Contingencies | Note 8. Contingencies We are party to various legal disputes arising as part of our normal business activities. We do not provide for accrual of legal costs expected to be incurred in connection with a loss contingency. MNG Rate Case On March 5, 2015, MNG filed a rate case in order to further recover future investments and provide safe and adequate service. MNG requested a 10.0% ROE and 50.0% equity ratio. The MPUC Staff recommended a separate revenue requirement for MNG’s Augusta customers and MNG’s non-Augusta customers. The Staff also recommended a $19.95 million disallowance of the Augusta Expansion investment based upon the Staff’s conclusion that MNG’s management of the Augusta Expansion Project was imprudent. On November 6, 2015, a stipulation was filed with the MPUC, which was executed by MNG, the Office of Public Advocate and the City of Augusta. The stipulation contained a combined revenue requirement for Augusta and Non-Augusta based on a 9.55% ROE and 50% equity ratio. The stipulation also provided for an initial Augusta investment disallowance of $6 million and an investment phase-in of $10 million. On December 22, 2015, the MPUC rejected the proposed stipulation as not in the public interest. In January 2016, the Administrative Law Judge established a new litigation schedule. The litigation was suspended at the end of January 2016 for settlement discussions. We reserved $6 million for this case at the end of 2015. On May 3, 2016, all active parties to the case filed a stipulation which settled all matters at issue in the case and reflected a 10-year rate plan through April 30, 2026. The MPUC approved the stipulation on May 17, 2016, for new rates effective June 1, 2016. The settlement structure for non-Augusta customers includes a 34.6% delivery revenue increase over five years with an allowed 9.55% ROE and 50% common equity ratio. The settlement structure for Augusta customers includes a 10-year rate plan with existing Augusta customers being charged rates equal to non-Augusta customers plus a surcharge which increases annually for five years. New Augusta customers will have rates set based on an alternate fuel market model. In year seven of the rate plan MNG will submit a cost of service filing for the Augusta area to determine if the rate plan should continue. This cost of service filing will exclude $15 million of initial 2012/2013 gross plant investment, however the stipulation allows for accelerated depreciation of these assets. If the Augusta area’s cost of service filing illustrates results above a 14.55% ROE then the rate plan may cease, otherwise the rate plan would continue. A disallowance for the initial 2012/2013 gross plant investment is not part of the approved stipulation. The reserve of $6 million for this case was reversed in May 2016. Transmission - ROE Complaint – CMP and UI On September 30, 2011, the Massachusetts Attorney General, Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission, Rhode Island Division of Public Utilities and Carriers, Vermont Department of Public Service, numerous New England consumer advocate agencies and transmission tariff customers collectively filed a complaint (Complaint I) with the FERC pursuant to sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Power Act. The filing parties seek an order from the FERC reducing the 11.14% base return on equity used in calculating formula rates for transmission service under the ISO-New England Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) to 9.2%. CMP and UI are New England Transmission Owners (NETOs) with assets and service rates that are governed by the OATT and will thereby be affected by any FERC order resulting from the filed complaint. On June 19, 2014, the FERC issued its initial decision in this first complaint, establishing a methodology and setting an issue for a paper hearing. On October 16, 2014, FERC issued its final decision in the first complaint (Complaint I) setting the base ROE at 10.57% and a maximum total ROE of 11.74% (base plus incentive ROEs) for the October 2011 – December 2012 period as well as prospectively from October 16, 2014, and ordered the NETOs to file a refund report. On November 17, 2014, the NETOs filed a refund report. On March 3, 2015, the FERC issued an order on requests for rehearing of its October 16, 2014 decision. The March order upheld the FERC’s initial decision and further clarified that the 11.74% ROE cap will be applied on a project specific basis and not on a transmission owner’s total average return. In June 2015 the NETOs filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia of the FERC’s final order. The appeal is currently pending, and we cannot predict the outcome of this appeal. On December 26, 2012, a second, ROE complaint (Complaint II) for a subsequent rate period was filed requesting the ROE be reduced to 8.7%. On June 19, 2014, FERC accepted the second complaint, established a 15-month refund effective date of December 27, 2012, and set the matter for hearing using the methodology established in the first complaint. On July 31, 2014, the Complainants filed a third ROE complaint (Complaint III) for a subsequent rate period requesting the ROE be reduced to 8.84%. On November 24, 2014, FERC accepted the third complaint, established a 15-month refund effective date of July 31, 2014, and set this matter, consolidated with Complaint II, for hearing in June 2015. Hearings were held in June 2015 on Complaints II and III before a FERC Administrative Law Judge, relating to the refund periods and going forward period. On July 29, 2015, post-hearing briefs were filed by parties and on August 26, 2015 reply briefs were filed by parties. On July 13, 2015, the New England transmission owners filed a petition for review of FERC’s orders establishing hearing and consolidation procedures for Complaints II and III with the U.S. Court of Appeals. The FERC Administrative Law Judge issued an Initial Decision on March 22, 2016. The Initial Decision determined that, 1) for the 15-month refund period in Complaint II, the base ROE should be 9.59% and that the ROE Cap (base ROE plus incentive ROEs) should be 10.42% and 2) for the 15-month refund period in Complaint III and prospectively, the base ROE should be 10.90% and that the ROE Cap should be 12.19%. The Initial Decision is the Administrative Law Judge’s recommendation to the FERC Commissioners. The FERC is expected to make its final decision in late 2016 or early 2017. CMP and UI reserved for refunds for Complaints I, II and III consistent with the FERC’s March 3, 2015 final Complaint I decision. The CMP and UI total reserve associated with Complaints I, II and III is $21.2 million and $4.2 million, respectively, as of June 30, 2016. If adopted as final, the impact of the initial decision would be an additional aggregate reserve for Complaints II and III of $10.2 million, net of tax, which is based upon currently available information for these proceedings. We cannot predict the outcome of the Complaint II and III proceeding. On April 29, 2016, the Complainants filed a fourth ROE complaint (Complaint IV) for a rate period subsequent to prior complaints requesting the base ROE be 8.61% and ROE Cap be 11.24%. The NETOs filed a response to the Complaint IV on June 3, 2016.We cannot predict the outcome of the Complaint IV proceeding. Yankee Nuclear Spent Fuel Disposal Claim CMP has an ownership interest in Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company, Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, and Yankee Atomic Electric Company, (the Yankee Companies), three New England single-unit decommissioned nuclear reactor sites, and UI has an ownership interest in Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company. Every six years, pursuant to the statute of limitations, the Yankee Companies file a lawsuit to recover damages from the Department of Energy (DOE or Government) for breach of the Nuclear Spent Fuel Disposal Contract to remove Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) and Greater than Class C Waste (GTCC) as required by contract and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act beginning in 1998. The damages are the incremental costs for the Government’s failure to take the spent nuclear fuel. In 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals issued a favorable decision in the Yankee Companies’ claim for the first six year period (Phase I). Total damages awarded to the Yankee Companies were nearly $160 million. The Yankee Companies won on all appellate points in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s unanimous decision. The Federal Appeals Court affirmed the September 2010 U.S. Court of Federal Claims award of $39.7 million to Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company; affirmed the Court of Federal Claims award of $81.7 million to Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company; and increased Yankee Atomic Electric Company’s damages award from $21.4 million to $38.3 million. The Phase I damage award became final on December 4, 2012. The Yankee Companies received payment from the DOE in January 2013. CMP’s share of the award was approximately $36.5 million which was credited back to customers. UI’s share of the award was $3.8 million which was credited back to customers. In November 2013 the U.S. Court of Claims issued its decision in the Phase II case (the second 6-year period). The court’s decision awarded the Yankee Companies a combined $235.4 million (Connecticut Yankee $126.3 million, Maine Yankee $37.7 million, and Yankee Atomic $73.3 million). The Phase II period covers January 1, 2002, through December 31, 2008, for Connecticut Yankee and Yankee Atomic, and January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2008, for Maine Yankee. Maine Yankee’s damage award was lower because it recovered a larger amount in the Phase I case ($82 million) and its decommissioning was both less expensive and completed sooner than the other Yankee Companies. The damage awards flow through the Yankee Companies to shareholders (including CMP and UI) to reduce retail customer charges. In January 2014 the Government informed the Yankee Companies it would not appeal the court’s decision. As a result the Yankee Companies received full payment in April 2014. CMP’s share of the award was approximately $28.2 million which was credited back to customers. UI received approximately $12 million of such award which was applied, in part, against its remaining storm regulatory asset balance. The remaining regulatory liability balance was applied to UI’s generation service charge (GSC) “working capital allowance” and was returned to customers through the non-by-passable federally mandated congestion charge. In August 2013, the Yankee Companies filed a third round of claims against the Government seeking damages for the years 2009-2014 (Phase III). The Phase III trial was completed in July 2015 and the court issued its decision on March 25, 2016, awarding the Yankee Companies a combined $76.8 million (Connecticut Yankee $32.6 million, Maine Yankee $24.6 million and Yankee Atomic $19.6 million). The damage awards, less any amount retained to reduce future customer charges, will potentially flow through the Yankee Companies to shareholders, including CMP and UI, upon FERC approval, and will reduce retail customer charges or otherwise as specified by law. CMP and UI will receive their proportionate share of the awards that flow through based on percentage ownership. On July 18, 2016, the notice of appeal period expired and the Phase III trial award became final. We cannot predict the timing or amount of damage awards that may ultimately flow through to customers. NYPSC Staff Review of Earnings Sharing Calculations and Other Regulatory Deferrals In December 2012, the NYPSC Staff (Staff) informed NYSEG and RGE that the Staff had conducted an audit of the companies’ annual compliance filings (ACF) for 2009 through August 31, 2010, and the first rate year of the current rate plan, September 1, 2010 through August 31, 2011. The Staff’s preliminary findings indicated adjustments to deferred balances primarily associated with storm costs and the treatment of certain incentive compensation costs for purposes of the 2011 ACF. The Staff’s findings approximate $9.8 million of adjustments to deferral balances and customer earnings sharing accruals. NYSEG and RGE reviewed the Staff’s adjustments and work papers and provided a response in early 2013. NYSEG and RGE disagreed with certain Staff conclusions and as a result recorded a $3.4 million reserve in December 2012 in anticipation of settling the Staff issues. In the Proposal approved by the NYPSC (see Note 5) the parties agreed that in full and final resolution of all years through 2012, and in full and final resolution of storm-related deferrals through 2014, the companies will add $2.4 million to the customer share of earnings sharing. California Energy Crisis Litigation Two California agencies brought a complaint against a long-term power purchase agreement entered into by Renewables, as seller, to the California Department of Water Resources, as purchaser, alleging that the terms and conditions of the power purchase agreement were unjust and unreasonable. FERC dismissed Renewables from the proceedings; however, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed FERC's dismissal of Renewables. Joining with two other parties, Renewables filed a petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court on May 3, 2007. In an order entered on June 27, 2008, the Supreme Court granted Renewables’ petition for certiorari, vacated the appellate court's judgment, and remanded the case to the appellate court for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in a similar case. In light of the Supreme Court's order, on December 4, 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated its prior opinion and remanded the complaint proceedings to the FERC for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's rulings. In 2014 FERC assigned an administrative law judge to conduct evidentiary hearings. Following discovery, the FERC Trial Staff recommended that the complaint against Renewables be dismissed. A hearing was held before an administrative law judge of FERC in November and early December 2015. A preliminary proposed ruling by the administrative law judge was issued on April 12, 2016. The proposed ruling found no evidence that Renewables had engaged in any unlawful market contract that would justify finding the Renewables power purchase agreements unjust and unreasonable. However, the proposed ruling did conclude that price of the power purchase agreements imposed an excessive burden on customers in the amount of $259 million. Renewables position, as presented at hearings and agreed by FERC Trial Staff, is that Renewables entered into bilateral power purchase contracts appropriately and complied with all applicable legal standards and requirements. The parties have submitted to FERC briefs on exceptions to the administrative law judge’s proposed ruling. There is no specific timetable to FERC’s ruling, but we presently expect it to be issued in late 2016. We cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding. Guarantee Commitments to Third Parties As of June 30, 2016, we had approximately $2.5 billion of standby letters of credit, surety bonds, guarantees and indemnifications outstanding. These instruments provide financial assurance to the business and trading partners of the company and its subsidiaries in their normal course of business. The instruments only represent liabilities if the company or its subsidiaries fail to deliver on contractual obligations. We therefore believe it is unlikely that any material liabilities associated with these instruments will be incurred and, accordingly, as of June 30, 2016, neither we nor our subsidiaries have any liabilities recorded for these instruments. |