We have unrealized losses relating to certain available-for-sale investments included in our decommissioning trust fund, recorded as regulatory assets as discussed above.
Decommissioning will not occur until the operating license for our nuclear energy center expires.
Ameren Missouri submitted a license extension application to the NRC to extend the Callaway energy center’s operating license to 2044.
The following table presents the fair value and the gross unrealized losses of the available-for-sale securities held in Ameren Missouri’s nuclear decommissioning trust fund.
They are aggregated by investment category and the length of time that individual securities have been in a continuous unrealized loss position at December 31, 2013:
## Table 0 ##
(a) Amount less than $1 million.
NOTE 10 – CALLAWAY ENERGY CENTER Under the NWPA, the DOE is responsible for disposing of spent nuclear fuel from the Callaway energy center and other commercial nuclear energy centers.
Under the NWPA, Ameren and other utilities that own and operate those energy centers are responsible for paying the disposal costs.
The NWPA established the fee that these utilities pay the federal government for disposing of the spent nuclear fuel at one mill, or one-tenth of one cent, for each kilowatthour generated by those plants and sold.
The NWPA also requires the DOE to review the nuclear waste fee against the cost of the nuclear waste disposal program and to propose to the United States Congress any fee adjustment necessary to offset the costs of the program.
As required by the NWPA, Ameren Missouri and other utilities have entered into standard contracts with the federal government.
The government, represented by the DOE, is responsible for implementing these provisions of the NWPA.
Consistent with the NWPA and its standard contract, Ameren Missouri collects one mill from its electric customers for each kilowatthour of electricity that it generates and sells from its Callaway energy center.
Although both the NWPA and the standard contract stated that the federal government would begin to dispose of spent nuclear fuel by 1998, the federal government is not meeting its disposal obligation.
Ameren Missouri has sufficient installed capacity at the Callaway energy center to store its spent nuclear fuel generated through 2020, and it has the capability for additional storage capacity for spent nuclear fuel generated through the end of the energy center’s current licensed life.
The DOE’s delay in carrying out its obligation to dispose of spent nuclear fuel from the Callaway energy center is not expected to adversely affect the continued operations of the energy center.
In January 2009, the federal government announced that a spent nuclear fuel repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada was unworkable.
The federal government took steps to terminate the Yucca Mountain program, while acknowledging its continuing obligation to dispose of utilities’ spent nuclear fuel.
In January 2013, the DOE issued its plan for the management and disposal of spent nuclear fuel.
The DOE’s plan calls for a pilot interim storage facility to begin operation with an initial focus on accepting spent nuclear fuel from shutdown reactor sites by 2021.
By 2025, a larger interim storage facility would be available, colocated with the pilot facility.
The plan also proposes to site a permanent geological repository by 2026, to characterize the site and to design and to license the repository by 2042, and to begin operation by 2048.
In view of the federal government’s efforts to terminate the Yucca Mountain program, the Nuclear Energy Institute, a number of individual utilities, and the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners sued the DOE in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, seeking the suspension of the one mill nuclear waste fee, alleging that the DOE failed to undertake an appropriate fee adequacy review reflecting the current unsettled state of the nuclear waste program.
In a June 2012 decision, the court ruled that DOE’s fee adequacy review was legally inadequate and remanded the matter to the DOE.
Although the court ruled it has the power to direct the DOE to suspend the fee, the court decided that it was premature to do so.
Instead, the court ordered the DOE to provide within six months a revised assessment of the amount that should be collected.
In January 2013, the DOE issued the revised assessment required by the court.
The DOE determined that “neither insufficient nor excess revenues are being collected,” and it proposed no adjustment to the one mill nuclear waste fee.
In November 2013, the court rejected the DOE’s revised assessment and ordered the DOE to submit a proposal to the United States Congress to reduce the fee to zero.
The DOE filed for rehearing, however there is no deadline for the court to act.
In January 2014, the DOE, pursuant to the court’s November 2013 order, submitted to Congress a proposal to reduce the fee to zero.
As a result of the DOE’s failure to begin to dispose of the utilities’ spent nuclear fuel and fulfill its contractual obligations, Ameren Missouri and other nuclear energy center owners have also sued the DOE to recover costs incurred for ongoing storage of their spent fuel.
