(15) COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

General Litigation

In September 2011, an asbestos complaint was filed in the New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division, against ACE (among other defendants) asserting claims under New Jersey’s Wrongful Death and Survival statutes. The complaint, filed by the estate of a decedent who was the wife of a former employee of ACE, alleges that the decedent’s mesothelioma was caused by exposure to asbestos brought home by her husband on his work clothes. New Jersey courts have recognized a cause of action against a premise owner in a so-called “take home” case if it can be shown that the harm was foreseeable. In this case, the complaint seeks recovery of an unspecified amount of damages for, among other things, the decedent’s past medical expenses, loss of earnings, and pain and suffering between the time of injury and death, and asserts a punitive damage claim. At this time, ACE has concluded that a loss is reasonably possible with respect to this matter, but ACE was unable to estimate an amount or range of reasonably possible loss because (i) the damages sought are indeterminate, (ii) the proceedings are in the early stages, and (iii) the matter involves facts that ACE believes are distinguishable from the facts of the “take-home” cause of action recognized by the New Jersey courts. A trial date has been set for May 20, 2013.

Environmental Matters

PHI, through its subsidiaries, is subject to regulation by various federal, regional, state and local authorities with respect to the environmental effects of its operations, including air and water quality control, solid and hazardous waste disposal and limitations on land use. Although penalties assessed for violations of environmental laws and regulations are not recoverable from customers of PHI’s utility subsidiaries, environmental clean-up costs incurred by Pepco, DPL and ACE generally are included by each company in its respective cost of service for ratemaking purposes. The total accrued liabilities for the environmental contingencies described below of PHI and its subsidiaries at September 30, 2012 are summarized as follows:


			Legacy Generation
	Transmission and Distribution		Regulated			Non-Regulated		Other		Total
	*(millions of dollars)*
Beginning balance as of January 1	$	15	$	8		$	10	$	2	$	35
Accruals		—		—			—		—		—
Payments		—		(1	)		—		—		(1	)

Ending balance as of September 30		15		7			10		2		34
Less amounts in Other current liabilities		2		2			—		2		6

Amounts in Other deferred credits	$	13	$	5		$	10	$	—	$	28

Conectiv Energy Wholesale Power Generation Sites

On July 1, 2010, PHI sold the Conectiv Energy wholesale power generation business to Calpine. Under New Jersey’s Industrial Site Recovery Act (ISRA), the transfer of ownership triggered an obligation on the part of Conectiv Energy to remediate any environmental contamination at each of the nine Conectiv Energy generating facility sites located in New Jersey. Under the terms of the sale, Calpine has assumed responsibility for performing the ISRA-required remediation and for the payment of all related ISRA compliance costs up to $10 million. PHI is obligated to indemnify Calpine for any ISRA compliance remediation costs in excess of $10 million. According to preliminary estimates, the costs of ISRA-required remediation activities at the nine generating facility sites located in New Jersey are in the range of approximately $7 million to $18 million. The amount accrued by PHI for the ISRA-required remediation activities at the nine generating facility sites is included in the table above in the column entitled “Legacy Generation – Non-Regulated.”

On September 14, 2011, PHI received a request for data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding operations at the Deepwater generating facility in New Jersey (which was included in the sale to Calpine) between February 2004 and July 1, 2010, to demonstrate compliance with the Clean Air Act’s new source review permitting program. PHI responded to the data request. Under the terms of the Calpine sale, PHI is obligated to indemnify Calpine for any failure of PHI, on or prior to the closing date of the sale, to comply with environmental laws attributable to the construction of new, or modification of existing, sources of air emissions. At this time, PHI does not expect this inquiry to have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

The sale of the Conectiv Energy wholesale power generation business to Calpine did not include a coal ash landfill site located at the Edge Moor generating facility, which PHI intends to close. The preliminary estimate of the costs to PHI to close the coal ash landfill ranges from approximately $2 million to $3 million, plus annual post-closure operations, maintenance and monitoring costs, estimated to range between $120,000 and $193,000 per year for 30 years. The amounts accrued by PHI for this matter are included in the table above in the column entitled “Legacy Generation – Non-Regulated.”

