The favorable impact of pension and other postretirement plan activity for the year ended December 31, 2013 compared to the same period in 2012 includes a change in net actuarial gain (loss) of $496 million, a net settlement/ curtailment gain related to actions taken on certain pension plans in the US, the United Kingdom and Canada of $19 million, lower interest cost and expected return on plan assets recorded to Other Activities of $38 million and prior service credit amortization related to a US postretirement health care plan allocated across all business segments and Other Activities of $2 million.
See Note 14 - Benefit Obligations in the accompanying consolidated financial statements for further information regarding this activity.
Business Segment - Year Ended December 31, 2012 Compared with Year Ended December 31, 2011 Advanced Engineered Materials
## Table 0 ##
Advanced Engineered Materials' net sales decreased $37 million, or 2.9%, for the year ended December 31, 2012 compared to the same period in 2011.
The decrease in net sales was primarily due to the weak economic conditions in Europe, particularly impacting demand for automotive and industrial applications in this region, partially offset by increased volumes in automotive applications in the Americas.
The weak Euro had an unfavorable currency impact on net sales.2% higher average pricing across most product lines partially offset the lower volumes and unfavorable currency impacts.
Operating profit increased $16 million, or 20.3%, for the year ended December 31, 2012 as compared to the same period in 2011 primarily due to a change in other (charges) gains, net of $47 million primarily associated with the relocation and expansion of our Kelsterbach, Germany POM production operations, which more than offset the higher depreciation of $13 million mainly related to the new POM production facility in Frankfurt Hoechst Industrial Park.
Increased pricing resulted in expanded margins, which partially offset lower volumes, unfavorable currency impacts and higher expenses of $28 million, primarily related to plant maintenance, integrating manufacturing operations from recently acquired product lines and investing in our compounding operations in Asia.
For the year ended December 31, 2012, equity in net earnings (loss) of affiliates increased $29 million primarily due to an $18 million increase in earnings in our Ibn Sina affiliate, which provides an economic hedge against raw material costs used in our specialty polymer operations.
The increase in Ibn Sina earnings was primarily driven by higher pricing of methanol and methyl tertiary-butyl ether.
Operating and financial results of our Polyplastics affiliate for the year ended December 31, 2011 were modestly impacted by the March 2011 natural disasters in Japan and a plant turnaround during the three months ended December 31, 2011.
No such events occurred in 2012 with earnings in our Polyplastics affiliate up $13 million over 2011.
agencies.
This strategy provides us with the financial flexibility to fund both development and acquisition opportunities.
We seek to maintain a well-balanced, conservative and flexible capital structure by: (i) extending and sequencing the maturity dates of debt; (ii) borrowing primarily at fixed rates by targeting a variable rate component of total debt less than 20%; (iii) pursuing current and future long-term debt financings and refinancing on an unsecured basis; (iv) maintaining conservative debt service and fixed charge coverage ratios; and (v) issuing attractively priced perpetual preferred stock for 5-10% of our total capital structure.
Year in Review Year 2004 presented a combination of economic and market challenges affecting the broader real estate industry as well as our Company.
In the face of these challenges, we achieved steady operating results while maintaining a strong balance sheet.
Net income available for common shareholders for the year ended December 31, 2004 was $151.3 million, or $1.06 per share (diluted), compared to net income of $161.9 million, or $1.19 per share (diluted) for the year ended 2003.
The decrease is primarily attributable to a significant increase in depreciation expense resulting from significant capital expenditures during 2003 and 2004 related to re-leasing existing space and the effects of the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No.141, Business Combinations (“SFAS 141”) in recording acquisitions, particularly the recognition of short-lived in-place lease intangible assets.
See further discussion of this policy under the Critical Accounting Polices section of Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.
Through increased leasing activity, we achieved a growth in rental revenues in 2004 over 2003 as our in-service portfolio yearend occupancy increased from 89.3% in 2003 to 90.9% at the end of 2004.
We also experienced an increase in our development and construction of new properties for both owned investments and third party construction projects in 2004 as compared to 2003.
As an important performance metric for us as a real estate company, FFO available to common shareholders increased to $352.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2004 from $336.0 million for the same period in 2003, or 4.9%.
FFO is used by industry analysts and investors as a supplemental operating performance measure of an equity real estate investment trust (“REIT”).
FFO is calculated in accordance with the definition that was adopted by the Board of Governors of the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts (“NAREIT”).
FFO, as defined by NAREIT, represents net income (loss) determined in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”), excluding extraordinary items as defined under GAAP and gains or losses from sales of previously depreciated operating real estate assets, plus certain non-cash items such as real estate asset depreciation and amortization, and after similar adjustments for unconsolidated partnerships and joint ventures.
Historical cost accounting for real estate assets in accordance with GAAP implicitly assumes that the value of real estate assets diminishes predictably over time.
