Note 11 — Litigation, Other Commitments and Contingencies, and Disclosures about Guarantees

Litigation

Devil’s Swamp

In October 2007, Cleco received a Special Notice for Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) from the EPA. The special notice requested that Cleco Corporation and Cleco Power, along with many other listed PRPs, enter into negotiations with the EPA for the performance of an RI/FS at an area known as the Devil’s Swamp Lake site just northwest of Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The EPA has identified Cleco as one of many companies sending PCB wastes for disposal to the site. The Devil’s Swamp Lake site has been proposed to be added to the National Priorities List (NPL) based on the release of PCBs to fisheries and wetlands located on the site. The EPA has yet to make a final determination on whether to add Devil’s Swamp Lake site to the NPL. The PRPs began discussing a potential proposal to the EPA in February 2008. Negotiations among the PRPs and the EPA are ongoing in regard to the RI/FS for the Devil’s Swamp Lake site, with little progress having been made since February 2008. Since this investigation is in the preliminary stages, management is unable to determine whether the costs associated with possible remediation of the facility site, if any, will have a material adverse effect on the Registrants’ financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

Discrimination Complaints

On December 11, 2009, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (the Court) on behalf of eight current employees and four former employees alleging that Cleco discriminated against each of them on the basis of race. Each is seeking various remedies provided under applicable statutes prohibiting racial discrimination in the workplace, and together, the plaintiffs seek monetary compensation exceeding $35.0 million. On July 29, 2010, the plaintiffs moved to add an additional current employee alleging that Cleco had discriminated on the basis of race. The plaintiff seeks compensation of no less than $2.5 million and became the thirteenth plaintiff. On April 13, 2011, Cleco entered into a settlement with one of the current employees which resulted in a dismissal of one of the thirteen cases with prejudice. On September 22, 2011 the Court ruled on Cleco’s summary judgment motions that had been pending for the last year. The judge granted and denied the motions in part, with the end result that eleven out of twelve of the remaining plaintiffs have at least one claim remaining. The Court has severed the cases of the eleven remaining plaintiffs for further discovery and proceedings, and if necessary, trial. None of these matters have been set for trial. In view of the uncertainty of the claims, management is not able to predict or give a reasonable estimate of the possible range, if any, of these claims.

On September 23, 2010, the New Orleans Field Office of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued its determination that there is reason to believe that violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had occurred at one of Cleco’s training facilities on October 5, 2007. In its initial determination, the EEOC suggested that Cleco pay the charging party $0.1 million in satisfaction of any compensatory or punitive damages. Under EEOC procedures, Cleco pursued conciliation efforts to resolve the charge which resulted in a complete settlement with the charging party and the EEOC.

City of Opelousas

On March 9, 2010, a complaint was filed in the 27th Judicial District Court of St. Landry Parish, State of Louisiana, on behalf of three Cleco Power customers in Opelousas, Louisiana. The complaint alleges that Cleco Power overcharged the plaintiffs by applying to customers in Opelousas the same retail rates as Cleco Power applies to all of its retail customers. The plaintiffs allege that Cleco Power should have established, solely for customers in Opelousas, retail rates that are separate and distinct from the retail rates that apply to other customers of Cleco Power and that Cleco Power should not collect from customers in Opelousas the storm surcharge approved by the LPSC following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Cleco Power currently operates in Opelousas pursuant to a franchise granted to Cleco Power by the City of Opelousas in 1986 and an operating and franchise agreement dated May 14, 1991, pursuant to which Cleco Power operates its own electric facilities and leases and operates electric facilities owned by the City of Opelousas. In April 2010, Cleco Power filed a petition with the LPSC appealing to its expertise in declaring that the ratepayers of Opelousas have been properly charged the rates that are applicable to Cleco Power’s retail customers and that no overcharges have been collected. In addition, Cleco Power removed the purported class action lawsuit filed on behalf of Opelousas electric customers from the state court to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana in April 2010, so that it could be properly addressed under the terms of the Class Action Fairness Act. On May 11, 2010, a second class action lawsuit was filed in the 27th Judicial District Court of St. Landry Parish, State of Louisiana, repeating the allegations of the first complaint, which was submitted on behalf of 249 Opelousas residents. Cleco Power has responded in the same manner as with the first class action lawsuit. On September 29, 2010, the federal court remanded both cases to the state court in which they were originally filed for further proceedings. On January 21, 2011, the presiding judge in the state court proceeding ruled that the jurisdiction to hear the two class actions resides in the state court and not with the LPSC as argued by both Cleco and the LPSC Staff. Both Cleco and the LPSC Staff appealed this ruling to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals for the State of Louisiana (Third Circuit). On September 9, 2011, the Third Circuit denied both appeals. On October 10, 2011, both Cleco and the LPSC appealed the Third Circuit’s ruling to the Louisiana Supreme Court. On February 7, 2011, the administrative law judge in the LPSC proceeding ruled that the LPSC has jurisdiction to decide the claims raised by the class action plaintiffs. The customers have not stated an amount of overcharges they seek to recover. In view of the uncertainty of the claims, management is not able to predict or give a reasonable estimate of the possible range, if any, of these claims.

Madison Unit 3

In August 2005, Cleco Power entered into an EPC contract with Shaw to construct Madison Unit 3. Construction of Madison Unit 3 began in May 2006. In May 2006, Cleco Power and Shaw entered into an Amended EPC Contract, which contract has subsequently been amended by the parties. The project achieved commercial operations on February 12, 2010, whereby Cleco Power accepted care, custody, and control of the unit. Cleco Power and Shaw submitted various claims, relating to the Amended EPC Contract, to arbitration. On April 30, 2010, Shaw filed a demand for arbitration asserting claims of $32.0 million including impacts due to the 2008 hurricane force majeure, alleged excess fuel moisture, intake water quality and a river embankment slope failure, and the associated recovery of schedule related liquidated damages withheld by Cleco Power. In May 2010, Cleco Power issued to Shaw a notice of default relating to Shaw’s inability to meet certain material obligations under the Amended EPC Contract. Furthermore, as a result of Shaw filing the demand for arbitration, certain claims exceeded a $1.0 million threshold, triggering an unwind of certain fuel-related matters included in a prior settlement between the parties, Amendment No. 4, and Cleco demanded an associated payment of $19.0 million. In February 2011, Cleco drew on the Shaw letter of credit in an amount of $19.0 million for amounts relating to the unwind. Certain of these matters were argued in arbitration hearings which concluded on June 8, 2011. On June 24, 2011, Cleco and Shaw each submitted their proposed resolutions to all of the matters in dispute in this arbitration proceeding. Shaw submitted that Cleco owed $32.5 million in satisfaction of all of such matters. Cleco submitted that it owed Shaw $4.0 million. On August 5, 2011, the arbitrator announced his decision in favor of Shaw’s claims of Cleco Power owing Shaw $32.5 million (including the return of the amounts drawn on Shaw’s letter of credit). Cleco Power paid this amount on August 22, 2011, which was included as a cost of Madison Unit 3 and reflected as property, plant and equipment.

Shaw has not reached project completion as defined in the Amended EPC Contract, as various performance tests, the reliability test, and specified boiler performance criteria have not been met. Under the Amended EPC Contract, Shaw must correct the identified items, complete the performance guarantee tests, meet a 30-day reliability performance test, and correct certain warranty issues to meet final acceptance, or pay certain liquidated damages and financially settle incomplete work. The disputed items relating to the liquidated damages for Shaw’s inability to meet performance guarantees, as well as for completion of minor or warranty work, were bifurcated from the arbitration proceedings and remain outstanding. These matters may be resolved through a second arbitration proceeding or potentially settled.

LPSC Fuel Audit

The LPSC is currently auditing Cleco Power’s fuel expenditures for the years 2003 through 2008 which includes approximately $3.2 billion of fuel expenses. Cleco Power has responded to several sets of data requests and the responses are currently under review. The LPSC has not stated an amount of the fuel costs, if any, that would be disallowed and result in a refund to Cleco Power’s customers. As such, management is not able to predict or give a reasonable estimate of the possible range of the disallowance, if any, related to this audit. However, if a disallowance of fuel costs is ordered resulting in a refund, any such refund could have a material adverse effect on the Registrants’ results of operations, financial condition, and cash flows.

Other

Cleco is involved in various litigation matters, including regulatory, environmental, and administrative proceedings before various courts, regulatory commissions, arbitrators, and governmental agencies regarding matters arising in the ordinary course of business. The liability Cleco may ultimately incur with respect to any one of these matters in the event of a negative outcome may be in excess of amounts currently accrued. Management regularly analyzes current information and, as of September 30, 2011, believes the range of probable and reasonably estimable liabilities based on the eventual disposition of these matters is between $2.0 million and $6.0 million.

