N. Contingencies and Commitments

Contingencies

Litigation

Alba Matter

Civil Suit. On February 27, 2008, Alcoa Inc. received notice that Aluminium Bahrain B.S.C. (“Alba”) had filed suit against Alcoa, Alcoa World Alumina LLC (“AWA”), and William Rice (collectively, the “Alcoa Parties”), and others, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (the “Court”), Civil Action number 08-299, styled Aluminium Bahrain B.S.C. v. Alcoa Inc., Alcoa World Alumina LLC, William Rice, and Victor Phillip Dahdaleh. The complaint alleged that certain Alcoa entities and their agents, including Victor Phillip Dahdaleh, had engaged in a conspiracy over a period of 15 years to defraud Alba. The complaint further alleged that Alcoa and its employees or agents (1) illegally bribed officials of the government of Bahrain and/or officers of Alba in order to force Alba to purchase alumina at excessively high prices, (2) illegally bribed officials of the government of Bahrain and/or officers of Alba and issued threats in order to pressure Alba to enter into an agreement by which Alcoa would purchase an equity interest in Alba, and (3) assigned portions of existing supply contracts between Alcoa and Alba for the sole purpose of facilitating alleged bribes and unlawful commissions. The complaint alleged that Alcoa and the other defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and committed fraud. Alba claimed damages in excess of $1,000. Alba’s complaint sought treble damages with respect to its RICO claims; compensatory, consequential, exemplary, and punitive damages; rescission of the 2005 alumina supply contract; and attorneys’ fees and costs.

On October 9, 2012, the Alcoa Parties, without admitting any liability, entered into a settlement agreement with Alba. The agreement called for AWA to pay Alba $85 in two equal installments, one-half at time of settlement and one-half one year later, and for the case against the Alcoa Parties to be dismissed with prejudice. Additionally, AWA and Alba entered into a long-term alumina supply agreement. On October 9, 2012, pursuant to the settlement agreement, AWA paid Alba $42.5, and all claims against the Alcoa Parties were dismissed with prejudice. On October 9, 2013 pursuant to the settlement agreement, AWA paid the remaining $42.5. Based on the settlement agreement, in the 2012 third quarter, Alcoa recorded a $40 charge in addition to the $45 charge it recorded in the 2012 second quarter in respect of the suit (see Agreement with Alumina Limited below).

Government Investigations. On February 26, 2008, Alcoa Inc. advised the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) that it had recently become aware of the claims by Alba as alleged in the Alba civil suit, had already begun an internal investigation and intended to cooperate fully in any investigation that the DOJ or the SEC may commence. On March 17, 2008, the DOJ notified Alcoa that it had opened a formal investigation. The SEC subsequently commenced a concurrent investigation. Alcoa has been cooperating with the government since that time.

In the past year, Alcoa had been seeking settlements of both investigations. In the second quarter of 2013, Alcoa proposed to settle the DOJ matter by offering the DOJ a cash payment of $103. Based on this offer, Alcoa recorded a charge of $103 in the 2013 second quarter. Also in the second quarter of 2013, Alcoa exchanged settlement offers with the SEC. However, the SEC staff rejected Alcoa’s offer of $60 and no charge was recorded. During the remainder of 2013, settlement discussions with both the DOJ and the SEC continued.

On January 9, 2014, Alcoa resolved the investigations by the DOJ and the SEC. The settlement with the DOJ was reached with AWA. Under the terms of a plea agreement entered into with the DOJ, effective January 9, 2014, AWA pled guilty to one count of violating the anti-bribery provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended (the “FCPA”). As part of the DOJ resolution, AWA agreed to pay a total of $223, including a fine of $209 payable in five equal installments over four years. The first installment of $41.8, plus a one-time administrative forfeiture of $14, was paid in the first quarter of 2014, the second installment of $41.8 was paid in the first quarter of 2015, and the remaining installments of $41.8 each will be paid in the first quarters of 2016 through 2018 (the third installment was paid on January 8, 2016). The DOJ is bringing no case against Alcoa Inc.

Effective January 9, 2014, the Company also settled civil charges filed by the SEC in an administrative proceeding relating to the anti-bribery, internal controls, and books and records provisions of the FCPA. Under the terms of the settlement with the SEC, the Company agreed to a settlement amount of $175, but will be given credit for the $14 one-time forfeiture payment, which is part of the DOJ resolution, resulting in a total cash payment to the SEC of $161 payable in five equal installments over four years. The first and second installments of $32.2 each were paid to the SEC in the first quarter of 2014 and 2015, respectively, and the remaining installments of $32.2 each will be paid in the first quarters of 2016 through 2018 (the third installment was paid on January 25, 2016).

There was no allegation in the filings by the DOJ and there was no finding by the SEC that anyone at Alcoa Inc. knowingly engaged in the conduct at issue.

Based on the resolutions with both the DOJ and SEC, in the 2013 fourth quarter, Alcoa recorded a $288 charge, which includes legal costs of $7, in addition to the $103 charge it recorded in the 2013 second quarter in respect of the investigations (see Agreement with Alumina Limited below).

Agreement with Alumina Limited. AWA is a U.S.-based Alcoa World Alumina and Chemicals (“AWAC”) company organized under the laws of Delaware that owns, directly or indirectly, alumina refineries and bauxite mines in the Atlantic region. AWAC is an unincorporated global bauxite mining and alumina refining venture between Alcoa and Alumina Limited. AWAC consists of a number of affiliated operating entities, including AWA, which own, or have an interest in, or operate bauxite mines and alumina refineries in eight countries (seven as of December 31, 2014 due to the divestiture of an ownership interest in a mining and refining joint venture in Jamaica—see Note F). Alcoa owns 60% and Alumina Limited owns 40% of these individual entities, which are consolidated by the Company for financial reporting purposes.

In October 2012, Alcoa and Alumina Limited entered into an agreement to allocate the costs of the Alba civil settlement and all legal fees associated with this matter (including the government investigations discussed above) between Alcoa and Alumina Limited on an 85% and 15% basis, respectively, but this would occur only if a settlement is reached with the DOJ and the SEC regarding their investigations. As such, the $85 civil settlement in 2012 and all legal costs associated with the civil suit and government investigations incurred prior to 2013 were allocated on a 60% and 40% basis in the respective periods on Alcoa’s Statement of Consolidated Operations. As a result of the resolutions of the government investigations, the $384 charge and legal costs incurred in 2013 were allocated on an 85% and 15% basis per the allocation agreement with Alumina Limited. Additionally, the $85 civil settlement from 2012 and all legal costs associated with the civil suit and government investigations incurred prior to 2013 were reallocated on the 85% and 15% basis. The following table details the activity related to the Alba matter:


	2013							2012
	Alcoa		Alumina Limited			Total		Alcoa		Alumina Limited		Total
Government investigations⁽¹⁾	$	326	$	58		$	384	$	-	$	-	$	-
Civil suit⁽¹⁾		-		-			-		51		34		85
Reallocation of civil suit		21		(21	)		-		-		-		-
Reallocation of legal costs		20		(20	)		-		-		-		-
Loss before income taxes		367		17			384		51		34		85
Benefit for income taxes		66		-			66		18		-		18
Net loss⁽²⁾	$	301	$	17		$	318	$	33	$	34	$	67

⁽¹⁾	The amount in the Total column was recorded in Restructuring and other charges (see Note D).

⁽²⁾	In 2013 and 2012, the amount for Alcoa was included in Net (loss) income attributable to Alcoa, and the amount for Alumina Limited was included in Net income (loss) attributable to noncontrolling interests.

Other Matters

On June 5, 2015, AWA and St. Croix Alumina, L.L.C. (“SCA”) filed a complaint in Delaware Chancery Court for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief to resolve a dispute between Alcoa and Glencore Ltd. (“Glencore”) with respect to claimed obligations under a 1995 asset purchase agreement between Alcoa and Glencore. The dispute arose from Glencore’s demand that Alcoa indemnify it for liabilities it may have to pay to Lockheed Martin (“Lockheed”) related to the St. Croix alumina refinery. Lockheed had earlier filed suit against Glencore in federal court in New York seeking indemnity for liabilities it had incurred and would incur to the U.S. Virgin Islands to remediate certain properties at the refinery property and claimed that Glencore was required by an earlier, 1989 purchase agreement to indemnify it. Glencore had demanded that Alcoa indemnify and defend it in the Lockheed case and threatened to claim over against Alcoa in the New York action despite exclusive jurisdiction for resolution of disputes under the 1995 purchase agreement being in Delaware. After Glencore conceded that it was not seeking to add Alcoa to the New York action, AWA and SCA dismissed their complaint in the Chancery Court case and on August 6, 2015 filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in Delaware Superior Court. AWA and SCA filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on September 16, 2015. Glencore answered AWA’s and SCA’s complaint and asserted counterclaims on August 27, 2015, and on October 2, 2015 filed its own motion for judgment on the pleadings. Argument on the parties’ motions was held by the court on December 7, 2015, and by order dated February 8, 2016, Alcoa’s motion was granted and Glencore’s motion was denied resulting in Alcoa not being liable to indemnify Glencore for the Lockheed action. On February 17, 2016, Glencore filed notice of its application for interlocutory appeal of the February 8 ruling. AWA and SCA have 10 days to respond. At this time, the Company is unable to reasonably predict the ultimate outcome for this matter.

Before 2002, Alcoa purchased power in Italy in the regulated energy market and received a drawback of a portion of the price of power under a special tariff in an amount calculated in accordance with a published resolution of the Italian Energy Authority, Energy Authority Resolution n. 204/1999 (“204/1999”). In 2001, the Energy Authority published another resolution, which clarified that the drawback would be calculated in the same manner, and in the same amount, in either the regulated or unregulated market. At the beginning of 2002, Alcoa left the regulated energy market to purchase energy in the unregulated market. Subsequently, in 2004, the Energy Authority introduced regulation no. 148/2004, which set forth a different method for calculating the special tariff that would result in a different drawback for the regulated and unregulated markets. Alcoa challenged the new regulation in the Administrative Court of Milan and received a favorable judgment in 2006. Following this ruling, Alcoa continued to receive the power price drawback in accordance with the original calculation method, through 2009, when the European Commission declared all such special tariffs to be impermissible “state aid.” In 2010, the Energy Authority appealed the 2006 ruling to the Consiglio di Stato (final court of appeal). On December 2, 2011, the Consiglio di Stato ruled in favor of the Energy Authority and against Alcoa, thus presenting the opportunity for the energy regulators to seek reimbursement from Alcoa of an amount equal to the difference between the actual drawback amounts received over the relevant time period, and the drawback as it would have been calculated in accordance with regulation 148/2004. On February 23, 2012, Alcoa filed its appeal of the decision of the Consiglio di Stato (this appeal was subsequently withdrawn in March 2013). On March 26, 2012, Alcoa received a letter from the agency (Cassa Conguaglio per il Settore Eletrico (CCSE)) responsible for making and collecting payments on behalf of the Energy Authority demanding payment in the amount of approximately $110 (€85), including interest. By letter dated April 5, 2012, Alcoa informed CCSE that it disputes the payment demand of CCSE since (i) CCSE was not authorized by the Consiglio di Stato decisions to seek payment of any amount, (ii) the decision of the Consiglio di Stato has been appealed (see above), and (iii) in any event, no interest should be payable. On April 29, 2012, Law No. 44 of 2012 (“44/2012”) came into effect, changing the method to calculate the drawback. On February 21, 2013, Alcoa received a revised request letter from CSSE demanding Alcoa’s subsidiary, Alcoa Trasformazioni S.r.l., make a payment in the amount of $97 (€76), including interest, which reflects a revised calculation methodology by CCSE and represents the high end of the range of reasonably possible loss associated with this matter of $0 to $97 (€76). Alcoa has rejected that demand and has formally challenged it through an appeal before the Administrative Court on April 5, 2013. The Administrative Court scheduled a hearing for December 19, 2013, which was subsequently postponed until April 17, 2014, and further postponed until June 19, 2014. On this date, the Administrative Court listened to Alcoa’s oral argument, and on September 2, 2014, rendered its decision. The Administrative Court declared the payment request of CCSE and the Energy Authority to Alcoa to be unsubstantiated based on the 148/2004 resolution with respect to the January 19, 2007 through November 19, 2009 timeframe. On December 18, 2014, the CCSE and the Energy Authority appealed the Administrative Court’s September 2, 2014 decision; however, a date for the hearing has not been scheduled. As a result of the conclusion of the European Commission Matter on January 26, 2016 described below, management has modified its outlook with respect to a portion of the pending legal proceedings related to this matter. As such, a charge of $37 (€34) was recorded in Restructuring and other charges for the year ended December 31, 2015 on the accompanying Statement of Consolidated Operations to establish a partial reserve for this matter. At this time, the Company is unable to reasonably predict the ultimate outcome for this matter.

European Commission Matter. In July 2006, the European Commission (EC) announced that it had opened an investigation to establish whether an extension of the regulated electricity tariff granted by Italy to some energy-intensive industries complied with European Union (EU) state aid rules. The Italian power tariff extended the tariff that was in force until December 31, 2005 through November 19, 2009 (Alcoa had been incurring higher power costs at its smelters in Italy subsequent to the tariff end date through the end of 2012). The extension was originally through 2010, but the date was changed by legislation adopted by the Italian Parliament effective on August 15, 2009. Prior to expiration of the tariff in 2005, Alcoa had been operating in Italy for more than 10 years under a power supply structure approved by the EC in 1996. That measure provided a competitive power supply to the primary aluminum industry and was not considered state aid from the Italian Government. The EC’s announcement expressed concerns about whether Italy’s extension of the tariff beyond 2005 was compatible with EU legislation and potentially distorted competition in the European market of primary aluminum, where energy is an important part of the production costs.

On November 19, 2009, the EC announced a decision in this matter stating that the extension of the tariff by Italy constituted unlawful state aid, in part, and, therefore, the Italian Government is to recover a portion of the benefit Alcoa received since January 2006 (including interest). The amount of this recovery was to be based on a calculation prepared by the Italian Government (see below). In late 2009, after discussions with legal counsel and reviewing the bases on which the EC decided, including the different considerations cited in the EC decision regarding Alcoa’s two smelters in Italy, Alcoa recorded a charge of $250 (€173), which included $20 (€14) to write off a receivable from the Italian Government for amounts due under the now expired tariff structure and $230 (€159) to establish a reserve. On April 19, 2010, Alcoa filed an appeal of this decision with the General Court of the EU (see below). Prior to 2012, Alcoa was involved in other legal proceedings related to this matter that separately sought the annulment of the EC’s July 2006 decision to open an investigation alleging that such decision did not follow the applicable procedural rules and requested injunctive relief to suspend the effectiveness of the EC’s November 19, 2009 decision. However, the decisions by the General Court, and subsequent appeals to the European Court of Justice, resulted in the denial of these remedies.

In June 2012, Alcoa received formal notification from the Italian Government with a calculated recovery amount of $375 (€303); this amount was reduced by $65 (€53) for amounts owed by the Italian Government to Alcoa, resulting in a net payment request of $310 (€250). In a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union on September 22, 2012, the EC announced that it had filed an action against the Italian Government on July 18, 2012 to compel it to collect the recovery amount (on October 17, 2013, the European Court of Justice ordered Italy to so collect). On September 27, 2012, Alcoa received a request for payment in full of the $310 (€250) by October 31, 2012. Following discussions with the Italian Government regarding the timing of such payment, Alcoa paid the requested amount in five quarterly installments of $69 (€50) beginning in October 2012 through December 2013.

On October 16, 2014, Alcoa received notice from the General Court of the EU that its April 19, 2010 appeal of the EC’s November 19, 2009 decision was denied. On December 27, 2014, Alcoa filed an appeal of the General Court’s October 16, 2014 ruling to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). Following submission of the EC’s response to the appeal, on June 10, 2015, Alcoa filed a request for an oral hearing before the ECJ; no decision on that request was received. On January 26, 2016, Alcoa was informed that the ECJ had dismissed Alcoa’s December 27, 2014 appeal of the General Court’s October 16, 2014 ruling. The dismissal of Alcoa’s appeal represents the conclusion of the legal proceedings in this matter. Prior to this dismissal, Alcoa had a noncurrent asset of $100 (€91) reflecting the excess of the total of the five payments made to the Italian Government over the reserve recorded in 2009. As a result, this noncurrent asset, along with the $58 (€53) for amounts owed by the Italian Government to Alcoa mentioned above plus $6 (€6) for interest previously paid, was written-off. A charge of $164 (€150) was recorded in Restructuring and other charges for the year ended December 31, 2015 on the accompanying Statement of Consolidated Operations (see Note D).

As a result of the EC’s November 19, 2009 decision, management had contemplated ceasing operations at its Italian smelters due to uneconomical power costs. In February 2010, management agreed to continue to operate its smelters in Italy for up to six months while a long-term solution to address increased power costs could be negotiated. Over a portion of this time, a long-term solution was not able to be reached related to the Fusina smelter, therefore, in May 2010, Alcoa and the Italian Government agreed to a temporary idling of the Fusina smelter. As of September 30, 2010, the Fusina smelter was fully curtailed (44,000 metric-tons-per-year). For the Portovesme smelter, Alcoa executed a new power agreement effective September 1, 2010 through December 31, 2012, replacing the short-term, market-based power contract that was in effect since early 2010. This new agreement along with interruptibility rights (i.e. compensation for power interruptions when grids are overloaded) granted to Alcoa for the Portovesme smelter provided additional time to negotiate a long-term solution (the EC had previously determined that the interruptibility rights were not considered state aid).

At the end of 2011, as part of a restructuring of Alcoa’s global smelting system, management decided to curtail operations at the Portovesme smelter during 2012 due to the uncertain prospects for viable, long-term power, along with rising raw materials costs and falling global aluminum prices (mid-2011 to late 2011). As of December 31, 2012, the Portovesme smelter was fully curtailed (150,000 metric-tons-per-year).

In June 2013 and August 2014, Alcoa decided to permanently shut down and demolish the Fusina and Portovesme smelters, respectively, due to persistent uneconomical conditions (see Note D).

Environmental Matters. Alcoa participates in environmental assessments and cleanups at more than 100 locations. These include owned or operating facilities and adjoining properties, previously owned or operating facilities and adjoining properties, and waste sites, including Superfund (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)) sites.

A liability is recorded for environmental remediation when a cleanup program becomes probable and the costs can be reasonably estimated. As assessments and cleanups proceed, the liability is adjusted based on progress made in determining the extent of remedial actions and related costs. The liability can change substantially due to factors such as the nature and extent of contamination, changes in remedial requirements, and technological changes, among others.

Alcoa’s remediation reserve balance was $604 and $543 at December 31, 2015 and 2014 (of which $50 and $70 was classified as a current liability), respectively, and reflects the most probable costs to remediate identified environmental conditions for which costs can be reasonably estimated.

In 2015, the remediation reserve was increased by $115 due to a charge of $52 related to the planned demolition of the remaining structures at the Massena East smelter location (see Note D), a charge of $29 related to the planned demolition of the Poços de Caldas smelter and the Anglesea power station (see Note D), a charge of $12 related to the Mosjøen location (see below), a charge of $7 related to the Portovesme location (see below), and a net charge of $15 associated with a number of other sites. In 2014, the remediation reserve was increased by $61 due to a charge of $42 related to the planned demolition of certain structures at the Massena East, NY, Point Henry and Yennora, Australia, and Portovesme, Italy locations (see Note D), a charge of $3 related to the Portovesme location (see below), and a net charge of $16 associated with a number of other sites. Of the changes to the remediation reserve in 2015 and 2014, $86 and $47, respectively, was recorded in Restructuring and other charges, while the remainder was recorded in Cost of goods sold on the accompanying Statement of Consolidated Operations.

Payments related to remediation expenses applied against the reserve were $43 and $46 in 2015 and 2014, respectively. These amounts include expenditures currently mandated, as well as those not required by any regulatory authority or third party. In 2015, the change in the reserve also reflects a decrease of $16 due to the effects of foreign currency translation and an increase of $5 related to the acquisition of Firth Rixson (see Note F). In 2014, the change in the reserve also reflects an increase of $19 due to the effects of foreign currency translation and a reclassification of amounts included in other reserves within Other noncurrent liabilities and deferred credits on Alcoa’s Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2013.

Included in annual operating expenses are the recurring costs of managing hazardous substances and environmental programs. These costs are estimated to be approximately 2% of cost of goods sold.

The following discussion provides details regarding the current status of certain significant reserves related to current or former Alcoa sites.

Massena West, NY—Alcoa has an ongoing remediation project related to the Grasse River, which is adjacent to Alcoa’s Massena plant site. Many years ago, it was determined that sediments and fish in the river contain varying levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The project, which was selected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a Record of Decision (ROD) issued in April 2013, is aimed at capping PCB contaminated sediments with concentration in excess of one part per million in the main channel of the river and dredging PCB contaminated sediments in the near-shore areas where total PCBs exceed one part per million. At December 31, 2015 and 2014, the reserve balance associated with this matter was $234 and $239, respectively. Alcoa is in the planning and design phase, which is expected to be completed in 2017. Subsequently in 2017, the actual remediation fieldwork is expected to commence and take approximately four years. The majority of the project funding is expected to be spent between 2017 and 2021.

Sherwin, TX—In connection with the sale of the Sherwin alumina refinery, which was required to be divested as part of the Reynolds merger in 2000, Alcoa agreed to retain responsibility for the remediation of the then existing environmental conditions, as well as a pro rata share of the final closure of the active bauxite residue waste disposal areas (known as the Copano facility). Alcoa’s share of the closure costs is proportional to the total period of operation of the active waste disposal areas. At December 31, 2015 and 2014, the reserve balance associated with Sherwin was $30 and $32, respectively. Approximately half of the project funding is expected to be spent through 2019. The remainder is not expected to be spent in the foreseeable future as it is dependent upon the operating life of the active waste disposal areas.

East St. Louis, IL—Alcoa has an ongoing remediation project related to an area used for the disposal of bauxite residue from former alumina refining operations. The project, which was selected by the EPA in a ROD issued in July 2012, is aimed at implementing a soil cover over the affected area. On November 1, 2013, the U.S. Department of Justice lodged a consent decree on behalf of the EPA for Alcoa to conduct the work outlined in the ROD. This consent decree was entered as final in February 2014 by the U.S. Department of Justice. As a result, Alcoa began construction in March 2014; this project is expected to be completed by the end of March 2016 (Alcoa has a second project in East St. Louis that is separate from the matter presented herein on which Alcoa is expecting an EPA decision in 2016—any resulting liability is not expected to be material). At December 31, 2015 and 2014, the reserve balance associated with this matter was $8 and $15, respectively.

Fusina and Portovesme, Italy—In 1996, Alcoa acquired the Fusina smelter and rolling operations and the Portovesme smelter, both of which are owned by Alcoa’s subsidiary Alcoa Trasformazioni S.r.l. (“Trasformazioni”), from Alumix, an entity owned by the Italian Government. At the time of the acquisition, Alumix indemnified Alcoa for pre-existing environmental contamination at the sites. In 2004, the Italian Ministry of Environment and Protection of Land and Sea (MOE) issued orders to Trasformazioni and Alumix for the development of a clean-up plan related to soil contamination in excess of allowable limits under legislative decree and to institute emergency actions and pay natural resource damages. Trasformazioni appealed the orders and filed suit against Alumix, among others, seeking indemnification for these liabilities under the provisions of the acquisition agreement. In 2009, Ligestra S.r.l. (“Ligestra”), Alumix’s successor, and Trasformazioni agreed to a stay of the court proceedings while investigations were conducted and negotiations advanced towards a possible settlement.

In December 2009, Trasformazioni and Ligestra reached an initial agreement for settlement of the liabilities related to Fusina while negotiations continued related to Portovesme (see below). The agreement outlined an allocation of payments to the MOE for emergency action and natural resource damages and the scope and costs for a proposed soil remediation project, which was formally presented to the MOE in mid-2010. The agreement was contingent upon final acceptance of the remediation project by the MOE. As a result of entering into this agreement, Alcoa increased the reserve by $12 in 2009 for Fusina. Based on comments received from the MOE and local and regional environmental authorities, Trasformazioni submitted a revised remediation plan in the first half of 2012; however, such revisions did not require any change to the existing reserve. In October 2013, the MOE approved the project submitted by Alcoa, resulting in no adjustment to the reserve.

In January 2014, in anticipation of Alcoa reaching a final administrative agreement with the MOE, Alcoa and Ligestra entered into a final agreement related to Fusina for allocation of payments to the MOE for emergency action and natural resource damages and the costs for the approved soil remediation project. The agreement resulted in Ligestra assuming 50% to 80% of all payments and remediation costs. On February 27, 2014, Alcoa and the MOE reached a final administrative agreement for conduct of work. The agreement includes both a soil and groundwater remediation project estimated to cost $33 (€24) and requires payments of $25 (€18) to the MOE for emergency action and natural resource damages. The remediation projects are slated to begin as soon as Alcoa receives final approval from the Ministry of Infrastructure. Based on the final agreement with Ligestra, Alcoa’s share of all costs and payments is $17 (€12), of which $9 (€6) related to the damages will be paid annually over a 10-year period, which began in April 2014, and was previously fully reserved.

Separately, in 2009, due to additional information derived from the site investigations conducted at Portovesme, Alcoa increased the reserve by $3. In November 2011, Trasformazioni and Ligestra reached an agreement for settlement of the liabilities related to Portovesme, similar to the one for Fusina. A proposed soil remediation project for Portovesme was formally presented to the MOE in June 2012. Neither the agreement with Ligestra nor the proposal to the MOE resulted in a change to the reserve for Portovesme. In November 2013, the MOE rejected the proposed soil remediation project and requested a revised project be submitted. In May 2014, Trasformazioni and Ligestra submitted a revised soil remediation project that addressed certain stakeholders’ concerns. Alcoa increased the reserve by $3 in 2014 to reflect the estimated higher costs associated with the revised soil remediation project, as well as current operating and maintenance costs of the Portovesme site.

In October 2014, the MOE required a further revised project be submitted to reflect the removal of a larger volume of contaminated soil than what had been proposed, as well as design changes for the cap related to the remaining contaminated soil left in place and the expansion of an emergency containment groundwater pump and treatment system that was previously installed. Trasformazioni and Ligestra submitted the further revised soil remediation project in February 2015. As a result, Alcoa increased the reserve by $7 in March 2015 to reflect the increase in the estimated costs of the project. In October 2015, Alcoa received a final ministerial decree approving the February 2015 revised soil remediation project. Work on the soil remediation project will commence in 2016 and is expected to be completed in 2019. Alcoa and Ligestra are now working on a final groundwater remediation project, which will be submitted to the MOE for review during 2016. The ultimate outcome of this matter may result in a change to the existing reserve for Portovesme.

Baie Comeau, Quebec, Canada—In August 2012, Alcoa presented an analysis of remediation alternatives to the Quebec Ministry of Sustainable Development, Environment, Wildlife and Parks (MDDEP), in response to a previous request, related to known PCBs and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) contained in sediments of the Anse du Moulin bay. As such, Alcoa increased the reserve for Baie Comeau by $25 in 2012 to reflect the estimated cost of Alcoa’s recommended alternative, consisting of both dredging and capping of the contaminated sediments. In July 2013, Alcoa submitted the Environmental Impact Assessment for the project to the MDDEP. The MDDEP notified Alcoa that the project as it was submitted was approved and a final mistrial decree was issued in July 2015. As a result, no further adjustment to the reserve was required in 2015. The decree provides final approval for the project and allows Alcoa to start work on the final project design, which is expected to be completed in 2016 with construction on the project expected to begin in 2017. Completion of the final project design and bidding of the project may result in additional liability in a future period.

Mosjøen, Norway—In September 2012, Alcoa presented an analysis of remediation alternatives to the Norwegian Environmental Agency (NEA) (formerly the Norwegian Climate and Pollution Agency, or “Klif”), in response to a previous request, related to known PAHs in the sediments located in the harbor and extending out into the fjord. As such, Alcoa increased the reserve for Mosjøen by $20 in 2012 to reflect the estimated cost of the baseline alternative for dredging of the contaminated sediments. A proposed project reflecting this alternative was formally presented to the NEA in June 2014, and was resubmitted in late 2014 to reflect changes by the NEA. The revised proposal did not result in a change to the reserve for Mosjøen.

In April 2015, the NEA notified Alcoa that the revised project was approved and required submission of the final project design before issuing a final order. Alcoa completed and submitted the final project design, which identified a need to stabilize the related wharf structure to allow for the sediment dredging in the harbor. As a result, Alcoa increased the reserve for Mosjøen by $11 in June 2015 to reflect the estimated cost of the wharf stabilization. Also in June 2015, the NEA issued a final order approving the project as well as the final project design. In September 2015, Alcoa increased the reserve by $1 to reflect the potential need (based on prior experience with similar projects) to perform additional dredging if the results of sampling, which is required by the order, don’t achieve the required cleanup levels. Project construction will commence in 2016 and is expected to be completed by the end of 2017.

Tax. In September 2010, following a corporate income tax audit covering the 2003 through 2005 tax years, an assessment was received as a result of Spain’s tax authorities disallowing certain interest deductions claimed by a Spanish consolidated tax group owned by the Company. An appeal of this assessment in Spain’s Central Tax Administrative Court by the Company was denied in October 2013. In December 2013, the Company filed an appeal of the assessment in Spain’s National Court.

Additionally, following a corporate income tax audit of the same Spanish tax group for the 2006 through 2009 tax years, Spain’s tax authorities issued an assessment in July 2013 similarly disallowing certain interest deductions. In August 2013, the Company filed an appeal of this second assessment in Spain’s Central Tax Administrative Court, which was denied in January 2015. The Company filed an appeal of this second assessment in Spain’s National Court in March 2015.

The combined assessments (remeasured for a tax rate change enacted in November 2014—see Note T) total $263 (€241). The Company believes it has meritorious arguments to support its tax position and intends to vigorously litigate the assessments through Spain’s court system. However, in the event the Company is unsuccessful, a portion of the assessments may be offset with existing net operating losses available to the Spanish consolidated tax group. Additionally, it is possible that the Company may receive similar assessments for tax years subsequent to 2009. At this time, the Company is unable to reasonably predict an outcome for this matter.

In March 2013, Alcoa’s subsidiary, Alcoa World Alumina Brasil (AWAB), was notified by the Brazilian Federal Revenue Office (RFB) that approximately $110 (R$220) of value added tax credits previously claimed are being disallowed and a penalty of 50% assessed. Of this amount, AWAB received $41 (R$82) in cash in May 2012. The value added tax credits were claimed by AWAB for both fixed assets and export sales related to the Juruti bauxite mine and São Luís refinery expansion. The RFB has disallowed credits they allege belong to the consortium in which AWAB owns an interest and should not have been claimed by AWAB. Credits have also been disallowed as a result of challenges to apportionment methods used, questions about the use of the credits, and an alleged lack of documented proof. AWAB presented defense of its claim to the RFB on April 8, 2013. If AWAB is successful in this administrative process, the RFB would have no further recourse. If unsuccessful in this process, AWAB has the option to litigate at a judicial level. Separately from the AWAB’s administrative appeal, in June 2015, new tax law was enacted repealing the provisions in the tax code that were the basis for the RFB assessing a 50% penalty in this matter. As such, the estimated range of reasonably possible loss is $0 to $27 (R$103), whereby the maximum end of this range represents the portion of the disallowed credits applicable to the export sales and excludes the 50% penalty. Additionally, the estimated range of disallowed credits related to AWAB’s fixed assets is $0 to $30 (R$117), which would increase the net carrying value of AWAB’s fixed assets if ultimately disallowed. It is management’s opinion that the allegations have no basis; however, at this time, management is unable to reasonably predict an outcome for this matter.

Between 2000 and 2002, Alcoa Alumínio (Alumínio) sold approximately 2,000 metric tons of metal per month from its Poços de Caldas facility, located in the State of Minas Gerais (the “State”), to Alfio, a customer also located in the State. Sales in the State were exempted from value-added tax (VAT) requirements. Alfio subsequently sold metal to customers outside of the State, but did not pay the required VAT on those transactions. In July 2002, Alumínio received an assessment from State auditors on the theory that Alumínio should be jointly and severally liable with Alfio for the unpaid VAT. In June 2003, the administrative tribunal found Alumínio liable, and Alumínio filed a judicial case in the State in February 2004 contesting the finding. In May 2005, the Court of First Instance found Alumínio solely liable, and a panel of a State appeals court confirmed this finding in April 2006. Alumínio filed a special appeal to the Superior Tribunal of Justice (STJ) in Brasilia (the federal capital of Brazil) later in 2006. In 2011, the STJ (through one of its judges) reversed the judgment of the lower courts, finding that Alumínio should neither be solely nor jointly and severally liable with Alfio for the VAT, which ruling was then appealed by the State. In August 2012, the STJ agreed to have the case reheard before a five-judge panel. A decision from this panel is pending, but additional appeals are likely. At December 31, 2015, the assessment totaled $35 (R$135), including penalties and interest. While the Company believes it has meritorious defenses, the Company is unable to reasonably predict an outcome.

Other. In addition to the matters discussed above, various other lawsuits, claims, and proceedings have been or may be instituted or asserted against Alcoa, including those pertaining to environmental, product liability, safety and health, and tax matters. While the amounts claimed in these other matters may be substantial, the ultimate liability cannot now be determined because of the considerable uncertainties that exist. Therefore, it is possible that the Company’s liquidity or results of operations in a particular period could be materially affected by one or more of these other matters. However, based on facts currently available, management believes that the disposition of these other matters that are pending or asserted will not have a material adverse effect, individually or in the aggregate, on the financial position of the Company.

Commitments

Investments. Alumínio, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Alcoa, is a participant in four consortia that each owns a hydroelectric power project in Brazil. The purpose of Alumínio’s participation is to increase its energy self-sufficiency and provide a long-term, low-cost source of power for its two smelters (see below) and one refinery. These projects are known as Machadinho, Barra Grande, Serra do Facão, and Estreito.

Alumínio committed to taking a share of the output of the Machadinho and Barra Grande projects each for 30 years and the Serra do Facão and Estreito projects each for 26 years at cost (including cost of financing the project). In the event that other participants in any of these projects fail to fulfill their financial responsibilities, Alumínio may be required to fund a portion of the deficiency. In accordance with the respective agreements, if Alumínio funds any such deficiency, its participation and share of the output from the respective project will increase proportionately.

The Machadinho project reached full capacity in 2002. Alumínio’s investment in this project is 30.99%, which entitles Alumínio to approximately 120 megawatts of assured power. The Machadinho consortium is an unincorporated joint venture, and, therefore, Alumínio’s share of the assets and liabilities of the consortium are reflected in the respective lines on the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheet.

The Barra Grande project reached full capacity in 2006. Alumínio’s investment in this project is 42.18% and is accounted for under the equity method. This entitles Alumínio to approximately 160 megawatts of assured power. Alumínio’s total investment in this project was $94 (R$374) and $132 (R$355) at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

The Serra do Facão project reached full capacity in 2010. Alumínio’s investment in this project is 34.97% and is accounted for under the equity method. This entitles Alumínio to approximately 65 megawatts of assured power. Alumínio’s total investment in this project was $52 (R$208) and $66 (R$178) at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

The Estreito project reached full capacity in March 2013. Alumínio’s investment in this project is 25.49%, which entitles Alumínio to approximately 150 megawatts of assured power. The Estreito consortium is an unincorporated joint venture, and, therefore, Alumínio’s share of the assets and liabilities of the consortium are reflected in the respective lines on the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheet. As of December 31, 2015, construction of the Estreito project is essentially complete.

Prior to October 2013, Alumínio’s power self-sufficiency satisfied approximately 70% of a total energy demand of approximately 690 megawatts from two smelters (São Luís (Alumar) and Poços de Caldas) and one refinery (Poços de Caldas) in Brazil. Since that time, the total energy demand has declined by approximately 675 megawatts due to capacity curtailments of both smelters in both 2013 and 2014, as well as the eventual permanent closure of the Poços de Caldas smelter in 2015.

In 2004, Alcoa acquired a 20% interest in a consortium, which subsequently purchased the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline (DBNGP) in Western Australia, in exchange for an initial cash investment of $17 (A$24). The investment in the DBNGP, which is classified as an equity investment, was made in order to secure a competitively priced long-term supply of natural gas to Alcoa’s refineries in Western Australia. Alcoa made additional contributions of $141 (A$176) for its share of the pipeline capacity expansion and other operational purposes of the consortium through September 2011. No further expansion of the pipeline’s capacity is planned at this time. In late 2011, the consortium initiated a three-year equity call plan to improve its capitalization structure. This plan required Alcoa to contribute $39 (A$40), all of which was made through December 31, 2014. Following the completion of the three-year equity call plan in December 2014, the consortium initiated a new equity call plan to further improve its capitalization structure. This plan requires Alcoa to contribute $30 (A$36) through mid 2016, of which $17 (A$22) was made through December 31, 2015, including $16 (A$21) in 2015. In addition to its equity ownership, Alcoa has an agreement to purchase gas transmission services from the DBNGP. At December 31, 2015, Alcoa has an asset of $268 (A$368) representing prepayments made under the agreement for future gas transmission services. Alcoa’s maximum exposure to loss on the investment and the related contract is approximately $380 (A$520) as of December 31, 2015.

On April 8, 2015, Alcoa’s majority-owned subsidiary, Alcoa of Australia Limited (AofA), which is part of AWAC, secured a new 12-year gas supply agreement to power its three alumina refineries in Western Australia beginning in July 2020. This agreement was conditional on the completion of a third-party acquisition of the related energy assets from the then-current owner, which occurred in June 2015. The terms of AofA’s gas supply agreement require a prepayment of $500 to be made in two installments. The first installment of $300 was made at the time of the completion of the third-party acquisition and the second installment of $200 will be made in April 2016 (previously was scheduled in January 2016). At December 31, 2015, Alcoa has an asset of $288 (A$395), which was included in Other noncurrent assets on the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheet, representing the first installment.

Purchase Obligations. Alcoa is party to unconditional purchase obligations for energy that expire between 2018 and 2036. Commitments related to these contracts total $74 in 2016, $130 in 2017, $133 in 2018, $126 in 2019, $129 in 2020, and $1,711 thereafter. Expenditures under these contracts totaled $131 in 2015, $178 in 2014, and $163 in 2013. Additionally, Alcoa has entered into other purchase commitments for energy, raw materials, and other goods and services, which total $3,015 in 2016, $1,807 in 2017, $1,569 in 2018, $1,496 in 2019, $1,401 in 2020, and $13,251 thereafter.

Operating Leases. Certain land and buildings, alumina refinery process control technology, plant equipment, vehicles, and computer equipment are under operating lease agreements. Total expense for all leases was $210 in 2015, $227 in 2014, and $232 in 2013. Under long-term operating leases, minimum annual rentals are $243 in 2016, $168 in 2017, $130 in 2018, $100 in 2019, $74 in 2020, and $138 thereafter.

Guarantees. At December 31, 2015, Alcoa has maximum potential future payments for guarantees issued on behalf of a third party of $478. These guarantees expire at various times between 2017 and 2024 and relate to project financing for the aluminum complex in Saudi Arabia (see Note I). Alcoa also has outstanding bank guarantees related to tax matters, outstanding debt, workers compensation, environmental obligations, energy contracts, and customs duties, among others. The total amount committed under these guarantees, which expire at various dates between 2016 and 2023 was $320 at December 31, 2015.

Letters of Credit. Alcoa has outstanding letters of credit primarily related to workers’ compensation, energy contracts (including $200 related to an expected April 2016 prepayment under a gas supply contract—see Investments above), and leasing obligations. The total amount committed under these letters of credit, which automatically renew or expire at various dates, mostly in 2016, was $510 at December 31, 2015.

Surety Bonds. Alcoa has outstanding surety bonds primarily related to tax matters, contract performance, workers compensation, environmental-related matters, and customs duties. The total amount committed under these bonds, which automatically renew or expire at various dates, mostly in 2016, was $159 at December 31, 2015.