In addition, 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 RFP for the third and final 40 MW wind REC tranche is under way and bids will be evaluated in the third quarter of 2022, with a potential award in the fourth quarter of 2022.


			Expiration within
	Total		2022		2023		2024		2025		2026		2027 and beyond
Exelon
Letters of credit	$	17	$	8	$	9	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Surety bonds(a)	185		144		39		2		—		—		—
Financing trust guarantees	378		—		—		—		—		—		378
Guaranteed lease residual values(b)	30		—		2		6		6		5		11
Total commercial commitments	$	610	$	152	$	50	$	8	$	6	$	5	$	389

ComEd
Letters of credit	$	10	$	4	$	6	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Surety bonds(a)	16		9		5		2		—		—		—
Financing trust guarantees	200		—		—		—		—		—		200
Total commercial commitments	$	226	$	13	$	11	$	2	$	—	$	—	$	200

PECO
Letters of credit	$	1	$	—	$	1	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Surety bonds(a)	3		1		2		—		—		—		—
Financing trust guarantees	178		—		—		—		—		—		178
Total commercial commitments	$	182	$	1	$	3	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	178

BGE
Letters of credit	$	2	$	2	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Surety bonds(a)	2		1		1		—		—		—		—
Total commercial commitments	$	4	$	3	$	1	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—

PHI

Surety bonds(a)	$	95	$	76	$	19	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Guaranteed lease residual values(b)	30		—		2		6		6		5		11
Total commercial commitments	$	125	$	76	$	21	$	6	$	6	$	5	$	11

Pepco

Surety bonds(a)	$	84	$	71	$	13	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Guaranteed lease residual values(b)	10		—		1		2		2		2		3
Total commercial commitments	$	94	$	71	$	14	$	2	$	2	$	2	$	3

DPL

Surety bonds(a)	$	7	$	3	$	4	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Guaranteed lease residual values(b)	13		—		—		3		3		2		5
Total commercial commitments	$	20	$	3	$	4	$	3	$	3	$	2	$	5

ACE
Surety bonds(a)	$	4	$	2	$	2	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Guaranteed lease residual values(b)	7		—		1		1		1		1		3
Total commercial commitments	$	11	$	2	$	3	$	1	$	1	$	1	$	3

(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 $74 million guaranteed by Exelon and PHI, of which $24 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.

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.

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, which is owned by Pepco, was formerly the location of an electric generating facility owned by Pepco subsidiary, Pepco Energy Services (PES), which became a part of Generation, following the 2016 merger between PHI and Exelon. This generating facility 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 (hereinafter "Pepco Entities") with the DOEE, which requires the Pepco Entities to conduct a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for the Benning Road site and an approximately 10 to 15-acre portion of the adjacent Anacostia River. The purpose of this RI/FS is to define the nature and extent of contamination from the Benning Road site and to evaluate remedial alternatives.

Pursuant to an internal agreement between the Pepco Entities, since 2013, Pepco has performed the work required by the Consent Decree and has been reimbursed for that work by an agreed upon allocation of costs between the Pepco Entities. In September 2019, the Pepco Entities issued a draft “final” RI report which DOEE approved on February 3, 2020. The Pepco Entities 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 Record of Decision (ROD) identifying any further response actions determined to be necessary. As part of the separation between Exelon and Constellation in February 2022, the internal agreement between the Pepco Entities for completion and payment for the remaining Consent Decree work was memorialized in a formal agreement for post-separation activities. A second post-separation assumption agreement between Exelon and Constellation transferred any of the potential remaining remediation liability, if any, of PES/Generation to a non-utility subsidiary of Exelon which going forward will be responsible for those liabilities. 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 the Pepco Entities, 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 the Pepco Entities 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.

On July 15, 2022, Pepco received a letter from the District of Columbia's Office of the Attorney General (District) on behalf of DOEE conveying a settlement offer to resolve all PRPs' liability to the District. Pepco responded on July 27, 2022 to enter into settlement discussions. Exelon, PHI, and Pepco have determined that it is probable that costs for remediation will be incurred and have accrued a liability for management's best estimate of its share of the costs. 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 entered into negotiations with the Trustees to evaluate possible incorporation of NRD assessment and restoration as part of its remedial activities associated with the Benning site to accelerate the NRD benefits for that portion of the Anacostia River Sediment Project ("ARSP") assessment. 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 final range of loss potentially resulting from this process.

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 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.

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 appealed dismissal of the federal law claim to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Plaintiffs and CUB also refiled their state law claims in state court and moved to consolidate them with the already pending consumer state court class action, discussed below. Plaintiffs' opening appeal brief in the Seventh Circuit was filed on January 14, 2022. Exelon and ComEd filed their response brief on March 7, 2022, and plaintiffs filed their reply brief on April 6, 2022. Oral argument was held on May 17, 2022.

•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 CUB's 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 asserted in their motion to dismiss the original state court plaintiffs' complaint. The court granted dismissal of the refiled state claims on February 16, 2022. The original federal plaintiffs appealed that dismissal on February 18, 2022. The two state appeals were consolidated on March 21, 2022. Plaintiffs' opening appellate briefs are currently due August 5, 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. On February 10, 2022, the court granted an extension of the amendment to the protective order, at the U.S. government's request. The court granted a further extension of the amendment to the protective order and narrowed its scope, at the U.S. government's request, on May 14, 2022. On July 14, 2022, the court further extended the protective order amendment to September 30, 2022 and reset the next court status for August 15, 2022.

•Several shareholders have sent letters to the Exelon Board of Directors from 2020 through May 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 February 3, 2022, the court granted an extension of the stay for another 120 days and directed the parties to file a status report on June 1, 2022. On June 1, 2022, the parties requested a further extension of the stay until September 14, 2022, which the court granted.

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. The testimony supports the calculation of the refund amount and proposes a refund mechanism (one-time bill credit in April 2023) and also addresses other topics outlined by statute and the ICC orders initiating the investigation. On April 14, 2022, in response to rebuttal testimony from ICC staff and the Illinois Attorney General, City of Chicago, and CUB, ComEd filed surrebuttal testimony, in which ComEd proposed to increase its voluntary customer refund to $38 million, including ICC and FERC jurisdictional amounts and estimated interest, to resolve the issue of the potential expenditure of customer monies on activities identified in the DPA in this matter. An accrual for the amount of the voluntary customer refund has been recorded in Other current liabilities and Other deferred credits and other liabilities in Exelon’s and ComEd’s Consolidated Balance Sheets as of June 30, 2022. The voluntary customer refund will not be recovered in rates or charged to customers and ComEd will not seek or accept reimbursement or indemnification from any source other than Exelon. The evidentiary hearing on the remaining contested issue was held on April 28, 2022. On June 13, 2022, the ICC Administrate Law Judge issued a proposed order, which accepts ComEd's voluntary customer refund of $38 million and rejects alternative proposals for other larger adjustments to rates. A final order is expected by September 9, 2022.

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 filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on February 25, 2022. The plaintiffs filed their response brief on March 28, 2022 and the defendants filed their reply on April 11, 2022. On March 4, 2022, the Chamber of Commerce filed a brief of amicus curiae in support of the defendants' motion to dismiss. 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.