performance and revenue growth depends, in part, on the reliability and functionality of this infrastructure as a means of delivering human resources services.
The internet is a key mechanism for delivering our human resources services to our HR Solutions clients efficiently and cost effectively.
Our clients may not be receptive to human resource services delivered over the internet due to concerns regarding transaction security, user privacy, the reliability and quality of internet service and other reasons.
Our clients’ concerns may be heightened by the fact we use the internet to transmit extremely confidential information about our clients and their employees, such as compensation, medical information and other personally identifiable information.
In order to maintain the level of security, service and reliability that our clients require, we may be required to make significant investments in our online methods of delivering human resources services.
In addition, websites and proprietary online services have experienced service interruptions and other delays occurring throughout their infrastructure.
The adoption of additional laws or regulations with respect to the internet may impede the efficiency of the internet as a medium of exchange of information and decrease the demand for our services.
If we cannot use the internet effectively to deliver our services, our revenue growth and results of operation may be impaired.
We may lose client data as a result of major catastrophes and other similar problems that may materially adversely impact our operations.
We have multiple processing centers around the world that use various commercial methods for disaster recovery capabilities.
Our main data processing center is located near the Aon Hewitt headquarters in Lincolnshire, Illinois.
In the event of a disaster, our business continuity may not be sufficient, and the data recovered may not be sufficient for the administration of our clients’ human resources programs and processes.
Item 1B.
Unresolved Staff Comments.
None.
Item 2.
Properties.
We have offices in various locations throughout the world.
Substantially all of our offices are located in leased premises.
We maintain our corporate headquarters at 200 E.  Randolph Street in Chicago, Illinois, where we occupy approximately 327,000 square feet of space under an operating lease agreement that expires in 2013.
There are two five-year renewal options at current market rates.
We own one building at Pallbergweg 2-4, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (150,000 square feet).
The following are additional significant leased properties, along with the occupied square footage and expiration.
## Table 0 ##
The locations in Lincolnshire, Illinois, The Woodlands, Texas, Orlando, Florida, and Charlotte North Carolina, each of which were acquired as part of the Hewitt acquisition, are primarily dedicated to our HR Solutions business.
The other locations listed above house personnel from each of our business segments.
Notes to the Financial Statements – Continued Funded Status The funded status at December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003 was as follows:
## Table 1 ##
* Amounts for certain competitive businesses were previously included in the Con Edison of New York balance.
The amounts recognized in the consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2005 and 2004 were as follows:
## Table 2 ##
At December 31, 2005 and 2004, Con Edison’s other current assets include $53 million and $50 million, respectively, held in an external trust account for benefit payments pursuant to the supplemental retirement plans.
Included in these amounts for Con Edison of New York were $42 million and $40 million, respectively.
The accumulated benefit obligations for the supplemental retirement plans for Con Edison and Con Edison of New York were $120 million and $87 million as of December 31, 2005 and $104 million and $72 million as of December 31, 2004, respectively
Notes to the Financial Statements – Continued The accrued liability for asbestos suits and workers’ compensation proceedings (including those related to asbestos exposure) and the amounts deferred as regulatory assets for the Companies at December 31, 2005 and 2004 were as follows:
## Table 3 ##
Note H – Northeast Utilities Litigation In March 2001, Con Edison commenced an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the District Court), entitled Consolidated Edison, Inc.  v.  Northeast Utilities (the First Federal Proceeding), seeking a declaratory judgment that Northeast Utilities has failed to meet certain conditions precedent to Con Edison’s obligation to complete its acquisition of Northeast Utilities pursuant to their agreement and plan of merger, dated as of October 13, 1999, as amended and restated as of January 11, 2000 (the merger agreement).
In May 2001, Con Edison amended its complaint.
As amended, Con Edison’s complaint seeks, among other things, recovery of damages sustained by it as a result of the material breach of the merger agreement by Northeast Utilities, and the District Court’s declaration that under the merger agreement Con Edison has no further or continuing obligations to Northeast Utilities and Northeast Utilities has no further or continuing rights against Con Edison.
In June 2001, Northeast Utilities withdrew the separate action it commenced in March 2001 in the same court and filed as a counter-claim in the First Federal Proceeding its claim that Con Edison materially breached the merger agreement and that, as a result, Northeast Utilities and its shareholders have suffered substantial damages, including the difference between the consideration to be paid to Northeast Utilities’ shareholders pursuant to the merger agreement and the market value of Northeast Utilities’ common stock (the so-called “lost premium” claim), expenditures in connection with regulatory approvals and lost business opportunities.
Pursuant to the merger agreement, Con Edison agreed to acquire Northeast Utilities for $26.00 per share (an estimated aggregate of not more than $3.9 billion) plus $0.0034 per share for each day after August 5, 2000 through the day prior to the completion of the transaction, payable 50 percent in cash and 50 percent in stock.
In March 2003, the District Court ruled on certain motions filed by Con Edison and Northeast Utilities in the First Federal Proceeding.
The District Court ruled that Con Edison’s claim against Northeast Utilities for hundreds of millions of dollars for breach of the merger agreement, as well as Con Edison’s claim that Northeast Utilities underwent a material adverse change, will go to trial.
The District Court also dismissed Con Edison’s fraud and misrepresentation claims.
In addition, the District Court ruled that Northeast Utilities’ shareholders were intended third-party beneficiaries of the merger agreement and the alleged $1.2 billion lost premium claim against Con Edison would go to trial.
In May 2003, a lawsuit by a purported class of Northeast Utilities’ shareholders, entitled Rimkoski, et al.
v.  Consolidated Edison, Inc. , was filed in New York County Supreme Court (the State Proceeding) alleging breach of the merger agreement.
The complaint defined the putative class as holders of Northeast Utilities’ common stock on March 5, 2001, and alleged that the class members were intended third party beneficiaries of the merger agreement.
The complaint sought damages believed to be substantially duplicative of those sought by Northeast Utilities on behalf of its shareholders in the First Federal Proceeding.
In December 2003, the District Court granted Rimkoski’s motion to intervene in the First Federal Proceeding and, in February 2004, the State Proceeding was dismissed without prejudice.
In January 2004, Rimkoski filed a motion in the First Federal Proceeding to certify his action as a class action on behalf of all holders of Northeast Utilities’ common stock on March 5, 2001 and to appoint Rimkoski as class representative.
The motion is pending.
In May 2004, the District Court ruled that the Northeast Utilities’ shareholders who may pursue the lost premium claim against Con Edison are the holders of Northeast Utilities’ common stock on March 5, 2001 and the District Court therefore dismissed Northeast Utilities’ lost premium claim.
The District Court certified its ruling regarding the lost premium claim for interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the Court of Appeals), and in June 2004 Northeast Utilities filed its motion for leave to appeal the issue to the Court of Appeals.
The District Court further certified for interlocutory appeal its March 2003 determination that Northeast Utilities’ shareholders are intended third-party beneficiaries under the merger agreement, and in June 2004 Con Edison filed its motion for leave to appeal the issue to the Court of Appeals.
In October 2004, the Court of Appeals granted both Con Edison’s motion and Northeast Utilities’ motion.
In October 2005, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s March 2003 ruling that Northeast Utilities’ shareholders were intended third-party beneficiaries of the merger agreement, and held that Northeast Utilities’ shareholders therefore could not sue Con Edison for the claimed lost premium.
Also, in October 2005, Northeast Utilities 94
Notes to the Financial Statements – Continued Lovett generating units in 2007 and 2008.
O&R is in the process of upgrading its transmission and distribution system to meet anticipated demand growth, and believes that by 2007 it would be able to meet existing transmission reliability criteria in the event that the Lovett units were shut down.
The Companies are unable to predict whether or not any Mirant related lawsuits or other actions will have a material adverse effect on their financial position, results of operations or liquidity.
Guarantees Con Edison and its subsidiaries enter into various agreements providing financial or performance assurance primarily to third parties on behalf of their subsidiaries.
In addition, a Con Edison Development subsidiary has issued a guarantee on behalf of an entity in which it has an equity interest.
Maximum amounts guaranteed by Con Edison totaled $ 1.1 billion and $989 million at December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively.
A summary, by type and term, of Con Edison’s total guarantees at December 31, 2005 is as follows:

Tables referenced above, in order (Table 0 first):
<table><tr><td>Property:</td><td>Occupied Square Footage</td><td>Lease Expiration Dates</td></tr><tr><td>4 Overlook Point and other locations, Lincolnshire, Illinois</td><td>1,279,000</td><td>2014 - 2019</td></tr><tr><td>2601 Research Forest Drive, The Woodlands, Texas</td><td>414,000</td><td>2020</td></tr><tr><td>2300 Discovery Drive, Orlando, Florida</td><td>364,000</td><td>2020</td></tr><tr><td>Devonshire Square and other locations, London, UK</td><td>339,000</td><td>2018 - 2028</td></tr><tr><td>199 Water Street, New York, New York</td><td>337,000</td><td>2018</td></tr><tr><td>1000 N. Milwaukee Avenue, Glenview, Illinois</td><td>233,000</td><td>2017</td></tr><tr><td>7201 Hewitt Associates Drive, Charlotte, North Carolina</td><td>218,000</td><td>2015</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">Con Edison</td><td colspan="3">Con Edison of New York</td></tr><tr><td> (Millions of Dollars)</td><td>2005</td><td>2004</td><td>2003</td><td>2005</td><td>2004</td><td>2003</td></tr><tr><td> Change in Projected Benefit Obligation</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Projected benefit obligation at beginning of year</td><td>$7,315</td><td>$6,695</td><td>$6,434</td><td>$6,840</td><td>$6,267*</td><td>$6,030</td></tr><tr><td>Service cost – excluding administrative expenses</td><td>116</td><td>104</td><td>101</td><td>107</td><td>96</td><td>94</td></tr><tr><td>Interest cost on projected benefit obligation</td><td>430</td><td>414</td><td>420</td><td>402</td><td>388</td><td>393</td></tr><tr><td>Plan amendments</td><td>-</td><td>32</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>22</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Net actuarial loss</td><td>577</td><td>400</td><td>54</td><td>538</td><td>373</td><td>43</td></tr><tr><td>Benefits paid</td><td>-355</td><td>-330</td><td>-314</td><td>-330</td><td>-306</td><td>-290</td></tr><tr><td> Projected Benefit Obligation at End of Year</td><td>$8,083</td><td>$7,315</td><td>$6,695</td><td>$7,557</td><td>$6,840</td><td>$6,270</td></tr><tr><td> Change in Plan Assets</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Fair value of plan assets at beginning of year</td><td>$7,254</td><td>$6,710</td><td>$5,760</td><td>$6,985</td><td>$6,474</td><td>$5,563</td></tr><tr><td>Actual return on plan assets</td><td>609</td><td>872</td><td>1,261</td><td>586</td><td>840</td><td>1,218</td></tr><tr><td>Employer contributions</td><td>34</td><td>28</td><td>22</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Benefits paid</td><td>-355</td><td>-330</td><td>-313</td><td>-330</td><td>-306</td><td>-290</td></tr><tr><td>Administrative expenses</td><td>-31</td><td>-26</td><td>-20</td><td>-29</td><td>-25</td><td>-19</td></tr><tr><td> Fair Value of Plan Assets at End of Year</td><td>$7,511</td><td>$7,254</td><td>$6,710</td><td>$7,214</td><td>$6,985</td><td>$6,474</td></tr><tr><td>Funded status</td><td>$-572</td><td>$-61</td><td>$15</td><td>$-343</td><td>$145</td><td>$204</td></tr><tr><td>Unrecognized net loss</td><td>1,908</td><td>1,351</td><td>1,108</td><td>1,750</td><td>1,217</td><td>981</td></tr><tr><td>Unrecognized prior service costs</td><td>75</td><td>87</td><td>67</td><td>62</td><td>73</td><td>63</td></tr><tr><td> Net Prepaid Benefit Cost</td><td>$1,411</td><td>$1,377</td><td>$1,190</td><td>$1,469</td><td>$1,435</td><td>$1,248</td></tr><tr><td> Accumulated Benefit Obligation</td><td>$7,297</td><td>$6,582</td><td>$5,998</td><td>$6,796</td><td>$6,127</td><td>$5,591</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">Con Edison</td><td colspan="2">Con Edison of New York</td></tr><tr><td> (Millions of Dollars)</td><td>2005</td><td>2004</td><td>2005</td><td>2004</td></tr><tr><td>Prepaid pension cost</td><td>$1,474</td><td>$1,442</td><td>$1,474</td><td>$1,442</td></tr><tr><td>Accrued benefit cost</td><td>-58</td><td>-58</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Additional minimum pension liability</td><td>-22</td><td>-12</td><td>-19</td><td>-11</td></tr><tr><td>Intangible asset</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td>2</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Accumulated other comprehensive income</td><td>20</td><td>12</td><td>17</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>1993 special retirement program</td><td>-5</td><td>-7</td><td>-5</td><td>-7</td></tr><tr><td>Net prepaid benefit cost</td><td>$1,411</td><td>$1,377</td><td>$1,469</td><td>$1,435</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="2"> Con Edison</td><td colspan="2"> Con Edison of New York</td></tr><tr><td> (Millions of Dollars)</td><td> 2005</td><td> 2004</td><td> 2005</td><td> 2004</td></tr><tr><td>Accrued liability – asbestos suits</td><td>$25</td><td>$26</td><td>$25</td><td>$25</td></tr><tr><td>Regulatory assets – asbestos suits</td><td>$25</td><td>$26</td><td>$25</td><td>$25</td></tr><tr><td>Accrued liability – workers’ compensation</td><td>$118</td><td>$122</td><td>$113</td><td>$119</td></tr><tr><td>Regulatory assets – workers’ compensation</td><td>$42</td><td>$48</td><td>$42</td><td>$48</td></tr></table>

Question: In the year / section with largest amount of Prepaid pension cost, what's the sum of Prepaid pension cost? (in million)
Answer: 2948
Reasoning program: add(1474,1474)