<PAGE>
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM U-1
AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO
APPLICATION
UNDER
THE PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT OF 1935
Chevron Corporation Illinova Corporation
575 Market Street 500 South 27th Street
San Francisco, California 94105 Decatur, Illinois 62521-2200
(Commission File No. 1-368-2) (Commission File No. 1-11327)
Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
1301 McKinney
Houston, Texas 77010
(Name of companies filing this statement and address of principal executive
offices)
None
(Name of top registered holding company parent of each applicant or declarant)
David R. Stevenson William B. Conway, Jr.
Associate General Counsel Senior Vice President and Chief Legal Officer
Chevron Law Department Illinova Corporation
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. 500 South 27th Street
P.O. Box 3725 Decatur, Illinois 62521-2200
Houston, Texas 77253-3725
(Names and addresses of agents for service)
Total Number of pages: 55
<PAGE>
The Commission is also requested to send copies
of any communications in connection with this matter to:
For Chevron and Chevron USA: For Illinova:
- --------------------------- ------------
James R. Doty, Esq. Robert P. Edwards, Jr. Esq.
Baker & Botts, L.L.P. John D. McLanahan, Esq.
The Warner Troutman Sanders LLP
1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 600 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20004-2400 Suite 5200
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
For Dynegy:
----------
Merrill L. Kramer, P.C.
Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P.
1333 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.
Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20036
ii
<PAGE>
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction and Request for Commission Action........................ 1
Item 1. Description of Proposed Transaction........................... 1
A. The Participants................................................ 1
B. The Transaction................................................. 7
C. Reasons for the Transaction..................................... 9
Item 2. Fees, Commissions, and Expenses............................... 10
Item 3. Applicable Statutory Provisions............................... 10
A. The Section 2(a)(7) Exclusion................................... 11
B. The Section 3(a)(3) Exemption................................... 23
C. The Transaction Is Not Subject to Section 9(a)(2) of the Act.... 38
D. The Transaction Satisfies The Requirements of Section 10........ 40
Item 4. Regulatory Approval........................................... 41
Item 5. Procedure..................................................... 42
Item 6. Exhibits and Financial Statements............................. 42
Item 7. Information as to Environmental Effects....................... 47
SIGNATURE............................................................. 48
APPENDIX I: The Effect of State and Federal Regulation Upon Illinova.. 49
iii
<PAGE>
The Application previously filed in this proceeding is hereby amended
and restated in its entirety to read as follows:
INTRODUCTION AND REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION
Chevron Corporation ("Chevron Corp."), its wholly-owned subsidiary,
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. ("Chevron USA"),/1/ and Illinova Corporation ("Illinova" and
collectively with Chevron Corp. and Chevron USA, the "Applicants") hereby file
an application for an order from the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "Commission") finding that, upon the consummation of the merger
transactions described in Item 1.B below (the "Transaction"), neither Chevron
Corp. nor Chevron USA will constitute a holding company within the meaning of
Section 2(a)(7) of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (the "Act")
or, in the alternative, that Chevron Corp. and Chevron USA shall be exempt from
all provisions of the Act other than Section 9(a)(2), pursuant to Section
3(a)(3) of the Act.
Additionally, Applicants show herein that no approval is required
under Section 9(a)(2) of the Act. In the alternative, Applicants request that
the Commission find that the Transaction is consistent with Section 10 of the
Act and approve it pursuant to Section 9(a)(2).
ITEM 1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED TRANSACTION
A. THE PARTICIPANTS.
The Transaction involves merging a company with energy-related
operations, exempt operations, and no public-utility company operations (Dynegy
Inc.) with an exempt public-utility holding company (Illinova) which has limited
exempt and energy-related operations. Chevron's role has been to accommodate the
Transaction, which was initiated by Dynegy Inc. and Illinova.
1. CHEVRON CORPORATION.
Chevron Corp., a Delaware corporation, manages its investments in, and
provides administrative, financial, and management support to, domestic and
foreign subsidiaries and affiliates that engage in fully-integrated petroleum
and chemical operations in the United States and approximately 90 other
countries./2/ Chevron Corp.'s stock is listed on the New York, Chicago, and
Pacific Exchanges, and it is a reporting company under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended.
_________________________
/1/ Except where the context otherwise requires, Chevron Corp. and Chevron USA
are collectively referred to herein as "Chevron."
/2/ Chevron Corp.'s petroleum operations consist of exploring for, developing,
and producing crude oil and natural gas; refining crude oil into finished
petroleum products; marketing crude oil, natural gas, and the many products
derived from petroleum; and transporting crude oil, natural gas, and petroleum
products by pipelines, marine vessels, motor equipment, and railcar. The
chemical operations of Chevron Corp. include the manufacture and marketing of a
wide range of chemicals for industrial uses. Chevron Corp. is currently in the
process of selling its remaining interests in coal mining operations.
1
<PAGE>
Chevron Corp. had annual revenues in 1998 of over $30 billion, with
average annual revenues over the last three years (1996-1998) of $38.8 billion.
These revenues yielded $1.34 billion net income in 1998, with a three-year
average net income of $2.4 billion.
Chevron Corp.'s largest business segments are its exploration and
production operations and its refining, marketing, and transportation
operations. The petroleum activities of the company are widely dispersed
geographically, with upstream and downstream operations in the United States and
Canada, and upstream operations in Nigeria, Angola, Australia, the United
Kingdom, Kazakhstan, Thailand, Indonesia, Norway, Republic of Congo, China, and
Venezuela. The company's chemical operations are concentrated in the United
States, but also include manufacturing facilities in France, Japan, Brazil,
Singapore, and Mexico. Additionally, chemical manufacturing facilities are
under construction in China and Saudi Arabia.
Neither Chevron Corp. nor Chevron USA currently has any public-utility
company subsidiaries, neither is an affiliate of a public-utility company, and
no part of either company's income is derived from the operations of a public-
utility company as defined by the Act.
Chevron Corp. owns 100% of Chevron USA, a Pennsylvania corporation,
which owns approximately 29% of the outstanding common and preferred stock of
Dynegy Inc. ("Dynegy"), a leading provider of energy products and services in
North America and the United Kingdom. The vast majority of Chevron Corp.'s
natural gas production, as well as the natural gas liquids extracted from the
gas, are committed to Dynegy under various commercial agreements. In 1998, 73%
of Chevron Corp.'s worldwide sales of natural gas were made to Dynegy.
Additional information regarding Chevron Corp. and its subsidiaries is
set forth in the following documents, each of which is incorporated herein by
reference:
(i) Annual Report on Form 10-K of Chevron Corporation (Commission
File No. 1-368-2) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1998,
filed on March 31, 1999; and
(ii) Amendment No. 1 to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Chevron
Corporation (Commission File No. 1-368-2) for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 1999, filed on August 5, 1999.
2. DYNEGY INC.
Dynegy, as a leading provider of energy products and services in North
America and the United Kingdom, is actively engaged in the marketing and trading
of natural gas, natural gas liquids, electricity, and coal. It also owns power
generation subsidiaries that develop, own, and operate projects that are exempt
from the Act, including Exempt Wholesale Generators ("EWGs") and companies with
interests in qualifying facilities under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies
Act of 1978.
Dynegy is a Delaware corporation maintaining its principal place of
business in Texas. The company's stock is listed on the New York Stock
Exchange. In addition to Chevron
2
<PAGE>
USA, Dynegy has two industrial shareholders: NOVA Gas Services (U.S.) Inc., a
Delaware corporation ("NOVA"), and BG Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation
("BG"), each of which owns approximately 25% of the outstanding voting stock of
Dynegy./3/ Of the remaining outstanding voting stock of Dynegy, 11% is owned by
management and the balance is publicly owned.
On August 31, 1996, Chevron USA formed a strategic combination with
NGC Corporation ("NGC"), Dynegy's predecessor, whereby substantially all of
Chevron USA's mid-stream natural gas marketing and natural gas processing and
natural gas liquids marketing operations were transferred to NGC's operations in
exchange for stock constituting the shares of Dynegy which Chevron now holds
(the "Chevron Combination"). Effective July 1, 1997, NGC acquired Destec
Energy, Inc., an independent power producer. During 1998, NGC changed its name
to Dynegy Inc. Pursuant to agreements entered into as part of the Chevron
Combination, Dynegy has the obligation to purchase and the right to market
substantially all of the natural gas and gas liquids produced by Chevron USA,
except those produced in Alaska. In addition, pursuant to other agreements,
Dynegy supplies natural gas and natural gas liquids feedstocks to Chevron's
United States refineries and chemical plants./4/
Dynegy is presently pursuing an integrated wholesale energy business
strategy based on the convergence of energy markets. This strategy exploits the
marketing, trading, and hedging opportunities existing in the natural gas and
power markets, which can be most effectively realized by the control and
optimization of related physical assets. Dynegy treats its gas and power
marketing and power generation businesses as an integrated unit. Dynegy
considers that: (i) ownership or control of merchant generation, or "Btu
Conversion" capacity, when coupled with Dynegy's national wholesale gas and
power marketing operations, creates a wide range of value-creation
opportunities; (ii) Dynegy's wholesale trading and marketing franchise adds
value to its generation assets by providing national market access, market
infrastructure and intelligence, risk management and arbitrage opportunities,
fuel management and procurement expertise and transmission expertise for inputs
(gas) and outputs (power); (iii) generation capacity adds value to Dynegy's
wholesale trading and marketing franchise by providing a source of reliable
power, an enhanced ability to structure innovative new products and services for
customers, and a market for natural gas; and (iv) by aligning its operations
with the
__________________________
/3/ NOVA is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of NOVA Chemicals Corporation,
a Canadian corporation. BG is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of BG plc, a
British corporation.
/4/ Chevron Corp. also enjoys certain business opportunities and benefits under
an Operating Agreement (the "Caltex Operating Agreement") with Texaco Inc.
("Texaco"), concerning Caltex Petroleum Corporation, a Delaware corporation
("Caltex"), that is a joint venture of Chevron Corp. and Texaco. Dynegy has
entered into a Scope of Business Agreement with Chevron Corp. relating to the
Caltex Operating Agreement, pursuant to which Dynegy and Chevron Corp.
facilitate discussion of Caltex-related commercial opportunities suitable for
exploitation in whole or in part by Dynegy. The Certificate of Incorporation of
Dynegy contains (and the Articles of Incorporation of New Dynegy will contain)
provisions precluding Dynegy from effecting a sale of petroleum products (other
than natural gas) intended for consumption or resale in certain parts of Africa,
most of Asia, Australia and other areas of the Pacific west of the International
Date Line, except pursuant to the process established by the Scope of Business
Agreement or as Chevron may otherwise approve in a shareholder vote. See
Midstream Combination Corp. Registration Statement on Form S-4 under the
Securities Act of 1933, filed with the Commission on August 1, 1996,
Registration No. 333-09419, at 25, 53.
3
<PAGE>
power generation base and experience of Illinova, Dynegy expects to enhance the
value of its power generation and power marketing capabilities.
Additional information regarding Dynegy and its subsidiaries is set
forth in the following documents, to which reference is made:
(i) Annual Report on Form 10-K of Dynegy Inc. (Commission File Number
1-11156) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1998, filed on
March 30, 1999;
(ii) Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Dynegy Inc. (Commission File
Number 1-11156) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 1999,
filed on August 16, 1999;
(iii) Current Report on Form 8-K of Dynegy Inc. (Commission File
Number 1-11156), filed on June 14, 1999; and
(iv) Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement under the Securities
Act of 1933 on Form S-4 of Energy Convergence Holding Company
(Registration No. 333-84965), filed with the Commission on
September 7, 1999 (the "New Dynegy Registration Statement").
3. ILLINOVA CORPORATION.
Illinova Corporation ("Illinova") is a public-utility holding company
exempt from registration under Section 3(a)(1) of the Act. It is incorporated
and maintains its principal place of business in the State of Illinois, and its
common stock is listed on the New York and Chicago Stock Exchanges. Illinova
owns six principal operating subsidiaries: Illinois Power Company, a combination
electric and gas public-utility company ("Illinois Power"), Illinova Generating
Company ("Illinova Generating"), Illinova Energy Partners, Inc. ("Illinova
Energy"), Illinova Insurance Company ("Illinova Insurance"), Illinova Power
Marketing, Inc. ("Illinova Marketing"), and Illinova Business Enterprises
("Illinova Business").
Illinova's revenues for 1998 were $2.43 billion, producing a net loss
of $1.38 billion. Recently, the public-utility income of Illinova derived from
Illinois Power has been negative and is the primary source of Illinova's
consolidated net loss. In 1998, approximately 73% of Illinova's operating
revenues were derived from Illinois Power's sale, transmission and distribution
of electricity, and 12% of Illinova's operating revenues were derived from
Illinois Power's sale and transportation of natural gas. Approximately 15% of
Illinova's operating revenues came from its other, diversified enterprises in
1998.
Illinois Power is Illinova's principal public-utility company
subsidiary and is engaged in the generation, transmission, and distribution of
electric energy and the sale of electric
4
<PAGE>
energy at wholesale and retail./5/ Illinois Power also owns facilities for the
distribution of natural gas and is engaged in the sale of natural gas at retail.
Illinois Power provides traditional utility service subject to state regulation
to approximately 570,000 retail electric and 400,000 retail gas distribution
customers located throughout central Illinois, and also transmits and sells
power at wholesale subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission ("FERC"). Illinova's electric utility and gas utility systems operate
on an integrated basis. All of the company's utility assets are located in the
State of Illinois. Illinois Power is regulated by the Illinois Commerce
Commission ("ICC") and the FERC.
Currently, Illinois Power owns a total of approximately 3,812 MW of
fossil-fired generating capacity. In addition, Illinois Power currently owns a
930 MW nuclear generating facility located near Clinton, Illinois./6/ Illinova
has entered into a definitive agreement to sell that facility to Ameren Energy
Company, L.L.C., subject to regulatory approvals, including approval by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. On September 10, 1999, the FERC approved the
transfer of Illinois Power's fossil-fired generating capacity to Illinova
Marketing, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Illinova./7/ The ICC had previously
approved the transaction on July 8, 1999./8/ Within one year of the closing of
the Transaction, Illinova Marketing will obtain status as an EWG.
Illinova Generating is Illinova's wholly-owned independent power
subsidiary. In addition to its minority interest in EEInc, Illinova Generating
currently owns interests in EWGs and in qualifying facilities located throughout
North America, as well as interests in several generation facilities located
outside of North America. The North American facilities total 821 MW with an
830 MW plant under construction.
Illinova Energy is Illinova's wholly-owned subsidiary that engages in
the brokering and marketing of electric power and gas, and the development and
sale of energy-related services to the competitive unregulated energy market
throughout the United States and Canada. Illinova Energy owns interests in
several gas marketing companies.
____________________________
/5/ Illinova's other "public-utility company" subsidiary is Electric Energy
Incorporated ("EEInc"), which maintains its principal place of business in
Joppa, Illinois. Illinova Generating owns 20% of the stock of EEInc. The
revenues and net income of EEInc are not material to Illinova's total public-
utility revenues and income. EEInc was incorporated in 1950 for the purpose of
generating electricity for sale to the United States government nuclear
processing plant near Paducah, Kentucky. Approximately 70% of the revenues
associated with the Joppa plant are derived from sales to the United States
Department of Energy under a contract that extends until 2005. Sponsoring
utilities, including Illinois Power, purchase power in excess of the federal
government's requirements. The Commission has for many years recognized this
project as sui generis and that EEInc "does not itself sell electricity to
private consumers of the type the Act is designed to protect and does not have
any securities in the hands of public investors." Union Electric Co., Holding
Co. Act Release No. 14615, 40 SEC 1072 (Apr. 2, 1962). See also Illinova
Generating Co., SEC No-Action Letter, 1996 WL 679234 (Oct. 22, 1996).
/6/ See Exhibit 10.1 to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Illinova Corporation
and Illinois Power Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 1999.
/7/ Illinois Power Co., FERC Docket No. EC99-90-000 (Sept. 10, 1999).
/8/ ICC Docket No. 99-0209 (July 8, 1999).
5
<PAGE>
Illinova Insurance is an insurance company licensed by the State of
Vermont. The primary business of Illinova Insurance is to insure the risks of
the subsidiaries of Illinova and the risks related to or associated with their
business enterprises.
Illinova Business is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Illinova. The
primary business of Illinova Business is to account for miscellaneous business
activities not regulated by the ICC or FERC and not falling within the business
scope of other Illinova subsidiaries.
As discussed in Appendix I to this Application, recent federal and
state regulatory initiatives have the following implications for Illinois Power
and Illinova:
. Illinois Power is required to maintain transmission interconnections
with numerous major regional electric utilities and power supply
regions and provide open access transmission service.
. Illinois Power is ceding operational control of its transmission
system to a regional Independent System Operator.
. Illinois Power is required to implement open access transmission on
its distribution system to facilitate energy competition for retail
electric customers and to provide nondiscriminatory delivery service
to its retail customers.
. Illinois Power is required to implement retail rate reductions and to
maintain a retail rate freeze.
. Illinois Power is expected to recover regulatory transition charges
(estimated at $55 to $135 million per year), purchased power costs
(estimated to be approximately $600 million per year), and the
revenue requirement associated with transmission and distribution
through its frozen retail rates.
Illinois Power estimates that the regulatory changes initiated by the FERC and
the State of Illinois and Illinois Power's resulting restructuring will reduce
its gross utility plant account from the 1998 level of $6.168 billion/9/ to
$3.091 billion in 2000/10/ and its electric revenues from the 1998 level of
$1.781 billion/11/ to $1.168 billion in 2000./12/ Over half of the year 2000
revenues will constitute recovery of regulatory transition costs and purchased
power costs. As a result of state and federal restructuring of energy markets,
the ability of Illinova to compete effectively has
_________________________
/9/ See Consolidated Balance Sheets, Annual Report on Form 10-K of Illinova and
Illinois Power for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1998.
/10/ See Projected pro forma Balance Sheet of Illinois Power, 2000-2003
reflecting sale of Clinton Nuclear Plant, attached hereto as Exhibit L.1.
/11/ See Market shares for Electric Companies in Illinois and Bordering States,
at 2, attached hereto as Exhibit N.6.
/12/ See Projected pro forma Income Statement of Illinois Power, 2000-2003
reflecting sale of Clinton Nuclear Plant, attached hereto as Exhibit L.2.
6
<PAGE>
become essential to its success as a business enterprise and to its ability to
attract capital at a reasonable cost.
Additional information regarding Illinova and its subsidiaries,
including Illinois Power, is set forth in the following documents, each of which
is incorporated herein by reference:
(i) Annual Report on Form 10-K of Illinova Corporation (Commission
File Number 1-11327) and Illinois Power Company (Commission File
Number 1-3004) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1998, filed
on March 29, 1999;
(ii) Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Illinova Corporation (Commission
File Number 1-11327) and Illinois Power Company (Commission File
Number 1-3004) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 1999,
filed on August 16, 1999;
(iii) Current Report on Form 8-K of Illinova Corporation (Commission
File Number 1-11327) and Illinois Power Company (Commission File
Number 1-3004), filed on June 18, 1999; and
(iv) New Dynegy Registration Statement.
B. THE TRANSACTION.
The Transaction involves a combination of Dynegy and Illinova through
a series of mergers, resulting in the formation of a new public-utility holding
company ("New Dynegy") incorporated in the State of Illinois./13/ Chevron and
Illinova understand that New Dynegy will separately file, under Rule 2 of the
Commission's regulations, notification of its status as a holding company exempt
under Section 3(a)(1) of the Act on the same grounds as presently claimed by
Illinova. New Dynegy will initially have two wholly-owned subsidiaries, an
Illinois corporation/14/ and a Delaware corporation,/15/ that will serve as
acquisition companies. Illinova will be merged with the Illinois acquisition
company with Illinova surviving the merger, and Dynegy will be merged with the
Delaware acquisition company with Dynegy surviving the merger. As a result,
upon completion of the Transaction, Illinova and Dynegy will be wholly-owned
subsidiaries of New Dynegy. The parties intend to simplify the New Dynegy
holding company structure after the Transaction by eliminating one tier and
qualifying Illinova Marketing as an EWG.
________________________
/13/ New Dynegy is incorporated in Illinois as Energy Convergence Holding
Company.
/14/ Energy Convergence Acquisition Corporation.
/15/ Dynegy Acquisition Corporation.
7
<PAGE>
In the Transaction, each shareholder of Dynegy will elect to receive
either cash or shares in New Dynegy./16/ However, only approximately 40% of the
shares of Dynegy Common Stock will be exchangeable for cash, and the remaining
shares of Dynegy will be exchangeable for shares of New Dynegy Class A Common
Stock, Class B Common Stock, or Series A Preferred Stock./17/ Each share of
Illinova common stock will be exchangeable for one share of New Dynegy Class A
Common Stock. As a result, slightly more than one-half of New Dynegy's voting
stock will be held by former Dynegy shareholders.
Although BG and NOVA have elected to receive all cash, the 40% limit
on the cash portion of the merger consideration results in their receiving at
least some portion of their consideration in the form of Series A Preferred
Stock. The amount of stock that BG and NOVA will receive is dependent upon the
number of shares held by the public shareholders that are tendered for cash. To
facilitate the Transaction and assist NOVA and BG in liquidating their
investment in Dynegy, Chevron USA has agreed to purchase from New Dynegy
additional shares of New Dynegy's Class B Common Stock for an aggregate purchase
price of between $200 and $240 million. To the extent that BG and NOVA would
otherwise receive less than 75% cash in exchange for shares of Dynegy Common
Stock, Chevron USA has agreed to increase its investment, up to a maximum of
$240 million. As a result of these repurchase transactions, Chevron USA's
ownership interest in New Dynegy upon completion of the Transaction will be
approximately 28%.
Pursuant to an amendment to New Dynegy's Articles of Incorporation
(which has been filed with the State of Illinois) and a related shareholder
agreement among Dynegy, New Dynegy, Illinova, and Chevron USA dated June 14,
1999 (the "Shareholder Agreement"), so long as Chevron USA owns at least 15% of
New Dynegy Common Stock, Chevron USA shall be entitled to vote for the election
of three of the fourteen members of the New Dynegy Board of Directors as Chevron
USA's representatives (the "Chevron Directors"). Because the holders of Class A
Common Stock vote as a separate class for the other eleven directors, Chevron
USA has no voice in the selection of such directors and will have no
representative on New Dynegy's Nominating Committee, which will propose such
directors for election by the holders of Class A Stock. When Chevron USA ceases
to own at least 15% of New Dynegy Common Stock, its New Dynegy Class B Common
Stock will automatically convert to New Dynegy Class A Common Stock and Chevron
USA will no longer have an exclusive right to elect three members of New
Dynegy's Board of Directors./18/
_______________________________
/16/ Chevron has agreed to receive all stock in the Transaction. BG and NOVA
have, directly or indirectly, elected to receive all cash.
/17/ The New Dynegy Class A Common Stock will be issued to the management and
the public shareholders of Dynegy. The New Dynegy Class B Common Stock will be
issued to Chevron USA. NOVA and BG will receive New Dynegy Class A Preferred
Stock in the Transaction.
/18/ The Articles of Incorporation of New Dynegy contain provisions for
cumulative voting by holders of the Class A Common Stock, generally, and
therefore Chevron USA might, even with less than 15% of New Dynegy Common Stock,
elect one or more members of New Dynegy's Board of Directors, but will have no
right to have its designees put forward as nominees. This distinguishes the
instant case from circumstances in which acquiring persons have installed or
employed cumulative voting to acquire board representation.
8
<PAGE>
Under New Dynegy's Articles of Incorporation, Chevron USA shall not be
entitled to any more than three representatives on New Dynegy's Board as long as
it does not own more than 40% of the outstanding shares of New Dynegy. The
Shareholder Agreement provides that Chevron USA may not seek to acquire more
than 40% of the outstanding Common Stock of New Dynegy within one year after the
closing of the Transaction unless a third party seeks to acquire more than 15%
of such Common Stock. Thereafter, Chevron USA may only acquire more than 40% of
New Dynegy's Common Stock if it offers to acquire all of the outstanding voting
securities of New Dynegy. Any such offer by Chevron USA is subject to a
detailed process which gives the New Dynegy Board the ability to solicit
competing offers and obligates Chevron USA to sell its stake in the event it is
not the winning bidder. In consideration of the consequences to New Dynegy of a
sale by Chevron USA of its significant equity position, the Shareholder
Agreement also imposes restrictions on sales by Chevron USA of its shares in New
Dynegy.
To protect its strategic investment in New Dynegy, Chevron has
negotiated for certain provisions in the Articles of Incorporation of New
Dynegy. The Articles of Incorporation of New Dynegy carry forward and contain
provisions in Illinova's current articles of incorporation whereby, consistent
with Illinois corporate law and practice, a two-thirds vote will be required to
approve certain major transactions, including mergers, consolidations, sales of
assets, and liquidation./19/ In addition, if all Chevron Directors present at a
meeting vote to do so, they will have the authority under New Dynegy's Bylaws to
"block" New Dynegy from entering into certain transactions, so long as Chevron
USA owns New Dynegy Class B Common Stock, including (i) a sale of all or
substantially all of the liquids business or the gas marketing business of New
Dynegy so long as Chevron USA's long-term sale contracts with New Dynegy remain
in effect, and (ii) mergers, acquisitions, and other business combinations,
sales of businesses or assets, and major transactions, including joint ventures,
in which such transactions are valued over $1 billion or one-quarter of New
Dynegy's market capitalization, whichever is greater.
While these are customary minority-protection rights, Chevron's
exercise of these rights is limited by other provisions. Under the Shareholder
Agreement, if Chevron USA exercises such rights twice within a 24-month period
or three times during any time period, either at the Board of Directors level or
on the shareholder level (other than to block changes to the constituent
instruments of New Dynegy which would materially affect such rights), New Dynegy
will have certain rights to purchase Chevron USA's shares or require Chevron USA
either to sell its shares of New Dynegy to a third party or to give up any
future blocking rights.
C. REASONS FOR THE TRANSACTION./20/
Illinova seeks a business combination with Dynegy to position Illinova
to compete in the increasingly competitive wholesale and retail energy markets
that have developed as a result
_________________________
/19/ This will include, pursuant to Article 4 of the Articles of Incorporation
of New Dynegy, the preservation of certain ongoing strategic relationships under
the Caltex Operating Agreement, referenced in note 4, supra.
/20/ Each of Dynegy and Illinova were advised by and received the written
opinions of their respective financial advisors with respect to certain aspects
of the Transaction. See New Dynegy Registration Statement at 47-68, and
Appendices III, IV and V thereto.
9
<PAGE>
of state and federal regulatory change. In these restructured markets, Illinova
expects that customers, whether wholesale or retail, will purchase generated
electricity separately from transportation (transmission and distribution)
services. In the case of electricity, recently enacted Illinois legislation
provides that customers will have a choice in selecting their electricity
provider, regardless of the geographic proximity of the source of physical
generation to the customer. It is likely that the retail natural gas service
market will soon function in a similar manner.
Illinova believes Dynegy will complement the utility operations of
Illinois Power and allow Illinova to combine its small energy trading operations
with the larger trading and marketing operations of Dynegy. A broader slate of
energy products and an effective marketing organization will permit Illinova to
remain competitive both for customers and for capital needed for exempt
operations and public-utility company operations. Maintaining a viable energy
business affiliated with Illinova's public-utility company operations will help
assure that consumers receive reliable service at competitive, market-driven
prices. The Transaction will result in an infusion of equity capital from
Chevron, a strategic investor that is not seeking to control public-utility
company operations, and the formation by the merged firm of a robust, exempt
energy generation and marketing business. This development, occurring in the
wake of Illinova's quasi-reorganization, will enable Illinova to maintain
competitive viability and the ability to attract capital at a reasonable cost.
Illinova believes that as a result of the Transaction, the energy-related
operations of Illinova will contribute significantly toward lowering the overall
cost of the restructured utility service received by consumers in Illinois, and
that Illinova will achieve improved earnings for investors./21/
Dynegy believes that the Transaction will advance its strategic plan
through the addition of strategically located generation assets, which will
enable Dynegy to enhance its position as one of the nation's leading energy
merchants. Dynegy believes that a marketing enterprise such as Dynegy can
achieve a greatly enhanced value through a combination with a traditional
public-utility system that possesses a substantial installed base of generation
and substantial management experience with the ownership and operation of power
generation./22/
ITEM 2. FEES, COMMISSIONS, AND EXPENSES.
The fees, commissions, and expenses to be paid or incurred, directly
or indirectly by all parties, in connection with the Transaction are estimated
to total approximately $46 million, including investment bankers' fees of
approximately $29 million.
ITEM 3. APPLICABLE STATUTORY PROVISIONS.
Chevron is entitled to exclusion from all of the provisions of the Act
pursuant to Section 2(a)(7) thereof because Chevron will not, directly or
indirectly, control New Dynegy or
_________________________
/21/ A discussion of Illinova's reasons for entering into the Transaction is set
forth in the New Dynegy Registration Statement at pages 39-41.
/22/ A discussion of Dynegy's reasons for entering into the Transaction is set
forth in the New Dynegy Registration Statement at pages 37-39.
10
<PAGE>
its public-utility company subsidiary, Illinois Power, and the Transaction does
not involve the creation of an impermissible "controlling influence" within the
meaning of Section 2(a)(7).
Should the Commission conclude that Chevron will be a "holding
company" within the meaning of the Act, Chevron is entitled to an exemption from
all provisions, except Section 9(a)(2), pursuant to Section 3(a)(3). Section 3
of the Act provides that the Commission upon application shall by order exempt
any person from the provisions of the Act if such person meets the requirements
for any exemption contained in Sections 3(a)(1) through 3(a)(5) and if the
exemption is not detrimental to the public interest or the interest of investors
or consumers. Section 3(a)(3) of the Act is applicable to Chevron because,
following the Transaction, Chevron would be "only incidentally" a holding
company, as it will remain primarily engaged and interested in non-utility
businesses, and will not derive a material part of its income from a public-
utility company.
As discussed below, Section 9(a)(2) should not apply to the
Transaction because EEInc should not be considered a separate public-utility
company affiliate within the contemplation of the Act. However, to the extent
that the Commission finds Section 9(a)(2) applicable, the Transaction fully
satisfies the requirements for Commission approval under Section 10 of the Act.
A. THE SECTION 2(A)(7) EXCLUSION.
Chevron's interest in New Dynegy will not confer the type of voting
control the Commission has equated to the ability to exercise a "controlling
influence" over public-utility company operations so as to warrant regulation as
a "holding company" under the Act. Section 2(a)(7) of the Act defines a
"holding company" to be any company which directly or indirectly owns 10% or
more of the outstanding voting securities of a public-utility company or a
holding company, or any person determined by the Commission to exercise such
"controlling influence" over the management or policies of a public-utility
company or a holding company as to make it necessary in the public interest for
such person to be subject to the Act./23/
_________________________
/23/ Section 2(a)(7) defines "holding company" as:
(A) any company which directly or indirectly owns, controls, or holds
with the power to vote, 10 per centum or more of the outstanding voting
securities of a public-utility company or of a company which is a
holding company by virtue of this clause or clause (B), unless the
Commission, as hereinafter provided, by order declares such company not
to be a holding company; and
(B) any person which the Commission determines, after notice and
opportunity for hearing, directly or indirectly to exercise (either
alone or pursuant to an arrangement or understanding with one or more
other persons) such a controlling influence over the management or
policies of any public-utility or holding company as to make it
necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of
investors or consumers that such person be subject to the obligations,
duties, and liabilities imposed in this title upon holding companies.
Act (S) 2(a)(7).
11
<PAGE>
Section 2(a)(7)(B) sets forth the circumstances under which the
Commission shall declare a company not to be a holding company:
The Commission, upon application, shall by order declare that a
company is not a holding company . . . if the Commission finds that
the applicant (i) does not, either alone or pursuant to an arrangement
or understanding with one or more other persons, directly or
indirectly control a public-utility or holding company either through
one or more intermediary persons or by any means or device whatsoever,
(ii) is not an intermediary company through which such control is
exercised, and (iii) does not, directly or indirectly, exercise
(either alone or pursuant to an arrangement or understanding with one
or more other persons) such a controlling influence over the
management or policies of any public-utility or holding company as to
make it necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the
protection of investors or consumers that the applicant be subject to
[the Act]./24/
Notably, Section 2(a)(7) expressly contemplates the possibility of a
Commission finding of "no controlling influence" without regard to the
percentage of voting securities held in the public-utility or holding
company./25/ Under Section 2(a)(7)(A), the 10% threshold of voting securities
owned, controlled, or held with power to vote, serves only as a reference point
for the Commission's analysis thereunder. The statutory language is clear that
the 10% threshold is merely a benchmark, the only operative effect of which is
to implicate the Commission's duty to engage in a further analysis of "control"
and "controlling influence."/26/
Ultimately, the existence of a "controlling influence" is a "factual
determination to be ascertained in the Commission's expert judgment by the
weighing of circumstantial evidence and the drawing of reasonable inferences
therefrom."/27/ When exercising this judgment, the Commission has pointed to a
number of factors as potentially indicative that a particular entity exercises a
controlling influence over another company. Key factors include: (i) the role
of the
______________________________
/24/ Act (S) 2(a)(7)(B).
/25/ In other contexts of the federal securities laws, once the statutory
ownership threshold is crossed, certain "control" concepts and consequences
generally operate automatically and without implicating any further
discretionary finding by the Commission. See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (S)(S) 13(d), 16(b); Investment Company Act of 1940 (S)(S) 2(a)(3), 12(d).
/26/ The ownership of less than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of a
public-utility company or holding company creates a presumption that the owner
is not a holding company. See, e.g., Western Resources, Inc., SEC No-Action
Letter, 1997 WL 737772 at *9-*10 (Nov. 24, 1997). However, even if a company
owns more than 10% of the voting securities of a public-utility company, the
"controlling influence" presumption may be rebutted. See, e.g., Koppers Co.,
Holding Co. Act Release No. 3812, 12 SEC 184 (Sept. 28, 1942); Filtration
Sciences Corp., Holding Co. Act Release No. 24933, 44 SEC Docket 340 (Aug. 3,
1989) (14.06% ownership of voting securities does not result in a controlling
influence).
/27 / American Gas & Elec. Co. v. SEC, 134 F.2d 633, 642 (D.C. Cir. 1943), cert.
denied, 63 S.Ct. 1318 (1943).
12
<PAGE>
applicant in the organization of the allegedly controlled company;/28/ (ii)
the presence of persons affiliated with the applicant among the board of
directors and officers of the allegedly controlled company;/29/ and (iii) the
existence of inter-company contracts between the applicant and the allegedly
controlled company./30/ None of these factors, individually or in the aggregate,
nor the 10% threshold, creates a bright line test for establishing a
"controlling influence." In each case, the Commission is called upon to make an
appropriate determination in light of all the facts and circumstances. The
ultimate issue is whether the applicant exercises "such a controlling influence
over the management or policies of any public-utility or holding company as to
make it necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of
investors or consumers" that the Act apply./31/ The statutory language is clear
that it is this final determination, regarding the broadly-stated policy of
public interest and the protection of investors and consumers, which should
shape the inquiry--not numerical percentages of ownership.
1. FIRST FACTOR - CHEVRON'S ROLE AS AN ACCOMMODATING, NOT AN
INITIATING, PARTY.
Chevron USA is a major producer of oil, natural gas, and natural gas
liquids. Its parent, Chevron Corp., is one of the major, worldwide, integrated
oil and gas companies. As such, neither company currently owns, or is an active
acquirer of, domestic utility assets. It has been Chevron's strong preference
that New Dynegy not be the owner of a public-utility company.
In that connection, it is highly relevant that Chevron did not
initiate the Transaction and is not a party to the Merger Agreement./32/ Dynegy
and Illinova have perceived synergies and benefits to both constituent parties
to this combination. As stated in their joint press release, the combining
companies perceive benefits for Illinova's regulated utility operations without
any corresponding risk to the integrity and independent operating policies of
those regulated utility assets, such as might require their disposition. Dynegy
and Illinova have prevailed upon Chevron to support the Transaction out of
considerations relating to the commercial integrity and long-term benefits of
the Transaction to Illinova, Dynegy, and New Dynegy.
Moreover, as also disclosed in the joint press release, Chevron's
willingness to invest up to $240 million in New Dynegy equity, as well as its
agreement to exchange all of its existing Dynegy shares for New Dynegy shares,
is a prerequisite of Dynegy's ability to enter into the Transaction. This
substantial Chevron investment in New Dynegy is required to permit NOVA and BG
to exchange a significant portion of their shares for cash in the merger,
thereby
__________________________
/28/ See, e.g., id. at 636-37.
/29/ See, e.g., Employee Welfare Assoc., 4 S.E.C. 792 (Apr. 14, 1939).
/30/ See, e.g., Hartford Gas Co. v. SEC, 129 F.2d 794, 797 (2d Cir. 1942).
/31/ Act (S) 2(a)(7)(B) (emphasis added).
/32/ For a discussion of the background relating to the Transaction, see the New
Dynegy Registration Statement at 33-37.
13
<PAGE>
broadening New Dynegy's shareholder base. In this respect also, it is
significant that Chevron is not an initiating party, but an accommodating,
strategic investor in New Dynegy./33/
Chevron does not own and has not set out to acquire an interest in a
public-utility company or a holding company. It would therefore represent an
anomalous reading of the Act if now, in evaluating the Transaction, Chevron were
required to choose among (i) requiring premature divestiture by Illinova of its
subsidiary's public-utility facilities, which are regulated by the ICC and FERC;
(ii) registering under the Act; or (iii) blocking the Transaction so as to avoid
registration. Here, the absence of any purpose by Chevron to achieve a
"controlling" interest in a public-utility company or holding company, evident
from the historical context of the Transaction, is a significant factor which
should be given considerable weight in the Commission's analysis.
2. SECOND FACTOR - CHEVRON'S CONTINUING POSITION AS A STRATEGIC
INVESTOR IN NEW DYNEGY: CHEVRON IS A MINORITY EQUITY HOLDER
WITHOUT POWER TO CONTROL, EXERCISE A "CONTROLLING INFLUENCE"
OVER, OR OTHERWISE DIRECT THE DAY-TO-DAY OPERATIONS OF NEW DYNEGY
OR ILLINOIS POWER.
Chevron's long-term investment in Dynegy was made to allow Chevron to
focus on its core exploration and production business while still participating
(through its equity ownership in Dynegy) in the strategically related business
of marketing natural gas and natural gas liquids, providing midstream services
(gathering, treating, and processing natural gas), and providing gas for
wholesale electric generation. Chevron has no strategic interest in owning
Illinois Power and will not be in a position, by virtue of its ownership or
otherwise, to exercise any control or "controlling influence" over the day-to-
day business activities of Illinois Power or Illinova either directly or
indirectly through New Dynegy, nor have any incentive to seek such control.
This is evident from the following:
. Chevron has no facilities within the Illinois Power territory that
receive service from Illinois Power.
. Chevron has committed to sell much of its natural gas and natural gas
liquids to Dynegy with pricing provisions that are not tied to or in
any way affected by any resale of these fuels to Illinois Power.
Because of this existing commitment to Dynegy, which will be
unchanged by the Transaction, Chevron cannot enter into agreements to
supply these fuels to Illinois Power.
. Most of Illinova's power generation derives from coal-fired
generating stations with long-term coal supply contracts in place.
Although Chevron currently owns a coal-producing company, it is in
the process of selling that company to a third party.
________________________
/33/ See, in this regard, the Subscription Agreement, dated as of June 14,
1999, between Chevron USA and New Dynegy (the "Subscription Agreement") and the
Shareholder Agreement, which are the principal Transaction documents to which
Chevron USA is a party and which substantiate the role of Chevron as an
ancillary, accommodating participant in the Transaction.
14
<PAGE>
. The ICC has comprehensive jurisdiction over Illinois Power, including
express statutory authority to regulate affiliate transactions.
. FERC requires, as a condition of not setting for hearing an
application for merger approval under Section 203 of the Federal
Power Act, that applicants commit to standards of conduct that
prohibit any abuse of affiliate transactions. Illinova and Dynegy
have made the requisite commitments to FERC in their Section 203
filing concerning the Transaction./34/
. The upstream natural gas market is highly competitive, as Congress
acknowledged in deregulating wellhead natural gas production, and
downstream energy markets are highly competitive under the regulatory
schemes adopted by the State of Illinois and FERC which will
eliminate any possibility that Chevron could (assuming contrary to
fact any intent) affect the market to its advantage through its post-
Transaction affiliation with Illinova and Illinois Power.
Accordingly, in the near-term and long-term deregulated power
generation and energy supply environment, except insofar as it is a minority
stockholder of New Dynegy, Chevron will not have any interest in or opportunity
to influence the day-to-day operations of Illinois Power, such as in its
arrangements for the purchase of fuel or sale of power.
The Commission and its Staff have demonstrated considerable
flexibility in a wide range of situations in granting exclusions under Section
2(a)(7) of the Act. The Commission's order declaring Kaneb Pipeline Company
("Kaneb") not to be a holding company with respect to a gas utility company is
instructive. There, the Commission found that, notwithstanding Kaneb's
ownership of 19.48% of the utility's shares, with the power to call special
meetings of shareholders and to elect special directors through cumulative
voting, "the record shows an absence of the business, financial or personal
relationships between the two managements that are often referred to as
indicative of a controlling influence, other than stock ownership."/35/ The
Commission determined that a substantial ownership position, of itself, did not
confer "control" or create a "controlling influence." The present Application
presents a stronger case for exemption because Kaneb actively sought control of
the public-utility company and Chevron has not.
In a similar vein, the Staff advised Cabot Corporation that it would
not recommend that the Commission consider Cabot a holding company under Section
2(a)(7), with respect to Cabot's ownership of shares of KN Energy, Inc.
following the latter's proposed merger with American Oil and Gas Corporation, a
company in which Cabot had an approximate 35% ownership interest./36/ Following
the merger, Cabot would have owned over 15% of the voting stock (over 17% fully
diluted) of KN Energy. Pursuant to the terms of the merger agreement, the
_____________________________
/34/ See Joint Application of Illinova and Dynegy for Approval of Merger and
Request for Expedited Consideration, FERC Docket No. EC99-99-000 (July 23,
1999).
/35/ Kaneb Pipe Line Co., Holding Co. Act Release No. 16250, 43 SEC 976
(Dec. 24, 1968).
/36/ Cabot Corp., SEC No-Action Letter, 1994 WL 381827 (July 6, 1994).
15
<PAGE>
KN Energy board was to be expanded from 10 to 14 directors, with four American
Oil and Gas directors being added with a Cabot designee as advisory director.
Although Cabot also had in place with American Oil and Gas substantial
continuing creditor arrangements, and substantial environmental claim settlement
arrangements, to which KN Energy would succeed, these circumstances were not
deemed to constitute a controlling influence./37/
Unlike the circumstances presented in Kaneb, Chevron has not sought to
obtain control of Dynegy and has no interest in controlling New Dynegy. In
addition to the absence of the types of personal relationships between the
management of the two companies such as were present in Cabot, the other
circumstances here make a compelling case that Chevron cannot exert a
"controlling influence" over New Dynegy, and thus support exclusion of Chevron
under Section 2(a)(7) of the Act.
Further, Chevron will not control or have power to exert a
"controlling influence" over the management of New Dynegy. Chevron will not be
represented at all in New Dynegy's "management"--it will only be represented on
the Board of Directors. Nor will Chevron have a "controlling influence" over
the Board of New Dynegy. On a Board of Directors consisting of 14 members,
Chevron, as the holder of Class B shares of Common Stock representing
approximately 28% of the voting stock of New Dynegy, will have the right to
elect only three directors. That Board representation would not increase
proportionately should Chevron's equity position in New Dynegy increase./38/
_________________________
/37/ Cabot also had agreed with American Oil and Gas and KN Energy on
restrictions on voting Cabot's shares in excess of 9.99% of the voting shares of
the merged company and on its dealings with the merged company. It should be
noted that although Cabot elected to seek informal, no-action advice from the
Staff, there would appear to have been good grounds for Cabot to have sought and
received from the Commission a favorable exclusionary finding under Section
2(a)(7), even without such undertakings, in light of all the facts and
circumstances of the transaction. Other than as expressly discussed in this
Application, there are no such contract or other arrangements between Chevron
and Dynegy or Illinois Power relating to the management or control of New Dynegy
and its subsidiaries. As discussed in Item 3.A.3 below, such arrangements as do
exist are customary minority-protection provisions of the type that have been
found consistent with exclusions from holding company status.
/38/ Indeed, Chevron USA is obligated to limit its ownership of New Dynegy's
voting securities to 40%, unless, following the first anniversary of the
closing, Chevron USA submits a proposal to acquire all New Dynegy shares.
16
<PAGE>
3. THIRD FACTOR - CHEVRON'S BLOCKING RIGHTS ARE ONLY CUSTOMARY
MINORITY SHAREHOLDER-PROTECTION PROVISIONS AND DO NOT AMOUNT TO A
"CONTROLLING INFLUENCE.
As a long-term, strategic investor in Dynegy, Chevron will have
rights, as a shareholder of New Dynegy, which are considered customary minority-
protection rights regarding transactions not in the ordinary course. The
minority protection rights that Chevron will have are consistent with ones that
the Staff on numerous occasions has deemed not to constitute "control" or a
"controlling influence."/39/
Chevron's minority-protection rights will be relatively limited. The
Articles of Incorporation of New Dynegy would require the affirmative vote of
two-thirds of all shares of Common Stock of New Dynegy to approve mergers,
consolidations, reorganizations, or sales of assets requiring shareholder
approval under the Illinois Business Corporation Act ("IBCA") or the disposition
of all or substantially all of New Dynegy's assets./40/ Illinova shareholders
currently have this protection: further, this shareholder-protection provision
is also statutorily imposed under Illinois law,/41/ even in the absence of a
minority shareholder with a demonstrable need to protect a strategic investment.
Thus, Chevron has no ability to compel a business combination transaction, sale,
or liquidation./42/ These protections are further limited in that Chevron USA's
shares of the Class B Common Stock automatically convert to shares of Class A
Common Stock (i) in the case of transfers to parties other than Chevron USA's
affiliates, or (ii) when Chevron USA and its affiliated transferees cease to
hold at least 15% of the issued and outstanding Common Stock, at which time the
terms of the three Chevron Directors come to an end.
