

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) for a facility known as the Devil’s Swamp Lake site located just northwest of Baton Rouge, Louisiana. CERCLA establishes several classes of PRPs for a contaminated site and imposes strict, joint and several, and retroactive 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 the Devil’s Swamp Lake site. The EPA identified Cleco as one of many companies that sent PCB wastes for disposal to the site. The EPA proposed to add the Devil’s Swamp Lake site to the National Priorities List on March 8, 2004, based on the release of PCBs to fisheries and wetlands located on the site, but no final listing decision has yet been made. The PRPs began discussing a potential proposal to the EPA in February 2008. The EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order to two PRPs, Clean Harbors, Inc. and Baton Rouge Disposal, to conduct an RI/FS in December 2009. The Tier 1 part of the study was completed 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 site, if any, may be and whether this will have a material adverse effect on the Registrants’ results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows.

Discrimination Complaints

In December 2009, a complaint was filed in the United States 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, resulting in eleven of the twelve remaining plaintiffs having 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. On April 8, 2014, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the Court’s summary judgment dismissing the wrongful termination and other discrimination claims of the one remaining plaintiff, a former employee who served as one of Cleco’s human resource representatives. Excluded from the ruling was one claim that the former employee alleged was the result of a disciplinary warning Cleco issued to the former employee. This one claim has been remanded to the Court and is set for trial on May 11, 2015.

Proposed Merger

In connection with the proposed Merger, four actions have been filed in the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish, Louisiana and three actions have been filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans Parish, Louisiana. The petitions in each action generally alleged, among other things, that the members of the Cleco Corporation Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, conducting an allegedly inadequate sale process, agreeing to the Merger at a price that allegedly undervalues Cleco, and failing to disclose material information about the Merger. The petitions also allege that Cleco Partners, Cleco Corporation, Merger Sub, and in some cases, certain of the investors in Cleco Partners, either aided and abetted or entered into a civil conspiracy to advance those supposed breaches of duty. The petitions seek various remedies, including an injunction against the Merger and monetary damages, including attorneys’ fees and expenses.

The four actions filed in the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish are captioned as follows:


•	Braunstein v. Cleco Corporation, No. 251,383B (filed October 27, 2014),


•	Moore v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No. 251,417C (filed October 30, 2014),


•	Trahan v. Williamson, No. 251,456C (filed November 5, 2014), and


•	L’Herisson v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No. 251,515F (filed November 14, 2014).

On November 14, 2014, the plaintiff in the Braunstein action moved for a dismissal of the action without prejudice, and that motion was granted on November 19, 2014. On December 3, 2014, the court consolidated the remaining three actions and appointed interim co-lead counsel. On December 18, 2014, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action Petition for Damages and Preliminary and Permanent Injunction (the Consolidated Petition), which is now the operative petition in the consolidated action. The action names Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco Partners, and Merger Sub as defendants. The Consolidated Petition alleges, among other things, that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to Cleco’s shareholders and grossly mismanaged Cleco by approving the Merger Agreement because it does not value Cleco adequately, failing to structure a process through which shareholder value would be maximized, engaging in self-dealing by ignoring conflicts of interest, and failing to disclose material information about the Merger. The Consolidated Petition further alleges that all defendants conspired to commit the breaches of fiduciary duty. Cleco believes that the allegations of the Consolidated Petition are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims set forth in the Consolidated Petition.

The three actions filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans Parish are captioned as follows:


•	Butler v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-10776 (filed November 7, 2014),


•	Creative Life Services, Inc. v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-11098 (filed November 19, 2014), and


•	Cashen v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-11236 (filed November 21, 2014).

Both the Butler and Cashen actions name Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets Inc. (MIRA), British Columbia Investment Management Corporation, and John Hancock Financial as defendants. The Creative Life Services action names Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, MIRA, and Macquarie Infrastructure Partners III, L.P., as defendants. On December 11, 2014, the plaintiff in the Butler action filed an Amended Class Action Petition for Damages, which is now the operative petition in that action. Each petition alleges, among other things, that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to Cleco’s shareholders by approving the Merger Agreement because it does not value Cleco adequately, failing to structure a process through which shareholder value would be maximized and engaging in self-dealing by ignoring conflicts of interest. The Butler and Creative Life Services petitions also allege that the directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose material information about the Merger. Each petition further alleges that Cleco, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, and certain of the investors in Cleco Partners aided and abetted the directors’ breaches of fiduciary duty. On December 23, 2014, the directors and Cleco filed declinatory exceptions in each action on the basis that each action was improperly brought in Orleans Parish and should either be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish or dismissed. On December 30, 2014, the plaintiffs in each action jointly filed a motion to consolidate the three actions pending in Orleans Parish and to appoint interim co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel. On January 23, 2015, the Court in the Creative Life Services case sustained the defendants’ declinatory exceptions and dismissed the case so that it could be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish. On February 5, 2015, the plaintiffs in Butler and Cashen also consented to the dismissal of their cases from Orleans Parish so they could be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish. On February 25, 2015, the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish held a hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction filed by plaintiffs Moore, L’Herisson, and Trahan seeking to enjoin the shareholder vote at the Special Meeting of Shareholders scheduled for February 26, 2015, for approval of the Merger Agreement. Following the hearing, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion. Cleco believes that the allegations of the petitions in each action are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims set forth in each of the petitions.

