Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2019

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

11. Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Matters

(All Registrants)

PPL and its subsidiaries are involved in legal proceedings, claims and litigation in the ordinary course of business. PPL and its subsidiaries cannot predict the outcome of such matters, or whether such matters may result in material liabilities, unless otherwise noted.

Talen Litigation (PPL)

Background

In September 2013, one of PPL's former subsidiaries, PPL Montana entered into an agreement to sell its hydroelectric generating facilities. In June 2014, PPL and PPL Energy Supply, the parent company of PPL Montana, entered into various definitive agreements with affiliates of Riverstone to spin off PPL Energy Supply and ultimately combine it with Riverstone's competitive power generation businesses to form a stand-alone company named Talen Energy. In November 2014, after executing the spinoff agreements but prior to the closing of the spinoff transaction, PPL Montana closed the sale of its hydroelectric generating facilities. Subsequently, on June 1, 2015, the spinoff of PPL Energy Supply was completed. Following the spinoff transaction, PPL had no continuing ownership interest in or control of PPL Energy Supply. In connection with the spinoff transaction, PPL Montana became Talen Montana, LLC (Talen Montana), a subsidiary of Talen Energy. Talen Energy Marketing also became a subsidiary of Talen Energy as a result of the June 2015 spinoff of PPL Energy Supply. Talen Energy has owned and operated both Talen Montana and Talen Energy Marketing since the spinoff. At the time of the spinoff, affiliates of Riverstone acquired a 35% ownership interest in Talen Energy. Riverstone subsequently acquired the remaining interests in Talen Energy in a take private transaction in December 2016.

Talen Montana, LLC v. PPL Corporation et al.

On October 29, 2018, Talen Montana filed a complaint against PPL and certain of its affiliates and current and former officers and directors in the First Judicial District of the State of Montana, Lewis & Clark County (Talen Direct Action). Talen Montana alleges that in November 2014, PPL and certain officers and directors improperly distributed to PPL's subsidiaries $733 million of the proceeds from the sale of Talen Montana's (then PPL Montana's) hydroelectric generating facilities, rendering PPL Montana insolvent. The complaint includes claims for, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty; aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty; breach of an LLC agreement; breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing; tortious interference; negligent misrepresentation; and constructive fraud. Talen Montana is seeking unspecified damages, including punitive damages, and other relief. In December 2018, PPL moved to dismiss the Talen Direct Action for lack of jurisdiction and, in the alternative, to dismiss because Delaware is the appropriate forum to decide this case. In January 2019, Talen Montana dismissed without prejudice all current and former PPL Corporation directors from the case. The parties engaged in limited jurisdictional discovery, and the Court heard oral argument regarding the PPL parties' motion to dismiss on August 22, 2019. We are awaiting the Court's decision regarding the motion to dismiss.

Talen Montana Retirement Plan and Talen Energy Marketing, LLC, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. PPL Corporation et al.

Also on October 29, 2018, Talen Montana Retirement Plan and Talen Energy Marketing filed a putative class action complaint on behalf of current and contingent creditors of Talen Montana who allegedly suffered harm or allegedly will suffer reasonably foreseeable harm as a result of the November 2014 distribution. The action was filed in the Sixteenth Judicial District of the State of Montana, Rosebud County, against PPL and certain of its affiliates and current and former officers and directors (Talen Putative Class Action). The plaintiffs assert claims for, among other things, fraudulent transfer, both actual and constructive; recovery against subsequent transferees; civil conspiracy; aiding and abetting tortious conduct; and unjust enrichment. They are seeking avoidance of the purportedly fraudulent transfer, unspecified damages, including punitive damages, the imposition of a constructive trust, and other relief. In December 2018, PPL removed the Talen Putative Class Action from the Sixteenth Judicial District of the State of Montana to the United States District Court for the District of Montana, Billings Division (MT Federal Court). In January 2019, the plaintiffs moved to remand the Talen Putative Class Action back to state court, and dismissed without prejudice all current and former PPL Corporation directors from the case. In September 2019, the MT Federal Court granted plaintiffs' motion to remand the case back to state court, and the PPL defendants promptly petitioned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to grant an appeal of the remand decision. The petition for appeal is under consideration by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

PPL Corporation et al. vs. Riverstone Holdings LLC, Talen Energy Corporation et al.

