Contingencies | Note 7. Contingencies We are party to various legal disputes arising as part of our normal business activities. We assess our exposure to these matters and record estimated loss contingencies when a loss is likely and can be reasonably estimated. 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 sought 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 therefore are affected by any FERC order resulting from the filed complaint. On June 19, 2014, the FERC issued its decision in Complaint I, establishing an ROE methodology and setting an issue for a paper hearing. On October 16, 2014, FERC issued its final decision in 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 the requested 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 June 19, 2014 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 transmission return. In June 2015 the NETOs and complainants both filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia of the FERC’s final order. On April 14, 2017, the Court of Appeals (the Court) issued its decision. The Court vacated FERC’s decision on Complaint I and remanded it to FERC. The Court found that FERC, as directed by statute, did not determine first that the existing ROE was unjust and unreasonable before determining a new ROE. The Court ruled that FERC must first determine that the then existing 11.14% base ROE was unjust and unreasonable before selecting the 10.57% as the new base ROE. The Court also found that FERC did not provide reasoned judgment as to why 10.57%, the point ROE at the midpoint of the upper end of the zone of reasonableness, is a just and reasonable ROE as FERC only explained in its order that the midpoint of 9.39% was not just and reasonable and a higher base ROE was warranted. The parties or FERC could appeal the decision to the United States Supreme Court or FERC could provide additional justification and issue a decision on remand. We cannot predict the outcome of an appeal or other action by FERC . 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 Complaint II, established a 15-month refund effective date of December 27, 2012, and set the matter for hearing using the methodology established in Complaint I. On July 31, 2014, a third ROE complaint (Complaint III) was filed for a subsequent rate period requesting the ROE be reduced to 8.84%. On November 24, 2014, FERC accepted the Complaint III, 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 NETOs 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 later in 2017, once FERC has enough commissioners to provide a quorum for decision-making. CMP and UI reserved for refunds for Complaints I, II and III consistent with the FERC’s March 3, 2015 final decision in Complaint I. The CMP and UI total reserve associated with Complaints II and III is $21.9 million and $4.4 million, respectively, as of March 31, 2017, which has not changed since December 31, 2016, except for the accrual of carrying costs. If adopted as final, the impact of the initial decision would be an additional aggregate reserve for Complaints II and III of $17.1 million, which is based upon currently available information for these proceedings. We cannot predict the outcome of the Complaint II and III proceedings. On April 29, 2016, a fourth ROE complaint (Complaint IV) was filed 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. On September 20, 2016, FERC accepted the Complaint IV, established a 15-month refund effective date of April 29, 2016, and set the matter for hearing and settlement judge procedures. On February 1, 2017, the complainants filed their initial testimony recommending a base ROE of 8.59%. On March 23, 2017, the NETOs filed their answering testimony supporting the continuation of the base ROE from Complaint I of 10.57%. A range of possible outcomes is not able to be determined at this time due to the preliminary state of this matter. We cannot predict the outcome of the Complaint IV proceeding. Hearings are being held later this year with an expected Initial Decision from the Administrative Law Judge in November 2017. 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 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 six-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 that it would not appeal the Trial Court 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 “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 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. On October 14, 2016, the Yankee Companies received the Government's payment of the damage award of a combined $41.6 million (Connecticut Yankee $18.4 million, Maine Yankee $3.6 million and Yankee Atomic $19.6 million). In December 2016 CMP and UI received their proportionate share of $4.2 million of the Phase III damage awards, based on percentage ownership, and CMP received an additional $21.5 million for SNF trust refund relating to excess funds of Maine Yankee unrelated to Phase III. All amounts will 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 RG&E 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 included approximately $9.8 million of adjustments to deferral balances and customer earnings sharing accruals. NYSEG and RG&E reviewed the Staff’s adjustments and work papers and responded in early 2013. NYSEG and RG&E disagreed with certain Staff conclusions and as a result recorded a $3.4 million reserve in December 2012 in anticipation of settling the issues identified by the Staff. In the Proposal approved by the NYPSC (see Note 4) the parties agreed that in full and final resolution of all issues identified for 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. The Staff indicated in December 2016 that it had completed its review of 2013 and 2014 ACFs and no additional issues were identified. New York State Department of Public Service Investigation of the Preparation for and Response to the March 2017 Windstorm At the direction of Governor Andrew Cuomo, on March 11, 2017 the New York State Department of Public Service (the “Department”) commenced an investigation of NYSEG’s and RG&E’s preparation for and response to the March 2017 windstorm, which affected more than 219,000 customers. The Department investigation will include a comprehensive review of NYSEG’s and RG&E’s preparation for and response to the windstorm, including the all aspects of the companies’ filed and approved emergency plan. The Department held public hearings on April 12 and 13, 2017. We cannot predict the outcome of this investigation. California Energy Crisis Litigation Two California agencies brought a complaint in 2001 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. Guarantee Commitments to Third Parties As of March 31, 2017, we had approximately $2.7 billion of standby letters of credit, surety bonds, guarantees and indemnifications outstanding. These instruments provide financial assurance to the business and trading partners of AVANGRID and its subsidiaries in their normal course of business. The instruments only represent liabilities if AVANGRID 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 March 31, 2017, neither we nor our subsidiaries have any liabilities recorded for these instruments. |