18. Commitments and Contingencies (All Registrants)

The following is an update to the current status of commitments and contingencies set forth in Note 23 of the Exelon 2015 Form 10-K and Note 16 of the PHI 2015 Form 10-K. See Note 4 - Mergers, Acquisitions and Dispositions for further discussion on the PHI Merger commitments.

Commitments

Constellation Merger Commitments (Exelon and Generation)

In February 2012, the MDPSC issued an Order approving the Exelon and Constellation merger. As part of the MDPSC Order, Exelon agreed to provide a package of benefits to BGE customers, the City of Baltimore and the State of Maryland, resulting in an estimated direct investment in the State of Maryland of approximately $1 billion. The direct investment estimate includes $95 million to $120 million relating to the construction of a headquarters building in Baltimore for Generation’s competitive energy businesses.

The direct investment commitment also includes $450 million to $550 million relating to Exelon and Generation’s development or assistance in the development of 275 — 300 MWs of new generation in Maryland, which is expected to be completed over a period of 10 years. As of September 30, 2016, Exelon and Generation have incurred $404 million towards satisfying the commitment for new generation development in the state of Maryland, with approximately 220 MW of the new generation commencing with commercial operations to date. The MDPSC Order contemplates various options for complying with the new generation development commitments, including building or acquiring generating assets, making subsidy or compliance payments, or in circumstances in which the generation build is delayed or certain specified provisions are elected, making liquidated damages payments. Exelon and Generation expect that the majority of these commitments will be satisfied by building or acquiring generating assets and, therefore, will be primarily capital in nature and recognized as incurred. However, during the third quarter of 2014, the conditions associated with one of the generation development commitments changed such that Exelon and Generation believe that the most likely outcome will involve making subsidy payments and/or liquidated damages payments rather than constructing the specified generating plant. As a result, Exelon and Generation recorded a pre-tax $44 million loss contingency related to this generation development commitment. While this $44 million loss contingency represents Generation's best estimate of the future obligation, it is reasonably possible that Exelon and Generation could ultimately be required to make cumulative subsidy payments of up to a maximum of approximately $105 million over a 20-year period dependent on actual generating output from a successfully constructed generating plant.

Equity Investment Commitments (Exelon and Generation)

Generation has entered into equity purchase agreements that include commitments to invest additional equity through incremental payments to fund the anticipated needs of the planned operations of the associated companies. The commitments include approximately $20 million of in-kind services and 100% of 2015 ESA Investco, LLC's equity commitment since 2015 ESA Investco, LLC is consolidated by Generation (see Note 3 - Variable Interest Entities for additional details). As of September 30, 2016, Generation’s estimated commitments relating to its equity purchase agreements, including the in-kind services contributions, is anticipated to be as follows:



	Total
2016^(a)	$	79
2017	25
2018	4
Total	$	108

________


(a)	The noncontrolling interests holder of 2015 ESA Investco, LLC will contribute up to $31 million in support of a portion of the remaining equity commitment.

Commercial Commitments (All Registrants)

The Registrants’ commercial commitments as of September 30, 2016, representing commitments potentially triggered by future events were as follows:



											Successor
	Exelon		Generation		ComEd		PECO		BGE		PHI		Pepco		DPL		ACE
Letters of credit (non-debt)^(a)	$	1,720	$	1,650	$	16	$	23	$	2	$	1	$	—	$	—	$	1
Surety bonds^(b)	1,084		984		10		9		11		16		9		4		3
Financing trust guarantees	628		—		200		178		250		—		—		—		—
Nuclear insurance premiums^(c)	3,045		3,045		—		—		—		—		—		—		—
Guaranteed lease residual values^(d)	20		—		—		—		—		20		6		7		5
Total commercial commitments	$	6,497	$	5,679	$	226	$	210	$	263	$	37	$	15	$	11	$	9

________


(a)	Letters of credit (non-debt) - Exelon and certain subsidiaries maintain non-debt letters of credit to provide credit support for certain transactions as requested by third parties.


(b)	Surety bonds—Guarantees issued related to contract and commercial agreements, excluding bid bonds.

(c)

Nuclear insurance premiums — Represents the maximum amount that Generation would be required to pay for retrospective premiums in the event of nuclear disaster at any domestic site, including CENG sites, under the Secondary Financial Protection pool as required under the Price-Anderson Act as well as the current aggregate annual retrospective premium obligation that could be imposed by NEIL. See the Nuclear Insurance section within this note for additional details on Generation’s nuclear insurance premiums.

(d)

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 $50 million, $13 million of which is a guarantee by Pepco, $17 million by DPL and $13 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.

Nuclear Insurance (Exelon and Generation)

Generation is subject to liability, property damage and other risks associated with major incidents at any of its nuclear stations, including the CENG nuclear stations. Generation has mitigated its financial exposure to these risks through insurance and other industry risk-sharing provisions.

