U.S. Power Industry Update

Transcription

1 Aon Risk Solutions U.S. Power Practice U.S. Power Industry Update A Message from Mark Fishbaugh I am pleased to provide you with the latest U.S. Power Industry Update for June Aon Power is committed to providing industry specialization to develop innovative, tailored solutions to our clients. In this issue, we focus on the essential role risk management plays in our industry, the increasing threat of cyber liabilities and a nuclear update. In this Issue 02 Introducing RE-GEN 03 Cyber Liability Update - Q&A 05 Nuclear Energy Liability Foreign Coverage: New Capacity, New Benefits 06 PJM Interconnection, LLC Institutes NonPerformance Charges 06 Outlook for the Global Nuclear Insurance Market 07 Contractual Risk Transfer: Tips & Tools for Success Aon continues to invest in Power. I am proud to announce the addition of 10 new industry specialists to the U.S. Power Team in Each new addition will strengthen Aon s ability to provide specialized client service that can add tremendous value to your risk management needs. Our entire team looks forward to seeing you at the AEGIS conference in July. We ll be onsite and available to meet on any of these or other topics. We also hope to see all of you at our event Monday night! Best, Mark Fishbaugh U.S. Power Practice Leader Aon Risk Solutions Charlotte, NC Risk. Reinsurance. Human Resources. June 2016

2 Introducing RE-GEN By Alex Post, Mark Potter and Paul Bernardino U.S. Percentage Share of Power Capacity Additions in 2015 Alex Post As one of the largest brokers in the world, Aon is at the forefront of managing the risks associated with the ever growing and expanding renewable energy industry. In 2015 alone, wind and solar assets accounted for 69 percent of the new generation capacity in the US and globally accounted for USD 329B of investments. Aon is committed to keeping pace with global developments in renewable energy with investments in its Global Power Specialty team and through the development of innovative risk transfer products that meet the needs of our clients and other constituents to a transaction. Petroleum 0.1% Other Renewables 1.5% Solar 28.5% Natural Gas 28.1% Other Nonrenewables 0.8% Wind 41.0% Mark Potter With the growth of US renewables expected to continue into the future supported by the recent five year extensions of the PTC and ITC, reduced technology costs, Clean Power Plan and mandated renewable energy portfolio standards, Aon Global Power is proud to announce the launch of RE-GEN. RE-GEN, created to address the rising risk concerns of our clients, is Aon s exclusive underwriting facility that is focused on delivering a simplified product with enhanced Paul Bernardino coverage terms and competitive pricing for wind and solar projects including coverage for energy storage. With a product that is underwritten by Maven Underwriters, we now have the ability to control more of the risk transfer process for our clients portfolios of different technologies. RE-GEN provides insurance coverage throughout the lifecycle of renewable energy projects; from the early shipment of material, through the marine and construction periods and transitioning into the operational phase. Backed by A+ -rated security from market leading underwriters, RE-GEN provides comprehensive, cost effective coverage uniquely designed for the renewable sector. Source: AWEA U.S. Wind Industry Annual Market Report Year Ending 2015 We believe that it is important to continue evolving and enhancing the coverage for these unique risks and that is the purpose of developing RE-GEN. With the increasing importance of the Renewable Energy sector and the dependence placed on it to deliver our energy needs, it is essential that these investments are well protected. In addition to first party property and time element, RE-GEN also offers competitive third-party liability coverage in order to further protect the balance sheets of developers, owners and contractors. Incidents such as: the well documented battery storage loss at a windfarm in Hawaii and the more recent tornado loss at a very large solar farm in California highlight the severe nature of losses that can occur. Additionally, attritional losses including blade and gear box failures at wind farms and inverter losses at solar farms continue to erode the terms available through traditional markets. RE-GEN is here to provide peace of mind, broad coverage and competitive pricing. For further information please contact Paul Bernardino and Alex Post. In addition to first party property and time element, RE-GEN also offers competitive third party liability coverage in order to further protect the balance sheets of developers, owners and contractors. U.S. Power Industry Update U.S. Power Practice June

3 Cyber Liability Update Q & A with Nolan Wilson, Aon s Professional Risk Solutions, Southeast Region Leader Gary Gresham In the last few newsletters we ve addressed current Directors and Officers Liability issues. For this newsletter we wanted to touch on the very topical cyber insurance exposures for the power and utility sector. I spent time with Nolan Wilson discussing this important issue/exposure. Gary: Nolan, thanks for taking time to discuss cyber exposures through a power and utility lens. Let s get started. From a cyber perspective, what are some of the major challenges faced by power and utility companies? Nolan: From an exposure perspective it s around business interruption from a cyber event both first party business interruption Nolan Wilson and contingent business interruption, due to an issue with an outsourced partner or third party provider. With the growing use of smart grid technology, more systems are increasingly connected, which opens up additional security vulnerabilities. And in many cases, security of these devices has not been a top priority. With that said, some of the recent news stories may have propelled companies to consider the security issues and allocate resources accordingly. In addition, bodily injury and property damage resulting from cyber incidents are a concern. Several studies have shown vulnerabilities that could result in some pretty scary situations. Particularly in the power and utility industry, general liability programs might not have exclusions pertaining to cyber, but the majority of the commercial insurance marketplace has taken the stance that general liability policies should not respond to cyber events, though we have seen situations where a general liability will respond with coverage for defense costs. Cyber extortion and ransom demands are more prevalent in 2016, with numerous healthcare organizations impacted. It s not difficult to imagine this threat hitting the critical infrastructure industry. From a coverage perspective, cyber policies are inconsistent. Each carrier utilizes different policy forms with their own insuring agreements, definitions and exclusions. Cyber policies have traditionally focused on privacy risks, responding to lost / stolen credit card info, personal information and / or health information. But for most companies in the power and utility industry, privacy is not as big a concern as operational issues and interruption to service. And partly because of that perception, we have seen the majority of companies not purchase cyber insurance to date, though most companies have looked at the coverage or are talking about it. Gary: Are there any areas which you believe are not adequately being addressed currently in the cyber marketplace? Nolan: I think the insurance marketplace needs to figure out where cyber fits within the product offering. I think we ve come to the general agreement that response costs after a cyber breach fall under a cyber policy things like notification to impacted individuals, credit monitoring, and forensics costs following a cyber event. But bodily injury, property damage and business interruption have historically been covered under the property and casualty policies. However, it is clear that most property and casualty markets do not want to cover bodily injury, property damage and business interruption resulting from a cyber related event. There are products available, but as loss scenarios continue to develop, the insurance marketplace will need to address these exposures so everyone understands what is and is not covered, and under what policies. As the underwriting process and quantification of exposure continue to evolve, I expect more clarity and the cyber insurance offering to progress in favor of the policyholders. Gary: You mentioned risk quantification, which seems to be a big challenge for power and utility risk managers. What can you tell us about figuring out what limits should be purchased? What about other analytics? Nolan: Exactly, that is the question we get most often as companies consider cyber coverage. As cyber remains in the headlines, boards of directors, in some cases, may mandate that the company purchase $X amount of limits. However, that limit may not be representative of the exposures. Peer benchmarking is one tool, but it s not full-proof as companies purchase decisions are based on many factors. We have some idea of loss sizes from breaches over the past handful of years. It s really about looking at several analytics tools that are available from both a cyber evaluation (comparing a company s cyber security to that of various standards) as well as the risk quantification (coming up with potential loss scenarios) then, given a company s unique exposures, determine the probable maximum loss values for those scenarios. We ve seen several organizations utilize this analytical approach to make more informed purchasing decisions. I think it s important that companies understand what tools are available to help make decisions around cyber insurance. Continued next page U.S. Power Industry Update U.S. Power Practice June

4 Gary: What cyber related tools can Aon offer its clients? Nolan: A lot. And the options are growing. I mentioned the traditional benchmarking against peers, but again, that s just one tool and might not be very helpful. The Aon Cyber team created the Cyber Solutions Framework to provide a menu of solutions for clients. That includes helping clients identify, address and respond to their unique cyber risks. The goal is to go beyond risk transfer. The Aon approach is to work with clients on pre-breach planning and incident response, identifying and quantifying risks, with risk transfer one piece in the cyber puzzle. Cyber risk is not static, and as such our framework serves as a tool for holistic cyber risk management. Gary: So, what trends are you seeing in cyber claims? Nolan: 2016 has yielded more reported cases of cyber extortion, whereby third parties gain control of a company s systems and hold it for ransom, demanding payment, typically in the form of bitcoin. The cyber policies address this risk but with the increasing reliance upon system controls, the interruption from a lockout is a real threat. I think we will continue to see more interruption to systems and business by way of a cyber-attack. We ve also seen FERC penalties being assessed over the past few years for violations of NERC reliability standards. Gary: What are you seeing in terms of cyber policy terms and limits adequacy? Nolan: We have seen variance in the market between terms and conditions offered by various insurers. I do see underwriters more willing to provide comprehensive cyber coverage components as opposed to a year ago. Business interruption, contingent business interruption, system failure and removing sub-limits are all topics during the placement process. While adequate limits exist for USD 100M+ limit programs, when building layered programs, some excess markets may not follow the terms and conditions of the underlying, particularly for power and utility risks, so that is an important item to be mindful of. More carriers are able to offer large chunks of limits either on their own or through specialized facilities intended for large capacity programs, often excess of a high retention. Gary: What should risk mangers know about the cyber underwriting process? Nolan: That it can be an involved process for a first time buyer and on a renewal basis. The applications have grown in length, with a focus on IT security. It is important to show the strength of cyber security and a proactive risk management approach from both a contractual due diligence perspective and working collaboratively with internal IT security teams. Underwriters want 2016 has yielded more reported cases of cyber extortion, whereby third parties gain control of a company s systems and hold it for ransom, demanding payment, typically in the form of bitcoin. to know that companies have an incident response plan in place and how often it is tested. Underwriters want to see proactive risk management, implementation of employee training and a culture of cyber security. Gary: Nolan, you ve covered a lot ground today. Thanks for your time and valuable insights. Other cyber news: In a recent article in Risk & Insurance, my colleague, Kevin Kalinich, and I weighed in on the potential impact of a major cyber-attack on the U.S. Power Grid. While the utility industry is better equipped than other industries against cyber-attacks, the potential of major loss and economic catastrophe is still a viable possibility. Please take the time to review our viewpoints within the entire article. I m happy to answer any questions on how Aon can help protect and mitigate against the possibility of major losses resulting from a cyber-attack. Until next time. Nolan Wilson joined Aon s Professional Risk Solutions team in March 2015 as the Southeast Region Leader. In this position, Nolan is responsible for identifying exposures and developing insurance and risk mitigation solutions related to technology errors and omissions, miscellaneous professional liability, media liability, and network risk with a focus on the power and utility space. Nolan supports The Aon Power team to identify cyber placement opportunities. Nolan began his career with Aon in June 2005 on the account management team. U.S. Power Industry Update U.S. Power Practice June

5 Nuclear Energy Liability Foreign Coverage: New Capacity, New Benefits By Brian De Bruin The issue of capacity American Nuclear Insurers (ANI) has written the Nuclear Energy Liability Foreign Coverage Policy (Supplier s and Transporter s Form) for decades. The Foreign S&T policy indemnifies U.S.-headquartered companies (e.g., suppliers and contractors) that provide nuclear-related products or services outside Brian De Bruin the U.S. Over the years, ANI has become increasingly restrictive with its capacity. Today, ANI maintains its position of not allowing existing insureds to increase their limits; as well as only allowing new insureds a maximum of USD 25M in limits. This restriction is on top of the policy Condition 5 regarding the potential application of multiple policies to one loss. Here, ANI s liability is limited to USD 50M in the aggregate regardless of the number of separate policies that apply to the same incident. For incidents in France, Spain, or Sweden the limitation is further reduced to USD 15M in the aggregate regardless of the number of separate policies that apply to the same incident. The above restrictions operate to potentially significantly impair an ANI-insured s protection from claims alleging damages by their products or services due to the nuclear energy hazard. As such, insureds have sought additional coverage to supplement the sparse limits available through ANI. The issue of program structure The British nuclear insurance pool, Nuclear Risk Insurers (NRI), has responded over the years to many ANI-insureds seeking additional limits over their ANI Foreign S&T policies. The additional protection has sat excess of ANI s stipulated limits. However, we found when auditing new accounts that there would be a gap in coverage under most programs. This is due to NRI s excess policy not dropping down over the ANI limits which could potentially be significantly eroded as a result of the application of multiple ANI policies to the same incident. In certain instances, Aon has been able to negotiate with NRI to fill this gap for our clients by adding a drop down clause. However, we have found additional discrepancies in the NRI excess policy. Aside from the issues arising out of the program structure not having umbrella or follow form excess wording, another key issue is the limited claim jurisdiction of the NRI policy. The issue of jurisdiction While the number of countries supporting the nuclear liability conventions is abundant, the nuclear industry has yet to establish a truly global nuclear liability regime. The vision of the conventions is for a majority of the world to be a party to them in order to establish consistency and exclusive jurisdiction for cross-border coverage and claims and to provide increased limits of financial protection to the public in the event of a nuclear accident. However, should an accident occur in a country that is not a signatory to the same convention as the country where the lawsuit is brought, operators and suppliers risk having no protection under the protocol. Furthermore, although the ANI policy allows coverage for claims brought outside of the country where the nuclear accident occurred, NRI s policy specifically excludes any action brought outside the courts of the country where the nuclear damage occurred. New coverage available with worldwide jurisdiction The current nuclear product liability policies issued by NRI contain exclusions specifically related to claims brought outside the country where the nuclear damage occurred. As the nuclear insurance pooling system was set up to resist aggregation of liability in the event of a nuclear catastrophe, it is unlikely the nuclear insurance pools would make commercial insurance available to cover the large exposures facing suppliers and contractors selling overseas. In light of this fact, Aon s Nuclear Industry Practice has developed solutions to help address this exposure. Aon has recently placed a first-of-its-kind, excess follow-form, foreign S&T coverage that includes worldwide claim jurisdiction. Furthermore, the policy has additional benefits that the policy limits will not be shared, will drop-down over the underlying ANI policy when eroded, and includes coverage for onsite property damage at a nuclear facility. Conclusions and recommended actions Nuclear contractors and suppliers should review exposures to potential nuclear incidents that would be covered both by their foreign S&T policies and any excess policies. We suggest a review of available insurance, as to which jurisdictions it applies and whether it has any gaps. If you have any questions about how Aon can assist in your risk assessment or about the content of this alert, please do not hesitate to contact our Nuclear Industry Practice or your local Aon representative. J. Brian De Bruin CPCU, CRIS, ARM Aon Nuclear Industry Practice Leader, Global Power Practice Construction Services Group brian.debruin@aon.com U.S. Power Industry Update U.S. Power Practice June

6 PJM Interconnection, LLC Institutes Non-Performance Charges By Brian De Bruin PJM Interconnection, LLC operates two separate wholesale electricity markets (the energy market, which is the real time delivery of power on the interstate transmission grid, and the capacity market, which creates commitments to provide power for PJM-declared emergencies). Following the potential weaknesses in power grid reliability brought to PJM s attention during the Polar Vortex/snow storm events in 2014, PJM has implemented new rules for its capacity market participants. As of June 1, 2016, PJM has implemented potentially significant non-performance charges for those capacity market participants that have cleared the PJM auctions as capacity performance resources if they fail to deliver their expected capacity during an emergency event. The non-performance charges can be in the millions of dollars (e.g., a 500MW plant outage could be subject to charges in excess of USD 900,000 per hour in the delivery year June 2016-May 2017). Aon has negotiated insurance solutions for several clients that help protect them from non-performance charges assessed due to unplanned outages, unplanned derates, and certain extensions to planned outages. Many of the insurance markets for these solutions are long standing and familiar with insuring power plants for property damage, business interruption and forced outage/replacement power coverages. Over the past few years, these insurers have been adapting their forced outage coverage forms to create insurance coverage for PJM s Non-Performance Charges and ISO New England s upcoming pay-for-performance program. Aon has also been at the forefront of arranging these coverages and has assisted certain insurers in creating their offerings by helping with the drafting of policy wording as well as understanding the assessment of exposures and performance. Aon has bound coverage with multiple markets and understands the nuances of insurer s policy forms. As each form is unique, Aon not only provides assistance with comparisons but can also work to negotiate expanded terms with markets that may be offering pricing, deductible, and/or limits advantages. These services have been invaluable to our capacity performance clients. Outlook for the Global Nuclear Insurance Market By Brian De Bruin Looking to 2017, the outlook for the global nuclear insurance market predicts sweeping change on the liability side - and this brings the added potential for significant market disruption on the property side. This outlook is based on at least three separate catalysts. First, Canada is expected to put its new nuclear liability law into force, significantly increasing its compulsory financial protection amount from USD 75M to USD 650M. This limit will then be increased further each year until it reaches USD 1.2B. 1 Second, it is expected that the 2004 Protocol to amend the Paris Convention will be in force by next spring. This will require all parties to the 2004 Protocol to increase their nuclear liability limits to EUR 700M and then further increase this limit by EUR 100M each year until the limits equal EUR 1.2B. Not only are these aggressive limit changes but the changes will stress the worldwide insurance markets due to the requirement for the time limit on claims to be extended from the current 10 years following a nuclear incident to 30 years. 2 For example, in the UK, this is currently only achievable by the UK government potentially agreeing to fill the time period gap with public funds as the nuclear pools (Nuclear Risk Insurers) have informed that they would not be in a position to take on the risk past the current 10 year standard. 3 The above two changes are potentially of significant impact to the nuclear property market. The reason is due to the allocation of pool capacity. Since nuclear liability limits are compulsory by law, the available pool capacity will need to be utilized to its fullest extent to first accommodate this risk (up to any potential internal pool limitations). As such, since the pools have finite capacity, this could potentially begin to stress the nuclear property capacity if new overall pool capacity is not increased enough next year or the following years. Finally, the third issue potentially able to cause nuclear market disruption in is the impending renewal of the European Union (EU) s Insurance Block Exemption Regulation. EU competition rules apply to the insurance industry; however, the nuclear pools are currently exempted from this Regulation. The Regulation became effective on April 1, 2010 and will expire on March 31, The insurance industry believes that the Regulation will not continue with its current exemption of the nuclear pools. As a result, the NRI have already begun to take specific actions respecting their dealings with participating insurers in light of anticipated future competition rules, although it is yet to be known what exactly these rules will be and how the nuclear pool capacity will be impacted. 5 So, looking to 2017, the outlook for the global nuclear insurance market predicts sweeping change on the liability side - and this brings the added potential for significant market disruption on the property side. U.S. Power Industry Update U.S. Power Practice June 2016 SOURCES: 3, 5 - Direct discussions with NRI and Northcourt on May 11,

7 Contractual Risk Transfer: Tips & Tools for Success By Christine Palomba and Cindy Fee Christine Palomba Contract Reviews continue to be an area of concern for many Power & Utility risk managers, and we see a variety of structures for how companies address contract negotiations. The lead negotiator can range from procurement, to legal, to the project manager, or another position within the organization; all of which may or may not include risk management in the process. Oftentimes risk management is only brought in when there are modifications to the insurance requirements, to conduct a certificate of insurance compliance review, or after the fact if there is a claim. From an overall organizational resiliency perspective, it is pivotal to involve risk managers early in the project process. Risk managers bring an ability to step back and Cindy Fee see the big picture - helping to define risk potentials and probabilities, while also offering suggestions for mitigation. The utility can then make well-informed decisions as to whether to proceed with a project; balancing the business need with potential risk. With the proliferation of big data analytics, publicized costly data breaches, emerging risks and technology, more savvy counter-parties negotiating contract terms, and the Risk managers bring an ability to step back and see the big picture - helping to define risk potentials and probabilities, while also offering suggestions for mitigation. increasing costs of litigation, having a strong risk management team and approach to contract review in place is invaluable. One area that crosses between legal and risk expertise is the interplay between indemnity, insurance, and limitations of liability. As terms in any one of these matters directly impact the other matters, which in turn directly impact financials, it is an area where depth of understanding is key. For purposes herein, following is an overview of Indemnity, Insurance and Limitations of Liability. Since statutes, policies and regulations may vary from state to state, we strongly suggest partnering with your legal representatives prior to implementing any changes in your contract terms. Continued next page Overview of Indemnity, Insurance and Limitations of Liability Indemnity Insurance Limitations of Liability Defines the triggers whereby one party (indemnitor) is obligated to protect another party (indemnitee) from damages arising from the indemnitor s acts. Breadth of protection is limited by statute and varies from state to state. Ex. Type I, II, or III Indemnity. Is not limited by or contingent upon insurance coverage. Risk transfer mechanism that shifts loss from one party to an insurer. Indemnity obligations may be (but are not necessarily) covered by insurance, depending upon the loss. Subject to policy limits, losses may exceed available limits. Types include: Commercial General Liability- third party bodily injury or property damage Property- first party damage to property, may include business interruption Cyber- third party breach of confidentiality, first party operational/ financial loss Errors & Omissions- third party financial loss arising from professional services Workers Compensation- bodily injury to workers arising out of course & scope of employment Operate to cap one party s overall financial liability to its counter-party for losses arising under the contract. May include a waiver of consequential damages provision. Unless closely scrutinized, may be broader than one party intends and limit or cap recovery for: - Breaches of confidentiality - Indemnity - Insurance recoverables - Attorneys fees - Warranties - Gross negligence U.S. Power Industry Update U.S. Power Practice June

8 It may come as a surprise, but we ve at times seen utilities blindly accept contractor-suggested limitation of liability language rather than countering with their own standardized limitation of liability provision. This can translate to not only impacting that particular utility, but may overall result in a shift of negotiating power from utilities to contractors. The end result could be more risk to utilities, mutual insurers, and ratepayers. Below are some tips to consider when negotiating limitations of liability provisions: Recognize that if there is a competitive bid, it may make more sense to go with the #2 respondent if there is no limitation of liability requested. Analyze the potential risks and probabilities of loss under a particular contract when setting a cap amount. Recognize that the contract amount or insurance requirements are not typically meaningfully connected to the risk of potential loss. Periodically review legacy contracts to ensure standard contract terms and conditions are in place, still relevant, and provide appropriate protections. Develop and propose your own standard limitation of liability language to counter back to contractors, carving out those items you specifically want excluded from the overall cap. Suggestions for Carve-outs Include: Indemnity - uncapped contractor liability for bodily injury and property damage claims arising from the contractor s acts. Breach of Confidentiality - uncapped contractor liability if there is the potential for breach or compromise of confidential customer data or critical electrical infrastructure information. Insurance recoverables - uncapped contractor liability to the extent claims are covered by insurance. Warranties - uncapped contractor liability to repair/replace shoddy work falling under the warranties. Gross Negligence - many states do not allow for waiver or a cap of losses arising from a party s own gross negligence. However, consider the benefits of clearly defining obligations up front in the contract rather than leaving something open to the interpretation of the courts. When negotiating contracts, whether in advance or overall as a systematic re-vamp of standard terms and conditions, Aon is ready and available to provide insurance expertise and be an extension of your risk management team. Aon s clients also have exclusive access to the Construction Risk Portal a valuable tool to help clients navigate and bring clarity to the risks associated with conducting work in specific jurisdictions. The portal is available to your team members, including legal or other departments who have responsibility for contract negotiations. Continued next page When negotiating contracts, whether in advance or overall as a systematic re-vamp of standard terms and conditions, Aon is ready and available to provide insurance expertise and be an extension of your risk management team. U.S. Power Industry Update U.S. Power Practice June

9 There are 3 key sections of Aon s Construction Risk Portal (CRP) 1. Risk Maps The Construction Risk Maps present users with an aggregated view of case law, legislation and hot button issues affecting construction across all U.S. jurisdictions, in an interactive format. The Risk Climate map compares each state through Workers Compensation rates from the top 10 construction class codes, US Chamber of Commerce state liability ratings, an Aon actuarial metric and deep analysis of the data captured within CRP. Additional categories covered include Workers Compensation, Liability, Project Delivery, Operations/Contracts, Auto and Surety. 2. Construction Risk Register The Risk Register is a dynamic, project risk analysis tool that provides the user with an aggregation of data from CRP Risk Maps combined with both Windstorm and Earthquake data provided by Aon Benfield s Impact Forecasting team. The project risk profile generated can be used to better understand the potential jurisdictional and natural exposures associated with the project location, amount/limits of insurance, how much contingency to add and contractual language modifications regarding risk transfer. The Risk Register can also be a great tool in determining whether a full Probable Maximum Loss (PML) study should be conducted by the Impact Forecasting team. 3. Construction Risk Reports New in 2016 is the ability to generate state specific reports. Select a state, category, and underlying risk topics to generate a PDF report. Reports can be created using topics from any of the Risk Maps or the Risk Register. Use these reports to provide estimating teams, division resources, owners and lending resources with greater clarity around both jurisdictional and catastrophic risk associated with a project or region. For access to the Construction Risk Portal or to discuss any of its capabilities, please contact your Aon service team or either Cindy or Christine. The materials in this article have been prepared by Aon Construction Services Group in collaboration with ALFA International for informational purposes only. The information contained is general in nature, and may not apply to particular factual or legal circumstances. In any event, the materials do not constitute legal advice or opinions and should not be relied upon as such. Transmission of the information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Readers should not act upon any information in this article without seeking professional counsel. Aon and ALFA International make no representations or warranties with respect to any information, materials or graphics in this article, all of which is provided on a strictly as is basis, without warranty of any kind. Aon and ALFA International hereby expressly disclaims all warranties with regard to any information, materials or graphics in this article, including all implied warranties or merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose and non-infringement. U.S. Power Industry Update U.S. Power Practice June

10 Key Contacts Paul Bernardino Global Power Specialty J. Brian De Bruin Construction Services Group Mark A. Fishbaugh Leader National Power Practice Cynthia Fee Senior Casualty Specialist Global Power Specialty Lori Goltermann Chief Executive Officer - US Retail lori.goltermann@aon.com Gary Gresham U.S. Power FSG Team Leader gary.gresham@aon.com Christine Palomba U.S. Power Casualty Team Leader christine.palomba@aon.com Alex Post US Power Property Leader alex.post@aon.com Christopher P. Scontras Managing Director Global Power Specialty chris.scontras@aon.com About Aon Aon plc (NYSE:AON) is a leading global provider of risk management, insurance brokerage and reinsurance brokerage, and human resources solutions and outsourcing services. Through its more than 72,000 colleagues worldwide, Aon unites to empower results for clients in over 120 countries via innovative risk and people solutions. For further information on our capabilities and to learn how we empower results for clients, please visit: aon.mediaroom.com. Aon plc All rights reserved. The information contained herein and the statements expressed are of a general nature and are not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information and use sources we consider reliable, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation