Commitments and Contingencies (All Registrants)

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2019

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies (All Registrants)

Commitments and Contingencies (All Registrants)

The following is an update to the current status of commitments and contingencies set forth in Note 22 of the Exelon 2018 Form 10-K. See Note 5 — Mergers, Acquisitions and Dispositions of the Exelon 2018 Form 10-K for additional information on the PHI Merger commitments.

Commitments

PHI Merger Commitments (Exelon, PHI, Pepco, DPL and ACE). The merger of Exelon and PHI was approved in Delaware, New Jersey, Maryland and the District of Columbia. Exelon and PHI agreed to certain commitments including where applicable: customer rate credits, funding for energy efficiency and delivery system modernization programs, a green sustainability fund, workforce development initiatives, charitable contributions, renewable

generation and other required commitments. In addition, the orders approving the merger in Delaware, New Jersey, and Maryland include a “most favored nation” provision which, generally, requires allocation of merger benefits proportionally across all the jurisdictions.

The following amounts represent total commitment costs for Exelon, PHI, Pepco, DPL and ACE that have been recorded since the acquisition date and the remaining obligations as of June 30, 2019:

Description	Expected Payment Period	Exelon		PHI		Pepco		DPL		ACE
Rate credits	2016 - 2021	$	264	$	264	$	91	$	72	$	101
Energy efficiency	2016 - 2021	117		—		—		—		—
Charitable contributions	2016 - 2026	50		50		28		12		10
Delivery system modernization	Q2 2017	22		—		—		—		—
Green sustainability fund	Q2 2017	14		—		—		—		—
Workforce development	2016 - 2020	17		—		—		—		—
Other		29		6		1		5		—
Total commitments		$	513	$	320	$	120	$	89	$	111
Remaining commitments		$	116	$	86	$	69	$	11	$	6

In addition, Exelon is committed to develop or to assist in the commercial development of approximately 37 MWs of new solar generation in Maryland, District of Columbia, and Delaware at an estimated cost of approximately $127 million, which will generate future earnings at Exelon and Generation. Investment costs, which are expected to be primarily capital in nature, are recognized as incurred and recorded in Exelon's and Generation's financial statements. As of June 30, 2019, 27 MWs of new generation were developed and Exelon and Generation have incurred costs of $102 million. Exelon has also committed to purchase 100 MWs of wind energy in PJM. DPL has committed to conducting three RFPs to procure up to a total of 120 MWs of wind RECs for the purpose of meeting Delaware's renewable portfolio standards. DPL has conducted two of the three wind REC RFPs. The first 40 MW wind REC tranche was conducted in 2017 and did not result in a purchase agreement. The second 40 MW wind REC tranche was conducted in 2018 and resulted in a proposed REC purchase agreement that was approved by the DPSC in March 2019. The third and final 40 MW wind REC tranche will be conducted in 2022.

Pursuant to the various jurisdictions' merger approval conditions, over specified periods Pepco, DPL and ACE are not permitted to reduce employment levels due to involuntary attrition associated with the merger integration process and have made other commitments regarding hiring and relocation of positions.

Commercial Commitments (All Registrants). The Registrants’ commercial commitments as of June 30, 2019, representing commitments potentially triggered by future events were as follows:

	Exelon		Generation		ComEd		PECO		BGE		PHI		Pepco		DPL		ACE
Letters of credit	$	1,315	$	1,283	$	7	$	—	$	9	$	10	$	10	$	—	$	—
Surety bonds(a)	1,492		1,271		52		9		17		39		31		4		3
Financing trust guarantees	378		—		200		178		—		—		—		—		—
Guaranteed lease residual values(b)	26		—		—		—		—		26		9		11		7
Total commercial commitments	$	3,211	$	2,554	$	259	$	187	$	26	$	75	$	50	$	15	$	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 lease term associated with these assets ranges from 1 to 8 years. The maximum potential obligation at the end of the minimum lease term would be $68 million, $23 million of which is a guarantee by Pepco, $28 million by DPL and $17 million by ACE. Historically, payments under the guarantees have not been made and PHI believes the likelihood of payments being required under the guarantees is remote.

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 also to limit the liability of nuclear reactor owners for such claims from any single incident. As of June 30, 2019, the current liability limit per incident is $13.9 billion and is subject to change to account for the effects of inflation and changes in the number of licensed reactors. Changes to account for the effects of inflation occur 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 $13.5 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 $2.9 billion, however any amounts payable under this secondary layer would be capped at $434 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 $13.9 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 of the Exelon 2018 Form 10-K 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.

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 $334 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 condition, results of operations and cash flows.

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 in the Registrants' financial statements.

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

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 6 — 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.

As of June 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, 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:

June 30, 2019	Total environmental investigation and remediation reserve		Portion of total related to MGP investigation and remediation
Exelon	$	482	$	345
Generation	107		—
ComEd	318		318
PECO	25		24
BGE	5		3
PHI	27		—
Pepco	24		—
DPL	1		—
ACE	1		—

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		—

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. Including Cotter, there are 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.

In September 2018 the EPA issued its Record of Decision (ROD) Amendment for the selection of the final remedy. The ROD modified 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 and the PRPs have entered into a Consent Agreement to perform the Remedial Design, which is expected to be completed in the 2020 - 2021 time frame. In March 2019 the PRPs received Special Notice Letters from the EPA to perform the Remedial Action work. The EPA has established a deadline of October 2019 for the PRPs to provide a good faith offer to conduct, or finance, the Remedial Action work. This schedule can be extended by the EPA pending completion of the Remedial Design. 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. 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.

One of the other PRPs has indicated 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.

In January 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. The purpose of this RI/FS is to define the nature and extent of any groundwater contamination from the West Lake Landfill site and evaluate remedial alternatives. Generation estimates the undiscounted cost for the groundwater RI/FS 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 may be required and therefore 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.

In August, 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. Pursuant to a series of annual agreements since 2011, the DOJ and the PRPs have tolled 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 September 16, 2021.

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 later 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 and Generation). Generation maintains a reserve 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 June 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, Generation had recorded estimated liabilities of approximately $84 million and $79 million, respectively, in total for asbestos-related bodily injury claims. As of June 30, 2019, approximately $24 million of this amount related to 244 open claims presented to Generation, while the remaining $60 million is for estimated future asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through 2055, 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.

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 Units 8 and 9 on the grounds that the total investment in Mystic Units 8 and 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 results of operations and cash flows.

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