Off-Balance Sheet Commitments

Cleco Corporation and Cleco Power have entered into various off-balance sheet commitments, in the form of guarantees and standby letters of credit, in order to facilitate their activities and the activities of Cleco Corporation’s subsidiaries and equity investees (affiliates). Cleco Corporation and Cleco Power also have agreed to contractual terms that require them to pay third parties if certain triggering events occur. These contractual terms generally are defined as guarantees in the authoritative guidance.

Cleco Corporation entered into these off-balance sheet commitments in order to entice desired counterparties to contract with its affiliates by providing some measure of credit assurance to the counterparty in the event Cleco’s affiliates do not fulfill certain contractual obligations. If Cleco Corporation had not provided the off-balance sheet commitments, the desired counterparties may not have contracted with Cleco’s affiliates, or may have contracted with them at terms less favorable to its affiliates.

The off-balance sheet commitments are not recognized on Cleco Corporation’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets because management has determined that Cleco’s affiliates are able to perform these obligations under their contracts and that it is not probable that payments by Cleco will be required. Cleco’s off-balance sheet commitments as of September 30, 2011, are summarized in the following table, and a discussion of the off-balance sheet commitments follows the table. The discussion should be read in conjunction with the table to understand the impact of the off-balance sheet commitments on Cleco’s financial condition.

			AT SEPTEMBER 30, 2011
	FACE				NET
(THOUSANDS)	AMOUNT		REDUCTIONS		AMOUNT
Cleco Corporation
Guarantee issued to Entergy Mississippi on behalf of Attala	$	500	$	-	$	500
Cleco Power
Obligations under standby letter of credit issued to the Louisiana Department of Labor		3,725		-		3,725
Total	$	4,225	$	-	$	4,225

In January 2006, Cleco Corporation provided a $0.5 million guarantee to Entergy Mississippi for Attala’s obligations under the Interconnection Agreement. This guarantee will be effective through the life of the agreement.

Acadia provided limited guarantees and indemnifications to Cleco Power under the Master Reorganization and Redemption Agreement related to the acquisition of Acadia Unit 1 and half of Acadia Power Station’s related common facilities in February 2010. In connection with this transaction, Acadia became 100% owned by Cajun. Prior to April 29, 2011, Cleco Corporation reported the investment in Cajun on the equity method of accounting and therefore APH’s 50% portion of the indemnity was off-balance sheet. On April 29, 2011, in conjunction with the disposition of Acadia Unit 2, APH received 100% ownership in Acadia in exchange for its 50% interest in Cajun, and Acadia became a consolidated subsidiary of APH.

Acadia and Entergy Services entered into an amended capacity sale and fuel conversion services agreement on June 30, 2010, with an effective date of October 1, 2010. In conjunction with the agreement, Cleco Corporation provided to Entergy Louisiana a limited guarantee, in an amount not to exceed $10.0 million, for certain performance obligations by Acadia under the agreement. On April 29, 2011, the agreement and the related guarantee terminated as a result of the Acadia Unit 2 transaction. For additional information regarding this transaction, see Note 15 — “Acadia Transactions — Acadia Unit 2.”

The State of Louisiana allows employers of certain financial net worth to self-insure their workers’ compensation benefits. Cleco Power has a certificate of self-insurance from the Louisiana Office of Workers’ Compensation and is required to post a $3.7 million letter of credit, an amount equal to 110% of the average losses over the previous three years, as surety.

Disclosures about Guarantees

Cleco Corporation provided a limited guarantee and an indemnification to Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States for Perryville’s performance, indemnity, representation, and warranty obligations under the Sale Agreement, the Power Purchase Agreement, and other ancillary agreements related to the sale of the Perryville facility in 2004. This is a continuing guarantee and all obligations of Cleco Corporation shall continue until the guaranteed obligations have been fully performed or otherwise extinguished. The discounted probability-weighted liability under the guarantees and indemnifications recognized on Cleco Corporation’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2011, was $0.2 million. The maximum amount of the potential payment to Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States is $42.4 million. Currently, management does not expect to be required to pay Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States under the guarantee.

In February 2010, Cleco Power acquired Acadia Unit 1 and half of Acadia Power Station’s related common facilities. Acadia provided limited guarantees and indemnifications to Cleco Power under the Master Reorganization and Redemption Agreement. The maximum amount of the potential payment to Cleco Power for indemnifications is $30.0 million, except for the indemnifications relating to the fundamental organizational structure of Acadia against which there is no maximum amount. Cleco Corporation is obligated to pay a maximum of $10.0 million if Acadia is unable to pay claims to Cleco Power pursuant to the guarantee. Acadia recorded an indemnification liability and a corresponding reduction of the gain of $13.5 million which represents the fair value of these indemnifications. In a related agreement, APH agreed to accept 50% of Acadia’s indemnification liability that would be held by the third parties who indirectly owned 50% of Acadia in return for $6.8 million received from the third parties. The $6.8 million was recorded as an indemnification liability by APH. Events that would require payments to Cleco Power pursuant to the indemnity include, but are not limited to:

§	Environmental costs that were caused by events occurring before the closing of the transaction;

§	Claims against Cleco Power for liabilities retained by Acadia;

§	Certain conditions of Acadia Unit 1 that were discovered prior to September 30, 2010; and

§	Breach of fundamental representations of Acadia, such as legal existence, ownership of Acadia Unit 1, and valid authorization to dispose of Acadia Unit 1.

Acadia and APH will reduce the indemnification liabilities either through expiration of the contractual life or through a reduction in the probability of a claim arising. The indemnification obligation is expected to have a term of approximately three years, which reflects both contractual expiration of the underlying indemnifications and management’s assumptions about the decreasing probability of a payment due to the passage of time. After the three-year period, a residual value of less than $0.1 million will remain. At September 30, 2011, Acadia had an indemnification liability of $7.6 million, which represents the risk of payment, as a contingent sale obligation recorded on Cleco Corporation’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. APH recognized no income for the three months ended September 30, 2011, and $0.5 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2011, primarily due to the contractual expiration of the underlying indemnification. During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, Acadia recognized income of $1.0 million and $1.1 million, respectively, primarily due to the contractual expiration of the underlying indemnification.

On April 29, 2011, Acadia completed its disposition of Acadia Unit 2 and Acadia Power Station’s remaining common facilities to Entergy Louisiana. Acadia provided limited guarantees and indemnifications to Entergy Louisiana and recorded an indemnification liability and a corresponding reduction of the gain of $21.8 million, which represents the fair value of these indemnifications. APH agreed to indemnify the third-party owners of Cajun and their affiliates against 50% of Acadia’s liabilities and other obligations related to the Acadia Unit 2 transaction in exchange for $10.9 million received from the third parties. The $10.9 million was recorded as an indemnification liability by APH. In conjunction with the disposition of Acadia Unit 2, APH received 100% ownership in Acadia in exchange for its 50% interest in Cajun, and Acadia became a consolidated subsidiary of APH. Events that would require payments to Entergy Louisiana pursuant to the indemnity include, but are not limited to:

§	Environmental costs that were caused by events occurring before the closing of the transaction;

§	Claims against Entergy Louisiana for liabilities retained by Acadia;

§	Certain conditions of Acadia Unit 2 that were discovered prior to September 30, 2010; and

§	Breach of fundamental representations of Acadia, such as legal existence, ownership of Acadia Unit 2, and valid authorization to dispose of Acadia Unit 2.

Acadia and APH will reduce the indemnification liabilities either through expiration of the contractual life or through a reduction in the probability of a claim arising. The indemnification obligation is expected to have a term of three years, which reflects both contractual expiration of the underlying indemnifications and management’s assumptions about the decreasing probability of a payment due to the passage of time. After the three-year period, a residual value of approximately $0.2 million will remain. At September 30, 2011, Acadia had an indemnification liability of $21.8 million, which represents the risk of payment, as a contingent sale obligation recorded on Cleco Corporation’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. The maximum amount of the potential payment to Entergy Louisiana for the indemnifications is the purchase price of $298.8 million, except for the liabilities retained by Acadia, for which there is no maximum amount. Cleco Corporation is obligated to pay the same maximum amounts as Acadia if Acadia is unable to pay claims to Entergy Louisiana pursuant to the guarantee.

