CONSOLIDATED EDISON INC

Con Edison’s sustainability strategy, as it relates to the environment, provides that the company seeks, among other things, to reduce direct and indirect GHG emissions; enhance the efficiency of its water use; reduce its impact to natural ecosystems; focus on reducing, reusing and recycling to lower materials consumption and disposal; and design its work in consideration of climate projections.

Con Edison has adopted a Clean Energy Commitment whereby it commits to the transition to the clean energy future. Con Edison's Clean Energy Commitment is supported by five pillars:

•Build the grid of the future

•Empower Con Edison's customers to meet their climate goals

•Reimagine the gas system

•Lead by reducing Con Edison's carbon footprint

•Partner with stakeholders

CECONY

Superfund

The Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 and similar state statutes (Superfund) impose joint and several liability, regardless of fault, upon generators of hazardous substances for investigation costs, remediation costs and environmental damages. The sites as to which CECONY has been asserted to have liability under Superfund include its and its predecessor companies’ former manufactured gas sites, its multi-purpose Astoria site, the Gowanus Canal site, the Newtown Creek site and other Superfund sites discussed below. There may be additional sites as to which assertions will be made that the company has liability. For a further discussion of claims and possible claims against the company under Superfund, estimated liability accrued for Superfund claims and recovery from customers of site investigation and remediation costs, see Note G to the financial statements in Item 8.

Manufactured Gas Sites

CECONY and its predecessors formerly owned and operated manufactured gas plants at 51 sites (MGP Sites) in New York City and Westchester County. Many of these sites have been subdivided and are now owned by parties other than CECONY and have been redeveloped for other uses, including schools, residential and commercial developments and hospitals. The NYSDEC is requiring CECONY to investigate, and if necessary, develop and implement remediation programs for the sites, including any neighboring areas to which contamination may have migrated.

CECONY has started remedial investigations at all 51 MGP Sites. After investigations, no MGP impacts have been detected at all or portions of 15 sites, and the NYSDEC has issued No Further Action (NFA) letters for these sites.

Coal tar or other MGP-related contaminants have been detected at the remaining 36 sites. Remedial actions have been completed at all or portions of 14 sites and the NYSDEC has issued NFA letters for these sites. In addition, remedial actions have been completed by property owners at all or portions of four sites under the New York State Brownfield Cleanup Program and Certificates of Completion have been issued by the NYSDEC for these sites. Remedial design, planning or action is ongoing for the remaining sites or portions of sites; however, the information as to the extent of contamination and scope of the remediation likely to be required for many of these sites is incomplete. The company estimates that its undiscounted potential liability for the completion of the site investigation and cleanup of the known contamination on MGP sites (other than the Astoria site, which is discussed below) could range from $686 million to $2,548 million.

Astoria Site

CECONY is permitted by the NYSDEC to operate a hazardous waste storage facility on property owned by it in the Astoria section of Queens, New York. Portions of the property were formerly the location of a manufactured gas plant and also have been used or are being used for, among other things, electric generation operations, electric substation operations, the storage of fuel oil, the manufacture and storage of liquefied natural gas and the maintenance and storage of electric equipment. As a condition of its NYSDEC permit, the company is required to investigate the property and, where environmental contamination is found and action is necessary, to remediate the contamination. The company’s investigations are ongoing. The company has submitted reports to the NYSDEC and the New York State Department of Health and in the future will be submitting additional reports identifying the known areas of contamination. The company estimates that its undiscounted potential liability for the completion of the site investigation and cleanup of the known contamination on the property could range from $301 million to $884 million.

Gowanus Canal

In August 2009, CECONY received a notice of potential liability and request for information from the EPA about the operations of the company and its predecessors at sites adjacent to or near the 1.8 mile Gowanus Canal in Brooklyn, New York. In March 2010, the EPA added the Gowanus Canal to its National Priorities List of Superfund sites. The canal’s adjacent waterfront is primarily commercial and industrial, currently consisting of concrete plants, warehouses and parking lots. The canal is near several residential neighborhoods. In September 2013, the EPA issued its record of decision for the site. The EPA concluded that there was significant contamination at the site, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, metals and volatile organic compounds. The EPA selected a remedy for the site that includes dredging and disposal of some contaminated sediments and stabilization and capping of contamination that will not be removed. The EPA estimated the cost of the selected remedy to be $506 million (and has indicated the actual cost could be significantly higher). The EPA has identified 39 potentially responsible parties (PRPs) with respect to the site, including CECONY (which the EPA indicated has facilities that may be a source of PCBs at the site). The EPA ordered the PRPs, including CECONY, to coordinate and cooperate with each other to perform and/or fund the remedial design for the selected remedy, which current estimates indicate could cost approximately $113 million. CECONY is funding its allocated share of the remedial design costs along with the other PRPs. In April 2019, the EPA issued an order that requires the PRPs, including CECONY, to: (1) design and perform bulkhead structural support work, including associated access dredging, along certain portions of the upper reaches of the canal, and (2) complete the design work for bulkhead structural support along certain portions of the middle part of the canal. The PRPs and CECONY are coordinating the implementation of this order. In January 2020, the EPA issued an order that requires six PRPs, including CECONY, to initiate the remedial action work in the upper reaches of the canal following the completion of the bulkhead upgrades. The EPA estimated that this work would cost approximately $125 million, although actual costs may be significantly higher. In November 2020, the PRPs began implementation of the work required under this order. Cleanup in other areas of the canal is not addressed by this order. In addition, other Federal agencies and the NYSDEC have previously notified the PRPs of their intent to perform a natural resource damage assessment for the site. CECONY is unable to estimate its exposure to liability for the Gowanus Canal site.

Newtown Creek

In June 2017, CECONY received a notice of potential liability from the EPA with respect to the Newtown Creek site that was listed in 2010 on the EPA’s National Priorities List of Superfund sites. The EPA has identified 21 potentially responsible parties (PRPs) with respect to the site, including CECONY, and has indicated that it will notify the company as additional PRPs are identified and notified by the EPA. Newtown Creek and its tributaries (collectively, Newtown Creek) form a 3.8 mile border between Brooklyn and Queens, New York. Currently, the predominant land use around Newtown Creek includes industrial, petroleum, recycling, manufacturing and distribution facilities and warehouses. Other uses include trucking, concrete manufacture, transportation infrastructure and a wastewater treatment plant. Newtown Creek is near several residential neighborhoods. Six PRPs, not including CECONY, pursuant to an administrative settlement agreement and order on consent the EPA issued to them in 2011, have been performing a remedial investigation of the site. The EPA indicated that sampling events have shown the sediments in Newtown Creek to be contaminated with a wide variety of hazardous substances including PCBs, metals, pesticides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and volatile organic compounds. The EPA also indicated that it has reason to believe that hazardous substances have come to be released from CECONY facilities into Newtown Creek. The current schedule anticipates completion of a feasibility study for the site during 2027 and issuance of the EPA's record of decision selecting a remedy for the site thereafter. CECONY is unable to estimate its exposure to liability for the Newtown Creek site.

Other Superfund Sites

CECONY is a PRP at additional Superfund sites involving other PRPs and participates in PRP groups at those sites. The company generally is not managing the site investigation and remediation at these multiparty sites. Work at these sites is in various stages, and investigation, remediation and monitoring activities at some of these sites can be expected to continue over extended periods of time. The company believes that it is unlikely that monetary sanctions, such as penalties, will be imposed by any governmental authority with respect to these sites.

The following table lists each of the additional Superfund sites for which the company anticipates it may have liability. The table also shows for each such site its location, the year in which the company was designated or alleged to be a PRP or to otherwise have responsibilities for the site (shown in the table under “Start”), the name of the court or agency in which proceedings for the site are pending and CECONY’s estimated percentage of the total liability for each site. The company currently estimates that its potential liability for investigation, remediation, monitoring and environmental damages in aggregate for the sites below, other than the sites where the percentage of total liability has not been determined, is less than $2 million. Superfund liability is joint and several. The company’s estimate of its liability for each site was determined pursuant to consent decrees, settlement agreements or otherwise and in light of the financial condition of other PRPs. The company’s actual liability could differ substantially from amounts estimated.

Other Environmental Matters

Following media reports, in July 2023, the Environmental Protection Agency, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New York State Department of Health and NYSDPS began investigating the potential public health risks associated with lead-jacketed cables in the fixed-line telecommunications industry. The use of lead-jacketed electric cables began in the 1880s to protect conducting wires from exposure to the elements. All of the Utilities’ transmission cables that are in service and lead-jacketed are covered with an outer plastic layer and comprise less than 2 percent of CECONY’s transmission system and less than 5 percent of O&R’s transmission system. CECONY installed lead-jacketed cables without an outer plastic layer in its distribution system until the 1980’s. CECONY’s distribution cables that are in service and lead-jacketed may or may not have an outer plastic layer and may be located within a conduit and manhole system, directly buried or strung in the air between poles and comprise less than 14 percent of its distribution system. O&R’s distribution cables are not lead-jacketed. CECONY’s transmission and distribution systems also contain lead-jacketed cables that were retired in place. CECONY continues to replace lead-jacketed distribution cables, as needed, and recover the costs for cable replacements, pursuant to its electric rate plan. The Companies are unable to predict the impact on them, if any, resulting from potential developments to legal or public policy doctrines regarding cable that contains lead.

In July 2021, a CECONY feeder failure led to the discharge of thousands of gallons of dielectric fluid from a street manhole in New Rochelle, New York. Dielectric fluid reached nearby streets, properties and the New Rochelle Harbor. CECONY, the U.S. Coast Guard, the NYSDEC and other agencies responded to the incident. CECONY stopped the feeder leak on the same day the discharge occurred and has completed the spill recovery and associated cleanup operations. As a result of the discharge, CECONY received third-party damage claims. The costs associated with this matter are not expected to have a material adverse effect on CECONY’s financial condition, results of operations and liquidity. In connection with the incident, CECONY may incur monetary sanctions of more than $0.3 million for violations of certain provisions regulating the discharge of materials into, and for the protection of, the environment.

In 2016, CECONY and another utility responded to a reported dielectric fluid leak at a New Jersey marina on the Hudson River associated with one or two underwater transmission lines, the New Jersey portion of which is owned and operated by the other utility and the New York portion of which is owned and operated by CECONY. In 2017, after the marina owner had cleared substantial debris from its collapsed pier and rip rap material that it had previously placed over and in the vicinity of the underwater transmission lines in an attempt to shore up its failing pier, a dielectric fluid leak was found and repaired on one of the underwater transmission lines. In August 2018, the EPA declared the leak response complete. In August 2020, CECONY and the other utility entered into a settlement with the United States federal government, under which the utilities settled the federal government’s claims for outstanding response costs. In December 2023, CECONY, the other utility and the marina owner settled all of the claims in a litigation regarding response and repair costs and related damages.