Share to Facebook Share to Twitter Bookmark and Share
This record contains private information, which has been redacted from public viewing.
Record #: O2019-8603   
Type: Ordinance Status: Passed
Intro date: 11/13/2019 Current Controlling Legislative Body: Committee on Housing and Real Estate
Final action: 12/18/2019
Title: Negotiated sale of vacant City-owned property at 7671 S South Chicago Ave to Commonweallth Edison
Sponsors: Lightfoot, Lori E.
Topic: PROPERTY - Sale
Attachments: 1. O2019-8603.pdf
v •< y


OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
CITY OF CHICAGO
LORI E. LIGHTFOOT
MAYOR

November 13, 2019










TO THE HONORABLE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO


Ladies and Gentlemen:

At the request ofthe Commissioner of Planning and Development, I transmit herewith ordinances authorizing the sale of City-owned property.

Your favorable consideration of these ordinances will be appreciated.


Very truly yours,

ORDINANCE

WHEREAS, the City of Chicago ("City") is a home rule unit of government by virtue of the provisions of the Constitution of the State of Illinois of 1970, and, as such, may exercise any power and perform any function pertaining to its government and affairs; and

WHEREAS, the City is the owner of the vacant parcel of property located at 7671 South South Chicago Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60619, which is legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Property"); and

WHEREAS, Commonwealth Edison Company (the "Grantee"), which has a business address of 440 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60605, has offered to purchase the Property from the City for the sum of Thirty Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($30,000.00), such amount being the appraised fair market value of the Property, to improve with Industrial open space thereon; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 19-050-21 adopted on October 17, 2019, by the Plan Commission of the City (the "Commission"), the Commission approved the negotiated sale of the Property to the Grantee; and

WHEREAS, public notice advertising the City's intent to enter into a negotiated sale of the Property with the Grantee and requesting alternative proposals appeared in the Chicago Sun Times, a newspaper of general circulation, on September 9 and September 16, 2019; and

WHEREAS, no alternative proposals were received by the deadline indicated in the aforesaid notice; now, therefore,

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO:
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City hereby approves the sale of the Property to the Grantee for the amount of Thirty Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($30,000.00).
SECTION 2. The Mayor or his proxy is authorized to execute, and the City Clerk or Deputy City Clerk is authorized to attest, a quitclaim deed conveying the/Property to the Grantee. The quitclaim deed shall also contain language substantially in the following form:

This conveyance is subject to the express condition that: the Property is improved with Industrial open space within six (6) months of the date of this deed. In the event that the condition is not met, the City of Chicago may re-enter the Property and revest title in the City of Chicago. Grantee, at the request of the City of Chicago, covenants to execute and deliver to the City a reconveyance deed to the Property to further evidence such revesting of title. This right of reverter in favor of the City of Chicago shall terminate upon the issuance of a certificate of completion, release or similar instrument by the City of Chicago.

The Grantee acknowledges that if the Grantee develops the Property with a residential housing project, as defined under and that is subject to Section 2-44-080 of the Municipal Code of the City (the "2015 Affordable Requirements Ordinance"), the Grantee and such project shall be obligated to comply with the 2015 Affordable Requirements Ordinance.

. SECTION 3. If any provision of this ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason, the invalidity or unenforceability of such provision shall not affect any of the other provisions of this ordinance.
SECTION 4. All ordinances, resolutions, motions or orders inconsistent with this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.

SECTION 5. This ordinance shall take effect upon its passage and approval.
EXHIBIT A


Purchaser: Commonwealth Edison Company
Purchaser's Address: 440 South LaSalle
Chicago, Illinois 60605 Purchase Amount: $30,000.00 Appraised Value: $30,000.00

Legal Description (Subject to Title Commitment and Survey):

Lot 37 in Block 66 in Cornell being a subdivision of the west half of Section 26 and the southeast quarter of Section 26 with the exception of the east half of the northeast quarter of said southeast quarter of the north half of the northwest quarter, south quarter of northwest quarter lying west ofthe Illinois Central Railroad northwest quarter, northeast quarter, Section 35, Township 38 North, Range 14, East ofthe Third Principal Meridian, in Cook County, Illinois.


Address: 7671 South South Chicago Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60619


Property Index Number:
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
SECTION I - GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Legal name of the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS. Include d/b/a/ if applicable:
Conmonwealth Edison Company
Check ONE ofthe following three boxes:
Indicate whether the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is:
[X] the Applicant
OR
[ ] a legal entity currently holding, or anticipated to hold within six months after City action on
the contract, transaction or other undertaking to which this EDS pertains (referred to below as the
"Matter"), a direct or indirect interest in excess of 7.5% in the Applicant. State the Applicant's legal
name:
OR
[ ] a legal entity with a direct or indirect right of control ofthe Applicant (see Section 11(B)(1)) State the legal name of the entity in which the Disclosing Party holds a right of control:


B. Business address of the Disclosing Party: 440 South LaSalle Street
Chicago, Illinois 60605
Telephone: c/o 312-394-3504 Fax: Email: angel. perezgeomed¦ com
Name of contact person: Angelita Perez
Federal Employer Identification No. (if you have one):
Brief description of the Matter to which this EDS pertains. (Include project number and location of property, if applicable):

Acquisition of property — 7671 S. South Chicago Avenue

G. Which City agency or department is requesting this EDS? DPD

If the Matter is a contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, please complete the following:

Specification # '" and Contract #
Ver.2018-1 Page 1 of 15
SECTION II - DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP INTERESTS

NATURE OF THE DISCLOSING PARTY

[ .1 [ ]
[xl
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

[ ] Limited liability company [ ] Limited liability partnership [ ] Joint venture [ ] Not-for-profit corporation (Is the not-for-profit corporation also a 501(c)(3))?
[ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Other (please specify)

2. For legal entities, the state (or foreign country) of incorporation or organization, if applicable:



3. For legal entities not organized in the State of Illinois: Has the organization registered to do business in the State of Illinois as a foreign entity?

[x] Organized in Illinois

B. IF THE DISCLOSING PARTY IS A LEGAL ENTITY:

1. List below the full names and titles, if applicable, of: (i) all executive officers and all directors of the entity; (ii) for not-for-profit corporations, all members, if any, which are legal entities (if there are no such members, write "no members which are legal entities"); (iii) for trusts, estates or other similar entities, the trustee, executor, administrator, or similarly situated party; (iv) for general or limited partnerships, limited liability companies, limited liability partnerships or joint ventures, each general partner, managing member, manager or any other person or legal entity that directly or indirectly controls the day-to-day management of the Applicant.

NOTE: Each legal entity listed below must submit an EDS on its own behalf.

Name Title





2. Please provide the following information concerning each person or legal entity having a direct or indirect, current or prospective (i.e. within 6 months after City action) beneficial interest (including ownership) in excess of 7.5% of the Applicant. Examples of such an interest include shares in a corporation, partnership interest in a partnership or joint venture, interest of a member or manager in a

Page 2 of 15

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
Name Title
Christopher M. Crane Chairman
Terence R. Donnelly President and Chief Operating Officer
Joseph Dominguez Chief Executive Officer
Jeanne M. jones Chief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President and Treasurer
Michelle M. Blaise Senior Vice President. Technical Services
Veronica Gomez Senior Vice President, Regulatory and Energy Policy
Melissa Washington Senior Vice President, Governmental and External Affairs
David R. Perez Senior Vice President, Distribution Operations
Cheryl Maletich Senior Vice President, Transmission and Substation
Jane Park Senior Vice President, Customer Operations
Gerald Kozel Controller
Thomas S. O'Neill Secretary




DIRECTORS

James W. Compton Christopher M. Crane
A. Steven Crown
Nicholas DeBenedictis Joseph Dominguez Peter V. Fazio, Jr. Michael H. Moskow John Ochoa














#4620485

limited liability company, or interest of a beneficiary of a trust, estate or other similar entity. If none, state "None."

NOTE: Each legal entity listed below may be required to submit an EDS on its own behalf.
Name Business Address Percentage Interest in the Applicant
please see attached sheet




SECTION HI - INCOME OR COMPENSATION TO, OR OWNERSHIP BY, CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS

Has the Disclosing Party provided any income or compensation to any City elected official during the
12-month period preceding the date ofthis EDS? [X] Yes [ ] No

Does the Disclosing Party reasonably expect to provide any income or compensation to any City
elected official during the 12-month period following the date of this EDS? [X] Yes [ JNo

If "yes" to either of the above, please identify below the name(s) of such City elected official(s) and
describe such income or compensation:
see attached statement

Does any City elected official or, to the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, any City elected official's spouse or domestic partner, have a financial interest (as defined in Chapter 2-156 ofthe Municipal Code of Chicago ("MCC")) in the Disclosing Party? [JYes [X]No

If "yes," please identify below the name(s) of such City elected official(s) and/or spouse(s)/domestic partner(s) and describe the financial interest(s).



SECTION IV - DISCLOSURE OF SUBCONTRACTORS AND OTHER RETAINED PARTIES

The Disclosing Party must disclose the name and business address of each-subcontractor, attorney, lobbyist (as defined in MCC Chapter 2-156), accountant, consultant and any other person or entity whom the Disclosing Party has retained or expects to retain in connection with the Matter, as well as the nature of the relationship, and the total amount of the fees paid or estimated to be paid. The Disclosing Party is not required to disclose employees who are paid solely through the Disclosing Party's regular payroll. If the Disclosing Party is uncertain whether a disclosure is required under this Section, the Disclosing Party must either ask the City whether disclosure is required or make the disclosure.

Page 3 of 15

Section II-B-2 — Legal entities with direct interest in Applicant
Exelon Energy Delivery Company, LLC. 10 S. Dearborn St., 49th Floor, Chicago, IL 60603 holds a greater than 99% direct interest in the Applicant.



Section HI - Additional Information - Commonwealth Edison Company
The Applicant and/or its affiliates may have engaged the law firm of Klafter & Burke for legal representation during the 12-month period preceding the date hereof and may do so during the 12-month period following the date hereof. Alderman Edward M. Burke is a principal of Klafter & Burke.
The Applicant and/or its affiliates engaged the consulting company Stratagem Consulting Group, LLC as of January 4, 2019 and terminated the services of this company as of October 3, 2019. Alderman Gilbert Villegas is identified as a manager of Stratagem Consulting Group, LLC and has identified himself as having a financial interest in this entity.
Name (indicate whether Business retained or anticipated Address to be retained)

please see attached sheet
Relationship to Disclosing Party (subcontractor, attorney, lobbyist, etc.)
Fees (indicate whether paid or estimated.) NOTE: "hourly rate" or "t.b.d." is not an acceptable response.


(Add sheets if necessary)
[ ] Check here ifthe Disclosing Party has not retained, nor expects to retain, any such persons or entities. SECTION V - CERTIFICATIONS
COURT-ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT COMPLIANCE
Under MCC Section 2-92-415, substantial owners of business entities that contract with the City must remain in compliance with their child support obligations throughout the contract's term.

Has any person who directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the Disclosing Party been declared in arrearage on any child support obligations by any Illinois court of competent jurisdiction?

[ ] Yes [ ]No [X] No person directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the Disclosing Party.

If "Yes," has the person entered into a court-approved agreement for payment of all support owed and is the person in compliance with that agreement?

[ ]Yes [ ]No
FURTHER CERTIFICATIONS

[This paragraph 1 applies only if the Matter is a contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services.] In the 5-year period preceding the date of this EDS, neither the Disclosing Party nor any Affiliated Entity [see definition in (5) below] has engaged, in connection with the performance of any public contract, the services of an integrity monitor, independent private sector inspector general, or integrity compliance consultant (i.e., an individual or entity with legal, auditing, investigative, or other similar skills, designated by a public agency to help the agency monitor the activity of specified agency vendors as well as help the vendors reform their business practices so they can be considered for agency contracts in the future, or continue with a contract in progress).
The Disclosing Party and its Affiliated Entities are not delinquent in the payment of any fine, fee, tax or other source of indebtedness owed to the City of Chicago, including, but not limited to, water and sewer charges, license fees, parking tickets, property taxes and sales taxes, nor is the Disclosing Party delinquent in the payment of any tax administered by the Illinois Department of Revenue.