Since real estate values instead have historically risen or fallen with market conditions, many industry investors and analysts have considered presentation of operating results for real estate companies that use historical cost accounting to be insufficient by themselves.
Thus, NAREIT created FFO as a supplemental measure of REIT operating performance that excludes historical cost depreciation, among other items, from GAAP net income.
Management believes that the use of FFO, combined with the required primary GAAP presentations, improves the understanding of operating results of REITs among the investing public and makes comparisons of REIT operating results more meaningful.
Management considers FFO to be a useful measure for reviewing comparative operating and financial performance (although FFO should be reviewed in conjunction with net income which remains the primary measure of performance) because by excluding gains or losses related to sales of previously depreciated operating real estate assets and excluding real estate asset depreciation and amortization, FFO assists in comparing the operating performance of a company’s real estate between periods or as compared to different companies.
The following table summarizes the calculation of FFO for the years ended December 31 (in thousands):
## Table 1 ##
Competition Distributed generation, such as solar energy production facilities, fuel cells and micro-turbines, provide alternative sources of energy for the Utilities’ electric delivery customers, as does oil for the Utilities’ gas delivery customers.
In addition, steam customers may have alternative sources of heating and cooling for their buildings.
Micro-grids and community-based micro-grids enable distributed generation to serve multiple locations and multiple customers.
Other distributed energy resources, such as demand reduction and energy efficiency programs, provide alternatives for the Utilities’ delivery customers to manage their energy usage.
The following table shows the aggregate capacities of the distributed generation projects connected to the Utilities’ distribution systems at the end of the last three years
## Table 2 ##
The Clean Energy Businesses participate in competitive renewable and energy infrastructure projects and energy products and services businesses that are subject to different risks than those found in the businesses of the Utilities.
Con Edison Transmission invests in electric and gas transmission and gas storage projects, the current and prospective customers of which may have competitive alternatives.
The Utilities do not consider it reasonably likely that another company would be authorized to provide utility delivery service of electricity, natural gas or steam where the company already provides service.
Any such other company would need to obtain NYSPSC consent, satisfy applicable local requirements, install facilities to provide the service, meet applicable services standards and charge customers comparable taxes and other fees and costs imposed on the service.
A new delivery company would also be subject to extensive ongoing regulation by the NYSPSC.
See “Utility Regulation – State Utility Regulation – Regulators,” above.
The Utilities CECONY CECONY, incorporated in New York State in 1884, is a subsidiary of Con Edison and has no significant subsidiaries of its own.
Its principal business segments are its regulated electric, gas and steam businesses.
For a discussion of the company’s operating revenues and operating income for each segment, see “Results of Operations” in Item 7.
For additional information about the segments, see Note N to the financial statements in Item 8.
Electric Operations Electric Facilities CECONY’s capitalized costs for utility plant, net of accumulated depreciation, for distribution facilities were $17,234 million and $16,394 million at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively.
For its transmission facilities, the costs for utility plant, net of accumulated depreciation, were $2,963 million and $2,833 million at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, and for its portion of the steam-electric generation facilities, the costs for utility plant, net of accumulated depreciation, were $479 million and $459 million, at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively.
See "CECONY – Steam Operations – Steam Facilities," below.
Distribution Facilities CECONY owns 62 area distribution substations and various distribution facilities located throughout New York City and Westchester County.
At December 31, 2016, the company’s distribution system had a transformer capacity of 30,122 MVA, with 36,900 miles of overhead distribution lines and 97,288 miles of underground distribution lines.
The underground distribution lines represent the single longest underground electric delivery system in the United States
The following is a list of distribution locations including the approximate square footage and if the location is leased or owned:
## Table 3 ##
(a) The leased facility in Hagerstown is treated as an extension of the existing owned Hagerstown location and is not considered a separate distribution center.
(b) This is a mixing center designed to process certain high-volume bulk products.
The Company’s Store Support Center occupies approximately 260,000 square feet of owned building space in Brentwood, Tennessee, and the Company’s Merchandising Innovation Center occupies approximately 32,000 square feet of leased building space in Nashville, Tennessee.
The Company also leases approximately 8,000 square feet of building space for the Petsense corporate headquarters located in Scottsdale, Arizona.
In fiscal 2017, we began construction on a new northeast distribution center in Frankfort, New York, as well as an expansion of our existing distribution center in Waverly, Nebraska, which will provide additional distribution capacity once construction is completed.
Item 3.
Legal Proceedings Item 103 of SEC Regulation S-K requires disclosure of certain environmental legal proceedings if the proceeding reasonably involves potential monetary sanctions of $100,000 or more.
We periodically receive information requests and notices of potential noncompliance with environmental laws and regulations from governmental agencies, which are addressed on a case-by-case basis with the relevant agency.
The Company received a subpoena from the District Attorney of Yolo County, California, requesting records and information regarding its hazardous waste management and disposal practices in California.
