Environmental Matters | Environmental Matters The Company's utility operations and properties are subject to extensive environmental regulation pursuant to a variety of federal, state, and municipal laws and regulations. These environmental regulations impose, among other things, restrictions, liabilities, and obligations in connection with the storage, transportation, treatment, and disposal of hazardous substances and limit airborne emissions from electric generating facilities including particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxide (NOx), and mercury, among others. Environmental legislation and regulation also requires that facilities, sites, and other properties associated with the Company's operations be operated, maintained, abandoned, and reclaimed to the satisfaction of applicable regulatory authorities. The Company's current costs to comply with these laws and regulations are significant to its results of operations and financial condition. With the trend toward stricter standards, greater regulation, and more extensive permit requirements, the Company's investment in compliant infrastructure, and the associated operating costs have increased and are expected to increase in the future. Similar to the costs associated with federal mandates in the Pipeline Safety Law, Senate Bill 251 is also applicable to federal environmental mandates impacting SIGECO's electric operations. Air Quality Mercury and Air Toxics (MATS) Rule On December 21, 2011, the EPA finalized the utility MATS rule. The MATS rule sets emission limits for hazardous air pollutants for existing and new coal-fired power plants and identifies the following broad categories of hazardous air pollutants: mercury, non-mercury hazardous air pollutants (primarily arsenic, chromium, cobalt, and selenium), and acid gases (hydrogen cyanide, hydrogen chloride, and hydrogen fluoride). The rule imposes mercury emission limits for two sub-categories of coal and proposed surrogate limits for non-mercury and acid gas hazardous air pollutants. In July 2014, a coalition of twenty-one states, including Indiana, filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the decision of the appellate court that found the EPA appropriately based its decision to list coal and oil fired generation units as a source of the pollutants at issue solely on those pollutants’ impact on public health. On June 29, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the appellate court decision on the basis of the EPA’s failure to consider costs before determining whether it was appropriate and necessary to regulate steam electric generating units under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. The Court did not vacate the rule, but remanded the MATS rule back to the appellate court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. In April 2016, in response to the Court's remand, the EPA affirmed its earlier conclusion in a Supplemental Finding. MATS compliance was required to commence April 16, 2015, and the Company continues to operate in full compliance with the MATS rule. Notice of Violation for A.B. Brown Power Plant The Company received a NOV from the EPA in November 2011 pertaining to its A.B. Brown generating station. The NOV asserts when the facility was equipped with Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) systems, the correct permits were not obtained or the best available control technology to control incidental sulfuric acid mist was not installed. While the Company did not agree with the notice, it reached a final settlement with the EPA to resolve the NOV in December 2015. As noted previously, on January 28, 2015, the IURC issued an Order approving the Company’s request for approval of capital investments on its coal-fired generation units to comply with new EPA mandates related to MATS effective in 2015 and to address the outstanding NOV. The total investment is estimated to be between $70 million and $75 million , roughly half of which has been spent to control mercury in both air and water emissions, and the remaining investment has been made to address the issues raised in the NOV. In June 2015, Joint Appellants’ Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc., Sierra Club, Inc., and Valley Watch, Inc. (the appellants) challenged the IURC's January Order. On October 29, 2015, the Indiana Court of Appeals issued an opinion that affirmed the IURC’s findings with regard to equipment required to comply with MATS and certain national pollutant discharge elimination system rules (approximately $35 million ) but remanded the case back to the IURC to determine whether a certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) should be issued for the equipment required by the NOV (approximately $40 million ). On June 22, 2016, the IURC issued an Order granting the Company a CPCN for the equipment required for the resolution of the NOV. On July 21, 2016, the appellants initiated an appeal of the IURC's June 22, 2016 Order. The basis for the appeal will not be known until the appeal brief is filed later this year. The Company believes the IURC decision is well founded and will ultimately be upheld. Ozone NAAQS On November 26, 2014, the EPA proposed to tighten the current National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone from the current standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) to a level with the range of 65 to 70 ppb. On October 1, 2015, the EPA finalized a new NAAQS for ozone at the high end of the range, or 70 ppb. The EPA is expected to make final determinations as to whether a region is in attainment for the new NAAQS in 2018 based upon monitoring data from 2014-2016. While it is possible that counties in southwest Indiana could be declared in non-attainment with the new standard, and thus could have an effect on future economic development activities in the Company's service territory, the Company does not anticipate any significant compliance cost impacts from the determination given its previous investment in SCR technology for NOx control on its units. In December of 2015, the EPA proposed a supplement to the current Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) that would require further NOx reductions during the ozone season (May - September). The Company is positioned to comply with these NOx reduction requirements through its current investment in SCR technology. One Hour SO2 NAAQS On February 16, 2016, the EPA notified states of the commencement of a 120 day consultation period between the state and the EPA with respect to the EPA's recommendations for new non-attainment designations for the 2010 One Hour SO2 NAAQS. Identified on the list was Posey County, Indiana, where the Company's A.B. Brown Generating Station is located. While the Company is in compliance with all applicable SO2 limits in its permits, the Company reached an agreement with the state of Indiana on voluntary measures that the Company was able to implement without significant incremental costs to ensure that Posey County remains in attainment with the 2010 One Hour SO2 NAAQS. The Company's coal-fired generating fleet is 100 percent scrubbed for SO2 and 90 percent controlled for NOx. Coal Ash Waste Disposal, Ash Ponds and Water Coal Combustion Residuals Rule In December 2014, the EPA released its final Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) rule which regulates ash as non-hazardous material under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). On April 17, 2015, the final rule was published in the Federal Register. The final rule allows beneficial reuse of ash and the majority of the ash generated by the Company’s generating plants will continue to be reused. As it relates to the CCR rule, legislation is currently being considered by Congress that would provide for enforcement of the federal program by states rather than through citizen suits. Additionally, the CCR rule is currently being challenged by multiple parties in judicial review proceedings. Under the final CCR rule, the Company is required to complete a series of integrity assessments, including seismic modeling given the Company’s facilities are located within two seismic zones, and groundwater monitoring studies to determine the remaining service life of the ponds and whether a pond must be retrofitted with liners or closed in place, with bottom ash handling conversions completed. In late 2015, using general utility industry data, the Company prepared cost estimates for the retirement of the ash ponds at the end of their useful lives, based on its interpretation of the closure alternatives contemplated in the final rule. The resulting estimates ranged from approximately $35 million to $80 million . These estimates contemplated final capping and monitoring costs of the ponds at both F.B. Culley and A.B. Brown generating stations. These rules have not been applicable to the Company's Warrick generating unit, as this unit has historically been part of a larger generating station that predominantly serves an adjacent industrial facility. The Company is in the process of preparing site specific estimates, using engineering analyses and alternative methods of closure. Significant factors impacting the resulting cost estimates include the closure time frame and the method of closure. The ongoing analysis and the refinement of assumptions may result in estimated costs that could be in excess of the current range of $35 million to $80 million. At September 30, 2015, the Company recorded an approximate $25 million asset retirement obligation (ARO) and that amount is unchanged at June 30, 2016. The recorded ARO reflected the present value of the approximate $35 million in estimated costs in the range above. These assumptions and estimations are subject to change in the future and could materially impact the amount of the estimated ARO. In order to maintain current operations of the ponds, the Company anticipates spending approximately $12 million on the reinforcement of the ash pond dams and other operational changes in 2016 to meet the more stringent 2,500 year seismic event structural and safety standard in the CCR rule. Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELGs) Under the Clean Water Act, the EPA sets technology-based guidelines for water discharges from new and existing facilities. On September 30, 2015, the EPA released final revisions to the existing steam electric ELGs setting stringent technology- based water discharge limits for the electric power industry. The EPA focused this rulemaking on wastewater generated primarily by pollution control equipment necessitated by the comprehensive air regulations, specifically setting strict water discharge limits for arsenic, mercury and selenium for scrubber waste waters. The ELGs will be implemented when existing water discharge permits for the plants are renewed, with compliance activities expected to commence within the 2018-2023 time frame. Current wastewater discharge permits for the Brown and Culley power plants expire in October and December 2016, respectively. The Company is working with Indiana regulators on permit renewals which will include a compliance schedule for ELGs. In no event will compliance with the ELGs be required prior to November 2018. The ELGs work in tandem with the recently released CCR requirements, effectively prohibiting the use of less costly lined sediment basin options for disposal of coal combustion residuals, and virtually mandate conversions to dry bottom ash handling. Cooling Water Intake Structures Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act requires that generating facilities use the “best technology available” (BTA) to minimize adverse environmental impacts on a body of water. More specifically, Section 316(b) is concerned with impingement and entrainment of aquatic species in once-through cooling water intake structures used at electric generating facilities. A final rule was issued by the EPA on May 19, 2014. The final rule does not mandate cooling water tower retrofits but requires a state level case-by-case assessment of BTA for each facility. The final rule lists seven presumptive technologies which would qualify as BTA. These technologies range from intake screen modifications to cooling water tower retrofits. Ecological and technology assessment studies must be completed prior to determining BTA for the Company’s facilities. The Company is currently undertaking the required ecological studies and anticipates timely compliance in 2020-2021. To comply, the Company believes that capital investments will likely be in the range of $4 million to $8 million . Climate Change On August 3, 2015, the EPA released its final Clean Power Plan (CPP) rule which requires a 32 percent reduction in carbon emissions from 2005 levels. This results in a final emission rate goal for Indiana of 1,242 lb CO2/MWh to be achieved by 2030. The new rule gives states the option of seeking a two-year extension from the deadline of September 2016 to submit a final state implementation plan (SIP). Under the CPP, states have the flexibility to include energy efficiency and other measures should they choose to implement a SIP as provided in the final rule. While states are given an interim goal (1,451 lb CO2/MWh for Indiana), the final rule gives states the flexibility to shape their own emissions reduction over the 2022-2029 time period. The final rule was published in the Federal Register on October 23, 2015 and that action was immediately followed by litigation initiated by Indiana and 23 other states as a coalition challenging the rule. In January of 2016, the reviewing court denied the states’ and other parties requests to stay the implementation of the CPP pending completion of judicial review. On January 26, 2016, 29 states and state agencies, including the 24 state coalition referenced above, filed a request for immediate stay with the U.S. Supreme Court. On February 9, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay to delay the regulation while being challenged in court. The stay will remain in place while the lower court concludes its review. Among other things, the stay delays the requirement to submit a final SIP by the September 2016 deadline and could extend implementation to 2024. In the event that a state does not submit a SIP, the EPA also released a proposed federal implementation plan (FIP), which would be imposed on those states without an approved SIP. The proposed FIP would apply an emission rate requirement directly on generating units. Under the proposed FIP, the CO2 emission rate limit for coal-fired units would start at 1,671 lbs CO2/MWh in 2022 and decrease to a final emission rate cap of 1,305 lbs CO2/MWh by 2030. While the FIP emission rate cap appears to be slightly less stringent than the state reduction goal for Indiana, the cap would apply directly to generating units and these units would not have the benefit of averaging emission rates with rates from zero-carbon sources as would be available in a SIP. Purchases of emission credits from zero-carbon sources can be made for compliance. The FIP will be subject to extensive public comments prior to finalization. Whether Indiana will file a SIP has yet to be determined. Pending that determination, the electric utilities in Indiana will continue to encourage the state's designated agency to analyze various compliance options and the possible integration into a state plan submittal. At the time of release of the CPP, Indiana was the 5th largest carbon emitter in the nation in tons of CO2 produced from electric generation. The Company’s share of total tons of CO2 generated by Indiana's electric utilities has historically been less than 6 percent . Since 2005, the Company has achieved a reduction in emissions of CO2 of 31 percent (on a tonnage basis) through the retirement of F.B. Culley Unit 1, expiration of municipal contracts, electric conservation, the addition of renewable generation, and the installation of more efficient dense pack turbine technology. Since emissions are further impacted by coal burn reductions and energy efficiency programs, the Company's emissions of CO2 can vary year to year. With respect to renewable generation, in 2008 and 2009, the Company executed long-term purchase power commitments for a total of 80 MW of wind energy. The Company currently has approximately 4 percent of its electricity being provided by energy sources other than coal and natural gas, due to the long-term wind contracts and landfill gas investment. With respect to CO2 emission rate, since 2005 the Company has lowered its CO2 emission rate (as measured in lbs CO2/MWh) from 1,967 lbs CO2/MWh to 1,922 lbs CO2/MWh, for a reduction of 3 percent . The Company’s CO2 emission rate of 1,922 lbs CO2/MWh is basically the same as Indiana's average CO2 emission rate of 1,923 lbs CO2/MWh. The Company plans to consider these reductions in CO2 emissions and renewable generation in future discussions with the state to develop a possible state implementation plan. Impact of Legislative Actions & Other Initiatives is Unknown At this time, compliance costs and other effects associated with reductions in GHG emissions or obtaining renewable energy sources remain uncertain. The Company has gathered preliminary estimates of the costs to control GHG emissions. A preliminary investigation demonstrated costs to comply would be significant, first with regard to operating expenses and later for capital expenditures as technology becomes available to control GHG emissions. However, these compliance cost estimates were based on highly uncertain assumptions, including allowance prices if a cap and trade approach were employed, and energy efficiency targets. The Company is undertaking a detailed review of the requirements of the CPP and the proposed FIP and a review of potential compliance options. The Company will also continue to remain engaged with the Indiana legislators and regulators to assess the final rule and to develop a plan that is the least cost to its customers. In addition to the federal programs, the United States and 194 other countries agreed by consensus to limit GHG emissions beginning after 2020 in the 2015 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Paris Agreement. The United States has proposed a 26-28% GHG emission reduction from 2005 levels by 2025. As previously noted, since 2005, the Company has achieved reduced emissions of CO2 by 31 percent (on a tonnage basis). While the legislative outcome of the CPP rules remains uncertain, the Company will continue to monitor regulatory activity regarding GHG emission standards that may affect its electric generating units. Integrated Resource Planning Process As required by the state of Indiana, the Company is currently in the process of completing its 2016 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). The state requires each electric utility to perform and submit an IRP that uses economic modeling to consider the costs and risks associated with available resource options to provide reliable electric service for the next twenty year period. During 2016, the Company will hold three public stakeholder meetings to gather input and feedback as well as communicate results of the IRP process as it progresses. Two of the three public meetings were held in April and July. A final IRP report is expected to be submitted to the IURC for review in November 2016. While the IURC reviews these reports, it does not formally approve or reject the plans. In developing its IRP, the Company will consider both the cost to continue operating its existing generation units in a manner that complies with current and anticipated future environmental requirements, as well as various resource alternatives, such as the use of energy efficiency programs and renewable resources as part of its overall generation portfolio. Due to the Company continuing to study compliance requirements and as the IRP will be used to drive future resource decisions, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the total cost it will incur to comply with the CCR, ELG, and CPP regulations. Further, the 2016 IRP will also evaluate the ongoing operation of the 300 MW unit at the Warrick Power Plant (Warrick Unit 4) that SIGECO and Alcoa Generating Corporation (AGC), a subsidiary of Alcoa, Inc. (Alcoa), own as tenants in common. SIGECO's proportionate cost of the unit is included in rate base. In the first quarter of 2016, Alcoa closed its smelter operations. Historically, on-site generation owned and operated by AGC has been used to provide power to the smelter, as well as other mill operations, which will continue. Generation from Alcoa's share of Warrick Unit 4 has historically been sold into the MISO market. Alcoa's operational changes, as described above, lead to a number of uncertainties including its plans regarding the future ownership and operation of Warrick Unit 4 as well as potential environmental regulation implications under the CCR and ELG regulations. The Company is actively working with Alcoa on plans related to continued operation of their generation and what operating scenarios to consider in the IRP. The 2016 IRP will produce a variety of resource options to be considered, including a preferred resource plan. Based on the resulting analysis, the Company will develop an overall strategy that may include compliance projects on some units, possible replacement of other units, and the opportunity for the use of renewable sources. While the cost of compliance with CCR, ELG, and CPP could be significant, the Company anticipates compliance costs associated with ELG and CCR will likely be the most significant. The Company believes that all compliance costs would be considered a federally mandated cost of providing electricity, and therefore if incurred, should be recoverable either from customers through Senate Bill 251 as referenced above, Senate Bill 29, which was used by the Company to recover its initial pollution control investments as clean coal environmental expenditures, or through other forms of rate recovery. Manufactured Gas Plants In the past, the Company operated facilities to manufacture natural gas. Given the availability of natural gas transported by pipelines, these facilities have not been operated for many years. Under current environmental laws and regulations, those that owned or operated these facilities may now be required to take remedial action if certain contaminants are found above the regulatory thresholds. In the Indiana Gas service territory, the existence, location, and certain general characteristics of 26 gas manufacturing and storage sites have been identified for which the Company may have some remedial responsibility. A remedial investigation/ feasibility study (RI/FS) was completed at one of the sites under an agreed upon order between Indiana Gas and the IDEM, and a Record of Decision was issued by the IDEM in January 2000. The remaining sites have been submitted to the IDEM's Voluntary Remediation Program (VRP). The Company has identified its involvement in five manufactured gas plant sites in SIGECO’s service territory, all of which are currently enrolled in the IDEM’s VRP. The Company is currently conducting some level of remedial activities, including groundwater monitoring at certain sites. The Company has accrued the estimated costs for further investigation, remediation, groundwater monitoring, and related costs for the sites. While the total costs that may be incurred in connection with addressing these sites cannot be determined at this time, the Company has recorded cumulative costs that it has incurred or reasonably expects to incur totaling approximately $43.4 million ( $23.2 million at Indiana Gas and $20.2 million at SIGECO). The estimated accrued costs are limited to the Company’s share of the remediation efforts and are therefore net of exposures of other potentially responsible parties (PRP). With respect to insurance coverage, Indiana Gas has received approximately $20.8 million from all known insurance carriers under insurance policies in effect when these plants were in operation. Likewise, SIGECO has settlement agreements with all known insurance carriers and has received approximately $14.8 million of the expected $15.8 million in insurance recoveries. The costs the Company expects to incur are estimated by management using assumptions based on actual costs incurred, the timing of expected future payments, and inflation factors, among others. While the Company’s utilities have recorded all costs which they presently expect to incur in connection with activities at these sites, it is possible that future events may require remedial activities which are not presently foreseen and those costs may not be subject to PRP or insurance recovery. As of June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015 , approximately $2.8 million and $3.3 million , respectively, of accrued, but not yet spent, costs are included in Other Liabilities related to the Indiana Gas and SIGECO sites. |