COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

We are involved in legal, tax and regulatory proceedings before various courts, regulatory commissions, authorities 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, Note 15 - Commitments and Contingencies and Note 16 - Divestiture Transactions and Discontinued Operations under Part II, Item 8, of the Form 10-K. See also Note 1 - Summary of Significant Accounting Policies, Note 2 - Rate and Regulatory Matters, Note 8 - Related Party Transactions, Note 10 - Callaway Energy Center and Note 12 - Divestiture Transactions and Discontinued Operations in this report.

Callaway Energy Center

The following table presents insurance coverage at Ameren Missouri’s Callaway energy center at March 31, 2014. The property coverage and the nuclear liability coverage must be renewed on April 1 and January 1, respectively, of each year. Both coverages were renewed in 2014.



Type and Source of Coverage	Maximum Coverages			Maximum Assessments for Single Incidents
Public liability and nuclear worker liability:
American Nuclear Insurers	$	375		$	—
Pool participation	13,241		^(a)	128		^(b)
	$	13,616	^(c)	$	128
Property damage:
NEIL	$	2,250	^(d)	$	23	^(e)
European Mutual Association for Nuclear Insurance	500		^(f)	—
	$	2,750		$	23
Replacement power:
NEIL	$	490	^(g)	$	9	^(e)
Missouri Energy Risk Assurance Company LLC	64		^(h)	—


(a)	Provided through mandatory participation in an industrywide retrospective premium assessment program.


(b)	Retrospective premium under the Price-Anderson Act. 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)	NEIL provides $2.25 billion in property damage, decontamination, and premature decommissioning insurance. There is a $1.7 billion sublimit for nonradiation events, of which the last $200 million is a shared limit with other generators purchasing this coverage. The $1.7 billion sublimit for nonradiation events was not included with the April 1, 2014 renewal.


(e)	All NEIL insured plants could be subject to assessments should losses exceed the accumulated funds from NEIL.


(f)	European Mutual Association for Nuclear Insurance provides $500 million in excess of the $2.25 billion property coverage provided by NEIL.

(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. Nonradiation 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 NEIL and is a weekly indemnity of $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 8 - 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 energy center. 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 the Price-Anderson Act.

Losses resulting from terrorist attacks are covered under NEIL’s policies, subject to an industrywide 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. For a complete listing of our obligations and commitments, see Note 15 - Commitments and Contingencies under Part II, Item 8 of the Form 10-K.

At March 31, 2014, total other obligations related to the procurement of coal, natural gas, nuclear fuel, purchased power, methane gas, equipment and meter reading services, among other agreements, at Ameren, Ameren Missouri and Ameren Illinois were $6,251 million, $4,273 million, and $1,908 million, respectively.

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, discharges to water, water usage, impacts to air, land, and water, 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 require release prevention plans and emergency response procedures.

The EPA is developing environmental regulations that will have a significant impact on the electric utility industry. Over time, compliance with these regulations could be particularly costly for certain companies, including Ameren Missouri, that operate coal-fired energy centers. Significant new rules proposed or promulgated include the regulation of CO₂ emissions from new energy centers; revised national ambient air quality standards for ozone, fine particulates, SO_2, and NO_x emissions; the CSAPR, which requires further reductions of SO₂ emissions and NO_x 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 NO_x emissions from new sources; new effluent standards applicable to waste water discharges from energy centers and new regulations under the Clean Water Act that could require significant capital expenditures, such as modifications to water intake structures or new cooling towers at our energy centers. The EPA is expected to propose CO₂ standards 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. 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 and Ameren Missouri. Compliance with these environmental laws and regulations could be prohibitively expensive or could result in the closure or alteration of the operation of some of our energy centers. Ameren and Ameren Missouri would expect these costs to be recoverable through rates, but the nature and timing of costs, as well as the applicable regulatory framework, could result in regulatory lag.

As of March 31, 2014, Ameren and Ameren Missouri estimate capital expenditure investments of $275 million to $350 million over the next five years to comply with existing environmental regulations. This estimate assumes that CCR will continue to be regulated as nonhazardous. This estimate does not include the impacts of regulations proposed by the EPA under the Clean Water Act regarding cooling water intake structures or the impact of the proposed effluent standards applicable to steam-electric generating units, as the technology requirements of these final rules are not yet known. Considerable uncertainty remains in this estimate. The actual amount of capital expenditure investments to comply with existing environmental regulations may vary substantially from the above estimate due to uncertainty as to the precise compliance strategies that will be used and their ultimate cost, among other things.

Ameren Missouri's current environmental compliance plan for air emissions includes burning ultra-low-sulfur coal and installing new or optimizing existing pollution control equipment. Ameren Missouri has two scrubbers at its Sioux energy center, which are used to reduce SO₂ emissions and other pollutants. Currently, Ameren Missouri's compliance plan assumes the installation of additional controls including mercury control technology and electrostatic precipitator upgrades at multiple energy centers within its coal-fired fleet during the next five years. However, Ameren Missouri is currently evaluating its operations and options to determine how to comply with the CSAPR, the MATS, and other recently finalized or proposed EPA regulations. Ameren Missouri may be required to install additional pollution controls within the next six to ten years.

Environmental compliance costs at some of Ameren Missouri's energy centers could be prohibitive and additional capital investment or continued operations unwarranted. Ameren Missouri's capital expenditures and other costs are subject to MoPSC prudence reviews, which could result in cost disallowances as well as regulatory lag.

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 SO₂and NO_x emissions that result from burning fossil fuels. In 2005, the EPA issued regulations with respect to SO₂ and NO_x emissions (the CAIR). In December 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found various aspects of the law to be unlawful and remanded the CAIR to the EPA for further action, 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. The CSAPR regulations were vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The EPA appealed to the United States Supreme Court. In April 2014, the United States Supreme Court reversed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s decision and upheld the CSAPR. Ameren and Ameren Missouri are continuing to review the United States Supreme Court’s decision and expect the EPA to issue guidance in the near future on implementing the CSAPR. Ameren Missouri has already taken actions to prepare for the implementation of the CSAPR, including the installation of two scrubbers at its Sioux energy center and burning ultra-low sulfur coal. Assuming the EPA does not revise the emission reductions previously included in the CSAPR, Ameren Missouri does not expect to make additional capital investments to comply with the CSAPR. However, Ameren Missouri will incur additional operations and maintenance costs to utilize chemicals to lower its emissions at one or more of its energy centers for compliance with the CSAPR. These higher operations and maintenance costs will be collected from customers through the FAC or higher base rates.

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 hydrogen chloride emissions. 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.

Emission Allowances

The Clean Air Act created marketable commodities called emission allowances under the acid rain program, the NO_x budget trading program, the CAIR and the CSAPR. Ameren Missouri expects to have enough allowances for 2014 to avoid making external purchases to comply with the CAIR and the acid rain program. Ameren and Ameren Missouri are continuing to review the United States Supreme Court’s decision upholding the CSAPR and will review any guidance the EPA may issue regarding implementing the CSAPR and its emission allowance program.

Greenhouse Gas Regulation

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 have been modified to address greenhouse gas emissions. The Tailoring Rule also provides that if projects performed at major sources or new 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 control greenhouse gas emissions. 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. In October 2013, the United States Supreme Court agreed 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 its 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 published proposed regulations in January 2014 that would set revised CO₂ emissions standards for new electricity generating units. The proposed standards would establish separate emissions limits for new natural gas-fired plants and new coal-fired plants. In addition, the Obama administration 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, Ameren and Ameren Missouri are unable to predict the outcome of these rulemakings or impacts of such future regulations if and when they become effective.

Future federal and state legislation or regulations that mandate limits on the emission of greenhouse gases may result in significant increases in capital expenditures and operating costs, which 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 if costs are not recovered through rates. Mandatory limits on the emission of greenhouse gases could increase costs for our customers or have a material adverse effect on Ameren's and Ameren Missouri's results of operations, financial position, and liquidity if regulators delay or deny cost recovery in rates of these compliance costs. Ameren's and Ameren Missouri's earnings may benefit from increased investment to the extent the investments comply with greenhouse gas limitations and are reflected and recovered timely in rates.

NSR and Clean Air Litigation

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. The trial in this matter is currently scheduled to begin in 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 this matter could have a material adverse effect 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. The proposed rule would impose standards for reducing the mortality of aquatic organisms impinged on the plant's intake screens or entrained through the plant's cooling water system. All coal-fired, nuclear, and combined cycle energy centers at Ameren Missouri with cooling water systems are subject to this proposed rule. The EPA has stated that it will finalize the rule in May 2014. When finalized, the 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 and if those investments are not recovered timely in rates.

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 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 the rule is enacted as proposed, Ameren Missouri would be subject to the revised limitations beginning as early as July 1, 2017, but no later than July 1, 2022, however, the final rule will determine the schedule. The EPA expects to issue final guidelines by September 30, 2015.

Ash Management

In May 2010, the EPA announced proposed new regulations regarding 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. 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 when finalized. The EPA is expected to issue regulations describing how it will regulate CCR by December 2014. Ameren Missouri is 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 Missouri is 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.

Remediation

We are involved in a number of remediation actions to clean up sites impacted by hazardous substances 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 at several contaminated sites.

As of March 31, 2014, 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 incurred. Costs are subject to annual review by the ICC.

As of March 31, 2014, 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 March 31, 2014, the estimated obligation to complete the remediation of these former MGP sites:



	Estimate				Recorded Liability^(a)
	Low		High		Recorded Liability^(a)
Ameren	$	269	$	345	$	269
Ameren Missouri	3		4		3
Ameren Illinois	266		341		266


(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 used an off-site landfill, which Ameren Illinois did not own, in connection with the former operation of an energy center. Ameren Illinois could be required to perform certain maintenance activities associated with that landfill. As of March 31, 2014, 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 some underground storage tanks and a water treatment plant in Illinois. As of March 31, 2014, Ameren Illinois recorded a liability of $0.8 million to represent its estimate of the obligation for these sites.

Ameren Missouri is investigating and addressing 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. While Ameren Missouri is the current owner of the site, it did not conduct any of the manufacturing operations involving coal tar or its byproducts. Ameren Missouri, along with two other potentially responsible parties, are performing a site investigation. As of March 31, 2014, 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 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 therefore, Ameren Missouri believes it has no liability at March 31, 2014, 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 potentially responsible parties to evaluate the extent of potential contamination with respect to Sauget Area 2.

In December 2013, the EPA issued its record of decision for Sauget Area 2 approving the investigation and the remediation alternatives recommended by the potentially responsible parties. Further negotiation among the potentially responsible parties will determine how to fund the implementation of the EPA approved cleanup remedies. As of March 31, 2014, Ameren Missouri estimated its obligation related to Sauget Area 2 at $1 million to $2.5 million. During the first quarter of 2014, Ameren Missouri recorded an additional liability of $0.7 million, to reflect the negotiations with the potentially responsible parties, for a total liability of $1 million to represent its estimated minimum obligation.

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 March 31, 2014, 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.

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 March 31, 2014, Ameren Missouri had an insurance receivable balance of $68 million.

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.

Ameren's and Ameren Missouri's results of operations, financial position and liquidity could be adversely affected if Ameren Missouri's remaining liability insurance claims are not paid by insurers.

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 at our present or former energy centers. 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 85 as of March 31, 2014. Each lawsuit seeks unspecified damages that, if awarded at trial, typically would be shared among the various defendants.

The following table presents the pending asbestos-related lawsuits filed against the Ameren Companies as of March 31, 2014:


(a)	Total does not equal the sum of the subsidiary unit lawsuits because some of the lawsuits name multiple Ameren entities as defendants.

At March 31, 2014, Ameren, Ameren Missouri and Ameren Illinois had liabilities of $12 million, $5 million, and $7 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 March 31, 2014, 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 Circuit Court of St. Clair County. 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 filed an appeal and a stay of the order to the Circuit Court of Peoria County. Ameren Illinois believes its defenses to the allegations are meritorious. As of March 31, 2014, Ameren Illinois estimated its obligation at $1 million to $5 million. Ameren Illinois recorded a liability of $1 million, which reflects potential settlements with both of the cities.

In addition, at the end of 2012, five other cities issued tax liability notices alleging that Ameren Illinois failed to collect an immaterial amount of taxes from certain accounts.

Ameren
Missouri

Ameren
Illinois