Commitments and Contingencies | Note 8—Commitments and Contingencies Contingencies We record accruals for estimated losses from contingencies when available information indicates that a loss is probable and the amount of the loss, or range of loss, can be reasonably estimated. In addition, we disclose matters for which management believes a material loss is reasonably possible. Management assesses matters based on current information and makes judgments concerning their potential outcome, giving consideration to the nature of the claim, the amount, if any, and nature of damages sought and the probability of success. Management regularly reviews all new information with respect to such contingencies and adjusts its assessments and estimates of such contingencies accordingly. Because litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties including unfavorable rulings or developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of any legal proceedings could involve amounts that are different from recorded accruals and that such differences could be material. We are party to routine proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. Any accruals or estimated losses related to these matters are not material. In management’s judgment, the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. MISO 2015-2016 Planning Resource Auction. In May 2015, three complaints were filed at FERC regarding the Zone 4 results for the 2015-2016 Planning Resource Auction (“PRA”) conducted by MISO. The Newton, Coffeen and Joppa facilities were offered into Zone 4 in the 2015-2016 PRA. The complainants, Public Citizen, Inc., the Illinois Attorney General, and Southwestern Electric Cooperative, In c., have challenged the results of the PRA as unjust and unreasonable, requested rate relief/refunds and requested changes to the MISO PRA structure going forward. Complainants have also alleged that Dynegy may have engaged in economic or physical withholding in Zone 4 constituting market manipulation in the 2015-2016 PRA. The Independent Market Monitor for MISO (“MISO IMM”), which was responsible for monitoring the MISO 2015-2016 PRA, determined that all offers were competitive and that no physical or economic withholding occurred. The MISO IMM also stated, in a filing responding to the complaints, that there is no basis for the proposed remedies. Dynegy disputes the allegations and will defend its actions vigorously. Dynegy filed its Answer to these complaints. In addition, the Illinois Industrial Energy Consumers filed a complaint at FERC against MISO on June 30, 2015 requesting prospective changes to the MISO tariff. Dynegy also responded to this complaint. On October 1, 2015, FERC issued an order of non-public, formal investigation, stating that shortly after the conclusion of the 2015-2016 PRA, FERC’s Office of Enforcement began a non-public informal investigation into whether market manipulation or other potential violations of FERC orders, rules and regulations occurred before or during the PRA (the “Order”). The Order noted that the investigation is ongoing, and that the order converting the informal, non-public investigation to a formal, non-public investigation does not indicate that FERC has determined that any entity has engaged in market manipulation or otherwise violated any FERC order, rule or regulation. Further, FERC held a Staff-led technical conference on October 20, 2015 to obtain further information concerning potential changes to the MISO PRA structure going forward, including on proposals made by complainants. The technical conference did not address the ongoing Office of Enforcement investigation. New Source Review and Clean Air Litigation. Since 1999, the EPA has been engaged in a nationwide enforcement initiative to determine whether coal-fired power plants failed to comply with the requirements of the New Source Review and New Source Performance Standard provisions under the Clean Air Act (“CAA”) when the plants implemented modifications. The EPA’s initiative focuses on whether projects performed at power plants triggered various permitting requirements, including the need to install pollution control equipment. CAA Section 114 Information Requests. Commencing in 2005, we received a series of information requests from the EPA pursuant to Section 114(a) of the CAA. The requests sought detailed operating and maintenance history data with respect to the Coffeen, Newton and Joppa facilities. In August 2012, the EPA issued a Notice of Violation (“NOV”) alleging that projects performed in 1997, 2006 and 2007 at the Newton facility violated Prevention of Significant Deterioration, Title V permitting and other requirements. The NOV remains unresolved. We believe our defenses to the allegations described in the NOV are meritorious. A decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in 2013 held that similar claims older than five years were barred by the statute of limitations. This decision may provide an additional defense to the allegations in the NOV. Ultimate resolution of these CAA matters could have a material adverse impact on our future financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. A resolution could result in increased capital expenditures for the installation of pollution control equipment, increased operations and maintenance expenses, and penalties. At this time we are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the possible costs, or range of costs, that might be incurred to resolve these matters. Groundwater. Hydrogeologic investigations of the coal combustion residuals (“CCR”) surface impoundments have been performed at the Newton, Coffeen and Joppa facilities. Groundwater monitoring results indicate that the CCR surface impoundments at each of the facilities potentially impact onsite groundwater. In 2012, the Illinois EPA issued violation notices with respect to groundwater conditions at our Newton and Coffeen facilities’ CCR surface impoundments. In February 2013, the Illinois EPA provided written notice that it may pursue legal action with respect to each of these matters through referral to the Illinois Office of the Attorney General. In addition, in April 2015, we submitted an assessment monitoring report to the Illinois EPA concerning previously reported groundwater quality standard exceedances at the Newton facility’s active CCR landfill. The report identifies the Newton facility’s inactive unlined landfill as the likely source of the exceedances and recommends various measures to minimize the effects of that source on the groundwater monitoring results of the active landfill. In April 2013, Ameren Energy Resources Company filed a proposed site-specific rulemaking with the IPCB which, if approved, would provide for the systematic and eventual closure of our CCR surface impoundments that impact groundwater in exceedance of applicable groundwater standards. In October 2013, the Illinois EPA filed a proposed rulemaking with the IPCB that would establish processes governing monitoring, corrective action and closure of CCR surface impoundments at all power generating facilities in Illinois. The Illinois EPA’s proposed rulemaking has been stayed to consider the implications of the federal EPA’s CCR rule. The site-specific rulemaking proposal also has been stayed. In November 2015, the IPCB extended the stay of the Illinois EPA’s proposed rulemaking until early March 2016, at which time the Illinois EPA is required to provide a status report. At this time, we cannot reasonably estimate the costs or range of costs of resolving our Newton, Coffeen and Joppa groundwater matters, but resolution of these matters may cause us to incur significant costs that could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Commitments In conducting our operations, we have routinely entered into long-term commodity purchase and sale commitments, as well as agreements that commit future cash flow to the lease or acquisition of assets used in our businesses. These commitments have been typically associated with commodity supply arrangements, capital projects, reservation charges associated with firm transmission, transportation, storage and leases for office space, equipment, design and construction, plant sites and power generation assets. Coal Transportation . During the nine months ended September 30, 2015 , we executed one new long-term coal transportation contract with an aggregate commitment of $175 million . Under this contract, we have the ability to terminate our obligation beginning in the year 2021, which would reduce our commitment to $62 million . Indemnifications and Guarantees In the ordinary course of business, we routinely enter into contractual agreements that contain various representations, warranties, indemnifications and guarantees. Examples of such agreements include, but are not limited to, service agreements, equipment purchase agreements, engineering and technical service agreements, asset sales agreements, and procurement and construction contracts. Some agreements contain indemnities that cover the other party’s negligence or limit the other party’s liability with respect to third party claims, in which event we will effectively be indemnifying the other party. Virtually all such agreements contain representations or warranties that are covered by indemnifications against the losses incurred by the other parties in the event such representations and warranties are false. While there is always the possibility of a loss related to such representations, warranties, indemnifications and guarantees in our contractual agreements, and such loss could be significant, management considers the probability of loss to be remote. Guaranty Guaranty Agreement. Genco has provided an uncapped Guaranty Agreement of certain credit support obligations and tax and environmental indemnification obligations of IPH under a transaction agreement with Ameren Corporation. Certain of the guaranteed obligations under the Guaranty Agreement will survive indefinitely. |