In May 2012, PPL Electric filed a plan with the PUC to purchase its electric supply for default customers for the period June 2013 through May 2015. The PUC approved the plan in January 2013. The approved plan proposes that PPL Electric procure this electricity through competitive solicitations twice each plan year beginning in April 2013. The solicitations will include layered short-term full-requirement products ranging from three months to 12 months for residential and small commercial and industrial PLR customers as well as a recurring 12 month spot market product for large commercial and industrial PLR customers. To date, one of four solicitations has been completed.

See Note 11 for information on the power supply agreements between PPL EnergyPlus and PPL Electric.

PPL and its subsidiaries are involved in legal proceedings, claims and litigation in the ordinary course of business. PPL and its subsidiaries cannot predict the outcome of such matters, or whether such matters may result in material liabilities, unless otherwise noted.

See footnote (l) to the table in "Guarantees and Other Assurances" below for information on an LKE indemnity relating to its former WKE lease, including related legal proceedings.

In November 2004, PPL Montana, Avista Corporation (Avista) and PacifiCorp commenced an action for declaratory judgment in Montana First Judicial District Court seeking a determination that no lease payments or other compensation for their hydroelectric facilities' use and occupancy of certain riverbeds in Montana can be collected by the State of Montana. This lawsuit followed dismissal on jurisdictional grounds of an earlier federal lawsuit seeking such compensation in the U.S. District Court of Montana. The federal lawsuit alleged that the beds of Montana's navigable rivers became state-owned trust property upon Montana's admission to statehood, and that the use of them should, under a 1931 regulatory scheme enacted after all but one of the hydroelectric facilities in question were constructed, trigger lease payments for use of land beneath. In July 2006, the Montana state court approved a stipulation by the State of Montana that it was not seeking compensation for the period prior to PPL Montana's December 1999 acquisition of the hydroelectric facilities.

Following a number of adverse trial court rulings, in 2007 Pacificorp and Avista each entered into settlement agreements with the State of Montana providing, in pertinent part, that each company would make prospective lease payments for use of the State's navigable riverbeds (subject to certain future adjustments), resolving the State's claims for past and future compensation.

Following an October 2007 trial of this matter on damages, in June 2008, the Montana District Court awarded the State retroactive compensation of approximately $35 million for the 2000-2006 period and approximately $6 million for 2007 compensation. The Montana District Court also deferred determination of compensation for 2008 and future years to the Montana State Land Board. In October 2008, PPL Montana appealed the decision to the Montana Supreme Court, requesting a stay of judgment and a stay of the Land Board's authority to assess compensation for 2008 and future periods. In March 2010, the Montana Supreme Court substantially affirmed the June 2008 Montana District Court decision.

In August 2010, PPL Montana filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court requesting review of this matter. In June 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court granted PPL Montana's petition, and in February 2012 issued a decision overturning the Montana Supreme Court decision and remanded the case to the Montana Supreme Court for further proceedings consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion. In April 2012, the case was returned by the Montana Supreme Court to the Montana First Judicial District Court. Further proceedings have not yet been scheduled by the District Court. PPL Montana has concluded it is not probable, but it remains reasonably possible, that a loss has been incurred. While unable to estimate a range of loss, PPL Montana believes that any such amount would not be material.

In July 2012, PPL Montana received a Notice of Intent to Sue (Notice) for violations of the Clean Air Act at Colstrip Steam Electric Station (Colstrip) from counsel on behalf of the Sierra Club and the Montana Environmental Information Center (MEIC). An Amended Notice was received on September 4, 2012, and a Second Amended Notice was received in October 2012. A Supplemental Notice was received in December 2012. The Notice, Amended Notice, Second Amended Notice and Supplemental Notice (the Notices) were all addressed to the Owner or Managing Agent of Colstrip, and to the other Colstrip co-owners: Avista Corporation, Puget Sound Energy, Portland General Electric Company, Northwestern Energy and PacificCorp. The Notices allege certain violations of the Clean Air Act, including New Source Review, Title V and opacity requirements.

On March 6, 2013, the Sierra Club and MEIC filed a complaint against PPL Montana and the other Colstrip co-owners in the U.S. District Court, District of Montana, Billings Division. PPL Montana operates Colstrip on behalf of the co-owners. The complaint is generally consistent with the prior Notices and lists 39 separate claims for relief. All but three of the claims allege Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) related violations under the federal Clean Air Act for various plant maintenance projects completed since 1992. For each such project or set of projects, there are separate claims for failure to obtain a PSD permit, for failure to obtain a Montana Air Quality Permit to operate after the project(s) were completed and for operating after completion of such project(s) without "Best Available Control Technology". The remaining three claims relate to the alleged failure to update the Title V operating permit for Colstrip to reflect the alleged major modifications described in the other claims, allege that the previous Title V compliance certifications were incomplete because they did not address the major plant modifications, and that numerous opacity violations have occurred at the plant since 2007. The complaint requests injunctive relief and civil penalties on average of $36,000 per day per violation, including a request that the owners remediate environmental damage and that $100,000 of the civil penalties be used for beneficial mitigation projects. PPL Montana believes it and the other co-owners have numerous defenses to the allegations set forth in this complaint and will vigorously assert the same. Trial in this matter as to liability has been scheduled for October 2014. Trial as to remedies, if there is a finding of liability, is scheduled for August 2015.

On July 27, 2013, the Sierra Club and MEIC filed an additional Notice, identifying additional expansion projects that are alleged not to be in compliance with the Clean Air Act. PPL Montana cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this matter at this time.

See Note 6 for information on regulatory matters related to utility rate regulation. See Note 15 to the Registrants' 2012 Form 10-K for a discussion of Enactment of Financial Reform Legislation.

In January 2011, New Jersey enacted a law that intervenes in the wholesale capacity market exclusively regulated by the FERC: S. No. 2381, 214th Leg. (N.J. 2011) (the Act). To create incentives for the development of new, in-state electric generation facilities, the Act implements a "long-term capacity agreement pilot program (LCAPP)." The Act requires New Jersey utilities to pay a guaranteed fixed price for wholesale capacity, imposed by the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (BPU), to certain new generators participating in PJM, with the ultimate costs of that guarantee to be borne by New Jersey ratepayers. PPL believes the intent and effect of the LCAPP is to encourage the construction of new generation in New Jersey even when, under the FERC-approved PJM economic model, such new generation would not be economic. The Act could depress capacity prices in PJM in the short term, impacting PPL Energy Supply's revenues, and harm the long-term ability of the PJM capacity market to incent necessary generation investment throughout PJM. In February 2011, the PJM Power Providers Group (P3), an organization in which PPL is a member, filed a complaint before the FERC seeking changes in PJM's capacity market rules designed to ensure that subsidized generation, such as the generation that may result from the implementation of the LCAPP, will not be able to set capacity prices artificially low as a result of their exercise of buyer market power. In April 2011, the FERC issued an order granting in part and denying in part P3's complaint and ordering changes in PJM's capacity rules consistent with a significant portion of P3's requested changes. Several parties have filed appeals of the FERC's order. PPL, PPL Energy Supply and PPL Electric cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding or the economic impact on their businesses or operations, or the markets in which they transact business.

