1.                                      Consolidation and Nature of Operations

The unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Pinnacle West and our subsidiaries:  APS and El Dorado Investment Company (“El Dorado”).  Intercompany accounts and transactions between the consolidated companies have been eliminated.  The unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements for APS include the accounts of APS and the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (“Palo Verde”) sale leaseback variable interest entities (“VIEs”) (see Note 6 for further discussion).  Our accounting records are maintained in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”).  The preparation of financial statements in accordance with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period.  Actual results could differ from those estimates.

Weather conditions cause significant seasonal fluctuations in our revenues; therefore, results for interim periods do not necessarily represent results expected for the year.

Our condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared pursuant to the rules and regulations of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).  Certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in financial statements prepared in conformity with GAAP have been condensed or omitted pursuant to such regulations, although we believe that the disclosures provided are adequate to make the interim information presented not misleading.

The following table shows more detail of previously reported amounts for the changes in accrued taxes and income tax receivable.  Previously reported amounts were netted in the Statement of Cash Flows (dollars in thousands):

Supplemental Cash Flow Information

The following table summarizes supplemental Pinnacle West cash flow information (dollars in thousands):

2.                                      Long-Term Debt and Liquidity Matters

Pinnacle West and APS maintain committed revolving credit facilities in order to enhance liquidity and provide credit support for their commercial paper programs.

Pinnacle West

On May 9, 2014, Pinnacle West replaced its $200 million revolving credit facility that would have matured in November 2016, with a new $200 million facility that matures in May 2019.  At June 30, 2014, the facility was available to refinance indebtedness of the Company and for other general corporate purposes, including credit support for its $200 million commercial paper program.  Pinnacle West has the option to increase the amount of the facility up to a maximum of $300 million upon the satisfaction of certain conditions and with the consent of the lenders.  At June 30, 2014, Pinnacle West had commercial paper borrowings of $4 million, no outstanding borrowings under its credit facility and no letters of credit outstanding.

APS

On July 12, 2013, APS purchased all $33 million of the Coconino County, Arizona Pollution Control Corporation Pollution Control Revenue Refunding Bonds, 1994 Series A, due 2029.  On October 11, 2013, APS purchased all $32 million of the City of Farmington, New Mexico Pollution Control Revenue Bonds, 1994 Series C, due 2024.  On January 15, 2014, both of these series of bonds were canceled and refinanced as described below.

On January 10, 2014, APS issued $250 million of 4.70% unsecured senior notes that mature on January 15, 2044.  The proceeds from the sale were used to repay commercial paper which was used to fund the acquisition of Southern California Edison’s (“SCE”) 48% ownership interest in each of Units 4 and 5 of the Four Corners Power Plant (“Four Corners”) and to replenish cash used in 2013 to re-acquire the two series of tax-exempt indebtedness listed above.

On May 1, 2014, APS purchased a total of $100 million of the Maricopa County, Arizona, Pollution Control Corporation Pollution Control Revenue Refunding Bonds, 2009 Series A, D and E, due 2029 in connection with the mandatory tender provisions for this indebtedness.  On May 14, 2014, APS remarketed all $36 million of the 2009 Series A Bonds, which are classified as long-term debt on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at June 30, 2014.  We expect to remarket or refinance all $64 million of the 2009 Series D Bonds and 2009 Series E Bonds within the next twelve months, which were classified as current maturities of long-term debt at December 31, 2013.

On May 9, 2014, APS replaced its $500 million revolving credit facility that would have matured in November 2016, with a new $500 million facility that matures in May 2019.

On May 30, 2014, APS purchased all $38 million of the Navajo County, Arizona, Pollution Control Corporation Pollution Control Revenue Refunding Bonds, 2009 Series A, due 2034, and on June 1, 2014, APS purchased a total of $64 million of the Navajo 2009 Series B Bonds and 2009 Series C Bonds, in each case, in connection with the mandatory tender provisions for this indebtedness.  We expect to remarket or refinance these bonds within the next twelve months.  These bonds were classified as current maturities of long-term debt on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31, 2013.

On June 1, 2014, APS remarketed all $13 million of the Coconino County, Arizona Pollution Control Corporation Pollution Control Revenue Refunding Bonds, 2009 Series A, due 2034.  These bonds are classified as long-term debt on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at June 30, 2014.

On June 18, 2014, APS issued $250 million of 3.35% unsecured senior notes that mature on June 15, 2024.  The net proceeds from the sale were used along with other funds to repay at maturity APS’s $300 million aggregate principal amount of 5.80% senior notes due June 30, 2014.

At June 30, 2014, APS had two credit facilities totaling $1 billion, including a $500 million credit facility that matures in April 2018 and the $500 million facility that matures in May 2019 (see above).  APS may increase the amount of each facility up to a maximum of $700 million upon the satisfaction of certain conditions and with the consent of the lenders.  APS will use these facilities to refinance indebtedness and for other general corporate purposes.  Interest rates are based on APS’s senior unsecured debt credit ratings.

The facilities described above are available to support APS’s $250 million commercial paper program, for bank borrowings or for issuances of letters of credit.  At June 30, 2014, APS had $173 million of commercial paper borrowings and no outstanding borrowings or outstanding letters of credit under these credit facilities.

See “Financial Assurances” in Note 9 for a discussion of APS’s separate outstanding letters of credit.

Debt Fair Value

Our long-term debt fair value estimates are based on quoted market prices for the same or similar issues, and are classified within Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.  Certain of our debt instruments contain third-party credit enhancements and, in accordance with GAAP, we do not consider the effect of these credit enhancements when determining fair value.  The following table represents the estimated fair value of our long-term debt, including current maturities (dollars in millions):

Debt Provisions

An existing ACC order requires APS to maintain a common equity ratio of at least 40%.  As defined in the ACC order, the common equity ratio is total shareholder equity divided by the sum of total shareholder equity and long-term debt, including current maturities of long-term debt.  At June 30, 2014, APS was in compliance with this common equity ratio requirement.  Its total shareholder equity was approximately $4.3 billion, and total capitalization was approximately $7.5 billion.  APS would be prohibited from paying dividends if the payment would reduce its total shareholder equity below approximately $3.0 billion, assuming APS’s total capitalization remains the same.

3.                                      Regulatory Matters

Retail Rate Case Filing with the Arizona Corporation Commission

On June 1, 2011, APS filed an application with the ACC for a net retail base rate increase of $95.5 million.  APS requested that the increase become effective July 1, 2012.  The request would have increased the average retail customer bill by approximately 6.6%.  On January 6, 2012, APS and other parties to the general retail rate case entered into an agreement (the “2012 Settlement Agreement”) detailing the terms upon which the parties agreed to settle the rate case.  On May 15, 2012, the ACC approved the 2012 Settlement Agreement without material modifications.

Settlement Agreement

The 2012 Settlement Agreement provides for a zero net change in base rates, consisting of:  (1) a non-fuel base rate increase of $116.3 million; (2) a fuel-related base rate decrease of $153.1 million (to be implemented by a change in the base fuel rate for fuel and purchased power costs (“Base Fuel Rate”) from $0.03757 to $0.03207 per kilowatt hour (“kWh”); and (3) the transfer of cost recovery for certain renewable energy projects from the Arizona Renewable Energy Standard and Tariff (“RES”) surcharge to base rates in an estimated amount of $36.8 million.

APS also agreed not to file its next general rate case before May 31, 2015, and not to request that its next general retail rate increase be effective prior to July 1, 2016.  The 2012 Settlement Agreement allows APS to request a change to its base rates during the stay-out period in the event of an extraordinary event that, in the ACC’s judgment, requires base rate relief in order to protect the public interest.  Nor is APS precluded from seeking rate relief, or any other party to the 2012 Settlement Agreement precluded from petitioning the ACC to examine the reasonableness of APS’s rates, in the event of significant regulatory developments that materially impact the financial results expected under the terms of the 2012 Settlement Agreement.

Other key provisions of the 2012 Settlement Agreement include the following:

·                     An authorized return on common equity of 10.0%;

·                     A capital structure comprised of 46.1% debt and 53.9% common equity;

·                     A test year ended December 31, 2010, adjusted to include plant that is in service as of March 31, 2012;

·                     Deferral for future recovery or refund of property taxes above or below a specified 2010 test year level caused by changes to the Arizona property tax rate as follows:

·                     Deferral of increases in property taxes of 25% in 2012, 50% in 2013 and 75% for 2014 and subsequent years if Arizona property tax rates increase; and

·                     Deferral of 100% in all years if Arizona property tax rates decrease;

·                     A procedure to allow APS to request rate adjustments prior to its next general rate case related to APS’s acquisition of additional interests in Units 4 and 5 and the related closure of Units 1-3 of Four Corners (APS made its filing under this provision on December 30, 2013, which would result in an average bill impact to residential customers of approximately 2% if approved as requested);

·                     Implementation of a Lost Fixed Cost Recovery (“LFCR”) rate mechanism to support energy efficiency and distributed renewable generation;

·                     Modifications to the Environmental Improvement Surcharge (“EIS”) to allow for the recovery of carrying costs for capital expenditures associated with government-mandated environmental controls, subject to an existing cents per kWh cap on cost recovery that could produce up to approximately $5 million in revenues annually;

·                     Modifications to the Power Supply Adjustor (“PSA”), including the elimination of the 90/10 sharing provision;

·                     A limitation on the use of the RES surcharge and the Demand Side Management Adjustor Charge (“DSMAC”) to recoup capital expenditures not required under the terms of APS’s 2009 retail rate case settlement agreement (the “2009 Settlement Agreement”);

·                     Allowing a negative credit that existed in the PSA rate to continue until February 2013, rather than being reset on the anticipated July 1, 2012 rate effective date;

·                     Modification of the transmission cost adjustor (“TCA”) to streamline the process for future transmission-related rate changes; and

·                     Implementation of various changes to rate schedules, including the adoption of an experimental “buy-through” rate that could allow certain large commercial and industrial customers to select alternative sources of generation to be supplied by APS.

The 2012 Settlement Agreement was approved by the ACC on May 15, 2012, with new rates effective on July 1, 2012.  This accomplished a goal set by the parties to the 2009 Settlement Agreement to process subsequent rate cases within twelve months of sufficiency findings from the ACC staff, which generally occurs within 30 days after the filing of a rate case.

Cost Recovery Mechanisms

APS has received regulatory decisions that allow for more timely recovery of certain costs through the following recovery mechanisms.

Renewable Energy Standard.  In 2006, the ACC approved the RES.  Under the RES, electric utilities that are regulated by the ACC must supply an increasing percentage of their retail electric energy sales from eligible renewable resources, including solar, wind, biomass, biogas and geothermal technologies.  In order to achieve these requirements, the ACC allows APS to include a RES surcharge as part of customer bills to recover the approved amounts for use on renewable energy projects.  Each year APS is required to file a five-year implementation plan with the ACC and seek approval for funding the upcoming year’s RES budget.

On July 12, 2013, APS filed its annual RES implementation plan, covering the 2014-2018 timeframe and requesting a 2014 RES budget of approximately $143 million.  In a final order dated January 7, 2014, the ACC approved the requested budget.  Also in 2013, the ACC conducted a hearing to consider APS’s proposal to establish compliance with distributed energy requirements by tracking and recording distributed energy, rather than acquiring and retiring renewable energy credits.  On February 6, 2014, the ACC established a proceeding to modify the renewable energy rules to establish a process for compliance with the renewable energy requirement that is not based solely on the use of renewable energy credits.  On April 4, 2014, ACC staff submitted a proposal outlining various options which could be used to determine compliance with the renewable energy rules.  APS filed comments on the proposal and is awaiting the ACC’s selection of a proposal and modification of the rules to implement such proposal.

In accordance with the ACC’s decision on the 2014 RES plan, on April 15, 2014, APS filed an application with the ACC requesting permission to build an additional 20 MW of APS-owned utility scale solar under the AZ Sun Program.  In a subsequent filing, APS also offered an alternative proposal to replace the 20 MW of utility scale solar with 20 MW of APS-owned residential solar.

On July 1, 2014, APS filed its 2015 RES implementation plan and proposed a RES budget of approximately $154 million.

Demand Side Management Adjustor Charge.  The ACC Electric Energy Efficiency Standards require APS to submit a Demand Side Management Implementation Plan (“DSM Plan”) for review by and approval of the ACC.

On June 1, 2012, APS filed its 2013 DSM Plan.  In 2013, the standards required APS to achieve cumulative energy savings equal to 5% of its 2012 retail energy sales.  Later in 2012, APS filed a supplement to its plan that included a proposed budget for 2013 of $87.6 million.

On March 11, 2014, the ACC issued an order approving APS’s 2013 DSM Plan.  The ACC approved a budget of $68.9 million for each of 2013 and 2014.  The ACC also approved a Resource Savings Initiative that allows APS to count towards compliance with the ACC Electric Energy Efficiency Standards, savings for improvements to APS’s transmission and delivery system, generation and facilities that have been approved through a DSM Plan.  Consistent with the ACC’s March 11, 2014 order, APS intends to continue its approved DSM programs in 2015.

On June 27, 2013, the ACC voted to open a new docket investigating whether the Electric Energy Efficiency Rules should be modified.  The ACC held a series of three workshops in March and April 2014 to investigate methodologies used to determine cost effective energy efficiency programs, cost recovery mechanisms, incentives, and potential changes to the Electric Energy Efficiency and Resource Planning Rules.

PSA Mechanism and Balance.  The PSA provides for the adjustment of retail rates to reflect variations in retail fuel and purchased power costs.  The following table shows the changes in the deferred fuel and purchased power regulatory asset for 2014 and 2013 (dollars in millions):

The PSA rate for the PSA year beginning February 1, 2014 is $0.001557 per kWh, as compared to $0.001329 per kWh for the prior year.  This new rate is comprised of a forward component of $0.001277 per kWh and a historical component of $0.000280 per kWh.  Any uncollected (overcollected) deferrals during the 2014 PSA year will be included in the calculation of the PSA rate for the PSA year beginning February 1, 2015.

Transmission Rates, Transmission Cost Adjustor and Other Transmission Matters.  In July 2008, the United States Federal Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) approved an Open Access Transmission Tariff for APS to move from fixed rates to a formula rate-setting methodology in order to more accurately reflect and recover the costs that APS incurs in providing transmission services.  A large portion of the rate represents charges for transmission services to serve APS’s retail customers (“Retail Transmission Charges”).  In order to recover the Retail Transmission Charges, APS was previously required to file an application with, and obtain approval from, the ACC to reflect changes in Retail Transmission Charges through the TCA.  Under the terms of the 2012 Settlement Agreement (discussed above), however, an adjustment to rates to recover the Retail Transmission Charges will be made annually each June 1 and will go into effect automatically unless suspended by the ACC.

The formula rate is updated each year effective June 1 on the basis of APS’s actual cost of service, as disclosed in APS’s FERC Form 1 report for the previous fiscal year.  Items to be updated include actual capital expenditures made as compared with previous projections, transmission revenue credits and other items.  The resolution of proposed adjustments can result in significant volatility in the revenues to be collected.  APS reviews the proposed formula rate filing amounts with the ACC staff.  Any items or adjustments which are not agreed to by APS and the ACC staff can remain in dispute until settled or litigated at FERC.  Settlement or litigated resolution of disputed issues could require an extended period of time and could have a significant effect on the Retail Transmission Charge because any adjustment, though applied prospectively, may be calculated to account for previously over- or under-collected amounts.

Effective June 1, 2014, APS’s annual wholesale transmission rates for all users of its transmission system increased by approximately $5.9 million for the twelve-month period beginning June 1, 2014 in accordance with the FERC-approved formula.  An adjustment to APS’s retail rates to recover FERC-approved transmission charges went into effect automatically on June 1, 2014.

Lost Fixed Cost Recovery Mechanism.  The LFCR mechanism permits APS to recover on an after-the-fact basis a portion of its fixed costs that would otherwise have been collected by APS in the kWh sales lost due to APS energy efficiency programs and to distributed generation such as rooftop solar arrays.  The fixed costs recoverable by the LFCR mechanism were established in the 2012 Settlement Agreement and amount to approximately 3.1 cents per residential kWh lost and 2.3 cents per non-residential kWh lost.  The LFCR adjustment has a year-over-year cap of 1% of retail revenues.  Any amounts left unrecovered in a particular year because of this cap can be carried over for recovery in a future year.  The kWh’s lost from energy efficiency are based on a third-party evaluation of APS’s energy efficiency programs.  Distributed generation sales losses are determined from the metered output from the distributed generation units or if metering is unavailable, through accepted estimating techniques.

APS filed its first LFCR adjustment on January 15, 2013 and will file for a LFCR adjustment every January thereafter.  On February 12, 2013, the ACC approved a LFCR adjustment of $5.1 million, representing a pro-rated amount for 2012 since the 2012 Settlement Agreement went into effect on July 1, 2012.  APS filed its 2014 annual LFCR adjustment on January 15, 2014, requesting a LFCR adjustment of $25.3 million, effective March 1, 2014.  The ACC approved APS’s LFCR adjustment without change on March 11, 2014, which became effective April 1, 2014.

Deregulation

On May 9, 2013, the ACC voted to re-examine the facilitation of a deregulated retail electric market in Arizona.  The ACC subsequently opened a docket for this matter and received comments from a number of interested parties on the considerations involved in establishing retail electric deregulation in the state.  One of these considerations is whether various aspects of a deregulated market, including setting utility rates on a “market” basis, would be consistent with the requirements of the Arizona Constitution.  On September 11, 2013, after receiving legal advice from the ACC staff, the ACC voted 4-1 to close the current docket and await full Constitutional authority before any further examination of this matter.  The motion approved by the ACC also included opening one or more new dockets in the future to explore options to offer more rate choices to customers and innovative changes within the existing cost-of-service regulatory model that could include elements of competition.  The ACC opened a new docket on November 4, 2013 to explore technological advances and innovative changes within the electric utility industry.  Workshops in this docket are being held in 2014.

Net Metering

On July 12, 2013, APS filed an application with the ACC proposing a solution to fix the cost shift brought by the current net metering rules.  On December 3, 2013, the ACC issued its order on APS’s net metering proposal.  The ACC instituted a charge on customers who install rooftop solar panels after December 31, 2013, and directed APS to provide quarterly reports on the pace of rooftop solar adoption to assist the ACC in considering further increases.  The charge of $0.70 per kilowatt became effective on January 1, 2014, and is estimated to collect $4.90 per month from a typical future rooftop solar customer to help pay for their use of the electricity grid.  The new policy will be in effect until the next APS rate case.

