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. Investment costs, which are expected to be primarily capital in nature, are recognized as incurred and recorded in Exelon's financial statements. As of December 31, 2021, approximately 33 MWs of new generation were developed and Exelon incurred costs of $121 million. Development of the remaining 4 MWs of new generation will be completed by Generation in 2022. 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 DEPSC in 2019. The third and final 40 MW wind REC tranche will be conducted in 2022.


			Expiration within
Exelon	Total		2022		2023		2024		2025		2026		2027 and beyond
Letters of credit	$	2,397	$	2,296	$	101	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Surety bonds(a)	1,008		989		17		2		—		—		—
Financing trust guarantees	378		—		—		—		—		—		378
Guaranteed lease residual values(b)	31		—		5		6		6		5		9
Total commercial commitments	$	3,814	$	3,285	$	123	$	8	$	6	$	5	$	387






ComEd
Letters of credit	$	7	$	7	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Surety bonds(a)	17		15		—		2		—		—		—
Financing trust guarantees	200		—		—		—		—		—		200
Total commercial commitments	$	224	$	22	$	—	$	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		3		—		—		—		—		—
Total commercial commitments	$	5	$	5	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—

PHI

Surety bonds(a)	$	23	$	23	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Guaranteed lease residual values(b)	31		—		5		6		6		5		9
Total commercial commitments	$	54	$	23	$	5	$	6	$	6	$	5	$	9

Pepco

Surety bonds(a)	$	14	$	14	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Guaranteed lease residual values(c)	10		—		1		2		2		2		3
Total commercial commitments	$	24	$	14	$	1	$	2	$	2	$	2	$	3

DPL

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

ACE
Surety bonds(a)	$	4	$	4	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Guaranteed lease residual values(b)	8		—		2		1		2		1		2
Total commercial commitments	$	12	$	4	$	2	$	1	$	2	$	1	$	2

(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, $31 million, and $19 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.

The Price-Anderson Act was enacted to ensure the availability of funds for public liability claims arising from an incident at any of the U.S. licensed nuclear facilities and to limit the liability of nuclear reactor owners for such claims from any single incident. As of December 31, 2021, the current liability limit per incident is $13.5 billion and is subject to change to account for the effects of inflation and changes in the number of licensed reactors at least once every five years with the last adjustment effective November 1, 2018. In accordance with the Price-Anderson Act, Generation maintains financial protection at levels equal to the amount of liability insurance available from private sources through the purchase of private nuclear energy liability insurance for public liability claims that could arise in the event of an incident. Effective January 1, 2017, the required amount of nuclear energy liability insurance purchased is $450 million for each operating site. Claims exceeding that amount are covered through mandatory participation in a financial protection pool, as required by the Price Anderson-Act, which provides the additional $13.1 billion per incident in funds available for public liability claims. Participation in this secondary financial protection pool requires the operator of each reactor to fund its proportionate share of costs for any single incident that exceeds the primary layer of financial protection. Generation’s share of this secondary layer would be approximately $2.8 billion, however any amounts payable under this secondary layer would be capped at $413 million per year.

Generation is required each year to report to the NRC the current levels and sources of property insurance that demonstrates Generation possesses sufficient financial resources to stabilize and decontaminate a reactor and reactor station site in the event of an accident. The property insurance maintained for each facility is currently provided through insurance policies purchased from NEIL, an industry mutual insurance company of which Generation is a member.

NEIL may declare distributions to its members as a result of favorable operating experience. In recent years, NEIL has made distributions to its members. Generation's portion of the annual distribution declared by NEIL is estimated to be $113 million for 2021, and was $75 million and $136 million for 2020 and 2019, respectively. The distributions were recorded as a reduction to Operating and maintenance expense within Exelon’s Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income.

