PHI Merger Commitments (Exelon, PHI, Pepco, DPL, and ACE). Approval of the PHI Merger in Delaware, New Jersey, Maryland, and the District of Columbia was conditioned upon Exelon and PHI agreeing to certain commitments. The following amounts represent total commitment costs that have been recorded since the acquisition date and the total remaining obligations for Exelon, PHI, Pepco, DPL, and ACE as of September 30, 2021:

In addition, Exelon is committed to develop or to assist in the commercial development of approximately 37 MWs of new solar generation in Maryland, District of Columbia, and Delaware at an estimated cost of approximately $135 million, which will generate future earnings at Exelon and Generation. Investment costs, which are expected to be primarily capital in nature, are recognized as incurred and recorded in Exelon's and Generation's financial statements. As of September 30, 2021, approximately 33 MWs of new generation were developed and Exelon and Generation have incurred costs of $121 million. Approximately 30 MWs of the new generation developed was part of Generation's first quarter 2021 sale of a significant portion of its solar business. Refer to Note 2 — Mergers, Acquisitions, and Dispositions for additional information on the solar business. Exelon has also committed to purchase 100 MWs of wind energy in PJM. DPL has committed to conducting three RFPs to procure up to a total of 120 MWs of wind RECs for the purpose of meeting Delaware's renewable portfolio standards. DPL has conducted two of the three wind REC RFPs. The first 40 MW wind REC tranche was conducted in 2017 and did not result in a purchase agreement. The second 40 MW wind REC tranche was conducted in 2018 and resulted in a proposed REC purchase agreement that was approved by the DPSC in 2019. The third and final 40 MW wind REC tranche will be conducted in 2022.


			Expiration within
	Total		2021		2022		2023		2024		2025		2026 and beyond
Exelon
Letters of credit	$	2,241	$	268	$	1,860	$	113	$	—	$	—	$	—
Surety bonds(a)	971		403		566		—		2		—		—
Financing trust guarantees	378		—		—		—		—		—		378
Guaranteed lease residual values(b)	31		—		3		3		6		6		13
Total commercial commitments	$	3,621	$	671	$	2,429	$	116	$	8	$	6	$	391

Generation
Letters of credit	$	2,223	$	264	$	1,846	$	113	$	—	$	—	$	—
Surety bonds(a)	826		352		474		—		—		—		—
Total commercial commitments	$	3,049	$	616	$	2,320	$	113	$	—	$	—	$	—

ComEd
Letters of credit	$	7	$	2	$	5	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Surety bonds(a)	17		5		10		—		2		—		—
Financing trust guarantees	200		—		—		—		—		—		200
Total commercial commitments	$	224	$	7	$	15	$	—	$	2	$	—	$	200

PECO
Letters of credit	$	1	$	—	$	1	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Surety bonds(a)	2		—		2		—		—		—		—
Financing trust guarantees	178		—		—		—		—		—		178
Total commercial commitments	$	181	$	—	$	3	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	178

BGE
Letters of credit	$	2	$	—	$	2	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Surety bonds(a)	3		2		1		—		—		—		—
Total commercial commitments	$	5	$	2	$	3	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—

PHI

Surety bonds(a)	$	23	$	3	$	20	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Guaranteed lease residual values(b)	31		—		3		3		6		6		13
Total commercial commitments	$	54	$	3	$	23	$	3	$	6	$	6	$	13

Pepco

Surety bonds(a)	$	14	$	—	$	14	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Guaranteed lease residual values(b)	10		—		1		1		2		2		4
Total commercial commitments	$	24	$	—	$	15	$	1	$	2	$	2	$	4

DPL

Surety bonds(a)	$	5	$	2	$	3	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Guaranteed lease residual values(b)	13		—		1		1		3		3		5
Total commercial commitments	$	18	$	2	$	4	$	1	$	3	$	3	$	5

ACE
Surety bonds(a)	$	4	$	1	$	3	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Guaranteed lease residual values(b)	8		—		1		1		1		1		4
Total commercial commitments	$	12	$	1	$	4	$	1	$	1	$	1	$	4

(b)Represents the maximum potential obligation in the event that the fair value of certain leased equipment and fleet vehicles is zero at the end of the maximum lease term. The lease term associated with these assets ranges from 1 to 8 years. The maximum potential obligation at the end of the minimum lease term would be $75 million guaranteed by Exelon and PHI, of which $25 million, $32 million, and $18 million is guaranteed by Pepco, DPL, and ACE, respectively. Historically, payments under the guarantees have not been made and PHI believes the likelihood of payments being required under the guarantees is remote.

