COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Notes to Financial Statements [Abstract]

10.	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Environmental Matters

Great Plains Energy and KCP&L are subject to extensive regulation by federal, state and local authorities with regard to environmental matters primarily through their utility operations. In addition to imposing extensive and continuing compliance obligations, laws, regulations and permits authorize the imposition of substantial penalties for noncompliance, including fines, injunctive relief and other sanctions. The cost of complying with current and future environmental requirements is expected to be material to Great Plains Energy and KCP&L. Failure to comply with environmental requirements or to timely recover environmental costs through rates could have a material adverse effect on Great Plains Energy’s and KCP&L’s results of operations, financial position and cash flows.

The following discussion groups environmental and certain associated matters into the broad categories of air and climate change, water, solid waste and remediation.

Air and Climate Change Overview

The Clean Air Act and associated regulations enacted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) form a comprehensive program to preserve air quality. States are required to establish regulations and programs to address all requirements of the Clean Air Act and have the flexibility to enact more stringent requirements. All of Great Plains Energy’s and KCP&L’s generating facilities, and certain of their other facilities, are subject to the Clean Air Act.

Great Plains Energy’s and KCP&L’s current estimate of capital expenditures (exclusive of AFUDC and property taxes) to comply with the currently-effective Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), the replacement to CAIR or the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), the best available retrofit technology (BART) rule, the SO2 national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), the industrial boiler rule and proposed maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for mercury and other hazardous air pollutant emissions (all of which are discussed below) is approximately $1 billion. The actual cost of compliance with any existing, proposed or future rules may be significantly different from the cost estimate provided.

The approximate $1 billion current estimate of capital expenditures reflects the following capital projects:

·	KCP&L’s LaCygne No. 1 scrubber and baghouse installed by June 2015;

·	KCP&L’s LaCygne No. 2 full air quality control system (AQCS) installed by June 2015;

·	KCP&L’s Montrose No. 3 full AQCS installed by approximately 2016; and

·	GMO’s Sibley No. 3 scrubber and baghouse installed by approximately 2016.

In September 2011, KCP&L commenced construction of the LaCygne project. Other capital projects at KCP&L’s Montrose Nos. 1 and 2 and GMO’s Sibley Nos. 1 and 2 and Lake Road Nos. 4 and 6 are possible but are currently considered less likely. Any capacity and energy requirements resulting from a decision not to proceed with these less likely projects is currently expected to be met through renewable energy additions required under Missouri and Kansas renewable energy standards, demand side management programs, construction of combustion turbines and/or combined cycle units, and/or power purchase agreements.

The estimate does not reflect the non-capital costs the Companies incur on an ongoing basis to comply with environmental laws, which may increase in the future due to the Companies’ ongoing compliance with current or future environmental laws. The Companies expect to seek recovery of the costs associated with environmental requirements through rate increases; however, there can be no assurance that such rate increases would be granted. The Companies may be subject to materially adverse rate treatment in response to competitive, economic, political, legislative or regulatory pressures and/or public perception of the Companies’ environmental reputation.

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)

The CAIR requires reductions in SO2 and NOx emissions in 28 states, including Missouri. The reductions in SO2 and NOx emissions are accomplished through statewide caps for NOx and SO2. Great Plains Energy’s and KCP&L’s fossil fuel-fired plants located in Missouri are subject to CAIR, while their fossil fuel-fired plants in Kansas are not.

On July 11, 2008, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated CAIR in its entirety and remanded the matter to the EPA to promulgate a new rule consistent with its opinion. On December 23, 2008, the Court issued an order remanding CAIR to the EPA to revise the rule consistent with its July 2008 order. The CAIR remains in effect through 2011.

CAIR currently establishes a market-based cap-and-trade program with an emission allowance allocation. Facilities demonstrate compliance with CAIR by holding sufficient allowances for each ton of SO2 and NOx emitted in any given year. KCP&L and GMO are currently allowed to utilize unused SO2 emission allowances that they have either accumulated during previous years of the Acid Rain Program or purchased to meet the more stringent CAIR requirements. At September 30, 2011, KCP&L had accumulated unused SO2 emission allowances sufficient to support over 150,000 tons of SO2 emissions (enough to support expected requirements under the CAIR and the Acid Rain Program for the foreseeable future) under the provisions of the Acid Rain program, which are recorded in inventory at zero cost. At September 30, 2011, GMO had accumulated unused SO2 emission allowances sufficient to support just over 9,000 tons of SO2 emissions (enough to support expected requirements under the CAIR and Acid Rain Program through 2011), which it has received under the Acid Rain Program or purchased, and are recorded in inventory at average cost. KCP&L and GMO purchase NOx allowances as needed.

In July 2011, the EPA finalized the CSAPR to replace the currently-effective CAIR. The CSAPR, like CAIR, will require the states within its scope to reduce power plant SO2 and NOx emissions that contribute to ozone and fine particle nonattainment in other states. The geographical scope of the CSAPR is broader than CAIR, and includes Kansas in addition to Missouri and other states. Kansas and Missouri are only included for fine particulate matter control in the final CSAPR, but the EPA concurrently proposed a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking to include both states for ozone season control which the EPA intends to finalize in November 2011. The CSAPR would also impose more stringent emissions limitations than CAIR and, unlike CAIR, would not utilize Acid Rain Program allowances for compliance. In the CSAPR, the EPA set an emissions budget for each of the affected states. The CSAPR allows limited interstate emissions allowance trading among power plants; however, it does not permit trading of SO2 allowances between the Companies’ Kansas and Missouri power plants. Compliance with the CSAPR begins in 2012. There would be additional reductions in SO2 allowances allocable to the Companies’ Missouri power plants taking effect in 2014. There is no such 2014 additional reduction in SO2 allowances allocable to the Companies’ Kansas power plants. In October 2011, the EPA proposed technical adjustments to the final CSAPR. The proposed rule amends the assurance penalty provisions to start in 2014, instead of 2012. The EPA proposed to revise certain unit-level allocations in six states, including Kansas, affected by federally enforceable consent agreements. This would allocate additional allowances to KCP&L’s LaCygne Station to assist in compliance with CSAPR.

The finalized CSAPR is complex and Great Plains Energy and KCP&L are evaluating its impacts. The Companies project that they may not be allocated sufficient SO2 or NOX emissions allowances to cover their currently expected operations starting in 2012. Any shortfall in allocated allowances is anticipated to be addressed through a combination of permissible allowance trading, installing additional emission control equipment, changes in plant processes, or purchasing additional power in the wholesale market. Multiple states, utilities and other parties, including KCP&L, have filed reconsideration requests and stays with the EPA and/or the D.C. Circuit Court.

Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Rule

The EPA BART rule directs state air quality agencies to identify whether visibility-reducing emissions from sources subject to BART are below limits set by the state or whether retrofit measures are needed to reduce emissions. BART applies to specific eligible facilities including KCP&L’s LaCygne Nos. 1 and 2 in Kansas, KCP&L’s Iatan No. 1, in which GMO has an 18% interest, KCP&L’s Montrose No. 3 in Missouri, GMO’s Sibley Unit No. 3 and Lake Road Unit No. 6 in Missouri and Westar Energy, Inc.’s (Westar) Jeffrey Unit Nos. 1 and 2 in Kansas, in which GMO has an 8% interest. Both Missouri and Kansas have submitted BART plans to the EPA but neither Missouri nor Kansas has received EPA approval for their BART plans. In August 2011, the EPA proposed to approve the Kansas BART plan.

Mercury and Other Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions

In January 2009, the EPA issued a memorandum stating that new electric steam generating units (EGUs) that began construction while the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) was effective are subject to a new source MACT determination on a case-by-case basis.

In July 2009, the EPA sent letters notifying KCP&L that MACT determinations and schedules of compliance are required for coal and oil-fired EGUs that began actual construction or reconstruction after December 15, 2000, and identified Iatan No. 2 and Hawthorn No. 5 as affected EGUs. This was an outcome of the D.C. Court of Appeals’ vacatur of both the CAMR and the contemporaneously promulgated rule removing EGUs from MACT requirements. In May 2011, KCP&L received a letter from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) stating the MACT determination was not required for Hawthorn No. 5. It is not currently known how MACT determinations and schedules of compliance will impact the permitting or operating requirements for Iatan No. 2, but it is possible a MACT determination may ultimately require additional emission control equipment and permit limits.

In April 2010, the EPA, in a court approved settlement, agreed to develop MACT standards for mercury and potentially other hazardous air pollutant emissions. In the settlement agreement, the EPA agreed to propose MACT standards in March 2011 and is expected to issue final standards by December 2011. In March 2011, the EPA issued a proposed rule that would reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants from new and existing coal-fired EGUs with a capacity of 25MW or greater. The proposed rule would establish numerical emission limits for mercury, particulate matter (a surrogate for non-mercury metals), and hydrogen chloride (a surrogate for acid gases). The proposed rule would establish work practices, instead of numerical emission limits, for organic hazardous air pollutants, including dioxin/furan. Compliance with the rule would need to be addressed by installing additional emission control equipment, changes in plant operation, purchasing additional power in the wholesale market or a combination of these and other alternatives. Any final rule could have a significant effect on Great Plains Energy’s and KCP&L’s results of operations, financial position and cash flows.

Industrial Boiler Rule

In February 2011, the EPA issued a final rule that would reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants from new and existing industrial boilers. The final rule establishes numeric emission limits for mercury, dioxin, particulate matter (as a surrogate for non-mercury metals), hydrogen chloride (as a surrogate for acid gases), and carbon monoxide (as a surrogate for non-dioxin organic hazardous air pollutants). The final rule establishes emission limits for KCP&L’s and GMO’s new and existing units that produce steam other than for the generation of electricity. The final rule does not apply to KCP&L’s and GMO’s electricity generating boilers, but would apply to most of GMO’s Lake Road boilers, which also serve steam customers, and to auxiliary boilers at other generating facilities. In May 2011, the EPA announced it would stay the effective date of the final rule during reconsideration. The EPA indicated it will propose a revised rule in November 2011 and issue another final rule by the end of April 2012.

New Source Review

The Clean Air Act requires companies to obtain permits and, if necessary, install control equipment to reduce emissions when making a major modification or a change in operation if either is expected to cause a significant net increase in regulated emissions.

In January 2004, Westar received notification from the EPA alleging that it had violated new source review requirements and Kansas environmental regulations by making modifications to the Jeffrey Energy Center without obtaining the proper permits. In February 2009, the Attorney General of the United States filed a complaint against Westar alleging that it violated the Clean Air Act and related federal and state regulations by making major modifications to the Jeffrey Energy Center beginning in 1994 without first obtaining appropriate permits authorizing this construction and without installing and operating best available control technology to control emissions. The Jeffrey Energy Center consists of three coal-fired units located in Kansas that is 92% owned by Westar and operated exclusively by Westar. GMO has an 8% interest in the Jeffrey Energy Center and is generally responsible for its 8% share of the facility’s operating costs and capital expenditures. In January 2010, Westar entered into a settlement agreement, which was approved by the court in March 2010. The settlement agreement requires, among other things, the installation of a selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system at one of the Jeffrey Energy Center units by the end of 2014 and the payment of a $3 million civil penalty. Westar has estimated the cost of this SCR at approximately $240 million. Depending on the NOx emission reductions attained by that SCR and attainable through the installation of other controls at the other two units, the settlement agreement may require the installation of a second SCR system on one of the other two units by the end of 2016. There is no assurance that GMO’s share of these costs would be recovered in rates and failure to recover such costs could have a significant effect on Great Plains Energy’s results of operations, financial position and cash flows.

KCP&L has received requests for information from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) pertaining to a past LaCygne No. 1 scrubber project. KCP&L is working with the KDHE to resolve this issue and management currently believes the outcome will not have a significant impact on Great Plains Energy’s and KCP&L’s results of operations, financial position and cash flows.

Collaboration Agreement

In March 2007, KCP&L, the Sierra Club and the Concerned Citizens of Platte County entered into a Collaboration Agreement under which KCP&L agreed to pursue a set of initiatives including energy efficiency, additional wind generation, lower emission permit levels at its Iatan and LaCygne generating stations and other initiatives designed to offset CO2 emissions. Full implementation of the terms of the Collaboration Agreement will necessitate approval from the appropriate authorities, as some of the initiatives in the agreement require regulatory approval.

In 2006, KCP&L installed 100MW of wind generation at its Spearville wind site. KCP&L agreed in the Collaboration Agreement to pursue increasing its wind generation capacity to 500MW in total by the end of 2012 with 100MW to be added by the end of 2010 and the remainder added by the end of 2012, subject to regulatory approval. In 2010, KCP&L completed a 48MW wind project adjacent to its existing Spearville wind site with wind turbines it already owned and also secured 52MW of renewable energy credits. During 2011, KCP&L entered into a 20-year power purchase agreement for approximately 131MW of wind generation beginning in 2012. The Companies are evaluating options to add up to 200MW of new wind capacity through a combination of ownership and power purchase agreements.

KCP&L has a consent agreement with the KDHE incorporating limits for stack particulate matter emissions, as well as limits for NOx and SO2 emissions, at its LaCygne Station that, consistent with the Collaboration Agreement, will be below the presumptive limits under BART. KCP&L further agreed to use its best efforts to install emission control technologies to reduce those emissions from the LaCygne Station prior to the required compliance date under BART, but in no event later than June 1, 2015. In February 2011, KCP&L filed a request with KCC for predetermination of the ratemaking treatment that would apply to the recovery of costs for its 50% share of the environmental equipment required to comply with BART at the LaCygne Station. The request for predetermination included an estimated total project cost of $1.23 billion (excluding AFUDC and property tax). KCP&L’s 50% share of the estimated cost is $615 million. In August 2011, KCC issued its order on the predetermination request. In the order, KCC stated that KCP&L’s decision to retrofit LaCygne was reasonable, reliable, efficient and prudent and the $1.23 billion cost estimate is reasonable. If the cost for the project is at or below the $1.23 billion estimate, absent a showing of fraud or other intentional imprudence, KCC stated that it will not re-evaluate the prudency of the cost of the project. If the cost of the project exceeds the $1.23 billion estimate and KCP&L seeks to recover amounts exceeding the estimate, KCP&L will bear the burden of proving that any additional costs were prudently incurred. KCP&L began the project in September 2011.

In a related proceeding, in January 2011, KCC opened a general investigation docket regarding KCP&L and Westar environmental retrofits upon the recommendation of the KCC Staff and the Citizens Utility Ratepayers Board. The Companies cannot predict the outcome or timing of this matter but the outcome could have the potential to impact the Companies’ resource planning in the future.

In the Collaboration Agreement, KCP&L also agreed to offset an additional 711,000 tons of CO2 by the end of 2012. KCP&L currently expects to achieve this offset through a number of alternatives, including improving the efficiency of its coal-fired units, equipping certain gas-fired units for winter operation and, if necessary, possibly reducing output of, or retiring, one or more coal-fired units.

Climate Change

The Companies are subject to existing greenhouse gas reporting regulations and, as discussed below, are subject to certain greenhouse gas permitting requirements starting in 2011. Management believes it is possible that additional federal or relevant state or local laws or regulations could be enacted to address global climate change. At the international level, while the United States is not a current party to the Kyoto Protocol, it has agreed to undertake certain voluntary actions under the non-binding Copenhagen Accord and pursuant to subsequent international discussions relating to climate change, including the establishment of a goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. International agreements legally binding on the United States may be reached in the future. Such new laws or regulations could mandate new or increased requirements to control or reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, which are created in the combustion of fossil fuels. The Companies’ current generation capacity is primarily coal-fired and is estimated to produce about one ton of CO2 per MWh, or approximately 23 million tons and 17 million tons per year for Great Plains Energy and KCP&L, respectively.

Laws have recently been passed in Missouri and Kansas, the states in which the Companies’ retail electric businesses are operated, setting renewable energy standards, and management believes that national clean or renewable energy standards are also possible. While management believes additional requirements addressing these matters will probably be enacted, the timing, provisions and impact of such requirements, including the cost to obtain and install new equipment to achieve compliance, cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. In addition, certain federal courts have held that state and local governments and private parties have standing to bring climate change tort suits seeking company-specific emission reductions and monetary or other damages. While the Companies are not a party to any climate change tort suit, there is no assurance that such suits may not be filed in the future or as to the outcome if such suits are filed. Such requirements or litigation outcomes could have the potential for a significant financial and operational impact on Great Plains Energy and KCP&L. The Companies would likely seek recovery of capital costs and expenses for compliance through rate increases; however, there can be no assurance that such rate increases would be granted.

Legislation concerning the reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases, including CO2, is being considered at the federal and state levels. The timing and effects of any such legislation cannot be determined at this time. In the absence of new Congressional mandates, the EPA is proceeding with the regulation of greenhouse gases under the existing Clean Air Act.

In May 2010, the EPA issued a final rule addressing greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources under the Clean Air Act permitting programs. This final rule sets thresholds for greenhouse gas emissions that define when permits under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V Operating Permit programs are required for new and existing industrial facilities. The EPA phased in the Clean Air Act permitting requirements for greenhouse gas emissions in two initial steps. In step 1, which started January 2, 2011, only sources currently subject to the PSD permitting program (i.e., those that are newly-constructed or modified in a way that significantly increases emissions of a pollutant other than greenhouse gas) are subject to Title V or PSD permitting requirements, respectively, for their greenhouse gas emissions. For these projects, only projects with new or increases of greenhouse gas emissions of 75,000 tons per year or more of total greenhouse gases, on a CO2 equivalent basis, need to determine the best available control technology for their greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, sources subject to the Title V Operating Permit Program need to address greenhouse gas emissions as those permits are applied for or renewed. In step 2, which started July 1, 2011, Title V and PSD permitting requirements now cover, for the first time, new construction projects that emit greenhouse gas emissions of at least 100,000 tons per year even if they do not exceed the permitting thresholds for any other pollutant. In addition, modifications at such existing facilities that increase greenhouse gas emissions by at least 75,000 tons per year are subject to permitting requirements, even if they do not significantly increase emissions of any other pollutant. Great Plains Energy’s and KCP&L’s generating facilities that trigger these thresholds for new installations, modifications or Title V operating permits are subject to this rule.

In March 2011, the EPA announced it finalized a settlement agreement to issue a rule that will address greenhouse gas emissions from EGUs. The rule would establish new source performance standards for new and modified EGUs and emission guidelines for existing EGUs. Under the settlement agreement, the EPA committed to issuing proposed regulations by September 2011, although the EPA did not meet that date, and final regulations by May 2012.

At the state level, a Kansas law enacted in May 2009 requires Kansas public electric utilities, including KCP&L, to have renewable energy generation capacity equal to at least 10% of their three-year average Kansas peak retail demand by 2011. The percentage increases to 15% by 2016 and 20% by 2020. A Missouri law enacted in November 2008 requires at least 2% of the electricity provided by Missouri investor-owned utilities (including KCP&L and GMO) to their Missouri retail customers to come from renewable resources, including wind, solar, biomass and hydropower, by 2011, increasing to 5% in 2014, 10% in 2018, and 15% in 2021, with a small portion (estimated to be about 2MW in 2011 for each of KCP&L and GMO) required to come from solar resources.

KCP&L and GMO project that their existing renewable resources (including accumulated renewable energy credits) will be sufficient for compliance with the Missouri requirements, exclusive of the solar requirement, through 2021 and 2016, respectively. KCP&L and GMO project that the purchase of solar renewable energy credits will be sufficient for compliance with the Missouri solar requirements for the foreseeable future.

KCP&L also projects that its existing renewable resources (including both accumulated renewable energy credits and purchased renewable energy credits) will be sufficient for compliance with the 2011 Kansas requirements. During 2011, KCP&L entered into a 20-year power purchase agreement for approximately 131MW of wind generation beginning in 2012. With the addition of this power purchase agreement along with its existing renewable resources, KCP&L anticipates its renewable resources will be sufficient

for compliance with the Kansas requirements through 2012. The Companies are evaluating options to add up to 200MW of new wind capacity through a combination of ownership and power purchase agreements.

Additionally, in November 2007, governors from six Midwestern states, including Kansas, signed the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord, which has established the goal of reducing member states’ greenhouse gas emissions to 15% to 20% below 2005 levels by 2020, and 60% to 80% below 2005 levels by 2050.

Greenhouse gas legislation or regulation has the potential of having significant financial and operational impacts on Great Plains Energy and KCP&L, including the potential costs and impacts of achieving compliance with limits that may be established. However, the ultimate financial and operational consequences to Great Plains Energy and KCP&L cannot be determined until such legislation is passed and/or regulations are issued. Management will continue to monitor the progress of relevant legislation and regulations.

Ozone NAAQS

In June 2007, monitor data indicated that the Kansas City area violated the 1997 primary eight-hour ozone NAAQS. Missouri and Kansas have implemented the responses established in the maintenance plans for control of ozone. The responses in both states do not require additional controls at Great Plains Energy’s and KCP&L’s generation facilities beyond the currently proposed controls for CSAPR and BART. The EPA has various options over and above the implementation of the maintenance plans for control of ozone to address the violation but has not yet acted. At this time, management is unable to predict how the EPA will respond or how that response will impact Great Plains Energy’s and KCP&L’s operations. However, the EPA’s response could have a significant effect on Great Plains Energy's and KCP&L's results of operations, financial position and cash flows.

In March 2008, the EPA significantly strengthened its NAAQS for ground-level ozone. The EPA revised the primary eight-hour ozone standard, designed to protect public health, to a level of 0.075 parts per million (ppm). The EPA also strengthened the secondary eight-hour ozone standard to the level of 0.075 ppm making it identical to the revised primary standard. The previous primary and secondary standards, set in 1997, were effectively 0.084 ppm.

In March 2009, the MDNR and KDHE submitted to the EPA their determinations that the Kansas City area is a nonattainment area under the 2008 primary eight-hour ozone standard. The EPA will make final designations of attainment and nonattainment areas. By 2013, states must submit state implementation plans outlining how states will reduce ozone to meet the standards in nonattainment areas. Although the impact on Great Plains Energy’s and KCP&L’s operations will not be known until after the final nonattainment designations and the state implementation plans are submitted, it could have a significant effect on Great Plains Energy’s and KCP&L’s results of operations, financial position and cash flows.

In January 2010, the EPA proposed to reconsider and further strengthen the 2008 NAAQS for ground-level ozone. The EPA proposed to strengthen the primary eight-hour ozone standard to a level within the range of 0.060-0.070 ppm. The EPA also proposed to establish a distinct cumulative, seasonal secondary standard, designed to protect sensitive vegetation and ecosystems, to within the range of 7-15 ppm-hours. In September 2011, President Obama requested that the EPA withdraw the proposed rule reconsidering the 2008 NAAQS and the EPA announced it will proceed with implementation of the 2008 primary eight-hour ozone standard of 0.075 ppm. The EPA indicated, based on the available ozone air quality data, that the Kansas City area would meet the standard.

SO2 NAAQS

In June 2010, the EPA strengthened the primary NAAQS for SO2. The EPA revised the primary SO2 standard by establishing a new 1-hour standard at a level of 0.075 ppm. The EPA revoked the two existing primary standards of 0.140 ppm evaluated over 24 hours and 0.030 ppm evaluated over an entire year. In July 2011, the MDNR recommended to the EPA that part of Jackson County, Missouri, which is in the Companies' service territory, be designated a nonattainment area for the new 1-hour SO2 standard. Although the impact on Great Plains Energy’s and KCP&L’s operations will not be known until after the nonattainment designations are approved and the state implementation plans are submitted, it could have a significant effect on Great Plains Energy’s and KCP&L’s results of operations, financial position and cash flows.

Montrose Station Notice of Violation

In June 2009, KCP&L received notification from the MDNR alleging that its Montrose Station had excess particulate matter emissions in 2008. KCP&L is working with the MDNR to resolve this issue and management believes the outcome will not have a significant impact on Great Plains Energy’s and KCP&L’s results of operations, financial position and cash flows.

Water

The Clean Water Act and associated regulations enacted by the EPA form a comprehensive program to preserve water quality. Like the Clean Air Act, states are required to establish regulations and programs to address all requirements of the Clean Water Act, and have the flexibility to enact more stringent requirements. All of Great Plains Energy’s and KCP&L’s generating facilities, and certain of their other facilities, are subject to the Clean Water Act.

In March 2011, the EPA proposed regulations pursuant to Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act regarding cooling water intake structures pursuant to a court approved settlement. KCP&L generation facilities with cooling water intake structures would be subject to a limit on how many fish can be killed by being pinned against intake screens (impingement) and would be required to conduct studies to determine whether and what site-specific controls, if any, would be required to reduce the number of aquatic organisms drawn into cooling water systems (entrainment). The EPA agreed to finalize the rule by July 2012. Although the impact on Great Plains Energy’s and KCP&L’s operations will not be known until after the rule is finalized, it could have a significant effect on Great Plains Energy’s and KCP&L’s results of operations, financial position and cash flows.

KCP&L holds a permit from the MDNR covering water discharge from its Hawthorn Station. The permit authorizes KCP&L to, among other things, withdraw water from the Missouri river for cooling purposes and return the heated water to the Missouri river. KCP&L has applied for a renewal of this permit and the EPA has submitted an interim objection letter regarding the allowable amount of heat that can be contained in the returned water. Until this matter is resolved, KCP&L continues to operate under its current permit. KCP&L cannot predict the outcome of this matter; however, while less significant outcomes are possible, this matter may require KCP&L to reduce its generation at Hawthorn Station, install cooling towers or both, any of which could have a significant impact on KCP&L. The outcome could also affect the terms of water permit renewals at KCP&L’s Iatan Station and at GMO’s Sibley and Lake Road Stations.

Additionally, in September 2009, the EPA announced plans to revise the existing standards for water discharges from coal-fired power plants. In November 2010, the EPA filed a motion requesting court approval of a consent agreement in which the EPA agreed to propose a rule in July 2012 and to finalize it in January 2014. Until a rule is proposed and finalized, the financial and operational impacts to Great Plains Energy and KCP&L cannot be determined.

Solid Waste

Solid and hazardous waste generation, storage, transportation, treatment and disposal is regulated at the federal and state levels under various laws and regulations. In May 2010, the EPA proposed to regulate coal combustion residuals (CCRs) under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to address the risks from the disposal of CCRs generated from the combustion of coal at electric generating facilities. The EPA is considering two options in this proposal. Under the first option, the EPA would regulate CCRs as special wastes subject to regulation under subtitle C of RCRA (hazardous), when they are destined for disposal in landfills or surface impoundments. Under the second option, the EPA would regulate disposal of CCRs under subtitle D of RCRA (non-hazardous). The Companies principally use coal in generating electricity and dispose of the CCRs in both on-site facilities and facilities owned by third parties. The proposed CCR rule has the potential of having a significant financial and operational impact on Great Plains Energy and KCP&L in connection with achieving compliance with the proposed requirements. However, the financial and operational consequences to Great Plains Energy and KCP&L cannot be determined until an option is selected by the EPA and the final regulation is enacted.

Remediation

Certain federal and state laws, including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) hold current and previous owners or operators of real property, and any person who arranges for the disposal or treatment of hazardous substances at a property, liable on a joint and several basis for the costs of cleaning up contamination at or migrating from such real property, even if they did not know of and were not responsible for such contamination. CERCLA and other laws also authorize the EPA and other agencies to issue orders compelling potentially responsible parties to clean up sites that are determined to present an actual or potential threat to human health or the environment. GMO is named as a potentially responsible party at two disposal sites for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and retains some environmental liability for several operations and investments it no longer owns. In addition, GMO also owns, or has acquired liabilities from companies that once owned or operated, former manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites, which are subject to the supervision of the EPA and various state environmental agencies.

At September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, KCP&L had $0.3 million accrued for environmental remediation expenses, which covers ground water monitoring at a former MGP site. At September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, Great Plains Energy had $0.4 million accrued for environmental remediation expenses, which includes the $0.3 million at KCP&L, and additional potential remediation and ground water monitoring costs relating to two GMO sites. The amounts accrued were established on an undiscounted basis and Great Plains Energy and KCP&L do not currently have an estimated time frame over which the accrued amounts may be paid.

In addition to the $0.4 million accrual above, at September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, Great Plains Energy had $2.1 million accrued for the future investigation and remediation of certain additional GMO identified MGP sites, PCB sites and retained liabilities. This estimate was based upon review of the potential costs associated with conducting investigative and remedial actions at identified sites, as well as the likelihood of whether such actions will be necessary. This estimate could change materially after further investigation, and could also be affected by the actions of environmental agencies and the financial viability of other potentially responsible parties.

GMO has pursued recovery of remediation costs from insurance carriers and other potentially responsible parties. As a result of a settlement with an insurance carrier, approximately $2.3 million in insurance proceeds less an annual deductible is available to GMO to recover qualified MGP remediation expenses. GMO would seek recovery of additional remediation costs and expenses through rate increases; however, there can be no assurance that such rate increases would be granted.

In January 2010, the EPA announced an advance notice of proposed rulemaking under CERCLA identifying classes of facilities for which the EPA will develop financial assurance requirements, including the electric power generation, transmission and distribution industry. The CERCLA financial assurance would be for risks associated with Great Plains Energy’s and KCP&L’s production, transportation, treatment, storage or disposal of CERCLA hazardous substances. The impact on Great Plains Energy and KCP&L cannot be determined until the regulations are finalized.

In April 2010, the EPA announced an advance notice of proposed rulemaking for the use and distribution in commerce of certain PCBs, PCB items and certain other areas of the PCB regulations. The EPA is reassessing the use, distribution in commerce, marking, and storage for reuse of liquid PCBs in electric and non-electric equipment and the use of the 50 ppm level for excluded PCB products among other things. The impact on Great Plains Energy and KCP&L cannot be determined until the regulations are finalized.

Contractual Commitments

At September 30, 2011, Great Plains Energy’s and KCP&L’s contractual commitments for KCP&L’s environmental retrofits at its LaCygne station are $123.3 million, $385.7 million, $286.6 million, $130.1 million and $6.3 million for the years 2011 though 2015, respectively. KCP&L owns 50% of the LaCygne station. KCP&L expects to be reimbursed by the other owner for its 50% share of the costs. Great Plains Energy’s and KCP&L’s other contractual commitments have not significantly changed at September 30, 2011, compared to December 31, 2010.