XML 26 R17.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.0.8
Commitments And Contingencies
 9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
We are involved in legal, tax and regulatory proceedings before various courts, regulatory commissions, and governmental agencies with respect to matters that arise in the ordinary course of business, some of which involve substantial amounts of money. We believe that the final disposition of these proceedings, except as otherwise disclosed in the notes to our financial statements in this report and in our Form 10-K, will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, or liquidity.
Reference is made to Note 1 - Summary of Significant Accounting Policies, Note 2 - Rate and Regulatory Matters, Note 14 - Related Party Transactions, and Note 15 - Commitments and Contingencies under Part II, Item 8, of the Form 10-K. See also Note 1 - Summary of Significant Accounting Policies, Note 2 - Divestiture Transactions and Discontinued Operations, Note 3 - Rate and Regulatory Matters, Note 9 - Related Party Transactions and Note 11 - Callaway Energy Center in this report.
Callaway Energy Center
The following table presents insurance coverage at Ameren Missouri’s Callaway energy center at September 30, 2013. The property coverage and the nuclear liability coverage must be renewed on April 1 and January 1, respectively, of each year.
Type and Source of Coverage
Maximum  Coverages
 
Maximum Assessments
for Single Incidents
 
Public liability and nuclear worker liability:
 
 
 
 
American Nuclear Insurers
$
375

  
$
—

  
Pool participation
13,312

(a) 
128

(b) 
 
$
13,687

(c) 
$
128

  
Property damage:
 
 
 
 
Nuclear Electric Insurance Ltd.
$
2,250

(d) 
$
23

(e) 
European Mutual Association for Nuclear Insurance
500

(f) 
—

 
 
$
2,750

 
$
23

 
Replacement power:
 
 
 
 
Nuclear Electric Insurance Ltd.
$
490

(g) 
$
9

(e) 
Missouri Energy Risk Assurance Company
64

(h) 
—

  
(a)
Provided through mandatory participation in an industry-wide retrospective premium assessment program.
(b)
Retrospective premium under Price-Anderson. This is subject to retrospective assessment with respect to a covered loss in excess of $375 million in the event of an incident at any licensed United States commercial reactor, payable at $19 million per year.
(c)
Limit of liability for each incident under the Price-Anderson liability provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. A company could be assessed up to $128 million per incident for each licensed reactor it operates with a maximum of $19 million per incident to be paid in a calendar year for each reactor. This limit is subject to change to account for the effects of inflation and changes in the number of licensed reactors.
(d)
Nuclear Electric Insurance Ltd. provides $2.25 billion in property damage, decontamination, and premature decommissioning insurance. There is a $1.7 billion sublimit for non-radiation events of which the top $200 million is a shared limit with other generators purchasing this coverage and includes one free reinstatement.
(e)
All Nuclear Electric Insurance Ltd. insured plants could be subject to assessments should losses exceed the accumulated funds from Nuclear Electric Insurance Ltd.
(f)
European Mutual Association for Nuclear Insurance provides $500 million in excess of the $2.25 billion property coverage and $1.7 billion non-radiation coverage.
(g)
Provides replacement power cost insurance in the event of a prolonged accidental outage at our nuclear energy center. Weekly indemnity up to $4.5 million for 52 weeks, which commences after the first eight weeks of an outage, plus up to $3.6 million per week for a minimum of 71 weeks thereafter for a total not exceeding the policy limit of $490 million. Effective April 1, 2013, non-radiation events are sub-limited to $327.6 million.
(h)
Provides replacement power cost insurance in the event of a prolonged accidental outage at our nuclear energy center. The coverage commences after the first 52 weeks of insurance coverage from Nuclear Electric Insurance Ltd. and is for a weekly indemnity up to $900,000 for 71 weeks in excess of the $3.6 million per week set forth above. Missouri Energy Risk Assurance Company LLC is an affiliate and has reinsured this coverage with third-party insurance companies. See Note 9 - Related Party Transactions for more information on this affiliate transaction.
The Price-Anderson Act is a federal law that limits the liability for claims from an incident involving any licensed United States commercial nuclear power facility. The limit is based on the number of licensed reactors. The limit of liability and the maximum potential annual payments are adjusted at least every five years for inflation to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index. The five-year inflationary adjustment was effective September 10, 2013. Owners of a nuclear reactor cover this exposure through a combination of private insurance and mandatory participation in a financial protection pool, as established by Price-Anderson.
Losses resulting from terrorist attacks are covered under Nuclear Electric Insurance Ltd.’s policies, subject to an industry-wide aggregate policy limit of $3.24 billion within a 12-month period for coverage for such terrorist acts.
If losses from a nuclear incident at the Callaway energy center exceed the limits of, or are not covered by insurance, or if coverage is unavailable, Ameren Missouri is at risk for any uninsured losses. If a serious nuclear incident were to occur, it could have a material adverse effect on Ameren’s and Ameren Missouri’s results of operations, financial position, or liquidity.
Other Obligations
To supply a portion of the fuel requirements of our energy centers, we have entered into various long-term commitments for the procurement of coal, natural gas, nuclear fuel, and methane gas. We also have entered into various long-term commitments for purchased power and natural gas for distribution. The table below presents our estimated fuel, purchased power, and other commitments at September 30, 2013. Ameren’s and Ameren Missouri’s purchased power obligations include a 102-megawatt power purchase agreement with a wind farm operator that expires in 2024. Ameren’s and Ameren Illinois’ purchased power obligations include the Ameren Illinois power purchase agreements entered into as part of the IPA-administered power procurement process. Included in the Other column are minimum purchase commitments under contracts for equipment, design and construction, and meter reading services at September 30, 2013. Ameren's and Ameren Illinois' Other column also include obligations related to IEIMA. In addition, the Other column includes Ameren's and Ameren Missouri's obligations related to energy efficiency programs under the MEEIA as approved by the MoPSC's December 2012 electric rate order. The order provides that, beginning in 2013, Ameren Missouri will invest approximately $147 million over three years for energy efficiency programs.
 
Coal
 
Natural
Gas
 
Nuclear
Fuel
 
Purchased
Power(a)
 
Methane
Gas
 
Other
 
Total
Ameren:(b)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2013
$
605

 
$
109

 
$
17

 
$
162

 
$
1

 
$
87

 
$
981

2014
617

 
292

 
68

 
302

 
3

 
158

 
1,440

2015
640

 
155

 
63

 
154

 
4

 
114

 
1,130

2016
665

 
85

 
81

 
67

 
4

 
64

 
966

2017
683

 
47

 
58

 
44

 
5

 
56

 
893

Thereafter
245

 
100

 
216

 
501

 
97

 
246

 
1,405

Total
$
3,455

 
$
788

 
$
503

 
$
1,230

 
$
114

 
$
725

 
$
6,815

Ameren Missouri:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2013
$
605

 
$
27

 
$
17

 
$
3

 
$
1

 
$
66

 
$
719

2014
617

 
50

 
68

 
19

 
3

 
127

 
884

2015
640

 
30

 
63

 
19

 
4

 
85

 
841

2016
665

 
16

 
81

 
19

 
4

 
40

 
825

2017
683

 
11

 
58

 
19

 
5

 
32

 
808

Thereafter
245

 
28

 
216

 
129

 
97

 
144

 
859

Total
$
3,455

 
$
162

 
$
503

 
$
208

 
$
114

 
$
494

 
$
4,936

Ameren Illinois:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2013
$
—

 
$
82

 
$
—

 
$
159

 
$
—

 
$
9

 
$
250

2014
—

 
242

 
—

 
283

 
—

 
22

 
547

2015
—

 
125

 
—

 
135

 
—

 
24

 
284

2016
—

 
69

 
—

 
48

 
—

 
24

 
141

2017
—

 
36

 
—

 
25

 
—

 
24

 
85

Thereafter
—

 
72

 
—

 
372

 
—

 
102

 
546

Total
$
—

 
$
626

 
$
—

 
$
1,022

 
$
—

 
$
205

 
$
1,853

(a)
The purchased power amounts for Ameren and Ameren Illinois includes twenty-year agreements for renewable energy credits that were entered into in December 2010 with various renewable energy suppliers. The agreements contain a provision that allows Ameren Illinois to reduce the quantity purchased in the event that Ameren Illinois would not be able to recover the costs associated with the renewable energy credits.
(b)
Includes amounts for Ameren registrant and nonregistrant subsidiaries and intercompany eliminations.
Ameren Illinois has entered into an agreement, through a process administered by the IPA, to purchase power from a repowered unit at the Meredosia energy center designed for permanent carbon dioxide capture and storage, annually over a 20-year period beginning in 2017 for its electric delivery service customers. The agreement is contingent on the parties interested in repowering the unit at the currently idle Meredosia energy center reaching certain milestones related to the construction and commencement of operations of this unit. Construction has not begun on the unit at this energy center; therefore, Ameren Illinois’ obligations are not yet certain at this time and consequently not included in the table above. If the plant is not in service by 2019, Ameren Illinois can terminate the agreement.
Environmental Matters
We are subject to various environmental laws and regulations enforced by federal, state, and local authorities. From the beginning phases of siting and development to the ongoing operation of existing or new electric generation, transmission and distribution facilities and natural gas storage, transmission and distribution facilities, our activities involve compliance with diverse environmental laws and regulations. These laws and regulations address emissions, impacts to air, land, and water, noise, protected natural and cultural resources (such as wetlands, endangered species and other protected wildlife, and archeological and historical resources), and chemical and waste handling. Complex and lengthy processes are required to obtain and renew approvals, permits, or licenses for new, existing or modified facilities. Additionally, the use and handling of various chemicals or hazardous materials (including wastes) require release prevention plans and emergency response procedures.
In addition to existing environmental laws and regulations, including the Illinois MPS that applies to AER's coal-fired energy centers in Illinois, the EPA is developing regulations that will have a significant impact on the electric utility industry. These regulations could be particularly burdensome for certain companies, including Ameren, Ameren Missouri, and AER, that operate coal-fired energy centers. Significant new rules proposed or promulgated since the beginning of 2010 include the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new energy centers; revised national ambient air quality standards for fine particulates, SO2, and NOx emissions; the CSAPR, which would have required further reductions of SO2 emissions and NOx emissions from energy centers; a regulation governing management of CCR and coal ash impoundments; the MATS, which require reduction of emissions of mercury, toxic metals, and acid gases from energy centers; revised NSPS for particulate matter, SO2, and NOx emissions from new sources; new effluent standards applicable to discharges from steam-electric generating units; and new regulations under the Clean Water Act that could require significant capital expenditures such as new water intake structures or cooling towers at our energy centers. The EPA is expected to propose CO2 limits for existing fossil fuel-fired electric generation units in the future. These new and proposed regulations, if adopted, may be challenged through litigation, so their ultimate implementation as well as the timing of any such implementation is uncertain, as evidenced by the CSAPR being vacated and remanded back to the EPA by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in August 2012. Although many details of these future regulations are unknown, the combined effects of the new and proposed environmental regulations may result in significant capital expenditures and increased operating costs over the next five to ten years for Ameren, Ameren Missouri and AER. Compliance with these environmental laws and regulations could be prohibitively expensive. If they are, these regulations could require us to close or to significantly alter the operation of our energy centers, which could have an adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, and liquidity, including the impairment of long-lived assets. Failure to comply with environmental laws and regulations might also result in the imposition of fines, penalties, and injunctive measures.
The estimates in the tables below contain all of the known capital costs to comply with existing environmental regulations, including the CAIR, and our assessment of the potential impacts of the MATS and of the EPA's proposed regulation for CCR as of September 30, 2013. In addition, the estimates assume that CCR will continue to be regarded as nonhazardous. The estimates do not include the impacts of regulations proposed by the EPA under the Clean Water Act in March 2011 regarding cooling water intake structures or the impact of the effluent standards applicable to steam-electric generating units that the EPA proposed in April 2013, as the technology requirements ultimately to be selected in these final rules are not yet known. The estimates shown in the tables below could change significantly depending upon a variety of factors including:
•
Ameren’s divestiture of its Merchant Generation business;
•
additional or modified federal or state requirements;
•
further regulation of greenhouse gas emissions;
•
revisions to CAIR or reinstatement of CSAPR;
•
delays or accelerations of rulemaking and implementation by the EPA or state agencies;
•
new national ambient air quality standards, new standards intended to achieve national ambient air quality standards, or changes to existing standards for ozone, fine particulates, SO2, and NOx emissions;
•
additional or new rules governing air pollutant transport;
•
regulations or requirements under the Clean Water Act regarding cooling water intake structures or effluent standards;
•
finalized regulations classifying CCR as being hazardous or imposing additional requirements on the management of CCR;
•
new limitations or standards under the Clean Water Act applicable to discharges from steam-electric generating units;
•
new technology;
•
changes in expected power prices;
•
variations in costs of material or labor; and
•
alternative compliance strategies or investment decisions.
Continuing Operations:
  
2013
 
2014 - 2017
 
2018 - 2022
 
Total
AMO(a)
$
105

 
$
215

-
$
260

 
$
795

-
$
975

 
$
1,115

-
$
1,340

(a)
Ameren Missouri’s expenditures are expected to be recoverable from ratepayers.
Discontinued Operations:
  
2013
 
2014 - 2017
 
2018 - 2022
 
Total
Genco(a)
$
30

 
$
100

-
$
125

 
$
220

-
$
270

 
$
350

-
$
425

AERG
5

 
20

-
25

 
20

-
25

 
45

-
55

Total(b)
$
35

 
$
120

-
$
150

 
$
240

-
$
295

 
$
395

-
$
480

(a)
Includes estimated costs of approximately $20 million annually, excluding capitalized interest, from 2013 through 2017 for construction of two scrubbers at the Newton energy center.
(b)
Assumes the Merchant Generation facilities are owned by Ameren.
The following sections describe the more significant environmental laws and rules that affect or could affect our operations.
Clean Air Act
Both federal and state laws require significant reductions in SO2 and NOx emissions that result from burning fossil fuels. In March 2005, the EPA issued regulations with respect to SO2 and NOx emissions (the CAIR). The CAIR requires generating facilities in 28 states, including Missouri and Illinois, and the District of Columbia, to participate in cap-and-trade programs to reduce annual SO2 emissions, annual NOx emissions, and ozone season NOx emissions.
In December 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit remanded the CAIR to the EPA for further action to remedy the rule's flaws, but allowed the CAIR's cap-and-trade programs to remain effective until they are replaced by the EPA. In July 2011, the EPA issued the CSAPR as the CAIR replacement. On December 30, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a stay of the CSAPR. In August 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling that vacated the CSAPR in its entirety, finding that the EPA exceeded its authority in imposing the CSAPR's emission limits on states. In March 2013, the EPA and certain environmental groups filed an appeal of the Court of Appeals’ remand of CSAPR to the United States Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court has agreed to consider the appeal and is expected to issue a ruling on the appeal during its current term, which ends in June 2014. The EPA will continue to administer the CAIR until a new rule is ultimately adopted or the United States Supreme Court overturns the decision to vacate the CSAPR.
In December 2011, the EPA issued the MATS under the Clean Air Act, which require emission reductions for mercury and other hazardous air pollutants, such as acid gases, toxic metals, and particulate matter by setting emission limits equal to the average emissions of the best performing 12% of existing coal and oil-fired electric generating units. Also, the standards require reductions in hydrogen chloride emissions, which were not regulated previously, and for the first time require continuous monitoring systems for hydrogen chloride, mercury, and particulate matter. The MATS do not require a specific control technology to achieve the emission reductions. The MATS will apply to each unit at a coal-fired power plant; however in certain cases, emission compliance can be achieved by averaging emissions from similar electric generating units at the same power plant. Compliance is required by April 2015 or, with a case-by-case extension, by April 2016. Ameren Missouri's Labadie and Meramec energy centers requested and were granted extensions to April 2016 to comply with the MATS.
Separately, in December 2012, the EPA issued a final rule that made the national ambient air quality standard for fine particulate matter more stringent. States must develop control measures designed to reduce the emission of fine particulate matter below required levels to achieve compliance with the new standard. Such measures may or may not apply to energy centers but could require reductions in SO2 and NOx emissions. States are required to demonstrate compliance with the rule by 2020, or 2025 if an extension of time to achieve compliance is granted. Ameren Missouri and AER are currently evaluating the new standard while the states of Missouri and Illinois develop their attainment plans.
In September 2011, the EPA announced that it was implementing the 2008 national ambient air quality standards for ozone. The EPA is required to revisit these standards for ozone again in 2013. The states of Illinois and Missouri will be required to develop attainment plans to comply with the 2008 ambient air quality standards for ozone, which could result in additional emission control requirements for power plants by 2020. Ameren, Ameren Missouri and AER continue to assess the impacts of these new standards.
In July 2013, the EPA issued a final rule designating portions of the United States, including parts of Illinois and Missouri, as nonattainment for the national ambient air quality standard for SO2. The designations became effective in October 2013, and the states must develop plans in the next 18 months to reduce emissions so that they can achieve the ambient air quality standards within five years. Ameren, Ameren Missouri and AER are assessing the impact of this designation.
Ameren Missouri's current environmental compliance plan for air emissions from its energy centers includes burning ultra-low-sulfur coal and installing new or optimizing existing pollution control equipment. In July 2011, Ameren Missouri contracted to procure significantly greater volumes of lower-sulfur-content coal than Ameren Missouri's energy centers had historically burned, which allowed Ameren Missouri to eliminate or postpone capital expenditures for pollution control equipment. In 2010, Ameren Missouri completed the installation of two scrubbers at its Sioux energy center to reduce SO2 emissions. Currently, Ameren Missouri's compliance plan assumes the installation of two scrubbers, mercury control technology, and precipitator upgrades at multiple energy centers within its coal-fired fleet during the next 10 years. However, Ameren Missouri is currently evaluating its operations and options to determine how to comply with the MATS and other recently finalized or proposed EPA regulations.
In September 2012, the Illinois Pollution Control Board granted AER a variance to extend compliance dates for SO2 emission levels contained in the MPS through December 31, 2019, subject to certain conditions described below. The Illinois Pollution Control Board approved AER's proposed plan to restrict its SO2 emissions through 2014 to levels lower than those previously required by the MPS to offset any environmental impact from the variance. The Illinois Pollution Control Board's order also included the following provisions:
•
A schedule of milestones for completion of various aspects of the installation and completion of the scrubber projects at Genco's Newton energy center; the first milestone relates to the completion of engineering design by July 2015 while the last milestone relates to major equipment components being placed into final position on or before September 1, 2019.
•
A requirement for AER to refrain from operating the Meredosia and Hutsonville energy centers through December 31, 2020; however, this restriction does not impact Genco's ability, or Ameren’s ability after the divestiture of New AER occurs, to make the Meredosia energy center available for any parties that may be interested in repowering one of its units to create an oxy-fuel combustion coal-fired energy center designed for permanent carbon dioxide capture and storage.
See Note 2 - Divestiture Transactions and Discontinued Operations for additional information regarding Ameren’s divestiture of New AER and a request filed with the Illinois Pollution Control Board for a variance in favor of IPH on the same material terms as the Illinois MPS variance granted to AER in September 2012.
Under the MPS, AER is required to reduce mercury, NOx and SO2 emissions with declining limits that started in 2009 for mercury and in 2010 for NOx and SO2. The final NOx limit became effective in 2012. The final mercury limit will become effective in 2015 and the final SO2 limit will become effective by the end of 2019. The Illinois Pollution Control Board's September 2012 variance gives AER additional time for economic recovery and related power price improvements necessary to support scrubber installations and other pollution controls at some of AER's energy centers. To comply with the MPS and other air emissions laws and regulations, AER is installing equipment designed to reduce its emissions of mercury, NOx, and SO2. AER has installed three scrubbers at two energy centers. Two additional scrubbers are being constructed at the Newton energy center. AER will continue to review and adjust its compliance plans in light of evolving outlooks for power and capacity prices, delivered fuel costs, emission standards required under environmental laws and regulations, and compliance technologies, among other factors.
Environmental compliance costs could be prohibitive at some of Ameren's, Ameren Missouri's and AER's energy centers as the expected return from these investments, at current market prices for energy and capacity, might not justify the required capital expenditures or their continued operation, which could result in the impairment of long-lived assets.
Emission Allowances
The Clean Air Act created marketable commodities called emission allowances under the acid rain program, the NOx budget trading program, and the CAIR. Environmental regulations, including those relating to the timing of the installation of pollution control equipment, fuel mix, and the level of operations will have a significant impact on the number of allowances required for ongoing operations. The CAIR uses the acid rain program's allowances for SO2 emissions and created annual and ozone season NOx allowances. Ameren and Ameren Missouri expect to have adequate allowances for 2013 to avoid needing to make external purchases to comply with these programs.
Greenhouse Gas Regulation
State and federal authorities, including the United States Congress, have considered initiatives to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Potential impacts from any such legislation or regulation could vary, depending upon proposed CO2 emission limits, the timing of implementation of those limits, the method of distributing any allowances, the degree to which offsets are allowed and available, and provisions for cost-containment measures, such as a “safety valve” provision that provides a maximum price for emission allowances. As a result of our fuel portfolio, our emissions of greenhouse gases vary among our energy centers, but coal-fired power plants are significant sources of CO2. The enactment of a law that restricts emissions of CO2 or requires energy centers to purchase allowances for CO2 emissions could result in a significant rise in rates for electricity and thereby household costs. The burden could fall particularly hard on electricity consumers and upon the economy in the Midwest because of the region's reliance on electricity generated by coal-fired power plants. Natural gas emits about half as much CO2 as coal when burned to produce electricity. Therefore, greenhouse gas regulations could cause the conversion of coal-fired power plants to natural gas, or the construction of new natural gas-fired plants to replace coal-fired power plants. As a result, economy wide shifts to natural gas as a fuel source for electricity generation also could affect the cost of heating for our utility customers and many industrial processes that use natural gas.
In December 2009, the EPA issued its “endangerment finding” under the Clean Air Act, which stated that greenhouse gas emissions, including CO2, endanger human health and welfare and that emissions of greenhouse gases from motor vehicles contribute to that endangerment. In March 2010, the EPA issued a determination that greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources, such as power plants, would be subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act effective the beginning of 2011. As a result of these actions, we are required to consider the emissions of greenhouse gases in any air permit application.
Recognizing the difficulties presented by regulating at once virtually all emitters of greenhouse gases, the EPA issued the “Tailoring Rule,” which established new higher emission thresholds beginning in January 2011, for regulating greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources, such as power plants. The rule requires any source that already has an operating permit to have greenhouse-gas-specific provisions added to its permit upon renewal. Currently, all Ameren energy centers have operating permits that, when renewed, may be modified to address greenhouse gas emissions. The Tailoring Rule also provides that if projects performed at major sources result in an increase in emissions of greenhouse gases over an applicable annual threshold, such projects could trigger permitting requirements under the NSR programs and the application of best available control technology to address greenhouse gas emissions. New major sources are also required to obtain such a permit and to install the best available control technology if their greenhouse gas emissions exceed the applicable emissions threshold. In June 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the Tailoring Rule. Industry groups and a coalition of states filed petitions in April 2013 requesting that the United States Supreme Court review the circuit court’s decision upholding the Tailoring Rule. In October 2013, the United States Supreme Court granted the petition agreeing to consider whether the Clean Air Act authorizes the EPA to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases from stationary sources, including power plants, as a result of the EPA’s determination to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. A ruling is expected in 2014.
In June 2013, the Obama Administration announced that it had directed the EPA to set CO2 emissions standards for both new and existing power plants. The EPA proposed revised CO2 emissions regulations for new electricity generating units in September 2013. The proposed standards would establish separate emissions limits for new natural gas-fired plants and new coal-fired plants. In addition, the Obama Administration had directed the EPA to propose a CO2 emissions standard for existing power plants by June 2014 and to finalize such standard by June 2015. Currently, the Ameren Companies are unable to predict the outcome or impacts of such future regulations.
Recent federal court decisions have considered the application of common law causes of action, such as nuisance, to address alleged damages resulting from greenhouse gas emissions. In March 2012, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi dismissed the Comer v. Murphy Oil lawsuit, which alleged that CO2 emissions from several industrial companies, including Ameren Missouri, Genco and AERG, created atmospheric conditions that intensified Hurricane Katrina, thereby causing property damage. In May 2013, the dismissal of the lawsuit was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Future federal and state legislation or regulations that mandate limits on the emission of greenhouse gases would likely result in significant increases in capital expenditures and operating costs, which, in turn, could lead to increased liquidity needs and higher financing costs. These compliance costs could be prohibitive at some of our energy centers as the expected return from these investments, at current market prices for energy and capacity, might not justify the required capital expenditures or their continued operation, which could result in the impairment of long-lived assets. To the extent Ameren Missouri requests recovery of these costs through rates, its regulators might delay or deny timely recovery of these costs. As a result, mandatory limits on the emission of greenhouse gases could have a material adverse impact on Ameren's and Ameren Missouri's results of operations, financial position, and liquidity.
NSR and Clean Air Litigation
The EPA is engaged in an enforcement initiative to determine whether coal-fired power plants failed to comply with the requirements of the NSR and NSPS provisions under the Clean Air Act when the plants implemented modifications. The EPA's inquiries focus on whether projects performed at power plants triggered various permitting requirements and the installation of pollution control equipment.
Commencing in 2005, Genco received a series of information requests from the EPA pursuant to Section 114(a) of the Clean Air Act. The requests sought detailed operating and maintenance history data with respect to Genco's Coffeen, Hutsonville, Meredosia, Newton, and Joppa energy centers and AERG's E.D. Edwards and Duck Creek energy centers. In August 2012, Genco received a Notice of Violation from the EPA alleging violations of permitting requirements including Title V of the Clean Air Act. The EPA contends that projects performed in 1997, 2006, and 2007 at Genco's Newton energy center violated federal law. Ameren believes its defenses to the allegations at Genco described in the Notice of Violation are meritorious. A recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that similar claims older than five years were barred by the statute of limitations. If not reversed or overturned, this decision may provide an additional defense to the allegations in the Newton energy center Notice of Violation. Ameren is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
Following the issuance of a Notice of Violation in January 2011, the Department of Justice on behalf of the EPA filed a complaint against Ameren Missouri in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The EPA's complaint, as amended in October 2013, alleges that in performing projects at its Rush Island coal-fired energy center in 2007 and 2010, Ameren Missouri violated provisions of the Clean Air Act and Missouri law. In January 2012, the district court granted, in part, Ameren Missouri's motion to dismiss various aspects of the EPA's penalty claims. The EPA's claims for unspecified injunctive relief remain. Trial in this matter is currently scheduled for January 2015. Ameren Missouri believes its defenses are meritorious and will defend itself vigorously. However, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.
Ultimate resolution of these matters could have a material adverse impact on the future results of operations, financial position, and liquidity of Ameren and Ameren Missouri. A resolution could result in increased capital expenditures for the installation of pollution control equipment, increased operations and maintenance expenses, and penalties. We are unable to predict the ultimate resolution of these matters or the costs that might be incurred.
Clean Water Act
In March 2011, the EPA announced a proposed rule applicable to cooling water intake structures at existing power plants that have the ability to withdraw more than 2 million gallons of water per day from a body of water and use at least 25% of that water exclusively for cooling. Under the proposed rule, affected facilities would be required either to meet mortality limits for aquatic life impinged on the plant's intake screens or to reduce intake velocity to a specified level. The proposed rule also requires existing power plants to meet site-specific entrainment standards or to reduce the cooling water intake flow commensurate with the intake flow of a closed-cycle cooling system. The final rule is scheduled to be issued in November 2013, with compliance expected within eight years thereafter. All coal-fired, nuclear, and combined cycle energy centers at Ameren, Ameren Missouri and AER with cooling water systems are subject to this proposed rule. The proposed rule did not mandate cooling towers at existing facilities, as other technology options potentially could meet the site-specific standards. The final rule could have an adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, and liquidity if its implementation requires the installation of cooling towers or extensive modifications to the cooling water systems at our energy centers.
In April 2013, the EPA announced its proposal to revise the effluent limitation guidelines applicable to steam electric generating units under the Clean Water Act. Effluent limitation guidelines are national standards for wastewater discharges to surface water that are based on the effectiveness of available control technology. The proposed revision targets wastewater streams associated with fluegas desulfurization (i.e. scrubbers), fly ash, bottom ash, fluegas mercury control, CCR leachate from landfills and impoundments, nonchemical metal cleaning, and gasification of fuels. The EPA’s proposal identifies several alternatives for addressing these waste streams, including best management practices for CCR impoundments. The EPA’s proposed rule raised several compliance options that would prohibit effluent discharges of certain, but not all, waste streams and impose more stringent limitations on certain components in wastewater discharges from power plants. If enacted as proposed, Ameren Missouri and AER would be subject to the revised limitations beginning as early as July 1, 2017, but no later than July 1, 2022. We are reviewing the proposed rule and evaluating its potential impact on our operations if enacted as proposed. The EPA expects to issue a final rule in 2014.
Remediation
We are involved in a number of remediation actions to clean up hazardous waste sites as required by federal and state law. Such statutes require that responsible parties fund remediation actions regardless of their degree of fault, the legality of original disposal, or the ownership of a disposal site. Ameren Missouri and Ameren Illinois have each been identified by the federal or state governments as a potentially responsible party (PRP) at several contaminated sites.
As part of the transfer of generation assets by our rate-regulated utility operations in Illinois to Genco in May 2000 and to AERG in October 2003, Ameren Illinois’ predecessor companies contractually agreed to indemnify Genco and AERG for claims relating to pre-existing environmental conditions at the transferred sites. The plant transfer agreements between both Genco and Ameren Illinois and AERG and Ameren Illinois will be amended as part of the transaction agreement for Ameren to divest New AER to IPH. The agreements will specify that Medina Valley will assume any environmental liabilities associated with the Meredosia and Hutsonville energy centers. The agreements will also specify that Genco and AERG will no longer be indemnified by Ameren Illinois with respect to the environmental liabilities associated with Genco’s Newton and Coffeen energy centers and AERG’s E.D. Edwards and Duck Creek energy centers. See Note 2 - Divestiture Transactions and Discontinued Operations for additional information regarding Ameren’s divestiture of New AER.
As of September 30, 2013, Ameren Illinois owned or was otherwise responsible for 44 former MGP sites in Illinois. These sites are in various stages of investigation, evaluation, remediation, and closure. Based on current estimated plans, Ameren Illinois could substantially conclude remediation efforts at most of these sites by 2018. The ICC permits Ameren Illinois to recover remediation and litigation costs associated with its former MGP sites from its electric and natural gas utility customers through environmental adjustment rate riders. To be recoverable, such costs must be prudently and properly incurred. Costs are subject to annual review by the ICC.
As of September 30, 2013, Ameren Missouri has one remaining former MGP site for which remediation is scheduled. Remediation is complete at the other Ameren Missouri former MGP sites. Ameren Missouri does not currently have a rate rider mechanism that permits it to recover from utility customers remediation costs associated with MGP sites.

The following table presents, as of September 30, 2013, the estimated obligation to complete the remediation of these former MGP sites.
  
Estimate
 
Recorded
  Liability(a)
  
Low
 
High
 
Ameren
$
251

 
$
337

 
$
251

Ameren Missouri
5

 
6

 
5

Ameren Illinois
246

 
331

 
246

(a)
Recorded liability represents the estimated minimum probable obligations, as no other amount within the range was a better estimate.
The scope and extent to which these former MGP sites are remediated may increase as remediation efforts continue. Considerable uncertainty remains in these estimates as many factors can influence the ultimate actual costs, including site specific unanticipated underground structures, the degree to which groundwater is encountered, regulatory changes, local ordinances, and site accessibility. The actual costs may vary substantially from these estimates.
Ameren Illinois utilized an off-site landfill, which Ameren Illinois did not own, in connection with its operation of the Coffeen energy center prior to the formation of Genco. While not currently mandated, Ameren Illinois may be required to perform certain remediation activities associated with that landfill. As of September 30, 2013, Ameren Illinois estimated the obligation related to the cleanup at $0.5 million to $6 million. Ameren Illinois recorded a liability of $0.5 million to represent its estimated minimum obligation for this site, as no other amount within the range was a better estimate. Ameren Illinois is also responsible for the cleanup of a landfill, underground storage tanks, and a water treatment plant in Illinois. As of September 30, 2013, Ameren Illinois recorded a liability of $0.8 million to represent its estimate of the obligation for these sites.
Ameren Missouri has responsibility for the investigation and potential cleanup of two waste sites in Missouri as a result of federal agency mandates. One of the cleanup sites is a former coal tar distillery located in St. Louis, Missouri. In 2008, the EPA issued an administrative order to Ameren Missouri pertaining to this distillery operated by Koppers Company or its predecessor and successor companies. Ameren Missouri is the current owner of the site, but Ameren Missouri did not conduct any of the manufacturing operations involving coal tar or its byproducts. Ameren Missouri, along with two other PRPs, is currently performing a site investigation. As of September 30, 2013, Ameren Missouri estimated its obligation at $2 million to $5 million. Ameren Missouri recorded a liability of $2 million to represent its estimated minimum obligation, as no other amount within the range was a better estimate. Ameren Missouri's other active federal agency-mandated cleanup site in Missouri is a site in Cape Girardeau. Ameren Missouri was a customer of an electrical equipment repair and disposal company that previously operated a facility at this site. A trust was established in the early 1990s by several businesses and governmental agencies to fund the investigation and cleanup of this site, which was completed in 2005. Ameren Missouri anticipates that this trust fund will be sufficient to complete the remaining adjacent off-site cleanup, and it therefore has no recorded liability at September 30, 2013, for this site.
Ameren Missouri also has a federal agency mandate to complete an investigation for a site in Illinois. In 2000, the EPA notified Ameren Missouri and numerous other companies, including Solutia, that former landfills and lagoons in Sauget, Illinois, may contain soil and groundwater contamination. These sites are known as Sauget Area 2. From about 1926 until 1976, Ameren Missouri operated an energy center adjacent to Sauget Area 2. Ameren Missouri currently owns a parcel of property that was once used as a landfill. Under the terms of an Administrative Order on Consent, Ameren Missouri joined with other PRPs to evaluate the extent of potential contamination with respect to Sauget Area 2.
The Sauget Area 2 investigations overseen by the EPA have been completed. The results have been submitted to the EPA, and a record of decision is expected in 2014. Once the EPA has approved the proposed site remedies, it will begin negotiations with various PRPs regarding implementation. Over the last several years, numerous other parties have joined the PRP group. In addition, Pharmacia Corporation and Monsanto Company have agreed to assume the liabilities related to Solutia's former chemical waste landfill in Sauget Area 2. As of September 30, 2013, Ameren Missouri estimated its obligation related to Sauget Area 2 at $0.3 million to $10 million. Ameren Missouri recorded a liability of $0.3 million to represent its estimated minimum obligation, as no other amount within the range was a better estimate.
In December 2012, Ameren Missouri signed an administrative order with the EPA and agreed to investigate soil and groundwater conditions at an Ameren Missouri owned substation in St. Charles, Missouri. As of September 30, 2013, Ameren Missouri estimated the obligation related to the cleanup at $1.6 million to $4.5 million. Ameren Missouri recorded a liability of $1.6 million to represent its estimated minimum obligation for this site, as no other amount within the range was a better estimate.
Our operations or those of our predecessor companies involve the use of, disposal of, and in appropriate circumstances, the cleanup of substances regulated under environmental laws. We are unable to determine whether such practices will result in future environmental commitments or will affect our results of operations, financial position, or liquidity.
Ash Management
There has been activity at both state and federal levels regarding additional regulation of CCR. In May 2010, the EPA announced proposed new regulations regarding the regulatory framework for the management and disposal of CCR, which could affect future disposal and handling costs at our energy centers. Those proposed regulations include two options for managing CCRs under either solid or hazardous waste regulations, but either alternative would allow for some continued beneficial uses, such as recycling of CCR without classifying it as waste. As part of its proposal, the EPA is considering alternative regulatory approaches that require coal-fired power plants either to close surface impoundments, such as ash ponds, or to retrofit such facilities with liners. Existing impoundments and landfills used for the disposal of CCR would be subject to groundwater monitoring requirements and requirements related to closure and postclosure care under the proposed regulations. The EPA announced that its April 2013 proposed revisions to the effluent limitations applicable to steam electric generating units would apply to ash ponds and CCR management and that it intended to align this proposal with the CCR rules proposed in May 2010. Additionally, in January 2010, the EPA announced its intent to develop regulations establishing financial responsibility requirements for the electric generation industry, among other industries, and it specifically discussed CCR as a reason for developing the new requirements. Ameren, Ameren Missouri and AER are currently evaluating all of the proposed regulations to determine whether current management of CCR, including beneficial reuse, and the use of the ash ponds should be altered. Ameren, Ameren Missouri and AER are evaluating the potential costs associated with compliance with the proposed regulation of CCR impoundments and landfills, which could be material, if such regulations are adopted. See Note 2 - Divestiture Transactions and Discontinued Operations for information regarding AER’s AROs, which include those related to CCR storage facilities.
The Illinois EPA has issued violation notices with respect to groundwater conditions existing at Genco’s ash pond systems. AER filed a proposed rulemaking with the Illinois Pollution Control Board which, if approved, would provide for the systematic and eventual closure of ash ponds. In October 2013, the Illinois EPA filed a proposed rulemaking with the Illinois Pollution Control Board. AER has stayed its rulemaking efforts to allow the Illinois EPA proposed rulemaking to proceed. The rulemaking process could take several years to complete. During the first quarter of 2013, Genco and AERG revised their ARO fair value estimates relating to their ash ponds to reflect expected retirement dates. See Note 1 - Summary of Significant Accounting Policies for additional information related to our asset retirement obligations.
Pumped-storage Hydroelectric Facility Breach
In December 2005, there was a breach of the upper reservoir at Ameren Missouri's Taum Sauk pumped-storage hydroelectric energy center. This resulted in significant flooding in the local area, which damaged a state park. The rebuilt Taum Sauk energy center became fully operational in April 2010.
Ameren Missouri had liability insurance coverage for the Taum Sauk incident, subject to certain limits and deductibles. As of September 30, 2013, Ameren Missouri had an insurance receivable balance of $68 million. Ameren Missouri's results of operations, financial position and liquidity could be adversely affected if its remaining liability insurance claims are not paid by insurers.
In June 2010, Ameren Missouri sued an insurance company that was providing Ameren Missouri with liability coverage on the date of the Taum Sauk incident. In the litigation, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Ameren Missouri claimed that the insurance company breached its duty to indemnify Ameren Missouri for the losses resulting from the incident. In January 2011, the district court ruled that the parties must first pursue alternative dispute resolution and enforced the forum selection clause of their coverage agreement. The forum selection clause requires use of New York law and effectively requires mandatory arbitration. Ameren Missouri appealed the January 2011 ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. In August 2012, the court of appeals remanded the case to the district court for consideration of whether Missouri public policy voids the forum selection clause. In September 2013, the district court ruled that Missouri public policy voids the forum selection clause.
Separately, in April 2012, Ameren Missouri sued a second insurance company that was providing Ameren Missouri with liability coverage on the date of the Taum Sauk incident. In the April 2012 litigation, which is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Ameren Missouri claimed the insurance company breached its duty to indemnify Ameren Missouri for the losses resulting from the incident. The insurance company filed a motion to compel arbitration, which the district court denied. In April 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the insurer’s motion and remanded the case to the district court.
Asbestos-related Litigation
Ameren, Ameren Missouri and Ameren Illinois have been named, along with numerous other parties, in a number of lawsuits filed by plaintiffs claiming varying degrees of injury from asbestos exposure. Most have been filed in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois. The total number of defendants named in each case varies with the average number of parties being 78 as of September 30, 2013. Each lawsuit seeks unspecified damages that, if awarded at trial, typically would be shared among the various defendants.
The claims filed against Ameren, Ameren Missouri and Ameren Illinois allege injury from asbestos exposure during the plaintiffs' activities at our present or former energy centers. Former CIPS energy centers are now owned by Genco, and former CILCO energy centers are now owned by AERG. As a condition to the transfer of ownership of the CIPS and CILCO energy centers, CIPS and CILCO, now Ameren Illinois, contractually agreed to indemnify Genco and AERG, respectively, for liabilities associated with asbestos-related claims arising or existing from activities prior to the transfer. The plant transfer agreement between Genco and Ameren Illinois and the plant transfer agreement between AERG and Ameren Illinois each will be amended pursuant to the transaction agreement in which Ameren agrees to divest New AER to IPH. The amended plant transfer agreements will provide that Ameren Illinois will continue to retain asbestos exposure-related liabilities for claims arising or existing from activities prior to the transfer of the ownership of the CIPS and CILCO energy centers to Genco and AERG. IPH will be responsible for any asbestos-related claims arising from activities that occur after IPH takes ownership of New AER. Any asbestos-related claims arising solely from activities post transfer of the energy centers from CIPS and CILCO to Genco and AERG, respectively, but prior to IPH taking ownership of New AER, of which there are currently none, will be retained by Ameren. See Note 2 - Divestiture Transactions and Discontinued Operations for additional information regarding Ameren's divestiture of AER.
The following table presents the pending asbestos-related lawsuits filed against the Ameren Companies as of September 30, 2013:
Ameren
 
Ameren
Missouri
 
Ameren
Illinois
 
Total(a)
1
 
55
 
63
 
85
(a)
Total does not equal the sum of the subsidiary unit lawsuits because some of the lawsuits name multiple Ameren entities as defendants.
At September 30, 2013, Ameren, Ameren Missouri and Ameren Illinois had liabilities of $15 million, $7 million, and $8 million, respectively, recorded to represent their best estimate of their obligations related to asbestos claims.
Ameren Illinois has a tariff rider to recover the costs of IP asbestos-related litigation claims, subject to the following terms: 90% of cash expenditures in excess of the amount included in base electric rates are to be recovered from a trust fund that was established when Ameren acquired IP. At September 30, 2013, the trust fund balance was $23 million, including accumulated interest. If cash expenditures are less than the amount in base rates, Ameren Illinois will contribute 90% of the difference to the trust fund. Once the trust fund is depleted, 90% of allowed cash expenditures in excess of base rates will be recovered through charges assessed to customers under the tariff rider. The rider will permit recovery from customers within IP’s historical service territory.
Ameren Illinois Municipal Taxes
Ameren Illinois received tax liability notices from the City of O'Fallon, Illinois relating to prior-period electric and natural gas municipal taxes. The city alleges that Ameren Illinois failed to collect prior-period taxes from more than 2,400 accounts primarily in annexed areas for the period 2004 through 2012. In July 2013, the O’Fallon city administrator issued an order stating that Ameren Illinois was liable to the City of O’Fallon for $4 million. In August 2013, Ameren Illinois filed an appeal and a stay of the O’Fallon city administrator’s order to the St. Clair County Circuit Court. In addition, in December 2012, the City of Peoria issued a tax liability notice alleging that Ameren Illinois failed to collect prior-period municipal taxes from certain accounts. In September 2013, a hearing officer issued an order stating that Ameren Illinois was liable to the City of Peoria for $0.5 million. Ameren Illinois plans to file an appeal and a stay of the order to the Peoria County Circuit Court. Ameren Illinois believes its defenses to the allegations are meritorious and will defend itself vigorously. As of September 30, 2013, Ameren Illinois estimated its obligation at $1 million to $5 million. Ameren Illinois recorded a liability of $1 million to represent its estimated minimum obligation to the City of O'Fallon and the City of Peoria, as no other amount within the range was a better estimate. 
In addition, at the end of 2012, five other cities issued tax liability notices alleging that Ameren Illinois failed to collect prior-period taxes from certain accounts. At this time, it is premature in Ameren Illinois' review of the additional notices received at the end of 2012 to reasonably estimate any likelihood of loss.