Ameren Missouri filed a breach of contract lawsuit to recover costs that it incurred through 2009.
It sought reimbursement for
Transmission Facilities The company’s transmission facilities are located in New York City and Westchester, Orange, Rockland, Putnam and Dutchess counties in New York State.
At December 31, 2016, CECONY owned or jointly owned 438 miles of overhead circuits operating at 138, 230, 345 and 500 kV and 749 miles of underground circuits operating at 69, 138 and 345 kV.
The company’s 39 transmission substations and 62 area stations are supplied by circuits operated at 69 kV and above.
For information about transmission projects to address, among other things, reliability concerns associated with the scheduled closure of the Indian Point Energy Center (which is owned by Entergy Corporation subsidiaries) see “CECONY – Electric Operations – Electric Supply” and “Con Edison Transmission,” below.
CECONY’s transmission facilities interconnect with those of National Grid, Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation, O&R, New York State Electric & Gas, Connecticut Light & Power Company, Long Island Power Authority, NYPA and Public Service Electric and Gas Company.
Generating Facilities CECONY’s electric generating facilities consist of plants located in Manhattan whose primary purpose is to produce steam for the company's steam business.
The facilities have an aggregate capacity of 726 MW.
The company expects to have sufficient amounts of gas and fuel oil available in 2017 for use in these facilities.
Electric Sales and Deliveries CECONY delivers electricity to its full-service customers who purchase electricity from the company.
The company also delivers electricity to its customers who choose to purchase electricity from other suppliers (retail choice program).
In addition, the company delivers electricity to state and municipal customers of NYPA and economic development customers of municipal electric agencies.
The company charges all customers in its service area for the delivery of electricity.
The company generally recovers, on a current basis, the cost of the electricity that it buys and then sells to its full-service customers.
It does not make any margin or profit on the electricity it sells.
CECONY’s electric revenues are subject to a revenue decoupling mechanism.
As a result, its electric delivery revenues are generally not affected by changes in delivery volumes from levels assumed when rates were approved.
CECONY’s electric sales and deliveries for the last five years were
## Table 1 ##
(a) Includes Municipal Agency sales.
For further discussion of the company’s electric operating revenues and its electric results, see “Results of Operations” in Item 7.
For additional segment information, see Note N to the financial statements in Item 8.
Electric Peak Demand The electric peak demand in CECONY’s service area occurs during the summer air conditioning season.
The weather during the summer of 2016 was cooler than design conditions.
CECONY’s 2016 service area peak demand was 12,652 MW, which occurred on August 11, 2016.
The 2016 peak demand included an estimated 6,114 MW for
Additional information regarding our RSUs is shown in the table below.
## Table 2 ##
At July 31, 2013, there was $293 million of unrecognized compensation cost related to non-vested RSUs that we will amortize to expense in the future.
Unrecognized compensation cost will be adjusted for future changes in estimated forfeitures.
We expect to recognize that cost over a weighted average vesting period of 2.4 years.13.
Benefit Plans Executive Deferred Compensation Plan In December 2004 we initially adopted our 2005 Executive Deferred Compensation Plan, which became effective January 1, 2005.
We adopted this plan to meet the requirements for deferred compensation under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code.
The plan provides that executives who meet minimum compensation requirements are eligible to defer up to 75% of their salaries, bonuses and commissions.
We have agreed to credit the participants’ contributions with earnings that reflect the performance of certain independent investment funds.
We may also make discretionary employer contributions to participant accounts in certain circumstances.
The timing, amounts and vesting schedules of employer contributions are at the sole discretion of the Compensation and Organizational Development Committee of our Board of Directors or its delegate.
The benefits under this plan are unsecured.
Participants are generally eligible to receive payment of their vested benefit at the end of their elected deferral period or after termination of their employment with Intuit for any reason or at a later date to comply with the restrictions of Section 409A.
Discretionary company contributions and the related earnings vest completely upon the participant’s disability, death or a change of control of Intuit.
Employer contributions to the plan were not significant for any period presented.
We had liabilities related to this plan of $64 million at July 31, 2013 and $56 million at July 31, 2012.
We have matched the plan liabilities with similar performing assets.
