MINUTES OF THE
MEETING
OF
THE AUDIT COMMITTEE
![]()
A meeting of the Audit
Committee was held at New York Power Authority’s Niagara Power Project – Power
Vista Visitor’s Center, Lewiston, NY and via videoconference at 123 Main Street,
White Plains, NY at approximately 10:00 a.m.
The following Members of the Audit Committee were
present:
Also in attendance were:
Terryl Brown Executive
Vice President and General Counsel
Elizabeth McCarthy Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer
Donald Russak Senior Vice President
Corporate Planning & Finance
James Pasquale Senior Vice
President Marketing & Economic Development
Thomas Davis Vice
President – Financial Planning & Budgets
Lesly Pardo Vice
President – Internal Audit
Scott Scholten Vice President & Chief Risk
Officer
Karen
Delince Corporate
Secretary
Brian
McElroy Treasurer
Thomas
Concadoro Vice President & Controller
Dennis
Eccleston Chief Information Officer
Lorna
Johnson Assistant Corporate Secretary
Sheila
Baughman Senior Secretary, Corporate
Secretary’s Office
Jamie Cote Manager,
KPMG
Amanda Specce Senior
Associate, KPMG
1.
Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 27,
2010
The minutes of the Committee’s
Regular Meeting of July 27, 2010 were adopted.
2. KPMG 2010 Audit Plan
Mr. Jamie Cote, Senior
Manager at KPMG presented an overview of the 2010 Audit Plan. He named the members
of the KPMG Audit Team: Ken Deon (Partner), Darin Kempke
(Concurring Review Partner), Dean Bell and Emily Sheik (GASB 52 Resource),
Chris Halstead (Manager), Rahul Naroola
(IRM Manager) and introduced Amanda Specce (Senior
Associate ) who was present. Mr. Cote stated that in order to reduce audit
risk, KPMG obtains an understanding of tone at the top, internal control
structure and significant accounts and performed detailed procedures to
mitigate audit risk to an acceptable level.
The process involves considering significant audit risks and issues such
as, current economic conditions, new accounting pronouncements, fuel and
purchase power and interest rate derivatives, management judgments and
accounting estimates, debt obligations and the Authority’s business risk.
Two new accounting
pronouncements will be implemented: Governmental Accounting Standards Board
Statement No. 53 (“GASB 53”) related to derivative instruments and GASB
Statement No. 51, (“GASB 51”), which is related to intangible assets. This
should have a negligible impact on the Authority this year as most of the requirement are already being met as part of the current accounting
process. The fuel purchase power derivatives as well as interest rate
derivatives will be looked at to make sure there is a proper determination of
fair value. The KPMG team will also be looking at the accounting and disclosure
requirements required by GASB 53. Revenue recognition is also a significant
area that is examined. The team also looks at the assumptions and methodologies
for significant estimates and reviews a sample of journal entries to make sure
they are appropriate and supported by good business practices. With respect to
debt obligations, the team looks at compliance with accounting related
covenants and other business risks such as transactions with New York State.
Mr. Cote added the KPMG team
makes site visits and looks at material inventory to make sure the quantity on
hand is correctly reported. He noted the importance of having a code of conduct
in place, controls to ensure the Authority is compliant with laws and
regulations, a good information reporting system, and an
effective internal audit department and controls over the safeguarding of
assets entity wide. It is also very important to have a Board that is
independent of management in order to have strong governance.
Mr. Cote ended by saying that in order to
mitigate fraud risks, the KPMG team reviews journal entries and internal
controls designed to detect and prevent fraudulent activities. KPMG also
conducts management interviews. KPMG has been in the field at the Authority’s
White Plains Office since October 11.
In
response to questions by Trustee Eugene Nicandri and
Chairman Patrick Curley, Mr. Cote said:
·
KPMG
looks particularly closely at procedures performed manually since they are more
subject to human error.
·
The
team uses computer system auditing techniques to set parameters for examining
journal entries. Some entries may be selected
if, for example, they are above certain thresholds over a million dollars or
end in 999. Entries that are posted after midnight or entered by certain people
may be worth examining as well. KPMG looks for certain key words used in the
description. KPMG sets different
parameters based upon what may be considered risks.
·
The
term “independent of management” means no one on the Board is a member of
management.
·
KPMG
sets their audit procedures based on their consideration of internal and
external pressures facing the Authority.
Examples of external pressure may be pressure from the state for more
contributions and pressure from customers for lower rates.
·
KPMG
will issue a report under OMG Circular A-1333 on whether the Authority is
complying with significant federal award requirements if the Authority expends
over $500,000 in Federal awards. The
audit of federal awards is triggered if $500,000 or more is spent irrespective
of the size of the award.
·
The
team does not audit ancillary entities such as the Economic Development Power
Allocation Board (“EDPAB”) but they will look at EDPAB minutes in order to
understand the economic development programs since EDPAB makes recommendations
to the Board of Trustees.
·
The
team reads newspapers and they get press clips to understand the pressures
faced by the Authority.
3. Internal Audit Activity Report
Mr. Lesly Pardo highlighted the following
Internal Audit (“IA”) activities:
·
As of September 30, 2010, Internal Audit had completed 20 audits and projects.
·
Six audits are in
progress as of September 30th.
·
Approximately 74% of the audits in the audit
plan are completed or in progress.
·
Sixteen audit reports
have been issued and 46 recommendations to improve internal
controls or enhance operational efficiency have been made.
·
All recommendations were accepted by
management and are being actively tracked for proper implementation.
·
Management
continues to cooperate fully with all audits.
·
There is a three year audit plan for Economic
Development Programs job commitment to determine the reliability of the actual
job numbers reported by the customers.
·
The three year audit plan for Economic Development
Programs will cover the three major programs: 1) Replacement & Expansion
Customers, 2) Traditional Power for Jobs customers, and 3) the Energy Cost
Savings Benefit customers.
·
The three year plan will audit any customers
that have not been audited the past three years.
·
Pages 7 through 12 provide a summary of audit
reports issued since the last Audit Committee report in July 2010, including
the overall audit objectives and findings and/or recommendations.
In
response to a question from Trustee Nicandri, Mr.
Pardo said the Authority’s electronic records are backed up and stored off site
and a disaster recovery plan has been examined and tested.
4. Risk
Policy and Procedure Update
Mr.
Scott Scholten presented the energy risk management
policy and procedure update. There had been gaps identified in the Authority’s
previous policy and procedures. The policy that sets forth the overarching
objectives were adopted at by the Trustees at the September meeting. The
objectives established by the policy are:
·
There
will be no hedging except when it relates to core Authority activities
(generation and customer loads).
·
The
Authority will not enter into hedge transaction unless there is a certainty
that volumes are going to be there.
·
The
prime objective is to constrain potentially unfavorable outcomes to within
acceptable limits.
The
procedures were adopted by the Executive Risk Management Committee (“ERMC”) the
prior week. The Committee is comprised of 5 members and chaired by the CFO. The
procedures define the composition, responsibility and voting of the ERMC. They
also define commercial objectives for containing exposure to market volatility,
specifically by codifying ERMC ratified tolerance limits for NYPA net revenues; customer bill impacts;
unsecured credit extended to counterparties; and NYPA collateral-posting
requirements.
Next set of controls establishes clear
separation of duties and delineation of responsibilities for: authorization of transactions (ERMC);
execution of transactions (Front Office); monitoring risk quantification and
control (Middle Office); and confirmation and accounting of transactions (Back
Office).
The
procedures define
permissible hedge instruments and actionable commodities (e.g., generation
fuels, electric energy, electric capacity, and emissions); establish trade
limits for individuals authorized to execute transactions; specify standards
for risk quantification, monitoring, and reporting; define credit and
collateral management procedures for: initial
credit thresholds for counterparties; metrics and procedures for monitoring
counterparty default risk; collateral tracking and reconciliation; and payment authorizations; mandate annual employee compliance
attestation and establish enforcement provisions for non-compliance.
KPMG had reviewed the procedures prior
to the ERMC’s adoption and made recommendation.
Some of the recommendations regarding clarifying some of the language
and others dealt with elevating the procedures to leading practice standards.
These recommendations are being implemented including the recommendation that
the policy be reviewed by the Trustees annually.
In
response to a question by Trustee Nicandri, Mr. Scholten said that the Authority monitors the risks
involved with customer default separately from how it monitors credit risks
associated with counterparties to long-term hedges (i.e., the Authority enters
into transactions to secure market price of energy that will be delivered one
year, two years, and sometimes longer in the future. Until there is a settlement, the Authority has
exposure, which it may choose to limit with long-term hedge transactions).
5. Motion to
Conduct Executive Session
Trustee Nicandri
made a motion that the Authority conduct an Executive Session pursuant to
Section 105(1)(f) of the Public Officers Law of the State of New York to
discuss matters leading to the appointment, employment, promotion, discipline,
suspension, dismissal or removal of a particular person or corporation. Upon motion made and carried, an Executive Session
was held.
6. Motion to Resume
Meeting in Open Session
Trustee Nicandri made a motion to resume the meeting in Open
Session. Upon motion made and carried, the meeting resumed in Open Session.
7. Next Meeting
The
next regular meeting of the Audit Committee is to be determined.
On
motion made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:50 a.m.