XML 55 R22.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.6.0.2

Commitments and Contingent Liabilities | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2016
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 as a form of collateral. 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.
Power is subject to
• | counterparty collateral calls related to commodity contracts, and
• | certain creditworthiness standards as guarantor under performance guarantees of its subsidiaries.
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
• | the net position 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. Current exposure consists of the net of accounts receivable and accounts payable and the forward value on open positions, less any collateral posted. 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 following table shows the face value of Power’s outstanding guarantees, current exposure and margin positions as of December 31, 2016 and 2015.
|  |  | As of December 31, 2016 |  | As of December 31, 2015 |
|  |  | Millions |
| Face Value of Outstanding Guarantees |  | $ | 1,806 |  |  | $ | 1,734 |  |
| Exposure under Current Guarantees |  | $ | 139 |  |  | $ | 172 |  |
| Letters of Credit Margin Posted |  | $ | 157 |  |  | $ | 122 |  |
| Letters of Credit Margin Received |  | $ | 99 |  |  | $ | 192 |  |
| Cash Deposited and Received |  |  |  |  |
| Counterparty Cash Margin Deposited |  | $ | — |  |  | $ | — |  |
| Counterparty Cash Margin Received |  | $ | (1 | ) |  | $ | (15 | ) |
| Net Broker Balance Deposited (Received) |  | $ | 57 |  |  | $ | (5 | ) |
| Additional Amounts Posted |  |  |  |  |
| Other Letters of Credit |  | $ | 51 |  |  | $ | 51 |  |
As part of determining credit exposure, Power nets receivables and payables with the corresponding net energy contract balances. See Note 16. 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 addition to amounts for outstanding guarantees, current exposure and margin positions, PSEG and Power had 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 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. 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. Construction is complete. The CPG is awaiting EPA approval of the construction report, long-term monitoring plan and confirmatory sampling plan. PSE&G’s and Power’s combined share of the cost of that effort is approximately three percent. The remaining CPG members, PSE&G and Power included, 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 CPG, which consisted of 52 members as of December 31, 2016, 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 $190 million, which the CPG continues to incur. Of the estimated $190 million, as of December 31, 2016, the CPG had spent approximately $158 million, of which PSEG’s total share was approximately $11 million. The CPG’s draft FS set forth various alternatives for remediating the lower Passaic River. It set 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 on an undiscounted basis. 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 ranged from approximately $518 million to $772 million. Based on (i) the low end of the range of the current estimates of costs to remediate, (ii) PSE&G’s and Power’s estimated 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. In March 2016, the EPA released its Record of Decision (ROD) for the FFS which requires the removal of 3.5 million cubic yards of sediment from the Passaic River’s lower 8.3 miles at an estimated cost of $2.3 billion on an undiscounted basis (ROD Remedy). The ROD Remedy requires a bank-to-bank dredge ranging from approximately 5 to 30 feet deep in the federal navigation channel from River Mile 0 to River Mile 1.7 and an approximately 2.5 foot deep dredge everywhere else in the lower 8.3 miles of the river. An engineered cap approximately two feet thick will be placed over the dredged areas. Dredged sediments will be transported to facilities and landfills out-of-state. The EPA estimates the total project length to be about 11 years, including a one year period of negotiation with the PRPs, three to four years to design the project and six years for implementation. Based upon the estimated cost of the ROD Remedy, PSEG’s estimate of PSE&G’s and Power’s shares of that cost, and the continued ability of PSE&G to recover such costs in its rates, PSE&G accrued an additional $36 million Environmental Costs Liability and a corresponding Regulatory Asset and Power accrued an additional $8 million Other Noncurrent Liability and a corresponding O&M Expense in the first quarter of 2016. As of December 31, 2016, these accruals bring the total liability to approximately $57 million, $46 million applicable to PSE&G and $11 million applicable to Power. Also in March 2016, the EPA sent a notice letter to 105 PRPs, including PSE&G, all other past and present members of the CPG, including Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC), and the towns of Newark, Kearny and Harrison and the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission stating that the EPA wants to determine whether OCC, a successor company to Diamond Shamrock, would voluntarily perform the remedial design for the ROD Remedy. On September 30, 2016, OCC and the EPA executed an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent for Remedial Design under which OCC agreed to conduct the remedial design for the ROD. With OCC’s commitment to perform the remedial design, it is anticipated that the EPA will begin negotiation of a remedial action consent decree, under which OCC and the other “major PRPs” will implement and/or pay for the EPA’s ROD Remedy for the lower 8.3 miles. The EPA has not defined “major PRPs.” On June 16, 2016, Tierra and Maxus, successors to Diamond Shamrock, filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Although PSEG does not currently anticipate that the filing for bankruptcy by Tierra and Maxus will affect its allocable share or total liability for the Passaic River matter, PSEG, through the CPG and independently, will monitor the bankruptcy proceedings to identify any potential impact on PSEG’s share of the costs. 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, which covers the entire 17 miles of the lower Passaic River, is finalized either in whole or in part, (ii) an agreement by the PRPs to perform either the ROD Remedy as issued, or an amended ROD Remedy determined through negotiation or litigation, and an agreed upon remedy for the remaining 8.7 miles of the river, are reached, (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 PSEG’s 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 $403 million and $460 million through 2021, including its $46 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 $403 million as of December 31, 2016. Of this amount, $81 million was recorded in Other Current Liabilities and $322 million was reflected as Environmental Costs in Noncurrent Liabilities. PSE&G has recorded a $403 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. NJDEP, PSEG and EPA representatives have had discussions regarding whether sampling in the Passaic River is required to delineate coal tar from MGP sites that abut the Passaic River Superfund site. PSEG cannot determine at this time whether this will have an impact on the Passaic River Superfund remedy. 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 May 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. The EPA has structured the rule so that each state Permitting Director will continue to consider renewal permits for existing power facilities on a case by case basis. In connection with the assessment of the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impacts of each facility that seeks a permit renewal, the rule requires that facilities conduct a wide range of studies related to impingement mortality and entrainment and submit the results with their permit applications. In September 2014, several environmental non-governmental groups and certain energy industry groups filed petitions for review of the rule and the case has been assigned to the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals (Second Circuit). Environmental organizations, including but not limited to the environmental petitioners in the Second Circuit, have also filed suit under the Endangered Species Act. The cases were subsequently consolidated at the Second Circuit and a decision is expected by mid-2017. In June 2016, the NJDEP issued a final NJPDES permit for Salem with an effective date of August 1, 2016. The final permit does not require installation of cooling towers and allows Salem to continue to operate utilizing the existing once-through cooling water system. The final permit does not mandate specific service water system modifications, but consistent with Section 316 (b) of the Clean Water Act, it requires additional studies and the selection of technology to address impingement for the service water system. In July 2016, the Delaware Riverkeeper Network (Riverkeeper) filed a request challenging the NJDEP’s issuance of the final permit for Salem. The Riverkeeper’s filing does not change the effective date of the permit. If the Riverkeeper’s challenge were successful, Power may be required to incur additional costs to comply with the Clean Water Act. Such service water system modification costs could be material and could adversely impact the economic competitiveness of this facility. State permitting decisions at Bridgeport and possibly New Haven could also have a material impact on Power’s ability to renew permits at its existing larger once-through cooled plants without making significant upgrades to existing intake structures and cooling systems. 