3. REGULATORY MATTERS

Regulatory Assets and Liabilities and Other Deferred Credits

Changes

Changes to regulatory assets and liabilities regarding their rate base inclusion or amortizable lives from December 31, 2014 to December 31, 2015 resulted from our 2014 Missouri rate case, which was effective July 26, 2015. As a result of this case, a new tracking mechanism related to our Riverton Unit 12 Long Term Maintenance Agreement was established. The tracking mechanisms related to Iatan 2, Iatan Common and Plum Point operating and maintenance costs were discontinued. The balances accumulated through August 2014 from these tracking mechanisms are to be amortized over three years. The tracking mechanism related to vegetation management was also discontinued. Balances accumulated through August 2014 will be amortized over five years. The balances accumulated in these discontinued tracking mechanisms after August 2014 will be addressed during the next rate case. In addition to these changes, the order also included the continuation of tracking mechanisms for expenses related to employee pension and retiree health care. There were no changes to regulatory assets and liabilities with regards to their rate base inclusion or amortizable lives from December 31, 2013 to December 31, 2014.

The following table sets forth the components of our regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities on our consolidated balance sheet (in thousands).

	December 31,
	2015			2014
Regulatory Assets:
Current:
Under recovered fuel costs	$	196		$	2,618
Current portion of long-term regulatory assets		6,856			8,134

Regulatory assets, current		7,052			10,752

Long-term:
Pension and other postretirement benefits(1)		108,273			111,121
Income taxes		48,613			47,177
Deferred construction accounting costs(2)		14,977			15,521
Unamortized loss on reacquired debt		9,731			10,405
Unsettled derivative losses — electric segment		7,775			9,037
System reliability — vegetation management		3,604			5,337
Storm costs(3)		3,531			4,183
Asset retirement obligation		7,722			5,145
Customer programs		5,942			5,253
Missouri solar initiative		3,504			—
Current portion of long-term regulatory assets		(6,856	)		(8,134	)
Other		2,892			4,672

Regulatory assets, long-term		209,708			209,717

Total Regulatory Assets	$	216,760		$	220,469


Regulatory Liabilities
Current:
Over recovered fuel costs	$	5,280		$	4,227
Current portion of long-term regulatory liabilities		3,335			3,671

Regulatory liabilities, current		8,615			7,898

Long-term:
Costs of removal(4)		94,193			90,527
SWPA payment for Ozark Beach lost generation		14,213			16,744
Income taxes		11,244			11,451
Deferred construction accounting costs — fuel(5)		7,690			7,849
Unamortized gain on interest rate derivative		3,031			3,201
Pension and other postretirement benefits		1,745			2,369
Over recovered fuel costs		2,300			1
System reliability — vegetation management		1,320			—
Current portion of long-term regulatory liabilities		(3,335	)		(3,671	)
Other		56			—

Regulatory liabilities, long-term		132,457			128,471

Total Regulatory Liabilities	$	141,072		$	136,369

(1)Primarily consists of unfunded pension and OPEB liability. See Note 7.

(2)Reflects deferrals resulting from 2005 regulatory plan relating to Iatan 1, Iatan 2 and Plum Point. These amounts are being recovered over the life of the plants.

(3)Reflects ice storm costs incurred in 2007 and costs incurred as a result of the May 2011 tornado including an accrued carrying charge and deferred depreciation totaling $2.9 million at December 31, 2015.

(4)As part of our depreciation rates, we accrue the estimated cost of dismantling and removing plant from service upon retirement. The accrued cost of removal, upon retirement, is reclassified from accumulated depreciation to a regulatory liability. These reclassified amounts are reflected here. See the depreciation discussion under Note 1 and Note 2 Property, Plant and Equipment for more detail.

(5)Resulting from regulatory plan requiring deferral of the fuel and purchased power impacts of Iatan 2.

Unamortized losses on debt and losses on interest rate derivatives are not included in rate base, but are included in our capital structure for rate base purposes. The remainder of our regulatory assets are not included in rate base, generally because they are not cash items. However, as of December 31, 2015, the costs of all of our regulatory assets are currently being recovered except for approximately $99.0 million of pension and other postretirement costs primarily related to the unfunded liabilities for future pension and OPEB costs. The amount and timing of recovery of this item will be based on the changing funded status of the pension and OPEB plans in future periods.

The regulatory income tax assets and liabilities are generally amortized over the average depreciable life of the related assets. The loss on reacquired debt and the loss and gain on interest rate derivatives are amortized over the life of the related new debt issue, which currently ranges from 4 to 25 years. The unrecovered fuel costs are generally recovered within a year following their recognition. Severe storm costs and the Asbury maintenance outage costs are recovered over five years. Pension and other postretirement benefit tracking mechanisms are recovered over a five year period. The cost of removal regulatory liability is amortized as removal costs are incurred.

RATE MATTERS

We routinely assess the need for rate relief in all of the jurisdictions we serve and file for such relief when necessary.

Our rates for retail electric and natural gas services (other than specially negotiated retail rates for industrial or large commercial customers, which are subject to regulatory review and approval) are determined on a "cost of service" basis. Rates are designed to provide, after recovery of allowable operating expenses, an opportunity to earn a reasonable return on "rate base." "Rate base" is generally determined by reference to the original cost (net of accumulated depreciation and amortization) of utility plant in service, subject to various adjustments for deferred taxes and other items. Over time, rate base is increased by additions to utility plant in service and reduced by depreciation, amortization and retirement of utility plant or write-off's as ordered by the utility commissions. In general, a request of new rates is made on the basis of a "rate base" as of a date prior to the date of the request and allowable operating expenses for a 12-month test period ended prior to the date of the request. Although the current rate making process provides recovery of some future changes in rate base and operating costs, it does not reflect all changes in costs for the period in which new retail rates will be in place. This results in a lag (commonly referred to as "regulatory lag") between the time we incur costs and the time when we can start recovering the costs through rates.

The following table sets forth information regarding electric and water rate increases since January 1, 2013:

Jurisdiction	Date Requested	Annual Increase Granted		Percent Increase Granted			Date Effective
Missouri — Electric	August 29, 2014	$	17,125,000		3.90	%	July 26, 2015
Kansas — Electric	December 5, 2014	$	782,479		4.71	%	June 1, 2015
Arkansas — Electric	February 23, 2015	$	457,000		3.35	%	February 23, 2015
Kansas — Electric	January 22, 2015	$	273,455		1.08	%	February 23, 2015
Arkansas — Electric	December 3, 2013	$	1,366,809		11.34	%	September 26, 2014
Missouri — Electric	July 6, 2012	$	27,500,000		6.78	%	April 1, 2013

Electric Segment

Missouri

Rate Activity

2015 Rate Case: On October 16, 2015, we filed a request with the Missouri Public Service Commission (MPSC) for changes in rates for our Missouri electric customers. We are seeking an annual increase in total revenue of approximately $33.4 million, or approximately 7.3%. The most significant factor driving the rate request is the cost associated with the conversion of the Riverton Unit 12 natural gas combustion turbine to combined cycle operation.

2014 Rate Case: On August 29, 2014, we filed a request with the MPSC for changes in rates for our Missouri electric customers. We requested an annual increase in total revenue of approximately $24.3 million, or approximately 5.5%. The main cost drivers in the rate increase are the costs associated with our investment in Air Quality Control Facilities at our Asbury power plant (See Note 11 — New Construction of "Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited)") that were incurred to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) rules governing the continued operation of the plant, increases in property taxes, increases in ongoing maintenance expenses and increases in Regional Transmission Organization transmission fees. On June 24, 2015, the MPSC granted new rates for Missouri customers, effective on July 26, 2015. The order approved an annual increase in base revenues of about $17.1 million or 3.90%, which included a net reduction in base fuel and purchased power of $1.60 per MWh, consistent with the non-unanimous stipulation and agreement filed April 8, 2015. The order establishes a tracking mechanism for expenses related to the Riverton 12 long-term maintenance contract; continues tracking of pension and other post-employment benefit expenses; and discontinues tracking of vegetation management expenses and Iatan 2, Iatan Common and Plum Point operating and maintenance costs. In addition, the order provides for the tracking and recovery of certain future changes in total transmission expense through the Fuel Adjustment Charge, which we estimate at approximately 34% of such changes.

2015 Missouri Energy Efficiency Investment Act and Integrated Resource Plan

On October 29, 2013 we filed an application with the Missouri Public Service Commission seeking approval, pursuant to the Missouri Energy Efficiency Investment Act (MEEIA), of a new Missouri demand-side management (DSM) portfolio, including four new DSM programs, and for the authority to establish a Demand Side Management Investment Mechanism (DSIM). On July 24, 2015, we filed a motion to withdraw our MEEIA filing. We will continue our current portfolio of Energy Efficiency programs, with recovery through base rates. We will review the need for a future MEEIA filing in conjunction with our 2016 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP).

On July 31, 2015, we filed a notice updating our most recent IRP, with the MPSC. In the notice we indicated that Riverton Units 8 and 9 were retired on June 30, 2015. The notice also provides additional information on our MEEIA application withdrawal mentioned above.

2015 Solar Rebate Tariff

On May 5, 2015, we filed a proposed solar rebate tariff with the MPSC and requested expedited treatment. On May 6, 2015, the MPSC ordered our request for expedited treatment of our tariff filing be granted and approved the tariff, effective May 16, 2015. The law provides a number of methods that may be utilized to recover the associated expenses. We expect these costs to be recoverable in rates.

Kansas

2015 Ad Valorem Tax Surcharge

On January 22, 2015, we filed an Application with the KCC requesting approval of our Ad Valorem Tax Surcharge (AVTS). The request sought approval for an annual increase of $0.27 million related to increases in Ad Valorem taxes which exceed amounts currently included in base rates. On February 19, 2015, the KCC approved the request. The new rate was effective on and after February 23, 2015. On January 21, 2016, we filed an Application with the KCC requesting approval for a revision to the AVTS. The request sought approval for an annual increase of an additional $0.20 million related to increases in Ad Valorem taxes which exceed amounts currently included in our AVTS rider currently in effect.

2014 Environmental Cost Recovery Rider

On December 5, 2014, we filed an Application with the KCC requesting approval of our proposed Asbury Environmental Cost Recovery (AECR) tariff rider. The request sought approval for recovery of our jurisdictional portion of annual carrying costs (rate of return, income taxes, and depreciation) of approximately $0.86 million, associated with investment in the Asbury AQCS. A Commission Order was received April 15, 2015 approving the rider in the amount of $0.78 million effective June 1, 2015.

Oklahoma

On June 8, 2015, the governor of the state of Oklahoma approved an administrative ruling that provides customer rate reciprocity to electric companies who serve less than 10% of total customers within the state of Oklahoma. As a result, future increases in Missouri customer rates approved by the MPSC will be effective for our Oklahoma customers, subject to Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) approval. On October 26, 2015, we filed a request with the OCC to adopt the Missouri customer electric rates requested in our October 16, 2015 Missouri rate filing discussed above for our Oklahoma customers once approval is granted by the MPSC.

Arkansas

2015 Tariff Rider

On February 23, 2015, we filed a notice with the Arkansas Public Service Commission (APSC) to implement the Alternative Generation Environmental Recovery Rider (GER) pursuant to the provision of Act 310 of 1981. The GER recovers reasonably incurred costs and expenditures as a direct result of legislative or regulatory requirements relating to the protection of the public health, safety, or the environment. Our implemented GER recovers our Arkansas jurisdictional share of investment associated with the Asbury AQCS. The new GER was effective upon notice (February 23, 2015) subject to refund. On August 5, 2015, the APSC approved the GER.

2014 Rate Case

On May 20, 2014, we filed a settlement agreement with the Arkansas Public Service Commission (APSC) for an increase of $1.375 million, or approximately 11%. A hearing was held on the settlement agreement on July 22, 2014. On September 16, 2014, the APSC issued an order approving the settlement with a modification that reduced the overall revenue increase to $1.367 million. The new rates were effective September 26, 2014. We had filed a request on December 3, 2013, with the APSC seeking an annual increase in total revenue of approximately $2.2 million, or approximately 18%. The rate increase was requested to recover costs incurred to ensure continued reliable service for our customers, including capital investments, operating systems replacement costs and ongoing increases in other operation and maintenance expenses and capital costs.

FERC

We have in place a cost-based transmission formula rate (TFR). On June 13, 2013, we, the Kansas Corporation Commission and the cities of Monett, Mt. Vernon and Lockwood, Missouri and Chetopa, Kansas, filed a unanimous Settlement Agreement (Agreement) with the FERC. The Agreement included a TFR that would establish an ROE of 10.0%. The Agreement calls for the TFR to be updated annually with the new updated TFR rates effective on July 1 of each year. FERC conditionally approved the Agreement on November 18, 2013, and we made a compliance filing with FERC on December 18, 2013 in connection with this conditional approval. The FERC approved our compliance filing on June 12, 2014.

We have in place a cost-based generation formula rate (GFR). Our GFR requires an update to be completed annually for rates effective June 1. On October 29, 2014, Empire made a "limited" Section 205 filing to request some minor changes in the existing GFR formula to incorporate the impact of the recent implementation of the Southwest Power Pool Integrated Marketplace (IM). As a result of this filing, our customers' share of the margins we receive from sales into the IM will be passed on to them through the monthly fuel and purchased power cost adjustment mechanism rather than making one-time adjustments at each annual update. This filing was approved by FERC on January 13, 2015.

MARKETS AND TRANSMISSION

Electric Segment

Day Ahead Market: On March 1, 2014, the SPP RTO implemented its Integrated Marketplace (IM) (or Day-Ahead Market), which replaced the Energy Imbalance Services (EIS) market. The SPP RTO created a single NERC-approved balancing authority (BA) that took over balancing authority responsibilities for its members, including Empire.

As part of the IM, we and other SPP members submit generation offers to sell our power and bids to purchase power into the SPP market, with the SPP serving as a centralized commitment and dispatch of SPP members' generation resources. The SPP matches offers and bids based upon operating and reliability considerations. The SPP reports that approximately 90% – 95% of all next day generation needed throughout the SPP territory is being cleared through the IM. We also acquire Transmission Congestion Rights (TCR) through annual and monthly processes in an attempt to mitigate congestion costs associated with the power we purchase from the IM. When we sell more generation to the market than we purchase for a given settlement period, the net sale is included as part of electric revenues. When we purchase more generation from the market than we sell, the net purchase is recorded as a component of fuel and purchased power on our financial statements. The net financial effect of these IM transactions is included in our fuel adjustment mechanisms and therefore has little impact on gross margin

FERC Order No. 1000: In July 2011, the FERC issued Order No. 1000 (Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation by Transmission Owning and Operating Public Utilities) which requires all public utility transmission providers to allow transmission developers outside their retail distribution service territory to participate in regional transmission planning. Order No. 1000 eliminates the federal right of first refusal for entities that develop transmission projects within their own retail distribution service territories to construct transmission facilities selected in a regional transmission plan. This order will directly affect our rights to build 161kV and above transmission facilities within our retail service territory.

Order No. 1000 also directed transmission providers to develop policy and procedures for regional and interregional transmission planning as well as regional and interregional transmission cost allocation (see "SPP Regional Transmission Development" below) for approved transmission projects. We continue to participate in the SPP processes to understand the impact of these FERC orders on our ability to construct new facilities within our service territory as well as their influence on promoting construction of transmission projects on or near our borders with our neighbors. SPP completed and filed with the FERC a required interregional policy and procedure compliance filing, and while FERC partially approved SPP's compliance filing, remaining issues have been addressed in a subsequent filing that is currently waiting FERC approval.

SPP Regional Transmission Development: In 2010, SPP received FERC approval to implement a new highway/byway cost allocation methodology for new SPP approved transmission projects. We actively monitor SPP's policy to allocate the costs of transmission projects to its members. 2015 net SPP transmission expenses were approximately $1.3 million above 2014 levels. Our Arkansas and Oklahoma jurisdictions have cost recovery mechanisms in place to fully recover additional transmission costs outside the traditional rate making process, and Missouri has a mechanism in place to recover a portion of transmission expense above the amount in base fuel. See "Rate Matters" above for more information.

The highway/byway allocation methodology requires the costs of SPP approved transmission projects to be allocated to 1) members across the entire SPP region; 2) members within certain localized service territories or zones; or 3) a combination of both regional and zonal allocation. The allocation is based on project voltage, as follows:

Transmission Project Voltage	Regional Funding Percentage			Zonal Funding Percentage
300 kV and Above		100.0	%		0.0	%
100kV to 299kV		33.3	%		66.7	%
Below 100 kV		0.0	%		100.0	%

SPP's formal regional cost allocation review and benefit to cost imbalance analysis process is ongoing. A filing to outline several possible remedies for entities not receiving adequate benefits from projects regionally funded was rejected by FERC and discussion continues in stakeholder groups to develop alternatives.

SPP/Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) Joint Operating Agreement and Plum Point Delivery: Due to Plum Point's physical location and interconnection, transmission service from Entergy/MISO is required for delivery. On December 19, 2013, Entergy voluntarily integrated its generation, transmission, and load into the MISO regional transmission organization. Based on the current terms and conditions of MISO membership, Entergy's participation in MISO has increased transmission delivery costs for our Plum Point power station as well as utilizes our transmission system without compensation.

As a result, we have participated with the SPP members and other impacted utilities in two separate FERC settlement proceedings in an effort to reduce the costs to our customers. On October 13, 2015, SPP members, SPP, MISO and MISO members filed a settlement at the FERC regarding MISO's unreserved and uncompensated use of the SPP members' systems. If approved by the FERC, the agreement will provide compensation and governance for the continued shared use of the transmission system among MISO, SPP and others impacted. However, the regional through and out transmission delivery rate (RTOR) dispute regarding Plum Point will go to hearing at the FERC. On May 20, 2015, we along with KCPL-GMO, AECI, and Southern Company filed a formal 206 complaint at the FERC that the ROTR rate was unjust and unreasonable. A procedural schedule was issued by the FERC on October 8, 2015 with hearings to commence on April 25, 2016 and an initial decision scheduled for August 10, 2016.

Gas Segment

Non-residential gas customers whose annual usage exceeds certain amounts may purchase natural gas from a source other than EDG. EDG does not have a non-regulated energy marketing service that sells natural gas in competition with outside sources. EDG continues to receive non-gas related revenues for distribution and other services if natural gas is purchased from another source by our eligible customers.

Other — Rate Matters

In accordance with ASC guidance on regulated operations, we currently have deferred approximately $0.4 million of expense related to rate cases under other non-current assets and deferred charges. These amounts will be amortized over varying periods based upon the completion of the specific cases. Based on past history, we expect all these expenses to be recovered in rates.