Regulatory Matters	6 Months Ended
Regulatory Matters	Jun. 30, 2015
Regulatory Matters	(7) REGULATORY MATTERS Rate Proceedings As further described in Note (1), “Organization,” on April 29, 2014, PHI entered into the Merger Agreement with Exelon and Merger Sub. Subject to certain exceptions, prior to the Merger or the termination of the Merger Agreement, PHI and its subsidiaries may not, without the consent of Exelon, initiate, file or pursue any rate cases, other than pursuing the conclusion of certain proceedings, as described below. Bill Stabilization Adjustment Each of PHI’s utility subsidiaries proposed in each of its respective jurisdictions the adoption of a mechanism to decouple retail distribution revenue from the amount of power delivered to retail customers. A decoupling mechanism, the bill stabilization adjustment (BSA), was approved and implemented for Pepco and DPL electric service in Maryland and for Pepco electric service in the District of Columbia. None of the other jurisdictions have to date adopted decoupling proposals. Delaware Electric Distribution Base Rates In March 2013, DPL submitted an application with the DPSC to increase its electric distribution base rates. The application sought approval of an annual rate increase of approximately $42 million (adjusted by DPL to approximately $39 million on September 20, 2013), based on a requested return on equity (ROE) of 10.25%. The requested rate increase sought to recover expenses associated with DPL’s ongoing investments in reliability enhancement improvements and efforts to maintain safe and reliable service. In August 2014, the DPSC issued a final order in this proceeding providing for an annual increase in DPL’s electric distribution base rates of approximately $15.1 million, based on an ROE of 9.70%. The new rates became effective on May 1, 2014. In September 2014, DPL filed an appeal with the Delaware Superior Court of the DPSC’s August 2014 order in this proceeding, seeking the court’s review of the DPSC’s decision relating to the recovery of costs associated with one component of employee compensation, certain retirement benefits and recovery of credit facility expenses. The Division of the Public Advocate filed a cross-appeal in September 2014, pertaining to the treatment of a prepaid pension expense and other postretirement benefit obligations in base rates. Under the settlement agreement related to the Merger described below in “Merger Approval Proceedings – Delaware,” the parties agreed to suspend the appeal and, if the Merger is completed, DPL and the Division of the Public Advocate have agreed to withdraw the appeal and the cross-appeal with prejudice. Forward Looking Rate Plan In October 2013, DPL filed a multi-year rate plan, referred to as the Forward Looking Rate Plan (FLRP). As proposed, the FLRP would provide for annual electric distribution base rate increases over a four-year period in the aggregate amount of approximately $56 million. The FLRP as proposed provides the opportunity to achieve estimated earned ROEs of 7.41% and 8.80% in years one and two, respectively, and 9.75% in both years three and four of the plan. In addition, DPL proposed that as part of the FLRP, in order to provide a higher minimum required standard of reliability for DPL’s customers than that to which DPL is currently subject, the standards by which DPL’s reliability is measured would be made more stringent in each year of the FLRP. DPL has also offered to refund an aggregate of $500,000 to customers in each year of the FLRP that it fails to meet the proposed stricter minimum reliability standards. In October 2013, the DPSC opened a docket for the purpose of reviewing the details of the FLRP, but stated that it would not address the FLRP until the electric distribution base rate case discussed above was concluded. A schedule for the FLRP docket has not yet been established. Under the Merger Agreement, DPL is permitted to pursue this matter; however, under the settlement agreement related to the Merger described below in “Merger Approval Proceedings – Delaware,” DPL agreed to withdraw the FLRP without prejudice if the Merger is completed, subject to the right to make future filings with the DPSC proposing alternative regulatory methodologies that could include, but are not limited to, a multi-year rate plan. Gas Cost Rates DPL makes an annual Gas Cost Rate (GCR) filing with the DPSC for the purpose of allowing DPL to recover natural gas procurement costs through customer rates. In August 2014, DPL made its 2014 GCR filing in which it proposed a GCR decrease of approximately 7.4%. In September 2014, the DPSC issued an order authorizing DPL to place the new rates into effect on November 1, 2014, subject to refund and pending final DPSC approval. Maryland Pepco Electric Distribution Base Rates 2011 Base Rate Proceeding In December 2011, Pepco submitted an application with the MPSC to increase its electric distribution base rates. The filing sought approval of an annual rate increase of approximately $68.4 million (subsequently adjusted by Pepco to approximately $66.2 million), based on a requested ROE of 10.75%. In July 2012, the MPSC issued an order approving an annual rate increase of approximately $18.1 million, based on an ROE of 9.31%. Among other things, the order also authorized Pepco to recover the actual cost of advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) meters installed during the 2011 test year, stating that cost recovery for AMI deployment will be allowed in future rate cases in which Pepco demonstrates that the system is cost effective. The new rates became effective on July 20, 2012. The Maryland Office of People’s Counsel has sought rehearing on the portion of the order allowing Pepco to recover the costs of AMI meters installed during the test year; that motion remains pending. 2012 Base Rate Proceeding – Phase I In November 2012, Pepco submitted an application with the MPSC to increase its electric distribution base rates. The filing sought approval of an annual rate increase of approximately $60.8 million, based on a requested ROE of 10.25%. In July 2013, the MPSC issued an order in this proceeding approving an annual rate increase of approximately $27.9 million, based on an ROE of 9.36%. The order excludes the cost of AMI meters from Pepco’s rate base until such time as Pepco demonstrates the cost effectiveness of the AMI system; as a result, costs for AMI meters incurred with respect to the 2012 test year and beyond will be treated as other incremental AMI costs incurred in conjunction with the deployment of the AMI system that are deferred and on which a carrying charge is deferred, but only until such cost effectiveness has been demonstrated and such costs are included in rates. However, MPSC’s July 2012 order issued in connection with Pepco’s 2011 base rate proceeding, which allowed Pepco to recover the costs of meters installed during the 2011 test year for that case, remains in effect. The July 2013 order also approved a Grid Resiliency Charge, which went into effect on January 1, 2014, for recovery of costs totaling approximately $24.0 million associated with Pepco’s proposed plan to accelerate investments related to certain priority feeders, provided that, before implementing the surcharge, Pepco (i) provides additional information to the MPSC related to performance objectives, milestones and costs, and (ii) makes annual filings with the MPSC thereafter concerning this project, which will permit the MPSC to establish the applicable Grid Resiliency Charge rider for each following year. The MPSC rejected certain other cost recovery mechanisms, including Pepco’s proposed reliability performance-based mechanism. The new rates were effective on July 12, 2013. In July 2013, Pepco filed a notice of appeal of the July 2013 order in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. Other parties also filed notices of appeal, which were consolidated with Pepco’s appeal. In its appeal, Pepco asserted that the MPSC erred in failing to grant Pepco an adequate ROE, denying a number of other cost recovery mechanisms and limiting Pepco’s test year data to no more than four months of forecasted data in future rate cases. The other parties primarily asserted that the MPSC erred or acted arbitrarily and capriciously in allowing the recovery of certain costs by Pepco, in approving the Grid Resiliency Charge, and in refusing to reduce Pepco’s rate base by known and measurable accumulated depreciation. In November 2014, the Circuit Court issued an order reversing the MPSC’s decision on Pepco’s ROE and directing the MPSC to make more specific findings regarding the impact of improved service reliability and the BSA in calculating Pepco’s ROE. On all other issues appealed, the Circuit Court affirmed the MPSC’s July 2013 order. Other parties to this proceeding have filed notices of appeal of the Circuit Court’s decision to the Court of Special Appeals, where the case remains pending. Pepco has elected not to appeal the decision of the Circuit Court. 2013 Base Rate Proceeding – Phase I In December 2013, Pepco submitted an application with the MPSC to increase its electric distribution base rates. The filing sought approval of an annual rate increase of approximately $43.3 million (adjusted by Pepco to approximately $37.4 million on April 15, 2014), based on a requested ROE of 10.25%. The requested rate increase sought to recover expenses associated with Pepco’s ongoing investments in reliability enhancement improvements and efforts to maintain safe and reliable service. In July 2014, the MPSC issued an order approving an annual rate increase of approximately $8.75 million, based on an ROE of 9.62%. The new rates became effective on July 4, 2014. In July 2014, Pepco filed a petition for rehearing seeking reconsideration of the recovery of certain expenses, which the MPSC denied by its order issued in November 2014 (described below). In December 2014, Pepco filed a petition for judicial review of this MPSC order with the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. A hearing was held on May 26, 2015 in this matter, but no decision has been issued. 2012 and 2013 Base Rate Proceedings – Phase II In August 2014, the MPSC issued an order establishing a Phase II proceeding in the 2012 base rate case described above (the 2012 Phase II proceeding) to address the tax implications of Pepco’s net operating loss carryforward (NOLC), which had impacted certain of Pepco’s rate adjustments in the 2012 base rate proceeding. Pepco filed a motion to dismiss the 2012 Phase II proceeding, asserting that the MPSC no longer has jurisdiction over the 2012 base rate case due to appeals having been filed by numerous parties. In September 2014, the MPSC issued an order staying the 2012 Phase II proceeding until further notice. In a similar Phase II proceeding in the 2013 base rate case described above, the MPSC issued an order in November 2014 upholding Pepco’s treatment of the NOLC. Although Pepco believes the November 2014 MPSC order should be dispositive of the issues raised in the 2012 Phase II proceeding, the 2012 Phase II proceeding is expected to remain open until all appeals of the 2012 base rate proceeding are resolved, whereupon the MPSC will have authority to act on Phase II. New Jersey Update and Reconciliation of Certain Under-Recovered Balances In March 2015, ACE submitted its 2015 annual petition with the NJBPU seeking to reconcile and update (i) charges related to the recovery of above-market costs associated with ACE’s long-term power purchase contracts with the non-utility generators (NUGs), and (ii) costs related to surcharges for the New Jersey Societal Benefit Program (a statewide public interest program that is intended to benefit low income customers and address other public policy goals) and for ACE’s uncollected accounts. As filed, the net impact of the proposed changes would have been an annual rate increase of approximately $52.0 million (revised to an increase of approximately $33.9 million on April 17, 2015, based upon updates for actual data through March 31, 2015). On May 19, 2015, the NJBPU approved a stipulation of settlement entered into by the parties providing for an overall annual rate increase of $33.9 million. The rate increase, which went into effect on June 1, 2015, will have no effect on ACE’s operating income and was placed into effect provisionally, subject to a review by the NJBPU and the Division of Rate Counsel of the final underlying costs for reasonableness and prudence. Service Extension Contributions Refund Order In July 2013, in compliance with a 2012 Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division (Appellate Division) court decision, the NJBPU released an order requiring utilities to issue refunds to persons or entities that paid non-refundable contributions for utility service extensions to certain areas described as “Areas Not Designated for Growth.” The order is limited to eligible contributions paid between March 20, 2005 and December 20, 2009. ACE is processing the refund requests that meet the eligibility criteria established in the order as they are received. Although ACE estimates that it received approximately $11 million of contributions between March 20, 2005 and December 20, 2009, it is currently unable to reasonably estimate the amount that it may be required to refund using the eligibility criteria established by the order. Since the July 2013 order was released, ACE has paid less than $1 million in refund claims, the validity of each of which is investigated by ACE prior to making any such refunds. In September 2014, the NJBPU commenced a rulemaking proceeding to further implement the directives of the Appellate Division decision and, in December 2014, published a rule proposal for comment. The changes proposed by the NJBPU remove provisions distinguishing between growth areas and not-for-growth areas and provide formulae for allocating extension costs. ACE has been an active participant in the rulemaking proceeding. Final rules have not yet been promulgated by the NJBPU. At this time, ACE does not expect the amount it is ultimately required to refund will have a material effect on its consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows, as the amount refunded will generally increase the value of ACE’s property, plant and equipment and may ultimately be recovered through depreciation expense and cost of service in future electric distribution base rate cases. Generic Consolidated Tax Adjustment Proceeding In January 2013, the NJBPU initiated a generic proceeding to examine whether a consolidated tax adjustment (CTA) should continue to be used, and if so, how it should be calculated in determining a utility’s cost of service. Under the NJBPU’s current policy, when a New Jersey utility is included in a consolidated group income tax return, an allocated amount of any reduction in the consolidated group’s taxes as a result of losses by affiliates is used to reduce the utility’s rate base, upon which the utility earns a return. This policy has negatively impacted ACE’s electric distribution base rate case outcomes and ACE’s position is that the CTA should be eliminated. In an order issued in October 2014, the NJBPU determined that it is appropriate for affected consolidated groups to continue to include a CTA in New Jersey base rate filings, but that the CTA calculation will be modified to limit the look-back period for the calculation to five years, exclude transmission assets from the calculation and allocate 25 percent of the final CTA amount as a reduction to the distribution revenue requirement. With this revised methodology, ACE anticipates that the negative effects of the CTA in future base rate cases would be significantly reduced. In November 2014, the New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel filed an appeal of the NJBPU’s CTA order in the Appellate Division. This appeal remains pending. FERC Transmission ROE Challenges In February 2013, the public service commissions and public advocates of the District of Columbia, Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey, as well as the Delaware Municipal Electric Corporation, Inc. (DEMEC), filed a joint complaint at FERC against Pepco, DPL and ACE, as well as Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE). The complainants challenged the base ROE and the application of the formula rate process associated with the transmission service that the utilities provide. The complainants support an ROE within a zone of reasonableness of 6.78% and 10.33%, and have argued for a base ROE of 8.7%. The base ROE currently authorized by FERC for PHI’s utilities is (i) 11.3% for facilities placed into service after January 1, 2006, and (ii) 10.8% for facilities placed into service prior to 2006. The 10.8% base ROE for facilities placed into service prior to 2006 receives a 50-basis-point incentive adder for being a member of a regional transmission organization. PHI, Pepco, DPL and ACE believe the allegations in this complaint are without merit and are vigorously contesting this complaint. In August 2014, FERC issued an order setting the matters in this proceeding for hearing, but holding the hearing in abeyance pending settlement discussions. The order also (i) directed that the evidence and analysis presented concerning ROE be guided by the new ROE methodology adopted by FERC in another proceeding (discussed below), and (ii) set February 27, 2013 as the refund effective date, should a refund result from this proceeding. After settlement discussions among the parties in this matter reached an impasse, in November 2014, the settlement judge issued an order terminating the settlement discussions. The matter was sent to a hearing judge and a procedural schedule was established for the February 2013 complaint and a second complaint filed by the same parties in December 2014 (discussed below). In June 2014, FERC issued an order in a proceeding in which the PHI utilities were not involved, in which it adopted a new ROE methodology for electric utilities. This new methodology replaces the existing one-step discounted cash flow analysis (which incorporates only short-term growth rates) traditionally used to derive ROE for electric utilities with the two-step discounted cash flow analysis (which incorporates both short-term and long-term measures of growth) used for natural gas and oil pipelines. As a result of the August 2014 FERC order discussed in the preceding paragraph, Pepco, DPL and ACE applied an estimated ROE based on the two-step methodology announced by FERC for the period over which each of their transmission revenues would be subject to refund as a result of the challenge, and recorded estimated reserves in the second quarter of 2014 related to this matter. On December 8, 2014, the same parties filed a second complaint against Pepco, DPL, ACE, as well as BGE, regarding the base transmission ROE, seeking a reduction from 10.8% to 8.8%. The filing of the second complaint creates a second refund window. By order issued on February 9, 2015, FERC established a hearing on the second complaint and established a refund effective date of December 8, 2014. Consistent with the prior challenge, Pepco, DPL and ACE applied an estimated ROE based on the two-step methodology described above, and in the fourth quarter of 2014 and in the first and second quarters of 2015 established reserves for the estimated refund based on the refund effective date of December 8, 2014. On February 20, 2015, the chief judge issued an order consolidating the two complaint proceedings and established an initial decision issuance deadline of February 29, 2016. On March 2, 2015, the presiding administrative law judge issued an order establishing a procedural schedule for the consolidated proceedings that provides for the hearing to commence on October 20, 2015. During the second quarter of 2015, PHI increased its reserve for the relevant refund periods to reflect its assessment of market conditions, developments in other cases before FERC, litigation risk and other factors that may affect the likely outcome of these consolidated proceedings. To the extent that the final ROE established in these consolidated proceedings is lower than the ROE used to record the estimated reserves with respect to the February 2013 and the December 2014 complaints, each ten basis point reduction in the ROE would result in an increase in required reserves and a reduction of PHI’s operating income of $2.4 million. MPSC New Generation Contract Requirement In April 2012, the MPSC issued an order that requires Maryland electric distribution companies (EDCs) Pepco, DPL and BGE (collectively, the Contract EDCs) to negotiate and enter into a contract with the winning bidder of a competitive bidding process to build one new power plant in the range of 650 to 700 megawatts (MWs) beginning in 2015, in amounts proportional to their relative SOS loads. Under the terms of the order, the winning bidder was to construct a 661 MW natural gas-fired combined cycle generation plant in Waldorf, Maryland, with an originally expected commercial operation date of June 1, 2015 (which is now deferred pending the outcome of the proceedings discussed below), and each of the Contract EDCs was to recover its costs associated with the contract through surcharges on its respective SOS customers. In response to a complaint filed by a group of generating companies in the PJM Interconnection, LLC region, in September 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (the Federal District Court) issued a ruling that the MPSC’s April 2012 order violated the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution by attempting to regulate wholesale prices. In contrast, in October 2013, in response to appeals filed by the Contract EDCs and other parties, the Maryland Circuit Court for Baltimore City (the Maryland Circuit Court) upheld the MPSC’s orders requiring the Contract EDCs to enter into the contracts. In October 2013, the Federal District Court issued an order ruling that the contracts are illegal and unenforceable. The Federal District Court order could impact the Maryland Circuit Court appeal, to which the Contract EDCs are parties, although such impact, if any, cannot be determined at this time. The Contract EDCs, the Maryland Office of People’s Counsel and one generating company have appealed the Maryland Circuit Court’s decision to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals. In addition, in November 2013 both the winning bidder and the MPSC appealed the Federal district court decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which affirmed the lower Federal court ruling. In November 2014, the winning bidder and the MPSC each petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to consider hearing an appeal of the Fourth Circuit decision. The petitions remain pending. Assuming the contracts, as currently written, become effective following the satisfaction of all relevant conditions, including the completion of the proceedings discussed above, PHI continues to believe that Pepco and DPL may be required to record their proportional share of the contracts as derivative instruments at fair value and record related regulatory assets of approximately the same amount because Pepco and DPL would recover any payments under the contracts from SOS customers. PHI, Pepco and DPL have concluded that any accounting for these contracts would not be required until all legal proceedings related to these contracts and the actions of the MPSC in the related proceeding have been resolved. ACE Standard Offer Capacity Agreements In April 2011, ACE entered into three Standard Offer Capacity Agreements (SOCAs) by order of the NJBPU, each with a different generation company. ACE entered into the SOCAs under protest, as did the other EDCs in New Jersey, arguing that the EDCs were denied due process and that the SOCAs violated certain of the requirements of the New Jersey law under which the SOCAs were established (the NJ SOCA Law). In October 2013, in light of the decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey described below, the state appeals of the NJBPU implementation orders filed by the EDCs and generators were dismissed without prejudice, subject to the parties exercising their appellate rights in the Federal courts. In February 2011, ACE joined other plaintiffs in an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey challenging the NJ SOCA Law on the grounds that it violates the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In October 2013, the Federal district court issued a ruling that the NJ SOCA Law is preempted by the Federal Power Act (FPA) and violates the Supremacy Clause, and is therefore null and void. In October 2013, the Federal district court issued an order ruling that the SOCAs are void, invalid and unenforceable, which order was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in September 2014. In November 2014 and December 2014, respectively, one of the generation companies and the NJBPU petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to consider hearing an appeal of the Third Circuit decision. The petitions remain pending. ACE terminated one of the three SOCAs effective July 1, 2013 due to an event of default of the generation company that was a party to the SOCA. ACE terminated the remaining two SOCAs effective November 19, 2013, in response to the October 2013 Federal district court decision. In response to the October 2013 Federal district court order, ACE derecognized both the derivative assets (liabilities) for the estimated fair value of the SOCAs and the related regulatory liabilities (assets) in the fourth quarter of 2013. District of Columbia Power Line Undergrounding Initiative In May 2014, the Council of the District of Columbia enacted the Electric Company Infrastructure Improvement Financing Act of 2014 (the Improvement Financing Act), which provides enabling legislation for the District of Columbia Power Line Undergrounding (DC PLUG) initiative. This $1 billion initiative seeks to selectively place underground some of the District of Columbia’s most outage-prone power lines, which lines and surrounding conduit would be owned and maintained by Pepco. The Improvement Financing Act provides that: (i) Pepco is to fund approximately $500 million of the estimated cost to complete the DC PLUG initiative, recovering those costs through a surcharge on the electric bills of Pepco District of Columbia customers; (ii) $375 million of the DC PLUG initiative cost is to be financed by the District of Columbia’s issuance of securitized bonds, which bonds will be repaid through a surcharge on the electric bills of Pepco District of Columbia customers that Pepco will collect on behalf of and remit to the District of Columbia; and (iii) the remaining costs up to $125 million are to be covered by the existing capital projects program of the District of Columbia Department of Transportation (DDOT). Pepco will not earn a return on or a return of the cost of the assets funded with the proceeds of the securitized bonds or assets that are constructed by DDOT under its capital projects program, but ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of such assets will be transferred to Pepco for a nominal amount. In June 2014, Pepco and DDOT filed a Triennial Plan related to the construction of selected underground feeders in the District of Columbia and recovery of Pepco’s investment through a volumetric surcharge (the Triennial Plan), all in accordance with the Improvement Financing Act. In August 2014, Pepco filed an application for the issuance of a financing order to provide for the issuance of the District’s bonds and a volumetric surcharge for the District of Columbia to recover the costs associated with the bond issuance (the DDOT surcharge). In November 2014, the DCPSC issued an order approving the Triennial Plan, including Pepco’s volumetric surcharge, and issued the financing order, including approval of the DDOT surcharge. Together these orders permit (i) Pepco and DDOT to commence proposed construction under the Triennial Plan; (ii) the District of Columbia to issue the necessary bonds to fund the District of Columbia’s portion of the DC PLUG initiative; and (iii) the establishment of the customer surcharges contemplated by the Improvement Financing Act. In December 2014, a party to the proceeding sought reconsideration from the DCPSC of both decisions. Final decisions denying both requests for reconsideration were issued by the DCPSC on January 22, 2015 and February 2, 2015, respectively. In December 2014, an entity filed a petition for review with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals disputing the DCPSC’s denial of its motion to intervene. In June 2015, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals heard the case and affirmed the DCPSC’s decision. In March 2015, a party filed with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals a petition for review of the orders approving the Triennial Plan and issuing the financing order. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear the case in October 2015. Separately, in June 2015, an agency of the federal government served by Pepco asserted that the DDOT surcharge constitutes a tax on end users from which the federal government is immune. This assertion is currently under review. Merger Approval Proceedings Delaware On June 18, 2014, Exelon, PHI and DPL, and certain of their respective affiliates, filed an application with the DPSC seeking approval of the Merger. Delaware law requires the DPSC to approve the Merger when it determines that the transaction is in accordance with law, for a proper purpose, and is consistent with the public interest. The DPSC must further find that the successor will continue to provide safe and reliable service, will not terminate or impair existing collective bargaining agreements and will engage in good faith bargaining with organized labor. On February 13, 2015, Exelon, DPL, the DPSC staff, the Division of the Public Advocate and certain other parties filed a settlement agreement with the DPSC, which was amended in April 2015. The DPSC approved the amended settlement agreement at its meeting held on May 19, 2015, memorializing this decision by written order issued on June 2, 2015. The specific grounds for the DPSC’s approval of the Merger, as well as the specific conditions, will be included in a subsequent order to be issued by the DPSC. District of Columbia On June 18, 2014, Exelon, PHI and Pepco, and certain of their respective affiliates, filed an application with the DCPSC seeking approval of the Merger. To approve the Merger, the DCPSC must find that the Merger is in the public interest. In an order issued August 22, 2014, the DCPSC stated that to make the determination of whether the transaction is in the public interest, it will analyze the transaction in the context of seven factors to determine whether the transaction balances the interests of shareholders and investors with ratepayers and the community, whether the benefits to shareholders do or do not come at the expense of the ratepayers, and whether the transaction produces a direct and tangible benefit to ratepayers. The seven factors identified by the DCPSC are the effects of the transaction on: (i) ratepayers, shareholders, the financial health of the utility standing alone and as merged, and the local economy; (ii) utility management and administrative operations; (iii) the public safety and the safety and reliability of services; (iv) risks associated with all of the affiliated non-jurisdictional business operations, including nuclear operations, of the applicants; (v) the DCPSC’s ability to regulate the utility effectively following the Merger; (vi) competition in the local retail and wholesale markets that impacts the District and District ratepayers; and (vii) conservation of natural resources and preservation of environmental quality. District of Columbia law does not impose any time limit on the DCPSC’s review of the Merger. The DCPSC held evidentiary hearings in March and April of 2015, the record was closed on May 27, 2015 and a decision of the DCPSC remains pending. Maryland On August 19, 2014, the Joint Applicants, filed an application with the MPSC seeking approval of the Merger. Maryland law requires the MPSC to approve a merger subject to its review if it finds that the merger is consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity, including its benefits to and impact on consumers. Evidentiary hearings were held beginning on January 26, 2015. On March 10, 2015, the Joint Applicants filed with the MPSC a settlement agreement entered into with The Alliance for Solar Choice, which is one of the stakeholder groups participating in the MPSC approval proceeding. On March 16, 2015, the Joint Applicants filed with the MPSC a settlement agreement entered into with Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties in Maryland, and a number of other parties, including the National Housing Trust, the National Consumer Law Center, other organizations representing low and moderate income interests and a consortium of nine recreational trail advocacy organizations. On May 15, 2015, the MPSC approved the Merger, with conditions, including conditions that modify and supplement