HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC CO INC - Annual Report: 2002 (Form 10-K)

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D. C. 20549

FORM 10-K

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002

OR

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

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

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  x    No  ¨

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 amendment to this Form 10-K.   ¨

Indicate by check mark whether Registrant Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).     Yes  x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether Registrant Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).    Yes  ¨    No  x

Table of Contents

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

This combined Form 10-K represents separate filings by Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. and Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. Information contained herein relating to any individual registrant is filed by each registrant on its own behalf. Neither registrant makes any representations as to the information relating to the other registrant.

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

i

Table of Contents

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Defined below are certain terms used in this report:

ii

Table of Contents

GLOSSARY OF TERMS (continued)

iii

Table of Contents

GLOSSARY OF TERMS (continued)

iv

Table of Contents

GLOSSARY OF TERMS (continued)

v

Table of Contents

Forward-Looking Statements and Risk Factors

This report and other presentations made by Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. (HEI) and Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. (HECO) and their subsidiaries contain “forward-looking statements,” which include statements that are predictive in nature, depend upon or refer to future events or conditions, and usually include words such as “expects,” “anticipates,” “intends,” “plans,” “believes,” “predicts,” “estimates” or similar expressions. In addition, any statements concerning future financial performance (including future revenues, expenses, earnings or losses or growth rates), ongoing business strategies or prospects and possible future actions, which may be provided by management, are also forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are based on current expectations and projections about future events and are subject to risks, uncertainties and assumptions about HEI and its subsidiaries (including HECO and its subsidiaries), the performance of the industries in which they do business and economic and market factors, among other things. These forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance.

Risks, uncertainties and other important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in forward-looking statements and from historical results include, but are not limited to, the following:

Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of the report, presentation or filing in which they are made.

vi

Table of Contents

PART I

HEI

HEI was incorporated in 1981 under the laws of the State of Hawaii and is a holding company with its principal subsidiaries engaged in the electric utility, banking and other businesses operating primarily in the State of Hawaii. HEI’s predecessor, HECO, was incorporated under the laws of the Kingdom of Hawaii (now the State of Hawaii) on October 13, 1891. As a result of a 1983 corporate reorganization, HECO became an HEI subsidiary and common shareholders of HECO became common shareholders of HEI.

HECO and its operating subsidiaries, Maui Electric Company, Limited (MECO) and Hawaii Electric Light Company, Inc. (HELCO), are regulated electric public utilities providing the only electric public utility service on the islands of Oahu, Maui, Lanai, Molokai and Hawaii. HECO also owns all the common securities of HECO Capital Trust I and HECO Capital Trust II (Delaware statutory business trusts), which were formed to effect the issuances of $50 million of 8.05% cumulative quarterly income preferred securities in March 1997 and $50 million of 7.30% cumulative quarterly income preferred securities in December 1998, respectively, for the benefit of HECO, MECO and HELCO. In December 2002, HECO formed a subsidiary, Renewable Hawaii, Inc., to invest in renewable energy projects.

Besides HECO and its subsidiaries, HEI also owns directly or indirectly the following subsidiaries: HEI Diversified, Inc. (HEIDI) (a holding company) and its subsidiary, ASB, and the subsidiaries of ASB; Pacific Energy Conservation Services, Inc. (PECS); ProVision Technologies, Inc.; HEI Properties, Inc. (HEIPI); HEI Leasing, Inc. (currently inactive); Hycap Management, Inc. and its subsidiary; Hawaiian Electric Industries Capital Trust I; Hawaiian Electric Industries Capital Trust II and III (at all times inactive entities); HEI District Cooling, Inc. (currently inactive); The Old Oahu Tug Service, Inc. (TOOTS); HEI Power Corp. (HEIPC) and its subsidiaries (discontinued operations); and Malama Pacific Corp. (MPC) (discontinued operations).

ASB, acquired in 1988, was the third largest financial institution in the State of Hawaii and had 71 retail branches as of December 31, 2002. ASB has subsidiaries involved in the sale and distribution of investment and insurance products, advertising activities for ASB and its subsidiaries and holding real estate for employee use, and a subsidiary, ASB Realty Corporation, which elects to be taxed as a real estate investment trust and holds assets (primarily loans and mortgage-related securities) of $1.8 billion (see Note 9 to HEI’s Consolidated Financial Statements”).

HEIDI was also the parent company of HEIDI Real Estate Corp., which was formed in February 1998. In September 1999, HEIDI Real Estate Corp.’s name was changed to HEIPI, and HEIDI transferred ownership of HEIPI to HEI. HEIPI currently holds venture capital investments.

PECS was formed in 1994 and currently is a contract services company providing limited support services in Hawaii. ProVision Technologies, Inc. was formed in October 1998 to sell, install, operate and maintain on-site power generation equipment and auxiliary appliances in Hawaii and the Pacific Rim. HEI Leasing, Inc. was formed in February 2000 to own passive investments and real estate subject to leases, but is currently inactive. Hycap Management, Inc., including its subsidiary HEI Preferred Funding, LP (a limited partnership in which Hycap Management, Inc. is the sole general partner), and Hawaiian Electric Industries Capital Trust I (a Delaware statutory business trust in which HEI owns all the common securities) were formed to effect the issuance of $100 million of 8.36% HEI-obligated trust preferred securities in 1997. HEI District Cooling, Inc. was formed in August 1998 to develop, build, own, lease, operate and/or maintain, either directly or indirectly, central chilled water cooling system facilities, and other energy related products and services for commercial and residential buildings, but is currently inactive.

In November 1999, Hawaiian Tug & Barge Corp. (HTB) sold substantially all of its operating assets and the stock of YB for a nominal gain, changed its name to TOOTS and ceased maritime freight transportation operations.

1

Table of Contents

For information about the Company’s discontinued operations, see Note 13 to HEI’s Consolidated Financial Statements at pages 73 to 75 of HEI’s Annual Report.

For financial information about the Company’s industry segments, see Note 2 to HEI’s Consolidated Financial Statements at pages 50 to 51 of HEI’s Annual Report.

For additional information about the Company, see HEI’s MD&A, HEI’s “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk” and HEI’s Consolidated Financial Statements at pages 4 to 31, 31 to 36 and 37 to 78, respectively, of HEI’s Annual Report.

HEI’s website address is www.hei.com. HEI and HECO currently make available through this website their annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and all amendments to those reports (since 1994) as soon as reasonably practicable after such material is electronically filed with the SEC.

Electric utility

HECO and subsidiaries and service areas

HECO, MECO and HELCO are regulated operating electric public utilities engaged in the production, purchase, transmission, distribution and sale of electricity on the islands of Oahu; Maui, Lanai and Molokai; and Hawaii, respectively. HECO was incorporated under the laws of the Kingdom of Hawaii (now State of Hawaii) in 1891. HECO acquired MECO in 1968 and HELCO in 1970. In 2002, the electric utilities’ revenues amounted to approximately 76% of HEI’s consolidated revenues.

The islands of Oahu, Maui, Lanai, Molokai and Hawaii have a combined population currently estimated at 1,185,000, or approximately 95% of the population of the State of Hawaii, and comprise a service area of 5,766 square miles. The principal communities served include Honolulu (on Oahu), Wailuku and Kahului (on Maui) and Hilo and Kona (on Hawaii). The service areas also include numerous suburban communities, resorts, U.S. Armed Forces installations and agricultural operations.

The state has granted HECO, MECO and HELCO nonexclusive franchises, which authorize the utilities to construct, operate and maintain facilities over and under public streets and sidewalks. HECO’s franchise covers the City & County of Honolulu, MECO’s franchises cover the County of Maui and the County of Kalawao, and HELCO’s franchise covers the County of Hawaii. Each of these franchises will continue in effect for an indefinite period of time until forfeited, altered, amended or repealed.

For additional information about HECO, see HEI’s MD&A, HEI’s “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk” and HEI’s Consolidated Financial Statements, incorporated herein by reference to pages 4 to 31, 31 to 36 and 37 to 78, respectively, of HEI’s Annual Report, and HECO’s MD&A, HECO’s “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk” and HECO’s Consolidated Financial Statements incorporated herein by reference to pages 5 to 21, 22 and 23 to 57, respectively, of HECO’s Annual Report.

Sales of electricity

HECO, MECO and HELCO provide the only electric public utility service on the islands they serve. The following table sets forth the number of electric customer accounts as of December 31, 2002, 2001 and 2000 and electric sales revenues by company for each of the years then ended:

2

Table of Contents

Revenues from the sale of electricity in 2002 were from the following types of customers in the proportions shown:

HECO and its subsidiaries derived approximately 9%, 10% and 10% of their operating revenues from the sale of electricity to various federal government agencies in 2002, 2001 and 2000, respectively.

Formerly one of HECO’s larger customers, the Naval Base at Barbers Point, Oahu, closed in 1999 with redevelopment of the base to occur through 2020. Considering (1) that the base closure will necessitate relocation of essential flight operations and support personnel to another base on Oahu and (2) the Naval Air Station Barbers Point Community Redevelopment Plan will increase development of the area, HECO anticipates that the closure is likely to result in an overall increase in demand for electricity over time.

In 1995, HECO and the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) entered into a Basic Ordering Agreement (GSA-BOA) under which HECO would arrange for the financing and installation of energy conservation projects at federal facilities in Hawaii. Under the GSA-BOA, HECO completed an air conditioning upgrade project and provided design work for solar water heating at a federal office building in downtown Honolulu in 1997 and 1998.

In 1996, HECO signed an umbrella Basic Ordering Agreement with the Department of Defense (DOD-BOA). In December 2001, a new DOD-BOA was signed under which HECO will perform energy audits, feasibility design studies and construction projects. Through 2002, completed projects included construction of an 1800-ton chiller plant at the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, construction of a central chiller plant at Schofield Barracks, installation of solar water heating and retrofit lighting at three Naval housing facilities, the $10 million Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard energy conservation project and a $2 million residential solar water heating project for the Army’s Helemano housing in central Oahu.

In 1997, HECO and the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) signed a Shared Energy Savings Contract. Under the Contract, HECO performed feasibility studies at 11 USPS sites on Oahu. A $3 million energy efficiency project at the USPS’ primary mail processing facility at the Honolulu International Airport was completed in 2001.

In 2001, HECO was awarded a $1 million contract to perform feasibility studies for most of the major buildings on the campus of the University of Hawaii at Manoa and at various Community Colleges throughout the State. The contract included energy efficiency assessments and electrical metering. This contract was completed in 2002.

Executive Order 13123 mandates that each federal agency develop and implement a program to reduce energy consumption by 35% by the year 2010 to the extent that these measures are cost effective. The 35% reduction will be measured relative to the agency’s 1985 energy use. HECO continues to work with various federal agencies to implement demand-side management programs that will help them achieve their energy reduction objectives. Neither HEI nor HECO management can predict with certainty the impact of Executive Order 13123 on HEI’s or HECO’s future financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

3

Table of Contents

Selected consolidated electric utility operating statistics

4

Table of Contents

Generation statistics

The following table contains certain generation statistics as of December 31, 2002 and for the year ended December 31, 2002. The capability available for operation at any given time may be more or less than the generating capability shown because of capability restrictions or temporary outages for inspection, maintenance, repairs or unforeseen circumstances.

In 2002, a 1,500 KW hydroelectric unit owned by HELCO was damaged and HELCO is presently exploring options to rebuild or replace the unit.

5

Table of Contents

Generating reliability

HECO, HELCO and MECO have isolated electrical systems that are not interconnected to each other or to any other electrical grid. HECO serves the island of Oahu and HELCO serves the island of Hawaii. MECO has three separate electrical systems—one each on the islands of Maui, Molokai and Lanai.

Because each island system cannot rely upon backup generation from neighboring utilities, HECO, HELCO and MECO each maintain a higher level of reserve generation than is typically carried by interconnected mainland utilities, which are able to share reserve capacity. These higher levels of reserve margins are required to meet peak electric demands, to provide for scheduled maintenance of generating units (including the units operated by independent power producers (IPPs) relied upon for firm capacity) and to allow for the forced outage of the largest generating unit in the system. Although the planning for, and installation of, adequate levels of reserve generation have contributed to the achievement of generally high levels of system reliability, service interruptions do occur from time to time as a result of unforeseen circumstances. For example, HECO implemented load shedding and temporarily shut off power to a significant number of customers on one occasion in 2002, due to unplanned generating unit outages. Load shedding is a predetermined plan that prevents overloading and possible major damage to generating units and potentially a much larger power outage.

HELCO’s management is concerned about the possibility of power interruptions as a result of the current operating status of various IPPs supplying power to it and the condition and performance of aging generators on the HELCO system that were intended to be operated less frequently once CT-4 and CT-5 were installed. A significant number of HELCO’s customers experienced rolling blackouts on two occasions in 2002 due to unplanned generating unit outages.

Integrated resource planning and requirements for additional generating capacity

As a result of a proceeding initiated in 1990, the Public Utilities Commission of the State of Hawaii (PUC) issued an order in 1992 requiring the energy utilities in Hawaii to develop integrated resource plans (IRPs). The goal of integrated resource planning is the identification of demand- and supply-side resources and the integration of these resources for meeting near- and long-term consumer energy needs in an efficient and reliable manner at the lowest reasonable cost. In its 1992 order, the PUC adopted a “framework,” which established both the process and the guidelines for developing IRPs. The PUC’s framework directs that each plan cover a 20-year planning horizon with a five-year program implementation schedule and states that the planning cycle will be repeated every three years. Under the framework, the PUC may approve, reject or require modifications of the utilities’ IRPs.

The framework also states that utilities are entitled to recover all appropriate and reasonable integrated resource planning and implementation costs, including the costs of planning and implementing DSM programs. Under appropriate circumstances, the utilities have been allowed in the past to recover lost margins resulting from DSM programs and earn shareholder incentives. The PUC has approved IRP cost recovery provisions for HECO, MECO and HELCO. Pursuant to the cost recovery provisions, the electric utilities have been allowed to recover through a surcharge the costs for approved DSM programs (including DSM program lost margins and shareholder incentives), and other incremental IRP costs incurred by the utilities and approved by the PUC, to the extent the costs are not included in their base rates.

In October 2001, HECO and the Consumer Advocate finalized agreements, subject to PUC approval, under which HECO’s three commercial and industrial DSM programs and two residential DSM programs would be continued until HECO’s next rate case, which, under the agreements, HECO committed to file using a 2003 or 2004 test year and following the PUC’s rules for determining the test year. Under the agreements, HECO will cap the recovery of lost margins and shareholder incentives if such recovery would cause HECO to exceed its current authorized return on rate base. HECO also agreed it will not pursue the continuation of lost margins recovery and shareholder incentives through a surcharge mechanism in future rate cases. Consistent with the HECO agreements, in October 2001, HELCO and MECO reached agreements with the Consumer Advocate and filed requests to continue their four existing DSM programs. See “Other regulatory matters—Demand-side management programs—agreements with the Consumer Advocate” at page 9 in HECO’s MD&A. All of the electric utilities’ existing DSM programs are energy efficiency programs designed to reduce the consumption of electricity.

6

Table of Contents

In August 2000, pursuant to a stipulation filed by the electric utilities and the parties in the IRP cost proceedings, the PUC issued an order allowing the electric utilities to begin recovering the 1995 through 1999 incremental IRP costs, subject to refund with interest, pending the PUC’s final decision and order (D&O) approving recovery of each respective year’s incremental IRP costs. The Consumer Advocate has objected to the recovery of $1.9 million (before interest) of the $8.5 million of incremental IRP costs incurred during the 1995-1998 and 2001 period, and the PUC’s decision is pending on this matter. The Consumer Advocate has not yet filed its position on the recovery of the $1.5 million of integrated resource planning costs the electric utilities incurred from 1999 through 2000. Procedural schedules for the IRP cost proceedings have been established with respect to the 1999-2003 IRP costs.

The electric utilities have completed the recovery of their respective 1995 through 2000 incremental IRP costs through a surcharge on customer bills, subject to refund with interest.

In addition, HECO completed the recovery of its 2001 incremental IRP costs in June 2002, subject to refund with interest. MECO is scheduled to complete the recovery of its 2001 incremental IRP costs by August 2003. As of December 31, 2002, the amount of revenues the electric utilities recorded for IRP cost recoveries, subject to refund with interest, amounted to $16 million. HECO and MECO expect to begin recovering their incremental 2002 IRP costs, subject to refund with interest pending a final D&O, following the filing of actual 2002 costs (which is expected to occur in late March or early April 2003).

In early 2001, the PUC issued its final D&O in the HELCO 2000 test year rate case, in which the PUC concluded that it is appropriate for HELCO to recover its IRP costs through base rates (and included an estimated amount for such costs in HELCO’s test year revenue requirements) and to discontinue recovery of incremental IRP costs through the separate surcharge. HELCO recovered its incremental IRP costs incurred in 2000, which were incurred prior to the final D&O in its rate case, through its surcharge. HELCO’s IRP costs incurred for 2001 and future years are recovered through HELCO’ s base rates. HELCO will continue to recover its DSM program costs, lost margins and shareholder incentives approved by the PUC in a separate surcharge.

The utilities have characterized their proposed IRPs as planning strategies, rather than fixed courses of action, and the resources ultimately added to their systems may differ from those included in their 20-year plans. Under the IRP framework, the utilities are required to submit annual evaluations of their plans (including a revised five-year program implementation schedule) and to submit new plans on a three-year cycle, subject to changes approved by the PUC. Prior to proceeding with the DSM programs, separate PUC approval proceedings must be completed, in which the PUC further reviews the details of the proposed programs and the utilities’ proposals for the recovery of DSM program expenditures, lost margins and shareholder incentives.

HECO’s IRP. HECO filed its second IRP with the PUC in January 1998 and updated the status of its DSM and Supply Side Action Plans in July 1999. In January 2001, the parties to the proceeding filed a stipulation for PUC approval to expedite the proceeding and the PUC approved the stipulation, closed the docket and ordered HECO to submit its IRP annual evaluation report and program implementation schedule by October 2002 (subsequently extended to December 2002) and its next IRP by October 2005, as stipulated. The PUC also ordered HECO to immediately notify it in writing if HECO requires additional generation prior to the 2009 time frame.

In December 2002, HECO filed with the PUC its IRP evaluation report, updating the second IRP to reflect the latest sales and fuel forecasts and updated key planning assumptions.

On the supply side, HECO’s updated second IRP focused on the planning for the next generating unit addition in the 2009 time frame—a 107 MW simple-cycle combustion turbine. A second 107 MW simple-cycle combustion turbine is scheduled to be added in 2015, and in 2016 a conversion unit 105 MW steam turbine is scheduled to be added to create a dual-train combined-cycle unit. In addition, pursuant to HECO’s generation asset management program, all existing generating units are currently planned to be operated (future environmental considerations permitting) beyond the 20-year IRP planning period (1998-2017).

7

Table of Contents

On the demand side, in November 2001, the PUC issued two D&Os allowing HECO to temporarily continue its five energy efficiency DSM programs until its next rate case. The five energy efficiency DSM programs are designed to reduce the rate of increase in Oahu’s energy use, defer construction of new generating units, minimize the state’s use of oil, and achieve savings for utility customers who participate in the programs. The energy efficiency DSM programs include incentives for customers to install efficient lighting, refrigeration, water-heating and air-conditioning equipment and industrial motors. HECO’s updated second IRP includes two load management programs scheduled for implementation in 2004 (i.e., a Dispatchable Commercial and Industrial Load Program and a Residential Direct Load Control Program). HECO plans to file applications with the PUC requesting approval of these two load management programs by the second quarter of 2003.

MECO’s IRP. MECO filed its second IRP with the PUC in May 2000. A stipulated prehearing order was approved by the PUC in October 2000. The parties filed individual Statements of Position in May 2001. MECO plans to work with the parties to the proceeding and attempt to reach a stipulation for PUC approval to expedite the proceeding, close the docket, and establish a schedule for MECO’s next IRP.

MECO’s second IRP identified changes in key forecasts and assumptions since the development of MECO’s initial IRP. On the supply side, MECO’s second IRP focused on the planning for the installation of approximately 150 MW of additional generation through the year 2020 on the island of Maui, including 38 MW of generation at its Maalaea power plant site in increments from 2000-2005, 100 MW at its new Waena site in increments from 2007-2018, beginning with a 20 MW combustion turbine in 2007, and 10 MW from the acquisition of a wind resource in 2003 (currently, MECO expects to receive 20 MW of wind energy in 2004). Approximately 4 MW of additional generation through the year 2020 is planned for each of the islands of Lanai and Molokai. MECO completed the installation of the second 20 MW increment at Maalaea in September 2000, and the final increment of 18 MW, which was originally expected to be installed in 2005, is currently expected to be installed in early 2006 (assuming receipt in early 2004 of the necessary air permit, for which an application was submitted in December 2001).

On the demand side, in November 2001 the PUC issued a D&O allowing MECO to continue temporarily its four existing energy efficiency DSM programs, which are similar in design to HECO’s programs. MECO’s IRP included plans for a new energy efficiency DSM program and two new load management DSM programs. MECO does not plan to proceed with a new energy efficiency DSM program at this time, and MECO is in the process of evaluating the load management DSM programs, and will determine at a later date the need for and timing of filing load management DSM program applications.

HELCO’s IRP. In September 1998, HELCO filed with the PUC its second IRP, which was updated in March 1999 and revised in June 1999. A schedule for the proceeding was approved by the PUC, and the parties to the proceeding completed two rounds of discovery. HELCO plans to work with the parties to the proceeding and, similar to HECO’s IRP, attempt to reach a stipulation for PUC approval to expedite the proceeding, close the docket, and establish a schedule for HELCO’s next IRP annual evaluation report and program implementation schedule and its next IRP.

The second IRP identified changes in key forecasts and assumptions since the development of HELCO’s initial IRP. On the supply side, HELCO’s second IRP focused on the planning for generating unit additions after near-term additions. Due to delays in adding new generation, the near-term additions proposed in HELCO’s second IRP included installing two 20 MW combustion turbines (CTs) at its Keahole power plant site and proceeding in parallel with a power purchase agreement (PPA) with Hamakua Energy Partners, L.P. (Hamakua Partners, formerly Encogen Hawaii, L.P.) for a 60 MW (net) dual-train combined-cycle (DTCC) facility.

8

Table of Contents

The Hamakua Partners PPA was approved in 1999 and its DTCC facility was completed in December 2000. (See the discussion of HELCO power purchase agreements in “Nonutility generation.”) The two Keahole CTs, which were the first two phases of a planned 56 MW (net) DTCC unit, have been delayed. (See “HELCO power situation” in Note 11 of HECO’s Consolidated Financial Statements.) A PPA with Hilo Coast Power Company (HCPC) for 18 MW of firm capacity terminated at the end of 1999, but HELCO now purchases 22 MW of firm capacity from HCPC’s coal-fired facility under a new PPA, as a result of the delays in adding new generation. HELCO also has deferred the retirements of some of its older generating units. If CT-4 and CT-5 are installed, this would extend the target date for the third phase of its DTCC unit or other firm capacity additions until sometime after 2012. The timing of the need for additional new generation may change, however, based on factors such as the availability of permitting for the Keahole installations, the condition of the units whose retirements have been deferred, and the status of the nonutility generators providing firm capacity, including Puna Geothermal Venture (PGV) and HCPC. (See the discussion of HELCO power purchase agreements in “Nonutility generation.”)

On the demand side, in December 2001 the PUC issued a D&O allowing HELCO to continue temporarily its four existing energy efficiency DSM programs, which are similar in design to HECO’s programs.

New capital projects

The capital projects of the electric utilities may be subject to various approval and permitting processes, including obtaining PUC approval of the project, air permits from the Department of Health of the State of Hawaii (DOH) and/or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and land use permits from the Hawaii Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR). Difficulties in obtaining, or the inability to obtain, the necessary approvals or permits could result in project delays, increased project costs and/or project abandonments. Extensive project delays and significantly increased project costs could result in a portion of the project costs being excluded from rates. If a project is abandoned, the project costs are generally written-off to expense, unless the PUC determines that all or part of the costs may be deferred for later recovery in rates.

Nonutility generation

The Company has supported state and federal energy policies which encourage the development of alternate energy sources that reduce the use of fuel oil. The Company’s alternate energy sources range from wind, geothermal and hydroelectric power, to energy produced by the burning of bagasse (sugarcane waste) and municipal waste and coal.

HECO PPAs. HECO currently has three major PPAs. In March 1988, HECO entered into a PPA with AES Barbers Point, Inc. (now known as AES Hawaii, Inc. (AES Hawaii)), a Hawaii-based, indirect subsidiary of The AES Corporation. The agreement with AES Hawaii, as amended in August 1989, provides that, for a period of 30 years beginning September 1992, HECO will purchase 180 MW of firm capacity. The AES Hawaii 180 MW coal-fired cogeneration plant, which became operational in September 1992, utilizes a “clean coal” technology. The facility is designed to sell sufficient steam to be a “Qualifying Facility” (QF) under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA). Under the amended PPA, AES Hawaii must obtain certain consents from HECO prior to entering into any arrangement to refinance the facility. HECO and AES Hawaii are in discussions regarding a possible refinancing of the facility by AES Hawaii, and concerning the terms upon which HECO would be willing to consent to the proposed refinancing. A letter of intent has been signed, but by its terms it is non-binding and the parties are proceeding to negotiate definitive documents. The arrangements addressed in the letter of intent contemplate that HECO will receive consideration for its consent, primarily in the form of a PPA amendment that will benefit ratepayers. If definitive documents acceptable to both parties are negotiated, they will be subject to several conditions, including PUC approval of the PPA amendment, and completion of the proposed refinancing.

9

Table of Contents

In October 1988, HECO entered into an agreement with Kalaeloa Partners, L.P. (Kalaeloa), a limited partnership whose sole general partner was an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of ASEA Brown Boveri, Inc. (ABB), which has guaranteed certain of Kalaeloa’s obligations and, through affiliates, contracted to design, build, operate and maintain the facility. The agreement with Kalaeloa, as amended, provides that HECO will purchase 180 MW of firm capacity for a period of 25 years beginning in May 1991. The Kalaeloa facility, which was completed in the second quarter of 1991, is a combined-cycle operation, consisting of two oil-fired combustion turbines burning low sulfur fuel oil (LSFO) and a steam turbine that utilizes waste heat from the combustion turbines. The facility is designed to sell sufficient steam to be a QF. As of February 28, 1997, the ownership of Kalaeloa was restructured so that 1% was owned by the ABB subsidiary as the general partner and 99% was owned by Kalaeloa Investment Partners (KIP) as the limited partner. KIP is a limited partnership comprised of PSEG Hawaiian Management, Inc. and PSEG Hawaiian Investment, Inc. (nonregulated affiliates of Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated) and Harbert Power Corporation. Subsequently, HECO consented to, and the PUC approved of, the transfer of the general partner partnership interest from the ABB subsidiary to an entity affiliated with the owners of KIP.

HECO also entered into a PPA in March 1986 and a firm capacity amendment in April 1991 with the City and County of Honolulu with respect to a refuse-fired plant (H-POWER). The H-POWER facility began to provide firm energy in 1990 and currently supplies HECO with 46 MW of firm capacity. The firm capacity amendment provides that HECO will purchase firm capacity until mid-2015.

HECO purchases energy on an as-available basis from two nonutility generators, which are diesel-fired qualifying cogeneration facilities at the two oil refineries (10 MW and 18 MW) on Oahu. HECO previously purchased energy on an as-available basis from an approximately 3 MW combustion turbine fired by methane gas from a landfill. In March 2002, the combustion turbine suffered a major failure. In July 2002, the owner of the facility requested that HECO terminate the PPA and HECO agreed.

The PUC has approved and allowed rate recovery for the firm capacity and purchased energy costs related to HECO’s three major PPAs that provide a total of 406 MW of firm capacity, representing 24% of HECO’s total generating and firm purchased capacity on the island of Oahu as of December 31, 2002. The PUC also has approved and allowed rate recovery for the purchased energy costs related to HECO’s as-available energy PPAs.

MECO and HELCO power purchase agreements. As of December 31, 2002, MECO and HELCO had PPAs for 16 MW (includes 4 MW of system protection) and 88 MW of currently available firm capacity, respectively.

MECO has a PPA with Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Company (HC&S) for 16 MW of firm capacity. The HC&S generating units primarily burn bagasse (sugar cane waste) along with secondary fuels of oil or coal. In March 1998, an HC&S unit failed and HC&S lost 10 MW of generating capacity. HC&S replaced the unit and put it into operation in the second quarter of 2000. HC&S, however, has had some difficulties in meeting its contractual obligations to MECO in 2000, 2001 and 2002 due to operational constraints that led to several claims of force majeure by HC&S. The constraints have been primarily due to an extended drought condition on Maui that impacts HC&S’ irrigation pumping load for its sugar cane operations. There has also been a higher than normal reduction in energy produced due to other equipment outages. With the completion of some maintenance activities and the easing of drought conditions, HC&S returned to full contract capacity of 16 MW in late October 2002. On January 23, 2001, MECO rescinded a December 27, 1999 PPA termination notice that it had sent to HC&S and agreed with HC&S that neither party would issue to the other a notice of termination prior to the end of 2002. On June 14, 2002, MECO and HC&S agreed that neither party will give written notice of termination under the terms of the PPA, such that the PPA terminates prior to December 31, 2007. As a result, the PPA remains in force and effect through December 31, 2007, and from year to year thereafter, subject to termination on or after December 31, 2007 on not less than two years’ prior written notice by either party.

10

Table of Contents

HELCO has a 35-year PPA with Puna Geothermal Venture (PGV) for 30 MW of firm capacity from its geothermal steam facility expiring on December 31, 2027. PGV’s output has been in decline since the middle of 2002 and PGV was able to produce only about 6 MW of firm capacity in 2002 compared to the 30 MW the company contracted to provide to HELCO. The loss of generation has been attributed to blockage of a source well due to a failed liner 5,000 feet below the earth’s surface and decreasing steam quality emanating from one of its source wells. PGV completed drilling an additional source well in February 2003, and converted the blocked source well into an injection well in early March 2003. The new injection well was tested and reached capacity levels of between 20 to 25 MW. PGV is in the process of obtaining a permit from the DOH for the new injection well. Without the new injection well, PGV is currently producing only about 10 to 11 MW due to the high brine content coming from the new source well. PGV is assessing whether to drill another source well or to install new generation equipment geared to utilize the excess brine. While PGV indicates it is seeking options to restore its 30 MW commitment to HELCO as soon as possible, HELCO cannot predict when PGV will reach its contractual commitment.

On October 4, 1999, HELCO entered into a PPA with HCPC effective January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2004, subject to early termination by HELCO after two years, whereby HELCO purchases 22 MW of firm capacity from HCPC’s coal-fired facility. The PPA extends for one-year periods thereafter, unless terminated prior to an extension period. The PPA was amended on November 5, 1999. The PUC approved the PPA, as amended, on December 7, 1999.

In October 1997, HELCO entered into an agreement with Encogen, a limited partnership whose general partners at the time were wholly-owned special-purpose subsidiaries of Enserch and Jones Capital Corporation. Enserch Corporation and J.A. Jones, Inc., the parent companies of Enserch and Jones Capital Corporation, respectively, guaranteed certain of Encogen’s obligations. The agreement provides that HELCO will purchase up to 60 MW (net) of firm capacity for a period of 30 years. The DTCC facility, which primarily burns naphtha, consists of two oil-fired combustion turbines and a steam turbine that utilizes waste heat from the combustion turbines. The facility is designed to sell sufficient steam to be a QF. The PUC approved the agreement on July 14, 1999. On November 8, 1999, HELCO entered into a PPA Novation with Encogen and Hamakua Partners, which recognizes the transfer of the obligations of Encogen under the PPA to Hamakua Partners. Hamakua Partners was formed as result of the sale of the general partner and limited partner partnership interests of Enserch to entities affiliated with TECO Energy Inc., which is a Florida-based energy company and parent company of Tampa Electric Company, a regulated electric utility. TECO Energy Inc. has replaced the guarantee of Enserch Corporation of certain of Hamakua Partners’ obligations. On August 12, 2000, Hamakua Partners began providing HELCO with firm capacity from the first phase of a two-phase construction completion schedule. On December 31, 2000, Hamakua Partners began providing firm capacity from the entire facility, following completion of the second phase of construction. In June 2001, Hamakua Partners demonstrated 60 MW output from the facility. Subsequently, the output deteriorated due to technical problems in the steam turbine. Hamakua Partners has since resolved its nozzle plugging problems, but due to high nitrogen oxide emissions and high steam turbine vibration problems, the output has been limited to 55-57 MW in early 2003. Hamakua Partners has requested outages to correct the problems and HELCO has tentatively scheduled the outages for March and April 2003.

HELCO purchases energy on an as-available basis from a number of nonutility generators. The largest include an 11 MW run-of-the-river hydroelectric facility and a 7 MW wind facility. Apollo Energy Corporation (Apollo), the owner of the wind facility, has an existing contract to provide HELCO with as-available windpower through June 29, 2002 (and extending thereafter until terminated by HELCO or Apollo). Apollo filed a petition for hearing with the PUC on April 28, 2000, alleging that it had unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate a new power purchase agreement with HELCO. Apollo had offered to repower its existing 7 MW facility by the end of 2000 and to install additional wind turbines, up to a total allowed capacity of 15 MW, by the end of 2001. The parties agreed to limit to four issues the matters being presented to the PUC for guidance: whether Apollo is entitled to capacity payments; whether Apollo is entitled to a minimum purchase rate; whether certain performance standards should apply; and whether HELCO’s proposed dispute resolution provision should apply. A hearing on these issues was held on October 3 to 5, 2000. On May 30, 2001, the PUC issued a D&O in which it ordered HELCO and Apollo to continue to

11

Table of Contents

negotiate a PPA, consistent with the terms of the D&O, and to submit by August 13, 2001 either a finalized PPA or

status reports informing the PUC of matters preventing finalization of a PPA. HELCO and Apollo were unable to agree to a PPA by August 13, 2001, and each submitted a status report. The parties continued to negotiate in 2002, but, final agreement has not been reached on various technical issues. Throughout 2002, the PUC has been kept informed through submittal of status of negotiations letters.

On August 17, 1999, HELCO entered into a PPA with Kahua Power Partners LLC (KPP) for the purchase of as-available energy from KPP’s proposed 10 MW windfarm. The PPA was amended by Amendment No. 1 dated April 4, 2000. The PUC approved the PPA, as amended, on June 1, 2001. KPP has not begun construction of its windfarm. GE Wind Energy completed the acquisition of certain assets of Enron Wind Corporation in May 2002, including the proposed KPP project. GE Wind Energy and Hawi Renewable Development Inc. (HRD) have since indicated they are in discussions to sell the windfarm project to HRD.

On January 8, 2001, HELCO entered into a PPA with HRD for the purchase of as-available energy from HRD’s proposed 5 MW windfarm. An amendment to the PPA was completed on April 30, 2002. The PPA, as amended, was approved by the PUC on January 14, 2003. Due to transmission line limitations, the output of HRD would be limited to 3 MW, if the KPP windfarm is connected to the electric grid through the same 34.5 kV line. HELCO and HRD are in negotiations for a new PPA, under which HRD would sell energy from an expanded windfarm (approximately 10.6 MW) at the proposed windfarm site, if the KPP project is cancelled.

The PUC has approved and allowed rate recovery for the firm capacity and purchased energy costs for MECO’s and HELCO’s approved firm capacity and as-available energy PPAs.

Fuel oil usage and supply

The rate schedules of the Company’s electric utility subsidiaries include energy cost adjustment (ECA) clauses under which electric rates (and consequently the revenues of the electric utility subsidiaries generally) are adjusted for changes in the weighted-average price paid for fuel oil and certain components of purchased power, and the relative amounts of company-generated power and purchased power. See discussion below under “Rates,” and “Regulation of electric utility rates” and “Electric utility revenues” in HECO’s MD&A.

HECO’s steam power plants burn LSFO. HECO’s combustion turbine peaking units burn No. 2 diesel fuel (diesel). MECO’s and HELCO’s steam power plants burn medium sulfur fuel oil (MSFO) and their combustion turbine and diesel engine generating units burn diesel. The LSFO supplied to HECO is primarily derived from Indonesian and other Far East crude oils processed in Hawaii refineries. The MSFO supplied to MECO and HELCO is derived from U.S. domestic crude oil processed in Hawaii refineries.

In December 1997, HECO executed contracts for the purchase of LSFO and the use of certain fuel distribution facilities with Chevron Products Company (Chevron) and Tesoro Hawaii Corp. dba BHP Petroleum Americas Refining Inc. (Tesoro). These fuel supply and facilities operations contracts have a term of seven years commencing January 1, 1998. The PUC approved the contracts and permits the inclusion of costs incurred under these contracts in HECO’s ECA clauses. HECO pays market-related prices for fuel supplies purchased under these agreements.

HECO, MECO and HELCO executed joint fuel supply contracts with Chevron and Tesoro for the purchase of diesel and MSFO supplies and for the use of certain petroleum distribution facilities for a period of seven years commencing January 1, 1998. The PUC approved these contracts and permits the electric utilities to include fuel costs incurred under these contracts in their respective ECA clauses. The electric utilities pay market-related prices for diesel and MSFO supplied under these agreements.

The diesel supplies acquired by the Lanai Division of MECO are purchased under a contract with a local petroleum wholesaler, Lanai Oil Co., Inc. On March 1, 2000, the PUC approved an amended contract with a term extending through December 31, 2001, and further extending through December 31, 2003 unless terminated as of the end of 2001. This agreement has been extended through December 31, 2003.

12

Table of Contents

See the fuel oil commitments information set forth in the “Fuel contracts” section in Note 11 to HECO’s Consolidated Financial Statements.

The following table sets forth the average cost of fuel oil used by HECO, MECO and HELCO to generate electricity in the years 2002, 2001 and 2000:

The average per-unit cost of fuel oil consumed to generate electricity for HECO, MECO and HELCO reflects a different volume mix of fuel types and grades. In 2002, over 99% of HECO’s generation fuel consumption consisted of LSFO. The balance of HECO’s fuel consumption was diesel. Diesel made up approximately 73% of MECO’s and 32% of HELCO’s fuel consumption. MSFO made up the remainder of the fuel consumption of MECO and HELCO. In general, MSFO is the least costly fuel, diesel is the most expensive fuel and the price of LSFO falls between the two on a per-barrel basis. Even though the average price per barrel was lower in 2002 than 2001, the prices of LSFO, MSFO and diesel trended higher during 2002 from the level prevailing at the end of 2001. The utilities’ price for MSFO averaged approximately 3% above the average price in 2001, while the price for LSFO and diesel averaged approximately 7% and 16%, respectively below the average price in 2001.

In December 2000, HELCO and MECO executed contracts of private carriage with Hawaiian Interisland Towing, Inc. (HITI) for the shipment of MSFO and diesel supplies from their fuel suppliers’ facilities on Oahu to storage locations on the islands of Hawaii and Maui, respectively, commencing January 1, 2002. These contracts were the result of a competitive bidding process and provide for the employment of a new double-hull bulk petroleum barge at freight rates approximately the same as prevailed under predecessor transportation contracts with HITI. The new barge entered utility service in March 2002. The contracts are for an initial term of 5 years with options for three additional 5-year extensions. On December 10, 2001, the PUC approved these contracts and issued a final order that permits HELCO and MECO to include the fuel transportation and related costs incurred under the provisions of these agreements in their respective ECA clauses.

HITI never takes title to the fuel oil or diesel fuel, but does have custody and control while the fuel is in transit from Oahu. If there were an oil spill in transit, HITI is contractually obligated to indemnify HELCO and/or MECO. HITI has liability insurance coverage for oil spill related damage of $1 billion. State law provides a cap of $700 million on liability for releases of heavy fuel oil transported interisland by tank barge. HELCO and/or MECO may be responsible for any clean-up and/or fines that HITI or its insurance carrier does not cover.

The prices that HECO, MECO and HELCO pay for purchased energy from nonutility generators are generally linked to the price of oil. The AES Hawaii energy prices vary primarily with an inflation indicator. The energy prices for Kalaeloa, which purchases LSFO from Tesoro, vary primarily with world LSFO prices. The H-POWER, HC&S, PGV and HCPC energy prices are based on the electric utilities’ respective PUC-filed short-run avoided energy cost rates (which vary with their respective composite fuel costs), subject to minimum floor rates specified in their approved PPAs. The Hamakua Partners energy prices vary primarily with HELCO’s diesel costs.

The Company estimates that 77% of the net energy generated and purchased by HECO and its subsidiaries in 2003 will be generated from the burning of oil. Increases in fuel oil prices are passed on to customers through the electric utility subsidiaries’ ECA clauses. Failure by the Company’s oil suppliers to provide fuel pursuant to the supply contracts and/or substantial increases in fuel prices could adversely affect consolidated HECO’s and the Company’s financial condition, results of operations and/or liquidity. HECO, however, maintains an inventory of fuel oil in excess of one month’s supply. HELCO and MECO maintain approximately a one month’s supply of both MSFO and diesel. The PPAs with AES Hawaii and Hamakua Partners require that they maintain certain minimum fuel inventory levels.

13

Table of Contents

Transmission systems

HECO has 138 kilovolt (kv) transmission and 46 kv subtransmission lines. HELCO has 69 kv transmission and 34.5 kv subtransmission lines. MECO has 69 kv transmission and 23 kv subtransmission lines on Maui and 34.5 kv transmission lines on Molokai. Lanai has no transmission lines and uses 12 kv lines to distribute electricity. The electric utilities’ overhead and underground transmission and subtransmission lines, as well as their distribution lines, are uninsured because the amount of insurance available is limited and the premiums are extremely high.

Lines are added when needed to serve increased loads and/or for reliability reasons. In some design districts on Oahu, lines must be placed underground. By state law, the PUC generally must determine whether new 46 kv, 69 kv or 138 kv lines can be constructed overhead or must be placed underground. The process of acquiring permits and regulatory approvals for new lines can be contentious, time consuming (leading to project delays) and costly.

HECO system. HECO serves Oahu’s electricity requirements with firm capacity generating units located in West Oahu (1,057 MW); Waiau, adjacent to Pearl Harbor (499 MW); and Honolulu (113 MW). HECO’s nonfirm power sources (approximately 28 MW) are located primarily in West Oahu. HECO transmits power to its service areas on Oahu through approximately 219 miles of overhead and underground 138 kv transmission lines (of which approximately 8 miles are underground) and approximately 570 miles of overhead and underground 46 kv subtransmission lines. See “Oahu transmission system” in HECO’s MD&A.

HELCO system. HELCO serves the island of Hawaii’s electricity requirements with firm capacity generating units located in West Hawaii (42 MW) and East Hawaii (196 MW). HELCO’s nonfirm power sources total 26 MW. HELCO transmits power to its service area on the island of Hawaii through approximately 468 miles of 69 kv overhead lines and approximately 173 miles of 34.5 kv overhead lines.

MECO system. MECO serves its electricity requirements with firm capacity generating units located on the island of Maui (250 MW), Molokai (12 MW) and Lanai (10 MW). MECO has no nonfirm power sources. MECO transmits and distributes power to its service area on the islands of Maui, Molokai and Lanai through approximately 128 miles of 69 kv overhead lines and approximately 10 miles of 34.5 kv overhead lines.

Rates

HECO, MECO and HELCO are subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the PUC with respect to rates, issuance of securities, accounting and certain other matters. See “Regulation and other matters—Electric utility regulation.”

All rate schedules of HECO and its subsidiaries contain ECA clauses as described previously. Under current law and practices, specific and separate PUC approval is not required for each rate change pursuant to automatic rate adjustment clauses previously approved by the PUC. Rate increases, other than pursuant to such automatic adjustment clauses, require the prior approval of the PUC after public and contested case hearings. PURPA requires the PUC to periodically review the ECA clauses of electric and gas utilities in the state, and such clauses, as well as the rates charged by the utilities generally, are subject to change.

See “Regulation of electric utility rates,” “Recent rate requests” and “Electric utility revenues” in HECO’s MD&A.

Public Utilities Commission of the State of Hawaii

In July 2002, Commissioner Dennis R. Yamada retired and Commissioner Wayne H. Kimura became the Chairman of the PUC. In September 2002, Gregg J. Kinkley began serving as Commissioner for a term to expire in June 2004, subject to state Senate confirmation. Prior to his appointment, Mr. Kinkley served as the Consumer Advocate of the State of Hawaii Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs. Continuing to serve is Commissioner Janet E. Kawelo.

14

Table of Contents

Most recent rate requests

HECO, HELCO and MECO initiate PUC proceedings from time to time to request electric rate increases to cover rising operating costs (e.g. purchased power) and the cost of plant and equipment, including the cost of new capital projects to maintain and improve service reliability. As of March 10, 2003, the return on rate base (RORB) found by the PUC to be reasonable in the most recent final rate decision for each utility was 9.16% for HECO (D&O issued on December 11, 1995, based on a 1995 test year), 9.14% for HELCO (D&O issued on February 8, 2001, based on a 2000 test year) and 8.83% for MECO (amended D&O issued on April 6, 1999, based on a 1999 test year). For 2002, the actual simple average RORBs (calculated under the rate-making method and reported to the PUC) for HECO, HELCO and MECO were 8.94%, 9.15% and 8.83%, respectively. In 2002, MECO’s revenues from shareholder incentives were $0.7 million lower than the amount that would have been recorded if MECO had not agreed to cap such incentives when its authorized return on rate base was exceeded. Also in 2002, HELCO slightly exceeded its authorized return on rate base. In 2002, HECO did not exceed its authorized return on rate base.

Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc.

In December 1993, HECO filed a request to increase rates based on a 1995 test year. HECO requested a 4.1% increase (as revised), or $28.2 million in annual revenues, based on a 13.25% return on average common equity (ROACE). In December 1995, HECO received a final D&O authorizing a 1.3%, or $9.1 million, increase in annual revenues, based on a 1995 test year and an 11.4% ROACE. HECO has not subsequently initiated a rate case, but in 2001 it agreed to initiate a rate case using a 2003 or 2004 test year. Also, see “Recent rate requests—Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc.” in HECO’s MD&A.

Hawaii Electric Light Company, Inc.

In early 2001, HELCO received a final D&O from the PUC authorizing an $8.4 million, or 4.9% increase in annual revenues, effective February 15, 2001 and based on an 11.50% ROACE. The D&O included in rate base $7.6 million for pre-air permit facilities needed for the delayed Keahole power plant expansion project that the PUC had also found to be used or useful to support the existing generating units at Keahole. The timing of a future HELCO rate increase request to recover costs relating to the delayed Keahole power plant expansion project, i.e., adding two combustion turbines (CT-4 and CT-5) at Keahole, including the remaining cost of pre-air permit facilities, will depend on future circumstances. See “Certain factors that may affect future results and financial condition–Other regulatory and permitting contingencies” in HECO’s MD&A and “HELCO power situation” in Note 11 of HECO’s Consolidated Financial Statements.

On June 1, 2001, the PUC issued an order approving a new standby service rate schedule rider for HELCO. The standby service rider issue had been bifurcated from the rest of the rate case. The rider provides the rates, terms and conditions for obtaining backup and supplemental electric power from the utility when a customer obtains all or part of its electric power from sources other than HELCO.

Maui Electric Company, Limited

In January 1998, MECO filed a request to increase rates, based on a 1999 test year, primarily to recover costs relating to the addition of generating unit M17 in late 1998. In November 1998, MECO revised its requested increase to 11.9%, or $16.4 million, in annual revenues, based on a 12.75% ROACE. In April 1999, MECO received an amended final D&O from the PUC which authorized an 8.2%, or $11.3 million, increase in annual revenues, based on a 1999 test year and a 10.94% ROACE. The timing of a future MECO rate increase cannot be determined at this time.

Regulatory asset related to Barbers Point Tank Farm project costs

See Note 6 to HECO’s Consolidated Financial Statements.

15

Table of Contents

Competition

In December 1996, the PUC instituted a proceeding to identify and examine the issues surrounding electric competition and to determine the impact of competition on the electric utility infrastructure in Hawaii. See “Competition” in HECO’s MD&A. Management cannot predict what changes, if any, may result from these efforts or what impact, if any, the changes may have on the Company’s or consolidated HECO’s financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

Electric and magnetic fields

Research on potential adverse health effects from exposure to electric and magnetic fields (EMF) continues. To date, no definite relationship between EMF and health risks has been clearly demonstrated. In 1996, the National Academy of Sciences examined more than 500 studies and stated that “the current body of evidence does not show that exposure to EMFs presents a human-health hazard.” An extensive study released in 1997 by the National Cancer Institute and the Children’s Cancer Group found no evidence of increased risk for childhood leukemia from EMF. In 1999, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Director’s Report concluded that while EMF could not be found to be “entirely safe,” the evidence of a health risk was “weak” and did not warrant “aggressive” regulatory actions.

While EMF has not been established as a cause of any health condition, there were important developments in 2002. EMF was formally classified as a possible human carcinogen in reports from two major public health organizations—the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the California Department of Health Services (CDHS). The full implications of the IARC and CDHS reports remain to be seen. This does not mean that EMF has been established as a cause of childhood leukemia or any other cancer. The reports, however, may raise the profile of the EMF issue for electric utilities.

HECO and its subsidiaries are monitoring the research and continue to participate in utility industry funded studies on EMF and, where technically feasible and economically reasonable, continue to reduce EMF in the design and installation of new transmission and distribution facilities. Management cannot predict the impact, if any, the EMF issue may have on HECO, HELCO and MECO in the future.

Legislation

See “Legislation” in HECO’s MD&A.

State of Hawaii, ex rel., Bruce R. Knapp, Qui Tam Plaintiff, and Beverly Perry, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Class Plaintiff, vs. The AES Corporation, AES Hawaii, Inc., HECO, and HEI

On April 22 and 23, 2002, HECO and HEI, respectively, were served with a complaint filed in the Circuit Court for the First Circuit of Hawaii which alleges that the State of Hawaii and HECO’s other customers have been overcharged for electricity as a result of alleged excessive prices in the amended power purchase agreement (Amended PPA) between defendants HECO and AES Hawaii, Inc. (AES-HI). AES-HI is a subsidiary of The AES Corporation (AES), which guarantees certain obligations of AES-HI under the Amended PPA.

HECO entered into a PPA with AES Barbers Point, Inc. (now known as AES-HI) in March 1988, and the PPA was amended in August 1989. The AES-HI 180 MW coal-fired cogeneration plant, which became operational in September 1992, utilizes a “clean-coal” technology and is designed to sell sufficient steam to be a “Qualifying Facility” under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978. The Amended PPA, which has a 30-year term, was approved by the PUC in December 1989, following contested case hearings in October 1988, an initial Decision and Order in July 1989, an amendment of the PPA in August 1989, and further contested case hearings in November 1989. Intervenors included the state Consumer Advocate and the U.S. Department of Defense. The PUC proceedings addressed a number of issues, including whether the prices for capacity and energy in the Amended PPA were less than HECO’s long-term estimated avoided costs, whether HECO needed the capacity to be provided by AES-HI, and whether the terms and conditions of the Amended PPA were reasonable.

The Complaint alleges that HECO’s payments to AES-HI for power, based on the prices, terms and conditions in the PUC-approved Amended PPA, have been “excessive” by over $1 billion since September 1992, and that approval of the Amended PPA was wrongfully obtained from the PUC as a result of alleged misrepresentations

16

Table of Contents

and/or material omissions by the defendants, individually and/or in conspiracy, with respect to the estimated future costs of the Amended PPA versus the costs of hypothetical HECO-owned units. The Complaint included four claims for relief or causes of action: (1) violations of Hawaii’s Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act, (2) unjust enrichment/restitution, (3) fraud and (4) violation of Hawaii’s False Claim Act, otherwise known as qui tam claims (asserting that the State declined to take over the action). The Complaint sought treble damages, attorneys’ fees, rescission of the Amended PPA and punitive damages against HECO, HEI, AES-HI and AES.

On May 22, 2002, AES, with the consent of HECO and HEI, removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii (District Court) on the ground that the action arises under and is completely preempted by the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978.

On June 12, 2002, HECO and HEI filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the plaintiffs’ claims either arose prior to enactment of the Hawaii False Claims Act, which does not have retroactive application, or are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. AES also filed a motion to dismiss, on the same and additional grounds.

Plaintiffs moved to remand the case to state court on June 21, 2002. On November 14, 2002, the District Court Judge remanded the case back to state court and denied plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees and costs.

On December 20, 2002, HECO and HEI re-filed their motion to dismiss the complaint. AES joined in the motion. At a hearing on the motion in early 2003, the First Circuit Court ordered dismissal of the qui tam claims relating to actions prior to May 26, 2000, the effective date of the Hawaii False Claims Act, on the ground that the Act did not have retroactive application. Subsequently, the First Circuit Court issued a minute order dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims for (1) violations of Hawaii’s Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act, (2) unjust enrichment/restitution and (3) fraud, which claims were purportedly brought as a class action, on the ground that all of these claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations.

As a result of the Circuit Court’s ruling, the only claim that appears to remain is under the Hawaii False Claims Act based on allegations that false bills or claims were submitted to the State after May 26, 2000. Under the False Claims Act, a defendant may be liable to a qui tam plaintiff for treble damages, plus civil penalties of a minimum of $5,000 for each false claim, plus attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in the action. The Plaintiffs appear to claim that each monthly bill submitted to each state agency and office on Oahu constitutes a separate false claim. In early 2003, AES filed a motion to dismiss the remaining claims under the Hawaii False Claims Act, on the grounds that: 1) PURPA precludes judicial review of the PUC decision that approved the AES contract; 2) plaintiffs failed to pursue and exhaust administrative remedies; and 3) PURPA preempts challenges to rates established by the PUC in approving the AES contract.

Management intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Commitments and contingencies

See “Certain factors that may affect future results and financial condition–Other regulatory and permitting contingencies” in HECO’s MD&A and Note 11 to HECO’s Consolidated Financial Statements for a discussion of important commitments and contingencies not discussed herein, including (but not limited to) HELCO’s Keahole power situation and HECO’s Kamoku-Pukele transmission line.

17

Table of Contents

Bank—American Savings Bank, F.S.B.

General

ASB was granted a federal savings bank charter in January 1987. Prior to that time, ASB had operated since 1925 as the Hawaii division of American Savings & Loan Association of Salt Lake City, Utah. As of December 31, 2002, ASB was the third largest financial institution in the State of Hawaii with total assets of $6.3 billion and deposits of $3.8 billion. In 2002, the bank’s revenues amounted to approximately 24% of HEI’s consolidated revenues.

HEI agreed with the Office of Thrift Supervision’s (OTS) predecessor regulatory agency that ASB’s regulatory capital would be maintained at a level of at least 6% of ASB’s total liabilities, or at such greater amount as may be required from time to time by regulation. Under the agreement, HEI’s obligation to contribute additional capital was limited to a maximum aggregate amount of approximately $65.1 million. At December 31, 2002, HEI’s maximum obligation to contribute additional capital has been reduced to approximately $28.3 million because of additional capital contributions of $36.8 million by HEI to ASB since the acquisition, exclusive of capital contributions made in connection with ASB’s acquisition of most of the Hawaii operations of Bank of America, FSB (BoA) (see below). ASB is subject to OTS regulations on dividends and other distributions applicable to financial institutions regulated by the OTS.

Effective December 6, 1997, ASB acquired certain loans and other assets and assumed certain deposits and other liabilities of the Hawaii operations of BoA pursuant to a Purchase and Assumption Agreement executed on May 26, 1997, as amended. ASB used the purchase method of accounting to account for the transaction. In this transaction, ASB assumed liabilities with an estimated fair value of $1.7 billion and paid a $0.1 billion premium on certain transferred deposit liabilities. The estimated fair value of tangible and intangible assets acquired, including cash of $0.8 billion, amounted to $1.8 billion. ASB recorded the excess of the purchase price over the estimated fair value of the identifiable net assets acquired of $72 million as goodwill and recorded the core deposit premium of approximately $20 million as an intangible asset. The accounting treatment for goodwill and other intangible assets has changed for 2002 and subsequent years such that goodwill is no longer amortized, but other intangible assets continue to be amortized, and goodwill and other intangible assets are reviewed for impairment at least annually. See “Goodwill and other intangible assets” in Note 1 of HEI’s Consolidated Financial Statements.

ASB’s earnings depend primarily on its net interest income—the difference between the interest income earned on interest-earning assets (loans receivable and investment and mortgage-related securities) and the interest expense incurred on interest-bearing liabilities (deposit liabilities and borrowings, including advances from the Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) of Seattle and securities sold under agreements to repurchase).

For additional information about ASB, see the sections under “Bank” in HEI’s MD&A, HEI’s “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk” and Note 4 to HEI’s Consolidated Financial Statements.

18

Table of Contents

The following table sets forth selected data for ASB for the years indicated:

Consolidated average balance sheet

The following table sets forth average balances of ASB’s major balance sheet categories for the years indicated. Average balances have been calculated using the daily average balances during 2002 and 2001 and the average month-end balances during 2000.

In 2002, the increase in the average balance for mortgage-related securities was due to the exchange of loans for $0.4 billion of mortgage-related securities in 2001 and the investment of excess liquidity into mortgage-related securities. In 2002, the decrease in the average balance for loans receivable was due to the exchange of loans for mortgage-related securities in 2001 and the high loan prepayments in 2002 as result of the low interest rate environment. In 2002, the increase in savings deposits and the decrease in term certificates were due to ASB’s efforts in attracting low costing core deposits and depositors not willing to have their funds invested for long periods of time at current interest rates as the low interest rate environment has brought term certificate interest rates down near core deposit interest rates. In 2001, mortgage-related securities increased and loans receivable decreased largely because ASB exchanged loans for $0.4 billion of mortgage-related securities. The decreases in the average balances of other borrowings were due to the payoff of maturing borrowings with funds from deposit inflows.

19

Table of Contents

Asset/liability management

See HEI’s “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk” in HEI’s Annual Report.

Interest income and interest expense

See “Results of operations—Bank” in HEI’s MD&A in HEI’s Annual Report for a table of average balances, interest and dividend income, interest expense and weighted-average yields earned and rates paid for certain categories of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities for the years ended December 31, 2002, 2001 and 2000.

The following table shows the effect on net interest income of (1) changes in interest rates (change in weighted-average interest rate multiplied by prior year average portfolio balance) and (2) changes in volume (change in average portfolio balance multiplied by prior period rate). Any remaining change is allocated to the above two categories on a pro rata basis.

Other income

In addition to net interest income, ASB has various sources of other income, including fee income from servicing loans, fee income from financial products and services, fees on deposit accounts and other income. Other income totaled approximately $53.0 million in 2002, $45.0 million in 2001 and $27.3 million in 2000. The increase in other income for 2002 was due to increases in fee income from its debit and automated teller machines (ATM) cards resulting from ASB’s expansion of its debit card base and its introduction of new ATM services in 2001 as well as higher fee income from its deposit liabilities as a result of restructuring of deposit products. Increased fee income from Bishop Insurance Agency of Hawaii, Inc. (BIA) which was acquired in March 2001 also contributed to the increase in other income. Offsetting these increases were lower fee income on loans serviced for others as ASB recorded writedowns of its mortgage servicing rights due to faster prepayments on its servicing portfolio and a net loss of $0.6 million on the sale of securities compared to a net gain of $8.0 million in 2001. The increase in other

20

Table of Contents

income for 2001 was primarily due to a $8.0 million gain on sale of investment and mortgage-related securities, increases in fees from ATM and debit cards resulting from ASB’s expansion of its debit card base and its introduction of new check cashing ATMs, increases in fee income from its deposit liabilities as a result of restructuring of deposit products, fee income from BIA which was acquired in March 2001 and increases in revenues from sales of annuity products from American Savings Investment Services Corp.

Lending activities

General. Loans and mortgage-related securities of $5.7 billion represented 90.6% of total assets at December 31, 2002, compared to $5.2 billion, or 86.7%, and $5.3 billion, or 88.5%, at December 31, 2001 and 2000, respectively. ASB’s loan portfolio consists primarily of conventional residential mortgage loans, which are neither insured by the Federal Housing Administration nor guaranteed by the Veterans Administration.

The following tables set forth the composition of ASB’s loan and mortgage-related securities portfolio: