Back to GetFilings.com

Table of Contents

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20549

FORM 10-Q

(Mark One)

For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004

OR

For the transition period from              to             

Commission File Number 0-13716

NORTH PITTSBURGH SYSTEMS, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

4008 Gibsonia Road, Gibsonia, Pennsylvania 15044-9311

(Address of principal executive offices)

(Zip Code)

724.443.9600

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

No Change

(Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report)

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, and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

YES x NO ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).

YES x NO ¨

The number of shares of the registrant’s Common Stock (par value $.15625 per share) outstanding as of May 7, 2004 was 15,005,000.

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents

PART I

FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Independent Auditors’ Review Report

The Board of Directors

North Pittsburgh Systems, Inc:

We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet of North Pittsburgh Systems, Inc. and subsidiaries as of March 31, 2004 and the related condensed consolidated statements of income and cash flows for the three-month periods ended March 31, 2004 and 2003. These condensed consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should be made to the condensed consolidated financial statements referred to above for them to be in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

KPMG LLP

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

April 20, 2004

Table of Contents

PART I

FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1. Financial Statements

NORTH PITTSBURGH SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income (Unaudited)

(Amounts in Thousands – Except Per Share Data)

See accompanying notes to unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.

2

Table of Contents

NORTH PITTSBURGH SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets

(Amounts in Thousands)

(Continued)

3

Table of Contents

NORTH PITTSBURGH SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets

(Amounts in Thousands)

See accompanying notes to unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.

4

Table of Contents

NORTH PITTSBURGH SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows (Unaudited)

(Amounts in Thousands)

See accompanying notes to unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.

5

Table of Contents

NORTH PITTSBURGH SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited)

(Amounts in Thousands)

The condensed consolidated financial statements included herein have been prepared by North Pittsburgh Systems, Inc. (hereafter referred to as the Registrant, the Company, we, us or our), without audit, pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Consolidated herein are the financial results of the Company’s wholly owned subsidiaries, North Pittsburgh Telephone Company (North Pittsburgh), Penn Telecom, Inc. (Penn Telecom) and Pinnatech, Inc. (Pinnatech). Certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in financial statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles have been condensed or omitted pursuant to such rules and regulations. Nevertheless, the Company believes that its disclosures herein are adequate to make the information presented not misleading and, in the opinion of management, all adjustments necessary to present fairly the results of operations for the interim periods have been reflected. These condensed consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and the notes thereto included in the Company’s latest Annual Report to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Form 10-K.

Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 130, “Reporting Comprehensive Income”, establishes requirements for disclosure of comprehensive income. The objective of SFAS No. 130 is to report all changes in equity that result from transactions and economic events other than transactions with owners. Comprehensive income is the total of net income and all other non-owner changes in equity. The reconciliation of net income to comprehensive income is as follows:

Substantially all employees of North Pittsburgh are covered by a noncontributory, defined benefit retirement plan. The benefits are based on each employee’s years of service and compensation. North Pittsburgh’s funding policy is to contribute an amount annually that satisfies at least the minimum funding required under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The assets of the Plan are held in a trust and are invested in a variety of equity and fixed income securities.

Eligible retirees of North Pittsburgh are provided healthcare and life insurance benefits under an unfunded plan until the retiree reaches 65 years of age.

Components of Net Periodic Benefit Cost:

The following table summarizes the components of net periodic benefit cost:

6

Table of Contents

North Pittsburgh also has a nonqualified supplemental pension plan covering former and current employees, which provides for incremental pension payments to the extent that income tax regulations limit the amount payable from North Pittsburgh’s qualified defined benefit plan. Pension expense for the supplemental plan for the three-month periods ended March 31, 2004 and 2003 was $55 and $41, respectively.

Employer Contributions:

The Company previously disclosed in its financial statements included in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 (2003 Form 10-K), that it expected to make discretionary contributions totaling $2,500 to its qualified pension plan in 2004. Due to an elective additional tax-deductible contribution of $2,000 made in 2003, no minimum contribution is required for the pension plan in 2004. However, the Company made tax-deductible discretionary contributions of $1,154 and $1,346 in January and April of 2004, respectively.

Contributions for the other postretirement benefit plans are made on a pay-as-you-go basis, with total contributions of $160 having been made during the three-month period ended March 31, 2004. The $160 of contributions for the first quarter of 2004 were in line with the expected annual contributions of $641 disclosed in the Company’s 2003 Form 10-K.

In 1998, we entered into an agreement to obtain certain data processing functions from a third party processor (Processor), which is a member of the Armstrong Group of Companies (the Armstrong Group). We are related to the Armstrong Group by a common shareholder and director. Payments to the Processor under this agreement were $822 and $893 for the three-month periods ended March 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively. Also, we paid $35 and $36 in each of those same periods to the law firm of a member of the Board of Directors for various legal services. As of March 31, 2004, we had amounts outstanding of $167 and $67 to the Processor and law firm, respectively.

In addition, in the ordinary course of business, we both provide and receive telecommunication transport services from Boulevard Communications, LLP (Boulevard), a competitive access provider jointly owned by us and a company in the Armstrong Group. Total revenues recognized from providing services to Boulevard were approximately $7 and $6, and total expenses incurred from receiving services from Boulevard were approximately $50 and $68, for the three-month periods ended March 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively. We also provide, in the ordinary course of business, telecommunication and transport services to other member companies of the Armstrong Group, with total revenues recognized of approximately $73 and $115, for those same periods, respectively. The amounts outstanding from and/or due to Boulevard and the companies in the Armstrong Group were negligible as of March 31, 2004.

In June of 2001, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued SFAS No. 143, “Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations”. The Company adopted this pronouncement on January 1, 2003. SFAS No. 143 requires that we record the fair value of an asset retirement obligation as a liability in the period in which we incur a legal obligation associated with the retirement of tangible long-lived assets resulting from the acquisition, construction, development, and/or normal use of the assets. We would also record a corresponding asset that is depreciated over the life of the asset. Subsequent to the initial measurement of the asset retirement obligation, the obligation will be adjusted at the end of each period to reflect the passage of time and changes in the estimated future cash flows underlying the obligation. The adoption of SFAS No. 143 did not have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements.

