2.2.0.25truefalse11701 - Disclosure - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIEStruefalsefalse1falsefalseUSDtruefalse{dei_LegalEntityAxis} : PEPCO HOLDINGS INC 1/1/2010 - 12/31/2010 USD ($) USD ($) / shares $Duration_1_1_2010_To_12_31_20105http://www.sec.gov/CIK0001135971duration2010-01-01T00:00:002010-12-31T00:00:00falsefalsePEPCO HOLDINGS INCdei_LegalEntityAxisxbrldihttp://xbrl.org/2006/xbrldius-gaap_ParentCompanyMemberdei_LegalEntityAxisexplicitMemberUnit12Standardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217USDiso42170Unit1Standardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/instancesharesxbrli0Unit13Dividehttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217USDiso4217http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instancesharesxbrli0USDUSD$1false0natruenanaNo definition available.falsetruefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsehttp://www.pepcoholdings.com/taxonomy/role/disclosurecommitmentsandcontingencies1falsefalsefalse00falsefalsefalsefalsefalse1falsefalseUSDtruefalse{dei_LegalEntityAxis} : PEPCO HOLDINGS INC 1/1/2010 - 12/31/2010 USD ($) USD ($) / shares $Duration_1_1_2010_To_12_31_20105http://www.sec.gov/CIK0001135971duration2010-01-01T00:00:002010-12-31T00:00:00falsefalsePEPCO HOLDINGS INCdei_LegalEntityAxisxbrldihttp://xbrl.org/2006/xbrldius-gaap_ParentCompanyMemberdei_LegalEntityAxisexplicitMemberUnit12Standardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217USDiso42170Unit1Standardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/instancesharesxbrli0Unit13Dividehttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217USDiso4217http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instancesharesxbrli0USDUSD$OthernaNo definition available.No authoritative reference available.falsefalsePEPCO HOLDINGS INC2false0us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlockus-gaaptruenadurationNo definition available.falsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalseverboselabel1falsefalsefalse00<div> (17) COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Regulatory and Other Matters Proceeds from Settlement of Mirant Bankruptcy Claims In 2007, Pepco received proceeds from the settlement of its Mirant Corporation (Mirant) bankruptcy claims relating to the Panda PPA. In September 2008, Pepco transferred the Panda PPA to an unaffiliated third party, along with a payment to the third party of a portion of the settlement proceeds. In March 2009, the DCPSC approved an allocation between Pepco and its District of Columbia customers of the District of Columbia portion of the Mirant bankruptcy settlement proceeds remaining after the transfer of the Panda PPA. As a result, Pepco recorded a pre-tax gain of $14 million in the first quarter of 2009 reflecting the District of Columbia proceeds retained by Pepco. In July 2009, the MPSC approved an allocation between Pepco and its Maryland customers of the Maryland portion of the Mirant bankruptcy settlement proceeds remaining after the transfer of the Panda PPA. As a result, Pepco recorded a pre-tax gain of $26 million in the third quarter of 2009 reflecting the Maryland proceeds retained by Pepco. District of Columbia Divestiture Case In June 2000, the DCPSC approved a divestiture settlement under which Pepco is required to share with its District of Columbia customers the net proceeds realized by Pepco from the sale of its generation-related assets in 2000. This approval left unresolved issues of (i) whether Pepco should be required to share with customers the excess deferred income taxes (EDIT) and accumulated deferred investment tax credits (ADITC) associated with the sold assets and, if so, whether such sharing would violate the normalization provisions of the Internal Revenue Code and its implementing regulations and (ii) whether Pepco was entitled to deduct certain costs in determining the amount of proceeds to be shared. On May 18, 2010, the DCPSC issued an order addressing all of the remaining issues related to the sharing of the proceeds of Pepco's divestiture of its generating assets. In the order, the DCPSC ruled that Pepco is not required to share EDIT and ADITC with customers. However, the order also disallowed certain items that Pepco had included in the costs deducted from the proceeds of the sale of the generation assets. The disallowance of these costs, together with interest on the disallowed amount, increases the aggregate amount Pepco is required to distribute to customers, pursuant to the sharing formula, by approximately $11 million. On June 17, 2010, Pepco filed an application for reconsideration of the DCPSC's order, contesting (i) approximately $5 million of the total of $6 million in disallowances and (ii) approximately $4 million of the $5 million in interest to be credited to customers (reflecting a difference in the period of time over which interest was calculated as well as the balance to which interest would be applied). On July 16, 2010, the DCPSC denied Pepco's application for reconsideration. On September 7, 2010, Pepco filed an appeal of the DCPSC's decision with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. PHI recognized an expense of $11 million for the year ended December 31, 2010 corresponding to the disallowed items. The appeal is still pending. Maryland Public Service Commission Reliability Investigation In August 2010, following the major storm events that occurred in July and August 2010, the MPSC initiated a proceeding for the purpose of investigating the reliability of the Pepco distribution system and the quality of distribution service Pepco is providing its customers. On February 10, 2011, the MPSC issued a notice expanding the scope of issues on which it requested testimony to include suggested remedies for the MPSC to consider imposing if the MPSC finds that Pepco has failed to meet its public service obligations. The possible remedies identified in the notice were the imposition of civil penalties, changes in the manner of Pepco's operations, modification of Pepco's service territory and revocation of Pepco's authority to exercise its public utility franchise. The MPSC has retained an independent consultant to review and make recommendations regarding the reliability of Pepco's distribution system and the quality of its service. The independent consultant's report is due March 4, 2011. The MPSC has scheduled hearings on this matter to occur in mid-June 2011. While Pepco intends to cooperate fully with the MPSC in its efforts to ensure that the electric service provided by Pepco to its Maryland customers is reliable, it intends to oppose vigorously any effort of the MPSC to impose any sanctions of the types specified in the February 10, 2011 notice. Although Pepco believes that it has a strong factual and legal basis to oppose such sanctions, it cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding. Rate Proceedings Over the last several years, PHI's utility subsidiaries have proposed the adoption of mechanisms to decouple retail distribution revenue from the amount of power delivered to retail customers. To date:   <table style="border-collapse: collapse;" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%"> <tr><td width="5%"> </td> <td valign="top" width="2%" align="left">•</td> <td valign="top" width="1%"> </td> <td valign="top" align="left"> A BSA has been approved and implemented for both Pepco and DPL electric service in Maryland and for Pepco electric service in the District of Columbia. The MPSC has initiated a proceeding to review how the BSA operates in Maryland to recover revenues lost as a result of major storm outages (as discussed below). </td></tr></table>   <table style="border-collapse: collapse;" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%"> <tr><td width="5%"> </td> <td valign="top" width="2%" align="left">•</td> <td valign="top" width="1%"> </td> <td valign="top" align="left"> A modified fixed variable rate design (MFVRD) has been approved in concept for DPL electric service in Delaware, but has been deferred by the DPSC as described below. </td></tr></table>   <table style="border-collapse: collapse;" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%"> <tr><td width="5%"> </td> <td valign="top" width="2%" align="left">•</td> <td valign="top" width="1%"> </td> <td valign="top" align="left"> A MFVRD has been approved in concept for DPL natural gas service in Delaware, but DPL anticipates that it will be deferred by the DPSC consistent with its treatment in the electric base rate case. </td></tr></table>   <table style="border-collapse: collapse;" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%"> <tr><td width="5%"> </td> <td valign="top" width="2%" align="left">•</td> <td valign="top" width="1%"> </td> <td valign="top" align="left"> A BSA is pending for ACE in New Jersey. </td></tr></table> Under the BSA, customer distribution rates are subject to adjustment (through a credit or surcharge mechanism), depending on whether actual distribution revenue per customer exceeds or falls short of the revenue-per-customer amount approved by the applicable public service commission. The BSA increases rates if actual distribution revenues fall below the approved level and decreases rates if actual distribution revenues are above the approved level. The result is that, over time, the utility collects its authorized revenues for distribution service. As a consequence, a BSA "decouples" distribution revenue from unit sales consumption and ties the growth in distribution revenues to the growth in the number of customers. Some advantages of the BSA are that it (i) eliminates revenue fluctuations due to weather and changes in customer usage patterns and, therefore, provides for more predictable distribution revenues that are better aligned with costs, (ii) provides for more reliable fixed-cost recovery, (iii) tends to stabilize customers' delivery bills, and (iv) removes any disincentives for the regulated utilities to promote energy efficiency programs for their customers, because it breaks the link between overall sales volumes and distribution revenues. The MFVRD approved in concept in Delaware provides for a fixed customer charge (i.e., not tied to the customer's volumetric consumption) to recover the utility's fixed costs, plus a reasonable rate of return. Although different from the BSA, PHI views the MFVRD as an appropriate distribution revenue decoupling mechanism. Delaware DPL makes an annual GCR filing with the DPSC for the purpose of allowing DPL to recover gas procurement costs through customer rates. In August 2010, DPL made its 2010 GCR filing, which proposes rates that would allow DPL to recover an amount equal to a two-year amortization of currently under-recovered gas costs. In October 2010, the DPSC issued an order placing the new rates into effect on November 1, 2010, subject to refund and pending final DPSC approval. The effect of the proposed two-year amortization upon rates is an increase of 0.1% in the level of GCR. If the DPSC does not accept DPL's proposal, the full adjustment would result in an increase of 6.9% in the GCR. In September 2009, DPL submitted an application to the DPSC to increase its electric distribution base rates. The filing, as revised in March 2010, sought approval of an annual rate increase of approximately $26.2 million, assuming approval of the implementation of the MFVRD, based on a requested return on equity (ROE) of 10.75%. As permitted by Delaware law, DPL placed an increase of approximately $2.5 million annually into effect, on a temporary basis, in November 2009, and the remainder of approximately $23.7 million of requested increase went into effect on April 19, 2010, in each case subject to refund and pending final DPSC approval. In June 2010, DPL lowered the requested annual rate increase to approximately $24.2 million. On January 18, 2011, the DPSC approved a rate increase of approximately $16.4 million, based on an ROE of 10.00%. In early 2011, DPL will refund to customers the excess of the billed amounts over the DPSC approved increase. Consideration of the MFVRD has been deferred pending the development of an education plan for customers and workshops that are open to parties and the public for the purpose of developing a proposed implementation plan for the MFVRD. On July 2, 2010, DPL submitted an application with the DPSC to increase its natural gas distribution base rates. As subsequently amended on September 10, 2010 (to replace test year data for the twelve months ended June 2010 with the actual data) and on October 11, 2010 (based on an update to DPL's natural gas advanced metering infrastructure implementation schedule), the filing seeks approval of an annual rate increase of approximately $10.2 million, assuming the implementation of the MFVRD, based on a requested ROE of 11.00%. As permitted by Delaware law, DPL placed an annual increase of approximately $2.5 million annually into effect, on a temporary basis, on August 31, 2010, and the remainder of approximately $7.7 million of the requested increase went into effect on February 2, 2011, in each case subject to refund and pending final DPSC approval. Previously, in June 2009, DPL filed an application requesting approval for the implementation of the MFVRD for gas distribution rates. DPL anticipates that the DPSC will follow the same implementation approach it is following with respect to DPL's MFVRD proposal for electric service, discussed above. The DPSC decision is still pending. Maryland In December 2009, Pepco filed an electric distribution base rate case in Maryland. The filing sought approval of an annual rate increase of approximately $40 million, based on a requested ROE of 10.75%. During the course of the proceeding, Pepco reduced its request to approximately $28.2 million. On August 6, 2010, the MPSC issued an order approving a rate increase of approximately $7.8 million, based on an ROE of 9.83%. On September 2, 2010, Pepco filed with the MPSC a motion for reconsideration of the following issues, which in the aggregate would increase annual revenue by approximately $8.5 million: (1) denial of inclusion in rate base of certain reliability plant investments, which occurred subsequent to the test period but before the rate effective period; (2) denial of Pepco's request to increase depreciation rates to reflect a corrected formula relating to the cost of removal expenses; and (3) imposition of imputed cost savings to partially offset the costs of Pepco's enhanced vegetation management program. Maryland law and regulation do not mandate a response time from the MPSC regarding Pepco's motion and, therefore, it is not known when the MPSC will issue a ruling on the motion.   On December 21, 2010, DPL filed an application with the MPSC to increase its electric distribution base rates by $17.8 million annually, based on an ROE of 10.75%. On December 28, 2010, the MPSC, consistent with its typical practice, issued an order suspending the proposed rate increase request for an initial period of 150 days from January 20, 2011 pending investigation by the MPSC. On February 1, 2011, the MPSC initiated proceedings for Pepco and DPL, as well as unaffiliated utilities such as Baltimore Gas & Electric Company and Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative, for the purpose of reviewing how the BSA operates to recover revenues lost as a result of major storm outages. In its orders initiating the proceedings, the MPSC expressed concern that the utilities' respective BSAs may be allowing them to recover revenues lost during extended outages, therefore unintentionally eliminating an incentive to restore service quickly. The MPSC will consider whether the BSA, as currently in effect, is appropriate, whether the calculations or determinant factors for calculating the BSA should be modified, and if so, what modifications should be made. A similar adjustment was included in the BSA for Pepco in the District of Columbia when the BSA was approved by the DCPSC. Retained Environmental Exposures from the Sale of the Conectiv Energy Wholesale Power Generation Business On July 1, 2010, PHI sold the Conectiv Energy wholesale power generation business to Calpine. Under New Jersey's Industrial Site Recovery Act (ISRA), the transfer of ownership triggered an obligation on the part of Conectiv Energy to remediate any environmental contamination at each of the nine Conectiv Energy generating facility sites located in New Jersey. Under the Purchase Agreement dated April 20, 2010, between PHI and Calpine (the Purchase Agreement), Calpine has assumed responsibility for performing the ISRA-required remediation and for the payment of all related ISRA compliance costs up to $10 million. PHI is obligated to indemnify Calpine for any ISRA compliance remediation costs in excess of $10 million. According to preliminary estimates, the costs of ISRA-required remediation activities at the nine generating facility sites located in New Jersey are in the range of approximately $7 million to $18 million. PHI has accrued approximately $4 million as of December 31, 2010 for the ISRA-required remediation activities at the nine generating facility sites. The sale of the Conectiv Energy wholesale power generation business to Calpine did not include a coal ash landfill site located at the Edge Moor generating facility, which PHI intends to close. The preliminary estimate of the costs to PHI to close the coal ash landfill ranges from approximately $2 million to $3 million, plus annual post-closure operations, maintenance and monitoring costs, estimated to range between $120,000 and $193,000 per year for 30 years. As of December 31, 2010, PHI had accrued approximately $4 million for landfill closure and monitoring. In orders issued in 2007, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) assessed penalties against Conectiv Energy in an aggregate amount of approximately $2 million, based on NJDEP's contention that Conectiv Energy's Deepwater generating facility exceeded the maximum allowable hourly heat input limits during certain periods in calendar years 2004, 2005 and 2006. Conectiv Energy has appealed the NJDEP orders imposing these penalties to the New Jersey Office of Administrative Law. PHI is continuing to prosecute this appeal and, under the Purchase Agreement, has agreed to indemnify Calpine for any monetary penalties, fines or assessments arising out of the NJDEP orders. General Litigation In 1993, Pepco was served with Amended Complaints filed in the state Circuit Courts of Prince George's County, Baltimore City and Baltimore County, Maryland in separate ongoing, consolidated proceedings known as "In re: Personal Injury Asbestos Case." Pepco and other corporate entities were brought into these cases on a theory of premises liability. Under this theory, the plaintiffs argued that Pepco was negligent in not providing a safe work environment for employees or its contractors, who allegedly were exposed to asbestos while working on Pepco's property. Initially, a total of approximately 448 individual plaintiffs added Pepco to their complaints. While the pleadings are not entirely clear, it appears that each plaintiff sought $2 million in compensatory damages and $4 million in punitive damages from each defendant. Since the initial filings in 1993, additional individual suits have been filed against Pepco, and significant numbers of cases have been dismissed. As a result of two motions to dismiss, numerous hearings and meetings and one motion for summary judgment, Pepco has had approximately 400 of these cases successfully dismissed with prejudice, either voluntarily by the plaintiff or by the court. As of December 31, 2010, there are approximately 180 cases still pending against Pepco in the State Courts of Maryland, of which approximately 90 cases were filed after December 19, 2000, and were tendered to Mirant for defense and indemnification in connection with the sale by Pepco of its generation assets to Mirant in 2000. While the aggregate amount of monetary damages sought in the remaining suits (excluding those tendered to Mirant) is approximately $360 million, PHI and Pepco believe the amounts claimed by the remaining plaintiffs are greatly exaggerated. The amount of total liability, if any, and any related insurance recovery cannot be determined at this time; however, based on information and relevant circumstances known at this time, neither PHI nor Pepco believes these suits will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. However, if an unfavorable decision were rendered against Pepco, it could have a material adverse effect on Pepco's and PHI's financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Environmental Litigation PHI, through its subsidiaries, is subject to regulation by various federal, regional, state, and local authorities with respect to the environmental effects of its operations, including air and water quality control, solid and hazardous waste disposal, and limitations on land use. In addition, federal and state statutes authorize governmental agencies to compel responsible parties to clean up certain abandoned or unremediated hazardous waste sites. PHI's subsidiaries may incur costs to clean up currently or formerly owned facilities or sites found to be contaminated, as well as other facilities or sites that may have been contaminated due to past disposal practices. Although penalties assessed for violations of environmental laws and regulations are not recoverable from customers of the operating utilities, environmental clean-up costs incurred by Pepco, DPL and ACE would be included by each company in its respective cost of service for ratemaking purposes. Franklin Slag Pile Site. In November 2008, ACE received a general notice letter from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning the Franklin Slag Pile site in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, asserting that ACE is a potentially responsible party (PRP) that may have liability with respect to the site. If liable, ACE would be responsible for reimbursing EPA for clean-up costs incurred and to be incurred by the agency and for the costs of implementing an EPA-mandated remedy. EPA's claims are based on ACE's sale of boiler slag from the B.L. England generating facility, then owned by ACE, to MDC Industries, Inc. (MDC) during the period June 1978 to May 1983. EPA claims that the boiler slag ACE sold to MDC contained copper and lead, which are hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), and that the sales transactions may have constituted an arrangement for the disposal or treatment of hazardous substances at the site, which could be a basis for liability under CERCLA. The EPA letter also states that, as of the date of the letter, EPA's expenditures for response measures at the site have exceeded $6 million. EPA estimates the cost for future response measures will be approximately $6 million. ACE understands that EPA sent similar general notice letters to three other companies and various individuals. ACE believes that the B.L. England boiler slag sold to MDC was a valuable material with various industrial applications and, therefore, the sale was not an arrangement for the disposal or treatment of any hazardous substances as would be necessary to constitute a basis for liability under CERCLA. ACE intends to contest any claims to the contrary made by EPA. In a May 2009 decision arising under CERCLA, which did not involve ACE, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an EPA argument that the sale of a useful product constituted an arrangement for disposal or treatment of hazardous substances. While this decision supports ACE's position, at this time ACE cannot predict how EPA will proceed with respect to the Franklin Slag Pile site, or what portion, if any, of the Franklin Slag Pile site response costs EPA would seek to recover from ACE. Peck Iron and Metal Site. EPA informed Pepco in a May 2009 letter that Pepco may be a PRP under CERCLA with respect to the cleanup of the Peck Iron and Metal site in Portsmouth, Virginia, for costs EPA has incurred in cleaning up the site. The EPA letter states that Peck Iron and Metal purchased, processed, stored and shipped metal scrap from military bases, governmental agencies and businesses and that Peck's metal scrap operations resulted in the improper storage and disposal of hazardous substances. EPA bases its allegation that Pepco arranged for disposal or treatment of hazardous substances sent to the site on information provided by Peck Iron and Metal personnel, who informed EPA that Pepco was a customer at the site. Pepco has advised EPA by letter that its records show no evidence of any sale of scrap metal by Pepco to the site. Even if EPA has such records and such sales did occur, Pepco believes that any such scrap metal sales are entitled to the recyclable material exemption from CERCLA liability. At this time Pepco cannot predict how EPA will proceed regarding this matter, or what portion, if any, of the Peck Iron and Metal site response costs EPA would seek to recover from Pepco. In a notice published on November 4, 2009, EPA placed the Peck Iron and Metal site on the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, among other things, serves as a guide to EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of the human health and environmental risks associated with a site. Ward Transformer Site. In April 2009, a group of PRPs with respect to the Ward Transformer site in Raleigh, North Carolina, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, alleging cost recovery and/or contribution claims against a number of entities, including ACE, DPL and Pepco with respect to past and future response costs incurred by the PRP group in performing a removal action at the site. With the court's permission, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints in September 2009. ACE, DPL and Pepco, as part of a group of defendants, filed a motion to dismiss in October 2009. In a March 24, 2010 order, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. Although it is too early in the process to characterize the magnitude of the potential liability at this site, PHI does not believe that any of its three utility subsidiaries had extensive business transactions, if any, with the Ward Transformer site. Benning Road Site. On September 21, 2010, PHI received a letter from EPA stating that EPA and the District of Columbia Department of the Environment (DDOE) have identified the Benning Road location, consisting of a transmission and distribution facility operated by Pepco and a generation facility operated by Pepco Energy Services, as one of six land-based sites potentially contributing to contamination of the Lower Anacostia River. The letter stated that the principal contaminants of concern are polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, that EPA is monitoring the efforts of DDOE and that EPA intends to use federal authority to address the Benning Road site if an agreement for a comprehensive study to evaluate (and, if necessary as a result of the study, to clean up the facility) is not reached. In a letter dated October 8, 2010, the Office of the Attorney General of the District of Columbia notified PHI of the District's intent to sue Pepco Energy Services and Pepco under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act for abatement of conditions related to their historical activities, including the discharge of PCBs at the Benning Road site. The District's letter also stated that EPA will list the Benning Road site on the NPL if contamination at the facility is not addressed in a timely manner and that if Pepco fails to meet the District's deadline, the District intends to sue Pepco and Pepco Energy Services in federal court to seek a scientific study to identify the nature of conditions at the Benning Road site, abatement of conditions, compensation for natural resource damages and reimbursement of DDOE's related costs. Pepco and Pepco Energy Services entered into a consent decree with DDOE, filed in the federal District Court on February 1, 2011, which will require the PHI entities to conduct a remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) for the Benning Road site and an approximately 10-15 acre portion of the adjacent Anacostia River. The RI/FS will form the basis for DDOE's selection of a remedial action for the Benning Road site and for the Anacostia River sediment associated with the site. The consent decree will not be final until the DDOE files a motion requesting the Court to enter the consent decree, after a public comment period ends on March 7, 2011, and the Court enters it. In light of the consent decree, Pepco and Pepco Energy Services anticipate that EPA will refrain from listing the Benning Road facility on the NPL. PHI preliminarily estimates that costs for performing the RI/FS will be approximately $600,000 and the remediation costs will be approximately $13 million. PHI recognized expense of $14 million in the fourth quarter of 2010 with respect to this matter and, as of December 31, 2010, has $14 million accrued for this matter. Price's Pit Site. ACE owns a transmission and distribution right-of-way that traverses the Price's Pit superfund site in Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey. EPA placed Price's Pit on the NPL in 1983 and NJDEP undertook an environmental investigation to identify and implement remedial action at the site. NJDEP's investigation revealed that landfill waste had been disposed on ACE's right-of-way and NJDEP determined that ACE was a responsible party at the site as the owner of a facility on which a hazardous substance has been deposited. ACE currently is engaged in settlement negotiations with NJDEP and EPA to resolve its alleged liability at the site by donating property to NJDEP and by making a payment in an amount to be determined. Costs incurred by ACE to resolve this matter are not expected to be material. Appeal of New Jersey Flood Hazard Regulations. In November 2007, NJDEP adopted amendments to the agency's regulations under the Flood Hazard Area Control Act (FHACA) to minimize damage to life and property from flooding caused by development in flood plains. The amended regulations impose a new regulatory program to mitigate flooding and related environmental impacts from a broad range of construction and development activities, including electric utility transmission and distribution construction, which were previously unregulated under the FHACA. These regulations impose restrictions on construction of new electric transmission and distribution facilities and increase the time and personnel resources required to obtain permits and conduct maintenance activities. In November 2008, ACE filed an appeal of these regulations with the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey. The grounds for ACE's appeal include the lack of administrative record justification for the FHACA regulations and conflict between the FHACA regulations and other state and federal regulations and standards for maintenance of electric power transmission and distribution facilities. The matter was argued before the Appellate Division on January 3, 2011 and the decision of the court is pending. Indian River Oil Release In 2001, DPL entered into a consent agreement with the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control for remediation, site restoration, natural resource damage compensatory projects and other costs associated with environmental contamination resulting from an oil release at the Indian River generating facility, which was sold in June 2001. Based on updated engineering estimates obtained in the second quarter of 2010, DPL accrued an additional liability in the amount of approximately $4 million in 2010. As of December 31, 2010, DPL's accrual for expected future costs to fulfill its obligations under the consent agreement was approximately $5 million, of which approximately $1 million is expected to be incurred in 2011. PHI's Cross-Border Energy Lease Investments Between 1994 and 2002, PCI, a subsidiary of PHI, entered into eight cross-border energy lease investments involving public utility assets (primarily consisting of hydroelectric generation and coal-fired electric generation facilities and natural gas distribution networks) located outside of the United States. Each of these investments is structured as a sale and leaseback transaction commonly referred to as a sale-in/lease-out or SILO transaction. PHI's current annual tax benefits from these eight cross-border energy lease investments are approximately $59 million. As of December 31, 2010, PHI's equity investment in its cross-border energy leases was approximately $1.4 billion. From January 1, 2001, the earliest year that remains open to audit, to December 31, 2010, PHI has derived approximately $575 million in federal and state income tax benefits from the depreciation and interest deductions in excess of rental income with respect to these cross-border energy lease investments.   In 2005, the Treasury Department and IRS issued Notice 2005-13 identifying sale-leaseback transactions with certain attributes entered into with tax-indifferent parties as tax avoidance transactions, and the IRS announced its intention to disallow the associated tax benefits claimed by the investors in these transactions. PHI's cross-border energy lease investments, each of which is with a tax-indifferent party, have been under examination by the IRS as part of the normal PHI federal income tax audits. In the final RARs issued in June 2006 and in March 2009 in connection with the audit of PHI's 2001-2002 and 2003-2005 income tax returns, respectively, the IRS disallowed the depreciation and interest deductions in excess of rental income claimed by PHI with respect to each of its cross-border energy lease investments. In addition, the IRS has sought to recharacterize each of the leases as a loan transaction as to which PHI would be subject to original issue discount income. PHI disagrees with the IRS' proposed adjustments and filed tax protests in August 2006 and May 2009, respectively, in connection with the audit of the 2001-2002 and the 2003-2005 income tax returns. Both of these protests were forwarded to the IRS Appeals Office. On August 9, 2010, PHI signed an IRS settlement statement with respect to the 2001-2002 income tax returns agreeing to the IRS's disallowance of depreciation and interest deductions in excess of rental income with respect to the cross-border energy lease investments, but reserving its right to file timely refund claims in which it would contest the disallowances. The Joint Tax Committee approved the settlement on November 10, 2010. In January 2011, PHI paid $74 million of additional tax associated with the disallowed deductions from the cross-border energy lease investment for 2001 and 2002, plus penalties of $1 million and any interest associated with the disallowed deductions once the IRS assesses the amount due. PHI currently intends to file a refund claim for the additional taxes and related interest and penalties incurred by reason of the disallowed deductions, which it expects the IRS to deny, and if so, PHI intends to pursue litigation in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims against the IRS to defend its tax position and recover the tax payment, interest, and penalties. Absent a settlement, litigation against the IRS may take several years to resolve. The 2003-2005 case continues to be in process with the IRS Appeals Office. At December 31, 2010 and 2009, PHI modified its tax cash flow assumptions under its cross-border energy lease investments for the periods 2010-2013 and 2010-2012, respectively, to reflect the anticipated timing of potential litigation with the IRS concerning the investments. As a result of the 2009 recalculation, PHI recorded a $2 million after-tax non-cash charge to earnings at December 31 2009, and recorded an additional $3 million in after-tax non-cash earnings during 2010 (as compared to the earnings that it would have recorded absent the 2009 recalculation). As a result of the 2010 recalculation, PHI recorded a $1 million after-tax non-cash charge to earnings at December 31, 2010. In the event that the IRS were to be successful in disallowing 100% of the tax benefits associated with these leases and recharacterizing these leases as loans, PHI estimates that, as of December 31, 2010, it would be obligated to pay approximately $692 million in additional federal and state taxes and $133 million of interest, of which $74 million has been satisfied by the payment made in January 2011. In addition, the IRS could require PHI to pay a penalty of up to 20% on the amount of additional taxes due. PHI anticipates that any additional taxes that it would be required to pay as a result of the disallowance of prior deductions or a re-characterization of the leases as loans would be recoverable in the form of lower taxes over the remaining terms of the affected leases. Moreover, the entire amount of any additional tax would not be due immediately. Rather, the federal and state taxes would be payable when the open audit years are closed and PHI amends subsequent tax returns not then under audit. To mitigate the taxes due in the event of a total disallowance of tax benefits, PHI could, were it to so elect, choose to liquidate all or a portion of its cross-border energy lease portfolio, which PHI estimates could be accomplished over a period of six months to one year. Based on current market values, PHI estimates that liquidation of the entire portfolio would generate sufficient cash proceeds to cover the estimated $825 million in federal and state taxes and interest due as of December 31, 2010 (or an estimated $751 million after giving effect to the $74 million payment made in January 2011), in the event of a total disallowance of tax benefits and a recharacterization of the transactions as loans. If payments of additional taxes and interest preceded the receipt of liquidation proceeds, the payments would be funded by currently available sources of liquidity.   To the extent that PHI does not to prevail in this matter and suffers a disallowance of the tax benefits and incurs imputed original issue discount income due to the recharacterization of the leases as loans, PHI would be required under FASB guidance on leases (ASC 840) to recalculate the timing of the tax benefits generated by the cross-border energy lease investments and adjust the equity value of the investments, which would result in a non-cash charge to earnings. District of Columbia Tax Legislation In December 2009, the Mayor of the District of Columbia approved legislation adopted by the City Council that imposes mandatory combined unitary business reporting beginning with tax year 2011, and revises the District's related party expense disallowance beginning with tax year 2009. Because the City Council must still enact further legislation providing guidance on how to implement combined unitary business reporting before this provision is effective, PHI believes that the legislative process was not complete as of December 31, 2010, and, therefore, the effect of the legislation for combined unitary business tax reporting has not been accounted for as of December 31, 2010. However, because the City Council is not required to enact any further legislation in order for the provisions for the disallowance of related party transactions to become effective, PHI accrued approximately $500,000 of additional income tax expense during the first quarter of 2010. The legislation does not define the term "unitary business" and does not specify how combined tax reporting would differ from PHI's current consolidated tax reporting in the District of Columbia. However, based upon PHI's interpretation of combined unitary business tax reporting in other taxing jurisdictions, the legislation would likely result in a change in PHI's overall state income tax rate and, therefore, would likely require an adjustment to PHI's net deferred income tax liabilities. Further, to the extent that the change in rate increases net deferred income tax liabilities, PHI must determine if these increased tax liabilities are probable of recovery in future rates. No timetable has been established by the City Council to enact the required further legislation and, therefore, it is uncertain as to when combined unitary reporting will be effective for PHI's District of Columbia tax returns. Management continues to analyze the impact that the unitary business tax reporting aspect of this legislation, if completed, may have on the financial position, results of operations and cash flows of PHI and its subsidiaries. Third Party Guarantees, Indemnifications, and Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements Pepco Holdings and certain of its subsidiaries have various financial and performance guarantees and indemnification obligations that they have entered into in the normal course of business to facilitate commercial transactions with third parties as discussed below. As of December 31, 2010, Pepco Holdings and its subsidiaries were parties to a variety of agreements pursuant to which they were guarantors for standby letters of credit, performance residual value, and other commitments and obligations. The commitments and obligations, in millions of dollars, were as follows:   <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%" align="center"> <tr><td width="80%"> </td> <td valign="bottom" width="2%"> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td valign="bottom" width="2%"> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td valign="bottom" width="2%"> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td valign="bottom" width="2%"> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td valign="bottom" width="2%"> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td></tr> <tr><td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td style="border-bottom: #000000 1px solid;" valign="bottom" colspan="14" align="center">Guarantor</td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom" colspan="2"> </td> <td valign="bottom"> </td></tr> <tr><td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td style="border-bottom: #000000 1px solid;" valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="center">PHI</td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td style="border-bottom: #000000 1px solid;" valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="center">Pepco</td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td style="border-bottom: #000000 1px solid;" valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="center">DPL</td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td style="border-bottom: #000000 1px solid;" valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="center">ACE</td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td style="border-bottom: #000000 1px solid;" valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="center">Total</td> <td valign="bottom"> </td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#cceeff"><td valign="top"> Energy marketing obligations of Conectiv Energy (a)</td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom">$</td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">139</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap"> </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">$</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap" align="right">—  </td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">$</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap" align="right">—  </td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">$</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap" align="right">—  </td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom">$</td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">139</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap"> </td></tr> <tr><td valign="top"> Energy procurement obligations of Pepco Energy Services (a)</td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">243</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap"> </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap"> </td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap" align="right">—  </td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap"> </td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap" align="right">—  </td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap"> </td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap" align="right">—  </td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">243</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap"> </td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#cceeff"><td valign="top"> Guarantees associated with disposal of Conectiv Energy assets (b)</td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">25</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap"> </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap"> </td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap" align="right">—  </td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap"> </td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap" align="right">—  </td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap"> </td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap" align="right">—  </td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">25</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap"> </td></tr> <tr><td valign="top"> Guaranteed lease residual values (c)</td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">1</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap"> </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap"> </td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap" align="right">2</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap"> </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap"> </td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap" align="right">5</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap"> </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap"> </td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap" align="right">3</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap"> </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">11</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap"> </td></tr> <tr style="font-size: 1px;"><td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td style="border-top: #000000 1px solid;" valign="bottom"> </td> <td style="border-top: #000000 1px solid;" valign="bottom"> </td> <td> </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td style="border-top: #000000 1px solid;" valign="bottom"> </td> <td style="border-top: #000000 1px solid;" valign="bottom"> </td> <td> </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td style="border-top: #000000 1px solid;" valign="bottom"> </td> <td style="border-top: #000000 1px solid;" valign="bottom"> </td> <td> </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td style="border-top: #000000 1px solid;" valign="bottom"> </td> <td style="border-top: #000000 1px solid;" valign="bottom"> </td> <td> </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td style="border-top: #000000 1px solid;" valign="bottom"> </td> <td style="border-top: #000000 1px solid;" valign="bottom"> </td> <td> </td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#cceeff"><td valign="top"> Total</td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom">$</td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">408</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap"> </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">$</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap" align="right">2</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap"> </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">$</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap" align="right">5</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap"> </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">$</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap" align="right">3</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap"> </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom">$</td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">418</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap"> </td></tr> <tr style="font-size: 1px;"><td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td style="border-top: #000000 3px double;" valign="bottom"> </td> <td style="border-top: #000000 3px double;" valign="bottom"> </td> <td> </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td style="border-top: #000000 3px double;" valign="bottom"> </td> <td style="border-top: #000000 3px double;" valign="bottom"> </td> <td> </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td style="border-top: #000000 3px double;" valign="bottom"> </td> <td style="border-top: #000000 3px double;" valign="bottom"> </td> <td> </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td style="border-top: #000000 3px double;" valign="bottom"> </td> <td style="border-top: #000000 3px double;" valign="bottom"> </td> <td> </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td style="border-top: #000000 3px double;" valign="bottom"> </td> <td style="border-top: #000000 3px double;" valign="bottom"> </td> <td> </td></tr></table> <table style="border-collapse: collapse;" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%"> <tr><td valign="top" width="4%" align="left">(a)</td> <td valign="top" align="left">Pepco Holdings has contractual commitments for performance and related payments of Conectiv Energy and Pepco Energy Services to counterparties under routine energy sales and procurement obligations, including retail customer load obligations of Pepco Energy Services and requirements under ACE's BGS contracts entered into by Conectiv Energy. </td></tr></table> <table style="border-collapse: collapse;" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%"> <tr><td valign="top" width="4%" align="left">(b)</td> <td valign="top" align="left">Represents a guarantee by Pepco Holdings in connection with a Conectiv Energy tolling agreement that remains in effect following the assignment of the tolling agreement to a third party. Pepco Holdings' obligation declines each month through the second quarter of 2012. </td></tr></table> <table style="border-collapse: collapse;" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%"> <tr><td valign="top" width="4%" align="left">(c)</td> <td valign="top" align="left">Subsidiaries of Pepco Holdings have guaranteed residual values in excess of fair value of certain equipment and fleet vehicles held through lease agreements. As of December 31, 2010, obligations under the guarantees were approximately $11 million. Assets leased under agreements subject to residual value guarantees are typically for periods ranging from 2 years to 10 years. Historically, payments under the guarantees have not been made by the guarantor as, under normal conditions, the contract runs to full term at which time the residual value is immaterial. As such, Pepco Holdings believes the likelihood of payments being required under the guarantees is remote. </td></tr></table> Pepco Energy Services has entered into various energy savings guaranty contracts associated with the installation of energy savings equipment for federal, state and local government customers. As part of those contracts, Pepco Energy Services typically guarantees that the equipment will generate a specified amount of energy savings on an annual basis based on contractually established performance measures. The longest remaining term of the guarantees currently in effect is 15 years. On an annual basis, Pepco Energy Services undertakes a measurement and verification process to determine the amount of energy savings for the year and whether there is any shortfall in the annual energy savings compared to the guaranteed amount. Pepco Energy Services recognizes a liability for the value of the estimated energy savings shortfall when it is probable that the guaranteed energy savings will not be achieved. The liability for energy savings guaranty contracts has not changed significantly during the year ended December 31, 2010 and currently is less than $1 million. Pepco Energy Services did not make any significant payouts under the guarantees, and there was no significant change in guarantees issued or expired for the year ended December 31, 2010. Pepco Holdings and certain of its subsidiaries have entered into various indemnification agreements related to purchase and sale agreements and other types of contractual agreements with vendors and other third parties. These indemnification agreements typically cover environmental, tax, litigation and other matters, as well as breaches of representations, warranties and covenants set forth in these agreements. Typically, claims may be made by third parties under these indemnification agreements over various periods of time depending on the nature of the claim. The maximum potential exposure under these indemnification agreements can range from a specified dollar amount to an unlimited amount depending on the nature of the claim and the particular transaction. The total maximum potential amount of future payments under these indemnification agreements is not estimable due to several factors, including uncertainty as to whether or when claims may be made under these indemnities. Dividends On January 27, 2011, Pepco Holdings' Board of Directors declared a dividend on common stock of 27 cents per share payable March 31, 2011, to shareholders of record on March 10, 2011. Contractual Obligations As of December 31, 2010, Pepco Holdings' contractual obligations under non-derivative fuel and purchase power contracts were $922 million in 2011, $1,064 million in 2012 to 2013, $711 million in 2014 to 2015, and $2,916 million in 2016 and thereafter. </div>falsefalsefalsefalsefalseOtherus-types:textBlockItemTypestringIncludes disclosure of commitments and contingencies. This element may be used as a single block of text to encapsulate the entire disclosure including data and tables.Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name FASB Interpretation (FIN) -Number 14 -Paragraph 3 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) -Number 5 -Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12 falsefalseCOMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES3false0natruenanaNo definition available.falsetruefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsehttp://www.pepcoholdings.com/taxonomy/role/disclosurecommitmentsandcontingencies1falsefalsefalse00falsefalsefalsefalsefalse2falsefalseUSDtruefalse{dei_LegalEntityAxis} : POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER CO 1/1/2010 - 12/31/2010 USD ($) $Duration_1_1_2010_To_12_31_20104http://www.sec.gov/CIK0001135971duration2010-01-01T00:00:002010-12-31T00:00:00falsefalsePOTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER COdei_LegalEntityAxisxbrldihttp://xbrl.org/2006/xbrldipom_PotomacElectricPowerCoMemberdei_LegalEntityAxisexplicitMemberUnit12Standardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217USDiso42170USDUSD$OthernaNo definition available.No authoritative reference available.falsefalsePOTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER CO4false0us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlockus-gaaptruenadurationNo definition available.falsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalseverboselabel1falsefalsefalse00<div> (13) COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Regulatory and Other Matters Proceeds from Settlement of Mirant Bankruptcy Claims In 2007, Pepco received proceeds from the settlement of its Mirant Corporation (Mirant) bankruptcy claims relating to the Panda PPA. In September 2008, Pepco transferred the Panda PPA to an unaffiliated third party, along with a payment to the third party of a portion of the settlement proceeds. In March 2009, the DCPSC approved an allocation between Pepco and its District of Columbia customers of the District of Columbia portion of the Mirant bankruptcy settlement proceeds remaining after the transfer of the Panda PPA. As a result, Pepco recorded a pre-tax gain of $14 million in the first quarter of 2009 reflecting the District of Columbia proceeds retained by Pepco. In July 2009, the MPSC approved an allocation between Pepco and its Maryland customers of the Maryland portion of the Mirant bankruptcy settlement proceeds remaining after the transfer of the Panda PPA. As a result, Pepco recorded a pre-tax gain of $26 million in the third quarter of 2009 reflecting the Maryland proceeds retained by Pepco. District of Columbia Divestiture Case In June 2000, the DCPSC approved a divestiture settlement under which Pepco is required to share with its District of Columbia customers the net proceeds realized by Pepco from the sale of its generation-related assets in 2000. This approval left unresolved issues of (i) whether Pepco should be required to share with customers the excess deferred income taxes (EDIT) and accumulated deferred investment tax credits (ADITC) associated with the sold assets and, if so, whether such sharing would violate the normalization provisions of the Internal Revenue Code and its implementing regulations and (ii) whether Pepco was entitled to deduct certain costs in determining the amount of proceeds to be shared. On May 18, 2010, the DCPSC issued an order addressing all of the remaining issues related to the sharing of the proceeds of Pepco's divestiture of its generating assets. In the order, the DCPSC ruled that Pepco is not required to share EDIT and ADITC with customers. However, the order also disallowed certain items that Pepco had included in the costs deducted from the proceeds of the sale of the generation assets. The disallowance of these costs, together with interest on the disallowed amount, increases the aggregate amount Pepco is required to distribute to customers, pursuant to the sharing formula, by approximately $11 million. On June 17, 2010, Pepco filed an application for reconsideration of the DCPSC's order, contesting (i) approximately $5 million of the total of $6 million in disallowances and (ii) approximately $4 million of the $5 million in interest to be credited to customers (reflecting a difference in the period of time over which interest was calculated as well as the balance to which interest would be applied). On July 16, 2010, the DCPSC denied Pepco's application for reconsideration. On September 7, 2010, Pepco filed an appeal of the DCPSC's decision with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. PHI recognized an expense of $11 million for the year ended December 31, 2010 corresponding to the disallowed items. The appeal is still pending. Maryland Public Service Commission Reliability Investigation In August 2010, following the major storm events that occurred in July and August 2010, the MPSC initiated a proceeding for the purpose of investigating the reliability of the Pepco distribution system and the quality of distribution service Pepco is providing its customers. On February 10, 2011, the MPSC issued a notice expanding the scope of issues on which it requested testimony to include suggested remedies for the MPSC to consider imposing if the MPSC finds that Pepco has failed to meet its public service obligations. The possible remedies identified in the notice were the imposition of civil penalties, changes in the manner of Pepco's operations, modification of Pepco's service territory and revocation of Pepco's authority to exercise its public utility franchise. The MPSC has retained an independent consultant to review and make recommendations regarding the reliability of Pepco's distribution system and the quality of its service. The independent consultant's report is due March 4, 2011. The MPSC has scheduled hearings on this matter to occur in mid-June 2011. While Pepco intends to cooperate fully with the MPSC in its efforts to ensure that the electric service provided by Pepco to its Maryland customers is reliable, it intends to oppose vigorously any effort of the MPSC to impose any sanctions of the types specified in the February 10, 2011 notice. Although Pepco believes that it has a strong factual and legal basis to oppose such sanctions, it cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding. Rate Proceedings Over the last several years, Pepco has proposed the adoption of mechanisms to decouple retail distribution revenue from the amount of power delivered to retail customers. To date, a BSA has been approved and implemented for electric service in Maryland and the District of Columbia; however, the MPSC has initiated a proceeding to review how the BSA operates in Maryland to recover revenues lost as a result of major storm outages (as discussed below). Under the BSA, customer distribution rates are subject to adjustment (through a credit or surcharge mechanism), depending on whether actual distribution revenue per customer exceeds or falls short of the revenue-per-customer amount approved by the applicable public service commission. The BSA increases rates if actual distribution revenues fall below the approved level and decreases rates if actual distribution revenues are above the approved level. The result is that, over time, Pepco collects its authorized revenues for distribution service. As a consequence, a BSA "decouples" distribution revenue from unit sales consumption and ties the growth in distribution revenues to the growth in the number of customers. Some advantages of the BSA are that it (i) eliminates revenue fluctuations due to weather and changes in customer usage patterns and, therefore, provides for more predictable distribution revenues that are better aligned with costs, (ii) provides for more reliable fixed-cost recovery, (iii) tends to stabilize customers' delivery bills, and (iv) removes any disincentives for Pepco to promote energy efficiency programs for their customers, because it breaks the link between overall sales volumes and distribution revenues. Maryland In December 2009, Pepco filed an electric distribution base rate case in Maryland. The filing sought approval of an annual rate increase of approximately $40 million, based on a requested return on equity (ROE) of 10.75%. During the course of the proceeding, Pepco reduced its request to approximately $28.2 million. On August 6, 2010, the MPSC issued an order approving a rate increase of approximately $7.8 million, based on an ROE of 9.83%. On September 2, 2010, Pepco filed with the MPSC a motion for reconsideration of the following issues, which in the aggregate would increase annual revenue by approximately $8.5 million: (1) denial of inclusion in rate base of certain reliability plant investments, which occurred subsequent to the test period but before the rate effective period; (2) denial of Pepco's request to increase depreciation rates to reflect a corrected formula relating to the cost of removal expenses; and (3) imposition of imputed cost savings to partially offset the costs of Pepco's enhanced vegetation management program. Maryland law and regulation do not mandate a response time from the MPSC regarding Pepco's motion and, therefore, it is not known when the MPSC will issue a ruling on the motion. On February 1, 2011, the MPSC initiated proceedings for Pepco and DPL, as well as unaffiliated utilities such as Baltimore Gas & Electric Company and Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative, for the purpose of reviewing how the BSA operates to recover revenues lost as a result of major storm outages. In its orders initiating the proceedings, the MPSC expressed concern that the utilities' respective BSAs may be allowing them to recover revenues lost during extended outages, therefore unintentionally eliminating an incentive to restore service quickly. The MPSC will consider whether the BSA, as currently in effect, is appropriate, whether the calculations or determinant factors for calculating the BSA should be modified, and if so, what modifications should be made. A similar adjustment was included in the BSA in the District of Columbia when the BSA was approved by the DCPSC.   General Litigation In 1993, Pepco was served with Amended Complaints filed in the state Circuit Courts of Prince George's County, Baltimore City and Baltimore County, Maryland in separate ongoing, consolidated proceedings known as "In re: Personal Injury Asbestos Case." Pepco and other corporate entities were brought into these cases on a theory of premises liability. Under this theory, the plaintiffs argued that Pepco was negligent in not providing a safe work environment for employees or its contractors, who allegedly were exposed to asbestos while working on Pepco's property. Initially, a total of approximately 448 individual plaintiffs added Pepco to their complaints. While the pleadings are not entirely clear, it appears that each plaintiff sought $2 million in compensatory damages and $4 million in punitive damages from each defendant. Since the initial filings in 1993, additional individual suits have been filed against Pepco, and significant numbers of cases have been dismissed. As a result of two motions to dismiss, numerous hearings and meetings and one motion for summary judgment, Pepco has had approximately 400 of these cases successfully dismissed with prejudice, either voluntarily by the plaintiff or by the court. As of December 31, 2010, there are approximately 180 cases still pending against Pepco in the State Courts of Maryland, of which approximately 90 cases were filed after December 19, 2000, and were tendered to Mirant for defense and indemnification in connection with the sale by Pepco of its generation assets to Mirant in 2000. While the aggregate amount of monetary damages sought in the remaining suits (excluding those tendered to Mirant) is approximately $360 million, PHI and Pepco believe the amounts claimed by the remaining plaintiffs are greatly exaggerated. The amount of total liability, if any, and any related insurance recovery cannot be determined at this time; however, based on information and relevant circumstances known at this time, neither PHI nor Pepco believes these suits will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. However, if an unfavorable decision were rendered against Pepco, it could have a material adverse effect on Pepco's and PHI's financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Environmental Litigation Pepco is subject to regulation by various federal, regional, state, and local authorities with respect to the environmental effects of its operations, including air and water quality control, solid and hazardous waste disposal, and limitations on land use. In addition, federal and state statutes authorize governmental agencies to compel responsible parties to clean up certain abandoned or unremediated hazardous waste sites. Pepco may incur costs to clean up currently or formerly owned facilities or sites found to be contaminated, as well as other facilities or sites that may have been contaminated due to past disposal practices. Although penalties assessed for violations of environmental laws and regulations are not recoverable from Pepco's customers, environmental clean-up costs incurred by Pepco would be included in its cost of service for ratemaking purposes. Peck Iron and Metal Site. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) informed Pepco in a May 2009 letter that Pepco may be a potentially responsible party (PRP) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) with respect to the cleanup of the Peck Iron and Metal site in Portsmouth, Virginia, for costs EPA has incurred in cleaning up the site. The EPA letter states that Peck Iron and Metal purchased, processed, stored and shipped metal scrap from military bases, governmental agencies and businesses and that Peck's metal scrap operations resulted in the improper storage and disposal of hazardous substances. EPA bases its allegation that Pepco arranged for disposal or treatment of hazardous substances sent to the site on information provided by Peck Iron and Metal personnel, who informed EPA that Pepco was a customer at the site. Pepco has advised EPA by letter that its records show no evidence of any sale of scrap metal by Pepco to the site. Even if EPA has such records and such sales did occur, Pepco believes that any such scrap metal sales are entitled to the recyclable material exemption from CERCLA liability. At this time Pepco cannot predict how EPA will proceed regarding this matter, or what portion, if any, of the Peck Iron and Metal site response costs EPA would seek to recover from Pepco. In a notice published on November 4, 2009, EPA placed the Peck Iron and Metal site on the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, among other things, serves as a guide to EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of the human health and environmental risks associated with a site. Ward Transformer Site. In April 2009, a group of PRPs with respect to the Ward Transformer site in Raleigh, North Carolina, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, alleging cost recovery and/or contribution claims against a number of entities, including Pepco with respect to past and future response costs incurred by the PRP group in performing a removal action at the site. With the court's permission, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints in September 2009. Pepco, as part of a group of defendants, filed a motion to dismiss in October 2009. In a March 24, 2010 order, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. Although it is too early in the process to characterize the magnitude of the potential liability at this site, Pepco does not believe that it had extensive business transactions, if any, with the Ward Transformer site. Benning Road Site. On September 21, 2010, PHI received a letter from EPA stating that EPA and the District of Columbia Department of the Environment (DDOE) have identified the Benning Road location, consisting of a transmission and distribution facility operated by Pepco and a generation facility operated by Pepco Energy Services, as one of six land-based sites potentially contributing to contamination of the Lower Anacostia River. The letter stated that the principal contaminants of concern are polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, that EPA is monitoring the efforts of DDOE and that EPA intends to use federal authority to address the Benning Road site if an agreement for a comprehensive study to evaluate (and, if necessary as a result of the study, to clean up the facility) is not reached. In a letter dated October 8, 2010, the Office of the Attorney General of the District of Columbia notified PHI of the District's intent to sue Pepco Energy Services and Pepco under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act for abatement of conditions related to their historical activities, including the discharge of PCBs at the Benning Road site. The District's letter also stated that EPA will list the Benning Road site on the NPL if contamination at the facility is not addressed in a timely manner and that if Pepco fails to meet the District's deadline, the District intends to sue Pepco and Pepco Energy Services in federal court to seek a scientific study to identify the nature of conditions at the Benning Road site, abatement of conditions, compensation for natural resource damages and reimbursement of DDOE's related costs. Pepco and Pepco Energy Services entered into a consent decree with DDOE, filed in the federal District Court on February 1, 2011, which will require the PHI entities to conduct a remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) for the Benning Road site and an approximately 10-15 acre portion of the adjacent Anacostia River. The RI/FS will form the basis for DDOE's selection of a remedial action for the Benning Road site and for the Anacostia River sediment associated with the site. The consent decree will not be final until the DDOE files a motion requesting the Court to enter the consent decree, after a public comment period ends on March 7, 2011, and the Court enters it. In light of the consent decree, Pepco and Pepco Energy Services anticipate that EPA will refrain from listing the Benning Road facility on the NPL. PHI preliminarily estimates that costs for performing the RI/FS will be approximately $600,000 and the remediation costs will be approximately $13 million. PHI recognized expense of $14 million in the fourth quarter of 2010 with respect to this matter and, as of December 31, 2010, has $14 million accrued for this matter. District of Columbia Tax Legislation In December 2009, the Mayor of the District of Columbia approved legislation adopted by the City Council that imposes mandatory combined unitary business reporting beginning with tax year 2011, and revises the District's related party expense disallowance beginning with tax year 2009. Because the City Council must still enact further legislation providing guidance on how to implement combined unitary business reporting before this provision is effective, PHI believes that the legislative process was not complete as of December 31, 2010, and, therefore, the effect of the legislation for combined unitary business tax reporting has not been accounted for as of December 31, 2010.   The legislation does not define the term "unitary business" and does not specify how combined tax reporting would differ from PHI's current consolidated tax reporting in the District of Columbia. However, based upon PHI's interpretation of combined unitary business tax reporting in other taxing jurisdictions, the legislation would likely result in a change in PHI's overall state income tax rate and, therefore, would likely require an adjustment to PHI's net deferred income tax liabilities. Further, to the extent that the change in rate increases net deferred income tax liabilities, PHI must determine if these increased tax liabilities are probable of recovery in future rates. No timetable has been established by the City Council to enact the required further legislation and, therefore, it is uncertain as to when combined unitary reporting will be effective for PHI's District of Columbia tax returns. Management continues to analyze the impact that the unitary business tax reporting aspect of this legislation, if completed, may have on the financial position, results of operations and cash flows of PHI and its subsidiaries. Contractual Obligations As of December 31, 2010, Pepco had no contractual obligations under non-derivative fuel and power purchase contracts. </div>falsefalsefalsefalsefalseOtherus-types:textBlockItemTypestringIncludes disclosure of commitments and contingencies. This element may be used as a single block of text to encapsulate the entire disclosure including data and tables.Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name FASB Interpretation (FIN) -Number 14 -Paragraph 3 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) -Number 5 -Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12 falsefalseCOMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES5false0natruenanaNo definition available.falsetruefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsehttp://www.pepcoholdings.com/taxonomy/role/disclosurecommitmentsandcontingencies1falsefalsefalse00falsefalsefalsefalsefalse3falsefalseUSDtruefalse{dei_LegalEntityAxis} : DELMARVA POWER & LIGHT CO /DE/ 1/1/2010 - 12/31/2010 USD ($) $Duration_1_1_2010_To_12_31_20103http://www.sec.gov/CIK0001135971duration2010-01-01T00:00:002010-12-31T00:00:00falsefalseDELMARVA POWER & LIGHT CO /DE/dei_LegalEntityAxisxbrldihttp://xbrl.org/2006/xbrldipom_DelmarvaPowerLightCoMemberdei_LegalEntityAxisexplicitMemberUnit12Standardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217USDiso42170USDUSD$OthernaNo definition available.No authoritative reference available.falsefalseDELMARVA POWER & LIGHT CO /DE/6false0us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlockus-gaaptruenadurationNo definition available.falsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalseverboselabel1falsefalsefalse00<div> (15) COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Regulatory and Other Matters Rate Proceedings Over the last several years, DPL has proposed the adoption of mechanisms to decouple retail distribution revenue from the amount of power delivered to retail customers. To date:   <table style="border-collapse: collapse;" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%"> <tr><td width="5%"> </td> <td valign="top" width="2%" align="left">•</td> <td valign="top" width="1%"> </td> <td valign="top" align="left"> A BSA has been approved and implemented for electric service in Maryland; however, the MPSC has initiated a proceeding to review how the BSA operates in Maryland to recover revenues lost as a result of major storm outages (as discussed below). </td></tr></table>   <table style="border-collapse: collapse;" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%"> <tr><td width="5%"> </td> <td valign="top" width="2%" align="left">•</td> <td valign="top" width="1%"> </td> <td valign="top" align="left"> A modified fixed variable rate design (MFVRD) has been approved in concept for electric service in Delaware, but has been deferred by the DPSC as described below. </td></tr></table>   <table style="border-collapse: collapse;" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%"> <tr><td width="5%"> </td> <td valign="top" width="2%" align="left">•</td> <td valign="top" width="1%"> </td> <td valign="top" align="left"> A MFVRD has been approved in concept for natural gas service in Delaware, but DPL anticipates that it will be deferred by the DPSC consistent with its treatment in the electric base rate case. </td></tr></table> Under the BSA, customer distribution rates are subject to adjustment (through a credit or surcharge mechanism), depending on whether actual distribution revenue per customer exceeds or falls short of the revenue-per-customer amount approved by the applicable public service commission. The BSA increases rates if actual distribution revenues fall below the approved level and decreases rates if actual distribution revenues are above the approved level. The result is that, over time, DPL collects its authorized revenues for distribution service. As a consequence, a BSA "decouples" distribution revenue from unit sales consumption and ties the growth in distribution revenues to the growth in the number of customers. Some advantages of the BSA are that it (i) eliminates revenue fluctuations due to weather and changes in customer usage patterns and, therefore, provides for more predictable distribution revenues that are better aligned with costs, (ii) provides for more reliable fixed-cost recovery, (iii) tends to stabilize customers' delivery bills, and (iv) removes any disincentives for DPL to promote energy efficiency programs for their customers, because it breaks the link between overall sales volumes and distribution revenues. The MFVRD approved in concept in Delaware provides for a fixed customer charge (i.e., not tied to the customer's volumetric consumption) to recover the utility's fixed costs, plus a reasonable rate of return. Although different from the BSA, DPL views the MFVRD as an appropriate distribution revenue decoupling mechanism. Delaware DPL makes an annual GCR filing with the DPSC for the purpose of allowing DPL to recover gas procurement costs through customer rates. In August 2010, DPL made its 2010 GCR filing, which proposes rates that would allow DPL to recover an amount equal to a two-year amortization of currently under-recovered gas costs. In October 2010, the DPSC issued an order placing the new rates into effect on November 1, 2010, subject to refund and pending final DPSC approval. The effect of the proposed two-year amortization upon rates is an increase of 0.1% in the level of GCR. If the DPSC does not accept DPL's proposal, the full adjustment would result in an increase of 6.9% in the GCR. In September 2009, DPL submitted an application to the DPSC to increase its electric distribution base rates. The filing, as revised in March 2010, sought approval of an annual rate increase of approximately $26.2 million, assuming approval of the implementation of the MFVRD, based on a requested return on equity (ROE) of 10.75%. As permitted by Delaware law, DPL placed an increase of approximately $2.5 million annually into effect, on a temporary basis, in November 2009, and the remainder of approximately $23.7 million of requested increase went into effect on April 19, 2010, in each case subject to refund and pending final DPSC approval. In June 2010, DPL lowered the requested annual rate increase to approximately $24.2 million. On January 18, 2011, the DPSC approved a rate increase of approximately $16.4 million, based on an ROE of 10.00%. In early 2011, DPL will refund to customers the excess of the billed amounts over the DPSC approved increase. Consideration of the MFVRD has been deferred pending the development of an education plan for customers and workshops that are open to parties and the public for the purpose of developing a proposed implementation plan for the MFVRD. On July 2, 2010, DPL submitted an application with the DPSC to increase its natural gas distribution base rates. As subsequently amended on September 10, 2010 (to replace test year data for the twelve months ended June 2010 with the actual data) and on October 11, 2010 (based on an update to DPL's natural gas advanced metering infrastructure implementation schedule), the filing seeks approval of an annual rate increase of approximately $10.2 million, assuming the implementation of the MFVRD, based on a requested ROE of 11.00%. As permitted by Delaware law, DPL placed an annual increase of approximately $2.5 million annually into effect, on a temporary basis, on August 31, 2010, and the remainder of approximately $7.7 million of the requested increase went into effect on February 2, 2011, in each case subject to refund and pending final DPSC approval. Previously, in June 2009, DPL filed an application requesting approval for the implementation of the MFVRD for gas distribution rates. DPL anticipates that the DPSC will follow the same implementation approach it is following with respect to DPL's MFVRD proposal for electric service, discussed above. The DPSC decision is still pending. Maryland On December 21, 2010, DPL filed an application with the MPSC to increase its electric distribution base rates by $17.8 million annually, based on an ROE of 10.75%. On December 28, 2010, the MPSC, consistent with its typical practice, issued an order suspending the proposed rate increase request for an initial period of 150 days from January 20, 2011 pending investigation by the MPSC. On February 1, 2011, the MPSC initiated proceedings for DPL and Pepco, as well as unaffiliated utilities such as Baltimore Gas & Electric Company and Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative, for the purpose of reviewing how the BSA operates to recover revenues lost as a result of major storm outages. In its orders initiating the proceedings, the MPSC expressed concern that the utilities' respective BSAs may be allowing them to recover revenues lost during extended outages, therefore unintentionally eliminating an incentive to restore service quickly. The MPSC will consider whether the BSA, as currently in effect, is appropriate, whether the calculations or determinant factors for calculating the BSA should be modified, and if so, what modifications should be made. A similar adjustment was included in the BSA for Pepco in the District of Columbia when the BSA was approved by the District of Columbia Public Service Commission. Environmental Litigation DPL is subject to regulation by various federal, regional, state, and local authorities with respect to the environmental effects of its operations, including air and water quality control, solid and hazardous waste disposal, and limitations on land use. In addition, federal and state statutes authorize governmental agencies to compel responsible parties to clean up certain abandoned or unremediated hazardous waste sites. DPL may incur costs to clean up currently or formerly owned facilities or sites found to be contaminated, as well as other facilities or sites that may have been contaminated due to past disposal practices. Although penalties assessed for violations of environmental laws and regulations are not recoverable from DPL's customers, environmental clean-up costs incurred by DPL would be included in its cost of service for ratemaking purposes. Ward Transformer Site. In April 2009, a group of potentially responsible parties (PRPs) with respect to the Ward Transformer site in Raleigh, North Carolina, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, alleging cost recovery and/or contribution claims against a number of entities, including DPL with respect to past and future response costs incurred by the PRP group in performing a removal action at the site. With the court's permission, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints in September 2009. DPL, as part of a group of defendants, filed a motion to dismiss in October 2009. In a March 24, 2010 order, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. Although it is too early in the process to characterize the magnitude of the potential liability at this site, DPL does not believe that it had extensive business transactions, if any, with the Ward Transformer site.   Indian River Oil Release In 2001, DPL entered into a consent agreement with the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control for remediation, site restoration, natural resource damage compensatory projects and other costs associated with environmental contamination resulting from an oil release at the Indian River generating facility, which was sold in June 2001. Based on updated engineering estimates obtained in the second quarter of 2010, DPL accrued an additional liability in the amount of approximately $4 million in 2010. As of December 31, 2010, DPL's accrual for expected future costs to fulfill its obligations under the consent agreement was approximately $5 million, of which approximately $1 million is expected to be incurred in 2011. Contractual Obligations As of December 31, 2010, DPL's contractual obligations under non-derivative fuel and power purchase contracts were $65 million in 2011, $129 million in 2012 to 2013, $130 million in 2014 to 2015, and $771 million in 2016 and thereafter. </div>falsefalsefalsefalsefalseOtherus-types:textBlockItemTypestringIncludes disclosure of commitments and contingencies. This element may be used as a single block of text to encapsulate the entire disclosure including data and tables.Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name FASB Interpretation (FIN) -Number 14 -Paragraph 3 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) -Number 5 -Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12 falsefalseCOMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES7false0natruenanaNo definition available.falsetruefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsehttp://www.pepcoholdings.com/taxonomy/role/disclosurecommitmentsandcontingencies1falsefalsefalse00falsefalsefalsefalsefalse4falsefalseUSDtruefalse{dei_LegalEntityAxis} : ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC CO 1/1/2010 - 12/31/2010 USD ($) $Duration_1_1_2010_To_12_31_20102http://www.sec.gov/CIK0001135971duration2010-01-01T00:00:002010-12-31T00:00:00falsefalseATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COdei_LegalEntityAxisxbrldihttp://xbrl.org/2006/xbrldipom_AtlanticCityElectricCoMemberdei_LegalEntityAxisexplicitMemberUnit12Standardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217USDiso42170USDUSD$OthernaNo definition available.No authoritative reference available.falsefalseATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC CO8false0us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlockus-gaaptruenadurationNo definition available.falsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalseverboselabel1falsefalsefalse00<div> (14) COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Regulatory and Other Matters Rate Proceedings Over the last several years, ACE has proposed the adoption of mechanisms to decouple retail distribution revenue from the amount of power delivered to retail customers. At this time, a BSA is pending for ACE in New Jersey. Under the BSA, customer distribution rates are subject to adjustment (through a credit or surcharge mechanism), depending on whether actual distribution revenue per customer exceeds or falls short of the revenue-per-customer amount approved by the applicable public service commission. The BSA increases rates if actual distribution revenues fall below the approved level and decreases rates if actual distribution revenues are above the approved level. The result is that, over time, ACE collects its authorized revenues for distribution service. As a consequence, a BSA "decouples" distribution revenue from unit sales consumption and ties the growth in distribution revenues to the growth in the number of customers. Some advantages of the BSA are that it (i) eliminates revenue fluctuations due to weather and changes in customer usage patterns and, therefore, provides for more predictable distribution revenues that are better aligned with costs, (ii) provides for more reliable fixed-cost recovery, (iii) tends to stabilize customers' delivery bills, and (iv) removes any disincentives for ACE to promote energy efficiency programs for their customers, because it breaks the link between overall sales volumes and distribution revenues. Environmental Litigation ACE is subject to regulation by various federal, regional, state, and local authorities with respect to the environmental effects of its operations, including air and water quality control, solid and hazardous waste disposal, and limitations on land use. In addition, federal and state statutes authorize governmental agencies to compel responsible parties to clean up certain abandoned or unremediated hazardous waste sites. ACE may incur costs to clean up currently or formerly owned facilities or sites found to be contaminated, as well as other facilities or sites that may have been contaminated due to past disposal practices. Although penalties assessed for violations of environmental laws and regulations are not recoverable from ACE's customers, environmental clean-up costs incurred by ACE would be included in its cost of service for ratemaking purposes. Franklin Slag Pile Site. In November 2008, ACE received a general notice letter from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning the Franklin Slag Pile site in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, asserting that ACE is a potentially responsible party (PRP) that may have liability with respect to the site. If liable, ACE would be responsible for reimbursing EPA for clean-up costs incurred and to be incurred by the agency and for the costs of implementing an EPA-mandated remedy. EPA's claims are based on ACE's sale of boiler slag from the B.L. England generating facility, then owned by ACE, to MDC Industries, Inc. (MDC) during the period June 1978 to May 1983. EPA claims that the boiler slag ACE sold to MDC contained copper and lead, which are hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), and that the sales transactions may have constituted an arrangement for the disposal or treatment of hazardous substances at the site, which could be a basis for liability under CERCLA. The EPA letter also states that, as of the date of the letter, EPA's expenditures for response measures at the site have exceeded $6 million. EPA estimates the cost for future response measures will be approximately $6 million. ACE understands that EPA sent similar general notice letters to three other companies and various individuals. ACE believes that the B.L. England boiler slag sold to MDC was a valuable material with various industrial applications and, therefore, the sale was not an arrangement for the disposal or treatment of any hazardous substances as would be necessary to constitute a basis for liability under CERCLA. ACE intends to contest any claims to the contrary made by EPA. In a May 2009 decision arising under CERCLA, which did not involve ACE, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an EPA argument that the sale of a useful product constituted an arrangement for disposal or treatment of hazardous substances. While this decision supports ACE's position, at this time ACE cannot predict how EPA will proceed with respect to the Franklin Slag Pile site, or what portion, if any, of the Franklin Slag Pile site response costs EPA would seek to recover from ACE. Ward Transformer Site. In April 2009, a group of PRPs with respect to the Ward Transformer site in Raleigh, North Carolina, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, alleging cost recovery and/or contribution claims against a number of entities, including ACE, with respect to past and future response costs incurred by the PRP group in performing a removal action at the site. With the court's permission, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints in September 2009. ACE, as part of a group of defendants, filed a motion to dismiss in October 2009. In a March 24, 2010 order, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. Although it is too early in the process to characterize the magnitude of the potential liability at this site, ACE does not believe that it had extensive business transactions, if any, with the Ward Transformer site. Price's Pit Site. ACE owns a transmission and distribution right-of-way that traverses the Price's Pit superfund site in Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey. EPA placed Price's Pit on the National Priorities List (NPL) in 1983 and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) undertook an environmental investigation to identify and implement remedial action at the site. The NPL, among other things, serves as a guide to EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of the human health and environmental risks associated with a site. NJDEP's investigation revealed that landfill waste had been disposed on ACE's right-of-way and NJDEP determined that ACE was a responsible party at the site as the owner of a facility on which a hazardous substance has been deposited. ACE currently is engaged in settlement negotiations with NJDEP and EPA to resolve its alleged liability at the site by donating property to NJDEP and by making a payment in an amount to be determined. Costs incurred by ACE to resolve this matter are not expected to be material. Appeal of New Jersey Flood Hazard Regulations. In November 2007, NJDEP adopted amendments to the agency's regulations under the Flood Hazard Area Control Act (FHACA) to minimize damage to life and property from flooding caused by development in flood plains. The amended regulations impose a new regulatory program to mitigate flooding and related environmental impacts from a broad range of construction and development activities, including electric utility transmission and distribution construction, which were previously unregulated under the FHACA. These regulations impose restrictions on construction of new electric transmission and distribution facilities and increase the time and personnel resources required to obtain permits and conduct maintenance activities. In November 2008, ACE filed an appeal of these regulations with the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey. The grounds for ACE's appeal include the lack of administrative record justification for the FHACA regulations and conflict between the FHACA regulations and other state and federal regulations and standards for maintenance of electric power transmission and distribution facilities. The matter was argued before the Appellate Division on January 3, 2011 and the decision of the court is pending.   Contractual Obligations As of December 31, 2010, ACE's contractual obligations under non-derivative fuel and power purchase contracts were $284 million in 2011, $572 million in 2012 to 2013, $575 million in 2014 to 2015, and $2,144 million in 2016 and thereafter. </div>falsefalsefalsefalsefalseOtherus-types:textBlockItemTypestringIncludes disclosure of commitments and contingencies. This element may be used as a single block of text to encapsulate the entire disclosure including data and tables.Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name FASB Interpretation (FIN) -Number 14 -Paragraph 3 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) -Number 5 -Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12 falsefalseCOMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES18COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIESUnKnownUnKnownUnKnownUnKnownfalsetrue