2.2.0.7 false COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES 11801 - Disclosure - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES true false false false 1 USD false false Unit1 Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 0 Unit13 Divide http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 Unit12 Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 $ 2 COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES 0 aye_CommitmentsAndContingenciesAbstract aye false na duration Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract] false false false false false true false false false false false false 1 false false false false 0 0 false false false xbrli:stringItemType string Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract] false 3 COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES 1 us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock us-gaap true na duration No definition available. false false false false false false false false false false false terselabel false 1 false false false false 0 0 <div> <div> <a name="tx103575_30"> </a>NOTE 18: COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Legal Proceedings Allegheny is involved in a number of significant legal proceedings. In certain cases, plaintiffs seek to recover large and sometimes unspecified damages, and some matters may be unresolved for several years. Allegheny cannot currently determine the outcome of the proceedings described below or the ultimate amount of potential losses. Management records charges for estimated losses to the extent that information becomes available indicating that losses are probable and that the amounts are reasonably estimable. Additional losses may have an adverse effect on Allegheny's results of operations, cash flows and financial condition. AE and its subsidiaries are from time to time involved in litigation and other legal disputes in the ordinary course of business, including but not limited to the matters described below. Environmental Matters and Litigation The operations of Allegheny's owned facilities, including its generation facilities, are subject to various federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations as to air and water quality, hazardous and solid waste disposal and other environmental matters, some of which may be uncertain. Compliance may require Allegheny to incur substantial additional costs to modify or replace existing and proposed equipment and facilities. Global Climate Change. The United States relies on coal-fired power plants for more than 45% of its energy. However, coal-fired power plants have come under scrutiny due to their emission of gases implicated in climate change, primarily carbon dioxide, or "CO2 ." Allegheny produces approximately 95% of its electricity at coal-fired facilities and currently produces approximately 45 million tons of CO2 annually through its energy production. While there are many unknowns concerning the final regulation of greenhouse gases in the United States, federal and/or state legislation and implementing regulations addressing climate change, including limits on emissions of CO2, likely will be adopted some time in the future. Thus, CO2 legislation and regulation, if not reasonably designed, could have a significant impact on Allegheny's operations. Several legislative initiatives have been introduced in both houses of Congress with varying levels of support, but to date, no CO2 –specific law has been passed.   Concurrently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the "EPA") is moving to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act of 1970 (the "Clean Air Act"). On December 7, 2009, the EPA announced its Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding, stating that greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks, when mixed in the atmosphere, endanger public health. The finding provides the EPA with a basis on which to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicle tailpipes under the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Once a pollutant is regulated under the Clean Air Act for one source category, the EPA has authority to apply similar regulations to other source categories. On April 1, 2010, the EPA and the Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") announced a joint final rule that applies to passenger cars, light-duty trucks and medium-duty passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 2016. Under the Clean Air Act, regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles also triggers requirements for new and modified stationary sources to control greenhouse gas emissions under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration ("PSD") program. Regulation of the stationary sources will be implemented through the final version of the "tailoring rule" issued on June 3, 2010. The tailoring rule will become effective on January 2, 2011. For six months, only new and modified sources already required to control emissions of other air pollutants will be required to control greenhouse gas emissions. Beginning July 1, 2011, new sources above 100,000 tons per year and modified existing sources with emissions increases above 75,000 tons per year (which may include Allegheny's facilities, but only to the extent any modifications to those facilities triggers application of the rule) will be required to control emissions. There is a gap between the current capabilities of technology and the desired reduction levels in the current proposed legislation and regulations; no current commercial-scale technology exists to enable many of the reduction levels in national, regional and state proposals. Such technology may not become available within a timeframe consistent with the implementation of any future climate control initiatives or at all. To the extent that such technology does become available, Allegheny can provide no assurance that it will be suitable for installation at Allegheny's generation facilities on a cost effective basis or at all. Based on estimates from a 2007 Department of Energy National Electric Technology Laboratory report and recently announced projects by other entities, it could cost as much as $5,500 per kW to replace existing coal-based power generation with fossil fuel stations capable of capturing and sequestering CO2 emissions. However, exact estimates are difficult because of the variance in the legislative proposals and the current lack of deployable technology. Regardless of the eventual mechanism for limiting CO2 emissions, compliance will be a major and costly challenge for Allegheny, its customers and the region in which it operates. Most notable will be the potential impact on customer bills and disproportionate increases in energy cost in areas that have built their energy and industrial infrastructure over the past century based on coal-fired electric generation. Because the legislative process and applicable technology each is in its infancy, it is difficult for Allegheny to aggressively implement greenhouse gas emission expenditures until the exact nature and requirements of any regulation are known and the capabilities of control or reduction technologies are more fully understood. Allegheny's current strategy in response to climate change initiatives focuses on:   <table style="border-collapse: collapse;" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%"> <tr><td width="4%"> </td> <td valign="top" width="2%" align="left">•</td> <td valign="top" width="1%"> </td> <td valign="top" align="left"> maintaining an accurate CO2 emissions database; </td></tr></table>   <table style="border-collapse: collapse;" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%"> <tr><td width="4%"> </td> <td valign="top" width="2%" align="left">•</td> <td valign="top" width="1%"> </td> <td valign="top" align="left"> improving the efficiency of its existing coal-burning generation facilities; </td></tr></table>   <table style="border-collapse: collapse;" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%"> <tr><td width="4%"> </td> <td valign="top" width="2%" align="left">•</td> <td valign="top" width="1%"> </td> <td valign="top" align="left"> following developing technologies for clean-coal energy and for CO2 emission controls at coal-fired power plants, including carbon sequestration; </td></tr></table>   <table style="border-collapse: collapse;" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%"> <tr><td width="4%"> </td> <td valign="top" width="2%" align="left">•</td> <td valign="top" width="1%"> </td> <td valign="top" align="left"> analyzing options for future energy investment (e.g. , renewables, clean-coal, etc.); and </td></tr></table>   <table style="border-collapse: collapse;" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%"> <tr><td width="4%"> </td> <td valign="top" width="2%" align="left">•</td> <td valign="top" width="1%"> </td> <td valign="top" align="left"> improving demand-side efficiency programs, as evidenced by customer conservation outreach plans and Allegheny's Watt Watchers initiatives. </td></tr></table>   Allegheny's energy portfolio also includes approximately 1,180 MWs of renewable hydroelectric and pumped storage power generation. Allegheny obtained a permit to allow for a limited use of bio-mass (wood chips and saw dust) at one of its coal-fired power stations in West Virginia and currently has approval to use waste-tire derived fuel at another of its coal-based power stations in West Virginia. Allegheny is participating in the dialogue that will shape the regulatory landscape surrounding CO2 emissions. Additionally, Allegheny intends to pursue proven and cost-effective measures to manage its emissions while maintaining an affordable and reliable supply of electricity for its customers. Clean Air Act Compliance and State Air Quality Initiatives. Allegheny currently meets applicable standards for particulate matter emissions at its generation facilities through the use of high-efficiency electrostatic precipitators, cleaned coal, flue-gas conditioning, optimization software, fuel combustion modifications and, at times, through other means. From time to time, minor excursions of stack emission opacity that are normal to fossil fuel operations are experienced and are accommodated by the regulatory process. Allegheny's compliance with the Clean Air Act has required, and may require in the future, that Allegheny install control technologies on many of its generation facilities at significant cost. The proposed Clean Air Transport Rule ("CATR") released by the EPA on July 6, 2010 may accelerate the need to install this equipment by phasing out a portion of the currently available allowances, limiting trading and accelerating federal emission reduction goals. The proposed CATR replaces certain portions of the Clean Air Interstate Rule that were invalidated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Following the February 2008 vacature of EPA's 2005 Clean Air Mercury Rule ("CAMR") by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the EPA announced plans to propose a new maximum achievable control technology rule for hazardous air pollutant emissions from electric utility steam generating units in the first half of 2011. The EPA plans to finalize the new rule by November 2011. Allegheny is monitoring the EPA's efforts to promulgate hazardous air pollutant rules that will include, but will not be limited to, mercury limits. To establish these standards, the EPA must identify the best performing 12% of sources in each source category and, to that end, has issued an information request to members of the fossil fuel-fired generating industry that includes a requirement to conduct extensive stack emissions testing on selected generating units. Allegheny is required to conduct stack testing for eight of its generating units. Depending on the final hazardous air pollution limits set by the EPA, Allegheny could incur significant costs for additional control equipment. Additionally, Maryland passed the Healthy Air Act in early 2006. This legislation imposes state-wide emission caps on SO2 and NOx, requires greater reductions in mercury emissions more quickly than required by CAMR and mandates that Maryland join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative ("RGGI") and participate in that coalition's regional efforts to reduce CO2 emissions. On April 20, 2007, Maryland's governor signed on to RGGI, as a result of which Maryland became the 10th state to join the Northeast regional climate change and energy efficiency program. The Healthy Air Act provides a conditional exemption for the R. Paul Smith power station for NOx, SO2 and mercury, based on a PJM declaration that the station is vital to reliability in the Baltimore/Washington DC metropolitan area, which PJM determined in 2006. Pursuant to the legislation, the Maryland Department of the Environment (the "MDE") passed alternate NOx and SO2 limits for R. Paul Smith, which became effective in April 2009. However, R. Paul Smith is still required to meet the Healthy Air Act mercury reductions of 80% beginning in 2010. The statutory exemption does not extend to R. Paul Smith's CO2 emissions. Maryland issued final regulations to implement RGGI requirements in February 2008. Among other things, under RGGI, the MDE now auctions 100% of CO2 allowances associated with Maryland's power plants, and Allegheny is participating in RGGI auctions. Through the second quarter of 2010, eight RGGI auctions have been held. RGGI allowances are also readily available in the allowance markets, affording another mechanism by which to secure necessary allowances. AE Supply and Monongahela comply with current SO2 emission standards through a system-wide plan, combining the use of emission controls, low sulfur fuel and emission allowances. Allegheny continues to evaluate and implement options for compliance. It completed the elimination of a partial bypass of Scrubbers at its Pleasants generation facility in December 2007 and the construction of Scrubbers at its Hatfield's Ferry and Fort Martin generating facilities in 2009. Allegheny now has Scrubbers installed and operating on all ten of the units at its four supercritical generating facilities and at Mitchell Unit 3. Allegheny's NOx compliance plan functions on a system-wide basis, similar to its SO2 compliance plan. Pending finalization of the CATR, AE Supply and Monongahela also have the option, in some cases, to purchase alternate fuels or NOx allowances, if needed, to supplement their compliance strategies. Allegheny currently has installed selective non-catalytic reduction equipment at its Fort Martin and Hatfield's Ferry generating stations and selective catalytic reduction equipment at its Harrison and Pleasants generating stations, together with other NOx controls at these supercritical generating facilities, as well as its other generating facilities. On January 8, 2010, the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection ("WVDEP") issued a Notice of Violation for opacity emissions at Allegheny's Pleasants generating facility. Allegheny is evaluating certain control system options for opacity reduction. Although a system has not yet been selected, the cost to install any such system could be significant. Clean Water Act Compliance. In 2004, the EPA issued a final rule requiring all existing power plants with once-through cooling water systems withdrawing more than 50 million gallons of water per day to meet certain standards to reduce mortality of aquatic organisms pinned against the water intake screens or, in some cases, drawn through the cooling water system. The standards varied based on the type and size of the water bodies from which the plants draw their cooling water. In January 2007, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision on appeal that remanded a significant portion of the rule to the EPA. As a result, the EPA suspended the rule, except for a requirement, which existed prior to the EPA's adoption of the 2004 rule, that permitting agencies use best professional judgment ("BPJ") to determine the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impacts for existing facility cooling water intakes. Pending re-issuance of the 2004 rule by the EPA, permitting agencies thus will rely on BPJ determinations during permit renewal at existing facilities. On April 1, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the appeals court decision and upheld the EPA's authority to use cost/benefit analysis. EPA plans to issue a proposed rule addressing the issues remanded by the Court in 2010 and to issue a final rule in 2012. Depending on the standards set by the EPA when it reissues this rule, Allegheny could incur significant costs for additional control equipment. Monongahela River Water Quality. In late 2008, the PA DEP imposed water quality criteria for certain effluents, including total dissolved solid ("TDS") and sulfate concentrations in the Monongahela River, on new and modified sources, including the Scrubber project at the Hatfield's Ferry generation facility. These criteria are reflected in the current PA DEP water discharge permit for that project. AE Supply has appealed the PA DEP's permitting decision, which would require it to incur significant costs or negatively affect its ability to operate the Scrubbers as designed. Preliminary studies indicate an initial capital investment of approximately $62 million in order to install technology to meet the TDS and sulfate limits in the permit. The permit has been independently appealed by Environmental Integrity Project and Citizens Coal Council who seek to impose more stringent technology-based effluent limitations. Those same parties have intervened in the appeal filed by AE Supply, and both appeals have been consolidated for discovery purposes. An order has been entered that stays the permit limits that AE Supply has challenged while the appeal is pending. The hearing is scheduled to begin on September 13, 2011. AE Supply intends to vigorously pursue these issues, but cannot predict the outcome of these appeals. The PA DEP recommended an end-of-pipe limit TDS rule, and the Pennsylvania Environmental Quality Board issued the final rule on August 21, 2010. Allegheny could incur significant costs for additional control equipment to meet the requirements of this rule, although its provisions do not apply to electric generating units until the end of 2018, and then only if the EPA has not promulgated TDS effluent limitation guidelines applicable to such units. In October 2009, the WVDEP issued the water discharge permit for the Fort Martin generation facility. Similar to the Hatfield's Ferry water discharge permit issued for the Scrubber project, the Fort Martin permit imposes effluent limitations for TDS and sulfate concentrations. The permit also imposes temperature limitations and other effluent limits for heavy metals that are not contained in the Hatfield's Ferry water permit. Concurrent with the issuance of the Fort Martin permit, WVDEP also issued an administrative order that sets deadlines for Monongahela to meet certain of the effluent limits that are effective immediately under the terms of the permit. Monongahela has appealed the Fort Martin permit and the administrative order. The appeal includes a request to stay certain of the conditions of the permit and order while the appeal is pending. The request to stay has been granted pending a final decision on appeal and subject to WVDEP moving to dissolve the stay. The appeals have been consolidated. Monongahela moved to dismiss certain of the permit conditions for the failure of the WVDEP to submit those conditions for public review and comment during the permitting process. An agreed-upon order that suspends further action on this appeal, pending WVDEP's release for public review and comment on those conditions, was entered on August 11, 2010. The stay remains in effect during that process. The current terms of the Fort Martin permit would require Monongahela to incur significant costs or negatively impact operations at Fort Martin. Preliminary information indicates an initial capital investment in excess of the capital investment that may be needed at Hatfield's Ferry in order to install technology to meet the TDS and sulfate limits in the Fort Martin permit, which technology may also meet certain of the other effluent limits in the permit. Additional technology may be needed to meet certain other limits in the permit. Monongahela intends to vigorously pursue these issues but cannot predict the outcome of these appeals. Solid Waste. The EPA is reviewing its waste regulations relating to coal combustion residuals ("CCR") partly in response to a Tennessee Valley Authority ash spill in Kingston, Tennessee in December 2008. CCR includes bottom ash, boiler slag, fly ash and Scrubber byproducts including gypsum. CCR has historically been designated and managed as a non-hazardous waste, and the EPA has twice determined that it is not appropriate to regulate it as a hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"). The EPA is reconsidering those earlier determinations and intends to issue new regulations for the management and disposal of CCR in 2010. The EPA has not yet reached a final decision on whether to regulate CCR as a hazardous or special waste (RCRA Title C) or as a non-hazardous waste (RCRA Title D) and on May 4, 2010 released a draft proposed rule which contained both options for public comment. Should the EPA elect to designate CCR as hazardous or special waste at any point in its generation, storage, transportation or disposal cycle, it could significantly increase Allegheny's cost of managing CCR materials and could also drive additional monitoring and corrective action at legacy disposal sites. In addition to potential additional management costs for CCR disposal, Allegheny might expect to see a reduction in options for beneficial reuse of CCR in applications such as mine reclamation, cement manufacture and agriculture, further increasing costs, as such materials will then enter landfills rather than beneficial reuse. While EPA's proposed rule appears to attempt to protect beneficial CCR reuse whatever the CCR designation, we are still reviewing the rule and assessing its effect on Allegheny in that regard. The proposed rule also provides options for the management and closure of wet CCR storage and disposal impoundments. Even if EPA elects the non-hazardous CCR option in a final rule, reducing Allegheny's potential waste management exposure, closure of wet disposal impoundments could be a source of significant costs. Allegheny is assessing the draft proposal and working with various trade groups and associations to determine potential costs and effects under either CCR option. Potential Impact of Recent EPA and Climate Change Initiatives. Implementation of the EPA's current proposals with regard to air quality, water quality and CCR, as described above, would, together with potential climate change legislation, require extensive and costly changes to the nation's electric generation fleet, including the installation of new pollution controls, retirement of many existing generating facilities and construction of new generating capacity. Several industry and industry-related assessments, while varying in their estimates and assumptions, estimate that if implementation of these initiatives proceeds according to currently proposed schedules, the combined national cost through 2015 associated with required retrofitting of existing facilities and construction of new facilities could be hundreds of billions of dollars. Additionally, it is estimated that the cost of complying with these initiatives would not be economically justified for many individual facilities and would therefore result in the retirement of a significant portion of the nation's existing coal-fired generation capacity. While specific estimates involve complex models incorporating many variables and assumptions that are subject to individual interpretation and are highly subject to change, it is clear that timely compliance would be challenging and require significant investment, both at the industry level and for Allegheny, which could be required to install a variety of additional pollution controls at a number of its generating facilities and could be compelled to retire certain of its subcritical facilities. Clean Air Act Litigation. In August 2000, AE received a letter from the EPA requesting that it provide information and documentation relevant to the operation and maintenance of the following ten electric generation facilities, which collectively include 22 generation units: Albright, Armstrong, Fort Martin, Harrison, Hatfield's Ferry, Mitchell, Pleasants, Rivesville, R. Paul Smith and Willow Island. AE Supply and/or Monongahela own these generation facilities. The letter requested information under Section 114 of the Clean Air Act to determine compliance with the Clean Air Act and related requirements, including potential application of the New Source Review ("NSR"), standards under the Clean Air Act, which can require the installation of additional air emission control equipment when the major modification of an existing facility results in an increase in emissions. AE has provided responsive information to this and a subsequent request. If NSR requirements are imposed on Allegheny's generation facilities, in addition to the possible imposition of fines, compliance would entail significant capital investments in emission control technology. On May 20, 2004, AE, AE Supply, Monongahela and West Penn received a Notice of Intent to Sue Pursuant to Clean Air Act §7604 (the "Notice") from the Attorneys General of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut and from the PA DEP. The Notice alleged that Allegheny made major modifications to some of its West Virginia facilities in violation of the PSD provisions of the Clean Air Act at the following coal-fired facilities: Albright Unit No. 3; Fort Martin Units No. 1 and 2; Harrison Units No. 1, 2 and 3; Pleasants Units No. 1 and 2 and Willow Island Unit No. 2. The Notice also alleged PSD violations at the Armstrong, Hatfield's Ferry and Mitchell generation facilities in Pennsylvania and identifies PA DEP as the lead agency regarding those facilities. On September 8, 2004, AE, AE Supply, Monongahela and West Penn received a separate Notice of Intent to Sue from the Maryland Attorney General that essentially mirrored the previous Notice. On January 6, 2005, AE Supply and Monongahela filed a declaratory judgment action against the Attorneys General of New York, Connecticut and New Jersey in federal District Court in West Virginia ("West Virginia DJ Action"). This action requests that the court declare that AE Supply's and Monongahela's coal-fired generation facilities in Pennsylvania and West Virginia comply with the Clean Air Act. The Attorneys General filed a motion to dismiss the West Virginia DJ Action that has not been ruled upon by the Court. On August 12, 2010, the Court granted the motion to dismiss, and the lawsuit has been concluded. On June 28, 2005, the PA DEP and the Attorneys General of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Maryland filed suit against AE, AE Supply and the Distribution Companies in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (the "PA Enforcement Action"). This action alleges NSR violations under the federal Clean Air Act and the Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act at the Hatfield's Ferry, Armstrong and Mitchell facilities in Pennsylvania. The PA Enforcement Action appears to raise the same issues regarding Allegheny's Pennsylvania generation facilities that are before the federal District Court in the West Virginia DJ Action, except that the PA Enforcement Action also includes the PA DEP and the Maryland Attorney General. On January 17, 2006, the PA DEP and the Attorneys General filed an amended complaint. On May 30, 2006, the District Court denied Allegheny's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 26, 2006, at a status conference, the Court determined that discovery would proceed regarding liability issues, but not remedies. Discovery on the liability phase closed on December 31, 2007, and summary judgment briefing was completed during the first quarter of 2008. On November 18, 2008, the District Court issued a Memorandum Order denying all motions for summary judgment and establishing certain legal standards to govern at trial. In December 2009, a new trial judge was assigned to the case who then entered an order granting a motion to reconsider the rulings in the November 2008 Memorandum Order. On April 18, 2010, the new judge issued an opinion, again denying all motions for summary judgment and establishing certain legal standards to govern at trial. The non-jury trial on liability only was held in September 2010. Plaintiffs must file their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on or before December 3, 2010, and Allegheny must make its related filings on or before January 19, 2011. The trial judge will issue his rulings after those filings have been made. In addition to this lawsuit, on September 21, 2007, Allegheny received a Notice of Violation ("NOV") from the EPA alleging NSR and PSD violations under the federal Clean Air Act, as well as Pennsylvania and West Virginia state laws. The NOV, which was directed to AE, Monongahela and West Penn, alleges violations at the Hatfield's Ferry and Armstrong generation facilities in Pennsylvania and the Fort Martin and Willow Island generation facilities in West Virginia. The projects identified in the NOV are essentially the same as the projects at issue for these four facilities in the May 20, 2004 Notice, the West Virginia DJ Action and the PA Enforcement Action. Allegheny intends to vigorously pursue and defend against the Clean Air Act matters described above but cannot predict their outcomes. Global Warming Class Action. On April 9, 2006, AE, along with numerous other companies with coal-fired generation facilities and companies in other industries, was named as a defendant in a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. On behalf of a purported class of residents and property owners in Mississippi who were harmed by Hurricane Katrina, the named plaintiffs allege that the emission of greenhouse gases by the defendants contributed to global warming, thereby causing Hurricane Katrina and plaintiffs' damages. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages. On December 6, 2006, AE filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint on jurisdictional grounds and then joined a motion filed by other defendants to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. At a hearing on August 30, 2007, the Court granted the motion to dismiss that AE had joined and dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims against all defendants. Plaintiffs appealed that ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On October 6, 2009, the assigned panel of the appellate court issued a written opinion that reversed the judgment entered by the District Court in favor of the defendants with respect to certain of the plaintiffs' claims and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. On November 25, 2009, AE and others filed a petition to have all of the judges of the Fifth Circuit rehear the issues addressed in the panel's October 6, 2009 opinion. That petition was granted and oral argument was set for May 24, 2010. However, the parties were notified on April 30, 2010 that the Court was unable to empanel the necessary nine judges to hear the merits of the appeal due to recusals. The Court then entered an order on May 28, 2010, reinstating the ruling of the lower court that entered judgment in favor of the defendants and dismissing plaintiffs' appeal. Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Mandamus with the United States Supreme Court on August 26, 2010. Defendants must file their response to the petition on or before October 29, 2010. AE intends to vigorously defend against this action but cannot predict its outcome. Other Litigation Shareholder Actions. In connection with AE's proposed Merger with a subsidiary of FirstEnergy, purported AE shareholders filed in the first quarter of 2010 several separate putative shareholder class action and/or derivative lawsuits in Pennsylvania and Maryland state courts, as well as in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against AE, its directors and certain of its officers (the "AE Defendants"), FirstEnergy and Merger Sub. The lawsuits alleged, among other things, that the AE directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Merger Agreement and that AE, FirstEnergy and Merger Sub aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The lawsuits also alleged that the Merger consideration is unfair, that certain other terms in the Merger Agreement are unfair and that certain individual defendants are financially interested in the Merger. Among other remedies, the lawsuits sought to enjoin the Merger, or in the event that an injunction was not awarded, money damages. While AE believes the lawsuits are without merit and has defended vigorously against the claims, in order to avoid the costs associated with the litigation, the defendants agreed to a disclosure-based settlement of the lawsuits. In exchange for AE's agreement with plaintiffs' counsel to include additional disclosure in the joint proxy statement/prospectus mailed to AE's and FirstEnergy's shareholders in connection with the Merger, and subject to court approval, plaintiff's counsel agreed to, among other matters, the dismissal of all claims asserted in the lawsuits and a release of claims related to the Merger on behalf of the putative class of AE shareholders. On October 18, 2010, a stipulation of settlement was filed in the Maryland Circuit Court for Baltimore City, which will review the settlement and determine whether it should be approved. The Maryland court set the hearing for approval of the settlement for December 13, 2010. If the Maryland court approves the settlement and the release, the plaintiffs in the actions filed in Pennsylvania state court and the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania have agreed to dismiss those actions. If the parties are unable to obtain final approval of the settlement, then litigation will proceed, and the outcome of any such litigation is inherently uncertain. If a dismissal is not granted, these lawsuits could prevent or delay the completion of the Merger and result in substantial costs to AE. The defense or settlement of any lawsuit or claim that remains unresolved at the time the Merger closes may adversely affect AE's business, financial condition or results of operations. PJM Calculation Error.  On March 8, 2010, the Midwest ISO filed two complaints at FERC against PJM. Both complaints are related to a modeling error that PJM discovered in September 2009. PJM reported that a modeling error in its system impacted the manner in which market-to-market power flow calculations were made between PJM and the Midwest ISO. Since April 2005, PJM had incorrectly modeled the ownership of certain generation resources in its system. The generation resources in question had an impact on power flows across the PJM/Midwest ISO border, and therefore the ownership of those resources (i.e., whether they were owned by a PJM company or a Midwest ISO company) had an impact on the way in which PJM and the Midwest ISO should have been compensated for market-to-market transactions. The Midwest ISO claims that this error resulted in PJM underpaying the Midwest ISO by approximately $130 million over the time period in question. The first complaint seeks a refund by PJM to the Midwest ISO of $130 million plus interest. The second complaint alleges that PJM did not properly trigger market-to-market settlements between PJM and the Midwest ISO during times when it was required to do so under the Joint Operating Agreement between the two companies. The Midwest ISO claims that PJM's failure to act as required may have cost the Midwest ISO $5 million or more. The second complaint requests refunds of this additional amount. As PJM market participants, AE Supply and Monongahela may be liable for a portion of any refunds ordered in this case. PJM, Allegheny and other PJM market participants filed responses to the Midwest ISO complaints at FERC on April 12, 2010 denying any liability. In its response, Allegheny argued that, even if PJM had in fact committed an error that impacted market-to-market settlements, there were both legal and equitable reasons for which FERC should decline to order any refunds be paid. Also on April 12, PJM filed a related complaint at FERC against the Midwest ISO claiming that the Midwest ISO improperly called for market-to-market settlements several times during the same time period covered by the two Midwest ISO complaints filed against PJM. PJM claims these improper actions by the Midwest ISO may have cost the PJM market participants $25 million or more. On June 29, 2010, FERC issued an initial order on the complaints. FERC's order consolidated all three of the pending complaints and set all disputed issues for hearing. The June 29th order did not resolve any of the legal issues in the dispute. The hearings required by the June 29th order will be held in abeyance while parties engage in FERC sponsored settlement discussions. A full evidentiary hearing on the substance of the complaints will be held if settlement cannot be achieved. Allegheny intends to participate in the FERC ordered settlement discussions and any subsequent hearings. Allegheny intends to vigorously pursue these matters but cannot predict their outcome. Nevada Power Contracts. On December 7, 2001, Nevada Power Company ("NPC") filed a complaint with the FERC against AE Supply seeking action by the FERC to modify prices payable to AE Supply under three trade confirmations between Merrill Lynch and NPC. NPC's claim was based, in part, on the assertion that dysfunctional California spot markets had an adverse effect on the prices NPC was able to negotiate with Merrill Lynch under the contracts. NPC filed substantially identical complaints against a number of other energy suppliers. On December 19, 2002, the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") issued findings that no contract modification was warranted. The ALJ determined in favor of NPC that AE Supply, rather than Merrill Lynch, was a proper subject of NPC's complaint. On June 26, 2003, the FERC affirmed the ALJ's decision upholding the long-term contracts negotiated between NPC and Merrill Lynch, among others. The FERC did not decide whether AE Supply, rather than Merrill Lynch, was the real party in interest. On November 10, 2003, the FERC issued an order, on rehearing, affirming its conclusion that the long-term contracts should not be modified. Snohomish County, NPC and other parties filed petitions for review of the FERC's June 26, 2003 order with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the "NPC Petitions"). The NPC Petitions were consolidated in the Ninth Circuit. On December 19, 2006, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion remanding the case to the FERC to determine, in accordance with the guidance set forth in the Ninth Circuit's opinion, whether the FERC utilized the appropriate standard of review in deciding various claims, including NPC's complaint. On May 3, 2007, AE Supply and others filed a petition to appeal the Ninth Circuit's ruling to the United States Supreme Court. On June 26, 2008, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion that rejected the Ninth Circuit's reasoning, with instructions that the case be remanded to the FERC for amplification or clarification of its findings on two issues set forth in the opinion. The case was remanded to the FERC, and the FERC issued an order on December 18, 2008 that provides for a paper hearing on the two issues identified by the United States Supreme Court, with initial filings due within 90 days and reply submissions within 90 days thereafter. However, the order holds those deadlines in abeyance, contingent upon settlement discussions between the parties, and a subsequent order lifting that stay has not been entered. The parties have reached a settlement, pursuant to which Allegheny has made no financial commitment. If approved, the settlement would result in dismissal of the case. The parties are in the process of memorializing the agreed upon settlement, which will be submitted to FERC for approval.   Claims by California Parties. On October 5, 2006, several California governmental and utility parties presented AE Supply with a settlement proposal to resolve alleged overcharges for power sales by AE Supply to the California Energy Resource Scheduling division of the California Department of Water Resources ("CDWR") during 2001. The settlement proposal claims that CDWR is owed approximately $190 million for these alleged overcharges. This proposal was made in the context of mediation efforts by the FERC and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in pending proceedings to resolve all outstanding refund and other claims, including claims of alleged price manipulation in the California energy markets during 2000 and 2001. The Ninth Circuit has since remanded one of those proceedings to the FERC, which arises out of claims previously filed with the FERC by the California Attorney General on behalf of certain California parties against various sellers in the California wholesale power market, including AE Supply (the Lockyer case). AE Supply and several other sellers filed motions to dismiss the Lockyer case. On March 18, 2010, the judge assigned to the case entered an opinion that granted the motions to dismiss filed by AE Supply and other sellers and dismissed the claims of the California Parties. On April 19, 2010, the California Parties filed exceptions to the judge's rulings with FERC, and briefing is complete on those exceptions. The parties are awaiting a ruling from FERC on the exceptions. On June 2, 2009, the California Attorney General, on behalf of certain California parties, filed a second lawsuit with FERC against various sellers, including AE Supply (the Brown case), again seeking refunds for trades in the California energy markets during 2000 and 2001. The above-noted trades with CDWR are the basis for the joining of AE Supply in this new lawsuit. AE Supply has filed a motion to dismiss the Brown case that is pending before FERC. No scheduling order has been entered in the Brown case. Allegheny intends to vigorously defend against these claims but cannot predict their outcome. Claims Related to Alleged Asbestos Exposure. The Distribution Companies have been named as defendants, along with multiple other defendants, in pending asbestos cases alleging bodily injury involving multiple plaintiffs and multiple sites. These suits have been brought mostly by seasonal contractors' employees and do not involve allegations of the manufacture, sale or distribution of asbestos-containing products by Allegheny. These asbestos suits arise out of historical operations and are related to the installation and removal of asbestos-containing materials at Allegheny's generation facilities. Allegheny's historical operations were insured by various foreign and domestic insurers, including Lloyd's of London. Certain insurers have contested their obligations to pay for the future defense and settlement costs relating to the asbestos suits. Allegheny is currently involved in three asbestos and/or environmental insurance-related actions, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London et al. v. Allegheny Energy, Inc. et al., Case No. 21-C-03-16733 (Washington County, Md.), Monongahela Power Company et al. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London and London Market Companies, et al ., Civil Action No. 03-C-281 (Monongalia County, W.Va.) and Allegheny Energy, Inc. et al. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, Civil Action No. 10-CV-3142 WY (United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania). The parties are seeking a declaration of coverage under the policies for asbestos-related and environmental claims. Allegheny does not believe that the existence or pendency of either the asbestos suits or the actions involving its insurance will have a material impact on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. As of September 30, 2010, Allegheny's total number of claims alleging exposure to asbestos was 876 in West Virginia, nine in Pennsylvania and one in Illinois. Allegheny intends to vigorously pursue these matters but cannot predict their outcomes.   Leases Allegheny has capital and operating lease agreements with various terms and expiration dates, primarily for vehicles, computer equipment, communication lines and buildings. Allegheny's estimated future minimum lease payments for capital and operating leases, with annual payments exceeding $100,000 and initial or remaining lease terms in excess of one year are:   <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%" align="center"> <tr><td width="31%"> </td> <td valign="bottom" width="4%"> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td valign="bottom" width="4%"> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td valign="bottom" width="4%"> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td valign="bottom" width="4%"> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td valign="bottom" width="4%"> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td valign="bottom" width="4%"> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td valign="bottom" width="4%"> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td valign="bottom" width="4%"> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td valign="bottom" width="4%"> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td></tr> <tr><td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap"> (In millions)</td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td style="border-bottom: #000000 1px solid;" valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="center">October 1 through December 31, 2010</td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td style="border-bottom: #000000 1px solid;" valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="center">2011</td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td style="border-bottom: #000000 1px solid;" valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="center">2012</td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td style="border-bottom: #000000 1px solid;" valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="center">2013</td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td style="border-bottom: #000000 1px solid;" valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="center">2014</td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td style="border-bottom: #000000 1px solid;" valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="center">Thereafter</td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td style="border-bottom: #000000 1px solid;" valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="center">Total</td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td style="border-bottom: #000000 1px solid;" valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="center">Less: amount representing interest and fees</td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td style="border-bottom: #000000 1px solid;" valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="center">Present value of net minimum capital lease payments</td> <td valign="bottom"> </td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#cceeff"><td valign="top"> Capital Leases</td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom">$</td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">3.4</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom">$</td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">14.6</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom">$</td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">11.7</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom">$</td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">9.9</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom">$</td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">7.9</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom">$</td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">13.4</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom">$</td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">60.9</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom">$</td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">14.0</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom">$</td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">46.9</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td></tr> <tr><td valign="top"> Operating Leases</td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom">$</td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">1.7</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom">$</td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">6.3</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom">$</td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">5.7</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom">$</td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">5.5</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom">$</td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">5.4</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom">$</td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">8.5</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom">$</td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">33.1</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom">$</td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">0</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom">$</td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">0</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td></tr></table> PURPA The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (the "Energy Policy Act") amended PURPA significantly. Most notably, as of the effective date of the Energy Policy Act on August 8, 2005, electric utilities are no longer required to enter into any new contractual obligation to purchase energy from a qualifying facility if FERC finds that the facility has non-discriminatory access to a functioning wholesale market and open access transmission. This amendment has no impact on Allegheny's current long-term power purchase agreements under PURPA. The table below reflects Allegheny's estimated commitments for energy and capacity purchases under PURPA contracts as of September 30, 2010. The commitments were calculated based on expected PURPA purchased power prices at September 30, 2010, without giving effect to possible price changes that could occur as a result of any future emissions regulation or legislation. Actual values can vary substantially depending upon future conditions.   <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%" align="center"> <tr><td width="84%"> </td> <td valign="bottom" width="2%"> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td valign="bottom" width="2%"> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td></tr> <tr><td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap"> (In millions)</td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td style="border-bottom: #000000 1px solid;" valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="center">kWhs</td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td style="border-bottom: #000000 1px solid;" valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="center">Amount</td> <td valign="bottom"> </td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#cceeff"><td valign="top"> October 1 through December 31, 2010</td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">847</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom">$</td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">62.3</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td></tr> <tr><td valign="top"> 2011</td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">3,570</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">258.3</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#cceeff"><td valign="top"> 2012</td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">3,590</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">260.3</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td></tr> <tr><td valign="top"> 2013</td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">3,580</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">265.7</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#cceeff"><td valign="top"> 2014</td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">3,489</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">263.6</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td></tr> <tr><td valign="top"> Thereafter</td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">46,573</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">3,680.2</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td></tr> <tr style="font-size: 1px;"><td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td style="border-top: #000000 1px solid;" valign="bottom"> </td> <td style="border-top: #000000 1px solid;" valign="bottom"> </td> <td> </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td style="border-top: #000000 1px solid;" valign="bottom"> </td> <td style="border-top: #000000 1px solid;" valign="bottom"> </td> <td> </td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#cceeff"><td valign="top"> Total</td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">61,649</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom">$</td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">4,790.4</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td></tr> <tr style="font-size: 1px;"><td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td style="border-top: #000000 3px double;" valign="bottom"> </td> <td style="border-top: #000000 3px double;" valign="bottom"> </td> <td> </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td style="border-top: #000000 3px double;" valign="bottom"> </td> <td style="border-top: #000000 3px double;" valign="bottom"> </td> <td> </td></tr></table>   Fuel Purchase and Transportation Commitments Allegheny has entered into various long-term commitments for the procurement and transportation of fuel (primarily coal) and lime to supply its generation facilities. Total estimated long-term fuel purchase and transportation commitments at September 30, 2010 were as follows:   <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%" align="center"> <tr><td width="91%"> </td> <td valign="bottom" width="3%"> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td></tr> <tr><td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap"> (In millions)</td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td style="border-bottom: #000000 1px solid;" valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="center">Total</td> <td valign="bottom"> </td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#cceeff"><td valign="top"> October 1 through December 31, 2010</td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom">$</td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">285.2</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td></tr> <tr><td valign="top"> 2011</td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">1,069.3</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#cceeff"><td valign="top"> 2012</td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">746.2</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td></tr> <tr><td valign="top"> 2013</td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">714.3</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#cceeff"><td valign="top"> 2014</td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">719.0</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td></tr> <tr><td valign="top"> Thereafter</td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">1,870.4</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td></tr> <tr style="font-size: 1px;"><td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td style="border-top: #000000 1px solid;" valign="bottom"> </td> <td style="border-top: #000000 1px solid;" valign="bottom"> </td> <td> </td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#cceeff"><td valign="top"> Total</td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom">$</td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">5,404.4</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td></tr> <tr style="font-size: 1px;"><td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td style="border-top: #000000 3px double;" valign="bottom"> </td> <td style="border-top: #000000 3px double;" valign="bottom"> </td> <td> </td></tr></table> Other Purchase Obligations AE has a Professional Service Agreement with Electronic Data Systems Corporation and EDS Information Services, LLC related to certain of Allegheny's technology functions that will expire on December 31, 2012. Expected cash payments relating to the Professional Service Agreement are as follows:   <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%" align="center"> <tr><td width="73%"> </td> <td valign="bottom" width="4%"> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td valign="bottom" width="4%"> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td valign="bottom" width="4%"> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td valign="bottom" width="4%"> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td></tr> <tr><td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap"> (In millions)</td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td style="border-bottom: #000000 1px solid;" valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="center">October 1 through December 31, 2010</td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td style="border-bottom: #000000 1px solid;" valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="center">2011</td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td style="border-bottom: #000000 1px solid;" valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="center">2012</td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td style="border-bottom: #000000 1px solid;" valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="center">Total</td> <td valign="bottom"> </td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#cceeff"><td valign="top"> Other purchase obligations</td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom">$</td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">6.3</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom">$</td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">23.8</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom">$</td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">22.9</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom">$</td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">53.0</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td></tr></table>  </div><a name="tx103575_30"> </a> </div> NOTE 18: COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Legal Proceedings Allegheny is involved in a number of significant legal proceedings. In certain cases, plaintiffs false false false us-types:textBlockItemType textblock Includes disclosure of commitments and contingencies. This element may be used as a single block of text to encapsulate the entire disclosure including data and tables. Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name FASB Interpretation (FIN) -Number 14 -Paragraph 3 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) -Number 5 -Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12 false 1 2 false UnKnown UnKnown UnKnown false true