The FASB issued Interpretation No. 46 (FIN 46), “Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities”, in January 2003 and amended the Interpretation in December 2003. A variable interest entity (VIE) is an entity in which its voting equity investors lack the characteristics of having a controlling financial interest or where the existing capital at risk is insufficient to permit the entity to finance its activities without receiving additional financial support from other parties. FIN 46 requires the consolidation of entities which are determined to be VIEs when the reporting company determines itself to be the primary beneficiary (the entity that will absorb a majority of the VIE’s expected losses, receive a majority of the VIE’s residual returns, or both). The amended Interpretation was effective for the first interim or annual reporting period ending after March 15, 2004, with the exception of special purpose entities for which the statement was effective for periods ending after December 15, 2003. We have completed a review of our partnership investments and have determined that those entities do not qualify as VIEs.

7

Table of Contents

PART I

(Amounts in Thousands Except Per Share Data and Operating Statistics)

Cautionary Language Concerning Forward-Looking Statements

In addition to historical information, this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q contains certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 (Section 27A) and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Section 21E) regarding events, performance, financial trends and critical accounting policies that may affect our future operating results, financial position and cash flows. We intend that such forward-looking statements be subject to the safe harbors within Section 27A and Section 21E as provided by the Private Securities Litigation Act of 1995.

Forward-looking statements are generally accompanied by words such as “believes”, “anticipates”, “expects”, “estimates”, “intends” or similar words or expressions. Such statements are based on our assumptions and estimates and are subject to risks and uncertainties. You should understand that various factors, including (but not limited to) those items discussed below and elsewhere in this document, could cause our actual results to differ materially from the results expressed in or implied by these forward-looking statements. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which are current only as of the date of this filing. We disclaim any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

While the following list of risks and uncertainties is not exhaustive, some factors, in addition to those contained throughout this document, that could affect future operating results, financial position and cash flows and could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements are:

We also refer you to the section titled “Factors Affecting Our Prospects”, under Item 1 of our 2003 Form 10-K, for additional discussions concerning items which pose risks and uncertainties that could affect our future results.

Overview

We are a telecommunications company with annualized revenues of over $100 million. Our original core business, which dates back to 1906, consisted primarily of providing telecommunications services in our Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC) territory which today covers approximately 285 square miles and is located north of the City of Pittsburgh. In 1995, as the Internet was still in its relatively early stages, we purchased a small Internet Service Provider (ISP) as a segue into that market. During 1999, we began to expand our business beyond our ILEC territory via a Competitive Local Exchange Carrier (CLEC) edge-out strategy. In addition, from 1997 through 2001, we invested approximately $83 million in our ILEC territory to upgrade the majority of our network and deploy a Carrier Serving Area (CSA) architecture in order to allow us to offer advanced broadband products.

Today, the investments that we have made to develop our Internet related products, to expand our business via our edge-out strategy and to modernize our network for advanced broadband products have provided the majority of our revenue growth. The great majority of our revenues are generated based on monthly recurring services and are therefore not subject to large short-term fluctuations.

In addition to our core businesses described above, we also derive a portion of our net income and cash flow from our limited partner interests in three wireless partnerships, all of which

8

Table of Contents

are majority owned and operated by Verizon Wireless. These partnerships, which have their origin in the 1980s with the allocation by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) of B licenses, cover territories which overlap the majority of our ILEC and edge-out markets.

General Description of Our Company and Business

The Registrant, organized May 31, 1985, is a holding company and has no operating function. Its predecessor, North Pittsburgh, a telephone public utility incorporated in 1906, became a wholly owned subsidiary of the Registrant on May 31, 1985. Penn Telecom became a wholly owned subsidiary of the Registrant on January 30, 1988. Prior to this date, Penn Telecom was a wholly owned subsidiary of North Pittsburgh. Penn Telecom is certificated as a Competitive Access Provider (CAP), a CLEC and an Interexchange Carrier (IXC) and has entered into these businesses. Pinnatech, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Registrant, formed in 1995, principally provides Internet and broadband related services. The Registrant, North Pittsburgh, Penn Telecom and Pinnatech operate under the provisions of the Pennsylvania Business Corporation Law.

North Pittsburgh Telephone Company

North Pittsburgh, our ILEC, was founded in 1906 and operates in an approximate 285 square mile territory in Western Pennsylvania, which includes portions of Allegheny, Armstrong, Butler and Westmoreland Counties. We provide service to approximately 74,000 business and residential access lines in our ILEC territory. Over the past decade, our ILEC territory has experienced very robust population growth due to the continued expansion of suburban communities into the southern portions of our serving area, with the southernmost point of our territory being only 12 miles from the City of Pittsburgh. According to the census covering the past decade, the population in our ILEC service territory grew 14.3% from 1990 to 2000. Although no formal census has been published since, business and new home growth has remained robust in our territory over the last several years.

We operate a 100% digital switching network, comprised of nine central offices and 93 CSAs. The core of the network consists of two main host switches, a Nortel DMS 500 and a Nortel DMS 100. The majority of the CSAs were built over the past seven years, during which we completed an extensive network modernization plan. The current CSA architecture, in which nearly all loop lengths are kept to 12,000 feet or less, has enabled us to provide digital subscriber line (DSL) service over 99% of our access lines. In addition, we have deployed fiber extensively throughout the network, resulting in a 100% Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) that supports all of the inter-office and host-remote links as well as the majority of business parks within our ILEC serving area. We believe that our network is built for the future, in which our ability to satisfy the growing customer demand for broadband and multi-megabit services will be a key critical success factor.

Penn Telecom

Penn Telecom furnishes telecommunication and broadband services south of North Pittsburgh’s territory to customers in Pittsburgh and its surrounding suburbs as well as north of North Pittsburgh’s territory in the City of Butler and its surrounding areas. Verizon is the ILEC in the Pittsburgh area, while Sprint is the ILEC in the City of Butler and its surrounding areas. Our CLEC operation follows a true “edge-out” strategy, in which it has leveraged North Pittsburgh’s network, human capital skills and reputation in the surrounding markets.

We operate an extensive SONET optical network with over 300 route miles of fiber optic facilities in the Pittsburgh metropolitan market. We have physical collocation in 27 Verizon central offices and one Sprint central office and primarily serve our customers using unbundled network element (UNE) loops. Twenty-seven of these collocations are connected to our SONET using a combination of leased and owned fiber optic facilities. We have also deployed a next-generation switching system to support our Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) primary rate interface (PRI) service, achieving significant cost reductions over traditional switching systems. In the Pittsburgh market, a carrier hotel that we operate serves as the hub for the fiber optic network. In addition, we also offer space in the carrier hotel to ISPs, IXCs, other CLECs and other customers who need a carrier-class location to house voice and data equipment as well as gain access to a number of networks, including ours. In the City of Butler, we have overbuilt a portion of the Sprint distribution plant in the central business district and continue to expand these facilities as we increase our penetration of the Butler area business market.

Our sales strategy in our edge-out markets has been to focus on small to mid-sized business customers (defined as 5 to 500 lines), educational institutions and healthcare facilities, offering local and long distance voice services as well as DSL. Our fiber based network, comprised of multiple rings, enables us to compete against Verizon and other CAPs to offer transport facilities via high capacity special access circuits (from DS-1s up to OC-48s) to IXCs, ISPs and even other

9

Table of Contents

CLECs. As of March 31, 2004, Penn Telecom served 30,013 dial tone access lines and 21,227 access line equivalents¹, for a grand total of 51,240 equivalent access lines².

In addition to the CLEC operations, Penn Telecom also provides long distance services and maintains an enterprise equipment business providing traditional key and private branch exchange (PBX) systems to business customers. Prior to our CLEC operations, the majority of our long distance customers resided in our ILEC market. However, with the growth of our CLEC customer base and the effective bundling of toll with local dial tone services, we have been able to greatly expand this service offering throughout the Pittsburgh metropolitan area.

Pinnatech

Pinnatech, an ISP doing business under the Nauticom name, furnishes Internet access and broadband services in Western Pennsylvania. We serve the majority of our DSL and other broadband customers over our ILEC and CLEC networks with Pinnatech serving as the ISP providing a gateway to the Internet. In addition, Pinnatech also provides virtual hosting services, web page design and e-commerce enabling technologies to customers.

For a more complete understanding of our business, industry, principal services rendered, properties and other interests, we suggest you read our 2003 Form 10-K. There have been no significant changes in the mode of conducting business or the properties owned by the Company or its subsidiaries since the filing of that Form 10-K report. Current updates to the regulatory environment under which our subsidiaries operate can be found below in the “Regulatory Matters” section of this Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

Industry Dynamics

Demand for the traditional voice telecommunications business has been negatively impacted by the proliferation of wireless services led by one-rate bundled pricing plans that include large (if not unlimited) buckets of minutes, the popularity of alternative communication technologies such as email and instant messaging and by technological advances such as cable modems and DSL that obviate the need for secondary, and in some cases primary, access lines.

In addition, the telecommunications industry has experienced a very difficult period of contraction brought on by over-investments in the late 1990s that have created excess capacity in certain markets. As a result, the industry has experienced a relatively high number of major bankruptcies over the past several years. Besides the negative financial ramifications of absorbing write-offs of pre-petition amounts owed from such carriers, we are now faced with many of these companies emerging from bankruptcy with restructured balance sheets and greater financial flexibility.

Broadband growth has been a bright spot in the overall industry over the past several years. However, the broadband market is very competitive, with little differentiation to the end-user customer between products offered by telephone and cable companies. As such, pricing has been the main focus in winning new customers and retaining existing customers. Although the costs to deliver broadband technologies have decreased over the past several years, margins have continued to be squeezed by pricing decreases to customers.

The proliferation of broadband access has also resulted in new threats from innovative technologies, such as Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), that could further decrease the revenues received from the traditional voice business. Besides potentially displacing the need for a secondary or primary line, the regulatory definition and classification of VoIP services (which takes on many forms) may have a significant impact on the current access compensation structure.

Regulation and Competition

The telecommunications industry was greatly impacted by the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the 1996 Act), which was the legislative instrument that opened the industry to significantly greater competition. The degree and pace at which markets have been experiencing competition have varied, with most of the original regulatory barriers to entry having been removed in the markets served by the country’s largest local exchange carriers, also referred to as the Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs). Smaller rural companies, such as our ILEC, North Pittsburgh, were given regulatory relief in the form of exemptions and temporary

10

Table of Contents

suspensions from many of the competitive portions of the 1996 Act in order to allow state regulators sufficient time to examine the public policy implications of allowing competition in rural areas, and if deemed in the public interest, allowing smaller companies to gradually prepare for competition and to restructure rates. Although we still maintain in our ILEC territory some of the regulatory protections against non-facilities based competition, we expect that over time these protections will be reduced and/or entirely eliminated.

While the 1996 Act has placed a higher degree of uncertainty on our future revenue streams and margins in our ILEC territory, it has given us the opportunity to selectively expand outside of that territory by taking advantage of the pro-competitive aspects of the Act. We have pursued an edge-out strategy into Pittsburgh and its surrounding communities as well as into the City of Butler and its surrounding areas, leveraging the network, human capital skills and solid reputation of our traditional ILEC business.

The 1996 Act primarily deals with regulations concerning intra-modal competition—that is, competition among traditional wireline companies. At the same time, however, we have begun to experience a great deal of inter-modal competition, from wireless carriers and cable companies. We view these facilities based competitors to be the most formidable, as these companies can totally bypass our existing networks.

Highlights and Outlook

Revenues for the first quarter of 2004 increased $2,011, or 8.0%, over the first quarter of 2003. The majority of this growth was attributable to our ability to continue to effectively penetrate our edge-out markets as well as expand our broadband service offerings. Total operating expenses for the first quarter of 2004 increased $440, or 2.2%, compared to the first quarter of 2003. The lower percentage growth in operating expenses in contrast to operating revenues reflects our continued efforts to contain costs. The first quarter of 2004 was impacted positively by savings in labor costs as a consequence of a workforce reduction program implemented in the second quarter of 2003, decreases in the cost of contracted operational support system (OSS) services pursuant to a new agreement executed in the third quarter of 2003 and by our ability to keep postretirement benefit costs relatively flat quarter over quarter, negating the trend of double digit percentage increases in these costs experienced in the past several years.

For 2004, we expect that competition for all of our service offerings will continue to intensify, resulting in further pressures on operating margins. We expect that our key revenue growth drivers will continue to be in the form of adding new customers in our edge-out markets and further broadband penetration. We have also started to focus to an even greater extent on bundled product offerings, which we anticipate will drive value to our customers and serve as a retention tool for our existing customer base.

Our cost structure is heavily weighted towards labor and depreciation. As such, there is not a great deal of direct correlation between our revenues and our largest operating expenses. Percentage increases in our labor costs have outpaced our revenue growth over the past several years, primarily driven by increases in healthcare costs and postretirement benefit expenses. We have taken steps to address some of these issues, such as the workforce reduction program implemented in 2003 and using our excess cash reserves to make additional contributions into the defined benefit pension plan. The benefits of taking these steps were evident in the results of operations for first quarter of 2004, as our ability to maintain an overall flat level of labor and employee benefit expense in comparison to the first quarter of 2003 allowed for the majority of the 8.0% increase in revenues to flow through into operating margin.

We have also implemented a targeted capital expenditure program, in which the majority of our expenditures are directly related to new customer additions. The significant network modernization investments which we made from 1997 through 2001 have enabled us to keep our maintenance capital expenditures (defined as capital expenditures needed to continually replace and/or expand our network capabilities to address our existing customer base) at levels of 5-7% of revenues over the last several years, which is much lower than the industry average of over 10%. Maintaining our existing operating margins going forward will be challenging as competition intensifies and lower margin services, such as DSL and CLEC access lines, generate a larger percentage of our overall revenues. Nevertheless, we will continue to manage our cost structure and capital spending aggressively.

Our financial condition and balance sheet have continually improved over the last several years through prudent investment strategies and strong cash flows generated from operating activities. Unlike many telecommunication companies that have substantially leveraged their businesses, we have a greater amount of cash on hand ($34,066) than our total debt outstanding ($26,996). Our financial condition gives us the ability to invest in new products and/or opportunities and the flexibility to continue to evaluate ways to create greater shareholder value, whether through our dividend policy, stock repurchases or other investment opportunities.

11

Table of Contents

Results of Operations

The following discussion should be read in conjunction with our condensed consolidated financial statements, and the notes thereto, included in this quarterly report and with our audited financial statements, and the notes thereto, included in our 2003 Form 10-K.

Results of Operations for the Three Months Ended March 31, 2004 and 2003

Net income for the three-month period ended March 31, 2004 was $4,397, or $.29 per share, compared to net income of $3,478, or $.23 per share, for the comparable prior year period. The increase in net income was attributable to the following factors:

Operating Revenues

Total operating revenues increased $2,011, or 8.0%, in the three-month period ended March 31, 2004 over the comparable period in 2003. This increase was the result of increases in local network services revenues of $752 (12.6%), long distance and access services revenues of $826 (5.2%), directory advertising, billing and other services revenues of $175 (70.6%), telecommunication equipment sales of $85 (16.0%) and other operating revenues of $173 (6.6%).

Increases in local network services revenues of $752, or 12.6%, were primarily attributable to the following factors:

The increase in long distance and access services revenues of $826, or 5.2%, was primarily attributable to the following factors:

12

Table of Contents

The increase in directory advertising, billing and other services revenues of $175 was mostly attributable to the prior year first quarter including an approximate $120 reduction in revenues recorded in anticipation of a lower settlement for the 2002 directory book than originally estimated.

The increase in telecommunication equipment sales of $85 was due to an increase in PBX sales. Correspondingly, telecommunication equipment expenses increased by $55.

The increase in other operating revenues of $173, or 6.6%, was primarily due to growth in DSL revenues of approximately $286 as combined DSL lines (both wholesale and retail) sold increased from 8,121 as of March 31, 2003 to 10,445 as of March 31, 2004. The growth in DSL revenues was partially offset by an increase in bad debt write-offs, which are recorded by the Company as reductions in revenue.

Operating Expenses and Net Operating Income

Total operating expenses increased $440, or 2.2% in the three-month period ended March 31, 2004 over the comparable period in 2003. The change was the result of increases in network and other operating expenses of $401 (3.0%), state and local taxes of $39 (3.6%) and telecommunications equipment expenses of $55 (15.0%), offset partially by a decrease in depreciation and amortization expenses of $55 (1.2%).

The increase in network and other operating expenses of $401, or 3.0%, was primarily due to increases in the direct costs associated with the growth in access lines and access line equivalents. Such direct costs include the fees paid for leasing unbundled network elements (UNEs) in the portions of our edge-out markets that we do not provision over our own facilities and fees paid to terminate the increased local, toll and Internet traffic generated by our growing customer base. The 3.0% increase in costs, though, was historically low in comparison to the revenue growth rate (8.0%), due to the impact of the following items:

The increase in state and local taxes of $39, or 3.6%, was attributable to nominal increases in a variety of taxes, including the public utility realty tax assessment (PURTA) and Pennsylvania unemployment tax.

The decrease in consolidated depreciation and amortization expenses of $55, or 1.2%, was the result of the capitalized costs and license fees, which were incurred with the conversion to a Year 2000 compliant OSS approximately five years ago, becoming fully depreciated in December of 2003. This resulted in an approximate $270 decrease in depreciation for that set of assets. Otherwise, depreciation expense for all other assets increased approximately $215 as the

13

Table of Contents

depreciable asset base (gross property, plant and equipment) grew 4.6% over the twelve-month period ended March 31, 2004.

Overall, the increase in total operating revenues of $2,011 coupled with the increase in total operating expenses of $440, resulted in a $1,571, or 28.3%, increase in net operating income for the three-month period ended March 31, 2004 over the comparable prior year period.

Other Items

Interest expense decreased for the three-month period ended March 31, 2004 by $55 due to the continued scheduled pay-down of our Federal Financing Bank (FFB) notes and capital lease obligation.

Equity income of affiliated companies decreased $86 in the three-month period ended March 31, 2004 over the comparable prior year period due mainly to a $330 decrease in the amount of income generated from the Pennsylvania RSA 6 (II) partnership. We believe, based solely on information and projections received from the majority partner (Verizon Wireless), that the decrease for the Pennsylvania RSA 6 (II) partnership was based on several non-recurring items and that earnings for the remainder of the year will exceed those recognized in 2003.

The changes in interest income and sundry expense (net) were not material.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Cash and temporary investments were $34,066 at March 31, 2004 as compared to $32,026 at December 31, 2003. The increase was a result of operating cash flows exceeding investment and financing requirements. Cash flows from operations were $8,099 for the three-month period ended March 31, 2004, a $3,251 increase from the comparable prior year period. Part of the increase was a result of net income increasing $919 over the prior year first quarter. In addition, the first quarter of 2004 was positively impacted by improvements in accounts receivable collection, with an approximate $421 previously disputed receivable paid by a carrier in January of 2004 and a $431 payment received from another large carrier in advance of its due date during March of 2004. The remainder of the difference was mostly a result of the timing of the payment of liabilities. We do not expect the magnitude of the first quarter 2004 increase (67%) in cash flows from operations to continue throughout the rest of the year as the timing benefits experienced on working capital accounts are not recurring in nature and may reverse throughout the year.

Cash flows used for investing activities were $2,476 for the three-month period ended March 31, 2004, a $542 improvement from the comparable prior year period. The improvement was primarily the result of a $994 increase in net proceeds received from our wireless partnerships as the prior year period included a capital call of $937. This was partially offset by a $427 increase in capital additions as the first quarter of 2004 included investments in equipment for our next generation of DSL products (including a 3 Megabit offering) as well as an increase in purchases for fleet vehicles.

We expended $3,583 during the three-month period ended March 31, 2004 for financing activities, which included cash dividends and the scheduled repayments of debt and capital lease obligations. The amount is consistent with the prior year period figure of $3,564.

Temporary excess funds were invested in short-term cash equivalents with maturity dates scheduled to coincide with tax payment due dates, debt principal payments, dividend payment dates and other predictable cash needs. We expect to continue the investment of such excess funds throughout 2004, which should enable us to meet all short-term obligations.

Working capital levels at March 31, 2004 increased $1,021 from December 31, 2003, mostly due to a $2,040 increase in cash and temporary investments (as discussed above) offset partially by an increase of $1,227 in accrued federal and state income taxes (due to the expectation of higher income tax payments in the second quarter of 2004).

The decrease in long-term debt was a result of scheduled principal repayments of $771 during the three-month period ended March 31, 2004. We funded 100% of our first quarter 2004 expenditures for property and equipment from operations cash flows and cash reserves. Therefore, no additional advances were requested from our available debt facilities. In 1996, North Pittsburgh was granted approval for a loan from the FFB guaranteed by the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) in the maximum principal amount of $75,000. The total amount outstanding at March 31, 2004 to the FFB under this loan was $26,996, with all advances having a maturity date of December 31, 2012.

14

Table of Contents

The unadvanced amount of this facility as of March 31, 2004 was $34,764. North Pittsburgh can draw against this facility through June 30, 2012 for qualified capital expenditure projects, as defined in the loan agreement, to furnish and improve telephone service in rural areas. As of March 31, 2004, North Pittsburgh had approximately $3,107 of qualified capital expenditures that were eligible to be drawn against this facility.

The notes payable to the FFB are secured by a supplemental Mortgage Agreement executed by North Pittsburgh, which provides that substantially all of the assets of North Pittsburgh, which approximate a net book value of $111,994, are subject to a lien or a security interest. Such agreement contains restrictions regarding dividends and other distributions by North Pittsburgh. Under these restrictions, unless certain working capital levels, net worth levels and interest expense ratios are maintained, North Pittsburgh is not permitted to pay dividends on its capital stock (other than in shares of capital stock), or make any other distributions to its shareholder or purchase, redeem or retire any of its capital stock or make any investment in affiliated companies. As a result of these restrictions, approximately $15,003 of North Pittsburgh’s retained earnings was available for dividends and other distributions to the Registrant as of March 31, 2004. Taking into consideration the North Pittsburgh restrictions, approximately $42,561 of our consolidated retained earnings was available for dividends and other distributions to our shareholders as of March 31, 2004.

North Pittsburgh also has available through June of 2004 a $10,000 line of credit with the Rural Telephone Finance Cooperative at a rate of prime plus 1-1/2%. No borrowings have taken place against the line of credit. We are currently in the process of extending this facility for an additional five year period and do not anticipate any problems in doing so.

Consolidated capital expenditure commitments for the purchase and installation of new equipment at March 31, 2004 amounted to approximately $1,463, with such amount being part of our 2004 construction program, which is projected to aggregate in the range of $12,000 to $13,000. The Company had made expenditures of $3,048 in association with this construction program through March 31, 2004.

We expect cash flows provided by operating activities and cash reserves over the next twelve months to be sufficient to service long-term debt and capital lease obligations, to pay dividends and to finance all capital projects. We expect to continue to have the necessary cash flows from operations and cash reserves to internally finance 100% of our projected capital expenditures. However, due to the low cost financing available through the RUS for qualified North Pittsburgh capital expenditures, we may request advancements from the RUS facility in the future.

We refer you to our Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations section of our 2003 Form 10-K for a disclosure and discussion of our aggregate contractual obligations and purchase commitments as of December 31, 2003. There were no material changes in the specified contractual obligations and purchase commitments during the three-month period ended March 31, 2004. Scheduled payments of $771, $398 and approximately $71 were made to reduce the outstanding long-term debt, capital lease and operating lease obligations, respectively, during the first quarter of 2004.

Critical Accounting Policies

Certain accounting policies are very important to the portrayal of our financial condition and results of operations and require management’s most subjective or complex judgments. These policies are as follows:

Revenue Recognition

Revenues are recognized when local network, long distance, and access services are provided. Local service, intrastate long distance and intrastate access service revenues are subject to the jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PA PUC). Interstate long distance and interstate access service revenues are subject to the jurisdiction of the FCC. Revenues from equipment sales are recorded after equipment has been installed and accepted by the customer. Directory advertising revenues are recognized ratably over the 12-month period related to the directory publication.

