Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2015

Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

10. Commitments and Contingencies

(PPL)

All commitments and contingencies related to PPL Energy Supply and its subsidiaries will remain with PPL Energy Supply and its subsidiaries at the spinoff date without recourse, except as otherwise provided in the definitive agreements entered into in connection with the spinoff of Talen Energy.

Energy Purchase Commitments

(PPL Electric)

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

Legal Matters

(All Registrants)

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.

WKE Indemnification(PPL and LKE)

See footnote (f) 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.

(PPL)

Sierra Club Litigation

On March 6, 2013, the Sierra Club and 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 and PacifiCorp.  PPL Montana operates Colstrip on behalf of the co-owners.  The complaint 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.

In July 2013, the Sierra Club and MEIC filed an additional Notice of Intent to Sue, identifying additional plant projects that are alleged not to be in compliance with the Clean Air Act and, in September 2013, filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint dropped all claims regarding pre-2001 plant projects, as well as the plaintiffs' Title V and opacity claims. It did, 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. In May 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. On August 27, 2014, the Sierra Club and MEIC filed a second amended complaint. This complaint includes the same causes of action articulated in the first amended complaint, but alleges those claims in regard to only eight projects at the plant between 2001 and 2013. On September 26, 2014, the Colstrip owners filed an answer to the second amended complaint. Discovery has been completed. In April 2015, the plaintiffs indicated they intend to pursue claims related to only four of the remaining projects. In January 2015, trial as to liability in this matter was rescheduled to November 16, 2015. A trial date with respect to remedies, if there is a finding of liability, has not been scheduled. PPL 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 cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this matter at this time.

Notice of Intent to File Suit

In October 2014, PPL Energy Supply received a notice letter from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) alleging violations of the Clean Water Act and Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law at the Brunner Island generation plant. The letter was sent to PPL Brunner Island and the PADEP and is intended to provide notice of the alleged violations and CBF's intent to file suit in Federal court after expiration of the 60 day statutory notice period.  Among other things, the letter alleges that PPL Brunner Island failed to comply with the terms of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit and associated regulations related to the application of nutrient credits to the facility's discharges of nitrogen into the Susquehanna River.  The letter also alleges that PADEP has failed to ensure that credits generated from nonpoint source pollution reduction activities that PPL Brunner Island applies to its discharges meet the eligibility and certification requirements under PADEP's nutrient trading program regulations.  If a court-approved settlement cannot be reached, CBF plans to seek injunctive relief, monetary penalties, fees and costs of litigation. PPL cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Proposed Legislation - Pacific Northwest

In the first quarter of 2015, legislation was proposed in the State of Oregon to eliminate, over time, the sale of electricity in Oregon from coal-fired generating facilities, and in the State of Washington to provide a means of cost recovery to utility owners of coal-fired generating facilities who commit to retire such facilities. Both proposals are in early stages of consideration and PPL cannot predict whether any legislation seeking to achieve the objectives of the Oregon or Washington legislation will be enacted. Were such legislation to be enacted as proposed, such laws, either individually or collectively, would not be expected to have a material adverse effect on PPL’s financial condition or results of operation.

(PPL, LKE and LG&E)

Cane Run Environmental Claims

In December 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 alleging 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, in July 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. Upon motion of LG&E and PPL, the district court certified for appellate review the issue of whether the state common law claims are preempted by federal statute. In December 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued an order granting appellate review regarding the above matter and such issues as may appropriately be presented by the parties and determined by the court. 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 retired one coal-fired unit at the Cane Run plant in March 2015 and anticipates retiring the remaining two coal-fired units at the Cane Run plant in the third quarter of 2015.

Mill Creek Environmental Claims

In May 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. The parties have filed various cross-motions for summary judgment which are pending before the court. 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.

Regulatory Issues

(All Registrants)

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

(PPL and PPL Electric)

New Jersey Capacity Legislation

In January 2011, New Jersey enacted a law (the Act) that PPL believes would intervene in the wholesale capacity market to create incentives for the development of new, in-state electricity generation facilities 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 companies filed a complaint in U.S. District Court in New Jersey challenging the Act on the grounds that it violates the Supremacy and Commerce clauses of the U.S. Constitution and requesting relief barring implementation. 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 was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Third Circuit) by CPV Power Development, Inc., Hess Newark, LLC and the State of New Jersey (the Appellants). In September 2014, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision. In December 2014, the Appellants filed a petition for certioraribefore the U.S. Supreme Court. In March 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court requested the U.S. Solicitor General to submit briefs expressing its views as to the issues raised in this case.

Maryland Capacity Order

In April 2012, the Maryland Public Service Commission (MD PSC) ordered (Order) three electric utilities in Maryland to enter into long-term contracts to support the construction of new electricity generating facilities in Maryland the intent of which, PPL believed, was to encourage the construction of new generation 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 companies filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (District Court) in Maryland challenging the Order on the grounds that it violates 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 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 (the Appellants). In June 2014, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court's opinion and subsequently denied the Appellants' motion for rehearing. In December 2014, the Appellants filed a petition for certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court. In March 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court requested the U.S. Solicitor General to submit briefs expressing its views as to the issues raised in this case.

Pacific Northwest Markets(PPL)

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, 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 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. In June 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will hold oral argument on an appeal from the FERC's October 2011 order setting out the remand process that FERC has followed from 2011 to the present.

Although PPL and its subsidiaries believe they have not engaged in any improper trading or marketing practices affecting the Pacific Northwest markets, PPL 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 cannot estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if any, related to this matter.

(All Registrants)

Electricity - Reliability Standards

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.

PPL, LG&E, KU and PPL Electric 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.

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. In May 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 in June 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. This proposal was filed by NERC with FERC for approval by January 22, 2015 and is pending consideration by FERC. 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.

Environmental Matters - Domestic

(All Registrants)

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 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 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.

(All Registrants except PPL Electric)

Air

CSAPR

The EPA's CSAPR addresses the interstate transport of fine particulates and ozone by regulating emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide. In accordance with an October 2014 U.S. Court of Appeals decision, CSAPR establishes interstate allowance trading programs for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from fossil-fueled plants in two phases: Phase 1 commenced in January 2015 and Phase 2 commences in 2017. Sulfur dioxide emissions are subject to an annual trading program and nitrogen oxide emissions are subject to annual and ozone season programs. Oral arguments pertaining to outstanding challenges to the EPA's CSAPR were heard before the D.C. Circuit Court during February 2015.

Although PPL, LKE, LG&E and KU do not anticipate significant costs to comply with these programs, changes in market or operating conditions could result in impacts that are higher than anticipated.

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

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 (RACT). The PADEP is expected to finalize a RACT rule in 2015 requiring some fossil-fueled plants to operate at more stringent nitrogen oxide emission rates. The EPA proposed to further strengthen the ozone standard in November 2014, which could lead to further nitrogen oxide reductions, for PPL's fossil-fueled plants within the OTR. The EPA is under court order to finalize the standard by October 1, 2015. States are also obligated to address interstate transport issues associated with new ozone standards through the establishment of "good neighbor" state implementation plans for those states that are found to contribute significantly to another states' non-attainment. In January 2015, the EPA issued a policy memo to state agencies to facilitate the development of these plans for the 2008 standard, including modeling data defining state contributions. The implementation of such plans could have an impact on the structure and stringency of CSAPR Phase 2 reductions (discussed above), or it could lead to the development of a new ozone transport rule. Non-OTR states, including Kentucky, are working together to evaluate further nitrogen oxide reductions from fossil-fueled plants with SCRs. The nature and timing of any additional reductions resulting from these evaluations cannot be determined at this time.

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. Pursuant to a consent decree between the EPA and Sierra Club approved on March 2, 2015, states are working to finalize designations for other areas by the 2017 or 2020 deadline depending on which designation methodology is used. PPL, LKE, LG&E and KU anticipate that some of the measures required for compliance with the CSAPR (as discussed above), or the MATS, or the Regional Haze Rules (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 the operations were suspended and the plant was retired in March 2015. In addition, MDEQ recently submitted a request to the EPA for a determination that this area is in attainment. If the EPA agrees with this request, then the deadlines associated with non-attainment would be suspended.

In December 2012, the EPA issued final rules that tighten the annual National Ambient Air Quality Standard for fine particulates. The rules were challenged by industry groups, and in May 2014 the D.C. Circuit Court upheld them. On January 15, 2015, the EPA published a final rule establishing area designations under the standard. Non-attainment areas in Pennsylvania and Kentucky were identified; however, EPA recently approved state implementation plan revisions for both states that improved these classifications. PPL Energy Supply, LG&E and KU plants in Pennsylvania and Kentucky will not be expected to make further reductions towards achieving attainment.

Until final rules are promulgated, non-attainment designations are finalized and state compliance plans are developed, PPL, 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.

MATS

In February 2012, the EPA finalized the MATS rule requiring reductions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants from fossil-fuel fired power plants, known as the MATS, with an effective date of April 16, 2012. The rule was challenged by industry groups and states and was upheld by the D.C. Circuit Court in April 2014. A group of states subsequently petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review this decision and on March 25, 2015, oral arguments were heard as to one issue – whether or not EPA unreasonably refused to consider costs when determining whether the MATS regulation was appropriate and necessary. A U.S. Supreme Court decision is expected by June 30, 2015. The rule provides for a three-year compliance deadline with the potential for one- and two-year extensions as provided under the statute. PPL, LKE, LG&E and KU have completed installation or upgrading of relevant environmental controls at affected plants or have received compliance extensions, as applicable.

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 March 2015 retirement of one coal-fired generating unit at Cane Run and LG&E's and KU's anticipated retirement of remaining coal-fired electricity generating units located at Cane Run and Green River in 2015 and 2016 are in response to MATS and other environmental regulations. The retirement of these units is not expected to have a material impact on the financial condition or results of operations of PPL, LKE, LG&E or KU.

PPL believes that installation of chemical additive systems and other controls may be necessary at certain coal-fired plants in Pennsylvania, the capital cost of which is not expected to be significant. PPL continues to analyze the potential impact of MATS on operating costs. With respect to PPL’s Montana plants, modifications to the air pollution controls installed at Colstrip are required, the cost of which is not expected to be significant. Operations were suspended and the Corette plant was retired in March 2015 due to expected market conditions and the costs to comply with the MATS requirements.

PPL, LKE, LG&E and KU are conducting in-depth reviews of the EPA's amendments to the final rule and certain proposed corrections, none of which are currently expected to be significant.

Regional Haze and Visibility

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 regulation has been the western U.S. As for the eastern U.S., the EPA had determined that region-wide reductions under the CSAPR trading program could, in most instances, be utilized under state programs to satisfy BART requirements for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. However, the EPA's determination is being challenged by environmental groups and others.

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 stricter limits for Corette and Colstrip Units 1 and 2. PPL Energy Supply was meeting these stricter permit limits at Corette without any significant changes to operations, although other requirements have led to the suspension of operations and the retirement of Corette in March 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 argument was heard in May 2014, and the parties are awaiting a decision.

New Source Review (NSR)

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. PPL, LKE, LG&E and KU received various EPA information requests in 2007 and 2009, but have received no further communications from the EPA related to those requests since providing their responses. In January 2009, PPL 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. The companies responded to the EPA and the matter remains open. 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. The EPA requests remain an open matter. 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 (see "Legal Matters - Sierra Club Litigation" above). 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 any PPL subsidiary is found to have violated NSR regulations by significantly increasing pollutants through a major plant modification, the subsidiary 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.

Trimble County Unit 2 Air Permit (PPL, LKE, LG&E and KU)

The Sierra Club and other environmental groups petitioned the Kentucky Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet to overturn the air permit issued for the Trimble County Unit 2 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.

Climate Change

(All Registrants)

As a result of the April 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision that the EPA has authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide 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 carbon dioxide 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 carbon dioxide 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 carbon dioxide emissions must comply with BACT permit limits for carbon dioxide if it would otherwise be subject to BACT or lowest achievable emissions ratelimits due to significant increases in other pollutants.

In June 2013, President Obama released his Climate Action Plan that reiterates the goal of reducing GHG 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 more restrictive energy efficiency standards. Additionally, the Climate Action Plan calls for the U.S. to prepare for the impacts of climate change. Requirements related to this Plan could affect the Registrants and others in the industry as modifications may be needed to electricity delivery systems to improve the ability to withstand major storms in order to meet those requirements. As further described below, the EPA has proposed rules pursuant to this directive, which it expects to finalize in the second or third quarter of 2015. The EPA has also announced that it will develop a federal implementation plan which would apply to any states that fail to submit an acceptable state implementation plan. The EPA’s authority to promulgate these regulations under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act when the sources are already regulated under Section 112 is under challenge in the D.C. Circuit Court. Oral arguments were heard on April 16, 2015.

In January 2014, the EPA issued a revised proposal to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from new power plants. The revised proposal calls for 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-fired plants. The standard for NGCC power plants is the same as the EPA proposed in 2012 and is not continuously achievable. The preclusion of new coal-fired plants and the compliance difficulties posed for new gas-fired plants could have a significant industry-wide impact.

In June 2014, the EPA issued proposed regulations addressing carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. The existing plant 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 broad interpretation and definition of the Best System of Emission Reduction resulting in 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 type of plan filed (single or multi state). PPL has analyzed the proposal and identified potential impacts and solutions in comments filed on December 1, 2014. PPL also submitted Supplemental Comments to FERC through EEI, advocating for reliability coordination and relief in response to technical conferences hosted by FERC on the reliability implications of implementing this rule. The regulation of carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants could have a significant industry-wide impact depending on the structure and stringency of the final rule and state implementation plans.

In June 2014, the EPA also proposed a regulation addressing carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants that are modified or reconstructed. The Registrants, however, do not expect a significant impact from this rulemaking as there are no plans to modify or reconstruct their existing plants in a manner that would trigger the proposed requirements.

(PPL)

Based on the stringent GHG reduction requirements in the EPA's proposed rule for existing plants, and based on information gained from public input, the PADEP is no longer expecting to achieve all required GHG reductions by solely increasing efficiency at existing fossil-fuel plants and/or reducing their generation as set forth in the PADEP's April 10, 2014 white paper. In October 2014, the Governor of Pennsylvania signed into law Act 175 of 2014, requiring the PADEP to obtain General Assembly approval of any state plan addressing GHG emissions under the EPA's GHG rules for existing plants. The law includes provisions to minimize the exposure to a federal implementation plan due to legislative delay.

The MDEQ, at the request of the Governor of Montana, has issued a white paper outlining possible regulatory scenarios to implement the EPA's proposed GHG rule for existing plants, including a combination of increasing energy efficiency at coal-fired plants, adding more low- and zero-carbon generation, and carbon sequestration at Colstrip. The white paper was made public in September 2014 and the MDEQ has held public meetings to present the white paper and gather comments. Legislation drafted to require legislative approval of any related plan formulated by MDEQ was tabled.

(PPL, LKE, LG&E and KU)

In April 2014, the Kentucky General Assembly passed legislation which limits the measures that the Kentucky 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 may make it more difficult for Kentucky to achieve the GHG reduction levels which the EPA has proposed for Kentucky.

(All Registrants except PPL Electric)

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 U.S. 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.

Renewable Energy Legislation

(PPL and PPL Electric)

In Pennsylvania, House Bill 100 was introduced in February 2015, proposing to increase AEPS solar and Tier 1 targets. A similar bill is in the process of being introduced in the Senate (no bill number is available at this time). PPL and PPL Electric cannot predict the outcome of this legislative effort.

(PPL)

In New Jersey, a bill (S-1475) has been introduced to increase the current Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to 30% from Class I sources by 2020. The chairman of the Senate Environmental Committee 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. A bill (S-2444) was subsequently introduced to mandate that 80% of New Jersey's electricity be generated from renewable resources by 2050. PPL cannot predict the outcome of this legislation.

(All Registrants)

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 cannot predict 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.

Water/Waste

(All Registrants except PPL Electric)

Coal Combustion Residuals (CCRs)

On April 17, 2015, the EPA published its final rule regulating CCRs. CCRs include fly ash, bottom ash and sulfur dioxide scrubber wastes. The rule will become effective on October 14, 2015. It imposes extensive new requirements, including location restrictions, design and operating standards, groundwater monitoring and corrective action requirements and closure and post-closure care requirements on CCR impoundments and landfills that are located on active power plants and not closed. Under the rule, the EPA will regulate CCRs as non-hazardous under Subtitle D of RCRA and allow beneficial use of CCRs, with some restrictions. This self-implementing rule requires posting of compliance documentation on a publicly accessible website and is enforceable through citizen suits. PPL expects that its plants using surface impoundments for management and disposal of CCRs or the past management of CCRs and continued use to manage waste waters will be most impacted by this rule. The rule's requirements for covered CCR impoundments and landfills include commencement or completion of closure activities generally between three and ten years from certain triggering events. PPL, LKE, LG&E and KU also anticipate incurring capital or operation and maintenance costs prior to that time to address other provisions of the rule, such as groundwater monitoring and disposal facility modifications, or to implement various compliance strategies.

PPL, LKE, LG&E and KU are reviewing the rule and are still evaluating its financial and operational impact. It is expected that these requirements will result in increases to existing AROs which will be recorded in the second quarter of 2015. PPL, LKE, LG&E and KU are not yet able to determine an estimate of the expected increases to the existing AROs. PPL, LKE, LG&E and KU believe relevant costs relating to this rule are subject to future rate recovery before the respective state regulatory agencies, or the FERC, as applicable.

Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELGs) and Standards

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 as proposed. The proposal contains alternative approaches, some of which could significantly impact PPL's, PPL Energy Supply's, LKE's, LG&E's and KU's coal-fired plants. The final regulation is expected to be issued by the third or fourth quarter of 2015. At the present time, PPL, 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.

Trimble County Landfill (PPL, LKE, LG&E and KU)

In May 2011, LG&E submitted an application for a special waste landfill permit to handle CCRs generated at the Trimble County plant. 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. 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. LG&E has also applied for other necessary regulatory approvals including a dredge and fill permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in which proceeding the EPA or the public have submitted certain comments to which LG&E and KU are responding. PPL, LKE, LG&E and KU are unable to determine the potential impact of this matter until all permits are issued and any resulting legal challenges are concluded.

Seepages and Groundwater Infiltration - Pennsylvania, Montana and Kentucky

(All Registrants except PPL Electric)

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, 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.

(PPL)

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 this facility.

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 the MDEQ responded to the amended petition and filed partial motions to dismiss in July 2014, which were both denied in October 2014. Discovery is ongoing, and a bench trial is set for April 2016.

Clean Water Act 316(b)(All Registrants except PPL Electric)

The EPA's final 316(b) rule for existing facilities became effective in October 2014, and regulates cooling water intake structures and their impact on aquatic organisms. States are allowed considerable authority to make site-specific determinations under the rule. The rule requires existing facilities to choose between several options to reduce the impact to aquatic organisms that become trapped against water intake screens (impingement) and to determine the intake structure's impact on aquatic organisms pulled through a plant's cooling water system (entrainment). Plants already equipped with closed-cycle cooling, an acceptable option, would likely not incur substantial costs. Once-through systems would likely require additional technology to comply with the rule. Mill Creek Unit 1 and Brunner Island (all units) are the only units expected to be impacted. PPL, LKE, LG&E and KU are evaluating compliance strategies but do not presently expect the compliance costs to be material.