Franklin Slag Pile Site

In November 2008, ACE received a general notice letter from EPA concerning the Franklin Slag Pile site in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, asserting that ACE is a potentially responsible party (PRP) that may have liability for clean-up costs with respect to the site and for the costs of implementing an EPA-mandated remedy. EPA’s claims are based on ACE’s sale of boiler slag from the B.L. England generating facility, then owned by ACE, to MDC Industries, Inc. (MDC) during the period June 1978 to May 1983. EPA claims that the boiler slag ACE sold to MDC contained copper and lead, which are hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), and that the sales transactions may have constituted an arrangement for the disposal or treatment of hazardous substances at the site, which could be a basis for liability under CERCLA. The EPA letter also states that, as of the date of the letter, EPA’s expenditures for response measures at the site have exceeded $6 million. EPA estimates the additional cost for future response measures will be approximately $6 million. ACE believes that EPA sent similar general notice letters to three other companies and various individuals.

ACE believes that the B.L. England boiler slag sold to MDC was a valuable material with various industrial applications and, therefore, the sale was not an arrangement for the disposal or treatment of any hazardous substances as would be necessary to constitute a basis for liability under CERCLA. ACE intends to contest any claims to the contrary made by EPA. In a May 2009 decision arising under CERCLA, which did not involve ACE, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an EPA argument that the sale of a useful product constituted an arrangement for disposal or treatment of hazardous substances. While this decision supports ACE’s position, at this time ACE cannot predict how EPA will proceed with respect to the Franklin Slag Pile site, or what portion, if any, of the Franklin Slag Pile site response costs EPA would seek to recover from ACE. Costs to resolve this matter are not expected to be material and are expensed as incurred.

Peck Iron and Metal Site

EPA informed Pepco in a May 2009 letter that Pepco may be a PRP under CERCLA with respect to the cleanup of the Peck Iron and Metal site in Portsmouth, Virginia, and for costs EPA has incurred in cleaning up the site. The EPA letter states that Peck Iron and Metal purchased, processed, stored and shipped metal scrap from military bases, governmental agencies and businesses and that Peck’s metal scrap operations resulted in the improper storage and disposal of hazardous substances. EPA bases its allegation that Pepco arranged for disposal or treatment of hazardous substances sent to the site on information provided by former Peck Iron and Metal personnel, who informed EPA that Pepco was a customer at the site. Pepco has advised EPA by letter that its records show no evidence of any sale of scrap metal by Pepco to the site. Even if EPA has such records and such sales did occur, Pepco believes that any such scrap metal sales may be entitled to the recyclable material exemption from CERCLA liability. In a Federal Register notice published on November 4, 2009, EPA placed the Peck Iron and Metal site on the National Priorities List. The National Priorities List, among other things, serves as a guide to EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of the human health and environmental risks associated with a site. In September 2011, EPA initiated a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) using federal funds. Pepco cannot at this time estimate an amount or range of reasonably possible loss associated with the RI/FS, any remediation activities to be performed at the site or any other costs that EPA might seek to impose on Pepco.

Ward Transformer Site

In April 2009, a group of PRPs with respect to the Ward Transformer site in Raleigh, North Carolina, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, alleging cost recovery and/or contribution claims against a number of entities, including ACE, DPL and Pepco with respect to past and future response costs incurred by the PRP group in performing a removal action at the site. In a March 2010 order, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The litigation is moving forward with certain “test case” defendants (not including ACE, DPL and Pepco) filing summary judgment motions regarding liability. The case has been stayed as to the remaining defendants pending rulings upon the test cases. Although PHI cannot at this time estimate an amount or range of reasonably possible losses to which it may be exposed, PHI does not believe that any of its three utility subsidiaries had extensive business transactions, if any, with the Ward Transformer site and therefore, costs incurred to resolve this matter are not expected to be material.

Benning Road Site

In September 2010, PHI received a letter from EPA stating that EPA and the District of Columbia Department of the Environment (DDOE) have identified the Benning Road location, consisting of a generation facility operated by Pepco Energy Services until the facility was deactivated in June 2012, and a transmission and distribution facility operated by Pepco, as one of six land-based sites potentially contributing to contamination of the lower Anacostia River. The letter stated that the principal contaminants of concern are polychlorinated biphenyls and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. In December 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia approved a consent decree entered into by Pepco and Pepco Energy Services with DDOE, which requires Pepco and Pepco Energy Services to conduct a RI/FS for the Benning Road site and an approximately 10-15 acre portion of the adjacent Anacostia River. The RI/FS will form the basis for DDOE’s selection of a remedial action for the Benning Road site and for the Anacostia River sediment associated with the site. The consent decree does not obligate Pepco or Pepco Energy Services to pay for or perform any remediation work, but it is anticipated that DDOE will look to the companies to assume responsibility for cleanup of any conditions in the river that are determined to be attributable to past activities at the Benning Road site. The court order entering the consent decree requires the parties to submit a written status report to the court on May 24, 2013 regarding the implementation of the requirements of the consent decree and any related plans for remediation. In addition, if the RI/FS has not been completed by May 24, 2013, the status report must provide an explanation and a showing of good cause for why the work has not been completed.