Page 4 of 15




C O
ca a Oi
i
I
.fc! lfl
> s
c o



CO
in IU
•a
<
g OQ
u 3
a|1010|• <
o <

C/3
O P CM 00


o
o vo

o
cd
o U










¦a
O

The Disclosing Party and, if the Disclosing Party is a legal entity, all of those persons or entities identified in Section 11(B)(1) of this EDS:

are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from any transactions by any federal, state or local unit of government;
have not, during the 5 years before the date of this EDS, been convicted of a criminal offense, adjudged guilty, or had a civil judgment rendered against them in connection with: obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; a violation of federal or state antitrust statutes; fraud; embezzlement; theft; forgery; bribery; falsification or destruction of records; making false statements; or receiving stolen property;
are not presently indicted for, or criminally or civilly charged by, a governmental entity (federal, state or local) with committing any of the offenses set forth in subparagraph (b) above;
have not, during the 5 years before the date of this EDS, had one or more public transactions (federal, state or local) terminated for cause or default; and
have not, during the 5 years before the date of this EDS, been convicted, adjudged guilty, or found liable in a civil proceeding, or in any criminal or civil action, including actions concerning environmental violations, instituted by the City or by the federal government, any state, or any other unit of local government.
The Disclosing Party understands and shall comply with the applicable requirements of MCC Chapters 2-56 (Inspector General) and 2-156 (Governmental Ethics).
Certifications (5), (6) and (7) concern:

the Disclosing Party;
any "Contractor" (meaning any contractor or subcontractor used by the Disclosing Party in connection with the Matter, including but not limited to all persons or legal entities disclosed under Section IV, "Disclosure of Subcontractors and Other Retained Parties");
any "Affiliated Entity" (meaning a person or entity that, directly or indirectly: controls the Disclosing Party, is controlled by the Disclosing Party, or is, with the Disclosing Party; under common control of another person or entity). Indicia of control include, without limitation: interlocking management or ownership; identity of interests among family members, shared facilities and equipment; common use of employees; or organization of a business entity following the ineligibility of a business entity to do business with federal or state or local government, including the City, using substantially the same management, ownership, or principals as the ineligible entity. With respect to Contractors, the term Affiliated Entity means a person or entity that directly or indirectly controls the Contractor, is controlled by it, or, with the Contractor, is under common control of another person or entity;
any responsible official ofthe Disclosing Parry, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity or any other official, agent or employee of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity, acting pursuant to the direction or authorization of a responsible official of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity (collectively "Agents").

Page 5 of 15

Neither the Disclosing Party, nor any Contractor, nor any Affiliated Entity of either the Disclosing Party or any Contractor, nor any Agents have, during the 5 years before the date ofthis EDS, or, with respect to a Contractor, an Affiliated Entity, or an Affiliated Entity of a Contractor during the 5 years before the date of such Contractor's or Affiliated Entity's contract or engagement in connection with the Matter:
bribed or attempted to bribe, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of bribery or attempting to bribe, a public officer or employee of the City, the State of Illinois, or any agency of the federal government or of any state or local government in the United States of America, in that officer's or employee's official capacity;
agreed or colluded with other bidders or prospective bidders, or been a party to any such agreement, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of agreement or collusion among bidders or prospective bidders, in restraint of freedom of competition by agreement to bid a fixed price or otherwise; or
made an admission of such conduct described in subparagraph (a) or (b) above that is a matter of record, but have not been prosecuted for such conduct; or
violated the provisions referenced in MCC Subsection 2-92-320(a)(4)(Contracts Requiring a Base Wage); (a)(5)(Debarment Regulations); or (a)(6)(Minimum Wage Ordinance).

Neither the Disclosing Party, nor any Affiliated Entity or Contractor, or any of their employees, officials, agents or partners, is barred from contracting with any unit of state or local government as a result of engaging in or being convicted of (1) bid-rigging in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-3; (2) bid-rotating in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-4; or (3) any similar offense of any state or ofthe United States of America that contains the same elements as the offense of bid-rigging or bid-rotating.
Neither the Disclosing Party nor any Affiliated Entity is listed on a Sanctions List maintained by the United States Department of Commerce, State, or Treasury, or any successor federal agency.
[FOR APPLICANT ONLY] (i) Neither the Applicant nor any "controlling person" [see MCC Chapter 1-23, Article I for applicability and defined terms] ofthe Applicant is currently indicted or charged with, or has admitted guilt of, or has ever been convicted of, or placed under supervision for, any criminal offense involving actual, attempted, or conspiracy to commit bribery, theft, fraud, forgery, perjury, dishonesty or deceit against an officer or employee of the City or any "sister agency"; and (ii) the Applicant understands and acknowledges that compliance with Article I is a continuing requirement for doing business with the City. NOTE: If MCC Chapter 1-23, Article I applies to the Applicant, that Article's permanent compliance timeframe supersedes 5-year compliance timeframes in this Section V.
[FOR APPLICANT ONLY] The Applicant and its Affiliated Entities will not use, nor permit their subcontractors to use, any facility listed as having an active exclusion by the U.S. EPA on the federal System for Award Management ("SAM").

10. [FOR APPLICANT ONLY] The Applicant will obtain from any contractors/subcontractors hired
or to be hired in connection with the Matter certifications equal in form and substance to those in
Certifications (2) and (9) above and will not, without the prior written consent ofthe City, use any such
Ver.2018-1 Page 6 of 15

contractor/subcontractor that does not provide such certifications or that the Applicant has reason to believe has not piovided or cannot provide truthful certifications.

11. If the Disclosing Party is unable to certify to any of the above statements in this Part B (Further
Certifications), the Disclosing Party must explain below:
see attac-.hpd pxplanation



If the letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.

12. To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all current employees ofthe Disclosing Party who were, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the date of this EDS, an employee, or elected or appointed official, ofthe City of Chicago (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none").
none — rpp attached pxp1flnai--j nn



13. To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a
complete list of all gifts that the Disclosing Party has given or caused to be given, at any time during
the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, to an employee, or elected or appointed
official, ofthe City of Chicago. For purposes ofthis statement, a "gift" does not include: (i) anything
made generally available to City employees or to the general public, or (ii) food or drink provided in
the course of official City business and having a retail value ofless than $25 per recipient, or (iii) a
political contribution otherwise duly reported as required by law (if none, indicate with "N/A" or
"none"). As to any gift listed below, please also list the name of the City recipient.
none — see attached explanation



;C. CERTIFICATION OF STATUS AS FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
The Disclosing Party certifies that the Disclosing Party (check one)
[ ]is is not
a "financial institution" as defined in MCC Section 2-32-455(b).
If the Disclosing Party IS a financial institution, then the Disclosing Party pledges:
"We are not and will not become a predatory lender as defined in MCC Chapter 2-32. We further pledge that none of our affiliates is, and none of them will become, a predatory lender as defined in MCC Chapter 2-32. We understand that becoming a predatory lender or becoming an affiliate of a predatory lender may result in the loss of the privilege of doing business with the City."

Page-7ofl5

Ifthe Disclosing Party is unable to make this pledge because it or any of its affiliates (as defined in MCC Section 2-32-455(b)) is a predatory lender within the meaning of MCC Chapter 2-32, explain here (attach additional pages ifnecessary):




Ifthe letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.

D. CERTIFICATION REGARDING FINANCIAL INTEREST IN CITY BUSINESS

Any words or terms defined in MCC Chapter 2-156 have the same meanings if used in this Part D.
In accordance with MCC Section 2-156-110: To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, does any official or employee of the City have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name ofany other person or entity in the Matter?

[ 3 Yes [x] No

NOTE: Tf you checked "Yes" to Item D(l), proceed to Items D(2) and D(3). If you checked "No" to Item D(l), skip Items D(2) and D(3) and proceed to Part E.
Unless sold pursuant to a process of competitive bidding, or otherwise permitted, no City elected official or employee shall have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name ofany other person or entity in the purchase of any property that (i) belongs to the City, or (ii) is sold for taxes or assessments, or (iii) is sold by virtue of legal process at the suit of the City (collectively, "City Property Sale"). Compensation for property taken pursuant to the City's eminent domain power does not constitute a financial interest within the meaning of this Part D.

Does the Matter involve a City Property Sale?

[XjYes [JNo
If you checked "Yes" to Item D(l), provide the names and business addresses of the City officials or employees having such financial interest and identify the nature ofthe financial interest:

Name Business Address Nature of Financial Interest
¦ None




4. The Disclosing Party further certifies that no prohibited financial interest in the Matter will be acquired by any City official or employee.

Page 8 ofl 5

E. CERTIFICATION REGARDING SLAVERY ERA BUSINESS

Please check either (1) or (2) below. Ifthe Disclosing Party checks (2), the Disclosing Party must disclose below or in an attachment to this EDS all information required by (2). Failure to comply with these disclosure requirements may make any contract entered into with the City in connection with the Matter voidable by the City.

X 1. The Disclosing Party verifies that the Disclosing Party has searched any and all records of the Disclosing Party and any and all predecessor entities regarding records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies during the slavery era (including insurance policies issued to slaveholders that provided coverage for damage to or injury or death of their slaves), and the Disclosing Party has found no such records.

2. Tlie Disclosing Party verifies that, as a result of conducting the search in step (1) above, the
Disclosing Party has found records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies. The Disclosing Party verifies that the following constitutes full disclosure of all such records, including the names ofany and all slaves or slaveholders described in those records:





SECTION VI - CERTIFICATIONS FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED MATTERS

NOTE: If the Matter is federally funded, complete this Section VI. If the Matter is not federally funded, proceed to Section VII. For purposes ofthis Section VI, tax credits allocated by the City and proceeds of debt obligations of the City are not federal funding.
This matter is not federally funded A. CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING

1. List below the names of all persons or entities registered under the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, as amended, who have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter: (Add sheets if necessary):




(If no explanation appears or begins on the lines above, or ifthe letters "NA" or if the word "None" appear, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party means that NO persons or entities registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, as amended, have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter.)

2. The Disclosing Party has not spent and will not expend any federally appropriated funds to pay
any person or entity listed in paragraph A(l) above for his or her lobbying activities or to pay any
person or entity to influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, as defined
by applicable federal law, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee
Ver.2018-1 Page 9 of 15

of a member of Congress, in connection with the award of any federally funded contract, making any federally funded grant or loan, entering into any cooperative agreement, or to extend, continue, renew, amend, or modify any federally funded contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
The Disclosing Party will submit an updated certification at the end of each calendar quarter in which there occurs any event that materially affects the accuracy of the statements and information set forth in paragraphs A(l) and A(2) above.
The Disclosing Party certifies that either: (i) it is not an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or (ii) it is an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 but has not engaged and will not engage in "Lobbying Activities," as that term is defined in the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, as amended.
If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party must obtain certifications equal in form and substance to paragraphs A(l) through A(4) above from all subcontractors before it awards any subcontract and the Disclosing Party must maintain all such subcontractors' certifications for the duration of the Matter and must make such certifications promptly available to the City upon request.

B. CERTIFICATION REGARDING EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

If the Matter is federally funded, federal regulations require the Applicant and all proposed subcontractors to submit the following information with their bids or in writing at the outset of negotiations.

Is the Disclosing Party the Applicant?
[ ] Yes [ ] No

If "Yes," answer the three questions below:
Have you developed and do you have on file affirmative action programs pursuant to applicable federal regulations? (See 41 CFR Part 60-2.)
[ ]Yes [ ]No
Have you filed with the Joint Reporting Committee, the Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission all reports due under the applicable filing requirements?
[ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Reports not required
Have you participated in any previous contracts or subcontracts subject to the equal opportunity clause?
[ ] Yes [ ] No

If you checked "No" to question (1) or (2) above, please provide an explanation:



Page 10 of 15

SECTION VII - FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND CERTIFICATION

The Disclosing Party understands and agrees that:
The certifications, disclosures, and acknowledgments contained in this EDS will become part of any contract or other agreement between the Applicant and the City in connection with the Matter, whether procurement, City assistance, or other City action, and are material inducements to the City's execution of any contract or taking other action with respect to the Matter. The Disclosing Party understands that it must comply with all statutes, ordinances, and regulations on which this EDS is based.
The City's Governmental Ethics Ordinance, MCC Chapter 2-156, imposes certain duties and obligations on persons or entities seeking City contracts, work, business, or transactions. The full text of this ordinance and a training program is available on line at www.cityofchicago.org/Ethics , and may also be obtained from the City's Board of Ethics, 740 N. Sedgwick St., Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60610, (312) 744-9660. The Disclosing Party must comply fully with this ordinance.
Ifthe City determines that any information provided in this EDS is false, incomplete or inaccurate, any contract or other agreement in connection with which it is submitted may be rescinded or be void or voidable, and the City may pursue any remedies under the contract or agr eement (if not rescinded or void), at law, or in equity, including terminating the Disclosing Party's participation in the Matter and/or declining to allow the Disclosing Party to participate in other City transactions. Remedies at law for a false statement of material fact may include incarceration and an award to the City of treble damages.
It is the City's policy to make this document available to the public on its Internet site and/or upon request. Some or all ofthe information provided in, and appended to, this EDS may be made publicly available on the Internet, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, or otherwise. By completing and signing this EDS, the Disclosing Party waives and releases any possible rights or claims which it may have against the City in connection with the public release of information contained in this EDS and also authorizes the City to verify the accuracy of any information submitted in this EDS.
The information provided in this EDS must be kept current. In the event of changes, the Disclosing Party must supplement this EDS up to the time the City takes action on the Matter. If the Matter is a contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, the Disclosing Party must update this EDS as the contract requires. NOTE: With respect to Matters subject to MCC Chapter 1-23, Article I (imposing PERMANENT INELIGIBILITY for certain specified offenses), the information provided herein regarding eligibility must be kept current for a longer period, as required by MCC Chapter 1-23 and Section 2-154-020.








