COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2014

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]


	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Nuclear Insurance

Under Price-Anderson, SCE&G (for itself and on behalf of Santee Cooper, a one-third owner of Summer Station Unit 1) maintains agreements of indemnity with the NRC that, together with private insurance, cover third-party liability arising from any nuclear incident occurring at SCE&G's nuclear power plant. Price-Anderson provides funds up to $13.6 billion for public liability claims that could arise from a single nuclear incident. Each nuclear plant is insured against this liability to a maximum of $375 million by ANI with the remaining coverage provided by a mandatory program of deferred premiums that could be assessed, after a nuclear incident, against all owners of commercial nuclear reactors. Each reactor licensee is currently liable for up to $127.3 million per reactor owned for each nuclear incident occurring at any reactor in the United States, provided that not more than $18.9 million of the liability per reactor would be assessed per year. SCE&G’s maximum assessment, based on its two-thirds ownership of Summer Station Unit 1, would be $84.8 million per incident, but not more than $12.6 million per year. Both the maximum assessment per reactor and the maximum yearly assessment are adjusted for inflation at least every five years.

SCE&G currently maintains insurance policies (for itself and on behalf of Santee Cooper) with NEIL. The policies provide coverage to Summer Station Unit 1 for property damage and outage costs up to $2.75 billion resulting from an event of nuclear origin. In addition, a builder's risk insurance policy has been purchased from NEIL for the construction of the New Units. This policy provides the owners of the New Units up to $500 million in limits of accidental property damage occurring during construction. The NEIL policies, in the aggregate, are subject to a maximum loss of $2.75 billion for any single loss occurrence. All of the NEIL policies permit retrospective assessments under certain conditions to cover insurer’s losses. Based on the current annual premium, SCE&G’s portion of the retrospective premium assessment would not exceed $43.5 million.

To the extent that insurable claims for property damage, decontamination, repair and replacement and other costs and expenses arising from a nuclear incident at Summer Station Unit 1 exceed the policy limits of insurance, or to the extent such insurance becomes unavailable in the future, and to the extent that SCE&G's rates would not recover the cost of any purchased replacement power, SCE&G will retain the risk of loss as a self-insurer. SCE&G has no reason to anticipate a serious nuclear incident. However, if such an incident were to occur, it likely would have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, cash flows and financial position.

New Nuclear Construction

SCE&G, on behalf of itself and as agent for Santee Cooper, has contracted with the Consortium for the design and construction of the New Units at the site of Summer Station. As of June 30, 2014, SCE&G's 55% share of the estimated cash outlays (future value, excluding AFC) totaled approximately $5.3 billion for plant and related transmission infrastructure costs, and was projected based on historical one-year and five-year escalation rates as required by the SCPSC.

SCE&G's current ownership share in the New Units is 55%. Under an agreement signed in January 2014 (and subject to customary closing conditions, including necessary regulatory approvals), SCE&G has agreed to acquire an additional 5% ownership in the New Units from Santee Cooper. Under the terms of this agreement SCE&G will acquire a 1% ownership interest in the New Units at the commercial operation date of Unit 2, will acquire an additional 2% ownership interest no later than the first anniversary of such commercial operation date, and will acquire the final 2% no later than the second anniversary of such commercial operation date. Under the terms of the agreement SCE&G has agreed to pay an amount equal to Santee Cooper's actual cost of the percentage conveyed as of the date of conveyance. As of June 30, 2014, and based on the updated construction milestone schedule and capital costs schedule approved by the SCPSC in November 2012 (see below), SCE&G estimated such cost will be approximately $500 million for the entire 5% interest. In addition, the agreement provides that Santee Cooper will not transfer any of its remaining interest in the New Units to third parties until the New Units are complete. This transaction will not affect the payment obligations between the parties during construction for the New Units, nor is it anticipated that the payments for the additional ownership interest would be reflected in a revised rates filing under the BLRA.

