Back to GetFilings.com

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
[X]		ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004
OR
[   ]		TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 for the transition period from _________ to ___________
Commission File Number			Registrant; State of Incorporation; Address and Telephone Number		IRS Employer Identification No.
1-11459			PPL Corporation (Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter) (Pennsylvania) Two North Ninth Street Allentown, PA 18101-1179 (610) 774-5151		23-2758192
333-74794			PPL Energy Supply, LLC (Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter) (Delaware) Two North Ninth Street Allentown, PA 18101-1179 (610) 774-5151		23-3074920
1-905			PPL Electric Utilities Corporation (Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter) (Pennsylvania) Two North Ninth Street Allentown, PA 18101-1179 (610) 774-5151		23-0959590
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Title of each class				Name of each exchange on which registered
Common Stock of PPL Corporation				New York & Philadelphia Stock Exchanges
Preferred Stock of PPL Electric Utilities Corporation
	4-1/2% 4.40% Series			New York Stock Exchange New York Stock Exchange

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

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.

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 (or for such shorter period that the Registrants were required to file such reports), and (2) have been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrants are accelerated filers (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).

As of June 30, 2004, PPL Corporation had 188,894,379 shares of its $.01 par value Common Stock outstanding, excluding 31,034,476 shares held as treasury stock. The aggregate market value of these common shares (based upon the closing price of these shares on the New York Stock Exchange on that date) held by non-affiliates was $8,670,251,996. As of January 31, 2005, PPL Corporation had 189,122,513 shares of its $.01 par value Common Stock outstanding, excluding 31,045,853 shares held as treasury stock.

As of June 30, 2004, PPL Corporation held all 78,029,863 outstanding common shares, no par value, of PPL Electric Utilities Corporation, excluding 79,270,519 shares held as treasury stock. The aggregate market value of the voting preferred stock held by non-affiliates of PPL Electric Utilities Corporation at June 30, 2004, was $39,080,968.

PPL Corporation indirectly holds all of the membership interests in PPL Energy Supply, LLC.

PPL Energy Supply, LLC meets the conditions set forth in General Instructions (I)(1)(a) and (b) of Form 10-K and is therefore filing this form with the reduced disclosure format.

Documents incorporated by reference:

PPL Corporation and PPL Electric Utilities Corporation have incorporated herein by reference certain sections of PPL Corporation's 2005 Notice of Annual Meeting and Proxy Statement, and PPL Electric Utilities Corporation's 2005 Notice of Annual Meeting and Information Statement, which will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission not later than 120 days after December 31, 2004. Such Statements will provide the information required by Part III of this Report.

PPL CORPORATION
PPL ENERGY SUPPLY, LLC
PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORPORATION

FORM 10-K ANNUAL REPORT TO
THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2004

TABLE OF CONTENTS

This combined Form 10-K is separately filed by PPL Corporation, PPL Energy Supply, LLC and PPL Electric Utilities Corporation. Information contained herein relating to PPL Energy Supply, LLC and PPL Electric Utilities Corporation is filed by PPL Corporation and separately by PPL Energy Supply, LLC and PPL Electric Utilities Corporation on their own behalf. No registrant makes any representation as to information relating to any other registrant, except that information relating to the two PPL Corporation subsidiaries is also attributed to PPL Corporation.

GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

£ - British pounds sterling.

1945 First Mortgage Bond Indenture - PPL Electric's Mortgage and Deed of Trust, dated as of October 1, 1945, to Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as trustee, as supplemented.

2001 Senior Secured Bond Indenture - PPL Electric's Indenture, dated as of August 1, 2001, to JPMorgan Chase Bank, as trustee, as supplemented.

AFUDC (Allowance for Funds Used During Construction) - the cost of equity and debt funds used to finance construction projects of regulated businesses, which is capitalized as part of construction cost.

ANEEL - National Electric Energy Agency, Brazil's agency that regulates the transmission and distribution of electricity.

APA - Asset Purchase Agreement.

APB - Accounting Principles Board.

ARB - Accounting Research Bulletin.

ARO - asset retirement obligation.

Bangor Hydro - Bangor Hydro-Electric Company.

Bcf - billion cubic feet.

CEMAR - Companhia Energética do Maranhão, a Brazilian electric distribution company in which PPL Global had a majority ownership interest until the transfer of this interest in April 2004.

CGE - Compañia General de Electricidad, S.A., a distributor of electricity and natural gas with other industrial segments in Chile and Argentina in which PPL Global had an 8.7% direct and indirect minority ownership interest until the sale of this interest in March 2004.

Clean Air Act - federal legislation enacted to address certain environmental issues related to air emissions including acid rain, ozone and toxic air emissions.

CTC - competitive transition charge on customer bills to recover allowable transition costs under the Customer Choice Act.

Customer Choice Act - the Pennsylvania Electricity Generation Customer Choice and Competition Act, legislation enacted to restructure the state's electric utility industry to create retail access to a competitive market for generation of electricity.

DelSur - Distribuidora de Electricidad Del Sur, S.A. de C.V., an electric distribution company in El Salvador, a majority of which is owned by EC.

DEP - Department of Environmental Protection, a state government agency.

Derivative - a financial instrument or other contract with all three of the following characteristics:

1. It has (1) one or more underlyings and (2) one or more notional amounts or payment provisions or both. Those terms determine the amount of the settlement or settlements, and, in some cases, whether or not a settlement is required.
2. It requires no initial net investment or an initial net investment that is smaller than would be required for other types of contracts that would be expected to have a similar response to changes in market factors.
3. Its terms require or permit net settlement, it can readily be settled net by a means outside the contract, or it provides for delivery of an asset that puts the recipient in a position not substantially different from net settlement.

DIG - Derivatives Implementation Group.

DOE - Department of Energy, a U.S. government agency.

DRIP - Dividend Reinvestment Plan.

EC - Electricidad de Centroamerica, S.A. de C.V., an El Salvadoran holding company and the majority owner of DelSur. EC was also the majority owner of El Salvador Telecom, S.A. de C.V. until the sale of this company in June 2004. PPL Global has 100% ownership of EC.

EGS - electric generation supplier.

EITF - Emerging Issues Task Force, an organization that assists the FASB in improving financial reporting through the identification, discussion and resolution of financial accounting issues within the framework of existing authoritative literature.

Elfec - Empresa de Luz y Fuerza Electrica Cochabamba S.A., a Bolivian electric distribution company in which PPL Global has a majority ownership interest.

Emel - Empresas Emel S.A., a Chilean electric distribution holding company in which PPL Global has a majority ownership interest.

EMF - electric and magnetic fields.

Enrichment - the concentration of fissionable isotopes to produce a fuel suitable for use in a nuclear reactor.

EPA - Environmental Protection Agency, a U.S. government agency.

EPS - earnings per share.

ESOP - Employee Stock Ownership Plan.

EWG - exempt wholesale generator.

Fabrication - the process which manufactures nuclear fuel assemblies for insertion into the reactor.

FASB - Financial Accounting Standards Board, a rulemaking organization that establishes financial accounting and reporting standards.

FERC - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the federal agency that regulates interstate transmission and wholesale sales of electricity and related matters.

FIN - FASB Interpretation.

FSP - FASB Staff Position.

GAAP - generally accepted accounting principles.

Griffith - a 600 MW gas-fired station in Kingman, Arizona, which is jointly owned by indirect subsidiaries of PPL Generation and Duke Energy Corporation.

GWh - gigawatt-hour, one million kilowatt-hours.

Hyder - Hyder Limited, a subsidiary of WPDL that was the previous owner of South Wales Electricity plc. In March 2001, South Wales Electricity plc was acquired by WPDH Limited and renamed WPD (South Wales).

IBEW - International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

ICP - Incentive Compensation Plan.

ICPKE - Incentive Compensation Plan for Key Employees.

Integra - Empresa de Ingenieria y Servicios Integrales Cochabamba S.A., a Bolivian construction and engineering services company in which PPL Global has a majority ownership interest.

IRS - Internal Revenue Service, a U.S. government agency.

ISO - Independent System Operator.

ITC - intangible transition charge on customer bills to recover intangible transition costs associated with securitizing stranded costs under the Customer Choice Act.

kVA - kilovolt-ampere.

kWh - kilowatt-hour, basic unit of electrical energy.

LIBOR - London Interbank Offered Rate.

MicDos - Minicentrales Dos, S.A., a Spanish company which owns several small hydroelectric generating facilities in Spain. PPL Global sold its ownership interest in MicDos in June 2004.

Mirant - Mirant Corporation, a diversified energy company based in Atlanta. PPL Global and Mirant jointly owned WPD from 1996 until September 6, 2002.

Montana Power - The Montana Power Company, a Montana-based company that sold its generating assets to PPL Montana in December 1999. Through a series of transactions consummated during the first quarter of 2002, Montana Power sold its electricity delivery business to NorthWestern.

MW - megawatt, one thousand kilowatts.

MWh - megawatt-hour, one thousand kilowatt-hours.

NorthWestern - NorthWestern Energy Division, a Delaware corporation and a division of NorthWestern Corporation and successor in interest to Montana Power's electricity delivery business, including Montana Power's rights and obligations under contracts with PPL Montana.

NPDES - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.

NRC - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the federal agency that regulates the operation of nuclear power facilities.

NUGs(Non-Utility Generators) - generating plants not owned by public utilities, whose electrical output must be purchased by utilities under the PURPA if the plant meets certain criteria.

Ofgem - Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, the British agency that regulates transmission, distribution and wholesale sales of electricity and related matters.

OSM - Office of Surface Mining, a U.S. government agency.

PCB - polychlorinated biphenyl, an additive to oil used in certain electrical equipment up to the late-1970s. It is now classified as a hazardous chemical.

PEPS Units (Premium Equity Participating Security Units, or PEPS^SM Units) - securities issued by PPL and PPL Capital Funding Trust I that consisted of a Preferred Security and a forward contract to purchase PPL common stock.

PEPS Units, Series B (Premium Equity Participating Security Units, or PEPS^SM Units, Series B) - securities issued by PPL and PPL Capital Funding that consisted of an undivided interest in a debt security issued by PPL Capital Funding and guaranteed by PPL, and a forward contract to purchase PPL common stock.

PJM (PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.) - operator of the electric transmission network and electric energy market in all or parts of Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia.

PLR (Provider of Last Resort) - The role of PPL Electric in providing electricity to retail customers within its delivery territory who have not chosen to select an alternative electricity supplier under the Customer Choice Act.

PP&E - property, plant and equipment.

PPL - PPL Corporation, the parent holding company of PPL Electric, PPL Energy Funding and other subsidiaries.

PPL Capital Funding - PPL Capital Funding, Inc., a PPL financing subsidiary.

PPL Capital Funding Trust I - a Delaware statutory business trust created to issue the Preferred Security component of the PEPS Units. This trust was terminated in June 2004.

PPL Coal Supply - PPL Coal Supply, LLC, a limited liability company owned by PPL Coal Holdings Corporation (a subsidiary of PPL Generation) and Iris Energy LLC. PPL Coal Supply procures coal, which it sells to PPL Generation for power plants and to Iris Energy for synfuel production.

PPL Development Company - PPL Development Company, LLC, a subsidiary of PPL Services that has responsibility for all of PPL's acquisition, divestiture and development activities.

PPL Electric - PPL Electric Utilities Corporation, a regulated utility subsidiary of PPL that transmits and distributes electricity in its service territory and provides electric supply to retail customers in this territory as a PLR.

PPL Energy Funding - PPL Energy Funding Corporation, a subsidiary of PPL and the parent company of PPL Energy Supply.

PPL EnergyPlus - PPL EnergyPlus, LLC, a subsidiary of PPL Energy Supply that markets wholesale and retail electricity, and supplies energy and energy services in deregulated markets.

PPL Energy Supply - PPL Energy Supply, LLC, a subsidiary of PPL Energy Funding and the parent company of PPL Generation, PPL EnergyPlus, PPL Global and other subsidiaries.