On November 30, 2018, PPL, certain PPL affiliates, and certain current and former officers and directors (PPL plaintiffs) filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware seeking various forms of relief against Riverstone, Talen Energy and certain of their affiliates (Delaware Action). In the complaint, the PPL plaintiffs ask the Delaware Court of Chancery for declaratory and injunctive relief. This includes a declaratory judgment that, under the separation agreement governing the spinoff of PPL Energy Supply, all related claims that arise must be heard in Delaware; that the statute of limitations in Delaware and the spinoff agreement bar these claims at this point; that PPL is not liable for the claims in either the Talen Direct Action or the Talen Putative Class Action as PPL Montana was solvent at all relevant times; and that the separation agreement requires that Talen Energy indemnify PPL for all losses arising from the debts of Talen Montana, among other things. PPL's complaint also seeks damages against Riverstone for interfering with the separation agreement and against Riverstone affiliates for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The complaint was subsequently amended on January 11, 2019 and March 20, 2019, including to add claims related to indemnification with respect to the Talen Direct Action and the Talen Putative Class Action (together, the Montana Actions), request a declaration that the Montana Actions are time-barred under the spinoff agreements, and allege additional facts to support the tortious interference claim. In April 2019, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. In July 2019, the Court heard oral arguments from the parties regarding the motions to dismiss. On October 23, 2019, the Delaware Court of Chancery returned its opinion on the defendants’ motions to dismiss sustaining all of the PPL plaintiffs' claims except for the claim for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

With respect to each of the Talen-related matters described above, PPL believes that the 2014 distribution of proceeds was made in compliance with all applicable laws and that PPL Montana was solvent at all relevant times. Additionally, the agreements entered into in connection with the spinoff, which PPL and affiliates of Talen Energy and Riverstone negotiated and executed prior to the 2014 distribution, directly address the treatment of the proceeds from the sale of PPL Montana's hydroelectric generating facilities; in those agreements, Talen Energy and Riverstone definitively agreed that PPL was entitled to retain the proceeds.

PPL believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims made in the Montana Actions and intends to continue to vigorously defend against these actions. The Montana Actions and the Delaware Action are all in the early stages of litigation; at this time, PPL cannot predict the outcome of these matters or estimate the range of possible losses, if any, that PPL might incur as a result of the claims, although they could be material.

Cane Run Environmental Claims (PPL, LKE and LG&E)

In December 2013, six residents, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against LG&E and PPL in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky (U.S. District Court) alleging violations of the Clean Air Act, RCRA, and common law claims of nuisance, trespass and negligence. These plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and civil penalties, plus costs and attorney fees, for the alleged statutory violations. Under the common law claims, these plaintiffs seek monetary compensation and punitive damages for property damage and diminished property values for a class consisting of residents within four miles of the Cane Run plant, which retired three coal-fired units in 2015. In their individual capacities, these plaintiffs sought compensation for alleged adverse health effects. In July 2014, the court dismissed the RCRA claims and

all but one Clean Air Act claim, but declined to dismiss the common law tort claims. In November 2016, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint removing the personal injury claims and removing certain previously named plaintiffs. In February 2017, the U.S. District Court issued an Order dismissing PPL as a defendant and dismissing the final federal claim against LG&E. In April 2017, the U.S. District Court issued an Order declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on the state law claims and dismissed the case in its entirety. In June 2017, the plaintiffs filed a class action complaint in Jefferson County, Kentucky Circuit Court, against LG&E alleging state law nuisance, negligence and trespass tort claims. The plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages for alleged property damage due to purported plant emissions on behalf of a class of residents within one to three miles of the plant. Proceedings are currently underway regarding potential class certification, for which a decision may be rendered in 2019. PPL, LKE and LG&E cannot predict the outcome of this matter and an estimate or range of possible losses cannot be determined.

E.W. Brown Environmental Claims (PPL, LKE and KU)

In July 2017, the Kentucky Waterways Alliance and the Sierra Club filed a citizen suit complaint against KU in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky (U.S. District Court) alleging discharges at the E.W. Brown plant in violation of the Clean Water Act and the plant’s water discharge permit and alleging contamination that may present an imminent and substantial endangerment in violation of the RCRA. The plaintiffs’ suit relates to prior notices of intent to file a citizen suit submitted in October and November 2015 and October 2016. These plaintiffs sought injunctive relief ordering KU to take all actions necessary to comply with the Clean Water Act and RCRA, including ceasing the discharges in question, abating effects associated with prior discharges and eliminating the alleged imminent and substantial endangerment. These plaintiffs also sought assessment of civil penalties and an award of litigation costs and attorney fees. In December 2017 the U.S. District Court issued an Order dismissing the Clean Water Act and RCRA complaints against KU in their entirety. In January 2018, the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal Order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. In September 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued its ruling affirming the lower court's decision to dismiss the Clean Water Act claims but reversing its dismissal of the RCRA claims against KU and remanding the latter to the U.S. District Court. In October 2018, KU filed a petition for rehearing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit regarding the RCRA claims. In November 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied KU's petition for rehearing regarding the RCRA claims. On January 8, 2019, KU filed an answer to plaintiffs’ complaint in the U.S. District Court. A trial has been scheduled to begin on October 5, 2020. PPL, LKE and KU cannot predict the outcome of these matters and an estimate or range of possible losses cannot be determined.

KU is undertaking extensive remedial measures at the E.W. Brown plant including closure of the former ash pond, implementation of a groundwater remedial action plan and performance of a corrective action plan including aquatic study of adjacent surface waters and risk assessment. The aquatic study and risk assessment was undertaken pursuant to a 2017 agreed Order with the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet (KEEC). KU conducted sampling of Herrington Lake in 2017 and 2018. KU submitted the required aquatic study and risk assessment, conducted by an independent third-party consultant, to the KEEC in June 2019 finding that discharges from the E.W. Brown plant have not had any significant impact on Herrington Lake and that the water in the lake is safe for recreational use and meets safe drinking water standards. However, until the KEEC assesses the study and issues any regulatory determinations, PPL, LKE and KU are unable to determine whether additional remedial measures will be required at the E.W. Brown plant.

Regulatory Issues (All Registrants)

See Note 7 for information on regulatory matters related to utility rate regulation.

Electricity - Reliability Standards

The NERC is responsible for establishing and enforcing mandatory reliability standards (Reliability Standards) regarding the bulk electric system in North America. The FERC oversees this process and independently enforces the Reliability Standards.

The Reliability Standards have the force and effect of law and apply to certain users of the bulk electric system, including electric utility companies, generators and marketers. Under the Federal Power Act, the FERC may assess civil penalties for certain violations.

PPL Electric, LG&E and KU monitor their compliance with the Reliability Standards and self-report or self-log potential violations of applicable reliability requirements whenever identified, and submit accompanying mitigation plans, as required. The resolution of a small number of potential violations is pending. Penalties incurred to date have not been significant. Any

Regional Reliability Entity (including RFC or SERC) determination concerning the resolution of violations of the Reliability Standards remains subject to the approval of the NERC and the FERC.

In the course of implementing their programs to ensure compliance with the Reliability Standards by those PPL affiliates subject to the standards, certain other instances of potential non-compliance may be identified from time to time. The Registrants cannot predict the outcome of these matters, and an estimate or range of possible losses cannot be determined.

Environmental Matters

(All Registrants)

Due to the environmental issues discussed below or other environmental matters, it may be necessary for the Registrants to modify, curtail, replace or cease operation of certain facilities or performance of certain operations to comply with statutes, regulations and other requirements of regulatory bodies or courts. In addition, legal challenges to new environmental permits or rules add to the uncertainty of estimating the future cost of these permits and rules.

WPD's distribution businesses are subject to certain statutory and regulatory environmental requirements. It may be necessary for WPD to incur significant compliance costs, which costs may be recoverable through rates subject to the approval of Ofgem. PPL believes that WPD has taken and continues to take measures to comply with all applicable environmental laws and regulations.

LG&E and KU are entitled to recover, through the ECR mechanism, certain costs of complying with the Clean Air Act, as amended, and those federal, state or local environmental requirements applicable to coal combustion wastes and by-products from facilities that generate electricity from coal combustion in accordance with approved compliance plans. Costs not covered by the ECR mechanism for LG&E and KU and all such costs for PPL Electric are subject to rate recovery before the companies' respective state regulatory authorities, or the FERC, if applicable. Because neither WPD nor PPL Electric owns any generating plants, their exposure to related environmental compliance costs is reduced. PPL, PPL Electric, LKE, LG&E and KU can provide no assurances as to the ultimate outcome of future environmental or rate proceedings before regulatory authorities.

Air

(PPL, LKE, LG&E and KU)

NAAQS

The Clean Air Act, which regulates air pollutants from mobile and stationary sources in the United States, has a significant impact on the operation of fossil fuel generation plants. Among other things, the Clean Air Act requires the EPA periodically to review and establish concentration levels in the ambient air for six pollutants to protect public health and welfare. The six pollutants are carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone (contributed to by nitrogen oxide emissions), particulate matter and sulfur dioxide. The established concentration levels for these six pollutants are known as NAAQS. Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is required to reassess the NAAQS on a five-year schedule.

Federal environmental regulations of these six pollutants require states to adopt implementation plans, known as state implementation plans, which detail how the state will attain the standards that are mandated by the relevant law or regulation. Each state identifies the areas within its boundaries that meet the NAAQS (attainment areas) and those that do not (non-attainment areas), and must develop a state implementation plan both to bring non-attainment areas into compliance with the NAAQS and to maintain good air quality in attainment areas. In addition, for attainment of ozone and fine particulates standards, states in the eastern portion of the country, including Kentucky, are subject to a regional program developed by the EPA known as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. The NAAQS, future revisions to the NAAQS and state implementation plans, or future revisions to regional programs, may require installation of additional pollution controls, the costs of which PPL, LKE, LG&E and KU believe are subject to cost recovery.

Although PPL, LKE, LG&E and KU do not anticipate significant costs to comply with these programs, changes in market or operating conditions could result in different costs than anticipated.

Ozone

The EPA issued the current ozone standard in October 2015. The states and the EPA are required to determine (based on ambient air monitoring data) those areas that meet the standard and those that are in nonattainment. In April 2018, the EPA designated Jefferson County, Kentucky (Louisville) as being in nonattainment with the ozone standard. Although implementation of the 2015 ozone standard could potentially require the addition of SCRs at LG&E's Mill Creek station, PPL, LKE and LG&E are unable to determine what, if any, compliance measures may ultimately be required until the Louisville Metro Air Pollution District prepares a state implementation plan.

States are also obligated to address interstate transport issues associated with ozone standards through the establishment of "good neighbor" state implementation plans for those states that are found to contribute significantly to another state's non-attainment. As a result of a partial consent decree addressing claims regarding federal implementation, the EPA and several states, including Kentucky, have evaluated the need for further nitrogen oxide reductions from fossil-fueled plants to address interstate impacts. In July 2018, the EPA approved Kentucky's proposed state implementation plan finding that no additional reductions beyond existing and planned controls set forth in Kentucky's existing State Implementation Plan are necessary to prevent Kentucky from contributing significantly to any other state’s nonattainment. In September 2018, the EPA denied petitions filed by Maryland and Delaware and in September 2019, denied a petition filed by New York alleging that states including Kentucky and Pennsylvania contribute to nonattainment in the petitioning states. PPL, LKE, LG&E and KU are unable to predict the outcome of ongoing and future evaluations by the EPA and the states, or whether such evaluations could potentially result in requirements for nitrogen oxide reductions beyond those currently required under the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule.

Climate Change

There is continuing world-wide attention focused on issues related to climate change. In June 2016, President Obama announced that the United States, Canada and Mexico established the North American Climate, Clean Energy, and Environment Partnership Plan, which specifies actions to promote clean energy, address climate change and protect the environment. The plan includes a goal to provide 50% of the energy used in North America from clean energy sources by 2025. The plan does not impose any nation-specific requirements.

In December 2015, 195 nations, including the U.S., signed the Paris Agreement on Climate, which establishes a comprehensive framework for the reduction of GHG emissions from both developed and developing nations. Although the agreement does not establish binding reduction requirements, it requires each nation to prepare, communicate, and maintain GHG reduction commitments. Reductions can be achieved in a variety of ways, including energy conservation, power plant efficiency improvements, reduced utilization of coal-fired generation or replacing coal-fired generation with natural gas or renewable generation. Based on the EPA's rules issued in 2015 imposing GHG emission standards for both new and existing power plants, the U.S. committed to an initial reduction target of 26% to 28% below 2005 levels by 2025. However, on June 1, 2017, President Trump announced a plan to withdraw from the Paris Agreement and undertake negotiations to reenter the current agreement or enter a new agreement on terms more favorable to the U.S. Under the terms of the Paris Agreement, any U.S. withdrawal would not be complete until November 2020. PPL, LKE, LG&E and KU cannot predict the outcome of such regulatory actions or the impact, if any, on plant operations, rate treatment or future capital or operating needs.

The U.K. has enacted binding carbon reduction requirements that are applicable to WPD. WPD is subject to requirements under the Streamlined Energy and Carbon Reporting framework along with a tax (called “Climate Change Levy”). The cost of the tax is not significant and is included in WPD’s operating expenses.

The EPA's Affordable Clean Energy Rule

In 2015, the EPA finalized rules imposing stringent GHG emission standards for both new and existing power plants based on plant specific energy efficiency upgrades, fuel switching from coal to natural gas, and deployment of renewable generation (the Clean Power Plan).

Following legal challenges to the Clean Power Plan, a stay of those rules by the U.S. Supreme Court and the March 2017 Executive Order requiring the EPA to review the Clean Power Plan, in October 2017, the EPA proposed to rescind the Clean Power Plan. In July 2019, the EPA rescinded the Clean Power Plan and finalized the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) Rule as a replacement with respect to existing sources. The ACE Rule gives states broad latitude in establishing emission guidelines providing for plant-specific efficiency upgrades or "heat-rate improvements" that will reduce GHG emissions per unit of electricity generated. The ACE Rule provides a list of "candidate technologies" that will be considered by the states in

establishing standards of performance on a case by case basis at individual power plants. States are generally allowed three years to submit state plans establishing standards of performance. While compliance deadlines will be imposed on a plant-specific basis, the EPA anticipates that most facilities will be required to demonstrate compliance within two years of plan approval. In the final rule, the EPA did not finalize its proposed new criteria for determining whether such efficiency projects would trigger New Source Review and thus be subject to more stringent emission controls. Instead, the agency intends to take final action on the proposed New Source Review revisions in a separate final action at a later date. Various entities have filed petitions for review and petitions for reconsideration. PPL, LKE, LG&E and KU cannot predict the outcome of the pending litigation and regulatory proceedings.

The Kentucky General Assembly passed legislation in April 2014 limiting the measures that the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet may consider in setting performance standards to comply with federal requirements for GHG emission reductions. The legislation provides that such state GHG performance standards will be strictly based on emission reductions, efficiency measures and other improvements available at each power plant. These statutory restrictions are broadly consistent with the EPA's ACE Rule.

LG&E and KU are monitoring developments at the state and federal level. Until legal challenges and regulatory determinations relating to repeal and replacement of the Clean Power Plan are completed and the state determines implementation measures, PPL, LKE, LG&E and KU cannot predict the potential impact, if any, on plant operations, future capital or operating costs. PPL, LKE, LG&E and KU believe that the costs, which could be significant, would be subject to rate recovery.

Sulfuric Acid Mist Emissions (PPL, LKE and LG&E)

In June 2016, the EPA issued a notice of violation under the Clean Air Act alleging that LG&E violated applicable rules relating to sulfuric acid mist emissions at its Mill Creek plant. The notice alleges failure to install proper controls, failure to operate the facility consistent with good air pollution control practice, and causing emissions exceeding applicable requirements or constituting a nuisance or endangerment. LG&E believes it has complied with applicable regulations during the relevant time period. Discussions between the EPA and LG&E are ongoing. The parties have entered into a tolling agreement with respect to this matter through January 31, 2020. The parties are conducting initial negotiations regarding potential settlement of the matter. PPL, LKE and LG&E are unable to predict the outcome of this matter or the potential impact on operations of the Mill Creek plant, including increased capital or operating costs, and potential civil penalties or remedial measures, if any.

Water/Waste

(PPL, LKE, LG&E and KU)

CCRs

In April 2015, the EPA published its final rule regulating CCRs. CCRs include fly ash, bottom ash and sulfur dioxide scrubber wastes. The rule became effective in October 2015. It imposes extensive new requirements, including location restrictions, design and operating standards, groundwater monitoring and corrective action requirements, and closure and post-closure care requirements on CCR impoundments and landfills that are not already closed and located on active power plants in the United States. Under the rule, CCRs are regulated as non-hazardous under Subtitle D of RCRA and beneficial use of CCRs is allowed, with some restrictions. The rule's requirements for covered CCR impoundments and landfills include implementation of groundwater monitoring and commencement or completion of closure activities generally between three and ten years from certain triggering events. The rule requires posting of compliance documentation on a publicly accessible website. Industry groups, environmental groups, individual companies and others have filed legal challenges to the final rule, which are pending before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. In March 2018, the EPA proposed amendments to the CCR rule primarily relating to impoundment closure and remediation requirements. In July 2018, the EPA published in the Federal Register a final rule extending the deadline for closure of certain impoundments to October 2020 and adopting substantive changes relating to certifications, suspensions of groundwater monitoring and groundwater protection standards for certain constituents. In July 2019, the EPA released proposed amendments to the CCR Rule relating to reporting, public information, boron standards, beneficial use and waste piles. The EPA released additional proposed amendments to the rule on November 4, 2019, with further proposed amendments expected in the future. In August 2018, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded portions of the CCR rule including provisions allowing unlined impoundments to continue operating and exempting inactive impoundments at inactive plants from regulation. As a result of subsequent challenges to the CCR Rule amendments, on March 13, 2019, the D.C. Circuit Court granted the EPA’s motion for voluntary remand of the amended rule without voiding it. Consequently, the CCR Rule amendments, including the extended compliance deadline, will remain in place as the EPA considers further rule amendments and revisions. PPL, LKE, LG&E and KU are unable to predict the outcome of the ongoing

rulemaking or potential impacts on current LG&E and KU compliance plans. Associated costs are expected to be subject to rate recovery. The Registrants are currently finalizing closure plans and schedules.

In January 2017, the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet issued a new state rule relating to CCR management aimed at reflecting the requirements of the federal CCR rule. As a result of a subsequent legal challenge in January 2018, the Franklin County, Kentucky Court issued an opinion invalidating certain procedural elements of the rule. LG&E and KU presently operate their facilities under continuing permits authorized under the former program and do not currently anticipate material impacts as a result of the judicial ruling. The Kentucky Energy and Environmental Cabinet has announced it expects to propose new state rules in 2019 aimed at addressing the procedural deficiencies identified by the court and providing the regulatory framework necessary for operation of the state CCR program in lieu of the federal CCR Rule, as provided by applicable law. Associated costs are expected to be subject to rate recovery.

LG&E and KU received KPSC approval for a compliance plan providing for the closure of impoundments at the Mill Creek, Trimble County, E.W. Brown, and Ghent stations, and construction of process water management facilities at those plants. In addition to the foregoing measures required for compliance with the federal CCR rule, KU also received KPSC approval for its plans to close impoundments at the retired Green River, Pineville and Tyrone plants to comply with applicable state law. Since 2017, LG&E and KU have commenced closure of many of the subject impoundments and have completed closure of some of the smaller impoundments. LG&E and KU expect to commence closure of the remaining impoundments no later than October 31, 2020. LG&E and KU generally expect to complete impoundment closures within five years of commencement, although a longer period may be required to complete closure of some facilities. Associated costs are expected to be subject to rate recovery.

In connection with the final CCR rule, LG&E and KU recorded adjustments to existing AROs beginning in 2015 and continue to record adjustments as required. See Note 16 below and Note 19 in the Registrants' 2018 Form 10-K for additional information. Further changes to AROs, current capital plans or operating costs may be required as estimates are refined based on closure developments, groundwater monitoring results, and regulatory or legal proceedings. Costs relating to this rule are subject to rate recovery.

Clean Water Act

Regulations under the federal Clean Water Act dictate permitting and mitigation requirements for facilities and construction projects in the United States. Many of those requirements relate to power plant operations, including requirements related to the treatment of pollutants in effluents prior to discharge, the temperature of effluent discharges and the location, design and construction of cooling water intake structures at generating facilities, standards intended to protect aquatic organisms that become trapped at or pulled through cooling water intake structures at generating facilities. The requirements could impose significant costs for LG&E and KU, which are subject to rate recovery.

Clean Water Act Jurisdiction

For several years the EPA has been seeking to clarify which discharges are subject to the Clean Water Act. The issue is primarily significant to PPL's operations with respect to discharges to groundwater from ash basins. There has been substantial disagreement over whether Clean Water Act jurisdiction covers discharges of contaminants to groundwater which reach surface water via a direct hydrologic connection. In particular, various environmental groups and other stakeholders argue that leaking impoundments located at coal-fired power plants are subject to Clean Water Act jurisdiction, while facility owners and many states contend that such situations are more appropriately addressed under the EPA's CCR Rule and state regulatory programs.

Most recently, on April 12, 2019, the EPA released an interpretive statement concluding that Clean Water Act jurisdiction does not cover discharges to groundwater regardless of any hydrologic connection between groundwater and jurisdictional surface water.

The issue has been subject to extensive litigation in federal courts including the citizen suit filed against KU with respect to its E.W. Brown plant, as discussed under “Legal Matters” - “E.W. Brown Environmental Claims” above, resulting in contradictory rulings by courts in different jurisdictions. On February 19, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review a lower court ruling on the issue. The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in that case, likely to be issued in the first half of 2020, is expected to provide additional clarification on the scope of Clean Water Act jurisdiction. Extending Clean Water Act jurisdiction to such discharges could potentially subject certain releases from CCR impoundments to additional permitting and remediation requirements.

PPL, LKE, LG&E and KU are unable to predict the outcome of current or future regulatory proceedings or litigation or potential impacts on current LG&E and KU compliance plans.

ELGs

In September 2015, the EPA released its final ELGs for wastewater discharge permits for new and existing steam electric generating facilities. The rule provides strict technology-based discharge limitations for control of pollutants in scrubber wastewater, fly ash and bottom ash transport water, mercury control wastewater, gasification wastewater and combustion residual leachate. The new guidelines require deployment of additional control technologies providing physical, chemical and biological treatment of wastewaters. The guidelines also mandate operational changes including "no discharge" requirements for fly ash and bottom ash transport waters and mercury control wastewaters. The implementation date for individual generating stations will be determined by the states on a case-by-case basis according to criteria provided by the EPA. Industry groups, environmental groups, individual companies and others have filed legal challenges to the final rule, which have been consolidated before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In April 2017, the EPA announced that it would grant petitions for reconsideration of the rule. In September 2017, the EPA published in the Federal Register a proposed rule that would postpone the compliance date for requirements relating to bottom ash transport waters and scrubber wastewaters discharge limits. The proposed rule is expected to be finalized by the end of 2019. On April 12, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded portions of the ELGs concerning legacy wastewater and CCR leachate. The EPA released proposed rules on November 4, 2019 and expects to complete its reconsideration of best available technology standards by the fall of 2020. Upon completion of the ongoing regulatory proceedings, the rule will be implemented by the states in the course of their normal permitting activities. LG&E and KU are developing compliance strategies and schedules. PPL, LKE, LG&E and KU are unable to predict the outcome of the EPA's pending reconsideration of the rule or fully estimate compliance costs or timing. Additionally, certain aspects of these compliance plans and estimates relate to developments in state water quality standards, which are separate from the ELG rule or its implementation. Costs to comply with ELGs or other discharge limits are expected to be significant. Certain costs are included in the Registrants’ capital plans and are subject to rate recovery.

Seepages and Groundwater Infiltration

In addition to the actions described above, LG&E and KU have completed, or are completing, assessments of seepages or groundwater infiltration at various facilities and have completed, or are working with agencies to implement, further testing, monitoring or abatement measures, where applicable. Depending on the circumstances in each case, certain costs, which may be subject to rate recovery, could be significant. LG&E and KU cannot currently estimate a possible loss or range of possible losses related to this matter.

(PPL Electric, LG&E and KU)

Superfund and Other Remediation

PPL Electric, LG&E and KU are potentially responsible for investigating, responding to agency inquiries, implementing various preventative measures, and/or remediating contamination under programs other than those described in the sections above. These include a number of former coal gas manufacturing plants in Pennsylvania and Kentucky previously owned or operated or currently owned by predecessors or affiliates of PPL Electric, LG&E and KU. To date, the costs of these sites have not been significant.

There are additional sites formerly owned or operated by PPL Electric, LG&E and KU predecessors or affiliates. PPL Electric, LG&E and KU lack sufficient information about such additional sites to estimate any potential liability they may have or a range of reasonably possible losses, if any, related to these matters.

PPL Electric is potentially responsible for a share of the costs at several sites listed by the EPA under the federal Superfund program, including the Columbia Gas Plant site and the Brodhead site. Clean-up actions have been or are being undertaken at all of these sites, the costs of which have not been, and are not expected to be, significant to PPL Electric.

The EPA is evaluating the risks associated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and naphthalene, chemical by-products of coal gas manufacturing. As a result of the EPA's evaluation, individual states may establish stricter standards for water quality and soil cleanup. This could require several PPL subsidiaries to take more extensive assessment and remedial actions at former coal gas manufacturing plants. PPL, PPL Electric, LKE, LG&E and KU cannot estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if any, related to these matters.

From time to time, PPL's subsidiaries in the United States undertake testing, monitoring or remedial action in response to notices of violations, spills or other releases at various on-site and off-site locations, negotiate with the EPA and state and local agencies regarding actions necessary to comply with applicable requirements, negotiate with property owners and other third parties alleging impacts from PPL's operations and undertake similar actions necessary to resolve environmental matters that arise in the course of normal operations. Based on analyses to date, resolution of these environmental matters is not expected to have a significant adverse impact on the operations of PPL Electric, LG&E and KU.

PPL Electric had a recorded liability of $11 million at September 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018 representing its best estimate of the probable loss incurred to remediate the sites noted in this section. Depending on the outcome of investigations at sites where investigations have not begun or been completed, or developments at sites for which information is incomplete, additional costs of remediation could be incurred; however, such costs are not expected to be significant.

Future cleanup or remediation work at sites not yet identified may result in significant additional costs for PPL, PPL Electric, LKE, LG&E and KU. Insurance policies maintained by LKE, LG&E and KU may be available to cover certain costs or other obligations related to these matters, but the amount of insurance coverage or reimbursement cannot be estimated or assured.

Other

Guarantees and Other Assurances

(All Registrants)

In the normal course of business, the Registrants enter into agreements that provide financial performance assurance to third parties on behalf of certain subsidiaries. Such agreements include, for example, guarantees, stand-by letters of credit issued by financial institutions and surety bonds issued by insurance companies. These agreements are entered into primarily to support or enhance the creditworthiness attributed to a subsidiary on a stand-alone basis or to facilitate the commercial activities in which these subsidiaries engage.

(PPL)

PPL fully and unconditionally guarantees all of the debt securities of PPL Capital Funding.

(All Registrants)

The table below details guarantees provided as of September 30, 2019. "Exposure" represents the estimated maximum potential amount of future payments that could be required to be made under the guarantee. The probability of expected payment/performance under each of these guarantees is remote except for "WPD guarantee of pension and other obligations of unconsolidated entities," for which PPL has a total recorded liability of $5 million at September 30, 2019 and $6 million at December 31, 2018. For reporting purposes, on a consolidated basis, all guarantees of PPL Electric, LKE, LG&E and KU also apply to PPL, and all guarantees of LG&E and KU also apply to LKE.

	Exposure at September 30, 2019			Expiration Date
PPL
Indemnifications related to the WPD Midlands acquisition			(a)
WPD indemnifications for entities in liquidation and sales of assets	$	10	(b)	2021
WPD guarantee of pension and other obligations of unconsolidated entities	77		(c)
PPL Electric
Guarantee of inventory value	26		(d)	2020
LKE
Indemnification of lease termination and other divestitures	200		(e)	2021
LG&E and KU
LG&E and KU obligation of shortfall related to OVEC			(f)

(a) Indemnifications related to certain liabilities, including a specific unresolved tax issue and those relating to properties and assets owned by the seller that were transferred to WPD Midlands in connection with the acquisition. A cross indemnity has been received from the seller on the tax issue. The maximum exposure and expiration of these indemnifications cannot be estimated because the maximum potential liability is not capped and the expiration date is not specified in the transaction documents.

(b) Indemnification to the liquidators and certain others for existing liabilities or expenses or liabilities arising during the liquidation process. The indemnifications are limited to distributions made from the subsidiary to its parent either prior or subsequent to liquidation or are not explicitly stated in the agreements. The indemnifications generally expire two to seven years subsequent to the date of dissolution of the entities. The exposure noted only includes those cases where the agreements provide for specific limits.

In connection with their sales of various businesses, WPD and its affiliates have provided the purchasers with indemnifications that are standard for such transactions, including indemnifications for certain pre-existing liabilities and environmental and tax matters or have agreed to continue their obligations under existing third-party guarantees, either for a set period of time following the transactions or upon the condition that the purchasers make reasonable efforts to terminate the guarantees. Additionally, WPD and its affiliates remain secondarily responsible for lease payments under certain leases that they have assigned to third parties.

(c) Relates to certain obligations of discontinued or modified electric associations that were guaranteed at the time of privatization by the participating members. Costs are allocated to the members and can be reallocated if an existing member becomes insolvent. At September 30, 2019, WPD has recorded an estimated discounted liability for which the expected payment/performance is probable. Neither the expiration date nor the maximum amount of potential payments for certain obligations is explicitly stated in the related agreements, and as a result, the exposure has been estimated.

(d) A third-party logistics firm provides inventory procurement and fulfillment services. The logistics firm has title to the inventory, however, upon termination of the contracts, PPL Electric has guaranteed to purchase any remaining inventory that has not been used or sold.

(e) LKE provides certain indemnifications covering the due and punctual payment, performance and discharge by each party of its respective obligations. The most comprehensive of these guarantees is the LKE guarantee covering operational, regulatory and environmental commitments and indemnifications made by WKE under a 2009 Transaction Termination Agreement. This guarantee has a term of 12 years ending July 2021, and a maximum exposure of $200 million, exclusive of certain items such as government fines and penalties that may exceed the maximum. Additionally, LKE has indemnified various third parties related to historical obligations for other divested subsidiaries and affiliates. The indemnifications vary by entity and the maximum exposures range from being capped at the sale price to no specified maximum. LKE could be required to perform on these indemnifications in the event of covered losses or liabilities being claimed by an indemnified party. LKE cannot predict the ultimate outcomes of the various indemnification scenarios, but does not expect such outcomes to result in significant losses above the amounts recorded.

(f) Pursuant to the OVEC power purchase contract, LG&E and KU are obligated to pay for their share of OVEC's excess debt service, post-retirement and decommissioning costs, as well as any shortfall from amounts included within a demand charge designed and expected to cover these costs over the term of the contract. LKE's proportionate share of OVEC's outstanding debt was $111 million at September 30, 2019, consisting of LG&E's share of $77 million and KU's share of $34 million. The maximum exposure and the expiration date of these potential obligations are not presently determinable. See "Energy Purchase Commitments" in Note 13 in PPL's, LKE's, LG&E's and KU's 2018 Form 10-K for additional information on the OVEC power purchase contract.

In March 2018, a co-sponsor with a pro-rata share of certain OVEC obligations of 4.85% filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 and, in August 2018, received a rejection order for the OVEC power purchase contract in the bankruptcy proceeding. In October 2019, the bankruptcy court issued an order confirming the co-sponsor's proposed reorganization plan. The plan's effective date remains subject to certain conditions precedent, including remaining regulatory approvals, and to relevant current or future appellate rights or proceedings. OVEC and certain of its sponsors, including LG&E and KU, are analyzing certain potential additional credit support actions to preserve OVEC's access to credit markets or mitigate risks or adverse impacts relating thereto, including increased interest costs, establishing or continuing debt reserve accounts or other changes involving OVEC's existing short and long-term debt. The ultimate outcome of these matters, including the co-sponsor bankruptcy and related appellate or regulatory proceedings and challenges and any other potential impact on LG&E's and KU's obligations relating to OVEC debt under the power purchase contract, cannot be predicted.

The Registrants provide other miscellaneous guarantees through contracts entered into in the normal course of business. These guarantees are primarily in the form of indemnification or warranties related to services or equipment and vary in duration. The amounts of these guarantees often are not explicitly stated, and the overall maximum amount of the obligation under such guarantees cannot be reasonably estimated. Historically, no significant payments have been made with respect to these types of guarantees and the Registrants believe the probability of payment/performance under these guarantees is remote.

PPL, on behalf of itself and certain of its subsidiaries, maintains insurance that covers liability assumed under contract for bodily injury and property damage. The coverage provides maximum aggregate coverage of $225 million. This insurance may be applicable to obligations under certain of these contractual arrangements.