Contingencies and Regulatory Matters:	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2013
Contingencies and Regulatory Matters:
Contingencies and Regulatory Matters:	12. Contingencies and Regulatory Matters: Management does not anticipate that the liabilities, if any, for any current proceedings against us will have a material effect on our financial condition or results of operations. However, at this time, the ultimate outcome of any pending or potential litigation cannot be determined. a. Nuclear Construction 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. Current litigation relates to costs associated with design changes to the DCD and costs associated with delays in the project schedule related to the timing of approval of the DCD and issuance of the COLs by the NRC. 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 portion of the additional costs claimed by the Contractor that would be 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 further 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. In August 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the Contractor's suit, ruling that proper venue is the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. In September 2013, the Contractor appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. While litigation has commenced and Georgia Power and the Co-owners intend to vigorously defend their positions, Georgia Power and the Co-owners also 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 December 31, 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. b. Patronage Capital Litigation On March 13, 2014, a lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, Georgia, against us, Georgia Transmission and three of our member distribution cooperatives. The lawsuit challenges the patronage capital distribution practices of Georgia's electric cooperatives and seeks to certify a defendant class of all but one of our 38 members. It was filed by four former consumer-members of three of our members on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of all former consumer-members of our members. Plaintiffs claim that approximately 30% of all the defendants' total booked patronage capital belongs to former consumer-members. The lawsuit also alleges that patronage capital owed to former consumer-members includes patronage capital allocated by us to our members but not yet distributed to our members. Plaintiffs claim that the patronage capital of former consumer-members held by the defendants should be returned immediately when the consumer-members end their membership by terminating service, or alternatively, according to a regular 13-year revolving plan that returns 7.7% of total equity owed to former consumer-members annually and seek relief to effect such returns within the stated 13 year period. Plaintiffs further seek to require the defendants to adjust rates in order to establish and maintain reasonable reserves to fund patronage capital refunds on this basis. We intend to defend vigorously against all claims in this litigation. c. Environmental and Other 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 or the purchase of emission allowances. 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 and 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.

12. Contingencies and Regulatory Matters:

Management does not anticipate that the liabilities, if any, for any current proceedings against us will have a material effect on our financial condition or results of operations. However, at this time, the ultimate outcome of any pending or potential litigation cannot be determined.

a. Nuclear Construction

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.

Current litigation relates to costs associated with design changes to the DCD and costs associated with delays in the project schedule related to the timing of approval of the DCD and issuance of the COLs by the NRC. 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 portion of the additional costs claimed by the Contractor that would be 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 further 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. In August 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the Contractor's suit, ruling that proper venue is the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. In September 2013, the Contractor appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. While litigation has commenced and Georgia Power and the Co-owners intend to vigorously defend their positions, Georgia Power and the Co-owners also 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 December 31, 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.

b. Patronage Capital Litigation

On March 13, 2014, a lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, Georgia, against us, Georgia Transmission and three of our member distribution cooperatives. The lawsuit challenges the patronage capital distribution practices of Georgia's electric cooperatives and seeks to certify a defendant class of all but one of our 38 members. It was filed by four former consumer-members of three of our members on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of all former consumer-members of our members. Plaintiffs claim that approximately 30% of all the defendants' total booked patronage capital belongs to former consumer-members. The lawsuit also alleges that patronage capital owed to former consumer-members includes patronage capital allocated by us to our members but not yet distributed to our members. Plaintiffs claim that the patronage capital of former consumer-members held by the defendants should be returned immediately when the consumer-members end their membership by terminating service, or alternatively, according to a regular 13-year revolving plan that returns 7.7% of total equity owed to former consumer-members annually and seek relief to effect such returns within the stated 13 year period. Plaintiffs further seek to require the defendants to adjust rates in order to establish and maintain reasonable reserves to fund patronage capital refunds on this basis. We intend to defend vigorously against all claims in this litigation.

c. Environmental and Other 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 or the purchase of emission allowances. 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 and 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.