10-K 1 a2129869z10-k.htm 10-K

Use these links to rapidly review the document
TABLE OF CONTENTS



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K


ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D) OF
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended DECEMBER 31, 2003

Commission
file number
  Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter   IRS Employer Identification No.

1-12869

 

CONSTELLATION ENERGY GROUP, INC.

 

52-1964611

1-1910

 

BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

 

52-0280210

MARYLAND

(States of incorporation)

750 E. PRATT STREET            BALTIMORE, MARYLAND                21202
                                         (Address of principal executive offices)                (Zip Code)

410-783-2800

(Registrants' telephone number, including area code)

SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(B) OF THE ACT:

Title of each class
 
  Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered
Constellation Energy Group, Inc. Common Stock—Without Par Value )   New York Stock Exchange, Inc.
Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.
Pacific Exchange, Inc.

6.20% Trust Preferred Securities ($25 liquidation amount per preferred security) issued by BGE Capital Trust II, fully and unconditionally guaranteed, based on several obligations, by Baltimore Gas and Electric Company

)

 

New York Stock Exchange, Inc.

SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(G) OF THE ACT:

Not Applicable

         Indicate by check mark whether the registrants (1) have filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months, and (2) have been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ý        No o.

         Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrants' knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.     ý

         Indicate by check mark whether Constellation Energy Group, Inc. is an accelerated filer Yes ý        No o.

        Indicate by check mark whether Baltimore Gas and Electric Company is an accelerated filer    Yes o        No ý.

         Aggregate market value of Constellation Energy Group, Inc. Common Stock, without par value, held by non-affiliates as of June 30, 2003 was approximately $5,698,266,202 based upon New York Stock Exchange composite transaction closing price.

CONSTELLATION ENERGY GROUP, INC. COMMON STOCK, WITHOUT PAR VALUE 168,103,732 SHARES OUTSTANDING ON FEBRUARY 27, 2004.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Part of Form 10-K
  Document Incorporated by Reference
III   Certain sections of the Proxy Statement for Constellation Energy Group, Inc. for the Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held on May 21, 2004.

         Baltimore Gas and Electric Company meets the conditions set forth in General Instruction I(1)(a) and (b) of Form 10-K and is therefore filing this Form in the reduced disclosure format.




TABLE OF CONTENTS

 
 
 
   
   
        Forward Looking Statements
PART I    
  Item 1   Business
            Overview
            Merchant Energy Business
            Baltimore Gas and Electric Company
            Other Nonregulated Businesses
            Consolidated Capital Requirements
            Environmental Matters
            Employees
  Item 2   Properties
  Item 3   Legal Proceedings
  Item 4   Submission of Matters to Vote of Security Holders
        Executive Officers of the Registrant (Instruction 3 to Item 401(b) of Regulation S-K)
PART II    
  Item 5   Market for Registrant's Common Equity and Related Shareholder Matters
  Item 6   Selected Financial Data
  Item 7   Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
  Item 7A   Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
  Item 8   Financial Statements and Supplementary Data
  Item 9   Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure
  Item 9A   Controls and Procedures
PART III    
  Item 10   Directors and Executive Officers of the Registrant
  Item 11   Executive Compensation
  Item 12   Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and
Management and Related Shareholder Matters
  Item 13   Certain Relationships and Related Transactions
  Item 14   Principal Accountant Fees and Services
PART IV    
  Item 15   Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules and Reports on Form 8-K
  Signatures


Forward Looking Statements

We make statements in this report that are considered forward looking statements within the meaning of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Sometimes these statements will contain words such as "believes," "anticipates," "expects," "intends," "plans," and other similar words. We also disclose non-historical information that represents management's expectations, which are based on numerous assumptions. These statements and projections are not guarantees of our future performance and are subject to risks, uncertainties, and other important factors that could cause our actual performance or achievements to be materially different from those we project. These risks, uncertainties, and factors include, but are not limited to:

    the timing and extent of changes in commodity prices and volatilities for energy and energy related products including coal, natural gas, oil, electricity, and emission allowances,
    the timing and extent of deregulation of, and competition in, the energy markets in North America, and the rules and regulations adopted on a transitional basis in those markets,
    the conditions of the capital markets, interest rates, availability of credit, liquidity, and general economic conditions, as well as Constellation Energy Group's (Constellation Energy) and Baltimore Gas and Electric Company's (BGE) ability to maintain their current credit ratings,
    the effectiveness of Constellation Energy's and BGE's risk management policies and procedures and the ability and willingness of our counterparties to satisfy their financial and performance commitments,
    the liquidity and competitiveness of wholesale markets for energy commodities,
    operational factors affecting commercial operations of our generating facilities (including nuclear facilities) and BGE's transmission and distribution facilities, including catastrophic weather related damages, unscheduled outages or repairs, unanticipated changes in fuel costs or availability, unavailability of gas transportation or electric transmission services, workforce issues, terrorism, liabilities associated with catastrophic events, and other events beyond our control,

    the inability of BGE to recover all its costs associated with providing electric retail customers service during the electric rate freeze period,
    the effect of weather and general economic and business conditions on energy supply, demand, and prices,
    regulatory or legislative developments that affect deregulation, transmission or distribution rates and revenues, demand for energy, or increases in costs, including costs related to nuclear power plants, safety, or environmental compliance,
    the actual outcome of uncertainties associated with assumptions and estimates using judgment when applying critical accounting policies and preparing financial statements, including factors that are estimated in determining the fair value of energy contracts, such as the ability to obtain market prices and in the absence of verifiable market prices the appropriateness of models and model inputs (including, but not limited to, estimated contractual load obligations, unit availability, forward commodity prices, interest rates, correlation and volatility factors),
    changes in accounting principles or practices,
    the ability to attract and retain customers in our competitive supply activities and to adequately forecast their energy usage,
    losses on the sale or write down of assets due to impairment events or changes in management intent with regard to either holding or selling certain assets, and
    cost and other effects of legal and administrative proceedings that may not be covered by insurance, including environmental liabilities.

        Given these uncertainties, you should not place undue reliance on these forward looking statements. Please see the other sections of this report and our other periodic reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for more information on these factors. These forward looking statements represent our estimates and assumptions only as of the date of this report.

        Changes may occur after that date, and neither Constellation Energy nor BGE assume responsibility to update these forward looking statements.



PART I

Item 1. Business


Overview

Constellation Energy is a North American energy company which includes a merchant energy business and BGE, its regulated electric and gas public utility in central Maryland.

        Constellation Energy was incorporated in Maryland on September 25, 1995. On April 30, 1999, Constellation Energy became the holding company for BGE and its subsidiaries through a share exchange. References in this report to "we" and "our" are to Constellation Energy and its subsidiaries, collectively. References in this report to the "utility business" are to BGE.

1


        Our merchant energy business is a competitive provider of energy solutions for large customers in North America. It has electric generation assets located in various regions of the United States and provides energy solutions to meet customers' needs. Our merchant energy business focuses on serving the full energy and capacity requirements (load-serving) of, and providing other energy risk management services for various customers, such as utilities, municipalities, cooperatives, retail aggregators, and commercial and industrial customers.

        Our merchant energy business includes:

    a generation operation that owns, operates, and maintains fossil, nuclear, and hydroelectric generating facilities and interests in qualifying facilities, fuel processing facilities and power projects in the United States,
    a marketing and risk management operation that provides energy products and services to wholesale customers,
    an electric and gas retail operation that provides energy services to commercial and industrial customers, and
    a generation and consulting services operation.

        BGE is a regulated electric transmission and distribution utility company and a regulated gas distribution utility company with a service territory that covers the City of Baltimore and all or part of ten counties in central Maryland. BGE was incorporated in Maryland in 1906.

        Our other nonregulated businesses:

    design, construct, and operate heating, cooling, and cogeneration facilities for commercial, industrial, and municipal customers throughout North America, and
    provide home improvements, service heating, air conditioning, plumbing, electrical, and indoor air quality systems, and provide natural gas retail marketing to residential customers in central Maryland.

        In addition, we own several investments that we do not consider to be core operations. These include financial investments, real estate projects, and interests in a Latin American power distribution project and in a fund that holds interests in two South American energy projects.

        For a discussion of recent events that have impacted us, please refer to Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis—Significant Events of 2003 section. For a discussion of our strategy, please refer to Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis—Strategy section. For a discussion of the seasonality of our business, please refer to Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis—Business Environment section.

        Constellation Energy maintains a website at constellation.com where copies of our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and any amendments may be obtained free of charge. These reports are posted on our website the same day they are filed with the SEC. The website address for BGE is bge.com. Both website addresses are inactive textual references and the contents of these websites are not part of this Form 10-K.

        In addition, the website for Constellation Energy includes copies of our Corporate Governance Guidelines, Principles of Business Integrity, Corporate Compliance Program and Insider Trading Policy, and the charters for the Audit, Compensation and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committees of the Board of Directors. Copies of each of these documents may be printed from the website or may be obtained from Constellation Energy upon written request to the Corporate Secretary.

        The Principles of Business Integrity is a code of ethics which applies to all of our directors, officers, and employees, including the chief executive officer, chief financial officer, and chief accounting officer. We will post any amendments to, or waivers from, the Principles of Business Integrity applicable to our chief executive officer, chief financial officer, or chief accounting officer on our website.


Operating Segments

The percentages of revenues, net income, and assets attributable to our operating segments are shown in the tables below. We present information about our operating segments, including certain special items, in Note 3 to Consolidated Financial Statements.

 
  Unaffiliated Revenues
 
 
  Merchant
Energy

  Regulated
Electric

  Regulated
Gas

  Other
Nonregulated

 
2003   67 % 20 % 7 % 6 %
2002   35   42   12   11  
2001   16   53   17   14  
 
  Net Income (1)
 
 
  Merchant
Energy

  Regulated
Electric

  Regulated
Gas

  Other
Nonregulated

 
2003   66 % 23 % 9 % 2 %
2002   47   19   6   28  
2001   113   62   45   (120 )
 
  Total Assets
 
 
  Merchant
Energy

  Regulated
Electric

  Regulated
Gas

  Other
Nonregulated

 
2003   68 % 22 % 7 % 3 %
2002   65   24   7   4  
2001   59   25   8   8  
(1)
Excludes cumulative effects of changes in accounting principles as discussed in more detail in Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.

2



Merchant Energy Business

Introduction

Our merchant energy business integrates electric generation assets with the marketing and risk management of energy and energy-related commodities, allowing us to manage energy price risk over geographic regions and over time. Constellation Power Source, our wholesale marketing and risk management operation, dispatches the energy from our generating facilities, manages the risks associated with selling the output and obtaining fuels, and structures transactions to meet customers' energy and risk management requirements. Constellation NewEnergy, our electric and gas retail operation, provides energy services to commercial and industrial customers. Generation capacity supports these marketing operations by providing a source of reliable power supply that provides a physical hedge for some of our load-serving activities.

        Our merchant energy business:

    provided service to distribution utilities, municipalities, and commercial and industrial customers with approximately 24,000 megawatts (MW) of peak load in the aggregate during 2003,
    provided approximately 195,000 million British Thermal Units (mmBTUs) of natural gas to commercial and industrial customers during 2003, and
    owns approximately 12,030 MW of generation capacity.

        We analyze the results of our merchant energy business as follows:

    Mid-Atlantic Fleet—our fossil, nuclear, and hydroelectric generating facilities and load-serving activities in the PJM Interconnection (PJM) region for which the output is primarily used to serve BGE. This also includes active portfolio management of the generating assets and associated physical and financial arrangements.
    Plants with Power Purchase Agreements—our generating facilities with long-term power purchase agreements, including our Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station (Nine Mile Point), Oleander, University Park, and High Desert generating facilities.
    Competitive Supply—our wholesale marketing and risk management operation that provides energy products and services to distribution utilities and other wholesale customers. We also provide electric and gas energy services to retail commercial and industrial customers.
    Other—our investments in qualifying facilities and domestic power projects and our generation and consulting services.

        We present details about our generating properties in Item 2. Properties.

Mid-Atlantic Fleet

We own 6,379 MW of fossil, nuclear and hydroelectric generation capacity in the PJM region. The output of these plants is managed by our wholesale marketing and risk management operation and is hedged through a combination of power sales to wholesale and retail market participants.

        BGE transferred all of these facilities to our merchant energy generation subsidiaries on July 1, 2000 as a result of the implementation of electric customer choice and competition among suppliers in Maryland, except for the Handsome Lake project that commenced operations in mid-2001. The assets transferred from BGE are subject to the lien of BGE's mortgage.

        Our merchant energy business provides standard offer service to BGE as discussed in the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company—Standard Offer Service section. Our merchant energy business meets the load-serving requirements of this contract using the output from the Mid-Atlantic Fleet and from purchases in the wholesale market. For 2003, the peak load supplied to BGE was approximately 5,270 MW.

Plants with Power Purchase Agreements

We own 3,360 MW of nuclear and natural gas/oil generation capacity with power purchase agreements for their output. Our facilities with power purchase agreements consist of:

    the Nine Mile Point facility,
    the High Desert Power Project, which commenced operations in early 2003,
    the Oleander project, which commenced operations in mid-2002, and
    the University Park project, which commenced operations in mid-2001.

        We purchased 100% of Nine Mile Point Unit 1 (609 MW) and 82% of Unit 2 (941 MW) in November 2001. The remaining interest in Nine Mile Point Unit 2 is owned by a subsidiary of the Long Island Power Authority. Unit 1 entered service in 1969 and Unit 2 in 1988. Nine Mile Point is located within the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) region.

        We sell 90% of our share of Nine Mile Point's output to the former owners of the plant at an average price of nearly $35 per megawatt-hour (MWH) under agreements that terminate between 2009 and 2011. The agreements are unit contingent (if the output is not available because the plant is not operating, there is no requirement to provide output from other sources). The remaining 10% of Nine Mile Point's output is managed by our wholesale marketing and risk management operation and sold into the wholesale market.

3


        After termination of the power purchase agreements, a revenue sharing agreement with the former owners of the plant will begin and continue through 2021. Under this agreement, which applies only to Unit 2, a predetermined price is compared to the market price for electricity. If the market price exceeds the strike price, then 80% of this excess amount is shared with the former owners of the plant. The revenue sharing agreement is unit contingent and is based on the operation of the unit.

        We have an operating agreement with the Long Island Power Authority subsidiary to exclusively operate Unit 2. The Long Island Power Authority subsidiary is responsible for 18% of the operating costs (and decommissioning costs) of Unit 2 and has representation on the Nine Mile Point Unit 2 management committee which provides certain oversight and review functions.

        The license on Nine Mile Point's Unit 1 expires in 2009 and in 2026 on Unit 2. We have commenced a license extension initiative for both units with the objective of obtaining up to 20 years of additional operations. We expect to submit the license extension application to the NRC in the spring of 2004.

        The High Desert Power Project has a long-term power sales agreement with the California Department of Water Resources (CDWR). The contract is a "tolling" structure, under which the CDWR pays a fixed amount of $12.1 million per month and provides CDWR the right, but not the obligation, to purchase power from the project at a price linked to the variable cost of production. During the term of the contract, which runs until December 2010, the project will provide energy exclusively to the CDWR.

        We have sold portions of the output of the Oleander and University Park facilities ranging from 50% to 100% under tolling contracts for terms ending in 2005 through 2009. Under these tolling contracts, our respective counterparties will pay a fixed amount per month and have the right, but not the obligation, to purchase power from us at prices linked to the variable fuel and other costs of production.

        On November 25, 2003, we announced an agreement with Rochester Gas & Electric (RG&E) to acquire the 495 megawatt R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Ginna) located north of Rochester, New York. The transaction is contingent upon regulatory approvals including license extension. The acquisition includes a long-term unit contingent power purchase agreement where we will sell 90% of the plant's output and capacity to RG&E for 10 years at an average price of $44.00 per MWH. The remaining 10% of the plant's output will be managed by our wholesale marketing and risk management and will be sold into the wholesale market.

Competitive Supply

We are a leading supplier of energy products and services in North America to wholesale customers and retail commercial and industrial customers. Our competitive supply activities include 2,015 MW from our Rio Nogales, Holland Energy, Big Sandy, and Wolf Hills natural gas-fired generating facilities. These four facilities are not sold forward under long-term agreements, and their output is used to serve customer requirements.

Origination of Structured Transactions

We structure transactions that serve the full energy and capacity requirements of various customers outside the PJM region such as distribution utilities, municipalities, cooperatives, and retail aggregators that do not own sufficient generating capacity or in-house supply functions to meet their own load requirements. We also structure transactions to supply full energy and capacity requirements and provide other energy products and services to retail commercial and industrial customers.

        These activities typically occur in regional markets in which end user customers' electricity rates have been deregulated and thereby separated from the cost of generation supply. These markets include:

    the New England, New York, and Mid-Atlantic regions,
    Texas,
    the Mid-West region,
    the West region, and
    certain areas of Canada.

        Contracts with these customers generally extend from one to ten years, but some can be longer. We currently have approximately 22,800 MW of load under contract for 2004.

        In 2003, we acquired Blackhawk Energy Services and Kaztex Energy Management and in 2002, we acquired NewEnergy and Alliance. These acquisitions expand our business in the competitive supply market by providing electricity, natural gas, transportation, and other energy related services to retail commercial and industrial customers throughout North America.

        To meet our customers' load-serving requirements, our merchant energy business obtains energy from various sources, including:

    bilateral power purchase agreements with third parties,
    our generation assets,
    regional power pools, or
    tolling contracts with generation companies, which provide us the right, but not the obligation, to purchase power at a price linked to the variable cost of production, including fuel, with terms that generally extend from several months to several years but can be longer.

4


Portfolio Management

Our wholesale marketing and risk management operation actively uses energy and energy-related commodities in order to manage our portfolio of energy purchases and sales to customers through structured transactions. As part of our risk management activities we trade power and gas to enable price discovery and facilitate the hedging of our load-serving and other risk management products and services. Within our trading function we allow limited risk-taking activities for profit. These activities are actively managed through daily value at risk and liquidity position limits. We discuss value at risk in more detail in Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis—Market Risk.

        These activities involve the use of a variety of instruments, including:

    forward contracts (which commit us to purchase or sell energy commodities in the future),
    swap agreements (which require payments to or from counterparties based upon the difference between two prices for a predetermined contractual (notional) quantity),
    option contracts (which convey the right to buy or sell a commodity, financial instrument, or index at a predetermined price), and
    futures contracts (which are exchange traded standardized commitments to purchase or sell a commodity or financial instrument, or make a cash settlement, at a specified price and future date).

        Active portfolio management allows our wholesale marketing and risk management operation the ability to:

    manage and hedge its fixed-price purchase and sale commitments,
    provide fixed-price commitments to customers and suppliers,
    reduce exposure to the volatility of cash market prices, and
    hedge fuel requirements at our generation facilities.

Other

We hold up to a 50% ownership interest in 25 operating energy projects that consist of electric generation (primarily relying on alternative fuel sources), fuel processing, or fuel handling facilities and are either qualifying facilities under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 or otherwise exempt from, or not subject to, the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935. In addition, we own 100% of a geothermal electric generating facility in Hawaii. Each electric generating plant sells its output to a local utility under long-term contracts.

        We also provide the following services:

    operation and maintenance services, including testing and start-up, to owners of electric generating facilities, and
    nuclear consulting services to the nuclear utility industry, along with plant life cycle support services, including aging management, spent fuel management, and project management and engineering.

Fuel Sources

Our power plants use diverse fuel sources. Our fuel mix based on capacity owned at December 31, 2003 and our generation based on actual output by fuel type in 2003 were as follows:

Fuel

  Capacity Owned
  Generation
 
Nuclear   27 % 50 %
Coal   24   36  
Natural Gas   31   7  
Oil   6   1  
Renewable and Alternative (1)   3   4  
Dual (2)   9   2  
(1)
Includes solar, geothermal, hydro, biomass, and waste-to-energy.

(2)
Switches between natural gas and oil.

        We discuss our risks associated with fuel in more detail in Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis—Market Risk.

Nuclear

The output at Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (Calvert Cliffs) over the past five years has been:

 
  Generation
MWH

  Capacity
Factor

 
2003   13,653,338   93 %
2002   12,087,408   82  
2001   13,648,932   92  
2000   13,826,046   93  
1999   13,309,306   91  

        The output at Nine Mile Point over the past five years has been:

 
  Generation
MWH*

  Capacity
Factor

 
2003   12,169,637   90 %
2002   11,727,567   87  
2001   11,613,519   86  
2000   11,243,095   83  
1999   10,766,425   79  

*represents our proportionate ownership interest

5


        The supply of fuel for nuclear generating stations includes the:

    purchase of uranium (concentrates, and uranium hexafluoride)
    conversion of uranium concentrates to uranium hexafluoride,
    enrichment of uranium hexafluoride, and
    fabrication of nuclear fuel assemblies.

Uranium:   We have under contract sufficient quantities of uranium (concentrates and uranium hexafluoride) to meet 100% of both Calvert Cliffs' and Nine Mile Point's requirements through 2004, 45% for both plants in 2005, 60% for both plants in 2006, and 25% for both plants in 2007. In late 2003, the federally designated Russian export agent responsible for nuclear fuel terminated their contract with one of our key uranium hexafluoride suppliers located in the United States. This action will likely impact uranium hexafluoride deliveries from this supplier throughout the term of our agreement. Prices have increased due to this event and will adversely impact our future costs of uranium hexafluoride. The uranium hexafluoride that was scheduled to be delivered from this supplier in 2004 represents approximately 27% of our requirements for that year. We are currently evaluating our options to acquire alternate uranium hexafluoride supplies to meet our requirements.
Conversion:   We have contractual commitments providing for the conversion of all of our uranium concentrates into uranium hexafluoride for Calvert Cliffs and Nine Mile Point through 2004. We do not have requirements for conversion beyond 2004 because we currently do not expect to purchase uranium concentrates beyond 2004.
Enrichment:   We have contractual commitments that provide 100% of Calvert Cliffs' and Nine Mile Point's uranium enrichment requirements through 2006 and 25% of these requirements for both plants in 2007 and 2008.
Fuel Assembly
Fabrication:
  We have contracted for the fabrication of fuel assemblies for reloads required through 2013 at Calvert Cliffs and through 2008 for Nine Mile Point.

        The nuclear fuel markets are competitive and although prices for uranium and conversion are increasing, we do not anticipate any problem in meeting our future requirements.

Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel—Federal Facilities
One of the issues associated with the operation and decommissioning of nuclear generating facilities is disposal of spent nuclear fuel. There are no facilities for the reprocessing or permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel currently in operation in the United States, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has not licensed any such facilities. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA) required the federal government through the Department of Energy (DOE), to develop a repository for, and disposal of, spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.

        As required by the NWPA, we are a party to contracts with the DOE to provide for disposal of spent nuclear fuel from our nuclear generating plants. The NWPA and our contracts with the DOE require payments to the DOE of one tenth of one cent (one mill) per kilowatt hour on nuclear electricity generated and sold to pay for the cost of long-term nuclear fuel storage and disposal. We continue to pay those fees into the DOE's Nuclear Waste Fund for Calvert Cliffs and Nine Mile Point. The NWPA and our contracts with the DOE required the DOE to begin taking possession of spent nuclear fuel generated by nuclear generating units no later than January 31, 1998.

        The DOE has stated that it will not meet that obligation until 2010 at the earliest. This delay has required that we undertake additional actions related to on-site fuel storage at Calvert Cliffs and Nine Mile Point, including the installation of on-site dry fuel storage capacity at Calvert Cliffs, as described in more detail below. In January 2004, we filed a complaint against the federal government in the United States Court of Federal Claims seeking to recover damages caused by the DOE's failure to meet its contractual obligation to begin disposing of spent nuclear fuel by January 31, 1998.

Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel—On-Site Facilities
Calvert Cliffs has a license from the NRC to operate an on-site independent spent fuel storage installation that expires in 2012. We have storage capacity at Calvert Cliffs that will accommodate spent fuel from operations through 2008. In addition, we can expand our temporary storage capacity at Calvert Cliffs to meet future requirements until approximately 2025. Currently, Nine Mile Point does not have independent spent fuel storage capacity. Rather, Nine Mile Point's Unit 1 has sufficient storage capacity within the plant until the end of its current operating license in 2009. If license renewal is obtained, independent spent fuel storage capability will need to be developed. Nine Mile

6



Point's Unit 2 has sufficient storage capacity within the plant until 2012. After that time independent spent fuel storage capability may need to be developed.

Cost for Decommissioning Uranium Enrichment Facilities
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 contains provisions requiring domestic nuclear utilities to contribute to a fund for decommissioning and decontaminating uranium enrichment facilities that had been operated by DOE. These contributions are generally payable over a 15-year period with escalation for inflation and are based upon the amount of uranium enriched by DOE for each utility through 1992. The 1992 Act provides that these costs are recoverable through utility service rates. BGE is solely responsible for these costs as they relate to Calvert Cliffs. The sellers of the Nine Mile Point plant and a subsidiary of the Long Island Power Authority are responsible for the costs relating to the Nine Mile Point plant.

Cost for Decommissioning
We are obligated to decommission our nuclear plants at the time these plants cease operation. Both Calvert Cliffs and Nine Mile Point are required by the NRC to demonstrate reasonable assurance that funds will be available to decommission the sites. When BGE transferred all of its nuclear generating assets to our merchant energy business, it also transferred the trust fund established to pay for decommissioning Calvert Cliffs. At December 31, 2003, the trust fund assets were $284.9 million.

        Under the Maryland Public Service Commission's (Maryland PSC) order regarding the deregulation of electric generation, BGE ratepayers must pay a total of $520 million, in 1993 dollars, adjusted for inflation, to decommission Calvert Cliffs through fixed annual collections of approximately $18.7 million until June 30, 2006, and thereafter in an annual amount determined by reference to specified factors. BGE is collecting this amount on behalf of Calvert Cliffs. Any costs to decommission Calvert Cliffs in excess of this $520 million must be paid by Calvert Cliffs. If BGE ratepayers have paid more than this amount at the time of decommissioning, Calvert Cliffs must refund the excess. If the cost to decommission Calvert Cliffs is less than the amount BGE's ratepayers are obligated to pay, Calvert Cliffs may keep the difference.

        The sellers of Nine Mile Point transferred a $441.7 million decommissioning trust fund at the time of sale. In return, Nine Mile Point assumed all liability for the costs to decommission Unit 1 and 82% of the cost to decommission Unit 2. We believe that this amount is adequate to cover our responsibility for decommissioning Nine Mile Point to a greenfield status (restoration of the site so that it substantially matches the natural state of the surrounding properties and the site's intended use). At December 31, 2003, the Nine Mile Point trust fund assets were $451.2 million.

        Upon the closing of the Ginna acquisition, the seller will transfer approximately $202 million in decommissioning funds. In return, we will assume all liability for the costs to decommission the unit. The amount of the decommissioning trust fund transfer is subject to regulatory approval. We believe that this transfer will be sufficient to cover our responsibility for decommissioning Ginna to a greenfield status.

Coal
We purchase the majority of our coal under supply contracts with mining operators, and we acquire the remainder in the spot or forward coal markets. We believe that we will be able to renew supply contracts as they expire or enter into contracts with other coal suppliers. Our primary coal burning facilities have the following requirements:

 
  Approximate
Annual Coal
Requirement
(tons)

  Special Coal
Restrictions

Brandon Shores
Units 1 and 2
    (combined)
  3,500,000   Sulfur content less than 1.20 lbs per mmBTU
C. P. Crane
Units 1 and 2
    (combined)
  850,000   Low ash melting temperature
H. A. Wagner
Units 2 and 3
    (combined)
  1,100,000   Sulfur content no more than 1%

        Coal deliveries to these facilities are made by rail and barge. The primary source of coal we use is produced from mines located in central and northern Appalachia. During 2003, we expanded our coal sources including restructuring our rail contracts, increasing the range of coals we can consume, adding synthetic fuel as an alternate source, and finding potential other coal supply sources including shipments from areas including Columbia, Venezuela, and South Africa.

        All of the Conemaugh and Keystone plants' annual coal requirements are purchased from regional suppliers on the open market by the plant operators. The sulfur restrictions on coal are approximately 2.3% for the Keystone plant and approximately 5.3% for the Conemaugh plant.

7


        The annual coal requirements for the ACE, Jasmin, and POSO plants, which are located in California, are supplied under contracts with mining operators. The Jasmin and POSO plants are restricted to coal with sulfur content less than 4.0% and ACE is restricted to less than 2.0%.

        All of our requirements reflect historical levels. The actual fuel quantities required can vary substantially from historical levels depending upon the relationship between energy prices and fuel costs, weather conditions, and operating requirements.

Gas
We purchase natural gas, storage capacity, and transportation, as necessary, for electric generation at certain plants. Some of our gas-fired units can use residual fuel oil or distillates instead of gas. Gas is purchased under contracts with suppliers on the spot market and forward markets, including financial exchanges and bilateral agreements. The actual fuel quantities required can vary substantially from year to year depending upon the relationship between energy prices and fuel costs, weather conditions, and operating requirements. However, we believe that we will be able to obtain adequate quantities of gas to meet our requirements.

Oil
Under normal burn practices, our requirements for residual fuel oil (No. 6) amount to approximately 1.5 million to 2.0 million barrels of low-sulfur oil per year. Deliveries of residual fuel oil are made from the suppliers' Baltimore Harbor marine terminal for distribution to the various generating plant locations. Also, based on normal burn practices, we require approximately 5.0 million to 6.0 million gallons of distillates (No. 2 oil and kerosene) annually, but these requirements can vary substantially from year to year depending upon the relationship between energy prices and fuel costs, weather conditions, and operating requirements. Distillates are purchased from the suppliers' Baltimore truck terminals for distribution to the various generating plant locations. We have contracts with various suppliers to purchase oil at spot prices, and for future delivery, to meet our requirements.

Competition

Market developments over the past several years have changed the nature of competition in the merchant energy business. Certain companies within the merchant energy sector have curtailed their activities, withdrawn completely from the business, or returned to a traditional utility business. However new competitors (i.e., financial investors) are entering the market. We encounter competition from companies of various sizes, having varying levels of experience, financial and human resources, and differing strategies.

        We face competition in the market for energy, capacity, and ancillary services. In our merchant energy business, we compete with international, national, and regional full service energy providers, merchants and producers, to obtain competitively priced supplies from a variety of sources and locations, and to utilize efficient transmission or transportation. We principally compete on the basis of the price, customer service, reliability, and availability of our products.

        With respect to power generation, we compete in the operation of energy-producing projects, and our competitors in this business are both domestic and international organizations, including various utilities, industrial companies and independent power producers (including affiliates of utilities), some of which have financial resources that are greater than ours.

        During the transition of the energy industry to competitive markets, it is difficult for us to assess our overall position versus the position of existing power providers and new entrants because each company may employ widely differing strategies in their fuel supply and power sales contracts with regard to pricing, terms and conditions. Further difficulties in making competitive assessments of our company arise from states considering different types of regulatory initiatives concerning competition in the power industry.

        Increased competition that resulted from some of these initiatives in several states contributed in some instances to a reduction in electricity prices and put pressure on electric utilities to lower their costs, including the cost of purchased electricity. Some states that were considering deregulation have slowed their plans or postponed consideration of deregulation. In addition, other states are reconsidering deregulation.

        We believe there is adequate growth potential in the current deregulated market. However, in response to regional market differences and to promote competitive markets, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) proposed initiatives promoting the formation of Regional Transmission Organizations and a standard market design. If approved, these market changes could provide additional opportunities for our merchant energy business.

        As the economy continues to recover and the market for commercial and industrial supply continues to grow, we have experienced increased competition in our retail commercial and industrial supply activities. The increase in retail competition may affect the margins that we will realize from our customers. However, we believe that our experience and expertise in assessing and managing risk will help us to remain competitive during volatile or otherwise adverse market circumstances.

8


Merchant Energy Operating Statistics

 
  2003
  2002
  2001
  2000
  1999

Revenues (In millions)                              
  Mid-Atlantic Fleet   $ 1,774.5   $ 1,415.1   $ 1,379.2   $ 731.7   $
  Plants with Power Purchase Agreements     620.0     456.4     70.8        
  Competitive Supply—Accrual Revenues     5,157.1     623.4     59.2        
                                 —Mark-to-Market Revenues     51.4     238.1     175.8     151.5     147.7
  Other     45.1     56.4     80.5     142.5     129.6

Total Revenues   $ 7,648.1   $ 2,789.4   $ 1,765.5   $ 1,025.7   $ 277.3

Generation (In millions)—MWH     51.6     44.7     37.4     18.8     1.3

        Operating statistics do not reflect the elimination of intercompany transactions.



Baltimore Gas and Electric Company

BGE is an electric transmission and distribution utility company and a gas distribution utility company with a service territory that covers the City of Baltimore and all or part of ten counties in central Maryland. BGE is regulated by the Maryland Public Service Commission (Maryland PSC) and FERC with respect to rates and other aspects of its business.

        BGE's electric service territory includes an area of approximately 2,300 square miles. There are no municipal or cooperative wholesale customers within BGE's service territory. BGE's gas service territory includes an area of approximately 800 square miles.

        BGE's electric and gas revenues come from many customers—residential, commercial, and industrial. In 2003, BGE's largest electric customer provided approximately four percent of BGE's total electric revenues. In 2003, BGE's largest gas customer provided approximately one percent of BGE's total gas revenues.

Electric Business

Electric Regulatory Matters and Competition

Deregulation

Effective July 1, 2000, electric customer choice and competition among electric suppliers was implemented in Maryland. As a result of the deregulation of electric generation, the following occurred effective July 1, 2000:

    All customers can choose their electric energy supplier. BGE provides fixed price standard offer service over various time periods for different classes of customers that do not select an alternative supplier until June 30, 2006.
    While BGE does not sell electric commodity to all customers in its service territory, BGE does deliver electricity to all customers and provides meter reading, billing, emergency response, regular maintenance, and balancing services.
    BGE provides market rate standard offer service for those commercial and industrial customers who are no longer eligible for fixed price standard offer service.
    BGE residential base rates will not change before July 2006. While total residential base rates remain unchanged over the initial transition period (July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2006), annual standard offer service rate increases are offset by corresponding decreases in the competitive transition charge (CTC) that BGE receives from its customers.
    Commercial and industrial customers have several service options that will fix electric energy rates through June 30, 2004 and competitive transition charges through June 30, 2006.
    BGE transferred, at book value, its generating assets and related liabilities to the merchant energy business. At December 31, 2003, BGE remains contingently liable for the $269.8 million outstanding balance for liabilities transferred to the merchant energy business.

Standard Offer Service

Our wholesale marketing and risk management operation provides BGE with 100% of the energy and capacity required to meet its commercial and industrial standard offer service obligations through June 30, 2004, and 100% of the energy and capacity required to meet its residential standard offer service obligations through June 30, 2006. BGE will obtain its supply for standard offer service to its commercial and industrial customers beginning July 1, 2004, and to its residential customers beginning July 1, 2006, through a competitive wholesale bidding process as discussed in the Standard Offer Service—Provider of Last Resort (POLR) section on the next page.

        Beginning July 1, 2002, the fixed price standard offer service rate ended for certain of our large commercial and industrial customers. As a result, the majority of these customers purchase their electricity

9


from alternate suppliers, including subsidiaries of Constellation Energy. The remaining large commercial and industrial customers that continue to receive their electric supply from BGE are charged market-based standard offer service rates through June 30, 2004.

        Beginning July 1, 2004, all other commercial and industrial customers that receive their electric supply from BGE will be charged market-based standard offer service rates. Beginning July 1, 2006, BGE's current obligation to provide fixed price standard offer service to residential customers ends and all residential customers that receive their electric supply from BGE will be charged market-based standard offer service rates.

Standard Offer Service—Provider of Last Resort (POLR)
In April 2003, the Maryland PSC approved a settlement agreement reached by BGE and parties representing customers, industry, utilities, suppliers, the Maryland Energy Administration, the Maryland PSC's Staff, and the Office of People's Counsel which, among other things, extends BGE's obligation to supply standard offer service for a second transition period. Under the settlement agreement, BGE is obligated to provide market-based standard offer service to residential customers until June 30, 2010, and for commercial and industrial customers for one, two or four year periods beyond June 30, 2004, depending on customer load. The POLR rates charged during this time will recover BGE's wholesale power supply costs and include an administrative fee.