Under the NWPA, the DOE is responsible for the development of a geologic repository for and the disposal of SNF and high-level radioactive waste. As required by the NWPA, Generation is a party to contracts with the DOE (Standard Contracts) to provide for disposal of SNF from Generation’s nuclear generating stations. In accordance with the NWPA and the Standard Contracts, Generation historically had paid the DOE one mill ($0.001) per kWh of net nuclear generation for the cost of SNF disposal. Due to the lack of a viable disposal program, the DOE reduced the SNF disposal fee to zero in May 2014. Until a new fee structure is in effect, Exelon and Generation will not accrue any further costs related to SNF disposal fees. This fee may be adjusted prospectively to ensure full cost recovery.

The NWPA and the Standard Contracts required the DOE to begin taking possession of SNF generated by nuclear generating units by no later than January 31, 1998. The DOE, however, failed to meet that deadline and its performance is expected to be delayed significantly. In August 2004, Generation and the DOJ, in close consultation with the DOE, reached a settlement under which the government agreed to reimburse Generation, subject to certain damage limitations based on the extent of the government’s breach, for costs associated with storage of SNF at Generation’s nuclear stations pending the DOE’s fulfillment of its obligations. Calvert Cliffs, Ginna, and Nine Mile Point each have separate settlement agreements in place with the DOE which were

extended during 2020 to provide for the reimbursement of SNF storage costs through December 31, 2022. FitzPatrick also has a separate settlement agreement in place with the DOE which was established in 2021 to provide for reimbursement of SNF storage costs through December 31, 2022. Generation submits annual reimbursement requests to the DOE for costs associated with the storage of SNF. In all cases, reimbursement requests are made only after costs are incurred and only for costs resulting from DOE delays in accepting the SNF.

Under the settlement agreements, Generation received total cumulative cash reimbursements of $1,492 million through December 31, 2021 for costs incurred. After considering the amounts due to co-owners of certain nuclear stations and to the former owner of Oyster Creek, Generation received net cumulative cash reimbursements of $1,294 million. As of December 31, 2021 and 2020, the amount of SNF storage costs for which reimbursement has been or will be requested from the DOE under the DOE settlement agreements is as follows:

(b)A prior owner of FitzPatrick elected to defer payment of the one-time fee of $34 million, with interest to the date of payment, for the FitzPatrick unit. As part of the FitzPatrick acquisition on March 31, 2017, Generation assumed a SNF liability for the DOE one-time fee obligation with interest related to FitzPatrick along with an offsetting asset, included in Other deferred debits and other assets, for the contractual right to reimbursement from NYPA, a prior owner of FitzPatrick, for amounts paid for the FitzPatrick DOE one-time fee obligation.

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.


	December 31, 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	$	469	$	303	$	483	$	314

ComEd	279		279		293		293
PECO	22		20		23		21
BGE	6		4		2		—
PHI	42		—		44		—
Pepco	40		—		42		—
DPL	1		—		1		—
ACE	1		—		1		—

Cotter Corporation (Exelon). 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. Exelon 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 Exelon’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.

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 does 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.

In January 2018, the PRPs were advised by the EPA that it will begin an additional investigation and evaluation of groundwater conditions at the West Lake Landfill. In September 2018, the PRPs agreed to an Administrative 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. Exelon estimates the undiscounted cost for the groundwater RI/FS to be approximately $40 million. Exelon 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 Exelon 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.

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 (Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program). 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. In December 2021, a good faith offer was submitted to the government and negotiations are expected to commence in the first quarter of 2022. Exelon 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, 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 September 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. Exelon, PHI, and Pepco, 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 National Park Service ("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.

Pepco has determined that it is probable that costs for remediation will be incurred and recorded a liability in the third quarter 2019 for management’s best estimate of its share of those costs. On September 30, 2020, DOEE 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.

At December 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020, Exelon had recorded estimated liabilities of approximately $81 million and $89 million, respectively, in total for asbestos-related bodily injury claims. As of December 31, 2021, approximately $17 million of this amount related to 211 open claims presented to Generation, while the remaining $64 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.

ComEd has agreed in connection with financings arranged through ComEd Financing III that it will not declare dividends on any shares of its capital stock in the event that: (1) it exercises its right to extend the interest payment periods on the subordinated debt securities issued to ComEd Financing III; (2) it defaults on its guarantee of the payment of distributions on the preferred trust securities of ComEd Financing III; or (3) an event of default occurs under the Indenture under which the subordinated debt securities are issued. No such event has occurred.

PECO has agreed in connection with financings arranged through PEC L.P. and PECO Trust IV that PECO will not declare dividends on any shares of its capital stock in the event that: (1) it exercises its right to extend the interest payment periods on the subordinated debentures, which were issued to PEC L.P. or PECO Trust IV; (2) it defaults on its guarantee of the payment of distributions on the Series D Preferred Securities of PEC L.P. or the preferred trust securities of PECO Trust IV; or (3) an event of default occurs under the Indenture under which the subordinated debentures are issued. No such event has occurred.

Pepco is subject to certain dividend restrictions established by settlements approved in Maryland and the District of Columbia. Pepco is prohibited from paying a dividend on its common shares if (a) after the dividend payment, Pepco's equity ratio would be 48% as equity levels are calculated under the ratemaking precedents of the MDPSC and DCPSC or (b) Pepco’s senior unsecured credit rating is rated by one of the three major credit rating agencies below investment grade. No such event has occurred.

DPL is subject to certain dividend restrictions established by settlements approved in Delaware and Maryland. DPL is prohibited from paying a dividend on its common shares if (a) after the dividend payment, DPL's equity ratio would be 48% as equity levels are calculated under the ratemaking precedents of the DEPSC and MDPSC or (b) DPL’s senior unsecured credit rating is rated by one of the three major credit rating agencies below investment grade. No such event has occurred.

ACE is subject to certain dividend restrictions established by settlements approved in New Jersey. ACE is prohibited from paying a dividend on its common shares if (a) after the dividend payment, ACE's equity ratio would be 48% as equity levels are calculated under the ratemaking precedents of the NJBPU or (b) ACE's senior unsecured credit rating is rated by one of the three major credit rating agencies below investment grade. ACE is also subject to a dividend restriction which requires ACE to obtain the prior approval of the NJBPU before

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 SEC. Exelon and ComEd cannot predict the outcome of the SEC investigation. No loss contingency has been reflected in Exelon's and ComEd's consolidated financial statements with respect to the SEC investigation, as this contingency is neither probable nor reasonably estimable at this time.

•Four putative class action lawsuits against ComEd and Exelon were filed in federal court on behalf of ComEd customers 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 was filed on January 14, 2022. Exelon and ComEd have requested an extension until March 7, 2022 to file their response brief. Plaintiff's reply brief will be due approximately 21 days thereafter. 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. On December 23, 2021, the state court granted ComEd and Exelon’s motion to dismiss with prejudice. On December 30, 2021, plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider that dismissal and for permission to amend their complaint. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion on January 21, 2022. Plaintiffs have appealed the court's ruling dismissing their complaint to the First District Court of Appeals. On February 15, 2022, Exelon and ComEd moved to dismiss the federal plaintiffs' refiled state law claims, seeking dismissal on the same legal grounds as those asserted in their motion to dismiss the original state court plaintiffs' complaint. The parties agreed to submit their motion to dismiss briefing as a package, which included Exelon' and ComEd's motion, plaintiffs' response, and Exelon's and ComEd's reply, in order to facilitate a speedy resolution by the court. The court granted dismissal of the refiled state claims on February 16, 2022. The original federal plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal of that dismissal on February 18, 2022.

•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. That motion was denied on January 28, 2022. 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 and the parties engaged thereafter in discovery. On September 9, 2021, the U.S. government moved to intervene in the lawsuit and stay discovery until the parties entered into an amendment to their protective order that would prohibit the parties from requesting discovery into certain matters, including communications with the U.S. government. The court ordered said amendment to the protective order on November 15, 2021 and discovery resumed. The parties are required to substantially complete discovery by February 15, 2022. On February 10, 2022, the court granted an extension of the amendment to the protective order, at the U.S. government's request, to May 15, 2022, and directed the parties to submit a proposed joint schedule for the additional case proceedings by May 13, 2022.

•Six shareholders have sent letters to the Exelon Board of Directors from 2020 through January 2022 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. On January 31, 2022, the parties jointly moved the court to extend the stay an additional 120 days.

The ICC continues to conduct an investigation into rate impacts of conduct admitted in the DPA initiated on August 12, 2021. On December 16, 2021 ComEd filed direct testimony addressing the costs recovered from customers related to the DPA and Exelon’s funding of the fine paid by ComEd. In that testimony, ComEd proposed to voluntarily refund to customers compensation costs of the former officers charged with wrongdoing in connection with events described in the DPA for the period during which those events occurred as well as costs, previously proposed to be returned, of individuals and entities specifically identified in the DPA, as well as individuals and entities who were referred to ComEd as part of the conduct described in the DPA and who failed,

during their tenure at ComEd, to perform work to management expectations. Exelon and ComEd recorded a loss contingency for these compensation costs as of December 31, 2021, which for financial statement disclosure purposes is not material. The testimony supports the calculation of the refund amount and proposes a refund mechanism (one time bill credit in February 2023) and also addresses other topics outlined by statute and the ICC orders initiating the investigation. ComEd also presented evidence concerning the lawfulness of ComEd’s past rates more generally. However, in response to pre-hearing motions concerning the scope of the hearing and permissible discovery and testimony, the ICC Administrate Law Judge ("ALJ") assigned ruled that scope of this proceeding was limited to whether ComEd used ratepayer funds to pay the “effectuation costs” for the conduct described in the DPA and to pay the criminal fine. Consistent with that scope, the ALJ limited the testimony to those subjects. Consistent with that ruling and a failure to exhaust other discovery, on January 18, 2022 the ALJ denied plaintiffs’ counsel’s request to depose witnesses including several current and former ComEd and Exelon executives.

Impacts of the February 2021 Extreme Cold Weather Event and Texas-based Generating Assets Outages (Exelon). Beginning on February 15, 2021, Exelon’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, Exelon, 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 Exelon, involving similar allegations of liability and claims of personal injury and property damage. Since March 2021, approximately 60 additional lawsuits, naming multiple defendants including Exelon, 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. On December 28, 2021, approximately 130 insurance companies which insured Texas homeowners and businesses filed a subrogation lawsuit against multiple defendants, including Exelon, alleging that defendants were at fault for the energy failure that resulted from the winter storm, causing significant property damage to the insureds. Additionally, as of January 28, 2022, Exelon has been added to approximately 80 additional wrongful death, personal injury and property damage lawsuits through the Multi-District-Litigation (MDL) pending in Texas state court. The MDL now includes all of the above-described Texas state court matters. Exelon 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 consolidated financial statements with respect to these matters, as such contingencies are neither probable nor reasonably estimable at this time.

•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 Exelon’s customers and by Exelon’s refusal to pay the resulting penalties. On March 26, 2021, Exelon 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 Exelon 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 Exelon’s complaint with two other similar complaints from other companies. On January 4, 2022, the court denied Exelon's motion to dismiss, but in the alternative granted its motion to stay pending MPSC resolution of Exelon's complaint. The MPSC has scheduled an evidentiary hearing for the three consolidated complaint cases in April 2022. Based on the penalty provisions within the tariff

Savings Plan Claim (Exelon). On December 6, 2021, seven current and former employees filed a putative ERISA class action suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Exelon, its Board of Directors, the former Board Investment Oversight Committee, the Corporate Investment Committee, individual defendants, and other unnamed fiduciaries of the Exelon Corporation Employee Savings Plan (“Plan”). The complaint alleges that the defendants violated their fiduciary duties under the Plan by including certain investment options that allegedly were more expensive than and underperformed similar passively-managed or other funds available in the marketplace and permitting a third-party administrative service provider/recordkeeper and an investment adviser to charge excessive fees for the services provided. The plaintiffs seek declaratory, equitable and monetary relief on behalf of the Plan and participants. On February 16, 2022, the court granted the parties' stipulated dismissal of the individual named defendants without prejudice. The remaining defendants' responsive pleading is due February 25, 2022. No loss contingencies have been reflected in Exelon’s consolidated financial statements with respect to this matter, as such contingencies are neither probable nor reasonably estimable at this time.

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.