City of Opelousas

In March 2010, a complaint was filed in the 27th Judicial District Court of St. Landry Parish, Louisiana, on behalf of three Cleco Power customers in Opelousas, Louisiana. The complaint alleged 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 claimed that Cleco Power owed customers in Opelousas more than $30.0 million as a result of the alleged overcharges. The plaintiffs alleged that Cleco Power should have established, solely for customers in Opelousas, retail rates that were separate and distinct from the retail rates that apply to other customers of Cleco Power and that Cleco Power should not have collected 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 had been properly charged the rates that were applicable to Cleco Power’s retail customers and that no overcharges had been collected.

In May 2010, a second class action lawsuit was filed in the 27th Judicial District Court of St. Landry Parish, 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 Power and the LPSC Staff. Both Cleco Power 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 Power 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 Power be granted summary judgment in its declaratory action finding that Cleco Power’s ratepayers in the City of Opelousas had been served under applicable rates and policies approved by the LPSC and Cleco Power’s Opelousas ratepayers had 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, Louisiana. In December 2012, the Louisiana Supreme Court issued its opinion accepting Cleco Power’s jurisdictional arguments and dismissed the state court claims. The appeal of the plaintiffs to the 19th Judicial District Court to review the LPSC ruling in Cleco Power’s favor that it had properly charged the ratepayers of Opelousas was dismissed with prejudice on May 21, 2014. With this dismissal, the matter is fully resolved in favor of Cleco Power.

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 that enables Cleco Power to pass on to its customers substantially all such charges. The LPSC FAC General Order issued in November 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 for the years 2003 through 2008. The total amount of fuel expenses included in the audit was $3.26 billion. In February 2012, the LPSC Staff’s consultant issued an audit report recommending a cost disallowance of $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 2014 that remain subject to audit. In November 2014, the LPSC initiated an audit of Cleco Power’s fuel and purchased power expenses for the years 2009 through 2013. The total amount of fuel expense included in the audit is $1.73 billion. Management is unable to predict or give a reasonable estimate of the possible range of the disallowance, if any, related to this audit. 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.

Environmental Audit

In July 2009, the LPSC issued Docket No. U-29380 Subdocket A, which provides for an EAC to recover from customers certain costs of environmental compliance. 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 reduce air emissions, among other things. Cleco Power anticipates incurring additional environmental compliance expenses beginning in the second quarter of 2015 for additional reagents associated with compliance with MATS. These expenses will be eligible for recovery through Cleco Power's EAC and subject to periodic review by the LPSC. Cleco Power has EAC filings for the period November 2010 through December 2014 that remain subject to audit.

Transmission Return on Equity

In November 2013, a group of industrial customers and other stakeholders filed a complaint at FERC seeking to reduce the return on equity component of the transmission rates that MISO transmission owners, including Cleco, may collect under the MISO tariff. The complainants are seeking to reduce the current 12.38% return on equity used in MISO’s transmission rates to a proposed 9.15%. A group of MISO transmission owners have filed responses to the complaint, defending the current return on equity and seeking dismissal of the complaint. On October 16, 2014, FERC issued an order finding that the current MISO return on equity may be unjust and unreasonable and setting the issue for hearing, subject to the outcome of settlement discussion. The settlement proceedings have been terminated. A hearing is set for August 17, 2015. Management is unable to determine if there will be a reduction in the current return on equity. Management believes a reduction, if any, in the return on equity will not have a material adverse effect on the Registrants’ results of operations, financial condition, or 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 December 31, 2014, believes the probable and reasonably estimable liabilities based on the eventual disposition of these matters is $9.7 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 the Registrants 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 and Cleco Power’s Consolidated Balance Sheets because management has determined that Cleco and Cleco Power’s affiliates are able to perform these obligations under their contracts and that it is not probable that payments by Cleco or Cleco Power will be required. Cleco and Cleco Power’s off-balance sheet commitments as of December 31, 2014, 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 and Cleco Power’s financial condition.



	AT DEC. 31, 2014
(THOUSANDS)	FACE AMOUNT
Cleco Corporation
Guarantee issued to Entergy Mississippi on behalf of Attala	$	500
Cleco Power
Obligations under standby letter of credit issued to the Louisiana Department of Labor	3,725
Obligations under standby letter of credit issued to MISO	2,000
Total	$	6,225
There were no reductions against the face amount for any of these commitments.

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.

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. On April 8, 2014, Cleco Power increased the letter of credit to $2.0 million. The letter of credit automatically renews each year and reduces Cleco Power’s credit facility capacity.

Cleco Corporation provided indemnifications to Cleco Power as a result of the transfer of Coughlin to Cleco Power on March 15, 2014. Cleco Power also provided indemnifications to Cleco Corporation and Evangeline as a result of the transfer of Coughlin to Cleco Power. The maximum amount of the potential payment to Cleco Power, Cleco Corporation, and Evangeline for their respective indemnifications is $40.0 million, except for indemnifications relating to the fundamental organizational structure of Cleco Corporation and Evangeline and of Cleco Power, respectively, of which the maximum amount is $400.0 million.

On-Balance Sheet Guarantees

Cleco Corporation provided a limited guarantee and an indemnification to Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States as a result of the sale of the Perryville facility in 2004. This is a continuing guarantee and all obligations of Cleco Corporation will continue until the guaranteed obligations have been fully performed or otherwise extinguished. 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 represented 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. 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.

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 represented 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. At December 31, 2014, the contractual life of the indemnification had expired and there was no remaining liability. For the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013, income of $0.9 million and $6.9 million was recognized, respectively. 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. This is a continuing guarantee and all obligations of Cleco Corporation shall continue until the guaranteed obligations have been fully performed or otherwise extinguished. Currently, management does not expect to be required to pay Entergy Louisiana under 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, 2014, 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 $69.3 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, 2014
			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	$	6,225	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	6,225
On-balance sheet guarantees	3,781		—		—		—		3,781
Total	$	10,006	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	10,006

Long-Term Purchase Obligations

Cleco Corporation had no unconditional long-term purchase obligations at December 31, 2014. 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, 2014, is as follows:



YEAR ENDING DEC. 31,	(THOUSANDS)
2015	$	92,934
2016	31,489
2017	18,328
2018	14,905
2019	3,688
Total long-term purchase obligations	$	161,344

Payments under these agreements for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013, and 2012 were $90.4 million, $105.3 million, and $59.2 million, respectively.

Other Commitments

General Electric Services Corporation

Cleco Power 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. For information on the railcar lease, see Note 13 — “Operating Leases.”

NMTC Fund

In 2008, Cleco Corporation and US Bancorp Community Development (USBCDC) formed the NMTC Fund. Cleco Corporation 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 $283.7 million of equity contributions to the NMTC Fund and will receive at least $302.0 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 NMTC Fund as net tax benefits are delivered. The following table reflects remaining future equity contributions:



YEAR ENDING DEC. 31,	(THOUSANDS)
2015	$	4,552
2016	2,707
2017	2,707
Total	$	9,966

Of the $10.0 million, $4.6 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, 2014, was $25.9 million. The amount of tax benefits delivered but not utilized as of December 31, 2014, was $119.4 million and is reflected as a deferred tax asset.

During 2014, Cleco contributed $55.3 million to the NMTC Fund, of which $52.6 million was recorded as a reduction to the gross liability. This was the primary reason for the change from a net liability at December 31, 2013 of $41.8 million to a net asset of $7.3 million at December 31, 2014.

The equity contribution does not contain a stated rate of interest. Cleco Corporation has recorded the asset and investment at its calculated fair value at inception within the framework of the authoritative guidance. In order to calculate the fair value, management used an imputed rate of interest assuming 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:	$	9,966
Less: unamortized discount	862
Total	$	9,104

The gross investment amortization expense will be recognized over a nine-year period, with three years remaining under the new amendment, using the cost method in accordance with the authoritative guidance for investments. The basis of the investment is reduced by the grants received under Section 1603 of the ARRA, which allow certain projects to receive a federal grant in lieu of tax credits, and other cash. 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 had 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, 2014, Cleco Power paid approximately $3.7 million in lease payments and received approximately $0.4 million revenue from subleases. During the year ended December 31, 2013, Cleco Power paid approximately $3.7 million in lease payments and received no 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)	2014		2013
Barges	$	6,486	$	8,918
Less: accumulated amortization	2,306		2,171
Net capital leases	$	4,180	$	6,747

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, 2014:



(THOUSANDS)
Years ending December 31,
2015	$	3,725
2016	3,735
2017	2,480
Total minimum lease payments	$	9,940
Less: executory costs	2,485
Net minimum lease payments	$	7,455
Less: amount representing interest	582
Present value of net minimum lease payments	$	6,873
Current liabilities	$	2,448
Non-current liabilities	$	4,425

During the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013, 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.

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

Access to capital markets is a significant source of funding for both short- and long-term capital requirements not satisfied by operating cash flows. If Cleco Corporation’s credit ratings were to be downgraded by Moody’s or S&P, Cleco Corporation would be required to pay additional fees and higher interest rates under its bank credit and other debt agreements.

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 began participating in the MISO market in December 2013. Energy prices in the MISO market are based on LMP, which includes a component directly related to congestion on the transmission system. Pricing zones with greater transmission congestion may have higher LMP costs. Physical transmission constraints present in the MISO market could increase energy costs within Cleco Power’s pricing zone. Cleco Power uses FTRs to mitigate the transmission congestion risk. Changes to anticipated transmission paths may result in an unexpected increase in energy costs to Cleco Power.

Access to capital markets is a significant source of funding for both short- and long-term capital requirements not satisfied by operating cash flows. 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.