Commitments and Contingent Liabilities

Guaranteed Obligations

PSEG 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.

PSEG Power has unconditionally guaranteed payments to counterparties on behalf of 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.

PSEG Power is subject to


•	counterparty collateral calls related to commodity contracts of its subsidiaries, 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 PSEG 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 PSEG 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, PSEG Power would owe money to the counterparties).

PSEG Power believes the probability of this result is unlikely. For this reason, PSEG 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. PSEG 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, PSEG Power has also provided payment guarantees to third parties and regulatory authorities on behalf of its affiliated companies. These guarantees support various other non-commodity related obligations.

The following table shows the face value of PSEG Power’s outstanding guarantees, current exposure and margin positions as of December 31, 2019 and 2018.




	As of December 31, 2019			As of December 31, 2018
	Millions
Face Value of Outstanding Guarantees	$	1,854		$	1,772
Exposure under Current Guarantees	$	171		$	198

Letters of Credit Margin Posted	$	121		$	115
Letters of Credit Margin Received	$	29		$	26

Cash Deposited and Received
Counterparty Cash Collateral Deposited	$	—		$	—
Counterparty Cash Collateral Received	$	(4	)	$	(10	)
Net Broker Balance Deposited (Received)	$	48		$	403

Additional Amounts Posted
Other Letters of Credit	$	82		$	52

As part of determining credit exposure, PSEG Power nets receivables and payables with the corresponding net fair values of energy contracts. See Note 18. 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 PSEG Power have posted letters of credit to support PSEG Power’s various other non-energy contractual and environmental obligations. See the preceding table.

Environmental Matters

Passaic River

Lower Passaic River Study Area

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that a 17-mile stretch of the Passaic River (Lower Passaic River Study Area (LPRSA)) in New Jersey is a “Superfund” site under the Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). PSE&G and certain of its predecessors conducted operations at properties in this area, including at one site that was transferred to PSEG Power.

Certain Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs), including PSE&G and PSEG Power, formed a Cooperating Parties Group (CPG) and agreed to conduct a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study of the LPRSA. The CPG allocated, on an interim basis, the associated costs among its members. The interim allocation is subject to change. In June 2019, the EPA conditionally approved the CPG’s Remedial Investigation. In August 2019, the CPG submitted a draft Feasibility Study (FS) to the EPA which evaluated various adaptive management scenarios for the remediation of only the upper 9 miles of the LPRSA. The CPG is evaluating the EPA’s comments received to date on the draft FS.

Separately, the EPA has released a Record of Decision (ROD) for the LPRSA’s lower 8.3 miles that requires the removal of sediments at an estimated cost of $2.3 billion (ROD Remedy). An EPA-commenced process to allocate the associated costs is underway and PSEG cannot predict the outcome. Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC), one of the PRPs, has commenced the design of the ROD Remedy, but declined to participate in the allocation process. Instead, it filed suit against PSE&G and others seeking cost recovery and contribution under CERCLA but has not quantified alleged damages. The litigation is ongoing and PSEG cannot predict the outcome.

Two PRPs, Tierra Solutions, Inc. (Tierra) and Maxus Energy Corporation (Maxus), have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The trust representing the creditors in this proceeding has filed a complaint asserting claims against Tierra’s and Maxus’ current and former parent entities, among others. Any damages awarded may be used to fund the remediation of the LPRSA.

As of December 31, 2019, PSEG has accrued approximately $65 million for this matter. Of this amount, PSE&G has accrued $52 million as an Environmental Costs Liability and a corresponding Regulatory Asset based on its continued ability to recover such costs in its rates. PSEG Power has accrued $13 million as an Other Noncurrent Liability with the corresponding O&M Expense.

The outcome of this matter is uncertain, and until (i) a final remedy for the entire LPRSA is selected and an agreement is reached by the PRPs to fund it, (ii) PSE&G’s and PSEG Power’s respective shares of the costs are determined, and (iii) PSE&G’s 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 PSEG 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

New Jersey and certain federal regulators have alleged that PSE&G, PSEG Power and 56 other PRPs may be liable for natural resource damages within the LPRSA. In particular, PSE&G, PSEG Power and other PRPs received notice from federal regulators of the regulators’ intent to move forward with a series of studies assessing potential damages to natural resources at the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, which includes the LPRSA and the Newark Bay Study Area. PSE&G and PSEG Power are unable to estimate their respective portions of any possible loss or range of loss related to this matter.

Newark Bay Study Area

The EPA has established the Newark Bay Study Area, which is an extension of the LPRSA and includes Newark Bay and portions of surrounding waterways. The EPA has notified PSEG and 11 other PRPs of their potential liability. PSE&G and PSEG Power are unable to estimate their respective portions of any loss or possible range of loss related to this matter. In December 2018, PSEG Power completed the sale of the site of the Hudson electric generating station. PSEG Power contractually transferred all land rights and structures on the Hudson 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 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (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 $357 million and $400 million on an undiscounted basis through 2023, including its $52 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 $357 million as of December 31, 2019. Of this amount, $68 million was recorded in Other Current Liabilities and $289 million was reflected as Environmental Costs in Noncurrent Liabilities. PSE&G has recorded a $357 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. PSE&G has agreed to conduct sampling in the Passaic River to delineate coal tar from certain 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) Section 316(b) Rule

The EPA’s CWA Section 316(b) rule 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 requires that National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits be renewed every five years and that each state Permitting Director manage renewal permits for its respective power generation facilities on a case by case basis. 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 June 2016, the NJDEP issued a final NJPDES permit for Salem. In July 2016, the Delaware Riverkeeper Network (Riverkeeper) filed an administrative hearing request challenging certain conditions of the permit, including the NJDEP’s

application of the 316(b) rule. If the Riverkeeper’s challenge is successful, PSEG Power may be required to incur additional costs to comply with the CWA. Potential cooling water and/or service water system modification costs could be material and could adversely impact the economic competitiveness of this facility. The NJDEP had granted the hearing request but no hearing date has been established.

State permitting decisions at BH3 and New Haven could also have a material impact on PSEG Power’s ability to renew permits at its existing larger once-through cooled plants without making significant upgrades to existing intakes and cooling systems. PSEG 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. PSEG Power is unable to predict the outcome of these permitting decisions and the effect, if any, that they may have on PSEG Power’s future capital requirements, financial condition or results of operations.

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 U.S. Coast Guard transitioned control of the federal response to the EPA, and the EPA ended the federal response to the matter in 2018. The response is a part of the NJDEP site remediation program. The parties may be subject to the assessment of civil penalties related to the discharge and response. We are currently in discussions with the U.S. Coast Guard regarding the reimbursement of costs associated with the federal response to this matter and potential payment of civil penalties. We cannot predict the outcome of these discussions.

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. A lawsuit in federal court is pending 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.

BGS, BGSS and ZECs

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 79% 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 PSEG Power, to purchase BGS for PSE&G’s load requirements. The winners of the auction (including PSEG 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, 2020 is $359.98 per MW-day, replacing the BGS-CIEP auction year price ending May 31, 2020 of $281.78 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
	2017	2018	2019	2020
36-Month Terms Ending	May 2020	May 2021	May 2022	May 2023	(A)
Load (MW)	2,800	2,900	2,800	2,800
$ per MWh	$90.78	$91.77	$98.04	$102.16


(A)	Prices set in the 2020 BGS auction will become effective on June 1, 2020 when the 2017 BGS auction agreements expire.

PSEG 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, PSEG Power has entered into contracts to directly supply PSE&G and other New Jersey EDCs 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 PSEG Power to meet the gas supply requirements of PSE&G’s gas customers. PSEG 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 PSEG 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 26. Related-Party Transactions.

Pursuant to a process established by the BPU, New Jersey EDCs, including PSE&G, are required to purchase ZECs from eligible nuclear plants selected by the BPU. In April 2019, PSEG Power’s Salem 1, Salem 2 and Hope Creek nuclear plants were selected to receive ZEC revenue for approximately three years, through May 2022. PSE&G has implemented a tariff to collect a non-bypassable distribution charge in the amount of $0.004 per KWh from its retail distribution customers to be used to purchase the ZECs from these plants. PSE&G will purchase the ZECs on a monthly basis with payment to be made annually following completion of each energy year. The legislation also requires nuclear plants to reapply for any subsequent three-year periods and allows the BPU to adjust prospective ZEC payments.

Minimum Fuel Purchase Requirements

PSEG 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. PSEG Power’s nuclear fuel commitments cover approximately 100% of its estimated uranium, enrichment and fabrication requirements through 2021 and a significant portion through 2022 at Salem, Hope Creek and Peach Bottom.

PSEG 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, PSEG Power can use the gas to supply its fossil generating stations in New Jersey.

In connection with the sale of its ownership interests in the Keystone and Conemaugh generation plants in September 2019, PSEG Power transferred the related coal purchase commitments to the buyers.

As of December 31, 2019, the total minimum purchase requirements included in these commitments were as follows:




Fuel Type	PSEG Power's Share of Commitments through 2024
	Millions
Nuclear Fuel
Uranium	$	187
Enrichment	$	357
Fabrication	$	185
Natural Gas	$	1,342

Pending FERC Matters

In June 2015, Hudson Power Transmission Developers, LLC (Hudson Power), formerly known as 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. In August 2019, FERC reversed the ALJ’s decision on the transparency-related findings. FERC did find that PJM violated its Tariff and FERC orders, but found those errors were immaterial and ordered no remedies. Hudson Power filed comments alleging FERC erred in overturning the ALJ’s decision, which was subsequently rejected by FERC. In October 2019, FERC dismissed Hudson Power’s comments on the grounds that it did not meet FERC’s requirements for a properly filed rehearing request. Hudson Power did not seek judicial review of this decision.

PSE&G has also received requests for information and a Notice of Investigation from FERC’s Office of Enforcement concerning a transmission project. PSE&G retained outside counsel to assist with an internal investigation. PSE&G is fully cooperating with FERC’s requests for information and the investigation. It is not possible at this time to 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 PSEG 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 PSEG Power withheld money owed to Durr and that PSEG Power’s intentional conduct led to the inability of Durr to obtain prospective contracts. PSEG 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. PSEG 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, PSEG Power cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

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 (EDNY) 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. The complaint alleges hundreds of millions of dollars of harm. The EDNY granted PSEG’s and PSEG LI’s motion to dismiss the complaint but gave Caithness an opportunity to file an amended claim. Pursuant to a request by Caithness, the EDNY dismissed the antitrust claims with prejudice but allowed Caithness the opportunity to file its claim of intentional interference of prospective business in state court. Caithness has not yet refiled this claim in state court. 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, 2019.

Hudson Power

In January 2019, Hudson Power filed a complaint against PJM, PSE&G and three other transmission owners in Pennsylvania state court. Hudson Power sued the transmission owner defendants for fraud and intentional misrepresentation relating to information provided to PJM and FERC regarding the costs of upgrades for Hudson Power’s proposed project. These allegations appear to be based on alleged conduct that is the subject of the Hudson Power proceeding discussed under “Pending FERC Matters.” This action was removed to federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in February 2019. In light of the FERC proceeding, the federal court granted a motion to stay the federal proceeding until the conclusion of the FERC proceeding. In December 2019, the parties filed a stipulation with the federal court that dismissed all claims brought by Hudson Power, concluding the litigation.

Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) Matter

In February 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed in federal court in Newark, New Jersey against PSEG for violations of the TCPA related to alleged automated telemarketing calls directed to plaintiffs’ cellular telephone numbers. Due to its preliminary nature, PSEG cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

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 PSEG 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 PSEG 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 PSEG Power’s results of operations or liquidity for any particular reporting period.

Nuclear Insurance Coverages and Assessments

PSEG 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, 2019, 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 $13.5 billion. PSEG Power’s maximum aggregate assessment per incident is $433 million (based on PSEG 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 PSEG Power, held that the Price-Anderson Act did not preclude punitive damage awards based on state law claims.

PSEG 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 PSEG Power is approximately $61 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.

Other Commitments [Line Items]

Commitments and Contingent Liabilities

Guaranteed Obligations

PSEG 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.

PSEG Power has unconditionally guaranteed payments to counterparties on behalf of 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.

PSEG Power is subject to


•	counterparty collateral calls related to commodity contracts of its subsidiaries, 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 PSEG 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 PSEG 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, PSEG Power would owe money to the counterparties).

PSEG Power believes the probability of this result is unlikely. For this reason, PSEG 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. PSEG 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, PSEG Power has also provided payment guarantees to third parties and regulatory authorities on behalf of its affiliated companies. These guarantees support various other non-commodity related obligations.

The following table shows the face value of PSEG Power’s outstanding guarantees, current exposure and margin positions as of December 31, 2019 and 2018.




	As of December 31, 2019			As of December 31, 2018
	Millions
Face Value of Outstanding Guarantees	$	1,854		$	1,772
Exposure under Current Guarantees	$	171		$	198

Letters of Credit Margin Posted	$	121		$	115
Letters of Credit Margin Received	$	29		$	26

Cash Deposited and Received
Counterparty Cash Collateral Deposited	$	—		$	—
Counterparty Cash Collateral Received	$	(4	)	$	(10	)
Net Broker Balance Deposited (Received)	$	48		$	403

Additional Amounts Posted
Other Letters of Credit	$	82		$	52

As part of determining credit exposure, PSEG Power nets receivables and payables with the corresponding net fair values of energy contracts. See Note 18. 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 PSEG Power have posted letters of credit to support PSEG Power’s various other non-energy contractual and environmental obligations. See the preceding table.

Environmental Matters

Passaic River

Lower Passaic River Study Area

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that a 17-mile stretch of the Passaic River (Lower Passaic River Study Area (LPRSA)) in New Jersey is a “Superfund” site under the Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). PSE&G and certain of its predecessors conducted operations at properties in this area, including at one site that was transferred to PSEG Power.

Certain Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs), including PSE&G and PSEG Power, formed a Cooperating Parties Group (CPG) and agreed to conduct a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study of the LPRSA. The CPG allocated, on an interim basis, the associated costs among its members. The interim allocation is subject to change. In June 2019, the EPA conditionally approved the CPG’s Remedial Investigation. In August 2019, the CPG submitted a draft Feasibility Study (FS) to the EPA which evaluated various adaptive management scenarios for the remediation of only the upper 9 miles of the LPRSA. The CPG is evaluating the EPA’s comments received to date on the draft FS.

Separately, the EPA has released a Record of Decision (ROD) for the LPRSA’s lower 8.3 miles that requires the removal of sediments at an estimated cost of $2.3 billion (ROD Remedy). An EPA-commenced process to allocate the associated costs is underway and PSEG cannot predict the outcome. Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC), one of the PRPs, has commenced the design of the ROD Remedy, but declined to participate in the allocation process. Instead, it filed suit against PSE&G and others seeking cost recovery and contribution under CERCLA but has not quantified alleged damages. The litigation is ongoing and PSEG cannot predict the outcome.

Two PRPs, Tierra Solutions, Inc. (Tierra) and Maxus Energy Corporation (Maxus), have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The trust representing the creditors in this proceeding has filed a complaint asserting claims against Tierra’s and Maxus’ current and former parent entities, among others. Any damages awarded may be used to fund the remediation of the LPRSA.

As of December 31, 2019, PSEG has accrued approximately $65 million for this matter. Of this amount, PSE&G has accrued $52 million as an Environmental Costs Liability and a corresponding Regulatory Asset based on its continued ability to recover such costs in its rates. PSEG Power has accrued $13 million as an Other Noncurrent Liability with the corresponding O&M Expense.

The outcome of this matter is uncertain, and until (i) a final remedy for the entire LPRSA is selected and an agreement is reached by the PRPs to fund it, (ii) PSE&G’s and PSEG Power’s respective shares of the costs are determined, and (iii) PSE&G’s 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 PSEG 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

New Jersey and certain federal regulators have alleged that PSE&G, PSEG Power and 56 other PRPs may be liable for natural resource damages within the LPRSA. In particular, PSE&G, PSEG Power and other PRPs received notice from federal regulators of the regulators’ intent to move forward with a series of studies assessing potential damages to natural resources at the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, which includes the LPRSA and the Newark Bay Study Area. PSE&G and PSEG Power are unable to estimate their respective portions of any possible loss or range of loss related to this matter.

Newark Bay Study Area

The EPA has established the Newark Bay Study Area, which is an extension of the LPRSA and includes Newark Bay and portions of surrounding waterways. The EPA has notified PSEG and 11 other PRPs of their potential liability. PSE&G and PSEG Power are unable to estimate their respective portions of any loss or possible range of loss related to this matter. In December 2018, PSEG Power completed the sale of the site of the Hudson electric generating station. PSEG Power contractually transferred all land rights and structures on the Hudson 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 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (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 $357 million and $400 million on an undiscounted basis through 2023, including its $52 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 $357 million as of December 31, 2019. Of this amount, $68 million was recorded in Other Current Liabilities and $289 million was reflected as Environmental Costs in Noncurrent Liabilities. PSE&G has recorded a $357 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. PSE&G has agreed to conduct sampling in the Passaic River to delineate coal tar from certain 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) Section 316(b) Rule

The EPA’s CWA Section 316(b) rule 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 requires that National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits be renewed every five years and that each state Permitting Director manage renewal permits for its respective power generation facilities on a case by case basis. 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 June 2016, the NJDEP issued a final NJPDES permit for Salem. In July 2016, the Delaware Riverkeeper Network (Riverkeeper) filed an administrative hearing request challenging certain conditions of the permit, including the NJDEP’s

application of the 316(b) rule. If the Riverkeeper’s challenge is successful, PSEG Power may be required to incur additional costs to comply with the CWA. Potential cooling water and/or service water system modification costs could be material and could adversely impact the economic competitiveness of this facility. The NJDEP had granted the hearing request but no hearing date has been established.

State permitting decisions at BH3 and New Haven could also have a material impact on PSEG Power’s ability to renew permits at its existing larger once-through cooled plants without making significant upgrades to existing intakes and cooling systems. PSEG 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. PSEG Power is unable to predict the outcome of these permitting decisions and the effect, if any, that they may have on PSEG Power’s future capital requirements, financial condition or results of operations.

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 U.S. Coast Guard transitioned control of the federal response to the EPA, and the EPA ended the federal response to the matter in 2018. The response is a part of the NJDEP site remediation program. The parties may be subject to the assessment of civil penalties related to the discharge and response. We are currently in discussions with the U.S. Coast Guard regarding the reimbursement of costs associated with the federal response to this matter and potential payment of civil penalties. We cannot predict the outcome of these discussions.

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. A lawsuit in federal court is pending 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.

BGS, BGSS and ZECs

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 79% 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 PSEG Power, to purchase BGS for PSE&G’s load requirements. The winners of the auction (including PSEG 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, 2020 is $359.98 per MW-day, replacing the BGS-CIEP auction year price ending May 31, 2020 of $281.78 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
	2017	2018	2019	2020
36-Month Terms Ending	May 2020	May 2021	May 2022	May 2023	(A)
Load (MW)	2,800	2,900	2,800	2,800
$ per MWh	$90.78	$91.77	$98.04	$102.16


(A)	Prices set in the 2020 BGS auction will become effective on June 1, 2020 when the 2017 BGS auction agreements expire.

PSEG 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, PSEG Power has entered into contracts to directly supply PSE&G and other New Jersey EDCs 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 PSEG Power to meet the gas supply requirements of PSE&G’s gas customers. PSEG 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 PSEG 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 26. Related-Party Transactions.

Pursuant to a process established by the BPU, New Jersey EDCs, including PSE&G, are required to purchase ZECs from eligible nuclear plants selected by the BPU. In April 2019, PSEG Power’s Salem 1, Salem 2 and Hope Creek nuclear plants were selected to receive ZEC revenue for approximately three years, through May 2022. PSE&G has implemented a tariff to collect a non-bypassable distribution charge in the amount of $0.004 per KWh from its retail distribution customers to be used to purchase the ZECs from these plants. PSE&G will purchase the ZECs on a monthly basis with payment to be made annually following completion of each energy year. The legislation also requires nuclear plants to reapply for any subsequent three-year periods and allows the BPU to adjust prospective ZEC payments.

Minimum Fuel Purchase Requirements

PSEG 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. PSEG Power’s nuclear fuel commitments cover approximately 100% of its estimated uranium, enrichment and fabrication requirements through 2021 and a significant portion through 2022 at Salem, Hope Creek and Peach Bottom.

PSEG 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, PSEG Power can use the gas to supply its fossil generating stations in New Jersey.

In connection with the sale of its ownership interests in the Keystone and Conemaugh generation plants in September 2019, PSEG Power transferred the related coal purchase commitments to the buyers.

As of December 31, 2019, the total minimum purchase requirements included in these commitments were as follows:




Fuel Type	PSEG Power's Share of Commitments through 2024
	Millions
Nuclear Fuel
Uranium	$	187
Enrichment	$	357
Fabrication	$	185
Natural Gas	$	1,342

Pending FERC Matters

In June 2015, Hudson Power Transmission Developers, LLC (Hudson Power), formerly known as 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. In August 2019, FERC reversed the ALJ’s decision on the transparency-related findings. FERC did find that PJM violated its Tariff and FERC orders, but found those errors were immaterial and ordered no remedies. Hudson Power filed comments alleging FERC erred in overturning the ALJ’s decision, which was subsequently rejected by FERC. In October 2019, FERC dismissed Hudson Power’s comments on the grounds that it did not meet FERC’s requirements for a properly filed rehearing request. Hudson Power did not seek judicial review of this decision.

PSE&G has also received requests for information and a Notice of Investigation from FERC’s Office of Enforcement concerning a transmission project. PSE&G retained outside counsel to assist with an internal investigation. PSE&G is fully cooperating with FERC’s requests for information and the investigation. It is not possible at this time to 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 PSEG 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 PSEG Power withheld money owed to Durr and that PSEG Power’s intentional conduct led to the inability of Durr to obtain prospective contracts. PSEG 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. PSEG 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, PSEG Power cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

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 (EDNY) 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. The complaint alleges hundreds of millions of dollars of harm. The EDNY granted PSEG’s and PSEG LI’s motion to dismiss the complaint but gave Caithness an opportunity to file an amended claim. Pursuant to a request by Caithness, the EDNY dismissed the antitrust claims with prejudice but allowed Caithness the opportunity to file its claim of intentional interference of prospective business in state court. Caithness has not yet refiled this claim in state court. 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, 2019.

Hudson Power

In January 2019, Hudson Power filed a complaint against PJM, PSE&G and three other transmission owners in Pennsylvania state court. Hudson Power sued the transmission owner defendants for fraud and intentional misrepresentation relating to information provided to PJM and FERC regarding the costs of upgrades for Hudson Power’s proposed project. These allegations appear to be based on alleged conduct that is the subject of the Hudson Power proceeding discussed under “Pending FERC Matters.” This action was removed to federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in February 2019. In light of the FERC proceeding, the federal court granted a motion to stay the federal proceeding until the conclusion of the FERC proceeding. In December 2019, the parties filed a stipulation with the federal court that dismissed all claims brought by Hudson Power, concluding the litigation.

Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) Matter

In February 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed in federal court in Newark, New Jersey against PSEG for violations of the TCPA related to alleged automated telemarketing calls directed to plaintiffs’ cellular telephone numbers. Due to its preliminary nature, PSEG cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

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 PSEG 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 PSEG 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 PSEG Power’s results of operations or liquidity for any particular reporting period.

Nuclear Insurance Coverages and Assessments

PSEG 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, 2019, 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 $13.5 billion. PSEG Power’s maximum aggregate assessment per incident is $433 million (based on PSEG 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 PSEG Power, held that the Price-Anderson Act did not preclude punitive damage awards based on state law claims.

PSEG 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 PSEG Power is approximately $61 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.