

Note 14 — 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 pursuant to CERCLA (also known as the Superfund statute). CERCLA establishes several classes of PRPs for a contaminated site, and imposes strict, joint, and several liability on those PRPs for the cost of response to the contamination. 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 identified Cleco as one of many companies that was 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 based on the release of PCBs to fisheries and wetlands located on the site, but no final determination has been made. The PRPs began discussing a potential proposal to the EPA in February 2008. The EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order to PRP’s Clean Harbors, Inc. and Baton Rouge Disposal to Conduct an RI/FS on December 3, 2009. The Tier 1 part of the study was complete in June 2012. Field activities for the Tier 2 investigation were completed in July 2012. Currently, the study/remedy selection task continues, and there is no record of a decision. Therefore, management is unable to determine how significant Cleco’s share of the costs associated with the RI/FS and possible response action at the facility site, if any, may be and whether or not this will have a material adverse effect on the Registrants’ financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

Discrimination Complaints

In December 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 was seeking various remedies provided under applicable statutes prohibiting racial discrimination in the workplace, and together, the plaintiffs sought monetary compensation exceeding $35.0 million. In July 2010, the plaintiffs moved to add an additional current employee alleging that Cleco had discriminated on the basis of race. The additional plaintiff sought compensation of no less than $2.5 million and became the thirteenth plaintiff. In April 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. In September 2011, the Court ruled on Cleco’s summary judgment motions, with the end result that eleven of the twelve remaining plaintiffs had at least one claim remaining. In February 2013, the Court ruled on the second motion for summary judgment, filed by Cleco in March 2012, in each of the eleven cases and each such case was dismissed with prejudice. Appeals were filed in ten of the eleven dismissed cases to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (the Fifth Circuit). In June 2013, the Fifth Circuit clerk dismissed the appeals of two of the current employees due to their failure to file a brief in support of their respective appeals. On various dates in August through November 2013, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the trial court judgments in favor of Cleco in seven of the eight remaining cases. There has been no disposition of the one remaining appeal.

In July 2012, nine plaintiffs in the pending discrimination suits described above filed a new lawsuit in the same federal court in Shreveport alleging that Cleco and its Chief Executive Officer retaliated against them for pursuing their discrimination claims by directly writing them an offer of settlement that contained allegedly intimidating threats. The nine plaintiffs consisted of six current employees and three former employees. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in August 2012, stating that such settlement letters were delivered to legal counsel for each of the plaintiffs and not directly to the plaintiffs. In September 2012, Cleco filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. In November 2012, the U.S. Magistrate recommended that Cleco’s motion be granted and that the lawsuit be dismissed with prejudice. On January 23, 2013, the motion to dismiss was granted and the retaliation claims were dismissed with prejudice. This case was not appealed and the dismissal is now final.

City of Opelousas

In March 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 claim that Cleco Power owes customers in Opelousas more than $30.0 million as a result of the alleged overcharges. 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. 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 May 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. In January 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). In September 2011, the Third Circuit denied both appeals. In October 2011, both Cleco and the LPSC appealed the Third Circuit’s ruling to the Louisiana Supreme Court. In February 2011, the administrative law judge (ALJ) in the LPSC proceeding ruled that the LPSC has jurisdiction to decide the claims raised by the class action plaintiffs. At its December 2011 Business and Executive session, the LPSC adopted the ALJ’s recommendation that Cleco be granted summary judgment in its declaratory action finding that Cleco’s ratepayers in the City of Opelousas have been served under applicable rates and policies approved by the LPSC and Cleco’s Opelousas ratepayers have not been overcharged in connection with LPSC rates or ratemaking. In January 2012, the class action plaintiffs filed their appeal of such LPSC decision to the 19th Judicial District Court for East Baton Rouge Parish, State of Louisiana. In December 2012, the Louisiana Supreme Court issued its opinion accepting Cleco’s jurisdictional arguments and dismissed the state court claims. The only matter remaining is before the 19th Judicial District Court to review the LPSC ruling in Cleco’s favor that it had properly charged the ratepayers of Opelousas. In view of the uncertainty of the claims, management is not able to predict or give a reasonable estimate of the possible range of liability, if any, of these claims. However, if it is found that Cleco Power overcharged customers resulting in a refund, any such refund could have a material adverse effect on the Registrants’ results of operations, financial condition, and cash flows.

LPSC Audits

Fuel Audit

The cost of fuel used for electric generation and the cost of power purchased for utility customers are recovered through the LPSC-established FAC, which enables Cleco Power to pass on to its customers substantially all such charges. The LPSC FAC General Order issued November 6, 1997, in Docket No. U-21497 provides that an audit of FAC filings will be performed at least every other year. In March 2009, the LPSC initiated an audit of FAC filings for the years 2003 through 2008. The total amount of fuel expenses included in the audit was approximately $3.26 billion. In February 2012, the LPSC Staff’s consultant issued an audit report recommending a cost disallowance of approximately $0.4 million plus interest for these filing years. The report was approved by the LPSC on July 18, 2012. Cleco Power made refunds of $0.4 million plus interest to customers during the September 2012 billing cycle. Cleco Power has FAC filings for the years 2009 through 2013 that remain subject to audit.

Environmental Audit

In July 2009, the LPSC issued Docket No. U-29380 Subdocket A, which provides for an EAC to recover certain costs of environmental compliance as an additional charge on customers’ bills. The costs eligible for recovery are prudently incurred air emissions credits associated with complying with federal, state, and local air emission regulations that apply to the generation of electricity reduced by the sale of such allowances. Also eligible for recovery are variable emission mitigation costs, which are the costs of reagents such as ammonia and limestone that are a part of the fuel mix used to, among other things, reduce air emissions. Cleco Power anticipates incurring environmental compliance expenses beginning in the second quarter of 2015 for additional reagents associated with compliance with MATS. These expenses would be eligible for recovery through Cleco Power's EAC and subject to review by the LPSC. In November 2011, the LPSC opened Docket No. X-32150 to audit the costs for the periods October 2009 through October 2010. The total amount of environmental expenses included in the audit was approximately $11.3 million. In April 2012, the LPSC Staff’s consultant issued an audit report recommending no cost disallowance for the review period. There was no opposition from intervenors to the recommendations of the LPSC Staff’s consultant and the report was approved by the LPSC in July 2012. Cleco Power has EAC filings for the years 2010 through 2013 that remain subject to audit.

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 December 31, 2013, believes the probable and reasonably estimable liabilities based on the eventual disposition of these matters is approximately $10.3 million and has accrued this amount.

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 have also 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’s 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 December 31, 2013, 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 DEC. 31, 2013
(THOUSANDS)	FACE AMOUNT		REDUCTIONS		NET AMOUNT
Cleco Corporation
Guarantee issued to Entergy Mississippi on behalf of Attala	$	500	$	—	$	500
Guarantee issued to Cleco Power on behalf of Evangeline	$	8,000	$	—	$	8,000
Cleco Power
Obligations under standby letter of credit issued to the Louisiana Department of Labor	3,725		—		3,725
Obligations under standby letter of credit issued to MISO	1,000		—		1,000
Total	$	13,225	$	—	$	13,225

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 until obligations are performed or extinguished.

In April 2012, Cleco Corporation provided an $8.0 million guarantee to Cleco Power pursuant to the terms of the power purchase agreement between Evangeline and Cleco Power. This guarantee will be effective though 2015 or when Coughlin is transferred to Cleco Power, whichever is earlier.

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.

In December 2013, Cleco Power provided a $1.0 million

letter of credit to MISO pursuant to the credit requirements of FTRs. The letter of credit is automatically renewed each year and reduces Cleco Power’s credit facility capacity.

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’s Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2013, 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 limited guarantees and indemnifications were provided to Cleco Power. The maximum amount of the potential payment to Cleco Power for indemnifications was $30.0 million, except for indemnifications relating to the fundamental organizational structure of Acadia against which there was no maximum amount. Cleco Corporation was obligated to pay a maximum of $10.0 million if the claims were not paid to Cleco Power pursuant to the guarantee. An indemnification liability of $13.5 million which represents the fair value of these indemnifications was recorded on Cleco’s Consolidated Balance Sheet.

The indemnification liabilities were reduced through expiration of the contractual life or through a reduction in the probability of a claim arising. The indemnification obligation had a term of approximately three years. As these underlying indemnifications expired, income was recognized on Cleco’s Consolidated Statements of Income. At December 31, 2013, the contractual life of the indemnification had expired and there was no remaining liability. For the year ended December 31, 2013, income of $0.4 million was recognized, and for the year ended December 31, 2012, income of $7.2 million was recognized.

In April 2011, Acadia completed its disposition of Acadia Unit 2 to Entergy Louisiana. Limited guarantees and indemnifications were provided to Entergy Louisiana and an indemnification liability of $21.8 million, which represents the fair value of these indemnifications was recorded on Cleco’s Consolidated Balance Sheet.

The indemnification liabilities are reduced 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. After the three-year period, a residual value of approximately $0.2 million will remain. At December 31, 2013, an indemnification liability of $0.9 million remained, which represents the risk of payment, as a contingent sale obligation recorded on Cleco’s Consolidated Balance Sheet. For the year ended December 31, 2013, income of $6.9 million was recognized and for the year ended December 31, 2012, income of $14.0 million was recognized. 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 Amended Lignite Mining Agreement, Cleco Power and SWEPCO, joint owners of Dolet Hills, have agreed to pay the loan and lease principal obligations of the lignite miner, DHLC, when due if they do not have sufficient funds or credit to pay. Any amounts paid on behalf of the miner would be credited by the lignite miner against future invoices for lignite delivered. At December 31, 2013, 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 $98.1 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 is not expected to terminate pursuant to its terms until 2036 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.

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.

The following table summarizes the expected amount of commitment termination per period of off-balance sheet commitments and on-balance sheet guarantees discussed above.



							AT DEC. 31, 2013
			AMOUNT OF COMMITMENT EXPIRATION PER PERIOD
(THOUSANDS)	NET AMOUNT COMMITTED		LESS THAN ONE YEAR		1-3 YEARS		3-5 YEARS		MORE THAN 5 YEARS
Off-balance sheet commitments	$	13,225	$	3,725	$	8,000	$	1,000	$	500
On-balance sheet guarantees	4,906		—		900		—		4,006
Total	$	18,131	$	3,725	$	8,900	$	1,000	$	4,506

Long-Term Purchase Obligations

Cleco Corporation had no unconditional long-term purchase obligations at December 31, 2013. Cleco Power has several unconditional long-term purchase obligations related to the purchase of coal, petroleum coke, limestone, and energy delivery facilities. The aggregate amount of payments required under such obligations at December 31, 2013, is as follows.



YEAR ENDING DEC. 31,	(THOUSANDS)
2014	$	77,089
2015	14,980
2016	15,606
2017	17,262
2018	15,424
Total long-term purchase obligations	$	140,361

Payments under these agreements for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012, and 2011 were $105.3 million, $59.2 million, and $97.4 million, respectively.

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 was completed and the tolling agreement was terminated. For more information regarding the Cleco Power transaction, see Note 18 — “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 more information regarding this guarantee, please refer to “— Off-Balance Sheet Commitments” above. On April 29, 2011, the transaction was completed 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 more information on the Acadia Unit 2 transaction, see Note 18 — “Acadia Transactions — Acadia Unit 2.”

General Electric Services Corporation

Cleco Power has entered into an operating lease agreement that expires in March 2017, with General Electric Equipment Services Corporation for leasing railcars in order to transport coal to Rodemacher Unit 2. The lease contained a provision for early termination, along with an associated termination fee that could have been exercised by Cleco Power in December 2010. Cleco Power did not exercise this right.

NMTC Fund

In 2008, Cleco Corporation and US Bancorp Community Development (USBCDC) formed the NMTC Fund. Cleco has a 99.9% membership interest in the NMTC Fund and USBCDC has a 0.1% interest. The purpose of the NMTC 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 NMTCs and Historical Rehabilitation tax credits.The NMTC Fund was later amended to include renewable energy investments. The majority of the energy investments qualify for grants under Section 1603 of the ARRA. The tax benefits received from the NMTC Fund reduce the federal income tax obligations of Cleco Corporation. In total, Cleco Corporation will contribute $283.6 million of equity contributions to the NMTC Fund and will receive at least $301.9 million in the form of tax credits, tax losses, capital gains/losses, earnings and cash over the life of the investment, which ends in 2017. 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
2014	$	47,434
2015	11,195
2016	3,698
2017	2,914
Total	$	65,241

Of the $65.2 million, $47.4 million is due to be paid within the next 12 months. Due to the right of offset, the investment and associated debt are presented on Cleco’s 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 December 31, 2013, was $73.8 million. The amount of tax benefits delivered but not utilized as of December 31, 2013, was $113.6 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 following table 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:	$	65,241
Less: unamortized discount	3,930
Total	$	61,311

The gross investment amortization expense will be recognized over a nine-year period, with four years remaining under the new amendment, using the cost method in accordance with the authoritative guidance for investments. The grants received under Section 1603, which allow certain projects to receive a federal grant in lieu of tax credits, and other cash reduce the basis of the investment. Periodic amortization of the investment and the deferred taxes generated by the basis reduction temporary difference are included as components of income tax expense.

Fuel Transportation Agreement

In October 2007, Cleco Power entered into an agreement that met the accounting definition of a capital lease for barges in order to transport petroleum coke and limestone to Madison Unit 3.

On December 28, 2012, Cleco Power entered into an amended agreement for 42 dedicated barges. The amended agreement continues to meet the accounting definition of a capital lease.

Under the amended agreement the barge lease rate contains both fixed and variable components, of which the latter is adjusted annually per the Producer Price Index (PPI) for executory costs. The initial term of this agreement is from the date of the amendment until August 31, 2017. The term of this agreement will automatically renew for successive periods of two years each unless written notice is provided by either party. After September 2014, Cleco Power has the option to purchase any or all of the dedicated barges. The amended agreement contains a provision for early termination upon the occurrence of any one of four specified cancellation events.

Under both the original agreement and the amended agreement, if the barges are idle, the lessor is required to attempt to sublease the barges to third parties, with the revenue reducing Cleco Power's lease payment. During the year ended December 31, 2013, Cleco Power paid approximately $3.7 million in lease payments and received no revenue from subleases. During the year ended December 31, 2012, Cleco Power paid approximately $4.3 million in lease payments and received approximately $0.4 million in revenue from subleases.

The following is an analysis of the leased property under capital leases by major classes:



	AT DEC. 31,
CLASSES OF PROPERTY (THOUSANDS)	2013		2012
Barges	$	8,918	$	11,350
Less: accumulated amortization	2,171		—
Net capital leases	$	6,747	$	11,350

The following is a schedule by years of future minimum lease payments under capital leases together with the present value of the net minimum lease payments as of December 31, 2013.



(THOUSANDS)
Years ending December 31,
2014	$	3,725
2015	3,725
2016	3,735
2017	2,480
Total minimum lease payments	$	13,665
Less: executory costs	3,416
Net minimum lease payments	$	10,249
Less: amount representing interest	1,070
Present value of net minimum lease payments	$	9,179
Current liabilities	$	2,305
Non-current liabilities	$	6,874

During the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, Cleco Power incurred immaterial amounts of contingent rent under the barge agreement related to the increase in the PPI.

Other

Cleco has accrued for liabilities related to third parties and employee medical benefits. Cleco has also accrued additional taxes other than income taxes at the state and local level.

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.

Other

Future actions or inactions of the U.S. federal government, including a failure to increase the government debt limit or another shutdown of the federal government, could increase the actual or perceived risk that the U.S. may not ultimately pay its obligations when due and may disrupt financial markets, including capital markets.

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. Energy prices in the MISO market are based on LMP, which includes a component directly related to congestion on the transmission system. Regions with greater transmission congestion will have higher LMP costs. Therefore, physical transmission constraints in the MISO market region could increase the cost of energy delivered to Cleco Power’s customers.

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 or S&P, 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 S&P, Cleco Power would be required to pay additional collateral for derivatives.