Commitments and Contingencies

Palo Verde Generating Station

Spent Nuclear Fuel and Waste Disposal

On December 19, 2012, APS, acting on behalf of itself and the participant owners of Palo Verde, filed a second breach of contract lawsuit against the DOE in the United States Court of Federal Claims ("Court of Federal Claims"). The lawsuit sought to recover damages incurred due to DOE’s breach of the Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or High Level Radioactive Waste ("Standard Contract") for failing to accept Palo Verde's spent nuclear fuel and high level waste from January 1, 2007 through June 30, 2011, as it was required to do pursuant to the terms of the Standard Contract and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. On August 18, 2014, APS and DOE entered into a settlement agreement, stipulating to a dismissal of the lawsuit and payment of $57.4 million by DOE to the Palo Verde owners for certain specified costs incurred by Palo Verde during the period January 1, 2007 through June 30, 2011. APS’s share of this amount is $16.7 million. Amounts recovered in the lawsuit and settlement were recorded as adjustments to a regulatory liability and had no impact on the amount of reported net income. In addition, the settlement agreement, as amended, provides APS with a method for submitting claims and getting recovery for costs incurred through December 31, 2019.

APS has submitted three claims pursuant to the terms of the August 18, 2014 settlement agreement, for three separate time periods during July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2016. The DOE has approved and paid $65.2 million for these claims (APS’s share is $19 million). The amounts recovered were primarily recorded as adjustments to a regulatory liability and had no impact on reported net income. In accordance with the 2017 retail rate case settlement, this regulatory liability is being refunded to customers (see Note 3). APS's next claim pursuant to the terms of the August 18, 2014 settlement agreement was submitted to the DOE in the fourth quarter of 2017 in the amount of $9 million (APS's share is $2.6 million). In February 2018, the DOE approved this claim.

Nuclear Insurance

Public liability for incidents at nuclear power plants is governed by the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act ("Price-Anderson Act"), which limits the liability of nuclear reactor owners to the amount of insurance available from both commercial sources and an industry-wide retrospective payment plan. In accordance with the Price-Anderson Act, the Palo Verde participants are insured against public liability for a nuclear incident up to approximately $13.4 billion per occurrence. Palo Verde maintains the maximum available nuclear liability insurance in the amount of $450 million, which is provided by American Nuclear Insurers ("ANI"). The remaining balance of approximately $13.0 billion of liability coverage is provided through a mandatory industry-wide retrospective premium program. If losses at any nuclear power plant covered by the program exceed the accumulated funds, APS could be responsible for retrospective premiums. The maximum retrospective premium per reactor under the program for each nuclear liability incident is approximately $127.3 million, subject to a maximum annual premium of $19 million per incident. Based on APS’s ownership interest in the three Palo Verde units, APS’s maximum retrospective premium per incident for all three units is approximately $111.1 million, with a maximum annual retrospective premium of approximately $16.6 million.

The Palo Verde participants maintain insurance for property damage to, and decontamination of, property at Palo Verde in the aggregate amount of $2.8 billion. APS has also secured accidental outage insurance for a sudden and unforeseen accidental outage of any of the three units. The property damage, decontamination, and accidental outage insurance are provided by Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited ("NEIL"). APS is subject to retrospective premium adjustments under all NEIL policies if NEIL’s losses in any policy year exceed accumulated funds. The maximum amount APS could incur under the current NEIL policies totals approximately $24 million for each retrospective premium assessment declared by NEIL’s Board of Directors due to losses. In addition, NEIL policies contain rating triggers that would result in APS providing approximately $64.8 million of collateral assurance within 20 business days of a rating downgrade to non-investment grade. The insurance coverage discussed in this and the previous paragraph is subject to certain policy conditions, sublimits and exclusions.

Fuel and Purchased Power Commitments and Purchase Obligations

APS is party to various fuel and purchased power contracts and purchase obligations with terms expiring between 2018 and 2043 that include required purchase provisions. APS estimates the contract requirements to be approximately $715 million in 2018; $578 million in 2019; $548 million in 2020; $548 million in 2021; $554 million in 2022; and $6.5 billion thereafter. However, these amounts may vary significantly pursuant to certain provisions in such contracts that permit us to decrease required purchases under certain circumstances.

Of the various fuel and purchased power contracts mentioned above, some of those contracts for coal supply include take-or-pay provisions. The current coal contracts with take-or-pay provisions have terms expiring through 2031.

The following table summarizes our estimated coal take-or-pay commitments (dollars in thousands):



	Years Ended December 31,
	2018		2019		2020		2021		2022		Thereafter
Coal take-or-pay commitments (a)	$	159,997	$	185,365	$	186,632	$	190,607	$	194,678	$	1,750,739


(a)	Total take-or-pay commitments are approximately $2.7 billion. The total net present value of these commitments is approximately $1.9 billion.

APS may spend more to meet its actual fuel requirements than the minimum purchase obligations in our coal take-or-pay contracts. The following table summarizes actual amounts purchased under the coal contracts which include take-or-pay provisions for each of the last three years (dollars in thousands):



	Year Ended December 31,
	2017		2016		2015
Total purchases	$	165,220	$	160,066	$	211,327

Renewable Energy Credits

APS has entered into contracts to purchase renewable energy credits to comply with the RES. APS estimates the contract requirements to be approximately $40 million in 2018; $40 million in 2019; $40 million in 2020; $40 million in 2021; $40 million in 2022; and $370 million thereafter. These amounts do not include purchases of renewable energy credits that are bundled with energy.

Coal Mine Reclamation Obligations

APS and 4CA must reimburse certain coal providers for amounts incurred for final and contemporaneous coal mine reclamation. We account for contemporaneous reclamation costs as part of the cost of the delivered coal. We utilize site-specific studies of costs expected to be incurred in the future to estimate our final reclamation obligation. These studies utilize various assumptions to estimate the future costs. Based on the most recent reclamation studies, APS recorded an obligation for the coal mine final reclamation of approximately $216 million at December 31, 2017 and $207 million at December 31, 2016. 4CA recorded an obligation for the coal mine final reclamation of approximately $16 million at December 31, 2017 and $15 million at December 31, 2016. Under our current coal supply agreements, APS expects to make payments for the final mine reclamation as follows: $31 million in 2018; $32 million in 2019; $21 million in 2020; $20 million in 2021; $22 million in 2022; and $191 million thereafter. 4CA expects to make payments for the final mine reclamation as follows: $1 million in 2018; $1 million in 2019; $2 million in 2020; $2 million in 2021; $2 million in 2022; and $16 million thereafter. Any amendments to current coal supply agreements may change the timing of the contribution. Portions of these funds will be held in an escrow account and distributed to certain coal providers under the terms of the applicable coal supply agreements.

Superfund-Related Matters

Superfund establishes liability for the cleanup of hazardous substances found contaminating the soil, water or air. Those who generated, transported or disposed of hazardous substances at a contaminated site are among those who are PRPs. PRPs may be strictly, and often are jointly and severally, liable for clean-up. On September 3, 2003, EPA advised APS that EPA considers APS to be a PRP in the Motorola 52^nd Street Superfund Site, Operable Unit 3 ("OU3") in Phoenix, Arizona. APS has facilities that are within this Superfund site. APS and Pinnacle West have agreed with EPA to perform certain investigative activities of the APS facilities within OU3. In addition, on September 23, 2009, APS agreed with EPA and one other PRP to voluntarily assist with the funding and management of the site-wide groundwater RI/FS. Based upon discussions between the OU3 working group parties and EPA, along with the results of recent technical analyses prepared by the OU3 working group to supplement the RI/FS, APS anticipates finalizing the RI/FS in the summer or fall of 2018. We estimate that our costs related to this investigation and study will be approximately $2 million. We anticipate incurring additional expenditures in the future, but because the overall investigation is not complete and ultimate remediation requirements are not yet finalized, at the present time expenditures related to this matter cannot be reasonably estimated.

On August 6, 2013, RID filed a lawsuit in Arizona District Court against APS and 24 other defendants, alleging that RID’s groundwater wells were contaminated by the release of hazardous substances from facilities owned or operated by the defendants. The lawsuit also alleges that, under Superfund laws, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to RID. The allegations against APS arise out of APS’s current and former ownership of facilities in and around OU3. As part of a state governmental investigation into groundwater contamination in this area, on January 25, 2015, ADEQ sent a letter to APS seeking information concerning the degree to which, if any, APS’s current and former ownership of these facilities may have contributed to groundwater contamination in this area. APS responded to ADEQ on May 4, 2015. On December 16, 2016, two RID contractors filed ancillary lawsuits for recovery of costs against APS and the other defendants. Because the ancillary lawsuits concern past costs allegedly incurred by these RID vendors, which were ruled unrecoverable directly by RID in November of 2016, the additional lawsuits do not increase APS’s exposure or risk related to these matters. In addition, on March 15, 2017, the Arizona District Court granted partial summary judgment to RID for one element of RID's lawsuit against APS and the other defendants. On May 12, 2017, the court denied a motion for reconsideration as to this order. We are unable to predict the outcome of these matters; however, we do not expect the outcome to have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Environmental Matters

APS is subject to numerous environmental laws and regulations affecting many aspects of its present and future operations, including air emissions of both conventional pollutants and greenhouse gases, water quality, wastewater discharges, solid waste, hazardous waste, and CCRs. These laws and regulations can change from time to time, imposing new obligations on APS resulting in increased capital, operating, and other costs. Associated capital expenditures or operating costs could be material. APS intends to seek recovery of any such environmental compliance costs through our rates, but cannot predict whether it will obtain such recovery. The following proposed and final rules involve material compliance costs to APS.

Regional Haze Rules. APS has received the final rulemaking imposing new pollution control requirements on Four Corners and the Navajo Plant. EPA will require these plants to install pollution control equipment that constitutes BART to lessen the impacts of emissions on visibility surrounding the plants. EPA approved a proposed rule for Regional Haze compliance at Cholla that does not involve the installation of new pollution controls and that will replace an earlier BART determination for this facility. See below for details of the Cholla BART approval.

Four Corners. Based on EPA’s final standards, APS's 63% share of the cost of required controls for Four Corners Units 4 and 5 is approximately $400 million. In addition, APS and El Paso entered into an asset purchase agreement providing for the purchase by APS, or an affiliate of APS, of El Paso's 7% interest in Four Corners Units 4 and 5. 4CA purchased the El Paso interest on July 6, 2016. NTEC had the option to purchase the interest within a certain timeframe pursuant to an option granted to NTEC. In December 2015, NTEC notified APS of its intent to exercise the option. The purchase did not occur during the originally contemplated timeframe. The parties are currently in discussions as to the future of the option transaction. The cost of the pollution controls related to the 7% interest is approximately $45 million, which will be assumed by the ultimate owner of the 7% interest.

Navajo Plant. APS estimates that its share of costs for upgrades at the Navajo Plant, based on EPA’s FIP, could be up to approximately $200 million; however, given the future plans for the Navajo Plant, we do not expect to incur these costs. See "Navajo Plant" in Note 3 for information regarding future plans for the Navajo Plant.

Cholla. APS believed that EPA’s original 2012 final rule establishing controls constituting BART for Cholla, which would require installation of SCR controls, was unsupported and that EPA had no basis for disapproving Arizona’s SIP and promulgating a FIP that was inconsistent with the state’s considered BART determinations under the regional haze program. In September 2014, APS met with EPA to propose a compromise BART strategy. APS would permanently close Cholla Unit 2 and cease burning coal at Units 1 and 3 by the mid-2020s. (See Note 3 for details related to the resulting regulatory asset.) APS made the proposal with the understanding that additional emission control equipment is unlikely to be required in the future because retiring and/or converting the units as contemplated in the proposal is more cost effective than, and will result in increased visibility improvement over, the current BART requirements for NOx imposed on the Cholla units under EPA's BART FIP.

On October 16, 2015, ADEQ issued a revised operating permit for Cholla, which incorporates APS's proposal, and subsequently submitted a proposed revision to the SIP to EPA, which would incorporate the new permit terms. On June 30, 2016, EPA issued a proposed rule approving a revision to the Arizona SIP that incorporates APS’s compromise approach for compliance with the Regional Haze program. In early 2017, EPA approved a final rule incorporating APS's compromise proposal, which took effect for Cholla on April 26, 2017.

Coal Combustion Waste. On December 19, 2014, EPA issued its final regulations governing the handling and disposal of CCR, such as fly ash and bottom ash. The rule regulates CCR as a non-hazardous waste under Subtitle D of RCRA and establishes national minimum criteria for existing and new CCR landfills and surface impoundments and all lateral expansions consisting of location restrictions, design and operating criteria, groundwater monitoring and corrective action, closure requirements and post closure care, and recordkeeping, notification, and Internet posting requirements. The rule generally requires any existing unlined CCR surface impoundment that is contaminating groundwater above a regulated constituent’s groundwater protection standard to stop receiving CCR and either retrofit or close, and further requires the closure of any CCR landfill or surface impoundment that cannot meet the applicable performance criteria for location restrictions or structural integrity.

While EPA has chosen to regulate the disposal of CCR in landfills and surface impoundments as non-hazardous waste under the final rule, the agency makes clear that it will continue to evaluate any risks associated with CCR disposal and leaves open the possibility that it may regulate CCR as a hazardous waste under RCRA Subtitle C in the future.

On December 16, 2016, President Obama signed the WIIN Act into law, which contains a number of provisions requiring EPA to modify the self-implementing provisions of the Agency's current CCR rules under Subtitle D. Such modifications include new EPA authority to directly enforce the CCR rules through the use of administrative orders and providing states, like Arizona, where the Cholla facility is located, the option of developing CCR disposal unit permitting programs, subject to EPA approval. For facilities in states that do not develop state-specific permitting programs, EPA is required to develop a federal permit program, pending the availability of congressional appropriations. By contrast, for facilities located within the boundaries of Native American tribal reservations, such as the Navajo Nation, where the Navajo Plant and Four Corners facilities are located, EPA is required to develop a federal permit program regardless of appropriated funds.

ADEQ has initiated a process to evaluate how to develop a state CCR permitting program that would cover EGUs, including Cholla. While APS has been working with ADEQ on the development of this program, we are unable to predict when Arizona will be able to finalize and secure EPA approval for a state-specific CCR permitting program. With respect to the Navajo Nation, APS recently filed a comment letter with EPA seeking clarification as to when and how EPA would be initiating permit proceedings for facilities on the reservation, including Four Corners. We are unable to predict at this time when EPA will be issuing CCR management permits for the facilities on the Navajo Nation. At this time, it remains unclear how the CCR provisions of the WIIN Act will affect APS and its management of CCR.

Based upon utility industry petitions for EPA to reconsider the RCRA Subtitle D regulations for CCR, which were premised in part on the CCR provisions of the 2016 WIIN Act, on September 13, 2017 EPA agreed to evaluate whether to revise these federal CCR regulations. At this time, it is not clear whether EPA will initiate further notice-and-comment rulemaking to revise the federal CCR rules, nor is it clear what aspects of the federal CCR rules might be changed as a result of this process. With respect to ongoing litigation initiated by industry and environmental groups challenging the legality of these federal CCR regulations, on September 27, 2017 the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the court overseeing these judicial challenges, ordered EPA to file by November 15, 2017 a list of federal regulatory provisions addressing CCR that are or likely will be revised through EPA’s reconsideration proceedings. While this filing identified certain provisions of the federal CCR regulations that EPA intends to revise, including allowances for risk-based groundwater protection standards for regulated CCR constituents for which no federal maximum contaminant level has been set, it is not clear at this time which specific provisions of the federal CCR rules will be modified, how they will be modified, or when such modification will occur.

Pursuant to a June 24, 2016 order by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the litigation by industry- and environmental-groups challenging EPA’s CCR regulations, within the next 2 years EPA is required to complete a rulemaking proceeding concerning whether or not boron must be included on the list of groundwater constituents that might trigger corrective action under EPA’s CCR rules. EPA is not required to take final action approving the inclusion of boron, but EPA must propose and consider its inclusion. Should EPA take final action adding boron to the list of groundwater constituents that might trigger corrective action, any resulting corrective action measures may increase APS's costs of compliance with the CCR rule at our coal-fired generating facilities. At this time APS cannot predict when EPA will commence its rulemaking concerning boron or the eventual results of those proceedings.

APS currently disposes of CCR in ash ponds and dry storage areas at Cholla and Four Corners. APS estimates that its share of incremental costs to comply with the CCR rule for Four Corners is approximately $22 million and its share of incremental costs to comply with the CCR rule for Cholla is approximately $20 million. The Navajo Plant currently disposes of CCR in a dry landfill storage area. APS estimates that its share of incremental costs to comply with the CCR rule for the Navajo Plant is approximately $1 million. Additionally, the CCR rule requires ongoing, phased groundwater monitoring. By October 17, 2017, electric utility companies that own or operate CCR disposal units, such as APS, must have collected sufficient groundwater sampling data to initiate a detection monitoring program. To the extent that certain threshold constituents are identified through this initial detection monitoring at levels above the CCR rule’s standards, the rule requires the initiation of an assessment monitoring program by April 15, 2018. If this assessment monitoring program reveals concentrations of certain constituents above the CCR rule standards that trigger remedial obligations, a corrective measures evaluation must be completed by January 2019. Depending upon the results of such groundwater monitoring and data evaluations at each of Cholla, Four Corners and the Navajo Plant, we may be required to take corrective actions, the costs of which we are unable to reasonably estimate at this time.

Clean Power Plan. On August 3, 2015, EPA finalized carbon pollution standards for EGUs. Shortly thereafter, a coalition of states, industry groups and electric utilities challenged the legality of these standards, including EPA's Clean Power Plan for existing EGUs, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. On February 9, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay of the Clean Power Plan pending judicial review of the rule, which temporarily delays compliance obligations under the Clean Power Plan. On March 28, 2017, President Trump issued an Executive Order that, among other things, instructs EPA to reevaluate Agency regulations concerning carbon emissions from EGUs and take appropriate action to suspend, revise or rescind the August 2015 carbon pollution standards for EGUs, including the Clean Power Plan. Also on March 28, 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice, on behalf of EPA, filed a motion with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Court to hold the ongoing litigation over the Clean Power Plan in abeyance pending EPA action in accordance with the Executive Order. At this time, the D.C. Circuit Court proceedings evaluating the legality of the Clean Power Plan remain on hold.

Based upon EPA's reevaluation of the August 2015 carbon pollution standards and the legal basis for these regulations, on October 10, 2017, EPA issued a proposal to repeal the Clean Power Plan. That proposal relies on EPA's current view as to the Agency's legal authority under Clean Air Act Section 111(d), which (in contrast to the Clean Power Plan) would limit the scope of any future Section 111(d) regulations to measures undertaken exclusively at a power plant's source of GHG emissions. On December 18, 2017, EPA issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking through which EPA is soliciting comments as to potential replacements for the Clean Power Plan that would be consistent with EPA's current legal interpretation of the Clean Air Act.

We cannot predict the outcome of EPA's regulatory actions related to the August 2015 carbon pollution standards for EGU's, including any actions related to EPA's repeal proposal for the Clean Power Plan or additional rulemaking actions to develop regulations replacing the Clean Power Plan. In addition, we cannot predict whether the D.C. Circuit Court will continue to hold the litigation challenging the original Clean Power Plan in abeyance in light of EPA's repeal proposal.

Other environmental rules that could involve material compliance costs include those related to effluent limitations, the ozone national ambient air quality standard and other rules or matters involving the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, RCRA, Superfund, the Navajo Nation, and water supplies for our power plants. The financial impact of complying with current and future environmental rules could jeopardize the economic viability of our coal plants or the willingness or ability of power plant participants to fund any required equipment upgrades or continue their participation in these plants. The economics of continuing to own certain resources, particularly our coal plants, may deteriorate, warranting early retirement of those plants, which may result in asset impairments. APS would seek recovery in rates for the book value of any remaining investments in the plants as well as other costs related to early retirement, but cannot predict whether it would obtain such recovery.

Federal Agency Environmental Lawsuit Related to Four Corners

On April 20, 2016, several environmental groups filed a lawsuit against OSM and other federal agencies in the District of Arizona in connection with their issuance of the approvals that extended the life of Four Corners and the adjacent mine. The lawsuit alleges that these federal agencies violated both ESA and NEPA in providing the federal approvals necessary to extend operations at the Four Corners Power Plant and the adjacent Navajo Mine past July 6, 2016. APS filed a motion to intervene in the proceedings, which was granted on August 3, 2016.

On September 15, 2016, NTEC, the company that owns the adjacent mine, filed a motion to intervene for the purpose of dismissing the lawsuit based on NTEC's tribal sovereign immunity. On September 11, 2017, the Arizona District Court issued an order granting NTEC's motion, dismissing the litigation with prejudice, and terminating the proceedings. On November 9, 2017, the environmental group plaintiffs appealed the district court order dismissing their lawsuit. We cannot predict whether this appeal will be successful and, if it is successful, the outcome of further district court proceedings.

Four Corners Coal Supply Agreement

Arbitration

On June 13, 2017, APS received a Demand for Arbitration from NTEC in connection with the 2016 Coal Supply Agreement, dated December 30, 2013, under which NTEC supplies coal to APS and the other Four Corners owners (collectively, the “Buyer”) for use at the Four Corners Power Plant. NTEC was originally seeking a declaratory judgment to support its interpretation of a provision regarding uncontrollable forces in the agreement that relates to annual minimum quantities of coal to be purchased by the Buyer. NTEC also alleged a shortfall in the Buyer’s purchases for the initial contract year of approximately $30 million. APS’s share of this amount is approximately $17 million. On September 20, 2017, NTEC amended its Demand for Arbitration removing its request for a declaratory judgment and at this time is only seeking relief for the alleged shortfall in the Buyer's purchases for the initial contract year. We cannot predict the timing or outcome of this arbitration; however we do not expect the outcome to have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

4CA Matter

On July 6, 2016, 4CA purchased El Paso’s 7% interest in Four Corners. NTEC had the option to purchase the 7% interest within a certain timeframe pursuant to an option granted to NTEC. On December 29, 2015, NTEC provided notice of its intent to exercise the option. The purchase did not occur during the originally contemplated timeframe. The parties are currently in discussions as to the future of the option transaction.

The 2016 Coal Supply Agreement contains alternate pricing terms for the 7% interest in the event NTEC does not purchase the interest. At this time, since NTEC has not yet purchased the 7% interest, the alternate pricing provisions are applicable to 4CA as the holder of the 7% interest. These terms include a formula under which NTEC must make certain payments to 4CA for reimbursement of operations and maintenance costs and a specified rate of return, offset by revenue generated by 4CA’s power sales. Such payments are due to 4CA at the end of each calendar year. A $10 million payment was due to 4CA at December 31, 2017, which NTEC satisfied by directing to 4CA a prepayment from APS of a portion of a future mine reclamation obligation. The balance of the amount under this formula at December 31, 2017 is approximately $20 million, which is due to 4CA at December 31, 2018. In future years there may be similar payments due from NTEC to 4CA under this formula. 4CA believes NTEC should continue to satisfy its contractual obligations related to these payments; however, if NTEC fails to meet its contractual obligations when due, 4CA will consider appropriate measures and potential impacts to the Company's financial statements.

Financial Assurances

In the normal course of business, we obtain standby letters of credit and surety bonds from financial institutions and other third parties. These instruments guarantee our own future performance and provide third parties with financial and performance assurance in the event we do not perform. These instruments support certain commodity contract collateral obligations and other transactions. As of December 31, 2017, standby letters of credit totaled $5 million and will expire in 2018. As of December 31, 2017, surety bonds expiring through 2019 totaled $62 million. The underlying liabilities insured by these instruments are reflected on our balance sheets, where applicable. Therefore, no additional liability is reflected for the letters of credit and surety bonds themselves.

We enter into agreements that include indemnification provisions relating to liabilities arising from or related to certain of our agreements. Most significantly, APS has agreed to indemnify the equity participants and other parties in the Palo Verde sale leaseback transactions with respect to certain tax matters. Generally, a maximum obligation is not explicitly stated in the indemnification provisions and, therefore, the overall maximum amount of the obligation under such indemnification provisions cannot be reasonably estimated. Based on historical experience and evaluation of the specific indemnities, we do not believe that any material loss related to such indemnification provisions is likely.

Pinnacle West has issued parental guarantees and has provided indemnification under certain surety bonds for APS which were not material at December 31, 2017. Since July 6, 2016, Pinnacle West has issued four parental guarantees for 4CA relating to payment obligations arising from 4CA’s acquisition of El Paso’s 7% interest in Four Corners, and pursuant to the Four Corners participation agreement payment obligations arising from 4CA’s ownership interest in Four Corners.