Regulatory Matters (Exelon, Generation, ComEd, PECO and BGE)

The following matters below discuss the current status of material regulatory and legislative proceedings of the Registrants.

Illinois Regulatory Matters

Energy Infrastructure Modernization Act (Exelon and ComEd).

Background

Since 2011, ComEd’s distribution rates are established through a performance-based rate formula, pursuant to EIMA. EIMA also provides a structure for substantial capital investment by utilities to modernize Illinois’ electric utility infrastructure. Participating utilities are required to file an annual update to the performance-based formula rate tariff on or before May 1, with resulting rates effective in January of the following year. This annual formula rate update is based on prior year actual costs and current year projected capital additions. The update also reconciles any differences between the revenue requirement(s) in effect for the prior year and actual costs incurred for that year. Throughout each year, ComEd records regulatory assets or regulatory liabilities and corresponding increases or decreases to operating revenues for any differences between the revenue requirement(s) in effect and ComEd’s best estimate of the revenue requirement expected to be approved by the ICC for that year’s reconciliation. As of December 31, 2014, and December 31, 2013, ComEd had a regulatory asset associated with the distribution formula rate of $371 million and $463 million, respectively. The regulatory asset associated with distribution true-up is amortized to Operating revenues as the associated amounts are recovered through rates.

Annual Reconciliation

2014 Filing. On April 16, 2014, ComEd filed its annual distribution formula rate to request a total increase to the revenue requirement of $269 million. On December 11, 2014, the ICC issued its final order which increased the revenue requirement by $232 million, reflecting an increase of $160 million for the initial revenue requirement for 2014 and an increase of $72 million related to the annual reconciliation for 2013. Approximately $23 million of the total $37 million revenue requirement disallowance is recoverable through other rider-based mechanisms. The rate increase was set using an allowed return on capital of 7.06% (inclusive of an allowed return on common equity of 9.25% for 2014 less a performance metrics penalty of 5 basis points for the 2013 reconciliation). The rates took effect in January 2015. ComEd and intervenors requested a rehearing on specific issues, which was denied by the ICC on January 28, 2015.

2013 Filing. On April 29, 2013, ComEd filed its annual distribution formula rate, which was updated in August 2013, to request a total increase to the revenue requirement of $353 million. On December 19, 2013, the ICC issued its final order which increased the revenue requirement by $341 million, reflecting an increase of $160 million for the initial revenue requirement for 2013 and an increase of $181 million for the annual reconciliation for 2012. The final revenue requirement reflected the impacts of Senate Bill 9, which became effective in May 2013 and clarified the intent of EIMA on three issues: an allowed return on ComEd’s pension asset; the use of year-end rather than average rate base and capital structure in the annual reconciliation; and the use of ComEd’s weighted average cost of capital interest rate rather than a short-term debt rate to apply to the annual reconciliation. The rate increase was set using an allowed return on capital of 6.94% (inclusive of an allowed return on common equity of 8.72%). The rates took effect in January 2014. ComEd requested a rehearing on specific issues, which was denied by the ICC. ComEd also filed an appeal, which was subsequently withdrawn.

2012 Filing. On April 30, 2012, ComEd filed its annual distribution formula rate. On December 20, 2012, the ICC, issued its final order, which increased the revenue requirement by $73 million, reflecting an increase of $80 million for the initial revenue requirement for 2012 and a decrease of $7 million for the annual reconciliation for 2011. The rate increase was set using an allowed return on capital of 7.54% (inclusive of an allowed return on common equity of 9.81%). The rates took effect in January 2013. ComEd and intervenors requested a rehearing on specific issues, which was denied by the ICC. ComEd and intervenors also filed appeals with the Illinois Appellate Court. The Illinois Appellate Court upheld the ICC's decision on the issues on appeal. On May 30, 2013, ComEd updated its revenue requirement allowed in the December 2012 Order to reflect the impacts of Senate Bill 9, which resulted in a reduction to the current revenue requirement in effect of $14 million. The rates took effect in July 2013. ComEd and intervenors requested a rehearing on specific issues, which was denied by the ICC. ComEd and intervenors also filed appeals with the Illinois Appellate Court. The Illinois Appellate Court reaffirmed the ICC's order.

Formula Rate Structure Investigation

In October 2013, the ICC opened an investigation (the Investigation), in response to a complaint filed by the Illinois Attorney General, to change the formula rate structure by requesting three changes: the elimination of the income tax gross-up on the weighted average cost of capital used to calculate interest on the annual reconciliation balance, the netting of associated accumulated deferred income taxes against the annual reconciliation balance in calculating interest, and the use of average rather than year-end rate base for determining any ROE collar adjustment. On November 26, 2013, the ICC issued its final order in the Investigation, rejecting two of the proposed changes but accepting the proposed change to eliminate the income tax gross-up on the weighted average cost of capital used to calculate interest on the annual reconciliation balance. The accepted change became effective in January 2014, and reduced ComEd’s 2014 revenue by approximately $8 million. This change had no financial statement impact on ComEd in 2013. ComEd and intervenors requested rehearing, however all rehearing requests were denied by the ICC. ComEd and intervenors have filed appeals with the Illinois Appellate Court. ComEd cannot predict the results of any such appeals.

Appeal of Initial Formula Rate Tariff

On March 26, 2014, the Illinois Appellate Court issued an opinion with respect to ComEd’s appeal of the ICC’s order relating to ComEd’s initial formula rate tariff. The most significant financial issues under appeal related to ICC findings that were counter to the formula rate legislation and were clarified by subsequent legislation (Senate Bill 9). Therefore, only a subset of the issues originally appealed remained. The Court found against ComEd on each of the remaining issues: compensation related adjustments, billing determinants and the use of certain allocators. The Court’s opinion has no accounting impact as ComEd recorded the distribution formula regulatory asset consistent with the ICC’s final Order.

ComEd asked the Illinois Supreme Court to hear the issue of allocation between State and Federal regulatory jurisdictions. On June 4, 2014, ComEd filed a Petition for Leave to Appeal with the Illinois Supreme Court solely on the issue of allocation between FERC and ICC jurisdictional costs. On July 2, 2014, the ICC filed its Answer to the Petition, arguing that Supreme Court review is not necessary or appropriate. Under the procedural rules of the Illinois Supreme Court, ComEd is not allowed to reply to the ICC filing. There is no set time by which the Court must rule on the Petition. ComEd cannot predict whether the Court will grant the appeal, or if it does, the ultimate outcome.

Expenditures and Capital Investment

As part of the enactment of EIMA legislation ComEd made an initial contribution of $15 million (recognized as expense in 2011) to a new Science and Technology Innovation Trust fund on July 31, 2012, and will make recurring annual contributions of $4 million, the first of which was made on December 31, 2012, which will be used for customer education for as long as the AMI Deployment Plan remains in effect. In addition, ComEd will contribute $10 million per year for five years, as long as ComEd is subject to EIMA, to fund customer assistance programs for low-income customers, which will not be recoverable through rates. These contributions began in 2012.

EIMA also provides a structure for substantial capital investment by utilities over a ten-year period to modernize Illinois' electric utility infrastructure. Participating utilities are required to file an annual update on their AMI implementation progress. In March 2014, ComEd filed a petition with the ICC for approval to accelerate the deployment of AMI meters. On June 11, 2014, the ICC approved ComEd's accelerated deployment plan which allows for the installation of more than four million smart meters throughout ComEd's service territory by 2018, three years in advance of the originally scheduled 2021 completion date. To date, nearly 550,000 smart meters have been installed in the Chicago area.

Appeal of 2007 Illinois Electric Distribution Rate Case (Exelon and ComEd). The ICC issued an order in ComEd’s 2007 electric distribution rate case (2007 Rate Case) approving a $274 million increase in ComEd’s annual delivery services revenue requirement, which became effective in September 2008. In the order, the ICC authorized a 10.3% rate of return on common equity. ComEd and several other parties filed appeals of the rate order with the Illinois Appellate Court (Court). The Court issued a decision on September 30, 2010, ruling against ComEd on the treatment of post-test year accumulated depreciation and the recovery of system modernization costs via a rider (Rider SMP).

The court held the ICC abused its discretion in not reducing ComEd’s rate base to account for an additional 18 months of accumulated depreciation while including post-test year pro forma plant additions through that period. ComEd continued to bill rates as established under the ICC’s order in the 2007 Rate Case until June 1, 2011 when the rates set in the 2010 electric distribution rate case became effective. In subsequent ICC proceedings, the ICC issued an order requiring ComEd to provide a refund of approximately $37 million to customers related to the treatment of post-test year accumulated depreciation issue. On March 26, 2012, ComEd filed a notice of appeal with the Court. However, on September 27, 2013 the Court ruled against ComEd on the accumulated depreciation issue and affirmed that ComEd owes a refund to customers of approximately $37 million, including interest. On September 18, 2014, the ICC issued an order requiring the refund to occur in November 2014, rather than the eight month period previously approved. The refund was included with the Rider AMP refund discussed below. Former ComEd customers were eligible for a refund. ComEd was fully reserved for this liability at December 31, 2013. As of December 31, 2014 ComEd had refunded substantially all amounts to customers.

Advanced Metering Program Proceeding (Exelon and ComEd). As part of ComEd’s 2007 Rate Case, the ICC approved recovery of costs associated with ComEd’s Rider SMP for the limited purpose of implementing a pilot program for AMI. In October 2009, the ICC approved ComEd’s AMI pilot program and associated rider (Rider AMP). ComEd collected approximately $24 million under Rider AMP and had no collections under Rider SMP through December 31, 2014. In ComEd’s 2010 electric distribution rate case, the ICC approved ComEd’s transfer of certain other costs from recovery under Rider AMP to recovery through electric distribution rates.

Several parties, including the Illinois Attorney General, appealed the ICC’s orders on Rider SMP and Rider AMP. The Illinois Appellate Court reversed the ICC’s approval of the cost recovery provisions of Rider SMP and Rider AMP on September 30, 2010 and March 19, 2012, respectively. In both cases, the Court ruled that the ICC’s approval of the rider constituted single-issue ratemaking. ComEd filed Petitions for Leave to Appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court, which were denied.

In October 2013, the ICC opened an investigation on Rider AMP to determine if a refund is required and if so, to determine the appropriate refund amount. The ALJ presiding over the investigation requested each party provide a pre-trial memorandum describing their positions, which were submitted on April 10, 2014. The ICC Staff and the Illinois Attorney General proposed a refund of $14.6 million, representing the amount they claim was collected under Rider AMP since September 30, 2010, the date the Illinois Appellate Court reversed the ICC’s approval of the cost recovery provisions of Rider SMP. During the second quarter of 2014, ComEd reached a tentative agreement to jointly resolve the disputed refund claim. On September 18, 2014, the ICC approved a refund of $9.5 million plus interest to be issued to current customers in November 2014. Former ComEd customers also were eligible for a refund. As of December 31, 2014 ComEd had refunded substantially all amounts to customers.

Grand Prairie Gateway Transmission Line (ComEd). On December 2, 2013, ComEd filed a request to obtain the ICC’s approval to construct a 60-mile overhead 345kV transmission line that traverses Ogle, DeKalb, Kane and DuPage Counties in Northern Illinois. On May 28, 2014, in a separate proceeding, FERC issued an order granting ComEd’s request to include 100% of the capital costs recorded to construction work in progress during construction of the line in ComEd’s transmission rate base. If the project is cancelled or abandoned for reasons beyond ComEd’s control, FERC approved the ability for ComEd to recover 100% of its prudent costs incurred after May 21, 2014 and 50% of its costs incurred prior to May 21, 2014 in ComEd’s transmission rate base. On October 22, 2014, the ICC issued an order approving ComEd’s Grand Prairie Gateway Project over the objection of numerous landowners and the City of Elgin. Four parties filed timely applications for rehearing before the ICC. On November 25, 2014, the ICC denied the rehearing application filed by the Forest Preserve District of Kane County, but granted rehearing on the application of certain landowners who requested that the ICC consider an alternate route for a three-mile segment of the line in Kane County. The rehearing proceeding is currently pending and the ICC must enter a final order on rehearing by April 24, 2015. On December 10, 2014, the ICC denied the remaining two applications for rehearing. On January 15, 2015, those two parties, the City of Elgin and the SKP landowner group and Utility Risk Management Corporation (collectively, the SKP/URMC party), each filed a Notice of Appeal with the Second District Appellate Court. On February 3, 2015, the ICC filed motions with the Second District Appellate Court seeking to extend the time for the ICC to file the record on appeal until after the ICC issues its Order on rehearing. The ICC also filed a motion to consolidate those appeals. ComEd expects to begin construction of the line in the second quarter of 2015 with an in-service date expected in the second quarter of 2017.

