<PAGE> 1
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
------------------------------------
FORM 8-K
Current Report
------------------------------------
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Date of Report: January 21, 1994
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
(Exact name of registrant as specified in charter)
New York 1-3571 11-1019782
(State of Incorporation) (Commission File No.) (I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)
175 East Old Country Road, Hicksville, New York 11801
516-933-4590
(Address and telephone number of Principal Executive Offices)
<PAGE> 2
Item 1. Changes in Control of Registrant
Not applicable.
Item 2. Acquisition or Disposition of Assets
Not applicable.
Item 3. Bankruptcy or Receivership
Not applicable.
Item 4. Changes in Registrant's Certifying Accountant
Not applicable.
Item 5. Other Events
a. Resignation of Officer
The Company has announced the resignation of its President and
Chief Operating Officer, Anthony F. Earley, Jr., effective March 1, 1994. Mr.
Earley has accepted the position of President and Chief Operating Officer of
The Detroit Edison Company. Mr. Earley joined Long Island Lighting Company in
1985 as General Counsel. In January 1988, he assumed duties as Executive Vice
President and on April 1, 1989, he became President and Chief Operating
Officer. Mr. Earley, who is also a Director of Long Island Lighting Company,
will resign from that position as well.
b. Electric Rate Case
On December 31, 1993, the Company filed a three-year electric
rate plan with the Public Service Commission of the State of New York (the
"PSC") for the period beginning December 1, 1994. The filing proposes no base
electric rate increases in years one and two of the plan and an overall
increase of 4.3% in the third year. Although base electric rates would be
frozen during the first two years of the plan, annual rate increases of 1% in
the first year and 2% in the second year are expected to result in these years
from the operation of the Company's fuel cost adjustment clause.
The Company's proposal is subject to approval by the PSC which
is expected to rule on the rate application in November
- 2 -
<PAGE> 3
1994 following public hearings, submission of testimony, briefs, and a
Recommended Decision by an Administrative Law Judge. The PSC may accept, modify
or reject the Company's proposal.
On November 2, 1993, the New York State Consumer Protection
Board and the Long Island Power Authority ("CPB/LIPA") filed a petition with
the PSC asking the PSC to hold a proceeding on freezing or possibly reducing
the Company's electric rates for the period December 1994 to November 1997. In
written comments filed on January 12, 1994 in response to the CPB/LIPA
Petition, LILCO has urged the PSC to reject the Petition and consider the
CPB/LIPA's issues in the proceeding that has been established regarding the
Company's three-year rate application.
Additional information relating to the Company's rate request
appears in the Company's From 8-K dated December 3, 1993.
c. Gas Rate Case
In December 1993, the PSC approved, with an effective date of
December 31, 1993, the Company's negotiated three-year gas rate settlement
with the Staff of the PSC with only minor modifications. The PSC-approved
settlement provided for a first year increase of $26.6 million and two
subsequent increases of $23 million and $20 million to be effective on December
1, 1995 and 1996, respectively.
d. LILCO v. PSC/Mayflower
On December 30, 1993, the Appellate Division, Third Judicial
Department, affirmed the Supreme Court of the State of New York Special Term's
decision in LILCO v. PSC/Mayflower. In the Special Term decision, Supreme Court
Justice Travers had held that the PSC had violated the Public Utility
Regulatory Policies Act ("PURPA") and the New York Public Service Law and had
acted arbitrarily when it ordered the Company to sign a power purchase contract
with Mayflower Energy Partners L.P. incorporating the PSC's 1989 Long Run
Avoided Cost estimates. Justice Travers and the Third Judicial Department both
agreed that the PSC-determined rates were not just and reasonable, as required
under PURPA and the New York Public Service Law.
e. Long Island Lighting Company v. Stone & Webster
On December 13, 1993, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York issued an opinion in LILCO v. Stone & Webster
granting a motion by Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. ("SWEC") to dismiss the
Company's complaint in this action. The Company's complaint had sought to
recover damages against SWEC for breach of contract, negligence, professional
malpractice, and gross negligence in connection with
- 3 -
<PAGE> 4
SWEC's work as architect-engineer and construction manager for the Shoreham
Nuclear Power Station.
f. LIPA v. Shoreham-Wading River School District, et al.
Pursuant to the Long Island Power Authority Act ("LIPA Act"),
the Long Island Power Authority ("LIPA") is required to make payments in lieu
of taxes ("PILOTs") to the municipalities that impose real property taxes
on the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station ("Shoreham"). Under the 1989 Settlement
Agreement with New York State which resolved disputes over the Shoreham plant,
the Company agreed to fund LIPA's PILOTs obligation. The timing and duration of
PILOTs under the LIPA Act are the subject of the litigation entitled LIPA, et
al. v. Shoreham-Wading River Central School District, et al. LIPA brought this
action in Nassau County Supreme Court against, among others, Suffolk County,
Town of Brookhaven and the Shoreham-Wading River Central School District. The
Company was permitted to intervene in the lawsuit. On January 10, 1994, the
Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed a lower court's March 29, 1993
decision holding, in major part, that the Company is not obligated for any real
property taxes that accrued after February 28, 1992, attributable to property
that it conveyed to LIPA, that PILOTs commence on March 1, 1992, that PILOTs
are subject to refunds and that the LIPA Act does not provide for the
termination of PILOTs. The effects of this affirmance cannot yet be quantified.
Generally, these holdings are favorable to the Company. The proper amount of
PILOTs is to be determined in certain pending litigation (Long Island Lighting
Company v. The Assessor of the Town of Brookhaven, et al.) described at page 22
in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
1992.
Item 6. Resignations of Registrant's Directors
Not applicable.
Item 7. Financial Statements, Pro Forma Financial Information and
Exhibits
Not applicable.
Item 8. Change in Fiscal Year
Not applicable.
- 4 -
<PAGE> 5
SIGNATURE
Pursuant to the requirements 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.
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
Registrant
By ANTHONY NOZZOLILLO
--------------------------
ANTHONY NOZZOLILLO
Treasurer
Dated: January 21, 1994
- 5 -