PPL Gas Utilities - PPL Gas Utilities Corporation, a regulated utility subsidiary of PPL that specializes in natural gas distribution, transmission and storage services, and the competitive sale of propane.

PPL Generation - PPL Generation, LLC, a subsidiary of PPL Energy Supply that owns and operates U.S. generating facilities through various subsidiaries.

PPL Global - PPL Global, LLC, a subsidiary of PPL Energy Supply that owns and operates international energy businesses that are focused on the distribution of electricity.

PPL Holtwood - PPL Holtwood, LLC, a subsidiary of PPL Generation that owns PPL's hydroelectric generating operations in Pennsylvania.

PPL Maine - PPL Maine, LLC, a subsidiary of PPL Generation that owns generating operations in Maine.

PPL Martins Creek - PPL Martins Creek, LLC, a generating subsidiary of PPL Generation that owns generating operations in Pennsylvania.

PPL Montana - PPL Montana, LLC, an indirect subsidiary of PPL Generation that generates electricity for wholesale sales in Montana and the Pacific Northwest.

PPL Services - PPL Services Corporation, a subsidiary of PPL that provides shared services for PPL and its subsidiaries.

PPL Susquehanna - PPL Susquehanna, LLC, the nuclear generating subsidiary of PPL Generation.

PPL Telcom - PPL Telcom, LLC, an indirect subsidiary of PPL Energy Funding that delivers high bandwidth telecommunication services in the Northeast corridor from Washington, D.C., to New York City and to six metropolitan areas in central and eastern Pennsylvania.

PPL Transition Bond Company - PPL Transition Bond Company, LLC, a subsidiary of PPL Electric that was formed to issue transition bonds under the Customer Choice Act.

Preferred Securities - company-obligated mandatorily redeemable preferred securities issued by PPL Capital Funding Trust I, which solely held debentures of PPL Capital Funding, and by SIUK Capital Trust I, which solely holds debentures of WPD LLP.

PUC - Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, the state agency that regulates certain ratemaking, services, accounting and operations of Pennsylvania utilities.

PUC Final Order - final order issued by the PUC on August 27, 1998, approving the settlement of PPL Electric's restructuring proceeding.

PUHCA - Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, legislation passed by the U.S. Congress.

PURPA - Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, legislation passed by the U.S. Congress to encourage energy conservation, efficient use of resources and equitable rates.

PURTA - the Pennsylvania Public Utility Realty Tax Act.

RMC - Risk Management Committee.

Sarbanes-Oxley 404 - Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which sets requirements for management assessment of internal controls for financial reporting. It also requires an independent auditor to attest to and report on management's assessment.

SCR - selective catalytic reduction, a pollution control process.

SEC - Securities and Exchange Commission, a U.S. government agency whose primary mission is to protect investors and maintain the integrity of the securities markets.

SFAS - Statement of Financial Accounting Standards, the accounting and financial reporting rules issued by the FASB.

SIUK Capital Trust I - a business trust created to issue preferred securities and whose common securities are held by WPD  LLP.

SIUK Limited - was an intermediate holding company within the WPDH Limited group. In January 2003, SIUK Limited transferred its assets and liabilities to WPD LLP.

SPE - special purpose entity.

Superfund - federal environmental legislation that addresses remediation of contaminated sites; states also have similar statutes.

Synfuel projects - production facilities that manufacture synthetic fuel from coal or coal byproducts. Favorable federal tax credits are available on qualified synthetic fuel products.

Tolling agreement - agreement whereby the owner of an electric generating facility agrees to use that facility to convert fuel provided by a third party into electric energy for delivery back to the third party.

UF - inflation-indexed Chilean peso-denominated unit.

VEBA - Voluntary Employee Benefit Association Trust, trust accounts for health and welfare plans for future benefit payments for employees, retirees or their beneficiaries.

WPD - refers collectively to WPDH Limited and WPDL. PPL Global purchased Mirant's 49% ownership interest in these entities on September 6, 2002, thereby achieving 100% ownership and operational control.

WPD LLP - Western Power Distribution LLP, a wholly owned subsidiary of WPDH Limited, which owns WPD (South West) and WPD (South Wales).

WPD (South Wales) - Western Power Distribution (South Wales) plc, a British regional electric utility company.

WPD (South West) - Western Power Distribution (South West) plc, a British regional electric utility company.

WPDH Limited - Western Power Distribution Holdings Limited, an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of PPL Global. WPDH Limited owns WPD LLP.

WPDL - WPD Investment Holdings Limited, an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of PPL Global. WPDL owns 100% of the common shares of Hyder.

Forward-looking Information

Statements contained in this Form 10-K concerning expectations, beliefs, plans, objectives, goals, strategies, future events or performance and underlying assumptions and other statements which are other than statements of historical facts are "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the federal securities laws. Although PPL, PPL Energy Supply and PPL Electric believe that the expectations and assumptions reflected in these statements are reasonable, there can be no assurance that these expectations will prove to be correct. These forward-looking statements involve a number of risks and uncertainties, and actual results may differ materially from the results discussed in the forward-looking statements. In addition to the specific factors discussed in the Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations sections herein, the following are among the important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements:

• market demand and prices for energy, capacity and fuel;
• weather conditions affecting customer energy usage and operating costs;
• competition in retail and wholesale power markets;
• the effect of any business or industry restructuring;
• the profitability and liquidity of PPL and its subsidiaries;
• new accounting requirements or new interpretations or applications of existing requirements;
• operation and availability of existing generation facilities and operating costs;
• transmission and distribution system conditions and operating costs;
• environmental conditions and requirements;
• development of new projects, markets and technologies;
• performance of new ventures;
• asset acquisitions and dispositions;
• political, regulatory or economic conditions in states, regions or countries where PPL or its subsidiaries conduct business;
• receipt of necessary governmental permits, approvals and rate relief;
• impact of state, federal or foreign investigations applicable to PPL and its subsidiaries and the energy industry;
• the outcome of litigation against PPL and its subsidiaries;
• capital market conditions and decisions regarding capital structure;
• stock price performance;
• the market prices of equity securities and the impact on pension income and resultant cash funding requirements for defined benefit pension plans;
• securities and credit ratings;
• state, federal and foreign regulatory developments;
• foreign exchange rates;
• new state, federal or foreign legislation, including new tax legislation;
• national or regional economic conditions, including any potential effects arising from terrorist attacks in the U.S., the situation in Iraq and any consequential hostilities or other hostilities; and
• the commitments and liabilities of PPL and its subsidiaries.

Any such forward-looking statements should be considered in light of such important factors and in conjunction with other documents of PPL, PPL Energy Supply and PPL Electric on file with the SEC.

New factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those described in forward-looking statements emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for PPL, PPL Energy Supply or PPL Electric to predict all of such factors, or the extent to which any such factor or combination of factors may cause actual results to differ from those contained in any forward-looking statement. Any forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date on which such statement is made, and PPL, PPL Energy Supply and PPL Electric undertake no obligations to update the information contained in such statement to reflect subsequent developments or information.

PART I

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

BACKGROUND

PPL Corporation, headquartered in Allentown, PA, is an energy and utility holding company that was incorporated in 1994. PPL has been exempted by the SEC from the provisions of PUHCA applicable to it as a holding company. Through its subsidiaries, PPL generates electricity from power plants in the northeastern and western U.S.; markets wholesale or retail energy primarily in the northeastern and western portions of the U.S.; delivers electricity to nearly five million customers in Pennsylvania, the U.K. and Latin America; and provides energy services for businesses in the mid-Atlantic and northeastern U.S. PPL's significant subsidiaries are shown below:

See Exhibit 99 in Item 15 for a listing of the current corporate organization. In addition to PPL Corporation, the other SEC registrants included in this filing are:

PPL Energy Supply, LLC, an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of PPL formed in 2000, is an energy company engaged through its subsidiaries in the generation and marketing of power primarily in the northeastern and western power markets of the U.S. and in the delivery of electricity in the U.K. and Latin America. PPL Energy Supply's major operating subsidiaries are PPL Generation, PPL EnergyPlus and PPL Global. PPL Energy Supply owns or controls 12,274 MW of electric power generation capacity, and has current plans to implement capital projects at certain of its existing generation facilities in Pennsylvania and Montana that would provide 255 MW of additional generation capacity by 2010.

PPL Electric Utilities Corporation, incorporated in 1920, is a direct subsidiary of PPL and a regulated public utility. PPL Electric provides electricity delivery service in its service territory in Pennsylvania, and provides electricity supply to retail customers in that territory as a PLR under the Customer Choice Act.

Segment Information

PPL is organized into segments consisting of Supply, Delivery and International. PPL Energy Supply's segments consist of Supply and International. PPL Electric operates in a single business segment, Delivery. See Note 2 to the Financial Statements for financial information about the segments and geographic financial data.

PPL has generation assets that are focused on the eastern and western markets. The eastern generation assets are focused on the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic energy markets - including PJM, the New York ISO, ISO New England and the Mid-American Interconnection Network. PPL's western generating capacity is focused on the markets within the Western Systems Coordinating Council.

PPL Generation had a total generating capacity of 12,274 MW at December 31, 2004. Through subsidiaries, PPL Generation owns and operates power plants in Pennsylvania, Montana, Maine, Connecticut, Arizona, Illinois and New York. See "Power Supply" for a complete listing of PPL's generating capacity.

The Pennsylvania generation plants had a total capacity of 9,227 MW at December 31, 2004. These plants are fueled by nuclear reaction, coal, gas, oil and hydro power. The electricity from these plants is sold to PPL EnergyPlus under FERC-jurisdictional power purchase agreements.

PPL's U.S. generation subsidiaries are EWGs, which sell electricity into the wholesale market. PPL's EWGs are subject to regulation by the FERC but not subject to regulation under PUHCA. The FERC has authorized these EWGs to sell generation from their facilities at market-based prices.

PPL Susquehanna, a subsidiary of PPL Generation, owns a 90% undivided interest in each of the two nuclear-fueled generating units at its Susquehanna station, while Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc. owns the remaining 10% undivided interest. PPL's 90% share of Susquehanna's capacity was 2,124 MW at December 31, 2004. In 2004, PPL Susquehanna completed the installation of more efficient steam turbines at Unit 1 that increased the capacity of the Susquehanna plant by 49 MW, of which PPL Susquehanna has a 90% undivided interest.

PPL Generation operates its Pennsylvania and Illinois power plants in conjunction with PJM. PPL Generation's Pennsylvania power plants and PPL EnergyPlus are parties to the Mid-Atlantic Area Coordination Agreement. PPL's Illinois power plants are parties to the Mid-America Interconnected Network Agreement. Refer to "Delivery Segment" for information regarding PJM's operations and functions and the Mid-Atlantic Area Coordination Agreement.

The Montana generating stations were acquired from Montana Power in 1999. The coal-fired and hydro-powered stations have a capacity of 1,259 MW. PPL Montana supplies 300 MW of around-the-clock electricity and 150 MW of unit-contingent on-peak electricity to NorthWestern under two five-year agreements that began in July 2002. These contracts accounted for 30% of PPL Montana's operating revenue in 2004. PPL Montana also purchases 98 MW of firm energy and capacity during the months of November through April from Basin Electric Cooperative. PPL Montana's power plants are parties to the Western Electricity Coordinating Council Agreement.

The Maine generating assets were acquired from Bangor Hydro in 1998. The oil-fired and hydro-powered stations have a total capacity of 96 MW. The Maine generating assets are operated in conjunction with ISO New England and are parties to the Northeast Power Coordinating Council Agreement. See Note 9 for information on the possible sale of three hydroelectric dams.

The Connecticut generating station was constructed by PPL and began commercial operations in 2001. This natural gas-fired station has a total capacity of 243 MW. The Connecticut generating station is operated in conjunction with ISO New England and is party to the Northeast Power Coordinating Council Agreement.

During 2002, PPL began commercial operations in Arizona of two natural gas-fired generating stations. PPL's ownership interest in the Griffith station is 300 MW. The Sundance station has a total capacity of 450 MW. PPL's Arizona generating stations are parties to the Western Electricity Coordinating Council Agreement. See Note 9 for additional information on the possible sale of the Sundance facility.

In 2002, PPL also began commercial operations in Illinois of its University Park 540 MW natural gas-fired generating station, and in New York of its Edgewood natural gas-fired generating station and its Shoreham oil-fired generating station. The New York plants have a combined capacity of 159 MW. The New York generating stations are operated in connection with the New York ISO and are parties to the Northeast Power Coordinating Council Agreement.

In 2004, PPL began commercial operations in Pennsylvania of its Lower Mt. Bethel 582 MW natural gas-fired generating station.

PPL Generation has current plans to implement capital projects at certain of its generation facilities in Pennsylvania and Montana that would provide 255 MW of additional generation capacity by 2010.

Refer to the "Power Supply" section for additional information regarding the various power plants operated by PPL Generation, to the "Fuel Supply" section for a discussion of fuel requirements and contractual arrangements for fuel and to "Item 2. Properties" for additional information regarding PPL's proposed capital projects to increase its generation capacity.

PPL Generation subsidiaries are subject to the jurisdiction of certain federal, regional, state and local regulatory agencies with respect to air and water quality, land use and other environmental matters. PPL Susquehanna is subject to the jurisdiction of the NRC in connection with the operation of the Susquehanna units. Certain of PPL Generation's other subsidiaries, including PPL Montana, are subject to the jurisdiction of the NRC in connection with the operation of their fossil plants with respect to certain level and density monitoring devices.

Certain operations of PPL Generation's subsidiaries are subject to the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 and comparable state statutes.

PPL EnergyPlus markets or brokers the electricity produced by PPL Generation subsidiaries, along with purchased power, natural gas and oil, in competitive wholesale and deregulated retail markets in order to take advantage of opportunities in the competitive energy marketplace.

PPL EnergyPlus buys and sells energy at competitive prices. PPL EnergyPlus purchases electric capacity and energy at the wholesale level, and also sells electric capacity and energy at the wholesale level under FERC market-based tariffs. PPL EnergyPlus enters into these agreements to market available energy and capacity from PPL Generation's assets and to profit from market price fluctuations. PPL EnergyPlus actively manages its portfolios to maximize the value of PPL's generating assets and to limit exposure to price fluctuations. PPL EnergyPlus also purchases and sells energy forward and futures contracts as well as other commodity-based financial instruments in accordance with PPL's risk management policies, objectives and strategies.

PPL EnergyPlus has executed contracts to provide electricity to PPL Electric sufficient for it to meet its PLR obligation through 2009, at the predetermined capped rates PPL Electric is entitled to charge its customers during this period. This arrangement with PPL Electric accounted for 34% of PPL Energy Supply's consolidated revenues in 2004. See Note 15 to the Financial Statements for more information concerning these contracts.

PPL EnergyPlus has a PUC license to act as an EGS in Pennsylvania. This license permits PPL EnergyPlus to offer retail electric supply to customers throughout Pennsylvania. In 2004, PPL EnergyPlus was licensed, and supplied energy to industrial and commercial customers in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Montana. PPL EnergyPlus also is licensed to provide energy in Delaware, Maryland, Maine and Massachusetts. PPL EnergyPlus currently is not marketing to residential customers in the competitive marketplace based on economic considerations.

PPL EnergyPlus also develops distributed generation plants on customer sites using technologies such as fuel cells, small turbines, microturbines and reciprocating engines. As of December 31, 2004, a subsidiary of PPL Energy Supply owned approximately 11 MW of installed capacity serving commercial and industrial customers.

PPL Synfuel Investments, LLC, a subsidiary of PPL EnergyPlus, indirectly owns, through its subsidiaries, two production facilities that manufacture synthetic fuel from coal or coal byproducts. PPL receives federal tax credits for these qualified manufactured synfuel products. See Note 14 for additional information.

PPL Telcom, an unregulated subsidiary of PPL Energy Funding, has a fiber optic network and markets available capacity on PPL Electric's fiber optic cables in eastern and central Pennsylvania. The fiber optic services include point-to-point data transport, high-speed connections among multiple sites and access to national and global fiber networks. PPL Telcom markets its services to customers such as other telecommunications companies, internet service providers and large enterprises that need high-speed data connections between multiple locations. Additionally, PPL Telcom provides engineering, construction and site leasing services to wireless carriers.

In 2003, a subsidiary of PPL Telcom acquired the fiber optic network of a Fairfax, Virginia-based company. The 1,330-route-mile metropolitan area fiber network connects New York, northern New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington, D.C.

PPL Electric provides electricity delivery service to approximately 1.4 million customers in a 10,000-square mile territory in 29 counties of eastern and central Pennsylvania. The largest cities in this territory are Allentown, Bethlehem, Harrisburg, Hazleton, Lancaster, Scranton, Wilkes-Barre and Williamsport.

Pursuant to the PUC Final Order, PPL Electric agreed in 1998 to a cap on the electricity transmission and distribution rates that it collected from retail customers in its service territory. This cap expired on December 31, 2004. In March 2004, PPL Electric filed a request with the PUC for an overall annual net increase in distribution rates of approximately $164 million (subsequently amended to $160 million), based on a return on equity of 11.5%, and notified the PUC that it planned to pass through to customers approximately $57 million in increased transmission charges imposed on PPL Electric by PJM. In December 2004, the PUC approved an increase in PPL Electric's distribution rates of approximately $137 million (based on a return on equity of 10.7%), and approved PPL Electric's proposed mechanism for collecting the additional $57 million in transmission-related charges, for a total increase of approximately $194 million, effective January 1, 2005.

In addition to providing electricity delivery service in its service territory in Pennsylvania, PPL Electric also provides electricity supply to retail customers in that territory as a PLR under the Customer Choice Act. As part of the PUC Final Order, PPL Electric agreed to provide this electricity supply at predetermined capped rates through 2009. PPL Electric has executed two contracts to purchase electricity from PPL EnergyPlus sufficient for PPL Electric to meet its PLR obligation through 2009, at the predetermined capped rates. PPL Electric's PLR obligation after 2009 will be determined by the PUC pursuant to rules that have not yet been promulgated.

During 2004, about 94% of PPL Electric's operating revenues were derived from regulated electricity deliveries and supply as a PLR. About 6% of 2004 operating revenues were from wholesale sales, primarily the sale to PPL EnergyPlus of power purchased from NUGs. During 2004, about 43% of electricity delivery and PLR revenues were from residential customers, 36% from commercial customers, 20% from industrial customers and 1% from other customer classes.

PPL Electric's transmission facilities are operated as part of PJM. PJM operates the electric transmission network and electric energy market in the mid-Atlantic and Midwest regions of the U.S. Bulk electricity is transmitted to wholesale users throughout a geographic area including all or part of Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia. PPL Electric also is a party to the Mid-Atlantic Area Coordination Agreement, which provides for the coordinated planning of generation and transmission facilities by the companies included in PJM.

PJM serves as a FERC-approved Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) in order to accommodate greater competition and broader participation in the region. (An RTO, like an ISO, is a designation provided by the FERC to a FERC-approved independent entity that operates the transmission system and typically administers a competitive power market.) A purpose of the RTO/ISO is to separate the operation of, and access to, the transmission grid from PJM electric utilities' generation interests. PJM also administers regional markets for energy, capacity and ancillary services. Electric utilities continue to own the transmission assets, but the RTO/ISO directs the control and operation of the transmission facilities. As described above, effective January 1, 2005, PPL Electric began to fully recover from retail customers the charges that it pays to PJM for transmission-related services. PJM imposes these charges pursuant to its FERC-approved Open Access Transmission Tariff. PPL Electric's retail electric tariff authorizes it to recover such charges from its retail customers, but PPL Electric had been precluded from such recovery through December 31, 2004, pursuant to the transmission and distribution rate cap described above.

PPL Electric is subject to regulation as a public utility by the PUC, and certain of its activities are subject to the jurisdiction of the FERC under the Federal Power Act. PPL Electric is not a holding company under PUHCA.

PPL Electric also is subject to the jurisdiction of certain federal, regional, state and local regulatory agencies with respect to land use and other environmental matters. Certain operations of PPL Electric are subject to the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 and comparable state statutes.

In November 2004, Pennsylvania enacted the Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards legislation, which requires electric distribution companies, such as PPL Electric, and electric generation suppliers serving retail load to provide 18% of the electricity sold to retail customers in Pennsylvania from alternative sources within 15 years (by 2020). Under this new state legislation, alternative sources include hydro, wind, solar, waste coal, landfill methane and fuel cells. An electric distribution company will pay an alternative compliance payment of $45 for each MWh that it is short of its required alternative energy supply percentage. Since PPL Electric's PLR generation rates are capped through 2009 as described above and the legislation allows for a cost recovery exemption period, PPL Electric will not be subject to the requirements of this legislation until 2010. In that year, PPL Electric will have to supply about 9% of the total amount of electricity it delivers to its PLR customers from alternative energy sources. At this time, PPL Electric cannot predict the impact of this legislation on its future results of operations because the impact will depend on a number of factors that will not be known until 2010, including customer load requirements, PLR contract terms and available alternative energy sources in the market at that time.

PPL Gas Utilities operates a natural gas distribution and propane business in portions of various counties in Pennsylvania, as well as in a small portion of Maryland and Delaware, providing natural gas and propane services to approximately 107,000 customers. PPL Gas Utilities provides its natural gas services in Pennsylvania subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the PUC. PPL Gas Utilities also provides intrastate and interstate natural gas storage service from storage fields in Pennsylvania. The intrastate storage service is regulated by the PUC and the interstate storage service is regulated by the FERC. However, by order of the FERC issued in 1992, rates for interstate storage services are the rates set by the PUC for intrastate service. The propane delivery service is not subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the PUC or the FERC. PPL Gas Utilities was formed in 1946 and PPL acquired the company in 1998.

In September 2002, PPL Global's acquisition of Mirant's 49% interest for approximately $236 million provided PPL Global with complete ownership of WPD. WPD, through indirect wholly owned subsidiaries, operates two electric distribution companies in the U.K., that together serve approximately 2.6 million end-users. WPD delivered 28,847 million kWh of electricity in 2004. See Note 9 to the Financial Statements for additional information on this acquisition.

In November 2004, Ofgem published its final decision on new price controls for the five-year regulatory period commencing April 1, 2005. Ofgem's decision provides for a price increase of 1.5% for WPD (South West) and 6.2% for WPD (South Wales), or an average of 3.6% for WPD. The price increase is in effect for the 12-month period beginning April 1, 2005, followed by an adjustment in prices reflecting WPD's capital investment program and inflationary effects in each of the following four years. The price increases include reimbursement for higher operating and capital costs to be incurred during the new regulatory period. Ofgem set the weighted average cost of capital at 4.8% on an after-tax basis, equivalent to 6.9% on a pre-tax real basis, which is a 0.4% increase from the previous regulatory period. Although published as a price increase by Ofgem, the net effect of the new price controls to WPD is a revenue decrease of approximately 3.5% when excluding certain reclassifications and cost pass-through reimbursements.

PPL Global also has controlling interests in electric transmission and distribution companies serving customers in Chile, El Salvador and Bolivia. Emel, of which PPL Global owns 95.4%, serves approximately 544,000 customers through subsidiary distribution companies in northern Chile and just south of its headquarters in Santiago, Chile. DelSur, of which PPL Global owns 86.4%, is an electric distribution company headquartered in San Salvador, which serves approximately 268,000 customers in the central and southern regions of El Salvador, including a portion of the city of San Salvador. Elfec, of which PPL Global owns 92.1%, is the second largest electric distribution company in Bolivia, and serves approximately 259,000 customers in Cochabamba. Currently, there is significant political and economic instability in Bolivia, and PPL at this time is unable to predict the impact of this instability on its Bolivian operations.

PPL Global also has a minority investment in a combined generating and natural gas production facility in Peru.

In August 2002, PPL Global deconsolidated its 90% equity interest in its Brazilian investment, CEMAR, when ANEEL authorized an administrative intervention and fully assumed operational and financial control of the company. In April 2004, PPL Global sold its investment in CEMAR. See Note 9 to the Financial Statements for additional information on the CEMAR investment.

In 2004, PPL Global also sold its minority investments in generating facilities in Spain and in an electricity and natural gas distributor in Chile, as well as its majority ownership interest in a telecommunications company in El Salvador. See Note 9 to the Financial Statements for additional information on these divestitures.

PPL Services

Various corporate service functions reside in PPL Services, an unregulated subsidiary of PPL. PPL Services provides shared services for PPL and its subsidiaries. These services include financial, legal, human resources and information services. These services are directly charged or allocated, as appropriate, to the Supply, Delivery and International segments. In the third quarter of 2004, PPL Services formed a wholly owned subsidiary, PPL Development Company, which has responsibility for all of PPL's acquisition, divestiture and development activities. These activities previously were the responsibility of PPL Global.

Seasonality

Demand for and market prices of electricity are impacted by weather. As a result, PPL's overall operating results in the future may fluctuate substantially on a seasonal basis, especially when more severe weather conditions such as heat waves or winter storms make such fluctuations more pronounced. The pattern of this fluctuation may change depending on the nature and location of the facilities PPL acquires and the terms of the contracts to sell electricity.

FINANCIAL CONDITION

See PPL's, PPL Energy Supply's and PPL Electric's Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations for this information.

CAPITAL EXPENDITURE REQUIREMENTS

See "Financial Condition - Capital Expenditure Requirements" in PPL's, PPL Energy Supply's and PPL Electric's Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations for information concerning estimated capital expenditure requirements for the years 2005-2009. See Note 14 to the Financial Statements for additional information concerning expected capital expenditures for environmental matters.

COMPETITION

The unregulated businesses and markets that PPL and its subsidiaries participate in are highly competitive. The electric industry has experienced an increase in the level of competition in the energy markets over the last several years due to federal and state deregulation initiatives.

In 1992, the Energy Act amended the PUHCA to create a new class of independent power producers, and amended the Federal Power Act to provide open access to electric transmission systems for wholesale transactions. In 1996, the Customer Choice Act was enacted in Pennsylvania to restructure the state's electric utility industry in order to create retail access to a competitive market for the generation of electricity. Certain other states in which PPL's subsidiaries operate have also adopted a "customer choice" plan to allow customers to choose their electricity supplier. Competitive factors affecting PPL's results of operations include energy and fuel prices, new market entrants, construction by others of generating assets, the actions of regulatory authorities and other factors. PPL cannot predict the impact of these and other competitive factors on its future results of operations or financial condition.

PPL and its subsidiaries believe that competition in deregulated energy markets will continue to be intense. In addition to deregulation, competitive pressures have resulted from technological advances in power generation and electronic communications and the greater efficiency of energy markets.

The wholesale power markets in which PPL Generation subsidiaries and PPL EnergyPlus operate are highly competitive. Competitors include regulated utilities, industrial companies, non-utility generators and unregulated subsidiaries of regulated utilities. Although PPL EnergyPlus has long-term supply agreements (see "Background - Supply Segment"), a substantial portion of PPL's future sales will be made into the competitive wholesale markets. Competition will occur principally on the basis of the price of products and, to a lesser extent, on the basis of reliability and availability.

PPL EnergyPlus also faces competition in the wholesale markets for energy capacity and ancillary services. As pricing information becomes increasingly available in the energy trading and marketing business and assuming deregulation in the electricity markets continues, PPL EnergyPlus anticipates that trading, marketing and risk management operations will experience greater competition. PPL EnergyPlus primarily competes with other energy merchants based on the ability to aggregate supplies at competitive prices from different sources and locations and to efficiently utilize transportation from third-party pipelines and transmission from electric utilities. Competitors may employ widely differing strategies in their fuel supply and power sales contracts with respect to pricing and other terms and conditions. PPL EnergyPlus also competes against other energy marketers on the basis of relative financial condition and access to credit sources.

Some restructured markets have recently experienced supply problems and price volatility. In a number of these markets, government agencies and other interested parties have made proposals to delay market restructuring or even re-regulate certain areas of these markets that have previously been deregulated. In California, legislation has been passed placing a moratorium on the sale of generation plants by public utilities regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission. In June 2001, the FERC instituted a series of price controls designed to mitigate (or cap) prices in the entire western U.S. to address the extreme volatility in the California energy markets. These price controls have contributed to the lowering of spot and forward energy prices in the western market. In addition, RTO/ISOs that oversee the transmission systems in certain wholesale power markets have from time to time been authorized to address volatility in power markets. These types of price limitations and other mechanisms may adversely impact the profitability of PPL's wholesale power marketing and trading business. Other proposals to institute price controls or to re-regulate the energy industry may be made, and legislative or other actions may cause the electric power restructuring process to be delayed, discontinued or reversed in the states in which PPL currently, or may in the future, operates. If the competitive restructuring of the wholesale and retail power markets is delayed, discontinued or reversed, PPL's business prospects and financial condition could be materially adversely affected.

See Note 14 to the Financial Statements for information on the FERC Proposed Rules entitled "Remedying Undue Discrimination through Open Access Transmission Service and Standard Electricity Market Design."

Pursuant to PPL Electric's authorizations from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the PUC, PPL Electric operates a regulated distribution monopoly in its service area. Accordingly, PPL Electric does not face competition in its distribution business. Although the majority of PPL Global's international electricity transmission and distribution companies operate in non-exclusive concession areas in their respective countries, these companies currently face little or no competition with respect to residential customers. See "Franchises and Licenses" for more information.

POWER SUPPLY

PPL Generation's system capacity (winter rating) at December 31, 2004, was as follows:

The capacity of generating units is based upon a number of factors, including the operating experience and physical condition of the units, and may be revised periodically to reflect changed circumstances.

During 2004, PPL Generation's plants generated the following amounts of electricity:

This generation represented a 3% increase over the output for 2003. Of this generation, 56% of the energy was generated by coal-fired stations, 30% from nuclear operations at the Susquehanna station, 8% from hydroelectric stations and 6% from oil/gas-fired stations.

On average, approximately 83% of PPL's expected annual generation output for the period 2005 through 2009 is committed to meet:

• PPL EnergyPlus' obligation under two contracts to provide electricity for PPL Electric to satisfy its PLR obligation under the Customer Choice Act;
• PPL EnergyPlus' obligation under two contracts to provide electricity to NorthWestern through June 2007; and
• other contractual sales to other counterparties for terms of various lengths.

See Note 14 to the Financial Statements for more information regarding PPL's wholesale energy commitments and Note 15 for more information regarding the PLR contracts. These contractual arrangements are consistent with and are an integral part of PPL's overall business strategy, which includes the matching of PPL's anticipated energy supply with load, or customer demand, under long-term and intermediate-term contracts with creditworthy counterparties to capture profits while reducing PPL's exposure to movements in energy and fuel prices and counterparty credit risk.

FUEL SUPPLY

Coal

Pennsylvania

PPL Coal Supply provides coal to three PPL Generation power plants and to Iris Energy, LLC for the production of synthetic fuel. In 2004, synthetic fuel from Iris Energy provided 57% of the fuel requirements of PPL Generation's Pennsylvania stations. The contract with Iris Energy terminates at the end of 2007. The balance of the requirements was met by coal provided by PPL Coal Supply. PPL Coal Supply actively manages its supply base principally in central Appalachia and western and central Pennsylvania.

During 2004, about 89% of the coal delivered to PPL Generation's Pennsylvania stations was purchased under long-term contracts and 11% was obtained through open market purchases. These long-term contracts provided PPL Generation with about 7.3 million tons of coal. Contracts currently in place are expected to provide approximately 7.7 million tons in 2005. At December 31, 2004, Pennsylvania plants had sufficient supply for about 37 days of operations. The amount of coal in inventory varies from time-to-time depending on market conditions and plant operations.

At December 31, 2004, a PPL Generation subsidiary owned a 12.34% interest in the Keystone station and a 16.25% interest in the Conemaugh station. The owners of the Keystone station have a long-term contract with a synthetic fuel supplier to provide 90% of the station's fuel requirements, up to 4.5 million tons in 2005. This contract terminates at the end of 2007. In addition, the Keystone station contracts with Keystone Fuels, LLC for the balance of its requirements. The owners of the Conemaugh station have a long-term contract with a synthetic fuel supplier to provide a minimum of 2.4 million tons through 2007. The balance of the Conemaugh station requirements is purchased under contract from Conemaugh Fuels, LLC.

Montana

PPL Montana has a 50% leasehold interest in Colstrip Units 1 and 2, and a 30% leasehold interest in Unit 3. PPL Montana is party to contracts to purchase coal from a neighboring mine with defined quality characteristics and specifications. The coal supply contract for Units 1 and 2 is in effect through December 31, 2009. The coal supply contract for Unit 3 is in effect through December 31, 2019.

Coal supply contracts are in place to purchase low-sulfur coal with defined quality characteristics and specifications for PPL Montana's Corette station. The contracts supplied 100% of the plant coal requirements in 2004. Similar contracts are currently in place to supply 100% of the expected coal requirements through 2008.

Oil and Natural Gas

PPL Generation's Martins Creek Units 3 and 4 burn both oil and natural gas. PPL EnergyPlus is responsible for procuring the oil and natural gas supply for all PPL Generation operations. During 2004, 100% of the physical oil requirements for the Martins Creek units were purchased on the spot market. As of December 31, 2004, PPL EnergyPlus had no long-term agreements for these requirements.

PPL EnergyPlus has a long-term pipeline capacity contract for delivery of gas supply representing approximately 10% of the maximum requirements of the Sundance facility, but has no long-term supply agreement to purchase natural gas. As of December 31, 2004, there were no long-term delivery or supply agreements to purchase natural gas for University Park.

PPL EnergyPlus has a long-term contract for approximately 40% of the expected pipeline transportation requirements of the Wallingford facility, but has no long-term supply agreement to purchase natural gas. Likewise, PPL EnergyPlus has long-term pipeline transportation contracts in place for the Griffith facility equaling 100% of the expected requirements.

In 2004, PPL EnergyPlus began supplying natural gas for the commercial operation at the Lower Mt. Bethel facility. PPL EnergyPlus has two gas transportation contracts in place for approximately 30% of the maximum daily requirements of the plant. These contracts expire in September 2008 and 2013.

PPL EnergyPlus employs a strategy of procuring natural gas and oil in conjunction with electricity sales commitments.

Nuclear

PPL Susquehanna has in effect uranium supply and conversion agreements that, including options, satisfy 100% of its uranium requirements in 2005 and 2006 and will satisfy approximately 75% of its requirements in 2007, and approximately 30% of its requirements in 2008 and 2009. Deliveries under these agreements are expected to provide sufficient uranium to permit Unit 1 to operate into the first quarter of 2008 and Unit 2 to operate into the first quarter of 2009.

PPL Susquehanna has executed an agreement that satisfies all of its enrichment requirements through 2008. Assuming that the other uranium components of the nuclear fuel cycle are satisfied, deliveries under this agreement are expected to provide sufficient enrichment to permit Unit 1 to operate into the first quarter of 2010 and Unit 2 to operate into the first quarter of 2011.

PPL Susquehanna has entered into an agreement that, including options, satisfies all of its fabrication requirements through 2014. Assuming that the uranium and other components of the nuclear fuel cycle are satisfied, deliveries under this agreement can provide sufficient fabrication to permit Unit 1 to operate into the first quarter of 2016 and Unit 2 to operate into the first quarter of 2015.

Federal law requires the federal government to provide for the permanent disposal of commercial spent nuclear fuel. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA), the DOE initiated an analysis of a site in Nevada for a permanent nuclear waste repository. DOE does not expect the repository to be operational before 2010. As a result, it was necessary to expand Susquehanna's on-site spent fuel storage capacity. To support this expansion, PPL Susquehanna contracted for the design and construction of a spent fuel storage facility employing dry cask fuel storage technology. The facility is modular, so that additional storage capacity can be added as needed. The facility began receiving spent nuclear fuel in 1999. PPL Susquehanna estimates that there is sufficient storage capacity in the spent nuclear fuel pools and the on-site spent fuel storage facility at Susquehanna to accommodate spent fuel discharged through approximately 2017, under current operating conditions. If necessary, the on-site spent fuel storage facility can be expanded, assuming appropriate regulatory approvals are obtained, such that, together, the spent fuel pools and the expanded dry fuel storage facility will accommodate all of the spent fuel expected to be discharged through the current licensed life of the plant.

In 2002, President Bush approved the Congressional override of a veto by the State of Nevada, designating Yucca Mountain, Nevada as the site for development of a long-term repository for high-level radioactive waste. The next step is for the DOE to submit a license application to the NRC to build and then operate the Yucca Mountain repository. The DOE has not announced a date when that license application will be submitted.

In 1996, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the NWPA imposed on DOE an unconditional obligation to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel on or before January 31, 1998. In 1997, the Court ruled that the contracts between the utilities and the DOE provide a potentially adequate remedy if the DOE failed to begin disposal of spent nuclear fuel by January 31, 1998. The DOE did not, in fact, begin to dispose of spent nuclear fuel on that date. The DOE continues to contest claims that its failures resulted in recoverable damages. On January 22, 2004, PPL Susquehanna filed suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims for unspecified damages suffered as a result of the DOE's breach of its contract to accept and dispose of spent nuclear fuel. PPL Susquehanna's lawsuit currently remains stayed, pending developments in lawsuits filed by other plaintiffs. PPL cannot predict the outcome of these proceedings.

ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS

Certain PPL subsidiaries, including PPL Electric and PPL Generation subsidiaries, are subject to certain present and developing federal, regional, state and local laws and regulations with respect to air and water quality, land use and other environmental matters. See PPL's and PPL Energy Supply's "Financial Condition - Capital Expenditure Requirements" in Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations for information concerning environmental expenditures during 2004 and their estimate of those expenditures during the years 2005-2009. PPL believes that its subsidiaries are in substantial compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations.

See "Environmental Matters" in Note 14 to the Financial Statements for information concerning federal clean air legislation, groundwater degradation and waste water control at facilities owned by PPL's subsidiaries and PPL Electric's and PPL Gas Utilities' agreements with the Pennsylvania DEP concerning remediation at certain sites. Other environmental laws, regulations and developments that may have a substantial impact on PPL's subsidiaries are discussed below.

Air

The Clean Air Act includes, among other things, provisions that: (a) restrict the construction of, and revise the performance standards for, new and substantially modified coal-fired and oil-fired generating stations; and (b) authorize the EPA to impose substantial noncompliance penalties of up to $27,500 per day of violation for each facility found to be in violation of the requirements of an applicable state implementation plan. The state agencies administer the EPA's air quality regulations through the state implementation plans and have concurrent authority to impose penalties for non-compliance.

In its Clean Air Interstate Rule, the EPA has proposed substantial reductions for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions in 29 midwestern and eastern states, including Pennsylvania; and, in a separate rule, the EPA has proposed mercury reductions nationwide. Similarly, the Bush administration's Clear Skies Initiative and proposals by certain members of Congress would amend the Clean Air Act to require significant reductions in nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide and mercury. In addition, there is mounting pressure from various states and environmental groups and at the federal level for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions. For example, although the Bush administration's Clear Skies Initiative does not address carbon emissions, several states have already passed legislation capping carbon emissions and bills have been introduced at the federal level proposing mandatory reductions. The amount and timing of any such reductions that may be required is not yet clear. Such requirements could result in increased capital and operating expenses which are not now determinable, but could be significant.

Water

To implement the requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977 and the Water Quality Act of 1987, the EPA has adopted regulations on effluent standards for steam electric stations. The states administer the EPA's effluent standards through state laws and regulations relating to, among other things, effluent discharges and water quality. The standards adopted by the EPA pursuant to the Clean Water Act may have a significant impact on existing facilities of certain PPL subsidiaries, depending on the states' interpretation and future amendments to regulations.

Pursuant to the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1977, the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) has adopted effluent guidelines which are applicable to PPL subsidiaries as a result of their past coal mining and coal processing activities. The EPA and the OSM limitations, guidelines and standards also are enforced through the issuance of NPDES permits. In accordance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act and the Reclamation Act of 1977, the EPA and the OSM have authorized the states to implement the NPDES program. Compliance with applicable water quality standards is assured by state imposition of NPDES permit conditions and requirements to address acid mine drainage.

Solid and Hazardous Waste

The provisions of Superfund authorize the EPA to require past and present owners of contaminated sites and generators of any hazardous substance found at a site to clean-up the site or pay the EPA or the state for the costs of clean-up. The generators and past owners can be liable even if the generator contributed only a minute portion of the hazardous substances at the site. Present owners can be liable even if they contributed no hazardous substances to the site.

State laws such as the Pennsylvania and Montana Superfund statutes also give state agencies broad authority to identify hazardous or contaminated sites and to order owners or responsible parties to clean-up the sites. If responsible parties cannot or will not perform the clean-up, the agency can hire contractors to clean-up the sites and then require reimbursement from the responsible parties after the clean-up is completed. Another Pennsylvania statute, the Land Recycling and Environmental Remediation Standards, encourages voluntary clean-ups by allowing responsible parties to choose from a menu of clean-up standards and providing liability protection commensurate with the clean-up standard chosen.

Certain federal and state statutes, including federal and state Superfund statutes, also impose liability on the responsible parties for the lost value of damaged natural resources.

Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Under federal law, each state is responsible for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste generated in that state. States may join in regional compacts to jointly fulfill their responsibilities. The states of Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware and West Virginia are members of the Appalachian States Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact. Efforts to develop a regional disposal facility in Pennsylvania were suspended by the Pennsylvania DEP in 1998. The Commonwealth retains the legal authority and may be required to resume the siting process should it be necessary. Low-level radioactive waste resulting from the operation of the Susquehanna facility is currently being sent to Barnwell, South Carolina, and Clive, Utah, for disposal. In the event these or other emergent disposal options become unavailable or no longer cost-effective, the low-level radioactive waste will be stored on-site at Susquehanna. PPL Susquehanna cannot predict the future availability of low-level waste disposal facilities or the cost of such disposal.

Asbestos

There have been increasing litigation claims throughout the U.S. based on exposure to asbestos against companies that manufacture or distribute asbestos products or that have these products on their premises. Certain of PPL's generation subsidiaries and certain of its energy services subsidiaries, such as those that have supplied, may have supplied or installed asbestos material in connection with the repair or installation of process piping and heating, ventilating and air conditioning systems, have been named as defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits. PPL cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits or whether additional claims may be asserted against its subsidiaries in the future. PPL does not expect that the ultimate resolution of the current lawsuits will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition.

Electric and Magnetic Fields

Concerns have been expressed by some members of the public regarding potential health effects of power frequency electric and/or magnetic fields (EMFs), which are emitted by all devices carrying electricity, including electric transmission and distribution lines and substation equipment. Government officials in the U.S. and the U.K. have reviewed this issue. The U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences concluded in 2002 that, for most health outcomes, there is no evidence of EMFs causing adverse effects. The agency further noted that there is some epidemiological evidence of an association with childhood leukemia, but that this evidence is difficult to interpret without supporting laboratory evidence. The U.K. National Radiological Protection Board concluded in 2004 that, while the research on EMFs does not provide a basis to find that EMFs cause any illness, there is a basis to consider precautionary measures beyond existing exposure guidelines. PPL and its subsidiaries believe the current efforts to determine whether EMFs cause adverse health effects should continue and are taking steps to reduce EMFs, where practical, in the design of new transmission and distribution facilities. PPL is unable to predict what effect, if any, the EMF issue might have on its operations and facilities either in the U.S. or abroad, and the associated cost, or what, if any, liabilities it might incur related to the EMF issue.

General

PPL and its subsidiaries are unable to predict the ultimate effect of evolving environmental laws and regulations upon their existing and proposed facilities and operations. In complying with statutes, regulations and actions by regulatory bodies involving environmental matters, including the areas of water and air quality, hazardous and solid waste handling and disposal and toxic substances, PPL's subsidiaries may be required to modify, replace or cease operating certain of their facilities. PPL's subsidiaries may also incur significant capital expenditures and operating expenses in amounts which are not now determinable, but could be significant.

FRANCHISES AND LICENSES

PPL Electric is authorized to provide electric public utility service throughout its service area as a result of grants by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in corporate charters to PPL Electric and companies to which it has succeeded and as a result of certification by the PUC. PPL Electric is granted the right to enter the streets and highways by the Commonwealth subject to certain conditions. In general, such conditions have been met by ordinance, resolution, permit, acquiescence or other action by an appropriate local political subdivision or agency of the Commonwealth.

See "Background - Supply Segment" for a discussion of PPL EnergyPlus' licenses in various states. PPL EnergyPlus also has an export license from the DOE to sell capacity and/or energy to electric utilities in Canada.

PPL Susquehanna operates Units 1 and 2 pursuant to NRC operating licenses which expire in 2022 and 2024, respectively. In November 2001, PPL Susquehanna notified the NRC that it intends to seek extensions of its operating licenses. The application for this extension will be made in 2006, in accordance with NRC guidelines. If the NRC approves PPL Susquehanna's application, the operating licenses for Units 1 and 2 would each be extended for an additional 20 years, to 2042 and 2044, respectively.

PPL Holtwood operates the Holtwood hydroelectric generating station pursuant to a license renewed by the FERC in 1980 and expiring in 2014. PPL Holtwood operates the Wallenpaupack hydroelectric generating station pursuant to a license with the FERC that is in the process of being renewed. PPL Holtwood also owns one-third of the capital stock of Safe Harbor Water Power Corporation (Safe Harbor), which holds a project license that extends the operation of its hydroelectric generating station until 2030. The total capacity of the Safe Harbor generating station is 418 MW, and PPL Holtwood is entitled by contract to one-third of the total capacity.

The 11 hydroelectric facilities and one storage reservoir purchased from Montana Power in 1999 are licensed by the FERC. These licenses expire periodically, and the generating facilities must be relicensed at such times. The FERC license for the Mystic facility expires in 2009; the Thompson Falls and Kerr licenses expire in 2025 and 2035, respectively; and the licenses for the nine Missouri-Madison facilities expire in 2040. PPL Montana is working to have the Mystic facility relicensed.

In connection with the relicensing of these generation facilities, FERC may, under applicable law, relicense the original licensee or license a new licensee, or the U.S. government may take over the facility. If the original licensee is not relicensed, it is compensated for its net investment in the facility, not to exceed the fair value of the property taken, plus reasonable damages to other property affected by the lack of relicensing.

PPL Global's international electricity transmission and distribution companies are authorized by the governments of their respective countries to provide electric distribution services within their concession areas and service territories, subject to certain conditions and obligations. For instance, each of these companies is subject to governmental regulation on the prices that it can charge and the quality of service it must provide, and the companies can be fined or even have their licenses or concessions revoked if they do not meet the mandated quality of service.

WPD operates under distribution licenses granted, and price controls set, by Ofgem. The price control formula that governs WPD's allowed revenue is normally determined every five years, with the most recent review having been completed in late-2004 and new prices effective April 1, 2005.

Emel is subject to regulated maximum tariffs set by Chile's National Energy Commission. The components of the distribution tariffs are energy and capacity prices, a transmission surcharge and the value added on account of distribution costs (VAD). The VAD includes a targeted return on invested capital of 10% per year. The energy and capacity prices are a direct pass-through to regulated customers of the energy charge that Emel pays to the generation companies. The tariffs are calculated every four years, with the most recent tariff review having been completed and revised rates becoming effective as of November 2004.

DelSur is subject to regulated maximum tariffs set by El Salvador's General Superintendent of Electricity and Telecommunications. The three components of the distribution tariff are an energy price, a commercialization charge and a distribution charge. DelSur's tariff specifies the energy price as a trailing six-month average of the spot market price. The tariffs are calculated every 5 years and are adjusted for inflation on January 1 of each year. The next comprehensive tariff review will take place in 2007 and be effective in 2008.

Elfec is subject to regulated maximum tariffs set by Bolivia's Superintendent of Electricity. Tariffs are calculated every four years based on the trailing three-year average of the equity returns from companies listed in the Dow Jones Utility Index. Tariffs are adjusted on a monthly basis for local inflation and every six months to reflect any changes in the energy node prices, which is a pass-through to regulated customers of the energy charge that Elfec pays to generation companies. The tariffs are calculated every four years. The most recent tariff review was completed in January 2004 and new prices became effective beginning in 2004.

EMPLOYEE RELATIONS

As of December 31, 2004, PPL and its subsidiaries had the following full-time employees:

Approximately 59%, or 4,802, of PPL's domestic workforce are members of labor unions, with four IBEW locals representing 3,208 employees. The other unions primarily represent employees of the mechanical contractors and gas utility employees in Pennsylvania. The bargaining agreement with the largest union was negotiated in May 2002 and expires in May 2006. Eight four-year contracts with smaller gas utility locals in Pennsylvania were negotiated in 2003. In June 2004, the IBEW representing approximately 240 employees at the Montana Colstrip power plant approved a new four-year labor agreement. In 2001, a four-year contract was concluded with an IBEW local in Montana that represents approximately 80 employees. This IBEW contract expires in April 2005.

Approximately 86%, or 3,301, of PPL's international workforce are members of labor unions. WPD employs the majority of the international workforce. WPD recognizes five unions, the largest of which represents 37% of union members. WPD has two employment agreements which are negotiated with the unions. The largest agreement, the Electricity Business Agreement, covers 2,376 employees; it may be amended by agreement between WPD and the unions and is terminable with 12 months' notice by either side.

PPL's Latin American subsidiaries have 879 union employees that are represented by 12 unions. Emel and DelSur have agreements in place until 2006. Annually, Elfec negotiates adjustments to its compensation and benefits.

AVAILABLE INFORMATION

PPL's Internet Web site is www.pplweb.com. On the Investor Center page of that Web site, PPL provides access to all SEC filings of PPL registrants free of charge, as soon as reasonably practicable after filing with the SEC. Additionally, PPL registrants' filings are available at the SEC's Web site (www.sec.gov) and at the SEC's Public Reference Room at 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549, or by calling 1-800-SEC-0330.

ITEM 2. PROPERTIES

Domestic Generation

For a description of PPL's domestic generation portfolio, see "Item 1. Business - Power Supply."

At December 31, 2004, PPL Generation was planning on implementing the following incremental capacity increases:

PPL continually reexamines development projects based on market conditions and other factors to determine whether to proceed with these projects, sell them, expand them, execute tolling agreements or pursue other opportunities.

Domestic Delivery

Electric

For a description of PPL Electric's service territory, see "Item 1. Business - Background." At December 31, 2004, PPL Electric had electric transmission and distribution lines in public streets and highways pursuant to franchises and rights-of-way secured from property owners. PPL Electric's system included 380 substations with a total capacity of 25.7 million kVA, 32,896 circuit miles of overhead lines and 6,525 cable miles of underground conductors. All of PPL Electric's facilities are located in Pennsylvania. Substantially all of PPL Electric's transmission and distribution properties are subject to the lien of PPL Electric's 1945 First Mortgage Bond Indenture and its 2001 Senior Secured Bond Indenture.

Gas

PPL Gas Utilities distributes natural gas and propane to customers in northern, southeastern and central Pennsylvania and in a small portion of Maryland and Delaware. It also has natural gas storage facilities in Pennsylvania. At December 31, 2004, PPL Gas Utilities had approximately 107,000 natural gas and propane delivery customers and 3,753 miles of pipeline mains, with 18 miles in Maryland and the remainder in Pennsylvania.

International Delivery

PPL Global has consolidated investments in electricity distribution companies, serving approximately 3.5 million delivery customers in Latin America and the U.K., as follows:

PPL Global's distribution system in Latin America includes 94 substations with a total capacity of 1.9 million kVA, 22,478 miles of overhead lines and 75 cable miles of underground conductors. PPL Global's distribution system in the U.K. includes 641 substations with a total capacity of 22.9 million kVA, 29,218 miles of overhead lines and 22,347 cable miles of underground conductors.

See "Item 1. Business - Fuel Supply," for information concerning a lawsuit against the DOE for failure of that agency to perform certain contractual obligations. See "Environmental Matters" in Note 14 to the Financial Statements for information concerning legal proceedings regarding certain environmental matters.

Montana Power Shareholders' Litigation

In August 2001, a purported class-action lawsuit was filed by a group of shareholders of Montana Power against Montana Power, the directors of Montana Power, certain advisors and consultants of Montana Power and PPL Montana. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Montana Power was required to, and did not, obtain shareholder approval of the sale of Montana Power's generation assets to PPL Montana in 1999. Although most of the claims in the complaint are against Montana Power, its board of directors, and its consultants and advisors, two claims are asserted against PPL Montana. In the first claim, plaintiffs seek a declaration that because Montana Power shareholders did not vote on the 1999 sale of generating assets to PPL Montana, that sale "was null and void ab initio." The second claim alleges that PPL Montana was privy to and participated in a strategy whereby Montana Power would sell its generation assets to PPL Montana without first obtaining Montana Power shareholder approval, and that PPL Montana has made net profits in excess of $100 million as the result of this alleged illegal sale. In the second claim, plaintiffs request that the court impose a "resulting and/or constructive trust" on both the generation assets themselves and all profits, plus interest on the amounts subject to the trust. This lawsuit is currently pending in the U.S. District Court of Montana, Butte Division. In July 2004, the plaintiffs notified the District Court that the parties had reached an oral partial settlement of the case that would result in the dismissal of PPL Montana as a defendant, and in January 2005 a global settlement agreement was filed with the District Court along with a motion to approve the agreement. Under the terms of the global settlement agreement, the plaintiffs' claims against PPL Montana would be dismissed and PPL Montana would not have to pay any amounts to the plaintiffs. The global settlement agreement must still be approved by the District Court. PPL and PPL Energy Supply cannot predict whether the global settlement agreement will be approved or the outcome of this matter if it is not approved.

NorthWestern Corporation Litigation

In connection with the acquisition of the Montana generation assets, the Montana Power APA, which was previously assigned to PPL Montana by PPL Global, includes a provision concerning the proposed purchase by PPL Montana of a portion of NorthWestern's interest in the 500-kilovolt Colstrip Transmission System (CTS) for $97 million. During 2002, PPL Montana had been in discussions with NorthWestern regarding the proposed purchase of the CTS and the claims that PPL Montana believes it has against NorthWestern arising from the Montana Power APA and related agreements. Notwithstanding such discussions, in September 2002, NorthWestern filed a lawsuit against PPL Montana in Montana state court seeking specific performance of PPL Montana's purchase of the CTS or, alternatively, damages for breach of contract. Pursuant to PPL Montana's application, the matter was removed to the U.S. District Court of Montana, Butte Division. Following removal, NorthWestern asserted additional claims for damages against PPL Montana, including a claim for punitive damages. PPL Montana filed defenses denying liability for NorthWestern's claims as well as counterclaims against NorthWestern seeking damages PPL Montana believes it has suffered under the Montana Power APA and related agreements.

In October 2004, the federal district court in Delaware, where NorthWestern's bankruptcy proceeding had been pending, approved a joint stipulation between PPL Montana and NorthWestern under which NorthWestern agreed to establish a segregated reserve to be used for any distributions to be made to satisfy any final judgment that PPL Montana may be awarded pursuant to PPL Montana's counterclaims. This segregated reserve has been funded with shares of NorthWestern common stock equal to $50 million, valued as of the effective date of NorthWestern's plan of reorganization. Also in October, the federal district court in Delaware confirmed NorthWestern's plan of reorganization, and in November 2004, NorthWestern announced that it officially emerged from bankruptcy protection.

The trial for this matter is expected to commence in the Montana federal district court in the last half of 2005. PPL and PPL Energy Supply cannot predict the outcome of this litigation.

Montana Hydroelectric Litigation

In October 2003, a lawsuit was filed against PPL Montana, PPL Services, Avista Corporation, PacifiCorp and nine John Doe defendants in the U.S. District Court of Montana, Missoula Division, by two residents allegedly acting in a representative capacity on behalf of the State of Montana. In January 2004, the complaint was amended to, among other things, include the Great Falls school districts as additional plaintiffs. In May 2004, the Montana Attorney General filed a motion to allow the State of Montana to intervene as an additional plaintiff in the litigation. This motion was granted without objection. Both the individual plaintiffs' and the school districts' complaint and the State's complaint sought declaratory judgment, compensatory damages and attorneys fees and costs for use of state and/or "school trust" lands by hydropower facilities and to require the defendants to adequately compensate the State and/or the State School Trust fund for full market value of lands occupied. Generally, the suit is founded on allegations that the bed of navigable rivers became state-owned property upon Montana's admission to statehood, and that the use thereof for placement of dam structures, affiliated structures and reservoirs should, under an existing regulatory scheme, trigger lease payments for use of land underneath. The plaintiffs also sought relief on theories of unjust enrichment, trespass and negligence. No specific amount of damages or future rental value has been claimed by the plaintiffs. The defendants filed separate motions to dismiss the individual plaintiffs' and school district's complaint, as well as the complaint of the State of Montana. In September 2004, the federal court granted the motions to dismiss the individual plaintiffs' and school districts' complaint but denied the similar motions as to the State of Montana's complaint. Following the federal court's September decision, PPL Montana and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the State of Montana's complaint for lack of diversity jurisdiction and also filed a motion to vacate certain portions of the decision. The federal court has not yet ruled on these motions.

In November 2004, PPL Montana, Avista Corporation and PacifiCorp commenced an action for declaratory judgment in Montana First Judicial District Court seeking a determination that no lease payments or other compensation for the hydropower facilities' use and occupancy of streambeds can be collected by the State of Montana. The State subsequently filed counterclaims and a motion for summary judgment. In February 2005, the individual plaintiffs and school districts who were dismissed from the federal court proceeding, along with a state teachers' union, filed a motion to intervene as additional defendants in this state court proceeding, and also filed a proposed answer and counterclaims to be used if their motion to intervene is granted. The state court has not yet ruled on any of the above-described motions. PPL Montana and PPL Services cannot predict the outcome of either the federal or the state court proceeding.

California ISO and Western Markets

Through its subsidiaries, PPL made approximately $18 million of sales to the California ISO during the period from October 2000 through June 2001, of which $17 million has not been paid to PPL subsidiaries. Given the myriad of electricity supply problems presently faced by the California electric utilities and the California ISO, PPL cannot predict whether or when it will receive payment. As of December 31, 2004, PPL has fully reserved for possible underrecoveries of payments for these sales.

Regulatory proceedings arising out of the California electricity supply situation have been filed at the FERC. The FERC has determined that all sellers of energy into markets operated by the California ISO and the California Power Exchange, including PPL Montana, should be subject to refund liability for the period beginning October 2, 2000, through June 20, 2001, and initiated an evidentiary hearing concerning refund amounts. In April 2003, the FERC changed the manner in which this refund liability is to be computed and ordered further proceedings to determine the exact amounts that the sellers, including PPL Montana, would be required to refund. In September 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the FERC had the additional legal authority to order refunds for periods prior to October 2, 2000, and ordered the FERC to determine whether or not it would be appropriate to grant such additional refunds.