As part of the Lignite Mining Agreement amended in 2009, Cleco Power and SWEPCO, joint owners of Dolet Hills, have agreed to pay the lignite miner’s loan and lease principal obligations when due, if the lignite miner does not have sufficient funds or credit to pay. Any amounts paid on behalf of the miner would be credited by the lignite miner against the next invoice for lignite delivered. At September 30, 2011, Cleco Power had a liability of $3.8 million related to the amended agreement. The maximum projected payment by Cleco Power under this guarantee is estimated to be $72.5 million; however, the Amended Lignite Mining Agreement does not contain a cap. The projection is based on the forecasted loan and lease obligations to be incurred by DHLC, primarily for purchases of equipment. Cleco Power has the right to dispute the incurrence of loan and lease obligations through the review of the mining plan before the incurrence of such loan and lease obligations. The Amended Lignite Mining Agreement does not terminate pursuant to its terms until 2026 and does not affect the amount the Registrants can borrow under their credit facilities. Currently, management does not expect to be required to pay DHLC under the guarantee.

The following table summarizes the expected termination dates of the off-balance sheet commitments and on-balance sheet guarantees discussed above:

							AT SEPTEMBER 30, 2011
			AMOUNT OF COMMITMENT EXPIRATION PER PERIOD
	NET								MORE
	AMOUNT		LESS THAN						THAN
(THOUSANDS)	COMMITTED		ONE YEAR		1-3 YEARS		3-5 YEARS		5 YEARS
Off-balance sheet commitments	$	4,225	$	3,725	$	-	$	-	$	500
On-balance sheet guarantees		33,449		-		29,443		-		4,006
Total	$	37,674	$	3,725	$	29,443	$	-	$	4,506

In its bylaws, Cleco Corporation has agreed to indemnify directors, officers, agents, and employees who are made a party to a pending or completed suit, arbitration, investigation, or other proceeding whether civil, criminal, investigative or administrative, if the basis of inclusion arises as the result of acts conducted in the discharge of their official capacity. Cleco Corporation has purchased various insurance policies to reduce the risks associated with the indemnification. In its Operating Agreement, Cleco Power provides for the same indemnification as described above with respect to its managers, officers, agents, and employees.

Generally, neither Cleco Corporation nor Cleco Power has recourse that would enable them to recover amounts paid under their guarantee or indemnification obligations. The one exception is the insurance contracts associated with the indemnification of directors, managers, officers, agents, and employees. There are no assets held as collateral for third parties that either Cleco Corporation or Cleco Power could obtain and liquidate to recover amounts paid pursuant to the guarantees or indemnification obligations.

Other Commitments

Acadia Transactions

In February 2009, Cleco Power announced that it had chosen the acquisition of Acadia Unit 1 as the lowest bid in its 2007 long-term RFP for capacity beginning in 2010. Beginning in January 2010, Acadia operated the plant and served Cleco Power under a short-term tolling agreement covering Acadia Unit 1. In February 2010, the transaction closed and the tolling agreement was terminated. For additional information regarding the Cleco Power transaction, see Note 15 — “Acadia Transactions — Acadia Unit 1.”

In October 2009, Acadia and Entergy Louisiana announced that definitive agreements had been executed whereby Entergy Louisiana would acquire Acadia Unit 2. A capacity sale and fuel conversion services agreement between Acadia and Entergy Louisiana began in June 2010. Effective October 1, 2010, this agreement was subject to a $10.0 million guarantee by Cleco Corporation. For additional information regarding this guarantee, please refer to “— Off-Balance Sheet Commitments” above. On April 29, 2011, the transaction closed and the agreement terminated. Cleco Power will continue to operate both units at the Acadia Power Station. In connection with this transaction and in exchange for reasonable consideration, APH has indemnified the third-party owners of Cajun and their affiliates against their 50% of Acadia’s liabilities and other obligations related to the Entergy Louisiana transaction. For additional information on the Acadia Unit 2 transaction, see Note 15 — “Acadia Transactions — Acadia Unit 2.”

New Markets Tax Credits

In August 2008, Cleco Corporation acquired a 99.9% membership interest in U.S. Bank New Markets Tax Credit Fund 2008-1 LLC (Fund). The Fund was formed by U.S. Bancorp Community Development Corporation (USBCDC). The purpose of the Fund is to invest in projects located in qualified active low-income communities that are underserved by typical debt capital markets. These investments are designed to generate new markets tax credits and historical rehabilitation tax credits.

In July 2011, the operating agreement of the Fund was amended to facilitate investments in Section 1603 grant qualifying renewable energy projects and to adjust the guaranteed performance targets that the Fund is obligated to provide to Cleco. U.S. Bank guarantees the cash flow and net present value of the Fund. U.S. Bank is the parent company of the managing member of the Fund.

The tax benefits received from the Fund reduce the federal income tax obligations of Cleco Corporation. In total, Cleco Corporation will contribute $286.3 million of equity contributions to the Fund and will receive at least $304.6 million of net tax benefits and cash from the inception of the investment in 2008 over the life of the investment, which ends in 2018. The $18.3 million difference between equity contributions and total benefits received will be recognized over the life of the Fund as net tax benefits are delivered. The following table reflects remaining future equity contributions.

(THOUSANDS)	CONTRIBUTION
Three months ending December 31, 2011	$	11,508
Years ending December 31,
2012		76,629
2013		36,225
2014		22,927
2015		21,904
Thereafter		20,808
Total	$	190,001

Of the $190.0 million, $69.6 million is due to be paid within the next twelve months. Due to the right of offset, the investment and associated debt are presented on Cleco Corporation’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet in the line item titled tax credit fund investment, net. The amount of tax benefits delivered in excess of capital contributions as of September 30, 2011 was $78.0 million. The amount of tax benefits received but not utilized as of September 30, 2011 was $63.6 million and is reflected as a deferred tax asset.

The equity contribution does not contain a stated rate of interest. Cleco Corporation has recorded the liability and investment at its calculated fair value within the framework of the authoritative guidance. In order to calculate the fair value, management used an imputed rate of interest assuming that Cleco Corporation obtained financing of a similar nature from a third-party. The imputed interest rate was used in a net present value model in order to calculate the fair value of the remaining portion of the delayed equity contributions. The table below contains the disclosures required by the authoritative guidelines for equity investments with an imputed interest rate.

(THOUSANDS)
Equity contributions, imputed interest rate 6%
Principal payment schedule above:	$	190,001
Less: unamortized discount		22,098
Total	$	167,903

The gross investment amortization expense will be recognized over a ten-year period, with seven years remaining, using the cost method in accordance with the authoritative guidance for investments.

Risks and Uncertainties

Cleco Corporation

Cleco Corporation could be subject to possible adverse consequences if Cleco’s counterparties fail to perform their obligations or if Cleco Corporation or its affiliates are not in compliance with loan agreements or bond indentures.

Evangeline 2010 Tolling Agreement

JPMorgan Chase & Co. guarantees JPMVEC’s obligations under the Evangeline 2010 Tolling Agreement. For additional information regarding this tolling agreement, see Note 14 — “Evangeline Transactions.”

Other

Changes in the regulatory environment or market forces could cause Cleco to determine its assets have suffered an other-than-temporary decline in value, whereby an impairment would be required to be taken and Cleco’s financial condition could be materially adversely affected.

Cleco Power

Cleco Power supplies the majority of its customers’ electric power requirements from its own generation facilities. In addition to power obtained from power purchase agreements, Cleco Power purchases power from other utilities and marketers to supplement its generation at times of relatively high demand or when the purchase price of power is less than its own cost of generation. Due to its location on the transmission grid, Cleco Power relies on two main suppliers of electric transmission when accessing external power markets. At times, constraints limit the amount of purchased power these transmission providers can deliver into Cleco Power’s service territory.

Access to capital markets is a significant source of funding for both short- and long-term capital requirements not satisfied by operating cash flows. After assessing the current operating performance, liquidity, and credit ratings of Cleco Power, management believes that Cleco Power will have access to the capital markets at prevailing market rates for companies with comparable credit ratings. Cleco Power pays fees and interest under its bank credit agreements based on the highest rating held. If Cleco Power’s credit ratings were to be downgraded by Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s, Cleco Power would be required to pay additional fees and higher interest rates under its bank credit agreements. Cleco Power’s collateral for derivatives is based on the lowest rating held. If Cleco Power’s credit ratings were to be downgraded by Moody’s or Standard & Poor’s, Cleco Power would be required to pay additional collateral for derivatives.

In August 2005, Cleco Power entered into an EPC contract with Shaw to construct Madison Unit 3. In May 2006, Cleco Power and Shaw entered into an Amended EPC Contract. Under the terms of the Amended EPC Contract until final acceptance of Madison Unit 3, in the event Cleco Power does not maintain a senior unsecured credit rating of either: (i) Baa3 or better from Moody’s or (ii) BBB- or better from Standard & Poor’s, Cleco Power will be required to provide a letter of credit to Shaw in the amount of $20.0 million. In the event of further downgrade to both of its credit ratings to: (i) Ba2 or below from Moody’s, and (ii) BB or below from Standard & Poor’s, Cleco Power will be required to provide an additional $15.0 million letter of credit to Shaw.