XML 93 R24.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.22.0.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Energy Purchase Commitments (PPL, LG&E and KU) LG&E and KU enter into purchase contracts to supply the coal and natural gas requirements for generation facilities and LG&E's retail natural gas supply operations. These contracts include the following commitments:
Contract Type | Maximum Maturity Date
Natural Gas Fuel | 2024
Natural Gas Retail Supply | 2023
Coal | 2026
Coal Transportation and Fleeting Services | 2027
Natural Gas Transportation | 2026
LG&E and KU have a power purchase agreement with OVEC expiring in June 2040. See footnote (c) to the table in "Guarantees and Other Assurances" below for information on the OVEC power purchase contract, including recent developments in credit or debt conditions relating to OVEC. Future obligations for power purchases from OVEC are demand payments, comprised of debt-service payments and contractually-required reimbursements of plant operating, maintenance and other expenses, and are projected as follows:
| LG&E |  | KU |  | Total
2022 | $ | 23 |  |  | $ | 10 |  |  | $ | 33 |
2023 | 23 |  |  | 10 |  |  | 33 |
2024 | 22 |  |  | 10 |  |  | 32 |
2025 | 22 |  |  | 10 |  |  | 32 |
2026 | 22 |  |  | 10 |  |  | 32 |
Thereafter | 218 |  |  | 96 |  |  | 314 |
Total | $ | 330 |  |  | $ | 146 |  |  | $ | 476 |
LG&E and KU had total energy purchases under the OVEC power purchase agreement for the years ended December 31 as follows:
| 2021 |  | 2020 |  | 2019
LG&E | $ | 13 |  |  | $ | 12 |  |  | $ | 15 |
KU | 6 |  |  | 6 |  |  | 7 |
Total | $ | 19 |  |  | $ | 18 |  |  | $ | 22 |
Legal Matters (All Registrants) PPL and its subsidiaries are involved in legal proceedings, claims and litigation in the ordinary course of business. PPL and its subsidiaries cannot predict the outcome of such matters, or whether such matters may result in material liabilities, unless otherwise noted. Talen Litigation (PPL) Background In September 2013, one of PPL's former subsidiaries, PPL Montana entered into an agreement to sell its hydroelectric generating facilities. In June 2014, PPL and PPL Energy Supply, the parent company of PPL Montana, entered into various definitive agreements with affiliates of Riverstone to spin off PPL Energy Supply and ultimately combine it with Riverstone's competitive power generation businesses to form a stand-alone company named Talen Energy. In November 2014, after executing the spinoff agreements but prior to the closing of the spinoff transaction, PPL Montana closed the sale of its hydroelectric generating facilities. Subsequently, on June 1, 2015, the spinoff of PPL Energy Supply was completed. Following the spinoff transaction, PPL had no continuing ownership interest in or control of PPL Energy Supply. In connection with the spinoff transaction, PPL Montana became Talen Montana, LLC (Talen Montana), a subsidiary of Talen Energy. Talen Energy Marketing also became a subsidiary of Talen Energy as a result of the June 2015 spinoff of PPL Energy Supply. Talen Energy has owned and operated both Talen Montana and Talen Energy Marketing since the spinoff. At the time of the spinoff, affiliates of Riverstone acquired a 35% ownership interest in Talen Energy. Riverstone subsequently acquired the remaining interests in Talen Energy in a take private transaction in December 2016. Talen Montana Retirement Plan and Talen Energy Marketing, LLC, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. PPL Corporation et al. On October 29, 2018, Talen Montana Retirement Plan and Talen Energy Marketing filed a putative class action complaint on behalf of current and contingent creditors of Talen Montana who allegedly suffered harm or allegedly will suffer reasonably foreseeable harm as a result of the November 2014 distribution of proceeds from the sale of then-PPL Montana's hydroelectric generating facilities. The action was filed in the Sixteenth Judicial District of the State of Montana, Rosebud County, against PPL and certain of its affiliates and current and former officers and directors (Talen Putative Class Action). Plaintiff asserts claims for, among other things, fraudulent transfer, both actual and constructive; recovery against subsequent transferees; civil conspiracy; aiding and abetting tortious conduct; and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff is seeking avoidance of the purportedly fraudulent transfer, unspecified damages, including punitive damages, the imposition of a constructive trust, and other relief. In December 2018, PPL removed the Talen Putative Class Action from the Sixteenth Judicial District of the State of Montana to the United States District Court for the District of Montana, Billings Division (MT Federal Court). In January 2019, the plaintiff moved to remand the Talen Putative Class Action back to state court, and dismissed without prejudice all current and former PPL Corporation directors from the case. In September 2019, the MT Federal Court granted plaintiff's motion to remand the case back to state court. Although, the PPL defendants petitioned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to grant an appeal of the remand decision, in November 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied that request and in December 2019, Talen Montana Retirement Plan filed a Second Amended Complaint in the Sixteenth Judicial District of the State of Montana, Rosebud County, which removed Talen Energy Marketing as a plaintiff. In January 2020, PPL defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint or, in the alternative, to stay the proceedings pending the resolution of the below mentioned Delaware Action. The Court held a hearing on June 24, 2020 regarding the motions. On September 11, 2020, the Court granted PPL defendants' alternative Motion for a Stay of the proceedings. PPL Corporation et al. vs. Riverstone Holdings LLC, Talen Energy Corporation et al. On November 30, 2018, PPL, certain PPL affiliates, and certain current and former officers and directors (PPL plaintiffs) filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware seeking various forms of relief against Riverstone, Talen Energy and certain of their affiliates (Delaware Action), in response to and as part of the defense strategy for an action filed by Talen Montana, LLC (the Talen Direct Action, since dismissed) and the Talen Putative Class Action described above (together, the Montana Actions) originally filed in Montana state court in October 2018. In the complaint, the PPL plaintiffs ask the Delaware Court of Chancery for declaratory and injunctive relief. This includes a declaratory judgment that, under the separation agreement governing the spinoff of PPL Energy Supply, all related claims that arise must be heard in Delaware; that the statute of limitations in Delaware and the spinoff agreement bar these claims at this time; that PPL is not liable for the claims in either the Talen Direct Action or the Talen Putative Class Action as PPL Montana was solvent at all relevant times; and that the separation agreement requires that Talen Energy indemnify PPL for all losses arising from the debts of Talen Montana, among other things. PPL's complaint also seeks damages against Riverstone for interfering with the separation agreement and against Riverstone affiliates for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The complaint was subsequently amended on January 11, 2019 and March 20, 2019, to include, among other things, claims related to indemnification with respect to the Montana Actions, request a declaration that the Montana Actions are time-barred under the spinoff agreements, and allege additional facts to support the tortious interference claim. In April 2019, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. In July 2019, the Court heard oral arguments from the parties regarding the motions to dismiss, and in October 2019, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued an opinion sustaining all of the PPL plaintiffs' claims except for the claim for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. As a result of the dismissal of the Talen Direct Action in December 2019, in January 2020, Talen Energy filed a new motion to dismiss five of the remaining eight claims in the amended complaint. The Court heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss on May 28, 2020, and on June 22, 2020, issued an opinion denying the motion in its entirety. Discovery is proceeding, and the parties have filed certain motions and cross-motions for summary judgment, which are not yet scheduled for hearing. The trial was previously scheduled for February 2022, but has been rescheduled for July 2022. With respect to each of the Talen-related matters described above, PPL believes that the 2014 distribution of proceeds was made in compliance with all applicable laws and that PPL Montana was solvent at all relevant times. Additionally, the agreements entered into in connection with the spinoff, which PPL and affiliates of Talen Energy and Riverstone negotiated and executed prior to the 2014 distribution, directly address the treatment of the proceeds from the sale of PPL Montana's hydroelectric generating facilities; in those agreements, Talen Energy and Riverstone definitively agreed that PPL was entitled to retain the proceeds. PPL believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims made in the Talen Putative Class Action and intends to continue to vigorously defend against this action. The Talen Putative Class Action was stayed at an early stage of litigation. While the Delaware Action is progressing, at this time PPL cannot predict the outcome of either of these matters or estimate the range of possible losses, if any, that PPL might incur as a result of the claims, although they could be material. Cane Run Environmental Claims (PPL and LG&E) In December 2013, six residents, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against LG&E and PPL in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky (U.S. District Court) alleging violations of the Clean Air Act, RCRA, and common law claims of nuisance, trespass and negligence. In July 2014, the U.S. District Court dismissed the RCRA claims and all but one Clean Air Act claim, but declined to dismiss the common law tort claims. In February 2017, the U.S. District Court dismissed PPL as a defendant and dismissed the final federal claim against LG&E, and in April 2017, issued an Order declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on the state law claims dismissing the case in its entirety. In June 2017, the plaintiffs filed a class action complaint in Jefferson County, Kentucky Circuit Court, against LG&E alleging state law nuisance, negligence and trespass tort claims. The plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages for alleged property damage due to purported plant emissions on behalf of a class of residents within one to three miles of the plant. On January 8, 2020, the Jefferson Circuit Court issued an order denying the plaintiffs’ request for class certification. On January 14, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the Kentucky Court of Appeals. On December 11, 2020, the Court of Appeals issued an order affirming the lower court’s denial of class certification. In December 2020, plaintiffs filed a petition for discretionary review with the Kentucky Supreme Court. On April 20, 2021, the Kentucky Supreme Court denied further review of the lower court order. The case was remanded to the Jefferson Circuit Court for the claims of the three remaining petitioners. Settlements with two of the three remaining petitioners were reached with none of the settlements having or expected to have a significant impact on LG&E's operations or financial condition. E.W. Brown Environmental Claims (PPL and KU) In July 2017, the Kentucky Waterways Alliance and the Sierra Club filed a citizen suit complaint against KU in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky (U.S. District Court) alleging discharges at the E.W. Brown plant in violation of the Clean Water Act and the plant's water discharge permit and alleging contamination that may present an imminent and substantial endangerment in violation of the RCRA. The plaintiffs' suit relates to prior notices of intent to file a citizen suit submitted in October and November 2015 and October 2016. These plaintiffs sought injunctive relief ordering KU to take all actions necessary to comply with the Clean Water Act and RCRA, including ceasing the discharges in question, abating effects associated with prior discharges and eliminating the alleged imminent and substantial endangerment. These plaintiffs also sought assessment of civil penalties and an award of litigation costs and attorney fees. In December 2017, the U.S. District Court issued an Order dismissing the Clean Water Act and RCRA complaints against KU in their entirety. In January 2018, the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal Order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. In September 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued its ruling affirming the lower court's decision to dismiss the Clean Water Act claims but reversing its dismissal of the RCRA claims against KU and remanding the latter to the U.S. District Court. In January 2019, KU filed an answer to plaintiffs’ complaint in the U.S. District Court. In May 2021, the U.S. District Court issued an order granting KU's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. In June 2021, the plaintiffs appealed the district court's order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. In September 2021, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, providing for dismissal of the appellate proceedings and release of other claims. KU is undertaking extensive remedial measures at the E.W. Brown plant including closure of the former ash pond, implementation of a groundwater remedial action plan and performance of a corrective action plan including aquatic study of adjacent surface waters and risk assessment. The aquatic study and risk assessment are being undertaken pursuant to a 2017 agreed Order with the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet (KEEC). KU conducted sampling of Herrington Lake in 2017 and 2018. In June 2019, KU submitted to the KEEC the required aquatic study and risk assessment, conducted by an independent third-party consultant, finding that discharges from the E.W. Brown plant have not had any significant impact on Herrington Lake and that the water in the lake is safe for recreational use and meets safe drinking water standards. On May 31, 2021, the KEEC approved the report and released a response to public comments. On August 6, 2021, KU submitted a Supplemental Remedial Alternatives Analysis (SRAA) report to the KEEC that outlines proposed additional fish, water, and sediment testing. KU has submitted a response to the KEEC's comments and expects to undertake the proposed testing in the spring of 2022. Air (PPL and LG&E) Sulfuric Acid Mist Emissions In June 2016, the EPA issued a notice of violation under the Clean Air Act alleging that LG&E violated applicable rules relating to sulfuric acid mist emissions at its Mill Creek plant. The notice alleges failure to install proper controls, failure to operate the facility consistent with good air pollution control practice and causing emissions exceeding applicable requirements or constituting a nuisance or endangerment. LG&E believes it has complied with applicable regulations during the relevant time period. On July 31, 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice and Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky alleging violations specified in the EPA notice of violation and seeking civil penalties and injunctive relief. In October 2020, LG&E filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. In December 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District filed an amended complaint. In February 2021, LG&E filed a renewed motion to dismiss regarding the amended complaint. In September 2021, the parties reached a tentative agreement providing for dismissal of the court action, the payment by LG&E of a penalty amount and performance of a supplemental environmental project (SEP). The parties have entered a Consent Decree, which is awaiting approval from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. PPL and LG&E are unable to predict the final outcome of this matter but do not believe the matter, including the agreed penalty and SEP, will have a significant impact on LG&E's operations or financial condition. Water/Waste (PPL, LG&E and KU) ELGs In 2015, the EPA finalized ELGs for wastewater discharge permits for new and existing steam electricity generating facilities. These guidelines require deployment of additional control technologies providing physical, chemical and biological treatment and mandate operational changes including "no discharge" requirements for certain wastewaters. The implementation date for individual generating stations was to be determined by the states on a case-by-case basis according to criteria provided by the EPA. Legal challenges to the final rule were consolidated before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In April 2017, the EPA announced that it would grant petitions for reconsideration of the rule. In September 2017, the EPA issued a rule to postpone the compliance date for certain requirements. On October 13, 2020, the EPA published final revisions to its best available technology standards for certain wastewaters and potential extensions to compliance dates (the Reconsideration Rule). The rule is expected to be implemented by the states or applicable permitting authorities in the course of their normal permitting activities. LG&E and KU are currently implementing responsive compliance strategies and schedules. Certain aspects of these compliance plans and estimates relate to developments in state water quality standards, which are separate from the ELG rule or its implementation. Certain costs are included in the Registrants' capital plans and expected to be recovered from customers through rate recovery mechanisms, but additional costs and recovery will depend on further regulatory developments at the state level. In August 2021, the EPA published a notice of rulemaking announcing that it will propose revisions to the Reconsideration Rule and determine "whether more stringent limitations and standards are appropriate." Compliance with the Reconsideration Rule is required during the pendency of the rulemaking process. CCRs In 2015, the EPA issued a final rule governing management of CCRs which include fly ash, bottom ash and sulfur dioxide scrubber wastes. The CCR Rule imposes extensive new requirements for certain CCR impoundments and landfills, including public notifications, location restrictions, design and operating standards, groundwater monitoring and corrective action requirements, and closure and post-closure care requirements, and specifies restrictions relating to the beneficial use of CCRs. In July 2018, the EPA issued a final rule extending the deadline for closure of certain impoundments and adopting other substantive changes. In August 2018, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded portions of the CCR Rule. In December 2019, the EPA addressed the deficiencies identified by the court and proposed amendments to change the closure deadline. In August 2020, the EPA published a final rule extending the deadline to initiate closure to April 11, 2021, while providing for certain extensions. The EPA is conducting ongoing rulemaking actions regarding various other amendments to the rule. Certain ongoing legal challenges to various provisions of the CCR Rule have been held in abeyance pending review by the EPA pursuant to the President's executive order. PPL, LG&E, and KU are monitoring the EPA’s ongoing efforts to refine and implement the regulatory program under the CCR Rule. In January 2022, the EPA issued several proposed regulatory determinations, facility notifications, and public announcements which indicate increased scrutiny by the EPA to determine the adequacy of measures taken by facility owners and operators to achieve closure of CCR surface impoundments and landfills. In particular, the agency indicated that it will focus on certain practices which it views as posing a threat of continuing groundwater contamination. Future guidance, regulatory determinations, rulemakings, and other developments could potentially require revisions to current LG&E and KU compliance plans including additional monitoring and remediation at surface impoundments and landfills, the cost of which could be substantial. PPL, LG&E and KU are unable to predict the outcome of the ongoing litigation, rulemaking, and regulatory determinations or potential impacts on current LG&E and KU compliance plans. The Registrants are currently finalizing closure plans and schedules. In January 2017, Kentucky issued a new state rule relating to CCR management, effective May 2017, aimed at reflecting the requirements of the federal CCR rule. As a result of a subsequent legal challenge, in January 2018, the Franklin County, Kentucky Circuit Court issued an opinion invalidating certain procedural elements of the rule. LG&E and KU presently operate their facilities under continuing permits authorized under the former program and do not currently anticipate material impacts as a result of the judicial ruling. Associated costs are expected to be subject to rate recovery. LG&E and KU received KPSC approval for a compliance plan providing for the closure of impoundments at the Mill Creek, Trimble County, E.W. Brown, and Ghent stations, and construction of process water management facilities at those plants. In addition to the foregoing measures required for compliance with the federal CCR rule, KU also received KPSC approval for its plans to close impoundments at the retired Green River, Pineville and Tyrone plants to comply with applicable state law. As of April 2021, LG&E and KU have commenced closure of all of the subject impoundments and have completed closure of some of their smaller impoundments. LG&E and KU generally expect to complete impoundment closures within five years of commencement, although a longer period may be required to complete closure of some facilities. Associated costs are expected to be subject to rate recovery. In connection with the final CCR rule, LG&E and KU recorded adjustments to existing AROs beginning in 2015 and continue to record adjustments as required. See Note 20 for additional information. Further changes to AROs, current capital plans or operating costs may be required as estimates are refined based on closure developments, groundwater monitoring results, and regulatory or legal proceedings. Costs relating to this rule are expected to be subject to rate recovery. (All Registrants) Superfund and Other Remediation PPL Electric, LG&E and KU are potentially responsible for investigating and remediating contamination under the federal Superfund program and similar state programs. Actions are under way at certain sites including former coal gas manufacturing plants in Pennsylvania and Kentucky previously owned or operated by, or currently owned by predecessors or affiliates of, PPL Electric, LG&E and KU. PPL Electric is potentially responsible for a share of clean-up costs at certain sites including the Columbia Gas Plant site and the Brodhead site. Cleanup actions have been or are being undertaken at these sites as requested by governmental agencies, the costs of which have not been and are not expected to be significant to PPL Electric. At December 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020, PPL Electric had a recorded liability of $10 million representing its best estimate of the probable loss incurred to remediate the sites identified above. Depending on the outcome of investigations at identified sites where investigations have not begun or been completed, or developments at sites for which information is incomplete, additional costs of remediation could be incurred. PPL Electric, LG&E and KU lack sufficient information about such additional sites to estimate any potential liability or range of reasonably possible losses, if any, related to these sites. Such costs, however, are not currently expected to be significant. The EPA is evaluating the risks associated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and naphthalene, chemical by-products of coal gas manufacturing. As a result, individual states may establish stricter standards for water quality and soil cleanup, that could require several PPL subsidiaries to take more extensive assessment and remedial actions at former coal gas manufacturing plants. The Registrants cannot reasonably estimate a range of possible losses, if any, related to these matters. Regulatory Issues See Note 7 for information on regulatory matters related to utility rate regulation. Electricity - Reliability Standards The NERC is responsible for establishing and enforcing mandatory reliability standards (Reliability Standards) regarding the bulk electric system in North America. The FERC oversees this process and independently enforces the Reliability Standards. The Reliability Standards have the force and effect of law and apply to certain users of the bulk electric system, including electric utility companies, generators and marketers. Under the Federal Power Act, the FERC may assess civil penalties for certain violations. PPL Electric, LG&E and KU monitor their compliance with the Reliability Standards and self-report or self-log potential violations of applicable reliability requirements whenever identified, and submit accompanying mitigation plans, as required. The resolution of a small number of potential violations is pending. Penalties incurred to date have not been significant. Any Regional Reliability Entity determination concerning the resolution of violations of the Reliability Standards remains subject to the approval of the NERC and the FERC. In the course of implementing their programs to ensure compliance with the Reliability Standards by those PPL affiliates subject to the standards, certain other instances of potential non-compliance may be identified from time to time. The Registrants cannot predict the outcome of these matters, and an estimate or range of possible losses cannot be determined. Gas - Security Directives (PPL and LG&E) In May and July of 2021, the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Transportation Security Administration (TSA) released two security directives applicable to certain notified owners and operators of natural gas pipeline facilities (including local distribution companies) that TSA has determined to be critical. The first security directive required notified owners/operators to implement cybersecurity incident reporting to the DHS, designate a cybersecurity coordinator, and perform a gap assessment of current entity cybersecurity practices against certain voluntary TSA security guidelines and report relevant results and proposed mitigation to applicable DHS agencies. The second security directive requires notified entities to implement a significant number of specified cyber security controls and processes. LG&E does not believe the security directives will have a significant impact on LG&E’s operations or financial condition. Other Guarantees and Other Assurances (All Registrants) In the normal course of business, the Registrants enter into agreements that provide financial performance assurance to third parties on behalf of certain subsidiaries. Examples of such agreements include: guarantees, stand-by letters of credit issued by financial institutions and surety bonds issued by insurance companies. These agreements are entered into primarily to support or enhance the creditworthiness attributed to a subsidiary on a stand-alone basis or to facilitate the commercial activities in which these subsidiaries engage. (PPL) PPL fully and unconditionally guarantees all of the debt obligations of PPL Capital Funding. (All Registrants) The table below details guarantees provided as of December 31, 2021. "Exposure" represents the estimated maximum potential amount of future payments that could be required to be made under the guarantee. The probability of expected payment/performance under each of these guarantees is remote. For reporting purposes, on a consolidated basis, the guarantees of PPL include the guarantees of its subsidiary Registrants.
| Exposure at December 31, 2021 |  | Expiration Date
PPL |  |  |
Indemnifications related to the sale of the U.K. utility business |  | (a) |
Indemnifications related to certain tax liabilities related to the sale of the U.K. utility business | £ | 50 |  | (b) | 2028
LG&E and KU |  |  |
LG&E and KU obligation of shortfall related to OVEC |  | (c) |
(a)PPL WPD Limited agreed to provide a standard indemnity regarding “leakage” amounts, which included amounts taken out of the sold assets through dividends, return of capital, bonuses or similar method, received or waived by WPD (or its affiliates defined as members of the Sellers Group in the SPA) during the period from April 1, 2020 through June 14, 2021, except such amounts permitted under the WPD SPA. The amount of the cap on this indemnity was £7,881 million, the amount paid to PPL WPD Limited at closing. This indemnification expired in December 2021 and no claims have been made. (b)PPL WPD Limited entered into a Tax Deed dated June 9, 2021 in which it agreed to a tax indemnity regarding certain potential tax liabilities of the entities sold with respect to periods prior to the completion of the sale, subject to customary exclusions and limitations. Because National Grid Holdings One plc, the buyer, agreed to purchase indemnity insurance, the amount of the cap on the indemnity for these liabilities is £1, except with respect to certain surrenders of tax losses, for which the amount of the cap on the indemnity is £50 million. (c)Pursuant to the OVEC power purchase contract, LG&E and KU are obligated to pay for their share of OVEC's excess debt service, post-retirement and decommissioning costs, as well as any shortfall from amounts included within a demand charge designed and expected to cover these costs over the term of the contract. PPL's proportionate share of OVEC's outstanding debt was $92 million at December 31, 2021, consisting of LG&E's share of $64 million and KU's share of $28 million. The maximum exposure and the expiration date of these potential obligations are not presently determinable. See "Energy Purchase Commitments" above for additional information on the OVEC power purchase contract. In March 2018, a sponsor with a 4.85% pro-rata share of OVEC obligations filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 and, in August 2018, received a rejection order for the OVEC power purchase contract in the bankruptcy proceeding. OVEC and other entities challenged the contract rejection, the bankruptcy plan confirmation and regulatory aspects of the plan in various forums. In May 2020, OVEC and the relevant sponsor announced a settlement resolving all disputed matters in the bankruptcy and other proceedings, including providing that the sponsor will withdraw its request to reject the power purchase agreement. The settlement was implemented in July 2020. The Registrants provide other miscellaneous guarantees through contracts entered into in the normal course of business. These guarantees are primarily in the form of indemnification or warranties related to services or equipment and vary in duration. The amounts of these guarantees often are not explicitly stated, and the overall maximum amount of the obligation under such guarantees cannot be reasonably estimated. Historically, no significant payments have been made with respect to these types of guarantees and the probability of payment/performance under these guarantees is remote. PPL, on behalf of itself and certain of its subsidiaries, maintains insurance that covers liability assumed under contract for bodily injury and property damage. The coverage provides maximum aggregate coverage of $225 million. This insurance may be applicable to obligations under certain of these contractual arrangements. Risks and Uncertainties (All Registrants) The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the U.S. and global economies and continues to present challenges to businesses, communities, workforces, markets and increasingly to supply chains. In the U.S. and throughout the world, governmental authorities have taken actions to contain the spread of the virus and mitigate known or foreseeable impacts. In the Registrants’ service territories, mitigation measures have included quarantines, stay-at-home orders, travel restrictions, reduced operations or closures of businesses, schools and governmental agencies, and executive, legislative or regulatory actions to address health or other pandemic-related concerns. Many restrictions that had been imposed have been lifted but may be reenacted in the future. These actions have the potential to adversely impact the Registrants' business and operations, especially if these measures remain in effect for a prolonged period of time. To date, there has been no material impact on the Registrants’ operations, financial condition, liquidity or on their supply chain as a result of COVID-19; however, the duration and severity of the outbreak and its ultimate effects on the global economy, the financial markets, or the Registrants’ workforce, customers and suppliers are uncertain. A protracted slowdown of broad sectors of the economy, prolonged or pervasive restrictions on businesses and their workforces, or significant changes in legislation or regulatory policy to address the COVID-19 pandemic all present significant risks to the Registrants. These or other unpredictable events resulting from the pandemic could reduce customer demand for electricity and gas, impact the Registrants’ employees and supply chains, result in an increase in certain costs, delay payments or increase bad debts, or result in changes in the fair value of their assets and liabilities, which could materially and adversely affect the Registrants’ business, results of operations, financial condition or liquidity.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration