Commitments and Contingent Liabilities

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2018

Other Commitments [Line Items]

Commitments and Contingent Liabilities

Commitments and Contingent Liabilities

Guaranteed Obligations

Power’s activities primarily involve the purchase and sale of energy and related products under transportation, physical, financial and forward contracts at fixed and variable prices. These transactions are with numerous counterparties and brokers that may require cash, cash-related instruments or guarantees as a form of collateral.

Power has unconditionally guaranteed payments to counterparties by its subsidiaries in commodity-related transactions in order to

• support current exposure, interest and other costs on sums due and payable in the ordinary course of business, and

• obtain credit.

Power is subject to

• counterparty collateral calls related to commodity contracts, and

• certain creditworthiness standards as guarantor under performance guarantees of its subsidiaries.

Under these agreements, guarantees cover lines of credit between entities and are often reciprocal in nature. The exposure between counterparties can move in either direction.

In order for Power to incur a liability for the face value of the outstanding guarantees, its subsidiaries would have to

• fully utilize the credit granted to them by every counterparty to whom Power has provided a guarantee, and

• the net position of the related contracts would have to be “out-of-the-money” (if the contracts are terminated, Power would owe money to the counterparties).

Power believes the probability of this result is unlikely. For this reason, Power believes that the current exposure at any point in time is a more meaningful representation of the potential liability under these guarantees. Current exposure consists of the net of accounts receivable and accounts payable and the forward value on open positions, less any collateral posted.

Changes in commodity prices can have a material impact on collateral requirements under such contracts, which are posted and received primarily in the form of cash and letters of credit. Power also routinely enters into futures and options transactions for electricity and natural gas as part of its operations. These futures contracts usually require a cash margin deposit with brokers, which can change based on market movement and in accordance with exchange rules.

In addition to the guarantees discussed above, Power has also provided payment guarantees to third parties on behalf of its affiliated companies. These guarantees support various other non-commodity related contractual obligations.

The following table shows the face value of Power’s outstanding guarantees, current exposure and margin positions as of December 31, 2018 and 2017.

	As of December 31, 2018			As of December 31, 2017
	Millions
Face Value of Outstanding Guarantees	$	1,772		$	1,701
Exposure under Current Guarantees	$	198		$	153
Letters of Credit Margin Posted	$	115		$	103
Letters of Credit Margin Received	$	26		$	32
Cash Deposited and Received
Counterparty Cash Margin Deposited	$	—		$	—
Counterparty Cash Margin Received	$	(10	)	$	(1	)
Net Broker Balance Deposited (Received)	$	403		$	147
Additional Amounts Posted
Other Letters of Credit	$	52		$	61

As part of determining credit exposure, Power nets receivables and payables with the corresponding net fair values of energy contracts. See Note 17. Financial Risk Management Activities for further discussion. In accordance with PSEG’s accounting policy, where it is applicable, cash (received)/deposited is allocated against derivative asset and liability positions with the same counterparty on the face of the Consolidated Balance Sheet. The remaining balances of net cash (received)/deposited after allocation are generally included in Accounts Payable and Receivable, respectively.

In addition to amounts for outstanding guarantees, current exposure and margin positions, PSEG and Power have posted letters of credit to support Power’s various other non-energy contractual and environmental obligations. See preceding table.

Environmental Matters

Passaic River

Historic operations of PSEG companies and the operations of hundreds of other companies along the Passaic and Hackensack Rivers are alleged by Federal and State agencies to have discharged substantial contamination into the Passaic River/Newark Bay Complex in violation of various statutes as discussed as follows.

Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA)

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that a 17-mile stretch of the lower Passaic River from Newark to Clifton, New Jersey is a “Superfund” site under CERCLA and a comprehensive study of the entire 17 miles of the lower Passaic River needed to be performed. PSE&G and certain of its predecessors conducted operations at properties in this area of the Passaic River. The properties included one operating electric generating station (Essex Site), which was transferred to Power, one former generating station and four former manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites.

In early 2007, certain Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs), including PSE&G and Power, formed a Cooperating Parties Group (CPG) and agreed to assume responsibility for conducting a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) of the 17 miles of the lower Passaic River. The CPG has agreed to allocate, on an interim basis, the associated costs of the RI/FS among its members on the basis of a mutually agreed upon formula. For the purpose of this interim allocation, which has been revised as parties have exited the CPG, approximately 7.6 percent of the RI/FS costs are currently deemed attributable to PSE&G’s former MGP sites and approximately 1.9 percent is attributable to Power’s generating stations. These interim allocations are not binding on PSE&G or Power in terms of their respective shares of the costs that will be ultimately required to remediate the 17 miles of the lower Passaic River. PSEG has provided notice to insurers concerning this potential claim.

The CPG’s draft FS set forth various alternatives for remediating the lower Passaic River with an estimated cost to remediate the lower 17 miles of the Passaic River ranging from approximately $518 million to $3.2 billion on an undiscounted basis.

In March 2016, the EPA released its Record of Decision (ROD) for the EPA’s own Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) which requires the removal of 3.5 million cubic yards of sediment from the Passaic River’s lower 8.3 miles at an estimated cost of $2.3 billion on an undiscounted basis (ROD Remedy). The EPA estimated the total project length to be about 11 years, including a one year period of negotiation with the PRPs, three to four years to design the project and six years for implementation. Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC), one of the PRPs, has commenced performance of the remedial design required by the ROD Remedy, reserving its right of cost contribution from all other PRPs.

In September 2017, the EPA concluded that an Agency-commenced allocation process for the Passaic River’s lower 8.3 miles should include only certain PRPs. The allocation is intended to lead to a consent decree in which certain of the PRPs agree to perform and pay for the remedial action under EPA oversight. Due to delays from the partial federal government shutdown in late 2018 through early 2019, the timeline for completing the allocation process has been delayed.

In October 2018, the EPA Region 2 issued a Directive to the CPG instructing the CPG to focus the ongoing RI/FS evaluation on various adaptive management scenarios for remediation of the upper 9 miles of the Passaic River, which approach has been agreed to in concept by the EPA and the CPG. The Directive does not contain estimates for anticipated costs. Adaptive management focuses on removing targeted “hot spots” of contaminated sediments rather than removing all of the Passaic River’s sediments as in a “bank to bank” approach.

In a separate matter, two PRPs, Tierra Solutions, Inc. (Tierra) and Maxus Energy Corporation (Maxus), filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in Delaware Federal Bankruptcy Court. In June 2018, the trust representing the creditors in this proceeding filed a complaint asserting claims against the current and former parent entities of Tierra and Maxus, among other parties, for up to $14 billion. Any damages awarded may be used to fund, in part, the remediation costs of the lower 8.3 miles of the Passaic River. The creditor trust has reserved its right to file contribution claims against 28 PRPs, including PSEG. This matter is ongoing.

In June 2018, OCC filed a complaint in Federal District Court in Newark against various defendants, including PSE&G, seeking cost recovery and contribution under CERCLA for the remediation of the lower 8.3 miles of the Passaic River. The complaint does not quantify damages sought.

The Complaint alleges that “no single hazardous substance” is to blame for the contamination of the lower Passaic River and lists the eight Contaminants of Concern (COCs) identified by the EPA in the ROD. OCC alleges PSE&G is responsible for a portion of six of the eight COCs. PSE&G cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Based upon the estimated cost of the ROD Remedy and PSEG’s estimate of PSE&G’s and Power’s shares of that cost, as of December 31, 2018, PSEG has accrued approximately $57 million. Of this amount, PSE&G has accrued $46 million as an Environmental Costs Liability and a corresponding Regulatory Asset based on its continued ability to recover such costs in its rates. Power has accrued $11 million as an Other Noncurrent Liability with the corresponding O&M Expense recorded in prior years when the liability was accrued.

The EPA has broad authority to implement its selected remedy through the ROD and PSEG cannot at this time predict how the implementation of the ROD might impact PSE&G’s and Power’s ultimate liability. Until (i) the RI/FS, which covers the entire 17 miles of the lower Passaic River, is finalized either in whole or in part, (ii) an agreement by the PRPs to perform either the ROD Remedy as issued, or an amended ROD Remedy determined through negotiation or litigation, and an agreed upon remedy for the remaining 8.7 miles of the river, are reached, (iii) PSE&G’s and Power’s respective shares of the costs, both in the aggregate as well as individually, are determined, and (iv) PSE&G’s continued ability to recover the costs in its rates is determined, it is not possible to predict this matter’s ultimate impact on PSEG’s financial statements. It is possible that PSE&G and Power will record additional costs beyond what they have accrued, and that such costs could be material, but PSEG cannot at the current time estimate the amount or range of any additional costs.

Natural Resource Damage Claims

In 2003, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) directed PSEG, PSE&G and 56 other PRPs to arrange for a natural resource damage assessment and interim compensatory restoration of natural resource injuries along the lower Passaic River and its tributaries pursuant to the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act. The NJDEP alleged that hazardous substances had been discharged from the Essex Site and the Harrison Site. The NJDEP estimated the cost of interim natural resource injury restoration activities along the lower Passaic River at approximately $950 million. In 2007, agencies of the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. Department of the Interior (the Passaic River federal trustees) sent letters to PSE&G and other PRPs inviting participation in an assessment of injuries to natural resources that the agencies intended to perform. In 2008, PSEG and a number of other PRPs agreed to share certain immaterial costs the trustees have incurred and will incur going forward, and to work with the trustees to explore whether some or all of the trustees’ claims can be resolved in a cooperative fashion. That effort is continuing. PSE&G and Power are unable to estimate their respective portions of the possible loss or range of loss related to this matter.                        

Newark Bay Study Area

The EPA has established the Newark Bay Study Area, which it defines as Newark Bay and portions of the Hackensack River, the Arthur Kill and the Kill Van Kull. In August 2006, the EPA sent PSEG and 11 other entities notices that it considered each of the entities to be a PRP with respect to contamination in the Study Area. The notice letter requested that the PRPs fund an EPA-approved study in the Newark Bay Study Area. The notice stated the EPA’s belief that hazardous substances were released from sites owned by PSEG companies and located on the Hackensack River, including two electric generating stations (Hudson and Kearny sites) and one former MGP site. PSEG has participated in and partially funded the second phase of this study. Notices to fund the next phase of the study have been received but PSEG has not consented to fund the third phase. PSE&G and Power are unable to estimate their respective portions of the possible loss or range of loss related to this matter. In December 2018, Power completed the sale of the site of the Hudson electric generating station. Power transferred all land rights and structures on the site to a third party purchaser, along with the assumption of the environmental liabilities for the site.

MGP Remediation Program

PSE&G is working with the NJDEP to assess, investigate and remediate environmental conditions at its former MGP sites. To date, 38 sites requiring some level of remedial action have been identified. Based on its current studies, PSE&G has determined that the estimated cost to remediate all MGP sites to completion could range between $321 million and $366 million on an undiscounted basis through 2021, including its $46 million share for the Passaic River as discussed above. Since no amount within the range is considered to be most likely, PSE&G has recorded a liability of $321 million as of December 31, 2018. Of this amount, $56 million was recorded in Other Current Liabilities and $265 million was reflected as Environmental Costs in Noncurrent Liabilities. PSE&G has recorded a $321 million Regulatory Asset with respect to these costs. PSE&G periodically updates its studies taking into account any new regulations or new information which could impact future remediation costs and adjusts its recorded liability accordingly. NJDEP, PSEG and EPA representatives have had discussions regarding to what extent sampling in the Passaic River is required to delineate coal tar from MGP sites that abut the Passaic River Superfund site. PSEG cannot determine at this time whether this will have an impact on the Passaic River Superfund remedy. 