Pepco and Pepco Energy Services submitted a proposed RI/FS work plan in July 2012, and anticipate that the work plan will be approved by DDOE during the fourth quarter of 2012, following which the RI/FS field work will commence.

The remediation costs accrued for this matter are included in the table above in the columns entitled “Transmission and Distribution, Legacy Generation – Regulated,” and “Legacy Generation – Non-Regulated.”

Indian River Oil Release

In 2001, DPL entered into a consent agreement with the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control for remediation, site restoration, natural resource damage compensatory projects and other costs associated with environmental contamination resulting from an oil release at the Indian River generating facility, which was sold in June 2001. The amount of remediation costs accrued for this matter is included in the table above in the column entitled “Legacy Generation – Regulated.”

Potomac River Mineral Oil Release

In January 2011, a coupling failure on a transformer cooler pipe resulted in a release of non-toxic mineral oil at Pepco’s Potomac River substation in Alexandria, Virginia. An overflow of an underground secondary containment reservoir resulted in approximately 4,500 gallons of mineral oil flowing into the Potomac River.

The release falls within the regulatory jurisdiction of multiple federal and state agencies. Beginning in March 2011, DDOE issued a series of compliance directives requiring Pepco to prepare an incident report, provide certain records, and prepare and implement plans for sampling surface water and river sediments and assessing ecological risks and natural resources damages. Pepco completed field sampling during the fourth quarter of 2011 and submitted sampling results to DDOE during the second quarter of 2012. Initial discussions with DDOE indicate that additional monitoring of shoreline sediments may be required.

In June 2012, Pepco commenced discussions with DDOE regarding a possible consent decree that would resolve DDOE’s threatened claims for civil penalties for alleged violation of the District’s Water Pollution Control Law, as well as for damages to natural resources. Based on the discussions to date, PHI and Pepco do not believe that the resolution of these claims will have a material adverse effect on their respective financial conditions, results of operations or cash flows.

In March 2011, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) requested documentation regarding the release and the preparation of an emergency response report, which Pepco submitted to the agency in April 2011. In March 2011, Pepco received a notice of violation from VADEQ and in December 2011, entered into a consent decree with VADEQ, pursuant to which Pepco paid a civil penalty of approximately $40,000. The U.S. Coast Guard assessed a $5,000 penalty against Pepco for the release of oil into the waters of the United States, which Pepco has paid.

During March 2011, EPA conducted an inspection of the Potomac River substation to review compliance with federal regulations regarding Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) plans for facilities using oil-containing equipment in proximity to surface waters. EPA identified several potential violations of the SPCC regulations relating to SPCC plan content, recordkeeping, and secondary containment. As a result of the oil release, Pepco submitted a revised SPCC plan to EPA in August 2011 and implemented certain interim operational changes to the secondary containment systems at the facility which involve pumping accumulated storm water to an aboveground holding tank for off-site disposal. In December 2011, Pepco completed the installation of a treatment system designed to allow automatic discharge of accumulated storm water from the secondary containment system. Pepco currently is seeking DDOE’s and EPA’s approval to commence operation of the new system and, after receiving such approval, will submit a further revised SPCC plan to EPA. In the meantime, Pepco is continuing to use the aboveground holding tank to manage storm water from the secondary containment system. On April 19, 2012, EPA advised Pepco that it is not seeking civil penalties at this time for alleged non-compliance with SPCC regulations.

The amounts accrued for these matters are included in the table above in the column entitled “Transmission and Distribution.”

