designed, the pipeline is estimated to cost a total of approximately $4,600 million; the pipeline is targeted to be placed in service during the fourth quarter of 2019, subject to litigation and regulatory-related delay; MVP is currently defending certain agency actions and judicial challenges that must be resolved favorably before the pipeline can be completed; and there are other proceedings that may affect MVP, including an investigation of potential criminal and/or civil violations of the Clean Water Act and other federal statutes as they relate to the construction of the pipeline.
See Note S and Note U to the financial statements in Item 8.
For information about Con Edison Transmission's results, see "Results of Operations" in Item 7 and Note N to the financial statements in Item 8.
Capital Requirements and Resources Capital Requirements The following table contains the Companies’ capital requirements for the years 2016 through 2018 and their current estimate of amounts for 2019 through 2021:
## Table 0 ##
(a) CECONY’s capital expenditures for environmental protection facilities and related studies were $259 million, $381 million and $490 million in 2016, 2017 and 2018, respectively, and are estimated to be $447 million in 2019.
(b) Amounts shown do not include amounts for the energy efficiency, demand reduction and combined heat and power programs.
The Utilities have an ongoing need to make substantial capital investments primarily to maintain the reliability of their electric, gas and steam delivery systems.
Their estimated construction expenditures also reflect programs that will give customers greater control over their energy usage and bills, help integrate customers' new clean energy technologies into the Utilities’ electric delivery systems and accelerate the replacement of leak-prone gas distribution mains and service lines.
Estimated capital expenditures for Con Edison Transmission primarily reflect planned investments in the MVP gas transmission project.
Estimated capital expenditures for the Clean Energy Businesses primarily reflect planned investments in renewable electric production projects.
Actual capital expenditures for Con Edison Transmission and the Clean Energy Businesses could increase or decrease significantly from the amounts estimated depending on opportunities
We measure cash flow as net cash provided by operating activities reduced by expenditures for property additions.
We use this non-GAAP financial measure of cash flow to focus management and investors on the amount of cash available for debt repayment, dividend distributions, acquisition opportunities, and share repurchases.
Our cash flow metric is reconciled to the most comparable GAAP measure, as follows:
## Table 1 ##
Year-over-year changes in cash flow (as defined) were driven by improved performance in working capital resulting from the benefit derived from the Pringles acquisition, as well as changes in the level of capital expenditures during the three-year period.
Investing activities Our net cash used in investing activities for 2012 amounted to $3,245 million, an increase of $2,658 million compared with 2011 primarily attributable to the $2,668 acquisition of Pringles in 2012.
Capital spending in 2012 included investments in our supply chain infrastructure, and to support capacity requirements in certain markets, including Pringles.
In addition, we continued the investment in our information technology infrastructure related to the reimplementation and upgrade of our SAP platform.
Net cash used in investing activities of $587 million in 2011 increased by $122 million compared with 2010, reflecting capital projects for our reimplementation and upgrade of our SAP platform and investments in our supply chain.
Cash paid for additions to properties as a percentage of net sales has decreased to 3.8% in 2012, from 4.5% in 2011, which was an increase from 3.8% in 2010.  Financing activities In February 2013, we issued $250 million of two-year floating-rate U. S.  Dollar Notes, and $400 million of ten-year 2.75% U. S.  Dollar Notes.
The proceeds from these Notes will be used for general corporate purposes, including, together with cash on hand, repayment of the $750 million aggregate principal amount of our 4.25% U. S.  Dollar Notes due March 2013.
The floating-rate notes bear interest equal to three-month LIBOR plus 23 basis points, subject to quarterly reset.
The Notes contain customary covenants that limit the ability of Kellogg Company and its restricted subsidiaries (as defined) to incur certain liens or enter into certain sale and lease-back transactions, as well as a change of control provision.
Our net cash provided by financing activities was $1,317 for 2012, compared to net cash used in financing activities of $957 and $439 for 2011 and 2010, respectively.
The increase in cash provided from financing activities in 2012 compared to 2011 and 2010, was primarily due to the issuance of debt related to the acquisition of Pringles.
Total debt was $7.9 billion at year-end 2012 and $6.0 billion at year-end 2011.
In March 2012, we entered into interest rate swaps on our $500 million five-year 1.875% fixed rate U. S.  Dollar Notes due 2016, $500 million ten-year 4.15% fixed rate U. S.  Dollar Notes due 2019 and $500 million of our $750 million seven-year 4.45% fixed rate U. S.  Dollar Notes due 2016.
The interest rate swaps effectively converted these Notes from their fixed rates to floating rate obligations through maturity.
In May 2012, we issued $350 million of three-year 1.125% U. S.  Dollar Notes, $400 million of five-year 1.75% U. S.  Dollar Notes and $700 million of ten-year 3.125% U. S.  Dollar Notes, resulting in aggregate net proceeds after debt discount of $1.442 billion.
The proceeds of these Notes were used for general corporate purposes, including financing a portion of the acquisition of Pringles.
In May 2012, we issued Cdn.
$300 million of two-year 2.10% fixed rate Canadian Dollar Notes, using the proceeds from these Notes for general corporate purposes, which included repayment of intercompany debt.
This repayment resulted in cash available to be used for a portion of the acquisition of Pringles.
In December 2012, we repaid $750 million five-year 5.125% U. S.  Dollar Notes at maturity with commercial paper.
In February 2011, we entered into interest rate swaps on $200 million of our $750 million seven-year 4.45% fixed rate U. S.  Dollar Notes due 2016.
The interest rate swaps effectively converted this portion of the Notes from a fixed rate to a floating rate obligation through maturity.
In April 2011, we repaid $945 million ten-year 6.60% U. S.  Dollar Notes at maturity with commercial paper.
In May 2011, we issued $400 million of seven-year 3.25% fixed rate U. S.  Dollar Notes, using the proceeds of $397 million for general corporate purposes and repayment of commercial paper.
During 2011, we
N OTES TO C ONSOLIDATED F INANCIAL S T A TEMENTS ( CONTINUED ) Principal Maturities Combined aggregate principal maturities of mortgages and notes payable, secured and unsecured revolving credit facilities, unsecured term loan and the Company’s share of joint venture debt as of December 31, 2003, excluding extension options, are as follows:
## Table 2 ##
Mortgage Recording Tax—Hypothecated Loan The Operating Partnership mortgage tax credit loans totaled approximately $45,545 from LBHI at December 31, 2003.
These loans were collateralized by the mortgage encumbering the Operating Partnership’s interests in 290 Madison Avenue.
The loans were also collateralized by an equivalent amount of the Company’s cash which was held by LBHI and invested in US Treasury securities.
Interest earned on the cash collateral was applied by LBHI to service the loans with interest rates commensurate with that of a portfolio of six-month US Treasury securities, which will mature on June 1, 2004.
The Operating Partnership and LBHI each had the right of offset and therefore the loans and the cash collateral were presented on a net basis in the consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2003.
Under the terms of the LBHI facility, no fees are due to the lender until such time as the facility is utilized.
When a preserved mortgage is assigned to a third party or is used by the Company in a financing transaction, finance costs are incurred and are only calculated at that time.
These costs are then accounted for based on the nature of the transaction.
If the mortgage credits are sold to a third party, the finance costs are written off directly against the gain on sale of the credits.
If the mortgage credits are used by the Company, the finance costs are deferred and amortized over the term of the new related mortgage.
The amortization period is dependent on the term of the new mortgage.
The purpose of these loans is to temporarily preserve mortgage recording tax credits for future potential acquisitions of real property, which the Company may make, the financing of which may include property level debt, or refinancings for which these credits would be applicable and provide a financial savings.
At the same time, the underlying mortgage remains a bona-fide debt to LBHI.
The loans are considered utilized when the loan balance of the facility decreases due to the assignment of the preserved mortgage to a property, which the Company is acquiring with debt or is being financed by the Company, or to a third party for the same purposes.
On October 24, 2002, the Company sold $116,200 of these mortgage tax credit loans to a third party, repaid an equivalent amount of the loan and realized a gain of $570 from the sale.
On February 7, 2003, the Company used $35,000 of these mortgage tax credit loans as part of the refinancing of 673 First Avenue.
An equivalent amount of the loan was repaid.
Also on February 7, 2003, the Company transferred $50,335 of these mortgage tax credit loans to a third party, repaid an equivalent amount of the loan and realized a gain of $276 from the sale.
In July 2003, the Company sold $48,000 of mortgage tax credits and in August 2003, $17,000 to third parties and realized a gain of $1,423 from the sales.
As of December 31, 2003, the LBHI facility had total capacity of $200,000.10.
Revolving Credit Facilities Unsecured Revolving Credit Facility On March 17, 2003, the Company renewed its $300,000 unsecured revolving credit facility from a group of 13 banks.
The Company has a one-time option to increase the capacity under the unsecured revolving credit facility to $375,000 at any time prior to the maturity date.
The unsecured revolving credit facility has a term of three years with a one-year extension option.
It bears interest at a spread ranging from 130 basis points to 170 basis points over LIBOR, based on the Company’s leverage ratio.
If the Company was to receive an investment grade rating, the spread over LIBOR will be reduced to between 120 basis points and 95 basis points depending on the debt ratio.
The unsecured revolving credit facility also requires a 15 to 25 basis point fee on the unused balance payable annually in arrears.
At December 31, 2003, $170,000 was outstanding and carried an effective annual weighted average interest rate of 2.77%.
Availability under the unsecured revolving credit facility at December 31, 2003 was further reduced by the issuance of letters of credit in the amount of $4,000.
The unsecured revolving credit facility includes certain restrictions and covenants (see restrictive covenants below).
Secured Revolving Credit Facility On December 20, 2001, the Company obtained a $75,000 secured revolving credit facility.
The secured revolving credit facility had a term of two years with a oneyear extension option.
The extension option was exercised in December 2003.
It bears interest at the rate of 150 basis points over LIBOR and is secured by various structured finance investments.
At December 31, 2003, $66,000 was outstanding and carried an effective annual weighted average interest rate of 2.68%.
The secured revolving credit facility includes certain restrictions and covenants which are similar to those under the unsecured revolving credit facility (see restrictive covenants below).
As part of our trading activities, we assume positions in the foreign exchange and interest-rate markets by buying and selling cash instruments and using derivatives, including foreign exchange forward contracts, foreign exchange and interest-rate options and interest-rate swaps, interest-rate forward contracts, and interest-rate futures.
As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate notional amount of these derivatives was $1.36 trillion, of which $1.03 trillion was composed of foreign exchange forward, swap and spot contracts.
In the aggregate, positions are matched closely to minimize currency and interest-rate risk.
All foreign exchange contracts are valued daily at current market rates.
Additional information about our trading derivatives is provided in note 16 to the consolidated financial statements under Item 8.
As noted above, we use a variety of risk measurement tools and methodologies, including VaR, which is an estimate of potential loss for a given period within a stated statistical confidence interval.
We use a risk measurement methodology to estimate VaR daily.
We have adopted standards for estimating VaR, and we maintain regulatory capital for market risk in accordance with applicable bank regulatory market risk guidelines.
VaR is estimated for a 99% one-tail confidence interval and an assumed one-day holding period using a historical observation period of two years.
A 99% one-tail confidence interval implies that daily trading losses should not exceed the estimated VaR more than 1% of the time, or less than three business days out of a year.
The methodology uses a simulation approach based on historically observed changes in foreign exchange rates, U. S.  and non-U.
S.  interest rates and implied volatilities, and incorporates the resulting diversification benefits provided from the mix of our trading positions.
Like all quantitative risk measures, our historical simulation VaR methodology is subject to inherent limitations and assumptions.
Our methodology gives equal weight to all market-rate observations regardless of how recently the market rates were observed.
The estimate is calculated using static portfolios consisting of trading positions held at the end of each business day.
Therefore, implicit in the VaR estimate is the assumption that no intra-day actions are taken by management during adverse market movements.
As a result, the methodology does not incorporate risk associated with intra-day changes in positions or intra-day price volatility.
In addition to daily VaR measurement, we regularly perform stress tests.
These stress tests consider historical events, such as the Asian financial crisis or the most recent crisis in the financial markets, as well as hypothetical scenarios defined by us, such as parallel and non-parallel changes in yield curves.
Our VaR model incorporates exposures to more than 8,000 factors, composed of foreign exchange spot rates, interest-rate base and spread curves and implied volatility levels and skews.
The following table presents VaR associated with our trading activities, for trading positions held during the periods indicated, as measured by our VaR methodology.
The generally lower total VaR amounts compared to component VaR amounts primarily relate to diversification benefits across risk types.
VALUE-AT-RISK

Tables referenced above, in order (Table 0 first):
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">Actual</td><td colspan="3">Estimate</td></tr><tr><td>(Millions of Dollars)</td><td>2016</td><td>2017</td><td>2018</td><td>2019</td><td>2020</td><td>2021</td></tr><tr><td>CECONY (a)(b)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Electric</td><td>$1,819</td><td>$1,905</td><td>$1,861</td><td>$1,871</td><td>$2,347</td><td>$2,489</td></tr><tr><td>Gas</td><td>811</td><td>909</td><td>1,050</td><td>1,049</td><td>1,113</td><td>1,100</td></tr><tr><td>Steam</td><td>126</td><td>90</td><td>94</td><td>96</td><td>89</td><td>82</td></tr><tr><td>Sub-total</td><td>2,756</td><td>2,904</td><td>3,005</td><td>3,016</td><td>3,549</td><td>3,671</td></tr><tr><td>O&R</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Electric</td><td>114</td><td>128</td><td>138</td><td>155</td><td>169</td><td>145</td></tr><tr><td>Gas</td><td>52</td><td>61</td><td>67</td><td>56</td><td>56</td><td>52</td></tr><tr><td>Sub-total</td><td>166</td><td>189</td><td>205</td><td>211</td><td>225</td><td>197</td></tr><tr><td>Con Edison Transmission</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CET Electric</td><td>51</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>CET Gas</td><td>1,027</td><td>66</td><td>248</td><td>200</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Sub-total</td><td>1,078</td><td>66</td><td>248</td><td>200</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Clean Energy Businesses</td><td>1,235</td><td>447</td><td>1,791</td><td>200</td><td>400</td><td>400</td></tr><tr><td>Total capital expenditures</td><td>5,235</td><td>3,606</td><td>5,249</td><td>3,627</td><td>4,174</td><td>4,268</td></tr><tr><td>Retirement of long-term securities</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Con Edison – parent company</td><td>2</td><td>402</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>403</td><td>503</td></tr><tr><td>CECONY</td><td>650</td><td>—</td><td>1,836</td><td>475</td><td>350</td><td>640</td></tr><tr><td>O&R</td><td>79</td><td>4</td><td>55</td><td>62</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Clean Energy Businesses</td><td>4</td><td>28</td><td>45</td><td>110</td><td>113</td><td>117</td></tr><tr><td>Total retirement of long-term securities</td><td>735</td><td>434</td><td>1,938</td><td>650</td><td>866</td><td>1,260</td></tr><tr><td>Total capital requirements</td><td>$5,970</td><td>$4,040</td><td>$7,187</td><td>$4,277</td><td>$5,040</td><td>$5,528</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>(dollars in millions)</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td><td>2010</td></tr><tr><td>Net cash provided by operating activities</td><td>$1,758</td><td>$1,595</td><td>$1,008</td></tr><tr><td>Additions to properties</td><td>-533</td><td>-594</td><td>-474</td></tr><tr><td>Cash flow</td><td>$1,225</td><td>$1,001</td><td>$534</td></tr><tr><td><i>year-over-year change</i></td><td>22.4%</td><td>87.5%</td><td></td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td> Scheduled Amortization</td><td> Principal Repayments</td><td> Revolving Credit Facilities</td><td> Term  Loan</td><td> Total</td><td> Joint Venture Debt</td></tr><tr><td>2004</td><td>$3,395</td><td>$—</td><td>$66,000</td><td>$67,578</td><td>$136,973</td><td>$231,651</td></tr><tr><td>2005</td><td>4,158</td><td>47,247</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>51,405</td><td>83,425</td></tr><tr><td>2006</td><td>4,222</td><td>—</td><td>170,000</td><td>—</td><td>174,222</td><td>79,739</td></tr><tr><td>2007</td><td>7,613</td><td>73,341</td><td>—</td><td>1,324</td><td>82,278</td><td>1,058</td></tr><tr><td>2008</td><td>7,666</td><td>—</td><td></td><td>298,676</td><td>306,342</td><td>21,863</td></tr><tr><td>Thereafter</td><td>29,621</td><td>338,608</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>368,229</td><td>55,821</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>$56,675</td><td>$459,196</td><td>$236,000</td><td>$367,578</td><td>$1,119,449</td><td>$473,557</td></tr></table>

Question: What is the average amount of Electric of Estimate 2020, and Cash flow of 2012 ?
Answer: 1786
Reasoning program: add(2347.0,1225.0), divide(#0,const_2)