those originally proposed. On May 18, 2015, Pepco Holdings and Exelon announced that they had completed their review of the MPSC’s order approving the Merger and have committed to fulfill the modified, more stringent conditions and package of customer benefits imposed by the MPSC. Multiple parties have filed petitions for judicial review of the MPSC order by the Circuit Court of Queen Anne’s County, Maryland, seeking to appeal the MPSC order. Pepco Holdings intends to vigorously contest any appeal of the MPSC order. On July 21, 2015, the Maryland Office of People’s Counsel filed a motion in the Circuit Court for Queen Anne’s County, Maryland, requesting a stay of the MPSC order and to conduct additional discovery and present additional evidence (the Motion) in light of an alleged conflict of interest on the part of a former MPSC Commissioner. PHI believes the Motion is without merit and intends to vigorously oppose it and any other attempts to impede the effectiveness of the MPSC order or delay the closing of the Merger. New Jersey On June 18, 2014, Exelon, PHI and ACE, and certain of their respective affiliates, filed a petition with the NJBPU seeking approval of the Merger. To approve the Merger, the NJBPU must find the Merger is in the public interest, and consider the impact of the Merger on (i) competition, (ii) rates of ratepayers affected by the Merger, (iii) ACE’s employees, and (iv) the provision of safe and reliable service at just and reasonable rates. On January 14, 2015, PHI, ACE, Exelon, certain of Exelon’s affiliates, the Staff of the NJBPU, and the Independent Energy Producers of New Jersey filed a stipulation of settlement (the Stipulation) with the NJBPU in this proceeding. On February 11, 2015, the NJBPU approved the Stipulation and the Merger and on March 6, 2015, the NJBPU issued a written order approving the Stipulation. Virginia On June 3, 2014, Exelon, PHI, Pepco and DPL, and certain of their respective affiliates, filed an application with the VSCC seeking approval of the Merger. Virginia law provides that, if the VSCC determines, with or without hearing, that adequate service to the public at just and reasonable rates will not be impaired or jeopardized by granting the application for approval, then the VSCC shall approve a merger with such conditions that the VSCC deems to be appropriate in order to satisfy this standard. On October 7, 2014, the VSCC issued an order approving the Merger. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission On May 30, 2014, Exelon, PHI, Pepco, DPL and ACE, and certain of their respective affiliates, submitted to FERC a Joint Application for Authorization of Disposition of Jurisdictional Assets and Merger under Section 203 of the FPA. Under that section, FERC shall approve a merger if it finds that the proposed transaction will be consistent with the public interest. On November 20, 2014, FERC issued an order approving the Merger. Hart-Scott-Rodino Act The HSR Act, which is the U.S. federal pre-merger notification statute, and its related rules and regulations provide that acquisition transactions that meet the HSR Act’s coverage thresholds may not be completed until a Notification and Report Form has been furnished to the DOJ and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and that the waiting period required by the HSR Act has been terminated or has expired. Pursuant to the HSR Act requirements, Pepco Holdings and Exelon filed the required Notification and Report Forms with the DOJ and the FTC on August 6, 2014. Following informal discussions with the DOJ, effective as of September 5, 2014, Exelon withdrew its Notification and Report Form and refiled it on September 9, 2014, which restarted the waiting period required by the HSR Act. On October 9, 2014, each of Pepco Holdings and Exelon received a request for additional information and documentary material from the DOJ, which had the effect of extending the DOJ review period until 30 days after each of Pepco Holdings and Exelon certified that it had substantially complied with the request. On November 21, 2014, each of Pepco Holdings and Exelon certified that it had substantially complied with the request. Accordingly, the HSR Act waiting period expired on December 22, 2014, and the HSR Act no longer precludes completion of the Merger. Although the DOJ allowed the waiting period under the HSR Act to expire without taking any action with respect to the Merger, the DOJ has not advised Pepco Holdings or Exelon that it has concluded its investigation.
Potomac Electric Power Co [Member]
Regulatory Matters	(6) REGULATORY MATTERS Rate Proceedings As further described in Note (1), “Organization,” on April 29, 2014, PHI entered into the Merger Agreement with Exelon and Merger Sub. Subject to certain exceptions, prior to the Merger or the termination of the Merger Agreement, PHI and its subsidiaries may not, without the consent of Exelon, initiate, file or pursue any rate cases, other than pursuing the conclusion of the pending filings indicated below. Bill Stabilization Adjustment A decoupling mechanism, the bill stabilization adjustment (BSA), was approved and implemented for Pepco electric service in Maryland and in the District of Columbia. Maryland Pepco Electric Distribution Base Rates 2011 Base Rate Proceeding In December 2011, Pepco submitted an application with the MPSC to increase its electric distribution base rates. The filing sought approval of an annual rate increase of approximately $68.4 million (subsequently adjusted by Pepco to approximately $66.2 million), based on a requested return on equity (ROE) of 10.75%. In July 2012, the MPSC issued an order approving an annual rate increase of approximately $18.1 million, based on an ROE of 9.31%. Among other things, the order also authorized Pepco to recover the actual cost of advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) meters installed during the 2011 test year, stating that cost recovery for AMI deployment will be allowed in future rate cases in which Pepco demonstrates that the system is cost effective. The new rates became effective on July 20, 2012. The Maryland Office of People’s Counsel has sought rehearing on the portion of the order allowing Pepco to recover the costs of AMI meters installed during the test year; that motion remains pending. 2012 Base Rate Proceeding – Phase I In November 2012, Pepco submitted an application with the MPSC to increase its electric distribution base rates. The filing sought approval of an annual rate increase of approximately $60.8 million, based on a requested ROE of 10.25%. In July 2013, the MPSC issued an order in this proceeding approving an annual rate increase of approximately $27.9 million, based on an ROE of 9.36%. The order excludes the cost of AMI meters from Pepco’s rate base until such time as Pepco demonstrates the cost effectiveness of the AMI system; as a result, costs for AMI meters incurred with respect to the 2012 test year and beyond will be treated as other incremental AMI costs incurred in conjunction with the deployment of the AMI system that are deferred and on which a carrying charge is deferred, but only until such cost effectiveness has been demonstrated and such costs are included in rates. However, MPSC’s July 2012 order issued in connection with Pepco’s 2011 base rate proceeding, which allowed Pepco to recover the costs of meters installed during the 2011 test year for that case, remains in effect. The July 2013 order also approved a Grid Resiliency Charge, which went into effect on January 1, 2014, for recovery of costs totaling approximately $24.0 million associated with Pepco’s proposed plan to accelerate investments related to certain priority feeders, provided that, before implementing the surcharge, Pepco (i) provides additional information to the MPSC related to performance objectives, milestones and costs, and (ii) makes annual filings with the MPSC thereafter concerning this project, which will permit the MPSC to establish the applicable Grid Resiliency Charge rider for each following year. The MPSC rejected certain other cost recovery mechanisms, including Pepco’s proposed reliability performance-based mechanism. The new rates were effective on July 12, 2013. In July 2013, Pepco filed a notice of appeal of the July 2013 order in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. Other parties also filed notices of appeal, which were consolidated with Pepco’s appeal. In its appeal, Pepco asserted that the MPSC erred in failing to grant Pepco an adequate ROE, denying a number of other cost recovery mechanisms and limiting Pepco’s test year data to no more than four months of forecasted data in future rate cases. The other parties primarily asserted that the MPSC erred or acted arbitrarily and capriciously in allowing the recovery of certain costs by Pepco, in approving the Grid Resiliency Charge, and in refusing to reduce Pepco’s rate base by known and measurable accumulated depreciation. In November 2014, the Circuit Court issued an order reversing the MPSC’s decision on Pepco’s ROE and directing the MPSC to make more specific findings regarding the impact of improved service reliability and the BSA in calculating Pepco’s ROE. On all other issues appealed, the Circuit Court affirmed the MPSC’s July 2013 order. Other parties to this proceeding have filed notices of appeal of the Circuit Court’s decision to the Court of Special Appeals, where the case remains pending. Pepco has elected not to appeal the decision of the Circuit Court. 2013 Base Rate Proceeding – Phase I In December 2013, Pepco submitted an application with the MPSC to increase its electric distribution base rates. The filing sought approval of an annual rate increase of approximately $43.3 million (adjusted by Pepco to approximately $37.4 million on April 15, 2014), based on a requested ROE of 10.25%. The requested rate increase sought to recover expenses associated with Pepco’s ongoing investments in reliability enhancement improvements and efforts to maintain safe and reliable service. In July 2014, the MPSC issued an order approving an annual rate increase of approximately $8.75 million, based on an ROE of 9.62%. The new rates became effective on July 4, 2014. In July 2014, Pepco filed a petition for rehearing seeking reconsideration of the recovery of certain expenses, which the MPSC denied by its order issued in November 2014 (described below). In December 2014, Pepco filed a petition for judicial review of this MPSC order with the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. A hearing was held on May 26, 2015 in this matter, but no decision has been issued. 