        In September 2003, the Maryland PSC approved a second settlement agreement. This phase deals with the bid procurement process that utilities must follow to obtain wholesale power supply to serve retail customers on standard offer service during the second transition period. The settlement contains a model request for proposals, a model wholesale power supply contract, and various requirements pertaining to, among other things, bidder qualifications and bid evaluation criteria. Bidding to supply BGE's standard offer service to commercial and industrial customers beyond June 30, 2004 began in February 2004. The same bidding procedures will be used for supplying BGE's standard offer service to residential customers for the period after June 30, 2006.

        We discuss the market risk of our regulated electric business in more detail in Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis—Market Risksection.

Electric Load Management

BGE has implemented various programs for use when system-operating conditions or market economics indicate that a reduction in load would be beneficial. We refer to these programs as active load management programs. These programs include:

    customer-owned generation and curtailable service for large commercial and industrial customers,
    air conditioning control for residential and commercial customers, and
    residential water heater control.

        BGE generally activates these programs on summer days when demand and/or wholesale prices are relatively high. The reduction in the summer 2003 peak load from active load management was approximately 342 MW.

Transmission and Distribution Facilities

BGE maintains approximately 250 substations and 1,300 circuit miles of transmission lines throughout central Maryland. BGE also maintains nearly 22,900 circuit miles of distribution lines. The transmission facilities are connected to those of neighboring utility systems as part of the PJM Interconnection. Under the PJM Tariff and various agreements, BGE and other market participants can use regional transmission facilities for energy, capacity and ancillary services transactions including emergency assistance.

        We discuss FERC's initiatives in implementing a standard market design for wholesale electric markets in more detail in Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis—FERC Regulation section.

10


Electric Operating Statistics

 
  2003
  2002
  2001
  2000(A)
  1999(A)

Revenues (In millions)                              
  Residential   $ 959.0   $ 946.6   $ 885.3   $ 922.6   $ 975.2
  Commercial     760.3     809.5     903.0     926.2     939.3
  Industrial     155.2     169.6     218.1     203.6     204.3

  System Sales     1,874.5     1,925.7     2,006.4     2,052.4     2,118.8
  Interchange Sales                 53.8     112.1
  Other (B)     47.1     40.3     33.6     29.0     29.1

    Total   $ 1,921.6   $ 1,966.0   $ 2,040.0   $ 2,135.2   $ 2,260.0

Sales (In thousands)—MWH                              
  Residential     12,754     12,652     11,714     11,675     11,349
  Commercial     14,919     14,602     14,147     14,042     13,565
  Industrial     4,336     4,475     4,445     4,476     4,350

  System Sales     32,009     31,729     30,306     30,193     29,264

Customers (In thousands)                              
  Residential     1,061.7     1,052.3     1,040.5     1,033.4     1,021.4
  Commercial     112.1     110.8     110.9     108.9     107.7
  Industrial     4.9     4.9     5.0     5.0     4.7

    Total     1,178.7     1,168.0     1,156.4     1,147.3     1,133.8

    (A)
    Operating statistics reflect the generation function as part of regulated electric operations through June 30, 2000.

    (B)
    Primarily includes transmission service integration revenues, late payment charges, miscellaneous service fees, and tower leasing revenues.

        Operating statistics do not reflect the elimination of intercompany transactions.


Gas Business

The wholesale price of natural gas as a commodity is not subject to regulation. All BGE gas customers have the option to purchase gas from alternate suppliers, including subsidiaries of Constellation Energy. BGE continues to deliver gas to all customers within its service territory. This delivery service is regulated by the Maryland PSC.

        BGE also provides customers with meter reading, billing, emergency response, regular maintenance, and balancing services.

        Approximately 50% of the gas delivered on BGE's distribution system is for delivery service only customers. The basis of competition for delivery service customers is primarily commodity price. BGE charges all of its delivery service customers fees to recover the costs for the transportation service it provides. These fees are the same as the delivery charges to customers that purchase gas from BGE.

        For customers that buy their gas from BGE, there is a market-based rates incentive mechanism. Under market-based rates, our actual cost of gas is compared to a market index (a measure of the market price of gas in a given period). The difference between our actual cost and the market index is shared equally between shareholders and customers. BGE must secure fixed-price contracts for at least 10%, but not more than 20%, of forecasted system supply requirements for the November through March period.

        BGE purchases the natural gas it resells to customers directly from many producers and marketers. BGE has transportation and storage agreements that expire from 2005 to 2020.

11


        BGE's current pipeline firm transportation entitlements to serve BGE's firm loads are 284,053 dekatherms (DTH) per day during the winter period and 259,053 DTH per day during the summer period.

        BGE's current maximum storage entitlements are 235,080 DTH per day. To supplement its gas supply at times of heavy winter demands and to be available in temporary emergencies affecting gas supply, BGE has:

    a liquefied natural gas facility for the liquefaction and storage of natural gas with a total storage capacity of 1,092,977 DTH and a daily capacity of 311,500 DTH, and
    a propane air facility with a mined cavern with a total storage capacity equivalent to 564,200 DTH and a daily capacity of 85,000 DTH.

        BGE has under contract sufficient volumes of propane for the operation of the propane air facility and is capable of liquefying sufficient volumes of natural gas during the summer months for operations of its liquefied natural gas facility during winter emergencies.

        BGE historically has been able to arrange short-term contracts or exchange agreements with other gas companies in the event of short-term disruptions to gas supplies or to meet additional demand.

        BGE also participates in the interstate markets by releasing pipeline capacity or bundling pipeline capacity with gas for off-system sales. Off-system gas sales are low-margin direct sales of gas to wholesale suppliers of natural gas outside BGE's service territory. Earnings from these activities are shared between shareholders and customers. BGE makes these sales as part of a program to balance our supply of, and cost of, natural gas.


Gas Operating Statistics

 
  2003
  2002
  2001
  2000
  1999

Revenues (In millions)                              
  Residential                              
    Excluding Delivery Service   $ 444.5   $ 342.1   $ 378.4   $ 328.4   $ 298.1
    Delivery Service     13.6     16.5     16.3     23.5     11.5
  Commercial                              
    Excluding Delivery Service     128.6     89.4     115.5     97.9     79.3
    Delivery Service     24.6     29.2     21.4     25.8     24.4
  Industrial                              
    Excluding Delivery Service     11.5     9.3     12.8     10.9     8.2
    Delivery Service     11.4     13.9     13.8     16.3     16.1

  System Sales     634.2     500.4     558.2     502.8     437.6
  Off-system Sales     84.8     74.8     113.6     101.0     42.9
  Other     7.0     6.1     8.9     7.8     7.6

  Total   $ 726.0   $ 581.3   $ 680.7   $ 611.6   $ 488.1

Sales (In thousands)—DTH                              
  Residential                              
    Excluding Delivery Service     40,894     35,364     33,147     34,561     34,272
    Delivery Service     6,640     6,404     7,201     9,209     4,468
  Commercial                              
    Excluding Delivery Service     13,895     11,583     12,334     13,186     11,733
    Delivery Service     29,138     28,429     25,037     22,921     20,288
  Industrial                              
    Excluding Delivery Service     1,143     1,207     1,386     1,386     1,367
    Delivery Service     18,399     23,689     23,872     32,382     33,118

  System Sales     110,109     106,676     102,977     113,645     105,246
  Off-system Sales     12,859     18,551     20,012     22,456     15,543

      Total     122,968     125,227     122,989     136,101     120,789

Customers (In thousands)                              
  Residential     575.2     567.3     558.7     553.7     543.5
  Commercial     41.1     40.7     40.2     40.1     39.9
  Industrial     1.2     1.3     1.4     1.4     1.3

  Total     617.5     609.3     600.3     595.2     584.7

        Operating statistics do not reflect the elimination of intercompany transactions.

12


Franchises

BGE has nonexclusive electric and gas franchises to use streets and other highways that are adequate and sufficient to permit them to engage in their present business. Conditions of the franchises are satisfactory.



Other Nonregulated Businesses

Energy Products and Services

We offer energy products and services designed primarily to provide solutions to the energy needs of commercial and industrial customers. These energy products and services include:

    designing, constructing, and operating heating, cooling, and cogeneration facilities,
    energy consulting and power-quality services,
    services to enhance the reliability of individual electric supply systems, and
    customized financing alternatives.

Home Products and Gas Retail Marketing

We offer services to customers including:

    home improvements,
    the service of heating, air conditioning, plumbing, electrical, and indoor air quality systems, and
    natural gas retail marketing to residential customers.


District Cooling Services

We provide cooling services using a central chilled water distribution system to commercial and municipal customers in the City of Baltimore.

Other

Our other nonregulated businesses include investments that we do not consider to be core operations. These include financial investments, real estate projects, and interests in a Latin American distribution project and in a fund that holds interests in two South American energy projects. While our intent is to dispose of these assets, market conditions and other events beyond our control may affect the actual sale of these assets. In addition, a future decline in the fair value of these assets could result in additional losses.



Consolidated Capital Requirements

Our total capital requirements for 2003 were $761 million. Of this amount, $472 million was used in our nonregulated businesses and $289 million was used in our utility operations. We estimate our total capital requirements to be $760 million in 2004.

       
        We continuously review and change our capital expenditure programs, so actual expenditures may vary from the estimate above. We discuss our capital requirements further in
Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis—Capital Resources section.



Environmental Matters

We are subject to regulation by various federal, state, and local authorities with regard to:

    air quality,
    water quality, and
    disposal of hazardous substances.

        The development (involving site selection, environmental assessments, and permitting), construction, acquisition, and operation of electric generating and distribution facilities are subject to extensive federal, state, and local environmental and land use laws and regulations. From the beginning phases of siting and developing, to the ongoing operation of existing or new electric generating and distribution facilities, our activities involve compliance with diverse laws and regulations that address emissions and impacts to air and water, special, protected and cultural resources (such as wetlands, endangered species, and archeological/historical resources), chemical, and waste handling and noise impacts.

       
        Our activities require complex and often lengthy processes to obtain approvals, permits, or licenses for new, existing, or modified facilities. Additionally, the use and handling of various chemicals or hazardous materials (including wastes) requires preparation of release prevention plans and emergency response procedures. We continuously monitor federal and state environmental initiatives in order to provide input as well as to maintain a proactive view of the future which is key to effective strategic planning. Additionally, as new laws or regulations are promulgated, we assess their applicability and implement the necessary modifications to our facilities or their operation, as required.

        Our capital expenditures (excluding allowance for funds used during construction) were approximately $260 million during the five-year period 1999-2003 to comply with existing environmental standards and regulations.

13


Clean Air Act

The Clean Air Act affects both existing generating facilities and new projects. The Clean Air Act and many state laws impose significant requirements relating to emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxide (NOx), particulate matter, and other pollutants that result from burning fossil fuels. The Clean Air Act also contains other provisions that could materially affect some of our projects. Various provisions may require permits, inspections, or installation of additional pollution control technology or may require the purchase of emission allowances. Certain of these provisions are described in more detail below.

        On October 27, 1998, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a rule requiring 22 Eastern states and the District of Columbia to reduce emissions of NOx. The EPA rule requires states to implement controls sufficient to meet their NOx budget by May 30, 2004. However, the Northeast states decided to require compliance in 2003. Coal-fired power plants are a principal target of NOx reductions under this initiative.

        Many of our generation facilities are subject to NOx reduction requirements under the EPA rule, including those located in Maryland and Pennsylvania. At the Brandon Shores and Wagner facilities, we installed emission reduction equipment for our coal-fired units to meet Maryland regulations issued pursuant to the EPA's rule. The owners of the Keystone plant in Pennsylvania completed the installation of emissions reduction equipment by July 2003 to meet Pennsylvania regulations issued pursuant to the EPA's rule. Our total cost of the emissions reduction equipment at the Keystone plant was approximately $37 million.

        The EPA established new National Ambient Air Quality Standards for very fine particulates and revised standards for ozone attainment that were upheld after various court appeals. While these standards may require increased controls at some of our fossil generating plants in the future, implementation could be delayed for several years. We cannot estimate the cost of these increased controls at this time because the states, including Maryland, Pennsylvania, and California, still need to determine what reductions in pollutants will be necessary to meet the EPA standards.

        We may be impacted by the EPA's designation of certain areas as severe ozone nonattainment areas. These are areas where air pollution levels severely exceed national air quality standards. We own several generating facilities in severe ozone nonattainment areas in Maryland and California. The Clean Air Act requires states to assess fees against every major stationary source of NOx and volatile organic chemicals in severe ozone nonattainment areas if national air quality standards are not achieved by a specified deadline. If implemented, the fee would be assessed based on the magnitude of a source's emissions as compared to its emissions when the area failed to meet the deadline. The exact method of computing these fees has not been established and will depend in part on state implementing regulations that have not been finalized.

        The current deadline for most severe nonattainment areas is 2005, including those in which our generating facilities are located. Assessment of fees would commence in 2006 if the current effective date is maintained. However, there is significant uncertainty regarding the date when fees would be assessed in light of pending federal legislation and anticipated EPA rulemaking. Currently, we are unable to estimate the ultimate timing or financial impact of the standard in light of the uncertainty surrounding its effective date and the methodology that will be used in calculating the fees.

        The EPA and several states have filed suits against a number of coal-fired power plants in Mid-Western and Southern states alleging violations of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration and non-attainment provisions of the Clean Air Act's new source review requirements. The EPA requested information relating to modifications made to our Brandon Shores, Crane, and Wagner plants in Baltimore, Maryland. The EPA also sent similar, but narrower, information requests to two of our newer Pennsylvania waste-coal burning plants. We have responded to the EPA, and as of the date of this report the EPA has taken no further action.

        Based on the level of emissions control that the EPA and states are seeking in these new source review enforcement actions, we believe that material additional costs and penalties could be incurred if the EPA was successful in any future actions regarding our facilities.

        On October 27, 2003, the EPA's new source review rule on routine maintenance was published in the Federal Register. The new regulations would establish an equipment replacement cost threshold for determining when major new source review requirements are triggered. Plant owners may spend up to 20% of the replacement value of a generation unit on certain improvements each year without triggering requirements for new pollution controls. Parties had until December 26, 2003, the effective date of the rule, to appeal the agency's decision in court. An appeal was filed with the United States Court of Appeals. The effective date of the rule has been delayed pending review.

        The Clean Air Act required the EPA to evaluate the public health impacts of emissions of mercury, a hazardous air pollutant, from coal-fired plants. The EPA decided to control mercury emissions from coal-fired plants. On December 15, 2003, the EPA proposed two alternatives for controlling mercury emissions from generating facilities. The EPA may require the installation of mercury reduction equipment. Alternatively, the EPA may revise standards to allow for the purchase of allowances. Compliance could be required as soon as 2007, or by 2010 depending on

14


which alternative is selected. We believe final regulations could be issued in 2004 and could affect all oil-fired and coal-fired boilers. The cost of compliance with the final regulations could be material.

        Future initiatives regarding greenhouse gas emissions and global warming continue to be the subject of much debate. As a result of our diverse fuel portfolio, our contribution to greenhouse gases varies by plant type. Fossil fuel-fired power plants are significant sources of carbon dioxide emissions, a principal greenhouse gas. Our compliance costs with any mandated federal greenhouse gas reductions in the future could be material.

Clean Water Act

Our facilities are subject to a variety of federal and state regulations governing existing and potential water/wastewater and storm water discharges.

        In April 2002, the EPA proposed rules under the Clean Water Act that require that cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impacts. In February 2004, the proposed rules were finalized. The final rules require the installation of additional intake screens or other protective measures, as well as extensive site-specific study and monitoring requirements. We are currently reviewing the final rules and their potential impact to us. Our compliance costs associated with the final rules could be material.

        Under current provisions of the Clean Water Act, existing permits must be renewed at least every five years, at which time permit limits come under extensive review and can be modified to account for more stringent regulations. In addition, the permits can be modified at any time. Changes to the water discharge permits of our coal or other fuel suppliers due to federal or state initiatives may increase the cost of fuel, which in turn could have a significant impact on our operations.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (Superfund statute)

This law, or CERCLA, among other things, imposes clean-up requirements for threatened or actual releases of hazardous wastes that may endanger public health or welfare of the environment. Under CERCLA, joint and several liability may be imposed on waste generators, site owners and operators and others regardless of fault or the legality of the original disposal activity. Many states have enacted laws similar to CERCLA. Although most wastes generated by our facilities are generally not regarded as hazardous wastes, some products used in the operations and the disposal of those materials are governed by CERCLA and similar state statutes.

Metal Bank

In the early 1970s, BGE shipped an unknown number of scrapped transformers to Metal Bank of America, a metal reclaimer in Philadelphia. Metal Bank's scrap and storage yard has been found to be contaminated with oil containing high levels of PCBs (hazardous chemicals frequently used as a fire resistant coolant in electrical equipment). On December 7, 1987, the EPA notified BGE and nine other utilities that they are considered potentially responsible parties (PRPs) with respect to the clean-up of the site. BGE, along with the other PRPs, submitted a remedial investigation and feasibility study to the EPA on October 14, 1994, and the EPA issued its Record of Decision (ROD) recommending clean-up for the site on December 31, 1997. On June 26, 1998, the EPA ordered BGE, the other utility PRPs, and the owner/operator to implement the requirements of the ROD. The utility PRPs have submitted the remedial design to EPA. Based on the ROD, BGE's share of the reasonably possible clean-up costs, estimated to be approximately 15.47%, could be as much as $1.3 million higher than amounts we believe are probable and have recorded as a liability in our Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Kane and Lombard Streets

A suit was originally filed by the EPA under CERCLA in October 1989 against BGE and several other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, seeking to recover past and future clean-up costs at the Kane and Lombard Street site located in Baltimore City, Maryland. The State of Maryland filed a similar complaint in the same case and court in February 1990. The complaints alleged that BGE arranged for coal fly ash to be deposited on the site. The Court dismissed these complaints in November 1995. Maryland began additional investigation on the remainder of the site for the EPA, but never completed the investigation. BGE, along with three other defendants, agreed to complete a remedial investigation and feasibility study of groundwater contamination around the site in a July 1993 consent order. The remedial investigation report and a draft feasibility study were submitted to the EPA in February 2002. In December 2002, the EPA released its proposed remedy for the site and estimated the total clean-up cost for the site to be $6.2 million.

        The EPA issued its ROD for the Kane and Lombard Drum site on September 30, 2003. The ROD specifies the clean-up plan for the site, consisting of enhanced reductive dechlorination, a soil management plan, and institutional controls. The ROD was consistent with the proposed remedy the EPA released in December 2002. We expect the EPA to approach the potentially responsible parties regarding implementation of the plan in 2004. The total clean-up costs are

15


estimated to be $7.3 million. We estimate our current share of site-related costs to be 11.1% of the $7.3 million. Our share of these future costs has not been determined and it may vary from the current estimate. In December 2002, we recorded a liability in our Consolidated Balance Sheets for our share of the clean-up costs that we believe is probable.

68th Street Dump

In July 1999, the EPA notified BGE, along with 19 other entities, that it may be a potentially responsible party at the 68th Street Dump/Industrial Enterprises Site, also known as the Robb Tyler Dump, located in Baltimore, Maryland. The EPA indicated that it is proceeding with plans to conduct a remedial investigation and feasibility study. In April 2003, EPA re-proposed the 68th Street site for listing as a federal Superfund site, but decided not to include the site in its September 2003 update. BGE and other potentially responsible parties are pursuing alternatives to listing as a federal Superfund site, but at this stage, it is not possible to predict the outcome of those discussions, the clean-up cost of the site, or BGE's share of the liability. However, the costs could have a material effect on our, or BGE's, financial results.

Spring Gardens

In the past, predecessor gas companies (which were later merged into BGE) manufactured coal gas for residential and industrial use. The Spring Gardens site, located in Baltimore, Maryland, was once used to manufacture gas from coal and oil. The residue from this manufacturing process was coal tar, previously thought to be harmless but now found to contain a number of chemicals designated by the EPA as hazardous substances.

        In late December 1996, BGE signed a consent order with the Maryland Department of the Environment that required BGE to implement remedial action plans for contamination at and around the Spring Gardens site. BGE submitted the required remedial action plans, and they have been approved by the Maryland Department of the Environment. Based on these plans, the costs BGE considers to be probable to remedy the contamination are estimated to total $47 million. BGE recorded these costs as a liability in its Consolidated Balance Sheets and deferred these costs, net of accumulated amortization and amounts it recovered from insurance companies, as a regulatory asset. Through December 31, 2003, BGE spent approximately $39 million for remediation at this site.

        BGE also is required by accounting rules to disclose additional costs it considers to be less likely than probable, but still "reasonably possible" of being incurred at this site. Based on the results of studies at this site, it is reasonably possible that these additional costs could exceed the $47 million BGE recognized by approximately $14 million.

        BGE also investigated other small sites where gas was manufactured in the past. We do not expect the clean-up costs of the remaining smaller sites to have a material effect on our, or BGE's, financial results.


Employees

Constellation Energy and its subsidiaries had, at December 31, 2003, approximately 8,650 employees. At the Nine Mile Point plant, approximately 700 employees are represented by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 97. The labor contract with this union expires in June 2006. We believe that our relationship with this union is satisfactory, but there can be no assurances that this will continue to be the case.

16


Item 2. Properties

Constellation Energy's corporate offices occupy approximately 85,000 square feet of leased office space in Baltimore, Maryland. The corporate offices for most of our merchant energy business occupy approximately 110,000 square feet of leased office space in another building in Baltimore, Maryland. We describe our electric generation properties on the next page. We also have leases for other offices and services located in the Baltimore metropolitan region, and for various real property and facilities relating to our generation projects.

        BGE's principal headquarters building is located in downtown Baltimore. In January 2004, BGE sold a portion of its headquarters building and will consolidate its operations into the remainder of the building. In addition, BGE owns propane air and liquefied natural gas facilities as discussed in Item 1. Business—Gas Business section.

        BGE also has rights-of-way to maintain 26-inch natural gas mains across certain Baltimore City-owned property (principally parks) which expire in 2004. These rights-of-way can be renewed during their last year for an additional period of 25 years based on a fair revaluation. BGE is in the process of renewing these rights-of-way with the City of Baltimore. Conditions of the grants are satisfactory.

                BGE has electric transmission and electric and gas distribution lines located:

    in public streets and highways pursuant to franchises, and
    on rights-of-way secured for the most part by grants from owners of the property.

        All of BGE's property is subject to the lien of BGE's mortgage securing its mortgage bonds. All of the generation facilities transferred to affiliates by BGE on July 1, 2000, along with the stock we own in certain of our subsidiaries, are subject to the lien of BGE's mortgage.

        We believe we have satisfactory title to our power project facilities in accordance with standards generally accepted in the energy industry, subject to exceptions, which in our opinion, would not have a material adverse effect on the use or value of the facilities.

        We also lease office space throughout North America to support our merchant energy business.

17


        The following table describes our generating facilities:

Plant

  Location
  Installed
Capacity (MW)

  % Owned
  Capacity
Owned (MW)

  Primary
Fuel

 
   
  (at December 31, 2003)

   
  (at December 31, 2003)

   
Mid-Atlantic Fleet                    
  Calvert Cliffs   Calvert Co., MD   1,685   100.0   1,685   Nuclear
  Brandon Shores   Anne Arundel Co., MD   1,286   100.0   1,286   Coal
  H. A. Wagner   Anne Arundel Co., MD   1,020   100.0   1,020   Coal/Oil/Gas
  C. P. Crane   Baltimore Co., MD   399   100.0   399   Oil/Coal
  Keystone   Armstrong and Indiana Cos., PA   1,711   21.0   359  (A) Coal
  Conemaugh   Indiana Co., PA   1,711   10.6   181  (A) Coal
  Perryman   Harford Co., MD   360   100.0   360   Oil/Gas
  Riverside   Baltimore Co., MD   249   100.0   249   Oil/Gas
  Handsome Lake   Rockland Twp, PA   250   100.0   250   Gas
  Notch Cliff   Baltimore Co., MD   128   100.0   128   Gas
  Westport   Baltimore City, MD   121   100.0   121   Gas
  Philadelphia Road   Baltimore City, MD   64   100.0   64   Oil
  Safe Harbor   Safe Harbor, PA   416   66.7   277   Hydro
       
     
   
Total Mid-Atlantic Fleet       9,400       6,379    

Plants with Power Purchase Agreements

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
  High Desert   Victorville, CA   830   100.0   830   Gas
  Nine Mile Point Unit 1   Scriba, NY   609   100.0   609   Nuclear
  Nine Mile Point Unit 2   Scriba, NY   1,148   82.0   941   Nuclear
  Oleander   Brevard Co., FL   680   100.0   680   Oil/Gas
  University Park   Chicago, IL   300   100.0   300   Gas
       
     
   
Total Plants with Power Purchase Agreements   3,567       3,360    

Competitive Supply

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
  Rio Nogales   Seguin, TX   800   100.0   800   Gas
  Holland Energy   Shelby Co., IL   665   100.0   665   Gas
  Big Sandy   Neal, WV   300   100.0   300   Gas
  Wolf Hills   Bristol, VA   250   100.0   250   Gas
       
     
   
Total Competitive Supply   2,015       2,015    

Other

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
  Puna I   Hilo, HI   30   100.0   30   Geothermal
  Panther Creek   Nesquehoning, PA   83   50.0   42   Waste Coal
  Colver   Colver Township, PA   110   25.0   28   Waste Coal
  Sunnyside   Sunnyside, UT   53   50.0   26   Waste Coal
  ACE   Trona, CA   102   30.3   31   Coal
  Jasmin   Kern Co., CA   33   50.0   17   Coal
  POSO   Kern Co., CA   33   50.0   17   Coal
  Mammoth Lakes G-1   Mammoth Lakes, CA   8   50.0   4   Geothermal
  Mammoth Lakes G-2   Mammoth Lakes, CA   12   50.0   6   Geothermal
  Mammoth Lakes G-3   Mammoth Lakes, CA   12   50.0   6   Geothermal
  Soda Lake I   Fallon, NV   3   50.0   2   Geothermal
  Soda Lake II   Fallon, NV   13   50.0   7   Geothermal
  Rocklin   Placer Co., CA   24   50.0   12   Biomass
  Fresno   Fresno, CA   24   50.0   12   Biomass
  Chinese Station   Sonora, CA   22   45.0   10   Biomass
  Malacha   Muck Valley, CA   32   50.0   16   Hydro
  SEGS IV   Kramer Junction, CA   30   12.0   4   Solar
  SEGS V   Kramer Junction, CA   30   4.0   1   Solar
  SEGS VI   Kramer Junction, CA   30   9.0   3   Solar
       
     
   
Total Other       684       274    
       
     
   
Total Generating Facilities       15,666       12,028    
       
     
   
(A)
Reflects our proportionate interest in and entitlement to capacity from Keystone and Conemaugh, which include 2 megawatts of diesel capacity for Keystone and 1 megawatt of diesel capacity for Conemaugh.

18


        The following table describes our processing facilities:

Plant
  Location
  % Owned
  Primary
Fuel

A/C Fuels   Hazelton, PA   50.0   Coal Processing
Gary PCI   Gary, IN   24.5   Coal Processing
Low Country   Cross, SC   99.0   Synfuel Processing
PC Synfuel VA I   Appalachia, VA   16.7   Synfuel Processing
PC Synfuel WV I   Charleston, WV   16.7   Synfuel Processing
PC Synfuel WV II   Wheelersburg, OH   16.7   Synfuel Processing
PC Synfuel WV III   Mayberry, WV   16.7   Synfuel Processing


Item 3. Legal Proceedings

We discuss our legal proceedings in Note 12 to Consolidated Financial Statements.



Item 4. Submission of Matters to Vote of Security Holders

Not applicable.


Executive Officers of the Registrant

Name

  Age
  Present Office
  Other Offices or Positions Held
During Past Five Years

Mayo A. Shattuck III   49   Chairman of the Board of Constellation Energy (since July 2002), President and Chief Executive Officer of Constellation Energy (since November 2001); and Chairman of the Board of BGE (since July 2002)   Co-Chairman and Co-Chief Executive Officer—DB Alex Brown, LLC and Deutsche Banc Securities, Inc., Vice Chairman—Bankers Trust Corporation.

E. Follin Smith

 

44

 

Executive Vice President (since January 2004) and Chief Financial Officer (since June 2001) and Chief Administrative Officer (since December 2003) of Constellation Energy and Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (since January 2002)

 

Senior Vice President—Constellation Energy; Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer—Armstrong Holdings, Inc.; Vice President and Treasurer—Armstrong Holdings, Inc. (filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 on December 6, 2000); and Chief Financial Officer—General Motors—Delphi Chassis Systems.

Thomas V. Brooks

 

41

 

President of Constellation Power Source, Inc. (since October 2001); Executive Vice President of Constellation Energy (since January 2004)

 

Vice President of Business Development and Strategy—Constellation Energy; and Vice President—Goldman Sachs.

Frank O. Heintz

 

60

 

President and Chief Executive Officer of Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (since July 2000); Executive Vice President of Constellation Energy (since January 2004)

 

Executive Vice President, Utility Operations—BGE.

Michael J. Wallace

 

56

 

President of Constellation Generation Group, LLC (since January 2002); Executive Vice President of Constellation Energy (since January 2004)

 

Managing Director and Member—Barrington Energy Partners; and Senior Vice President—Commonwealth Edison.
             

19



Thomas F. Brady

 

54

 

Executive Vice President, Corporate Strategy and Development of Constellation Energy (since January 2004)

 

Senior Vice President, Corporate Strategy and Development—Constellation Energy; Vice President, Corporate Strategy and Development—Constellation Energy; Vice President, Corporate Strategy and Development—BGE.

Paul J. Allen

 

52

 

Senior Vice President, Corporate Affairs of Constellation Energy (since January 2004)

 

Vice President, Corporate Affairs—Constellation Energy; Senior Vice President and Group Head—Ogilvy Public Relations.

Kathleen A. Chagnon

 

44

 

Senior Vice President (since January 2004), General Counsel and Secretary (since August 2002), and Chief Compliance Officer (since November 2003) of Constellation Energy

 

Vice President—Constellation Energy; Vice President, Corporate Group General Counsel—The St. Paul Companies, Inc.

John R. Collins

 

46

 

Senior Vice President (since January 2004) and Chief Risk Officer of Constellation Energy (since December 2001)

 

Vice President—Constellation Energy; Managing Director—Finance—Constellation Power Source Holdings, Inc.; and Senior Financial Officer—Constellation Power Source, Inc.

Mark P. Huston

 

40

 

Vice President, Corporate Strategy and Development of Constellation Energy (since May 2002)

 

Manager, Corporate Strategy & Development—Constellation Energy; and Project Manager, Restructuring Project—BGE.

Marc C. Ugol

 

45

 

Senior Vice President, Human Resources of Constellation Energy (since January 2004)

 

Vice President, Human Resources—Constellation Energy; Senior Vice President, Human Resources and Administration—Tellabs, Inc.; and Senior Vice President, Human Resources—Platinum Technology International.

        Officers are elected by, and hold office at the will of, the Board of Directors and do not serve a "term of office" as such. There is no arrangement or understanding between any director or officer and any other person pursuant to which the director or officer was selected.

20



PART II

Item 5. Market for Registrant's Common Equity and Related Shareholder Matters

Stock Trading

Constellation Energy's common stock is traded under the ticker symbol CEG. It is listed on the New York, Chicago, and Pacific stock exchanges. It has unlisted trading privileges on the Boston, Cincinnati, and Philadelphia exchanges.

        As of February 27, 2004, there were 48,287 common shareholders of record.

Dividend Policy

Constellation Energy pays dividends on its common stock after its Board of Directors declares them. There are no contractual limitations on Constellation Energy paying common stock dividends.

        Dividends have been paid continuously since 1910 on the common stock of Constellation Energy, BGE, and their predecessors. Future dividends depend upon future earnings, our financial condition, and other factors.

        In January 2004, we announced an increase in our quarterly dividend from $0.26 to $0.285 per share on our common stock payable April 1, 2004 to holders of record on March 10, 2004. This is equivalent to an annual rate of $1.14 per share.

        Quarterly dividends were declared on our common stock during 2003 and 2002 in the amounts set forth below.

        BGE pays dividends on its common stock after its Board of Directors declares them. There are no contractual limitations on BGE paying common stock dividends unless:

    BGE elects to defer interest payments on the 6.20% Deferrable Interest Subordinated Debentures due 2043, and any deferred interest remains unpaid; or
    all dividends (and any redemption payments) due on BGE's preference stock have not been paid.

Common Stock Dividends and Price Ranges

 
  2003
  2002
 
   
  Price*
   
  Price*
 
  Dividend
Declared

  Dividend
Declared

 
  High
  Low
  High
  Low
First Quarter   $ 0.26   $ 30.23   $ 25.17   $ 0.24   $ 31.18   $ 26.16
Second Quarter     0.26     34.92     27.50     0.24     32.38     27.65
Third Quarter     0.26     37.65     31.75     0.24     29.85     21.51
Fourth Quarter     0.26     39.61     35.03     0.24     29.02     19.30
   
             
           
Total   $ 1.04               $ 0.96            
   
             
           

* Based on New York Stock Exchange Composite Transactions.

21



Item 6. Selected Financial Data

Constellation Energy Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries

 
  2003
  2002
  2001
  2000
  1999
 

 
 
  (In millions, except per share amounts)

 
Summary of Operations                                
  Total Revenues   $ 9,703.0   $ 4,726.7   $ 3,878.8   $ 3,774.4   $ 3,830.9  
  Total Expenses     8,662.9     3,901.8     3,527.2     3,009.9     3,081.0  
  Net Gain on Sales of Investments and Other Assets     26.2     261.3     6.2     78.1     10.0  

 
  Income From Operations     1,066.3     1,086.2     357.8     842.6     759.9  
  Other Income     19.1     30.5     1.3     4.2     7.9  
  Fixed Charges     340.2     281.5     238.8     271.4     255.0  

 
  Income Before Income Taxes     745.2     835.2     120.3     575.4     512.8  
  Income Taxes     269.5     309.6     37.9     230.1     186.4  

 
  Income Before Extraordinary Item and Cumulative Effects of Changes in Accounting Principles     475.7     525.6     82.4     345.3     326.4  
  Extraordinary Loss, Net of Income Taxes                     (66.3 )
  Cumulative Effects of Changes in Accounting Principles, Net of Income Taxes     (198.4 )       8.5          

 
  Net Income   $ 277.3   $ 525.6   $ 90.9   $ 345.3   $ 260.1  

 
 
Earnings Per Common Share Assuming Dilution Before Extraordinary Item and Cumulative Effects of Changes in Accounting Principles

 

$

2.85

 

$

3.20

 

$

0.52

 

$

2.30

 

$

2.18

 
  Extraordinary Loss                     (0.44 )
  Cumulative Effects of Changes in Accounting Principles     (1.19 )       0.05          

 
  Earnings Per Common Share Assuming Dilution   $ 1.66   $ 3.20   $ 0.57   $ 2.30   $ 1.74  

 
  Dividends Declared Per Common Share   $ 1.04   $ 0.96   $ 0.48   $ 1.68   $ 1.68  

 

Summary of Financial Condition

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
  Total Assets   $ 15,800.7   $ 14,943.3   $ 14,697.5   $ 13,248.1   $ 10,011.4  

 
  Short-Term Borrowings   $ 9.6   $ 10.5   $ 975.0   $ 243.6   $ 371.5  

 
  Current Portion of Long-Term Debt   $ 343.2   $ 426.2   $ 1,406.7   $ 906.6   $ 808.3  

 
  Capitalization                                
    Long-Term Debt   $ 5,039.2   $ 4,613.9   $ 2,712.5   $ 3,159.3   $ 2,575.4  
    Minority Interests     113.4     105.3     101.7     97.7     95.2  
    Preference Stock Not Subject to Mandatory Redemption     190.0     190.0     190.0     190.0     190.0  
    Common Shareholders' Equity     4,140.5     3,862.3     3,843.6     3,174.0     3,017.5  

 
  Total Capitalization   $ 9,483.1   $ 8,771.5   $ 6,847.8   $ 6,621.0   $ 5,878.1  

 

Financial Statistics at Year End

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

 

 

2.98

 

 

3.33

 

 

1.18

 

 

2.78

 

 

2.87

 
 
Book Value Per Share of Common Stock

 

$

24.68

 

$

23.44

 

$

23.48

 

$

21.09

 

$

20.17

 

Certain prior-year amounts have been reclassified to conform with the current year's presentation.

We discuss items that affect comparability between years, including acquisitions, accounting changes, including the impact of adopting Emerging Issues Task Force Issue (EITF) 02-3, Issues Involved in Accounting for Derivative Contracts Held for Trading Purposes and Contracts Involved in Energy Trading and Risk Management Activities, and special items, in Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis.

22


Baltimore Gas and Electric Company and Subsidiaries

 
  2003
  2002
  2001
  2000(A)
  1999
 

 
 
  (In millions)

 

Summary of Operations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
  Total Revenues   $ 2,647.6   $ 2,547.3   $ 2,720.7   $ 2,746.8   $ 3,092.2  
  Total Expenses     2,262.6     2,181.0     2,408.9     2,334.4     2,387.9  

 
  Income From Operations     385.0     366.3     311.8     412.4     704.3  
  Other (Expense) Income     (5.4 )   10.7     0.4     7.5     8.4  
  Fixed Charges     111.2     140.6     154.6     184.0     205.9  

 
  Income Before Income Taxes     268.4     236.4     157.6     235.9     506.8  
  Income Taxes     105.2     93.3     60.3     92.4     178.4  

 
  Income Before Extraordinary Item     163.2     143.1     97.3     143.5     328.4  
  Extraordinary Loss, Net of Income Taxes                     (66.3 )

 
  Net Income     163.2     143.1     97.3     143.5     262.1  
  Preference Stock Dividends     13.2     13.2     13.2     13.2     13.5  

 
  Earnings Applicable to Common Stock   $ 150.0   $ 129.9   $ 84.1   $ 130.3   $ 248.6  

 

Summary of Financial Condition

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
  Total Assets   $ 4,706.6   $ 4,779.9   $ 4,954.5   $ 4,657.4   $ 7,273.4  

 
  Short-Term Borrowings   $   $   $   $ 32.1   $ 129.0  

 
  Current Portion of Long-Term Debt   $ 330.6   $ 420.7   $ 666.3   $ 567.6   $ 523.9  

 
  Capitalization                                
    Long-Term Debt   $ 1,343.7   $ 1,499.1   $ 1,821.7   $ 1,864.4   $ 2,206.0  
    Minority Interest     18.9     19.4     5.0     4.6     4.2  
    Preference Stock Not Subject to Mandatory Redemption     190.0     190.0     190.0     190.0     190.0  
    Common Shareholder's Equity     1,487.7     1,461.7     1,131.4     802.3     2,355.4  

 
  Total Capitalization   $ 3,040.3   $ 3,170.2   $ 3,148.1   $ 2,861.3   $ 4,755.6  

 

Financial Statistics at Year End

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
  Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges     3.36     2.66     1.99     2.27     3.45  
 
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and Preferred and Preference Stock Dividends

 

 

2.82

 

 

2.31

 

 

1.75

 

 

2.03

 

 

3.14

 

Certain prior-year amounts have been reclassified to conform with the current year's presentation.

(A)
In July 2000, BGE transferred its generation assets, net of associated liabilities, to our merchant energy business as a result of the deregulation of electric generation.

23



Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations


Introduction and Overview

Constellation Energy Group, Inc. (Constellation Energy) is a North American energy company that conducts its business through various subsidiaries including a merchant energy business and Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE). We describe our operating segments in Note 3.

        This report is a combined report of Constellation Energy and BGE. References in this report to "we" and "our" are to Constellation Energy and its subsidiaries, collectively. References in this report to the "utility business" are to BGE.

        Our merchant energy business is a competitive provider of energy solutions for large customers in North America. It has electric generation assets located in various regions of the United States and provides energy solutions to meet customers' needs. Our merchant energy business focuses on serving the full energy and capacity requirements (load-serving activities) of, and providing other risk management activities for various wholesale customers, such as utilities, municipalities, cooperatives, and retail aggregators, and for retail commercial and industrial customers. These load-serving activities typically occur in regional markets in which end use customer electricity rates have been deregulated and thereby separated from the cost of generation supply.

        Our wholesale marketing and risk management operation actively uses energy and energy-related commodities in order to manage our portfolio of energy purchases and sales to customers through structured transactions. As part of our risk management activities we trade power and gas to enable price discovery and facilitate the hedging of our load-serving and other risk management products and services. Within our trading function we allow limited risk-taking activities for profit. These activities are actively managed through daily value at risk and liquidity position limits. We discuss value at risk in more detail later in the Market Risk section.

        BGE is a regulated electric transmission and distribution utility company and a regulated gas distribution utility company with a service territory that covers the City of Baltimore and all or part of ten counties in central Maryland.

        Our other nonregulated businesses:

    design, construct, and operate heating, cooling, and cogeneration facilities for commercial, industrial, and municipal customers throughout North America, and
    provide home improvements, service heating, air conditioning, plumbing, electrical, and indoor air quality systems, and provide natural gas retail marketing to residential customers in central Maryland.

        In addition, we own several investments that we do not consider to be core operations. These include financial investments, real estate projects, and interests in a Latin American distribution project and in a fund that holds interests in two South American energy projects.

        In this discussion and analysis, we will explain the general financial condition and the results of operations for Constellation Energy and BGE including:

    factors which affect our businesses,
    our earnings and costs in the periods presented,
    changes in earnings and costs between periods,
    sources of earnings,
    impact of these factors on our overall financial condition,
    expected future expenditures for capital projects, and
    expected sources of cash for future capital expenditures.

        As you read this discussion and analysis, refer to our Consolidated Statements of Income, which present the results of our operations for 2003, 2002, and 2001. Our 2003 results reflect a significant increase in revenues and operating expenses mainly due to the implementation of Emerging Issues Task Force Issue (EITF) 02-3, Issues Involved in Accounting for Derivative Contracts Held for Trading Purposes and Contracts Involved in Energy Trading and Risk Management Activities in January 2003, as well as the full year impact of our 2002 acquisitions, NewEnergy and Alliance. We discuss the cumulative effect of changes in accounting principles in Note 1 and our acquisitions in Note 15. We analyze and explain the differences between periods in the specific line items of our Consolidated Statements of Income.

        We have organized our discussion and analysis as follows:

    First, we discuss our strategy.
    We then describe the business environment in which we operate including how regulation, weather, and other factors affect our business.
    Next, we discuss our critical accounting policies. These are the accounting policies that are most important to both the portrayal of our financial condition and results and require management's most difficult, subjective or complex judgment.
    We highlight significant events that occurred in 2003 that are important to understanding our results of operations and financial condition.
    We then review our results of operations beginning with an overview of our total company results, followed by a more detailed review of those results by operating segment.
    We review our financial condition addressing our sources and uses of cash, security ratings, capital resources, capital requirements, and commitments.
    We conclude with a discussion of our exposure to various market risks.


Strategy

We are pursuing a balanced strategy to distribute energy through our North American competitive supply activities and our regulated utility located in Maryland, BGE. Our merchant energy business focuses on long-term, high-value sales of energy, capacity, and related products to large customers, including distribution utilities, municipalities, cooperatives, industrial customers, and commercial customers primarily in the regional markets in which end-use customer electricity rates have been deregulated and thereby separated from the cost of generation supply. These markets include:

    the New England, New York, and Mid-Atlantic regions,
    Texas,
    the Mid-West region,
    the West region, and
    certain areas in Canada.

24


        We obtain this energy through both owned and contracted generation. Our generation fleet is strategically located in deregulated markets across the country and is diversified by fuel type, including nuclear, coal, gas, oil, and renewable sources. Where we do not own generation, we contract for power from other merchant providers, typically through power purchase agreements. We intend to remain diversified between regulated transmission and distribution and competitive supply. We will use both our owned generation and our contracted generation to support our competitive supply operation.

        We are a leading national competitive supplier of energy in the deregulated markets previously discussed. In our wholesale and commercial and industrial retail marketing activities we are leveraging our recognized expertise in providing full requirements energy and energy related services to enter markets, capture market share, and organically grow these businesses. Through the application of technology, intellectual capital, and increased scale, we are seeking to reduce the cost of delivering full requirements energy and energy related services and managing risk.

        We are also responding proactively to customer needs by expanding the variety of products we offer. Our wholesale competitive supply activities include a growing customer products operation that markets physical energy products and risk management and logistics services sold to generators, distributors, producers of coal, natural gas and fuel oil, and other consumers.

        Within our retail competitive supply activities, we are marketing a broader array of products and expanding our markets. Over time, we may consider integrating the sale of electricity and natural gas to provide one energy procurement solution for our customers.

        Collectively, the integration of owned and contracted electric generation assets with origination, fuel procurement, and risk management expertise, allows our merchant energy business to earn incremental margin and more effectively manage energy and commodity price risk over geographic regions and over time. Our focus is on providing solutions to customers' energy needs, and our wholesale marketing and risk management operation adds value to our owned and contracted generation assets by providing national market access, market infrastructure, real-time market intelligence, risk management and arbitrage opportunities, and transmission and transportation expertise. Generation capacity supports our wholesale marketing and risk management operation by providing a source of reliable power supply that provides a physical hedge for some of our load-serving activities.

        To achieve our strategic objectives, we expect to continue to pursue opportunities that expand our access to customers and to support our wholesale marketing and risk management operation with generation assets that have diversified geographic, fuel, and dispatch characteristics. We also expect to grow organically through selling a greater number of physical energy products and services to large energy customers. We expect to achieve operating efficiencies within our competitive supply operation and our generation fleet by selling more products through our existing sales force, benefiting from efficiencies of scale, adding to the capacity of existing plants, and making our business processes more efficient.

        We expect BGE and our other retail energy service businesses to grow through focused and disciplined expansion primarily from new customers. At BGE, we are also focused on enhancing reliability and customer satisfaction.

        Customer choice, regulatory change, and energy market conditions significantly impact our business. In response, we regularly evaluate our strategies with these goals in mind: to improve our competitive position, to anticipate and adapt to the business environment and regulatory changes, and to maintain a strong balance sheet and investment-grade credit quality.

        Beginning in the fourth quarter of 2001, we undertook a number of initiatives to reduce our costs towards competitive levels and to ensure that our resources are focused on our core energy businesses. These initiatives included the implementation of workforce reduction programs, termination of all planned power plant development projects not under construction, the acceleration of our exit strategy for certain non-core assets, and the implementation of productivity initiatives.

        We are constantly reevaluating our strategies and might consider:

    acquiring or developing additional generating facilities to support our merchant energy business,
    mergers or acquisitions of utility or non-utility businesses or assets, and
    sale of assets or one of more businesses.


Business Environment

General Industry

Over the past several years, the utility industry and energy markets experienced significant changes as a result of less liquid and more volatile wholesale markets, credit quality deterioration of various industry participants, and the slowing of the U.S. economy.

        The energy markets also were affected by other significant events, including expanded investigations by state and federal authorities into business practices of energy companies in the deregulated power and gas markets relating to "wash trading" to inflate revenues and volumes, and other trading practices designed to manipulate market prices. In addition, several merchant energy businesses significantly reduced their energy trading activities due to deteriorating credit quality.

        During 2003, the energy markets continued to be highly volatile with significant changes in natural gas and power prices, as well as the continuation of reduced liquidity in the marketplace. We continue to actively manage our credit portfolio to attempt to reduce the impact of a potential counterparty default. We discuss our counterparty credit and other risks in more detail in the Market Risk section.

        We also continue to examine plans to achieve our strategies and to further strengthen our balance sheet and enhance our liquidity. We discuss our liquidity in the Financial Condition section.


Electric Competition

We are facing competition in the sale of electricity in wholesale power markets and to retail customers.

Maryland

As a result of the deregulation of electric generation in Maryland, the following occurred effective July 1, 2000:

    All customers can choose their electric energy supplier. BGE provides fixed price standard offer service over various time periods for different classes of customers that do not select an alternative supplier until June 30, 2006.
    While BGE does not sell electric commodity to all customers in its service territory, BGE does deliver electricity to all customers and provides meter reading, billing, emergency response, regular maintenance, and balancing services.

25


    BGE provides a market rate standard offer service for those commercial and industrial customers who are no longer eligible for fixed price standard offer service.
    BGE residential base rates will not change before July 2006. While total residential base rates remain unchanged over the initial transition period (July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2006), annual standard offer service rate increases are offset by corresponding decreases in the competitive transition charge (CTC) that BGE receives from its customers.
    Commercial and industrial customers have several service options that will fix electric energy rates through June 30, 2004 and the CTC through June 30, 2006.
    BGE transferred, at book value, its generating assets and related liabilities to the merchant energy business.

Standard Offer Service

Our wholesale marketing and risk management operation is providing BGE with 100% of the energy and capacity required to meet its commercial and industrial standard offer service obligations through June 30, 2004 and 100% of the energy and capacity required to meet its residential standard offer service obligations through June 30, 2006. BGE will obtain its supply for standard offer service to its commercial and industrial customers beginning July 1, 2004, and to its residential customers beginning July 1, 2006, through a competitive wholesale bidding process as discussed in the Standard Offer Service—Provider of Last Resort (POLR) section below. Our wholesale marketing and risk management operation obtains the energy and capacity to supply BGE's standard offer service obligations from our merchant energy operating plants in the PJM Interconnection (PJM) region, supplemented with energy and capacity purchased from the wholesale market, as necessary.

        Beginning July 1, 2002, the fixed price standard offer service rate ended for certain of our large commercial and industrial customers. As a result, the majority of these customers purchase their electricity from alternate suppliers, including subsidiaries of Constellation Energy. The remaining large commercial and industrial customers that continue to receive their electric supply from BGE are charged market-based standard offer service rates through June 30, 2004.

        Beginning July 1, 2004, all other commercial and industrial customers that receive their electric supply from BGE will be charged market-based standard offer service rates. Beginning July 1, 2006, BGE's current obligation to provide fixed price standard offer service to residential customers ends and all residential customers that receive their electric supply from BGE will be charged market-based standard offer service rates.

Standard Offer Service—Provider of Last Resort (POLR)

In April 2003, the Maryland Public Service Commission (Maryland PSC) approved a settlement agreement reached by BGE and parties representing customers, industry, utilities, suppliers, the Maryland Energy Administration, the Maryland PSC's Staff, and the Office of People's Counsel which, among other things, extends BGE's obligation to supply standard offer service for a second transition period. Under the settlement agreement, BGE is obligated to provide market-based standard offer service for a second transition period to residential customers until June 30, 2010, and for commercial and industrial customers for a one, two or four year period beyond June 30, 2004, depending on customer load. The POLR rates charged during this time will recover BGE's wholesale power supply costs and include an administrative fee.

        In September 2003, the Maryland PSC approved a second settlement agreement. This phase deals with the bid procurement process that utilities must follow to obtain wholesale power supply to serve retail customers on standard offer service during the second transition period. The settlement contains a model request for proposals, a model wholesale power supply contract, and various requirements pertaining to, among other things, bidder qualifications and bid evaluation criteria. Bidding to supply BGE's standard offer service to commercial and industrial customers beyond June 30, 2004, began in February 2004. The same bidding procedures will be used for supplying BGE's standard offer service to residential customers for the period after June 30, 2006.

Other States

Several states, other than Maryland, have supported deregulation of the electric industry. The pace of deregulation in other states varies based on historical moves to competition and responses to recent market events. Certain states that were considering deregulation have slowed their plans or postponed consideration. In addition, other states are reconsidering deregulation. Our merchant energy business is also affected by regional regulatory or legislative decisions, which may impact our financial results and our ability to successfully execute our growth strategy.

        In response to regional market differences and to promote competitive markets, the FERC proposed initiatives promoting the formation of Regional Transmission Organizations and a standard market design. If approved, these market changes could provide additional opportunities for our merchant energy business. We discuss these initiatives in the FERC Regulation—Regional Transmission Organizations and Standard Market Design section.


Gas Competition

The wholesale price of natural gas is not subject to regulation. All BGE gas customers have the option to purchase gas from alternate suppliers.

26



Regulation by the Maryland PSC

In addition to electric restructuring which was discussed earlier, regulation by the Maryland PSC influences BGE's businesses. The Maryland PSC determines the rates that BGE can charge customers for the electric distribution and gas businesses. The Maryland PSC incorporates into BGE's electric rates the transmission rates determined by FERC. BGE's electric rates are unbundled to show separate components for delivery service, competitive transition charges, standard offer service (generation), transmission, universal service, and certain taxes. The rates for BGE's regulated gas business continue to consist of a "base rate" and a "fuel rate."

Base Rate

The base rate is the rate the Maryland PSC allows BGE to charge its customers for the cost of providing them service, plus a profit. BGE has both an electric base rate and a gas base rate. Higher electric base rates apply during the summer when the demand for electricity is higher. Gas base rates are not affected by seasonal changes.

        BGE may ask the Maryland PSC to increase base rates from time to time. The Maryland PSC historically has allowed BGE to increase base rates to recover increased utility plant asset costs and higher operating costs, plus a profit, beginning at the time of replacement. Generally, rate increases improve our utility earnings because they allow us to collect more revenue. However, rate increases are normally granted based on historical data, and those increases may not always keep pace with increasing costs. Other parties may petition the Maryland PSC to decrease base rates.

        As a result of the deregulation of electric generation in Maryland, BGE's residential electric base rates are frozen until 2006. Electric delivery service rates are frozen until 2004 for commercial and industrial customers. The generation and transmission components of rates are frozen for different time periods depending on the service options selected by those customers. We discuss the impact on base rates beyond 2004 in the Electric Competition—Maryland section.

Gas Fuel Rate

We charge our gas customers separately for the natural gas they purchase from us. The price we charge for the natural gas is based on a market-based rates incentive mechanism approved by the Maryland PSC. We discuss market-based rates and a proceeding with the Maryland PSC in more detail in the Regulated Gas Business—Gas Cost Adjustments section and in Note 1.