Utility Consolidated Billing and Purchase of Receivables (Exelon and ComEd). ComEd is required to buy certain RES receivables, primarily residential and small commercial and industrial customers, at the option of the RES, for electric supply service and then include those amounts on ComEd’s bill to customers. Receivables are purchased at a discount to compensate ComEd for uncollectible accounts. ComEd produces consolidated bills for the aforementioned retail customers reflecting charges for electric delivery service and purchased receivables. As of December 31, 2014, the balance of purchased accounts receivable was $139 million. ComEd recovers from RES and customers the costs for implementing and operating the program under an ICC approved tariff. A number of municipalities, including the City of Chicago have switched to RES electric supply. As a result, ComEd experienced a significant increase in the amount of RES receivables it purchased in 2013.

Illinois Procurement Proceedings (Exelon, Generation and ComEd). ComEd is permitted to recover its electricity procurement costs from retail customers without mark-up. Since June 2009, the IPA designs, and the ICC approves, an electricity supply portfolio for ComEd and the IPA administers a competitive process under which ComEd procures its electricity supply from various suppliers, including Generation.

ComEd is required to purchase an increasing percentage of the electricity for customer deliveries from renewable energy resources. Purchases by customers of electricity from competitive generation suppliers, whether as a result of the customers’ own actions or as a result of municipal aggregation, are not included in this calculation and have the effect of reducing ComEd’s purchase obligation. ComEd entered into several 20-year contracts with unaffiliated suppliers in December 2010 regarding the procurement of long-term renewable energy and associated RECs in order to meet its obligations under the state’s RPS. All associated costs are recoverable from customers.

On December 18, 2013, the ICC approved the IPA’s 2014-2019 procurement plan, which provided for two separate energy procurements during 2014 to address potential fluctuations in energy due to customers switching between ComEd and competitive electric generation suppliers. During May and September 2014, ComEd conducted energy procurements to meet the IPA’s 2014-2019 procurement plan. On December 17, 2014, the ICC approved the IPA’s 2015-2020 procurement plan. See Note 22 — Commitments and Contingencies for additional information on ComEd’s energy commitments.

FutureGen Industrial Alliance, Inc (Exelon and ComEd). During 2013, the ICC approved, and directed ComEd and Ameren (the Utilities) to enter into 20-year sourcing agreements with FutureGen Industrial Alliance, Inc (FutureGen), under which FutureGen will retrofit and repower an existing plant in Morgan County, Illinois to a 166 MW near zero emissions coal-fueled generation plant, with an assumed commercial operation date in 2017. The sourcing agreement provides that ComEd and Ameren will pay FutureGen’s contract prices, which are set annually pursuant to a formula rate. The contract prices are based on the difference between the costs of the facility and the revenues FutureGen receives from selling capacity and energy from the unit into the MISO or other markets, as well as any other revenue FutureGen receives from the operation of the facility. The order also directs ComEd and Ameren to recover these costs from their electric distribution customers through the use of a tariff, regardless of whether they purchase electricity from ComEd or Ameren, or from competitive electric generation suppliers.

In February 2013, ComEd filed an appeal with the Illinois Appellate Court questioning the legality of requiring ComEd to procure power for retail customers purchasing electricity from competitive electric generation suppliers. On July 22, 2014, the Illinois Appellate Court issued its ruling re-affirming the ICC’s order requiring ComEd to enter into the sourcing agreement with FutureGen and allowing the use of a tariff to recover its costs. ComEd decided not to appeal the Illinois Appellate Court’s decision to the Illinois Supreme Court. However, the competitive electric generation suppliers and several large consumers petitioned for leave to appeal the Illinois Appellate Court’s decision. On November 26, 2014, the Illinois Supreme Court granted the petition. A decision from the Illinois Appellate Court is expected in late 2015.

A significant portion of the cost of the development of FutureGen was being funded by the DOE under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. In early February 2015, the DOE suspended funding for the project until further clarity could be obtained on certain significant hurdles facing the project, including the outcome of the litigation described above. Whether or not the DOE funding will be reinstated at some later date is unknown at this time.

ComEd executed the sourcing agreement with FutureGen in accordance with the ICC’s order. In addition, ComEd filed a petition with the ICC seeking approval of the tariff allowing for the recovery of its costs associated with the FutureGen contract from all of its electric distribution customers, which was approved by the ICC on September 30, 2014. Depending on eventual market conditions and the cost of the facility, the sourcing agreement could have a material adverse impact on Exelon’s and ComEd’s cash flows and financial positions.

See Note 22 — Commitments and Contingencies for additional information on ComEd’s energy commitments.

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Resources (Exelon and ComEd). Electric utilities in Illinois are required to include cost-effective energy efficiency resources in their plans to meet an incremental annual program energy savings requirement of 0.2% of energy delivered to retail customers for the year ended June 1, 2009, which increases annually to 2.0% of energy delivered in the year commencing June 1, 2015 and each year thereafter. Additionally, during the ten-year period that began June 1, 2008, electric utilities must implement cost-effective demand response measures to reduce peak demand by 0.1% over the prior year for eligible retail customers. The energy efficiency and demand response goals are subject to rate impact caps each year. Utilities are allowed recovery of costs for energy efficiency and demand response programs, subject to approval by the ICC. In January 2014, the ICC approved ComEd’s third three-year Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Plan covering the period June 2014 through May 2017. The plans are designed to meet Illinois' energy efficiency and demand response goals through May 2017, including reductions in delivered energy to all retail customers and in the peak demand of eligible retail customers.

EIMA provides for additional energy efficiency in Illinois. Starting in the June 2013 through May 2014 period and occurring annually thereafter, as part of the IPA procurement plan, ComEd is to include cost-effective expansion of current energy efficiency programs, and additional new cost-effective and/or third-party energy efficiency programs that are identified through a request for proposal process. All cost-effective energy efficiency programs are included in the IPA procurement plan for consideration of implementation. While these programs are monitored separately from the Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard (EEPS), funds for both the EEPS portfolio and IPA energy efficiency programs are collected under the same rider.

Illinois utilities are required to procure cost-effective renewable energy resources in amounts that equal or exceed 2% of the total electricity that each electric utility supplies to its eligible retail customers. ComEd is also required to acquire amounts of renewable energy resources that will cumulatively increase this percentage to at least 10% by June 1, 2015, with an ultimate target of at least 25% by June 1, 2025. All goals are subject to rate impact criteria set forth by Illinois legislation. As of December 31, 2014, ComEd had purchased sufficient renewable energy resources or equivalents, such as RECs, to comply with the Illinois legislation. ComEd currently retires all RECs upon transfer and acceptance. ComEd is permitted to recover procurement costs of RECs from retail customers without mark-up through rates. See Note 22 — Commitments and Contingencies for information regarding ComEd’s future commitments for the procurement of RECs.

Pennsylvania Regulatory Matters

2010 Pennsylvania Electric and Natural Gas Distribution Rate Cases (Exelon and PECO). On December 16, 2010, the PAPUC approved the settlement of PECO’s electric and natural gas distribution rate cases, which were filed in March 2010, providing increases in annual service revenue of $225 million and $20 million, respectively. The electric settlement provides for recovery of PJM transmission service costs on a full and current basis through a rider. The approved electric and natural gas distribution rates became effective on January 1, 2011.

In addition, the settlements included a stipulation regarding how tax benefits related to the application of any new IRS guidance on repairs deduction methodology are to be handled from a rate-making perspective. The settlements require that the expected cash benefit from the application of any new guidance to tax years prior to 2011 be refunded to customers over a seven-year period. On August 19, 2011, the IRS issued Revenue Procedure 2011-43 providing a safe harbor method of tax accounting for electric transmission and distribution property. PECO adopted the safe harbor and elected a method change for the 2010 tax year. The expected total refund to customers for the tax cash benefit from the application of the safe harbor to costs incurred prior to 2010 is $171 million. On October 4, 2011, PECO filed a supplement to its electric distribution tariff to execute the refund to customers of the tax cash benefit related to the IRC Section 481(a) “catch-up” adjustment claimed on the 2010 income tax return, which is subject to adjustment based on the outcome of IRS examinations. Credits have been reflected in customer bills since January 1, 2012.

In September 2012, PECO filed an application with the IRS to change its method of accounting for gas distribution repairs for the 2011 tax year. The expected total refund to customers for the tax cash benefit from the application of the new method to costs incurred prior to 2011 is $54 million. This amount is subject to adjustment based on the outcome of IRS examinations. Credits have been reflected in customer bills since January 1, 2013. PECO currently anticipates that the IRS will issue guidance during 2015 providing a safe harbor method of accounting for gas transmission and distribution property.

The prospective tax benefits claimed as a result of the new methodology will be reflected in tax expense in the year in which they are claimed on the tax return and will be reflected in the determination of revenue requirements in the next electric and natural gas distribution rate cases. See Note 14 — Income Taxes for additional information.

The 2010 electric and natural gas distribution rate case settlements did not specify the rate of return upon which the settlement rates are based, but rather provided for an increase in annual revenue. PECO has not filed a transmission rate case since rates have been unbundled.

Pennsylvania Procurement Proceedings (Exelon and PECO). PECO’s first PAPUC approved DSP Program, under which PECO was providing default electric service, had a 29-month term that ended May 31, 2013. On October 12, 2012, the PAPUC issued its Opinion and Order approving PECO’s second DSP Program, which was filed with the PAPUC in January 2012. The program, which has a 24-month term from June 1, 2013 through May 31, 2015, complies with electric generation procurement guidelines set forth in Act 129. Under the DSP Programs, PECO is permitted to recover its electric procurement costs from retail default service customers without mark-up through the GSA. The GSA provides for the recovery of energy, capacity, ancillary costs and administrative costs and is subject to adjustments at least quarterly for any over or under collections. In addition, PECO’s second DSP Program provides for the recovery of AEPS compliance costs through the GSA rather than a separate AEPS rider.

In the second DSP Program, PECO procured electric supply for its default electric customers through five competitive procurements. The load for the residential and small and medium commercial classes is served through competitively procured fixed price, full requirements contracts of two years or less. For the large commercial and industrial class load, PECO has competitively procured contracts for full requirements default electric generation with the price for energy in each contract set to be the hourly price of the spot market during the term of delivery. PECO entered into contracts with PAPUC approved bidders, including Generation, for its five competitive procurements. Charges incurred for electric supply procured through contracts with Generation are included in purchased power from affiliates on PECO’s Statement of Operations and Comprehensive Income.

In addition, the second DSP Program includes a number of retail market enhancements recommended by the PAPUC in its previously issued Retail Markets Intermediate Work Plan Order. PECO was also directed to submit a plan to allow its low-income Customer Assistance Program (CAP) customers to purchase their generation supply from EGSs beginning in April 2014. On May 1, 2013, PECO filed its CAP Shopping Plan with the PAPUC. By Order entered on January 24, 2014, the PAPUC approved PECO’s plan, with modifications, to make CAP shopping available beginning April 15, 2014. On March 20, 2014, the Office of Consumer Advocate (OCA) and low-income advocacy groups filed an appeal and emergency request for a stay with the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, claiming that the PAPUC-ordered CAP Shopping plan does not contain sufficient protections for low-income customers. On March 28, 2014, the Commonwealth Court issued the requested stay, pending a full review of the appeal. Pending the Commonwealth Court’s review, PECO will not implement CAP Shopping. The Commonwealth Court’s decision is expected in 2015.

On March 10, 2014, PECO filed its third DSP Program with the PAPUC. The program has a 24-month term from June 1, 2015 through May 31, 2017, and complies with electric generation procurement guidelines set forth in Act 129. On August 28, 2014, PECO filed a Joint Petition for Partial Settlement, which affirmed PECO’s procurement plan for Residential and Small Commercial customers. On December 4, 2014, the PAPUC approved PECO's third DSP Program, as modified by the Joint Petition for Partial Settlement, without modification or limitation. Separate from the Joint Petition for Partial Settlement, the PAPUC also approved other items related to the program. The plan outlines how PECO will purchase electric supply for default service customers. PECO will procure electric supply through four competitive procurements for fixed price full requirements contracts of two years or less for the residential classes and small and medium commercial classes and spot market price full requirement contracts for the large commercial and industrial class load.

Smart Meter and Smart Grid Investments (Exelon and PECO). Pursuant to Act 129 and the follow-on Implementation Order of 2009, in April 2010, the PAPUC approved PECO’s Smart Meter Procurement and Installation Plan (SMPIP), under which PECO will install more than 1.6 million electric smart meters and an AMI communication network by 2020. The first phase of PECO’s SMPIP, which was completed on June 19, 2013, included the installation of an AMI communications network and the deployment of 600,000 smart meters to communicate with that network. On May 31, 2013, PECO and interested parties filed a Joint Petition for Settlement of the universal deployment plan with the PAPUC which was approved without modification on August 15, 2013. The Joint Petition for Settlement supports all material aspects of PECO’s universal deployment plan, including cost recovery, excluding certain amounts discussed below. Universal deployment is the second phase of PECO’s SMPIP, under which PECO will deploy all of the remaining smart meters, for a total of 1.7 million smart meters, on an accelerated basis by the second quarter of 2015. In total, PECO currently expects to spend up to $583 million, excluding the cost of the original meters (as further described below), on its smart meter infrastructure and approximately $155 million on smart grid investments through final deployment of which $200 million has been funded by SGIG as discussed below. As of December 31, 2014, PECO has spent $540 million and $119 million on smart meter and smart grid infrastructure, respectively, not including the DOE reimbursements received.

