COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES COMMITMENTS There have been no significant changes to TEP's long-term commitments from those reported in its 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K. CONTINGENCIES Legal Matters TEP is party to a variety of legal actions arising out of the normal course of business. Plaintiffs occasionally seek punitive or exemplary damages. TEP believes such normal and routine litigation will not have a material impact on its condensed consolidated financial results. TEP is also involved in other kinds of legal actions, some of which assert or may assert claims or seek to impose fines, penalties, and other costs in substantial amounts on TEP and are disclosed below. Claims Related to Four Corners Generating Station Endangered Species Act On April 20, 2016, several environmental groups filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona against the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) and other federal agencies under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) alleging that the OSM’s reliance on the Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement prepared in connection with a federal environmental review were not in accordance with applicable law. The environmental review was undertaken as part of the U.S. Department of the Interior’s review process necessary to allow for the effectiveness of lease amendments and related rights-of-way renewals for Four Corners. This review process also required separate environmental impact evaluations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and culminated in the issuance of a Record of Decision justifying the agency action extending the life of Four Corners and the adjacent Navajo Mine. In addition, the lawsuit alleges that these federal agencies violated both the ESA and the NEPA in providing the federal approvals necessary to extend operations at Four Corners and Navajo Mine past July 6, 2016. The lawsuit seeks various forms of relief, including a finding that the federal defendants violated the ESA and the NEPA by issuing the Record of Decision, setting aside and remanding the Biological Opinion and Record of Decision, and enjoining the federal defendants from authorizing any elements of the Four Corners and Navajo Mine pending compliance with NEPA. In July 2016, the defendants answered the complaint and Arizona Public Service Company (APS), the operator of Four Corners, filed a motion to intervene in this matter. APS’ motion was granted in August 2016. Briefing on the merits is expected to extend through May 2017. In September 2016, Navajo Transitional Energy Company, LLC (NTEC), the company that owns the Navajo Mine, filed a motion to intervene for the purpose of dismissing the lawsuit based on NTEC’s tribal sovereign immunity. TEP cannot currently predict the outcome of this matter or the range of its potential impact. Claims Related to San Juan Generating Station WildEarth Guardians In February 2013, WildEarth Guardians (WEG) filed a Petition for Review in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against the OSM challenging federal administrative decisions issued at various times from 2007 through 2012. In its petition, WEG challenges several unrelated mining plan modification approvals, which were each separately approved by the OSM. Of the claims for relief in the WEG Petition, two concern San Juan Coal Company’s (SJCC) San Juan mine. WEG’s allegations concerning the San Juan mine arise from the OSM administrative actions in 2008. WEG alleges various NEPA violations against the OSM, including, but not limited to, the OSM’s alleged failure to provide requisite public notice and participation, alleged failure to analyze certain environmental impacts, and alleged reliance on outdated and insufficient documents. WEG’s petition seeks various forms of relief, including a finding that the federal defendants violated the NEPA by approving the mine plans, voiding, reversing, and remanding the various mining modification approvals, enjoining the federal defendants from re-issuing the mining plan approvals for the mines until compliance with the NEPA has been demonstrated, and enjoining operations at the affected mines. SJCC intervened in this matter. SJCC was granted its motion to sever its claims from the lawsuit and transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, where this matter is now proceeding. On July 18, 2016, the federal defendants filed a motion asking that the matter be voluntarily remanded to the OSM so the OSM may prepare a new environmental impact statement (EIS) under the NEPA regarding the impacts of the San Juan Mine mining plan approval. In August 2016, the court issued an order granting the federal defendants’ motion for remand to conduct further environmental analysis and complete an EIS by August 31, 2019. The order provided that the OSM’s decision approving the mining plan will remain in effect during this process. The order further provides that if the EIS is not completed by August 31, 2019, then an order vacating the approved mine plan will become immediately effective, absent further court order. TEP cannot currently predict the outcome of this matter or the range of its potential impact. Mine Reclamation at Generating Facilities Not Operated by TEP TEP pays ongoing reclamation mine costs related to coal mines that supply generation facilities in which TEP has an ownership interest but does not operate. TEP is also liable for a portion of final mine reclamation costs upon closure of the mines servicing Navajo, San Juan, and Four Corners. TEP’s share of reclamation costs at all three mines is expected to be $61 million upon expiration of the coal supply agreements, which expire between 2019 and 2031 . The balance sheet reflected a total liability related to reclamation of $27 million as of March 31, 2017 and $26 million as of December 31, 2016 . Amounts recorded for final mine reclamation are subject to various assumptions, such as estimations of reclamation costs, the dates when final reclamation will occur, and the expected inflation rate. As these assumptions change, TEP will prospectively adjust the expense amounts for final reclamation over the remaining coal supply agreements’ terms. TEP does not believe that recognition of its final reclamation obligations will be material to TEP in any single year because recognition will occur over the remaining terms of its coal supply agreements. TEP’s PPFAC allows the Company to pass through final mine reclamation costs, as a component of fuel costs, to retail customers. Therefore, TEP classifies these costs as a regulatory asset by increasing the regulatory asset and the reclamation liability over the remaining life of the coal supply agreements and recovers the regulatory asset through the PPFAC as final mine reclamation costs are paid to the coal suppliers. FERC Compliance In 2015 and 2016, TEP self-reported to the FERC Office of Enforcement (OE) that the Company had not timely filed certain FERC-jurisdictional agreements. TEP conducted comprehensive internal reviews of its compliance with the FERC filing requirements (Compliance Reviews) and made compliance filings with the FERC Office of Energy Market Regulation. This included the filing of several TSAs entered into between 2003 and 2015 that contained certain deviations from TEP’s standard service agreement form. In 2016, the FERC issued orders related to the late-filed TSAs which directed TEP to issue time-value refunds to the counterparties to these TSAs (FERC Refund Orders). As a result of the FERC Refund Orders and ongoing discussions with the OE, in 2016 TEP recorded $22 million in time-value refunds offsetting Wholesale Revenues on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income, and, of the amount accrued, paid out $17 million in time-value refunds to the counterparties. In June 2016, to preserve its rights, TEP petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to review the FERC Refund Orders. In January 2017, TEP and one of the TSA counterparties entered into a settlement agreement regarding the FERC Refund Orders. Under the agreement, the counterparty paid TEP $8 million in January 2017, which TEP recorded in Other Income on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income, and TEP dismissed the appeal with prejudice. The Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets reflected $5 million as of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016 , accrued in Current Liabilities—Other. TEP's Compliance Reviews are still under review by the OE. The FERC could impose civil penalties on TEP as a result of the OE's review of the Compliance Reviews. At this time, TEP cannot predict the outcome or range of additional losses, if any. Performance Guarantees TEP has joint participation agreements with participants at Navajo, San Juan, Four Corners, and with Luna Generating Station (Luna). The participants in each of the generation facilities, including TEP, have guaranteed certain performance obligations. Specifically, in the event of payment default, the non-defaulting participants have agreed to bear a proportionate share of expenses otherwise payable by the defaulting participant. In exchange, the non-defaulting participants are entitled to receive their proportionate share of the generation capacity of the defaulting participant. With the exception of Four Corners, there is no maximum potential amount of future payments (undiscounted) TEP could be required to make under the guarantees. The maximum potential amount of future payments is $250 million at Four Corners. As of March 31, 2017 , there have been no such payment defaults under any of the participation agreements. The Navajo participation agreement expires in 2019 , San Juan in 2022, Four Corners in 2041, and Luna in 2046. Environmental Matters TEP is subject to federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations regarding air and water quality, renewable portfolio standards, emissions performance standards, climate change, coal combustion byproduct disposal, hazardous and solid waste disposal, protected species, and other environmental matters that have the potential to impact TEP's current and future operations. Environmental laws and regulations are subject to a range of interpretations, which may ultimately be resolved by the courts. Because these laws and regulations continue to evolve, TEP is unable to predict the impact of the changing laws and regulations on its operations and condensed consolidated financial results. TEP expects to recover the cost of environmental compliance from its ratepayers. TEP believes it is in material compliance with all applicable environmental laws and regulations. |