

Note 16 — Litigation, Other Commitments and Contingencies, and Disclosures about Guarantees

Litigation

2016 Merger

In connection with the 2016 Merger,four actions were filed in the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish, Louisiana and three actions were 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’s Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, conducting an allegedly inadequate sale process, agreeing to the 2016 Merger at a price that allegedly undervalued Cleco, and failing to disclose material information about the 2016 Merger. The petitions also alleged 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 monetary damages, which includes 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).

In November 2014, the plaintiff in the Braunstein action moved for a dismissal of the action without prejudice, and that motion was granted in November 2014. In December 2014, the Court consolidated the remaining three actions and appointed interim co-lead counsel. In December 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 Amended Petition). The consolidated action names Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco Partners, and Merger Sub as defendants. The Consolidated Amended Petition alleges, among other things, that Cleco Corporation’s directors breached their fiduciary duties to Cleco’s shareholders and grossly mismanaged Cleco by approving the 2016 Merger Agreement because it allegedly did 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 2016 Merger. The Consolidated Amended Petition further alleges that all defendants conspired to commit the breaches of fiduciary duty. Cleco believes that the allegations of the Consolidated Amended Petition are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims set forth in the Consolidated Amended 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, MIRA, BCI, 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. In December 2014, the plaintiff in the Butler action filed an Amended Class Action Petition for Damages. Each petition alleges, among other things, that members of Cleco Corporation’s Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to Cleco’s shareholders by approving the Merger Agreement because it allegedly 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 2016 Merger. Each petition further alleged that Cleco, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, and certain of the investors in Cleco Partners aided and abetted the directors’ breaches of fiduciary duty. In December 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. In December 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. In January 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. In February 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.

In February 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 held in February 2015, for approval of the Merger Agreement. Following the hearing, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion. In June 2015, three of the plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action Petition. This will be considered according to a schedule established by the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish. Cleco filed exceptions seeking dismissal of the amended petition in July 2015.

In March 2016, the plaintiffs filed their Third Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative Petition for Damages and Preliminary and Permanent Injunction. In May 2016, the plaintiffs filed their Fourth Verified Consolidated Amended Class Action Petition. This petition eliminated the request for preliminary and permanent injunction and also named an additional executive officer as a defendant. Cleco filed exceptions seeking dismissal of the amended Petition. A hearing was held in September 2016. In September 2016, the District Court granted the exceptions filed by Cleco and dismissed all claims asserted by the former shareholders. The plaintiffs appealed the District Court’s ruling to the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal. The Third Circuit Court of Appeal heard oral arguments in the case in September 2017. On December 13, 2017, the Third Circuit Court of Appeal issued an order reversing and remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings. In January 2018, Cleco filed a writ with the Louisiana Supreme Court seeking review of the Third Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision. The writ was denied in March 2018 and the parties are engaged in discovery in the District Court. 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. On November 2, 2018, Cleco filed exceptions of no cause of action and res judicata, seeking to dismiss all claims. The District Court denied the exceptions on January 14, 2019.

Gulf Coast Spinning

In September 2015, a potential customer sued Cleco for failure to fully perform an alleged verbal agreement to lend or otherwise fund its startup costs to the extent of $6.5 million. Gulf Coast Spinning Company, LLC (Gulf Coast), the primary plaintiff, alleges that Cleco promised to assist it in raising approximately $60.0 million, which Gulf Coast needed to construct a cotton spinning facility near Bunkie, Louisiana. According to the petition filed by Gulf Coast in the 12^th Judicial District Court for Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana (the “District Court”), Cleco made such promises of funding assistance in order to cultivate a new industrial electric customer which would increase its revenues under a power supply agreement that it executed with Gulf Coast. Gulf Coast seeks unspecified damages arising from its inability to raise sufficient funds to complete the project, including lost profits.

Cleco filed an Exception of No Cause of Action arguing that the case should be dismissed. The District Court denied Cleco’s exception in December 2015, after considering briefs and arguments. In January 2016, Cleco appealed the District Court’s denial of its exception by filing with the Third Circuit Court of Appeal. In June 2016, the Third Circuit Court of Appeal denied the request to have the case dismissed. In July 2016, Cleco filed a writ to the Louisiana Supreme Court seeking a review of the District Court’s denial of Cleco’s exception. In November 2016, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied Cleco’s writ application.

In February 2016, the parties agreed to a stay of all proceedings pending discussions concerning settlement. In May 2016, the District Court lifted the stay at the request of Gulf Coast. The parties are currently participating in discovery. Cleco believes the allegations of the petition are contradicted by the written documents executed by Gulf Coast and are otherwise without merit and that it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims alleged by Gulf Coast.

Sabine River Flood

In March 2017, Cleco was served with a summons in Perry Bonin, Ace Chandler, and Michael Manuel, et al v. Sabine River Authority of Texas and Sabine River Authority of Louisiana, No. B-160173-C. The action was filed in the 163rd Judicial District Court for Orange County, Texas, and relates to flooding that occurred in Texas and Louisiana in March 2016. The plaintiffs have alleged that the flooding was the result of the release of water from the Toledo Bend spillway gates into the Sabine River. While the plaintiffs have made numerous allegations, they have specifically alleged that Cleco Power, included as one of several companies and governmental bodies, failed to repair one of the two hydroelectric generators at the Toledo Bend Dam, which in turn contributed to the flooding. Cleco Power does not operate the hydroelectric generator.

The suit has been removed to federal court in Texas. The new federal case is Perry Bonin, et al. v. Sabine River Authority of Texas et al., No. 17-cv-134, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Bonin Case). The plaintiffs moved to remand the case to state court, but the district court found that the case raises a substantial federal question and denied the motion to remand. Cleco Power, along with its co-defendants, filed a motion to dismiss on various grounds, primarily arguing that the plaintiffs’ claims are preempted because they infringe on FERC’s exclusive control of dam operations. The district court granted the motion to dismiss in part, declining to rule on some of the arguments raised by the defendants, and granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. The plaintiffs filed a Fifth Amended Complaint in March 2018. Cleco Power filed a new motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims. The briefing on Cleco Power’s motion is now complete, but the district court has not ruled on the motion or set a hearing date.

On March 7, 2018, approximately 26 other individual plaintiffs filed a petition against Cleco Power and other defendants in Larry Addison, et al. v. Sabine River Authority of Texas, et al., No. D180096-C. The action was filed in the 260th Judicial District Court for Orange County, Texas. The defendants removed the case to federal court on April 6, 2018. The new federal case is Larry Addison, et al. v. Sabine River Authority of Texas, et al., No. 18-cv-153, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The allegations are essentially identical to those in the Bonin Case. On April 13, 2018, Cleco Power filed a motion to dismiss on the same grounds that previously were successful in the Bonin Case. The briefing on Cleco Power’s motion is complete, but the district court has not ruled on the motion or set a hearing date. On July 20, 2018, the district court entered an order consolidating the Addison Case with the Bonin Case. Management believes that both cases, as they relate to Cleco Power, have no merit. On August 28, 2018, the Judge entered an order requiring the Plaintiffs to file a more definitive statement to clarify the Plaintiffs’ claims. In response thereto, the Plaintiffs filed a Sixth Amended Petition on September 11, 2018. Cleco Power filed a response on October 3, 2018. The Judge has not yet ruled on Cleco’s Motion to Dismiss.

Dispute with Saulsbury Industries

In October 2018, Cleco Power sued Saulsbury Industries, Inc., the former general contractor for the St. Mary Clean Energy Center project, seeking damages for Saulsbury Industries, Inc.’s failure to complete the St. Mary Clean Energy Center project on time and for costs incurred by Cleco Power in hiring a replacement general contractor. The action was filed in the 9th Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish, No. 263339. Saulsbury Industries, Inc. has not filed responsive pleadings in the case.

In January 2019, Cleco Power was served with a summons in Saulsbury Industries, Inc. v. Cabot Corporation and Cleco Power LLC, No. 6:19-CV-00007, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. Saulsbury Industries, Inc. alleges that Cleco Power and Cabot Corporation caused the delays in the St. Mary Clean Energy Center project, resulting in significant impact to Saulsbury Industries, Inc.’s direct and indirect costs. Cleco Power has not filed responsive pleadings in the case.

LPSC Audits

Fuel Audit

Generally, 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. Recovery of FAC costs is subject to periodic fuel audits by the LPSC. 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. On March 13, 2018, Cleco Power received notice of an FAC audit from the LPSC for the period of January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2017. The total amount of fuel expense subject to audit is $536.2 million. On August 31, 2018, the LPSC Staff issued its audit report which recommended no disallowance of fuel costs. The report is expected to be approved by the LPSC in the first quarter of 2019. Cleco Power currently has FAC filings for January 2018 and thereafter that remain subject to audit. Management is unable to predict or give a reasonable estimate of the possible range of the disallowance, if any, related to these filings. Historically, the disallowances have not been material. If a disallowance of fuel cost is ordered resulting in a refund to Cleco Power’s customers, any such refund could have a material adverse effect on the results of operations, financial condition or cash flow of the Registrants.

Environmental Audit

In 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. On May 22, 2018, Cleco Power received notice of an EAC audit from the LPSC for the period of January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2017, and Cleco Power has responded to several sets of data requests. The total amount of environmental expense included in this audit was $30.7 million. Periods subsequent to December 31, 2017, are also subject to audit. Management is unable to predict or give a reasonable estimate of the possible range of the disallowance, if any, related to these filings. Historically, the disallowance cost is ordered resulting in a refund to Cleco Power’s customers, any such refund could have a material adverse effect on the result of operations, financial condition, or cash flows of the Registrants.

Cleco Power incurs environmental compliance expenses for reagents associated with the compliance standards of MATS. In June 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court remanded the MATS rule to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. In December 2015, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the rule to the EPA; however, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals did not vacate this rule. In April 2016, the EPA released a final supplemental finding that, even considering costs, it is appropriate and necessary to regulate hazardous air pollutants. By the June 2016 deadline, six petitions were filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals for review of the EPA’s findings. At the request of the EPA, in April 2017, the court issued an order holding the cases in abeyance pending the EPA’s review of its supplemental finding. These expenses are also eligible for recovery through Cleco Power’s EAC and are subject to periodic review by the LPSC.

FERC Audit

Generally, Cleco Power records wholesale transmission revenue through Attachment O of the MISO tariff and certain grandfathered agreements. These rates are subject to periodic audits by FERC. On March 13, 2018, the Division of Audits and Accounting, within the Office of Enforcement of FERC, initiated an audit of Cleco Power for the period of January 1, 2014, to the present. Cleco Power has responded to several sets of data requests. Management is unable to determine the outcome or timing of the audit.

Transmission ROE

Two complaints were filed with FERC seeking to reduce the ROE component of the transmission rates that MISO transmission owners, including Cleco, may collect under the MISO tariff. The complaints sought to reduce the 12.38% ROE used in MISO’s transmission rates to a proposed 6.68%. The first complaint, filed in November 2013, was for the period November 2013 through February 2015. In September 2016, FERC issued a Final Order in response to the first complaint establishing a 10.32% ROE. In February 2017, $1.2 million of refunds relating to the first complaint were submitted to MISO.

The second complaint, filed February 2015, was for the period February 2015 through May 2016. In June 2016, an ALJ issued an initial decision in the second rate case docket recommending a 9.70% base ROE. On November 15, 2018, the ALJ ordered supplemental briefs and additional written evidence due to new ROE calculation methodologies pursuant to Emera Maine v. FERC. Cleco Power is unable to determine when a binding FERC order will be issued on the second ROE complaint.

In November 2014, the MISO transmission owners committee, in which Cleco is a member, filed a request with FERC for an incentive to increase the new ROE by 50 basis points for RTO participation as allowed by the MISO tariff. In January 2015, FERC granted the request. The collection of the adder is delayed until the resolution of the ROE complaint proceedings.

As of December 31, 2018, Cleco Power had $1.9 million accrued for potential reductions to the ROE. Management believes a reduction in the ROE, as well as any additional refund, will not have a material adverse effect on the results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows of the Registrants.

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, 2018, believes the probable and reasonably estimable liabilities based on the eventual disposition of these matters is $4.8 million and has accrued this amount.

Off-Balance Sheet Commitments and Guarantees

Cleco Holdings 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 Holdings’ subsidiaries and equity investees (affiliates). Cleco Holdings 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.

Cleco Holdings 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 Holdings 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 Holdings provided guarantees and indemnities to Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States as a result of the sale of the Perryville facility in 2005. The remaining indemnifications relate to environmental matters that may have been present prior to closing. These remaining indemnifications have no limitations to time. The maximum amount of the potential payment to Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States is $42.4 million. Management does not expect to be required to pay Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States under these guarantees.

On behalf of Acadia, Cleco Holdings provided guarantees and indemnifications as a result of the sales of Acadia Unit 1 to Cleco Power and Acadia Unit 2 to Entergy Louisiana in 2010 and 2011, respectively. The remaining indemnifications relate to the fundamental organizational structure of Acadia. These remaining indemnifications have no limitations as to time or maximum potential future payments. Management does not expect to be required to pay Cleco Power or Entergy Louisiana under these guarantees.

Cleco Holdings provided indemnifications to Cleco Power as a result of the transfer of Coughlin to Cleco Power in March 2014. Cleco Power also provided indemnifications to Cleco Holdings and Evangeline as a result of the transfer of Coughlin to Cleco Power. The maximum amount of the potential payment to Cleco Power, Cleco Holdings, and Evangeline for their respective indemnifications is $40.0 million, except for indemnifications relating to the fundamental organizational structure of each respective entity, of which the maximum amount is $400.0 million. Management does not expect to be required to make any payments under these indemnifications.

As part of the Amended Lignite Mining Agreement, Cleco Power and SWEPCO, joint owners of Dolet Hills Power Station, have agreed to pay the loan and lease principal obligations of the lignite miner, DHLC, when due if DHLC 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 future invoices for lignite delivered. The maximum projected payment by Cleco Power under this guarantee is estimated to be $91.4 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 this guarantee.

Generally, neither Cleco Holdings nor Cleco Power has recourse that would enable them to recover amounts paid under their guarantee or indemnification obligations. There are no assets held as collateral for third parties that either Cleco Holdings or Cleco Power could obtain and liquidate to recover amounts paid pursuant to the guarantees or indemnification obligations.

Long-Term Purchase Obligations

Cleco Holdings had no unconditional long-term purchase obligations at December 31, 2018. Cleco Power has several unconditional long-term purchase obligations primarily related to the purchase of petroleum coke, limestone, energy delivery facilities, information technology outsourcing, natural gas storage, network monitoring, and software maintenance. The aggregate amount of payments required under such obligations at December 31, 2018, is as follows:



FUTURE PAYMENTS UNDER LONG-TERM PURCHASE OBLIGATIONS	(THOUSANDS)
For the year ending Dec. 31,
2019	$	40,980
2020	24,092
2021	17,695
2022	4,620
2023	4,646
Thereafter	16,442
Total long-term purchase obligations	$	108,475

Payments under these agreements for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017, and 2016 were $70.5 million, $47.0 million, and $72.9 million, respectively.

Other Commitments

NMTC Fund

In 2008, Cleco Holdings and the USBCDC formed the NMTC Fund. Cleco Holdings has a 99.9% membership interest in the NMTC Fund and USBCDC has a 0.1% interest. The purpose of the NMTC Fund was to invest in projects located in qualified active low-income communities that are underserved by typical debt capital markets. These investments were 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 qualified for grants under Section 1603 of the ARRA. The tax benefits received from the NMTC Fund reduced the federal income tax obligations of Cleco Holdings. In total, Cleco Holdings contributed $285.5 million of equity contributions to the NMTC Fund and received $303.8 million in the form of tax credits, tax losses, capital gains/losses, earnings, and cash over the 10-year life of the investment. The difference between equity contributions and total benefits received were recognized over the life of the NMTC Fund as net tax benefits were delivered. As of December 31, 2018, the NMTC Fund filed its final income tax return and in January 2019, Cleco Holdings received the final $1.6 million of cash receipts from the NMTC Fund. Effective January 25, 2019, the NMTC Fund was dissolved.

Fuel Transportation Agreement

In 2012, Cleco Power entered into an amended agreement with Savage Services for 42 dedicated barges used to transport petroleum met the accounting definition of a capital lease until its expiration on August 31, 2017. From September 2017 until April 2, 2018, Cleco Power had an operating lease that automatically renewed on a month-to-month basis for use of the 42 barges. On April 2, 2018, Cleco Power loaned Savage Inland Marine $16.8 million to purchase the barges. Also on April 2, 2018, Cleco Power entered into a new agreement with Savage Inland Marine for continued use of the 42 barges through March 2033. The new agreement meets the accounting definition of a capital lease.

Under the 2018 agreement, the barge lease rate contains both fixed and variable components, of which the latter was adjusted every third anniversary of the new agreement for estimated executory costs. 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, 2018, Cleco Power paid $2.0 million in capital lease payments and received $0.5 million in revenue from subleases. During the years ended December 31, 2017, and 2016, Cleco Power paid $2.5 million and $3.7 million, respectively, in capital lease payments and received $0.3 million and less than $0.1 million, respectively, in revenue from subleases.

This agreement contains a provision for early termination upon the occurrence of any one of four cancellation events.

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



	AT DEC. 31,
CLASSES OF PROPERTY (THOUSANDS)	2018		2017
Barges	$	16,800	$	—
Less: accumulated amortization	840		—
Capital lease assets, net	$	15,960	$	—

The following is a schedule by years of future minimum lease payments under the capital lease together with the present value of the net minimum lease payments as of December 31, 2018:



	(THOUSANDS)
Years ending Dec. 31,
2019	$	2,611
2020	2,611
2021	2,611
2022	2,611
2023	2,611
Thereafter	23,655
Total minimum lease payments	36,710
Less: executory costs	5,817
Net minimum lease payments	30,893
Less: amount representing interest	14,475
Present value of net minimum lease payments	$	16,418
Current liabilities	$	557
Non-current liabilities	$	15,861

Other

Cleco has accrued for liabilities related to third parties, employee medical benefits, and AROs. For more information on AROs, see Note 2 — “Summary of Significant Accounting Policies — AROs” and Note 5 — “Regulatory Assets and Liabilities — AROs.”

Risks and Uncertainties

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

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

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 and Cleco’s financial condition could be materially adversely affected.

Cleco Power is a participant in the MISO market. 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 LMPs. Physical transmission constraints present in the MISO market could increase energy costs within Cleco Power’s pricing zones. Cleco Power uses FTRs to mitigate transmission congestion price risks. Changes to anticipated transmission paths may result in an unexpected increase in energy costs to Cleco Power.