For information regarding capital commitments at December 31, 2010, see Note 18 of the 2010 Form 10-K. All significant changes in Exelon's, Generation's, ComEd's and PECO's commitments from December 31, 2010, and all significant contingencies, are disclosed below.

Generation's, ComEd's and PECO's short and long-term commitments relating to the sale and purchase of energy, capacity and transmission rights as of June 30, 2011 changed from December 31, 2010 as follows:

Generation's and PECO's fuel purchase obligations as of June 30, 2011 changed from December 31, 2010 as follows:

Exelon's, Generation's and ComEd's commercial and construction commitments as of June 30, 2011, representing commitments potentially triggered by future events changed from December 31, 2010 as follows:

Exelon's, Generation's, ComEd's and PECO's other purchase obligations as of June 30, 2011, which primarily represent commitments for services, materials and information, changed from December 31, 2010 as follows:

On January 31, 2005, subsidiaries of Generation completed a series of transactions that resulted in Generation's sale of its investment in Sithe. Specifically, subsidiaries of Generation consummated the acquisition of Reservoir Capital Group's 50% interest in Sithe and subsequently sold 100% of Sithe to Dynegy, Inc. (Dynegy).

In connection with the sale, Exelon recorded liabilities related to certain indemnifications provided to Dynegy and other guarantees directly resulting from the transaction. The estimated maximum possible exposure to Exelon related to the guarantees provided as part of the sales transaction to Dynegy was approximately $200 million at June 30, 2011.

Indemnifications Related to Sale of Termoeléctrica del Golfo (TEG) and Termoeléctrica Peñoles (TEP) (Exelon and Generation)

On February 9, 2007, Tamuin International Inc. (TII), a wholly owned subsidiary of Generation, sold its 49.5% ownership interests in TEG and TEP to a subsidiary of AES Corporation for $95 million in cash plus certain purchase price adjustments. In connection with the transaction, Generation entered into a guarantee agreement under which Generation guarantees the timely payment of TII's obligations to the subsidiary of AES Corporation pursuant to the terms of the purchase and sale agreement relating to the sale of TII's ownership interests. Generation would be required to perform in the event that TII does not pay any obligation covered by the guarantee that is not otherwise subject to a dispute resolution process. Generation's maximum obligation under the guarantee is $95 million as of June 30, 2011. Generation has not recorded a liability associated with this guarantee. The exposures covered by this guarantee expired in part during 2008. Generation expects that the remaining exposure will expire by 2014.

General. The Registrants' operations have in the past and may in the future require substantial expenditures in order to comply with environmental laws. Additionally, under Federal and state environmental laws, the Registrants are generally liable for the costs of remediating environmental contamination of property now or formerly owned by them and of property contaminated by hazardous substances generated by them. The Registrants own or lease a number of real estate parcels, including parcels on which their operations or the operations of others may have resulted in contamination by substances that are considered hazardous under environmental laws. In addition, the Registrants are currently involved in a number of proceedings relating to sites where hazardous substances have been deposited and may be subject to additional proceedings in the future.

ComEd and PECO have identified 42 and 27 sites, respectively, where former MGP activities have or may have resulted in actual site contamination. For almost all of these sites, ComEd or PECO is one of several PRPs that may be responsible for ultimate remediation of each location. Of the 42 sites identified by ComEd, the Illinois EPA or U.S. EPA have approved the cleanup of 12 sites and of the 27 sites identified by PECO, the PA DEP has approved the cleanup of 16 sites. Of the remaining sites identified by ComEd and PECO, 27 and 9 sites, respectively, are currently under some degree of active study and/or remediation. ComEd and PECO anticipate that the majority of the remediation at these sites will continue through at least 2015 and 2018, respectively.

During the first quarter of 2011, PECO completed an updated remediation cost estimate analysis for a former MGP site where work is scheduled to begin in fall 2011, which resulted in an increase to its reserve and regulatory asset of $5 million. Pursuant to orders from the ICC and PAPUC, respectively, ComEd and PECO are authorized to and are currently recovering environmental costs for the remediation of former MGP facility sites from customers, for which they have recorded regulatory assets. See Note 3 — Regulatory Matters for additional information.