Under the BLRA, the SCPSC has approved, among other things, the construction milestone schedule and capital costs estimates schedule for the New Units. The effect of this approval is that it constitutes a final and binding determination that the New Units are used and useful for utility purposes, and that the capital costs associated with the New Units are prudent utility costs and expenses and are properly included in rates, so long as the New Units are constructed or are being constructed within the parameters of the approved construction milestone schedule, including specified contingencies, and the approved capital costs estimates schedule. The BLRA provides that SCE&G may apply to the SCPSC annually for an order to recover through revised rates SCE&G’s weighted average cost of capital applied to all or part of the outstanding balance of construction work in progress concerning the New Units. Such annual rate changes are described in Note 2.

The parties to the EPC Contract have established both informal and formal dispute resolution procedures in order to resolve issues that arise during the course of constructing a project of this magnitude. During the course of activities under the EPC Contract, issues have materialized that have impacted the project budget and schedule. SCE&G expects to resolve all disputes through both the informal and formal procedures and anticipates that any costs that arise through such dispute resolution processes, as well as other costs identified from time to time, will be recoverable through rates.

In November 2012, the SCPSC approved a petition by SCE&G under the BLRA for an updated construction milestone schedule and additional updated capital costs for the New Units. In addition, the SCPSC approved revised substantial completion dates for the New Units based on the March 30, 2012 issuance of the COL and the amounts agreed upon by SCE&G and the Consortium in July 2012 to resolve known claims by the Consortium for costs related to COL delays, design modifications of the shield building and certain pre-fabricated structural modules for the New Units and unanticipated rock conditions at the site. Immediately thereafter, two parties filed separate petitions requesting that the SCPSC reconsider its order, and on December 12, 2012, the SCPSC denied both petitions. In March 2013, both parties appealed the SCPSC's order to the South Carolina Supreme Court, contending that the SCPSC erred in granting approval of the updated capital costs for the New Units. The South Carolina Supreme Court heard arguments related to those appeals on April 16, 2014. SCE&G is unable to predict the outcome of these appeals.

The substantial completion dates currently approved by the SCPSC for Units 2 and 3 are March 15, 2017 and May 15, 2018. The SCPSC has also approved an 18-month contingency period beyond each of these dates.

Since the settlement of delay-related claims in 2012, the Consortium has continued to experience delays in the schedule for fabrication and delivery of sub-modules for the New Units. The fabrication and delivery of sub-modules have been and remain a focus area of the Consortium, including sub-modules for module CA20, which is part of the auxiliary building, and CA01, which houses components inside the containment vessel. Modules CA20 and CA01, as well as shield building modules, are considered critical path items for both New Units. CA20 was placed on the nuclear island of Unit 2 in May 2014. The delivery schedule of sub-modules for CA01 is expected to support completion of on-site fabrication to allow it to be ready for placement on the nuclear island of Unit 2 during the first half of 2015.

During the fourth quarter of 2013, the Consortium began a full re-baselining of the Unit 2 and Unit 3 construction schedules to incorporate a more detailed evaluation of the engineering and procurement activities necessary to accomplish the schedules and to provide a detailed reassessment of the impact of the revised Unit 2 and Unit 3 schedules on engineering and design resource allocations, procurement, construction work crew efficiencies, and other items. The result will be a revised fully integrated project schedule with timing of specific construction activities along with detailed information on budget, cost and cash flow requirements. While this detailed re-baselining of construction schedules has not been completed, in August 2014 SCE&G received preliminary information in which the Consortium has indicated that the substantial completion of Unit 2 is expected to occur in late 2018 or the first half of 2019 and that the substantial completion of Unit 3 may be approximately 12 months later. These expected substantial completion dates do not reflect all efforts that may be possible to mitigate delay nor has SCE&G accepted this new schedule. The Consortium has not yet provided any cost estimates related to the delay. SCE&G anticipates that the revised schedule and the cost estimate at completion will be finalized in the latter half of 2014. SCE&G plans to reevaluate and reschedule its owners cost estimates and cash flow requirements in light of that new schedule when it is finalized.

SCE&G cannot predict with certainty the extent to which the delays in the substantial completion of the New Units will result in increased project costs. SCE&G has not accepted responsibility for any delay-related costs and expects to have discussions with the Consortium regarding such responsibility. Additionally, the EPC Contract provides for liquidated damages in the event of a delay in the completion of the facility, which will also be included in discussions with the Consortium.