Pursuant to the ARRA of 2009, PECO and the DOE entered into a Financial Assistance Agreement to extend PECO $200 million in non-taxable SGIG funds of which $140 million relates to smart meter deployment and $60 million relates to smart grid infrastructure. As part of the agreement, the DOE has a conditional ownership interest in qualifying Federally-funded project property and equipment, which is subordinate to PECO’s existing mortgage. The SGIG funds were used by PECO to offset the total impact to ratepayers of the smart meter deployment required by Act 129. As of the third quarter of 2014, PECO received all of the $200 million, including $4 million for sub-recipients, in reimbursements. On October 15, 2014, the DOE issued a Close Out of Post-Award Project Cost Verification Audit, in which it was determined that PECO fully met its required cost share, and the audit was closed with no further action required.

On August 15, 2012, PECO suspended installation of smart meters for new customers based on a limited number of incidents involving overheating meters. Following its own internal investigation and additional scientific analysis and testing by independent experts completed after September 30, 2012, PECO announced its decision to resume meter deployment work on October 9, 2012. PECO has replaced the previously installed meters with an alternative vendor’s meters. PECO is moving forward with the alternative meters during universal deployment and continues to evaluate meters from several vendors and may use more than one meter vendor during universal deployment.

Following PECO’s decision, as of October 9, 2012 PECO will no longer use the original smart meters. For the meters that will no longer be used, the accounting guidance requires that any difference between the carrying value and net realizable value be recognized in the current period’s earnings, before considering potential regulatory recovery. The cost of the original meters, including installation and removal costs, owned by PECO was approximately $17 million, net of approximately $16 million of reimbursements from the DOE and approximately $2 million of depreciation. PECO requested and received approval from the DOE that the original meters continue to be allowable costs and that any agreement with the vendor will not be considered project income. In addition, PECO remained eligible for the full $200 million in SGIG funds. On August 15, 2013, PECO entered into an agreement with the original vendor, which was part of the final agreement discussed below, under which PECO transferred the original uninstalled meters to the vendor and will receive $12 million in return. On January 23, 2014, PECO entered a final agreement with the vendor pursuant to which PECO will be reimbursed for amounts incurred for the original meters and related installation and removal costs, via cash payments and rebates on future purchases of licenses, goods and services primarily through 2017. PECO previously had intended to seek regulatory rate recovery in a future filing with the PAPUC of amounts not recovered from the vendor. As PECO believed such costs were probable of rate recovery based on applicable case law and past precedent on reasonably and prudently incurred costs, a regulatory asset was established at the time of the removals. Pursuant to the January 23, 2014, vendor agreement, PECO reclassified the regulatory asset balance as a receivable, which has been fully collected, with no gain or loss impacts on future results of operations. On March 14, 2014, PECO filed its quarterly smart meter recovery surcharge with the PAPUC which included PECO’s proposed treatment of the final agreement with the vendor. On March 27, 2014, the PAPUC approved the surcharge as proposed by PECO.

Energy Efficiency Programs (Exelon and PECO). PECO’s PAPUC-approved Phase I EE&C Plan had a four-year term that began on June 1, 2009 and concluded on May 31, 2013. The Phase I plan set forth how PECO would meet the required reduction targets established by Act 129’s EE&C provisions, which included a 3% reduction in electric consumption in PECO’s service territory and a 4.5% reduction in PECO’s annual system peak demand in the 100 hours of highest demand by May 31, 2013.

The peak demand period ended on September 30, 2012 and PECO communicated its compliance with the reduction targets in a preliminary filing with the PAPUC on March 1, 2013. The final compliance report for all Phase I targets, was filed with the PAPUC on November 15, 2013.

On March 29, 2013, PECO filed a Petition with the PAPUC to change the recovery period of certain Direct Load Control (DLC) Program costs necessary to implement the Phase I Plan. The Petition sought approval to allow PECO to recover $12 million in equipment, installation and information technology costs for its Residential DLC program with the amounts collected for the Phase I Plan. As the Phase I Plan was implemented at a cost less than originally budgeted, PECO proposed to recover these expenses from its Phase I Energy Efficiency Program Charge over-collection consistent with PAPUC guidance to recover all Phase I costs through Phase I funding. The PAPUC approved PECO’s Petition on May 9, 2013. A regulatory liability was established for the DLC program costs that will be amortized as a credit to the income statement to offset the related depreciation expense during the same period.

The PAPUC issued its Phase II EE&C implementation order on August 2, 2012, that provides energy consumption reduction requirements for the second phase of Act 129’s EE&C programs, which went into effect on June 1, 2013. The order tentatively established PECO’s three-year cumulative consumption reduction target at 1,125,852 MWh, which was reaffirmed by the PAPUC on December 5, 2012.

Pursuant to the Phase II implementation order, PECO filed its three-year EE&C Phase II plan with the PAPUC on November 1, 2012. The plan sets forth how PECO will reduce electric consumption by at least 1,125,852 MWh in its service territory for the period June 1, 2013 through May 31, 2016, adjusted for weather and extraordinary loads. The implementation order permits PECO to apply any excess savings achieved during Phase I against its Phase II consumption reduction targets, with no reduction to its Phase II budget. In accordance with the Act 129 Phase II implementation order, at least 10% and 4.5% of the total consumption reductions must be through programs directed toward PECO’s public and low income sectors, respectively. If PECO fails to achieve the required reductions in consumption, it will be subject to civil penalties of up to $20 million, which would not be recoverable from ratepayers. Act 129 mandates that the total cost of the plan may not exceed 2% of the electric company’s total annual revenue as of December 31, 2006.

On March 15, 2013, PECO filed a Petition for Approval to amend its EE&C Phase II Plan to continue its DLC demand reduction program for mass market customers from June 1, 2013 to May 31, 2014. PECO proposed to fund the estimated $10 million costs of the one-year program by modifying incentive levels for other Phase II programs. On May 9, 2013, the PAPUC approved PECO’s amended EE&C Phase II plan. The costs of DLC program will be recovered through PECO’s Energy Efficiency Program Charge along with all other Phase II Plan costs.

On November 14, 2013, the PAPUC issued a Tentative Order on Act 129 demand reduction programs which seeks comments on a proposed demand response program methodology for future Act 129 demand reduction programs as well as demand response potential and wholesale prices suppression studies. In its February 20, 2014 Final Order, the PAPUC stated that it does not expect to make a decision as to whether it will prescribe additional demand response obligations until 2015. Any decision reached would affect PECO's EE&C Plan subsequent to its Phase II Plan.

On February 28, 2014, PECO filed a Petition for Approval to amend its EE&C Phase II Plan to continue its DLC demand reduction program for mass market customers from June 1, 2014 to May 31, 2016. PECO proposed to fund the estimated $10 million annual costs of the program by modifying incentive levels for other Phase II programs. The costs of the DLC program will be recovered through PECO’s Energy Efficiency Program Charge along with other Phase II Plan costs. In an April 23, 2014 Tentative Order, the PAPUC granted PECO’s Petition. The Order became final on May 5, 2014.

Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards (Exelon and PECO). In November 2004, Pennsylvania adopted the AEPS Act. The AEPS Act mandated that beginning in 2011, following the expiration of PECO’s rate cap transition period, certain percentages of electric energy sold to Pennsylvania retail electric customers shall be generated from certain alternative energy resources as measured in AECs. The requirement for electric energy that must come from Tier I alternative energy resources ranges from approximately 3.5% to 8% and the requirement for Tier II alternative energy resources ranges from 6.2% to 10%. The required compliance percentages incrementally increase each annual compliance period, which is from June 1 through May 31, until May 31, 2021. These Tier I and Tier II alternative energy resources include acceptable energy sources as set forth in Act 129 and the AEPS Act.

PECO has entered into five-year and ten-year agreements with accepted bidders, including Generation, totaling 452,000 non-solar and 8,000 solar Tier I AECs annually in accordance with a PAPUC approved plan. The plan allowed PECO to bank AECs procured prior to 2011 and use the banked AECs to meet its AEPS Act obligations over two compliance years ending May 2013. The PAPUC also approved the procurement of Tier II AECs and supplemental AECs as well as the sale of excess AECs through independent third-party auctions or brokers.

All AEPS administrative costs and costs of AECs are being recovered on a full and current basis from default service customers through a surcharge.

PECO’s second DSP Program eliminated the AEPS surcharge. Beginning in June 2013, AEPS compliance costs are being recovered through the GSA.

Pennsylvania Retail Electricity and Gas Markets (Exelon and PECO). Beginning in 2011, the PAPUC issued an order outlining the next steps in its investigation into the status of competition in Pennsylvania’s retail electricity market. The PAPUC found that the existing default service model presents substantial impediments to the development of a vibrant retail market in Pennsylvania and directed its Office of Competitive Markets Oversight to evaluate potential intermediate and long-term structural changes to the default service model. Through various orders, the PAPUC issued default electric service pricing for customers in PECO’s service territory. See Pennsylvania procurement proceedings discussed above for additional details.

In early 2014, the extreme weather in PECO's service territory resulted in increased electricity commodity costs causing certain shopping customers to receive unexpectedly high utility bills. In response to a significant number of customer complaints throughout Pennsylvania, on April 3, 2014, the PAPUC unanimously voted to adopt two rulemaking orders to address the issue. The first rulemaking order requires electric generation suppliers to provide more consumer education regarding their contract. The second rulemaking order requires electric distribution companies to enable customers to switch suppliers within three business days (known as accelerated switching). The improved customer education and accelerated switching were to be in place within 30 days and six months of approval of the orders, respectively. The orders became final on June 14, 2014. On December 4, 2014, the PAPUC approved PECO’s implementation plan (known as Bill on Supplier Switch), allowing PECO to implement accelerated switching by the December 15, 2014 deadline.

On September 12, 2013, the PAPUC issued an Order that initiated an investigation into Pennsylvania’s natural gas retail market, including the role of the existing default service model and opportunities for market enhancements. On December 18, 2014, the PAPUC issued a Final Order directing the Office of Competitive Market Oversight to continue its investigation, confirming that natural gas distribution companies should remain with the default service model for the time being and directing establishment of a working group to examine other competitive issues. Comments on the Final Order were due on February 2, 2015. PECO will continue to monitor the Order and assess compliance, as necessary.

Pennsylvania Act 11 of 2012 (Exelon and PECO). On February 13, 2012, Act 11 was signed into law by the Governor. Act 11 seeks to clarify the PAPUC’s authority to approve alternative ratemaking mechanisms, which would allow for the implementation of a distribution system improvement charge (DSIC) in rates designed to recover capital project costs incurred to repair, improve or replace utilities’ aging electric and natural gas distribution systems in Pennsylvania. Act 11 also includes a provision that allows utilities to use a fully projected future test year under which the PAPUC may permit the inclusion of projected capital costs in rate base for assets that will be placed in service during the first year rates are in effect. On August 2, 2012, the PAPUC issued a Final Order establishing rules and procedures to implement the ratemaking provisions of Act 11. The implementation order requires a utility to have a long-term infrastructure improvement plan (LTIIP) which outlines how the utility is planning to increase its investment for repairing, improving, or replacing aging infrastructure, approved by the Commission prior to implementing a DSIC. On May 9, 2013, the PAPUC approved PECO’s LTIIP for its gas operations, which was filed on February 8, 2013. On February 5, 2015, PECO filed a petition to modify its approved Gas LTIIP with the PAPUC. If approved, the modification would allow PECO to further accelerate the replacement of existing gas mains and also included a plan for the relocation of meters from indoors to outside in accordance with a recent PAPUC rulemaking.

Maryland Regulatory Matters

2014 Maryland Electric and Gas Distribution Rate Case (Exelon and BGE). On July 2, 2014, and as amended on September 15, 2014, BGE filed for electric and gas base increases with the MDPSC, ultimately requesting increases of $99 million and $68 million, respectively.

On October 17, 2014, BGE filed with the MDPSC a unanimous settlement agreement (the Settlement Agreement) reached with all parties to the case under which it would receive an increase of $22 million in electric base rates and an increase of $38 million in gas base rates. The Settlement Agreement establishes new depreciation rates which have the effect of decreasing annual depreciation expense by approximately $20 million, primarily for electric. On December 4, 2014, the Public Utility Law Judge issued a proposed order approving the Settlement Agreement without modification, which became a final order on December 12, 2014. The approved distribution rate order authorizing BGE to increase electric and gas distribution rates became effective for services rendered on or after December 15, 2014.

2013 Maryland Electric and Gas Distribution Rate Case (Exelon and BGE). On May 17, 2013, and as amended on August 23, 2013, BGE filed for electric and gas base increases with the MDPSC, ultimately requesting increases of $83 million and $24 million, respectively. In addition to these requested rate increases, BGE’s application includes a request for recovery of incremental capital expenditures and operating costs associated with BGE’s proposed short-term reliability improvement plan (the "ERI initiative") in response to a MDPSC order through a surcharge separate from base rates.

On December 13, 2013, the MDPSC issued an order in BGE’s 2013 electric and natural gas distribution rate case for increases in annual distribution service revenue of $34 million and $12 million, respectively, and an allowed return on equity of 9.75% and 9.60%, respectively. Rates became effective for services rendered on or after December 13, 2013. The MDPSC also authorized BGE to recover through a surcharge mechanism costs associated with five ERI initiative programs designed to accelerate electric reliability improvements premised upon the condition that the MDPSC approve specific projects in advance of cost recovery. On March 31, 2014, after reviewing comments filed by the parties and conducting a hearing on the matter, the MDPSC approved all but one project proposed for completion in 2014 as part of the ERI initiative. The ERI initiative surcharge became effective June 1, 2014. On November 3, 2014, BGE filed a surcharge update including a true-up of cost estimates included in the 2014 surcharge, along with its work plan and cost estimates for 2015, to be included in the 2015 surcharge. At its December 17, 2014 weekly Administrative Meeting, the MDPSC approved BGE's 2014 annual report, 2015 work plan and the 2015 surcharge.

In January 2014, the residential consumer advocate in Maryland filed an appeal to the order issued by the MDPSC on December 13, 2013 in BGE's 2013 electric and gas distribution rate cases. The residential consumer advocate filed its related legal memorandum on August 22, 2014, challenging the MDPSC's approval of the ERI initiative surcharge. BGE submitted a response to the appeal on October 15, 2014, and a hearing was held on November 17, 2014. BGE cannot predict the outcome of this appeal. If the residential consumer advocate's appeal is successful, BGE could recover ERI expenditures through other regulatory mechanisms.

2012 Maryland Electric and Gas Distribution Rate Case (Exelon and BGE). On July 27, 2012, BGE filed an application for increases to its electric and gas base rates with the MDPSC. On February 22, 2013, the MDPSC issued an order for increases in annual distribution service revenue of $81 million and $32 million, respectively, and an allowed return on equity of 9.75% and 9.60%, respectively. The rates became effective for services rendered on or after February 23, 2013. As part of the rate order, the MDPSC approved both recovery of and return on the merger integration costs, including severance, incurred during the test year for the Exelon and Constellation merger. As a result, the order affirmed the treatment of $20 million of severance-related costs that BGE had recorded as a regulatory asset in 2012, consistent with prior MDPSC decisions. Additionally, BGE established a new regulatory asset of $8 million related to non-severance merger integration costs, which includes $6 million of costs incurred during 2012. Current MDPSC treatment of these merger integration regulatory assets is to provide recovery over a five year period.

2011 Maryland Electric and Gas Distribution Rate Case (Exelon and BGE). In March 2011, the MDPSC issued a comprehensive rate order setting forth the details of the decision contained in its abbreviated electric and gas distribution rate order issued in December 2010. As part of the March 2011 comprehensive rate order, BGE was authorized to defer $19 million of costs as regulatory assets. These costs are being recovered over a 5-year period that began in December 2010 and include the deferral of $16 million of storm costs incurred in February 2010. The regulatory asset for the storm costs earns a regulated rate of return.

Smart Meter and Smart Grid Investments (Exelon and BGE). In August 2010, the MDPSC approved a comprehensive smart grid initiative for BGE that included the planned installation of 2 million residential and commercial electric and gas smart meters at an expected total cost of $480 million of which $200 million was recovered through a grant from the DOE. The MDPSC’s approval ordered BGE to defer the associated incremental costs, depreciation and amortization, and an appropriate return, in a regulatory asset until such time as a cost-effective advanced metering system is implemented. As of December 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013, BGE recorded a regulatory asset of $128 million and $66 million, respectively, representing incremental costs, depreciation and amortization, and a debt return on fixed assets related to its AMI program. As part of the settlement in BGE's 2014 electric and gas distribution rate case discussed above, the cost of the retired non-AMI meters will be amortized over 10 years.

On February 26, 2014, the MDPSC issued an order authorizing BGE to impose a $75 upfront fee and an $11 recurring fee to customers electing to opt-out of BGE's smart meter installation program, effective the later of the first full billing cycle following July 1, 2014, or the AMI installation date in a customer's community. The fees authorized by the order will be reviewed after an initial 12 to 18 month period. On November 25, 2014, the MDPSC issued a decision approving BGE's proposal to automatically enroll unresponsive customers into the opt-out program and to charge those customers opt-out fees after BGE has exhausted attempts to schedule a meter installation. The ultimate impact of opt-out could affect BGE's ability to demonstrate cost-effectiveness of the advanced metering system.

Overall, BGE continues to believe the recovery of smart grid initiative costs in future rates is probable as BGE expects to be able to demonstrate that the program benefits exceed costs.

New Electric Generation (Exelon and BGE). On April 12, 2012, the MDPSC issued an order directing BGE and two other Maryland utilities to enter into a contract for differences (CfD) with CPV Maryland, LLC (CPV), under which CPV will construct an approximately 700MW natural gas-fired combined-cycle generation plant in Waldorf, Maryland, that CPV projected will be in commercial operation by June 1, 2015. The initial term of the proposed contract is 20 years. The CfD mandates that BGE and the other utilities pay (or receive) the difference between CPV’s contract prices and the revenues CPV receives for capacity and energy from clearing the unit in the PJM capacity market. The MDPSC’s order requires the three Maryland utilities to enter into a CfD in amounts proportionate to their relative SOS load.

On April 16, 2013, the MDPSC issued an order that required BGE to execute a specific form of contract with CPV, and the parties executed the contract as of June 6, 2013. As of December 31, 2014, there is no impact on Exelon’s and BGE’s results of operations, cash flows and financial positions. Furthermore, the agreement does not become effective until the resolution of certain items, including all current litigation.

On April 27, 2012, a civil complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland by certain unaffiliated parties that challenged the actions taken by the MDPSC on Federal law grounds. On October 24, 2013, the U.S. District Court issued a judgment order finding that the MDPSC’s Order directing BGE and the two other Maryland utilities to enter into a CfD, which assures that CPV receives a guaranteed fixed price regardless of the price set by the federally regulated wholesale market, violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. On November 22, 2013, the MDPSC and CPV appealed the District Court’s ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

On May 4, 2012, BGE filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Maryland, seeking judicial review of the MDPSC order under state law. That petition was subsequently transferred to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City and consolidated with similar appeals that have been filed by other interested parties. On October 1, 2013, the Circuit Court Judge issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order finding the decisions of the MDPSC were within its statutory authority under Maryland law. This decision is separate from the judgment in the federal litigation that the MDPSC Order is unconstitutional and the CfD is unenforceable under federal law. The federal judgment, if upheld, would prevent enforcement of the CfD even if the Circuit Court decision stands. On October 29, 2013, BGE and the two other Maryland utilities appealed the Circuit Court’s ruling to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals.

Depending on the ultimate outcome of the pending state and federal litigation, on the eventual market conditions, and on the manner of cost recovery as of the effective date of the agreement, the CfD could have a material impact on Exelon and BGE’s results of operations, cash flows and financial positions.

Exelon believes that this and other states’ projects may have artificially suppressed capacity prices in PJM and may continue to do so in future auctions to the detriment of Exelon’s market driven position. In addition to this litigation, Exelon is working with other market participants to implement market rules that will appropriately limit the market suppressing effect of such state activities.

MDPSC Derecho Storm Order (Exelon and BGE). Following the June 2012 Derecho storm which hit the mid-Atlantic region interrupting electrical service to a significant portion of the State of Maryland, the MDPSC issued an order on February 27, 2013 requiring BGE and other Maryland utilities to file several comprehensive reports with short-term and long-term plans to improve reliability and grid resiliency that were due at various times before August 30, 2013.

On September 3, 2013, BGE filed a comprehensive long term assessment examining potential alternatives for improving the resiliency of the electric grid and a staffing analysis reviewing historical staffing levels as well as forecasting staffing levels necessary under various storm scenarios. During the summer of 2014, an evaluation of the reports filed by BGE and other Maryland utilities was undertaken by consultants on behalf of the MDPSC and MDPSC Staff. The MDPSC Staff also proposed standards for reliability during major events and estimated times of restoration as well as undertaking an evaluation of performance-based ratemaking principles and methodologies that would more directly and transparently align reliable service with the utilities’ distribution rates and that reduce returns or otherwise penalize sub-standard performance. The MDPSC held hearings in September 2014. BGE currently cannot predict the outcome of these proceedings, which may result in increased capital expenditures and operating costs.

The Maryland Strategic Infrastructure Development and Enhancement Program (Exelon and BGE). In February 2013, the Maryland General Assembly passed legislation intended to accelerate gas infrastructure replacements in Maryland by establishing a mechanism for gas companies to promptly recover reasonable and prudent costs of eligible infrastructure replacement projects separate from base rate proceedings. On May 2, 2013, the Governor of Maryland signed the legislation into law; which took effect June 1, 2013. Under the new law, following a proceeding before the MDPSC and with the MDPSC’s approval of the eligible infrastructure replacement projects along with a corresponding surcharge, BGE could begin charging gas customers a monthly surcharge for infrastructure costs incurred after June 1, 2013. The legislation includes caps on the monthly surcharges to residential and non-residential customers, and would require an annual true-up of the surcharge revenues against actual expenditures. Investment levels in excess of the cap would be recoverable in a subsequent gas base rate proceeding at which time all costs for the infrastructure replacement projects would be rolled into gas distribution rates. Irrespective of the cap, BGE is required to file a gas rate case every five years under this legislation. On August 2, 2013, BGE filed its infrastructure replacement plan and associated surcharge. On January 29, 2014, the MDPSC issued a decision conditionally approving the first five years of BGE’s plan and surcharge. On March 26, 2014, the Maryland PSC approved as filed BGE’s proposed 2014 project list, tariff and associated surcharge amounts, with a surcharge that became effective April 1, 2014. On November 17, 2014, BGE filed a surcharge update including a true-up of costs estimates included in the 2014 surcharge, along with its 2015 project list and cost estimates to be included in the 2015 surcharge. The filing was approved with a revised surcharge effective January 1, 2015. At its December 17, 2014 weekly Administrative Meeting, the MDPSC approved BGE's 2015 project list and the proposed surcharge for 2015. BGE will defer the difference between the surcharge revenues and program costs as a regulated asset or liability, which was immaterial to Exelon and BGE as of December 31, 2014.

In February 2014, the residential consumer advocate in Maryland filed an appeal with the Baltimore City Circuit Court to the decision issued by the MDPSC on BGE’s infrastructure replacement plan. On September 5, 2014, the Baltimore City Circuit Court affirmed the MDPSC decision on BGE's infrastructure replacement plan and associated surcharge. On October 10, 2014, the residential consumer advocate noticed its appeal to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals from the judgment entered by the Baltimore City Circuit Court, however, a procedural schedule for the matter has not yet been set.

New York Regulatory Matters

Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Reliability Support Services Agreement (Exelon and Generation). Ginna Nuclear Power Plant's (Ginna) prior period fixed-price PPA contract with Rochester Gas & Electric Company (RG&E) expired in June 2014. In light of the expiration of the agreement, Ginna advised the New York Public Service Commission (NYPSC) and ISO-NY that in absence of a reliability need, Ginna management would make a recommendation, subject to approval by the CENG board, that Ginna be retired as soon as practicable. A formal study conducted by the ISO-NY and RG&E concluded that the Ginna nuclear plant needs to remain in operation to maintain the reliability of the transmission grid in the Rochester region through 2018 when planned transmission system upgrades are expected to be completed. In November, in response to a petition filed by Ginna, the NYPSC directed Ginna and RG&E to negotiate a Reliability Support Services Agreement (RSSA). On February 13, 2015, regulatory filings, including RSSA terms negotiated between Ginna and RG&E, to support the continued operation of Ginna for reliability purposes were made with the NYPSC and with FERC for their approval. While the RSSA is expected to be approved, in absence of such an agreement and in the event the plant was retired before the current license term ends in 2029, Exelon's and Generation's results of operations could be adversely affected by increased depreciation rates, impairment charges, severance costs, and accelerated future decommissioning costs, among other items. However, it is not expected that such impacts would be material to Exelon's or Generation's results of operations.

Federal Regulatory Matters

Transmission Formula Rate (Exelon, ComEd and BGE). ComEd’s and BGE’s transmission rates are each established based on a FERC-approved formula. ComEd and BGE are required to file an annual update to the FERC-approved formula on or before May 15, with the resulting rates effective on June 1 of the same year. The annual formula rate update is based on prior year actual costs and current year projected capital additions. The update also reconciles any differences between the revenue requirement in effect beginning June 1 of the prior year and actual costs incurred for that year. ComEd and BGE record regulatory assets or regulatory liabilities and corresponding increases or decreases to operating revenues for any differences between the revenue requirement in effect and ComEd’s and BGE’s best estimate of the revenue requirement expected to be approved by the FERC for that year’s reconciliation. As of December 31, 2014, and 2013, ComEd had a regulatory asset associated with the transmission formula rate of $21 million and $17 million, respectively, and BGE had a net regulatory asset associated with the transmission formula rate of $1 million and a net regulatory liability which was not material as of December 31, 2013. The regulatory asset associated with transmission true-up is amortized to Operating revenues as the associated amounts are recovered through rates.

In April 2014, ComEd filed its annual 2014 formula rate update with the FERC, reflecting an increased revenue requirement of $22 million, including an increase of $36 million for the initial revenue requirement, offset by a decrease of $14 million related to the annual reconciliation. The filing established the revenue requirement used to set rates that took effect in June 2014. ComEd’s 2014 formula transmission rate provides for a weighted average debt and equity return on transmission rate base of 8.62%, inclusive of an allowed return on common equity of 11.50%, a decrease from the 8.70% average debt and equity return previously authorized. The time period for any challenges to ComEd's annual 2014 formula rate update expired in October 2014 with no challenges submitted.

In April 2013, ComEd filed its annual 2013 formula rate update with the FERC, reflecting an increased revenue requirement of $68 million, including an increase of $38 million for the initial revenue requirement and an increase of $30 million related to the annual reconciliation. The filing established the revenue requirement used to set rates that took effect in June 2013. ComEd’s 2013 formula transmission rate provides for a weighted average debt and equity return on transmission rate base of 8.70%, inclusive of an allowed return on common equity of 11.50%, a decrease from the 8.91% average debt and equity return previously authorized. The time period for any challenges to ComEd's annual 2013 formula rate update expired in October 2013 with no challenges submitted.

As part of the FERC-approved settlement of ComEd’s 2007 transmission rate case, the rate of return on common equity is 11.50% and the common equity component of the ratio used to calculate the weighted average debt and equity return for the transmission formula rate is currently capped at 55%.

In April 2014, BGE filed its 2014 formula rate update with the FERC reflecting an increased revenue requirement of $14 million, including an increase of $9 million for the initial revenue requirement and an increase of $5 million related to the annual reconciliation. The annual update established the revenue requirement used to set rates that took effect in June 2014. The time period for any challenges to BGE's annual update expired in October 2014 with no challenges submitted.

BGE’s 2014 formula transmission rate provides for a weighted average debt and equity return on transmission rate base of 8.53%, an increase from the 8.35% average debt and equity return previously authorized. As part of the FERC-approved settlement of BGE’s 2005 transmission rate case in 2006, the rate of return on common equity for BGE’s electric transmission business for new transmission projects placed in service on and after January 1, 2006 is 11.3%, inclusive of a 50 basis point incentive for participating in PJM.

FERC Transmission Complaint (Exelon and BGE). On February 27, 2013, consumer advocates and regulators from the District of Columbia, New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland, and the Delaware Electric Municipal Cooperatives (the parties), filed a complaint at FERC against BGE and the Pepco Holdings, Inc. companies relating to their respective transmission formula rates. BGE’s formula rate includes a 10.8% base rate of return on common equity (ROE) and a 50 basis point incentive for participating in PJM (the latter of which is conditioned upon crediting the first 50 basis points of any incentive ROE adders). The parties seek a reduction in the base return on equity to 8.7% and changes to the formula rate process. FERC docketed the matter and set April 3, 2013 as the deadline for interventions, protests and answers. Under FERC rules, the revenues subject to refund are limited to a fifteen month period and the earliest date from which the base ROE could be adjusted and refunds required is the date of the complaint. On March 19, 2013, BGE filed a motion to dismiss or sever the complaint.

On August 21, 2014, FERC issued an order in the BGE and PHI companies' proceeding, which established hearing and settlement judge procedures for the complaint, and set a refund effective date of February 27, 2013. BGE, the PHI companies and the parties began settlement discussions under the guidance of a FERC administrative law judge on September 23, 2014. On November 24, 2014, the Settlement Judge informed FERC and the Chief Judge that the parties had reached an impasse and determined that a settlement was not possible. On November 26, 2014, the Chief Judge issued an order terminating the settlement proceeding, designating a presiding judge at the hearings and directing that an initial decision be issued by November 25, 2015.

On December 8, 2014, various state agencies in Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and D.C. filed a second complaint against BGE regarding the base ROE of the transmission business seeking a reduction from 10.8% to 8.8%. The filing of the second complaint creates a second refund window. By order issued on February 9, 2015, FERC established a hearing on the second complaint with the complainants' requested refund effective date of December 8, 2014.

Based on the current status of the complaint filings, BGE believes it is probable that BGE's base ROE rate will be adjusted, and that a refund to customers of transmission revenue for the two maximum fifteen month periods will be required. However, BGE is unable to estimate the most likely refund amount for either complaint at this time, and has therefore established a reserve, which is not material, representing the low end of a reasonably possible estimated range of loss. Additionally, management is unable to estimate the maximum exposure of a potential refund at this time, which may have a material impact on BGE's results of operations and cash flows. The estimated annual ongoing reduction in revenues if FERC approved the ROEs requested by the parties in their filings is approximately $11 million. If FERC were to order a reduction of BGE’s base ROE to 8.7% as sought in the first complaint (while retaining the 50 basis points of any incentives that were credited to the base return on equity for certain new transmission investment), the result of the first fifteen month refund window would be a refund to customers of approximately $13 million. If FERC were to order a reduction in BGE’s base ROE to 8.8% as sought in the second complaint (while retaining 50 basis points of any incentives that were credited to the base return on equity for certain new transmission investment) and the refund period extended for a full fifteen months, the result would be a refund to customers of approximately $14 million.

PJM Transmission Rate Design and Operating Agreements (Exelon, ComEd, PECO and BGE). PJM Transmission Rate Design specifies the rates for transmission service charged to customers within PJM. Currently, ComEd, PECO and BGE incur costs based on the existing rate design, which charges customers based on the cost of the existing transmission facilities within their load zone and the cost of new transmission facilities based on those who benefit from those facilities. In April 2007, FERC issued an order concluding that PJM’s current rate design for existing facilities is just and reasonable and should not be changed. In the same order, FERC held that the costs of new facilities 500 kV and above should be socialized across the entire PJM footprint and that the costs of new facilities less than 500 kV should be allocated to the customers of the new facilities who caused the need for those facilities. After FERC ultimately denied all requests for rehearing on all issues, several parties filed petitions in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for review of the decision. On August 6, 2009, that court issued its decision affirming FERC’s order with regard to the costs of existing facilities but reversing and remanding to FERC for further consideration its decision with regard to the costs of new facilities 500 kV and above. On March 30, 2012, FERC issued an order on remand affirming the cost allocation in its April 2007 order. On March 22, 2013, FERC issued an order denying rehearing and made it clear that the cost allocation at issue concerns only projects approved prior to February 1, 2013. A number of entities have filed appeals of the FERC orders. On June 25, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a decision once again remanding to FERC the cost allocation of new facilities 500 kV and above. On December 18, 2014, FERC issued an order setting an evidentiary hearing and settlement proceeding regarding the issue of the cost allocation for facilities 500 kV and above. The hearing only concerns new facilities approved by the PJM Board prior to February 1, 2013. ComEd anticipates that all impacts of any rate design changes effective after December 31, 2006, should be recoverable through retail rates and, thus, the rate design changes are not expected to have a material impact on ComEd’s results of operations, cash flows or financial position. PECO anticipates that all impacts of any rate design changes should be recoverable through the transmission service charge rider approved in PECO’s 2010 electric distribution rate case settlement and, thus, the rate design changes are not expected to have a material impact on PECO’s results of operations, cash flows or financial position. To the extent any rate design changes are retroactive to periods prior to January 1, 2011, there may be an impact on PECO’s results of operations. BGE anticipates that all impacts of any rate design changes effective after the implementation of its standard offer service programs in Maryland should be recoverable through retail rates and, thus, the rate design changes are not expected to have a material impact on BGE’s results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

ComEd, PECO and BGE are committed to the construction of transmission facilities under their operating agreements with PJM to maintain system reliability. ComEd, PECO and BGE will work with PJM to continue to evaluate the scope and timing of any required construction projects. ComEd, PECO and BGE’s estimated commitments are as follows:



	Total		2015		2016		2017		2018		2019
ComEd	$	335	$	150	$	172	$	5	$	4	$	4
PECO	100		32		31		25		8		4
BGE	351		77		104		77		57		36

PJM Minimum Offer Price Rule (Exelon and Generation). PJM’s capacity market rules include a Minimum Offer Price Rule (MOPR) that is intended to preclude sellers from artificially suppressing the competitive price signals for generation capacity. The FERC orders approving the MOPR were upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in February 2014.

Exelon continues to work with PJM stakeholders and through the FERC process to implement several proposed changes to the PJM tariff aimed at ensuring that capacity resources (including those with state-sanctioned subsidy contracts and capacity market speculators) cannot inappropriately affect capacity auction prices in PJM.

Demand Response Resource Order (Exelon, Generation, ComEd, PECO, BGE). On May 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit Court issued an opinion vacating the FERC Order No. 745 (“D.C. Circuit Decision”). Order No. 745 established uniform compensation levels for demand response resources that participate in the day ahead and real-time wholesale energy markets. Under Order No. 745, buyers in ISO and RTO markets were required to pay demand response resources the full Locational Marginal Price when the demand response replaced a generation resource and was cost-effective.

In addition to invalidating the compensation structure established by Order No. 745, the D.C. Circuit Court, in broad language, explained that demand response is part of the retail market and FERC is restricted from regulating retail markets. The full implication of the D.C. Circuit Decision for both energy and capacity markets regulated by FERC is not yet known and will depend on how FERC and the RTOs and ISOs implement the decision. FERC and several other parties sought rehearing of the D.C. Circuit Decision, which was denied in September 2014. In addition, on September 22, 2014, FERC and another party sought to stay the issuance of the D.C. Circuit Court's mandate so that FERC may appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. The stay was granted with respect to the FERC’s request only. In January 2015, the FERC sought to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Thus, the stay will be extended at least until the U.S. Supreme Court determines whether to allow the appeal. In addition, contemporaneously with the D.C. Circuit Court's decision on May 23, 2014, First Energy filed a complaint at FERC asking FERC to direct PJM to remove all PJM Tariff provisions that allow or require PJM to compensate demand response providers as a form of supply in the PJM capacity market effective May 23, 2014. FirstEnergy also asked FERC to declare the results of PJM's May 2014 Base Residual Auction for the 2017/2018 Delivery Year, void and illegal to the extent that demand response resources cleared that auction. On November 14, 2014, the New England Power Generators Association, Inc. ("NEPGA") filed a similar complaint at FERC asking FERC to disqualify demand response from the upcoming capacity auction in New England and to revise the New England tariff to remove demand response from participation in the capacity market. FERC's response to the FirstEnergy complaint and the NEPGA complaint and its response to address the D.C. Circuit Court's decision in all markets could preclude demand response resources from receiving any future capacity market revenues and also subject such resources to refund obligations. In addition, there is uncertainty as to how FERC might treat already settled capacity market auctions as well as future auctions, both for demand response resources and generation resources. FERC could grant all or a portion of the relief requested by FirstEnergy and may grant relief retroactively or only prospectively. FERC could also pursue alternative means for allowing demand response to effectively participate in capacity markets it regulates. Due to these uncertainties, the Registrants are unable to predict the outcome of these proceedings, and the final outcome is not expected for several months. Nonetheless, the final decision and its implementation by FERC and the RTOs and ISOs, could be material to Exelon, Generation, ComEd, PECO and BGE’s results of operations and cash flows.

Market-Based Rates (Exelon, Generation, ComEd, PECO and BGE). Generation, ComEd, PECO and BGE are public utilities for purposes of the Federal Power Act and are required to obtain FERC’s acceptance of rate schedules for wholesale electricity sales. Currently, Generation, ComEd, PECO and BGE have authority to execute wholesale electricity sales at market-based rates. As is customary with market-based rate schedules, FERC has reserved the right to suspend market-based rate authority on a retroactive basis if it subsequently determines that Generation, ComEd, PECO or BGE has violated the terms and conditions of its tariff or the Federal Power Act. FERC is also authorized to order refunds in certain instances if it finds that the market-based rates are not just and reasonable under the Federal Power Act.

