COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES | 3 Months Ended |
Mar. 31, 2015 |
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES |
Environmental Matters |
Our Regulated Operating Subsidiaries’ operations are subject to federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations, which impose limitations on the discharge of pollutants into the environment, 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 to investigate or remediate 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 at properties currently owned or operated by our Regulated Operating Subsidiaries. Such liabilities may arise even where the contamination does not result from noncompliance with applicable environmental laws. Under a number of 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 Regulated Operating Subsidiaries’ costs for such compliance in a manner that would be expected to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position or liquidity. |
Our Regulated Operating Subsidiaries’ assets and operations also involve the use of materials classified as hazardous, toxic or otherwise dangerous. Many of the properties our Regulated Operating Subsidiaries 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 aboveground 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, or PCBs. Our Regulated Operating Subsidiaries’ facilities and equipment are often situated close to or on property owned by others so that, if they are the source of contamination, others’ property may be affected. For example, aboveground and underground transmission lines sometimes traverse properties that our Regulated Operating Subsidiaries do not own, and, at some of our Regulated Operating Subsidiaries’ transmission stations, transmission assets (owned or operated by our Regulated Operating Subsidiaries) and distribution assets (owned or operated by our Regulated Operating Subsidiaries’ transmission customer) are commingled. |
Some properties in which our Regulated Operating Subsidiaries have an ownership interest or at which they operate are, and others are suspected of being, affected by environmental contamination. Our Regulated Operating Subsidiaries are not aware of any pending or threatened claims against them with respect to environmental contamination, or of any investigation or remediation of contamination at any properties, that entail costs likely to materially affect them. Some facilities and properties are located near environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands. |
Claims have been made or threatened against electric utilities for bodily injury, disease or other damages allegedly related to exposure to electromagnetic fields associated with electric transmission and distribution lines. While our Regulated Operating Subsidiaries do not believe that a causal link between electromagnetic field exposure and injury has been generally established and accepted in the scientific community, if such a relationship is established or accepted, the liabilities and costs imposed on our business could be significant. We are not aware of any pending or threatened claims against our Regulated Operating Subsidiaries for bodily injury, disease or other damages allegedly related to exposure to electromagnetic fields and electric transmission and distribution lines that entail costs likely to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position or liquidity. |
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, 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. |
Michigan Sales and Use Tax Audit |
The Michigan Department of Treasury has conducted sales and use tax audits of ITCTransmission for the audit periods April 1, 2005 through June 30, 2008 and October 1, 2009 through September 30, 2013. The Michigan Department of Treasury has denied ITCTransmission’s use of the industrial processing exemption from use tax it has taken beginning January 1, 2007. |
ITCTransmission believes that its utilization of the industrial processing exemption is appropriate and intends to defend itself against the denial of such exemption through certain administrative and judicial appeal rights. However, it is reasonably possible that the assessment of additional use tax could be sustained after all administrative appeals and litigation have been exhausted. |
The amount of use tax liability associated with the exemptions taken by ITCTransmission through March 31, 2015 is estimated to be approximately $16.1 million including interest. This amount includes approximately $10.1 million, including interest, assessed for the audit periods noted above. ITCTransmission has not recorded this contingent liability as of March 31, 2015. METC has also taken the industrial processing exemption, estimated to be approximately $10.5 million for periods still subject to audit and METC has also not recorded any contingent liabilities as of March 31, 2015 associated with this matter. In the event it becomes appropriate to record additional use tax liability relating to this matter, ITCTransmission and METC would record the additional use tax primarily as an increase to the cost of property, plant and equipment, which is a component of revenue requirement, as the majority of purchases for which the exemption was taken relate to equipment purchases associated with capital projects. |
Rate of Return on Equity and Capital Structure Complaints |
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 a complaint with the FERC under Section 206 of the FPA (the “Complaint”), requesting that the FERC find the current 12.38% MISO regional base ROE rate (the “base ROE”) for all MISO TOs, including ITCTransmission, METC and ITC Midwest, to no longer be just and reasonable. The complainants sought a FERC order reducing the base ROE used in our MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries’ formula transmission rates to 9.15%. The Complaint also alleged that the rates of any MISO TO using a capital structure with greater than 50% for the equity component are likewise not just and reasonable (our MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries use their actual capital structures, which target 60% equity, as FERC had previously authorized). The Complaint also alleged the ROE adders currently approved for certain ITC Holdings operating companies, including an adder currently charged by ITCTransmission for being a member of an RTO and adders charged by ITCTransmission and METC for being independent transmission owners, are no longer just and reasonable, and sought to have them eliminated. |
On June 19, 2014, in a separate Section 206 complaint against the regional base ROE rate for ISO New England TOs, FERC adopted a new methodology for establishing base ROE rates for electric transmission utilities. The new methodology is based on a two-step discounted cash flow analysis (“two-step DCF”) that uses both short-term and long-term growth projections in calculating ROE rates for a proxy group of electric utilities. The previous methodology used only short-term growth projections. FERC also reiterated that it can apply discretion in determining how ROE rates are established within a zone of reasonableness and reiterated its policy for limiting the overall ROE rate for any company, including the base and all applicable adders, at the high end of the zone of reasonableness set by the two-step DCF methodology. The new method presented in the ISO New England ROE case will be used in resolving the MISO ROE case. |
On October 16, 2014, FERC granted the complainants’ request in part by setting the base ROE for hearing and settlement procedures, while denying all other aspects of the Complaint. FERC found that the complainants failed to show that the use of actual or FERC-approved capital structures that include more than 50% equity are unjust and unreasonable. FERC also denied the request to terminate ITCTransmission’s and METC’s ROE incentives. The order reiterates that any TO’s total ROE rate is limited by the top end of a zone of reasonableness and the TO’s ability to implement the full amount of previously granted ROE adders may be affected by the outcome of the hearing. FERC set the refund effective date as November 12, 2013. |
During the fourth quarter of 2014, the MISO TOs engaged in the ordered FERC settlement procedures with the complainants but were not able to reach resolution. On January 5, 2015, the Chief Judge issued an order which terminated settlement procedures and set the matter for hearing. The order established a schedule for the proceeding that provides for a hearing within 32 weeks of the order and an initial decision within 47 weeks of the order. On April 6, 2015, the MISO TOs filed expert witness testimony in the Complaint proceeding supporting the existing base ROE as just and reasonable. However, in the event that FERC elects to change the base ROE, the testimony included a recommendation of 11.39% base ROE for the period of November 12, 2013 through February 12, 2015 (the “Initial Refund Period”). In resolving the Complaint, we expect FERC to establish a new base ROE to determine any potential refund liability for the Initial Refund Period. The new base ROE as well as any ROE adders, subject to the limitations of the top end of any zone of reasonableness that is established, are expected to be used to calculate the refund liability for the Initial Refund Period. |
On February 12, 2015, an additional complaint was filed with the FERC under Section 206 of the FPA (the “Second Complaint”) 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 our MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries’ formula transmission rates to 8.67% with an effective date of February 12, 2015. On March 11, 2015, the MISO TOs filed an answer to the Second Complaint with the FERC supporting the current base ROE as just and reasonable. |
We believe it is probable that refunds will be required for these matters, and the estimated range of refunds on a pre-tax basis is expected to be from $55.7 million to $106.4 million for the period from November 12, 2013 through March 31, 2015. The estimated range of refunds on a pre-tax basis as of December 31, 2014 was $47.8 million to $88.1 million for the period from November 12, 2013 through December 31, 2014. As of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, our MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries had recorded an aggregate estimated regulatory liability of $55.7 million and $47.8 million, respectively, for the estimated potential refunds as there is no best estimate within the range of refunds. The recognition of this estimated liability resulted in a reduction in revenues of $7.5 million and $46.9 million and an increase in interest expense of $0.4 million and $0.9 million for the three months ended March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively. This resulted in an estimated after-tax reduction to net income of $4.8 million and $28.9 million for the three months ended March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively. No amounts related to these complaints were recorded as of or for the three months ended March 31, 2014. |
Based on the estimated range of refunds identified above, we believe that it is reasonably possible that this matter could result in an additional estimated pre-tax refund of up to $50.7 million (or a $30.7 million estimated after-tax reduction of net income) in excess of the amount recorded as of March 31, 2015. It is also possible the outcome of this matter could differ from the estimated range of losses and materially affect our results of operations due to the uncertainty of the calculation of an authorized base ROE along with the zone of reasonableness under the newly adopted two-step DCF methodology, which is subject to significant discretion by the FERC. As of March 31, 2015, our MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries had a total of approximately $2.7 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 reduction in the authorized ROE would reduce annual consolidated net income by approximately $2.7 million. |
In a separate but related matter, in November 2014, METC, ITC Midwest and other MISO TOs filed a request with FERC under FPA Section 205 for authority to include a 50 basis point incentive adder for RTO participation in each of the TOs’ formula rates. On January 5, 2015, FERC approved the use of this incentive adder, effective January 6, 2015. Additionally, ITC Midwest filed a request with FERC under FPA Section 205 in January 2015 for authority to include a 100 basis point incentive adder for independent transmission ownership, which is currently authorized for ITCTransmission and METC. On March 31, 2015, FERC approved the use of a 50 basis point incentive adder for independence, effective April 1, 2015. The RTO participation incentive adder will be applied to METC’s and ITC Midwest’s base ROEs and the independence incentive adder will be applied to ITC Midwest’s base ROE in establishing their total authorized ROE rates, subject to the limitations of the top end of any zone of reasonableness that is established. Collection of these recently approved incentive adders is being deferred pending the outcome of the complaints relating to the base ROE. |