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 polychlorinated biphenyls. 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 may include proceedings such as 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 under Section 206 of the FPA requesting that the FERC find the MISO regional base ROE rate (the “base ROE”) for all MISO TOs, 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 MISO 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. 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 administrative law judge 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 an order issued by the FERC on November 21, 2019 and the dismissal of the complaint was reaffirmed in the May 2020 Order. Previous FERC Orders Since the filing of the Initial Complaint, the FERC issued three separate orders in these proceedings resulting in multiple revisions to the base ROE and refund settlements. The MISO TOs, along with our MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries, and various other parties have challenged certain aspects of these orders through requests for rehearing. In the May 2020 Order, the FERC determined that a methodology using three financial models should be used to determine the base ROE. 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 order issued by the FERC on September 28, 2016 prospectively. The FERC ordered refunds to be made in accordance with the May 2020 Order. Refund settlements were finalized in 2022. August 2022 D.C. Circuit Court Decision On August 9, 2022, in response to appeals of the FERC's orders on the MISO ROE Complaints, the D.C. Circuit Court issued an opinion that rejected the FERC’s use of a risk premium model in the methodology used to determine the revised base ROE for MISO TOs. The D.C. Circuit Court decision vacated the FERC’s orders on the MISO ROE Complaints, dismissed the remaining outstanding appeals of these orders and remanded the matter to the FERC for further proceedings. October 2024 Order On October 17, 2024, in response to the August 2022 D.C. Circuit Court decision, the FERC issued an order on the MISO ROE Complaints that revised the methodology used to determine base ROE put forth in the May 2020 Order. In this order, the FERC removed the use of the risk premium model from the calculation, while maintaining other modifications to the methodology as described in previous orders on the MISO ROE Complaints. By applying the revised methodology, the FERC determined that the base ROE for the Initial Complaint should be 9.98% for all MISO TOs, including our MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries, and the top of the range of reasonableness for that period should be 12.58%. 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 order issued by the FERC on September 28, 2016 prospectively. The FERC ordered refunds to be made in accordance with the order by December 1, 2025. The FERC also reaffirmed its previous finding that no refunds would be ordered on the Second Complaint. We expect to record an aggregate refund liability of approximately $26 million, including interest, in the fourth quarter of 2024 in accordance with the refund provisions of the order. See Note 5 for a summary of our authorized ROE, which is composed of our base ROE and incentive adders for transmission rates. |