In addition, in February 2011, PPL and several other generating companies and utilities filed a complaint in U.S. District Court in New Jersey challenging the Act on the grounds that it violates well-established principles under the Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution and requesting declaratory and injunctive relief barring implementation of the Act by the BPU Commissioners. In October 2011, the court denied the BPU's motion to dismiss the proceeding and in September 2012, the U.S. District Court denied all summary judgment motions. Trial of this matter was completed in June 2013 and is pending decision. Any decision is expected to be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. PPL, PPL Energy Supply and PPL Electric cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding or the economic impact on their businesses or operations, or the markets in which they transact business.

In April 2012, the Maryland Public Service Commission (MD PSC) ordered three electric utilities in Maryland to enter into long-term contracts to support the construction of new electric generating facilities in Maryland, specifically a 661 MW natural gas-fired combined-cycle generating facility to be owned by CPV Maryland, LLC. PPL believes the intent and effect of the action by the MD PSC is to encourage the construction of new generation in Maryland even when, under the FERC-approved PJM economic model, such new generation would not be economic. The MD PSC action could depress capacity prices in PJM in the short term, impacting PPL Energy Supply's revenues, and harm the long-term ability of the PJM capacity market to encourage necessary generation investment throughout PJM.

In April 2012, PPL and several other generating companies filed a complaint in U.S. District Court in Maryland challenging the MD PSC order on the grounds that it violates well-established principles under the Supremacy and Commerce clauses of the U.S. Constitution and requested declaratory and injunctive relief barring implementation of the order by the Commissioners of the MD PSC. In August 2012, the court denied the MD PSC and CPV Maryland, LLC motions to dismiss the proceeding. Trial of this matter was completed in March 2013 and a decision is expected in the third quarter of 2013. Any decision is expected to be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. PPL, PPL Energy Supply, and PPL Electric cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding or the economic impact on their businesses or operations, or the markets in which they transact business.

Through its subsidiaries, PPL Energy Supply made spot market bilateral sales of power in the Pacific Northwest during the period from December 2000 through June 2001. Several parties subsequently claimed refunds at FERC as a result of these sales. In June 2003, the FERC terminated proceedings to consider whether to order refunds for spot market bilateral sales made in the Pacific Northwest, including sales made by PPL Montana, during the period December 2000 through June 2001. In August 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the FERC's decision and ordered the FERC to consider additional evidence. In October 2011, FERC initiated proceedings to consider additional evidence. In July 2012, PPL Montana and the City of Tacoma, one of the two parties claiming refunds at FERC, reached a settlement whereby PPL Montana paid $75 thousand to resolve the City of Tacoma's $23 million claim. The settlement does not resolve the remaining claim outstanding at June 30, 2013, by the City of Seattle, for approximately $50 million. In April 2013, the FERC issued an order on reconsideration allowing the parties to seek refunds for the period January 2000 through December 2000. As a result, the City of Seattle may be able to seek refunds from PPL Montana for such period. Hearings have been scheduled to begin in August 2013.

Although PPL and its subsidiaries believe they have not engaged in any improper trading or marketing practices affecting the Pacific Northwest markets, PPL and PPL Energy Supply cannot predict the outcome of the above-described proceedings or whether any subsidiaries will be the subject of any additional governmental investigations or named in other lawsuits or refund proceedings. Consequently, PPL and PPL Energy Supply cannot estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if any, related to this matter.

Electric - Reliability Standards (PPL, PPL Energy Supply, PPL Electric, LKE, LG&E and KU)

The NERC is responsible for establishing and enforcing mandatory reliability standards (Reliability Standards) regarding the bulk power system. The FERC oversees this process and independently enforces the Reliability Standards. The Reliability Standards have the force and effect of law and apply to certain users of the bulk power electricity system, including electric utility companies, generators and marketers. Under the Federal Power Act, the FERC may assess civil penalties of up to $1 million per day, per violation, for certain violations.

LG&E, KU, PPL Electric and certain subsidiaries of PPL Energy Supply monitor their compliance with the Reliability Standards and continue to self-report potential violations of certain applicable reliability requirements and submit accompanying mitigation plans, as required. The resolution of a number of potential violations is pending. Any Regional Reliability Entity (including RFC or SERC) determination concerning the resolution of violations of the Reliability Standards remains subject to the approval of the NERC and the FERC.

In the course of implementing their programs to ensure compliance with the Reliability Standards by those PPL affiliates subject to the standards, certain other instances of potential non-compliance may be identified from time to time. The Registrants cannot predict the outcome of these matters, and cannot estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if any, other than the amounts currently recorded.

In October 2012, the FERC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) concerning Reliability Standards for geomagnetic disturbances (GMDs). The FERC proposed to direct the NERC to submit for approval Reliability Standards that address the impact of GMDs on the reliable operation of the bulk-power system. In May 2013, the FERC issued its Final Rule, Order No. 779, which directs the NERC to submit GMD Reliability Standards to the FERC for approval in two stages. In the first stage, the NERC must submit one or more Reliability Standards by January 22, 2014 that require owners and operators of the bulk-power system to develop and implement operational procedures to mitigate the effects of GMDs on the bulk-power system. In the second stage, the NERC must submit one or more Reliability Standards by January 22, 2015 that require owners and operators of bulk-power system facilities to assess yet to be determined “benchmark GMD events” and develop and implement plans to protect the bulk-power system from such GMD events. The Registrants are unable to predict the specific requirements that will be contained in the Reliability Standards that the NERC has been directed to submit or the amount of any expenditures that may be required as a result of the approval of any such Reliability Standards.

Due to the environmental issues discussed below or other environmental matters, it may be necessary for the Registrants to modify, curtail, replace or cease operation of certain facilities or performance of certain operations to comply with statutes, regulations and other requirements of regulatory bodies or courts. In addition, legal challenges to new environmental permits or rules add to the uncertainty of estimating the future cost impact of these permits and rules.

LG&E and KU are entitled to recover, through the ECR mechanism, certain costs of complying with the Clean Air Act as amended and those federal, state or local environmental requirements applicable to coal combustion wastes and by-products from facilities that generate electricity from coal in accordance with approved compliance plans. Costs not covered by the ECR mechanism for LG&E and KU and all such costs for PPL Electric are subject to rate recovery before the companies' respective state regulatory authorities, or the FERC, if applicable. Because PPL Electric does not own any generating plants, its exposure to related environmental compliance costs is reduced. As PPL Energy Supply is not a rate regulated entity, it cannot seek to recover environmental compliance costs through the mechanism of rate recovery. PPL, PPL Electric, LKE, LG&E and KU can provide no assurances as to the ultimate outcome of future environmental or rate proceedings before regulatory authorities.

In July 2011, the EPA adopted the CSAPR. The CSAPR replaced the EPA's previous CAIR which was invalidated in July 2008 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (Circuit Court). CAIR subsequently was effectively reinstated by the Circuit Court in December 2008, pending finalization of the CSAPR. Like CAIR, CSAPR targeted sources in the eastern U.S. and required reductions in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides in two phases (2012 and 2014).

In December 2011, the Circuit Court stayed implementation of the CSAPR and left CAIR in effect pending a final decision on the validity of the rule. In August 2012 the Circuit Court issued a ruling invalidating CSAPR, remanding the rule to the EPA for further action, and leaving CAIR in place during the interim. On June 24, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the EPA's petition for review of the Circuit Court's August 2012 decision.

The Kentucky fossil-fueled generating plants can meet the CAIR sulfur dioxide emission requirements by utilizing sulfur dioxide allowances (including banked allowances and optimizing existing controls). To meet nitrogen oxide standards, under the CAIR, the Kentucky companies will need to buy allowances and/or make operational changes. LG&E and KU do not currently anticipate that the costs of meeting these reinstated CAIR requirements or standards will be significant.

PPL Energy Supply's Pennsylvania fossil-fueled generating plants can meet the CAIR sulfur dioxide emission requirements with the existing scrubbers that were placed in service in 2008 and 2009. To meet the CAIR nitrogen oxide standards, PPL Energy Supply will need to buy allowances and/or make operational changes, the costs of which are not anticipated to be significant.

PPL's fossil-fueled generating plants, including those in Montana, may face further reductions in emissions as a result of more stringent national ambient air quality standards for ozone, nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide and/or fine particulates.

In 2010, the EPA finalized a new one-hour standard for sulfur dioxide, and states are required to identify areas that meet those standards and areas that are in non-attainment. On July 25, 2013, the EPA designated as non-attainment areas part of Yellowstone County in Montana (Billings area), primarily the Corette plant and its immediate vicinity, and part of Jefferson County in Kentucky. These designations will become final 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. Attainment must be achieved by 2018.

In December 2012, the EPA issued final rules that strengthen the particulate standards. Under the final rule, states and the EPA have until 2015 to identify non-attainment areas, and states have until 2020 to achieve attainment status for those areas.

PPL, PPL Energy Supply, LKE, LG&E and KU anticipate that some of the measures required for compliance with the CAIR, or the MATS, or the Regional Haze requirements (as discussed below), such as upgraded or new sulfur dioxide scrubbers at certain plants and, in the case of LG&E and KU, the previously announced retirement of coal-fired generating units at the Cane Run, Green River and Tyrone plants, will help to achieve compliance with the new one-hour sulfur dioxide standard. If additional reductions were to be required, the financial impact could be significant. The short-term impact on the Corette plant from the EPA's final designation of part of Yellowstone County in Montana as non-attainment as noted above is not expected to be significant as PPL Energy Supply previously announced its intent to place the plant in long-term reserve status beginning in April 2015 (see "MATS" below). The longer-term impact will depend on what the MDEQ proposes in its State Implementation Plan to bring the area into attainment, which plan is due within 18 months from the date of the EPA's designation (as well as the status of plant operations at that time).

Until particulate matter and sulfur dioxide maintenance and compliance plans are developed by the EPA and state or local agencies, including identification and finalization of attainment designations for particulate matter, PPL, PPL Energy Supply, LKE, LG&E and KU cannot predict the impact of the new standards.

In May 2011, the EPA published a proposed regulation requiring stringent reductions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants from power plants. In February 2012, the EPA published the final rule, known as the MATS, with an effective date of April 2012. The rule is being challenged by industry groups and states. The rule provides for a three-year compliance deadline with the potential for a one-year extension as provided under the statute.

At the time the MATs rule was proposed, LG&E and KU filed requests with the KPSC for environmental cost recovery based on their expected need to install environmental controls, including chemical additive and fabric-filter baghouses to remove certain hazardous air pollutants. Recovery of the cost of certain controls was granted by the KPSC in December 2011. LG&E's and KU's anticipated retirement of certain coal-fired electric generating units is in response to this and other environmental regulations. LG&E and KU are continuing to assess whether any revisions of their approved compliance plans will be necessary.

With respect to PPL Energy Supply's Pennsylvania plants, PPL Energy Supply believes that installation of chemical additive systems may be necessary at certain coal-fired plants, the capital cost of which is not expected to be significant. PPL Energy Supply continues to analyze the potential impact on operating costs. With respect to PPL Energy Supply's Montana plants, modifications to the air pollution controls installed on Colstrip may be required, the cost of which is not expected to be significant. For the Corette plant, PPL Energy Supply announced in September 2012 its intention, beginning in April 2015, to place the plant in long-term reserve status, suspending the plant's operation, due to expected market conditions and the costs to comply with the MATS requirements. The Corette plant asset group's carrying amount at June 30, 2013 was $68 million. Although the Corette plant asset group was not determined to be impaired at June 30, 2013, it is reasonably possible that an impairment could occur in future periods, as higher priced sales contracts settle, adversely impacting projected cash flows. PPL Energy Supply, LG&E and KU are continuing to conduct in-depth reviews of the MATS, including the potential implications to scrubber wastewater discharges. See the discussion of effluent limitations guidelines and standards below.

Upon reconsideration of the MATS rule, in March 2013 the EPA revised certain emission limits and related requirements for new power plants. The revised limits are somewhat less onerous than the original proposal, and thereby pose less of an impediment to the construction of new coal-fired power plants.

The EPA's regional haze programs were developed under the Clean Air Act to eliminate man-made visibility degradation by 2064. Under the programs, states are required to take action via state plans to make reasonable progress every decade, including the application of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) on power plants commissioned between 1962 and 1977.

The primary power plant emissions affecting visibility are sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and particulates. To date, the focus of regional haze activity has been the western U.S. because, until recently, BART requirements for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide reductions in the eastern U.S. were largely addressed through compliance with other regulatory programs, such as CSAPR or CAIR. More specifically, before CAIR was temporarily invalidated in 2008, the EPA had determined, and the Circuit Court had affirmed, that a state could accept region-wide reductions under the CAIR trading program to satisfy BART requirements. After CAIR was temporarily invalidated, the EPA adopted a final rule providing that states subject to CSAPR (which replaced CAIR) may rely on participation in the CSAPR trading program as an alternative to BART. However, the Circuit Court's August 2012 decision to vacate and remand CSAPR and to implement CAIR in its place on an interim basis leaves power plants located in the eastern U.S., including PPL's plants in Pennsylvania and Kentucky, exposed to reductions in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides as required by BART, unless the Circuit Court's decision, now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, is overturned.

In addition to this exposure stemming from the remand of CSAPR, LG&E's Mill Creek Units 3 and 4 are required to reduce sulfuric acid mist emissions because they were determined to have a significant regional haze impact. These reductions are in the Kentucky Division of Air Quality's regional haze state implementation plan that was submitted to the EPA. LG&E is currently installing sorbent injection technology to comply with these reductions, the costs of which are not expected to be significant.

In Montana, the EPA Region 8 developed the regional haze plan as the Montana Department of Environmental Quality declined to develop a BART state implementation plan. In September 2012, the EPA issued its final Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for the Montana regional haze rule. The final FIP indicated that no additional controls were assumed for Corette or Colstrip Units 3 and 4, but proposed tighter limits for Corette and Colstrip Units 1 and 2. PPL Energy Supply expects to meet these tighter permit limits at Corette without any significant changes to operations, although other requirements have led to the planned suspension of operations at Corette beginning in April 2015 (see "MATS" above). See "Mercury and Other Hazardous Air Pollutants" discussion above. Under the final FIP, Colstrip Units 1 and 2 may require additional controls, including the possible installation of an SNCR and other technology, to meet more stringent nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide limits. The cost of these potential additional controls, if required, could be significant. In November 2012, PPL filed a petition for review of the Montana Regional Haze FIP with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Environmental groups have also filed a petition for review. The two matters have been consolidated, and litigation is on-going.

The EPA has continued its NSR enforcement efforts targeting coal-fired generating plants. The EPA has asserted that modification of these plants has increased their emissions and, consequently, that they are subject to stringent NSR requirements under the Clean Air Act. In April 2009, PPL received EPA information requests for its Montour and Brunner Island plants. PPL and the EPA have exchanged certain information regarding this matter. In January 2009, PPL, PPL Energy Supply and other companies that own or operate the Keystone plant in Pennsylvania received a notice of violation from the EPA alleging that certain projects were undertaken without proper NSR compliance. In May and November 2012, PPL Montana received information requests from the EPA regarding projects undertaken during a Spring 2012 maintenance outage at Colstrip Unit 1. In September 2012, PPL Montana received an information request from the Montana Department of Environmental Quality regarding Colstrip Unit 1 and other projects. PPL and PPL Energy Supply cannot predict the outcome of these matters, and cannot estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if any.

In March 2009, KU received an EPA notice alleging that KU violated certain provisions of the Clean Air Act's rules governing NSR and prevention of significant deterioration by installing sulfur dioxide scrubbers and SCR controls at its Ghent plant without assessing potential increased sulfuric acid mist emissions. KU contends that the projects in question were pollution control projects, and therefore exempt from the requirements cited by the EPA. In December 2009, the EPA issued an information request on this matter. In September 2012, the parties reached a tentative settlement addressing the Ghent NSR matter that seeks to resolve a September 2007 notice of violation alleging opacity violations at the plant. A proposed consent decree was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky in December 2012. PPL, LKE and KU cannot predict the outcome of this matter until the consent decree is entered by the Court, but currently do not expect such outcome to result in costs in excess of amounts already accrued, which amounts are not material.

In August 2007, LG&E received information requests for the Mill Creek and Trimble County plants, and KU received requests for the Ghent plant, but they have received no further communications from the EPA since providing their responses. PPL, LKE, LG&E and KU cannot predict the outcome of these matters, and cannot estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if any.

States and environmental groups also have commenced litigation alleging violations of the NSR regulations by coal-fired generating plants across the nation. See "Legal Matters" above for information on a lawsuit filed by environmental groups in March 2013 against PPL Montana and other owners of Colstrip.

If PPL subsidiaries are found to have violated NSR regulations, PPL, PPL Energy Supply, LKE, LG&E and KU would, among other things, be required to meet permit limits reflecting Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for the emissions of any pollutant found to have significantly increased due to a major plant modification. The costs to meet such limits, including installation of technology at certain units, could be significant.

The Sierra Club and other environmental groups petitioned the Kentucky Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet to overturn the air permit issued for the TC2 baseload generating unit, but the agency upheld the permit in an order issued in September 2007. In response to subsequent petitions by environmental groups, the EPA ordered certain non-material changes to the permit which in January 2010 were incorporated into a final revised permit issued by the KDAQ. In March 2010, the environmental groups petitioned the EPA to object to the revised state permit. Until the EPA issues a final ruling on the pending petition and all available appeals are exhausted, PPL, LKE, LG&E and KU cannot predict the outcome of this matter or the potential impact on the capital costs of this project, if any.

As a result of the April 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision that the EPA has authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles, in April 2010, the EPA and the U.S. Department of Transportation issued new light-duty vehicle emissions standards that applied beginning with 2012 model year vehicles. The EPA also clarified that this standard, beginning in 2011, authorized regulation of GHG emissions from stationary sources under the NSR and Title V operating permit provisions of the Clean Air Act. As a result, any new sources or major modifications to existing GHG sources causing a net significant emissions increase now require adherence to the BACT permit limits for GHGs. The rules were challenged, and in June 2012 the Circuit Court upheld the EPA's regulations. In December 2012, the Circuit Court denied petitions for rehearing pertaining to its June 2012 opinion, and the U.S. Supreme Court has been petitioned by industry groups and sources to hear the case.

In addition, in April 2012, the EPA proposed New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for carbon dioxide emissions from new coal-fired generating units, combined-cycle natural gas units, and integrated gasification combined-cycle units. The proposal would require new coal plants to achieve the same stringent limitations on carbon dioxide emissions as the best performing new gas plants. There presently is no commercially available technology to allow new coal plants to meet these limitations and, as a result, the EPA's proposal would effectively preclude new construction of coal-fired generation. Compliance could even be difficult for certain new gas-fired plants. In December 2012, the Circuit Court dismissed consolidated challenges to the NSPS holding that the proposed rule is not a final agency action.

In June 2013, President Obama released his Climate Action Plan which reiterates the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. "in the range of" 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 through such actions as regulating power plant emissions, promoting increased use of renewables and clean energy technology, and establishing tighter energy efficiency standards. Also, by Presidential Memorandum the EPA was directed to issue a new proposal for new power plants by September 20, 2013, with a final rule in a timely fashion thereafter, and to issue proposed standards for existing plants by June 1, 2014 with a final rule to be issued by June 1, 2015. The EPA was further directed to require that states develop implementation plans for existing plants by June 2016. Regulation of existing plants could have a significant industry-wide impact depending on the structure and stringency of the final rule and the state implementation plans. The Administration's recent increase in its estimate of the "social cost of carbon" (which is used to calculate benefits associated with proposed regulations) from $23.80 to $38 per metric ton in 2015 may also lead to more costly regulatory requirements. Additionally, the Climate Action Plan requirements related to preparing the U.S. for the impacts of climate change could affect PPL and others in the industry as transmission system modifications to improve the ability to withstand major storms may be needed in order to meet those requirements.

At the regional level, ten northeastern states signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) agreeing to establish a GHG emission cap-and-trade program, called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). The program commenced in January 2009 and calls for stabilizing carbon dioxide emissions, at base levels established in 2005, from electric power plants with capacity greater than 25 MW. The MOU also provides for a 10% reduction, by 2019, in carbon dioxide emissions from base levels.

Pennsylvania has not stated an intention to join the RGGI, but enacted the Pennsylvania Climate Change Act of 2008 (PCCA). The PCCA established a Climate Change Advisory Committee to advise the PADEP on the development of a Climate Change Action Plan. In December 2009, the Advisory Committee finalized its Climate Change Action Report and identified specific actions that could result in reducing GHG emissions by 30% by 2020. Some of the proposed actions, such as a mandatory 5% efficiency improvement at power plants, could be unachievable. To date, there have been no regulatory or legislative actions taken to implement the recommendations of the report.

In November 2008, the Governor of Kentucky issued a comprehensive energy plan including non-binding targets aimed at promoting improved energy efficiency, development of alternative energy, development of carbon capture and sequestration projects, and other actions to reduce GHG emissions. In December 2009, the Kentucky Climate Action Plan Council was established to develop an action plan addressing potential GHG reductions and related measures. To date, the state has not issued a final plan. The impact of any such plan is not now determinable, but the costs to comply with the plan could be significant.

A number of lawsuits have been filed asserting common law claims including nuisance, trespass and negligence against various companies with GHG emitting plants and, although the decided cases to date have not sustained claims brought on the basis of these theories of liability, the law remains unsettled on these claims. In September 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the case of AEP v. Connecticut reversed a federal district court's decision and ruled that several states and public interest groups, as well as the City of New York, could sue five electric utility companies under federal common law for allegedly causing a public nuisance as a result of their emissions of GHGs. In June 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Second Circuit and held that such federal common law claims were displaced by the Clean Air Act and regulatory actions of the EPA. In addition, in Comer v. Murphy Oil (Comer case), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Fifth Circuit) declined to overturn a district court ruling that plaintiffs did not have standing to pursue state common law claims against companies that emit GHGs. The complaint in the Comer case named the previous indirect parent of LKE as a defendant based upon emissions from the Kentucky plants. In January 2011, the Supreme Court denied a petition to reverse the Fifth Circuit's ruling. In May 2011, the plaintiffs in the Comer case filed a substantially similar complaint in federal district court in Mississippi against 87 companies, including KU and three other indirect subsidiaries of LKE, under a Mississippi statute that allows the re-filing of an action in certain circumstances. In March 2012, the Mississippi federal district court granted defendants' motions to dismiss the state common law claims. Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and in May 2013 the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case. Additional litigation in federal and state courts over such issues is continuing. PPL, LKE and KU cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if any.

There has been interest in renewable energy legislation at both the state and federal levels. Federal legislation on renewable energy is not expected to be enacted this year. In Pennsylvania, bills were recently introduced calling for an increase in AEPS Tier 1 obligations and to create a $25 million permanent funding program for solar generation. A bill adding new hydropower to Montana's renewable portfolio standard was enacted with an effective date of October 1, 2013.

PPL, PPL Energy Supply, LKE, LG&E and KU believe there are financial, regulatory and logistical uncertainties related to the implementation of renewable energy mandates that will need to be resolved before the impact of such requirements on them can be estimated. Such uncertainties, among others, include the need to provide back-up supply to augment intermittent renewable generation, potential generation over-supply that could result from such renewable generation and back-up, impacts to PJM's capacity market and the need for substantial changes to transmission and distribution systems to accommodate renewable energy sources. These uncertainties are not directly addressed by proposed legislation. PPL and PPL Energy Supply cannot predict at this time the effect on their competitive plants' future competitive position, results of operation, cash flows and financial position of renewable energy mandates that may be adopted, although the costs to implement and comply with any such requirements could be significant.

In June 2010, the EPA proposed two approaches to regulating the disposal and management of CCRs (as either hazardous or non-hazardous) under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). CCRs include fly ash, bottom ash and sulfur dioxide scrubber wastes. Regulating CCRs as a hazardous waste under Subtitle C of the RCRA would materially increase costs and result in early retirements of many coal-fired plants, as it would require plants to retrofit their operations to comply with full hazardous waste requirements for the generation of CCRs and associated waste waters through generation, transportation and disposal. This would also have a negative impact on the beneficial use of CCRs and could eliminate existing markets for CCRs. The EPA's proposed approach to regulate CCRs as non-hazardous waste under Subtitle D of the RCRA would mainly affect disposal and most significantly affect any wet disposal operations. Under this approach, many of the current markets for beneficial uses would not be affected. Currently, PPL expects that several of its plants in Kentucky and Montana could be significantly impacted by the EPA's proposed non-hazardous waste regulations, as these plants are using surface impoundments for management and disposal of CCRs.

The EPA has issued information requests on CCR management practices at numerous plants throughout the power industry as it considers whether or not to regulate CCRs as hazardous waste. PPL has provided information on CCR management practices at most of its plants in response to the EPA's requests. In addition, the EPA has conducted follow-up inspections to evaluate the structural stability of CCR management facilities at several PPL plants and PPL has implemented or is implementing certain actions in response to recommendations from these inspections.

The EPA is continuing to evaluate the unprecedented number of comments it received on its June 2010 proposed regulations. In October 2011, the EPA issued a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) requesting comments on selected documents it received during the comment period for the proposed regulations, and on July 29, 2013, the EPA released a pre-publication version of a second NODA seeking comment on additional information related to its proposal. On July 25, 2013, the U.S. House of Representatives passed House Bill H.R. 2218, the Coal Residuals and Reuse Management Act of 2013, which would preempt the EPA from regulating CCRs under RCRA and sets rules governing state programs; however, prospects remain uncertain for similar legislation to pass in the Senate.

A coalition of environmental groups and two CCR recycling companies have filed lawsuits against the EPA for failure to perform nondiscretionary duties under RCRA, which could require a deadline for the EPA to issue strict CCR regulations. The two CCR recycling companies are asserting that the EPA should regulate CCRs as a non-hazardous waste that would allow for continued recycling of CCRs.

A final rulemaking is currently expected before the end of 2015. However, the timing of the final regulations could be accelerated by the outcome of the above litigation, which could require the EPA to issue its regulations sooner.

PPL, PPL Energy Supply, LKE, LG&E and KU cannot predict at this time the final requirements of the EPA's CCR regulations or potential changes to the RCRA and what impact they would have on their facilities, but the financial impact could be material if CCRs are regulated as hazardous waste and significant if regulated as non-hazardous.

In May 2011, LG&E submitted an application for a special waste landfill permit to handle coal combustion residuals generated at the Trimble County plant. After extensive review of the permit application in May 2013, the Kentucky Division of Waste Management denied the permit application on the grounds that the proposed facility would violate the Kentucky Cave Protection Act because it would eliminate an on-site karst feature considered to be a cave. LG&E and KU are assessing additional options for managing coal combustion residuals including construction of a landfill at an alternate site adjacent to the plant. Submittal of a new permit application for an alternative site may result in additional environmental considerations in the course of the permitting process and substantial additional costs. LG&E and KU are unable to determine the precise impact of this matter until they select an alternate management option and complete a detailed engineering design.

In 2005, approximately 100 million gallons of water containing fly ash was released from a disposal basin at the Martins Creek plant used in connection with the operation of the plant's two 150 MW coal-fired generating units. This resulted in ash being deposited onto adjacent roadways and fields, and into a nearby creek and the Delaware River. PPL Energy Supply determined that the release was caused by a failure in the disposal basin's discharge structure. PPL Energy Supply conducted extensive clean-up and completed studies, in conjunction with a group of natural resource trustees and the Delaware River Basin Commission, evaluating the effects of the release on the river's sediment, water quality and ecosystem.

The PADEP filed a complaint in Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court against PPL Martins Creek and PPL Generation, alleging violations of various state laws and regulations and seeking penalties and injunctive relief. PPL Energy Supply and the PADEP have settled this matter. The settlement required PPL Energy Supply to submit a report on the completed studies of possible natural resource damages. PPL Energy Supply subsequently submitted the assessment report to the Pennsylvania and New Jersey regulatory agencies and has continued discussing potential natural resource damages and mitigation options with the agencies. Subsequently, in August 2011 the PADEP submitted its National Resource Damage (NRD) Assessment report to the court and interveners. In December 2011, the interveners commented on the PADEP report and in February 2012 the PADEP and PPL Energy Supply filed separate responses with the court. In March 2012, the court dismissed the interveners' case, and the interveners appealed the dismissal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. In June 2013 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. Following this ruling, PPL Energy Supply is proceeding to finalize the NRD settlement with the PADEP and other NRD trustees.

Through June 30, 2013, PPL Energy Supply has spent $28 million for remediation and related costs and an insignificant remediation liability remains on the balance sheet. PPL and PPL Energy Supply cannot be certain of the outcome of the NRD settlement or the associated costs, the outcome of any new lawsuit that may be brought by citizens or businesses or the nature of any other regulatory or legal actions that may be initiated against PPL, PPL Energy Supply or their subsidiaries as a result of the disposal basin release. However, PPL and PPL Energy Supply currently do not expect such outcomes to result in significant losses above the amounts currently recorded.

Seepages or groundwater infiltration have been detected at active and retired wastewater basins and landfills at various PPL, PPL Energy Supply, LKE, LG&E and KU plants. PPL, PPL Energy Supply, LKE, LG&E and KU have completed or are completing assessments of seepages or groundwater infiltration at various facilities and have completed or are working with agencies to implement assessment or abatement measures, where required. A range of reasonably possible losses cannot currently be estimated.

In 2007, six plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the Montana Sixteenth Judicial District Court against the Colstrip plant owners asserting property damage due to seepage from plant wastewater ponds. A settlement agreement was reached in July 2010, which would have resulted in a payment by PPL Montana, but certain of the plaintiffs later argued the settlement was not final. The Colstrip plant owners filed a motion to enforce the settlement and in October 2011 the court granted the motion and ordered the settlement to be completed in 60 days. The plaintiffs appealed the October 2011 order to the Montana Supreme Court, which affirmed the district court's order enforcing the settlement in December 2012 and denied plaintiff's motion for rehearing in February 2013. The parties are still in negotiations regarding the final settlement documents. PPL Montana's share of the settlement is not expected to be significant.

In August 2012, PPL Montana entered into an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) with the MDEQ which establishes a comprehensive process to investigate and remediate groundwater seepage impacts related to the wastewater facilities at the Colstrip power plant. The AOC requires that within five years, PPL Montana provide financial assurance to the MDEQ for the costs associated with closure and future monitoring of the waste-water treatment facilities. PPL Montana cannot predict at this time if the actions required under the AOC will create the need to adjust the existing ARO related to these facilities.

In September 2012, Earthjustice filed an affidavit pursuant to Montana's Major Facility Siting Act (MFSA) that sought review of the AOC by Montana's Board of Environmental Review (BER) on behalf of the Sierra Club, the MEIC, and the National Wildlife Federation (NWF). In September 2012, PPL Montana filed an election with the BER to have this proceeding conducted in Montana state district court as contemplated by the MFSA. In October 2012, Earthjustice filed a petition for review of the AOC in the Montana state district court in Rosebud County.

In late October 2012, Earthjustice filed a second complaint against the MDEQ and PPL Montana in state district court in Lewis and Clark County on behalf of the Sierra Club, the MEIC and the NWF. This complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to take action under the MFSA and the Montana Water Quality Act to effectively monitor and correct issues of coal ash disposal and wastewater ponds at the Colstrip plant. The complaint seeks a declaration that the operations of the impoundments violate the statutes referred to above, requests a writ of mandamus directing the MDEQ to enforce the same and seeks recovery of attorneys' fees and costs. In May 2013, the court granted MDEQ's and PPL Montana's motion to dismiss. It is unknown at this time whether the complainants will appeal this decision.

The EPA published proposed rule 316(b) for existing facilities in April 2011. The EPA has been evaluating the comments it received to the proposed rule and meeting with industry groups to discuss options. The proposed rule contains two requirements to reduce impact to aquatic organisms at cooling water intake structures. The first requires all existing facilities to meet standards for the reduction of mortality of aquatic organisms that become trapped against water intake screens (impingement) regardless of the levels of mortality actually occurring or the cost to achieve the standards. The second requirement is to determine and install the best technology available to reduce mortality of aquatic organisms pulled through a plant's cooling water system (entrainment). A form of cost-benefit analysis is allowed for this second requirement involving a site-specific evaluation based on nine factors, including impacts to energy delivery reliability and the remaining useful life of the plant. The final rule is expected to be issued in November 2013. Until the final rule is issued, PPL, PPL Energy Supply, LKE, LG&E and KU cannot reasonably estimate a range of reasonably possible costs, if any, that would be required to comply with such a regulation.

Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELGs) and Standards (PPL, PPL Energy Supply, LKE, LG&E and KU)

In June 2013, the EPA published proposed regulations to revise discharge limitations for steam electric generation wastewater permits. The proposed limitations are based on the EPA review of available treatment technologies and their capacity for reducing pollutants and include new requirements for fly ash and bottom ash transport water and metal cleaning waste waters, as well as new limits for scrubber wastewater and landfill leachate. The EPA's proposed ELG regulations contain requirements that would affect the inspection and operation of CCR facilities, if finalized. The EPA has indicated that it will coordinate these regulations with the regulation of CCRs discussed above. The proposal contains alternative approaches, some of which could significantly impact PPL's coal-fired plants. PPL is working with industry groups to comment on the proposed regulation. The final regulation is expected to be issued in May 2014. At the present time, PPL, PPL Energy Supply, LKE, LG&E and KU are unable to predict the outcome of this matter or estimate a range of reasonably possible costs, but the costs could be significant.

The EPA is reassessing its polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) regulations under the Toxic Substance Control Act, which currently allow certain PCB articles to remain in use. In April 2010, the EPA issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for changes to these regulations. This rulemaking could lead to a phase-out of all PCB-containing equipment. The EPA is planning to propose the revised regulations in 2014. PCBs are found, in varying degrees, in all of the Registrants' operations. The Registrants cannot predict at this time the outcome of these proposed EPA regulations and what impact, if any, they would have on their facilities, but the costs could be significant.

A PPL Energy Supply subsidiary has investigated alternatives to exclude fish from the discharge channel at its Brunner Island plant, but the subsidiary and the PADEP have concluded that a barrier method to exclude fish is not workable. In June 2012, a Consent Order and Agreement (COA) was signed that allows the subsidiary to study a change in a cooling tower operational method that may keep fish from entering the channel. Should this approach fail, the COA requires a retrofit of impingement control technology at the intakes to the cooling towers, the cost of which could be significant.

In May 2010, the subsidiary received a draft NPDES permit (renewed) for the Brunner Island plant from the PADEP. This permit includes new technology-based limits for the scrubber wastewater plant. Some of these limits may not be achievable with the existing treatment system. Several agencies and environmental groups commented on the draft permit, raising issues that must be resolved to obtain a final permit for the plant. PPL Energy Supply cannot predict the outcome of the final resolution of the permit issues at this time, or what impact, if any, they would have on this facility, but the costs could be significant.

In May 2010, the Kentucky Waterways Alliance and other environmental groups filed a petition with the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet challenging the Kentucky Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit issued in April 2010, which covers water discharges from the Trimble County plant. In November 2010, the Cabinet issued a final order upholding the permit. In December 2010, the environmental groups appealed the order to the Trimble Circuit Court, but the case was subsequently transferred to the Franklin Circuit Court. PPL, LKE, LG&E and KU are unable to predict the outcome of this matter or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if any.

The EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers are working on a guidance document that will expand the federal government's interpretation of what constitutes "waters of the U.S." subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act. This change has the potential to affect generation and delivery operations, with the most significant effect being the potential elimination of the existing regulatory exemption for plant waste water treatment systems. The costs that may be imposed on the Registrants as a result of any eventual expansion of this interpretation cannot reliably be estimated at this time but could be significant.

Superfund and Other Remediation (PPL, PPL Energy Supply, PPL Electric, LKE, LG&E and KU)

PPL Electric is potentially responsible for costs at several sites listed by the EPA under the federal Superfund program, including the Columbia Gas Plant site, the Metal Bank site and the Ward Transformer site. Clean-up actions have been or are being undertaken at all of these sites, the costs of which have not been significant to PPL Electric. However, should the EPA require different or additional measures in the future, or should PPL Electric's share of costs at multi-party sites increase substantially more than currently expected, the costs could be significant.

PPL Electric, LG&E and KU are remediating or have completed the remediation of several sites that were not addressed under a regulatory program such as Superfund, but for which PPL Electric, LG&E and KU may be liable for remediation. These include a number of former coal gas manufacturing plants in Pennsylvania and Kentucky previously owned or operated or currently owned by predecessors or affiliates of PPL Electric, LG&E and KU. There are additional sites, formerly owned or operated by PPL Electric, LG&E and KU predecessors or affiliates, for which PPL Electric, LG&E and KU lack information on current site conditions and are therefore unable to predict what, if any, potential liability they may have.

Depending on the outcome of investigations at sites where investigations have not begun or been completed or developments at sites for which PPL Electric, LG&E and KU currently lack information, the costs of remediation and other liabilities could be material. PPL, PPL Electric, LKE, LG&E and KU cannot estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if any, related to these matters.

The EPA is evaluating the risks associated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and naphthalene, chemical by-products of coal gas manufacturing. As a result of the EPA's evaluation, individual states may establish stricter standards for water quality and soil cleanup. This could require several PPL subsidiaries to take more extensive assessment and remedial actions at former coal gas manufacturing plants. PPL, PPL Electric, LKE, LG&E and KU cannot estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if any, related to these matters.

From time to time, PPL Energy Supply, PPL Electric, LG&E and KU undertake remedial action in response to spills or other releases at various on-site and off-site locations, negotiate with the EPA and state and local agencies regarding actions necessary for compliance with applicable requirements, negotiate with property owners and other third parties alleging impacts from PPL's operations and undertake similar actions necessary to resolve environmental matters which arise in the course of normal operations. Based on analyses to date, resolution of these environmental matters is not expected to have a significant adverse impact on their operations.

Future cleanup or remediation work at sites currently under review, or at sites not currently identified, may result in significant additional costs for the Registrants.

WPD's distribution businesses are subject to environmental regulatory and statutory requirements. PPL believes that WPD has taken and continues to take measures to comply with the applicable laws and governmental regulations for the protection of the environment.

PPL Susquehanna is a member of certain insurance programs that provide coverage for property damage to members' nuclear generating plants. Effective April 1, 2013, facilities at the Susquehanna plant are insured against property damage losses up to $2.50 billion under these programs. PPL Susquehanna is also a member of an insurance program that provides insurance coverage for the cost of replacement power during prolonged outages of nuclear units caused by certain specified conditions.

Under the property and replacement power insurance programs, PPL Susquehanna could be assessed retroactive premiums in the event of the insurers' adverse loss experience. Effective April 1, 2013, this maximum assessment was $46 million.

In the event of a nuclear incident at the Susquehanna plant, PPL Susquehanna's public liability for claims resulting from such incident would be limited to $12.6 billion under provisions of The Price-Anderson Act as amended. PPL Susquehanna is protected against this liability by a combination of commercial insurance and an industry assessment program.

In the event of a nuclear incident at any of the reactors covered by The Price-Anderson Act as amended, PPL Susquehanna could be assessed up to $235 million per incident, payable at $35 million per year.

In the normal course of business, the Registrants enter into agreements that provide financial performance assurance to third parties on behalf of certain subsidiaries. Such agreements include, for example, guarantees, stand-by letters of credit issued by financial institutions and surety bonds issued by insurance companies. These agreements are entered into primarily to support or enhance the creditworthiness attributed to a subsidiary on a stand-alone basis or to facilitate the commercial activities in which these subsidiaries engage.

PPL fully and unconditionally guarantees all of the debt securities of PPL Capital Funding.

The table below details guarantees provided at June 30, 2013. The total recorded liability at June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, was $23 million and $24 million for PPL and $20 million for both periods for LKE. The probability of expected payment/performance under each of these guarantees is remote except for "WPD guarantee of pension and other obligations of unconsolidated entities" and "Indemnification of lease termination and other divestitures." For reporting purposes, on a consolidated basis, all guarantees of PPL Energy Supply (other than the letters of credit), PPL Electric, LKE, LG&E and KU also apply to PPL, and all guarantees of LG&E and KU also apply to LKE.

	Exposure at			Expiration
	June 30, 2013 (a)			Date
PPL
Indemnifications related to the WPD Midlands acquisition			(b)
WPD indemnifications for entities in liquidation and sales of assets	$	10	(c)	2018
WPD guarantee of pension and other obligations of unconsolidated entities		87	(d)	2015

PPL Energy Supply
Letters of credit issued on behalf of affiliates		23	(e)	2013 - 2014
Retrospective premiums under nuclear insurance programs		46	(f)
Nuclear claims assessment under The Price-Anderson Act as amended		235	(g)
Indemnifications for sales of assets		250	(h)	2025
Indemnification to operators of jointly owned facilities		6	(i)
Guarantee of a portion of a divested unconsolidated entity's debt		22	(j)	2018

PPL Electric
Guarantee of inventory value		29	(k)	2017

LKE
Indemnification of lease termination and other divestitures		301	(l)	2021 - 2023

LG&E and KU
LG&E and KU guarantee of shortfall related to OVEC			(m)

(a) Represents the estimated maximum potential amount of future payments that could be required to be made under the guarantee.

(b) Prior to PPL's acquisition, WPD Midlands Holdings Limited had agreed to indemnify certain former directors of a Turkish entity, in which WPD Midlands Holdings Limited previously owned an interest, for any liabilities that may arise as a result of an investigation by Turkish tax authorities, and PPL WEM has received a cross-indemnity from E.ON AG with respect to these indemnification obligations. Additionally, PPL subsidiaries agreed to provide indemnifications to subsidiaries of E.ON AG for certain liabilities relating to properties and assets owned by affiliates of E.ON AG that were transferred to WPD Midlands in connection with the acquisition. The maximum exposure and expiration of these indemnifications cannot be estimated because the maximum potential liability is not capped and the expiration date is not specified in the transaction documents.

(c) In connection with the liquidation of wholly owned subsidiaries that have been deconsolidated upon turning the entities over to the liquidators, certain affiliates of PPL Global have agreed to indemnify the liquidators, directors and/or the entities themselves for any liabilities or expenses arising during the liquidation process, including liabilities and expenses of the entities placed into liquidation. In some cases, the indemnifications are limited to a maximum amount that is based on distributions made from the subsidiary to its parent either prior or subsequent to being placed into liquidation. In other cases, the maximum amount of the indemnifications is not explicitly stated in the agreements. The indemnifications generally expire two to seven years subsequent to the date of dissolution of the entities. The exposure noted only includes those cases in which the agreements provide for a specific limit on the amount of the indemnification, and the expiration date was based on an estimate of the dissolution date of the entities.

In connection with their sales of various businesses, WPD and its affiliates have provided the purchasers with indemnifications that are standard for such transactions, including indemnifications for certain pre-existing liabilities and environmental and tax matters. In addition, in connection with certain of these sales, WPD and its affiliates have agreed to continue their obligations under existing third-party guarantees, either for a set period of time following the transactions or upon the condition that the purchasers make reasonable efforts to terminate the guarantees. Finally, WPD and its affiliates remain secondarily responsible for lease payments under certain leases that they have assigned to third parties.

(d) As a result of the privatization of the utility industry in the U.K., certain electric associations' roles and responsibilities were discontinued or modified. As a result, certain obligations, primarily pension-related, associated with these organizations have been guaranteed by the participating members. Costs are allocated to the members based on predetermined percentages as outlined in specific agreements. However, if a member becomes insolvent, costs can be reallocated to and are guaranteed by the remaining members. At June 30, 2013, WPD has recorded an estimated discounted liability based on its current allocated percentage of the total expected costs for which the expected payment/performance is probable. Neither the expiration date nor the maximum amount of potential payments for certain obligations is explicitly stated in the related agreements. Therefore, they have been estimated based on the types of obligations.

(e) Standby letter of credit arrangements under PPL Energy Supply's credit facilities for the purposes of protecting various third parties against nonperformance by PPL. This is not a guarantee by PPL on a consolidated basis.

(f) PPL Susquehanna is contingently obligated to pay this amount related to potential retrospective premiums that could be assessed under its nuclear insurance programs. See "Nuclear Insurance" above for additional information.

(g) This is the maximum amount PPL Susquehanna could be assessed for each incident at any of the nuclear reactors covered by this Act. See "Nuclear Insurance" above for additional information.

(h) PPL Energy Supply's maximum exposure with respect to certain indemnifications and the expiration of the indemnifications cannot be estimated because, in the case of certain indemnification provisions, the maximum potential liability is not capped by the transaction documents and the expiration date is based on the applicable statute of limitations. The exposure and expiration dates noted are only for those cases in which the agreements provide for specific limits. The indemnification provisions described below are in each case subject to certain customary limitations, including thresholds for allowable claims, caps on aggregate liability, and time limitations for claims arising out of breaches of most representations and warranties.

A subsidiary of PPL Energy Supply has agreed to provide indemnification to the purchaser of the Long Island generation business for damages arising out of any breach of the representations, warranties and covenants under the related transaction agreement and for damages arising out of certain other matters, including liabilities relating to certain renewable energy facilities which were previously owned by one of the PPL subsidiaries sold in the transaction but which were unrelated to the Long Island generation business. The indemnification provisions for most representations and warranties expired in the third quarter of 2011.

A subsidiary of PPL Energy Supply has agreed to provide indemnification to the purchasers of the Maine hydroelectric facilities for damages arising out of any breach of the representations, warranties and covenants under the respective transaction agreements and for damages arising out of certain other matters, including liabilities of the PPL Energy Supply subsidiary relating to the pre-closing ownership or operation of those hydroelectric facilities. The indemnification provisions for most representations and warranties expired in the fourth quarter of 2012.

Subsidiaries of PPL Energy Supply have agreed to provide indemnification to the purchasers of certain non-core generation facilities sold in March 2011 for damages arising out of any breach of the representations, warranties and covenants under the related transaction agreements and for damages arising out of certain other matters relating to the facilities that were the subject of the transaction, including certain reduced capacity payments (if any) at one of the facilities in the event specified PJM rule changes are proposed and become effective. The indemnification provisions for most representations and warranties expired in the first quarter of 2012.

(i) In December 2007, a subsidiary of PPL Energy Supply executed revised owners agreements for two jointly owned facilities, the Keystone and Conemaugh generating plants. The agreements require that in the event of any default by an owner, the other owners fund contributions for the operation of the generating plants, based upon their ownership percentages. The non-defaulting owners, who make up the defaulting owner's obligations, are entitled to the generation entitlement of the defaulting owner, based upon their ownership percentage. The exposure shown reflects the PPL Energy Supply subsidiary's share of the maximum obligation. The agreements do not have an expiration date.

(j) A PPL Energy Supply subsidiary owned a one-third equity interest in Safe Harbor Water Power Corporation (Safe Harbor) that was sold in March 2011. Beginning in 2008, PPL Energy Supply guaranteed one-third of any amounts payable with respect to certain senior notes issued by Safe Harbor. Under the terms of the sale agreement, PPL Energy Supply continues to guarantee the portion of Safe Harbor's debt, but received a cross-indemnity from the purchaser, secured by a lien on the purchaser's stock of Safe Harbor, in the event PPL Energy Supply is required to make a payment under the guarantee. The exposure noted reflects principal only.

(k) PPL Electric entered into contracts with a third party logistics firm that provides inventory procurement and fulfillment services. Under the contracts, the logistics firm has title to the inventory purchased for PPL Electric's use. Upon termination of the contracts, PPL Electric has guaranteed to purchase any remaining inventory that has not been used or sold by the logistics firm at the weighted-average cost at which the logistics firm purchased the inventory.

(l) LKE provides certain indemnifications, the most significant of which relate to the termination of the WKE lease in July 2009. These guarantees cover the due and punctual payment, performance and discharge by each party of its respective present and future obligations. The most comprehensive of these guarantees is the LKE guarantee covering operational, regulatory and environmental commitments and indemnifications made by WKE under the WKE Transaction Termination Agreement. This guarantee has a term of 12 years ending July 2021, and a cumulative maximum exposure of $200 million. Certain items such as government fines and penalties fall outside the cumulative cap. LKE has contested the applicability of the indemnification requirement relating to one matter presented by a counterparty under this guarantee. Another guarantee with a maximum exposure of $100 million covering other indemnifications expires in 2023. In May 2012, LKE's indemnitee received an arbitration panel's decision affecting this matter, which granted LKE's indemnitee certain rights of first refusal to purchase excess power at a market-based price rather than at an absolute fixed price. In January 2013, LKE's indemnitee commenced a proceeding in the Kentucky Court of Appeals appealing the December 2012 order of the Henderson Circuit Court, confirming the arbitration award. LKE believes its indemnification obligations in this matter remain subject to various uncertainties, including potential for additional legal challenges regarding the arbitration decision as well as future prices, availability and demand for the subject excess power. LKE continues to evaluate various legal and commercial options with respect to this indemnification matter. The ultimate outcomes of the WKE termination-related indemnifications cannot be predicted at this time. Additionally, LKE has indemnified various third parties related to historical obligations for other divested subsidiaries and affiliates. The indemnifications vary by entity and the maximum exposures range from being capped at the sale price to no specified maximum; however, LKE is not aware of formal claims under such indemnities made by any party at this time. LKE could be required to perform on these indemnifications in the event of covered losses or liabilities being claimed by an indemnified party. In the second quarter of 2012, LKE adjusted its estimated liability for certain of these indemnifications by $9 million ($5 million after-tax), which is reflected in "Income (Loss) from Discontinued Operations (net of income taxes)" on the Statement of Income. The adjustment was recorded in the Kentucky Regulated segment for PPL. LKE cannot predict the ultimate outcomes of such indemnification circumstances, but does not currently expect such outcomes to result in significant losses above the amounts recorded.

(m) Pursuant to the OVEC power purchase contract, expiring in June 2040, LG&E and KU are obligated to pay a demand charge which includes, among other charges, debt service and amortization toward principal retirement, decommissioning costs, post-retirement and post-employment benefits costs (other than pensions), and reimbursement of plant operating, maintenance and other expenses. The demand charge is expected to cover LG&E's and KU's shares of the cost of the listed items over the term of the contract. However, in the event there is a shortfall in covering these costs, LG&E and KU are obligated to pay their share of the excess debt service, post-retirement and decommissioning costs. The maximum exposure and the expiration date of these potential obligations are not presently determinable.

The Registrants provide other miscellaneous guarantees through contracts entered into in the normal course of business. These guarantees are primarily in the form of indemnification or warranties related to services or equipment and vary in duration. The amounts of these guarantees often are not explicitly stated, and the overall maximum amount of the obligation under such guarantees cannot be reasonably estimated. Historically, no significant payments have been made with respect to these types of guarantees and the probability of payment/performance under these guarantees is remote.

PPL, on behalf of itself and certain of its subsidiaries, maintains insurance that covers liability assumed under contract for bodily injury and property damage. The coverage requires a maximum $4 million deductible for PPL, PPL Energy Supply and PPL Electric and $2 million for LKE, LG&E and KU, per occurrence and provides maximum aggregate coverage of $225 million. This insurance may be applicable to obligations under certain of these contractual arrangements.