The Company and the Office of the District Attorney of Yolo County engaged in settlement discussions which resulted in the settlement of the matter.
A consent decree reflecting the terms of settlement was filed with the Yolo County Superior Court on June 23, 2017.
Under the settlement, the Company agreed to a compliance plan and also agreed to pay a civil penalty and fund supplemental environmental projects furthering consumer protection and environmental enforcement in California.
The civil penalty did not differ materially from the amount accrued.
The cost of the settlement and the compliance with the consent decree will not have a material effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
The Company is also involved in various litigation matters arising in the ordinary course of business.
The Company believes that any estimated loss related to such matters has been adequately provided for in accrued liabilities to the extent probable and reasonably estimable.
Accordingly, the Company currently expects these matters will be resolved without material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
Item 4.
Mine Safety Disclosures Not applicable.

Tables referenced above, in order (Table 0 first):
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">Year Ended December 31,</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td><td>Change</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">(In $ millions, except percentages)</td></tr><tr><td>Net sales</td><td>1,261</td><td>1,298</td><td>-37</td></tr><tr><td>Net Sales Variance</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Volume</td><td>-2%</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Price</td><td>2%</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Currency</td><td>-3%</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>—%</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Other (charges) gains, net</td><td>-2</td><td>-49</td><td>47</td></tr><tr><td>Operating profit (loss)</td><td>95</td><td>79</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>Operating margin</td><td>7.5%</td><td>6.1%</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Equity in net earnings (loss) of affiliates</td><td>190</td><td>161</td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>Earnings (loss) from continuing operations before tax</td><td>285</td><td>242</td><td>43</td></tr><tr><td>Depreciation and amortization</td><td>113</td><td>100</td><td>13</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td> </td><td>2004</td><td>2003</td><td>2002</td></tr><tr><td>Net income available for common shares</td><td>$151,279</td><td>$161,911</td><td>$153,969</td></tr><tr><td>Add back (deduct):</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Depreciation and amortization</td><td>228,582</td><td>196,234</td><td>175,621</td></tr><tr><td>Share of adjustments for unconsolidated companies</td><td>18,901</td><td>18,839</td><td>17,598</td></tr><tr><td>Earnings from depreciated property sales</td><td>-26,510</td><td>-22,141</td><td>-5,949</td></tr><tr><td>Minority interest share of add-backs</td><td>-19,783</td><td>-18,854</td><td>-19,353</td></tr><tr><td>Funds From Operations</td><td>$352,469</td><td>$335,989</td><td>$321,886</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Technology</td><td colspan="3">CECONY</td><td colspan="3">O&R</td></tr><tr><td>Total MW, except project number</td><td>2014</td><td>2015</td><td>2016</td><td>2014</td><td>2015</td><td>2016</td></tr><tr><td>Internal-combustion engines</td><td>101</td><td>103</td><td>104</td><td>21</td><td>21</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>Photovoltaic solar</td><td>58</td><td>95</td><td>135</td><td>28</td><td>46</td><td>63</td></tr><tr><td>Gas turbines</td><td>40</td><td>40</td><td>40</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Micro turbines</td><td>9</td><td>10</td><td>10</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Fuel cells</td><td>8</td><td>8</td><td>9</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Steam turbines</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Landfill</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Total distribution-level distributed generation</td><td>219</td><td>259</td><td>302</td><td>52</td><td>70</td><td>88</td></tr><tr><td>Number of distributed generation projects</td><td>4,200</td><td>7,451</td><td>12,928</td><td>1,881</td><td>3,704</td><td>5,376</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Distribution Facility Location</td><td>Approximate Square Footage</td><td>Owned/Leased Facility</td></tr><tr><td>Franklin, Kentucky</td><td>833,000</td><td>Owned</td></tr><tr><td>Pendleton, Indiana</td><td>764,000</td><td>Owned</td></tr><tr><td>Macon, Georgia</td><td>684,000</td><td>Owned</td></tr><tr><td>Waco, Texas</td><td>666,000</td><td>Owned</td></tr><tr><td>Casa Grande, Arizona</td><td>650,000</td><td>Owned</td></tr><tr><td>Hagerstown, Maryland<sup>(a)</sup></td><td>482,000</td><td>Owned</td></tr><tr><td>Hagerstown, Maryland<sup>(a)</sup></td><td>309,000</td><td>Leased</td></tr><tr><td>Waverly, Nebraska</td><td>422,000</td><td>Owned</td></tr><tr><td>Seguin, Texas<sup>(b)</sup></td><td>71,000</td><td>Owned</td></tr><tr><td>Lakewood, Washington</td><td>64,000</td><td>Leased</td></tr><tr><td>Longview, Texas<sup>(b)</sup></td><td>63,000</td><td>Owned</td></tr></table>

Question: What is the ratio of Internal-combustion engines to the total in 2014?
Answer: 0.45018
Reasoning program: add(101,21), add(219,52), divide(#0,#1)