Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

10. 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. On December 4, 2019, the Court granted PPL's motion to dismiss and on December 26, 2019, a judgment dismissing all claims against all defendants with prejudice was signed by the Court. No appeal was filed and this matter is now concluded.

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. On November 21, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied that request and on December 30, 2019, Talen Montana Retirement Plan filed a Second Amended Complaint in the Sixteenth Judicial District of the State of Montana, Rosebud County, which removed Talen Energy Marketing, LLC as a plaintiff. On January 31, 2020, PPL defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The Court has scheduled a hearing date of June 24, 2020 to hear oral argument regarding the motion to dismiss.

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. Discovery is underway; however, on January 30, 2020, Talen Energy filed a new motion to dismiss five of the remaining eight claims in the amended complaint. Oral argument on the motion to dismiss is scheduled for May 28, 2020. A tentative trial date has been scheduled for June 2021.

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 Talen Putative Class Action and intends to continue to vigorously defend against this action. The Talen Putative Class Action and the Delaware Action are both in 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.

(PPL, LKE and LG&E)

Cane Run Environmental Claims

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. In July 2014, the U.S. District Court

dismissed the RCRA claims and all but one Clean Air Act claim, but declined to dismiss the common law tort claims. In February 2017, the U.S. District Court dismissed PPL as a defendant and dismissed the final federal claim against LG&E, and in April 2017, issued an Order declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on the state law claims dismissing 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. On January 8, 2020, the Jefferson Circuit Court issued an order denying the plaintiffs’ request for class certification. On January 14, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the Kentucky Court of Appeals. PPL, LKE and LG&E cannot predict the outcome of this matter and an estimate or range of possible losses cannot be determined.

(PPL, LKE and KU)

E.W. Brown Environmental Claims

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. In January 2019, KU filed an answer to plaintiffs’ complaint in the U.S. District Court. A trial has been scheduled to begin in February 2021. 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 are being 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. In June 2019, KU submitted to the KEEC the required aquatic study and risk assessment, conducted by an independent third-party consultant, 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.

Air

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 July 31, 2020. The parties are conducting 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)

ELGs

In 2015, the EPA finalized ELGs for wastewater discharge permits for new and existing steam electricity generating facilities. These guidelines require deployment of additional control technologies providing physical, chemical and biological treatment and mandate operational changes including "no discharge" requirements for certain wastewaters. The implementation date for individual generating stations was to be determined by the states on a case-by-case basis according to criteria provided by the EPA. Legal challenges to the final rule were 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 issued a rule to postpone the compliance date for certain requirements. On November 25, 2019, the EPA issued proposed revisions to its best available technology standards for certain wastewaters. The EPA 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. See Note 7 for additional information regarding LG&E’s and KU’s applications for ECR rate treatment of construction costs relating to regulations addressing ELGs.

CCRs

In 2015, the EPA issued a final rule governing management of CCRs which include fly ash, bottom ash and sulfur dioxide scrubber wastes. The CCR Rule imposes extensive new requirements for certain CCR impoundments and landfills, including public notifications, location restrictions, design and operating standards, groundwater monitoring and corrective action requirements, and closure and post-closure care requirements, and specifies restrictions relating to the beneficial use of CCRs. Legal challenges to the final rule are pending before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. In July 2018, the EPA issued a final rule extending the deadline for closure of certain impoundments and adopting other substantive changes. In August 2018, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded portions of the CCR Rule. In December 2019, the EPA addressed the deficiencies identified by the court and proposed amendments to change the closure deadline to August 31, 2020, but allow certain extensions. EPA has announced that additional amendments to the rule are planned. PPL, LKE, LG&E and KU are unable to predict the outcome of the ongoing litigation and rulemaking or potential impacts on current LG&E and KU compliance plans. The Registrants are currently finalizing closure plans and schedules.

In January 2017, Kentucky issued a new state rule relating to CCR management, effective May 2017, 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 Circuit 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 intends to propose new state rules aimed at addressing procedural deficiencies identified by the court and providing the regulatory framework necessary for operation of the state program in lieu of the federal CCR Rule. 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 their smaller impoundments. LG&E and KU expect to commence closure of the remaining impoundments no later than August 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 15 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.