_____________________________
/39/ See, e.g., Allied Chem. & Dye Corp., Holding Co. Act Release No. 1600, 5
SEC 151, 155 (June 22, 1939) (veto power over certain corporate actions does not
necessarily give rise to a controlling influence); Torchmark Corp., SEC No-
Action Letter, 1996 WL 303056 (Jan. 19, 1996) (Staff gave no action advice under
Section 2(a)(7) where limited partner enjoyed significant approval rights that
protected investment). See also Cinergy, Holding Co. Act Release No. 26562 (Aug.
28, 1998) (veto power over major corporate actions does not convert ownership
interest into "voting securities" and does not give rise to affiliation under
Section 2(a)(11)); Ameren Corp., Holding Co. Act Release No. 26809 (Dec. 30,
1997) (same); Commonwealth Atlantic Ltd. Partnership, SEC No-Action Letter, 1991
WL 243169 (Oct. 30, 1991); Dominion Resources, SEC No-Action Letter, 1988 WL
233963 (Jan. 21, 1988); Nevada Sun-Peak Ltd. Partnership, SEC No-Action Letter,
1991 WL 178782 (May 14, 1991); Colstrip Energy Ltd. Partnership, SEC No-Action
Letter, 1988 WL 234462 (June 30, 1988).
/40/ An excerpt setting forth these provisions is attached hereto as Exhibit A-2
(see Article 4, Paragraph 2(C)(3)(c)(i), "Voting").
/41/ The IBCA requires that for a merger, consolidation, or sale of assets other
than in the usual and regular course of business, there be an affirmative vote
of at least two-thirds of the shares entitled to vote, not a simple majority, at
a meeting to obtain such approval.
/42/ Under the Shareholder Agreement, Chevron USA has limited preemptive rights
which survive only so long as Chevron USA and its affiliates own at least 15% of
the total combined voting securities of New Dynegy. The anti-dilution
protection accorded by preemptive rights, indicative of Chevron's strategic
investor role, is necessary to enable Chevron USA to maintain the minimum
ownership necessary to effectively preserve the above-cited minority-shareholder
protections. See Shareholder Agreement, Articles VI, VII.
17
<PAGE>
Taken as a whole, Chevron's limited board representation and limited
blocking rights are conceptually distinct from an ongoing, unalterable right to
board representation, a disproportionate board (or shareholder) position, or a
board representation which creates a "deadlock" position on all issues coming
before the board./43/
Likewise, the By-laws of New Dynegy contain only limited minority
shareholder-protection provisions, which merely implement the provisions of the
Articles of Incorporation described above./44/ These rights do not give Chevron
USA the ability to direct the management of New Dynegy or to cause New Dynegy to
take action, but merely to block actions by New Dynegy that would (or could)
change fundamentally the company in which Chevron has a significant investment.
As such, these rights do not represent the sort of "controlling influence" which
is the concern of the Act.
Under the By-laws, the three Chevron Directors of New Dynegy, if they
vote together, can only block the following actions:
(i) amendment of the By-laws or Articles of Incorporation provisions
which, in each case, contain or implement the minority shareholder
protections;
(ii) authorization of new shares of stock where the aggregate
consideration to be received for such issuance exceeds the greater of $1
billion or one-fourth of New Dynegy's market capitalization;
(iii) disposition of the New Dynegy natural gas liquids or gas
marketing business other than by contribution to an entity in which New
Dynegy retains a majority interest;
(iv) mergers, consolidations, joint ventures, liquidation,
dissolution, acquisition of stock or assets, or issuance of common or
preferred stock, which would result in payment or receipt of consideration
(including occurrence or assumption of debt or other liability) having a
fair market value exceeding the greater of $1 billion or one-fourth of New
Dynegy's market capitalization; or
(v) any other transaction or series of related transactions having a
fair market value exceeding the greater of $1 billion or one-fourth of New
Dynegy's market capitalization./45/
_____________________________
/43/ Compare Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., Holding Co. Act Release No. 2988, 1941 WL
3536 (Sept. 11, 1941), aff'd, 139 F.2d 289 (9th Cir. 1943) (controlling
influence found to exist where 17.71% equity holder was entitled to ongoing
board and executive committee representation and had power to elect one half of
board of directors).
/44/ The By-laws of New Dynegy are attached hereto as Exhibit A-3.
/45/ Of course, insofar as items (ii) through (v) are concerned, the Chevron
Directors, in exercising these provisions, would be constrained by their general
fiduciary duties to shareholders. Indeed, Chevron's history of exercising
similar protective provisions in Dynegy has not interfered with Dynegy's
development and implementation of its own business plan.
18
<PAGE>
Although the Chevron Directors will sit on most of the major board
committees, this practice is, in fact, another customary investor protection to
permit effective monitoring and board transparency. Indeed, good corporate
practice encourages non-management directors to become active on board
committees in the interest of fostering good governance and management
accountability./46/ And in all events, the Chevron Directors will have fiduciary
duties to the New Dynegy shareholders generally.
Significantly, the relatively limited provisions protecting Chevron's
interests are tempered by obligations limiting Chevron's ability to sell or
dispose of its shares of New Dynegy. In addition to a one-year "standstill" on
certain acquisitions, proxy solicitations, and sales, Chevron USA is limited in
the disposition of its shares of New Dynegy Common Stock to registered offerings
and to private placements in which New Dynegy would have prior rights to
purchase shares being offered privately.
Finally, Chevron's blocking rights are further limited in a manner
that prevents their use to exercise a "controlling influence" over New Dynegy:
If Chevron exercises such rights twice in a 24-month period or three times over
any period of time, it is required to be prepared to either to sell its shares
or to relinquish any further blocking rights.
Although Chevron's role as an important strategic investor in New
Dynegy involves certain blocking rights with respect to certain major events
materially altering the existing business of New Dynegy, the Commission has
recognized that similar blocking rights do not give rise to control or a
"controlling influence."/47/ Rather, such blocking provisions merely operate to
permit Chevron to monitor and protect its continuing strategic investment in
Dynegy.
4. REGULATION OF CHEVRON AS HOLDING COMPANY IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE
PROTECTION OF INVESTORS OR CONSUMERS.
Section 2(a)(7)(B) requires that before the Commission imposes holding
company status, it must find the controlling influence is "such a controlling
influence . . . as to make it necessary or appropriate in the public interest or
for the protection of investors or consumers" to impose holding company status.
Where such protection is not warranted, the Commission has not imposed holding
company status. For example, in Wisconsin Valley Improvement, the Commission
found that, although the applicant's management and policies were subject to a
controlling influence, "the character of the applicant's business and the nature
and extent of the statutory and state commission regulation to which it is
subject are presently such as to prevent that controlling influence from being
exercised in such a manner as to make it necessary in the public interest, for
the protection of investors or consumers" that the applicant be found to be a
_________________________
/46/ As noted above, however, the Chevron Directors will not sit on the
Nominating Committee which proposes the other directors for election by the
Class A Shareholders.
/47/ The Commission has recognized that a "veto power" over certain corporate
actions does not necessarily give the holder of the "blocking veto" an
impermissible "controlling influence" over the public-utility company so as to
disqualify such owner from receiving an order under Section 2(a)(7). See Allied
Chem., 5 SEC at 155 and cases cited supra note 38.
19
<PAGE>
holding company./48/
Here, even if Chevron, under certain circumstances, were deemed to
have the ability to exert a "controlling influence" over New Dynegy, more than
adequate protections exist to ensure that such influence cannot be exercised in
a manner that would result in the evils that the Act was intended to remedy./49/
Following consummation of the Transaction, Illinois Power will remain subject to
the pervasive jurisdiction of the ICC and FERC. Moreover, all of Illinois
Power's regulated activities will take place in a single state. Exclusion of
Chevron from the provisions of the Act would not result in a "regulatory gap"
and would not be detrimental to the public interest./50/ Rather, the resulting
holding company structure will serve such interest and the interest of investors
and consumers by producing a number of economies and efficiencies, similar to
those upon which the Commission has in the past looked favorably./51/
Furthermore, unlike those cases where the Commission has denied
exemption or exclusion from the Act, Chevron's holdings in New Dynegy will not
be a factor in Chevron's ability to finance the needs of its non-utility
operations. Nor would Chevron's status under Section 2(a)(7) adversely affect
the Commission's oversight of the Illinois Power utility company structure:
following the Transaction, New Dynegy will remain subject to the constraints of
Section 9(a)(2) of the Act. In short, imposing holding company status upon
Chevron is neither necessary in the public interest nor required for the
protection of investors or consumers.
5. The Commission has Broad Authority to Construe the Terms of the
Statutes Which it Administers and has the Duty to Apply the Act
in a Flexible Fashion in Light of Changes in the Utility
Industry.
The Commission has repeatedly recognized that the Act contemplates
flexible administration in light of the evolution of the utility industry
because the Act "creates a system of pervasive and continuing economic
regulation that must in some measure at least be refashioned
_____________________________
/48/ Wisconsin Valley Improvement Co., Holding Co. Act Release No. 2359, 8 SEC
134, 138 (Oct. 28, 1940) (application under (S) 2(a)(8)) (emphasis added); see
also American Gas & Elec., 134 F.2d at n.23. The Commission has stated that
when the controlling influence is "sufficiently extensive to embrace the power
to bring about the evils that the Act is designed to guard against," will it
deny an application. Manchester Gas Co., Holding Co. Act Release No. 2002, 7
SEC 57 (Apr. 4, 1940) (application under (S) 2(a)(8)). The Commission has
recognized that Section 2(a)(7) may be read in pari materia with Section
2(a)(8). American Gas & Elec. Co., Holding Co. Act Release No. 2749, 9 SEC 247
(May 12, 1941).
/49/ For a discussion of the public policy concerns that necessitated the Act as
they relate to the Transaction, see Item 3.B.5 hereto.
/50/ Id. For a summary of the extensive regulation under Illinois law to which
the public-utility operations of New Dynegy will be subject, see Appendix I
hereto.
/51/ See, e.g., In re Illinova Corp., Holding Co. Act Release No. 26054 (May 18,
1994) (granting exemption requested in connection with a proposed merger based
on an application that claimed that the new structure would create efficiencies
and economies such as allowing the resulting companies to respond to competitive
opportunities in the electric power industry and increasing the financial
flexibility of the resulting companies).
20
<PAGE>
from time to time to keep pace with changing economic and regulatory
climates."/52/ Furthermore, the legislative history of the Act indicates that
Section 2(a)(7)(B) was added to provide the flexibility that "is necessary in
order that [the Act] can meet the varied and subtle forms which corporate
interrelationships have in the past and will in the future take."/53/ The
Commission and its Staff have demonstrated considerable flexibility in a wide
range of situations in granting exclusions under Section 2(a)(7)./54/
Administrative agencies have the power and the duty to interpret
provisions of the statutes they administer./55/ When an agency is acting
pursuant to these powers, courts cannot substitute their judgment for that of
the administrative agency./56/ Rather, courts "must respect the judgment of an
agency empowered to apply the law to varying fact patterns,"/57/ and cannot
______________________________
/52/ Union Elec. Co., Holding Co. Act Release No. 18368, 45 SEC 489, 503 n.52
(Apr. 10, 1974), aff'd without opinion sub nom. City of Cape Girardeau v. SEC,
521 F.2d 324 (D.C. Cir. 1975). This characterization of the Act has recently
been cited with approval in Eastern Util. Assoc., Holding Co. Act Release No.
26232 (Feb. 15, 1995), and in Consolidated Natural Gas Co., Holding Co. Act
Release No. 26512 n.29 (Apr. 20, 1996). More recently, in WPL Holdings, Inc.,
Holding Co. Act Release No. 26856 (Apr. 14, 1998), and Century Energies, Holding
Co. Act Release No. 26748 (Aug. 1, 1997), the Commission has applied the Union
Electric principle, noting that it must remain free to apply the Act in a
flexible fashion, overcoming past hostility towards mergers that combine energy
sources. The Commission's approach in these cases was specifically affirmed in
Madison Gas & Elec. Co. v. SEC, 168 F.3d 1337 (D.C. Cir. 1999). See also
Permian Basis Area Rate Cases, 390 U.S. 747, 784 (1968) (administrative agency
may adapt its "rules and policies to the demands of changing circumstances");
NIPSCO Indus., Holding Co. Act Release No. 26975 at n.18 & n.30 (Feb. 10, 1999).
Conectiv, Inc., Holding Co. Act Release No. 26832 (Feb. 25, 1998); Ameren Corp.,
Holding Co. Act Release No. 26809 (Dec. 30, 1997); Cinergy, Holding Co. Act
Release No. 26934 (Nov. 2, 1998); Southern Co., Holding Co. Act Release No.
25639 (Sept. 23, 1992) (approving overseas investment as reasonably incidental
to the operation of an integrated electric utility system).
/53/ H. Rep. No. 1318, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., at 9 (1935).
/54/ Of course, many of the cases in which the Commission or its Staff have been
called upon to determine whether there was the exercise of such controlling
influence so as to make necessary or appropriate the application of the Act have
involved markedly different circumstances, such as a history of pervasive
control, an active takeover attempt, or where partnerships or other vehicles
were utilized incident to a business plan actively to seek to acquire interests
in domestic utility assets.
/55/ California Co. v. Udall, 296 F.2d 384, 388 (D.C. Cir. 1961); see also,
e.g., Hoctor v. USDA, 82 F.3d 165, 168 (7th Cir. 1996); L'Enfant Plaza North,
Inc. v. District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency, 300 F. Supp. 426, 428
(D.D.C. 1969) ("It needs no citation of authorities, in fact it would be an
unnecessary exhibition of learning to cite authorities for the elementary
proposition that an agency charged with carrying out a statute . . . has also
the authority to construe the statute.").
/56/ When interpreting statutory provisions, administrators of the statutes
often must choose between two conflicting reasonable interpretations. Holly
Farms Corp. v. NLRB, 116 S.Ct. 1396, 1401 (1996). Because of their expertise and
specialization in the particular regulatory area, administrative agencies are
better suited to fill in the gaps and interpret ambiguous statutory terms. In
light of this, courts give deference to the agency's interpretation. Chevron
U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
/57/ Holly Farms, 116 S.Ct. at 1401. In discussing whether a lower court should
have allowed an agency to use its own factors in assessing an exception to the
statute, the Court, quoting language from Chevron, has stated, "the court should
have asked whether `the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the
specific issue before it; if so, `the question for the court [was] whether the
agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.'" INS v.
Aguirre-Aguirre, 119 S.Ct. 1439, 1445 (1999).
21
<PAGE>
overturn an agency's interpretation if it is rational or reasonable./58/ Within
the context of Section 2(a)(7) of the Act, the federal courts have recognized
that the existence of a "controlling influence" is a highly factual
determination that is best left to the Commission's expert judgment./59/
Agencies such as the Commission often find it necessary to redefine or
expand upon the definitions of the operative terms of the statute./60/ An agency
is accorded the same deference when it changes its interpretation through
redefining or refining the terms of the statutes it administers. Courts
recognize that, "an agency may change its interpretation of a statute entrusted
to its administration, and that when the intent of Congress is unclear courts
must uphold the agency's interpretation if it is based on a `reasonable
accommodation of conflicting policies.'"/61/ An agency must have the latitude to
adopt and refine standards that may evolve over time in response to the changing
realities of the industries they regulate./62/ Such "course corrections" are
allowed as long as they are consistent with Congressional intent,/63/ and the
agency provides a reasoned explanation for the change./64/
Granting the order requested by this Application is consistent with
the Commission's case law under Section 2(a)(7) of the Act. Applicants further
respectfully submit that the judiciary will affirm the Commission given that:
(i) the Commission has broad definitional powers in interpreting and limiting
the meaning of "holding company" under Section 2(a)(7); and (ii) the Commission
has the authority and duty to reinterpret and refashion the Act in light of
significant changes in the utility industry.
______________________________
/58/ Niagara Frontier Tariff Bureau v. United States, 826 F.2d 1186, 1190-91
(2d Cir. 1987); Arkansas AFL-CIO v. FCC, 11 F.3d 1430, 1441 (8th Cir. 1993).
/59/ American Gas & Elec., 134 F.2d at 642 (citing Rochester Telephone Corp. v.
United States, 307 U.S. 125 (1939)).
/60/ See, e.g., NIPSCO Indus., Holding Co. Act Release No. 26975, at n.18
(citing Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173, 186-87 (1991) ("An agency is not
required to establish rules of conduct to last forever, but rather must be given
ample latitude to adapt [its] rules and policies to the demands of changing
circumstances.") and Shawmut Ass'n v. SEC, 146 F.2d 791, 796-97 (1st Cir. 1945)
(an agency "is expected to treat experience not as a jailer but as a teacher")).
As these cases and the authorities cited below indicate, the Commission's
general exemptive authority could not be responsibly implemented without an
expansive view of the authority to define terms.
/61/ Production Worker Union of Chicago v. NLRB, 793 F.2d 323, 328 (D.C. Cir.
1986). "Deference to an agency's expertise in construing a statutory command is
not inconsistent with reaching a correct decision." U.S. v. Haggar Apparel Co.,
119 S.Ct. 1392, 1399 (1999).
/62/ Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co. v. Commissioner, 523 U.S. 382, 389 (1998); Rust, 500
U.S. at 186-87 (1991); Arkansas AFL-CIO, 11 F.3d at 1441. Under Chevron, a
statutory term "can mean a range of things, and it is up to the agency, in light
of its advancing knowledge . . . to specify the correct meaning." Antonin
Scalia, Judicial Deference to Administrative Interpretations of Law, 1989 Duke
L.J. 511, 518 (June 1989).
/63/ Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A. v. United States, 585 F. Supp. 649 (Ct. Int'l
Trade 1984).
/64/ Rainbow Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 949 F.2d 405, 408 (D.C. Cir. 1991). "What
we have is the conferral of discretion upon the agency, and the only question of
law presented to the courts is whether the agency has acted within the scope of
its discretion - i.e., whether its resolution of the ambiguity is reasonable."
Judicial Deference to Administrative Interpretations of Law, supra note 61 at
516.
22
<PAGE>
6. CONCLUSION.
Chevron will not "control" New Dynegy or be in a position to exercise
a "controlling influence" over New Dynegy or its public-utility assets.
Chevron's rights reflect only legitimate and reasonable protections of a
minority shareholder to prevent fundamental corporate changes in the company in
which Chevron has a pre-existing, strategic investment. Therefore, under
Section 2(a)(7), Chevron is not a "holding company" within the meaning of the
Act.
B. THE SECTION 3(a)(3) EXEMPTION.
Should the Commission determine that Chevron is a holding company
within the meaning of Section 2(a)(7), Chevron will nevertheless be eligible for
an exemption under Section 3(a)(3) of the Act, which provides that the
Commission:
shall exempt any holding company, and every subsidiary company thereof
as such, from any provision or provisions of [the Act], unless and
except insofar as it finds the exemption detrimental to the public
interest or the interest of investors and consumers, if -- . . . (3)
such holding company is only incidentally a holding company, being
primarily engaged or interested in one or more businesses other than
the business of a public-utility company and (A) not deriving,
directly or indirectly, a material part of its income from any one or
more subsidiary companies, the principal business of which is that of
a public-utility company . . . ./65/
Chevron's interest in New Dynegy will fit squarely within the
exemption provided by Section 3(a)(3). Chevron's minority interest in New
Dynegy will arise solely because Chevron is willing to consent to and facilitate
the merger initiated and sought by Dynegy and Illinova, and not through efforts
by Chevron to directly or indirectly engage in the public-utility business or to
acquire a public-utility company or public utility holding company. Following
the Transaction, Chevron will remain primarily engaged and interested in its
non-utility petroleum and chemical businesses, and will not directly or
indirectly derive a material part of its income from Illinois Power, or any
other public-utility company. For these reasons, Chevron satisfies the
requirements of the exemption set forth in Section 3(a)(3) of the Act.
____________________________
/65/ Act (S) 3(a)(3)(A). Subparagraph (B) of Section 3(a)(3) provides that the
materiality test described in subparagraph (A) is not applicable where
"substantially all of the outstanding securities of the subsidiary are owned,
directly or indirectly, by the holding company." See also Aluminum Co. of
America, Holding Co. Act Release No. 1669, 5 SEC 640 (Aug. 8, 1939). In light of
Chevron's minority ownership interest in New Dynegy, subparagraph (B) of Section
3(a)(3) is not applicable.
23
<PAGE>
1. IF IT IS A HOLDING COMPANY AT ALL, CHEVRON IS ONLY INCIDENTALLY A
HOLDING COMPANY, BEING PRIMARILY ENGAGED IN A BUSINESS OTHER THAN
THAT OF A PUBLIC-UTILITY COMPANY.
A. THE TRANSACTION SATISFIES THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF SECTION
3(A)(3).
Chevron is a fully integrated petroleum company with no public-utility
company subsidiaries and no income derived from the operations of public-utility
companies as defined by the Act. As a result, Chevron presently is "primarily
engaged or interested in one or more businesses other than the business of a
public-utility company" within the meaning of Section 3(a)(3).
Following the Transaction, even assuming that Chevron is a holding
company within the meaning of the Act, Chevron will be "only incidentally" a
holding company. Chevron's status as a public-utility holding company will be
an incidental result of an arm's length transaction initiated by third parties,
independent of Chevron. The development of the Transaction shows that the
combination of Dynegy and Illinova is driven by the separate business needs of
the respective constituent companies, acting independently. At the time of
Chevron's original investment in Dynegy, Chevron did not intend or contemplate
the acquisition of an interest in any public-utility or public-utility holding
company. Chevron acquired its interest in Dynegy for the purpose of creating a
long-term alliance with a major energy trading company and to participate
through its equity ownership interest in Dynegy in gas and liquids marketing,
midstream services, and wholesale electric generation. Dynegy, in turn, has
determined that its combination with Illinova will substantially enhance its
marketing and trading operations and give it access to significant resources in
important geographic markets. By allowing Dynegy to proceed with the
Transaction, Chevron is facilitating Dynegy's strategic expansion.
This circumstance has nothing in common with attempts to acquire a
public-utility company or its holding company. Chevron's post-Transaction
involvement in New Dynegy will focus on monitoring and protecting the value of
its original strategic investment, consisting of a minority ownership interest
proportional to the capital it has contributed. If Chevron were deemed a
public-utility holding company subject to registration as a result of the
Transaction, that could only be an incidental result of a business combination
independently sought by Dynegy and Illinova for reasons unrelated to Chevron's
operations, and not the result of any effort by Chevron to acquire or control a
public-utility company or its holding company. This is precisely the anomalous
result Section 3(a)(3) appears designed to prevent.
There is no Commission precedent denying a Section 3(a)(3) exemption
to a strategic shareholder of a holding company whose minority interest arises
solely as an unintended consequence of an arm's length merger transaction
initiated by third parties. Commission precedent denying exemptions under
Section 3(a)(3) is in the context of efforts by applicants purposefully to
maintain vast, wholly-owned holding company systems with many majority
24
<PAGE>
controlled, public-utility company subsidiaries./66/ For example, had the
Commission accepted the arguments offered by Cities Service and Standard Oil of
New Jersey, any industrial firm could have become a Section 3(a)(3) exempt
holding company by simply claiming that its primary business was something other
than that of a public-utility holding company. This Application involves no
such risk to the public policies of the Act.
Granting the present exemption does not open the door closed fifty
years ago in the Commission's early application of the Section 3(a)(3)
exemption. In this case, Chevron's minority ownership in New Dynegy arises
through a purchase by Dynegy of Illinova whose public-utility company activities
have been the subject of effective state regulation for generations. That
purchase is a result of the independently developed business purposes of
Illinova and Dynegy. In the context of that purchase, although Chevron for its
own independent reasons has maintained a strategic investment in Dynegy, it is
only coincidental that Dynegy's combination with Illinova results in ownership
by Chevron of a minority interest in a newly formed holding company, New Dynegy.
However, Chevron's maintaining its strategic investment (i) will permit the
Transaction to occur, and (ii) as a result of Chevron's functional relationship
with the energy marketing business of Dynegy, will continue to serve the
interests and complement the operations of New Dynegy, including Illinova.
B. THERE EXISTS A FUNCTIONAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CHEVRON'S BUSINESS
AND THE PUBLIC-UTILITY COMPANY BUSINESS OF ILLINOIS POWER.
The Act does not set forth specific factors or circumstances which
define when a company is "only incidentally" a public-utility holding company.
In the years following enactment of the Act, the statutory language was glossed
by the additional requirement that the incidental nature of a company's status
as a holding company be demonstrated in part by the existence of a functional or
operational relationship between a subsidiary's utility operations and the
primary business of the holding company, even though the text of Section 3(a)(3)
does not contain such a requirement./67/ This gloss served to support denial of
exemptions in circumstances in which large multi-state holding company systems
whose operations had never been subjected to effective regulation sought to
avoid regulation under the Act while maintaining control of public-utilities.
- -------------------
/66/ See, e.g., Cities Serv. Co., Holding Co. Release No. 2444, 8 SEC 318 (Dec.
23, 1940); Standard Oil Co., Holding Co. Release No. 3312, 10 SEC 1122 (Feb. 5,
1942). Although some of the Congressional debate cited by the Commission in
these older cases arguably supports a narrow interpretation of Section 3(a)(3),
the Report of the Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce regarding the Act
states that the purpose of the Section 3(a) exemptions was to "exempt those
holding companies which the committee believes ought not to be covered because
of the fact, and to the extent, that they are either intrastate in character or
not essentially holding companies in the utility field." S. Rep. No. 74-621, at
6 (1935) (emphasis added) [hereinafter the "Senate Report"]. This statement of
the Committee (as opposed to that of any individual member from the floor of
Congress) supports an interpretation of Section 3(a)(3) that would reasonably
include companies such as Chevron, which are not "essentially holding companies
in the utility field." Indeed, the courts have held that explanations
articulated during the Congressional floor debate regarding the Act do not
supplant the plain meaning of the language of the Act. See Pacific Gas &
Electric Co. v. SEC, 127 F.2d 372, 382 (9th Cir. 1942), aff'd per curiam on
reh'g, 139 F.2d 298 (9th Cir. 1943), aff'd per curiam, 324 U.S. 826 (1945)
(rejecting argument based upon explanation articulated during floor debate that
was at variance with the Act's plain meaning).
/67/ See, e.g., Cities Serv., 8 SEC 318; Standard Oil, 10 SEC at 1129.
25
<PAGE>
Faced with these applications during the first twenty years of its
administration of the Act, the Commission articulated two requirements in
applying Section 3(a)(3) that these systems routinely failed to meet: (i) that
there be a functional relationship between the non-utility industry and the
public-utility company it sought to own, and (ii) that the public-utility
company be small in size in an absolute sense. The Commission explained the
purpose of these conditions was to avoid making "exempt from the operation of
the Act a company which would otherwise be subject thereto, solely by reason of
its hybrid character."/68/
The considerations that led the Commission to apply a restrictive
gloss to Section 3(a)(3) in those cases do not apply to this Transaction because
the Illinois Power public-utility system is subject to effective state
regulation./69/ Indeed, the intrastate size and scope of the Illinois Power
system reflects decades of effective regulation, not an absence of regulation,
and Chevron is seeking neither to obtain nor to maintain control of that system.
It is especially relevant to this analysis that the Act does not
preclude reliance upon other factors, such as those present here, to demonstrate
the "incidental" nature of a company's holding company status./70/ The
Commission has consistently recognized that it must at times
- -------------------
/68/ Standard Oil, 10 SEC at 1129; Electric Bond & Share Co., Holding Co. Act
Release No. 11004 33 SEC 21 (Feb. 6, 1952) [hereinafter "Ebasco"]. Standard
Oil, Cities Service, and Ebasco each involved ownership of multiple public-
utility companies formed prior to the Act which were sprawled across multiple
states, and some not even subject to state regulation, and which, by their
nature, could not be the subject of effective regulation. The Commission
characterized Cities Service as an extreme case where the record plainly
indicated "an indulgence in practices explicitly condemned by Congress." Cities
Serv., 8 SEC at 336. The Commission noted that for many years, Cities Services
"controlled a far-flung utility empire" with utility operations in twenty states
and Canada. Cities Serv., 8 SEC at 336-37. Moreover, unlike the present case,
Cities Services sought to maintain control over the public-utility operations of
its subsidiary.
/69/ The Commission has recognized the enhanced jurisdiction, authority and
effectiveness of state commissions. Statement of the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission Concerning Proposals To Repeal The Public Utility Holding
Company Act of 1935 (June 2, 1982) 585, 590-91 [hereinafter "Statement of the
SEC Concerning PUHCA Repeal"]. See also AES Corporation, Holding Co. Act
Release No. 27063 (Aug. 20, 1999) (recognizing effectiveness of the ICC). The
size and scope of Illinois Power's operations are the result of generations of
effective state and federal regulation and do not represent either private
commercial power or the ability to evade regulation. Regulation can increase
the size of a public-utility company by requiring that service be widely
available without discrimination and at low cost. For this reason, courts have
long held that the size of effectively regulated public service corporations
alone does not indicate the existence of private market power. See Cost
Management Serv. v. Washington Natural Gas Co., 99 F.3d 937, 950-51 (4th Cir.
1998); Rebel Oil Co. v. Atlantic Richfields, 51 F.3d 1421, 1439 (9th Cir. 1995);
Southern Pacific Communication Co. v. AT&T, 740 F.2d 980, 1000 (D.C. Cir. 1989),
cert. denied, 105 S. Ct. 1539 (1985); MCI Communication Corp. V. AT&T, 708 F.2d
1081, 1107 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 891 (1783); Mid-Texas
Communication Serv. v. AT&T, 615 F.2d 1372, 1384-89 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
449 U.S. 912 (1980); Almeder Mall, Inc. v. Houston Indus., 615 F.2d 343, 354
(5th Cir), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 870 (1980).
/70/ In circumstances where the Commission has developed a formulaic test for
applying a provision of the Act, such as a "functional relationship" test, the
Commission may approve an application upon either satisfaction of that test or
upon a demonstration that the application falls within the plain meaning of the
statute and is otherwise consistent with the policies of the Act. Southern
Communications Serv., Holding Co. Release No. 26211 (Dec. 30, 1994) (approving
formation of telecommunications subsidiary based upon the plain meaning of the
applicable provision of the Act and, in the alternative, based upon application
of the "functional relationship" test for approving diversification proposals);
see also The Regulation of Public-Utility Holding Companies, Division of
Investment Management, United States Securities and Exchange Commission (June
1995) at 86-87 [hereinafter the "1995 Staff Report"]. Under this approach, the
interpretation of the Act is not limited by decisions rendered early in its
administration.
26
<PAGE>
refashion the standards it employs in administering the Act in order to keep
pace with the changing economic and regulatory climate of the public-utility
industry./71/ In this regard, the Commission may articulate alternatives to, or
amplify upon, the functional relationship test in recognition of the ongoing
consequence of the electricity and natural gas industries.
For example, in a 1983 no-action letter, the Staff indicated that the
Section 3(a)(3) exemption would apply to the acquisition of a majority interest
in an electric power generating station by an engineering and construction
contractor as part of a proposed settlement of litigation against the
contractor./72/ There, ownership of a nuclear power plant could not be said to
be functionally related to the business of an engineering firm, at least not in
the sense of the earlier Commission interpretations of functional relationship.
In a subsequent no-action letter, the Staff indicated that the Section 3(a)(3)
exemption would apply to the acquisition of a propane-air gas pipeline system by
a company that was primarily engaged in the distribution of fuels by truck, the
sale of propane appliances and equipment, and the sale, repair, and leasing of
forklift trucks./73/ In both of these cases, the ownership of the public-utility
company by the exempt holding company was through acquisition and was not a
natural incident of the holding company's existing operations. Further, the
utility operations were completely distinct from the holding company's existing
operations and did not lend any operational or functional efficiencies to the
primary business of the holding company.
It is respectfully submitted that the facts and circumstances of the
present case enable the Commission to articulate non-exclusive, definitional
indicia that Chevron is "only incidentally a holding Company," consistent with
the language and intent of the Section 3(a)(3) exemption. In this instance, the
indicia of the functional relationship of Chevron, the Section 3(a)(3) exempt
entity, to Illinois Power, the public-utility company, and its holding company,
New Dynegy, do not consist of typical "up stream" benefits to Chevron. Rather,
the indicia of the functional relationship are "downstream," in that the
functional relationships of Chevron to Dynegy (and, post-merger, to New Dynegy)
confer benefits on New Dynegy and indirect benefits on Illinois Power, while
continuing to serve the legitimate business interests of Chevron. These indicia
are:
(i) Chevron is a strategic, long-term investor in Dynegy -- thus, although
Chevron will continue to be primarily engaged and interested in one
or more energy-related
- -------------------
/71/ See, e.g., Union Elec., 45 SEC at 503 & n.52.
/72/ Haliburton Co., SEC No-Action Letter, 1983 Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) (P)
77,518 at 78,669 (Aug. 1, 1983).
/73/ Synergy Group Inc., SEC No-Action Letter, 1987 WL 108660 (Oct. 30, 1987).
The Commission has recognized that a similar relationship satisfied the
requirements of the Section 3(a)(3) exemption in the case where the utility
activity was the distribution of propane through underground pipelines and the
principal business of the enterprise was the distribution of propane in portable
containers, a business that shares no operational relationship to the pipeline
operations of the utility. National Distillers & Chemical Corp., Holding Co.
Act Release No. 22837, 27 SEC Docket 95 (Jan. 27, 1983).
27
<PAGE>
businesses other than the business of a public-utility holding company
(and as such, Chevron has no interest in acquiring, managing and
operating the public-utility operations of Illinova), Chevron's
continuing strategic investment in New Dynegy enhances the liquidity
of the holding company system and supports the financial integrity of
the Illinova companies;
(ii) The interests of Chevron in the exempt public-utility holding company
(New Dynegy) are not commercially involved with or dependent upon the
exempt company's public-utility business, and are based instead on
other strategic interests, specifically the energy-related aspects of
New Dynegy's business, such as energy marketing;
(iii) There are synergistic post-merger benefits of the continuing
strategic investment that flow downstream directly to the energy-
related group of which the public-utility is a member. For example,
Chevron's commercial arrangements with Dynegy provide a substantial
portion of natural gas and natural gas liquids marketed by Dynegy.
Such arrangements assure New Dynegy's access to an adequate supply of
and ability to provide natural gas and other fuels for the power
generation business;
(iv) The investment is not made or maintained for the purpose of enabling
the strategic investor (Chevron) to engage in non-arm's-length,
related-party transactions with the public-utility company, or for the
purpose of enabling the investor to finance the operations of its non-
utility operations. Indeed, the strategic relationship of Chevron to
New Dynegy will contribute positively to the financial integrity and
independence of New Dynegy, including the regulated public-utility
subsidiary of New Dynegy; and
(v) Chevron will maintain an operational, functional relationship
consistent with its incidental holding company status because its
natural gas products will continue to be sold to the energy-related
business of New Dynegy, and New Dynegy will continue to market gas
purchased from Chevron and other gas sellers.
As such, Chevron's minority interest in New Dynegy is distinguishable
from the situation where a company which is not primarily engaged in the energy
business and with no functional relationship to the public-utility holding
company, proposes to acquire a significant interest in a public-utility holding
company, with the expectation of deriving significant return on investment from
the utility operation.
The Commission's broad definitional powers permit it to interpret the
"only incidentally a holding company" requirement in a manner that encompasses
the nature of Chevron's indirect interest in Illinois Power. It is respectfully
submitted that the above articulation of the functional relationship test is
consistent with the purposes of the Act, including the protection of investors,
and satisfies the statutory requirement that Chevron be "only incidentally a
holding company."
28
<PAGE>
2. CHEVRON WILL NOT DERIVE A MATERIAL PART OF ITS INCOME FROM A
PUBLIC-UTILITY COMPANY SUBSIDIARY.
The other requirement of Section 3(a)(3) - that Chevron will not
derive a material part of its income from the public-utility operations of New
Dynegy (principally those of Illinois Power) - is fully satisfied here.
Chevron's interest in Illinova would result in public-utility revenues
representing less than 2% of Chevron's revenues, less than 1% of its operating
income, and only 1.5% of Chevron's net income. Set forth below is a comparison
and percentage computation of (i) the total revenues and net income of Chevron,
and (ii) the utility operating income and net utility income of Illinois Power
for the most recent fiscal year ending December 31, 1998:
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Chart A
- -------
Chevron Illinova Utility Operations
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C>
(a) Total Revenue $30.557 billion (e) Utility Operating Revenue $2.069 billion
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Operating Income $2.239 billion (f) Utility Operating Income $0.070 billion
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Net Income $1.339 billion (g) Net Utility Income ($1.356) billion
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) Total Assets $36.540 billion (h) Total Utility Assets 6.168 billion
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chart B
- -------
Utility Revenue (e) Utility Operating Income (f) Net Utility Income (g) Total Utility Assets (g)
as a percentage of as a percentage of as a percentage of as a percentage of
Chevron Total Revenue(a) Chevron Operating Income (b) Chevron Net Income (c) Chevron Total Assets (c)
and
Chevron Net Income (c)
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.8% 3.1% / 5.2% 0% 16.9%
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>
29
<PAGE>
Immediately following the Transaction, Chevron's equity ownership in
New Dynegy will be 28%. When computed on the basis of an assumed Chevron 28%
ownership interest in New Dynegy, Chevron's status under Section 3(a)(3) is even
more compelling. Chart C shows the utility operations of Illinova expressed as
the portion attributable to Chevron on equity consolidation, based upon
Chevron's equity ownership level in New Dynegy:
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Chart C
- -------
Chevron's Portion of Illinova Utility Illinova Utility Revenue/Income
Equity Ownership of Revenue/Income Attributable to Chevron as a percentage based on equity
New Dynegy on Equity Consolidation Principles/74/ of Chevron's Revenue/Income
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C>
Utility Revenue: $0.579 billion 1.9%
28%
Utility Operating Income: $0.020 0.90%
billion
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>
Thus, based on attribution to Chevron of an indirect interest of 28% in the
public-utility company operations of Illinois Power following consummation of
the Transaction, Chevron may be deemed to derive only 1.9% of its total
revenues, less than 1% of its operating income, and only 1.5% of its net income
directly or indirectly from the total utility revenues and utility operating
income of Illinois Power.
As noted in the 1995 Staff Report, the Commission has generally found
that the contribution of less than 10% to the total income of the holding
company to be immaterial./75/ Chevron will derive no material part of its
earnings from the public-utility company operations of New Dynegy.
As indicated above, following consummation of the Transaction, the
business of New Dynegy will not be that of a public utility./76/ Moreover, the
public utility operations of Illinois Power will be reduced, as shown below.
- -------------------
/74/ Based on figures from 1998.
/75/ 1995 Staff Report at 113-14. Compare Columbian Carbon Co., 1 SEC 633 (Aug.
5, 1936) (finding public-utility company operations constituting 3.2% of
revenues of the holding company to be immaterial), and Milliken & Co., Holding
Co. Release No. 23509, 31 SEC Docket 1070 (Dec. 3, 1984) (finding utility
operations constituting approximately 3.4% of the holding company's gross sales
to be immaterial), with Cities Serv., 8 SEC 318 (finding public-utility company
operations accounting for 47.3% of the holding company's assets, 32.6% of its
aggregate gross revenues, and 11.04% of its total cash income to be material).
/76/ Item 1.A.C.
30
<PAGE>
3. ILLINOVA'S PUBLIC-UTILITY COMPANY OPERATIONS SATISFY ANY ABSOLUTE
SIZE LIMITATION.
The Commission has also, at times, required that the subsidiary's
public-utility company operations be subject to an absolute size test. As
discussed above, Cities Service involved a mammoth multi-state system with 89
public-utility company subsidiaries controlled by the holding company that
presented all of the evils the Act was intended to address./77/ Similarly, the
Commission's decision in Standard Oil addressed a system with four public-
utility company subsidiaries located in three states, which was at least "the
third largest [gas utility system] in the United States."/78/ Given Standard
Oil's size, the Commission stated that, even had there been a functional
relationship between Standard Oil's business and the utilities, it would not
have approved of the exemption. The "small size requirement" has been confined
to cases involving huge systems that evolved without regulation, were not
subject to effective regulation, and were trying to avoid registration even
though their operations were the plain targets of the Act.
Unlike other Section 3(a)(3) applicants denied the exemption by the
Commission, Illinova's public-utility company operations are confined to one
area, and are not far-flung among several different regions./79/ Illinova's
public-utility company operations are entirely located in Illinois and are
wholly subject to the jurisdiction of a single public service commission.
Illinois Power's size is a function of regulation, not an indication of the
absence of effective regulation.
The transfer of Illinois Power's generation to Illinova Marketing
(which will become an EWG within one year of the closing of the Transaction)
will have a dramatic effect upon Illinois Power's investment in public-utility
assets and the character of its revenues. Illinois Power's rate base will be
reduced by approximately 50%. Although Illinois Power's customer base is
expected to remain stable, this merely reflects a regulatory power delivery
service obligation. Customers will be free to purchase electric energy from
their supplier of choice.
In the short term, Illinois Power expects its revenues to decline
somewhat and then to remain relatively stable as a result of the Illinois
statutory rate reductions and rate freezes designed to protect consumers and to
provide an opportunity to recover substantial transition costs. The composition
of such Illinois Power revenues, however, will also change: the revenues
received under the fixed rate structure must recover regulatory transition cost
recovery and purchased power costs constituting approximately 50% of revenues.
Illinois Power's revenues will, therefore, make a reduced net-earnings
contribution, as shown on its projected pro forma 2000-2004 Income
Statement./80/
- -------------------
/77/ Cities Serv., 8 SEC 318.
/78/ Standard Oil, 10 SEC at 1128.
/79/ In contrast, in Standard Oil, the applicant's public-utility operations
encompassed substantial portions of three states, and in Cities Service, the
applicant had a "far-flung" utility empire with eighty-nine public utility
subsidiaries operating in numerous states and Canada.
/80/ See Illinois Power Company pro forma Income Statement, 2000 to 2003,
attached hereto as Exhibit L-2.
31
<PAGE>
Four Exhibits hereto specifically address the issue of size: Exhibit
K, Exhibit L, Exhibit N, and Exhibit O.
Exhibit K-6 hereto shows the revenue ranking and share of cumulative
revenue of investor-owned electric utility companies for Illinois and bordering
states./81/ As shown therein, Illinova's electric utility revenue is a small
percentage (3.9%) of the region studied and is lower than the same percentage
for three registered holding companies (American Electric Power: 19.2%, Cinergy:
19.2%, Ameren: 7.9%) and two exempt holding companies (Unicom: 19.7%, NSP:
6.8%).
The region that includes the State of Illinois and bordering states is
the most pertinent for the purpose of the analysis of size. In enacting retail
open access, the State of Illinois relied upon legislative findings that
"[c]ompetitive forces are affecting the market of electricity as a result of
recent federal regulatory and statutory changes and the activities of other
states."/82/ As Exhibit K-6 demonstrates, Illinois Power's regional asset
ranking is consistent with its revenue ranking and represents only a small
percentage (3.9%) of regional electric utility assets./83/ Exhibit K-6 also
illustrates that Illinois Power's electric power customer base is small
(3.7%)./84/ Moreover, as shown by Exhibit K-8, the same is also true for
Illinois Power's natural gas service revenues (2.9%), assets (3.4%), and
customers (3.6%)/85/ on a regional basis.
Viewing Illinova as a combination company does not alter these
conclusions. Exhibit K-9 demonstrates that Illinova's revenue (7.6%), asset
(11.5%) and customer (7%) shares are small./86/
- -------------------
/81/ The relative size of Illinois Power is reflected in the exhibits contained
in the recent Application under the Act filed by AES Corporation. See Amendment
No. 2 to Application on Form U-1/A under the Public Utility Holding Company Act
of 1935 of AES Corporation (Commission File No. 70-09465), filed on August 20,
1999 (the "AES Application"). Applicants hereby incorporate by reference
Exhibits K-6 through K-16 of the AES Application (the "AES Exhibits") as
Exhibits K-6 through K-16 hereto. This data was based upon 1997 electric and gas
utility data.
/82/ 220 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/15-101A(b) (1997 Cum. Supp.). Illinois Power has
also implemented open transmission access in accordance with FERC Order 888 and
has joined a regional Independent System Operator. Illinois Power maintains
substantial transmission interconnections with major regional electric
utilities, including the Tennessee Valley Authority, a public agency that dwarfs
Illinois Power, American Electric Power, Ameren, Cinergy, and Commonwealth
Edison, all of which are significantly larger than Illinois Power. Open access
transmission also makes regional energy resources available to all wholesale and
retail open access customers connected to the Illinois Power system. Regional
electric competition and open access for electricity also bring competition to
bear on natural gas service. This results from the substitution of electric
energy for gas. Large gas consumers already have access to competitive supply as
a result of FERC Order 636.
/83/ See Exhibit K-6.
/84/ See Exhibit K-6.
/85/ See Exhibit K-8.
/86/ See Exhibit K-9.
32
<PAGE>
Ranked by revenue, Exhibit K-12 shows that Illinova represents 2.2% of
the national revenue of combined gas and electric companies. Alliant, NIPSCO,
Northern States Power, Ameren, CMS Energy, and Cinergy are all larger, as are
many outside the region. Illinova's revenue share among all utilities was 0.7%.
Illinova's asset rankings were similar.
Within Illinois, two utilities, Unicom and Ameren, are significantly
larger than Illinova in terms off revenue rank, asset size, and number of
customers. Additionally, four utilities, Peoples, NICOR, Ameren, and Unicom,
have more customers. Illinova's percentage share of revenues (11%), assets
(13.8%), and customers (10.2%) is significantly smaller than those previously
found to be "too large."/87/
Exhibit N provides updated information for the AES Exhibits/88/ for
electric power revenues, assets and customers during calendar 1998. Navigant
Consulting, Inc. (formerly LECG, Inc.) prepared the AES Exhibits based upon
natural gas and electric power data released by the Department of Energy's
Energy Information Administration ("EIA") and has also prepared Exhibit N on a
basis consistent with the AES Exhibits EIA has not released equivalent updated
natural gas data and Exhibit N accordingly only updates for electric data. The
updated data indicates no meaningful increase in the relative or absolute size
of Illinova's electric utility operations from that shown by the AES Exhibits.
For example, Exhibit N shows Illinova's 1998 share of electric revenue for
Illinois and bordering states is 4.6% with five larger firms accounting for
64.4% of electric revenues. Illinova's share of electric utility assets for
Illinois and the bordering states (including generation to be divested by
Illinova) is 6.4% with five larger firms accounting for 61.6% of assets.
Illinova's share of electric customers for 1998 is 3.2%, with nine larger firms
accounting for 80.4%.
Exhibit O provides a regional size comparison based on an alternative
data source: electric and gas data available on 1998 annual reports on Form 10-
K. Navigant Consulting examined data available on Form 10-K for the regional
electric and natural gas firms in order to ascertain whether Exhibits K-6
through K-16 and N-6 through N-16 in any meaningful respect understate the
absolute size of Illinova's public-utility operations; and Navigant Consulting
has determined that they do not. The 1998 Illinois and bordering states data as
reported on Form 10-K, shown on Exhibit O, confirms that Illinova's electric,
natural gas, combined gas/electric, and total utility size is small and has not
increased in any meaningful respect from that portrayed by the AES Exhibits. For
example, Exhibit O shows that Illinova's share of utility revenue in Illinois
and bordering states is 4.4%, with five larger firms representing 52.1% of
utility revenues. Exhibit O shows that Illinova's share of utility assets (net
of depreciation) in Illinois and bordering states is 4.5%, with seven larger
firms representing 62.2% of assets. Illinova's share of customers is 3.2% with
14 larger firms representing 79.1% of customers. The reporting standards for
the EIA data differ somewhat from reporting for 10-K purposes and Exhibit O is
not therefore directly comparable to Exhibit K or Exhibit N. Exhibit O,
however, confirms the overall portrayal of Illinova's current business presented
by Exhibits K and N.
- -------------------
/87/ See, e.g., AES Corp., Holding Co. Act Release No. 27063 (Aug. 20,1999).
/88/ Exhibits K-6 through K-16. Exhibit N maintains the same numbering scheme
and format as the AES Exhibits and is numbered N-6 through N-16.
33
<PAGE>
Exhibits K, N, and O all overstate the absolute size of Illinova's
future operations. As indicated, industry restructuring is reducing Illinois
Power's size. Illinova's share of assets drops dramatically once its
divestiture of generation is considered. Although Unicom is also divesting its
fossil generation, its transmission and distribution asset base alone is more
than twice Illinova's post divestiture asset base.
As indicated by Exhibit L, current and historical financial and
operating data overstate the size of Illinova's public utility operations
following restructuring. Exhibit L is an analysis prepared by Illinova of its
natural gas distribution and electric power delivery (transmission and
distribution) public utility operations. Exhibit L contains information
regarding the public utility operations of Illinois Power excluding the power
generation to be divested by Illinois Power. Exhibit L-1 presents adjusted
historic and projected pro forma balance sheet entries. It demonstrates the
reduction in the utility plant of Illinova resulting from restructuring. For
example, Exhibit O-4 shows Illinova's utility plant (net of depreciation and
excluding capitalized nuclear fuel leases) for 1998 as $4.455 billion. Exhibit
L-1 shows that the net utility plant for the natural gas and power delivery
segments of Illinois Power in 1998 would have been $1.643 and is projected to be
$1.586 billion in 2000.
Exhibit L-2 further shows that the character of Illinova's public
utility revenues will change and exemplifies how current and historical date
overstate the size of the public utility operations to be retained by Illinova.
Illinois Power's rates are frozen and must include purchased power costs and
transition cost recovery. In the year 2000, Illinois Power's estimated
purchased power costs will equal $601 million - approximately half its total
revenues - revenues that include purchased gas of $195 million. Illinois Power
estimates that it will recover $55 million in transition costs within its frozen
rates in 2000 and more in subsequent years. The size of the transmission and
distribution business that will remain within Illinois Power is overstated by
these revenues, designed to recover other costs. Exhibit L-2 shows that the
projected public utility revenues for Illinova net of transition charges and
purchased power are projected to be approximately $600 million. Turning to
Exhibit O-4, regional firms with public utility revenues in excess of this
amount are responsible for in excess of 90% of the public utility revenues in
the region.
The detailed regulation and service obligations imposed by Illinois
law upon the delivery function retained by Illinois Power is inconsistent with
concerns over arbitrary and monopolistic behavior, engendered by the sprawling
systems dealt with in Ebasco, Standard Oil, and Cities Service. Illinois
Power's retained public-utility system is smaller than the systems that were too
large in the past and is small in any relevant sense today.
Thus, under any logical application of a size analysis in the context
of Section 3(a)(3), Chevron passes. Illinova does not have the type of public-
utility company market share or widespread public-utility company operations
that have prompted the Commission to deny Section 3(a)(3) exemptions in the
past. Instead, Illinova's public-utility company operations are localized and
constitute only a small share of a large and growing regional marketplace.
34
<PAGE>
4. GRANTING THE EXEMPTION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND
THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT THAT THE COMMISSION APPLY SECTION 3 OF THE
ACT FLEXIBLY.
Once the Commission has found that a holding company is only
incidentally a holding company in accordance with Section 3(a)(3), the Act
provides that the Commission shall exempt the holding company from the Act
"unless and except insofar as it finds the exemption detrimental to the public
interest or the interest of investors and consumers." The legislative history
of Section 3 of the Act, and in particular the legislative history of the
"unless and except" clause, demonstrates that Congress expected the Commission
to apply Section 3 of the Act in a flexible fashion in light of contemporary
circumstances./89/ The Commission also has stated that the broad and flexible
language of the "unless and except" clause should be read "in a way that makes
economic and social sense in the light of contemporary realities."/90/ In recent
proceedings, the Commission has determined that one of the contemporary
realities to consider in deciding whether an exemption would be contrary to the
public interest is "the protection afforded to investors, consumers, and the
public by the existence of vigorous state regulation."/91/
- -------------------
/89/ The Senate Report reveals that Congress consciously chose to structure
Section 3 to provide broad classes of exemptions that would be conferred in a
flexible fashion unless the Commission "finds the exemption detrimental to the
public interest or the interest of investors or consumers." The Senate Report
provides a definitive description of the relationship of the "unless and except"
clause to the specific exemptions available under Section 3(a):
New section 3(a) has been drafted to exempt these holding companies which
the committee believes ought not to be covered because of the fact, and to
the extent, that they are either intrastate in character or else not
essentially holding companies in the utility field. The Commission is
required to exempt any company which falls into one of the described
classes, unless and except insofar as it determines that exemption is
detrimental to the national public interest. The exemption when invoked
applies to the company as a holding company and to every subsidiary of the
exempted holding company as a subsidiary of such company . . . .
It is the duty of the Commission, as to any company which it finds to fall
in one of these five categories, to exempt such company from any provision
or provisions of Title I to the extent it deems such exemption not
detrimental to the public interest or the interest of investors or
consumers. By thus imposing a mandatory duty upon the Commission to exempt
companies falling within defined categories except where such exemption is
definitely detrimental to the basic purpose of the statute, the Committee
has felt free to broaden the exemptions beyond what would be justified if
the exemptions had been made unqualified and self-operative, and beyond the
power of the Commission to correct when abused or used to circumvent the
purpose of the title.
Senate Report at 5-6, 24 (emphasis added). The flexibility built into Section 3
exemplifies the Commission's precept that the Act "creates a system of pervasive
and continuing economic regulation that must in some measure at least be
refashioned from time to time to keep pace with changing economic and regulatory
climates." Union Elec., 45 SEC at n.52.
/90/ Union Elec., 45 SEC 489, 1974 WL 11418 at *13.
/91/ WPL Holdings, Inc., Holding Co. Act Release No. 24590 (Feb. 26, 1988).
35
<PAGE>
The Transaction will not result in any reduction in the oversight
exercised by the ICC and FERC. Moreover, all of Illinois Power's public-utility
activities will take place in a single state. Thus, in this instance, as in
prior proceedings where the Commission declined to apply the "unless and except"
clause, the grant of an exemption from the Act would not result in a regulatory
gap and, therefore, would not be detrimental to the public interest. Rather,
the resulting holding company structure will serve the public interest and the
interest of investors and consumers by producing a number of economies and
efficiencies, similar to those upon which the Commission has in the past looked
favorably./92/
Further, Chevron's interest in Illinova arises as a result of dramatic
transitions in the industry, including the convergence of natural gas and
electricity. This convergence has been recognized as consistent with the public
interest by the Commission and will not signal the potential for evasion of the
Act. The Illinova public-utility operations will complement and enhance
Dynegy's current exempt utility company operations. The operations which Dynegy
is contributing to New Dynegy will be significant in enabling the company to
provide efficient and competitive utility service, and their value is enhanced
through association with a public-utility company with power generating assets
and experience.
5. GRANTING THE EXEMPTION IS CONSISTENT WITH PROPER INTERPRETATION
AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT UNDER SECTION 1(C).
Section 1(c) of the Act requires the Commission to interpret and
administer the Act in order to eliminate the five evils enumerated in Section
1(b)(1)-(5) of the Act./93/ As demonstrated below, the Transaction threatens
none of these evils.
With respect to the first concern of the Act, the absence of accurate
investor information and the problem of "overcapitalization" of public-utility
systems without sufficient state regulation, the Commission has found that
concerns "with respect to investors have been largely addressed by
developments in the federal securities laws and in the securities markets
themselves. . . ."/94/
- -------------------
/92/ See, e.g., Illinova Corp., Holding Co. Act Release No. 26054 (May 18, 1994)
(granting exemption requested in connection with a proposed merger based on an
application that claimed that the new structure would create efficiencies and
economies such as allowing the resulting companies to respond to competitive
opportunities in the electric power industry and increasing the financial
flexibility of the resulting companies).
/93/ These evils are: (1) the absence of specific investor information and the
issuance of "overcapitalized" public-utility securities without sufficient state
regulation; (2) abusive and excessive consumer charges to fund affiliate
transactions; (3) the obstruction of state regulation of public-utilities and
their subsidiaries and the exercise of control over subsidiaries through
disproportionately small investment; (4) holding company growth out of
proportion with management and operation, or integration and coordination of
related operating properties; and (5) the lack of economy of management,
efficiency or adequacy of services in the public-utility industry, or the lack
of effective public regulation thereof.
/94/ Southern Co., Holding Co. Act Release No. 25639 (Sept. 23, 1992).
36
<PAGE>
The State of Illinois, through the ICC, closely regulates the
capitalization of public-utilities/95/ and has the express authority to restrict
dividend payments if the public-utility's capital is or would become impaired or
if its earned surplus is insufficient./96/ Furthermore, the securities of
Illinova, Dynegy, and Chevron, as well as the bonds and preferred stock of
Illinois Power are all publicly traded. Accordingly, the Transaction presents
none of the problems, risks, or evils identified by Section 1(b)(1) of the Act.
Second, the structure poses no risk of abusive affiliate transactions.
The State of Illinois has comprehensive oversight of affiliate transactions such
as those between Chevron and Illinois Power./97/ In addition, FERC regulations
associated with market-based wholesale rate transactions are applicable to the
Transaction./98/ The Commission has recognized that a "comprehensive state
system," such as that in effect in Illinois,/99/ "is fully able to protect the
financial integrity of the public utility operating within its jurisdiction to
assure that neither utility revenues (other than reasonable and proper
dividends), utility assets, or utility credit are used for non-utility purposes
except in accordance with prescribed guidelines or following review and approval
by state regulators. The states also appear to have adequate authority to
regulate transactions between the utility and its affiliates to prevent the type
of overreaching that characterized so many holding company systems prior to
1935."/100/ Thus, there is no risk of abusive affiliate transactions between the
involved entities following the Transaction.
Third, the structure of the Transaction poses no risk of obstruction
of state regulation of public-utility company subsidiaries and the exertion of
control over such subsidiaries through disproportionately small investment. The
State of Illinois has a comprehensive regulatory apparatus in place that is not
affected by the Transaction./101/ Moreover, Chevron's minority voting stock
interest in New Dynegy is proportional to its equity investment in New Dynegy.
Fourth, the structure poses no risk of holding company growth that
"bears no relation to economy of management and operation or the integration and
coordination of related
- -------------------
/95/ 220 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/6-101-108 (West 1999).
/96/ 220 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/7-103.
/97/ 220 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/7-101, 16-121.
/98/ FERC has erected comprehensive protections against cross-subsidies by
requiring adherence to a "code of conduct" governing transactions between the
franchise-owning public utility and its unregulated marketing affiliates. These
code of conduct requirements have specifically been applied to Illinova. See
Illinova Power Marketing, 79 FERC (P) 61,010 (Feb. 1997) and cases cited
therein.
/99/ AES Corp., Holding Co. Act Release No. 27063 at 58 (Aug. 20, 1999). The
comprehensive scope of regulation under the laws of the State of Illinois is
also acknowledged in the "Survey of State Regulation of Public Utility Holding
Companies," published as Appendix A to the 1995 Staff Report.
/100/ Statement of the SEC Concerning PUHCA Repeal at 590-91. In reaching its
conclusion that state regulation was adequate to the task of preventing
affiliate abuse, the Commission specifically referenced Natural Gas Pipeline Co.
v. Slattery, 302 U.S. 300 (1937), affirming the Illinois regulatory system's
oversight over affiliate transactions. See Statement of SEC Regarding PUHCA
Repeal at 585.
/101/ See Appendix I.
37
<PAGE>
operating properties." The properties of Illinova's public-utility operating
companies are not affected by the Transaction.
Finally, Section 1(b)(5) of the Act addresses the situation where "in
any other respect there is a lack of economy of management and operation of
public-utility companies or lack of efficiency and adequacy of service rendered
by such companies, or lack of effective regulation, or lack of economies of
raising capital." The Transaction enables Illinova to obtain the capital assets
needed to conduct an efficient energy marketing business essential to modern
utility service and does not threaten any adverse effects upon public-utility
operations.
C. THE TRANSACTION IS NOT SUBJECT TO SECTION 9(A)(2) OF THE ACT.
Various Commission decisions have stated that a single stock
acquisition that results in an interest in a holding company with multiple
public-utility company subsidiaries requires approval under Section
9(a)(2)./102/ Assuming that a single holding company stock acquisition that
results in multiple affiliations solely with the underlying companies ordinarily
would trigger Section 9(a)(2), this Section would not apply to the Transaction
because there is only one public-utility company of any regulatory significance
involved in this Transaction: Illinois Power. The acquisition of securities of
its holding company parent by persons not affiliated with any public-utility
company or holding company should not be deemed subject to Section 9(a)(2)./103/
This follows from the unique position of EEInc.
EEInc, an indirect subsidiary of Illinova, should not be treated as a
separate public-utility company. EEInc is an Illinois corporation having its
principal place of business in Joppa, Illinois. EEInc was organized in 1950 for
the purpose of generating and providing electricity to a government nuclear
processing facility near Paducah, Kentucky. In order to meet the needs of the
federal government at the lowest possible rate, excess output was purchased by
the sponsoring utility systems in amounts proportional to their ownership
interests.
The Commission has determined that the federal government service
purpose of the project renders its operation largely outside the concerns of the
Act. In determining that sales to the United States government should be
excluded for the purposes of determining whether one of the sponsoring utilities
(Union Electric) was predominantly intrastate in character, the Commission noted
that EEInc was unique in the history of the Act in that, although it was a
private venture being privately financed, its purpose was the cooperative
building of a power project dedicated to serve a vital defense need of the
United States Government. "EEInc does not itself sell electricity to private
consumers of the type the Act is designed to protect and does not have any
securities outstanding in the hands of public investors . . . ."/104/ The
Commission
- -------------------
/102/ See Coral Petroleum, Holding Co. Act Release No. 21632 (June 19, 1980),
and cases cited supra note 19. An alternative construction or the last clause of
Section 9(a)(2) would require the acquiring company to be affiliated with one
public-utility or holding company prior to a single acquisition resulting in an
additional affiliation.
/103/ AES Corp., Holding Co. Act Release No. 27063; Coral Petroleum, Holding Co.
Act Release No. 21632.
/104/ Union Elec., 40 SEC 1072.
38
<PAGE>
correctly attached no independent regulatory significance to the operations of
EEInc or its corporate existence. As discussed below, subsequent Commission and
Staff action reinforce the conclusion that EEInc has no regulatory significance
for the Commission's analysis of the Transaction.
As a result of its specialized structure and purpose, EEInc does not
represent the type of "other public-utility" which would trigger the application
of Section 9(a)(2). As noted above, the purchases of excess power by sponsoring
utilities is proportional to the ownership interests retained by the sponsoring
utilities. The only reason EEInc is not a wholly government-owned facility or
corporation clearly exempt from the Act is the provision of this ancillary
function by the sponsoring utilities. These power purchasers, Illinois Power,
Ameren and Kentucky Utilities, are not "consumers of the type the Act is
designed to protect."/105/ To the extent the Commission considers the ownership
of these excess power purchase entitlements to be distinct from federal
government operations, that function still does not warrant application of
Section 9(a)(2).
By contrast, Section 9(a)(2) requires that two truly distinct ("any
other public-utility or holding company") public-utility companies or holding
companies be affiliated before Section 9(a)(2) applies. The power supply
relationship to Illinois Power proportional to ownership renders the project
ownership by Illinova essentially irrelevant from a regulatory perspective. In
the release authorizing the exemption from 9(a)(2) of certain jointly-sponsored
generation supply companies, the Commission noted that it did not consider such
public-utilities distinct from their sponsors, and specifically enumerated EEInc
as an example of the type of company the Commission intended to foster./106/ The
adopting release specifically noted that it was predicated upon the view that
"the power supply company, whether a corporation or partnership, is only a
source of supply of electric energy to its sponsoring utilities and in practical
effect is a divisional unit within the operations of the utilities it
serves."/107/ EEInc is in essence the same business unit as Illinois Power.
As recognized in Union Electric, no regulatory purpose would be served
by attaching significance to EEInc as an independent public-utility operation
apart from its role as a source of supply to Illinois Power./108/ In Coral
Petroleum, the Commission determined that
- -------------------
/105/ Id. EEInc also engages in a small amount of exchange energy sales with the
Tennessee Valley Authority, another instrumentality of the federal government.
/106/ Rules Exempting Certain Acquisitions By Electric Utility Companies,
Holding Co. Act Release No. 21881, 21 SEC Docket 1324, 1981 WL 36277, at n.4
(Jan. 13, 1981). Although Rule 14 is not literally applicable to EEInc, the
adopting release establishes the principle that no basis exists to distinguish a
power supply company from its sponsoring public-utility and that EEInc falls
within that class of cases. EEInc is thus indistinguishable from Illinois Power
under Rule 14 and should be so viewed for purposes of this Application.
/107/ Id. (emphasis added).
/108/ Illinova Generating Co., SEC No-Action Letter, 1996 WL 679234 (Oct. 22,
1996) by implication accepts the analysis presented herein.
39
<PAGE>
substance and not form should determine the application of Section 9(a)(2) and
that no "other" entity exists when the two entities are in essence the same
business unit./109/
For the foregoing reasons, Section 9(a)(2) does not apply to the
Transaction.
D. THE TRANSACTION SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 10 OF THE ACT.
Even if the Commission were to find that the Transaction falls within
the approval requirements of Section 9(a)(2), approval should be granted based
upon satisfaction of all of the requirements of Section 10 of the Act. The
discussion above amply demonstrates that the Transaction is consistent with the
public interest. This Application and the referenced filings with the Commission
fully disclose the terms and conditions of the Transaction. There is no basis
for the Commission to make any of the negative findings under Section 10(b) of
the Act. No concentration of control of public-utility companies will result. No
public-utility companies are involved in this transaction other than the
integrated system that exists today under Illinova's ownership. The fees and
commissions bear a fair value to the sums invested and the earning capabilities
of the utility assets. Finally, the resulting corporate structure is not unduly
complex but instead results from the legal requirements associated with a merger
of this nature. The structure is fully disclosed to the investing public, the
FERC, this Commission, and the State of Illinois.
With respect to Section 10(c) of the Act, the public-utility system of
Illinova will continue to be integrated and its integrated operation will be
enhanced by the immediate injection of substantial equity capital by Chevron and
by the prospect of a lower cost of equity due to merging a successful energy-
related and exempt generation business into the holding company. WPL
Holdings/110/ held that achieving an improved ability to attract capital is a
sufficient enhancement of an integrated system to warrant approval under Section
10 of the Act. The strengthening of Illinova is particularly responsive to the
market structure adopted by the State of Illinois. The State of Illinois has
enacted a legislative scheme that depends upon the efficient operation of market
forces to assure abundant and low cost energy, and electric utility service in
particular. The market structure created by Illinois law depends on the
performance of the new energy suppliers identified by the Commission in
Consolidated Natural Gas Co.:
[F]undamental changes in the energy industry are leading to an
increasingly competitive and integrated market, in which marketers
deal in interchangeable units of energy expressed in British thermal
unit values, rather than natural gas or electricity. To retain and
attract wholesale and industrial customers, utilities need to provide
competitively priced power and related customer services . . . . It
appears that the restructuring of the electricity industry now
underway will dramatically affect all United States energy markets
- -------------------
/109/ Coral Petroleum, Holding Co. Act Release No. 21632.
/110/ WPL Holdings, Holding Co. Act Release No. 25096 (May 25, 1996).
40
<PAGE>
as a result of growing interdependence of natural gas transmission and
electric generation; and the interchangeability of different forms of
energy, particularly gas and electricity./111/
The combination of Dynegy with Illinova will allow Illinova to
participate vigorously in competitive energy markets that the Commission has
recognized as essential to efficient utility service and as part of the future
of the industry. Chevron's involvement in the Transaction arises solely from
Chevron's wholly independent, and prior, interest in participating, through its
equity ownership in Dynegy, in gas and liquids marketing, midstream services,
and wholesale electric generation. Chevron's interest in Illinova is only
incidental to its primary integrated energy business, as it arises solely from
and is commensurate with the contribution of the energy-related operations of
Dynegy to Illinova.
ITEM 4. REGULATORY APPROVAL
The Transaction is subject to review and approval by the FERC under
the Federal Power Act ("FPA"). On July 23, 1999, Dynegy and Illinova filed a
joint application with the FERC requesting that it approve the Transaction under
Section 203 of the FPA. Under Section 203, the FERC will approve the
Transaction if it finds that the merger is "consistent with the public
interest." In reviewing a merger, the FERC generally evaluates whether the
merger will (i) adversely affect competition; (ii) adversely affect rates to
captive wholesale customers; or (iii) impair the effectiveness of regulation.
Following the Transaction, the FERC will have continuing jurisdiction over New
Dynegy's power marketing business and over Illinois Power (and Illinova
Marketing), transactions with respect to, inter alia, rates, terms, and
conditions for wholesale sales and transmission transactions, including those
with affiliates, disposition and consolidation of utility assets and
interlocking directorates.
Illinois Power is currently subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC.
Illinois Power filed notice of the Transaction as it affects Illinois Power's
electric system on August 13, 1999 with the ICC, along with a voluntary
application with the ICC for approval of the Transaction with respect to the
change of control over Illinois Power's gas utility. Following the Transaction,
the ICC will retain applicable authority over the rates, services provided by,
and dividends of Illinois Power, Illinois Power's transactions with affiliates,
and, to varying degrees, the business activities of Illinois Power's affiliates.
Chevron, Dynegy, and Illinova have each made the necessary filings
with the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission under the Hart
Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976. On August 24, 1999, the
Federal Trade Commission informed each of the parties that early termination of
the waiting periods under such filings has been granted.
- -------------------
/111/ Consolidated Natural Gas Co., Holding Co. Act Release No. 26512 (Apr. 30,
1996).
41
<PAGE>
ITEM 5. PROCEDURE.
The Applicants respectfully request that the Commission issue its
order as soon as possible declaring that Chevron Corp. and Chevron USA are not
holding companies within the meaning of Section 2(a)(7) or, alternatively, that
Chevron Corp. and Chevron USA are holding companies exempt under Section
3(a)(3).
The Applicants hereby (i) waive a recommended decision by a hearing
officer or any other responsible officer of the Commission; (ii) agree that the
Division of Investment Management may assist in the preparation of the decision
of the Commission; and (iii) request that the Commission order that the
exemption requested by this Application be effective immediately upon
consummation of the Transaction.
ITEM 6. EXHIBITS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
Exhibits
Exhibit A: Constituent Instruments
A.1: Articles of Incorporation of New Dynegy
A.2: Attachment to Articles of Incorporation of New Dynegy
A.3: By-laws of New Dynegy (previously filed with the Commission
as Exhibit 99.1 to Current Report on Form 8-K of Dynegy
(Commission File No. 1-11156), filed June 14, 1999 and
incorporated by reference herein)
Exhibit B: Transaction Documents
B.1: Agreement and Plan of Merger (previously filed with the
Commission as Exhibit 2.1 to Current Report on Form 8-K of
Dynegy (Commission File No. 1-11156), filed June 14, 1999
and incorporated by reference herein)
B.2: Subscription Agreement between Chevron USA and New Dynegy
(previously filed with the Commission as Exhibit 10.1 to
Current Report on Form 8-K of Dynegy (Commission File
No. 1-11156), filed June 14, 1999 and incorporated by
reference herein)
B.3: Shareholder Agreement among New Dynegy, Illinova, Dynegy,
and Chevron USA (previously filed with the Commission as
Exhibit 10.6 to Current Report on Form 8-K of Dynegy
(Commission File No. 1-11156), filed June 14, 1999 and
incorporated by reference herein)
B.4: Stock Purchase Agreement between New Dynegy and British Gas
Atlantic Holdings BV (previously filed with the Commission
as Exhibit 10.2 to Current Report on Form 8-K of Dynegy
42
<PAGE>
(Commission File No. 1-11156), filed June 14, 1999 and
incorporated by reference herein)
B.5: Registration Rights Agreement among New Dynegy, British Gas
Atlantic Holdings BV, and NOVA (previously filed with the
Commission as Exhibit 10.7 to Current Report on Form 8-K of
Dynegy (Commission File No. 1-11156), filed June 14, 1999
and incorporated by reference herein)
B.6: Registration Rights Agreement between New Dynegy and
Chevron USA (previously filed with the Commission as
Exhibit 10.8 to Current Report on Form 8-K of Dynegy Inc.
(Commission File No. 1-11156), filed June 14, 1999 and
incorporated by reference herein)
B.7: Voting Agreement between Illinova and BG (previously filed
with the Commission as Exhibit 10.3 to Current Report on
Form 8-K of Dynegy (Commission File No. 1-11156), filed
June 14, 1999 and incorporated by reference herein)
B.8: Voting Agreement between Illinova and Chevron USA
(previously filed with the Commission as Exhibit 10.5 to
Current Report on Form 8-K of Dynegy (Commission File
No. 1-11156), filed June 14, 1999 and incorporated by
reference herein)
B.9: Voting Agreement between Illinova and NOVA (previously
filed with the Commission as Exhibit 20.4 to Current Report
on Form 8-K of Dynegy (Commission File No. 1-11156), filed
June 14, 1999 and incorporated by reference herein)
Exhibit C: Intentionally omitted, not applicable
Exhibit D: Applications and Orders of Certain Commissions listed in
Item 4
D.1: Joint Application of Illinova and Dynegy for Approval of
Merger and Request for Expedited Consideration, FERC Docket
No. EC99-99-000 (July 23, 1999)
D.2: Application of Illinois Power for Expedited Approval of a
Reorganization of the Gas Utility and Approval of an
Interim Services and Facilities Agreement, ICC Docket No.
99-0419, (Aug. 12, 1999)
Exhibit E: Organizational Chart of New Dynegy
Exhibit F: Intentionally omitted, not applicable
Exhibit G: Financial Data Schedules
G.1: Annual Report on Form 10-K of Chevron Corporation
(Commission File No. 1-368-2) for the fiscal year ended
43
<PAGE>
December 31, 1998 (previously filed with the Commission on
March 31, 1999 and incorporated by reference herein)
G.2: Amendment No. 1 to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Chevron
Corporation (Commission File No. 1-368-2) for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 1999 (previously filed
with the Commission on August 5, 1999 and incorporated by
reference herein)
G.3: Annual Report on Form 10-K of Illinova Corporation
(Commission File Number 1-11327) and Illinois Power Company
(Commission File Number 1-3004) for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 1998 (previously filed with the Commission on
March 29, 1999 and incorporated by reference herein)
G.4: Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Illinova Corporation
(Commission File Number 1-11327) and Illinois Power Company
(Commission File Number 1-3004) for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 1999 (previously filed with on August 16,
1999 and incorporated by reference herein)
Exhibit H: Joint Press Release of Dynegy and Illinova (previously filed
with the Commission as Exhibit 99.2 to Current Report on Form
8-K of Dynegy (Commission File No. 1-11156), filed June 14,
1999 and incorporated by reference herein)
Exhibit I: Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement under the Securities
Act of 1933 on Form S-4 of New Dynegy (Registration No. 333-
84965) (previously filed with the Commission on September 7,
1999 and incorporated by reference herein)
Exhibit J: Intentionally omitted
Exhibit K: The AES Exhibits
K.6: Market Shares for Electric Companies in Illinois and
Bordering States (previously filed with the Commission as
Exhibit K-6 to Amendment No. 2 to Application on Form U-1/A
of AES Corporation (Commission File No. 070-09465), filed
on August 20, 1999 and incorporated by reference herein)
K.7: Market Shares for Gas Companies in Illinois and Bordering
States (previously filed with the Commission as Exhibit K-7
to Amendment No. 2 to Application on Form U-1/A of AES
Corporation (Commission File No. 070-09465), filed on
August 20, 1999 and incorporated by reference herein)
K.8: Market Shares for Combined Gas and Electric Companies in
Illinois and Bordering States (previously filed with the
Commission as Exhibit K-8 to Amendment No. 2 to Application
on Form U-1/A of
44
<PAGE>
AES Corporation (Commission File No. 070-09465), filed on
August 20, 1999 and incorporated by reference herein)
K.9: Market Shares for Utilities in Illinois and Bordering
States (previously filed with the Commission as Exhibit K-
9 to Amendment No. 2 to Application on Form U-1/A of AES
Corporation (Commission File No. 070-09465), filed on
August 20, 1999 and incorporated by reference herein)
K.10: Market Shares for Electric Companies in the U.S.
(previously filed with the Commission as Exhibit K-10 to
Amendment No. 2 to Application on Form U-1/A of AES
Corporation (Commission File No. 070-09465), filed on
August 20, 1999 and incorporated by reference herein)
K.11: Market Shares for Gas Companies in the U.S. (previously
filed with the Commission as Exhibit K-11 to Amendment No.
2 to Application on Form U-1/A of AES Corporation
(Commission File No. 070-09465), filed on August 20, 1999
and incorporated by reference herein)
K.12: Market Shares for Combined Gas and Electric Companies in
the U.S. (previously filed with the Commission as Exhibit
K-12 to Amendment No. 2 to Application on Form U-1/A of
AES Corporation (Commission File No. 070-09465), filed on
August 20, 1999 and incorporated by reference herein)
K.13: Market Shares for Utility Companies in the U.S.
(previously filed with the Commission as Exhibit K-13 to
Amendment No. 2 to Application on Form U-1/A of AES
Corporation (Commission File No. 070-09465), filed on
August 20, 1999 and incorporated by reference herein)
K.14: Market Shares for Electric Companies in Illinois
(previously filed with the Commission as Exhibit K-14 to
Amendment No. 2 to Application or Form U-1/A of AES
Corporation (Commission File No. 070-09465), filed on
August 20, 1999 and incorporated by reference herein)
K.15: Market Shares for Gas Companies in Illinois (previously
filed with the Commission as Exhibit K-15 to Amendment No.
2 to Application or Form U-1/A of AES Corporation
(Commission File No. 070-09465), filed on August 20, 1999
and incorporated by reference herein)
K.16: Market Shares for Utilities in Illinois (previously filed
with the Commission as Exhibit K-16 to Amendment No. 2 to
Application or Form U-1/A of AES Corporation (Commission
File No. 070-09465), filed on August 20, 1999 and
incorporated by reference herein)
Exhibit L: Historic and Projected Illinois Power Public Utility Operations
Excluding Generation To Be Divested By Illinois Power
45
<PAGE>
L.1: Illinois Power Company Balance Sheet Excluding Electric
Power Generation
L.2: Illinois Power Company Net Revenues Excluding Electric
Power Generation
Exhibit M: Intentionally omitted
Exhibit N: Size Analysis With Updated Energy Information Agency Data
N.6: Market Shares for Electric Companies in Illinois and
Bordering States
N.7: Market Shares for Gas Companies in Illinois and Bordering
States
N.8: Marker Shares for Combined Gas and Electric Companies in
Illinois and Bordering States
N.9: Market Shares for Utilities in Illinois and Bordering
States
N.10: Market Shares for Electric Companies in the U.S.
N.11: Market Shares for Gas Companies in the U.S.
N.12: Market Shares for Combined Gas and Electric Companies in
the U.S.
N.13: Market Shares for Utility Companies in the U.S.
N.14: Market Shares for Electric Companies in Illinois
N.15: Market Shares for Gas Companies in Illinois
N.16: Market Shares for Combined Gas and Electric Companies in
Illinois
N.17: Market Shares for Utilities in Illinois
Exhibit O: Size Analysis Based on 1998 Form 10-K Data
O.1: Market Shares for Electric Companies in Illinois and
Bordering States
O.2: Market Shares for Gas Companies in Illinois and Bordering
States
O.3: Market Shares for Combined Gas and Electric Companies in
Illinois and Bordering States
O.4: Market Shares for Utilities in Illinois and Bordering
States
Financial Statements
1. Statement of Applicants.
Reference is made to the following documents, each of which is
incorporated by reference herein: (i) Annual Report on Form 10-K of Chevron
Corporation (Commission File Number 1-368-2) for the fiscal year ended December
31, 1998, filed on March 31, 1999; (ii) Amendment No. 1 to Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of Chevron Corporation (Commission File Number 1-368-2) for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 1999, filed on August 5, 1999; (iii) Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Illinova Corporation (Commission File Number 1-11327) and
46
<PAGE>
Illinois Power Company (Commission File Number 1-3004) for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 1998 filed on March 29, 1999; and (iv) Quarterly Report on Form 10-
Q of Illinova Corporation (Commission File Number 1-11327) and Illinois Power
Company (Commission File Number 1-3004) for the quarterly period ended June 30,
1999, filed on August 16, 1999.
2. Statements of Top Registered Holding Company.
None.
3. Statements of Company Whose Securities Are Being Acquired or Sold.
Reference is made to the following documents, each of which is
incorporated by reference herein: (i) Annual Report on Form 10-K of Dynegy Inc.
(Commission File Number 1-11156) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1998,
filed on March 30, 1999; (ii) Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Dynegy Inc.
(Commission File Number 1-11156) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 1999,
filed on August 16, 1999; and (iii) Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement
under the Securities Act of 1933 on Form S-4 of Energy Convergence Holding
Company (Registration No. 333- 84965), filed with the Commission on September 7,
1999.
4. Statement of Changes.
None.
ITEM 7. INFORMATION AS TO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS.
The Transaction, a corporate merger, neither involves a "major federal
action" nor "significantly affects the quality of the human environment," as
those terms are used in Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy
Act. Consummation of the Transaction will not result in changes in the
operations of the parties that would have any impact on the environment. No
federal agency is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement with respect to
this matter.
47
<PAGE>
SIGNATURE
Pursuant to the requirements of the Public Utility Holding Company Act
of 1935, the undersigned companies have duly caused this statement to be signed
on their behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.
Date: September 30, 1999
CHEVRON CORPORATION ILLINOVA CORPORATION
By:/s/ Peter J. Robertson By:/s/ Larry F. Altenbaumer
----------------------------- ------------------------------
Peter J. Robertson Larry F. Altenbaumer
Vice-President Senior Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer,
Treasurer, and Controller
CHEVRON U.S.A. INC.
By:/s/ Peter J. Robertson
-----------------------------
Peter J. Robertson
Executive Vice-President
48
<PAGE>
APPENDIX I
THE EFFECT OF STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATION UPON ILLINOVA
Pervasive state and federal regulation have determined the size and
scope of Illinois Power's public-utility operations and its role within the
regional public-utility and energy service markets created by these regulatory
systems. Recent regulatory initiatives have also resulted in the business
requirements that have caused Illinova to seek the merger described below.
State Regulation
The State of Illinois regulates public-utilities through comprehensive
legislation and authority delegated to the ICC, principally through the Illinois
Public Utilities Act, originally enacted in 1913 and reenacted several times
hence./112/ Both the retail electric power service and natural gas service of
Illinois Power fall within ICC regulatory jurisdiction/113/. The ICC is charged
with the "general supervision" of public-utilities./114/ Illinois law imposes
extensive accounting and reporting requirements upon public-utilities/115/ The
ICC has jurisdiction over the capitalization of public-utilities and the use of
financing proceeds./116/ Unlike some states, the State of Illinois has delegated
express authority to the ICC to regulate inter-corporate relations, including
transactions between public-utilities such as Illinois Power and its affiliated
interests./117/ For example, the ICC approved Illinois Power's investment in
independent energy projects contingent upon formation of a holding company and
approval of its affiliate relations./118/ Unlike many state public service
commissions, the ICC has the express authority to regulate public-utility
dividend payments where the public-utility's capital is or otherwise would be
impaired or where earned surplus is insufficient./119/ Unlike many states, the
ICC must approve coordination agreements among utilities, the acquisition of
public-utility assets by public-utilities, the disposition of public-utility
assets of a tangible and intangible nature, mergers or consolidations of public-
utilities, utility
- -------------------
/112/ 220 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/1-101 (West 1999) et seq.; see also, e.g., Alton
Water Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm'n, 279 F. 869 (7th Cir. 1922) (acknowledging
legislative delegation to ICC); AES Corp., Holding Co. Act Release No. 27063 at
n.23 & Section III (Aug. 20, 1999) (discussing authority of ICC over public-
utilities).
/113/ 220 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/3-105 a,c.
/114/ 220 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/4-101.
/115/ 220 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/5-101-109.
/116/ 220 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/6-101-108.
/117/ 220 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/7-101, 16-121.
/118/ Illinois Power Co., 150 PUR 4th 98 (ICC, May 11, 1996); Illinois Power
Co., 147 PUR 4th 225 (ICC, Nov. 9, 1993).
/119/ 220 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/7-103.
49
<PAGE>
acquisitions of the securities of public-utilities, guarantees, advances
of funds, and certain sales of real property having a sale price or annual
consideration greater than $5,000,000./120/ Illinois law requires
nondiscriminatory access to power delivery systems if and when such access is
provided to affiliates that make energy sales at market-based prices./121/
Illinois law regulates extensions of public-utility systems and generating plant
additions pursuant to a system of issuing, reviewing, and amending certificates
of public convenience and necessity./122/ Unlike many states, Illinois law
expressly addresses diversification by public-utilities in order to prevent
cross-subsidy inconsistent with the public interest and to avoid impairment of
public-utility service./123/ Illinois law vests the ICC with comprehensive
regulatory authority over the rates, terms, and conditions of service provided
by electric and gas public-utilities./124/
On December 16, 1997, the State of Illinois enacted the Electric
Service Customer Choice and Rate Relief Law of 1997, which introduces retail
competition and customer choice to electricity consumers in the State of
Illinois./125/ The legislation adopts a comprehensive approach to creating a
market mechanism to provide electric energy to consumers. The law contains the
following key provisions:
Rate Decreases: The law provides Illinois Power's residential
customers a 15% decrease in base electric rates beginning August 15,
1998, and an additional 5% decrease beginning May 1, 2002.
Rate Freeze: The law freezes rates for bundled electric service
through January 1, 2005 (with the exception of the mandatory rate
decreases discussed above), unless the utility's earned rate of return
on common equity falls below the 30-year Treasury bond rate for two
consecutive years. This rate freeze generally forces public-utilities
to absorb fuel and purchased power cost increases. It also provides a
vehicle for the recovery of transition costs (frequently called
"stranded" costs) minus statutorily prescribed mitigation factors
during the transition period established by Illinois law. Thus the
revenues of Illinois Power under the rate freeze include fuel,
purchased power, and transition cost recovery.
Retail Choice: Beginning October 1, 1999, the following categories of
retail customers will be eligible to choose their electricity
supplier: (i) customers with a demand greater than 4 MW at a single
site; (ii) customers under common ownership with ten or more sites in
a service area which aggregate to at least 9.5 MW in demand; and (iii)
customers comprising one-third of the remaining non-
- -------------------
/120/ 220 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/7-102, 7-204.
/121/ 220 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/7-108.
/122/ 220 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/8-406-407.
/123/ 220 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/7-106, 205-206.
/124/ 220 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/8-101 et seq.; 220 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/9-101 et seq.
/125/ 220 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/16-101A.
50
<PAGE>
residential load. The rest of the non-residential customer group will
be eligible for direct access by December 31, 2000. All residential
customers will have direct access by May 2002. For Illinois Power,
this means that non-residential customers representing 53% of its
total current retail electric sales volume will be eligible to select
an alternate generation service supplier on October 1, 1999 (subject
to pre-existing contract term requirements). All non-residential
customers, representing 73% of Illinois Power's total current electric
sales volume, will be eligible to select an alternate generation
service supplier at year-end 2000 (subject to pre-existing contract
term requirements).
Delivery Service: Illinois Power is obligated to provide delivery
service to customers eligible for direct access under tariffs approved
by the ICC. The ICC also regulates the services provided by public
utilities to alternative retail electric suppliers.
ICC Oversight of Transmission And Distribution Reliability: The ICC
must adopt regulations on transmission and distribution reliability.
In addition, Illinois utilities must form or join an independent
system operator.
Sale or Transfer of Electric Utility Assets: During the transition
period (1998-2004), electric utilities can sell or transfer assets to
affiliated or unaffiliated entities pursuant to an ICC review process
which must be completed within 90 days and which establishes specific
criteria for ICC review.
Functional Separation / Code of Conduct: The ICC is required to adopt
standards of conduct for electric utilities and is promulgating rules
for the functional separation of generation services and delivery
services.
Affiliate Relationships: The ICC is required to, and has, adopted
rules governing the relationships between electric utilities and their
affiliates, and ensuring non-discrimination in any services provided
by the electric utility to its affiliates and to Alternative Retail
Electric Suppliers.
Illinova believes that the public-utility operations of Illinois Power
will shrink dramatically as the Illinois restructuring law becomes effective and
Illinois Power makes the transition from a company traditionally associated with
regulated utility service to a competitive energy company.
Illinova also believes that the retail sale of natural gas in Illinois
will be open to competition. The two largest gas utilities in Illinois have
implemented a pilot retail access program.
Illinois Power is interconnected to the utilities located within four
major regions of the National Electric Reliability Council. Illinois Power is a
member of the Mid-American Interconnected Network ("MAIN"). Illinois Power's
transmission system is interconnected to the following members of MAIN: Ameren
Power Services; Central Illinois Lighting Co.; CINergy
51
<PAGE>
Services, Inc.; Commonwealth Edison Company, Hoosier Energy; Louisville Gas &
Electric Company; Wabash Valley; and Wisconsin Electric Power Company.
Illinois Power is also interconnected to the East Central Area
Reliability Coordination subregion through interconnections it maintains with
Louisville Gas & Electric Company and American Electric Power Company. Illinois
Power is also interconnected to the Mid-continent Area Power Pool through its
transmission interconnection with MidAmerican Energy Company. Finally, Illinois
Power is interconnected to the public-utilities located in the Southeastern
Electric Reliability Council through its transmission interconnection with the
Tennessee Valley Authority.
Following passage of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission has encouraged and required open access transmission
service. Illinois Power has an open access transmission tariff in place that
functionally separates, or "unbundles," transmission service from power
generation sales. As a result of the presence of competition in wholesale power
markets, the absence of barriers to entry, and Illinois Power's commitment to
FERC codes of conduct that prevent affiliate abuses and cross-subsidy, the FERC
has authorized Illinois Power and its affiliated power marketer to sell power at
wholesale at rates set by market forces./126/
Illinois Power has joined eight other regional public-utilities in
ceding operational control of their transmission systems to a regional
Independent System Operator; the Midwest Independent Transmission System
Operator./127/ The other participants in the Midwest ISO are the following:
Ameren Power Services Company; Southern Illinois Power Cooperative; Commonwealth
Edison Company; Central Illinois Light Company; Electric Energy, Inc.; City of
Springfield, Illinois; Western Illinois Power Cooperative; and Soyland Power
Corporation./128/
Federal regulation and restructuring greatly amplifies the effect of
state-sponsored utility restructuring of Illinova. Centrally located and
abutting several major interstate public-utility systems, Illinois Power has
long been subject to electric power transmission interconnection regulation by
the Federal Power Commission and FERC./129/ As a result of transmission access
and the operational integration and interconnection of Illinois Power's power
delivery system to many major public-utility systems, retail sales of
electricity in Illinois will be subject to active competition by many power
marketers, including many major interstate public-utility systems./130
- -------------------
/126/ Illinova Power Marketing, 79 FERC (P) 61,016 (1997); Illinova Power
Marketing, 73 FERC (P) 61,371 (1995).
/127/ 84 FERC (P) 61,231, order on reh'g, 85 FERC (P) 61,372 (1998).
/128/ See Exhibit D.2, at 5-6.
/129/ The authority to compel interconnections was included in Section 202(b) of
the Federal Power Act as enacted in 1935. 16 U.S.C. 824a(b).
/130/ Within this context FERC has already approved as consistent with the
public interest the merger of two large independent power companies (AES and
CalEnergy) with exempt projects with Illinois public utilities. Central Illinois
Light Co., 87 FERC (P) 61,293 (1999); Mid-America Energy Co., 85 FERC (P) 61,354
(1998).
52
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT A.1
File Number 6053-811-5
State of Illinois
Office of
The Secretary of State
Whereas, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF ENERGY CONVERGENCE HOLDING COMPANY
INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS HAVE BEEN FILED IN THE
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE AS PROVIDED BY THE BUSINESS CORPORATION ACT OF
ILLINOIS, IN FORCE JULY 1, A.D. 1984.
Now Therefore, I, Jesse White, Secretary of State of the State of Illinois, by
virtue of the powers vested in me by law, do hereby issue this certificate and
attach hereto a copy of the Application of the aforesaid corporation.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereto set my hand and cause to be affixed the
Great Seal of the State of Illinois, at the City of Springfield, this 11th day
of June A.D. 1999 and of the Independence of the United States the two hundred
and 23rd.
[SEAL OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS APPEARS HERE]
/S/ JESSE WHITE
Secretary of State
<PAGE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S> <C> <C>
Form BCA-2.10 ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Rev. Jan. 1999) This space for use by Secretary of State
Jesse White FILED SUBMIT IN DUPLICATE!
Secretary of State ---------------------------------
Department of Business Services JUNE 14, 1999 This space for use by
Springfield, IL 62756 Secretary of State
http://www.sos.state.il.us Date 6-11-99
- -------------------------------
Payment must be made by certi- Franchise Tax $ 25.00
fied check, cashier's check, Illi- JESSE WHITE Filing Fee $ 75.00
nois attorney's check, Illinois SECRETARY OF STATE
C.P.A.'s check or money order, Approved: $100.00
payable to "Secretary of State."
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. CORPORATE NAME: ENERGY CONVERGENCE HOLDING COMPANY
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(The corporate name must contain the word "corporation", "company", "incorporated," "limited" or an abbreviation thereof.)
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Initial Registered Agent: LEAH M. STETZNER
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Name Middle Initial Last name
Initial Registered Office: 500 SOUTH 27TH STREET
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number Street Suite #
DECATUR IL MACON 62525
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City County Zip Code
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Purpose or purposes for which the corporation is organized:
(If not sufficient space to cover this point, add one or more sheets of this size.)
To transact any or all lawful businesses for which corporation may be incorporated under the Business Corporation Act of 1983, as
amended from time to time.
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Paragraph 1: Authorized Shares, Issued Shares and Consideration Received:
Par Value Number of Shares Number of Shares Consideration to be
Class per Share Authorized Proposed to be Issued Received Therefor
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Common $0.01 1,000 1,000 $1,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL= $1,000
Paragraph 2: The preferences, qualifications, limitations, restrictions and special or relative rights in respect of the shares
of each class are:
(If not sufficient space to cover this point, add one or more sheets of this size.)
EXPEDITED
JUNE 11, 1999
SECRETARY OF STATE
(over)
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S> <C> <C>
5. OPTIONAL: (a) Number of directors constituting the initial board of directors of the corporation:____________________________.
(b) Names and addresses of the persons who are to serve as directors until the first annual meeting of shareholders or
until their successors are elected and qualify:
Name Residential Address City, State, ZIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. OPTIONAL: (a) It is estimated that the value of all property to be owned by the corporation
for the following year wherever located will be: $____________________________
(b) It is estimated that the value of the property to be located within the State
of Illinois during the following year will be: $____________________________
(c) It is estimated that the gross amount of business that will be transacted by
the corporation during the following year will be: $____________________________
(d) It is estimated that the gross amount of business that will be transacted from
places of business in the State of Illinois during the following year will be: $____________________________
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. OPTIONAL: OTHER PROVISIONS
Attach a separate sheet of this size for any other provision to be included in the Articles of Incorporation, e.g.,
authorizing preemtive rights, denying cumulative voting, regulating internal affairs, voting majority requirements,
fixing a duration other than perpetual, etc.
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. NAME(S) & ADDRESS(ES) OF INCORPORATOR(S)
The undersigned incorporator(s) hereby declare(s), under penalties of perjury, that the statements made in the foregoing
Articles of Incorporation are true.
Dated June 11 , 1999
------------------- ---------
(Month & Day) Year
Signature and Name Address
1. /s/ Delane Cathers 1. 3612 Spanish Trace
------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------
Signature Street
DELANE CATHERS Springfield, IL 62707
------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------
(Type or Print Name) City/Town State ZIP Code
2. 1.
------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------
Signature Street
------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------
(Type or Print Name) City/Town State ZIP Code
3. 1.
------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------
Signature Street
------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------
(Type or Print Name) City/Town State ZIP Code
(Signatures must be in BLACK INK on original document. Carbon copy, photocopy or rubber stamp signatures may only be used on
conformed copies.)
NOTE: If a corporation acts as incorporator, the name of the corporation and the state of incorporation shall be shown and the
execution shall be by its president or vice president and verified by him, and attested by its secretary or assistant secretary.
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEE SCHEDULE
. The initial franchise tax is assessed at the rate of 15/100 of 1 percent ($1.50 per $1,000) on the paid-in capital represented
in this state, with a minimum of $25.
. The filing fee is $75.
. The minimum total due (franchise tax + filing fee) is $100.
(Applies when the Consideration to be Received as set forth in Item 4 does not exceed $16,667)
. The Department of Business Services in Springfield will provide assistance in calculating the total fees if necessary.
Illinois Secretary of State Springfield, IL 62756
Department of Business Services Telephone (217) 782-9522 or 782-9523
C-162.20
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT A.2
Energy Convergence Holding Corporation
Article 4, Paragraph 2, continued:
A. General
All holders of Class A Common Stock (as defined) shall be entitled to
cumulative voting rights, as that term is used in Section 7.40 of the Illinois
Business Corporation Act of 1983, as amended from time to time (the "IBCA"), in
any election of directors. Holders of Class B Common Stock (as defined) shall
not be entitled to cumulative voting rights.
B. Provisions Relating to Preferred Stock
(1) Authority is hereby expressly vested in the Board of Directors (the
"Board") to divide, and to provide for the issue from time to time of, the
Preferred Stock in series and to fix and determine as to each such series:
(a) the designation of, and the number of shares to be issuable in,
such series;
(b) the dividend rate for the share for such series;
(c) the price or prices at which, and the terms and conditions on
which, such shares may be redeemed;
(d) the amount payable upon each of such shares in the event of
involuntary dissolution of the corporation;
(e) the amount payable upon each of such shares in the event of
voluntary dissolution of the corporation;
(f) sinking fund provisions, if any, for the redemption or purchase of
such shares (the term "sinking fund," as used herein, including any
analogous fund, however designated);
(g) if such shares are to be issued with the privilege of conversion
into shares of the Common Stock or other securities, the terms and
conditions on which such shares may be so converted; and
(h) the voting rights or the grant of special voting rights, provided
that the voting rights of such Preferred Stock are no greater in proportion
than to the economic interest of such Shares.
In all other respects the shares of Preferred Stock of all series shall be
identical. Holders of Preferred Stock shall have no preemptive rights.
Additional series of preferred stock may be issued pursuant to designation
by resolution of the Board of Directors and such series may have preferences
which are junior to, pari passu with or superior to an outstanding series of
preferred stock set forth in these articles of
1
<PAGE>
incorporation or created by designation without any vote of such outstanding
series of preferred stock unless the designation or terms of the outstanding
series of preferred stock expressly provides otherwise.
So long as any shares of any series of the Preferred Stock established by
resolution of the Board of Directors shall be outstanding, such resolution shall
not be amended so as to affect any of the preferences or other rights of the
holders of the shares of such series without the affirmative vote or the written
consent of the holders of at least a majority of the shares of such series
outstanding at the time or as of a record date fixed by the Board of Directors,
but such resolution may be so amended with such vote or consent.
C. Provisions Relating to Common Stock
(1) The total number of shares of common stock that the corporation shall
have authority to issue is 420,000,000 of which (i) 300,000,000 shares shall be
shares of Class A Common Stock, no par value per share (the "Class A Common
Stock"), and (ii) 120,000,000 shares shall be shares of Class B Common Stock, no
par value per share (the "Class B Common Stock" and, together with the Class A
Common Stock, the "Common Stock").
(2) Holders of the Common Stock shall have no preemptive rights. Except as
contemplated by Article 4, Paragraph 2C., each outstanding share of Common Stock
shall entitle the holder thereof to one vote (and not more than one vote) on
each matter submitted to a vote at a meeting of holders of Common Stock.
(3) The following is a statement of the relative powers, preferences and
participating, optional or other special rights, and the qualifications,
limitations and restrictions of the Class A Common Stock and Class B Common
Stock:
(a) Class A Common Stock and Class B Common Stock
Except as otherwise set forth in this Article 4, Paragraph 2C,
the relative powers, preferences and participating, optional or other
special rights, and the qualifications, limitations or restrictions of the
Class A Common Stock and Class B Common Stock shall be identical in all
respects.
(b) Dividends
Subject to the rights of the holders of Preferred Stock, and
subject to any other provisions of these Articles, holders of Common Stock
shall be entitled to receive such dividends and other distributions in
cash, stock of any corporation (other than Common Stock) or property of the
corporation as may be declared thereon by the Board of Directors from time
to time out of assets or funds of the corporation legally available
therefor and shall share equally on a per share basis in all such dividends
and other distributions. In the case of dividends or other distributions
payable in Common Stock, including distributions pursuant to stock splits
or divisions of Common Stock, only shares of Class A Common Stock shall be
paid or distributed with respect to Class A Common Stock and only shares of
Class B Common Stock shall be paid or distributed with respect to Class B
2
<PAGE>
Common Stock. The number of shares of Class A Common Stock and Class B
Common Stock so distributed on each share shall be equal in number.
Neither the shares of Class A Common Stock nor the shares of Class B
Common Stock may be reclassified, subdivided or combined unless such
reclassification, subdivision or combination occurs simultaneously and
in the same proportion for each class.
(c) Voting.
(i) Except as may be otherwise required by law or by the
provisions of this Article 4, Paragraph 2C.(3)(c), the holders of the
Class B Common Stock shall vote together with the holders of the Class
A Common Stock as a single class on every matter coming before any
meeting of the shareholders or otherwise to be acted upon by the
shareholders, subject to any voting rights which may be granted to
holders of any other class or series of Preferred Stock. So long as
any Class B Common Stock is outstanding, the corporation shall not
amend (x) Section 7 of Article III or Article X of the corporation's
By-laws (unless such amendment shall be approved by a majority of the
Class B directors present at the meeting where such amendment is
considered and a majority of the Directors then in office) or effect
any mergers, consolidations, reorganizations, or sales of assets
requiring shareholder approval under the IBCA or disposition of all or
substantially all of the corporation's assets without the affirmative
vote of 66-2/3% of the shares of Common Stock outstanding, voting as a
single class or (y) any provision of this Article 4, Paragraph
2C.(3)(c)(i) relating to the Common Stock without the affirmative vote
of 66-2/3% of the shares of Class B Common Stock outstanding, voting
as a separate class, and the affirmative vote of a majority of the
shares of Class A and Class B Common Stock, voting as a single class.
(ii) The Board of Directors of the corporation shall consist of
at least twelve members and no more than fifteen members as
established from time to time by resolution of the Board of Directors,
except that such numbers are subject to automatic adjustment as
necessary, under those circumstances and during those time periods
that holders of any other class or series of the corporation's
outstanding Preferred Stock have rights to elect members of the Board
of Directors (the "Preferred Stock Directors"), as set forth in these
Articles of Incorporation or in the resolution of the Board of
Directors establishing and designating such series and fixing and
determining the relative rights and preferences thereof. So long as
any shares of Class B Common Stock are outstanding, the holders of the
Class B Common Stock, as such holders, shall be entitled to vote as a
separate class for the election of three directors of the corporation
(the "Class B Directors") and the holders of the Class A Common Stock
shall be entitled to vote as a separate class for the remaining
directors of the corporation (the "Class A Directors"), excluding
Preferred Stock Directors, if any. At such time as no Class B Common
Stock is outstanding, the term of all Class B Directors shall
immediately end.
3
<PAGE>
(iii) For purposes of electing Class B Directors, the Board of
Directors will nominate such individuals as may be specified by a
majority vote of the then existing Class B Directors or, if there are
no Class B Directors, by holders of a majority of the Class B Common
Stock. The remaining directors will be nominated in accordance with
the corporation's Bylaws.
(iv) At any meeting having as a purpose the election of directors
by holders of the Common Stock, the presence, in person or by proxy,
of the holders of a majority of the shares of relevant class of Common
Stock then outstanding shall be required and be sufficient to
constitute a quorum of such class for the election of any director by
such holders. Each director shall be elected by the vote or written
consent required under the IBCA of the holders of such class. At any
such meeting or adjournment thereof, (i) the absence of a quorum of
such holders of an applicable class of Common Stock shall not prevent
the election of the directors to be elected by the holders of shares
other than such class of Common Stock, and (ii) in the absence of such
quorum (either of holders of such class of Common Stock or of shares
other than such class of Common Stock, or both), a majority of the
holders, present in person or by proxy, of the class or classes of
stock which lack a quorum shall have power to adjourn the meeting for
the election of directors which they are entitled to elect, from time
to time, without notice other than announcement at the meeting, until
a quorum shall be present.
(v) Any vacancy in the office of a class of director may be
filled by the remaining directors of such class, unless such vacancy
occurred because of the removal (with or without cause) of a director,
in which event such vacancy shall be filled by the affirmative vote of
the holders of a majority of the outstanding shares of the applicable
class of Common Stock. Any or all of the directors may be removed,
with or without cause, by vote or by written consent in each case in
accordance with Section 8.35 of the IBCA by the holders of the
applicable class of Common Stock and not otherwise. Any director
elected to fill a vacancy shall serve the same remaining term as that
of his or her predecessor, subject, however, to prior death,
resignation, retirement, disqualification, or removal from office.
(vi) Without the affirmative vote of the holders of at least
66-2/3% of the outstanding shares of the Class B Common Stock or the
written consent of such holders of the Class B Common Stock, the
corporation may not effect any change in the rights, privileges or
preferences of the Class B Common Stock. This provision shall not be
applicable to any amendment to the Articles of Incorporation or
adoption of resolutions of the Board of Directors which establishes or
designates one or more classes or series of Preferred Stock in
accordance with Article 4, Paragraph 2B.(1).
(vii) With respect to actions by the holders of Class B Common
Stock upon those matters on which such holders are entitled to vote as
a separate class, such actions may be taken without a shareholders
meeting by the written consent of holders of the Class B Common Stock
who would be entitled to vote at a
4
<PAGE>
meeting those shares having power to cast not less than the minimum
number of votes that would be necessary to authorize or take such
action at a meeting at which all shares of Class B Common Stock
entitled to vote were present and voted. Notice shall be given in
accordance with the applicable provisions of the IBCA of the taking of
corporate action without a meeting by less than unanimous written
consent to those holders of Class B Common Stock on the record date
whose shares were not represented on the written consent.
(d) Transfer.
(i) If any person holding shares of Class B Common Stock of
record (a "Class B Holder") purports to transfer such shares of Class
B Common Stock, whether by sale, assignment, gift, bequest or
otherwise, except to a Permitted Transferee, such transfer shall be
deemed to constitute a request by the Class B Holder for conversion of
such shares and shall result in such shares being converted into Class
A Common Stock as provided by Article 4, Paragraph 2C.(3)(e).
(ii) In the case of a Class B Holder acquiring record and
beneficial ownership of the shares of Class B Common Stock in question
upon initial issuance by the corporation (an "Original Holder"), a
"Permitted Transferee" shall mean any Affiliate (as defined) of such
Original Holder.
In the case of a Class B Holder which is a Permitted Transferee
of an Original Holder, a "Permitted Transferee" shall mean:
(y) any Original Holder, or
(z) any Permitted Transferee of any Original Holder.
For this paragraph and Article 4, Paragraph 2C.(3)(e),
"Affiliate" means any corporation, partnership, limited liability
company or other entity (each, a "Person") that directly, or indirectly
through one or more intermediaries, controls, or is controlled by, or
is under common control with, another Person, and includes any Person
acting in concert with another Person.
(iii) With respect to a Class B Holder which holds shares by
virtue of its status as an Affiliate, the subsequent loss of Affiliate
status shall, unless within 15 days thereafter all shares of Class B
Common Stock held by such Class B Holder are transferred to an Original
Holder or a Permitted Transferee of an Original Holder, result in the
automatic conversion of all of its shares of Class B Common Stock into
shares of Class A Common Stock, and stock certificates formerly
representing such shares of Class B Common Stock shall thereupon and
thereafter be deemed to represent shares of Class A Common Stock as
provided by Article 4, Paragraph 2C.(3)(e).
(iv) Any transfer of shares of Class B Common Stock not permitted
hereunder shall result in the conversion of the transferee's shares of
Class B
5
<PAGE>
Common Stock into shares of Class A Common Stock as provided by
Article 4, Paragraph 2C.(3)(e), effective as of the date on which
certificates representing such shares are presented for transfer on
the books of the corporation or on such earlier date that the
corporation receives notice of such attempted transfer. The
corporation may, in connection with preparing a list of stockholders
entitled to vote at any meeting of stockholders, or as a condition to
the transfer or the registration of shares of Class B Common Stock on
the corporation's books, require the furnishing of such affidavits or
other proof as it deems necessary to establish that the person is the
beneficial owner of shares of Class B Common Stock or is a Permitted
Transferee.
(v) Shares of Class B Common Stock shall be registered in the
names of the beneficial owners thereof and not in "street" or
"nominee" name. For this purpose, a "beneficial owner" of any shares
of Class B Common Stock shall mean a person who, or any entity which,
possesses the powers, either singly or jointly, to direct the voting
or disposition of such shares. Certificates for shares of Class B
Common Stock shall bear a legend referencing the restrictions on
transfer imposed by this Article 4, Paragraph 2C.(3)(d).
(e) Conversion.
(i) Each share of Class B Common Stock shall be converted at such
time, in such manner and upon such terms and conditions as provided
herein into one fully paid and non-assessable share of Class A Common
Stock.
(ii) Each share of Class B Common Stock shall automatically
convert into a share of Class A Common Stock upon the earlier to occur
of (i) the holders of all Class B Common Stock ceasing to own in the
aggregate 15% of the issued and outstanding Common Stock, and (ii) as
provided in Article 4, Paragraph 2C.(3)(d). Upon automatic conversion
of shares of Class B Common Stock, the corporation shall reflect such
conversion, and the issuance of Class A Common Stock in connection
therewith on its books and records for all purposes even if
certificates reflecting such converted shares of Class B Common Stock
are not surrendered to the corporation or its transfer agent. All
shares of Class B Common Stock, upon conversion thereof into Class A
Common Stock, shall retain their designation as Class B Common Stock
and shall have the status of authorized and unissued shares of Class B
Common Stock; provided that if all shares of Class B Common Stock
outstanding are converted into shares of Class A Common Stock, then
all authorized but unissued shares of treasury shares of Class B
Common Stock shall automatically convert into authorized but unissued
or treasury shares of Class A Common Stock, as the case may be, and no
further shares of Class B Common Stock shall exist. Except as
specifically contemplated under this Article 4, Paragraph 2C.(3)(e),
shares of Class B Common Stock may not be converted into Class A
Common Stock.
(iii) Each share of Class A Common Stock owned (within the
meaning of Article 4, Paragraph 2C.(3)(d)) by Chevron U.S.A. Inc., a
Pennsylvania
6
<PAGE>
corporation ("Chevron") or its Affiliates shall simultaneous with
acquiring such ownership automatically be converted into one fully
paid and non-assessable share of Class B Common Stock; provided,
however, that for purposes of any shares of Class B Common Stock so
issued, only Chevron will be deemed to be the Original Holder thereof
for purposes of the provisions of Article 4, Paragraph 2C.(3)(d), and
provided, further, that this provision shall not apply with respect to
shares of Class A Common Stock issued upon conversion of all Class B
Common Stock in accordance with the first sentence of Article 4,
Paragraph 2C.(3)(e)(ii)(i), or any shares of Class A Common Stock
owned by Chevron or its Affiliates, after such conversion shall have
occurred. Upon automatic conversion of shares of Class A Common Stock,
the corporation shall reflect such conversion and the issuance of
Class B Common Stock in connection therewith on its books and records
for all purposes even if certificates reflecting such converted shares
of Class A Common Stock are not surrendered to the corporation for
transfer. All shares of Class B Common Stock shall be subject to the
restrictions and provisions contained in the corporation's Articles of
Incorporation. All shares of Class A Common Stock, upon conversion
thereof into Class B Common Stock, shall retain their designation as
Class A Common Stock and shall have the status of authorized and
unissued shares of Class A Common Stock.
(iv) Nothing herein shall prevent the Original Holder (or any
Permitted Transferee) of the Class B Common Stock and the corporation
from executing an agreement allowing the Original Holder (or any
Permitted Transferee), at its option, to convert the Class B Common
Stock into Class A Common Stock, nor the conversion of any Class B
Common Stock pursuant to such agreement.
(v) The corporation will, as soon as practicable after such
deposit of a certificate or certificates for Common Stock to be
converted in accordance with this Article 4, Paragraph 2C.(3)(e),
issue and deliver at the office of the corporation or of its transfer
agent to the person for whose account such Common Stock was so
surrendered, a certificate or certificates for the number of full
shares of Common Stock into which the shares represented by the
surrendered certificate are converted. If surrendered certificates for
Common Stock are converted only in part, the corporation will issue
and deliver to the holder, without charge therefor, a new certificate
or certificates representing the aggregate of the unconverted shares
of such class of Common Stock. The failure of the holder to deliver to
the corporation certificates representing shares of a class of Common
Stock converted in accordance with this Article 4, Paragraph
2C.(3)(e), shall in no way affect the automatic conversion of such
shares.
(vi) The issuance of certificates for shares of a class of Common
Stock upon conversion of shares of the other class of Common Stock
shall be made without charge for any issue, stamp or other similar tax
in respect of such issuance; provided, however, if any such
certificate is to be issued in a name other than that of the holder of
the share or shares of the class of Common Stock converted, the person
or persons requesting the issuance thereof shall pay to the
corporation the amount of any tax which may be payable in respect of
any transfer
7
<PAGE>
involved in such issuance or shall establish to the satisfaction of
the corporation that such tax has been paid.
(vii) The corporation shall at all times reserve and keep
available, solely for the purpose of issuance upon conversion of the
outstanding shares of Class B Common Stock, such number of shares of
Class A Common Stock as shall be issuable upon the conversion of all
such outstanding shares, provided that nothing contained herein shall
be construed to preclude the corporation from satisfying the
obligations in respect of the conversion of the outstanding shares of
Class B Common Stock by delivery of shares of Class A Common Stock
which are held in the treasury of the corporation. The corporation
shall take all such corporate and other actions as from time to time
may be necessary to insure that all shares of Class A Common Stock
issuable upon conversion of shares of Class B Common Stock upon issue
will be duly and validly authorized and issued, fully paid and
nonassessable and free of any preemptive or similar rights. In order
that the corporation may issue shares of Class A Common Stock upon
conversion of the Class B Common Stock, the corporation will endeavor
to comply with all applicable Federal and state securities laws and
will endeavor to list such shares to be issued upon conversion on such
securities exchange on which the Class A Common Stock is then listed.
(viii) The corporation shall at all times reserve and keep
available, solely for the purpose of issuance upon conversion of the
outstanding shares of Class A Common Stock a number of shares of Class
B Common Stock equal to 40% of the number of outstanding shares of
Class A Common Stock, provided that nothing contained herein shall be
construed to preclude the corporation from satisfying the obligations
in respect of the conversion of the outstanding shares of Class A
Common Stock by delivery of shares of Class B Common Stock which are
held in the treasury of the corporation. The corporation shall take
all such corporate and other actions as from time to time may be
necessary to insure that all shares of Class B Common Stock issuable
upon conversion of shares of Class A Common Stock upon issue will be
duly and validly authorized and issued, fully paid and nonassessable
and free of any preemptive or similar rights. In order that the
corporation may issue shares of Class B Common Stock upon conversion
of the Class A Common Stock, the corporation will endeavor to comply
with all applicable Federal and state securities laws.
(f) Except as may otherwise be required by law and for the equitable
rights and remedies which may otherwise be available to holders of Common
Stock, the shares of Common Stock shall not have any designations,
preferences, limitations or relative rights, other than those specifically
set forth in these Articles of Incorporation.
(g) The headings of the various subdivisions of this Section are for
convenience of reference only and shall not affect the interpretation of
any of the provisions of this Section.
8
<PAGE>
Article 7, Paragraph 1:
A. Right to Indemnification.
A director of the corporation shall not be personally liable to the
corporation or its shareholders for monetary damages for breach of fiduciary
duty as a director, except for liability (i) for any breach of the director's
duty of loyalty to the corporation or its shareholders, (ii) for acts or
omissions not in good faith or that involve intentional misconduct or a knowing
violation of law, (iii) under Section 8.65 of the IBCA, or (iv) for any
transaction from which the director derived an improper personal benefit. If the
IBCA is amended to authorize corporate action further eliminating or limiting
the personal liability of Directors, then the liability of a director or the
corporation shall be eliminated or limited to the full extent permitted under
the IBCA, as so amended. Any repeal or modification of this Article 7, Paragraph
1 by the shareholders of the corporation shall not adversely affect any right or
protection of a director of the corporation existing at the time of such repeal
or modification.
The corporation shall indemnify any person who was or is a party, or is
threatened to be made a party to any threatened, pending or completed action,
suit or proceeding, whether civil, criminal, administrative or investigative
(other than an action by or in the right of the corporation) by reason of the
fact that he is or was a director or officer of the corporation, or is or was
serving at the request of the corporation as a director or officer of another
corporation, partnership, joint venture, trust or other enterprise, against
expenses (including attorney's fees), judgments, fines and amounts paid in
settlement actually and reasonably incurred by him in connection with such
action, suit or proceeding, if he acted in good faith and in a manner he
reasonably believed to be in, or not opposed to be the best interests of the
corporation, and, with respect to any criminal action or proceeding, has no
reasonable cause to believe his conduct was unlawful. The termination of any
action, suit or proceeding by judgment, order, settlement, conviction, or upon a
plea of nolo contendere or its equivalent shall not, of itself, create a
presumption that the person did not act in good faith and in a manner which he
reasonably believed to be in or not opposed to be the best interests of the
corporation, or, with respect to any criminal action or proceeding, had
reasonable cause to believe that his conduct was unlawful.
B. Suit by Corporation or Shareholder
The corporation shall indemnify any person who was or is a party, or is
threatened to be made a party to any threatened, pending or contemplated action,
suit or proceeding by or in the right of the corporation to procure a judgment
in its favor by reason of the fact that he is or was a director or officer of
the corporation, or is or was serving at the request of the corporation as a
director or officer of another corporation, partnership, joint venture, trust or
other enterprise, against expenses (including attorneys' fees) actually and
reasonably incurred by him in connection with the defense or settlement of such
action, suit or proceeding, if he acted in good faith and in a manner he
reasonably believed to be in, or not opposed to the best interests of the
corporation, and except that no indemnification shall be made with respect to
any claim, issue or matter as to which such person has been finally adjudged to
have been liable to the corporation, unless, and only to the extent that the
court in which such action or suit was brought shall determine upon application
that, despite the adjudication of liability, but in view of all the
9
<PAGE>
circumstances of the case, such person is fairly and reasonably entitled to
indemnity for such expenses as the court shall deem proper.
C. Director Discretion
Any indemnification under Article 7, Paragraphs 1A. and B. (unless ordered
by a court) shall be made only as authorized in the specific case, upon a
determination that indemnification of the director or officer is proper in the
circumstances because he has met the applicable standard of conduct set forth in
Article 7, Paragraphs 1A. and B. Such determination shall be made (1) by the
board of directors by a majority vote of a quorum consisting of directors who
were not parties to such action, suit or proceeding, or (2) if such a quorum is
not obtainable (or, even if obtainable, a quorum of disinterested directors so
directs) by independent legal counsel in a written opinion, or (3) by the
shareholders. In the event, to the extent that a director or officer of the
corporation has been successful, on the merits or otherwise, in the defense of
any action, suit or proceeding referred to in Article 7, paragraphs 1A. and B.
or in defense of any claim, issue or matter therein, he shall be indemnified
against expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees) actually and reasonable
incurred by him in connection therewith.
D. Advancement of Expenses
(1) Reasonable expenses incurred in defending a civil or criminal action,
suit or proceeding shall be paid by the corporation in advance of the final
deposition of such action, suit or proceeding, upon receipt of (i) a statement
signed by such director or officer to the effect that such director or officer
acted in good faith and in a manner which he believed to be in, or not opposed
to the best interests of the corporation and (ii) an undertaking by or on behalf
of the director or officer to repay such amount, if it shall ultimately be
determined that he is not entitled to be indemnified by the corporation as
authorized in this Article.
(2) The board of directors may, by separate resolution adopted under and
referring to this Article of the by-laws, provide for securing the payment of
authorized advances by the creation of escrow accounts, the establishment of
letters of credit or such other means as the board deems appropriate and with
such restrictions, limitations and qualifications with respect thereto as the
board deems appropriate in the circumstances.
E. Non-Exclusivity of Rights and Contractual Nature
(1) The indemnification and advancement of expenses provided by or granted
under other subsections of this Article shall not be deemed exclusive of any
other rights to which those seeking indemnification or advancement of expenses
may be entitled under any by-law, agreement, vote of shareholders or
disinterested directors, or otherwise, both as to action in his official
capacity and as to action in another capacity while holding such office and
shall continue as to a person who has ceased to be a director or officer and
shall inure to the benefit of the heirs, executors and administrators of such a
person.
(2) The provisions of this Article 7, Paragraph 1 shall be deemed to be a
contract between the corporation and each director and officer who serves in
such capacity at any time while this Article 7, Paragraph 1 is in effect and any
indemnification provided under Article 7, Paragraph 1 to a person shall continue
after such person ceases to be an officer, director, agent or
10
<PAGE>
employee of the corporation as to all facts, circumstances and events occurring
while such person was such officer, director, agent or employee, and shall not
be decreased or diminished in scope without such person's consent, regardless of
their repeal or modification of this Article or any repeal or modification of
the Illinois Business Corporation Act or any other applicable law. If the scope
of indemnity provided by this Article 7, Paragraph 1 or any replacement article,
or pursuant to the Illinois Business Corporation Act or any modification or
replacement thereof is increased, then such person shall be entitled to such
increased indemnification as is in existence at the time indemnity is provided
to such person, it being the intent, subject to Article 7, Paragraph 1K., to
indemnify persons under this Article 7, Paragraph 1 to the fullest extent
permitted by law.
F. Insurance
The corporation may purchase and maintain insurance on behalf of any person
who is or was a director, officer, employee or agent of the corporation, or is
or was serving at the request of the corporation as a director, officer,
employee or agent of another corporation, partnership, joint venture, trust or
other enterprise, against any liability asserted against him and incurred by him
in any such capacity, or arising out of his status as such, whether or not the
corporation would have the power to indemnify him against such liability under
the provisions of this Article.
G. Report to Shareholders
The corporation shall report in writing to shareholders any indemnity or
advanced expenses paid to a director, officer, employee or agent with or before
the notice of the next shareholders' meeting.
H. Right of Claimant to Bring Suit
Subject to Article 7, Paragraph 1K., if a claim under this Article is not
promptly paid by the corporation after a written claim has been received by the
corporation or if expenses pursuant to Section 4 of this Article have not been
promptly advanced after a written request for such advancement accompanied by
the statement and undertaking required by Article 7, Paragraph 1D, of this
Article has been received by the corporation, the director or officer may at any
time thereafter bring suit against the corporation to recover the unpaid amount
of the claim or the advancement of expenses. If successful, in whole or in part,
in such suit, such director or officer shall also be entitled to be paid the
reasonable expense thereof, including attorneys' fees. It shall be a defense to
any such action (other than an action brought to enforce a claim for expenses
incurred in defending any proceeding in advance of its final disposition where
the required undertaking has been tendered to the corporation) that the director
or officer has not met the standards of conduct which make it permissible under
the Illinois Business Corporation Act for the corporation to indemnify the
director or officer for the amount claimed, but the burden of proving such
defense shall be on the corporation. Neither the failure of the corporation
(including its board of directors, independent legal counsel, or its
shareholders) to have made a determination, if required, prior to the
commencement of such action that indemnification of the director or officer is
proper in the circumstances because he or she has met the applicable standard of
conduct required under the Illinois Business Corporation Act, nor an actual
11
<PAGE>
determination by the corporation (including its board of directors, independent
legal counsel, or its shareholders) that the director or officer had not met
such applicable standard of conduct, shall be a defense to the action or create
a presumption that the director or officer had not met the applicable standard
of conduct.
I. Definition of "corporation"
For purposes of this Article, references to "the corporation" shall
include, in addition to the surviving corporation, any merging corporation
(including any corporation having merged with a merging corporation) absorbed in
a merger which, if its separate existence had continued, would have had the
power and authority to indemnify its directors, officers and employees or
agents, so that any person who was a director or officer of such merging
corporation, or was serving at the request of such merging corporation as a
director or officer of another corporation, partnership, joint venture, trust or
other enterprise, shall stand in the same position under the provisions of this
Article with respect to the surviving corporation as such person would have with
respect to such merging corporation if its separate existence had continued.
J. Employee Benefit Plans
For purposes of this Article, references to "other enterprises" shall
include employee benefit plans; references to "fines" shall include any excise
taxes assessed on a person with respect to an employee benefit plan; references
to "serving at the request of the corporation" shall include any service as a
director, officer, employee or agent of the corporation which imposes duties on,
or involves services by such director, officer, employee, or agent with respect
to an employee benefit plan, its participants, or beneficiaries; and references
to "officers" shall include elected and appointed officers. A person who acted
in good faith and in a manner he reasonably believed to be in the best interest
of the participants and beneficiaries of an employee benefit plan shall be
deemed to have acted in a manner "not opposed to the best interest of the
corporation" as referred to in this Article.
K. Reimbursement
Anything herein to the contrary notwithstanding, if the corporation
purchases insurance in accordance with Article 7, Paragraph 1F., the corporation
shall not be required to, but may (if the board of directors so determines in
accordance with this Article 7, Paragraph 1) reimburse any party instituting any
action, suit or proceeding if a result of the institution thereof is the denial
of or limitation of payment of losses under such insurance when such losses
would have been paid thereunder if a non-insured third party had instituted such
action, suit or proceedings.
L. Severability
If any portion of this Article shall be invalidated or held to be
unenforceable on any ground by any court of competent jurisdiction, the decision
of which shall not have been reversed on appeal, such invalidity or
unenforceability shall not affect the other provisions hereof, and this Article
shall be construed in all respects as if such invalid or unenforceable
provisions had been omitted therefrom.
12
<PAGE>
Article 7, Paragraph 2:
Without the consent of the holders of eighty-five percent (85%) of the
outstanding Common Stock, voting as a single class, the corporation may (and
may permit any subsidiary of the corporation over which it has control to) sell
the following products:
(1) crude oil;
(2) other products usually and normally refined as petroleum products from
crude oils; and
(3) natural gas liquids or liquefied petroleum gases;
irrespective of where such sales or products are made, only when the seller has
no actual knowledge that the sale is not for consumption or resale in one or
more of the following areas:
(a) the United States or any of its territories or possessions;
(b) any country wholly located in the Western Hemisphere and/or Europe
or surrounded by the Mediterranean Sea;
(c) any country all of the territory of which was formerly contained
within the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics;
(d) any country whose territory is contained within the territories
constituting as of the date hereof the countries known as Algeria, Angola,
Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Cote
D'Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Greenland, Guinea,
Guinea Bissau, Iceland, Liberia, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco,
Niger, Nigeria, Rio Muni, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey,
Western Sahara and/or Zaire;
(e) Antarctica; and
(f) international waters;
unless (x) otherwise permitted by the terms of that certain Scope of Business
Agreement, dated May 22, 1996, between Dynegy, Inc. and Chevron, as the same may
from time to time be amended in accordance with the terms thereof, or (y) such
Scope of Business Agreement is terminated pursuant to its terms, upon which
termination the provisions of this Article 7, Paragraph 2 shall be of no further
force and effect. A copy of such Scope of Business Agreement, as the same may be
amended, shall be available for inspection by any stockholder of the corporation
at the principal offices of the corporation. Except as indicated above or as
may otherwise be provided in these Articles of Incorporation or by Illinois law,
stockholders shall have no right to approve specific business activities of the
corporation, and the above provisions shall not otherwise affect corporate
powers and purposes as stated in Article 3.
13
<PAGE>
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
)
Illinova Corporation ) Docket No. EC99-__-000
Dynegy Inc. )
)
JOINT APPLICATION OF ILLINOVA CORPORATION
AND DYNEGY INC. FOR APPROVAL OF MERGER
AND REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION
VOLUME I: APPLICATION AND EXHIBITS
Merrill L. Kramer, P.C. James C. Beh
Carrie Hill Allen Clifford S. Sikora
Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP R. Michael Sweeney, Jr.
1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Troutman Sanders LLP
Suite 400 1300 I Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Suite 500 East
(202) 887-4444 Washington, D.C. 20005-3314
(202) 274-2950
Kenneth E. Randolph William B. Conway, Jr.
Senior Vice President Senior Vice President
General Counsel and Secretary and Chief Legal Officer
Kathryn L. Patton Illinova Corporation
Daniel A. King 500 South 27th Street
Dynegy Inc. Decatur, Illinois 62525-1805
1000 Louisiana (217) 450-2813
Suite 5800
Houston, Texas 77002
(713) 507-6816
Counsel for Counsel for
Dynegy Inc. Illinova Corporation
July 23, 1999
<PAGE>
TABLE OF CONTENTS
JOINT APPLICATION OF ILLINOVA CORPORATION
AND DYNEGY INC. FOR APPROVAL OF MERGER
AND REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION
VOLUME I
I. INTRODUCTION......................................................... 1
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE MERGER PARTIES.................................... 2
A. Illinova Corporation and Relevant Subsidiaries................... 2
1. Illinova Corporation......................................... 2
2. Illinois Power Company....................................... 3
3. Illinova Generating Company.................................. 6
4. Illinova Energy Partners, Inc................................ 6
B. Dynegy Inc. and Relevant Subsidiaries............................ 7
1. Wholesale Gas and Power...................................... 8
a. Energy Marketing......................................... 8
b. Power Generation Facilities.............................. 9
2. Natural Gas, Natural Gas Liquids, and Crude Oil Assets....... 10
a. Natural Gas Gathering and Processing..................... 10
b. Natural Gas Transportation............................... 11
c. NGL and Crude Oil Transportation......................... 12
d. NGL Fractionation and Storage............................ 13
III. OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED MERGER...................................... 13
A. Plan of Merger................................................... 13
B. Commission Jurisdiction and Standard of Review................... 16
IV. THE COMMISSION'S FILING REQUIREMENTS................................. 17
A. Applicants' Names and Addresses of Principal Business Offices.... 17
B. Names and Addresses of Persons Authorized to Receive Notices and
Communications with Respect to the Application................... 17
<PAGE>
C. Designation of Territories Served, by Counties and States........ 19
D. Description of Jurisdictional Facilities......................... 20
E. Description of the Transaction and Statement as to Consideration. 21
F. Description of the Facilities to Be Disposed of, Consolidated
or Merged....................................................... 21
G. Statement of the Cost of the Facilities Involved in the
Transaction..................................................... 21
H. Statement as to the Effect of the Sale or Transfer upon any
Contract for the Purchase, Sale or Interchange of Electric
Energy.......................................................... 22
I. Statement as to Other Required Regulatory Approvals.............. 22
J. Facts Showing That the Proposed Merger Will Be Consistent with
the Public Interest............................................. 23
K. Brief Statement of Franchises Held............................... 23
L. Form of Notice................................................... 23
V. THE PROPOSED MERGER IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST........... 23
A. The Proposed Merger Will Have No Effect on Competition........... 24
1. The Proposed Merger Presents No Horizontal Market Power
Concerns.................................................... 25
a. Generation market power.................................. 25
i. Total Capacity...... ............................... 27
ii. Uncommitted Capacity................................ 27
iii. Economic Capacity................................... 29
iv. Available Economic Capacity......................... 29
b. Transmission market power................................ 30
2. The Proposed Merger Presents No Vertical Market Power
Concerns.................................................... 30
B. The Proposed Merger Will Have No Adverse Impact on Rates......... 32
1. Effect on Wholesale Sales Rates.............................. 32
2. Effect on Wholesale Transmission Rates....................... 36
C. The Proposed Merger Will Have No Adverse Effect on Regulation.... 37
VI. MERGER ACCOUNTING.................................................... 38
VII. REQUEST FOR EXPEDITION............................................... 39
VIII. EXHIBITS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO 18 C.F.R. (S)33.3...................... 40
IX. CONCLUSION........................................................... 41
ii
<PAGE>
ATTACHMENT 1............................................................... 1-1
Illinova Generating Company Description of Facilities.................... 1-1
ATTACHMENT 2............................................................... 2-1
Dynegy Inc. Description of Facilities.................................... 2-1
Existing Power Generation Facilities................................... 2-1
Generation Facilities Under Development................................ 2-8
ATTACHMENT 3
Direct Testimony of William H. Hieronymus
EXHIBITS
Exhibit A: Copies of Resolutions of Applicant's Board of Directors
Exhibit B: Description of Applicant's Corporate Structure
Exhibit C: Actual and Pro Forma Balance Sheets and Plant Schedules
Exhibit D: Statement of All Known and Contingent Liabilities
Exhibit E: Actual and Pro Forma Income Statements
Exhibit F: Actual and Pro Forma Analysis of Retained Earnings
Exhibit G: Other Required Regulatory Filings
Exhibit H. [Volume II]
Exhibit I: Map
VOLUME II
Exhibit H: Contracts Related to Sale
iii
<PAGE>
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
)
Illinova Corporation ) Docket No. EC99-__-000
Dynegy Inc. )
)
JOINT APPLICATION OF ILLINOVA CORPORATION
AND DYNEGY INC. FOR APPROVAL OF MERGER
AND REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION
I. INTRODUCTION.
Pursuant to Section 203 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. (S)824b
(1994 & Supp. 1998) ("FPA") and Part 33 of the Commission's Regulations, 18
C.F.R. (SS)33.1 et seq. (1999), Illinova Corporation ("Illinova"), an Illinois
corporation, and Dynegy Inc. ("Dynegy"), a Delaware corporation (collectively
"Applicants"), hereby submit this joint application ("Application") on behalf of
their public utility subsidiaries seeking all authorizations from the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC" or the "Commission") necessary for the
completion of a series of transactions (collectively the "Proposed Merger")
pursuant to which Energy Convergence Holding Company ("Newco"), an Illinois
corporation, will: (1) acquire control of, and the entire equity interest in,
all of the issued and outstanding shares of the common stock of Illinova and
Dynegy, through the merger of each entity into distinct subsidiaries of Newco,
with Illinova and Dynegy emerging as the surviving corporations; and (2) by
means of the acquisition of Illinova and Dynegy indirectly acquire control of,
and the entire equity interest in, their public utility subsidiaries.(1)
- ----------------
(1) Upon consummation of the Proposed Merger, Newco will be renamed Dynegy Inc.
<PAGE>
Completion of the Proposed Merger is expected to occur not later than
the end of the first quarter of 2000, and Applicants therefore request that the
Commission act to approve this Application by the end of 1999. The Commission
undertook such prompt review and approved substantially similar transactions
recently filed by Central Illinois Light Company and The AES Corporation,
Central Illinois Light Co., et. al., 87 FERC (P)61,293 (1999) ("CILCO/AES"),
and by MidAmerican Energy Company and MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company.
MidAmerican Energy Company, et. al., 85 FERC (P)61,354 (1998) ("MidAmerican").
The Proposed Merger is very similar to the CILCO and MidAmerican merger
transactions, as it involves the merger of a traditional utility company with an
independent power producer/energy marketer. As demonstrated below, the Proposed
Merger satisfies fully the standard set forth in Order No. 592, Inquiry
Concerning the Commission's Merger Policy Under the Federal Power Act: Policy
Statement, FERC Stats. & Regs. (Regulations Preambles) (P)31,044 (1996), on
reconsideration, Order No. 592-A, 79 FERC (P)61,321 (1997) ("Merger Policy
Statement"). Thus, Applicants respectfully request that the Commission approve
this Application without evidentiary hearing and on the same expedited basis as
the Commission's proceedings with regard to the MidAmerican and CILCO/AES
transactions.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE MERGER PARTIES.
A. Illinova Corporation and Relevant Subsidiaries.
1. Illinova Corporation.
Illinova is an Illinois corporation and a public utility holding company
exempt from registration under Section 3(a)(1) of the Public Utility Holding
Company Act of 1935, 15 U.S.C. (S)79c(a)(1) ("PUHCA"). Illinova does not
directly own, operate, or control any facilities used for the generation,
transmission, and distribution of electric energy and power in interstate com-
2
<PAGE>
merce. Illinova has three public utility subsidiaries, which are described
further below.(2) Illinova and its subsidiaries are described collectively
herein as the "Illinova Parties." An organizational chart depicting the
principal entities within the Illinova holding company system is attached hereto
in Exhibit B.
2. ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY
Illinois Power Company ("Illinois Power"), a direct wholly-owned
subsidiary of Illinova, is an electric and natural gas public utility operating
company that owns electric generation, transmission and distribution facilities
and natural gas distribution facilities located in the State of Illinois.
Illinois Power provides retail electric service to approximately 570,000
customers and retail natural gas service to approximately 400,000 customers, who
are located throughout portions of northern, central, and southern Illinois.
Illinois Power's retail operations are subject to the jurisdiction of the
Illinois Commerce Commission ("ICC"). Illinois Power also transmits and sells
electric energy and capacity at wholesale subject to the Commission's
jurisdiction's under Part II of the FPA. Illinois Power has no natural gas
facilities subject to the Commission's jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act
("NGA").
Currently, Illinois Power owns eight fossil-fired generating facilities
with an aggregate capacity of approximately 3,812 MW. These facilities are: (a)
the Baldwin Power Station, a 1751 MW generating facility located near Baldwin,
Illinois; (b) the Havana Power Station, a 666 MW generating station located near
Havana, Illinois; (c) the Hennepin Power Station, a 289 MW generating facility
located near Hennepin, Illinois; (d) the Oglesby Gas Turbines, a 60 MW gen-
- -----------------
(2) Illinova has two additional principal subsidiaries, Illinova Insurance
Company (IIC) and Illinova Business Enterprises, Inc. (IBE). IIC was licensed in
August of 1996 by the State of Vermont as a captive insurance company. ICC's
primary business is to insure the risks of the subsidiaries of Illinova and
risks related to or associated with their business enterprises. IBE was
incorporated in 1998. Its primary business is to be the intermediate holding
company for miscellaneous business activities not regulated by the Illinois
Commerce Commission or the FERC that do not fall within the business scope of
other Illinova subsidiaries.
3
<PAGE>
erating facility located in LaSalle County, Illinois; (e) the Stallings Gas
Turbines, a 77 MW generating station located in Madison County, Illinois; (f)
the Vermilion Power Station, a 185 MW generating station located near Oakwood,
Illinois; (g) the Wood River Power Station, a 607 MW generating facility located
near Alton, Illinois; and (h) the Tilton Energy Center, a 176 MW generating
plant located in Tilton, Illinois. Illinois Power also owns a 50-percent in
three combustion turbines with a combined net capacity of 5.25 MW located in
Bloomington, Illinois.
On June 29, 1999, Illinois Power, Illinova Power Marketing, Inc.
("WESCO") and Illinova requested Commission authorization pursuant to Section
203 of the FPA for Illinois Power to divest all of its fossil-fired generation
assets by transferring those assets to WESCO, a newly-formed affiliate/3/ that
will generate and market electric energy at wholesale./4/ This matter is pending
before the Commission in Docket No. EC99-99-000. At the outset, WESCO's primary
responsibility will be to continue to meet the electric supply needs of Illinois
Power's customers. This task will be accomplished through a proposed power
purchase agreement ("PPA") between WESCO and Illinois Power, which is currently
pending before the Commission in Docket No. ER99-3208-000. The initial term of
the PPA extends through December 31, 2004, the end of the so-called "Mandatory
Transition Period" established by the Illinois Restructuring Law,/5/ with
__________
/3/ The name "WESCO" (an acronym for "Wholesale Energy Services Company") was
originally used by Illinova Corporation for internal discussion purposes. The
affiliate will eventually be given a different name because Illinova Corporation
has discovered that the name "WESCO" is currently used by several existing
energy companies. For convenience, and as a "placeholder," the company is
currently incorporated in Illinois under the name "Illinova Power Marketing,
Inc."
/4/ In separate filings related to the June 29 filing, WESCO is seeking: (1)
approval under FPA Section 205 to make wholesale sales to non-affiliates at
market-based rates, as well as approval to sell capacity and energy to Illinois
Power under a proposed Power Purchase Agreement (see Docket No. ER99-3208-000);
and (2) approval under FPA Section 205 for an interconnection agreement between
itself and Illinois Power. WESCO has not filed the WESCO-Illinois Power
interconnection agreement, but plans to do so as soon as the agreement is
finalized.
/5/ During this period, the Illinois Restructuring Law, Illinois Electric
Service Customer Choice and Rate Relief Law of 1997, 220 ILL. COMP. STAT.
5/16-101-150 (West 1997), will introduce retail competition and customer choice
to electricity consumers in Illinois.
4
<PAGE>
provisions for annual renewal thereafter. On July 8, 1999, the Illinois Commerce
Commission approved the proposed transfer of the fossil plants to WESCO./6/
In addition to its fossil generation, Illinois Power owns a direct
100-percent interest in a 930 MW nuclear generating facility located near
Clinton, Illinois ("Clinton Power Station"). In late 1998, the Illinova and
Illinois Power Boards of Directors voted to exit nuclear operations at the
Clinton Power Station./7/ On April 15, 1999, Illinois Power announced that it
had entered into an interim agreement pursuant to which it planned to sell the
Clinton Power Station to AmerGen Energy Company, L.L.C. ("AmerGen"), a joint
venture owned by PECO Energy Company and British Energy. Subsequently, on June
30, 1999, Illinois Power and AmerGen signed definitive agreements for the sale
of the Clinton Power Station. The parties intend to close the sale of the
Clinton Power Station on or before December 31, 1999./8/ Sale of the Clinton
Power Station to AmerGen or another third party is a condition to the closing of
the Proposed Merger.
In addition to its generating assets, Illinois Power owns approximately
2,829 miles of transmission facilities with ratings from 69 to 345 kilovolts.
These facilities are interconnected with the following entities: Ameren Corp.,
American Electric Power Service Company ("AEP"),
- ----------
/6/ Illinois Commerce Comm'n v. Illinois Power Co., Proceeding Pursuant to
Section 16-111(g) of the Public Utilities Act Concerning Proposed Sale of Fossil
Fuel Fired Generating Plants, No. 99-0209 (July 8, 1999).
/7/ As part of its strategy to exit nuclear operations, and in order to make
Illinova more competitive in the restructured electric utility industry,
Illinois Power has implemented a quasi-reorganization pursuant to which it took
a substantial impairment loss through a write-down of the Clinton Power
Station's depreciated original cost ("Clinton Impairment"). The Clinton
Impairment resulted in a deficit of approximately $1.4 billion in Illinois
Power's retained earnings. This deficit in retained earnings has been
eliminated through the restatement of Illinois Power's existing assets and
liabilities to their current market value. The Commission approved the
accounting treatment used by Illinois Power to record the Clinton Impairment and
quasi-reorganization in a letter order issued pursuant to delegated authority on
April 5, 1999, in Docket No. AC99-35-000. The Applicants note that the Clinton
Impairment and quasi-reorganization are disclosed in Illinois Power's FERC Form
1 (Annual Report of Major Electric Utilities, Licensees and Others), which was
filed with the Commission on April 30, 1999, pursuant to 18 C.F.R. (S) 141.1.
/8/ The parties intend to apply for authorization to transfer the Clinton Power
Station from Illinois Power to AmerGen in a separate application under Section
203 of the FPA that will be filed with the Commission in the near future.
5
<PAGE>
Central Illinois Light Company, City of Spingfield, Illinois, Commonwealth
Edison Company ("ComEd"), Electric Energy, Inc., Louisville Gas and Electric
Company ("LG&E"), MidAmerican Energy Company, Southern Illinois Power
Cooperative, Soyland Power Cooperative, Inc., Tennessee Valley Authority, and
Western Illinois Power Cooperative. Illinois Power is a member of the
Mid-America Interconnected Network, Inc., is a participant in the
Illinois-Missouri Power Pool, and is a participant in the Midwest Independent
Transmission System Operator, Inc. ("Midwest ISO").
The Commission authorized Illinois Power to transact sales of electric
energy and power at market rates in Docket No. ER96-185-000. Illinois Power Co.,
Illinova Power Marketing, Inc., 73 FERC(P)61,371(1995) (Illinois Power).
Recently, the Commission accepted for filing Illinois Power's three-year updated
generation market power study in a letter order issued pursuant to delegated
authority on January 29, 1999, in Docket No. ER96-185-002.
3. Illinova Generating Company.
Illinova Generating Company ("Illinova Generating") is a direct
wholly-owned subsidiary of Illinova that indirectly owns equity interests in a
number of generation facilities and marketing companies located in North
America, Europe, Latin America and Asia./9/ Illinova Generating's ownership
interests in generating facilities and power marketing companies located in
North America are described in Attachment 1.
4. Illinova Energy Partners, Inc.
Illinova Energy Partners, Inc. ("IEP") is a direct wholly-owned
subsidiary of Illinova that is engaged in the brokering and marketing of
electric energy and power, natural gas, and other
- ----------
/9/ In addition to its ownership interests in generation facilities, Illinova
Generating owns a 100% interest in North American Energy Services Company
("NAES"), which supplies a broad range of operations, maintenance and support
services to the independent power generation industry. NAES is the operator of
certain generation facilities jointly owned by Illinova Generating and Tenaska,
Inc.
6
<PAGE>
energy commodities at wholesale and retail throughout North America. The
Commission authorized IEP to transact wholesale sales of electric energy and
power at market rates in Docket No. ER94-1475-000. Illinois Power Company,
Illinova Power Marketing, Inc., 71 FERC(P)61,172(1995) (Illinova
Marketing)./10/ The Commission accepted for filing IEP's three-year updated
generation market power study in a letter order issued pursuant to delegated
authority on June 19, 1998, in Docket No. ER98-3053-000.
IEP also owns interests in various natural gas marketers. IEP owns a
100-percent interest in Energy Dynamics, Inc., a natural gas marketer serving
large-volume commercial and industrial natural gas users located in the Chicago
area. In addition, IEP owns a 50-percent interest in Tenaska Marketing Ventures,
which focuses on natural gas marketing in the Midwestern United States./11/ IEP
also owns a 51-percent interest in EMC Gas Transmission Company, a retail gas
marketer operating in the State of Michigan./12/
B. Dynegy Inc. and Relevant Subsidiaries.
Dynegy, a Delaware corporation, is a holding company that, through
subsidiaries, is primarily engaged in the wholesale marketing of natural gas,
electricity, coal, natural gas liquids, crude oil, liquid petroleum gas and
related energy services. Dynegy also owns interests in a number of power
generation facilities. The issued and outstanding common stock of Dynegy is
principally owned by three entities: BG plc ("BG"), Chevron Corporation
("Chevron") and
- ----------
/10/ IEP was formerly named Illinova Power Marketing, Inc. A notice of
succession stating that Illinova Power Marketing, Inc. changed its name to IEP
was accepted for filing by the Commission in a letter order issued pursuant to
delegated authority on May 28, 1997, in Docket No. ER97-2833-000.
/11/ IEP and Tenaska Marketing Ventures have formed a separate entity, Tenaska
Marketing Canada, to market natural gas in Canada.
/12/ Energy Dynamics, Inc. and EMC Gas Transmission Company have previously been
subject to regulation as public utilities as a result of Commission acceptance
of market-rate tariffs filed by these entities. However, on June 23, 1999,
Energy Dynamics, Inc. and EMC Gas Transmission Company filed notices of
termination of these market rate schedules in Docket Nos. ER99-3345-000 and
ER99-3344-000, respectively.
7
<PAGE>
NOVA Chemicals Corp. ("NOVA"), which each own approximately 26 percent of the
issued and outstanding common stock of Dynegy. In addition, Chevron owns
approximately 8 million shares of Dynegy preferred stock. Ten percent of the
common stock of Dynegy is held by senior management, and the remaining shares
are publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE").
Dynegy is not presently affiliated with any traditional utility
companies. However, Dynegy owns interests in power marketers and
generation-owning entities that are "public utilities" as that term is defined
under Section 201(e) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. (S)824(e). Upon consummation of the
Proposed Merger, Dynegy and its public utility subsidiaries will become
affiliates of Illinois Power. Dynegy's operations are divided into two primary
business units: (1) Wholesale Gas and Power; an (2) Natural Gas Liquids. Each
business unit and its respective operations are described below.
1. Wholesale Gas and Power.
a. Energy Marketing.
Dynegy owns a direct 100-percent interest in three energy marketers,
described below:/13/
1. Dynegy Marketing and Trade ("Dynegy Marketing") is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Dynegy engaged in the marketing and trading of natural gas, coal,
natural gas liquids, crude oil, and liquid petroleum gas. As part of its
operation, Dynegy Marketing controls the domestic marketing of natural gas for
certain Chevron subsidiaries.
- ----------
/13/ In addition to the activities of its wholly-owned marketing companies,
Dynegy is also a party to certain retail marketing alliances. Through its
subsidiary Dynegy Marketing Trade, Dynegy owns a 50-percent interest in NICOR
Energy, L.L.C. ("NICOR"), which offers a variety of energy services to
industrial, commercial and residential customers in the Midwest. The remaining
50-percent in NICOR is owned by NICOR Energy Management Services. Further,
through its subsidiary Dynegy Hub Services, Inc., Dynegy owns a 20-percent
interest in Southstar Energy Services L.L.C. ("Southstar"), which offers a
variety of energy services to industrial, commercial and residential customers
in the Southeast. The remaining interest in Southstar is owned by Piedmont
Energy Company and Georgia Natural Gas Company.
8
<PAGE>
2. Electric Clearinghouse, Inc. ("ECI") is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Dynegy engaged in the marketing of electric energy and power and other energy
commodities at wholesale throughout North America. The Commission granted ECI
authority to transact sales of electric energy and power at wholesale in a
letter order issued pursuant to delegated authority on April 7, 1994, in Docket
No. ER94-968-000./14/
3. Dynegy Power Services, Inc. ("DPS") is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Dynegy engaged in the brokering and marketing of electric energy, natural gas,
and other energy commodities at wholesale and retail throughout North America.
The Commission granted DPS authority to transact wholesale sales of electric
energy and power at market rates in a letter order issued pursuant to delegated
authority on January 20, 1995, in Docket No. ER94-1612-000./15/
b. Power Generation Facilities.
Aside from its ownership interests in the energy marketers described
above, Dynegy, through intermediate subsidiaries, indirectly owns interests in a
number of generating facilities located or to be constructed throughout North
America. Dynegy's indirect ownership interests in these facilities are described
in Attachment 2. In several instances, Dynegy's combined ownership interest with
other public utility owners in certain qualifying facilities under PURPA may
exceed 50 percent. Prior to the closing of the Proposed Merger, Dynegy will
take such action
- ----------
/14/ On June 21, 1999, in Docket No. ER99-3322-000, ECI and Illinois Power filed
amendments to their market-rate tariffs authorizing them to sell energy and
capacity to each other. The filing was required as a result of Applicants'
announcement of their intention to merge, which caused the Applicants (along
with their respective subsidiaries) to be treated as affiliates under Commission
precedent. As part of the June 21 filing, ECI also submitted a proposed Code of
Conduct as a supplement to its market-rate tariff.
/15/ DPS was formerly named Destec Power Services, Inc. See Notice of Succession
Letter Order issued November 28, 1998, in Docket No. ER99-318-000. DPS is
engaged almost exclusively in power marketing activities in Texas and
California. DPS neither sells nor markets power to Illinois Power or its
affiliates. DPS commits not to engage in any power marketing transactions with
the Illinova Parties.
9
<PAGE>
with regard to these qualifying facilities as is necessary to continue to comply
with the requirements of the Commission's regulations under PURPA or the Energy
Policy Act of 1992.
2. Natural Gas, Natural Gas Liquids, and Crude Oil Assets.
Operating through various indirect subsidiaries, Dynegy engages in the
gathering, processing, and transportation of natural gas; the transportation,
fractionation and storage of natural gas liquids ("NGLs"); and the
transportation of crude oil in the Untied States and Canada.
In addition to these assets, Dynegy also owns a 100-percent interest in
Gasification Services, Inc. ("GSI"). GSI is the lessee of a coal gasification
facility owned by Wabash River Assets Partnership, L.P. located in W. Terre
Haute, Indiana (the "Wabash Facility"). The Wabash Facility converts coal
(supplied by PSI Energy, Inc. ("PSI")) into fuel for PSI's 262 MW "Wabash River
Coal Gasification Repowering Project." Currently, GSI is providing that service
for PSI pursuant to a long-term contract. However, pending approval by Indiana
regulatory authorities, that contract will be bought out by PSI. Regulatory
approval is expected as early as September, which could result in the closing of
the buyout as early as October. At that time, it is anticipated that Dynegy
would sell the Wabash Facility to a third party.
a. Natural Gas Gathering and Processing.
Through Dynegy Midstream Services, Limited Partnership ("Midstream
Services"), an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary, Dynegy engages in the
gathering and processing of natural gas in the United States. Midstream Services
has ownership interests in and operates natural gas processing and related
gathering facilities in Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, and
Wyoming and offshore Louisiana in the Gulf of Mexico. Dynegy also owns and
operates two processing plants in Alberta, Canada, under an indirect, wholly-
owned subsidiary, Dynegy Canada, Inc.
10
<PAGE>
The gathering facilities deliver raw natural gas from small diameter
gathering systems to processing facilities that are used to remove NGLs from the
raw gas stream for their economic value, and to refine raw natural gas into
marketable, pipeline quality natural gas. Dynegy's processing facilities consist
of both field plants, which process volumes aggregated from upstream gathering
systems, and straddle plants situated on interstate natural gas pipelines.
Dynegy's processing facilities are not subject to the Commission's jurisdiction
under the NGA./16/
b. Natural Gas Transportation.
Dynegy indirectly owns and operates various intrastate and interstate
pipelines that transport natural gas. Unless otherwise stated, these facilities
are not subject to the Commission's jurisdiction.
1. Dynegy indirectly owns a 100-percent interest in Kansas Gas Supply
Corporation ("KGS"), an intrastate natural gas pipeline located in Kansas. KGS
is regulated by the Kansas Corporation Commission as a natural gas utility in
Kansas, and is subject to the FERC's jurisdiction to the extent that it provides
transportation service pursuant to Section 311 of the Natural Gas Policy Act. In
1998, KGS had an average throughput of approximately 61 MMcf per day.
2. Dynegy indirectly owns a 100-percent interest in Dynegy Intrastate
Gas Supply, Inc. ("DIGS"), an intrastate natural gas pipeline located in Texas
and regulated by the Texas Railroad Commission. In 1998, DIGS had an average
throughput of 6 MMcf per day.
3. Dynegy indirectly owns a 100-percent interest in Dynegy Midstream
Pipeline, Inc. ("DMP"), a natural gas pipeline located in Oklahoma that operates
as an open-access pipeline subject to NGA regulation by the Commission. In 1998,
DMP had an average throughput of approximately 34 MMcf per day.
- ----------
/16/ See, e.g., Texas Eastern Gas Transmission Corp., 43 FERC(P)61,044(1988).
11
<PAGE>
4. Dynegy indirectly owns a 23-percent interest in Venice Energy
Services Company, L.L.C., which in turn owns 100 percent of Venice Gathering
System, L.L.C. ("VGS"). VGS transports raw natural gas from various offshore
production platforms in the Gulf of Mexico and delivers it onshore in
Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. VGS is an open access pipeline subject to NGA
regulation by the Commission. In 1998, VGS had an average throughput of 435 MMcf
per day.
c. NGL and Crude Oil Transportation.
1. Dynegy indirectly owns a 100-percent interest in Dynegy Crude
Gathering Services, Inc. This company operates a crude oil pipeline facility in
Oklahoma and a dual-phase crude oil/NGL line in Louisiana. In 1998, these
facilities had an average throughput of approximately 27,000 barrels per day.
2. Dynegy indirectly owns a 100-percent interest in Dynegy NGL Pipeline
Company ("NGL Pipeline Company"). NGL Pipeline Company owns NGL pipeline
facilities located in Louisiana, Texas, Utah and Wyoming. In 1998, NGL Pipeline
Company had an average throughput of approximately 27,000 barrels per day. The
rates and practices of NGL Pipeline Company are subject to regulation by the
Commission under the Interstate Commerce Act and the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
3. Dynegy indirectly owns a 39-percent interest in the West Texas LPG
Pipeline. The rates and practices of the West Texas LPG Pipeline are subject to
regulation by the Commission under the Interstate Commerce Act. In 1998, the
West Texas LPG system had an average throughput of 125,000 barrels per day.
12
<PAGE>
4. Dynegy indirectly owns a 100-percent interest in Dynegy Oil Pipeline
Company. This company owns a crude oil pipeline facility in Texas. In 1998, this
facility had an average throughput of 5,000 barrels per day.
d. NGL Fractionation and Storage.
Through indirect, wholly-owned subsidiaries, Dynegy owns an interest in
other entities that own NGL fractionation plants located in Texas. In addition,
through Midstream Services, Dynegy owns an interest in a fractionation plant
located in Louisiana. These facilities are used to separate the commingled
stream of NGLs removed from a raw natural gas stream into marketable component
products such as butane and propane. Dynegy also has ownership interests in and
operates NGL product storage and terminal facilities located in Louisiana,
Texas, Mississippi, Kentucky and Florida.
III. OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED MERGER.
A. Plan of Merger.
The Proposed Merger will be implemented in accordance with the Agreement
and Plan of Merger by and among Illinova, Newco, Energy Convergence Acquisition
Company, Dynegy Acquisition Company, and Dynegy, dated June 14, 1999 ("Plan of
Merger"). A copy of the Plan of Merger is attached hereto as part of Exhibit H.
Pursuant to the Delaware General Corporate Law ("DGCL") and the Illinois
Business Corporation Act of 1983, as amended ("IBCA"), the Proposed Merger will
take place through a series of transactions culminating with Newco's acquisition
of the entire equity interest in Illinova and Dynegy and their respective public
utility subsidiaries. In connection with the Proposed Merger, Illinova has
created Newco as an Illinois corporation. Newco, in turn, has formed two wholly-
owned subsidiaries, Energy Convergence
13
<PAGE>
Acquisition Company ("IAC"), an Illinois corporation, and Dynegy Acquisition
Company ("DAC"), a Delaware corporation.
The Proposed Merger will be accomplished by two concurrent mergers. In
the first merger, IAC will be merged with and into Illinova, with Illinova as
the surviving corporation ("IAC Merger"). Each outstanding share of the common
stock of Illinova will be converted into one share of Newco Class A common
stock. Concurrent with the first merger, DAC will be merged with and into
Dynegy, with Dynegy as the surviving corporation ("DAC Merger"). Except as noted
below with regard to BG, Chevron and NOVA, each outstanding share of the common
stock of Dynegy will be converted into either: (a) $16.50 in cash (subject to a
cap on the total cash that may be received in the aggregate by Dynegy
shareholders); or (b) 0.69 shares of Newco Class A common stock. Fractional
shares will be cashed out. At the effective time of the Proposed Merger, IAC and
DAC will cease to exist as corporate entities.
Upon consummation of the Proposed Merger, Newco will continue its
existence as a corporation under Illinois law/17/ and will directly own all of
the issued and outstanding capital stock of Illinova and directly and indirectly
own all of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Dynegy. Accordingly,
Illinova and Dynegy will be wholly-owned subsidiaries of Newco. Illinova and
Dynegy will continue to own all of their pre-merger assets and be liable for all
of their respective liabilities. Illinova's debt and Dynegy's debt will remain
the obligations of Illinova and Dynegy, respectively./18/
Simultaneously with the execution of the Plan of Merger, Newco and
British Gas Atlantic Holdings BV ("BGAH"), a Netherlands corporation and
wholly-owned subsidiary of BG, en-
- ------------------
/17/ As noted above, upon consummation of the Proposed Merger, Newco will be
renamed Dynegy Inc.
/18/ Illinova and Dynegy have not yet determined whether Newco will provide
guarantees of such debt.
14
<PAGE>
tered into a Stock Purchase Agreement ("BG Stock Purchase Agreement")/19/
pursuant to which Newco will purchase 100 percent of the issued and outstanding
shares of capital stock of BG Holdings, Inc. (BG Holdings") from BGAH in
exchange for a combination of cash and Series A Convertible Preferred Stock
("Preferred Stock"). Under the BG Stock Purchase Agreement, BGAH will receive
the same amount in a combination of cash and Preferred Stock in consideration
for the capital stock of BG Holdings as BG Holdings would have received in the
Proposed Merger by virtue of its ownership of shares of Dynegy common stock.
Upon the consummation of the Proposed Merger, and depending on actual
stockholder elections, BGAH will own a 3.5% to 5% equity interest in Newco.
Concurrently with the execution of the Plan of Merger and the BG Stock
Purchase Agreement, Newco and Chevron entered into a Subscription Agreement
pursuant to which Chevron will purchase a minimum of $200 million and a maximum
of $240 million of Newco Class B common stock ("Class B Shares") concurrently
with the closing of the Proposed Merger (the "Equity Investment"). Additionally,
pursuant to the Plan of Merger, Chevron will receive Newco Class B Shares in the
DAC Merger (rather than Class A common stock) in exchange for Chevron's equity
interest in the common and preferred stock of Dynegy. By virtue of its
acquisition of Class B Shares in the Proposed Merger and the Equity Investment,
Chevron will own a 28% to 29% equity interest in Newco. Pursuant to the terms of
the Class B Shares, Chevron will have certain minority shareholder protection
rights with respect to Newco, including the right to appoint three members to
the Newco Board of Directors.
Pursuant to the terms of the Plan of Merger, NOVA will receive in the
DAC Merger a combination of cash and Preferred Stock in exchange for its entire
equity interest in the common
- ------------------
/19/ The Stock Purchase Agreement is attached hereto as part of Exhibit H.
15
<PAGE>
stock of Dynegy. Upon the consummation of the Proposed Merger, and depending
upon actual stockholder elections. NOVA will own a 3.5% to 5% equity interest in
Newco.
The remainder of Newco Class A common stock will be owned, in part, by
Newco management, and the remaining shares not owned by Newco management will be
publicly traded on the NYSE.
B. Commission Jurisdiction and Standard of Review.
Commission precedent is clear that when a corporation that owns all of
the voting securities of a public utility merges with another corporation, the
merger results in a transfer of control over, and thus a disposition of, the
public utility's jurisdiction facilities that requires prior Commission approval
under Section 203 of the FPA. See Duke Power Co. and PanEnergy Corp. 79
FERC 61,236 (1997)("Duke/PanEnergy"); Enova Corp. and Pacific Enterprises,
79 FERC (P)61,107 (1997)("Enova/Pacific"); Central Vermont Public Service Corp.,
39 FERC (P)61,295 (1987). The indirect merger of Illinova's and Dynegy's public
utility assets involves, inter alia, the disposition of facilities subject to
Commission jurisdiction under Section 203 of the FPA.
Under Section 203 of the FPA, the Commission will approve a merger if
it will be "consistent with the public interest." 16 U.S.C. (S)824b(a). The
Commission's policy for determining whether a proposed transaction will be
consistent with the public interest under Section 203 of the FPA is to apply the
three-part test established in the Merger Policy Statement. Although other
aspects of the Proposed Merger may relate to facilities outside of the
Commission's jurisdiction, in order to assist the Commission in its evaluation
of the Proposed Merger, this Application demonstrates that the entire Proposed
Merger is consistent with the public interest and satisfies the Merger Policy
Statement standard.
16
<PAGE>
IV. THE COMMISSION'S FILING REQUIREMENTS.
The following information is provided in compliance with 18 C.F. R.
(S)33.2 (1998).
A. Applicants' Names and Addresses of Principal Business Offices.
Illinova Corporation
Illinova is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business
at 500 S. 27th Street, Decatur, Illinois 62525-1805.
Dynegy Inc.
Dynegy is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at
1000 Louisiana, Suite 5800, Houston, Texas 77002.
B. Names and Addresses of Persons Authorized to Receive Notices and
Communications with Respect to the Application.
Applicants request that notices, correspondence, and other
communications concerning this Application be directed to the following persons:
For Illinova Corporation:
James C. Beh
Clifford S. Sikora
R. Michael Sweeney, Jr.
TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
1301 I Street, N.W., Suite 500 East
Washington, D.C. 20005-3314
(202)274-2939 (telephone)
(202)274-2994 (facsimile)
[email protected] (e-mail)
17
<PAGE>
William B. Conway, Jr.
Senior Vice President and Chief Legal Officer
Illinova Corporation
500 S. 27th Street
Mail Stop B25
Decatur, Illinois 62525-1805
(217)450-2813 (telephone)
(217)362-7458 (facsimile)
[email protected] (e-mail)
For Dynegy Inc.:
Merrill L. Kramer, P.C.
Carrie Hill Allen
AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD, LLP
1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202)887-4444 (telephone)
(202)887-4288 (facsimile)
[email protected] (e-mail)
Kenneth E. Randolph Peter G. Esposito
Senior Vice President, General Vice President and Regulatory
Counsel and Secretary Counsel
Kathryn L. Patton Daniel A. King
Senior Director and Regulatory Director and Regulatory Counsel
Counsel Dynegy, Inc.
Dynegy Inc. 805 15th Street, N.W.
1000 Louisiana Washington, D.C. 20005
Suite 5800 Suite 510-A
Houston, Texas 77002 (202)216-1122 (telephone)
(713)507-6816 (telephone) (202)842-9182 (facsimile)
(713)507-6808 (facsimile) [email protected] (e-mail)
[email protected] (e-mail)
The Applicants also request that the foregoing persons be placed on the
official service list for this proceeding./20/
- -----------------
/20/ The Applicants request that, to the extent necessary, the Commission
waive the limitations of Rule 203(b)(3), 18 C.F.R. (S)385.203(b)(3), so that
each person named above may be placed on the official service list. Such waiver
will avoid potential delays by Applicants in responding to official documents
and communications.
18
<PAGE>
C. Designation of Territories Served, by Counties and States.
The Illinova Parties
Illinois Power is an investor-owned public utility operating company
principally engaged in the business of furnishing retail electric service to
approximately 570,000 customers and retail natural gas service to approximately
400,000 customers, who are located throughout portions of northern, central, and
southern Illinois. Illinois Power's service territory includes approximately
2,829 circuit miles of interconnected transmission lines operated at voltages
from 69 to 345 kilovolts.
Described below are the municipal electric franchises currently held by
Illinois Power: Abington; Alexis; Atkinson; Avon; Beckemeyer, Belleville; Benld;
Bethalto; Bloomington; Brighton; Brooklyn; Bunker Hill; Cahokia; Cambridge;
Carlinville; Caseyville, Central City; Centralia; Centreville; Cerro Gordo;
Champaign; Chenoa; Chester; Chrisman; Coulterville; Danville; De Pue; Decatur;
DuQuoin; Dupo; E. Alton; Edwardsville; El Paso; Eldorado; Fairview Heights;
Farmer City; Forsyth; Freeburg; Galesburg; Galva; Georgetown; Germantown;
Gillespie; Glen Carbon; Granite City; Granville; Greenville; Gridley;
Harristown; Hegeler; Hillsboro; Illiopolis; Jacksonville; Kewanee; Kirkwood;
Knoxville; La Harpe; La Salle; LeRoy; Lebanon; Lexington; Litchfield; Mackinaw;
Madison; Mahomet; Marissa; Maroa; Marseilles; Maryville; Millstadt; Monmouth;
Monticello; Morrisonville; Mount Olive; New Athens; New Baden; Normal; O'Fallon;
Odin; Okawville; Oquawka; Ottawa; Percy; Peru; Pinckneyville; Pontoon Beach;
Princeton; Ramsey; Ridge Farm; Ridgway; Roxana; South Jacksonville; South
Roxana; Salem; Sandoval; Savoy; Shawneetown; Sheffield; Shiloh; Smithton;
Sparta; Spring Valley; Staunton; Steeleville; Swansea; Thomasboro; Tilden;
Tilton; Trenton; Troy; Urbana; Vandalia; Venice; Viola; Wamac; Warrensburg;
Westville; Witt; Wood River; and Wyanet.
19
<PAGE>
Other than Illinois Power, the remaining Illinova Parties do not have
any designated services territories.
Dynegy Inc.
Dynegy's only subsidiary with designated service territories is KGS,
which has designated franchise areas in Kiowa, Edwards, Pawness, Stafford,
Barton and Ford Counties in the State of Kansas.
D. Description of Jurisdictional Facilities.
The Illinova Parties
Illinois Power owns books and records and has on file with the
Commission numerous agreements, rate schedules, and tariffs pursuant to which it
provides transmission service and engages in sales of electricity at wholesale.
The Physical FERC-jurisdictional facilities that are the subject of this filing
consist of Illinois Power's interconnected transmission facilities, including
transmission lines, substations, generation step-up transformers, meters,
related high voltage circuit breakers and associated protective and control
equipment, and generation tie lines that connect Illinois Power's generation
facilities to the transmission grid to be operated by the Midwest Independent
Transmission System Operator ("Midwest ISO").
In addition, IEP and the other power marketers and independent power
producer subsidiaries of Illinova described above own books and records and have
numerous agreements, rate schedules, and tariffs on file with the Commission
pursuant to which they engage in sales of electricity at wholesale.
Dynegy Inc.
Through it subsidiaries with market-based pricing authority, Dynegy
indirectly owns jurisdictional facilities consisting of rate schedules and
contracts pursuant to which it engages in
20
<PAGE>
sales of electricity at wholesale and sales of ancillary services as well as
related books and records. Other than through the ownership of these
subsidiaries, Dynegy does not own or control any facilities subject to the
Commission's jurisdiction under the FPA.
E. Description of the Transaction and Statement as to Consideration.
As described in detail in Subpart III.A., supra, pursuant to the
Proposed Merger, Newco will: (1) acquire control of, and own the entire equity
interest in, all of the issued and outstanding shares of the common stock of
Illinova and Dynegy, through the merger of each entity into distinct
subsidiaries of Newco, with Illinova and Dynegy emerging as the surviving
corporations; and (2) indirectly acquire control of, and the entire equity
interest in, the public utility subsidiaries of Illinova and Dynegy. Total
consideration for the Proposed merger is approximately $2 billion.
F. Description of the Facilities to Be Disposed of, Consolidated or
Merged.
A description of the facilities to be disposed of, consolidated or
merged is contained in Section IV.D, supra, and is incorporated herein by
reference. Under the Plan of Merger, the Proposed Merger between Illinova and
Dynegy will include all jurisdictional facilities owned by the Applicants. Upon
consummation of the Proposed Merger, the jurisdictional facilities subject to
this transaction will be operated in substantially the same manner as they are
currently operated or planned to be operated by WESCO.
G. Statement of the Cost of the Facilities Involved in the Transaction.
As described above, the Proposed Merger will involve all of the
Applicants' jurisdictional facilities. The costs of these facilities are
included in the "Actual and Pro Forma Balance Sheets and Plant Schedules"
attached hereto as part of Exhibit C.
21
<PAGE>
H. Statement as to the Effect of the Sale or Transfer upon any Contract for
the Purchase, Sale or Interchange of Electric Energy.
No existing contracts for the purchase, sale, interchange or transmission of
electricity at wholesale will be affected by the Proposed Merger. Subject to
further applications under Section 203 of the FPA as may be made in the future,
all of the existing obligations and rights of the Illinova Parties and of Dynegy
and its subsidiaries will each continue to meet their respective rights and
obligations.
I. Statement as to Other Required Approvals.
The following are the other regulatory approvals required in conjunction
with the indirect transfer of jurisdictional assets described in this
Application./21/
. Illinois Power's filing of a notice of the Proposed Merger with the
Illinois Commerce Commission pursuant to 220 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/16-111(g).
In addition, Illinois Power will voluntarily file an application with the
Illinois Commerce Commission for approval of the Proposed Merger with
respect to Illinois Power's gas utility pursuant to 220 ILL. COMP. STAT.
5/7-204.
. Any Securities and Exchange Commission approvals required for Newco to be
exempt from registration under PUHCA.
. Any Securities and Exchange Commission approvals required for Chevron to
be exempt from registration under PUHCA.
. Any approvals required under Delaware and Illinois law for Newco to
acquire, finance, or own the assets to be acquired in the Proposed Merger.
- -------------
/21/ As noted above, the proposed sale of the Clinton Power Station by Illinois
Power to AmerGen will be the subject of a separate application for approval
under FPA Section 203, as well as other regulatory filings. The Section 203
application will be filed with the Commission in the near future.
22
<PAGE>
. The filings required to be made by Illinova, Dynegy, and certain Dynegy
management under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act ("HSR Act") and the early
termination of all waiting periods under the HSR Act.
J. Facts Showing That the Proposed Merger Will Be Consistent with the
Public Interest.
See Section V. infra.
K. Brief Statement of Franchises Held.
See Section IV.C., supra.
L. Form of Notice.
A form of notice suitable for publication in the Federal Register is
attached to the Transmittal Letter accompanying this Application. In addition,
an electronic version of this notice on a 3.5-inch computer diskette in
WordPerfect format is enclosed with this filing.
V. THE PROPOSED MERGER IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
Pursuant to Section 203 of the FPA, the Commission must approve a merger if
it finds that the transaction "will be consistent with the public interest."/22/
In order to determine whether a specific merger transaction satisfies this
statutory standard, the Commission applies the three-pronged test set forth in
its Merger Policy Statement, examining the proposed transaction's effect
- --------------
/22/ Section 203(a) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. (S) 824b(a), states that:
No public utility shall sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of its
facilities subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission...or by any
means whatsoever, directly or indirectly, merge or consolidate such
facilities or any part thereof with those of any other person, or
purchase, acquire, or take any security of any other public utility,
without first having secured an order of the Commission authorizing it
to do so...After notice and opportunity for hearing, if the Commission
finds that the proposed disposition, consolidation, acquisition or
control will be consistent with the public interest, it shall approve
the same.
23
<PAGE>
on competition, on rates, and on regulation. See, e.g., NorAm Energy Services,
Inc., 80 FERC 61,120, at 61,379-83 (1997); Duke/PanEnergy at 62,036-42;
Enova/Pacific at 62,559-60.
As described in this Application and in the supporting exhibits and
other materials included herein, the merger of Dynegy and Illinova and the
resulting transfer of the operations, assets, and liabilities relating to the
companies' respective jurisdictional facilities will have no adverse effect on
competition, rates or regulation. Accordingly, the Commission should promptly
approve this Application.
A. The Proposed Merger Will Have No Effect on Competition.
As detailed in the attached testimony of Dr. William H. Hieronymus
(appended hereto as Attachment 3), the Proposed Merger will have no impact on
competition because it will not create or enhance market power in any relevant
market. This result is to be expected because, other than with respect to energy
marketing, Illinova and Dynegy, with only limited exceptions, do not transact
business in common geographic markets. Where, as is the case here, the parties
to a merger generally do not have facilities or sell relevant products in the
same geographic markets, the Commission has concluded that the merger will have
no adverse impact on competition. Merger Policy Statement at 30,113. While
further analysis may not therefore be required in this case, the Applicants
submit Dr. Hieronymus' testimony to document more fully the negligible impact on
competition of the Proposed Merger./23/
- ----------------
/23/ As discussed in Dr. Hieronymus' testimony, Chevron, which will own 28% to
29% of the merged entity, owns various generation and natural gas assets, which
are located primarily in California. Dr. Hieronymus concludes that the
Chevron-owned generation is not relevant to his analysis of the effect of the
Proposed Merger on competition because: (a) the capacity is located in
California, where Illinova owns only a de minimis amount (5 MW) of capacity; and
(b) Chevron's own cogeneration plants are committed to supply power for internal
use with the remainder committed under long-term contract. Moreover, as Dr.
Hieronymus notes, Chevron is not an Applicant, and will not be controlled by an
Applicant.
24
<PAGE>
1. The Proposed Merger Presents No Horizontal Market Power Concerns.
The Commission has consistently held that the risk of a merger creating
or enhancing horizontal market power can only exist where both merger parties
own facilities or make generation sales in the same region. See, e.g.,
CILCO/AES, slip op. at 9-10; PG&E Corp. and Valero Energy Corp., 80
FERC(P)61,041, at 61,129-30(1997)("PG&E/Valero"); Destec Energy, Inc. and NGC
Corp., 79 FERC(P)61,373, at 62,570(1997)("Destec/NGC"). With regard to the
Proposed Merger between Illinova and Dynegy, there are only few, limited
instances in which the Applicants own facilities or make sales in a common
geographic market. Thus, Dr. Hieronymus' analysis concludes that there will be
no adverse effect on competition as a result of the Proposed Merger./24/
a. Generation market power.
In his testimony, Dr. Hieronymus identifies the common geographic
markets in which the Illinova Parties and Dynegy each own or propose to
construct generation facilities. These consist principally of the Illinois Power
destination market and adjacent utility control areas in which all of Illinois
Power's generation assets, Illinova Generating's EEI Facility and Dynegy's Rocky
Road plant are located. Dynegy's three proposed plants in Kentucky, North
Carolina and Georgia can also sell into these markets.
Dynegy and the Illinova Parties also own generation in common geographic
markets in Texas, Massachusetts and California. However, Dr. Hieronymus
concludes that further analysis of these markets is unnecessary. In Texas, all
of the Illinova Parties' generation capacity is currently under long term
contract, thus making it impossible for the Proposed Merger to increase
- ----------------
/24/ Dr. Hieronymus also concludes that the Proposed Merger will have no
effect on competition with regard to power marketing, explaining that Applicants
do not possess unique skills raising market power concerns and that power
marketing is a competitive business characterized by ease of entry.
25
<PAGE>
market concentration. In Massachusetts, Illinova and Dynegy indirectly own,
through the Indeck North American Power Fund, L.P., approximately 8% and 7.4%
respectively of the 39 MW Pepperell Facility. Thus in Massachusetts the
generation facility in question is of such a small size that it cannot
reasonably be expected to convey market power, and in any case the Applicants do
not control the facility. In California, Illinova and Dynegy indirectly own,
through the Indeck North American Power Fund, L.P., approximately 6% and 6.9%
respectively of the 79 MW Harbor Facility. While Dynegy owns other generation
facilities in the California market, the Harbor Facility is sufficiently small
in size that it is not likely to convey market power, and in any case neither of
the Applicants controls the facility.
After determining the geographic markets of potential concern, Dr.
Hieronymus examines the effect of the Proposed Merger in each of these markets
on the following product measures: Total Capacity, Uncommitted Capacity,
Economic Capacity, and Available Economic Capacity. As Dr. Hieronymous explains,
Appendix A of the Merger Policy Statement adopts the DOJ/FTC Guidelines for
determining acceptable levels of market concentration resulting from a merger.
Changes in market concentration levels are measured using the
Herfindahl-Hirschman Index ("HHI"). Attached to and in support of his testimony
Dr. Hieronymous has prepared an Appendix A analysis showing the changes to HHI
levels that will result from the Proposed Merger for each product measure in
each relevant geographic market. On the basis of his analysis Dr. Hieronymous
concludes that the Proposed Merger will result in changes to market
concentration that fall well within the acceptable levels set out in the Merger
Policy Statement and thus will have a de minimus effect on competition in any of
the relevant markets.
26
<PAGE>
i. Total Capacity.
Total Capacity, which reflects installed capacity less firm purchases and
sales, is used by the Commission as a proxy for energy and shorter-term capacity
supply. With regard to the Total Capacity measure, Dr. Hieronymus performs a
traditional "hub and spoke" analysis, including for each destination market all
of the first tier interconnections. He examines each of the markets in which
both Applicants' generation (existing or planned) is first tier to the hub. They
include the Illinois Power, AEP, ComEd and LG&E markets. These are the only
markets that could possibly evidence an impact of the Proposed Merger on the
Total Capacity measure. Dr. Hieronymus' analysis demonstrates that the impact of
the Proposed Merger on Total Capacity is de minimus; the increase in HHI
attributable to the Proposed Merger is 5 points or less.
ii. Uncommitted Capacity.
Uncommitted Capacity, which reflects total resources less peak load and
an allowance for reserves, is used by the Commission as a proxy for the short-
term capacity product. With regard to the Uncommitted Capacity measure, Dr.
Hieronymus estimates the amount of generation that is available in the relevant
first-tier markets above the amount committed to native load and other firm
obligations and reserve margin requirements. He notes that measurement of
Uncommitted Capacity is becoming increasingly difficult, given ongoing
restructuring and asset divestiture, including such restructuring now underway
in Illinois. For example, the Illinois Restructuring Law will allow customers
with a demand greater than 4 MW at a single site to select their electricity
provider beginning in October of 1999, and will provide retail choice to all
non-residential customers by the end of 2000. Further, ComEd has divested its
fossil-fired generation assets, and various new entrants have announced plans to
construct and operate new generation within the relevant geographic market.
27
<PAGE>
The Commission has also recognized the difficulty of measuring
Uncommitted Capacity in markets -- such as Illinois -- that are implementing
retail access. In EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 86 FERC(P)61,016(1999), the
Commission explained:
[R]etail access programs...are premised on the release of native load
obligations and the concomitant release of capacity from committed to
uncommitted. As retail access becomes a reality, any capacity currently
committed to serve the released retail loads will become uncommitted as
soon as the customer decides to switch. While Homer City has attempted
to prepare an uncommitted capacity analysis based on a number of
possible retail access scenarios, it is too uncertain and we do not rely
on it.
Id. at 61,039. In such circumstances, the Commission has relied on other
measures of potential market power as providing "more relevant information about
generation dominance." See Wisvest-Connecticut, L.L.C., 86 FERC(P)61,133, at
61,464(1999)(relying upon installed capacity measure to support finding that
applicant for market rate authority lacked generation dominance; uncommitted
capacity analysis not relied upon because it was considered "too uncertain");
EME Homer City, 86 FERC at 61,039(relying upon installed capacity measure to
conclude that applicant met market power standard for approval of market based
rates).
Notwithstanding these uncertainties, Dr. Hieronymus conducts the
analysis for the same market hubs as in his Total Capacity analysis and finds
that the Proposed Merger has an acceptably small impact on market concentration.
In the moderately concentrated ComEd market, the increase in HHI is 71 points,
well below the Merger Policy Statement's threshold. Similarly, for the Illinois
Power, AEP and LG&E Energy markets, the increase in HHI attributable to the
Proposed Merger for the Uncommitted Capacity product measure ranges from 0 to 33
points, again well below the level raising competitive concerns. Moreover, these
levels, which reflect the markets for 2000, are projected to decline as the
market becomes less concentrated as new mer-
28
<PAGE>
chant capacity is built in the relevant markets, even before taking into
consideration further generation divestiture for incumbent utilities.
iii. Economic Capacity.
Economic Capacity is a measure of the non-firm energy market that only
considers those suppliers that could deliver energy to a relevant market, after
paying all transmission and ancillary services costs, at a price close to the
competitive price in the relevant market. With regard to the Economic Capacity
product measure, Dr. Hieronymus examines each of the relevant destination
markets at different time periods and assuming different market prices. The time
periods of particular relevance for his analysis are relatively high-priced time
periods given that Dynegy's existing and planned generation within the relevant
markets consists of gas-fired peakers. Dr. Hieronymus determines that for the
Illinois Power destination market, which is moderately concentrated, the change
in HHI resulting from the merger is 33 points. In the LG&E market which is
highly concentrated, the HHI change resulting from the merger is 21 points. In
the other destination markets analyzed (CINergy, ComEd, Duke, TVA and AEP),
which are moderately to highly concentrated, the change in HHI resulting from
the Proposed Merger is never more that 5 points. These results are well below
the competitive screen levels set out in the Merger Policy Statement.
iv. Available Economic Capacity.
Available Economic Capacity, which is defined as Economic Capacity less
the capacity needed to serve native load, calculates the amount of Economic
Capacity a supplier may actually sell into a market. With regard to the
Available Economic Capacity measure, the results of Dr. Hieronymus' analysis are
quite similar to the Economic Capacity results: in no instance does the Proposed
Merger result in an increase in market concentration that exceeds the Appendix A
29
<PAGE>
screens. Dr. Hieronymus examines each of the seven relevant destination markets
and concludes that for Available Economic Capacity the change in HHI resulting
from the Proposed Merger does not exceed 58 points in any market.
Thus, Dr. Hieronymus concludes that the combination of Applicants'
generation assets does not significantly affect the concentration in any
relevant market and that there are no horizontal market power concerns presented
by the Proposed Merger.
b. Transmission market power.
The Proposed Merger presents no opportunity for the Applicants to create
or enhance transmission market power. Dynegy owns no electric transmission
facilities other than those incident to its generation facilities and the
proposed merger therefore cannot lead to increased control of transmission
assets. See, e.g., PG&E/Valero at 61,131; Duke/PanEnergy, at 62,038.
Further, the transmission assets owned by Illinois Power are subject to
a Commission-approved open-access tariff such that customers have
non-discriminatory access to Illinois Power's transmission system. The
Commission has routinely held that such access mitigates any potential exercise
of market power. See, e.g., PG&E/Valero at 61,131. Illinois Power's membership
in the Midwest ISO further mitigates any potential exercise of transmission
market power because the ISO will control Illinois Power's transmission
facilities and will provide open access to those facilities on a
non-discriminatory basis. Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
84 FERC (P)61,231, 62,161-62, order on reh'g, 85 FERC (P)61,372 (1998).
2. The Proposed Merger Presents No Vertical Market Power Concerns.
In reviewing proposed mergers, the Commission has expressed concerns
with respect to vertical market power only as between the natural gas and
electric power markets. For a vertical
30
<PAGE>
merger to adversely affect electric competition, it must provide the merged firm
with the ability and the incentive to restrict, or to raise the price of,
delivered gas to generating facilities that compete in the same markets as
generation that is owned or controlled by the merged firm. See, e.g.,
Duke/PanEnergy, 79 FERC at 62,038-39. In this case, the Proposed Merger involves
the combination of an owner of natural gas gathering, processing and
transportation facilities with an owner of electric generation facilities. As
detailed below and in Dr. Hieronymus' testimony, the Proposed Merger will not
enable the merged entity to engage in any type of anticompetitive behavior, and
therefore raises no concerns regarding vertical market power.
In his analysis, Dr. Hieronymus describes the relevant upstream markets
as: (a) control over gas resources; (b) transportation of these resources from
the producing areas to interstate pipelines serving the market area; and (c) the
delivery of these gas supplies to gas-fired electric generating facilities. The
relevant downstream product market is wholesale electric energy. With regard to
the geographic markets, Dr. Hieronymus describes the upstream market as the
natural gas producing region located in Texas, Louisiana, the Gulf of Mexico and
other adjoining locations. The downstream geographic markets are those in which
Illinova's and Dynegy's electric generation are most likely to compete.
Dr. Hieronymus concludes that Dynegy's ownership and control of upstream
natural gas supplies and transportation facilities cannot be used to enable the
combined company to deny competitors access to upstream inputs or to raise the
cost of access to such inputs. With regard to the market for natural gas, the
Commission has determined that the upstream wellhead market is workably
competitive. Similarly, with regard to natural gas transmission markets, there
is a large number of interstate pipeline systems serving the Midwestern markets
where Illinova's and Dynegy's generation is or will be located. As Dr.
Hieronymus explains, given Dynegy's limited
31
<PAGE>
natural gas transportation system, it is very unlikely that it could use its
facilities to raise prices or restrict access in upstream markets to
disadvantage potential competitors of the merged company in downstream electric
markets. Indeed, given the competitive market for natural gas gathering and
processing services, any attempt by Dynegy to withhold or increase the costs of
gas supplies to be delivered into downstream markets would be thwarted by
competitors eager to serve that same market. See, e.g., Duke/PanEnergy at
62,039. Further, Dynegy cannot use its control of the upstream natural gas
supply or transportation markets to favor Illinova's generation because a large
portion of such generation facilities is coal-fired.
As a result, Dr. Hieronymus concludes that the Proposed Merger raises no
vertical market power concerns.
B. The Proposed Merger Will Have No Adverse Impact on Rates.
Under the Merger Policy Statement, the Commission must determine that
the merging utilities' wholesale sales and transmission customers will be
protected from adverse rate impacts attributable to the merger. Merger Policy
Statement at 30,123. In this case, no such adverse effects will result from the
Proposed Merger.
1. Effect on Wholesale Sales Rates.
The Proposed Merger will have no adverse effect on wholesale sales
rates. All wholesale sales service provided by Dynegy's public utility
subsidiaries and all wholesale sales services provided by Illinova's public
utility subsidiaries (other than those specifically addressed below) consists of
sales at negotiated rates made pursuant to Commission-approved market-rate
tariffs, which rates will not be adversely affected by the Proposed Merger. See,
e.g., Destec/NGC at 62,574-75; Enron Corp., et al., 78 FERC (P)61,179 at 61,737
(1997). Further, rates for wholesale sales made by Applicants through affiliates
that own qualifying facilities under PURPA will not
32
<PAGE>
be adversely affected by the Proposed Merger because the Applicants have no
ability to amend the rate terms of the governing contracts to reflect
merger-related costs.
In particular, there will be no adverse impacts from the Proposed Merger
on Illinois Power's wholesale sales customers. Illinois Power currently does not
provide traditional requirements service to any wholesale customers, and has no
active wholesale rate schedules that contain wholesale fuel adjustment clauses.
Illinois Power serves all of its municipal and cooperative wholesale power
customers under its market-rate power sales tariff/25/ with the exception of one
wholesale municipal customer that takes service under a pre-Order No. 888,
bundled, interchange contract. That contract is the 1994 Coordination and
Interchange Agreement ("CIA") between Illinois Power and the Illinois Municipal
Electric Agency ("IMEA")./26/ Total sales under this contract in 1998 were
$111,957. The CIA is not a requirements contract. Indeed, under the CIA, as
revised in 1994, IMEA discontinued partial requirements service from Illinois
Power. Under the CIA, the rates for various services provided to IMEA are
specified in the agreement. Illinois Power herein commits to hold IMEA harmless
by agreeing not to seek to pass merger-related costs through the CIA./27/
It should be noted that on Illinois Power's FERC Form 1 for 1998
Illinois Power reported that it made certain sales to Ameren Corporation (an
investor-owned utility) under Illinois Power's Rate Schedule FERC No. 88.
Illinois Power reported these sales as "RQ," i.e.,
- -------------------
/25/ Illinois Power Company, 73 FERC (P)61,371 (1995) (accepting market-based
power sales tariff for filing in Docket No. ER96-185-000, designated as FERC
Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 7 (Original Sheet Nos. 1 through 11)).
/26/ The CIA with IMEA was accepted in Docket Nos. ER92-809-000, et al. pursuant
to a settlement. Illinois Power Company, 62 FERC (P)61,147 (1993), order
approving settlement, 66 FERC (P)61,364 (1994). In accordance with the terms of
the February 4, 1999 settlement in Docket No. EL99-2-000, Illinois Power has the
authority to terminate the CIA after January 1, 2000, subject to Commission
approval, if certain conditions are met. If the CIA is terminated, IMEA will be
served under Illinois Power's Open Access Transmission Tariff.
/27/ Counsel for Applicants has spoken with IMEA's counsel concerning this
hold-harmless commitment.
33
<PAGE>
"requirements service." (See FERC Form 1 page 310). Total sales for 1998 for
this service amounted to $49,348. Illinois Power identified sales under Rate
Schedule FERC No. 88 as "RQ" because these sales technically fall within the
Form 1 definition of "requirements service." However, Rate Schedule FERC No. 88
is not a traditional requirements contract; instead it is a so-called "boundary
line agreement" between two, neighboring investor-owned utilities. Under the
agreement, Illinois Power and Ameren Corporation serve certain of one another's
customers that are geographically located in certain areas such that it is most
economic for Illinois Power to serve Ameren Corporation customers through line
extensions, and vice versa. Pursuant to the boundary line agreement, energy
delivered under the agreement is billed at 110% of the average price per kWh
paid by certain third parties pursuant to separate wholesale transactions with
Ameren, which prevents the pass-through of merger-related costs./28/
Nonetheless, Illinois Power herein commits to hold Ameren harmless by agreeing
not to seek to pass through merger-related costs through this agreement.
Finally, Illinois Power has investigated all of its existing wholesale
rate schedules as reported on the Commission's Rates and Tariffs Indexing System
("RATIS"). Illinois Power notes that RATIS identifies the following superseded
rate schedules as providing for requirements services, or as containing fuel
adjustment clauses:
- -------------
/28/ Paragraph 4 of the February 5, 1982 Boundary Line Agreement between
Illinois Power and Union Electric Company, Ameren's predecessor in interest,
states:
Energy delivered under this Agreement will be
billed at 110% of the average cost per
kilowatthour of the average price paid per
kilowatthour, by Arkansas Power & Light
Company and the City of Farmington, Missouri
in each respective wholesale agreement with
[Union Electric Company] for the billing
period. Ten percent of said average cost
per kilowatthour is to compensate for
transmission losses and administrative costs.
34
<PAGE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RATE SCHEDULE CUSTOMER EFFECTIVE
NO. DATE
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C>
52 Clinton County Electric Cooperative 1/1/1973
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
53 Corn Belt Electric Cooperative 1/1/1973
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
54 Farmers Mutual Electric 1/1/1973
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
55 Central Illinois Public Service 1/1/1973
Union Electric
Illinois Valley Electric Cooperative
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
56 McDonough Power Cooperative 1/1/1973
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
57 Monroe County Electric Cooperative 1/1/1973
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
58 Southwestern Electric Cooperative 1/1/1973
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
59 Tri-County Electric Cooperative 1/1/1973
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
92 Western Illinois Power Cooperative 5/24/1983
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
102 Carlyle, Ill./Farmer City, Ill. 1/1/1984
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
115 Mt. Carmel 10/1/1986
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tariff No. 1 Rev. 1 Cedar Point Light & Water 3/1/1984
Svc. Agreement No. 4 11/15/1981
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>
Each of these rate schedules has been superseded and, accordingly, on
June 16, 1999, Illinois Power filed notices of termination of these rate
schedules in Docket No. ER99-3276-000. In the case of the municipal customers
(Carlyle, Farmer City), such customers are currently served by IMEA and are no
longer directly served by Illinois Power. In the case of the distribution
cooperatives listed above, such cooperatives are now served either by Soyland
Power Cooperative, Inc. (a generation and transmission cooperative), or other
power sellers (or by Illinois Power pursuant to its wholesale market-rate
tariff). In the case of Mt. Carmel, a small investor-owned utility, that
customer is now served by a wholesale power seller other than Illinois Power.
Cedar Point Light and Water, a small, family-owned system, was purchased by
Illinois Power in the late 1980s.
35
<PAGE>
2. Effect on Wholesale Transmission Rates.
The proposed merger transaction will have no adverse effect on Illinois
Power's wholesale transmission rates./29/ The Commission has previously held
that Illinois Power had adequately mitigated any transmission market power that
it may possess by filing an open access transmission tariff. See Illinois Power,
73 FERC at 62,161. In addition, the Order No. 888 compliance tariff filed by
Illinois Power in Docket No. OA96-66-000 has been approved and accepted by the
Commission. Atlantic City Electric Company, et al., 77 FERC (P)61,144
(1996)(order approving non-rate terms and conditions); Allegheny Power System,
Inc. et al., 80 FERC (P)61,143 (1997)(order on compliance tariff rates).
Furthermore, Illinois Power is a participant in the Midwest ISO./30/ See
Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc., 84 FERC (P)61,231 at
62,138 n.2 (1998). On January 15, 1998, the Midwest ISO Participants filed an
application in Docket No. ER98-1438-000, asking the Commission for authority to
transfer operational control over their jurisdictional transmission facilities
to the Midwest ISO. At the same time, the Participants requested Commission
approval of a single, system-wide transmission tariff. On September 16, 1998,
the Commission issued an order in Docket Nos. ER98-1438-000 and EC98-24-000,
approving the transfer of operational control, accepting the tariff for filing,
suspending it for a nominal period and setting certain features of it for
hearing. Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, 84 FERC (P)61,231
(1998).
- -------------
/29/ Dynegy, which does not own any transmission facilities other than those
incident to its generation facilities, does not provide wholesale transmission
service.
/30/ Under the Illinois Restructuring Law, Illinois Power is required to be a
member of a regional ISO or to participate in an Illinois ISO. Accordingly,
approval of the Proposed Merger will not affect Illinois Power's membership in
the Midwest ISO or in any regional transmission organization that may succeed
it.
36
<PAGE>
Thus, Illinois Power's jurisdictional transmission rates will be subject
to review by the Commission in the above-referenced proceedings or in future
proceedings involving transmission rate filings by Illinois Power. Further, to
ensure that Illinois Power's transmission rates do not recover merger-related
costs, the Applicants hereby commit that Illinois Power will hold its wholesale
transmission customers harmless from any adverse rate effects resulting from
the Proposed Merger and will not seek to pass through any merger-related costs
in its jurisdictional transmission rates for a period of five years commencing
on the Closing Date of the Proposed Merger. This commitment satisfies fully the
ratepayer protection requirements set forth in the Merger Policy Statement. See,
e.g., Duke/PanEnergy at 62,039-40.
C. The Proposed Merger Will Have No Adverse Effect on Regulation.
Under the Merger Policy Statement, the Commission requires parties to
evaluate the effect on regulation of a merger or other proposed transaction,
both at the federal level and state level. Merger Policy Statement at 30,124-25.
In particular, the Commission has indicated that it may set a Section 203
application for hearing if: (1) the merged entity would be part of a registered
holding company and the applicants do not commit to abide by the Commission's
policies on the pricing of non-power goods and services between affiliates; or
(2) the affected state commissions do not have authority to act on the
transactions. Id. Neither of these concerns are raised by this Application.
Upon consummation of the Proposed Merger, Illinois Power will continue
to function as it does today. Specifically, with respect to its sale of electric
energy at wholesale and the provision of transmission service in interstate
commerce, Illinois Power will continue to be subject to the jurisdiction of this
Commission under Part II of the Federal Power Act. In addition, the Pro-
37
<PAGE>
posed Merger will not result in the creation of a registered holding
company./31/ Newco will be formed as an Illinois corporation and will obtain an
exemption from registration as a public utility holding company under Section
3(a)(1) of PUHCA./32/ Because the merger will not result in the formation of a
registered holding company and the Commission's jurisdiction over Illinois Power
will be unaffected, no Ohio Power/33/ concerns are raised by this transaction
and further inquiry into this issue is unwarranted. See PG&E/Valero at 61,138;
Enova/Pacific at 62,567.
As regards "affected State commissions," it is evident from the context
of the Commission's discussion in the Merger Policy Statement that the
Commission was concerned about the possible absence of state jurisdiction over
the merger of traditional, vertically integrated utilities having captive retail
and wholesale customers. See Merger Policy Statement at 30,124-25. In the
instant case, the Proposed Merger does not involve the merger of two vertically
integrated utilities, and in any case there will be no gap in the state
regulation over this transaction or over the merged entity on a going forward
basis. Upon consummation of the Proposed Merger, Illinois Power will continue to
be subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC with respect to the retail rates
charged by Illinois Power either as a provider of electricity, as a provider of
electric delivery services for unbundled retail electricity sales, and or as a
provider of natural gas sales and distribution service.
VI. MERGER ACCOUNTING.
Because the Proposed Merger will take place at the holding company
level, Illinova and Dynegy will become wholly-owned subsidiaries of Newco and
will continue to own all of their
- -----------------------
/31/ Chevron, as a minority owner of more than 10 percent of Newco, will seek
an exemption from registration under PUHCA.
/32/ At a point in time subsequent to the Proposed Merger, the Applicants
anticipate that Illinova's corporate existence will be extinguished and
Illinois Power will become a direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of Newco.
/33/ See Ohio Power Co. v. FERC. 954 F.2d 779 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 498
U.S. 73 (1992).
38
<PAGE>
pre-acquisition assets and be liable for all of their liabilities. As a result,
the Proposed Merger will have no effect on Illinois Power's account balances and
financial statements, which will continue to be maintained in accordance with
the Commission's Uniform System of Accounts. In such cases,the Commission does
not require a more detailed description of the accounting treatment associated
with a merger and will waive the applicable reporting requirements. See, e.g.,
CILCO/AES, slip op. at 15-16. Applicants respectfully request waiver of any
requirement to provide more detailed accounting entries concerning the Proposed
Merger.
VII. REQUEST FOR EXPEDITION.
The Proposed Merger is scheduled to close by the end of the first
quarter of 2000. In order to permit reasonable time for closing documentation,
the Applicants respectively request that the Commission approve this Application
expeditiously and without condition, modification or a trial-type hearing, by
the end of 1999.
The Commission should expedite its action in the case for the following
reasons. First, the Proposed Merger will enhance competition in the Nation's
wholesale energy services markets. By building on the respective strengths of
Dynegy and Illinova, the Proposed Merger will produce a diversified energy
services company well positioned to respond to market forces in the rapidly
evolving national markets for electricity, natural gas and comprehensive energy
services. Second, the Proposed Merger will benefit both consumers and
shareholders of the merged company by improving the reliability of Applicants'
services, by enhancing efficiencies and revenue opportunities and by optimizing
the value of the merged company's assets and expertise. Third, this transaction
is substantially similar to other merger transactions previously approved by the
Commission on an expeditious basis and without a trial-type hearing. See e.g.,
CILCO/AES; MidAmerican; PG&E/Valero. In sum, the Proposed Merger is in the
public interest and further fa-
39
<PAGE>
cilitates the increasing efforts to restructure and bring competition to the
Nation's electric utility industry.
VIII. EXHIBITS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO 18 C.F.R. (S)33.3.
Applicants hereby submit the required Exhibits (or specific requests for
waiver of those requirements) in accordance with Section 33.3 of the
Commission's regulations.
40
<PAGE>
IX. CONCLUSION.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Applicants respectfully urge
the Commission to approve this Application on an expedited basis and without
modification, condition, or trial-type hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Merrill L. Kramer, P.C. /s/ James C. Beh
- ----------------------------------------- --------------------------------
Merrill L. Kramer, P.C. James C. Beh
Carrie Hill Allen Clifford S. Sikora
Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP R. Michael Sweeney, Jr.
1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Troutman Sanders, LLP
Suite 400 1300 I Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Suite 500 East
(202) 887-4444 Washington, D.C. 20005-3314
(202) 274-2950
Kenneth E. Randolph
Senior Vice President
General Counsel and Secretary William B. Conway, Jr.
Kathryn L. Patton Senior Vice President and Chief
Daniel A. King Legal Officer
Dynegy Inc. Illinova Corporation
1000 Louisiana 500 S. 27/th/ Street
Suite 5800 Mail Stop B25
Houston, Texas 77002 Decatur, Illinois 62525-1805
(713) 507-6816 (217) 424-6600
Attorneys for Dynegy Inc. Attorneys for Illinova Corporation
Dated: July 23, 1999
Washington, D.C.
41
<PAGE>
VERIFICATIONS
<PAGE>
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
)
Illinova Corporation ) Docket No. EC99- -000
Dynegy Inc. )
)
VERIFICATION
James C. Beh, being first duly sworn, deposes and states: That he is a
representative legally authorized to bind Illinova Corporation; that he has read
the attached Joint Application of Illinova Corporation and Dynegy Inc. for
Approval of Merger and Request for Expedited Consideration; that he knows the
contents thereof; and that the statements therein pertaining to Illinova
Corporation are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and
belief.
/s/ James C. Beh
-----------------------------
James C. Beh
subscribed and sworn before me this 22nd day of July, 1999.
/s/ Kathleen Ventre
-----------------------------
Notary Public
My Commission expires:
Kathleen Ventre
Notary Public District of
Columbia
My Commission Expires: 10/31/02
<PAGE>
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
)
Illinova Corporation ) Docket No. EC99- -000
Dynegy Inc. )
)
VERIFICATION
------------
Kenneth E. Randolph, being first duly sworn, deposes and states: That he
is Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of Dynegy Inc.; that he
has read the attached Joint Application of Illinova Corporation and Dynegy Inc.
for Approval of Merger and Request for Expedited Consideration; that he knows
the contents thereof; and that the statements therein pertaining to Dynegy Inc.
are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief.
/s/ KENNETH E. RANDOLPH
-----------------------
Kenneth E. Randolph
subscribed and sworn before me this 14th day of July 1999.
In the District of /s/ KAREN J. CATRELL
Columbia -----------------------
Notary Public
My Commission expires: 8/31/03
<PAGE>
NOTICE OF FILING
<PAGE>
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
)
Illinova Corporation ) Docket No. EC99- -000
Dynegy Inc. )
)
NOTICE OF FILING
Take notice that on July 23, 1999, Illinova Corporation (Illinova) and
Dynegy Inc. (Dynegy), tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission) pursuant to Section 203 of the Federal Power Act, 16
U.S.C. (S)824b (1994 & Supp. 1998) and Part 33 of the Commission's Regulations,
18 C.F.R (SS)33.1, et seq. (1999), a Joint Application for Approval of Merger
and Request for Expedited Consideration.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a
motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and
214 of the Commission's rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before
___________, 1999. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine
the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a
motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and
are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the
Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for
assistance).
David P. Boergers
Secretary
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT D.2
STATE OF ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION
ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY )
)
Application pursuant to Sections 7-204 and ) Docket No. 99-_____
7-101 of the Public Utilities Act for approval )
of a reorganization of the gas utility )
APPLICATION OF ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY
FOR EXPEDITED APPROVAL OF A
REORGANIZATION OF THE GAS UTILITY
AND APPROVAL OF
AN INTERIM SERVICES AND FACILITIES AGREEMENT
Illinois Power Company ("Illinois Power" or the "Company") seeks an order
pursuant to Section 7-204 of the Public Utilities Act (the "Act") (220 ILCS
5/7-204), approving a reorganization of its gas business, an order pursuant to
Section 7-101 of the Act (220 ILCS 5/7-101) for approval of an Interim Service
and Facilities Agreement between Illinois Power and its affiliated interests,
and for other related relief. For the reasons stated below, Illinois Power
requests that this Application be considered on an expedited basis.
1. Illinois Power is in the business of generating, transmitting,
distributing and selling electricity to the public at retail in the State of
Illinois, and is a public utility as that term is defined in Section 3-105 of
the Act and an electric utility as that term is defined in Section 16-102 of the
Act. Illinois Power is also in the business of transmitting, distributing and
selling natural gas to the public at retail in the State of Illinois. Illinois
Power is subject to the jurisdiction of the Illinois Commerce Commission
("Commission"). Illinois Power is a direct subsidiary of Illinova Corporation
("Illinova"), an Illinois corporation.
<PAGE>
2. On June 14, 1999, Illinova entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with Energy Convergence Holding Company, Energy Convergence Acquisition
Company, Dynegy Acquisition Company, and Dynegy Inc. ("Plan of Merger"), which
constitutes a reorganization under Section 7-204 of the Act. A copy of the Plan
of Merger is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Plan of Merger is as follows:
a. The reorganization will involve the merger of Energy Convergence
Acquisition Company, an Illinois corporation, all of whose common stock is owned
by Energy Convergence Holding Company, an Illinois corporation, with and into
Illinova, with the result that all of the common stock of Illinova will be owned
by Energy Convergence Holding Company. Each outstanding share of the common
stock of Illinova will be converted into one share of Energy Convergence Holding
Company Class A common stock. Contemporaneous with this transaction, Dynegy
Acquisition Company, a Delaware corporation, all of whose common stock is owned
by Energy Convergence Holding Company, will be merged with and into Dynegy Inc.,
a Delaware corporation, with the result that all of the common stock of Dynegy
Inc. will be owned by Energy Convergence Holding Company. Except as described
below with respect to shares of Dynegy Inc. owned by BG Holdings, Inc. ("BG
Holdings"), NOVA Chemicals Corp. ("NOVA"), and Chevron U.S.A., Inc. ("Chevron"),
each outstanding share of Dynegy Inc. stock will be converted into a combination
of cash and/or 0.69 shares of Energy Convergence Holding Company Class A common
stock, in an amount to be determined based upon the individual election of each
shareholder of Dynegy Inc.
Concurrently with the merger of Energy Convergence Acquisition Company into
Illinova
2
<PAGE>
and the merger of Dynegy Acquisition Company into Dynegy Inc. (the "Mergers"),
Energy Convergence Holding Company will purchase 100 percent of the issued and
outstanding shares of capital stock oF BG Holdings from its parent, British Gas
Atlantic Holdings BV ("BGAH"), in exchange for a combination of cash and Series
A Convertible Preferred Stock of Energy Convergence Holding Company ("Preferred
Stock"). BGAH will receive the same amount and combination of cash and
Preferred Stock in consideration for the capital stock of BG Holdings as BG
Holdings would have received in the merger by virtue of its ownership of shares
of Dynegy common stock. Following this purchase, BGAH will own a 3.5% to 5%
equity interest in Energy Convergence Holding Company.
Concurrently with the Mergers, Chevron will purchase a minimum of $200
million and a maximum of $240 million of Class B common stock ("Class B Share")
of Energy Convergence Holding Company. Additionally, Chevron will receive Class
B Shares (rather than Class A common stock) in exchange for Chevron's equity
interest in the common and preferred stock of Dynegy Inc. By virtue of its
acquisition of Class B Shares, Chevron will own an approximate 29% equity
interest in Energy Convergence Holding Company.
Finally, concurrently with the Mergers, NOVA will receive a combination of
cash and Preferred Stock in exchange for its entire equity interest in the
common stock of Dynegy. Upon the consummation of the merger, NOVA will own an
approximate 3.5%-5% equity interest in Energy Convergence Holding Company.
b. Following the reorganization described in subparagraph a. above, a
further reorganization may take place in which Illinova will be merged into
Energy Convergence Holding Company. The result of the subsequent
reorganization will be that Illinova Corporation will cease
3
<PAGE>
to exist, and Energy Convergence Holding Company, which will be renamed Dynegy
Inc., will become the owner of all of the voting capital stock of Illinois
Power.
3. Dynegy Inc. ("Dynegy") is a holding company which, through
subsidiaries, is primarily engaged in the wholesale marketing of natural gas,
electricity, coal, natural gas liquids, crude oil, liquid petroleum gas and
related energy services. Dynegy also owns interests in a number of power
generation facilities, power marketers and generation-owning entities. Dynegy is
one of the leading marketers of energy products and services in North America.
4. The proposed reorganization is substantially similar to two
reorganizations recently considered and approved by the Commission, one
involving the merger of Central Illinois Light Company with The AES Corporation,
Docket 98-0882 ("CILCO/AES"), and the other involving the merger of MidAmerican
Energy Company with CalEnergy Company (Docket 98-0853) ("MidAmerican"). These
reorganizations are very similar to the proposed reorganization since they each
involved the merger of the holding company for a traditional utility company
with an independent power producer/power marketer. Thus, Illinois Power
respectfully requests that the Commission approve this Application on the same
expedited basis as the Commission's proceedings with regard to the MidAmerican
and CILCO/AES transactions. Completion of the Plan of Merger is expected to
occur no later than the end of the first quarter of 2000, and Illinois Power
therefore requests that the Commission act to approve this Application
expeditiously, but no later than by the end of 1999.
5. Section 16-111(g) of the Act states that an electric utility may
implement a reorganization during the "mandatory transition period" without
prior Commission approval "notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or
any rule or regulation of the Commission that
4
<PAGE>
would require such approval." 220 ILCS 5/16-111(g). Thus, the exemption
provided by Section 16-111(g) from the need for Commission approval under
Section 7-204 applies to the proposed reorganizations that are the subject of
this Application. However, in the CILCO and MidAmerican cases the Commission
questioned whether the exemption provided by Section 16-111(g) applies to the
entirety of the transaction or just the electric utility portion of the
transaction. The Commission has not questioned the applicability of the
exemption ot the electric utility portion of the transaction in either the CILCO
or MidAmerican cases. Consequently, Commission approval of the electric portion
of the transaction is not required. While it is Illinois Power's position that
the exemption provided by Section 16-111(g) is applicable to the entire
transaction, in light of the Commission's apparent contrary interpretation of
the statute and Illinois Power's desire for an expeditious approval process,
without waiving the argument that such approval is not needed, Illinois Power
hereby seeks approval of the reorganizations with respect to the gas utility
portion of its business pursuant to Section 7-204.
6. The proposed reorganization will not have any impact on Illinois
Power's gas utility other than a change in the ownership of its capital stock.
There will be no change in Illinois Power's assets, gas operations or capital
structure as a result of the reorganization. Therefore, in accordance with
Section 7-204(b)(1) of the Act, the reorganization will not have an adverse
impact upon Illinois Power's ability ot provide adequate, reliable, efficient,
safe and least-cost gas utility service in Illinois. (See Altenbaumer
testimony, IP Exhibit 1.0, pp. 9-13; Clarke Testimony, IP Exhibit 2.0, P.8)
7. Transactions in which Illinois Power provides any services or thing of
value to its affiliates are covered by accounting and cost allocation procedures
approved by and on file with the
5
<PAGE>
Commission. Those provisions ensure Illinois Power's retail gas customers will
not subsidize its unregulated affiliates. Illinois Power will continue to
utilize the same accounting and cost allocation procedures after the
reorganization for all transactions between it and its affiliates. Moreover,
the Commission's guidelines to account for non-utility business of the gas
utility, 83 Ill. Admin. Code Part 506, will continue to be applicable after the
reorganization. IP is in compliance with Part 506. Therefore, in accordance
with Section 7-204(b)(2) of the Act, the proposed reorganization will not result
in the unjustified subsidization of non-utility activities by the regulated gas
utility or by Illinois retail gas customers. With respect to transactions with
affiliates, Illinois Power is seeking in this Application authorization pursuant
to Section 7-101 of the Act of an Interim Services and Facilities Agreement, a
copy of which is provided as IP Exhibit 4.2, which is being sponsored by IP
witness Steward and attached hereto. The Interim Services and Facilities
Agreement would be effective pending approval of a permanent Services and
Facilities Agreement approval of which is currently pending before the
Commission in Docket 99-0114. In addition, IP is seeking a Commission
determination in this proceeding that the Services and Facilities Agreement
which is ultimately approved by the Commission in Docket 99-0114 would be deemed
to be effective as to IP and Dynegy after the merger. (See Steward testimony,
IP Exhibit 4.0, pp. 3-10)
8. As described above, Illinois Power is in compliance with the
Commission's rules regarding accounting for non-utility transactions by gas
utilities. The reorganizations will not result in any change in that
accounting. Therefore, in accordance with Section 7-204(b)(3) of the Act, costs
and facilities will be fairly and reasonably allocated between the gas utility
and non-utility activities in such a manner that the Commission may identify
those costs and facilities which are properly included by the gas utility for
ratemaking purposes. (See Steward testimony, IP Exhibit 4.0, pp. 3-6)
6
<PAGE>
9. The proposed reorganizations will not change the capital structure or
the gas operations of Illinois Power in any way and, therefore, will not impair
Illinois Power's ability to raise necessary capital for its gas operations on
reasonable terms or to maintain a reasonable capital structure for its gas
operations, in accordance with Section 7-204(b)(4) of the Act. Illinois Power's
ability to issue debt and preferred stock will not be impaired and will in fact
be improved with a larger and stronger parent as a result of the
reorganizations. (See Schultz testimony, IP Exhibit 3.0, pp. 2-5)
10. The proposed reorganizations will not in any manner change Illinois
Power's status as a gas public utility subject to the jurisdiction of the
Commission. Therefore, Illinois Power's gas utility operations will remain
subject to all applicable laws, regulations, rules, decisions and policies
governing the regulation of Illinois public utilities, in accordance with
Section 7-204(b)(5) of the Act. (See Altenbaumer testimony, IP Exhibit 1.0, pp.
11; Clarke Testimony, IP Exhibit 2.0, P.9)
11. While Dynegy and certain subsidiaries provide unregulated gas sales
service in Illinois Power's gas service territory, such service is provided to
an immaterial share of the market. Moreover, Dynegy and its subsidiaries will
continue to offer such services after the proposed reorganizations. Therefore,
in accordance with Section 7-204(b)(6) of the Act, the proposed reorganizations
are not likely to have a significant adverse effect on competition in those
markets over which the Commission has jurisdiction. (See Altenbaumer testimony,
IP Exhibit 1.0, p. 14; Clarke Testimony, IP Exhibit 2.0, pp. 2-6,8)
12. To the extent there are any cost impacts associated with the merger,
the result will be cost reductions which should serve to delay any future
requests for gas rate increases by Illinois Power, and this will be shown in the
Company's cost of service. Therefore, in accordance with
7
<PAGE>
Section 7-204(b)(7) of the Act, the proposed reorganizations are not likely to
result in any adverse rate impacts on Illinois Power's retail gas customers.
(See Altenbaumer testimony, IP Exhibit 1.0, p. 12-13; Steward Testimony, IP
Exhibit 4.0, pp. 10-12)
13. For the reasons described in the foregoing paragraphs, the proposed
reorganizations will not adversely affect Illinois Power's ability to perform
its duties as a gas public utility under this Act. (See Altenbaumer testimony,
IP Exhibit 1.0, pp. 11-13)
14. While savings are expected to be achieved as a result of the merger,
since Dynegy and its subsidiaries do not provide "public utility" services, the
reorganizations will not result in the achievement of significant operational
synergies or efficiencies that typically occur through the combination and
elimination of duplicative resources, functions and personnel. However, other
savings are anticipated as a result of revenue enhancements. To the extent
there are savings resulting from the proposed reorganization, they will be
allocated fairly to Illinois Power's gas utility operations and will be
reflected in any future cost of service studies. (See Altenbaumer testimony, IP
Exhibit 1.0, pp. 9; Steward Testimony, IP Exhibit 4.0, pp. 3-6)
15. Illinova and Dynegy have incurred and continue to incur significant
transaction costs associated with the proposed reorganizations, including
investment banking fees, financial consulting costs, accountants' charges,
printing, postage, proxy solicitation, filing fees and legal fees. In addition,
Illinova and Dynegy will incur costs associated with employee separations,
system integration, employee relocation, and internal and external
communications related to the merger. These are necessary expenses to
accomplish the reorganizations, a portion of which would be properly recoverable
from Illinois Power's gas utility customers, at least as an offset to any
savings
8
<PAGE>
from the reorganizations that would accrue to Illinois Power's retail gas
utility customers as a result of the reorganizations. However, Illinois Power
has determined to forego recovery of these costs from its retail gas customers.
(See Altenbaumer testimony, IP Exhibit 1.0, pp. 12-13)
16. As described in more detail below, and in the testimony and exhibits
filed in support of this Application, Illinois Power has provided to the
Commission the information required by Section 7-204A of the Act. Exhibit B,
attached hereto, identifies where the information required by Section 7-204A can
be found.
17. The names and corporate relationships of all companies which are
affiliated interests of Illinois Power on the date of this application for
reorganizations and the name of any parent or subsidiary corporation of Illinois
Power are attached hereto as Exhibit C, pursuant to Section 7-204A(a)(1) of the
Act.
18. Copies of filings, including securities filings, related to the
reorganizations made with the federal government are provided as Exhibit D,
pursuant to Section 7-204A(a)(2). No other filings have been made with any
Illinois agency.
19. A description of the plan to reorganize is also included with
Exhibit D, as well as copies of the organizational documents associated with the
reorganizations, including articles of incorporation or amendments to the
articles of incorporation of all companies including Illinois Power and any
affiliated interests, pursuant to Section 7-204A(a)(2) of the Act.
20. An estimate of the costs and fees attributable to the
reorganizations has been provided pursuant to Section 7-204A(a)(3). (See
Altenbaumer testimony, IP Exhibit 1.0, p.13)
21. The method by which management, personnel, property, income, losses,
costs and expenses will be allocated between the gas utility operations and any
affiliated interest has been
9
<PAGE>
provided, pursuant to Section 7-204A(a)(4). (See Steward testimony, IP
Exhibit 4.2)
22. Copies of any proposed agreements between Illinois Power and any
person with which it will be an affiliated interest at the time of the
application for approval of the reorganizations have been provided as Ms.
Steward's IP Exhibit 4.2, pursuant to Section 7-204A(a)(5).
23. No Illinois Power gas utility assets or information in existence,
such as customer lists, will be transferred to or used by an affiliate as part
of these reorganizations. To the extent those plans change, Illinois Power will
comply with any applicable provisions of the Act at that time.
24. A copy of Illinois Power's forecast for 2000-2004 showing the
projected capital requirements of Illinois Power's gas utility operations at the
time of the proposed reorganizations has been filed with this Application,
pursuant to Section 7-204A(a)(7) of the Act. Also filed were the gas utility
projected capital requirements, sources of capital, the range of the projected
capital structure, and the assumptions underlying the information included in
the forecast. (See Schultz testimony, IP Exhibits 3.1 through 3.4)
25. Consistent with the requirements of Section 7-204A(b) of the Act,
the services of Illinois Power's gas utility employees will not be used by any
affiliated interest as a consequence of the proposed reorganizations, except by
contract or arrangement. No Illinois Power gas property will be sold, leased,
transferred to or exchanged with any affiliated interest except by contract or
arrangement, including any required regulatory approval. (See Steward testimony,
IP Exhibit 4.0, pp. 3-10)
26. Approval of the proposed reorganizations will produce a diversified
energy services company well poised to respond to market forces in the rapidly
evolving energy markets. The new company will be well positioned to shape the
changes taking place in the energy market, which are
10
<PAGE>
being driven by restructuring and the convergence of the natural gas and
electric industries. The reorganizations will also enhance efficiencies and
revenue opportunities by optimizing the constituent companies' assets and
expertise.
27. In further support of this Application, Illinois Power is submitting
herewith the prepared testimonies of Larry F. Altenbaumer; Illinois Power's
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; John U. Clarke, Dynegy's
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Robert A. Schultz, Illinois
Power's Vice President - Finance; and Cynthia G. Steward, Illinois Power's
Controller.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Illinois Power Company
respectfully requests the Illinois Commerce Commission set this matter for
hearing on an expedited basis and following such hearing enter an order:
(1) Pursuant to Section 7-204 of the Act, approving the proposed
reorganizations with respect to the gas utility operations of
Illinois Power;
(2) Pursuant to Section 7-101 of the Act, authorization to utilize the
Interim Services and Facilities Agreement, a copy provided as IP
Exhibit 4.2, for use until such time as the Commission enters an
order approving a Services and Facilities Agreement in Docket 99-
0114, and finding that the permanent Services and Facilities
Agreement will be effective as to IP and Dynegy after the merger;
and
11
<PAGE>
(3) granting such further relief as the Commission deems appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY
By: LARRY F. ALTENBAUMER
--------------------------------
Larry F. Altenbaumer
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Attorneys for ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY:
William B. Conway, Jr. Owen E. MacBride
Senior Vice President and Chief Legal Officer Carrie J. Hightman
ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY SCHIFF HARDIN & WAITE
500 South 27th Street 6600 Sears Tower
Decatur, IL 62525-1805 Chicago, IL 60606
(Phone) 217-450-2813 (Phone) 312-258-5657
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]
12
<PAGE>
STATE OF ILLINOIS )
)
COUNTY OF MACON )
V E R I F I C A T I O N
I, Larry F. Altenbaumer, being first duly sworn upon oath depose and say
that I am the Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer for Illinois
Power Company, an Illinois corporation; that I am authorized to make this
Verification on its behalf; that I have read the above and foregoing Application
by me subscribed and know the contents thereof; and that said contents are true
and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
/s/ LARRY F. ALTENBAUMER
----------------------------------------
Larry F. Altenbaumer,
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Illinois Power Company
Subscribed and Sworn
to before me this
August 12, 1999
/s/ BEVERLY A. McCallister
- -----------------------------
Notary Public
[SEAL APPEARS HERE]
13
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT E
DYNEGY-ILLINOVA MERGER
POST-MERGER ORGANIZATION
"NEW DYNEGY"
(ILLINOIS HOLDING COMPANY)
<TABLE>
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C>
DMT OPEN RETAIL LIQUID BUSINESS FINANCIAL & CHIEF ADMIN. LEGAL REGULATED GENERATION
ALLIANCES & CORPORATE OFFICER BUSINESS OPERATIONS
ILLINOVA (ILLINOIS
ENERGY POWER)
PARTNERS
Illinova
Energy Trading Processing Treasury Human Resources Regulatory Transmission Generation
(Utility)
Energy Marketing Marketing Illinova Public Relations Legislative Electric ILN
& Origination Assets Insurance Distribution Generating
Commercial Asset Development Accounting Strategic Contract Gas Destec
& Management (Gas Assets) Sourcing/ Administration Distribution Generating
Purchasing
Project Liquids Marketing Corporate Facilities Nuclear N.A. Energy
Development Development Management Operations Services
(sale/shut D.O.C.
down)
Strategy & Global Liquids Investor Financial Project
Planning Relations Planning/ Engineer
Audit
International IT
Process Redesign
& Commercial
Services
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT L.1
HISTORIC AND PROJECTED ILLINOIS POWER PUBLIC UTILITY OPERATIONS
EXCLUDING GENERATION TO BE DIVESTED BY ILLINOIS POWER
This Exhibit contains forward-looking information based on current
expectations and plans that involve risks and uncertainties. Forward-looking
information includes, among other things, financial forecasts and projections,
statements concerning the impact of regulatory changes, plans for the Clinton
facility, divesting fossil-fired generation and success in addressing Year 2000
issues. Although Illinova and Illinois Power (collectively "Illinova") believe
these forward-looking statements are reasonable projections for their business
planning purposes and to inform regulatory agencies concerning the scope of
Illinova's public utility operations excluding generation to be divested by
Illinois Power, these projections are made for the latter purpose only.
Illinova's public utility business is dependent on various regulatory issues,
general economic conditions and future trends, and these factors can cause
actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements.
<PAGE>
ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY
BALANCE SHEET
EXCLUDING ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION
(MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
HISTORICAL FORECAST
----------------------------------------- --------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C>
1996 1997 1998 2000 2001 2002
ASSETS - GAS
Utility Plant
Gross Plant in Service $ 672 $ 712 $ 728 $ 781 $ 810 $ 839
Plus Capital Additions 35 20 24 - - -
-------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
Total Utility Plant 707 732 752 781 810 839
Total Accumulated Depreciation 290 312 331 385 413 442
-------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
418 420 421 396 397 397
Gas Underground Storage -
Noncurrent 17 17 17 17 17 17
Other Property and Investments 0 0 0 0 0 0
Temporary Cash Investments - - - - - -
Notes Receivable - Asset Transfer - - - - - -
Cash 3 3 3 3 3 3
Other Current Assets 170 113 133 133 133 133
Deferred Charges 80 80 64 64 64 64
-------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
Total Assets $ 687 $ 633 $ 637 $ 613 $ 613 $ 614
ASSETS - TRANSMISSION & DISTRIBUTION
Utility Plant
Gross Plant in Service $ 1,508 $ 1,610 $ 1,880 $ 1,990 $ 2,032 $ 2,163
Plus Capital Additions 94 78 57 47 103 63
-------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
1,602 1,687 1,938 2,037 2,135 2,226
Total Accumulated Depreciation 638 679 715 847 870 896
-------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
Net Utility Plant 963 1,008 1,222 1,190 1,265 1,330
Gas Underground Storage -
Noncurrent - - - - - -
Other Property and Investments 11 3 2 97 96 95
Temporary Cash Investments - 11 - - - -
Notes Receivable - Asset Transfer - - - - - -
Cash 9 4 7 7 8 8
Other Current Assets 168 149 192 111 135 167
Deferred Charges 42 49 63 85 77 64
-------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
Total Assets $ 1,194 $ 1,225 $ 1,487 $ 1,491 $ 1,581 $ 1,664
ASSETS - TOTAL
Utility Plant
Gross Plant in Service $ 2,181 $ 2,322 $ 2,608 $ 2,771 $ 2,841 $ 3,002
Plus Capital Additions 129 97 81 47 103 63
-------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
2,309 2,419 2,689 2,818 2,944 3,065
Total Accumulated Depreciation 928 991 1,047 1,232 1,283 1,338
-------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
Net Utility Plant 1,381 1,428 1,643 1,586 1,661 1,727
Gas Underground Storage -
Noncurrent 17 17 17 17 17 17
Other Property and Investments 12 4 2 97 96 95
Temporary Cash Investments - 11 - - - -
Notes Receivable - Asset Transfer - - - - - -
Cash 12 7 10 11 11 11
Other Current Assets 338 262 325 244 268 300
Deferred Charges 122 129 127 149 141 128
-------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
Total Assets $ 1,882 $ 1,858 $ 2,124 $ 2,103 $ 2,194 $ 2,277
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT L.2
HISTORIC AND PROJECTED ILLINOIS POWER PUBLIC UTILITY OPERATIONS
EXCLUDING GENERATION TO BE DIVESTED BY ILLINOIS POWER
This Exhibit contains forward-looking information based on current
expectations and plans that involve risks and uncertainties. Forward-looking
information includes, among other things, financial forecasts and projections,
statements concerning the impact of regulatory changes, plans for the Clinton
facility, divesting fossil-fired generation and success in addressing Year 2000
issues. Although Illinova and Illinois Power (collectively "Illinova") believe
these forward-looking statements are reasonable projections for their business
planning purposes and to inform regulatory agencies concerning the scope of
Illinova's public utility operations excluding generation to be divested by
Illinois Power, these projections are made for the latter purpose only.
Illinova's public utility business is dependent on various regulatory issues,
general economic conditions and future trends, and these factors can cause
actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements.
<PAGE>
ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY
NET REVENUES
EXCLUDING ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION
(MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
HISTORICAL FORECAST
---------------------------------------- -------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C>
1996 1997 1998 2000 2001 2002
GAS REVENUES:
Total Gas Revenues $ 348 $ 354 $ 288 $ 351 $ 355 $ 356
Less: Gas Purchased for Resale 203 208 150 195 198 199
--------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
Net Gas Revenues 146 146 138 156 157 157
ELECTRIC REVENUES:
Total Electric Revenues 1,203 1,244 1,224 1,154 1,154 1,138
Less: Fuel for Electric Plant 248 232 250 - - -
Less: Power Purchased 55 62 69 29 16 16
Less: Transfer Price from WESCO / Nuclear - - - 572 500 509
Less: Transition Charges - - - 108 183 140
--------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
Net Electric Revenues 900 950 905 445 455 473
Total Net Revenues $ 1,046 $ 1,096 $ 1,043 $ 601 $ 612 $ 630
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT N.6
MARKET SHARES FOR ELECTRIC COMPANIES IN ILLINOIS AND BORDERING STATES
(COMPANIES LISTED IN ORDER OF CUSTOMERS SERVED)
[GRAPH APPEARS HERE]
Page 1 of 4
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT N-6
MARKET SHARE FOR ELECTRIC COMPANIES IN ILLINOIS AND BORDERING STATES
COMPANIES SORTED BY REVENUE
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Revenue Rank Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (millions of $) Total Share
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Unicom Corp. 7,136 1 18.4% 18.4%
American Electric Power Co., Inc. 7,054 2 18.2% 36.5%
Cinergy Corp. 5,002 3 12.9% 49.4%
Ameren Corp. 3,186 4 8.2% 57.6%
Northern States Power Co. 2,641 5 6.8% 64.4%
ILLINOVA CORP. 1,781 6 4.6% 69.0%
Wisconsin Energy Corp. 1,679 7 4.3% 73.3%
Alliant Energy Corp. 1,576 8 4.1% 77.4%
LG&E Energy Corp. 1,469 9 3.8% 81.1%
MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. 1,170 10 3.0% 84.1%
NiSource, Inc. 1,076 11 2.8% 86.9%
Kansas City Power & Light Co. 939 12 2.4% 89.3%
IPALCO Enterprises, Inc. 786 13 2.0% 91.4%
UtiliCorp United, Inc. 617 14 1.6% 92.9%
WPS Resources Corp. 548 15 1.4% 94.4%
Minnesota Power, Inc. 512 16 1.3% 95.7%
Ohio Valley Electric Corp. 460 17 1.2% 96.9%
Cilcorp, Inc. 360 18 0.9% 97.8%
SIGCORP, Inc. 298 19 0.8% 98.5%
Empire District Electric Co. 239 20 0.6% 99.2%
Madison Gas & Electric Co. 170 21 0.4% 99.6%
St. Joseph Light & Power Co. 89 22 0.2% 99.8%
Consolidated Water Power Co. 37 23 0.1% 99.9%
Northwestern Wisconsin Electric Co. 11 24 0.0% 100.0%
Mount Carmel Public Utility Co. 10 25 0.0% 100.0%
Wisconsin River Power Co. 5 26 0.0% 100.0%
North Central Power Co., Inc. 2 27 0.0% 100.0%
Pioneer Power & Light Co. 2 28 0.0% 100.0%
Total 38,854
</TABLE>
Page 2 of 4
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT N-6
MARKET SHARE FOR ELECTRIC COMPANIES IN ILLINOIS AND BORDERING STATES
COMPANIES SORTED BY ASSETS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Assets Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (millions of $) Rank Total Share
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Unicom Corp. 26,223 1 23.3% 23.3%
American Electric Power Co., Inc. 16,847 2 15.0% 38.3%
Cinergy Corp. 9,878 3 8.8% 47.1%
Ameren Corp. 8,755 4 7.8% 54.9%
Northern States Power Co. 7,457 5 6.6% 61.6%
ILLINOVA CORP. 7,150 6 6.4% 67.9%
Wisconsin Energy Corp. 4,839 7 4.3% 72.2%
Alliant Energy Corp. 4,313 8 3.8% 76.1%
LG&E Energy Corp. 4,056 9 3.6% 79.7%
NiSource, Inc. 3,769 10 3.4% 83.0%
MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. 3,574 11 3.2% 86.2%
UtiliCorp United, Inc. 3,078 12 2.7% 89.0%
Kansas City Power & Light Co. 2,845 13 2.5% 91.5%
IPALCO Enterprises, Inc. 2,123 14 1.9% 93.4%
Minnesota Power, Inc. 2,074 15 1.8% 95.2%
WPS Resources Corp. 1,504 16 1.3% 96.6%
Cilcorp, Inc. 1,058 17 0.9% 97.5%
SIGCORP, Inc. 951 18 0.8% 98.3%
Empire District Electric Co. 674 19 0.6% 98.9%
Madison Gas & Electric Co. 488 20 0.4% 99.4%
Ohio Valley Electric Corp. 357 21 0.3% 99.7%
St. Joseph Light & Power Co. 243 22 0.2% 99.9%
Consolidated Water Power Co. 37 23 0.0% 99.9%
Northwestern Wisconsin Electric Co. 22 24 0.0% 100.0%
Wisconsin River Power Co. 18 25 0.0% 100.0%
Mount Carmel Public Utility Co. 13 26 0.0% 100.0%
North Central Power Co., Inc. 7 27 0.0% 100.0%
Pioneer Power & Light Co. 2 28 0.0% 100.0%
Total 112,354
</TABLE>
Page 3 of 4
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT N-6
MARKET SHARE FOR ELECTRIC COMPANIES IN ILLINOIS AND BORDERING STATES
COMPANIES SORTED BY NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Customers Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (thousands) Rank Total Share
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Unicom Corp. 3,445 1 19.4% 19.4%
American Electric Power Co., Inc. 2,955 2 16.7% 36.1%
Northern States Power Co. 1,547 3 8.7% 44.8%
Ameren Corp. 1,506 4 8.5% 53.3%
Cinergy Corp. 1,424 5 8.0% 61.3%
Wisconsin Energy Corp. 1,005 6 5.7% 67.0%
Alliant Energy Corp. 902 7 5.1% 72.0%
LG&E Energy Corp. 832 8 4.7% 76.7%
MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. 651 9 3.7% 80.4%
ILLINOVA CORP. 568 10 3.2% 83.6%
Kansas City Power & Light Co. 448 11 2.5% 86.1%
WPS Resources Corp. 440 12 2.5% 88.6%
IPALCO Enterprises, Inc. 423 13 2.4% 91.0%
NiSource, Inc. 418 14 2.4% 93.4%
UtiliCorp United, Inc. 370 15 2.1% 95.4%
Cilcorp, Inc. 195 16 1.1% 96.5%
Empire District Electric Co. 143 17 0.8% 97.3%
Minnesota Power, Inc. 139 18 0.8% 98.1%
SIGCORP, Inc. 123 19 0.7% 98.8%
Madison Gas & Electric Co. 123 20 0.7% 99.5%
St. Joseph Light & Power Co. 62 21 0.3% 99.9%
Northwestern Wisconsin Electric Co. 11 22 0.1% 99.9%
Mount Carmel Public Utility Co. 6 23 0.0% 100.0%
North Central Power Co., Inc. 4 24 0.0% 100.0%
Pioneer Power & Light Co. 2 25 0.0% 100.0%
Consolidated Water Power Co. 1 26 0.0% 100.0%
Ohio Valley Electric Corp. 0 27 0.0% 100.0%
Wisconsin River Power Co. 0 28 0.0% 100.0%
Total 17,743
</TABLE>
Page 4 of 4
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT N.7
MARKET SHARES FOR GAS COMPANIES IN ILLINOIS AND BORDERING STATES
(COMPANIES LISTED IN ORDER OF CUSTOMERS SERVED)
[GRAPH APPEARS HERE]
Page 1 of 4
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT N-7
MARKET SHARES FOR GAS COMPANIES IN ILLINOIS AND BORDERING STATES
COMPANIES SORTED BY REVENUE
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Revenue Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (millions of $) Rank Total Share
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Columbia Energy Group, Inc. 2,282 1 18.6% 18.6%
Nicor, Inc. 1,731 2 14.1% 32.6%
Peoples Energy Corp. 1,238 3 10.1% 42.7%
Southern Union Co. 882 4 7.2% 49.9%
NiSource, Inc. 772 5 6.3% 56.1%
Wicor, Inc. 537 6 4.4% 60.5%
MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. 536 7 4.4% 64.9%
Indiana Energy, Inc. 528 8 4.3% 69.2%
Northern States Power Co. 505 9 4.1% 73.3%
Atmos Energy Corp. 502 10 4.1% 77.3%
Cinergy Corp. 496 11 4.0% 81.4%
Alliant Energy Corp. 408 12 3.3% 84.7%
ILLINOVA CORP. 354 13 2.9% 87.6%
UtiliCorp United, Inc. 276 14 2.2% 89.8%
Ameren Corp. 250 15 2.0% 91.8%
LG&E Energy Corp. 231 16 1.9% 93.7%
Cilcorp, Inc. 219 17 1.8% 95.5%
WPS Resources Corp. 211 18 1.7% 97.2%
Madison Gas & Electric Co. 108 19 0.9% 98.1%
SIGCORP, Inc. 86 20 0.7% 98.8%
Wisconsin Fuel & Light Co. 51 21 0.4% 99.2%
Delta Natural Gas Co., Inc. 39 22 0.3% 99.5%
Minnesota Power, Inc. 14 23 0.1% 99.6%
Midwest Bottle Gas Co. 9 24 0.1% 99.7%
Illinois Gas Co. 9 25 0.1% 99.8%
St. Joseph Light & Power Co. 6 26 0.0% 99.8%
Consumers Gas Co. 5 27 0.0% 99.9%
Master Gas Service Co. 4 28 0.0% 99.9%
St. Croix Valley Natural Gas Co., Inc. 4 29 0.0% 99.9%
Indiana Utilities Corp. 3 30 0.0% 100.0%
Mount Carmel Public Utility Co. 3 31 0.0% 100.0%
Natural Gas, Inc. 2 32 0.0% 100.0%
Fidelity Natural Gas, Inc. 1 33 0.0% 100.0%
Total 12,299
</TABLE>
Page 2 of 4
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT N-7
MARKET SHARES FOR GAS COMPANIES IN ILLINOIS AND BORDERING STATES
COMPANIES SORTED BY ASSETS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Assets Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (millions of $) Rank Total Share
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Nicor, Inc. 2,956 1 15.8% 15.8%
Columbia Energy Group, Inc. 2,424 2 13.0% 28.8%
Peoples Energy Corp. 2,083 3 11.2% 40.0%
Southern Union Co. 1,518 4 8.1% 48.1%
NiSource, Inc. 1,230 5 6.6% 54.7%
UtiliCorp United, Inc. 954 6 5.1% 59.8%
Indiana Energy, Inc. 847 7 4.5% 64.4%
Wicor, Inc. 787 8 4.2% 68.6%
MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. 769 9 4.1% 72.7%
Cinergy Corp. 739 10 4.0% 76.6%
Atmos Energy Corp. 684 11 3.7% 80.3%
ILLINOVA CORP. 634 12 3.4% 83.7%
Northern States Power Co. 608 13 3.3% 87.0%
Alliant Energy Corp. 495 14 2.7% 89.6%
Ameren Corp. 447 15 2.4% 92.0%
Cilcorp, Inc. 383 16 2.1% 94.1%
LG&E Energy Corp. 335 17 1.8% 95.9%
WPS Resources Corp. 231 18 1.2% 97.1%
Madison Gas & Electric Co. 167 19 0.9% 98.0%
SIGCORP, Inc. 134 20 0.7% 98.7%
Delta Natural Gas Co., Inc. 106 21 0.6% 99.3%
Wisconsin Fuel & Light Co. 57 22 0.3% 99.6%
Midwest Bottle Gas Co. 15 23 0.1% 99.7%
Minnesota Power, Inc. 14 24 0.1% 99.7%
Illinois Gas Co. 12 25 0.1% 99.8%
St. Joseph Light & Power Co. 7 26 0.0% 99.8%
Consumers Gas Co. 6 27 0.0% 99.9%
Fidelity Natural Gas, Inc. 5 28 0.0% 99.9%
Master Gas Service Co. 5 29 0.0% 99.9%
Indiana Utilities Corp. 4 30 0.0% 99.9%
Mount Carmel Public Utility Co. 4 31 0.0% 100.0%
St. Croix Valley Natural Gas Co., Inc. 4 32 0.0% 100.0%
Natural Gas, Inc. 2 33 0.0% 100.0%
Total 18,665
</TABLE>
Page 3 of 4
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT N-7
MARKET SHARES FOR GAS COMPANIES IN ILLINOIS AND BORDERING STATES
COMPANIES SORTED BY NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Customers Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (thousands) Rank Total Share
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Columbia Energy Group, Inc. 1,940 1 15.7% 15.7%
Nicor, Inc. 1,848 2 15.0% 30.7%
Southern Union Co. 988 3 8.0% 38.7%
Peoples Energy Corp. 963 4 7.8% 46.5%
UtiliCorp United, Inc. 786 5 6.4% 52.9%
NiSource, Inc. 688 6 5.6% 58.5%
MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. 612 7 5.0% 63.4%
Wicor, Inc. 513 8 4.2% 67.6%
Atmos Energy Corp. 501 9 4.1% 71.7%
Indiana Energy, Inc. 477 10 3.9% 75.5%
Cinergy Corp. 453 11 3.7% 79.2%
Northern States Power Co. 443 12 3.6% 82.8%
ILLINOVA CORP. 394 13 3.2% 86.0%
Alliant Energy Corp. 380 14 3.1% 89.1%
Ameren Corp. 294 15 2.4% 91.4%
LG&E Energy Corp. 281 16 2.3% 93.7%
WPS Resources Corp. 218 17 1.8% 95.5%
Cilcorp, Inc. 200 18 1.6% 97.1%
Madison Gas & Electric Co. 106 19 0.9% 98.0%
SIGCORP, Inc. 106 20 0.9% 98.8%
Wisconsin Fuel & Light Co. 48 21 0.4% 99.2%
Delta Natural Gas Co., Inc. 37 22 0.3% 99.5%
Minnesota Power, Inc. 11 23 0.1% 99.6%
Illinois Gas Co. 10 24 0.1% 99.7%
Midwest Bottle Gas Co. 10 25 0.1% 99.8%
St. Joseph Light & Power Co. 6 26 0.1% 99.8%
Consumers Gas Co. 6 27 0.0% 99.9%
St. Croix Valley Natural Gas Co., Inc. 5 28 0.0% 99.9%
Master Gas Service Co. 4 29 0.0% 99.9%
Mount Carmel Public Utility Co. 4 30 0.0% 100.0%
Indiana Utilities Corp. 2 31 0.0% 100.0%
Natural Gas, Inc. 2 32 0.0% 100.0%
Fidelity Natural Gas, Inc. 0 33 0.0% 100.0%
Total 12,335
</TABLE>
Page 4 of 4
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT N.8
MARKET SHARES FOR COMBINED GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANIES IN
ILLINOIS AND BORDERING STATES
(COMPANIES LISTED IN ORDER OF CUSTOMERS SERVED)
[GRAPH APPEARS HERE]
Page 1 of 4
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT N-8
MARKET SHARE FOR COMBINED GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANIES IN ILLINOIS
AND BORDERING STATES
COMPANIES SORTED BY REVENUE
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Revenue Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (millions of $) Rank Total Share
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Cinergy Corp. 5,498 1 22.0% 22.0%
Ameren Corp. 3,436 2 13.8% 35.8%
Northern States Power Co. 3,146 3 12.6% 48.4%
ILLINOVA CORP. 2,135 4 8.5% 56.9%
Alliant Energy Corp. 1,984 5 7.9% 64.9%
NiSource, Inc. 1,848 6 7.4% 72.3%
MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. 1,706 7 6.8% 79.1%
LG&E Energy Corp. 1,700 8 6.8% 85.9%
UtiliCorp United, Inc. 892 9 3.6% 89.5%
WPS Resources Corp. 759 10 3.0% 92.5%
Cilcorp, Inc. 579 11 2.3% 94.8%
Minnesota Power, Inc. 526 12 2.1% 96.9%
SIGCORP, Inc. 383 13 1.5% 98.5%
Madison Gas & Electric Co. 277 14 1.1% 99.6%
St. Joseph Light & Power Co. 95 15 0.4% 99.9%
Mount Carmel Public Utility Co. 13 16 0.1% 100.0%
Total 24,978
</TABLE>
Page 2 of 4
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT N-8
MARKET SHARE FOR COMBINED GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANIES IN ILLINOIS
AND BORDERING STATES
COMPANIES SORTED BY ASSETS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Assets Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (millions of $) Rank Total Share
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Cinergy Corp. 10,617 1 16.2% 16.2%
Ameren Corp. 9,203 2 14.0% 30.3%
Northern States Power Co. 8,065 3 12.3% 42.6%
ILLINOVA CORP. 7,784 4 11.9% 54.4%
NiSource, Inc. 4,999 5 7.6% 62.1%
Alliant Energy Corp. 4,808 6 7.3% 69.4%
LG&E Energy Corp. 4,391 7 6.7% 76.1%
MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. 4,342 8 6.6% 82.7%
UtiliCorp United, Inc. 4,032 9 6.2% 88.9%
Minnesota Power, Inc. 2,089 10 3.2% 92.1%
WPS Resources Corp. 1,734 11 2.6% 94.7%
Cilcorp, Inc. 1,440 12 2.2% 96.9%
SIGCORP, Inc. 1,085 13 1.7% 98.6%
Madison Gas & Electric Co. 655 14 1.0% 99.6%
St. Joseph Light & Power Co. 250 15 0.4% 100.0%
Mount Carmel Public Utility Co. 17 16 0.0% 100.0%
Total 65,512
</TABLE>
Page 3 of 4
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT N-8
MARKET SHARE FOR COMBINED GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANIES IN
ILLINOIS AND BORDERING STATES
COMPANIES SORTED BY NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Customers Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (thousands) Rank Total Share
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Northern States Power Co. 1,990 1 13.9% 13.9%
Cinergy Corp. 1,877 2 13.1% 27.1%
Ameren Corp. 1,801 3 12.6% 39.7%
Alliant Energy Corp. 1,281 4 9.0% 48.6%
MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. 1,262 5 8.8% 57.5%
UtiliCorp United, Inc. 1,157 6 8.1% 65.6%
LG&E Energy Corp. 1,113 7 7.8% 73.4%
NiSource, Inc. 1,106 8 7.7% 81.1%
ILLINOVA CORP. 962 9 6.7% 87.8%
WPS Resources Corp. 658 10 4.6% 92.4%
Cilcorp, Inc. 395 11 2.8% 95.2%
Madison Gas & Electric Co. 229 12 1.6% 96.8%
SIGCORP, Inc. 229 13 1.6% 98.4%
Minnesota Power, Inc. 150 14 1.0% 99.5%
St. Joseph Light & Power Co. 68 15 0.5% 99.9%
Mount Carmel Public Utility Co. 9 16 0.1% 100.0%
Total 14,287
</TABLE>
Page 4 of 4
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT N.9
MARKET SHARES FOR UTILITIES IN ILLINOIS AND BORDERING STATES
(COMPANIES LISTED IN ORDER OF CUSTOMERS SERVED)
[GRAPH APPEARS HERE]
Page 1 of 4
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT N-9
MARKET SHARE FOR UTILITIES IN ILLINOIS AND BORDERING STATES
COMPANIES SORTED BY REVENUE
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Revenue Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (millions of $) Rank Total Share
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Unicom Corp. 7,136 1 14.0% 14.0%
American Electric Power Co., Inc. 7,054 2 13.8% 27.7%
Cinergy Corp. 5,498 3 10.7% 38.5%
Ameren Corp. 3,436 4 6.7% 45.2%
Northern States Power Co. 3,146 5 6.1% 51.4%
Columbia Energy Group, Inc. 2,282 6 4.5% 55.8%
ILLINOVA CORP. 2,135 7 4.2% 60.0%
Alliant Energy Corp. 1,984 8 3.9% 63.9%
NiSource, Inc. 1,848 9 3.6% 67.5%
Nicor, Inc. 1,731 10 3.4% 70.9%
MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. 1,706 11 3.3% 74.2%
LG&E Energy Corp. 1,700 12 3.3% 77.5%
Wisconsin Energy Corp. 1,679 13 3.3% 80.8%
Peoples Energy Corp. 1,238 14 2.4% 83.2%
Kansas City Power & Light Co. 939 15 1.8% 85.1%
UtiliCorp United, Inc. 892 16 1.7% 86.8%
Southern Union Co. 882 17 1.7% 88.5%
IPALCO Enterprises, Inc. 786 18 1.5% 90.1%
WPS Resources Corp. 759 19 1.5% 91.5%
Cilcorp, Inc. 579 20 1.1% 92.7%
Wicor, Inc. 537 21 1.0% 93.7%
Indiana Energy, Inc. 528 22 1.0% 94.8%
Minnesota Power, Inc. 526 23 1.0% 95.8%
Atmos Energy Corp. 502 24 1.0% 96.8%
Ohio Valley Electric Corp. 460 25 0.9% 97.7%
SIGCORP, Inc. 383 26 0.7% 98.4%
Madison Gas & Electric Co. 277 27 0.5% 99.0%
Empire District Electric Co. 239 28 0.5% 99.4%
St. Joseph Light & Power Co. 95 29 0.2% 99.6%
Wisconsin Fuel & Light Co. 51 30 0.1% 99.7%
Delta Natural Gas Co., Inc. 39 31 0.1% 99.8%
Consolidated Water Power Co. 37 32 0.1% 99.9%
Mount Carmel Public Utility Co. 13 33 0.0% 99.9%
Northwestern Wisconsin Electric Co. 11 34 0.0% 99.9%
Midwest Bottle Gas Co. 9 35 0.0% 99.9%
Illinois Gas Co. 9 36 0.0% 99.9%
Wisconsin River Power Co. 5 37 0.0% 100.0%
Consumers Gas Co. 5 38 0.0% 100.0%
Master Gas Service Co. 4 39 0.0% 100.0%
St. Croix Valley Natural Gas Co., Inc. 4 40 0.0% 100.0%
Indiana Utilities Corp. 3 41 0.0% 100.0%
Natural Gas, Inc. 2 42 0.0% 100.0%
North Central Power Co., Inc. 2 43 0.0% 100.0%
Pioneer Power & Light Co. 2 44 0.0% 100.0%
Fidelity Natural Gas, Inc. 1 45 0.0% 100.0%
Total 51,153
</TABLE>
Page 2 of 4
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT N-9
MARKET SHARE FOR UTILITIES IN ILLINOIS AND BORDERING STATES
COMPANIES SORTED BY ASSETS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Assets Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (millions of $) Rank Total Share
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Unicom Corp. 26,223 1 20.0% 20.0%
American Electric Power Co., Inc. 16,847 2 12.9% 32.9%
Cinergy Corp. 10,617 3 8.1% 41.0%
Ameren Corp. 9,203 4 7.0% 48.0%
Northern States Power Co. 8,065 5 6.2% 54.2%
ILLINOVA CORP. 7,784 6 5.9% 60.1%
NiSource, Inc. 4,999 7 3.8% 63.9%
Wisconsin Energy Corp. 4,839 8 3.7% 67.6%
Alliant Energy Corp. 4,808 9 3.7% 71.3%
LG&E Energy Corp. 4,391 10 3.4% 74.6%
MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. 4,342 11 3.3% 77.9%
UtiliCorp United, Inc. 4,032 12 3.1% 81.0%
Nicor, Inc. 2,956 13 2.3% 83.3%
Kansas City Power & Light Co. 2,845 14 2.2% 85.4%
Columbia Energy Group, Inc. 2,424 15 1.9% 87.3%
IPALCO Enterprises, Inc. 2,123 16 1.6% 88.9%
Minnesota Power, Inc. 2,089 17 1.6% 90.5%
Peoples Energy Corp. 2,083 18 1.6% 92.1%
WPS Resources Corp. 1,734 19 1.3% 93.4%
Southern Union Co. 1,518 20 1.2% 94.6%
Cilcorp, Inc. 1,440 21 1.1% 95.7%
SIGCORP, Inc. 1,085 22 0.8% 96.5%
Indiana Energy, Inc. 847 23 0.6% 97.2%
Wicor, Inc. 787 24 0.6% 97.8%
Atmos Energy Corp. 684 25 0.5% 98.3%
Empire District Electric Co. 674 26 0.5% 98.8%
Madison Gas & Electric Co. 655 27 0.5% 99.3%
Ohio Valley Electric Corp. 357 28 0.3% 99.6%
St. Joseph Light & Power Co. 250 29 0.2% 99.8%
Delta Natural Gas Co., Inc. 106 30 0.1% 99.8%
Wisconsin Fuel & Light Co. 57 31 0.0% 99.9%
Consolidated Water Power Co. 37 32 0.0% 99.9%
Northwestern Wisconsin Electric Co. 22 33 0.0% 99.9%
Wisconsin River Power Co. 18 34 0.0% 99.9%
Mount Carmel Public Utility Co. 17 35 0.0% 100.0%
Midwest Bottle Gas Co. 15 36 0.0% 100.0%
Illinois Gas Co. 12 37 0.0% 100.0%
North Central Power Co., Inc. 7 38 0.0% 100.0%
Consumers Gas Co. 6 39 0.0% 100.0%
Fidelity Natural Gas, Inc. 5 40 0.0% 100.0%
Master Gas Service Co. 5 41 0.0% 100.0%
Indiana Utilities Corp. 4 42 0.0% 100.0%
St. Croix Valley Natural Gas Co., Inc. 4 43 0.0% 100.0%
Natural Gas, Inc. 2 44 0.0% 100.0%
Pioneer Power & Light Co. 2 45 0.0% 100.0%
Total 131,019
</TABLE>
Page 3 of 4
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT N-9
MARKET SHARE FOR UTILITIES IN ILLINOIS AND BORDERING STATES
COMPANIES SORTED BY NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Customers Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (thousands) Rank Total Share
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Unicom Corp. 3,445 1 11.5% 11.5%
American Electric Power Co., Inc. 2,955 2 9.8% 21.3%
Northern States Power Co. 1,990 3 6.6% 27.9%
Columbia Energy Group, Inc. 1,940 4 6.5% 34.3%
Cinergy Corp. 1,877 5 6.2% 40.6%
Nicor, Inc. 1,848 6 6.1% 46.7%
Ameren Corp. 1,801 7 6.0% 52.7%
Alliant Energy Corp. 1,281 8 4.3% 57.0%
MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. 1,262 9 4.2% 61.2%
UtiliCorp United, Inc. 1,157 10 3.8% 65.0%
LG&E Energy Corp. 1,113 11 3.7% 68.7%
NiSource, Inc. 1,106 12 3.7% 72.4%
Wisconsin Energy Corp. 1,005 13 3.3% 75.7%
Southern Union Co. 988 14 3.3% 79.0%
Peoples Energy Corp. 963 15 3.2% 82.2%
ILLINOVA CORP. 962 16 3.2% 85.4%
WPS Resources Corp. 658 17 2.2% 87.6%
Wicor, Inc. 513 18 1.7% 89.3%
Atmos Energy Corp. 501 19 1.7% 91.0%
Indiana Energy, Inc. 477 20 1.6% 92.6%
Kansas City Power & Light Co. 448 21 1.5% 94.1%
IPALCO Enterprises, Inc. 423 22 1.4% 95.5%
Cilcorp, Inc. 395 23 1.3% 96.8%
Madison Gas & Electric Co. 229 24 0.8% 97.5%
SIGCORP, Inc. 229 25 0.8% 98.3%
Minnesota Power, Inc. 150 26 0.5% 98.8%
Empire District Electric Co. 143 27 0.5% 99.3%
St. Joseph Light & Power Co. 68 28 0.2% 99.5%
Wisconsin Fuel & Light Co. 48 29 0.2% 99.7%
Delta Natural Gas Co., Inc. 37 30 0.1% 99.8%
Northwestern Wisconsin Electric Co. 11 31 0.0% 99.8%
Illinois Gas Co. 10 32 0.0% 99.9%
Midwest Bottle Gas Co. 10 33 0.0% 99.9%
Mount Carmel Public Utility Co. 9 34 0.0% 99.9%
Consumers Gas Co. 6 35 0.0% 99.9%
St. Croix Valley Natural Gas Co., Inc. 5 36 0.0% 100.0%
Master Gas Service Co. 4 37 0.0% 100.0%
North Central Power Co., Inc. 4 38 0.0% 100.0%
Indiana Utilities Corp. 2 39 0.0% 100.0%
Pioneer Power & Light Co. 2 40 0.0% 100.0%
Natural Gas, Inc. 2 41 0.0% 100.0%
Consolidated Water Power Co. 1 42 0.0% 100.0%
Ohio Valley Electric Corp. 0 43 0.0% 100.0%
Fidelity Natural Gas, Inc. 0 44 0.0% 100.0%
Wisconsin River Power Co. 0 45 0.0% 100.0%
Total 30,078
</TABLE>
Page 4 of 4
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT N.10
MARKET SHARES FOR ELECTRIC COMPANIES IN THE U.S.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Number of Portion of Market Served
Illinova's Illinova's Larger by Illinova and Larger
Parameter Units Statistics Share Companies Companies
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Customers thousands 568 0.6% 48 87.9%
Assets $millions 7,150 1.2% 30 73.3%
Revenues $millions 1,781 0.9% 36 79.8%
COMPARISON OF ILLINOVA CORP. TO LARGE ELECTRIC UTILITIES
Number of
Utilities
Necessary Average Size
for 50% of of These Ratio of These Utilities
Parameter Units U.S. Utilities to Illinova
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Customers thousands 17 2,718 5
Assets $millions 17 18,027 3
Revenues $millions 17 6,091 3
Number of
Utilities
Necessary Average Size
for 80% of of These Ratio of These Utilities
Parameter Units U.S. Utilities to Illinova
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Customers thousands 39 1,892 3
Assets $millions 38 12,449 2
Revenues $millions 38 4,268 2
</TABLE>
Page 1 of 5
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT N-10
MARKET SHARES FOR ELECTRIC COMPANIES IN THE UNITED STATES
COMPANIES SORTED BY REVENUE
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Revenue Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (millions of $) Rank Total Share
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Southern Company 9,763 1 4.9% 4.9%
Edison International 7,383 2 3.7% 8.5%
PG&E Corp. 7,245 3 3.6% 12.1%
Entergy Corp. 7,205 4 3.6% 15.7%
Unicom Corp. 7,136 5 3.5% 19.3%
American Electric Power Co., Inc. 7,054 6 3.5% 22.8%
TXU 6,556 7 3.3% 26.0%
FPL Group, Inc. 6,132 8 3.0% 29.1%
Public Service Enterprise Group, Inc. 5,870 9 2.9% 32.0%
Consolidated Edison, Inc. 5,728 10 2.8% 34.8%
FirstEnergy Corp. 5,264 11 2.6% 37.5%
Cinergy Corp. 5,002 12 2.5% 40.0%
PECO Energy Co. 4,866 13 2.4% 42.4%
PacifiCorp 4,834 14 2.4% 44.8%
Dominion Resources, Inc. 4,628 15 2.3% 47.1%
Duke Energy Corp. 4,529 16 2.3% 49.3%
Reliant Energy, Inc. 4,350 17 2.2% 51.5%
Northeast Utilities 4,257 18 2.1% 53.6%
GPU, Inc. 4,028 19 2.0% 55.6%
DTE Energy Co. 3,861 20 1.9% 57.5%
PP&L Resources, Inc. 3,571 21 1.8% 59.3%
Central & South West Corp. 3,564 22 1.8% 61.1%
Niagara Mohawk Holdings, Inc. 3,262 23 1.6% 62.7%
Ameren Corp. 3,186 24 1.6% 64.3%
Carolina Power & Light Co. 3,167 25 1.6% 65.9%
New England Electric System 2,774 26 1.4% 67.2%
Florida Progress Corp. 2,648 27 1.3% 68.6%
Northern States Power Co. 2,641 28 1.3% 69.9%
Allegheny Energy, Inc. 2,614 29 1.3% 71.2%
CMS Energy Corp. 2,604 30 1.3% 72.5%
New Century Energies, Inc. 2,590 31 1.3% 73.8%
Conectiv 2,311 32 1.1% 74.9%
Constellation Energy Group, Inc. 2,221 33 1.1% 76.0%
Potomac Electric Power Co. 2,064 34 1.0% 77.0%
Pinnacle West Capital Corp. 1,911 35 1.0% 78.0%
Sempra Energy 1,867 36 0.9% 78.9%
ILLINOVA CORP. 1,781 37 0.9% 79.8%
Everyone else combined 40,614 20.2% 100.0%
Total 201,080
</TABLE>
Page 2 of 5
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT N-10
MARKET SHARES FOR ELECTRIC COMPANIES IN THE UNITED STATES
COMPANIES SORTED BY ASSETS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Assets Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (millions of $) Rank Total Share
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Unicom Corp. 26,223 1 4.4% 4.4%
Southern Company 25,367 2 4.3% 8.7%
PG&E Corp. 23,879 3 4.0% 12.8%
Entergy Corp. 21,348 4 3.6% 16.4%
Edison International 21,121 5 3.6% 20.0%
TXU 20,540 6 3.5% 23.4%
FirstEnergy Corp. 20,311 7 3.4% 26.9%
Duke Energy Corp. 17,692 8 3.0% 29.9%
American Electric Power Co., Inc. 16,847 9 2.8% 32.7%
FPL Group, Inc. 16,643 10 2.8% 35.5%
Public Service Enterprise Group, Inc. 15,239 11 2.6% 38.1%
Consolidated Edison, Inc. 14,599 12 2.5% 40.6%
Dominion Resources, Inc. 14,545 13 2.5% 43.0%
Niagara Mohawk Holdings, Inc. 14,542 14 2.5% 45.5%
GPU, Inc. 13,361 15 2.3% 47.7%
PECO Energy Co. 12,531 16 2.1% 49.9%
DTE Energy Co. 11,671 17 2.0% 51.8%
PacifiCorp 11,624 18 2.0% 53.8%
Northeast Utilities 11,486 19 1.9% 55.7%
Reliant Energy, Inc. 10,333 20 1.7% 57.5%
Cinergy Corp. 9,878 21 1.7% 59.2%
Central & South West Corp. 9,752 22 1.6% 60.8%
PP&L Resources, Inc. 9,275 23 1.6% 62.4%
Carolina Power & Light Co. 9,139 24 1.5% 63.9%
Ameren Corp. 8,755 25 1.5% 65.4%
Western Resources, Inc. 8,543 26 1.4% 66.9%
Constellation Energy Group, Inc. 8,170 27 1.4% 68.2%
CMS Energy Corp. 7,709 28 1.3% 69.5%
New Century Energies, Inc. 7,553 29 1.3% 70.8%
Northern States Power Co. 7,457 30 1.3% 72.1%
ILLINOVA CORP. 7,150 31 1.2% 73.3%
Everyone else combined 157,876 26.7% 100.0%
Total 591,161
</TABLE>
Page 3 of 5
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT N-10
MARKET SHARES FOR ELECTRIC COMPANIES IN THE UNITED STATES
COMPANIES SORTED BY NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Customers Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (thousands) Rank Total Share
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
PG&E Corp. 4,536 1 5.0% 5.0%
Edison International 4,284 2 4.7% 9.6%
Southern Company 3,761 3 4.1% 13.8%
FPL Group, Inc. 3,615 4 4.0% 17.7%
Unicom Corp. 3,445 5 3.8% 21.5%
Consolidated Edison, Inc. 3,031 6 3.3% 24.8%
American Electric Power Co., Inc. 2,955 7 3.2% 28.0%
TXU 2,517 8 2.8% 30.8%
Entergy Corp. 2,482 9 2.7% 33.5%
FirstEnergy Corp. 2,161 10 2.4% 35.8%
DTE Energy Co. 2,062 11 2.3% 38.1%
GPU, Inc. 2,030 12 2.2% 40.3%
Dominion Resources, Inc. 1,977 13 2.2% 42.5%
Duke Energy Corp. 1,968 14 2.2% 44.6%
Public Service Enterprise Group, Inc. 1,911 15 2.1% 46.7%
Central & South West Corp. 1,735 16 1.9% 48.6%
Northeast Utilities 1,729 17 1.9% 50.5%
CMS Energy Corp. 1,628 18 1.8% 52.3%
Reliant Energy, Inc. 1,596 19 1.7% 54.0%
Niagara Mohawk Holdings, Inc. 1,551 20 1.7% 55.7%
Northern States Power Co. 1,547 21 1.7% 57.4%
New Century Energies, Inc. 1,545 22 1.7% 59.1%
Ameren Corp. 1,506 23 1.6% 60.7%
PECO Energy Co. 1,488 24 1.6% 62.4%
PacifiCorp 1,454 25 1.6% 64.0%
Cinergy Corp. 1,424 26 1.6% 65.5%
Allegheny Energy, Inc. 1,410 27 1.5% 67.1%
Florida Progress Corp. 1,341 28 1.5% 68.5%
PP&L Resources, Inc. 1,250 29 1.4% 69.9%
Sempra Energy 1,190 30 1.3% 71.2%
Carolina Power & Light Co. 1,169 31 1.3% 72.5%
Constellation Energy Group, Inc. 1,117 32 1.2% 73.7%
New England Electric System 1,009 33 1.1% 74.8%
Wisconsin Energy Corp. 1,005 34 1.1% 75.9%
Conectiv 939 35 1.0% 76.9%
Alliant Energy Corp. 902 36 1.0% 77.9%
Puget Sound Energy, Inc. 882 37 1.0% 78.9%
LG&E Energy Corp. 832 38 0.9% 79.8%
Energy East Corp. 813 39 0.9% 80.7%
Pinnacle West Capital Corp. 778 40 0.9% 81.5%
OGE Energy Corp. 694 41 0.8% 82.3%
Enron Corp. 691 42 0.8% 83.0%
Potomac Electric Power Co. 690 43 0.8% 83.8%
BEC Energy 667 44 0.7% 84.5%
MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. 651 45 0.7% 85.2%
</TABLE>
Page 4 of 5
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT N-10
MARKET SHARES FOR ELECTRIC COMPANIES IN THE UNITED STATES
COMPANIES SORTED BY NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Customers Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (thousands) Rank Total Share
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Eastern Utilities Associates 641 46 0.7% 85.9%
Western Resources, Inc. 620 47 0.7% 86.6%
DQE, Inc. 581 48 0.6% 87.2%
ILLINOVA CORP. 568 49 0.6% 87.9%
Everyone else combined 11,105 12.1% 100.0%
Total 91,480
</TABLE>
Page 5 of 5
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT N.11
MARKET SHARES FOR GAS COMPANIES IN THE U.S.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Portion of Market
Number of Larger Served by Illinova
Parameter Units Illinova's Statistics Illinova's Share Companies and Larger Companies
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Customers thousands 394 0.8% 38 83.4%
Assets $millions 634 0.8% 39 81.0%
Revenues $millions 354 0.8% 40 81.5%
</TABLE>
COMPARISON OF ILLINOVA CORP. TO LARGE GAS UTILITIES
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Number of Utilities Average Size of These Ratio of These Utilities
Parameter Units Necessary for 50% of U.S. Utilities to Illinova
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Customers thousands 12 2,075 5
Assets $millions 14 2,787 4
Revenues $millions 15 1,601 5
Number of Utilities Average Size of These Ratio of These Utilities
Parameter Units Necessary for 80% of U.S. Utilities to Illinova
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Customers thousands 34 1,157 3
Assets $millions 38 1,642 3
Revenues $millions 38 981 3
</TABLE>
Page 1 of 4
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT N-11
MARKET SHARES FOR GAS COMPANIES IN THE UNITED STATES
COMPANIES SORTED BY REVENUE
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Revenue Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (millions of $) Rank Total Share
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Sempra Energy 3,196 1 6.9% 6.9%
Columbia Energy Group, Inc. 2,282 2 4.9% 11.7%
Consolidated Natural Gas Co. 2,027 3 4.3% 16.1%
Public Service Enterprise Group, Inc. 1,937 4 4.2% 20.2%
PG&E Corp. 1,892 5 4.1% 24.3%
Nicor, Inc. 1,731 6 3.7% 28.0%
Houston Industries, Inc. 1,695 7 3.6% 31.6%
MarketSpan Corp. 1,310 8 2.8% 34.5%
Peoples Energy Corp. 1,238 9 2.7% 37.1%
MCN Energy Group, Inc. 1,227 10 2.6% 39.7%
CMS Energy Corp. 1,195 11 2.6% 42.3%
AGL Resources, Inc. 1,120 12 2.4% 44.7%
Consolidated Edison, Inc. 1,096 13 2.3% 47.1%
Washington Gas Light Co. 1,079 14 2.3% 49.4%
National Fuel Gas Co. 986 15 2.1% 51.5%
TXU 969 16 2.1% 53.6%
Southern Union Co. 882 17 1.9% 55.4%
Piedmont Natural Gas Co., Inc. 784 18 1.7% 57.1%
NiSource, Inc. 772 19 1.7% 58.8%
Eastern Enterprises 756 20 1.6% 60.4%
Niagara Mohawk Holdings, Inc. 659 21 1.4% 61.8%
New Century Energies, Inc. 637 22 1.4% 63.2%
ONEOK, Inc. 600 23 1.3% 64.5%
New Jersey Resources Corp. 574 24 1.2% 65.7%
Wicor, Inc. 537 25 1.2% 66.9%
MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. 536 26 1.1% 68.0%
Indiana Energy, Inc. 528 27 1.1% 69.1%
Constellation Energy Group, Inc. 522 28 1.1% 70.3%
Northern States Power Co. 505 29 1.1% 71.3%
Atmos Energy Corp. 502 30 1.1% 72.4%
Cinergy Corp. 496 31 1.1% 73.5%
NUI Corp. 455 32 1.0% 74.4%
PECO Energy Co. 451 33 1.0% 75.4%
Questar Corp. 448 34 1.0% 76.4%
Bay State Gas Co. 442 35 0.9% 77.3%
Equitable Resources, Inc. 410 36 0.9% 78.2%
Puget Sound Energy, Inc. 409 37 0.9% 79.1%
Alliant Energy Corp. 408 38 0.9% 80.0%
UGI Corp. 368 39 0.8% 80.7%
ILLINOVA CORP. 354 40 0.8% 81.5%
Everyone else combined 8,627 18.5% 100%
Total 46,642
</TABLE>
Page 2 of 4
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT N-11
MARKET SHARES FOR GAS COMPANIES IN THE UNITED STATES
COMPANIES SORTED BY ASSETS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Assets Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (millions of $) Rank Total Share
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Sempra Energy 6,652 1 8.6% 8.6%
PG&E Corp. 5,985 2 7.7% 16.2%
Nicor, Inc. 2,956 3 3.8% 20.0%
Consolidated Natural Gas Co. 2,705 4 3.5% 23.5%
Public Service Enterprise Group, Inc. 2,697 5 3.5% 27.0%
MCN Energy Group, Inc. 2,541 6 3.3% 30.3%
Columbia Energy Group, Inc. 2,424 7 3.1% 33.4%
Peoples Energy Corp. 2,083 8 2.7% 36.1%
CMS Energy Corp. 1,926 9 2.5% 38.5%
AGL Resources, Inc. 1,885 10 2.4% 41.0%
Washington Gas Light Co. 1,832 11 2.4% 43.3%
MarketSpan Corp. 1,827 12 2.3% 45.7%
Houston Industries, Inc. 1,764 13 2.3% 47.9%
Consolidated Edison, Inc. 1,740 14 2.2% 50.2%
TXU 1,677 15 2.2% 52.3%
Southern Union Co. 1,518 16 2.0% 54.3%
NiSource, Inc. 1,230 17 1.6% 55.9%
Piedmont Natural Gas Co., Inc. 1,227 18 1.6% 57.4%
National Fuel Gas Co. 1,187 19 1.5% 59.0%
Puget Sound Energy, Inc. 1,169 20 1.5% 60.5%
Niagara Mohawk Holdings, Inc. 1,132 21 1.5% 61.9%
NW Natural (Northwest Natural Gas Co.) 1,129 22 1.5% 63.4%
New Century Energies, Inc. 1,124 23 1.4% 64.8%
Eastern Enterprises 955 24 1.2% 66.0%
UtiliCorp United, Inc. 954 25 1.2% 67.3%
PECO Energy Co. 878 26 1.1% 68.4%
Constellation Energy Group, Inc. 847 27 1.1% 69.5%
Indiana Energy, Inc. 847 28 1.1% 70.6%
Questar Corp. 836 29 1.1% 71.7%
ONEOK, Inc. 826 30 1.1% 72.7%
New Jersey Resources Corp. 810 31 1.0% 73.8%
Wicor, Inc. 787 32 1.0% 74.8%
MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. 769 33 1.0% 75.8%
Southwest Gas Corp. 747 34 1.0% 76.7%
Cinergy Corp. 739 35 0.9% 77.7%
Atmos Energy Corp. 684 36 0.9% 78.5%
PSC of North Carolina, Inc. 671 37 0.9% 79.4%
UGI Corp. 638 38 0.8% 80.2%
ILLINOVA CORP. 634 39 0.8% 81.0%
Everyone else combined 14,743 19.0% 100%
Total 77,777
</TABLE>
Page 3 of 4
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT N-11
MARKET SHARES FOR GAS COMPANIES IN THE UNITED STATES
COMPANIES SORTED BY NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Customers Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (thousands) Rank Total Share
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Sempra Energy 5,508 1 11.2% 11.2%
PG&E Corp. 3,680 2 7.5% 18.7%
Houston Industries, Inc. 2,075 3 4.2% 22.9%
Columbia Energy Group, Inc. 1,940 4 3.9% 26.9%
Nicor, Inc. 1,848 5 3.8% 30.6%
Consolidated Natural Gas Co. 1,786 6 3.6% 34.3%
Public Service Enterprise Group, Inc. 1,531 7 3.1% 37.4%
CMS Energy Corp. 1,511 8 3.1% 40.5%
AGL Resources, Inc. 1,361 9 2.8% 43.2%
TXU 1,355 10 2.8% 46.0%
MCN Energy Group, Inc. 1,178 11 2.4% 48.4%
MarketSpan Corp. 1,132 12 2.3% 50.7%
Consolidated Edison, Inc. 1,033 13 2.1% 52.8%
New Century Energies, Inc. 1,006 14 2.0% 54.8%
Southern Union Co. 988 15 2.0% 56.9%
Peoples Energy Corp. 963 16 2.0% 58.8%
Washington Gas Light Co. 790 17 1.6% 60.4%
UtiliCorp United, Inc. 786 18 1.6% 62.0%
ONEOK, Inc. 744 19 1.5% 63.5%
National Fuel Gas Co. 712 20 1.4% 65.0%
NiSource, Inc. 688 21 1.4% 66.4%
Questar Corp. 626 22 1.3% 67.7%
MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. 612 23 1.2% 68.9%
Eastern Enterprises 570 24 1.2% 70.1%
Constellation Energy Group, Inc. 565 25 1.2% 71.2%
Niagara Mohawk Holdings, Inc. 526 26 1.1% 72.3%
Wicor, Inc. 513 27 1.0% 73.3%
Puget Sound Energy, Inc. 510 28 1.0% 74.4%
Atmos Energy Corp. 501 29 1.0% 75.4%
Indiana Energy, Inc. 477 30 1.0% 76.4%
Southwest Gas Corp. 468 31 1.0% 77.3%
Cinergy Corp. 453 32 0.9% 78.2%
NW Natural (Northwest Natural Gas Co.) 443 33 0.9% 79.1%
Northern States Power Co. 443 34 0.9% 80.0%
Piedmont Natural Gas Co., Inc. 440 35 0.9% 80.9%
PECO Energy Co. 405 36 0.8% 81.8%
PSC of New Mexico 401 37 0.8% 82.6%
ILLINOVA CORP. 394 38 0.8% 83.4%
Everyone else combined 8,164 16.6% 100%
Total 49,129
</TABLE>
Page 4 of 4
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT N.12
MARKET SHARES FOR COMBINED GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANIES IN THE U.S.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Number of Portion of Market Served
Illinova's Illinova's Larger by Illinova and Larger
Parameter Units Statistics Share Companies Companies
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Customers thousands 962 1.5% 22 87.7%
Assets $millions 7,784 2.8% 14 72.2%
Revenues $millions 2,135 2.1% 15 75.2%
COMPARISON OF ILLINOVA CORP. TO LARGE UTILITIES
Number of
Utilities
Necessary Average Size
for 50% of of These Ratio of These Utilities
Parameter Units U.S. Utilities to Illinova
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Customers thousands 7 4,569 5
Assets $millions 9 16,372 2
Revenues $millions 8 6,386 3
Number of
Utilities
Necessary Average Size
for 80% of of These Ratio of These Utilities
Parameter Units U.S. Utilities to Illinova
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Customers thousands 19 2,671 3
Assets $millions 19 11,660 1
Revenues $millions 19 4,294 2
</TABLE>
Page 1 of 4
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT N-12
MARKET SHARES FOR COMBINED GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANIES IN THE UNITED STATES
COMPANIES SORTED BY REVENUE
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Revenue Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (millions of $) Rank Total Share
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
PG&E Corp. 9,137 1 9.1% 9.1%
Public Service Enterprise Group, Inc. 7,806 2 7.8% 16.8%
TXU 7,525 3 7.5% 24.3%
Consolidated Edison, Inc. 6,824 4 6.8% 31.1%
Cinergy Corp. 5,498 5 5.5% 36.6%
PECO Energy Co. 5,317 6 5.3% 41.8%
Sempra Energy 5,063 7 5.0% 46.9%
Niagara Mohawk Holdings, Inc. 3,921 8 3.9% 50.8%
CMS Energy Corp. 3,799 9 3.8% 54.5%
PP&L Resources, Inc. 3,630 10 3.6% 58.1%
Ameren Corp. 3,436 11 3.4% 61.6%
New Century Energies, Inc. 3,227 12 3.2% 64.8%
Northern States Power Co. 3,146 13 3.1% 67.9%
Constellation Energy Group, Inc. 2,742 14 2.7% 70.6%
Conectiv 2,464 15 2.4% 73.1%
ILLINOVA CORP. 2,135 16 2.1% 75.2%
Everyone else combined 24,977 24.8% 100%
Total 100,649
</TABLE>
Page 2 of 4
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT N-12
MARKET SHARES FOR COMBINED GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANIES IN THE UNITED STATES
COMPANIES SORTED BY ASSETS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Assets Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (millions of $) Rank Total Share
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
PG&E Corp. 29,864 1 10.8% 10.8%
TXU 22,216 2 8.0% 18.8%
Public Service Enterprise Group, Inc. 17,936 3 6.5% 25.3%
Consolidated Edison, Inc. 16,339 4 5.9% 31.3%
Niagara Mohawk Holdings, Inc. 15,674 5 5.7% 36.9%
PECO Energy Co. 13,408 6 4.9% 41.8%
Sempra Energy 11,660 7 4.2% 46.0%
Cinergy Corp. 10,617 8 3.8% 49.8%
CMS Energy Corp. 9,635 9 3.5% 53.3%
PP&L Resources, Inc. 9,367 10 3.4% 56.7%
Ameren Corp. 9,203 11 3.3% 60.0%
Constellation Energy Group, Inc. 9,017 12 3.3% 63.3%
New Century Energies, Inc. 8,677 13 3.1% 66.4%
Northern States Power Co. 8,065 14 2.9% 69.4%
ILLINOVA CORP. 7,784 15 2.8% 72.2%
Everyone else combined 76,875 27.8% 100%
Total 276,339
</TABLE>
Page 3 of 4
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT N-12
MARKET SHARES FOR COMBINED GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANIES IN THE UNITED STATES
COMPANIES SORTED BY NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Customers Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (thousands) Rank Total Share
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
PG&E Corp. 8,217 1 13.1% 13.1%
Sempra Energy 6,697 2 10.7% 23.8%
Consolidated Edison, Inc. 4,064 3 6.5% 30.3%
TXU 3,872 4 6.2% 36.5%
Public Service Enterprise Group, Inc. 3,442 5 5.5% 42.0%
CMS Energy Corp. 3,139 6 5.0% 47.0%
New Century Energies, Inc. 2,551 7 4.1% 51.1%
Niagara Mohawk Holdings, Inc. 2,077 8 3.3% 54.4%
Northern States Power Co. 1,990 9 3.2% 57.6%
PECO Energy Co. 1,893 10 3.0% 60.6%
Cinergy Corp. 1,877 11 3.0% 63.6%
Ameren Corp. 1,801 12 2.9% 66.5%
Constellation Energy Group, Inc. 1,682 13 2.7% 69.1%
Puget Sound Energy, Inc. 1,392 14 2.2% 71.4%
Alliant Energy Corp. 1,281 15 2.0% 73.4%
MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. 1,262 16 2.0% 75.4%
PP&L Resources, Inc. 1,250 17 2.0% 77.4%
UtiliCorp United, Inc. 1,157 18 1.8% 79.3%
LG&E Energy Corp. 1,113 19 1.8% 81.1%
NiSource, Inc. 1,106 20 1.8% 82.8%
Energy East Corp. 1,052 21 1.7% 84.5%
Conectiv 1,041 22 1.7% 86.2%
ILLINOVA CORP. 962 23 1.5% 87.7%
Everyone else combined 7,706 12.3% 100%
Total 62,622
</TABLE>
Page 4 of 4
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT N.13
MARKET SHARES FOR UTILITY COMPANIES IN THE U.S.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Portion of Market
Number of Larger Served by Illinova
Parameter Units Illinova's Statistics Illinova's Share Companies and Larger Companies
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Customers thousands 962 0.7% 51 79.2%
Assets $millions 7,784 1.2% 31 69.6%
Revenues $millions 2,135 0.9% 35 69.9%
</TABLE>
COMPARISON OF ILLINOVA CORP. TO LARGE UTILITIES
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Number of Utilities Average Size of These Ratio of These Utilities
Parameter Units Necessary for 50% of U.S. Utilities to Illinova
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Customers thousands 22 3,218 3
Assets $millions 19 18,098 2
Revenues $millions 21 6,079 3
<CAPTION>
Number of Utilities Average Size of These Ratio of These Utilities
Parameter Units Necessary for 80% of U.S. Utilities to Illinova
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Customers thousands 54 2,092 2
Assets $millions 45 11,894 2
Revenues $millions 50 3,972 2
</TABLE>
Page 1 of 5
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT N-13
MARKET SHARE FOR UTILITIES IN THE U.S.
COMPANIES SORTED BY REVENUE
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Revenue Rank Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (millions of $) Total Share
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Southern Company 9,763 1 3.9% 3.9%
PG&E Corp. 9,137 2 3.7% 7.6%
Public Service Enterprise Group, Inc. 7,806 3 3.2% 10.8%
TXU 7,525 4 3.0% 13.8%
Edison International 7,383 5 3.0% 16.8%
Entergy Corp. 7,205 6 2.9% 19.7%
Unicom Corp. 7,136 7 2.9% 22.6%
American Electric Power Co., Inc. 7,054 8 2.8% 25.4%
Consolidated Edison, Inc. 6,824 9 2.8% 28.2%
FPL Group, Inc. 6,132 10 2.5% 30.7%
Cinergy Corp. 5,498 11 2.2% 32.9%
PECO Energy Co. 5,317 12 2.1% 35.0%
FirstEnergy Corp. 5,264 13 2.1% 37.2%
Sempra Energy 5,063 14 2.0% 39.2%
PacifiCorp 4,834 15 2.0% 41.2%
Dominion Resources, Inc. 4,628 16 1.9% 43.0%
Duke Energy Corp. 4,529 17 1.8% 44.8%
Reliant Energy, Inc. 4,350 18 1.8% 46.6%
Northeast Utilities 4,257 19 1.7% 48.3%
GPU, Inc. 4,028 20 1.6% 49.9%
Niagara Mohawk Holdings, Inc. 3,921 21 1.6% 51.5%
DTE Energy Co. 3,861 22 1.6% 53.1%
CMS Energy Corp. 3,799 23 1.5% 54.6%
PP&L Resources, Inc. 3,630 24 1.5% 56.1%
Central & South West Corp. 3,564 25 1.4% 57.5%
Ameren Corp. 3,436 26 1.4% 58.9%
New Century Energies, Inc. 3,227 27 1.3% 60.2%
Carolina Power & Light Co. 3,167 28 1.3% 61.5%
Northern States Power Co. 3,146 29 1.3% 62.8%
New England Electric System 2,774 30 1.1% 63.9%
Constellation Energy Group, Inc. 2,742 31 1.1% 65.0%
Florida Progress Corp. 2,648 32 1.1% 66.1%
Allegheny Energy, Inc. 2,614 33 1.1% 67.1%
Conectiv 2,464 34 1.0% 68.1%
Columbia Energy Group, Inc. 2,282 35 0.9% 69.0%
ILLINOVA CORP. 2,135 36 0.9% 69.9%
Everyone else combined 74,576 30.1% 100.0%
Total 247,722
</TABLE>
Page 2 of 5
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT N-13
MARKET SHARE FOR UTILITIES IN THE U.S.
COMPANIES SORTED BY ASSETS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Assets Rank Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (millions of $) Total Share
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
PG&E Corp. 29,864 1 4.5% 4.5%
Unicom Corp. 26,223 2 3.9% 8.4%
Southern Company 25,367 3 3.8% 12.2%
TXU 22,216 4 3.3% 15.5%
Entergy Corp. 21,348 5 3.2% 18.7%
Edison International 21,121 6 3.2% 21.8%
FirstEnergy Corp. 20,311 7 3.0% 24.9%
Public Service Enterprise Group, Inc. 17,936 8 2.7% 27.6%
Duke Energy Corp. 17,692 9 2.6% 30.2%
American Electric Power Co., Inc. 16,847 10 2.5% 32.7%
FPL Group, Inc. 16,643 11 2.5% 35.2%
Consolidated Edison, Inc. 16,339 12 2.4% 37.7%
Niagara Mohawk Holdings, Inc. 15,674 13 2.3% 40.0%
Dominion Resources, Inc. 14,545 14 2.2% 42.2%
PECO Energy Co. 13,408 15 2.0% 44.2%
GPU, Inc. 13,361 16 2.0% 46.2%
DTE Energy Co. 11,671 17 1.7% 47.9%
Sempra Energy 11,660 18 1.7% 49.7%
PacifiCorp 11,624 19 1.7% 51.4%
Northeast Utilities 11,486 20 1.7% 53.1%
Cinergy Corp. 10,617 21 1.6% 54.7%
Reliant Energy, Inc. 10,333 22 1.5% 56.3%
Central & South West Corp. 9,752 23 1.5% 57.7%
CMS Energy Corp. 9,635 24 1.4% 59.1%
PP&L Resources, Inc. 9,367 25 1.4% 60.6%
Ameren Corp. 9,203 26 1.4% 61.9%
Carolina Power & Light Co. 9,139 27 1.4% 63.3%
Constellation Energy Group, Inc. 9,017 28 1.3% 64.6%
New Century Energies, Inc. 8,677 29 1.3% 65.9%
Western Resources, Inc. 8,543 30 1.3% 67.2%
Northern States Power Co. 8,065 31 1.2% 68.4%
ILLINOVA CORP. 7,784 32 1.2% 69.6%
Everyone else combined 203,466 30.4% 100%
668,938
</TABLE>
Page 3 of 5
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT N-13
MARKET SHARE FOR UTILITIES IN THE U.S.
COMPANIES SORTED BY NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Customers Rank Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (thousands) Total Share
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
PG&E Corp. 8,217 1 5.8% 5.8%
Sempra Energy 6,697 2 4.8% 10.6%
Edison International 4,284 3 3.0% 13.7%
Consolidated Edison, Inc. 4,064 4 2.9% 16.5%
TXU 3,872 5 2.8% 19.3%
Southern Company 3,761 6 2.7% 22.0%
FPL Group, Inc. 3,615 7 2.6% 24.5%
Unicom Corp. 3,445 8 2.4% 27.0%
Public Service Enterprise Group, Inc. 3,442 9 2.4% 29.4%
CMS Energy Corp. 3,139 10 2.2% 31.7%
American Electric Power Co., Inc. 2,955 11 2.1% 33.8%
New Century Energies, Inc. 2,551 12 1.8% 35.6%
Entergy Corp. 2,482 13 1.8% 37.4%
FirstEnergy Corp. 2,161 14 1.5% 38.9%
Niagara Mohawk Holdings, Inc. 2,077 15 1.5% 40.4%
Houston Industries, Inc. 2,075 16 1.5% 41.8%
DTE Energy Co. 2,062 17 1.5% 43.3%
GPU, Inc. 2,030 18 1.4% 44.8%
Northern States Power Co. 1,990 19 1.4% 46.2%
Dominion Resources, Inc. 1,977 20 1.4% 47.6%
Duke Energy Corp. 1,968 21 1.4% 49.0%
Columbia Energy Group, Inc. 1,940 22 1.4% 50.4%
PECO Energy Co. 1,893 23 1.3% 51.7%
Cinergy Corp. 1,877 24 1.3% 53.0%
Nicor, Inc. 1,848 25 1.3% 54.4%
Ameren Corp. 1,801 26 1.3% 55.6%
Consolidated Natural Gas Co. 1,786 27 1.3% 56.9%
Central & South West Corp. 1,735 28 1.2% 58.1%
Northeast Utilities 1,729 29 1.2% 59.4%
Constellation Energy Group, Inc. 1,682 30 1.2% 60.6%
Reliant Energy, Inc. 1,596 31 1.1% 61.7%
PacifiCorp 1,454 32 1.0% 62.7%
Allegheny Energy, Inc. 1,410 33 1.0% 63.7%
Puget Sound Energy, Inc. 1,392 34 1.0% 64.7%
AGL Resources, Inc. 1,361 35 1.0% 65.7%
Florida Progress Corp. 1,341 36 1.0% 66.6%
Alliant Energy Corp. 1,281 37 0.9% 67.6%
MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. 1,262 38 0.9% 68.5%
PP&L Resources, Inc. 1,250 39 0.9% 69.3%
MCN Energy Group, Inc. 1,178 40 0.8% 70.2%
Carolina Power & Light Co. 1,169 41 0.8% 71.0%
UtiliCorp United, Inc. 1,157 42 0.8% 71.8%
MarketSpan Corp. 1,132 43 0.8% 72.6%
LG&E Energy Corp. 1,113 44 0.8% 73.4%
NiSource, Inc. 1,106 45 0.8% 74.2%
</TABLE>
Page 4 of 5
<PAGE>
MARKET SHARE FOR UTILITIES IN THE U.S.
COMPANIES SORTED BY NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Customers Rank Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (thousands) Total Share
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Energy East Corp. 1,052 46 0.7% 75.0%
Conectiv 1,041 47 0.7% 75.7%
New England Electric System 1,009 48 0.7% 76.4%
Wisconsin Energy Corp. 1,005 49 0.7% 77.1%
Southern Union Co. 988 50 0.7% 77.8%
Peoples Energy Corp. 963 51 0.7% 78.5%
ILLINOVA CORP. 962 52 0.7% 79.2%
Everyone else combined 29,233 20.8% 100.0%
Total 140,609
</TABLE>
Page 5 of 5
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT N.14
MARKET SHARES FOR ELECTRIC COMPANIES IN ILLINOIS
(COMPANIES LISTED IN ORDER OF CUSTOMERS SERVED)
[GRAPH APPEARS HERE]
Page 1 of 4
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT N-14
MARKET SHARE FOR ELECTRIC COMPANIES IN ILLINOIS
COMPANIES SORTED BY REVENUE
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Revenue Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (millions of $) Rank Total Share
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Unicom Corp. 7,136 1 57.2% 57.2%
Ameren Corp. 3,186 2 25.5% 82.8%
ILLINOVA CORP. 1,781 3 14.3% 97.0%
Cilcorp, Inc. 360 4 2.9% 99.9%
Mount Carmel Public Utility Co. 10 5 0.1% 100.0%
Total 12,473
</TABLE>
Page 2 of 4
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT N-14
MARKET SHARE FOR ELECTRIC COMPANIES IN ILLINOIS
COMPANIES SORTED BY ASSETS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Assets Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (millions of $) Rank Total Share
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Unicom Corp. 26,223 1 60.7% 60.7%
Ameren Corp. 8,755 2 20.3% 81.0%
ILLINOVA CORP. 7,150 3 16.6% 97.5%
Cilcorp, Inc. 1,058 4 2.4% 100.0%
Mount Carmel Public Utility Co. 13 5 0.0% 100.0%
Total 43,199
</TABLE>
Page 3 of 4
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT N-14
MARKET SHARE FOR ELECTRIC COMPANIES IN ILLINOIS
COMPANIES SORTED BY NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Customers Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (thousands) Rank Total Share
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Unicom Corp. 3,445 1 60.2% 60.2%
Ameren Corp. 1,506 2 26.3% 86.6%
ILLINOVA CORP. 568 3 9.9% 96.5%
Cilcorp, Inc. 195 4 3.4% 99.9%
Mount Carmel Public Utility Co. 6 5 0.1% 100.0%
Total 5,720
</TABLE>
Page 4 of 4
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT N.15
MARKET SHARES FOR GAS COMPANIES IN ILLINOIS
(COMPANIES LISTED IN ORDER OF CUSTOMERS SERVED)
[GRAPH APPEARS HERE]
Page 1 of 4
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT N-15
MARKET SHARES FOR GAS COMPANIES IN ILLINOIS
COMPANIES SORTED BY REVENUE
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Revenue Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (millions of $) Rank Total Share
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Nicor, Inc. 1,731 1 45.5% 45.5%
Peoples Energy Corp. 1,238 2 32.5% 78.1%
ILLINOVA CORP. 354 3 9.3% 87.4%
Ameren Corp. 250 4 6.6% 93.9%
Cilcorp, Inc. 219 5 5.8% 99.7%
Illinois Gas Co. 9 6 0.2% 99.9%
Mount Carmel Public Utility Co. 3 7 0.1% 100.0%
Total 3,803
</TABLE>
Page 3 of 7
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT N-15
MARKET SHARES FOR GAS COMPANIES IN ILLINOIS
COMPANIES SORTED BY ASSETS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Assets Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (millions of $) Rank Total Share
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Nicor, Inc. 2,956 1 45.3% 45.3%
Peoples Energy Corp. 2,083 2 32.0% 77.3%
ILLINOVA CORP. 634 3 9.7% 87.0%
Ameren Corp. 447 4 6.9% 93.9%
Cilcorp, Inc. 383 5 5.9% 99.8%
Illinois Gas Co. 12 6 0.2% 99.9%
Mount Carmel Public Utility Co. 4 7 0.1% 100.0%
Total 6,519
</TABLE>
Page 4 of 7
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT N-15
MARKET SHARES FOR GAS COMPANIES IN ILLINOIS
COMPANIES SORTED BY NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Customers Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (thousands) Rank Total Share
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Nicor, Inc. 1,848 1 49.8% 49.8%
Peoples Energy Corp. 963 2 25.9% 75.7%
Illinova Corp. 394 3 10.6% 86.3%
Ameren Corp. 294 4 7.9% 94.2%
Cilcorp, Inc. 200 5 5.4% 99.6%
Illinois Gas Co. 10 6 0.3% 99.9%
Mount Carmel Public Utility Co. 4 7 0.1% 100.0%
Total 3,714
</TABLE>
Page 5 of 7
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT N.16
MARKET SHARES FOR COMBINED GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANIES IN ILLINOIS
(COMPANIES LISTED IN ORDER OF CUSTOMERS SERVED)
[GRAPH APPEARS HERE]
Page 1 of 4
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT N-16
MARKET SHARE FOR COMBINED GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANIES IN ILLINOIS
COMPANIES SORTED BY REVENUE
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Revenue Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (millions of $) Rank Total Share
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Ameren Corp. 3,436 1 55.8% 55.8%
ILLINOVA CORP. 2,135 2 34.6% 90.4%
Cilcorp, Inc. 579 3 9.4% 99.8%
Mount Carmel Public Utility Co. 13 4 0.2% 100.0%
Total 6,163
</TABLE>
Page 3 of 7
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT N-16
MARKET SHARE FOR COMBINED GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANIES IN ILLINOIS
COMPANIES SORTED BY ASSETS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Assets Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (millions of $) Rank Total Share
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Ameren Corp. 9,203 1 49.9% 49.9%
ILLINOVA CORP. 7,784 2 42.2% 92.1%
Cilcorp, Inc. 1,440 3 7.8% 99.9%
Mount Carmel Public Utility Co. 17 4 0.1% 100.0%
Total 18,444
</TABLE>
Page 4 of 7
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT N-16
MARKET SHARE FOR COMBINED GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANIES IN ILLINOIS
COMPANIES SORTED BY NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Customers Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (thousands) Rank Total Share
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Ameren Corp. 1,801 1 56.9% 56.9%
ILLINOVA CORP. 962 2 30.4% 87.2%
Cilcorp, Inc. 395 3 12.5% 99.7%
Mount Carmel Public Utility Co. 9 4 0.3% 100.0%
Total 3,167
</TABLE>
Page 5 of 7
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT N.17
MARKET SHARES FOR UTILITIES IN ILLINOIS
(COMPANIES LISTED IN ORDER OF CUSTOMERS SERVED)
[GRAPH APPEARS HERE]
Page 1 of 4
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT N-17
MARKET SHARE FOR UTILITIES IN ILLINOIS
COMPANIES SORTED BY REVENUE
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Revenue Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (millions of $) Rank Total Share
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Unicom Corp. 7,136 1 43.8% 43.8%
Ameren Corp. 3,436 2 21.1% 65.0%
ILLINOVA CORP. 2,135 3 13.1% 78.1%
Nicor, Inc. 1,731 4 10.6% 88.7%
Peoples Energy Corp. 1,238 5 7.6% 96.3%
Cilcorp, Inc. 579 6 3.6% 99.9%
Mount Carmel Public Utility Co. 13 7 0.1% 99.9%
Illinois Gas Co. 9 8 0.1% 100.0%
Total 16,276
</TABLE>
Page 3 of 7
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT N-17
MARKET SHARE FOR UTILITIES IN ILLINOIS
COMPANIES SORTED BY ASSETS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Assets Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (millions of $) Rank Total Share
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Unicom Corp. 26,223 1 52.7% 52.7%
Ameren Corp. 9,203 2 18.5% 71.3%
ILLINOVA CORP. 7,784 3 15.7% 86.9%
Nicor, Inc. 2,956 4 5.9% 92.9%
Peoples Energy Corp. 2,083 5 4.2% 97.0%
Cilcorp, Inc. 1,440 6 2.9% 99.9%
Mount Carmel Public Utility Co. 17 7 0.0% 100.0%
Illinois Gas Co. 12 8 0.0% 100.0%
Total 49,718
</TABLE>
Page 4 of 7
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT N-17
MARKET SHARE FOR UTILITIES IN ILLINOIS
COMPANIES SORTED BY NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Customers Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (thousands) Rank Total Share
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Unicom Corp. 3,445 1 36.5% 36.5%
Nicor, Inc. 1,848 2 19.6% 56.1%
Ameren Corp. 1,801 3 19.1% 75.2%
Peoples Energy Corp. 963 4 10.2% 85.4%
ILLINOVA CORP. 962 5 10.2% 95.6%
Cilcorp, Inc. 395 6 4.2% 99.8%
Illinois Gas Co. 10 7 0.1% 99.9%
Mount Carmel Public Utility Co. 9 8 0.1% 100.0%
Total 9,433
</TABLE>
Page 5 of 7
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT O.1
MARKET SHARES FOR ELECTRIC COMPANIES IN ILLINOIS AND BORDERING STATES
(COMPANIES LISTED IN ORDER OF CUSTMERS SERVED)
[GRAPH APPEARS HERE]
Page 1 of 4
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT O-1
MARKET SHARE FOR ELECTRIC COMPANIES IN ILLINOIS AND BORDERING STATES
COMPANIES SORTED BY REVENUE
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Revenue Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (millions of $) Rank Total Share
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Unicom Corp. 7,151 1 19.6% 19.6%
American Electric Power Co., Inc. 6,109 2 16.8% 36.4%
Cinergy Corp. 4,762 3 13.1% 49.5%
Ameren Corp. 3,094 4 8.5% 57.9%
Northern States Power Co. 2,146 5 5.9% 63.8%
ILLINOVA CORP. 1,781 6 4.9% 68.7%
Wisconsin Energy Corp. 1,664 7 4.6% 73.3%
Alliant Energy Corp. 1,567 8 4.3% 77.6%
LG&E Energy Corp. 1,465 9 4.0% 81.6%
MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. 1,170 10 3.2% 84.8%
NiSource, Inc. 1,000 11 2.7% 87.6%
Kansas City Power & Light Co. 939 12 2.6% 90.1%
IPALCO Enterprises, Inc. 735 13 2.0% 92.1%
UtiliCorp United, Inc. 617 14 1.7% 93.8%
Minnesota Power, Inc. 560 15 1.5% 95.4%
WPS Resources Corp. 550 16 1.5% 96.9%
Cilcorp, Inc. 360 17 1.0% 97.9%
SIGCORP, Inc. 298 18 0.8% 98.7%
Empire District Electric Co. 218 19 0.6% 99.3%
Madison Gas & Electric Co. 170 20 0.5% 99.8%
St. Joseph Light & Power Co. 90 21 0.2% 100.0%
Total 36,443
</TABLE>
Source: 1998 10-K for each company.
Page 2 of 4
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT O-1
MARKET SHARE FOR ELECTRIC COMPANIES IN ILLINOIS AND BORDERING STATES
COMPANIES SORTED BY ASSETS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Assets Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (millions of $) Rank Total Share
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
UtiliCorp United, Inc. ?
Ameren Corp. ?
Unicom Corp. 12,567 1 17.7% 17.7%
American Electric Power Co., Inc. 11,730 2 16.6% 34.3%
Cinergy Corp. 9,222 3 13.0% 47.3%
Northern States Power Co. 7,200 4 10.2% 57.5%
Alliant Energy Corp. 4,866 5 6.9% 64.3%
Wisconsin Energy Corp. 4,152 6 5.9% 70.2%
ILLINOVA CORP. 3,959 7 5.6% 75.8%
LG&E Energy Corp. 3,485 8 4.9% 80.7%
MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. 2,898 9 4.1% 84.8%
NiSource, Inc. 2,515 10 3.5% 88.3%
Kansas City Power & Light Co. 2,166 11 3.1% 91.4%
IPALCO Enterprises, Inc. 1,658 12 2.3% 93.7%
WPS Resources Corp. 1,117 13 1.6% 95.3%
Minnesota Power, Inc. 772 14 1.1% 96.4%
SIGCORP, Inc. 741 15 1.0% 97.4%
Cilcorp, Inc. 732 16 1.0% 98.5%
Empire District Electric Co. 551 17 0.8% 99.3%
Madison Gas & Electric Co. 312 18 0.4% 99.7%
St. Joseph Light & Power Co. 218 19 0.3% 100.0%
Total 70,859
</TABLE>
Source: 1998 10-K for each company.
Page 3 of 4
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT O-1
MARKET SHARE FOR ELECTRIC COMPANIES IN ILLINOIS AND BORDERING STATES
COMPANIES SORTED BY NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS
Customers Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (thousands) Rank Total Share
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unicom Corp. 3,500 1 20.3% 20.3%
American Electric Power Co., Inc. 3,023 2 17.5% 37.8%
Ameren Corp. 1,479 3 8.6% 46.4%
Northern States Power Co. 1,459 4 8.5% 54.8%
Cinergy Corp. 1,400 5 8.1% 63.0%
Wisconsin Energy Corp. 1,009 6 5.8% 68.8%
Alliant Energy Corp. 908 7 5.3% 74.1%
MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. 653 8 3.8% 77.8%
ILLINOVA CORP. 581 9 3.4% 81.2%
Kansas City Power & Light Co. 451 10 2.6% 83.8%
WPS Resources Corp. 429 11 2.5% 86.3%
IPALCO Enterprises, Inc. 427 12 2.5% 88.8%
NiSource, Inc. 421 13 2.4% 91.2%
UtiliCorp United, Inc. 373 14 2.2% 93.4%
LG&E Energy Corp. 360 15 2.1% 95.5%
Cilcorp, Inc. 189 16 1.1% 96.6%
Empire District Electric Co. 143 17 0.8% 97.4%
Minnesota Power, Inc. 138 18 0.8% 98.2%
SIGCORP, Inc. 124 19 0.7% 98.9%
Madison Gas & Electric Co. 124 20 0.7% 99.6%
St. Joseph Light & Power Co. 62 21 0.4% 100.0%
Total 17,254
Source: 1998 10-K for each company.
Page 4 of 4
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT O.2
MARKET SHARES FOR GAS COMPANIES IN ILLINOIS AND BORDERING STATES
(COMPANIES LISTED IN ORDER OF CUSTOMERS SERVED)
[GRAPH APPEARS HERE]
Page 1 of 4
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT O-2
MARKET SHARES FOR GAS COMPANIES IN ILLINOIS AND BORDERING STATES
COMPANIES SORTED BY REVENUE
Revenue Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (millions of $) Rank Total Share
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minnesota Power, Inc. ?
Columbia Energy Group, Inc. 1,870 1 18.2% 18.2%
Nicor, Inc. 1,031 2 10.0% 28.2%
Peoples Energy Corp. 913 3 8.9% 37.1%
Atmos Energy Corp. 713 4 6.9% 44.0%
UtiliCorp United, Inc. 623 5 6.1% 50.1%
Southern Union Co. 605 6 5.9% 56.0%
NiSource, Inc. 574 7 5.6% 61.6%
Indiana Energy, Inc. 466 8 4.5% 66.1%
Cinergy Corp. 435 9 4.2% 70.3%
MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. 430 10 4.2% 74.5%
Wicor, Inc. 429 11 4.2% 78.7%
Northern States Power Co. 412 12 4.0% 82.7%
Alliant Energy Corp. 296 13 2.9% 85.5%
ILLINOVA CORP. 288 14 2.8% 88.3%
Wisconsin Energy Corp. 272 15 2.6% 91.0%
Ameren Corp. 217 16 2.1% 93.1%
LG&E Energy Corp. 192 17 1.9% 95.0%
Cilcorp, Inc. 172 18 1.7% 96.6%
WPS Resources Corp. 165 19 1.6% 98.2%
Madison Gas & Electric Co. 80 20 0.8% 99.0%
SIGCORP, Inc. 67 21 0.6% 99.7%
Delta Natural Gas Co., Inc. 29 22 0.3% 100.0%
St. Joseph Light & Power Co. 5 23 0.0% 100.0%
Total 10,280
Source: 1998 10-K for each company.
Page 2 of 4
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT O-2
MARKET SHARES FOR GAS COMPANIES IN ILLINOIS AND BORDERING STATES
COMPANIES SORTED BY ASSETS
Assets Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (millions of $) Rank Total Share
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UtiliCorp United, Inc. ?
Ameren Corp. ?
Minnesota Power, Inc. ?
St. Joseph Light & Power Co. ?
Columbia Energy Group, Inc. 4,096 1 24.9% 24.9%
Nicor, Inc. 1,618 2 9.8% 34.7%
Peoples Energy Corp. 1,447 3 8.8% 43.5%
Atmos Energy Corp. 1,042 4 6.3% 49.8%
Indiana Energy, Inc. 938 5 5.7% 55.5%
NiSource, Inc. 930 6 5.7% 61.2%
Northern States Power Co. 884 7 5.4% 66.6%
Cinergy Corp. 786 8 4.8% 71.3%
Southern Union Co. 744 9 4.5% 75.9%
MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. 672 10 4.1% 79.9%
Wicor, Inc. 651 11 4.0% 83.9%
Alliant Energy Corp. 515 12 3.1% 87.0%
ILLINOVA CORP. 496 13 3.0% 90.1%
Wisconsin Energy Corp. 422 14 2.6% 92.6%
LG&E Energy Corp. 333 15 2.0% 94.6%
Cilcorp, Inc. 287 16 1.7% 96.4%
WPS Resources Corp. 246 17 1.5% 97.9%
SIGCORP, Inc. 141 18 0.9% 98.7%
Madison Gas & Electric Co. 112 19 0.7% 99.4%
Delta Natural Gas Co., Inc. 95 20 0.6% 100.0%
Total 16,456
Source: 1998 10-K for each company.
Page 3 of 4
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT O-2
MARKET SHARES FOR GAS COMPANIES IN ILLINOIS AND BORDERING STATES
COMPANIES SORTED BY NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS
Customers Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (thousands) Rank Total Share
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicor, Inc. 1,875 1 14.1% 14.1%
Columbia Energy Group, Inc. 1,763 2 13.3% 27.4%
Atmos Energy Corp. 1,042 3 7.8% 35.2%
Southern Union Co. 1,011 4 7.6% 42.9%
Peoples Energy Corp. 958 5 7.2% 50.1%
UtiliCorp United, Inc. 852 6 6.4% 56.5%
NiSource, Inc. 739 7 5.6% 62.1%
MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. 622 8 4.7% 66.7%
Wicor, Inc. 529 9 4.0% 70.7%
Indiana Energy, Inc. 489 10 3.7% 74.4%
Northern States Power Co. 475 11 3.6% 78.0%
Cinergy Corp. 470 12 3.5% 81.5%
ILLINOVA CORP. 409 13 3.1% 84.6%
Alliant Energy Corp. 388 14 2.9% 87.5%
Wisconsin Energy Corp. 379 15 2.9% 90.4%
Ameren Corp. 296 16 2.2% 92.6%
LG&E Energy Corp. 289 17 2.2% 94.8%
WPS Resources Corp. 224 18 1.7% 96.5%
Cilcorp, Inc. 197 19 1.5% 97.9%
Madison Gas & Electric Co. 110 20 0.8% 98.8%
SIGCORP, Inc. 108 21 0.8% 99.6%
Delta Natural Gas Co., Inc. 37 23 0.3% 99.9%
Minnesota Power, Inc. 11 24 0.1% 100.0%
St. Joseph Light & Power Co. 6 25 0.0% 100.0%
Total 13,280
Source: 1998 10-K for each company.
Page 4 of 4
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT O.3
MARKET SHARES FOR COMBINED GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANIES IN ILLINOIS
AND BORDERING STATES
(COMPANIES LISTED IN ORDER OF CUSTOMERS SERVED)
[GRAPH APPEARS HERE]
Page 1 of 4
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT O-3
MARKET SHARE FOR COMBINED GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANIES IN ILLINOIS
AND BORDERING STATES
COMPANIES SORTED BY REVENUE
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Revenue Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (millions of $) Rank Total Share
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Cinergy Corp. 5,197 1 20.4% 20.4%
Ameren Corp. 3,311 2 13.0% 33.3%
Northern States Power Co. 2,558 3 10.0% 43.4%
ILLINOVA CORP. 2,069 4 8.1% 51.5%
Wisconsin Energy Corp. 1,935 5 7.6% 59.1%
Alliant Energy Corp. 1,863 6 7.3% 66.4%
LG&E Energy Corp. 1,656 7 6.5% 72.8%
MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. 1,600 8 6.3% 79.1%
NiSource, Inc. 1,574 9 6.2% 85.3%
UtiliCorp United, Inc. 1,239 10 4.9% 90.1%
WPS Resources Corp. 715 11 2.8% 92.9%
Minnesota Power, Inc. 560 12 2.2% 95.1%
Cilcorp, Inc. 532 13 2.1% 97.2%
SIGCORP, Inc. 365 14 1.4% 98.7%
Madison Gas & Electric Co. 250 15 1.0% 99.6%
St. Joseph Light & Power Co. 95 16 0.4% 100.0%
Total 25,518
</TABLE>
Source: 1998 10-K for each company.
Page 2 of 4
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT O-3
MARKET SHARE FOR COMBINED GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANIES IN ILLINOIS AND
BORDERING STATES
COMPANIES SORTED BY ASSETS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Assets Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (millions of $) Rank Total Share
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Cinergy Corp. 10,009 1 17.1% 17.1%
Ameren Corp. 8,594 2 14.7% 31.7%
Northern States Power Co. 8,084 3 13.8% 45.5%
Alliant Energy Corp. 5,381 4 9.2% 54.7%
Wisconsin Energy Corp. 4,574 5 7.8% 62.5%
ILLINOVA CORP. 4,455 6 7.6% 70.1%
LG&E Energy Corp. 3,818 7 6.5% 76.6%
MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. 3,570 8 6.1% 82.7%
NiSource, Inc. 3,445 9 5.9% 88.5%
UtiliCorp United, Inc. 2,041 10 3.5% 92.0%
WPS Resources Corp. 1,364 11 2.3% 94.3%
Cilcorp, Inc. 1,019 12 1.7% 96.1%
SIGCORP, Inc. 882 13 1.5% 97.6%
Minnesota Power, Inc. 772 14 1.3% 98.9%
Madison Gas & Electric Co. 423 15 0.7% 99.6%
St. Joseph Light & Power Co. 218 16 0.4% 100.0%
Total 58,648
</TABLE>
Source: 1998 10-K for each company.
Page 3 of 4
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT O-3
MARKET SHARE FOR COMBINED GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANIES IN ILLINOIS AND
BORDERING STATES
COMPANIES SORTED BY NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS
Customers Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (thousands) Rank Total Share
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northern States Power Co. 1,934 1 12.7% 12.7%
Cinergy Corp. 1,870 2 12.2% 24.9%
Ameren Corp. 1,775 3 11.6% 36.5%
Wisconsin Energy Corp. 1,389 4 9.1% 45.6%
Alliant Energy Corp. 1,296 5 8.5% 54.1%
MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. 1,274 6 8.3% 62.4%
UtiliCorp United, Inc. 1,225 7 8.0% 70.4%
NiSource, Inc. 1,160 8 7.6% 78.0%
ILLINOVA CORP. 989 9 6.5% 84.5%
WPS Resources Corp. 653 10 4.3% 88.8%
LG&E Energy Corp. 649 11 4.2% 93.0%
Cilcorp, Inc. 386 12 2.5% 95.5%
Madison Gas & Electric Co. 234 13 1.5% 97.1%
SIGCORP, Inc. 233 14 1.5% 98.6%
Minnesota Power, Inc. 149 15 1.0% 99.6%
St. Joseph Light & Power Co. 68 16 0.4% 100.0%
Total 15,286
Source: 1998 10-K for each company.
Page 4 of 4
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT O.4
MARKET SHARES FOR UTILITIES IN ILLINOIS AND BORDERING STATES
(COMPANIES LISTED IN ORDER OF CUSTOMERS SERVED)
[GRAPH APPEARS HERE]
Page 1 of 4
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT O-4
MARKET SHARE FOR UTILITIES IN ILLINOIS AND BORDERING STATES
COMPANIES SORTED BY REVENUE
Revenue Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (millions of $) Rank Total Share
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unicom Corp. 7,151 1 15.3% 15.3%
American Electric Power Co., Inc. 6,109 2 13.1% 28.4%
Cinergy Corp. 5,197 3 11.1% 39.5%
Ameren Corp. 3,311 4 7.1% 46.6%
Northern States Power Co. 2,558 5 5.5% 52.1%
ILLINOVA CORP. 2,069 6 4.4% 56.5%
Wisconsin Energy Corp. 1,935 7 4.1% 60.6%
Columbia Energy Group, Inc. 1,870 8 4.0% 64.6%
Alliant Energy Corp. 1,863 9 4.0% 68.6%
LG&E Energy Corp. 1,656 10 3.5% 72.2%
MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. 1,600 11 3.4% 75.6%
NiSource, Inc. 1,574 12 3.4% 79.0%
UtiliCorp United, Inc. 1,239 13 2.7% 81.6%
Nicor, Inc. 1,031 14 2.2% 83.8%
Kansas City Power & Light Co. 939 15 2.0% 85.8%
Peoples Energy Corp. 913 16 2.0% 87.8%
IPALCO Enterprises, Inc. 735 17 1.6% 89.4%
WPS Resources Corp. 715 18 1.5% 90.9%
Atmos Energy Corp. 713 19 1.5% 92.4%
Southern Union Co. 605 20 1.3% 93.7%
Minnesota Power, Inc. 560 21 1.2% 94.9%
Cilcorp, Inc. 532 22 1.1% 96.0%
Indiana Energy, Inc. 466 23 1.0% 97.0%
Wicor, Inc. 429 24 0.9% 98.0%
SIGCORP, Inc. 365 25 0.8% 98.7%
Madison Gas & Electric Co. 250 26 0.5% 99.3%
Empire District Electric Co. 218 27 0.5% 99.7%
St. Joseph Light & Power Co. 95 28 0.2% 99.9%
Delta Natural Gas Co., Inc. 29 30 0.1% 100.0%
Total 46,723
Source: 1998 10-K for each company.
Page 2 of 4
<PAGE>
EXHBIT O-4
MARKET SHARE FOR UTILITIES IN ILLINOIS AND BORDERING STATES
COMPANIES SORTED BY ASSETS
Assets Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (millions of $) Rank Total Share
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unicom Corp. 12,567 1 12.8% 12.8%
American Electric Power Co., Inc. 11,730 2 12.0% 24.8%
Cinergy Corp. 10,009 3 10.2% 35.0%
Ameren Corp. 8,594 4 8.8% 43.8%
Northern States Power Co. 8,084 5 8.3% 52.1%
Alliant Energy Corp. 5,381 6 5.5% 57.5%
Wisconsin Energy Corp. 4,574 7 4.7% 62.2%
ILLINOVA CORP. 4,455 8 4.5% 66.8%
Columbia Energy Group, Inc. 4,096 9 4.2% 70.9%
LG&E Energy Corp. 3,818 10 3.9% 74.8%
MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. 3,570 11 3.6% 78.5%
NiSource, Inc. 3,445 12 3.5% 82.0%
Kansas City Power & Light Co. 2,166 13 2.2% 84.2%
UtiliCorp United, Inc. 2,041 14 2.1% 86.3%
IPALCO Enterprises, Inc. 1,658 15 1.7% 88.0%
Nicor, Inc. 1,618 16 1.7% 89.6%
Peoples Energy Corp. 1,447 17 1.5% 91.1%
WPS Resources Corp. 1,364 18 1.4% 92.5%
Atmos Energy Corp. 1,042 19 1.1% 93.6%
Cilcorp, Inc. 1,019 20 1.0% 94.6%
Indiana Energy, Inc. 938 21 1.0% 95.6%
SIGCORP, Inc. 882 22 0.9% 96.5%
Minnesota Power, Inc. 772 23 0.8% 97.3%
Southern Union Co. 744 24 0.8% 98.0%
Wicor, Inc. 651 25 0.7% 98.7%
Empire District Electric Co. 551 26 0.6% 99.2%
Madison Gas & Electric Co. 423 27 0.4% 99.7%
St. Joseph Light & Power Co. 218 28 0.2% 99.9%
Delta Natural Gas Co., Inc. 95 29 0.1% 100.0%
Total 97,950
Source: 1998 10-K for each company.
Page 3 of 4
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT O-4
MARKET SHARE FOR UTILITIES IN ILLINOIS AND BORDERING STATES
COMPANIES SORTED BY NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS
Customers Share of Cumulative
Holding Company (thousands) Rank Total Share
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unicom Corp. 3,500 1 11.5% 11.5%
American Electric Power Co., Inc. 3,023 2 9.9% 21.4%
Northern States Power Co. 1,934 3 6.3% 27.7%
Nicor, Inc. 1,875 4 6.1% 33.8%
Cinergy Corp. 1,870 5 6.1% 40.0%
Ameren Corp. 1,775 6 5.8% 45.8%
Columbia Energy Group, Inc. 1,763 7 5.8% 51.5%
Wisconsin Energy Corp. 1,389 8 4.5% 56.1%
Alliant Energy Corp. 1,296 9 4.2% 60.3%
MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. 1,274 10 4.2% 64.5%
UtiliCorp United, Inc. 1,225 11 4.0% 68.5%
NiSource, Inc. 1,160 12 3.8% 72.3%
Atmos Energy Corp. 1,042 13 3.4% 75.7%
Southern Union Co. 1,011 14 3.3% 79.1%
ILLINOVA CORP. 989 15 3.2% 82.3%
Peoples Energy Corp. 958 16 3.1% 85.4%
WPS Resources Corp. 653 17 2.1% 87.6%
LG&E Energy Corp. 649 18 2.1% 89.7%
Wicor, Inc. 529 19 1.7% 91.4%
Indiana Energy, Inc. 489 20 1.6% 93.0%
Kansas City Power & Light Co. 451 21 1.5% 94.5%
IPALCO Enterprises, Inc. 427 22 1.4% 95.9%
Cilcorp, Inc. 386 23 1.3% 97.2%
Madison Gas & Electric Co. 234 24 0.8% 97.9%
SIGCORP, Inc. 233 25 0.8% 98.7%
Minnesota Power, Inc. 149 26 0.5% 99.2%
Empire District Electric Co. 143 27 0.5% 99.7%
St. Joseph Light & Power Co. 68 28 0.2% 99.9%
Delta Natural Gas Co., Inc. 37 30 0.1% 100.0%
Total 30,533
Source: 1998 10-K for each company.
Page 4 of 4