(All Registrants)

Waters of the United States (WOTUS)

In April 2014, the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) published a proposed rule defining WOTUS that could greatly expand the federal government's interpretation of what constitutes WOTUS subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act. 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 EPA plans to make certain changes to the proposed regulation based on comments received. The U.S. House and Senate are considering legislation to block this regulation. Until a final rule is issued, the Registrants cannot predict the outcome of the pending rulemaking. A final rule is expected by summer 2015.

Other Issues

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 2015. 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.

(PPL)

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) with the PADEP 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 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.

(PPL, LKE, LG&E and KU)

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. In February 2015, oral arguments occurred in the appellate proceeding. 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.

Superfund and Other Remediation(All Registrants)

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, the Brodhead 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, have completed the remediation of, or are responding to agency inquiries regarding 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. To date, the costs of these sites have not been significant. 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's subsidiaries 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 that 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 the operations of PPL, PPL Electric, LG&E and KU.

Future cleanup or remediation work at sites currently under review, or at sites not currently identified, may result in significant additional costs for PPL, PPL Electric, LG&E and KU.

Environmental Matters - WPD (PPL)

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.

Other

Nuclear Insurance(PPL)

The Price-Anderson Act is a United States Federal law governing liability-related issues and ensures the availability of funds for public liability claims arising from an incident at any U.S. licensed nuclear facility. It also seeks to limit the liability of nuclear reactor owners for such claims from any single incident. At March 31, 2015, 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. At March 31, 2015, 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 at March 31, 2015. Effective April 1, 2015, this maximum assessment increased to $55 million. PPL Energy Supply has additional coverage that, under certain conditions, may reduce this exposure.

Guarantees and Other Assurances

(All Registrants)

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)

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

(All Registrants)

The table below details guarantees provided as of March 31, 2015. "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", “Indemnification for sales of assets” and "Indemnification of lease termination and other divestitures." The total recorded liability at March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, was $37 million and $38 million for PPL and $19 million for LKE for both periods. For reporting purposes, on a consolidated basis, all guarantees of 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
	March 31, 2015			Date
PPL
Indemnifications related to the WPD Midlands acquisition			(a)
WPD indemnifications for entities in liquidation and sales of assets	$	11	(b)	2018
WPD guarantee of pension and other obligations of unconsolidated entities		114	(c)
Indemnifications for sales of assets		1,150	(d)	2016 - 2025
PPL Electric
Guarantee of inventory value		32	(e)	2017
LKE
Indemnification of lease termination and other divestitures		301	(f)	2021 - 2023
LG&E and KU
LG&E and KU guarantee of shortfall related to OVEC			(g)

(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 March 31, 2015, 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)Indemnifications are governed by the specific sales agreement and include breach of the representations, warranties and covenants, and liabilities for certain other matters. The 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. The exposure at March 31, 2015 includes amounts related to the sale of the Montana Hydroelectric facilities. See Note 8 for additional information related to the sale.

(e)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.

(f)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 WKE-related 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. Another WKE-related LKE guarantee covers other indemnifications, has a term expiring in 2023, and a maximum exposure of $100 million. In May 2012, LKE's indemnitee received an unfavorable arbitration panel's decision interpreting 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 a December 2012 order of the Henderson Circuit Court, confirming the arbitration award. In May 2014, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion affirming the lower court decision.  LKE’s indemnitee filed a Motion for Discretionary Review with the Kentucky Supreme Court in October 2014.  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; LKE could be required to perform on these indemnifications in the event of covered losses or liabilities being claimed by an indemnified party. However, LKE is not aware of formal claims under such indemnities made by any party at this time. LKE cannot predict the ultimate outcomes of indemnification circumstances, but does not currently expect such outcomes to result in significant losses above the amounts recorded.

(g)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 13 in PPL's, LKE's, LG&E's and KU's 2014 Form 10-Kfor 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.