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, 2016 and 2015 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 sixty suits are pending against the company seeking generally unspecified compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages, for wrongful death, personal injury, property damage and business interruption.
The company has notified its insurers of the incident and believes that the policies in force at the time of the incident will cover the company’s costs to satisfy its liability to others in connection with the suits.
In the company’s estimation, there is not a reasonable possibility that an exposure to loss exists for the suits that is materially in excess of the estimated liability accrued.
At December 31, 2016, the company has accrued its estimated liability for the suits of $25 million and an insurance receivable of $25 million.
Manhattan Explosion and Fire On March 12, 2014, two multi-use five-story tall buildings located on Park Avenue between 116th and 117th Street in Manhattan were destroyed by an explosion and fire.
CECONY had delivered gas to the buildings through service lines from a distribution main located below ground on Park Avenue.
Eight people died and more than 50 people were injured.
Additional buildings were also damaged.
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigated.
The parties to the investigation included the company, the City of New York, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and the NYSPSC (which also conducted an investigation).
In June 2015, the NTSB issued a final report concerning the incident, its probable cause and safety recommendations.
The NTSB determined that the probable cause of the incident was (1) the failure of a defective fusion joint at a service tee (which joined a plastic service line to a plastic distribution main) installed by the company that allowed gas to leak from the distribution main and migrate into a building where it ignited and (2) a breach in a City sewer line that allowed groundwater and soil to flow into the sewer, resulting in a loss of support for the distribution main, which caused it to sag and overstressed the defective fusion joint.
The NTSB also made safety recommendations, including recommendations to the company that addressed its procedures for the preparation and examination of plastic fusions, training of its staff on conditions for notifications to the City’s Fire Department and extension of its gas main isolation valve installation program.
Approximately seventy suits are pending against the company seeking generally unspecified damages and, in some cases, punitive damages, for wrongful death, personal injury, property damage and business interruption.
The company has notified its insurers of the incident and believes that the policies in force at the time of the incident will cover the company’s costs, in excess of a required retention (the amount of which is not material), to satisfy any liability it may have for damages in connection with the incident.
The company is unable to estimate the amount or range of its possible loss for damages related to the incident.
At December 31, 2016, the company had not accrued a liability for damages related to the incident.
Other Contingencies See “Other Regulatory Matters” in Note B and "Uncertain Tax Positions" in Note L.  Guarantees Con Edison and its subsidiaries enter into various agreements providing financial or performance assurance primarily to third parties on behalf of their subsidiaries.
Maximum amounts guaranteed by Con Edison totaled $2,370 million and $2,856 million at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively.
A summary, by type and term, of Con Edison’s total guarantees at December 31, 2016 is as follows:
## Table 1 ##
Con Edison Transmission – Con Edison has guaranteed payment by CET Electric of the contributions CET Electric agreed to make to New York Transco LLC (NY Transco).
CET Electric acquired a 45.7 percent interest in NY Transco when it was formed in 2014.
In May 2016, the transmission owners transferred certain projects to NY Transco, as to which CET Electric made its required contributions.
The other projects that were proposed when NY Transco was formed remain subject to certain authorizations from the NYSPSC, the FERC and, as applicable, other federal, state and local agencies.
Guarantee amount shown is for the maximum possible required amount of CET Electric's contributions for these other projects as calculated based on the assumptions that the projects are completed at 175 percent of their estimated costs and NY Transco does not use any debt financing for the projects.
Guarantee term shown is assumed as the timing of the contributions is not certain.
Also included within the table above is a guarantee for $25 million from Con Edison on behalf of CET Gas in relation to a proposed gas transmission project in West Virginia and Virginia.
See Note U.
Energy Transactions — Con Edison guarantees payments on behalf of the Clean Energy Businesses in order to facilitate physical and financial transactions in electricity, gas, pipeline capacity, transportation, oil, renewable energy credits and energy services.
To the extent that liabilities exist under the contracts subject to these guarantees, such liabilities are included in Con Edison’s consolidated balance sheet.
Guarantee amounts shown above include $42 million of guarantees or other credit support provided by Con Edison on behalf of Con Edison Solutions that may continue in effect during the period in which Con Edison Solutions provides transition services in connection with the retail electric supply business it sold in September 2016.
See Note U.
As part of the sale agreement, the purchaser has agreed to pay Con Edison Solutions for draws on such guarantees or other credit support.
Renewable Electric Production Projects – Con Edison, Con Edison Development and Con Edison Solutions guarantee payments associated with the investment in solar and wind energy facilities on behalf of their whollyowned subsidiaries.
Other – Other guarantees include $70 million in guarantees provided by Con Edison to Travelers Insurance Company for indemnity agreements for surety bonds in connection with operation of solar energy facilities and energy service projects of Con Edison Development and Con Edison Solutions, respectively.
Other guarantees also includes Con Edison's guarantee (subject to a $53 million maximum amount) of certain obligations of Con Edison Solutions under its agreement to sell its retail electric supply business.
See Note U.
In addition, Con Edison issued a guarantee estimated at $5 million to the Public Utility Commission of Texas covering obligations of Con Edison Solutions as a retail electric provider.
As part of the sale agreement for the retail electric supply business discussed above, the purchaser has agreed to pay Con Edison Solutions for draws on the guarantee to the Public Utility Commission of Texas.
Note I – Electricity Purchase Agreements The Utilities have electricity purchase agreements with non-utility generators and others for generating capacity.
The Utilities recover their purchased power costs in accordance with provisions approved by the applicable state public utility regulators.
See “Recoverable Energy Costs” in Note A.
## Table 2 ##
(a) With the exception of Texas Solar 4, Con Edison’s ownership interest is 50 percent and these projects are accounted for using the equity method of accounting.
With the exception of Texas Solar 4, Con Edison is not the primary beneficiary since the power to direct the activities that most significantly impact the economics of the entities are shared equally between Con Edison Development and third parties.
Con Edison’s ownership interest in Texas Solar 4 is 80 percent and is consolidated in the financial statements.
Con Edison is the primary beneficiary since the power to direct the activities that most significantly impact the economics of Texas Solar 4 is held by Con Edison Development.
(b) Represents Con Edison Development’s ownership interest in the project.
(c) For investments accounted for under the equity method, maximum exposure is equal to the carrying value of the investment on the consolidated balance sheet.
For consolidated investments, such as Texas Solar 4, maximum exposure is equal to the net assets of the project on the consolidated balance sheet less any applicable noncontrolling interest ($7 million for Texas Solar 4).
Con Edison did not provide any financial or other support during the year that was not previously contractually required.
Note R – Asset Retirement Obligations The Companies recognize a liability at fair value for legal obligations associated with the retirement of long-lived assets in the period in which they are incurred, or when sufficient information becomes available to reasonably estimate the fair value of such legal obligations.
When the liability is initially recorded, asset retirement costs are capitalized by increasing the carrying amount of the related asset.
The liability is accreted to its present value each period and the capitalized cost is depreciated over the useful life of the related asset.
The fair value of the asset retirement obligation liability is measured using expected future cash flows discounted at credit-adjusted risk-free rates, historical information, and where available, quoted prices from outside contractors.
The Companies evaluate these assumptions underlying the asset retirement obligation liability on an annual basis or as frequently as needed.
The Companies recorded asset retirement obligations associated with the removal of asbestos and asbestoscontaining material in their buildings (other than the structures enclosing generating stations and substations), electric equipment and steam and gas distribution systems.
The Companies also recorded asset retirement obligations relating to gas and oil pipelines abandoned in place.
The Companies did not record an asset retirement obligation for the removal of asbestos associated with the structures enclosing generating stations and substations.
For these building structures, the Companies were unable to reasonably estimate their asset retirement obligations because the Companies were unable to estimate the undiscounted retirement costs or the retirement dates and settlement dates.
The amount of the undiscounted retirement costs could vary considerably depending on the disposition method for the building structures, and the method has not been determined.
The Companies anticipate continuing to use these building structures in their businesses for an indefinite period, and so the retirement dates and settlement dates are not determinable.
Con Edison recorded asset retirement obligations for the removal of the Clean Energy Businesses’ solar and wind equipment related to projects located on property that is not owned by them and the term of the arrangement is finite including any renewal options.
Con Edison did not record asset retirement obligations for the Clean Energy Businesses’ projects that are located on property that is owned by them because they expect that the equipment will continue to generate electricity at these facilities long past the manufacturer’s warranty at minimal operating expense.