The Price-Anderson Act was enacted to ensure the availability of funds for public liability claims arising from an incident at any of the U.S. licensed nuclear facilities and also to limit the liability of nuclear reactor owners for such claims from any single incident. As of September 30, 2016, the current liability limit per incident is $13.4 billion and is subject to change to account for the effects of inflation and changes in the number of licensed reactors. An inflation adjustment must be made at least once every 5 years and the last inflation adjustment was made effective September 10, 2013. In accordance with the Price-Anderson Act, Generation maintains financial protection at levels equal to the amount of liability insurance available from private sources through the purchase of private nuclear energy liability insurance for public liability claims that could arise in the event of an incident. As of September 30, 2016, the amount of nuclear energy liability insurance purchased is $375 million for each operating site. Additionally, the Price-Anderson Act requires a second layer of protection through the mandatory participation in a retrospective rating plan for power reactors (currently 102 reactors) resulting in an additional $13.0 billion in funds available for public liability claims. Participation in this secondary financial protection pool requires the operator of each reactor to fund its proportionate share of costs for any single incident that exceeds the primary layer of financial protection. Under the Price-Anderson Act, the maximum assessment in the event of an incident for each nuclear operator, per reactor, per incident (including a 5% surcharge), is $127.3 million, payable at no more than $19 million per reactor per incident per year. Exelon’s maximum liability per incident is approximately $2.7 billion, including CENG's related liability.

In addition, the U.S. Congress could impose revenue-raising measures on the nuclear industry to pay public liability claims exceeding the $13.4 billion limit for a single incident.

As part of the execution of the NOSA on April 1, 2014, Generation executed an Indemnity Agreement pursuant to which Generation agreed to indemnify EDF and its affiliates against third-party claims that may arise from any future nuclear incident (as defined in the Price-Anderson Act) in connection with the CENG nuclear plants or their operations. Exelon guarantees Generation’s obligations under this indemnity. See Note 5— Investment in Constellation Energy Nuclear Group, LLC of the Exelon 2015 Form 10-K for additional information on Generation’s operations relating to CENG.

Generation is required each year to report to the NRC the current levels and sources of property insurance that demonstrates Generation possesses sufficient financial resources to stabilize and decontaminate a reactor and reactor station site in the event of an accident. The property insurance maintained for each facility is currently provided through insurance policies purchased from NEIL, an industry mutual insurance company of which Generation is a member.

NEIL provides “all risk” property damage, decontamination and premature decommissioning insurance for each station for losses resulting from damage to its nuclear plants, either due to accidents or acts of terrorism. If the decision is made to decommission the facility, a portion of the insurance proceeds will be allocated to a fund, which Generation is required by the NRC to maintain, to provide for decommissioning the facility. In the event of an insured loss, Generation is unable to predict the timing of the availability of insurance proceeds to Generation and the amount of such proceeds that would be available. In the event that one or more acts of terrorism cause accidental property damage within a twelve-month period from the first accidental property damage under one or more policies for all insured plants, the maximum recovery for all losses by all insureds will be an aggregate of $3.2 billion plus such additional amounts as the insurer may recover for all such losses from reinsurance, indemnity and any other source, applicable to such losses.

For its insured losses, Generation is self-insured to the extent that losses are within the policy deductible or exceed the amount of insurance maintained. Uninsured losses and other expenses, to the extent not recoverable from insurers or the nuclear industry, could also be borne by Generation. Any such losses could have a material adverse effect on Exelon’s and Generation’s financial condition, results of operations and liquidity.

Environmental Issues (All Registrants)

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, PECO, BGE and DPL have identified sites where former MGP activities have or may have resulted in actual site contamination. For almost all of these sites, there are additional PRPs that may share responsibility for the ultimate remediation of each location.


•	ComEd has identified 42 sites, 17 of which the remediation has been completed and approved by the Illinois EPA or the U.S. EPA and 25 that are currently under some degree of active study and/or remediation. ComEd expects the majority of the remediation at these sites to continue through at least 2021.


•	PECO has identified 26 sites, 16 of which have been remediated in accordance with applicable PA DEP regulatory requirements. The remaining 10 sites are currently under some degree of active study and/or remediation. PECO expects the majority of the remediation at these sites to continue through at least 2022.

•

BGE has identified 13 former gas manufacturing or purification sites that it currently owns or owned at one time through a predecessor’s acquisition. Two gas manufacturing sites require some level of remediation and ongoing monitoring under the direction of the MDE. The required costs at these two sites are not considered material. One former gas purification site is currently under investigation at the direction of the MDE. For more information, see the discussion of the Riverside site below.


•	DPL has identified 2 sites, all of which the remediation has been completed and approved by the MDE or the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control.

ComEd, pursuant to an ICC order, and PECO, pursuant to settlements of natural gas distribution rate cases with the PAPUC, are currently recovering environmental remediation costs of former MGP facility sites through customer rates. ComEd and PECO have recorded regulatory assets for the recovery of these costs. See Note 5 — Regulatory Matters for additional information regarding the associated regulatory assets. BGE is authorized to recover, and is currently recovering, environmental costs for the remediation of the former MGP facility sites from customers; however, while BGE does not have a rider for MGP clean-up costs, BGE has historically received recovery of actual clean-up costs in distribution rates. DPL has historically received recovery of actual clean-up costs in distribution rates.