In making its decision, the ACC determined that the current net metering program creates a cost shift, causing non-solar utility customers to pay higher rates to cover the costs of maintaining the electrical grid.  ACC staff and the state’s Residential Utility Consumer Office, among other organizations, also agreed that a cost shift exists.  The fixed charge does not increase APS’s revenue because it is credited to the LFCR, but it will modestly reduce the impact of the cost shift on non-solar customers.  The ACC acknowledged that the new charge addresses only a portion of the cost shift.  The ACC also required APS to file its next rate case in June 2015, the earliest date contemplated in the 2012 Settlement Agreement.

In May 2014, the ACC began conducting a series of workshops to, among other things, evaluate the role and value of the electric grid as it relates to rooftop solar and other issues regarding net metering.

On July 22, 2014, the ACC Commissioners voted to reopen the December 2013 net metering decision for the limited purpose of deciding whether to eliminate the requirement that APS file its next rate case in June 2015.  The vote included a request that parties comment in the docket about their thoughts on removing the filing date requirement and on the process for the broader discussion regarding rate design.  The Commissioners stated that they plan to vote at an August 2014 open  meeting on whether to eliminate the requirement that APS file a rate case in June 2015.

Four Corners

On December 30, 2013, APS purchased SCE’s 48% ownership interest in each of Units 4 and 5 of Four Corners.  The 2012 Settlement Agreement includes a procedure to allow APS to request rate adjustments prior to its next general rate case related to APS’s acquisition of the additional interests in Units 4 and 5 and the related closure of Units 1-3 of Four Corners.  APS made its filing under this provision on December 30, 2013.  If approved, these adjustments would result in an average bill impact to residential customers of approximately 2%.  This includes the deferral for future recovery of all non-fuel operating costs for the acquired SCE interest in Four Corners, net of the non-fuel operating costs savings resulting from the closure of Units 1-3 from the date of closing of the purchase.  The 2012 Settlement Agreement also provides for deferral for future recovery of all unrecovered costs incurred in connection with the closure of Units 1-3.  The deferral balance related to the acquisition of SCE’s interest in Units 4 and 5 and the closure of Units 1-3 was $55 million as of June 30, 2014.  ACC staff and other intervenors have filed testimony in this matter with the ACC, and APS has filed rebuttal testimony.  Both ACC staff and the Residential Utility Customer Office have proposed adjustments to the return to be applied to the Four Corners investments until APS’s next rate case, which would result in a lower level of recovery than proposed by APS.  A hearing on this matter is scheduled to begin August 4, 2014, and we anticipate a decision by the end of 2014.  APS cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

As part of APS’s acquisition of SCE’s interest in Units 4 and 5, APS and SCE agreed, via a “Transmission Termination Agreement,” that upon closing of the acquisition, the companies would terminate an existing transmission agreement (“Transmission Agreement”) between the parties that provides transmission capacity on a system (the “Arizona Transmission System”) for SCE to transmit its portion of the output from Four Corners to California.  APS previously submitted a request to FERC related to this termination, which resulted in a FERC order denying rate recovery of $40 million that APS agreed to pay SCE associated with the termination.  APS and SCE negotiated an alternate arrangement under which SCE would assign its 1,555 MW capacity rights over the Arizona Transmission System to third-parties, including 300 MW to APS’s marketing and trading group.  However, this alternative arrangement was not approved by FERC.  In late March 2014, APS and SCE filed requests for rehearing with FERC.  We are unable to predict the timing or outcome of these requests.  Although APS and SCE continue to evaluate potential paths forward, it is possible that the terms of the Transmission Termination Agreement may again control.  As we previously disclosed, APS believes that the original denial by FERC of rate recovery under the Transmission Termination Agreement constitutes the failure of a condition that relieves APS of its obligations under that agreement.  If APS and SCE were unable to determine a resolution through negotiation, the Transmission Termination Agreement requires that disputes be resolved through arbitration.  APS is unable to predict the outcome of this matter if it proceeds to arbitration.  If the matter proceeds to arbitration and APS is not successful, APS may be required to record a charge to its results of operations.

Regulatory Assets and Liabilities

The detail of regulatory assets is as follows (dollars in millions):

(a)                 This asset represents the future recovery of pension and other postretirement benefit obligations through retail rates.  If these costs are disallowed by the ACC, this regulatory asset would be charged to Other Comprehensive Income (“OCI”) and result in lower future revenues.  See Note 4 for further discussion.

(b)                 See “Cost Recovery Mechanisms” discussion above.

(c)                 Subject to a carrying charge.

(d)                 Per the provision of the 2012 Settlement Agreement.

(e)                 There are no regulatory assets for which the ACC has allowed recovery of costs, but not allowed a return by exclusion from rate base.  FERC rates are set using a formula rate as described in “Transmission Rates, Transmission Cost Adjustor and Other Transmission Matters.”

The detail of regulatory liabilities is as follows (dollars in millions):

(a)                 In accordance with regulatory accounting guidance, APS accrues for removal costs for its regulated assets, even if there is no legal obligation for removal.

(b)                 See “Cost Recovery Mechanisms” discussion above.

4.                                      Retirement Plans and Other Benefits

Pinnacle West sponsors a qualified defined benefit and account balance pension plan, a non-qualified supplemental excess benefit retirement plan, and other postretirement benefit plans for the employees of Pinnacle West and our subsidiaries.  Pinnacle West uses a December 31 measurement date for its pension and other postretirement benefit plans.  The market-related value of our plan assets is their fair value at the measurement date.

Certain pension and other postretirement benefit costs in excess of amounts recovered in electric retail rates were deferred in 2011 and 2012 as a regulatory asset for future recovery, pursuant to APS’s 2009 retail rate case settlement.  Pursuant to this order, we began amortizing the regulatory asset over three years beginning in July 2012.  We amortized approximately $2 million and $4 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2014 and 2013, respectively.  The following table provides details of the plans’ net periodic benefit costs and the portion of these costs charged to expense (including administrative costs and excluding amounts capitalized as overhead construction, billed to electric plant participants or charged or amortized to the regulatory asset) (dollars in millions):

Contributions

The minimum contributions for the pension plan total $141 million for the next three years under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (zero in 2014, $19 million in 2015, and $122 million in 2016).  However, we expect to make voluntary contributions totaling up to $300 million for the next three years ($175 million in 2014, of which $140 million was already contributed through July 2014, up to $100 million in 2015, and up to $25 million in 2016).  The contributions to our other postretirement benefit plans for 2014, 2015 and 2016 are expected to be approximately $10 million each year.

5.                                      Income Taxes

During the first quarter of 2014, a $135 million cash refund was received from the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) related to tax returns for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2009.  This refund was classified as a current income tax receivable at December 31, 2013.

Net Income associated with the Palo Verde sale leaseback variable interest entities is not subject to tax (see Note 6).  As a result, there is no income tax expense associated with the VIEs recorded on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income.

In January 2014, we prospectively adopted guidance requiring unrecognized tax benefits to be presented as a reduction to any available deferred income tax asset for a net operating loss, a similar tax loss, or a tax credit carryforward.  As a result of this guidance, $19 million and $5 million of unrecognized tax benefits were recorded as a reduction to net current deferred income tax assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets and APS Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets, respectively as of June 30, 2014.

As of June 30, 2014, the tax year ended December 31, 2010 and all subsequent tax years remain subject to examination by the IRS.  With few exceptions, we are no longer subject to state income tax examinations by tax authorities for years before 2008.

6.             Palo Verde Sale Leaseback Variable Interest Entities

In 1986, APS entered into agreements with three separate VIE lessor trusts in order to sell and lease back interests in Palo Verde Unit 2 and related common facilities.  APS will pay approximately $49 million per year during 2014 and 2015 related to these leases.  The lease agreements include fixed rate renewal periods, which give APS the ability to utilize the assets for a significant portion of the assets’ economic life, and therefore provide APS with the power to direct activities of the VIEs that most significantly impact the VIEs’ economic performance.  Predominately due to the fixed rate renewal periods, APS has been deemed the primary beneficiary of these VIEs and therefore consolidates the VIEs.

On July 7, 2014, APS notified the lessor trust entities of APS’s intent to exercise the fixed rate lease renewal options.  The length of the renewal options will result in APS retaining the assets through 2023 under one lease and 2033 under the other two leases.  APS will be required to make lease payments of approximately $23 million annually for the period 2016 through 2023, and about $16 million annually for the period 2024 through 2033.  At the end of the lease renewal periods, APS will  have the option to purchase the leased assets at their fair market value, extend the leases for up to two years, or return the assets to the lessors.

As a result of consolidation, we eliminate rent expense and recognize depreciation and interest expense, resulting in an increase in net income for the three and six months ended June 30, 2014 of $9 million and $18 million, respectively, and for the three and six months ended June 30, 2013 of $8 million and $17 million, respectively, entirely attributable to the noncontrolling interests.  Income attributable to Pinnacle West shareholders remains the same.  Consolidation of these VIEs also results in changes to our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows, but does not impact net cash flows.

Our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013 include the following amounts relating to the VIEs (in millions):

Assets of the VIEs are restricted and may only be used to settle the VIEs’ debt obligations and for payment to the noncontrolling interest holders.  Other than the VIEs’ assets reported on our consolidated financial statements, the creditors of the VIEs have no other recourse to the assets of APS or Pinnacle West, except in certain circumstances such as a default by APS under the leases.

APS is exposed to losses relating to these VIEs upon the occurrence of certain events that APS does not consider to be reasonably likely to occur.  Under certain circumstances (for example, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (“NRC”) issuing specified violation orders with respect to Palo Verde or the occurrence of specified nuclear events), APS would be required to make specified payments to the VIEs’ noncontrolling equity participants, assume the VIEs’ debt, and take title to the leased Unit 2 interests, which, if appropriate, may be required to be written down in value.  If such an event had occurred as of June 30, 2014, APS would have been required to pay the noncontrolling equity participants approximately $138 million and assume $38 million of debt.  Since APS consolidates these VIEs, the debt APS would be required to assume is already reflected in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

For regulatory ratemaking purposes, the leases will continue to be treated as operating leases and, as a result, we have recorded a regulatory asset relating to the arrangements.

7.             Derivative Accounting

We are exposed to the impact of market fluctuations in the commodity price and transportation costs of electricity, natural gas, coal, emissions allowances and in interest rates.  We manage risks associated with market volatility by utilizing various physical and financial derivative instruments, including futures, forwards, options and swaps.  As part of our overall risk management program, we may use derivative instruments to hedge purchases and sales of electricity and fuels.  Derivative instruments that meet certain hedge accounting criteria may be designated as cash flow hedges and are used to limit our exposure to cash flow variability on forecasted transactions.  The changes in market value of such instruments have a high correlation to price changes in the hedged transactions.  We also enter into derivative instruments for economic hedging purposes.  While we believe the economic hedges mitigate exposure to fluctuations in commodity prices, these instruments have not been designated as accounting hedges.  Contracts that have the same terms (quantities, delivery points and delivery periods) and for which power does not flow are netted, which reduces both revenues and fuel and purchased power costs in our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income, but does not impact our financial condition, net income or cash flows.

On June 1, 2012, we elected to discontinue cash flow hedge accounting treatment for the significant majority of our contracts that had previously been designated as cash flow hedges.  This discontinuation is due to changes in PSA recovery (see Note 3), which now allows for 100% deferral of the unrealized gains and losses relating to these contracts.  For those contracts that were de-designated, all changes in fair value after May 31, 2012 are no longer recorded through OCI, but are deferred through the PSA.  The amounts previously recorded in accumulated OCI relating to these instruments will remain in accumulated OCI, and will transfer to earnings in the same period or periods during which the hedged transaction affects earnings or sooner if we determine it is probable that the forecasted transaction will not occur.  When amounts have been reclassified from accumulated OCI to earnings, they will be subject to deferral in accordance with the PSA.  Cash flow hedge accounting treatment will continue for a limited number of contracts that are not subject to PSA recovery.

Our derivative instruments, excluding those qualifying for a scope exception, are recorded on the balance sheet as an asset or liability and are measured at fair value.  See Note 12 for a discussion of fair value measurements.  Derivative instruments may qualify for the normal purchases and normal sales scope exception if they require physical delivery and the quantities represent those transacted in the normal course of business.  Derivative instruments qualifying for the normal purchases and sales scope exception are accounted for under the accrual method of accounting and excluded from our derivative instrument discussion and disclosures below.

Hedge effectiveness is the degree to which the derivative instrument contract and the hedged item are correlated and is measured based on the relative changes in fair value of the derivative instrument contract and the hedged item over time.  We assess hedge effectiveness both at inception and on a continuing basis.  These assessments exclude the time value of certain options.  For accounting hedges that are deemed an effective hedge, the effective portion of the gain or loss on the derivative instrument is reported as a component of OCI and reclassified into earnings in the same period during which the hedged transaction affects earnings.  We recognize in current earnings, subject to the PSA, the gains and losses representing hedge ineffectiveness, and the gains and losses on any hedge components which are excluded from our effectiveness assessment.  As cash flow hedge accounting has been discontinued for the significant majority of our contracts, after May 31, 2012, effectiveness testing is no longer being performed for these contracts.

For its regulated operations, APS defers for future rate treatment 100% of the unrealized gains and losses on derivatives pursuant to the PSA mechanism that would otherwise be recognized in income.  Realized gains and losses on derivatives are deferred in accordance with the PSA to the extent the amounts are above or below the Base Fuel Rate (see Note 3).  Gains and losses from derivatives in the following tables represent the amounts reflected in income before the effect of PSA deferrals.

As of June 30, 2014, we had the following outstanding gross notional volume of derivatives, which represent both purchases and sales (does not reflect net position):

Gains and Losses from Derivative Instruments

The following table provides information about gains and losses from derivative instruments in designated cash flow accounting hedging relationships during the three and six months ended June 30, 2014 and 2013 (dollars in thousands):

(a)                 During the three and six months ended June 30, 2014 and 2013, we had no amounts reclassified from accumulated OCI to earnings related to discontinued cash flow hedges.

(b)                 Amounts are before the effect of PSA deferrals.

During the next twelve months, we estimate that a net loss of $17 million before income taxes will be reclassified from accumulated OCI as an offset to the effect of market price changes for the related hedged transactions.  In accordance with the PSA, substantially all of these amounts will be recorded as either a regulatory asset or liability and have no immediate effect on earnings.

The following table provides information about gains and losses from derivative instruments not designated as accounting hedging instruments during the three and six months ended June 30, 2014 and 2013 (dollars in thousands):

(a)                 Amounts are before the effect of PSA deferrals.

Derivative Instruments in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets

Our derivative transactions are typically executed under standardized or customized agreements, which include collateral requirements and, in the event of a default, would allow for the netting of positive and negative exposures associated with a single counterparty.  Agreements that allow for the offsetting of positive and negative exposures associated with a single counterparty are considered master netting arrangements.  Transactions with counterparties that have master netting arrangements are offset and reported net on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.  Transactions that do not allow for offsetting of positive and negative positions are reported gross on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

We do not offset counterparty’s current derivative contracts with the counterparty’s non-current derivative contracts, although our master netting arrangements would allow current and non-current positions to be offset in the event of a default.  Additionally, in the event of a default, our master netting arrangements would allow for the offsetting of all transactions executed under the master netting arrangement.  These types of transactions may include non-derivative instruments, derivatives qualifying for scope exceptions, trade receivables and trade payables arising from settled positions, and other forms of non-cash collateral (such as letters of credit).  These types of transactions are excluded from the offsetting tables presented below.

The significant majority of our derivative instruments are not currently designated as hedging instruments.  The Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, include gross liabilities of $4 million and $5 million, respectively, of derivative instruments designated as hedging instruments.

The following tables provide information about the fair value of our risk management activities reported on a gross basis, and the impacts of offsetting as of June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013.  These amounts relate to commodity contracts and are located in the assets and liabilities from risk management activities lines of our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(a)                 All of our gross recognized derivative instruments were subject to master netting arrangements.

(b)                 Includes cash collateral provided to counterparties of $41,400.

(c)                 Represents option premiums, and cash collateral and margin that is not subject to offsetting.  Amounts relate to non-derivative instruments, derivatives qualifying for scope exceptions, or collateral and margin posted in excess of the recognized derivative instrument.  Includes cash collateral received from counterparties of $7,493, and cash margin provided to counterparties of $604.

(a)                 All of our gross recognized derivative instruments were subject to master netting arrangements.

(b)                 Includes cash collateral provided to counterparties of $19,000.

(c)                 Represents cash collateral and margin that is not subject to offsetting.  Amounts relate to non-derivative instruments, derivatives qualifying for scope exceptions, or collateral and margin posted in excess of the recognized derivative instrument.  Includes cash collateral received from counterparties of $7,518, and cash margin provided to counterparties of $7.

Credit Risk and Credit Related Contingent Features

We are exposed to losses in the event of nonperformance or nonpayment by counterparties.  We have risk management contracts with many counterparties, including two counterparties for which our exposure represents approximately 77% of Pinnacle West’s $37 million of risk management assets as of June 30, 2014.  This exposure relates to long-term traditional wholesale contracts with counterparties that have high credit quality.  Our risk management process assesses and monitors the financial exposure of all counterparties.  Despite the fact that the great majority of trading counterparties’ debt is rated as investment grade by the credit rating agencies, there is still a possibility that one or more of these companies could default, resulting in a material impact on consolidated earnings for a given period.  Counterparties in the portfolio consist principally of financial institutions, major energy companies, municipalities and local distribution companies.  We maintain credit policies that we believe minimize overall credit risk to within acceptable limits.  Determination of the credit quality of our counterparties is based upon a number of factors, including credit ratings and our evaluation of their financial condition.  To manage credit risk, we employ collateral requirements and standardized agreements that allow for the netting of positive and negative exposures associated with a single counterparty.  Valuation adjustments are established representing our estimated credit losses on our overall exposure to counterparties.

Certain of our derivative instrument contracts contain credit-risk-related contingent features including, among other things, investment grade credit rating provisions, credit-related cross-default provisions, and adequate assurance provisions.  Adequate assurance provisions allow counterparty with reasonable grounds for uncertainty to demand additional collateral based on subjective events and/or conditions.  For those derivative instruments in a net liability position, with investment grade credit contingencies, the counterparties could demand additional collateral if our debt credit rating were to fall below investment grade (below BBB- for Standard & Poor’s or Fitch or Baa3 for Moody’s).

The following table provides information about our derivative instruments that have credit-risk-related contingent features at June 30, 2014 (dollars in millions):

(a)                 This amount is after counterparty netting and includes those contracts which qualify for scope exceptions, which are excluded from the derivative details above.

We also have energy-related non-derivative instrument contracts with investment grade credit-related contingent features, which could also require us to post additional collateral of approximately $175 million if our debt credit ratings were to fall below investment grade.

8.             Changes in Equity

The following tables show Pinnacle West’s changes in shareholders’ equity and changes in equity of noncontrolling interests for the three and six months ended June 30, 2014 and 2013 (dollars in thousands):