Commitments and Contingencies (All Registrants)

Commitments

Constellation Merger Commitments (Exelon and Generation). In February 2012, the MDPSC issued an Order approving the Exelon and Constellation merger. As part of the MDPSC Order, Exelon agreed to provide a package of benefits to BGE customers, the City of Baltimore and the State of Maryland, resulting in an estimated direct investment in the State of Maryland of approximately $1 billion.

The direct investment included the construction of a new 21-story headquarters building in Baltimore for Generation’s competitive energy business that was substantially complete in November 2016 and is now occupied by approximately 1,500 Exelon employees. Generation's investment in leasehold improvements totaled approximately $90 million. In addition, Generation entered into a 20-year operating lease as the primary lessee of the building.

The direct investment commitment also included $450 million to $500 million relating to Exelon and Generation’s development or assistance in the development of 285 - 300 MWs of new generation in Maryland, which is expected to be completed within a period of 10 years after the merger. The MDPSC order contemplated various options for complying with the new generation development commitments, including building or acquiring generating assets, making subsidy or compliance payments, or in circumstances in which the generation build is delayed or certain specified provisions are elected, making liquidated damages payments. Exelon and Generation have incurred $458 million towards satisfying the commitment for new generation development in the state of Maryland, with approximately 220 MW of the new generation commencing with commercial operations to date and an additional 10 MW commitment satisfied through a liquidated damages payment made in the fourth quarter of 2016. Additionally, during the fourth quarter of 2016, given continued declines in projected energy and capacity prices, Generation terminated rights to certain development projects originally intended to meet its remaining 55 MW commitment amount. The commitment is expected to be satisfied via payment of liquidated damages or execution of a third party PPA, rather than by Generation constructing renewable generating assets. As a result, Exelon and Generation recorded a pre-tax $50 million loss contingency in Operating and maintenance expense in Exelon’s and Generation’s Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income for the year ended December 31, 2016. The remaining commitment is to be paid on or before January 15, 2023 unless the period is extended by consent of Exelon and the State of Maryland. As of December 31, 2018 and 2017, Exelon's and Generation's Consolidated Balance Sheets include a $50 million liability within Deferred credits and other liabilities for this remaining commitment.

Commercial Commitments (All Registrants). Exelon’s commercial commitments as of December 31, 2018, representing commitments potentially triggered by future events, were as follows:



			Expiration within
	Total		2019		2020		2021		2022		2023		2024 and beyond
Letters of credit	$	1,703	$	1,394	$	308	$	1	$	—	$	—	$	—
Surety bonds^(a)	1,402		1,331		33		38		—		—		—
Financing trust guarantees	378		—		—		—		—		—		378
Guaranteed lease residual values^(b)	24		3		3		2		3		3		10
Total commercial commitments	$	3,507	$	2,728	$	344	$	41	$	3	$	3	$	388

__________


(a)	Surety bonds—Guarantees issued related to contract and commercial agreements, excluding bid bonds.

(b)

Represents the maximum potential obligation in the event that the fair value of certain leased equipment and fleet vehicles is zero at the end of the maximum lease term. The maximum lease term associated with these assets ranges from 3 to 8 years. The maximum potential obligation at the end of the minimum lease term would be $61 million, $19 million of which is a guarantee by Pepco, $26 million by DPL and $16 million by ACE. The minimum lease term associated with these assets ranges from 1 to 4 years. Historically, payments under the guarantees have not been made and PHI believes the likelihood of payments being required under the guarantees is remote.

Generation’s commercial commitments as of December 31, 2018, representing commitments potentially triggered by future events, were as follows:



			Expiration within
	Total		2019		2020		2021		2022		2023		2024 and beyond
Letters of credit	$	1,680	$	1,380	$	299	$	1	$	—	$	—	$	—
Surety bonds^(a)	1,220		1,201		19		—		—		—		—
Total commercial commitments	$	2,900	$	2,581	$	318	$	1	$	—	$	—	$	—

__________


(a)	Surety bonds—Guarantees issued related to contract and commercial agreements, excluding bid bonds.

ComEd’s commercial commitments as of December 31, 2018, representing commitments potentially triggered by future events, were as follows:



			Expiration within
	Total		2019		2020		2021		2022		2023		2024 and beyond
Letters of credit	$	2	$	2	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Surety bonds^(a)	12		10		—		2		—		—		—
Financing trust guarantees	200		—		—		—		—		—		200
Total commercial commitments	$	214	$	12	$	—	$	2	$	—	$	—	$	200

__________


(a)	Surety bonds—Guarantees issued related to contract and commercial agreements, excluding bid bonds.

PECO’s commercial commitments as of December 31, 2018, representing commitments potentially triggered by future events, were as follows:



			Expiration within
	Total		2019		2020		2021		2022		2023		2024 and beyond
Surety bonds^(a)	$	9	$	9	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Financing trust guarantees	178		—		—		—		—		—		178
Total commercial commitments	$	187	$	9	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	178

__________


(a)	Surety bonds—Guarantees issued related to contract and commercial agreements, excluding bid bonds.

BGE’s commercial commitments as of December 31, 2018, representing commitments potentially triggered by future events, were as follows:



			Expiration within
	Total		2019		2020		2021		2022		2023		2024 and beyond
Letters of credit	$	3	$	2	$	1	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Surety bonds^(a)	17		3		14		—		—		—		—
Total commercial commitments	$	20	$	5	$	15	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—

__________


(a)	Surety bonds—Guarantees issued related to contract and commercial agreements, excluding bid bonds.

PHI commercial commitments as of December 31, 2018, representing commitments potentially triggered by future events, were as follows:



			Expiration within
	Total		2019		2020		2021		2022		2023		2024 and beyond
Letters of credit	$	8	$	—	$	8	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Surety bonds^(a)	$	41	$	41	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Guaranteed lease residual values^(b)	24		3		3		2		3		3		10
Total commercial commitments	$	73	$	44	$	11	$	2	$	3	$	3	$	10

__________


(a)	Surety bonds—Guarantees issued related to contract and commercial agreements, excluding bid bonds.

(b)

Represents the maximum potential obligation in the event that the fair value of certain leased equipment and fleet vehicles is zero at the end of the maximum lease term. The maximum lease term associated with these assets ranges from 3 to 8 years. The maximum potential obligation at the end of the minimum lease term would be $61 million. The minimum lease term associated with these assets ranges from 1 to 4 years. Historically, payments under the guarantees have not been made and PHI believes the likelihood of payments being required under the guarantees is remote.

Pepco commercial commitments as of December 31, 2018, representing commitments potentially triggered by future events, were as follows:



			Expiration within
	Total		2019		2020		2021		2022		2023		2024 and beyond
Letters of credit	$	8	$	—	$	8	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Surety bonds^(a)	$	33	$	33	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Guaranteed lease residual values^(b)	8		1		1		1		1		1		3
Total commercial commitments	$	49	$	34	$	9	$	1	$	1	$	1	$	3

__________


(a)	Surety bonds—Guarantees issued related to contract and commercial agreements, excluding bid bonds.

(b)

Represents the maximum potential obligation in the event that the fair value of certain leased equipment and fleet vehicles is zero at the end of the maximum lease term. The maximum lease term associated with these assets ranges from 3 to 8 years. The maximum potential obligation at the end of the minimum lease term would be $19 million. The minimum lease term associated with these assets ranges from 1 to 4 years. Historically, payments under the guarantees have not been made and Pepco believes the likelihood of payments being required under the guarantees is remote.

DPL commercial commitments as of December 31, 2018, representing commitments potentially triggered by future events, were as follows:



			Expiration within
	Total		2019		2020		2021		2022		2023		2024 and beyond
Surety bonds^(a)	$	5	$	5	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Guaranteed lease residual values^(b)	10		1		1		1		1		1		5
Total commercial commitments	$	15	$	6	$	1	$	1	$	1	$	1	$	5

__________


(a)	Surety bonds—Guarantees issued related to contract and commercial agreements, excluding bid bonds.

(b)

Represents the maximum potential obligation in the event that the fair value of certain leased equipment and fleet vehicles is zero at the end of the maximum lease term. The maximum lease term associated with these assets ranges from 3 to 8 years. The maximum potential obligation at the end of the minimum lease term would be $26 million. The minimum lease term associated with these assets ranges from 1 to 4 years. Historically, payments under the guarantees have not been made and DPL believes the likelihood of payments being required under the guarantees is remote.

ACE commercial commitments as of December 31, 2018, representing commitments potentially triggered by future events, were as follows:



			Expiration within
	Total		2019		2020		2021		2022		2023		2024 and beyond
Surety bonds^(a)	$	3	$	3	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Guaranteed lease residual values^(b)	6		1		1		—		1		1		2
Total commercial commitments	$	9	$	4	$	1	$	—	$	1	$	1	$	2

__________


(a)	Surety bonds—Guarantees issued related to contract and commercial agreements, excluding bid bonds.

(b)

Represents the maximum potential obligation in the event that the fair value of certain leased equipment and fleet vehicles is zero at the end of the maximum lease term. The maximum lease term associated with these assets ranges from 3 to 8 years. The maximum potential obligation at the end of the minimum lease term would be $16 million. The minimum lease term associated with these assets ranges from 1 to 4 years. Historically, payments under the guarantees have not been made and ACE believes the likelihood of payments being required under the guarantees is remote.

Leases (All Registrants)

Minimum future operating lease payments, including lease payments for contracted generation, vehicles, real estate, computers, rail cars, operating equipment and office equipment, as of December 31, 2018 were:



	Exelon^(a)(b)		Generation^(a)(b)		ComEd^(a)(c)		PECO^(a)(c)		BGE^(a)(c)(d)(e)		PHI^(a)		Pepco^(a)		DPL^(a)(c)		ACE^(a)
2019	$	140	$	33	$	7	$	5	$	35	$	48	$	11	$	14	$	7
2020	149		46		5		5		35		46		10		13		6
2021	143		46		4		5		33		43		9		12		5
2022	126		47		4		5		18		42		8		12		5
2023	97		46		3		5		3		39		8		10		4
Remaining years	723		545		—		—		19		159		40		35		5
Total minimum future lease payments	$	1,378	$	763	$	23	$	25	$	143	$	377	$	86	$	96	$	32

__________


(a)	Includes amounts related to shared use land arrangements.


(b)	Excludes Generation’s contingent operating lease payments associated with contracted generation agreements.

(c)

Amounts related to certain real estate leases and railroad licenses effectively have indefinite payment periods. As a result, ComEd, PECO, BGE and DPL have excluded these payments from the remaining years as such amounts would not be meaningful. ComEd's, PECO’s, BGE’s and DPL's average annual obligation for these arrangements, included in each of the years 2019 - 2023, was $3 million, $5 million, $1 million and $1 million respectively. Also includes amounts related to shared use land arrangements.


(d)	Includes all future lease payments on a 99-year real estate lease that expires in 2106.


(e)	The BGE column above includes minimum future lease payments associated with a 6-year lease for the Baltimore City conduit system that became effective during the fourth quarter of 2016. BGE's total commitments under the lease agreement are $26 million, $28 million, $28 million and $14 million related to years 2019 - 2022 , respectively.

The following table presents the Registrants’ rental expense under operating leases for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016:



For the Year Ended December 31,	Exelon		Generation^(a)		ComEd		PECO		BGE		Pepco		DPL		ACE
2018	$	670	$	558	$	7	$	10	$	35	$	10	$	13	$	8
2017	709		578		9		9		32		11		16		14
2016	777		667		15		7		22		8		15		13



	Successor						Predecessor
	For the Year Ended December 31, 2018		For the Year Ended December 31, 2017		March 24, 2016 to December 31, 2016		January 1, 2016 to March 23, 2016
PHI
Rental expense under operating leases	$	48	$	63	$	49	$	12

__________

(a)

Includes contingent operating lease payments associated with contracted generation agreements that are not included in the minimum future operating lease payments table above. Payments made under Generation’s contracted generation lease agreements totaled $493 million, $508 million and $604 million during 2018, 2017 and 2016, respectively. Excludes contract amortization associated with purchase accounting and contract acquisitions.

For information regarding capital lease obligations, see Note 13—Debt and Credit Agreements.

Nuclear Insurance (Exelon and Generation)

Generation is subject to liability, property damage and other risks associated with major incidents at any of its nuclear stations. Generation has mitigated its financial exposure to these risks through insurance and other industry risk-sharing provisions.

The Price-Anderson Act was enacted to ensure the availability of funds for public liability claims arising from an incident at any of the U.S. licensed nuclear facilities and to limit the liability of nuclear reactor owners for such claims from any single incident. As of December 31, 2018, the current liability limit per incident is $14.1 billion and is subject to change to account for the effects of inflation and changes in the number of licensed reactors at least once every five years with the last adjustment effective November 1, 2018. In accordance with the Price-Anderson Act, Generation maintains financial protection at levels equal to the amount of liability insurance available from private sources through the purchase of private nuclear energy liability insurance for public liability claims that could arise in the event of an incident. Effective January 1, 2017, the required amount of nuclear energy liability insurance purchased is $450 million for each operating site. Claims exceeding that amount are covered through mandatory participation in a financial protection pool, as required by the Price Anderson-Act, which provides the additional $13.6 billion per incident in funds available for public liability claims. Participation in this secondary financial protection pool requires the operator of each reactor to fund its proportionate share of costs for any single incident that exceeds the primary layer of financial protection. Exelon’s share of this secondary layer would be approximately $3.1 billion, however any amounts payable under this secondary layer would be capped at $454 million per year.

In addition, the U.S. Congress could impose revenue-raising measures on the nuclear industry to pay public liability claims exceeding the $14.1 billion limit for a single incident.

As part of the execution of the NOSA on April 1, 2014, Generation executed an Indemnity Agreement pursuant to which Generation agreed to indemnify EDF and its affiliates against third-party claims that may arise from any future nuclear incident (as defined in the Price-Anderson Act) in connection with the CENG nuclear plants or their operations. Exelon guarantees Generation’s obligations under this indemnity. See Note 2 — Variable Interest Entities for additional information on Generation’s operations relating to CENG.

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

NEIL may declare distributions to its members as a result of favorable operating experience. In recent years NEIL has made distributions to its members, but Generation cannot predict the level of future distributions or if they will continue at all. Generation's portion of the annual distribution declared by NEIL is estimated to be $58 million for 2018, and was $60 million and $21 million for 2017 and 2016, respectively. In addition, in March 2018, NEIL declared a supplemental distribution. Generation's portion of the supplemental distribution declared by NEIL was $31 million. The distributions were recorded as a reduction to Operating and maintenance expense within Exelon and Generation’s Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income.

Premiums paid to NEIL by its members are also subject to a potential assessment for adverse loss experience in the form of a retrospective premium obligation. NEIL has never assessed this retrospective premium since its formation in 1973, and Generation cannot predict the level of future assessments if any. The current maximum aggregate annual retrospective premium obligation for Generation is approximately $345 million. NEIL requires its members to maintain an investment grade credit rating or to ensure collectability of their annual retrospective premium obligation by providing a financial guarantee, letter of credit, deposit premium, or some other means of assurance.

NEIL provides “all risk” property damage, decontamination and premature decommissioning insurance for each station for losses resulting from damage to its nuclear plants, either due to accidents or acts of terrorism. If the decision is made to decommission the facility, a portion of the insurance proceeds will be allocated to a fund, which Generation is required by the NRC to maintain, to provide for decommissioning the facility. In the event of an insured loss, Generation is unable to predict the timing of the availability of insurance proceeds to Generation and the amount of such proceeds that would be available. In the event that one or more acts of terrorism cause accidental property damage within a twelve-month period from the first accidental property damage under one or more policies for all insured plants, the maximum recovery by Exelon will be an aggregate of $3.2 billion plus such additional amounts as the insurer may recover for all such losses from reinsurance, indemnity and any other source, applicable to such losses.

For its insured losses, Generation is self-insured to the extent that losses are within the policy deductible or exceed the amount of insurance maintained. Uninsured losses and other expenses, to the extent not recoverable from insurers or the nuclear industry, could also be borne by Generation. Any such losses could have a material adverse effect on Exelon’s and Generation’s financial statements.

Spent Nuclear Fuel Obligation (Exelon and Generation)

Under the NWPA, the DOE is responsible for the development of a geologic repository for and the disposal of SNF and high-level radioactive waste. As required by the NWPA, Generation is a party to contracts with the DOE (Standard Contracts) to provide for disposal of SNF from Generation’s nuclear generating stations. In accordance with the NWPA and the Standard Contracts, Generation historically had paid the DOE one mill ($0.001) per kWh of net nuclear generation for the cost of SNF disposal. On November 19, 2013, the D.C. Circuit Court ordered the DOE to submit to Congress a proposal to reduce the current SNF disposal fee to zero, unless and until there is a viable disposal program. On May 9, 2014, the DOE notified Generation that the SNF disposal fee remained in effect through May 15, 2014, after which time the fee was set to zero. As a result, for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016, Generation did not incur any expense in SNF disposal fees. Until a new fee structure is in effect, Exelon and Generation will not accrue any further costs related to SNF disposal fees. This fee may be adjusted prospectively to ensure full cost recovery. The NWPA and the Standard Contracts required the DOE to begin taking possession of SNF generated by nuclear generating units by no later than January 31, 1998. The DOE, however, failed to meet that deadline and its performance has been, and is expected to be, delayed significantly.

The 2010 Federal budget (which became effective October 1, 2009) eliminated almost all funding for the creation of the Yucca Mountain repository while the Obama Administration devised a new strategy for long-term SNF management. The Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) on America’s Nuclear Future, appointed by the U.S. Energy Secretary, released a report on January 26, 2012, detailing comprehensive recommendations for creating a safe, long-term solution for managing and disposing of the nation’s SNF and high-level radioactive waste.

In early 2013, the DOE issued an updated “Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste” in response to the BRC recommendations. This strategy included a consolidated interim storage facility that was planned to be operational in 2025. However, due to continued delays on the part of the DOE, Generation currently assumes the DOE will begin accepting SNF in 2030 and uses that date for purposes of estimating the nuclear decommissioning asset retirement obligations. The SNF acceptance date assumption is based on management’s estimates of the amount of time required for DOE to select a site location and develop the necessary infrastructure for long-term SNF storage.

In August 2004, Generation and the DOJ, in close consultation with the DOE, reached a settlement under which the government agreed to reimburse Generation, subject to certain damage limitations based on the extent of the government’s breach, for costs associated with storage of SNF at Generation’s nuclear stations pending the DOE’s fulfillment of its obligations. Generation’s settlement agreement does not include FitzPatrick and FitzPatrick does not currently have a settlement agreement in place. Calvert Cliffs, Ginna and Nine Mile Point each have separate settlement agreements in place with the DOE which were extended during 2017 to provide for the reimbursement of SNF storage costs through December 31, 2019. Generation submits annual reimbursement requests to the DOE for costs associated with the storage of SNF. In all cases, reimbursement requests are made only after costs are incurred and only for costs resulting from DOE delays in accepting the SNF.

Under the settlement agreements, Generation has received cumulative cash reimbursements for costs incurred as follows:



	Total		Net^(a)
Cumulative cash reimbursements^(b)	$	1,274	$	1,100

__________


(a)	Total after considering amounts due to co-owners of certain nuclear stations and to the former owner of Oyster Creek.


(b)	Includes $53 and $49, respectively, for amounts received since April 1, 2014, for costs incurred under the CENG DOE Settlement Agreements prior to the consolidation of CENG.

As of December 31, 2018 and 2017, the amount of SNF storage costs for which reimbursement has been or will be requested from the DOE under the DOE settlement agreements is as follows:



	December 31, 2018			December 31, 2017
DOE receivable - current^(a)	$	124		$	94
DOE receivable - noncurrent^(b)	15			15
Amounts owed to co-owners^(a)(c)	(17		)	(11		)

__________


(a)	Recorded in Accounts receivable, other.


(b)	Recorded in Deferred debits and other assets, other


(c)	Non-CENG amounts owed to co-owners are recorded in Accounts receivable, other. CENG amounts owed to co-owners are recorded in Accounts payable. Represents amounts owed to the co-owners of Peach Bottom, Quad Cities, and Nine Mile Point Unit 2 generating facilities.

The Standard Contracts with the DOE also required the payment to the DOE of a one-time fee applicable to nuclear generation through April 6, 1983. The fee related to the former PECO units has been paid. Pursuant to the Standard Contracts, ComEd previously elected to defer payment of the one-time fee of $277 million for its units (which are now part of Generation), with interest to the date of payment, until just prior to the first delivery of SNF to the DOE. The unfunded liabilities for SNF disposal costs, including the one-time fee, were transferred to Generation as part of Exelon’s 2001 corporate restructuring. A prior owner of FitzPatrick also elected to defer payment of the one-time fee of $34 million, with interest to the date of payment, for the FitzPatrick unit. As part of the FitzPatrick acquisition on March 31, 2017, Generation assumed a SNF liability for the DOE one-time fee obligation with interest related to FitzPatrick along with an offsetting asset for the contractual right to reimbursement from NYPA, a prior owner of FitzPatrick, for amounts paid for the FitzPatrick DOE one-time fee obligation. The amounts were recorded at fair value. See Note 4 - Mergers, Acquisitions and Dispositions for additional information on the FitzPatrick acquisition. As of December 31, 2018 and 2017, the SNF liability for the one-time fee with interest was $1,171 million and $1,147 million, respectively, which is included in Exelon's and Generation's Consolidated Balance Sheets. Interest for Exelon's and Generation's SNF liabilities accrues at the 13-week Treasury Rate. The 13-week Treasury Rate in effect for calculation of the interest accrual at December 31, 2018 was 2.351% for the deferred amount transferred from ComEd and 2.217% for the deferred FitzPatrick amount. The outstanding one-time fee obligations for the Nine Mile Point, Ginna, Oyster Creek and TMI units remain with the former owners. The Clinton and Calvert Cliffs units have no outstanding obligation. See Note 11 — Fair Value of Financial Assets and Liabilities for additional information.

Environmental Remediation Matters

General (All Registrants). The Registrants’ operations have in the past, and may in the future, require substantial expenditures to comply with environmental laws. Additionally, under Federal and state environmental laws, the Registrants are generally liable for the costs of remediating environmental contamination of property now or formerly owned by them and of property contaminated by hazardous substances generated by them. The Registrants own or lease a number of real estate parcels, including parcels on which their operations or the operations of others may have resulted in contamination by substances that are considered hazardous under environmental laws. In addition, the Registrants are currently involved in a number of proceedings relating to sites where hazardous substances have been deposited and may be subject to additional proceedings in the future. Unless otherwise disclosed, the Registrants cannot reasonably estimate whether they will incur significant liabilities for additional investigation and remediation costs at these or additional sites identified by the Registrants, environmental agencies or others, or whether such costs will be recoverable from third parties, including customers. Additional costs could have a material, unfavorable impact on the Registrants' financial statements.

MGP Sites (Exelon and the Utility Registrants). ComEd, PECO, BGE and DPL have identified sites where former MGP or gas purification activities have or may have resulted in actual site contamination. For almost all of these sites, there are additional PRPs that may share responsibility for the ultimate remediation of each location.


•	ComEd has identified 42 sites, 21 of which have been remediated and approved by the Illinois EPA or the U.S. EPA and 21 that are currently under some degree of active study and/or remediation. ComEd expects the majority of the remediation at these sites to continue through at least 2023.


•	PECO has identified 26 sites, 17 of which have been remediated in accordance with applicable PA DEP regulatory requirements and 9 that are currently under some degree of active study and/or remediation. PECO expects the majority of the remediation at these sites to continue through at least 2022.


•	BGE has identified 13 sites, 9 of which have been remediated and approved by the MDE and 4 that require some level of remediation and/or ongoing activity. BGE expects the majority of the remediation at these sites to continue through at least 2019.


•	DPL has identified 3 sites, 2 of which remediation has been completed and approved by the MDE or the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. The remaining site is under study and the required cost at the site is not expected to be material.

The historical nature of the MGP sites and the fact that many of the sites have been buried and built over, impacts the ability to determine a precise estimate of the ultimate costs prior to initial sampling and determination of the exact scope and method of remedial activity. Management determines its best estimate of remediation costs using all available information at the time of each study, including probabilistic and deterministic modeling for ComEd and PECO, and the remediation standards currently required by the applicable state environmental agency. Prior to completion of any significant clean up, each site remediation plan is approved by the appropriate state environmental agency.

ComEd, pursuant to an ICC order, and PECO, pursuant to settlements of natural gas distribution rate cases with the PAPUC, are currently recovering environmental remediation costs of former MGP facility sites through customer rates. See Note 4 — Regulatory Matters for additional information regarding the associated regulatory assets. While BGE and DPL do not have riders for MGP clean-up costs, they have historically received recovery of actual clean-up costs in distribution rates.

During the third quarter of 2018, the Utility Registrants completed a study of their future estimated environmental remediation requirements. The study resulted in a $48 million increase to the environmental liability and related regulatory asset for ComEd. The increase was primarily due to a revised closure strategy at one site, which resulted in an increase in the excavation area and depth of impacted soils from the site. The study did not result in a material change to the environmental liability for PECO, BGE, Pepco, DPL, and ACE.

As of December 31, 2018 and 2017, the Registrants had accrued the following undiscounted amounts for environmental liabilities in Other current liabilities and Other deferred credits and other liabilities within their respective Consolidated Balance Sheets:



December 31, 2018	Total environmental investigation and remediation reserve		Portion of total related to MGP investigation and remediation
Exelon	$	496	$	356
Generation	108		—
ComEd	329		327
PECO	27		25
BGE	5		4
PHI	27		—
Pepco	25		—
DPL	1		—
ACE	1		—



December 31, 2017	Total environmental investigation and remediation reserve		Portion of total related to MGP investigation and remediation
Exelon	$	466	$	315
Generation	117		—
ComEd	285		283
PECO	30		28
BGE	5		4
PHI	29		—
Pepco	27		—
DPL	1		—
ACE	1		—

Cotter Corporation (Exelon and Generation). The EPA has advised Cotter Corporation (Cotter), a former ComEd subsidiary, that it is potentially liable in connection with radiological contamination at a site known as the West Lake Landfill in Missouri. In 2000, ComEd sold Cotter to an unaffiliated third-party. As part of the sale, ComEd agreed to indemnify Cotter for any liability arising in connection with the West Lake Landfill. In connection with Exelon’s 2001 corporate restructuring, this responsibility to indemnify Cotter was transferred to Generation. On May 29, 2008, the EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) approving a landfill cover remediation approach. By letter dated January 11, 2010, the EPA requested that the PRPs perform a supplemental feasibility study for a remediation alternative that would involve complete excavation of the radiological contamination. On September 30, 2011, the PRPs submitted the supplemental feasibility study to the EPA for review. Since June 2012, the EPA has requested that the PRPs perform a series of additional analyses and groundwater and soil sampling as part of the supplemental feasibility study. This further analysis was focused on a partial excavation remedial option. The PRPs provided the draft final Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) to the EPA in January 2018, which formed the basis for EPA’s proposed remedy selection, as further discussed below. There are currently three PRPs participating in the West Lake Landfill remediation proceeding. Investigation by Generation has identified a number of other parties who also may be PRPs and could be liable to contribute to the final remedy. Further investigation is ongoing.

On September 27, 2018 the EPA issued its ROD Amendment for the selection of the final remedy for the West Lake Landfill Superfund site. The ROD modifies the EPA’s previously proposed plan for partial excavation of the radiological materials by reducing the depths of the excavation. The ROD also allows for variation in depths of excavation depending on radiological concentrations. The EPA estimates that the ROD will result in a reduction of both radiological and non-radiological waste excavated, with corresponding reductions in the cost and schedule for the remedy. The next step is the negotiation of a Consent Agreement by the EPA with the PRPs to implement the ROD, a process that is expected to be completed in the first quarter of 2020. The estimated cost of the remedy, taking into account the current EPA technical requirements and the total costs expected to be incurred by the PRPs in fully executing the remedy, is approximately $280 million, including cost escalation on an undiscounted basis, which would be allocated among the final group of PRPs. Generation has determined that a loss associated with the EPA’s partial excavation and enhanced landfill cover remedy is probable and has recorded a liability included in the table above, that reflects management’s best estimate of Cotter’s allocable share of the ultimate cost for the entire remediation effort. Given the joint and several nature of this liability, the magnitude of Generation’s ultimate liability will depend on the actual costs incurred to implement the required remediation remedy as well as on the nature and terms of any cost-sharing arrangements with the final group of PRPs. Therefore, it is reasonably possible that the ultimate cost and Generation’s associated allocable share could differ significantly once these uncertainties are resolved, which could have a material impact on Exelon's and Generation's future financial statements.

On January 16, 2018, the PRPs were advised by the EPA that it will begin an additional investigation and evaluation of groundwater conditions at the West Lake Landfill. In September 2018, the PRPs agreed to an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent for the performance by the PRPs of the groundwater RI/FS and reimbursement of EPA’s oversight costs. The purposes of this new RI/FS are to define the nature and extent of any groundwater contamination from the West Lake Landfill site, determine the potential risk posed to human health and the environment, and evaluate remedial alternatives. Generation estimates the undiscounted cost for the groundwater RI/FS for West Lake to be approximately $20 million. Generation determined a loss associated with the RI/FS is probable and has recorded a liability included in the table above that reflects management’s best estimate of Cotter’s allocable share of the cost among the PRPs. At this time Generation cannot predict the likelihood or the extent to which, if any, remediation activities will be required and cannot estimate a reasonably possible range of loss for response costs beyond those associated with the RI/FS component. It is reasonably possible, however, that resolution of this matter could have a material, unfavorable impact on Exelon’s and Generation’s future financial statements.

During December 2015, the EPA took two actions related to the West Lake Landfill designed to abate what it termed as imminent and dangerous conditions at the landfill. The first involved installation by the PRPs of a non-combustible surface cover to protect against surface fires in areas where radiological materials are believed to have been disposed which was completed in 2018. The second action involved EPA's public statement that it will require the PRPs to construct a barrier wall in an adjacent landfill to prevent a subsurface fire from spreading to those areas of the West Lake Landfill where radiological materials are believed to have been disposed. At this time, Generation believes that the requirement to build a barrier wall is remote in light of other technologies that have been employed by the adjacent landfill owner. Finally, one of the other PRPs, the landfill owner and operator of the adjacent landfill, has indicated that it will be making a contribution claim against Cotter for costs that it has incurred to prevent the subsurface fire from spreading to those areas of the West Lake Landfill where radiological materials are believed to have been disposed. At this time, Exelon and Generation do not possess sufficient information to assess this claim and therefore are unable to estimate a range of loss, if any. As such, no liability has been recorded for the potential contribution claim. It is reasonably possible, however, that resolution of this matter could have a material, unfavorable impact on Exelon’s and Generation's financial statements.

On August 8, 2011, Cotter was notified by the DOJ that Cotter is considered a PRP with respect to the government’s clean-up costs for contamination attributable to low level radioactive residues at a former storage and reprocessing facility named Latty Avenue near St. Louis, Missouri. The Latty Avenue site is included in ComEd’s indemnification responsibilities discussed above as part of the sale of Cotter. The radioactive residues had been generated initially in connection with the processing of uranium ores as part of the U.S. Government’s Manhattan Project. Cotter purchased the residues in 1969 for initial processing at the Latty Avenue facility for the subsequent extraction of uranium and metals. In 1976, the NRC found that the Latty Avenue site had radiation levels exceeding NRC criteria for decontamination of land areas. Latty Avenue was investigated and remediated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to funding under FUSRAP. The DOJ has not yet formally advised the PRPs of the amount that it is seeking, but it is believed to be approximately $90 million from all PRPs. The DOJ and the PRPs agreed to toll the statute of limitations until August 2019 so that settlement discussions could proceed. Generation has determined that a loss associated with this matter is probable under its indemnification agreement with Cotter and has recorded an estimated liability, which is included in the table above.

Commencing in February 2012, a number of lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Among the defendants were Exelon, Generation and ComEd, all of which were subsequently dismissed from the case, as well as Cotter, which remains a defendant. The suits allege that individuals living in the North St. Louis area developed some form of cancer or other serious illness due to Cotter's negligent or reckless conduct in processing, transporting, storing, handling and/or disposing of radioactive materials. Plaintiffs are asserting public liability claims under the Price-Anderson Act. Their state law claims for negligence, strict liability, emotional distress, and medical monitoring have been dismissed. In the event of a finding of liability against Cotter, it is probable that Generation would be financially responsible due to its indemnification responsibilities of Cotter described above. The court has dismissed a number of the lawsuits as untimely, which has been upheld on appeal. Cotter and the remaining plaintiffs have engaged in settlement discussions pursuant to court-ordered mediation. During the second quarter of 2018, Generation determined a loss was probable based on the advancement of settlement proceedings and recorded an immaterial liability.

Benning Road Site (Exelon, Generation, PHI and Pepco). In September 2010, PHI received a letter from EPA identifying the Benning Road site as one of six land-based sites potentially contributing to contamination of the lower Anacostia River. A portion of the site was formerly the location of a Pepco Energy Services electric generating facility. That generating facility was deactivated in June 2012 and plant structure demolition was completed in July 2015. The remaining portion of the site consists of a Pepco transmission and distribution service center that remains in operation. In December 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia approved a Consent Decree entered into by Pepco and Pepco Energy Services with the DOEE, which requires Pepco and Pepco Energy Services to conduct a Remediation Investigation (RI)/ Feasibility Study (FS) for the Benning Road site and an approximately 10 to 15-acre portion of the adjacent Anacostia River. The RI/FS will form the basis for the remedial actions for the Benning Road site and for the Anacostia River sediment associated with the site. The Consent Decree does not obligate Pepco or Pepco Energy Services to pay for or perform any remediation work, but it is anticipated that DOEE will look to Pepco and Pepco Energy Services to assume responsibility for cleanup of any conditions in the river that are determined to be attributable to past activities at the Benning Road site. Pursuant to Exelon's March 23, 2016 acquisition of PHI, Pepco Energy Services was transferred to Generation.

Since 2013, Pepco and Pepco Energy Services (now Generation) have been performing RI work and have submitted multiple draft RI reports to the DOEE. Once the RI work is completed, Pepco and Generation will issue a draft “final” RI report for review and comment by DOEE and the public. Pepco and Generation will then proceed to develop an FS to evaluate possible remedial alternatives for submission to DOEE. The Court has established a schedule for completion of the RI and FS, and approval by the DOEE, by May 6, 2019.

Upon DOEE’s approval of the final RI and FS Reports, Pepco and Generation will have satisfied their obligations under the Consent Decree. At that point, DOEE will prepare a Proposed Plan regarding further response actions. After considering public comment on the Proposed Plan, DOEE will issue a Record of Decision identifying any further response actions determined to be necessary. PHI, Pepco and Generation have determined that a loss associated with this matter is probable and have accrued an estimated liability, which is included in the table above.

Anacostia River Tidal Reach (Exelon, PHI and Pepco). Contemporaneous with the Benning RI/FS being performed by Pepco and Generation, DOEE and certain federal agencies have been conducting a separate RI/FS focused on the entire tidal reach of the Anacostia River extending from just north of the Maryland-D.C. boundary line to the confluence of the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers. In March 2016, DOEE released a draft of the river-wide RI Report for public review and comment. The river-wide RI incorporated the results of the river sampling performed by Pepco and Pepco Energy Services as part of the Benning RI/FS, as well as similar sampling efforts conducted by owners of other sites adjacent to this segment of the river and supplemental river sampling conducted by DOEE’s contractor. DOEE asked Pepco, along with parties responsible for other sites along the river, to participate in a “Consultative Working Group” to provide input into the process for future remedial actions addressing the entire tidal reach of the river and to ensure proper coordination with the other river cleanup efforts currently underway, including cleanup of the river segment adjacent to the Benning Road site resulting from the Benning RI/FS. Pepco responded that it will participate in the Consultative Working Group, but its participation is not an acceptance of any financial responsibility beyond the work that will be performed at the Benning Road site described above. In April 2018, DOEE released a draft remedial investigation report for public review and comment. Pepco submitted written comments to the draft RI and participated in a public hearing. Pepco continues outreach efforts as appropriate to the agencies, governmental officials, community organizations and other key stakeholders. In May 2018 the District of Columbia Council extended the deadline for completion of the Record of Decision from June 30, 2018 until December 31, 2019. An appropriate liability for Pepco’s share of investigation costs has been accrued and is included in the table above. Although Pepco has determined that it is probable that costs for remediation will be incurred, Pepco cannot estimate the reasonably possible range of loss at this time and no liability has been accrued for those future costs. A draft Feasibility Study of potential remedies and their estimated costs is being prepared by the agencies and is expected to be released in 2019, at which time Pepco will likely be in a better position to estimate the range of loss.

In addition to the activities associated with the remedial process outlined above, there is a complementary statutory program that requires an assessment to determine if any natural resources have been damaged as a result of the contamination that is being remediated, and, if so, that a plan be developed by the federal, state and local Trustees responsible for those resources to restore them to their condition before injury from the environmental contaminants. If natural resources are not restored, then compensation for the injury can be sought from the party responsible for the release of the contaminants. The assessment of Natural Resource Damages (NRD) typically takes place following cleanup because cleanups sometimes also effectively restore habitat. During the second quarter of 2018, Pepco became aware that the Trustees are in the beginning stages of this process that often takes many years beyond the remedial decision to complete. Pepco has concluded that a loss associated with the eventual NRD assessment is reasonably possible. Due to the very early stage of the assessment process it cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss.

Litigation and Regulatory Matters

Asbestos Personal Injury Claims (Exelon, Generation, ComEd and PECO). Generation maintains estimated liabilities for claims associated with asbestos-related personal injury actions in certain facilities that are currently owned by Generation or were previously owned by ComEd and PECO. The estimated liabilities are recorded on an undiscounted basis and exclude the estimated legal costs associated with handling these matters, which could be material.

At December 31, 2018 and 2017, Generation had recorded estimated liabilities of approximately $79 million and $78 million, respectively, in total for asbestos-related bodily injury claims. As of December 31, 2018, approximately $24 million of this amount related to 238 open claims presented to Generation, while the remaining $55 million is for estimated future asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through 2050, based on actuarial assumptions and analyses, which are updated on an annual basis. On a quarterly basis, Generation monitors actual experience against the number of forecasted claims to be received and expected claim payments and evaluates whether adjustments to the estimated liabilities are necessary.

There is a reasonable possibility that Exelon may have additional exposure to estimated future asbestos-related bodily injury claims in excess of the amount accrued and the increases could have a material unfavorable impact on Exelon's and Generation’s financial statements.

Fund Transfer Restrictions (All Registrants). Under applicable law, Exelon may borrow or receive an extension of credit from its subsidiaries. Under the terms of Exelon’s intercompany money pool agreement, Exelon can lend to, but not borrow from the money pool.

Under applicable law, Generation, ComEd, PECO, BGE, PHI, Pepco, DPL and ACE can pay dividends only from retained, undistributed or current earnings. A significant loss recorded at Generation, ComEd, PECO, BGE, PHI, Pepco, DPL or ACE may limit the dividends that these companies can distribute to Exelon.

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

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

BGE is subject to restrictions established by the MDPSC that prohibit BGE from paying a dividend on its common shares if (a) after the dividend payment, BGE’s equity ratio would be below 48% as calculated pursuant to the MDPSC’s ratemaking precedents or (b) BGE’s senior unsecured credit rating is rated by two of the three major credit rating agencies below investment grade. No such event has occurred.

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

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

ACE is subject to certain dividend restrictions established by settlements approved in New Jersey. ACE is prohibited from paying a dividend on its common shares if (a) after the dividend payment, ACE's equity ratio would be 48% as equity levels are calculated under the ratemaking precedents of the NJBPU or (b) ACE's senior unsecured credit rating is rated by one of the three major credit rating agencies below investment grade. ACE is also subject to a dividend restriction which requires ACE to obtain the prior approval of the NJBPU before dividends can be paid it its equity as a percent of its total capitalization, excluding securitization debt, falls below 30%. No such events have occurred.

Conduit Lease with City of Baltimore (Exelon and BGE). On September 23, 2015, the Baltimore City Board of Estimates approved an increase in annual rental fees for access to the Baltimore City underground conduit system effective November 1, 2015, from $12 million to $42 million, subject to an annual increase thereafter based on the Consumer Price Index. BGE subsequently entered into litigation with the City regarding the amount of and basis for establishing the conduit fee. On November 30, 2016, the Baltimore City Board of Estimates approved a settlement agreement entered into between BGE and the City to resolve the disputes and pending litigation related to BGE's use of and payment for the underground conduit system. As a result of the settlement, the parties entered into a six-year lease that reduces the annual expense to $25 million in the first three years and caps the annual expense in the last three years to not more than $29 million. BGE recorded a decrease to Operating and maintenance expense in the fourth quarter of 2016 of approximately $28 million for the reversal of the previously higher fees accrued as well as the settlement of prior year disputed fee true-up amounts.

City of Everett Tax Increment Financing Agreement (Exelon and Generation). On April 10, 2017, the City of Everett petitioned the Massachusetts Economic Assistance Coordinating Council (EACC) to revoke the 1999 tax increment financing agreement (TIF Agreement) relating to Mystic 8 & 9 on the grounds that the total investment in Mystic 8 & 9 materially deviates from the investment set forth in the TIF Agreement. On October 31, 2017, a three-member panel of the EACC conducted an administrative hearing on the City’s petition. On November 30, 2017, the hearing panel issued a tentative decision denying the City’s petition, finding that there was no material misrepresentation that would justify revocation of the TIF Agreement. On December 13, 2017, the tentative decision was adopted by the full EACC. On January 12, 2018, the City filed a complaint in Massachusetts Superior Court requesting, among other things, that the court set aside the EACC’s decision, grant the City’s request to decertify the Project and the TIF Agreement, and award the City damages for alleged underpaid taxes over the period of the TIF Agreement. Generation vigorously contested the City’s claims before the EACC and will continue to do so in the Massachusetts Superior Court proceeding. Generation continues to believe that the City’s claim lacks merit. Accordingly, Generation has not recorded a liability for payment resulting from such a revocation, nor can Generation estimate a reasonably possible range of loss, if any, associated with any such revocation. Further, it is reasonably possible that property taxes assessed in future periods, including those following the expiration of the current TIF Agreement in 2019, could be material to Generation’s financial statements.

General (All Registrants). The Registrants are involved in various other litigation matters that are being defended and handled in the ordinary course of business. The assessment of whether a loss is probable or a reasonable possibility, and whether the loss or a range of loss is estimable, often involves a series of complex judgments about future events. The Registrants maintain accruals for such losses that are probable of being incurred and subject to reasonable estimation. Management is sometimes unable to estimate an amount or range of reasonably possible loss, particularly where (1) the damages sought are indeterminate, (2) the proceedings are in the early stages, or (3) the matters involve novel or unsettled legal theories. In such cases, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the timing or ultimate resolution of such matters, including a possible eventual loss.