XML 55 R21.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.3.1.900

Commitments and Contingent Liabilities | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2015
Other Commitments [Line Items] |
Commitments and Contingent Liabilities | Commitments and Contingent Liabilities Guaranteed Obligations Power’s activities primarily involve the purchase and sale of energy and related products under transportation, physical, financial and forward contracts at fixed and variable prices. These transactions are with numerous counterparties and brokers that may require cash, cash-related instruments or guarantees. Power has unconditionally guaranteed payments to counterparties by its subsidiaries in commodity-related transactions in order to
• | support current exposure, interest and other costs on sums due and payable in the ordinary course of business, and
• | obtain credit.
Under these agreements, guarantees cover lines of credit between entities and are often reciprocal in nature. The exposure between counterparties can move in either direction. In order for Power to incur a liability for the face value of the outstanding guarantees, its subsidiaries would have to
• | fully utilize the credit granted to them by every counterparty to whom Power has provided a guarantee, and
• | all of the related contracts would have to be “out-of-the-money” (if the contracts are terminated, Power would owe money to the counterparties).
Power believes the probability of this result is unlikely. For this reason, Power believes that the current exposure at any point in time is a more meaningful representation of the potential liability under these guarantees. This current exposure consists of the net of accounts receivable and accounts payable and the forward value on open positions, less any collateral posted. Power is subject to
• | counterparty collateral calls related to commodity contracts, and
• | certain creditworthiness standards as guarantor under performance guarantees of its subsidiaries.
Changes in commodity prices can have a material impact on collateral requirements under such contracts, which are posted and received primarily in the form of cash and letters of credit. Power also routinely enters into futures and options transactions for electricity and natural gas as part of its operations. These futures contracts usually require a cash margin deposit with brokers, which can change based on market movement and in accordance with exchange rules. In addition to the guarantees discussed above, Power has also provided payment guarantees to third parties on behalf of its affiliated companies. These guarantees support various other non-commodity related contractual obligations. The face value of outstanding guarantees, current exposure and margin positions as of December 31, 2015 and 2014 are shown below:
|  |  | As of December 31, 2015 |  | As of December 31, 2014 |
|  |  | Millions |
| Face Value of Outstanding Guarantees |  | $ | 1,734 |  |  | $ | 1,814 |  |
| Exposure under Current Guarantees |  | $ | 172 |  |  | $ | 273 |  |
| Letters of Credit Margin Posted |  | $ | 122 |  |  | $ | 159 |  |
| Letters of Credit Margin Received |  | $ | 192 |  |  | $ | 40 |  |
| Cash Deposited and Received |  |  |  |  |
| Counterparty Cash Margin Deposited |  | $ | — |  |  | $ | — |  |
| Counterparty Cash Margin Received |  | $ | (15 | ) |  | $ | (13 | ) |
| Net Broker Balance Deposited (Received) |  | $ | (5 | ) |  | $ | 115 |  |
| In the Event Power were to Lose its Investment Grade Rating |  |  |  |  |
| Additional Collateral that could be Required |  | $ | 864 |  |  | $ | 945 |  |
| Liquidity Available under PSEG’s and Power’s Credit Facilities to Post Collateral |  | $ | 3,215 |  |  | $ | 3,495 |  |
| Additional Amounts Posted |  |  |  |  |
| Other Letters of Credit |  | $ | 51 |  |  | $ | 45 |  |
As part of determining credit exposure, Power nets receivables and payables with the corresponding net energy contract balances. See Note 15. Financial Risk Management Activities for further discussion. In accordance with PSEG's accounting policy, where it is applicable, cash (received)/deposited is allocated against derivative asset and liability positions with the same counterparty on the face of the Balance Sheet. The remaining balances of net cash (received)/deposited after allocation are generally included in Accounts Payable and Receivable, respectively. In the event of a deterioration of Power’s credit rating to below investment grade, which would represent a three level downgrade from its current S&P and Moody’s ratings, many of these agreements allow the counterparty to demand further performance assurance. See table above. In addition to amounts for outstanding guarantees, current exposure and margin positions, PSEG and Power have posted letters of credit to support Power's various other non-energy contractual and environmental obligations. See preceding table. PSEG also issued a $106 million guarantee to support Power's payment obligations related to its equity interest in the PennEast natural gas pipeline and a $21 million guarantee to support Power's payment obligations related to construction of a 755 MW gas-fired combined cycle generating station in Maryland. In the event that PSEG were to be downgraded to below investment grade and failed to meet minimum net worth requirements, these guarantees would each have to be replaced by a letter of credit. Environmental Matters Passaic River Historic operations of PSEG companies and the operations of hundreds of other companies along the Passaic and Hackensack Rivers are alleged by Federal and State agencies to have discharged substantial contamination into the Passaic River/Newark Bay Complex in violation of various statutes as discussed as follows. Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) In 2002, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined that a 17-mile stretch of the lower Passaic River from Newark to Clifton, New Jersey is a “Superfund” site under CERCLA. This designation allows the EPA to clean up such sites and to compel responsible parties to perform cleanups or reimburse the government for cleanups led by the EPA. The EPA further determined that there was a need to perform a comprehensive study of the entire 17-miles of the lower Passaic River. PSE&G and certain of its predecessors conducted operations at properties in this area of the Passaic River. The properties included one operating electric generating station (Essex Site), which was transferred to Power, one former generating station and four former manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites. In early 2007, 73 Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs), including PSE&G and Power, formed a Cooperating Parties Group (CPG) and agreed to assume responsibility for conducting a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) of the 17 miles of the lower Passaic River. At such time, the CPG also agreed to allocate, on an interim basis, the associated costs of the RI/FS among its members on the basis of a mutually agreed upon formula. For the purpose of this interim allocation, which has been revised as parties have exited the CPG, approximately seven percent of the RI/FS costs are currently deemed attributable to PSE&G’s former MGP sites and approximately one percent is attributable to Power’s generating stations. These interim allocations are not binding on PSE&G or Power in terms of their respective shares of the costs that will be ultimately required to remediate the 17 miles of the lower Passaic River. PSEG has provided notice to insurers concerning this potential claim. In June 2008, the EPA and Tierra Solutions, Inc. (Tierra) and Maxus Energy Corporation (Maxus) entered into an early action agreement whereby Tierra/Maxus agreed to remove a portion of the heavily dioxin-contaminated sediment located in the lower Passaic River. The portion of the Passaic River identified in this agreement was located immediately adjacent to Tierra/Maxus’ predecessor company’s (Diamond Shamrock) facility. Pursuant to the agreement between the EPA and Tierra/Maxus, the estimated cost for the work to remove the sediment in this location was $80 million. Phase I of the removal work has been completed. Pursuant to this agreement, Tierra/Maxus have reserved their rights to seek contribution for these removal costs from the other PRPs, including Power and PSE&G. This agreement and the work undertaken pursuant to the action agreement will not affect the ultimate remedy that the EPA will select for the remediation of the 17-mile stretch of the lower Passaic River. In 2012, Tierra/Maxus withdrew from the CPG and refused to participate as members going forward, other than with respect to their obligation to fund the EPA’s portion of its RI/FS oversight costs. At such time, the remaining members of the CPG, in agreement with the EPA, commenced the removal of certain contaminated sediments at Passaic River Mile 10.9 at an estimated cost of $25 million to $30 million. PSEG’s share of the cost of that effort is approximately three percent. The remaining CPG members have reserved their rights to seek reimbursement from Tierra/Maxus for the costs of the River Mile 10.9 removal. On April 11, 2014, the EPA released its revised draft “Focused Feasibility Study” (FFS) which contemplates the removal of 4.3 million cubic yards of sediment from the bottom of the lower eight miles of the 17-mile stretch of the Passaic River. The revised draft FFS sets forth various alternatives for remediating this portion of the Passaic River. The EPA’s estimated costs to remediate the lower eight miles of the Passaic River range from $365 million for a targeted remedy to $3.3 billion for a deep dredge of this portion of the Passaic River. The EPA also identified in the revised draft FFS its preferred alternative, which would involve dredging the lower eight miles of the river bank-to-bank and installing an engineered cap. The estimated cost in the revised draft FFS for the EPA's preferred alternative is $1.7 billion on a discounted basis. No provisional cost allocation has been made by the CPG for the work contemplated by the revised draft FFS, and the work contemplated by the revised draft FFS is not subject to the CPG’s cost sharing allocation agreed to in connection with the removal work for River Mile 10.9 or in connection with the conduct of the RI/FS. The revised draft FFS was subject to a public comment period, and remains subject to the EPA’s response to comments submitted, a design phase and at least an estimated five years for completion of the work. The public comment period for the revised draft FFS closed on August 21, 2014. Over 300 comments were submitted by a variety of entities potentially impacted by the revised draft FFS, including the CPG, individual companies, municipalities, public officials, citizens groups, Amtrak, NJ Transit and others. The CPG, which consisted of 54 members as of December 31, 2015, provided a draft RI and draft FS, both relating to the entire 17 miles of the lower Passaic River, to the EPA on February 18, 2015 and April 30, 2015, respectively. The estimated total cost of the RI/FS is approximately $163 million, which the CPG continues to incur. Of the estimated $163 million, as of December 31, 2015, the CPG had spent approximately $147 million, of which PSEG's total share was approximately $10 million. The draft FS sets forth various alternatives for remediating the lower Passaic River. The draft FS sets forth the CPG’s estimated costs to remediate the lower 17 miles of the Passaic River which range from approximately $518 million to $3.2 billion. The CPG identified a targeted remedy in the draft FS which would involve removal, treatment and disposal of contaminated sediments taken from targeted locations within the entire 17 miles of the lower Passaic River. The estimated cost in the draft FS for the targeted remedy ranges from approximately $518 million to $772 million. No provisional cost allocation has been made by the CPG for the work contemplated by the draft FS. However, based on (i) the low end of the range of the current estimates of costs to remediate, (ii) PSE&G's and Power's estimates of their share of those costs, and (iii) the continued ability of PSE&G to recover such costs in its rates, PSE&G accrued a $10 million Environmental Costs Liability and a corresponding Regulatory Asset and Power accrued a $3 million Other Noncurrent Liability and a corresponding O&M Expense in the first quarter of 2015. The EPA will consider the comments received on its revised draft FFS and is expected to consider the CPG’s RI/FS prior to issuing a Record of Decision (ROD) of a selected remedy for the lower Passaic River. The EPA has broad authority to implement its selected remedy through the ROD and PSEG cannot at this time predict how the implementation of the ROD might impact PSE&G's and Power's ultimate liability. Until (i) the RI/FS is finalized, (ii) a final remedy is determined by the EPA or through litigation, (iii) PSE&G's and Power’s respective shares of the costs, both in the aggregate as well as individually, are determined, and (iv) PSE&G’s continued ability to recover the costs in its rates is determined, it is not possible to predict this matter’s ultimate impact on our financial statements. It is possible that PSE&G and Power will record additional costs beyond what they have accrued, and that such costs could be material, but PSEG cannot at the current time estimate the amount or range of any additional costs. Natural Resource Damage Claims In 2003, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) directed PSEG, PSE&G and 56 other PRPs to arrange for a natural resource damage assessment and interim compensatory restoration of natural resource injuries along the lower Passaic River and its tributaries pursuant to the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act. The NJDEP alleged that hazardous substances had been discharged from the Essex Site and the Harrison Site. The NJDEP estimated the cost of interim natural resource injury restoration activities along the lower Passaic River at approximately $950 million. In 2007, agencies of the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. Department of the Interior (the Passaic River federal trustees) sent letters to PSE&G and other PRPs inviting participation in an assessment of injuries to natural resources that the agencies intended to perform. In 2008, PSEG and a number of other PRPs agreed to share certain immaterial costs the trustees have incurred and will incur going forward, and to work with the trustees to explore whether some or all of the trustees’ claims can be resolved in a cooperative fashion. That effort is continuing. PSE&G and Power are unable to estimate their respective portions of the possible loss or range of loss related to this matter. Newark Bay Study Area The EPA has established the Newark Bay Study Area, which it defines as Newark Bay and portions of the Hackensack River, the Arthur Kill and the Kill Van Kull. In August 2006, the EPA sent PSEG and 11 other entities notices that it considered each of the entities to be a PRP with respect to contamination in the Study Area. The notice letter requested that the PRPs fund an EPA-approved study in the Newark Bay Study Area. The notice stated the EPA’s belief that hazardous substances were released from sites owned by PSEG companies and located on the Hackensack River, including two operating electric generating stations (Hudson and Kearny sites) and one former MGP site. PSEG has participated in and partially funded the second phase of this study. Notices to fund the next phase of the study have been received but PSEG has not consented to fund the third phase. PSE&G and Power are unable to estimate their respective portions of the possible loss or range of loss related to this matter. MGP Remediation Program PSE&G is working with the NJDEP to assess, investigate and remediate environmental conditions at its former MGP sites. To date, 38 sites requiring some level of remedial action have been identified. Based on its current studies, PSE&G has determined that the estimated cost to remediate all MGP sites to completion could range between $431 million and $499 million through 2021, including its $10 million share for the Passaic River as discussed above. Since no amount within the range is considered to be most likely, PSE&G has recorded a liability of $431 million as of December 31, 2015. Of this amount, $76 million was recorded in Other Current Liabilities and $355 million was reflected as Environmental Costs in Noncurrent Liabilities. PSE&G has recorded a $431 million Regulatory Asset with respect to these costs. PSE&G periodically updates its studies taking into account any new regulations or new information which could impact future remediation costs and adjusts its recorded liability accordingly. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)/New Source Review (NSR) The PSD/NSR regulations, promulgated under the Clean Air Act (CAA), require major sources of certain air pollutants to obtain permits, install pollution control technology and obtain offsets, in some circumstances, when those sources undergo a “major modification,” as defined in the regulations. The federal government may order companies that are not in compliance with the PSD/NSR regulations to install the best available control technology at the affected plants and to pay monetary penalties ranging from $25,000 to $37,500 per day for each violation, depending upon when the alleged violation occurred. In 2009, the EPA issued a notice of violation to Power and the other owners of the Keystone coal-fired plant in Pennsylvania, alleging, among other things, that various capital improvement projects were completed at the plant which are considered modifications (or major modifications) causing significant net emission increases of PSD/NSR air pollutants, beginning in 1985 for Keystone Unit 1 and in 1984 for Keystone Unit 2. The notice of violation states that none of these modifications underwent the PSD/NSR permitting process prior to being put into service, which the EPA alleges was required under the CAA. The notice of violation states that the EPA may issue an order requiring compliance with the relevant CAA provisions and may seek injunctive relief and/or civil penalties. Power owns approximately 23% of the plant. Power cannot predict the outcome of this matter. Clean Water Act Permit Renewals Pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits expire within five years of their effective date. In order to renew these permits, but allow a plant to continue to operate, an owner or operator must file a permit application no later than six months prior to expiration of the permit. States with delegated federal authority for this program manage these permits. The NJDEP manages the permits under the New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) program. Connecticut and New York also have permits to manage their respective pollutant discharge elimination system programs. In 2001, the NJDEP issued a renewed NJPDES permit for Salem, expiring in July 2006, allowing for the continued operation of Salem with its existing cooling water intake system. In February 2006, Power filed with the NJDEP a renewal application allowing Salem to continue operating under its existing NJPDES permit until a new permit is issued. On June 30, 2015, the NJDEP issued a draft permit for Salem. The draft permit does not require installation of cooling towers and allows Salem to continue to operate utilizing the existing once-through cooling water system with certain required system modifications. The draft permit was subject to a public notice and comment period. The NJDEP may make revisions before issuing the final permit expected during the first half of 2016. Power participated in the NJDEP’s August 5, 2015 public hearing and submitted comments on the draft permit on September 18, 2015. On May 19, 2014, the EPA issued a final rule that establishes new requirements for the regulation of cooling water intake structures at existing power plants and industrial facilities with a design flow of more than two million gallons of water per day. On August 15, 2014, the EPA established October 14, 2014 as the effective date for each state to implement the provisions of the rule going forward when considering the renewal of permits for existing facilities on a case by case basis. On September 5, 2014, several environmental non-governmental groups and certain energy industry groups filed motions to litigate the provisions of the rule. This case is pending at the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals. In two related actions on October 17, 2014 and November 20, 2014, several environmental non-governmental groups initiated challenges to the endangered species act provisions of the 316 (b) rule. Power is unable to determine the ultimate impact of these actions on the implementation of the rule. State permitting decisions could have a material impact on Power’s ability to renew permits at its larger once-through cooled plants, including Salem, Hudson, Mercer, Bridgeport and possibly Sewaren and New Haven, without making significant upgrades to existing intake structures and cooling systems. The costs of those upgrades to one or more of Power’s once-through cooled plants would be material, and would require economic review to determine whether to continue operations at these facilities, and could result in acceleration of decommissioning activities. For example, in Power’s application to renew its Salem permit, filed with the NJDEP in February 2006, the estimated costs for adding cooling towers for Salem were approximately $1 billion, of which Power’s share would have been approximately $575 million. The filing has not been updated. Currently, potential costs associated with any closed cycle cooling requirements are not included in Power’s forecasted capital expenditures. Power is unable to predict the outcome of these permitting decisions and the effect, if any, that they may have on Power's future capital requirements, financial condition or results of operations. Power is actively engaged with the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP) regarding renewal of the current permit for the cooling water intake structure at Bridgeport Harbor Station Unit 3 (BH3). To address compliance with the EPA’s Clean Water Act Section 316(b) final rule, the current proposal under consideration is that, if a final permit is issued, Power would continue to operate BH3 without making the capital expenditures for modification to the existing intake structure and retire the BH3 within five years of the effective date of the final permit. Based on current discussions with the CTDEEP, if the proposal is accepted, a final permit could be issued in the summer of 2016 indicating a potential retirement date for BH3 by summer 2021, which is four years earlier than the current estimated useful life ending in 2025. If the permit is not issued and the conditions below are not met, Power will seek to operate BH3 through the current estimated useful life. Separately, Power has also negotiated a Community Environmental Benefit Agreement (CEBA) with the City of Bridgeport, Connecticut. That CEBA provides that Power would retire BH3 early if all its precedent conditions occur, which include receipt of all final permits to build and operate a proposed new combined cycle generating facility on the same site that BH3 currently operates, which could occur in 2017. Absent those conditions being met, and the permit for the cooling water intake structure referred to above not being issued, Power will seek to operate BH3 through the current estimated useful life. If either the permit renewal is received, or all the conditions precedent in the CEBA occur, a triggering event will be deemed to have occurred and Power will test its New England generating fleet for impairment at that time. The New England generation fleet currently has a net book value of approximately $210 million. In February 2016, the proposed generating facility was awarded a capacity obligation. Construction is expected to commence in 2017, with operations expected to begin in mid-2019. Bridgeport Harbor National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Compliance In April 2015, Power determined that monitoring and reporting practices related to certain permitted wastewater discharges at its Bridgeport Harbor station may have violated conditions of the station's NPDES permit and applicable regulations and could subject it to fines and penalties. Power has notified the CTDEEP of the issues and has taken actions to investigate and resolve the potential non-compliance. Power cannot predict the impact of this matter. Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines On September 30, 2015, the EPA issued a new Effluent Guidelines Limitation Rule for steam electric generating units. The rule establishes new best available technology economically achievable (BAT) standards for fly ash transport water, bottom ash transport water, flue gas desulfurization and flue gas mercury control wastewater. The EPA provides an implementation period for currently existing discharges of three years or up to eight years if a facility needs more time to implement equipment upgrades and provide supporting information to its permitting authority. In the intervening time period, existing discharge standards continue to apply. Power's Mercer and Bridgeport Harbor stations and the jointly-owned Keystone and Conemaugh stations, have bottom ash transport water discharges that are regulated under this rule. Power is unable to predict if this rule will have a material impact on its future capital requirements, financial condition and results of operations. Coal Combustion Residuals (CCRs) On December 19, 2014, the EPA issued a final rule which regulates CCRs as non-hazardous and requires that facility owners implement a series of actions to close or upgrade existing CCR surface impoundments and/or landfills. It also establishes new provisions for the construction of new surface impoundments and landfills. Power's Hudson and Mercer generating stations, along with its co-owned Keystone and Conemaugh stations, are subject to the provisions of this rule. On April 17, 2015, the final rule was published with an effective date of October 19, 2015. Accordingly in June 2015, Power recorded an additional asset retirement obligation to comply with the final CCR rule which was not material to Power’s results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. Basic Generation Service (BGS) and Basic Gas Supply Service (BGSS) PSE&G obtains its electric supply requirements through the annual New Jersey BGS auctions for two categories of customers who choose not to purchase electric supply from third party suppliers. The first category, which represents about 80% of PSE&G's load requirement, are residential and smaller commercial and industrial customers (BGS-Residential Small Commercial Pricing (RSCP)). The second category are larger customers that exceed a BPU-established load (kW) threshold (BGS-Commercial and Industrial Pricing (CIEP)). Pursuant to applicable BPU rules, PSE&G enters into the Supplier Master Agreement with the winners of these BGS auctions following the BPU’s approval of the auction results. PSE&G has entered into contracts with winning BGS suppliers, including Power, to purchase BGS for PSE&G’s load requirements. The winners of the auction (including Power) are responsible for fulfilling all the requirements of a PJM Load Serving Entity including the provision of capacity, energy, ancillary services, transmission and any other services required by PJM. BGS suppliers assume all volume risk and customer migration risk and must satisfy New Jersey’s renewable portfolio standards. The BGS-CIEP auction is for a one-year supply period from June 1 to May 31 with the BGS-CIEP auction price measured in dollars per MW-day for capacity. The final price for the BGS-CIEP auction year commencing June 1, 2016 is $335.33 per MW-day, replacing the BGS-CIEP auction year price ending May 31, 2016 of $272.78 per MW-day. Energy for BGS-CIEP is priced at hourly PJM locational marginal prices for the contract period. PSE&G contracts for its anticipated BGS-RSCP load on a three-year rolling basis, whereby each year one-third of the load is procured for a three-year period. The contract prices in dollars per MWh for the BGS-RSCP supply, as well as the approximate load, are as follows:
|  | Auction Year |  |
|  | 2013 |  | 2014 |  | 2015 |  | 2016 |  |
| 36-Month Terms Ending | May 2016 |  |  | May 2017 |  |  | May 2018 |  |  | May 2019 |  | (A) |
| Load (MW) | 2,800 |  |  | 2,800 |  |  | 2,900 |  |  | 2,800 |  |  |
| $ per MWh | $92.18 |  | $97.39 |  | $99.54 |  | $96.38 |  |
(A) | Prices set in the 2016 BGS auction will become effective on June 1, 2016 when the 2013 BGS auction agreements expire.
Power seeks to mitigate volatility in its results by contracting in advance for the sale of most of its anticipated electric output as well as its anticipated fuel needs. As part of its objective, Power has entered into contracts to directly supply PSE&G and other New Jersey electric distribution companies (EDCs) with a portion of their respective BGS requirements through the New Jersey BGS auction process, described above. PSE&G has a full-requirements contract with Power to meet the gas supply requirements of PSE&G’s gas customers. Power has entered into hedges for a portion of these anticipated BGSS obligations, as permitted by the BPU. The BPU permits PSE&G to recover the cost of gas hedging up to 115 billion cubic feet or 80% of its residential gas supply annual requirements through the BGSS tariff. Current plans call for Power to hedge on behalf of PSE&G approximately 70 billion cubic feet or 50% of its residential gas supply annual requirements. For additional information, see Note 23. Related-Party Transactions. Minimum Fuel Purchase Requirements Power’s nuclear fuel strategy is to maintain certain levels of uranium and to make periodic purchases to support such levels. As such, the commitments referred to in the following table may include estimated quantities to be purchased that deviate from contractual nominal quantities. Power’s nuclear fuel commitments cover approximately 100% of its estimated uranium, enrichment and fabrication requirements through 2017 and a significant portion through 2020 at Salem, Hope Creek and Peach Bottom. Power has various long-term fuel purchase commitments for coal through 2018 to support its fossil generation stations. Power also has various multi-year contracts for natural gas and firm transportation and storage capacity for natural gas that are primarily used to meet its obligations to PSE&G. When there is excess delivery capacity available, Power can use the gas to supply its fossil generating stations. As of December 31, 2015, the total minimum purchase requirements included in these commitments were as follows:
| Fuel Type |  | Power's Share of Commitments through 2020 |
|  |  | Millions |
| Nuclear Fuel |  |  |
| Uranium |  | $ | 475 |  |
| Enrichment |  | $ | 394 |  |
| Fabrication |  | $ | 204 |  |
| Natural Gas |  | $ | 1,023 |  |
| Coal |  | $ | 300 |  |
Regulatory Proceedings FERC Compliance In the first quarter of 2014, Power discovered that it incorrectly calculated certain components of its cost-based bids for its New Jersey fossil generating units in the PJM energy market. Upon discovery of the errors, PSEG retained outside counsel to assist in the conduct of an investigation into the matter and self-reported the errors. As the internal investigation proceeded, additional pricing errors in the bids were identified. It was further determined that the quantity of energy that Power offered into the energy market for its fossil peaking units differed from the amount for which Power was compensated in the capacity market for those units. PSEG informed FERC, PJM and the PJM Independent Market Monitor (IMM) of these additional issues, corrected the identified errors, and modified the bid quantities for Power’s peaking units. Power continues to implement procedures to help mitigate the risk of similar issues occurring in the future. During the three month period ended March 31, 2014, based upon its best estimate available at the time, Power recorded a charge to income in the amount of $25 million related to this matter. No additional charges to income have been recorded for this matter since that time. In September 2014, FERC Staff initiated a preliminary, non-public staff investigation into the matter and issued data requests covering a period from 2002 through the date of the self-report. This investigation is ongoing. Since that time, Power has and is continuing to respond to data requests from FERC Staff, including recent data requests in which Power has recalculated certain of its energy bids in PJM for a five year period, and may receive additional data requests or other fact finding. The FERC Staff investigation is still in the fact finding stage and there is considerable uncertainty around FERC's response to PSEG's legal arguments and the amount of disgorgement or other remedies FERC may ultimately seek. PSEG is unable to reasonably estimate the range of possible loss for this matter; however, the amounts of potential disgorgement and other potential penalties that Power may incur span a wide range depending on the success of PSEG's legal arguments. These arguments include that Power’s energy market bids in a substantial majority of the hours were below the allowed rate under the Tariff and therefore any errors in those hours were immaterial and that it is unclear whether the quantity of the bids violated any legal requirement. If PSEG's legal arguments do not prevail in whole or in part with FERC or in a judicial challenge that PSEG may choose to pursue, it is likely that Power would record additional losses and that such additional losses would be material to PSEG’s and Power’s Consolidated Statements of Operations in the quarterly and annual periods in which they are recorded. New Jersey Clean Energy Program In June 2015, the BPU established the funding level for fiscal year 2016 applicable to its Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency programs. The fiscal year 2016 aggregate funding for all EDCs is $345 million with PSE&G’s share of the funding at $200 million. PSE&G has a remaining current liability of $142 million as of December 31, 2015 for its outstanding share of the fiscal year 2016 and remaining fiscal year 2015 funding, respectively. The liability is reduced as normal payments are made. The liability has been recorded with an offsetting Regulatory Asset, since the costs associated with this program are recovered from PSE&G ratepayers through the SBC. Superstorm Sandy In late October 2012, Superstorm Sandy caused severe damage to PSE&G's T&D system throughout its service territory as well as to some of Power's generation infrastructure in the northern part of New Jersey. Strong winds and the resulting storm surge caused damage to switching stations, substations and generating infrastructure. PSEG maintains insurance coverage against loss or damage to plants and certain properties, subject to certain exceptions and limitations, to the extent such property is usually insured and insurance is available at a reasonable cost. In June 2013, PSEG, PSE&G and Power filed suit in New Jersey state court (NJ Court) against its insurance carriers seeking an interpretation that the insurance policies cover their losses resulting from damage caused by Superstorm Sandy's storm surge. As of December 31, 2012, PSE&G had incurred approximately $295 million of costs to restore service to PSE&G's distribution and transmission systems and $5 million to repair its infrastructure and return it to pre-storm conditions. Of the costs incurred, approximately $40 million was recognized in O&M Expense, $75 million was recorded as Property, Plant and Equipment and $180 million was recorded as a Regulatory Asset because such costs were deferred as approved by the BPU under an Order received in December 2012. Of the $295 million, $36 million related to insured property. PSE&G recognized $6 million of insurance proceeds. There were no significant additional costs incurred since 2012. PSE&G made a filing with the BPU to review the prudency of unreimbursed incremental storm restoration costs, including O&M and capital expenditures associated with Superstorm Sandy and certain other extreme weather events, for recovery in its next base rate case or sooner through a BPU-approved cost recovery mechanism. In September 2014, the BPU approved its filing. Power had incurred $193 million of storm-related costs from 2012 through 2014, primarily for repairs at certain generating stations in Power's fossil fleet. These costs were recognized primarily in O&M Expense, offset by $44 million of insurance recoveries in 2013 and 2012. Power incurred an additional $2 million of O&M costs in 2015 which were recognized primarily in O&M Expense. In the first half of 2015, PSEG reached settlements with its insurers with respect to claims for coverage of its Superstorm Sandy-related losses. PSEG received an additional $214 million under these settlements (consisting of $159 million and $55 million recognized in the three months ended March 31, 2015 and June 30, 2015, respectively), bringing cumulative insurance proceeds to $264 million. Of the $214 million recognized in 2015, PSE&G and Power recorded $35 million and $179 million, respectively. In addition to the $35 million recognized in 2015, PSE&G recognized the aforementioned $6 million of previously deferred insurance recoveries, resulting in reductions in Regulatory Assets of $20 million, O&M Expense of $10 million and Property, Plant and Equipment of $11 million. Power recorded reductions in both O&M Expense of $145 million and Property, Plant and Equipment of $6 million and an increase in Other Income of $28 million. The claim filed by PSEG, PSE&G and Power related to Superstorm Sandy insurance coverage is now fully resolved. Nuclear Insurance Coverages and Assessments Power is a member of an industry mutual insurance company, Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited (NEIL), which provides the property, decontamination and decommissioning liability insurance at the Salem/Hope Creek and Peach Bottom sites. NEIL also provides replacement power coverage through its accidental outage policy. NEIL policies may make retrospective premium assessments in case of adverse loss experience. Power’s maximum potential liabilities under these assessments are included in the table and notes below. Certain provisions in the NEIL policies provide that the insurer may suspend coverage with respect to all nuclear units on a site without notice if the NRC suspends or revokes the operating license for any unit on that site, issues a shutdown order with respect to such unit or issues a confirmatory order keeping such unit down. Power is also a member of the joint underwriting association, American Nuclear Insurers (ANI), which provides nuclear liability insurance coverage at the Salem/Hope Creek and Peach Bottom sites. The ANI policies are designed to satisfy the financial protection requirements outlined in the Price-Anderson Act. The ANI and NEIL policies all include coverage for claims arising out of acts of terrorism, however, NEIL policies are subject to an industry aggregate limit of $3.2 billion plus such additional amounts as NEIL recovers for such losses from reinsurance, indemnity and any other source applicable to such losses. The Price-Anderson Act sets the “limit of liability” for claims that could arise from an incident involving any licensed nuclear facility in the United States. The “limit of liability” is based on the number of licensed nuclear reactors and is adjusted at least every five years based on the Consumer Price Index. The current “limit of liability” is $13.5 billion. All owners of nuclear reactors, including Power, have provided for this exposure through a combination of private insurance and mandatory participation in a financial protection pool as established by the Price-Anderson Act. Under the Price-Anderson Act, each licensee can be assessed $127 million per reactor per incident, payable at not more than $19 million per reactor per incident per year. If the damages exceed the “limit of liability,” the Congress could impose further revenue-raising measures on the nuclear industry to pay claims. Power’s maximum aggregate assessment per incident is $401 million (based on Power’s ownership interests in Hope Creek, Peach Bottom and Salem) and its maximum aggregate annual assessment per incident is $60 million. Further, a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, not involving Power, has held that the Price-Anderson Act did not preclude awards based on state law claims for punitive damages. Power’s insurance coverages and maximum retrospective assessments for its nuclear operations are as follows:
| Type and Source of Coverages |  | Total Site Coverage |  |  |  | Retrospective Assessments |
|  |  | Millions |
| Public and Nuclear Worker Liability (Primary Layer): |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| ANI |  | $ | 375 |  |  | (A) |  | $ | — |  |
| Nuclear Liability (Excess Layer): |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Price-Anderson Act |  | 13,113 |  |  | (B) |  | 401 |  |
| Nuclear Liability Total |  | $ | 13,488 |  |  | (C) |  | $ | 401 |  |
| Property Damage (Primary Layer): |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| NEIL Primary (Salem/Hope Creek and Peach Bottom) |  | $ | 1,500 |  |  |  |  | $ | 46 |  |
| Property Damage (Excess Layers) |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| NEIL Excess (Salem/Hope Creek and Peach Bottom) |  | 600 |  |  | (D) |  | 6 |  |
| Property Damage Total (Per Site) |  | $ | 2,100 |  |  |  |  | $ | 52 |  |
| Accidental Outage: |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| NEIL I (Peach Bottom) |  | $ | 245 |  |  | (E) |  | $ | 8 |  |
| NEIL I (Salem) |  | 281 |  |  | (E) |  | 9 |  |
| NEIL I (Hope Creek) |  | 490 |  |  | (E) |  | 7 |  |
| Replacement Power Total |  | $ | 1,016 |  |  |  |  | $ | 24 |  |
(A) | The primary limit for Public Liability is a per site aggregate limit with no potential for assessment. The Nuclear Worker Liability represents the potential liability from third party workers claiming exposure to the nuclear energy hazard. This coverage is subject to an industry aggregate limit that is subject to reinstatement at ANI discretion.
(B) | Retrospective premium program under the Price-Anderson Act liability provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Power is subject to retrospective assessment with respect to loss from an incident at any licensed nuclear reactor in the United States that produces greater than 100 MW of electrical power. This retrospective assessment can be adjusted for inflation every five years. The last adjustment was effective as of September 10, 2013. The next adjustment is due on or before September 10, 2018. This retrospective program is in excess of the Public and Nuclear Worker Liability primary layers.
(C) | Limit of liability under the Price-Anderson Act for each nuclear incident.
(D) | For nuclear event property limits in excess of $1.5 billion, Power participates in a $600 million nuclear event Blanket Limit Policy. The blanket limit policy is shared with Exelon Generation and covers the following facilities: Braidwood, Byron, Clinton, Dresden, La Salle, Limerick, Oyster Creek, Quad Cities, TMI-1 Peach Bottom, Salem and Hope Creek. This limit is not subject to reinstatement in the event of a loss. Participation in this program reduces Power’s premium and the associated potential assessment. In addition, for non-nuclear event limits in excess of $1.5 billion, Power maintains a $600 million limit shared by the Salem and Hope Creek facilities. Exelon maintains a $600 million non-nuclear event limit shared by Peach Bottom, Braidwood, Byron, Clinton, Dresden, LaSalle, Limerick, Oyster Creek, Quad Cities, and the TMI-1 facilities.
(E) | Peach Bottom 2 and 3 have an aggregate indemnity limit based on a weekly indemnity of $2.3 million for 52 weeks followed by 80% of the weekly indemnity for 68 weeks. Salem 1 and 2 have an aggregate indemnity limit based on a weekly indemnity of $2.5 million for 52 weeks followed by 80% of the weekly indemnity for 76 weeks. Hope Creek has an aggregate indemnity limit based on a weekly indemnity of $4.5 million for 52 weeks followed by 80% of the weekly indemnity for 71 weeks.
Minimum Lease Payments The total future minimum payments under various operating leases as of December 31, 2015 are:
|  |  | PSE&G |  | Power |  | Services |  | Other |  | Total |
|  |  | Millions |  |  |
| 2016 |  | $ | 12 |  |  | $ | 2 |  |  | $ | 13 |  |  | $ | 2 |  |  | $ | 29 |  |
| 2017 |  | 9 |  |  | 2 |  |  | 13 |  |  | 1 |  |  | 25 |  |
| 2018 |  | 8 |  |  | 2 |  |  | 13 |  |  | 1 |  |  | 24 |  |
| 2019 |  | 7 |  |  | 2 |  |  | 13 |  |  | — |  |  | 22 |  |
| 2020 |  | 6 |  |  | 3 |  |  | 13 |  |  | — |  |  | 22 |  |
| Thereafter |  | 66 |  |  | 33 |  |  | 146 |  |  | — |  |  | 245 |  |
| Total Minimum Lease Payments |  | $ | 108 |  |  | $ | 44 |  |  | $ | 211 |  |  | $ | 4 |  |  | $ | 367 |  |
PSE&G [Member] |
Other Commitments [Line Items] |
Commitments and Contingent Liabilities | Commitments and Contingent Liabilities Guaranteed Obligations Power’s activities primarily involve the purchase and sale of energy and related products under transportation, physical, financial and forward contracts at fixed and variable prices. These transactions are with numerous counterparties and brokers that may require cash, cash-related instruments or guarantees. Power has unconditionally guaranteed payments to counterparties by its subsidiaries in commodity-related transactions in order to
• | support current exposure, interest and other costs on sums due and payable in the ordinary course of business, and
• | obtain credit.
Under these agreements, guarantees cover lines of credit between entities and are often reciprocal in nature. The exposure between counterparties can move in either direction. In order for Power to incur a liability for the face value of the outstanding guarantees, its subsidiaries would have to
• | fully utilize the credit granted to them by every counterparty to whom Power has provided a guarantee, and
• | all of the related contracts would have to be “out-of-the-money” (if the contracts are terminated, Power would owe money to the counterparties).
Power believes the probability of this result is unlikely. For this reason, Power believes that the current exposure at any point in time is a more meaningful representation of the potential liability under these guarantees. This current exposure consists of the net of accounts receivable and accounts payable and the forward value on open positions, less any collateral posted. Power is subject to
• | counterparty collateral calls related to commodity contracts, and
• | certain creditworthiness standards as guarantor under performance guarantees of its subsidiaries.
Changes in commodity prices can have a material impact on collateral requirements under such contracts, which are posted and received primarily in the form of cash and letters of credit. Power also routinely enters into futures and options transactions for electricity and natural gas as part of its operations. These futures contracts usually require a cash margin deposit with brokers, which can change based on market movement and in accordance with exchange rules. In addition to the guarantees discussed above, Power has also provided payment guarantees to third parties on behalf of its affiliated companies. These guarantees support various other non-commodity related contractual obligations. The face value of outstanding guarantees, current exposure and margin positions as of December 31, 2015 and 2014 are shown below:
|  |  | As of December 31, 2015 |  | As of December 31, 2014 |
|  |  | Millions |
| Face Value of Outstanding Guarantees |  | $ | 1,734 |  |  | $ | 1,814 |  |
| Exposure under Current Guarantees |  | $ | 172 |  |  | $ | 273 |  |
| Letters of Credit Margin Posted |  | $ | 122 |  |  | $ | 159 |  |
| Letters of Credit Margin Received |  | $ | 192 |  |  | $ | 40 |  |
| Cash Deposited and Received |  |  |  |  |
| Counterparty Cash Margin Deposited |  | $ | — |  |  | $ | — |  |
| Counterparty Cash Margin Received |  | $ | (15 | ) |  | $ | (13 | ) |
| Net Broker Balance Deposited (Received) |  | $ | (5 | ) |  | $ | 115 |  |
| In the Event Power were to Lose its Investment Grade Rating |  |  |  |  |
| Additional Collateral that could be Required |  | $ | 864 |  |  | $ | 945 |  |
| Liquidity Available under PSEG’s and Power’s Credit Facilities to Post Collateral |  | $ | 3,215 |  |  | $ | 3,495 |  |
| Additional Amounts Posted |  |  |  |  |
| Other Letters of Credit |  | $ | 51 |  |  | $ | 45 |  |
As part of determining credit exposure, Power nets receivables and payables with the corresponding net energy contract balances. See Note 15. Financial Risk Management Activities for further discussion. In accordance with PSEG's accounting policy, where it is applicable, cash (received)/deposited is allocated against derivative asset and liability positions with the same counterparty on the face of the Balance Sheet. The remaining balances of net cash (received)/deposited after allocation are generally included in Accounts Payable and Receivable, respectively. In the event of a deterioration of Power’s credit rating to below investment grade, which would represent a three level downgrade from its current S&P and Moody’s ratings, many of these agreements allow the counterparty to demand further performance assurance. See table above. In addition to amounts for outstanding guarantees, current exposure and margin positions, PSEG and Power have posted letters of credit to support Power's various other non-energy contractual and environmental obligations. See preceding table. PSEG also issued a $106 million guarantee to support Power's payment obligations related to its equity interest in the PennEast natural gas pipeline and a $21 million guarantee to support Power's payment obligations related to construction of a 755 MW gas-fired combined cycle generating station in Maryland. In the event that PSEG were to be downgraded to below investment grade and failed to meet minimum net worth requirements, these guarantees would each have to be replaced by a letter of credit. Environmental Matters Passaic River Historic operations of PSEG companies and the operations of hundreds of other companies along the Passaic and Hackensack Rivers are alleged by Federal and State agencies to have discharged substantial contamination into the Passaic River/Newark Bay Complex in violation of various statutes as discussed as follows. Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) In 2002, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined that a 17-mile stretch of the lower Passaic River from Newark to Clifton, New Jersey is a “Superfund” site under CERCLA. This designation allows the EPA to clean up such sites and to compel responsible parties to perform cleanups or reimburse the government for cleanups led by the EPA. The EPA further determined that there was a need to perform a comprehensive study of the entire 17-miles of the lower Passaic River. PSE&G and certain of its predecessors conducted operations at properties in this area of the Passaic River. The properties included one operating electric generating station (Essex Site), which was transferred to Power, one former generating station and four former manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites. In early 2007, 73 Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs), including PSE&G and Power, formed a Cooperating Parties Group (CPG) and agreed to assume responsibility for conducting a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) of the 17 miles of the lower Passaic River. At such time, the CPG also agreed to allocate, on an interim basis, the associated costs of the RI/FS among its members on the basis of a mutually agreed upon formula. For the purpose of this interim allocation, which has been revised as parties have exited the CPG, approximately seven percent of the RI/FS costs are currently deemed attributable to PSE&G’s former MGP sites and approximately one percent is attributable to Power’s generating stations. These interim allocations are not binding on PSE&G or Power in terms of their respective shares of the costs that will be ultimately required to remediate the 17 miles of the lower Passaic River. PSEG has provided notice to insurers concerning this potential claim. In June 2008, the EPA and Tierra Solutions, Inc. (Tierra) and Maxus Energy Corporation (Maxus) entered into an early action agreement whereby Tierra/Maxus agreed to remove a portion of the heavily dioxin-contaminated sediment located in the lower Passaic River. The portion of the Passaic River identified in this agreement was located immediately adjacent to Tierra/Maxus’ predecessor company’s (Diamond Shamrock) facility. Pursuant to the agreement between the EPA and Tierra/Maxus, the estimated cost for the work to remove the sediment in this location was $80 million. Phase I of the removal work has been completed. Pursuant to this agreement, Tierra/Maxus have reserved their rights to seek contribution for these removal costs from the other PRPs, including Power and PSE&G. This agreement and the work undertaken pursuant to the action agreement will not affect the ultimate remedy that the EPA will select for the remediation of the 17-mile stretch of the lower Passaic River. In 2012, Tierra/Maxus withdrew from the CPG and refused to participate as members going forward, other than with respect to their obligation to fund the EPA’s portion of its RI/FS oversight costs. At such time, the remaining members of the CPG, in agreement with the EPA, commenced the removal of certain contaminated sediments at Passaic River Mile 10.9 at an estimated cost of $25 million to $30 million. PSEG’s share of the cost of that effort is approximately three percent. The remaining CPG members have reserved their rights to seek reimbursement from Tierra/Maxus for the costs of the River Mile 10.9 removal. On April 11, 2014, the EPA released its revised draft “Focused Feasibility Study” (FFS) which contemplates the removal of 4.3 million cubic yards of sediment from the bottom of the lower eight miles of the 17-mile stretch of the Passaic River. The revised draft FFS sets forth various alternatives for remediating this portion of the Passaic River. The EPA’s estimated costs to remediate the lower eight miles of the Passaic River range from $365 million for a targeted remedy to $3.3 billion for a deep dredge of this portion of the Passaic River. The EPA also identified in the revised draft FFS its preferred alternative, which would involve dredging the lower eight miles of the river bank-to-bank and installing an engineered cap. The estimated cost in the revised draft FFS for the EPA's preferred alternative is $1.7 billion on a discounted basis. No provisional cost allocation has been made by the CPG for the work contemplated by the revised draft FFS, and the work contemplated by the revised draft FFS is not subject to the CPG’s cost sharing allocation agreed to in connection with the removal work for River Mile 10.9 or in connection with the conduct of the RI/FS. The revised draft FFS was subject to a public comment period, and remains subject to the EPA’s response to comments submitted, a design phase and at least an estimated five years for completion of the work. The public comment period for the revised draft FFS closed on August 21, 2014. Over 300 comments were submitted by a variety of entities potentially impacted by the revised draft FFS, including the CPG, individual companies, municipalities, public officials, citizens groups, Amtrak, NJ Transit and others. The CPG, which consisted of 54 members as of December 31, 2015, provided a draft RI and draft FS, both relating to the entire 17 miles of the lower Passaic River, to the EPA on February 18, 2015 and April 30, 2015, respectively. The estimated total cost of the RI/FS is approximately $163 million, which the CPG continues to incur. Of the estimated $163 million, as of December 31, 2015, the CPG had spent approximately $147 million, of which PSEG's total share was approximately $10 million. The draft FS sets forth various alternatives for remediating the lower Passaic River. The draft FS sets forth the CPG’s estimated costs to remediate the lower 17 miles of the Passaic River which range from approximately $518 million to $3.2 billion. The CPG identified a targeted remedy in the draft FS which would involve removal, treatment and disposal of contaminated sediments taken from targeted locations within the entire 17 miles of the lower Passaic River. The estimated cost in the draft FS for the targeted remedy ranges from approximately $518 million to $772 million. No provisional cost allocation has been made by the CPG for the work contemplated by the draft FS. However, based on (i) the low end of the range of the current estimates of costs to remediate, (ii) PSE&G's and Power's estimates of their share of those costs, and (iii) the continued ability of PSE&G to recover such costs in its rates, PSE&G accrued a $10 million Environmental Costs Liability and a corresponding Regulatory Asset and Power accrued a $3 million Other Noncurrent Liability and a corresponding O&M Expense in the first quarter of 2015. The EPA will consider the comments received on its revised draft FFS and is expected to consider the CPG’s RI/FS prior to issuing a Record of Decision (ROD) of a selected remedy for the lower Passaic River. The EPA has broad authority to implement its selected remedy through the ROD and PSEG cannot at this time predict how the implementation of the ROD might impact PSE&G's and Power's ultimate liability. Until (i) the RI/FS is finalized, (ii) a final remedy is determined by the EPA or through litigation, (iii) PSE&G's and Power’s respective shares of the costs, both in the aggregate as well as individually, are determined, and (iv) PSE&G’s continued ability to recover the costs in its rates is determined, it is not possible to predict this matter’s ultimate impact on our financial statements. It is possible that PSE&G and Power will record additional costs beyond what they have accrued, and that such costs could be material, but PSEG cannot at the current time estimate the amount or range of any additional costs. Natural Resource Damage Claims In 2003, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) directed PSEG, PSE&G and 56 other PRPs to arrange for a natural resource damage assessment and interim compensatory restoration of natural resource injuries along the lower Passaic River and its tributaries pursuant to the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act. The NJDEP alleged that hazardous substances had been discharged from the Essex Site and the Harrison Site. The NJDEP estimated the cost of interim natural resource injury restoration activities along the lower Passaic River at approximately $950 million. In 2007, agencies of the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. Department of the Interior (the Passaic River federal trustees) sent letters to PSE&G and other PRPs inviting participation in an assessment of injuries to natural resources that the agencies intended to perform. In 2008, PSEG and a number of other PRPs agreed to share certain immaterial costs the trustees have incurred and will incur going forward, and to work with the trustees to explore whether some or all of the trustees’ claims can be resolved in a cooperative fashion. That effort is continuing. PSE&G and Power are unable to estimate their respective portions of the possible loss or range of loss related to this matter. Newark Bay Study Area The EPA has established the Newark Bay Study Area, which it defines as Newark Bay and portions of the Hackensack River, the Arthur Kill and the Kill Van Kull. In August 2006, the EPA sent PSEG and 11 other entities notices that it considered each of the entities to be a PRP with respect to contamination in the Study Area. The notice letter requested that the PRPs fund an EPA-approved study in the Newark Bay Study Area. The notice stated the EPA’s belief that hazardous substances were released from sites owned by PSEG companies and located on the Hackensack River, including two operating electric generating stations (Hudson and Kearny sites) and one former MGP site. PSEG has participated in and partially funded the second phase of this study. Notices to fund the next phase of the study have been received but PSEG has not consented to fund the third phase. PSE&G and Power are unable to estimate their respective portions of the possible loss or range of loss related to this matter. MGP Remediation Program PSE&G is working with the NJDEP to assess, investigate and remediate environmental conditions at its former MGP sites. To date, 38 sites requiring some level of remedial action have been identified. Based on its current studies, PSE&G has determined that the estimated cost to remediate all MGP sites to completion could range between $431 million and $499 million through 2021, including its $10 million share for the Passaic River as discussed above. Since no amount within the range is considered to be most likely, PSE&G has recorded a liability of $431 million as of December 31, 2015. Of this amount, $76 million was recorded in Other Current Liabilities and $355 million was reflected as Environmental Costs in Noncurrent Liabilities. PSE&G has recorded a $431 million Regulatory Asset with respect to these costs. PSE&G periodically updates its studies taking into account any new regulations or new information which could impact future remediation costs and adjusts its recorded liability accordingly. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)/New Source Review (NSR) The PSD/NSR regulations, promulgated under the Clean Air Act (CAA), require major sources of certain air pollutants to obtain permits, install pollution control technology and obtain offsets, in some circumstances, when those sources undergo a “major modification,” as defined in the regulations. The federal government may order companies that are not in compliance with the PSD/NSR regulations to install the best available control technology at the affected plants and to pay monetary penalties ranging from $25,000 to $37,500 per day for each violation, depending upon when the alleged violation occurred. In 2009, the EPA issued a notice of violation to Power and the other owners of the Keystone coal-fired plant in Pennsylvania, alleging, among other things, that various capital improvement projects were completed at the plant which are considered modifications (or major modifications) causing significant net emission increases of PSD/NSR air pollutants, beginning in 1985 for Keystone Unit 1 and in 1984 for Keystone Unit 2. The notice of violation states that none of these modifications underwent the PSD/NSR permitting process prior to being put into service, which the EPA alleges was required under the CAA. The notice of violation states that the EPA may issue an order requiring compliance with the relevant CAA provisions and may seek injunctive relief and/or civil penalties. Power owns approximately 23% of the plant. Power cannot predict the outcome of this matter. Clean Water Act Permit Renewals Pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits expire within five years of their effective date. In order to renew these permits, but allow a plant to continue to operate, an owner or operator must file a permit application no later than six months prior to expiration of the permit. States with delegated federal authority for this program manage these permits. The NJDEP manages the permits under the New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) program. Connecticut and New York also have permits to manage their respective pollutant discharge elimination system programs. In 2001, the NJDEP issued a renewed NJPDES permit for Salem, expiring in July 2006, allowing for the continued operation of Salem with its existing cooling water intake system. In February 2006, Power filed with the NJDEP a renewal application allowing Salem to continue operating under its existing NJPDES permit until a new permit is issued. On June 30, 2015, the NJDEP issued a draft permit for Salem. The draft permit does not require installation of cooling towers and allows Salem to continue to operate utilizing the existing once-through cooling water system with certain required system modifications. The draft permit was subject to a public notice and comment period. The NJDEP may make revisions before issuing the final permit expected during the first half of 2016. Power participated in the NJDEP’s August 5, 2015 public hearing and submitted comments on the draft permit on September 18, 2015. On May 19, 2014, the EPA issued a final rule that establishes new requirements for the regulation of cooling water intake structures at existing power plants and industrial facilities with a design flow of more than two million gallons of water per day. On August 15, 2014, the EPA established October 14, 2014 as the effective date for each state to implement the provisions of the rule going forward when considering the renewal of permits for existing facilities on a case by case basis. On September 5, 2014, several environmental non-governmental groups and certain energy industry groups filed motions to litigate the provisions of the rule. This case is pending at the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals. In two related actions on October 17, 2014 and November 20, 2014, several environmental non-governmental groups initiated challenges to the endangered species act provisions of the 316 (b) rule. Power is unable to determine the ultimate impact of these actions on the implementation of the rule. State permitting decisions could have a material impact on Power’s ability to renew permits at its larger once-through cooled plants, including Salem, Hudson, Mercer, Bridgeport and possibly Sewaren and New Haven, without making significant upgrades to existing intake structures and cooling systems. The costs of those upgrades to one or more of Power’s once-through cooled plants would be material, and would require economic review to determine whether to continue operations at these facilities, and could result in acceleration of decommissioning activities. For example, in Power’s application to renew its Salem permit, filed with the NJDEP in February 2006, the estimated costs for adding cooling towers for Salem were approximately $1 billion, of which Power’s share would have been approximately $575 million. The filing has not been updated. Currently, potential costs associated with any closed cycle cooling requirements are not included in Power’s forecasted capital expenditures. Power is unable to predict the outcome of these permitting decisions and the effect, if any, that they may have on Power's future capital requirements, financial condition or results of operations. Power is actively engaged with the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP) regarding renewal of the current permit for the cooling water intake structure at Bridgeport Harbor Station Unit 3 (BH3). To address compliance with the EPA’s Clean Water Act Section 316(b) final rule, the current proposal under consideration is that, if a final permit is issued, Power would continue to operate BH3 without making the capital expenditures for modification to the existing intake structure and retire the BH3 within five years of the effective date of the final permit. Based on current discussions with the CTDEEP, if the proposal is accepted, a final permit could be issued in the summer of 2016 indicating a potential retirement date for BH3 by summer 2021, which is four years earlier than the current estimated useful life ending in 2025. If the permit is not issued and the conditions below are not met, Power will seek to operate BH3 through the current estimated useful life. Separately, Power has also negotiated a Community Environmental Benefit Agreement (CEBA) with the City of Bridgeport, Connecticut. That CEBA provides that Power would retire BH3 early if all its precedent conditions occur, which include receipt of all final permits to build and operate a proposed new combined cycle generating facility on the same site that BH3 currently operates, which could occur in 2017. Absent those conditions being met, and the permit for the cooling water intake structure referred to above not being issued, Power will seek to operate BH3 through the current estimated useful life. If either the permit renewal is received, or all the conditions precedent in the CEBA occur, a triggering event will be deemed to have occurred and Power will test its New England generating fleet for impairment at that time. The New England generation fleet currently has a net book value of approximately $210 million. In February 2016, the proposed generating facility was awarded a capacity obligation. Construction is expected to commence in 2017, with operations expected to begin in mid-2019. Bridgeport Harbor National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Compliance In April 2015, Power determined that monitoring and reporting practices related to certain permitted wastewater discharges at its Bridgeport Harbor station may have violated conditions of the station's NPDES permit and applicable regulations and could subject it to fines and penalties. Power has notified the CTDEEP of the issues and has taken actions to investigate and resolve the potential non-compliance. Power cannot predict the impact of this matter. Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines On September 30, 2015, the EPA issued a new Effluent Guidelines Limitation Rule for steam electric generating units. The rule establishes new best available technology economically achievable (BAT) standards for fly ash transport water, bottom ash transport water, flue gas desulfurization and flue gas mercury control wastewater. The EPA provides an implementation period for currently existing discharges of three years or up to eight years if a facility needs more time to implement equipment upgrades and provide supporting information to its permitting authority. In the intervening time period, existing discharge standards continue to apply. Power's Mercer and Bridgeport Harbor stations and the jointly-owned Keystone and Conemaugh stations, have bottom ash transport water discharges that are regulated under this rule. Power is unable to predict if this rule will have a material impact on its future capital requirements, financial condition and results of operations. Coal Combustion Residuals (CCRs) On December 19, 2014, the EPA issued a final rule which regulates CCRs as non-hazardous and requires that facility owners implement a series of actions to close or upgrade existing CCR surface impoundments and/or landfills. It also establishes new provisions for the construction of new surface impoundments and landfills. Power's Hudson and Mercer generating stations, along with its co-owned Keystone and Conemaugh stations, are subject to the provisions of this rule. On April 17, 2015, the final rule was published with an effective date of October 19, 2015. Accordingly in June 2015, Power recorded an additional asset retirement obligation to comply with the final CCR rule which was not material to Power’s results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. Basic Generation Service (BGS) and Basic Gas Supply Service (BGSS) PSE&G obtains its electric supply requirements through the annual New Jersey BGS auctions for two categories of customers who choose not to purchase electric supply from third party suppliers. The first category, which represents about 80% of PSE&G's load requirement, are residential and smaller commercial and industrial customers (BGS-Residential Small Commercial Pricing (RSCP)). The second category are larger customers that exceed a BPU-established load (kW) threshold (BGS-Commercial and Industrial Pricing (CIEP)). Pursuant to applicable BPU rules, PSE&G enters into the Supplier Master Agreement with the winners of these BGS auctions following the BPU’s approval of the auction results. PSE&G has entered into contracts with winning BGS suppliers, including Power, to purchase BGS for PSE&G’s load requirements. The winners of the auction (including Power) are responsible for fulfilling all the requirements of a PJM Load Serving Entity including the provision of capacity, energy, ancillary services, transmission and any other services required by PJM. BGS suppliers assume all volume risk and customer migration risk and must satisfy New Jersey’s renewable portfolio standards. The BGS-CIEP auction is for a one-year supply period from June 1 to May 31 with the BGS-CIEP auction price measured in dollars per MW-day for capacity. The final price for the BGS-CIEP auction year commencing June 1, 2016 is $335.33 per MW-day, replacing the BGS-CIEP auction year price ending May 31, 2016 of $272.78 per MW-day. Energy for BGS-CIEP is priced at hourly PJM locational marginal prices for the contract period. PSE&G contracts for its anticipated BGS-RSCP load on a three-year rolling basis, whereby each year one-third of the load is procured for a three-year period. The contract prices in dollars per MWh for the BGS-RSCP supply, as well as the approximate load, are as follows:
|  | Auction Year |  |
|  | 2013 |  | 2014 |  | 2015 |  | 2016 |  |
| 36-Month Terms Ending | May 2016 |  |  | May 2017 |  |  | May 2018 |  |  | May 2019 |  | (A) |
| Load (MW) | 2,800 |  |  | 2,800 |  |  | 2,900 |  |  | 2,800 |  |  |
| $ per MWh | $92.18 |  | $97.39 |  | $99.54 |  | $96.38 |  |
(A) | Prices set in the 2016 BGS auction will become effective on June 1, 2016 when the 2013 BGS auction agreements expire.
Power seeks to mitigate volatility in its results by contracting in advance for the sale of most of its anticipated electric output as well as its anticipated fuel needs. As part of its objective, Power has entered into contracts to directly supply PSE&G and other New Jersey electric distribution companies (EDCs) with a portion of their respective BGS requirements through the New Jersey BGS auction process, described above. PSE&G has a full-requirements contract with Power to meet the gas supply requirements of PSE&G’s gas customers. Power has entered into hedges for a portion of these anticipated BGSS obligations, as permitted by the BPU. The BPU permits PSE&G to recover the cost of gas hedging up to 115 billion cubic feet or 80% of its residential gas supply annual requirements through the BGSS tariff. Current plans call for Power to hedge on behalf of PSE&G approximately 70 billion cubic feet or 50% of its residential gas supply annual requirements. For additional information, see Note 23. Related-Party Transactions. Minimum Fuel Purchase Requirements Power’s nuclear fuel strategy is to maintain certain levels of uranium and to make periodic purchases to support such levels. As such, the commitments referred to in the following table may include estimated quantities to be purchased that deviate from contractual nominal quantities. Power’s nuclear fuel commitments cover approximately 100% of its estimated uranium, enrichment and fabrication requirements through 2017 and a significant portion through 2020 at Salem, Hope Creek and Peach Bottom. Power has various long-term fuel purchase commitments for coal through 2018 to support its fossil generation stations. Power also has various multi-year contracts for natural gas and firm transportation and storage capacity for natural gas that are primarily used to meet its obligations to PSE&G. When there is excess delivery capacity available, Power can use the gas to supply its fossil generating stations. As of December 31, 2015, the total minimum purchase requirements included in these commitments were as follows:
| Fuel Type |  | Power's Share of Commitments through 2020 |
|  |  | Millions |
| Nuclear Fuel |  |  |
| Uranium |  | $ | 475 |  |
| Enrichment |  | $ | 394 |  |
| Fabrication |  | $ | 204 |  |
| Natural Gas |  | $ | 1,023 |  |
| Coal |  | $ | 300 |  |
Regulatory Proceedings FERC Compliance In the first quarter of 2014, Power discovered that it incorrectly calculated certain components of its cost-based bids for its New Jersey fossil generating units in the PJM energy market. Upon discovery of the errors, PSEG retained outside counsel to assist in the conduct of an investigation into the matter and self-reported the errors. As the internal investigation proceeded, additional pricing errors in the bids were identified. It was further determined that the quantity of energy that Power offered into the energy market for its fossil peaking units differed from the amount for which Power was compensated in the capacity market for those units. PSEG informed FERC, PJM and the PJM Independent Market Monitor (IMM) of these additional issues, corrected the identified errors, and modified the bid quantities for Power’s peaking units. Power continues to implement procedures to help mitigate the risk of similar issues occurring in the future. During the three month period ended March 31, 2014, based upon its best estimate available at the time, Power recorded a charge to income in the amount of $25 million related to this matter. No additional charges to income have been recorded for this matter since that time. In September 2014, FERC Staff initiated a preliminary, non-public staff investigation into the matter and issued data requests covering a period from 2002 through the date of the self-report. This investigation is ongoing. Since that time, Power has and is continuing to respond to data requests from FERC Staff, including recent data requests in which Power has recalculated certain of its energy bids in PJM for a five year period, and may receive additional data requests or other fact finding. The FERC Staff investigation is still in the fact finding stage and there is considerable uncertainty around FERC's response to PSEG's legal arguments and the amount of disgorgement or other remedies FERC may ultimately seek. PSEG is unable to reasonably estimate the range of possible loss for this matter; however, the amounts of potential disgorgement and other potential penalties that Power may incur span a wide range depending on the success of PSEG's legal arguments. These arguments include that Power’s energy market bids in a substantial majority of the hours were below the allowed rate under the Tariff and therefore any errors in those hours were immaterial and that it is unclear whether the quantity of the bids violated any legal requirement. If PSEG's legal arguments do not prevail in whole or in part with FERC or in a judicial challenge that PSEG may choose to pursue, it is likely that Power would record additional losses and that such additional losses would be material to PSEG’s and Power’s Consolidated Statements of Operations in the quarterly and annual periods in which they are recorded. New Jersey Clean Energy Program In June 2015, the BPU established the funding level for fiscal year 2016 applicable to its Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency programs. The fiscal year 2016 aggregate funding for all EDCs is $345 million with PSE&G’s share of the funding at $200 million. PSE&G has a remaining current liability of $142 million as of December 31, 2015 for its outstanding share of the fiscal year 2016 and remaining fiscal year 2015 funding, respectively. The liability is reduced as normal payments are made. The liability has been recorded with an offsetting Regulatory Asset, since the costs associated with this program are recovered from PSE&G ratepayers through the SBC. Superstorm Sandy In late October 2012, Superstorm Sandy caused severe damage to PSE&G's T&D system throughout its service territory as well as to some of Power's generation infrastructure in the northern part of New Jersey. Strong winds and the resulting storm surge caused damage to switching stations, substations and generating infrastructure. PSEG maintains insurance coverage against loss or damage to plants and certain properties, subject to certain exceptions and limitations, to the extent such property is usually insured and insurance is available at a reasonable cost. In June 2013, PSEG, PSE&G and Power filed suit in New Jersey state court (NJ Court) against its insurance carriers seeking an interpretation that the insurance policies cover their losses resulting from damage caused by Superstorm Sandy's storm surge. As of December 31, 2012, PSE&G had incurred approximately $295 million of costs to restore service to PSE&G's distribution and transmission systems and $5 million to repair its infrastructure and return it to pre-storm conditions. Of the costs incurred, approximately $40 million was recognized in O&M Expense, $75 million was recorded as Property, Plant and Equipment and $180 million was recorded as a Regulatory Asset because such costs were deferred as approved by the BPU under an Order received in December 2012. Of the $295 million, $36 million related to insured property. PSE&G recognized $6 million of insurance proceeds. There were no significant additional costs incurred since 2012. PSE&G made a filing with the BPU to review the prudency of unreimbursed incremental storm restoration costs, including O&M and capital expenditures associated with Superstorm Sandy and certain other extreme weather events, for recovery in its next base rate case or sooner through a BPU-approved cost recovery mechanism. In September 2014, the BPU approved its filing. Power had incurred $193 million of storm-related costs from 2012 through 2014, primarily for repairs at certain generating stations in Power's fossil fleet. These costs were recognized primarily in O&M Expense, offset by $44 million of insurance recoveries in 2013 and 2012. Power incurred an additional $2 million of O&M costs in 2015 which were recognized primarily in O&M Expense. In the first half of 2015, PSEG reached settlements with its insurers with respect to claims for coverage of its Superstorm Sandy-related losses. PSEG received an additional $214 million under these settlements (consisting of $159 million and $55 million recognized in the three months ended March 31, 2015 and June 30, 2015, respectively), bringing cumulative insurance proceeds to $264 million. Of the $214 million recognized in 2015, PSE&G and Power recorded $35 million and $179 million, respectively. In addition to the $35 million recognized in 2015, PSE&G recognized the aforementioned $6 million of previously deferred insurance recoveries, resulting in reductions in Regulatory Assets of $20 million, O&M Expense of $10 million and Property, Plant and Equipment of $11 million. Power recorded reductions in both O&M Expense of $145 million and Property, Plant and Equipment of $6 million and an increase in Other Income of $28 million. The claim filed by PSEG, PSE&G and Power related to Superstorm Sandy insurance coverage is now fully resolved. Nuclear Insurance Coverages and Assessments Power is a member of an industry mutual insurance company, Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited (NEIL), which provides the property, decontamination and decommissioning liability insurance at the Salem/Hope Creek and Peach Bottom sites. NEIL also provides replacement power coverage through its accidental outage policy. NEIL policies may make retrospective premium assessments in case of adverse loss experience. Power’s maximum potential liabilities under these assessments are included in the table and notes below. Certain provisions in the NEIL policies provide that the insurer may suspend coverage with respect to all nuclear units on a site without notice if the NRC suspends or revokes the operating license for any unit on that site, issues a shutdown order with respect to such unit or issues a confirmatory order keeping such unit down. Power is also a member of the joint underwriting association, American Nuclear Insurers (ANI), which provides nuclear liability insurance coverage at the Salem/Hope Creek and Peach Bottom sites. The ANI policies are designed to satisfy the financial protection requirements outlined in the Price-Anderson Act. The ANI and NEIL policies all include coverage for claims arising out of acts of terrorism, however, NEIL policies are subject to an industry aggregate limit of $3.2 billion plus such additional amounts as NEIL recovers for such losses from reinsurance, indemnity and any other source applicable to such losses. The Price-Anderson Act sets the “limit of liability” for claims that could arise from an incident involving any licensed nuclear facility in the United States. The “limit of liability” is based on the number of licensed nuclear reactors and is adjusted at least every five years based on the Consumer Price Index. The current “limit of liability” is $13.5 billion. All owners of nuclear reactors, including Power, have provided for this exposure through a combination of private insurance and mandatory participation in a financial protection pool as established by the Price-Anderson Act. Under the Price-Anderson Act, each licensee can be assessed $127 million per reactor per incident, payable at not more than $19 million per reactor per incident per year. If the damages exceed the “limit of liability,” the Congress could impose further revenue-raising measures on the nuclear industry to pay claims. Power’s maximum aggregate assessment per incident is $401 million (based on Power’s ownership interests in Hope Creek, Peach Bottom and Salem) and its maximum aggregate annual assessment per incident is $60 million. Further, a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, not involving Power, has held that the Price-Anderson Act did not preclude awards based on state law claims for punitive damages. Power’s insurance coverages and maximum retrospective assessments for its nuclear operations are as follows:
| Type and Source of Coverages |  | Total Site Coverage |  |  |  | Retrospective Assessments |
|  |  | Millions |
| Public and Nuclear Worker Liability (Primary Layer): |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| ANI |  | $ | 375 |  |  | (A) |  | $ | — |  |
| Nuclear Liability (Excess Layer): |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Price-Anderson Act |  | 13,113 |  |  | (B) |  | 401 |  |
| Nuclear Liability Total |  | $ | 13,488 |  |  | (C) |  | $ | 401 |  |
| Property Damage (Primary Layer): |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| NEIL Primary (Salem/Hope Creek and Peach Bottom) |  | $ | 1,500 |  |  |  |  | $ | 46 |  |
| Property Damage (Excess Layers) |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| NEIL Excess (Salem/Hope Creek and Peach Bottom) |  | 600 |  |  | (D) |  | 6 |  |
| Property Damage Total (Per Site) |  | $ | 2,100 |  |  |  |  | $ | 52 |  |
| Accidental Outage: |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| NEIL I (Peach Bottom) |  | $ | 245 |  |  | (E) |  | $ | 8 |  |
| NEIL I (Salem) |  | 281 |  |  | (E) |  | 9 |  |
| NEIL I (Hope Creek) |  | 490 |  |  | (E) |  | 7 |  |
| Replacement Power Total |  | $ | 1,016 |  |  |  |  | $ | 24 |  |
(A) | The primary limit for Public Liability is a per site aggregate limit with no potential for assessment. The Nuclear Worker Liability represents the potential liability from third party workers claiming exposure to the nuclear energy hazard. This coverage is subject to an industry aggregate limit that is subject to reinstatement at ANI discretion.
(B) | Retrospective premium program under the Price-Anderson Act liability provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Power is subject to retrospective assessment with respect to loss from an incident at any licensed nuclear reactor in the United States that produces greater than 100 MW of electrical power. This retrospective assessment can be adjusted for inflation every five years. The last adjustment was effective as of September 10, 2013. The next adjustment is due on or before September 10, 2018. This retrospective program is in excess of the Public and Nuclear Worker Liability primary layers.
(C) | Limit of liability under the Price-Anderson Act for each nuclear incident.
(D) | For nuclear event property limits in excess of $1.5 billion, Power participates in a $600 million nuclear event Blanket Limit Policy. The blanket limit policy is shared with Exelon Generation and covers the following facilities: Braidwood, Byron, Clinton, Dresden, La Salle, Limerick, Oyster Creek, Quad Cities, TMI-1 Peach Bottom, Salem and Hope Creek. This limit is not subject to reinstatement in the event of a loss. Participation in this program reduces Power’s premium and the associated potential assessment. In addition, for non-nuclear event limits in excess of $1.5 billion, Power maintains a $600 million limit shared by the Salem and Hope Creek facilities. Exelon maintains a $600 million non-nuclear event limit shared by Peach Bottom, Braidwood, Byron, Clinton, Dresden, LaSalle, Limerick, Oyster Creek, Quad Cities, and the TMI-1 facilities.
(E) | Peach Bottom 2 and 3 have an aggregate indemnity limit based on a weekly indemnity of $2.3 million for 52 weeks followed by 80% of the weekly indemnity for 68 weeks. Salem 1 and 2 have an aggregate indemnity limit based on a weekly indemnity of $2.5 million for 52 weeks followed by 80% of the weekly indemnity for 76 weeks. Hope Creek has an aggregate indemnity limit based on a weekly indemnity of $4.5 million for 52 weeks followed by 80% of the weekly indemnity for 71 weeks.
Minimum Lease Payments The total future minimum payments under various operating leases as of December 31, 2015 are:
|  |  | PSE&G |  | Power |  | Services |  | Other |  | Total |
|  |  | Millions |  |  |
| 2016 |  | $ | 12 |  |  | $ | 2 |  |  | $ | 13 |  |  | $ | 2 |  |  | $ | 29 |  |
| 2017 |  | 9 |  |  | 2 |  |  | 13 |  |  | 1 |  |  | 25 |  |
| 2018 |  | 8 |  |  | 2 |  |  | 13 |  |  | 1 |  |  | 24 |  |
| 2019 |  | 7 |  |  | 2 |  |  | 13 |  |  | — |  |  | 22 |  |
| 2020 |  | 6 |  |  | 3 |  |  | 13 |  |  | — |  |  | 22 |  |
| Thereafter |  | 66 |  |  | 33 |  |  | 146 |  |  | — |  |  | 245 |  |
| Total Minimum Lease Payments |  | $ | 108 |  |  | $ | 44 |  |  | $ | 211 |  |  | $ | 4 |  |  | $ | 367 |  |
Power [Member] |
Other Commitments [Line Items] |
Commitments and Contingent Liabilities | Commitments and Contingent Liabilities Guaranteed Obligations Power’s activities primarily involve the purchase and sale of energy and related products under transportation, physical, financial and forward contracts at fixed and variable prices. These transactions are with numerous counterparties and brokers that may require cash, cash-related instruments or guarantees. Power has unconditionally guaranteed payments to counterparties by its subsidiaries in commodity-related transactions in order to
• | support current exposure, interest and other costs on sums due and payable in the ordinary course of business, and
• | obtain credit.
Under these agreements, guarantees cover lines of credit between entities and are often reciprocal in nature. The exposure between counterparties can move in either direction. In order for Power to incur a liability for the face value of the outstanding guarantees, its subsidiaries would have to
• | fully utilize the credit granted to them by every counterparty to whom Power has provided a guarantee, and
• | all of the related contracts would have to be “out-of-the-money” (if the contracts are terminated, Power would owe money to the counterparties).
Power believes the probability of this result is unlikely. For this reason, Power believes that the current exposure at any point in time is a more meaningful representation of the potential liability under these guarantees. This current exposure consists of the net of accounts receivable and accounts payable and the forward value on open positions, less any collateral posted. Power is subject to
• | counterparty collateral calls related to commodity contracts, and
• | certain creditworthiness standards as guarantor under performance guarantees of its subsidiaries.
Changes in commodity prices can have a material impact on collateral requirements under such contracts, which are posted and received primarily in the form of cash and letters of credit. Power also routinely enters into futures and options transactions for electricity and natural gas as part of its operations. These futures contracts usually require a cash margin deposit with brokers, which can change based on market movement and in accordance with exchange rules. In addition to the guarantees discussed above, Power has also provided payment guarantees to third parties on behalf of its affiliated companies. These guarantees support various other non-commodity related contractual obligations. The face value of outstanding guarantees, current exposure and margin positions as of December 31, 2015 and 2014 are shown below:
|  |  | As of December 31, 2015 |  | As of December 31, 2014 |
|  |  | Millions |
| Face Value of Outstanding Guarantees |  | $ | 1,734 |  |  | $ | 1,814 |  |
| Exposure under Current Guarantees |  | $ | 172 |  |  | $ | 273 |  |
| Letters of Credit Margin Posted |  | $ | 122 |  |  | $ | 159 |  |
| Letters of Credit Margin Received |  | $ | 192 |  |  | $ | 40 |  |
| Cash Deposited and Received |  |  |  |  |
| Counterparty Cash Margin Deposited |  | $ | — |  |  | $ | — |  |
| Counterparty Cash Margin Received |  | $ | (15 | ) |  | $ | (13 | ) |
| Net Broker Balance Deposited (Received) |  | $ | (5 | ) |  | $ | 115 |  |
| In the Event Power were to Lose its Investment Grade Rating |  |  |  |  |
| Additional Collateral that could be Required |  | $ | 864 |  |  | $ | 945 |  |
| Liquidity Available under PSEG’s and Power’s Credit Facilities to Post Collateral |  | $ | 3,215 |  |  | $ | 3,495 |  |
| Additional Amounts Posted |  |  |  |  |
| Other Letters of Credit |  | $ | 51 |  |  | $ | 45 |  |
As part of determining credit exposure, Power nets receivables and payables with the corresponding net energy contract balances. See Note 15. Financial Risk Management Activities for further discussion. In accordance with PSEG's accounting policy, where it is applicable, cash (received)/deposited is allocated against derivative asset and liability positions with the same counterparty on the face of the Balance Sheet. The remaining balances of net cash (received)/deposited after allocation are generally included in Accounts Payable and Receivable, respectively. In the event of a deterioration of Power’s credit rating to below investment grade, which would represent a three level downgrade from its current S&P and Moody’s ratings, many of these agreements allow the counterparty to demand further performance assurance. See table above. In addition to amounts for outstanding guarantees, current exposure and margin positions, PSEG and Power have posted letters of credit to support Power's various other non-energy contractual and environmental obligations. See preceding table. PSEG also issued a $106 million guarantee to support Power's payment obligations related to its equity interest in the PennEast natural gas pipeline and a $21 million guarantee to support Power's payment obligations related to construction of a 755 MW gas-fired combined cycle generating station in Maryland. In the event that PSEG were to be downgraded to below investment grade and failed to meet minimum net worth requirements, these guarantees would each have to be replaced by a letter of credit. Environmental Matters Passaic River Historic operations of PSEG companies and the operations of hundreds of other companies along the Passaic and Hackensack Rivers are alleged by Federal and State agencies to have discharged substantial contamination into the Passaic River/Newark Bay Complex in violation of various statutes as discussed as follows. Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) In 2002, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined that a 17-mile stretch of the lower Passaic River from Newark to Clifton, New Jersey is a “Superfund” site under CERCLA. This designation allows the EPA to clean up such sites and to compel responsible parties to perform cleanups or reimburse the government for cleanups led by the EPA. The EPA further determined that there was a need to perform a comprehensive study of the entire 17-miles of the lower Passaic River. PSE&G and certain of its predecessors conducted operations at properties in this area of the Passaic River. The properties included one operating electric generating station (Essex Site), which was transferred to Power, one former generating station and four former manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites. In early 2007, 73 Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs), including PSE&G and Power, formed a Cooperating Parties Group (CPG) and agreed to assume responsibility for conducting a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) of the 17 miles of the lower Passaic River. At such time, the CPG also agreed to allocate, on an interim basis, the associated costs of the RI/FS among its members on the basis of a mutually agreed upon formula. For the purpose of this interim allocation, which has been revised as parties have exited the CPG, approximately seven percent of the RI/FS costs are currently deemed attributable to PSE&G’s former MGP sites and approximately one percent is attributable to Power’s generating stations. These interim allocations are not binding on PSE&G or Power in terms of their respective shares of the costs that will be ultimately required to remediate the 17 miles of the lower Passaic River. PSEG has provided notice to insurers concerning this potential claim. In June 2008, the EPA and Tierra Solutions, Inc. (Tierra) and Maxus Energy Corporation (Maxus) entered into an early action agreement whereby Tierra/Maxus agreed to remove a portion of the heavily dioxin-contaminated sediment located in the lower Passaic River. The portion of the Passaic River identified in this agreement was located immediately adjacent to Tierra/Maxus’ predecessor company’s (Diamond Shamrock) facility. Pursuant to the agreement between the EPA and Tierra/Maxus, the estimated cost for the work to remove the sediment in this location was $80 million. Phase I of the removal work has been completed. Pursuant to this agreement, Tierra/Maxus have reserved their rights to seek contribution for these removal costs from the other PRPs, including Power and PSE&G. This agreement and the work undertaken pursuant to the action agreement will not affect the ultimate remedy that the EPA will select for the remediation of the 17-mile stretch of the lower Passaic River. In 2012, Tierra/Maxus withdrew from the CPG and refused to participate as members going forward, other than with respect to their obligation to fund the EPA’s portion of its RI/FS oversight costs. At such time, the remaining members of the CPG, in agreement with the EPA, commenced the removal of certain contaminated sediments at Passaic River Mile 10.9 at an estimated cost of $25 million to $30 million. PSEG’s share of the cost of that effort is approximately three percent. The remaining CPG members have reserved their rights to seek reimbursement from Tierra/Maxus for the costs of the River Mile 10.9 removal. On April 11, 2014, the EPA released its revised draft “Focused Feasibility Study” (FFS) which contemplates the removal of 4.3 million cubic yards of sediment from the bottom of the lower eight miles of the 17-mile stretch of the Passaic River. The revised draft FFS sets forth various alternatives for remediating this portion of the Passaic River. The EPA’s estimated costs to remediate the lower eight miles of the Passaic River range from $365 million for a targeted remedy to $3.3 billion for a deep dredge of this portion of the Passaic River. The EPA also identified in the revised draft FFS its preferred alternative, which would involve dredging the lower eight miles of the river bank-to-bank and installing an engineered cap. The estimated cost in the revised draft FFS for the EPA's preferred alternative is $1.7 billion on a discounted basis. No provisional cost allocation has been made by the CPG for the work contemplated by the revised draft FFS, and the work contemplated by the revised draft FFS is not subject to the CPG’s cost sharing allocation agreed to in connection with the removal work for River Mile 10.9 or in connection with the conduct of the RI/FS. The revised draft FFS was subject to a public comment period, and remains subject to the EPA’s response to comments submitted, a design phase and at least an estimated five years for completion of the work. The public comment period for the revised draft FFS closed on August 21, 2014. Over 300 comments were submitted by a variety of entities potentially impacted by the revised draft FFS, including the CPG, individual companies, municipalities, public officials, citizens groups, Amtrak, NJ Transit and others. The CPG, which consisted of 54 members as of December 31, 2015, provided a draft RI and draft FS, both relating to the entire 17 miles of the lower Passaic River, to the EPA on February 18, 2015 and April 30, 2015, respectively. The estimated total cost of the RI/FS is approximately $163 million, which the CPG continues to incur. Of the estimated $163 million, as of December 31, 2015, the CPG had spent approximately $147 million, of which PSEG's total share was approximately $10 million. The draft FS sets forth various alternatives for remediating the lower Passaic River. The draft FS sets forth the CPG’s estimated costs to remediate the lower 17 miles of the Passaic River which range from approximately $518 million to $3.2 billion. The CPG identified a targeted remedy in the draft FS which would involve removal, treatment and disposal of contaminated sediments taken from targeted locations within the entire 17 miles of the lower Passaic River. The estimated cost in the draft FS for the targeted remedy ranges from approximately $518 million to $772 million. No provisional cost allocation has been made by the CPG for the work contemplated by the draft FS. However, based on (i) the low end of the range of the current estimates of costs to remediate, (ii) PSE&G's and Power's estimates of their share of those costs, and (iii) the continued ability of PSE&G to recover such costs in its rates, PSE&G accrued a $10 million Environmental Costs Liability and a corresponding Regulatory Asset and Power accrued a $3 million Other Noncurrent Liability and a corresponding O&M Expense in the first quarter of 2015. The EPA will consider the comments received on its revised draft FFS and is expected to consider the CPG’s RI/FS prior to issuing a Record of Decision (ROD) of a selected remedy for the lower Passaic River. The EPA has broad authority to implement its selected remedy through the ROD and PSEG cannot at this time predict how the implementation of the ROD might impact PSE&G's and Power's ultimate liability. Until (i) the RI/FS is finalized, (ii) a final remedy is determined by the EPA or through litigation, (iii) PSE&G's and Power’s respective shares of the costs, both in the aggregate as well as individually, are determined, and (iv) PSE&G’s continued ability to recover the costs in its rates is determined, it is not possible to predict this matter’s ultimate impact on our financial statements. It is possible that PSE&G and Power will record additional costs beyond what they have accrued, and that such costs could be material, but PSEG cannot at the current time estimate the amount or range of any additional costs. Natural Resource Damage Claims In 2003, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) directed PSEG, PSE&G and 56 other PRPs to arrange for a natural resource damage assessment and interim compensatory restoration of natural resource injuries along the lower Passaic River and its tributaries pursuant to the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act. The NJDEP alleged that hazardous substances had been discharged from the Essex Site and the Harrison Site. The NJDEP estimated the cost of interim natural resource injury restoration activities along the lower Passaic River at approximately $950 million. In 2007, agencies of the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. Department of the Interior (the Passaic River federal trustees) sent letters to PSE&G and other PRPs inviting participation in an assessment of injuries to natural resources that the agencies intended to perform. In 2008, PSEG and a number of other PRPs agreed to share certain immaterial costs the trustees have incurred and will incur going forward, and to work with the trustees to explore whether some or all of the trustees’ claims can be resolved in a cooperative fashion. That effort is continuing. PSE&G and Power are unable to estimate their respective portions of the possible loss or range of loss related to this matter. Newark Bay Study Area The EPA has established the Newark Bay Study Area, which it defines as Newark Bay and portions of the Hackensack River, the Arthur Kill and the Kill Van Kull. In August 2006, the EPA sent PSEG and 11 other entities notices that it considered each of the entities to be a PRP with respect to contamination in the Study Area. The notice letter requested that the PRPs fund an EPA-approved study in the Newark Bay Study Area. The notice stated the EPA’s belief that hazardous substances were released from sites owned by PSEG companies and located on the Hackensack River, including two operating electric generating stations (Hudson and Kearny sites) and one former MGP site. PSEG has participated in and partially funded the second phase of this study. Notices to fund the next phase of the study have been received but PSEG has not consented to fund the third phase. PSE&G and Power are unable to estimate their respective portions of the possible loss or range of loss related to this matter. MGP Remediation Program PSE&G is working with the NJDEP to assess, investigate and remediate environmental conditions at its former MGP sites. To date, 38 sites requiring some level of remedial action have been identified. Based on its current studies, PSE&G has determined that the estimated cost to remediate all MGP sites to completion could range between $431 million and $499 million through 2021, including its $10 million share for the Passaic River as discussed above. Since no amount within the range is considered to be most likely, PSE&G has recorded a liability of $431 million as of December 31, 2015. Of this amount, $76 million was recorded in Other Current Liabilities and $355 million was reflected as Environmental Costs in Noncurrent Liabilities. PSE&G has recorded a $431 million Regulatory Asset with respect to these costs. PSE&G periodically updates its studies taking into account any new regulations or new information which could impact future remediation costs and adjusts its recorded liability accordingly. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)/New Source Review (NSR) The PSD/NSR regulations, promulgated under the Clean Air Act (CAA), require major sources of certain air pollutants to obtain permits, install pollution control technology and obtain offsets, in some circumstances, when those sources undergo a “major modification,” as defined in the regulations. The federal government may order companies that are not in compliance with the PSD/NSR regulations to install the best available control technology at the affected plants and to pay monetary penalties ranging from $25,000 to $37,500 per day for each violation, depending upon when the alleged violation occurred. In 2009, the EPA issued a notice of violation to Power and the other owners of the Keystone coal-fired plant in Pennsylvania, alleging, among other things, that various capital improvement projects were completed at the plant which are considered modifications (or major modifications) causing significant net emission increases of PSD/NSR air pollutants, beginning in 1985 for Keystone Unit 1 and in 1984 for Keystone Unit 2. The notice of violation states that none of these modifications underwent the PSD/NSR permitting process prior to being put into service, which the EPA alleges was required under the CAA. The notice of violation states that the EPA may issue an order requiring compliance with the relevant CAA provisions and may seek injunctive relief and/or civil penalties. Power owns approximately 23% of the plant. Power cannot predict the outcome of this matter. Clean Water Act Permit Renewals Pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits expire within five years of their effective date. In order to renew these permits, but allow a plant to continue to operate, an owner or operator must file a permit application no later than six months prior to expiration of the permit. States with delegated federal authority for this program manage these permits. The NJDEP manages the permits under the New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) program. Connecticut and New York also have permits to manage their respective pollutant discharge elimination system programs. In 2001, the NJDEP issued a renewed NJPDES permit for Salem, expiring in July 2006, allowing for the continued operation of Salem with its existing cooling water intake system. In February 2006, Power filed with the NJDEP a renewal application allowing Salem to continue operating under its existing NJPDES permit until a new permit is issued. On June 30, 2015, the NJDEP issued a draft permit for Salem. The draft permit does not require installation of cooling towers and allows Salem to continue to operate utilizing the existing once-through cooling water system with certain required system modifications. The draft permit was subject to a public notice and comment period. The NJDEP may make revisions before issuing the final permit expected during the first half of 2016. Power participated in the NJDEP’s August 5, 2015 public hearing and submitted comments on the draft permit on September 18, 2015. On May 19, 2014, the EPA issued a final rule that establishes new requirements for the regulation of cooling water intake structures at existing power plants and industrial facilities with a design flow of more than two million gallons of water per day. On August 15, 2014, the EPA established October 14, 2014 as the effective date for each state to implement the provisions of the rule going forward when considering the renewal of permits for existing facilities on a case by case basis. On September 5, 2014, several environmental non-governmental groups and certain energy industry groups filed motions to litigate the provisions of the rule. This case is pending at the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals. In two related actions on October 17, 2014 and November 20, 2014, several environmental non-governmental groups initiated challenges to the endangered species act provisions of the 316 (b) rule. Power is unable to determine the ultimate impact of these actions on the implementation of the rule. State permitting decisions could have a material impact on Power’s ability to renew permits at its larger once-through cooled plants, including Salem, Hudson, Mercer, Bridgeport and possibly Sewaren and New Haven, without making significant upgrades to existing intake structures and cooling systems. The costs of those upgrades to one or more of Power’s once-through cooled plants would be material, and would require economic review to determine whether to continue operations at these facilities, and could result in acceleration of decommissioning activities. For example, in Power’s application to renew its Salem permit, filed with the NJDEP in February 2006, the estimated costs for adding cooling towers for Salem were approximately $1 billion, of which Power’s share would have been approximately $575 million. The filing has not been updated. Currently, potential costs associated with any closed cycle cooling requirements are not included in Power’s forecasted capital expenditures. Power is unable to predict the outcome of these permitting decisions and the effect, if any, that they may have on Power's future capital requirements, financial condition or results of operations. Power is actively engaged with the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP) regarding renewal of the current permit for the cooling water intake structure at Bridgeport Harbor Station Unit 3 (BH3). To address compliance with the EPA’s Clean Water Act Section 316(b) final rule, the current proposal under consideration is that, if a final permit is issued, Power would continue to operate BH3 without making the capital expenditures for modification to the existing intake structure and retire the BH3 within five years of the effective date of the final permit. Based on current discussions with the CTDEEP, if the proposal is accepted, a final permit could be issued in the summer of 2016 indicating a potential retirement date for BH3 by summer 2021, which is four years earlier than the current estimated useful life ending in 2025. If the permit is not issued and the conditions below are not met, Power will seek to operate BH3 through the current estimated useful life. Separately, Power has also negotiated a Community Environmental Benefit Agreement (CEBA) with the City of Bridgeport, Connecticut. That CEBA provides that Power would retire BH3 early if all its precedent conditions occur, which include receipt of all final permits to build and operate a proposed new combined cycle generating facility on the same site that BH3 currently operates, which could occur in 2017. Absent those conditions being met, and the permit for the cooling water intake structure referred to above not being issued, Power will seek to operate BH3 through the current estimated useful life. If either the permit renewal is received, or all the conditions precedent in the CEBA occur, a triggering event will be deemed to have occurred and Power will test its New England generating fleet for impairment at that time. The New England generation fleet currently has a net book value of approximately $210 million. In February 2016, the proposed generating facility was awarded a capacity obligation. Construction is expected to commence in 2017, with operations expected to begin in mid-2019. Bridgeport Harbor National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Compliance In April 2015, Power determined that monitoring and reporting practices related to certain permitted wastewater discharges at its Bridgeport Harbor station may have violated conditions of the station's NPDES permit and applicable regulations and could subject it to fines and penalties. Power has notified the CTDEEP of the issues and has taken actions to investigate and resolve the potential non-compliance. Power cannot predict the impact of this matter. Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines On September 30, 2015, the EPA issued a new Effluent Guidelines Limitation Rule for steam electric generating units. The rule establishes new best available technology economically achievable (BAT) standards for fly ash transport water, bottom ash transport water, flue gas desulfurization and flue gas mercury control wastewater. The EPA provides an implementation period for currently existing discharges of three years or up to eight years if a facility needs more time to implement equipment upgrades and provide supporting information to its permitting authority. In the intervening time period, existing discharge standards continue to apply. Power's Mercer and Bridgeport Harbor stations and the jointly-owned Keystone and Conemaugh stations, have bottom ash transport water discharges that are regulated under this rule. Power is unable to predict if this rule will have a material impact on its future capital requirements, financial condition and results of operations. Coal Combustion Residuals (CCRs) On December 19, 2014, the EPA issued a final rule which regulates CCRs as non-hazardous and requires that facility owners implement a series of actions to close or upgrade existing CCR surface impoundments and/or landfills. It also establishes new provisions for the construction of new surface impoundments and landfills. Power's Hudson and Mercer generating stations, along with its co-owned Keystone and Conemaugh stations, are subject to the provisions of this rule. On April 17, 2015, the final rule was published with an effective date of October 19, 2015. Accordingly in June 2015, Power recorded an additional asset retirement obligation to comply with the final CCR rule which was not material to Power’s results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. Basic Generation Service (BGS) and Basic Gas Supply Service (BGSS) PSE&G obtains its electric supply requirements through the annual New Jersey BGS auctions for two categories of customers who choose not to purchase electric supply from third party suppliers. The first category, which represents about 80% of PSE&G's load requirement, are residential and smaller commercial and industrial customers (BGS-Residential Small Commercial Pricing (RSCP)). The second category are larger customers that exceed a BPU-established load (kW) threshold (BGS-Commercial and Industrial Pricing (CIEP)). Pursuant to applicable BPU rules, PSE&G enters into the Supplier Master Agreement with the winners of these BGS auctions following the BPU’s approval of the auction results. PSE&G has entered into contracts with winning BGS suppliers, including Power, to purchase BGS for PSE&G’s load requirements. The winners of the auction (including Power) are responsible for fulfilling all the requirements of a PJM Load Serving Entity including the provision of capacity, energy, ancillary services, transmission and any other services required by PJM. BGS suppliers assume all volume risk and customer migration risk and must satisfy New Jersey’s renewable portfolio standards. The BGS-CIEP auction is for a one-year supply period from June 1 to May 31 with the BGS-CIEP auction price measured in dollars per MW-day for capacity. The final price for the BGS-CIEP auction year commencing June 1, 2016 is $335.33 per MW-day, replacing the BGS-CIEP auction year price ending May 31, 2016 of $272.78 per MW-day. Energy for BGS-CIEP is priced at hourly PJM locational marginal prices for the contract period. PSE&G contracts for its anticipated BGS-RSCP load on a three-year rolling basis, whereby each year one-third of the load is procured for a three-year period. The contract prices in dollars per MWh for the BGS-RSCP supply, as well as the approximate load, are as follows:
|  | Auction Year |  |
|  | 2013 |  | 2014 |  | 2015 |  | 2016 |  |
| 36-Month Terms Ending | May 2016 |  |  | May 2017 |  |  | May 2018 |  |  | May 2019 |  | (A) |
| Load (MW) | 2,800 |  |  | 2,800 |  |  | 2,900 |  |  | 2,800 |  |  |
| $ per MWh | $92.18 |  | $97.39 |  | $99.54 |  | $96.38 |  |
(A) | Prices set in the 2016 BGS auction will become effective on June 1, 2016 when the 2013 BGS auction agreements expire.
Power seeks to mitigate volatility in its results by contracting in advance for the sale of most of its anticipated electric output as well as its anticipated fuel needs. As part of its objective, Power has entered into contracts to directly supply PSE&G and other New Jersey electric distribution companies (EDCs) with a portion of their respective BGS requirements through the New Jersey BGS auction process, described above. PSE&G has a full-requirements contract with Power to meet the gas supply requirements of PSE&G’s gas customers. Power has entered into hedges for a portion of these anticipated BGSS obligations, as permitted by the BPU. The BPU permits PSE&G to recover the cost of gas hedging up to 115 billion cubic feet or 80% of its residential gas supply annual requirements through the BGSS tariff. Current plans call for Power to hedge on behalf of PSE&G approximately 70 billion cubic feet or 50% of its residential gas supply annual requirements. For additional information, see Note 23. Related-Party Transactions. Minimum Fuel Purchase Requirements Power’s nuclear fuel strategy is to maintain certain levels of uranium and to make periodic purchases to support such levels. As such, the commitments referred to in the following table may include estimated quantities to be purchased that deviate from contractual nominal quantities. Power’s nuclear fuel commitments cover approximately 100% of its estimated uranium, enrichment and fabrication requirements through 2017 and a significant portion through 2020 at Salem, Hope Creek and Peach Bottom. Power has various long-term fuel purchase commitments for coal through 2018 to support its fossil generation stations. Power also has various multi-year contracts for natural gas and firm transportation and storage capacity for natural gas that are primarily used to meet its obligations to PSE&G. When there is excess delivery capacity available, Power can use the gas to supply its fossil generating stations. As of December 31, 2015, the total minimum purchase requirements included in these commitments were as follows:
| Fuel Type |  | Power's Share of Commitments through 2020 |
|  |  | Millions |
| Nuclear Fuel |  |  |
| Uranium |  | $ | 475 |  |
| Enrichment |  | $ | 394 |  |
| Fabrication |  | $ | 204 |  |
| Natural Gas |  | $ | 1,023 |  |
| Coal |  | $ | 300 |  |
Regulatory Proceedings FERC Compliance In the first quarter of 2014, Power discovered that it incorrectly calculated certain components of its cost-based bids for its New Jersey fossil generating units in the PJM energy market. Upon discovery of the errors, PSEG retained outside counsel to assist in the conduct of an investigation into the matter and self-reported the errors. As the internal investigation proceeded, additional pricing errors in the bids were identified. It was further determined that the quantity of energy that Power offered into the energy market for its fossil peaking units differed from the amount for which Power was compensated in the capacity market for those units. PSEG informed FERC, PJM and the PJM Independent Market Monitor (IMM) of these additional issues, corrected the identified errors, and modified the bid quantities for Power’s peaking units. Power continues to implement procedures to help mitigate the risk of similar issues occurring in the future. During the three month period ended March 31, 2014, based upon its best estimate available at the time, Power recorded a charge to income in the amount of $25 million related to this matter. No additional charges to income have been recorded for this matter since that time. In September 2014, FERC Staff initiated a preliminary, non-public staff investigation into the matter and issued data requests covering a period from 2002 through the date of the self-report. This investigation is ongoing. Since that time, Power has and is continuing to respond to data requests from FERC Staff, including recent data requests in which Power has recalculated certain of its energy bids in PJM for a five year period, and may receive additional data requests or other fact finding. The FERC Staff investigation is still in the fact finding stage and there is considerable uncertainty around FERC's response to PSEG's legal arguments and the amount of disgorgement or other remedies FERC may ultimately seek. PSEG is unable to reasonably estimate the range of possible loss for this matter; however, the amounts of potential disgorgement and other potential penalties that Power may incur span a wide range depending on the success of PSEG's legal arguments. These arguments include that Power’s energy market bids in a substantial majority of the hours were below the allowed rate under the Tariff and therefore any errors in those hours were immaterial and that it is unclear whether the quantity of the bids violated any legal requirement. If PSEG's legal arguments do not prevail in whole or in part with FERC or in a judicial challenge that PSEG may choose to pursue, it is likely that Power would record additional losses and that such additional losses would be material to PSEG’s and Power’s Consolidated Statements of Operations in the quarterly and annual periods in which they are recorded. New Jersey Clean Energy Program In June 2015, the BPU established the funding level for fiscal year 2016 applicable to its Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency programs. The fiscal year 2016 aggregate funding for all EDCs is $345 million with PSE&G’s share of the funding at $200 million. PSE&G has a remaining current liability of $142 million as of December 31, 2015 for its outstanding share of the fiscal year 2016 and remaining fiscal year 2015 funding, respectively. The liability is reduced as normal payments are made. The liability has been recorded with an offsetting Regulatory Asset, since the costs associated with this program are recovered from PSE&G ratepayers through the SBC. Superstorm Sandy In late October 2012, Superstorm Sandy caused severe damage to PSE&G's T&D system throughout its service territory as well as to some of Power's generation infrastructure in the northern part of New Jersey. Strong winds and the resulting storm surge caused damage to switching stations, substations and generating infrastructure. PSEG maintains insurance coverage against loss or damage to plants and certain properties, subject to certain exceptions and limitations, to the extent such property is usually insured and insurance is available at a reasonable cost. In June 2013, PSEG, PSE&G and Power filed suit in New Jersey state court (NJ Court) against its insurance carriers seeking an interpretation that the insurance policies cover their losses resulting from damage caused by Superstorm Sandy's storm surge. As of December 31, 2012, PSE&G had incurred approximately $295 million of costs to restore service to PSE&G's distribution and transmission systems and $5 million to repair its infrastructure and return it to pre-storm conditions. Of the costs incurred, approximately $40 million was recognized in O&M Expense, $75 million was recorded as Property, Plant and Equipment and $180 million was recorded as a Regulatory Asset because such costs were deferred as approved by the BPU under an Order received in December 2012. Of the $295 million, $36 million related to insured property. PSE&G recognized $6 million of insurance proceeds. There were no significant additional costs incurred since 2012. PSE&G made a filing with the BPU to review the prudency of unreimbursed incremental storm restoration costs, including O&M and capital expenditures associated with Superstorm Sandy and certain other extreme weather events, for recovery in its next base rate case or sooner through a BPU-approved cost recovery mechanism. In September 2014, the BPU approved its filing. Power had incurred $193 million of storm-related costs from 2012 through 2014, primarily for repairs at certain generating stations in Power's fossil fleet. These costs were recognized primarily in O&M Expense, offset by $44 million of insurance recoveries in 2013 and 2012. Power incurred an additional $2 million of O&M costs in 2015 which were recognized primarily in O&M Expense. In the first half of 2015, PSEG reached settlements with its insurers with respect to claims for coverage of its Superstorm Sandy-related losses. PSEG received an additional $214 million under these settlements (consisting of $159 million and $55 million recognized in the three months ended March 31, 2015 and June 30, 2015, respectively), bringing cumulative insurance proceeds to $264 million. Of the $214 million recognized in 2015, PSE&G and Power recorded $35 million and $179 million, respectively. In addition to the $35 million recognized in 2015, PSE&G recognized the aforementioned $6 million of previously deferred insurance recoveries, resulting in reductions in Regulatory Assets of $20 million, O&M Expense of $10 million and Property, Plant and Equipment of $11 million. Power recorded reductions in both O&M Expense of $145 million and Property, Plant and Equipment of $6 million and an increase in Other Income of $28 million. The claim filed by PSEG, PSE&G and Power related to Superstorm Sandy insurance coverage is now fully resolved. Nuclear Insurance Coverages and Assessments Power is a member of an industry mutual insurance company, Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited (NEIL), which provides the property, decontamination and decommissioning liability insurance at the Salem/Hope Creek and Peach Bottom sites. NEIL also provides replacement power coverage through its accidental outage policy. NEIL policies may make retrospective premium assessments in case of adverse loss experience. Power’s maximum potential liabilities under these assessments are included in the table and notes below. Certain provisions in the NEIL policies provide that the insurer may suspend coverage with respect to all nuclear units on a site without notice if the NRC suspends or revokes the operating license for any unit on that site, issues a shutdown order with respect to such unit or issues a confirmatory order keeping such unit down. Power is also a member of the joint underwriting association, American Nuclear Insurers (ANI), which provides nuclear liability insurance coverage at the Salem/Hope Creek and Peach Bottom sites. The ANI policies are designed to satisfy the financial protection requirements outlined in the Price-Anderson Act. The ANI and NEIL policies all include coverage for claims arising out of acts of terrorism, however, NEIL policies are subject to an industry aggregate limit of $3.2 billion plus such additional amounts as NEIL recovers for such losses from reinsurance, indemnity and any other source applicable to such losses. The Price-Anderson Act sets the “limit of liability” for claims that could arise from an incident involving any licensed nuclear facility in the United States. The “limit of liability” is based on the number of licensed nuclear reactors and is adjusted at least every five years based on the Consumer Price Index. The current “limit of liability” is $13.5 billion. All owners of nuclear reactors, including Power, have provided for this exposure through a combination of private insurance and mandatory participation in a financial protection pool as established by the Price-Anderson Act. Under the Price-Anderson Act, each licensee can be assessed $127 million per reactor per incident, payable at not more than $19 million per reactor per incident per year. If the damages exceed the “limit of liability,” the Congress could impose further revenue-raising measures on the nuclear industry to pay claims. Power’s maximum aggregate assessment per incident is $401 million (based on Power’s ownership interests in Hope Creek, Peach Bottom and Salem) and its maximum aggregate annual assessment per incident is $60 million. Further, a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, not involving Power, has held that the Price-Anderson Act did not preclude awards based on state law claims for punitive damages. Power’s insurance coverages and maximum retrospective assessments for its nuclear operations are as follows:
| Type and Source of Coverages |  | Total Site Coverage |  |  |  | Retrospective Assessments |
|  |  | Millions |
| Public and Nuclear Worker Liability (Primary Layer): |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| ANI |  | $ | 375 |  |  | (A) |  | $ | — |  |
| Nuclear Liability (Excess Layer): |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Price-Anderson Act |  | 13,113 |  |  | (B) |  | 401 |  |
| Nuclear Liability Total |  | $ | 13,488 |  |  | (C) |  | $ | 401 |  |
| Property Damage (Primary Layer): |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| NEIL Primary (Salem/Hope Creek and Peach Bottom) |  | $ | 1,500 |  |  |  |  | $ | 46 |  |
| Property Damage (Excess Layers) |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| NEIL Excess (Salem/Hope Creek and Peach Bottom) |  | 600 |  |  | (D) |  | 6 |  |
| Property Damage Total (Per Site) |  | $ | 2,100 |  |  |  |  | $ | 52 |  |
| Accidental Outage: |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| NEIL I (Peach Bottom) |  | $ | 245 |  |  | (E) |  | $ | 8 |  |
| NEIL I (Salem) |  | 281 |  |  | (E) |  | 9 |  |
| NEIL I (Hope Creek) |  | 490 |  |  | (E) |  | 7 |  |
| Replacement Power Total |  | $ | 1,016 |  |  |  |  | $ | 24 |  |
(A) | The primary limit for Public Liability is a per site aggregate limit with no potential for assessment. The Nuclear Worker Liability represents the potential liability from third party workers claiming exposure to the nuclear energy hazard. This coverage is subject to an industry aggregate limit that is subject to reinstatement at ANI discretion.
(B) | Retrospective premium program under the Price-Anderson Act liability provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Power is subject to retrospective assessment with respect to loss from an incident at any licensed nuclear reactor in the United States that produces greater than 100 MW of electrical power. This retrospective assessment can be adjusted for inflation every five years. The last adjustment was effective as of September 10, 2013. The next adjustment is due on or before September 10, 2018. This retrospective program is in excess of the Public and Nuclear Worker Liability primary layers.
(C) | Limit of liability under the Price-Anderson Act for each nuclear incident.
(D) | For nuclear event property limits in excess of $1.5 billion, Power participates in a $600 million nuclear event Blanket Limit Policy. The blanket limit policy is shared with Exelon Generation and covers the following facilities: Braidwood, Byron, Clinton, Dresden, La Salle, Limerick, Oyster Creek, Quad Cities, TMI-1 Peach Bottom, Salem and Hope Creek. This limit is not subject to reinstatement in the event of a loss. Participation in this program reduces Power’s premium and the associated potential assessment. In addition, for non-nuclear event limits in excess of $1.5 billion, Power maintains a $600 million limit shared by the Salem and Hope Creek facilities. Exelon maintains a $600 million non-nuclear event limit shared by Peach Bottom, Braidwood, Byron, Clinton, Dresden, LaSalle, Limerick, Oyster Creek, Quad Cities, and the TMI-1 facilities.
(E) | Peach Bottom 2 and 3 have an aggregate indemnity limit based on a weekly indemnity of $2.3 million for 52 weeks followed by 80% of the weekly indemnity for 68 weeks. Salem 1 and 2 have an aggregate indemnity limit based on a weekly indemnity of $2.5 million for 52 weeks followed by 80% of the weekly indemnity for 76 weeks. Hope Creek has an aggregate indemnity limit based on a weekly indemnity of $4.5 million for 52 weeks followed by 80% of the weekly indemnity for 71 weeks.
Minimum Lease Payments The total future minimum payments under various operating leases as of December 31, 2015 are:
|  |  | PSE&G |  | Power |  | Services |  | Other |  | Total |
|  |  | Millions |  |  |
| 2016 |  | $ | 12 |  |  | $ | 2 |  |  | $ | 13 |  |  | $ | 2 |  |  | $ | 29 |  |
| 2017 |  | 9 |  |  | 2 |  |  | 13 |  |  | 1 |  |  | 25 |  |
| 2018 |  | 8 |  |  | 2 |  |  | 13 |  |  | 1 |  |  | 24 |  |
| 2019 |  | 7 |  |  | 2 |  |  | 13 |  |  | — |  |  | 22 |  |
| 2020 |  | 6 |  |  | 3 |  |  | 13 |  |  | — |  |  | 22 |  |
| Thereafter |  | 66 |  |  | 33 |  |  | 146 |  |  | — |  |  | 245 |  |
| Total Minimum Lease Payments |  | $ | 108 |  |  | $ | 44 |  |  | $ | 211 |  |  | $ | 4 |  |  | $ | 367 |  |

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=51674963&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition Line items represent financial concepts included in a table. These concepts are used to disclose reportable information associated with domain members defined in one or many axes to the table. + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_OtherCommitmentsLineItems
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Details
Name: | dei_LegalEntityAxis=pseg_PseAndGMember
Namespace Prefix: |
Data Type: | na
Balance Type: |
Period Type: |

X
- Details
Name: | dei_LegalEntityAxis=pseg_PowerMember
Namespace Prefix: |
Data Type: | na
Balance Type: |
Period Type: |