In June 2003, the FERC took several actions as a result of a number of related investigations. The FERC terminated proceedings pursuant to which it had been considering whether to order refunds for spot market bilateral sales made in the Pacific Northwest, including sales made by PPL Montana, during the period December 2000 through June 2001. The FERC explained that the totality of the circumstances made refunds unfeasible and inequitable, and that it had provided adequate relief by adopting a price cap throughout the western U.S. The FERC also denied pending complaints against long-term contracts in the western U.S. In these complaints, various power buyers had challenged selected long-term contracts that they entered into during 2000 and 2001, complaining that the power prices were too high and reflected manipulation of those energy markets. The FERC found that the complainants had not met their burden of showing that changing or canceling the contracts was "in the public interest" and that the dysfunction in the California markets did not justify changing these long-term contracts. These orders have been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In two separate orders, the FERC also ordered 65 different companies, agencies or municipalities to show cause why they should not be ordered to disgorge profits for "gaming" or anomalous market behavior during 2000 and 2001. These orders to show cause address both unilateral and joint conduct identified as the "Enron trading strategies." Neither PPL EnergyPlus nor PPL Montana was included in these orders to show cause, and they previously have explained in responses to data requests from the FERC that they have not engaged in such trading strategies. Finally, the FERC issued a new investigation order directing its staff to investigate any bids made into the California markets in excess of $250/MWh during the period from May 2000 to October 2000, a period of time prior to the period examined in connection with most of the proceedings described above. To their knowledge, neither PPL EnergyPlus nor PPL Montana is being investigated by the FERC under this new order.

Litigation arising out of the California electricity supply situation has been filed in California courts against sellers of energy to the California ISO. The plaintiffs and intervenors in these legal proceedings allege, among other things, abuse of market power, manipulation of market prices, unfair trade practices and violations of state antitrust laws, and seek other relief, including treble damages and attorneys' fees. While PPL's subsidiaries have not been named by the plaintiffs in these legal proceedings, PPL Montana was named by a defendant in its cross-complaint in a consolidated court proceeding, which combined into one master proceeding several of the lawsuits alleging antitrust violations and unfair trade practices. This generator denies that any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent conduct occurred but asserts that, if it is found liable, the other generators and power marketers, including PPL Montana, caused, contributed to and/or participated in the plaintiffs' alleged losses.

In February 2004, the Montana Public Service Commission initiated a limited investigation of the Montana retail electricity market for the years 2000 and 2001, focusing on how that market was affected by transactions involving the possible manipulation of the electricity grid in the western U.S. The investigation includes all public utilities and licensed electricity suppliers in Montana, as well as other entities that may possess relevant information. Through its subsidiaries, PPL is a licensed electricity supplier in Montana and a wholesale supplier in the western U.S. In June 2004, the Montana Attorney General served PPL Montana and more than 20 other companies with subpoenas requesting documents, and PPL Montana has provided responsive documents to the Montana Attorney General. As with the other investigations taking place as a result of the issues arising out of the electricity supply situation in California and other western states, PPL and its subsidiaries believe that they have not engaged in any improper trading or marketing practices affecting the Montana retail electricity market.

While PPL and its subsidiaries believe that they have not engaged in any improper trading practices, they cannot predict whether, or the extent to which, any PPL subsidiaries will be the target of any additional governmental investigations or named in other lawsuits or refund proceedings, the outcome of any such lawsuits or proceedings or whether the ultimate impact on them of the electricity supply situation in California and other western states will be material.

PJM Capacity Litigation

In December 2002, PPL was served with a complaint against PPL, PPL EnergyPlus and PPL Electric filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by a group of 14 Pennsylvania boroughs that apparently alleges, among other things, violations of the federal antitrust laws in connection with the pricing of installed capacity in the PJM daily market during the first quarter of 2001. These boroughs were wholesale customers of PPL Electric. The claims of the boroughs are similar to those previously alleged by a single borough in litigation brought in the same court that is still pending. In addition, in November 2003, PPL and PPL EnergyPlus were served with a complaint which was filed in the same court by Joseph Martorano, III (d/b/a ENERCO), that also alleges violations of the federal antitrust laws in early 2001. The complaint indicates that ENERCO provides consulting and energy procurement services to clients in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. In September 2004, this complaint was dismissed by the District Court and the plaintiff has appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Each of the U.S. Department of Justice - Antitrust Division, the FERC and the Pennsylvania Attorney General conducted investigations regarding PPL's PJM capacity market transactions in early 2001 and did not find any reason to take action against PPL.

Although PPL, PPL Energy Supply and PPL Electric believe the claims in these complaints are without merit, they cannot predict the outcome of these matters.

New England Investigation

In January 2004, PPL became aware of an investigation by the Connecticut Attorney General and the FERC's Office of Market Oversight and Investigation (OMOI) regarding allegations that natural gas-fired generators located in New England illegally sold natural gas instead of generating electricity during the week of January 12, 2004. Subsequently, PPL and other generators were served with a data request by OMOI. The data request indicated that PPL was not under suspicion of a regulatory violation, but that OMOI was conducting an initial investigation. PPL has responded to this data request. PPL also has responded to data requests of ISO - New England and data requests served by subpoena from the Connecticut Attorney General. Both OMOI and ISO - New England have issued preliminary reports finding no regulatory or other violations concerning these matters. While PPL does not believe that it committed any regulatory or other violations concerning the subject matter of these investigations, PPL cannot predict the outcome of these investigations.

PJM Billing

In December 2004, Exelon Corporation, on behalf of its subsidiary, PECO Energy, Inc. (PECO), filed a complaint against PJM and PPL Electric with the FERC alleging that PJM had overcharged PECO from April 1998 through May 2003 as a result of an error by PJM in the State Estimator Program used in connection with billing all PJM customers for certain transmission, spot market energy and ancillary services charges. Specifically, the complaint alleges that PJM mistakenly identified PPL Electric's Elroy substation transformer as belonging to PECO and that, as a consequence, during times of congestion, PECO's bills for transmission congestion from PJM erroneously reflected energy that PPL Electric took from the Elroy substation and used to serve PPL Electric's load. The complaint requests the FERC, among other things, to direct PPL Electric to refund to PJM $39 million, plus interest of approximately $8 million, and for PJM to refund these same amounts to PECO. PPL Electric and PPL Energy Supply do not believe that they or any PPL subsidiaries have any financial responsibility or liability to PJM or PECO as a result of PJM's alleged error. PPL Electric and PPL Energy Supply cannot predict the outcome of this matter or the impact on any PPL subsidiary.

FERC Market-Based Rate Authority

In December 1998, the FERC issued an order authorizing PPL EnergyPlus to make wholesale sales of electric power and related products at market-based rates. In that order, the FERC directed PPL EnergyPlus to file an updated market analysis within three years of the date of the order, and every three years thereafter. PPL EnergyPlus filed its initial updated market analysis in December 2001. Several parties thereafter filed interventions and protests requesting that PPL EnergyPlus be required to provide additional information demonstrating that it has met the FERC's market power tests necessary for PPL EnergyPlus to continue its market-based rate authority. PPL EnergyPlus has responded that the FERC does not require the economic test suggested by the intervenors and that, in any event, it would meet such economic test if required by the FERC.

In June 2004, FERC approved certain changes to its standards for granting market-based rate authority. As a result of the schedule adopted by the FERC, PPL EnergyPlus, PPL Electric, PPL Montana and most of PPL Generation's subsidiaries were required to file in November 2004 updated analyses demonstrating that they should continue to maintain market-based rate authority under the new standards. PPL made two filings, one for PPL Montana and one for most of the other PPL subsidiaries. The Montana Public Service Commission and the Montana Consumer Counsel filed pleadings opposing the filing by PPL Montana. The Montana Public Service Commission requested that the FERC hold a hearing on the market-based rate renewal application, while the Montana Consumer Counsel suggested applying an altered version of the FERC's tests for assessing market power in reviewing the renewal application. The PJM Industrial Customer Coalition, the PP&L Industrial Customer Alliance and the consumer advocates of Maryland and Pennsylvania filed pleadings opposing the filings by the other PPL subsidiaries. These parties challenge the FERC's continued reliance on market-based rates to yield just and reasonable prices for wholesale electric transactions and suggest that the FERC change its tests for market power to include capacity and ancillary services markets. While PPL believes its filings demonstrate that all PPL subsidiaries pass the new tests established by the FERC in June 2004, PPL cannot predict the outcome of these proceedings.

Lower Mt. Bethel

In August 2002, the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas issued a decision setting the permissible noise levels for operation of the Lower Mt. Bethel facility. PPL appealed the court's decision to the Commonwealth Court, and an intervenor in the lawsuit cross-appealed the court's decision. In May 2003, the Commonwealth Court remanded the case to the Court of Common Pleas for further findings of fact concerning the zoning application relating to the construction of the facility. In September 2003, the Court of Common Pleas ruled in PPL's favor while also reaffirming its decision on the noise levels, and the intervenor appealed this ruling to the Commonwealth Court. In April 2004, the Commonwealth Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Common Pleas. The intervenor has pending before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania a Petition for Allowance of Appeal.

The certificate of occupancy for the Lower Mt. Bethel facility was issued by the local township zoning officer in April 2004, and the facility was placed in service in May 2004. In May 2004, the intervenor in the legal proceedings regarding the facility's permissible noise levels filed an appeal with the township board regarding the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The hearing on the appeal was held in December 2004, and the intervenor's appeal was denied.

ITEM 4. SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS

There were no matters submitted to a vote of security holders, through the solicitation of proxies or otherwise, during the fourth quarter of 2004.

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANTS

Officers of PPL, PPL Energy Supply and PPL Electric are elected annually by their Boards of Directors (or Board of Managers for PPL Energy Supply) to serve at the pleasure of the respective Boards. There are no family relationships among any of the executive officers, nor is there any arrangement or understanding between any executive officer and any other person pursuant to which the officer was selected.

There have been no events under any bankruptcy act, no criminal proceedings and no judgments or injunctions material to the evaluation of the ability and integrity of any executive officer during the past five years.

Listed below are the executive officers at December 31, 2004:

PPL Energy Supply, LLC

Item 4 is omitted as PPL Energy Supply meets the conditions set forth in General Instruction (I)(1)(a) and (b) of Form 10-K.

PART II

ITEM 5. MARKET FOR THE REGISTRANT'S COMMON EQUITY,
RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND
ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES

PPL Corporation

Additional information for this item is set forth in the sections entitled "Quarterly Financial, Common Stock Price and Dividend Data," "Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters" and "Shareowner and Investor Information" of this report. The number of common shareowners is set forth in "Item 6. Selected Financial and Operating Data."

PPL Energy Supply, LLC

There is no established public trading market for PPL Energy Supply's membership interests. PPL Energy Funding, a direct wholly owned subsidiary of PPL, owns all of PPL Energy Supply's outstanding membership interests. Distributions on the membership interests will be paid as determined by PPL Energy Supply's Board of Managers. PPL Energy Supply made cash distributions to PPL Energy Funding of approximately $410 million in 2004 and $1.2 billion in 2003.

PPL Electric Utilities Corporation

Additional information for this item is set forth in the sections entitled "Quarterly Financial Data" and "Shareowner and Investor Information" of this report.

ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL AND OPERATING DATA

PPL Energy Supply, LLC

Item 6 is omitted as PPL Energy Supply meets the conditions set forth in General Instructions (I)(1)(a) and (b) of Form 10-K.