General (All Registrants). The Registrants’ operations have in the past, and may in the future, require substantial expenditures to comply with environmental laws. Additionally, under Federal and state environmental laws, the Registrants are generally liable for the costs of remediating environmental contamination of property now or formerly owned by them and of property contaminated by hazardous substances generated by them. The Registrants own or lease a number of real estate parcels, including parcels on which their operations or the operations of others may have resulted in contamination by substances that are considered hazardous under environmental laws. In addition, the Registrants are currently involved in a number of proceedings relating to sites where hazardous substances have been deposited and may be subject to additional proceedings in the future. Unless otherwise disclosed, the Registrants cannot reasonably estimate whether they will incur significant liabilities for additional investigation and remediation costs at these or additional sites identified by the Registrants, environmental agencies or others, or whether such costs will be recoverable from third parties, including customers. Additional costs could have a material, unfavorable impact on the Registrants' financial statements.

The historical nature of the MGP and gas purification sites and the fact that many of the sites have been buried and built over, impacts the ability to determine a precise estimate of the ultimate costs prior to initial sampling and determination of the exact scope and method of remedial activity. Management determines its best estimate of remediation costs using all available information at the time of each study, including probabilistic and deterministic modeling for ComEd and PECO, and the remediation standards currently required by the applicable state environmental agency. Prior to completion of any significant clean up, each site remediation plan is approved by the appropriate state environmental agency.


	September 30, 2021				December 31, 2020
	Total environmental investigation and remediation liabilities		Portion of total related to MGP investigation and remediation		Total environmental investigation and remediation liabilities		Portion of total related to MGP investigation and remediation
Exelon	$	474	$	310	$	483	$	314
Generation	119		—		121		—
ComEd	284		284		293		293
PECO	23		21		23		21
BGE	6		5		2		—
PHI	42		—		44		—
Pepco	40		—		42		—
DPL	1		—		1		—
ACE	1		—		1		—

Cotter Corporation (Exelon and Generation). The EPA has advised Cotter Corporation (Cotter), a former ComEd subsidiary, that it is potentially liable in connection with radiological contamination at a site known as the West Lake Landfill in Missouri. In 2000, ComEd sold Cotter to an unaffiliated third-party. As part of the sale, ComEd agreed to indemnify Cotter for any liability arising in connection with the West Lake Landfill. In connection with Exelon’s 2001 corporate restructuring, this responsibility to indemnify Cotter was transferred to Generation. Including Cotter, there are three PRPs participating in the West Lake Landfill remediation proceeding. Investigation by Generation has identified a number of other parties who also may be PRPs and could be liable to contribute to the final remedy. Further investigation is ongoing.

In September 2018, the EPA issued its Record of Decision Amendment (RODA) for the selection of a final remedy. The RODA modified the remedy previously selected by EPA in its 2008 Record of Decision (ROD). While the ROD required only that the radiological materials and other wastes at the site be capped, the 2018 RODA requires partial excavation of the radiological materials in addition to the previously selected capping remedy. The RODA also allows for variation in depths of excavation depending on radiological concentrations. The EPA and the PRPs have entered into a Consent Agreement to perform the Remedial Design, which is expected to be completed in late 2024. In March 2019 the PRPs received Special Notice Letters from the EPA to perform the Remedial Action work. On October 8, 2019, Cotter (Generation’s indemnitee) provided a non-binding good faith offer to conduct, or finance, a portion of the remedy, subject to certain conditions. The total estimated cost of the remedy, taking into account the current EPA technical requirements and the total costs expected to be incurred collectively by the PRPs in fully executing the remedy, is approximately $290 million, including cost escalation on an undiscounted basis, which would be allocated among the final group of PRPs. Generation has determined that a loss associated with the EPA’s partial excavation and enhanced landfill cover remedy is probable and has recorded a liability included in the table above, that reflects management’s best estimate of Cotter’s allocable share of the ultimate cost. Given the joint and several nature of this liability, the magnitude of Generation’s ultimate liability will depend on the actual costs incurred to implement the required remedy as well as on the nature and terms of any cost-sharing arrangements with the final group of PRPs. Therefore, it is reasonably possible that the ultimate cost and Cotter's associated allocable share could differ significantly once these uncertainties are resolved, which could have a material impact in Exelon's and Generation's future financial statements.

One of the other PRPs has indicated it will be making a contribution claim against Cotter for costs that it has incurred to prevent a subsurface fire from spreading to those areas of the West Lake Landfill where radiological materials are believed to have been disposed. At this time, Exelon and Generation do not possess sufficient information to assess this claim and therefore are unable to estimate a range of loss, if any. As such, no liability has been recorded for the potential contribution claim. It is reasonably possible, however, that resolution of this matter could have a material, unfavorable impact in Exelon’s and Generation's financial statements.

Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent for the performance by the PRPs of the groundwater Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS). The purpose of this RI/FS is to define the nature and extent of any groundwater contamination from the West Lake Landfill site and evaluate remedial alternatives. Generation estimates the undiscounted cost for the groundwater RI/FS to be approximately $40 million. Generation determined a loss associated with the RI/FS is probable and has recorded a liability included in the table above that reflects management’s best estimate of Cotter’s allocable share of the cost among the PRPs. At this time Generation cannot predict the likelihood or the extent to which, if any, remediation activities may be required and therefore cannot estimate a reasonably possible range of loss for response costs beyond those associated with the RI/FS component. It is reasonably possible, however, that resolution of this matter could have a material, unfavorable impact in Exelon’s and Generation’s future financial statements.

In August 2011, Cotter was notified by the DOJ that Cotter is considered a PRP with respect to the government’s clean-up costs for contamination attributable to low level radioactive residues at a former storage and reprocessing facility named Latty Avenue near St. Louis, Missouri. The Latty Avenue site is included in ComEd’s (now Generation's) indemnification responsibilities discussed above as part of the sale of Cotter. The radioactive residues had been generated initially in connection with the processing of uranium ores as part of the U.S. Government’s Manhattan Project. Cotter purchased the residues in 1969 for initial processing at the Latty Avenue facility for the subsequent extraction of uranium and metals. In 1976, the NRC found that the Latty Avenue site had radiation levels exceeding NRC criteria for decontamination of land areas. Latty Avenue was investigated and remediated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to funding under FUSRAP. Pursuant to a series of annual agreements since 2011, the DOJ and the PRPs have tolled the statute of limitations until February 28, 2022 so that settlement discussions can proceed. On August 3, 2020, the DOJ advised Cotter and the other PRPs that it is seeking approximately $90 million from all the PRPs and has directed that the PRPs must submit a good faith joint proposed settlement offer. At this time, the DOJ has stayed their request for a good faith offer while the parties review cost documentation associated with the cost claim. Generation has determined that a loss associated with this matter is probable under its indemnification agreement with Cotter and has recorded an estimated liability, which is included in the table above.

Benning Road Site (Exelon, Generation, PHI, and Pepco). In September 2010, PHI received a letter from EPA identifying the Benning Road site as one of six land-based sites potentially contributing to contamination of the lower Anacostia River. A portion of the site was formerly the location of a Pepco Energy Services electric generating facility, which was deactivated in June 2012. The remaining portion of the site consists of a Pepco transmission and distribution service center that remains in operation. In December 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia approved a Consent Decree entered into by Pepco and Pepco Energy Services with the DOEE, which requires Pepco and Pepco Energy Services to conduct a RI/FS for the Benning Road site and an approximately 10 to 15-acre portion of the adjacent Anacostia River.

Since 2013, Pepco and Pepco Energy Services (now Generation, pursuant to Exelon's 2016 acquisition of PHI) have been performing RI work and have submitted multiple draft RI reports to the DOEE. In September 2019, Pepco and Generation issued a draft “final” RI report which DOEE approved on February 3, 2020. Pepco and Generation are developing a FS to evaluate possible remedial alternatives for submission to DOEE. The Court has established a schedule for completion of the FS, and approval by the DOEE, by March 16, 2022. After completion and approval of the FS, DOEE will prepare a Proposed Plan for public comment and then issue a ROD identifying any further response actions determined to be necessary. PHI, Pepco, and Generation have determined that a loss associated with this matter is probable and have accrued an estimated liability, which is included in the table above.

