Contingencies and Regulatory Matters	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2013
Contingencies and Regulatory Matters
Contingencies and Regulatory Matters	(G) Contingencies and Regulatory Matters. General We are subject to certain claims and legal actions arising in the ordinary course of our business. The ultimate outcome of any pending or current proceedings against us cannot be predicted at this time; however, except as discussed in "—Nuclear Construction" below, management does not anticipate that the liabilities, if any, for any current proceedings against us, if adversely determined, will have a material effect on our financial condition or results of operations. Nuclear Construction In April 2008, Georgia Power Company, acting for itself and as agent for Oglethorpe, the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, and the City of Dalton, Georgia (collectively, the Co-owners), and Westinghouse Electric Company LLC and Stone & Webster, Inc. (collectively, the Contractor) entered into an engineering, procurement, and construction agreement (Vogtle No. 3 and No. 4 Agreement) to design, engineer, procure, and construct two AP1000 nuclear units with electric generating capacity of approximately 1,100 megawatts each and related facilities, structures, and improvements at Plant Vogtle (Vogtle Units No. 3 and No. 4). Under the Vogtle No. 3 and No. 4 Agreement, the Co-owners and the Contractor have established both informal and formal dispute resolution procedures in order to resolve issues arising during the course of constructing a project of this magnitude. Georgia Power, on behalf of the Co-owners, has successfully initiated both formal and informal claims through these procedures, including ongoing claims. When matters are not resolved through these procedures, the parties may proceed to litigation. The Contractor and the Co-owners are involved in litigation with respect to certain claims that have not been resolved through the formal dispute resolution process. The most significant litigation relates to costs associated with design changes to the Westinghouse AP1000 Design Control Document (DCD) and costs associated with delays in the project schedule related to the timing of approval of the DCD and issuance of the combined construction permits and operating licenses by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In July 2012, the Co-owners and Contractor began negotiations regarding these costs, including the assertion by the Contractor that the Co-owners are responsible for these costs under the terms of the contract. The Contractor has claimed that its estimated adjustment attributable to us, based on our ownership interest, is approximately $280,000,000 in 2008 dollars with respect to these issues. The Contractor has also asserted that it is entitled to schedule extensions. Georgia Power, on behalf of the Co-owners, has not agreed with either the proposed cost or schedule adjustments or that the Co-owners have any responsibility for costs related to these issues. On November 1, 2012, the Co-owners filed suit against the Contractor in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Co-owners are not responsible for these costs. Also on November 1, 2012, the Contractor filed suit against the Co-owners in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia alleging the Co-owners are responsible for these costs. Georgia Power and the Co-owners intend to vigorously defend their positions. During litigation, Georgia Power and the Co-owners expect negotiations with the Contractor to continue with respect to cost and schedule during which time the parties will attempt to reach a mutually acceptable compromise of their positions. If any or all of these costs are ultimately imposed on the Co-owners, we will capitalize the costs attributable to us. As of June 30, 2013, no material amounts have been recorded related to this claim. Additional claims by the Contractor or Georgia Power, on behalf of the Co-owners, are also likely to arise throughout construction. The ultimate outcome of these matters cannot be determined at this time. Environmental Matters As is typical for electric utilities, we are subject to various federal, state and local environmental laws which represent significant future risks and uncertainties. Air emissions, water discharges and water usage are extensively controlled, closely monitored and periodically reported. Handling and disposal requirements govern the manner of transportation, storage and disposal of various types of waste. We are also subject to climate change regulations that impose restrictions on emissions of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, for certain new and modified facilities. In general, these and other types of environmental requirements are becoming increasingly stringent. Such requirements may substantially increase the cost of electric service, by requiring modifications in the design or operation of existing facilities, the purchase of emission allowances, or changes or delays in the location, design, construction or operation of new facilities. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in civil and criminal penalties and could include the complete shutdown of individual generating units not in compliance. Certain of our debt instruments require us to comply in all material respects with laws, rules, regulations and orders imposed by applicable governmental authorities, which include current or future environmental laws or regulations. Should we fail to be in compliance with these requirements, it would constitute a default under those debt instruments. We believe that we are in compliance with those environmental regulations currently applicable to our business and operations. Although it is our intent to comply with current and future regulations, we cannot provide assurance that we will always be in compliance. At this time, the ultimate impact of any new and more stringent environmental regulations described above is uncertain and could have an effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows as a result of future additional capital expenditures and increased operations and maintenance costs. Additionally, litigation over environmental issues and claims of various types, including property damage, personal injury, common law nuisance, and citizen enforcement of environmental requirements such as air quality and water standards, has increased generally throughout the United States. In particular, personal injury and other claims for damages caused by alleged exposure to hazardous materials, and common law nuisance claims for injunctive relief, personal injury and property damage allegedly caused by coal combustion residue, greenhouse gas and other emissions have become more frequent. For example, in January 2013, several plaintiffs filed complaints against us and the other co-owners of Plant Scherer claiming personal injury and property damage arising from the alleged release of hazardous substances from the plant, primarily related to the coal-ash pond, into the surrounding groundwater and air.

(G): Contingencies and Regulatory Matters.

General

We are subject to certain claims and legal actions arising in the ordinary course of our business. The ultimate outcome of any pending or current proceedings against us cannot be predicted at this time; however, except as discussed in "—Nuclear Construction" below, management does not anticipate that the liabilities, if any, for any current proceedings against us, if adversely determined, will have a material effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

Nuclear Construction

In April 2008, Georgia Power Company, acting for itself and as agent for Oglethorpe, the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, and the City of Dalton, Georgia (collectively, the Co-owners), and Westinghouse Electric Company LLC and Stone & Webster, Inc. (collectively, the Contractor) entered into an engineering, procurement, and construction agreement (Vogtle No. 3 and No. 4 Agreement) to design, engineer, procure, and construct two AP1000 nuclear units with electric generating capacity of approximately 1,100 megawatts each and related facilities, structures, and improvements at Plant Vogtle (Vogtle Units No. 3 and No. 4).

Under the Vogtle No. 3 and No. 4 Agreement, the Co-owners and the Contractor have established both informal and formal dispute resolution procedures in order to resolve issues arising during the course of constructing a project of this magnitude. Georgia Power, on behalf of the Co-owners, has successfully initiated both formal and informal claims through these procedures, including ongoing claims. When matters are not resolved through these procedures, the parties may proceed to litigation. The Contractor and the Co-owners are involved in litigation with respect to certain claims that have not been resolved through the formal dispute resolution process.

The most significant litigation relates to costs associated with design changes to the Westinghouse AP1000 Design Control Document (DCD) and costs associated with delays in the project schedule related to the timing of approval of the DCD and issuance of the combined construction permits and operating licenses by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In July 2012, the Co-owners and Contractor began negotiations regarding these costs, including the assertion by the Contractor that the Co-owners are responsible for these costs under the terms of the contract. The Contractor has claimed that its estimated adjustment attributable to us, based on our ownership interest, is approximately $280,000,000 in 2008 dollars with respect to these issues. The Contractor has also asserted that it is entitled to schedule extensions. Georgia Power, on behalf of the Co-owners, has not agreed with either the proposed cost or schedule adjustments or that the Co-owners have any responsibility for costs related to these issues. On November 1, 2012, the Co-owners filed suit against the Contractor in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Co-owners are not responsible for these costs. Also on November 1, 2012, the Contractor filed suit against the Co-owners in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia alleging the Co-owners are responsible for these costs. Georgia Power and the Co-owners intend to vigorously defend their positions. During litigation, Georgia Power and the Co-owners expect negotiations with the Contractor to continue with respect to cost and schedule during which time the parties will attempt to reach a mutually acceptable compromise of their positions. If any or all of these costs are ultimately imposed on the Co-owners, we will capitalize the costs attributable to us. As of June 30, 2013, no material amounts have been recorded related to this claim. Additional claims by the Contractor or Georgia Power, on behalf of the Co-owners, are also likely to arise throughout construction.

The ultimate outcome of these matters cannot be determined at this time.

Environmental Matters

As is typical for electric utilities, we are subject to various federal, state and local environmental laws which represent significant future risks and uncertainties. Air emissions, water discharges and water usage are extensively controlled, closely monitored and periodically reported. Handling and disposal requirements govern the manner of transportation, storage and disposal of various types of waste. We are also subject to climate change regulations that impose restrictions on emissions of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, for certain new and modified facilities.

In general, these and other types of environmental requirements are becoming increasingly stringent. Such requirements may substantially increase the cost of electric service, by requiring modifications in the design or operation of existing facilities, the purchase of emission allowances, or changes or delays in the location, design, construction or operation of new facilities. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in civil and criminal penalties and could include the complete shutdown of individual generating units not in compliance. Certain of our debt instruments require us to comply in all material respects with laws, rules, regulations and orders imposed by applicable governmental authorities, which include current or future environmental laws or regulations. Should we fail to be in compliance with these requirements, it would constitute a default under those debt instruments. We believe that we are in compliance with those environmental regulations currently applicable to our business and operations. Although it is our intent to comply with current and future regulations, we cannot provide assurance that we will always be in compliance.

At this time, the ultimate impact of any new and more stringent environmental regulations described above is uncertain and could have an effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows as a result of future additional capital expenditures and increased operations and maintenance costs.

Additionally, litigation over environmental issues and claims of various types, including property damage, personal injury, common law nuisance, and citizen enforcement of environmental requirements such as air quality and water standards, has increased generally throughout the United States. In particular, personal injury and other claims for damages caused by alleged exposure to hazardous materials, and common law nuisance claims for injunctive relief, personal injury and property damage allegedly caused by coal combustion residue, greenhouse gas and other emissions have become more frequent. For example, in January 2013, several plaintiffs filed complaints against us and the other co-owners of Plant Scherer claiming personal injury and property damage arising from the alleged release of hazardous substances from the plant, primarily related to the coal-ash pond, into the surrounding groundwater and air.