The construction milestone schedule approved by the SCPSC in November 2012 provides for 146 construction milestone dates, which are each subject to an 18-month schedule contingency. As of August 4, 2014, 100 milestones have been completed. Based on the preliminary schedule information arising from the re-baselining effort, the completion dates for a number of the remaining milestones are expected to extend beyond the 18-month contingency periods. As a result, upon completion of the re-baselining and the finalization of the revised schedule and cost estimate at completion, SCE&G, as provided for under the BLRA, expects to petition the SCPSC for an order to update the BLRA construction milestone schedule and/or capital costs estimates schedule. The BLRA provides that the SCPSC shall grant the petition for modification if the record justifies a finding that the change is not the result of imprudence by SCE&G.

When the NRC issued the COLs for the New Units, two of the conditions that it imposed were requiring inspection and testing of certain components of the New Units' passive cooling system, and requiring the development of strategies to respond to extreme natural events resulting in the loss of power at the New Units. In addition, the NRC directed the Office of New Reactors to issue to SCE&G an order requiring enhanced, reliable spent fuel pool instrumentation, as well as a request for information related to emergency plant staffing. These conditions and requirements are responsive to the NRC's Near-Term Task Force report titled “Recommendations for Enhancing Reactor Safety in the 21st Century.” This report was prepared in the wake of the March 2011 earthquake-generated tsunami, which severely damaged several nuclear generating units and their back-up cooling systems in Japan. SCE&G continues to evaluate the impact of these conditions and requirements that may be imposed on the construction and operation of the New Units, and prepared and submitted an integrated response plan for the New Units to the NRC in August 2013. SCE&G cannot predict what additional regulatory or other outcomes may be implemented in the United States, or how such initiatives would impact SCE&G's existing Summer Station or the construction or operation of the New Units.

Subject to a national megawatt capacity limitation, the electricity to be produced by each of the New Units (advanced nuclear units, as defined), to the extent that such Unit is operational before January 1, 2021, is expected to qualify for nuclear production tax credits under Section 45J of the Internal Revenue Code. Following the pouring of safety-related concrete for each of the New Units’ reactor buildings (March 2013 for Unit 2 and November 2013 for Unit 3), SCE&G has applied to the IRS for its allocations of such national megawatt capacity limitation. The IRS will forward the applications to the DOE for appropriate certification.

Environmental

As part of the President's Climate Action Plan and by Presidential Memorandum issued June 25, 2013, the EPA was directed to issue a revised carbon standard for new power plants by re-proposing NSPS under the CAA for emissions of carbon dioxide from newly constructed fossil fuel-fired units. The rule became final on January 8, 2014 and requires all new fossil fuel-fired power plants to meet the carbon dioxide emissions profile of a combined cycle natural gas plant. While most new natural gas plants will not be required to include any new technologies, no new coal-fired plants can be constructed without carbon capture and sequestration capabilities. The Company is evaluating the final rule, but does not plan to construct new coal-fired units in the foreseeable future.

The Memorandum also directed the EPA to issue standards, regulations, or guidelines for existing units. On June 2, 2014, the EPA released the Clean Power Plan proposed to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from existing units. The proposed rule includes state specific rate-based goals for carbon dioxide emissions, as well as guidelines for states to follow in developing SIPs to achieve those goals. The Company is evaluating the proposed rule which may be revised before it becomes final in June, 2015. As currently proposed, states will have from one to three years from the date of any final rule to issue SIPs that will ultimately define the specific compliance methodology that will be applied to existing units in that state. The Company expects that any costs incurred to comply with GHG emission requirements will be recoverable through rates.

In 2005, the EPA issued the CAIR, which required the District of Columbia and 28 states to reduce nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions in order to attain mandated state levels. CAIR set emission limits to be met in two phases beginning in 2009 and 2015, respectively, for nitrogen oxide and beginning in 2010 and 2015, respectively, for sulfur dioxide. SCE&G and GENCO determined that additional air quality controls would be needed to meet the CAIR requirements. On July 6, 2011 the EPA issued the CSAPR. This rule replaced CAIR and the Clean Air Transport Rule proposed in July 2010 and is aimed at addressing power plant emissions that may contribute to air pollution in other states. CSAPR requires states in the eastern United States to reduce power plant emissions, specifically sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide. On December 30, 2011, the Court of Appeals issued an order staying CSAPR and reinstating CAIR pending resolution of an appeal of CSAPR. On August 21, 2012, the Court of Appeals vacated CSAPR and left CAIR in place. On April 29, 2014, the U. S. Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and CSAPR was remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings consistent with the U. S. Supreme Court opinion. On June 26, 2014, the EPA filed a motion with the Court of Appeals to lift the stay of the CSAPR. While the motion is being considered, CAIR remains in place and no immediate action from states or affected sources is expected. Air quality control installations that SCE&G and GENCO have already completed have allowed the Company to comply with the reinstated CAIR and will also allow it to comply with CSAPR, if reinstated. The Company will continue to pursue strategies to comply with all applicable environmental regulations. Any costs incurred to comply with such regulations are expected to be recoverable through rates.

In April 2012, the EPA's rule containing new standards for mercury and other specified air pollutants became effective. The rule provides up to four years for facilities to meet the standards, and the Company's evaluation of the rule is ongoing. The Company's decision in 2012 to retire certain coal-fired units or convert them to burn natural gas and its project to build the New Units (see Note 1) along with other actions are expected to result in the Company's compliance with the EPA's rule. Any costs incurred to comply with this rule or other rules issued by the EPA in the future are expected to be recoverable through rates.

The CWA provides for the imposition of effluent limitations that require treatment for wastewater discharges. Under the CWA, compliance with applicable limitations is achieved under state-issued NPDES permits. As a facility’s NPDES permit is renewed (every five years), any new effluent limitations would be incorporated. The ELG Rule was published in the Federal Register on June 7, 2013, and is expected to be finalized September 30, 2015. The EPA expects compliance within a three to six year time frame as NPDES permits are renewed.

On May 19, 2014, the EPA finalized a rule that modifies requirements for existing cooling water intake structures. The rule becomes effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. The Company is conducting studies and is developing or implementing compliance plans for these initiatives. Congress is expected to consider further amendments to the CWA. Such legislation may include toxicity-based standards as well as limitations to mixing zones. These provisions, if passed, could have a material impact on the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company. The Company believes that any additional costs imposed by such regulations would be recoverable through rates.

In response to a federal court order to establish a definite timeline for a CCR rule and subsequent obligation via consent decree, the EPA committed to issue new federal regulations affecting the management and disposal of CCRs, such as ash, by December 19, 2014. Such regulations could result in the treatment of some CCRs as hazardous waste and could impose significant costs to utilities such as SCE&G and GENCO. While the Company cannot predict how extensive the regulations will be, the Company believes that any additional costs imposed by such regulations would be recoverable through rates.

The Nuclear Waste Act required that the United States government accept and permanently dispose of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel by January 31, 1998. The Nuclear Waste Act also imposed on utilities the primary responsibility for storage of their spent nuclear fuel until the repository is available. SCE&G entered into a Standard Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or High-Level Radioactive Waste with the DOE in 1983. As of June 30, 2014, the federal government has not accepted any spent fuel from Summer Station Unit 1, and it remains unclear when the repository may become available. SCE&G has on-site spent nuclear fuel storage capability in its existing fuel pool until at least 2017, and is constructing a dry cask storage facility to accommodate the spent nuclear fuel output for the life of Summer Station Unit 1. SCE&G may evaluate other technology as it becomes available. See also Note 2.

The provisions of CERCLA authorize the EPA to require the clean-up of hazardous waste sites. In addition, the states of South Carolina and North Carolina have similar laws. The Company maintains an environmental assessment program to identify and evaluate current and former operations sites that could require environmental clean-up. In addition, regulators from the EPA and other federal or state agencies periodically notify the Company that it may be required to perform or participate in the investigation and remediation of a hazardous waste site. As site assessments are initiated, estimates are made of the amount of expenditures, if any, deemed necessary to investigate and remediate each site. These estimates are refined as additional information becomes available; therefore, actual expenditures may differ significantly from the original estimates. Amounts estimated and accrued to date for site assessments and clean-up relate solely to regulated operations. Such amounts are recorded in regulatory assets and amortized, with recovery provided through rates.

SCE&G is responsible for four decommissioned MGP sites in South Carolina which contain residues of byproduct chemicals. These sites are in various stages of investigation, remediation and monitoring under work plans approved by DHEC and the EPA. SCE&G anticipates that major remediation activities at all these sites will continue until 2017 and will cost an additional $20 million, which is accrued in Other within Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheet. SCE&G expects to recover any cost arising from the remediation of MGP sites through rates. At June 30, 2014, deferred amounts, net of amounts previously recovered through rates and insurance settlements, totaled $36.4 million and are included in regulatory assets.

PSNC Energy is responsible for environmental clean-up at five sites in North Carolina on which MGP residuals are present or suspected. PSNC Energy’s actual remediation costs for these sites will depend on a number of factors, such as actual site conditions, third-party claims and recoveries from other potentially responsible parties. PSNC Energy has recorded a liability and associated regulatory asset of approximately $2.5 million, the estimated remaining liability at June 30, 2014. PSNC Energy expects to recover through rates any cost allocable to PSNC Energy arising from the remediation of these sites.

SCEG

Statement [Line Items]

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]


	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Nuclear Insurance

To the extent that insurable claims for property damage, decontamination, repair and replacement and other costs and expenses arising from a nuclear incident at Summer Station Unit 1 exceed the policy limits of insurance, or to the extent such insurance becomes unavailable in the future, and to the extent that SCE&G's rates would not recover the cost of any purchased replacement power, SCE&G will retain the risk of loss as a self-insurer. SCE&G has no reason to anticipate a serious nuclear incident. However, if such an incident were to occur, it likely would have a material impact on Consolidated SCE&G’s results of operations, cash flows and financial position.

New Nuclear Construction

SCE&G's current ownership share in the New Units is 55%. Under an agreement signed in January 2014 (and subject to customary closing conditions, including necessary regulatory approvals), SCE&G has agreed to acquire an additional 5% ownership in the New Units from Santee Cooper. Under the terms of this agreement SCE&G will acquire a 1% ownership interest in the New Units at the commercial operation date of Unit 2, will acquire an additional 2% ownership interest no later than the first anniversary of such commercial operation date, and will acquire the final 2% no later than the second anniversary of such commercial operation date. Under the terms of the agreement SCE&G has agreed to pay an amount equal to Santee Cooper's actual cost of the percentage conveyed as of the date of conveyance. As of June 30, 2014, and based on the updated construction milestone schedule and capital costs schedule approved by the SCPSC in November 2012 (see below), SCE&G estimates such cost will be approximately $500 million for the entire 5% interest. In addition, the agreement provides that Santee Cooper will not transfer any of its remaining interest in the New Units to third parties until the New Units are complete. This transaction will not affect the payment obligations between the parties during construction for the New Units, nor is it anticipated that the payments for the additional ownership interest would be reflected in a revised rates filing under the BLRA.

Environmental

As part of the President's Climate Action Plan and by Presidential Memorandum issued June 25, 2013, the EPA was directed to issue a revised carbon standard for new power plants by re-proposing NSPS under the CAA for emissions of carbon dioxide from newly constructed fossil fuel-fired units. The rule became final on January 8, 2014 and requires all new fossil fuel-fired power plants to meet the carbon dioxide emissions profile of a combined cycle natural gas plant. While most new natural gas plants will not be required to include any new technologies, no new coal-fired plants can be constructed without carbon capture and sequestration capabilities. Consolidated SCE&G is evaluating the final rule, but does not plan to construct new coal-fired units in the foreseeable future.

The Memorandum also directed the EPA to issue standards, regulations, or guidelines for existing units. On June 2, 2014, the EPA released the Clean Power Plan proposed to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from existing units. The proposed rule includes state specific rate-based goals for carbon dioxide emissions, as well as guidelines for states to follow in developing SIPs to achieve those goals. Consolidated SCE&G is evaluating the proposed rule which may be revised before it becomes final in June, 2015. As currently proposed, states will have from one to three years from the date of any final rule to issue SIPs that will ultimately define the specific compliance methodology that will be applied to existing units in that state. Consolidated SCE&G expects that any costs incurred to comply with GHG emission requirements will be recoverable through rates.

In 2005, the EPA issued the CAIR, which required the District of Columbia and 28 states to reduce nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions in order to attain mandated state levels. CAIR set emission limits to be met in two phases beginning in 2009 and 2015, respectively, for nitrogen oxide and beginning in 2010 and 2015, respectively, for sulfur dioxide. SCE&G and GENCO determined that additional air quality controls would be needed to meet the CAIR requirements. On July 6, 2011 the EPA issued the CSAPR. This rule replaced CAIR and the Clean Air Transport Rule proposed in July 2010 and is aimed at addressing power plant emissions that may contribute to air pollution in other states. CSAPR requires states in the eastern United States to reduce power plant emissions, specifically sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide. On December 30, 2011, the Court of Appeals issued an order staying CSAPR and reinstating CAIR pending resolution of an appeal of CSAPR. On August 21, 2012, the Court of Appeals vacated CSAPR and left CAIR in place. On April 29, 2014, the U. S. Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and CSAPR was remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings consistent with the U. S. Supreme Court opinion. On June 26, 2014, the EPA filed a motion with the Court of Appeals to lift the stay of the CSAPR. While the motion is being considered, CAIR remains in place and no immediate action from states or affected sources is expected. Air quality control installations that SCE&G and GENCO have already completed have allowed Consolidated SCE&G to comply with the reinstated CAIR and will also allow it to comply with CSAPR, if reinstated. Consolidated SCE&G will continue to pursue strategies to comply with all applicable environmental regulations. Any costs incurred to comply with such regulations are expected to be recoverable through rates.

In April 2012, the EPA's rule containing new standards for mercury and other specified air pollutants became effective. The rule provides up to four years for facilities to meet the standards, and Consolidated SCE&G's evaluation of the rule is ongoing. Consolidated SCE&G's decision in 2012 to retire certain coal-fired units or convert them to burn natural gas and its project to build the New Units (see Note 1) along with other actions are expected to result in Consolidated SCE&G's compliance with the EPA's rule. Any costs incurred to comply with this rule or other rules issued by the EPA in the future are expected to be recoverable through rates.

On May 19, 2014, the EPA finalized a rule that modifies requirements for existing cooling water intake structures. The rule becomes effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. Consolidated SCE&G is conducting studies and is developing or implementing compliance plans for these initiatives. Congress is expected to consider further amendments to the CWA. Such legislation may include toxicity-based standards as well as limitations to mixing zones. These provisions, if passed, could have a material impact on the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of Consolidated SCE&G. Consolidated SCE&G believes that any additional costs imposed by such regulations would be recoverable through rates.

In response to a federal court order to establish a definite timeline for a CCR rule and subsequent obligation via consent decree, the EPA committed to issue new federal regulations affecting the management and disposal of CCRs, such as ash, by December 19, 2014. Such regulations could result in the treatment of some CCRs as hazardous waste and could impose significant costs to utilities, such as SCE&G and GENCO. While Consolidated SCE&G cannot predict how extensive the regulations will be, Consolidated SCE&G believes that any additional costs imposed by such regulations would be recoverable through rates.

The provisions of CERCLA authorize the EPA to require the clean-up of hazardous waste sites. In addition, the state of South Carolina has similar laws. Consolidated SCE&G maintains an environmental assessment program to identify and evaluate current and former operations sites that could require environmental clean-up. In addition, regulators from the EPA and other federal or state agencies periodically notify Consolidated SCE&G that it may be required to perform or participate in the investigation and remediation of a hazardous waste site. As site assessments are initiated, estimates are made of the amount of expenditures, if any, deemed necessary to investigate and remediate each site. These estimates are refined as additional information becomes available; therefore, actual expenditures may differ significantly from the original estimates. Amounts estimated and accrued to date for site assessments and clean-up relate solely to regulated operations. Such amounts are recorded in regulatory assets and amortized, with recovery provided through rates.

- Definition

The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.

+ References+ Details