These assets are recorded in other long-term assets while liabilities related to obligations are recorded in other current liabilities on our balance sheets.401(k) Plan In the United States, employees who participate in the Intuit Inc.  401(k) Plan may currently contribute up to 30% of pre-tax compensation, subject to Internal Revenue Service limitations and the terms and conditions of the plan.
We match a portion of employee contributions, currently 125% up to six percent of salary, subject to Internal Revenue Service limitations.
Matching contributions were $44 million for the twelve months ended July 31, 2013; $38 million for the twelve months ended July 31, 2012; and $30 million for the twelve months ended July 31, 2011.14.
Litigation On January 13, 2012, two putative class actions were filed against Intuit Inc.  in connection with our TurboTax income tax preparation software: Smith v.  Intuit Inc.  (U. S.  District Court, Northern District of California) and Quildon v.  Intuit Inc.  (California Superior Court, Santa Clara County).
The plaintiffs in both cases had asserted that the fees charged for the refund processing service offered within TurboTax are “refund anticipation loans” and the disclosures about those fees do not comply with California and federal laws.
The Smith case was brought in federal court on behalf of a proposed nationwide class and subclasses; the Quildon case was brought in state court on behalf of a proposed California class and subclasses.
In January
benefits as an increase to earnings of $152 million ($0.50 per share) during the year ended December 31, 2016.
Additionally, we recognized additional income tax benefits as an increase to operating cash flows of $152 million during the year ended December 31, 2016.
The new accounting standard did not impact any periods prior to January 1, 2016, as we applied the changes in the ASU on a prospective basis.
In September 2015, the FASB issued ASU No.2015-16, Business Combinations (Topic 805), which simplifies the accounting for adjustments made to preliminary amounts recognized in a business combination by eliminating the requirement to retrospectively account for those adjustments.
Instead, adjustments will be recognized in the period in which the adjustments are determined, including the effect on earnings of any amounts that would have been recorded in previous periods if the accounting had been completed at the acquisition date.
We adopted the ASU on January 1, 2016 and are prospectively applying the ASU to business combination adjustments identified after the date of adoption.
In November 2015, the FASB issued ASU No.2015-17, Income Taxes (Topic 740), which simplifies the presentation of deferred income taxes and requires that deferred tax assets and liabilities, as well as any related valuation allowance, be classified as noncurrent in our consolidated balance sheets.
We applied the provisions of the ASU retrospectively and reclassified approximately $1.6 billion from current to noncurrent assets and approximately $140 million from current to noncurrent liabilities in our consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2015.
Note 2 – Earnings Per Share The weighted average number of shares outstanding used to compute earnings per common share were as follows (in millions):
## Table 3 ##
We compute basic and diluted earnings per common share by dividing net earnings by the respective weighted average number of common shares outstanding for the periods presented.
Our calculation of diluted earnings per common share also includes the dilutive effects for the assumed vesting of outstanding restricted stock units and exercise of outstanding stock options based on the treasury stock method.
There were no anti-dilutive equity awards for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014.
Note 3 – Acquisitions and Divestitures Acquisitions Acquisition of Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation On November 6, 2015, we completed the acquisition of Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation and certain affiliated companies (collectively “Sikorsky”) from United Technologies Corporation (UTC) and certain of UTC’s subsidiaries.
The purchase price of the acquisition was $9.0 billion, net of cash acquired.
As a result of the acquisition, Sikorsky became a whollyowned subsidiary of ours.
Sikorsky is a global company primarily engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture and support of military and commercial helicopters.
Sikorsky’s products include military helicopters such as the Black Hawk, Seahawk, CH-53K, H-92; and commercial helicopters such as the S-76 and S-92.
The acquisition enables us to extend our core business into the military and commercial rotary wing markets, allowing us to strengthen our position in the aerospace and defense industry.
Further, this acquisition will expand our presence in commercial and international markets.
Sikorsky has been aligned under our RMS business segment.
To fund the $9.0 billion acquisition price, we utilized $6.0 billion of proceeds borrowed under a temporary 364-day revolving credit facility (the 364-day Facility), $2.0 billion of cash on hand and $1.0 billion from the issuance of commercial paper.
In the fourth quarter of 2015, we repaid all outstanding borrowings under the 364-day Facility with the proceeds from the issuance of $7.0 billion of fixed interest-rate long-term notes in a public offering (the November 2015 Notes).
