Accounting Policy (Policies)

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2015

New Accounting Pronouncements and Changes in Accounting Principles [Abstract]

Description of New Accounting Pronouncements Not yet Adopted [Text Block]

New Accounting Pronouncements (Exelon, Generation, ComEd, PECO and BGE)

The following recently issued accounting standards are not yet required to be reflected in the combined financial statements of the Registrants.

Simplifying the Measurement of Inventory

In July 2015, the FASB issued authoritative guidance that requires inventory to be measured at the lower of cost or net realizable value. The new guidance defines net realizable value as the estimated selling price in the ordinary course of business, less reasonably predictable costs of completion, disposal and transportation. This definition is consistent with existing authoritative guidance. Current guidance requires inventory to be measured at the lower of cost or market where market could be replacement cost, net realizable value or net realizable value less an approximately normal profit margin. The guidance is effective for periods beginning after December 15, 2016 with early adoption permitted. The guidance is required to be applied prospectively. The Registrants are currently assessing the impacts this guidance may have on their financial positions, results of operations, cash flows and disclosures as well as the potential to early adopt the guidance.

Disclosures for Investments in Certain Entities that Calculate Net Asset Value per Share

In May 2015, FASB issued authoritative guidance that removes the requirement to categorize within the fair value hierarchy all investments for which fair value is measured using the net asset value per share practical expedient. Investments measured at net asset value per share using the practical expedient will be presented as a reconciling item between the fair value hierarchy disclosure and the investment line item on the statement of financial position. The guidance also removes the requirement to make certain disclosures for all investments that are eligible to be measured at fair value using the net asset value per share practical expedient. Rather, those disclosures are limited to investments for which the entity has elected to measure the fair value using the practical expedient. The guidance is effective for the Registrants for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2015 with early adoption permitted. The guidance is required to be applied retrospectively to all prior periods presented. The Registrants are currently assessing the impacts this guidance may have on their disclosures as well as the potential to early adopt the guidance. There will be no impact to their financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Customer’s Accounting for Fees Paid in a Cloud Computing Arrangement

In April 2015, the FASB issued authoritative guidance that clarifies the circumstances under which a cloud computing customer would account for the arrangement as a license of internal-use software. A cloud computing arrangement would include a software license if (1) the customer has a contractual right to take possession of the software at any time during the hosting period without significant penalty and (2) it is feasible for the customer to either run the software on its own hardware or contract with another party unrelated to the vendor to host the software. If the arrangement does not contain a software license, it would be accounted for as a service contract. The guidance is effective for the Registrants for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2015. Early adoption is permitted. The guidance can be applied retrospectively to each prior reporting period presented or prospectively to arrangements entered into, or materially modified, after the effective date. The Registrants are currently assessing the impact this guidance may have on their financial positions, results of operations, cash flows and disclosures. The Registrants expect to apply the standard prospectively to arrangements entered into, or materially modified, after the standard becomes effective for the Registrants on January 1, 2016. The Registrants do not plan to early adopt the standard.

Simplifying the Presentation of Debt Issuance Costs

In April 2015, the FASB issued authoritative guidance that changes the presentation of debt issuance costs in financial statements. The new guidance requires entity’s to present such costs in the balance sheet as a direct reduction to the related debt liability rather than as a deferred cost (i.e., an asset) as required by current guidance. The new standard does not change the recognition or measurement of debt issuance costs. The guidance is effective for the Registrants for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2015. Early adoption is permitted for financial statements that have not been previously issued. The guidance is required to be applied retrospectively to all prior periods presented. The Registrants are currently assessing the impact this guidance may have on their financial positions and disclosures. The standard will not impact the results of operations and cash flows of the Registrants. The Registrants expect to complete their assessment by the fourth quarter of 2015 and early adopt the standard at that time.

Amendments to the Consolidation Analysis

In February 2015, the FASB issued authoritative guidance that amends the consolidation analysis for variable interest entities (VIEs) as well as voting interest entities. The new guidance primarily (1) changes the assessment of limited partnerships as VIEs, (2) amends the effect that fees paid to a decision maker or service provider have on the VIE analysis, (3) amends how variable interests held by a reporting entity’s related parties and de facto agents impact its consolidation conclusion, (4) clarifies how to determine whether equity holders (as a group) have power over an entity and (5) provides a scope exception for registered and similar unregistered money market funds. The guidance is effective for the Registrants for the first interim period within annual reporting periods beginning on or after December 15, 2015. Early adoption is permitted. The guidance can be applied retrospectively to each prior reporting period presented (full retrospective method) or retrospectively with a cumulative effect adjustment to retained earnings for initial application of the guidance at the date of adoption (modified retrospective method). The Registrants are currently assessing the impact this guidance may have on their financial positions, results of operations, cash flows and disclosures as well as the transition method that they will use to adopt the guidance. The Registrants do not plan to early adopt the standard.

Revenue from Contracts with Customers

In May 2014, the FASB issued authoritative guidance that changes the criteria for recognizing revenue from a contract with a customer. The new guidance replaces existing guidance on revenue recognition, including most industry specific guidance, with a five step model for recognizing and measuring revenue from contracts with customers. The objective of the new standard is to provide a single, comprehensive revenue recognition model for all contracts with customers to improve comparability within industries, across industries and across capital markets. The underlying principle is that an entity will recognize revenue to depict the transfer of goods or services to customers at an amount that the entity expects to be entitled to in exchange for those goods or services. The guidance also requires a number of disclosures regarding the nature, amount, timing and uncertainty of revenue and the related cash flows. The guidance can be applied retrospectively to each prior reporting period presented (full retrospective method) or retrospectively with a cumulative effect adjustment to retained earnings for initial application of the guidance at the date of initial adoption (modified retrospective method). The Registrants are currently assessing the impacts this guidance may have on their financial positions, results of operations, cash flows and disclosures as well as the transition method that they will use to adopt the guidance. As currently issued, the guidance is effective for the Registrants for the first interim period within annual reporting periods beginning on or after December 15, 2016; and early adoption would not be permitted.  However, in July 2015, the FASB approved an amendment to provide a one year deferral of the effective date to annual reporting periods beginning on or after December 15, 2017, as well as an option to early adopt the standard for annual periods beginning on or after December 15, 2016. As of July 29, 2015, the amendment to defer the effective date and provide an option to early adopt had not been issued.

Policy Text Block [Abstract]

Fair Value of Financial Instruments, Policy [Policy Text Block]

Recurring Fair Value Measurements

Exelon records the fair value of assets and liabilities in accordance with the hierarchy established by the authoritative guidance for fair value measurements. The hierarchy prioritizes the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value into three levels as follows:

• Level 1 — quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities that the Registrants have the ability to liquidate as of the reporting date.

• Level 2 — inputs other than quoted prices included within Level 1 that are directly observable for the asset or liability or indirectly observable through corroboration with observable market data.

• Level 3 — unobservable inputs, such as internally developed pricing models or third-party valuations for the asset or liability due to little or no market activity for the asset or liability.

Transfers in and out of levels are recognized as of the end of the reporting period when the transfer occurred. Given derivatives categorized within Level 1 are valued using exchange-based quoted prices within observable periods, transfers between Level 2 and Level 1 were not material. Transfers into Level 2 from Level 3 generally occur when the contract tenure becomes more observable. Transfers into Level 3 from Level 2 generally occur due to changes in market liquidity or assumptions for certain commodity contracts. There were no transfers between Level 1 and Level 2 during the six months ended June 30, 2015 for cash equivalents, nuclear decommissioning trust fund investments, pledged assets for Zion Station decommissioning, Rabbi trust investments, and deferred compensation obligations.

FairValueMeasurementsValuationTechniques policy [Policy Text Block]

Valuation Techniques Used to Determine Fair Value

The following describes the valuation techniques used to measure the fair value of the assets and liabilities shown in the tables above.

Cash Equivalents (Exelon, Generation, ComEd, PECO and BGE). The Registrants’ cash equivalents include investments with maturities of three months or less when purchased. The cash equivalents shown in the fair value tables are comprised of investments in mutual and money market funds. The fair values of the shares of these funds are based on observable market prices and, therefore, have been categorized in Level 1 in the fair value hierarchy.

Nuclear Decommissioning Trust Fund Investments and Pledged Assets for Zion Station Decommissioning (Exelon and Generation).    The trust fund investments have been established to satisfy Generation’s and CENG's nuclear decommissioning obligations as required by the NRC. The NDT funds hold debt and equity securities directly and indirectly through commingled funds and mutual funds, which are included in Equities, Fixed Income and Other. Generation’s and CENG's NDT fund investments policies outline investment guidelines for the trusts and limit the trust funds’ exposures to investments in highly illiquid markets and other alternative investments. Investments with maturities of three months or less when purchased, including certain short-term fixed income securities are considered cash equivalents and included in the recurring fair value measurements hierarchy as Level 1 or Level 2.

With respect to individually held equity securities, which are included in Domestic or Foreign equities, the trustees obtain prices from pricing services, whose prices are obtained from direct feeds from market exchanges, which Generation is able to independently corroborate. The fair values of equity securities held directly by the trust funds are based on quoted prices in active markets and are categorized in Level 1. Equity securities held individually are primarily traded on the New York Stock Exchange and NASDAQ-Global Select Market, which contain only actively traded securities due to the volume trading requirements imposed by these exchanges.

For fixed income securities, multiple prices from pricing services are obtained whenever possible, which enables cross-provider validations in addition to checks for unusual daily movements. A primary price source is identified based on asset type, class or issue for each security. The trustees monitor prices supplied by pricing services and may use a supplemental price source or change the primary price source of a given security if the portfolio managers challenge an assigned price and the trustees determine that another price source is considered to be preferable. Generation has obtained an understanding of how these prices are derived, including the nature and observability of the inputs used in deriving such prices. Additionally, Generation selectively corroborates the fair values of securities by comparison to other market-based price sources. U.S. Treasury securities are categorized as Level 1 because they trade in a highly liquid and transparent market. The fair values of fixed income securities, excluding U.S. Treasury securities, are based on evaluated prices that reflect observable market information, such as actual trade information or similar securities, adjusted for observable differences and are categorized in Level 2. The fair values of private placement fixed income securities, which are included in Corporate debt, are determined using a third party valuation that contains significant unobservable inputs and are categorized in Level 3.

Equity, balanced and fixed income commingled funds and fixed income mutual funds are maintained by investment companies and hold certain investments in accordance with a stated set of fund objectives. The fair values of fixed income commingled and mutual funds held within the trust funds, which generally hold fixed income securities and are not subject to restrictions regarding the purchase or sale of shares, are derived from observable prices. The objectives of the remaining equity commingled funds in which Exelon, Generation, and CENG invest primarily seek to track the performance of certain equity indices by purchasing equity securities to replicate the capitalization and characteristics of the indices. Commingled and mutual funds are categorized in Level 2 because the fair value of the funds are based on NAVs per fund share (the unit of account), primarily derived from the quoted prices in active markets on the underlying equity securities.

Middle market lending are investments in loans or managed funds which lend to private companies. Generation elected the fair value option for its investments in certain limited partnerships that invest in middle market lending managed funds. The fair value of these loans is determined using a combination of valuation models including cost models, market models, and income models. Investments in middle market lending are categorized as Level 3 because the fair value of these securities is based largely on inputs that are unobservable and utilize complex valuation models. Investments in middle market lending typically cannot be redeemed until maturity of the term loan.

Private equity investments include investments in operating companies that are not publicly traded on a stock exchange. Private equity valuations are reported by the fund manager and are based on the valuation of the underlying investments, which include inputs such as cost, operating results, discounted future cash flows and market based comparable data. Since these valuation inputs are not highly observable, private equity investments have been categorized as Level 3.

As of June 30, 2015, Generation has outstanding commitments to invest in middle market lending, corporate debt securities, private equity investments, and real estate investments of approximately $312 million. These commitments will be funded by Generation’s existing nuclear decommissioning trust funds.

See Note 12—Nuclear Decommissioning for further discussion on the NDT fund investments.

Rabbi Trust Investments (Exelon, Generation, ComEd, PECO and BGE).  The Rabbi trusts were established to hold assets related to deferred compensation plans existing for certain active and retired members of Exelon’s executive management and directors. The Rabbi trusts assets are included in investments in the Registrants’ Consolidated Balance Sheets and consist primarily of mutual funds and life insurance policies. The mutual funds are maintained by investment companies and hold certain investments in accordance with a stated set of fund objectives, which are consistent with Exelon’s overall investment strategy. Mutual funds are publicly quoted and have been categorized as Level 1 given the clear observability of the prices. The life insurance policies are valued using the cash surrender value of the policies, which is provided by a third party. The cash surrender value inputs are not observable.

Mark-to-Market Derivatives (Exelon, Generation, and ComEd).Derivative contracts are traded in both exchange-based and non-exchange-based markets. Exchange-based derivatives that are valued using unadjusted quoted prices in active markets are categorized in Level 1 in the fair value hierarchy. Certain derivatives’ pricing is verified using indicative price quotations available through brokers or over-the-counter, on-line exchanges and are categorized in Level 2. These price quotations reflect the average of the bid-ask, mid-point prices and are obtained from sources that the Registrants believe provide the most liquid market for the commodity. The price quotations are reviewed and corroborated to ensure the prices are observable and representative of an orderly transaction between market participants. This includes consideration of actual transaction volumes, market delivery points, bid-ask spreads and contract duration. The remainder of derivative contracts are valued using the Black model, an industry standard option valuation model. The Black model takes into account inputs such as contract terms, including maturity, and market parameters, including assumptions of the future prices of energy, interest rates, volatility, credit worthiness and credit spread. For derivatives that trade in liquid markets, such as generic forwards, swaps and options, model inputs are generally observable. Such instruments are categorized in Level 2. The Registrants’ derivatives are predominately at liquid trading points. For derivatives that trade in less liquid markets with limited pricing information model inputs generally would include both observable and unobservable inputs. These valuations may include an estimated basis adjustment from an illiquid trading point to a liquid trading point for which active price quotations are available. Such instruments are categorized in Level 3.

Exelon may utilize fixed-to-floating interest rate swaps, which are typically designated as fair value hedges, as a means to achieve its targeted level of variable-rate debt as a percent of total debt. In addition, the Registrants may utilize interest rate derivatives to lock in interest rate levels in anticipation of future financings. These interest rate derivatives are typically designated as cash flow hedges. Exelon determines the current fair value by calculating the net present value of expected payments and receipts under the swap agreement, based on and discounted by the market's expectation of future interest rates. Additional inputs to the net present value calculation may include the contract terms, counterparty credit risk and other market parameters. As these inputs are based on observable data and valuations of similar instruments, the interest rate swaps are categorized in Level 2 in the fair value hierarchy. See Note 10 - Derivative Financial Instruments for further discussion on mark-to-market derivatives.

Deferred Compensation Obligations (Exelon, Generation, ComEd, PECO and BGE).    The Registrants’ deferred compensation plans allow participants to defer certain cash compensation into a notional investment account. The Registrants include such plans in other current and noncurrent liabilities in their Consolidated Balance Sheets. The value of the Registrants’ deferred compensation obligations is based on the market value of the participants’ notional investment accounts. The underlying notional investments are comprised primarily of equities, mutual funds, commingled funds, and fixed income securities which are based on directly and indirectly observable market prices. Since the deferred compensation obligations themselves are not exchanged in an active market, they are categorized as Level 2 in the fair value hierarchy.

Additional Information Regarding Level 3 Fair Value Measurements (Exelon, Generation, ComEd)

Mark-to-Market Derivatives (Exelon, Generation, ComEd). For valuations that include both observable and unobservable inputs, if the unobservable input is determined to be significant to the overall inputs, the entire valuation is categorized in Level 3. This includes derivatives valued using indicative price quotations whose contract tenure extends into unobservable periods. In instances where observable data is unavailable, consideration is given to the assumptions that market participants would use in valuing the asset or liability. This includes assumptions about market risks such as liquidity, volatility and contract duration. Such instruments are categorized in Level 3 as the model inputs generally are not observable. Exelon’s RMC approves risk management policies and objectives for risk assessment, control and valuation, counterparty credit approval, and the monitoring and reporting of risk exposures. The RMC is chaired by the chief executive officer and includes the chief risk officer, chief strategy officer, chief executive officer of Exelon Utilities, chief commercial officer, chief financial officer and chief executive officer of Constellation. The RMC reports to the Finance and Risk Committee of the Exelon Board of Directors on the scope of the risk management activities. Forward price curves for the power market utilized by the front office to manage the portfolio, are reviewed and verified by the middle office, and used for financial reporting by the back office. The Registrants consider credit and nonperformance risk in the valuation of derivative contracts categorized in Level 2 and 3, including both historical and current market data in its assessment of credit and nonperformance risk by counterparty. Due to master netting agreements and collateral posting requirements, the impacts of credit and nonperformance risk were not material to the financial statements.

Disclosed below is detail surrounding the Registrants’ significant Level 3 valuations. The calculated fair value includes marketability discounts for margining provisions and other attributes. Generation’s Level 3 balance generally consists of forward sales and purchases of power and natural gas, coal purchases and certain transmission congestion contracts. Generation utilizes various inputs and factors including market data and assumptions that market participants would use in pricing assets or liabilities as well as assumptions about the risks inherent in the inputs to the valuation technique. The inputs and factors include forward commodity prices, commodity price volatility, contractual volumes, delivery location, interest rates, credit quality of counterparties and credit enhancements.

For commodity derivatives, the primary input to the valuation models is the forward commodity price curve for each instrument. Forward commodity price curves are derived by risk management for liquid locations and by the traders and portfolio managers for illiquid locations. All locations are reviewed and verified by risk management considering published exchange transaction prices, executed bilateral transactions, broker quotes, and other observable or public data sources. The relevant forward commodity curve used to value each of the derivatives depends on a number of factors, including commodity type, delivery location, and delivery period. Price volatility varies by commodity and location. When appropriate, Generation discounts future cash flows using risk free interest rates with adjustments to reflect the credit quality of each counterparty for assets and Generation’s own credit quality for liabilities. The level of observability of a forward commodity price varies generally due to the delivery location and delivery period. Certain delivery locations including PJM West Hub (for power) and Henry Hub (for natural gas) are more liquid and prices are observable for up to three years in the future. The observability period of volatility is generally shorter than the underlying power curve used in option valuations. The forward curve for a less liquid location is estimated by using the forward curve from the liquid location and applying a spread to represent the cost to transport the commodity to the delivery location. This spread does not typically represent a majority of the instrument’s market price. As a result, the change in fair value is closely tied to liquid market movements and not a change in the applied spread. The change in fair value associated with a change in the spread is generally immaterial. An average spread calculated across all Level 3 power and gas delivery locations is approximately $3.33 and $0.34 for power and natural gas, respectively. Many of the commodity derivatives are short term in nature and thus a majority of the fair value may be based on observable inputs even though the contract as a whole must be classified as Level 3. See ITEM 3. — QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK for information regarding the maturity by year of the Registrant’s mark-to-market derivative assets and liabilities.