credit card portfolio experienced increasing net charge-off and managed net loss trends throughout the year resulting from seasoning of the European portfolio and higher personal insolvencies in the United Kingdom.
See below for a discussion of the impact of SOP 03-3 on the MBNA portfolio.
Home Equity Lines At December 31, 2006, approximately 73 percent of the managed home equity portfolio was included in Global Consumer and Small Business Banking, while the remainder of the portfolio is in Global Wealth and Investment Management.
This portfolio consists of revolving first and second lien residential mortgage lines of credit.
On a held basis, outstanding home equity lines increased $12.8 billion, or 21 percent, in 2006 compared to 2005 due to enhanced product offerings and the expanding home equity market.
Nonperforming home equity lines increased $132 million in 2006 due to portfolio seasoning.
Direct/Indirect Consumer At December 31, 2006, approximately 49 percent of the managed direct/ indirect portfolio was included in Business Lending within Global Corporate and Investment Banking (automotive, marine, motorcycle and recreational vehicle loans); 41 percent was included in Global Consumer and Small Business Banking (home equity loans, student and other non-real estate secured and unsecured personal loans) and the remainder was included in Global Wealth and Investment Management (home equity loans and other non-real estate secured and unsecured personal loans) and All Other (home equity loans).
On a held basis, outstanding loans and leases increased $22.7 billion in 2006 compared to 2005 due to the addition of the MBNA portfolio, purchases of retail automotive loans and reduced securitization activity.
Loans past due 90 days or more and still accruing interest increased $272 million due to the addition of MBNA and growth in the portfolio.
Net charge-offs increased $276 million to 0.88 percent (1.01 percent excluding the impact of SOP 03-3) of total average held direct/indirect loans, driven by the addition of the MBNA unsecured lending portfolio and seasoning of the automotive loan portfolio.
Card Services unsecured lending portfolio charge-offs increased throughout 2006 as charge-offs trended toward more normalized loss levels post bankruptcy reform.
Portfolio seasoning and reduced securitization activity also contributed to the increasing charge-off trend.
Net losses for the managed loan portfolio increased $591 million to 1.23 percent of total average managed direct/indirect loans compared to0.53 percent in 2005, primarily due to the addition of MBNA.
See below for a discussion of the impact of SOP 03-3 on the MBNA portfolio.
Other Consumer At December 31, 2006, approximately 67 percent of the other consumer portfolio consists of the foreign consumer loan portfolio which was included in Card Services within Global Consumer and Small Business Banking and in ALM/Other within Global Corporate and Investment Banking.
The remainder of the portfolio was associated with our previously exited consumer finance businesses and was included in All Other.
Other consumer outstanding loans and leases increased $2.5 billion at December 31, 2006 compared to December 31, 2005 driven primarily by the addition of the MBNA portfolio.
Net charge-offs as a percentage of total average other consumer loans declined by 116 bps due primarily to growth in the foreign portfolio from the MBNA acquisition.
See below for a discussion of the impact of SOP 03-3 on the MBNA portfolio.
SOP 03-3 SOP 03-3 addresses accounting for differences between contractual cash flows and cash flows expected to be collected from an investor’s initial investment in loans acquired in a transfer if those differences are attributable, at least in part, to credit quality.
SOP 03-3 requires impaired loans be recorded at fair value and prohibits “carrying over” or the creation of valuation allowances in the initial accounting of loans acquired in a transfer that are within the scope of this SOP (categories of loans for which it is probable, at the time of acquisition, that all amounts due according to the contractual terms of the loan agreement will not be collected).
The prohibition of the valuation allowance carryover applies to the purchase of an individual loan, a pool of loans, a group of loans, and loans acquired in a purchase business combination.
In accordance with SOP 03-3, certain acquired loans of MBNA that were considered impaired were written down to fair value at the acquisition date.
Therefore, reported net charge-offs and managed net losses were lower since these impaired loans that would have been charged off during the period were reduced to fair value as of the acquisition date.
SOP 03-3 does not apply to the acquired loans that have been securitized as they are not held on the Corporation’s Balance Sheet.
Consumer net charge-offs, managed net losses, and associated ratios as reported and excluding the impact of SOP 03-3 for 2006 are presented in Table 13.
Management believes that excluding the impact of SOP 03-3 provides a more accurate reflection of portfolio credit quality.
Table 13 Consumer Net Charge-offs and Managed Net Losses (Excluding the Impact of SOP 03-3)
## Table 0 ##
(1) Excluding the impact of SOP 03-3 is a non-GAAP financial measure.
Net charge-offs and managed net losses exclude the impact of SOP 03-3 which decreased net charge-offs and managed net losses on credit card – domestic $99 million, credit card – foreign $53 million, direct/indirect consumer $78 million, and other consumer $41 million for 2006.
The impact of SOP 03-3 on average outstanding held and managed consumer loans and leases for 2006 was not material.
GECS global revenues decreased 1% to $26.4 billion in 2010, compared with $26.7 billion and $37.2 billion in 2009 and 2008, respectively, primarily as a result of decreases in Europe.
GECS global revenues as a percentage of total GECS revenues were 52% in 2010, compared with 51% and 53% in 2009 and 2008, respectively.
GECS global revenue decreased by 28% in 2009 from $37.2 billion in 2008, primarily due to dispositions in Europe and the Pacific Basin.
TOTAL ASSETS (CONTINUING OPERATIONS)
## Table 1 ##
Total assets of global operations on a continuing basis were $358.6 billion in 2010, a decrease of $20.9 billion, or 6%, from 2009.
GECS global assets on a continuing basis of $279.6 billion at the end of 2010 were 9% lower than at the end of 2009, reflecting core declines in Europe and the Pacific Basin, primarily due to portfolio run-off in various businesses at Consumer and lower financing receivables and equipment leased to others at CLL.
Financial results of our global activities reported in U. S.  dollars are affected by currency exchange.
We use a number of techniques to manage the effects of currency exchange, including selective borrowings in local currencies and selective hedging of significant cross-currency transactions.
Such principal currencies are the pound sterling, the euro, the Japanese yen, the Canadian dollar and the Australian dollar.
Environmental Matters Our operations, like operations of other companies engaged in similar businesses, involve the use, disposal and cleanup of substances regulated under environmental protection laws.
We are involved in a sizeable number of remediation actions to clean up hazardous wastes as required by federal and state laws.
Such statutes require that responsible parties fund remediation actions regardless of fault, legality of original disposal or ownership of a disposal site.
Expenditures for site remediation actions amounted to approximately $0.2 billion in 2010, $0.3 billion in 2009 and $0.2 billion in 2008.
We presently expect that such remediation actions will require average annual expenditures of about $0.4 billion for each of the next two years.
As previously disclosed, in 2006, we entered into a consent decree with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to dredge PCB-containing sediment from the upper Hudson River.
The consent decree provided that the dredging would be performed in two phases.
Phase 1 was completed in May through November of 2009.
Between Phase 1 and Phase 2 there was an intervening peer review by an independent panel of national experts.
The panel evaluated the performance of Phase 1 dredging operations with respect to Phase 1 Engineering Performance Standards and recommended proposed changes to the standards.
On December 17, 2010, EPA issued its decisions setting forth the final performance standards for Phase 2 of the dredging project, incorporating aspects of the recommendations from the independent peer review panel and from GE.
In December 2010, we agreed with EPA to perform Phase 2 of the project in accordance with the final performance standards set by EPA.
We have reviewed EPA’s final performance standards for Phase 2 to assess the potential scope and duration of Phase 2, as well as operational and engineering changes that could be required.
Based on this review and our best professional engineering judgment, we increased our reserve for the probable and estimable costs for completing the Hudson River dredging project by $0.8 billion in the fourth quarter of 2010.
Financial Resources and Liquidity This discussion of financial resources and liquidity addresses the Statement of Financial Position, Liquidity and Borrowings, Debt and Derivative Instruments, Guarantees and Covenants, the Consolidated Statement of Changes in Shareowners’ Equity, the Statement of Cash Flows, Contractual Obligations, and Variable Interest Entities.
Overview of Financial Position Major changes to our shareowners’ equity are discussed in the Consolidated Statement of Changes in Shareowners’ Equity section.
In addition, other significant changes to balances in our Statement of Financial Position follow.
Statement of Financial Position Because GE and GECS share certain significant elements of their Statements of Financial Position—property, plant and equipment and borrowings, for example—the following discussion addresses significant captions in the “consolidated” statement.
Within the following discussions, however, we distinguish between GE and GECS activities in order to permit meaningful analysis of each individual consolidating statement.
INVESTMENT SECURITIES comprise mainly investment grade debt securities supporting obligations to annuitants and policyholders in our run-off insurance operations and holders of guaranteed investment contracts (GICs) in Trinity (which ceased issuing new investment contracts beginning in the first quarter of 2010) and investment securities held at our global banks.
The fair value of investment securities decreased to $43.9 billion at December 31, 2010, from $51.3 billion at December 31, 2009, primarily driven by a decrease in retained interests as a result of our adoption of FASB Accounting Standards Update (ASU) 2009-16 and ASU 2009-17, amendments to ASC 860, Transfers and Servicing, and ASC 810, Consolidations, respectively (ASU 2009-16 & 17), and maturities partially offset by improved market conditions.
Of the amount at December 31, 2010, we held debt securities with an estimated fair value of $42.8 billion, which included corporate debt securities, residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) and commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) with estimated fair values of $25.4 billion, $2.8 billion and
are allocated using appropriate statistical bases.
Total expense for repairs and maintenance incurred was $2.2 billion for 2011, $2.0 billion for 2010, and $1.9 billion for 2009.
Assets held under capital leases are recorded at the lower of the net present value of the minimum lease payments or the fair value of the leased asset at the inception of the lease.
Amortization expense is computed using the straight-line method over the shorter of the estimated useful lives of the assets or the period of the related lease.12.
Accounts Payable and Other Current Liabilities
## Table 2 ##
13.
Financial Instruments Strategy and Risk – We may use derivative financial instruments in limited instances for other than trading purposes to assist in managing our overall exposure to fluctuations in interest rates and fuel prices.
We are not a party to leveraged derivatives and, by policy, do not use derivative financial instruments for speculative purposes.
Derivative financial instruments qualifying for hedge accounting must maintain a specified level of effectiveness between the hedging instrument and the item being hedged, both at inception and throughout the hedged period.
We formally document the nature and relationships between the hedging instruments and hedged items at inception, as well as our riskmanagement objectives, strategies for undertaking the various hedge transactions, and method of assessing hedge effectiveness.
Changes in the fair market value of derivative financial instruments that do not qualify for hedge accounting are charged to earnings.
We may use swaps, collars, futures, and/or forward contracts to mitigate the risk of adverse movements in interest rates and fuel prices; however, the use of these derivative financial instruments may limit future benefits from favorable interest rate and fuel price movements.
Market and Credit Risk – We address market risk related to derivative financial instruments by selecting instruments with value fluctuations that highly correlate with the underlying hedged item.
We manage credit risk related to derivative financial instruments, which is minimal, by requiring high credit standards for counterparties and periodic settlements.
At December 31, 2011 and 2010, we were not required to provide collateral, nor had we received collateral, relating to our hedging activities.
Determination of Fair Value – We determine the fair values of our derivative financial instrument positions based upon current fair values as quoted by recognized dealers or the present value of expected future cash flows.
