At September 30, 2011, the total amount of commitments was $8.4 billion. These commitments are primarily related to our Generation, NewEnergy, regulated electric and gas, and other nonregulated businesses. These commitments relate to:

Our Generation and NewEnergy businesses enter into various contracts for the procurement and delivery of fuels primarily related to supplying our generating plant requirements. In most cases, our contracts contain provisions for price escalations, minimum purchase levels, and other financial commitments. These contracts expire in various years between 2011 and 2030. In addition, our Generation and NewEnergy businesses enter into contracts for the purchase of energy, capacity and transmission rights for the delivery of energy to meet our physical obligations to our customers. These contracts expire in various years between 2011 and 2023.

Our Generation and NewEnergy businesses also have committed to service agreements and other purchase commitments for our plants.

Our regulated electric business enters into various contracts for the procurement of electricity. These contracts expire between 2011 and 2013 and represent BGE's estimated requirements to serve residential and small commercial customers as follows:

Contract Duration


From October 1, 2011 to May 2012	100	%
From June 2012 to September 2012	75
From October 2012 to May 2013	50
From June 2013 to September 2013	25

The cost of power under these contracts is recoverable under the Provider of Last Resort agreement reached with the Maryland PSC.

Our regulated gas business enters into various contracts for the procurement, transportation, and storage of gas. Our regulated gas business has gas procurement contracts that expire between 2011 and 2014 and transportation and storage contracts that expire between 2012 and 2027. The cost of gas under these contracts is recoverable under BGE's gas cost adjustment clause discussed in Note 1 of our 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

We have also committed to service agreements and other obligations related to our information technology systems.

We enter into long-term power sales contracts in connection with our load-serving activities. We also enter into long-term power sales contracts associated with certain of our power plants. Our load-serving power sales contracts extend for terms through 2031 and provide for the sale of energy to electricity distribution utilities and certain retail customers. Our power sales contracts associated with our power producing facilities, including renewable energy, extend for terms into 2033 and provide for the sale of all or a portion of the actual output of certain of our power producing facilities. Substantially all long-term contracts were executed at pricing that approximated market rates, including profit margin, at the time of execution.

In the normal course of business, we are involved in various legal proceedings. We discuss the significant matters below.

In late April and early May 2011, shortly after Constellation Energy and Exelon announced their agreement to merge the two companies, twelve shareholder class action lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City in Maryland. Each class action suit was filed on behalf of a proposed class of the shareholders of Constellation Energy against Constellation Energy, members of Constellation Energy's board of directors, and Exelon. The shareholder class actions generally allege that the individual directors breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the proposed merger because they failed to maximize the value that the shareholders would receive from the merger, and failed to disclose adequately all material information relating to the proposed merger. The class actions also allege that Constellation Energy and Exelon aided and abetted the individual directors' breaches of their fiduciary duties. The lawsuits challenge the proposed merger, seek to enjoin a shareholder vote on the proposed merger until all material information is provided relating to the proposed merger, and ask for rescission of the proposed merger and any related transactions that have been completed as of the date that the court grants any relief. The class action lawsuits also seek certification as class actions, compensatory damages, costs and disbursements related to the action, including attorneys' and experts' fees, and rescission damages. Plaintiffs in three of the twelve lawsuits subsequently filed motions to consolidate all the lawsuits. The court has granted the motion to consolidate.

In August 2011, two shareholder class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The class actions generally assert that Constellation Energy's directors breached their fiduciary duties to Constellation Energy's shareholders in connection with the pending merger and that Constellation Energy's directors, Constellation Energy, and Exelon aided and abetted the alleged breaches and that Constellation Energy's directors, Constellation Energy and/or Exelon violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on alleged material misrepresentations and omissions in the preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus filed on June 27, 2011. The class actions seek various forms of relief, including, among other things, a declaratory judgment, an injunction prohibiting the merger, fees, expenses, and other costs.

In the third quarter of 2011, the parties to the consolidated action in the state court and the two actions in the federal court entered into a memorandum of understanding setting forth an agreement in principle regarding the settlement of the actions. Under the agreement, Constellation Energy and Exelon agreed to provide certain additional disclosures in the joint proxy statement/prospectus relating to the merger. The agreement provides that the actions will be dismissed with prejudice and that the members of the class of Constellation Energy shareholders will release the defendants from all claims that were or could have been raised in the actions, including all claims relating to the merger. The agreement also provides that the plaintiffs' counsel may apply to the state court for an award of attorney's fees and expenses. The settlement is subject to customary conditions, including, among other things, the execution of definitive settlement papers and approval of the settlement by the state court.

Constellation Energy and Constellation Energy's directors believe the actions are without merit and that they have valid defenses to all claims asserted therein. They entered into the memorandum of understanding solely to eliminate the burden, expense, and uncertainties inherent in further litigation. If the state court does not approve the settlement or any of the other conditions to consummation of the settlement are not satisfied, Constellation Energy and Constellation Energy's directors will continue to defend their positions in these matters vigorously.

Three federal securities class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Courts for the Southern District of New York and the District of Maryland between September 2008 and November 2008. The cases were filed on behalf of a proposed class of persons who acquired publicly traded securities, including the Series A Junior Subordinated Debentures (Debentures), of Constellation Energy between January 30, 2008 and September 16, 2008, and who acquired Debentures in an offering completed in June 2008. The securities class actions generally allege that Constellation Energy, a number of its present or former officers or directors, and the underwriters violated the securities laws by issuing a false and misleading registration statement and prospectus in connection with Constellation Energy's June 27, 2008 offering of Debentures. The securities class actions also allege that Constellation Energy issued false or misleading statements or was aware of material undisclosed information which contradicted public statements including in connection with its announcements of financial results for 2007, the fourth quarter of 2007, the first quarter of 2008 and the second quarter of 2008 and the filing of its first quarter 2008 Form 10-Q. The securities class actions seek, among other things, certification of the cases as class actions, compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel fees, and rescission damages.

The Southern District of New York granted the defendants' motion to transfer the two securities class actions filed in Maryland to the District of Maryland, and the actions have since been transferred for coordination with the securities class action filed there. On June 18, 2009, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, who filed a consolidated amended complaint on September 17, 2009. On November 17, 2009, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety. On August 13, 2010, the District Court of Maryland issued a ruling on the motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim with respect to the claims of the common shareholders under the Securities Act of 1934 and limiting the suit to those persons who purchased Debentures in the June 2008 offering. In August 2011, plaintiffs requested permission from the court to file a third amended complaint in an effort to attempt to revive the claims of the common shareholders. Constellation Energy has filed an objection to the plaintiffs' request for permission to file a third amended complaint. Given that limited discovery has occurred, that the court has not certified any class and the plaintiffs have not quantified their potential damage claims, we are unable at this time to provide an estimate of the range of possible loss relating to these proceedings or to determine the ultimate outcome of the securities class actions or their possible effect on our, or BGE's financial results.

Since September 2002, BGE, Constellation Energy, and several other defendants have been involved in numerous actions filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland alleging mercury poisoning from several sources, including coal plants formerly owned by BGE. The plants are now owned by a subsidiary of Constellation Energy. In addition to BGE and Constellation Energy, approximately 11 other defendants, consisting of pharmaceutical companies, manufacturers of vaccines, and manufacturers of Thimerosal have been sued. Approximately 70 cases, involving claims related to approximately 132 children, have been filed to date, with each claimant seeking $20 million in compensatory damages, plus punitive damages, from us.

The claims against BGE and Constellation Energy had been dismissed in all of the cases either with prejudice based on rulings by the Court or without prejudice based on voluntary dismissals by the plaintiffs' counsel although the plaintiffs had a right to appeal once the cases were finally concluded as to all defendants. These cases have been concluded as to all defendants and no appeals have been filed. As a result, the cases are concluded with respect to BGE and Constellation Energy.

Since 1993, BGE and certain Constellation Energy subsidiaries have been involved in several actions concerning asbestos. The actions are based upon the theory of "premises liability," alleging that BGE and Constellation Energy knew of and exposed individuals to an asbestos hazard. In addition to BGE and Constellation Energy, numerous other parties are defendants in these cases.

Approximately 484 individuals who were never employees of BGE or Constellation Energy have pending claims each seeking several million dollars in compensatory and punitive damages. Cross-claims and third party claims brought by other defendants may also be filed against BGE and Constellation Energy in these actions. To date, most asbestos claims which have been resolved have been dismissed or resolved without any payment by BGE or Constellation Energy and a small minority of these cases have been resolved for amounts that were not material to our financial results.

Discovery begins in these cases once they are placed on the trial docket. At present, only a small number of our pending cases have reached the trial docket. Given the limited discovery, BGE and Constellation Energy do not know the specific facts that we believe are necessary for us to provide an estimate of the possible loss relating to these claims. The specific facts we do not know include:

Insurance and hold harmless agreements from contractors who employed the plaintiffs may cover a portion of any awards in the actions.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) staff in the Office of Enforcement, Division of Investigations, is conducting a non-public investigation of our virtual transactions and physical schedules in and around the New York ISO from September 2007 through December 2008. On August 29, 2011, the FERC staff notified us of its preliminary findings relating to our alleged violation of FERC's rules in connection with these activities. We continue to cooperate fully with the FERC investigation and, on October 28, 2011, we delivered to the FERC staff a response to their preliminary findings letter explaining why our conduct was lawful and refuting any allegation of wrongdoing. The FERC staff will determine whether to close the investigation without further action, to pursue the investigation further, or to attempt to resolve the matter through settlement. As we only recently produced our response to FERC's preliminary findings and we cannot predict whether FERC will agree with our response, we cannot predict at this time whether or to what extent we may incur a liability.