Our North Pittsburgh subsidiary receives a portion of its interstate access revenues from pooling arrangements in which it participates with other telephone companies. Such pools, which are administrated by NECA, are funded by access service charges regulated by the FCC. Revenues earned through these pooling arrangements, which are based on nationwide average costs applied to certain projected demand quantities, are initially recorded based on estimates and are subject to adjustments that may either increase or decrease the final amount of interstate revenues realized for a given period. Management monitors the activity of the pools and establishes accruals, if deemed necessary, for estimated obligations to the pool. The calculations used to record these revenues are complex and involve a variety of estimates, and it is therefore possible that the ultimate amount realized from the pools could differ materially from our estimates,

15

Table of Contents

although historically we have not experienced significant out-of-period adjustments to our revenues as a result of participating in these pools.

Impairment of Long-Lived Assets

Based upon the provisions of SFAS No. 144, “Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets”, we review assets for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying value of the assets may not be recoverable. A determination of impairment (if any) is made based on estimates of future undiscounted cash flows. We adopted SFAS No. 144 effective January 1, 2002. We have determined, based on our reviews, that there had been no impairment to the carrying value of such assets in 2003 or for the three-month period ended March 31, 2004.

Valuation of Accounts Receivable

We review accounts receivable to determine which are doubtful of collection. In making the determination of the appropriate allowance for doubtful accounts, we consider our accounts receivable aging schedules, history of write-offs, relationships with our customers and the overall credit worthiness of our customers.

Income Taxes

In assessing the realizability of deferred tax assets, we consider whether it is more likely than not that some portion or all of the deferred tax assets will not be realized. The ultimate realization of deferred tax assets is dependent upon the generation of future taxable income during the periods in which those temporary differences become deductible. We consider the scheduled reversal of deferred tax liabilities, projected future taxable income and tax planning strategies in making this assessment.

Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits

We calculate the costs of providing retiree benefits under the provisions of SFAS No. 87 and SFAS No. 106. The key assumptions used in making these calculations are disclosed in Note 6 to our consolidated financial statements included in our 2003 Form 10-K. The most significant of these assumptions are the discount rate used to value the future obligation, expected return on plan assets and health care cost trend rates. We select discount rates commensurate with current market interest rates on high-quality, fixed-rate debt securities. The expected return on assets is based on our current view of the long-term returns on assets held by the plan, which is influenced by the historical performance of plan assets, asset allocation and other third-party studies. The medical cost trend rate is based on our actual medical claims and future projections of medical cost trends.

The judgments used in applying the above policies are based on our evaluation of the relevant facts and circumstances as of the date of the financial statements. Actual results may differ from those estimates.

Regulatory Matters

Both North Pittsburgh and Penn Telecom are subject to regulatory oversight by the PA PUC for intrastate services and the FCC for interstate services. The PA PUC and the FCC have broad powers of supervision and regulation over public utilities with respect to service and facilities, rates and charges, securities, the encumbering or disposition of public utility properties, accounting and various other matters.

In 1996, Congress passed the 1996 Act, which has the goal of opening the telecommunications industry to further competition for all services, including the local exchange market. The 1996 Act prohibits state legislative or regulatory restrictions or barriers to entry regarding the provision of local telephone service. It also requires most ILECs to interconnect with the networks of other telecommunications carriers, unbundle their services into network elements, offer their telecommunications services at wholesale rates in order to permit the resale of such services and allow other telecommunications carriers to locate equipment on their premises. Local exchange telephone carriers are also required to compensate each other for the transport and termination of calls. The FCC has issued a number of Rulemakings that continue to implement the requirements of the 1996 Act and are intended to facilitate the resale of services at wholesale rates and provide for number portability, dialing parity, interconnection to any requesting carrier and access to network elements.

North Pittsburgh’s wireline operations are considered Rural under the 1996 Act and are exempt from certain of the foregoing obligations unless, in response to a bona fide request for interconnection, the PA PUC removes that exemption. More specifically, pursuant to the rural exemption provision of Section 251(f)(1) of the 1996 Act, North Pittsburgh is currently exempted from offering collocation, unbundled network elements (UNEs), wholesale discounts and certain

16

Table of Contents

other requirements of the 1996 Act which originally pertained to non-rural ILECs. The rural exemption does not, however, prevent facilities based competition in North Pittsburgh’s service area. In addition, on January 15, 2003, the PA PUC denied the request of North Pittsburgh and other rural carriers in the state of Pennsylvania for an extension of a temporary suspension of Sections 251(b) and (c) of the 1996 Act which North Pittsburgh and the other rural carriers had held since July 10, 1997. There are two main implications of the denial of the temporary suspension to North Pittsburgh. First, North Pittsburgh is now open to the potential removal of its rural exemption if a prospective competitor successfully petitions the PA PUC for its removal. However, the PA PUC may grant such a removal only if it finds that the competitor’s proposal is not unduly economically burdensome to North Pittsburgh, is technically feasible and is consistent with the universal service provisions of the 1996 Act. In addition, the burden of proof in such a proceeding rests with the competitor. Second, North Pittsburgh became subject to implementing Local Number Portability (LNP) within six months of receipt of a bona fide request from a CLEC.

In March of 2003, North Pittsburgh did receive a request from a CLEC to negotiate an interconnection agreement. Accompanying the request for interconnection by the CLEC was a request for LNP. As a result of that request, North Pittsburgh implemented LNP capability in November of 2003. North Pittsburgh is still in negotiations with the requesting CLEC in regard to a final interconnection agreement.

The North Pittsburgh implementation of LNP capability coincided with the FCC’s ordered deadline for certain ILECs, including North Pittsburgh, to implement wireline to wireless LNP by November 24, 2003. On January 19, 2004, the FCC extended the November 24, 2003 deadline until May 24, 2005 for certain rural local exchange carriers. However, because North Pittsburgh was already LNP capable, this extension did not apply to North Pittsburgh. The FCC’s Order regarding wireline to wireless LNP has been challenged in court, and the eventual outcome of that court challenge is unknown. Until such time as the court may overturn the FCC’s Order or remand the issue to the FCC, the requirement of wireline to wireless LNP is applicable to North Pittsburgh and Penn Telecom. Under the current rules, wireline to wireless LNP may cause both North Pittsburgh and Penn Telecom to experience some loss of customers and the associated revenues because a customer will be able to migrate from wireline service to wireless service and still retain his or her current telephone number.

The provision of interstate toll and access services by North Pittsburgh and Penn Telecom is subject to the regulatory scrutiny of the FCC. Terms, conditions and rates for interstate toll and access services are filed in interstate tariffs for review and approval by the FCC. However, since August 1, 2001, the FCC has not required non-dominant interstate toll providers, including Penn Telecom, to file tariffs for their interstate toll services. Penn Telecom now informs its toll customers of the rates, terms and conditions through written notice. The provision of intrastate toll and access services is subject to regulatory scrutiny by the PA PUC. Terms, conditions and rates for intrastate toll and access services are filed in intrastate tariffs for PA PUC review and approval.

On February 12, 2004, the FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proceeding to examine the regulatory treatment of VoIP. While the FCC indicated its preference for minimal regulation, it also recognized the need to ensure that the provision of VoIP is consistent with social objectives including emergency 911, law enforcement access, consumer protection and disability access.

Prior to the FCC’s issuance of the NPRM regarding VoIP, several companies had petitioned the FCC for declaratory rulings that their specific service offerings, which utilize some component of Internet Protocol (IP), were exempt from access charges. One of these filings was made by AT&T and one by pulver.com.

The AT&T Petition asked the FCC for a declaratory ruling that AT&T’s Phone-to-Phone IP telephony service, which utilizes IP in the transport portion of the service, is exempt from access charges. On April 21, 2004, the FCC released an Order denying the AT&T Petition and affirming that access charges do apply to toll calls that originate or terminate on the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) even if some portion of the call is transported utilizing IP.

In the pulver.com Order released on February 12, 2004, the FCC ruled that pulver.com’s Free World Dialup offering, which provides voice calling services utilizing IP between two broadband connections to the Internet and which does not utilize the PSTN at either end, was exempt from access charges.

While these two recent FCC rulings have set forth the applicability of access charges in regard to specific services that utilize IP to provide voice or toll calling services, various questions regarding the full scope of regulations that will apply to VoIP services in general are still unresolved and will be addressed in the VoIP NPRM. The outcome of this NPRM proceeding will affect North Pittsburgh and Penn Telecom because 1) VoIP services compete directly with the local and toll service offerings of North Pittsburgh and Penn Telecom, and 2) both North Pittsburgh and Penn Telecom receive a portion of their revenues from access charges, the applicability of which to various forms of IP traffic is being reviewed in the NPRM. As the outcome of this proceeding is

17

Table of Contents

unknown at this time, we are unable to determine the effect such action may have on our operations and revenues.

In February of 2002, the FCC issued a NPRM regarding the possible classification of wireline broadband Internet access as an information service rather than a telecommunications service. Should the FCC adopt this proposed rule, it may cause network based broadband offerings such as DSL services to be more lightly regulated by the FCC. In the NPRM, the FCC also asked whether it should extend Universal Service Fund (USF) requirements to not only facilities based wireline Broadband Internet Service Providers (BISPs) but also wireless, cable TV and satellite BISPs. Should the FCC extend a USF contribution requirement to all BISPs, North Pittsburgh, Penn Telecom and Pinnatech would be affected. Because the outcome of this proceeding is unknown at this time, we are unable to determine the effect such action may have on our operations and revenues.

In February of 2002, the FCC also issued a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) regarding the possible reformation of the system for assessing and recovering USF monies. In that proceeding, the FCC has asked for comment on whether it should assess carrier contributions based on the number and capacity of connections that contributing carriers provide to customers, rather than on the current method, which is based on the interstate revenues they earn. Should the FCC reform the current system for assessing and recovering USF monies, North Pittsburgh, Penn Telecom and Pinnatech would be affected by the change. Because the outcome of this proposal is unknown at this time, we are unable to determine the effect such action may have on our operations and revenues.

On February 20, 2003, the FCC issued its decision regarding the Triennial Review of the 1996 Act. The decision dealt with several issues that may affect North Pittsburgh and Penn Telecom. Generally, it appears that the decision eliminates unbundling requirements for ILECs in regard to broadband services provided over fiber facilities but continues unbundled access to mass market narrowband loops. In addition, ILECs are not required to unbundle packet switching services. The FCC further found that the high frequency portion of the loop, also referred to as line sharing, is no longer required to be provided as an UNE and will therefore be phased out over three years. Additionally, the FCC found that ILECs will no longer have to offer the local switching UNE to CLECs for business customers served by high-capacity loops. The states had 90 days to rebut this finding. For mass market customers served by narrowband loops, the FCC set out specific criteria that states shall apply to determine if switching should no longer be available as an UNE. Upon a state ruling eliminating switching as an UNE for mass market customers, the FCC set forth a three-year period for carriers to transition off Unbundled Network Element Platform (UNE-P), which is a service that bundles UNE switching with other UNEs such as UNE loop to provide the entire local service platform. The FCC Order explaining the decision was released August 21, 2003.

The PA PUC, on October 3, 2003, entered an Order that initiated two proceedings to implement the requirements set forth in the FCC’s Triennial Review Order (TRO) in a manner specific to Pennsylvania. The first proceeding investigated whether the PA PUC should request a waiver from the FCC in regard to the elimination of the requirement that ILECs provide CLECs with the local switching UNE for customers served by high-capacity loops. This proceeding has closed with the PA PUC concluding that the proceeding did not apply to incumbents such as North Pittsburgh that have a rural exemption and that a FCC waiver should not be requested. Verizon, however, remained obligated under a separate State Order to continue to provide access to its local switching UNE. The second PA PUC proceeding dealing with the continued ILEC provision of the local switching UNE to CLECs for mass-market customers remains pending.

However, on March 2, 2004, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a decision in a number of court appeals filed in regard to the FCC’s TRO. In that ruling, the court upheld the FCC’s rules in regard to their conclusion that ILECs need not unbundle broadband loops provided through the utilization of new technologies such as hybrid fiber/coaxial cable and fiber-to-the-home. The court also agreed with the FCC that ILECs need not provide line sharing. However, the court vacated and remanded a number of FCC rules regarding the FCC’s finding that CLECs were impaired without access to certain network elements such as local switching. In addition, the court vacated the FCC’s decision to sub-delegate to the state commissions determinations related to mass-market switching and dedicated transport elements.

The court initially stayed its own decision for 60 days in recognition that certain parties may petition for a rehearing. During that period, the court granted a petition filed by the FCC for a 45 day extension of the original stay in order to give ILECs and CLECs additional time to voluntarily negotiate revised agreements and thereby avoid further litigation. While some parties have negotiated new agreements, it is unlikely that all the parties will do so. Also, it is still uncertain what action the FCC will take in regard to the ruling, as the commissioners appear to be split over whether to file an appeal with the Supreme Court or to proceed with rewriting the regulations to comply with the court decision.

18

Table of Contents

The immediate effect of the court ruling is that the PA PUC state action in regard to the implementation of the TRO is no longer valid, as that authority will be returned to the FCC at the conclusion of the court ordered stay.

We believe that regardless of the outcome there will be no immediate impact on our ILEC operations, because we are not required to offer UNEs to competitors as long as we retain our rural exemption. In regard to our CLEC operations, because we do not currently utilize line sharing and utilize our own switching for business customers who are served by high-capacity loops, the ultimate outcome as to the availability of these network elements will have no effect on our operations or revenues from our existing customer base.

With regard to UNE-P, we had approximately 2,138, or 7%, of our CLEC dial tone access lines served utilizing UNE-P as of March 31, 2004. Should changes occur in the current UNE-P environment, either in terms of restricting availability or revising pricing methodologies to allow for price increases, our margins realized for these lines may decrease and/or our future effectiveness in geographically expanding our customer base may be partially hampered.

Effective January 22, 2001, under PA PUC regulations referred to as Chapter 30, North Pittsburgh moved from rate-of-return regulation in the intrastate jurisdiction to an alternative form of regulation, which is a price cap plan. Under North Pittsburgh’s price cap plan, rates for non-competitive intrastate services are allowed to increase based on an index that measures economy-wide price increases less a productivity offset. There is no limitation on earnings under this plan. The terms of the plan also allow North Pittsburgh to rebalance rates once each year to allow North Pittsburgh to gradually realign its intrastate rate structure on a more rational cost and market basis in order to meet future competition. In addition, as competition develops in the future, North Pittsburgh may file with the PA PUC to declare certain services competitive and thereby be freed from all rate regulation for those services. In return for approval of the alternative form of regulation, North Pittsburgh has committed to continue to upgrade its network in the future to ensure that all its customers will have access to broadband services. On April 30, 2003, North Pittsburgh filed its annual Price Stability Mechanism (PSM) compliance filing under its approved price cap plan. While the application of the PSM formula in the plan normally would have required North Pittsburgh to reduce some rates for non-competitive services, resulting in an annual revenue decrease of approximately $160, North Pittsburgh has proposed that this rate reduction be delayed for 24 months until North Pittsburgh recovers those intrastate uncollectible revenues that were experienced in 2002 due to the Global Crossing and WorldCom bankruptcies. Exogenous event claims, such as this proposal to recoup intrastate uncollectible losses not generally reflected in the Gross Domestic Product-Price Index, are permitted under the North Pittsburgh PSM. Various parties have, however, opposed the recovery of these losses. We expect the PA PUC to rule on the filing sometime in 2004.

The Chapter 30 legislation, which enables North Pittsburgh to operate under an alternative price-cap form of regulation, expired due to legislative sunset regulations on December 31, 2003. However, the PA PUC on January 22, 2004, issued a Statement of Policy concluding that under the current Public Utility Code, the approved Chapter 30 alternative plans of regulation for all ILECs operating in Pennsylvania would remain in effect and would be fully enforceable in all respects upon the ILECs after the sunset date of December 31, 2003. Competing versions of new proposed legislation reauthorizing and revising the Chapter 30 regulations have been introduced in both the Pennsylvania House and Senate. Legislative action reauthorizing Chapter 30, with some revisions, is expected by the end of 2004. Because the outcome of this legislative initiative is unknown at this time, we are unable to determine the effect that any new legislation reauthorizing Chapter 30 will have on our operations and revenues.

It is our understanding that North Pittsburgh will remain under its current Chapter 30 plan until such time as the PA PUC orders changes in the plan or the legislature enacts new Chapter 30 legislation.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In June of 2001, the FASB issued SFAS No. 143, “Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations”. The Company adopted this pronouncement on January 1, 2003. SFAS No. 143 requires that we record the fair value of an asset retirement obligation as a liability in the period in which we incur a legal obligation associated with the retirement of tangible long-lived assets that result from the acquisition, construction, development, and/or normal use of the assets. We would also record a corresponding asset that is depreciated over the life of the asset. Subsequent to the initial measurement of the asset retirement obligation, the obligation will be adjusted at the end of each period to reflect the passage of time and changes in the estimated future cash flows underlying the obligation. The adoption of SFAS No. 143 did not have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements.

19

Table of Contents

The FASB issued FIN 46, “Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities”, in January 2003 and amended the Interpretation in December 2003. A variable interest entity (VIE) is an entity in which its voting equity investors lack the characteristics of having a controlling financial interest or where the existing capital at risk is insufficient to permit the entity to finance its activities without receiving additional financial support from other parties. FIN 46 requires the consolidation of entities which are determined to be VIEs when the reporting company determines itself to be the primary beneficiary (the entity that will absorb a majority of the VIE’s expected losses, receive a majority of the VIE’s residual returns, or both). The amended Interpretation was effective for the first interim or annual reporting period ending after March 15, 2004, with the exception of special purpose entities for which the statement was effective for periods ending after December 15, 2003. We have completed a review of our partnership investments and have determined that those entities do not qualify as VIEs.

20

Table of Contents

PART I

There have been no material changes in reported market risks faced by the Company since the end of the Company’s preceding fiscal year on December 31, 2003.

Under the supervision and with the participation of the Company’s management, including the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial and Accounting Officer, the Company evaluated the effectiveness of the design and operation of its disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, and, based on their evaluation, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial and Accounting Officer concluded that these disclosure controls and procedures are effective. There were no significant changes in the Company’s internal controls, or in other factors that could significantly affect these controls, subsequent to the date of their evaluation.

21

Table of Contents

PART II

OTHER INFORMATION

22

Table of Contents

During the quarter ended March 31, 2004, we furnished one Report on Form 8-K. That Report, dated February 24, 2004, reported under Item 12, Results of Operations and Financial Condition, the Company’s press release announcing fourth quarter and full year 2003 earnings.

23

Table of Contents

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

24