3. Regulatory Matters (All Registrants)

The following matters below discuss the current status of material regulatory and legislative proceedings of the Registrants.

Illinois Regulatory Matters

Energy Infrastructure Modernization Act (Exelon and ComEd).

Background

Since 2011, ComEd’s electric distribution rates are established through a performance-based formula rate, pursuant to EIMA. EIMA also provides a structure for substantial capital investment by utilities to modernize Illinois’ electric utility infrastructure.

Participating utilities are required to file an annual update to the performance-based formula rate on or before May 1, with resulting rates effective in January of the following year. This annual electric distribution formula rate update is based on prior year actual costs and current year projected capital additions (initial revenue requirement). The update also reconciles any differences between the revenue requirement in effect for the prior year and actual costs incurred for that year (annual reconciliation). See Annual Electric Distribution Filings below for further details. Throughout each year, ComEd records regulatory assets or regulatory liabilities and corresponding increases or decreases to Operating revenues for any differences between the revenue requirement in effect and ComEd’s best estimate of the revenue requirement expected to be approved by the ICC for that year’s reconciliation. As of December 31, 2016, and December 31, 2015, ComEd had a regulatory asset associated with the electric distribution formula rate of $188 million and $189 million, respectively. The regulatory asset associated with electric distribution formula rate is amortized to Operating revenues in ComEd's Consolidated Statement of Operations and Comprehensive Income as the associated amounts are recovered through rates.

Participating utilities are also required to file an annual update on their AMI implementation progress. On April 1, 2016, ComEd filed an annual progress report on its AMI Implementation Plan with the ICC, which allows for the installation of more than four million smart meters throughout ComEd's service territory through 2018. To date, approximately three million smart meters have been installed in the Chicago area.

Pursuant to EIMA, ComEd annually contributes $4 million for customer education for as long as the AMI Deployment Plan remains in effect. Additionally, ComEd contributed $10 million annually through 2016 to fund customer assistance programs for low-income customers, which are not recoverable through rates.

Annual Electric Distribution Filings

For each of the following years, the ICC approved the following total increases/(decreases) in ComEd's electric distributions formula rate filings:



Annual Electric Distribution Filings	2016				2015				2014
ComEd's requested total revenue requirement increase (decrease)	$	138			$	(50	)		$	269

Final ICC Order
Initial revenue requirement increase	$	134			$	85			$	160
Annual reconciliation (decrease) increase	(7		)		(152		)		72
Total revenue requirement increase (decrease)	$	127		^(a)	$	(67	)		$	232

Allowed Return on Rate Base:
Initial revenue requirement	6.71		%		7.05		%		7.06		%
Annual reconciliation	6.69		%		7.02		%		7.04		%
Allowed ROE:
Initial revenue requirement	8.64		%		9.14		%		9.25		%
Annual reconciliation	8.59		%	^(b)	9.09		%	^(b)	9.20		%	^(b)

Effective date of rates	January 2017				January 2016				January 2015

__________________

(a) On December 20, 2016, the ICC granted ComEd's and other parties' joint application for rehearing on the impact that changing ComEd’s OSHA recordable rate for 2014 and 2015 has on the revenue requirement approved in this order. ComEd has proposed that the 2016 total electric distribution revenue requirement be reduced by $18 million which would be refunded to customers in 2017.

(b) Includes a reduction of 5 basis points for a reliability performance metric penalty.

Illinois Future Energy Jobs Act (Exelon, Generation, and ComEd).

Background

On December 7, 2016, FEJA was signed into law by the Governor of Illinois. FEJA is effective June 1, 2017, and includes, among other provisions, (1) a ZES providing compensation for certain nuclear-powered generating facilities, (2) an extension of and certain adjustments to ComEd’s electric distribution formula rate, (3) new cumulative persisting annual energy efficiency MWh savings goals for ComEd, (4) revisions to the Illinois RPS requirements, (5) provisions for adjustments to or termination of FEJA programs if the average impact on ComEd’s customer rates exceeds specified limits, (6) revisions to the existing net metering statute to (i) mandate net metering for community generation projects, and establish billing procedures for subscribers to those projects, (ii) provide immediately for netting at the energy-only rate for nonresidential customers, and (iii) transition from netting at the full retail rate to the energy-only rate for certain residential net metering customers once the net meter customer load equals 5% of total peak demand supplied in the previous year and (7) support for low income rooftop and community solar programs.

Zero Emission Standard

FEJA includes a ZES that provides compensation through the procurement of ZECs targeted at preserving the environmental attributes of zero-emissions nuclear-powered generating facilities that meet specific eligibility criteria. ZES will have a 10-year duration extending through May 31, 2027. Eligible generators may participate in a procurement event overseen by the Illinois Power Agency and selected generators will directly contract with Illinois utilities for the procurement of the ZECs based upon the number of MWh produced by the eligible facilities, subject to specified annual caps. The ZEC price will be based upon the current social cost of carbon as determined by the federal government and is initially established at $16.50 per MWh of production, subject to future adjustments based on specified escalation and pricing adjustment mechanisms designed to lower the ZEC price based on increases in underlying energy and capacity prices.

Illinois utilities, including ComEd, will be required to purchase from eligible nuclear facilities an amount of ZECs equivalent to 16% of the actual amount of electricity delivered in 2014. ComEd will recover all costs associated with purchasing ZECs through a new rate rider, which will provide for an annual reconciliation and true-up to actual costs incurred by ComEd to purchase ZECs, with any difference to be credited to or collected from ComEd’s retail customers in subsequent periods.

See Note 9 - Early Nuclear Plant Retirements for the impacts of the provisions above on Generation’s Consolidated Balance Sheets and Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income. The provisions do not impact ComEd’s Consolidated Balance Sheets, Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income or Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows until 2017.

ComEd Electric Distribution Rates

FEJA extends the sunset date for ComEd’s performance-based electric distribution formula rate from 2019 to the end of 2022, allows ComEd to revise the electric distribution formula rate to eliminate the ROE collar, and allows ComEd to implement a decoupling tariff if the electric distribution formula rate is terminated at any time. ComEd will revise its electric distribution formula rate to eliminate the ROE collar, which will eliminate any unfavorable or favorable impacts of weather or load from ComEd’s electric distribution formula rate revenues beginning with the reconciliation filed in 2018 for the 2017 calendar year. ComEd will begin reflecting the impacts of this change in its electric distribution services costs regulatory asset or liability beginning in 2017.

FEJA requires ComEd to make non-recoverable contributions to low income energy assistance programs of $10 million per year for 5 years as long as the electric distribution formula rate remains in effect. With the exception of these contributions, ComEd will recover from customers, subject to certain caps explained below, the costs it incurs pursuant to FEJA either through its electric distribution formula rate or other recovery mechanisms.

Energy Efficiency

Existing Illinois law requires ComEd to implement cost-effective energy efficiency measures and, for a 10-year period ending May 31, 2018, cost-effective demand response measures to reduce peak demand by 0.1% over the prior year for eligible retail customers.

Beginning January 1, 2018, FEJA provides for new cumulative annual energy efficiency MWh savings goals for ComEd, which are designed to achieve 21.5% of cumulative persisting annual MWh savings by 2030, as compared to the deemed baseline of 88 million MWhs of electric power and energy sales. FEJA, deems the cumulative persisting annual MWh savings to be 6.6% from 2012 through the end of 2017. ComEd expects to spend approximately $250 million to $400 million annually from 2017 through 2030 to achieve these energy efficiency MWh savings goals. In addition, FEJA extends the peak demand reduction requirement from 2018 to 2026. Because the new requirements apply beginning in 2018, FEJA extends the existing energy efficiency plans, which were due to end on May 31, 2017, through December 31, 2017. FEJA also exempts customers with demands over 10 MW from energy efficiency plans and requirements beginning June 1, 2017.

FEJA allows ComEd to cancel its existing energy efficiency rate rider and replace it with an energy efficiency formula rate, and to defer energy efficiency costs (except for any voltage optimization costs which will be recovered through the electric distribution formula rate) as a separate regulatory asset that will be recovered through the energy efficiency formula rate over the weighted average useful life, as approved by the ICC, of the related energy efficiency measures. ComEd will earn a return on the energy efficiency regulatory asset at a rate equal to its weighted average cost of capital, which is based on a year-end capital structure and calculated using the same methodology applicable to ComEd’s electric distribution formula rate. Through December 31, 2030, the return on equity that ComEd earns on its energy efficiency regulatory asset is subject to a maximum downward or upward adjustment of 200 basis points if ComEd’s cumulative persisting annual MWh savings falls short of or exceeds specified percentage benchmarks of its annual incremental savings goal. ComEd will be required to file an update to its energy efficiency formula rate on or before June 1 each year, with resulting rates effective in January of the following year. The annual update will be based on projected current year energy efficiency costs and the related projected year-end regulatory asset balance less any related deferred taxes. The update will also include a reconciliation of any differences between the revenue requirement in effect for the prior year and the revenue requirement based on actual prior year costs and year-end energy efficiency regulatory asset balances less any related deferred taxes.

ComEd expects to cancel its existing energy efficiency rider, at which time it must perform a reconciliation of revenues and costs incurred through the cancellation date and issue a one-time credit on retail customers' bills for any over-recoveries. As of December 31, 2016, ComEd’s over-recoveries associated with its existing energy efficiency rider of $141 million were reflected in Current regulatory liabilities on Exelon’s and ComEd’s Consolidated Balance Sheets. As a result, ComEd expects to provide credits to customers in 2017 to address this over-recovery.

Renewable Portfolio Standard

Existing Illinois law requires ComEd to purchase each year an increasing percentage of renewable energy resources for the customers for which it supplies electricity. This obligation is satisfied through the procurement of renewable energy credits (RECs). FEJA revises the Illinois RPS to require ComEd to procure RECs for all retail customers by June 2019, regardless of the customers’ electricity supplier, and provides support for low-income rooftop and community solar programs, which will be funded by the existing Renewable Energy Resources Fund and ongoing RPS collections. ComEd will recover all costs associated with purchasing RECs through rate riders, which will provide for a reconciliation and true-up to actual costs, with any difference between revenues and expenses to be credited to or collected from ComEd’s retail customers in subsequent periods. The first reconciliation and true-up for RECs will cover revenues and costs for the four year period beginning June 1, 2017 through May 31, 2021. Subsequently, the RPS rate rider will provide for an annual reconciliation and true-up.

Customer Rate Increase Limitations

FEJA includes provisions intended to limit the average impact on ComEd customer rates for recovery of costs incurred under FEJA as follows: (1) for a typical ComEd residential customer, the average impact must be less than $0.25 cents per month, (2) for nonresidential customers with a peak demand less than 10 MW, the average annual impact must be less than 1.3% of the average amount paid per kWh for electric service by Illinois commercial retail customers during 2015, and (3) for nonresidential customers with a peak demand greater than 10 MW, the average annual impact must be less than 1.3% of the average amount paid per kWh for electric service by Illinois industrial retail customers during 2015.

By June 30, 2017, ComEd must submit a 10-year projection to the ICC of customer rate impacts for residential customers and nonresidential customers with a peak demand less than 10 MW. Thereafter, beginning in 2018, ComEd must submit a report to the ICC for residential customers and nonresidential customers with a peak demand less than 10 MW by February 15th and June 30th of each year, respectively. For nonresidential customers with a peak demand greater than 10 MW, ComEd must submit a report to the ICC by May 1 of each year if a rate reduction will be necessary in the following year. For residential customers, the reports will include the actual costs incurred under FEJA during the preceding year and a rolling 10-year customer rate impact projection. The reports for nonresidential customers with a peak demand less than 10 MW will also include the actual costs incurred under FEJA during the preceding year, as well as the average annual rate increase from January 1, 2017 through the end of the preceding year and the average annual rate increase projected for the remainder of the 10-year period.

If the projected residential customer or nonresidential customer with a peak demand less than 10 MW rate increase exceeds the limitations during the first four years, ComEd is required to decrease costs associated with FEJA investments, including reductions to ZEC contract quantities. If the projected residential customer or nonresidential customer with a peak demand less than 10 MW rate increase exceeds the limitations during the last six years, ComEd is required to demonstrate how it will reduce FEJA investments to ensure compliance. If the actual residential customer or nonresidential customer with a peak demand less than 10 MW rate increase exceeds the limitations for any one year, ComEd is required to submit a corrective action plan to decrease future year costs to reduce customer rates to ensure future compliance. If the actual residential customer or nonresidential customer rate exceeds the limitations for two consecutive years, ComEd can offer to credit customers for amounts billed in excess of the limitations or ComEd can terminate FEJA investments. If ComEd chooses to terminate FEJA investments, the ICC shall order termination of ZEC contracts and further initiate proceedings to reduce energy efficiency savings goals and terminate support for low-income rooftop and community solar programs. ComEd is allowed to fully recover all costs incurred as of and up to the date of the programs’ termination.

For the energy efficiency formula, ComEd will record a regulatory asset or liability and corresponding increase or decrease to Operating revenues for any differences between the revenue requirement in effect and ComEd’s best estimate of the revenue requirement expected to be approved by the ICC for that year’s reconciliation. For the other rate riders to be established under FEJA, ComEd will record a regulatory asset or liability for any differences between revenues and incurred expenses. FEJA did not have any impacts on ComEd’s Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income or Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows in 2016.

Illinois Procurement Proceedings (Exelon, Generation and ComEd). ComEd is permitted to recover its electricity procurement costs from retail customers without mark-up. Since June 2009, the IPA designs, and the ICC approves, an electricity supply portfolio for ComEd and the IPA administers a competitive process under which ComEd procures its electricity supply from various suppliers, including Generation. As of December 31, 2016, ComEd has completed all required ICC-approved procurements as called for by the IPA Procurement Plan’s timeline.

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Resources (Exelon and ComEd). In accordance with legislation in effect on December 31, 2016, the IPA's Procurement Plans include the procurement of cost-effective renewable energy resources in amounts that equal or exceed a minimum target percentage of the total electricity that each electric utility supplies to its eligible retail customers. The June 1, 2016 target renewable energy resources obligation for the utilities was at least 11.5%. This obligation increases by at least 1.5% each year thereafter to an ultimate target of at least 25% by June 1, 2025. All goals are subject to rate impact criteria set forth by Illinois legislation. As of December 31, 2016, ComEd had purchased renewable energy resources or equivalents, such as RECs, in accordance with the IPA Procurement Plan. ComEd currently retires all RECs upon transfer and acceptance. ComEd is permitted to recover procurement costs of RECs from retail customers without mark-up through rates.

In accordance with FEJA that takes effect on June 1, 2017, beginning with the plan or plans to be implemented in the 2017 delivery year, the IPA shall develop a long term renewable resources procurement plan (LT Plan). The RPS target percentages for the overall service territory have not changed through June 1, 2025 although FEJA extended the 25% RPS target to delivery years after 2025. Currently, each RES and each utility is responsible for the renewable resource obligation of the customers it supplies power for. Over time, this will change and the utility will procure renewable resources based on the retail load of substantially all customers in its service territory. For the delivery year beginning June 1, 2017, the LT Plan shall include cost effective renewable energy resources procured by the utility for the retail load the utility supplies and for 50% of the retail customer load supplied by Retail Electric Suppliers in the utility service territory on February 28, 2017. Utility procurement for RES supplied retail customer load will increase to 75% June 1, 2018 and to 100% beginning June 1, 2019.

Grand Prairie Gateway Transmission Line (Exelon and ComEd). On December 2, 2013, ComEd filed a request to obtain the ICC’s approval to construct a 60-mile overhead 345kV transmission line that traverses Ogle, DeKalb, Kane and DuPage Counties in Northern Illinois. On October 22, 2014, the ICC issued an Order approving ComEd’s request. The City of Elgin and certain other parties each filed an appeal of the ICC Order in the Illinois Appellate Court for the Second District. ComEd then reached a settlement of the appeal filed by all parties except Elgin. On March 31, 2016, the Illinois Appellate Court issued its opinion affirming the ICC’s grant of a certificate to ComEd to construct and operate the line. Elgin did not seek further review of the Illinois Appellate Court decision. On May 28, 2014, in a separate proceeding, FERC issued an order granting ComEd’s request to include 100% of the capital costs recorded to construction work in progress during construction of the line in ComEd’s transmission rate base. If the project is cancelled or abandoned for reasons beyond ComEd’s control, FERC approved the ability for ComEd to recover 100% of its prudent costs incurred after May 21, 2014 and 50% of its costs incurred prior to May 21, 2014 in ComEd’s transmission rate base. The costs incurred for the project prior to May 21, 2014 were immaterial. ComEd has acquired the necessary land rights across the project route through voluntary transactions. ComEd began construction of the line during 2015 with an expected in-service date of June 2017.

FutureGen Industrial Alliance, Inc (Exelon and ComEd). During 2013, the ICC approved, and directed ComEd and Ameren (the Utilities) to enter into 20-year sourcing agreements with FutureGen Industrial Alliance, Inc (FutureGen), under which FutureGen will retrofit and repower an existing plant in Morgan County, Illinois to a 166 MW near zero emissions coal-fueled generation plant, with an assumed commercial operation date in 2017. ComEd executed the sourcing agreement with FutureGen in accordance with the ICC’s order. The order also directed ComEd and Ameren to recover these costs from their electric distribution customers through the use of a tariff, regardless of whether they purchase electricity from ComEd or Ameren, or from competitive electric generation suppliers.

In February 2015, the DOE suspended funding for the cost development of FutureGen. On January 13, 2016, FutureGen informed the Illinois Supreme Court that it had ceased all development efforts on the FutureGen project. In February 2016, FutureGen terminated its sourcing agreement with ComEd. On May 19, 2016, the Illinois Supreme Court dismissed the matter as moot. As a result, ComEd is under no further obligation under this agreement.

Pennsylvania Regulatory Matters

2015 Pennsylvania Electric Distribution Rate Case (Exelon and PECO). On March 27, 2015, PECO filed a petition with the PAPUC requesting an increase of $190 million to its annual service revenues for electric delivery, which requested an ROE of 10.95%. On September 10, 2015, PECO and interested parties filed with the PAPUC a petition for joint settlement for an increase of $127 million in annual distribution service revenue. No overall ROE was specified in the settlement. On December 17, 2015, the PAPUC approved the settlement of PECO’s electric distribution rate case, which included the approval of the In-Program Arrearage Forgiveness ("IPAF") Program. The approved electric delivery rates became effective on January 1, 2016.

The IPAF Program provides for forgiveness of a portion of the eligible arrearage balance of its low-income Customer Assistance Program (CAP) accounts receivable at program inception. The forgiveness will be granted to the extent CAP customers remain current over the duration of the five-year payment agreement term. The Settlement guarantees PECO’s recovery of two-thirds of the arrearage balance through a combination of customer payments and rate recovery, including through future rates cases if necessary. The remaining one-third of the arrearage balance has been absorbed by PECO through bad debt expense on its Consolidated Statements of Operations. In October 2016, the IPAF was fully implemented. A regulatory asset of $11 million representing previously incurred bad debt expense associated with the eligible accounts receivable balances was recorded as of December 31, 2016.

Pennsylvania Procurement Proceedings (Exelon and PECO). Through PECO’s first two PAPUC approved DSP Programs, PECO procured electric supply for its default electric customers through PAPUC approved competitive procurements. DSP I and DSP II expired on May 31, 2013 and May 31, 2015, respectively.

The second DSP Program included a number of retail market enhancements recommended by the PAPUC in its previously issued Retail Markets Intermediate Work Plan Order. PECO was also directed to submit a plan to allow its low-income CAP customers to purchase their generation supply from EGSs beginning in April 2014. In May 2013, PECO filed its CAP Shopping Plan with the PAPUC. By an Order entered on January 24, 2014, the PAPUC approved PECO’s plan, with modifications, to make CAP shopping available beginning April 15, 2014. On March 20, 2014, the Office of Consumer Advocate (OCA) and low-income advocacy groups filed an appeal and emergency request for a stay with the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, claiming that the PAPUC-ordered CAP Shopping plan does not contain sufficient protections for low-income customers. On July 14, 2015, the Court issued opinions on the OCA and low-income advocacy group appeal. Specifically, the Court remanded the issue to the PAPUC with instructions that it approve a rule revision to the PECO CAP Shopping Plan that would prohibit CAP customers from entering into contracts with an EGS that would impose early cancellation/termination fees. The PAPUC, as well as the low-income advocates and the Office of Consumer Advocate, appealed the Court's decision. On April 5, 2016, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declined to accept the appeals. On May 11, 2016, the PAPUC issued a Secretarial Letter requiring PECO to propose a rule revision to the PECO CAP Shopping Plan consistent with the Court’s decision. On July 19, 2016, PECO filed a letter stating its intent to revise its Plan by September 1, 2016 to incorporate the rule revision. On September 1, 2016, PECO filed its proposed rule revision that is consistent with the Court’s opinion with a proposed effective date of April 14, 2017.

On December 4, 2014, the PAPUC approved PECO's third DSP Program. The program has a 24-month term from June 1, 2015 through May 31, 2017, and complies with electric generation procurement guidelines set forth in Act 129. Under the program, PECO procured electric supply through four competitive procurements for fixed price full requirements contracts of two years or less for the residential classes and small and medium commercial classes and spot market price full requirement contracts for the large commercial and industrial class load. Beginning in June 2016, the medium commercial class (101-500 kW) moved to spot market pricing. In September 2016, PECO entered into contracts with PAPUC-approved bidders, including Generation, resulting from the final of its four scheduled procurements. Charges incurred for electric supply procured through contracts with Generation are included in purchased power from affiliates on PECO's Consolidated Statement of Operations and Comprehensive Income.

On March 12, 2015, PECO settled the CAP Design with the Office of Consumer Advocates (OCA) and Low Income Advocates, and filed the proposed plan with the PAPUC on March 20, 2015. The program design changes the rate structure of PECO's CAP to make the bills more affordable to customers enrolled in the assistance program. The CAP discounts continue to be recovered through PECO's universal service fund cost. On July 8, 2015, the CAP Design was approved by the PAPUC, and subsequently implemented in October 2016 as planned.

On March 17, 2016, PECO filed its fourth DSP Program with the PAPUC proposing a 24-month term from June 1, 2017 through May 31, 2019, in compliance with electric generation procurement guidelines set forth in Act 129. On October 4, 2016, the Administrative Law Judge recommended that PECO’s previously filed partial settlement be approved without modification. The settlement would extend the program period through May 2021 and consolidate the Medium Commercial and Large Commercial classes of default service customers into a Consolidated Large Commercial Class proposed by the Company. The issue of PECO’s implementation of CAP Shopping was reserved for briefing, and the Administrative Law Judge determined that issue was not a part of the DSP IV case. On December 8, 2016, the PAPUC approved the fourth DSP Program for a 48-month term and deferred CAP Shopping to another proceeding. OCA and Low Income Advocates subsequently filed a Petition for Reconsideration and Clarification, which is pending before the PAPUC.

Smart Meter and Smart Grid Investments (Exelon and PECO). In April 2010, pursuant to Act 129 and the follow-on Implementation Order of 2009, the PAPUC approved PECO’s Smart Meter Procurement and Installation Plan (SMPIP), under which PECO will install more than 1.6 million electric smart meters and an AMI communication network by 2020. As approved by the PAPUC, PECO accelerated its installation and deployed substantially all smart meters by December 31, 2015, for a total of 1.7 million smart meters. PECO spent $578 million and $155 million on smart meter and smart grid infrastructure, respectively, of which $200 million has been funded by SGIG. Recovery of smart meter costs are reflected in base rates effective January 1, 2016.

Energy Efficiency Programs (Exelon and PECO). The PAPUC issued its Phase II EE&C implementation order on August 2, 2012, that provided energy consumption reduction requirements for the second phase of Act 129’s EE&C program, which went into effect on June 1, 2013. Pursuant to the Phase II implementation order, PECO filed its three-year EE&C Phase II Plan with the PAPUC on November 1, 2012. The plan set forth how PECO would reduce electric consumption by at least 1,125,852 MWh in its service territory for the period June 1, 2013 through May 31, 2016, adjusted for weather and extraordinary loads. The implementation order permitted PECO to apply any excess savings achieved during Phase I against its Phase II consumption reduction targets, with no reduction to its Phase II budget. In accordance with the Act 129 Phase II implementation order, at least 10% and 4.5% of the total consumption reductions had to be through programs directed toward PECO’s public and low income sectors, respectively. Act 129 mandates that the total cost of the plan may not exceed 2% of the electric company’s total annual revenue as of December 31, 2006.

On March 15, 2013 and February 28, 2014, PECO filed Petitions for Approval to amend its EE&C Phase II Plan to continue its DLC demand reduction program for mass market customers through May 31, 2014 and May 31, 2016, respectively. PECO proposed to fund the estimated $10 million annual costs of the plan by modifying incentive levels for other Phase II programs. The costs of the DLC program were recovered through PECO’s Energy Efficiency Plan surcharge along with other Phase II Plan costs. The PAPUC granted PECO’s Petitions on May 5, 2013 and April 23, 2014, respectively. On November 15 2016, PECO reported to the PAPUC that as of the conclusion of the EE&C Phase II Plan, all plan requirements have been met. A final Phase II compliance determination is expected to be issued in the first half of 2017.

On June 19, 2015, the PAPUC issued its Phase III EE&C implementation order that provides energy consumption reduction requirements for the third phase of Act 129’s EE&C program with a five-year term from June 1, 2016 through May 31, 2021.

Pursuant to the Phase III implementation order, PECO filed its five-year EE&C Phase III Plan with the PAPUC on November 30, 2015. The Plan sets forth how PECO will reduce electric consumption by at least 1,962,659 MWh, with a goal of 2,100,875 MWh in its service territory for the period June 1, 2016 through May 31, 2021. The PAPUC approved PECO’s EE&C Phase III Plan, with requested clarifications, on May 19, 2016.

Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards (Exelon and PECO). In November 2004, Pennsylvania adopted the AEPS Act. The AEPS Act mandated that beginning in 2011, following the expiration of PECO’s rate cap transition period, certain percentages of electric energy sold to Pennsylvania retail electric customers shall be generated from certain alternative energy resources as measured in AECs. The requirement for electric energy that must come from Tier I alternative energy resources ranges from approximately 3.5% to 8%, and the requirement for Tier II alternative energy resources ranges from 6.2% to 10%. The required compliance percentages incrementally increase each annual compliance period, which is from June 1 through May 31, until May 31, 2021. These Tier I and Tier II alternative energy resources include acceptable energy sources as set forth in Act 129 and the AEPS Act.

PECO continues to procure alternative energy credits through full requirements contracts and its existing long-term solar contracts to meet the annual AEPS compliance requirements. All AEPS compliance costs are being recovered on a full and current basis from default service customers through the GSA.

Pennsylvania Retail Electricity and Gas Markets (Exelon and PECO). Beginning in 2011, the PAPUC issued an order outlining the next steps in its investigation into the status of competition in Pennsylvania’s retail electricity market. The PAPUC found that the existing default service model presents substantial impediments to the development of a vibrant retail market in Pennsylvania and directed its Office of Competitive Markets Oversight to evaluate potential intermediate and long-term structural changes to the default service model. Through various orders, the PAPUC issued default electric service pricing for customers in PECO’s service territory. See Pennsylvania procurement proceedings discussed above for additional details.

In early 2014, the extreme weather in PECO's service territory resulted in increased electricity commodity costs causing certain shopping customers to receive unexpectedly high utility bills. In response to a significant number of customer complaints throughout Pennsylvania, on April 3, 2014, the PAPUC unanimously voted to adopt two rulemaking orders to address the issue. The first rulemaking order requires electric generation suppliers to provide more consumer education regarding their contract. The second rulemaking order requires electric distribution companies to enable customers to switch suppliers within three business days (known as accelerated switching). The improved customer education and accelerated switching were to be in place within 30 days and six months of approval of the orders, respectively. The orders became final on June 14, 2014. On December 4, 2014, the PAPUC approved PECO’s implementation plan (known as Bill on Supplier Switch), allowing PECO to implement accelerated switching by the December 15, 2014 deadline.

On September 12, 2013, the PAPUC issued an Order that initiated an investigation into Pennsylvania’s natural gas retail market, including the role of the existing default service model and opportunities for market enhancements. On December 18, 2014, the PAPUC issued a Final Order directing the Office of Competitive Market Oversight (OCMO) to continue its investigation, confirming that natural gas distribution companies should remain with the default service model for the time being and directing establishment of a working group to examine other competitive issues. The OCMO has established a working group to review operation of the natural gas retail market and to consider potential recommendations on competitive issues.

Pennsylvania Act 11 of 2012 (Exelon and PECO). In February 2012, Act 11 was signed into law, which provided the PAPUC authority to approve the implementation of a distribution system improvement charge (DSIC) in rates designed to recover capital project costs incurred to repair, improve or replace utilities’ aging electric and natural gas distribution systems in Pennsylvania. Prior to recovering costs pursuant to a DSIC, the PAPUC's implementation order requires a utility to have a Long Term Infrastructure Improvement Plan (LTIIP) approved by the Commission, which outlines how the utility is planning to increase its investment for repairing, improving or replacing aging infrastructure.

On May 7, 2015, the PAPUC approved PECO's modified natural gas LTIIP. In accordance with the approved LTIIP, PECO plans to spend $534 million through 2022 to further accelerate the replacement of existing gas mains and to relocate meters from indoors to outside in accordance with recent PAPUC rulemaking. In addition, on March 20, 2015, PECO filed a petition with the PAPUC for approval of its gas DSIC mechanism for recovery of gas LTIIP expenditures. On September 11, 2015, the PAPUC entered its Opinion and Order approving PECO’s petition for a gas DSIC.

On March 27, 2015, PECO filed a petition with the PAPUC for approval of its proposed electric DSIC and LTIIP. In accordance with the LTIIP (System 2020 plan), PECO plans to spend $275 million over the next five years to modernize and storm-harden its electric distribution system, making it more weather resistant and less vulnerable to damage. The DSIC will allow PECO the opportunity to recover the costs, subject to certain criteria, incurred to repair, improve or replace its electric distribution property between rate cases. On October 22, 2015, the PAPUC entered its Opinion and Order approving PECO’s proposed petition for its electric LTIIP and DSIC.

Maryland Regulatory Matters

2016 Maryland Electric Distribution Base Rates (Exelon, PHI and Pepco). On November 15, 2016, the MDPSC approved an increase in electric distribution base rates of $53 million based on a ROE of 9.55%. The new rates became effective for services rendered on or after November 15, 2016. MDPSC also approved Pepco's recovery of substantially all of its capital investment and regulatory assets associated with its AMI program as part of the newly effective rates as well as a recovery over a five-year period of transition costs related to a new billing system implemented in 2015. As a result, during the fourth quarter of 2016, Exelon, PHI and Pepco established a regulatory asset of $13 million, wrote-off $3 million in disallowed AMI costs and recorded a pre-tax credit to net income for $10 million. Additionally, the MDPSC denied Pepco's request to extend its Grid Resiliency Program surcharge for new system reliability and safety improvement projects, with costs for such programs to be recovered going forward through base rates.

2016 Maryland Electric Distribution Base Rates (Exelon, PHI and DPL). On July 20, 2016, DPL filed an application with the MDPSC requesting an increase of $66 million to its electric distribution base rates, which was later updated to $57 million, based on a requested ROE of 10.6%. The application is inclusive of a request seeking recovery of DPL's regulatory assets associated with its AMI program over a five year period, which was later modified to 10 years, supported by evidence demonstrating that the benefits of the AMI program exceed the costs on a present value basis. Any adjustments to rates approved by the MDPSC are expected to take effect in February 2017. DPL cannot predict how much of the requested increase the MDPSC will approve. In addition to the proposed rate increase, DPL is proposing to continue its Grid Resiliency Program initially approved in September 2013 in connection with DPL's electric distribution rate case filed in February 2013. Under the Grid Resiliency Program, DPL is authorized to receive recovery of specific investments as the assets are placed in service through the Grid Resiliency Charge. In connection with the Grid Resiliency Program, DPL proposes to accelerate improvement to priority feeders and install single-phase reclosing fuse technology by investing $4.6 million a year for two years for a total of $9.2 million. DPL cannot predict whether the MDPSC will approve a continuation of DPL's Grid Resiliency Program proposal.

2015 Maryland Electric and Natural Gas Distribution Base Rates (Exelon and BGE). On November 6, 2015, and as amended through the course of the proceeding, BGE filed for electric and natural gas base rate increases with the MDPSC, ultimately requesting annual increases of $116 million and $78 million, respectively, of which $104 million and $37 million were related to recovery of electric and natural gas smart grid initiative costs, respectively. BGE also proposed to recover an annual increase of approximately $30 million for Baltimore City underground conduit fees through a surcharge.

On June 3, 2016, the MDPSC issued an order in which the MDPSC found compelling evidence to conclude that BGE's smart grid initiative overall was cost beneficial to customers. However, the June 3 order contained several cost disallowances and adjustments, including not allowing BGE to defer or recover through a surcharge the $30 million increase in annual Baltimore City underground conduit fees. On June 30, 2016, BGE filed a petition for rehearing of the June 3 order requesting that the MDPSC modify its order to reverse certain decisions including the decision associated with the Baltimore City underground conduit fees. OPC also subsequently filed for a petition for rehearing of the June 3 order.

On July 29, 2016, the MDPSC issued an order on the petitions for rehearing that reversed certain of its prior cost disallowances and adjustments related to the smart grid initiative. Through the combination of the orders, the MDPSC authorized electric and natural gas rate increases of $44 million and $48 million, respectively, and an allowed ROE for the electric and natural gas distribution businesses of 9.75% and 9.65%, respectively. The new electric and natural gas base rates took effect for service rendered on or after June 4, 2016. However, MDPSC's July 29 order on the petition on rehearing still did not allow BGE to defer or recover through a surcharge the increase in Baltimore City underground conduit fees.

On August 26, 2016, BGE filed an appeal of the MDPSC's orders with the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. On August 29, 2016, the residential consumer advocate also filed an appeal of the MDPSC's order but with the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. On November 15, 2016, Baltimore County Circuit Court issued an order deciding that the cases should be consolidated and should proceed in Baltimore County Circuit Court. However, on January 9, 2017, BGE filed to withdraw its appeal of the MDPSC's orders and on January 10, 2017, the residential consumer advocate filed to withdraw its appeal as well. Refer to the Smart Meter and Smart Grid Investment disclosure below for further details on the impact of the ultimate disallowances contained in the orders to BGE.

Cash Working Capital Order (Exelon and BGE). On November 17, 2016, the MDPSC rendered a decision in the proceeding to review BGE’s request to recover its cash working capital (CWC) requirement for its Provider of Last Resort service, also known as Standard Offer Service (SOS), as well as other components that make up the Administrative Charge, the mechanism that enables BGE to recover all of its SOS-related costs. The Administrative Charge is now comprised of five components: CWC, uncollectibles, incremental costs, return, and an administrative adjustment, which is an adder to the utility’s SOS rate to act as a proxy for retail suppliers’ costs. The Commission accepted BGE positions on recovery of CWC and pass-through recovery of BGE’s actual uncollectibles and incremental costs. The order also grants BGE a modest return on the SOS. The Commission ruled that the level of the administrative adjustment will be determined in BGE’s next rate case. On December 16, 2016, MDPSC Staff requested clarification concerning the amount of return on the SOS awarded to BGE and on December 19, 2016, the residential consumer advocate sought rehearing of the return awarded. On January 24, 2017, the MDPSC issued an order denying the MDPSC Staff request for clarification and the residential consumer advocate request for rehearing.

2014 Maryland Electric and Gas Distribution Base Rates (Exelon and BGE). On July 2, 2014, and as amended on September 15, 2014, BGE filed for electric and gas base increases with the MDPSC, ultimately requesting increases of $99 million and $68 million, respectively.

On October 17, 2014, BGE filed with the MDPSC a unanimous settlement agreement (the Settlement Agreement) reached with all parties to the case under which it would receive an increase of $22 million in electric base rates and an increase of $38 million in gas base rates. The Settlement Agreement establishes new depreciation rates which have the effect of decreasing annual depreciation expense by approximately $20 million, primarily for electric. On December 4, 2014, the Public Utility Law Judge issued a proposed order approving the Settlement Agreement without modification, which became a final order on December 12, 2014. The approved distribution rate order authorizing BGE to increase electric and gas distribution rates became effective for services rendered on or after December 15, 2014.

Smart Meter and Smart Grid Investments (Exelon and BGE). In August 2010, the MDPSC approved a comprehensive smart grid initiative for BGE that included the planned installation of 2 million residential and commercial electric and natural gas smart meters at an expected total cost of $480 million of which $200 million was funded by SGIG. The MDPSC’s approval ordered BGE to defer the associated incremental costs, depreciation and amortization, and an appropriate return, in a regulatory asset until such time as a cost-effective advanced metering system is implemented. Refer to AMI programs in the Regulatory Assets and Liabilities section below for further details.

As part of the 2015 electric and natural gas distribution rate case filed on November 6, 2015, BGE sought recovery of its smart grid initiative costs, supported by evidence demonstrating that BGE had, in fact, implemented a cost-beneficial advanced metering system. On June 3, 2016, the MDPSC issued an order concluding that the smart grid initiative overall is cost beneficial to its customers. However, the June 3 order contained several cost disallowances and adjustments including disallowances of certain program and meter installation costs and denial of recovery of any return on unrecovered costs for non-AMI meters replaced under the program. On June 30, 2016, BGE filed a petition for rehearing of the June 3 order requesting that the MDPSC modify its order to reverse certain decisions and change certain of the cost disallowances and adjustments to enable BGE to defer those costs for recovery through future electric and natural gas rates. The residential consumer advocate also subsequently filed for a petition for rehearing of the June 3 order. On July 29, 2016, the MDPSC issued an order on the petitions for rehearing that reversed certain of its prior cost disallowances and adjustments related to the smart grid initiative. On August 26, 2016, BGE filed an appeal of the MDPSC's orders with the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. On August 29, 2016, the residential consumer advocate also filed an appeal of the MDPSC's order but with the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. On November 15, 2016, Baltimore County Circuit Court issued an order deciding that the cases should be consolidated and should proceed in Baltimore County Circuit Court. However, on January 9, 2017, BGE filed to withdraw its appeal of the MDPSC's orders and on January 10, 2017, the residential consumer advocate filed to withdraw its appeal as well.

As a combined result of the MDPSC orders, BGE recorded a $52 million charge to Operating and maintenance expense in Exelon’s and BGE’s Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income reducing certain regulatory assets and other long-lived assets. Pursuant to the combined MDPSC orders, BGE also reclassified $54 million of non-AMI plant costs from Property, plant and equipment, net to Regulatory assets on Exelon's and BGE's Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2016.

2013 Maryland Electric and Gas Distribution Base Rates (Exelon and BGE). On May 17, 2013, and as amended on August 23, 2013, BGE filed for electric and natural gas base increases with the MDPSC. In addition to these requested rate increases, BGE's application also included a request for recovery of incremental capital expenditures and operating costs associated with BGE's proposed short-term reliability improvement plan (the ERI initiative) in response to a MDPSC order through a surcharge separate from base rates.

On December 13, 2013, the MDPSC issued an order authorizing BGE to recover through a surcharge mechanism costs associated with five ERI initiative programs designed to accelerate electric reliability improvements premised upon the condition that the MDPSC approve specific projects in advance of cost recovery. As of December 31, 2016, BGE has received approval of its updated surcharge filings three times for rates to be effective in 2014, 2015 and 2016.

In January 2014, the residential consumer advocate in Maryland filed an appeal to the order issued by the MDPSC on December 13, 2013 in BGE's 2013 electric and natural gas distribution rate cases. The residential consumer advocate filed its related legal memorandum on August 22, 2014, challenging the MDPSC's approval of the ERI initiative surcharge. BGE submitted a response to the appeal on October 15, 2014, and a hearing was held on November 17, 2014. On October 26, 2015, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City issued an order affirming the MDPSC decision. However, on November 30, 2015, the residential consumer advocate filed an appeal of the Circuit Court's decision with the Maryland Court of Special Appeals. On March 7, 2016, the consumer advocate withdrew its appeal and no further action is expected.

MDPSC New Generation Contract Requirement (Exelon, Generation, BGE, PHI, Pepco and DPL). On April 12, 2012, the MDPSC issued an order that requires BGE, Pepco and DPL (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 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 expected commercial operation date of June 1, 2015, 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 region, on September 30, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland issued a ruling that the MDPSC’s April 2012 order violated the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution by attempting to regulate wholesale prices. In contrast, on October 1, 2013, in response to appeals filed by the Contract EDCs and other parties, the Maryland Circuit Court for Baltimore City upheld the MDPSC’s orders requiring the Contract EDCs to enter into the contracts.

On October 24, 2013, the Federal district court issued an order ruling that the contracts are illegal and unenforceable. In November 2013 both the winning bidder and the MDPSC appealed the Federal district court decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which affirmed the lower Federal court ruling. On November 26, 2014, both the winning bidder and the MDPSC petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to consider hearing an appeal of the Fourth Circuit decision. On October 19, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the decision. On April 19, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Fourth Circuit's ruling upholding the Federal district court's decision.

The decision of the Maryland Circuit Court was appealed to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals and was stayed pending decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. On August 1, 2016, the Contract EDCs submitted a filing requesting that the MDPSC take notice of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision, and notifying the MDPSC that the Contract EDCs will dismiss their appeal pending at the Maryland Court of Special Appeals. On September 14, 2016, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals dismissed the pending appeal and the matter is considered closed.

MDPSC Derecho Storm Order (Exelon and BGE). Following the June 2012 Derecho storm which hit the mid-Atlantic region interrupting electrical service to a significant portion of the State of Maryland, the MDPSC issued an order on February 27, 2013 requiring BGE and other Maryland utilities to file several comprehensive reports with short-term and long-term plans to improve reliability and grid resiliency that were due at various times before August 30, 2013.

On September 3, 2013, BGE filed a comprehensive long term assessment examining potential alternatives for improving the resiliency of the electric grid and a staffing analysis reviewing historical staffing levels as well as forecasting staffing levels necessary under various storm scenarios. During the summer of 2014, an evaluation of the reports filed by BGE and other Maryland utilities was undertaken by consultants on behalf of the MDPSC and MDPSC Staff. The MDPSC Staff also proposed standards for reliability during major events and estimated times of restoration as well as undertaking an evaluation of performance-based ratemaking principles and methodologies that would more directly and transparently align reliable service with the utilities’ distribution rates and that reduce returns or otherwise penalize sub-standard performance. The MDPSC held hearings in September 2014. BGE currently cannot predict the outcome of these proceedings, which may result in increased capital expenditures and operating costs.

The Maryland Strategic Infrastructure Development and Enhancement Program (Exelon and BGE). In 2013, legislation intended to accelerate gas infrastructure replacements in Maryland was signed into law. The law established a mechanism, separate from base rate proceedings, for gas companies to promptly recover reasonable and prudent costs of eligible infrastructure replacement projects incurred after June 1, 2013. The monthly surcharge and infrastructure replacement costs must be approved by the MDPSC and are subject to a cap and require an annual true-up of the surcharge revenues against actual expenditures. Investment levels in excess of the cap would be recoverable in a subsequent gas base rate proceeding at which time all costs for the infrastructure replacement projects would be rolled into gas distribution rates. Irrespective of the cap, BGE is required to file a gas rate case every five years under this legislation.

On August 2, 2013, BGE filed its infrastructure replacement plan and associated surcharge. On January 29, 2014, the MDPSC issued a decision conditionally approving the first five years of BGE’s plan and surcharge. On July 1, 2016, BGE filed an amendment to its infrastructure replacement plan, which the MDPSC conditionally approved in an order dated November 23, 2016. The revised surcharge reflecting the costs of the amendment became effective January 1, 2017. On December 2, 2016, BGE filed a surcharge update to be effective February 1, 2017, including a true-up of cost estimates included in the 2016 surcharge, along with its 2017 project list and projected capital estimates of $131 million to be included in the 2017 surcharge calculation. The MDPSC subsequently approved BGE's 2017 project list and the proposed surcharge for 2017, which included the 2016 surcharge true-up. As of December 31, 2016, BGE recorded a regulatory liability of $2 million, representing the difference between the surcharge revenues and program costs.

In 2014, the residential consumer advocate in Maryland appealed MDPSC's decision on BGE's infrastructure replacement plan and associated surcharge with the Baltimore City Circuit Court, who affirmed the MDPSC's decision. On October 10, 2014, the residential consumer advocate noticed its appeal to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals from the judgment entered by the Baltimore City Circuit Court. During the third quarter of 2015, the residential consumer advocate, MDPSC and BGE filed briefs. Oral argument in this matter was held before the Court of Special Appeals on November 3, 2015. On January 28, 2016, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals issued a decision affirming the MDPSC's decision. As the residential consumer advocate did not appeal the decision of the Court of Special Appeals, the matter is now closed.

Delaware Regulatory Matters

Gas Cost Rates. (Exelon, PHI and DPL) DPL makes an annual GCR filing with the DPSC for the purpose of allowing DPL to recover natural gas procurement costs through customer rates. In August 2016, DPL made its 2016-2017 GCR filing. The rates proposed in the 2016-2017 GCR filing would result in a GCR increase of approximately 14%. On September 20, 2016, the DPSC issued an order allowing DPL to place the new rates into effect on November 1, 2016, subject to refund and pending final DPSC approval.

2016 Delaware Electric and Natural Gas Distribution Base Rates (Exelon, PHI and DPL). On May 17, 2016, DPL filed an application with the DPSC to increase its annual electric and natural gas distribution base rates by $63 million and $22 million, respectively, based on a requested ROE of 10.6%. While the DPSC is not required to issue a decision on the application within a specified period of time, Delaware law allowed DPL to put into effect $2.5 million of each of the rate increases two months after filing the applications which were effective July 16, 2016. On December 1, 2016, the DPSC approved that an additional $30 million in electric distribution base rates be implemented effective December 17, 2016, subject to refund based on the final DPSC order, and an additional $10 million in gas base rates be implemented effective December 17, 2016, subject to refund based on the final DPSC order.

2013 Delaware Electric Distribution Base Rates (Exelon, PHI and DPL). In March 2013, and as amended on September 20, 2013, DPL filed for an electric distribution base rate increase with the DPSC, ultimately requesting an annual increase of $39 million.

In August 2014, the DPSC issued a final order in DPL's 2013 electric distribution rate case for an annual increase of $15 million and an ROE of 9.7%. 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 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, the parties agreed to suspend the appeal and, upon consummation of the Merger, to the withdrawal of the appeal and the cross-appeal with prejudice. In accordance with the settlement, on April 13, 2016, the parties filed a Stipulation of Dismissal with the court to dismiss the appeal and the cross-appeal, at which time the matter was closed.

District of Columbia Regulatory Matters

2016 District of Columbia Electric Distribution Base Rates (Exelon, PHI and Pepco). On June 30, 2016, Pepco filed an application with the DCPSC to increase its annual electric distribution base rates by $86 million, which was updated to $82 million on October 14, 2016, and further updated to approximately $77 million on February 1, 2017, based on a requested ROE of 10.6%. The DCPSC has issued a procedural schedule indicating a final decision will be issued by July 25, 2017. Any adjustments to its rates approved by the DCPSC are expected to take effect soon thereafter. Pepco cannot predict how much of the requested increase the DCPSC will approve.

On April 18, 2016, a party to a separate DCPSC proceeding filed a motion to suspend Pepco’s bill stabilization adjustment (BSA), which decouples distribution revenues from utility customers from the amount of electricity delivered. On September 9, 2016, the DCPSC denied the party’s motion and determined that the appropriate forum in which to determine whether the BSA continues to be just and reasonable is in Pepco’s rate case proceeding. In addition, the DCPSC stated that it was putting Pepco on notice that all funds collected for the BSA from January 2015 to the issuance of a decision in the rate case proceeding are subject to refund should the DCPSC determine that such funds were not justly or reasonably collected. On November 22, 2016, following Pepco's October 7, 2016 request for reconsideration of the order, the DCPSC issued an order stating that its September 9, 2016 order was not final and confirming that issues related to the BSA, including potential remedial actions, would be addressed in Pepco's rate case. Pepco cannot predict the outcome of this matter or the impact of a refund if ordered by the DCPSC.

District of Columbia Power Line Undergrounding Initiative (Exelon, PHI and Pepco). 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 provided enabling legislation for the District of Columbia Power Line Undergrounding (DC PLUG) initiative which would selectively place underground some of the District of Columbia’s most outage-prone power lines.

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 volumetric 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 volumetric surcharge (the DDOT surcharge) on the electric bills of Pepco District of Columbia customers that Pepco will 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. In August 2014, Pepco filed an application for the issuance of a financing order to provide for the issuance of the District's bonds. In March 2016, the DCPSC's orders approving the Triennial Plan and the application for financing were upheld upon the resolution of appeals that had been filed with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. In compliance with the Improvement Financing Act, on September 30, 2016, Pepco and DDOT filed a Second Triennial Plan. Recognizing the delays to the First Triennial Plan, Pepco and DDOT requested that the DCPSC hold the Second Triennial Plan in abeyance, and the DCPSC granted this request by order dated October 27, 2016.

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. PHI is currently evaluating the assertion and the resolution of this matter will likely further delay implementation of the DC PLUG initiative.

New Jersey Regulatory Matters

2016 New Jersey Electric Distribution Base Rates (Exelon, PHI and ACE). On August 24, 2016, the NJBPU issued an order approving a stipulation of settlement among ACE, the New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel, NJBPU Staff and Unimin Corporation, and an increase of $45 million (before New Jersey sales and use tax) to its electric distribution base rates, with the new rates effective immediately. The stipulation of settlement provided that a determination on PowerAhead would be separated into a phase II of the rate proceeding and decided at a later date and the parties would seek to resolve the matter by the end of 2016, although resolution will most likely occur in the first quarter of 2017. PowerAhead includes capital investments to advance modernization of the electric grid through energy efficiency, increased distributed generation, and resiliency, focused on improving the distribution system's ability to withstand major storm events. ACE cannot predict if the NJBPU will approve the PowerAhead initiative.

Update and Reconciliation of Certain Under-Recovered Balances (Exelon, PHI and ACE). On February 1, 2016, ACE submitted its 2016 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 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 ACE’s uncollectible accounts.

As filed, the net impact of adjusting the charges as proposed would have been an overall annual rate increase of $9 million (revised to $19 million in April 2016, based upon an update for actuals through March 2016), including New Jersey sales and use tax.

On November 30, 2016, the NJBPU approved a stipulation of settlement entered into by the parties providing for an overall annual rate increase of $1 million effective January 1, 2017. This settlement included a credit of approximately $10 million to the Non-Utility Generation charge deferral balance and a credit of approximately $7 million to the Uncollectible deferral balance. These credits were directed to be applied to the deferral balances in an NJBPU order dated October 31, 2016. That order approved the Joint Recommendation for Settlement of the Most Favored Nation Provision, which was a condition of the merger between Exelon Corporation and Pepco Holdings, Inc. This rate increase will have no effect on ACE’s operating income, since these revenues provide for recovery of deferred costs under an approved deferral mechanism.

On February 1, 2017, ACE submitted its 2017 annual petition with the NJBPU seeking to reconcile and update the same categories of charges and costs as set forth in its 2016 annual petition discussed above. The net impact of adjusting the charges as proposed is an overall annual rate decrease of approximately $29 million, including New Jersey Sales and Use Tax. The matter is pending at the NJBPU and will be updated for January through March 2017 actual data. ACE has requested that the NJBPU place the new rates into effect by June 1, 2017. There is no assurance that NJBPU will put final rates in effect by the requested date.

New York Regulatory Matters

New York Clean Energy Standard (Exelon, Generation). On August 1, 2016, the New York Public Service Commission (NYPSC) issued an order establishing the CES, a component of a Tier 3 ZEC program targeted at preserving the environmental attributes of zero-emissions nuclear-powered generating facilities that meet the criteria demonstrating public necessity as determined by the NYPSC. The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) will centrally procure the ZECs from eligible plants through a 12-year contract, to be administered in six two-year tranches, extending from April 1, 2017 through March 31, 2029. ZEC payments will be made to the eligible resources based upon the number of MWh produced, subject to specified caps and minimum performance requirements. The price to be paid for the ZECs under each tranche will be administratively determined using a formula based on the social cost of carbon as determined in 2016 by the federal government, subject to pricing adjustments designed to lower the ZEC price based on increase in underlying energy and capacity prices. The ZEC price for the first tranche has been set at $17.48 per MWh of production. Following the first tranche, the price will be updated bi-annually. Each Load Serving Entity (LSE) shall be required to purchase an amount of ZECs equivalent to its load ratio share of the total electric energy in the New York Control Area. Cost recovery from ratepayers shall be incorporated into the commodity charges on customer bills.

The NYPSC initially identified the three plants eligible for the ZEC program to include, for now, the FitzPatrick, Ginna, and Nine Mile Point nuclear facilities. As issued, the order also provided that the duration of the program beyond the first tranche was conditional upon a buyer purchasing the FitzPatrick facility and taking title prior to September 1, 2018. On November 18, 2016, the required contracts with NYSERDA were executed for Ginna and Nine Mile Point, in addition to Entergy’s execution of the required contract for the FitzPatrick facility.

Several parties filed with the NYPSC requests for rehearing or reconsideration of the CES. Generation and CENG also filed a request for clarification, or in the alternative limited rehearing, that the condition limiting the duration of the program beyond the first tranche be limited to the eligibility of the FitzPatrick plant only and have no bearing on Ginna or Nine Mile Point’s eligibility for the full 12-year duration. On December 15, 2016, the NYPSC approved Exelon’s petition to clarify this condition and denied all petitions for rehearing of the CES. Parties have until mid-April to appeal to New York State court the denials of the requests for rehearing. In addition, one Petition seeking to invalidate the ZEC program was filed in New York State court on November 30, 2016, and amended on January 13, 2017, arguing that the NYPSC violated certain technical provisions of the State Administrative Procedures Act (SAPA) when adopting the ZEC program.

On October 19, 2016, a coalition of fossil generation companies filed a complaint in federal district court against the NYPSC alleging that the ZEC program violates certain provisions of the U.S. Constitution; specifically that the ZEC program interferes with FERC’s jurisdiction over wholesale rates and that it discriminates against out of state competitors. On December 9, 2016, Generation and CENG filed a motion to intervene in the case and to dismiss the lawsuit. The motion to intervene has been granted and the motion to dismiss is pending.

Other legal challenges remain possible, the outcomes of which remain uncertain. See Note 9 - Early Nuclear Plant Retirements for additional information relative to Ginna and Nine Mile Point, and Note 4 - Mergers, Acquisitions, and Dispositions for additional information on Generation's proposed acquisition of FitzPatrick.

Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Reliability Support Services Agreement (Exelon and Generation). In November 2014, in response to a petition filed by Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Ginna) regarding the possible retirement of Ginna, the NYPSC directed Ginna and Rochester Gas & Electric Company (RG&E) to negotiate a Reliability Support Services Agreement (RSSA) to support the continued operation of Ginna to maintain the reliability of the RG&E transmission grid for a specified period of time. During 2015 and 2016, Ginna and RG&E made filings with the NYPSC and FERC for their approval of the proposed RSSA. Although the RSSA was still subject to regulatory approvals, on April 1, 2015, Ginna began delivering the power and capacity from the Ginna plant into the ISO-NY consistent with the technical provisions of the RSSA.

On March 22, 2016, Ginna submitted a compliance filing with FERC with revisions to the RSSA requested by FERC. On April 8, 2016, FERC accepted the compliance filing and on April 20, 2016, the NYPSC accepted the revised RSSA. Because all regulatory approvals for the RSSA have now been received, Generation began recognizing revenue based on the final approved pricing contained in the RSSA. Generation also recognized a one-time revenue adjustment in April 2016 of approximately $101 million representing the net cumulative previously unrecognized amount of revenue retroactive from the April 1, 2015 effective date through March 31, 2016. A 49.99% portion of the one-time adjustment will be removed from Generation’s results of operations as a result of the noncontrolling interests in CENG.

The RSSA approved by the regulatory authorities has a term expiring on March 31, 2017, subject to possible extension in the event that RG&E needs additional time to complete transmission upgrades to address reliability concerns. In March 2016, RG&E notified Ginna that RG&E expects to complete the transmission upgrades prior to the RSSA expiration in March 2017 and will not need Ginna as an ongoing reliability solution after that date.

The approved RSSA requires Ginna to continue operating through the RSSA term. If Ginna did not plan to retire shortly after the expiration of the RSSA, Ginna was required to file a notice to that effect with the NYPSC no later than September 30, 2016. Under the terms of the RSSA, if Ginna continues to operate after June 14, 2017, Ginna would be required to make certain refund payments up to a maximum of $20 million to RG&E related to capital expenditures. On September 30, 2016, Ginna filed the required notice with the NYPSC of its intent to continue operating beyond the March 31, 2017 expiry of the RSSA, conditioned upon successful execution of an agreement between Ginna and NYSERDA for the sale of ZECs under the CES. As stated previously, on November 18, 2016 the required contract with NYSERDA was executed by Generation and CENG for Ginna. Subject to prevailing over any administrative or legal challenges, it is expected the CES will allow Ginna to continue to operate through the end of its current operating license in 2029. See Note 9 - Early Nuclear Plant Retirements for additional discussion of Ginna.

Federal Regulatory Matters

Transmission Formula Rate (Exelon, ComEd, BGE, PHI, Pepco, DPL and ACE). ComEd’s, BGE’s, Pepco's, DPL's and ACE's transmission rates are each established based on a FERC-approved formula. ComEd, BGE, Pepco, DPL, and ACE are required to file an annual update to the FERC-approved formula on or before May 15, with the resulting rates effective on June 1 of the same year. The annual formula rate update is based on prior year actual costs and current year projected capital additions. The update also reconciles any differences between the revenue requirement in effect beginning June 1 of the prior year and actual costs incurred for that year. ComEd, BGE, Pepco, DPL, and ACE record regulatory assets or regulatory liabilities and corresponding increases or decreases to operating revenues for any differences between the revenue requirement in effect and ComEd’s, BGE’s, Pepco's, DPL's and ACE's best estimate of the revenue requirement expected to be filed with the FERC for that year’s reconciliation. The regulatory asset associated with transmission true-up is amortized to Operating revenues within their Consolidated Statements of Operations of Comprehensive Income as the associated amounts are recovered through rates. On December 13, 2016, BGE filed with the FERC to modify its FERC-approved formula to recover its existing regulatory asset and any future changes to its regulatory asset concerning various tax issues including certain deferred income taxes.

For each of the following years, the following total increases/(decreases) were included in ComEd’s, BGE’s, Pepco's, DPL's and ACE's electric transmission formula rate filings:



	ComEd									BGE
Annual Transmission Filings	2016			2015			2014			2016			2015			2014
Initial revenue requirement increase	$	90		$	68		$	36		$	12		$	—		$	9
Annual reconciliation increase (decrease)	4			18			(14		)	3			(3		)	5
Dedicated facilities increase ^(a)	—			—			—			13			13			3
Total revenue requirement increase	$	94		$	86		$	22		$	28		$	10		$	17

Allowed return on rate base ^(c)	8.47		%	8.61		%	8.62		%	8.09		%	8.46		%	8.53		%
Allowed ROE ^(d)	11.50		%	11.50		%	11.50		%	10.50		%	11.30		%	11.30		%

Effective date of rates	June 2016			June 2015			June 2014			June 2016			June 2015			June 2014



	Pepco									DPL									ACE
Annual Transmission Filings	2016			2015			2014			2016			2015			2014			2016			2015			2014
Initial revenue requirement increase (decrease)	$	2		$	10		$	(9	)	$	8		$	15		$	4		$	8		$	10		$	4
Annual reconciliation (decrease) increase	(10		)	(3		)	(1		)	(10		)	(1		)	6			(14		)	2			3
MAPP abandonment recovery (decrease) increase ^(b)	(15		)	(2		)	17			(12		)	(2		)	15			—			—			—
Total revenue requirement (decrease) increase	$	(23	)	$	5		$	7		$	(14	)	$	12		$	25		$	(6	)	$	12		$	7

Allowed return on rate base ^(c)	7.88		%	8.36		%	8.60		%	7.21		%	7.80		%	8.05		%	7.83		%	8.51		%	8.66		%
Allowed ROE^(d)	10.50		%	11.30		%	11.30		%	10.50		%	11.30		%	11.30		%	10.50		%	11.30		%	11.30		%

Effective date of rates^(e)	June 2016			June 2015			June 2014			June 2016			June 2015			June 2014			June 2016			June 2015			June 2014

____________

(a) BGE's transmission revenues include a FERC approved dedicated facilities charge to recover the costs of providing transmission service to specifically designated load by BGE.

(b) In 2012, PJM terminated the MAPP transmission line construction project planned for the Pepco and DPL service territories. Pursuant to a FERC approved settlement agreement, the abandonment costs associated with MAPP were being recovered in transmission rates over a three-year period that ended in May 2016.


(c)	Represents to the weighted average debt and equity return on transmission rate bases.

(d) As part of the FERC-approved settlement of ComEd’s 2007 transmission rate case, the rate of return on common equity is 11.50% and the common equity component of the ratio used to calculate the weighted average debt and equity return for the transmission formula rate is currently capped at 55%. As part of the FERC-approved settlement of the ROE complaint against BGE, Pepco, DPL and ACE, the rate of return on common equity is 10.5%, inclusive of a 50 basis point incentive adder for being a member of a regional transmission organization.

(e) The time period for any challenges to the annual transmission formula rate update flings expired with no challenges submitted.

PJM Transmission Rate Design and Operating Agreements (Exelon, Generation, ComEd, PECO, BGE, PHI, Pepco, DPL and ACE). PJM Transmission Rate Design specifies the rates for transmission service charged to customers within PJM. Currently, ComEd, PECO, BGE, Pepco, DPL and ACE incur costs based on the existing rate design, which charges customers based on the cost of the existing transmission facilities within their load zone and the cost of new transmission facilities based on those who benefit from those facilities. In April 2007, FERC issued an order concluding that PJM's current rate design for existing facilities is just and reasonable and should not be changed. In the same order, FERC held that the costs of new facilities 500 kV and above should be socialized across the entire PJM footprint and that the costs of new facilities less than 500 kV should be allocated to the customers of the new facilities who caused the need for those facilities. A number of parties appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for review of the decision.

In August 2009, the court issued its decision affirming the FERC's order with regard to the existing facilities, but remanded to FERC the issue of the cost allocation associated with the new facilities 500 kV and above (Cost Allocation Issue) for further consideration by the FERC. On remand, FERC reaffirmed its earlier decision to socialize the costs of new facilities 500 kV and above. A number of parties filed appeals of these orders. In June 2014, the court again remanded the Cost Allocation Issue to FERC. On December 18, 2014, FERC issued an order setting an evidentiary hearing and settlement proceeding regarding the Cost Allocation Issue. On June 15, 2016, a number of parties, including Exelon and the Utility Registrants filed an Offer of Settlement with FERC. Each state that is a party in this proceeding either signed, or will not oppose, the settlement. If the Settlement is approved, effective January 1, 2016, for the costs of the 500 kV facilities approved by the PJM Board on or after February 1, 2013, 50% will be socialized across PJM and 50% will be allocated according to an engineering formula that calculates the flows on the transmission facilities. The Settlement includes provisions for monthly credits or charges that are expected to be mostly refunded or recovered through customer rates over a 10-year period based on negotiated numbers for charges prior to January 1, 2016.

Exelon expects that the Settlement will not have a material impact on the results of operations, cash flows and financial position of Generation, ComEd, PECO, BGE, Pepco, DPL or ACE. The Settlement is subject to approval by FERC.

The Utility Registrants are committed to the construction of transmission facilities under their operating agreements with PJM to maintain system reliability. The Utility Registrants will work with PJM to continue to evaluate the scope and timing of any required construction projects. The Utility Registrant's estimated commitments are as follows:



	Total		2017		2018		2019		2020		2021
ComEd	$	97	$	64	$	28	$	5	$	—	$	—
PECO	34		14		10		7		2		1
BGE	226		113		55		44		14		—
Pepco	104		6		39		40		19		—
DPL	63		47		16		—		—		—
ACE	93		36		39		18		—		—

Complaints at FERC Seeking to Mitigate Illinois and New York Programs Providing ZECs (Exelon and Generation). PJM and NYISO capacity markets include a Minimum Offer Price Rule (MOPR) that is intended to preclude buyers from exercising buyer market power. If a resource is subjected to a MOPR, its offer is adjusted to remove the revenues it receives through a federal, state or other government-provided financial support program - resulting in a higher offer that may not clear the capacity market. Currently, the MOPRs in PJM and NYISO apply only to certain new resources. Exelon has generally opposed policies that require subsidies or give preferential treatment to generation providers or technologies that do not provide superior reliability or environmental benefits, or that would threaten the reliability and value of the integrated electricity grid. Thus, Exelon has supported a MOPR as a means of minimizing the detrimental impact certain subsidized resources could have on capacity markets (such as the New Jersey (LCAPP) and Maryland (CfD) programs). However, in Exelon’s view, MOPRs should not be applied to resources that receive compensation for providing superior reliability or environmental benefits.

On January 9, 2017, the Electric Power Supply Association (EPSA) filed two requests with FERC: one seeking to amend a prior complaint against PJM and another seeking expedited action on a pending NYISO compliance filing in an existing proceeding. Both filings allege that the relevant MOPR should be expanded to also apply to existing resources receiving ZEC compensation under the New York CES and Illinois ZES programs. Exelon has filed protests at FERC in response to each filing, arguing generally that ZEC payments provide compensation for an environmental attribute that is distinct from the energy and capacity sold in the FERC-jurisdictional markets, and therefore, are no different than other renewable support programs like the PTC and RPS that have generally not been subject to a MOPR. However, if successful, an expanded MOPR could result in mitigation of Generation’s Quad Cities, Ginna, and Nine Mile Point facilities, which are expected to receive ZEC compensation, such that they would have an increased risk of not clearing in future capacity auctions and thus of no longer receiving capacity revenues during the respective ZEC programs. This would also impact the FitzPatrick facility that Generation is currently in the process of acquiring from Entergy. Any mitigation of these generating resources could have a material effect on Exelon’s and Generation’s future cash flows and results of operations. The timing of FERC’s decision with respect to both proceedings is currently unknown and the outcome of these matters is currently uncertain.

Demand Response Resource Order (Exelon, Generation, ComEd, PECO, BGE, PHI, Pepco, DPL and ACE). On May 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit Court issued an opinion vacating the FERC Order No. 745 (D.C. Circuit Decision). Order No. 745 established uniform compensation levels for demand response resources that participate in the day ahead and real-time wholesale energy markets. Under Order No. 745, buyers in ISO and RTO markets were required to pay demand response resources the full Locational Marginal Price when the demand response replaced a generation resource and was cost-effective. On January 25, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit Court decision and remanded the matter to the D.C. Circuit Court. While Exelon cannot predict exactly how the D.C. Circuit Court will handle the matter on remand, Exelon does not expect there will be any significant change in how demand response resources have or will participate in and be paid by wholesale energy markets. Thus, Exelon does not anticipate that there will be any impact to the Registrants' results of operations or cash flows based on these proceedings.

New England Capacity Market Results (Exelon and Generation). On February 28, 2014, ISO-NE filed the results of its eighth capacity auction (covering the June 1, 2017 through May 31, 2018 delivery period). On June 27, 2014, the FERC issued a letter to ISO-NE noting that ISO-NE’s February 28, 2014 filing was deficient and that ISO-NE must file additional information before the FERC can process the filing. ISO-NE filed the information on July 17, 2014, and the ISO-NE's filings became effective by operation of law pursuant to a notice issued by the secretary of FERC on September 16, 2014. Several parties sought rehearing of the secretary’s notice which was effectively denied in October 2014 and have since appealed the matter to the D.C. Circuit Court. On October 25, 2016, the D.C. Circuit Court dismissed the appeal.

Operating License Renewals (Exelon and Generation). Generation has 40-year operating license from the NRC for each of its nuclear units. The operating license renewal process takes approximately four to five years from the commencement of the renewal process until completion of the NRC's review.

On December 9, 2014, Generation submitted an application to the NRC to extend the current operating licenses of LaSalle Units 1 and 2 by 20 years. On October 19, 2016, the NRC approved Generation's request to extend the operating licenses of LaSalle units 1 and 2 by 20 years to 2042 and 2043, respectively.

On August 29, 2012, Generation submitted a hydroelectric license application to FERC for a 46-year license for the Conowingo Hydroelectric Project (Conowingo). In connection with Generation’s efforts to obtain a water quality certification pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act with Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) for Conowingo, Generation continues to work with MDE and other stakeholders to resolve water quality licensing issues, including: (1) water quality, (2) fish habitat, and (3) sediment. In addition, Generation continues to work with MDE and other Federal and Maryland state agencies to conduct and fund an additional sediment and nutrient monitoring study.

On August 7, 2015, US Fish and Wildlife Service of the US Department of the Interior (Interior) submitted its modified fishway prescription to FERC in the Conowingo licensing proceedings. On September 11, 2015, Exelon filed a request for an administrative hearing and proposed an alternative prescription to challenge Interior’s preliminary prescription. On April 21, 2016, Exelon and Interior executed a Settlement Agreement resolving all fish passage issues between the parties. Accordingly, on April 22, 2016, Exelon withdrew its Request for a Trial-Type Hearing and Alternative Prescription. The financial impact of the Settlement Agreement is estimated to be $3 million to $7 million per year, on average, over the 46-year life of the new license, including both capital and operating costs. The actual timing and amount of these costs are not currently fixed and may vary significantly from year to year throughout the life of the new license. Resolution of the remaining issues relating to Conowingo involving various stakeholders may have a material effect on Exelon’s and Generation’s results of operations and financial position through an increase in capital expenditures and operating costs. As of December 31, 2016, $28 million of direct costs associated with Conowingo licensing efforts have been capitalized-to-date.

Regulatory Assets and Liabilities (Exelon, ComEd, PECO, BGE, PHI, Pepco, DPL and ACE)

Exelon, ComEd, PECO, BGE, PHI, Pepco, DPL and ACE each prepare their consolidated financial statements in accordance with the authoritative guidance for accounting for certain types of regulation. Under this guidance, regulatory assets represent incurred costs that have been deferred because of their probable future recovery from customers through regulated rates. Regulatory liabilities represent the excess recovery of costs or accrued credits that have been deferred because it is probable such amounts will be returned to customers through future regulated rates or represent billings in advance of expenditures for approved regulatory programs.

As a result of applying the acquisition method of accounting and pushing it down to the consolidated financial statements of PHI, certain regulatory assets and liabilities were established at Exelon and PHI to offset the impacts of fair valuing the acquired assets and liabilities assumed which are subject to regulatory recovery. In total, Exelon and PHI recorded a net $2.4 billion regulatory asset reflecting adjustments recorded as a result of the acquisition method of accounting. See Note 4 - Mergers, Acquisitions and Dispositions for additional information.

The following tables provide information about the regulatory assets and liabilities of Exelon, ComEd, PECO, BGE, PHI, Pepco, DPL and ACE as of December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015:



									Successor
December 31, 2016	Exelon		ComEd		PECO		BGE		PHI		Pepco		DPL		ACE
Regulatory assets
Pension and other postretirement benefits	$	4,162	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Deferred income taxes	2,016		75		1,583		98		260		171		38		51
AMI programs	701		164		49		230		258		174		84		—
Under-recovered distribution service costs	188		188		—		—		—		—		—		—
Debt costs	124		42		1		7		81		17		9		6
Fair value of long-term debt	812		—		—		—		671		—		—		—
Fair value of PHI's unamortized energy contracts	1,085		—		—		—		1,085		—		—		—
Severance	5		—		—		5		—		—		—		—
Asset retirement obligations	111		76		23		12		—		—		—		—
MGP remediation costs	305		278		26		1		—		—		—		—
Under-recovered uncollectible accounts	56		56		—		—		—		—		—		—
Renewable energy	260		258		—		—		2		—		—		2
Energy and transmission programs	89		23		—		38		28		6		5		17
Deferred storm costs	36		—		—		1		35		12		5		18
Electric generation-related regulatory asset	10		—		—		10		—		—		—		—
Rate stabilization deferral	7		—		—		7		—		—		—		—
Energy efficiency and demand response programs	621		—		1		285		335		250		85		—
Merger integration costs	25		—		—		10		15		11		4		—
Under-recovered revenue decoupling	27		—		—		3		24		21		3		—
COPCO acquisition adjustment	8		—		—		—		8		—		8		—
Recoverable workers compensation and long-term disability costs	34		—		—		—		34		34		—		—
Vacation accrual	31		—		7		—		24		—		14		10
Securitized stranded costs	138		—		—		—		138		—		—		138
CAP arrearage	11		—		11		—		—		—		—		—
Removal costs	477		—		—		—		477		134		88		255
Other	49		7		9		5		29		22		5		4
Total regulatory assets	11,388		1,167		1,710		712		3,504		852		348		501
Less: current portion	1,342		190		29		208		653		162		59		96
Total noncurrent regulatory assets	$	10,046	$	977	$	1,681	$	504	$	2,851	$	690	$	289	$	405



									Successor
December 31, 2016	Exelon		ComEd		PECO		BGE		PHI		Pepco		DPL		ACE
Regulatory liabilities
Other postretirement benefits	$	47	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Nuclear decommissioning	2,607		2,169		438		—		—		—		—		—
Removal costs	1,601		1,324		—		141		136		18		118		—
Deferred rent	39		—		—		—		39		—		—		—
Energy efficiency and demand response programs	185		141		41		—		3		3		—		—
DLC program costs	8		—		8		—		—		—		—		—
Electric distribution tax repairs	76		—		76		—		—		—		—		—
Gas distribution tax repairs	20		—		20		—		—		—		—		—
Energy and transmission programs	134		60		56		—		18		8		5		5
Other	72		4		5		19		41		2		17		20
Total regulatory liabilities	4,789		3,698		644		160		237		31		140		25
Less: current portion	602		329		127		50		79		11		43		25
Total noncurrent regulatory liabilities	$	4,187	$	3,369	$	517	$	110	$	158	$	20	$	97	$	—



									Predecessor
December 31, 2015	Exelon		ComEd		PECO		BGE		PHI		Pepco		DPL		ACE
Regulatory assets
Pension and other postretirement benefits	$	3,156	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	910	$	—	$	—	$	—
Deferred income taxes	1,616		64		1,473		79		214		137		36		41
AMI programs	399		140		63		196		267		180		87		—
Under-recovered distribution service costs	189		189		—		—		—		—		—		—
Debt costs	47		46		1		8		36		19		10		7
Fair value of long-term debt	162		—		—		—		—		—		—		—
Severance	9		—		—		9		—		—		—		—
Asset retirement obligations	108		67		22		19		1		1		—		—
MGP remediation costs	286		255		30		1		—		—		—		—
Under-recovered uncollectible accounts	52		52		—		—		—		—		—		—
Renewable energy	247		247		—		—		6		—		1		5
Energy and transmission programs	84		43		1		40		33		9		11		13
Deferred storm costs	2		—		—		2		43		19		6		18
Electric generation-related regulatory asset	20		—		—		20		—		—		—		—
Rate stabilization deferral	87		—		—		87		—		—		—		—
Energy efficiency and demand response programs	279		—		1		278		401		289		111		1
Merger integration costs	6		—		—		6		—		—		—		—
Conservation voltage reduction	3		—		—		3		—		—		—		—
Under-recovered revenue decoupling	30		—		—		30		14		10		4		—
COPCO acquisition adjustment	—		—		—		—		—		—		13		—
Workers compensation and long-term disability costs	—		—		—		—		31		31		—		—
Vacation accrual	6		—		6		—		23		—		14		9
Securitized stranded costs	—		—		—		—		202		—		—		202
CAP arrearage	7		—		7		—		—		—		—		—
Removal costs	—		—		—		—		369		92		69		208
Other	29		10		13		3		32		14		9		8
Total regulatory assets	6,824		1,113		1,617		781		2,582		801		371		512
Less: current portion	759		218		34		267		305		140		72		98
Total noncurrent regulatory assets	$	6,065	$	895	$	1,583	$	514	$	2,277	$	661	$	299	$	414



									Predecessor
December 31, 2015	Exelon		ComEd		PECO		BGE		PHI		Pepco		DPL		ACE
Regulatory liabilities
Other postretirement benefits	$	94	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Nuclear decommissioning	2,577		2,172		405		—		—		—		—		—
Removal costs	1,527		1,332		—		195		150		21		129		—
Energy efficiency and demand response programs	92		52		40		—		1		—		—		1
DLC program costs	9		—		9		—		—		—		—		—
Electric distribution tax repairs	95		—		95		—		—		—		—		—
Gas distribution tax repairs	28		—		28		—		—		—		—		—
Energy and transmission programs	131		53		60		18		27		16		19		8
Over-recovered revenue decoupling	1		—		—		1		—		—		—		—
Other	16		5		2		8		35		7		12		16
Total regulatory liabilities	4,570		3,614		639		222		213		44		160		25
Less: current portion	369		155		112		38		66		15		49		18
Total noncurrent regulatory liabilities	$	4,201	$	3,459	$	527	$	184	$	147	$	29	$	111	$	7

Pension and other postretirement benefits. As of December 31, 2016, Exelon had regulatory assets of $3,075 and regulatory liabilities of $47 million related to ComEd’s and BGE’s portion of deferred costs associated with Exelon’s pension plans and ComEd’s, PECO’s and BGE’s portion of deferred costs associated with Exelon’s other postretirement benefit plans. PECO’s pension regulatory recovery is based on cash contributions and is not included in the regulatory asset (liability) balances. The regulatory asset (liability) is amortized in proportion to the recognition of prior service costs (gains), transition obligations and actuarial losses (gains) attributable to Exelon’s pension and other postretirement benefit plans determined by the cost recognition provisions of the authoritative guidance for pensions and postretirement benefits. ComEd, PECO and BGE will recover these costs through base rates as allowed in their most recently approved regulated rate orders. The pension and other postretirement benefit regulatory asset balance includes a regulatory asset established at the date of the Constellation merger related to BGE’s portion of the deferred costs associated with legacy Constellation’s pension and other postretirement benefit plans. The BGE-related regulatory asset is being amortized over a period of approximately 12 years, which generally represents the expected average remaining service period of plan participants at the date of the Constellation merger. As of December 31, 2016, the pension and other postretirement benefits regulatory asset at Exelon includes regulatory assets of $1,087 million established at the date of the PHI Merger related to unrecognized costs that are probable of regulatory recovery. The regulatory assets are amortized and recovered over periods from 3 to 15 years, depending on the underlying component. Pepco, DPL and ACE are currently recovering these costs through base rates. Pepco, DPL and ACE are not earning a return on the recovery of these costs in base rates. See Note 17 — Retirement Benefits for additional detail. No return is earned on Exelon’s regulatory asset.

Deferred income taxes. These costs represent the difference between the method by which the regulator allows for the recovery of income taxes and how income taxes would be recorded under GAAP. Regulatory assets and liabilities associated with deferred income taxes, recorded in compliance with the authoritative guidance for accounting for certain types of regulation and income taxes, include the deferred tax effects associated principally with accelerated depreciation accounted for in accordance with the ratemaking policies of the ICC, PAPUC and MDPSC, as well as the revenue impacts thereon, and assume continued recovery of these costs in future transmission and distribution rates. For BGE, this amount includes the impacts of a reduction in the deductibility, for Federal income tax purposes, of certain retiree health care costs pursuant to the March 2010 Health Care Reform Acts. For BGE, these additional income taxes are being amortized over a 5-year period that began in March 2011 in accordance with the MDPSC’s March 2011 rate order. For PECO, this amount includes the impacts of electric and gas distribution repairs in the deductibility pursuant to PUC’s 2010 and 2015 rate case settlement agreements. As of December 31, 2016, includes transmission-related regulatory assets that require FERC approval separate from the transmission formula rate of $22 million, $38 million, $31 million, $20 million and $19 million for ComEd, BGE, Pepco, DPL and ACE, respectively. As of December 31, 2015, includes transmission-related regulatory assets that require FERC approval separate from the transmission formula rate of $15 million, $16 million, $26 million, $18 million and $15 million for ComEd, BGE, Pepco, DPL and ACE, respectively. See Note 15 — Income Taxes, Note 17 — Retirement Benefits, and the Transmission Forumla Rate section above for additional information. ComEd, PECO, BGE, Pepco, DPL and ACE are not earning a return on the regulatory asset in rates. The recovery period is over the life of the associated assets.

AMI programs. For ComEd, this amount represents meter costs associated with ComEd’s AMI pilot program approved in ComEd’s 2010 rate case. The recovery periods for these meter costs are through January 2020. As of December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, ComEd had regulatory assets of $162 million and $137 million, respectively, related to accelerated depreciation costs resulting from the early retirements of non-AMI meters, which will be amortized over an average ten year period pursuant to the ICC approved AMI Deployment plan. ComEd is earning a return on the regulatory asset. For PECO, this amount primarily represents accelerated depreciation on PECO’s non-AMI meter assets over a 10-year period ending December 31, 2020. Recovery of smart meter costs are reflected in base rates effective January 1, 2016. For BGE, this amount represents AMI costs associated with the installation of smart meters and the early retirement of legacy meters. The incremental costs associated with the installation, along with depreciation, amortization, and an appropriate return, had been building in a regulatory asset since the MDPSC approved the comprehensive smart grid initiative for BGE in August 2010 through approval of the program in BGE’s rate order issued June, 2016. As of December 31, 2016, the balance of BGE’s regulatory asset was $230 million, which consists of three major components, including $144 million of unamortized incremental deployment costs of the AMI program, $54 million of unamortized costs of the non-AMI meters replaced under the program, and $32 million related to post-test year incremental program deployment costs incurred prior to when approval became effective June 2016. The incremental deployment costs for the AMI program and the non-AMI meter components of the regulatory asset are being amortized and recovered through rates over a 10-year period, which began in June, 2016. A return on the $144 million incremental deployment costs for the AMI program portion of the regulatory asset is included in rates. The $54 million portion of the regulatory asset related to the unamortized cost of the retired non-AMI meters is not earning a return in rates. The $32 million portion related to post-test year incremental program deployment costs have not yet been approved for recovery by the MDPSC and are not currently earning a return for financial reporting purposes. For PHI, this amount represents AMI costs associated with the installation of smart meters and the early retirement of legacy meters throughout the service territories for Pepco and DPL. An AMI program has not been approved by the NJBPU for ACE in New Jersey. Pepco has received approval for recovery of deferred AMI program costs from the DCPSC and the MDPSC in its DC and Maryland service territories. Pepco does earn a return on the AMI deployment costs, but not on the early retirement of legacy meters. DPL has received approval for recovery of deferred AMI program costs from the DPSC in its Delaware service territory and has received a proposed order from the MDPSC approving recovery of deferred AMI program costs in its Maryland service territory. As of December 31, 2016, the DPL deferred AMI program costs pending finalization of the proposed order from the MDPSC are $41 million, of which $14 million relates to retired legacy meters which are not earning a return.

Under-recovered distribution services costs. These amounts represent under recoveries related to electric distribution services costs recoverable through EIMA’s performance based formula rate. Under (over) recoveries for the annual reconciliations are recoverable (refundable) over a one-year period and costs for certain one-time events, such as large storms, are recoverable over a five-year period. ComEd earns and pays a return on under and over-recovered costs, respectively. As of December 31, 2016, the regulatory asset was comprised of $134 million for the 2015 to 2016 annual reconciliations and $54 million related to significant one-time events, including $20 million in deferred storm costs and $11 million of Constellation and PHI merger and integration related costs, and $23 million of smart meter related costs. ComEd's 2015 annual reconciliation regulatory asset includes a reduction of $8 million related to a ComEd-proposed refund to customers for the impact of changing its OSHA recordable rate for 2014 and 2015. As of December 31, 2015, the regulatory asset was comprised of $142 million for the 2014 and 2015 annual reconciliations and $47 million related to significant one-time events, including $36 million in deferred storm costs and $11 million of Constellation merger and integration related costs.

Debt costs. Consistent with rate recovery for ratemaking purposes, ComEd’s, PECO’s, BGE’s, Pepco's, DPL's and ACE's recoverable losses on reacquired long-term debt related to regulated operations are deferred and amortized to interest expense over the life of the new debt issued to finance the debt redemption or over the life of the original debt issuance if the debt is not refinanced. Interest-rate swap settlements are deferred and amortized over the period that the related debt is outstanding or the life of the original issuance retired. These debt costs are used in the determination of the weighted cost of capital applied to rate base in the rate-making process. ComEd and BGE are not earning a return on these costs. Recovery of these costs will continue through 2038 for ComEd and BGE. PECO, Pepco, DPL and ACE are earning a return on the premium of the cost of the reacquired debt through base rates. The regulatory asset for Pepco, DPL and ACE was eliminated at Exelon and PHI as part of acquisition accounting.

Fair value of long-term debt. These amounts represent the unamortized regulatory assets recorded at Exelon for the difference between the carrying value and fair value of the long-term debt of BGE as of the Constellation merger date based on the MDPSC practice to allow BGE to recover its debt costs through rates and at Exelon and PHI for the difference between carrying value and fair value of long-term debt of Pepco, DPL and ACE as of the PHI Merger date. Exelon is amortizing the regulatory asset and the associated fair value over the life of the underlying debt and is not earning a return on the recovery of these costs.

Fair value of PHI's unamortized energy contracts. These amounts represent the regulatory asset recorded at Exelon and PHI offsetting the fair value adjustments related to Pepco's, DPL's and ACE's electricity and natural gas energy supply contracts recorded at PHI as of the PHI Merger date. Pepco, DPL and ACE are allowed full recovery of the costs of these contracts through their respective rate making processes.

Severance. For BGE, these costs represent deferred severance costs associated with a 2010 workforce reduction that were deferred as a regulatory asset and are being amortized over a 5-year period that began in March 2011 in accordance with the MDPSC’s March 2011 rate order. Additionally, costs associated with the 2012 BGE voluntary workforce reduction were deferred in 2012 as a regulatory asset in accordance with the MDPSC’s orders in prior rate cases and are being amortized over a 5-year period that began in July 2012. BGE is earning a regulated return on the regulatory asset included in base rates.

Asset retirement obligations. These costs represent future legally required removal costs associated with existing asset retirement obligations. PECO will begin to earn a return on, and a recovery of, these costs once the removal activities have been performed. ComEd and BGE will recover these costs through future depreciation rates and will earn a return on these costs once the removal activities have been performed. The recovery period will be over the expected life of the related assets. See Note 16 — Asset Retirement Obligations for additional information.

MGP remediation costs. ComEd is allowed recovery of these costs under ICC approved rates. For PECO, these costs are recoverable through rates as affirmed in the 2010 approved natural gas distribution rate case settlement. The period of recovery for both ComEd and PECO will depend on the timing of the actual expenditures, currently estimated to be completed in 2022 for both ComEd and PECO. ComEd and PECO are not earning a return on the recovery of these costs. While BGE does not have a rider for MGP clean-up costs, BGE has historically received recovery of actual clean-up costs on a site-specific basis in distribution rates. For BGE, $5 million of clean-up costs incurred during the period from July 2000 through November 2005 and an additional $1 million from December 2005 through November 2010 are recoverable through rates in accordance with MDPSC orders. BGE is earning a return on this regulatory asset and these costs are being amortized over 10-year periods that began in January 2006 and December 2010, respectively. The recovery period for the 10-year period that began January 2006 was extended for an additional 24 months, in accordance with the MDPSC approved 2014 electric and natural gas distribution rate case order. See Note 24 — Commitments and Contingencies for additional information.

Under recovered uncollectible accounts. These amounts represent the difference between ComEd’s annual uncollectible accounts expense and revenues collected in rates through an ICC-approved rider. The difference between net uncollectible account charge-offs and revenues collected through the rider each calendar year is recovered or refunded over a twelve-month period beginning in June of the following calendar year. ComEd does not earn a return on these under recoveries.

Renewable energy. In December 2010, ComEd entered into several 20-year floating-to-fixed energy swap contracts with unaffiliated suppliers for the procurement of long-term renewable energy and associated RECs through 2032 in order to meet a portion of its obligations under the Illinois RPS. Delivery under the contracts began in June 2012. Since the swap contracts were deemed prudent by the Illinois Settlement Legislation, ensuring ComEd of full recovery in rates, the changes in fair value each period as well as an offsetting regulatory asset or liability are recorded by ComEd. ComEd does not earn (pay) a return on the regulatory asset (liability). Recovery of these costs will continue through 2032. The basis for the mark-to-market derivative asset or liability position is based on the difference between ComEd’s cost to purchase energy at the market price and the contracted price.

Energy and transmission programs. These amounts represent under (over) recoveries related to energy and transmission costs recoverable (refundable) under ComEd’s ICC and/or FERC-approved rates. Under (over) recoveries are recoverable (refundable) over a one-year period or less. ComEd earns a return or interest on under-recovered costs and pays interest on over-recovered costs to customers. As of December 31, 2016, ComEd's regulatory asset of $23 million included $15 million associated with transmission costs recoverable through its FERC approved formula rate and $8 million of Constellation merger and integration costs to be recovered upon FERC approval. As of December 31, 2016, ComEd's regulatory liability of $60 million included $30 million related to over-recovered energy costs and $30 million associated with revenues received for renewable energy requirements. As of December 31, 2015, ComEd's regulatory asset of $43 million included $5 million related to under-recovered energy costs, $31 million associated with transmission costs recoverable through its FERC-approved formula rate tariff, and $7 million of Constellation merger and integration costs to be recovered upon FERC approval. As of December 31, 2015, ComEd's regulatory liability of $53 million included $29 million related to over-recovered energy costs and $24 million associated with revenues received for renewable energy requirements. See Transmission Formula Rate above for further details.

The PECO energy costs represent the electric and gas supply related costs recoverable (refundable) under PECO’s GSA and PGC, respectively. PECO earns interest on the under-recovered energy and natural gas costs and pays interest on over-recovered energy and natural gas costs to customers. In addition, the DSP Program costs are presented on a net basis with PECO’s GSA under (over)-recovered energy costs. These amounts represent recoverable administrative costs incurred relating to the filing and procurement associated with PECO’s PAPUC-approved DSP programs for the procurement of electric supply. The filings and procurements of these DSP Programs are recoverable through the GSA over each respective term. DSP II and DSP III each have a 24-month term that began June 1, 2013 and June 1, 2015, respectively. The independent evaluator costs associated with conducting procurements are recoverable over a 12-month period after the PAPUC approves the results of the procurements. PECO is not earning a return on these costs. Certain costs included in PECO's original DSP program related to information technology improvements were recovered over a 5-year period that began January 1, 2011. PECO earns a return on the recovery of information technology costs. The PECO transmission costs represent the electric transmission costs recoverable (refundable) under the TSC under which PECO earns interest on under-recovered costs and pays interest on over-recovered costs to customers. As of December 31, 2016, PECO's regulatory liability of $56 million included $34 million related to over-recovered costs under the DSP program, $10 million related to over-recovered non-bypassable transmission service charges, $8 million related to the over-recovered natural gas costs under the PGC and $4 million related to over-recovered electric transmission costs. As of December 31, 2015, PECO's regulatory asset of $1 million related to under-recovered non-bypassable transmission service charges. As of December 31, 2015, PECO's regulatory liability of $60 million included $35 million related to over-recovered costs under the DSP program, $22 million related to the over-recovered natural gas costs under the PGC and $3 million related to the over-recovered electric transmission costs.

The BGE energy costs represent the electric supply, gas supply, and transmission related costs recoverable (refundable) from (to) customers under BGE’s market-based SOS program, MBR program, and FERC approved transmission rates, respectively. BGE earns or pays interest to customers on under-recovered or over-recovered FERC transmission formula-related costs. BGE does not earn or pay interest to customers on under-recovered or over-recovered SOS and MBR costs. The recovery or refund period is a twelve-month period beginning in June of the following calendar year. As of December 31, 2016, BGE's regulatory asset of $38 million included $4 million of costs associated with transmission costs recoverable through its FERC approved formula rate, $28 million related to under-recovered electric energy costs, $3 million of abandonment costs to be recovered upon FERC approval, and $3 million related to under-recovered natural gas costs. As of December 31, 2015, BGE’s regulatory asset of $40 million included $12 million of costs associated with transmission costs recoverable through its FERC approved formula rate and $28 million related to under-recovered electric energy costs. As of December 31, 2015, BGE’s regulatory liability of $18 million related to $14 million of over-recovered transmission costs and $5 million of over-recovered natural gas costs, offset by $1 million of abandonment costs to be recovered upon FERC approval.

The Pepco energy costs represent the electric supply and transmission related costs recoverable (refundable) from (to) customers under Pepco’s market-based SOS program and FERC approved transmission rates. Pepco earns or pays interest to customers on under-recovered or over-recovered FERC transmission formula-related costs. Pepco does not earn or pay interest to customers on under- or over-recovered SOS costs. The asset is being amortized and recovered over the life of the associated assets. As of December 31, 2016, Pepco's regulatory asset of $6 million related to under-recovered electric energy costs. As of December 31, 2016, Pepco's regulatory liability of $8 million included $5 million of over-recovered transmission costs and $3 million of over-recovered electric energy costs. As of December 31, 2015, Pepco's regulatory asset of $9 million included $5 million of transmission costs recoverable through its FERC approved formula rate and $4 million of recoverable abandonment costs. As of December 31, 2015, Pepco's regulatory liability of $16 million included $14 million of over-recovered transmission costs and $2 million of over-recovered electric energy costs.

The DPL energy costs represent the electric supply, gas supply, and transmission related costs recoverable (refundable) from (to) customers under DPL’s market-based SOS program, GCR and FERC approved transmission rates. DPL earns or pays interest to customers on under-recovered or over-recovered FERC transmission formula-related costs. In Delaware, DPL earns interest on under-recovered costs and pays interest to customers on over-recovered SOS an GCR costs. In Maryland, DPL does not earn or pay interest to customers on under- or over-recovered SOS costs. The asset is being amortized and recovered over the life of the associated assets. As of December 31, 2016, DPL's regulatory asset of $5 million included $1 million of transmission costs recoverable through its FERC approved formula rate and $4 million of under-recovered electric energy costs. As of December 31, 2016, DPL's regulatory liability of $5 million included $2 million of over-recovered electric energy costs and $3 million of over-recovered transmission costs. As of December 31, 2015, DPL's regulatory asset of $11 million included $7 million of transmission costs recoverable through its FERC approved formula rate, $3 million of recoverable abandonment costs, and $1 million of under-recovered electric energy costs. As of December 31, 2015, DPL's regulatory liability of $19 million included $4 million related to the over-recovered natural gas costs under the GCR mechanism, $4 million of over-recovered electric energy costs, and $11 million of over-recovered transmission costs.

The ACE energy costs represent the electric supply and transmission related costs recoverable (refundable) from (to) customers under ACE’s market-based BGS program and FERC approved transmission rates. ACE earns or pays interest to customers on under-recovered or over-recovered FERC transmission formula-related costs. ACE earns interest on under-recovered and pays interest to customers on over-recovered BGS costs. As of December 31, 2016, ACE's regulatory asset of $17 million included $6 million of transmission costs recoverable through its FERC approved formula rate and $11 million of under-recovered electric energy costs. As of December 31, 2016, ACE's regulatory liability of $5 million included $4 million of over-recovered transmission costs and $1 million of over-recovered electric energy costs. As of December 31, 2015, ACE's regulatory asset of $13 million included $2 million of transmission costs recoverable through its FERC approved formula rate and $11 million of under-recovered electric energy costs. As of December 31, 2015, ACE's regulatory liability of $8 million related to over-recovered transmission costs.

Deferred storm costs. In the MDPSC’s March 2011 rate order, BGE was authorized to defer $16 million in storm costs incurred in February 2010. BGE earns a return on this regulatory asset and the original recovery period of five years was extended for an additional 25 months, in accordance with the MDPSC 2014 electric and natural gas distribution rate case order.

For Pepco, DPL and ACE, amounts represent total incremental storm restoration costs incurred for repair work due to major storm events in 2016, 2015, 2012 and 2011, including the January 2016 winter storm Jonas for Pepco, June 2015 storm (for DPL and ACE), Hurricane Sandy, the June 2012 derecho, Hurricane Irene and the 2011 severe winter storm (for Pepco), that are recoverable from customers in the Maryland and New Jersey jurisdictions. Pepco’s and DPL’s costs related to Hurricane Sandy, the June 2012 derecho, Hurricane Irene and Pepco’s costs related to the 2011 severe winter storm are being amortized and recovered from customers, each over a five-year period. However, in the November 2016 Pepco Maryland Case No. 9418 order, the Commission ruled that the remaining amortization for the Pepco Maryland February 2010 storm, the January 2011 storm and Hurricane Irene be extended for an additional three years. The reason for the extension was that since these assets would be fully amortized in 2017, Pepco would over-recover these costs if the rates in this case remained in effect beyond July 2017. The January 2017 PULJ report for DPL Maryland Case No. 9424 also recommended that amortization period for Hurricane Irene (DPL MD) be extended an additional three years as well. ACE’s costs related to Hurricane Sandy, the June 2012 derecho and Hurricane Irene are being amortized and recovered from customers, each over a three-year period. PHI does not earn a return on these ACE regulatory assets.

Electric generation-related regulatory asset. As a result of the deregulation of electric generation, BGE ceased to meet the requirements for accounting for a regulated business for the previous electric generation portion of its business. As a result, BGE wrote-off its entire individual, generation-related regulatory assets and liabilities and established a single, generation-related regulatory asset to be collected through its regulated rates, which is being amortized on a basis that approximates the pre-existing individual regulatory asset amortization schedules. The portion of this regulatory asset that does not earn a regulated rate of return was $9 million as of December 31, 2016, and $19 million as of December 31, 2015. BGE will continue to amortize this amount through 2017.

Rate stabilization deferral. In June 2006, Senate Bill 1 was enacted in Maryland and imposed a rate stabilization measure that capped rate increases by BGE for residential electric customers at 15% from July 1, 2006, to May 31, 2007. As a result, BGE recorded a regulatory asset on its Consolidated Balance Sheets equal to the difference between the costs to purchase power and the revenues collected from customers, as well as related carrying charges based on short-term interest rates from July 1, 2006 to May 31, 2007. In addition, as required by Senate Bill 1, the MDPSC approved a plan that allowed residential electric customers the option to further defer the transition to market rates from June 1, 2007 to January 1, 2008. During 2007, BGE deferred $306 million of electricity purchased for resale expenses and certain applicable carrying charges, which are calculated using the implied interest rates of the rate stabilization bonds, as a regulatory asset related to the rate stabilization plans. During 2016 and 2015, BGE recovered $81 million and $73 million, respectively, of electricity purchased for resale expenses and carrying charges related to the rate stabilization plan regulatory asset. BGE began amortizing the regulatory asset associated with the deferral which ended in May 2007 to earnings over a period not to exceed ten years when collection from customers began in June 2007.

Energy efficiency and demand response programs. For ComEd, these amounts represent over recoveries related to ComEd’s ICC-approved Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Plan. ComEd expects to refund these over recoveries in 2017. ComEd earns a return on the capital investment incurred under the program, but does not earn or pay a return or interest on under or over recoveries, respectively. For PECO, these amounts represent over recoveries of program costs related to both Phase II and Phase III of its PAPUC-approved EE&C Plan. PECO began recovering the costs of its Phase II and Phase III EE&C Plans through a surcharge in June 2013 and June 2016, respectively, based on projected spending under the programs. Phase II of the program began on June 1, 2013 and expired on May 31, 2016. Phase III of the program began on June 1, 2016 and will expire on May 31, 2021. PECO does not earn (pay) interest on under (over) collections. For BGE, these amounts represent under (over) recoveries related to BGE’s Smart Energy Savers Program®, which includes both MDPSC-approved demand response and energy efficiency programs. For the BGE Peak Rewards^SM demand response program which began in January 2008, actual marketing and customer bonus costs incurred in the demand response program are being recovered over a 5-year amortization period from the date incurred pursuant to an order by the MDPSC. Fixed assets related to the demand response program are recovered over the life of the equipment. Also included in the demand response program are customer bill credits related to BGE’s Smart Energy Rewards program which began in July 2013 and are being recovered through the surcharge. Actual costs incurred in the energy efficiency program are being amortized over a 5-year period with recovery beginning in 2010 pursuant to an order by the MDPSC. BGE earns a rate of return on the capital investments and deferred costs incurred under the program and earns (pays) interest on under (over) collections.

For Pepco, DPL and ACE, amounts represent recoverable costs associated with customer direct load control and energy efficiency and conservation programs in all jurisdictions that are being recovered from customers. These programs are designed to reduce customers’ energy consumption. PHI earns a return on these regulatory assets.

Merger integration costs. These amounts include integration costs to achieve distribution synergies related to the Constellation merger transaction. As a result of the MDPSC’s February 2013 rate order, BGE deferred $8 million related to non-severance merger integration costs incurred during 2012 and the first quarter of 2013. Of these costs, $4 million was authorized to be amortized over a 5-year period that began in March 2013. The recovery of the remaining $4 million was deferred. In the MDPSC’s December 2013 rate order, BGE was authorized to recover the remaining $4 million and an additional $4 million of non-severance merger integration costs incurred during 2013. These costs are being amortized over a 5-year period that began in December 2013. BGE is earning a return on this regulatory asset included in base rates.

These amounts also include integration costs to achieve distribution synergies related to the PHI acquisition. As of December 31, 2016, BGE's regulatory asset of $10 million included $6 million of previously incurred PHI acquisition costs as authorized by the June 2016 rate case order. As of December 31, 2016, PHI's regulatory asset of $15 million represents previously incurred PHI acquisition costs expected to earn a return and be recovered in distribution rates in the Maryland service territories of Pepco and DPL.

Under (Over)-recovered electric and gas revenue decoupling. For BGE, these amounts represent the electric and gas distribution costs recoverable from or (refundable) to customers under BGE’s decoupling mechanisms, which does not earn a rate of return and is being recovered over the life of the associated assets. As of December 31, 2016, BGE had a regulatory asset of $2 million related to under-recovered natural gas revenue decoupling and $1 million related to under-recovered electric revenue decoupling. As of December 31, 2015, BGE had a regulatory asset of $30 million related to under-recovered electric revenue decoupling and a regulatory liability of $1 million related to over-recovered natural gas revenue decoupling.

For Pepco and DPL, these amounts represents the electric distribution costs recoverable from customers under Pepco's Maryland and District of Columbia decoupling mechanisms and DPL's Maryland decoupling mechanism. Pepco and DPL earn a return on these regulatory assets.

COPCO acquisition adjustment. On July 19, 2007, the MDPSC issued an order which provided for the recovery of a portion of DPL’s goodwill. As a result of this order, $41 million in DPL goodwill was transferred to a regulatory asset. This item is being amortized from August 2007 through August 2018. DPL earns a return of 12.95% on these regulatory assets.

Recoverable workers compensation and long-term disability costs. These amounts represent accrued workers’ compensation and long-term disability costs for Pepco, which are recoverable from customers when actual claims are paid to employees. Pepco is not earning a return on the recovery of these costs and the recovery period is over the life of the associated assets.

Vacation accrual. These amounts represent accrued vacation costs for PECO, DPL and ACE. PECO, DPL and ACE do not earn a return on these regulatory assets and the costs are recoverable from customers when actual payments are made to employees or when vacation is taken.

Securitized stranded costs. These amounts represent certain contract termination payments under a contract between ACE and an unaffiliated non-utility generator and costs associated with the regulated operations of ACE’s electricity generation business that are no longer recoverable through customer rates (collectively referred to as “stranded costs”). The stranded costs are amortized over the life of Transition Bonds issued by Atlantic City Electric Transition Funding LLC (ACE Funding) to securitize the recoverability of these stranded costs. These bonds mature between 2017 and 2023. A customer surcharge is collected by ACE to fund principal and interest payments on the Transition Bonds. PHI earns a return on these regulatory assets.

CAP arrearage. These amounts represent the guaranteed recovery of PECO's previously incurred bad debt expense associated with the eligible CAP accounts receivable balances under the IPAF Program as provided by the 2015 electric distribution rate case settlement. These costs are amortized as recovery is received through a combination of customer payments over the duration of the five-year payment agreement term and rate recovery, including through future rate cases if necessary. PECO is not earning a return on this regulatory asset.

Nuclear decommissioning. These amounts represent estimated future nuclear decommissioning costs for the Regulatory Agreement Units that exceed (regulatory asset) or are less than (regulatory liability) the associated decommissioning trust fund assets. Exelon believes the trust fund assets, including prospective earnings thereon and any future collections from customers, will be sufficient to fund the associated future decommissioning costs at the time of decommissioning. Exelon is not accruing interest on these costs. See Note 16 — Asset Retirement Obligations for additional information.

Removal costs. These amounts represent funds ComEd, BGE, PHI, Pepco, DPL and ACE have received from customers through depreciation rates to cover the future non-legally required cost of removal of property, plant and equipment which reduces rate base for ratemaking purposes. This liability is reduced as costs are incurred. PHI, Pepco, DPL, and ACE have a regulatory asset which represents removal costs incurred in excess of amounts received from customers through depreciation rates recoverable from ratepayers. Pepco, DPL and ACE do not earn a return on these regulatory assets and the recovery period is over the life of the associated assets.

Deferred rent. Represents the regulatory liability recorded at Exelon and PHI for deferred rent related to a lease. The costs of the lease are recoverable through the ratemaking process at Pepco, DPL and ACE.

DLC program costs. The DLC program costs include equipment, installation, and information technology costs necessary to implement the DLC Program under PECO’s EE&C Phase I Plans. PECO received full cost recovery through Phase I collections and will amortize the costs as a credit to the income statement to offset the related depreciation expense during the same period through September 2025, which is the remaining useful life of the assets. PECO is not paying interest on these over-recovered costs.

Electric distribution tax repairs. PECO’s 2010 electric distribution rate case settlement required that the expected cash benefit from the application of Revenue Procedure 2011-43, which was issued on August 19, 2011, to prior tax years be refunded to customers over a seven-year period. Credits began being reflected in customer bills on January 1, 2012. PECO's 2015 electric distribution rate case settlement requires PECO to pay interest on the unamortized balance of the tax-effected catch-up deduction beginning January 1, 2016.

Gas distribution tax repairs. PECO’s 2010 natural gas distribution rate case settlement required that the expected cash benefit from the application of new tax repairs deduction methodologies for 2010 and prior tax years be refunded to customers over a seven-year period. In September 2012, PECO filed an application with the IRS to change its method of accounting for gas distribution repairs for the 2011 tax year. Credits began being reflected in customer bills on January 1, 2013. No interest will be paid to customers.

Capitalized Ratemaking Amounts Not Recognized (Exelon, ComEd, PECO, BGE, PHI, Pepco, DPL and ACE)

The following table illustrates our authorized amounts capitalized for ratemaking purposes related to earnings on shareholders’ investment that are not recognized for financial reporting purposes on our Consolidated Balance Sheets. These amounts will be recognized as revenues in our Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income in the periods they are billable to our customers.



									Successor
	Exelon		ComEd^(a)		PECO		BGE^(b)		PHI		Pepco^(b)		DPL^(b)		ACE
December 31, 2016	$	72	$	5	$	—	$	57	$	10	$	6	$	4	$	—
									Predecessor
	Exelon		ComEd^(a)		PECO		BGE^(b)		PHI		Pepco^(b)		DPL^(b)		ACE
December 31, 2015	$	55	$	6	$	—	$	49	$	4	$	1	$	3	$	—

_________________________


(a)	Reflects ComEd's unrecognized equity returns earned for ratemaking purposes on its under-recovered distribution services costs regulatory assets.


(b)	BGE's, Pepco's and DPL's authorized amounts capitalized for ratemaking purposes related to earnings on shareholders' investment on their respective AMI Programs.

Purchase of Receivables Programs (Exelon, ComEd, PECO, BGE, PHI, Pepco, DPL and ACE)

ComEd, PECO, BGE, Pepco, DPL and ACE are required, under separate legislation and regulations in Illinois, Pennsylvania, Maryland, District of Columbia and New Jersey, to purchase certain receivables from retail electric and natural gas suppliers that participate in the utilities' consolidated billing. ComEd, BGE, Pepco and DPL purchase receivables at a discount primarily to recover uncollectible accounts expense from the suppliers. PECO is required to purchase receivables at face value and is permitted to recover uncollectible accounts expense, including those from Third Party Suppliers, from customers through distribution rates. ACE purchases receivables at face value. ACE recovers all uncollectible accounts expense, including those from Third Party Suppliers, through the Societal Benefits Charge (SBC) rider, which includes uncollectible accounts expense as a component. The SBC is filed annually with the NJBPU. Exelon, ComEd, PECO, BGE, PHI, Pepco, DPL and ACE do not record unbilled commodity receivables under the POR programs. Purchased billed receivables are classified in Other accounts receivable, net on Exelon’s, ComEd’s, PECO’s, BGE’s, PHI's, Pepco's, DPL's and ACE's Consolidated Balance Sheets. The following tables provide information about the purchased receivables of those companies as of December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015.



													Successor
As of December 31, 2016	Exelon			ComEd			PECO			BGE			PHI			Pepco			DPL			ACE
Purchased receivables ^(c)	$	313		$	87		$	72		$	59		$	95		$	63		$	10		$	22
Allowance for uncollectible accounts ^(a)	(37		)	(14		)	(6		)	(4		)	(13		)	(7		)	(2		)	(4		)
Purchased receivables, net	$	276		$	73		$	66		$	55		$	82		$	56		$	8		$	18

													Predecessor
As of December 31, 2015	Exelon			ComEd			PECO			BGE			PHI			Pepco			DPL			ACE
Purchased receivables ^(b)(c)	$	229		$	103		$	67		$	59		$	100		$	70		$	11		$	19
Allowance for uncollectible accounts ^(a)	(31		)	(16		)	(7		)	(8		)	(6		)	(4		)	—			(2		)
Purchased receivables, net	$	198		$	87		$	60		$	51		$	94		$	66		$	11		$	17

_________________________


(a)	For ComEd, BGE, Pepco and DPL, reflects the incremental allowance for uncollectible accounts recorded, which is in addition to the purchase discount. For ComEd, the incremental uncollectible accounts expense is recovered through its Purchase of Receivables with Consolidated Billing tariff.


(b)	PECO’s natural gas POR program became effective on January 1, 2012 and included a 1% discount on purchased receivables in order to recover the implementation costs of the program. The implementation costs were fully recovered and the 1% discount was reset to 0%, effective July 2015.

(c)

Pepco's electric POR program in Maryland included a discount on purchased receivables ranging from 0% to 2% depending on customer class, and Pepco's electric POR program in the District of Columbia included a discount on purchased receivables ranging from 0% to 6% depending on customer class. DPL's electric POR program in Maryland included a discount on purchased receivables ranging from 0% to 1% depending on customer class.