
benefit escalations.
|
49
Investment income decreased by $4.9 million primarily due
to lower interest rates on invested funds. Interest expense
decreased by $20.3 million primarily due to lower floating
interest rates on the Term Loan Facility (as defined in the
Liquidity section below) and lower debt balances and
interest rates resulting from the 2007 recapitalization. As a
result of the recapitalization in the first quarter of 2007, we
recognized a loss on extinguishment of debt charge of
approximately $32.1 million, pre-tax. See Note 6.
Long-Term Debt of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial
Statements (Notes) for additional information.
Income tax expense increased by $61.2 million primarily due
to increased pre-tax income resulting from increased waste and
service revenues at our energy-from-waste facilities and
additional revenues from new businesses acquired, taxes
associated with the wind down of the grantor trusts and
additional reserves for uncertain tax positions. See
Note 9. Income Taxes of the Notes for additional
information.
Equity in net income from unconsolidated investments increased
by $1.4 million primarily due to increased earnings from
Quezon Power, Inc. (Quezon), our 26% investment in
the Philippines, comprised primarily of $4.3 million
resulting from the strengthening of the U.S. Dollar against
the Philippine Peso, partially offset by lower dividend income
from the Trezzo facility and foreign exchange losses at our
China facilities. See Note 8. Equity Method Investments of
the Notes for additional information.
Domestic
Business Results of
Operations
Comparison of Results for the Year Ended December 31, 2008
vs. Results for the Year Ended December 31,
2007
The domestic business results of operations are presented in the
table below (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
Increase (Decrease)
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008 vs 2007
|
|
|
Waste and service revenues
|
|
$
|
930,537
|
|
|
$
|
860,252
|
|
|
$
|
70,285
|
|
Electricity and steam sales
|
|
|
384,640
|
|
|
|
325,804
|
|
|
|
58,836
|
|
Other operating revenues
|
|
|
56,254
|
|
|
|
59,561
|
|
|
|
(3,307
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating revenues
|
|
|
1,371,431
|
|
|
|
1,245,617
|
|
|
|
125,814
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plant operating expenses
|
|
|
753,848
|
|
|
|
664,641
|
|
|
|
89,207
|
|
Depreciation and amortization expense
|
|
|
190,659
|
|
|
|
187,875
|
|
|
|
2,784
|
|
Net interest expense on project debt
|
|
|
47,816
|
|
|
|
48,198
|
|
|
|
(382
|
)
|
General and administrative expenses
|
|
|
76,090
|
|
|
|
71,022
|
|
|
|
5,068
|
|
Insurance recoveries, net of write-down of assets
|
|
|
(8,325
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8,325
|
)
|
Other operating expense
|
|
|
56,336
|
|
|
|
53,789
|
|
|
|
2,547
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating expenses
|
|
|
1,116,424
|
|
|
|
1,025,525
|
|
|
|
90,899
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
$
|
255,007
|
|
|
$
|
220,092
|
|
|
|
34,915
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating
Revenues
Variances in revenues for the domestic segment are as follows
(in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Domestic Segment
|
|
|
|
Operating Revenue Variances
|
|
|
|
Existing
|
|
|
New
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Business
|
|
|
Business (A)
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Waste and service revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Service fee
|
|
$
|
13.3
|
|
|
$
|
0.6
|
|
|
$
|
13.9
|
|
Tip fee
|
|
|
3.9
|
|
|
|
30.4
|
|
|
|
34.3
|
|
Recycled metal
|
|
|
21.1
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
|
|
|
22.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total waste and service revenues
|
|
|
38.3
|
|
|
|
32.0
|
|
|
|
70.3
|
|
Electricity and steam sales
|
|
|
36.7
|
|
|
|
22.1
|
|
|
|
58.8
|
|
Other operating revenues
|
|
|
(3.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating revenues
|
|
$
|
71.7
|
|
|
$
|
54.1
|
|
|
$
|
125.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50
|
|
(A) |
This column represents the results of operations for the year
ended December 31, 2008 for businesses acquired after
December 31, 2007, plus the results of operations for the
nine months ended September 30, 2008 for businesses
acquired during the quarter ended September 30, 2007, plus
results of operations for the six months ended June 30,
2008 for businesses acquired during the quarter ended
June 30, 2007, plus results of operations for the three
months ended March 31, 2008 for businesses acquired during
the quarter ended March 31, 2007.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues from Service Fee arrangements for existing business
increased primarily due to contractual escalations, partially
offset by lower revenues earned explicitly to service project
debt of $1.4 million.
|
|
|
Revenues from Tip Fee arrangements for existing business
increased due to increased waste volume handled in part due to
the impact of a fire in 2007 at our SEMASS energy-from-waste
facility, partially offset by slightly lower pricing.
|
|
|
Recycled metal revenues for existing business increased
primarily due to higher pricing on average for the year. In
addition, recovered metal volume increased due to the
installation of new metal recovery systems, as well as due to
enhancements made to existing systems.
|
|
|
Electricity and steam sales for existing business increased
primarily due to higher energy rates, and increased production
primarily resulting from capital improvements to increase
productivity and improve environmental performance at the
biomass facilities.
|
During the second and third quarters of 2008, we experienced
historically high prices for recycled metal which has declined
significantly during the fourth quarter of 2008 as reflected in
the table below (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the
|
|
|
|
Quarters Ended
|
|
Total Recycled Metal Revenues
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
$
|
11.4
|
|
|
$
|
7.0
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
19.0
|
|
|
|
7.5
|
|
September 30,
|
|
|
17.3
|
|
|
|
7.9
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
5.9
|
|
|
|
9.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total for the Year Ended December 31,
|
|
$
|
53.6
|
|
|
$
|
31.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other operating revenues for existing business decreased
primarily due to the timing of construction activity.
|
Operating
Expenses
Variances in plant operating expenses for the domestic segment
are as follows (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Domestic Segment
|
|
|
|
Operating Expense Variances
|
|
|
|
Existing
|
|
|
New
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Business
|
|
|
Business (A)
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Total plant operating expenses
|
|
$
|
36.8
|
|
|
$
|
52.4
|
|
|
$
|
89.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(A) |
This column represents the results of operations for the year
ended December 31, 2008 for businesses acquired after
December 31, 2007, plus the results of operations for the
nine months ended September 30, 2008 for businesses
acquired during the quarter ended September 30, 2007, plus
results of operations for the six months ended June 30,
2008 for businesses acquired during the quarter ended
June 30, 2007, plus results of operations for the three
months ended March 31, 2008 for businesses acquired during
the quarter ended March 31, 2007.
|
Existing business plant operating expenses increased by
$36.8 million primarily due to cost escalations, including
the impact of higher energy related costs. In addition, the cost
for fuel at our biomass facilities increased due to higher
production. Cost increases were partially offset by
$5.2 million of business interruption insurance recoveries
at our SEMASS facility as discussed below.
Depreciation and amortization expense increased by
$2.8 million primarily due to capital expenditures and new
business.
General and administrative expenses increased by
$5.1 million primarily due to increased efforts to grow the
business and normal wage and benefit escalations.
51
On March 31, 2007, our SEMASS energy-from-waste facility
located in Rochester, Massachusetts experienced a fire in the
front-end receiving portion of the facility. Damage was
extensive to this portion of the facility and operations at the
facility were suspended completely for approximately
20 days. As a result of this loss, we recorded an asset
impairment of $17.3 million, pre-tax, which represented the
net book value of the assets destroyed.
The cost of repair or replacement, and business interruption
losses, are insured under the terms of applicable insurance
policies, subject to deductibles. Insurance recoveries were
recorded as insurance recoveries, net of write-down of assets
where such recoveries relate to repair and reconstruction costs,
or as a reduction to plant operating expenses where such
recoveries relate to other costs or business interruption
losses. We recorded insurance recoveries in our consolidated
statements of income and received cash proceeds in settlement of
these claims as follows (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Insurance Recoveries Recorded
|
|
|
Cash Proceeds Received
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Repair and reconstruction costs (Insurance recoveries, net of
write-down of assets)
|
|
$
|
8.3
|
|
|
$
|
17.3
|
|
|
$
|
16.2
|
|
|
$
|
9.4
|
|
Clean-up
costs (reduction to Plant operating expenses)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
2.7
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
2.7
|
|
Business interruption losses (reduction to Plant operating
expenses)
|
|
$
|
5.2
|
|
|
$
|
2.0
|
|
|
$
|
7.2
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Other operating expense increased by $2.5 million primarily
due to losses on the retirement of fixed assets offset by
reduced construction activity. See Note 12. Supplementary
Financial Information of the Notes for additional information.
International
Business Results of
Operations
Comparison of Results for the Year Ended December 31, 2008
vs. Results for the Year Ended December 31,
2007
The international business results of operations are presented
in the table below (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended
|
|
|
Increase
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
(Decrease)
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008 vs 2007
|
|
|
Waste and service revenues
|
|
$
|
3,990
|
|
|
$
|
4,144
|
|
|
$
|
(154
|
)
|
Electricity and steam sales
|
|
|
275,976
|
|
|
|
173,073
|
|
|
|
102,903
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating revenues
|
|
|
279,966
|
|
|
|
177,217
|
|
|
|
102,749
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plant operating expenses
|
|
|
245,826
|
|
|
|
136,919
|
|
|
|
108,907
|
|
Depreciation and amortization expense
|
|
|
8,751
|
|
|
|
8,998
|
|
|
|
(247
|
)
|
Net interest expense on project debt
|
|
|
5,918
|
|
|
|
6,381
|
|
|
|
(463
|
)
|
General and administrative expenses
|
|
|
18,684
|
|
|
|
8,584
|
|
|
|
10,100
|
|
Other operating income
|
|
|
(2,274
|
)
|
|
|
(3,848
|
)
|
|
|
(1,574
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating expenses
|
|
|
276,905
|
|
|
|
157,034
|
|
|
|
119,871
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
$
|
3,061
|
|
|
$
|
20,183
|
|
|
|
(17,122
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The increases in revenues and plant operating expenses under
energy contracts at both Indian facilities resulted primarily
from increased demand from the electricity offtaker and
resulting higher electricity generation. Higher fuel costs under
these energy contracts are typically passed through to the
electricity offtaker in the electricity tariff.
General and administrative expenses increased by
$10.1 million primarily due to additional business
development spending, increased litigation expense associated
with an insurance claim associated with a coal facility in China
which was sold in 2006, and normal wage and benefit escalations.
Other operating income decreased by $1.6 million primarily
due the absence of the gain on sale of the Linan coal facility
in 2007 and increased foreign currency exchange losses,
partially offset by insurance recoveries associated with a coal
facility in China which was sold in 2006.
52
RESULTS
OF OPERATIONS Year Ended December 31, 2007 vs.
Year Ended December 31, 2006
Our consolidated results of operations are presented in the
table below (in thousands, except per share amounts):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended
|
|
|
Increase
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
(Decrease)
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007 vs 2006
|
|
|
CONSOLIDATED RESULTS OF OPERATIONS:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating revenues
|
|
$
|
1,433,087
|
|
|
$
|
1,268,536
|
|
|
$
|
164,551
|
|
Total operating expenses
|
|
|
1,196,477
|
|
|
|
1,041,776
|
|
|
|
154,701
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
236,610
|
|
|
|
226,760
|
|
|
|
9,850
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income
|
|
|
10,578
|
|
|
|
11,770
|
|
|
|
(1,192
|
)
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(67,104
|
)
|
|
|
(109,507
|
)
|
|
|
(42,403
|
)
|
Loss on extinguishment of debt
|
|
|
(32,071
|
)
|
|
|
(6,795
|
)
|
|
|
25,276
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other expenses
|
|
|
(88,597
|
)
|
|
|
(104,532
|
)
|
|
|
(15,935
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before income tax expense, minority interests and equity
in net income from unconsolidated investments
|
|
|
148,013
|
|
|
|
122,228
|
|
|
|
25,785
|
|
Income tax expense
|
|
|
(31,040
|
)
|
|
|
(38,465
|
)
|
|
|
(7,425
|
)
|
Minority interests
|
|
|
(8,656
|
)
|
|
|
(6,610
|
)
|
|
|
2,046
|
|
Equity in net income from unconsolidated investments
|
|
|
22,196
|
|
|
|
28,636
|
|
|
|
(6,440
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME
|
|
$
|
130,513
|
|
|
$
|
105,789
|
|
|
|
24,724
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
|
152,653
|
|
|
|
145,663
|
|
|
|
6,990
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted
|
|
|
153,997
|
|
|
|
147,030
|
|
|
|
6,967
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EARNINGS PER SHARE:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
$
|
0.85
|
|
|
$
|
0.73
|
|
|
$
|
0.12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted
|
|
$
|
0.85
|
|
|
$
|
0.72
|
|
|
$
|
0.13
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following general discussions should be read in conjunction
with the above table, the consolidated financial statements and
the Notes thereto and other financial information appearing and
referred to elsewhere in this report. Additional detail relating
to changes in operating revenues and operating expenses, and the
quantification of specific factors affecting or causing such
changes, is provided in the Domestic and International segment
discussions below.
Consolidated
Results of
Operations
Comparison of Results for the Year Ended December 31, 2007
vs. Results for the Year Ended December 31,
2006
Operating revenues increased by $164.6 million primarily
due to the following:
|
|
|
|
|
contribution from new businesses acquired,
|
|
|
increased construction revenues relating to expansion of our
Hillsborough County facility,
|
|
|
higher waste and service revenues at our existing
energy-from-waste facilities, and
|
|
|
increased demand from the electricity offtaker at our Indian
facilities and resulting higher electricity generation.
|
Operating expenses increased by $154.7 million primarily
due to the following:
|
|
|
|
|
operating costs of new businesses acquired,
|
|
|
increased construction expenses relating to the expansion of our
Hillsborough County facility,
|
|
|
increased plant operating expenses due to normal escalations in
costs, such as wages, materials, and plant maintenance,
|
|
|
expenses incurred as a result of a fire at our SEMASS
energy-from-waste facility on March 31, 2007, and
|
|
|
increased plant operating expenses at our Indian facilities
primarily due to increased demand from the electricity offtaker
and resulting higher generation.
|
53
Investment income decreased by $1.2 million primarily due
to lower invested cash balances and lower interest rates on
invested funds. Interest expense decreased by $42.4 million
primarily due to lower loan balances and lower interest rates
resulting from the 2007 recapitalization. As a result of the
recapitalization in the first quarter of 2007, we recognized a
loss on extinguishment of debt charge of approximately
$32.1 million, pre-tax, which is comprised of the
write-down of deferred financing costs, tender premiums paid for
the intermediate subsidiary debt, and a call premium paid in
connection with previously existing financing arrangements.
These amounts were partially offset by the write-down of
unamortized premiums relating to the intermediate subsidiary
debt and a gain associated with the settlement of our interest
rate swap agreements in February 2007. In May 2006, as a result
of amendments to our financing arrangements that existed at that
time, we recognized a loss on extinguishment of debt of
$6.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2006. See
Note 6. Long-Term Debt of the Notes for additional
information.
Equity in net income from unconsolidated investments decreased
by $6.4 million primarily due to the effects of the
following factors relating to Quezon in the Philippines:
|
|
|
|
|
Quezon recorded a cumulative deferred income tax benefit in 2006
of $31.7 million, of which $7.0 million relates to our
equity share in Quezon. The realization of this deferred tax
benefit is subject to fluctuations in the value of the
Philippine peso versus the U.S. dollar. During the year
ended December 31, 2007, we reduced the cumulative deferred
income tax benefit by approximately $4.3 million, as a
result of the strengthening of the Philippine peso versus the
U.S. dollar;
|
|
|
A decrease in equity in net income from unconsolidated
investments for the year ended December 31, 2007 of
approximately $4.1 million due to increased tax expense for
Quezon related to the conclusion of a six-year income tax
holiday in May 2006;
|
|
|
Quezon recorded a gain in 2007 resulting from a settlement with
Manila Electric Company (Meralco), the largest
electric distribution company in the Philippines, related to
various issues which had been pending for several years,
including certain amendments to the contract to modify certain
commercial terms and to resolve issues relating to the
projects performance during its first year of operation.
The settlement primarily includes payment by Meralco to Quezon
of approximately $8.5 million of prior uncollected
receivables, of which $1.9 million relates to our equity
share in Quezon.
|
See Note 8. Equity Method Investments of the Notes for
additional information.
Income tax expense decreased by $7.4 million primarily due
to a reduction of the valuation allowance by $35.0 million,
as discussed in Note 9. Income Taxes of the Notes. This was
partially offset by expiring NOL tax benefits of
$6.0 million and taxes at the statutory rate on increased
pre-tax income resulting primarily from lower interest expense.
During 2006, we recorded a one-time tax benefit of
$10 million associated with the adoption of the permanent
reinvestment exception under Accounting Principles Board
(APB) Opinion No. 23, Accounting for
Income Taxes Special Areas (APB
23) as discussed in Note 9. Income Taxes of the Notes.
54
Domestic
Business Results of
Operations
Comparison of Results for the Year Ended December 31, 2007
vs. Results for the Year Ended December 31,
2006
The domestic business results of operations are presented in the
table below (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
Increase (Decrease)
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007 vs 2006
|
|
|
Waste and service revenues
|
|
$
|
860,252
|
|
|
$
|
813,260
|
|
|
$
|
46,992
|
|
Electricity and steam sales
|
|
|
325,804
|
|
|
|
301,339
|
|
|
|
24,465
|
|
Other operating revenues
|
|
|
59,561
|
|
|
|
3,328
|
|
|
|
56,233
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating revenues
|
|
|
1,245,617
|
|
|
|
1,117,927
|
|
|
|
127,690
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plant operating expenses
|
|
|
664,641
|
|
|
|
612,202
|
|
|
|
52,439
|
|
Depreciation and amortization expense
|
|
|
187,875
|
|
|
|
184,921
|
|
|
|
2,954
|
|
Net interest expense on project debt
|
|
|
48,198
|
|
|
|
53,270
|
|
|
|
(5,072
|
)
|
General and administrative expenses
|
|
|
71,022
|
|
|
|
66,439
|
|
|
|
4,583
|
|
Other operating expense (income)
|
|
|
53,789
|
|
|
|
(5,388
|
)
|
|
|
59,177
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating expenses
|
|
|
1,025,525
|
|
|
|
911,444
|
|
|
|
114,081
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
$
|
220,092
|
|
|
$
|
206,483
|
|
|
|
13,609
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating
Revenues
Variances in revenues for the domestic segment are as follows
(in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Domestic Segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Revenue Variances
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Existing
|
|
|
New
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Business
|
|
|
Business (A)
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Waste and service revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Service fee
|
|
$
|
5.2
|
|
|
$
|
14.9
|
|
|
$
|
20.1
|
|
Tip fee
|
|
|
4.7
|
|
|
|
13.9
|
|
|
|
18.6
|
|
Recycled metal
|
|
|
8.2
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|
|
8.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total waste and service revenues
|
|
|
18.1
|
|
|
|
28.9
|
|
|
|
47.0
|
|
Electricity and steam sales
|
|
|
9.7
|
|
|
|
14.8
|
|
|
|
24.5
|
|
Other operating revenues
|
|
|
56.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
56.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating revenues
|
|
$
|
84.0
|
|
|
$
|
43.7
|
|
|
$
|
127.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(A) |
This column represents the results of operations for the year
ended December 31, 2007 for businesses acquired after
December 31, 2006.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues from Service Fee arrangements for existing business
increased primarily due to contractual escalations, partially
offset by lower revenues earned explicitly to service debt of
$4.8 million.
|
|
|
Revenues from Tip Fee arrangements for existing business
increased primarily due to pricing escalations, partially offset
by a decrease in waste volume and reduced revenues of
$4.1 million at our SEMASS facility following its fire on
March 31, 2007.
|
|
|
Recycled metal revenues for existing business increased
primarily due to higher pricing for ferrous and non-ferrous
metal.
|
|
|
Electricity and steam sales for existing business increased
primarily due to higher energy rates. This increase was
partially offset by energy rate settlements of $3.7 million
related to prior years, and a decrease in revenues of
$1.9 million due to lower waste volume resulting from the
temporary suspension of operations at our SEMASS facility
following its fire on March 31, 2007.
|
|
|
Other operating revenues for existing business increased
primarily due to construction revenues related to the expansion
for the Hillsborough County facility.
|
55
Operating
Expenses
Variances in plant operating expenses for the domestic segment
are as follows (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Domestic Segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Expense Variances
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Existing
|
|
|
New
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Business
|
|
|
Business (A)
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Total plant operating expenses
|
|
$
|
10.7
|
|
|
$
|
41.7
|
|
|
$
|
52.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(A) |
This column represents the results of operations for the year
ended December 31, 2007 for businesses acquired after
December 31, 2006.
|
Existing business plant operating expenses increased by
$10.7 million primarily due to normal escalations in costs
such as wages, materials and plant maintenance, and higher
stock-based compensation expense of $2.0 million. In
addition, costs related to the fire at the SEMASS
energy-from-waste facility were $3.3 million, which was net
of $2.7 million and $2.0 million of insurance
recoveries for
clean-up
costs and business interruption, respectively.
Depreciation and amortization expense increased by
$3.0 million primarily due to additions of property, plant
and equipment.
Net interest expense on project debt decreased by
$5.1 million primarily due to lower project debt balances.
General and administrative expenses increased by
$4.6 million primarily due to increased stock-based
compensation expense and increased business development spending.
On March 31, 2007, our SEMASS energy-from-waste facility
located in Rochester, Massachusetts experienced a fire in the
front-end receiving portion of the facility. Damage was
extensive to this portion of the facility and operations at the
facility were suspended completely for approximately
20 days. As a result of this loss, we recorded an asset
impairment of $17.3 million, pre-tax, which represented the
net book value of the assets destroyed. The cost of repair or
replacement, and business interruption losses, were insured
under the terms of applicable insurance policies, subject to
deductibles. During the year ended December 31, 2007, we
recorded insurance recoveries of $17.3 million related to
repair and reconstruction, $2.7 million related to
clean-up
costs and $2.0 million related to business interruption
losses. Insurance recoveries were recorded as a reduction to the
loss related to the write-down of assets where such recoveries
related to repair and reconstruction costs, or as a reduction to
operating expenses where such recoveries related to other costs
or business interruption losses. See Note 12. Supplementary
Financial Information of the Notes for additional information.
Other operating expense increased by $59.2 million
primarily due to costs related to expansion construction at the
Hillsborough County facility. See Note 12. Supplementary
Financial Information of the Notes for additional information.
56
International
Business Results of
Operations
Comparison of Results for the Year Ended December 31, 2007
vs. Results for the Year Ended December 31, 2006
The international business results of operations are presented
in the table below (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended
|
|
|
Increase
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
(Decrease)
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007 vs 2006
|
|
|
Waste and service revenues
|
|
$
|
4,144
|
|
|
$
|
4,373
|
|
|
$
|
(229
|
)
|
Electricity and steam sales
|
|
|
173,073
|
|
|
|
132,495
|
|
|
|
40,578
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating revenues
|
|
|
177,217
|
|
|
|
136,868
|
|
|
|
40,349
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plant operating expenses
|
|
|
136,919
|
|
|
|
99,954
|
|
|
|
36,965
|
|
Depreciation and amortization expense
|
|
|
8,998
|
|
|
|
8,193
|
|
|
|
805
|
|
Net interest expense on project debt
|
|
|
6,381
|
|
|
|
6,940
|
|
|
|
(559
|
)
|
General and administrative expenses
|
|
|
8,584
|
|
|
|
4,394
|
|
|
|
4,190
|
|
Other operating income
|
|
|
(3,848
|
)
|
|
|
(2,452
|
)
|
|
|
1,396
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating expenses
|
|
|
157,034
|
|
|
|
117,029
|
|
|
|
40,005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
$
|
20,183
|
|
|
$
|
19,839
|
|
|
|
344
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The increases in revenues and plant operating expenses under
energy contracts at both Indian facilities resulted primarily
from increased demand from the electricity offtaker and
resulting higher electricity generation. The decreases in
revenues and plant operating expenses from the Yanjiang facility
in China resulted from lower steam sales. Additional decreases
in revenues and plant operating expenses resulted from the sale
of the Huantai coal facility in China during the second quarter
of 2006 and the sale of the Linan coal facility in China during
the third quarter of 2007.
Depreciation and amortization expense increased by
$0.8 million primarily due to the foreign currency
translation effects at our facilities in India.
Net interest expense on project debt decreased by
$0.6 million primarily due to the scheduled quarterly pay
down of project debt at both Indian facilities.
General and administrative expenses increased by
$4.2 million primarily due to normal wage and benefit
escalations and additional business development spending.
Other operating income increased by $1.4 million primarily
due to the $1.7 million gain related to the sale of the
Linan coal facility in China during the third quarter of 2007
combined with a $1.0 million re-measurement gain on the
foreign currency denominated debt at one of the Indian
facilities, compared to a $1.2 million gain related to the
sale of the Huantai coal facility in China during the second
quarter of 2006.
LIQUIDITY
AND CAPITAL RESOURCES
Generating sufficient cash to invest in our business, meet our
liquidity needs, pay down project debt, and pursue strategic
opportunities remain important objectives of management. We
derive our cash flows principally from our operations at our
domestic and international projects, where our historical levels
of production allow us to satisfy project debt covenants and
payments, and distribute cash. We typically receive cash
distributions from our domestic projects on either a monthly or
quarterly basis, whereas a material portion of cash from our
international projects is received semi-annually, during the
second and fourth quarters.
During the first quarter of 2007, we completed a comprehensive
recapitalization utilizing a series of equity and debt
financings. Under these existing credit facilities, we have
substantially greater, but not unrestricted, ability to make
investments in our business and to take advantage of
opportunities to grow our business through investments and
acquisitions, both domestically and internationally.
Our primary future cash requirements will be to fund capital
expenditures to maintain our existing businesses, make debt
service payments and grow our business through acquisitions and
business development. We will also seek to enhance our cash flow
from renewals or replacement of existing contracts, from new
contracts to expand
57
existing facilities or operate additional facilities and by
investing in new projects. See Managements Discussion and
Analysis of Financial Condition Overview
Acquisitions and Business Development above.
The frequency and predictability of our receipt of cash from
projects differs, depending upon various factors, including
whether restrictions on distributions exist in applicable
project debt arrangements, whether a project is domestic or
international, and whether a project has been able to operate at
historical levels of production.
Additionally, as of December 31, 2008, we had available
credit for liquidity of $300 million under the Revolving
Loan Facility (as defined below) and unrestricted cash of
$192.4 million.
Under our Revolving Loan Facility, we have pro rata funding
commitments from a large consortium of banks, including a 6.8%
pro rata commitment from Lehman Brothers Commercial Bank. Lehman
Brothers Commercial Bank is a subsidiary of Lehman Brothers
Holdings, Inc., which filed for bankruptcy protection in
September 2008. We believe that neither the Lehman Brothers
Holdings, Inc. bankruptcy, nor the ability of Lehman Brothers
Commercial Bank (which is not currently part of such bankruptcy
proceeding) to fund its pro rata share of any draw request we
may make, will have a material effect on our liquidity or
capital resources.
As of December 31, 2008, we were in compliance with the
covenants under the Credit Facilities (as defined below). We
believe that when combined with our other sources of liquidity,
including our existing cash on hand and the Revolving Loan
Facility, we will generate sufficient cash over at least the
next twelve months to meet operational needs, make capital
expenditures, invest in the business and service debt due.
On September 22, 2008, we announced that our Board of
Directors authorized the purchase of up to $30 million of
our common stock in order to respond opportunistically to
volatile market conditions. The share repurchases, if any, may
take place from time to time based on market conditions and
other factors. The authorization is expected to continue only
for so long as recent volatile market conditions persist. As of
December 31, 2008, we have not repurchased shares of our
common stock under this program.
2007
Recapitalization
During the first quarter of 2007, we completed a comprehensive
recapitalization utilizing a series of equity and debt
financings including the following transactions:
|
|
|
|
|
the refinancing of our previously existing credit facilities
with the new credit facilities, comprised of a $300 million
revolving credit facility (the Revolving Loan
Facility), a $320 million funded letter of credit
facility (the Funded L/C Facility) and a
$650 million term loan (collectively referred to as the
Credit Facilities);
|
|
|
an underwritten public offering of 6.118 million shares of
our common stock, from which we received proceeds of
approximately $136.6 million, net of underwriting discounts
and commissions;
|
|
|
an underwritten public offering of approximately
$373.8 million aggregate principal amount of
1.00% Senior Convertible Debentures due 2027 (the
Debentures), from which we received proceeds of
approximately $364.4 million, net of underwriting discounts
and commissions; and
|
|
|
the repayment, by means of a tender offer and redemptions, of
approximately $611.9 million in aggregate principal amount
of outstanding notes previously issued by our intermediate
subsidiaries.
|
We completed our public offerings of common stock and
Debentures, including over-allotment options exercised by
underwriters, on January 31, 2007 and February 6,
2007, respectively, and we closed on the Credit Facilities on
February 9, 2007. We completed our tender offer for
approximately $604.4 million in aggregate principal amount
of outstanding notes on February 22, 2007. On
April 16, 2007 and September 6, 2007, all remaining
outstanding ARC Notes and the remaining outstanding MSW I Notes
and MSW II Notes were redeemed, respectively. Additional
information, including material terms related to our
recapitalization, are described in Note 6. Long-Term Debt
of the Notes.
As a result of the recapitalization, we recognized a loss on
extinguishment of debt of approximately $32.1 million,
pre-tax, which was comprised of the write-down of deferred
financing costs, tender premiums paid for the intermediate
subsidiary debt, and a call premium paid in connection with
previously existing financing arrangements. These amounts were
partially offset by the write-down of unamortized premiums
relating to the intermediate subsidiary debt and a gain
associated with the settlement of our interest rate swap
agreements.
58
Credit
Agreement Financial Covenants
The loan documentation under the Credit Facilities contains
customary affirmative and negative covenants and financial
covenants as discussed in Note 6. Long-Term Debt of the
Notes. We were in compliance with all required covenants as of
December 31, 2008.
The financial covenants of the Credit Facilities, which are
measured on a trailing four quarter period basis, include the
following:
|
|
|
|
|
maximum Covanta Energy leverage ratio of 4.00 to 1.00 for the
four quarter period ended December 31, 2008, which measures
Covanta Energys principal amount of consolidated debt less
certain restricted funds dedicated to repayment of project debt
principal and construction costs (Consolidated Adjusted
Debt) to its adjusted earnings before interest, taxes,
depreciation and amortization, as calculated under the Credit
Facilities (Adjusted EBITDA). The definition of
Adjusted EBITDA in the Credit Facilities excludes certain
non-cash charges. The maximum Covanta Energy leverage ratio
allowed under the Credit Facilities adjusts in future periods as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.00 to 1.00 for each of the four quarter periods ended
March 31, June 30 and September 30, 2009;
|
|
|
3.75 to 1.00 for each of the four quarter periods ended
December 31, 2009, March 31, June 30 and
September 30, 2010;
|
|
|
3.50 to 1.00 for each four quarter period thereafter;
|
|
|
|
|
|
maximum Covanta Energy capital expenditures incurred to maintain
existing operating businesses of $100 million per fiscal
year, subject to adjustment due to an acquisition by Covanta
Energy; and
|
|
|
minimum Covanta Energy interest coverage ratio of 3.00 to 1.00,
which measures Covanta Energys Adjusted EBITDA to its
consolidated interest expense plus certain interest expense of
ours, to the extent paid by Covanta Energy.
|
Sources
and Uses of Cash Flow
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
Increase (Decrease)
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2008 vs 2007
|
|
|
2007 vs 2006
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating activities
|
|
$
|
402,607
|
|
|
$
|
363,591
|
|
|
$
|
318,989
|
|
|
$
|
39,016
|
|
|
$
|
44,602
|
|
Net cash used in investing activities
|
|
|
(189,308
|
)
|
|
|
(179,910
|
)
|
|
|
(66,904
|
)
|
|
|
9,398
|
|
|
|
113,006
|
|
Net cash used in financing activities
|
|
|
(170,242
|
)
|
|
|
(268,335
|
)
|
|
|
(147,420
|
)
|
|
|
(98,093
|
)
|
|
|
120,915
|
|
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
(70
|
)
|
|
|
618
|
|
|
|
221
|
|
|
|
(688
|
)
|
|
|
397
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
42,987
|
|
|
$
|
(84,036
|
)
|
|
$
|
104,886
|
|
|
|
127,023
|
|
|
|
(188,922
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
During the first quarter of 2008, we revised our presentation of
the condensed consolidated statements of cash flows to present
changes in restricted funds held in trust relating to operating
activities as a component of cash flow from operating activities
and changes in restricted funds held in trust relating to
financing activities (debt principal related) as a component of
cash flow from financing activities; previously we included all
changes in restricted funds held in trust as a component of cash
flow from financing activities. For the years ended
December 31, 2007 and 2006, we have reclassified
approximately $5.5 million and $7.8 million,
respectively, as a component of cash flow from operating
activities in order to conform to the current period
presentation on the consolidated statements of cash flows.
Year
Ended December 31, 2008 vs. Year Ended December 31,
2007
Net cash provided by operating activities for the year ended
December 31, 2008 was $402.6 million, an increase of
$39.0 million from the prior year period. The increase was
primarily comprised of:
|
|
|
|
|
$29.8 million from a combination of improved operating
performance and lower net interest expense; and
|
|
|
an increase in non-property insurance proceeds of
$9.2 million (including $7.2 million of business
interruption recoveries related to the SEMASS energy-from-waste
facility).
|
59
Net cash used in investing activities for the year ended
December 31, 2008 was $189.3 million, an increase of
$9.4 million from the prior year period. The increase was
primarily related to lower cash outflows for acquisitions of
businesses of approximately $37.1 million, and increased
property insurance proceeds of $6.8 million, offset by
higher cash outflows principally comprised of:
|
|
|
|
|
$16.7 million to acquire land use rights in the United
Kingdom and United States in connection with development
activities;
|
|
|
an increase of $18.0 million related to investments in
fixed maturities at our insurance subsidiary, partially offset
by an increase of $5.2 million in proceeds from the sale of
investments in fixed maturities at our insurance subsidiary;
|
|
|
$7.3 million of equity investments, of which
$17.1 million related to the Chengdu project, offset by the
$10.3 million equity investment in Sanfeng during the
comparative period;
|
|
|
an increase in capital expenditures of $2.2 million;
|
|
|
$8.2 million related to a loan issued for the Harrisburg
energy-from-waste facility;
|
|
|
$6.1 million of cash outflows comprised primarily of
business development activities.
|
Net cash used in financing activities for the year ended
December 31, 2008 was $170.2 million, a decrease of
$98.1 million from the prior year period due primarily to
the 2007 recapitalization. The net proceeds from refinancing the
previously existing credit facilities with the New Credit
Facilities was $5.6 million, net of transaction fees.
Proceeds of approximately $364.4 million and
$136.6 million, each net of underwriting discounts and
commissions, were received during the three months ended
March 31, 2007 related to underwritten public offerings of
Debentures and common stock, respectively. The combination of
the proceeds from the public offerings of Debentures and common
stock and approximately $130.0 million in cash and
restricted cash (available for use as a result of the
recapitalization) were utilized for the repayment, by means of a
tender offer, of approximately $611.9 million in principal
amount of outstanding notes previously issued by certain
intermediate subsidiaries.
Year
Ended December 31, 2007 vs. Year Ended December 31,
2006
Net cash provided by operating activities for the year ended
December 31, 2007 was $363.6 million, an increase of
$44.6 million from the prior year. The increase was
primarily due to lower interest paid of $59.1 million
resulting from the 2007 recapitalization and from lower project
debt balances.
Net cash used in investing activities for the year ended
December 31, 2007 was $179.9 million, an increase of
$113.0 million from the prior year. The increase was
primarily due to the following:
|
|
|
|
|
higher purchases of property, plant and equipment of
$31.4 million, principally comprised of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
$18.1 million relating to rebuilding at the SEMASS facility
following the fire; and
|
|
|
$12.1 million relating to our Central Valley biomass
facilities and our Holliston transfer station businesses
acquired during 2007;
|
|
|
|
|
|
the acquisition of businesses, net of cash acquired, of
$110.5 million;
|
|
|
an equity investment in Sanfeng for $10.3 million;
|
|
|
partially offset by property insurance proceeds of
$9.4 million related to the fire at our SEMASS
energy-from-waste facility and the acquisition of a
non-controlling interest in a subsidiary during 2006 of
$27.5 million.
|
Net cash used in financing activities for the year ended
December 31, 2007 was $268.3 million, an increase of
$120.9 million from the prior year. This increase was
primarily due to the 2007 recapitalization. The net proceeds
from refinancing the previously existing credit facilities with
the Credit Facilities was $5.6 million, net of transaction
fees. Proceeds of approximately $364.4 million and
$136.6 million, each net of underwriting discounts and
commissions, were received during the year ended
December 31, 2007 related to underwritten public offerings
of Debentures and common stock, respectively. The combination of
the proceeds from the public offerings of Debentures and common
stock and approximately $130.0 million in cash and
restricted cash (available for use as a result of the
recapitalization) were utilized for the repayment, by means of a
tender offer, of approximately $611.9 million in principal
amount of outstanding notes previously issued by certain
intermediate subsidiaries.
60
Project
Debt
Domestic
Project Debt
Financing for the energy-from-waste projects is generally
accomplished through tax-exempt and taxable municipal revenue
bonds issued by or on behalf of the municipal client. For such
facilities that are owned by a subsidiary of ours, the municipal
issuers of the bond loans the bond proceeds to our subsidiary to
pay for facility construction. For such facilities,
project-related debt is included as Project debt
(short- and long-term) in our consolidated financial statements.
Generally, such project debt is secured by the revenues
generated by the project and other project assets including the
related facility. The only potential recourse to us with respect
to project debt arises under the operating performance
guarantees described below under Other Commitments.
Certain subsidiaries had recourse liability for project debt
which is recourse to a certain Covanta ARC Holdings, Inc.
subsidiary, but is non-recourse to us and as of
December 31, 2008 was as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
Covanta Niagara, L.P. Series 2001 Bonds
|
|
$
|
165,010
|
|
Covanta Southeastern Connecticut Company Corporate Credit Bonds
|
|
|
43,500
|
|
Covanta Hempstead Company Corporate Credit Bonds
|
|
|
42,670
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
251,180
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
International
Project Debt
Financing for projects in which we have an ownership or
operating interest is generally accomplished through commercial
loans from local lenders or financing arranged through
international banks, bonds issued to institutional investors and
from multilateral lending institutions based in the United
States. Such debt is generally secured by the revenues generated
by the project and other project assets and is without recourse
to us. Project debt relating to two international projects in
India is included as Project debt (short- and
long-term) in our consolidated financial statements. In
most projects, the instruments defining the rights of debt
holders generally provide that the project subsidiary may not
make distributions to its parent until periodic debt service
obligations are satisfied and other financial covenants are
complied with.
Investments
Our insurance business requires both readily liquid assets and
adequate capital to meet ongoing obligations to policyholders
and claimants, as well as to pay ordinary operating expenses.
Our insurance business meets both its short-term and long-term
liquidity requirements through operating cash flows that include
premium receipts, investment income and reinsurance recoveries.
To the extent operating cash flows do not provide sufficient
cash flow, the insurance business relies on the sale of invested
assets
and/or
contributions from us, as required. The investment policy
guidelines for the insurance business require that all loss and
loss adjustment expense (LAE) liabilities be matched
by a comparable amount of investment grade assets. During the
year ended December 31, 2008, we made a cash contribution
of approximately $3 million to our insurance subsidiary to
support their operating requirements. We believe that the
insurance business has both adequate capital resources and
sufficient reinsurance to meet its current operating
requirements.
The insurance subsidiaries fixed maturity debt and equity
securities portfolio are classified as
available-for-sale and are carried at fair value.
Investment securities that are traded on a national securities
exchange are stated at
61
the last reported sales price on the day of valuation. The
investment portfolio for our insurance business was as follows
as of December 31, 2008 (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortized Cost
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Investments by grade:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed maturities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. Government/Agency
|
|
$
|
17,897
|
|
|
$
|
18,207
|
|
Mortgage-backed
|
|
|
4,183
|
|
|
|
4,184
|
|
Corporate (AAA to A)
|
|
|
4,540
|
|
|
|
4,346
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total fixed maturities
|
|
|
26,620
|
|
|
|
26,737
|
|
Equity securities
|
|
|
760
|
|
|
|
792
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
27,380
|
|
|
$
|
27,529
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital
Requirements
The following table summarizes our gross contractual obligations
including project debt, leases and other obligations as of
December 31, 2008 (in thousands, Note references are to the
Notes):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payments Due by Period
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010 and
|
|
|
2012 and
|
|
|
2014 and
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
Beyond
|
|
|
Domestic project debt (Note 7)
|
|
$
|
1,006,087
|
|
|
$
|
155,597
|
|
|
$
|
265,324
|
|
|
$
|
228,972
|
|
|
$
|
356,194
|
|
International project debt (Note 7)
|
|
|
52,036
|
|
|
|
34,550
|
|
|
|
17,486
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total project debt (Note 7)
|
|
|
1,058,123
|
|
|
|
190,147
|
|
|
|
282,810
|
|
|
|
228,972
|
|
|
|
356,194
|
|
Term Loan Facility (Note 6)
|
|
|
638,625
|
|
|
|
6,500
|
|
|
|
13,000
|
|
|
|
13,000
|
|
|
|
606,125
|
|
Debentures(1)
|
|
|
373,750
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
373,750
|
|
Other long-term debt
|
|
|
512
|
|
|
|
422
|
|
|
|
90
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total debt obligations(2)
|
|
|
2,071,010
|
|
|
|
197,069
|
|
|
|
295,900
|
|
|
|
241,972
|
|
|
|
1,336,069
|
|
Less: Non-recourse debt(3)
|
|
|
(1,058,635
|
)
|
|
|
(190,569
|
)
|
|
|
(282,900
|
)
|
|
|
(228,972
|
)
|
|
|
(356,194
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total recourse debt
|
|
$
|
1,012,375
|
|
|
$
|
6,500
|
|
|
$
|
13,000
|
|
|
$
|
13,000
|
|
|
$
|
979,875
|
|
Operating leases
|
|
|
366,032
|
|
|
|
57,580
|
|
|
|
89,950
|
|
|
|
60,541
|
|
|
|
157,961
|
|
Less: Non-recourse rental payments
|
|
|
(213,722
|
)
|
|
|
(23,065
|
)
|
|
|
(46,933
|
)
|
|
|
(41,616
|
)
|
|
|
(102,108
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total recourse rental payments
|
|
$
|
152,310
|
|
|
$
|
34,515
|
|
|
$
|
43,017
|
|
|
$
|
18,925
|
|
|
$
|
55,853
|
|
Interest payments(4)
|
|
|
458,686
|
|
|
|
82,002
|
|
|
|
128,632
|
|
|
|
101,266
|
|
|
|
146,786
|
|
Less: Non-recourse interest payments
|
|
|
(298,030
|
)
|
|
|
(61,586
|
)
|
|
|
(88,311
|
)
|
|
|
(61,628
|
)
|
|
|
(86,505
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total recourse interest payments
|
|
$
|
160,656
|
|
|
$
|
20,416
|
|
|
$
|
40,321
|
|
|
$
|
39,638
|
|
|
$
|
60,281
|
|
Retirement plan obligations(5)
|
|
$
|
30,830
|
|
|
$
|
4,920
|
|
|
$
|
9,970
|
|
|
$
|
10,400
|
|
|
$
|
5,540
|
|
FIN 48 tax obligations(6)
|
|
$
|
140,811
|
|
|
$
|
22,721
|
|
|
$
|
7,075
|
|
|
$
|
3,747
|
|
|
$
|
107,268
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total obligations
|
|
$
|
1,496,982
|
|
|
$
|
89,072
|
|
|
$
|
113,383
|
|
|
$
|
85,710
|
|
|
$
|
1,208,817
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The Debentures bear interest at a rate of 1.00% per year,
payable semi-annually in arrears, on February 1 and August 1 of
each year, commencing on August 1, 2007 and will mature on
February 1, 2027. In addition, beginning with the six-month
interest period commencing February 1, 2012, we may be
required to pay contingent interest on the Debentures,
calculated with reference to the trading price of the
Debentures. As of December 31, 2008, the closing price of
our common stock did not exceed the specified conversion price,
and therefore, for purposes of this Capital Requirements chart,
we have assumed no conversions or redemptions of the Debentures
and no contingent interest related to the Debentures. For
information detailing the contingent interest, conversion or
redemption features of the Debentures, see Note 6.
Long-Term Debt of the Notes. |
|
(2) |
|
Excludes $20.2 million of unamortized debt premium. |
|
(3) |
|
Payment obligations for the project debt associated with owned
energy-from-waste facilities are limited recourse to the
operating subsidiary and non-recourse to us, subject to
operating performance guarantees and commitments. |
62
|
|
|
(4) |
|
Interest payments on the Term Loan Facility and letter of credit
fees are estimated based on current LIBOR rates and are
estimated assuming contractual principal repayments. |
|
(5) |
|
Retirement plan obligations are based on actuarial estimates for
the pension plan obligations and post-retirement plan
obligations as of December 31, 2008. |
|
(6) |
|
Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 48,
Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes, an
interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109,
(FIN 48) obligations are based upon the
expected date of settlement taking into account all of our
administrative rights including possible litigation. |
Other
Commitments
Other commitments as of December 31, 2008 were as follows
(in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commitments Expiring by Period
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less Than
|
|
|
More Than
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
One Year
|
|
|
One Year
|
|
|
Letters of credit
|
|
$
|
300,415
|
|
|
$
|
46,111
|
|
|
$
|
254,304
|
|
Surety bonds
|
|
|
64,086
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
64,086
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other commitments net
|
|
$
|
364,501
|
|
|
$
|
46,111
|
|
|
$
|
318,390
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The letters of credit were issued under various credit
facilities (primarily the Funded L/C Facility) to secure our
performance under various contractual undertakings related to
our domestic and international projects, or to secure
obligations under our insurance program. Each letter of credit
relating to a project is required to be maintained in effect for
the period specified in related project contracts, and generally
may be drawn if it is not renewed prior to expiration of that
period.
We believe that we will be able to fully perform under our
contracts to which these existing letters of credit relate and
that it is unlikely that letters of credit would be drawn
because of a default of our performance obligations. If any of
these letters of credit were to be drawn by the beneficiary, the
amount drawn would be immediately repayable by us to the issuing
bank. If we do not immediately repay such amounts drawn under
these letters of credit, unreimbursed amounts would be treated
under the Credit Facilities as additional term loans in the case
of letters of credit issued under the Funded L/C Facility, or as
revolving loans in the case of letters of credit issued under
the Revolving Loan Facility.
The surety bonds listed on the table above relate primarily to
performance obligations ($55.1 million) and support for
closure obligations of various energy projects when such
projects cease operating ($9.0 million). Were these bonds
to be drawn upon, we would have a contractual obligation to
indemnify the surety company.
We have certain contingent obligations related to the
Debentures. These are:
|
|
|
|
|
holders may require us to repurchase their Debentures on
February 1, 2012, February 1, 2017 and
February 1, 2022;
|
|
|
holders may require us to repurchase their Debentures, if a
fundamental change occurs; and
|
|
|
holders may exercise their conversion rights upon the occurrence
of certain events, which would require us to pay the conversion
settlement amount in cash
and/or our
common stock.
|
See Note 6. Long-Term Debt of the Notes for specific
criteria related to contingent interest, conversion or
redemption features of the Debentures.
As discussed in the Overview Acquisitions and
Business Development discussion above, we are focused on
developing new projects and making acquisitions to grow our
business in the Americas, Europe and Asia. We are pursuing
additional growth opportunities through the development and
construction of new waste and energy facilities. Due to
permitting and other regulatory factors, these projects
generally evolve over lengthy periods and project financing is
generally obtained at the time construction begins, at which
time, we can more accurately determine our commitment for a
development project.
To date, we have announced that we have entered into definitive
agreements for the development of a 1,700 metric tpd
energy-from-waste project serving the City of Dublin, Ireland
and surrounding communities. The Dublin project is being
developed and will be owned by Dublin Waste to Energy Limited,
which we control and co-own
63
with DONG Energy Generation A/S. Under the Dublin project
agreements, several customary conditions must be satisfied
before full construction can begin, including the issuance of
all required licenses and permits and approvals. We are
responsible for the design and construction of the project,
which is estimated to cost approximately 350 million euros
and will require 36 months to complete, once full
construction commences. We and DONG Energy Generation A/S have
committed to provide financing for all phases of the project,
and we expect to arrange for project financing. The primary
approvals and licenses for the project have been obtained, and
any remaining consents and approvals necessary to begin full
construction are expected to be obtained in due course. We have
begun to perform preliminary site demolition work and expect to
commence full construction during the second quarter of 2009.
We have issued or are party to performance guarantees and
related contractual support obligations undertaken pursuant to
agreements to construct and operate certain domestic and
international energy and waste facilities. For some projects,
such performance guarantees include obligations to repay certain
financial obligations if the project revenues are insufficient
to do so, or to obtain financing for a project. With respect to
our domestic and international businesses, we have issued
guarantees to municipal clients and other parties that our
subsidiaries will perform in accordance with contractual terms,
including, where required, the payment of damages or other
obligations. Additionally, damages payable under such guarantees
on our energy-from-waste facilities could expose us to recourse
liability on project debt. If we must perform under one or more
of such guarantees, our liability for damages upon contract
termination would be reduced by funds held in trust and proceeds
from sales of the facilities securing the project debt and is
presently not estimable. Depending upon the circumstances giving
rise to such domestic and international damages, the contractual
terms of the applicable contracts, and the contract
counterpartys choice of remedy at the time a claim against
a guarantee is made, the amounts owed pursuant to one or more of
such guarantees could be material. To date, we have not incurred
material liabilities under such performance guarantees. See
Item 1A. Risk Factors We have provided
guarantees and financial support in connection with our
projects.
Insurance
Coverage
We periodically review our insurance programs to ensure that our
coverage is appropriate for the risks attendant to our business.
As part of this review, we assess whether we have adequate
coverage for risk to our physical assets from extreme weather
events. We have obtained insurance for our assets and operations
that provides coverage for what we believe are probable maximum
losses, subject to self-insured retentions, policy limits and
premium costs which we believe to be appropriate. However, the
insurance obtained does not cover us for all possible losses.
Off-Balance
Sheet Arrangements
We are party to lease arrangements at our Union County, New
Jersey, Alexandria, Virginia and Delaware County, Pennsylvania
energy-from-waste facilities. At our Union County facility, we
lease the facility from the Union County Utilities Authority,
referred to as the UCUA, under a lease that expires
in 2023, which we may extend for an additional five years. We
guarantee a portion of the rent due under the lease. Rent under
the lease is sufficient to allow the UCUA to repay tax exempt
bonds issued by it to finance the facility and which mature in
2023.
At our Alexandria facility, we are a party to a lease which
expires in 2025 related to certain pollution control equipment
that was required in connection with the Clean Air Act
amendments of 1990, and which was financed by the City of
Alexandria and by Arlington County, Virginia. We own this
facility, and the rent under this lease is sufficient to pay
debt service on tax exempt bonds issued to finance such
equipment and which mature in 2013.
Our Covanta Delaware Valley, L.P. (Delaware Valley)
facility is a party to a lease for the facility that expires in
2019. We are obligated to pay a portion of lease rent,
designated as Basic Rent B, and could be liable to
pay certain related contractually-specified amounts, referred to
as Stipulated Loss, in the event of a default in the
payment of rent under the Delaware Valley lease beyond the
applicable grace period. The Stipulated Loss is similar to lease
termination liability and is generally intended to provide the
lessor with the economic value of the lease, for the remaining
lease term, had the default in rent payment not occurred. The
balance of rental and Stipulated Loss obligations are payable by
a trust formed and collateralized by the projects former
operator in connection with the
64
disposition of its interest in the Delaware Valley facility.
Pursuant to the terms of various guarantee agreements, we have
guaranteed the payments of Basic Rent B and Stipulated Loss to
the extent such payments are not made by our subsidiary,
referred to as the Delaware Partnership. We do not
believe, however, that such payments constitute a material
obligation of our subsidiary since our subsidiary expects to
continue to operate the Delaware Valley facility in the ordinary
course for the entire term of the lease and will continue to pay
rent throughout the term of the lease. As of December 31,
2008, the estimated Stipulated Loss would have been
$134.4 million.
We are also a party to lease arrangements pursuant to which we
lease rolling stock in connection with our operating activities,
as well as certain office equipment. Rent payable under these
arrangements is not material to our financial condition. We
generally use operating lease treatment for all of the foregoing
arrangements. A summary of the operating lease obligations is
contained in Note 15. Leases of the Notes.
As described above under Other Commitments, we have
issued or are party to performance guarantees and related
contractual obligations undertaken mainly pursuant to agreements
to construct and operate certain energy and waste facilities. To
date, we have not incurred material liabilities under our
guarantees, either on domestic or international projects.
We have investments in several investees and joint ventures
which are accounted for under the equity and cost methods and
therefore we do not consolidate the financial information of
those companies. See Note 8. Equity Method Investments of
the Notes for additional information regarding these investments.
Discussion
of Critical Accounting Policies
In preparing our consolidated financial statements in accordance
with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles
(GAAP), we are required to use judgment in making
estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in
our financial statements and related notes. We base our
estimates on historical experience and on various other
assumptions that are believed to be reasonable under the
circumstances. These estimates form the basis for making
judgments about the carrying value of assets and liabilities
that are not readily apparent from other sources. Many of our
critical accounting policies are subject to significant
judgments and uncertainties which could potentially result in
materially different results under different conditions and
assumptions. Future events rarely develop exactly as forecast,
and the best estimates routinely require adjustment.
Stock-Based
Compensation
We calculate the fair value of our share-based option awards
using the Black-Scholes option pricing model which requires
estimates of the expected life of the award and stock price
volatility. For the option awards granted prior to 2007, we
determined an expected life of eight years in accordance with
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS)
No. 123 (revised 2004), Share-Based Payments
(SFAS 123R), which replaces
SFAS No. 123, Accounting for Stock-Based
Compensation (SFAS 123). In December
2007, the SEC issued Staff Accounting Bulletin (SAB)
No. 110, which permits use of the simplified method, as
discussed in SAB No. 107, to determine the expected
life of plain vanilla options. The expected life for
the options issued in 2007 and 2008 was determined using this
simplified method and as such, the expected lives of
the options issued in 2007 range from 6.5 years to
6.04 years and in 2008 range from 6.54 to 6.48 years.
In addition, we also estimate expected forfeitures for our
options and share-based awards and the probability of achieving
specific performance factors affecting the vesting of our
share-based awards. For our current share-based awards, our
estimate of a forfeiture rate and determination of achieving
stated performance vesting factors will have the most
significant impact on the compensation cost we must recognize.
We recognize compensation costs using the graded vesting
attribution method over the requisite service period of the
award, which is generally three to five years.
We review the forfeiture rate at least annually and revise
compensation expense, if necessary. The forfeiture rates range
from 8% to 15% depending on the type of award and the vesting
period.
Purchase
Accounting
We allocate acquisition purchase prices to identified intangible
assets and tangible assets acquired and liabilities assumed
based on their estimated fair values at the dates of
acquisition, with any residual amounts
65
allocated to goodwill in accordance with SFAS No. 141,
Business Combinations (SFAS 141).
The fair value estimates used reflect our best estimates based
on our work and the work of independent valuation consultants
based on relevant information available to us. These estimates,
and the assumptions used by us and by our valuation consultants,
are subject to inherent uncertainties and contingencies beyond
our control. For example, we used the discounted cash flow
method to estimate the value of many of our assets. This
entailed developing projections about future cash flows and
adopting an appropriate discount rate. We cannot predict with
certainty actual cash flows and the selection of a discount rate
is heavily dependent on judgment. If different cash flow
projections or discount rates were used, the fair values of our
assets and liabilities could be materially increased or
decreased. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that such
estimates and assumptions reflected in the valuations will be
realized, or that further adjustments will not occur. The
assumptions and estimates used by us substantially affect our
balance sheet. In addition, the valuations impact depreciation
and amortization expense and changes in such assumptions and
estimates may affect earnings in the future. During the current
year, some of our estimates have been refined which resulted in
changes to assets and liabilities recognized on the balance
sheet as of December 31, 2008.
Effective January 1, 2009, purchase accounting will be
accounted for in accordance with SFAS No. 141 (revised
2007), Business Combinations
(SFAS 141R). See Note 2. Recent Accounting
Pronouncements of the Notes.
Depreciation
and Amortization
We have estimated the useful lives over which we depreciate our
long-lived assets. Additionally, in accordance with
SFAS No. 143, Accounting for Asset Retirement
Obligations, we have capitalized the estimate of our legal
liabilities which includes closure and post-closure costs for
landfill cells and site restoration for certain
energy-from-waste and power producing sites.
Goodwill
and Intangible Assets
In accordance with SFAS No. 142, Goodwill and
Other Intangible Assets, we evaluate our goodwill and
indefinite lived intangible assets for impairment at least
annually or when indications of impairment exist. Our judgments
regarding the existence of impairment indicators are based on
regulatory factors, market conditions, anticipated cash flows
and operational performance of our acquired assets. There has
been no impairment recognized in the current year, however an
impact of impairment in the future could have a material impact
on our financial position and results of operations.
In accordance with SFAS No. 144, Accounting for
the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets, we
evaluate our long-term assets and amortizable intangible assets
for recoverability whenever events or changes in circumstances
indicate that its carrying amount may not be recoverable. No
events or change in circumstances occurred during the period to
warrant impairment testing. However, had an event or change in
circumstances occurred, the impact of recognizing an impairment
could have a material impact on our financial position and
results of operations.
Net
Operating Loss Carryforwards Deferred Tax
Assets
As described in Note 9. Income Taxes of the Notes, we have
recorded a deferred tax asset related to our net operating loss
carryforwards (NOLs). The amount recorded was
calculated based upon future taxable income arising from
(a) the reversal of temporary differences during the period
the NOLs are available and (b) future operating income
expected from our domestic and international businesses, to the
extent it is reasonably predictable.
We estimated that we have NOLs of approximately
$591 million for federal income tax purposes as of the end
of 2008. The NOLs will expire in various amounts beginning on
December 31, 2009 through December 31, 2028, if not
used. The amount of NOLs available to us will be reduced by any
taxable income generated by current members of our tax
consolidated group including certain grantor trusts relating to
the Mission Insurance Entities or increased to the extent of any
new losses recorded.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has not audited
any of our tax returns for the years in which the losses giving
rise to the NOLs were reported, and the IRS could challenge any
past and future use of the NOLs.
66
Loss
Contingencies
As described in Note 21. Commitments and Contingencies of
the Notes, our subsidiaries are party to a number of claims,
lawsuits and pending actions, most of which are routine and all
of which are incidental to our business. We assess the
likelihood of potential losses with respect to these matters on
an ongoing basis and when losses are considered probable and
reasonably estimable, we record as a loss an estimate of the
ultimate outcome. If we can only estimate the range of a
possible loss, an amount representing the low end of the range
of possible outcomes is recorded and disclosure is made
regarding the possibility of additional losses. We review such
estimates on an ongoing basis as developments occur with respect
to such matters and may in the future increase or decrease such
estimates. There can be no assurance that our initial or
adjusted estimates of losses will reflect the ultimate loss we
may experience regarding such matters. Any inaccuracies could
potentially have a material adverse effect on our consolidated
financial condition.
Financial
Instruments
Effective January 1, 2008, we adopted
SFAS No. 159, The Fair Value Option for
Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities, including an
amendment of FASB Statement No. 115
(SFAS 159), but did not elect to apply the fair
value option to any of our eligible financial assets and
liabilities.
Effective January 1, 2008, we adopted
SFAS No. 157, Fair Value Measurements
(SFAS 157), which defines fair value,
establishes a framework for measuring fair value in accordance
with GAAP, and expands disclosures about fair value
measurements. This statement did not require any new fair value
measurements. FASB Staff Position
FAS 157-2,
Effective Date of FASB Statement No. 157, which
deferred the effective date of SFAS 157 for one year for
all non-financial assets and non-financial liabilities, except
for those items that are recognized or disclosed at fair value
in the financial statements on a recurring basis (at least
annually).
As described in Note 19. Financial Instruments of the
Notes, the estimated fair-value amounts have been determined
using available market information and appropriate valuation
methodologies. However, considerable judgment is necessarily
required in interpreting market data to develop estimates of
fair value. Accordingly, the estimates presented are not
necessarily indicative of the amounts that we would realize in a
current market exchange.
For cash and cash equivalents, restricted cash, and marketable
securities, the carrying value of these amounts is a reasonable
estimate of their fair value. The fair value of restricted funds
held in trust is based on quoted market prices of the
investments held by the trustee. The insurance
subsidiaries fixed maturity debt and equity securities
portfolio are classified as available-for-sale and
are carried at fair value. Investment securities that are traded
on a national securities exchange are stated at the last
reported sales price on the day of valuation.
Fair values for debt were determined based on interest rates
that are currently available to us for issuance of debt with
similar terms and remaining maturities for debt issues that are
not traded on quoted market prices. The fair value of project
debt is estimated based on quoted market prices for the same or
similar issues.
The fair value of our interest rate swap agreement is the
estimated amount we would receive or pay to terminate the
agreement based on the net present value of the future cash
flows as defined in the agreement.
Revenue
Recognition
We earn fees to service project debt (principal and interest)
where such fees are expressly included as a component of the
service fee paid by the client community pursuant to applicable
energy-from-waste service agreements. Regardless of the timing
of amounts paid by client communities relating to project debt
principal, we record service revenue with respect to this
principal component on a levelized basis over the term of the
applicable agreement. Unbilled service receivables related to
energy-from-waste operations are discounted in recognizing the
present value for services performed currently in order to
service the principal component of the project debt. Fees for
waste disposal are recognized in the period received. Revenue
from electricity and steam sales are recorded when delivered at
rates specified in the contracts. We also earn fees under
fixed-price construction contracts, in which case revenue is
accounted for using the percentage-of-completion of services
rendered.
67
Pensions
Our pension and other postretirement benefit plans are accounted
for in accordance with SFAS No. 158,
Employers Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and
Other Postretirement Plans an amendment to FASB
Statements No. 87, 88, 106 and 132(R)
(SFAS 158), which require costs and the related
obligations and assets arising from the pension and other
postretirement benefit plans to be accounted for based on
actuarially-determined estimates. Upon the adoption of
SFAS 158 in December 2006, we recognized a net gain of
$2.5 million, $1.7 million net of deferred tax, in
Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (AOCI) to
reflect the funded status of the pension and postretirement
benefit obligations.
On an annual basis, management evaluates the assumed discount
rate and expected return on assets used to determine pension
benefit and other postretirement benefit obligations. The
discount rate is determined based on the timing of future
benefit payments and expected rates of return currently
available on high quality fixed income securities whose cash
flows match the timing and amount of future benefit payments of
the plan.
|
|
|
|
|
Based on this evaluation for the year ended December 31,
2007, we increased the discount rate assumption for benefit
obligations from 5.75% as of December 31, 2006 to 6.50% as
of December 31, 2007. We recorded a pension plan liability
equal to the amount by which the present value of the projected
benefit obligations (using a discount rate of 6.50%) exceeded
the fair value of pension assets as of December 31, 2007.
We recognized a net actuarial gain of $14.5 million,
$9.4 million net of deferred tax, in AOCI during the year
ended December 31, 2007.
|
|
|
|
Based on this evaluation for the year ended December 31,
2008, we decreased the discount rate assumption for benefit
obligations from 6.50% as of December 31, 2007 to 6.25% as
of December 31, 2008. We recorded a pension plan liability
equal to the amount by which the present value of the projected
benefit obligations (using a discount rate of 6.25%) exceeded
the fair value of pension assets as of December 31, 2008.
We recognized a net actuarial loss of $20.0 million,
$13.2 million net of deferred tax, in AOCI during the year
ended December 31, 2008.
|
See Note 16. Employee Benefit Plans of the Notes for
additional information related to Our pension and other
postretirement benefit plans.
Unpaid
Losses and Loss Adjustment Expenses
Our insurance subsidiaries establish loss and loss adjustment
expense (LAE) reserves that are estimates of amounts
needed to pay claims and related expenses in the future for
insured events that have already occurred. The process of
estimating reserves involves a considerable degree of judgment
by management and, as of any given date, is inherently uncertain.
Reserves are typically comprised of (1) case reserves for
claims reported and (2) reserves for losses that have
occurred but for which claims have not yet been reported,
referred to as incurred but not reported (IBNR)
reserves, which include a provision for expected future
development on case reserves. Case reserves are estimated based
on the experience and knowledge of claims staff regarding the
nature and potential cost of each claim and are adjusted as
additional information becomes known or payments are made. IBNR
reserves are derived by subtracting paid loss and LAE and case
reserves from estimates of ultimate loss and LAE. Actuaries
estimate ultimate loss and LAE using various generally accepted
actuarial methods applied to known losses and other relevant
information. Like case reserves, IBNR reserves are adjusted as
additional information becomes known or payments are made.
Our insurance subsidiaries use independent actuaries with whom
we significantly rely on to form a conclusion on reserve
estimates. Those independent actuaries use several generally
accepted actuarial methods to evaluate the insurance business
loss reserves, each of which has its own strengths and
weaknesses. The independent actuaries place more or less
reliance on a particular method based on the facts and
circumstances at the time the reserve estimates are made and
through discussions with our insurance subsidiaries
management.
68
Recent
Accounting Pronouncements
See Note 1. Organization and Summary of Significant
Accounting Policies and Note 2. Recent Accounting
Pronouncements of the Notes for a summary of additional
accounting policies and new accounting pronouncements.
Related-Party
Transactions
Employment
Arrangements
See the descriptions of our employment agreements with Anthony
J. Orlando, Mark A. Pytosh, John M. Klett, Timothy J. Simpson
and Seth Myones which are incorporated by reference into
Item 11. Executive Compensation of this Annual
Report on
Form 10-K.
Affiliate
Agreements
We hold a 26% investment in Quezon. We are party to an agreement
with Quezon in which we assumed responsibility for the operation
and maintenance of Quezons coal-fired electricity
generation facility. Accordingly, 26% of the net income of
Quezon is reflected in our statement of income and as such, 26%
of the revenue earned under the terms of the operation and
maintenance agreement is eliminated against Equity in Net Income
from Unconsolidated Investments. For the fiscal years ended
December 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006, we collected
$34.0 million, $35.4 million, and $26.9 million,
respectively, for the operation and maintenance of the facility.
As of December 31, 2008 and 2007, the net amount due to
Quezon was $3.2 million and $1.1 million,
respectively, which represents advance payments received from
Quezon for operation and maintenance costs.
As part of our acquisition of Covanta Energy in 2004 as part of
its emergence from bankruptcy, we agreed to conduct a registered
offering of our common stock to certain holders of Covanta
Energys pre-petition secured debentures. On
February 24, 2006, we completed this offering, in which
5,696,911 shares were issued in consideration for
$20.8 million in gross proceeds, including 633,380 shares
purchased by D.E. Shaw Laminar Portfolios, L.L.C.
(Laminar) pursuant to the exercise of rights held by
Laminar as a holder of those debentures. At the time of this
transaction, Laminar held more than 10% of our outstanding
common stock.
Clayton Yeutter, a current director, is senior advisor to the
law firm of Hogan & Hartson LLP. Hogan &
Hartson has provided Covanta Energy with certain legal services
for many years including 2008. This relationship preceded our
acquisition of Covanta Energy. Mr. Yeutter did not direct
or have any direct or indirect involvement in the procurement,
provision, oversight or billing of such legal services and does
not directly or indirectly benefit from those fees. The Board
has determined that such relationship does not interfere with
Mr. Yeutters exercise of independent judgment as a
director.
|
|
Item 7A.
|
QUANTITATIVE
AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK
|
In the normal course of business, our subsidiaries are party to
financial instruments that are subject to market risks arising
from changes in interest rates, foreign currency exchange rates,
and commodity prices. Our use of derivative instruments is very
limited and we do not enter into derivative instruments for
trading purposes. The following analysis provides quantitative
information regarding our exposure to financial instruments with
market risks. We use a sensitivity model to evaluate the fair
value or cash flows of financial instruments with exposure to
market risk that assumes instantaneous, parallel shifts in
exchange rates and interest rate yield curves. There are certain
limitations inherent in the sensitivity analysis presented,
primarily due to the assumption that exchange rates change in a
parallel manner and that interest rates change instantaneously.
In addition, the fair value estimates presented herein are based
on pertinent information available to us as of December 31,
2008. Further information is included in Note 19. Financial
Instruments of the Notes.
Commodity
Price Risk and Contract Revenue Risk
We have not entered into futures, forward contracts, swaps or
options to hedge purchase and sale commitments, fuel
requirements, inventories or other commodities. Alternatively,
we attempt to mitigate the risk of energy and fuel market
fluctuations by structuring contracts related to our energy
projects in the manner described above in Item 7.
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition
and Results of Operation Overview
Contract Structures.
69
Generally, we are protected against fluctuations in fuel price
risk in our domestic energy-from-waste business because most of
our waste is provided under long term contracts where we are
paid for our fuel at fixed rates. At thirteen of our
energy-from-waste facilities, differing amounts of waste
disposal capacity are not subject to long-term contracts and,
therefore, we are partially exposed to the risk of market
fluctuations in the waste disposal fees we may charge for fuel.
At our domestic biomass projects, we pay for our fuel, and have
exposure to fuel price risk because wood waste most often may be
purchased only under short term arrangements. At our
international independent power projects, we do not have
material fuel cost risk because generally fuel costs are
contractually included in our electricity revenues, or fuel is
provided by our customers. In some of our international
projects, the project entity (which in some cases is not our
subsidiary) has entered into long-term fuel purchase contracts
that protect the project from changes in fuel prices, provided
counterparties to such contracts perform their commitments.
In addition, we sell, recover and recycle materials, principally
ferrous metals, under short-term arrangements from most of our
energy-from-waste projects, and have exposure to market
fluctuations with respect to such sales. During the second and
third quarters of 2008, we experienced historically high
recycled metal prices, which declined materially during the
fourth quarter of 2008. Revenue from these materials is included
within our waste services revenue.
We are protected against energy market fluctuations at most of
our projects, which have long-term contracts for the sale of
energy output. At a few of our projects, we enter into shorter
term arrangements for energy sales, or have market-based pricing
and therefore, we have some exposure to energy market
fluctuations.
In 2008, approximately 10% of our waste services revenue was
subject to market-based pricing, and approximately 13% of our
energy revenue was subject to market-based pricing.
Expiration of our contracts at energy-from-waste projects we own
and at projects we operate will subject us to greater market
risk in maintaining and enhancing our revenues. As the original
waste disposal and operating contracts have approached the
expiration dates of their initial term, we have renewed,
extended or replaced these contracts on acceptable terms.
