ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ENVIRONMENTAL AND INVESTOR PROTECTION BUREAUS In the Matter of Assurance No. 15-242 Investigation by ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General of the State of New York, of Peabody Energy Corporation, Respondent. ASSURANCE 0F DISCONTINUAN CE The Of?ce of the Attorney General of the State of New York commenced an investigation pursuant to Article 23-A, Section 352 et seq. of the New York General Business Law (the ?Martin Act?) and Section 63(12) of the New York Executive Law, concerning various disclosures made by Peabody Energy Corporation (together with its predecessors, successors, subsidiaries and assigns, ?Peabody? or the ?Respondent?) concerning climate change and the potential effects of climate change policy on Peabody?s ?iture business (the ?Investigation?). This Assurance of Discontinuance (the ?Assurance?), dated as of November 8, 2015, contains the ?ndings of the Investigation, and an agreement between NYAG and Peabody (collectively, the ?Parties?) resolving the Investigation. FINDINGS NYAG makes the following ?ndings, which are neither admitted to nor denied by Peabody (the ?Findings?): A. Peabody?s Projections of Severe Adverse Impacts to Its Business from Potential Regulation of Climate Change 1. In Securities and Exchange Commission ?lings, including various annual reports, Peabody denied its ability to reasonably predict the impact to its ?iture business from any ?lture law or regulation relating to greenhouse gas emissions generated from the combustion of coal, in order to address harms from climate change. In its 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 SEC Form Annual Reports, Peabody stated that ?Enactment of laws or passage of regulations regarding emissions from the combustion of coal by the US. or some of its states or by other countries, or other actions to limit such emissions, could result in electricity generators switching from coal to other fuel sources.? But, Peabody further stated, in each Form 10-K Annual Report, that it was ?not possible for [Peabody] to reasonably predict the impact that any such laws or regulations may have on [Peabody?s] results of operations, ?nancial condition or cash ?ows.? Peabody has in fact made market projections about the impact of potential climate change regulatory actions. Some of those market projections found that certain such actions could have a severe negative impact on Peabody?s future ?nancial condition. For example, in March 2013, Peabody projected that if a speci?c aggressive regulatory action scenario for existing power plants and future electricity -2- generation were to be implemented in the United States, it would in 2025 reduce the dollar value of sales of Southern Powder River Basin coal by 38% and Illinois Basin coal by 33%. To ?nther illustrate, in March 2014, Peabody hired an outside consulting ?rm, which projected that enactment of a $20 per ton carbon tax would reduce the demand for coal as a fuel source in electric power generation in the United States in 2020 by between 38% and 53% compared to 2013 levels. The NYAG ?nds that although Peabody?s disclosures denied its ability to reasonably predict the future impacts of any future climate change regulation on its business, Peabody and its consultants actually made market projections in the ordinary course of business of severe impacts from certain potential regulations and did not disclose its market projections to the public. These market projections found that certain potential regulatory scenarios could materially and adversely impact Peabody?s future business and ?nancial condition. B. Peabody Statements About IEA Projections Relating to the Future Demand for Coal 7. In numerous SEC ?lings, including various annual reports and form 8-Ks, and other public communications, Peabody provided an incomplete discussion of the ?ndings and projections of the International Energy Agency (the and omitted less favorable IEA projections for future coal demand. The IEA, founded in 1974, is an autonomous organization that works to ensure reliable, affordable and clean energy for its 29 member countries and beyond. It is considered the world?s leading authority on future global energy developments. The is at the heart of global dialogue on energy, providing authoritative and -3- 10. ll. unbiased research, statistics, analysis and recommendations. The IEA advises member countries (including the United States) on ways to develop their energy policies so they effectively address climate change. Since 1993, the IEA has made projections about world coal demand based on various scenarios for future world energy development. For several years, those scenarios have included: the New Policies Scenario, which is lEA?s central scenario; the Current Policies Scenario, which the high case for coal usage; and the 450 Scenario, which is the low case for coal usage. The IEA does not endorse any particular scenario. As stated in the Executive Summary of its 2014 World Energy Outlook, the TEA recognizes that, as a general matter, coal?s ??iture use is constrained by measures to tackle pollution and reduce C02 emissions.? The New Policies Scenario incorporates policies and measures affecting energy markets which have already been adopted, as well as other relevant commitments that have been announced by governments of the world but where the precise implementation measures have yet to be ?illy de?ned. The considers the New Policies Scenario to be its ?central scenario.? The Current Policies Scenario, which is the high case for coal usage, assumes that governments do not implement any recent commitments that have yet to be backed-up by legislation and will not introduce other new policies bearing on the energy sector in the future, even those that are likely to be implemented by various nations. According to the IEA, global energy usage consistent with the Current Policies Scenario would likely result in a global temperature rise of about 12. 13. 14. The 450 Scenario, which is the low case for coal usage, incorporates government policies that would, if enacted, limit long-term increases in the average global temperature to two degrees Celsius. The goal of limiting temperature rise to no more than two degrees Celsius has long been endorsed by nations of the world in international meetings, most recently at the 2010 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Cancun, Mexico. In its public statements, Peabody has frequently referred only to the Current Policies Scenario, which has never been central scenario. In its 2011 Form 10-K Annual Report, Peabody stated that IEA ?estimates in its World Energy Outlook 2011, current policies scenario, that world primary energy demand will grow 51% between 2009 and 2035. Demand for coal is projected to rise 65%, and the growth in global electricity generation from coal is expected to be greater than the growth in oil, natural gas, nuclear, hydro, biomass, geothermal and solar combined.? Peabody did not provide the signi?cantly less favorable growth estimates for coal under central scenario (the New Policies Scenario) or the alternative 450 Scenario. In its 2012 Form 10-K Annual Report, Peabody stated that ?estimates in its World Energy Outlook 2012, current policies scenario, that worldwide primary energy demand will grow 47% between 2010 and 2035. Demand for coal during this time period is projected to rise 59%, and the growth in global electricity generation from coal is expected to be greater than the growth in oil, natural gas, nuclear, hydro, geothermal and solar combined.? Peabody did not provide the -5- 15. 16. 17. signi?cantly less favorable growth estimates for coal under central scenario (the New Policies Scenario) or the alternative 450 Scenario. In its 2013 Form Annual Report, Peabody stated that IEA ?estimates in its World Energy Outlook 2013, Current Policies Scenario, that worldwide primary energy demand will grow 43% between 2011 and 2035. Demand for coal during this time period is projected to rise 44%, and the growth in global electricity generation from coal is expected to be greater than the growth in oil, natural gas, nuclear, geothermal and solar combined.? Peabody did not provide the signi?cantly less favorable growth estimates for coal under central scenario (the New Policies Scenario) or the alternative 450 Scenario. Further, even though Peabody mentioned the existence of the New Policies Scenario and the 450 Scenario in its 2013 Form 10-K Annual Report (unlike in prior years), Peabody did not disclose that the New Policies Scenario is the central scenario, and Peabody also did not disclose that the Current Policies Scenario does not include future regulations of coal and other greenhouse gases that are likely to be implemented by various nations. In its 2014 Form 10-K Annual Report, Peabody stated that ?estimates in its World Energy Outlook 2014, Current Policies Scenario, that worldwide primary energy demand will grow 50% between 2012 and 2040. Demand for coal during this time period is projected to rise 51%, and the growth in global electricity generation from coal is expected to be greater than the growth in oil, natural gas, nuclear and solar combined.? Again, Peabody did not provide the signi?cantly -6- 18. 19. 20. 21. less favorable growth estimates for coal under central scenario (the New Policies Scenario) or the alternative 450 Scenario. Further, even though Peabody continued to mention the existence of the New Policies Scenario and the 450 Scenario, Peabody again did not state that the New Policies Scenario is the central scenario, and Peabody also did not disclose that the Current Policies Scenario does not include future regulations of coal and other greenhouse gases that are likely to be implemented by various nations. Peabody?s representations regarding the IEA, as discussed above, were not just limited to its annual reports, but were widespread in other communications by Peabody and its senior executives to the investment community and general public, in which they cited the to. support optimistic growth projections for the coal market based solely on the Current Policies Scenario. For example, in the Q4 2013 Earnings Conference Call, on January 30, 2014, Peabody?s Chairman and Chief Executive Of?cer (CEO) stated that and other observers project that coal will surpass oil as the world?s largest energy source in the coming years,? while not mentioning that such a projection is premised on the Current Policies Scenario, which is not the lEA?s central scenario. Under the lEA?s central scenario, the New Policies Scenario, the promising ?iture for coal announced by the CEO was not projected to occur. And, under the 450 Scenario, coal?s future was projected to be signi?cantly less favorable. This and similar citations to the in support of a promising future for coal were repeated in other documents and presentations by Peabody executives at meetings with investment companies and at industry conferences, and were also included in ?lings by Peabody in Form 8K3 with the SEC. CONCLUSIONS 22. The NYAG concludes that Peabody?s disclosures denied its ability to reasonably predict the future impact of any climate change regulation on its business, While the company and its consultants projected severe impacts ?'om certain potential regulations that would materially affect Peabody. The NYAG concludes that these disclosures violated provisions of the Martin Act (Article 23 of the General Business Law) and violated 63(12) of the Executive Law. 23. The NYAG concludes that Peabody?s statements concerning the lEA?s projections for the future of coal, both in SEC ?lings and in other communications, were incomplete and omitted less favorable IEA projections for future coal demand. The NYAG concludes that these statements and omissions violated provisions of the Martin Act (Article of the General Business Law) and violated 63(12) of the Executive Law. AGREEMENT WHEREAS, Peabody neither admits nor denies the Findings; WHEREAS, NYAG is Willing to accept the terms of this Assurance pursuant to Executive Law 63(15) and to discontinue its Investigation; and WHEREAS, the Parties each agree that the obligations imposed by this Assurance are prudent and appropriate; IT IS HEREBY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED, by and between the Parties that: 1. Relief. a. Peabody agrees that its next regularly ?led quarterly report with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Form on or about November 9, 2015, shall contain the disclosures contained in Exhibit A attached hereto. b. Peabody agrees that any future SEC ?lings, or any future communications with shareholders, the ?nancial industry, investors, the general public, and others (collectively, the ?Public Communications?) will not contain any disclosure inconsistent with Sections 1(c) - of this Assurance or Exhibit A attached hereto. c. Peabody shall not represent in any Public Communication that it cannot reasonably project or predict the range of impacts that any future laws, regulations, and policies relating to climate change or coal would have on Peabody?s markets, operations, ?nancial condition or cash ?ow. Any statement by Peabody concerning the dif?culty of making particular projections or predictions shall be accompanied by a statement that Peabody has made projections of the impact of scenarios involving certain potential laws and regulations relating to climate change or coal, which could result in materially adverse effects on its markets, operations, ?nancial condition or cash ?ow. Unless or until such time as IEA changes its de?nition of the scenarios used in its World Energy Outlook report (in which case Peabody shall correctly and in good faith describe analysis), any further citation to, any use of data or information from, or any other use of, the Current Policies Scenario by Peabody in any Public Communication shall expressly state (1) that the IEA does not endorse any particular scenario; (2) that the New Policies Scenario is the central scenario in the World Energy Outlook; (3) that the New Policies Scenario incorporates policies and measures affecting energy markets which have already been adopted, as well as other relevant commitments that have been announced by governments of the world but where the precise implementation measures have yet to be fully de?ned; (4) that the Current Policies Scenario is the most favorable scenario for coal, incorporating only those policies and measures affecting energy markets that were formally enacted; it assumes that governments do not implement any recent commitments that have yet to be backed-up by legislation and will not introduce other new policies bearing on the energy sector in the future; and (5) that while the Current Policies Scenario presents the most favorable scenario for coal, lEA?s 450 Scenario presents the most unfavorable IEA scenario for coal; the 450 Scenario incorporates a variety of government policies compatible with limiting the long-term increase in the average global temperature to two degrees Celsius, the limit recognized by nations of the world in the 2010 United Nations Climate -10- Change Conference in Cancun, Mexico. Moreover, whenever Peabody shall cite a statistic or projection of the IEA under the Current Policies Scenario, it shall cite the corresponding statistic or projection under the New Policies Scenario and 450 Scenario. Any ?irther disclosure made pursuant to this section must be made in the same character size and font, and at the same location in the ?ling or public communication, as disclosures by Peabody concerning the Current Policies Scenario. Telling; No Bar. If the Assurance is breached, Peabody agrees that any statute of limitations or other time-related defenses applicable to the subject of the Assurance and any claims arising ?om or relating thereto are tolled ??om and after the date of this Assurance. In the event the Assurance is breached, Peabody expressly agrees and acknowledges that this Assurance shall in no way bar or otherwise preclude NYAG from commencing, conducting or prosecuting any investigation, action or proceeding, however denominated, related to the Assurance, against Peabody, or from using any statements, documents or other materials produced or provided by Peabody prior to or after the date of this Assurance. Acceptance of Assurance. The NYAG ?nds the relief and agreements contained in this Assurance appropriate and in the public interest. The NYAG is willing to accept this Assurance pursuant to Executive Law 63(15), in lieu of commencing a statutory proceeding. Jurisdiction and Governing Law. Peabody acknowledges the jurisdiction of the NYAG to enter into this Assurance, without prejudice to any rights or defenses -11_ Peabody may have to contest those Findings in any future proceeding; however, pursuant to Executive Law 63(15), evidence of a violation of this Assurance shall constitute primafacie proof of violation of the applicable law in any action or proceeding thereafter commenced by NYAG. The Parties agree that the exclusive jurisdiction and venue for any dispute relating to this Assurance is the Supreme Court of the State of New York for New York County. This Assurance is governed by the laws of the State of New York. Negotiation in Good Faith. The terms of this Assurance were negotiated in good faith by the Parties, and reflect a settlement that was reached voluntarily after consultation with experienced legal counsel. Binding on Successors. This Assurance is binding on Peabody?s successors, transferees, heirs, and assigns. Effective Date. This Assurance is effective on the date indicated in the preamble to this agreement (the ?Effective Date?). Facsimiles of signatures and signatures provided by portable document format shall constitute acceptable, binding signatures for purposes of this Assurance. Communications. All communications from any party concerning the subject matter of this Assurance shall be addressed as follows: a. If to the State of New York: Philip Bein Assistant Attorney General Of?ce of the New York Attorney General Environmental Protection Bureau The Capital Albany, New York 12224 (518) 776-2413 -12- Philip.Bein@ag.ny. gov -and? Steven Glassman Senior Enforcement Counsel Of?ce of the New York Attorney General Economic Justice Division 120 Broadway New York, New York 10271 (212) 416?6542 Steven.Glassman@ag.ny.gov If to Peabody: A. Verona Dorch Executive Vice President Chief Legal Of?cer Peabody Energy Corporation 701 Market Street St. Louis, Missouri 63101 (314) 342-3400 vdorch@peabodyenergy.com -and- David B. Anders Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen Katz 51 West 52nd Street New York, New York 10019 (212) 403-1307 DBAnders@wlrk.com -13- 10. Compliance with Other Disclosure Obligations. In the event that Peabody reasonably believes that the performance of its disclosure obligations under any provision of this Assurance would con?ict with any federal law, regulation, or binding directive that may be enacted or adopted after the date of this Assurance such that compliance with both this Assurance and such provision of federal law, regulation or binding directive would be impossible without violating such law, regulation, or directive, Peabody shall notify the Attorney General after the effective date of such law, regulation or binding directive, and the parties shall meet and confer at their earliest convenience to attempt to resolve such con?ict. Additional Terms. a. This Assurance shall be deemed to have been drafted by all Parties and shall not, therefore, be construed against any Party for that reason in any dispute. b. This Assurance constitutes the complete agreement between the Parties. This Assurance may not be amended except by written consent of the Parties. 0. The undersigned counsel represent and warrant that they are fully authorized to execute this Assurance on behalf of the persons and entities indicated below. d. This Assurance may be executed in counterparts, each of which constitutes an original and all of which constitute one and the same Assurance. -14- Dated: wig?: ,2015 New York, New York By: By: ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York WW Ely W3 Philip Beiri Assistant Attorney General Of?ce of the New York Attorney General Social Justice Division Environmental Protection Bureau The Capital Albany, New York 12224 (518) 776-2413 San as Steven Glassman Senior Enforcement Counsel Economic Justice Division David Castleman Assistant Attorney General Investor Protection Bureau Of?ce of the New York Attorney General 120 Broadway New York, New York 10271 (212) 416-6542 Counsel for The People of the State of New York -15- Dated: M) ym?g? 8 . 2015 New York. New ork BY BY: PEABODY ENERGY CORPORATION JL A. Verona Dorch Executive Vice President Chief Legal Of?cer Peabody Energy Corporation 701 Market Street St. louis. Missoun' 63101 (314) 3423400 533%. m/ id B. Anders Waehtell, Lipton. Rosen Kay. 51 West 52nd Street New York, New York 100l9 (212) 403?1307 Counsc?lfar Peabodv Energy ~16- Exhibit A Contingencies Section Other In June 2007, the New York Office of the Attorney General (NYAG) served a letter and subpoena on the Company, seeking information and documents relating to the Company's disclosure to investors of risks associated with possible climate change and related legislation and regulations. The Company believes it has made full and proper disclosure of these potential risks. In late 2013, the NYAG submitted a letter to the Company requesting additional information and documents. On November 8, 2015, the NYAG and the Company entered into an agreement pursuant to which the Company agreed to make certain disclosures concerning the issues raised by the NYAG. Long-Term Outlook While a well-supplied market and declining seabome coal prices have tempered near?term expectations, our long-term outlook for international coal market segments is more positive based on anticipated growth in Asia. We project that new global coal-fueled generation, as well as industrialization and urbanization trends in China and India, will drive aggregate global thermal and metallurgical coal demand growth. Seabome supply growth is expected to be constrained during that period due to limited capital investment in response to the current pricing environment. In the U.S., we expect natural gas prices to rise modestly over the next several years as export infrastructure is completed, on-shore demand rises and production growth is constrained due to the amount of natural gas production that is associated with oil and natural gas liquids pricing. Our long-term plans also include advancing projects to expand our presence in Asia, some of which include sourcing third~party coal and partnerships to utilize our mining experience for joint mine development. We also continue to support clean coal technology development and Btu Conversion projects that are designed to expand the uses of coal. The International Energy Agency (IEA) regularly makes projections about world coal demand based on various future scenarios for energy development. The scenarios used by the IEA as the bases for these projections vary by time and publication. Further details are available to the public directly from the IEA, including through the lEA?s website: Information contained on or accessible through the website is not incorporated by reference into this Quarterly Report on Form 10-0. The ?New Policies Scenario? is central scenario in its World Energy Outlook report (W E0). It incorporates policies and measures affecting energy markets that have already been adopted, as well as other relevant commitments and plans that have been announced by countries, including national pledges to reduce emissions and plans to phase?out fossil fuel subsidies, even if the measures to implement these commitments have yet to be identi?ed or announced. Different scenarios used by the IEA in its projections of energy demand have different implications for coal usage. Projected coal usage is highest in the ?Current Policies Scenario? and lowest in the ?450 Scenario." The Current Policies Scenario (previously called the ?Reference Scenario?) assumes no changes in policies from the mid?point of the year of publication, thus considering policies and measures that have already been formally enacted, but assuming that governments do not implement any commitments that have yet to be ?nalized by legislation and will not introduce any new policies affecting coal usage. Finally, the 450 Scenario assumes implementation of a set of government policies consistent with a goal of limiting long~term increases in the average global temperature to two degrees Celsius, a limit determined by various governments and non-governmental organizations and recognized by nations of the world in the 2010 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Cancun, Mexico. The Company has historically emphasized the Current Policies Scenario in its strategic planning processes and its investor communications. We believe that the Current Policies Scenario is the most appropriate for our investors to consider because we believe that it has proven to be the scenario that has yielded the most Exhibit A accurate projections of coal usage. Although the New Policies Scenario is the central scenario, the IEA does not endorse any particular scenario as being a more probable forecast than the others. The IEA estimates in its WEO 2014, Current Policies Scenario, that worldwide primary energy demand will grow 50% (37% under the New Policies Scenario) between 2012 and 2040. Demand for coal during this time period is projected to rise 51% (15% under the New Policies Scenario) Under its Current Policies Scenario, the IEA expects coal to retain its prominent presence as a fuel for the power sector worldwide. Coal's share of the power generation mix was 41% in 2012. By 2040, the Current Policies Scenario estimates that coal's fuei share of global power generation will be 40% as it continues to have the largest share of worldwide electric power production less than the share attributable to hydro and renewables, under the New Policies Scenario). Under the Current Policies Scenario, the IEA also projects that global natural gas-fueled electricity generation will have a compound annual growth rate of 2.7% from 2012-2040 annual growth rate under the New Policies Scenario). The total amount of electricity generated from natural gas is expected to be approximately 40% below the total for coal (approximately 20% below the total for coal under the New Policies Scenario), even in 2040. Hydro and other renewables are projected to comprise a combined 25% of the 2040 fuel mix (33% under the New Policies Scenario) versus 21% in 2012. Electricity generation from nuclear power is expected to fall from 11% to 9% (while growing from 11% to 12% under the New Policies Scenario) between 2012 and 2040. As noted above, projected coal usage is highest under the Current Policies Scenario. Future energy use consistent with the 450 Scenario would likely yield results materiain lower than the projections noted above under the Current Policies Scenario or the New Policies Scenario. Enactment of laws or passage of regulations regarding emissions from the combustion of coal by the US, some of its states or other countries, or other actions to limit such emissions (including measures incorporated into the New Policies and 450 Scenarios discussed above), could result in electricity generators switching from coal to other fuel sources or in coal-fueled power plant closures. Further, policies limiting available ?nancing for the development of new coal-fueled power plants could adversely impact global coal demand in the future. The potential ?nancial impact on us of future laws, regulations or other policies will depend upon the degree to which any such laws, regulations or other policies force electricity generators to diminish their reliance on coal as a fuel source. That, in turn, will depend on a number of factors, including the speci?c requirements imposed by any such laws, regulations or other policies, the time periods over which those laws, regulations or other policies would be phased in, the state of commercial development and deployment of carbon capture and storage technologies and the alternative markets for coat. From time to time, we attempt to analyze the potential impact on the Company of as-yet-unadopted, potential laws, regulations and policies. Such analyses require that we make signi?cant assumptions as to the speci?c provisions of such potential laws, regulations and policies. These analyses sometimes show that certain potential laws, regulations and policies, if implemented in the manner assumed by the analyses, could result in material adverse impacts on our operations, ?nancial condition or cash ?ow, in view of the signi?cant uncertainty surrounding each of these potential laws, regulations and policies. We do not believe that such analyses reasonably predict the quantitative impact that future laws, regulations or other policies may have on our results of operations, ?nancial condition or cash flows. As noted above, on August 3, 2015, the EPA announced the ?nal rules (which were published in the Federal Register on October 23, 2015) for regulating carbon dioxide emissions from existing fossil fuel??red EGUs. This ruling is intended to begin reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 2022 and, by 2030, reach a reduction of 32% from 2005 baseline emissions. The EPA expects the rule to have a signi?cant impact on demand for coal-?red electricity generation in the us. and, depending upon the implementation methods adopted by the various states, we believe the rule could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, ?nancial condition and cash ?ows in future periods. Exhibit A Risk Factor Concerns about the environmental impacts of coal combustion, including perceived impacts on global climate issues, are resulting in increased regulation of coal combustion in many jurisdictions, unfavorable lending policies by government-backed lending institutions and development banks toward the ?nancing of new overseas coal-fueled power plants and divestment efforts affecting the investment community, which could significantly affect demand for our products or our securities. Global climate issues continue to attract public and scientific attention. Numerous reports, such as the Fourth (and, more recently, the Fifth) Assessment Report of the intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, have also engendered concern about the impacts of human activity, especially fossil fuel combustion, on global climate issues. In turn, increasing government attention is being paid to global climate issues and to emissions of what are commonly referred to as greenhouse gases, including emissions of carbon dioxide from coal combustion by power plants. Enactment of laws or passage of regulations regarding emissions from the combustion of coal by the US, some of its states or other countries, or other actions to limit such emissions, could result in electricity generators switching from coal to other fuel sources or coal-fueled power plant closures. Further, policies limiting available ?nancing for the development of new coal-fueled power plants could adversely impact the global demand for coal in the future. The potential financial impact on us of future laws, regulations or other policies will depend upon the degree to which any such laws or regulations force electricity generators to diminish their reliance on coal as a fuel source. That, in turn, will depend on a number of factors, including the speci?c requirements imposed by any such laws, regulations or other policies, the time periods over which those laws, regulations or other policies would be phased in, the state of commercial development and deployment of CCS technologies and the alternative markets for coal. From time to time, we attempt to analyze the potential impact on the Company of as-yet-unadopted, potentiai laws, regulations and policies. Such analyses require that we make signi?cant assumptions as to the speci?c provisions of such potential laws, regulations and policies. These analyses sometimes show that certain potential laws, regulations and policies, if implemented in the manner assumed by the analyses, could result in material adverse impacts on our operations, ?nancial condition or cash ?ow, in view of the signi?cant uncertainty surrounding each of these potential laws, regulations and policies. We do not believe that such analyses reasonably predict the quantitative impact that future laws, regulations or other policies may have on our results of operations, financial condition or cash ?ows. There have also been efforts in recent years affecting the investment community, including investment advisors, sovereign wealth funds, public pension funds, universities and other groups, promoting the divestment of fossil fuel equities and also pressuring lenders to limit funding to companies engaged in the extraction of fossil fuel reserves. The impact of such efforts may adversely affect the demand for and price of securities issued by us, and impact our access to the capital and ?nancial markets.