On December 19, 2012, APS, acting on behalf of itself and the participant owners of Palo Verde, filed a second breach of contract lawsuit against DOE in the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Court of Federal Claims”). The lawsuit sought to recover damages incurred due to DOE’s breach of the Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or High Level Radioactive Waste (“Standard Contract”) for failing to accept Palo Verde’s spent nuclear fuel and high level waste from January 1, 2007, through June 30, 2011, pursuant to the terms of the Standard Contract and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. On August 18, 2014, APS and DOE entered into a settlement agreement, which required DOE to pay the Palo Verde owners for certain specified costs incurred by Palo Verde during the period January 1, 2007, through June 30, 2011. The settlement agreement, as amended, provides APS with a method for submitting claims and getting recovery for costs incurred through December 31, 2019. On September 1, 2020, APS and DOE entered into an addendum to the settlement agreement allowing for the recovery of costs incurred through December 31, 2022.

APS has submitted seven claims pursuant to the terms of the August 18, 2014, settlement agreement, for seven separate time periods during July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2020. DOE has approved and paid $111.8 million for these claims (APS’s share is $32.5 million). The amounts recovered were primarily recorded as adjustments to a regulatory liability and had no impact on reported net income. In accordance with the 2017 Rate Case Decision, this regulatory liability is being refunded to customers. See Note 4. On November 1, 2021, APS filed its eighth claim pursuant to the terms of the August 18, 2014, settlement agreement in the amount of $12.2 million (APS’s share is $3.6 million). In February 2022, the DOE approved this claim.

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-wide 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 approximately $13.5 billion per occurrence. Palo Verde maintains the maximum available nuclear liability insurance in the amount of $450 million, which is provided by American Nuclear Insurers. The remaining balance of approximately $13.1 billion of liability coverage is provided through a mandatory, industry-wide retrospective premium program. If losses at any nuclear power plant covered by the program exceed the accumulated funds, APS could be responsible for retrospective premiums. The maximum retrospective premium per reactor under the program for each nuclear liability incident is approximately $137.6 million, subject to a maximum annual premium of approximately $20.5 million per incident. Based on APS’s ownership interest in the three Palo Verde units, APS’s maximum retrospective premium per incident for all three units is approximately $120.1 million, with a maximum annual retrospective premium of approximately $17.9 million.

insurance for a sudden and unforeseen accidental outage of any of the three units. The property damage, decontamination, and accidental outage insurance are provided by Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited (“NEIL”). APS is subject to retrospective premium adjustments 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 $22.4 million for each retrospective premium assessment declared by NEIL’s Board of Directors due to losses. Additionally, at the sole discretion of the NEIL Board of Directors, APS would be liable to provide approximately $63.3 million in deposit premium within 20 days of request as assurance to satisfy any site obligation of retrospective premium assessment. The insurance coverage discussed in this, and the previous paragraph is subject to certain policy conditions, sublimits, and exclusions.

APS is party to various fuel and purchased power contracts and purchase obligations with terms expiring between 2022 and 2043 that include required purchase provisions. APS estimates the contract requirements to be approximately $1 billion in 2022; $765 million in 2023; $703 million in 2024; $686 million in 2025; $687 million in 2026; and $6.9 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. These amounts include estimated commitments relating to purchased power lease contracts. See Note 9.

APS has entered into contracts to purchase renewable energy credits to comply with the RES. APS estimates the contract requirements to be approximately $32 million in 2022; $30 million in 2023; $29 million in 2024; $26 million in 2025; $22 million in 2026; and $87 million thereafter. These amounts do not include purchases of renewable energy credits that are bundled with energy.

APS must reimburse certain coal providers 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 $175 million at December 31, 2021, and $170 million at December 31, 2020. Under our current coal supply agreements, APS expects to make payments for the final mine reclamation as follows: $17 million in 2022; $18 million in 2023; $19 million in 2024; $20 million in 2025; $21 million in 2026; and $48 million thereafter. These funds are held in an escrow account and will be distributed to certain coal providers under the terms of the applicable coal supply agreements. Any amendments to current coal supply agreements may change the timing of the contribution or cost of final reclamation. The annual payments to the escrow account and final distribution to certain coal providers may be subject to adjustments based on escrow earnings.

The Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (“Superfund” or “CERCLA”) establishes liability for the cleanup of hazardous substances found contaminating the soil, water, or air. Those who released, generated, transported to, or disposed of hazardous substances at a contaminated site are among the parties who are potentially responsible (“PRPs”). PRPs may be strictly, 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 52nd Street Superfund Site, Operable Unit 3 (“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 (“RI/FS”). Based upon discussions between the OU3 working group parties and EPA, along with the results of recent technical analyses prepared by the OU3 working group to supplement the RI/FS for OU3, APS anticipates finalizing the RI/FS during the first or second quarter of 2022. APS's estimated costs related to this investigation and study is approximately $3 million. APS anticipates 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, the Roosevelt Irrigation District (“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. As part of a

state governmental investigation into groundwater contamination in this area, on January 25, 2015, the ADEQ sent a letter to APS seeking information concerning the degree to which, if any, APS’s current and former ownership of these facilities may have contributed to groundwater contamination in this area. APS responded to ADEQ on May 4, 2015. On December 16, 2016, two RID environmental and engineering contractors filed an ancillary lawsuit for recovery of costs against APS and the other defendants in the RID litigation. That same day, another RID service provider filed an additional ancillary CERCLA lawsuit against certain of the defendants in the main RID litigation but excluded APS and certain other parties as named defendants. Because the ancillary lawsuits concern past costs allegedly incurred by these RID vendors, which were ruled unrecoverable directly by RID in November of 2016, the additional lawsuits do not increase APS’s exposure or risk related to these matters.

On April 5, 2018, RID and the defendants in that particular litigation executed a settlement agreement, fully resolving RID’s CERCLA claims concerning both past and future cost recovery. APS’s share of this settlement was immaterial. In addition, the two environmental and engineering vendors voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit against APS and the other named defendants without prejudice. An order to this effect was entered on April 17, 2018. With this disposition of the case, the vendors may file their lawsuit again in the future. On August 16, 2019, Maricopa County, one of the three direct defendants in the service provider lawsuit, filed a third-party complaint seeking contribution for its liability, if any, from APS and 28 other third-party defendants. We are unable to predict the outcome of these matters; however, we do not expect the outcome to have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

APS received civil investigative demands from the Attorney General seeking information pertaining to the rate plan comparison tool offered to APS customers and other related issues including implementation of rates from the 2017 Settlement Agreement and its Customer Education and Outreach Plan associated with the 2017 Settlement Agreement. APS fully cooperated with the Attorney General’s Office in this matter. On February 22, 2021, APS entered into a consent agreement with the Attorney General as a way to settle the matter. The settlement resulted in APS paying $24.75 million, approximately $24 million of which was returned to customers as restitution.

As part of APS’s 2019 Rate Case, APS included recovery of the deferral and rate base effects of the Four Corners SCR project. On November 2, 2021, the 2019 Rate Case decision was approved by the ACC allowing approximately $194 million of SCR related plant investments and cost deferrals in rate base and to recover, depreciate and amortize in rates based on an end-of-life assumption of July 2031. The decision also included a partial and combined disallowance of $215.5 million on the SCR investments and deferrals. APS believes the SCR plant investments and related SCR cost deferrals were prudently incurred, and on December 17, 2021, APS filed its Notice of Direct Appeal at the Arizona Court of Appeals requesting review of the $215.5 million disallowance. Based on the partial recovery of these investments and cost deferrals in current rates and the uncertainty of the outcome of the legal appeals process, APS has not recorded an impairment or write-off relating to the SCR plant investments or deferrals as of December 31, 2021. If the 2019 Rate Case decision to disallow $215.5 million of the SCRs is ultimately upheld, APS will be required to record a charge to its results of operations, net of tax, of approximately

APS is subject to numerous environmental laws and regulations affecting many aspects of its present and future operations, including air emissions of both conventional pollutants and GHGs, 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.

Based on EPA’s final standards, APS’s 63% share of the cost of required controls for Four Corners Units 4 and 5 was approximately $400 million, which has been incurred. 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. 4CA purchased the El Paso interest on July 6, 2016. NTEC purchased the interest from 4CA on July 3, 2018. See “Four Corners — 4CA Matter” below for a discussion of the NTEC purchase. The cost of the pollution controls related to the 7% interest is approximately $45 million, which was assumed by NTEC through its purchase of the 7% interest. In addition, EPA issued a final rule for Regional Haze compliance at Cholla that does not involve the installation of new pollution controls and that will replace an earlier BART determination for this facility. See “Cholla” in Note 4 for information regarding future plans for Cholla and details related to the resulting regulatory asset.

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 the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) and establishes national minimum criteria for existing and new CCR landfills and surface impoundments and all lateral expansions. These criteria include standards governing 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 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. Such closure requirements are deemed “forced closure” or “closure for cause” of unlined surface impoundments and are the subject of recent regulatory and judicial activities described below.

Since these regulations were finalized, EPA has taken steps to substantially modify the federal rules governing CCR disposal. While certain changes have been prompted by utility industry petitions, others have resulted from judicial review, court-approved settlements with environmental groups, and statutory changes to RCRA. The following lists the pending regulatory changes that, if finalized, could have a material impact as to how APS manages CCR at its coal-fired power plants:

•Following the passage of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act in 2016, EPA possesses authority to either authorize states to develop their own permit programs for CCR management or issue federal permits governing CCR disposal both in states without their own permit programs and on tribal lands. Although ADEQ has taken steps to develop a CCR permitting program, it is not clear when that program will be put into effect. On December 19, 2019, EPA proposed its own set of regulations governing the issuance of CCR management permits.

•On March 1, 2018, as a result of a settlement with certain environmental groups, EPA proposed adding boron to the list of constituents that trigger corrective action requirements to remediate groundwater impacted by CCR disposal activities. Apart from a subsequent proposal issued on August 14, 2019, to add a specific, health-based groundwater protection standard for boron, EPA has yet to take action on this proposal.

•Based on an August 21, 2018, D.C. Circuit decision, which vacated and remanded those provisions of the EPA CCR regulations that allow for the operation of unlined CCR surface impoundments, EPA recently proposed corresponding changes to federal CCR regulations. On July 29, 2020, EPA took final action on new regulations establishing revised deadlines for initiating the closure of unlined CCR surface impoundments by April 11, 2021, at the latest. All APS disposal units subject to these closure requirements were closed as of April 11, 2021.

•On November 4, 2019, EPA also proposed to change the manner by which facilities that have committed to cease burning coal in the near-term may qualify for alternative closure. Such qualification would allow CCR disposal units at these plants to continue operating, even though they would otherwise be subject to forced closure under the federal CCR regulations. EPA’s July 29, 2020, final regulation adopted this proposal and now requires explicit EPA approval for facilities to utilize an alternative closure deadline. With respect to the Cholla facility, APS’s application for alternative closure (which would allow the continued disposal of CCR within the facility’s existing unlined CCR surface impoundments until the required date for ceasing coal-fired boiler operations in April 2025) was submitted to EPA on November 30, 2020, and is currently pending. This application will be subject to public comment and, potentially, judicial review. On January 11, 2022, EPA began issuing proposed decisions pursuant to this provision of the federal CCR regulations and we anticipate receiving a proposed decision with respect to the Cholla facility in 2022.

We cannot at this time predict the outcome of these regulatory proceedings or when the EPA will take final action on those matters that are still pending. Depending on the eventual outcome, the costs associated with APS’s management of CCR could materially increase, which could affect APS’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

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 $30 million and its share of incremental costs to comply with the CCR rule for Cholla is approximately $16 million. The Navajo Plant disposed of CCR only in a dry landfill storage area. To comply with the CCR rule for the Navajo Plant, APS’s share of incremental costs was approximately $1 million, which has been incurred. Additionally, the CCR rule requires ongoing, phased groundwater monitoring.

Four Corners will need to undergo corrective action. In addition, under the current regulations, all such disposal units must have ceased operating and initiated closure by April 11, 2021, at the latest (except for those disposal units subject to alternative closure). APS completed the assessments of corrective measures on June 14, 2019; however, additional investigations and engineering analyses that will support the remedy selection are still underway. In addition, APS will also solicit input from the public and host public hearings as part of this process. Based on the work performed to date, APS currently estimates that its share of corrective action and monitoring costs at Four Corners will likely range from $10 million to $15 million, which would be incurred over 30 years. The analysis needed to perform a similar cost estimate for Cholla remains ongoing at this time. As APS continues to implement the CCR rule’s corrective action assessment process, the current cost estimates may change. Given uncertainties that may exist until we have fully completed the corrective action assessment process, we cannot predict any ultimate impacts to the Company; however, at this time we do not believe the cost estimates for Cholla and any potential change to the cost estimate for Four Corners would have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Clean Power Plan/Affordable Clean Energy Regulations. On June 19, 2019, EPA took final action on its proposals to repeal EPA’s 2015 Clean Power Plan (“CPP”) and replace those regulations with a new rule, the Affordable Clean Energy (“ACE”) regulations. EPA originally finalized the CPP on August 3, 2015, and such rules would have had far broader impact on the electric power sector than the ACE regulations. On January 19, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated the ACE regulations and remanded them back to EPA to develop new existing power plant carbon regulations consistent with the court’s ruling. That ruling endorsed an expansive view of the federal Clean Air Act consistent with EPA’s 2015 CPP. Nonetheless, on October 29, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it was accepting judicial review of the January D.C. Circuit decision vacating the ACE regulations. While the Biden administration has expressed an intent to regulate carbon emissions in this sector more aggressively under the Clean Air Act, we cannot at this time predict the outcome of pending EPA rulemaking proceedings or ongoing litigation related to the scope of EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants.

Other environmental rules that could involve material compliance costs include those related to effluent limitations, the ozone national ambient air quality standard and other rules or matters involving the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, RCRA, Superfund, the Navajo Nation, and water supplies for our power plants. The financial impact of complying with current and 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.

The latest NPDES permit for Four Corners was issued on September 30, 2019. Based upon a November 1, 2019, filing by several environmental groups, the Environmental Appeals Board (“EAB”) took up review of the Four Corners NPDES Permit. EPA then issued a revised final NPDES permit for Four Corners on September 30, 2019. Based upon a November 1, 2019, filing by several environmental groups, the EAB again took up review of the Four Corners NPDES Permit. Oral argument on this appeal

was held on September 3, 2020, and the EAB denied the environmental group petition on September 30, 2020. On January 22, 2021, the environmental groups filed a petition for review of the EAB’s decision with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The September 2019 permit remains in effect pending this appeal. As of November 11, 2021, the parties to this lawsuit, including APS, reached a tentative agreement to settle this matter. Review of this agreement, including public commenting, is currently pending with EPA. Notwithstanding this tentative agreement, we cannot predict the outcome of these appeal proceedings, including further settlement discussions, and, if settlement efforts fail and the appeal is eventually successful, whether that outcome will have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

On July 6, 2016, 4CA purchased El Paso’s 7% interest in Four Corners. NTEC purchased this 7% interest on July 3, 2018, from 4CA. NTEC purchased the 7% interest at 4CA’s book value, approximately $70 million, and is paying 4CA the purchase price over a period of four years pursuant to a secured interest-bearing promissory note. The note is secured by a portion of APS’s payments to be owed to NTEC under the 2016 Coal Supply Agreement. As of December 31, 2021, the note has a remaining balance of approximately $9.2 million. NTEC continues to make payments in accordance with the terms of the note. Due to its short-remaining term, among other factors, there are no expected credit losses associated with the note.

In connection with the sale, Pinnacle West guaranteed certain obligations that NTEC will have to the other owners of Four Corners, such as NTEC’s 7% share of capital expenditures and operating and maintenance expenses. Pinnacle West’s guarantee is secured by a portion of APS’s payments to be owed to NTEC under the 2016 Coal Supply Agreement.

In the normal course of business, we obtain standby letters of credit and surety bonds from financial institutions and other third parties. These instruments guarantee our own future performance and provide third parties with financial and performance assurance in the event we do not perform. These instruments support commodity contract collateral obligations and other transactions. As of December 31, 2021, standby letters of credit totaled approximately $5 million and will expire in 2022. As of December 31, 2021, surety bonds expiring through 2023 totaled approximately $14 million. The underlying liabilities insured by these instruments are reflected on our balance sheets, where applicable. Therefore, no additional liability is reflected for the letters of credit and surety bonds themselves.

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, 2021. In connection with the sale of 4CA’s 7% interest to NTEC, Pinnacle West is guaranteeing certain obligations that NTEC will have to the other owners of Four Corners. See “Four Corners — 4CA Matter” above for information related to this guarantee. Pinnacle West has not needed to perform under this guarantee. A maximum obligation is not explicitly stated in the guarantee and, therefore, the overall maximum amount of the obligation under such guarantee cannot be reasonably estimated; however, we consider the fair value of this guarantee, including expected credit losses, to be immaterial.

In connection with BCE’s acquisition of minority ownership positions in the Clear Creek wind farm in Missouri and Nobles 2 wind farm in Minnesota, Pinnacle West has issued parental guarantees to guarantee the obligations of BCE subsidiaries to make required equity contributions to fund project construction (the “Equity Contribution Guarantees”) and to make production tax credit funding payments to borrowers of the projects (the “PTC Guarantees”). The amounts guaranteed by Pinnacle West are reduced as payments are made under the respective guarantee agreements. The Equity Contribution Guarantees remaining as of December 31, 2021, are immaterial in amount (approximately $2 million) and the PTC Guarantees (approximately $37 million as of December 31, 2021) are currently expected to be terminated 10 years following the commercial operation date of the applicable project.