Several more of these original waste disposal and operating
contracts will expire at various dates through 2016, and we have
risk in obtaining acceptable arrangements and associated
revenue, for such projects thereafter. As our remaining
agreements at facilities we own near expiration dates, we intend
to seek replacement or additional contracts for waste supplies,
and because project debt on these facilities will be paid off at
such time, we expect to be able to offer disposal services at
rates that will attract sufficient quantities of waste and
provide acceptable revenues. As we seek to enter into extended
or new contracts following these expiration dates, we expect
that medium and long term contracts for waste supply, for a
substantial portion of facility capacity, will be available on
acceptable terms in the marketplace. We also expect that it may
be relatively more difficult to enter into medium and long term
contracts for sales of energy. As a result, following the
expiration of these initial long term contracts, we expect to
have on a relative basis more exposure to market risk, and
therefore revenue fluctuations, in energy markets than in waste
markets. By 2010, we expect approximately 50% of our domestic
energy revenue to be sold at market rates unless contractual
arrangements we put in place provide otherwise.
We also will seek to bid competitively in the market for
additional contracts to operate other facilities as similar
contracts of other vendors expire.
Interest
Rate Risk
Outstanding loan balances under the Credit Facilities bear
interest at floating rates, which are calculated as either
interest at a reserve adjusted British Bankers Association
Interest Settlement Rate, commonly referred to as
LIBOR, the prime rate or the Federal
Funds rate plus 0.5% per annum, plus a borrowing margin. For
details as to the various election options under the Credit
Facility, see Note 6. Long-Term Debt of the Notes. As of
December 31, 2008, the outstanding balance of the Term Loan
was $638.6 million. We have not entered into any interest
rate hedging arrangements against this balance. A hypothetical
increase of 1.00% in the underlying December 31, 2008
market interest rates would result in a potential reduction to
twelve month future earnings of $6.4 million, pre-tax.
We have project debt outstanding bearing interest at floating
rates that could subject us to the risk of increased interest
expense due to rising market interest rates, or an adverse
change in fair value due to declining interest rates
70
on fixed rate debt. Of our project debt, approximately
$116.7 million was floating rate debt at December 31,
2008. However, interest rate risk relating to the floating rate
project debt is borne by the client communities because debt
service is passed through to those clients under the contractual
structure of their agreements. We had only one interest rate
swap relating to project debt outstanding as of
December 31, 2008 in the notional amount of
$68.2 million related to floating rate project debt. Gains
and losses, however, on this swap are for the account of the
client community and are not borne by us.
Contingent
Interest
On January 31, 2007, we completed an underwritten public
offering of $373.8 million aggregate principal amount of
1.00% Senior Convertible Debentures due 2027 (the
Debentures). The Debentures bear interest at a rate
of 1.00% per year, payable semi-annually in arrears, on February
1 and August 1 of each year, commencing on August 1, 2007
and will mature on February 1, 2027. Beginning with the
six-month interest period commencing February 1, 2012, we
will pay contingent interest on the Debentures during any
six-month interest period in which the trading price of the
Debentures measured over a specified number of trading days is
120% or more of the principal amount of the Debentures. When
applicable, the contingent interest payable per $1,000 principal
amount of Debentures will equal 0.25% of the average trading
price of $1,000 principal amount of Debentures during the five
trading days ending on the second trading day immediately
preceding the first day of the applicable six-month interest
period. The contingent interest feature in the Debentures is an
embedded derivative instrument. The first contingent cash
interest payment period does not commence until February 1,
2012, and as such, the fair market value for the embedded
derivative was zero as of December 31, 2008. For additional
information related to the Credit Facilities, see Note 6.
Long-Term Debt of the Notes and Item 7.
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition
and Results of Operations Liquidity and Capital
Resources 2007 Recapitalization.
Foreign
Currency Exchange Rate Risk
We have investments in energy projects in various foreign
countries, including the Philippines, China, India and
Bangladesh, and to a much lesser degree, United Kingdom,
Ireland, Italy and Costa Rica. We do not enter into currency
transactions to hedge our exposure to fluctuations in currency
exchange rates. At some projects, we have mitigated our currency
risks by structuring our project contracts so that our revenues
are adjusted in line with corresponding changes in currency
rates. Therefore, only working capital and project debt
denominated in other than a project entitys functional
currency are exposed to currency risks.
As of December 31, 2008, we had $52.0 million of
project debt related to two heavy fuel-oil projects in India.
For $46.2 million of the debt (related to project entities
whose functional currency is the Indian rupee), exchange rate
fluctuations were recorded as translation adjustments in other
comprehensive income within stockholders equity in our
consolidated balance sheets. The remaining $5.8 million of
debt was denominated in U.S. dollars.
The potential loss in fair value for such financial instruments
from a 10% adverse change in December 31, 2008 quoted
foreign currency exchange rates would be approximately
$4.6 million, pre-tax.
As of December 31, 2008, we also had net investments in
foreign subsidiaries and projects. See Note 8. Equity
Method Investments of the Notes for further discussion.
Risk
Related to the Investment Portfolio
With respect to our insurance business, the objectives in
managing the investment portfolio held by our insurance
subsidiary are to maintain necessary liquidity and maximize
investment income and investment returns while minimizing
overall market risk. Investment strategies are developed based
on many factors including duration of liabilities, underwriting
results, overall tax position, regulatory requirements, and
fluctuations in interest rates. Investment decisions are made by
management, in consultation with an independent investment
advisor, and approved by our insurance subsidiarys board
of directors. Market risk represents the potential for loss due
to adverse changes in the fair value of securities. The market
risks related to the fixed maturity portfolio are primarily
credit risk, interest rate risk, reinvestment risk and
prepayment risk. The market risk related to the equity portfolio
is price risk.
71
Fixed
Maturities
With respect to our insurance business, interest rate risk is
the price sensitivity of fixed maturities to changes in interest
rate. We view these potential changes in price within the
overall context of asset and liability matching. We estimate the
payout patterns of the liabilities, primarily loss reserves, of
our insurance subsidiary to determine their duration. Duration
targets are set for the fixed income portfolio after
consideration of the duration of the liabilities that we believe
mitigate the overall interest rate risk. Our exposure to
interest rate risk is mitigated by the relative short-term
nature of our insurance and other liabilities. The effective
duration of the portfolio was 1.6 years as of
December 31, 2008 and 2007. We believe that the portfolio
duration is appropriate given the relative short-tail nature of
the auto programs and projected run-off of all other lines of
business. A hypothetical 100 basis point increase in market
interest rates would cause an approximate 1.7% decrease in the
fair value of the portfolio while a hypothetical 100 basis
point decrease would cause an approximate 1.3% increase in fair
value. Credit risk is the price sensitivity of fixed maturities
to changes in the credit quality of such investment. Our
exposure to credit risk is mitigated by our investment in high
quality fixed income alternatives.
Fixed maturities held by our insurance subsidiary include
$4.2 million and $5.7 million of mortgage-backed
securities and collateralized mortgage obligations, collectively
(MBS) as of December 31, 2008 and 2007,
respectively. All MBS held by our insurance subsidiary were
issued by the Federal National Mortgage Association
(FNMA) or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation
(FHLMC), which are both rated AAA by Moodys
Investors Services.
One of the risks associated with MBS is the timing of principal
payments on the mortgages underlying the securities. We attempt
to limit repayment risk by purchasing MBS whose cost is below or
does not significantly exceed par, and by primarily purchasing
structured securities with repayment protection which provides
more certain cash flow to the investor such as MBS with sinking
fund schedules known as Planned Amortization Classes
(PAC) and Targeted Amortization Classes
(TAC). The structures of PACs and TACs attempt to
increase the certainty of the timing of prepayment and thereby
minimize the prepayment and interest rate risk. In 2008, our
insurance subsidiary recognized $0.02 million in gains on
sales of fixed maturities.
Equity
Securities
Our insurance subsidiarys investments in equity securities
are generally limited to Fortune 500 companies with strong
balance sheets, along with a history of dividend growth and
price appreciation. As of December 31, 2008, equity
securities represented 2.9% of our insurance companys
total investment portfolio. During 2008, the insurance
subsidiary permanently impaired 5 equity securities for a total
of $0.16 million. The impaired equity securities were
primarily in the financial services sector.
72
|
|
Item 8.
|
FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page
|
|
|
|
|
74
|
|
|
|
|
75
|
|
|
|
|
76
|
|
|
|
|
77
|
|
|
|
|
78
|
|
|
|
|
79
|
|
|
|
|
79
|
|
|
|
|
86
|
|
|
|
|
87
|
|
|
|
|
91
|
|
|
|
|
93
|
|
|
|
|
94
|
|
|
|
|
99
|
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
|
101
|
|
|
|
|
106
|
|
|
|
|
107
|
|
|
|
|
108
|
|
|
|
|
110
|
|
|
|
|
113
|
|
|
|
|
113
|
|
|
|
|
114
|
|
|
|
|
118
|
|
|
|
|
122
|
|
|
|
|
122
|
|
|
|
|
124
|
|
|
|
|
124
|
|
|
|
|
127
|
|
Financial Statement Schedule:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
128
|
|
73
Report of
Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
The Board of Directors and Stockholders of Covanta Holding
Corporation
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of
Covanta Holding Corporation (the Company) as of
December 31, 2008 and 2007, and the related consolidated
statements of income, stockholders equity, and cash flows
for each of the three years in the period ended
December 31, 2008. Our audits also included the financial
statement schedule listed in the Index at Item 8. These
financial statements and schedule are the responsibility of the
Companys management. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on these financial statements and schedule based on our
audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are
free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a
test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in
the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the
accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial
statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a
reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above
present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated
financial position of Covanta Holding Corporation at
December 31, 2008 and 2007, and the consolidated results of
its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in
the period ended December 31, 2008, in conformity with
U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Also, in our
opinion, the related financial statement schedule, when
considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken
as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the
information set forth therein.
As discussed in Note 9 to the consolidated financial
statements, effective January 1, 2007 the Company adopted
Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 48,
Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes.
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States),
Covanta Holding Corporations internal control over
financial reporting as of December 31, 2008, based on
criteria established in Internal Control-Integrated Framework
issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the
Treadway Commission and our report dated February 25, 2009
expressed an unqualified opinion thereon.
MetroPark, New Jersey
February 25, 2009
74
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except per share amounts)
|
|
|
OPERATING REVENUES:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Waste and service revenues
|
|
$
|
934,527
|
|
|
$
|
864,396
|
|
|
$
|
817,633
|
|
Electricity and steam sales
|
|
|
660,616
|
|
|
|
498,877
|
|
|
|
433,834
|
|
Other operating revenues
|
|
|
69,110
|
|
|
|
69,814
|
|
|
|
17,069
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating revenues
|
|
|
1,664,253
|
|
|
|
1,433,087
|
|
|
|
1,268,536
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING EXPENSES:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plant operating expenses
|
|
|
999,674
|
|
|
|
801,560
|
|
|
|
712,156
|
|
Depreciation and amortization expense
|
|
|
199,488
|
|
|
|
196,970
|
|
|
|
193,217
|
|
Net interest expense on project debt
|
|
|
53,734
|
|
|
|
54,579
|
|
|
|
60,210
|
|
General and administrative expenses
|
|
|
97,016
|
|
|
|
82,729
|
|
|
|
73,599
|
|
Insurance recoveries, net of write-down of assets
|
|
|
(8,325
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other operating expenses
|
|
|
66,701
|
|
|
|
60,639
|
|
|
|
2,594
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating expenses
|
|
|
1,408,288
|
|
|
|
1,196,477
|
|
|
|
1,041,776
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
255,965
|
|
|
|
236,610
|
|
|
|
226,760
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other income (expense):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income
|
|
|
5,717
|
|
|
|
10,578
|
|
|
|
11,770
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(46,804
|
)
|
|
|
(67,104
|
)
|
|
|
(109,507
|
)
|
Loss on extinguishment of debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(32,071
|
)
|
|
|
(6,795
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other expenses
|
|
|
(41,087
|
)
|
|
|
(88,597
|
)
|
|
|
(104,532
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before income tax expense, minority interests and equity
in net income from unconsolidated investments
|
|
|
214,878
|
|
|
|
148,013
|
|
|
|
122,228
|
|
Income tax expense
|
|
|
(92,227
|
)
|
|
|
(31,040
|
)
|
|
|
(38,465
|
)
|
Minority interests
|
|
|
(6,961
|
)
|
|
|
(8,656
|
)
|
|
|
(6,610
|
)
|
Equity in net income from unconsolidated investments
|
|
|
23,583
|
|
|
|
22,196
|
|
|
|
28,636
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME
|
|
$
|
139,273
|
|
|
$
|
130,513
|
|
|
$
|
105,789
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
|
153,345
|
|
|
|
152,653
|
|
|
|
145,663
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted
|
|
|
154,732
|
|
|
|
153,997
|
|
|
|
147,030
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings Per Share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
$
|
0.91
|
|
|
$
|
0.85
|
|
|
$
|
0.73
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted
|
|
$
|
0.90
|
|
|
$
|
0.85
|
|
|
$
|
0.72
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated
financial statements.
75
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except per share amounts)
|
|
|
ASSETS
|
Current:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
192,393
|
|
|
$
|
149,406
|
|
Marketable securities available for sale
|
|
|
300
|
|
|
|
2,495
|
|
Restricted funds held in trust
|
|
|
175,093
|
|
|
|
187,951
|
|
Receivables (less allowances of $3,437 and $4,353)
|
|
|
243,791
|
|
|
|
252,114
|
|
Unbilled service receivables
|
|
|
49,468
|
|
|
|
59,232
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29,873
|
|
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
|
|
|
123,214
|
|
|
|
113,927
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Current Assets
|
|
|
784,259
|
|
|
|
794,998
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
|
2,530,035
|
|
|
|
2,620,507
|
|
Investments in fixed maturities at market (cost: $26,620 and
$26,338, respectively)
|
|
|
26,737
|
|
|
|
26,260
|
|
Restricted funds held in trust
|
|
|
149,818
|
|
|
|
191,913
|
|
Unbilled service receivables
|
|
|
44,298
|
|
|
|
56,685
|
|
Waste, service and energy contracts, net
|
|
|
223,397
|
|
|
|
268,353
|
|
Other intangible assets, net
|
|
|
83,331
|
|
|
|
88,954
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
195,617
|
|
|
|
127,027
|
|
Investments in investees and joint ventures
|
|
|
102,953
|
|
|
|
81,248
|
|
Other assets
|
|
|
139,544
|
|
|
|
112,554
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Assets
|
|
$
|
4,279,989
|
|
|
$
|
4,368,499
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY
|
Current:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current portion of long-term debt
|
|
$
|
6,922
|
|
|
$
|
6,898
|
|
Current portion of project debt
|
|
|
198,034
|
|
|
|
195,625
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
|
24,470
|
|
|
|
29,916
|
|
Deferred revenue
|
|
|
15,202
|
|
|
|
25,114
|
|
Accrued expenses and other current liabilities
|
|
|
215,046
|
|
|
|
234,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Current Liabilities
|
|
|
459,674
|
|
|
|
491,553
|
|
Long-term debt
|
|
|
1,005,965
|
|
|
|
1,012,534
|
|
Project debt
|
|
|
880,336
|
|
|
|
1,084,650
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
466,468
|
|
|
|
440,723
|
|
Waste and service contracts
|
|
|
114,532
|
|
|
|
130,464
|
|
Other liabilities
|
|
|
165,881
|
|
|
|
141,740
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Liabilities
|
|
|
3,092,856
|
|
|
|
3,301,664
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commitments and Contingencies (Note 21)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minority Interests
|
|
|
35,014
|
|
|
|
40,773
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stockholders Equity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preferred stock ($0.10 par value; authorized
10,000 shares; none issued and outstanding)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock ($0.10 par value; authorized
250,000 shares; issued 154,797 and 154,281 shares;
outstanding 154,280 and 153,922 shares)
|
|
|
15,480
|
|
|
|
15,428
|
|
Additional paid-in capital
|
|
|
776,544
|
|
|
|
765,287
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive (loss) income
|
|
|
(8,205
|
)
|
|
|
16,304
|
|
Accumulated earnings
|
|
|
368,352
|
|
|
|
229,079
|
|
Treasury stock, at par
|
|
|
(52
|
)
|
|
|
(36
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Stockholders Equity
|
|
|
1,152,119
|
|
|
|
1,026,062
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Liabilities and Stockholders Equity
|
|
$
|
4,279,989
|
|
|
$
|
4,368,499
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated
financial statements.
76
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
OPERATING ACTIVITIES:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
139,273
|
|
|
$
|
130,513
|
|
|
$
|
105,789
|
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by
operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization expense
|
|
|
199,488
|
|
|
|
196,970
|
|
|
|
193,217
|
|
Revenue contract levelization
|
|
|
(586
|
)
|
|
|
(555
|
)
|
|
|
3,419
|
|
Amortization of long-term debt deferred financing costs
|
|
|
3,684
|
|
|
|
3,841
|
|
|
|
3,858
|
|
Amortization of debt premium and discount
|
|
|
(10,707
|
)
|
|
|
(14,857
|
)
|
|
|
(22,506
|
)
|
Loss on extinguishment of debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32,071
|
|
|
|
6,795
|
|
Provision for doubtful accounts
|
|
|
1,839
|
|
|
|
1,184
|
|
|
|
2,251
|
|
Stock-based compensation expense
|
|
|
14,750
|
|
|
|
13,448
|
|
|
|
6,887
|
|
Equity in net income from unconsolidated investments
|
|
|
(23,583
|
)
|
|
|
(22,196
|
)
|
|
|
(28,636
|
)
|
Dividends from unconsolidated investments
|
|
|
19,459
|
|
|
|
24,250
|
|
|
|
19,375
|
|
Minority interests
|
|
|
6,961
|
|
|
|
8,656
|
|
|
|
6,610
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
70,826
|
|
|
|
5,869
|
|
|
|
20,908
|
|
Other, net
|
|
|
3,809
|
|
|
|
(1,801
|
)
|
|
|
6,872
|
|
Change in restricted funds held in trust
|
|
|
29,481
|
|
|
|
5,493
|
|
|
|
7,790
|
|
Change in operating assets and liabilities, net of effects of
acquisitions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Receivables
|
|
|
4,138
|
|
|
|
(36,084
|
)
|
|
|
(8,577
|
)
|
Unbilled service receivables
|
|
|
14,020
|
|
|
|
19,403
|
|
|
|
17,294
|
|
Accounts payable and accrued expenses
|
|
|
(38,450
|
)
|
|
|
22,880
|
|
|
|
2,351
|
|
Unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses
|
|
|
(3,235
|
)
|
|
|
(4,984
|
)
|
|
|
(8,848
|
)
|
Other, net
|
|
|
(28,560
|
)
|
|
|
(20,510
|
)
|
|
|
(15,860
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating activities
|
|
|
402,607
|
|
|
|
363,591
|
|
|
|
318,989
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INVESTING ACTIVITIES:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition of businesses, net of cash acquired
|
|
|
(73,393
|
)
|
|
|
(110,465
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from the sale of investment securities
|
|
|
20,295
|
|
|
|
15,057
|
|
|
|
10,615
|
|
Purchase of investment securities
|
|
|
(18,577
|
)
|
|
|
(622
|
)
|
|
|
(774
|
)
|
Acquisition of non-controlling interest in subsidiary
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(27,500
|
)
|
Purchase of equity interest
|
|
|
(18,503
|
)
|
|
|
(11,199
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase of property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
(87,920
|
)
|
|
|
(85,748
|
)
|
|
|
(54,267
|
)
|
Property insurance proceeds
|
|
|
16,215
|
|
|
|
9,441
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition of land use rights
|
|
|
(16,727
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loans issued to client community to fund certain facility
improvements
|
|
|
(8,233
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other, net
|
|
|
(2,465
|
)
|
|
|
3,626
|
|
|
|
5,022
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in investing activities
|
|
|
(189,308
|
)
|
|
|
(179,910
|
)
|
|
|
(66,904
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FINANCING ACTIVITIES:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from the issuance of common stock, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
135,757
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from rights offerings, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20,498
|
|
Proceeds from the exercise of options for common stock, net
|
|
|
262
|
|
|
|
812
|
|
|
|
1,126
|
|
Proceeds from borrowings on long-term debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
949,907
|
|
|
|
97,619
|
|
Financings of insurance premiums, net
|
|
|
1,381
|
|
|
|
7,927
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from borrowings on project debt
|
|
|
8,278
|
|
|
|
3,506
|
|
|
|
6,868
|
|
Proceeds from borrowings on revolving credit facility
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Principal payments on long-term debt
|
|
|
(6,877
|
)
|
|
|
(1,181,130
|
)
|
|
|
(140,638
|
)
|
Principal payments on project debt
|
|
|
(187,800
|
)
|
|
|
(164,167
|
)
|
|
|
(151,095
|
)
|
Payments of borrowings on revolving credit facility
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(30,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Payments of long-term debt deferred financing costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(18,324
|
)
|
|
|
(2,129
|
)
|
Payments of tender premiums on debt extinguishment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(33,016
|
)
|
|
|
(1,952
|
)
|
Increase in holding company restricted funds
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,660
|
|
|
|
|
|
Decrease in restricted funds held in trust
|
|
|
21,575
|
|
|
|
31,432
|
|
|
|
31,583
|
|
Distributions to minority partners
|
|
|
(7,061
|
)
|
|
|
(7,699
|
)
|
|
|
(9,263
|
)
|
Other, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(37
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in financing activities
|
|
|
(170,242
|
)
|
|
|
(268,335
|
)
|
|
|
(147,420
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
(70
|
)
|
|
|
618
|
|
|
|
221
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
42,987
|
|
|
|
(84,036
|
)
|
|
|
104,886
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period
|
|
|
149,406
|
|
|
|
233,442
|
|
|
|
128,556
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period
|
|
$
|
192,393
|
|
|
$
|
149,406
|
|
|
$
|
233,442
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Paid for Interest and Income Taxes:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest
|
|
$
|
114,207
|
|
|
$
|
146,677
|
|
|
$
|
205,807
|
|
Income taxes
|
|
$
|
22,979
|
|
|
$
|
24,122
|
|
|
$
|
17,398
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated
financial statements.
77
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additional
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common Stock
|
|
|
Paid-In
|
|
|
Unearned
|
|
|
Comprehensive
|
|
|
Earnings
|
|
|
Treasury Stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Compensation
|
|
|
Compensation
|
|
|
(Loss) Income
|
|
|
(Deficit)
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Balance as of December 31, 2005
|
|
|
141,246
|
|
|
$
|
14,125
|
|
|
$
|
594,186
|
|
|
$
|
(4,583
|
)
|
|
$
|
535
|
|
|
$
|
(5,014
|
)
|
|
|
80
|
|
|
$
|
(8
|
)
|
|
$
|
599,241
|
|
Reclass of unearned compensation upon adoption of SFAS 123R
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,583
|
)
|
|
|
4,583
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares issued in rights offering
|
|
|
5,697
|
|
|
|
570
|
|
|
|
19,928
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20,498
|
|
Stock-based compensation expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,887
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,887
|
|
Tax benefit related to exercise of stock options and vesting of
restricted stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,242
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,242
|
|
Shares forfeited for terminated employees
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(30
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
77
|
|
|
|
(8
|
)
|
|
|
(38
|
)
|
Exercise of options to purchase common stock
|
|
|
178
|
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
1,108
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,126
|
|
Shares issued in non-vested stock award
|
|
|
536
|
|
|
|
53
|
|
|
|
(53
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive income, net of income taxes:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
105,789
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
105,789
|
|
Foreign currency translation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
986
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
986
|
|
Minimum pension liability adjustment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
Net unrealized gain on available-for-sale securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
559
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
559
|
|
Net unrealized gain on derivative instruments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
112
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
112
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,757
|
|
|
|
105,789
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
107,546
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjustment for unrecognized net gain upon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
adoption of SFAS 158
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,650
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,650
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of December 31, 2006
|
|
|
147,657
|
|
|
|
14,766
|
|
|
|
619,685
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,942
|
|
|
|
100,775
|
|
|
|
157
|
|
|
|
(16
|
)
|
|
|
739,152
|
|
Shares issued in equity offering, net of costs
|
|
|
6,118
|
|
|
|
612
|
|
|
|
135,143
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
135,755
|
|
Stock-based compensation expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,448
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,448
|
|
Effect of FIN 48 adoption
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,209
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,209
|
)
|
Tax benefit related to exercise of stock options and vesting of
restricted stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
200
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
200
|
|
Shares forfeited for terminated employees
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27
|
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Shares repurchased for tax withholdings for vested stock awards
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,954
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
175
|
|
|
|
(17
|
)
|
|
|
(3,971
|
)
|
Exercise of options to purchase common stock
|
|
|
113
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
801
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
812
|
|
Shares issued in non-vested stock award
|
|
|
393
|
|
|
|
39
|
|
|
|
(39
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive income, net of income taxes:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
130,513
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
130,513
|
|
Foreign currency translation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,388
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,388
|
|
SFAS 158 unrecognized net gain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,446
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,446
|
|
Minimum pension liability adjustment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(59
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(59
|
)
|
Net unrealized gain on available-for-sale securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
712
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
712
|
|
Net unrealized gain on derivative instruments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,125
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,125
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,362
|
|
|
|
130,513
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
142,875
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of December 31, 2007
|
|
|
154,281
|
|
|
|
15,428
|
|
|
|
765,287
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,304
|
|
|
|
229,079
|
|
|
|
359
|
|
|
|
(36
|
)
|
|
|
1,026,062
|
|
Stock-based compensation expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,750
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,750
|
|
Shares forfeited for terminated employees
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21
|
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Shares repurchased for tax withholdings for vested stock awards
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,705
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
137
|
|
|
|
(14
|
)
|
|
|
(3,719
|
)
|
Exercise of options to purchase common stock
|
|
|
22
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
260
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
262
|
|
Shares issued in non-vested stock award
|
|
|
494
|
|
|
|
50
|
|
|
|
(50
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive income, net of income taxes:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
139,273
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
139,273
|
|
Foreign currency translation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10,481
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10,481
|
)
|
SFAS 158 unrecognized net loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(13,218
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(13,218
|
)
|
Minimum pension liability adjustment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(403
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(403
|
)
|
Net unrealized loss on available-for-sale securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(407
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(407
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(24,509
|
)
|
|
|
139,273
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
114,764
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of December 31, 2008
|
|
|
154,797
|
|
|
$
|
15,480
|
|
|
$
|
776,544
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(8,205
|
)
|
|
$
|
368,352
|
|
|
|
517
|
|
|
$
|
(52
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,152,119
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated
financial statements.
78
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
|
|
Note 1.
|
Organization
and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
|
The terms we, our, ours,
us and Company refer to Covanta Holding
Corporation and its subsidiaries; the term Covanta
Energy refers to our subsidiary Covanta Energy Corporation
and its subsidiaries.
Organization
We are a leading developer, owner and operator of infrastructure
for the conversion of waste to energy (known as
energy-from-waste), as well as other waste disposal
and renewable energy production businesses in the Americas,
Europe and Asia. We are organized as a holding company which was
incorporated in Delaware on April 16, 1992. Our predominant
business is the waste and energy services business. We also have
investments in subsidiaries engaged in insurance operations in
California primarily in property and casualty insurance.
We conduct all of our operations through subsidiaries which are
engaged predominantly in the businesses of waste and energy
services. We also engage in the independent power production
business outside the Americas. We own, have equity investments
in, and/or
operate 60 energy generation facilities, 50 of which are in the
United States and 10 of which are located outside the United
States. Our energy generation facilities use a variety of fuels,
including municipal solid waste, wood waste (biomass), landfill
gas, water (hydroelectric), natural gas, coal, and heavy
fuel-oil. We also own or operate several businesses that are
associated with our energy-from-waste business, including a
waste procurement business, a biomass procurement business, four
landfills, which we use primarily for ash disposal, and several
waste transfer stations. We have two reportable segments,
Domestic and International, which are comprised of our domestic
and international waste and energy services operations,
respectively.
Summary
of Significant Accounting Policies
Principles
of Consolidation
The consolidated financial statements reflect the results of our
operations, cash flows and financial position and of our
majority-owned or controlled subsidiaries. All intercompany
accounts and transactions have been eliminated.
Equity
Method of Investments
We use the equity method to account for our investments for
which we have the ability to exercise significant influence over
the operating and financial policies of the investee.
Consolidated net income includes our proportionate share of the
net income or loss of these companies. Such amounts are
classified as equity in net income from unconsolidated
investments in our consolidated financial statements.
Investments in companies in which we do not have the ability to
exercise significant influence are carried at the lower of cost
or estimated realizable value. We monitor investments for other
than temporary declines in value and make reductions when
appropriate.
Revenues
Waste and
Service Revenues
Revenues from waste and service agreements consist of the
following:
1) Fees earned under contract to operate and maintain
energy-from-waste and independent power facilities are
recognized as revenue when services are rendered, regardless of
the period they are billed;
2) Fees earned to service project debt (principal and
interest) where such fees are expressly included as a component
on the service fee paid by the client community pursuant to
applicable energy-from-waste service agreements. Regardless of
the timing of amounts paid by client communities relating to
project debt principal, we record service revenue with respect
to this principal component on a levelized basis over the term
of the agreement. Unbilled service receivables related to
energy-from-waste operations
79
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
are discounted in recognizing the present value for services
performed currently in order to service the principal component
of the project debt;
3) Fees earned for processing waste in excess of
contractual requirements are recognized as revenue beginning in
the period when we process the excess waste. Some of our
contracts include stated fixed fees earned by us for processing
waste up to certain base contractual amounts during specified
periods. These contracts also set forth the per-ton fees that
are payable if we accept waste in excess of the base contractual
amounts;
4) Tipping fees earned under waste disposal agreements are
recognized as revenue in the period the waste is
received; and
5) Other miscellaneous fees, such as revenue for ferrous
and non-ferrous metal recovered and recycled, are generally
recognized as revenue when ferrous and non-ferrous metal is sold.
Electricity
and Steam Sales
Revenue from the sale of electricity and steam are earned and
recorded based upon output delivered and capacity provided at
rates specified under contract terms or prevailing market rates
net of amounts due to client communities under applicable
service agreements. We account for certain long-term power
contracts in accordance with Emerging Issues Task Force
(EITF)
No. 91-6,
Revenue Recognition of Long-Term Power Sales
Contracts and EITF
No. 96-17,
Revenue Recognition under Long-Term Power Sales Contracts
That Contain both Fixed and Variable Pricing Terms which
require that power revenues under these contracts be recognized
as the lesser of (a) amounts billable under the respective
contracts; or (b) an amount determinable by the kilowatt
hours made available during the period multiplied by the
estimated average revenue per kilowatt hour over the term of the
contract. The determination of the lesser amount is to be made
annually based on the cumulative amounts that would have been
recognized had each method been applied consistently from the
beginning of the contract. The difference between the amount
billed and the amount recognized is included in other long-term
liabilities.
Construction
Revenues
Revenues under fixed-price construction contracts are recognized
using the percentage-of-completion method, measured by the
cost-to-cost method. Under this method, total contract costs are
estimated, and the ratio of costs incurred to date to the
estimated total costs on the contract is used to determine the
percentage-of-completion. This method is used because we
consider the costs incurred to be the best available measure of
progress on these contracts. Contracts to manage, supervise, or
coordinate the construction activity of others are recognized
using the percentage-of-completion method, measured by the
efforts-expended method. Under this method revenue is earned
based on the ratio of hours incurred to the total estimated
hours required by the contract. We consider measuring the work
on labor hours to be the best available measure of progress on
these contracts. Construction revenues are recorded as other
operating revenues in the consolidated statements of income.
Pass
Through Costs
Pass through costs are costs for which we receive a direct
contractually committed reimbursement from the municipal client
which sponsors an energy-from-waste project. These costs
generally include utility charges, insurance premiums, ash
residue transportation and disposal, and certain chemical costs.
These costs are recorded net of municipal client reimbursements
in our consolidated financial statements. Total pass through
costs for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006
were $70.2 million, $63.5 million, and
$59.3 million, respectively.
Income
Taxes
Deferred income taxes are based on the difference between the
financial reporting and tax basis of assets and liabilities. The
deferred income tax provision represents the change during the
reporting period in the deferred tax assets and deferred tax
liabilities, net of the effect of acquisitions and dispositions.
Deferred tax assets include tax
80
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
losses and credit carryforwards and are reduced by a valuation
allowance if, based on available evidence, it is more likely
than not that some portion or all of the deferred tax assets
will not be realized.
During the periods covered by the consolidated financial
statements, we filed a consolidated Federal income tax return,
which included all eligible United States subsidiary companies.
Foreign subsidiaries were taxed according to regulations
existing in the countries in which they do business. Our
subsidiary, Covanta Lake II, Inc. has not been a member of any
consolidated tax group since February 20, 2004. Our federal
consolidated income tax return also includes the taxable results
of certain grantor trusts, which are excluded from our
consolidated financial statements.
We adopted and apply the permanent reinvestment exception under
Accounting Principles Board (APB) Opinion
No. 23, Accounting for Income Taxes
Special Areas (APB 23) in 2006 and Financial
Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Interpretation
No. 48, Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes,
an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109,
(FIN 48) in 2007. For additional information
related to the impact of applying these provisions, see
Note 9. Income Taxes.
Stock-Based
Compensation
Stock-based compensation is accounted for in accordance with
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS)
No. 123 (revised 2004), Share-Based Payments
(SFAS 123R). SFAS 123R focuses primarily
on accounting for share-based awards to employees in exchange
for services, and it requires entities to recognize compensation
expense for these awards. The cost for equity-based stock awards
is expensed based on their grant date fair value. For additional
information, see Note 17. Stock-Based Award Plans.
Cash and
Cash Equivalents
Cash and cash equivalents include all cash balances and highly
liquid investments having maturities of three months or less
from the date of purchase. These short-term investments are
stated at cost, which approximates market value.
Investments
Effective January 1, 2008, we adopted
SFAS No. 159, The Fair Value Option for
Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities, including an
amendment of FASB Statement No. 115
(SFAS 159), but did not elect to apply the fair
value option to any of our eligible financial assets and
liabilities.
Effective January 1, 2008, we adopted
SFAS No. 157, Fair Value Measurements
(SFAS 157), which defines fair value,
establishes a framework for measuring fair value in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles, and expands
disclosures about fair value measurements.
The insurance subsidiaries fixed maturity debt and equity
securities portfolio are classified as
available-for-sale
and are carried at fair value. Investment securities that are
traded on a national securities exchange are stated at the last
reported sales price on the day of valuation. Changes in fair
value are credited or charged directly to Accumulated Other
Comprehensive Income (AOCI) in the consolidated
statements of stockholders equity as unrealized gains or
losses, respectively. Investment gains or losses realized on the
sale of securities are determined using the specific
identification method. Realized gains and losses are recognized
in the consolidated statements of income based on the amortized
cost of fixed maturities and cost basis for equity securities on
the date of trade, subject to any previous adjustments for
other than temporary declines. For additional
information, see Note 13. Investments.
Other than temporary declines in fair value are
recorded as realized losses in the consolidated statements of
income and the cost basis of the security is reduced. We
consider the following factors in determining whether declines
in the fair value of securities are other than
temporary:
|
|
|
|
|
the significance of the decline in fair value compared to the
cost basis;
|
|
|
the time period during which there has been a significant
decline in fair value;
|
81
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
whether the unrealized loss is credit-driven or a result of
changes in market interest rates;
|
|
|
a fundamental analysis of the business prospects and financial
condition of the issuer; and
|
|
|
our ability and intent to hold the investment for a period of
time sufficient to allow for any anticipated recovery in fair
value.
|
Other investments, such as investments in companies in which we
do not have the ability to exercise significant influence, are
carried at the lower of cost or estimated realizable value.
Restricted
Funds Held in Trust
Restricted funds held in trust are primarily amounts received by
third party trustees relating to certain projects we own which
may be used only for specified purposes. We generally do not
control these accounts. They primarily include debt service
reserves for payment of principal and interest on project debt,
and deposits of revenues received with respect to projects prior
to their disbursement, as provided in the relevant indenture or
other agreements. Such funds are invested principally in United
States Treasury bills and notes and United States government
agency securities. Restricted fund balances are as follows (in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
Current
|
|
|
Noncurrent
|
|
|
Current
|
|
|
Noncurrent
|
|
|
Debt service funds
|
|
$
|
103,371
|
|
|
$
|
97,761
|
|
|
$
|
111,193
|
|
|
$
|
142,098
|
|
Revenue funds
|
|
|
25,105
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22,253
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other funds
|
|
|
46,617
|
|
|
|
52,057
|
|
|
|
54,505
|
|
|
|
49,815
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
175,093
|
|
|
$
|
149,818
|
|
|
$
|
187,951
|
|
|
$
|
191,913
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restricted
Funds for Emergence Costs
As of December 31, 2008 and 2007, we had $20.4 million
and $20.0 million, respectively, in cash held in restricted
accounts to pay for certain taxes which may be due relating to
Covanta Energys bankruptcy, which occurred prior to its
acquisition by us, and that are estimated to be paid in the
future. Cash held in such restricted accounts is not available
for general corporate purposes.
Deferred
Financing Costs
As of December 31, 2008 and 2007, we had $13.7 million
and $17.7 million, respectively, of net deferred financing
costs recorded on the consolidated balance sheets. These costs
were incurred in connection with our various financing
arrangements. These costs are being amortized using the
effective interest rate method over the expected period that the
related financing was to be outstanding. See Note 6.
Long-Term Debt 2007 Recapitalization.
Deferred
Revenue
Deferred revenue consisted of the following (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
Current
|
|
|
Noncurrent
|
|
|
Current
|
|
|
Noncurrent
|
|
|
Advance billings to municipalities
|
|
$
|
8,333
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
11,610
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Unearned insurance premiums
|
|
|
1,587
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
896
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
5,282
|
|
|
|
4,345
|
|
|
|
12,608
|
|
|
|
4,931
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
15,202
|
|
|
$
|
4,345
|
|
|
$
|
25,114
|
|
|
$
|
4,931
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advance billings to various customers are billed one or two
months prior to performance of service and are recognized as
income in the period the service is provided. Noncurrent
deferred revenue relates to electricity contract levelization
and is included in other noncurrent liabilities in the
consolidated balance sheets.
82
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Property,
Plant and Equipment
Property, plant, and equipment acquired from acquisitions were
recorded at our estimate of their fair values on the date of the
acquisition. Additions, improvements and major expenditures are
capitalized if they increase the original capacity or extend the
remaining useful life of the original asset more than one year.
Maintenance repairs and minor expenditures are expensed in the
period incurred. Depreciation is computed using the
straight-line method over the estimated remaining useful lives
of the assets, which range up to 37 years for
energy-from-waste facilities. The original useful lives
generally range from three years for computer equipment to
50 years for components of energy-from-waste facilities.
Leaseholds improvements are depreciated over the remaining life
of the lease or the asset, whichever is shorter. Upon retirement
or disposal of assets, the cost and related accumulated
depreciation are removed from the consolidated balance sheet and
any gain or loss is reflected in the consolidated statements of
income.
Asset
Retirement Obligations
In accordance with SFAS No. 143, Accounting for
Asset Retirement Obligations (SFAS 143),
we recognize a legal liability for asset retirement obligations
when it is incurred generally upon acquisition,
construction, or development. Our legal liabilities include
closure and post-closure costs for landfill cells and site
restoration for certain energy-from-waste and power producing
sites. We principally determine the liability using internal
estimates of the costs using current information, assumptions,
and interest rates, but also use independent appraisals as
appropriate to estimate costs. When a new liability for asset
retirement obligation is recorded, we capitalize the cost of the
liability by increasing the carrying amount of the related
long-lived asset. The liability is accreted to its present value
each period and the capitalized cost is depreciated over the
useful life of the related asset. We recognize period-to-period
changes in the liability resulting from revisions to the timing
or the amount of the original estimate of the undiscounted cash
flows. Any changes are incorporated into the carrying amount of
the liability and will result in an adjustment to the amount of
asset retirement cost allocated to expense in subsequent
periods. Our asset retirement obligation is presented as follows
(in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Beginning of period asset retirement obligation
|
|
$
|
25,520
|
|
|
$
|
26,517
|
|
Accretion expense
|
|
|
1,998
|
|
|
|
2,091
|
|
Deductions(1)
|
|
|
(1,565
|
)
|
|
|
(5,290
|
)
|
Additions(2)
|
|
|
1,576
|
|
|
|
2,202
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
End of period asset retirement obligation
|
|
$
|
27,529
|
|
|
$
|
25,520
|
|
Less: current portion
|
|
|
(1,618
|
)
|
|
|
(964
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asset retirement obligation
|
|
$
|
25,911
|
|
|
$
|
24,556
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Deductions in 2008 and 2007 related to expenditures and
settlements of the asset retirement obligation liability and net
revisions based on current estimates of the liability and
revised expected cash flows and life of the liability. |
|
(2) |
|
Additions in 2008 related primarily to purchase price
allocations for asset retirement obligations for the ash
landfill acquired in Massachusetts in 2008, offset by purchase
price allocation adjustments for the two biomass energy
facilities acquired in California in 2007. Additions in 2007
related primarily to purchase price allocations for asset
retirement obligations for the two biomass energy facilities
acquired in California in 2007. See Note 3. Acquisitions,
Business Development and Dispositions. |
Waste,
Service and Energy Contracts
The vast majority of our waste, service and energy contracts
were valued in March 2004 and June 2005 related to the
acquisitions of Covanta Energy and Covanta ARC Holdings, Inc.
(ARC Holdings), respectively. Intangible assets and
liabilities, as well as lease interest, renewable energy credits
and other indefinite-lived assets, are
83
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
recorded at their estimated fair market values based upon
discounted cash flows in accordance with SFAS No. 141,
Business Combinations (SFAS 141).
Amortization for the above market waste, service and
energy contracts and below market waste and energy
contracts was calculated using the straight-line method. The
remaining weighted-average contract life is approximately
9 years for both the above market waste,
service and energy contracts and below market waste
and energy contracts. See Note 10. Amortization of Waste,
Service and Energy Contracts.
Impairment
of Goodwill, Other Intangibles and Long-Lived Assets
We evaluate goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets not
subject to amortization for impairment on an annual basis, or
more frequently if events occur or circumstances change
indicating that the fair value of a reporting unit may be below
its carrying amount, in accordance with SFAS No. 142,
Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets
(SFAS 142). The evaluation of goodwill requires
a comparison of the estimated fair value of the reporting unit
to which the goodwill has been assigned to its carrying value.
If the carrying value of the reporting unit exceeds the fair
value of that reporting unit, then the reporting units
carrying value of goodwill is compared to its implied value of
goodwill. If the carrying value of the reporting units
goodwill exceeds the implied value of goodwill, this difference
will be recorded as an adjustment to the goodwill balance,
resulting in an impairment charge. The fair value was determined
using a discounted cash flow approach based on forward-looking
information regarding market share and costs for each reporting
unit as well as an appropriate discount rate. For
indefinite-lived intangible assets, the evaluation requires a
comparison of the estimated fair value of the asset, which is
generally estimated using a discounted future net cash flow
projection, to the carrying value of the asset. If the carrying
value of an indefinite-lived intangible asset exceeds its fair
value, as generally estimated using a discounted future net cash
flow projection, then the carrying value of the asset is reduced
to its fair value.
Intangible and other long-lived assets such as property, plant
and equipment and purchased intangible assets with finite lives,
are evaluated for impairment whenever events or changes in
circumstances indicate its carrying value may not be recoverable
over their estimated useful life in accordance with
SFAS No. 144, Accounting for the Impairment or
Disposal of Long-Lived Assets. In reviewing for
impairment, we compare the carrying value of the relevant assets
to the estimated undiscounted future cash flows expected from
the use of the assets and their eventual disposition. When the
estimated undiscounted future cash flows are less than their
carrying amount, an impairment loss is recognized equal to the
difference between the assets fair value and its carrying
value. To determine fair value, we principally use internal
discounted cash flow estimates, but also use quoted market
prices when available and independent appraisals as appropriate
to determine fair value. Cash flow estimates are derived from
historical experience and internal business plans with an
appropriate discount rate applied.
Accumulated
Other Comprehensive Income
AOCI, in the statement of stockholders equity, includes
unrealized gains and losses excluded from the consolidated
statements of income. These unrealized gains and losses consist
of unrecognized gains or losses on our pension and other
postretirement benefit obligations, foreign currency translation
adjustments, unrealized gains or losses on securities classified
as available-for-sale, and net unrealized gains and losses on
interest rate swaps.
Interest
Rate Swap Agreements
We used derivative financial instruments to manage risk from
changes in interest rates pursuant to the requirements under one
of our debt agreement in existence as of December 31, 2006.
We recognize derivative instruments on the balance sheet at
their fair value. Changes in the fair value of a derivative that
is highly effective as, and that is designated and qualifies as,
a cash flow hedge are included in the consolidated statements of
stockholders equity as a component of AOCI until the
hedged cash flows impact earnings. Any hedge ineffectiveness is
included in current-period earnings. For additional information
regarding derivative financial instruments, see Note 19.
Financial Instruments.
84
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Foreign
Currency Translation
For foreign operations, assets and liabilities are translated at
year-end exchange rates and revenues and expenses are translated
at the average exchange rates during the year. Gains and losses
resulting from foreign currency translation are included in the
consolidated statements of stockholders equity as a
component of AOCI. Currency transaction gains and losses are
recorded in Other Operating Expenses in the consolidated
statements of income.
Pension
and Postretirement Benefit Obligations
Our pension and other postretirement benefit plans are accounted
for in accordance with SFAS No. 158,
Employers Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and
Other Postretirement Plans an amendment to FASB
Statements No. 87, 88, 106 and 132(R)
(SFAS 158), which require costs and the related
obligations and assets arising from the pension and other
postretirement benefit plans to be accounted for based on
actuarially-determined estimates. For additional information,
see Note 16. Employee Benefit Plans.
Unpaid
Losses and Loss Adjustment Expenses
Unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses (LAE) are
based on estimates of reported losses and historical experience
for incurred but unreported claims, including losses reported by
other insurance companies for reinsurance assumed, and estimates
of expenses for investigating and adjusting all incurred and
unadjusted claims. We believe that the provisions for unpaid
losses and LAE are adequate to cover the cost of losses and LAE
incurred to date. However, such liability is based upon
estimates which may change and there can be no assurance that
the ultimate liability will not exceed such estimates. Unpaid
losses and LAE are continually monitored and reviewed, and as
settlements are made or reserves adjusted, differences are
included in current operations. The following table summarizes
the activity in the insurance subsidiaries liability for
unpaid losses and LAE (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Net unpaid losses and LAE at beginning of year
|
|
$
|
22,400
|
|
|
$
|
25,712
|
|
|
$
|
32,082
|
|
Incurred, net, related to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current year
|
|
|
7,272
|
|
|
|
6,398
|
|
|
|
7,579
|
|
Prior years
|
|
|
1,818
|
|
|
|
1,492
|
|
|
|
297
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total net incurred
|
|
|
9,090
|
|
|
|
7,890
|
|
|
|
7,876
|
|
Paid, net, related to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current year
|
|
|
(4,361
|
)
|
|
|
(3,905
|
)
|
|
|
(4,085
|
)
|
Prior years
|
|
|
(6,982
|
)
|
|
|
(7,357
|
)
|
|
|
(10,221
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total net paid
|
|
|
(11,343
|
)
|
|
|
(11,262
|
)
|
|
|
(14,306
|
)
|
Plus: Increase in allowance for reinsurance recoverable on
unpaid losses
|
|
|
60
|
|
|
|
60
|
|
|
|
60
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net unpaid losses and LAE at end of year
|
|
|
20,207
|
|
|
|
22,400
|
|
|
|
25,712
|
|
Plus: Reinsurance recoverable on unpaid losses
|
|
|
9,155
|
|
|
|
10,036
|
|
|
|
12,308
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross unpaid losses and LAE at end of year
|
|
$
|
29,362
|
|
|
$
|
32,436
|
|
|
$
|
38,020
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use of
Estimates
The preparation of financial statements requires us to make
estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of
assets or liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and
liabilities at the date of the consolidated financial statements
and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the
reporting period. Actual results could differ from those
estimates. Significant estimates include useful lives of
long-lived assets, unbilled service receivables, stock-based
compensation, purchase accounting allocations, cash flows and
taxable income from future operations, unpaid losses and LAE,
allowances for uncollectible receivables, and liabilities
related to pension obligations, and for workers
compensation, severance and certain litigation.
85
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Reclassifications
Certain prior period amounts have been reclassified in the
financial statements to conform to the current period
presentation.
During the first quarter of 2008, we revised our presentation of
the condensed consolidated statements of cash flows to present
changes in restricted funds held in trust relating to operating
activities as a component of cash flow from operating activities
and changes in restricted funds held in trust relating to
financing activities (debt principal related) as a component of
cash flow from financing activities; previously we included all
changes in restricted funds held in trust as a component of cash
flow from financing activities. For the years ended
December 31, 2007 and 2006, we have reclassified
approximately $5.5 million and $7.8 million,
respectively, as a component of cash flow from operating
activities in order to conform to the current period
presentation on the consolidated statements of cash flows.
|
|
Note 2.
|
Recent
Accounting Pronouncements
|
In June 2008, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position
(FSP)
No. EITF 03-6-1,
Determining Whether Instruments Granted in Share-Based
Payment Transactions Are Participating Securities
(FSP
EITF 03-6-1).
The FSP, which is effective for us on January 1, 2009,
addresses whether instruments granted in share-based payment
transactions are participating securities prior to vesting and,
therefore, need to be included in the earnings allocation in
computing earnings per share under the two-class method
described in FASB Statement No. 128, Earnings per
Share. The restricted stock awards granted under our
Equity Award Plans are not participating securities. The
adoption of FSP
EITF 03-6-1
will not have any impact on our consolidated financial
statements.
In May 2008, the FASB issued FSP No. APB
14-1,
Accounting for Convertible Debt Instruments That May Be
Settled in Cash upon Conversion (Including Partial Cash
Settlement) (FSP APB
14-1).
The FSP requires the issuer of convertible debt instruments with
cash settlement features to separately account for the liability
and equity components of the instrument. The debt component
should be recognized at the present value of its cash flows
discounted using the issuers nonconvertible debt borrowing
rate. The equity component should be recognized as the
difference between the proceeds from the issuance of the note
and the fair value of the liability, net of deferred taxes. FSP
APB 14-1
also requires an accretion of the resultant debt discount over
the expected life of the debt. FSP APB
14-1,
effective for us on January 1, 2009 for our
1.00% Senior Convertible Debentures
(Debentures), requires retrospective application for
all periods presented, and does not grandfather existing
instruments. We estimate that the pre-tax increase in non-cash
interest expense to be recognized on our consolidated statements
of income using a 7.25% discount rate, our nonconvertible debt
borrowing rate at the date of the bonds issuance, would be
as follows (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
2008
|
|
2009
|
|
2010
|
|
2011
|
|
2012-2027
|
|
Total
|
|
Pre-tax increase in non-cash interest expense
|
|
$
|
5.2
|
|
|
$
|
6.1
|
|
|
$
|
6.5
|
|
|
$
|
7.0
|
|
|
$
|
7.6
|
|
|
$
|
213.9
|
|
|
$
|
246.3
|
|
In April 2008, the FASB issued FSP FASB
No. 142-3,
Determining the Useful Life of Intangible Assets,
(FSP FASB
142-3)
which amends the factors that should be considered in developing
renewal or extension assumptions used to determine the useful
life of a recognized intangible asset under FASB Statement
No. 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets
(SFAS 142). The intent of this FSP is to
improve the consistency between the useful life of a recognized
intangible asset under SFAS 142 and the period of expected
cash flows used to measure the fair value of the asset under
FASB Statement No. 141 (revised 2007), Business
Combinations, and other U.S. generally accepted
accounting principles (GAAP). This FSP permits us to use our own
assumptions about whether a renewal or extension of a lease or
service agreement in a business combination will occur. If we
expect a renewal or extension, costs expected for the renewal or
extension can be considered part of the cost of the asset and
the life of the asset will include the renewal or extension
period. FSP FASB
142-3 is
effective for us on January 1, 2009. We do not expect the
adoption of FSP FASB
142-3 to
have a material impact on our existing intangible assets.
86
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
In March 2008, the FASB issued SFAS No. 161,
Disclosures about Derivative Instruments and Hedging
Activities (SFAS 161), which is intended
to improve financial reporting about derivative instruments and
hedging activities by requiring enhanced disclosures to enable
investors to better understand the effects on an entitys
financial position, financial performance, and cash flows.
SFAS 161 was effective for us on January 1, 2009. We
do not expect the adoption of SFAS 161 to result in
additional financial reporting disclosures.
In December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 160,
Noncontrolling Interests in Consolidated Financial
Statements (SFAS 160). SFAS 160
amends Accounting Research Bulletin No. 51,
Consolidated Financial Statements, to establish
accounting and reporting for the noncontrolling (minority)
interests in a subsidiary and the deconsolidation of a
subsidiary. Moreover, SFAS 160 eliminates the diversity
that currently exists in accounting for transactions between an
entity and noncontrolling interests by requiring they be treated
as equity transactions. SFAS 160 was effective for us on
January 1, 2009. We do not expect the adoption of
SFAS 160 to have a material impact on our consolidated
financial statements.
In December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 141
(revised 2007), Business Combinations
(SFAS 141R). SFAS 141R establishes
principles and requirements for the acquiring entity in a
business combination to: recognize and measure the assets
acquired and liabilities assumed in the transaction including
any noncontrolling interest of the acquired entity; recognize
and measure any goodwill acquired or gain resulting from a
bargain purchase; establish the acquisition-date fair value as
the measurement objective; and disclose to investors and other
users of financial statements all of the information they need
to evaluate and understand the nature and financial effect of
the business combination. Other significant changes include:
expensing of direct transaction costs as incurred; capitalizing
in-process research and development costs; and recording a
liability for contingent consideration at the measurement date
with subsequent remeasurement recognized in the results of
operations. SFAS 141R also requires that any costs for
business restructuring and exit activities related to the
acquired company will be included in the post-combination
results of operations. SFAS 141R also requires that any tax
adjustments for business combinations previously recorded under
SFAS 141 be recognized in the results of operations.
SFAS 141R was effective for us on January 1, 2009 and
may have a material impact on our consolidated financial
statements, depending on the specific business combination
transaction.
|
|
Note 3.
|
Acquisitions,
Business Development and Dispositions
|
Our growth strategy includes the acquisition of waste and energy
related businesses located in markets with significant growth
opportunities and the development of new projects and expansion
of existing projects. We will also consider acquiring or
developing new technologies and businesses that are
complementary with our existing renewable energy and waste
services business. Acquisitions are accounted for under the
purchase method of accounting. The results of operations reflect
the period of ownership of the acquired businesses, business
development projects and dispositions. The acquisitions in the
section below are not material to our consolidated financial
statements individually or in the aggregate and therefore,
disclosures of pro forma financial information have not been
presented.
We allocate acquisition purchase prices to identified
intangibles assets and tangible assets acquired and liabilities
assumed based on their estimated fair values at the dates of
acquisition, with any residual amounts allocated to goodwill, in
accordance with SFAS 141, which is effective through
December 31, 2008. Effective January 1, 2009, all
business combinations will be accounted for in accordance with
SFAS 141R. See Note 2. Recent Accounting
Pronouncements.
Acquisitions
and Business Development
Domestic
Maine
Biomass Energy Facilities
On December 22, 2008, we acquired Indeck Maine, LLC from
co-owners Ridgewood Maine, L.L.C. and Indeck Energy Services,
Inc. Indeck Maine, LLC owned and operated two biomass energy
facilities. The two nearly
87
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
identical facilities, located in West Enfield and Jonesboro,
Maine, added a total of 49 gross megawatts (MW)
to our renewable energy portfolio. We have begun to sell the
electric output and intend to sell renewable energy credits from
these facilities into the New England market. We acquired these
two facilities for cash consideration of approximately
$53.3 million, net of cash acquired, subject to final
working capital adjustments. The preliminary purchase price
allocation, which includes no goodwill, is based on estimates
and assumptions, any changes to which could affect the reported
amounts of assets, liabilities and expenses resulting from this
acquisition.
Wallingford,
Connecticut Energy-from-Waste Facility
On December 17, 2008, we entered into new tip fee contracts
which will supply waste to the Wallingford, Connecticut
facility, following the expiration of the existing service fee
contract in 2010. These contracts in total are expected to
supply waste utilizing most or all of the facilitys
capacity through 2020.
Kent
County, Michigan Energy-from-Waste Facility
On December 4, 2008, we entered into a new tip fee contract
with Kent County in Michigan which commenced on January 1,
2009 and extended the existing contract from 2010 to 2023. This
contract is expected to supply waste utilizing most or all of
the facilitys capacity. Previously this was a service fee
contract.
Pasco
County, Florida Energy-from-Waste Facility
On September 23, 2008, we entered into a new service fee
contract with the Pasco County Commission in Florida which
commenced on January 1, 2009 and extended the existing
contract from 2011 to 2016.
Indianapolis
Energy-from-Waste Facility
On July 25, 2008, we entered into a new tip fee contract
with the City of Indianapolis for a term of 10 years which
commenced upon expiration of the existing service fee contract
in December 2008. This contract represents approximately 50% of
the facilitys capacity.
Tulsa
Energy-from-Waste Facility
On June 2, 2008, we acquired an energy-from-waste facility
in Tulsa, Oklahoma from The CIT Group/Equipment Financing, Inc.
for cash consideration of approximately $12.7 million. The
design capacity of the facility is 1,125 tons per day
(tpd) of waste and gross electric capacity of
16.5 MW. This facility was shut down by the prior owner in
the summer of 2007 and we returned two of the facilitys
three boilers to service in November 2008, and plan to return
its third boiler to service during 2009. During the year ended
December 31, 2008, we have invested approximately
$4.9 million in capital improvements to restore the
operational performance of the facility.
Peabody
Landfill
On May 20, 2008, we acquired a landfill for the disposal of
ash in Peabody, Massachusetts from Peabody Monofill Associates,
Inc. and others for cash consideration of approximately
$7.4 million.
Alternative
Energy Technology Development
We have entered into various agreements with multiple partners
to invest in the development, testing or licensing of new
technologies related to the transformation of waste materials
into renewable fuels or the generation of energy. Initial
licensing fees and demonstration unit purchases approximated
$6.5 million during the year ended December 31, 2008.
Harrisburg
Energy-from-Waste Facility
In February 2008, we entered into a ten year agreement to
maintain and operate an 800 tpd energy-from-waste facility
located in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Under the agreement, we
have a right of first refusal to purchase the facility. We also
have agreed to provide construction management services and to
advance up to $25.5 million in funding for certain facility
improvements required to enhance facility performance, the
repayment of which is
88
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
guaranteed by the City of Harrisburg. As of December 31,
2008, we have advanced $8.2 million under this funding
arrangement. The facility improvements are expected to be
completed by mid 2009.
Lee
County Energy-from-Waste Facility
In December 2007, we completed the expansion and commenced the
operation of the expanded
energy-from-waste
facility located in and owned by Lee County in Florida. We
expanded waste processing capacity from 1,200 tpd to 1,836 tpd
and increased gross electricity capacity from 36.9 MW to
57.3 MW. As part of the agreement to implement this
expansion, we received a long-term operating contract extension
expiring in 2024.
Pacific
Ultrapower Chinese Station, California
On October 18, 2007, we acquired an additional 5% ownership
interest in our subsidiary Pacific Ultrapower Chinese Station, a
biomass energy facility located in California, for less than
$1 million in cash, increasing our ownership interest to a
majority interest of 55%. Although we have acquired majority
interest, we do not have the ability to exercise control over
the operating and financial policies of the investee and
therefore, we continue to account for this investment under the
equity method.
Massachusetts
Energy-from-Waste Facilities and Transfer Stations
On October 1, 2007, we acquired the operating businesses of
EnergyAnswers Corporation for cash consideration of
approximately $41 million. We also assumed net debt of
$21 million ($23 million of consolidated indebtedness
net of $2 million of restricted funds held in trust). These
businesses include a 400 tpd energy-from-waste facility in
Springfield, Massachusetts and a 240 tpd energy-from-waste
facility in Pittsfield, Massachusetts. Approximately 75% of
waste revenues are contracted for these facilities. We
subsequently sold certain assets acquired in this transaction
for a total consideration of $5.8 million during the fourth
quarter of 2007 and the first quarter of 2008. The purchase
price allocation included $9.6 million of goodwill.
Westchester
Transfer Stations
On October 1, 2007, we acquired two waste transfer stations
in Westchester County, New York from Regus Industries, LLC for
cash consideration of approximately $7.3 million. The
purchase price allocation included $1.5 million of goodwill.
California
Biomass Energy Facilities
On July 16, 2007, we acquired Central Valley Biomass
Holdings, LLC (Central Valley) from The
AES Corporation. Under the terms of the purchase agreement,
we paid cash consideration of $51 million plus
approximately $5 million in cash related to post-closing
adjustments and transaction costs. Central Valley owns two
biomass energy facilities and a biomass energy fuel management
business, which are all located in California. In addition, we
invested approximately $8 million prior to
December 31, 2007, and approximately $11 million
during the year ended December 31, 2008 in capital
improvements to significantly increase the facilities
productivity and improve environmental performance. As of
September 30, 2008, these capital improvements have been
completed. The purchase price allocation included
$23.2 million of goodwill.
Holliston
Transfer Station
On April 30, 2007, we acquired a waste transfer station in
Holliston, Massachusetts from Casella Waste Systems Inc. for
cash consideration of approximately $7.5 million. In
addition, we invested approximately $4.2 million prior to
December 31, 2007 and approximately $1.0 million
during the year ended December 31, 2008 in capital
improvements to enhance the environmental and operational
performance of the transfer station.
Hempstead
Energy-from-Waste Facility
We entered into a new tip fee contract with the Town of
Hempstead in New York for a term of 25 years commencing
upon expiration of the existing contract in August 2009. This
contract provides approximately 50% of
89
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
the facilitys capacity. We also entered into new tip fee
contracts with other customers that expire between February 2011
and December 2014. These contracts provide an additional 40% of
the facilitys capacity.
Hillsborough
County Energy-from-Waste Facility
We designed, constructed, and now operate and maintain the 1,200
tpd mass-burn energy-from-waste facility located in and owned by
Hillsborough County in Florida. Due to the growth in the amount
of municipal solid waste generated in Hillsborough County,
Hillsborough County informed us of its desire to expand the
facilitys waste processing and electricity generation
capacities. In August 2005, we entered into agreements with
Hillsborough County to implement this expansion, and to extend
the agreement under which we operate the facility through 2027.
Environmental and other project related permits have been
secured and the expansion construction commenced on
December 29, 2006. Completion of the expansion, and
commencement of the operation of the expanded project, is
expected in 2009.
Covanta
Onondaga Limited Partnership
On December 27, 2006, for cash consideration of
$27.5 million, we acquired the limited partnership
interests held by unaffiliated entities in Covanta Onondaga
Limited Partnership, our subsidiary which owns and operates an
energy-from-waste facility in Onondaga County, New York.
International
China
Joint Ventures
On April 2, 2008, our project joint venture with Chongqing
Iron & Steel Company (Group) Limited received an award
to build, own, and operate an 1,800 tpd energy-from-waste
facility for Chengdu Municipality, in Sichuan Province,
Peoples Republic of China. On June 25, 2008, the
projects 25 year waste concession agreement was
executed. In connection with this project, we invested
$17.1 million for a 49% equity interest in the project
joint venture company. The Chengdu project is expected to
commence construction in early 2009, and commence operations in
2011.
In December 2007, we entered into a joint venture with Guangzhou
Development Power Investment Co., Ltd. through which we intend
to develop energy-from-waste projects in Guangdong Province,
Peoples Republic of China. We hold a 40% equity interest
in the joint venture entity, Guangzhou Development Covanta
Environmental Energy Co., Ltd (GDC Environmental
Energy), and on June 6, 2008, we invested
$1.5 million in the joint venture.
On April 25, 2007, we purchased a 40% equity interest in
Chongqing Sanfeng Environmental Industry Co., Ltd.
(Sanfeng), a company located in Chongqing
Municipality, Peoples Republic of China. The company,
which was renamed Chongqing Sanfeng Covanta Environmental
Industry Co., Ltd., owns minority equity interests in two 1,200
metric tpd 24 MW mass-burn energy-from-waste projects
(Fuzhou project and Tongqing project). We made an initial cash
payment of approximately $10 million in connection with our
investment in Sanfeng. In December 2008, we entered into an
agreement with Beijing Baoluo Investment Co., Ltd. to purchase a
direct 58% equity interest in the Fuzhou project for
approximately $14 million. This purchase is conditional
upon various regulatory and other conditions precedent and is
expected to close in early 2009.
Dublin
Joint Venture
On September 6, 2007, we entered into definitive agreements
to build, own, and operate a 1,700 metric tpd energy-from-waste
project serving the City of Dublin, Ireland and surrounding
communities. The Dublin project is being developed and will be
owned by Dublin Waste to Energy Limited, which we control and
co-own with DONG Energy Generation A/S. Project construction,
which is expected to start in mid 2009, is estimated to cost
approximately 350 million euros and is expected to require
36 months to complete, once full construction commences.
Dublin Waste to Energy Limited has a
25-year tip
fee type contract to provide disposal service for approximately
320,000 metric tons of waste annually. The project is expected
to sell electricity into the local electricity grid under
short-term arrangements. We and DONG Energy Generation A/S have
committed to provide
90
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
financing for all phases of the project, and we expect to
arrange for project financing. The primary approvals and
licenses for the project have been obtained, and any remaining
consents and approvals necessary to begin full construction are
expected to be obtained in due course. We have begun to perform
preliminary site demolition work and expect to commence full
construction during the second quarter of 2009.
Dispositions
On September 13, 2007, we completed the sale of the Linan
coal facility in China for $2.3 million and recorded a
pre-tax gain of approximately $1.7 million in other
operating income in our consolidated statements of income.
On June 10, 2006, we completed the sale of the Huantai coal
facility in China for $3.6 million and recorded a pre-tax
gain of approximately $1.2 million in other operating
income in our consolidated statements of income.
Note 4. Earnings
Per Share and Stockholders Equity
Earnings
Per Share
Per share data is based on the weighted average number of
outstanding shares of our common stock, par value $0.10 per
share, during the relevant period. Basic earnings per share are
calculated using only the weighted average number of outstanding
shares of common stock. Diluted earnings per share computations,
as calculated under the treasury stock method, include the
weighted average number of shares of additional outstanding
common stock issuable for stock options, restricted stock, and
rights whether or not currently exercisable. Diluted earnings
per share for all the periods presented does not include
securities if their effect was anti-dilutive (in thousands,
except per share amounts).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
139,273
|
|
|
$
|
130,513
|
|
|
$
|
105,789
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic earnings per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average basic common shares outstanding
|
|
|
153,345
|
|
|
|
152,653
|
|
|
|
145,663
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic earnings per share
|
|
$
|
0.91
|
|
|
$
|
0.85
|
|
|
$
|
0.73
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted earnings per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average basic common shares outstanding
|
|
|
153,345
|
|
|
|
152,653
|
|
|
|
145,663
|
|
Dilutive effect of stock options
|
|
|
649
|
|
|
|
620
|
|
|
|
557
|
|
Dilutive effect of restricted stock
|
|
|
738
|
|
|
|
724
|
|
|
|
402
|
|
Dilutive effect of rights
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
408
|
|
Dilutive effect of convertible debentures
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average diluted common shares outstanding
|
|
|
154,732
|
|
|
|
153,997
|
|
|
|
147,030
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted earnings per share
|
|
$
|
0.90
|
|
|
$
|
0.85
|
|
|
$
|
0.72
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock options excluded from the weighted average dilutive common
shares outstanding because their inclusion would have been
antidilutive
|
|
|
1,983
|
|
|
|
1,745
|
|
|
|
50
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restricted stock awards excluded from the weighted average
dilutive common shares outstanding because their inclusion would
have been antidilutive
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On January 31, 2007, we issued 1.00% Senior
Convertible Debentures, due 2027, which are convertible under
certain circumstances if the closing sale price of our common
stock exceeds a specified conversion price before
February 1, 2025. As of December 31, 2008, the
Debentures did not have a dilutive effect on earnings per share.
See Note 6. Long-Term Debt for a description of the
Debentures.
91
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Stockholders
Equity
On September 22, 2008, we announced that our Board of
Directors authorized the purchase of up to $30 million of
our common stock in order to respond opportunistically to
volatile market conditions. The share repurchases, if any, may
take place from time to time based on market conditions and
other factors. The authorization is expected to continue only
for so long as recent volatile market conditions persist. During
the year ended December 31, 2008, we did not repurchase
shares of our common stock under this program.
During the year ended December 31, 2008 and 2007, we
repurchased 137,015 shares and 174,999 shares,
respectively, of our common stock in connection with tax
withholdings for vested stock awards.
As of December 31, 2008, there were 154,796,601 shares
of common stock issued of which 154,279,306 were outstanding;
the remaining 517,295 shares of common stock issued but not
outstanding were held as treasury stock as of December 31,
2008.
The following represents shares of common stock reserved for
future issuance:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Shares available for issuance under equity plans
|
|
|
9,907,333
|
|
As of December 31, 2008, there were 10,000,000 shares
of preferred stock authorized, with none issued or outstanding.
The preferred stock may be divided into a number of series as
defined by our Board of Directors. The Board of Directors are
authorized to fix the rights, powers, preferences, privileges
and restrictions granted to and imposed upon the preferred stock
upon issuance.
During the year ended December 31, 2008, we granted 494,105
restricted stock awards and 250,000 options to purchase our
common stock. For information related to stock-based award
plans, see Note 17. Stock-Based Award Plans.
On January 31, 2007, we completed an underwritten public
offering of 5.32 million shares of our common stock.
Proceeds received in these offerings were approximately
$136.6 million, net of underwriting discounts and
commissions. Additional information is contained in Note 6.
Long-Term Debt.
Effective January 1, 2007, we adopted the provisions of
FIN 48. The impact of applying the provisions of this
interpretation decreased our opening balance retained earnings
by $2.2 million in 2007. See Note 9. Income Taxes for
additional information.
On February 24, 2006, we completed a rights offering in
which 5,696,911 shares were issued in consideration for
$20.8 million in gross proceeds. See Note 20.
Related-Party Transactions.
92
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
Note 5.
|
Financial
Information by Business Segments
|
We have two reportable segments, Domestic and International,
which are comprised of our domestic and international waste and
energy services operations, respectively. The results of our
reportable segments are as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reportable Segments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Domestic
|
|
|
International
|
|
|
All Other(1)
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating revenues
|
|
$
|
1,371,431
|
|
|
$
|
279,966
|
|
|
$
|
12,856
|
|
|
$
|
1,664,253
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
190,659
|
|
|
|
8,751
|
|
|
|
78
|
|
|
|
199,488
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
255,007
|
|
|
|
3,061
|
|
|
|
(2,103
|
)
|
|
|
255,965
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets (includes goodwill of $195.6 million)
|
|
$
|
3,975,740
|
|
|
$
|
239,582
|
|
|
$
|
64,667
|
|
|
$
|
4,279,989
|
|
Capital additions
|
|
|
85,770
|
|
|
|
2,082
|
|
|
|
68
|
|
|
|
87,920
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2007:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating revenues
|
|
$
|
1,245,617
|
|
|
$
|
177,217
|
|
|
$
|
10,253
|
|
|
$
|
1,433,087
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
187,875
|
|
|
|
8,998
|
|
|
|
97
|
|
|
|
196,970
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
220,092
|
|
|
|
20,183
|
|
|
|
(3,665
|
)
|
|
|
236,610
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2007:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets (includes goodwill of $127.0 million)
|
|
$
|
4,007,621
|
|
|
$
|
257,481
|
|
|
$
|
103,397
|
|
|
$
|
4,368,499
|
|
Capital additions
|
|
|
84,983
|
|
|
|
528
|
|
|
|
237
|
|
|
|
85,748
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating revenues
|
|
$
|
1,117,927
|
|
|
$
|
136,868
|
|
|
$
|
13,741
|
|
|
$
|
1,268,536
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
184,921
|
|
|
|
8,193
|
|
|
|
103
|
|
|
|
193,217
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
206,483
|
|
|
|
19,839
|
|
|
|
438
|
|
|
|
226,760
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets (includes goodwill of $91.3 million)
|
|
$
|
4,097,310
|
|
|
$
|
216,518
|
|
|
$
|
123,992
|
|
|
$
|
4,437,820
|
|
Capital additions
|
|
|
53,651
|
|
|
|
599
|
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
54,267
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
All other is comprised of our insurance subsidiaries
operations and the financial results of the holding company. |
Our operations are principally in the United States. Operations
outside of the United States are primarily in Asia, with some
projects in Europe and Latin America. A summary of revenues and
total assets by geographic area is as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
United States
|
|
|
India
|
|
|
Other International
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Operating Revenues:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2008
|
|
$
|
1,384,287
|
|
|
$
|
259,923
|
|
|
$
|
20,043
|
|
|
$
|
1,664,253
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2007
|
|
$
|
1,255,870
|
|
|
$
|
157,405
|
|
|
$
|
19,812
|
|
|
$
|
1,433,087
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2006
|
|
$
|
1,131,667
|
|
|
$
|
108,150
|
|
|
$
|
28,719
|
|
|
$
|
1,268,536
|
|
Total Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2008
|
|
$
|
3,975,365
|
|
|
$
|
65,766
|
|
|
$
|
238,858
|
|
|
$
|
4,279,989
|
|
As of December 31, 2007
|
|
$
|
4,079,552
|
|
|
$
|
91,710
|
|
|
$
|
197,237
|
|
|
$
|
4,368,499
|
|
93
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Long-Term
Debt
Long-term debt is as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
1.00% Senior Convertible Debentures due 2027
|
|
$
|
373,750
|
|
|
$
|
373,750
|
|
Term loan due 2014
|
|
|
638,625
|
|
|
|
645,125
|
|
Other long-term debt
|
|
|
512
|
|
|
|
557
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
1,012,887
|
|
|
|
1,019,432
|
|
Less: current portion
|
|
|
(6,922
|
)
|
|
|
(6,898
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total long-term debt
|
|
$
|
1,005,965
|
|
|
$
|
1,012,534
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-Term
Liquidity
As of December 31, 2008, we had available credit for
liquidity as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
Outstanding Letters
|
|
|
|
|
Available
|
|
|
|
of Credit as of
|
|
Available as of
|
|
|
Under Facility
|
|
Maturing
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
Revolving Loan Facility(1)
|
|
$
|
300,000
|
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
300,000
|
|
Funded L/C Facility
|
|
$
|
320,000
|
|
|
|
2014
|
|
|
$
|
292,144
|
|
|
$
|
27,856
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Up to $200 million of which may be utilized for letters of
credit. |
Under our Revolving Loan Facility, we have pro rata funding
commitments from a large consortium of banks, including a 6.8%
pro rata commitment from Lehman Brothers Commercial Bank. Lehman
Brothers Commercial Bank is a subsidiary of Lehman Brothers
Holdings, Inc., which filed for bankruptcy protection in
September 2008. We believe that neither the Lehman Brothers
Holdings, Inc. bankruptcy, nor the ability of Lehman Brothers
Commercial Bank (which is not currently part of such bankruptcy
proceeding) to fund its pro rata share of any draw request we
may make, will have a material effect on our liquidity.
Credit
Facilities
We have the ability to make investments in our business and to
take advantage of opportunities to grow our business through
investments and acquisitions, both domestically and
internationally, by utilizing Credit Facilities (as defined
below under 2007 Recapitalization which are comprised of:
|
|
|
|
|
a $300 million revolving loan facility due 2013, which
includes a $200 million sub-facility for the issuance of
letters of credit (the Revolving Loan Facility);
|
|
|
a $320 million funded letter of credit facility due 2014
(the Funded L/C Facility); and
|
|
|
a term loan facility, due 2014, in the initial amount of
$650 million and of which $638.6 million was
outstanding as of December 31, 2008 (the Term Loan
Facility).
|
Amortization
Terms
The Credit Facilities include mandatory annual amortization of
the Term Loan Facility to be paid in quarterly installments
beginning June 30, 2007, through the date of maturity as
follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
2014
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Annual Remaining Amortization
|
|
$
|
6,500
|
|
|
$
|
6,500
|
|
|
$
|
6,500
|
|
|
$
|
6,500
|
|
|
$
|
6,500
|
|
|
$
|
606,125
|
|
|
$
|
638,625
|
|
Under the Credit Facilities, we are obligated to apply a portion
of excess cash from operations on an annual basis (calculated
pursuant to the credit agreement), as well as specified other
sources, to repay borrowings under the
94
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Term Loan Facility. The portion of excess cash (as defined in
the credit agreement) to be used for this purpose is 50%, 25%,
or 0%, based on measurement of the leverage ratio under the
financial covenants.
Interest
and Fee Terms
Loans under the Credit Facilities are designated, at our
election, as Eurodollar rate loans or base rate loans.
Eurodollar loans bear interest at a reserve adjusted British
Bankers Association Interest Settlement Rate, commonly referred
to as LIBOR, for deposits in dollars plus a
borrowing margin as described below. Interest on Eurodollar rate
loans is payable at the end of the applicable interest period of
one, two, three or six months (and at the end of every three
months in the case of six month Eurodollar loans). Base rate
loans bear interest at (a) a rate per annum equal to the
greater of (1) the prime rate designated in the
relevant facility or (2) the Federal Funds rate plus 0.5%
per annum, plus (b) a borrowing margin as described below.
Letters of credit that may be issued in the future under the
Revolving Loan Facility will accrue fees at the then effective
borrowing margins on Eurodollar rate loans (described below),
plus a fee on each issued letter of credit payable to the
issuing bank. Letter of credit availability under the Funded L/C
Facility accrues fees (whether or not letters of credit are
issued thereunder) at the then effective borrowing margin for
Eurodollar rate loans times the total availability for issuing
letters of credit (whether or not then utilized), plus a fee on
each issued letter of credit payable to the issuing bank. In
addition, we have agreed to pay to the participants under the
Funded L/C Facility a fee equal to 0.10% times the average daily
amount of the credit linked deposit paid by such participants
for their participation under the Funded L/C Facility.
The borrowing margins referred to above for the Credit
Facilities are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Borrowing Margin
|
|
|
Borrowing Margin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
for Term Loans,
|
|
|
for Term Loans,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funded Letters of
|
|
|
Funded Letters of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credit and
|
|
|
Credit and
|
|
|
|
Borrowing Margin
|
|
|
Borrowing Margin
|
|
|
Credit-Linked
|
|
|
Credit-Linked
|
|
|
|
for Revolving Loans
|
|
|
for Revolving Loans
|
|
|
Deposits
|
|
|
Deposits
|
|
Leverage Ratio
|
|
(Eurodollar Loans)
|
|
|
(Base Rate Loans)
|
|
|
(Eurodollar Loans)
|
|
|
(Base Rate Loans)
|
|
|
³
4.00:1.00
|
|
|
2.00
|
%
|
|
|
1.00
|
%
|
|
|
1.75
|
%
|
|
|
0.75
|
%
|
< 4.00:1.00 and
³
3.25:1.00
|
|
|
1.75
|
%
|
|
|
0.75
|
%
|
|
|
1.50
|
%
|
|
|
0.50
|
%
|
< 3.25:1.00 and
³
2.75:1.00
|
|
|
1.50
|
%
|
|
|
0.50
|
%
|
|
|
1.50
|
%
|
|
|
0.50
|
%
|
< 2.75:1.00
|
|
|
1.25
|
%
|
|
|
0.25
|
%
|
|
|
1.50
|
%
|
|
|
0.50
|
%
|
Guarantees
and Securitization
The Credit Facilities are guaranteed by us and by certain of our
subsidiaries. The subsidiaries that are party to the Credit
Facilities agreed to secure all of the obligations under the
Credit Facilities by granting, for the benefit of secured
parties, a first priority lien on substantially all of their
assets, to the extent permitted by existing contractual
obligations, a pledge of substantially all of the capital stock
of each of our domestic subsidiaries and 65% of substantially
all the capital stock of each of our foreign subsidiaries which
are directly owned, in each case to the extent not otherwise
pledged.
Credit
Agreement Financial Covenants
The loan documentation under the Credit Facilities contains
customary affirmative and negative covenants and financial
covenants. We were in compliance with all required covenants as
of December 31, 2008.
The affirmative covenants of the Credit Facilities include
covenants relating to the following:
|
|
|
|
|
financial statements and other reports;
|
|
|
continued existence;
|
|
|
payment of taxes and claims;
|
|
|
maintenance of properties;
|
|
|
insurance coverage;
|
|
|
inspections by lenders (subject to frequency and cost
reimbursement limitations);
|
95
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
lenders meetings;
|
|
|
compliance with laws;
|
|
|
environmental matters;
|
|
|
additional material real estate assets;
|
|
|
designation of subsidiaries; and
|
|
|
post-closing matters.
|
The negative covenants of the Credit Facilities include
limitations on the following:
|
|
|
|
|
indebtedness (including guarantee obligations);
|
|
|
liens;
|
|
|
negative pledge clauses;
|
|
|
restricted junior payments;
|
|
|
clauses restricting subsidiary distributions;
|
|
|
investments;
|
|
|
fundamental changes;
|
|
|
disposition of assets;
|
|
|
acquisitions;
|
|
|
conduct of business;
|
|
|
amendments or waivers of certain agreements;
|
|
|
changes in fiscal year; and
|
|
|
hedge agreements.
|
The financial covenants of the Credit Facilities, which are
measured on a trailing four quarter period basis, include the
following:
|
|
|
|
|
maximum Covanta Energy leverage ratio of 4.00 to 1.00 for the
four quarter period ended December 31, 2008, which measures
Covanta Energys principal amount of consolidated debt less
certain restricted funds dedicated to repayment of project debt
principal and construction costs (Consolidated Adjusted
Debt) to its adjusted earnings before interest, taxes,
depreciation and amortization, as calculated under the Credit
Facilities (Adjusted EBITDA). The definition of
Adjusted EBITDA in the Credit Facilities excludes certain
non-cash charges. The maximum Covanta Energy leverage ratio
allowed under the Credit Facilities adjusts in future periods as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.00 to 1.00 for each of the four quarter periods ended
March 31, June 30 and September 30, 2009;
|
|
|
3.75 to 1.00 for each of the four quarter periods ended
December 31, 2009, March 31, June 30 and
September 30, 2010;
|
|
|
3.50 to 1.00 for each four quarter period thereafter;
|
|
|
|
|
|
maximum Covanta Energy capital expenditures incurred to maintain
existing operating businesses of $100 million per fiscal
year, subject to adjustment due to an acquisition by Covanta
Energy; and
|
|
|
minimum Covanta Energy interest coverage ratio of 3.00 to 1.00,
which measures Covanta Energys Adjusted EBITDA to its
consolidated interest expense plus certain interest expense of
ours, to the extent paid by Covanta Energy.
|
Defaults under the Credit Facilities include:
|
|
|
|
|
non-payment of principal when due;
|
|
|
non-payment of any amount payable to an issuing bank in
reimbursement of any drawing under a letter of credit when due;
|
|
|
non-payment of interest, fees or other amounts after a grace
period of five days;
|
|
|
cross-default to material indebtedness;
|
|
|
violation of a covenant (subject, in the case of certain
affirmative covenants, to a grace period of thirty days);
|
|
|
material inaccuracy of a representation or warranty when made;
|
96
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
bankruptcy events with respect to us, Covanta Energy or any
material subsidiary or group of subsidiaries of Covanta Energy;
|
|
|
material judgments;
|
|
|
certain material ERISA events;
|
|
|
change of control (subject to exceptions for certain of our
existing owners);
|
|
|
failure of subordination; and
|
|
|
actual or asserted invalidity of any guarantee or security
document.
|
2007
Recapitalization
During the first quarter of 2007, we completed a comprehensive
recapitalization utilizing a series of equity and debt
financings including the following transactions:
|
|
|
|
|
the refinancing of our previously existing credit facilities
with new credit facilities, comprised of a $300 million
revolving credit facility, a $320 million funded letter of
credit facility, and a $650 million term loan (collectively
referred to as the Credit Facilities);
|
|
|
an underwritten public offering of 6.118 million shares of
our common stock, from which we received proceeds of
approximately $136.6 million, net of underwriting discounts
and commissions;
|
|
|
an underwritten public offering of approximately
$373.8 million aggregate principal amount of Debentures,
from which we received proceeds of approximately
$364.4 million, net of underwriting discounts and
commissions; and
|
|
|
the repayment, by means of a tender offer and redemptions, of
approximately $611.9 million in aggregate principal amount
of outstanding notes previously issued by certain of our
intermediate subsidiaries.
|
As a result of the recapitalization, we recognized a loss on
extinguishment of debt of approximately $32.1 million,
pre-tax, which was comprised of the write-down of deferred
financing costs, tender premiums paid for the intermediate
subsidiary debt, and a call premium paid in connection with
previously existing financing arrangements. These amounts were
partially offset by the write-down of unamortized premiums
relating to the intermediate subsidiary debt and a gain
associated with the settlement of our interest rate swap
agreements.
Debentures
On January 31, 2007, we completed an underwritten public
offering of $373.8 million aggregate principal amount of
Debentures. This offering included Debentures sold pursuant to
an over-allotment option which was exercised by the
underwriters. The Debentures constitute our general unsecured
senior obligations and will rank equally in right of payment
with any future senior unsecured indebtedness. The Debentures
are effectively junior to our existing and future secured
indebtedness, including the Credit Facilities, to the extent of
the value of the assets securing such indebtedness. The
Debentures are not guaranteed by any of our subsidiaries and are
effectively subordinated to all existing and future indebtedness
and liabilities (including trade payables) of our subsidiaries.
The Debentures bear interest at a rate of 1.00% per year,
payable semi-annually in arrears, on February 1 and August 1 of
each year, commencing on August 1, 2007 and will mature on
February 1, 2027. Beginning with the
six-month
interest period commencing February 1, 2012, we will pay
contingent interest on the Debentures during any six-month
interest period in which the trading price of the Debentures
measured over a specified number of trading days is 120% or more
of the principal amount of the Debentures. When applicable, the
contingent interest payable per $1,000 principal amount of
Debentures will equal 0.25% of the average trading price of
$1,000 principal amount of Debentures during the five trading
days ending on the second trading day immediately preceding the
first day of the applicable six-month interest period. The
contingent interest feature in the Debentures is an embedded
derivative instrument. The first contingent cash interest
payment period does not commence until February 1, 2012,
and the fair market value for the embedded derivative was zero
as of December 31, 2008.
Under limited circumstances, prior to February 1, 2025, the
Debentures are convertible by the holders into cash and shares
of our common stock, if any, initially based on a conversion
rate of 35.4610 shares of our common stock per $1,000
principal amount of Debentures, (which represents an initial
conversion price of approximately $28.20
97
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
per share). Additionally, the terms of the Debentures require
that under certain circumstances, such as an acquisition of us
by a third party, the payment by us of a cash dividend on our
common stock, or where a cash tender offer is made for our
common stock, we are obligated to adjust the conversion rate
applicable to the Debentures. This adjustment requirement
constitutes a contingent beneficial conversion
feature that is part of the Debentures. If such an
adjustment were to occur, (i) the amount of the contingent
beneficial conversion feature would be bifurcated from the
Debentures, (ii) the liability recorded in our financial
statements with respect to the Debentures would be reduced by
the amount bifurcated, and (iii) the amount bifurcated
would be recorded as a charge to interest expense and accreted
to the Debenture liability over the remaining term of
Debentures, or the conversion date of the Debentures, if
earlier. In no event will the total number of shares of our
common stock issuable upon conversion exceed 42.5531 per $1,000
principal amount of Debentures, or a maximum of
15,904,221 shares issuable.
At our option, the Debentures are subject to redemption at any
time on or after February 1, 2012, in whole or in part, at
a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount of the
Debentures being redeemed, plus accrued and unpaid interest
(including contingent interest, if any). In addition, holders
may require us to repurchase their Debentures on
February 1, 2012, February 1, 2017 and
February 1, 2022, in whole or in part, for cash at a
repurchase price equal to 100% of the principal amount of the
Debentures being repurchased, plus accrued and unpaid interest
(including contingent interest, if any). The Debentures are also
subject to repurchase by us, at the holders option, if a
fundamental change occurs, for cash at a repurchase price equal
to 100% of the principal amount of the Debentures, plus accrued
and unpaid interest (including contingent interest, if any).
2006
Refinancing
In May 2006, as a result of amendments to our financing
arrangements existing at that time, we recognized a loss on
extinguishment of debt of $6.8 million, pre-tax, which was
comprised of the write-down of deferred financing costs and a
call premium paid on extinguishment. On June 30, 2006, we
utilized a new term loan commitment of $140 million on the
first lien term loan facility to prepay $140 million under
the second lien term loan facility.
Financing
Costs
All deferred financing costs are amortized to interest expense
over the life of the related debt using the effective interest
method. Amortization of deferred financing costs is included as
a component of interest expense and was $3.7 million,
$3.8 million, and $3.9 million for the years ended
December 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006, respectively.
98
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Project debt is presented below (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Project debt related to Service Fee structures
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.125-6.75% serial revenue bonds due 2009 through 2015
|
|
$
|
173,252
|
|
|
$
|
219,236
|
|
3.0-7.0% term revenue bonds due 2009 through 2022
|
|
|
186,413
|
|
|
|
204,702
|
|
Adjustable-rate revenue bonds due 2009 through 2019
|
|
|
68,220
|
|
|
|
100,610
|
|
7.322% other debt obligations due 2009 through 2020
|
|
|
38,053
|
|
|
|
54,345
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subtotal
|
|
|
465,938
|
|
|
|
578,893
|
|
Unamortized debt premium, net
|
|
|
8,168
|
|
|
|
14,385
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Service Fee structure related project debt
|
|
|
474,106
|
|
|
|
593,278
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Project debt related to Tip Fee structures
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.875-6.70% serial revenue bonds due 2009 through 2016
|
|
|
272,250
|
|
|
|
330,420
|
|
5.00-8.375% term revenue bonds due 2010 through 2019
|
|
|
267,900
|
|
|
|
269,095
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subtotal
|
|
|
540,150
|
|
|
|
599,515
|
|
Unamortized debt premium, net
|
|
|
12,078
|
|
|
|
16,568
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Tip Fee structure related project debt
|
|
|
552,228
|
|
|
|
616,083
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
International project debt
|
|
|
52,036
|
|
|
|
70,914
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total project debt
|
|
|
1,078,370
|
|
|
|
1,280,275
|
|
Less current project debt (includes $7,887 and $10,711 of
unamortized premium)
|
|
|
(198,034
|
)
|
|
|
(195,625
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Noncurrent project debt
|
|
$
|
880,336
|
|
|
$
|
1,084,650
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Project debt associated with the financing of energy-from-waste
facilities is arranged by municipal entities through the
issuance of tax-exempt and taxable revenue bonds or other
borrowings. For those facilities we own, that project debt is
recorded as a liability on our consolidated financial
statements. Generally, debt service for project debt related to
Service Fee Structures is the primary responsibility of
municipal entities, whereas debt service for project debt
related to Tip Fee structures is paid by our project subsidiary
from project revenue expected to be sufficient to cover such
expense.
Payment obligations for our project debt associated with
energy-from-waste facilities are limited recourse to the
operating subsidiary and non-recourse to us, subject to
operating performance guarantees and commitments. These
obligations are secured by the revenues pledged under various
indentures and are collateralized principally by a mortgage lien
and a security interest in each of the respective
energy-from-waste facilities and related assets. As of
December 31, 2008, such revenue bonds were collateralized
by property, plant and equipment with a net carrying value of
$2.2 billion and restricted funds held in trust of
approximately $306 million.
The interest rates on adjustable-rate revenue bonds are adjusted
periodically based on current municipal-based interest rates.
The average adjustable rate for such revenue bonds was 0.27% and
3.40% as of December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively, and
the average adjustable rate for such revenue bonds was 2.76% and
3.55% during 2008 and 2007 for the full year, respectively.
International project debt includes the following obligations as
of December 31, 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
$28.9 million due to financial institutions, of which
$5.8 million is denominated in U.S. dollars and
$23.1 million is denominated in Indian rupees, relating to
the construction of a heavy fuel-oil fired diesel engine power
plant in India and working capital debt relating to the
operations of the project. The U.S. dollar debt bears a
coupon rate at the three-month LIBOR, plus 4.5% (8.26% as of
December 31, 2008). The outstanding Indian rupee debt
borrowed for construction of the power plant is serviced at a
floating rate of
|
99
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
11% as of December 31, 2008. The average coupon rate on the
working capital debt was 12.3% in 2008. The construction related
debt extends through 2011. The entire debt is non-recourse to
us, and is secured by the project assets. The power off-taker
failed to fund the escrow account or post the letter of credit
required under the energy contract which failure constitutes a
technical default under the project finance documents. The
project lenders have not declared an event of default due to
this matter and have permitted continued distributions of
project dividends.
|
|
|
|
|
|
$23.1 million due to financial institutions relating to the
construction of a second heavy fuel-oil fired diesel engine
power plant in India and working capital debt relating to the
operations of the project. The entire debt is denominated in
Indian rupees. The construction related debt bears coupon rates
ranging from 8.5% to 12.5% in 2008 and the average coupon rate
on the working capital debt was 12% in 2008. The construction
related debt extends through 2010. The entire debt is
non-recourse to us and is secured by the project assets. The
power off-taker failed to fund the escrow account or post the
letter of credit required under the energy contract which
failure constitutes a technical default under the project
finance documents. The project lenders have not declared an
event of default due to this matter and have permitted continued
distributions of project dividends.
|
As of December 31, 2008, we had one interest rate swap
agreement related to domestic project debt that economically
fixes the interest rate on certain adjustable-rate revenue
bonds. For additional information related to this interest rate
swap, see Note 19. Financial Instruments.
The maturities of long-term project debt as of December 31,
2008 are as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less:
|
|
|
Noncurrent
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Current Portion
|
|
|
Project Debt
|
|
|
Debt
|
|
$
|
190,147
|
|
|
$
|
161,770
|
|
|
$
|
121,040
|
|
|
$
|
120,608
|
|
|
$
|
108,364
|
|
|
$
|
356,194
|
|
|
$
|
1,058,123
|
|
|
$
|
(190,147
|
)
|
|
$
|
867,976
|
|
Premium
|
|
|
7,887
|
|
|
|
5,325
|
|
|
|
2,945
|
|
|
|
1,952
|
|
|
|
1,171
|
|
|
|
967
|
|
|
|
20,247
|
|
|
|
(7,887
|
)
|
|
|
12,360
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
198,034
|
|
|
$
|
167,095
|
|
|
$
|
123,985
|
|
|
$
|
122,560
|
|
|
$
|
109,535
|
|
|
$
|
357,161
|
|
|
$
|
1,078,370
|
|
|
$
|
(198,034
|
)
|
|
$
|
880,336
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note 8.
|
Equity
Method Investments
|
Our subsidiaries are party to joint venture agreements through
which we have equity investments in several operating projects.
The joint venture agreements generally provide for the sharing
of operational control as well as voting percentages. We record
our share of earnings from our equity investees in equity in net
income from unconsolidated investments in our consolidated
statements of income.
As of December 31, 2008 and 2007, investments in investees
and joint ventures accounted for under the equity method were as
follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ownership
|
|
|
|
|
Ownership
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest as of
|
|
|
|
|
Interest as of
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Ultrapower Chinese Station Plant (U.S.)(1)
|
|
55%
|
|
$
|
4,446
|
|
|
55%
|
|
$
|
4,880
|
|
South Fork Plant (U.S.)
|
|
50%
|
|
|
1,098
|
|
|
50%
|
|
|
1,141
|
|
Koma Kulshan Plant (U.S.)
|
|
50%
|
|
|
5,976
|
|
|
50%
|
|
|
6,059
|
|
Ambiente 2000 (Italy)
|
|
40%
|
|
|
658
|
|
|
40%
|
|
|
757
|
|
Haripur Barge Plant (Bangladesh)
|
|
45%
|
|
|
16,061
|
|
|
45%
|
|
|
13,982
|
|
Quezon Power (Philippines)
|
|
26%
|
|
|
45,439
|
|
|
26%
|
|
|
43,159
|
|
Sanfeng (China)
|
|
40%
|
|
|
12,217
|
|
|
40%
|
|
|
11,270
|
|
Guangzhou (China)(1)
|
|
40%
|
|
|
1,328
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chengdu (China)(1)
|
|
49%
|
|
|
15,730
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total investments
|
|
|
|
$
|
102,953
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
81,248
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
See Note 3. Acquisitions, Business Development and
Dispositions for a discussion related to these equity
investments. |
100
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The unaudited combined results of operations and financial
position of our equity method investments are summarized below
(in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Condensed Statements of Operations for the Years Ended
December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$
|
376,780
|
|
|
$
|
331,230
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
150,296
|
|
|
|
153,981
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
68,940
|
|
|
|
57,472
|
|
Companys share of net income
|
|
|
23,583
|
|
|
|
22,196
|
|
Condensed Balance Sheets as of December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current assets
|
|
$
|
214,295
|
|
|
$
|
208,795
|
|
Noncurrent assets
|
|
|
790,157
|
|
|
|
792,166
|
|
Total assets
|
|
|
1,004,452
|
|
|
|
1,000,961
|
|
Current liabilities
|
|
|
119,551
|
|
|
|
158,201
|
|
Noncurrent liabilities
|
|
|
432,658
|
|
|
|
441,914
|
|
Total liabilities
|
|
|
552,209
|
|
|
|
600,115
|
|
We file a federal consolidated income tax return with our
eligible subsidiaries. Covanta Lake II, Inc. files outside of
the consolidated return group. Our federal consolidated income
tax return also includes the taxable results of certain grantor
trusts described below.
The components of income tax expense were as follows (in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Current:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal
|
|
$
|
(1,445
|
)
|
|
$
|
3,373
|
|
|
$
|
(4,889
|
)
|
State
|
|
|
17,189
|
|
|
|
15,186
|
|
|
|
15,196
|
|
Foreign
|
|
|
5,657
|
|
|
|
6,612
|
|
|
|
7,250
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current
|
|
|
21,401
|
|
|
|
25,171
|
|
|
|
17,557
|
|
Deferred:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal
|
|
|
72,834
|
|
|
|
8,793
|
|
|
|
29,819
|
|
State
|
|
|
(1,884
|
)
|
|
|
(3,038
|
)
|
|
|
1,530
|
|
Foreign
|
|
|
(124
|
)
|
|
|
114
|
|
|
|
(10,441
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred
|
|
|
70,826
|
|
|
|
5,869
|
|
|
|
20,908
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total income tax expense
|
|
$
|
92,227
|
|
|
$
|
31,040
|
|
|
$
|
38,465
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Domestic and foreign pre-tax income was as follows (in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Domestic
|
|
$
|
197,596
|
|
|
$
|
125,890
|
|
|
$
|
102,944
|
|
Foreign
|
|
|
17,282
|
|
|
|
22,123
|
|
|
|
19,284
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
214,878
|
|
|
$
|
148,013
|
|
|
$
|
122,228
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The effective income tax rate was 42.9% and 21.0% for the year
ended December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively. The
increase in the effective tax rate for the year ended
December 31, 2008, compared to the year ended
December 31, 2007, is primarily related to taxes associated
with the wind down of the grantor trusts and additional
liability for uncertain tax positions in 2008, and the tax
benefit resulting from the release of valuation allowance from
previously unrecognized federal and state net operating loss
carryforwards (NOLs) in 2007.
101
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
We recognize benefits from a foreign tax holiday in India. The
Samalpatti and Madurai project companies began taking advantage
of a tax holiday under Indian law in April of 2005. The Indian
tax holiday permits the companies to use the alternative tax
rate, currently approximately 11%, for a 10 year period.
The aggregate benefit and affect on diluted earnings per share
was as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Aggregate benefit
|
|
$
|
3,257
|
|
|
$
|
4,433
|
|
|
$
|
4,092
|
|
Affect on diluted EPS
|
|
$
|
0.02
|
|
|
$
|
0.03
|
|
|
$
|
0.03
|
|
A reconciliation of our income tax expense at the federal
statutory income tax rate of 35% to income tax expense at the
effective tax rate is as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Income tax expense at the federal statutory rate
|
|
$
|
75,207
|
|
|
$
|
51,805
|
|
|
$
|
42,780
|
|
State and other tax expense
|
|
|
11,300
|
|
|
|
8,972
|
|
|
|
12,296
|
|
Change in valuation allowance
|
|
|
10,610
|
|
|
|
(34,968
|
)
|
|
|
(10,319
|
)
|
Grantor trust (loss) income
|
|
|
(104,443
|
)
|
|
|
5,580
|
|
|
|
6,210
|
|
Subpart F income and foreign dividends
|
|
|
1,491
|
|
|
|
90
|
|
|
|
2,328
|
|
Taxes on foreign earnings
|
|
|
(524
|
)
|
|
|
(1,132
|
)
|
|
|
(9,531
|
)
|
Production tax credits
|
|
|
(8,529
|
)
|
|
|
(4,525
|
)
|
|
|
(3,158
|
)
|
Expiration of tax attributes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,977
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liability for uncertain tax positions
|
|
|
107,156
|
|
|
|
898
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other, net
|
|
|
(41
|
)
|
|
|
(1,657
|
)
|
|
|
(2,141
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total income tax expense
|
|
$
|
92,227
|
|
|
$
|
31,040
|
|
|
$
|
38,465
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We had consolidated federal NOLs estimated to be approximately
$591 million for federal income tax purposes as of the end
of 2008. These consolidated federal NOLs will expire, if not
used, in the following amounts in the following years (in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount of
|
|
|
|
Carryforward
|
|
|
|
Expiring
|
|
|
2009
|
|
$
|
18,435
|
|
2010
|
|
|
23,600
|
|
2011
|
|
|
19,755
|
|
2012
|
|
|
38,255
|
|
2019
|
|
|
33,635
|
|
2022
|
|
|
26,931
|
|
2023
|
|
|
108,331
|
|
2024
|
|
|
212
|
|
2025
|
|
|
203
|
|
2026
|
|
|
260
|
|
2027
|
|
|
391
|
|
2028
|
|
|
321,449
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
591,457
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In addition to the consolidated federal NOLs, we have state NOL
carryforwards of $119.7 million, which expire between 2012
and 2027, capital loss carryforwards of $69.0 million
expiring in 2009, additional federal credit carryforwards of
$32.7 million, and state credit carryforwards of
$0.8 million. These deferred tax assets are offset by a
valuation allowance of $34.3 million.
102
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
As of December 31, 2008, we had a valuation allowance of
$44.1 million on deferred tax assets. During 2008, we
increased our valuation allowance by $10.6 million related
to capital losses, state NOLs, and a deferred tax asset
established for certain deductions from the grantor trust. As of
December 31, 2007, the reduction in the valuation allowance
of $35.0 million primarily included a $31.4 million
adjustment related to NOLs that were due to expire and were able
to be utilized as a reduction to income tax expense. The
remaining reduction in 2007 of the valuation allowance of
$3.6 million related to previously unrecognized federal and
state NOLs for our unconsolidated subsidiary Covanta Lake II,
Inc.
During 2006, we reduced our valuation allowance by
$22.8 million. The reduction primarily included a net
$13.0 million adjustment to the goodwill associated with
the acquisition of ARC Holdings, since the facts and
circumstances associated with these items existed as of the date
of the ARC Holdings acquisition, and if not for the ARC Holdings
acquisition we would not have been able to make the conclusion
that it was more likely than not that these deferred
tax assets would be realized, and $10.3 million that was a
reduction to income tax expense.
The tax effects of temporary differences that give rise to the
deferred tax assets and liabilities are presented as follows (in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Deferred Tax Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss reserve discounting
|
|
$
|
(1,568
|
)
|
|
$
|
926
|
|
Capital loss carryforward
|
|
|
24,149
|
|
|
|
24,048
|
|
Net operating loss carryforwards
|
|
|
104,730
|
|
|
|
101,466
|
|
Accrued expenses
|
|
|
30,601
|
|
|
|
37,844
|
|
Tax basis in bond and other costs
|
|
|
16,725
|
|
|
|
10,819
|
|
Deferred tax assets attributable to Covanta Lake II, Inc.
|
|
|
5,259
|
|
|
|
5,713
|
|
Deferred tax assets attributable to pass-through entities
|
|
|
9,869
|
|
|
|
84,368
|
|
Other
|
|
|
5,535
|
|
|
|
18,115
|
|
AMT and other credit carryforwards
|
|
|
32,750
|
|
|
|
23,055
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total gross deferred tax asset
|
|
|
228,050
|
|
|
|
306,354
|
|
Less: valuation allowance
|
|
|
(44,089
|
)
|
|
|
(33,246
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred tax asset
|
|
|
183,961
|
|
|
|
273,108
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred Tax Liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unbilled accounts receivable
|
|
|
5,713
|
|
|
|
24,779
|
|
Property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
465,027
|
|
|
|
553,359
|
|
Intangible assets
|
|
|
68,593
|
|
|
|
35,583
|
|
Deferred tax liabilities attributable to pass-through entities
|
|
|
104,564
|
|
|
|
43,382
|
|
Capitalized interest
|
|
|
16,502
|
|
|
|
7,617
|
|
Other, net
|
|
|
7,782
|
|
|
|
19,238
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total gross deferred tax liability
|
|
|
668,181
|
|
|
|
683,958
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net deferred tax liability
|
|
$
|
(484,220
|
)
|
|
$
|
(410,850
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred tax liabilities were increased by approximately
$68 million in 2008 associated with the purchase of ARC
Holdings in 2005 for certain tax effects identified during the
tax liquidation of the underlying partnership interests,
accordingly the offset was reflected as an adjustment to
goodwill. Deferred tax assets were increased by approximately
$65 million in 2008 associated with the tax basis step-up
resulting from the purchase in 2006 of the minority interests in
Covanta Onondaga, L.P. The offset to this was reflected as a
reduction to property, plant and equipment.
During 2006, we adopted the permanent reinvestment exception
under APB 23 whereby we will no longer provide for deferred
taxes on the undistributed earnings of our international
subsidiaries. We intend to permanently reinvest our
international earnings outside of the United States in our
existing international operations and in any
103
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
new international business which may be developed or acquired.
As a result of the adoption of APB 23, we recognized a benefit
of $10.0 million in 2006 associated with the reversal of
deferred taxes accrued on unremitted earnings of international
affiliates in prior periods. This policy resulted in an
unrecognized deferred tax liability of approximately
$32.7 million and $24.7 million as of
December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively. Cumulative
undistributed foreign earnings for which United States taxes
were not provided were included in consolidated retained
earnings in the amount of approximately $94.8 million and
$71.9 million as of December 31, 2008 and 2007,
respectively.
Deferred tax assets relating to tax benefits of employee stock
option grants have been reduced to reflect exercises in the
calendar year ended December 31, 2007. Some exercises
resulted in tax deductions in excess of previously recorded
benefits based on the option value at the time of grant (a
windfall). Although these additional tax benefits or
windfalls were reflected in the NOLs, pursuant to
SFAS 123R, the additional tax benefit associated with the
windfall is not recognized until the deduction reduces taxes
payable. Accordingly, since the tax benefit does not reduce our
current taxes payable in 2008 due to the NOLs, these windfall
tax benefits were not reflected in our NOLs in the deferred tax
assets for 2008 and 2007. Windfalls included in NOLs but not
reflected in deferred tax assets were $14.4 million and
$10.0 million for 2008 and 2007, respectively.