As of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, the Registrants had accrued the following undiscounted amounts for environmental liabilities in Other current liabilities and Other deferred credits and other liabilities within their respective Consolidated Balance Sheets:



September 30, 2016	Total Environmental Investigation and Remediation Reserve		Portion of Total Related to MGP Investigation and Remediation^(a)
Exelon	$	427	$	318
Generation	76		—
ComEd	283		281
PECO	36		34
BGE	2		2
PHI (Successor)	30		1
Pepco	27		—
DPL	2		1
ACE	1		—



December 31, 2015	Total Environmental Investigation and Remediation Reserve		Portion of Total Related to MGP Investigation and Remediation^(a)
Exelon	$	369	$	301
Generation	63		—
ComEd	266		264
PECO	37		35
BGE	3		2
PHI (Predecessor)	33		1
Pepco	24		—
DPL	3		1
ACE	1		—

_____________________________


(a)	For BGE, includes reserve for Riverside, a gas purification site. See discussion below for additional information.

The historical nature of the MGP sites and the fact that many of the sites have been buried and built over, impacts the ability to determine a precise estimate of the ultimate costs prior to initial sampling and determination of the exact scope and method of remedial activity. Management determines its best estimate of remediation costs using all available information at the time of each study, including probabilistic and deterministic modeling for ComEd and PECO, and the remediation standards currently required by the applicable state environmental agency. Prior to completion of any significant clean up, each site remediation plan is approved by the appropriate state environmental agency.

During the third quarter of 2016, ComEd and PECO completed an annual study of their future estimated MGP remediation requirements. The results of the study resulted in a $7 million and $2 million increase to environmental liabilities and related regulatory assets for ComEd and PECO, respectively.

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.

Water Quality

Groundwater Contamination. In October 2007, a subsidiary of Constellation entered into a consent decree with the MDE relating to groundwater contamination at a third-party facility that was licensed to accept fly ash, a byproduct generated by coal-fired plants. The consent decree required the payment of a $1 million penalty, remediation of groundwater contamination resulting from the ash placement operations at the site, replacement of drinking water supplies in the vicinity of the site, and monitoring of groundwater conditions. Generation's remaining groundwater contamination reserve was approximately $13 million at September 30, 2016 and $12 million at December 31, 2015.

Benning Road Site NPDES Permit Limit Exceedances. Pepco holds an NPDES permit issued by EPA with a July 19, 2009 effective date, which authorizes discharges from the Benning Road site, including the Pepco Energy Services generating facility previously located on the site that was deactivated in 2012 and subsequently demolished. The 2009 permit for the first time imposed numerical limits on the allowable concentration of certain metals in storm water discharged from the site into the Anacostia River as determined by EPA to be necessary to meet the applicable District of Columbia surface water quality standards. The permit contemplated that Pepco would meet these limits over time through the use of best management practices (BMPs). As of December 2012, Pepco completed the implementation of the first two phases of BMPs identified in a plan approved by EPA (consisting principally of installing metal absorbing filters to capture contaminants at storm water inlets, removing stored equipment from areas exposed to the weather, covering and painting exposed metal pipes, and covering and cleaning dumpsters). These measures were effective in reducing metal concentrations in storm water discharges, but were not sufficient to meet all of the numerical limits for metals. Most of the quarterly monitoring results since the issuance of the permit have shown exceedances of the limits for copper and zinc, as well as occasional exceedances for iron and lead.

The NPDES permit was due to expire on June 19, 2014. Pepco submitted a permit renewal application on December 17, 2013. In November 2014, EPA advised Pepco that it will not renew the permit until the Benning Road site has come into compliance with the existing permit limits. The current permit remains in effect pending EPA’s action on the renewal application. In December 2014, Pepco submitted a plan to EPA to implement the third phase of BMPs recommended in the original permit compliance plan with the objective of achieving full compliance with the permit limits for metals by the end of 2015 and Pepco immediately began to implement the additional BMPs in accordance with the plan. On September 1, 2015, Pepco submitted a report to EPA on the status of implementation of the third phase of BMPs. As of that date, Pepco had fully implemented most of the elements of the Phase 3 plan, including installation of upgraded storm water inlet controls (filters and booms), enhanced inspection and maintenance of inlets, removal of materials and equipment from exposure to storm water, and removal of accumulated sediments from the underground storm drains. The sampling results from the third quarter of 2015 showed compliance with all of the permit limits. However, more recent sampling results continued to show modest exceedances for copper and zinc. As confirmed by this latest sampling, because the permit limits are low and site conditions are subject to variation, Pepco has concluded that some form of storm water treatment prior to discharge will be necessary to ensure ongoing compliance with all permit limits and has begun the process of evaluating treatment options. The nature and scope of the necessary treatment system, and the amount of the associated capital expenditures, will not be known until Pepco has completed the evaluation and design process.

