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 at June 30, 2023:


			Expiration within
	Total		2023		2024		2025		2026		2027		2028 and beyond
Exelon
Letters of credit	$	21	$	13	$	8	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Surety bonds(a)	206		172		34		—		—		—		—
Financing trust guarantees	378		—		—		—		—		—		378
Guaranteed lease residual values(b)	29		—		4		6		5		4		10
Total commercial commitments	$	634	$	185	$	46	$	6	$	5	$	4	$	388

ComEd
Letters of credit	$	12	$	9	$	3	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Surety bonds(a)	46		39		7		—		—		—		—
Financing trust guarantees	200		—		—		—		—		—		200
Total commercial commitments	$	258	$	48	$	10	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	200

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

BGE
Letters of credit	$	4	$	2	$	2	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Surety bonds(a)	3		1		2		—		—		—		—
Total commercial commitments	$	7	$	3	$	4	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—

PHI

Surety bonds(a)	$	97	$	77	$	20	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Guaranteed lease residual values(b)	29		—		4		6		5		4		10
Total commercial commitments	$	126	$	77	$	24	$	6	$	5	$	4	$	10

Pepco

Surety bonds(a)	$	85	$	71	$	14	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Guaranteed lease residual values(b)	10		—		1		3		2		1		3
Total commercial commitments	$	95	$	71	$	15	$	3	$	2	$	1	$	3

DPL

Surety bonds(a)	$	7	$	3	$	4	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Guaranteed lease residual values(b)	12		—		2		2		2		2		4
Total commercial commitments	$	19	$	3	$	6	$	2	$	2	$	2	$	4

ACE
Surety bonds(a)	$	5	$	3	$	2	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Guaranteed lease residual values(b)	7		—		1		1		1		1		3
Total commercial commitments	$	12	$	3	$	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 9 years. The maximum potential obligation at the end of the minimum lease term would be $65 million guaranteed by Exelon and PHI, of which $22 million, $27 million, and $16 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.


	June 30, 2023				December 31, 2022
	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	$	423	$	334	$	409	$	355
ComEd	304		303		325		324
PECO	24		23		25		23
BGE	9		8		9		8
PHI	82		—		46		—
Pepco	80		—		44		—
DPL	1		—		1		—
ACE	1		—		1		—

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 completing a FS to evaluate possible remedial alternatives for submission to DOEE. In October 2022, DOEE approved dividing the work to complete the landside portion of the FS from the waterside portion to expedite the overall schedule for completion of the project. After completion and approval of the landside FS, now scheduled for December 31, 2023, 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 to address any landside issues. The DOEE will issue a separate ROD for the waterside FS when that work is completed which is now anticipated to be by March 31, 2024.

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 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 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.

On July 15, 2022, Pepco received a letter from the District of Columbia's Office of the Attorney General (D.C. OAG) on behalf of DOEE conveying a settlement offer to resolve all PRPs' liability to the District of Columbia (District) for their past costs and their anticipated future costs to complete the work for the Interim ROD. Pepco responded on July 27, 2022 to enter into settlement discussions. Since that time Exelon and the other PRPs at the site have exchanged letters with the D.C. OAG exploring potential settlement options. Those discussions are ongoing. 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 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 NRD process, Pepco cannot reasonably estimate the final range of loss potentially resulting from this process.

Buzzard Point Site (Exelon, PHI, and Pepco). On December 8, 2022, Pepco received a letter from the D.C. OAG, alleging wholly past violations of the District's stormwater discharge and waste disposal requirements related to operations at the Buzzard Point facility, a 9-acre parcel of waterfront property in Washington, D.C. occupied by an active substation and former steam plant building. The letter also alleged wholly past violations by Pepco of stormwater discharge requirements related to its district-wide system of underground vaults. The D.C. OAG invited Pepco to resolve the threatened enforcement action through a court-approved consent decree, and Pepco is engaged in discussions with the D.C. OAG regarding a potential resolution. Exelon, PHI, and Pepco have determined that a loss associated with this matter is probable and have accrued an estimated liability. Pepco concluded that incremental exposure is reasonably possible, but the range of loss cannot be reasonably estimated beyond the amounts included in the table above.

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 former 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 three-year term of the DPA ended on July 17, 2023, and on that same date the court granted the USAO’s motion to dismiss the pending charge that had been deferred by the DPA.

•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 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. On August 22, 2022, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the consolidated federal cases in their entirety. The time to further appeal has passed and the Seventh Circuit’s decision is final.

•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. The appellate briefing is complete and the parties are awaiting oral argument and/or a decision.

•On November 3, 2022, a plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint in Lake County, Illinois Circuit Court against ComEd and Exelon for unjust enrichment and deceptive business practices in connection with the conduct giving rise to the DPA. Plaintiff seeks an accounting and disgorgement of any benefits ComEd allegedly obtained from said conduct. Plaintiff served initial discovery requests on ComEd in December 2022, to which ComEd has responded. ComEd and Exelon filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint on February 3, 2023. On June 16, 2023, the court granted Exelon and ComEd's motion to dismiss the action with prejudice. Plaintiff filed its notice of appeal of that dismissal on July 17, 2023.

•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 court further amended the protective order on October 17, 2022 and extended it until May 15, 2023. Following mediation, the parties reached a settlement of the lawsuit, under which defendants agreed to pay plaintiffs $173 million. On May 26, 2023, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, which the court granted on June 9, 2023. The court set a hearing for final approval of the settlement, which will follow a class notice period, for September 7, 2023. The settlement was fully covered by insurance and has been paid in full.

•Several shareholders have sent letters to the Exelon Board of Directors since 2020 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 stay has been extended several times. The parties participated in a mediation in February 2023 and efforts to resolve the matter remain ongoing. On April 26 and May 1, 2023, two additional demand letter shareholders each filed a separate derivative lawsuit against current and former Exelon and ComEd officers and directors, and certain third parties, and against Exelon as nominal defendant, asserting claims similar to those made in their respective demand letters. On May 25, 2023, certain demand letter shareholders (Settling Shareholders) filed a separate derivative lawsuit against current and former Exelon and ComEd officers and directors, and against Exelon as nominal defendant, asserting claims similar to those made in their respective demand letters. All pending derivative lawsuits were consolidated.

•On May 26, 2023, prior to lawsuit consolidation, the SLC filed a Notice of Determination and Intent to Seek Court Approval of Settlement (Notice of Determination). The Notice of Determination stated that, through mediation efforts, a settlement of the derivative claims had been approved by the SLC, the Independent Review Committee of the Board (which had been formed in the third quarter of 2022, to ensure the Board’s consideration of any SLC recommendations would be independent and objective), the Board, and the Settling Shareholders (the Settling Parties). The Notice of Determination further specified the process by which the Settling Parties would seek court approval of the proposed settlement and resolution and dismissal of all derivative claims and lawsuits, including any lawsuits or actions brought by demand letter shareholders who are not participating in the proposed settlement. In furtherance of the proposed settlement, on June 16, 2023, the SLC filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, attaching the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (Stipulation), which contains the terms of the proposed settlement. The proposed settlement terms include but are not limited to: a payment of $40 million to Exelon by Exelon’s insurers of which $10 million constitutes the attorneys’ fee award to be paid to the Settling Shareholders’ counsel; various compliance and disclosure-related reforms; and certain changes in Board and Committee composition. On June 13, 2023, the non-settling derivative shareholders filed a motion asking the court to set a status conference to discuss lifting the discovery stay. On June 29, 2023, an additional shareholder filed a separate derivative lawsuit against current and former Exelon and ComEd officers and directors, and against

Exelon as nominal defendant, asserting claims similar to those made in its demand letter. On June 30, 2023, the non-settling shareholders’ motion for status and the SLC’s motion for preliminary approval was heard by the court, during which the court set a briefing schedule on the appropriate standard for evaluating the settlement and the proper scope of requested discovery. The parties simultaneously filed opening briefs on July 21, 2023 and filed opposition briefs on August 1, 2023. A hearing is set for August 14, 2023.

In August 2022, the ICC concluded its investigation initiated on August 12, 2021 into rate impacts of conduct admitted in the DPA, including the costs recovered from customers related to the DPA and Exelon's funding of the fine paid by ComEd. On August 17, 2022, the ICC issued its final order accepting ComEd's voluntary customer refund offer of approximately $38 million (of which about $31 million is ICC jurisdictional; the remaining balance is FERC jurisdictional) that resolves the question of whether customer funds were used for DPA related activities. The customer refund includes the cost of every individual or entity that was either (i) identified in the DPA or (ii) identified by ComEd as an associate of the former Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives in the ICC proceeding. The ICC’s DPA investigation is now closed. The ICC jurisdictional refund was made to customers during the April 2023 billing cycle, as required by the ICC. The FERC jurisdictional refund is being made as part of ComEd's transmission formula rate update proceeding, filed on May 12, 2023. The filed transmission rate, inclusive of the FERC jurisdictional DPA refund, will appear on ComEd retail customers' bills for the June 2023 through May 2024 monthly billing periods, in the line designated as "Transmission Services Charge." The 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. An accrual for the amount of the customer refund has been recorded in Regulatory assets in Exelon’s and ComEd’s Consolidated Balance Sheets as of June 30, 2023.

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. On March 4, 2022, the Chamber of Commerce filed a brief of amicus curiae in support of the defendants' motion to dismiss. On September 22, 2022, the court granted Exelon’s motion to dismiss without prejudice. The court granted plaintiffs leave until October 31, 2022 to file an amended complaint, which was later extended to November 30, 2022. Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on November 30, 2022. Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the amended complaint on January 20, 2023. Briefing on the motion to dismiss is now complete and the parties await a ruling. 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 Registrants are also from time to time subject to audits and investigations by the FERC and other regulators. 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.