Effective January 1, 2007, we adopted the provisions of
FIN 48. This interpretation is intended to increase the
relevancy and comparability of financial reporting by clarifying
the way companies account for uncertainty in income taxes.
FIN 48 prescribes a consistent recognition threshold and
measurement attribute, as well as clear criteria for
subsequently recognizing, derecognizing and measuring such tax
positions for financial statement purposes. The cumulative
effect of applying the provisions of this interpretation was a
$2.2 million decrease to our opening balance retained
earnings in 2007, which was comprised of an increase of
$5.5 million to the liability for uncertain tax positions,
a $16.4 million increase to deferred tax assets, and a
$13.1 million decrease to property, plant and equipment.
A reconciliation of the beginning and ending amount of
unrecognized tax benefits is as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of January 1, 2007
|
|
$
|
24,483
|
|
Additions based on tax positions related to the current year
|
|
|
500
|
|
Additions for tax positions of prior years
|
|
|
398
|
|
Reductions for tax positions of prior years
|
|
|
|
|
Settlements
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2007
|
|
$
|
25,381
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additions based on tax positions related to the current year
|
|
|
109,956
|
|
Additions for tax positions of prior years
|
|
|
717
|
|
Reductions for lapse in applicable statute of limitations
|
|
|
(280
|
)
|
Reductions for tax positions of prior years
|
|
|
(3,237
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2008
|
|
$
|
132,537
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The liability for uncertain tax positions, exclusive of interest
and penalties, was $132.5 million and $25.4 million as
of December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively. Included in
the balance of uncertain tax benefits as of December 31,
2008 and 2007 are potential benefits of $114.8 million and
$2.5 million, respectively, that, if recognized, would
affect the effective tax rate. The liability for uncertain tax
positions may decrease by approximately $22.7 million in the
next 12 months with respect to the expiration of statutes.
We record interest accrued on liabilities for uncertain tax
positions and penalties as part of the tax provision under
FIN 48. For the year ended December 31, 2008 and 2007,
we recognized $0.5 million and $0.9 million,
respectively, of interest on liabilities for uncertain tax
positions. As of December 31, 2008 and 2007, we had accrued
interest and penalties associated with liabilities for uncertain
tax positions of $8.1 million and $7.6 million,
respectively.
104
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
As issues are examined by the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS) and state auditors, we may decide to adjust
the existing FIN 48 liability for issues that were not
deemed an exposure at the time we adopted FIN 48.
Accordingly, we will continue to monitor the results of audits
and adjust the liability as needed. Federal income tax returns
for Covanta Energy are closed for the years through 2003.
However, to the extent NOLs are utilized from earlier years,
federal income tax returns for Covanta Holding Corporation,
formerly known as Danielson Holding Corporation, are still open.
The tax returns of our subsidiary ARC Holdings are open for
federal audit for the tax return years of 2004 and forward, and
are currently the subject of an IRS examination. This
examination is related to ARC Holdings refund requests
related to NOL carryback claims from tax years prior to our
acquisition of ARC Holdings in 2005 that require Joint Committee
approval. State income tax returns are generally subject to
examination for a period of three to five years after the filing
of the respective return. The state impact of any federal
changes remains subject to examination by various states for a
period of up to one year after formal notification to the
states. We have various state income tax returns in the process
of examination, administrative appeals or litigation.
Our NOLs predominantly arose from our predecessor insurance
entities (which were subsidiaries of our predecessor, which was
formerly named Mission Insurance Group, Inc.,
Mission). These Mission insurance entities have been
in state insolvency proceedings in California and Missouri since
the late 1980s. The amount of NOLs available to us will be
reduced by any taxable income or increased by any taxable losses
generated by current members of our consolidated tax group,
which include grantor trusts associated with the Mission
insurance entities.
In January 2006, we executed agreements with the California
Commissioner of Insurance (the California
Commissioner), who administers the majority of the grantor
trusts, regarding the final administration and conclusion of
such trusts. The agreements, which were approved by the
California state court overseeing the Mission insolvency
proceedings (the Mission Court), settle matters that
had been in dispute regarding the historic rights and
obligations relating to the conclusion of the grantor trusts.
These include the treatment of certain claims against the
grantor trusts which are entitled to distributions of an
aggregate of 1,572,625 shares of our common stock issued to
the California Commissioner in 1990 under existing agreements
entered into at the inception of the Mission insurance
entities reorganization. In connection with these
agreements and in order to facilitate the orderly conclusion of
the grantor trust estates, the distribution of such stock and
the settlement of the related disputes, we paid an aggregate
amount equal to approximately $9.14 million to the
California Commissioner. Additionally, we reimbursed an
additional $1.175 million to the California
Commissioners Conservation and Liquidation Office in 2006
related to expenses associated with these agreements.
Pursuant to a claims evaluation process that we administered
pursuant to such agreements with, and overseen by, the
Conservation and Liquidation Office, all claim holders entitled
to receive distributions of shares of our common stock from the
California Commissioner were identified. As a result of this
process, approximately $1.135 billion in claims were approved
pursuant to orders of the Mission Court. As part of the wind
down process and final claims evaluation by the Conservation and
Liquidation Office, and in accordance with the parties
contractual obligations and the requirements of the Internal
Revenue Code governing such exchanges of stock for debt, the
California Commissioner distributed shares of our common stock
in settlement of these claims. This distribution, which is among
the final steps necessary to conclude the insolvency cases
relating to the trusts being administered by the California
Commissioner, was conducted in December 2008 pursuant to orders
of the Mission Court. These events resulted in our recognition
of $515 million of additional NOLs in 2008, or a deferred
tax asset of $180 million. Of this $180 million deferred
tax asset, $111 million was previously recognized on the balance
sheet either in December 2006 or September 2008.
We have discussed with the Director of the Division of Insurance
of the State of Missouri (the Missouri Director),
who administers the balance of the grantor trusts relating to
the Mission Insurance entities, similar arrangements for
distribution of the remaining 154,756 shares of our common
stock by the Missouri Director to claimants of the Missouri
grantor trusts. Given the claims activity relating to the
Missouri grantor trusts, and the lack of disputed matters with
the Missouri Director, we do not expect to enter into additional
or amended contractual arrangements with the Missouri Director
with respect to the final administration of the Missouri grantor
trusts or the related distribution by the Missouri Director of
shares of our common stock.
105
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
While we cannot predict with certainty what amounts, if any, may
be includable in taxable income as a result of the final
administration of these grantor trusts, substantial actions
toward such final administration have been taken and we believe
that neither arrangements with the California Commissioner nor
the final administration by the Missouri Director will result in
a material reduction in available NOLs.
|
|
Note 10.
|
Amortization
of Waste, Service and Energy Contracts
|
Waste,
Service and Energy Contracts
The vast majority of our waste, service and energy contracts
were valued in March 2004 and June 2005 related to the
acquisitions of Covanta Energy and ARC Holdings, respectively.
Intangible assets and liabilities are recorded at their
estimated fair market values based upon discounted cash flows.
Amortization for the above market waste, service and
energy contracts and below market waste and energy
contracts was calculated using the straight-line method. The
remaining weighted-average contract life is approximately
9 years for both the above market waste,
service and energy contracts and below market waste
and energy contracts.
Waste, Service and Energy contracts consisted of the following
(in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2008
|
|
As of December 31, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Useful
|
|
Carrying
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
|
Carrying
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
|
|
Life
|
|
Amount
|
|
Amortization
|
|
Net
|
|
Amount
|
|
Amortization
|
|
Net
|
|
Waste, service and energy contracts (asset)
|
|
|
1 20 years
|
|
|
$
|
406,556
|
|
|
$
|
183,159
|
|
|
$
|
223,397
|
|
|
$
|
405,794
|
|
|
$
|
137,441
|
|
|
$
|
268,353
|
|
Waste and service contracts (liability)
|
|
|
1 14 years
|
|
|
$
|
(156,705
|
)
|
|
$
|
(42,173
|
)
|
|
$
|
(114,532
|
)
|
|
$
|
(159,575
|
)
|
|
$
|
(29,111
|
)
|
|
$
|
(130,464
|
)
|
The following table details the amount of the actual/estimated
amortization expense and contra-expense associated with these
intangible assets and liabilities as of December 31, 2008
included or expected to be included in our statements of income
for each of the years indicated (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Waste, Service and
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Energy Contracts
|
|
|
Waste and Service
|
|
|
|
(Amortization
|
|
|
Contracts
|
|
|
|
Expense)
|
|
|
(Contra-Expense)
|
|
|
Year ended December 31, 2008
|
|
$
|
45,718
|
|
|
$
|
(13,062
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
$
|
42,302
|
|
|
$
|
(13,178
|
)
|
2010
|
|
|
29,864
|
|
|
|
(12,721
|
)
|
2011
|
|
|
26,740
|
|
|
|
(12,408
|
)
|
2012
|
|
|
24,647
|
|
|
|
(12,412
|
)
|
2013
|
|
|
21,037
|
|
|
|
(12,390
|
)
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
78,807
|
|
|
|
(51,423
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
223,397
|
|
|
$
|
(114,532
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
106
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
Note 11.
|
Other
Intangible Assets and Goodwill
|
Other
Intangible Assets
Other intangible assets consisted of the following (in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2008
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carrying
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carrying
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Useful Life
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Amortization
|
|
|
Net
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Amortization
|
|
|
Net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lease interest and other
|
|
10 21 years
|
|
$
|
73,848
|
|
|
$
|
10,739
|
|
|
$
|
63,109
|
|
|
$
|
72,235
|
|
|
$
|
7,598
|
|
|
$
|
64,637
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Landfill
|
|
5 years
|
|
|
17,985
|
|
|
|
7,329
|
|
|
|
10,656
|
|
|
|
17,985
|
|
|
|
5,198
|
|
|
|
12,787
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total amortizable intangible assets
|
|
|
|
|
91,833
|
|
|
|
18,068
|
|
|
|
73,765
|
|
|
|
90,220
|
|
|
|
12,796
|
|
|
|
77,424
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other intangibles
|
|
Indefinite
|
|
|
9,566
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,566
|
|
|
|
11,530
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,530
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intangible assets, net
|
|
|
|
$
|
101,399
|
|
|
$
|
18,068
|
|
|
$
|
83,331
|
|
|
$
|
101,750
|
|
|
$
|
12,796
|
|
|
$
|
88,954
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following table details the amount of the actual/estimated
amortization expense associated with other intangible assets as
of December 31, 2008 included or expected to be included in
our statements of income for each of the years indicated (in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
2010
|
|
2011
|
|
2012
|
|
2013
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
Total
|
|
Annual Remaining Amortization
|
|
$
|
5,231
|
|
|
$
|
5,231
|
|
|
$
|
5,231
|
|
|
$
|
5,231
|
|
|
$
|
5,231
|
|
|
$
|
47,610
|
|
|
$
|
73,765
|
|
Amortization Expense related to other intangible assets was
$5.3 million, $5.2 million and $5.7 million for
the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006. Lease
interest amortization is recorded as rent expense in plant
operating expenses and was $3.0 million for each of the
years ended December 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006.
Goodwill
Goodwill was $195.6 million and $127.0 million as of
December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively. Goodwill
represents the total consideration paid in excess of the fair
value of the net tangible and identifiable intangible assets
acquired and the liabilities assumed in acquisitions in
accordance with the provisions of SFAS 142. Goodwill has an
indefinite life and is not amortized but is to be reviewed for
impairment under the provisions of SFAS 142. We performed
the required annual impairment review of our recorded goodwill
for reporting units using a discounted cash flow approach as of
October 1, 2007 and determined that no goodwill was
impaired. As of December 31, 2008, goodwill of
approximately $25.4 million is deductible for federal
income tax purposes.
The following table details the changes in carrying value of
goodwill for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007 (in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Balance as of December 31, 2006
|
|
$
|
91,282
|
|
Decrease to federal tax receivable associated with opening
balance sheet adjustments for the ARC Holdings acquisition
|
|
|
2,127
|
|
Goodwill related to the Central Valley acquisition
|
|
|
22,889
|
|
Goodwill related to the Westchester County transfer stations
acquired
|
|
|
896
|
|
Goodwill related to the EnergyAnswers acquisition
|
|
|
9,833
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of December 31, 2007
|
|
$
|
127,027
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase to net deferred tax liabilities related to the deferred
tax impact recognized on tax liquidation of ARC Holdings
partnerships (Note 9)
|
|
|
67,929
|
|
Purchase price adjustment related to the Central Valley
acquisition
|
|
|
269
|
|
Purchase price adjustment related to the Westchester County
transfer stations acquired
|
|
|
578
|
|
Purchase price adjustment related to the EnergyAnswers
acquisition
|
|
|
(186
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of December 31, 2008
|
|
$
|
195,617
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
107
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
Note 12.
|
Supplementary
Financial Information
|
Revenues
and Unbilled Service Receivables
The following table summarizes the components of waste and
service revenues for the periods presented below (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Waste and service revenues unrelated to project debt
|
|
$
|
836,115
|
|
|
$
|
764,560
|
|
|
$
|
711,832
|
|
Revenue earned explicitly to service project debt-principal
|
|
|
72,229
|
|
|
|
69,163
|
|
|
|
69,097
|
|
Revenue earned explicitly to service project debt-interest
|
|
|
26,183
|
|
|
|
30,673
|
|
|
|
36,704
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total waste and service revenues
|
|
$
|
934,527
|
|
|
$
|
864,396
|
|
|
$
|
817,633
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Under some of our service agreements, we bill municipalities
fees to service project debt (principal and interest). The
amounts billed are based on the actual principal amortization
schedule for the project bonds. Regardless of the amounts billed
to client communities relating to project debt principal, we
recognize revenue earned explicitly to service project debt
principal on a levelized basis over the term of the applicable
agreement. In the beginning of the agreement, principal billed
is less than the amount of levelized revenue recognized related
to principal and we record an unbilled service receivable asset.
At some point during the agreement, the amount we bill will
exceed the levelized revenue and the unbilled service receivable
begins to reduce, and ultimately becomes nil at the end of the
contract.
In the final year(s) of a contract, cash is utilized from debt
service reserve accounts to pay remaining principal amounts due
to project bondholders and such amounts are no longer billed to
or paid by municipalities. Generally, therefore, in the last
year of the applicable agreement, little or no cash is received
from municipalities relating to project debt, while our
levelized service revenue continues to be recognized until the
expiration date of the term of the agreement.
During the quarter ended December 31, 2008, Stanislaus
County, California, our client community at our Stanislaus
energy-from-waste facility, redeemed the remaining outstanding
project debt associated with that facility for
$21.3 million ($7.4 million was payable in January
2009 and $13.9 million was payable in January 2010). The
payment was made from the debt service reserve fund, amounts
restricted for debt service and the additional funds received
from the municipality.
Other
Operating Expenses
The components of other operating expenses are as follows (in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Construction costs
|
|
$
|
50,611
|
|
|
$
|
55,675
|
|
|
$
|
2,476
|
|
Insurance subsidiary operating expenses
|
|
|
12,641
|
|
|
|
10,699
|
|
|
|
10,435
|
|
Proceeds related to insurance recoveries
|
|
|
(3,934
|
)
|
|
|
(1,909
|
)
|
|
|
(4,855
|
)
|
Loss on the retirement of fixed assets
|
|
|
7,475
|
|
|
|
1,940
|
|
|
|
305
|
|
Unrealized/realized foreign exchange loss (gain)
|
|
|
1,899
|
|
|
|
(1,719
|
)
|
|
|
(587
|
)
|
Proceeds received for distributions and settlements related to
the reorganization of Covanta Energy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,600
|
)
|
Other
|
|
|
(1,991
|
)
|
|
|
(4,047
|
)
|
|
|
(2,580
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other operating expenses
|
|
$
|
66,701
|
|
|
$
|
60,639
|
|
|
$
|
2,594
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Semass
Fire
On March 31, 2007, our SEMASS energy-from-waste facility
located in Rochester, Massachusetts experienced a fire in the
front-end receiving portion of the facility. Damage was
extensive to this portion of
108
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
the facility and operations at the facility were suspended
completely for approximately 20 days. As a result of this
loss, we recorded an asset impairment of $17.3 million,
pre-tax, which represented the net book value of the assets
destroyed.
The cost of repair or replacement, and business interruption
losses, are insured under the terms of applicable insurance
policies, subject to deductibles. Insurance recoveries were
recorded as insurance recoveries, net of write-down of assets
where such recoveries relate to repair and reconstruction costs,
or as a reduction to plant operating expenses where such
recoveries relate to other costs or business interruption
losses. We recorded insurance recoveries in our consolidated
statements of income and received cash proceeds in settlement of
these claims as follows (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Insurance Recoveries
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recorded
|
|
|
Cash Proceeds Received
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Repair and reconstruction costs (Insurance recoveries, net of
write-down of assets)
|
|
$
|
8.3
|
|
|
$
|
17.3
|
|
|
$
|
16.2
|
|
|
$
|
9.4
|
|
Clean-up
costs (reduction to Plant operating expenses)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
2.7
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
2.7
|
|
Business interruption losses (reduction to Plant operating
expenses)
|
|
$
|
5.2
|
|
|
$
|
2.0
|
|
|
$
|
7.2
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Selected
Supplementary Balance Sheet Information
Selected supplementary balance sheet information is as follows
(in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Interest rate swap (Note 19)
|
|
$
|
13,984
|
|
|
$
|
8,913
|
|
Contract acquisition costs
|
|
|
10,351
|
|
|
|
8,569
|
|
Reinsurance recoverable on unpaid losses
|
|
|
9,155
|
|
|
|
10,035
|
|
Deferred financing costs
|
|
|
10,191
|
|
|
|
14,143
|
|
Spare parts
|
|
|
16,631
|
|
|
|
16,048
|
|
Other noncurrent receivables
|
|
|
21,121
|
|
|
|
14,838
|
|
Restricted funds for pre-petition tax liabilities
|
|
|
20,419
|
|
|
|
19,997
|
|
Prepaid expenses
|
|
|
27,655
|
|
|
|
11,131
|
|
Other
|
|
|
10,037
|
|
|
|
8,880
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Other Noncurrent Assets
|
|
$
|
139,544
|
|
|
$
|
112,554
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest payable
|
|
$
|
16,328
|
|
|
$
|
20,676
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
17,752
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payroll and payroll taxes
|
|
|
33,840
|
|
|
|
29,853
|
|
Accrued liabilities to client communities
|
|
|
46,245
|
|
|
|
75,528
|
|
Operating expenses
|
|
|
68,420
|
|
|
|
79,135
|
|
Other
|
|
|
32,461
|
|
|
|
28,808
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Accrued Expenses and Other Current Liabilities
|
|
$
|
215,046
|
|
|
$
|
234,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred revenue
|
|
$
|
4,345
|
|
|
$
|
4,931
|
|
Interest rate swap (Note 19)
|
|
|
13,984
|
|
|
|
8,913
|
|
Benefit obligations (Note 16)
|
|
|
35,110
|
|
|
|
17,360
|
|
Asset retirement obligations (Note 1)
|
|
|
25,911
|
|
|
|
24,556
|
|
Tax liabilities for uncertain tax positions (Note 9)
|
|
|
33,965
|
|
|
|
33,041
|
|
Insurance loss and loss adjustment reserves (Note 1)
|
|
|
29,362
|
|
|
|
32,436
|
|
Other
|
|
|
23,204
|
|
|
|
20,503
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Other Noncurrent Liabilities
|
|
$
|
165,881
|
|
|
$
|
141,740
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
109
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Effective January 1, 2008, we adopted
SFAS No. 159, The Fair Value Option for
Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities, including an
amendment of FASB Statement No. 115
(SFAS 159), but did not elect to apply the fair
value option to any of our eligible financial assets and
liabilities.
Effective January 1, 2008, we adopted
SFAS No. 157, Fair Value Measurements
(SFAS 157), which defines fair value,
establishes a framework for measuring fair value in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles, and expands
disclosures about fair value measurements. This statement did
not require any new fair value measurements.
The insurance subsidiaries fixed maturity debt and equity
securities portfolio are classified as
available-for-sale and are carried at fair value.
Investment securities that are traded on a national securities
exchange are stated at the last reported sales price on the day
of valuation. Changes in fair value are credited or charged
directly to AOCI in the consolidated statements of
stockholders equity as unrealized gains or losses,
respectively. Investment gains or losses realized on the sale of
securities are determined using the specific identification
method. Realized gains and losses are recognized in the
consolidated statements of income based on the amortized cost of
fixed maturities and cost basis for equity securities on the
date of trade, subject to any previous adjustments for
other than temporary declines. Other investments,
such as investments in companies in which we do not have the
ability to exercise significant influence, are carried at the
lower of cost or estimated realizable value. See Note 1.
Organization and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies and
Note 19. Financial Instruments for a summary of related
accounting policies.
The cost or amortized cost, unrealized gains, unrealized losses
and fair value of our investments categorized by type of
security, were as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
Cost or
|
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
|
Fair
|
|
|
|
Amortized Cost
|
|
|
Gain
|
|
|
Loss
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
Current investments:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed maturities
|
|
$
|
300
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
300
|
|
Equity securities insurance business
|
|
|
760
|
|
|
|
62
|
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
792
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current investments
|
|
$
|
1,060
|
|
|
$
|
62
|
|
|
$
|
30
|
|
|
$
|
1,092
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Noncurrent investments:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed maturities insurance business:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. government/Agency
|
|
$
|
17,897
|
|
|
$
|
329
|
|
|
$
|
19
|
|
|
$
|
18,207
|
|
Mortgage-backed
|
|
|
4,183
|
|
|
|
27
|
|
|
|
26
|
|
|
|
4,184
|
|
Corporate
|
|
|
4,540
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
194
|
|
|
|
4,346
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total fixed maturities insurance business
|
|
|
26,620
|
|
|
|
356
|
|
|
|
239
|
|
|
|
26,737
|
|
Investment at cost international business
|
|
|
3,437
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,437
|
|
Mutual and bond funds
|
|
|
1,404
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
433
|
|
|
|
971
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total noncurrent investments
|
|
$
|
31,461
|
|
|
$
|
356
|
|
|
$
|
672
|
|
|
$
|
31,145
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2007
|
|
|
|
Cost or
|
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
|
Fair
|
|
|
|
Amortized Cost
|
|
|
Gain
|
|
|
Loss
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
Current investments:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed maturities
|
|
$
|
2,495
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,495
|
|
Equity securities insurance business
|
|
|
909
|
|
|
|
231
|
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
1,110
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current investments
|
|
$
|
3,404
|
|
|
$
|
231
|
|
|
$
|
30
|
|
|
$
|
3,605
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Noncurrent investments:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed maturities insurance business:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. government/Agency
|
|
$
|
14,750
|
|
|
$
|
70
|
|
|
$
|
7
|
|
|
$
|
14,813
|
|
Mortgage-backed
|
|
|
5,707
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
140
|
|
|
|
5,570
|
|
Corporate
|
|
|
5,881
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
5,877
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total fixed maturities insurance business
|
|
|
26,338
|
|
|
|
81
|
|
|
|
159
|
|
|
|
26,260
|
|
Investment at cost international business
|
|
|
3,437
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,437
|
|
Mutual and bond funds
|
|
|
2,225
|
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,249
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total noncurrent investments
|
|
$
|
32,000
|
|
|
$
|
105
|
|
|
$
|
159
|
|
|
$
|
31,946
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following table sets forth a summary of temporarily impaired
investments held by our insurance subsidiary (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31,
|
|
|
As of December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
Fair
|
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
|
Fair
|
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
Description of Investments
|
|
Value
|
|
|
Losses
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
Losses
|
|
|
U.S. Treasury and other direct U.S. Government obligations
|
|
$
|
2,841
|
|
|
$
|
19
|
|
|
$
|
4,718
|
|
|
$
|
7
|
|
Federal agency mortgage backed securities
|
|
|
1,547
|
|
|
|
26
|
|
|
|
5,419
|
|
|
|
140
|
|
Corporate bonds
|
|
|
3,996
|
|
|
|
194
|
|
|
|
4,148
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total fixed maturities
|
|
|
8,384
|
|
|
|
239
|
|
|
|
14,285
|
|
|
|
159
|
|
Equity securities
|
|
|
307
|
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
240
|
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total temporarily impaired investments
|
|
$
|
8,691
|
|
|
$
|
269
|
|
|
$
|
14,525
|
|
|
$
|
189
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of the fixed maturity investments noted above, 16% were acquired
between June 30, 2002 and December 31, 2004 during an
historic low interest rate environment and are investment grade
securities rated A or better. The number of U.S. Treasury
and federal agency obligations, mortgage backed securities, and
corporate bonds temporarily impaired are 2, 4, and 5
respectively. As of December 31, 2008, all of the
temporarily impaired fixed maturity investments with a fair
value of $8.4 million had maturities greater than
12 months.
Our fixed maturities held by our insurance subsidiary include
mortgage-backed securities and collateralized mortgage
obligations, collectively (MBS) representing 15.6%,
and 21.6% of the total fixed maturities at years ended
December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively. Our MBS holdings
are issued by the Federal National Mortgage Association
(FNMA) or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation
(FHLMC), both of which are rated AAA by
Moodys Investors Services. MBS and callable bonds, in
contrast to other bonds, are more sensitive to market value
declines in a rising interest rate environment than to market
value increases in a declining interest rate environment.
111
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The expected maturities of noncurrent fixed maturity securities
held by our insurance subsidiary, by amortized cost and fair
value are shown below (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
Amortized Cost
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Available-for-sale:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One year or less
|
|
$
|
4,624
|
|
|
$
|
4,648
|
|
Over one year to five years
|
|
|
21,845
|
|
|
|
21,939
|
|
Over five years to ten years
|
|
|
151
|
|
|
|
150
|
|
More than ten years
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total fixed maturities
|
|
$
|
26,620
|
|
|
$
|
26,737
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following reflects the change in net unrealized (loss) gain
on available-for-sale securities included as a separate
component of accumulated AOCI in stockholders equity (in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Fixed maturities, net
|
|
$
|
195
|
|
|
$
|
747
|
|
|
$
|
331
|
|
Equity securities, net
|
|
|
(169
|
)
|
|
|
(59
|
)
|
|
|
130
|
|
Mutual and bond funds
|
|
|
(433
|
)
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
|
98
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in net unrealized (loss) gain on investments
|
|
$
|
(407
|
)
|
|
$
|
712
|
|
|
$
|
559
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The components of net unrealized (loss) gain on
available-for-sale securities consist of the following
(in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Net unrealized holding (loss) gain on available-for-sale
securities arising during the period
|
|
$
|
(543
|
)
|
|
$
|
698
|
|
|
$
|
777
|
|
Reclassification adjustment for net realized losses (gains) on
available-for-sale securities included in net income
|
|
|
136
|
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
(218
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net unrealized (loss) gain on available-for-sale securities
|
|
$
|
(407
|
)
|
|
$
|
712
|
|
|
$
|
559
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net realized investment (losses) gains are as follows for our
insurance subsidiary (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Net realized investment (loss) gain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed maturities
|
|
$
|
22
|
|
|
$
|
(75
|
)
|
|
$
|
(96
|
)
|
Equity securities
|
|
|
(158
|
)
|
|
|
61
|
|
|
|
314
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net realized investment (loss) gain
|
|
$
|
(136
|
)
|
|
$
|
(14
|
)
|
|
$
|
218
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
112
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Net investment income earned on our fixed maturity and equity
securities portfolio was as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Holding Company
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed maturities
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Short-term investments
|
|
|
481
|
|
|
|
4,360
|
|
|
|
2,318
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net investment income holding company
|
|
$
|
481
|
|
|
$
|
4,360
|
|
|
$
|
2,318
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Insurance business
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed maturities
|
|
$
|
936
|
|
|
$
|
1,196
|
|
|
$
|
1,582
|
|
Dividend income
|
|
|
46
|
|
|
|
61
|
|
|
|
81
|
|
Other, net
|
|
|
196
|
|
|
|
371
|
|
|
|
183
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total investment income
|
|
|
1,178
|
|
|
|
1,628
|
|
|
|
1,846
|
|
Less: investment expense
|
|
|
177
|
|
|
|
172
|
|
|
|
211
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net investment income insurance business
|
|
$
|
1,001
|
|
|
$
|
1,456
|
|
|
$
|
1,635
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The insurance business, in compliance with state insurance laws
and regulations, had securities with a fair value of
approximately $16.7 million and $17.1 million as of
the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively,
on deposit with various states or governmental regulatory
authorities. In addition, as of the years ended
December 31, 2008 and 2007, the insurance business had
investments with a fair value of $9.0 million and
$6.6 million, respectively, held in trust or as collateral
under the terms of certain reinsurance treaties and letters of
credit.
|
|
Note 14.
|
Property,
Plant and Equipment, net
|
Property, plant and equipment consisted of the following (in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31,
|
|
|
|
Useful Lives
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Land
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
22,999
|
|
|
$
|
23,967
|
|
Facilities and equipment
|
|
|
3-37 years
|
|
|
|
3,043,124
|
|
|
|
2,999,718
|
|
Landfills
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
42,091
|
|
|
|
26,574
|
|
Construction in progress
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
36,858
|
|
|
|
46,850
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,145,072
|
|
|
|
3,097,109
|
|
Less: accumulated depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(615,037
|
)
|
|
|
(476,602
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant, and equipment net
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,530,035
|
|
|
$
|
2,620,507
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization expense related to property, plant
and equipment amounted to $164.1 million,
$162.0 million, and $156.9 million for the years ended
December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006, respectively.
Leases are primarily operating leases for leaseholds on
energy-from-waste facilities and independent power projects, as
well as for trucks and automobiles, and machinery and equipment.
Some of these operating leases have renewal options. Expense
under operating leases was $30.9 million,
$29.8 million, and $26.8 million for the years ended
December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006, respectively.
113
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The following is a schedule, by year, of future minimum rental
payments required under operating leases that have initial or
remaining non-cancelable lease terms in excess of one year as of
December 31, 2008 (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Future Minimum Rental Payments
|
|
$
|
57,580
|
|
|
$
|
49,506
|
|
|
$
|
40,444
|
|
|
$
|
33,390
|
|
|
$
|
27,151
|
|
|
$
|
157,961
|
|
|
$
|
366,032
|
|
Non-Recourse Portion of Future Minimum Rental Payments
|
|
$
|
23,065
|
|
|
$
|
23,362
|
|
|
$
|
23,571
|
|
|
$
|
23,611
|
|
|
$
|
18,005
|
|
|
$
|
102,108
|
|
|
$
|
213,722
|
|
Future minimum rental payment obligations include
$213.7 million of future non-recourse rental payments that
relate to energy-from-waste facilities. Of this amount
$126.7 million is supported by third-party commitments to
provide sufficient service revenues to meet such obligations.
The remaining $87.0 million is related to an
energy-from-waste facility at which we serve as the operator and
directly market one half of the facilitys disposal
capacity. This facility currently generates sufficient revenues
from short-, medium-, and long-term contracts to meet rental
payments. We anticipate renewing the contracts or entering into
new contracts to generate sufficient revenues to meet remaining
future rental payments.
Covanta Delaware Valley, L.P. (Delaware Valley)
leases a facility pursuant to an operating lease that expires in
July 2019. In certain default circumstances under such lease,
Delaware Valley becomes obligated to pay a contractually
specified stipulated loss value that declines over
time and was approximately $134.4 million as of
December 31, 2008.
Electricity and steam sales include lease income of
approximately $240.2 million, $139.6 million, and
$95.9 million for the years ended December 31, 2008,
2007, and 2006, respectively, related to two Indian and one
Chinese power project that were deemed to be operating lease
arrangements under EITF
No. 01-08,
Determining Whether an Arrangement Contains a Lease
(EITF 01-08).
These amounts represent contingent rentals because the lease
payments for each facility depend on a factor directly related
to the future use of the leased property. The output deliverable
and capacity provided by our two Indian facilities have each
been purchased by a single party under long-term power purchase
agreements which expire in 2016. The electric power and steam
off-take arrangements and maintenance agreement for one of our
Chinese coal facilities were also with a single party. In June
2006, we sold our ownership interest in this Chinese coal
facility.
Property, plant and equipment accounted for as leased to others
under
EITF 01-08
consisted of the following (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Land
|
|
$
|
24
|
|
|
$
|
43
|
|
Energy facilities
|
|
|
61,077
|
|
|
|
91,207
|
|
Buildings, machinery and improvements
|
|
|
5,961
|
|
|
|
9,362
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
67,062
|
|
|
|
100,612
|
|
Less: accumulated depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
(23,222
|
)
|
|
|
(35,994
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant, and equipment net
|
|
$
|
43,840
|
|
|
$
|
64,618
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note 16. Employee
Benefit Plans
We sponsor various retirement plans covering the majority of our
domestic employees and retirees, as well as other
post-retirement benefit plans for a small number of domestic
retirees that include healthcare benefits and life insurance
coverage. Domestic employees not participating in our retirement
plans generally participate in retirement plans offered by
collective bargaining units of which these employees are
members. The majority of our international employees participate
in defined benefit or defined contribution retirement plans as
required or available in accordance with local laws.
114
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Defined
Contribution Plans
Substantially all of our domestic employees are eligible to
participate in the defined contribution plans we sponsor. The
defined contribution plans allow employees to contribute a
portion of their compensation on a pre-tax basis in accordance
with specified guidelines. We match a percentage of employee
contributions up to certain limits. We also provide a company
contribution to the defined contribution plans for eligible
employees. Our costs related to all defined contribution plans
were $13.0 million, $12.2 million and
$11.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2008,
2007 and 2006, respectively.
Pension
and Postretirement Benefit Obligations
Effective December 31, 2005, we froze the defined benefit
pension plan for domestic employees who do not participate in
retirement plans offered by collective bargaining units. All
active employees who were eligible participants in the defined
benefit pension plan, as of December 31, 2005, became 100%
vested and have a non-forfeitable right to these benefits as of
such date.
Our pension and other postretirement benefit plans are accounted
for in accordance with SFAS 158, which require costs and
the related obligations and assets arising from the pension and
other postretirement benefit plans to be accounted for based on
actuarially-determined estimates. Upon the adoption of
SFAS 158 in December 2006, we recognized a net gain of
$2.5 million, $1.7 million net of deferred tax, in
AOCI to reflect the funded status of the pension and
postretirement benefit obligations.
On an annual basis, we evaluate the assumed discount rate and
expected return on assets used to determine pension benefit and
other postretirement benefit obligations. The discount rate is
determined based on the timing of future benefit payments and
expected rates of return currently available on high quality
fixed income securities whose cash flows match the timing and
amount of future benefit payments of the plan.
|
|
|
|
|
Based on this evaluation for the year ended December 31,
2007, we increased the discount rate assumption for benefit
obligations from 5.75% as of December 31, 2006 to 6.50% as
of December 31, 2007. We recorded a pension plan liability
equal to the amount by which the present value of the projected
benefit obligations (using a discount rate of 6.50%) exceeded
the fair value of pension assets as of December 31, 2007.
We recognized a net actuarial gain of $14.5 million,
$9.4 million net of deferred tax, in AOCI during the year
ended December 31, 2007.
|
|
|
Based on this evaluation for the year ended December 31,
2008, we decreased the discount rate assumption for benefit
obligations from 6.50% as of December 31, 2007 to 6.25% as
of December 31, 2008. We recorded a pension plan liability
equal to the amount by which the present value of the projected
benefit obligations (using a discount rate of 6.25%) exceeded
the fair value of pension assets as of December 31, 2008.
We recognized a net actuarial loss of $20.0 million,
$13.2 million net of deferred tax, in AOCI during the year
ended December 31, 2008.
|
115
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The following table is a reconciliation of the changes in the
benefit obligations and fair value of assets for our defined
benefit pension and other postretirement benefit plans, the
funded status (using a December 31 measurement date) of the
plans and the related amounts recognized in our consolidated
balance sheets (in thousands, except percentages as noted):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension Benefits
|
|
|
Other Benefits
|
|
|
|
For the Year
|
|
|
For the Year
|
|
|
For the Year
|
|
|
For the Year
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Change in benefit obligation:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefit obligation
|
|
$
|
72,895
|
|
|
$
|
80,145
|
|
|
$
|
8,810
|
|
|
$
|
13,851
|
|
Service cost
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest cost
|
|
|
4,705
|
|
|
|
4,582
|
|
|
|
549
|
|
|
|
768
|
|
Amendments
|
|
|
663
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actuarial loss (gain)
|
|
|
541
|
|
|
|
(10,023
|
)
|
|
|
(143
|
)
|
|
|
(4,726
|
)
|
Benefits paid
|
|
|
(1,452
|
)
|
|
|
(1,810
|
)
|
|
|
(1,055
|
)
|
|
|
(1,083
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefit obligation at end of year
|
|
$
|
77,352
|
|
|
$
|
72,894
|
|
|
$
|
8,161
|
|
|
$
|
8,810
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in plan assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plan assets at fair value
|
|
$
|
61,639
|
|
|
$
|
55,211
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Actual return on plan assets
|
|
|
(13,596
|
)
|
|
|
4,035
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contributions
|
|
|
4,165
|
|
|
|
4,203
|
|
|
|
1,055
|
|
|
|
1,082
|
|
Benefits paid
|
|
|
(1,452
|
)
|
|
|
(1,810
|
)
|
|
|
(1,055
|
)
|
|
|
(1,082
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plan assets at fair value at end of year
|
|
$
|
50,756
|
|
|
$
|
61,639
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reconciliation of accrued benefit liability and net amount
recognized:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funded status of the plan
|
|
$
|
(26,596
|
)
|
|
$
|
(11,255
|
)
|
|
$
|
(8,161
|
)
|
|
$
|
(8,810
|
)
|
Unrecognized net gain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net amount recognized
|
|
$
|
(26,596
|
)
|
|
$
|
(11,255
|
)
|
|
$
|
(8,161
|
)
|
|
$
|
(8,810
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss (income) recognized
under SFAS 158:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net actuarial loss (gain)
|
|
$
|
4,681
|
|
|
$
|
(14,644
|
)
|
|
$
|
(2,360
|
)
|
|
$
|
(2,371
|
)
|
Net prior service cost
|
|
|
663
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total as of December 31, 2008
|
|
$
|
5,344
|
|
|
$
|
(14,644
|
)
|
|
$
|
(2,360
|
)
|
|
$
|
(2,371
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average assumptions used to determine net periodic
benefit expense for years ending December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discount rate
|
|
|
6.50
|
%
|
|
|
5.75
|
%
|
|
|
6.50
|
%
|
|
|
5.75
|
%
|
Expected return on plan assets
|
|
|
7.50
|
%
|
|
|
8.00
|
%
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
Rate of compensation increase
|
|
|
4.00
|
%
|
|
|
4.00
|
%
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
Weighted average assumptions used to determine projected
benefit obligations as of December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discount rate
|
|
|
6.25
|
%
|
|
|
6.50
|
%
|
|
|
6.25
|
%
|
|
|
6.50
|
%
|
Rate of compensation increase
|
|
|
4.00
|
%
|
|
|
4.00
|
%
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
116
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Plan assets had a fair value of $50.8 million and
$61.6 million as of December 31, 2008 and 2007,
respectively. The allocation of plan assets was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Total Equities
|
|
|
45
|
%
|
|
|
52
|
%
|
Total Debt Securities
|
|
|
49
|
%
|
|
|
42
|
%
|
Other
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our expected return on plan assets assumption is based on
historical experience and by evaluating input from the trustee
managing the plans assets. The expected return on the plan
assets is also impacted by the target allocation of assets,
which is based on our goal of earning the highest rate of return
while maintaining risk at acceptable levels. The plan strives to
have assets sufficiently diversified so that adverse or
unexpected results from one security class will not have an
unduly detrimental impact on the entire portfolio. The target
ranges of allocation of assets are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Total Equities
|
|
|
40 75
|
%
|
Total Debt Securities
|
|
|
20 60
|
%
|
Other
|
|
|
0 10
|
%
|
We anticipate that the long-term asset allocation on average
will approximate the targeted allocation. Actual asset
allocations are reviewed and the pension plans investments
are rebalanced to reflect the targeted allocation when
considered appropriate.
An annual rate of increase of 9.5% in the per capita cost of
health care benefits was assumed for 2008 for covered employees.
The rate was assumed to decrease gradually to 5.5% in 2017 and
remain at that level.
For the pension plans with accumulated benefit obligations in
excess of plan assets, the projected benefit obligation,
accumulated benefit obligation, and fair value of plan assets
were $77.4 million, $65.6 million, and
$50.8 million, respectively as of December 31, 2008
and $72.9 million, $57.5 million, and
$61.6 million, respectively as of December 31, 2007.
We estimate that the future benefits payable for the retirement
and post-retirement plans in place are as follows (in thousands).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
2014 - 2018
|
|
|
Pension Benefits
|
|
$
|
1,590
|
|
|
$
|
1,869
|
|
|
$
|
2,227
|
|
|
$
|
2,859
|
|
|
$
|
3,167
|
|
|
$
|
17,783
|
|
Other Benefits (Net of Medicare Part D Subsidy)
|
|
$
|
650
|
|
|
$
|
666
|
|
|
$
|
692
|
|
|
$
|
712
|
|
|
$
|
728
|
|
|
$
|
3,043
|
|
Attributable to Medicare Part D Subsidy
|
|
$
|
(38
|
)
|
|
$
|
(40
|
)
|
|
$
|
(41
|
)
|
|
$
|
(42
|
)
|
|
$
|
(42
|
)
|
|
$
|
(174
|
)
|
117
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Pension costs for our defined benefit plans and other
post-retirement benefit plans included the following components
(in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension Benefits
|
|
|
Other Benefits
|
|
|
|
For the Year
|
|
|
For the Year
|
|
|
For the Year
|
|
|
For the Year
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Components of Net Periodic Benefit Cost:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Service cost
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Interest cost
|
|
|
4,705
|
|
|
|
4,582
|
|
|
|
549
|
|
|
|
768
|
|
Expected return on plan assets
|
|
|
(4,728
|
)
|
|
|
(4,430
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of net actuarial (gain) loss
|
|
|
(524
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(154
|
)
|
|
|
105
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net periodic benefit cost
|
|
|
(547
|
)
|
|
|
152
|
|
|
|
395
|
|
|
|
873
|
|
SFAS 88 settlement cost(1)
|
|
|
65
|
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Final net periodic benefit cost
|
|
$
|
(482
|
)
|
|
$
|
170
|
|
|
$
|
395
|
|
|
$
|
873
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
SFAS No. 88, Employers Accounting for
Settlements and Curtailments of Defined Benefit Pension Plans
and for Termination Benefits (SFAS 88). |
Assumed health care cost trend rates have a significant effect
on the amounts reported for the health care plan. A
one-percentage point change in the assumed health care trend
rate would have the following effects (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One-Percentage
|
|
|
One-Percentage
|
|
|
|
Point Increase
|
|
|
Point Decrease
|
|
|
Effect on total service and interest cost components
|
|
$
|
34
|
|
|
$
|
(24
|
)
|
Effect on postretirement benefit obligation
|
|
$
|
454
|
|
|
$
|
(401
|
)
|
|
|
Note 17.
|
Stock-Based
Award Plans
|
Stock-Based
Compensation
We recognize stock-based compensation expense in accordance with
the provisions of SFAS 123R. Stock-based compensation
expense for all stock-based compensation awards granted after
December 31, 2005 is based on the grant date fair value
estimated in accordance with the provisions of SFAS 123R.
For stock-based compensation awards granted prior to, but not
yet vested as of December 31, 2005, stock-based
compensation expense is based on the grant date fair value
estimated in accordance with the original provisions of
SFAS No. 123, Accounting for Stock-Based
Compensation.
We received $0.3 million, $0.8 million, and
$1.1 million from the exercise of non-qualified stock
options in the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007, and
2006 respectively. The tax benefits related to the exercise of
the non-qualified stock options and the vesting of the
restricted stock award were not recognized during 2008 and 2007
due to our NOLs. When the NOLs have been fully utilized by us,
we will recognize a tax benefit and an increase in additional
paid-in capital for the excess tax deductions received on the
exercised non-qualified stock options and vested restricted
stock. Future realization of the tax benefit will be presented
in cash flows from financing activities in the consolidated
statements of cash flows in the period the tax benefit is
recognized.
We recognize compensation costs using the graded vesting
attribution method over the requisite service period of the
award, which is generally three to five years. We recognize
compensation expense based on the number of stock options and
restricted stock awards expected to vest by using an estimate of
expected forfeitures. The forfeiture rates range from 8% to 15%
depending on the type of award and the vesting period.
118
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Stock-Based
Award Plans
We adopted the Covanta Holding Corporation Equity Award Plan for
Employees and Officers (the Employees Plan) and the
Covanta Holding Corporation Equity Award Plan for Directors (the
Directors Plan) (collectively, the Award
Plans), effective with stockholder approval on
October 5, 2004. On July 25, 2005, our Board of
Directors approved and on September 19, 2005, our
stockholders approved the amendment to the Employees Plan to
authorize the issuance of an additional 2,000,000 shares.
The 1995 Stock and Incentive Plan (the 1995 Plan)
was terminated with respect to any future awards under such plan
on October 5, 2004 upon stockholder approval of the Award
Plans. The 1995 Plan will remain in effect until all awards have
been satisfied or expired. On February 21, 2008, our Board
of Directors approved and on May 1, 2008, our stockholders
approved the amendment to the Employees Plan and Directors Plan
to authorize the issuance of an additional 6,000,000 shares
and 300,000 shares of common stock, respectively.
The purpose of the Award Plans is to promote our interests
(including our subsidiaries and affiliates) and our
stockholders interests by using equity interests to
attract, retain and motivate our management, non-employee
directors and other eligible persons and to encourage and reward
their contributions to our performance and profitability. The
Award Plans provide for awards to be made in the form of
(a) shares of restricted stock, (b) incentive stock
options, (c) non-qualified stock options, (d) stock
appreciation rights, (e) performance awards, or
(f) other stock-based awards which relate to or serve a
similar function to the awards described above. Awards may be
made on a stand alone, combination or tandem basis. The maximum
aggregate number of shares of common stock available for
issuance is 12,000,000 under the Employees Plan and 700,000
under the Directors Plan.
Restricted
Stock Awards
Restricted stock awards that have been issued to employees
typically vest over a three-year period. Restricted stock awards
are stock-based awards for which the employee or director does
not have a vested right to the stock (nonvested)
until the requisite service period has been rendered or the
required financial performance factor has been reached for each
pre-determined vesting date. A percentage of each employee
restricted stock awards granted have financial performance
factors. Stock-based compensation expense for each financial
performance factor is recognized beginning in the period when
management has determined it is probable the financial
performance factor will be achieved for the respective vesting
period.
Restricted stock awards to employees are subject to forfeiture
if the employee is not employed on the vesting date. Restricted
stock awards issued to directors prior to 2006 were subject to
the same forfeiture restrictions as are applicable to employees.
Restricted stock awards issued to directors in 2006 and
thereafter are not subject to forfeiture in the event a director
ceases to be a member of the Board of Directors, except in
limited circumstances. Restricted stock awards will be expensed
over the requisite service period, subject to an assumed
forfeiture rate. Prior to vesting, restricted stock awards have
all of the rights of common stock (other than the right to sell
or otherwise transfer or to receive dividends, when issued).
Commencing with share-based stock awards granted in 2007, we
calculated the fair value of share-based stock awards based on
the closing price on the date the award was granted. Prior to
2007, we calculated the fair value of our share-based stock
awards based on the average of the high and low price on the day
prior to the grant date.
During the year ended December 31, 2008, we awarded certain
employees 453,605 shares of restricted stock awards. The
restricted stock awards will be expensed over the requisite
service period, subject to an assumed 10% percent forfeiture
rate. The terms of the restricted stock awards include two
vesting provisions; one based on a performance factor and
continued service (applicable to 66% of the award) and one based
solely on continued service (applicable to 34% of the award). If
all performance and service criteria are satisfied, the awards
vest during March of 2009, 2010 and 2011.
On May 1, 2008, in accordance with our existing program for
annual director compensation, we awarded 40,500 shares of
restricted stock under the Directors Plan. We determined that
the service vesting condition of the
119
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
restricted stock awards granted to the directors on May 1,
2008 to be non-substantive and, in accordance with
SFAS 123R, recorded the entire fair value of the award as
compensation expense on the grant date.
Changes in nonvested restricted stock awards during the year
ended December 31, 2008 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
Grant Date
|
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Nonvested at December 31, 2007
|
|
|
812,826
|
|
|
$
|
18.77
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
494,105
|
|
|
|
26.37
|
|
Vested
|
|
|
(428,656
|
)
|
|
|
17.64
|
|
Forfeited
|
|
|
(21,029
|
)
|
|
|
23.17
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nonvested at December 31, 2008
|
|
|
857,246
|
|
|
|
23.61
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2008, there was $10.6 million
unrecognized stock-based compensation expense related to
nonvested restricted stock awards. This expense is expected to
be recognized over a period of up to three years. Total
compensation expense for restricted stock awards was
$9.5 million, $7.9 million, and $5.5 million for
the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006,
respectively.
Stock
Options
We have also awarded stock options to certain employees and
directors. Stock options awarded to directors vest immediately.
Stock options awarded to employees have typically vested
annually over 3 to 5 years and expire over 10 years.
On February 21, 2008 and March 31, 2008, we granted
options to purchase an aggregate of 200,000 shares and
50,000 shares, respectively, of common stock. The options
expire 10 years from the date of grant and vest in equal
installments over five years commencing on March 17, 2009.
We calculate the fair value of our share-based option awards
using the Black-Scholes option pricing model which requires
estimates of the expected life of the award and stock price
volatility. For the option awards granted prior to 2007, we
determined an expected life of eight years in accordance with
SFAS 123 and SFAS 123R. In December 2007, the SEC
issued SAB No. 110, which permits use of the
simplified method, as discussed in SAB No. 107, to
determine the expected life of plain vanilla
options. The expected life for the options issued in 2007 was
determined using this simplified method. The fair
value of the stock option awards granted during the year ended
December 2008 was calculated using the following assumptions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock
|
|
|
Exercise
|
|
|
Risk-Free
|
|
|
Dividend
|
|
|
Volatility
|
|
|
Expected
|
|
Grant Date
|
|
Options
|
|
|
Price
|
|
|
Interest Rate
|
|
|
Yield
|
|
|
Expected (A)
|
|
|
Life (B)
|
|
|
February 21, 2008
|
|
|
200,000
|
|
|
$
|
26.26
|
|
|
|
3.387
|
%
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
28
|
%
|
|
|
6.54 years
|
|
March 31, 2008
|
|
|
50,000
|
|
|
$
|
27.50
|
|
|
|
2.977
|
%
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
31
|
%
|
|
|
6.48 years
|
|
|
|
|
(A) |
|
Expected volatility is based on implied volatility. |
|
(B) |
|
Simplified method per SAB 107 and 110. |
120
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The following table summarizes activity and balance information
of the options under the Award Plans and 1995 Plan:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercise
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercise
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercise
|
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Price
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Price
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Price
|
|
|
1995 Stock Option Plan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding at the beginning of the year
|
|
|
108,426
|
|
|
$
|
3.86
|
|
|
|
178,426
|
|
|
$
|
5.11
|
|
|
|
315,093
|
|
|
$
|
5.26
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercised
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
70,000
|
|
|
|
7.06
|
|
|
|
136,667
|
|
|
|
5.45
|
|
Forfeited
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding at the end of the year
|
|
|
108,426
|
|
|
$
|
3.86
|
|
|
|
108,426
|
|
|
$
|
3.86
|
|
|
|
178,426
|
|
|
$
|
5.11
|
|
Options exercisable at year end
|
|
|
108,426
|
|
|
$
|
3.86
|
|
|
|
108,426
|
|
|
$
|
3.86
|
|
|
|
178,426
|
|
|
$
|
5.11
|
|
Options available for future grant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 Stock Option Plan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding at the beginning of the year
|
|
|
2,553,443
|
|
|
$
|
17.96
|
|
|
|
851,238
|
|
|
$
|
8.87
|
|
|
|
928,115
|
|
|
$
|
8.14
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
250,000
|
|
|
|
26.51
|
|
|
|
1,805,000
|
|
|
|
22.14
|
|
|
|
50,000
|
|
|
|
20.35
|
|
Exercised
|
|
|
21,500
|
|
|
|
12.18
|
|
|
|
42,795
|
|
|
|
7.43
|
|
|
|
41,543
|
|
|
|
9.19
|
|
Forfeited
|
|
|
12,000
|
|
|
|
22.02
|
|
|
|
60,000
|
|
|
|
22.02
|
|
|
|
85,334
|
|
|
|
7.43
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding at the end of the year
|
|
|
2,769,943
|
|
|
$
|
18.76
|
|
|
|
2,553,443
|
|
|
$
|
17.96
|
|
|
|
851,238
|
|
|
$
|
8.87
|
|
Options exercisable at year end
|
|
|
1,126,543
|
|
|
$
|
12.87
|
|
|
|
500,617
|
|
|
$
|
9.24
|
|
|
|
216,572
|
|
|
$
|
10.12
|
|
Options available for future grant
|
|
|
6,851,630
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,295,735
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,494,230
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2008, options for shares were in the
following price ranges:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options Outstanding
|
|
|
Remaining
|
|
|
Options Exercisable
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
Weighted Average
|
|
|
Contractual Life
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
Weighted Average
|
|
Exercise Price Range
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Exercise Price
|
|
|
(Years)
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Exercise Price
|
|
|
$1.45 - $5.31
|
|
|
108,426
|
|
|
$
|
3.86
|
|
|
|
3.23
|
|
|
|
108,426
|
|
|
$
|
3.86
|
|
$7.43
|
|
|
637,271
|
|
|
|
7.43
|
|
|
|
5.80
|
|
|
|
637,271
|
|
|
|
7.43
|
|
$12.90
|
|
|
106,672
|
|
|
|
12.90
|
|
|
|
6.70
|
|
|
|
106,672
|
|
|
|
12.90
|
|
$20.35 - $22.02
|
|
|
1,726,000
|
|
|
|
21.97
|
|
|
|
8.20
|
|
|
|
372,600
|
|
|
|
21.80
|
|
$24.80 - $28.34
|
|
|
300,000
|
|
|
|
26.46
|
|
|
|
9.50
|
|
|
|
10,000
|
|
|
|
26.22
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,878,369
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,234,969
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The aggregate intrinsic value as of December 31, 2008 for
options outstanding, options vested and expected to vest in the
future and options exercisable was $10.8 million,
$10.9 million, and $12.2 million, respectively. The
aggregate intrinsic value represents the total pre-tax intrinsic
value (the difference between the closing stock price on the
last trading day of 2008 and the exercise price, multiplied by
the number of in-the-money options) that would have been
received by the option holders had all option holders exercised
their options on the last trading day of 2008 (December 31,
2008). The intrinsic value changes based on the fair market
value of our common stock. Total intrinsic value of options
exercised for the year ended as of December 31, 2008 was
$0.3 million.
As of December 31, 2008, there were options to purchase
2,661,859 shares of common stock that had vested and were
expected to vest in future periods at a weighted average
exercise price of $17.87. The total fair value of options
expensed was $5.3 million for the year ended
December 31, 2008. As of December 31, 2008, there was
$6.5 million of total unrecognized compensation expense
related to stock options which is expected to be recognized over
a weighted-average period of 3.4 years.
121
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
Note 18.
|
Accumulated
Other Comprehensive (Loss) Income
|
AOCI, net of income taxes, consists of the following (in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Foreign currency translation
|
|
$
|
(5,233
|
)
|
|
$
|
5,248
|
|
Minimum pension liability
|
|
|
(765
|
)
|
|
|
(362
|
)
|
Amortization of SFAS 158 unrecognized net actuarial (loss)
gain
|
|
|
(2,122
|
)
|
|
|
11,096
|
|
Net unrealized (loss) gain on available-for-sale securities
|
|
|
(85
|
)
|
|
|
322
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive (loss) income
|
|
$
|
(8,205
|
)
|
|
$
|
16,304
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note 19.
|
Financial
Instruments
|
On January 1, 2008, we adopted SFAS No. 159,
The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial
Liabilities, including an amendment of FASB Statement
No. 115 (SFAS 159). SFAS 159
allows entities to voluntarily choose to measure certain
financial assets and liabilities at fair value (fair value
option). The fair value option may be elected on an
instrument-by-instrument
basis and is irrevocable, unless a new election date occurs. We
did not elect to apply the fair value option to any of our
eligible financial assets and liabilities.
On January 1, 2008, we partially adopted
SFAS No. 157, Fair Value Measurements
(SFAS 157), which defines fair value,
establishes a framework for measuring fair value in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles, and expands
disclosures about fair value measurements. This statement does
not require any new fair value measurements. In February 2008,
the FASB issued FASB Staff Position
FAS 157-2,
Effective Date of FASB Statement No. 157, which
deferred the effective date of SFAS 157 for one year for
all non-financial assets and non-financial liabilities, except
for those items that are recognized or disclosed at fair value
in the financial statements on a recurring basis (at least
annually).
Our investment securities that are traded on a national
securities exchange are stated at the last reported sales price
on the day of valuation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value Measurements at Reporting Date Using
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quoted Prices in
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of
|
|
|
Active Markets for
|
|
|
Significant Other
|
|
|
Significant
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
Identical Assets
|
|
|
Observable Inputs
|
|
|
Unobservable Inputs
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
(Level 1)
|
|
|
(Level 2)
|
|
|
(Level 3)
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Marketable securities available for sale
|
|
$
|
300
|
|
|
$
|
300
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Investments in fixed maturities at market
|
|
|
26,737
|
|
|
|
26,737
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives Contingent interest feature of the
Convertible Debentures (See Note 6)
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
27,037
|
|
|
$
|
27,037
|
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following methods and assumptions were used to estimate the
fair value of each class of financial instruments for which it
is practicable to estimate that value:
|
|
|
|
|
For cash and cash equivalents, restricted funds, and marketable
securities, the carrying value of these amounts is a reasonable
estimate of their fair value. The fair value of restricted funds
held in trust is based on quoted market prices of the
investments held by the trustee.
|
|
|
Fair values for debt were determined based on interest rates
that are currently available to us for issuance of debt with
similar terms and remaining maturities for debt issues that are
not traded on quoted market prices. The fair value of project
debt is estimated based on quoted market prices for the same or
similar issues.
|
|
|
Fair value of our interest rate swap agreement is the estimated
amount we would receive or pay to terminate the agreement based
on the net present value of the future cash flows as defined in
the agreement.
|
122
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The disclosure below of the estimated fair value of financial
instruments is made in accordance with the requirements of
SFAS No. 107, Disclosures About Fair Value of
Financial Instruments. The estimated fair-value amounts
have been determined using available market information and
appropriate valuation methodologies. However, considerable
judgment is necessarily required in interpreting market data to
develop estimates of fair value. Accordingly, the estimates
presented herein are not necessarily indicative of the amounts
that we would realize in a current market exchange. The
fair-value estimates presented herein are based on pertinent
information available to us as of December 31, 2008.
However, such amounts have not been comprehensively revalued for
purposes of these financial statements since December 31,
2008, and current estimates of fair value may differ
significantly from the amounts presented herein.
The estimated fair value of financial instruments is presented
as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
Carrying
|
|
|
Estimated
|
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
192,393
|
|
|
$
|
192,393
|
|
Receivables
|
|
|
262,731
|
|
|
|
262,731
|
|
Restricted funds
|
|
|
345,330
|
|
|
|
345,633
|
|
Parent investments fixed maturity securities
|
|
|
300
|
|
|
|
300
|
|
Insurance business investments fixed maturity
securities
|
|
|
26,737
|
|
|
|
26,737
|
|
Insurance business investments equity securities
|
|
|
792
|
|
|
|
792
|
|
Interest rate swap receivable
|
|
|
13,984
|
|
|
|
13,984
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt
|
|
$
|
1,012,887
|
|
|
$
|
850,122
|
|
Project debt
|
|
|
1,078,370
|
|
|
|
1,045,371
|
|
Interest rate swap payable
|
|
|
13,984
|
|
|
|
13,984
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off Balance-Sheet Financial Instruments:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guarantees(a)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
Additionally guarantees include approximately $1.5 million
of guarantees related to international energy projects. |
Contingent
Interest
The contingent interest feature in the Debentures is an embedded
derivative instrument. The first contingent cash interest
payment period does not commence until February 1, 2012,
and the fair market value for the embedded derivative was zero
as of December 31, 2008. For information detailing the
contingent interest feature of the Debentures, see Note 6.
Long-Term Debt.
Interest
Rate Swaps
As of December 31, 2008, we had one interest rate swap
agreement related to project debt that economically fixes the
interest rate on certain adjustable-rate revenue bonds. This
swap agreement was entered into in September 1995 and expires in
January 2019. Any payments made or received under the swap
agreement, including fair value amounts upon termination, are
included as an explicit component of the client communitys
obligation under the related service agreement. Therefore, all
payments made or received under the swap agreement are a pass
through to the client community. Under the swap agreement, we
pay a fixed rate of 5.18% and receive a floating rate that is
either equal to (i) the rate on the adjustable rate revenue
bonds or (ii) an alternative floating rate based on a
percentage of LIBOR or the BMA Municipal Swap Index if certain
triggering events occur, such as a put of bonds to the standby
credit facility that backstops the weekly rate re-sets. Bonds
have been put to the standby credit facility at various points
in time during 2008, and as a result, the average floating rate
received under the swap agreement for 2008 was 2.09%, which was
less than the variable rate paid on the bonds. In the event that
we terminate the swap
123
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
prior to its maturity, the floating rate used for determination
of settling the fair value of the swap would also be based on a
set percentage of LIBOR or the BMA Municipal Swap index at the
option of the counterparty. The notional amount of the swap as
of December 31, 2008 was $68.2 million and is reduced
in accordance with the scheduled repayments of the applicable
revenue bonds. The counterparty to the swap is a major financial
institution. We believe that the credit risk associated with
nonperformance by the counterparty is not significant. The swap
agreement resulted in increased debt service expense, which is a
pass through to the client community, of $2.1 million,
$1.2 million and $1.4 million for the years ended
December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006, respectively. The effect
on our weighted-average borrowing rate of the project debt was
an increase of 0.18% for 2008.
We were required, under financing arrangements in effect from
June 24, 2005 to February 9, 2007, to enter into
hedging arrangements with respect to a portion of our exposure
to interest rate changes with respect to our borrowing under the
previously existing credit facilities. On July 8, 2005, we
entered into two separate pay fixed, receive floating interest
rate swap agreements with a total notional amount of
$300 million. On March 21, 2006, we entered into one
additional pay fixed, receive floating interest rate swap
agreement with a notional amount of $37.5 million. On
December 27, 2006, the notional amount of the original swap
agreements reduced to $250 million from $300 million.
These swaps were designated as cash flow hedges in accordance
with SFAS 133. Accordingly, unrealized gains or losses are
deferred in other comprehensive income until the hedged cash
flows affect earnings. The impact of the swaps decreased
interest expense for the year ended December 31, 2006 by
$2.4 million. As of December 31, 2006, the net
after-tax deferred gain in other comprehensive income was
$2.1 million ($3.3 million before income taxes which
was recorded in other assets). In connection with the
refinancing of our previously existing credit facilities, the
interest rate swap agreements described above were settled on
February 9, 2007. We recognized a gain associated with the
settlement of our interest rate swap agreements of
$3.4 million, pre-tax. The Credit Facilities do not require
us to enter into interest rate swap agreements. For additional
information related to the Credit Facilities, see Note 6.
Long-Term Debt.
|
|
Note 20.
|
Related-Party
Transactions
|
We hold a 26% investment in Quezon Power, Inc.
(Quezon). We are party to an agreement with Quezon
in which we assumed responsibility for the operation and
maintenance of Quezons coal-fired electricity generation
facility. Accordingly, 26% of the net income of Quezon is
reflected in our statements of income and as such, 26% of the
revenue earned under the terms of the operation and maintenance
agreement is eliminated against Equity in Net Income from
Unconsolidated Investments. For the years ended
December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006, we collected
$34.0 million, $35.4 million, and $26.9 million,
respectively, for the operation and maintenance of the facility.
As of December 31, 2008 and December 31, 2007, the net
amount due to Quezon was $3.2 million and
$1.1 million, respectively, which represents advance
payments received from Quezon for operation and maintenance
costs.
As part of our acquisition of Covanta Energy in 2004 as part of
its emergence from bankruptcy, we agreed to conduct a registered
offering of our common stock to certain holders of Covanta
Energys pre-petition secured debentures. On
February 24, 2006, we completed this offering, in which
5,696,911 shares were issued in consideration for
$20.8 million in gross proceeds, including
633,380 shares purchased by D.E. Shaw Laminar Portfolios,
L.L.C. (Laminar) pursuant to the exercise of rights
held by Laminar as a holder of those debentures.
One member of our current Board of Directors is a senior advisor
to a major law firm which Covanta Energy has used for several
years, including many years prior to 2004, when we acquired
Covanta Energy. Such member of the Board of Directors has had no
direct or indirect involvement in the procurement, oversight or
provision of services we receive from this law firm, is not
involved in any manner in the billing of such services, and does
not directly or indirectly benefit from associated fees. We paid
this law firm approximately $2.2 million,
$0.9 million, and $0.3 million for the years ended
December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006, respectively.
|
|
Note 21.
|
Commitments
and Contingencies
|
We and/or
our subsidiaries are party to a number of claims, lawsuits and
pending actions, most of which are routine and all of which are
incidental to our business. We assess the likelihood of
potential losses on an ongoing
124
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
basis and when losses are considered probable and reasonably
estimable, record as a loss an estimate of the ultimate outcome.
If we can only estimate the range of a possible loss, an amount
representing the low end of the range of possible outcomes is
recorded. The final consequences of these proceedings are not
presently determinable with certainty.
Covanta
Energy Corporation
Generally, claims and lawsuits arising from events occurring
prior to their respective petition dates against Covanta Energy
and its subsidiaries, that had filed bankruptcy petitions and
subsequently emerged from bankruptcy, have been resolved
pursuant to the Covanta Energy reorganization plan, and have
been discharged pursuant to orders of the Bankruptcy Court which
confirmed the Covanta Energy reorganization plan or similar
plans of subsidiaries emerging separately from Chapter 11.
However, to the extent that claims are not dischargeable in
bankruptcy, such claims may not be discharged. For example, the
claims of certain persons who were personally injured prior to
the petition date but whose injury only became manifest
thereafter may not be discharged pursuant to the Covanta Energy
reorganization plan.
Environmental
Matters
Our operations are subject to environmental regulatory laws and
environmental remediation laws. Although our operations are
occasionally subject to proceedings and orders pertaining to
emissions into the environment and other environmental
violations, which may result in fines, penalties, damages or
other sanctions, we believe that we are in substantial
compliance with existing environmental laws and regulations.
We may be identified, along with other entities, as being among
parties potentially responsible for contribution to costs
associated with the correction and remediation of environmental
conditions at disposal sites subject to federal
and/or
analogous state laws. In certain instances, we may be exposed to
joint and several liabilities for remedial action or damages.
Our ultimate liability in connection with such environmental
claims will depend on many factors, including our volumetric
share of waste, the total cost of remediation, and the financial
viability of other companies that also sent waste to a given
site and, in the case of divested operations, its contractual
arrangement with the purchaser of such operations.
The potential costs related to the matters described below and
the possible impact on future operations are uncertain due in
part to the complexity of governmental laws and regulations and
their interpretations, the varying costs and effectiveness of
cleanup technologies, the uncertain level of insurance or other
types of recovery and the questionable level of our
responsibility. Although the ultimate outcome and expense of any
litigation, including environmental remediation, is uncertain,
we believe that the following proceedings will not have a
material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position
or results of operations.
In June 2001, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) named Covanta Haverhill, Inc.
(Haverhill), as a potentially responsible party
(PRP) at the Beede Waste Oil Superfund Site,
Plaistow, New Hampshire (Beede site). On
December 15, 2006, Haverhill together with numerous other
PRPs signed the Beede Waste Oil Superfund Site RD/RA Consent
Decree with respect to remediation of the Beede site. The
Consent Decree was entered by the U.S. District Court in
New Hampshire on July 22, 2008, and on October 1,
2008, Haverhill resolved its previously recorded liability of
$750,000 under the Consent Decree by means of a payment to the
Beede Waste Oil Superfund Site Settlement Trust.
Haverhills ultimate liability at the Beede site was not
material to its financial position and results of operations.
In August 2004, EPA notified Covanta Essex Company
(Essex) that it was potentially liable for Superfund
response actions in the Lower Passaic River Study Area, referred
to as LPRSA, a 17 mile stretch of river in
northern New Jersey. Essex is one of at least 73 PRPs named thus
far that have joined the LPRSA PRP group. On May 8, 2007,
EPA and the PRP group entered into an Administrative Order on
Consent by which the PRP group is undertaking a Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (Study) of the LPRSA
under EPA oversight. The cost to complete the Study is estimated
at $54 million, in addition to EPA oversight costs.
Essexs share of the Study costs to date are not material
to its financial position and results of operations; however,
the Study costs are exclusive of
125
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
any costs that may be required of PRPs to remediate the LPRSA or
costs associated with natural resource damages to the LPRSA that
may be assessed against PRPs. On February 4, 2009, Essex
and over 300 other PRPs were named as third-party defendants in
a suit brought by the State of New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP) against Occidental
Chemical Corporation and certain related entities
(Occidental) with respect to alleged contamination
of the LPRSA by Occidental. The Occidental third party complaint
seeks contribution from the third-party defendants with respect
to any award to NJDEP of damages against Occidental in the
matter. Considering the history of industrial and other
discharges into the LPRSA from other sources, including named
PRPs, Essex believes any releases to the LPRSA from its facility
to be de minimis in comparison; however, it is not possible at
this time to predict that outcome with certainty or to estimate
Essexs ultimate liability in the matter, including for
LPRSA remedial costs
and/or
natural resource damages
and/or
contribution claims made by Occidental
and/or other
PRPs.
Other
Commitments
Other commitments as of December 31, 2008 were as follows
(in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commitments Expiring by Period
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less Than
|
|
|
More Than
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
One Year
|
|
|
One Year
|
|
|
Letters of credit
|
|
$
|
300,415
|
|
|
$
|
46,111
|
|
|
$
|
254,304
|
|
Surety bonds
|
|
|
64,086
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
64,086
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other commitments net
|
|
$
|
364,501
|
|
|
$
|
46,111
|
|
|
$
|
318,390
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The letters of credit were issued under various credit
facilities (primarily the Funded L/C Facility) to secure our
performance under various contractual undertakings related to
our domestic and international projects or to secure obligations
under our insurance program. Each letter of credit relating to a
project is required to be maintained in effect for the period
specified in related project contracts, and generally may be
drawn if it is not renewed prior to expiration of that period.
We believe that we will be able to fully perform under our
contracts to which these existing letters of credit relate, and
that it is unlikely that letters of credit would be drawn
because of a default of our performance obligations. If any of
these letters of credit were to be drawn by the beneficiary, the
amount drawn would be immediately repayable by us to the issuing
bank. If we do not immediately repay such amounts drawn under
these letters of credit, unreimbursed amounts would be treated
under the Credit Facilities as additional term loans in the case
of letters of credit issued under the Funded L/C Facility, or as
revolving loans in the case of letters of credit issued under
the Revolving Loan Facility.
The surety bonds listed on the table above relate primarily to
performance obligations ($55.1 million) and support for
closure obligations of various energy projects when such
projects cease operating ($9.0 million). Were these bonds
to be drawn upon, we would have a contractual obligation to
indemnify the surety company.
We have certain contingent obligations related to the
Debentures. These are:
|
|
|
|
|
holders may require us to repurchase their Debentures on
February 1, 2012, February 1, 2017 and
February 1, 2022;
|
|
|
holders may require us to repurchase their Debentures, if a
fundamental change occurs; and
|
|
|
holders may exercise their conversion rights upon the occurrence
of certain events, which would require us to pay the conversion
settlement amount in cash
and/or our
common stock.
|
See Note 6. Long-Term Debt for specific criteria related to
contingent interest, conversion or redemption features of the
Debentures.
We have issued or are party to performance guarantees and
related contractual support obligations undertaken pursuant to
agreements to construct and operate domestic and international
waste and energy facilities. For some projects, such performance
guarantees include obligations to repay certain financial
obligations if the project
126
COVANTA
HOLDING CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Concluded)
revenues are insufficient to do so, or to obtain financing for a
project. With respect to our domestic and international
businesses, we have issued guarantees to municipal clients and
other parties that our subsidiaries will perform in accordance
with contractual terms, including, where required, the payment
of damages or other obligations. Additionally, damages payable
under such guarantees on our energy-from-waste facilities could
expose us to recourse liability on project debt. If we must
perform under one or more of such guarantees, our liability for
damages upon contract termination would be reduced by funds held
in trust and proceeds from sales of the facilities securing the
project debt and is presently not estimable. Depending upon the
circumstances giving rise to such domestic and international
damages, the contractual terms of the applicable contracts, and
the contract counterpartys choice of remedy at the time a
claim against a guarantee is made, the amounts owed pursuant to
one or more of such guarantees could be greater than our
then-available sources of funds. To date, we have not incurred
material liabilities under such guarantees, either on domestic
or international projects. See Item 1A. Risk
Factors We have provided guarantees and financial
support in connection with our projects.
|
|
Note 22.
|
Quarterly
Data (Unaudited)
|
The following table present quarterly unaudited financial data
for the periods presented on the consolidated statements of
income (in thousands, except per share amounts):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calendar Quarter Ended
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
September 30,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
Fiscal Quarter
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Operating revenue
|
|
$
|
388,766
|
|
|
$
|
330,209
|
|
|
$
|
422,996
|
|
|
$
|
355,140
|
|
|
$
|
438,671
|
|
|
$
|
352,350
|
|
|
$
|
413,820
|
|
|
$
|
395,388
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
30,765
|
|
|
|
8,280
|
|
|
|
76,529
|
|
|
|
77,212
|
|
|
|
88,083
|
|
|
|
71,627
|
|
|
|
60,588
|
|
|
|
79,491
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
|
14,772
|
|
|
|
(17,918
|
)
|
|
|
44,853
|
|
|
|
37,716
|
|
|
|
49,700
|
|
|
|
38,415
|
|
|
|
29,948
|
|
|
|
72,300
|
|
Earnings (loss) per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
|
0.10
|
|
|
|
(0.12
|
)
|
|
|
0.29
|
|
|
|
0.25
|
|
|
|
0.32
|
|
|
|
0.25
|
|
|
|
0.20
|
|
|
|
0.47
|
|
Diluted
|
|
|
0.10
|
|
|
|
(0.12
|
)
|
|
|
0.29
|
|
|
|
0.24
|
|
|
|
0.32
|
|
|
|
0.25
|
|
|
|
0.19
|
|
|
|
0.47
|
|
127
Schedule II
Valuation and Qualifying Accounts
Receivables Valuation and Qualifying Accounts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at
|
|
|
Charged to
|
|
|
Charged to
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at
|
|
|
|
Beginning
|
|
|
Costs and
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
End of
|
|
|
|
of Period
|
|
|
Expense
|
|
|
Accounts
|
|
|
Deductions
|
|
|
Period
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
For the year ended December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allowances deducted in the balance sheet from the assets to
which they apply:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Doubtful receivables current
|
|
$
|
4,353
|
|
|
$
|
1,821
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,737
|
|
|
$
|
3,437
|
|
Doubtful receivables noncurrent
|
|
|
409
|
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
120
|
|
|
|
307
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
4,762
|
|
|
$
|
1,839
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,857
|
|
|
$
|
3,744
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the year ended December 31, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allowances deducted in the balance sheet from the assets to
which they apply:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Doubtful receivables current
|
|
$
|
4,469
|
|
|
$
|
1,270
|
|
|
$
|
19
|
|
|
$
|
1,405
|
|
|
$
|
4,353
|
|
Doubtful receivables noncurrent
|
|
|
382
|
|
|
|
(80
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(107
|
)
|
|
|
409
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
4,851
|
|
|
$
|
1,190
|
|
|
$
|
19
|
|
|
$
|
1,298
|
|
|
$
|
4,762
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the year ended December 31, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allowances deducted in the balance sheet from the assets to
which they apply:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Doubtful receivables current
|
|
$
|
4,959
|
|
|
$
|
2,088
|
|
|
$
|
1,003
|
|
|
$
|
3,581
|
|
|
$
|
4,469
|
|
Doubtful receivables noncurrent
|
|
|
274
|
|
|
|
81
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(27
|
)
|
|
|
382
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
5,233
|
|
|
$
|
2,169
|
|
|
$
|
1,003
|
|
|
$
|
3,554
|
|
|
$
|
4,851
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Item 9.
|
CHANGES
IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
|
There were no disagreements with accountants on accounting and
financial disclosure.
|
|
Item 9A.
|
CONTROLS
AND PROCEDURES
|
Disclosure
Controls and Procedures.
Our management, with the participation of our Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer, has evaluated the
effectiveness of Covantas disclosure controls and
procedures, as required by
Rule 13a-15(b)
and
15d-15(b)
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange
Act) as of December 31, 2008. Our disclosure controls
and procedures are designed to reasonably assure that
information required to be disclosed by us in reports we file or
submit under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to
our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions
regarding disclosure and is recorded, processed, summarized and
reported within the time periods specified in the Securities and
Exchange Commissions rules and forms.
Our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer have
concluded that, based on their review, our disclosure controls
and procedures are effective to provide such reasonable
assurance.
Our management, including the Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer, believes that any disclosure controls and
procedures or internal controls and procedures, no matter how
well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not
absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system
are met. Further, the design of a control system must consider
the benefits of controls relative to their costs. Inherent
limitations within a control system include the realities that
judgments in decision-making can be faulty, and that breakdowns
can occur because of simple error or mistake. Additionally,
controls can be circumvented by the individual acts of some
persons, by collusion of two or more people, or by unauthorized
override of the control. While the design of any system of
controls is to provide reasonable assurance of the effectiveness
of disclosure controls, such design is also based in part upon
certain assumptions about the likelihood of future events, and
such assumptions, while
128
reasonable, may not take into account all potential future
conditions. Accordingly, because of the inherent limitations in
a cost effective control system, misstatements due to error or
fraud may occur and may not be prevented or detected.
Our management has conducted an assessment of its internal
control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2008 as
required by Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
Managements report on our internal control over financial
reporting is included on page 130. The Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firms report with respect to
the effectiveness of our internal control over financial
reporting is included on page 131. Management has concluded
that internal control over financial reporting is effective as
of December 31, 2008.
Changes
in Internal Control over Financial Reporting
Our management continually reviews the disclosure controls and
procedures and makes changes, as necessary, to ensure the
quality of our financial reporting. There has not been any
change in our system of internal control over financial
reporting during the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2008
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, internal control over financial reporting.
129
Managements
Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting
The management of Covanta Holding Corporation
(Covanta) is responsible for establishing and
maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting,
as such term is defined in Exchange Act
Rule 13a-15(f).
All internal control systems, no matter how well designed, have
inherent limitations including the possibility of human error
and the circumvention or overriding of controls. Further,
because of changes in conditions, the effectiveness of internal
controls may vary over time. Projections of any evaluation of
effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that
controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions,
or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures
may deteriorate. Accordingly, even those systems determined to
be effective can provide us only with reasonable assurance with
respect to financial statement preparation and presentation.
Covantas management has assessed the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2008, following the criteria set forth by the
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission
in Internal Control Integrated Framework.
Based on our assessment under the framework in Internal
Control Integrated Framework, Covantas
management has concluded that our internal control over
financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2008.
Our independent auditors, Ernst & Young LLP, have
issued an attestation report on our internal control over
financial reporting. This report appears on page 131 of
this report on
Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2008.
Anthony J. Orlando
President and Chief Executive Officer
Mark A. Pytosh
Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer
February 25, 2009
130
Report of
Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
The Board of Directors and Shareholders of Covanta Holding
Corporation
We have audited Covanta Holding Corporations internal
control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2008,
based on criteria established in Internal Control
Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission (the COSO criteria).
Covanta Holding Corporations management is responsible for
maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting,
and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control
over financial reporting included in the accompanying
Managements Report on Internal Control over Financial
Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the
companys internal control over financial reporting based
on our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control
over financial reporting was maintained in all material
respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of
internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk
that a material weakness exists, testing and evaluating the
design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on
the assessed risk, and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our
audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
A companys internal control over financial reporting is a
process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of
financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles. A companys
internal control over financial reporting includes those
policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance
of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly
reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the
company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions
are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial
statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company
are being made only in accordance with authorizations of
management and directors of the company; and (3) provide
reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of
unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the
companys assets that could have a material effect on the
financial statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over
financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements.
Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future
periods are subject to the risk that controls may become
inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree
of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
In our opinion, Covanta Holding Corporation maintained, in all
material respects, effective internal control over financial
reporting as of December 31, 2008, based on the COSO
criteria.
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the
consolidated balance sheets of Covanta Holding Corporation as of
December 31, 2008 and 2007, and the related consolidated
statements of income, stockholders equity, and cash flows
for each of the three years in the period ended
December 31, 2008 and our report dated February 25, 2009
expressed an unqualified opinion thereon.
MetroPark, New Jersey
February 25, 2009
131
|
|
Item 9B.
|
OTHER
INFORMATION
|
None.
PART III
|
|
Item 10.
|
DIRECTORS,
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
|
Information regarding our executive officers is incorporated by
reference herein from the discussion under Item 1.
Business Executive Officers of this Annual
Report on
Form 10-K.
We have a Code of Conduct and Ethics for Senior Financial
Officers and a Policy of Business Conduct. The Code of Conduct
and Ethics applies to our Chief Executive Officer, Chief
Financial Officer, Chief Accounting Officer, controller or
persons performing similar functions. The Policy of Business
Conduct applies to all of our directors, officers and employees
and those of our subsidiaries. Both the Code of Conduct and
Ethics and the Policy of Business Conduct are posted on our
website at www.covantaholding.com on the Corporate
Governance page. We will post on our website any amendments to
or waivers of the Code of Conduct and Ethics or Policy of
Business Conduct for executive officers or directors, in
accordance with applicable laws and regulations. The remaining
information called for by this Item 10 is incorporated by
reference herein from the discussions under the headings
Election of Directors, Board Structure and
Composition Committees of the Board, and
Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and
Management Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership
Reporting Compliance in the definitive Proxy Statement for
the 2009 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.
|
|
Item 11.
|
EXECUTIVE
COMPENSATION
|
The information required by Item 11 of
Form 10-K
is incorporated by reference herein from the discussions under
the headings Compensation Committee Report,
Board Structure and Composition Compensation
of the Board, and Executive Compensation in
our definitive Proxy Statement for the 2009 Annual Meeting of
Stockholders.
|
|
Item 12.
|
SECURITY
OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT AND
RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS
|
The information required by Item 12 of
Form 10-K
with respect to directors, executive officers and certain
beneficial owners is incorporated by reference herein from the
discussion under the heading Security Ownership of Certain
Beneficial Owners and Management in our definitive Proxy
Statement for the 2009 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.
Equity
Compensation Plans
The following table sets forth information regarding the number
of our securities which could be issued upon the exercise of
outstanding options, the weighted average exercise price of
those options in the 2004 and 1995 Stock Incentive Plans and the
number of securities remaining for future issuance under the
2004 Stock Incentive Plans as of December 31, 2008. Upon
adoption of the 2004 Stock Incentive Plans, future issuances
under the 1995 Plan were terminated. We do not have any equity
compensation plans that have not been approved by our security
holders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted Average
|
|
|
Number of Securities Remaining
|
|
|
|
Number of Securities to
|
|
|
Exercise Price of
|
|
|
Available for Future Issuance
|
|
|
|
be Issued Upon Exercise
|
|
|
Outstanding
|
|
|
Under Equity Compensation
|
|
|
|
of Outstanding Options,
|
|
|
Options, Warrants
|
|
|
Plans (Excluding Securities
|
|
|
|
Warrants and Rights
|
|
|
and Rights
|
|
|
Reflected in Column A)
|
|
Plan category
|
|
(A)
|
|
|
(B)
|
|
|
(C)
|
|
|
Equity Compensation Plans Approved By Security Holders
|
|
|
2,878,369
|
|
|
$
|
18.20
|
|
|
|
7,028,964
|
(1)
|
Equity Compensation Plans Not Approved By Security Holders
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL
|
|
|
2,878,369
|
|
|
$
|
18.20
|
|
|
|
7,028,964
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Of the 7,028,964 shares that remain available for future
issuance, 6,851,630 are currently reserved for issuance under
the equity compensation plans. |
132
|
|
Item 13.
|
CERTAIN
RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS, AND DIRECTOR
INDEPENDENCE
|
The information required by Item 13 of
Form 10-K
is incorporated by reference herein from the discussions under
the headings Board Structure and Composition and
Certain Relationships and Related Transactions in
the definitive Proxy Statement for the 2009 Annual Meeting of
Stockholders.
|
|
Item 14.
|
PRINCIPAL
ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES
|
The information required by Item 14 of
Form 10-K
is incorporated by reference herein from the discussion under
the heading Independent Auditor Fees in the
definitive Proxy Statement for the 2009 Annual Meeting of
Stockholders.
PART IV
|
|
Item 15.
|
EXHIBITS AND
FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES
|
(a) Documents filed as part of this report:
(1) Consolidated Financial Statements of Covanta Holding
Corporation:
Included in Part II of this Report:
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated Statements of Income for the years ended
December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006
|
|
|
|
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2008 and 2007
|
|
|
|
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the years ended
December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006
|
|
|
|
Consolidated Statements of Stockholders Equity for the
years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006
|
|
|
|
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, for the years ended
December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006
|
|
|
|
Report of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors, on
the consolidated financial statements of Covanta Holding
Corporation for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and
2006
|
(2) Financial Statement Schedules of Covanta Holding
Corporation:
|
|
|
|
|
Included in Part II of this report:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Schedule II Valuation and Qualifying Accounts
|
All other schedules are omitted because they are not applicable,
not significant or not required, or because the required
information is included in the financial statement notes thereto.
133
(3) Exhibits:
EXHIBIT INDEX
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit No.
|
|
Description
|
|
Plan of Acquisition, Reorganization, Arrangement, Liquidation
or Succession.
|
|
2
|
.1
|
|
Investment and Purchase Agreement by and between Covanta Holding
Corporation and Covanta Energy Corporation dated as of December
2, 2003 (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 2.1 of
Covanta Holding Corporations Current Report on Form 8-K
dated December 2, 2003 and filed with the SEC on December 5,
2003, as amended by Covanta Holding Corporations Current
Report on Form 8-K/A dated December 2, 2003 and filed with the
SEC on January 30, 2004).
|
|
2
|
.2
|
|
Note Purchase Agreement by and between Covanta Holding
Corporation and the Purchasers named therein dated as of
December 2, 2003 (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit
2.2 of Covanta Holding Corporations Current Report on Form
8-K dated December 2, 2003 and filed with the SEC on December 5,
2003, as amended by Covanta Holding Corporations Current
Report on Form 8-K/A dated December 2, 2003 and filed with the
SEC on January 30, 2004).
|
|
2
|
.3
|
|
Amendment to Investment and Purchase Agreement by and between
Covanta Holding Corporation and Covanta Energy Corporation dated
February 23, 2004 (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit
2.3 of Covanta Holding Corporations Current Report on Form
8-K dated March 10, 2004 and filed with the SEC on March 11,
2004).
|
|
2
|
.4
|
|
First Amendment to Note Purchase Agreement and Consent by and
among Covanta Holding Corporation and D.E. Shaw Laminar
Portfolios, L.L.C., SZ Investments, L.L.C. and Third Avenue
Trust, on behalf of The Third Avenue Value Fund Series, dated as
of February 23, 2004 (incorporated herein by reference to
Exhibit 2.4 of Covanta Holding Corporations Current Report
on Form 8-K dated March 10, 2004 and filed with the SEC on March
11, 2004).
|
|
2
|
.5
|
|
Stock Purchase Agreement among Covanta ARC Holdings, Inc., the
Sellers party thereto and Covanta Holding Corporation dated as
of January 31, 2005 (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit
2.1 of Covanta Holding Corporations Current Report on Form
8-K dated January 31, 2005 and filed with the SEC on February 2,
2005).
|
Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws.
|
|
3
|
.1
|
|
Restated Certificate of Incorporation of Covanta Holding
Corporation (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 3.1 of
Covanta Holding Corporations Current Report on Form 8-K
dated January 19, 2007 and filed with the SEC on January 19,
2007).
|
|
3
|
.2
|
|
Amended and Restated Bylaws of Covanta Holding Corporation, as
amended and effective May 30, 2007 (incorporated herein by
reference to Exhibit 3.1(ii) of Covanta Holding
Corporations Current Report on Form 8-K dated May 30, 2007
filed with the SEC on May 31, 2007).
|
Instruments Defining Rights of Security Holders, Including
Indentures.
|
|
4
|
.1
|
|
Specimen certificate representing shares of Covanta Holding
Corporations common stock (incorporated herein by
reference to Exhibit 4.1 of Covanta Holding Corporations
Amendment No. 3 to Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed with
the SEC on December 19, 2005).
|
|
4
|
.2
|
|
Registration Rights Agreement dated November 8, 2002 among
Covanta Holding Corporation and SZ Investments, L.L.C.
(incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.6 of Covanta
Holding Corporations Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 27, 2002 and filed with the SEC on March 27,
2003).
|
|
4
|
.3
|
|
Registration Rights Agreement between Covanta Holding
Corporation, D.E. Shaw Laminar Portfolios, L.L.C., SZ
Investments, L.L.C., and Third Avenue Trust, on behalf of The
Third Avenue Value Fund Series, dated December 2, 2003
(incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.1 of Covanta
Holding Corporations Current Report on Form 8-K dated
December 2, 2003 and filed with the SEC on December 5, 2003).
|
|
4
|
.4
|
|
Form of Warrant Offering Agreement between Wells Fargo Bank,
National Association and Covanta Holding Corporation
(incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.11 of Covanta
Holding Corporations Amendment No. 3 to Registration
Statement on Form S-1 filed with the SEC on December 19, 2005).
|
134
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit No.
|
|
Description
|
|
|
4
|
.5
|
|
Indenture dated as of January 18, 2007 between Covanta Holding
Corporation and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as
trustee. (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.1 of
Covanta Holding Corporations Registration Statement on
Form S-3 (Reg. No. 333-140082) filed with the SEC on January 19,
2007).
|
|
4
|
.6
|
|
First Supplemental Indenture dated as of January 31, 2007
between Covanta Holding Corporation and Wells Fargo Bank,
National Association, as trustee (including the Form of Global
Debenture) (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.2 of
Covanta Holding Corporations Current Report on Form 8-K
dated January 31, 2007 and filed with the SEC on February 6,
2007).
|
Material Contracts.
|
|
10
|
.1
|
|
Tax Sharing Agreement, dated as of March 10, 2004, by and
between Covanta Holding Corporation, Covanta Energy Corporation,
and Covanta Power International Holdings, Inc. (incorporated
herein by reference to Exhibit 10.25 of Covanta Holding
Corporations Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2003 and filed with the SEC on March 15, 2004).
|
|
10
|
.2
|
|
Corporate Services and Expenses Reimbursement Agreement, dated
as of March 10, 2004, by and between Covanta Holding Corporation
and Covanta Energy Corporation (incorporated herein by reference
to Exhibit 10.26 of Covanta Holding Corporations Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 and
filed with the SEC on March 15, 2004).
|
|
10
|
.3
|
|
Management Services and Reimbursement Agreement, dated March 10,
2004, among Covanta Energy Corporation, Covanta Energy Group,
Inc., Covanta Projects, Inc., Covanta Power International
Holdings, Inc., and certain Subsidiaries listed therein
(incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.30 of Covanta
Holding Corporations Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2003 and filed with the SEC on March 15,
2004).
|
|
10
|
.4*
|
|
Covanta Energy Savings Plan, as amended by December 2003
amendment (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.25 of
Covanta Holding Corporations Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2004 and filed with the SEC on
March 16, 2005).
|
|
10
|
.5*
|
|
Covanta Holding Corporation Equity Award Plan for Employees and
Officers, as amended (incorporated herein by reference to
Exhibit A of Covanta Holding Corporations 2008 Definitive
Proxy Statement on Form DEF 14A filed with the SEC on April 1,
2008).
|
|
10
|
.6*
|
|
Covanta Holding Corporation Equity Award Plan for Directors, as
amended (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit B of
Covanta Holding Corporations 2008 Definitive Proxy
Statement on Form DEF 14A filed with the SEC on April 1, 2008).
|
|
10
|
.7*
|
|
Form of Covanta Holding Corporation Stock Option Agreement for
Employees and Officers (incorporated herein by reference to
Exhibit 4.3 of Covanta Holding Corporations Registration
Statement on Form S-8 filed with the SEC on May 7, 2008).
|
|
10
|
.8*
|
|
Form of Covanta Holding Corporation Restricted Stock Award
Agreement (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.4 of
Covanta Holding Corporations Registration Statement on
Form S-8 filed with the SEC on May 7, 2008).
|
|
10
|
.9*
|
|
Covanta Holding Corporation 1995 Stock and Incentive Plan (as
amended effective December 12, 2000 and as further amended
effective July 24, 2002) (incorporated herein by reference to
Appendix A to Covanta Holding Corporations Proxy Statement
filed with the SEC on June 24, 2002).
|
|
10
|
.10*
|
|
Employment Agreement, dated October 5, 2004, by and between
Anthony J. Orlando and Covanta Projects, Inc., Covanta Energy
Corporation and Covanta Holding Corporation (incorporated herein
by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of Covanta Holding
Corporations Current Report on Form 8-K dated October 5,
2004 and filed with the SEC on October 7, 2004).
|
|
10
|
.11*
|
|
Employment Agreement, dated October 5, 2004, by and between
Timothy J. Simpson and Covanta Projects, Inc., Covanta Energy
Corporation and Covanta Holding Corporation (incorporated herein
by reference to Exhibit 10.3 of Covanta Holding
Corporations Current Report on Form 8-K dated October 5,
2004 filed with the SEC on October 7, 2004).
|
|
10
|
.12*
|
|
Form of Covanta Holding Corporation Amendment to Stock Option
Agreement for Employees and Officers (incorporated herein by
reference to Exhibit 10.1 of Covanta Holding Corporations
Current Report on Form 8-K dated March 18, 2005 and filed with
the SEC on March 24, 2005).
|
135
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit No.
|
|
Description
|
|
|
10
|
.13
|
|
Summary Description of Covanta Holding Corporation Cash Bonus
Program, dated February 2008 (incorporated herein by reference
to Exhibit 10.14 of Covanta Holding Corporations Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007).
|
|
10
|
.14
|
|
Amendment No. 1 to Tax Sharing Agreement, dated as of June 24,
2005, by and between Covanta Holding Corporation, Covanta Energy
Corporation and Covanta Power International Holdings, Inc.,
amending Tax Sharing Agreement between Covanta Holding
Corporation, Covanta Energy Corporation and Covanta Power
International Holdings, Inc. dated as of March 10, 2004
(incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.8 of Covanta
Holding Corporations Current Report on Form 8-K dated June
24, 2005 and filed with the SEC on June 30, 2005).
|
|
10
|
.15*
|
|
Employment Agreement, dated October 5, 2004, by and between John
Klett and Covanta Energy Corporation (incorporated herein by
reference to Exhibit 10.7 of Covanta Energy Corporations
Current Report on Form 8-K dated October 5, 2004 and filed with
the SEC on October 7, 2004).
|
|
10
|
.16*
|
|
Employment Agreement, dated October 5, 2004, by and between Seth
Myones and Covanta Energy Corporation (incorporated herein by
reference to Exhibit 10.9 of Covanta Energy Corporations
Current Report on Form 8-K dated October 5, 2004 and filed with
the SEC on October 7, 2004).
|
|
10
|
.17*
|
|
Form of Amendment to Employment Agreement with
|
|
|
|
|
a. Anthony J. Orlando, President and Chief Executive
Officer;
|
|
|
|
|
b. Mark A. Pytosh, Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer;
|
|
|
|
|
c. John M. Klett, Executive Vice President and Chief
Operating Officer;
|
|
|
|
|
d. Timothy J. Simpson, Executive Vice President,
General Counsel and Secretary;
|
|
|
|
|
e. Seth Myones, President, Americas Covanta Energy
|
|
|
|
|
and certain subsidiaries, dated October 22, 2008, and effective
as of January 1, 2009 (incorporated herein by reference to
Exhibit 10.1 of Covanta Holding Corporations Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 and
filed with the SEC on October 22, 2008).
|
|
10
|
.18
|
|
Rehabilitation Plan Implementation Agreement, dated January 11,
2006, by and between John Garamendi, Insurance Commissioner of
the State of California, in his capacity as Trustee of the
Mission Insurance Company Trust, the Mission National Insurance
Company Trust and the Enterprise Insurance Company Trust, on the
one hand, and Covanta Holding Corporation, on the other hand
(incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of Covanta
Holding Corporations Current Report on Form 8-K dated
March 2, 2006 and filed with the SEC on March 6, 2006).
|
|
10
|
.19
|
|
Amendment to Rehabilitation Plan Implementation Agreement,
accepted and agreed to on March 17, 2006 (incorporated herein by
reference to Exhibit 10.1 of Covanta Holding Corporations
Current Report on Form 8-K dated March 17, 2006 and filed with
the SEC on March 20, 2006).
|
|
10
|
.20
|
|
Amendment to Agreement Regarding Closing (Exhibit A to the
Rehabilitation Plan Implementation Agreement), dated January 10,
2006, by and between John Garamendi, Insurance Commissioner of
the State of California, in his capacity as Trustee of the
Mission Insurance Company Trust, the Mission National Insurance
Company Trust, and the Enterprise Insurance Company Trust, on
the one hand, and Covanta Holding Corporation, on the other hand
(incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.2 of Covanta
Holding Corporations Current Report on Form 8-K dated
March 2, 2006 and filed with the SEC on March 6, 2006).
|
|
10
|
.21
|
|
Latent Deficiency Claims Administration Procedures Agreement
(Exhibit B to the Rehabilitation Plan Implementation Agreement),
dated January 11, 2006, by and between John Garamendi, Insurance
Commissioner of the State of California, in his capacity as
Trustee of the Mission Insurance Company Trust, the Mission
National Insurance Company Trust and the Enterprise Insurance
Company Trust, on the one hand, and Covanta Holding Corporation
on the other hand (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit
10.3 of Covanta Holding Corporations Current Report on
Form 8-K dated March 2, 2006 and filed with the SEC on March 6,
2006).
|
|
10
|
.22*
|
|
Transition and Separation Agreement, dated April 5, 2006, among
Craig D. Abolt, Covanta Holding Corporation, Covanta Energy
Corporation and Covanta Projects, Inc. (incorporated herein by
reference to Exhibit 10.1 of Covanta Holding Corporations
Current Report on Form 8-K dated April 5, 2006 and filed with
the SEC on April 7, 2006).
|
136
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit No.
|
|
Description
|
|
|
10
|
.23
|
|
Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated as of May 26, 2006,
among Covanta Energy Corporation, Covanta Holding Corporation as
a guarantor, certain subsidiaries of Covanta Energy Corporation
as guarantors, various lenders, Goldman Sachs Credit Partners
L.P., as Sole Lead Arranger, Sole Book Runner and Sole
Syndication Agent, Administrative Agent and Collateral Agent,
JPMorgan Chase Bank, as Co-Documentation Agent, Revolving
Issuing Bank and a Funded LC Issuing Bank, UBS Securities LLC,
as Co-Documentation Agent, UBS AG, Stamford Branch, as a Funded
LC Issuing Bank, and Calyon New York Branch, as Co-Documentation
Agent (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of
Covanta Holding Corporations Current Report on Form 8-K
dated May 26, 2006 and filed with the SEC on May 31, 2006).
|
|
10
|
.24
|
|
Amendment to Second Lien Credit and Guaranty Agreement, dated as
of May 26, 2006, among Covanta Energy Corporation, Covanta
Holding Corporation and the parties signatory thereto
(incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.2 of Covanta
Holding Corporations Current Report on Form 8-K dated May
26, 2006 and filed with the SEC on May 31, 2006).
|
|
10
|
.25
|
|
Amendment and Limited Waiver to Intercreditor Agreement, dated
as of May 26, 2006, among Covanta Energy Corporation, Goldman
Sachs Credit Partners L.P., as Collateral Agent under the First
Lien Credit Agreement, Credit Suisse, Cayman Islands Branch, as
Administrative Agent for the Second Lien Credit Agreement and as
Collateral Agent for the Parity Lien Claimholders (incorporated
herein by reference to Exhibit 10.3 of Covanta Holding
Corporations Current Report on Form 8-K dated May 26, 2006
and filed with the SEC on May 31, 2006).
|
|
10
|
.26*
|
|
Form of Covanta Holding Corporation Restricted Stock Award
Agreement for Directors (incorporated herein by reference to
Exhibit 10.1 of Covanta Holding Corporations Current
Report on Form 8-K dated May 31, 2006 and filed with the SEC on
June 2, 2006).
|
|
10
|
.27*
|
|
Employment Agreement, dated as of August 17, 2006, among Covanta
Holding Corporation, Covanta Energy Corporation and Mark A.
Pytosh (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of
Covanta Holding Corporations Current Report on Form 8-K
dated August 17, 2006 and filed with the SEC on August 17, 2006).
|
|
10
|
.28
|
|
Credit and Guaranty Agreement, dated as of February 9, 2007,
among Covanta Energy Corporation, Covanta Holding Corporation,
certain subsidiaries of Covanta Energy Corporation, as
guarantors, the lenders party thereto, JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A., as Administrative Agent, Collateral Agent, Revolving
Issuing Bank and a Funded LC Issuing Bank, UBS AG, Stamford
Branch, as a Funded LC Issuing Bank, Lehman Commercial Paper
Inc. and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated, as Syndication Agents, and Bank of America, N.A.
and Barclays Bank PLC, as Documentation Agents (incorporated
herein by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of Covanta Holding
Corporations Current Report on Form 8-K dated February 9,
2007 and filed with the SEC on February 15, 2007).
|
|
10
|
.29
|
|
Pledge and Security Agreement, dated as of February 9, 2007,
between each of Covanta Energy Corporation and the other
grantors party thereto, and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as
Collateral Agent (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit
10.2 of Covanta Holding Corporations Current Report on
Form 8-K dated February 9, 2007 and filed with the SEC on
February 15, 2007).
|
|
10
|
.30
|
|
Pledge Agreement, dated as of February 9, 2007, between Covanta
Holding Corporation and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Collateral
Agent (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.3 of
Covanta Holding Corporations Current Report on Form 8-K
dated February 9, 2007 and filed with the SEC on February 15,
2007).
|
|
10
|
.31
|
|
Intercompany Subordination Agreement, dated as of February 9,
2007, among Covanta Energy Corporation, Covanta Holding
Corporation, certain subsidiaries of Covanta Energy Corporation,
as Guarantor Subsidiaries, certain other subsidiaries of Covanta
Energy Company, as Excluded Subsidiaries or Unrestricted
Subsidiaries, and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Administrative
Agent (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.4 of
Covanta Holding Corporations Current Report on Form 8-K
dated February 9, 2007 and filed with the SEC on February 15,
2007).
|
137
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit No.
|
|
Description
|
|
|
10
|
.32
|
|
Form of Covanta Holding Corporation Indemnification Agreement,
entered into with each of the following: David M. Barse, Ronald
J. Broglio, Peter C.B. Bynoe, Linda J. Fisher, Richard L. Huber,
Anthony J. Orlando, William C. Pate, Robert S. Silberman, Jean
Smith, Clayton Yeutter, Samuel Zell, Mark A. Pytosh, Timothy J.
Simpson, Thomas E. Bucks, John M. Klett and Seth Myones
(incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of Covanta
Holding Corporations Current Report on Form 8-K dated
December 6, 2007 and filed with the SEC on December 12, 2007.
|
|
12
|
.1
|
|
Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges.
|
|
21
|
.1
|
|
List of Subsidiaries.
|
|
23
|
.1
|
|
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm of
Covanta Holding Corporation and Subsidiaries: Ernst & Young
LLP.
|
|
31
|
.1
|
|
Certification of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section
302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (pursuant to Rule
13a-14(a) and Rule 15d-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, as
amended).
|
|
31
|
.2
|
|
Certification of the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section
302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (pursuant to Rule
13a-14(a) and Rule 15d-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, as
amended).
|
|
32
|
.1
|
|
Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 from the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial
Officer of Covanta Holding Corporation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not filed herewith, but incorporated herein by reference. |
|
* |
|
Management contract or compensatory plan or arrangement. |
Pursuant to paragraph 601(b)(4)(iii)(A) of
Regulation S-K,
the registrant has omitted from the foregoing list of exhibits,
and hereby agrees to furnish to the Securities and Exchange
Commission, upon its request, copies of certain instruments,
each relating to long-term debt not exceeding 10% of the total
assets of the registrant and its subsidiaries on a consolidated
basis.
(b) Exhibits: See list of Exhibits in
this Part IV, Item 15(a)(3) above.
(c) Financial Statement Schedules: See
Part IV, Item 15(a)(2) above.
138
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused
this Report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned,
thereunto duly authorized.
COVANTA HOLDING CORPORATION
(Registrant)
|
|
|
|
By:
|
/s/ Anthony
J. Orlando
|
Anthony J. Orlando
President and Chief Executive Officer
Date: March 2, 2009
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons
on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the
dates indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name
|
|
Title
|
|
Date
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Anthony
J. Orlando
Anthony
J. Orlando
|
|
President and Chief Executive Officer and Director (Principal
Executive Officer)
|
|
March 2, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Mark
A. Pytosh
Mark
A. Pytosh
|
|
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal
Financial Officer)
|
|
March 2, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Thomas
E. Bucks
Thomas
E. Bucks
|
|
Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer (Principal
Accounting Officer)
|
|
March 2, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Samuel
Zell
Samuel
Zell
|
|
Chairman of the Board
|
|
March 2, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ David
M. Barse
David
M. Barse
|
|
Director
|
|
March 2, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Ronald
J. Broglio
Ronald
J. Broglio
|
|
Director
|
|
March 2, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Peter
C. B. Bynoe
Peter
C. B. Bynoe
|
|
Director
|
|
March 2, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Linda
J. Fisher
Linda
J. Fisher
|
|
Director
|
|
March 2, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Richard
L. Huber
Richard
L. Huber
|
|
Director
|
|
March 2, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ William
C. Pate
William
C. Pate
|
|
Director
|
|
March 2, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Robert
S. Silberman
Robert
S. Silberman
|
|
Director
|
|
March 2, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Jean
Smith
Jean
Smith
|
|
Director
|
|
March 2, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Clayton
Yeutter
Clayton
Yeutter
|
|
Director
|
|
March 2, 2009
|
139