Clean Water Act (CWA) Permit Renewals

Pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits expire within five years of their effective date. In order to renew these permits, but allow a plant to continue to operate, an owner or operator must file a permit application no later than six months prior to expiration of the permit. States with delegated federal authority for this program manage these permits. The NJDEP manages the permits under the New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) program. Connecticut and New York also have permits to manage their respective pollutant discharge elimination system programs.

In May 2014, the EPA issued a final cooling water intake rule that establishes requirements for the regulation of cooling water intakes at existing power plants and industrial facilities with a design flow of more than two million gallons of water per day.

The EPA has structured the rule so that each state Permitting Director will continue to consider renewal permits for existing

power facilities on a case by case basis, based on studies related to impingement mortality and entrainment by the facilities seeking renewal permits.

Several environmental organizations and certain energy industry groups have filed suit under the CWA and the Endangered Species Act. The cases were consolidated at the Second Circuit, and in July 2018 the Second Circuit upheld the EPA’s final cooling water intake rule. The Court’s decision allows Permitting Directors to continue to issue permits in accordance with the flexible, site-specific provisions of the final rule.

In June 2016, the NJDEP issued a final NJPDES permit for Salem. The final permit does not mandate specific service water system modifications, but consistent with Section 316 (b) of the CWA, it requires additional studies and the selection of technology to address impingement for the service water system. In July 2016, the Delaware Riverkeeper Network (Riverkeeper) filed a request challenging the NJDEP’s issuance of the final NJPDES renewal permit for Salem. NJDEP has granted the hearing request, but it has not yet been scheduled. The Riverkeeper’s filing does not change the effective date of the permit. If the Riverkeeper’s challenge were successful, Power may be required to incur additional costs to comply with the CWA. Potential cooling water system modification costs could be material and could adversely impact the economic competitiveness of this facility.

State permitting decisions at Bridgeport and possibly New Haven could also have a material impact on Power’s ability to renew permits at its existing larger once-through cooled plants without making significant upgrades to existing intakes and cooling systems.

Power is unable to predict the outcome of these permitting decisions and the effect, if any, that they may have on Power’s future capital requirements, financial condition or results of operations.

Power is actively engaged with the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP) regarding renewal of the current permit for the cooling water intake structure at Bridgeport Harbor Station Unit 3 (BH3). To address compliance with the EPA’s CWA Section 316(b) final rule, Power has proposed to continue to operate BH3 without making the capital expenditures for modification to the existing intake structure and retire BH3 in 2021, which is four years earlier than the previously estimated useful life ending in 2025. Power is currently awaiting action by the CTDEEP to issue a draft and then a final permit.

Power has entered into a Community Environmental Benefit Agreement (CEBA) with the City of Bridgeport, Connecticut and local community organizations. That CEBA provides that Power would retire BH3 early if all of its conditions precedent occur, which include receipt of all final permits to build and operate a proposed new combined cycle generating facility on the same site that BH3 currently operates. Absent those conditions being met, and the permit for the cooling water intake structure referred to above not being issued, Power may seek to operate BH3 through the previously estimated useful life.

In February 2016, the proposed new generating facility at Bridgeport Harbor was awarded a capacity obligation. The Connecticut Siting Council issued an order to approve siting Bridgeport Harbor Station Unit 5. Operations are expected to begin in mid-2019. Power’s obligations under the CEBA are being monitored regularly and carried out as needed.

Jersey City, New Jersey Subsurface Feeder Cable Matter

In October 2016, a discharge of dielectric fluid from subsurface feeder cables located in the Hudson River near Jersey City, New Jersey, was identified and reported to the NJDEP. The feeder cables are located within a subsurface easement granted to PSE&G by the property owners, Newport Associates Development Company (NADC) and Newport Associates Phase I Developer Limited Partnership. The feeder cables are subject to agreements between PSE&G and Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Edison) and are jointly owned by PSE&G and Con Edison, with PSE&G owning the portion of the cables located in New Jersey and Con Edison owning the portion of the cables located in New York. The NJDEP declared an emergency and an emergency response action was undertaken to investigate, contain, remediate and stop the fluid discharge; to assess, repair and restore the cables to good working order, if feasible; and to restore the property. The regulatory agencies overseeing the emergency response, including the U.S. Coast Guard, the NJDEP and the Army Corps of Engineers, issued multiple notices, orders and directives to the various parties related to this matter and the parties may also be subject to the assessment of civil penalties related to the discharge and response. The U.S. Coast Guard transitioned control of the federal response to the EPA in May 2018. In August 2018, the EPA ended the federal response to the matter. The response has now transitioned to the NJDEP site remediation program.

The impacted cable was repaired in late September 2017; however, small amounts of residual dielectric fluid believed to be contained within the marina sediment continue to appear on the surface and response actions related to the fluid discharge are ongoing, although at a significantly reduced scale. PSE&G remains concerned about future leaks and potential environmental impacts as a result of reintroduction of fluid back into these lines and has determined that retirement of the affected facilities is appropriate. PSE&G has been unable to reach an agreement with Con Edison and, as a result, in May 2018, PSE&G filed an action at FERC to resolve the matter. FERC dismissed PSE&G’s Complaint against Con Edison in September 2018 andPSE&G has challenged FERC’s decision. Also ongoing is the lawsuit in federal court to determine ultimate responsibility for the costs to address the leak among PSE&G, Con Edison and NADC. In addition, Con Edison filed counter claims against PSE&G and NADC, including seeking injunctive relief and damages. Based on the information currently available and depending on the outcome of the federal court action, PSE&G’s portion of the costs to address the leak may be material; however, PSE&G anticipates that it will recover these costs through regulatory proceedings.

Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines

In September 2015, the EPA issued a new Effluent Limitation Guidelines Rule (ELG Rule) for steam electric generating units. The rule establishes new best available technology economically achievable (BAT) standards for fly ash transport water, bottom ash transport water, flue gas desulfurization and flue gas mercury control wastewater. Power’s Bridgeport Harbor station and the jointly-owned Keystone and Conemaugh stations, have bottom ash transport water discharges that are regulated under the ELG Rule. Keystone and Conemaugh also have flue gas desulfurization wastewaters regulated by the ELG Rule.

Through various orders, the EPA has stayed the compliance dates in the ELG Rule and has announced plans to further revise the requirements and compliance dates of the ELG Rule. Power is unable to determine how this will ultimately impact its compliance requirements or its financial condition and results of operations.

Basic Generation Service (BGS) and Basic Gas Supply Service (BGSS)

PSE&G obtains its electric supply requirements through the annual New Jersey BGS auctions for two categories of customers who choose not to purchase electric supply from third-party suppliers. The first category, which represents about 80% of PSE&G’s load requirement, is residential and smaller commercial and industrial customers (BGS-Residential Small Commercial Pricing (RSCP)). The second category is larger customers that exceed a BPU-established load (kW) threshold (BGS-Commercial and Industrial Energy Pricing (CIEP)). Pursuant to applicable BPU rules, PSE&G enters into the Supplier Master Agreement with the winners of these BGS auctions following the BPU’s approval of the auction results. PSE&G has entered into contracts with winning BGS suppliers, including Power, to purchase BGS for PSE&G’s load requirements. The winners of the auction (including Power) are responsible for fulfilling all the requirements of a PJM Load-Serving Entity including the provision of capacity, energy, ancillary services, transmission and any other services required by PJM. BGS suppliers assume all volume risk and customer migration risk and must satisfy New Jersey’s renewable portfolio standards.

The BGS-CIEP auction is for a one-year supply period from June 1 to May 31 with the BGS-CIEP auction price measured in dollars per MW-day for capacity. The final price for the BGS-CIEP auction year commencing June 1, 2019 is $281.78 per MW-day, replacing the BGS-CIEP auction year price ending May 31, 2019 of $287.76 per MW-day. Energy for BGS-CIEP is priced at hourly PJM locational marginal prices for the contract period.

PSE&G contracts for its anticipated BGS-RSCP load on a three-year rolling basis, whereby each year one-third of the load is procured for a three-year period. The contract prices in dollars per MWh for the BGS-RSCP supply, as well as the approximate load, are as follows:

	Auction Year
	2016	2017	2018	2019
36-Month Terms Ending	May 2019	May 2020	May 2021	May 2022	(A)
Load (MW)	2,800	2,800	2,900	2,800
$ per MWh	$96.38	$90.78	$91.77	$98.04

(A) Prices set in the 2019 BGS auction will become effective on June 1, 2019 when the 2016 BGS auction agreements expire.

Power seeks to mitigate volatility in its results by contracting in advance for the sale of most of its anticipated electric output as well as its anticipated fuel needs. As part of its objective, Power has entered into contracts to directly supply PSE&G and other New Jersey electric distribution companies with a portion of their respective BGS requirements through the New Jersey BGS auction process, described above.

PSE&G has a full-requirements contract with Power to meet the gas supply requirements of PSE&G’s gas customers. Power has entered into hedges for a portion of these anticipated BGSS obligations, as permitted by the BPU. The BPU permits PSE&G to recover the cost of gas hedging up to 115 billion cubic feet or 80% of its residential gas supply annual requirements through the BGSS tariff. Current plans call for Power to hedge on behalf of PSE&G approximately 70 billion cubic feet or 50% of its residential gas supply annual requirements. For additional information, see Note 25. Related-Party Transactions.

Minimum Fuel Purchase Requirements

Power’s nuclear fuel strategy is to maintain certain levels of uranium and to make periodic purchases to support such levels. As such, the commitments referred to in the following table may include estimated quantities to be purchased that deviate from contractual nominal quantities. Power’s nuclear fuel commitments cover approximately 100% of its estimated uranium, enrichment and fabrication requirements through 2020 and a significant portion through 2021 at Salem, Hope Creek and Peach Bottom.

Power has various multi-year contracts for natural gas and firm transportation and storage capacity for natural gas that are primarily used to meet its obligations to PSE&G. When there is excess delivery capacity available beyond the needs of PSE&G’s customers, Power can use the gas to supply its fossil generating stations in New Jersey.

Power also has various long-term fuel purchase commitments for coal through 2023 to support its fossil generation stations.

As of December 31, 2018, the total minimum purchase requirements included in these commitments were as follows:

Fuel Type	Power's Share of Commitments through 2023
	Millions
Nuclear Fuel
Uranium	$	222
Enrichment	$	358
Fabrication	$	167
Natural Gas	$	1,102
Coal	$	429

Pending FERC Matters

In June 2015, Transource LLC, a merchant transmission developer, filed a complaint against PJM claiming that PJM wrongfully refused to provide data and a transparent process for evaluating transmission network upgrade requests that the transmission developer had submitted to PJM. Although not named as a respondent, the complaint identifies PSE&G as one of the companies claimed to have been involved. In January 2018, a FERC administrative law judge (ALJ) issued an order generally finding that PJM and transmission owners, including PSE&G, did not engage in wrongful conduct. In addition, the developer’s assertion of an entitlement to monetary damages was expressly denied. However, in a determination disputed by PSE&G, the order found that the PJM process lacked transparency. The judge’s order has been briefed by all parties for additional determinations by FERC. We are unable to predict the outcome of these proceedings.

Subsequent to the ALJ decision, PSE&G received requests for information from FERC’s Office of Enforcement concerning a transmission project. PSE&G is complying with these requests and cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Litigation

Sewaren 7 Construction

In June 2018, a complaint was filed in federal court in Newark, New Jersey against PSEG Fossil LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Power, regarding an ongoing dispute with Durr Mechanical Construction, Inc. (Durr), a contractor on the Sewaren 7 project. Among other things, Durr seeks damages of $93 million and alleges that Power withheld money owed to Durr and that Power’s intentional conduct led to the inability of Durr to obtain prospective contracts. Power intends to vigorously defend against these allegations. In December 2018, Durr filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the federal court in the Southern District of New York (SDNY). The SDNY bankruptcy court has allowed the New Jersey litigation to proceed. Power has accrued an amount related to outstanding invoices which does not reflect an assessment of claims and potential counterclaims in this matter. Due to its preliminary nature, Power cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Newark Customer Incident

On the morning of July 5, 2018, PSE&G discontinued electricity to the home of a customer residing in Newark because of outstanding arrears on that customer’s account. Subsequent to the discontinuation of electricity, that customer died on the afternoon of July 5th. The family of the customer, who was on hospice care, raised allegations in the media regarding PSE&G’s conduct surrounding the discontinuation and restoration of electricity to the home of the customer, claiming that the discontinuation of electric service prevented the customer from using life sustaining medical equipment. The BPU initiated an investigation into the matter and that investigation is ongoing. In addition, PSE&G received a grand jury subpoena from the Essex County Prosecutor’s Office (ECPO) for records and correspondence between PSE&G and the customer. PSE&G is fully cooperating with the BPU and the ECPO in both proceedings. PSEG cannot predict the outcome of the pending proceedings regarding this incident at this time.

The PSEG Board of Directors (PSEG Board) retained outside counsel to conduct an independent investigation of the facts surrounding this incident with the full support and cooperation of management. The independent investigation concluded that the disconnection itself was not improper; however, it did identify issues related to PSE&G’s response once it was notified of the disconnection. The PSEG Board reviewed and considered the findings and conclusions of the investigation and PSE&G’s proposed corrective actions. PSE&G’s progress on implementation of the corrective actions will continue to be overseen by the PSEG Board.

Caithness Energy, L.L.C. (Caithness)

In August 2018, Caithness, a Long Island power plant developer, filed a complaint in federal district court in the Eastern District of New York against PSEG and PSEG LI alleging violations of state and federal antitrust laws and a claim of intentional interference of prospective business relations. Caithness alleges that PSEG and PSEG LI interfered with LIPA’s consideration of the Caithness proposal for a 750 MW combined cycle generation project that was identified as a finalist for a Request For Proposal issued by LIPA. In addition, Caithness claims that PSEG and PSEG LI induced LIPA to agree to eliminate the proposed project as a potential competitor to other PSEG affiliates with power supply operations. The complaint alleges hundreds of millions of dollars of harm and seeks treble and punitive damages. PSEG intends to vigorously defend against these allegations. Based upon the preliminary nature of this matter, a loss is not considered probable nor is the amount of loss, if any, estimable as of December 31, 2018.

Transource LLC (Transource)

In January 2019, Transource filed a complaint against PJM, PSE&G and three other transmission owners in Pennsylvania state court. Transource has sued the transmission owner defendants for fraud and intentional misrepresentation relating to information provided to PJM and FERC regarding the costs of upgrades for Transource’s proposed project. These allegations appear to be based on alleged conduct that is the subject of the pending FERC proceeding discussed under “Pending FERC Matters.” Based upon the preliminary nature of this matter, a loss is not considered probable nor is the amount of loss, if any, estimable as of December 31, 2018.

Other Litigation and Legal Proceedings

PSEG and its subsidiaries are party to various lawsuits in the ordinary course of business. In view of the inherent difficulty in predicting the outcome of such matters, PSEG, PSE&G and Power generally cannot predict the eventual outcome of the pending matters, the timing of the ultimate resolution of these matters, or the eventual loss, fines or penalties related to each pending matter.

In accordance with applicable accounting guidance, a liability is accrued when those matters present loss contingencies that are both probable and reasonably estimable. In such cases, there may be an exposure to loss in excess of any amounts accrued. PSEG will continue to monitor the matter for further developments that could affect the amount of the accrued liability that has been previously established.

Based on current knowledge, management does not believe that loss contingencies arising from pending matters, other than the matters described herein, could have a material adverse effect on PSEG’s, PSE&G’s or Power’s consolidated financial position or liquidity. However, in light of the inherent uncertainties involved in these matters, some of which are beyond PSEG’s control, and the large or indeterminate damages sought in some of these matters, an adverse outcome in one or more of these matters could be material to PSEG’s, PSE&G’s or Power’s results of operations or liquidity for any particular reporting period.

Nuclear Insurance Coverages and Assessments

Power is a member of the joint underwriting association, American Nuclear Insurers (ANI), which provides nuclear liability insurance coverage at the Salem and Hope Creek site and the Peach Bottom site. The ANI policies are designed to satisfy the financial protection requirements outlined in the Price-Anderson Act, which sets the limit of liability for claims that could arise from an incident involving any licensed nuclear facility in the United States. The limit of liability per incident per site is composed of primary and excess layers. As of December 31, 2018, nuclear sites were required to purchase $450 million of primary liability coverage for each site (through ANI). The primary layer is supplemented by an excess layer, which is an industry self-insurance pool. In the event a nuclear site, which is part of the industry self-insurance pool, has a claim that exceeds the primary layer, each licensee would be assessed a prorated share of the excess layer. The excess layer limit is $13.6 billion. Power’s maximum aggregate assessment per incident is $433 million (based on Power’s ownership interests in Salem, Hope Creek and Peach Bottom) and its maximum aggregate annual assessment per incident is $65 million. If the damages exceed the limit of liability, Congress could impose further revenue-raising measures on the nuclear industry to pay claims. Further, a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, not involving Power, held that the Price-Anderson Act did not preclude punitive damage awards based on state law claims.

Power is also a member of an industry mutual insurance company, Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited (NEIL), which provides the property, decontamination and decommissioning liability insurance at the Salem and Hope Creek site and the Peach Bottom site. NEIL also provides replacement power coverage through its accidental outage policy. NEIL policies may make retrospective premium assessments in the case of adverse loss experience. The current maximum aggregate annual retrospective premium obligation for Power is approximately $62 million. NEIL requires its members to maintain an investment grade credit rating or to ensure collectability of their annual retrospective premium obligation by providing a financial guarantee, letter of credit, deposit premium, or some other means of assurance. Certain provisions in the NEIL policies provide that the insurer may suspend coverage with respect to all nuclear units on a site without notice if the NRC suspends or revokes the operating license for any unit on that site, issues a shutdown order with respect to such unit or issues a confirmatory order keeping such unit down.

The ANI and NEIL policies all include coverage for claims arising out of acts of terrorism. However, NEIL policies are subject to an industry aggregate limit of $3.2 billion plus such additional amounts as NEIL recovers for such losses from reinsurance, indemnity and any other source applicable to such losses.

Minimum Lease Payments

The total future minimum payments under various operating leases as of December 31, 2018 are:

	PSE&G		Power		Services		Other		Total
	Millions
2019	$	15	$	11	$	14	$	1	$	41
2020	11		13		14		2		40
2021	10		13		15		1		39
2022	8		14		15		1		38
2023	8		8		15		—		31
Thereafter	66		51		105		—		222
Total Minimum Lease Payments	$	118	$	110	$	178	$	5	$	411

PSE&G [Member]

Other Commitments [Line Items]

Commitments and Contingent Liabilities

Commitments and Contingent Liabilities

Guaranteed Obligations

Power’s activities primarily involve the purchase and sale of energy and related products under transportation, physical, financial and forward contracts at fixed and variable prices. These transactions are with numerous counterparties and brokers that may require cash, cash-related instruments or guarantees as a form of collateral.

Power has unconditionally guaranteed payments to counterparties by its subsidiaries in commodity-related transactions in order to

• support current exposure, interest and other costs on sums due and payable in the ordinary course of business, and

• obtain credit.

Power is subject to

• counterparty collateral calls related to commodity contracts, and

• certain creditworthiness standards as guarantor under performance guarantees of its subsidiaries.

Under these agreements, guarantees cover lines of credit between entities and are often reciprocal in nature. The exposure between counterparties can move in either direction.

In order for Power to incur a liability for the face value of the outstanding guarantees, its subsidiaries would have to

• fully utilize the credit granted to them by every counterparty to whom Power has provided a guarantee, and

• the net position of the related contracts would have to be “out-of-the-money” (if the contracts are terminated, Power would owe money to the counterparties).

Power believes the probability of this result is unlikely. For this reason, Power believes that the current exposure at any point in time is a more meaningful representation of the potential liability under these guarantees. Current exposure consists of the net of accounts receivable and accounts payable and the forward value on open positions, less any collateral posted.

Changes in commodity prices can have a material impact on collateral requirements under such contracts, which are posted and received primarily in the form of cash and letters of credit. Power also routinely enters into futures and options transactions for electricity and natural gas as part of its operations. These futures contracts usually require a cash margin deposit with brokers, which can change based on market movement and in accordance with exchange rules.

In addition to the guarantees discussed above, Power has also provided payment guarantees to third parties on behalf of its affiliated companies. These guarantees support various other non-commodity related contractual obligations.

The following table shows the face value of Power’s outstanding guarantees, current exposure and margin positions as of December 31, 2018 and 2017.

	As of December 31, 2018			As of December 31, 2017
	Millions
Face Value of Outstanding Guarantees	$	1,772		$	1,701
Exposure under Current Guarantees	$	198		$	153
Letters of Credit Margin Posted	$	115		$	103
Letters of Credit Margin Received	$	26		$	32
Cash Deposited and Received
Counterparty Cash Margin Deposited	$	—		$	—
Counterparty Cash Margin Received	$	(10	)	$	(1	)
Net Broker Balance Deposited (Received)	$	403		$	147
Additional Amounts Posted
Other Letters of Credit	$	52		$	61

As part of determining credit exposure, Power nets receivables and payables with the corresponding net fair values of energy contracts. See Note 17. Financial Risk Management Activities for further discussion. In accordance with PSEG’s accounting policy, where it is applicable, cash (received)/deposited is allocated against derivative asset and liability positions with the same counterparty on the face of the Consolidated Balance Sheet. The remaining balances of net cash (received)/deposited after allocation are generally included in Accounts Payable and Receivable, respectively.

In addition to amounts for outstanding guarantees, current exposure and margin positions, PSEG and Power have posted letters of credit to support Power’s various other non-energy contractual and environmental obligations. See preceding table.

Environmental Matters

Passaic River

Historic operations of PSEG companies and the operations of hundreds of other companies along the Passaic and Hackensack Rivers are alleged by Federal and State agencies to have discharged substantial contamination into the Passaic River/Newark Bay Complex in violation of various statutes as discussed as follows.

Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA)

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that a 17-mile stretch of the lower Passaic River from Newark to Clifton, New Jersey is a “Superfund” site under CERCLA and a comprehensive study of the entire 17 miles of the lower Passaic River needed to be performed. PSE&G and certain of its predecessors conducted operations at properties in this area of the Passaic River. The properties included one operating electric generating station (Essex Site), which was transferred to Power, one former generating station and four former manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites.

In early 2007, certain Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs), including PSE&G and Power, formed a Cooperating Parties Group (CPG) and agreed to assume responsibility for conducting a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) of the 17 miles of the lower Passaic River. The CPG has agreed to allocate, on an interim basis, the associated costs of the RI/FS among its members on the basis of a mutually agreed upon formula. For the purpose of this interim allocation, which has been revised as parties have exited the CPG, approximately 7.6 percent of the RI/FS costs are currently deemed attributable to PSE&G’s former MGP sites and approximately 1.9 percent is attributable to Power’s generating stations. These interim allocations are not binding on PSE&G or Power in terms of their respective shares of the costs that will be ultimately required to remediate the 17 miles of the lower Passaic River. PSEG has provided notice to insurers concerning this potential claim.

The CPG’s draft FS set forth various alternatives for remediating the lower Passaic River with an estimated cost to remediate the lower 17 miles of the Passaic River ranging from approximately $518 million to $3.2 billion on an undiscounted basis.

In March 2016, the EPA released its Record of Decision (ROD) for the EPA’s own Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) which requires the removal of 3.5 million cubic yards of sediment from the Passaic River’s lower 8.3 miles at an estimated cost of $2.3 billion on an undiscounted basis (ROD Remedy). The EPA estimated the total project length to be about 11 years, including a one year period of negotiation with the PRPs, three to four years to design the project and six years for implementation. Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC), one of the PRPs, has commenced performance of the remedial design required by the ROD Remedy, reserving its right of cost contribution from all other PRPs.

In September 2017, the EPA concluded that an Agency-commenced allocation process for the Passaic River’s lower 8.3 miles should include only certain PRPs. The allocation is intended to lead to a consent decree in which certain of the PRPs agree to perform and pay for the remedial action under EPA oversight. Due to delays from the partial federal government shutdown in late 2018 through early 2019, the timeline for completing the allocation process has been delayed.

In October 2018, the EPA Region 2 issued a Directive to the CPG instructing the CPG to focus the ongoing RI/FS evaluation on various adaptive management scenarios for remediation of the upper 9 miles of the Passaic River, which approach has been agreed to in concept by the EPA and the CPG. The Directive does not contain estimates for anticipated costs. Adaptive management focuses on removing targeted “hot spots” of contaminated sediments rather than removing all of the Passaic River’s sediments as in a “bank to bank” approach.

In a separate matter, two PRPs, Tierra Solutions, Inc. (Tierra) and Maxus Energy Corporation (Maxus), filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in Delaware Federal Bankruptcy Court. In June 2018, the trust representing the creditors in this proceeding filed a complaint asserting claims against the current and former parent entities of Tierra and Maxus, among other parties, for up to $14 billion. Any damages awarded may be used to fund, in part, the remediation costs of the lower 8.3 miles of the Passaic River. The creditor trust has reserved its right to file contribution claims against 28 PRPs, including PSEG. This matter is ongoing.

In June 2018, OCC filed a complaint in Federal District Court in Newark against various defendants, including PSE&G, seeking cost recovery and contribution under CERCLA for the remediation of the lower 8.3 miles of the Passaic River. The complaint does not quantify damages sought.

The Complaint alleges that “no single hazardous substance” is to blame for the contamination of the lower Passaic River and lists the eight Contaminants of Concern (COCs) identified by the EPA in the ROD. OCC alleges PSE&G is responsible for a portion of six of the eight COCs. PSE&G cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Based upon the estimated cost of the ROD Remedy and PSEG’s estimate of PSE&G’s and Power’s shares of that cost, as of December 31, 2018, PSEG has accrued approximately $57 million. Of this amount, PSE&G has accrued $46 million as an Environmental Costs Liability and a corresponding Regulatory Asset based on its continued ability to recover such costs in its rates. Power has accrued $11 million as an Other Noncurrent Liability with the corresponding O&M Expense recorded in prior years when the liability was accrued.

The EPA has broad authority to implement its selected remedy through the ROD and PSEG cannot at this time predict how the implementation of the ROD might impact PSE&G’s and Power’s ultimate liability. Until (i) the RI/FS, which covers the entire 17 miles of the lower Passaic River, is finalized either in whole or in part, (ii) an agreement by the PRPs to perform either the ROD Remedy as issued, or an amended ROD Remedy determined through negotiation or litigation, and an agreed upon remedy for the remaining 8.7 miles of the river, are reached, (iii) PSE&G’s and Power’s respective shares of the costs, both in the aggregate as well as individually, are determined, and (iv) PSE&G’s continued ability to recover the costs in its rates is determined, it is not possible to predict this matter’s ultimate impact on PSEG’s financial statements. It is possible that PSE&G and Power will record additional costs beyond what they have accrued, and that such costs could be material, but PSEG cannot at the current time estimate the amount or range of any additional costs.

Natural Resource Damage Claims

In 2003, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) directed PSEG, PSE&G and 56 other PRPs to arrange for a natural resource damage assessment and interim compensatory restoration of natural resource injuries along the lower Passaic River and its tributaries pursuant to the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act. The NJDEP alleged that hazardous substances had been discharged from the Essex Site and the Harrison Site. The NJDEP estimated the cost of interim natural resource injury restoration activities along the lower Passaic River at approximately $950 million. In 2007, agencies of the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. Department of the Interior (the Passaic River federal trustees) sent letters to PSE&G and other PRPs inviting participation in an assessment of injuries to natural resources that the agencies intended to perform. In 2008, PSEG and a number of other PRPs agreed to share certain immaterial costs the trustees have incurred and will incur going forward, and to work with the trustees to explore whether some or all of the trustees’ claims can be resolved in a cooperative fashion. That effort is continuing. PSE&G and Power are unable to estimate their respective portions of the possible loss or range of loss related to this matter.                        

Newark Bay Study Area

The EPA has established the Newark Bay Study Area, which it defines as Newark Bay and portions of the Hackensack River, the Arthur Kill and the Kill Van Kull. In August 2006, the EPA sent PSEG and 11 other entities notices that it considered each of the entities to be a PRP with respect to contamination in the Study Area. The notice letter requested that the PRPs fund an EPA-approved study in the Newark Bay Study Area. The notice stated the EPA’s belief that hazardous substances were released from sites owned by PSEG companies and located on the Hackensack River, including two electric generating stations (Hudson and Kearny sites) and one former MGP site. PSEG has participated in and partially funded the second phase of this study. Notices to fund the next phase of the study have been received but PSEG has not consented to fund the third phase. PSE&G and Power are unable to estimate their respective portions of the possible loss or range of loss related to this matter. In December 2018, Power completed the sale of the site of the Hudson electric generating station. Power transferred all land rights and structures on the site to a third party purchaser, along with the assumption of the environmental liabilities for the site.

MGP Remediation Program

PSE&G is working with the NJDEP to assess, investigate and remediate environmental conditions at its former MGP sites. To date, 38 sites requiring some level of remedial action have been identified. Based on its current studies, PSE&G has determined that the estimated cost to remediate all MGP sites to completion could range between $321 million and $366 million on an undiscounted basis through 2021, including its $46 million share for the Passaic River as discussed above. Since no amount within the range is considered to be most likely, PSE&G has recorded a liability of $321 million as of December 31, 2018. Of this amount, $56 million was recorded in Other Current Liabilities and $265 million was reflected as Environmental Costs in Noncurrent Liabilities. PSE&G has recorded a $321 million Regulatory Asset with respect to these costs. PSE&G periodically updates its studies taking into account any new regulations or new information which could impact future remediation costs and adjusts its recorded liability accordingly. NJDEP, PSEG and EPA representatives have had discussions regarding to what extent sampling in the Passaic River is required to delineate coal tar from MGP sites that abut the Passaic River Superfund site. PSEG cannot determine at this time whether this will have an impact on the Passaic River Superfund remedy. 

Clean Water Act (CWA) Permit Renewals

Pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits expire within five years of their effective date. In order to renew these permits, but allow a plant to continue to operate, an owner or operator must file a permit application no later than six months prior to expiration of the permit. States with delegated federal authority for this program manage these permits. The NJDEP manages the permits under the New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) program. Connecticut and New York also have permits to manage their respective pollutant discharge elimination system programs.

In May 2014, the EPA issued a final cooling water intake rule that establishes requirements for the regulation of cooling water intakes at existing power plants and industrial facilities with a design flow of more than two million gallons of water per day.

The EPA has structured the rule so that each state Permitting Director will continue to consider renewal permits for existing

power facilities on a case by case basis, based on studies related to impingement mortality and entrainment by the facilities seeking renewal permits.

Several environmental organizations and certain energy industry groups have filed suit under the CWA and the Endangered Species Act. The cases were consolidated at the Second Circuit, and in July 2018 the Second Circuit upheld the EPA’s final cooling water intake rule. The Court’s decision allows Permitting Directors to continue to issue permits in accordance with the flexible, site-specific provisions of the final rule.

In June 2016, the NJDEP issued a final NJPDES permit for Salem. The final permit does not mandate specific service water system modifications, but consistent with Section 316 (b) of the CWA, it requires additional studies and the selection of technology to address impingement for the service water system. In July 2016, the Delaware Riverkeeper Network (Riverkeeper) filed a request challenging the NJDEP’s issuance of the final NJPDES renewal permit for Salem. NJDEP has granted the hearing request, but it has not yet been scheduled. The Riverkeeper’s filing does not change the effective date of the permit. If the Riverkeeper’s challenge were successful, Power may be required to incur additional costs to comply with the CWA. Potential cooling water system modification costs could be material and could adversely impact the economic competitiveness of this facility.

State permitting decisions at Bridgeport and possibly New Haven could also have a material impact on Power’s ability to renew permits at its existing larger once-through cooled plants without making significant upgrades to existing intakes and cooling systems.

Power is unable to predict the outcome of these permitting decisions and the effect, if any, that they may have on Power’s future capital requirements, financial condition or results of operations.

Power is actively engaged with the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP) regarding renewal of the current permit for the cooling water intake structure at Bridgeport Harbor Station Unit 3 (BH3). To address compliance with the EPA’s CWA Section 316(b) final rule, Power has proposed to continue to operate BH3 without making the capital expenditures for modification to the existing intake structure and retire BH3 in 2021, which is four years earlier than the previously estimated useful life ending in 2025. Power is currently awaiting action by the CTDEEP to issue a draft and then a final permit.

Power has entered into a Community Environmental Benefit Agreement (CEBA) with the City of Bridgeport, Connecticut and local community organizations. That CEBA provides that Power would retire BH3 early if all of its conditions precedent occur, which include receipt of all final permits to build and operate a proposed new combined cycle generating facility on the same site that BH3 currently operates. Absent those conditions being met, and the permit for the cooling water intake structure referred to above not being issued, Power may seek to operate BH3 through the previously estimated useful life.

In February 2016, the proposed new generating facility at Bridgeport Harbor was awarded a capacity obligation. The Connecticut Siting Council issued an order to approve siting Bridgeport Harbor Station Unit 5. Operations are expected to begin in mid-2019. Power’s obligations under the CEBA are being monitored regularly and carried out as needed.

Jersey City, New Jersey Subsurface Feeder Cable Matter

In October 2016, a discharge of dielectric fluid from subsurface feeder cables located in the Hudson River near Jersey City, New Jersey, was identified and reported to the NJDEP. The feeder cables are located within a subsurface easement granted to PSE&G by the property owners, Newport Associates Development Company (NADC) and Newport Associates Phase I Developer Limited Partnership. The feeder cables are subject to agreements between PSE&G and Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Edison) and are jointly owned by PSE&G and Con Edison, with PSE&G owning the portion of the cables located in New Jersey and Con Edison owning the portion of the cables located in New York. The NJDEP declared an emergency and an emergency response action was undertaken to investigate, contain, remediate and stop the fluid discharge; to assess, repair and restore the cables to good working order, if feasible; and to restore the property. The regulatory agencies overseeing the emergency response, including the U.S. Coast Guard, the NJDEP and the Army Corps of Engineers, issued multiple notices, orders and directives to the various parties related to this matter and the parties may also be subject to the assessment of civil penalties related to the discharge and response. The U.S. Coast Guard transitioned control of the federal response to the EPA in May 2018. In August 2018, the EPA ended the federal response to the matter. The response has now transitioned to the NJDEP site remediation program.

The impacted cable was repaired in late September 2017; however, small amounts of residual dielectric fluid believed to be contained within the marina sediment continue to appear on the surface and response actions related to the fluid discharge are ongoing, although at a significantly reduced scale. PSE&G remains concerned about future leaks and potential environmental impacts as a result of reintroduction of fluid back into these lines and has determined that retirement of the affected facilities is appropriate. PSE&G has been unable to reach an agreement with Con Edison and, as a result, in May 2018, PSE&G filed an action at FERC to resolve the matter. FERC dismissed PSE&G’s Complaint against Con Edison in September 2018 andPSE&G has challenged FERC’s decision. Also ongoing is the lawsuit in federal court to determine ultimate responsibility for the costs to address the leak among PSE&G, Con Edison and NADC. In addition, Con Edison filed counter claims against PSE&G and NADC, including seeking injunctive relief and damages. Based on the information currently available and depending on the outcome of the federal court action, PSE&G’s portion of the costs to address the leak may be material; however, PSE&G anticipates that it will recover these costs through regulatory proceedings.

Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines

In September 2015, the EPA issued a new Effluent Limitation Guidelines Rule (ELG Rule) for steam electric generating units. The rule establishes new best available technology economically achievable (BAT) standards for fly ash transport water, bottom ash transport water, flue gas desulfurization and flue gas mercury control wastewater. Power’s Bridgeport Harbor station and the jointly-owned Keystone and Conemaugh stations, have bottom ash transport water discharges that are regulated under the ELG Rule. Keystone and Conemaugh also have flue gas desulfurization wastewaters regulated by the ELG Rule.

Through various orders, the EPA has stayed the compliance dates in the ELG Rule and has announced plans to further revise the requirements and compliance dates of the ELG Rule. Power is unable to determine how this will ultimately impact its compliance requirements or its financial condition and results of operations.

Basic Generation Service (BGS) and Basic Gas Supply Service (BGSS)

PSE&G obtains its electric supply requirements through the annual New Jersey BGS auctions for two categories of customers who choose not to purchase electric supply from third-party suppliers. The first category, which represents about 80% of PSE&G’s load requirement, is residential and smaller commercial and industrial customers (BGS-Residential Small Commercial Pricing (RSCP)). The second category is larger customers that exceed a BPU-established load (kW) threshold (BGS-Commercial and Industrial Energy Pricing (CIEP)). Pursuant to applicable BPU rules, PSE&G enters into the Supplier Master Agreement with the winners of these BGS auctions following the BPU’s approval of the auction results. PSE&G has entered into contracts with winning BGS suppliers, including Power, to purchase BGS for PSE&G’s load requirements. The winners of the auction (including Power) are responsible for fulfilling all the requirements of a PJM Load-Serving Entity including the provision of capacity, energy, ancillary services, transmission and any other services required by PJM. BGS suppliers assume all volume risk and customer migration risk and must satisfy New Jersey’s renewable portfolio standards.

The BGS-CIEP auction is for a one-year supply period from June 1 to May 31 with the BGS-CIEP auction price measured in dollars per MW-day for capacity. The final price for the BGS-CIEP auction year commencing June 1, 2019 is $281.78 per MW-day, replacing the BGS-CIEP auction year price ending May 31, 2019 of $287.76 per MW-day. Energy for BGS-CIEP is priced at hourly PJM locational marginal prices for the contract period.

PSE&G contracts for its anticipated BGS-RSCP load on a three-year rolling basis, whereby each year one-third of the load is procured for a three-year period. The contract prices in dollars per MWh for the BGS-RSCP supply, as well as the approximate load, are as follows:

	Auction Year
	2016	2017	2018	2019
36-Month Terms Ending	May 2019	May 2020	May 2021	May 2022	(A)
Load (MW)	2,800	2,800	2,900	2,800
$ per MWh	$96.38	$90.78	$91.77	$98.04

(A) Prices set in the 2019 BGS auction will become effective on June 1, 2019 when the 2016 BGS auction agreements expire.

Power seeks to mitigate volatility in its results by contracting in advance for the sale of most of its anticipated electric output as well as its anticipated fuel needs. As part of its objective, Power has entered into contracts to directly supply PSE&G and other New Jersey electric distribution companies with a portion of their respective BGS requirements through the New Jersey BGS auction process, described above.

PSE&G has a full-requirements contract with Power to meet the gas supply requirements of PSE&G’s gas customers. Power has entered into hedges for a portion of these anticipated BGSS obligations, as permitted by the BPU. The BPU permits PSE&G to recover the cost of gas hedging up to 115 billion cubic feet or 80% of its residential gas supply annual requirements through the BGSS tariff. Current plans call for Power to hedge on behalf of PSE&G approximately 70 billion cubic feet or 50% of its residential gas supply annual requirements. For additional information, see Note 25. Related-Party Transactions.

Minimum Fuel Purchase Requirements

Power’s nuclear fuel strategy is to maintain certain levels of uranium and to make periodic purchases to support such levels. As such, the commitments referred to in the following table may include estimated quantities to be purchased that deviate from contractual nominal quantities. Power’s nuclear fuel commitments cover approximately 100% of its estimated uranium, enrichment and fabrication requirements through 2020 and a significant portion through 2021 at Salem, Hope Creek and Peach Bottom.

Power has various multi-year contracts for natural gas and firm transportation and storage capacity for natural gas that are primarily used to meet its obligations to PSE&G. When there is excess delivery capacity available beyond the needs of PSE&G’s customers, Power can use the gas to supply its fossil generating stations in New Jersey.

Power also has various long-term fuel purchase commitments for coal through 2023 to support its fossil generation stations.

As of December 31, 2018, the total minimum purchase requirements included in these commitments were as follows:

Fuel Type	Power's Share of Commitments through 2023
	Millions
Nuclear Fuel
Uranium	$	222
Enrichment	$	358
Fabrication	$	167
Natural Gas	$	1,102
Coal	$	429

Pending FERC Matters

In June 2015, Transource LLC, a merchant transmission developer, filed a complaint against PJM claiming that PJM wrongfully refused to provide data and a transparent process for evaluating transmission network upgrade requests that the transmission developer had submitted to PJM. Although not named as a respondent, the complaint identifies PSE&G as one of the companies claimed to have been involved. In January 2018, a FERC administrative law judge (ALJ) issued an order generally finding that PJM and transmission owners, including PSE&G, did not engage in wrongful conduct. In addition, the developer’s assertion of an entitlement to monetary damages was expressly denied. However, in a determination disputed by PSE&G, the order found that the PJM process lacked transparency. The judge’s order has been briefed by all parties for additional determinations by FERC. We are unable to predict the outcome of these proceedings.

Subsequent to the ALJ decision, PSE&G received requests for information from FERC’s Office of Enforcement concerning a transmission project. PSE&G is complying with these requests and cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Litigation

Sewaren 7 Construction

In June 2018, a complaint was filed in federal court in Newark, New Jersey against PSEG Fossil LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Power, regarding an ongoing dispute with Durr Mechanical Construction, Inc. (Durr), a contractor on the Sewaren 7 project. Among other things, Durr seeks damages of $93 million and alleges that Power withheld money owed to Durr and that Power’s intentional conduct led to the inability of Durr to obtain prospective contracts. Power intends to vigorously defend against these allegations. In December 2018, Durr filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the federal court in the Southern District of New York (SDNY). The SDNY bankruptcy court has allowed the New Jersey litigation to proceed. Power has accrued an amount related to outstanding invoices which does not reflect an assessment of claims and potential counterclaims in this matter. Due to its preliminary nature, Power cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Newark Customer Incident

On the morning of July 5, 2018, PSE&G discontinued electricity to the home of a customer residing in Newark because of outstanding arrears on that customer’s account. Subsequent to the discontinuation of electricity, that customer died on the afternoon of July 5th. The family of the customer, who was on hospice care, raised allegations in the media regarding PSE&G’s conduct surrounding the discontinuation and restoration of electricity to the home of the customer, claiming that the discontinuation of electric service prevented the customer from using life sustaining medical equipment. The BPU initiated an investigation into the matter and that investigation is ongoing. In addition, PSE&G received a grand jury subpoena from the Essex County Prosecutor’s Office (ECPO) for records and correspondence between PSE&G and the customer. PSE&G is fully cooperating with the BPU and the ECPO in both proceedings. PSEG cannot predict the outcome of the pending proceedings regarding this incident at this time.

The PSEG Board of Directors (PSEG Board) retained outside counsel to conduct an independent investigation of the facts surrounding this incident with the full support and cooperation of management. The independent investigation concluded that the disconnection itself was not improper; however, it did identify issues related to PSE&G’s response once it was notified of the disconnection. The PSEG Board reviewed and considered the findings and conclusions of the investigation and PSE&G’s proposed corrective actions. PSE&G’s progress on implementation of the corrective actions will continue to be overseen by the PSEG Board.

Caithness Energy, L.L.C. (Caithness)

In August 2018, Caithness, a Long Island power plant developer, filed a complaint in federal district court in the Eastern District of New York against PSEG and PSEG LI alleging violations of state and federal antitrust laws and a claim of intentional interference of prospective business relations. Caithness alleges that PSEG and PSEG LI interfered with LIPA’s consideration of the Caithness proposal for a 750 MW combined cycle generation project that was identified as a finalist for a Request For Proposal issued by LIPA. In addition, Caithness claims that PSEG and PSEG LI induced LIPA to agree to eliminate the proposed project as a potential competitor to other PSEG affiliates with power supply operations. The complaint alleges hundreds of millions of dollars of harm and seeks treble and punitive damages. PSEG intends to vigorously defend against these allegations. Based upon the preliminary nature of this matter, a loss is not considered probable nor is the amount of loss, if any, estimable as of December 31, 2018.

Transource LLC (Transource)

In January 2019, Transource filed a complaint against PJM, PSE&G and three other transmission owners in Pennsylvania state court. Transource has sued the transmission owner defendants for fraud and intentional misrepresentation relating to information provided to PJM and FERC regarding the costs of upgrades for Transource’s proposed project. These allegations appear to be based on alleged conduct that is the subject of the pending FERC proceeding discussed under “Pending FERC Matters.” Based upon the preliminary nature of this matter, a loss is not considered probable nor is the amount of loss, if any, estimable as of December 31, 2018.

Other Litigation and Legal Proceedings

PSEG and its subsidiaries are party to various lawsuits in the ordinary course of business. In view of the inherent difficulty in predicting the outcome of such matters, PSEG, PSE&G and Power generally cannot predict the eventual outcome of the pending matters, the timing of the ultimate resolution of these matters, or the eventual loss, fines or penalties related to each pending matter.

In accordance with applicable accounting guidance, a liability is accrued when those matters present loss contingencies that are both probable and reasonably estimable. In such cases, there may be an exposure to loss in excess of any amounts accrued. PSEG will continue to monitor the matter for further developments that could affect the amount of the accrued liability that has been previously established.

Based on current knowledge, management does not believe that loss contingencies arising from pending matters, other than the matters described herein, could have a material adverse effect on PSEG’s, PSE&G’s or Power’s consolidated financial position or liquidity. However, in light of the inherent uncertainties involved in these matters, some of which are beyond PSEG’s control, and the large or indeterminate damages sought in some of these matters, an adverse outcome in one or more of these matters could be material to PSEG’s, PSE&G’s or Power’s results of operations or liquidity for any particular reporting period.

Nuclear Insurance Coverages and Assessments

Power is a member of the joint underwriting association, American Nuclear Insurers (ANI), which provides nuclear liability insurance coverage at the Salem and Hope Creek site and the Peach Bottom site. The ANI policies are designed to satisfy the financial protection requirements outlined in the Price-Anderson Act, which sets the limit of liability for claims that could arise from an incident involving any licensed nuclear facility in the United States. The limit of liability per incident per site is composed of primary and excess layers. As of December 31, 2018, nuclear sites were required to purchase $450 million of primary liability coverage for each site (through ANI). The primary layer is supplemented by an excess layer, which is an industry self-insurance pool. In the event a nuclear site, which is part of the industry self-insurance pool, has a claim that exceeds the primary layer, each licensee would be assessed a prorated share of the excess layer. The excess layer limit is $13.6 billion. Power’s maximum aggregate assessment per incident is $433 million (based on Power’s ownership interests in Salem, Hope Creek and Peach Bottom) and its maximum aggregate annual assessment per incident is $65 million. If the damages exceed the limit of liability, Congress could impose further revenue-raising measures on the nuclear industry to pay claims. Further, a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, not involving Power, held that the Price-Anderson Act did not preclude punitive damage awards based on state law claims.

Power is also a member of an industry mutual insurance company, Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited (NEIL), which provides the property, decontamination and decommissioning liability insurance at the Salem and Hope Creek site and the Peach Bottom site. NEIL also provides replacement power coverage through its accidental outage policy. NEIL policies may make retrospective premium assessments in the case of adverse loss experience. The current maximum aggregate annual retrospective premium obligation for Power is approximately $62 million. NEIL requires its members to maintain an investment grade credit rating or to ensure collectability of their annual retrospective premium obligation by providing a financial guarantee, letter of credit, deposit premium, or some other means of assurance. Certain provisions in the NEIL policies provide that the insurer may suspend coverage with respect to all nuclear units on a site without notice if the NRC suspends or revokes the operating license for any unit on that site, issues a shutdown order with respect to such unit or issues a confirmatory order keeping such unit down.

The ANI and NEIL policies all include coverage for claims arising out of acts of terrorism. However, NEIL policies are subject to an industry aggregate limit of $3.2 billion plus such additional amounts as NEIL recovers for such losses from reinsurance, indemnity and any other source applicable to such losses.

Minimum Lease Payments

The total future minimum payments under various operating leases as of December 31, 2018 are:

	PSE&G		Power		Services		Other		Total
	Millions
2019	$	15	$	11	$	14	$	1	$	41
2020	11		13		14		2		40
2021	10		13		15		1		39
2022	8		14		15		1		38
2023	8		8		15		—		31
Thereafter	66		51		105		—		222
Total Minimum Lease Payments	$	118	$	110	$	178	$	5	$	411

Power [Member]

Other Commitments [Line Items]

Commitments and Contingent Liabilities

Commitments and Contingent Liabilities

Guaranteed Obligations

Power’s activities primarily involve the purchase and sale of energy and related products under transportation, physical, financial and forward contracts at fixed and variable prices. These transactions are with numerous counterparties and brokers that may require cash, cash-related instruments or guarantees as a form of collateral.

Power has unconditionally guaranteed payments to counterparties by its subsidiaries in commodity-related transactions in order to

• support current exposure, interest and other costs on sums due and payable in the ordinary course of business, and

• obtain credit.

Power is subject to

• counterparty collateral calls related to commodity contracts, and

• certain creditworthiness standards as guarantor under performance guarantees of its subsidiaries.

Under these agreements, guarantees cover lines of credit between entities and are often reciprocal in nature. The exposure between counterparties can move in either direction.

In order for Power to incur a liability for the face value of the outstanding guarantees, its subsidiaries would have to

• fully utilize the credit granted to them by every counterparty to whom Power has provided a guarantee, and

• the net position of the related contracts would have to be “out-of-the-money” (if the contracts are terminated, Power would owe money to the counterparties).

Power believes the probability of this result is unlikely. For this reason, Power believes that the current exposure at any point in time is a more meaningful representation of the potential liability under these guarantees. Current exposure consists of the net of accounts receivable and accounts payable and the forward value on open positions, less any collateral posted.

Changes in commodity prices can have a material impact on collateral requirements under such contracts, which are posted and received primarily in the form of cash and letters of credit. Power also routinely enters into futures and options transactions for electricity and natural gas as part of its operations. These futures contracts usually require a cash margin deposit with brokers, which can change based on market movement and in accordance with exchange rules.

In addition to the guarantees discussed above, Power has also provided payment guarantees to third parties on behalf of its affiliated companies. These guarantees support various other non-commodity related contractual obligations.

The following table shows the face value of Power’s outstanding guarantees, current exposure and margin positions as of December 31, 2018 and 2017.

	As of December 31, 2018			As of December 31, 2017
	Millions
Face Value of Outstanding Guarantees	$	1,772		$	1,701
Exposure under Current Guarantees	$	198		$	153
Letters of Credit Margin Posted	$	115		$	103
Letters of Credit Margin Received	$	26		$	32
Cash Deposited and Received
Counterparty Cash Margin Deposited	$	—		$	—
Counterparty Cash Margin Received	$	(10	)	$	(1	)
Net Broker Balance Deposited (Received)	$	403		$	147
Additional Amounts Posted
Other Letters of Credit	$	52		$	61

As part of determining credit exposure, Power nets receivables and payables with the corresponding net fair values of energy contracts. See Note 17. Financial Risk Management Activities for further discussion. In accordance with PSEG’s accounting policy, where it is applicable, cash (received)/deposited is allocated against derivative asset and liability positions with the same counterparty on the face of the Consolidated Balance Sheet. The remaining balances of net cash (received)/deposited after allocation are generally included in Accounts Payable and Receivable, respectively.

In addition to amounts for outstanding guarantees, current exposure and margin positions, PSEG and Power have posted letters of credit to support Power’s various other non-energy contractual and environmental obligations. See preceding table.

Environmental Matters

Passaic River

Historic operations of PSEG companies and the operations of hundreds of other companies along the Passaic and Hackensack Rivers are alleged by Federal and State agencies to have discharged substantial contamination into the Passaic River/Newark Bay Complex in violation of various statutes as discussed as follows.

Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA)

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that a 17-mile stretch of the lower Passaic River from Newark to Clifton, New Jersey is a “Superfund” site under CERCLA and a comprehensive study of the entire 17 miles of the lower Passaic River needed to be performed. PSE&G and certain of its predecessors conducted operations at properties in this area of the Passaic River. The properties included one operating electric generating station (Essex Site), which was transferred to Power, one former generating station and four former manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites.

In early 2007, certain Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs), including PSE&G and Power, formed a Cooperating Parties Group (CPG) and agreed to assume responsibility for conducting a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) of the 17 miles of the lower Passaic River. The CPG has agreed to allocate, on an interim basis, the associated costs of the RI/FS among its members on the basis of a mutually agreed upon formula. For the purpose of this interim allocation, which has been revised as parties have exited the CPG, approximately 7.6 percent of the RI/FS costs are currently deemed attributable to PSE&G’s former MGP sites and approximately 1.9 percent is attributable to Power’s generating stations. These interim allocations are not binding on PSE&G or Power in terms of their respective shares of the costs that will be ultimately required to remediate the 17 miles of the lower Passaic River. PSEG has provided notice to insurers concerning this potential claim.

The CPG’s draft FS set forth various alternatives for remediating the lower Passaic River with an estimated cost to remediate the lower 17 miles of the Passaic River ranging from approximately $518 million to $3.2 billion on an undiscounted basis.

In March 2016, the EPA released its Record of Decision (ROD) for the EPA’s own Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) which requires the removal of 3.5 million cubic yards of sediment from the Passaic River’s lower 8.3 miles at an estimated cost of $2.3 billion on an undiscounted basis (ROD Remedy). The EPA estimated the total project length to be about 11 years, including a one year period of negotiation with the PRPs, three to four years to design the project and six years for implementation. Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC), one of the PRPs, has commenced performance of the remedial design required by the ROD Remedy, reserving its right of cost contribution from all other PRPs.

In September 2017, the EPA concluded that an Agency-commenced allocation process for the Passaic River’s lower 8.3 miles should include only certain PRPs. The allocation is intended to lead to a consent decree in which certain of the PRPs agree to perform and pay for the remedial action under EPA oversight. Due to delays from the partial federal government shutdown in late 2018 through early 2019, the timeline for completing the allocation process has been delayed.

In October 2018, the EPA Region 2 issued a Directive to the CPG instructing the CPG to focus the ongoing RI/FS evaluation on various adaptive management scenarios for remediation of the upper 9 miles of the Passaic River, which approach has been agreed to in concept by the EPA and the CPG. The Directive does not contain estimates for anticipated costs. Adaptive management focuses on removing targeted “hot spots” of contaminated sediments rather than removing all of the Passaic River’s sediments as in a “bank to bank” approach.

In a separate matter, two PRPs, Tierra Solutions, Inc. (Tierra) and Maxus Energy Corporation (Maxus), filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in Delaware Federal Bankruptcy Court. In June 2018, the trust representing the creditors in this proceeding filed a complaint asserting claims against the current and former parent entities of Tierra and Maxus, among other parties, for up to $14 billion. Any damages awarded may be used to fund, in part, the remediation costs of the lower 8.3 miles of the Passaic River. The creditor trust has reserved its right to file contribution claims against 28 PRPs, including PSEG. This matter is ongoing.

In June 2018, OCC filed a complaint in Federal District Court in Newark against various defendants, including PSE&G, seeking cost recovery and contribution under CERCLA for the remediation of the lower 8.3 miles of the Passaic River. The complaint does not quantify damages sought.

The Complaint alleges that “no single hazardous substance” is to blame for the contamination of the lower Passaic River and lists the eight Contaminants of Concern (COCs) identified by the EPA in the ROD. OCC alleges PSE&G is responsible for a portion of six of the eight COCs. PSE&G cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Based upon the estimated cost of the ROD Remedy and PSEG’s estimate of PSE&G’s and Power’s shares of that cost, as of December 31, 2018, PSEG has accrued approximately $57 million. Of this amount, PSE&G has accrued $46 million as an Environmental Costs Liability and a corresponding Regulatory Asset based on its continued ability to recover such costs in its rates. Power has accrued $11 million as an Other Noncurrent Liability with the corresponding O&M Expense recorded in prior years when the liability was accrued.

The EPA has broad authority to implement its selected remedy through the ROD and PSEG cannot at this time predict how the implementation of the ROD might impact PSE&G’s and Power’s ultimate liability. Until (i) the RI/FS, which covers the entire 17 miles of the lower Passaic River, is finalized either in whole or in part, (ii) an agreement by the PRPs to perform either the ROD Remedy as issued, or an amended ROD Remedy determined through negotiation or litigation, and an agreed upon remedy for the remaining 8.7 miles of the river, are reached, (iii) PSE&G’s and Power’s respective shares of the costs, both in the aggregate as well as individually, are determined, and (iv) PSE&G’s continued ability to recover the costs in its rates is determined, it is not possible to predict this matter’s ultimate impact on PSEG’s financial statements. It is possible that PSE&G and Power will record additional costs beyond what they have accrued, and that such costs could be material, but PSEG cannot at the current time estimate the amount or range of any additional costs.

Natural Resource Damage Claims

In 2003, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) directed PSEG, PSE&G and 56 other PRPs to arrange for a natural resource damage assessment and interim compensatory restoration of natural resource injuries along the lower Passaic River and its tributaries pursuant to the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act. The NJDEP alleged that hazardous substances had been discharged from the Essex Site and the Harrison Site. The NJDEP estimated the cost of interim natural resource injury restoration activities along the lower Passaic River at approximately $950 million. In 2007, agencies of the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. Department of the Interior (the Passaic River federal trustees) sent letters to PSE&G and other PRPs inviting participation in an assessment of injuries to natural resources that the agencies intended to perform. In 2008, PSEG and a number of other PRPs agreed to share certain immaterial costs the trustees have incurred and will incur going forward, and to work with the trustees to explore whether some or all of the trustees’ claims can be resolved in a cooperative fashion. That effort is continuing. PSE&G and Power are unable to estimate their respective portions of the possible loss or range of loss related to this matter.                        

Newark Bay Study Area

The EPA has established the Newark Bay Study Area, which it defines as Newark Bay and portions of the Hackensack River, the Arthur Kill and the Kill Van Kull. In August 2006, the EPA sent PSEG and 11 other entities notices that it considered each of the entities to be a PRP with respect to contamination in the Study Area. The notice letter requested that the PRPs fund an EPA-approved study in the Newark Bay Study Area. The notice stated the EPA’s belief that hazardous substances were released from sites owned by PSEG companies and located on the Hackensack River, including two electric generating stations (Hudson and Kearny sites) and one former MGP site. PSEG has participated in and partially funded the second phase of this study. Notices to fund the next phase of the study have been received but PSEG has not consented to fund the third phase. PSE&G and Power are unable to estimate their respective portions of the possible loss or range of loss related to this matter. In December 2018, Power completed the sale of the site of the Hudson electric generating station. Power transferred all land rights and structures on the site to a third party purchaser, along with the assumption of the environmental liabilities for the site.

MGP Remediation Program

PSE&G is working with the NJDEP to assess, investigate and remediate environmental conditions at its former MGP sites. To date, 38 sites requiring some level of remedial action have been identified. Based on its current studies, PSE&G has determined that the estimated cost to remediate all MGP sites to completion could range between $321 million and $366 million on an undiscounted basis through 2021, including its $46 million share for the Passaic River as discussed above. Since no amount within the range is considered to be most likely, PSE&G has recorded a liability of $321 million as of December 31, 2018. Of this amount, $56 million was recorded in Other Current Liabilities and $265 million was reflected as Environmental Costs in Noncurrent Liabilities. PSE&G has recorded a $321 million Regulatory Asset with respect to these costs. PSE&G periodically updates its studies taking into account any new regulations or new information which could impact future remediation costs and adjusts its recorded liability accordingly. NJDEP, PSEG and EPA representatives have had discussions regarding to what extent sampling in the Passaic River is required to delineate coal tar from MGP sites that abut the Passaic River Superfund site. PSEG cannot determine at this time whether this will have an impact on the Passaic River Superfund remedy. 

Clean Water Act (CWA) Permit Renewals

Pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits expire within five years of their effective date. In order to renew these permits, but allow a plant to continue to operate, an owner or operator must file a permit application no later than six months prior to expiration of the permit. States with delegated federal authority for this program manage these permits. The NJDEP manages the permits under the New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) program. Connecticut and New York also have permits to manage their respective pollutant discharge elimination system programs.

In May 2014, the EPA issued a final cooling water intake rule that establishes requirements for the regulation of cooling water intakes at existing power plants and industrial facilities with a design flow of more than two million gallons of water per day.

The EPA has structured the rule so that each state Permitting Director will continue to consider renewal permits for existing

power facilities on a case by case basis, based on studies related to impingement mortality and entrainment by the facilities seeking renewal permits.

Several environmental organizations and certain energy industry groups have filed suit under the CWA and the Endangered Species Act. The cases were consolidated at the Second Circuit, and in July 2018 the Second Circuit upheld the EPA’s final cooling water intake rule. The Court’s decision allows Permitting Directors to continue to issue permits in accordance with the flexible, site-specific provisions of the final rule.

In June 2016, the NJDEP issued a final NJPDES permit for Salem. The final permit does not mandate specific service water system modifications, but consistent with Section 316 (b) of the CWA, it requires additional studies and the selection of technology to address impingement for the service water system. In July 2016, the Delaware Riverkeeper Network (Riverkeeper) filed a request challenging the NJDEP’s issuance of the final NJPDES renewal permit for Salem. NJDEP has granted the hearing request, but it has not yet been scheduled. The Riverkeeper’s filing does not change the effective date of the permit. If the Riverkeeper’s challenge were successful, Power may be required to incur additional costs to comply with the CWA. Potential cooling water system modification costs could be material and could adversely impact the economic competitiveness of this facility.

State permitting decisions at Bridgeport and possibly New Haven could also have a material impact on Power’s ability to renew permits at its existing larger once-through cooled plants without making significant upgrades to existing intakes and cooling systems.

Power is unable to predict the outcome of these permitting decisions and the effect, if any, that they may have on Power’s future capital requirements, financial condition or results of operations.

Power is actively engaged with the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP) regarding renewal of the current permit for the cooling water intake structure at Bridgeport Harbor Station Unit 3 (BH3). To address compliance with the EPA’s CWA Section 316(b) final rule, Power has proposed to continue to operate BH3 without making the capital expenditures for modification to the existing intake structure and retire BH3 in 2021, which is four years earlier than the previously estimated useful life ending in 2025. Power is currently awaiting action by the CTDEEP to issue a draft and then a final permit.

Power has entered into a Community Environmental Benefit Agreement (CEBA) with the City of Bridgeport, Connecticut and local community organizations. That CEBA provides that Power would retire BH3 early if all of its conditions precedent occur, which include receipt of all final permits to build and operate a proposed new combined cycle generating facility on the same site that BH3 currently operates. Absent those conditions being met, and the permit for the cooling water intake structure referred to above not being issued, Power may seek to operate BH3 through the previously estimated useful life.

In February 2016, the proposed new generating facility at Bridgeport Harbor was awarded a capacity obligation. The Connecticut Siting Council issued an order to approve siting Bridgeport Harbor Station Unit 5. Operations are expected to begin in mid-2019. Power’s obligations under the CEBA are being monitored regularly and carried out as needed.

Jersey City, New Jersey Subsurface Feeder Cable Matter

In October 2016, a discharge of dielectric fluid from subsurface feeder cables located in the Hudson River near Jersey City, New Jersey, was identified and reported to the NJDEP. The feeder cables are located within a subsurface easement granted to PSE&G by the property owners, Newport Associates Development Company (NADC) and Newport Associates Phase I Developer Limited Partnership. The feeder cables are subject to agreements between PSE&G and Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Edison) and are jointly owned by PSE&G and Con Edison, with PSE&G owning the portion of the cables located in New Jersey and Con Edison owning the portion of the cables located in New York. The NJDEP declared an emergency and an emergency response action was undertaken to investigate, contain, remediate and stop the fluid discharge; to assess, repair and restore the cables to good working order, if feasible; and to restore the property. The regulatory agencies overseeing the emergency response, including the U.S. Coast Guard, the NJDEP and the Army Corps of Engineers, issued multiple notices, orders and directives to the various parties related to this matter and the parties may also be subject to the assessment of civil penalties related to the discharge and response. The U.S. Coast Guard transitioned control of the federal response to the EPA in May 2018. In August 2018, the EPA ended the federal response to the matter. The response has now transitioned to the NJDEP site remediation program.

The impacted cable was repaired in late September 2017; however, small amounts of residual dielectric fluid believed to be contained within the marina sediment continue to appear on the surface and response actions related to the fluid discharge are ongoing, although at a significantly reduced scale. PSE&G remains concerned about future leaks and potential environmental impacts as a result of reintroduction of fluid back into these lines and has determined that retirement of the affected facilities is appropriate. PSE&G has been unable to reach an agreement with Con Edison and, as a result, in May 2018, PSE&G filed an action at FERC to resolve the matter. FERC dismissed PSE&G’s Complaint against Con Edison in September 2018 andPSE&G has challenged FERC’s decision. Also ongoing is the lawsuit in federal court to determine ultimate responsibility for the costs to address the leak among PSE&G, Con Edison and NADC. In addition, Con Edison filed counter claims against PSE&G and NADC, including seeking injunctive relief and damages. Based on the information currently available and depending on the outcome of the federal court action, PSE&G’s portion of the costs to address the leak may be material; however, PSE&G anticipates that it will recover these costs through regulatory proceedings.

Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines

In September 2015, the EPA issued a new Effluent Limitation Guidelines Rule (ELG Rule) for steam electric generating units. The rule establishes new best available technology economically achievable (BAT) standards for fly ash transport water, bottom ash transport water, flue gas desulfurization and flue gas mercury control wastewater. Power’s Bridgeport Harbor station and the jointly-owned Keystone and Conemaugh stations, have bottom ash transport water discharges that are regulated under the ELG Rule. Keystone and Conemaugh also have flue gas desulfurization wastewaters regulated by the ELG Rule.

Through various orders, the EPA has stayed the compliance dates in the ELG Rule and has announced plans to further revise the requirements and compliance dates of the ELG Rule. Power is unable to determine how this will ultimately impact its compliance requirements or its financial condition and results of operations.

Basic Generation Service (BGS) and Basic Gas Supply Service (BGSS)

PSE&G obtains its electric supply requirements through the annual New Jersey BGS auctions for two categories of customers who choose not to purchase electric supply from third-party suppliers. The first category, which represents about 80% of PSE&G’s load requirement, is residential and smaller commercial and industrial customers (BGS-Residential Small Commercial Pricing (RSCP)). The second category is larger customers that exceed a BPU-established load (kW) threshold (BGS-Commercial and Industrial Energy Pricing (CIEP)). Pursuant to applicable BPU rules, PSE&G enters into the Supplier Master Agreement with the winners of these BGS auctions following the BPU’s approval of the auction results. PSE&G has entered into contracts with winning BGS suppliers, including Power, to purchase BGS for PSE&G’s load requirements. The winners of the auction (including Power) are responsible for fulfilling all the requirements of a PJM Load-Serving Entity including the provision of capacity, energy, ancillary services, transmission and any other services required by PJM. BGS suppliers assume all volume risk and customer migration risk and must satisfy New Jersey’s renewable portfolio standards.

The BGS-CIEP auction is for a one-year supply period from June 1 to May 31 with the BGS-CIEP auction price measured in dollars per MW-day for capacity. The final price for the BGS-CIEP auction year commencing June 1, 2019 is $281.78 per MW-day, replacing the BGS-CIEP auction year price ending May 31, 2019 of $287.76 per MW-day. Energy for BGS-CIEP is priced at hourly PJM locational marginal prices for the contract period.

PSE&G contracts for its anticipated BGS-RSCP load on a three-year rolling basis, whereby each year one-third of the load is procured for a three-year period. The contract prices in dollars per MWh for the BGS-RSCP supply, as well as the approximate load, are as follows:

	Auction Year
	2016	2017	2018	2019
36-Month Terms Ending	May 2019	May 2020	May 2021	May 2022	(A)
Load (MW)	2,800	2,800	2,900	2,800
$ per MWh	$96.38	$90.78	$91.77	$98.04

(A) Prices set in the 2019 BGS auction will become effective on June 1, 2019 when the 2016 BGS auction agreements expire.

Power seeks to mitigate volatility in its results by contracting in advance for the sale of most of its anticipated electric output as well as its anticipated fuel needs. As part of its objective, Power has entered into contracts to directly supply PSE&G and other New Jersey electric distribution companies with a portion of their respective BGS requirements through the New Jersey BGS auction process, described above.

PSE&G has a full-requirements contract with Power to meet the gas supply requirements of PSE&G’s gas customers. Power has entered into hedges for a portion of these anticipated BGSS obligations, as permitted by the BPU. The BPU permits PSE&G to recover the cost of gas hedging up to 115 billion cubic feet or 80% of its residential gas supply annual requirements through the BGSS tariff. Current plans call for Power to hedge on behalf of PSE&G approximately 70 billion cubic feet or 50% of its residential gas supply annual requirements. For additional information, see Note 25. Related-Party Transactions.

Minimum Fuel Purchase Requirements

Power’s nuclear fuel strategy is to maintain certain levels of uranium and to make periodic purchases to support such levels. As such, the commitments referred to in the following table may include estimated quantities to be purchased that deviate from contractual nominal quantities. Power’s nuclear fuel commitments cover approximately 100% of its estimated uranium, enrichment and fabrication requirements through 2020 and a significant portion through 2021 at Salem, Hope Creek and Peach Bottom.

Power has various multi-year contracts for natural gas and firm transportation and storage capacity for natural gas that are primarily used to meet its obligations to PSE&G. When there is excess delivery capacity available beyond the needs of PSE&G’s customers, Power can use the gas to supply its fossil generating stations in New Jersey.

Power also has various long-term fuel purchase commitments for coal through 2023 to support its fossil generation stations.

As of December 31, 2018, the total minimum purchase requirements included in these commitments were as follows:

Fuel Type	Power's Share of Commitments through 2023
	Millions
Nuclear Fuel
Uranium	$	222
Enrichment	$	358
Fabrication	$	167
Natural Gas	$	1,102
Coal	$	429

Pending FERC Matters

In June 2015, Transource LLC, a merchant transmission developer, filed a complaint against PJM claiming that PJM wrongfully refused to provide data and a transparent process for evaluating transmission network upgrade requests that the transmission developer had submitted to PJM. Although not named as a respondent, the complaint identifies PSE&G as one of the companies claimed to have been involved. In January 2018, a FERC administrative law judge (ALJ) issued an order generally finding that PJM and transmission owners, including PSE&G, did not engage in wrongful conduct. In addition, the developer’s assertion of an entitlement to monetary damages was expressly denied. However, in a determination disputed by PSE&G, the order found that the PJM process lacked transparency. The judge’s order has been briefed by all parties for additional determinations by FERC. We are unable to predict the outcome of these proceedings.

Subsequent to the ALJ decision, PSE&G received requests for information from FERC’s Office of Enforcement concerning a transmission project. PSE&G is complying with these requests and cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Litigation

Sewaren 7 Construction

In June 2018, a complaint was filed in federal court in Newark, New Jersey against PSEG Fossil LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Power, regarding an ongoing dispute with Durr Mechanical Construction, Inc. (Durr), a contractor on the Sewaren 7 project. Among other things, Durr seeks damages of $93 million and alleges that Power withheld money owed to Durr and that Power’s intentional conduct led to the inability of Durr to obtain prospective contracts. Power intends to vigorously defend against these allegations. In December 2018, Durr filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the federal court in the Southern District of New York (SDNY). The SDNY bankruptcy court has allowed the New Jersey litigation to proceed. Power has accrued an amount related to outstanding invoices which does not reflect an assessment of claims and potential counterclaims in this matter. Due to its preliminary nature, Power cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Newark Customer Incident

On the morning of July 5, 2018, PSE&G discontinued electricity to the home of a customer residing in Newark because of outstanding arrears on that customer’s account. Subsequent to the discontinuation of electricity, that customer died on the afternoon of July 5th. The family of the customer, who was on hospice care, raised allegations in the media regarding PSE&G’s conduct surrounding the discontinuation and restoration of electricity to the home of the customer, claiming that the discontinuation of electric service prevented the customer from using life sustaining medical equipment. The BPU initiated an investigation into the matter and that investigation is ongoing. In addition, PSE&G received a grand jury subpoena from the Essex County Prosecutor’s Office (ECPO) for records and correspondence between PSE&G and the customer. PSE&G is fully cooperating with the BPU and the ECPO in both proceedings. PSEG cannot predict the outcome of the pending proceedings regarding this incident at this time.

The PSEG Board of Directors (PSEG Board) retained outside counsel to conduct an independent investigation of the facts surrounding this incident with the full support and cooperation of management. The independent investigation concluded that the disconnection itself was not improper; however, it did identify issues related to PSE&G’s response once it was notified of the disconnection. The PSEG Board reviewed and considered the findings and conclusions of the investigation and PSE&G’s proposed corrective actions. PSE&G’s progress on implementation of the corrective actions will continue to be overseen by the PSEG Board.

Caithness Energy, L.L.C. (Caithness)

In August 2018, Caithness, a Long Island power plant developer, filed a complaint in federal district court in the Eastern District of New York against PSEG and PSEG LI alleging violations of state and federal antitrust laws and a claim of intentional interference of prospective business relations. Caithness alleges that PSEG and PSEG LI interfered with LIPA’s consideration of the Caithness proposal for a 750 MW combined cycle generation project that was identified as a finalist for a Request For Proposal issued by LIPA. In addition, Caithness claims that PSEG and PSEG LI induced LIPA to agree to eliminate the proposed project as a potential competitor to other PSEG affiliates with power supply operations. The complaint alleges hundreds of millions of dollars of harm and seeks treble and punitive damages. PSEG intends to vigorously defend against these allegations. Based upon the preliminary nature of this matter, a loss is not considered probable nor is the amount of loss, if any, estimable as of December 31, 2018.

Transource LLC (Transource)

In January 2019, Transource filed a complaint against PJM, PSE&G and three other transmission owners in Pennsylvania state court. Transource has sued the transmission owner defendants for fraud and intentional misrepresentation relating to information provided to PJM and FERC regarding the costs of upgrades for Transource’s proposed project. These allegations appear to be based on alleged conduct that is the subject of the pending FERC proceeding discussed under “Pending FERC Matters.” Based upon the preliminary nature of this matter, a loss is not considered probable nor is the amount of loss, if any, estimable as of December 31, 2018.

Other Litigation and Legal Proceedings

PSEG and its subsidiaries are party to various lawsuits in the ordinary course of business. In view of the inherent difficulty in predicting the outcome of such matters, PSEG, PSE&G and Power generally cannot predict the eventual outcome of the pending matters, the timing of the ultimate resolution of these matters, or the eventual loss, fines or penalties related to each pending matter.

In accordance with applicable accounting guidance, a liability is accrued when those matters present loss contingencies that are both probable and reasonably estimable. In such cases, there may be an exposure to loss in excess of any amounts accrued. PSEG will continue to monitor the matter for further developments that could affect the amount of the accrued liability that has been previously established.

Based on current knowledge, management does not believe that loss contingencies arising from pending matters, other than the matters described herein, could have a material adverse effect on PSEG’s, PSE&G’s or Power’s consolidated financial position or liquidity. However, in light of the inherent uncertainties involved in these matters, some of which are beyond PSEG’s control, and the large or indeterminate damages sought in some of these matters, an adverse outcome in one or more of these matters could be material to PSEG’s, PSE&G’s or Power’s results of operations or liquidity for any particular reporting period.

Nuclear Insurance Coverages and Assessments

Power is a member of the joint underwriting association, American Nuclear Insurers (ANI), which provides nuclear liability insurance coverage at the Salem and Hope Creek site and the Peach Bottom site. The ANI policies are designed to satisfy the financial protection requirements outlined in the Price-Anderson Act, which sets the limit of liability for claims that could arise from an incident involving any licensed nuclear facility in the United States. The limit of liability per incident per site is composed of primary and excess layers. As of December 31, 2018, nuclear sites were required to purchase $450 million of primary liability coverage for each site (through ANI). The primary layer is supplemented by an excess layer, which is an industry self-insurance pool. In the event a nuclear site, which is part of the industry self-insurance pool, has a claim that exceeds the primary layer, each licensee would be assessed a prorated share of the excess layer. The excess layer limit is $13.6 billion. Power’s maximum aggregate assessment per incident is $433 million (based on Power’s ownership interests in Salem, Hope Creek and Peach Bottom) and its maximum aggregate annual assessment per incident is $65 million. If the damages exceed the limit of liability, Congress could impose further revenue-raising measures on the nuclear industry to pay claims. Further, a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, not involving Power, held that the Price-Anderson Act did not preclude punitive damage awards based on state law claims.

Power is also a member of an industry mutual insurance company, Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited (NEIL), which provides the property, decontamination and decommissioning liability insurance at the Salem and Hope Creek site and the Peach Bottom site. NEIL also provides replacement power coverage through its accidental outage policy. NEIL policies may make retrospective premium assessments in the case of adverse loss experience. The current maximum aggregate annual retrospective premium obligation for Power is approximately $62 million. NEIL requires its members to maintain an investment grade credit rating or to ensure collectability of their annual retrospective premium obligation by providing a financial guarantee, letter of credit, deposit premium, or some other means of assurance. Certain provisions in the NEIL policies provide that the insurer may suspend coverage with respect to all nuclear units on a site without notice if the NRC suspends or revokes the operating license for any unit on that site, issues a shutdown order with respect to such unit or issues a confirmatory order keeping such unit down.

The ANI and NEIL policies all include coverage for claims arising out of acts of terrorism. However, NEIL policies are subject to an industry aggregate limit of $3.2 billion plus such additional amounts as NEIL recovers for such losses from reinsurance, indemnity and any other source applicable to such losses.

Minimum Lease Payments

The total future minimum payments under various operating leases as of December 31, 2018 are:

	PSE&G		Power		Services		Other		Total
	Millions
2019	$	15	$	11	$	14	$	1	$	41
2020	11		13		14		2		40
2021	10		13		15		1		39
2022	8		14		15		1		38
2023	8		8		15		—		31
Thereafter	66		51		105		—		222
Total Minimum Lease Payments	$	118	$	110	$	178	$	5	$	411