Contingencies | Note 8. 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. We do not provide for accrual of legal costs expected to be incurred in connection with a loss contingency. 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, MEPCO 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 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) vacated FERC’s decision on Complaint I and remanded it to FERC. The Court held 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 should have first determined 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 ROE of 10.57% at the midpoint of the upper end of the zone of reasonableness, is a just and reasonable ROE. Instead, FERC had only explained in its order that the midpoint of 9.39% was not just and reasonable and a higher base ROE was warranted. On June 5, 2017, the NETOs made a filing with FERC seeking to reinstate transmission rates to the status quo ante (effect of the Court vacating order is to return the parties to the rates in effect prior to FERC Final decision) as of June 8, 2017, the date the Court decision became effective. In that filing, the NETOs stated that they will not begin billing at the higher rates until 60 days after FERC has a quorum of commissioners. On October 6, 2017, FERC issued an order rejecting the NETOs request to collect transmission revenue requirements at the higher ROE of 11.14%, pending FERC order on remand. In reaching this decision, FERC stated that it has broad remedial authority to make whatever ROE it eventually determines to be just and reasonable effective for the Complaint I refund period and prospectively from October 2014, the effective date of the Complaint I Order. Therefore FERC reasoned that the NETOs will not be harmed financially by not immediately returning to their pre-Complaint I ROE. We anticipate FERC to address the Court decision during 2018. We cannot predict the outcome of action by FERC . On December 26, 2012, a second ROE complaint (Complaint II) for a subsequent rate period was filed requesting the then effective ROE of 11.14% 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 then effective ROE of 11.14% 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 relating to the refund periods and going forward period were held in June 2015 on Complaints II and III before a FERC Administrative Law Judge. 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 in 2018. 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. Refunds were provided to customers for Complaint I. The CMP and UI total reserve associated with Complaints II and III is $22.7 million and $4.4 million, respectively, as of March 31, 2018, which has not changed since December 31, 2017, 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 then existing base ROE of 10.57% be reduced to 8.61% and the ROE Cap be set at 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. In April 2017, the NETOs filed for a stay in the hearings pending FERC on the Court order described above. That request was denied by the Administrative Law Judge. On November 21, 2017, the parties submitted updates to their ROE analyses and recommendations just prior to hearings with the NETOs continuing to advocate that the existing base ROE of 10.57% should remain in effect. Hearings were held in December 2017 and on March 27, 2018, the Administrative Law Judge issued a decision rejecting Complaint IV, finding the currently-filed base ROE of 10.57%, which with incentive adders may reach a maximum ROE of 11.74%, is not unjust and unreasonable, and hence is not unlawful. We cannot predict the outcome of the Complaint IV proceeding. On October 5, 2017, the NETOs filed a Motion for Dismissal of Pancaked Return on Equity Complaints in light of the decision by the Court in April 2017 that became effective on June 8, 2017. The NETOs assert that all four complaints should be dismissed because the complainants have not shown that the existing ROE of 11.14% is unjust and unreasonable as the Court decision requires. In addition, the NETOs assert that Complaints II, III and IV should also be dismissed because the Court decision implicitly found that FERC’s acceptance of Pancaked FPA Section 206 complaints was statutorily improper as Congress intended that the 15-month refund period under Section 206 applies whenever FERC does not complete its review of a complaint within the 15-month period. In the event FERC chooses not to dismiss the complaints, the NETOs request that FERC consolidate the complaints for decision as the evidentiary records are either closed or advanced enough for FERC to address the requirements of the Court decision and expeditiously issue a final order. FERC has not yet ruled on this Motion. We cannot predict the outcome of action by FERC. New York State Department of Public Service Investigation of the Preparation for and Response to the March 2017 Windstorm 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 included a comprehensive review of NYSEG’s and RG&E’s preparation for and response to the windstorm, including all aspects of the companies’ filed and approved emergency plan. The Department held public hearings on April 12 and 13, 2017. On November 16, 2017, the NYPSC announced that the Department Staff had completed their investigation into the March 2017 Windstorm and the NYPSC issued an Order Instituting Proceeding and to Show Cause. The Staff’s investigation found that RG&E and NYSEG violated certain parts of their emergency response plans, which makes them subject to possible financial penalties. NYSEG and RG&E responded to the order in a timely manner and have entered into settlement discussions with the Department Staff. We cannot predict the outcome of this regulatory action. 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. Class Action Regarding LDC Gas Transportation Service on Algonquin Gas Transmission On November 16, 2017, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts on behalf of customers in New England against the Company and Eversource alleging that certain of their respective subsidiaries that take gas transportation service over the Algonquin Gas Transmission, AGT, which for AVANGRID would be its indirect subsidiaries SCG and CNG, engaged in pipeline capacity scheduling practices on AGT that resulted in artificially increased electricity prices in New England. These allegations were based on the conclusions of a White Paper issued by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), an environmental advocacy organization, on October 10, 2017, purporting to analyze the relationship between the New England electricity market and the New England local gas distribution companies. The plaintiffs assert claims under federal antitrust law, state antitrust, unfair competition and consumer protection laws, and under the common law of unjust enrichment. They seek damages, disgorgement, restitution, injunctive relief, and attorney fees and costs. The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss all of the claims on January 29, 2018. On February 27, 2018, the FERC released the results of a FERC staff inquiry into the pipeline capacity scheduling practices on the AGT. The inquiry arose out of the allegations made by the EDF in its White Paper. FERC announced that, based on an extensive review of public and non-public data, it had determined that the EDF study was flawed and led to incorrect conclusions. FERC also stated that the staff inquiry revealed no evidence of anticompetitive withholding of natural gas pipeline capacity on the AGT and that it would take no further action on the matter. On March 28, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, repeating the prior claims, except omitting the common law claim of unjust enrichment. On April 27, 2018, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss all of the claims based on federal preemption and lack of any evidence of antitrust behavior, citing, among other reasons, the results of the FERC staff inquiry conclusion. Nevertheless, we cannot predict the outcome of this class action lawsuit. Guarantee Commitments to Third Parties As of March 31, 2018, we had approximately $2.2 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, 2018, neither we nor our subsidiaries have any liabilities recorded for these instruments. |