PHI’s Cross-Border Energy Lease Investments

PCI has cross-border energy lease investments involving public utility assets (primarily consisting of hydroelectric generation and coal-fired electric generation facilities and natural gas distribution networks) located outside of the United States. Each of these investments is comprised of multiple leases and each investment is structured as a sale and leaseback transaction commonly referred to by the IRS as a sale-in, lease-out, or SILO transaction. PHI current annual tax benefits from these lease investments are approximately $43 million. As of September 30, 2012, the book value of PHI’s investment in its cross-border energy lease investments was approximately $1.2 billion. After taking into consideration the $74 million paid with the 2001-2002 audit (as discussed below), the net federal and state tax benefits received for the remaining leases from January 1, 2001, the earliest year that remains open to audit, to September 30, 2012, has been approximately $479 million. As more fully discussed in Note (8), “Leasing Activities,” in the third quarter of 2012 and in the second quarter of 2011, PHI entered into early termination agreements with lessees with respect to a number of leases in the cross-border energy lease portfolio.

Since 2005, PHI’s cross-border energy lease investments have been under examination by the IRS as part of the PHI federal income tax audits. In connection with the audit of PHI’s 2001-2002 and 2003-2005 income tax returns, respectively, the IRS disallowed the depreciation and interest deductions in excess of rental income claimed by PHI with respect to each of its cross-border energy lease investments. In addition, the IRS has sought to recharacterize each of the leases as a loan transaction as to which PHI would be subject to original issue discount income. PHI disagreed with the IRS’ proposed adjustments and filed protests of these findings with the Office of Appeals of the IRS. In November 2010, PHI entered into a settlement agreement with the IRS for the 2001 and 2002 tax years and subsequently filed refund claims in July 2011 for the disallowed tax deductions relating to the leases for these years. In January 2011, as part of this settlement, PHI paid $74 million of additional tax for 2001 and 2002, penalties of $1 million, and $28 million in interest associated with the disallowed deductions. Since the July 2011 claim for refund was not approved by the IRS within the statutory six-month period, in January 2012 PHI filed complaints in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims seeking recovery of the tax payment, interest and penalties. Absent a settlement, this litigation against the IRS may take several years to resolve. The 2003-2005 income tax return review continues to be in process with the IRS Office of Appeals and at present, is not a part of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims litigation discussed above.

In the event that the IRS were to be successful in disallowing 100% of the tax benefits associated with these lease investments and recharacterizing these lease investments as loans, PHI estimates that, as of September 30, 2012, it would be obligated to pay approximately $622 million in additional federal and state taxes and $138 million of interest on the remaining leases. The $760 million in additional federal and state taxes and interest is net of the $74 million tax payment made in January 2011. In addition, the IRS could require PHI to pay a penalty of up to 20% on the amount of additional taxes due.

PHI anticipates that any additional taxes that it would be required to pay as a result of the disallowance of prior deductions or a re-characterization of the leases as loans would be recoverable in the form of lower taxes over the remaining terms of the affected leases. Moreover, the entire amount of any additional federal and state tax would not be due immediately, but rather, the federal and state taxes would be payable when the open audit years are closed and PHI amends subsequent tax returns not then under audit. To mitigate the taxes due in the event of a total disallowance of tax benefits, PHI could elect to liquidate all or a portion of its remaining cross-border energy lease investments, which PHI estimates could be accomplished over a period of six months to one year. Based on current market values, PHI estimates that liquidation of the remaining portfolio would generate sufficient cash proceeds to cover the estimated $760 million in federal and state taxes and interest due as of September 30, 2012, in the event of a total disallowance of tax benefits and a recharacterization of the leases as loans. If payments of additional taxes and interest preceded the receipt of liquidation proceeds, the payments would be funded by currently available sources of liquidity.

To the extent that PHI does not prevail in this matter and suffers a disallowance of the tax benefits and incurs imputed original issue discount income, PHI would be required under FASB guidance on leases (ASC 840) to recalculate the timing of the tax benefits generated by the cross-border energy lease investments and adjust the equity value of the investments, which would result in a material non-cash charge to earnings.

District of Columbia Tax Legislation

On September 14, 2012, the District of Columbia Office of Tax and Revenue adopted regulations to implement the mandatory unitary combined reporting method for tax years beginning in 2011. PHI has analyzed these regulations and determined that the regulations did not impact PHI’s results of operations for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2012.

Third Party Guarantees, Indemnifications, and Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

PHI and certain of its subsidiaries have various financial and performance guarantees and indemnification obligations that they have entered into in the normal course of business to facilitate commercial transactions with third parties as discussed below.

