UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

Form 10-K

Commission file number 1-3122

COVANTA ENERGY CORPORATION

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code:

(973) 882-9000

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

N/A

     Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has 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 registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.     Yes þ          No o

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

     State the aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by nonaffiliates of the registrant computed by reference to the price at which the common equity was last sold, or the average bid and asked prices of such common equity, as the last business day of the registrant’s most recently complete second fiscal quarter. $0

     Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined by Exchange Act Rule 12b-2).     Yes o          No þ

APPLICABLE ONLY TO ISSUERS INVOLVED IN

BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PRECEDING FIVE YEARS:

     Indicate by checkmark whether the registrant has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 12, 13 and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 subsequent to the distribution of securities under a plan of reorganization confirmed by a court.     Yes þ          No o

Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share; 200 shares authorized.

APPLICABLE ONLY TO CORPORATE ISSUERS:

          The number of shares of the registrant’s common stock outstanding as of March 9, 2005 was 200 shares.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE:

NONE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I

INTRODUCTION

      Covanta Energy Corporation (“Covanta”) and its subsidiaries (together with Covanta, the “Company”) develop and construct, own and operate for others key infrastructure for the conversion of waste-to-energy and independent power production in the United States and abroad. The Company owns or operates 51 power generation facilities, 38 of which are in the United States and 13 of which are located outside of the United States. The Company’s power generation facilities use a variety of fuels, including municipal solid waste, water (hydroelectric), natural gas, coal, wood waste, landfill gas, heavy fuel oil and diesel fuel. The Company also operates one potable water treatment facility which is located in the United States. Until September 1999, and under prior management, the Company was also actively involved in the entertainment and aviation services industries.

      On March 10, 2004, the Company consummated a plan of reorganization and emerged from its reorganization proceeding under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”). As a result of the consummation of the Company’s plan of reorganization, Covanta became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Danielson Holding Corporation, a Delaware corporation (“Danielson”). The Chapter 11 proceedings commenced on April 1, 2002 (the “First Petition Date”), when Covanta and most of its domestic subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”). All of the bankruptcy cases (the “Chapter 11 Cases”) were jointly administered. During the Chapter 11 Cases, Covanta and its subsidiaries which were part of the Chapter 11 Cases (the “Debtors”) operated their business as debtors-in-possession pursuant to the Bankruptcy Code. International operations and certain other subsidiaries and joint venture partnerships were not included in the bankruptcy filings.

      The subsidiaries of Covanta that own and operate the Warren County, New Jersey waste-to-energy facility (together the “Remaining Debtors”) remain in Chapter 11. The subsidiaries of Covanta that were involved in the Tampa Bay desalination project (“Tampa Bay Facility”) remained in the Chapter 11 proceeding until they emerged on August 6, 2004. These subsidiaries emerged from bankruptcy without material assets or liabilities, and without contractual rights to operate the Tampa Bay Facility. Additionally, the subsidiary of Covanta that operates the waste-to-energy facility in Lake County, Florida (“Covanta Lake”) remained in the Chapter 11 proceeding until emergence on December 12, 2004. Covanta Lake and the County entered into new agreements, releases and financing arrangements contemplated by the Plan of Reorganization described below.

      Covanta was known as Ogden Corporation prior to March  13, 2001. The Company was incorporated in Delaware as a public utility holding company on August 4, 1939. In 1948, the Company registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) as a closed-end investment company. Following several acquisitions, the Company no longer qualified as an investment company and from 1953 until 1999 operated as a diversified holding company operating through subsidiaries. In May 1966, Ogden Corporation was listed on the New York Stock Exchange (“New York Stock Exchange”).

      Prior to September 1999, the Company conducted its business through operating groups in three principal business units: Energy, Entertainment and Aviation. In September 1999, the Company adopted a plan to discontinue its Entertainment and Aviation operations, pursue the sale or other disposition of these businesses, pay down corporate debt and concentrate on businesses previously conducted through its Covanta Energy Group, Inc. (f/k/a Ogden Energy Group, Inc.) subsidiary. As a result of the reorganization proceedings described above, the Company has completed its plan to sell discontinued businesses.

      On April 1, 2002, the New York Stock Exchange suspended trading of the Company’s common stock (“Old Common”) and $1.875 cumulative convertible preferred stock (“Old Preferred”) and began processing an application to the SEC to delist the Company from the New York Stock Exchange. By order dated May 16, 2002 the SEC granted the application of the New York Stock Exchange for removal of the Old

Common and Old Preferred of Covanta from listing and registration on the New York Stock Exchange under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended. The removal from listing and registration on the New York Stock Exchange of these classes of stock became effective at the opening of the trading session of May 17, 2002 pursuant to the order of the SEC.

      All of the Company’s outstanding Old Common and Old Preferred were cancelled and extinguished on March 10, 2004, in accordance with the Company’s bankruptcy plan of reorganization. On March 10, 2004 the reorganized Company issued new common stock (“New Common”) to Danielson.

      This Annual Report on Form 10-K includes forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Actual results may differ materially from those contained in such forward-looking statements. See “Forward Looking Statements,” below.

DESCRIPTION OF COVANTA’S BUSINESSES

      Set forth below is a description of the Company’s business operations as of December 31, 2004 as presented in the consolidated financial statements included in this report. The Company is engaged in the Energy Services business. The Company’s Business segments are Domestic Energy and International Energy, which described below.

      Additional information about the Company’s business segments is included in Item 7, “Management’s, Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation.” See Note 27 to the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of this Form 10-K for financial information regarding geographic areas.

(A) Domestic Energy Business

      The Company’s domestic business is the design, construction and long-term operation of key infrastructure for municipalities and others in waste-to-energy and independent power production. The Company’s largest operations are in waste-to-energy projects, and it currently operates 25 waste-to-energy plants, the majority of which were developed and structured contractually as part of competitive procurements conducted by municipal entities. The waste-to-energy plants combust municipal solid waste as a means of environmentally sound disposal and produce energy that is typically sold as electricity to utilities and other electricity purchasers. The Company processes approximately four percent of the municipal solid waste produced in the United States and therefore represents a vital part of the nation’s solid waste disposal industry.

      The essential purpose of the Company’s waste-to-energy projects is to provide waste disposal services, typically to municipal clients who sponsor the projects (“Client Communities”). Generally, the Company provides these services pursuant to long-term service contracts (“Service Agreements”). The electricity or steam is sold pursuant to long-term power purchase agreements (“Energy Contracts”) with local utilities or industrial customers, with one exception, and most of the resulting revenues reduce the overall cost of waste disposal services to the Client Communities. Each Service Agreement is different to reflect the specific needs and concerns of the Client Community, applicable regulatory requirements and other factors. The original terms of the Service Agreements are each 20 or more years, with the majority now in the second half of the applicable term. Most of the Company’s Service Agreements may be renewed for varying periods of time, at the option of the Client Community.

      The Company currently operates the waste-to-energy projects identified below under “Domestic Project Summaries.” Most of the Company’s operating waste-to-energy projects were developed and structured contractually as part of competitive procurements conducted by municipal entities. As a result, these projects have many common features, which are described in “Structurally Similar Waste-to-Energy Projects” below. Certain projects which do not follow this model, or have been or may be restructured, are described in “Other Waste-to-Energy Project Structures” and “Project Restructuring during 2004” below.

      The Company receives its revenue in the form of fees pursuant to Service Agreements, and in some cases Energy Contracts, at facilities it owns. The Company’s Service Agreements begin to expire in 2007, and Energy Contracts at Company-owned projects generally expire at or after the date on which that project’s Service Agreement expires. As the Company’s contracts expire it will become subject to greater market risk in maintaining and enhancing its revenues. As its Service Agreements at municipally-owned facilities expire, the Company intends to seek to enter into renewal or replacement contracts to operate several such facilities. The Company also will seek to bid competitively in the market for additional contracts to operate other facilities as similar contracts of other vendors expire. As the Company’s Service Agreements at facilities it owns begin to expire, it intends to seek replacement or additional contracts, and because project debt on these facilities will be paid off at such time, the Company expects to be able to offer rates that will attract sufficient quantities of waste while providing acceptable revenues to the Company. At Company-owned facilities, the expiration of existing Energy Contracts will require the Company to sell its output either into the local electricity grid at prevailing rates or pursuant to new contracts. There can be no assurance that the Company will be able to enter into such renewals, replacement or additional contracts, or that the terms available in the market at the time will be favorable to the Company.

      The Company’s opportunities for growth by investing in new projects will be limited by existing non-project debt covenants, as well as by competition from other companies in the waste disposal business. For a discussion of such debt covenants see Note 15 to the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

      Each Service Agreement is different to reflect the specific needs and concerns of the Client Community, applicable regulatory requirements and other factors. However, the following description sets forth terms that are generally common to these agreements:

      Financing for the Company’s domestic waste-to-energy projects is generally accomplished through tax-exempt and taxable revenue bonds issued by or on behalf of the Client Community. If the facility is owned by a Company subsidiary, the Client Community loans the bond proceeds to the subsidiary to pay for facility construction and pays to the subsidiary amounts necessary to pay debt service. For such facilities, project-related debt is included as “project debt (short-and long-term)” in the Company’s consolidated financial statements. Generally, such debt is secured by the revenues pledged under the respective indentures and is collateralized by the assets of the Company’s subsidiary with the only recourse to the Company being related to construction and operating performance defaults.

      The Company has issued instruments to its Client Communities and other parties which guarantee that the Company’s operating subsidiaries will perform in accordance with contractual terms including, where required, the payment of damages. Such contractual damages could be material, and in circumstances where one or more subsidiary’s contract has been terminated for its default, such damages could include amounts sufficient to repay project debt. For facilities owned by Client Communities and operated by the Company’s subsidiaries, the Company’s potential maximum liability as of December 31, 2004 associated with the repayment of project debt on such facilities was in excess of $1 billion. If the Company is asked to perform under one or more of such guarantees, its liability for damages upon contract termination would be reduced by funds held in trust and proceeds from sales of the facilities securing the project debt which is presently not estimable. To date, the Company has not incurred material liabilities under such guarantees.

      The Company’s Haverhill, Massachusetts waste-to-energy facility is not operated pursuant to a Service Agreement with a Client Community. In this project, the Company assumed the project debt and risks relating to waste availability and pricing, risks relating to the continued performance of the electricity purchaser, as well as risks associated with Unforeseen Circumstances. The Company retains all of the energy revenues from sales of power and disposal fees for waste accepted at this facility. Accordingly, the Company believes that this project carries both greater risks and greater potential rewards than projects in which there is a Client Community.

      During 2003, US Gen New England, Inc. (“USGenNE”), the power purchaser for the Haverhill project, filed a petition under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. During the pendency of its bankruptcy, on October 8, 2004, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland entered an order approving the sale by USGenNE of certain of its assets, including its contract to purchase power from the Haverhill project, to Dominion Energy New England, Inc. (“Dominion”). As a result of USGenNE’s sale to Dominion, USGenNE assigned and Dominion assumed such contract and the Company was paid all outstanding prepetition cure amounts plus interest.

      In Union County, New Jersey, a municipally-owned facility has been leased to the Company, and the Client Community has agreed to deliver approximately 50% of the facility’s capacity on a put-or-pay basis. The balance of facility capacity is marketed by the Company at its risk. The Company guarantees its subsidiary’s contractual obligations to operate and maintain the facility, and on one series of subordinated bonds, its obligations to make lease payments which are the sole source for payment of principal and interest on that series of bonds. As of December 31, 2004, the current outstanding principal amount of the subordinated bonds, sold to refinance a portion of the original bonds used to finance the facility was $17.7 million. As part of a restructuring of this project, the Client Community assigned to the Company the long-term power contract with the local utility. As part of this assignment, the power contract was amended to give the Company the right to sell all or a portion of the plant’s output to other purchasers. Since April 2002, the Company has sold the majority of its output directly into the regional electricity grid at market pricing with the remainder of the electricity sold under short-term contract when the Company may enter into contracts with other purchasers if it believes doing so would enhance this project’s revenues.

      The Company’s Alexandria, Virginia waste-to-energy facility is operated pursuant to a Service Agreement with the City of Alexandria, Virginia and Arlington County, Virginia and authorities established by those communities (the “Virginia Communities”). The Virginia Communities pay a fixed tip fee, subject to certain adjustments, for each ton of waste they are required to deliver on a put-or-pay basis (about 65% of the facility’s capacity). The balance of the waste is obtained by the Company from private haulers pursuant to short-term contracts or on a spot basis. The Company’s operating subsidiary receives all of the electricity revenues received under the facility’s power sales agreement and pays the debt service on the bonds issued to finance the facility. The Service Agreement provides that if income available for debt service, as calculated in accordance with the Service Agreement, does not cover debt service, the Virginia Communities will loan the Company’s operating subsidiary the amount of the shortfall. Any such loan is required to be repaid from the project’s positive cash flow in succeeding years and would have an ultimate maturity in 2023. The interest rate on any such loan is six percent. Since the Alexandria facility began operating in 1988, the Virginia Communities have been required to extend such loans on four occasions, the last of which was with respect to the operating year ending June 1, 2001. All such loans have been fully repaid within six months, and there are currently no outstanding loans to the Company’s operating subsidiary.

      The Town of Babylon, New York (“Babylon”) filed a proof of claim against Covanta Babylon, Inc. (“Covanta Babylon”) in its bankruptcy proceeding for approximately $13.4 million in prepetition damages and $5.5 million in postpetition damages, alleging that Covanta Babylon was accepting less waste than required under the Service Agreement between Babylon and Covanta Babylon at the waste-to-energy facility in Babylon and that Covanta Babylon’s Chapter 11 Cases imposed on Babylon additional costs for which Covanta Babylon should be responsible. The Company filed an objection to Babylon’s claim, asserting that it is in full compliance with the express requirements of the Service Agreement and was entitled to adjust the amount of waste it is required to accept to reflect the energy content of the waste delivered. Covanta Babylon also asserted that the costs arising from its Chapter 11 proceeding are not recoverable by Babylon. After lengthy discussions, Babylon and Covanta Babylon reached a settlement pursuant to which, in part, (i) the parties amended the Service Agreement to adjust Covanta Babylon’s operational procedures for accepting waste, reduce Covanta Babylon’s waste processing obligations, increase Babylon’s additional waste service fee to Covanta Babylon and reduce Babylon’s annual operating and maintenance fee to Covanta Babylon; (ii) Covanta Babylon paid a specified amount to Babylon in consideration for a release of any and all claims (other than its rights under the settlement documents) that Babylon may hold against the Company and in satisfaction of Babylon’s administrative expense claims against Covanta Babylon; and (iii) the parties allocated additional costs relating to the project’s swap financing as a result of Covanta Babylon’s Chapter 11 proceedings until such costs are eliminated. Covanta Babylon subsequently emerged from Chapter 11 pursuant to the Reorganization Plan as described below on March 10, 2004, and the restructuring became effective on March 12, 2004.

      In late 2000, Lake County, Florida (“Lake County”) commenced a lawsuit in Florida state court against Covanta Lake, Inc. (“Covanta Lake,”) relating to the waste-to-energy facility operated by Covanta Lake in Lake County, Florida (the “Lake Facility”). In the lawsuit, Lake County sought to have its Service Agreement with Covanta Lake declared void and in violation of the Florida Constitution. That lawsuit was stayed by the commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases. Lake County subsequently filed a proof of claim seeking in excess of $70 million from Covanta Lake and the Company.

      After months of negotiations that failed to produce a settlement between Covanta Lake and Lake County, on June 20, 2003, Covanta Lake filed a motion with the Bankruptcy Court seeking entry of an order (i) authorizing Covanta Lake to assume, effective upon confirmation of a plan of reorganization for Covanta

Lake, its Service Agreement with Lake County, (ii) finding no cure amounts due under the Service Agreement, and (iii) seeking a declaration that the Service Agreement is valid, enforceable and constitutional and remains in full force and effect. Contemporaneously with the filing of the assumption motion, Covanta Lake filed an adversary complaint asserting that Lake County is in arrears to Covanta Lake in the amount of more than $8.5 million. Shortly before trial commenced in these matters, the Debtors and Lake County reached a tentative settlement calling for a new agreement specifying the parties’ obligations and restructuring of the project. That tentative settlement and the proposed restructuring involved, among other things, termination of the existing Service Agreement and the execution of a new waste disposal agreement which provides for a put-or-pay obligation on Lake County’s part to deliver 163,000 tons per year of acceptable waste to the Lake Facility and a different fee structure; a replacement guarantee from Covanta in a reduced amount; the payment by Lake County of all amounts due as “pass through” costs with respect to Covanta Lake’s payment of property taxes; the payment by Lake County of a specified amount in 2004, 2005 and 2006 in reimbursement of certain capital costs; the settlement of all pending litigation; and a refinancing of the existing bonds.

      The Lake settlement was contingent upon, among other things, receipt of all necessary approvals, as well as a favorable outcome to the Debtors’ separate objection to the proof of claims filed by F. Browne Gregg, a third-party claiming an interest in the existing Service Agreement that would be terminated under the proposed settlement. In August 2004, the Bankruptcy Court ruled on the Debtors’ claims objections, finding in favor of the Debtors. Based on the foregoing, the Debtors determined to propose a plan of reorganization for Covanta Lake.

      The Debtors subsequently reached a final settlement with Mr. Gregg, entered into a new long-term waste disposal agreement with Lake County on terms substantially similar to the tentative settlement, refinanced the project debt and confirmed the Covanta Lake plan of reorganization in December 2004. Covanta Lake emerged from bankruptcy on December 12, 2004.

      The Company subsidiary (“Covanta Warren”) which operates the Company’s waste-to-energy facility in Warren County, New Jersey (the “Warren Facility”) and the Pollution Control Financing Authority of Warren County (“Warren Authority”) have been engaged in negotiations for an extended time concerning a potential restructuring of the parties’ rights and obligations under various agreements related to Covanta Warren’s operation of the Warren Facility. Those negotiations were in part precipitated by a 1997 federal court of appeals decision invalidating certain of the State of New Jersey’s waste-flow laws, which resulted in significantly reduced revenues for the Warren Facility. Since 1999, the State of New Jersey has been voluntarily making all debt service payments with respect to the project bonds issued to finance construction of the Warren Facility, and Covanta Warren has been operating the Warren Facility pursuant to an agreement with the Warren Authority which modifies the existing Service Agreement for the Warren Facility.

      Although discussions continue, to date Covanta Warren and the Warren Authority have been unable to reach an agreement to restructure the contractual arrangements governing Covanta Warren’s operation of the Warren Facility. Based upon the foregoing, the Company has not yet determined to propose a plan of reorganization or plan of liquidation for Covanta Warren at this time, and instead has determined that Covanta Warren should remain a debtor-in-possession.

      In order to emerge from bankruptcy without uncertainty concerning potential claims against the Company related to the Warren Facility, Covanta rejected its guarantees of Covanta Warren’s obligations relating to the operation and maintenance of the Warren Facility. The Company anticipates that if a restructuring is consummated, Covanta may at that time issue a new parent guarantee in connection with that restructuring and emergence from bankruptcy.

      In the event the parties are unable to timely reach agreement upon and consummate a restructuring of the contractual arrangements governing Covanta Warren’s operation of the Warren Facility, the Company may, among other things, elect to litigate with counterparties to certain agreements with Covanta Warren, assume or reject one or more executory contracts related to the Warren Facility, attempt to file a plan of

reorganization on a non-consensual basis, or liquidate Covanta Warren. In such an event, creditors of Covanta Warren may not receive any recovery on account of their claims.

      The Company expects that the outcome of this restructuring will not negatively affect its ability to implement its business plan, or have a material impact on its financial position or results of operations.

      The Company designed, constructed and now operates and maintains this 1,200 ton per day mass burn waste-to-energy facility located in and owned by Hillsborough County. Due to the growth in the amount of solid waste generated in Hillsborough County, Hillsborough County has informed the Company of its desire to expand the facility’s waste processing and electricity generation capacities, a possibility contemplated by the existing contract between the Company and the County. As part of the proposed agreement to implement this expansion the Company would receive a long-term operating contract extension. Negotiations are ongoing and contracts for construction of the expansion and operation and maintenance of the expanded facility are still to be finalized and approved by the parties. In addition, environmental and other project related permits will need to be secured and financing completed. At this time, there can be no assurance that any definitive agreements will be finalized or approved by the parties, the relevant permits will be received or that Hillsborough County will, in fact, expand the facility.

      The Company designed, constructed and now operates and maintains this 1,200 ton per day mass burn waste-to-energy facility located in and owned by Lee County. Due to the growth in the amount of solid waste generated in Lee County, Lee County has informed the Company of its desire to enlist the Company to manage the expansion of the facility’s waste processing and electricity generation capacities, a possibility contemplated by the existing contract between the Company and Lee County. As part of the proposed agreement to implement this expansion the Company would receive a long-term operating contract extension. Negotiations are ongoing and contracts for construction of the expansion and operation and maintenance of the expanded facility are still to be finalized and approved by the parties. In addition, financing for the expansion project must be completed. Lee County has received the principal environmental permit for the expansion. At this time, there can be no assurance that any definitive agreements will be finalized or approved by the parties or that Lee County will, in fact, expand the facility.

      This 2,160 ton per day refuse derived fuel facility was designed and constructed by an entity not related to the Company. Subsequently, the Company purchased the rights to operate and maintain the facility on behalf of the City and County of Honolulu. The City and County of Honolulu have informed the Company of their desire to expand the facility’s waste processing capacity, a possibility contemplated by the existing contract between the Company and the City and the County of Honolulu. As part of the proposed agreement to implement the expansion the Company would receive a long-term operating contract extension. Negotiations are ongoing and contracts for construction of the expansion and operation and maintenance of the expanded facility are still to be finalized and approved by the parties. In addition, environmental and other project related permits will need to be secured and financing completed. At this time, there can be no assurance that any definitive agreements will be finalized or approved by the parties, the relevant permits will be received or that the City and the County of Honolulu will, in fact, expand the facility.

      Since 1989, the Company has been engaged in developing, owning and/or operating independent power production facilities utilizing a variety of energy sources including water (hydroelectric), natural gas, coal, waste wood (biomass), landfill gas, heavy fuel oil and diesel fuel. The Company currently owns, has ownership in and operates 13 such facilities. The electrical output from each facility, with one exception, is sold to local

utilities. The Company’s revenue from the independent power production facilities is derived primarily from the sale of energy and capacity under energy contracts. During 2003, the Company sold its interests in its Geothermal Energy Projects Business.

      The regulatory framework for selling power to utilities from independent power facilities (including waste-to-energy facilities) after current contracts expire is in flux, given the energy crisis in California in 2000 and 2001, the over-capacity of generation at the present time in many markets and the uncertainty as to the adoption of new Federal energy legislation. Various states and Congress are considering a wide variety of changes to regulatory frameworks, but none has been established definitively at present.

      The Company owns a 50% equity interest in two run-of-river hydroelectric facilities, Koma Kulshan and Weeks Falls, which have a combined gross capacity of 17 MW. Both Koma Kulshan and Weeks Falls are located in Washington State and both sell energy and capacity to Puget Sound Power & Light Company under long-term energy contracts. A subsidiary of the Company provides operation and maintenance services to the Koma Kulshan partnership under a cost plus fixed fee agreement.

      During the first quarter of 2004, the Company operated the New Martinsville facility in West Virginia, a 40 MW run-of-river project pursuant to a short-term Interim Operations and Maintenance Agreement which expired March 31, 2004. The Company chose not to renew the lease on the project, the term of which expired in October 2003.

      The Company owns 100% interests in Burney Mountain Power, Mt. Lassen Power and Pacific Oroville Power, three wood-fired generation facilities in northern California. A fourth facility, Pacific Ultrapower Chinese Station, is owned by a partnership in which the Company holds a 50% interest. Fuel for the facilities is procured from local sources primarily through short-term supply agreements. The price of the fuel varies depending on time of year, supply and price of energy. These projects have a gross generating capacity of 67 MW and sell energy and capacity to Pacific Gas & Electric under energy contracts. Until July 2001 these facilities were receiving Pacific Gas & Electric’s short run avoided cost for energy delivered. However, beginning in July 2001 these facilities entered into five-year fixed-price periods pursuant to energy contract amendments.

      The Company has interests in and/or operates seven landfill gas projects which produce electricity by burning methane gas produced in landfills. The Otay, Oxnard, Salinas, Stockton, Toyon and Santa Clara projects are located in California, and the Gude project is located in Maryland. The seven projects have a total gross capacity of 19.9 MW. The Gude facility energy contract has expired and the facility is currently selling its output into the regional utility grid. The remaining six projects sell energy and contracted capacity to various California utilities. The Salinas, Stockton and Santa Clara energy contracts expire in 2007. The Otay and Oxnard energy contracts expire in 2011. Upon the expiration of the energy contracts, it is expected that these projects will enter into new power off take arrangements or the projects will be shut down. During the fourth quarter of 2004, the Company sold its interests in the Penrose and Toyon landfill gas projects, located in California and a subsidiary of Covanta will continue to operate the Toyon project under an agreement which expires in 2007.

     Water Operations

      The Company designed, built and now continues to operate and maintain a 24 million gallon per day (“mgd”) potable water treatment facility and associated transmission and pumping equipment that supplies water to residents and businesses in Bessemer, Alabama, a suburb of Birmingham. Under a long-term contract with the Governmental Services Corporation of Bessemer, the Company received a fixed price for design and

construction of the facility, and it is paid a fixed fee plus pass-through costs for delivering processed water to Bessemer’s water distribution system.

      Between 2000 and 2002, the Company was awarded contracts to supply its patented DualSand™microfiltration system (“DSS”) to twelve municipalities in upstate New York as the primary technological improvement necessary to upgrade their existing water and wastewater treatment systems. Five of these upgrades were made in connection with the United States Environmental Protection Agency and New York City Department of Environmental Protection (“NYCDEP”), a $1.4 billion program to protect and enhance the drinking water supply, or watershed, for New York City. These DSS contracts for upgrades have been completed and non-material payment issues are currently being discussed by, and may be litigated between, the Company and NYCDEP in order to close out these contracts. The Company does not expect to enter into further contracts for such projects in the New York City Watershed.

      During 2003, Covanta Tampa Construction, Inc. (“CTC”) completed construction of a 25 mgd desalination-to-drinking water facility under a contract with Tampa Bay Water (“TBW”) near Tampa, Florida. Covanta Energy Group, Inc. guaranteed CTC’s performance under its construction contract with TBW. A separate subsidiary, Covanta Tampa Bay, Inc. (“CTB”), entered into a contract with TBW to operate the Tampa Water Facility after construction and testing is completed by CTC. As construction of the Tampa Water Facility neared completion, the parties had material disputes between them. These disputes led to TBW issuing a default notice to CTC and shortly thereafter CTC filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

      In February 2004, the Company and TBW reached a tentative compromise of their disputes which was approved by the Bankruptcy Court. On July 14, 2004, the Bankruptcy Court confirmed a plan of reorganization for CTC and CTB, which incorporated the terms of the settlement between the Company and TBW. That plan became effective on August 6, 2004 when CTC and CTB emerged from bankruptcy. After payment of certain creditor claims under the CTC and CTB plan, the Company realized approximately $4 million of the proceeds from the settlement with TBW. Under the terms of the plan CTB will not operate the Tampa Water Facility, and the Company will have no continuing obligations with respect to this project.

      The Company formerly operated and maintained wastewater treatment facilities on behalf of seven small municipal and industrial customers in upstate New York. During 2004, the Company disposed of these assets through assignment, transfer or contract expiration. In addition, some of these contracts are short-term agreements which were by their terms terminated by the counterparty on notice that the counterparty no longer desired to continue receiving service from the Company.

      During the fourth quarter of 2004, the Company sold its ownership interests in two small landfill gas projects, the Penrose project and the Toyon project, located in southern California. These sales occurred following a determination by the Company that it would either cease operating these projects or sell them to third parties who would upgrade them to meet new regulatory requirements and run them to generate renewable energy.

      Summary information with respect to the Company’s domestic projects(1) that are currently operating is provided in the following table:

NOTES:

(B) International Energy Business

      The Company conducts its international energy businesses through Covanta Power International Holdings, Inc. (“CPIH”) and its subsidiaries. Internationally, the largest element of the Company’s energy business is its 26.2% ownership in and operation of the 460 MW (net) pulverized coal-fired electrical generating facility in Quezon Province, the Philippines. The Company has interests in other fossil-fuel generating projects in Asia, a waste-to-energy project in Italy and two small hydroelectric projects in Costa Rica. In general, these projects provide returns primarily from equity distributions and, to a lesser extent, operating fees. The projects sell the electricity and steam they generate under long-term contracts or market concessions to utilities, governmental agencies providing power distribution, creditworthy industrial users, or local governmental units. In select cases, such sales of electricity and steam may be provided under short-term arrangements as well. Similarly, the Company seeks to obtain long-term contracts for fuel supply from reliable sources.

      The Company presently has interests in international power projects with an aggregate generating capacity of approximately 1,061 MW (gross). The Company’s ownership in these facilities is approximately 461 MW. In addition to its headquarters in Fairfield, New Jersey, the Company’s international business is facilitated through field offices in Shanghai, China; Chennai, India; Manila, the Philippines; and Bangkok, Thailand.

      In August 2004, the Company sold its 50% equity interest in a 15 MW natural gas-fired cogeneration project in the province of Murcia, Spain and terminated its operations and maintenance agreement for the facility.

      In September 2004, the Company solicited bids for the possible sale of its ownership and operating interests in its operating power projects in Bangladesh, China and India. Indicative bids were received in October 2004 and following due diligence final bids were received in February 2005. In light of Danielson’s proposed acquisition of American Ref-Fuel Holdings Corp., and the related repayment in full of the CPIH corporate debt obligations, the Company has determined not to proceed with negotiating definitive agreements for the sale of these projects at this time. See additional information below under “Subsequent Events” regarding such refinancing.

      In developing its international businesses, the Company has employed the same general approach to projects as is described above with respect to domestic projects. Given its plan to refocus its business in domestic markets, no new international project development is anticipated at this time.

      The ownership and operation of facilities in foreign countries in connection with the Company’s international business entails significant political and financial uncertainties that typically are not encountered in such activities in the United States. Key international risk factors include governmentally-sponsored efforts to renegotiate long-term contracts, non-payment of fees and other monies owed to the Company, unexpected changes in electricity tariffs, conditions in financial markets, changes in the markets for fuel, currency exchange rates, currency repatriation restrictions, currency convertibility, changes in laws and regulations and political, economic or military instability, civil unrest and expropriation. Such risks have the potential to cause material impairment to the value of the Company’s international businesses.

      Many of the countries in which the Company operates are lesser developed countries or developing countries. The political, social and economic conditions in some of these countries are typically less stable than those in the United States. The financial condition and creditworthiness of the potential purchasers of power and services provided by the Company (which may be a governmental or private utility or industrial consumer) or of the suppliers of fuel for projects in these countries may not be as strong as those of similar entities in developed countries. The obligations of the purchaser under the energy contract, the service recipient under the related service agreement and the supplier under the fuel supply agreement generally are not guaranteed by any host country or other creditworthy governmental agency. At the time it develops a project, the Company undertakes a credit analysis of the proposed power purchaser or fuel supplier. It also has sought, to the extent appropriate and achievable within the commercial parameters of a project, to require such entities to provide financial instruments such as letters of credit or arrangements regarding the escrowing of the receivables of such parties in the case of power purchasers.

      The Company’s power projects in particular depend on reliable and predictable delivery of fuel meeting the quantity and quality requirements of the project facilities. The Company has typically sought to negotiate long-term contracts for the supply of fuel with creditworthy and reliable suppliers. However, the reliability of fuel deliveries may be compromised by one or more of several factors that may be more acute or may occur more frequently in developing countries than in developed countries, including a lack of sufficient infrastructure to support deliveries under all circumstances; bureaucratic delays in the import, transportation and storage of fuel in the host country; customs and tariff disputes; and local or regional unrest or political instability. In most of the foreign projects in which the Company participates, it has sought, to the extent practicable, to shift the consequences of interruptions in the delivery of fuel (whether due to the fault of the fuel supplier or due to reasons beyond the fuel supplier’s control) to the electricity purchaser or service recipient by securing a suspension of its operating responsibilities under the applicable agreements and an extension of its operating concession under such agreements. In some instances, the Company requires the energy purchaser or service recipient to continue to make payments in respect of fixed costs if such interruptions occur. In order to mitigate the effect of short-term interruptions in the supply of fuel, the Company has also endeavored to provide on-site storage of fuel in sufficient quantities to address such interruptions.

      Payment for services that the Company provides will often be made in whole or part in the domestic currencies of the host countries. Conversion of such currencies into U.S. dollars generally is not assured by a governmental or other creditworthy country agency and may be subject to limitations in the currency markets, as well as restrictions of the host country. In addition, fluctuations in the value of such currencies against the value of the U.S. dollar may cause the Company’s participation in such projects to yield less return than expected. Transfer of earnings and profits in any form beyond the borders of the host country may be subject to special taxes or limitations imposed by host country laws. The Company has sought to participate in projects in jurisdictions where limitations on the convertibility and expatriation of currency have been lifted by the host country and where such local currency is freely exchangeable on the international markets. In most cases, components of project costs incurred or funded in the currency of the United States are recovered without risk of currency fluctuation through negotiated contractual adjustments to the price charged for electricity or service provided. This contractual structure may cause the cost in local currency to the project’s power purchaser or service recipient to rise from time to time in excess of local inflation, and consequently there is risk in such situations that such power purchaser or service recipient will, at least in the near term, be less able or willing to pay for the project’s power or service.

      The Company has sought to manage and mitigate these risks through all means that it deems appropriate, including: political and financial analysis of the host countries and the key participants in each project; guarantees of relevant agreements with creditworthy entities; political risk and other forms of insurance; participation by United States and/or international development finance institutions in the financing of projects in which the Company participates; and joint ventures with other companies to pursue the development, financing and construction of these projects. The Company determines which mitigation measures to apply based on its balancing of the risk presented, the availability of such measures and their cost.

      In addition, the Company has generally participated in projects which provide services that are treated as a matter of national or key economic importance by the laws and politics of the host country. There is therefore a risk that the assets constituting the facilities of these projects could be temporarily or permanently expropriated or nationalized by a host country, made subject to local or national control, or be subject to unfavorable legislative action, regulatory decisions or changes in taxation.

      In certain cases, the Company has issued guarantees of its operating subsidiaries’ contractual obligations to operate certain international power projects. The potential damages owed under such arrangements for international projects may be material if called. Depending upon the circumstances giving rise to such domestic and international damages, the contractual terms of the applicable contracts, and the contract counterparty’s choice of remedy at the time a claim against a guarantee is made, the amounts owed pursuant to one or more of such guarantees could be greater than the Company’s then-available sources of funds. To date, the Company has not incurred any material liabilities under its guarantees on international projects.

      During 2000, the Company acquired a 13% equity interest in an 18 MW mass-burn waste-to-energy project at Trezzo sull’Adda in the Lombardy Region of Italy which burns up to 500 metric tons per day of municipal solid waste. The remainder of the equity in the project is held by Actelios S.p.A., a subsidiary of Falck S.p.A. and the municipality of Trezzo sull’Adda. The Trezzo project is operated by Ambiente 2000 S.r.l. (“A2000”) an Italian special purpose limited liability company of which the Company owns 40%. The solid waste supply for the project comes from municipalities and privately owned waste management organizations under long-term contracts. The electrical output from the Trezzo project is sold at governmentally established preferential rates under a long-term purchase contract to Italy’s state-owned grid operator, Gestore della Rete di Trasmissione Nazionale S.p.A. (“GRTN”). The project started accepting waste in September 2002, successfully passed its performance tests in early 2003 and reached full commercial operation in August 2003. The late completion of the plant by the engineering, procurement and construction contractor, Protecma, represents a non-compliance with the terms of the contract with Protecma, and arbitration proceedings are currently underway with regard to amounts withheld by the project company, Prima Srl, in respect of penalties for late delivery of the plant. The project debt facility was refinanced in September 2004 with a new limited recourse project term loan and working capital facility from a banking consortium led by Banca Nazionale del Lavoro S.p.A.

      In January 2001, A2000 also entered into a 15-year operations and maintenance agreement with E.A.L.L (Energia Ambiente Litorale Laziale S.r.l)., an Italian limited liability company owned by Ener TAD, to operate and maintain a 10 MW waste-to-energy facility capable of processing up to 300 metric tons per day of refuse-derived fuel in the Municipality of San Vittore del Lazio (Frosinone), Italy. The San Vittore project has a 15-year waste supply agreement with Reclas S.p.A. (mostly owned by regional municipalities) and a long-term power off-take contract with GRTN. The project is now in its third year of operation. There was a significant delay in starting up the plant after construction was complete due to a legal action by an environmental group that has subsequently been overturned. Operation and maintenance of the plant by A2000 was scheduled to commence in the third quarter of 2004 but has been delayed due to a dispute between the owner and operator as to the validity of the operations and maintenance agreement. Arbitration proceedings have commenced to settle the dispute.

      The Company operates the Don Pedro and the Río Volcán facilities in Costa Rica through an operating subsidiary pursuant to long-term contracts. The Company also has a nominal equity investment in each project. The electric output from both of these facilities is sold to Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, a Costa Rica national electric utility.

      A consortium, of which the Company is a 26% member, owns a 510 MW (gross) coal-fired electric generating facility in the Philippines (the “Quezon Project”). The project first generated electricity in October 1999 and full commercial operation occurred during the second quarter of 2000. The other members of the consortium are an affiliate of International Generating Company, an affiliate of General Electric Capital Corporation, and PMR Limited Co., a Philippines partnership. The consortium sells electricity to Manila Electric Company (“Meralco”), the largest electric distribution company in the Philippines, which serves the area surrounding and including metropolitan Manila. Under an energy contract expiring in 2025, Meralco is obligated to take or pay for stated minimum annual quantities of electricity produced by the facility at an all-in tariff which consists of capacity, operating, energy, transmission and other fees adjusted to inflation, fuel cost and foreign exchange fluctuations. The consortium has entered into two coal supply contracts expiring in 2015 and 2022. Under these supply contracts, cost of coal is determined using a base energy price adjusted to fluctuations of specified international benchmark prices. The Company is operating the project through a local subsidiary under a long-term agreement with the consortium. The financial condition of Meralco has been recently stressed by the failure of regulators to grant tariff increases to allow Meralco to achieve rates of return permitted by law. For further discussion, see Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Conditions and Results of Operations.” The Company has obtained political risk insurance for its equity investment in this project.

      The Company has majority equity interests in three coal-fired cogeneration facilities in three provinces in the People’s Republic of China. Two of these projects are operated by the project entity, in which the Company has a majority interest. The third project is operated by an affiliate of the minority equity shareholder. Parties holding minority positions in the projects include a private company, a local government enterprise and affiliates of the local municipal government. In connection with one of these projects, the local People’s Congress has enacted a non-binding resolution calling for the relocation of the cogeneration facility from the city center to an industrial zone. The project company is currently reviewing its options in this matter. While the steam produced at each of the three projects is intended to be sold under long-term contracts to the industrial hosts, in practice, steam has been sold on either a short-term basis to local industries or the industrial hosts, in each case at varying rates and quantities. For two of these projects, the electric power is sold at “average grid rate” to a subsidiary of the Provincial Power Bureau. At one project, the electric power is sold directly to an industrial customer at a similar rate. In 2004, the Company discontinued political risk insurance for its equity investment in these projects.

      In 1998, the Company acquired an equity interest in a barge-mounted 126 MW (gross) diesel/natural gas-fired facility located near Haripur, Republic of Bangladesh. This project began commercial operation in June 1999 and is operated by a subsidiary of the Company. The Company owns approximately 45% of the project company equity. An affiliate of El Paso Energy Corporation owns 50% of such equity, and the remaining interest is held by Wartsila North America, Inc. The electrical output of the project is sold to the Bangladesh Power Development Board (the “BPDB”) pursuant to an energy contract with minimum energy off-take provisions at a tariff divided into a fuel component and an “other” component. The fuel component reimburses the fuel cost incurred by the project up to a specified heat rate. The “other” component consists of a pre-determined base rate adjusted to actual load factor and foreign exchange fluctuations. The energy contract also obligates the BPDB to supply all the natural gas requirements of the project at a pre-determined base cost adjusted to fluctuations on actual landed cost of the fuel in Bangladesh. The BPDB’s obligations under the agreement are guaranteed by the Government of Bangladesh. In 1999, the project received

$87 million in financing and political risk insurance from the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (“OPIC”). The Company obtained separate political risk coverage for its equity interest in this project. In 2004, the project obtained from OPIC the extension of an existing waiver permitting it to continue to forego obtaining certain project insurance coverage levels that are not presently commercially available.

      In 1999, the Company acquired an equity interest in a 106 MW (gross) heavy fuel oil-fired generating facility located near Samalpatti, Tamil Nadu, India. This project achieved commercial operation during the first quarter of 2001. The project is operated by a subsidiary of the Company. The Company owns a 60% interest in the project company. Shapoorji Pallonji Infrastructure Capital Co. Ltd. and its affiliates own 29% of such equity with the remainder of 11% being held by Wartsila India Power Investment, LLC. The electrical output of the project is sold to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (“TNEB”) pursuant to a long-term agreement with full pass-through tariff at a specified heat rate, operation and maintenance cost, and return on equity. The TNEB’s obligations are guaranteed by the government of the State of Tamil Nadu. Bharat Petroleum Corporation, Ltd. supplies the oil requirements of the project through a fifteen-year fuel supply agreement based on market prices.

      In 2000, the Company acquired a controlling interest in a second project in India, the 106 MW Madurai project located at Samayanallur in the State of Tamil Nadu, India. The project began commercial operation in the fourth quarter of 2001. The Company owns approximately 76.6% of the project equity and operates the project through a subsidiary. The balance of the project ownership interest is held by an Indian company controlled by the original project developer. The electrical output of the project is sold to the TNEB pursuant to a long-term agreement with full pass-through tariff at a specified heat rate, operation and maintenance cost, and return on equity. The TNEB’s obligations are guaranteed by the government of the State of Tamil Nadu. Indian Oil Corporation, Ltd. supplies the oil requirements of the project through a 15-year fuel supply agreement based on market prices.

      Disputing several tariff provisions, the TNEB has failed to pay the full amount due under the energy contracts for both the Samalpatti and Madurai projects. Similar to many Indian state electricity boards, the TNEB has also failed to fund the escrow account or post the letter of credit required under the project energy contracts, which failure constitutes a technical default under the project finance documents. The project lenders for both projects have not declared an event of default due to this matter and have permitted continued distributions of project dividends. To date, the TNEB has paid the undisputed portion of its payment obligations (approximately 93%) representing each project’s operating costs, fuel costs, debt service and some equity return. Project lenders for both projects have either granted periodic waivers of such default or potential default and/or otherwise approved scheduled equity distributions. Neither such default nor potential default in the project financing arrangements constitutes a default under CPIH’s corporate recourse debt. Further, during 2004 CPIH was able to refinance a significant portion of the original project debt for both projects. While the tenor and the covenants remain the same, each project has been able to lower its interest costs substantially, resulting in reduced tariffs to the TNEB. The TNEB has indicated a desire to renegotiate tariffs for both project energy contracts, and it is possible that the issue of the escrow account or letter of credit requirement will be resolved as part of any such process.

      The Company owns interests in three diesel fuel facilities in the Philippines.

      The Bataan Cogeneration project is an inactive moth-balled 58 MW facility that is owned by the Company (the “Bataan Cogeneration Energy Project”). Due to the inability to obtain a profitable power off-take agreement for this project following the June 2004 expiration of its principal off-take agreement, the project company in August 2004 exercised its option to pre-terminate its remaining loss-producing off-take agreement and ceased operations. The Company has determined to auction off the physical assets. Such auction is anticipated to occur upon receipt of governmental approvals. The Company previously wrote off its investment in this project in 2002.

      The Company owns a minority interest in the Island Power project, a 7 MW facility that has a long-term power contract with the National Power Corporation. The Company does not believe its equity interest in this

project has any value and in 1998 wrote off its investment. This project is not operated by the Company. The Company is exploring means of divesting its interest in this facility to the holders of the majority interest. It is uncertain at this time whether the Company would realize any value from such a sale.

      A subsidiary of the Company owns and operates the Magellan cogeneration project, a 63 MW diesel fired electric generating facility in the province of Cavite, the Philippines (the “Magellan Cogeneration Energy Project”). This project sells a portion of its energy and capacity to the National Power Corporation and a portion to the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (the “Authority”) pursuant to long-term energy contracts. On January 3, 2002, the Authority, the main power off-taker for this project, served the project with notice of termination of the energy contract for alleged non-performance by the project. The Company disagrees with this assertion and has sought a court injunction against termination of the energy contract and to require arbitration of the dispute which involves alleged non-reliable operations and alleged improper substitution of National Power Corporation power for Magellan production. On February 6, 2002, The Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 115, Pasay City issued a temporary restraining order barring the Authority from terminating the energy contract. On April 5, 2002 after a series of hearings, such Court replaced such temporary restraining order with a preliminary injunction. Such preliminary injunction restrains the Authority from terminating the energy contract until such time as the merits of the case are resolved. If such case were ultimately to be decided in favor of the Authority, the project would lose not only the energy contract but also that portion of the plant site under lease from the Authority as such lease is tied to the energy contract. Due to high fuel pricing and low tariff conditions, project revenues were insufficient to cover both operating costs and debt service beyond the second quarter of 2004. As a result, on May 31, 2004, the Magellan project company filed a petition for corporate rehabilitation under Philippine law. On June 3, 2004, the Regional Trial Court, Fourth Judicial Region, Branch 21, Imus, Cavite issued a stay order enjoining creditors from pursuing collection of pre-petition debts and ordering suppliers to continue supplying goods and services in exchange for prompt payment. In addition, a Rehabilitation Receiver was appointed. On August 31, 2004, the same Regional Trial Court issued a due course order finding the rehabilitation petition to have sufficient merit to proceed. The Rehabilitation Receiver submitted his comments to the proposed rehabilitation plan and an alternative rehabilitation plan in January 2005. The final rehabilitation plan may provide for debt forgiveness, a debt to equity swap, a reduction in interest rate and/or an extension of the debt tenor. The Company wrote off its investment in this project in 2002.

      On August 12, 2004, the Company sold its 50% ownership interest in an approximately 14 MW industrial cogeneration facility located in Murcia, Spain. The Company received a total of approximately $1.8 million for its interest in the facility.

      Summary information with respect to the Company’s projects(1) that are currently operating is provided in the following table:

NOTES:

(C) Description of Covanta Reorganization and Related Dispositions of Assets

      The Company’s domestic and international businesses were reorganized when they emerged from bankruptcy on March 10, 2004 and the Company became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Danielson.

      The Company’s Chapter 11 proceedings commenced on April 1, 2002 (the “First Petition Date”), when the Company and most of its domestic subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”). All of the bankruptcy cases (the “Chapter 11 Cases”) were jointly administered under the caption “In re Ogden New York Services, Inc., et al., Case Nos. 02-40826 (CB), et al.” As debtors-in-possession, the Company and its subsidiaries that were part of the Chapter 11 Cases (the “Debtors”) were authorized to continue to operate as an ongoing business.

      In order to obtain post-petition financing, with the approval of the Bankruptcy Court, the Debtors entered into a Debtor-in-Possession Credit Agreement dated as of April 1, 2002 with several financial institutions (as amended, the “DIP Financing Facility”) with the Debtors’ prepetition bank lenders (the “DIP Lenders”). The DIP Financing Facility is described in Note 14 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

      Over the course of the Chapter 11 Cases, the Debtors disposed of all remaining interests in their entertainment and aviation businesses. The Debtors also held discussions with the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the “Creditors Committee”), representatives of the Debtors’ prepetition bank lenders and other lenders (the “DIP Lenders” and together with the Company’s pre-petition bank lenders, the “Secured Bank Lenders”) under the DIP Financing Facility, as discussed below, and the holders of Covanta’s 9.25% Debentures with respect to possible capital and debt structures for the Debtors and the formulation of a plan of reorganization. In connection with such discussion, it was determined to be in the best interests of the Debtors’ estates to dispose of the Company’s geothermal project businesses, which was effected in December, 2003.

      On December 2, 2003, the Company and Danielson entered into an Investment and Purchase Agreement dated December 2, 2003 (as amended, the “Danielson Agreement”). The Danielson Agreement provided for:

      The Debtors determined that the Danielson Transaction was in the best interests of their estates and their creditor, and was preferable to other alternatives under consideration because it provided:

      On March 5, 2004, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order confirming the Debtors’ plans of reorganization premised on the Danielson Transaction and liquidation for certain of those Debtors involved in non-core businesses (the “Liquidation Plan” collectively with the plan of reorganization, the “Reorganization Plan”), and on March 10, 2004 the Reorganization Plans were effected upon the consummation of the Danielson Transaction (the plans of reorganization and liquidation collectively, the “Reorganization Plan”). The Debtors owning or operating Covanta’s Warren County, New Jersey, Lake County, Florida and Tampa Bay, Florida projects initially remained debtors-in-possession (the “Remaining Debtors”), and were not the subject of the Reorganization Plan. During 2004, the Company’s subsidiaries involved with the Tampa Bay project and the Lake County project emerged from bankruptcy under separate reorganization plans. The Company’s subsidiaries involved with the Warren County project remain in bankruptcy.

      The Reorganization Plan provided for, among other things, the following distributions:

      (i) Secured Bank Lender and 9.25% Debenture Holder Claims

      On account of their allowed secured claims, the Secured Bank Lenders and the 9.25% Debenture holders received, in the aggregate, a distribution consisting of:

      Additionally, the Reorganization Plan incorporates the terms of a settlement of litigation that had commenced during the Chapter 11 Cases by the Creditors Committee challenging the validity of the lien asserted on behalf of the holders of the 9.25% Debentures (the “9.25% Debenture Adversary Proceeding”). Pursuant to the settlement, holders of general unsecured claims against the Company are entitled to receive 12.5% of the value that would otherwise be distributable to the holders of 9.25% Debenture claims that participate in the settlement.

      (ii) Unsecured Claims against Operating Company Subsidiaries

      The holders of allowed unsecured claims against any of the Company’s operating subsidiaries will receive new unsecured notes in a principal amount equal to the amount of their allowed unsecured claims with a stated maturity of eight years (the “Unsecured Notes”).

      (iii) Unsecured Claims against the Company and Holding Company Subsidiaries

      The holders of allowed unsecured claims against the Company or certain of its holding company subsidiaries will receive, in the aggregate, a distribution consisting of (i) $4 million in principal amount of Unsecured Notes, (ii) a participation interest equal to five percent of the first $80 million in net proceeds received in connection with the sale or other disposition of CPIH and its subsidiaries used to paydown CPIH debt, if it were to effect asset sales, and (iii) the recoveries, if any, from avoidance actions not waived under the plan that might be brought on behalf of the Company and its subsidiaries. As described above, pursuant to the Reorganization Plan, each holder of an allowed unsecured claim against the Company or certain of its holding company subsidiaries is entitled to receive its pro-rata share of 12.5% of the value that would otherwise be distributable to the holders of 9.25% debenture claims that participate in the settlement of the 9.25% Debenture Adversary Proceeding pursuant to the Reorganization Plan.

      (iv) Subordinated Claims of holders of Convertible Subordinated Debentures

      The holders of the Company’s 6% Convertible Subordinated Debentures and its 5.75% Subordinated Debentures (together, the “Convertible Subordinated Debentures”) neither received distributions nor

retained any property pursuant to the Reorganization Plan. The Convertible Subordinated Debentures were cancelled as of March 10, 2004.

      (v) Equity interests of Old Common and Old Preferred stockholders

      The holders of equity interests of the Company’s Old Preferred and Old Common shares outstanding immediately before consummation of the Danielson Transaction received no distribution and retained no property pursuant to the Reorganization Plan. The Old Preferred and Old Common shares were cancelled as of March 10, 2004.

      The Liquidation Plan provided for the complete liquidation of those of the Company’s subsidiaries that have been designated as liquidating entities. Substantially all of the assets of these liquidating entities have already been sold. Under the Liquidation Plan, the creditors of the liquidating entities will not receive any distribution other than those administrative creditors with respect to claims against the liquidating entities that have been incurred in the implementation of the Liquidation Plan and priority claims required to be paid under the Bankruptcy Code.

      As further set forth in this Part 1, Item 1, “Business” and Part II, Item 7 “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation,” there are risks that might affect the Company’s ability to implement its business plan and pay the various debt instruments that were issued pursuant to the Reorganization Plan.

      As a result of the consummation of the Danielson Transaction, the Company emerged from bankruptcy with a new debt structure. Domestic Borrowers have two credit facilities:

      Both facilities expire on March 10, 2009 and are secured by the assets of the Domestic Borrowers not otherwise pledged. The lien of the Second Lien Facility is junior to that of the First Lien Facility.

      The Domestic Borrowers also issued the High Yield Notes and issued or will issue the Unsecured Notes. The High Yield Notes are secured by a third priority lien in the same collateral securing the First Lien Facility and the Second Lien Facility. The High Yield Notes were issued in the initial principal amount of $205 million, which will accrete to $230 million at maturity in 7 years. As of December 31, 2004, the accreted amount of the High Yield Notes was approximately $207.7 million.

      Unsecured Notes in a principal amount of $4 million were issued on the effective date of the Reorganization Plan. The Company issued additional Unsecured Notes in a principal amount of $20 million after emergence and recorded additional Unsecured Notes in a principal amount of $4 million in 2004 which it expects to issue in 2005. The final principal amount of all Unsecured Notes will be equal to the amount of allowed unsecured claims against the Company’s operating subsidiaries which were Reorganizing Debtors, and such amount will be determined at such time as the allowance of all such claims are resolved through settlement or further proceedings in the Bankruptcy Court. Notwithstanding the date on which Unsecured Notes are issued, interest on the Unsecured Notes accrues from March 10, 2004.

      Also, CPIH and each of its domestic subsidiaries, which hold all of the assets and operations of the Company’s international businesses (the “CPIH Borrowers”) entered into two secured credit facilities:

      Both facilities will mature in March 2007. The debt of the CPIH Borrowers is non-recourse to the Company and its other domestic subsidiaries. For further discussion, see Part II, Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.”

      In addition, in the Chapter 11 cases, the Debtors had the right, subject to Bankruptcy Court approval and certain other limitations, to assume or reject executory contracts and unexpired leases. As a condition to assuming a contract, each Debtor was required to cure all existing defaults (including payment defaults). The Company paid approximately $9 million in cure amounts in connection with assumed executory contracts and unexpired leases.

(D) Description of Other Business

      Since the First Petition Date, the Company, with the approval of the Bankruptcy Court, has sold or otherwise disposed of its interests in Argentina, its interests in the arenas located in Anaheim, California and Ottawa, Canada, its interest in the Ottawa Senators Hockey Club, the remaining aviation fueling and fuel facility management business related to three airports operated by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and other miscellaneous assets related to the entertainment businesses.

MARKETS, COMPETITION AND BUSINESS CONDITIONS

General Business Conditions

      The Company’s business can be adversely affected by general economic conditions, war, inflation, adverse competitive conditions, governmental restrictions and controls, change in law, natural disasters, energy shortages, fuel cost and availability, weather, the adverse financial condition of customers and suppliers, various technological changes and other factors over which the Company has no control.

      The Company expects in the foreseeable future that competition for new contracts and projects will be intense in all domestic markets in which the Company conducts or intends to conduct its businesses, and its businesses will be subject to a variety of competitive and market influences.

      With respect to its waste-to-energy business, the Company competes in two principal markets, both of which are highly competitive. The first market in which it competes is the market for waste disposal. While the Company currently processes for disposal approximately four percent of the municipal solid waste in the United States, the market for waste disposal is almost entirely price-driven and is greatly influenced by economic factors within regional “waste sheds.” These factors include:

      In this market, the Company competes on disposal price (usually on a per-ton basis) with other disposal service providers seeking to obtain waste supplies to their facilities. At most of its facilities, the Company is unable to compete in this market because it does not have the contractual right to solicit waste; at these facilities it is the Client Community which is responsible for obtaining the waste, if necessary by competing on

price to obtain the tons of waste it has contractually promised to deliver to the Company’s facility. At all but three of its facilities, the Company is unable to offer material levels of disposal capacity to the market because of existing long-term contractual commitments. At these projects, plant capacity is contractually committed and therefore unable to be offered to the market. At three of its facilities, in Haverhill, Massachusetts, Union County, New Jersey and Alexandria, Virginia, the Company is responsible for obtaining material amounts of waste supply and so is actively competing in these markets to enter into spot medium- and long-term contracts. All these projects are in densely populated areas, with high waste generation rates and numerous large and small participants in the regional market.

      Once a long-term contract expires and is not renewed or extended by a Client Community, the Company’s percentage of contracted disposal capacity will decrease, and it will need to compete in the regional market for waste disposal. At that point, it will compete on price with landfills, transfer stations, other waste-to-energy facilities and other waste disposal technologies that are then offering disposal service in the region. See discussion below, under Part II, Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and results of Operations,” for additional information concerning the expiration of existing contracts.

      The second market in which the Company competes related to its waste-to-energy projects is the market for obtaining new contracts to operate waste-to-energy facilities, either through greenfield development or through competing to be selected by project owners soliciting bids for new operators. In this market, there are fewer competitors than in the broader waste disposal market. This market for new waste-to-energy facilities is anticipated to be very limited with few opportunities for the foreseeable future.

      Since before its bankruptcy filing in 2002, it has not engaged in material development activity with respect to its independent power business. The Company may consider developing additional renewable energy projects in the future, and if it were to do so would face competition from a large number of independent energy companies.

      With respect to its sales of electricity from its waste-to-energy projects and independent power projects, the Company primarily sells its output pursuant to long-term contract. Accordingly, it generally does not sell its output into markets where it must compete on price. As these contracts expire, the Company will participate in such markets if it is unable to enter into new or renewed long-term contracts. See discussion below, under Part II, Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and results of Operation,” for additional information concerning the expiration of existing contracts.

      Once a contract is awarded or a project is financed and constructed, the Company’s business can be impacted by a variety of risk factors which can affect profitability over the life of a project. Some of these risks are at least partially within the Company’s control, such as successful operation in compliance with law and the presence or absence of labor difficulties or disturbances. Other risk factors, described above, are largely out of the Company’s control and may have an adverse impact on a project over a long-term operation.

Technology

      The Company has the exclusive right to market in the United States the proprietary mass-burn technology of Martin GmbH für Umwelt und Energietechnik (“Martin”). All of the waste-to-energy projects that the Company has constructed use the Martin technology, although the Company does own and/or operate some projects using other technologies. The principal feature of the Martin technology is the reverse-reciprocating stoker grate upon which the waste is burned. The patent for the basic stoker grate technology used in the Martin technology expired in 1989, and there are various other expired and unexpired patents relating to the Martin technology. The Company believes that it is Martin’s know-how and worldwide reputation in the waste-to-energy field, and the Company’s know-how in designing, constructing and operating waste-to-energy facilities, rather than the use of patented technology, that is important to the Company’s competitive position in the waste-to-energy industry in the United States. The Company does not believe that the expiration of the patent covering the basic stoker grate technology or patents on other portions of the Martin technology will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or competitive position.

      The Company believes that mass-burn technology is now the predominant technology used for the combustion of solid waste. The Company believes that the Martin technology is a proven and reliable mass-burn technology, and that its association with Martin has created significant name recognition and value for the Company’s domestic waste-to-energy business.

      Since 1984, the Company’s rights to the Martin technology have been provided pursuant to a cooperation agreement with Martin which gives the Company exclusive rights to market, and distribute parts and equipment for the Martin technology in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Bermuda and certain Caribbean countries. Martin is obligated to assist the Company in installing, operating and maintaining facilities incorporating the Martin technology. The cooperation agreement renews automatically each year unless notice of termination is given, in which case the cooperation agreement would terminate 10 years after such notice. Any termination would not affect the rights of the Company to design, construct, operate, maintain or repair waste-to-energy facilities for which contracts have been entered into or proposals made prior to the date of termination.

REGULATION OF COVANTA’S BUSINESSES

      The Company’s business activities in the United States are pervasively regulated pursuant to federal, state and local environmental laws. Federal laws, such as the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, and their state counterparts, govern discharges of pollutants to air and water. Other federal, state and local laws comprehensively govern the generation, transportation, storage, treatment and disposal of solid and hazardous waste and also regulate the storage and handling of chemicals and petroleum products (such laws and the regulations thereunder, “Environmental Regulatory Laws”).

      Other federal, state and local laws, such as the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) (collectively, “Environmental Remediation Laws”) make the Company potentially liable on a joint and several basis for any onsite or offsite environmental contamination which may be associated with the Company’s activities and the activities at sites, including but not limited to landfills that the Company’s subsidiaries have owned, operated or leased or, at which there has been disposal of residue or other waste generated, handled or processed by such subsidiaries. Some state and local laws also impose liabilities for injury to persons or property caused by site contamination. Some Service Agreements provide for indemnification of operating subsidiaries from some such liabilities. In addition, other subsidiaries involved in landfill gas projects have access rights to landfill sites pursuant to certain leases that permit the installation, operation and maintenance of landfill gas collection systems. A portion of these landfill sites is and has been a federally-designated “Superfund” site. Each of these leases provide for indemnification of the Company subsidiary from some liabilities associated with these sites.

      The Environmental Regulatory Laws require that many permits be obtained before the commencement of construction and operation of any waste-to-energy, independent power project or water facility, and further requires that permits be maintained throughout the operating life of the facility. There can be no assurance that all required permits will be issued or re-issued, and the process of obtaining such permits can often cause lengthy delays, including delays caused by third-party appeals challenging permit issuance. Failure to meet conditions of these permits or of the Environmental Regulatory Laws can subject an operating subsidiary to regulatory enforcement actions by the appropriate governmental unit, which could include fines, penalties, damages or other sanctions, such as orders requiring certain remedial actions or limiting or prohibiting operation. To date, the Company has not incurred material penalties, been required to incur material capital costs or additional expenses, nor been subjected to material restrictions on its operations as a result of violations of Environmental Regulatory Laws or permit requirements.

      Although the Company’s operations are occasionally subject to proceedings and orders pertaining to emissions into the environment and other environmental violations, which may result in fines, penalties,

damages or other sanctions, the Company believes that it is in substantial compliance with existing environmental laws and regulations. The Company may be identified, along with other entities, as being among parties potentially responsible for contribution to costs associated with the correction and remediation of environmental conditions at disposal sites subject to CERCLA and/or analogous state laws. In certain instances the Company may be exposed to joint and several liabilities for remedial action or damages. The Company’s ultimate liability in connection with such environmental claims will depend on many factors, including its volumetric share of waste, the total cost of remediation, the financial viability of other companies that also sent waste to a given site and, in the case of divested operations, its contractual arrangement with the purchaser of such operations.

      The Environmental Regulatory Laws are subject to revision. New technology may be required or stricter standards may be established for the control of discharges of air or water pollutants for storage and handling of petroleum products or chemicals or for solid or hazardous waste or ash handling and disposal. Thus, as new technology is developed and proven, it may be required to be incorporated into new facilities or major modifications to existing facilities. This new technology may often be more expensive than that used previously.

      The Environmental Remediation Laws prohibit disposal of regulated hazardous waste at the Company’s municipal solid waste facilities. The Service Agreements recognize the potential for improper deliveries of hazardous wastes and specify procedures for dealing with hazardous waste that is delivered to a facility. Although certain Service Agreements require the Company’s subsidiary to be responsible for some costs related to hazardous waste deliveries, to date no operating subsidiary has incurred material hazardous waste disposal costs.

      Domestic drinking water facilities are subject to regulation of water quality by the state and federal agencies under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act and by similar state laws. These laws provide for the establishment of uniform minimum national water quality standards, as well as governmental authority to specify the type of treatment processes to be used for public drinking water. Under the federal Clean Water Act, the Company may be required to obtain and comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits for discharges from its treatment stations. Generally, under its current contracts, the Company is not responsible for fines and penalties resulting from the delivery to the Company’s treatment facility of water not meeting standards set forth in those contracts.

      The Company aims to provide energy generating and other infrastructure through environmentally protective project designs, regardless of the location of a particular project. This approach is consistent with the stringent environmental requirements of multilateral financing institutions, such as the World Bank, and also with the Company’s experience in domestic waste-to-energy projects, where environmentally protective facility design and performance is required. Compliance with environmental standards comparable to those of the United States may be conditions to the provision of credit by multilateral banking agencies as well as other lenders or credit providers. The laws of other countries also may require regulation of emissions into the environment, and provide governmental entities with the authority to impose sanctions for violations, although these requirements are generally not as rigorous as those applicable in the United States. As with domestic project development, there can be no assurance that all required permits will be issued, and the process can often cause lengthy delays.

Energy and Water Regulations Affecting Covanta’s Businesses

      The Company’s businesses are subject to the provisions of federal, state and local energy laws applicable to the development, ownership and operation of their domestic facilities and to similar laws applicable to their foreign operations. Federal laws and regulations applicable to many of the Company’s domestic energy businesses impose limitations on the types of fuel used, prescribe the degree to which these businesses are subject to federal and state utility-type regulation and restrict the extent to which these businesses may be owned by one or more electric utilities. State regulatory regimes govern rate approval and the other terms and

conditions pursuant to which utilities purchase electricity from independent power producers, except to the extent such regulation is governed by federal law.

      Pursuant to the federal Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (“PURPA”), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (the “FERC”) has promulgated regulations that exempt qualifying facilities (“QFs”) (facilities meeting certain size, fuel and ownership requirements) from compliance with certain provisions of the Federal Power Act (the “FPA”), the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (“PUHCA”), and certain state laws regulating the rates charged by, or the financial and organizational activities of, electric utilities. PURPA was enacted in 1978 to encourage the development of cogeneration facilities and other facilities making use of non-fossil fuel power sources, including waste-to-energy facilities. The exemptions afforded by PURPA to QFs from regulation under the FPA and PUHCA and most aspects of state electric utility regulation are of great importance to the Company and its competitors in the waste-to-energy and independent power industries.

      Except with respect to waste-to-energy facilities with a net power production capacity in excess of 30 MW (where rates are set by the FERC), state public utility commissions must approve the rates, and in some instances other contract terms, by which public utilities purchase electric power from QFs. PURPA requires that electric utilities purchase electric energy produced by QFs at negotiated rates or at a price equal to the incremental or “avoided” cost that would have been incurred by the utility if it were to generate the power itself or purchase it from another source. PURPA does not expressly require public utilities to enter into long-term contracts to purchase the output supplied by QFs. Many state public utility commissions have approved longer-term energy contracts as part of their implementation of PURPA.

      Under PUHCA, any entity owning or controlling 10% or more of the voting securities of a “public utility company” or company which is a “holding company” of a public utility company is subject to registration with the SEC and regulation by the SEC unless exempt from registration. Under PURPA, most projects that satisfy the definition of a “qualifying facility” are exempt from regulation under PUHCA. Under the Energy Policy Act of 1992, projects that are not QFs under PURPA but satisfy the definition of an “exempt wholesale generator” are not deemed to be public utility companies under PUHCA. Finally, projects that satisfy the definition of “foreign utility companies” are exempt from regulation under PUHCA. The Company believes that all of its operating projects involved in the generation, transmission and/or distribution of electricity, both domestically and internationally, qualify for an exemption from PUHCA and that it is not and will not be required to register with the SEC under PUHCA.

      Congress continues from time to time to consider energy legislation to repeal both PURPA and PUHCA. Repeal of PUHCA would allow both independent power producers and vertically integrated utilities to acquire electric assets throughout the United States that are geographically widespread, eliminating the current requirement that the utility’s electric assets be capable of physical integration. Also, registered holding companies would be free to acquire non-utility businesses, which they may not do now, with certain limited exceptions. With the repeal of PURPA or PUHCA, competition for independent power generators from utilities would likely increase. This is likely to have little or no impact on the Company’s existing projects, but may mean additional competition from highly capitalized companies seeking to develop projects in the U.S.

      The Company presently has ownership and operating interests in electric generating projects outside the United States. Most countries have expansive systems for the regulation of the power business. These generally include provisions relating to ownership, licensing, rate setting and financing of generating and transmission facilities.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

Acquisition of American Ref-Fuel Holdings Corp.

      On January 31, 2005, Danielson entered into a stock purchase agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”) with American Ref-Fuel Holdings Corp. (“Ref-Fuel”), an owner and operator of waste-to-energy facilities in the northeast United States, and Ref-Fuel’s stockholders to purchase 100% of the issued and outstanding

shares of Ref-Fuel capital stock. Under the terms of the Purchase Agreement, Danielson will pay $740 million in cash for the stock of Ref-Fuel and will assume the consolidated net debt of Ref-Fuel, which as of December 31, 2004, was approximately $1.2 billion, net of existing debt service reserves and other restricted funds held in trust to pay debt service. After the transaction is completed Ref-Fuel, will be a wholly-owned subsidiary of Covanta.

      The acquisition is expected to close when all of the closing conditions to the Purchase Agreement have been satisfied or waived. These closing conditions include the receipt of approvals, clearances and the satisfaction of all waiting periods as required under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Act of 1976 and as required by certain governmental authorities such as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and other applicable regulatory authorities. Other closing conditions of the transaction include the following: the Company’s completion of debt financing and an equity Ref-Fuel Rights Offering, as further described below; Danielson arranging letters of credit or other financial accommodations in the aggregate amount of $100 million to replace two currently outstanding letters of credit that have been entered into by two respective subsidiaries of Ref-Fuel and issued in favor of a third subsidiary of Ref-Fuel; and other customary closing conditions. While it is anticipated that all of the applicable conditions will be satisfied, there can be no assurance as to whether or when all of those conditions will be satisfied or, where permissible, waived.

      Either Danielson or the selling stockholders may terminate the Purchase Agreement if the acquisition does not occur on or before June 30, 2005. If a required governmental or regulatory approval has not been received by such date, however, then either party may extend the closing to a date that is no later than the later of August 31, 2005 or the date 25 days after which Ref-Fuel has provided to Danielson certain financial statements described in the Purchase Agreement.

Financing the Ref-Fuel Acquisition

      Danielson intends to finance this transaction through a combination of debt and equity financing. The equity component of the financing is expected to consist of an approximately $400 million offering of warrants or other rights to purchase Danielson’s common stock to all of Danielson’s existing stockholders at $6.00 per share (the “Ref-Fuel Rights Offering”). In the Ref-Fuel Rights Offering Danielson’s existing stockholders will be issued rights to purchase in an offering to be registered with the SEC Danielson’s stock on a pro rata basis, with each holder entitled to purchase approximately 0.9 shares of Danielson’s common stock at an exercise price of $6.00 per full share for each share of Danielson’s common stock then held. Danielson will file a registration statement with the SEC with respect to such rights offering and the statements contained herein shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy shares of Danielson’s common stock. Any such offer or solicitation will be made in compliance with all applicable securities laws.

      Three of Danielson’s largest stockholders, SZ Investments L.L.C. (collectively with its affiliate EGI-Fund (05-07) Investors, L.L.C. to which it transferred a portion of its shares, “SZ Investments”), Third Avenue Business Trust, on behalf of Third Avenue Value Fund Series (“TAVF”), and D.E. Shaw Laminar Portfolios, L.L.C. (“Laminar”), representing ownership of approximately 40% of Danielson’s outstanding common stock, have committed to participate in the Ref-Fuel Rights Offering and acquire their pro rata portion of the shares.

      Danielson has received a commitment from Goldman Sachs Credit Partners, L.P. and Credit Suisse First Boston for a debt financing package for Covanta necessary to finance the acquisition, as well as to refinance the existing recourse debt of Covanta and provide additional liquidity for the Company. It is currently expected that this financing shall consist of two tranches, each of which is secured by pledges of the stock of Covanta’s subsidiaries that has not otherwise been pledged, guarantees from certain of Covanta’s subsidiaries and all other available assets of Covanta’s subsidiaries. The first tranche, a first priority senior secured bank facility, shall be made up of a $250 million term loan facility, a $100 million revolving credit facility and a $340 million letter of credit facility. The second tranche, a second priority senior secured term loan facility, shall consist of a $450 million term loan facility.

      The closing of the financing and receipt of proceeds under the Ref-Fuel Rights Offering are closing conditions under the Purchase Agreement.

      Immediately upon closing of the acquisition, Ref-Fuel will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Covanta, and Covanta will control the management and operations of the American Ref-Fuel facilities. The current project and other debt of Ref-Fuel subsidiaries will be unaffected by the acquisition, except that the revolving credit and letter of credit facility of American Ref-Fuel Company LLC (the direct parent of each Ref-Fuel project company) will be cancelled and replaced with new facilities at the Covanta level. For additional information concerning the combined capital structure of Covanta and Ref-Fuel following the acquisition, see Par II, Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.”

      There can be no assurance that Danielson will be able to complete the Ref-Fuel Rights Offering or complete the acquisition of Ref-Fuel.

RISK FACTORS

      The following risk factors could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

Covanta-Specific Risks

      As of December 31, 2004, Covanta’s outstanding domestic corporate debt was $236 million. Covanta’s ability to service its domestic debt will depend upon:

      The Company is currently in compliance with all of its domestic debt covenants. For a more detailed discussion of Covanta’s domestic debt covenants please see Item 7 “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.”

      In connection with Covanta’s emergence from bankruptcy, Covanta authorized the issuance of $50 million of unsecured notes under an indenture. Although Covanta estimates that it will issue such notes in an amount less than $30 million, the ultimate amount of unsecured notes will not be determined until remaining claims are resolved through settlement or litigation in Bankruptcy Court. We cannot assure you that the final amount of such notes issued will be less than Covanta’s estimate, or that the ultimate resolution of such claims will result in liabilities of less than $50 million.

      Covanta issued high yield notes, which mature in 2011. Prior to maturity, Covanta is obligated to pay only interest, and no principal, with respect to these notes. Covanta’s cash flow may be insufficient to pay the principal at maturity, which will be $230 million at such time. Consequently, Covanta may be obligated to refinance these notes prior to maturity. Covanta may refinance the notes during the first two years after issuance without paying a premium, and thereafter may refinance these notes but must pay a premium to do so.

      Several of Covanta’s contracts require it to provide certain letters of credit to contract counterparties. The aggregate stated amount of these letters declines materially each year, particularly prior to 2010. Covanta’s financing arrangements under which these letters of credit are issued expire in 2009, and so it must refinance

these arrangements in order to allow Covanta to continue to provide the letters of credit beyond the current expiration date.

      Although the Company has received a commitment from Goldman Sachs Credit Partners, L.P. and Credit Suisse First Boston for a debt financing package for Covanta necessary to finance the proposed acquisition of Ref-Fuel, as well as to refinance the existing recourse debt of Covanta, such refinancing is contingent upon consummation of the Ref-Fuel acquisition.

      We cannot assure you that Covanta will be able to obtain refinancing on acceptable terms, or at all, either in conjunction with the Ref-Fuel acquisition or otherwise.

      Covanta’s ability to grow its domestic business by investing in new projects will be limited by debt covenants in its principal financing agreements, unless such financing agreements are refinanced, and from potentially fewer market opportunities for new waste-to-energy facilities. Covanta’s business is based upon building and operating municipal solid waste processing and energy generating projects, which are capital intensive businesses that require financing through direct investment and the incurrence of debt. When we acquired Covanta and it emerged from bankruptcy proceedings in March 2004, Covanta entered into financing arrangements with restrictive covenants typical of financings for companies emerging from bankruptcy. These covenants essentially prohibit investments in new projects or acquisitions of new businesses and place restrictions on Covanta’s ability to expand existing projects. The covenants prohibit borrowings to finance new construction, except in limited circumstances related to specifically identified expansions of existing facilities. The covenants also limit spending for new business development and require that excess cash flow be trapped to collateralize outstanding letters of credit.

      Although the Company will be negotiating debt covenants for the refinancing of Covanta’s debt in connection with the Ref-Fuel acquisition, such financing is contingent upon consummation of the Ref-Fuel acquisition. We cannot assure you that, when it seeks to refinance its domestic debt agreements, Covanta will be able to negotiate covenants that will provide it with more flexibility to grow its business.

      Covanta believes that its cash flow from domestic operations will be sufficient to pay for its domestic cash needs, including debt service on its domestic corporate debt, and that its revolving credit facility will provide a secondary source of liquidity. For the period March 11 through December 31, 2004, Covanta’s cash flow from operating activities for domestic operations was $85.3 million. We cannot assure you, however, that Covanta’s cash flow from domestic operations will not be adversely affected by adverse economic conditions or circumstances specific to one or more projects or that if such conditions or circumstances do occur, its revolving credit facility will provide Covanta with access to sufficient cash for such purposes.

      The operation of Covanta’s facilities and the construction of new or expanded facilities involve many risks, including:

      We cannot predict the impact of these risks on Covanta’s business or operations.

      Expansions of existing plants and construction of new plants may require that Covanta incorporate recently developed and technologically complex equipment, especially in the case of newer environmental emission control technology. Inclusion of such new technology may materially increase the cost of construction.

      Although Covanta maintains insurance, obtains warranties from vendors, obligates contractors to meet certain performance levels and attempts, where feasible, to pass risks Covanta cannot control to the service recipient or output purchaser, the proceeds of such insurance, warranties, performance guarantees or risk sharing arrangements may not be adequate to cover lost revenues, increased expenses or liquidated damages payments.

      Any of the risks described in this Annual Report on Form 10-K or unforeseen problems could cause Covanta’s projects to operate below expected levels, which in turn could result in lost revenues, increased expenses, higher maintenance costs and penalties for defaults under Covanta’s service agreements and operating contracts. As a result, a project may operate at less than expected levels of profit or at a loss.

      Most of Covanta’s Service Agreements for waste-to-energy facilities provide for limitations on damages and cross-indemnities among the parties for damages that such parties may incur in connection with their performance under the contract. Such contractual provisions excuse Covanta from performance obligations to the extent affected by uncontrollable circumstances and provide for service fee adjustments if uncontrollable circumstances increase its costs. We cannot assure you that these provisions will prevent Covanta from incurring losses upon the occurrence of uncontrollable circumstances or that if Covanta were to incur such losses it would continue to be able to service its debt.

      Covanta and certain of its subsidiaries have issued or are party to performance guarantees and related contractual obligations undertaken mainly pursuant to agreements to construct and operate certain energy and water facilities. With respect to its domestic businesses, Covanta has issued guarantees to its municipal clients and other parties that Covanta’s subsidiaries will perform in accordance with contractual terms, including, where required, the payment of damages or other obligations. The obligations guaranteed will depend upon the contract involved. Many of Covanta’s subsidiaries have contracts to operate and maintain waste-to-energy facilities. In these contracts the subsidiary typically commits to operate and maintain the facility in compliance with legal requirements; to accept minimum amounts of solid waste; to generate a minimum amount of electricity per ton of waste; and to pay damages to contract counterparties under specified circumstances, including those where the operating subsidiary’s contract has been terminated for default. In its operating history, Covanta has not incurred liability to pay material amounts under these guarantees, and has incurred no liability to repay project debt. Such contractual damages or other obligations could be material, and in circumstances where one or more subsidiary’s contract has been terminated for its default, such damages could include amounts sufficient to repay project debt. Additionally, damages payable under such guarantees on Company-owned waste-to-energy facilities could expose Covanta to recourse liability on project debt. Covanta may not have sufficient sources of cash to pay such damages or other obligations. Although it has not incurred material liability under energy, water and waste-to-energy guarantees previously and has

incurred no liability to repay project debt, we cannot assure you that Covanta will be able to continue to avoid incurring material payment obligations under such guarantees or that if it did incur such obligations that it would have the cash resources to pay them.

      With respect to the international projects, CPIH, Covanta and certain of Covanta’s domestic subsidiaries have issued guarantees of CPIH’s operating obligations. The potential damages that may be owed under these guarantees may be material. Covanta is generally entitled to be reimbursed by CPIH for any payments it may make under guarantees related to international projects.

      Covanta must satisfy its performance and other obligations under its contracts to operate waste-to-energy facilities. These contracts typically require Covanta to meet certain performance criteria relating to amounts of waste processed, energy generation rates per ton of waste processed, residue quantity, and environmental standards. Covanta’s failure to satisfy these criteria may subject it to termination of its Operating Contracts. If such a termination were to occur, Covanta would lose the cash flow related to the project, and incur material termination damage liability. In circumstances where the contract of one or more subsidiaries has been terminated due to Covanta’s default, Covanta may not have sufficient sources of cash to pay such damages.

      None of Covanta’s operating contracts for its waste-to-energy facilities previously has been terminated for Covanta’s default. We cannot assure you, however, that Covanta will be able to continue to be able to perform its obligations under such contracts in order to avoid such contract terminations, or damages related to any such contract termination, or that if it could not avoid such terminations that it would have the cash resources to pay amounts that may then become due.

      Covanta’s contracts to operate waste-to-energy projects begin to expire in 2007, and its contracts to sell energy output generally expire when the project’s operating contract expires. One of Covanta’s contracts will expire in 2007. During the twelve month period January 1 to December 31, 2004, this contract contributed $12.5 million in revenues. Expiration of these contracts will subject Covanta to greater market risk in maintaining and enhancing its revenues. As its operating contracts at municipally-owned projects approach expiration, Covanta will seek to enter into renewal or replacement contracts to continue operating such projects. Covanta will seek to bid competitively in the market for additional contracts to operate other facilities as similar contracts of other vendors expire. The expiration of Covanta’s existing energy sales contracts, if not renewed, will require Covanta to sell project energy output either into the electricity grid or pursuant to new contracts.

      At some of Covanta’s facilities, market conditions may allow Covanta to effect extensions of existing operating contracts along with facility expansions which would increase the waste processing capacity of these projects. Such extensions and expansions are currently being considered at a limited number of Covanta’s facilities in conjunction with its municipal clients. If Covanta were unable to reach agreement with its municipal clients on the terms under which it would implement such extensions and expansions, or if the implementation of these extensions and expansions is materially delayed, this may adversely affect Covanta’s cash flow and profitability.

      Covanta’s cash flow and profitability may be adversely affected if it is unable to obtain contracts acceptable to it for such renewals, replacements or additional contracts, or extension and expansion contracts. We cannot assure you that Covanta will be able to enter into such contracts or that the terms available in the market at the time will be favorable to Covanta.

      Covanta often relies on single suppliers and single customers at Covanta’s facilities, exposing such facilities to financial risks if any supplier or customer should fail to perform its obligations.

      Covanta often relies on a single supplier to provide waste, fuel, water and other services required to operate a facility and on a single customer or a few customers to purchase all or a significant portion of a facility’s output or capacity. In most cases, Covanta has long-term agreements with such suppliers and customers in order to mitigate the risk of supply interruption. The financial performance of these facilities depends on such customers and suppliers continuing to perform their obligations under their long-term agreements. A facility’s financial results could be materially and adversely affected if any one customer or supplier fails to fulfill its contractual obligations and Covanta is unable to find other customers or suppliers to produce the same level of profitability. We cannot assure you that such performance failures by third parties will not occur, or that if they do occur, such failures will not adversely affect Covanta’s cash flow or profitability.

      In addition, for its waste-to-energy facilities, Covanta relies on its municipal clients as a source not only of waste for fuel but also of revenue from fees for disposal services Covanta provides. Because Covanta’s contracts with its municipal clients are generally long term (none expires prior to 2007), Covanta may be adversely affected if the credit quality of one or more of its municipal clients were to decline materially. We cannot assure you that such credit quality will not decline, or that if one or more of Covanta’s municipal clients’ credit quality does decline, that it would not adversely affect Covanta’s domestic cash flow or profitability.

      Covanta’s subsidiary holding the equity interests in its international businesses, CPIH, is also highly leveraged, and its debt will be serviced solely from the cash generated from the international operations. Cash distributions from international projects are typically less dependable as to timing and amount than distributions from domestic projects, and we cannot assure you that CPIH will have sufficient cash flow from operations or other sources to pay the principal or interest due on its debt. As of December 31, 2004, Covanta’s outstanding international debt was $180 million, consisting of $77 million of CPIH recourse debt and $103 million of project debt.

      CPIH’s ability to service its debt will depend upon:

      Covanta believes that cash from CPIH’s operations, together with liquidity available under CPIH’s revolving credit facility, will provide CPIH with sufficient liquidity to meet its needs for cash, including cash to pay debt service on CPIH’s debt prior to maturity in March 2007. Covanta believes that CPIH will not have sufficient cash from its operations and its revolving credit facility to pay off its debt at maturity, and so if it is unable to generate sufficient additional cash from asset sales or other sources, CPIH will need to refinance its debt at or prior to maturity. While CPIH’s debt is non-recourse to Covanta, it is secured by a pledge of Covanta’s stock in CPIH and CPIH’s equity interests in certain of its subsidiaries. While we have financing commitments to refinance Covanta’s debt, and to repay CPIH’s debt entirely, in connection with the

acquisition of Ref-Fuel, such financing is contingent upon consummation of the Ref-Fuel acquisition. We cannot assure you that such additional cash will be available to CPIH, or that it will be able to refinance its debt on acceptable terms, or at all.

      Although CPIH’s results of operations are consolidated with Danielson’s and Covanta’s for financial reporting purposes, as long as the existing CPIH term loan and revolver remain outstanding, CPIH is restricted under its existing credit agreements from distributing cash to Covanta. Under these agreements, CPIH’s cash may only be used for CPIH’s purposes and to service CPIH’s debt. Accordingly, although reported on Danielson’s and Covanta’s consolidated financial statements, Covanta does not have access to CPIH’s revenues or cash flows and will have access only to Covanta’s domestically generated cash flows.

      Although CPIH’s results of operations are consolidated with Danielson’s and Covanta’s for financial reporting purposes, due to CPIH’s indebtedness and the terms of Covanta’s credit agreements, CPIH’s cash flow is available only to repay CPIH’s debt. Similarly, in the event that CPIH determines that it is desirable to sell or transfer all or any portion of its assets or business, the proceeds would first be applied to reduce CPIH’s debt. We cannot assure you that the proceeds of any such sale would be sufficient to repay all of CPIH’s debt, consisting of principal and accrued interest or, if sufficient to repay CPIH’s debt, that such proceeds would offset the loss of CPIH’s revenues and earnings as reported by Danielson and Covanta in their respective consolidated financial statements.

      Although the Company has received a commitment from Goldman Sachs Credit Partners, L.P. and Credit Suisse First Boston for a debt financing package for Covanta necessary to finance the acquisition of Ref-Fuel, as well as to refinance the existing recourse debt of Covanta and repay all of CPIH’s recourse debt, such financing is contingent upon consummation of the Ref-Fuel acquisition. We cannot assure you that this financing will close. In the absence of a successful closing of the Ref-Fuel acquisition and its related financing, we cannot assure you that CPIH will be able to obtain refinancing on acceptable terms, or at all.

      CPIH’s operations are entirely outside the United States and expose it to legal, tax, currency, inflation, convertibility and repatriation risks, as well as potential constraints on the development and operation of potential business, any of which can limit the benefits to CPIH of a foreign project.

      CPIH’s projected cash distributions from existing facilities over the next five years comes from facilities located in countries having sovereign ratings below investment grade, including Bangladesh, the Philippines and India. In addition, Covanta continues to provide operating guarantees and letters of credit for certain of CPIH’s projects, which if drawn upon would require CPIH to reimburse Covanta for any related payments it may be required to make. The financing, development and operation of projects outside the United States can entail significant political and financial risks, which vary by country, including:

      The legal and financial environment in foreign countries in which CPIH currently owns assets or projects also could make it more difficult for it to enforce its rights under agreements relating to such projects.

      The occurrence of any of these risks could substantially delay the receipt of cash distributions from international projects or reduce the value of the project concerned. In addition, the existence of the operating guarantees and letters of credit provided by Covanta for CPIH projects could expose it to any or all of the risks identified above with respect to the CPIH projects, particularly if CPIH’s cash flow or other sources of liquidity are insufficient to reimburse Covanta for amounts due under such instruments. As a result, these risks may have a material adverse effect on Covanta’s business, consolidated financial condition and results of operations and on CPIH’s ability to service its debt.

      CPIH sought to participate in projects in jurisdictions where limitations on the convertibility and expatriation of currency have been lifted by the host country and where such local currency is freely exchangeable on the international markets. In most cases, components of project costs incurred or funded in the currency of the United States are recovered with limited exposure to currency fluctuations through negotiated contractual adjustments to the price charged for electricity or service provided. This contractual structure may cause the cost in local currency to the project’s power purchaser or service recipient to rise from time to time in excess of local inflation. As a result, there is a risk in such situations that such power purchaser or service recipient will, at least in the near term, be less able or willing to pay for the project’s power or service.

      Changes in the market prices and availability of fuel supplies to generate electricity may increase CPIH’s cost of producing power, which could adversely impact our profitability and financial performance.

      The market prices and availability of fuel supplies of some of CPIH’s facilities fluctuate. Although CPIH believes that it has adequate and reliable fuel supplies and that its suppliers have adequate production and transportation systems to comply with their contractual requirements to supply CPIH’s facilities, any price increase, delivery disruption or reduction in the availability of such supplies could affect CPIH’s ability to operate CPIH’s facilities and impair its cash flow and profitability. CPIH may be subject to further exposure if any of its future operations are concentrated in facilities using fuel types subject to fluctuating market prices and availability. Covanta may not be successful in its efforts to mitigate its exposure to supply and price swings.

      Covanta’s waste-to-energy facilities depend on solid waste both for fuel and as a source of revenue. For most of Covanta’s facilities, the prices it charges for disposal of solid waste are fixed under long-term contracts and the supply is guaranteed by sponsoring municipalities. However, for some of Covanta’s waste-to-energy facilities, the availability of solid waste to Covanta, as well as the tipping fee that Covanta must charge to attract solid waste to its facilities, depends upon competition from a number of sources such as other waste-to-energy facilities, landfills and transfer stations competing for waste in the market area. In addition, Covanta may need to obtain waste on a short-term competitive basis as its long-term contracts expire at its owned facilities. There has been and may be further consolidation in the solid waste industry which would reduce the number of solid waste collectors or haulers that are competing for disposal facilities or enable such collectors or haulers to use wholesale purchasing to negotiate favorable below-market disposal rates. The consolidation in the solid waste industry has resulted in companies with vertically integrated collection activities and disposal

facilities. Such consolidation may result in economies of scale for those companies as well as the use of disposal capacity at facilities owned by such companies or by affiliated companies. Such activities can affect both the availability of waste to Covanta for disposal at some of Covanta’s waste-to-energy facilities and market pricing.

      Costs of compliance with existing and future environmental regulations by federal, state and local authorities could adversely affect Covanta’s cash flow and profitability. Covanta’s business is subject to extensive environmental regulation by federal, state and local authorities, primarily relating to air, waste (including residual ash from combustion) and water. Covanta is required to comply with numerous environmental laws and regulations and to obtain numerous governmental permits in operating Covanta’s facilities. Covanta may incur significant additional costs to comply with these requirements. Environmental regulations may also limit Covanta’s ability to operate Covanta’s facilities at maximum capacity, or at all. If Covanta fails to comply with these requirements, Covanta could be subject to civil or criminal liability, damages and fines. Existing environmental regulations could be revised or reinterpreted and new laws and regulations could be adopted or become applicable to Covanta or its facilities, and future changes in environmental laws and regulations could occur. This may materially increase the amount Covanta must invest to bring its facilities into compliance. In addition, lawsuits by the Environmental Protection Agency, commonly referred to as the EPA, and various states highlight the environmental risks faced by generating facilities. Stricter environmental regulation of air emissions, solid waste handling or combustion, residual ash handling and disposal, and waste water discharge could materially affect Covanta’s cash flow and profitability.

      Covanta may not be able to obtain or maintain, from time to time, all required environmental regulatory approvals. If there is a delay in obtaining any required environmental regulatory approvals or if Covanta fails to obtain and comply with them, the operation of Covanta’s facilities could be jeopardized or become subject to additional costs.

      Covanta’s business is subject to extensive energy regulations by federal and state authorities. The economics, including the costs, of operating Covanta’s generating facilities may be adversely affected by any changes in these regulations or in their interpretation or implementation or any future inability to comply with existing or future regulations or requirements.

      The Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 and the Federal Power Act regulate public utility holding companies and their subsidiaries and place constraints on the conduct of their business. The FPA regulates wholesale sales of electricity and the transmission of electricity in interstate commerce by public utilities. Under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, known as “PURPA,” Covanta’s domestic facilities are qualifying facilities (facilities meeting statutory size, fuel and ownership requirements), which are exempt from regulations under PUHCA, most provisions of the FPA and state rate regulation. Covanta’s foreign projects are exempt from regulation under PUHCA.

      If Covanta becomes subject to either the FPA or PUHCA, the economics and operations of Covanta’s energy projects could be adversely affected, including rate regulation by the Federal Energy Regulation Commission, with respect to its output of electricity. If an alternative exemption from PUHCA was not available, Covanta could be subject to regulation by the SEC as a public utility holding company. In addition, depending on the terms of the project’s power purchase agreement, a loss of Covanta’s exemptions could allow the power purchaser to cease taking and paying for electricity or to seek refunds of past amounts paid. Such results could cause the loss of some or all contract revenues or otherwise impair the value of a project and could trigger defaults under provisions of the applicable project contracts and financing agreements. Defaults under such financing agreements could render the underlying debt immediately due and payable. Under such circumstances, Covanta cannot assure you that revenues received, the costs incurred, or both, in connection with the project could be recovered through sales to other purchasers.

      Covanta is continually in the process of obtaining or renewing federal, state and local approvals required to operate Covanta’s facilities. While Covanta currently has all necessary operating approvals, Covanta may not always be able to obtain all required regulatory approvals, and Covanta may not be able to obtain any necessary modifications to existing regulatory approvals or maintain all required regulatory approvals. If there is a delay in obtaining any required regulatory approvals or if Covanta fails to obtain and comply with any required regulatory approvals, the operation of Covanta’s facilities or the sale of electricity to third parties could be prevented, made subject to additional regulation or subject Covanta to additional costs.

      Covanta may not be able to respond in a timely or effective manner to the changes resulting in increased competition in the energy industry in both domestic and international markets. These changes may include deregulation of the electric utility industry in some markets, privatization of the electric utility industry in other markets and increasing competition in all markets. To the extent U.S. competitive pressures increase and the pricing and sale of electricity assumes more characteristics of a commodity business, the economics of Covanta’s business may come under increasing pressure. Regulatory initiatives in foreign countries where Covanta has or will have operations involve the same types of risks.

      Covanta’s business is highly regulated. Covanta cannot predict whether the federal or state governments or foreign governments will adopt legislation or regulations relating to the solid waste or energy industries. These laws and regulations can result in increased capital, operating and other costs to Covanta, particularly with regard to enforcement efforts. The introduction of new laws or other future regulatory developments that increase the costs of operation or capital to Covanta may have a material adverse effect on Covanta’s business, financial condition or results of operations.

      Our disclosure controls and procedures are designed to reasonably assure that information required to be disclosed by us in reports we file or submit under the Securities Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to management, recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms.

      Our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, believes that any disclosure controls and procedures or internal controls and procedures, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met. Further, the design of a control system must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints, and the benefits of controls must be considered relative to their costs. Because of the inherent limitations in all control systems, they cannot provide absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, within our companies have been prevented or detected. These inherent limitations include the realities that judgments in decision-making can be faulty, and that breakdowns can occur because of simple error or mistake. Additionally, controls can be circumvented by the individual acts of some persons, by collusion of two or more people, or by an unauthorized override of the controls. The design of any systems of controls also is based in part upon certain assumptions about the likelihood of future events, and we cannot assure you that any design will succeed in achieving its stated goals under all potential future conditions. Accordingly, because of the inherent limitations in a cost effective control system, misstatements due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected.

      Pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, (“Section 404”) and the rules and regulations promulgated by the SEC to implement Section 404, we are required to furnish a report to include in our Form 10-K an annual report by our management regarding the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. The report includes, among other things, an assessment of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as the end of our fiscal year, including a statement as to whether or not our internal control over financial reporting is effective. This assessment must include disclosure of any material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting identified by management.

      We have in the past, and in the future may discover, areas of our internal control over financial reporting which may require improvement. For example, during the course of its audit of our 2004 financial statements, our independent auditors, Ernst & Young LLP identified errors, principally related to complex manual “fresh start” accounting calculations, predominantly effecting Covanta’s investments in its international businesses. These errors, the net effect of which was immaterial (less than $2 million, pretax), have been corrected in our 2004 consolidated financial statements. Management determined that errors in complex fresh start and other technical accounting areas originally went undetected due to insufficient technical in-house expertise necessary to provide sufficiently rigorous review. As a result, management has concluded that Danielson’s internal control over financial reporting was not effective as of December 31, 2004. The Company has identified and undertaken steps necessary in order to address this material weakness, but the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting in the future will depend on our effectiveness in fulfilling these steps to address this material weakness. If we are unable to assert that our internal control over financial reporting is effective now or in any future period, or if our auditors are unable to express an opinion on the effectiveness of our internal controls, we could lose investor confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial reports, which could have an adverse effect in our stock price.

      As described in Danielson’s 2004 Annual Report on Form 10-K, Danielson had approximately $516 million of net operating loss tax carryforwards for Federal income tax purposes, which we refer to as “NOLs.” A portion of the NOLs are made available to us pursuant to the Tax Sharing Agreement. In order to utilize the NOLs, we must generate taxable income which can offset such carryforwards. As described in Danielson’s 2004 Annual Report on Form 10-K, the NOLs are also utilized by income from certain grantor trusts that were established as part of the Mission Insurance reorganization. The NOLs will expire if not used. The availability of NOLs to offset taxable income would be substantially reduced if Danielson were to undergo an “ownership change” within the meaning of Section 382(g)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code. Danielson will be treated as having had an “ownership change” if there is more than a 50% increase in stock ownership during a three year “testing period” by “5% stockholders.”

      In order to help us preserve the NOLs, Danielson’s certificate of incorporation contains stock transfer restrictions designed to reduce the risk of an ownership change for purposes of Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code. The transfer restrictions were implemented in 1990, and Danielson reports that it expects that the restrictions will remain in force as long as the NOLs are available. We cannot assure you, however, that these restrictions will prevent an ownership change.

      The NOLs will expire in various amounts, if not used, between 2005 and 2023. The Internal Revenue Service has not audited any of Danielson’s tax returns for any of the years during the carryforward period including those returns for the years in which the losses giving rise to the NOLs were reported. We cannot assure you that Danielson would prevail if the IRS were to challenge the availability of the NOLs. If the IRS was successful in challenging our NOLs, all or some portion of the NOLs would not be available to offset our future consolidated income and Danielson may not be able to satisfy its obligations to Covanta under Tax Sharing Agreement described above, or to pay taxes that may be due from our consolidated tax group.

Risks Related to the Ref-Fuel Acquisition

      Achieving the anticipated benefits of the transaction will depend in part upon our ability to integrate the two companies’ businesses in an efficient and effective manner. Our attempt to integrate two companies that have previously operated independently may result in significant challenges, and we may be unable to accomplish the integration smoothly or successfully. In particular, the necessity of coordinating organizations in additional locations and addressing possible differences in corporate cultures and management philosophies may increase the difficulties of integration. The integration will require the dedication of significant management resources, which may temporarily distract management’s attention from the day-to-day operations of the businesses of the combined company. The process of integrating operations after the transaction could cause an interruption of, or loss of momentum in, the activities of one or more of the combined company’s businesses and the loss of key personnel. Employee uncertainty and lack of focus during the integration process may also disrupt the businesses of the combined company. Any inability of management to integrate the operations of Ref-Fuel and Danielson successfully could have a material adverse effect on the business and financial condition of Danielson.

      If the proposed acquisition with Ref-Fuel closes, we expect that Danielson will be obligated to pay transaction fees and other expenses related to the transaction of approximately $45 million, including financial advisors’ fees, legal and accounting fees, and fees and expenses to refinance the existing Covanta recourse debt. Furthermore, we expect to incur significant costs, which we estimate to be approximately $45 million associated with combining the operations of the two companies. However, we cannot predict the specific size of those charges before we begin the integration process. Although we expect that the elimination of duplicative costs, as well as the realization of other efficiencies related to the integration of the businesses, we cannot give any assurance that this net benefit will be achieved as we expect, or at all.

      While Covanta and Ref-Fuel both sell energy pursuant to long term contracts, Covanta typically sells a greater proportion of its aggregate waste processing capacity under long-term contracts than does Ref-Fuel. Consequently, more of Ref-Fuel’s revenue from its waste-to-energy facilities is subject to market risk from fluctuations in waste market prices than Covanta’s, and short-term fluctuations in the waste markets may have a greater impact on the combined company’s waste-to energy revenues than on those of Covanta alone.

EMPLOYEES

      As of December 31, 2004, the Company employed approximately 1,800 full-time employees worldwide, of which the majority is employed in the United States.

      Of the Company’s employees in the United States, approximately 16% are unionized. Currently, the Company is party to seven (7) collective bargaining agreements: one (1) of these agreements is scheduled to expire in 2005, two (2) in 2006, and one (1) in 2008. With respect to the remaining three (3) agreements which have recently expired, the Company is currently in negotiations with the applicable collective bargaining representatives and the Company expects to reach an agreement with such representative to extend such agreement on its current or similar terms.

      The Company considers relations with its employees to be good and does not anticipate any significant labor disputes in 2005.

AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION

      The Company files annual reports, quarterly reports, current reports and other information with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Copies of such materials can be read and copied from the Public Reference Room of the Securities and Exchange Commission at 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 10549. You may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the Securities and Exchange Commission at 1-800-SEC-0330. You can access our filings electronically by visiting the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov. Filings are also available on Company’s website at www.covantaenergy.com or free of charge by writing to Lou Walters at 40 Lane Road, Fairfield, N.J. 07004.

      The Company’s executive offices are now located at 40 Lane Road, Fairfield, New Jersey, in an office building located on a 5.4 acre site owned by a subsidiary. In 2004, the Company closed its office in Fairfax, Virginia and relocated its former Redding, California office to Anderson, California. Additionally, the Company sold its interests in two landfill gas projects situated on leased sites in Sun Valley and Los Angeles, California.

      The following table summarizes certain information relating to the locations of the properties owned or leased by Covanta and its subsidiaries:

      The Company is party to a number of other claims, lawsuits and pending actions, most of which are routine and all of which are incidental to its business. The Company assesses the likelihood of potential losses on an ongoing basis and when losses are considered probable and reasonably estimable, record as a loss an estimate of the ultimate outcome. If the Company can only estimate the range of a possible loss, an amount representing the low end of the range of possible outcomes is recorded. The final consequences of these proceedings are not presently determinable with certainty.

      Generally, claims and lawsuits against Covanta and its subsidiaries that had filed bankruptcy petitions and subsequently emerged from bankruptcy arising from events occurring prior to their respective petition dates have been resolved pursuant to the Reorganization Plan, and have been discharged pursuant to the March 5, 2004 order of the Bankruptcy Court which confirmed the Reorganization Plan. However, to the extent that claims are not dischargeable in bankruptcy, such claims may not be discharged. For example, the claims of certain persons who were personally injured prior to the petition date but whose injury only became manifest thereafter may not be discharged pursuant to the Reorganization Plan.

Environmental Matters

      The Company’s operations are subject to environmental regulatory laws and environmental remediation laws. Although the Company’s operations are occasionally subject to proceedings and orders pertaining to emissions into the environment and other environmental violations, which may result in fines, penalties, damages or other sanctions, the Company believes that it is in substantial compliance with existing environmental laws and regulations.

      The Company may be identified, along with other entities, as being among parties potentially responsible for contribution to costs associated with the correction and remediation of environmental conditions at disposal sites subject to CERCLA and/or analogous state laws. In certain instances, the Company may be exposed to joint and several liabilities for remedial action or damages. The Company’s ultimate liability in connection with such environmental claims will depend on many factors, including its volumetric share of waste, the total cost of remediation, the financial viability of other companies that also sent waste to a given site and, in the case of divested operations, its contractual arrangement with the purchaser of such operations. Generally such claims arising prior to the first petition date were resolved in and discharged by the Chapter 11 Cases.

      The potential costs related to the matters described below and the possible impact on future operations are uncertain due in part to the complexity of governmental laws and regulations and their interpretations, the varying costs and effectiveness of cleanup technologies, the uncertain level of insurance or other types of recovery and the questionable level of the Company’s responsibility. Although the ultimate outcome and expense of any litigation, including environmental remediation, is uncertain, the Company believes that the following proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations.

      In June 2001, the EPA named the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Ogden Martin Systems of Haverhill, Inc., now known as Covanta Haverhill, Inc., as one of 2,000 potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”) at the Beede Waste Oil Superfund Site, Plaistow, New Hampshire, a former waste oil recycling facility. The total quantity of waste oil alleged by the EPA to have been disposed of by PRPs at the Beede site is approximately 14.3 million gallons, of which Covanta Haverhill’s contribution is alleged to be approximately 44,000 gallons. On January 9, 2004, the EPA signed its Record of Decision with respect to the cleanup of the site. According to the EPA, the costs of response actions incurred as of January 2004 by the EPA and the State of New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (“DES”) total approximately $19 million, and the estimated cost to implement the remedial alternative selected in the Record of Decision is an additional $48 million. Covanta Haverhill, Inc. is participating in discussions with other PRPs concerning the EPA’s selected remedy for the site, in anticipation of eventual settlement negotiations with EPA and DES. Covanta Haverhill, Inc.’s share of liability, if any, cannot be determined at this time as a result of uncertainties regarding the source and scope of contamination, the large number of PRPs and the varying degrees of responsibility among various classes of PRPs. The Company believes that based on the amount of waste oil materials Covanta Haverhill, Inc. is alleged to have sent to the site, its liability will not be material.

Other Matters

      During the course of the Chapter 11 Cases, the Debtors and certain contract counterparties reached agreement with respect to material restructuring of their mutual obligations in connection with several waste-to-energy projects. Subsequent to March 10, 2004 the Debtors were also involved in material disputes

and/or litigation with respect to the Warren County, New Jersey and Lake County, Florida waste-to-energy projects and the Tampa Bay water project. During 2004, all disputes relating to the Lake County and Tampa Bay matters were resolved, and the Company’s subsidiaries involved in these projects emerged from bankruptcy. As of December 31, 2004, the Debtors involved with the Warren County, New Jersey project remain in Chapter 11 and are not consolidated in the Company’s consolidated financial statements. The Company expects that the outcome of the Warren County, New Jersey litigation described below will not adversely affect the Company.

      The Company subsidiary (“Covanta Warren”) which operates the waste-to-energy facility in Warren County, New Jersey (the “Warren Facility”) and the Pollution Control Financing Authority of Warren County (“Warren Authority”) have been engaged in negotiations for an extended time concerning a potential restructuring of the parties’ rights and obligations under various agreements related to Covanta Warren’s operation of the Warren Facility. Those negotiations were in part precipitated by a 1997 federal court of appeals decision invalidating certain of the State of New Jersey’s waste-flow laws, which resulted in significantly reduced revenues for the Warren Facility. Since 1999, the State of New Jersey has been voluntarily making all debt service payments with respect to the project bonds issued to finance construction of the Warren Facility, and Covanta Warren has been operating the Warren Facility pursuant to an agreement with the Warren Authority which modifies the existing service agreement. Principal on the Warren Facility project debt is due annually in December of each year, while interest is due semi-annually in June and December of each year. The State of New Jersey provided sufficient funds to the project bond trustee to pay interest to bondholders during June 2004.

      Although discussions continue, to date Covanta Warren and the Warren Authority have been unable to reach an agreement to restructure the contractual arrangements governing Covanta Warren’s operation of the Warren Facility.

      Also as part of the Company’s emergence from bankruptcy, the Company and Covanta Warren entered into several agreements approved by the Bankruptcy Court that permit Covanta Warren to reimburse Covanta for employees and employee-related expenses, provide for payment of a monthly allocated overhead expense reimbursement in a fixed amount and permit the Company to advance up to $1.0 million in super-priority debtor-in-possession loans to Covanta Warren in order to meet any liquidity needs. As of December 31, 2004, Covanta Warren owed the Company $1.9 million.

      In the event the parties are unable to timely reach agreement upon and consummate a restructuring of the contractual arrangements governing Covanta Warren’s operation of the Warren Facility, the Debtors may, among other things, elect to litigate with counterparties to certain agreements with Covanta Warren, assume or reject one or more executory contracts related to the Warren Facility, attempt to file a plan of reorganization on a non-consensual basis, or liquidate Covanta Warren. In such an event, creditors of Covanta Warren may receive little or no recovery on account of their claims.

      None.

PART II

      On March 10, 2004, all then outstanding Old Preferred and Old Common stock of the Company was cancelled and extinguished in accordance with the Reorganization Plan. Holders of Old Preferred and Old Common stock received no distributions or other consideration on account of their securities cancelled and extinguished under the Reorganization Plan.

Covanta Energy Corporation and Subsidiaries

Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

      Certain statements in the Annual Report on Form 10-K may constitute “forward-looking” statements as defined in Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”), Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the “PSLRA”) or in releases made by the Securities and Exchange Commission, all as may be amended from time to time. Such forward looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other important factors that could cause the actual results, performance or achievements of Covanta and its subsidiaries, or industry results, to differ materially from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Statements that are not historical fact are forward-looking statements. Forward looking statements can be identified by, among other things, the use of forward-looking language, such as the words “plan”, “believe”, “expect”, “anticipate”, “intend”, “estimate”, “project”, “may”, “will”, “would”, “could”, “should”, “seeks”, “scheduled to”, or other similar words, or the negative of these terms or other variations of these terms or comparable language, or by discussion of strategy or intentions. These cautionary statements are being made pursuant to the Securities Act, the Exchange Act and the PSLRA with the intention of obtaining the benefits of the “safe harbor” provisions of such laws. The Company cautions investors that any forward-looking statements made by the Company are not guarantees or indicative of future performance. Important assumptions and other important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those forward-looking statements with respect to the Company, include, but are not limited to, the risks and uncertainties affecting their businesses described in Item 1 of the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 and in other securities filings by the Company.

      Although the Company believes that its plans, intentions and expectations reflected in or suggested by such forward-looking statements are reasonable, actual results could differ materially from a projection or assumption in any of its forward-looking statements. The Company’s future financial condition and results of operations, as well as any forward-looking statements, are subject to change and inherent risks and uncertainties. The forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are made only as of the date hereof and the Company does not have or undertake any obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements whether as a result of new information, subsequent events or otherwise, unless otherwise required by law.

REORGANIZATION

      On March 10, 2004 (the “Effective Date”), the Company consummated a plan of reorganization and emerged from its reorganization proceeding under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”). As a result of the consummation of the Company’s plan of reorganization, Covanta became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Danielson. The Company’s Chapter 11 proceedings commenced on April 1, 2002 (the “First Petition Date”), when Covanta and most of its domestic subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”). All of the bankruptcy cases (the “Chapter 11 Cases”) were jointly administered. During the Chapter 11 Cases, Covanta and its subsidiaries which were part of the Chapter 11 Cases (the “Debtors”) operated their business as debtors-in-possession pursuant to the Bankruptcy Code. International operations and certain other subsidiaries and joint venture partnerships were not included in the bankruptcy filings.

      On December 2, 2003, Covanta and Danielson entered into an Investment and Purchase Agreement (as amended). On March 5, 2004, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order confirming the Company’s plan of reorganization premised on the Danielson Agreement and liquidation for certain of those Debtors involved in non-core businesses (the “Liquidation Plan”). On March 10, 2004 both plans were effected upon the consummation of the Danielson Agreement and the reorganization plan (the plans of reorganization and liquidation collectively, the “Reorganization Plan”).

      The Financial Statements for the period beginning on the day after the Effective Date through December 31, 2004 reflect both fresh start accounting in accordance with American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Statement of Position 90-7 “Financial Reporting by Entities in Reorganization under the Bankruptcy Code” (“SOP 90-7”) and business combination accounting in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 141 “Business Combinations” and Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 109 “Accounting for Income Taxes”. Accordingly, all pre-petition liabilities believed to be subject to compromise were segregated in the Consolidated Balance Sheet and classified as liabilities subject to compromise, at the estimated amount of allowable claims. Liabilities not believed to be subject to compromise were separately classified as current and non-current, as appropriate. Revenues, expenses (including professional fees relating to the bankruptcy proceeding), realized gains and losses, and provisions for losses resulting from the reorganization were reported separately as reorganization items. Also, interest expense was accrued during the Chapter 11 Cases only to the extent that it was to be paid. As authorized by the Bankruptcy Court, debt service continued to be paid on the Company’s project debt throughout the Chapter 11 Cases. Cash used for reorganization items was disclosed separately in the Statements of Consolidated Cash Flows.

      Covanta had the right during the Chapter 11 Cases, subject to Bankruptcy Court approval and certain other limitations, to assume or reject executory contracts and unexpired leases. As a condition to assuming a contract, the Company was required to cure all existing defaults (including payment defaults). The Company paid approximately $9 million in cure amounts associated with assumed executory contracts and unexpired leases. Several counterparties have indicated that they believe that actual cure amounts are greater than the amounts specified in the Company’s notices, and there can be no assurance that the cure amounts ultimately associated with assumed executory contracts and unexpired leases will not be materially higher than the amounts estimated by the Company.

      As used in this Item 7, the term “Covanta” refers to Covanta Energy Corporation; “Company” refers to Covanta and its consolidated subsidiaries; “Domestic Covanta” refers to Covanta and its subsidiaries, other than CPIH, engaged in the waste-to-energy, water and independent power businesses in the United States; and “CPIH” refers to Covanta’s subsidiary, Covanta Power International Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiaries engaged in the independent power business outside the United States.

      References contained herein this Annual Report on Form 10-K to the “Predecessor” refer to the Company prior to and including March 10, 2004 and references to the “Successor” refer to the Company after March 10, 2004.

Developments in Project Restructurings

      The Company’s subsidiaries involved with the Tampa Bay water project emerged from Chapter 11 on August 6, 2004. In connection with the settlement of litigation associated with the Tampa Bay project, these subsidiaries emerged from bankruptcy without material assets or liabilities, and without contractual rights to operate the Tampa Bay facility. While Covanta’s investment in these subsidiaries was recorded using the equity method after March 10, 2004, and prior to August 6, 2004, it includes these entities as consolidated subsidiaries in its financial statements after August 6, 2004.

      The Company’s subsidiaries involved with the Lake County, Florida waste-to-energy facility emerged from Chapter 11 on December 14, 2004. The Company’s subsidiaries and Lake County entered into the new agreements, releases, and financing arrangements contemplated by the Lake Plan, and Covanta Lake emerged from bankruptcy on that date. While Covanta’s investment in these subsidiaries was recorded using the equity method after March 10, 2004, and prior to December 14, 2004, it includes these entities as consolidated subsidiaries in its financial statements after December 14, 2004.

      The Debtors owning and operating the Company’s Warren County, New Jersey and Lake County, Florida waste-to-energy facilities and the Tampa Bay, Florida water project remained debtors-in-possession (the “Remaining Debtors”) after the Effective Date, and were not the subject of either plan. As a result, the Company recorded its investment in the Remaining Debtors using the equity method as of March 10, 2004,

until CTC and CTB and Covanta Lake emerged from bankruptcy as described above. The Warren County matter is more fully described in Note 31 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

      The Company has two business segments: (a) Domestic, the businesses of which are owned and/or operated through Domestic Covanta; and (b) International, the businesses of which are owned and/or operated through CPIH. As described below under “Capital Resources and Commitments” and “Liquidity”, Domestic Covanta and CPIH have separate corporate debt.

      In its Domestic segment, the Company designs, constructs, and operates key infrastructure for municipalities and others in waste-to-energy and independent power production. Domestic Covanta’s principal business, from which the Company earns most of its revenue, is the operation of waste-to-energy facilities. Waste-to-energy facilities combust municipal solid waste as a means of environmentally sound waste disposal, and produce energy that is sold as electricity or steam to utilities and other purchasers. Domestic Covanta generally operates waste-to-energy facilities under long term contracts with municipal clients. Some of these facilities are owned by Domestic Covanta, while others are owned by the municipal client or other third parties. For those facilities owned by it, Domestic Covanta retains the ability to operate such projects after current contracts expire. For those facilities not owned by Domestic Covanta, municipal clients generally have the contractual right, but not the obligation, to extend the contract and continue to retain Domestic Covanta’s service after the initial expiration date. For all waste-to-energy projects, Domestic Covanta receives revenue from two primary sources: fees it charges for processing waste received; and payments for electricity and steam.

      In addition to its waste-to-energy projects, Domestic Covanta operates, and in some cases has ownership interests in, other renewable energy projects which generate electricity from wood waste, landfill gas, and hydroelectric resources. The electricity from these projects is sold to utilities. For these projects, Domestic Covanta receives revenue from electricity sales, and in some cases cash from equity distributions.

      Domestic Covanta also operates one water project which produces potable water that is distributed by a municipal entity. For this project, Domestic Covanta receives revenue from service fees it charges the municipal entity. Domestic Covanta previously had operated several small waste water treatment projects pursuant to contractual arrangements with municipal entities or other customers. During 2004, Domestic Covanta’s operating contracts for these projects were either terminated or transferred to third parties. The termination of these operations did not have a material effect on the Company. The Company does not expect to grow its water business, and may consider further divestitures.

      In its International segment as of December 31, 2004, CPIH has ownership interests in, and/or operates, independent power production facilities in the Philippines, China, Bangladesh, India, and Costa Rica, and one waste-to-energy facility in Italy. During the third quarter of 2004, it sold its interest in one project in Spain. The Costa Rica facilities generate electricity from hydroelectric resources while the other independent power production facilities generate electricity and steam by combusting coal, natural gas, or heavy fuel oil. For these projects, CPIH receives revenue from operating fees, electricity and steam sales, and in some cases cash from equity distributions.

      In 2003 and 2002, the Company had an “Other” segment which consisted of the Company’s remaining operations in the aviation and entertainment businesses which have been disposed of or which are being liquidated in bankruptcy by a liquidation trustee. The Company expects that it will have no liability or further obligations with respect to its former activities in this segment.

      An important objective of management is to provide reliable service to its clients while generating sufficient cash to meet its recourse debt service and liquidity needs. Maintaining historic facility production

and optimizing cash receipts is necessary to assure that the Company has sufficient cash to fund operations, make appropriate and permitted capital expenditures and meet scheduled debt service payments. Under its current principal financing arrangements the Company does not expect to receive any cash contributions from Danielson, and is prohibited, under its principal financing arrangements, from using its cash to issue dividends to Danielson.

      The Company believes that when combined with its other sources of liquidity, Domestic Covanta’s operations should generate sufficient cash to meet operational needs, capital expenditures and debt service due prior to maturity on its corporate debt. Therefore in order to optimize cash flows, management believes it must seek to continue to operate and maintain Domestic Covanta’s facilities consistent with historical performance levels, and to avoid increases in overhead and operating expenses in view of the largely fixed nature of Domestic Covanta’s revenues. Management will also seek to maintain or enhance Domestic Covanta’s cash flow from renewals or replacement of existing contracts (which begin to expire in October 2007), and from new contracts to expand existing facilities or operate additional facilities. Domestic Covanta’s ability to grow cash flows by investing in new projects is limited by debt covenants in its principal financing agreements, and by the scarcity of opportunities for developing and constructing new waste-to-energy facilities.

      The Company believes that CPIH’s operations should also generate sufficient cash to meet its operational needs, capital expenditures and debt service prior to maturity on its corporate debt. However, due to risks inherent in foreign operations, CPIH’s receipt of cash distributions can be less regular and predictable than that of Domestic Covanta. Management believes that it must continue to operate and maintain CPIH’s facilities consistent with historical performance levels to enable its subsidiaries to comply with respective debt covenants and make cash distributions to CPIH. It will also seek to refinance its corporate indebtedness, or sell existing projects in an amount sufficient to repay such indebtedness, at or prior to its maturity in March 2007. In those jurisdictions where its subsidiaries’ energy purchasers, fuel suppliers or contractors may experience difficulty in meeting payment or performance obligations on a timely basis, CPIH must seek arrangements which permit the subsidiary to meet all of its obligations. CPIH’s ability to grow by investing in new projects is limited by debt covenants in its principal financing agreements.

      Domestic Covanta and CPIH each emerged from bankruptcy with material amounts of corporate debt. As of December 31, 2004, Domestic Covanta had outstanding corporate debt in the principal amount of $235.7 million, comprised of (i) secured notes due in 2011 in the amount of $207.7 million (accreting to $230 million at maturity) and (ii) unsecured notes due 2012 in the amount of $24 million (which are estimated to increase to approximately $28 million through the issuance of additional notes). As of December 31, 2004, Domestic Covanta also had credit facilities for liquidity and the issuance of letters of credit in the amount of $240.3 million, which credit facilities expire in 2009. As of December 31, 2004, CPIH had outstanding corporate debt in the principal amount of $76.9 million and credit facilities for liquidity in the amount of $9.1 million. Additional information on Domestic Covanta’s and CPIH’s debt and credit facilities is provided below in “Capital Resources and Commitments” and in “Liquidity.”

      Creditors under Domestic Covanta’s debt and credit facilities do not have recourse to CPIH, and creditors under CPIH’s debt and credit facilities do not have recourse to Domestic Covanta. Cash generated by Domestic Covanta businesses is managed and held separately from cash generated by CPIH businesses. Therefore, under current financing arrangements the assets and cash flow of each of Domestic Covanta and CPIH are not available to the other, either to repay the debt or to satisfy other obligations.

      Domestic Covanta’s ability to optimize its cash flow should be enhanced under a Tax Sharing Agreement with Danielson. This agreement provides that Danielson will file a federal tax return for its consolidated group of companies, including the subsidiaries which comprise Domestic Covanta, and that certain of Danielson’s NOLs will be available to offset the federal tax liability of Domestic Covanta. Consequently, Domestic Covanta’s federal income tax obligations will be substantially reduced. Covanta is not obligated to make any payments to Danielson with respect to the use of these NOLs. The NOLs will expire in varying amounts from December 31, 2004 through December 31, 2023 if not used. The IRS has not audited Danielson’s tax returns. See Note 26 to the Company’s consolidated financial statements for additional information regarding Danielson’s NOLs and factors which may affect its availability to offset taxable income of Domestic Covanta.

If the NOLs were not available to offset the federal income tax liability of Domestic Covanta, Domestic Covanta may not have sufficient cash flow available to pay debt service on the Domestic Covanta corporate credit facilities. Because CPIH is not included as a member of Danielson’s consolidated taxpayer group, the Tax Sharing Agreement does not benefit it.

      Management believes that demonstrating Domestic Covanta’s ability to maintain consistent and substantial cash available for corporate debt service and letter of credit fees will enable it to refinance its corporate debt, as well as attract alternative sources of credit. Refinancing Domestic Covanta’s credit facilities may enable it to reduce the costs of its indebtedness and letters of credit, remove or relax restrictive covenants and provide Domestic Covanta with the additional flexibility to exploit appropriate growth opportunities in the future. The Company also believes that operating cash flows will not be sufficient to repay the High Yield Notes at maturity in 2011. Accordingly, the Company will have to derive such funds from refinancing, asset sales, or other sources. Domestic Covanta may refinance, without prepayment premium, the High Yield Notes prior to March 10, 2006. In addition, Domestic Covanta has three letter of credit facilities under which it obtained letters of credit required under agreements with customers and others. These facilities are of shorter duration than the related obligation of Domestic Covanta to provide letters of credit. Domestic Covanta will have to renew or replace these facilities in order to meet such obligations.

      CPIH’s corporate debt matures in March 2007. CPIH believes that its operating cash flows alone will not be sufficient to repay this debt at maturity. Accordingly, CPIH will have to derive such funds from refinancing, asset sales, or other sources.

      As described below in “Proposed Refinancing”, Danielson has received commitments to refinance both Domestic Covanta’s and to repay CPIH’s corporate debt. If it is able to close such refinancing, the Company expects to achieve both a lower overall cost with respect to its existing corporate debt and less restrictive covenants than under its current financing arrangements.

      The Company’s emergence from bankruptcy did not affect the operating performance of its facilities or their ability to generate cash. However, as a result of the application of fresh start and purchase accounting adjustments required upon the Company’s emergence from bankruptcy and acquisition by Danielson, the carrying value of the Company’s assets was adjusted to reflect their current estimated fair value based on discounted anticipated cash flows and estimates of management in consultation with valuation experts. These adjustments will result in future changes in non-cash items such as depreciation and amortization which will not be consistent with the amounts of such items for prior periods. Such future changes for post-emergence periods may affect earnings as compared to pre-emergence periods.

      In addition, the Company’s consolidated financial statements have been further adjusted to deconsolidate the Remaining Debtors from the consolidated group until they emerged or were disposed after March 10, 2004 as described above in “Developments in Project Restructurings.”

      Although management has endeavored to use its best efforts to make appropriate estimates of value, the estimation process is subject to inherent limitations and is based upon the preliminary work of the Company and its valuation consultants. Moreover, under applicable accounting principles to the extent that relevant information remains to be developed and fully evaluated, such preliminary estimates may be adjusted prior to March 10, 2005. The adjusted values assigned to depreciable and amortizable assets may affect the Company’s GAAP earnings. See Note 34 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information on the impact of fresh start adjustments on the Company’s financial statements.

      Domestic Covanta owns certain waste-to-energy facilities for which the debt service (principal and interest) on project debt is expressly included as a component of the service fee paid by the municipal client. As of December 31, 2004 the principal amount of project debt outstanding with respect to these projects was approximately $670 million. In accordance with GAAP, regardless of the actual amounts paid by the

municipal client with respect to this component, the Company records revenues with respect thereto based on levelized principal payments during the contract term, which are then discounted to reflect when the principal payments are actually paid by the municipal client. Accordingly the amount of revenues recorded does not equal the actual payment of this component by the municipal client in any given contract year and the difference between the two methods gives rise to the unbilled service receivable recorded on the Company’s balance sheet. The interest expense component of the debt service payment is recorded based upon the actual amount of this component paid by the municipal client.

      The Company also owns two waste-to-energy projects for which debt service is not expressly included in the fee it is paid. Rather, the Company receives a fee for each ton of waste processed at these projects. As of December 31, 2004, the principal amount of project debt outstanding with respect to these projects was approximately $172 million. Accordingly, Domestic Covanta does not record revenue reflecting principal on this project debt. Its operating subsidiaries for these projects make equal monthly deposits with their respective project trustees in amounts sufficient for the trustees to pay principal and interest when due.

      The Company has historically performed its operating obligations without experiencing material unexpected service interruptions or incurring material increases in costs. In addition, in its contracts at domestic projects Domestic Covanta generally has limited its exposure for risks not within its control. For additional information about such risks and damages that Domestic Covanta may owe for its unexcused operating performance failures see, Risk Factors’ included herein Part I, Item 1. In monitoring and assessing the ongoing operating and financial performance of the Company’s domestic businesses, management focuses on certain key factors: tons of waste processed, electricity and steam sold, and boiler availability.

      A material portion of the Company’s domestic service revenues and energy revenues is relatively predictable because it is derived from long-term contracts where Domestic Covanta receives a fixed operating fee which escalates over time and a portion (typically 10%) of energy revenues. Domestic Covanta receives these revenues for performing to base contractual standards, including standards for waste processing and energy generation efficiency. These standards vary among contracts, and at three of its domestic waste-to-energy projects Covanta receives service revenue based entirely on the amount of waste processed instead of a fixed operating fee, and retains 100% of energy revenues generated. In addition, Domestic Covanta has benefited during 2004 from historically favorable pricing in energy and scrap metals markets. Domestic Covanta may receive material additional service and energy revenue if its domestic waste-to-energy projects operate at levels exceeding these contractual standards. Its ability to meet or exceed such standards at its domestic projects, and its general financial performance, is affected by the following:

      The Company’s quarterly income from domestic operations within the same fiscal year typically differs substantially due to seasonal factors, primarily as a result of the timing of scheduled plant maintenance and the receipt of annual incentive fees, at many waste-to-energy facilities.

      Domestic Covanta usually conducts scheduled maintenance twice each year at each of its domestic facilities, which requires that individual boiler units temporarily cease operations. During these scheduled maintenance periods, Domestic Covanta incurs material repair and maintenance expenses and receives less revenue, until the boiler units resume operations. This scheduled maintenance typically occurs during periods of off-peak electric demand in the spring and fall. The spring scheduled maintenance period generally occurs during February, March and April and is typically more comprehensive and costly than the work conducted during the fall maintenance period, which usually occurs between mid-September and mid-November. As a result, Domestic Covanta has typically incurred its highest maintenance expense in the first quarter.

      Domestic Covanta earns annual incentive revenues at most of its waste-to-energy projects by processing waste during each contract year in excess of certain contractual levels. As a result, such revenues are recognized if and when the annual performance threshold has been achieved, which can occur only near the end of each respective contract year. Many contract years coincide with the applicable municipal client’s fiscal year, and as a result, the majority of this incentive revenue has historically been recognized in the second quarter and to a lesser extent in the fourth quarter.

      Given the seasonal factors discussed above relating to its domestic business, Domestic Covanta has typically experienced its highest operating income from its domestic projects during the second quarter and the lowest operating income during the first quarter.

      The Company’s cash provided by domestic operating activities also varies seasonally. Generally cash provided by domestic operating activities follows income with a one to two month timing delay for maintenance expense payables and incentive revenue receivables. In addition, most capital expense projects are conducted during the scheduled maintenance periods. Further, certain substantial operating expenses (including annual insurance payments typically due in the fourth quarter) are accrued consistently each month throughout the year while the corresponding cash payments are made only a few times each year. Generally, the first quarter is negatively impacted to some extent as a result of such seasonal payments. These factors typically have caused Domestic Covanta’s operating cash flow from its domestic projects to be the lowest during the first quarter and the highest during the third quarter.

      The Company’s annual and quarterly financial performance can be affected by many factors, several of which are outside the Company’s control as are noted above. These factors can overshadow the seasonal dynamics described herein; particularly, with regard to quarterly cash from operations, which can be materially affected by changes in working capital.

      Management believes that it must continue to operate and maintain CPIH’s facilities consistent with historical performance levels to enable its subsidiaries to comply with respective debt covenants and make cash distributions to CPIH. In monitoring and assessing the ongoing performance of CPIH’s businesses, management focuses primarily on electricity sold and plant availability at its projects. Several of CPIH’s facilities, unlike Covanta’s domestic facilities, generate electricity for sale only during periods when requested by the contract counterparty to the power purchase agreement. At such facilities, CPIH receives payments to compensate it for providing this capacity, whether or not electricity is actually delivered, if and when required. CPIH’s financial performance is also impacted by:

      CPIH’s quarterly income from operations and equity income vary based on seasonal factors, primarily as a result of the scheduling of plant maintenance at Quezon and Chinese facilities and lower electricity sales during the Chinese holidays. The annual major scheduled maintenance for the Quezon facility is typically planned for the first or early second quarter of each fiscal year, which reduces CPIH equity in net income of unconsolidated investments during that period. Boiler maintenance at CPIH’s Chinese facilities typically occurs in either the first or second fiscal quarters, which increases expense and reduces revenue. In addition, electricity sales are lower in the first quarter due to lower demand during the Chinese New Year. As a result of these seasonal factors, income from CPIH will typically be higher during the second half of the year compared to the first half.

      Cash distributions from operating subsidiaries and partnerships to CPIH also vary seasonally but are generally unrelated to income seasonality. CPIH receives on a monthly basis modest distributions of operating fees. In addition, CPIH receives partnership distributions, which are typically prescribed by project debt documents and occur no more than several times per year for each project. Scheduled cash distributions from the Quezon and Haripur facilities, which are material, occur during the second and fourth quarters. As a result, CPIH’s cash available to service the CPIH term loan is typically much greater during the second and fourth quarters than during the first and third quarters.

      CPIH’s annual and quarterly financial performance can be affected by many factors several of which are outside CPIH’s control as are noted above. These factors can overshadow the seasonal dynamics described herein.

      On January 31, 2005, Covanta’s parent, Danielson Holding Corporation, entered into a stock purchase agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”) with American Ref-Fuel Holdings Corp. (“Ref-Fuel”), an owner and operator of waste-to-energy facilities in the northeast United States, and Ref-Fuel’s stockholders (the “Selling Stockholders”) to purchase 100% of the issued and outstanding shares of Ref-Fuel capital stock. Under the terms of the Purchase Agreement, Danielson will pay $740 million in cash for the stock of Ref-Fuel and will assume the consolidated net debt of Ref-Fuel, which as of December 31, 2004 was approximately $1.2 billion, net of debt service reserve funds and other restricted funds held in trust for payment of debt service. After the transaction is completed, Ref-Fuel will be a wholly-owned subsidiary of Covanta.

      The acquisition is expected to close when all of the closing conditions to the Purchase Agreement have been satisfied or waived. These closing conditions include the receipt of approvals, clearances and the satisfaction of all waiting periods as required under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Act of 1976 and as required by certain governmental authorities such as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and other applicable regulatory authorities. Other closing conditions of the transaction include Danielson’s completion of debt financing and an equity rights offering, as further described below, Danielson providing letters of credit or other financial accommodations in the aggregate amount of $100 million to replace two currently outstanding letters of credit that have been entered into by two respective subsidiaries of Ref-Fuel and issued in favor of a third subsidiary of Ref-Fuel, and other customary closing conditions. While it is anticipated that all of the applicable conditions will be satisfied, there can be no assurance as to whether or when all of those conditions will be satisfied or, where permissible, waived.

      Either Danielson or the Selling Stockholders may terminate the Purchase Agreement if the acquisition does not occur on or before June 30, 2005, but if a required governmental or regulatory approval has not been received by such date then either party may extend the closing to a date that is no later than the later of August 31, 2005 or the date 25 days after which Ref-Fuel has provided to Danielson certain financial statements described in the Purchase Agreement.

      Danielson intends to finance this transaction through a combination of debt and equity financing. The equity component of the financing is expected to consist of an approximately $400 million offering of warrants or other rights to purchase Danielson’s common stock to all of Danielson’s existing stockholders at $6.00 per share (the “Ref-Fuel Rights Offering”). In the Ref-Fuel Rights Offering, Danielson’s existing stockholders will be issued rights to purchase Danielson’s stock on a pro rata basis, with each holder entitled to purchase approximately 0.9 shares of Danielson’s common stock at an exercise price of $6.00 per full share for each share of Danielson’s common stock then held. Danielson will file a registration statement with the SEC with respect to such rights offering and the statements contained herein shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy shares of Danielson’s common stock. Any such offer or solicitation will be made in compliance with all applicable securities laws.

      Three of Danielson’s largest stockholders, SZ Investments, TAVF and Laminar, representing ownership of approximately 40% of Danielson’s outstanding common stock, have each severally committed to participate in the Ref-Fuel Rights Offering and to acquire their pro rata portion of the shares.

      Danielson has received a commitment from Goldman Sachs Credit Partners, L.P. and Credit Suisse First Boston for a debt financing package necessary to finance the acquisition, as well as to refinance the existing recourse debt of Covanta and provide additional liquidity for the Company. As discussed below, this financing will replace entirely all of Domestic Covanta’s and CPIH’s outstanding corporate debt that was issued on March 10, 2004. The financing will consist of two tranches, each of which is secured by pledges of the stock of Covanta’s subsidiaries that has not otherwise been pledged, guarantees from certain of Covanta’s subsidiaries and all other available assets of Covanta’s subsidiaries. The first tranche, a first priority senior secured bank facility, is comprised of a funded $250 million term loan facility, a $100 million revolving credit facility and a $340 million letter of credit facility. The revolving credit facility and the letter of credit facility will be available for the Company’s needs in connection with its domestic and international businesses, including the existing businesses of Ref-Fuel. The second tranche is a second priority senior secured term loan facility consisting of a funded $450 million term loan facility.

      The closing of the financing and receipt of proceeds under the Ref-Fuel Rights Offering are closing conditions under the Purchase Agreement.

      Immediately upon closing of the acquisition, Ref-Fuel will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Covanta, and Covanta will control the management and operations of the Ref-Fuel facilities. The current project and other debt of Ref-Fuel subsidiaries will be unaffected by the acquisition, except that the revolving credit and letter of credit facility of Ref-Fuel Company LLC (the direct parent of each Ref-Fuel project company) will be cancelled and replaced with new facilities at the Covanta level. For additional information concerning the combined capital structure of Covanta and American Ref-Fuel following the acquisition, see Liquidity, and Capital Resources and Commitments, below.

      There can be no assurance that Danielson will be able to complete the acquisition of Ref-Fuel.

OPERATING RESULTS

2004 vs. 2003

      The discussion below provides comparative information regarding the Company’s historical consolidated results of operations. The information provided below with respect to revenue, expense and certain other items for periods during 2004 was affected materially by several factors which did not affect such items for comparable periods during 2003. These factors principally include:

      The factors noted above must be taken into account in developing meaningful comparisons between the periods compared below.

      The Predecessor and Successor periods for 2004 have been combined on a non-GAAP basis to facilitate the following year to year comparison of Covanta’s operations.

Consolidated Results

      The following table summarizes the historical consolidated results of operations of the Company for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003 (in thousands of dollars):

      The following general discussion should be read in conjunction with the above table, the consolidated financial statements and the notes to those statements and other financial information appearing and referred to elsewhere in this report. Additional detail on comparable revenues, costs and expenses, and operating income of the Company is provided in the Domestic Segment and International Segment discussions below.

      Consolidated revenues for 2004 decreased $90.0 million compared to 2003, which resulted from a reduction in energy sales in both the domestic and the international segments primarily due to the factors described above. Additional reductions in revenue are attributable to decreases in service fees and construction revenues in the domestic segment. See separate segment discussion below for details relating to these variances.

      Consolidated total costs and expenses before operating income for 2004 decreased $117.3 million compared to 2003, primarily due to the factors described above. Included in the reduction of total costs and expenses in 2004, was lower depreciation and amortization expense of $2.7 million. This decrease in depreciation and amortization was primarily due to the factors described above offset by service and energy contract amortization of $16.1 million in 2004 resulting from recording the estimated fair value of such contract assets and amortizing them over their remaining estimated useful lives. Additionally on March 10, 2004, property, plant and equipment were recorded at their fair value, and subsequently, the estimated useful lives of property plant and equipment were adjusted resulting in revised depreciation expense.

      Operating income for the combined period ended December 31, 2004 increased $27.3 million compared to 2003. The improvement in operating income was due to the operating factors described above.

      Equity in net income of unconsolidated investments decreased $2.9 million in 2004 from a $3 million decrease in the domestic segment primarily due to the sale of the geothermal business in December of 2003.

      Interest expense for 2004 increased $0.9 million compared to 2003. The increase was primarily attributable to a $6.2 million increase in the international segment primarily due to the CPIH term loan which debt was incurred upon emergence from Chapter 11. These increases were offset by a $5.3 million decrease in the domestic segment primarily attributable to the restructuring of contracts at the Onondaga County, New York and Hennepin County, Minnesota facilities in 2003.

      Reorganization items for 2004 decreased $25.1 million compared to 2003. The decrease was primarily the result of a decrease in bankruptcy exit costs of $8.9 million and a $20.7 million reduction in legal and professional fees, offset by an increase in severance costs of $4.6 million in the period ended March 10, 2004.

      Gain on cancellation of pre-petition debt was $510.7 million for 2004. Gain on cancellation of pre-petition debt resulted from the cancellation on March 10, 2004 of the Company’s pre-petition debt and other liabilities subject to compromise net of the fair value of cash and securities distributed to petition creditors.

      Fresh start adjustments were $399.1 million for 2004. Fresh start adjustments represent adjustments to the carrying amount of the Company’s assets and liabilities to fair value in accordance with the provisions of SOP 90-7. See Note 34 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

      The gain from discontinued operations in 2003 was $78.8 million due to the rejection of a waste-to-energy lease, sale of the geothermal business, and the final disposition of the Arrowhead Pond interests.

      The cumulative effect of change in accounting principle of $8.5 million in 2003 related to the January 1, 2003 adoption of SFAS No. 143.

      The following table summarizes the historical results of operations of the Domestic segment for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003 (in thousands of dollars):

      Total revenues for the Domestic segment for 2004 decreased $58.5 million compared to 2003. Service revenues declined $33.8 million, which was comprised of a $12.5 million decrease resulting from contracts which were restructured at the Hennepin and Onondaga facilities (including the elimination of project debt at the Hennepin facility) during the second half of 2003 as part of Covanta’s overall restructuring. It also reflected a $22.5 million reduction of service revenues due to deconsolidation of the Remaining Debtors after March 10, 2004, and a $6.5 million decrease due to the elimination of 2004 revenues on two bio-gas facilities, which resulted from the consolidation of the partnership. These decreases were offset by a $9.3 million increase resulting primarily from higher scrap metal prices, escalation increases under fixed service agreements, and increased supplemental waste processed.

      Electricity and steam sales for 2004 decreased $12.7 million compared to 2003. The decrease was primarily due to a $16.2 million decrease resulting from the expiration of a lease at one domestic hydroelectric facility, $1.5 million from the deconsolidation of the Remaining Debtors, and a $7.2 million decrease due to fresh start adjustments related to the elimination of amortization on the deferred gain relating to the Haverhill energy contract. The foregoing decreases were offset by revenue increases of $3.7 million primarily related to increased energy pricing at the Union and Alexandria facilities, and a $7 million increase due to the consolidation of a bio-gas facility in 2004 previously recorded on the partnership in 2003.

      Construction revenues for 2004 decreased $11.9 million compared to 2003. A decrease of $13.1 million was due to the Company’s completion of the Tampa Bay desalination facility, offset by a $1.1 million increase relating to initial work paid by clients in connection with planned waste-to-energy plant expansions.

      Plant operating costs for 2004 decreased $28.1 million compared to 2003. $18.9 million of this decrease was due to the deconsolidation of the Remaining Debtors noted in the revenue discussion above, and $13.5 million of this decrease was due to the expiration of a lease contract at a domestic hydroelectric facility in October 2003. These reductions were offset by an increase in domestic operating expense of $4.3 million primarily attributable to facility operation and maintenance cost.

      Construction costs for 2004 decreased $18.5 million compared to 2003 primarily attributable to the Company’s completion of the Tampa Bay desalination facility, offset in part by increased plant expansions at three waste-to-energy facilities.

      Depreciation and amortization for 2004 increased $3.3 million compared to 2003. This increase in depreciation and amortization was due to service and energy contract amortization of $16.1 million in 2004 resulting from recording the estimated fair value of such contract assets at March 10, 2004 and amortizing them over their remaining estimated useful lives. Additionally on March 10, 2004, property, plant and equipment were recorded at their fair value, and subsequently, the estimated useful lives of property plant and equipment were adjusted resulting in revised depreciation expense. These increases were offset by decreases in depreciation and amortization expense resulting from the deconsolidation of the remaining debtors and the sale and restructuring of businesses in 2003.

      Net interest on project debt for 2004 decreased $27 million compared to 2003. The decrease was primarily the result of a reduction in project debt due to exclusion of debt service related to the deconsolidation of the Remaining Debtors noted above, the restructuring of debt at two domestic facilities in the last six months of 2003, and the reduction of project debt on another facility.

      Write-off of assets held for use for 2004 decreased $16.7 million compared to 2003 due to the provision for arena commitments recorded in the second half of 2003.

      Selling, general and administrative expenses had a net increase totaling $4.7 million in 2004 compared to 2003 primarily due to a $8.1 million increase in professional and management fees offset by a $3.7 million decrease in wages and benefits.

      Income from operations for the Domestic segment for 2004 increased by $34 million compared to 2003. This increase was comprised of net increases due to cessation of construction activities ($6.6 million), higher energy and scrap metal revenues as well as increased supplemental waste processed ($13 million), lower interest expense on project debt ($27 million), a decrease in write-off of assets held for use ($16.7 million) and a ($5.8 million) decrease in operating costs and expenses related to the wind down of non-energy businesses. These increases were offset by net decreases due to higher operating and maintenance expenses ($4.3 million), the expiration of a hydroelectric lease ($2.7 million), restructuring of existing projects ($12.5 million), the deconsolidation of Remaining Debtors ($5.1 million), the elimination of amortization of deferred gains due to fresh start adjustments ($7.2 million), increases in selling, general and administrative expense ($4.7 million), and the increase in depreciation expense due to fresh start accounting adjustments ($3.3 million).

      The following table summarizes the historical results of operations of the International segment for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003 (in thousands of dollars):

      Total revenues for the International segment for 2004 compared to 2003 decreased by $31.5 million. This decrease primarily resulted from the deconsolidation of the MCI facility totaling $17.2 million, a $12.0 million energy sales reduction due to lower demand in 2004 at the CPIH facilities in India, and a $4.6 million decrease due to the expiration of contracts at one of the CPIH facilities in the Philippines. These decreases were offset by a $3.0 million increase due to higher steam tariffs at CPIH’s facilities in China.

      International plant operating costs were lower by $19.1 million, of which $18.1 million was due to deconsolidation of the MCI facility and $8.0 million was due to lower demand at CPIH’s facilities in India, offset by a $8.2 million increase in fuel costs at CPIH’s facilities in China.

      Depreciation and amortization for 2004 decreased $6 million as a result of fresh start accounting adjustments.

      Net interest on project debt for 2004 decreased $3.7 million compared to 2003. The decrease resulted from a $1.6 million decrease due to the deconsolidation of the MCI facility and a $2.9 million decrease due to lower interest rates at two facilities in India.

      Income from operations for the International segment for 2004 decreased $6.7 million compared to 2003 due to a decrease in revenues discussed above, an increase in fuel costs at the CPIH facilities in China and increased overhead costs at CPIH post emergence offset by a combination of lower plant operating costs in India, reductions in depreciation expense as a result of fresh start accounting adjustments, the deconsolidation of the MCI facility, and a reduction of interest on project debt.

2003 vs. 2002

Consolidated Results

      The following table summarizes the historical consolidated results of operations of the Company for the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002 (in thousands of dollars):