14. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Environmental Matters

Great Plains Energy and KCP&L are subject to extensive federal, state and local environmental laws, regulations and permit requirements relating to air and water quality, waste management and disposal, natural resources and health and safety. In addition to imposing continuing compliance obligations and remediation costs, these 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 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 the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule, (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 La Cygne No. 1 scrubber and baghouse installed by June 2015;


•	KCP&L's La Cygne No. 2 full air quality control system (AQCS) installed by June 2015;


•	KCP&L's Montrose No. 3 full AQCS installed by approximately 2020; and


•	GMO's Sibley No. 3 scrubber and baghouse installed by approximately 2017.

In September 2011, KCP&L commenced construction of the La Cygne projects and at December 31, 2012, had incurred approximately $234 million of cash capital expenditures, which is included in the approximate $1 billion estimate above. Other capital projects at KCP&L's Montrose Nos. 1 and 2 and GMO's Sibley Nos. 1 and 2 and Lake Road No. 4/6 are possible but are currently considered less likely. The Companies are continuously evaluating the approximate $1 billion estimate and the capital projects contained therein. Any capacity and energy requirements resulting from a decision not to proceed with the less likely projects are 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 $1 billion current estimate of capital expenditures 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 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 NO_x emissions in 28 states, including Missouri, accomplished through statewide caps. 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.

In July 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (D.C. Circuit Court) vacated CAIR in its entirety and remanded the matter to the EPA to promulgate a new rule consistent with its opinion. In December 2008, the court issued an order reinstating CAIR pending EPA's development of a replacement regulation on remand. In July 2011, the EPA finalized the CSAPR to replace the currently-effective CAIR. The CSAPR required states within its scope to reduce power plant SO₂and NO_xemissions that contribute to ozone and fine particle nonattainment in other states. Compliance with the CSAPR was scheduled to begin in 2012. Multiple states, utilities and other parties, including KCP&L, filed requests for reconsideration and stays with the EPA and/or the D.C. Circuit Court. In August 2012, the D.C. Circuit Court issued its opinion in which it vacated the CSAPR and remanded the rule to the EPA to revise in accordance with its opinion. The D.C. Circuit Court directed the EPA to continue to administer the CAIR until a valid replacement is promulgated.

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 La Cygne Nos. 1 and 2 in Kansas; KCP&L's Iatan No. 1, in which GMO has an 18% interest, and 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 approved BART plans.

KCP&L has a consent agreement with the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) incorporating limits for stack particulate matter emissions, as well as limits for NO_x and SO₂ emissions, at its La Cygne Station that 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 La Cygne Station prior to the required compliance date under BART, but in no event later than June 1, 2015. In August 2011, KCC issued its order on KCP&L's predetermination request that would apply to the recovery of costs for its 50% share of the environmental equipment required to comply with BART at the La Cygne Station. In the order, KCC stated that KCP&L's decision to retrofit La Cygne 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's 50% share of the estimated cost is $615 million. KCP&L began the project in September 2011.

Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) Rule

In December 2011, the EPA finalized the MATS Rule that will reduce emissions of toxic air pollutants, also known as hazardous air pollutants, from new and existing coal- and oil-fired electric utility generating units with a capacity of greater than 25 MWs. The rule establishes numerical emission limits for mercury, particulate matter (a surrogate for non-mercury metals), and hydrochloric acid (a surrogate for acid gases). The rule establishes work practices, instead of numerical emission limits, for organic air toxics, including dioxin/furan. Compliance with the rule would need to be achieved 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. The rule allows three to four years for compliance.

Industrial Boiler Rule

In December 2012, 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, 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 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. The rule allows three to four years for compliance.

New Source Review

The Clean Air Act's New Source Review program 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 2010, Westar settled a lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice on behalf of the EPA and agreed to install a selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system at one of the three Jeffrey Energy Center units by the end of 2014. The Jeffrey Energy Center 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. Westar has estimated the cost of this SCR at approximately $240 million. Depending on the NO_x 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. Westar has informed the EPA that they believe that the terms of the settlement can be met through the installation of less expensive NO_xreduction equipment rather than a second SCR system. GMO expects to seek recovery of its share of these costs through rate increases; however, there can be no assurance that such rate increases would be granted.

SO₂ NAAQS

In June 2010, the EPA strengthened the primary NAAQS for SO₂ by establishing a new 1-hour standard at a level of 0.075 ppm and revoking 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. The EPA has not yet made its final designation.

Particulate Matter (PM) NAAQS

In December 2012, the EPA strengthened the annual primary NAAQS for fine particulate matter (PM2.5). With the final rule, the EPA provided recent ambient air monitoring data for the Kansas City area indicating it would be in attainment of the revised fine particle standard. States will now make recommendations to designate areas as meeting the standards or not meeting them with the EPA making the final designation.

Climate Change

The Companies are subject to existing greenhouse gas reporting regulations and certain greenhouse gas permitting requirements. 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 international 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 25 million tons and 19 million tons per year for Great Plains Energy and KCP&L, respectively.

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 March 2012, the EPA proposed new source performance standards for emissions of CO₂ for new affected fossil-fuel-fired electric utility generating units. This action pursuant to the Clean Air Act would, for the first time, set national limits on the amount of CO₂ that power plants built in the future can emit. The proposal would not apply to Great Plains Energy's and KCP&L's existing units including modifications to those units.

