COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES Environmental Matters We are subject to federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations, which impose limitations on the discharge of pollutants into the environment, require reporting of emissions from certain equipment, establish standards for the management, treatment, storage, transportation and disposal of hazardous materials and of solid and hazardous wastes, and impose obligations to investigate and remediate contamination in certain circumstances. Liabilities relating to investigation and remediation of contamination, as well as other liabilities concerning hazardous materials or contamination, such as claims for personal injury or property damage, may arise at many locations, including formerly owned or operated properties and sites where wastes have been treated or disposed of, as well as properties currently owned or operated by us. Such liabilities may arise even where the contamination does not result from noncompliance with applicable environmental laws. Under some environmental laws, such liabilities may also be joint and several, meaning that a party can be held responsible for more than its share of the liability involved, or even the entire share. Although environmental requirements generally have become more stringent and compliance with those requirements more expensive, we are not aware of any specific developments that would increase our costs for such compliance in a manner that would be expected to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. Our assets and operations also involve the use of materials classified as hazardous, toxic or otherwise dangerous. Some of the properties that we own or operate have been used for many years and include older facilities and equipment that may be more likely than newer ones to contain or be made from such materials. Some of these properties include above ground or underground storage tanks and associated piping. Some of them also include large electrical equipment filled with mineral oil, which may contain or previously have contained PCBs. Some of our facilities and electrical equipment may also contain asbestos containing materials. Our facilities and equipment are often situated close to or on property owned by others so that, if they are the source of contamination, the property of others may be affected. For example, above ground and underground transmission lines sometimes traverse properties that we do not own and transmission assets that we own or operate are sometimes commingled at our transmission stations with distribution assets owned or operated by our transmission customers. Some properties in which we have an ownership interest or at which we operate are, or are suspected of being, affected by environmental contamination. We are not aware of any pending or threatened claims against us with respect to environmental contamination relating to these properties, or of any investigation or remediation of contamination at these properties, that entail costs likely to materially affect us. Some facilities and properties are located near environmentally sensitive areas, including wetlands and habitat for threatened and endangered species. Litigation We are involved in certain legal proceedings before various courts, governmental agencies and mediation panels concerning matters arising in the ordinary course of business. These proceedings include certain contract disputes, eminent domain and vegetation management activities, regulatory matters and pending judicial matters. We cannot predict the final disposition of such proceedings. We regularly review legal matters and record provisions for claims that are considered probable of loss. Rate of Return on Equity Complaints Two complaints were filed with the FERC by combinations of consumer advocates, consumer groups, municipal parties and other parties challenging the base ROE in MISO. The complaints were filed with the FERC under Section 206 of the FPA requesting that the FERC find the MISO regional base ROE rate (the “base ROE”) for all MISO TO’s, including our MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries, to no longer be just and reasonable. Initial Complaint On November 12, 2013, the Association of Businesses Advocating Tariff Equity, Coalition of MISO Transmission Customers, Illinois Industrial Energy Consumers, Indiana Industrial Energy Consumers, Inc., Minnesota Large Industrial Group and Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group (collectively, the “complainants”) filed the Initial Complaint with the FERC. The complainants sought a FERC order to reduce the base ROE used in the formula transmission rates for our MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries to 9.15%, reducing the equity component of our capital structure and terminating the ROE adders approved for certain Regulated Operating Subsidiaries. The FERC set the base ROE for hearing and settlement procedures, while denying all other aspects of the Initial Complaint. The ROE collected through the MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries’ rates during the period November 12, 2013 through September 27, 2016 consisted of a base ROE of 12.38% plus applicable incentive adders. On September 28, 2016, the FERC issued the September 2016 Order that set the base ROE at 10.32%, with a maximum ROE of 11.35%, effective for the period from November 12, 2013 through February 11, 2015 based on a two-step DCF methodology adopted in previous complaint matters for other utilities. The September 2016 Order required our MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries to provide refunds, including interest, which were completed in 2017. Additionally, the base ROE established by the September 2016 Order was to be used prospectively from the date of that order until a new approved base ROE was established by the FERC. On October 28, 2016, the MISO TOs, including our MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries, filed a request with the FERC for rehearing of the September 2016 Order regarding the short-term growth projections in the two-step DCF analysis. Additional impacts to the base ROE for the period of the Initial Complaint and the related accrued refund liabilities resulted from the November 2019 Order and May 2020 Order issued by the FERC, as discussed below. Second Complaint On February 12, 2015, the Second Complaint was filed with the FERC by Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation, Mississippi Delta Energy Agency, Clarksdale Public Utilities Commission, Public Service Commission of Yazoo City and Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc., seeking a FERC order to reduce the base ROE used in the formula transmission rates of our MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries to 8.67%, with an effective date of February 12, 2015. On June 30, 2016, the presiding ALJ issued an initial decision that recommended a base ROE of 9.70% for the refund period from February 12, 2015 through May 11, 2016, with a maximum ROE of 10.68%, which also would be applicable going forward from the date of a final FERC order. The Second Complaint was dismissed as a result of the November 2019 Order and the dismissal of the complaint was reaffirmed in the May 2020 Order, as discussed below. November 2019 Order On November 21, 2019, the FERC issued an order in the MISO ROE Complaints which applied a methodology to the Initial Complaint period that used two financial models to determine the base ROE. The FERC determined that the base ROE for the Initial Complaint should be 9.88% and the top of the range of reasonableness for that period should be 12.24% and that this base ROE should apply during the first refund period of November 12, 2013 to February 11, 2015 and from the date of the September 2016 Order prospectively. In the November 2019 Order, the FERC also dismissed the Second Complaint. Therefore, based on the November 2019 Order, for the Second Complaint refund period from February 12, 2015 to May 11, 2016, no refund is due. As a result, in 2019, we reversed the aggregate estimated current liability we had previously recorded for the Second Complaint. In addition, for the period from May 12, 2016 to September 27, 2016, no refund is due because no complaint had been filed for that period. The FERC ordered refunds to be made in accordance with the November 2019 Order. The MISO TOs, including our MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries, and several other parties filed requests for rehearing of the November 2019 Order. The MISO TOs asserted that the methodology applied by the FERC in the November 2019 Order does not allow the MISO TOs to earn a reasonable rate of return on their investment, as required by precedent. On January 21, 2020, the FERC issued an order granting rehearing of the November 2019 Order for further consideration. May 2020 Order On May 21, 2020, the FERC issued an order on rehearing of the November 2019 Order. In this order, the FERC revised its November 2019 Order methodology, finding that three financial models should be used to determine the base ROE, among other revisions. By applying the new methodology, the FERC determined that the base ROE for the Initial Complaint should be 10.02% and the top of the range of reasonableness for that period should be 12.62%. The FERC determined that this base ROE should apply during the first refund period of November 12, 2013 to February 11, 2015 and from the date of the September 2016 Order prospectively. The FERC ordered refunds to be made in accordance with the May 2020 Order. Refund settlements were finalized during the three months ended March 31, 2022. In the May 2020 Order, the FERC also reaffirmed its decision to dismiss the Second Complaint and its finding that no refunds would be ordered on the Second Complaint. Our MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries are parties to multiple appeals of the September 2016 Order, November 2019 Order and May 2020 Order at the D.C. Circuit Court. Financial Statement Impacts As of December 31, 2021, we had recorded an aggregate current regulatory asset and liability of $1 million and less than $1 million, respectively, in the consolidated statements of financial position. These impacts reflect amounts owed from or due to customers under the terms outlined in the May 2020 Order and the November 2019 Order on the Initial Complaint and the periods subsequent to the September 2016 Order. During the three months ended March 31, 2022, we settled the remaining regulatory assets and liabilities and, as of March 31, 2022, there are no remaining regulatory assets or liabilities recorded related to this matter. During the three months ended March 31, 2021, we received net settlement payments of $8 million owed from customers related to this matter. Although the November 2019 Order and May 2020 Order dismissed the Second Complaint with no refunds required, it is possible upon resolution of the pending appeals that our MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries could be required to provide material refunds related to the Second Complaint. Our MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries currently record revenues at the base ROE of 10.02% established in the May 2020 Order plus applicable ROE incentive adders. See Note 4 for a summary of incentive adders for transmission rates. As of March 31, 2022, our MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries had a total of approximately $5 billion of equity in their collective capital structures for ratemaking purposes. Based on this level of aggregate equity, we estimate that each 10 basis point change in the authorized ROE would impact annual consolidated net income by approximately $5 million. |