Interest Rate Fair Value Hedges – We manage our overall exposure to fluctuations in interest rates by adjusting the proportion of fixed and floating rate debt instruments within our debt portfolio over a given period.
We generally manage the mix of fixed and floating rate debt through the issuance of targeted amounts of each as debt matures or as we require incremental borrowings.
We employ derivatives, primarily swaps, as one of the tools to obtain the targeted mix.
In addition, we also obtain flexibility in managing interest costs and the interest rate mix within our debt portfolio by evaluating the issuance of and managing outstanding callable fixed-rate debt securities.
Swaps allow us to convert debt from fixed rates to variable rates and thereby hedge the risk of changes in the debt’s fair value attributable to the changes in interest rates.
We account for swaps as fair value

<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="8"> 2006</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="4">As Reported</td><td colspan="4"> Excluding Impact<sup>-1</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">Held</td><td colspan="2">Managed</td><td colspan="2">Held</td><td colspan="2"> Managed</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(Dollars in millions)</td><td> Amount</td><td>Percent</td><td> Amount</td><td>Percent</td><td> Amount</td><td>Percent</td><td> Amount</td><td> Percent</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Residential mortgage</td><td>$39</td><td>0.02%</td><td>$39</td><td>0.02%</td><td>$39</td><td>0.02%</td><td>$39</td><td>0.02%</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Credit card – domestic</td><td>3,094</td><td>4.85</td><td>5,395</td><td>3.89</td><td>3,193</td><td>5.00</td><td>5,494</td><td>3.96</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Credit card – foreign</td><td>225</td><td>2.46</td><td>980</td><td>3.95</td><td>278</td><td>3.05</td><td>1,033</td><td>4.17</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Home equity lines</td><td>51</td><td>0.07</td><td>51</td><td>0.07</td><td>51</td><td>0.07</td><td>51</td><td>0.07</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Direct/Indirect consumer</td><td>524</td><td>0.88</td><td>839</td><td>1.23</td><td>602</td><td>1.01</td><td>917</td><td>1.35</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Other consumer</td><td>303</td><td>2.83</td><td>303</td><td>2.83</td><td>344</td><td>3.21</td><td>344</td><td>3.21</td><td></td></tr><tr><td> Total consumer</td><td>$4,236</td><td>1.01%</td><td>$7,607</td><td>1.45%</td><td>$4,507</td><td>1.07%</td><td>$7,878</td><td> 1.50</td><td> %</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td><i>December 31 (In billions)</i></td><td> 2010</td><td> 2009</td></tr><tr><td>U.S.</td><td>$387.3</td><td>$387.3</td></tr><tr><td>Europe</td><td>199.2</td><td>219.0</td></tr><tr><td>Pacific Basin</td><td>61.1</td><td>65.8</td></tr><tr><td>Americas</td><td>40.0</td><td>38.4</td></tr><tr><td>Other Global</td><td>58.3</td><td>56.3</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$745.9</td><td>$766.8</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td><i>Millions</i></td><td><i>Dec. 31, 2011</i></td><td><i>Dec. 31, 2010</i></td></tr><tr><td>Accounts payable</td><td>$819</td><td>$677</td></tr><tr><td>Income and other taxes</td><td>482</td><td>337</td></tr><tr><td>Accrued wages and vacation</td><td>363</td><td>357</td></tr><tr><td>Dividends payable</td><td>284</td><td>183</td></tr><tr><td>Accrued casualty costs</td><td>249</td><td>325</td></tr><tr><td>Interest payable</td><td>197</td><td>200</td></tr><tr><td>Equipment rents payable</td><td>90</td><td>86</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>624</td><td>548</td></tr><tr><td>Total accounts payable and othercurrent liabilities</td><td>$3,108</td><td>$2,713</td></tr></table>

Question: assuming 2010 accrued casualty costs were completely repaired in the following year , ,what would the repairs and maintenance expense increase to for 2011 in millions?
Answer: 2525