(All Registrants)

Superfund and Other Remediation

PPL Electric, LG&E and KU are potentially responsible for investigating and remediating contamination under the federal Superfund program and similar state programs. Actions are under way at certain sites including former coal gas manufacturing plants in Pennsylvania and Kentucky previously owned or operated by, or currently owned by predecessors or affiliates of, PPL Electric, LG&E and KU. PPL Electric is potentially responsible for a share of clean-up costs at certain sites 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.

As of March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019, PPL Electric had a recorded liability of $10 million representing its best estimate of the probable loss incurred to remediate the sites identified above. Depending on the outcome of investigations at identified 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. PPL Electric, LG&E and KU lack sufficient information about such additional sites to estimate any potential liability or range of reasonably possible losses, if any, related to these sites. Such costs, however, are not expected to be significant.

The EPA is evaluating the risks associated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and naphthalene, chemical by-products of coal gas manufacturing. As a result, individual states may establish stricter standards for water quality and soil cleanup, that

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 possible losses, if any, related to these matters.

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.

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 March 31, 2020. "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 March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019. 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 March 31, 2020			Expiration Date
PPL
Indemnifications related to the WPD Midlands acquisition			(a)
WPD indemnifications for entities in liquidation and sales of assets	$	10	(b)	2022
WPD guarantee of pension and other obligations of unconsolidated entities	77		(c)
PPL Electric
Guarantee of inventory value	6		(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 March 31, 2020, 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 provided inventory procurement and fulfillment services, whose contract was terminated as of March 2020. 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 $109 million at March 31, 2020, consisting of LG&E's share of $76 million and KU's share of $33 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 2019 Form 10-K for additional information on the OVEC power purchase contract.

In March 2018, a sponsor with a 4.85% pro-rata share of OVEC obligations 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 sponsor's proposed reorganization plan. OVEC and other entities are challenging the contract rejection, the bankruptcy plan confirmation and regulatory aspects of the plan in various forums. In December 2019, an appellate court remanded the contract rejection issue and in March 2020 the FERC commenced a related proceeding. The plan was declared effective in February 2020, but certain aspects of the matter are subject to the on-going appellate, bankruptcy and regulatory proceedings, including issues relating to the appropriateness of the rejection of the OVEC power purchase agreement and regulatory appropriateness of the plan's confirmation. Periodically, OVEC and certain of its sponsors, including LG&E and KU, consider certain potential additional credit support actions to preserve OVEC's access to credit markets or mitigate risks or adverse impacts relating thereto, including addressing 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 sponsor bankruptcy and related appellate or regulatory proceedings, OVEC structural or financial steps relating thereto and any other potential impact on LG&E's and KU's obligations relating to OVEC 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 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.

Risks and Uncertainties (All Registrants)

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the U.S. and global economies and continues to present extraordinary challenges to businesses, communities, workforces and markets. In the U.S. and throughout the world, governmental authorities have taken urgent and extensive actions to contain the spread of the virus and mitigate known or foreseeable impacts. In the Registrants’ service territories, mitigation measures have included quarantines, stay-at-home orders, travel restrictions, reduced operations or closures of businesses, schools and governmental agencies, and legislative or regulatory actions to address health or other pandemic-related concerns, all of which have the potential to adversely impact the Registrants' business and operations, especially if these measures remain in effect for a prolonged period of time.

To date, the Registrants have not experienced a significant impact on their business, results of operations, financial condition, liquidity, operations or on their supply chain as a result of COVID-19; however, the duration and severity of the outbreak and its ultimate effects on the global economy, the financial markets, or the Registrants’ workforce, customers and suppliers are uncertain. A protracted slowdown of broad sectors of the economy, prolonged or pervasive restrictions on businesses and their workforces, or significant changes in legislation or regulatory policy to address the COVID-19 pandemic all present significant risks to the Registrants. These or other unpredictable events resulting from the pandemic could further reduce customer demand for electricity and gas, impact the Registrants’ employees and supply chains, result in an increase in certain costs, delay payments or increase bad debts, or result in changes in the fair value of their assets and liabilities, which could materially and adversely affect the Registrants’ business, results of operations, financial condition or liquidity.