See Note 11 for information on the power supply agreements between PPL EnergyPlus and PPL Electric.

PPL and its subsidiaries are involved in legal proceedings, claims and litigation in the ordinary course of business. PPL and its subsidiaries cannot predict the outcome of such matters, or whether such matters may result in material liabilities, unless otherwise noted.

See footnote (h) to the table in "Guarantees and Other Assurances" below for information on an LKE indemnity relating to its former WKE lease, including related legal proceedings.

On March 6, 2013, the Sierra Club and the MEIC filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court, District of Montana, Billings Division against PPL Montana and the other Colstrip Steam Electric Station (Colstrip) co-owners: Avista Corporation, Puget Sound Energy, Portland General Electric Company, Northwestern Energy and Pacific Corp. PPL Montana operates Colstrip on behalf of the co-owners. The suit alleges certain violations of the Clean Air Act, including New Source Review, Title V and opacity requirements and listed 39 separate claims for relief. The complaint requests injunctive relief and civil penalties on average of $36,000 per day per violation, including a request that the owners remediate environmental damage and that $100,000 of the civil penalties be used for beneficial mitigation projects.

On July 27, 2013, the Sierra Club and MEIC filed an additional Notice, identifying additional plant projects that are alleged not to be in compliance with the Clean Air Act. In September 2013, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. This amended complaint drops all claims regarding pre-2001 plant projects, as well as the plaintiffs' Title V and opacity claims. It does, however, add claims with respect to a number of post-2000 plant projects, which effectively increased the number of projects subject to the litigation by about 40. PPL Montana and the other Colstrip owners filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in October 2013. On May 22, 2014, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' independent Best Available Control Technology claims and their Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) claims for three projects, but denied the owners' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' other PSD claims on statute of limitation grounds. In April 2014, trial as to liability in this matter was re-scheduled to June 2015. A trial date with respect to remedies, if there is a finding of liability, has not been scheduled. PPL Montana believes it and the other co-owners have numerous defenses to the allegations set forth in this complaint and will vigorously assert the same. PPL Montana cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this matter at this time.

On December 16, 2013, six residents, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against LG&E and PPL in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act and RCRA. In addition, these plaintiffs assert common law claims of nuisance, trespass and negligence. These plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and civil penalties, plus costs and attorney fees, for the alleged statutory violations. Under the common law claims, these plaintiffs seek monetary compensation and punitive damages for property damage and diminished property values for a class consisting of residents within four miles of the plant. In their individual capacities, these plaintiffs seek compensation for alleged adverse health effects. In response to a motion to dismiss filed by PPL and LG&E, on July 17, 2014 the court dismissed the plaintiffs' RCRA claims and all but one of its Clean Air Act claims, but declined to dismiss their common law tort claims. PPL, LKE and LG&E cannot predict the outcome of this matter or the potential impact on operations of the Cane Run plant. LG&E has previously announced that it anticipates retiring the coal-fired units at Cane Run before the end of 2015.

On May 28, 2014, the Sierra Club filed a citizen suit against LG&E in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky for alleged violations of the Clean Water Act. The Sierra Club alleges that various discharges at the Mill Creek plant constitute violations of the plant's water discharge permit. The Sierra Club seeks civil penalties, injunctive relief, plus costs and attorney's fees. PPL, LKE and LG&E cannot predict the outcome of this matter or the potential impact on the operations of the Mill Creek plant but believe the plant is operating in compliance with the permits.

See Note 6 for information on regulatory matters related to utility rate regulation.

In January 2011, New Jersey enacted a law that intervenes in the wholesale capacity market exclusively regulated by the FERC (the Act). To create incentives for the development of new, in-state electricity generation facilities, the Act implements a long-term capacity agreement pilot program (LCAPP). The Act requires New Jersey utilities to pay a guaranteed fixed price for wholesale capacity, imposed by the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (BPU), to certain new generators participating in PJM, with the ultimate costs of that guarantee to be borne by New Jersey ratepayers. PPL believes the intent and effect of the LCAPP is to encourage the construction of new generation in New Jersey even when, under the FERC-approved PJM economic model, such new generation would not be economic. The Act could depress capacity prices in PJM in the short term, impacting PPL Energy Supply's revenues, and harm the long-term ability of the PJM capacity market to encourage necessary generation investment throughout PJM.

In February 2011, PPL and several other generating companies and utilities filed a complaint in U.S. District Court in New Jersey challenging the Act on the grounds that it violates well-established principles under the Supremacy and Commerce clauses of the U.S. Constitution and requesting declaratory and injunctive relief barring implementation of the Act by the BPU Commissioners. In October 2013, the U.S. District Court in New Jersey issued a decision finding the Act unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause on the grounds that it infringes upon the FERC's exclusive authority to regulate the wholesale sale of electricity in interstate commerce. The decision has been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit by CPV Power Development, Inc., Hess Newark, LLC and the State of New Jersey and oral argument was held on March 27, 2014. PPL, PPL Energy Supply and PPL Electric cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding or the economic impact on their businesses or operations, or the markets in which they transact business.

In April 2012, the Maryland Public Service Commission (MD PSC) ordered three electric utilities in Maryland to enter into long-term contracts to support the construction of new electricity generating facilities in Maryland, specifically a 661 MW natural gas-fired combined-cycle generating facility to be owned by CPV Maryland, LLC. PPL believes the intent and effect of the action by the MD PSC is to encourage the construction of new generation in Maryland even when, under the FERC-approved PJM economic model, such new generation would not be economic. The MD PSC action could depress capacity prices in PJM in the short term, impacting PPL Energy Supply's revenues, and harm the long-term ability of the PJM capacity market to encourage necessary generation investment throughout PJM.

In April 2012, PPL and several other generating companies filed a complaint in U.S. District Court in Maryland (District Court) challenging the MD PSC order on the grounds that it violates well-established principles under the Supremacy and Commerce clauses of the U.S. Constitution, and requested declaratory and injunctive relief barring implementation of the order by the MD PSC Commissioners. In September 2013, the District Court issued a decision finding the MD PSC order unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause on the grounds that it infringes upon the FERC's exclusive authority to regulate the wholesale sale of electricity in interstate commerce. The decision was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Fourth Circuit) by CPV Power Development, Inc. and the State of Maryland. In June 2014, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court's opinion and subsequently denied the appellants' motion for rehearing.

