Notes to the Financial Statements — Continued Asbestos Proceedings Suits have been brought in New York State and federal courts against the Utilities and many other defendants, wherein a large number of plaintiffs sought large amounts of compensatory and punitive damages for deaths and injuries allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos at various premises of the Utilities.
The suits that have been resolved, which are many, have been resolved without any payment by the Utilities, or for amounts that were not, in the aggregate, material to them.
The amounts specified in all the remaining thousands of suits total billions of dollars; however, the Utilities believe that these amounts are greatly exaggerated, based on the disposition of previous claims.
In 2008, CECONY estimated that its aggregate undiscounted potential liability for these suits and additional suits that may be brought over the next 15 years is $9 million.
The estimate was based upon a combination of modeling, historical data analysis and risk factor assessment.
Actual experience may be materially different.
In addition, certain current and former employees have claimed or are claiming workers’ compensation benefits based on alleged disability from exposure to asbestos.
Under its current rate agreements, CECONY is permitted to defer as regulatory assets (for subsequent recovery through rates) costs incurred for its asbestos lawsuits and workers’ compensation claims.
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, 2009 and 2008 were as follows:
## Table 0 ##
Note H — Other Material Contingencies Manhattan Steam Main Rupture In July 2007, a CECONY steam main located in midtown Manhattan ruptured.
It has been reported that one person died and others were injured as a result of the incident.
Several buildings in the area were damaged.
Debris from the incident included dirt and mud containing asbestos.
The response to the incident required the closing of several buildings and streets for various periods.
Approximately 100 suits are pending against the company seeking generally unspecified compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages, for personal injury, property damage and business interruption.
The company has not accrued a liability for the suits.
The company has notified its insurers of the incident and believes that the policies in force at the time of the incident will cover most of the company’s costs, which the company is unable to estimate, but which could be substantial, to satisfy its liability to others in connection with the incident.
Investigation of Contractor Payments In January 2009, CECONY commenced an internal investigation relating to the arrests of certain employees and retired employees (most of whom have since been indicted or pleaded guilty) for accepting kickbacks from contractors that performed construction work for the company.
The company has retained a law firm, which has retained an accounting firm, to assist in the company’s investigation.
The company is providing information to governmental authorities, which consider the company to be a victim of unlawful conduct, in connection with their investigation of the arrested employees and contractors.
The company has terminated its employment of the arrested employees and its contracts with the contractors.
In February 2009, the NYSPSC commenced a proceeding that, among other things, will examine the prudence of certain of the company’s expenditures relating to the arrests and consider whether additional expenditures should also be examined (see “Other Regulatory Matters” in Note B).
The company, based upon its evaluation of its internal controls for 2009 and previous years, believes that the controls were effective to provide reasonable assurance that its financial statements have been fairly presented, in all material respects, in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.
Because the company’s investigation is ongoing, the company is unable to predict the impact of any of the employees’ unlawful conduct on the company’s internal controls, business, results of operations or financial position.
Permit Non-Compliance and Pollution Discharges In March 2009, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) issued a proposed administrative Order on Consent to CECONY with respect to non-compliance with certain laws, regulations and permit conditions and discharges of pollutants at the company’s steam generating facilities.
The proposed order effectively institutes a civil enforcement proceeding against the company.
In the proposed order, the DEC is seeking, among other things, the company’s agreement to pay a penalty in an amount the DEC has not yet specified, retain an independent consultant to conduct a comprehensive audit of the company’s generating facilities to determine compliance with federal and New York State environmental laws and regulations and recommend best practices, remove all equipment containing polychlorinated biphenyls from the company’s steam and electric facilities, remediate polychlorinated biphenyl contamination, install certain wastewater treatment facilities, and comply with additional sampling, monitoring, and training requirements.
The Companies’ commitments to make payments in addition to these contractual commitments include their other liabilities reflected in their balance sheets, any funding obligations for their pension and other postretirement benefit plans, financial hedging activities, their collective bargaining agreements and Con Edison’s guarantees of certain obligations of its businesses.
See Notes E, F, O and “Guarantees” in Note H to the financial statements in Item 8.
Capital Resources Con Edison is a holding company that operates only through its subsidiaries and has no material assets other than its interests in its subsidiaries.
Con Edison expects to finance its capital requirements primarily through internally-generated funds and the sale of its securities.
The company does not expect to need to issue additional common equity in 2012.
Con Edison’s ability to make payments on its external borrowings and dividends on its common shares is also dependent on its receipt of dividends from its subsidiaries or proceeds from the sale of its securities or its interests in its subsidiaries.
For information about restrictions on the payment of dividends by the Utilities and significant debt covenants, see Note C to the financial statements in Item 8.
For information on the Companies’ commercial paper program and revolving credit agreements with banks, see Note D to the financial statements in Item 8.
The Utilities expect to finance their operations, capital requirements and payment of dividends to Con Edison from internally-generated funds (see “Liquidity and Capital Resources – Cash Flows from Operating Activities” in Item 7), contributions of equity capital from Con Edison and external borrowings.
The Utilities expect to meet their 2012 external financing requirements, including for maturing securities, through the issuance of up to $750 million of long-term debt.
The Companies require access to the capital markets to fund capital requirements that are substantially in excess of available internally-generated funds.
See “Capital Requirements,” above.
Each of the Companies believes that it will continue to be able to access capital, although capital market conditions may affect the timing of the Companies’ financing activities.
The Companies monitor the availability and costs of various forms of capital, and will seek to issue Con Edison common stock and other securities when it is necessary or advantageous to do so.
For information about the Companies’ long-term debt and short-term borrowing, see Notes C and D to the financial statements in Item 8.
In 2009, the NYSPSC authorized CECONY and O&R to issue up to $4,800 million and $500 million of securities, respectively (of which up to $550 million and $100 million, respectively, may be preferred stock and up to the entire amount authorized may be debt securities).
At December 31, 2011, CECONY and O&R had issued $1,470 million and $190 million, respectively, of debt securities pursuant to such authorization.
In addition, the NYSPSC has authorized the Utilities to refund outstanding debt securities and preferred stock should the Utilities determine that it is economic to do so.
Con Edison’s competitive energy businesses have financed their operations and capital requirements primarily with capital contributions and borrowings from Con Edison, internallygenerated funds and external borrowings.
For each of the Companies, the ratio of earnings to fixed charges (SEC basis) for the last five years was:
## Table 1 ##
For each of the Companies, the common equity ratio for the last five years was:
## Table 2 ##
The commercial paper of the Companies is rated P-2, A-2 and F2, respectively, by Moody’s, S&P and Fitch.
Con Edison’s longterm credit rating is Baa1, BBB+ and BBB+, respectively, by Moody’s, S&P and Fitch.
The unsecured debt of CECONY is rated A3, A- and A-, respectively, by Moody’s, S&P and Fitch.
The unsecured debt of O&R is rated Baa1, A- and A-, respectively, by Moody’s, S&P and Fitch.
Securities ratings assigned by rating organizations are expressions of opinion and are not recommendations to buy, sell or hold securities.
A securities rating is subject to revision or withdrawal at any time by the assigning rating organization.
Each rating should be evaluated independently of any other rating.
CECONY has $636 million of tax-exempt debt for which the interest rates are to be determined pursuant to periodic auctions.
Of this amount, $391 million is insured by Ambac Assurance Corporation and $245 million is insured by Syncora Guarantee Inc.  (formerly XL Capital Assurance Inc. ).
Credit rating agencies have either downgraded the ratings of these insurers from AAA to lower levels or withdrawn the ratings.
Subsequently, there have not been sufficient bids to determine the interest rates pursuant to auctions, and interest rates have been determined by reference to a variable rate index.
The weighted average annual interest rate on this tax-exempt debt was 0.20 percent on December 31, 2011.
The
of hazardous substances in and around the Gowanus Canal will be between $466.7 million and $503.7 million, and indicated that the cost could be significantly higher.
CECONY is unable to predict its exposure to liability with respect to the Gowanus Canal site.
Other Superfund Sites CECONY is a potentially responsible party (PRP) with respect to other Superfund sites where there are other PRPs and where it is generally not responsible for managing the site investigation and remediation.
Work at these sites is in various stages, with the company participating in PRP groups at some of the sites.
Investigation, remediation and monitoring at some of these sites have been, and are expected to continue to be, conducted over extended periods of time.
The company does not believe that it is reasonably likely that monetary sanctions, such as penalties, will be imposed upon it by any governmental authority with respect to these sites.
The following table lists each of CECONY’s other Superfund sites for which the company anticipates it may have a liability.
The table also shows for each such site, its location, the year in which the company was designated or alleged to be a PRP or to otherwise have responsibilities with respect to the site (shown in the table under “Start”), the name of the court or agency in which proceedings with respect to the site are pending and CECONY’s estimated percentage of total liability for each site.
The company currently estimates that its potential liability for investigation, remediation, monitoring and environmental damages at each site is less than $0.2 million, with the exception of the Cortese Landfill site, for which the estimate is $1 million, and the Curcio Scrap Metal site, for which the estimate is $0.2 million.
Superfund liability is joint and several.
The company’s estimate of its liability for each site was determined pursuant to consent decrees, settlement agreements or otherwise and in light of the financial condition of other PRPs.
The company’s actual liability could differ substantially from amounts estimated.
## Table 3 ##
O&R Superfund The sites at which O&R has been asserted to have liability under Superfund include its manufactured gas sites, its West Nyack site, the Newark Bay site, and other Superfund sites discussed below.
There may be additional sites as to which assertions will be made that O&R has liability.
For a further discussion of claims and possible claims against O&R under Superfund, see Note G to the financial statements in Item 8 (which information is incorporated herein by reference).
Manufactured Gas Sites O&R and its predecessors formerly owned and operated manufactured gas plants at seven sites (O&R MGP Sites) in Orange County and Rockland County, New York.
Three of these sites are now owned by parties other than O&R, and have been redeveloped by them for residential, commercial or industrial uses.
The NYSDEC is requiring O&R to develop and implement remediation programs for the O&R MGP Sites including any neighboring areas to which contamination may have migrated.
O&R has completed remedial investigations at all seven O&R MGP Sites and has completed the remediation at one of the sites and a portion of another.
O&R has received NYSDEC’s decision regarding the remedial work to be performed at three of the sites and a portion of another.
Remedial construction at the Port Jervis MGP site began in July 2012 and the excavation phase of the remedy is expected to be completed by May 2013.
Remedial design is ongoing for three of the sites.
A feasibility study was completed for one site in 2012 and is currently being reviewed by NYSDEC.
A feasibility study for one site will be completed in 2013.
West Nyack Site In 1991, 1994 and 1997, O&R entered into consent orders with the NYSDEC pursuant to which O&R agreed to conduct a remedial investigation and remediate certain property it owns in West Nyack, New York at which PCBs were discovered.
Petroleum contamination related to a leaking underground storage tank was found as well.
O&R has completed all remediation at the site that the NYSDEC has required to date.
In 2012, NYSDEC reclassified the West Nyack site to a Class 4 site, meaning that the site has been properly closed but requires continued site management.
Annual inspections and certification of compliance with the Site Management Plan will be required.
Newark Bay Approximately 300 parties, including O&R (which was served with a third-party complaint in June 2009), were sued as thirdparty defendants by Tierra Solutions, Inc.  (Tierra) and Maxus Energy Corporation (Maxus), successors to the Occidental Chemical Corporation and Diamond Shamrock Chemical Company.
Tierra and Maxus were themselves sued in 2005 by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and others for removal and cleanup costs, punitive damages, penalties, and economic losses allegedly arising from the dioxin contamination their predecessors’ pesticide/herbicide plant allegedly released to the “Newark Bay Complex,” a system of
M ANAGEMENT ’ S D ISCUSSION AND A NALYSIS OF F INANCIAL C ONDITION AND R ESULTS OF O PERATIONS – C ONTINUED O&R’s electric operating revenues decreased $49 million in 2012 compared with 2011 due primarily to lower purchased power costs ($69 million), offset in part by the New York electric rate plan ($12 million).
O&R’s New York electric delivery revenues are subject to a revenue decoupling mechanism, as a result of which delivery revenues are generally not affected by changes in delivery volumes from levels assumed when rates were approved.
O&R’s electric sales in New Jersey and Pennsylvania are not subject to a decoupling mechanism, and as a result, changes in such volumes do impact revenues.
Other electric operating revenues generally reflect changes in regulatory assets and liabilities in accordance with the company’s electric rate plan.
See Note B to the financial statements in Item Electric delivery volumes in O&R’s service area decreased 1.0 percent in 2012 compared with 2011.
After adjusting for weather and other variations, electric delivery volumes in O&R’s service area increased 0.8 percent in 2012 compared with 2011.
Electric operating income increased $2 million in 2012 compared with 2011.
The increase reflects primarily higher net revenues ($20 million), offset by higher operations and maintenance expense ($9 million, due to higher pension and health care expense), taxes other than income taxes ($6 million, principally property taxes) and depreciation and amortization ($3 million).
Most of the operating expenses attributable to major storms in 2012 and 2011 were deferred as a regulatory asset.
Gas O&R’s results of gas operations for the year ended December 31, 2012 compared with the year ended December 31, 2011 is as follows
## Table 4 ##
O&R’s gas sales and deliveries, excluding off-system sales, in 2012 compared with 2011 were
## Table 5 ##
O&R’s gas operating revenues decreased $11 million in 2012 compared with 2011 due primarily to the decrease in gas purchased for resale in 2012 ($18 million), offset in part by the gas rate plan Sales and transportation volumes for firm customers decreased 6.1 percent in 2012 compared with 2011.
After adjusting for weather and other variations, total firm sales and transportation volumes increased 1.4 percent in 2012 compared with 2011
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued) 12.
COMMON STOCK (Continued) The Company also maintains the Nonemployee Directors Stock Incentive Compensation Program (the ‘‘Nonemployee Directors Program’’).
Under the Nonemployee Directors Program, each nonemployee director may receive annually up to 10,000 stock options or 4,000 restricted stock units of the Company’s common stock, or a combination thereof, provided that in no event may the total value of the combined annual award exceed $0.2 million.
Additionally, each nonemployee director may elect to receive all or a portion of the annual cash retainer to which the director is otherwise entitled through the issuance of stock options or restricted stock units.
Each option and restricted stock unit award granted in 2011 or prior generally vests in three equal annual installments.
Each option and restricted stock unit award granted after 2011 generally vests after one year.
Upon a director’s initial election to the Board, the director receives an initial grant of restricted stock units equal to a fair market value on grant date of $0.2 million, not to exceed 10,000 shares.
These grants vest over three years from the date of grant.
Under the Nonemployee Directors Program, an aggregate of 1.4 million shares of the Company’s common stock has been authorized for issuance.
The Company has an employee stock purchase plan for United States employees and a plan for international employees (collectively ‘‘ESPP’’).
Under the ESPP, eligible employees may purchase shares of the Company’s common stock at 85% of the lower of the fair market value of Edwards Lifesciences common stock on the effective date of subscription or the date of purchase.
Under the ESPP, employees can authorize the Company to withhold up to 12% of their compensation for common stock purchases, subject to certain limitations.
The ESPP is available to all active employees of the Company paid from the United States payroll and to eligible employees of the Company outside the United States to the extent permitted by local law.
The ESPP for United States employees is qualified under Section 423 of the Internal Revenue Code.
The number of shares of common stock authorized for issuance under the ESPP was 6.6 million shares.
The fair value of each option award and employee stock purchase subscription is estimated on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option valuation model that uses the assumptions noted in the following tables.
The risk-free interest rate is estimated using the U. S.  Treasury yield curve and is based on the expected term of the award.
Expected volatility is estimated based on a blend of the weighted-average of the historical volatility of Edwards’ stock and the implied volatility from traded options on Edwards’ stock.
The expected term of awards granted is estimated from the vesting period of the award, as well as historical exercise behavior, and represents the period of time that awards granted are expected to be outstanding.
The Company uses historical data to estimate forfeitures and has estimated an annual forfeiture rate of 5.1%.
The Black-Scholes option pricing model was used with the following weighted-average assumptions for options granted during the following periods: Option Awards
## Table 6 ##

Tables referenced above, in order (Table 0 first):
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="2"> Con Edison</td><td colspan="2"> CECONY</td></tr><tr><td><i></i> <i>(Millions of Dollars)</i></td><td> 2009</td><td> 2008</td><td> 2009</td><td> 2008</td></tr><tr><td>Accrued liability – asbestos suits</td><td>$10</td><td>$10</td><td>$9</td><td>$9</td></tr><tr><td>Regulatory assets – asbestos suits</td><td>$10</td><td>$10</td><td>$9</td><td>$9</td></tr><tr><td>Accrued liability – workers’ compensation</td><td>$113</td><td>$114</td><td>$108</td><td>$109</td></tr><tr><td>Regulatory assets – workers’ compensation</td><td>$37</td><td>$38</td><td>$37</td><td>$38</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="5"> Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges</td></tr><tr><td></td><td> 2007</td><td> 2008</td><td> 2009</td><td> 2010</td><td> 2011</td></tr><tr><td>Con Edison</td><td>3.4</td><td>3.4</td><td>3.0</td><td>3.3</td><td>3.6</td></tr><tr><td>CECONY</td><td>3.6</td><td>3.3</td><td>3.1</td><td>3.4</td><td>3.8</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="5"> Common Equity Ratio (Percent of total capitalization)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td> 2007</td><td> 2008</td><td> 2009</td><td> 2010</td><td> 2011</td></tr><tr><td>Con Edison</td><td>53.7</td><td>50.7</td><td>50.5</td><td>50.4</td><td>52.5</td></tr><tr><td>CECONY</td><td>52.3</td><td>50.8</td><td>50.3</td><td>49.9</td><td>52.0</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td> Site</td><td> Location</td><td> Start</td><td> Court or Agency</td><td> % of Total Liability</td></tr><tr><td>Maxey Flats Nuclear</td><td>Morehead, KY</td><td>1986</td><td>EPA</td><td>0.8%</td></tr><tr><td>Curcio Scrap Metal</td><td>Saddle Brook, NJ</td><td>1987</td><td>EPA</td><td>100%</td></tr><tr><td>Metal Bank of America</td><td>Philadelphia, PA</td><td>1987</td><td>EPA</td><td>0.97%</td></tr><tr><td>Cortese Landfill</td><td>Narrowsburg, NY</td><td>1987</td><td>EPA</td><td>6.0%</td></tr><tr><td>Global Landfill</td><td>Old Bridge, NJ</td><td>1988</td><td>EPA</td><td>0.3%</td></tr><tr><td>Borne Chemical</td><td>Elizabeth, NJ</td><td>1997</td><td>NJDEP</td><td>0.7%</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="2"> Twelve Months Ended</td><td></td></tr><tr><td> (millions of dollars)</td><td> December 31, 2012</td><td> December 31, 2011</td><td>Variation</td></tr><tr><td>Operating revenues</td><td>$203</td><td>$214</td><td>$-11</td></tr><tr><td>Gas purchased for resale</td><td>69</td><td>87</td><td>-18</td></tr><tr><td>Net revenues</td><td>134</td><td>127</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Operations and maintenance</td><td>64</td><td>66</td><td>-2</td></tr><tr><td>Depreciation and amortization</td><td>15</td><td>13</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Taxes, other than income taxes</td><td>15</td><td>15</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td> Gas operating income</td><td>$40</td><td>$33</td><td>$7</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="4">Thousands of dths Delivered</td><td colspan="4">Revenues in Millions</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="2"> Twelve Months Ended</td><td colspan="2"></td><td colspan="2"> Twelve Months Ended</td><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td> Description</td><td> December 31, 2012</td><td> December 31, 2011</td><td>Variation</td><td>Percent Variation</td><td> December 31, 2012</td><td> December 31, 2011</td><td>Variation</td><td>Percent Variation</td></tr><tr><td>Residential</td><td>6,291</td><td>7,024</td><td>-733</td><td>-10.4%</td><td>$88</td><td>$104</td><td>$-16</td><td>-15.4%</td></tr><tr><td>General</td><td>1,248</td><td>1,360</td><td>-112</td><td>-8.2</td><td>15</td><td>18</td><td>-3</td><td>-16.7</td></tr><tr><td>Firm transportation</td><td>10,505</td><td>10,823</td><td>-318</td><td>-2.9</td><td>76</td><td>71</td><td>5</td><td>7.0</td></tr><tr><td>  Total firm sales and transportation</td><td> 18,044</td><td> 19,207</td><td>-1,163</td><td>-6.1</td><td>179</td><td>193</td><td>-14</td><td>-7.3</td></tr><tr><td>Interruptible sales</td><td>4,326</td><td>4,184</td><td>142</td><td>3.4</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Generation plants</td><td>738</td><td>1,109</td><td>-371</td><td>-33.5</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>-1</td><td>Large</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>793</td><td>864</td><td>-71</td><td>-8.2</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Other gas revenues</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>20</td><td>16</td><td>4</td><td>25.0</td></tr><tr><td> Total</td><td> 23,901</td><td> 25,364</td><td>-1,463</td><td>-5.8%</td><td>$203</td><td>$214</td><td>$-11</td><td>-5.1%</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>Average risk-free interest rate</td><td>0.8%</td><td>0.7%</td><td>1.7%</td></tr><tr><td>Expected dividend yield</td><td>None</td><td>None</td><td>None</td></tr><tr><td>Expected volatility</td><td>31%</td><td>31%</td><td>27%</td></tr><tr><td>Expected life (years)</td><td>4.6</td><td>4.6</td><td>4.5</td></tr><tr><td>Fair value, per share</td><td>$19.47</td><td>$23.93</td><td>$22.78</td></tr></table>

Question: what is the percentage change in the fair value per share between 2011 and 2012?
Answer: 0.05048
Reasoning program: subtract(23.93,22.78), divide(#0,22.78)