FERC Regulation

Regional Transmission Organizations and Standard Market Design

In 1997, BGE turned over the operation of its transmission facilities to PJM, a power pool in the Mid-Atlantic region. In December 1999, FERC issued Order 2000, amending its regulations under the Federal Power Act to advance the formation of Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs) that would allow easier access to transmission. PJM received FERC approval of its RTO status in December 2002 pending certain compliance filings.

        On July 31, 2002, the FERC issued a proposed rulemaking regarding implementation of a standard market design (SMD) for wholesale electric markets. The SMD rulemaking is intended to complement FERC's RTO order, and would require RTOs to substantially comply with its provisions. The SMD proposals also required transmission providers to turn over the operation of their facilities to an independent operator that will operate them consistent with a revised market structure proposed by the FERC. According to the FERC, the revised market structure will reduce inefficiencies caused by inconsistent market rules and barriers to transmission access. The FERC proposed that its rule be implemented in stages by October 1, 2004. Comments on the SMD proposal were submitted in February 2003.

        In April 2003, the FERC issued a report that indicated its position with respect to the proposed rulemaking and announced that it intends to leave relatively unmodified existing RTO practices, to allow flexibility among regional approaches, to allow phased-in implementation of the final rule, and to provide an increased deference to states' concerns. Concurrently, proposed federal legislation has been introduced that would remand the rulemaking process to FERC, require the issuance of a new notice of proposed rulemaking, and delay the issuance of a final rule until at least January 1, 2007.

        We believe that, while the original SMD proposal would have led to uniform rules that would have been largely favorable to Constellation Energy and BGE, the revised regional approach should result in improved market operations across various regions. The proposed federal legislation does not appear to exclude a regional approach to market development. Overall, the trend continues to be toward increased competition in the regions. The region where BGE operates is expected to be relatively unaffected by this proceeding, based on current compliance by the PJM with the SMD proposal.

27



Weather

Merchant Energy Business

Weather conditions in the different regions of North America influence the financial results of our merchant energy business. Weather conditions can affect the supply of and demand for electricity and fuels, and changes in energy supply and demand may impact the price of these energy commodities in both the spot market and the forward market that may affect our ability to successfully execute our growth strategy. Typically, demand for electricity and its price are higher in the summer and the winter, when weather is more extreme. Similarly, the demand for and price of natural gas and oil are higher in the winter. However, all regions of North America typically do not experience extreme weather conditions at the same time.

BGE

Weather affects the demand for electricity and gas for our regulated businesses. Very hot summers and very cold winters increase demand. Mild weather reduces demand. Weather affects residential sales more than commercial and industrial sales, which are mostly affected by business needs for electricity and gas. However, the Maryland PSC allows BGE to record a monthly adjustment to our regulated gas business revenues to eliminate the effect of abnormal weather patterns. We discuss this further in the Regulated Gas Business—Weather Normalization section.

        BGE measures the weather's effect using "degree-days." The measure of degree-days for a given day is the difference between the average daily actual temperature and a baseline temperature of 65 degrees. Cooling degree-days result when the average daily actual temperature exceeds the 65 degree baseline, adjusted for humidity levels. Heating degree-days result when the average daily actual temperature is less than the baseline.

        During the cooling season, hotter weather is measured by more cooling degree-days and results in greater demand for electricity to operate cooling systems. During the heating season, colder weather is measured by more heating degree-days and results in greater demand for electricity and gas to operate heating systems.

        We show the number of cooling and heating degree-days in 2003 and 2002, the percentage change in the number of degree-days from the prior year, and the number of degree-days in a "normal" year as represented by the 30-year average in the following table:

 
  2003
  2002
  30-year
Average

Cooling degree-days   755   1,006   839
Percentage change from prior year   (25.0)%    
Heating degree-days   5,140   4,542   4,729
Percentage change from prior year   13.2%    


Other Factors

A number of other factors significantly influence the level and volatility of prices for energy commodities and related derivative products for our merchant energy business. These factors include:

    seasonal daily and hourly changes in demand,
    number of market participants,
    extreme peak demands,
    available supply resources,
    transportation and transmission availability and reliability within and between regions,
    location of our generating facilities relative to the location of our load-serving obligations,
    implementation of new market rules governing operations of regional power pools,
    procedures used to maintain the integrity of the physical electricity system during extreme conditions, and
    changes in the nature and extent of federal and state regulations.

        These factors can affect energy commodity and derivative prices in different ways and to different degrees. These effects may vary throughout the country as a result of regional differences in:

    weather conditions,
    market liquidity,
    capability and reliability of the physical electricity and gas systems, and
    the nature and extent of electricity deregulation.

        Other factors, aside from weather, also impact the demand for electricity and gas in our regulated businesses. These factors include the number of customers and usage per customer during a given period. We use these terms later in our discussions of regulated electric and gas operations. In those sections, we discuss how these and other factors affected electric and gas sales during the periods presented.

        The number of customers in a given period is affected by new home and apartment construction and by the number of businesses in our service territory.

        Usage per customer refers to all other items impacting customer sales that cannot be measured separately. These factors include the strength of the economy in our service territory. When the economy is healthy and expanding, customers tend to consume more electricity and gas. Conversely, during an economic downtrend, our customers tend to consume less electricity and gas.


Environmental and Legal Matters

You will find details of our environmental matters in Note 12 and Item 1. Business—Environmental Matters section. You will find details of our legal matters in Note 12. Some of the information is about costs that may be material to our financial results.


Accounting Standards Adopted and Issued

We discuss recently adopted and issued accounting standards in Note 1.

28



Critical Accounting Policies

Our discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations is based on our consolidated financial statements that were prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Management makes estimates and assumptions when preparing financial statements. These estimates and assumptions affect various matters, including:

    our reported amounts of revenues and expenses in our Consolidated Statements of Income,
    our reported amounts of assets and liabilities in our Consolidated Balance Sheets, and
    our disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities.

        These estimates involve judgments with respect to numerous factors that are difficult to predict and are beyond management's control. As a result, actual amounts could materially differ from these estimates.

        The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued disclosure guidance for accounting policies that management believes are most "critical." The SEC defines critical accounting policies as those that are both most important to the portrayal of a company's financial condition and results and require management's most difficult, subjective, or complex judgment, often as a result of the need to make estimates about the effect of matters that are inherently uncertain and may change in subsequent periods.

        Management believes the following accounting policies represent critical accounting policies as defined by the SEC. We discuss our significant accounting policies, including those that do not require management to make difficult, subjective, or complex judgments or estimates, in Note 1.


Revenue Recognition/Mark-to-Market Method of Accounting

Our merchant energy business enters into contracts for energy, other energy-related commodities, and related derivatives. We record merchant energy business revenues using two methods of accounting: accrual accounting and mark-to-market accounting. We describe our use of accrual accounting (including hedge accounting) in more detail in Note 1.

        We record revenues using the mark-to-market method of accounting for derivative contracts for which we are not permitted to use accrual accounting or hedge accounting. These mark-to-market activities include derivative contracts for energy and other energy-related commodities. Under the mark-to-market method of accounting, we record the fair value of these derivatives as mark-to-market energy assets and liabilities at the time of contract execution. We record the changes in mark-to-market energy assets and liabilities on a net basis in "Nonregulated revenues" in our Consolidated Statements of Income.

        Mark-to-market energy assets and liabilities consist of a combination of energy and energy-related derivative contracts. While some of these contracts represent commodities or instruments for which prices are available from external sources, other commodities and certain contracts are not actively traded and are valued using modeling techniques to determine expected future market prices, contract quantities, or both. The market prices and quantities used to determine fair value reflect management's best estimate considering various factors. However, future market prices and actual quantities will vary from those used in recording mark-to-market energy assets and liabilities, and it is possible that such variations could be material.

        We record reserves to reflect uncertainties associated with certain estimates inherent in the determination of the fair value of mark-to-market energy assets and liabilities. The effect of these uncertainties is not incorporated in market price information or other market-based estimates used to determine fair value of our mark-to-market energy contracts. To the extent possible, we utilize market-based data together with quantitative methods for both measuring the uncertainties for which we record reserves and determining the level of such reserves and changes in those levels.

        We describe below the main types of reserves we record and the process for establishing each. Generally, increases in reserves reduce our earnings, and decreases in reserves increase our earnings. However, all or a portion of the effect on earnings of changes in reserves may be offset by changes in the value of the underlying positions.

    Close-out reserve—this reserve represents the estimated cost to close out or sell to a third-party open mark-to-market positions. This reserve has the effect of valuing "long" positions at the bid price and "short" positions at the offer price. We compute this reserve using a market-based estimate of the bid/offer spread for each commodity and option price and the absolute quantity of our net open positions for each year. To the extent that we are not able to obtain market information for similar contracts, the close-out reserve is equivalent to the initial contract margin, thereby resulting in no gain or loss at inception. The level of total close-out reserves increases as we have larger unhedged positions, bid-offer spreads increase, or market information is not available, and it decreases as we reduce our unhedged positions, bid-offer spreads decrease, or market information becomes available.

29


    Credit-spread adjustment—for risk management purposes, we compute the value of our mark-to-market energy assets and liabilities using a risk-free discount rate. In order to compute fair value for financial reporting purposes, we adjust the value of our mark-to-market energy assets to reflect the credit-worthiness of each counterparty based upon published credit ratings, where available, or equivalent internal credit ratings and associated default probability percentages. We compute this reserve by applying the appropriate default probability percentage to our outstanding credit exposure, net of collateral, for each counterparty. The level of this reserve increases as our credit exposure to counterparties increases, the maturity terms of our transactions increase, or the credit ratings of our counterparties deteriorate, and it decreases when our credit exposure to counterparties decreases, the maturity terms of our transactions decrease, or the credit ratings of our counterparties improve.

        Market prices for energy and energy-related commodities vary based upon a number of factors, and changes in market prices affect both the recorded fair value of our mark-to-market energy contracts and the level of future revenues and costs associated with accrual-basis activities. Changes in the value of our mark-to-market energy contracts will affect our earnings in the period of the change, while changes in forward market prices related to accrual-basis revenues and costs will affect our earnings in future periods to the extent those prices are realized. We cannot predict whether, or to what extent, the factors affecting market prices may change, but those changes could be material and could affect us either favorably or unfavorably. We discuss our market risk in more detail in the Market Risk section.

        In October 2002, the EITF reached a consensus on Issue 02-3. This consensus prohibits mark-to-market accounting for energy-related contracts that do not meet the definition of a derivative under Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, as amended. As a result, we began to account for all non-derivative contracts on the accrual basis of accounting effective January 1, 2003 as described in Note 1. The consensus also prohibits recording unrealized gains or losses at the inception of derivative contracts unless the fair value of each contract in its entirety is evidenced by quoted market prices or other current market transactions for contracts with similar terms and counterparties, and it requires gains and losses on derivative energy trading contracts (whether realized or unrealized) to be reported as revenue on a net basis in the income statement.

        EITF 02-3 affects the timing of recognizing earnings on non-derivative transactions. In general, beginning in 2003 earnings on non-derivative transactions subject to EITF 02-3 are no longer recognized at the inception of the transactions as they were under mark-to-market accounting because they are subject to accrual accounting and are recognized over the term of the transaction. As a result, while total earnings over the term of a transaction are the same as they would have been under mark-to-market accounting, our reported earnings for contracts subject to EITF 02-3 generally match the cash flows from those contracts more closely. Additionally, because we record revenues and costs on a gross basis under accrual accounting, our revenues and costs increased, but our earnings have not been affected by gross versus net reporting.

        The impact of derivative contracts on our revenues and costs is affected by many factors, including:

    our ability to designate and qualify derivative contracts for normal purchase and sale accounting or hedge accounting under SFAS No. 133,
    potential volatility in earnings from derivative contracts that serve as economic hedges but do not meet the accounting requirements to qualify for normal purchase and sale accounting or hedge accounting,
    our ability to enter into new mark-to-market derivative origination transactions, and
    sufficient liquidity and transparency in the energy markets to permit us to record gains at inception of new derivative contracts because fair value is evidenced by quoted market prices, current market transactions, or other observable market information.

        We discuss the impact of mark-to-market accounting on our financial results in the Results of Operations—Merchant Energy Business section.


Evaluation of Assets for Impairment and Other Than Temporary Decline in Value

Long-Lived Assets

We are required to evaluate certain assets that have long lives (for example, generating property and equipment and real estate) to determine if they are impaired when certain conditions exist. SFAS No. 144, Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets, provides the accounting for impairments of long-lived assets. We are required to test our long-lived assets for recoverability whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that their carrying amount may not be recoverable. Examples of such events or changes are:

    a significant decrease in the market price of a long-lived asset,
    a significant adverse change in the manner an asset is being used or its physical condition,
    an adverse action by a regulator or in the business climate,
    an accumulation of costs significantly in excess of the amount originally expected for the construction or acquisition of an asset,
    a current-period loss combined with a history of losses or the projection of future losses, or
    a change in our intent about an asset from an intent to hold to a greater than 50% likelihood that an asset will be sold or disposed of before the end of its previously estimated useful life.

        For long-lived assets that are expected to be held and used, SFAS No. 144 provides that an impairment loss shall only be recognized if the carrying amount of an asset is not recoverable and exceeds its fair value. The carrying amount of an asset is not recoverable under SFAS No. 144 if the carrying amount

30


exceeds the sum of the undiscounted future cash flows expected to result from the use and eventual disposition of the asset. Therefore, when we believe an impairment condition may have occurred, we are required to estimate the undiscounted future cash flows associated with a long-lived asset or group of long-lived assets. This necessarily involves judgment surrounding the inherent uncertainty of future cash flows.

        In order to estimate an asset's future cash flows, we consider historical cash flows, as well as reflect our understanding of the extent to which future cash flows will be either similar to or different from past experience based on all available evidence. To the extent applicable, the assumptions we use are consistent with forecasts that we are otherwise required to make (for example, in preparing our other earnings forecasts). If we are considering alternative courses of action to recover the carrying amount of a long-lived asset (such as the potential sale of an asset), we probability-weight the alternative courses of action to estimate the cash flows.

        We use our best estimates in making these evaluations and consider various factors, including forward price curves for energy, fuel costs, and operating costs. However, actual future market prices and project costs could vary from the assumptions used in our estimates, and the impact of such variations could be material.

        For long-lived assets that can be classified as assets to be disposed of by sale under SFAS No. 144, an impairment loss is recognized to the extent their carrying amount exceeds their fair value, including costs to sell.

        If we determine that the undiscounted cash flows from an asset to be held and used are less than the carrying amount of the asset, or if we have classified an asset as held for sale, we must estimate fair value to determine the amount of any impairment loss. The estimation of fair value under SFAS No. 144, whether in conjunction with an asset to be held and used or with an asset to be disposed of by sale, also involves judgment. We consider quoted market prices in active markets to the extent they are available. In the absence of such information, we may consider prices of similar assets, consult with brokers, or employ other valuation techniques. Often, we will discount the estimated future cash flows associated with the asset using a single interest rate that is commensurate with the risk involved with such an investment or employ an expected present value method that probability-weights a range of possible outcomes. The use of these methods involves the same inherent uncertainty of future cash flows as discussed above with respect to undiscounted cash flows. Actual future market prices and project costs could vary from those used in our estimates, and the impact of such variations could be material.

        We are also required to evaluate our equity-method and cost-method investments (for example, in partnerships that own power projects) to determine whether or not they are impaired. Accounting Principles Board Opinion (APB) No. 18, The Equity Method of Accounting for Investments in Common Stock, provides the accounting for these investments. The standard for determining whether an impairment must be recorded under APB No. 18 is whether the investment has experienced a loss in value that is considered an "other than a temporary" decline in value.

        The evaluation and measurement of impairments under the APB No. 18 standard involves the same uncertainties as described above for long-lived assets that we own directly and account for in accordance with SFAS No. 144. Similarly, the estimates that we make with respect to our equity and cost-method investments are subject to variation, and the impact of such variations could be material. Additionally, if the projects in which we hold these investments recognize an impairment under the provisions of SFAS No. 144, we would record our proportionate share of that impairment loss and would evaluate our investment for an other than temporary decline in value under APB No. 18.

Goodwill

Goodwill is the excess of the purchase price of an acquired business over the fair value of the net assets acquired. We do not amortize goodwill and certain other intangibles under the provisions of SFAS No. 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets. SFAS No. 142 requires us to evaluate goodwill for impairment at least annually or more frequently if events and circumstances indicate the business might be impaired. Goodwill is impaired if the carrying value of the business exceeds fair value. Annually, we estimate the fair value of the businesses we have acquired using techniques similar to those used to estimate future cash flows for long-lived assets as discussed above, which involves judgment. If the estimated fair value of the business is less than its carrying value, an impairment loss is required to be recognized to the extent that the carrying value of goodwill is greater than its fair value.


Asset Retirement Obligations

We incur legal obligations associated with the retirement of certain long-lived assets. SFAS No. 143, Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations, provides the accounting for legal obligations associated with the retirement of long-lived assets. We incur such legal obligations as a result of environmental and other government regulations, contractual agreements, and other factors. The application of this standard requires significant judgment due to the large number and diverse nature of the assets in our various businesses and the estimation of future cash flows required to measure legal obligations associated with the retirement of specific assets.

        SFAS No. 143 requires the use of an expected present value methodology in measuring asset retirement obligations that involves judgment surrounding the inherent uncertainty of the probability, amount and timing of payments to settle these obligations, and the appropriate interest rates to discount future cash flows. We use our best estimates in identifying and measuring our asset retirement obligations in accordance with SFAS No. 143.

        Our nuclear decommissioning costs represent our largest asset retirement obligation. This obligation primarily results from the requirement to decommission and decontaminate the Calvert Cliffs and Nine Mile Point plants in connection with their future retirement. We revised our site-specific decommissioning cost estimates as part of the process to determine our nuclear asset retirement obligations. However, given the magnitude of the amounts involved, complicated and ever-changing technical and regulatory requirements, and the very long time horizons involved, the actual obligation could vary from the assumptions used in our estimates, and the impact of such variations could be material.