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 BH3 in 2021, which is four years earlier than the previously estimated useful life ending in 2025. Based on current discussions with the CTDEEP, if the proposal is accepted, a final permit could be issued in 2017. See Note 3. Early Plant Retirements. 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. The receipt of permits to allow construction and operation of the new facility 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 may seek to operate BH3 through the previously estimated useful life. In February 2016, the proposed new generating facility at Bridgeport Harbor was awarded a capacity obligation. The Connecticut Siting Council issued an order to approve siting BH5. All major environmental permits have been obtained except for the New Source air permit that is currently in draft form for public comment. Operations are 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. Jersey City, New Jersey Subsurface Feeder Cable Matter In early October 2016, a discharge of mineral oil dielectric fluid from subsurface feeder cables located in the Hudson River near Jersey City, New Jersey, was identified and reported to the NJDEP. The feeder cables are located within a subsurface easement granted to PSE&G by the property owners, Newport Associates Development Company (NADC) and Newport Associates Phase I Developer Limited Partnership. The feeder cables are subject to agreements between PSE&G and Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Edison) and are jointly owned by PSE&G and Con Edison, with PSE&G owning the portion of the cables located in New Jersey and Con Edison owning the portion of the cables located in New York. The NJDEP has declared an emergency and an emergency response action has been undertaken to investigate, contain, remediate and stop the fluid discharge; to assess, repair and restore the cables to good working order; and to restore the property. The regulatory agencies overseeing the emergency response, including the U.S. Coast Guard, the NJDEP and the Army Corps of Engineers, have issued multiple notices, orders and directives to the various parties related to this matter. The investigation and response actions related to the fluid discharge are ongoing. The investigation of the discharge and its potential cause is in the preliminary stages, making it difficult to determine the timing and potential costs to resolve this matter, as well as responsibility for such costs between PSE&G, Con Edison and NADC. Based on currently available information and the potential scope of the necessary repair and remediation work, the costs will likely be material. In addition, the timeline for completing the repairs has been extended due to the presence of debris within PSE&G’s easement. In November 2016, PSE&G filed an action in New Jersey Federal Court seeking an order requiring NADC to remove its debris from PSE&G’s easement so that PSE&G and Con Edison may comply with NJDEP and U.S. Coast Guard directives and complete the necessary repairs. NADC subsequently informed PSE&G that it would comply with the U.S. Coast Guard’s order and undertake debris removal activities so that PSE&G and Con Edison can complete the necessary repairs. NADC’s debris removal activities are ongoing. Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines In September 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 Bridgeport Harbor station 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 that 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, is residential and smaller commercial and industrial customers (BGS-Residential Small Commercial Pricing (RSCP)). The second category is larger customers that exceed a BPU-established load (kW) threshold (BGS-Commercial and Industrial Energy 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, 2017 is $276.83 per MW-day, replacing the BGS-CIEP auction year price ending May 31, 2017 of $335.33 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 |  |
|  | 2014 |  | 2015 |  | 2016 |  | 2017 |  |
| 36-Month Terms Ending | May 2017 |  |  | May 2018 |  |  | May 2019 |  |  | May 2020 |  | (A) |
| Load (MW) | 2,800 |  |  | 2,900 |  |  | 2,800 |  |  | 2,800 |  |  |
| $ per MWh | $97.39 |  | $99.54 |  | $96.38 |  | $90.78 |  |
(A) | Prices set in the 2017 BGS auction will become effective on June 1, 2017 when the 2014 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 24. 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 2018 and a significant portion through 2021 at Salem, Hope Creek and Peach Bottom. Power 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 beyond the needs of PSE&G’s customers, Power can use the gas to supply its fossil generating stations. Power also has various long-term fuel purchase commitments for coal through 2018 to support its fossil generation stations. As of December 31, 2016, the total minimum purchase requirements included in these commitments were as follows:
| Fuel Type |  | Power's Share of Commitments through 2021 |
|  |  | Millions |
| Nuclear Fuel |  |  |
| Uranium |  | $ | 301 |  |
| Enrichment |  | $ | 356 |  |
| Fabrication |  | $ | 192 |  |
| Natural Gas |  | $ | 1,029 |  |
| Coal |  | $ | 215 |  |
Regulatory Proceedings FERC Compliance PJM Bidding Matter 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. Since September 2014, FERC Staff has been conducting 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 responded 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. Financial Transmission Rights (FTR) Auction Matter In January 2017, ER&T received requests from the FERC Office of Enforcement relating to the planning and implementation of ER&T’s participation in the annual FTR auction in PJM for the 2016-2017 planning year and the monthly FTR auctions in PJM for February, March and April 2016. PSEG is cooperating with FERC in this matter. PSEG cannot predict the outcome of this matter at this time. 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 “limit of liability” per incident per site is comprised of a primary and excess layer. As of December 31, 2016, nuclear sites were required to purchase $375 million of primary liability coverage for each site (through ANI). This limit was increased to $450 million effective January 1, 2017.The primary layer is supplemented by an excess layer, which is an industry self-insurance pool. In the event a nuclear site has a claim that exceeds the primary layer, each licensee would be assessed a prorated share of the excess, up to $127 million per reactor, payable at not more than $19 million per reactor per incident per year. With 102 reactors currently in the insurance pool, the excess layer limit is $13.0 billion. If the damages exceed the “limit of liability,” 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 as of December 31, 2016 were as follows:
| Type and Source of Coverages |  | Site Coverage |  |  |  | Retrospective Assessments |
|  |  | Millions |
| Public and Nuclear Worker Liability (Primary Layer): |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| ANI |  | $ | 375 |  |  | (A) |  | $ | — |  |
| Nuclear Liability (Excess Layer): |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Price-Anderson Act |  | 12,986 |  |  | (B) |  | 401 |  |
| Nuclear Liability Total |  | $ | 13,361 |  |  | (C) |  | $ | 401 |  |
| Property Damage (Primary Layer): |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| NEIL Primary (Salem/Hope Creek) |  | $ | 1,500 |  |  |  |  | $ | 35 |  |
| NEIL Primary (Peach Bottom) |  | $ | 1,500 |  |  |  |  | 14 |  |
| Property Damage (Excess Layers): |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| NEIL Excess (Salem/Hope Creek - Nuclear) |  | $ | 300 |  |  | (D) |  | 2 |  |
| NEIL Excess (Peach Bottom - Nuclear) |  | $ | 300 |  |  | (D) |  | 1 |  |
| NEIL Excess (Salem/Hope Creek - Non - Nuclear) |  | $ | 300 |  |  | (D) |  | 1 |  |
| NEIL Excess (Peach Bottom - Non - Nuclear) |  | $ | 600 |  |  | (D) |  | 1 |  |
| Accidental Outage - PSEG Share:(Nuclear / Non-Nuclear) |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| NEIL I (Peach Bottom) |  | $245 / $164 |  |  | (E) |  | 8 |  |
| NEIL I (Salem) |  | $281 / $188 |  |  | (E) |  | 9 |  |
| NEIL I (Hope Creek) |  | $490 / $328 |  |  | (E) |  | 7 |  |
| Nuclear Property Total |  |  |  |  |  |  | $ | 78 |  |
(A) | The primary limit for Public Liability is a per site aggregate limit with no potential for retrospective 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) | Maximum limit of liability under the Price-Anderson Act for each nuclear incident per site.
(D) | For nuclear event property limits in excess of $1.5 billion, Power purchases a $300 million Excess Policy for the Salem/Hope Creek site, and a $300 million Excess Policy only for Power’s 50% interest in Peach Bottom. This limit is not subject to reinstatement in the event of a loss. In addition, for non-nuclear event limits in excess of $1.5 billion, Power maintains a $300 million limit for the combined Salem/Hope Creek sites. Exelon maintains a $600 million non-nuclear event limit for Peach Bottom.
(E) | Peach Bottom 2 and 3 have an aggregate nuclear indemnity limit based on a weekly indemnity of $2.3 million for 52 weeks followed by 80% of the weekly indemnity for 68 weeks. Peach Bottom 2 and 3 have an aggregate non-nuclear indemnity limit based on a weekly indemnity of $2.3 million for 52 weeks followed by 80% of the weekly indemnity for 24 weeks. Salem 1 and 2 have an aggregate nuclear indemnity limit based on a weekly indemnity of $2.5 million for 52 weeks followed by 80% of the weekly indemnity for 76 weeks. Salem 1 and 2 have an aggregate non-nuclear indemnity limit based on a weekly indemnity of $2.5 million for 52 weeks followed by 80% of the weekly indemnity for 29 weeks. Hope Creek has an aggregate nuclear indemnity limit based on a weekly indemnity of $4.5 million for 52 weeks followed by 80% of the weekly indemnity for 71 weeks. Hope Creek has an aggregate non-nuclear indemnity limit based on a weekly indemnity of $4.5 million for 52 weeks followed by 80% of the weekly indemnity for 26 weeks.
Minimum Lease Payments The total future minimum payments under various operating leases as of December 31, 2016 are:
|  |  | PSE&G |  | Power |  | Services |  | Other |  | Total |
|  |  | Millions |  |  |
| 2017 |  | $ | 12 |  |  | $ | 3 |  |  | $ | 13 |  |  | $ | 1 |  |  | $ | 29 |  |
| 2018 |  | 8 |  |  | 3 |  |  | 13 |  |  | 1 |  |  | 25 |  |
| 2019 |  | 7 |  |  | 3 |  |  | 13 |  |  | 1 |  |  | 24 |  |
| 2020 |  | 6 |  |  | 2 |  |  | 13 |  |  | 1 |  |  | 22 |  |
| 2021 |  | 6 |  |  | 2 |  |  | 14 |  |  | 1 |  |  | 23 |  |
| Thereafter |  | 61 |  |  | 39 |  |  | 132 |  |  | — |  |  | 232 |  |
| Total Minimum Lease Payments |  | $ | 100 |  |  | $ | 52 |  |  | $ | 198 |  |  | $ | 5 |  |  | $ | 355 |  |
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 as a form of collateral. 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.
Power is subject to
• | counterparty collateral calls related to commodity contracts, and
• | certain creditworthiness standards as guarantor under performance guarantees of its subsidiaries.
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
• | the net position 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. Current exposure consists of the net of accounts receivable and accounts payable and the forward value on open positions, less any collateral posted. 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 following table shows the face value of Power’s outstanding guarantees, current exposure and margin positions as of December 31, 2016 and 2015.
|  |  | As of December 31, 2016 |  | As of December 31, 2015 |
|  |  | Millions |
| Face Value of Outstanding Guarantees |  | $ | 1,806 |  |  | $ | 1,734 |  |
| Exposure under Current Guarantees |  | $ | 139 |  |  | $ | 172 |  |
| Letters of Credit Margin Posted |  | $ | 157 |  |  | $ | 122 |  |
| Letters of Credit Margin Received |  | $ | 99 |  |  | $ | 192 |  |
| Cash Deposited and Received |  |  |  |  |
| Counterparty Cash Margin Deposited |  | $ | — |  |  | $ | — |  |
| Counterparty Cash Margin Received |  | $ | (1 | ) |  | $ | (15 | ) |
| Net Broker Balance Deposited (Received) |  | $ | 57 |  |  | $ | (5 | ) |
| Additional Amounts Posted |  |  |  |  |
| Other Letters of Credit |  | $ | 51 |  |  | $ | 51 |  |
As part of determining credit exposure, Power nets receivables and payables with the corresponding net energy contract balances. See Note 16. 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 addition to amounts for outstanding guarantees, current exposure and margin positions, PSEG and Power had 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 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. 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. Construction is complete. The CPG is awaiting EPA approval of the construction report, long-term monitoring plan and confirmatory sampling plan. PSE&G’s and Power’s combined share of the cost of that effort is approximately three percent. The remaining CPG members, PSE&G and Power included, 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 CPG, which consisted of 52 members as of December 31, 2016, 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 $190 million, which the CPG continues to incur. Of the estimated $190 million, as of December 31, 2016, the CPG had spent approximately $158 million, of which PSEG’s total share was approximately $11 million. The CPG’s draft FS set forth various alternatives for remediating the lower Passaic River. It set 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 on an undiscounted basis. 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 ranged from approximately $518 million to $772 million. Based on (i) the low end of the range of the current estimates of costs to remediate, (ii) PSE&G’s and Power’s estimated 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. In March 2016, the EPA released its Record of Decision (ROD) for the FFS which requires the removal of 3.5 million cubic yards of sediment from the Passaic River’s lower 8.3 miles at an estimated cost of $2.3 billion on an undiscounted basis (ROD Remedy). The ROD Remedy requires a bank-to-bank dredge ranging from approximately 5 to 30 feet deep in the federal navigation channel from River Mile 0 to River Mile 1.7 and an approximately 2.5 foot deep dredge everywhere else in the lower 8.3 miles of the river. An engineered cap approximately two feet thick will be placed over the dredged areas. Dredged sediments will be transported to facilities and landfills out-of-state. The EPA estimates the total project length to be about 11 years, including a one year period of negotiation with the PRPs, three to four years to design the project and six years for implementation. Based upon the estimated cost of the ROD Remedy, PSEG’s estimate of PSE&G’s and Power’s shares of that cost, and the continued ability of PSE&G to recover such costs in its rates, PSE&G accrued an additional $36 million Environmental Costs Liability and a corresponding Regulatory Asset and Power accrued an additional $8 million Other Noncurrent Liability and a corresponding O&M Expense in the first quarter of 2016. As of December 31, 2016, these accruals bring the total liability to approximately $57 million, $46 million applicable to PSE&G and $11 million applicable to Power. Also in March 2016, the EPA sent a notice letter to 105 PRPs, including PSE&G, all other past and present members of the CPG, including Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC), and the towns of Newark, Kearny and Harrison and the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission stating that the EPA wants to determine whether OCC, a successor company to Diamond Shamrock, would voluntarily perform the remedial design for the ROD Remedy. On September 30, 2016, OCC and the EPA executed an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent for Remedial Design under which OCC agreed to conduct the remedial design for the ROD. With OCC’s commitment to perform the remedial design, it is anticipated that the EPA will begin negotiation of a remedial action consent decree, under which OCC and the other “major PRPs” will implement and/or pay for the EPA’s ROD Remedy for the lower 8.3 miles. The EPA has not defined “major PRPs.” On June 16, 2016, Tierra and Maxus, successors to Diamond Shamrock, filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Although PSEG does not currently anticipate that the filing for bankruptcy by Tierra and Maxus will affect its allocable share or total liability for the Passaic River matter, PSEG, through the CPG and independently, will monitor the bankruptcy proceedings to identify any potential impact on PSEG’s share of the costs. 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, which covers the entire 17 miles of the lower Passaic River, is finalized either in whole or in part, (ii) an agreement by the PRPs to perform either the ROD Remedy as issued, or an amended ROD Remedy determined through negotiation or litigation, and an agreed upon remedy for the remaining 8.7 miles of the river, are reached, (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 PSEG’s 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 $403 million and $460 million through 2021, including its $46 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 $403 million as of December 31, 2016. Of this amount, $81 million was recorded in Other Current Liabilities and $322 million was reflected as Environmental Costs in Noncurrent Liabilities. PSE&G has recorded a $403 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. NJDEP, PSEG and EPA representatives have had discussions regarding whether sampling in the Passaic River is required to delineate coal tar from MGP sites that abut the Passaic River Superfund site. PSEG cannot determine at this time whether this will have an impact on the Passaic River Superfund remedy. 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 May 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. The EPA has structured the rule so that each state Permitting Director will continue to consider renewal permits for existing power facilities on a case by case basis. In connection with the assessment of the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impacts of each facility that seeks a permit renewal, the rule requires that facilities conduct a wide range of studies related to impingement mortality and entrainment and submit the results with their permit applications. In September 2014, several environmental non-governmental groups and certain energy industry groups filed petitions for review of the rule and the case has been assigned to the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals (Second Circuit). Environmental organizations, including but not limited to the environmental petitioners in the Second Circuit, have also filed suit under the Endangered Species Act. The cases were subsequently consolidated at the Second Circuit and a decision is expected by mid-2017. In June 2016, the NJDEP issued a final NJPDES permit for Salem with an effective date of August 1, 2016. The final permit does not require installation of cooling towers and allows Salem to continue to operate utilizing the existing once-through cooling water system. The final permit does not mandate specific service water system modifications, but consistent with Section 316 (b) of the Clean Water Act, it requires additional studies and the selection of technology to address impingement for the service water system. In July 2016, the Delaware Riverkeeper Network (Riverkeeper) filed a request challenging the NJDEP’s issuance of the final permit for Salem. The Riverkeeper’s filing does not change the effective date of the permit. If the Riverkeeper’s challenge were successful, Power may be required to incur additional costs to comply with the Clean Water Act. Such service water system modification costs could be material and could adversely impact the economic competitiveness of this facility. State permitting decisions at Bridgeport and possibly New Haven could also have a material impact on Power’s ability to renew permits at its existing larger once-through cooled plants without making significant upgrades to existing intake structures and cooling systems. 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 BH3 in 2021, which is four years earlier than the previously estimated useful life ending in 2025. Based on current discussions with the CTDEEP, if the proposal is accepted, a final permit could be issued in 2017. See Note 3. Early Plant Retirements. 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. The receipt of permits to allow construction and operation of the new facility 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 may seek to operate BH3 through the previously estimated useful life. In February 2016, the proposed new generating facility at Bridgeport Harbor was awarded a capacity obligation. The Connecticut Siting Council issued an order to approve siting BH5. All major environmental permits have been obtained except for the New Source air permit that is currently in draft form for public comment. Operations are 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. Jersey City, New Jersey Subsurface Feeder Cable Matter In early October 2016, a discharge of mineral oil dielectric fluid from subsurface feeder cables located in the Hudson River near Jersey City, New Jersey, was identified and reported to the NJDEP. The feeder cables are located within a subsurface easement granted to PSE&G by the property owners, Newport Associates Development Company (NADC) and Newport Associates Phase I Developer Limited Partnership. The feeder cables are subject to agreements between PSE&G and Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Edison) and are jointly owned by PSE&G and Con Edison, with PSE&G owning the portion of the cables located in New Jersey and Con Edison owning the portion of the cables located in New York. The NJDEP has declared an emergency and an emergency response action has been undertaken to investigate, contain, remediate and stop the fluid discharge; to assess, repair and restore the cables to good working order; and to restore the property. The regulatory agencies overseeing the emergency response, including the U.S. Coast Guard, the NJDEP and the Army Corps of Engineers, have issued multiple notices, orders and directives to the various parties related to this matter. The investigation and response actions related to the fluid discharge are ongoing. The investigation of the discharge and its potential cause is in the preliminary stages, making it difficult to determine the timing and potential costs to resolve this matter, as well as responsibility for such costs between PSE&G, Con Edison and NADC. Based on currently available information and the potential scope of the necessary repair and remediation work, the costs will likely be material. In addition, the timeline for completing the repairs has been extended due to the presence of debris within PSE&G’s easement. In November 2016, PSE&G filed an action in New Jersey Federal Court seeking an order requiring NADC to remove its debris from PSE&G’s easement so that PSE&G and Con Edison may comply with NJDEP and U.S. Coast Guard directives and complete the necessary repairs. NADC subsequently informed PSE&G that it would comply with the U.S. Coast Guard’s order and undertake debris removal activities so that PSE&G and Con Edison can complete the necessary repairs. NADC’s debris removal activities are ongoing. Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines In September 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 Bridgeport Harbor station 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 that 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, is residential and smaller commercial and industrial customers (BGS-Residential Small Commercial Pricing (RSCP)). The second category is larger customers that exceed a BPU-established load (kW) threshold (BGS-Commercial and Industrial Energy 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, 2017 is $276.83 per MW-day, replacing the BGS-CIEP auction year price ending May 31, 2017 of $335.33 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 |  |
|  | 2014 |  | 2015 |  | 2016 |  | 2017 |  |
| 36-Month Terms Ending | May 2017 |  |  | May 2018 |  |  | May 2019 |  |  | May 2020 |  | (A) |
| Load (MW) | 2,800 |  |  | 2,900 |  |  | 2,800 |  |  | 2,800 |  |  |
| $ per MWh | $97.39 |  | $99.54 |  | $96.38 |  | $90.78 |  |
(A) | Prices set in the 2017 BGS auction will become effective on June 1, 2017 when the 2014 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 24. 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 2018 and a significant portion through 2021 at Salem, Hope Creek and Peach Bottom. Power 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 beyond the needs of PSE&G’s customers, Power can use the gas to supply its fossil generating stations. Power also has various long-term fuel purchase commitments for coal through 2018 to support its fossil generation stations. As of December 31, 2016, the total minimum purchase requirements included in these commitments were as follows:
| Fuel Type |  | Power's Share of Commitments through 2021 |
|  |  | Millions |
| Nuclear Fuel |  |  |
| Uranium |  | $ | 301 |  |
| Enrichment |  | $ | 356 |  |
| Fabrication |  | $ | 192 |  |
| Natural Gas |  | $ | 1,029 |  |
| Coal |  | $ | 215 |  |
Regulatory Proceedings FERC Compliance PJM Bidding Matter 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. Since September 2014, FERC Staff has been conducting 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 responded 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. Financial Transmission Rights (FTR) Auction Matter In January 2017, ER&T received requests from the FERC Office of Enforcement relating to the planning and implementation of ER&T’s participation in the annual FTR auction in PJM for the 2016-2017 planning year and the monthly FTR auctions in PJM for February, March and April 2016. PSEG is cooperating with FERC in this matter. PSEG cannot predict the outcome of this matter at this time. 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 “limit of liability” per incident per site is comprised of a primary and excess layer. As of December 31, 2016, nuclear sites were required to purchase $375 million of primary liability coverage for each site (through ANI). This limit was increased to $450 million effective January 1, 2017.The primary layer is supplemented by an excess layer, which is an industry self-insurance pool. In the event a nuclear site has a claim that exceeds the primary layer, each licensee would be assessed a prorated share of the excess, up to $127 million per reactor, payable at not more than $19 million per reactor per incident per year. With 102 reactors currently in the insurance pool, the excess layer limit is $13.0 billion. If the damages exceed the “limit of liability,” 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 as of December 31, 2016 were as follows:
| Type and Source of Coverages |  | Site Coverage |  |  |  | Retrospective Assessments |
|  |  | Millions |
| Public and Nuclear Worker Liability (Primary Layer): |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| ANI |  | $ | 375 |  |  | (A) |  | $ | — |  |
| Nuclear Liability (Excess Layer): |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Price-Anderson Act |  | 12,986 |  |  | (B) |  | 401 |  |
| Nuclear Liability Total |  | $ | 13,361 |  |  | (C) |  | $ | 401 |  |
| Property Damage (Primary Layer): |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| NEIL Primary (Salem/Hope Creek) |  | $ | 1,500 |  |  |  |  | $ | 35 |  |
| NEIL Primary (Peach Bottom) |  | $ | 1,500 |  |  |  |  | 14 |  |
| Property Damage (Excess Layers): |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| NEIL Excess (Salem/Hope Creek - Nuclear) |  | $ | 300 |  |  | (D) |  | 2 |  |
| NEIL Excess (Peach Bottom - Nuclear) |  | $ | 300 |  |  | (D) |  | 1 |  |
| NEIL Excess (Salem/Hope Creek - Non - Nuclear) |  | $ | 300 |  |  | (D) |  | 1 |  |
| NEIL Excess (Peach Bottom - Non - Nuclear) |  | $ | 600 |  |  | (D) |  | 1 |  |
| Accidental Outage - PSEG Share:(Nuclear / Non-Nuclear) |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| NEIL I (Peach Bottom) |  | $245 / $164 |  |  | (E) |  | 8 |  |
| NEIL I (Salem) |  | $281 / $188 |  |  | (E) |  | 9 |  |
| NEIL I (Hope Creek) |  | $490 / $328 |  |  | (E) |  | 7 |  |
| Nuclear Property Total |  |  |  |  |  |  | $ | 78 |  |
(A) | The primary limit for Public Liability is a per site aggregate limit with no potential for retrospective 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) | Maximum limit of liability under the Price-Anderson Act for each nuclear incident per site.
(D) | For nuclear event property limits in excess of $1.5 billion, Power purchases a $300 million Excess Policy for the Salem/Hope Creek site, and a $300 million Excess Policy only for Power’s 50% interest in Peach Bottom. This limit is not subject to reinstatement in the event of a loss. In addition, for non-nuclear event limits in excess of $1.5 billion, Power maintains a $300 million limit for the combined Salem/Hope Creek sites. Exelon maintains a $600 million non-nuclear event limit for Peach Bottom.
(E) | Peach Bottom 2 and 3 have an aggregate nuclear indemnity limit based on a weekly indemnity of $2.3 million for 52 weeks followed by 80% of the weekly indemnity for 68 weeks. Peach Bottom 2 and 3 have an aggregate non-nuclear indemnity limit based on a weekly indemnity of $2.3 million for 52 weeks followed by 80% of the weekly indemnity for 24 weeks. Salem 1 and 2 have an aggregate nuclear indemnity limit based on a weekly indemnity of $2.5 million for 52 weeks followed by 80% of the weekly indemnity for 76 weeks. Salem 1 and 2 have an aggregate non-nuclear indemnity limit based on a weekly indemnity of $2.5 million for 52 weeks followed by 80% of the weekly indemnity for 29 weeks. Hope Creek has an aggregate nuclear indemnity limit based on a weekly indemnity of $4.5 million for 52 weeks followed by 80% of the weekly indemnity for 71 weeks. Hope Creek has an aggregate non-nuclear indemnity limit based on a weekly indemnity of $4.5 million for 52 weeks followed by 80% of the weekly indemnity for 26 weeks.
Minimum Lease Payments The total future minimum payments under various operating leases as of December 31, 2016 are:
|  |  | PSE&G |  | Power |  | Services |  | Other |  | Total |
|  |  | Millions |  |  |
| 2017 |  | $ | 12 |  |  | $ | 3 |  |  | $ | 13 |  |  | $ | 1 |  |  | $ | 29 |  |
| 2018 |  | 8 |  |  | 3 |  |  | 13 |  |  | 1 |  |  | 25 |  |
| 2019 |  | 7 |  |  | 3 |  |  | 13 |  |  | 1 |  |  | 24 |  |
| 2020 |  | 6 |  |  | 2 |  |  | 13 |  |  | 1 |  |  | 22 |  |
| 2021 |  | 6 |  |  | 2 |  |  | 14 |  |  | 1 |  |  | 23 |  |
| Thereafter |  | 61 |  |  | 39 |  |  | 132 |  |  | — |  |  | 232 |  |
| Total Minimum Lease Payments |  | $ | 100 |  |  | $ | 52 |  |  | $ | 198 |  |  | $ | 5 |  |  | $ | 355 |  |
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 as a form of collateral. 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.
Power is subject to
• | counterparty collateral calls related to commodity contracts, and
• | certain creditworthiness standards as guarantor under performance guarantees of its subsidiaries.
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
• | the net position 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. Current exposure consists of the net of accounts receivable and accounts payable and the forward value on open positions, less any collateral posted. 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 following table shows the face value of Power’s outstanding guarantees, current exposure and margin positions as of December 31, 2016 and 2015.
|  |  | As of December 31, 2016 |  | As of December 31, 2015 |
|  |  | Millions |
| Face Value of Outstanding Guarantees |  | $ | 1,806 |  |  | $ | 1,734 |  |
| Exposure under Current Guarantees |  | $ | 139 |  |  | $ | 172 |  |
| Letters of Credit Margin Posted |  | $ | 157 |  |  | $ | 122 |  |
| Letters of Credit Margin Received |  | $ | 99 |  |  | $ | 192 |  |
| Cash Deposited and Received |  |  |  |  |
| Counterparty Cash Margin Deposited |  | $ | — |  |  | $ | — |  |
| Counterparty Cash Margin Received |  | $ | (1 | ) |  | $ | (15 | ) |
| Net Broker Balance Deposited (Received) |  | $ | 57 |  |  | $ | (5 | ) |
| Additional Amounts Posted |  |  |  |  |
| Other Letters of Credit |  | $ | 51 |  |  | $ | 51 |  |
As part of determining credit exposure, Power nets receivables and payables with the corresponding net energy contract balances. See Note 16. 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 addition to amounts for outstanding guarantees, current exposure and margin positions, PSEG and Power had 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 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. 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. Construction is complete. The CPG is awaiting EPA approval of the construction report, long-term monitoring plan and confirmatory sampling plan. PSE&G’s and Power’s combined share of the cost of that effort is approximately three percent. The remaining CPG members, PSE&G and Power included, 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 CPG, which consisted of 52 members as of December 31, 2016, 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 $190 million, which the CPG continues to incur. Of the estimated $190 million, as of December 31, 2016, the CPG had spent approximately $158 million, of which PSEG’s total share was approximately $11 million. The CPG’s draft FS set forth various alternatives for remediating the lower Passaic River. It set 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 on an undiscounted basis. 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 ranged from approximately $518 million to $772 million. Based on (i) the low end of the range of the current estimates of costs to remediate, (ii) PSE&G’s and Power’s estimated 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. In March 2016, the EPA released its Record of Decision (ROD) for the FFS which requires the removal of 3.5 million cubic yards of sediment from the Passaic River’s lower 8.3 miles at an estimated cost of $2.3 billion on an undiscounted basis (ROD Remedy). The ROD Remedy requires a bank-to-bank dredge ranging from approximately 5 to 30 feet deep in the federal navigation channel from River Mile 0 to River Mile 1.7 and an approximately 2.5 foot deep dredge everywhere else in the lower 8.3 miles of the river. An engineered cap approximately two feet thick will be placed over the dredged areas. Dredged sediments will be transported to facilities and landfills out-of-state. The EPA estimates the total project length to be about 11 years, including a one year period of negotiation with the PRPs, three to four years to design the project and six years for implementation. Based upon the estimated cost of the ROD Remedy, PSEG’s estimate of PSE&G’s and Power’s shares of that cost, and the continued ability of PSE&G to recover such costs in its rates, PSE&G accrued an additional $36 million Environmental Costs Liability and a corresponding Regulatory Asset and Power accrued an additional $8 million Other Noncurrent Liability and a corresponding O&M Expense in the first quarter of 2016. As of December 31, 2016, these accruals bring the total liability to approximately $57 million, $46 million applicable to PSE&G and $11 million applicable to Power. Also in March 2016, the EPA sent a notice letter to 105 PRPs, including PSE&G, all other past and present members of the CPG, including Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC), and the towns of Newark, Kearny and Harrison and the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission stating that the EPA wants to determine whether OCC, a successor company to Diamond Shamrock, would voluntarily perform the remedial design for the ROD Remedy. On September 30, 2016, OCC and the EPA executed an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent for Remedial Design under which OCC agreed to conduct the remedial design for the ROD. With OCC’s commitment to perform the remedial design, it is anticipated that the EPA will begin negotiation of a remedial action consent decree, under which OCC and the other “major PRPs” will implement and/or pay for the EPA’s ROD Remedy for the lower 8.3 miles. The EPA has not defined “major PRPs.” On June 16, 2016, Tierra and Maxus, successors to Diamond Shamrock, filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Although PSEG does not currently anticipate that the filing for bankruptcy by Tierra and Maxus will affect its allocable share or total liability for the Passaic River matter, PSEG, through the CPG and independently, will monitor the bankruptcy proceedings to identify any potential impact on PSEG’s share of the costs. 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, which covers the entire 17 miles of the lower Passaic River, is finalized either in whole or in part, (ii) an agreement by the PRPs to perform either the ROD Remedy as issued, or an amended ROD Remedy determined through negotiation or litigation, and an agreed upon remedy for the remaining 8.7 miles of the river, are reached, (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 PSEG’s 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 $403 million and $460 million through 2021, including its $46 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 $403 million as of December 31, 2016. Of this amount, $81 million was recorded in Other Current Liabilities and $322 million was reflected as Environmental Costs in Noncurrent Liabilities. PSE&G has recorded a $403 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. NJDEP, PSEG and EPA representatives have had discussions regarding whether sampling in the Passaic River is required to delineate coal tar from MGP sites that abut the Passaic River Superfund site. PSEG cannot determine at this time whether this will have an impact on the Passaic River Superfund remedy. 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 May 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. The EPA has structured the rule so that each state Permitting Director will continue to consider renewal permits for existing power facilities on a case by case basis. In connection with the assessment of the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impacts of each facility that seeks a permit renewal, the rule requires that facilities conduct a wide range of studies related to impingement mortality and entrainment and submit the results with their permit applications. In September 2014, several environmental non-governmental groups and certain energy industry groups filed petitions for review of the rule and the case has been assigned to the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals (Second Circuit). Environmental organizations, including but not limited to the environmental petitioners in the Second Circuit, have also filed suit under the Endangered Species Act. The cases were subsequently consolidated at the Second Circuit and a decision is expected by mid-2017. In June 2016, the NJDEP issued a final NJPDES permit for Salem with an effective date of August 1, 2016. The final permit does not require installation of cooling towers and allows Salem to continue to operate utilizing the existing once-through cooling water system. The final permit does not mandate specific service water system modifications, but consistent with Section 316 (b) of the Clean Water Act, it requires additional studies and the selection of technology to address impingement for the service water system. In July 2016, the Delaware Riverkeeper Network (Riverkeeper) filed a request challenging the NJDEP’s issuance of the final permit for Salem. The Riverkeeper’s filing does not change the effective date of the permit. If the Riverkeeper’s challenge were successful, Power may be required to incur additional costs to comply with the Clean Water Act. Such service water system modification costs could be material and could adversely impact the economic competitiveness of this facility. State permitting decisions at Bridgeport and possibly New Haven could also have a material impact on Power’s ability to renew permits at its existing larger once-through cooled plants without making significant upgrades to existing intake structures and cooling systems. 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 BH3 in 2021, which is four years earlier than the previously estimated useful life ending in 2025. Based on current discussions with the CTDEEP, if the proposal is accepted, a final permit could be issued in 2017. See Note 3. Early Plant Retirements. 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. The receipt of permits to allow construction and operation of the new facility 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 may seek to operate BH3 through the previously estimated useful life. In February 2016, the proposed new generating facility at Bridgeport Harbor was awarded a capacity obligation. The Connecticut Siting Council issued an order to approve siting BH5. All major environmental permits have been obtained except for the New Source air permit that is currently in draft form for public comment. Operations are 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. Jersey City, New Jersey Subsurface Feeder Cable Matter In early October 2016, a discharge of mineral oil dielectric fluid from subsurface feeder cables located in the Hudson River near Jersey City, New Jersey, was identified and reported to the NJDEP. The feeder cables are located within a subsurface easement granted to PSE&G by the property owners, Newport Associates Development Company (NADC) and Newport Associates Phase I Developer Limited Partnership. The feeder cables are subject to agreements between PSE&G and Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Edison) and are jointly owned by PSE&G and Con Edison, with PSE&G owning the portion of the cables located in New Jersey and Con Edison owning the portion of the cables located in New York. The NJDEP has declared an emergency and an emergency response action has been undertaken to investigate, contain, remediate and stop the fluid discharge; to assess, repair and restore the cables to good working order; and to restore the property. The regulatory agencies overseeing the emergency response, including the U.S. Coast Guard, the NJDEP and the Army Corps of Engineers, have issued multiple notices, orders and directives to the various parties related to this matter. The investigation and response actions related to the fluid discharge are ongoing. The investigation of the discharge and its potential cause is in the preliminary stages, making it difficult to determine the timing and potential costs to resolve this matter, as well as responsibility for such costs between PSE&G, Con Edison and NADC. Based on currently available information and the potential scope of the necessary repair and remediation work, the costs will likely be material. In addition, the timeline for completing the repairs has been extended due to the presence of debris within PSE&G’s easement. In November 2016, PSE&G filed an action in New Jersey Federal Court seeking an order requiring NADC to remove its debris from PSE&G’s easement so that PSE&G and Con Edison may comply with NJDEP and U.S. Coast Guard directives and complete the necessary repairs. NADC subsequently informed PSE&G that it would comply with the U.S. Coast Guard’s order and undertake debris removal activities so that PSE&G and Con Edison can complete the necessary repairs. NADC’s debris removal activities are ongoing. Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines In September 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 Bridgeport Harbor station 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 that 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, is residential and smaller commercial and industrial customers (BGS-Residential Small Commercial Pricing (RSCP)). The second category is larger customers that exceed a BPU-established load (kW) threshold (BGS-Commercial and Industrial Energy 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, 2017 is $276.83 per MW-day, replacing the BGS-CIEP auction year price ending May 31, 2017 of $335.33 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 |  |
|  | 2014 |  | 2015 |  | 2016 |  | 2017 |  |
| 36-Month Terms Ending | May 2017 |  |  | May 2018 |  |  | May 2019 |  |  | May 2020 |  | (A) |
| Load (MW) | 2,800 |  |  | 2,900 |  |  | 2,800 |  |  | 2,800 |  |  |
| $ per MWh | $97.39 |  | $99.54 |  | $96.38 |  | $90.78 |  |
(A) | Prices set in the 2017 BGS auction will become effective on June 1, 2017 when the 2014 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 24. 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 2018 and a significant portion through 2021 at Salem, Hope Creek and Peach Bottom. Power 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 beyond the needs of PSE&G’s customers, Power can use the gas to supply its fossil generating stations. Power also has various long-term fuel purchase commitments for coal through 2018 to support its fossil generation stations. As of December 31, 2016, the total minimum purchase requirements included in these commitments were as follows:
| Fuel Type |  | Power's Share of Commitments through 2021 |
|  |  | Millions |
| Nuclear Fuel |  |  |
| Uranium |  | $ | 301 |  |
| Enrichment |  | $ | 356 |  |
| Fabrication |  | $ | 192 |  |
| Natural Gas |  | $ | 1,029 |  |
| Coal |  | $ | 215 |  |
Regulatory Proceedings FERC Compliance PJM Bidding Matter 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. Since September 2014, FERC Staff has been conducting 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 responded 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. Financial Transmission Rights (FTR) Auction Matter In January 2017, ER&T received requests from the FERC Office of Enforcement relating to the planning and implementation of ER&T’s participation in the annual FTR auction in PJM for the 2016-2017 planning year and the monthly FTR auctions in PJM for February, March and April 2016. PSEG is cooperating with FERC in this matter. PSEG cannot predict the outcome of this matter at this time. 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 “limit of liability” per incident per site is comprised of a primary and excess layer. As of December 31, 2016, nuclear sites were required to purchase $375 million of primary liability coverage for each site (through ANI). This limit was increased to $450 million effective January 1, 2017.The primary layer is supplemented by an excess layer, which is an industry self-insurance pool. In the event a nuclear site has a claim that exceeds the primary layer, each licensee would be assessed a prorated share of the excess, up to $127 million per reactor, payable at not more than $19 million per reactor per incident per year. With 102 reactors currently in the insurance pool, the excess layer limit is $13.0 billion. If the damages exceed the “limit of liability,” 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 as of December 31, 2016 were as follows:
| Type and Source of Coverages |  | Site Coverage |  |  |  | Retrospective Assessments |
|  |  | Millions |
| Public and Nuclear Worker Liability (Primary Layer): |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| ANI |  | $ | 375 |  |  | (A) |  | $ | — |  |
| Nuclear Liability (Excess Layer): |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Price-Anderson Act |  | 12,986 |  |  | (B) |  | 401 |  |
| Nuclear Liability Total |  | $ | 13,361 |  |  | (C) |  | $ | 401 |  |
| Property Damage (Primary Layer): |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| NEIL Primary (Salem/Hope Creek) |  | $ | 1,500 |  |  |  |  | $ | 35 |  |
| NEIL Primary (Peach Bottom) |  | $ | 1,500 |  |  |  |  | 14 |  |
| Property Damage (Excess Layers): |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| NEIL Excess (Salem/Hope Creek - Nuclear) |  | $ | 300 |  |  | (D) |  | 2 |  |
| NEIL Excess (Peach Bottom - Nuclear) |  | $ | 300 |  |  | (D) |  | 1 |  |
| NEIL Excess (Salem/Hope Creek - Non - Nuclear) |  | $ | 300 |  |  | (D) |  | 1 |  |
| NEIL Excess (Peach Bottom - Non - Nuclear) |  | $ | 600 |  |  | (D) |  | 1 |  |
| Accidental Outage - PSEG Share:(Nuclear / Non-Nuclear) |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| NEIL I (Peach Bottom) |  | $245 / $164 |  |  | (E) |  | 8 |  |
| NEIL I (Salem) |  | $281 / $188 |  |  | (E) |  | 9 |  |
| NEIL I (Hope Creek) |  | $490 / $328 |  |  | (E) |  | 7 |  |
| Nuclear Property Total |  |  |  |  |  |  | $ | 78 |  |
(A) | The primary limit for Public Liability is a per site aggregate limit with no potential for retrospective 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) | Maximum limit of liability under the Price-Anderson Act for each nuclear incident per site.
(D) | For nuclear event property limits in excess of $1.5 billion, Power purchases a $300 million Excess Policy for the Salem/Hope Creek site, and a $300 million Excess Policy only for Power’s 50% interest in Peach Bottom. This limit is not subject to reinstatement in the event of a loss. In addition, for non-nuclear event limits in excess of $1.5 billion, Power maintains a $300 million limit for the combined Salem/Hope Creek sites. Exelon maintains a $600 million non-nuclear event limit for Peach Bottom.
(E) | Peach Bottom 2 and 3 have an aggregate nuclear indemnity limit based on a weekly indemnity of $2.3 million for 52 weeks followed by 80% of the weekly indemnity for 68 weeks. Peach Bottom 2 and 3 have an aggregate non-nuclear indemnity limit based on a weekly indemnity of $2.3 million for 52 weeks followed by 80% of the weekly indemnity for 24 weeks. Salem 1 and 2 have an aggregate nuclear indemnity limit based on a weekly indemnity of $2.5 million for 52 weeks followed by 80% of the weekly indemnity for 76 weeks. Salem 1 and 2 have an aggregate non-nuclear indemnity limit based on a weekly indemnity of $2.5 million for 52 weeks followed by 80% of the weekly indemnity for 29 weeks. Hope Creek has an aggregate nuclear indemnity limit based on a weekly indemnity of $4.5 million for 52 weeks followed by 80% of the weekly indemnity for 71 weeks. Hope Creek has an aggregate non-nuclear indemnity limit based on a weekly indemnity of $4.5 million for 52 weeks followed by 80% of the weekly indemnity for 26 weeks.
Minimum Lease Payments The total future minimum payments under various operating leases as of December 31, 2016 are:
|  |  | PSE&G |  | Power |  | Services |  | Other |  | Total |
|  |  | Millions |  |  |
| 2017 |  | $ | 12 |  |  | $ | 3 |  |  | $ | 13 |  |  | $ | 1 |  |  | $ | 29 |  |
| 2018 |  | 8 |  |  | 3 |  |  | 13 |  |  | 1 |  |  | 25 |  |
| 2019 |  | 7 |  |  | 3 |  |  | 13 |  |  | 1 |  |  | 24 |  |
| 2020 |  | 6 |  |  | 2 |  |  | 13 |  |  | 1 |  |  | 22 |  |
| 2021 |  | 6 |  |  | 2 |  |  | 14 |  |  | 1 |  |  | 23 |  |
| Thereafter |  | 61 |  |  | 39 |  |  | 132 |  |  | — |  |  | 232 |  |
| Total Minimum Lease Payments |  | $ | 100 |  |  | $ | 52 |  |  | $ | 198 |  |  | $ | 5 |  |  | $ | 355 |  |

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=68068213&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=73718637&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: |