As required by FERC’s regulations, as promulgated in the Order No. 697 series, Generation, ComEd, PECO and BGE file market power analyses using the prescribed market share screens to demonstrate that Generation, ComEd, PECO and BGE qualify for market-based rates in the regions where they are selling energy, capacity, and ancillary services under market-based rate tariffs. On June 29, 2012, Generation, ComEd, PECO and BGE filed their updated market power analysis for the Central Region which the FERC accepted on November 13, 2012. On December 21, 2012, Generation, ComEd, PECO, and BGE filed their updated market power analysis for the SPP region, which the FERC accepted on October 8, 2013. On December 30, 2013, Generation, ComEd, PECO and BGE filed its updated analysis for the Northeast Region, based on 2012 historic test period data which the FERC accepted on August 5, 2014. On December 23, 2014, Generation filed its updated market power analysis for the Southeast Region and the FERC has not yet acted on the filing.

Reliability Pricing Model (Exelon, Generation and BGE). PJM’s RPM Base Residual Auctions take place approximately 36 months ahead of the scheduled delivery year. The most recent auction for the delivery year ending May 31, 2018 occurred in May 2014.

New England Capacity Market Results (Exelon and Generation). Each year, ISO New England, Inc. (ISO-NE) files the results of its annual capacity auction at the FERC which is required to include documentation regarding the competitiveness of the auction. Consistent with this requirement, on February 28, 2014, ISO-NE filed the results of its eighth capacity auction (covering the June 1, 2017 through May 30, 2018 delivery period). On June 27, 2014, the FERC issued a letter to ISO-NE noting that ISO-NE’s February 28, 2014 filing was deficient and that ISO-NE must file additional information before the FERC can process the filing. ISO-NE filed the information on July 17, 2014, and the ISO-NE's filings became effective by operation of law pursuant to a notice issued by the FERC's secretary on September 16, 2014. Several parties sought rehearing of the secretary’s notice which was effectively denied in October 2014 and have since appealed the matter to the U.S. DC Circuit Court of Appeals. It is not clear whether such appeal would be effective as there is no action by the Commission to be considered. Nonetheless, while we think any change in the auction results to be unlikely, Exelon and Generation cannot predict with certainty what further action the court may take concerning the results of that auction, but any court action could be material to Exelon’s and Generation's expected revenues from the capacity auction.

License Renewals (Exelon and Generation). In June 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit vacated the NRC’s temporary storage rule on the grounds that the NRC should have conducted a more comprehensive environmental review to support the rule. The temporary storage rule (also referred to as the “waste confidence decision”) recognized that licensees can safely store spent nuclear fuel at nuclear plants for up to 60 years beyond the original and renewed licensed operating life of the plants and that licensing renewal decisions do not require discussion of the environmental impact of spent fuel stored on site. In August 2012, the NRC placed a hold on issuing new or renewed operating licenses that depend on the temporary storage rule until the court’s decision is addressed. On August 26, 2014, the NRC Commissioners approved the issuance of a revised rule codifying the NRC's generic determinations regarding the environmental impacts of continued storage of spent nuclear fuel beyond a reactor's licensed operating life and removed the hold on final licensing decision as of the effective date of the final rule. On September 19, 2014, the NRC issued the Continued Storage Rule, which became effective on October 20, 2014. On October 24, 2014, New York, Vermont, and Connecticut filed a petition for review in federal court which alleges that the Continued Storage Rule violates various federal laws and regulations. The petition additionally challenges the Continued Storage Rule's supporting generic environmental impact statement (GEIS) as well as the August 26, 2014 NRC order lifting the suspension of all final licensing decisions for affected applications in view of the rule and GEIS.

On May 29, 2013, Generation submitted applications to the NRC to extend the current operating licenses of Byron Units 1 and 2, which are currently set to expire in 2024 and 2026, respectively, and Braidwood Units 1 and 2, currently set to expire in 2026 and 2027, respectively, by 20 years. Generation does not expect the NRC to issue license renewals for Byron and Braidwood until late 2015 at the earliest.

On October 20, 2014, the NRC approved Generation's request to extend the operating licenses of Limerick Units 1 and 2 by 20 years to 2044 and 2049, respectively.

On December 9, 2014, Generation submitted applications to the NRC to extend the operating licenses of LaSalle Units 1 and 2 by 20 years, which are currently set to expire in 2022 and 2023, respectively. Generation does not expect the NRC to issue license renewals for LaSalle until 2016 at the earliest.

On August 29, 2012 and August 30, 2012, Generation submitted hydroelectric license applications to the FERC for 46-year licenses for the Conowingo Hydroelectric Project (Conowingo) and the Muddy Run Pumped Storage Facility Project (Muddy Run), respectively.

Generation is working with stakeholders to resolve water quality licensing issues with the MDE for Conowingo, including: (1) water quality, (2) fish passage and habitat, and (3) sediment. On January 30, 2014, Generation filed a water quality certification application pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA with MDE for Conowingo, addressing these and other issues, although Generation cannot currently predict the conditions that ultimately may be imposed. MDE indicated that it believed it did not have sufficient information to process Generation's application. As a result, on December 5, 2014, Generation withdrew its pending application for a water quality certification. FERC policy requires that an applicant resubmit its request for a water quality certification within 90 days of the date of withdrawal. Accordingly, Generation is working with MDE to coordinate the refiling of its application for certification within the 90-day period. In addition, Generation has entered into an agreement with MDE to work with state agencies in Maryland, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Geological Survey, the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program to design, conduct and fund an additional multi-year sediment study. Exelon has agreed to contribute up to $3.5 million to fund the additional study. Resolution of these issues relating to Conowingo may have a material effect on Exelon's and Generation’s results of operations and financial position through an increase in capital expenditures and operating costs.

On June 3, 2014, subsequently amended December 9, 2014, the PA DEP issued its water quality certificate for Muddy Run, which is a necessary step in the FERC licensing process and included certain commitments made by Generation. The financial impact associated with these commitments is estimated to be in the range of $25 million to $35 million, and will include both capital expenditures and operating expenses, primarily relating to fish passage and habitat improvement projects.

The FERC licenses for Muddy Run and Conowingo were set to expire on August 31, 2014 and September 1, 2014 respectively. FERC is required to issue annual licenses for the facilities until the new licenses are issued. On September 10, 2014, FERC issued annual licenses for Conowingo and Muddy Run, effective as of the expiration of the previous licenses. If FERC does not issue new licenses prior to the expiration of annual licenses, the annual licenses will renew automatically. The stations are currently being depreciated over their estimated useful lives, which includes the license renewal period. As of December 31, 2014, $39 million of direct costs associated with licensing efforts have been capitalized.

Regulatory Assets and Liabilities (Exelon, ComEd, PECO and BGE)

Exelon, ComEd, PECO and BGE prepare their consolidated financial statements in accordance with the authoritative guidance for accounting for certain types of regulation. Under this guidance, regulatory assets represent incurred costs that have been deferred because of their probable future recovery from customers through regulated rates. Regulatory liabilities represent the excess recovery of costs or accrued credits that have been deferred because it is probable such amounts will be returned to customers through future regulated rates or represent billings in advance of expenditures for approved regulatory programs.

The following tables provide information about the regulatory assets and liabilities of Exelon, ComEd, PECO and BGE as of December 31, 2014 and 2013.



December 31, 2014	Exelon				ComEd				PECO				BGE
	Current		Noncurrent		Current		Noncurrent		Current		Noncurrent		Current		Noncurrent
Regulatory assets
Pension and other postretirement benefits	$	247	$	3,009	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Deferred income taxes	6		1,536		—		64		—		1,400		6		72
AMI programs	25		271		10		81		15		62		—		128
Under-recovered distribution service costs	251		120		251		120		—		—		—		—
Debt costs	8		49		6		47		2		2		1		8
Fair value of BGE long-term debt	7		183		—		—		—		—		—		—
Severance	4		8		—		—		—		—		4		8
Asset retirement obligations	1		115		1		73		—		26		—		16
MGP remediation costs	36		221		30		189		6		31		—		1
Under-recovered uncollectible accounts	—		67		—		67		—		—		—		—
Renewable energy	20		187		20		187		—		—		—		—
Energy and transmission programs	37		11		26		7		—		—		11		4
Deferred storm costs	1		2		—		—		—		—		1		2
Electric generation-related regulatory asset	10		20		—		—		—		—		10		20
Rate stabilization deferral	75		85		—		—		—		—		75		85
Energy efficiency and demand response programs	89		159		—		—		—		—		89		159
Merger integration costs	2		6		—		—		—		—		2		6
Conservation voltage reduction	1		1		—		—		—		—		1		1
Under-recovered electric revenue decoupling	7		—						—		—		7		—
Other ^(a)	20		26		5		17		6		8		7		—
Total regulatory assets	$	847	$	6,076	$	349	$	852	$	29	$	1,529	$	214	$	510



December 31, 2014	Exelon				ComEd				PECO				BGE
	Current		Noncurrent		Current		Noncurrent		Current		Noncurrent		Current		Noncurrent
Regulatory liabilities
Other postretirement benefits	$	51	$	37	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Nuclear decommissioning	—		2,879		—		2,389		—		490		—		—
Removal costs	118		1,448		94		1,249		—		—		24		199
Energy efficiency and demand response programs	25		2		25		—		—		2		—		—
DLC program costs	—		10		—		—		—		10		—		—
Energy efficiency phase II	—		32		—		—		—		32		—		—
Electric distribution tax repairs	8		94		—		—		8		94		—		—
Gas distribution tax repairs	20		29		—		—		20		29		—		—
Energy and transmission programs	68		16		3		16		58		—		7		—
Over-recovered electric universal service fund costs	2		—		—		—		2		—		—		—
Revenue subject to refund	3		—		3		—		—		—		—		—
Over-recovered gas revenue decoupling	12		—		—		—		—		—		12		—
Other	3		3		—		1		2		—		1		1
Total regulatory liabilities	$	310	$	4,550	$	125	$	3,655	$	90	$	657	$	44	$	200



December 31, 2013	Exelon				ComEd				PECO				BGE
	Current		Noncurrent		Current		Noncurrent		Current		Noncurrent		Current		Noncurrent
Regulatory assets
Pension and other postretirement benefits	$	221	$	2,794	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Deferred income taxes	10		1,459		2		65		—		1,317		8		77
AMI programs	5		159		5		35		—		58		—		66
AMI meter events	—		5		—		—		—		5		—		—
Under-recovered distribution service costs	178		285		178		285		—		—		—		—
Debt costs	12		56		9		53		3		3		1		8
Fair value of BGE long-term debt	—		219		—		—		—		—		—		—
Fair value of BGE supply contracts	12		—		—		—		—		—		—		—
Severance	16		12		12		—		—		—		4		12
Asset retirement obligations	1		102		1		67		—		25		—		10
MGP remediation costs	40		212		33		178		6		33		1		1
RTO start-up costs	2		—		2		—		—		—		—		—
Under-recovered uncollectible accounts	—		48		—		48		—		—		—		—
Renewable energy	17		176		17		176		—		—		—		—
Energy and transmission programs	53		9		52		6		—		—		1		3
Deferred storm costs	3		3		—		—		—		—		3		3
Electric generation-related regulatory asset	13		30		—		—		—		—		13		30
Rate stabilization deferral	71		154		—		—		—		—		71		154
Energy efficiency and demand response programs	73		148		—		—		—		—		73		148
Merger integration costs	2		9		—		—		—		—		2		9
Other ^(a)	31		30		18		20		8		7		4		3
Total regulatory assets	$	760	$	5,910	$	329	$	933	$	17	$	1,448	$	181	$	524



December 31, 2013	Exelon				ComEd				PECO				BGE
	Current		Noncurrent		Current		Noncurrent		Current		Noncurrent		Current		Noncurrent
Regulatory liabilities
Other postretirement benefits	$	2	$	43	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Nuclear decommissioning	—		2,740		—		2,293		—		447		—		—
Removal costs	99		1,423		78		1,219		—		—		21		204
Energy efficiency and demand response programs	53		—		45		—		8		—		—		—
DLC Program Costs	1		10		—		—		1		10		—		—
Energy efficiency phase II	—		21		—		—		—		21		—		—
Electric distribution tax repairs	20		114		—		—		20		114		—		—
Gas distribution tax repairs	8		37		—		—		8		37
Energy and transmission programs	78		—		9		—		58		—		11		—
Over-recovered gas universal service fund costs	8		—		—		—		8		—		—		—
Revenue subject to refund	38		—		38		—		—		—		—		—
Over-recovered electric and gas revenue decoupling	16		—		—		—		—		—		16		—
Other	4		—		—		—		3		—		—		—
Total regulatory liabilities	$	327	$	4,388	$	170	$	3,512	$	106	$	629	$	48	$	204

__________________________


(a)	For ComEd and BGE, includes Purchase of Receivable Program regulatory assets. As of December 31, 2014, ComEd and BGE had a regulatory asset related to the Purchase of Receivable Program of $14 million and $7 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2013, ComEd and BGE had a regulatory asset related to the Purchase of Receivable Program of $27 million and $0 million, respectively.

Pension and other postretirement benefits. As of December 31, 2014, Exelon had regulatory assets of $3,256 million and regulatory liabilities of $88 million related to ComEd’s and BGE’s portion of deferred costs associated with Exelon’s pension plans and ComEd’s, PECO’s and BGE’s portion of deferred costs associated with Exelon’s other postretirement benefit plans. PECO’s pension regulatory recovery is based on cash contributions and is not included in the regulatory asset (liability) balances. The regulatory asset (liability) is amortized in proportion to the recognition of prior service costs (gains), transition obligations and actuarial losses (gains) attributable to Exelon’s pension and other postretirement benefit plans determined by the cost recognition provisions of the authoritative guidance for pensions and postretirement benefits. ComEd, PECO and BGE will recover these costs through base rates as allowed in their most recently approved regulated rate orders. The pension and other postretirement benefit regulatory asset balance includes a regulatory asset established at the date of the Constellation merger related to BGE’s portion of the deferred costs associated with legacy Constellation’s pension and other postretirement benefit plans. The BGE-related regulatory asset is being amortized over a period of approximately 12 years, which generally represents the expected average remaining service period of plan participants at the date of the Constellation merger. See Note 16 — Retirement Benefits for additional detail. No return is earned on Exelon’s regulatory asset.

Deferred income taxes. These costs represent the difference between the method by which the regulator allows for the recovery of income taxes and how income taxes would be recorded under GAAP. Regulatory assets and liabilities associated with deferred income taxes, recorded in compliance with the authoritative guidance for accounting for certain types of regulation and income taxes, include the deferred tax effects associated principally with accelerated depreciation accounted for in accordance with the ratemaking policies of the ICC, PAPUC and MDPSC, as well as the revenue impacts thereon, and assume continued recovery of these costs in future transmission and distribution rates. For ComEd and BGE, this amount includes the impacts of a reduction in the deductibility, for Federal income tax purposes, of certain retiree health care costs pursuant to the March 2010 Health Care Reform Acts. ComEd was granted recovery of these additional income taxes on May 24, 2011 in the ICC’s 2010 Rate Case order. The recovery period for these costs was through May 31, 2014. For BGE, these additional income taxes are being amortized over a 5-year period that began in March 2011 in accordance with the MDPSC’s March 2011 rate order. For PECO, this amount includes the impacts of electric and gas distribution repairs in the deductibility pursuant to PUC’s 2010 rate case settlement agreement. See Note 14 — Income Taxes and Note 16 — Retirement Benefits for additional information. ComEd, PECO and BGE are not earning a return on the regulatory asset in base rates.

AMI programs. For ComEd, this amount represents operating and maintenance expenses and meter costs associated with ComEd’s AMI pilot program approved in the May 24, 2011, ICC order in ComEd’s 2010 rate case. The recovery periods for operating and maintenance expenses and meter costs through May 31, 2014, and January 1, 2020, respectively. As of December 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013, ComEd had regulatory assets of $88 million and $35 million, respectively, related to accelerated depreciation costs resulting from the early retirements of non-AMI meters, which will be amortized over an average ten year period pursuant to the ICC approved AMI Deployment plan. ComEd is earning a return on the regulatory asset. For PECO, this amount represents accelerated depreciation and filing and implementation costs relating to the PAPUC-approved Smart Meter Procurement and Installation Plan as well as the return on the un-depreciated investment, taxes, and operating and maintenance expenses. The approved plan allows for recovery of filing and implementation costs incurred through December 31, 2012. In addition, the approved plan provides for recovery of program costs, which includes depreciation on new equipment placed in service, beginning in January 2011 on full and current basis, which includes interest income or expense on the under or over recovery. The approved plan also provides for recovery of accelerated depreciation on PECO’s non-AMI meter assets over a 10-year period ending December 31, 2020. For BGE, this amount represents smart grid pilot program costs as well as the incremental costs associated with implementing full deployment of a smart grid program. Pursuant to a MDPSC order, pilot program costs of $11 million were deferred in a regulatory asset, and, beginning with the MDPSC’s March 2011 rate order, is earning BGE’s most current authorized rate of return. In August 2010, the MDPSC approved a comprehensive smart grid initiative for BGE, authorizing BGE to establish a separate regulatory asset for incremental costs incurred to implement the initiative, including the net depreciation and amortization costs associated with the meters, and an authorized rate of return on these costs, a portion of which is not recognized under GAAP until cost recovery begins. Additionally, the MDPSC order requires that BGE prove the cost-effectiveness of the entire smart grid initiative prior to seeking recovery of the costs deferred in these regulatory assets. Therefore, the commencement and timing of the amortization of these deferred costs is currently unknown. BGE’s AMI regulatory asset excludes costs for non-AMI meters being replaced by AMI meters, as recovery of those costs commenced with the new rates approved and implemented with the MDPSC order in BGE's 2014 electric and gas distribution case.

AMI Meter Events. This amount represents the remaining cost value of the original smart meters, net of accumulated depreciation, DOE reimbursements and amounts recovered from the vendor, of smart meter deployment that will no longer be used, including installation and removal costs. PECO intended to seek through regulatory rate recovery in a future filing with the PAPUC, any amounts not recovered from the vendor. PECO believed the amounts incurred for the original meters and related installation and removal costs were probable of recovery based on applicable case law and past precedent on reasonably and prudently incurred costs. As such, PECO deferred these costs on Exelon’s and PECO’s Consolidated Balance Sheet, beginning in 2012. PECO did not earn a return on the recovery of these costs. Pursuant to the January 23, 2014, vendor agreement, PECO reclassified the regulatory asset balance as a receivable, which has been fully collected, with no gain or loss impacts on future results of operations.

Under-recovered distribution services costs. Under EIMA, ComEd is allowed recovery of distribution services costs through a formula rate tariff. The legislation provides for an annual reconciliation of the revenue requirement in effect to reflect the actual costs that the ICC determines are prudently and reasonably incurred in a given year. The over recovery associated with the 2011 reconciliation was recovered through rates over a one-year period, that began in January 2013. The under recovery associated with the 2012 reconciliation was recovered through rates over a one-year period that began in January 2014. The under recovery associated with the 2013 reconciliation will be recovered through rates over a one-year period beginning in January 2015. ComEd is earning a return on these costs. The regulatory asset also includes costs associated with certain one-time events, such as large storms, which will be recovered over a five-year period. As of December 31, 2014, the regulatory asset was comprised of $286 million for the applicable annual reconciliations and $85 million related to significant one-time events. In addition to $66 million in deferred storm costs, net of amortization, the December 31, 2014 balance related to significant one-time events contains $19 million of Constellation merger and integration related costs, net of amortization, incurred as a result of the Constellation merger. As of December 31, 2013, the regulatory asset was comprised of $377 million for the applicable annual reconciliations and $86 million related to significant one-time events. In addition to $58 million in deferred storm costs, net of amortization, the December 31, 2013 balance related to significant one-time events contains $28 million of Constellation merger and integration related costs, net of amortization, incurred as a result of the Constellation merger. See Note 4 — Mergers, Acquisitions, and Dispositions for additional information.

Debt costs. Consistent with rate recovery for ratemaking purposes, ComEd’s, PECO’s and BGE’s recoverable losses on reacquired long-term debt related to regulated operations are deferred and amortized to interest expense over the life of the new debt issued to finance the debt redemption or over the life of the original debt issuance if the debt is not refinanced. Interest-rate swap settlements are deferred and amortized over the period that the related debt is outstanding or the life of the original issuance retired. These debt costs are used in the determination of the weighted cost of capital applied to rate base in the rate-making process. ComEd and BGE are not earning a return on the recovery of these costs, while PECO is earning a return on the premium of the cost of the reacquired debt through base rates.

Fair value of BGE long-term debt. These amounts represent the regulatory asset recorded at Exelon for the difference in the fair value of the long-term debt of BGE as of the Constellation merger date based on the MDPSC practice to allow BGE to recover its debt costs through rates. Exelon is amortizing the regulatory asset and the associated fair value over the life of the underlying debt and is not earning a return on the recovery of these costs.

Fair value of BGE supply contract. These amounts represent the regulatory asset recorded at Exelon representing the fair value of BGE’s supply contracts as of the close of the Constellation merger date based on the MDPSC practice to allow BGE to recover its supply contracts through rates. Exelon amortized the regulatory asset and the associated fair value through December 31, 2014 and was not earning a return on the recovery of these contracts.

Severance. For ComEd, these costs represent previously incurred severance costs that ComEd was granted recovery of in the December 20, 2006, ICC rehearing rate order and the May 24, 2011, ICC order in ComEd’s 2010 rate case, and such costs were fully recovered as of December 31, 2014. ComEd did not earn a return on these costs. For BGE, these costs represent deferred severance costs that BGE has previously been granted recovery of in rates. Costs include the portion of costs associated with a 2008 workforce reduction that relate to BGE’s gas business which were deferred in 2009 as a regulatory asset in accordance with the MDPSC’s orders in prior rate cases and are being amortized over a 5-year period through December 31, 2013. Also included are costs associated with a 2010 workforce reduction that were deferred as a regulatory asset and are being amortized over a 5-year period that began in March 2011 in accordance with the MDPSC’s March 2011 rate order. Finally, costs associated with the 2012 BGE voluntary workforce reduction were deferred in 2012 as a regulatory asset in accordance with the MDPSC’s orders in prior rate cases and are being amortized over a 5-year period that began in July 2012. BGE is earning a regulated return on the regulatory asset included in base rates.

Asset retirement obligations. These costs represent future legally required removal costs associated with existing asset retirement obligations. PECO will begin to earn a return on, and a recovery of, these costs once the removal activities have been performed. ComEd and BGE will recover these costs through future depreciation rates and will earn a return on these costs once the removal activities have been performed. See Note 15 — Asset Retirement Obligations for additional information.

MGP remediation costs. ComEd is allowed recovery of these costs under ICC approved rates. For PECO, these costs are recoverable through rates as affirmed in the 2010 approved natural gas distribution rate case settlement. The period of recovery for both ComEd and PECO will depend on the timing of the actual expenditures. ComEd and PECO are not earning a return on the recovery of these costs. While BGE does not have a rider for MGP clean-up costs, BGE has historically received recovery of actual clean-up costs on a site-specific basis in distribution rates. For BGE, $5 million of clean-up costs incurred during the period from July 2000 through November 2005 and an additional $1 million from December 2005 through November 2010 are recoverable through rates in accordance with MDPSC orders. These costs are being amortized over 10-year periods that began in January 2006 and December 2010, respectively. BGE is earning a return on this regulatory asset. See Note 22 — Commitments and Contingencies for additional information.

RTO start-up costs. Recovery of these RTO start-up costs was approved by FERC. The recovery period is through March 31, 2015. ComEd is earning a return on these costs.

Under (Over)-recovered universal service fund costs. The universal service fund cost is a recovery mechanism that allows PECO to recover discounts issued to electric and gas customers enrolled in assistance programs. As of December 31, 2014, PECO was under-recovered for its gas program and over-recovered for its electric program. Whereas, as of December 31, 2013, PECO was over-recovered for both its electric and gas programs PECO earns interest on under-recovered costs and pays interest on over-recovered costs to customers.

Under (Over)-recovered uncollectible accounts. ComEd adjusts its rates annually to reflect the increases and decreases in annual uncollectible accounts costs. The recovery or refund of the difference in the uncollectible accounts costs takes place over a 12-month time frame beginning in June of the following year. ComEd is not earning a return or paying interest on these under (over)-recovered costs.

Renewable Energy. On December 17, 2010, ComEd entered into several 20-year floating-to-fixed energy swap contracts with unaffiliated suppliers for the procurement of long-term renewable energy. Delivery under the contracts began in June 2012. Since the swap contracts were deemed prudent by the Illinois Settlement Legislation, ensuring ComEd of full recovery in rates, the changes in fair value each period as well as an offsetting regulatory asset or liability are recorded by ComEd. ComEd does not earn (pay) a return on the regulatory asset (liability). The basis for the mark-to-market derivative asset or liability position is based on the difference between ComEd’s cost to purchase energy on the spot market and the contracted price.

Energy and transmission programs. ComEd’s energy and transmission costs are recoverable (refundable) under ComEd’s ICC and/or FERC-approved rates. ComEd earns interest on under-recovered costs and pays interest on over-recovered costs to customers. As of December 31, 2014, ComEd's regulatory asset of $33 million included $4 million related to under-recovered energy costs for non-hourly customers, $22 million associated with transmission costs recoverable through its FERC-approved formulate rate, and $7 million of Constellation merger and integration costs to be recovered upon FERC approval. As of December 31, 2014, ComEd's regulatory liability of $19 million included $3 million related to over-recovered energy costs for hourly customers and $16 million associated with revenues received for renewable energy requirements. As of December 31, 2013, ComEd's regulatory asset of $58 million included $35 million related to under-recovered energy costs for hourly and non-hourly customers, $17 million associated with transmission costs recoverable through its FERC-approved formula rate, and $6 million of Constellation merger and integration costs to be recovered upon FERC approval. As of December 31, 2013, ComEd's regulatory liability of $9 million related to revenues received for renewable energy requirements.

The PECO energy costs represent the electric and gas supply related costs recoverable (refundable) under PECO’s GSA and PGC, respectively. PECO earns interest on the under-recovered energy and natural gas costs and pays interest on over-recovered energy and natural gas costs to customers. In addition, beginning in 2013, the deferred DSP I and II Program costs are presented on a net basis with PECO’s GSA under (over)-recovered energy costs. See discussion below of each program. The PECO transmission costs represent the electric transmission costs recoverable (refundable) under the TSC under which PECO earns interest on under-recovered costs and pays interest on over-recovered costs to customers. As of December 31, 2014, PECO had a regulatory liability that included $39 million related to the DSP program, $16 million related to over-recovered natural gas supply costs under the PGC and $3 million related to over-recovered electric transmission costs. As of December 31, 2013, PECO had a regulatory liability that included $34 million related to the DSP program, $8 million related the over-recovered electric transmission costs and $16 million related to over-recovered natural gas supply costs under the PGC.

DSP Program costs. These amounts represent recoverable administrative costs incurred relating to filing, procurement, and information technology improvements associated with PECO’s PAPUC- approved DSP Program for the procurement of electric supply following the expiration of PECO’s generation rate caps on December 31, 2010. The filing and implementation costs of this DSP Program are recoverable through the GSA over its 29-month term that began January 1, 2011. The independent evaluator costs associated with conducting procurements is recoverable over a 12-month period after the PAPUC approves the results of the procurements. Costs relating to information technology improvements are recoverable over a 5-year period that began January 1, 2011. PECO earns a return on the recovery of information technology costs. These costs are included within the energy and transmission programs line item.

DSP II Program Costs. These amounts represent recoverable administrative costs incurred relating to the filing and procurement associated with PECO’s second PAPUC-approved DSP program for the procurement of electric supply. The filing and procurement of this DSP Program are recoverable through the GSA over its 24-month term that began June 1, 2013. The independent evaluator costs associated with conducting procurements are recoverable over a 12-month period after the PAPUC approves the results of the procurements. PECO is not earning a return on these costs. These costs are included within the energy and transmission programs line item.

The BGE energy costs represent the electric and gas supply related costs recoverable (refundable) from (to) customers under BGE’s market-based SOS and MBR programs, respectively. BGE does not earn or pay interest on under- or over-recovered costs to customers. As of December 31, 2014, BGE's regulatory asset of $15 million included $10 million related to under-recovered electric energy costs, $4 million of Constellation merger and integration costs and $1 million of abandonment costs to be recovered upon FERC approval. As of December 31, 2014, BGE's regulatory liability of $7 million related to over-recovered natural gas supply costs. As of December 31, 2013, BGE's regulatory asset of $4 million included $3 million of Constellation merger and integration costs and $1 million of abandonment costs to be recovered upon FERC approval. As of December 31, 2013, BGE's regulatory liability of $11 million related to over-recovered natural gas supply costs.

Deferred storm costs. In the MDPSC’s March 2011 rate order, BGE was authorized to defer $16 million in storm costs incurred in February 2010. These costs are being amortized over a 5-year period that began in December 2010. BGE is earning a return on this regulatory asset.

Electric generation-related regulatory asset. As a result of the deregulation of electric generation, BGE ceased to meet the requirements for accounting for a regulated business for the previous electric generation portion of its business. As a result, BGE wrote-off its entire individual, generation-related regulatory assets and liabilities and established a single, generation-related regulatory asset to be collected through its regulated rates, which is being amortized on a basis that approximates the pre-existing individual regulatory asset amortization schedules. The portion of this regulatory asset that does not earn a regulated rate of return was $28 million as of December 31, 2014, and $37 million as of December 31, 2013. BGE will continue to amortize this amount through 2017.

Rate stabilization deferral. In June 2006, Senate Bill 1 was enacted in Maryland and imposed a rate stabilization measure that capped rate increases by BGE for residential electric customers at 15% from July 1, 2006, to May 31, 2007. As a result, BGE recorded a regulatory asset on its Consolidated Balance Sheets equal to the difference between the costs to purchase power and the revenues collected from customers, as well as related carrying charges based on short-term interest rates from July 1, 2006 to May 31, 2007. In addition, as required by Senate Bill 1, the MDPSC approved a plan that allowed residential electric customers the option to further defer the transition to market rates from June 1, 2007 to January 1, 2008. During 2007, BGE deferred $306 million of electricity purchased for resale expenses and certain applicable carrying charges, which are calculated using the implied interest rates of the rate stabilization bonds, as a regulatory asset related to the rate stabilization plans. During 2014 and 2013, BGE recovered $65 million and $66 million, respectively, of electricity purchased for resale expenses and carrying charges related to the rate stabilization plan regulatory asset. BGE began amortizing the regulatory asset associated with the deferral which ended in May 2007 to earnings over a period not to exceed ten years when collection from customers began in June 2007.

Energy efficiency and demand response programs. These amounts represent costs recoverable (refundable) under ComEd’s ICC approved Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Plan, PECO’s PAPUC-approved EE&C Plan, and the BGE Smart Energy Savers Program^®. ComEd recovers these costs through a rider. ComEd earns a return on the capital investment incurred under the program but does not earn (pay) interest on under (over) collections. For PECO, this amount represents an over-collection of program costs related to both Phase I and Phase II of its EE&C Plan. PECO does not earn (pay) interest on under (over) collections. PECO began recovering the costs of its Phase I and Phase II EE&C Plans through a surcharge in January 2010 and June 2013, respectively, based on projected spending under the programs. Phase I recovery continued over the life of the program, which expired on May 31, 2013 and excess funds collected began being refunded in June 2013. Phase II of the program began on June 1, 2013, and will continue over the life of the program, which will expire on May 31, 2016. Excess funds collected are required to be refunded beginning in June 2016. PECO earned a return on the capital investment incurred under Phase I of the program. BGE’s Smart Energy Savers Program^® includes both MDPSC approved demand response and energy efficiency programs. For the BGE Peak Rewards^SM demand response program which began in January 2008, actual marketing and customer bonus costs incurred in the demand response program are being recovered over a 5-year amortization period from the date incurred pursuant to an order by the MDPSC. Fixed assets related to the demand response program are recovered over the life of the equipment. Also included in the demand response program are customer bill credits related to BGE’s Smart Energy Rewards program which began in July 2013. Actual costs incurred in the conservation program are being amortized over a 5-year period with recovery beginning in 2010 pursuant to an order by the MDPSC. BGE earns a rate of return on the capital investments and deferred costs incurred under the program and earns (pays) interest on under (over) collections.

Merger integration costs. These amounts represent integration costs to achieve distribution synergies related to the Constellation merger transaction. As a result of the MDPSC’s February 2013 rate order, BGE deferred $8 million related to non-severance merger integration costs incurred during 2012 and the first quarter of 2013. Of these costs, $4 million was authorized to be amortized over a 5-year period that began in March 2013. The recovery of the remaining $4 million was deferred. In the MDPSC’s December 2013 rate order, BGE was authorized to recover the remaining $4 million and an additional $4 million of non-severance merger integration costs incurred during 2013. These costs are being amortized over a 5-year period that began in December 2013. BGE is earning a return on this regulatory asset included in base rates.

Under (Over)-recovered electric and gas revenue decoupling. These amounts represent the electric and gas distribution costs recoverable from or (refundable) to customers under BGE’s decoupling mechanism, which does not earn a rate of return. As of December 31, 2014, BGE had a regulatory asset of $7 million related to under-recovered electric revenue decoupling and a regulatory liability of $12 million related to over-recovered natural gas revenue decoupling. As of December 31, 2013, BGE had a regulatory liability of $7 million related to over-recovered electric revenue decoupling and $9 million related to over-recovered natural gas revenue decoupling.

Nuclear decommissioning. These amounts represent estimated future nuclear decommissioning costs for the Regulatory Agreement Units that exceed (regulatory asset) or are less than (regulatory liability) the associated decommissioning trust fund assets. Exelon believes the trust fund assets, including prospective earnings thereon and any future collections from customers, will be sufficient to fund the associated future decommissioning costs at the time of decommissioning. See Note 15 — Asset Retirement Obligations for additional information.

Removal costs. These amounts represent funds ComEd and BGE have received from customers through depreciation rates to cover the future non-legally required cost of removal of property, plant and equipment which reduces rate base for ratemaking purposes. This liability is reduced as costs are incurred.

DLC Program Costs. The DLC program costs include equipment, installation, and information technology costs necessary to implement the DLC Program under PECO’s EE&C Phase I Plans. PECO received full cost recovery through Phase I collections and will amortize the costs as a credit to the income statement to offset the related depreciation expense during the same period through September 2025, which is the remaining useful life of the assets. PECO is not paying interest on these over-recovered costs.

Electric distribution tax repairs. PECO’s 2010 electric distribution rate case settlement required that the expected cash benefit from the application of Revenue Procedure 2011-43, which was issued on August 19, 2011, to prior tax years be refunded to customers over a seven-year period. Credits began being reflected in customer bills on January 1, 2012. No interest will be paid to customers.

Gas distribution tax repairs. PECO’s 2010 natural gas distribution rate case settlement required that the expected cash benefit from the application of new tax repairs deduction methodologies for 2010 and prior tax years be refunded to customers over a seven-year period. In September 2012, PECO filed an application with the IRS to change its method of accounting for gas distribution repairs for the 2011 tax year. Credits began being reflected in customer bills on January 1, 2013. No interest will be paid to customers.

Under (Over)-recovered AEPS costs current asset (liability). The AEPS costs represent the administrative and AEC costs incurred to comply with the requirements of the AEPS Act, which are recoverable on a full and current basis. PECO earns interest on under-recovered costs and pays interest on over-recovered costs to customers. These costs are included within the energy and transmission programs line item.

Revenue subject to refund. These amounts represent refunds and associated interest ComEd owes to customers primarily related to the treatment of the post-test year accumulated depreciation issue in the 2007 Rate Case. As of December 31, 2014, and December 31, 2013, ComEd owed $3 million and $37 million with $1 million of interest, respectively. See above discussion of the 2007 Rate Case for further information.

Purchase of Receivables Programs (Exelon, ComEd, PECO, and BGE)

ComEd, PECO and BGE are required, under separate legislation and regulations in Illinois, Pennsylvania and Maryland, respectively, to purchase certain receivables from retail electric and natural gas suppliers. For retail suppliers participating in the utilities’ consolidated billing, ComEd, PECO and BGE must purchase their customer accounts receivables. ComEd purchases receivables at a discount to primarily recover uncollectible accounts expense from the suppliers. BGE’s tariff provides that receivables are to be purchased at a discount, primarily to recover uncollectible accounts expense from the suppliers. However, if the discount rate is negative, the tariff provides that the receivable is purchased at a zero discount rate. BGE is currently purchasing certain receivables at a zero discount rate. PECO is required to purchase receivables at face value and is permitted to recover uncollectible accounts expense from customers through distribution rates. Exelon, ComEd, PECO, and BGE do not record unbilled commodity receivables under their POR programs. Purchased billed receivables are classified in other accounts receivable, net on Exelon’s, ComEd’s, PECO’s and BGE’s Consolidated Balance Sheets. The following tables provide information about the purchased receivables of the Registrants as of December 31, 2014 and 2013.



As of December 31, 2014	Exelon			ComEd			PECO			BGE
Purchased receivables ^(a)	$	290		$	139		$	76		$	75
Allowance for uncollectible accounts ^(b)	(42		)	(21		)	(8		)	(13		)
Purchased receivables, net	$	248		$	118		$	68		$	62

As of December 31, 2013	Exelon			ComEd			PECO			BGE
Purchased receivables ^(a)	$	263		$	105		$	72		$	86
Allowance for uncollectible accounts ^(b)	(30		)	(16		)	(7		)	(7		)
Purchased receivables, net	$	233		$	89		$	65		$	79

_________________________

(a) PECO’s gas POR program became effective on January 1, 2012 and includes a 1% discount on purchased receivables in order to recover the implementation costs of the program. If the costs are not fully recovered when PECO files its next gas distribution rate case, PECO will propose a mechanism to recover the remaining implementation costs as a distribution charge to low volume transportation customers or apply future discounts on purchased receivables from natural gas suppliers serving those customers.

(b) For ComEd and BGE, reflects the incremental allowance for uncollectible accounts recorded, which is in addition to the purchase discount. For ComEd, the incremental uncollectible accounts expense is recovered through its Purchase of Receivables with Consolidated Billing (PORCB) tariff.