31



Significant Events of 2003

In 2003, we recorded the following special items in earnings:

 
  Pre-
Tax

  After-
Tax

 

 
 
  (In millions)

 
Workforce reduction costs   $ (2.1 ) $ (1.3 )
Impairment losses and other costs     (0.6 )   (0.4 )
Net gain on sales of investments and other assets     26.2     16.4  

 
Total special items   $ 23.5   $ 14.7  

 


Workforce Reduction Costs

During 2003, we recorded costs of $2.1 million pre-tax, or $1.3 million after-tax, of which BGE recorded $0.7 million pre-tax, associated with deferred payments to employees eligible for the 2001 Voluntary Special Early Retirement Program.


Impairment Losses and Other Costs

In 2003, our other nonregulated businesses recognized an impairment loss of $0.6 million pre-tax, or $0.4 million after-tax, related to the decline in value of our investment in an airplane that we sold in January 2004.

        In the fourth quarter of 2003, we began re-evaluating our strategy regarding ourgeothermal generating facility in Hawaii. This facility has property, plant and equipment with a net book value of approximately $137 million. If we ultimately dispose of the geothermal facility, the actual proceeds received could be less than the carrying value of the plant, resulting in a loss that could be material. We discuss this in further detail in the Merchant Energy Business—Other section on page 42.


Net Gain on Sales of Investments and Other Assets

During 2003, our other nonregulated businesses recognized $26.2 million of pre-tax, or $16.4 million after-tax, gains on the sales of non-core assets as follows:

    a $13.1 million pre-tax gain on the sale of several parcels of real estate,
    a $7.2 million pre-tax gain on the sale of an oil tanker to the U.S. Navy,
    a $5.3 million pre-tax gain on the favorable settlement of a contingent obligation we had previously reserved relating to the sale of our Guatemalan power plant operation in the fourth quarter of 2001, and
    a $0.6 million pre-tax gain on the sale of financial investments.

        We discuss our 2002 and 2001 special items in more detail in Note 2.


Hurricane Isabel

In September 2003, Hurricane Isabel caused damage to the electric and gas distribution systems of BGE. As a result, during 2003, BGE incurred capitalized costs of $32.0 million and maintenance expenses of $36.8 million pre-tax, or $22.2 million after-tax to restore its distribution system. The maintenance expenses included $32.1 million pre-tax, or $19.4 million after-tax, of incremental expenses.


Generating Facility Commenced Operations

In April 2003, our High Desert Power Project in Victorville, California, an 830 megawatt (MW) gas-fired combined cycle facility, commenced operations. The project has a long-term power sales agreement with the California Department of Water Resources (CDWR). The contract is a "tolling" structure, under which the CDWR pays a fixed amount of $12.1 million per month and provides CDWR the right, but not the obligation, to purchase power from the project at a price linked to the variable cost of production. During the term of the contract, which runs for seven years and nine months from the April 2003 commercial operation date of the plant, the project will provide energy exclusively to the CDWR.

        Prior to June 2003, we accounted for this project as an operating lease. In June 2003, we exercised our option to pay off the lease, acquired the assets from the lessor, and included the assets and liabilities in our Consolidated Balance Sheets. We describe the net assets acquired in Note 15. We include the results of the High Desert Power Project in our merchant energy business segment.


Acquisitions

During 2003, our merchant energy business acquired the following energy contract portfolios:

    customer load-serving contracts representing 940 MW and corresponding supply portfolio from a subsidiary of CMS Energy Corp, and
    the load-serving contract and related hedges from Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC to provide 10% of the standard offer service to BGE for the period from July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2006.

        On October 22, 2003, we purchased Blackhawk Energy Services (Blackhawk) and Kaztex Energy Management (Kaztex). Blackhawk and Kaztex are providers of natural gas and electricity products throughout Illinois and Wisconsin, serving approximately 1,100 customers representing approximately 70 billion cubic feet of natural gas and 0.9 million megawatt hours of electricity. We acquired 100% ownership of both companies for $26.9 million. We acquired cash of $1.2 million as part of the purchase. We describe the net assets acquired in Note 15. We include the results of Blackhawk and Kaztex in our merchant energy business segment beginning on the date of acquisition.

        In addition, as part of our growth strategy, our merchant energy business had other acquisitions including a synthetic fuel facility in South Carolina, various competitive energy supply contract portfolios with commercial and industrial customers, certain gas contracts and a wholesale marketing business in Canada.

32



Planned Acquisition

On November 25, 2003, we announced an agreement with Rochester Gas and Electric (RG&E) to acquire the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Ginna) located north of Rochester, New York. Upon closing the acquisition of this 495 MW facility, we will own and operate three nuclear power stations. The estimated purchase price for the Ginna plant is $401 million, excluding approximately $22 million for purchased nuclear fuel. RG&E will transfer approximately $202 million in decommissioning funds at the time of closing. We believe this transfer will be sufficient to meet the decommissioning requirements of the facility.

        The transaction is contingent upon regulatory approvals, including license extension. The acquisition includes a long-term unit contingent power purchase agreement where we will sell 90% of the plant's output and capacity to RG&E for 10 years at an average price of $44.00 per MWH. The remaining 10% of the plant's output will be managed by our wholesale marketing and risk management operation and will be sold into the wholesale market.


Synthetic Fuel Tax Credits

We have investments in facilities that manufacture solid synthetic fuel produced from coal as defined under Section 29 of the Internal Revenue Code for which we claim tax credits on our Federal income tax return. We recognize the tax benefit of these credits in our Consolidated Statements of Income when we believe it is highly probable that the credits will be sustained. The synthetic fuel process involves combining coal material with a chemical reagent to create a significant chemical change. A taxpayer may request a private letter ruling from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to support its position that the synthetic fuel produced undergoes a significant chemical change and thus qualifies for Section 29 credits.

        As of December 31, 2003, we have recognized cumulative tax benefits associated with Section 29 credits of $78.0 million, of which $35.0 million was recognized during the year ended December 31, 2003. These credits relate to our minority ownership interest in four synthetic fuel facilities located in Ohio, Virginia and West Virginia. These facilities have received private letter rulings from the IRS. In January 2004, the IRS concluded its examination of the partnership that owns these facilities for the tax years 1998 through 2001 and the IRS did not disallow any of the previously recognized synthetic fuel credits. We are awaiting final written notice of the resolution of the examination from the IRS.

        In 2003, we purchased 99% ownership in a South Carolina facility that produces synthetic fuel. On January 12, 2004, we submitted our request for a private letter ruling to the IRS for our South Carolina facility. Our South Carolina facility is using the same synthetic fuel process that was utilized by the previous owner, which had received a private letter ruling. To date, we have not yet received our private letter ruling from the IRS for our South Carolina facility.

        Since we may not rely upon a private letter ruling issued by the IRS to another taxpayer, we have not recognized the tax benefit of approximately $36 million for these credits in our Consolidated Statements of Income during 2003. We have the option under the amended purchase agreement for this facility to terminate our participation, without penalty, by April 5, 2004. We are currently evaluating our strategy regarding this facility and have not decided whether we will end our participation.

        While we believe the production and sale of synthetic fuel from all of our synthetic fuel facilities meet the conditions to qualify for tax credits under Section 29 of the IRS Code, we cannot predict the timing or outcome of any future challenge by the IRS, legislative or regulatory action, or the ultimate impact of such events on the Section 29 credits that we have claimed to date or expect to claim in the future, but the impact could be material to our financial results.


Calvert Cliffs Extended Outage

In April 2003, our merchant energy business completed the Unit 2 steam generator replacement and refueling outage at Calvert Cliffs. This outage was completed in 66 days, 58 fewer days than a similar outage completed at Calvert Cliff's Unit 1 in June 2002.


Dividend Increase

In January 2004, we announced an increase in our quarterly dividend from 26 cents to 28.5 cents per share on our common stock payable April 1, 2004 to holders of record on March 10, 2004. This is equivalent to an annual rate of $1.14 per share.

33



Results of Operations

In this section, we discuss our earnings and the factors affecting them. We begin with a general overview, then separately discuss net income for our operating segments. Significant changes in other income, fixed charges, and income taxes are discussed in the aggregate for all segments in the Consolidated Nonoperating Income and Expenses section.


Overview

Results

 
  2003
  2002
  2001
 

 
 
  (In millions, after-tax)
 
Merchant energy   $ 313.0   $ 247.2   $ 93.1  
Regulated electric     107.5     99.3     50.9  
Regulated gas     43.0     31.1     37.5  
Other nonregulated     12.2     148.0     (99.1 )

 
Net Income Before Cumulative Effects of Changes in Accounting Principles     475.7     525.6     82.4  
Cumulative Effects of Changes in Accounting Principles     (198.4 )       8.5  

 
Net Income   $ 277.3   $ 525.6   $ 90.9  

 
Special Items Included in Operations:                    
Net gain on sales of investments and other assets   $ 16.4   $ 166.7   $ 1.9  
Workforce reduction costs     (1.3 )   (38.0 )   (64.1 )
Impairments of real estate, senior-living, and other investments     (0.4 )   (1.2 )   (72.5 )
Impairments of investment in qualifying facilities and domestic power projects         (9.9 )   (30.5 )
Costs associated with exit of BGE Home merchandise stores         (6.1 )    
Contract termination related costs             (139.6 )

 
Total Special Items   $ 14.7   $ 111.5   $ (304.8 )

 

2003

Our total net income for 2003 decreased $248.3 million, or $1.54 per share, compared to 2002 mostly because of the following:

    We recorded a $266.1 million after-tax, or $1.60 per share, charge for the cumulative effect of adopting EITF 02-3. This was partially offset by a $67.7 million after-tax, or $0.41 per share, gain for the cumulative effect of adopting SFAS No. 143. We discuss these cumulative effect items in more detail in Note 1.
    We recognized a $163.3 million after-tax, or $1.00 per share, gain on the sale of our investment in Orion in 2002 that had a positive impact in that period. We discuss the sale of Orion in more detail in Note 2.
    We had higher expenses in our wholesale competitive supply activities relating to the expansion of our wholesale operations, higher operating costs at our generation facilities, and other inflationary pressures.
    We had higher fixed charges due to lower capitalized interest and a higher level of debt outstanding as a result of refinancing our High Desert Power Project.

    Our results reflect the impact of the shift to accrual accounting under EITF 02-3. Specifically, the absence of 2002 mark-to-market gains for contracts accounted for on an accrual basis in 2003 and the timing difference in the recognition of earnings for certain economic hedges, which we discuss further in the Competitive Supply—Mark-to-Market Revenues section, were only partially offset by the 2003 recognition of accrual earnings on transactions entered into in prior periods.
    Our regulated electric business incurred distribution service restoration expenses associated with Hurricane Isabel.

        These decreases were partially offset by the following:

    We had higher earnings from wholesale competitive supply activities resulting from effective portfolio management, partially offset by lower mark-to-market origination in 2003.
    We had higher earnings from favorable generating plant operational performance. Specifically, our High Desert Power Project commenced operations in April 2003 and Calvert Cliffs completed a steam generator replacement in April 2003, 58 fewer days than a similar outage that was completed in June 2002.
    We had higher workforce reduction costs in 2002 that had a negative impact in the period.
    We realized cost reductions due to productivity initiatives.
    We had higher earnings from the acquisition of Alliance and from a full year of NewEnergy.
    We had higher earnings from our regulated business, excluding the impacts of Hurricane Isabel.
    Our other nonregulated business recognized a gain of $16.4 million after-tax, or $0.10 per share, in 2003 related to non-core asset sales.
    We had higher earnings from our other nonregulated businesses primarily related to improved operations of our international portfolio.
    We recognized impairments of certain investments in qualifying facilities, real estate, and other investments in 2002 that had a negative impact in that period.
    We had costs associated with our exit of BGE Home merchandise stores in 2002 that had a negative impact in that period.

2002

Our total net income for 2002 increased $434.7 million, or $2.63 per share, compared to 2001 mostly because of the following:

    We recognized a $163.3 million after-tax gain, or $1.00 per share, on the sale of our investment in Orion.
    We recorded special items in 2001 that had a negative impact in that year.
    We had cost reductions due to productivity initiatives associated with our corporate-wide workforce reduction and other productivity programs.
    The addition of Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station (Nine Mile Point) to the generation fleet increased net income.

34


    We benefited from the absence of Goldman Sachs fees due to the termination of the power business services agreement in October 2001. We discuss the Goldman Sachs termination in more detail in Note 2.
    We had higher mark-to-market earnings from our wholesale marketing and risk management operation.
    We had higher earnings from our regulated electric business because of warmer summer weather in the central Maryland region.
    We had higher earnings from the addition of NewEnergy.
    We had higher earnings from our other nonregulated businesses due to the growth of our energy services business and improved results from our international portfolio.

        These increases were partially offset by special items recorded in 2002 and the following:

    We had higher fixed charges due to the issuance of $2.5 billion of long-term debt that was primarily used to repay short-term borrowings and due to lower capitalized interest because of the new generating facilities that commenced operations since mid-2001.
    Our merchant energy business had higher purchased fuel costs.
    We had lower earnings due to the extended outage at Calvert Cliffs to replace the steam generators at Unit 1.
    Our merchant energy business had lower earnings due to the impact of large commercial and industrial customers leaving BGE's standard offer service and electing other generation suppliers resulting in the sale of excess generation at lower wholesale market prices.
    Our merchant energy business had lower earnings from our investments in qualifying facilities and domestic power projects.

        In addition, our other nonregulated businesses recorded the following in 2001 that had a positive impact in that period:

    an $8.5 million after-tax, or $0.05 per share, gain for the cumulative effect of adopting SFAS No. 133, and
    gains on the sale of securities of $30.0 million after-tax, or $0.19 per share.

        Earnings per share contributions from all of our business segments were impacted by the dilution resulting from the issuance of 13.2 million of common shares during 2001.


Merchant Energy Business

Background
Our merchant energy business is a competitive provider of energy solutions for large customers in North America. We discuss the impact of deregulation on our merchant energy business in the
Business Environment—Electric Competition section.

        We record merchant energy revenues and expenses in our financial results in different periods depending upon which portion of our business they affect. We discuss our revenue recognition policies in the Critical Accounting Policies section and in Note 1. We summarize our policies as follows:

    We record revenues as they are earned and fuel and purchased energy costs as they are incurred for contracts and activities subject to accrual accounting, including certain load-serving activities.
    Prior to the settlement of the forecasted transaction being hedged, we record changes in the fair value of contracts designated as cash-flow hedges in other comprehensive income to the extent that the hedges are effective. We record the effective portion of the changes in fair value of hedges in earnings in the period the settlement of the hedged transaction occurs. We record the ineffective portion of the changes in fair value of hedges, if any, in earnings in the period in which the change occurs.
    We record changes in the fair value of contracts that are subject to mark-to-market accounting in revenues on a net basis in the period in which the change occurs.

        Mark-to-market accounting requires us to make estimates and assumptions using judgment in determining the fair value of our contracts and in recording revenues from those contracts. We discuss the effects of mark-to-market accounting on our revenues in the Competitive Supply—Mark-to-Market Revenues section. We discuss mark-to-market accounting and the accounting policies for the merchant energy business further in the Critical Accounting Policies section and in Note 1.

        In the first quarter of 2003, we adopted EITF 02-3, which requires non-derivative contracts to be accounted for on the accrual basis and recorded in our Consolidated Statements of Income gross rather than net. The primary contracts affected were our full requirements load-serving contracts and unit-contingent power purchase contracts. The majority of these contracts were in Texas and New England and were entered into prior to our shift to accrual accounting earlier in 2002. We discuss our shift to accrual accounting during 2002 in more detail in the Competitive Supply—Accrual Revenues and Fuel and Purchased Energy Expenses section. We discuss the adoption of EITF 02-3 in more detail in Note 1.

        After the re-designation of existing contracts to non-trading, we record revenues and expenses on a gross basis, but this does not have a material impact on earnings because the resulting increase in revenues is accompanied by a similar increase in fuel and purchased energy expenses.

        EITF 02-3 affects the timing of recognizing earnings on non-derivative transactions. Earnings on new non-derivative transactions subject to EITF 02-3 are no longer recognized at the inception of the transactions as they were under mark-to-market accounting because they are subject to accrual accounting and are recognized over the term of the transaction.

        Additionally, we expect lower earnings volatility for this portion of our business because unrealized changes in the fair value of non-derivative load-serving contracts will no longer be recorded as revenue at the time of the change as they were under mark-to-market accounting.

35


Results

 
  2003
  2002
  2001
 

 
 
  (In millions)
 
Revenues   $ 7,648.1   $ 2,789.4   $ 1,765.5  
Fuel and purchased energy expenses     (5,672.5 )   (1,175.0 )   (484.5 )
Operations and maintenance expenses     (970.9 )   (787.4 )   (597.8 )
Workforce reduction costs     (1.2 )   (26.5 )   (46.0 )
Impairment losses and other costs         (14.4 )   (46.9 )
Contract termination related costs             (224.8 )
Depreciation and amortization     (229.5 )   (242.8 )   (174.9 )
Accretion of asset retirement obligations     (42.7 )        
Taxes other than income taxes     (103.0 )   (83.5 )   (49.4 )
Net loss on sales of assets         (3.7 )    

 
Income from Operations   $ 628.3   $ 456.1   $ 141.2  

 
Income before cumulative effects of changes in accounting principles (after-tax)   $ 313.0   $ 247.2   $ 93.1  
Cumulative effects of changes in accounting principles (after-tax)     (198.4 )        

 
Net Income   $ 114.6   $ 247.2   $ 93.1  

 
Special Items Included in Operations (after-tax)        
    Workforce reduction
    costs
  $ (0.7 ) $ (16.0 ) $ (28.0 )
    Impairment of investments in
    qualifying facilities and
    domestic power projects
        (9.9 )   (30.5 )
    Net loss on sales of assets         (2.4 )    
    Contract termination related
    costs
            (139.6 )

 
Total Special Items   $ (0.7 ) $ (28.3 ) $ (198.1 )

 

Above amounts include intercompany transactions eliminated in our Consolidated Financial Statements. Note 3 provides a reconciliation of operating results by segment to our Consolidated Financial Statements.

Revenues and Fuel and Purchased Energy Expenses

Our merchant energy business manages the revenues we realize from the sale of energy to our customers and our costs of procuring fuel and energy. The difference between revenues and fuel and purchased energy expenses is the primary driver of the profitability of our merchant energy business. Accordingly, we believe it is appropriate to discuss the operating results of our merchant energy business by analyzing the changes in the relationship between revenues and fuel and purchased energy expenses. In managing our portfolio, we occasionally terminate, restructure, or acquire contracts. Such transactions are within the normal course of managing our portfolio and may materially impact the timing of our recognition of revenues and fuel and purchased energy expenses. We discuss non-fuel direct costs, such as ancillary services, transmission costs, brokerage fees, and legal costs in conjunction with other operations and maintenance expenses later in the Operations and Maintenance Expenses section.

        We analyze our merchant energy revenues and fuel and purchased energy expenses in the following categories because of the risk profile of each category, differences in the revenue sources, and the nature of fuel and purchased energy expenses. With the exception of a portion of our competitive supply activities that we are required to account for using the mark-to-market method of accounting, all of these activities are accounted for on an accrual basis.

    Mid-Atlantic Fleet—our fossil, nuclear, and hydroelectric generating facilities and load-serving activities in the PJM Interconnection (PJM) region for which the output is primarily used to serve BGE. This also includes active portfolio management of the generating assets and associated physical and financial arrangements.
    Plants with Power Purchase Agreements—our generating facilities with long-term power purchase agreements, including our Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station (Nine Mile Point), Oleander, University Park, and High Desert facilities.
    Competitive Supply—our wholesale marketing and risk management operation that provides energy products and services to distribution utilities and other wholesale customers. We also provide electric and gas energy services to retail commercial and industrial customers. We began to manage our gas-fired facilities in the Mid-West region, which were previously part of our "Other" category, as part of our competitive supply activities beginning in the second quarter of 2003. This occurred in connection with the acquisition of the load-serving customers from CMS Energy Corp., as previously discussed in the Significant Events of 2003 section.
    Other—our investments in qualifying facilities and domestic power projects and our generation and consulting services.

36


        We provide a summary of our revenues and fuel and purchased energy expenses as follows:

 
  2003
   
  2002
   
  2001
   
 

 
 
  (Dollar amounts in millions)
 
Revenues:                                
  Mid-Atlantic Fleet   $ 1,774.5       $ 1,415.1       $ 1,379.2      
  Plants with Power Purchase Agreements     620.0         456.4         70.8      
  Competitive Supply     5,208.5         861.5         235.0      
  Other     45.1         56.4         80.5      

 
  Total   $ 7,648.1       $ 2,789.4       $ 1,765.5      

 
Fuel and purchased energy expenses:                                
  Mid-Atlantic Fleet   $ (789.9 )     $ (551.2 )     $ (420.9 )    
  Plants with Power Purchase Agreements     (51.9 )       (40.0 )       (13.9 )    
  Competitive Supply     (4,830.7 )       (583.8 )       (49.7 )    
  Other                          

 
  Total   $ (5,672.5 )     $ (1,175.0 )     $ (484.5 )    

 
Revenues less fuel and purchased energy expenses:

   
  % of Total
   
  % of Total
   
  % of Total
 
  Mid-Atlantic Fleet   $ 984.6   50 % $ 863.9   53 % $ 958.3   75 %
  Plants with Power Purchase Agreements     568.1   29     416.4   26     56.9   4  
  Competitive Supply     377.8   19     277.7   17     185.3   14  
  Other     45.1   2     56.4   4     80.5   7  

 
  Total   $ 1,975.6   100 % $ 1,614.4   100 % $ 1,281.0   100 %

 

Certain prior-year amounts have been reclassified to conform with the current year's presentation.

Mid-Atlantic Fleet

 
  2003
  2002
  2001
 

 
 
  (In millions)
 
Revenues   $ 1,774.5   $ 1,415.1   $ 1,379.2  
Fuel and purchased energy expenses     (789.9 )   (551.2 )   (420.9 )

 
Revenues less fuel and purchased energy expenses   $ 984.6   $ 863.9   $ 958.3  

 

Revenues

We provide the changes in Mid-Atlantic Fleet revenues compared to the respective prior years in the following table:

 
  2003 vs. 2002

  2002 vs. 2001

 

 
 
  (In millions)
 
BGE's standard offer service   $ (61.2 ) $ (8.3 )
BGE Home electric sales     29.7     45.3  
Other     390.9     (1.1 )

 
Total increase   $ 359.4   $ 35.9  

 

        The decreases for both periods in BGE's standard offer service revenues were mostly due to approximately 1,200 MW of large commercial and industrial customers leaving BGE's standard offer service in the second quarter of 2002 and electing other electric generation suppliers. In 2002 compared to 2001, the decrease was partially offset by higher volumes sold due to warmer summer weather.

        Approximately one-third of the load for large commercial and industrial customers that left BGE's standard offer service elected BGE Home, a subsidiary of Constellation Energy, as their electric generation supplier. Our merchant energy business continues to provide the energy to BGE Home to meet the requirements of these customers under market-based rates. Beginning in the second quarter of 2003, as contracts for large commercial and industrial customers being served by BGE Home expire, the renewal of any customer will be with NewEnergy, our subsidiary which provides electric and gas energy services to commercial and industrial customers and which is included in our Competitive Supply category.

        Other Mid-Atlantic Fleet revenues increased $390.9 million during 2003 compared to 2002. The increase is primarily due to the following:

    higher sales of energy and related services from our owned generation in excess of that used to serve BGE's standard offer service, including our active portfolio management of these generating assets and associated physical and financial arrangements,
    a gain on the assumption of the Allegheny load-serving contract for the remaining 10% of the BGE standard offer service load, and
    increased sales to BGE Home related to their gas programs.

        Other Mid-Atlantic Fleet revenues were about the same in 2002 compared to 2001.

Fuel and Purchased Energy Expenses

Our merchant energy business had higher fuel and purchased energy expenses for the Mid-Atlantic Fleet in 2003 compared to 2002 primarily due to the following:

    higher generation costs related to the increased sales of energy and related services from our owned generation in excess of that used to serve BGE's standard offer service, and
    increased costs related to increased sales to BGE Home related to their gas programs.

        Our merchant energy business had higher fuel and purchased energy expenses for the Mid-Atlantic Fleet in 2002 compared to 2001 primarily due to higher replacement power costs from the extended outage at Calvert Cliffs and higher coal prices. These were partially offset by lower generation at our coal plants.

37


Plants with Power Purchase Agreements

 
  2003
  2002
  2001
 

 
 
  (In millions)
 
Revenues   $ 620.0   $ 456.4   $ 70.8  
Fuel and purchased energy expenses     (51.9 )   (40.0 )   (13.9 )

 
Revenues less fuel and purchased energy expenses   $ 568.1   $ 416.4   $ 56.9  

 

        The increases in revenues during 2003 compared to 2002 were primarily due to:

    revenues of $111.3 million from High Desert that commenced operations in the second quarter of 2003,
    higher revenues of $22.2 million from the Oleander generating facility which commenced operations late in the second quarter of 2002, and
    higher revenues of $19.9 million from Nine Mile Point because there were fewer forced outage days in 2003 as compared to 2002.

        Our plants with purchase power agreements had higher fuel and purchased energy expenses in 2003 due to the operation of High Desert and the Oleander facilities.

        The increases in revenues and expenses during 2002 compared to 2001 were primarily due to a full year's results from Nine Mile Point, which we acquired in November 2001, and the University Park generating facility, which commenced operations in the second half of 2001. In addition, the Oleander generating facility commenced operations in the second half of 2002.

Competitive Supply

 
  2003
  2002
  2001
 

 
 
  (In millions)
 
Accrual revenues   $ 5,157.1   $ 623.4   $ 59.2  
Mark-to-market revenues     51.4     238.1     175.8  
Fuel and purchased energy expenses     (4,830.7 )   (583.8 )   (49.7 )

 
Revenues less fuel and purchased energy expenses   $ 377.8   $ 277.7   $ 185.3  

 

We analyze our accrual and mark-to-market competitive supply activities separately below.

Accrual Revenues and Fuel and Purchased Energy Expenses

We provide the changes in revenues and fuel and purchased energy expenses in 2003 compared to 2002 and in 2002 compared to 2001 in the following table:

 
  2003 vs. 2002
   
   
 
  2002 vs. 2001
 
   
  Increases
in fuel and
purchased
energy
expenses

 
  Increases
in revenues

  Increases
in revenues

  Increases
in fuel and purchased
energy
expenses


 
  (In millions)
Wholesale accrual activities   $ 2,133.3   $ 1,912.6   $ 228.0   $ 238.2
Acquisitions     2,400.4     2,334.3     336.2     295.9

Total increase   $ 4,533.7   $ 4,246.9   $ 564.2   $ 534.1

        Our accrual revenues and fuel and purchased energy expenses increased in 2003 compared to 2002 mostly because of the re-designation of our load-serving activities to accrual, including the adoption of EITF 02-3, combined with increased wholesale accrual origination activities, primarily in Texas and New England, and the acquisitions of NewEnergy and Alliance. Our accrual revenues also increased due to additional product and service offerings, and includes approximately $33 million of pre-tax gains on contract restructurings. We discuss the implications of EITF 02-3 in more detail in the Critical Accounting Policies section and in Note 1.

        Our accrual revenues and fuel and purchased energy expenses increased in 2002 primarily due to the re-designation of our Texas and New England load-serving activities to accrual and the acquisition of NewEnergy in September 2002. We discuss the re-designation of Texas and New England below.

        Since February 2002, we manage our Texas load-serving activities as a physical delivery business separate from our trading activities and re-designated these activities as non-trading. We believe this designation more accurately reflects the substance of our Texas load-serving physical delivery activities.

        At the time of this change in designation, we reclassified the fair value of load-serving contracts and physically delivering power purchase agreements in Texas from "Mark-to-market energy assets and liabilities" to "Other assets and liabilities." The contracts reclassified consisted of gross assets of $78 million and gross liabilities of $15 million, or a net asset of $63 million. EITF 02-3 subsequently required us to remove the unamortized balance of these assets and liabilities, excluding the costs of any acquired contracts, from our Consolidated Balance Sheets on January 1, 2003.

        After the change in designation, the results of our Texas load-serving activities are included in "Nonregulated revenues" on a gross basis as power is delivered to our customers and "Operating expenses" as costs are incurred. Prior to the re-designation, the results of these activities were reported on a net basis as part of mark-to-market revenues included in "Nonregulated revenues." Mark-to-market revenues for the Texas trading activities were a net loss of $1.2 million for the portion of 2002 prior to designation as non-trading. Mark-to-market revenues for the Texas trading activities were a net loss of $33.4 million in 2001.

        Since future power sales revenues and costs from these activities are reflected in our Consolidated Statements of Income as part of "Nonregulated revenues" when power is delivered and "Operating expenses" when the costs are incurred, this re-designation generally delays the recognition of earnings from these activities compared to what we would have recognized under mark-to-market accounting. The change in designation of our Texas load-serving activities did not impact our cash flows.

        In addition, our New England load-serving activities consists primarily of contracts to serve the full energy and capacity requirements of retail customers and electric distribution utilities and associated power purchase agreements to supply our customers' requirements. We manage these activities primarily to assure profitable delivery of customers' energy requirements rather than as a traditional trading activity. Therefore, we use accrual accounting for New England load-serving transactions

38


and associated power purchase agreements entered into since the second quarter of 2002.

        Because applicable accounting rules significantly limited the circumstances under which contracts previously designated as a trading activity could be re-designated as non-trading, prior to EITF 02-3, we were required to continue to include contracts entered into before the second quarter of 2002 in our mark-to-market accounting portfolio. However, under EITF 02-3, on January 1, 2003, we removed these contracts from our "Mark-to-market energy assets and liabilities" and began to account for these contracts under the accrual method of accounting.

Mark-to-Market Revenues

Mark-to-market revenues include net gains and losses from origination and risk management activities for which we use the mark-to-market method of accounting. We discuss these activities and the mark-to-market method of accounting in more detail in the Critical Accounting Policies section and in Note 1. We also discuss the implications of EITF 02-3 on the mark-to-market method of accounting in the Critical Accounting Policies section and in Note 1.

        As a result of the nature of our operations and the use of mark-to-market accounting for certain activities, mark-to-market revenues and earnings will fluctuate. We cannot predict these fluctuations, but the impact on our revenues and earnings could be material. We discuss our market risk in more detail in the Market Risk section. The primary factors that cause fluctuations in our mark-to-market revenues and earnings are:

    the number, size, and profitability of new transactions,
    the number and size of our open derivative positions, and
    changes in the level and volatility of forward commodity prices and interest rates.

        Mark-to-market revenues were as follows:

 
  2003
  2002
  2001
 

 
 
  (In millions)
 
Unrealized revenues                    
  Origination gains   $ 62.3   $ 160.4   $ 227.0  
  Risk management                    
    Unrealized changes in fair value     (10.9 )   66.9     (55.7 )
    Changes in valuation techniques         10.8     4.5  
    Reclassification of settled contracts to realized     (123.5 )   (45.4 )   (19.7 )

 
  Total risk management     (134.4 )   32.3     (70.9 )

 
Total unrealized revenues     (72.1 )   192.7     156.1  
Realized revenues     123.5     45.4     19.7  

 
Total mark-to-market revenues   $ 51.4   $ 238.1   $ 175.8  

 

        Origination gains arise from contracts that our wholesale marketing and risk management operation structure to meet the risk management needs of our customers. Transactions that result in origination gains may be unique and provide the potential for individually significant revenues and gains from a single transaction.

        Origination gains represent the initial fair value recognized on these structured transactions. The recognition of origination gains is dependent on the existence of observable market data that validates the initial fair value of the contract. For the year ending December 31, 2003, origination gains contributed $62.3 million before tax. Origination gains arose from 14 transactions completed in 2003, of which no transaction individually contributed in excess of $10 million pre-tax. The amount of 2003 origination gains decreased significantly as compared to 2002 due to the implementation of EITF 02-3.

        As noted above the recognition of origination gains is dependent on sufficient observable market data. Liquidity and market conditions impact our ability to identify sufficient, objective market-price information to permit recognition of origination gains. As a result, while our strategy and competitive position provide the opportunity to continue to originate such transactions, the level of origination revenue we are able to recognize may vary from year to year as a result of the number, size, and market-price transparency of the individual transactions executed in any period.

        Risk management revenues represent both realized and unrealized gains and losses from changes in the value of our entire portfolio. We discuss the changes in mark-to-market revenues below. We show the relationship between our revenues and the change in our net mark-to-market energy asset later in this section.

        Our mark-to-market revenues were and continue to be affected by a decrease in the portion of our activities that is subject to mark-to-market accounting. As previously discussed in the Accrual Revenues and Fuel and Purchased Energy section, we re-designated our Texas load-serving activities as accrual during 2002, and we began to account for new non-derivative origination transactions on the accrual basis rather than under mark-to-market accounting. Beginning January 1, 2003, under EITF 02-3, we no longer record existing non-derivative contracts at fair value. Further, effective July 1, 2002, to the extent that we are not able to observe quoted market prices or other current market transactions for contract values determined using models, we record a reserve to adjust such contracts to result in zero gain or loss at inception. We remove the reserve and record such contracts at fair value when we obtain current market information for contracts with similar terms and counterparties.

        Mark-to-market revenues decreased $186.7 million in 2003 compared to 2002 mostly because of lower revenues from origination transactions, net losses from risk management activities compared to net gains in the prior year, and the reclassification of revenues from settled contracts to realized revenues. The lower level of origination transactions primarily reflects the continuing reduction of the portion of our activities subject to mark-to-market accounting. The decrease in risk management revenues is primarily due to mark-to-market revenue associated with the restructuring of our High Desert contract with the CDWR that had a positive impact in 2002, unfavorable changes in regional power prices, price volatility, and the impact of mark-to-market losses on economic hedges that did not qualify for hedge accounting treatment as discussed in more detail below.

        With the implementation of EITF 02-3 in the first quarter of 2003, all of our load-serving contracts were converted to accrual accounting. However, several economically effective hedges on these positions did not qualify for accrual accounting treatment under SFAS No. 133 and remained in the mark-to-market portfolio. In 2003, increasing forward prices shifted value between accrual load-serving positions and

39


associated mark-to-market hedges producing a timing difference in the recognition of earnings on related transactions. As a result, we recorded a $47.4 million pre-tax loss on the mark-to-market hedges during 2003. This mark-to-market loss will be offset by the end of 2006 as we realize the related accrual load-serving positions in cash.

        Mark-to-market revenues increased $62.3 million during 2002 compared to 2001 mostly because of net gains from risk management activities compared to net losses in the prior year, partially offset by lower revenues from origination transactions. The increase in risk management revenues is primarily due to the absence of mark-to-market losses recorded in 2001 on Texas trading activities designated as non-trading in 2002, favorable changes in regional power prices, price volatility, and other factors in 2002 compared to 2001. The decrease in origination revenues reflects the use of accrual accounting for new load-serving transactions originated beginning in the second quarter of 2002, the impact of applying the EITF 02-3 guidance on recording gains at the time of contract origination as previously described in the Critical Accounting Policies section, and fewer individually significant transactions in 2002 as compared to 2001.

Mark-to-Market Energy Assets and Liabilities

Our mark-to-market energy assets and liabilities are comprised of derivative contracts, and in 2002, prior to the implementation of EITF 02-3, were comprised of a combination of derivative and non-derivative (physical) contracts. The non-derivative assets and liabilities primarily related to load-serving activities originated prior to the shift to accrual accounting in 2002. While some of our mark-to-market contracts represent commodities or instruments for which prices are available from external sources, other commodities and certain contracts are not actively traded and are valued using other pricing sources and modeling techniques to determine expected future market prices, contract quantities, or both. We discuss our modeling techniques later in this section.

        Mark-to-market energy assets and liabilities consisted of the following:

At December 31,

  2003
  2002

 
  (In millions)
Current Assets   $ 555.2   $ 759.4
Noncurrent Assets     286.9     926.8

Total Assets     842.1     1,686.2


Current Liabilities

 

 

541.5

 

 

709.6
Noncurrent Liabilities     283.0     460.0

Total Liabilities     824.5     1,169.6

Net mark-to-market energy asset   $ 17.6   $ 516.6

        The following are the primary sources of the change in net mark-to-market energy asset during 2003 and 2002:

 
  2003
  2002
 

 
 
  (In millions)
 
Fair value beginning of year         $ 516.6         $ 418.4  
Changes in fair value recorded as revenues                          
  Origination gains