 

ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL AND OPERATING DATA
PPL Corporation (a)							2004				2003				2002				2001				2000
Income Items - millions
		Operating revenues (b)				$	5,812			$	5,596			$	5,491			$	5,147			$	4,541
		Operating income					1,387				1,340				1,246				850				1,194
		Income from continuing operations					700				719				360				169				487
		Net income					698				734				208				179				498
Balance Sheet Items - millions (c)
		Property, plant and equipment - net (b)					11,209				10,593				9,733				5,947				5,948
		Recoverable transition costs					1,431				1,687				1,946				2,172				2,425
		Total assets					17,761				17,123				15,552				12,562				12,360
		Long-term debt					7,658				7,859				6,267				5,579				4,784
		Long-term debt with affiliate trusts (d)					89				681
		Company-obligated mandatorily redeemable   preferred securities of subsidiary trusts holding   solely company debentures (d)													661				825				250
		Preferred stock
				With sinking fund requirements											31				31				46
				Without sinking fund requirements			51				51				51				51				51
		Common equity					4,239				3,259				2,224				1,857				2,012
		Short-term debt					42				56				943				118				1,037
		Total capital provided by investors					12,079				11,906				10,177				8,461				8,180
		Capital lease obligations					11				12
Financial Ratios
		Return on average common equity - %					18.14				26.55				10.27				8.41				27.49
		Embedded cost rates (c)
				Long-term debt - %			6.67				6.56				7.04				6.84				6.98
				Preferred stock - %			5.14				5.14				5.81				5.81				5.87
				Preferred securities - % (d)											8.02				8.13				8.44
		Times interest earned before income taxes					2.72				2.93				1.97				2.19				3.05
		Ratio of earnings to fixed charges - total enterprise    basis (e)					2.6				2.5				1.9				1.7				2.5
Common Stock Data
		Number of shares outstanding - thousands
				Year-end			189,072				177,362				165,736				146,580				145,041
				Average			184,228				172,795				152,492				145,974				144,350
		Number of shareowners of record (c)					81,175				83,783				85,002				87,796				91,777
		Income from continuing operations - Basic EPS				$	3.80			$	4.16			$	2.36			$	1.16			$	3.38
		Income from continuing operations - Diluted EPS				$	3.78			$	4.15			$	2.36			$	1.15			$	3.37
		Net income - Basic EPS				$	3.79			$	4.25			$	1.37			$	1.23			$	3.45
		Net income - Diluted EPS				$	3.77			$	4.24			$	1.36			$	1.22			$	3.44
		Dividends declared per share				$	1.64			$	1.54			$	1.44			$	1.06			$	1.06
		Book value per share (c)				$	22.42			$	18.38			$	13.42			$	12.67			$	13.87
		Market price per share (c)				$	53.28			$	43.75			$	34.68			$	34.85			$	45.188
		Dividend payout rate - % (f)					44				36				106				87				31
		Dividend yield - % (g)					3.08				3.52				4.15				3.04				2.35
		Price earnings ratio (f) (g)					14.13				10.32				25.50				28.57				13.14
Sales Data - millions of kWh
		Domestic - Electric energy supplied - retail					37,664				36,774				36,746				37,395				37,758
		Domestic - Electric energy supplied - wholesale					37,394				37,841				36,849				27,683				40,925
		Domestic - Electric energy delivered					35,897				36,083				35,712				35,534				34,731
		International - Electric energy delivered (h)					32,846				31,952				33,313				5,919				3,735
(a)			The earnings each year were affected by unusual items, which affected net income. See "Earnings" in Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations for a description of unusual items in 2004, 2003 and 2002.
(b)			Data for certain years are reclassified to conform to the current presentation.
(c)			At year-end.
(d)			On July 1, 2003, PPL adopted the provisions of SFAS 150, "Accounting for Certain Financial Instruments with Characteristics of Both Liabilities and Equity." The company-obligated mandatorily redeemable preferred securities are mandatorily redeemable financial instruments, as they require the issuer to redeem the securities for cash on a specified date. Thus, they should be classified as liabilities, as a component of long-term debt, instead of "mezzanine" equity on the Balance Sheet. However, as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, no amounts were included in "Long-term Debt" for these securities because PPL Capital Funding Trust I and SIUK Capital Trust I were deconsolidated effective December 31, 2003, in connection with the adoption of FIN 46, "Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities, an Interpretation of ARB No. 51," for certain entities. Instead, the subordinated debt securities that support the company-obligated mandatorily redeemable preferred securities of the trusts are reflected in "Long-term Debt with Affiliate Trusts" as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, to the extent they were outstanding. See Notes 8 and 22 to the Financial Statements for additional information.
(e)			Computed using earnings and fixed charges of PPL and its subsidiaries. Fixed charges consist of interest on short- and long-term debt, other interest charges, interest on capital lease obligations, the estimated interest component of other rentals and preferred dividends.
(f)			Based on diluted EPS.
(g)			Based on year-end market prices.
(h)			Deliveries for 2002 include the electricity deliveries of WPD for the full year and of CEMAR prior to deconsolidation.

ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL AND OPERATING DATA
PPL Electric Utilities Corporation (a)								2004				2003				2002				2001				2000
Income Items - millions
	Operating revenues						$	2,847			$	2,788			$	2,748			$	2,694			$	3,336
	Operating income							259				251				275				419				669
	Income available to PPL Corporation							74				25				39				119				261
Balance Sheet Items - millions (b)
	Property, plant and equipment - net							2,657				2,589				2,456				2,319				2,401
	Recoverable transition costs							1,431				1,687				1,946				2,172				2,425
	Total assets							5,526				5,469				5,583				5,921				6,023
	Long-term debt							2,544				2,937				3,175				3,459				3,126
	Company-obligated mandatorily redeemable    preferred securities of subsidiary trusts holding    solely company debentures																			250				250
	Preferred stock
			With sinking fund requirements													31				31				46
			Without sinking fund requirements					51				51				51				51				51
	Common equity							1,272				1,222				1,147				931				1,160
	Short-term debt							42								15								59
	Total capital provided by investors							3,909				4,210				4,419				4,722				4,692
Financial Ratios
	Return on average common equity - %							5.95				2.08				3.87				11.09				19.40
	Embedded cost rates (b)
			Long-term debt - %					6.86				6.61				6.83				6.81				6.88
			Preferred stock - %					5.14				5.14				5.81				5.81				5.87
			Preferred securities - %																	8.44				8.44
	Times interest earned before income taxes							1.45				1.22				1.33				1.92				2.81
	Ratio of earnings to fixed charges (c)							1.4				1.2				1.2				1.7				2.5
Sales Data
	Customers (thousands) (b)							1,351				1,330				1,308				1,298				1,270
	Electric energy delivered - millions of kWh
				Residential				13,441				13,266				12,640				12,269				11,924
				Commercial				12,610				12,388				12,371				12,130				11,565
				Industrial				9,611				9,599				9,853				10,000				10,224
				Other				163				154				169				211				194
					Retail electric sales			35,825				35,407				35,033				34,610				33,907
					Wholesale electric sales (d)			72				676				679				924				17,548
					Total electric energy sales delivered			35,897				36,083				35,712				35,534				51,455
	Electric energy supplied as a PLR - millions of kWh							34,832				33,627				33,747				31,653				32,260
(a)		The earnings each year were affected by unusual items, which affected net income. See "Earnings" in Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations for a description of unusual items in 2004, 2003 and 2002.
(b)		At year-end.
(c)		Computed using earnings and fixed charges of PPL Electric and its subsidiaries. Fixed charges consist of interest on short- and long-term debt, other interest charges, interest on capital lease obligations and the estimated interest component of other rentals.
(d)		After the July 1, 2000, corporate realignment, PPL Electric had only wholesale sales to municipalities and NUG purchases that are resold to PPL EnergyPlus. The contracts for wholesale sales to municipalities expired in January 2004.

PPL CORPORATION
ITEM 7. MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Overview

PPL is an energy and utility holding company with headquarters in Allentown, PA. See "Item 1. Business - Background," for descriptions of PPL's major segments. See Exhibit 99 in Item 15 for a listing of the current corporate organization. Through its subsidiaries, PPL is primarily engaged in the generation and marketing of electricity in two key markets - the northeastern and western U.S. - and in the delivery of electricity in Pennsylvania, the U.K. and Latin America. PPL's strategy for its electricity generation and marketing business is to match energy supply with load, or customer demand, under long-term and intermediate-term contracts with creditworthy counterparties. PPL's strategy for its electricity delivery businesses is to own and operate these businesses at the highest level of quality and reliability and at the most efficient cost.

PPL faces several risks in its generation business. The principal risks are electricity wholesale price risk, fuel supply and price risk, power plant performance and counterparty credit risk. PPL attempts to manage these risks through various means. For instance, PPL operates a portfolio of generation assets that is diversified as to geography, fuel source, cost structure and operating characteristics. PPL is focused on the operating efficiency of these power plants and maintaining their availability. In addition, PPL has in place and continues to pursue long-term and intermediate-term contracts for energy sales and fuel supply, and other means, to mitigate the risks associated with adverse changes in the difference, or margin, between the cost to produce electricity and the price at which PPL sells it. PPL's contractual commitments for energy sales are primarily satisfied through its own generation assets - i.e., PPL primarily markets and trades around its physical portfolio of generating assets through integrated generation, marketing and trading functions. PPL has in place risk management programs that, among other things, are designed to monitor and manage its exposure to volatility of earnings and cash flows related to changes in energy and fuel prices, interest rates, foreign currency exchange rates, counterparty credit quality and the operational performance of its generating units.

PPL's electricity delivery businesses are rate-regulated. Accordingly, these businesses are subject to regulatory risk in terms of the costs that they may recover and the investment returns that they may collect in customer rates. The principal challenge that PPL faces in its electricity delivery businesses is to maintain high standards of customer service and reliability in a cost-effective manner. PPL faces certain financial risks by conducting international operations, such as fluctuations in currency exchange rates. PPL attempts to manage these financial risks through its risk management program.

A key challenge for PPL's business as a whole is to maintain a strong credit profile. In the past few years, investors, analysts and rating agencies that follow companies in the energy industry have been particularly focused on the credit quality and liquidity position of energy companies. PPL is focused on strengthening its balance sheet and improving its liquidity position, thereby improving its credit profile.

The purpose of "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" is to provide information concerning PPL's past and expected future performance in implementing the strategies and managing the risks and challenges outlined above. Specifically:

• "Results of Operations" provides an overview of PPL's operating results in 2004, 2003 and 2002, starting with a review of earnings. The earnings review includes a listing of certain unusual items that had significant impacts in these years, and it also includes a description of key factors that management expects may impact future earnings. "Results of Operations" also includes an explanation of changes during this three-year period in significant income statement components, such as energy margins, utility revenues, operation and maintenance expenses, financing costs, income taxes and cumulative effects of accounting changes.

• "Financial Condition - Liquidity" provides an analysis of PPL's liquidity position and credit profile, including its sources of cash (including bank credit facilities and sources of operating cash flow) and uses of cash (including contractual commitments and capital expenditure requirements) and the key risks and uncertainties that impact PPL's past and future liquidity position and financial condition. This subsection also includes an explanation of recent rating agency decisions affecting PPL, as well as a listing of PPL's current credit ratings.

• "Financial Condition - Risk Management - Energy Marketing & Trading and Other" includes an explanation of PPL's risk management program relating to market risk (i.e., commodity price, interest rate and foreign currency exchange risk) and credit risk (i.e., counterparty credit risk).

• "Application of Critical Accounting Policies" provides an overview of the accounting policies that are particularly important to the results of operations and financial condition of PPL and that require PPL's management to make significant estimates, assumptions and other judgments. Although PPL's management believes that these estimates, assumptions and other judgments are appropriate, they relate to matters that are inherently uncertain. Accordingly, changes in the estimates, assumptions and other judgments applied to these accounting policies could have a significant impact on PPL's results of operations and financial condition, as reflected in PPL's Financial Statements.

The information provided in "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" should be read in conjunction with PPL's Financial Statements and the accompanying Notes.

Terms and abbreviations are explained in the glossary. Dollars are in millions, except per share data, unless otherwise noted.

Results of Operations

The following discussion, which explains significant annual changes in principal items on the Statement of Income, compares 2004 to 2003 and compares 2003 to 2002.

WPD's results, as consolidated in PPL's Statement of Income, are impacted by changes in foreign currency exchange rates. Changes in foreign exchange rates increased WPD's portion of revenue and expense line items by about 12% in 2004 compared with 2003, and by about 9% in 2003 compared with 2002.

The comparability of certain items on the 2003 and 2002 Statements of Income has also been impacted by PPL Global's investment in CEMAR. The consolidated results of CEMAR are included from January to August 2002, when PPL had a controlling interest. See Note 9 to the Financial Statements for more information, including the sale of this investment in 2004.

Earnings

Net income and the related EPS were as follows:

The after-tax changes in net income were primarily due to: