| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block] | Commitments and Contingencies ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITIES AND REGULATION Environmental Matters The operation of electric generating, transmission and distribution facilities, and gas gathering, storage, transportation and distribution facilities, along with the development (involving site selection, environmental assessments, and permitting) and construction of these assets, are subject to extensive federal, state, and local environmental and land use laws and regulations. Our activities involve compliance with diverse laws and regulations that address emissions and impacts to the environment, including air and water, protection of natural resources, avian and wildlife. We monitor federal, state, and local environmental initiatives to determine potential impacts on our financial results. As new laws or regulations are implemented, our policy is to assess their applicability and implement the necessary modifications to our facilities or their operation to maintain ongoing compliance. Our environmental exposure includes a number of components, including remediation expenses related to the cleanup of current or former properties, and costs to comply with changing environmental regulations related to our operations. At present, our environmental reserve, which relates primarily to the remediation of former manufactured gas plant sites owned by us, is estimated to range between $26.6 million to $34.6 million . As of September 30, 2019 , we have a reserve of approximately $28.7 million , which has not been discounted. Environmental costs are recorded when it is probable we are liable for the remediation and we can reasonably estimate the liability. We use a combination of site investigations and monitoring to formulate an estimate of environmental remediation costs for specific sites. Our monitoring procedures and development of actual remediation plans depend not only on site specific information but also on coordination with the different environmental regulatory agencies in our respective jurisdictions; therefore, while remediation exposure exists, it may be many years before costs are incurred. Over time, as costs become determinable, we may seek authorization to recover such costs in rates or seek insurance reimbursement as available and applicable; therefore, although we cannot guarantee regulatory recovery, we do not expect these costs to have a material effect on our consolidated financial position or results of operations. Manufactured Gas Plants - Approximately $21.7 million of our environmental reserve accrual is related to manufactured gas plants. A formerly operated manufactured gas plant located in Aberdeen, South Dakota, has been identified on the Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System list as contaminated with coal tar residue. We are currently conducting feasibility studies, implementing remedial actions pursuant to work plans approved by the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and conducting ongoing monitoring and operation and maintenance activities. As of September 30, 2019 , the reserve for remediation costs at this site is approximately $8.0 million , and we estimate that approximately $3.2 million of this amount will be incurred during the next five years. We also own sites in North Platte, Kearney, and Grand Island, Nebraska on which former manufactured gas facilities were located. We are currently working independently to fully characterize the nature and extent of potential impacts associated with these Nebraska sites. Our reserve estimate includes assumptions for site assessment and remedial action work. At present, we cannot determine with a reasonable degree of certainty the nature and timing of any risk-based remedial action at our Nebraska locations. In addition, we own or have responsibility for sites in Butte, Missoula, and Helena, Montana on which former manufactured gas plants were located. The Butte and Helena sites, both listed as high priority sites on Montana's state superfund list, were placed into the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) voluntary remediation program for cleanup due to soil and groundwater impacts. Soil and coal tar were removed at the sites in accordance with the MDEQ requirements. Groundwater monitoring is conducted semiannually at both sites. At this time, we cannot estimate with a reasonable degree of certainty the nature and timing of additional remedial actions and/or investigations, if any, at the Butte site. In August 2016, the MDEQ sent us a Notice of Potential Liability and Request for Remedial Action regarding the Helena site. In October 2019, we submitted a third revised Remedial Investigation Work Plan (RIWP) for the Helena site addressing MDEQ comments on previously submitted drafts of the RIWP. The RIWP requires additional investigation including vapor intrusion and investigation of potential contamination from transformers and treated poles. MDEQ is expected to complete its review of the RIWP by the fourth quarter of 2019. An investigation conducted at the Missoula site did not require remediation activities, but required preparation of a groundwater monitoring plan. Monitoring wells were installed and groundwater is monitored semiannually. At the request of Missoula Valley Water Quality District (MVWQD), a draft risk assessment was prepared for the Missoula site and presented to the MVWQD. We and the MVWQD agreed additional site investigation work is appropriate. Analytical results from an October 2016 sampling exceeded the Montana Maximum Contaminant Level for benzene and/or total cyanide in certain monitoring wells. These results were forwarded to MVWQD which shared the same with the MDEQ. MDEQ requested that MVWQD file a formal complaint with MDEQ's Enforcement Division, which MVWQD filed in July 2017. On April 2, 2019, MDEQ requested our participation at a stakeholders' meeting for the Missoula site. At the meeting, MDEQ indicated they expect to proceed in listing the site as a Montana superfund site. After researching historical ownership we have identified another potentially responsible party with whom we have initiated communications regarding the site. At this time, we cannot estimate with a reasonable degree of certainty the nature and timing of risk-based remedial action, if any, at the Missoula site. Global Climate Change - National and international actions have been initiated to address global climate change and the contribution of greenhouse gas (GHG) including, most significantly, carbon dioxide (CO 2 ). These actions include legislative proposals, Executive and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) actions at the federal level, actions at the state level, and private party litigation relating to GHG emissions. Coal-fired plants have come under particular scrutiny due to their level of GHG emissions. We have joint ownership interests in four coal-fired electric generating plants, all of which are operated by other companies. We are responsible for our proportionate share of the capital and operating costs while being entitled to our proportionate share of the power generated. While numerous bills have been introduced that address climate change from different perspectives, including through direct regulation of GHG emissions, the establishment of cap and trade programs and the establishment of federal renewable portfolio standards, Congress has not passed any federal climate change legislation and we cannot predict the timing or form of any potential legislation. In the absence of such legislation, EPA is presently regulating new and existing sources of GHG emissions through regulations. On June 19, 2019, EPA finalized the Affordable Clean Energy Rule (ACE). ACE repeals the 2015 Clean Power Plan (CPP) in regulating GHG emissions from coal-fired plants. Generally, ACE will provide more regulatory flexibility to individual states and likely will not reduce CO 2 emissions as much as the CPP. Numerous parties, including us, filed petitions for review and reconsideration of the CPP. Those CPP proceedings were dismissed as moot by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) on September 17, 2019. Under the ACE, states must establish unit-specific standards that reflect emissions achievable through heat rate improvements, which EPA designated as the best system of emissions reduction, and if the state chooses, take into account the remaining useful life of the unit and other source specific factors. States generally have three years to submit the standards to EPA and coal-fired plants will have two additional years to comply with the standards. The ACE became effective on September 6, 2019, and various challenges to it are pending in the D.C. Circuit. We cannot predict whether or how ACE will be applied to our plants, including actions taken by the relevant state authorities. In addition, it is unclear how pending or future litigation relating to GHG matters will impact us. As GHG regulations are implemented, it would result in additional compliance costs that could affect our future results of operations and financial position if such costs are not recovered through regulated rates. We will continue working with federal and state regulatory authorities, other utilities, and stakeholders to seek relief from any GHG regulations that, in our view, disproportionately impact customers in our region. Future additional environmental requirements could cause us to incur material costs of compliance, increase our costs of procuring electricity, decrease transmission revenue and impact cost recovery. Technology to efficiently capture, remove and/or sequester such GHG emissions may not be available within a timeframe consistent with the implementation of any such requirements. Physical impacts of climate change also may present potential risks for severe weather, such as droughts, fires, floods, ice storms and tornadoes, in the locations where we operate or have interests. These potential risks may impact costs for electric and natural gas supply and maintenance of generation, distribution, and transmission facilities. Clean Air Act Rules and Associated Emission Control Equipment Expenditures - The EPA has proposed or issued a number of rules under different provisions of the Clean Air Act that could require the installation of emission control equipment at the generation plants in which we have joint ownership. On January 10, 2017, the EPA published amendments to the requirements under the Clean Air Act for state plans for protection of visibility. Among other things, these amendments revised the process and requirements for the state implementation plans and extended the due date for the next periodic comprehensive regional haze state implementation plan revisions from 2018 to 2021. Therefore, by 2021, Montana, or EPA, must develop a revised plan that demonstrates reasonable progress toward eliminating man-made emissions of visibility impairing pollutants, which could impact Colstrip Unit 4. In March 2017, we filed a Petition for Review of these amendments with the D.C. Circuit, which was consolidated with other petitions challenging the final rule. The D.C. Circuit has granted EPA’s request to hold the case in abeyance while EPA considers further administrative action to revisit the rule. Jointly Owned Plants - We have joint ownership in generation plants located in South Dakota, North Dakota, Iowa, and Montana that are or may become subject to the various regulations discussed above that have been issued or proposed. Regarding the ACE, as discussed above, we cannot predict the impact of the ACE on us until the state plans are adopted and any judicial reviews are completed. Other - We continue to manage equipment containing polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) oil in accordance with the EPA's Toxic Substance Control Act regulations. We will continue to use certain PCB-contaminated equipment for its remaining useful life and will, thereafter, dispose of the equipment according to pertinent regulations that govern the use and disposal of such equipment. We routinely engage the services of a third-party environmental consulting firm to assist in performing a comprehensive evaluation of our environmental reserve. Based upon information available at this time, we believe that the current environmental reserve properly reflects our remediation exposure for the sites currently and previously owned by us. The portion of our environmental reserve applicable to site remediation may be subject to change as a result of the following uncertainties: • We may not know all sites for which we are alleged or will be found to be responsible for remediation; and • Absent performance of certain testing at sites where we have been identified as responsible for remediation, we cannot estimate with a reasonable degree of certainty the total costs of remediation. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS Pacific Northwest Solar Litigation Pacific Northwest Solar, LLC (PNWS) is a solar QF developer seeking to construct small solar facilities in Montana. We began negotiating with PNWS in early 2016 to purchase the output from 21 of its proposed facilities pursuant to our standard QF-1 Tariff, which is applicable to projects no larger than 3 MWs. On June 16, 2016, however, the MPSC suspended the availability of the QF-1 Tariff standard rates for that category of solar projects, which included the projects proposed by PNWS. The MPSC exempted from the suspension any projects for which a QF had both submitted a signed power purchase agreement and had executed an interconnection agreement with us by June 16, 2016. Although we had signed four power purchase agreements with PNWS as of that date, we had not entered into interconnection agreements with PNWS for any of those projects. As a result, none of the PNWS projects in Montana qualified for the exemption. In November 2016, PNWS sued us in state court seeking unspecified damages for breach of contract and a judicial declaration that some or all of the 21 proposed power purchase agreements it had proposed to us were in effect despite the MPSC's Order. We removed the state lawsuit to the United States District Court for the District of Montana (Court). PNWS also requested the MPSC to exempt its projects from the tariff suspension and allow those projects to receive the QF-1 tariff rate that had been in effect prior to the suspension. We joined in PNWS’s request for relief with respect to four of the projects, but the MPSC did not grant any of the relief requested by PNWS or us. In August 2017, pursuant to a non-monetary, partial settlement with us, PNWS amended its original complaint to limit its claims for enforcement and/or damages to only four of the 21 power purchase agreements. As a result, the amount of damages sought by the plaintiff was reduced to approximately $8 million for the alleged breach of the four power purchase agreements. We participated in an unsuccessful mediation on January 24, 2019 and there have been no settlement negotiations since then. A jury trial was scheduled to begin on October 8, 2019 to address PNWS' remaining breach of contract claims and its request for a declaratory judgment. On October 3, 2019, however, PNWS filed a motion asking the Court to hold another pretrial conference clarifying some of its evidentiary rulings and a second motion asking the Court to issue a final pretrial order more clearly defining the legal and factual issues remaining for trial. On October 4, 2019, the Court denied both motions for procedural irregularities, gave PNWS leave to correct and refile them (which PNWS has since done), and vacated the trial date so that the issues raised in the two motions could be addressed at a hearing. A hearing and / or rescheduled trial date has not been established by the Court. We dispute the remaining claims in PNWS’ lawsuit and will continue to vigorously defend against them. We cannot currently predict an outcome in this litigation. If the plaintiff prevails and obtains damages for a breach of contract, we may seek to recover those damages in rates from customers. We cannot predict the outcome of any such effort. State of Montana - Riverbed Rents On April 1, 2016, the State of Montana (State) filed a complaint on remand (the State's Complaint) with the Montana First Judicial District Court (State District Court), naming us, along with Talen Montana, LLC (Talen) as defendants. The State claimed it owns the riverbeds underlying 10 of our hydroelectric facilities (dams, along with reservoirs and tailraces) on the Missouri, Madison and Clark Fork Rivers, and seeks rents for Talen’s and our use and occupancy of such lands. The facilities at issue include the Hebgen, Madison, Hauser, Holter, Black Eagle, Rainbow, Cochrane, Ryan, and Morony facilities on the Missouri and Madison Rivers and the Thompson Falls facility on the Clark Fork River. We acquired these facilities from Talen in November 2014. The litigation has a long prior history, which culminated with a 2012 decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the Montana Supreme Court erred in not considering a segment-by-segment approach to determine navigability and relying on present day recreational use of the rivers. It also held that what it referred to as the Great Falls Reach "at least from the head of the first waterfall to the foot of the last" was not navigable for title purposes, and thus the State did not own the riverbeds in that segment. The United States Supreme Court remanded the case to the Montana Supreme Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with its opinion. Following the 2012 remand, the case laid dormant for four years until the State's Complaint was filed with the State District Court. On April 20, 2016, we removed the case from State District Court to the United States District Court for the District of Montana (Federal District Court). The State filed a motion to remand. Following briefing and argument, on October 10, 2017, the Federal District Court entered an order denying the State’s motion. Because the State's Complaint included a claim that the State owned the riverbeds in the Great Falls Reach, on October 16, 2017, we and Talen renewed our earlier filed motions seeking to dismiss the portion of the State's Complaint concerning the Great Falls Reach in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision. On August 1, 2018, the Federal District Court granted the motions to dismiss the State’s Complaint as it pertains to approximately 8.2 miles of riverbed between Black Eagle Falls and the Great Falls. In particular, the dismissal pertains to the Black Eagle Dam, Rainbow Dam and reservoir, Cochrane Dam and reservoir, and Ryan Dam and reservoir. This leaves a portion of the Black Eagle reservoir and Morony Dam and reservoir at issue. While the dismissal of these four facilities is subject to appeal, that appeal would not likely occur until after judgment in the case. We and Talen filed our respective answers to the State’s Complaint on August 22, 2018. Additionally, we and Talen filed a motion to join the United States as a defendant to the litigation. The Federal District Court granted the motion on February 12, 2019, and has ordered the State to name the United States as a party defendant under the Federal Quiet Title Act by October 31, 2019. We dispute the State’s claims and intend to vigorously defend the lawsuit. This matter is still at its early stages, and we cannot predict an outcome. If the Federal District Court determines the riverbeds are navigable under the remaining six facilities that were not dismissed and if it calculates damages as the State District Court did in 2008, we estimate the annual rents could be approximately $3.8 million commencing when we acquired the facilities in November 2014. We anticipate that any obligation to pay the State rent for use and occupancy of the riverbeds would be recoverable in rates from customers, although there can be no assurances that the MPSC would approve any such recovery. Other Legal Proceedings We are also subject to various other legal proceedings, governmental audits and claims that arise in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management, the amount of ultimate liability with respect to these other actions will not materially affect our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. |