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.

Laws have 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 possibly 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.

A Kansas law enacted in May 2009 required 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 increasing to 15% by 2016 and 20% by 2020. A Missouri law enacted in November 2008 required 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 2 MW for each of KCP&L and GMO) required to come from solar resources.

KCP&L and GMO project that they will be compliant with the Missouri renewable requirements, exclusive of the solar requirement, through 2023 for KCP&L and 2018 for GMO. 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 it will be compliant with the Kansas renewable requirements through 2015.

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.

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 June 2013. 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's results of operations, financial position and cash flows. 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, the EPA plans to revise the existing standards for water discharges from coal-fired power plants with a proposed rule in April 2013 and final action in May 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 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 use coal in generating electricity and dispose of the CCRs in both on-site facilities and facilities owned by third parties. The cost of complying with the proposed CCR rule has the potential of having a significant financial and operational impact on Great Plains Energy and KCP&L. 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 contaminated facilities and persons who arranged for the disposal or treatment of hazardous substances liable for the cost of investigation and cleanup. 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 biphenyl (PCB) contamination, 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 December 31, 2012 and 2011, KCP&L had $0.3 million accrued for environmental remediation expenses, which covers ground water monitoring at a former MGP site. The amount accrued was established on an undiscounted basis and KCP&L does not currently have an estimated time frame over which the accrued amount may be paid.

In addition to the $0.3 million accrual above, at December 31, 2012 and 2011, Great Plains Energy had $2.0 million and $2.1 million, respectively, accrued for the future investigation and remediation of certain additional GMO identified MGP 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; however, given the uncertainty of these items the possible loss or range of loss in excess of the amount accrued is not estimable.

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 $2.6 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.

Contractual Commitments

Great Plains Energy's and KCP&L's expenses related to lease commitments are detailed in the following table.



	2012		2011		2010
	(millions)
Great Plains Energy	$	21.8	$	20.9	$	17.2
KCP&L	17.7		17.0		13.2

Great Plains Energy's and KCP&L's contractual commitments at December 31, 2012, excluding pensions and long-term debt, are detailed in the following tables.



Great Plains Energy
	2013		2014		2015		2016		2017		After 2017			Total
Lease commitments	(millions)
Operating lease	$	16.8	$	14.9	$	13.7	$	9.9	$	9.6		$	146.5		$	211.4
Capital lease	0.4		0.4		0.4		0.4		0.4			4.9			6.9
Purchase commitments
Fuel	323.2		209.9		104.9		66.7		36.7			85.4			826.8
Power	39.3		44.9		44.9		44.9		43.5			651.5			869.0
Capacity	11.3		3.3		3.0		1.2		—			—			18.8
La Cygne environmental project	329.0		129.6		4.4		—		—			—			463.0
Non-regulated natural gas transportation	3.2		3.6		3.6		3.6		0.9			—			14.9
Other	124.7		34.0		27.2		15.2		6.3			43.3			250.7
Total contractual commitments	$	847.9	$	440.6	$	202.1	$	141.9	$	97.4		$	931.6		$	2,661.5



KCP&L
	2013		2014		2015		2016		2017		After 2017			Total
Lease commitments	(millions)
Operating lease	$	14.5	$	13.1	$	12.3	$	9.8	$	9.6		$	146.4		$	205.7
Capital lease	0.2		0.2		0.2		0.2		0.2			2.5			3.5
Purchase commitments
Fuel	261.7		177.6		91.8		61.4		36.7			85.4			714.6
Power	29.2		34.8		34.8		34.8		34.8			464.3			632.7
Capacity	2.9		2.9		3.0		1.2		—			—			10.0
La Cygne environmental project	329.0		129.6		4.4		—		—			—			463.0
Other	118.8		33.2		26.4		14.4		5.5			34.2			232.5
Total contractual commitments	$	756.3	$	391.4	$	172.9	$	121.8	$	86.8		$	732.8		$	2,262.0

Great Plains Energy's and KCP&L's lease commitments end in 2048. Operating lease commitments include rail cars to serve jointly-owned generating units where KCP&L is the managing partner. Of the amounts included in the table above, KCP&L will be reimbursed by the other owners for approximately $2.0 million per year from 2013 to 2015 and approximately $0.4 million per year from 2016 to 2025, for a total of $10.3 million.

Fuel commitments consist of commitments for nuclear fuel, coal and coal transportation. Power commitments consist of commitments for renewable energy under power purchase agreements. KCP&L and GMO purchase capacity from other utilities and nonutility suppliers. Purchasing capacity provides the option to purchase energy if needed or when market prices are favorable. KCP&L has capacity sales agreements not included above that total $5.9 million for 2013 and $4.3 million per year from 2014 to 2016. La Cygne environmental project represents 100% of the contractual commitments related to environmental upgrades at KCP&L's La Cygne Station. KCP&L owns 50% of the La Cygne Station and expects to be reimbursed by the other owner for its 50% share of the costs. Non-regulated natural gas transportation consists of MPS Merchant's commitments. Other represents individual commitments entered into in the ordinary course of business.