Contingencies and Regulatory Matters:	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2015
Contingencies and Regulatory Matters:
Contingencies and Regulatory Matters:	12. Contingencies and Regulatory Matters: We do not anticipate that the liabilities, if any, for any current proceedings against us will have a material effect on our financial condition or results of operations. However, at this time, the ultimate outcome of any pending or potential litigation cannot be determined. a. Nuclear Construction In 2012, the Co-owners and the Contractor commenced litigation regarding the costs associated with design changes to the DCD and the delays in the timing of approval of the DCD and issuance of the combined construction and operating licenses, including the assertion by the Contractor that the Co-owners are responsible for these costs under the terms of the EPC Agreement. The Contractor also asserted that it was entitled to extensions of the guaranteed substantial completion dates of April 2016 and April 2017 for Vogtle Units No. 3 and No. 4, respectively. In May 2014, the Contractor filed an amended claim alleging that (i) the design changes to the DCD imposed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission delayed module production and the impacts to the Contractor are recoverable by the Contractor under the EPC Agreement and (ii) the changes to the basemat rebar design required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission caused additional costs and delays recoverable by the Contractor under the EPC Agreement. In June 2015, the Contractor updated its estimated damages, based on our ownership interest, to an aggregate of approximately $470,000,000 (in 2015 dollars). The Vogtle Construction Litigation was pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. On December 31, 2015, Westinghouse and the Co-owners entered into the Settlement Agreement to resolve disputes between the Co-owners and the Contractor under the EPC Agreement, including the Vogtle Construction Litigation. Effective December 31, 2015, Georgia Power, acting for itself and as agent for the other Co-owners, and the Contractor entered into an amendment to the EPC Agreement to implement the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement and the related amendment to the EPC Agreement (i) restrict the Contractor's ability to seek further increases in the contract price by clarifying and limiting the circumstances that constitute nuclear regulatory changes in law; (ii) provide for enhanced dispute resolution procedures; (iii) revise the guaranteed substantial completion dates to match the currently estimated in-service dates of June 30, 2019 for Unit No. 3 and June 30, 2020 for Unit No. 4; (iv) provide that delay liquidated damages will now commence from the currently estimated nuclear fuel loading date for each unit, which is December 31, 2018 for Unit No. 3 and December 31, 2019 for Unit No. 4, rather than the original guaranteed substantial completion dates under the EPC Agreement; and (v) provide that we, based on our ownership interest, will pay to the Contractor and capitalize to the project cost approximately $230,000,000, of which we have paid (a) approximately $80,000,000 prior to the Settlement Agreement under the dispute resolution procedures of the EPC Agreement and (b) approximately $80,000,000 subsequent to December 31, 2015 under the terms of the Settlement Agreement. In addition, the Settlement Agreement provides for the resolution of other open existing items relating to the scope of the project under the EPC Agreement, including cyber security. Further, as part of the settlement and in connection with the Acquisition: (i) Westinghouse has engaged Fluor Enterprises, Inc., a subsidiary of Fluor Corporation, as a new construction subcontractor; and (ii) the Co-owners, Chicago Bridge & Iron, and The Shaw Group have entered into mutual releases of any and all claims arising out of events or circumstances in connection with the construction of Vogtle Units No. 3 and No. 4 that occurred on or before December 31, 2015. On January 5, 2016, the Vogtle Construction Litigation was dismissed with prejudice. Future claims by the Contractor or Georgia Power, on behalf of the Co-owners, could arise throughout construction. These claims may be resolved through formal and informal dispute resolution procedures under the EPC Agreement and, under the enhanced dispute resolution procedures, may be resolved through litigation after the completion of nuclear fuel load for both units. b. Patronage Capital Litigation On March 13, 2014, a lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, Georgia, against us, Georgia Transmission and three of our member distribution cooperatives. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 28, 2014. The amended complaint challenges the patronage capital distribution practices of Georgia's electric cooperatives and seeks to certify a defendant class of all but one of our 38 members. It was filed by four former consumer-members of four of our members on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of all former consumer-members of our members. Plaintiffs claim that approximately 30% of all the defendants' total allocated patronage capital belongs to former consumer-members. Plaintiffs also allege that patronage capital owed to former consumer-members includes patronage capital allocated by us to our members but not yet distributed to our members. Plaintiffs claim that the patronage capital of former consumer-members held by defendants and the proposed defendant class should be retired immediately when the consumer-members end their membership by terminating service, or alternatively, according to a revolving schedule of no longer than 13 years from the date of its allocation and seek relief to effect such retirements. Plaintiffs further seek to require the defendants to adjust rates in order to establish and maintain reasonable reserves to fund patronage capital retirements on this basis. Plaintiffs also claim that defendants and the proposed defendant class should be required to adopt policies to periodically retire the patronage capital of all consumer-members on a revolving schedule of no longer than 13 years from the date of its allocation. Our first mortgage indenture restricts our ability to distribute patronage capital. Although not expected, if we were ordered by the Court to make distributions of our patronage capital, our first mortgage indenture would require us to raise our rates to a level sufficient so that we could comply with the current patronage capital distribution restrictions, and the rate increases required to meet the Plaintiffs' demands would be significant for a period of years. On August 20, 2014, a second patronage capital lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of DeKalb County against us, Georgia Transmission, and two of our member distribution cooperatives. The case was filed by two current consumer-members of the two member distribution cooperatives named in the lawsuit. Similar to the above described litigation, this complaint challenges the patronage capital distribution practices of Georgia's electric cooperatives; however, one notable difference is that the first case, described above, seeks to bring claims on behalf of former members while this second case seeks to bring claims on behalf of current members. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants have (i) retained patronage capital for an unreasonably long period of time; (ii) conspired with each other to deprive consumer-members of their patronage capital; and (iii) breached bylaw provisions allegedly requiring that patronage capital be retired when the financial condition of the cooperative will not be impaired. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and equitable relief, including an order declaring that the defendants be required to retire patronage capital "according to a regular, reasonable revolving plan." Similarly to the litigation described above, although not expected, if we were ordered by the Court to make distributions of our patronage capital, our first mortgage indenture would require us to raise our rates to a level where we could comply with current patronage capital distribution restrictions, and the rate increases required to meet the Plaintiff's demands could be significant for a period of years. The plaintiffs seek to certify three plaintiffs' classes but do not seek to certify a defendants' class. In May 2015, the Superior Court judge for both patronage capital lawsuits appointed a special master to oversee all pre-trial issues relating to these cases, including motions to dismiss that we and the other defendants filed in connection with each lawsuit. In September, the special master issued proposed orders to the judge to grant our and the other defendants' motions to dismiss both patronage capital lawsuits on all counts. These orders have been challenged by the plaintiffs and remain subject to approval by the Court. If approved, the Court's decision to grant the motions to dismiss will be subject to appeal. We intend to defend vigorously against all claims in the above-described litigation. c. Environmental Matters As is typical for electric utilities, we are subject to various federal, state and local environmental laws which represent significant future risks and uncertainties. Air emissions, water discharges and water usage are extensively controlled, closely monitored and periodically reported. Handling and disposal requirements govern the manner of transportation, storage and disposal of various types of waste. We are also subject to climate change regulations that impose restrictions on emissions of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, for certain new and modified facilities. In general, these and other types of environmental requirements are becoming increasingly stringent. Such requirements may substantially increase the cost of electric service, by requiring modifications in the design or operation of existing facilities or the purchase of emission allowances. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in civil and criminal penalties and could include the complete shutdown of individual generating units not in compliance. Certain of our debt instruments require us to comply in all material respects with laws, rules, regulations and orders imposed by applicable governmental authorities, which include current and future environmental laws or regulations. Should we fail to be in compliance with these requirements, it would constitute a default under those debt instruments. We believe that we are in compliance with those environmental regulations currently applicable to our business and operations. Although it is our intent to comply with current and future regulations, we cannot provide assurance that we will always be in compliance. At this time, the ultimate impact of any new and more stringent environmental regulations described above is uncertain and could have an effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows as a result of future additional capital expenditures and increased operations and maintenance costs. Additionally, litigation over environmental issues and claims of various types, including property damage, personal injury, common law nuisance, and citizen enforcement of environmental requirements such as air quality and water standards, has increased generally throughout the United States. In particular, personal injury and other claims for damages caused by alleged exposure to hazardous materials, and common law nuisance claims for injunctive relief, personal injury and property damage allegedly caused by coal combustion residue, greenhouse gas and other emissions have become more frequent.

12. Contingencies and Regulatory Matters:

We do not anticipate that the liabilities, if any, for any current proceedings against us will have a material effect on our financial condition or results of operations. However, at this time, the ultimate outcome of any pending or potential litigation cannot be determined.

a. Nuclear Construction

In 2012, the Co-owners and the Contractor commenced litigation regarding the costs associated with design changes to the DCD and the delays in the timing of approval of the DCD and issuance of the combined construction and operating licenses, including the assertion by the Contractor that the Co-owners are responsible for these costs under the terms of the EPC Agreement. The Contractor also asserted that it was entitled to extensions of the guaranteed substantial completion dates of April 2016 and April 2017 for Vogtle Units No. 3 and No. 4, respectively. In May 2014, the Contractor filed an amended claim alleging that (i) the design changes to the DCD imposed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission delayed module production and the impacts to the Contractor are recoverable by the Contractor under the EPC Agreement and (ii) the changes to the basemat rebar design required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission caused additional costs and delays recoverable by the Contractor under the EPC Agreement. In June 2015, the Contractor updated its estimated damages, based on our ownership interest, to an aggregate of approximately $470,000,000 (in 2015 dollars). The Vogtle Construction Litigation was pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia.

On December 31, 2015, Westinghouse and the Co-owners entered into the Settlement Agreement to resolve disputes between the Co-owners and the Contractor under the EPC Agreement, including the Vogtle Construction Litigation. Effective December 31, 2015, Georgia Power, acting for itself and as agent for the other Co-owners, and the Contractor entered into an amendment to the EPC Agreement to implement the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement and the related amendment to the EPC Agreement (i) restrict the Contractor's ability to seek further increases in the contract price by clarifying and limiting the circumstances that constitute nuclear regulatory changes in law; (ii) provide for enhanced dispute resolution procedures; (iii) revise the guaranteed substantial completion dates to match the currently estimated in-service dates of June 30, 2019 for Unit No. 3 and June 30, 2020 for Unit No. 4; (iv) provide that delay liquidated damages will now commence from the currently estimated nuclear fuel loading date for each unit, which is December 31, 2018 for Unit No. 3 and December 31, 2019 for Unit No. 4, rather than the original guaranteed substantial completion dates under the EPC Agreement; and (v) provide that we, based on our ownership interest, will pay to the Contractor and capitalize to the project cost approximately $230,000,000, of which we have paid (a) approximately $80,000,000 prior to the Settlement Agreement under the dispute resolution procedures of the EPC Agreement and (b) approximately $80,000,000 subsequent to December 31, 2015 under the terms of the Settlement Agreement. In addition, the Settlement Agreement provides for the resolution of other open existing items relating to the scope of the project under the EPC Agreement, including cyber security. Further, as part of the settlement and in connection with the Acquisition: (i) Westinghouse has engaged Fluor Enterprises, Inc., a subsidiary of Fluor Corporation, as a new construction subcontractor; and (ii) the Co-owners, Chicago Bridge & Iron, and The Shaw Group have entered into mutual releases of any and all claims arising out of events or circumstances in connection with the construction of Vogtle Units No. 3 and No. 4 that occurred on or before December 31, 2015. On January 5, 2016, the Vogtle Construction Litigation was dismissed with prejudice.

Future claims by the Contractor or Georgia Power, on behalf of the Co-owners, could arise throughout construction. These claims may be resolved through formal and informal dispute resolution procedures under the EPC Agreement and, under the enhanced dispute resolution procedures, may be resolved through litigation after the completion of nuclear fuel load for both units.

b. Patronage Capital Litigation

On March 13, 2014, a lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, Georgia, against us, Georgia Transmission and three of our member distribution cooperatives. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 28, 2014. The amended complaint challenges the patronage capital distribution practices of Georgia's electric cooperatives and seeks to certify a defendant class of all but one of our 38 members. It was filed by four former consumer-members of four of our members on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of all former consumer-members of our members. Plaintiffs claim that approximately 30% of all the defendants' total allocated patronage capital belongs to former consumer-members. Plaintiffs also allege that patronage capital owed to former consumer-members includes patronage capital allocated by us to our members but not yet distributed to our members. Plaintiffs claim that the patronage capital of former consumer-members held by defendants and the proposed defendant class should be retired immediately when the consumer-members end their membership by terminating service, or alternatively, according to a revolving schedule of no longer than 13 years from the date of its allocation and seek relief to effect such retirements. Plaintiffs further seek to require the defendants to adjust rates in order to establish and maintain reasonable reserves to fund patronage capital retirements on this basis. Plaintiffs also claim that defendants and the proposed defendant class should be required to adopt policies to periodically retire the patronage capital of all consumer-members on a revolving schedule of no longer than 13 years from the date of its allocation. Our first mortgage indenture restricts our ability to distribute patronage capital. Although not expected, if we were ordered by the Court to make distributions of our patronage capital, our first mortgage indenture would require us to raise our rates to a level sufficient so that we could comply with the current patronage capital distribution restrictions, and the rate increases required to meet the Plaintiffs' demands would be significant for a period of years.

On August 20, 2014, a second patronage capital lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of DeKalb County against us, Georgia Transmission, and two of our member distribution cooperatives. The case was filed by two current consumer-members of the two member distribution cooperatives named in the lawsuit. Similar to the above described litigation, this complaint challenges the patronage capital distribution practices of Georgia's electric cooperatives; however, one notable difference is that the first case, described above, seeks to bring claims on behalf of former members while this second case seeks to bring claims on behalf of current members. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants have (i) retained patronage capital for an unreasonably long period of time; (ii) conspired with each other to deprive consumer-members of their patronage capital; and (iii) breached bylaw provisions allegedly requiring that patronage capital be retired when the financial condition of the cooperative will not be impaired. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and equitable relief, including an order declaring that the defendants be required to retire patronage capital "according to a regular, reasonable revolving plan." Similarly to the litigation described above, although not expected, if we were ordered by the Court to make distributions of our patronage capital, our first mortgage indenture would require us to raise our rates to a level where we could comply with current patronage capital distribution restrictions, and the rate increases required to meet the Plaintiff's demands could be significant for a period of years. The plaintiffs seek to certify three plaintiffs' classes but do not seek to certify a defendants' class.

In May 2015, the Superior Court judge for both patronage capital lawsuits appointed a special master to oversee all pre-trial issues relating to these cases, including motions to dismiss that we and the other defendants filed in connection with each lawsuit. In September, the special master issued proposed orders to the judge to grant our and the other defendants' motions to dismiss both patronage capital lawsuits on all counts. These orders have been challenged by the plaintiffs and remain subject to approval by the Court. If approved, the Court's decision to grant the motions to dismiss will be subject to appeal.

We intend to defend vigorously against all claims in the above-described litigation.

c. Environmental Matters

As is typical for electric utilities, we are subject to various federal, state and local environmental laws which represent significant future risks and uncertainties. Air emissions, water discharges and water usage are extensively controlled, closely monitored and periodically reported. Handling and disposal requirements govern the manner of transportation, storage and disposal of various types of waste. We are also subject to climate change regulations that impose restrictions on emissions of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, for certain new and modified facilities.

In general, these and other types of environmental requirements are becoming increasingly stringent. Such requirements may substantially increase the cost of electric service, by requiring modifications in the design or operation of existing facilities or the purchase of emission allowances. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in civil and criminal penalties and could include the complete shutdown of individual generating units not in compliance. Certain of our debt instruments require us to comply in all material respects with laws, rules, regulations and orders imposed by applicable governmental authorities, which include current and future environmental laws or regulations. Should we fail to be in compliance with these requirements, it would constitute a default under those debt instruments. We believe that we are in compliance with those environmental regulations currently applicable to our business and operations. Although it is our intent to comply with current and future regulations, we cannot provide assurance that we will always be in compliance.

At this time, the ultimate impact of any new and more stringent environmental regulations described above is uncertain and could have an effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows as a result of future additional capital expenditures and increased operations and maintenance costs.

Additionally, litigation over environmental issues and claims of various types, including property damage, personal injury, common law nuisance, and citizen enforcement of environmental requirements such as air quality and water standards, has increased generally throughout the United States. In particular, personal injury and other claims for damages caused by alleged exposure to hazardous materials, and common law nuisance claims for injunctive relief, personal injury and property damage allegedly caused by coal combustion residue, greenhouse gas and other emissions have become more frequent.