Pepco has been engaged in discussions with representatives from EPA and the DOJ regarding permit compliance. On October 30, 2015, EPA filed a Clean Water Act civil enforcement action against Pepco in federal district court. Pepco expects that this enforcement action will be resolved through a consent decree that will (i) establish further requirements to achieve compliance with the permit limits, including the design and installation of an appropriate storm water treatment system as noted above, and (ii) include civil penalties for past noncompliance. Pepco has established what it believes is an appropriate reserve for potential penalties which is included in the table above. Pepco does not expect the amount of such penalties above the financial reserve to have a material adverse effect on Exelon’s, PHI’s and Pepco’s consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Pepco and EPA are currently in discussions regarding the terms of the contemplated consent decree, and it is anticipated that the parties will finalize the consent decree before the end of 2016. In response to a joint motion by the parties, the court has extended the deadline for Pepco to answer the complaint to November 15, 2016, to give the parties time to work towards agreement on the terms of a consent decree. The parties contemplate seeking a further extension if necessary to complete their negotiations. Once executed by the parties, the consent decree will be filed with the court for review and approval following a period for public comment.

On March 14, 2016, the court granted a motion by the Anacostia Riverkeeper to intervene in this case as a plaintiff along with EPA. As an intervenor, the Anacostia Riverkeeper will be entitled to file a brief commenting on the proposed consent decree and to appeal any decision by the court to approve the consent decree over the Anacostia Riverkeeper’s objection, but its participation is not expected to materially affect the progress or outcome of the consent decree negotiations.

Solid and Hazardous Waste

Cotter Corporation. The 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. On May 29, 2008, the 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 landfill cover remediation for the site is approximately $90 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 EPA requested that the PRPs perform a supplemental feasibility study for a remediation alternative that would involve complete excavation of the radiological contamination. On September 30, 2011, the PRPs submitted the supplemental feasibility study to the EPA for review. Since June 2012, the EPA has requested that the PRPs perform a series of additional analyses and groundwater and soil sampling as part of the supplemental feasibility study, that are now scheduled to be completed in the fall of 2016 to enable the EPA to propose a remedy for public comment by the end of 2016. While the EPA has not yet formally announced a change in the schedule, the PRPs believe that the final supplemental feasibility study will not be completed until year-end 2016 and the EPA announcement of the proposed remedy will take place in the third quarter of 2017. Thereafter, the EPA will select a final remedy and enter into a Consent Decree with the PRPs to effectuate the remedy. Recent investigation has identified a number of other parties who may be PRPs and could be liable to contribute to the final remedy. Further investigation is underway. Generation believes that a partial excavation remedy is reasonably possible, but does not currently have a basis to establish a reasonable estimate of the range of costs. Generation believes the likelihood that the EPA would require a complete excavation remedy is remote. The cost of a partial or complete excavation could have a material, unfavorable impact on Generation’s and Exelon’s future results of operations and cash flows.

During December 2015, the EPA took two actions related to the West Lake Landfill designed to abate what it termed as imminent and dangerous conditions at the landfill. The first involved installation by the PRPs of a non-combustible surface cover to protect against surface fires in areas where radiological materials are believed to have been disposed. Generation has accrued what it believes to be an adequate amount to cover its anticipated liability for this interim action. The second action involved EPA's public statement that it will require the PRPs to construct a barrier wall in an adjacent landfill to prevent a subsurface fire from spreading to those areas of the West Lake Landfill where radiological materials are believed to have been disposed. At this time, EPA has not provided sufficient details related to the basis for and the requirements and design of a barrier wall to enable Generation to determine the likelihood such a remedy will ultimately be implemented, assess the degree to which Generation may have liability as a potentially responsible party, or develop a reasonable estimate of the potential incremental costs. It is reasonably possible, however, that resolution of this matter could have a material, unfavorable impact on Generation's and Exelon's future results of operations and cash flows. Finally, one of the other PRP's, the landfill owner and operator of the adjacent landfill, has indicated that it will be making a contribution claim against Cotter for costs that it has incurred to prevent the subsurface fire from spreading to those areas of the West Lake Landfill where radiological materials are believed to have been disposed. At this time, Generation and Exelon do not possess sufficient information to assess this claim and are therefore unable to determine the impact on their future results of operations and cash flows.

On February 2, 2016, the U.S. Senate passed a bill to transfer remediation authority over the West Lake Landfill from the EPA to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, under the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP). Such legislation would become final upon passage in the U.S. House of Representatives and the signature of the President, and be subject to annual funding appropriations in the U.S. Budget. Remediation under FUSRAP would not alter the liability of the PRPs, but could delay the determination of a final remedy and its implementation.

On August 8, 2011, Cotter was notified by the DOJ that Cotter is considered a PRP with respect to the government’s clean-up costs for contamination attributable to low level radioactive residues at a former storage and reprocessing facility named Latty Avenue near St. Louis, Missouri. The Latty Avenue site is included in ComEd’s indemnification responsibilities discussed above as part of the sale of Cotter. The radioactive residues had been generated initially in connection with the processing of uranium ores as part of the U.S. government’s Manhattan Project. Cotter purchased the residues in 1969 for initial processing at the Latty Avenue facility for the subsequent extraction of uranium and metals. In 1976, the NRC found that the Latty Avenue site had radiation levels exceeding NRC criteria for decontamination of land areas. Latty Avenue was investigated and remediated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to funding under the FUSRAP. The DOJ has not yet formally advised the PRPs of the amount that it is seeking, but it is believed to be approximately $90 million. The DOJ and the PRPs agreed to toll the statute of limitations until August 2017 so that settlement discussions could proceed. Based on Generation’s preliminary review, it appears probable that Generation has liability to Cotter under the indemnification agreement and has established an appropriate accrual for this liability.