2012 and 2013 Base Rate Proceedings – Phase II In August 2014, the MPSC issued an order establishing a Phase II proceeding in the 2012 base rate case described above (the 2012 Phase II proceeding) to address the tax implications of Pepco’s net operating loss carryforward (NOLC), which had impacted certain of Pepco’s rate adjustments in the 2012 base rate proceeding. Pepco filed a motion to dismiss the 2012 Phase II proceeding, asserting that the MPSC no longer has jurisdiction over the 2012 base rate case due to appeals having been filed by numerous parties. In September 2014, the MPSC issued an order staying the 2012 Phase II proceeding until further notice. In a similar Phase II proceeding in the 2013 base rate case described above, the MPSC issued an order in November 2014 upholding Pepco’s treatment of the NOLC. Although Pepco believes the November 2014 MPSC order should be dispositive of the issues raised in the 2012 Phase II proceeding, the 2012 Phase II proceeding is expected to remain open until all appeals of the 2012 base rate proceeding are resolved, whereupon the MPSC will have authority to act on Phase II. FERC Transmission ROE Challenges In February 2013, the public service commissions and public advocates of the District of Columbia, Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey, as well as the Delaware Municipal Electric Corporation, Inc. (DEMEC), filed a joint complaint at FERC against Pepco, and its affiliates DPL and Atlantic City Electric Company (ACE), as well as Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE). The complainants challenged the base ROE and the application of the formula rate process associated with the transmission service that the utilities provide. The complainants support an ROE within a zone of reasonableness of 6.78% and 10.33%, and have argued for a base ROE of 8.7%. The base ROE currently authorized by FERC for PHI’s utilities is (i) 11.3% for facilities placed into service after January 1, 2006, and (ii) 10.8% for facilities placed into service prior to 2006. The 10.8% base ROE for facilities placed into service prior to 2006 receives a 50-basis-point incentive adder for being a member of a regional transmission organization. Pepco believes the allegations in this complaint are without merit and is vigorously contesting this complaint. In August 2014, FERC issued an order setting the matters in this proceeding for hearing, but holding the hearing in abeyance pending settlement discussions. The order also (i) directed that the evidence and analysis presented concerning ROE be guided by the new ROE methodology adopted by FERC in another proceeding (discussed below), and (ii) set February 27, 2013 as the refund effective date, should a refund result from this proceeding. After settlement discussions among the parties in this matter reached an impasse, in November 2014, the settlement judge issued an order terminating the settlement discussions. The matter was sent to a hearing judge and a procedural schedule was established for the February 2013 complaint and a second complaint filed by the same parties in December 2014 (discussed below). In June 2014, FERC issued an order in a proceeding in which Pepco was not involved, in which it adopted a new ROE methodology for electric utilities. This new methodology replaces the existing one-step discounted cash flow analysis (which incorporates only short-term growth rates) traditionally used to derive ROE for electric utilities with the two-step discounted cash flow analysis (which incorporates both short-term and long-term measures of growth) used for natural gas and oil pipelines. As a result of the August 2014 FERC order discussed in the preceding paragraph, Pepco applied an estimated ROE based on the two-step methodology announced by FERC for the period over which its transmission revenues would be subject to refund as a result of the challenge, and recorded estimated reserves in the second quarter of 2014 related to this matter. On December 8, 2014, the same parties filed a second complaint against Pepco, DPL, ACE, as well as BGE, regarding the base transmission ROE, seeking a reduction from 10.8% to 8.8%. The filing of the second complaint creates a second refund window. By order issued on February 9, 2015, FERC established a hearing on the second complaint and established a refund effective date of December 8, 2014. Consistent with the prior challenge, Pepco applied an estimated ROE based on the two-step methodology described above, and in the fourth quarter of 2014 and in the first and second quarters of 2015 established reserves for the estimated refund based on the refund effective date of December 8, 2014. On February 20, 2015, the chief judge issued an order consolidating the two complaint proceedings and established an initial decision issuance deadline of February 29, 2016. On March 2, 2015, the presiding administrative law judge issued an order establishing a procedural schedule for the consolidated proceedings that provides for the hearing to commence on October 20, 2015. During the second quarter of 2015, Pepco increased its reserve for the relevant refund periods to reflect its assessment of market conditions, developments in other cases before FERC, litigation risk and other factors that may affect the likely outcome of these consolidated proceedings. To the extent that the final ROE established in these consolidated proceedings is lower than the ROE used to record the estimated reserves with respect to the February 2013 and the December 2014 complaints, each ten basis point reduction in the ROE would result in an increase in required reserves and a reduction of Pepco’s operating income of $1 million. MPSC New Generation Contract Requirement In April 2012, the MPSC issued an order that requires Maryland electric distribution companies (EDCs) Pepco, DPL and BGE (collectively, the Contract EDCs) to negotiate and enter into a contract with the winning bidder of a competitive bidding process to build one new power plant in the range of 650 to 700 megawatts (MWs) beginning in 2015, in amounts proportional to their relative standard offer service (SOS) loads. Under the terms of the order, the winning bidder was to construct a 661 MW natural gas-fired combined cycle generation plant in Waldorf, Maryland, with an originally expected commercial operation date of June 1, 2015 (which is now deferred pending the outcome of the proceedings discussed below), and each of the Contract EDCs will recover its costs associated with the contract through surcharges on its respective SOS customers. In response to a complaint filed by a group of generating companies in the PJM Interconnection, LLC region, in September 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (the Federal District Court) issued a ruling that the MPSC’s April 2012 order violated the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution by attempting to regulate wholesale prices. In contrast, in October 2013, in response to appeals filed by the Contract EDCs and other parties, the Maryland Circuit Court for Baltimore City (the Maryland Circuit Court) upheld the MPSC’s orders requiring the Contract EDCs to enter into the contracts. In October 2013, the Federal District Court issued an order ruling that the contracts are illegal and unenforceable. The Federal District Court order could impact the Maryland Circuit Court appeal, to which the Contract EDCs are parties, although such impact, if any, cannot be determined at this time. The Contract EDCs, the Maryland Office of People’s Counsel and one generating company have appealed the Maryland Circuit Court’s decision to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals. In addition, in November 2013 both the winning bidder and the MPSC appealed the Federal District Court decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which affirmed the lower Federal court ruling. In November 2014, the winning bidder and the MPSC each petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to consider hearing an appeal of the Fourth Circuit decision. The petitions remain pending. Assuming the contracts, as currently written, become effective following the satisfaction of all relevant conditions, including the completion of the proceedings discussed above, Pepco continues to believe that it may be required to record its proportional share of the contracts as derivative instruments at fair value and record related regulatory assets of approximately the same amount because it would recover any payments under the contracts from SOS customers. Pepco has concluded that any accounting for these contracts would not be required until all legal proceedings related to these contracts and the actions of the MPSC in the related proceeding have been resolved. District of Columbia Power Line Undergrounding Initiative In May 2014, the Council of the District of Columbia enacted the Electric Company Infrastructure Improvement Financing Act of 2014 (the Improvement Financing Act), which provides enabling legislation for the District of Columbia Power Line Undergrounding (DC PLUG) initiative. This $1 billion initiative seeks to selectively place underground some of the District of Columbia’s most outage-prone power lines, which lines and surrounding conduit would be owned and maintained by Pepco. The Improvement Financing Act provides that: (i) Pepco is to fund approximately $500 million of the estimated cost to complete the DC PLUG initiative, recovering those costs through a surcharge on the electric bills of Pepco District of Columbia customers; (ii) $375 million of the DC PLUG initiative cost is to be financed by the District of Columbia’s issuance of securitized bonds, which bonds will be repaid through a surcharge on the electric bills of Pepco District of Columbia customers that Pepco will collect on behalf of and remit to the District of Columbia; and (iii) the remaining costs up to $125 million are to be covered by the existing capital projects program of the District of Columbia Department of Transportation (DDOT). Pepco will not earn a return on or a return of the cost of the assets funded with the proceeds of the securitized bonds or assets that are constructed by DDOT under its capital projects program, but ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of such assets will be transferred to Pepco for a nominal amount. In June 2014, Pepco and DDOT filed a Triennial Plan related to the construction of selected underground feeders in the District of Columbia and recovery of Pepco’s investment through a volumetric surcharge (the Triennial Plan), all in accordance with the Improvement Financing Act. In August 2014, Pepco filed an application for the issuance of a financing order to provide for the issuance of the District’s bonds and a volumetric surcharge for the District of Columbia to recover the costs associated with the bond issuance (the DDOT surcharge). In November 2014, the DCPSC issued an order approving the Triennial Plan, including Pepco’s volumetric surcharge, and issued the financing order including approval of the DDOT surcharge. Together these orders permit (i) Pepco and DDOT to commence proposed construction under the Triennial Plan; (ii) the District of Columbia to issue the necessary bonds to fund the District of Columbia’s portion of the DC PLUG initiative; and (iii) the establishment of the customer surcharges contemplated by the Improvement Financing Act. In December 2014, a party to the proceeding sought reconsideration from the DCPSC of both decisions. Final decisions denying both requests for reconsideration were issued by the DCPSC on January 22, 2015 and February 2, 2015, respectively. In December 2014, an entity filed a petition for review with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals disputing the DCPSC’s denial of its motion to intervene. In June 2015, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals heard the case and affirmed the DCPSC’s decision. In March 2015, a party filed with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals a petition for review of the orders approving the Triennial Plan and issuing the financing order. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear the case in October 2015. Separately, in June 2015, an agency of the federal government served by Pepco asserted that the DDOT surcharge constitutes a tax on end users from which the federal government is immune. This assertion is currently under review. Merger Approval Proceedings District of Columbia On June 18, 2014, Exelon, PHI and Pepco, and certain of their respective affiliates, filed an application with the DCPSC seeking approval of the Merger. To approve the Merger, the DCPSC must find that the Merger is in the public interest. In an order issued August 22, 2014, the DCPSC stated that to make the determination of whether the transaction is in the public interest, it will analyze the transaction in the context of seven factors to determine whether the transaction balances the interests of shareholders and investors with ratepayers and the community, whether the benefits to shareholders do or do not come at the expense of the ratepayers, and whether the transaction produces a direct and tangible benefit to ratepayers. The seven factors identified by the DCPSC are the effects of the transaction on: (i) ratepayers, shareholders, the financial health of the utility standing alone and as merged, and the local economy; (ii) utility management and administrative operations; (iii) the public safety and the safety and reliability of services; (iv) risks associated with all of the affiliated non-jurisdictional business operations, including nuclear operations, of the applicants; (v) the DCPSC’s ability to regulate the utility effectively following the Merger; (vi) competition in the local retail and wholesale markets that impacts the District and District ratepayers; and (vii) conservation of natural resources and preservation of environmental quality. District of Columbia law does not impose any time limit on the DCPSC’s review of the Merger. The DCPSC held evidentiary hearings in March and April of 2015, the record was closed on May 27, 2015 and a decision of the DCPSC remains pending. Maryland On August 19, 2014, the Joint Applicants, filed an application with the MPSC seeking approval of the Merger. Maryland law requires the MPSC to approve a merger subject to its review if it finds that the merger is consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity, including its benefits to and impact on consumers. Evidentiary hearings were held beginning on January 26, 2015. On March 10, 2015, the Joint Applicants filed with the MPSC a settlement agreement entered into with The Alliance for Solar Choice, which is one of the stakeholder groups participating in the MPSC approval proceeding. On March 16, 2015, the Joint Applicants filed with the MPSC a settlement agreement entered into with Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties in Maryland, and a number of other parties, including the National Housing Trust, the National Consumer Law Center, other organizations representing low and moderate income interests and a consortium of nine recreational trail advocacy organizations. On May 15, 2015, the MPSC approved the Merger, with conditions, including conditions that modify and supplement those originally proposed. On May 18, 2015, Pepco Holdings and Exelon announced that they had completed their review of the MPSC’s order approving the Merger and have committed to fulfill the modified, more stringent conditions and package of customer benefits imposed by the MPSC. Multiple parties have filed petitions for judicial review of the MPSC order by the Circuit Court of Queen Anne’s County, Maryland, seeking to appeal the MPSC order. Pepco Holdings intends to vigorously contest any appeal of the MPSC order. On July 21, 2015, the Maryland Office of People’s Counsel filed a motion in the Circuit Court for Queen Anne’s County, Maryland, requesting a stay of the MPSC order and to conduct additional discovery and present additional evidence (the Motion) in light of an alleged conflict of interest on the part of a former MPSC Commissioner. PHI believes the Motion is without merit and intends to vigorously oppose it and any other attempts to impede the effectiveness of the MPSC order or delay the closing of the Merger. Virginia On June 3, 2014, Exelon, PHI, Pepco and DPL, and certain of their respective affiliates, filed an application with the VSCC seeking approval of the Merger. Virginia law provides that, if the VSCC determines, with or without hearing, that adequate service to the public at just and reasonable rates will not be impaired or jeopardized by granting the application for approval, then the VSCC shall approve a merger with such conditions that the VSCC deems to be appropriate in order to satisfy this standard. On October 7, 2014, the VSCC issued an order approving the Merger. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission On May 30, 2014, Exelon, PHI, Pepco, DPL and ACE, and certain of their respective affiliates, submitted to FERC a Joint Application for Authorization of Disposition of Jurisdictional Assets and Merger under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act (FPA). Under that section, FERC shall approve a merger if it finds that the proposed transaction will be consistent with the public interest. On November 20, 2014, FERC issued an order approving the Merger.
Delmarva Power & Light Co/De [Member]
Regulatory Matters	(7) REGULATORY MATTERS Rate Proceedings As further described in Note (1), “Organization,” on April 29, 2014, PHI entered into the Merger Agreement with Exelon and Merger Sub. Subject to certain exceptions, prior to the Merger or the termination of the Merger Agreement, PHI and its subsidiaries may not, without the consent of Exelon, initiate, file or pursue any rate cases, other than pursuing the conclusion of the pending filings indicated below. Bill Stabilization Adjustment A decoupling mechanism, the bill stabilization adjustment, was approved and implemented for DPL electric service in Maryland. DPL’s decoupling proposal in Delaware has not to date been adopted. Delaware Electric Distribution Base Rates In March 2013, DPL submitted an application with the DPSC to increase its electric distribution base rates. The application sought approval of an annual rate increase of approximately $42 million (adjusted by DPL to approximately $39 million on September 20, 2013), based on a requested return on equity (ROE) of 10.25%. The requested rate increase sought to recover expenses associated with DPL’s ongoing investments in reliability enhancement improvements and efforts to maintain safe and reliable service. In August 2014, the DPSC issued a final order in this proceeding providing for an annual increase in DPL’s electric distribution base rates of approximately $15.1 million, based on an ROE of 9.70%. The new rates became effective on May 1, 2014. In September 2014, DPL filed an appeal with the Delaware Superior Court of the DPSC’s August 2014 order in this proceeding, seeking the court’s review of the DPSC’s decision relating to the recovery of costs associated with one component of employee compensation, certain retirement benefits and recovery of credit facility expenses. The Division of the Public Advocate filed a cross-appeal in September 2014, pertaining to the treatment of a prepaid pension expense and other postretirement benefit obligations in base rates. Under the settlement agreement related to the Merger described below in “Merger Approval Proceedings – Delaware,” the parties agreed to suspend the appeal and, if the Merger is completed, DPL and the Division of the Public Advocate have agreed to withdraw the appeal and the cross-appeal with prejudice. Forward Looking Rate Plan In October 2013, DPL filed a multi-year rate plan, referred to as the Forward Looking Rate Plan (FLRP). As proposed, the FLRP would provide for annual electric distribution base rate increases over a four-year period in the aggregate amount of approximately $56 million. The FLRP as proposed provides the opportunity to achieve estimated earned ROEs of 7.41% and 8.80% in years one and two, respectively, and 9.75% in both years three and four of the plan. In addition, DPL proposed that as part of the FLRP, in order to provide a higher minimum required standard of reliability for DPL’s customers than that to which DPL is currently subject, the standards by which DPL’s reliability is measured would be made more stringent in each year of the FLRP. DPL has also offered to refund an aggregate of $500,000 to customers in each year of the FLRP that it fails to meet the proposed stricter minimum reliability standards. In October 2013, the DPSC opened a docket for the purpose of reviewing the details of the FLRP, but stated that it would not address the FLRP until the electric distribution base rate case discussed above was concluded. A schedule for the FLRP docket has not yet been established. Under the Merger Agreement, DPL is permitted to pursue this matter; however, under the settlement agreement related to the Merger described below in “Merger Approval Proceedings – Delaware,” DPL agreed to withdraw the FLRP without prejudice if the Merger is completed, subject to the right to make future filings with the DPSC proposing alternative regulatory methodologies that could include, but are not limited to, a multi-year rate plan. Gas Cost Rates DPL makes an annual Gas Cost Rate (GCR) filing with the DPSC for the purpose of allowing DPL to recover natural gas procurement costs through customer rates. In August 2014, DPL made its 2014 GCR filing in which it proposed a GCR decrease of approximately 7.4%. In September 2014, the DPSC issued an order authorizing DPL to place the new rates into effect on November 1, 2014, subject to refund and pending final DPSC approval. FERC Transmission ROE Challenges In February 2013, the public service commissions and public advocates of the District of Columbia, Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey, as well as the Delaware Municipal Electric Corporation, Inc. (DEMEC), filed a joint complaint at FERC against Pepco, DPL and Atlantic City Electric Company (ACE), as well as Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE). The complainants challenged the base ROE and the application of the formula rate process associated with the transmission service that the utilities provide. The complainants support an ROE within a zone of reasonableness of 6.78% and 10.33%, and have argued for a base ROE of 8.7%. The base ROE currently authorized by FERC for PHI’s utilities is (i) 11.3% for facilities placed into service after January 1, 2006, and (ii) 10.8% for