As of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the Registrants had accrued the following undiscounted amounts for environmental liabilities in other deferred credits and other liabilities within their Consolidated Balance Sheets:

June 30, 2011	Total Environmental Investigation and Remediation Reserve		Portion of Total Related to MGP Investigation and Remediation
Exelon	$	181	$	156
Generation		16		0
ComEd		118		112
PECO		47		44

December 31, 2010	Total Environmental Investigation and Remediation Reserve		Portion of Total Related to MGP Investigation and Remediation
Exelon	$	179	$	156
Generation		15		0
ComEd		120		114
PECO		44		42

The Registrants cannot reasonably estimate whether they will incur other significant liabilities for additional investigation and remediation costs at these or additional sites identified by the Registrants, environmental agencies or others, or whether such costs will be recoverable from third parties, including customers.

Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act. Section 316(b) requires that the cooling water intake structures at electric power plants reflect the best technology available to minimize adverse environmental impacts, and is implemented through state-level NPDES permit programs. All of Generation's power generation facilities with cooling water systems are subject to the regulations. Facilities without closed-cycle recirculating systems (e.g., cooling towers) are potentially most affected. Those facilities are Clinton, Dresden, Fairless Hills, Handley, Mountain Creek, Oyster Creek, Peach Bottom, Quad Cities, Salem and Schuylkill.

Regulations adopted in 2004 applicable to large electric generating stations were withdrawn by the EPA in 2007 following a decision by the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals that invalidated many of the rule's significant provisions and remanded the rule to EPA for further consideration and revision. Pursuant to a Settlement Agreement in litigation brought by environmental groups, the EPA agreed to re-issue the proposed rule by March 28, 2011 and the final rule by July 27, 2012. Until a rule is finalized, the state permitting agencies will continue to apply their best professional judgment to address the adverse environmental impacts of plant cooling water intake structures through the reduction of impingement (trapping aquatic life on intake screens) and entrainment (drawing aquatic life into the plant's cooling system).

On March 28, 2011, the EPA issued the proposed regulation. The proposal does not require closed cycle cooling (e.g., cooling towers) as the best technology available to address impingement and entrainment. The proposal provides the state permitting agency with discretion to determine the best technology available to limit entrainment mortality, including application of a cost–benefit test and the consideration of a number of site-specific factors. After consideration of these factors, the state permitting agency may require closed cycle cooling, an alternate technology, or determine that the current technology is the best available. The rule also imposes limits on impingement mortality, which likely will be accomplished by the installation of screens or similar technology at the intake.

On December 8, 2010, Exelon announced that Generation will permanently cease generation operations at Oyster Creek by December 31, 2019. The current NRC license for Oyster Creek expires in 2029. In reliance upon Exelon's determination to cease generation operations no later than December 31, 2019, the NJDEP determined that closed cycle cooling is not the best technology available for Oyster Creek given the length of time that would be required to retrofit from the existing once-through cooling system to a closed-cycle cooling system and the limited life span of the plant after installation of a closed-cycle cooling system. Based on its consideration of these and other factors, in its best professional judgment, NJDEP determined that the existing measures at the plant represent the best technology available for the facility's cooling water intake system.

On December 9, 2010, Generation executed an ACO with the NJDEP regarding Oyster Creek. The ACO sets forth, among other things, the agreement by Generation to permanently cease generation operations at Oyster Creek if the conditions of the ACO are satisfied. In the ACO, the NJDEP agreed to issue a new draft NPDES permit without a requirement for construction of cooling towers or other closed cycle cooling facilities. On June 1, 2011, the NJDEP issued a draft permit for public notice and comment by August 1, 2011. The draft permit does not require the installation of cooling towers and is otherwise consistent with the terms of the ACO. The ACO applies only to Oyster Creek based on its unique circumstances and does not set any precedent for the ultimate compliance requirements for Section 316(b) at Exelon's other plants.

As a result of the decision and the ACO, the expected economic useful life of Oyster Creek has been reduced. The financial impacts relate primarily to accelerated depreciation and accretion expense associated with the changes in decommissioning assumptions related to Generation's asset retirement obligation over the remaining expected economic useful life of Oyster Creek. During the six months ended June 30, 2011, Generation made employee retention payments of approximately $14 million that will result in approximately $3 million of expense in each of years 2011 through 2015. During 2010, Generation recorded a $7 million expense related the announced shutdown. During the six months ended June 30, 2011, Generation recorded approximately $1 million of employee retention expense.

