Commitments and Contingencies

Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station

Spent Nuclear Fuel and Waste Disposal

On December 19, 2012, APS, acting on behalf of itself and the participant owners of Palo Verde, filed a breach of contract lawsuit against the DOE in the United States Court of Federal Claims. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages incurred due to DOE’s breach of the Standard Contract for failing to accept Palo Verde spent nuclear fuel and high level waste from January 1, 2007 through June 30, 2011, as it was required to do pursuant to the terms of the Standard Contract and the NWPA. On August 18, 2014, APS and DOE entered into a settlement agreement, stipulating to a dismissal of the lawsuit and payment of $57.4 million by DOE to the Palo Verde owners for certain specified costs incurred by Palo Verde during the period January 1, 2007 through June 30, 2011. APS’s share of this amount is $16.7 million. Amounts recovered in the lawsuit and settlement were recorded as adjustments to a regulatory liability and had no impact on current income. In addition, the settlement agreement provides APS with a method for submitting claims and getting recovery for costs incurred through 2016.

Nuclear Insurance

Public liability for incidents at nuclear power plants is governed by the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (“Price-Anderson Act”), which limits the liability of nuclear reactor owners to the amount of insurance available from both commercial sources and an industry retrospective payment plan. In accordance with the Price-Anderson Act, the Palo Verde participants are insured against public liability for a nuclear incident up to $13.6 billion per occurrence. Palo Verde maintains the maximum available nuclear liability insurance in the amount of $375 million, which is provided by commercial insurance carriers. The remaining balance of $13.2 billion of liability coverage is provided through a mandatory industry-wide retrospective assessment program. If losses at any nuclear power plant covered by the program exceed the accumulated funds, APS could be assessed retrospective premium adjustments. The maximum retrospective premium assessment per reactor under the program for each nuclear liability incident is approximately $127.3 million, subject to an annual limit of $19 million per incident, to be periodically adjusted for inflation. Based on APS’s ownership interest in the three Palo Verde units, APS’s maximum potential retrospective premium assessment per incident for all three units is approximately $111 million, with a maximum annual retrospective premium assessment of approximately $16.5 million.

The Palo Verde participants maintain “all risk” (including nuclear hazards) insurance for property damage to, and decontamination of, property at Palo Verde in the aggregate amount of $2.75 billion, a substantial portion of which must first be applied to stabilization and decontamination. APS has also secured insurance against portions of any increased cost of replacement generation or purchased power and business interruption resulting from a sudden and unforeseen accidental outage of any of the three units. The property damage, decontamination, and replacement power coverages are provided by Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited (“NEIL”). APS is subject to retrospective premium assessments under all NEIL policies if NEIL’s losses in any policy year exceed accumulated funds. The maximum amount APS could incur under the current NEIL policies totals approximately $20 million for each retrospective premium assessment declared by NEIL’s Board of Directors due to losses. In addition, NEIL policies contain rating triggers that would result in APS providing approximately $53 million of collateral assurance within 20 business days of a rating downgrade to non-investment grade. The insurance coverage discussed in this and the previous paragraph is subject to certain policy conditions, sublimits and exclusions.

Fuel and Purchased Power Commitments and Purchase Obligations

APS is party to purchase obligations and various fuel and purchased power contracts with terms expiring between 2015 and 2043 that include required purchase provisions. APS estimates the contract requirements to be approximately $723 million in 2015; $747 million in 2016; $630 million in 2017; $610 million in 2018; $583 million in 2019; and $8.2 billion thereafter. However, these amounts may vary significantly pursuant to certain provisions in such contracts that permit us to decrease required purchases under certain circumstances.

Of the various fuel and purchased power contracts mentioned above, some of those contracts for coal supply include take-or-pay provisions. The current coal contracts with take-or-pay provisions have terms expiring through 2031.

The following table summarizes our estimated coal take-or-pay commitments (dollars in millions):



	Years Ended December 31,
	2015		2016		2017		2018		2019		Thereafter
Coal take-or-pay commitments (a)	$	151	$	171	$	195	$	190	$	194	$	2,469


(a)	Total take-or-pay commitments are approximately $3.4 billion. The total net present value of these commitments is approximately $2.2 billion.

APS may spend more to meet its actual fuel requirements than the minimum purchase obligations in our coal take-or-pay contracts. The following table summarizes actual payments under the coal contracts which include take-or-pay provisions for each of the last three years (dollars in millions):



	Year Ended December 31,
	2014		2013		2012
Total payments	$	237	$	188	$	196

Renewable Energy Credits

APS has entered into contracts to purchase renewable energy credits to comply with the RES. APS estimates the contract requirements to be approximately $46 million in 2015; $42 million in 2016; $42 million in 2017; $42 million in 2018; $42 million in 2019; and $448 million thereafter. These amounts do not include purchases of renewable energy credits that are bundled with energy. Also, these amounts do not include purchases of renewable energy credits that are associated with purchased power contracts.

Coal Mine Reclamation Obligations

APS must reimburse certain coal providers for amounts incurred for final and contemporaneous coal mine reclamation. We account for contemporaneous reclamation costs as part of the cost of the delivered coal. We utilize site-specific studies of costs expected to be incurred in the future to estimate our final reclamation obligation. These studies utilize various assumptions to estimate the future costs. Based on the most recent reclamation studies, APS recorded an obligation for the coal mine final reclamation of approximately $198 million at December 31, 2014 and $207 million at December 31, 2013. Under our current coal supply agreements, we expect to make payments to certain coal providers for the final mine reclamation as follows: $1 million in 2015; $15 million in 2016; $17 million in 2017; $18 million in 2018; $19 million in 2019; and $281 million thereafter. Any amendments to current coal supply agreements may change the timing of the reimbursement.

Superfund-Related Matters

Superfund establishes liability for the cleanup of hazardous substances found contaminating the soil, water or air. Those who generated, transported or disposed of hazardous substances at a contaminated site are among those who are PRPs. PRPs may be strictly, and often are jointly and severally, liable for clean-up. On September 3, 2003, EPA advised APS that EPA considers APS to be a PRP in the Motorola 52^nd Street Superfund Site, OU3 in Phoenix, Arizona. APS has facilities that are within this Superfund site. APS and Pinnacle West have agreed with EPA to perform certain investigative activities of the APS facilities within OU3. In addition, on September 23, 2009, APS agreed with EPA and one other PRP to voluntarily assist with the funding and management of the site-wide groundwater remedial investigation and feasibility study work plan. We estimate that our costs related to this investigation and study will be approximately $2 million. We anticipate incurring additional expenditures in the future, but because the overall investigation is not complete and ultimate remediation requirements are not yet finalized, at the present time expenditures related to this matter cannot be reasonably estimated.

On August 6, 2013, RID filed a lawsuit in Arizona District Court against APS and 24 other defendants, alleging that RID’s groundwater wells were contaminated by the release of hazardous substances from facilities owned or operated by the defendants. The lawsuit also alleges that, under Superfund laws, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to RID. The allegations against APS arise out of APS’s current and former ownership of facilities in and around OU3. We are unable to predict the outcome of this matter; however, we do not expect the outcome to have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Southwest Power Outage

Regulatory. On September 8, 2011 at approximately 3:30 PM, a 500 kV transmission line running between the Hassayampa and North Gila substations in southwestern Arizona tripped out of service due to a fault that occurred at a switchyard operated by APS. Approximately ten minutes after the transmission line went off-line, generation and transmission resources for the Yuma area were lost, resulting in approximately 69,700 APS customers losing service.

Within the same time period that APS’s Yuma customers lost service, a series of transmission and generation disruptions occurred across the systems of several utilities that resulted in outages affecting portions of southern Arizona, southern California and northern Mexico. A total of approximately 7,900 MW of firm load and 2.7 million customers were reported to have been affected. Service to all affected APS customers was restored by 9:15 PM on September 8. Service to customers affected by the wider regional outages was restored by approximately 3:25 AM on September 9.

FERC and NERC conducted a joint inquiry into the outages and, on May 1, 2012, they issued a report (the “Joint Report”) with their analysis and conclusions as to the causes of the events. The report included recommendations to help industry operators prevent similar outages in the future, including increased data sharing and coordination among the western utilities and entities responsible for bulk electric system reliability coordination. The Joint Report did not address potential reliability violations or an assessment of responsibility of the parties involved.

On January 22, 2014, following non-public preliminary investigations, FERC Staff issued a Notice of Alleged Violations naming six entities involved in the event, including APS. FERC Staff alleged that each of the named entities violated varying numbers of NERC Reliability Standards. APS was alleged to have violated seven Reliability Standard Requirements. The allegations of violations were preliminary determinations by FERC Staff and did not constitute findings by FERC itself that any violations had occurred.

On July 7, 2014, FERC approved a Stipulation and Consent Agreement among FERC’s Office of Enforcement, NERC and APS which resolves all civil and administrative disputes within the jurisdiction of FERC concerning the September 8 event, including FERC’s and NERC’s investigations. In the settlement, APS neither admitted nor denied alleged violations of four Reliability Standard Requirements. APS agreed to pay a civil penalty of $3.25 million, of which $2 million is to be paid in equal parts to the Department of the Treasury and NERC and $1.25 million will be credited as a partial civil penalty offset in exchange for APS completing certain reliability enhancements.

Litigation. On September 6, 2013, a purported consumer class action complaint was filed in Federal District Court in San Diego, California, naming APS and Pinnacle West as defendants and seeking damages for loss of perishable inventory and sales as a result of interruption of electrical service. APS and Pinnacle West filed a motion to dismiss, which the court granted on December 9, 2013. On January 13, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the lower court’s decision. The appeal is now fully briefed and pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. We are unable to predict the outcome of this matter.

Clean Air Act Citizen Lawsuit

On October 4, 2011, Earthjustice, on behalf of several environmental organizations, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico against APS and the other Four Corners participants alleging violations of the NSR provisions of the Clean Air Act. Subsequent to filing its original Complaint, on January 6, 2012, Earthjustice filed a First Amended Complaint adding claims for violations of the Clean Air Act’s NSPS program. Among other things, the environmental plaintiffs seek to have the court enjoin operations at Four Corners until APS applies for and obtains any required NSR permits and complies with the NSPS. The plaintiffs further request the court to order the payment of civil penalties, including a beneficial mitigation project. On April 2, 2012, APS and the other Four Corners participants filed motions to dismiss. The case is being held in abeyance while the parties seek to negotiate a settlement. On March 30, 2013, upon joint motion of the parties, the court issued an order deeming the motions to dismiss withdrawn without prejudice during pendency of the stay. At such time as the stay is lifted, APS and the other Four Corners participants may reinstate their motions to dismiss. We are unable to predict the outcome of this matter.

Environmental Matters

APS is subject to numerous environmental laws and regulations affecting many aspects of its present and future operations, including air emissions, water quality, wastewater discharges, solid waste, hazardous waste, and CCRs. These laws and regulations can change from time to time, imposing new obligations on APS resulting in increased capital, operating, and other costs. Associated capital expenditures or operating costs could be material. APS intends to seek recovery of any such environmental compliance costs through our rates, but cannot predict whether it will obtain such recovery. The following proposed and final rules involve material compliance costs to APS.

Regional Haze Rules. APS has received the final rulemaking imposing new requirements on Four Corners, Cholla and the Navajo Plant. EPA and ADEQ will require these plants to install pollution control equipment that constitutes the BART to lessen the impacts of emissions on visibility surrounding the plants. Based on EPA’s final standards, APS estimates that its 63% share of the cost of these controls for Four Corners Units 4 and 5 would be at least $350 million. In addition, APS and El Paso entered into an asset purchase agreement providing for the purchase by APS, or an affiliate of APS, of El Paso's 7% interest in Four Corners Units 4 and 5, which would increase our share of the cost of these controls by approximately $40 million. APS estimates that its share of costs for upgrades at the Navajo Plant, based on EPA’s FIP proposal, could be up to approximately $200 million. In October 2014, a coalition of environmental groups, an Indian tribe and others filed petitions for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit asking the Court to review EPA's final BART rule for the Navajo Plant. We cannot predict the outcome of this review process. As described under "Regional Haze Rules - Cholla" below, APS filed a Petition for Review of EPA’s rule as it applies to Cholla, which, if not successful, would require installation of SCR controls with a cost to APS of approximately $200 million. However, in September 2014, APS met with EPA to propose a compromise BART strategy wherein, pending certain regulatory approvals, APS would permanently close Cholla Unit 2 by April 2016 and cease burning coal at Units 1 and 3 by the mid-2020s. (See Note 3 for details related to the resulting regulatory asset.) APS made the proposal with the understanding that additional emission control equipment is unlikely to be required in the future because retiring and converting the units as contemplated in the proposal is more cost effective than, and will result in increased visibility improvement over, the current BART requirements for NOx imposed on the Cholla units under EPA's BART FIP. Because APS’s proposal involves state and federal rule-making processes, APS is unable to predict when or whether it may ultimately be approved.

Mercury and Air Toxic Standards. In 2011, EPA issued rules establishing maximum achievable control technology standards to regulate emissions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants from fossil-fired plants. APS estimates that the cost for the remaining equipment necessary to meet these standards is approximately $130 million for Cholla, which would be avoided if EPA approves APS's compromise proposal discussed above. No additional equipment is needed for Four Corners Units 4 and 5 to comply with these rules. SRP, the operating agent for the Navajo Plant, is still evaluating compliance options under the rules.

Coal Combustion Waste. On December 19, 2014, EPA issued its final regulations governing the handling and disposal of CCR, such as fly ash and bottom ash. The rule regulates CCR as a non-hazardous waste under Subtitle D of RCRA and establishes national minimum criteria for existing and new CCR landfills and surface impoundments and all lateral expansions consisting of location restrictions, design and operating criteria, groundwater monitoring and corrective action, closure requirements and post closure care, and recordkeeping, notification, and Internet posting requirements. The rule generally requires any existing unlined CCR surface impoundment that is contaminating groundwater above a regulated constituent’s groundwater protection standard to stop receiving CCR and either retrofit or close, and further requires the closure of any CCR landfill or surface impoundment that cannot meet the applicable performance criteria for location restrictions or structural integrity.

Because the Subtitle D rule is self-implementing, the CCR standards apply directly to the regulated facility, and facilities are directly responsible for ensuring that their operations comply with the rule’s requirements. While EPA has chosen to regulate the disposal of CCR in landfills and surface impoundments as non-hazardous waste under the final rule, the agency makes clear that it will continue to evaluate any risks associated with CCR disposal and leaves open the possibility that it may regulate CCR as a hazardous waste under RCRA Subtitle C in the future.

APS currently disposes of CCR in ash ponds and dry storage areas at Cholla and Four Corners. APS estimates that its share of incremental costs to comply with the CCR rule for Four Corners is approximately $15 million, and its share of incremental costs for Cholla is approximately $85 million. The Navajo Plant currently disposes of CCR in a dry landfill storage area. At this time, SRP, the operating agent for the Navajo Plant, is analyzing the operations that would be covered by the rule and any resulting compliance costs.

Other future environmental rules that could involve material compliance costs include those related to effluent limitations, the ozone national ambient air quality standard, GHG emissions (such as the EPA’s proposed “Clean Power Plan” rule issued in accordance with President Obama’s Climate Action Plan), and other rules or matters involving the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, ESA, the Navajo Nation, and water supplies for our power plants. The financial impact of complying with these and other future environmental rules could jeopardize the economic viability of our coal plants or the willingness or ability of power plant participants to fund any required equipment upgrades or continue their participation in these plants. The economics of continuing to own certain resources, particularly our coal plants, may deteriorate, warranting early retirement of those plants, which may result in asset impairments. APS would seek recovery in rates for the book value of any remaining investments in the plants as well as other costs related to early retirement, but cannot predict whether it would obtain such recovery.

Regional Haze Rules — Cholla

APS believes that EPA’s final rule as it applies to Cholla is unsupported and that EPA had no basis for disapproving Arizona’s SIP and promulgating a FIP that is inconsistent with the state’s considered BART determinations under the regional haze program. Accordingly, on February 1, 2013, APS filed a Petition for Review of the final BART rule in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Briefing in the case was completed in February 2014; the court scheduled oral argument for March 9, 2015.

New Mexico Tax Matter

On May 23, 2013, the New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department issued a notice of assessment for coal severance surtax, penalty, and interest totaling approximately $30 million related to coal supplied under the coal supply agreement for Four Corners (the “Assessment”). APS’s share of the Assessment is approximately $12 million. For procedural reasons, on behalf of the Four Corners co-owners, including APS, the coal supplier made a partial payment of the Assessment and immediately filed a refund claim with respect to that partial payment in August 2013. The New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department denied the refund claim. On December 19, 2013, the coal supplier and APS, on its own behalf and as operating agent for Four Corners, filed a complaint with the New Mexico District Court contesting both the validity of the Assessment and the refund claim denial. We cannot predict the timing or outcome of this litigation; however, we do not expect the outcome to have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Financial Assurances

APS has entered into various agreements that require letters of credit for financial assurance purposes. At December 31, 2014, approximately $109 million of letters of credit were outstanding to support existing pollution control bonds of a similar amount. The letters of credit are available to fund the payment of principal and interest of such debt obligations. These letters of credit will expire in 2015, 2016, and 2017. APS has also entered into letters of credit to support certain equity participants in the Palo Verde sale leaseback transactions (see Note 18 for further details on the Palo Verde sale leaseback transactions). These letters of credit will expire on December 31, 2015, and totaled approximately $23 million at December 31, 2014. Additionally, APS has issued letters of credit to support collateral obligations under a natural gas tolling contract entered into with a third party. At December 31, 2014, that letter of credit totaled $5 million and will expire in 2015.

We enter into agreements that include indemnification provisions relating to liabilities arising from or related to certain of our agreements. Most significantly, APS has agreed to indemnify the equity participants and other parties in the Palo Verde sale leaseback transactions with respect to certain tax matters. Generally, a maximum obligation is not explicitly stated in the indemnification provisions and, therefore, the overall maximum amount of the obligation under such indemnification provisions cannot be reasonably estimated. Based on historical experience and evaluation of the specific indemnities, we do not believe that any material loss related to such indemnification provisions is likely.

Pinnacle West has issued parental guarantees and has provided indemnification under certain surety bonds for APS which were not material at December 31, 2014.