Through its subsidiaries, PPL Energy Supply made spot market bilateral sales of power in the Pacific Northwest during the period from December 2000 through June 2001. Several parties subsequently claimed refunds at FERC as a result of these sales. In June 2003, the FERC terminated proceedings to consider whether to order refunds for spot market bilateral sales made in the Pacific Northwest, including sales made by PPL Montana, during the period December 2000 through June 2001. In August 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the FERC's decision and ordered the FERC to consider additional evidence. In October 2011, the FERC initiated proceedings to consider additional evidence. In July 2012, PPL Montana and the City of Tacoma, one of the two parties claiming refunds at FERC, reached a settlement whereby PPL Montana paid $75 thousand to resolve the City of Tacoma's $23 million claim. The settlement does not resolve the remaining claim outstanding at June 30, 2014 by the City of Seattle for approximately $50 million. Hearings before a FERC Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) regarding the City of Seattle's refund claims were completed in October 2013 and briefing was completed in January 2014. In March 2014, the ALJ issued an initial decision denying the City of Seattle's complaint against PPL Montana. The initial decision is pending review by the FERC.

Although PPL and its subsidiaries believe they have not engaged in any improper trading or marketing practices affecting the Pacific Northwest markets, PPL and PPL Energy Supply cannot predict the outcome of the above-described proceedings or whether any subsidiaries will be the subject of any additional governmental investigations or named in other lawsuits or refund proceedings. Consequently, PPL and PPL Energy Supply cannot estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if any, related to this matter.

In 1998, the FERC authorized LG&E, KU and PPL EnergyPlus to make wholesale sales of electricity and related products at market-based rates. In those orders, the FERC directed LG&E, KU and PPL EnergyPlus, respectively, to file an updated market analysis within three years after the order, and every three years thereafter. Since then, periodic market-based rate filings with the FERC have been made by LG&E, KU, PPL EnergyPlus, PPL Electric, PPL Montana and most of PPL Generation's subsidiaries. In December 2013, PPL and these subsidiaries filed market-based rate updates for the Eastern and Western regions. In June 2014, the FERC accepted PPL and its subsidiaries' updated market power analysis finding that they qualify for continued market-based rate authority in the Western region, which acceptance became final in July 2014. The filings for the Eastern region remain pending before the FERC. The Registrants cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the update filings for the Eastern region at this time.

The NERC is responsible for establishing and enforcing mandatory reliability standards (Reliability Standards) regarding the bulk power system. The FERC oversees this process and independently enforces the Reliability Standards.

The Reliability Standards have the force and effect of law and apply to certain users of the bulk power electricity system, including electric utility companies, generators and marketers. Under the Federal Power Act, the FERC may assess civil penalties of up to $1 million per day, per violation, for certain violations.

LG&E, KU, PPL Electric and certain subsidiaries of PPL Energy Supply monitor their compliance with the Reliability Standards and continue to self-report potential violations of certain applicable reliability requirements and submit accompanying mitigation plans, as required. The resolution of a number of potential violations is pending. Any Regional Reliability Entity (including RFC or SERC) determination concerning the resolution of violations of the Reliability Standards remains subject to the approval of the NERC and the FERC.

In the course of implementing their programs to ensure compliance with the Reliability Standards by those PPL affiliates subject to the standards, certain other instances of potential non-compliance may be identified from time to time. The Registrants cannot predict the outcome of these matters, and cannot estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if any.

As previously reported, in October 2012, the FERC initiated its consideration of proposed changes to Reliability Standards to address the impacts of geomagnetic disturbances on the reliable operation of the bulk-power system, which might, among other things, lead to a requirement to install equipment that blocks geomagnetically induced currents on implicated transformers. On May 16, 2013, FERC issued Order No. 779, requiring NERC to submit two types of Reliability Standards for FERC's approval. The first type would require certain owners and operators of the nation's electricity infrastructure, such as the Registrants, to develop and implement operational procedures to mitigate the effects of geomagnetic disturbances on the bulk-power system. This NERC-proposed standard was filed by NERC with FERC for approval in January 2014 and was approved on June 19, 2014. The second type is to require owners and operators of the bulk-power system to assess certain geomagnetic disturbance events and develop and implement plans to protect the bulk-power system from those events and must be filed by NERC with FERC for approval by January 22, 2015. The Registrants may be required to make significant expenditures in new equipment or modifications to their facilities to comply with the new requirements. The Registrants are unable to predict the amount of any expenditures that may be required as a result of the adoption of any Reliability Standards for geomagnetic disturbances.

Due to the environmental issues discussed below or other environmental matters, it may be necessary for the Registrants to modify, curtail, replace or cease operation of certain facilities or performance of certain operations to comply with statutes, regulations and other requirements of regulatory bodies or courts. In addition, legal challenges to new environmental permits or rules add to the uncertainty of estimating the future cost impact of these permits and rules.

LG&E and KU are entitled to recover, through the ECR mechanism, certain costs of complying with the Clean Air Act, as amended, and those federal, state or local environmental requirements which are applicable to coal combustion wastes and by-products from facilities that generate electricity from coal in accordance with approved compliance plans. Costs not covered by the ECR mechanism for LG&E and KU and all such costs for PPL Electric are subject to rate recovery before the companies' respective state regulatory authorities, or the FERC, if applicable. Because PPL Electric does not own any generating plants, its exposure to related environmental compliance costs is reduced. As PPL Energy Supply is not a rate-regulated entity, it cannot seek to recover environmental compliance costs through the mechanism of rate recovery. PPL, PPL Electric, LKE, LG&E and KU can provide no assurances as to the ultimate outcome of future environmental or rate proceedings before regulatory authorities.

In July 2011, the EPA adopted the CSAPR. The CSAPR replaced the EPA's previous CAIR which was invalidated in July 2008 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit Court). CAIR subsequently was effectively reinstated by the D.C. Circuit Court in December 2008, pending finalization of the CSAPR. Like CAIR, CSAPR targeted sources in the eastern U.S. and would have required reductions in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides in two phases (2012 and 2014).

In December 2011, the D.C. Circuit Court stayed implementation of the CSAPR and left CAIR in effect pending a final decision on the validity of the rule. In August 2012, the D.C. Circuit Court issued a ruling invalidating CSAPR, remanding the rule to the EPA for further action, and leaving CAIR in place during the interim. In April 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded the D.C. Circuit Court's August 2012 decision, which may result in new or revised emission reduction requirements, including the possible replacement of the CAIR program with CSAPR, depending on future determinations by the EPA and the courts. On June 26, 2014, the DOJ filed a motion requesting the D.C. Circuit Court to lift the stay on CSAPR. The CAIR program remains in place. PPL, PPL Energy Supply, LKE, LG&E and KU cannot predict the outcome of further regulatory and legal proceedings.

The Kentucky fossil-fueled generating plants meet the CAIR sulfur dioxide emission requirements by utilizing sulfur dioxide allowances (including banked allowances) and optimizing existing controls. To meet the CAIR standards for nitrogen oxide under the CAIR, the Kentucky companies will need to buy allowances and/or make operational changes. LG&E and KU do not currently anticipate that the costs of meeting these reinstated CAIR standards will be significant.

PPL Energy Supply's Pennsylvania fossil-fueled generating plants meet the CAIR sulfur dioxide emission requirements with the existing scrubbers that were placed in service in 2008 and 2009. To meet the CAIR standards for nitrogen oxides, PPL Energy Supply will need to buy allowances and/or make operational changes, the costs of which are not anticipated to be significant.

In 2008, the EPA revised the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone. As a result, states in the ozone transport region (OTR), including Pennsylvania, are required by the Clean Air Act to impose additional reductions in nitrogen oxide emissions based upon reasonably available control technologies. The PADEP has issued a draft rule requiring reasonable reductions. However, the proposal is being questioned as too lenient by the EPA, other OTR states and environmental groups. The PADEP may impose more stringent emission limits than those set forth in the proposed rule which could have a significant impact on PPL Energy Supply's Pennsylvania coal plants. The EPA is expected to further tighten the ozone standard in the near term, which may require further nitrogen oxide controls, particularly within the OTR.

In December 2012, the EPA issued final rules that tighten the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for fine particulates. The rules were challenged by industry groups, and on May 9, 2014 the D.C. Circuit Court upheld them. Under the final rules, states and the EPA have until 2015 to identify non-attainment areas, and states have until 2020 to achieve attainment for those areas.

In 2010, the EPA finalized a new National Ambient Air Quality Standard for sulfur dioxide and required states to identify areas that meet those standards and areas that are in non-attainment. In July 2013, the EPA finalized non-attainment designations for parts of the country, including part of Yellowstone County in Montana (Billings area) and part of Jefferson County in Kentucky. Attainment must be achieved by 2018. States are working on designations for other areas. On April 17, 2014 the EPA proposed timeframes for completing these designations. PPL, PPL Energy Supply, LKE, LG&E and KU anticipate that some of the measures required for compliance with the CAIR or CSAPR (as discussed above), or the MATS, or the Regional Haze requirements (as discussed below), such as upgraded or new sulfur dioxide scrubbers at certain plants and, in the case of LG&E and KU, the previously announced retirement of coal-fired generating units at the Cane Run, Green River and Tyrone plants, will help to achieve compliance with the new sulfur dioxide standard. If additional reductions were to be required, the financial impact could be significant. The short-term impact on the Corette plant from the EPA's final designation of part of Yellowstone County in Montana as non-attainment (as noted above) is not expected to be significant, as PPL Energy Supply previously announced its intent to place the plant in long-term reserve status beginning in April 2015.

Until final rules are promulgated, non-attainment designations are finalized and state compliance plans are developed, PPL, PPL Energy Supply, LKE, LG&E and KU cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the new National Ambient Air Quality standards for ozone, sulfur dioxide and particulate matter.

In May 2011, the EPA published a proposed regulation requiring stringent reductions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants from power plants. In February 2012, the EPA published the final rule, known as the MATS, with an effective date of April 2012. The rule, which was challenged by industry groups and states, was upheld by the D.C. Circuit Court in April 2014. On July 14, 2014, a coalition of 23 states filed a petition seeking Supreme Court review of this decision. The rule provides for a three-year compliance deadline with the potential for a one-year extension as provided under the statute. LG&E, KU and PPL Energy Supply have received compliance extensions for certain plants and are considering extension requests for additional plants.

At the time the MATS rule was proposed, LG&E and KU filed requests with the KPSC for environmental cost recovery based on their expected need to install environmental controls including chemical additive and fabric-filter baghouses to remove air pollutants. Recovery of the cost of certain controls was granted by the KPSC in December 2011. LG&E's and KU's anticipated retirement of certain coal-fired electricity generating units located at Cane Run and Green River is in response to MATS and other environmental regulations. LG&E and KU are continuing to assess whether any revisions of their approved compliance plans will be necessary.

With respect to PPL Energy Supply's Pennsylvania plants, PPL Energy Supply believes that installation of chemical additive systems may be necessary at certain coal-fired plants, the capital cost of which is not expected to be significant. PPL Energy Supply continues to analyze the potential impact of MATS on operating costs. With respect to PPL Energy Supply's Montana plants, modifications to the air pollution controls installed on Colstrip may be required, the cost of which is not expected to be significant. For the Corette plant, PPL Energy Supply announced in September 2012 its intention, beginning in April 2015, to place the plant in long-term reserve status, suspending the plant's operation due to expected market conditions and the costs to comply with the MATS requirements. The Corette plant was determined to be impaired in December 2013. See Note 18 in PPL's and PPL Energy Supply's 2013 Form 10-K for additional information.

PPL Energy Supply, LG&E and KU are continuing to conduct in-depth reviews of the MATS, including the potential implications to scrubber wastewater discharges. See the discussion of effluent limitations guidelines and standards below.

The EPA's regional haze programs were developed under the Clean Air Act to eliminate man-made visibility degradation by 2064. Under the programs, states are required to make reasonable progress every decade, through the application, among other things, of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) on power plants commissioned between 1962 and 1977.

The primary power plant emissions affecting visibility are sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulates. To date, the focus of regional haze activity has been the western U.S. because the EPA had determined that the regional trading program in the eastern U.S. under the CSAPR satisfies BART requirements to reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Although the D.C. Circuit Court's August 2012 decision to vacate and remand the CSAPR has been reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court, future decisions by the EPA and the courts will determine whether power plants located in the eastern U.S., including PPL's plants in Pennsylvania and Kentucky, will be subject to additional reductions in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides as required by BART. In addition, LG&E's Mill Creek Units 3 and 4 are required to reduce sulfuric acid mist emissions because they were determined to have a significant regional haze impact. These reductions are required in the regional haze state implementation plan that the Kentucky Division for Air Quality submitted to the EPA. LG&E is currently installing sorbent injection technology to comply with these reductions, the costs of which are not expected to be significant.

In Montana, the EPA Region 8 developed the regional haze plan as the MDEQ declined to do so. The EPA finalized the Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for Montana in September 2012. The final FIP assumed no additional controls for Corette or Colstrip Units 3 and 4, but proposed tighter limits for Corette and Colstrip Units 1 and 2. PPL Energy Supply expects to meet these tighter permit limits at Corette without any significant changes to operations, although other requirements have led to the planned suspension of operations at Corette beginning in April 2015 (see "MATS" discussion above). Under the final FIP, Colstrip Units 1 and 2 may require additional controls, including the possible installation of an SNCR and other technology, to meet more stringent nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide limits. The cost of these potential additional controls, if required, could be significant. Both PPL and environmental groups have appealed the final FIP to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Oral arguments were held on May 16, 2014.

The EPA has continued its NSR enforcement efforts targeting coal-fired generating plants. The EPA has asserted that modification of these plants has increased their emissions and, consequently, that they are subject to stringent NSR requirements under the Clean Air Act. In April 2009, PPL received EPA information requests for its Montour and Brunner Island plants, but they have received no further communications from the EPA since providing their responses. In January 2009, PPL, PPL Energy Supply and other companies that own or operate the Keystone plant in Pennsylvania received a notice of violation from the EPA alleging that certain projects were undertaken without proper NSR compliance. In May and November 2012, PPL Montana received information requests from the EPA regarding projects undertaken during a Spring 2012 maintenance outage at Colstrip Unit 1. In September 2012, PPL Montana received an information request from the MDEQ regarding Colstrip Unit 1 and other projects. MDEQ formally suspended this request on June 6, 2014, in consideration of pending litigation. The EPA request remains an open matter. PPL and PPL Energy Supply cannot predict the outcome of these matters, and cannot estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if any.

In August 2007, LG&E received information requests for the Mill Creek and Trimble County plants, and KU received requests for the Ghent plant, but they have received no further communications from the EPA since providing their responses. PPL, LKE, LG&E and KU cannot predict the outcome of these matters, and cannot estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if any.

States and environmental groups also have commenced litigation alleging violations of the NSR regulations by coal-fired generating plants across the nation. See "Legal Matters" above for information on a lawsuit filed by environmental groups in March 2013 against PPL Montana and other owners of Colstrip.

If PPL subsidiaries are found to have violated NSR regulations by significantly increasing pollutants through a major plant modification, PPL, PPL Energy Supply, LKE, LG&E and KU would, among other things, be required to meet stringent permit limits reflecting Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for pollutants meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in the area and reflecting Lowest Achievable Emission Rates for pollutants not meeting the NAAQS in the area. The costs to meet such limits, including installation of technology at certain units, could be material.

The Sierra Club and other environmental groups petitioned the Kentucky Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet to overturn the air permit issued for the TC2 baseload coal-fired generating unit, but the agency upheld the permit in an order issued in September 2007. In response to subsequent petitions by environmental groups, the EPA ordered certain non-material changes to the permit which, in January 2010, were incorporated into a final revised permit issued by the Kentucky Division for Air Quality. In March 2010, the environmental groups petitioned the EPA to object to the revised state permit. Until the EPA issues a final ruling on the pending petition and all available appeals are exhausted, PPL, LKE, LG&E and KU cannot predict the outcome of this matter or the potential impact on plant operations, including increased capital costs, if any.

As a result of the April 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision that the EPA has authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles, in April 2010, the EPA and the U.S. Department of Transportation issued new light-duty vehicle emissions standards that applied beginning with 2012 model year vehicles. The EPA also clarified that this standard, beginning in 2011, authorized regulation of GHG emissions from stationary sources under the NSR and Title V operating permit provisions of the Clean Air Act. The EPA's rules were challenged in court and on June 23, 2014 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the EPA has the authority to regulate GHG emissions under these provisions of the Clean Air Act but only for stationary sources that would otherwise have been subject to these provisions due to significant increases in emissions of other pollutants. As a result, any new sources or major modifications to an existing GHG source causing a net significant increase in GHG emissions must comply with BACT permit limits for GHGs if it would otherwise be subject to BACT or lowest achievable emissions rate limits due to significant increases in other pollutants.

In June 2013, President Obama released his Climate Action Plan that reiterates the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. "in the range of" 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 through such actions as regulating power plant emissions, promoting increased use of renewables and clean energy technology, and establishing tighter energy efficiency standards. Also, by Presidential Memorandum, the EPA was directed to issue a revised proposal for new power plants (a prior proposal was issued in 2012) by September 20, 2013, with a final rule in a timely fashion thereafter, and to issue proposed standards for existing plants by June 1, 2014 with a final rule to be issued by June 1, 2015. The EPA was further directed to require that states develop implementation plans for existing plants by June 30, 2016. The Administration's increase in its estimate of the "social cost of carbon" (which is used to calculate benefits associated with proposed regulations) from $23.80 to $38 per metric ton in 2015 may also lead to more costly regulatory requirements; the White House Office of Management and Budget opened this issue for public comment and PPL submitted comments. Additionally, the Climate Action Plan requirements related to preparing the U.S. for the impacts of climate change could affect PPL and others in the industry as modifications to electricity delivery systems to improve the ability to withstand major storms may be needed in order to meet those requirements.

The EPA issued its revised proposal for new sources on September 20, 2013 as directed by the White House. This proposal was published in the Federal Register on January 8, 2014. The comment period closed on May 9, 2014. Unlike the EPA's prior proposal, the EPA's revised proposal established separate emission standards for coal and gas units based on the application of different technologies. The coal standard is based on the application of partial carbon capture and sequestration technology, but because this technology is not presently commercially available, the revised proposal effectively precludes the construction of new coal plants. The standard for NGCC power plants is the same as the EPA proposed in 2012 and is not continuously achievable.

The EPA's proposed regulation addressing GHG emissions from existing sources was published in the Federal Register on June 18, 2014. The proposal contains state-specific rate-based reduction goals and guidelines for the development, submission, and implementation of state plans to achieve the state goals. State-specific goals were calculated from 2012 data by applying EPA's very broad interpretation and definition of the Best System of Emission Reduction resulting in very stringent targets to be met in two phases (2020-2029 and 2030 and beyond). The EPA believes it has offered some flexibility to the states as to how state compliance plans can be crafted, including the option to demonstrate compliance on a mass basis and through multi-state collaborations. The EPA is also proposing potential state plan extensions based on the plan filed (single or multi-state). PPL is analyzing the proposal and potential impacts in preparation for submitting comments to the EPA by the October 16, 2014 deadline. The regulation of GHG emissions from existing plants could have a significant industry-wide impact depending on the structure and stringency of the final rule and state implementation plans.

The PADEP submitted to the EPA a GHG white paper on April 10, 2014 regarding the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. The PADEP expects to achieve reductions required under the EPA's proposed rule by increasing efficiency at existing fossil-fuel plants and/or reducing generation. The PADEP specifically excludes demand-side energy efficiency projects (such as DSM and Act 129 programs) from consideration under the program, which makes it more difficult for Pennsylvania to achieve the reduction levels proposed for Pennsylvania by the EPA, as the EPA assumed significant reductions due to demand-side energy efficiency. On July 1, 2014, a bill passed the Pennsylvania House of Representatives (HB 2354) requiring the PADEP to obtain General Assembly approval of any state plan addressing GHG emissions under the EPA's rules for existing plants. The legislation, which will next be considered by the Pennsylvania Senate, includes provisions to minimize the exposure to a federal implementation plan due to legislative delay.

In November 2008, the Governor of Kentucky issued a comprehensive energy plan including non-binding targets aimed at promoting improved energy efficiency, development of alternative energy, development of carbon capture and sequestration projects, and other actions to reduce GHG emissions. In December 2009, the Kentucky Climate Action Plan Council was established to develop an action plan addressing potential GHG reductions and related measures. In November 2011, the Council issued a final report to the Secretary of Kentucky's Energy and Environment Cabinet for consideration. The final report acknowledged that the recommendations would require additional review and analysis prior to implementation, and that many of the recommendations would likely require, in part, further legislative or regulatory actions. The impact of any such plan is not now determinable, but the costs to comply with the plan could be significant. In April 2014, the Kentucky General Assembly passed legislation which limits the measures which the Energy and Environment Cabinet may consider in setting performance standards to comply with the EPA's regulations governing GHG emissions from existing sources. The legislation provides that such state GHG performance standards shall be based on emission reductions, efficiency measures, and other improvements available at each power plant, rather than renewable energy, end-use energy efficiency, fuel switching and re-dispatch. These statutory restrictions will make it more difficult for Kentucky to achieve the GHG reduction levels which the EPA has proposed for Kentucky.

A number of lawsuits have been filed asserting common law claims including nuisance, trespass and negligence against various companies with GHG emitting plants and, although the decided cases to date have not sustained claims brought on the basis of these theories of liability, the law remains unsettled on these claims. In September 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the case of AEP v. Connecticut reversed a federal district court's decision and ruled that several states and public interest groups, as well as the City of New York, could sue five electric utility companies under federal common law for allegedly causing a public nuisance as a result of their emissions of GHGs. In June 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Second Circuit and held that such federal common law claims were displaced by the Clean Air Act and regulatory actions of the EPA. In addition, in Comer v. Murphy Oil (Comer case), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Fifth Circuit) declined to overturn a district court ruling that plaintiffs did not have standing to pursue state common law claims against companies that emit GHGs. The complaint in the Comer case named the previous indirect parent of LKE as a defendant based upon emissions from the Kentucky plants. In January 2011, the Supreme Court denied a petition to reverse the Fifth Circuit's ruling. In May 2011, the plaintiffs in the Comer case filed a substantially similar complaint in federal district court in Mississippi against 87 companies, including KU and three other indirect subsidiaries of LKE, under a Mississippi statute that allows the re-filing of an action in certain circumstances. In March 2012, the Mississippi federal district court granted defendants' motions to dismiss the state common law claims. Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and in May 2013, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case. Additional litigation in federal and state courts over such issues is continuing. The Registrants cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if any.

There has been interest in renewable energy legislation at both the state and federal levels; however, no legislation is expected to become law in 2014 at either the federal or state levels.

In Pennsylvania, bills were introduced calling for an increase in Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard (AEPS) Tier 1 obligations and to create a $25 million permanent funding program for solar generation. Bills (SB 1171 and HB 100) were also introduced to add natural gas as a qualified AEPS resource, and another bill (HB 1912) would repeal the AEPS Act entirely. All these bills remain in committee and are unlikely to advance. An interim legislative committee in Montana is reviewing the state's Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). PPL and PPL Energy Supply cannot predict at this time whether the committee will recommend any changes to existing laws. In New Jersey, a bill (S-1475) has been introduced to increase the current RPS standard to 30% from Class I sources by 2020. The chairman of the Senate Environmental Committee has convened a workgroup to look at further changes to New Jersey's RPS law to enable New Jersey to meet emissions goals established in the state's Global Warming Response Act. PPL and PPL Energy Supply are unable to predict the outcome of this legislation at this time.

The Registrants believe there are financial, regulatory and operational uncertainties related to the implementation of renewable energy mandates that will need to be resolved before the impact of such requirements on them can be estimated. Such uncertainties, among others, include the need to provide back-up supply to augment intermittent renewable generation, potential generation over-supply and downward pressure on energy prices that could result from such renewable generation and back-up, impacts to PJM's capacity market and the need for substantial changes to transmission and distribution systems to accommodate renewable energy sources. These uncertainties are not directly addressed by proposed legislation. PPL and PPL Energy Supply cannot predict at this time the effect on their competitive plants' future competitive position, results of operation, cash flows and financial position of renewable energy mandates that may be adopted, although the costs to implement and comply with any such requirements could be significant.

In June 2010, the EPA proposed two approaches to regulating the disposal and management of CCRs (as either hazardous or non-hazardous) under the RCRA. CCRs include fly ash, bottom ash and sulfur dioxide scrubber wastes. Regulating CCRs as a hazardous waste under Subtitle C of the RCRA would materially increase costs and result in early retirements of many coal-fired plants, as it would require plants to retrofit their operations to comply with full hazardous waste requirements for the generation of CCRs and associated waste waters through generation, transportation and disposal. This would also have a negative impact on the beneficial use of CCRs and could eliminate existing markets for CCRs. The EPA's proposed approach to regulate CCRs as non-hazardous waste under Subtitle D of the RCRA would mainly affect disposal and most significantly affect any wet disposal operations. Under this approach, many of the current markets for beneficial uses would not be affected. Currently, PPL expects that several of its plants in Kentucky and Montana could be significantly impacted by the EPA's proposed non-hazardous waste regulations, as these plants are using surface impoundments for management and disposal of CCRs.

The EPA has issued information requests on CCR management practices at numerous plants throughout the power industry as it considers whether or not to regulate CCRs as hazardous waste. PPL has provided information on CCR management practices at most of its plants in response to the EPA's requests. In addition, the EPA has conducted follow-up inspections to evaluate the structural stability of CCR management facilities at several PPL plants and PPL has implemented or is implementing certain actions in response to recommendations from these inspections.

The EPA is continuing to evaluate the unprecedented number of comments it received on its June 2010 proposed regulations. In October 2011, the EPA issued a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) requesting comments on selected documents it received during the comment period for the proposed regulations. On September 20, 2013, in response to the proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines, PPL submitted comments on the proposed CCR regulations. Also, on September 3, 2013, PPL commented on a second CCR NODA seeking comment on additional information related to the EPA's proposal.

A coalition of environmental groups and two CCR recycling companies have filed lawsuits against the EPA seeking a deadline for final rulemaking and, in settlement of that litigation, the EPA has agreed to issue its final rulemaking on the Subtitle D option addressed above by December 19, 2014.

In July 2013, the U.S. House of Representatives passed House Bill H.R. 2218, the Coal Residuals and Reuse Management Act of 2013, which would preempt the EPA from issuing final CCR regulations and would set non-hazardous CCR standards under RCRA and authorize state permit programs. It remains uncertain whether similar legislation will be passed by the U.S. Senate. PPL, PPL Energy Supply, LKE, LG&E and KU cannot predict at this time the final requirements of the EPA's CCR regulations or potential changes to the RCRA and what impact they would have on their facilities, but the financial and operational impact is expected to be material if CCRs are regulated as hazardous waste and significant if regulated as non-hazardous.

In May 2011, LG&E submitted an application for a special waste landfill permit to handle coal combustion residuals generated at the Trimble County plant. After extensive review of the permit application in May 2013, the Kentucky Division of Waste Management denied the permit application on the grounds that the proposed facility would violate the Kentucky Cave Protection Act because it would eliminate an on-site karst feature considered to be a cave. After assessing additional options for managing coal combustion residuals, in January 2014, LG&E submitted to the Kentucky Division of Waste Management a landfill permit application for an alternate site adjacent to the plant. PPL, LKE, LG&E and KU are unable to determine the potential impact of this matter until a landfill permit is issued and any resulting legal challenges are concluded.

Seepages or groundwater infiltration have been detected at active and retired wastewater basins and landfills at various PPL, PPL Energy Supply, LKE, LG&E and KU plants. PPL, PPL Energy Supply, LKE, LG&E and KU have completed or are completing assessments of seepages or groundwater infiltration at various facilities and have completed or are working with agencies to respond to notices of violations and implement assessment or abatement measures, where required or applicable. A range of reasonably possible losses cannot currently be estimated.

In August 2012, PPL Montana entered into an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) with the MDEQ which establishes a comprehensive process to investigate and remediate groundwater seepage impacts related to the wastewater facilities at the Colstrip power plant. The AOC requires that within five years PPL Montana provide financial assurance to the MDEQ for the costs associated with closure and future monitoring of the waste-water treatment facilities. PPL Montana cannot predict at this time if the actions required under the AOC will create the need to adjust the existing ARO related to these facilities.

In September 2012, Earthjustice filed an affidavit pursuant to Montana's Major Facility Siting Act (MFSA) that sought review of the AOC by Montana's Board of Environmental Review (BER) on behalf of the Sierra Club, the MEIC, and the National Wildlife Federation. In September 2012, PPL Montana filed an election with the BER to have this proceeding conducted in Montana state district court as contemplated by the MFSA. In October 2012, Earthjustice filed a petition for review of the AOC in the Montana state district court in Rosebud County. This matter was stayed in December 2012. In April 2014, Earthjustice filed a motion for leave to amend the petition for review and to lift the stay which was granted by the court in May 2014. PPL Montana and MDEQ responded to the amended petition and filed partial motions to dismiss in July 2014.

The EPA's final rule under 316(b) was issued on May 16, 2014. The rule contains two requirements to reduce impact to aquatic organisms at cooling water intake structures. The first requires all existing facilities to meet standards for the reduction of mortality of aquatic organisms that become trapped against water intake screens (impingement) regardless of the levels of mortality actually occurring or the cost to achieve the standards. The second requirement is to determine and install the best technology available to reduce mortality of aquatic organisms pulled through a plant's cooling water system (entrainment). A form of cost-benefit analysis is allowed for this second requirement involving a site-specific evaluation based on nine factors, including impacts to energy delivery reliability and the remaining useful life of the plant. PPL, PPL Energy Supply, LKE, LG&E and KU are evaluating compliance strategies but do not presently expect the compliance costs to be material.

In June 2013, the EPA published proposed regulations to revise discharge limitations for steam electric generation wastewater permits. The proposed limitations are based on the EPA review of available treatment technologies and their capacity for reducing pollutants and include new requirements for fly ash and bottom ash transport water and metal cleaning waste waters, as well as new limits for scrubber wastewater and landfill leachate. The EPA's proposed ELG regulations contain requirements that would affect the inspection and operation of CCR facilities, if finalized. The EPA has indicated that it will coordinate these regulations with the regulation of CCRs discussed above. The proposal contains alternative approaches, some of which could significantly impact PPL's coal-fired plants. PPL, PPL Energy Supply, LKE, LG&E and KU worked with industry groups to comment on the proposed regulation on September 20, 2013. The EPA has agreed to a new deadline for the final rule of September 30, 2015 which is contingent upon the EPA meeting its deadline of December 19, 2014 for issuing its final CCR regulations. At the present time, PPL, PPL Energy Supply, LKE, LG&E and KU are unable to predict the outcome of this matter or estimate a range of reasonably possible costs, but the costs could be significant. Pending finalization of the ELGs, certain states (including Pennsylvania and Kentucky) and environmental groups are proposing more stringent technology-based limits in permit renewals. Depending on the final limits imposed, the costs of compliance could be significant and costs could be imposed ahead of federal timelines.

On April 21, 2014, the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) published the proposed rule defining Waters of the United States (WOTUS) that could significantly expand the federal government's interpretation of what constitutes WOTUS subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act. The comment deadline is October 20, 2014. If the definition is expanded as proposed by the EPA and the Army Corps, permits and other regulatory requirements may be imposed for many matters presently not covered (including vegetation management for transmission lines and activities affecting storm water conveyances and wetlands), the implications of which could be significant. The U.S. House and Senate are considering legislation to block these regulations.

The EPA is reassessing its polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) regulations under the Toxic Substance Control Act, which currently allow certain PCB articles to remain in use. In April 2010, the EPA issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for changes to these regulations. This rulemaking could lead to a phase-out of all or some PCB-containing equipment. The EPA is planning to propose the revised regulations in November 2014. PCBs are found, in varying degrees, in all of the Registrants' operations. The Registrants cannot predict at this time the outcome of these proposed EPA regulations and what impact, if any, they would have on their facilities, but the costs could be significant.

A subsidiary of PPL Energy Supply has investigated alternatives to exclude fish from the discharge channel at its Brunner Island plant. In June 2012, a Consent Order and Agreement (COA) was signed allowing the subsidiary to study a change in a cooling tower operational method that may keep fish from entering the channel. The COA required a retrofit of impingement control technology at the intakes to the cooling towers, at a cost that would have been significant. Based on the results of the first year of study, the PADEP has suggested closing the COA and writing a new COA to resolve the issue. PPL is in negotiations with the agency at this time. PPL and PPL Energy Supply cannot predict at this time the outcome of the proposed new COA and what impact, if any, it would have on their facilities, but the costs could be significant.

In May 2010, the Kentucky Waterways Alliance and other environmental groups filed a petition with the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet challenging the Kentucky Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit issued in April 2010, which covers water discharges from the Trimble County plant. In November 2010, the Cabinet issued a final order upholding the permit. In December 2010, the environmental groups appealed the order to the Trimble Circuit Court, but the case was subsequently transferred to the Franklin Circuit Court. In September 2013, the court reversed the Cabinet order upholding the permit and remanded the permit to the agency for further proceedings. In October 2013, LG&E filed a notice of appeal with the Kentucky Court of Appeals. PPL, LKE, LG&E and KU are unable to predict the outcome of this matter or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if any.

PPL Electric is potentially responsible for costs at several sites listed by the EPA under the federal Superfund program, including the Columbia Gas Plant site, the Metal Bank site and the Ward Transformer site. Clean-up actions have been or are being undertaken at all of these sites, the costs of which have not been significant to PPL Electric. However, should the EPA require different or additional measures in the future, or should PPL Electric's share of costs at multi-party sites increase substantially more than currently expected, the costs could be significant.

PPL Electric, LG&E and KU are remediating or have completed the remediation of several sites that were not addressed under a regulatory program such as Superfund, but for which PPL Electric, LG&E and KU may be liable for remediation. These include a number of former coal gas manufacturing plants in Pennsylvania and Kentucky previously owned or operated or currently owned by predecessors or affiliates of PPL Electric, LG&E and KU. There are additional sites, formerly owned or operated by PPL Electric, LG&E and KU predecessors or affiliates, for which PPL Electric, LG&E and KU lack information on current site conditions and are therefore unable to predict what, if any, potential liability they may have.

Depending on the outcome of investigations at sites where investigations have not begun or been completed or developments at sites for which PPL Electric, LG&E and KU currently lack information, the costs of remediation and other liabilities could be material. PPL, PPL Electric, LKE, LG&E and KU cannot estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if any, related to these matters.

The EPA is evaluating the risks associated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and naphthalene, chemical by-products of coal gas manufacturing. As a result of the EPA's evaluation, individual states may establish stricter standards for water quality and soil cleanup. This could require several PPL subsidiaries to take more extensive assessment and remedial actions at former coal gas manufacturing plants. PPL, PPL Electric, LKE, LG&E and KU cannot estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if any, related to these matters.

From time to time, PPL Energy Supply, PPL Electric, LG&E and KU undertake remedial action in response to notices of violations, spills or other releases at various on-site and off-site locations, negotiate with the EPA and state and local agencies regarding actions necessary for compliance with applicable requirements, negotiate with property owners and other third parties alleging impacts from PPL's operations and undertake similar actions necessary to resolve environmental matters which arise in the course of normal operations. Based on analyses to date, resolution of these environmental matters is not expected to have a significant adverse impact on these Registrants' operations.

Future cleanup or remediation work at sites currently under review, or at sites not currently identified, may result in significant additional costs for the Registrants.

WPD's distribution businesses are subject to environmental regulatory and statutory requirements. PPL believes that WPD has taken and continues to take measures to comply with the applicable laws and governmental regulations for the protection of the environment.

The Price-Anderson Act is a United States Federal law which governs liability-related issues and ensures the availability of funds for public liability claims arising from an incident at any of the U.S. licensed nuclear facilities. It also seeks to limit the liability of nuclear reactor owners for such claims from any single incident. Effective September 10, 2013, the liability limit per incident is $13.6 billion for such claims which is funded by insurance coverage from American Nuclear Insurers and an industry assessment program.

Under the industry assessment program, in the event of a nuclear incident at any of the reactors covered by The Price-Anderson Act, as amended, PPL Susquehanna could be assessed up to $255 million per incident, payable at $38 million per year.

Additionally, PPL Susquehanna purchases property insurance programs from NEIL, an industry mutual insurance company of which PPL Susquehanna is a member. Effective April 1, 2014, facilities at the Susquehanna plant are insured against property damage losses up to $2.0 billion. PPL Susquehanna also purchases an insurance program that provides coverage for the cost of replacement power during prolonged outages of nuclear units caused by certain specified conditions.

Under the NEIL property and replacement power insurance programs, PPL Susquehanna could be assessed retrospective premiums in the event of the insurers' adverse loss experience. This maximum assessment is $46 million.

In the fourth quarter of 2013, management tested the Brunner Island and Montour plants for impairment and concluded neither was impaired as of December 31, 2013. There were no events or changes in circumstances that indicated a recoverability test was required to be performed in 2014. The carrying value of the Pennsylvania coal-fired generation assets was $2.5 billion as of June 30, 2014 ($1.3 billion for Brunner Island and $1.2 billion for Montour).

In May 2014, PPL's, PPL Energy Supply's and PPL Electric's bargaining agreement with its largest IBEW local expired. PPL, PPL Energy Supply and PPL Electric finalized a new three-year labor agreement with the IBEW local in May 2014 and the agreement was ratified in early June 2014.

As part of efforts to reduce operations and maintenance expenses, the new agreement offered a one-time voluntary retirement window to certain bargaining unit employees. The benefits offered under this provision are consistent with the standard separation program benefits for bargaining unit employees. As a result, for the three and six months ended June 30, 2014, the following estimated separation benefits were recorded:

				PPL Energy		PPL
		PPL		Supply		Electric

Pension Benefits	$	20	$	16	$	4
Severance Compensation		9		7		2
Total Separation Benefits	$	29	$	23	$	6

Number of Employees		155		124		30

The separation benefits were recorded in "Other operation and maintenance" on the Statement of Income. The pension benefits are accrued in "Accrued pension obligations" and the severance compensation is accrued in "Other current liabilities" on the Balance Sheet at June 30, 2014. Substantially all of the severance compensation will be paid in the third and fourth quarters of 2014. The remaining terms of the new labor agreement are not expected to have a significant impact on the financial results of PPL, PPL Energy Supply or PPL Electric.

In the normal course of business, the Registrants enter into agreements that provide financial performance assurance to third parties on behalf of certain subsidiaries. Such agreements include, for example, guarantees, stand-by letters of credit issued by financial institutions and surety bonds issued by insurance companies. These agreements are entered into primarily to support or enhance the creditworthiness attributed to a subsidiary on a stand-alone basis or to facilitate the commercial activities in which these subsidiaries engage.

PPL fully and unconditionally guarantees all of the debt securities of PPL Capital Funding.

The table below details guarantees provided as of June 30, 2014. "Exposure" represents the estimated maximum potential amount of future payments that could be required to be made under the guarantee. The probability of expected payment/performance under each of these guarantees is remote except for "WPD guarantee of pension and other obligations of unconsolidated entities" and "Indemnification of lease termination and other divestitures." The total recorded liability at June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, was $25 million and $26 million for PPL and $19 million for both periods for LKE. For reporting purposes, on a consolidated basis, all guarantees of PPL Energy Supply (other than the letters of credit), PPL Electric, LKE, LG&E and KU also apply to PPL, and all guarantees of LG&E and KU also apply to LKE.

	Exposure at			Expiration
	June 30, 2014			Date
PPL
Indemnifications related to the WPD Midlands acquisition			(a)
WPD indemnifications for entities in liquidation and sales of assets	$	12	(b)	2017 - 2018
WPD guarantee of pension and other obligations of unconsolidated entities		131	(c)

PPL Energy Supply
Letters of credit issued on behalf of affiliates		45	(d)	2014 - 2015
Indemnifications for sales of assets		250	(e)	2025
Guarantee of a portion of a divested unconsolidated entity's debt		22	(f)	2018

PPL Electric
Guarantee of inventory value		38	(g)	2017

LKE
Indemnification of lease termination and other divestitures		301	(h)	2021 - 2023

LG&E and KU
LG&E and KU guarantee of shortfall related to OVEC			(i)

(a) Indemnifications related to certain liabilities, including a specific unresolved tax issue and those relating to properties and assets owned by the seller that were transferred to WPD Midlands in connection with the acquisition. A cross indemnity has been received from the seller on the tax issue. The maximum exposure and expiration of these indemnifications cannot be estimated because the maximum potential liability is not capped and the expiration date is not specified in the transaction documents.

(b) Indemnification to the liquidators and certain others for existing liabilities or expenses or liabilities arising during the liquidation process. The indemnifications are limited to distributions made from the subsidiary to its parent either prior or subsequent to liquidation or are not explicitly stated in the agreements. The indemnifications generally expire two to seven years subsequent to the date of dissolution of the entities. The exposure noted only includes those cases where the agreements provide for specific limits.

In connection with their sales of various businesses, WPD and its affiliates have provided the purchasers with indemnifications that are standard for such transactions, including indemnifications for certain pre-existing liabilities and environmental and tax matters or have agreed to continue their obligations under existing third-party guarantees, either for a set period of time following the transactions or upon the condition that the purchasers make reasonable efforts to terminate the guarantees. Finally, WPD and its affiliates remain secondarily responsible for lease payments under certain leases that they have assigned to third parties.

(c) Relates to certain obligations of discontinued or modified electric associations that were guaranteed at the time of privatization by the participating members. Costs are allocated to the members and can be reallocated if an existing member becomes insolvent. At June 30, 2014, WPD has recorded an estimated discounted liability for which the expected payment/performance is probable. Neither the expiration date nor the maximum amount of potential payments for certain obligations is explicitly stated in the related agreements, and as a result, the exposure has been estimated.

(d) Standby letter of credit arrangements under PPL Energy Supply's credit facilities for the purposes of protecting various third parties against nonperformance by PPL. This is not a guarantee by PPL on a consolidated basis.

(e) Indemnifications are governed by the specific sales agreement and include breach of the representations, warranties and covenants, and liabilities for certain other matters. PPL Energy Supply's maximum exposure with respect to certain indemnifications and the expiration of the indemnifications cannot be estimated because the maximum potential liability is not capped by the transaction documents and the expiration date is based on the applicable statute of limitations. The exposure and expiration date noted is based on those cases in which the agreements provide for specific limits.

(f) Relates to a guarantee of one-third of the divested entity's debt. The purchaser provided a cross-indemnity, secured by a lien on the purchaser's stock of the divested entity. The exposure noted reflects principal only.

(g) A third party logistics firm provides inventory procurement and fulfillment services. The logistics firm has title to the inventory, however, upon termination of the contracts, PPL Electric has guaranteed to purchase any remaining inventory that has not been used or sold.

(h) LKE provides certain indemnifications, the most significant of which relate to the termination of the WKE lease in July 2009. These guarantees cover the due and punctual payment, performance and discharge by each party of its respective present and future obligations. The most comprehensive of these guarantees is the LKE guarantee covering operational, regulatory and environmental commitments and indemnifications made by WKE under the WKE Transaction Termination Agreement. This guarantee has a term of 12 years ending July 2021, and a cumulative maximum exposure of $200 million. Certain items such as government fines and penalties fall outside the cumulative cap. LKE has contested the applicability of the indemnification requirement relating to one matter presented by a counterparty under this guarantee. Another guarantee with a maximum exposure of $100 million covering other indemnifications expires in 2023. In May 2012, LKE's indemnitee received an arbitration panel's decision affecting this matter, which granted LKE's indemnitee certain rights of first refusal to purchase excess power at a market-based price rather than at an absolute fixed price. In January 2013, LKE's indemnitee commenced a proceeding in the Kentucky Court of Appeals appealing the December 2012 order of the Henderson Circuit Court, confirming the arbitration award. On May 30, 2014, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion affirming the lower court decision, but LKE's indemnitee has filed a Petition for Rehearing with the Court of Appeals. LKE believes its indemnification obligations in this matter remain subject to various uncertainties, including potential for additional legal challenges regarding the arbitration decision as well as future prices, availability and demand for the subject excess power. LKE continues to evaluate various legal and commercial options with respect to this indemnification matter. The ultimate outcomes of the WKE termination-related indemnifications cannot be predicted at this time. Additionally, LKE has indemnified various third parties related to historical obligations for other divested subsidiaries and affiliates. The indemnifications vary by entity and the maximum exposures range from being capped at the sale price to no specified maximum; however, LKE is not aware of formal claims under such indemnities made by any party at this time. LKE could be required to perform on these indemnifications in the event of covered losses or liabilities being claimed by an indemnified party. LKE cannot predict the ultimate outcomes of such indemnification circumstances, but does not currently expect such outcomes to result in significant losses above the amounts recorded.

(i) Pursuant to the OVEC power purchase contract, LG&E and KU are obligated to pay for their share of OVEC's excess debt service, post-retirement and decommissioning costs, as well as any shortfall from amounts currently included within a demand charge designed and currently expected to cover these costs over the term of the contract. The maximum exposure and the expiration date of these potential obligations are not presently determinable. See “Energy Purchase Commitments” and “Guarantees and Other Assurances” in Note 15 in PPL's, LKE's, LG&E's and KU's 2013 Form 10-K for additional information on the OVEC power purchase contract.

The Registrants provide other miscellaneous guarantees through contracts entered into in the normal course of business. These guarantees are primarily in the form of indemnification or warranties related to services or equipment and vary in duration. The amounts of these guarantees often are not explicitly stated, and the overall maximum amount of the obligation under such guarantees cannot be reasonably estimated. Historically, no significant payments have been made with respect to these types of guarantees and the probability of payment/performance under these guarantees is remote.

PPL, on behalf of itself and certain of its subsidiaries, maintains insurance that covers liability assumed under contract for bodily injury and property damage. The coverage provides maximum aggregate coverage of $225 million. This insurance may be applicable to obligations under certain of these contractual arrangements.