Therefore, Con Edison was unable to reasonably estimate the retirement date of this equipment.
The Utilities include in depreciation rates the estimated removal costs, less salvage, for utility plant assets.
The amounts related to removal costs that are associated with asset retirement obligations are classified as an asset retirement liability.
Pursuant to accounting rules for regulated operations, future removal costs that do not represent legal asset retirement obligations are recorded as regulatory liabilities.
Accretion and depreciation expenses related to removal costs that represent legal asset retirement obligations are applied against the Companies’ regulatory liabilities.
Asset retirement costs that are recoverable from customers are recorded as regulatory liabilities to reflect the timing difference between costs recovered through the rate-making process and recognition of costs.
Fuel expenses decreased $62 million in 2015 compared with 2014 due to lower unit costs ($69 million), offset by higher sendout volumes from the company’s electric generating facilities ($7 million).
Other operations and maintenance expenses decreased $11 million in 2015 compared with 2014 due primarily to lower pension costs ($85 million), offset in part by an increase in the surcharges for assessments and fees that are collected in revenues from customers ($44 million) and higher electric operating costs ($23 million).
Depreciation and amortization increased $39 million in 2015 compared with 2014 due primarily to higher electric utility plant balances.
Taxes, other than income taxes increased $35 million in 2015 compared with 2014 due primarily to higher property taxes ($31 million) and a sales and use tax refund received in 2014 ($12 million), offset in part by the elimination of the New York City subsidiary capital tax ($6 million) and lower state and local revenue taxes ($3 million).
Gas CECONY’s results of gas operations for the year ended December 31, 2015 compared with the year ended December 31, 2014 is as follows
## Table 3 ##
CECONY’s gas sales and deliveries, excluding off-system sales, in 2015 compared with 2014 were
## Table 4 ##
(a) Revenues from gas sales are subject to a weather normalization clause and 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.
(b) After adjusting for variations, principally weather and billing days, firm gas sales and transportation volumes in the company’s service area increased 6.7 percent in 2015 compared with 2014, reflecting primarily increased volumes attributable to additional customers that have converted from oil-to-gas as heating fuel for their buildings.
(c) Includes 1,229 and 6,057 thousands of Dt for 2015 and 2014, respectively, which are also reflected in firm transportation and other.
(d) Other gas operating revenues generally reflect changes in regulatory assets and liabilities in accordance with the company’s rate plans.
See Note B to the financial statements in Item 8.
Operating revenues decreased $194 million in 2015 compared with 2014 due primarily to a decrease in gas purchased for resale expenses ($272 million), offset in part by higher revenues from the gas rate plan ($77 million) reflecting primarily higher delivery volumes attributable to oil-to-gas conversions.
Gas purchased for resale decreased $272 million in 2015 compared with 2014 due to lower unit costs ($274 million), offset by higher sendout volumes ($2 million)
PERFORMANCE GRAPH The following chart presents a comparison for the five-year period ended June 30, 2014, of the market performance of the Company’s common stock with the S & P 500 Index and an index of peer companies selected by the Company: COMPARISON OF 5 YEAR CUMULATIVE TOTAL RETURN Among Jack Henry & Associates, Inc. , the S&P 500 Index, and a Peer Group

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>(Millions of Dollars)</td><td>2016</td><td>2015</td><td>2016</td><td>2015</td></tr><tr><td>Accrued liability – asbestos suits</td><td>$8</td><td>$8</td><td>$7</td><td>$7</td></tr><tr><td>Regulatory assets – asbestos suits</td><td>$8</td><td>$8</td><td>$7</td><td>$7</td></tr><tr><td>Accrued liability – workers’ compensation</td><td>$88</td><td>$86</td><td>$83</td><td>$81</td></tr><tr><td>Regulatory assets – workers’ compensation</td><td>$13</td><td>$11</td><td>$13</td><td>$11</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Guarantee Type</td><td>0 – 3 years</td><td>4 – 10 years</td><td>> 10 years</td><td>Total</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="4">(Millions of Dollars)</td></tr><tr><td>Con Edison Transmission</td><td>$435</td><td>$613</td><td>$—</td><td>$1,048</td></tr><tr><td>Energy transactions</td><td>603</td><td>35</td><td>98</td><td>736</td></tr><tr><td>Renewable electric production projects</td><td>439</td><td>—</td><td>19</td><td>458</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>128</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>128</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$1,605</td><td>$648</td><td>$117</td><td>$2,370</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Project Name (a)</td><td>Generating Capacity (b) (MW AC)</td><td>Power Purchase Agreement Term in Years</td><td>Year of Initial Investment</td><td>Location</td><td>MaximumExposure to Loss(Millions of Dollars) (c)</td></tr><tr><td>Copper Mountain Solar 3</td><td>128</td><td>20</td><td>2014</td><td>Nevada</td><td>$179</td></tr><tr><td>Mesquite Solar 1</td><td>83</td><td>20</td><td>2013</td><td>Arizona</td><td>108</td></tr><tr><td>Copper Mountain Solar 2</td><td>75</td><td>25</td><td>2013</td><td>Nevada</td><td>84</td></tr><tr><td>California Solar</td><td>55</td><td>25</td><td>2012</td><td>California</td><td>69</td></tr><tr><td>Broken Bow II</td><td>38</td><td>25</td><td>2014</td><td>Nebraska</td><td>48</td></tr><tr><td>Texas Solar 4</td><td>32</td><td>25</td><td>2014</td><td>Texas</td><td>47</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">For the Years Ended December 31,</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(Millions of Dollars)</td><td>2015</td><td>2014</td><td>Variation</td></tr><tr><td>Operating revenues</td><td>$1,527</td><td>$1,721</td><td>$-194</td></tr><tr><td>Gas purchased for resale</td><td>337</td><td>609</td><td>-272</td></tr><tr><td>Other operations and maintenance</td><td>440</td><td>418</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>Depreciation and amortization</td><td>142</td><td>132</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>Taxes, other than income taxes</td><td>252</td><td>248</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Gas operating income</td><td>$356</td><td>$314</td><td>$42</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="4">Thousands of Dt Delivered</td><td colspan="4">Revenues in Millions (a)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">For the Years Ended</td><td colspan="2"></td><td colspan="2">For the Years Ended</td><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Description</td><td>December 31, 2015</td><td>December 31, 2014</td><td>Variation</td><td>PercentVariation</td><td>December 31, 2015</td><td>December 31, 2014</td><td>Variation</td><td>PercentVariation</td></tr><tr><td>Residential</td><td>49,024</td><td>46,661</td><td>2,363</td><td>5.1%</td><td>$682</td><td>$782</td><td>$-100</td><td>-12.8%</td></tr><tr><td>General</td><td>28,173</td><td>28,969</td><td>-796</td><td>-2.7</td><td>274</td><td>359</td><td>-85</td><td>-23.7</td></tr><tr><td>Firm transportation</td><td>72,864</td><td>68,731</td><td>4,133</td><td>6.0</td><td>458</td><td>453</td><td>5</td><td>1.1</td></tr><tr><td>Total firm sales and transportation</td><td>150,061</td><td>144,361</td><td>5,700</td><td>3.9(b)</td><td>1,414</td><td>1,594</td><td>-180</td><td>-11.3</td></tr><tr><td>Interruptible sales (c)</td><td>6,332</td><td>10,498</td><td>-4,166</td><td>-39.7</td><td>46</td><td>91</td><td>-45</td><td>-49.5</td></tr><tr><td>NYPA</td><td>44,038</td><td>47,548</td><td>-3,510</td><td>-7.4</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Generation plants</td><td>83,634</td><td>82,146</td><td>1,488</td><td>1.8</td><td>26</td><td>30</td><td>-4</td><td>-13.3</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>21,223</td><td>22,866</td><td>-1,643</td><td>-7.2</td><td>28</td><td>40</td><td>-12</td><td>-30.0</td></tr><tr><td>Other operating revenues (d)</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>11</td><td>-36</td><td>47</td><td>Large</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>305,288</td><td>307,419</td><td>-2,131</td><td>-0.7%</td><td>$1,527</td><td>$1,721</td><td>$-194</td><td>-11.3%</td></tr></table>

Question: What's the difference of Residential Revenues for the years ended between 2015 and 2014? (in million)
Answer: -100
Reasoning program: subtract(682,782)