As of September 30, 2012, PHI and its subsidiaries were parties to a variety of agreements pursuant to which they were guarantors for standby letters of credit, energy procurement obligations, and other commitments and obligations. The commitments and obligations, in millions of dollars, were as follows:


	Guarantor
	PHI		Pepco		DPL		ACE		Total
Energy procurement obligations of Pepco Energy Services (a)	$	101	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	101
Guarantees associated with disposal of Conectiv Energy assets (b)		13		—		—		—		13
Guaranteed lease residual values (c)		2		4		6		4		16

Total	$	116	$	4	$	6	$	4	$	130

(a)	PHI has contractual commitments for performance and related payments of Pepco Energy Services to counterparties under routine energy sales and procurement obligations.

(b)

Represents guarantees by PHI of Conectiv Energy’s derivatives portfolio transferred in connection with the disposition of Conectiv Energy’s wholesale business. The derivative portfolio guarantee is currently $13 million and covers Conectiv Energy’s performance prior to the assignment. This guarantee will remain in effect until the end of 2015.

(c)

Represents the maximum potential obligation in the event that the fair value of certain leased equipment and fleet vehicles is zero at the end of the maximum lease term. The maximum lease term associated with these assets ranges from 3 to 8 years. The maximum potential obligation at the end of the minimum lease term would be $52 million, $10 million of which is a guaranty by PHI, $14 million by Pepco, $17 million by DPL and $11 million by ACE. The minimum lease term associated with these assets ranges from 1 to 4 years. Historically, payments under the guarantees have not been made and PHI believes the likelihood of payments being required under the guarantees is remote.

PHI and certain of its subsidiaries have entered into various indemnification agreements related to purchase and sale agreements and other types of contractual agreements with vendors and other third parties. These indemnification agreements typically cover environmental, tax, litigation and other matters, as well as breaches of representations, warranties and covenants set forth in these agreements. Typically, claims may be made by third parties under these indemnification agreements over various periods of time depending on the nature of the claim. The maximum potential exposure under these indemnification agreements can range from a specified dollar amount to an unlimited amount depending on the nature of the claim and the particular transaction. The total maximum potential amount of future payments under these indemnification agreements is not estimable due to several factors, including uncertainty as to whether or when claims may be made under these indemnities.

Energy Services Performance Contracts

Pepco Energy Services has a diverse portfolio of energy services performance contracts that are associated with the installation of energy savings equipment or combined heat and power facilities for federal, state and local government customers. As part of the energy savings contracts, Pepco Energy Services typically guarantees that the equipment or systems it installs will generate a specified amount of energy savings on an annual basis over a multi-year period. As of September 30, 2012, the remaining notional amount of Pepco Energy Services’ energy savings guarantees on both completed projects and projects under construction totaled $449 million over the life of the multi-year performance contracts with the longest guarantee having a remaining term of 13 years. On an annual basis, Pepco Energy Services undertakes a measurement and verification process to determine the amount of energy savings for the year and whether there is any shortfall in the annual energy savings compared to the guaranteed amount.

As of September 30, 2012, Pepco Energy Services had a performance guarantee contract associated with the production at a combined heat and power facility that is under construction totaling $15 million in notional value over the life of the multi-year contracts, with the longest guarantee having a remaining term of 20 years.

Pepco Energy Services recognizes a liability for the value of the estimated energy savings or production shortfalls when it is probable that the guaranteed amounts will not be achieved and the amount is reasonably estimable. As of September 30, 2012, Pepco Energy Services had an accrued liability of $1 million for its energy savings or combined heat and power performance contracts that it established during the three months ended September 30, 2012. There was no significant change in the type of contracts issued during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2012 as compared to the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011.

Dividends

On October 25, 2012, Pepco Holdings’ Board of Directors declared a dividend on common stock of 27 cents per share payable December 31, 2012, to stockholders of record on December 10, 2012.

Commitments And Contingencies

(11) COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Environmental Matters

Pepco is subject to regulation by various federal, regional, state and local authorities with respect to the environmental effects of its operations, including air and water quality control, solid and hazardous waste disposal and limitations on land use. Although penalties assessed for violations of environmental laws and regulations are not recoverable from Pepco’s customers, environmental clean-up costs incurred by Pepco generally are included in its cost of service for ratemaking purposes. The total accrued liabilities for the environmental contingencies described below of Pepco at September 30, 2012 are summarized as follows:


	Transmission and Distribution		Legacy Generation - Regulated			Total
	*(millions of dollars)*
Beginning balance as of January 1	$	14	$	4		$	18
Accruals		—		—			—
Payments		—		(1	)		(1	)

Ending balance as of September 30		14		3			17
Less amounts in Other current liabilities		1		—			1

Amounts in Other deferred credits	$	13	$	3		$	16

Peck Iron and Metal Site

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) informed Pepco in a May 2009 letter that Pepco may be a potentially responsible party (PRP) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) with respect to the cleanup of the Peck Iron and Metal site in Portsmouth, Virginia, and for costs EPA has incurred in cleaning up the site. The EPA letter states that Peck Iron and Metal purchased, processed, stored and shipped metal scrap from military bases, governmental agencies and businesses and that Peck’s metal scrap operations resulted in the improper storage and disposal of hazardous substances. EPA bases its allegation that Pepco arranged for disposal or treatment of hazardous substances sent to the site on information provided by former Peck Iron and Metal personnel, who informed EPA that Pepco was a customer at the site. Pepco has advised EPA by letter that its records show no evidence of any sale of scrap metal by Pepco to the site. Even if EPA has such records and such sales did occur, Pepco believes that any such scrap metal sales may be entitled to the recyclable material exemption from CERCLA liability. In a Federal Register notice published on November 4, 2009, EPA placed the Peck Iron and Metal site on the National Priorities List. The National Priorities List, among other things, serves as a guide to EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of the human health and environmental risks associated with a site. In September 2011, EPA initiated a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) using federal funds. Pepco cannot at this time estimate an amount or range of reasonably possible loss associated with the RI/FS, any remediation activities to be performed at the site or any other costs that EPA might seek to impose on Pepco.

Ward Transformer Site

In April 2009, a group of PRPs with respect to the Ward Transformer site in Raleigh, North Carolina, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, alleging cost recovery and/or contribution claims against a number of entities, including Pepco, with respect to past and future response costs incurred by the PRP group in performing a removal action at the site. In a March 2010 order, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The litigation is moving forward with certain “test case” defendants (not including Pepco) filing summary judgment motions regarding liability. The case has been stayed as to the remaining defendants pending rulings upon the test cases. Although Pepco cannot at this time estimate an amount or range of reasonably possible losses to which it may be exposed, Pepco does not believe that it had extensive business transactions, if any, with the Ward Transformer site and therefore, costs incurred to resolve this matter are not expected to be material.

Benning Road Site

In September 2010, PHI received a letter from EPA stating that EPA and the District of Columbia Department of the Environment (DDOE) have identified the Benning Road location, consisting of a generation facility operated by Pepco Energy Services until the facility was deactivated in June 2012, and a transmission and distribution facility operated by Pepco, as one of six land-based sites potentially contributing to contamination of the lower Anacostia River. The letter stated that the principal contaminants of concern are polychlorinated biphenyls and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. In December 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia approved a consent decree entered into by Pepco and Pepco Energy Services with DDOE, which requires Pepco and Pepco Energy Services to conduct a RI/FS for the Benning Road site and an approximately 10-15 acre portion of the adjacent Anacostia River. The RI/FS will form the basis for DDOE’s selection of a remedial action for the Benning Road site and for the Anacostia River sediment associated with the site. The consent decree does not obligate Pepco or Pepco Energy Services to pay for or perform any remediation work, but it is anticipated that DDOE will look to the companies to assume responsibility for cleanup of any conditions in the river that are determined to be attributable to past activities at the Benning Road site. The court order entering the consent decree requires the parties to submit a written status report to the court on May 24, 2013 regarding the implementation of the requirements of the consent decree and any related plans for remediation. In addition, if the RI/FS has not been completed by May 24, 2013, the status report must provide an explanation and a showing of good cause for why the work has not been completed.

Pepco and Pepco Energy Services submitted a proposed RI/FS work plan in July 2012, and anticipate that the work plan will be approved by DDOE during the fourth quarter of 2012, following which the RI/FS field work will commence.

The remediation costs accrued for this matter are included in the table above in the columns entitled “Transmission and Distribution and Legacy Generation – Regulated.”

Potomac River Mineral Oil Release

In January 2011, a coupling failure on a transformer cooler pipe resulted in a release of non-toxic mineral oil at Pepco’s Potomac River substation in Alexandria, Virginia. An overflow of an underground secondary containment reservoir resulted in approximately 4,500 gallons of mineral oil flowing into the Potomac River.

The release falls within the regulatory jurisdiction of multiple federal and state agencies. Beginning in March 2011, DDOE issued a series of compliance directives requiring Pepco to prepare an incident report, provide certain records, and prepare and implement plans for sampling surface water and river sediments and assessing ecological risks and natural resources damages. Pepco completed field sampling during the fourth quarter of 2011 and submitted sampling results to DDOE during the second quarter of 2012. Initial discussions with DDOE indicate that additional monitoring of shoreline sediments may be required.

In June 2012, Pepco commenced discussions with DDOE regarding a possible consent decree that would resolve DDOE’s threatened claims for civil penalties for alleged violation of the District’s Water Pollution Control Law, as well as for damages to natural resources. Based on the discussions to date, PHI and Pepco do not believe that the resolution of these claims will have a material adverse effect on their respective financial conditions, results of operations or cash flows.

In March 2011, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) requested documentation regarding the release and the preparation of an emergency response report, which Pepco submitted to the agency in April 2011. In March 2011, Pepco received a notice of violation from VADEQ and in December 2011, entered into a consent decree with VADEQ, pursuant to which Pepco paid a civil penalty of approximately $40,000. The U.S. Coast Guard assessed a $5,000 penalty against Pepco for the release of oil into the waters of the United States, which Pepco has paid.

During March 2011, EPA conducted an inspection of the Potomac River substation to review compliance with federal regulations regarding Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) plans for facilities using oil-containing equipment in proximity to surface waters. EPA identified several potential violations of the SPCC regulations relating to SPCC plan content, recordkeeping, and secondary containment. As a result of the oil release, Pepco submitted a revised SPCC plan to EPA in August 2011 and implemented certain interim operational changes to the secondary containment systems at the facility which involve pumping accumulated storm water to an aboveground holding tank for off-site disposal. In December 2011, Pepco completed the installation of a treatment system designed to allow automatic discharge of accumulated storm water from the secondary containment system. Pepco currently is seeking DDOE’s and EPA’s approval to commence operation of the new system and, after receiving such approval, will submit a further revised SPCC plan to EPA. In the meantime, Pepco is continuing to use the aboveground holding tank to manage storm water from the secondary containment system. On April 19, 2012, EPA advised Pepco that it is not seeking civil penalties at this time for alleged non-compliance with SPCC regulations.

The amounts accrued for these matters are included in the table above in the column entitled “Transmission and Distribution.”

District of Columbia Tax Legislation

On September 14, 2012, the District of Columbia Office of Tax and Revenue adopted regulations to implement the mandatory unitary combined reporting method for tax years beginning in 2011. Pepco has analyzed these regulations and determined that the regulations did not impact Pepco’s results of operations for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2012.

Commitments And Contingencies

(13) COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

DPL is subject to regulation by various federal, regional, state and local authorities with respect to the environmental effects of its operations, including air and water quality control, solid and hazardous waste disposal and limitations on land use. Although penalties assessed for violations of environmental laws and regulations are not recoverable from DPL’s customers, environmental clean-up costs incurred by DPL generally are included in its cost of service for ratemaking purposes. The total accrued liabilities for the environmental contingencies described below of DPL at September 30, 2012 are summarized as follows:


	Transmission and Distribution		Legacy Generation - Regulated			Other		Total
	*(millions of dollars)*
Beginning balance as of January 1	$	1	$	4		$	2	$	7
Accruals		—		—			—		—
Payments		—		(1	)		—		(1	)

Ending balance as of September 30		1		3			2		6
Less amounts in Other current liabilities		1		1			2		4

Amounts in Other deferred credits	$	—	$	2		$	—	$	2

Ward Transformer Site

In April 2009, a group of potentially responsible parties (PRPs) with respect to the Ward Transformer site in Raleigh, North Carolina, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, alleging cost recovery and/or contribution claims against a number of entities, including DPL, with respect to past and future response costs incurred by the PRP group in performing a removal action at the site. In a March 2010 order, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The litigation is moving forward with certain “test case” defendants (not including DPL) filing summary judgment motions regarding liability. The case has been stayed as to the remaining defendants pending rulings upon the test cases. Although DPL cannot at this time estimate an amount or range of reasonably possible losses to which it may be exposed, DPL does not believe that it had extensive business transactions, if any, with the Ward Transformer site and therefore, costs incurred to resolve this matter are not expected to be material.

Indian River Oil Release

In 2001, DPL entered into a consent agreement with the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control for remediation, site restoration, natural resource damage compensatory projects and other costs associated with environmental contamination resulting from an oil release at the Indian River generating facility, which was sold in June 2001. The amount of remediation costs accrued for this matter is included in the table above in the column entitled “Legacy Generation – Regulated.”

Commitments And Contingencies

(12) COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

General Litigation

In September 2011, an asbestos complaint was filed in the New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division, against ACE (among other defendants) asserting claims under New Jersey’s Wrongful Death and Survival statutes. The complaint, filed by the estate of a decedent who was the wife of a former employee of ACE, alleges that the decedent’s mesothelioma was caused by exposure to asbestos brought home by her husband on his work clothes. New Jersey courts have recognized a cause of action against a premise owner in a so-called “take home” case if it can be shown that the harm was foreseeable. In this case, the complaint seeks recovery of an unspecified amount of damages for, among other things, the decedent’s past medical expenses, loss of earnings, and pain and suffering between the time of injury and death, and asserts a punitive damage claim. At this time, ACE has concluded that a loss is reasonably possible with respect to this matter, but ACE was unable to estimate an amount or range of reasonably possible loss because (i) the damages sought are indeterminate, (ii) the proceedings are in the early stages, and (iii) the matter involves facts that ACE believes are distinguishable from the facts of the “take-home” cause of action recognized by the New Jersey courts. A trial date has been set for May 20, 2013.

Environmental Matters

ACE is subject to regulation by various federal, regional, state and local authorities with respect to the environmental effects of its operations, including air and water quality control, solid and hazardous waste disposal and limitations on land use. Although penalties assessed for violations of environmental laws and regulations are not recoverable from ACE’s customers, environmental clean-up costs incurred by ACE generally are included in its cost of service for ratemaking purposes. The total accrued liabilities for the environmental contingencies described below of ACE at September 30, 2012 are summarized as follows:


	Legacy Generation - Regulated		Total
	*(millions of dollars)*
Beginning balance as of January 1	$	1	$	1
Accruals		—		—
Payments		—		—

Ending balance as of September 30		1		1
Less amounts in Other current liabilities		—		—

Amounts in Other deferred credits	$	1	$	1

Franklin Slag Pile Site

In November 2008, ACE received a general notice letter from the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning the Franklin Slag Pile site in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, asserting that ACE is a potentially responsible party (PRP) that may have liability for clean-up costs with respect to the site and for the costs of implementing an EPA-mandated remedy. EPA’s claims are based on ACE’s sale of boiler slag from the B.L. England generating facility, then owned by ACE, to MDC Industries, Inc. (MDC) during the period June 1978 to May 1983. EPA claims that the boiler slag ACE sold to MDC contained copper and lead, which are hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), and that the sales transactions may have constituted an arrangement for the disposal or treatment of hazardous substances at the site, which could be a basis for liability under CERCLA. The EPA letter also states that, as of the date of the letter, EPA’s expenditures for response measures at the site have exceeded $6 million. EPA estimates the additional cost for future response measures will be approximately $6 million. ACE believes that EPA sent similar general notice letters to three other companies and various individuals.

ACE believes that the B.L. England boiler slag sold to MDC was a valuable material with various industrial applications and, therefore, the sale was not an arrangement for the disposal or treatment of any hazardous substances as would be necessary to constitute a basis for liability under CERCLA. ACE intends to contest any claims to the contrary made by EPA. In a May 2009 decision arising under CERCLA, which did not involve ACE, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an EPA argument that the sale of a useful product constituted an arrangement for disposal or treatment of hazardous substances. While this decision supports ACE’s position, at this time ACE cannot predict how EPA will proceed with respect to the Franklin Slag Pile site, or what portion, if any, of the Franklin Slag Pile site response costs EPA would seek to recover from ACE. Costs to resolve this matter are not expected to be material and are expensed as incurred.

Ward Transformer Site

In April 2009, a group of PRPs with respect to the Ward Transformer site in Raleigh, North Carolina, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, alleging cost recovery and/or contribution claims against a number of entities, including ACE, with respect to past and future response costs incurred by the PRP group in performing a removal action at the site. In a March 2010 order, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The litigation is moving forward with certain “test case” defendants (not including ACE) filing summary judgment motions regarding liability. The case has been stayed as to the remaining defendants pending rulings upon the test cases. Although ACE cannot at this time estimate an amount or range of reasonably possible losses to which it may be exposed, ACE does not believe that it had extensive business transactions, if any, with the Ward Transformer site and therefore, costs incurred to resolve this matter are not expected to be material.