facilities placed into service prior to 2006. The 10.8% base ROE for facilities placed into service prior to 2006 receives a 50-basis-point incentive adder for being a member of a regional transmission organization. DPL believes the allegations in this complaint are without merit and is vigorously contesting this complaint. In August 2014, FERC issued an order setting the matters in this proceeding for hearing, but holding the hearing in abeyance pending settlement discussions. The order also (i) directed that the evidence and analysis presented concerning ROE be guided by the new ROE methodology adopted by FERC in another proceeding (discussed below), and (ii) set February 27, 2013 as the refund effective date, should a refund result from this proceeding. After settlement discussions among the parties in this matter reached an impasse, in November 2014, the settlement judge issued an order terminating the settlement discussions. The matter was sent to a hearing judge and a procedural schedule was established for the February 2013 complaint and a second complaint filed by the same parties in December 2014 (discussed below). In June 2014, FERC issued an order in a proceeding in which DPL was not involved, in which it adopted a new ROE methodology for electric utilities. This new methodology replaces the existing one-step discounted cash flow analysis (which incorporates only short-term growth rates) traditionally used to derive ROE for electric utilities with the two-step discounted cash flow analysis (which incorporates both short-term and long-term measures of growth) used for natural gas and oil pipelines. As a result of the August 2014 FERC order discussed in the preceding paragraph, DPL applied an estimated ROE based on the two-step methodology announced by FERC for the period over which its transmission revenues would be subject to refund as a result of the challenge, and recorded estimated reserves in the second quarter of 2014 related to this matter. On December 8, 2014, the same parties filed a second complaint against Pepco, DPL, ACE, as well as BGE, regarding the base transmission ROE, seeking a reduction from 10.8% to 8.8%. The filing of the second complaint creates a second refund window. By order issued on February 9, 2015, FERC established a hearing on the second complaint and established a refund effective date of December 8, 2014. Consistent with the prior challenge, DPL applied an estimated ROE based on the two-step methodology described above, and in the fourth quarter of 2014 and in the first and second quarters of 2015 established reserves for the estimated refund based on the refund effective date of December 8, 2014. On February 20, 2015, the chief judge issued an order consolidating the two complaint proceedings and established an initial decision issuance deadline of February 29, 2016. On March 2, 2015, the presiding administrative law judge issued an order establishing a procedural schedule for the consolidated proceedings that provides for the hearing to commence on October 20, 2015. During the second quarter of 2015, DPL increased its reserve for the relevant refund periods to reflect its assessment of market conditions, developments in other cases before FERC, litigation risk and other factors that may affect the likely outcome of these consolidated proceedings. To the extent that the final ROE established in these consolidated proceedings is lower than the ROE used to record the estimated reserves with respect to the February 2013 and the December 2014 complaints, each ten basis point reduction in the ROE would result in an increase in required reserves and a reduction of DPL’s operating income of $0.8 million. MPSC New Generation Contract Requirement In April 2012, the MPSC issued an order that requires Maryland electric distribution companies (EDCs) Pepco, DPL and BGE (collectively, the Contract EDCs) to negotiate and enter into a contract with the winning bidder of a competitive bidding process to build one new power plant in the range of 650 to 700 megawatts (MWs) beginning in 2015, in amounts proportional to their relative standard offer service (SOS) loads. Under the terms of the order, the winning bidder was to construct a 661 MW natural gas-fired combined cycle generation plant in Waldorf, Maryland, with an originally expected commercial operation date of June 1, 2015 (which is now deferred pending the outcome of the proceedings discussed below), and each of the Contract EDCs will recover its costs associated with the contract through surcharges on its respective SOS customers. In response to a complaint filed by a group of generating companies in the PJM Interconnection, LLC region, in September 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (the Federal District Court) issued a ruling that the MPSC’s April 2012 order violated the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution by attempting to regulate wholesale prices. In contrast, in October 2013, in response to appeals filed by the Contract EDCs and other parties, the Maryland Circuit Court for Baltimore City (the Maryland Circuit Court) upheld the MPSC’s orders requiring the Contract EDCs to enter into the contracts. In October 2013, the Federal District Court issued an order ruling that the contracts are illegal and unenforceable. The Federal District Court order could impact the Maryland Circuit Court appeal, to which the Contract EDCs are parties, although such impact, if any, cannot be determined at this time. The Contract EDCs, the Maryland Office of People’s Counsel and one generating company have appealed the Maryland Circuit Court’s decision to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals. In addition, in November 2013 both the winning bidder and the MPSC appealed the Federal District Court decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which affirmed the lower Federal court ruling. In November 2014, the winning bidder and the MPSC each petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to consider hearing an appeal of the Fourth Circuit decision. The petitions remain pending. Assuming the contracts, as currently written, become effective following the satisfaction of all relevant conditions, including the completion of the proceedings discussed above, DPL continues to believe that it may be required to record its proportional share of the contracts as derivative instruments at fair value and record related regulatory assets of approximately the same amount because it would recover any payments under the contracts from SOS customers. DPL has concluded that any accounting for these contracts would not be required until all legal proceedings related to these contracts and the actions of the MPSC in the related proceeding have been resolved. Merger Approval Proceedings Delaware On June 18, 2014, Exelon, PHI and DPL, and certain of their respective affiliates, filed an application with the DPSC seeking approval of the Merger. Delaware law requires the DPSC to approve the Merger when it determines that the transaction is in accordance with law, for a proper purpose, and is consistent with the public interest. The DPSC must further find that the successor will continue to provide safe and reliable service, will not terminate or impair existing collective bargaining agreements and will engage in good faith bargaining with organized labor. On February 13, 2015, Exelon, DPL, the DPSC staff, the Division of the Public Advocate and certain other parties filed a settlement agreement with the DPSC, which was amended in April 2015. The DPSC approved the amended settlement agreement at its meeting held on May 19, 2015, memorializing this decision by written order issued on June 2, 2015. The specific grounds for the DPSC’s approval of the Merger, as well as the specific conditions, will be included in a subsequent order to be issued by the DPSC. Maryland On August 19, 2014, the Joint Applicants, filed an application with the MPSC seeking approval of the Merger. Maryland law requires the MPSC to approve a merger subject to its review if it finds that the merger is consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity, including its benefits to and impact on consumers. Evidentiary hearings were held beginning on January 26, 2015. On March 10, 2015, the Joint Applicants filed with the MPSC a settlement agreement entered into with The Alliance for Solar Choice, which is one of the stakeholder groups participating in the MPSC approval proceeding. On March 16, 2015, the Joint Applicants filed with the MPSC a settlement agreement entered into with Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties in Maryland, and a number of other parties, including the National Housing Trust, the National Consumer Law Center, other organizations representing low and moderate income interests and a consortium of nine recreational trail advocacy organizations. On May 15, 2015, the MPSC approved the Merger, with conditions, including conditions that modify and supplement those originally proposed. On May 18, 2015, Pepco Holdings and Exelon announced that they had completed their review of the MPSC’s order approving the Merger and have committed to fulfill the modified, more stringent conditions and package of customer benefits imposed by the MPSC. Multiple parties have filed petitions for judicial review of the MPSC order by the Circuit Court of Queen Anne’s County, Maryland, seeking to appeal the MPSC order. Pepco Holdings intends to vigorously contest any appeal of the MPSC order. On July 21, 2015, the Maryland Office of People’s Counsel filed a motion in the Circuit Court for Queen Anne’s County, Maryland, requesting a stay of the MPSC order and to conduct additional discovery and present additional evidence (the Motion) in light of an alleged conflict of interest on the part of a former MPSC Commissioner. PHI believes the Motion is without merit and intends to vigorously oppose it and any other attempts to impede the effectiveness of the MPSC order or delay the closing of the Merger. Virginia On June 3, 2014, Exelon, PHI, Pepco and DPL, and certain of their respective affiliates, filed an application with the VSCC seeking approval of the Merger. Virginia law provides that, if the VSCC determines, with or without hearing, that adequate service to the public at just and reasonable rates will not be impaired or jeopardized by granting the application for approval, then the VSCC shall approve a merger with such conditions that the VSCC deems to be appropriate in order to satisfy this standard. On October 7, 2014, the VSCC issued an order approving the Merger. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission On May 30, 2014, Exelon, PHI, Pepco, DPL and ACE, and certain of their respective affiliates, submitted to FERC a Joint Application for Authorization of Disposition of Jurisdictional Assets and Merger under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act (FPA). Under that section, FERC shall approve a merger if it finds that the proposed transaction will be consistent with the public interest. On November 20, 2014, FERC issued an order approving the Merger.
Atlantic City Electric Co [Member]
Regulatory Matters	(6) REGULATORY MATTERS Rate Proceedings As further described in Note (1), “Organization,” on April 29, 2014, PHI entered into the Merger Agreement with Exelon and Merger Sub. Subject to certain exceptions, prior to the Merger or the termination of the Merger Agreement, PHI and its subsidiaries may not, without the consent of Exelon, initiate, file or pursue any rate cases, other than pursuing the conclusion of the pending filings indicated below. Bill Stabilization Adjustment Although ACE proposed the adoption of a mechanism to decouple retail distribution revenue from the amount of power delivered to retail customers, this decoupling proposal has not to date been adopted. New Jersey Update and Reconciliation of Certain Under-Recovered Balances In March 2015, ACE submitted its 2015 annual petition with the NJBPU seeking to reconcile and update (i) charges related to the recovery of above-market costs associated with ACE’s long-term power purchase contracts with the non-utility generators (NUGs), and (ii) costs related to surcharges for the New Jersey Societal Benefit Program (a statewide public interest program that is intended to benefit low income customers and address other public policy goals) and for ACE’s uncollected accounts. As filed, the net impact of the proposed changes would have been an annual rate increase of approximately $52.0 million (revised to an increase of approximately $33.9 million on April 17, 2015, based upon updates for actual data through March 31, 2015). On May 19, 2015, the NJBPU approved a stipulation of settlement entered into by the parties providing for an overall annual rate increase of $33.9 million. The rate increase, which went into effect on June 1, 2015, will have no effect on ACE’s operating income and was placed into effect provisionally, subject to a review by the NJBPU and the Division of Rate Counsel of the final underlying costs for reasonableness and prudence. Service Extension Contributions Refund Order In July 2013, in compliance with a 2012 Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division (Appellate Division) court decision, the NJBPU released an order requiring utilities to issue refunds to persons or entities that paid non-refundable contributions for utility service extensions to certain areas described as “Areas Not Designated for Growth.” The order is limited to eligible contributions paid between March 20, 2005 and December 20, 2009. ACE is processing the refund requests that meet the eligibility criteria established in the order as they are received. Although ACE estimates that it received approximately $11 million of contributions between March 20, 2005 and December 20, 2009, it is currently unable to reasonably estimate the amount that it may be required to refund using the eligibility criteria established by the order. Since the July 2013 order was released, ACE has paid less than $1 million in refund claims, the validity of each of which is investigated by ACE prior to making any such refunds. In September 2014, the NJBPU commenced a rulemaking proceeding to further implement the directives of the Appellate Division decision and, in December 2014, published a rule proposal for comment. The changes proposed by the NJBPU remove provisions distinguishing between growth areas and not-for-growth areas and provide formulae for allocating extension costs. ACE has been an active participant in the rulemaking proceeding. Final rules have not yet been promulgated by the NJBPU. At this time, ACE does not expect the amount it is ultimately required to refund will have a material effect on its consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows, as the amount refunded will generally increase the value of ACE’s property, plant and equipment and may ultimately be recovered through depreciation expense and cost of service in future electric distribution base rate cases. Generic Consolidated Tax Adjustment Proceeding In January 2013, the NJBPU initiated a generic proceeding to examine whether a consolidated tax adjustment (CTA) should continue to be used, and if so, how it should be calculated in determining a utility’s cost of service. Under the NJBPU’s current policy, when a New Jersey utility is included in a consolidated group income tax return, an allocated amount of any reduction in the consolidated group’s taxes as a result of losses by affiliates is used to reduce the utility’s rate base, upon which the utility earns a return. This policy has negatively impacted ACE’s electric distribution base rate case outcomes and ACE’s position is that the CTA should be eliminated. In an order issued in October 2014, the NJBPU determined that it is appropriate for affected consolidated groups to continue to include a CTA in New Jersey base rate filings, but that the CTA calculation will be modified to limit the look-back period for the calculation to five years, exclude transmission assets from the calculation and allocate 25 percent of the final CTA amount as a reduction to the distribution revenue requirement. With this revised methodology, ACE anticipates that the negative effects of the CTA in future base rate cases would be significantly reduced. In November 2014, the New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel filed an appeal of the NJBPU’s CTA order in the Appellate Division. This appeal remains pending. FERC Transmission ROE Challenges In February 2013, the public service commissions and public advocates of the District of Columbia, Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey, as well as the Delaware Municipal Electric Corporation, Inc. (DEMEC), filed a joint complaint at FERC against Pepco, DPL and ACE, as well as Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE). The complainants challenged the base return on equity (ROE) and the application of the formula rate process associated with the transmission service that the utilities provide. The complainants support an ROE within a zone of reasonableness of 6.78% and 10.33%, and have argued for a base ROE of 8.7%. The base ROE currently authorized by FERC for PHI’s utilities is (i) 11.3% for facilities placed into service after January 1, 2006, and (ii) 10.8% for facilities placed into service prior to 2006. The 10.8% base ROE for facilities placed into service prior to 2006 receives a 50-basis-point incentive adder for being a member of a regional transmission organization. ACE believes the allegations in this complaint are without merit and is vigorously contesting this complaint. In August 2014, FERC issued an order setting the matters in this proceeding for hearing, but holding the hearing in abeyance pending settlement discussions. The order also (i) directed that the evidence and analysis presented concerning ROE be guided by the new ROE methodology adopted by FERC in another proceeding (discussed below), and (ii) set February 27, 2013 as the refund effective date, should a refund result from this proceeding. After settlement discussions among the parties in this matter reached an impasse, in November 2014, the settlement judge issued an order terminating the settlement discussions. The matter was sent to a hearing judge and a procedural schedule was established for the February 2013 complaint and a second complaint filed by the same parties in December 2014 (discussed below). In June 2014, FERC issued an order in a proceeding in which ACE was not involved, in which it adopted a new ROE methodology for electric utilities. This new methodology replaces the existing one-step discounted cash flow analysis (which incorporates only short-term growth rates) traditionally used to derive ROE for electric utilities with the two-step discounted cash flow analysis (which incorporates both short-term and long-term measures of growth) used for natural gas and oil pipelines. As a result of the August 2014 FERC order discussed in the preceding paragraph, ACE applied an estimated ROE based on the two-step methodology announced by FERC for the period over which its transmission revenues would be subject to refund as a result of the challenge, and recorded estimated reserves in the second quarter of 2014 related to this matter. On December 8, 2014, the same parties filed a second complaint against Pepco, DPL, ACE, as well as BGE, regarding the base transmission ROE, seeking a reduction from 10.8% to 8.8%. The filing of the second complaint creates a second refund window. By order issued on February 9, 2015, FERC established a hearing on the second complaint and established a refund effective date of December 8, 2014. Consistent with the prior challenge, Pepco, DPL and ACE applied an estimated ROE based on the two-step methodology described above, and in the fourth quarter of 2014 and in the first and second quarters of 2015 established reserves for the estimated refund based on the refund effective date of December 8, 2014. On February 20, 2015, the chief judge issued an order consolidating the two complaint proceedings and established an initial decision issuance deadline of February 29, 2016. On March 2, 2015, the presiding administrative law judge issued an order establishing a procedural schedule for the consolidated proceedings that provides for the hearing to commence on October 20, 2015. During the second quarter of 2015, ACE increased its reserve for the relevant refund periods to reflect its assessment of market conditions, developments in other cases before FERC, litigation risk and other factors that may affect the likely outcome of these consolidated proceedings. To the extent that the final ROE established in these consolidated proceedings is lower than the ROE used to record the estimated reserves with respect to the February 2013 and the December 2014 complaints, each ten basis point reduction in the ROE would result in an increase in required reserves and a reduction of ACE’s operating income of $0.6 million. ACE Standard Offer Capacity Agreements In April 2011, ACE entered into three Standard Offer Capacity Agreements (SOCAs) by order of the NJBPU, each with a different generation company. ACE entered into the SOCAs under protest, as did the other electric distribution companies (EDCs) in New Jersey, arguing that the EDCs were denied due process and that the SOCAs violated certain of the requirements of the New Jersey law under which the SOCAs were established (the NJ SOCA Law). In October 2013, in light of the decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey described below, the state appeals of the NJBPU implementation orders filed by the EDCs and generators were dismissed without prejudice, subject to the parties exercising their appellate rights in the Federal courts. In February 2011, ACE joined other plaintiffs in an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey challenging the NJ SOCA Law on the grounds that it violates the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In October 2013, the Federal district court issued a ruling that the NJ SOCA Law is preempted by the Federal Power Act (FPA) and violates the Supremacy Clause, and is therefore null and void. In October 2013, the Federal district court issued an order ruling that the SOCAs are void, invalid and unenforceable, which order was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in September 2014. In November 2014 and December 2014, respectively, one of the generation companies and the NJBPU petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to consider hearing an appeal of the Third Circuit decision. The petitions remain pending. ACE terminated one of the three SOCAs effective July 1, 2013 due to an event of default of the generation company that was a party to the SOCA. ACE terminated the remaining two SOCAs effective November 19, 2013, in response to the October 2013 Federal district court decision. In response to the October 2013 Federal district court order, ACE derecognized both the derivative assets (liabilities) for the estimated fair value of the SOCAs and the related regulatory liabilities (assets) in the fourth quarter of 2013. Merger Approval Proceedings New Jersey On June 18, 2014, Exelon, PHI and ACE, and certain of their respective affiliates, filed a petition with the NJBPU seeking approval of the Merger. To approve the Merger, the NJBPU must find the Merger is in the public interest, and consider the impact of the Merger on (i) competition, (ii) rates of ratepayers affected by the Merger, (iii) ACE’s employees, and (iv) the provision of safe and reliable service at just and reasonable rates. On January 14, 2015, PHI, ACE, Exelon, certain of Exelon’s affiliates, the Staff of the NJBPU, and the Independent Energy Producers of New Jersey filed a stipulation of settlement (the Stipulation) with the NJBPU in this proceeding. On February 11, 2015, the NJBPU approved the Stipulation and the Merger and on March 6, 2015, the NJBPU issued a written order approving the Stipulation. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission On May 30, 2014, Exelon, PHI, Pepco, DPL and ACE, and certain of their respective affiliates, submitted to FERC a Joint Application for Authorization of Disposition of Jurisdictional Assets and Merger under Section 203 of the FPA. Under that section, FERC shall approve a merger if it finds that the proposed transaction will be consistent with the public interest. On November 20, 2014, FERC issued an order approving the Merger.