Anacostia River Tidal Reach (Exelon, PHI, and Pepco). Contemporaneous with the Benning Road site RI/FS being performed by Pepco and Generation, DOEE and NPS have been conducting a separate RI/FS focused on the entire tidal reach of the Anacostia River extending from just north of the Maryland-District of Columbia boundary line to the confluence of the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers. The river-wide RI incorporated the results of the river sampling performed by Pepco and Pepco Energy Services as part of the Benning RI/FS, as well as similar sampling efforts conducted by owners of other sites adjacent to this segment of the river and supplemental river sampling conducted by DOEE’s contractor. In April 2018, DOEE released a draft RI report for public review and comment. Pepco submitted written comments to the draft RI and participated in a public hearing.

released its Interim ROD. The Interim ROD reflects an adaptive management approach which will require several identified “hot spots” in the river to be addressed first while continuing to conduct studies and to monitor the river to evaluate improvements and determine potential future remediation plans. The adaptive management process chosen by DOEE is less intrusive, provides more long-term environmental certainty, is less costly, and allows for site specific remediation plans already underway, including the plan for the Benning Road site to proceed to conclusion. Pepco concluded that incremental exposure remains reasonably possible, but management cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss beyond the amounts recorded, which are included in the table above.

In addition to the activities associated with the remedial process outlined above, CERCLA separately requires federal and state (here including Washington, D.C.) Natural Resource Trustees (federal or state agencies designated by the President or the relevant state, respectively, or Indian tribes) to conduct an assessment of any damages to natural resources within their jurisdiction as a result of the contamination that is being remediated. The Trustees can seek compensation from responsible parties for such damages, including restoration costs. During the second quarter of 2018, Pepco became aware that the Trustees are in the beginning stages of a Natural Resources Damages (NRD) assessment, a process that often takes many years beyond the remedial decision to complete. Pepco has concluded that a loss associated with the eventual NRD assessment is reasonably possible. Due to the very early stage of the assessment process, Pepco cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss.

Asbestos Personal Injury Claims (Exelon and Generation). Generation maintains a reserve for claims associated with asbestos-related personal injury actions in certain facilities that are currently owned by Generation or were previously owned by ComEd and PECO. The estimated liabilities are recorded on an undiscounted basis and exclude the estimated legal costs associated with handling these matters, which could be material.

At September 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020, Exelon and Generation had recorded estimated liabilities of approximately $82 million and $89 million, respectively, in total for asbestos-related bodily injury claims. As of September 30, 2021, approximately $19 million of this amount related to 211 open claims presented to Generation, while the remaining $63 million is for estimated future asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through 2055, based on actuarial assumptions and analyses, which are updated on an annual basis. On a quarterly basis, Generation monitors actual experience against the number of forecasted claims to be received and expected claim payments and evaluates whether adjustments to the estimated liabilities are necessary.

Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) and Related Matters (Exelon and ComEd). Exelon and ComEd received a grand jury subpoena in the second quarter of 2019 from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois (USAO) requiring production of information concerning their lobbying activities in the State of Illinois. On October 4, 2019, Exelon and ComEd received a second grand jury subpoena from the USAO requiring production of records of any communications with certain individuals and entities. On October 22, 2019, the SEC notified Exelon and ComEd that it had also opened an investigation into their lobbying activities. On July 17, 2020, ComEd entered into a DPA with the USAO to resolve the USAO investigation. Under the DPA, the USAO filed a single charge alleging that ComEd improperly gave and offered to give jobs, vendor subcontracts, and payments associated with those jobs and subcontracts for the benefit of the Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives and the Speaker’s associates, with the intent to influence the Speaker’s action regarding legislation affecting ComEd’s interests. The DPA provides that the USAO will defer any prosecution of such charge and any other criminal or civil case against ComEd in connection with the matters identified therein for a three-year period subject to certain obligations of ComEd, including payment to the U.S. Treasury of $200 million, which was paid in November 2020. Exelon was not made a party to the DPA, and therefore the investigation by the USAO into Exelon’s activities ended with no charges being brought against Exelon. The SEC’s investigation remains ongoing and Exelon and ComEd have cooperated fully and intend to continue to cooperate fully with the

•Four putative class action lawsuits against ComEd and Exelon were filed in federal court in the third quarter of 2020 alleging, among other things, civil violations of federal racketeering laws. In addition, the Citizens Utility Board (CUB) filed a motion to intervene in these cases on October 22, 2020 which was granted on December 23, 2020. On December 2, 2020, the court appointed interim lead plaintiffs in the federal cases which consisted of counsel for three of the four federal cases. These plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on January 5, 2021. CUB also filed its own complaint against ComEd only on the same day. The remaining federal case, Potter, et al. v. Exelon et al, differed from the other lawsuits as it named additional individual defendants not named in the consolidated complaint. However, the Potter plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their complaint without prejudice on April 5, 2021. ComEd and Exelon moved to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint and CUB’s complaint on February 4, 2021 and briefing was completed on March 22, 2021. On March 25, 2021, the parties agreed, along with state court plaintiffs, discussed below, to jointly engage in mediation. The parties participated in a one-day mediation on June 7, 2021 but no settlement was reached. On September 9, 2021, the federal court granted Exelon’s and ComEd’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the plaintiffs’ and CUB’s federal law claim with prejudice. The federal court also dismissed the related state law claims made by the federal plaintiffs and CUB on jurisdictional grounds. Plaintiffs have appealed the ruling to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Plaintiffs' opening appeal brief is due January 14, 2022, Exelon's and ComEd's response brief is due February 14, 2022, and Plaintiffs' reply brief is due March 7, 2022. Plaintiffs also refiled their state law claims in state court and have moved to consolidate that action with the already pending consumer state court class action, discussed below. CUB also refiled its state law claims in state court.

•Three putative class action lawsuits against ComEd and Exelon were filed in Illinois state court in the third quarter of 2020 seeking restitution and compensatory damages on behalf of ComEd customers. The cases were consolidated into a single action in October of 2020. In November 2020, CUB filed a motion to intervene in the cases pursuant to an Illinois statute allowing CUB to intervene as a party or otherwise participate on behalf of utility consumers in any proceeding which affects the interest of utility consumers. On November 23, 2020, the court allowed CUB’s intervention, but denied its request to stay these cases. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a consolidated complaint, and ComEd and Exelon filed a motion to dismiss on jurisdictional and substantive grounds on January 11, 2021. Briefing on that motion was completed on March 2, 2021. The parties agreed, on March 25, 2021, along with the federal court plaintiffs discussed above, to jointly engage in mediation. The parties participated in a one-day mediation on June 7, 2021 but no settlement was reached. Oral argument on the state court pending motion to dismiss was held on August 4, 2021. On September 27, 2021, the court set a tentative ruling date on the motion to dismiss for November 30, 2021. It is unclear at this time what impact the recent filings by the federal court plaintiffs and CUB will have on this action and the pending motion to dismiss.

•A putative class action lawsuit against Exelon and certain officers of Exelon and ComEd was filed in federal court in December 2019 alleging misrepresentations and omissions in Exelon’s SEC filings related to ComEd’s lobbying activities and the related investigations. The complaint was amended on September 16, 2020, to dismiss two of the original defendants and add other defendants, including ComEd. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss in November 2020. The court denied the motion in April 2021. On May 26, 2021, defendants moved the court to certify its order denying the motion to dismiss for interlocutory appeal. Briefing on the motion was completed in June 2021 and the motion remains pending. Litigation has proceeded and in May 2021, the parties each filed respective initial discovery disclosures. On June 9, 2021, defendants filed their answer and affirmative defenses to the complaint. The parties are currently engaged in discovery; however, on September 9, 2021, the U.S. government moved to intervene in this lawsuit and stay discovery relating to the U.S. government’s ongoing criminal proceedings until the parties to the litigation agree to an acceptable protective order. The court granted the U.S. government’s motion on September 23, 2021 and discovery remains stayed until further order of the court.

•Five shareholders sent letters to the Exelon Board of Directors between 2020 and 2021 demanding, among other things, that the Exelon Board of Directors investigate and address alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and other alleged violations by Exelon and ComEd officers and directors related to the conduct described in the DPA. In the first quarter of 2021, the Exelon Board of Directors appointed a Special Litigation Committee (“SLC”) consisting of disinterested and independent parties to investigate and address these shareholders’ allegations and make recommendations to the Exelon Board of Directors based on the outcome of the SLC’s investigation. In July 2021, one of the demand letter shareholders filed a derivative action against current and former Exelon and ComEd officers and directors, and against Exelon, as nominal defendant, asserting the same claims made in its demand letter. On October 12, 2021, the parties to the derivative action filed an agreed motion to stay that litigation for 120 days in order to allow the SLC to continue its investigation, which the court granted. The parties will confer in advance of the 120-day deadline to determine whether the stay should be extended.

On August 12, 2021, the ICC commenced a proceeding, under its general regulatory authority, to investigate whether the conduct described in the DPA resulted in ComEd’s recovery, through rates, of costs that were not properly recoverable under law and, if so, what remedial action should be taken. The Staff Report cited by the ICC in its initiating order expressed “concerns” about whether ComEd improperly recovered DPA-related costs from customers. The Illinois Attorney General and CUB have intervened in the proceeding. Counsel for plaintiffs in the putative consumer class actions pending in Illinois Circuit Court have also sought to “partially” intervene, which request is pending. On October 14, 2021, as required by provisions of the Clean Energy Law, the ICC initiated a separate docket to investigate the rate treatment of costs associated with the DPA, including the fine paid by ComEd, and whether ComEd “collected, spent, allocated, transferred, remitted, or caused in any other way to be expended ratepayer funds that were not lawfully recoverable through rates, and which should accordingly be refunded to ratepayers ….” That proceeding must be completed within 330 days. On October 19, 2021, the ICC moved to consolidate these two proceedings because they address "similar issues and facts." That motion is pending. No schedule has been set for submission of testimony or for an evidentiary hearing in either docket. A status hearing is set in both matters for November 4, 2021. Exelon and ComEd cannot predict the outcome of these proceedings.

Impacts of the February 2021 Extreme Cold Weather Event and Texas-based Generating Assets Outages (Exelon and Generation). Beginning on February 15, 2021, Generation’s Texas-based generating assets within the ERCOT market, specifically Colorado Bend II, Wolf Hollow II, and Handley, experienced outages as a result of extreme cold weather conditions. In addition, those weather conditions drove increased demand for service, dramatically increased wholesale power prices, and also increased gas prices in certain regions. See Note 3 — Regulatory Matters for additional information.

•On March 5, 2021, Generation, along with more than 160 power generators and transmission and distribution companies, was sued by approximately 160 individually named plaintiffs, purportedly on behalf of all Texans who allegedly suffered loss of life or sustained personal injury, property damage or other losses as a result of the weather events. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to properly prepare for the cold weather and failed to properly conduct their operations, seeking compensatory as well as punitive damages. On April 26, 2021, another multi-plaintiff lawsuit was filed on behalf of approximately 90 plaintiffs against more than 300 defendants, including Generation, involving similar allegations of liability and claims of personal injury and property damage. Since March 2021, approximately 60 additional lawsuits, naming multiple defendants including Generation, were filed by individual or multiple plaintiffs in different Texas counties, all arising out of the February weather events. These additional lawsuits allege wrongful death, property damage, or other losses. Co-defendants in these lawsuits include ERCOT, transmission and distribution utilities and other generators. Generation disputes liability and denies that it is responsible for any of plaintiffs’ alleged claims and is vigorously contesting them. No loss contingencies have been reflected in Exelon’s and Generation’s consolidated

•On March 22, 2021, an LDC filed a lawsuit in Missouri federal court against Generation for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, seeking damages of approximately $40 million. The plaintiff claims that Generation failed to deliver gas to its customers in February of 2021, causing the plaintiff to incur damages by forcing it to purchase gas for Generation’s customers and by Generation’s refusal to pay the resulting penalties. On March 26, 2021, Generation filed a complaint with the MPSC against the LDC to void the OFO penalties, or alternatively to grant a waiver or variance from the tariff requirements, to prohibit the LDC from billing or otherwise attempting to collect from Generation or any Missouri customer any portion of the penalties claimed by the LDC until the resolution of the complaint, and to prohibit the LDC from taking any retaliatory measure, including termination of service. On September 1, 2021, the MPSC consolidated Generation’s complaint with two other similar complaints from other companies. The evidentiary hearing for the three consolidated complaint cases is scheduled for March 2022. Based on the penalty provisions within the tariff that was in effect at the relevant time, Exelon and Generation have recorded a liability of approximately $40 million as of September 30, 2021.

General (All Registrants). The Registrants are involved in various other litigation matters that are being defended and handled in the ordinary course of business. The assessment of whether a loss is probable or reasonably possible, and whether the loss or a range of loss is estimable, often involves a series of complex judgments about future events. The Registrants maintain accruals for such losses that are probable of being incurred and subject to reasonable estimation. Management is sometimes unable to estimate an amount or range of reasonably possible loss, particularly where (1) the damages sought are indeterminate, (2) the proceedings are in the early stages, or (3) the matters involve novel or unsettled legal theories. In such cases, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the timing or ultimate resolution of such matters, including a possible eventual loss.