In June 2001, the NJDEP issued a renewed NPDES permit for Salem, allowing for the continued operation of Salem with its existing cooling water system. NJDEP advised PSEG in July 2004 that it strongly recommended reducing cooling water intake flow commensurate with closed-cycle cooling as a compliance option for Salem. PSEG submitted an application for a renewal of the permit on February 1, 2006. In the permit renewal application, PSEG analyzed closed-cycle cooling and other options and demonstrated that the continuation of the Estuary Enhancement Program, an extensive environmental restoration program at Salem, is the best technology to meet the Section 316(b) requirements. PSEG continues to operate Salem under the approved June 2001 NPDES permit while the NPDES permit renewal application is being reviewed. If the final permit or Section 316(b) regulations ultimately requires the retrofitting of Salem's cooling water intake structure to reduce cooling water intake flow commensurate with closed-cycle cooling, Exelon's and Generation's share of the total cost of the retrofit and any resulting interim replacement power would be approximately $430 million, based on a 2006 estimate, and would result in increased depreciation expense related to the retrofit investment.

It is unknown at this time whether the final regulations or permit will require closed-cycle cooling at Salem. In addition, the economic viability of Generation's other power generation facilities without closed-cycle cooling water systems will be called into question by any requirement to construct cooling towers. Should the final rule not require the installation of cooling towers, and retain the flexibility afforded the state permitting agencies in applying a cost-benefit test and to consider site-specific factors, the impact of the rule would be minimized even though the costs of compliance could be material to Generation.

Given the uncertainties associated with the requirements that will be contained in the final rule, Generation cannot predict the eventual outcome or estimate the effect that compliance with any resulting Section 316(b) or interim state requirements will have on the operation of its generating facilities and its future results of operations, cash flows and financial position.

Conemaugh Station Water Discharge Violation. In April 2007, two environmental groups brought a Clean Water Act citizen suit against the operator of Conemaugh Generating Station (CGS), seeking civil penalties and injunctive relief for alleged violations of CGS's NPDES permit. On March 21, 2011, the court entered a partial summary judgment in the plaintiffs' favor, declaring as a matter of law that discharges from CGS had violated the NPDES permit. On June 6, 2011, the operator of CGS signed and entered with the court a settlement and consent decree with the plaintiffs. Under the consent decree, CGS will pay a total of $5 million, of which Generation's share is $1 million (equivalent to its 20.72% share of CGS).

Air. On July 11, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit Court) vacated the CAIR, which had been promulgated by the U.S. EPA to reduce power plant emissions of SO2 and NOx. The Court later remanded the CAIR to the U.S. EPA, without invalidating the entire rulemaking, so that the U.S. EPA could correct CAIR in accordance with the Court's July 11, 2008 opinion. On July 6, 2010, the U.S. EPA published the proposed Transport Rule as the replacement to the CAIR. On July 7, 2011, the U.S. EPA published the final rule, now known as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). The CSAPR requires 27 states in the eastern half of the United States to significantly improve air quality by reducing power plant emissions that cross state lines and contribute to ground-level ozone and fine particle pollution in other states. The final rule maintains the January 1, 2012 and January 1, 2014 phase-in dates that were in the proposed Transport Rule. However, the CSAPR imposes tighter emissions caps than the proposed Transport Rule and includes six additional states under the summertime NOx reduction requirements. These emissions limits may be further reduced as the U.S. EPA finalizes more restrictive ozone and particulate matter NAAQS in the 2011 - 2012 timeframe.

Under the CSAPR, Generation units will receive allowances based on historic heat input. Intrastate, and limited interstate, trading of allowances is permitted, subject to certain limitations. The CSAPR restricts entirely the use of pre-2012 allowances. Existing SO2 allowances under the ARP would remain available for use under ARP. As of June 30, 2011, Generation had $4 million of emission allowances carried at the lower of weighted average cost or market.

In March 2005, the U.S. EPA finalized the CAMR, which was a national program to cap mercury emissions from fossil-fired generating units starting in 2010, with a second reduction in the mercury emission cap level scheduled for 2018. The D.C. Circuit Court later vacated the CAMR on the basis that the U.S. EPA had failed to properly de-list mercury as a HAP under Section 112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act. The result of this decision is that mercury emissions from electric generating stations are subject to the more stringent requirements of maximum achievable control technology applicable to HAPs. In resolution of the CAMR litigation, the U.S. EPA entered into a Consent Decree that required it to propose by March 16, 2011 HAP regulations for emissions from fossil generating stations, and to publish final HAP regulations by November 15, 2011.

On March 16, 2011, the U.S. EPA issued a proposed rule setting national emission standards for HAPs from coal- and oil-fired electric generating facilities. EPA refers to the rule as “the Toxics Rule.” The Toxics Rule would require coal-fired electric generation plants to achieve high removal rates of mercury, acid gases and other metals from air emissions. To achieve these standards, coal units with no pollution control equipment installed (uncontrolled coal units) will have to make capital investments and incur higher operating expenses. It is expected that smaller, older, uncontrolled units will retire rather than make these investments. Coal units with existing controls that do not meet the Toxics Rule may need to upgrade existing controls or add new controls to comply. Exelon, along with the other co-owners of Conemaugh Generating Station, are evaluating controls needed to comply with the Toxics Rule. EPA's proposed standards will cause oil units to achieve high removal rates of metals. Owners of oil units not currently meeting the proposed emission standards may choose to convert the units to light oils or natural gas, install control technologies, or retire the units. The nature and extent of future regulatory controls on HAP emissions at electric generation power plants will not be determined until the Toxics Rule is finalized by the EPA in November 2011.

The U.S. EPA has announced that it will complete a review of NAAQS in the 2011 – 2012 timeframe for ozone (nitrogen oxide and volatile organic compounds), particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and lead. This review could result in more stringent emissions limits on fossil-fired electric generating stations.

Additionally, as of June 30, 2011, Exelon has a $642 million net investment in coal-fired plants in Georgia and Texas subject to long-term leases extend through 2028-2032. While Exelon currently estimates the value of these plants at the end of the lease term will be in excess of the recorded residual lease values, CSAPR and HAP regulations could negatively impact the end-of-lease term values of these assets, which could result in a future impairment loss that could be material.

Cotter Corporation. The U.S. EPA has advised Cotter Corporation (Cotter), a former ComEd subsidiary, that it is potentially liable in connection with radiological contamination at a site known as the West Lake Landfill in Missouri. On February 18, 2000, ComEd sold Cotter to an unaffiliated third party. As part of the sale, ComEd agreed to indemnify Cotter for any liability arising in connection with the West Lake Landfill. In connection with Exelon's 2001 corporate restructuring, this responsibility to indemnify Cotter was transferred to Generation. Cotter is alleged to have disposed of approximately 39,000 tons of soils mixed with 8,700 tons of leached barium sulfate at the site. On May 29, 2008, the U.S. EPA issued a Record of Decision approving the remediation option submitted by Cotter and the two other PRPs that required additional landfill cover. The current estimated cost of the anticipated landfill cover remediation for the site is approximately $42 million, which will be allocated among all PRPs. Generation has accrued what it believes to be an adequate amount to cover its anticipated share of such liability. By letter dated January 11, 2010, the U.S. EPA requested that the PRPs perform a supplemental feasibility study for a remediation alternative that would involve excavation of the radiological contamination. An excavation remedy would be significantly more expensive than the previously selected additional cover remedy; however, Generation believes the likelihood that the U.S. EPA would require the use of an excavation remedy is remote.

Notices and Finding of Violations Related to Electric Generation Stations. On August 6, 2007, ComEd received a NOV, addressed to it and Midwest Generation, LLC (Midwest Generation) from the U.S. EPA, alleging that ComEd and Midwest Generation have violated and are continuing to violate several provisions of the Clean Air Act as a result of the modification and/or operation of six electric generation stations located in northern Illinois that have been owned and operated by Midwest Generation since 1999. The U.S. EPA requested information related to the stations in 2003, and ComEd has been cooperating with the U.S. EPA since then. The NOV states that the U.S. EPA may issue an order requiring compliance with the relevant Clean Air Act provisions and may seek injunctive relief and/or civil penalties, all pursuant to the U.S. EPA's enforcement authority under the Clean Air Act.

The generating stations that are the subject of the NOV are currently owned and operated by Midwest Generation, which purchased the stations in December 1999 from ComEd. Under the terms of the sale agreement, Midwest Generation and its affiliate, Edison Mission Energy (EME), assumed responsibility for environmental liabilities associated with the ownership, occupancy, use and operation of the stations, including responsibility for compliance of the stations with environmental laws before the purchase of the stations by Midwest Generation. Midwest Generation and EME additionally agreed to indemnify and hold ComEd and its affiliates harmless from claims, fines, penalties, liabilities and expenses arising from third party claims against ComEd resulting from or arising out of the environmental liabilities assumed by Midwest Generation and EME under the terms of the agreement governing the sale.

In August 2009, the DOJ and the Illinois Attorney General filed a complaint against Midwest Generation with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois initiating enforcement proceedings with respect to the alleged Clean Air Act violations set forth in the NOV. Neither ComEd nor Exelon were named as a defendant in this original complaint. In March 2010, the District Court granted Midwest Generation's partial motion to dismiss all but one of the claims against Midwest Generation. The Court held that Midwest Generation cannot be liable for any alleged violations relating to construction that occurred prior to Midwest Generation's ownership of the stations. In May 2010, the government plaintiffs filed an amended complaint substantially similar to the original complaint, and added ComEd and EME as defendants. The amended complaint seeks injunctive relief and civil penalties against all defendants, although not all of the claims specifically pertain to ComEd. On March 16, 2011, the U.S. District Court granted ComEd's motion to dismiss the May 2010 complaint. The dismissal order will not be final until the underlying case against Midwest Generation is resolved, so the government plaintiffs cannot appeal ComEd's dismissal before that time without leave of court. Therefore, it is unknown whether the government plaintiffs will appeal.

In connection with Exelon's 2001 corporate restructuring, Generation assumed ComEd's rights and obligations with respect to its former generation business. Exelon, Generation and ComEd are unable to predict the ultimate resolution of the claims alleged in the amended complaint, the costs that might be incurred or the amount of indemnity that may be available from Midwest Generation and EME; however, Exelon, Generation and ComEd have concluded that in light of the District Court decision the likelihood of loss is remote. Therefore, no reserve has been established. Further, Generation believes that it would be reimbursed by Midwest Generation and EME for any losses under the terms of the indemnification agreement, subject to the credit worthiness of Midwest Generation and EME.

Climate Change Regulation. Exelon is, or may become, subject to climate change regulation or legislation at the international, Federal, regional and state levels.

International Climate Change Regulation. At the international level, the United States is currently not a party to the Kyoto Protocol, which is a protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and became effective for signatories on February 16, 2005. The United Nations' Kyoto Protocol process generally requires developed countries to cap GHG emissions at certain levels during the 2008-2012 time period. At the conclusion of the December 2007 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali, Indonesia, the Bali Action Plan was adopted, which identifies a work group, process and timeline for the consideration of possible post-2012 international actions to further address climate change. In December 2009, the United States agreed to the non-binding Copenhagen Accord at the conclusion of the 15th Conference of the Parties under the UNFCCC. Under the Copenhagen Accord, the United States agreed to undertake a number of voluntary measures, including the establishment of a goal to reduce GHG emissions and contributions toward a fund to assist developing nations to address their GHG emissions. The Conference of the Parties met in Mexico in December 2010 and while some progress was made in the Cancun Agreement, the fundamental issues around GHG emission reductions and a successor to the Kyoto Protocol remain unresolved. The next Conference of the Parties meeting will be held in December 2011 in South Africa.

Federal Climate Change Legislation and Regulation. Various stakeholders, including Exelon, legislators and regulators, shareholders and non-governmental organizations, as well as other companies in many business sectors are considering ways to address the climate change issue. Mandatory programs to reduce GHG emissions are likely to evolve in the future. If these programs become effective, Exelon may incur costs either to further limit or offset the GHG emissions from its operations or procure emission allowances or credits.

Numerous bills were introduced in Congress during the 111th Congress that address climate change from different perspectives, including direct regulation of GHG emissions and the establishment of Federal Renewable Portfolio Standards, but none were passed by both houses of Congress. In reaction to the U.S. EPA's proposed regulation of GHG emissions, various bills have been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives that would prohibit or impede the U.S. EPA's rulemaking efforts. The timing of the consideration of such legislation is unknown.

In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that GHG emissions are pollutants subject to regulation under the new motor vehicle provisions of the Clean Air Act. Consequently, on December 7, 2009, the U.S. EPA issued an endangerment finding under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act regarding GHGs from new motor vehicles and on April 1, 2010 issued final regulations limiting GHG emissions from cars and light trucks effective on January 2, 2011. While such regulations do not specifically address stationary sources, such as a generating plant, it is the U.S. EPA's position that the regulation of GHGs under the mobile source provisions of the Clean Air Act has triggered the permitting requirements under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V operating permit sections of the Clean Air Act for new and modified stationary sources effective January 2, 2011. Therefore, on May 13, 2010, the U.S. EPA issued final regulations relating to these provisions of the Clean Air Act for major stationary sources of GHG emissions that apply to new sources that emit greater than 100,000 tons per year, on a CO2 equivalent basis, and to modifications to existing sources that result in emissions increases greater than 75,000 tons per year on a CO2 equivalent basis. These thresholds became effective January 2, 2011, apply for six years and will be reviewed by the U.S. EPA for future applicability thereafter. Under the regulations, new and modified major stationary sources could be required to install best available control technology, to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Exelon could be significantly affected by the regulations if it were to build new plants or modify existing plants.

The issue of GHG regulation of stationary sources will likely be addressed either under the existing provisions of the Clean Air Act by U.S. EPA regulation, or by new and comprehensive Federal legislation. The Obama administration and the U.S. EPA have stated a preference for addressing the issue through Federal legislation. The extent to which GHG emissions will be regulated is currently unknown; however, potential regulation of GHG emissions from stationary sources could cause Exelon to incur material costs of compliance.

Regional and State Climate Change Legislation and Regulation. At a regional level, on November 15, 2007, six Midwest state Governors (Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin) signed the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Accord. Under that Accord, an inter-state work group was formed to establish a Midwestern GHG Reduction Program that will: (1) establish GHG reduction targets and timeframes consistent with member state targets; (2) develop a market-based and multi-sector cap-and-trade program to help achieve GHG reductions; and (3) develop other mechanisms and policies to assist in meeting GHG reduction targets (e.g. a low carbon fuel standard). In May 2010, an advisory group appointed by the Governors issued recommendations, but no actions have been taken on the recommendations.

At the state level, the PCCA was signed into law in Pennsylvania in July 2008. The PCCA requires, among other things, that: a Climate Change Advisory Committee be formed; a report on the potential impact of climate change in Pennsylvania be developed; the PA DEP develop a GHG inventory for Pennsylvania; a voluntary GHG registry be identified; and the PA DEP, in consultation with the Climate Change Advisory Committee, develop a Climate Change Action Plan for Pennsylvania to be reviewed with the Pennsylvania General Assembly. The Climate Change Advisory Committee issued its recommendations for an Action Plan for consideration by the Pennsylvania legislature on October 9, 2009.

Except to the extent noted below, the circumstances set forth in Note 18 of the 2010 Form 10-K describe, in all material respects, the current status of litigation matters. The following is an update to that discussion.

Asbestos Personal Injury Claims. Generation maintains a reserve for claims associated with asbestos-related personal injury actions in certain facilities that are currently owned by Generation or were previously owned by ComEd and PECO. The reserve is recorded on an undiscounted basis and excludes the estimated legal costs associated with handling these matters, which could be material.

At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, Generation had reserved approximately $53 million in total for asbestos-related bodily injury claims. As of June 30, 2011, approximately $15 million of this amount related to 175 open claims presented to Generation, while the remaining $38 million of the reserve is for estimated future asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through 2050 based on actuarial assumptions and analyses, which are updated on an annual basis. On a quarterly basis, Generation monitors actual experience against the number of forecasted claims to be received and expected claim payments and evaluates whether an adjustment to the reserve is necessary.

General. The Registrants are involved in various other litigation matters that are being defended and handled in the ordinary course of business. The Registrants maintain accruals for such costs that are probable of being incurred and subject to reasonable estimation. The ultimate outcomes of such matters, as well as the matters discussed above, are uncertain and may have a material adverse impact on the Registrants' results of operations, cash flows or financial positions.

See Note 8 — Income Taxes for information regarding the Registrants' income tax refund claims and uncertain tax positions, including the 1999 sale of fossil generating assets.