Exelon 2014 Annual Report Download - page 274

Combined Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)
(Dollars in millions, except per share data unless otherwise noted)
estimate of the reasonably possible loss relating to these claims; as such, no accrual has been made and a range of loss is not
estimable. The specific facts not known include:
• the identity of the facilities at which the plaintiffs allegedly worked as contractors;
• the names of the plaintiffs’ employers;
• the dates on which and the places where the exposure allegedly occurred; and
• the facts and circumstances relating to the alleged exposure.
Insurance and hold harmless agreements from contractors who employed the plaintiffs may cover a portion of any awards in the
actions.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Investigation
On January 30, 2012, FERC published a notice on its website regarding a non-public investigation of certain of Constellation’s power
trading activities in and around the ISO-NY from September 2007 through December 2008. Prior to the Constellation merger,
Constellation announced on March 9, 2012, that it had resolved the FERC investigation. Under the settlement, Constellation agreed
to pay, and has paid, a $135 million civil penalty and $110 million in disgorgement.
During the year ended December 31, 2012, Generation recorded expense of $195 million in Operating and maintenance expense
within its Statement of Operations and Comprehensive Income with the remaining $50 million recorded as a Constellation pre-
acquisition contingency within its Consolidated Balance Sheets. See Note 4—Mergers, Acquisitions, and Dispositions for additional
information on the Constellation merger.
Continuous Power Interruption
Section 16-125 of the Illinois Public Utilities Act provides that in the event an electric utility, such as ComEd, experiences a
continuous power interruption of four hours or more that affects (in ComEd’s case) more than 30,000 customers, the utility may be
liable for actual damages suffered by customers as a result of the interruption and may be responsible for reimbursement of local
governmental emergency and contingency expenses incurred in connection with the interruption. Recovery of consequential
damages is barred. The affected utility may seek from the ICC a waiver of these liabilities when the utility can show that the cause of
the interruption was unpreventable damage due to weather events or conditions, customer tampering, or certain other causes
enumerated in the law.
On August 18, 2011, ComEd sought from the ICC a determination that ComEd is not liable for damage compensation to customers
in connection with the July 11, 2011 storm system that produced multiple power interruptions that in the aggregate affected more
than 900,000 customers in ComEd’s service territory, as well as for five other storm systems that affected ComEd’s customers
during June and July 2011 (Summer 2011 Storm Docket). In addition, on September 29, 2011, ComEd sought from the ICC a
determination that it was not liable for damage compensation related to the February 1, 2011 blizzard (February 2011 Blizzard
Docket).
On June 5, 2013, the ICC approved a complete waiver of liability for five of the six summer storms and the February 2011 blizzard.
The ICC held that for the July 11, 2011 storm, 34,559 interruptions were preventable and therefore no waiver should apply. As
required by the ICC’s Order, ComEd notified relevant customers that they may be entitled to seek reimbursement of incurred costs in
accordance with a claims procedure established under ICC rules and regulations. In addition, the ICC found that ComEd did not
systematically fail in its duty to provide adequate, reliable and safe service. As a result, the ICC rejected the Illinois Attorney
General’s request for the ICC to open an investigation into ComEd’s infrastructure and storm hardening investments.
Following the ICC’s June 26, 2013 denial of ComEd’s request for rehearing, on June 27, 2013 ComEd filed an appeal of both the
summer and winter storm dockets with the Illinois Appellate Court regarding the ICC’s interpretation of Section 16-125 of the Illinois
Public Utilities Act. On July 31, 2014, the Illinois Appellate Court reaffirmed the ICC’s decision in the appeal of the Summer 2011
Storm Docket and dismissed the appeal of the February 2011 Blizzard Docket. The Illinois Appellate Court’s opinion has no
270