Collective Mining (CNL) Risk Factors

Cleco's ability to complete construction of, or capital improvements to, power generation and transmission and distribution facilities in a timely manner and within budget is contingent upon many variables and subject to substantial risks. These variables include engineering and project execution risk and escalating costs for materials, labor, and environmental compliance. Delays in obtaining permits, shortages in materials and qualified labor, suppliers and contractors not performing as set forth under their contracts, changes in the scope and timing of projects, inaccurate cost estimates, the inability to raise capital on favorable terms, changes in commodity prices affecting revenue, fuel or material costs, changes in the economy, changes in laws or regulations, including environmental compliance requirements, and other events beyond the control of Cleco may materially affect the schedule and cost of these projects. If these projects are significantly delayed or become subject to cost overruns or cancellation, Cleco could incur additional costs including termination payments, face increased risk of potential write-off of the investment in the project, or Cleco Power may not be able to recover such costs in rates. Furthermore, failure to maintain various levels of generating unit availability or transmission and distribution reliability may result in various disallowances of Cleco Power's investments.

Counterparties may fail to perform on their physical or financial obligations. Currently, some master agreements with counterparties contain provisions that require the counterparties to provide credit support to secure all or part of their obligations to Cleco, or specifically to Cleco Power or Cleco Cajun. If the counterparties to these arrangements fail to perform, Cleco may enforce and recover the proceeds from the credit support provided; however, in the event of a default, credit support may not always be adequate to cover the related obligations. In such event, Cleco may incur losses in excess of amounts already paid, if any, to the counterparties or due to an adverse replacement cost of the transaction. The credit commitments of Cleco's lenders under its bank facilities may not be honored for a variety of reasons, including unexpected periods of financial distress affecting such lenders, which could materially affect the adequacy of its liquidity sources. In no case would Cleco Power bear any commodity or credit risk of Cleco Cajun.

Cleco Power Cleco Power may enter into fuel cost hedging transactions to mitigate the volatility in fuel costs passed through to its retail customers. When transactions expire or are offset through liquidation, actual gains or losses are deferred and included in the FAC in the month the physical contract settles. Recovery of any of these FAC costs is subject to, and may be disallowed as part of, a prudency review or a periodic fuel audit conducted by the LPSC. Cleco Cajun Cleco Cajun is exposed to uncertain market prices of electricity, natural gas, coal, and other commodities that can impact costs of fuel supply for generation, generation revenue, cost to serve its contracted wholesale electricity customers, and revenue from these customers. Energy costs and revenues are also subject to volumetric risk due to fluctuations related to unexpected plant outages and uncertain customer load.

Cleco's business is subject to extensive federal, state, and local energy, environmental, and other laws and regulations. The LPSC regulates Cleco Power's retail operations and FERC regulates Cleco's wholesale operations. The construction, planning, and siting of Cleco Power's power plants and transmission lines are also subject to the jurisdiction of the LPSC and FERC. Additional regulatory authorities have jurisdiction over some of Cleco's operations and construction projects including the EPA, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the U.S. Department of Transportation, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Federal Communications Commission, the LDEQ, the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, the Louisiana Department of Public Safety, the Louisiana Department of Agriculture, the Louisiana Bureau of Economic Analysis, regional water quality boards, and various local regulatory districts. Should Cleco be unsuccessful in obtaining necessary licenses or permits or should these regulatory authorities initiate any investigations or enforcement actions or impose penalties or disallowances on Cleco, Cleco's business could be adversely affected. Existing regulations may be revised or reinterpreted and new laws and regulations may be adopted or become applicable to Cleco or Cleco's facilities in a manner that may have a material adverse effect on the Registrants' business or result in significant additional costs. As a result of the 2016 Merger, Cleco Holdings and Cleco Power made the 2016 Merger Commitments to the LPSC including, but not limited to, the extension of Cleco Power's current FRP for an additional two years, maintaining employee headcount, salaries, and benefits for ten years, and a limitation from incurring additional long-term debt, excluding non-recourse debt, unless certain financial ratios are achieved. Additionally, upon approval of the Cleco Cajun Transaction, Cleco made commitments to the LPSC including, but not limited to, holding Cleco Power retail customers harmless for any adverse impacts, increased costs of debt or equity, and credit rating downgrades attributable to the Cleco Cajun Transaction; the repayment of $400.0 million of Cleco Holdings' debt by 2024; and a $4.0 million annual reduction to Cleco Power's retail customer rates. In April 2016, the LPSC issued Docket No. R-34026 to investigate the double leveraging issues for all LPSC-jurisdictional utilities whereby double leveraging is utilized to fund a utility's capital structure, and to consider whether any costs associated with such double leveraging should be included in the rates paid by the utility's retail ratepayers. Cleco Power has intervened in this proceeding, along with other Louisiana utilities. In April 2016, the LPSC also issued Docket No. R-34029 to investigate the tax structure issues for all LPSC-jurisdictional utilities to consider whether only the state and federal taxes included in a utility's retail rate will be those that do not exceed the utility's share of the actual taxes paid to those federal and state taxing authorities. Cleco Power filed a motion to intervene in this proceeding along with other Louisiana utilities. If the LPSC were to disallow such costs incurred by the utility to be included in retail rates, such disallowance could have a material adverse effect on the results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows of the Registrants.

In connection with the 2016 Merger, four actions were filed in the 9th Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish, Louisiana and three actions were filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans Parish, Louisiana. One of the actions filed in Rapides Parish has been dismissed. The remaining three actions in Rapides Parish have been consolidated. The three actions in Orleans Parish have been transferred to Rapides Parish and consolidated with the other litigation in Rapides Parish. The actions were filed against Cleco Corporation and, among others, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, and members of the Board of Directors of Cleco Corporation. The petitions generally alleged, among other things, that the members of Cleco Corporation's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, conducting an allegedly inadequate sale process, agreeing to the 2016 Merger at a price that allegedly undervalues Cleco, and failing to disclose material information about the 2016 Merger. The petitions also alleged that Cleco Partners, Cleco, and Merger Sub and, in some cases, certain of the investors in Cleco Partners either aided and abetted or entered into a civil conspiracy to advance those supposed breaches of duty. The petitions seek various remedies, including monetary damages, which includes attorneys' fees and expenses. In September 2016, the District Court granted the exceptions filed by Cleco and dismissed all claims asserted by the former shareholders. The plaintiffs appealed the District Court's ruling, and in December 2017, the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal issued an order reversing and remanding the case back to the District Court for further proceedings. In January 2018, Cleco filed a writ with the Louisiana Supreme Court seeking review of the Third Circuit Court of Appeal's decision. In March 2018, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied the writ. Cleco filed writs of exception of res judicata and no cause of action in the District Court seeking dismissal of the case. On January 14, 2019, the District Court denied the writs. A hearing on plaintiffs' request for certification of a class was scheduled for August 26, 2019;however, prior to the hearing, the parties reached an agreement to certify a limited class. It is possible that additional claims beyond those that have already been filed will be brought by the current plaintiffs or by others in an effort to seek monetary relief from Cleco. Cleco is not able to predict the outcome of these actions, or others, nor can Cleco predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve the actions. In addition, the cost to Cleco of defending the actions, even if resolved in Cleco's favor, could be substantial. Such actions could also divert the attention of Cleco's management and resources from day-to-day operations.

The budget reconciliation act commonly referred to as the TCJA was signed into law on December 22, 2017. Proposed rulemakings issued by the IRS subsequent to the TCJA could have a material adverse effect on the results of operations, financial conditions, or cash flows of the Registrants. The Registrants continue to assess the regulatory treatment of the TCJA, which could also have a material adverse effect on the results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows of the Registrants. On July 10, 2019, the LPSC approved Cleco Power's motion to address the rate redesign and the regulatory liability for excess ADIT, resulting from the enactment of the TCJA, in Cleco Power's application for its next FRP, which was filed on June 28, 2019. The anticipated new rates will be effective July 1, 2020. At December 31, 2019, Cleco Power had a regulatory liability of $375.0 million for the portion of the net reduction to ADIT subject to regulatory treatment.

Weather conditions directly influence the demand for electricity, particularly with respect to residential customers. In Cleco's service territory, demand for power typically peaks during the hot summer months. As a result, Cleco's financial results may fluctuate on a seasonal basis. In addition, Cleco has sold less power and, consequently, earned less income when weather conditions were milder. Unusually mild weather in the future could have a material adverse effect on the results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows of the Registrants. Severe weather, including hurricanes and winter storms, can affect transportation of fuel to plant sites and can be destructive, causing outages and property damage that can potentially result in additional expenses, lower revenue, and additional capital restoration costs. Extreme drought conditions can impact the availability of cooling water to support the operations of generating plants, which can also result in additional expenses and lower revenue.

Annual inflation rates, as measured by the U.S. Consumer Price Index, have averaged 2% during the three years ended December 31, 2019. Under established regulatory practice, historical costs have traditionally formed the basis for recovery from customers. As a result, Cleco Power's future cash flows designed to provide recovery of historical plant costs may not be adequate to replace property, plant, and equipment in future years.

A basic premise of Cleco's business is that generating electricity at central power plants achieves economies of scale and produces electricity at a relatively low price. There are alternative technologies to produce electricity, most notably wind turbines, photovoltaic cells, and other solar generated power. Many companies and organizations conduct research and development activities to seek improvements in alternative technologies. As new technologies are developed and become available, the quantity and pattern of electricity purchased by customers could decline, with a corresponding decline in revenues derived by generating assets. As a result, the value of Cleco Power and Cleco Cajun's generating facilities could be reduced.

Cleco is a member of the MISO market region referred to as "MISO South," which encompasses parts of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. Dispatch of generation resources and generation volumes to the market is determined by MISO. Costs in the MISO South region are heavily influenced by commodity fuel prices, transmission congestion,dispatch of the generating assets owned not only by Cleco, but by all market participants in the MISO South region, and the overall demand and generation availability in the region. MISO evaluates forced outage rates to assess generating unit capacity for planning reserve margins. If Cleco is subject to a significant amount of forced outages, Cleco may not possess sufficient planning reserves to serve its needs and could be forced to purchase capacity from the MISO resource adequacy auction. For Cleco Power, the costs of such capacity may not be recoverable in its rates and could have a material adverse effect on the results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows of the Registrants. Using MISO's unforced capacity method for determining generating unit capacity, Cleco Power's fleet provided for 546 MW of capacity in excess of its peak, coincident to MISO's peak, in 2019.