Page 11 of 15
CERTIFICATION
Under penalty of perjury, the person signing below: (1) warrants that he/she is authorized to execute this EDS, and all applicable Appendices, on behalf of the Disclosing Party, and (2) warrants that all certifications and statements contained in this EDS, and all applicable Appendices, are true, accurate and complete as of the date furnished to the City.


Commonwealth Edison .Company
(Print or type exact legal name of Disclosing Party)
(Sign here)

(Print or type name of person signing)






Signed and sworn to before me on (date)















Page 12 of 15

CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX A

FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ELECTED CITY OFFICIALS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS

This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5%. It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.

Under MCC Section 2-154-015, the Disclosing Party must disclose whether such Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently has a "familial relationship" with any elected city official or department head. A "familial relationship" exists if, as of the date this EDS is signed, the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof is related to the mayor, any alderman, the city clerk, the city treasurer or any city department head as spouse or domestic partner or as any of the following, whether by blood or adoption: parent, child, brother or sister, aunt or uncle, niece or nephew, grandparent, grandchild, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepfatiier or stepmother, stepson or stepdaughter, stepbrother or stepsister or half-brother or half-sister.

"Applicable Party" means (1) all executive officers of the Disclosing Party listed in Section II.B.l.a., ifthe Disclosing Party is a corporation; all partners of the Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Party is a general partnership; all general partners and limited partners of the Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a limited partnership; all managers, managing members and members of the Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a limited liability company; (2) all principal officers ofthe Disclosing Party; and (3) any person having more than a 7.5% ownership interest in the Disclosing Party. "Principal officers" means the president, chief operating officer, executive director, chief financial officer, treasurer or secretary of a legal entity or any person exercising similar authority.

Does the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently have a "familial relationship" with an elected city official or department head?

[ ] Yes [x] No see attached comment
If yes, please identify below (1) the name and title of such person, (2) the name of the legal entity to which such person is connected; (3) the name and title of the elected city official or department head to whom such person has a familial relationship, and (4) the precise nature of such familial relationship.









Page 13 of IS

CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX B

BUILDING CODE SCOFFLAW/PROBLEM LANDLORD CERTIFICATION

This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5% (an "Owner"). It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Pursuant to MCC Section 2-154-010, is the Applicant or any Owner identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to MCC Section 2-92-416?

[]Yes [xlNo
If the Applicant is a legal entity publicly traded on any exchange, is any officer or director of the Applicant identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to MCC Section 2-92-416?

[ ] Yes [ ] No [X] The Applicant is not publicly traded on any exchange.


3. If yes to (1) or (2) above, please identify below the name of each person or legal entity identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord and the address of each building or buildings to which the pertinent code violations apply.























Page 14 of IS

CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX C

PROHIBITION ON WAGE & SALARY HISTORY SCREENING - CERTIFICATION

This Appendix is to be completed only by an Applicant that is completing this EDS as a "contractor" as defined in MCC Section 2-92-385. That section, which should be consulted (www.amlegal.com- ). generally covers a party to any agreement pursuant to which they: (i) receive City of Chicago funds in consideration for services, work or goods provided (including for legal or other professional services), or (ii) pay the City money for a license, grant or concession allowing them to conduct a business on City premises.

On behalf of an Applicant that is a contractor pursuant to MCC Section 2-92-385,1 hereby certify that the Applicant is in compliance with MCC Section 2-92-385(b)(l) and (2), which prohibit: (i) screening job applicants based on their wage or salary history, or (ii) seeking job applicants' wage or salary history from current or former employers. I also certify that the Applicant has adopted a policy that includes those prohibitions.

[]Yes

[ JNo

[X] N/A -1 am not an Applicant that is a "contractor" as defined in MCC Section 2-92-385.
see attached statement This certification shall serve as the affidavit required by MCC Section 2-92-385(c)(l).

If you checked "no" to the above, please explain.




















Page 15 of 15

Response to question 11 -- Comments on Section V-B Further Certifications
V-B-l: This certification does not apply to the Disclosing Party as the Matter is not a contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services.
V-B-2: The Disclosing Party, to the best of its knowledge, certifies that it is not delinquent in the payment of any tax administered by the Illinois Department of Revenue, except for taxes that are being contested in good faith in applicable legal proceedings (whether judicial or administrative). To the best of the knowledge of the Disclosing Party, neither the Disclosing Party nor its Affiliated Entities are delinquent in paying any fine, fee, tax or other source of indebtedness owed to the City of Chicago ("Debts") except for Debts which are being contested in good faith in applicable legal proceedings.
Representatives and agents of the Disclosing Party and its Affiliated Entities meet with City representatives or other receive information from the City on a monthly or other regular basis to identify outstanding Debts duly payable by the Disclosing Party and its Affiliated Entities and any such Debts are settled accordingly.
V-B-3-a: Disclosing Party certifies to this Statement to the best of its knowledge.
V-B-3-b, c and e and V-B-5-a, b and c: The Disclosing Party is routinely involved in litigation in various state and federal courts. With approximately 33,400 full-time equivalent employees (as of the end of 2018), such a large business presence and a wide variety of activities subject to complex and extensive regulatory frameworks at the local, state, and federal levels, it is not possible for the Disclosing Party and its Affiliated Entities to perform due diligence across the full panoply of associates in preparing the Disclosing Party's response and it is possible that allegations or findings of civil or criminal liability, as well as the termination of one or more transactions for various reasons may have arisen and pertain to or be the subject of matters covered in these certifications. The Disclosing Party (including with respect to those persons identified in Section 11(B)(1) who are employed by the Disclosing Party) makes all required disclosures in the Forms 10-K, 10-Q and 8-K (filed by its parent corporation, the Exelon Corporation, with the Securities and Exchange Commission) and in the Annual Report of its parent corporation as posted on its website. These filings include disclosures of investigations and litigation as required by the securities regulatory organizations and federal law, and are publicly available (a copy of the "Environmental Remediation Matters" or "Environmental Issues" and "Litigation and Regulatory Matters" portions of the Forms 10-K and 10-Q filed by the Disclosing Party's parent corporation for calendar year 2018 and the first, second and third quarters of 2019 are attached). The Disclosing Party cannot confirm or deny the existence of any other non-public investigation conducted by any governmental agency unless required to do so by law. With respect to those persons identified in Section 11(B)(1) who are not employed by the Disclosing Party (such as independent directors), such persons are involved in a wide variety of business, charitable, social and other activities and transactions independent of their activities on behalf of the Disclosing Party and the Disclosing Party cannot further certify. As for any unrelated Contractor, Affiliated Entity or such Contractors or Agents of either ("Unrelated Entities"), however, the Disclosing Party certifies that with respect to the Matter it has not and will not knowingly hire, without disclosure to the City of Chicago, any Unrelated Entities who are unable to certify to such statements and the Disclosing Party cannot further certify as to the

Unrelated Entities. It is the Disclosing Party's policy to diligently investigate any allegations relevant to the requested certifications, promptly resolve any allegations or findings and at all times comply in good faith with all applicable legal requirements.
V-B-3-d: The Disclosing Party performed due diligence within the Governmental and External Affairs department ofthe Disclosing Party ("Governmental Group") to determine whether any Governmental Group employees were aware of any public transactions (federal, state or local) having been terminated for cause or default within the last five years, and none of such employees were aware of any such transactions.
V-B-5 and 6: Please note that our responses are on behalf of the Disclosing Party and its Affiliated Entities only and not on behalf of any Contractors.
V-B-5-d, 6 and 7: Disclosing Party certifies to this Statement to the best of its knowledge.
V-IO: Disclosing Party certifies this Statement only as to any third parties directly retained by Applicant in connection with the Matter.
Comment on Section V-B-l2 Certification
V-B-12: To the best of Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, none of the persons identified in Section 11(B)(1) of this EDS were employees, or elected or appointed officials of the City of Chicago during the period of November 11, 2018 through November 11, 2019. The Disclosing Party has approximately 6,200 full-time equivalent employees and is unaware of any particular employee having been a City of Chicago employee or elected or appointed official during the time period previously described, but did not, for its new hires during the period of November 11, 2018 through November 11, 2019, collect data on immediately preceding employment by the City of Chicago or status of a new hire as an elected or appointed official of the City of Chicago.
Comment on Section V-B-13 Certification
V-B-l 3: The Disclosing Party certifies to the best of its knowledge that there have been no gifts within the prior 12 months to an employee, or elected or appointed official of the City of Chicago.
Comment on Appendix A — Familiar Relationships
To the best of Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, none of the Disclosing Party's "Applicable Parties" or any Spouses or Domestic Partners thereof currently have a "familial relationship" with an elected city official or department head.
Comment on Appendix C - Wage & Salary History Screening
Pursuant to a long-term franchise agreement, equipment comprising the Applicant's electrical grid system is installed within City of Chicago streets, alleys and other City properties. The Applicant provides compensation to the City in connection with the Applicant's maintenance of equipment in these areas in accordance with state law (the Illinois Electricity Infrastructure

Maintenance Fee Law). In light of these arrangements, the Applicant has concluded that it is not a "contractor" within the scope of Section 2-92-385 of the Municipal Code.
EXELON CORPORATION -- 2018 FORM 10-K
Combined Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements - (Continued) (Dollars in millions, except per share data unless otherwise noted)

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:

0aceinber31, 2018 Dacimbsr 31, 2017
DOE receivable - current$ 124 $ 94
DOE receivable - noncurrent <*i 15 15
Amounts owed to co-owners <*)Recorded in Accounts receivable, other.
Recorded in Deferred debits and other assets, other
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 lhe DOE also required the payment lo 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 S277 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 lo 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.

430
Combined Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements - (Continued) (Dollars in millions, oxcept per share data unloss otherwise noted)

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 infomiation 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.

Total environmental
Investigation Portion of total related to MGP
Oecembar 31, 2018 and remediation reserve Investigation and remediation
Exelon $ 496 S 356
Generation 108 —
ComEd 329 327
PECO 27 25
BGE|9910|PHI 27 —
Pepco 25 —
DPL|99|—
ACE|99|—
431
Combined Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements - (Continued) (Dollars in millions, except per sharo data unless otherwise noted)

Total environmental
Investigation Ponton of total related to MGP
December 31.2017 and remediation reserve investigation and remediation
Exelon $ 466 $ 315
Generation 117 —
ComEd 285 283
PECO '30 28
BGE|9910|PHI 29 —
Pepco 27 —
DPL|99|—
ACE|910|
Cotter Corporation (Exelon and Generation). The EPA has advised Cotter Corporation (Cotter), a former ComEd subsidiary, that it is potentially liable in connection wilh 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 Ihe 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 oMhe 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

432

Combinod Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements - (Continued) (Dollars in millions, except per share data unloss otherwise notod)

or lhe 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 Ihe 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 contnbution 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, Ihe 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 lo toll Ihe 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 (Rl)/ 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 nol obligate Pepco or Pepco Energy Services to pay for or perform any remediation work, but it is anticipated that DOEE will look to Pepco arid Pepco Energy Services to assume responsibility for cleanup of any conditions in the river

433
Combined Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements - (Continued) (Dollars in millions, oxcopt per share data unless otherwise noted)

lhat 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 Rl work and have submitted multiple draft Rl reports to the DOEE Once the Rl work is completed, Pepco and Generation will issue a draft "final" Rl 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 Rl and FS, and approval by the DOEE, by May 6, 2019.

Upon DOEE's approval of the final Rl 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 Rl Report for public review and comment. The river-wide Rl 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 Rl 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 lhat 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 Ihe 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.

434
Combined Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements - (Continued) (Dollars in millions, except per share data unless otherwise noted)

At December 31, 2018 and 2017 , Generation had recorded estimated liabilities o( approximately $79 million and S78 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 againsl 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 tha 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

435
Combined Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements - (Continued) (Dollars in millions, except per share data unless othorwise noted)

effective November 1, 2015, from $12 million to $42 million , subject lo an annual increase thereafter based on Ihe 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 lo $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 S28 million for lhe 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 Apnl 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 lo 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 Supenor 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 penods, 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 thai 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 eady 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.

23. Supplemental Financial Information (All Registrants)

Supplemental Statement of Operations Information

The following tables provide additional information about the Registrants' Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income for the years ended December31, 2018 , 2017 and 2016 .

For the year ended December 31, 2018


ComEd PECO BGE

Taxes other than Income

273
30

114 $ 243 $ 131 $ 94 $
130
27
17
15 143
16
Other

556 S 311 $ 163 S 254 S

436

EXELON CORPORATION -- 2019 FIRST QUARTER FORM 10-Q
"I abia oi Conie'its
COMBINED NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued) (Dollars in millions, except per share data, unless otherwise noted)

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 fora 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 $335 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 Ihe 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.

115
COMBINED NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued) (Dollars in millions, except per share data, unless otherwise noted)

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 andfor remediation. ComEd expects the majority of the remediation at these sites to continue through al 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 Ihe majority ofthe 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 Ihe 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 March 31, 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:

Total environmental Portion of total related to
Investigation and MGP Investigation and
March 31.2019 remediation reserve remediation
Exelon $ 486 $ 347
Generation 108 —
ComEd 320 318
PECO 27 25
BGE|9910|PHI 26 —
Pepco 24
DPL|99|—
ACE|99|—

116
COMBINED NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued) (Dollars in millions, except per share data, unless otherwise noted)

Total environmental Portion of total related to
Investigation and MGP Investigation and
December 31. 2018 remediation reserve remediation
Exelon $ 496 S 356
Generation 108 —
ComEd 329 327
PECO 27 25
BGE|9910|PHI 27 —
Pepco 25 —
DPL|99|—
ACE|99|—
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 are negotiating Consent Agreements to design and implement the ROD remedy, and negotiations are 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. 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 fo 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.

117
COMBINED NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued) (Dollars in millions, except per share data, unless otherwise noted)

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 stale 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 (Rl)/ 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 far 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 Rl work and have submitted multiple draft Rl reports to the DOEE. Once the Rl work is completed, Pepco and Generation will issue a draft "final" Rl 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 Rl and FS, and approval by the DOEE, by September 16, 2021.

Upon DOEE's approval of the final Rl 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-

118
COMBINED NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued) (Dollars in millions, except per share data, unless otherwise noted)

wide Rl Report for public review and comment. The river-wide Rl 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 ad|acent 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 Rl and participated in a public hearing. Pepco continues outreach efforts as appropnate 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 lo 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 March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018 , Generation had recorded estimated liabilities of approximately $77 million and $79 million , respectively, in total for asbestos-related bodily injury claims. As of March 31, 2019 , approximately $25 million ofthis amount related to 239 open claims presented to Generation, while the remaining $52 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 lo Ihe 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 (tie 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

119
COMBINED NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued) (Dollars in millions, except per share data, unless otherwise noted)

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 Ihe City's claims before the EACC and will continue to do so in the Massachusetts Superior Court proceeding. Generation continues to believe lhat 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, particulariy 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.

17. Supplemental Financial Information (All Registrants)

Supplemental Statement of Operations Information

The following tables provide additional information about the Registrants' Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income for Ihe three months ended March 31, 2019 and 2018 .

Three Months Endod March 31, ZOU
Othir. Net
Decommisuoning-related activities:
Nat realized income on NDT funds (¦) Regulatory agreement units (b> Non-regulatory agreement units Net unrealized gains on NOT funds Regulatory agreement units Non-regulatory agreement units Regulatory offset to NOT fund-related activities Interest income rotated to uncertain income tax positions AFUDC — Equity
Non-servico net penodlc benefit cost
Other
Other, net
BOE PHI Pepco DPL ACE



54$ 54 $ _» _$_$_$ _$_$
54 54 ______

379 379 ______
280 280 — — _ ¦ _
(348) (348) — — —
419 419 ______
12|99|— 1 . — — — —

22 —|9999 9|6 1
|10999|— —|99|1 2
467 S 430 S 8S 4 J 5 i 12 S 7 $ 3 S

120
2019 SECOND QUARTER FORM 10-Q
J a bio Cor.ionU
COMBINED NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued) (Dollars in millions, except per share data, unless otherwise noted)

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 lo comply wilh 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 Coniroi. 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 Ihe 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 dean-up costs, they have historically received recovery of actual clean-up costs in distribution rates.

109
Tabla of Contents
COMBINED NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued) (Dollars in millions, except per share data, unless otherwise noted)
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:

Total environmental Portion of total related to
Investigetion end MGP Investigation and
June 30.2019 remediation reserve remediation
Exelon S 482 $ 345
Generation 107 —
ComEd 318 318
PECO 25 24
BGE|9910|PHI 27 —
Pepco 24 —
DPL|910|ACL-|99|—
Total environmental Portion of total related to
Investigation and MGP Investigation and
December 31.2018 remedletion reserve remediation
Exelon $ 496 $ 356
Generation 108 —
ComEd 329 327
PECO 27 25
BGE|9910|PHI 27 —
Pepco 25 —
DPL|99|—
ACE|99|—

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

110

j able of Contents
COMBINED NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued) (Dollars in millions, except per share data, unless otherwise noted)

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 infonnation 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 (he 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 S20 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 passible 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 (hat 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 (he amount that it is seeking, but it is believed to be approximately S90 million from all PRPs. Pursuant to a series of annual agreements since 2011, the DOJ and (he 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 Ihe 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 (he 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 con(amination 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

111
i a:ila oi ConU.-nts
COMBINED NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued) (Dollars in millions, except per share data, unless otherwise noted)

conduct a Remediation Investigation (Rl)/ Feasibility Study (FS) for the Benning Road site and an approximately 10 to 15-acre portion ot 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 lhat 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 Rl work and have submitted multiple draft Rl reports to the DOEE. Once lhe Rl work is completed, Pepco and Generation will issue a draft "final" Rl 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 (o DOEE. The Court has established a schedule for completion of the Rl and FS, and approval by the DOEE, by September 16, 2021.

Upon DOEE's approval of the final Rl 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 tho Anacostia and Potomac Rivers. In March 2016, DOEE released a draft of the river-wide Rl Report for public review and comment. The river-wide Rl 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 Rl 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.

112
Tabic of Conisnts
COMBINED NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued) (Dollars in millions, except per share data, unless otherwise noted)

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 S60 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.

113
EXELON CORPORATION - 2019 THIRD QUARTER FORM 10-Q
COMBINED NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued) (Dollars in millions, except per share data, unless otherwise noted)
Note 16 — Commitments and Contingencies
Surety bonds—Guarantees issued related to contract and commercial agreements, excluding bid bonds.
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 guaranteed by Exelon and PHI, of which $22 million, $29 million and $17 million is guaranteed by Pepco, DPL and ACE, respectively. Historically, payments under the guarantees have nol been made and PHI believes the likelihood of payments being required under the guarantees is remote.
Environmental Remediation Matters

Genera/ (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 21 sites 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 al least 2025.

PECO has 8 sites 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 4 sites that currently require some level of remediation and/or ongoing activity. BGE expects the majority of (he remediation at these sites to continue through at least 2021.

DPL has 1 site that is currently under study and Lhe 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 (he 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. 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.

109
COrVlBINED NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued) (Dollars in millions, except per share data, unless otherwise noted)
Note 16 — Commitments and Contingencies

As of September 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:

September 30, 2011

Exelon
Generation
ComEd
PECO
BGE
PHI
Pepco
DPL
ACE
Total environmental
InvesUgetion end remediation liabilities

507 107 328 20 3 49 47 1 1
Portion of total related to MGP Investigation and remediation

346
327 18 1
Total environmental
InvesUgetion and remediation debilities

496 108 329 27 5 27 25 1 1
Portion of total related to MGP Investlgetion and remediation

356

327 25 4
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 egreed 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 cun-ent 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 Ihe 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

110

COMBINED NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued) (Dollars in millions, except per share data, unless otherwise noted)
Note 16 — Commitments and Contingencies

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 componenL 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 February 2020 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.

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, which was deactivated in June 2012. 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 (Riy Feasibility Study (FS) for the Benning Road site and an approximately 10 to 15-acre portion of the adjacent Anacostia River.

Since 2013, Pepco and Pepco Energy Services (now Generation, pursuant to Exelon's 2016 acquisition of PHI) have been performing Rl work and have submitted multiple draft Rl reports to the DOEE. Once the Rl work is completed, Pepco and Generation will issue a draft "final" Rl report for review and comment by DOEE and the public. Pepco and Generation will then proceed to develop a FS to evaluate possible remedial alternatives for submission to DOEE. The Court has established a schedule for completion of the Rl and FS, and approval by the DOEE, by September 16, 2021.

DOEE will then prepare a Proposed Plan and issue a Record of Decision identifying any further response actions determined to be necessary, after considering public comment on the Proposed Plan. PHI, Pepco and Generation have determined, (hat a loss associated with this matter is probable and have accrued an estimated liability, which is included in the (able above.

Anacostia River Tidal Reach (Exelon, PHI and Pepco). Contemporaneous with the Benning Road site RI/FS being performed by Pepco and Generation, DOEE and the National Park Service have been conducting a separate RI/FS focused on (he entire tidal reach of the Anacostia River extending from just north of the Maryland-District of Columbia boundary line to the confluence of the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers. The river-wide Rl 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 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 Road site RI/FS. In addition, the District of Columbia Council directed DOEE to form an official advisory committee made up of members of federal, state and local environmental regulators, community and environmental groups and various academic and technical experts to provide guidance and support to DOEE as the project progressed. This group, called the Anacostia Leadership Council, has met regularly since it was formed. Pepco has participated in the Consultative Working

111
COMBINED NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued) (Dollars in millions, except per share data, unless otherwise noted)
Note 16 — Commitments and Contingencies

Group. In April 2018, DOEE released a draft Rl report for public review and comment. Pepco submitted written comments to the draft Rl and participated in a public hearing. The District of Columbia Council has set a deadline of December 31, 2019 for completion of the Record of Decision. An appropriate liability for Pepco's share of investigation costs has been accrued and is included in the table above.

Pepco has determined that it is probable that costs for remediation will be incurred and recorded a liability in the third quarter 2019 for management's best estimate of its share based on DOEE's stated position following a series of meetings attended by representatives from the Anacostia Leadership Council and the Consultative Working Group. A draft FS, which Pepco believes will include the process to identify potential short-term remedies and actions based on the technical findings in the Rl report and their estimated costs to the extent possible, is being prepared by DOEE and is expected later in the fourth quarter of 2019. DOEE and likely the National Park Sen/ice will continue to oversee ongoing remediation efforts and potential longer-term remedies for the Anacostia River. Pepco has concluded that Incremental exposure remains reasonably possible, however management cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss beyond the amounts recorded, which are included in the table above.

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 Natural Resource Damage Trustees, who are defined by CERCLA as the responsible parties for the restoration or compensation for any loss of those resources from the environmental contaminants at the site. If natural resources cannot be restored, then compensation for the injury can be sought from the responsible parties. 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 September 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, Exelon and Generation had recorded estimated liabilities of approximately $83 million and $79 million, respectively, in total for asbestos-related bodily injury claims. As of September 30, 2019, approximately $25 million of this amount related to 257 open claims presented to Generation, while the remaining $58 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.

It is reasonably possible that additional exposure to estimated future asbestos-related bodily injury claims in excess of the amount accrued 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,

112
COMBINED NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued) (Dollars in millions, except per share data, unless otherwise noted)
Note 16 — Commitments and Contingencies

it is reasonably possible that property taxes assessed in future periods, Including those following the expiration of the current TIF Agreement in 2020, could be material to Generation's financial statements.

Subpoenas (Exelon and ComEd). Exolon and ComEd received a grand jury subpoena in the second quarter of 2019 from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois requiring production of information concerning their lobbying activities in the State of Illinois. On October 4, 2019, Exelon and ComEd received a second grand jury subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois requiring production of records of any communications with certain individuals and entities. On October 22, 2019, the SEC notified Exelon and ComEd that it has also opened an investigation into their lobbying activities. Exelon and ComEd have cooperated fully and intend to continue to cooperate fully and expeditiously with the U.S. Attorney's Office and the SEC. Exelon and ComEd cannot predict the outcome of the subpoenas or (he SEC investigation.

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.

17. Supplemental Financial Information (All Registrants)

Supplemental Statement of Operations Information

The following (ables provide additional information about material items recorded in the Registrants' Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income.


Taxis other than Incoms
Exalon Generation ComEd PECO BGE PHI Pepco DPL ACE
Three Months Ended September 30, 2019
Utility taxeaW $ 241 $ 29 S 68 $ 38 $ 21 $ 86 t 81 J 5 J —
Property 148 66 7 5 39 31 21 9 —
Payroll 57 28 7 3 4 6 2 1 1
Three Months Ended September 30, Z01B
Utility taunts) J 253 $ 32 $ 67 $ 39 $ 23 $ 92 $ 87 $ 5 $ —
Property 145 70|999|37 26 • 16 9 —
Payroll 58 31|999999910|
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2019
Utility taxesM $ 672 $ 87 $ 183 $ 102 $ 68 % 231 $ 217 $ 14 $ —
Property 444 205 22 12 114 91 64 25|910|Payroll 185 92 2i 11 13 20 5.3|910|Nine Months Ended September 30, 2018
Utility taxeste) $ 705 S 92 $ 188 $ 102 $ 70 J 253 $ 238 t 15 S —
Property 416 204 22 12 106 71 45 24|910|Payroll 191 99 20 11 12 19|99910|(a) Generation's utility tax represents gross receipts tax related to its retail operations, and the Utility Registrants' utility taxes represents municipal and state utility taxes and grass receipts taxes related to their operating revenues. The offsetting collection of utility taxes from customers is recorded in revenues in the Registrants' Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income.
113

CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT

SECTION I - GENERAL INFORMATION
Legal name of the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS. Include d/b/a/ if applicable:
Exelon Energy Delivery Company. LLC
Check ONE ofthe following three boxes:

Indicate whether the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is:
[ ] the Applicant
OR
[X] a legal entity currently holding, or anticipated to hold within six months after City action on the contract, transaction or other undertaking to which this EDS pertains (referred to below as the "Matter"), a direct or indirect interest in excess of 7.5% in the Applicant. State the Applicant's legal
Cqnmornraalth Edison Company
[ ] a legal entity with a direct or indirect right of control of the Applicant (see Section 11(B)(1)) State the legal name of the entity in which the Disclosing Party holds a right of control:
Business address of the Disclosing Party: 10 S. Dearborn St., 49th Floor
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: c/o 312-394-3504 Fax: Email: angel. perez(3corned.com
Name of contact person: Angelita Perez
Federal Employer Identification No. (if you have one):

Brief description of the Matter to which this EDS pertains. (Include project number and location of property, if applicable):

Acquisition nf propprty — 7671 S. South Chicago Avenue
Which City agency or department is requesting this EDS? DPD

If the Matter is a contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, please complete the following:

Specification # and Contract ii
Ver.2018-1 Page 1 of 15

SECTION II - DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP INTERESTS

A. NATURE OF THE DISCLOSING PARTY
] Person
] Publicly registered business corporation ] Privately held business corporation ] Sole proprietorship ] General partnership ] Limited partnership ] Trust
[x] Limited liability company
[ ] Limited liability partnership
[ ] Joint venture
[ ] Not-for-profit corporation
(Is the not-for-profit corporation also a 501(c)(3))?
[ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Other (please specify)

2. For legal entities, the state (or foreign country) of incorporation or organization, if applicable: Delaware
3. For legal entities not organized in the State of Illinois: Has the organization registered to do business in the State of Illinois as a foreign entity?

[ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Organized in Illinois

B. IF THE DISCLOSING PARTY IS A LEGAL ENTITY:

1. List below the full names and titles, if applicable, of: (i) all executive officers and all directors of the entity; (ii) for not-for-profit corporations, all members, if any, which are legal entities (if there are no such members, write "no members which are legal entities"); (iii) for trusts, estates or other similar entities, the trustee, executor, administrator, or similarly situated party; (iv) for general or limited partnerships, limited liability companies, limited liability partnerships or joint ventures, each general partner, managing member, manager or any other person or legal entity that directly or indirectly controls the day-to-day management ofthe Applicant.

NOTE: Each legal entity listed below must submit an EDS on its own behalf.

Name Title
—See Exhibit A atfarhpri — Management Officials ¦
Exelon Corporation - Sole Member


2. Please provide the following information concerning each person or legal entity having a direct or indirect, current or prospective (i.e. within 6 months after City action) beneficial interest (including ownership) in excess of 7.5% of the Applicant. Examples of such an interest include shares in a corporation, partnership interest in a partnership or joint venture, interest of a member or manager in a

Page 2 of 15

Exelon Energy Delivery Company, LLC

People Controlling Day-To-Day Management Of Disclosure Party
Name Title
Robert A. Kleczynski Vice President, Taxes
Benjamin Haas Assistant Vice President, Taxes
Jonathan Lyman Assistant Vice President, Taxes
Elisabeth J. Graham Treasurer
Ryan Brown Assistant Treasurer
Katherine A. Smith Secretary
Brian Buck Assistant Secretary
Carter C. Culver Assistant Secretary
Elizabeth Hensen Assistant Secretary


































#4620483

limited liability company, or interest of a beneficiary of a trust, estate or other similar entity. If none, state "None."

NOTE: Each legal entity listed below may be required to submit an EDS on its own behalf.
Name Business Address Percentage Interest in the Applicant
please see attached sheer.




SECTION III - INCOME OR COMPENSATION TO, OR OWNERSHIP BY, CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS

Has the Disclosing Party provided any income or compensation to any City elected official during the
12-month period preceding the date of this EDS? [x] Yes [ ] No

Does the Disclosing Party reasonably expect to provide any income or compensation to any City
elected official during the 12-month period following the date ofthis EDS? [X] Yes [ ] No

If "yes" to either of the above, please identify below the name(s) of such City elected official(s) and
describe such income or compensation:
see attached statement

Does any City elected official or, to the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable -
inquiry, any City elected official's spouse or domestic partner, have a financial interest (as defined in
Chapter 2-156 ofthe Municipal Code of Chicago ("MCC")) in the Disclosing Party?
[ ] Yes [X] No

If "yes," please identify below the name(s) of such City elected officials) and/or spouse(s)/domestic partner(s) and describe the financial interest(s).



SECTION IV - DISCLOSURE OF SUBCONTRACTORS AND OTHER RETAINED PARTIES

The Disclosing Party must disclose the name and business address of each subcontractor, attorney, lobbyist (as defined in MCC Chapter 2-156), accountant, consultant and any other person or entity whom the Disclosing Party has retained or expects to retain in connection with the Matter, as well as the nature ofthe relationship, and the total amount of the fees paid or estimated to be paid. The Disclosing Party is not required to disclose employees who are paid solely through the Disclosing Party's regular payroll. If the Disclosing Party is uncertain whether a disclosure is required under this Section, the Disclosing Party must either ask the City whether disclosure is required or make the disclosure.

Page 3 of 15

Section II-B-2 -- Legal entities with direct interest in the Disclosing Party
Exelon Corporation is the 100% owner of Exelon Energy Delivery Company. LLC. This publicly traded corporation does not have any persons or entities holding an interest of greater than 7.5%. This entity is regulated by and required to make periodic filings with the federal Securities and Exchange Commission under the Public Utility Holding Company Act and falls under exception l(i) ofthe Rules Regarding Economic Disclosure Statement and Affidavit most recently dated December 17, 2015. The Form 10-K for calendar year 2016 was filed on February 13, 2017. The Form 10-Q for the first quarter 2017 was filed on May 3, 2017. The Form 10-Q for second quarter 2017 was filed on August 2, 2017. All Forms have been provided.

Section UI - Additional Information - Exelon Energy Delivery Company, LLC
The Disclosing Party and/or its affiliates may have engaged the law firm of Klafter & Burke for legal representation during the 12-month period preceding the date hereof and may do so during the 12-month period following the date hereof. Alderman Edward M. Burke is a principal of Klafter & Burke.
The Applicant and/or its affiliates engaged the consulting company Stratagem Consulting Group, LLC as of January 4, 2019 and terminated the services of this company as of October 3, 2019. Aldennan Gilbert Villegas is identified as a manager of Stratagem Consulting Group, LLC and has identified himself as having a financial interest in this entity.
Name (indicate whether Business retained or anticipated Address to be retained)
Relationship to Disclosing Party (subcontractor, attorney, lobbyist, etc.)
Fees (indicate whether paid or estimated.) NOTE: "hourly rate" or "t.b.d." is
not an acceptable response.



(Add sheets if necessary)
[ xl Check here if the Disclosing Party has not retained, nor expects to retain, any such persons or entities. SECTION V - CERTIFICATIONS
COURT-ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT COMPLIANCE
Under MCC Section 2-92-415, substantial owners of business entities that contract with the City must remain in compliance with their child support obligations throughout the contract's term.

Has any person who directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the Disclosing Party been declared in arrearage on any child support obligations by any Illinois court of competent jurisdiction?

[ ] Yes [ ] No [X] No person directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the Disclosing Party.

If "Yes," has the person entered into a court-approved agreement for payment of all support owed and is the person in compliance with that agreement?

[ ] Yes [ ] No
FURTHER CERTIFICATIONS

[This paragraph 1 applies only if tlie Matter is a contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services.] In the 5-year period preceding the date of this EDS, neither the Disclosing Party nor any Affiliated Entity [see definition in (5) below] has engaged, in connection with the performance of any public contract, the services of an integrity monitor, independent private sector inspector general, or integrity compliance consultant (i.e., an individual or entity with legal, auditing, investigative, or other similar skills, designated by a public agency to help the agency monitor the activity of specified agency vendors as well as help the vendors reform their business practices so they can be considered for agency contracts in the future, or continue with a contract in progress).
The Disclosing Party and its Affiliated Entities are not delinquent in the payment of any fine, fee, tax or other source of indebtedness owed to the City of Chicago, including, but not limited to, water and sewer charges, license fees, parking tickets, property taxes and sales taxes, nor is the Disclosing Party delinquent in the payment of any tax administered by the. Illinois Department of Revenue.


Page 4 of 15

The Disclosing Party and, if the Disclosing Parly is a legal entity, all of those persons or entities identified in Section 11(B)(1) ofthis EDS:

are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from any transactions by any federal, state or local unit of government;
have not, during the 5 years before the date of this EDS, been convicted of a criminal offense, adjudged guilty, or had a civil judgment rendered against them in connection with: obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; a violation of federal or state antitrust statutes; fraud; embezzlement; theft; forgery; bribery; falsification or destruction of records; making false statements; or receiving stolen property;
are not presently indicted for, or criminally or civilly charged by, a governmental entity (federal, state or local) with committing any of the offenses set forth in subparagraph (b) above;
have not, during the 5 years before the date of this EDS, had one or more public transactions (federal, state or local) terminated for cause or default; and
have not, during the 5 years before the date of this EDS, been convicted, adjudged guilty, or found liable in a civil proceeding, or in any criminal or civil action, including actions concerning environmental violations, instituted by the City or by the federal government, any state, or any other unit of local government.
The Disclosing Party understands and shall comply with the applicable requirements of MCC Chapters 2-56 (Inspector General) and 2-156 (Governmental Ethics).
Certifications (5), (6) and (7) concern: '

the Disclosing Party;
any "Contractor" (meaning any contractor or subcontractor used by the Disclosing Party in connection with the Matter, including but not limited to all persons or legal entities disclosed under Section IV, "Disclosure of Subcontractors and Other Retained Parties");
any "Affiliated Entity" (meaning a person or entity that, directly or indirectly: controls the Disclosing Party, is controlled by the Disclosing Party, or is, with the Disclosing Party, under common control of another person or entity). Indicia of control include, without limitation: interlocking management or ownership; identity of interests among family members, shared facilities and equipment; common use of employees; or organization of a business entity following the ineligibility of a business entity to do business with federal or state or local government, including the City, using substantially the same management, ownership, or principals as the ineligible entity. With respect to Contractors, the term Affiliated Entity means a person or entity that directly or indirectly controls the Contractor, is controlled by it, or, with the Contractor, is under common control of another person or entity;
any responsible official of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity or any other official, agent or employee of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity, acting pursuant to the direction or authorization of a responsible official of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity (collectively "Agents").

PageS of 15

Neither the Disclosing Party, nor any Contractor, nor any Affiliated Entity of either the Disclosing Party or any Contractor, nor any Agents have, during the 5 years before the date ofthis EDS, or, with respect to a Contractor, an Affiliated Entity, or an Affiliated Entity of a Contractor during the 5 years before the date of such Contractor's or Affiliated Entity's contract or engagement in connection with the Matter:
bribed or attempted to bribe, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of bribery or attempting to bribe, a public officer or employee ofthe City, the State of Illinois, or any agency of the federal government or ofany state or local government in the United States of America, in that officer's or employee's official capacity;
agreed or colluded with other bidders or prospective bidders, or been a party to any such agreement, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of agreement or collusion among bidders or prospective bidders, in restraint of freedom of competition by agreement to bid a fixed price or otherwise; or
made an admission of such conduct described in subparagraph (a) or (b) above that is a matter of record, but have not been prosecuted for such conduct; or
violated the provisions referenced Ln MCC Subsection 2-92-320(a)(4)(Contracts Requiring a Base Wage); (a)(5)(Debarment Regulations); or (a)(6)(Minimum Wage Ordinance).

Neither the Disclosing Party, nor any Affiliated Entity or Contractor, or any of their employees, officials, agents or partners, is barred from contracting with any unit of state or local government as a result of engaging in or being convicted of (1) bid-rigging in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-3; (2) bid-rotating in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-4; or (3) any similar offense ofany state or ofthe United States of America that contains the same elements as the offense of bid-rigging or bid-rotating.
Neither the Disclosing Party nor any Affiliated Entity is listed on a Sanctions List maintained by the United States Department of Commerce, State, or Treasury, or any successor federal agency.
[FOR APPLICANT ONLY] (i) Neither the Applicant nor any "controlling person" [see MCC Chapter 1 -23, Article I for applicability and defined terms] of the Applicant is currently indicted or charged with, or has admitted guilt of, or has ever been convicted of, or placed under supervision for, any criminal offense involving actual, attempted, or conspiracy to commit bribery, theft, fraud, forgery, perjury, dishonesty or deceit against an officer or employee ofthe City or any "sister agency"; and (ii) the Applicant understands and acknowledges that compliance with Article I is a continuing requirement for doing business with the City. NOTE: If MCC Chapter 1-23, Article I applies to the Applicant, that Article's permanent compliance timeframe supersedes 5-year compliance timeframes in this Section V.
[FOR APPLICANT ONLY] The Applicant and its Affiliated Entities will not use, nor permit their subcontractors to use, any facility listed as having an active exclusion by the U.S. EPA on the federal System for Award Management ("SAM").
[FOR APPLICANT ONLY] The Applicant will obtain from any contractors/subcontractors hired or to be hired in connection with the Matter certifications equal in form and substance to those in Certifications (2) and (9) above and will not, without the prior written consent ofthe City, use any such
Vcr.2018-1 Page 6 of 15

contractor/subcontractor that does not provide such certifications or that the Applicant has reason to believe has not provided or cannot provide truthful certifications.

11. If the Disclosing Party is unable to certify to any of the above statements in this Part B (Further
Certifications), the Disclosing Party must explain below:
see attached explanation



If tlie letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.

12. To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all current employees of the Disclosing Party who were, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the date of tliis EDS, an employee, or elected or appointed official, of the City of Chicago (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none").
none — .see aH-ached explanaHnri



13. To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a
complete list of all gifts that the Disclosing Party has given or caused to be given, at any time during
the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, to an employee, or elected or appointed
official, of the City of Chicago. For purposes of this statement, a "gift" does not include: (i) anything
made generally available to City employees or to the general public, or (ii) food or drink provided in
the course of official City business and having a retail value ofless than $25 per recipient, or (iii) a
political contribution otherwise duly reported as required by law (if none, indicate with "N/A" or
"none"). As to any gift listed below, please also list the name of the City recipient.
none — see attached explanation :



C. CERTIFICATION OF STATUS AS FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
The Disclosing Party certifies that the Disclosing Party (check one)
[ ] is [xl is not

a "financial institution" as defined in MCC Section 2-32-455(b).
If the Disclosing Party IS a financial institution, then the Disclosing Party pledges:

"We are not and will not become a predatory lender as defined in MCC Chapter 2-32. We further pledge that none of our affiliates is, and none of them will become, a predatory lender as defined in MCC Chapter 2-32. We understand that becoming a predatory lender or becoming an affiliate of a predatory lender may result in the loss of the privilege of doing business with the City."

Page 7 of15

Ifthe Disclosing Party is unable to make this pledge because it or any of its affiliates (as defined in MCC Seclion 2-32-455(b)) is a predatory lender within the meaning of MCC Chapter 2-32, explain here (attach additional pages if necessary):




If tlie letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.

D. CERTIFICATION REGARDING FINANCIAL INTEREST IN CITY BUSINESS

Any words or terms defined in MCC Chapter 2-156 have the same meanings if used in this Part D.
In accordance with MCC Section 2-156-110: To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, does any official or employee of the City have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the Matter?

[ ] Yes [x] No

NOTE: If you checked "Yes" to Item D(l), proceed to Items D(2) and D(3). If you checked "No" to Item D(l), skip Items D(2) and D(3) and proceed to Part E.
Unless sold pursuant to a process of competitive bidding, or otherwise pennitted, no City elected official or employee shall have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name ofany other person or entity in the purchase of any property lhat (i) belongs to the City, or (ii) is sold for taxes or assessments, or (iii) is sold by virtue of legal process at the suit ofthe City (collectively, "City Property Sale"). Compensation for property taken pursuant to the City's eminent domain power does not constitute a financial interest within the meaning ofthis Part D.

Does the Matter involve a City Property Sale?

•LxJYes []No
If you checked "Yes" to Item D(l), provide the names and business addresses of the City officials or employees having such financial interest and identify the nature of the financial interest:

Name Business Address Nature of Financial Interest
None




4. The Disclosing Party further certifies that no prohibited financial interest in the Matter will be acquired by any City official or employee.

Page 8 of 15

E. CERTIFICATION REGARDING SLAVERY ERA BUSINESS

Please check either (1) or (2) below. Ifthe Disclosing Party checks (2), the Disclosing Party must disclose below or in an attachment to this EDS all information required by (2). Failure to comply with these disclosure requirements may make any contract entered into with the City in connection with the Matter voidable by the City.

X_l. The Disclosing Party verifies that the Disclosing Party has searched any and all records of
the Disclosing Party and any and all predecessor entities regarding records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies during the slavery era (including insurance policies issued to slaveholders that provided coverage for damage to or injury or death of their slaves), and the Disclosing Party has found no such records.

2. The Disclosing Party verifies that, as a result of conducting the search in step (1) above, the
Disclosing Party has found records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies. The Disclosing Party verifies that the following constitutes full disclosure of all such records, including the names of any and all slaves or slaveholders described in those records:





SECTION VI - CERTIFICATIONS FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED MATTERS

NOTE: If the Matter is federally funded, complete this Section VI. If the Matter is not federally funded, proceed to Section VII. For purposes of this Section VI, tax credits allocated by the City and proceeds of debt obligations of the City are not federal funding.
This matter is not federally funded A. CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING

1. List below the names of all persons or entities registered under the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, as amended, who have made lobbying contacts on behalf ofthe Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter: (Add sheets if necessary):




(If no explanation appears or begins on tlie lines above, or if the letters "NA" or if the word "None" appear, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party means that NO persons or entities registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, as amended, have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter.)

2. The Disclosing Party has not spent and will not expend any federally appropriated funds to pay
any person or entity listed in paragraph A(l) above for his or her lobbying activities or to pay any
person or entity to influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, as defined
by applicable federal law, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee
Ver.2018-1 Page 9 of 15

of a member of Congress, in connection with the award ofany federally funded contract, making any federally funded giant or loan, entering into any cooperative agreement, or to extend, continue, renew, amend, or modify any federally funded contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
The Disclosing Party will submit an updated certification at the end of each calendar quarter in which there occurs any event that materially affects tlie accuracy of the statements and infonnation set forth in paragraphs A(l) and A(2) above.
The Disclosing Party certifies that either: (i) it is not an organization described in section 501(c)(4) ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or (ii) it is an organization described in section 501(c)(4) ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1986 but has not engaged and will not engage in "Lobbying Activities," as that term is defined in the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, as amended.
If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party must obtain certifications equal in form and substance to paragraphs A(l) through A(4) above from all subcontractors before it awards any subcontract and the Disclosing Party must maintain all such subcontractors' certifications for the duration of the Matter and must make such certifications promptly available to the City upon request.

B. CERTIFICATION REGARDING EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

If the Matter is federally funded, federal regulations require the Applicant and all proposed subcontractors to submit the following information with their bids or in writing at the outset of negotiations.

Is the Disclosing Party the Applicant?
[ ] Yes [ ] No

If "Yes," answer the three questions below:
Have you developed and do you have on file affirmative action programs pursuant to applicable federal regulations? (See 41 CFR Part 60-2.)
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you filed with the Joint Reporting Committee, the Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission all reports due under the applicable filing requirements?
[ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Reports not required
Have you participated in any previous contracts or subcontracts subject to the equal opportunity clause?
[ ] Yes [ ] No

If you checked "No" to question (1) or (2) above, please provide an explanation:



Page 10 of 15

SECTION VII -- FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND CERTIFICATION

The Disclosing Party understands and agrees that:
The certifications, disclosures, and acknowledgments contained in this EDS will become part of any contract or other agreement between the Applicant and the City in connection with the Matter, whether procurement, City assistance, or other City action, and arc material inducements to the City's execution ofany contract or taking other action with respect to tlie Matter. The Disclosing Party understands that it must comply with all statutes, ordinances, and regulations on which this EDS is based.
The City's Governmental Ethics Ordinance, MCC Chapter 2-156, imposes certain duties and obligations on persons or entities seeking City contracts, work, business, or transactions. The full text of this ordinance and a training program is available on line at vvww.ciryofchicago.org/Ethics , and may also be obtained from the City's Board of Ethics, 740 N. Sedgwick St., Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60610, (312) 744-9660. The Disclosing Party must comply fully with this ordinance.
Ifthe City determines that any information provided in this EDS is false, incomplete or inaccurate, any contract or other agreement in connection with which it is submitted may be rescinded or be void or voidable, and the City may pursue any remedies under the contract or agreement (if not rescinded or void), at law, or in equity, including terminating the Disclosing Party's participation in the Matter and/or declining to allow the Disclosing Party to participate in other City transactions. Remedies at law for a false statement of material fact may include incarceration and an award to the City of treble damages.
It is the City's policy to make this document available to the public on its Internet site and/or upon request. Some or all of the information provided in, and appended to, this EDS may be made publicly available on the Internet, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, or otherwise. By completing and signing this EDS, the Disclosing Party waives and releases any possible rights or claims which it may have against the City in connection with the public release of information contained in this EDS and also authorizes the City to verify the accuracy of any information submitted in this EDS.
The information provided in this EDS must be kept current. In the event of changes, tlie Disclosing Party must supplement this EDS up to the time the City takes action on the Matter. If the Matter is a contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, the Disclosing Party must update this EDS as the contract requires. NOTE: With respect to Matters subject to MCC Chapter 1-23, Article I (imposing PERMANENT INELIGIBILITY for certain specified offenses), the information provided herein regarding eligibility must be kept current for a longer period, as required by MCC Chapter 1-23 and Section 2-154-020.








Page 11 of 15
CERTIFICATION

Under penalty of perjury, the person signing below: (1) warrants that he/she is authorized to execute this EDS, and all applicable Appendices, on behalf of the Disclosing Party, and (2) warrants that all certifications and statements contained in this EDS, and all applicable Appendices, are true, accurate and complete as of the date furnished to the City.


Ryplnn F.nprgy Dpli'vpry Tympany; T.T.H
(Print or type exact legal name of Disclosing Party)

(Sign here)

(Print or type name of person signing)




Signed and swom to before me on (date)
Commission expires:














Page 12 of 15

CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX A

FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ELECTED CITY OFFICIALS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS

This Appendix is to be completed onJy by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5%. It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.

Under MCC Section 2-154-015, the Disclosing Party must disclose whether such Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently has a "familial relationship" with any elected city official or department head. A "familial relationship" exists if, as of the date this EDS is signed, the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof is related to the mayor, any alderman, the city clerk, the city treasurer or any city department head as spouse or domestic partner or as any of the following, whether by blood or adoption: parent, child, brother or sister, aunt or uncle, niece or nephew, grandparent, grandchild, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepfather or stepmother, stepson or stepdaughter, stepbrother or stepsister or half-brother or half-sister.

"Applicable Party" means (1) all executive officers of the Disclosing Party listed in Section II.B.l.a., if the Disclosing Party is a corporation; all partners of the Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Party is a general partnership; all general partners and limited partners of the Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Party is a limited partnership; all managers, managing members and members ofthe Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a limited liability company; (2) all principal officers ofthe Disclosing Party; and (3) any person having more than a 7.5% ownership interest in the Disclosing Party. "Principal officers" means the president, chief operating officer, executive director, chief financial officer, treasurer or secretary of a legal entity or any person exercising similar authority.

Does the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently have a "familial relationship" with an elected city official or department head?

[ ] Yes [x] No
see attached comment
If yes, please identify below (1) the name and title of such person, (2) the name of the legal entity to which such person is connected; (3) the name and title of the elected city official or department head to whom such person has a familial relationship, and (4) the precise nature of such familial relationship.









Ver.2018-1 Page 13 of 15




I
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX B

BUILDING CODE SCOFFLAW/PROBLEM LANDLORD CERTIFICATION

This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the.Applicant exceeding 7.5% (an "Owner"). It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Pursuant to MCC Section 2-154-010, is the Applicant or any Owner identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to MCC Section 2-92-416?

[]Yes [x]No
If the Applicant is a legal entity publicly traded on any exchange, is any officer or director of the Applicant identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to MCC Section 2-92-416?

[ ] Yes [ ] No [X] The Applicant is not publicly traded on any exchange.


3. If yes to (1) or (2) above, please identify below the name of each person or legal entity identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord and the address of each building or buildings to which the pertinent code violations apply.























Page 14 of 15

CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX C

PROHIBITION ON WAGE & SALARY HISTORY SCREENING - CERTIFICATION

This Appendix is to be completed only by an Applicant that is completing this EDS as a "contractor''" as defined in MCC Section 2-92-385. That section, which should be consulted (www.amlegal.com ), generally covers a party to any agreement pursuant to which they: (i) receive City of Chicago funds in consideration for services, work or goods provided (including for legal or other professional services), or (ii) pay tlie City money for a license, grant or concession allowing them to conduct a business on City premises.

On behalf of an Applicant that is a contractor pursuant to MCC Section 2-92-385,1 hereby certify that the Applicant is in compliance with MCC Section 2-92-3 85(b)(1) and (2), which prohibit: (i) screening job applicants based on their wage or salary history, or (ii) seeking job applicants' wage or salary history from current or former employers. I also certify that the Applicant has adopted a policy that includes those prohibitions.
[ ]Yes
L ]No
[X] N/A -1 am not an Applicant that is a "contractor" as defined in MCC Section 2-92-385. This certification shall serve as the affidavit required by MCC Section 2-92-385(c)(l). If you checked "no" to the above, please explain.




















Page 15 of 15

Response to question 11 -- Comments on Section V-B Further Certifications
V-B-l: This certification does not apply to the Disclosing Party as the Matter is not a contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services.
V-B-2: The Disclosing Party, to the best of its knowledge, certifies that it is not delinquent in the payment of any tax administered by the Illinois Department of Revenue, except for taxes that are being contested in good faith in applicable legal proceedings (whether judicial or administrative). To the best of the knowledge of the Disclosing Party, neither the Disclosing Party nor its Affiliated Entities are delinquent in paying any fine, fee, tax or other source of indebtedness owed to the City of Chicago ("Debts") except for Debts which are being contested in good faith in applicable legal proceedings.
Representatives and agents ofthe Disclosing Party and its Affiliated Entities meet with City representatives or other receive information from the City on a monthly or other regular basis to identify outstanding Debts duly payable by the Disclosing Party and its Affiliated Entities and any such Debts are settled accordingly.
V-B-3-a: Disclosing Party certifies to this Statement to the best of its knowledge.
V-B-3-b, c and e and V-B-5-a, b and c: The Disclosing Party is routinely involved in litigation in various state and federal courts. With nearly 33,400 full-time equivalent employees (as of the end of 2018), such a large business presence and a wide variety of activities subject to complex and extensive regulatory frameworks at the local, state, and federal levels, it is not possible for the Disclosing Party and its Affiliated Entities to perform due diligence across the full panoply of associates in preparing the Disclosing Party's response and it is possible that allegations or findings of civil or criminal liability, as well as the termination of one or more transactions for various reasons may have arisen and pertain to or be the subject of matters covered in these certifications. The Disclosing Party (including with respect to those persons identified in Section 11(B)(1) who are employed by the Disclosing Party) makes all required disclosures in the Forms 10-K, 10-Q and 8-K (filed by its parent corporation, the Exelon Corporation, with the Securities and Exchange Commission) and in the Annual Report of its parent corporation as posted on its website. These filings include disclosures of investigations and litigation as required by the securities regulatory organizations and federal law, and are publicly available (a copy of the "Environmental Remediation Matters" or "Environmental Issues" and "Litigation and Regulatory Matters" portions of the Forms 10-K and 10-Q filed by the Disclosing Party's parent corporation for calendar year 2018 and the first, second and third quarters of 2019 are attached). The Disclosing Party cannot confirm or deny the existence of any other non-public investigation conducted by any governmental agency unless required to do so by law. With respect to those persons identified in Section 11(B)(1) who are not employed by the Disclosing Party (such as independent directors), such persons are involved in a wide variety of business, charitable, social and other activities and transactions independent of their activities on behalf of the Disclosing Party and the Disclosing Party cannot further certify. As for any unrelated Contractor, Affiliated Entity or such Contractors or Agents of either ("Unrelated Entities"), however, the Disclosing Party certifies that with respect to the Matter it has not and will not knowingly hire, without disclosure to the City of Chicago, any Unrelated Entities who are unable to certify to such statements and the Disclosing Party cannot further certify as to the Unrelated Entities. It is the

Disclosing Party's policy to diligently investigate any allegations relevant to the requested certifications, promptly resolve any allegations or findings and at all times comply in good faith with all applicable legal requirements.
V-B-3-d: The Disclosing Party performed due diligence within the Governmental and External Affairs department ofthe Applicant ("Governmental Group") to determine whether any Governmental Group employees were aware ofany public transactions (federal, state or local) having been terminated for cause or default within the last five years, and none of such employees were aware ofany such transactions.
V-B-5 and 6: Please note that our responses are on behalf of the Disclosing Party and its Affiliated Entities only and not on behalf of any Contractors.
V-B-5-d, 6 and 7: Disclosing Party certifies to this Statement to the best of its knowledge.
Comment on Section V-B-12 Certification
V-B-12: To the best of Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, none of the persons identified in Section 11(B)(1) of this EDS were employees, or elected or appointed officials of the City of Chicago during the period of November 11, 2018 through November 11, 2019. Disclosing Party is unaware of any additional employee having been a City of Chicago employee or elected or appointed official during the period of November 11, 2018 through November 11, 2019, but did not, for its new hires during the period previously described, collect data on immediately preceding employment by the City of Chicago or status of a new hire as an elected or appointed official of the City of Chicago.
Comment on Section V-B-13 Certification
V-B-l 3: The Disclosing Party certifies to the best of its knowledge that there have been no gifts within the prior 12 months to an employee, or elected or appointed official of the City of Chicago.
Comment on Appendix A — Familiar Relationships
To the best of Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, none of the Disclosing Party's "Applicable Parties" or any Spouses or Domestic Partners thereof currently have a "familial relationship" with an elected city official or department head.
EXELON CORPORATION -- 2018 FORM 10-K
Combined Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements - (Continued) (Dollars in millions, except per share data unless otherwise noted)

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:

Dacambor 31, 201S Decnmber 31, 2017
DOE receivable - current <" S 124 S 94
DOE receivable - noncurrent"" 15 15
Amounts owed to co-owners "W (17) (11)
Recorded in Accounts receivable, other
Recorded in Deferred debits and other assets, other
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 ofthe remediation at these sites to continue through at least 2023.

430
Combined Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements - (Continued) (Dollars in millions, except per share data unless otherwise noted)

PECO has identified 26 sites, 17 of which have been remediated in accordance with applicable PA DEP regulatory requirements and 9 tha! 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 andfor 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 Ihe 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:

Total environmental
Investigation Portion of total related to MGP
?comber Jl, 2011 and remediation reaerve Investigation and remadlatlon
Exelon $ 496 $ 356"
Generation 108 —
ComEd 329 327
PECO 27 25
BGE|9910|PHI 27 —
Pepco 25 —
DPL|99|—
ACE|99|_
431
Combined Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements - (Continued) (Dollars in millions, except per share data unless otherwise noted)


Total environmental
Investigation Portion of total related to MGP
December 31,2017 and remediation reserve Investigation and remediation
Exelon $ 466 $ 315
Generation 117 —
ComEd 285 283
PECO 30 28
BGE|9910|PHI 29 —
Pepco 27 —
DPL|99|_
ACE|99|_

Coffer Corporation (Exelon and Generation). The EPA has advised Cotter Corporation (Cotter), a former ComEd subsidiary, that il 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 ofthe 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

432
Combined Notes to Consolidated Financial Statomonts - (Continued) (Dollars in millions, except per share data unless otherwise notod)

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 matenals 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 S90 million from all PRPs. The DOJ and the PRPs agreed to toll lhe 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, ali 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 (Rl)/ Feasibility Study (FS) for the Benning Road site and an approximately 10 to 15-acre portion of lhe 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

433
Combined Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements - (Continuod) (Dollars in millions, except per share data unless otherwise noted)

that are determined to be attributable to past activities al 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 Rl work and have submitted multiple draft Rl reports to the DOEE. Once the Rl work is completed, Pepco and Generation will issue a draft "final" Rl 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 Rl and FS, and approval by the DOEE, by May 6, 2019.

Upon DOEE's approval of the final Rl 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 Ihe table above.

Anacostia River Tidal Roach (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 tvlaryland-D.C. boundary line to the confluence of the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers. In March 2016, DOEE released a draft of the river-wide Rl Report for public review and comment. The river-wide Rl 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 Rl 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 an an undiscounted basis and exclude the estimated legal costs associated with handling these matters, which could be material.

434
Combined Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements - (Continued) (Dollars in millions, except per share data unless otherwise noted)

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 S24 million of this amount related lo 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 lo, but not bonow 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 nght 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 Ihe 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

435
Combinod Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements - (Continued) (Dollars in millions, except per share data unless otherwise noted)

effective November 1, 2015, from S12 million to S42 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 Ihe annual expense to S25 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 revocalion, nor can Generation estimate a reasonably possible range of loss, if any, associated wilh 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.

23. Supplemental Financial Information (All Registrants)

Supplemental Statement of Operations Information

The following tables provide additional information about the Registrants' Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income for the years ended December 31, 2018 , 2017 and 2016 .

For tho year ended December 31,2018


ComEd PECO BGE

Taxes other than Income

30
273

114 $ 243 $ 131 $ 94 $
27
17
130
15 143
11
39
16
556 $ 311 S 163 S 254 $

436

2019 FIRST QUARTER FORM 10-Q
COMBINED NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued) (Dollars in millions, except per share data, unless otherwise noted)

In addition, the U.S. Congress could impose revenue-raising measures on the nuclear industry to pay public liability claims exceeding the S14.1 billion limit tor 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 2016 Form 10-K for additional infonnation 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 $335 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 lo 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.

115
COMBINED NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued) (Dollars in millions, except per share data, unless otherwise noted)

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 Uie 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 tbe 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 OEP regulatory requirements and 9 that are cun-ently under some degree of active study and/or remediation. PECO expects the majority of the remediation at these sites lo 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 March 31, 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:

Total environmental Portion of total related to
Investigation and MGP investigation and
March 31.2019 remediation reserve remediation
Exelon $ 486 $ 347
Generation 108 —
ComEd 320 318
PECO 27 25
BGE|9910|PHI 26 —
Pepco 24 —
DPL|99|—
ACE|910|
116
COMBINED NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued) (Dollars in millions, except per share data, unless otherwise noted)

Total environmental Portion of total related to
Investigation and MGP Investigation and
December 3t. 2018 remediation resorva remediation
Exelon $ 496 $ 356
Generation 108 —
ComEd 329 ' 327
PECO 27 25
BGE|9910|PHI 27 —
Pepco 25 —
DPL|99|—
ACE|99|—
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 are negotiating Consent Agreements to design and implement the ROD remedy, and negotiations are 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 thai 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 Colter'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.

117
COMBINED NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued) (Dollars in millions, except per share data, unless otherwise noted)

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 ofthe sale of Cotter. The radioactive residues had been generated initially in connection wilh the processing of uranium ores as part of the U.S. Government's Manhattan Project. Cotter purchased the residues in 1969 for initial processing, al 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 lo be approximately S90 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 Distnct of Missoun Among the defendants were Exelon, Generation and ComEd, all of which were subsequently dismissed from Ihe 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 ah 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 (Rl)/ 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 wo*, 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 Rl work and have submitted multiple draft Rl reports to the DOEE. Once the Rl work is completed, Pepco and Generation will issue a draft "final" Rl 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 Rl and FS, and approval by the DOEE, by September 16, 2021.

Upon DOEE's approval of the final Rl 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-

118
COMBINED NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued) (Dollars in millions, except per share data, unless otherwise noted)

wide Rl Report for public review and comment The river-wide Rl 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 Rl 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 March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018 , Generation had recorded estimated liabilities of approximately $77 million and $79 million , respectively, in total for asbestos-related bodily injury claims. As of March 31, 2019 , approximately $25 million ofthis amount related to 239 open claims presented to Generation, while the remaining $52 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.

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

119
COMBINED NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued) (Dollars in millions, except per share data, unless otherwise noted)

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 lo 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.

17. Supplemental Financial Information (All Registrants)

Supplemental Statement of Operations information

The following tables provide additional information about the Registrants' Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income for the three months ended March 31, 2019 and 2018 .

Three Months Ended March 31, 2019
Other, Net
Decommissioning-relatcd activities
Nat realized income on NDT runds H Regulatory agreement units tbl Non-regulatory agreement units Net unrealized gains on NOT runds Regulatory agreement units ib) Non-regulatory agreement units Regulator/ offset lo NDT fund-related activities io Total decomrnissaning-relaled activities Investment income
Interest income related to uncertain income lax positions AFUDC — Equity
Non-servico net penodic benefit cost
Other
Olher. nel



54 54

379 2B0 (348)
419
12 1
22 S 8
467



54 t 54

379 280 (348)
419





430 t

120
EXELON CORPORATION - 2019 SECOND QUARTER FORM 10-Q
i arjle of Contents
COMBINED NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued) (Dollars In millions, except per share data, unless otherwise noted)

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 soma 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 lhat 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 dean-up costs, they have historically received recovery of actual clean-up costs in distribution rates.

109
COMBINED NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued) (Dollars in millions, except per share data, unless otherwise noted)

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:

Total •nvlronmanbjl Portion of total related to
Investigation and ^ MGP Investigation end
June 30.2019 remediation reserve remediation
Exelon J 482 $ 345
Generation 107 —
ComEd 318 318
PECO 25 24
BGE|9910|PHI ' 27 —
Pepco 24 —
DPL|99|—
ACE|99|—
Total environmental Portion or total related to
Investigation and MGP InveetigetJon and
Oocember31.2018 remediation reserve remediation
Exelon $ 496 $ 356
Generation 108 —
ComEd 329 327
PECO 27 25
BGE|9910|PHI 27 —
Pepco 25 —
DPL|99|_
ACE|99|—

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 Ihe 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

110

COMBINED NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued) (Dollars in millions, except per share data, unless otherwise noted)

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 tho 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, (he 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

111
laoie.oi Contents
COMBINED NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued) (Dollars in millions, except per share data, unless otherwise noted)

conduct a Remediation Investigation (Rl)/ 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 beon performing Rl work and have submitted multiple draft Rl reports to the DOEE. Once the Rl work is completed, Pepco and Generation will issue a draft "final" Rl 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 Rl and FS, and approval by the DOEE, by September 16, 2021.

Upon DOEE's approval of the final Rl 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 Rl Report for public review and comment. The river-wide Rl 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 Rl 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 (heir 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.

112
COMBINED NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued) (Dollars In millions, except per share data, unless otherwise noted)

Litigation and Regulatory Mattors

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 ot 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.

113
EXELON CORPORATION -- 2019 THIRD QUARTER FORM 10-Q
COMBINED NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued) (Dollars In millions, except per share data, unless otherwise noted)
Note 16 — Commitments and Contingencies
Surety bonds—Guarantees issued related to contract end commercial agreements, excluding bid bonds.
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 guaranteed by Exelon and PHI, of which $22 million, $29 million and $17 million Is guaranteed by Pepco, DPL and ACE, respectively. Historically, payments under the guarantees have not been made and PHI believes the likelihood of payments being required under the guarantees is remote
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 21 sites 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 2025.

PECO has 8 sites 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 4 sites that currently require some level of remediation and/or ongoing activity. BGE expects the majority of the remediation at these sites to continue through at least 2021.

DPL has 1 site that is currently under study and the required cost at the site is not expected lo 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 scape 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. While BGE and DPL do not have riders for MGP clean-up costs, they have historically received recovery of actual dean-up costs in distribution rates.

109
COMBINED NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued) (Dollars In millions, except per share data, unless otherwise noted)
Note 16 — Commitments and Contingencies

As of September 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:

September 30. 2019

Exelon
Generation
ComEd
PECO
BGE
PHI
Pepco
DPL
ACE
Total environmental
Investigation and remediation llebirttiee

507 107 328 20 3 49 47 1 1
Portion of total related to MGP Investigation end remediation

346

327 1B 1
Total environmental
Investigation and remediation llabllKlea

496 108 329 27 5 27 25 1 1
Portion of total related to MGP Investigetlon end remediation

356

327 25 4
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 tho 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

110
Tab'e oi Cor!eni:=
COMBINED NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued) (Dollars in millions, except per share data, unless otherwise noted)
Note 16 — Commitments and Contingencies

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 S20 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 SL 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 February 2020 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.

Banning 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, which was deactivated in June 2012. 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 (Rl)/ Feasibility Study (FS) for the Benning Road site and an approximately 10 to 15-acre portion ofthe adjacent Anacostia River.

Since 2013, Pepco and Pepco Energy Services (now Generation, pursuant to Exelon's 2016 acquisition of PHI) have been performing Rl work and have submitted multiple draft Rl reports to the DOEE. Once the Rl work is completed, Pepco and Generation will issue a draft "final" Rl report for review and comment by DOEE and the public. Pepco and Generation will then proceed to develop a FS to evaluate possible remedial alternatives for submission to DOEE. The Court has established a schedule for completion of the Rl and FS, and approval by the DOEE, by September 16, 2021.

DOEE will then prepare a Proposed Plan and issue a Record of Decision Identifying any further response actions determined to be necessary, after considering public comment on (he Proposed Plan. 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 (he table above.

Anacostia River Tidal Reach (Exelon, PHI and Pepco). Contemporaneous with the Benning Road site RI/FS being performed by Pepco and Generation, DOEE and the National Park Service have been conducting a separate RI/FS focused on the entire tidal reach of the Anacostia River extending from just north of the Maryland-District of Columbia boundary line to the confluence of the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers. The river-wide Rl 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 Ihe river, to participate in a 'Consultative Working Group" to provide input into the process for future remedial actions 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 Road site RI/FS. In addition, the District of Columbia Council directed DOEE to form an official advisory committee made up of members of federal, state and local environmental regulators, community and environmental groups and various academic and technical experts to provide guidance and support to DOEE as the project progressed. This group, called the Anacostia Leadership Council, has met regularly since it was formed. Pepco has participated in the Consultative Working

111
"I able of Contents
COMBINED NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued) (Dollars In millions, except per share data, unless otherwise noted)
Note 16 — Commitments and Contingencies

Group. In April 2018, DOEE released a draft Rl report for public review and comment. Pepco submitted written comments to the draft Rl and participated in a public hearing. The District of Columbia Council has set a deadline of December 31, 2019 for completion of the Record of Decision. An appropriate liability for Pepco's share of investigation costs has been accrued and is included in the table above.

Pepco has determined that it is probable that costs for remediation will be incurred and recorded a liability in the third quarter 2019 for management's best estimate of its share based on DOEE's stated position following a series of meetings attended by representatives from the Anacostia Leadership Council and the Consultative Working Group. A draft FS, which Pepco believes will include the process to identify potential short-term remedies and actions based on the technical findings in the Rl report and their estimated costs to the extent possible, is being prepared by DOEE and is expected later in the fourth quarter of 2019. DOEE and likely the National Park Service will continue lo oversee ongoing remediation efforts and potential longer-term remedies for the Anacostia River. Pepco has concluded that incremental exposure remains reasonably possible, however management cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss beyond the amounts recorded, which are included in the table above.

In addition to the activities associated with the remedial process outlined above, there is a complementary statutory program that requires an assessment (o 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 Natural Resource Damage Trustees, who are defined by CERCLA as the responsible parties for the restoration or compensation for any loss of those resources from the environmental contaminants at the site. If natural resources cannot be restored, then compensation for the injury can be sought from the responsible parties. 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 September 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, Exelon and Generation had recorded estimated liabilities of approximately $83 million and $79 million, respectively. In total for asbestos-related bodily Injury claims. As of September 30, 2019, approximately $25 million of this amount related to 257 open claims presented to Generation, while the remaining $58 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.

It is reasonably possible that additional exposure to estimated future asbestos-related bodily injury claims in excess of the amount accrued 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,

112
1aoio of Conioriis
COrVIBINED NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued) (Dollars in millions, except per share data, unless otherwise noted)
Note 16 — Commitments and Contingencies

it is reasonably possible that property taxes assessed in future periods, including those following the expiration of the current TIF Agreement in 2020, could be material to Generation's financial statements.

Subpoenas (Exelon and ComEd). Exelon and ComEd received a grand jury subpoena in the second quarter of 2019 from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois requiring production of information concerning their lobbying activities in the State of Illinois. On October 4, 2019, Exelon and ComEd received a second grand jury subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois requiring production of records of any communications with certain individuals and entities. On October 22, 2019, the SEC notified Exelon and ComEd that it has also opened an investigation into their lobbying activities. Exelon and ComEd have cooperated fully and intend to continue to cooperate fully and expeditiously with the U.S. Attorney's Office and the SEC. Exelon and ComEd cannot predict the outcome of the subpoenas or the SEC investigation.

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.

17. Supplemental Financial Information (All Registrants)

Supplemental Statement of Operations Information

The following tables provide additional information about material items recorded in the Registrants' Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income.


. Taxes other than Income)
Exelon Generation ComEd PECO BGE PHI Pepco DPL ACE
Throe Month* Ended September 30, 2019
Utility taxosM $ 241$ 29 $ BBS 38 $ 21 $ 86 $ 81$|99|S —
Property 14a 66|99|5 39 31 21 9 —
Payroll 57 28|99|3 4|999910|Thre* Months Ended September 30, 2018
Utility taxes**) $ 253$ 32$ 67$ 39 $23$ 92$ 87 S|99|$ —
Property 145 70|99|4 37 26 16 9 —
Payroll 58 31|99|3 4|999910|
Nine Months Ended September 30,2019
Utility taxes!*) $ 672 $ 87 $ 183 $ 102 $ 68 $ 231 $ 217 $ 14 $ —
Property 444 205 22 12 114 91 64 25|910|PayroM 185 92 21 11 13 20|99910|Nine Months Ended September 30, 2018
Utility taxesO) $ 705 $ 92 $ 188 $ 102 $ 70 S 253 $ 238 S 15 S —
Property 416 204 22 12 106 71 45 24|910|Payroll 191 99 20 11 12 19|99910|(a) Generation's utility tax represents gross receipts tax related to its retail operations, and the Utility Registrants' utility taxes represents municipal and state utility taxes and gross receipts taxes related to their operating revenues. The offsetting collection of utility taxes from customers is recorded in revenues In the Registrants' Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income.
113