In the fourth quarter of 2015, we also repaid the $1.0 billion in commercial paper borrowings (see “Note 10 – Debt”).

Tables referenced above, in order (Table 0 first):
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">Less than 12 Months</td><td rowspan="2">12 Months or Greater Fair Value</td><td></td><td colspan="2">Total</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Fair Value</td><td>GrossUnrealizedLosses</td><td>Gross Unrealized Losses</td><td>Fair Value</td><td>GrossUnrealizedLosses</td></tr><tr><td>Debt securities</td><td>$72</td><td>$2</td><td>$(a)</td><td>$(a)</td><td>$72</td><td>$2</td></tr><tr><td>Equity securities</td><td>6(a)</td><td></td><td>7</td><td>4</td><td>13</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$78</td><td>$2</td><td>$7</td><td>$4</td><td>$85</td><td>$6</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="5">Year Ended December 31,</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>2012</td><td>2013</td><td>2014</td><td>2015</td><td>2016</td></tr><tr><td>Electric Energy Delivered(millions of kWh)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CECONY full service customers</td><td>20,622</td><td>20,118</td><td>19,757</td><td>20,206</td><td>19,886</td></tr><tr><td>Delivery service for retail choice customers</td><td>25,990</td><td>26,574</td><td>26,221</td><td>26,662</td><td>26,813</td></tr><tr><td>Delivery service to NYPA customers and others</td><td>10,267</td><td>10,226</td><td>10,325</td><td>10,147</td><td>10,046</td></tr><tr><td>Delivery service for municipal agencies</td><td>322</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Total Deliveries in Franchise Area</td><td>57,201</td><td>56,918</td><td>56,303</td><td>57,015</td><td>56,745</td></tr><tr><td>Electric Energy Delivered($ in millions)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CECONY full service customers</td><td>$4,731</td><td>$4,799</td><td>$5,023</td><td>$4,757</td><td>$4,404</td></tr><tr><td>Delivery service for retail choice customers</td><td>2,750</td><td>2,683</td><td>2,646</td><td>2,714</td><td>2,768</td></tr><tr><td>Delivery service to NYPA customers and others</td><td>596</td><td>602</td><td>625</td><td>600</td><td>610</td></tr><tr><td>Delivery service for municipal agencies</td><td>10</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Other operating revenues</td><td>89</td><td>47</td><td>143</td><td>101</td><td>324</td></tr><tr><td>Total Deliveries in Franchise Area</td><td>$8,176</td><td>$8,131</td><td>$8,437</td><td>$8,172</td><td>$8,106</td></tr><tr><td>Average Revenue per kWh Sold(Cents)(a)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Residential</td><td>25.6</td><td>27.0</td><td>28.9</td><td>26.3</td><td>24.9</td></tr><tr><td>Commercial and Industrial</td><td>20.0</td><td>20.6</td><td>22.1</td><td>20.6</td><td>19.1</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">Twelve Months Ended July 31,</td></tr><tr><td>(In millions)</td><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>Total fair value of RSUs vested</td><td>$224</td><td>$258</td><td>$150</td></tr><tr><td>Share-based compensation for RSUs</td><td>$135</td><td>$106</td><td>$93</td></tr><tr><td>Total tax benefit related to RSU share-based compensation expense</td><td>$46</td><td>$37</td><td>$33</td></tr><tr><td>Cash tax benefits realized for tax deductions for RSUs</td><td>$77</td><td>$46</td><td>$36</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td>2016</td><td>2015</td><td>2014</td></tr><tr><td>Weighted average common shares outstanding for basic computations</td><td>299.3</td><td>310.3</td><td>316.8</td></tr><tr><td>Weighted average dilutive effect of equity awards</td><td>3.8</td><td>4.4</td><td>5.6</td></tr><tr><td>Weighted average common shares outstanding for dilutedcomputations</td><td>303.1</td><td>314.7</td><td>322.4</td></tr></table>

Question: In the year with lowest amount of Other operating revenues in Table 1, what's the increasing rate of Total fair value of RSUs vested in Table 2?
Answer: -0.13178
Reasoning program: subtract(224,258), divide(#0,258)