Commencing in February 2012, 63 lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Among the defendants were Exelon, Generation and ComEd, all of which were subsequently dismissed from the case, and Cotter, which remains a defendant. The suits allege that individuals living in the North St. Louis area developed some form of cancer due to Cotter's negligent or reckless conduct in processing, transporting, storing, handling and/or disposing of radioactive materials. Plaintiffs have asserted claims for negligence, strict liability, emotional distress, medical monitoring, and violations of the Price-Anderson Act. The complaints do not contain specific damage claims. In the event of a finding of liability, it is reasonably possible that Exelon would be considered liable due to its indemnification responsibilities of Cotter described above. The court has dismissed the lawsuits filed by 30 of the plaintiffs. Pre-trial motions and discovery are proceeding in the remaining cases and a pre-trial scheduling order has been filed with the court. At this stage of the litigation, Generation and ComEd cannot estimate a range of loss, if any.

68^th Street Dump. In 1999, the EPA proposed to add the 68th Street Dump in Baltimore, Maryland to the Superfund National Priorities List, and notified BGE and 19 others that they are PRPs at the site. In March 2004, BGE and other PRPs formed the 68th Street Coalition and entered into consent order negotiations with the EPA to investigate clean-up options for the site under the Superfund Alternative Sites Program. In May 2006, a settlement among the EPA and 19 of the PRPs, including BGE, with respect to investigation of the site became effective. The settlement requires the PRPs, over the course of several years, to identify contamination at the site and recommend clean-up options. The PRPs submitted their investigation of the range of clean-up options in the first quarter of 2011. Although the investigation and options provided to the EPA are still subject to EPA review and selection of a remedy, the range of estimated clean-up costs to be allocated among all of the PRPs is in the range of $50 million to $64 million. On September 30, 2013, EPA issued the Record of Decision identifying its preferred remedial alternative for the site. The estimated cost for the alternative chosen by EPA is consistent with the PRPs estimated range of costs noted above. A wholly owned subsidiary of Generation has agreed to indemnify BGE for most of the costs related to this settlement and clean-up of the site. Based on Generation’s preliminary review, it appears probable that Generation has liability and has established an appropriate accrual which are included in the table above for its share of the estimated clean-up costs.

Rossville Ash Site. The Rossville Ash Site is a 32-acre property located in Rosedale, Baltimore County, Maryland, which was used for the placement of fly ash from 1983-2007. The property is owned by Constellation Power Source Generation, LLC (CPSG). In 2008, CPSG investigated and remediated the property by entering it into the Maryland Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) to address any historic environmental concerns and ready the site for appropriate future redevelopment. The site was accepted into the program in 2010 and is currently going through the process to remediate the site and receive closure from MDE. Generation currently estimates the remaining cost to close the site to be approximately $6 million which has been fully reserved and included in the table above as of September 30, 2016.

Sauer Dump. On May 30, 2012, BGE was notified by the EPA that it is considered a PRP at the Sauer Dump Superfund site in Dundalk, Maryland. The EPA offered BGE and three other PRPs the opportunity to conduct an environmental investigation and present cleanup recommendations at the site. In addition, the EPA is seeking recovery from the PRPs of $1.7 million for past cleanup and investigation costs at the site. On March 11, 2013, BGE and three other PRP’s signed an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent with the EPA which requires the PRP’s to conduct a remedial investigation (RI) and feasibility study (FS) at the site to determine what, if any, are the appropriate and recommended cleanup activities for the site. The ultimate outcome of this proceeding is uncertain. Since the EPA has not selected a cleanup remedy and the allocation of the cleanup costs among the PRPs has not been determined, BGE cannot estimate the range of loss.

Riverside. In 2013, the MDE, at the request of EPA, conducted a site inspection and limited environmental sampling of certain portions of the 170 acre Riverside property owned by BGE. The site consists of several different parcels with different current and historical uses. The sampling included soil and groundwater samples for a number of potential environmental contaminants. The sampling confirmed the existence of contaminants consistent with the known historical uses of the various portions of the site. In March 2014, the MDE requested that BGE conduct an investigation which included a site-wide investigation of soils, sediment, groundwater, and surface water to complement the MDE sampling. The field investigation was completed in January 2015, and a final report was provided to MDE on June 2, 2015. On November 3, 2015, MDE provided BGE with its comments and recommendations on the report which require BGE to conduct further investigation and sampling at the site to better delineate the nature and extent of historic contamination, including off-site sediment and soil sampling. MDE did not request any interim remediation at this time and BGE anticipates completing the additional work requested by the end of the first quarter of 2017. BGE has established what it believes is an appropriate reserve based upon the investigation to date. The established reserve is included in the table above. As the investigation and potential remediation proceed, it is possible that additional reserves could be established, in amounts that could be material to BGE.

Benning Road Site. In September 2010, PHI received a letter from EPA identifying the Benning Road site as one of six land-based sites potentially contributing to contamination of the lower Anacostia River. A portion of the site was formerly the location of a Pepco Energy Services electric generating facility. That generating facility was deactivated in June 2012 and plant structure demolition was completed in July 2015. The remaining portion of the site consists of a Pepco transmission and distribution service center that remains in operation. The principal contaminants allegedly 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 the DOEE, which requires Pepco and Pepco Energy Services to conduct a RI/FS for the Benning Road site and an approximately 10 to 15 acre portion of the adjacent Anacostia River. The RI/FS will form the basis for the remedial actions 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 DOEE will look to Pepco and Pepco Energy Services 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 initial RI field work began in January 2013 and was completed in December 2014. In addition, in conjunction with the power plant demolition activities, Pepco and Pepco Energy Services collected soil samples adjacent to and beneath the concrete basins for the dismantled cooling towers for the generating facility. This sampling showed localized areas of soil contamination associated with the cooling tower basins, and, beginning in the third quarter of 2016, Pepco and Pepco Energy Services expect to implement a plan approved by DOEE to remove contaminated soil in conjunction with the demolition and removal of the concrete basins. On April 30, 2015, Pepco and Pepco Energy Services submitted a draft RI Report to DOEE. After review, DOEE determined that additional field investigation and data analysis is required to complete the RI process (much of which is beyond the scope of the original DOEE-approved RI work plan). In the meantime, Pepco and Pepco Energy Services revised the draft RI Report to address DOEE’s comments and DOEE released the draft RI Report for public review on February 29, 2016. The additional field investigation and data analysis will proceed later in 2016 according to a schedule to be developed by Pepco and Pepco Energy Services and approved by DOEE. Once the additional RI work has been completed, Pepco and Pepco Energy Services will issue a draft “final” RI report for review and comment by DOEE and the public. Pepco and Pepco Energy Services will then proceed with an FS to evaluate possible remedial alternatives. This effort also may include a treatability study to evaluate the effectiveness of potential remedial options. Once the FS evaluation has been completed, Pepco and Pepco Energy Services will prepare and submit a draft FS Report for review and comment by DOEE and the public. Thereafter, Pepco and Pepco Energy Services will revise the draft FS Report as appropriate to address comments received and will submit a final FS Report to DOEE.

Upon DOEE’s approval of the final remedial investigation and feasibility study Reports, Pepco and Pepco Energy Services will have satisfied their obligations under the consent decree. At that point, DOEE will prepare a Proposed Plan regarding further response actions based on the results of the remedial investigation and feasibility study. After considering public comment on the Proposed Plan, DOEE will issue a Record of Decision identifying any further response actions determined to be necessary.

PHI, Pepco and Pepco Energy Services have determined that a loss associated with this matter for PHI, Pepco and Pepco Energy Services is probable and an estimated liability for this issue has been accrued, which is included in the table above. As the remedial investigation proceeds and potential remedies are identified, it is possible that additional reserves could be established in amounts that could be material to PHI, Pepco and Pepco Energy Services. Pursuant to Exelon's March 2016 acquisition of PHI, Pepco Energy Services was transferred to Generation. The ultimate resolution of this matter is currently not expected to have any significant financial impact on Generation.

Anacostia River Tidal Reach. Contemporaneous with the Benning RI/FS being performed by Pepco and Pepco Energy Services, DOEE and certain federal agencies have been conducting a separate RI/FS focused on the entire tidal reach of the Anacostia River extending from just north of the Maryland-D.C. boundary line to the confluence of the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers. On March 18, 2016, DOEE released a draft of the river-wide RI Report for public review and comment. The river-wide RI incorporated the results of the river sampling performed by Pepco and Pepco Energy Services as part of the Benning RI/FS, as well as similar sampling efforts conducted by owners of other sites adjacent to this segment of the river and supplemental river sampling conducted by DOEE’s contractor. DOEE asked Pepco, along with parties responsible for other sites along the river, to participate in a “Consultative Working Group” to provide input into the process for future remedial actions addressing the entire tidal reach of the river and to ensure proper coordination with the other river cleanup efforts currently underway, including cleanup of the river segment adjacent to the Benning Road site resulting from the Benning Road RI/FS. Pepco responded that it will participate in the Consultative Working Group but its participation is not an acceptance of any financial responsibility beyond the work that will be performed at the Benning Road site described above. On September 13, 2016 PHI attended the first Consultative Working Group meeting along with several other possible private and governmental PRP’s. At the meeting it was disclosed that the federal and DOEE authorities were conducting phase 2 of a remedial investigation, DOEE has targeted June 2018 as the date for remedy selection for clean-up of sediments in this section of the river. The Consultative Working Group and the other possible PRPs raised a number of issues with the proposed clean-up process and schedule. Several follow up meetings have been scheduled. At this time, it is not possible to predict the extent of Pepco’s participation in the river-wide RI/FS process, or its potential exposure for response costs beyond those associated with the Benning RI/FS component of the river-wide initiative.

Conectiv Energy Wholesale Power Generation Sites. In July 2010, PHI sold the wholesale power generation business of Conectiv Energy Holdings, Inc. and substantially all of its subsidiaries (Conectiv Energy) to Calpine Corporation (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 PHI’s estimates, the costs of ISRA-required remediation activities at the 9 generating facility sites located in New Jersey are in the range of approximately $7 million to $18 million, and PHI has established an appropriate accrual for its share of the estimated clean-up costs, which is included in the table above.

Rock Creek Mineral Oil Release. In late August 2015, a Pepco underground transmission line in the District of Columbia suffered a breach, resulting in the release of non-toxic mineral oil surrounding the transmission line into the surrounding soil, and a small amount reached Rock Creek through a storm drain. Pepco notified regulatory authorities, and Pepco and its spill response contractors placed booms in Rock Creek, blocked the storm drain to prevent the release of mineral oil into the creek and commenced remediation of soil around the transmission line and the Rock Creek shoreline. Pepco estimates that approximately 6,100 gallons of mineral oil were released and that its remediation efforts recovered approximately 80% of the amount released. Pepco’s remediation efforts are ongoing under the direction of the DOEE, including the requirements of a February 29, 2016 compliance order which requires Pepco to prepare a full incident investigation report and prepare a removal action work plan to remove all impacted soils in the vicinity of the storm drain outfall, and in collaboration with the National Park Service, the Smithsonian Institution/National Zoo and EPA. Pepco’s investigation presently indicates that the damage to Pepco’s facilities occurred prior to the release of mineral oil when third-party excavators struck the Pepco underground transmission line while installing cable for another utility.

To the extent recovery is available against any party who contributed to this loss, PHI and Pepco will pursue such action. Exelon, PHI and Pepco continue to investigate the cause of the incident, the parties involved, and legal responsibility under District of Columbia law, but do not believe that the remediation costs to resolve this matter will have a material adverse effect on their respective financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

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 the Peck Iron and Metal scrap operations resulted in the improper storage and disposal of hazardous substances. EPA bases its allegation on its belief 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 September 2011, EPA initiated a RI/FS for the site using Federal funds. Pepco cannot at this time estimate an amount or range of reasonably possible loss associated with this RI/FS, any remediation activities to be performed at the site or any other costs that EPA might seek to impose on Pepco.

Brandywine Fly Ash Disposal Site. In February 2013, Pepco received a letter from the MDE requesting that Pepco investigate the extent of waste on a Pepco right-of-way that traverses the Brandywine fly ash disposal site in Brandywine, Prince George’s County, Maryland, owned by NRG Energy, Inc. (as successor to GenOn MD Ash Management, LLC) (NRG). In July 2013, while reserving its rights and related defenses under a 2000 agreement covering the sale of this site, Pepco indicated its willingness to investigate the extent of, and propose an appropriate closure plan to address, ash on the right-of-way. Pepco submitted a schedule for development of a closure plan to MDE on September 30, 2013 and, by letter dated October 18, 2013, MDE approved the schedule.

Exelon, PHI and Pepco have determined that a loss associated with this matter is probable and have estimated that the costs for implementation of a closure plan and cap on the site are in the range of approximately $3 million to $6 million. Exelon, PHI and Pepco believe that the costs incurred in this matter will be recoverable from NRG under the 2000 sale agreement.

Litigation and Regulatory Matters

Asbestos Personal Injury Claims (Exelon, Generation, ComEd, PECO and BGE)

Exelon, Generation and PECO. 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 September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, Generation had reserved approximately $83 million and $95 million, respectively, in total for asbestos-related bodily injury claims. As of September 30, 2016, approximately $22 million of this amount related to 237 open claims presented to Generation, while the remaining $61 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. During the nine months ended September 30, 2016, Generation decreased its reserve by approximately $8 million, primarily attributable to a continued decline in expected claims activity.

On November 22, 2013, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that the Pennsylvania Workers Compensation Act does not apply to an employee’s disability or death resulting from occupational disease, such as diseases related to asbestos exposure, which manifests more than 300 weeks after the employee’s last employment-based exposure, and that therefore the exclusivity provision of the Act does not preclude such employee from suing his or her employer in court. The Supreme Court’s ruling reverses previous rulings by the Pennsylvania Superior Court precluding current and former employees from suing their employers in court, despite the fact that the same employee was not eligible for workers compensation benefits for diseases that manifest more than 300 weeks after the employee’s last employment-based exposure to asbestos. Since the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's ruling in November 2013, Exelon, Generation, and PECO have experienced an increase in asbestos-related personal injury claims brought by former PECO employees, all of which have been reserved for on a claim by claim basis. Those additional claims are taken into account in projecting estimates of future asbestos-related bodily injury claims.

On November 4, 2015, the Illinois Supreme Court found that the provisions of the Illinois' Workers' Compensation Act and the Workers' Occupational Diseases Act barred an employee from bringing a direct civil action against an employer for latent diseases, including asbestos-related diseases that fall outside the 25-year limit of the statute of repose. The Illinois Supreme Court's ruling reversed previous rulings by the Illinois Court of Appeals, which initially ruled that the Illinois Worker's Compensation law should not apply in cases where the diagnosis of an asbestos related disease occurred after the 25-year maximum time period for filing a Worker's Compensation claim. Since the Illinois Supreme Court’s ruling in November 2015, Exelon, Generation, and ComEd have not experienced a significant increase in asbestos-related personal injury claims brought by former ComEd employees.

There is a reasonable possibility that Exelon may have additional exposure to estimated future asbestos-related bodily injury claims in excess of the amount accrued and the increases could have a material adverse effect on Exelon's, Generation's, ComEd's, PECO and BGE's future results of operations and cash flows.

BGE. Since 1993, BGE and certain Constellation (now Generation) subsidiaries have been involved in several actions concerning asbestos. The actions are based upon the theory of “premises liability,” alleging that BGE and Generation knew of and exposed individuals to an asbestos hazard. In addition to BGE and Generation, numerous other parties are defendants in these cases.

Approximately 456 individuals who were never employees of BGE or certain Constellation subsidiaries have pending claims each seeking several million dollars in compensatory and punitive damages. Cross-claims and third-party claims brought by other defendants may also be filed against BGE and certain Constellation subsidiaries in these actions. To date, most asbestos claims which have been resolved have been dismissed or resolved without any payment by BGE or certain Constellation subsidiaries and a small minority of these cases has been resolved for amounts that were not material to BGE or Generation’s financial results.

Discovery begins in these cases after they are placed on the trial docket. Given the limited discovery in these cases, BGE and Generation do not know the specific facts that are necessary to provide an estimate of the reasonably possible loss relating to these claims; as such, no accrual has been made and a range of loss is not estimable. The specific facts not known include:


•	the identity of the facilities at which the plaintiffs allegedly worked as contractors;


•	the names of the plaintiffs’ employers;


•	the dates on which and the places where the exposure allegedly occurred; and


•	the facts and circumstances relating to the alleged exposure.

Insurance and hold harmless agreements from contractors who employed the plaintiffs may cover a portion of any awards in the actions.

Continuous Power Interruption (Exelon and ComEd)

Section 16-125 of the Illinois Public Utilities Act provides that in the event an electric utility, such as ComEd, experiences a continuous power interruption of four hours or more that affects (in ComEd’s case) more than 30,000 customers, the utility may be liable for actual damages suffered by customers as a result of the interruption and may be responsible for reimbursement of local governmental emergency and contingency expenses incurred in connection with the interruption. Recovery of consequential damages is barred. The affected utility may seek from the ICC a waiver of these liabilities when the utility can show that the cause of the interruption was unpreventable damage due to weather events or conditions, customer tampering, or certain other causes enumerated in the law. As of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, ComEd did not have any material liabilities recorded for these storm events.

Baltimore City Franchise Taxes (Exelon and BGE)

The City of Baltimore claims that BGE has maintained electric facilities in the City’s public right-of-ways for over one hundred years without the proper franchise rights from the City. BGE has reviewed the City's claim and believes that it lacks merit. BGE has not recorded an accrual for payment of franchise fees for past periods as a range of loss, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. Franchise fees assessed in future periods may be material to BGE’s results of operations and cash flows.

Deere Wind Energy Assets (Exelon and Generation)

In 2013, Deere & Company (“Deere”) filed a lawsuit against Generation in the Delaware Superior Court relating to Generation’s acquisition of the Deere wind energy assets. Under the purchase agreement, Deere was entitled to receive earn-out payments if certain specific wind projects already under development in Michigan met certain development and construction milestones following the sale. In the complaint, Deere seeks to recover a $14 million earn-out payment associated with one such project, which was never completed. Generation has filed counterclaims against Deere for breach of contract, with a right of recoupment and set off. On June 2, 2016, the Delaware Superior Court entered summary judgment in favor of Deere. Generation is reviewing the decision and determining whether to appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court. Generation has accrued an amount to cover its potential liability.

General (All Registrants)

The Registrants are involved in various other litigation matters that are being defended and handled in the ordinary course of business. The assessment of whether a loss is probable or a reasonable possibility, and whether the loss or a range of loss is estimable, often involves a series of complex judgments about future events. The Registrants maintain accruals for such losses that are probable of being incurred and subject to reasonable estimation. Management is sometimes unable to estimate an amount or range of reasonably possible loss, particularly where (1) the damages sought are indeterminate, (2) the proceedings are in the early stages, or (3) the matters involve novel or unsettled legal theories. In such cases, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the timing or ultimate resolution of such matters, including a possible eventual loss.

Income Taxes (Exelon, Generation, ComEd, PECO and BGE)

See Note 11 — Income Taxes for information regarding the Registrants’ income tax refund claims and certain tax positions, including the 1999 sale of fossil generating assets.