Set forth below are descriptions of contingencies related to environmental matters that may impact the Evergy Companies' operations or their financial results. Management's assessment of these contingencies, which are based on federal and state statutes and regulations, and regulatory agency and judicial interpretations and actions, has evolved over time. These laws and regulations can also change, restrict or otherwise impact the Evergy Companies' operations or financial results in many ways, including the handling or disposal of waste material and the planning for future construction activities. The failure to comply with these laws and regulations could result in the assessment of administrative, civil and criminal penalties and/or the imposition of remedial requirements. The Evergy Companies believe that all of their operations are in substantial compliance with current federal, state and local environmental standards.

There are a variety of final and proposed laws and regulations that could have a material adverse effect on the Evergy Companies' operations and consolidated financial results. Due in part to the complex nature of environmental laws and regulations, the Evergy Companies are unable to assess the impact of potential changes that may develop with respect to the environmental contingencies described below.

In September 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized the Cross-State Air Pollution (CSAPR) Update Rule. The final rule addresses interstate transport of nitrogen oxides emissions in 22 states including Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma during the ozone season and the impact from the formation of ozone on downwind states with respect to the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). In December 2018, the EPA finalized a determination, known as the CSAPR Close-Out Rule, demonstrating the CSAPR Update Rule fully addressed certain upwind states' 2008 ozone NAAQS interstate transport obligations. Various states and others have challenged both the CSAPR Update Rule and the CSAPR Close-Out Rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

D.C. Circuit (D.C. Circuit). In the fourth quarter of 2019, the D.C. Circuit granted these petitions and remanded a portion of the CSAPR Update Rule back to the EPA and vacated the CSAPR Close-Out Rule in its entirety. Due to the uncertainty in what the future CSAPR Update Rule will include, the Evergy Companies cannot determine the impact on their operations or consolidated financial results, but it could be material.

Burning coal and other fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide (CO₂) and other gases referred to as greenhouse gases (GHG). Various regulations under the federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA) limit CO₂ and other GHG emissions, and in addition, other measures are being imposed or offered by individual states, municipalities and regional agreements with the goal of reducing GHG emissions.

In August 2018, the EPA published in the Federal Register proposed regulations, which contained (1) emission guidelines for GHG emissions from existing electric utility generating units (EGUs), (2) revisions to emission guideline implementing regulations and (3) revisions to the new source review (NSR) program. These emission guidelines are better known as the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) Rule. In July 2019, the EPA published in the Federal Register the final ACE Rule with one significant change from the proposal. The NSR program revisions were not included in the final version and are expected to be addressed in a future rulemaking. The ACE Rule establishes emission guidelines for states to use in the development of plans to reduce GHG emissions from existing coal-fired EGUs. This rule defines the "best system of emission reduction" (BSER) for GHG emissions from existing coal-fired EGUs as on-site, heat-rate efficiency improvements. The final rule also provides states with a list of candidate technologies that can be used to establish standards of performance and incorporate these performance standards into state plans. In order for the states to be able to effectively implement the emission guidelines contained in the ACE Rule, the EPA is finalizing new regulations under Section 111(d) of the CAA to help clarify this process. The ACE Rule became effective in September 2019. In conjunction with the finalization of the ACE Rule, the EPA repealed its previously adopted Clean Power Plan (CPP). Also in September 2019, the D.C. Circuit granted motions to dismiss challenges to the CPP and challenges to EPA's denial of reconsideration of the CPP.

Due to uncertainty regarding what future state implementation plans will require for compliance with the ACE Rule as well as legal challenges that have been filed, the Evergy Companies cannot determine the impact on their operations or consolidated financial results, but the cost to comply with the ACE Rule, should it be upheld and implemented in its current or a substantially similar form, could be material.

The Evergy Companies discharge some of the water used in generation and other operations containing substances deemed to be pollutants. A November 2015 EPA rule establishes effluent limitations guidelines (ELG) and standards for wastewater discharges, including limits on the amount of toxic metals and other pollutants that can be discharged. Implementation timelines for this 2015 rule vary from 2018 to 2023. On November 22, 2019, the EPA published a proposed modification to the ELG rule. The proposed rule modifies numeric limits for flue gas desulfurization (FGD) wastewater and adds a 10% volumetric purge limit for bottom ash transport water. The timeline for final FGD wastewater compliance is also delayed by two years to December 31, 2025. The Evergy Companies are in the process of reviewing the proposed rule and the costs to comply with these changes could be material.

In October 2014, the EPA's final standards for cooling water intake structures at power plants to protect aquatic life took effect. The standards, based on Section 316(b) of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), require subject facilities to choose among seven best available technology options to reduce fish impingement. In addition, some facilities must conduct studies to assist permitting authorities to determine whether and what site-specific controls, if any, would be required to reduce entrainment of aquatic organisms. The Evergy Companies' current analysis indicates this rule will not have a significant impact on their coal plants that employ cooling towers or cooling lakes that can

Evergy Metro holds a permit from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) covering water discharge from its Hawthorn Station. The permit authorizes Evergy Metro to, among other things, withdraw water from the Missouri River for cooling purposes and return the heated water to the Missouri River. Evergy Metro has applied for a renewal of this permit and the EPA has submitted an interim objection letter regarding the allowable amount of heat that can be contained in the returned water. Until this matter is resolved, Evergy Metro continues to operate under its current permit. Evergy and Evergy Metro cannot predict the outcome of this matter; however, while less significant outcomes are possible, this matter may require a reduction in generation, installation of cooling towers or other technology to cool the water, or both, any of which could have a material impact on Evergy's and Evergy Metro's operations and consolidated financial results.

In March 2019, the D.C. Circuit issued a ruling to grant the EPA's request to remand the Phase I, Part I CCR rule. This was in response to a prior court ruling requiring the EPA to address un-lined surface impoundment closure requirements. On December 2, 2019, the EPA published a proposed rule called the Part A CCR Rule. This proposal reclassifies clay-lined surface impoundments from "lined" to "unlined" and establishes a deadline of August 31, 2020 to initiate closure. The prior rule included a deadline of October 31, 2020 for unlined impoundments to initiate closure. In February 2020, the EPA released a pre-publication version of a proposed rule called the Part B CCR Rule. This proposal includes a process to allow unlined impoundments to continue to operate if a demonstration is made to prove that they are not adversely impacting groundwater, human health or the environment. The proposal also includes clarification regarding ash used in the closure of landfills and surface impoundments. The Evergy Companies are in the process of reviewing these proposed rules and the costs to comply with these changes could be material.

The Evergy Companies have recorded AROs for their current estimates for the closure of ash disposal ponds, but the revision of these AROs may be required in the future due to changes in existing CCR regulations, the results of groundwater monitoring of CCR units or changes in interpretation of existing CCR regulations or changes in the timing or cost to close ash disposal ponds. If revisions to these AROs are necessary, the impact on the Evergy Companies' operations or consolidated financial results could be material.

Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for the permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel. In 2010, the DOE filed a motion with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to withdraw its then pending application to construct a national repository for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The NRC has not yet issued a final decision on the matter.

Wolf Creek has elected to build a dry cask storage facility to expand its existing on-site spent nuclear fuel storage, which is expected to provide additional capacity prior to 2022. The Evergy Companies expect that the majority of the costs to construct the dry cask storage facility that would not have otherwise been incurred had the DOE begun accepting spent nuclear fuel will be reimbursed by the DOE. The Evergy Companies cannot predict when, or if, an off-site storage site or alternative disposal site will be available to receive Wolf Creek's spent nuclear fuel and will continue to monitor this activity.

Nuclear liability, property and accidental outage insurance is maintained for Wolf Creek. These policies contain certain industry standard terms, conditions and exclusions, including, but not limited to, ordinary wear and tear and war. An industry aggregate limit of $3.2 billion for nuclear events ($1.8 billion of non-nuclear events) plus any

reinsurance, indemnity or any other source recoverable by Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited (NEIL), provider of property and accidental outage insurance, exists for acts of terrorism affecting Wolf Creek or any other NEIL insured plant within 12 months from the date of the first act. In addition, participation is required in industry-wide retrospect assessment programs as discussed below.

Pursuant to the Price-Anderson Act, liability insurance includes coverage against public nuclear liability claims resulting from nuclear incidents to the required limit of public liability, which is approximately $13.9 billion. This limit of liability consists of the maximum available commercial insurance of $0.4 billion and the remaining $13.5 billion is provided through mandatory participation in an industry-wide retrospective assessment program. Under this retrospective assessment program, the owners of Wolf Creek are jointly and severally subject to an assessment of up to $137.6 million (Evergy's share is $129.2 million and each of Evergy Kansas Central's and Evergy Metro's is $64.6 million), payable at no more than $20.5 million (Evergy's share is $19.2 million and each of Evergy Kansas Central's and Evergy Metro's is $9.6 million) per incident per year per reactor for any commercial U.S. nuclear reactor qualifying incident. Both the total and yearly assessment is subject to an inflationary adjustment based on the Consumer Price Index and applicable premium taxes. In addition, the U.S. Congress could impose additional revenue-raising measures to pay claims.

The owners of Wolf Creek carry decontamination liability, nuclear property damage and premature nuclear decommissioning liability insurance for Wolf Creek totaling approximately $2.8 billion. Insurance coverage for non-nuclear property damage accidents total approximately $2.3 billion. In the event of an extraordinary nuclear accident, insurance proceeds must first be used for reactor stabilization and site decontamination in accordance with a plan mandated by the NRC. The Evergy Companies' share of any remaining proceeds can be used to pay for property damage or, if certain requirements are met, including decommissioning the plant, toward a shortfall in the nuclear decommissioning trust fund. The owners also carry additional insurance with NEIL to help cover costs of replacement power and other extra expenses incurred during a prolonged outage resulting from accidental property damage at Wolf Creek. If significant losses were incurred at any of the nuclear plants insured under the NEIL policies, the owners of Wolf Creek may be subject to retrospective assessments under the current policies of approximately $33.2 million (Evergy's share is $31.2 million and each of Evergy Kansas Central's and Evergy Metro's is $15.6 million).

Although the Evergy Companies maintain various insurance policies to provide coverage for potential losses and liabilities resulting from an accident or an extended outage, the insurance coverage may not be adequate to cover the costs that could result from a catastrophic accident or extended outage at Wolf Creek. Any substantial losses not covered by insurance, to the extent not recoverable in prices, would have a material effect on the Evergy Companies' consolidated financial results.



Evergy
	2020		2021		2022		2023		2024		After 2024			Total
Purchase commitments	(millions)
Fuel	$	486.9	$	137.0	$	83.2	$	84.7	$	17.1		$	94.1		$	903.0
Power	47.3		47.4		47.6		47.8		41.7			325.2			557.0
Other	147.7		42.3		30.0		25.1		19.4			117.7			382.2
Total contractual commitments	$	681.9	$	226.7	$	160.8	$	157.6	$	78.2		$	537.0		$	1,842.2



Evergy Metro
	2020		2021		2022		2023		2024		After 2024			Total
Purchase commitments	(millions)
Fuel	$	180.2	$	92.5	$	36.0	$	39.0	$	5.6		$	35.1		$	388.4
Power	34.8		34.9		35.1		35.3		29.2			225.4			394.7
Other	58.4		29.0		24.2		21.6		18.7			112.9			264.8
Total contractual commitments	$	273.4	$	156.4	$	95.3	$	95.9	$	53.5		$	373.4		$	1,047.9