(a) Relates to an increase in CECONY’s pension obligation of $45 million from a 1999 special retirement program.
Funded Status The funded status at December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013 was as follows:
||Con Edison|CECONY|
|(Millions of Dollars)|2015|2014|2013|2015|2014|2013|
|CHANGE IN PROJECTED BENEFIT OBLIGATION|||||||
|Projected benefit obligation at beginning of year|$15,081|$12,197|$13,406|$14,137|$11,429|$12,572|
|Service cost – excluding administrative expenses|293|221|259|274|206|241|
|Interest cost on projected benefit obligation|575|572|537|538|536|503|
|Net actuarial (gain)/loss|-996|2,641|-1,469|-931|2,484|-1,388|
|Plan amendments|—|6|—|—|—|—|
|Benefits paid|-576|-556|-536|-536|-518|-499|
|PROJECTED BENEFIT OBLIGATION AT END OF YEAR|$14,377|$15,081|$12,197|$13,482|$14,137|$11,429|
|CHANGE IN PLAN ASSETS|||||||
|Fair value of plan assets at beginning of year|$11,495|$10,755|$9,135|$10,897|$10,197|$8,668|
|Actual return on plan assets|126|752|1,310|118|715|1,241|
|Employer contributions|750|578|879|697|535|819|
|Benefits paid|-576|-556|-536|-536|-518|-499|
|Administrative expenses|-36|-34|-33|-35|-32|-32|
|FAIR VALUE OF PLAN ASSETS AT END OF YEAR|$11,759|$11,495|$10,755|$11,141|$10,897|$10,197|
|FUNDED STATUS|$-2,618|$-3,586|$-1,442|$-2,341|$-3,240|$-1,232|
|Unrecognized net loss|$3,909|$4,888|$2,759|$3,704|$4,616|$2,617|
|Unrecognized prior service costs|16|20|17|3|4|6|
|Accumulated benefit obligation|12,909|13,454|11,004|12,055|12,553|10,268|

The decrease in the pension plan’s projected benefit obligation (due primarily to increased discount rates) was the primary cause of the decreased pension liability at Con Edison and CECONY of $968 million and $899 million, respectively, compared with December 31, 2014.
For Con Edison, this decrease in pension liability corresponds with a decrease to regulatory assets of $967 million for unrecognized net losses and unrecognized prior service costs associated with the Utilities consistent with the accounting rules for regulated operations, a credit to OCI of $10 million (net of taxes) for the unrecognized net losses, and an immaterial change to OCI (net of taxes) for the unrecognized prior service costs associated with the competitive energy businesses and O&R’s New Jersey and Pennsylvania utility subsidiaries.
For CECONY, the decrease in pension liability corresponds with a decrease to regulatory assets of $911 million for unrecognized net losses and unrecognized prior service costs consistent with the accounting rules for regulated operations, a credit to OCI of $1 million (net of taxes) for unrecognized net losses, and an immaterial change to OCI (net of taxes) for the unrecognized prior service costs associated with the competitive energy businesses.
A portion of the unrecognized net loss and prior service cost for the pension plan, equal to $603 million and $4 million, respectively, will be recognized from accumulated OCI and the regulatory asset into net periodic benefit cost over the next year for Con Edison.
Included in these amounts are $570 million and $2 million, respectively, for CECONY.
At December 31, 2015 and 2014, Con Edison’s investments include $243 million and $225 million, respectively, held in external trust accounts for benefit payments pursuant to the supplemental retirement plans.
Included in these amounts for CECONY were $221 million and $208 million, respectively.
See Note P.  The accumulated benefit obligations for the supplemental retirement plans for Con Edison and CECONY were $285 million and $249 million as of December 31, 2015 and $289 million and $250 million as of December 31, 2014, respectively
Contract options in our defense businesses represent agreements to perform additional work beyond the products and services associated with firm contracts, if the customer exercises the option.
These options are negotiated in conjunction with a firm contract and provide the terms under which the customer may elect to procure additional units or services at a future date.
Contract options in the Aerospace group represent options to purchase new aircraft and long-term agreements with fleet customers.
We recognize options in backlog when the customer exercises the option and establishes a firm order.
On December 31, 2009, the estimated potential value associated with these IDIQ contracts and contract options was approximately $17.6 billion, up from $16.8 billion at the end of 2008.
This represents our estimate of the potential value we will receive.
The actual amount of funding received in the future may be higher or lower.
We expect to realize this value over the next 10 to 15 years.
REVIEW OF OPERATING SEGMENTS AEROSPACE Review of 2009 vs.  2008
| Year Ended December 31|2009|2008|Variance|
|Revenues|$5,171|$5,512|$-341|-6.2%|
|Operating earnings|707|1,021|-314|-30.8%|
|Operating margin|13.7%|18.5%|||
|Gulfstream aircraft deliveries (in units):|||||
|Green|94|156|-62|-39.7%|
|Completion|110|152|-42|-27.6%|

The Aerospace group’s revenues decreased in 2009, the net result of a 24 percent decline in Gulfstream revenues that was offset in part by revenues from Jet Aviation, which we acquired in the fourth quarter of 2008.
The combination of the global economic deterioration and credit crisis along with negative business-jet rhetoric had a significant impact on the business-jet market in 2009.
To adjust to the economic conditions and weakened demand, we reduced Gulfstream’s 2009 aircraft production and delivery schedule, primarily in the group’s midsize models, to bridge the market downturn.
This included a five-week furlough at the group’s production center in Savannah, Georgia, in July and August.
As a result, aircraft-manufacturing revenues decreased 28 percent in 2009 compared with 2008.
The economic environment also impacted the group’s aircraft services business.
Organic aircraftservices revenues were down 15 percent in 2009 resulting from reduced flying hours and customer deferral of aircraft maintenance.
The decline in aircraft manufacturing and services revenues was slightly offset by higher pre-owned aircraft revenues in 2009.
The group sold six pre-owned aircraft for $124 in 2009 compared with two sales for $18 in 2008.
The group’s operating earnings declined in 2009 compared with 2008 due primarily to the factors noted above.
The components of the reduction in earnings were as follows:
|Aircraft manufacturing and completions|$-220|
|Pre-owned aircraft|-18|
|Aircraft services|1|
|Other|-77|
|Total decrease in operating earnings|$-314|

The net decrease in the group’s aircraft manufacturing and completions earnings in 2009 resulted from the reduction in Gulfstream aircraft deliveries offset in part by the addition of Jet Aviation’s aircraft completions and refurbishing business.
The earnings decline associated with the decreased Gulfstream volume was mitigated by cost-reduction initiatives, a shift in the mix of aircraft deliveries toward large-cabin aircraft, and liquidated damages collected on defaulted aircraft contracts.
As a result, aircraft manufacturing margins increased in 2009 over 2008 despite the decline in volume during the year.
The group continues to focus on reducing costs through production improvements and operational efficiencies to maintain aircraft-manufacturing margins.
In late 2008 and early 2009, the supply in the global pre-owned aircraft market increased significantly, putting considerable pressure on pricing.
As a result, the group wrote down the carrying value of its preowned aircraft inventory in 2009.
Pricing in the pre-owned market appears to have stabilized in the second half of 2009, particularly for large-cabin aircraft.
The group continues to work to minimize its preowned aircraft exposure, with four pre-owned aircraft valued at $60 remaining in inventory at the end of 2009.
Aircraft services earnings were steady in 2009 compared with 2008 as the addition of Jet Aviation’s maintenance and repair activities, fixedbase operations and aircraft management services offset a decrease in organic aircraft services earnings.
A significant reduction in flight hours in the business-jet market put competitive pressure on aircraft maintenance and repair earnings in 2009.
The group’s operating earnings also were impacted negatively in 2009 by severance costs associated with workforce reduction activities and intangible asset amortization related to the Jet Aviation acquisition.
The factors discussed above and the addition of lower-margin Jet Aviation business caused the group’s overall operating margins to decrease 480 basis points in 2009 compared with 2008.
Overview Vornado Realty Trust (“Vornado”) is a fully-integrated real estate investment trust (“REIT”) and conducts its business through, and substantially all of its interests in properties are held by, Vornado Realty L. P. , a Delaware limited partnership (the “Operating Partnership”).
Accordingly, Vornado’s cash flow and ability to pay dividends to its shareholders is dependent upon the cash flow of the Operating Partnership and the ability of its direct and indirect subsidiaries to first satisfy their obligations to creditors.
Vornado is the sole general partner of, and owned approximately 93.5% of the common limited partnership interest in the Operating Partnership at December 31, 2011.
All references to “we,” “us,” “our,” the “Company” and “Vornado” refer to Vornado Realty Trust and its consolidated subsidiaries, including the Operating Partnership.
We own and operate office, retail and showroom properties (our “core” operations) with large concentrations of office and retail properties in the New York City metropolitan area and in the Washington, DC / Northern Virginia area.
In addition, we have a 32.7% interest in Toys “R” Us, Inc.  (“Toys”) which has a significant real estate component, a 32.4% interest in Alexander’s, Inc.  (NYSE: ALX) (“Alexander’s”), which has seven properties in the greater New York metropolitan area, as well as interests in other real estate and related investments.
Our business objective is to maximize shareholder value, which we measure by the total return provided to our shareholders.
Below is a table comparing our performance to the Morgan Stanley REIT Index (“RMS”) and the SNL REIT Index (“SNL”) for the following periods ended December 31, 2011:
| | Total Return-1|
| | Vornado| RMS| SNL|
|One-year|-4.6%|8.7%|8.3%|
|Three-year|40.2%|79.6%|79.9%|
|Five-year|-25.2%|-7.3%|-3.9%|
|Ten-year|187.0%|163.2%|175.4%|
|||||
||||

We intend to achieve our business objective by continuing to pursue our investment philosophy and executing our operating strategies through: ?
Maintaining a superior team of operating and investment professionals and an entrepreneurial spirit; ?
Investing in properties in select markets, such as New York City and Washington, DC, where we believe there is a high likelihood of capital appreciation; ?
Acquiring quality properties at a discount to replacement cost and where there is a significant potential for higher rents; ?
Investing in retail properties in select under-stored locations such as the New York City metropolitan area; ?
Developing and redeveloping existing properties to increase returns and maximize value; and ?
Investing in operating companies that have a significant real estate component.
We expect to finance our growth, acquisitions and investments using internally generated funds, proceeds from possible asset sales and by accessing the public and private capital markets.
We may also offer Vornado common or preferred shares or Operating Partnership units in exchange for property and may repurchase or otherwise reacquire these securities in the future.
We compete with a large number of real estate property owners and developers, some of which may be willing to accept lower returns on their investments than we are.
Principal factors of competition include rents charged, attractiveness of location, the quality of the property and the breadth and the quality of services provided.
Our success depends upon, among other factors, trends of the national, regional and local economies, the financial condition and operating results of current and prospective tenants and customers, availability and cost of capital, construction and renovation costs, taxes, governmental regulations, legislation and population trends.
See “Risk Factors” in Item 1A for additional information regarding these factors.
Costs under the Transformational Cost Management Program, which were primarily recorded in selling, general and administrative expenses and included in the fiscal year ended August 31, 2019 were as follows (in millions):

Question: What's the current growth rate of Projected benefit obligation at beginning of year of Con Edison?

Python solution:
def solution():
    # Define variables name and value
    con_edison_2015 = 15081
    con_edison_2014 = 12197

    # Do math calculation to get the answer
    increase = con_edison_2015 - con_edison_2014
    growth_rate = increase / con_edison_2014
    
    return growth_rate

Answer: 0.2364515865