COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Environmental Matters

We 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 solid and hazardous wastes and hazardous materials, and impose obligations to investigate and remediate contamination in certain circumstances. Liabilities relating to investigation and remediation of 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 properties currently owned or operated by us. Such liabilities may arise even where the contamination does not result from noncompliance with applicable environmental laws. Under some 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 costs for such compliance in a manner that would be expected to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition or liquidity.

Our assets and operations also involve the use of materials classified as hazardous, toxic or otherwise dangerous. Many of the properties that we 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 PCBs. Our facilities and equipment are often situated on or near 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 we do not own and

transmission assets that we own or operate are sometimes commingled at our transmission stations with distribution assets owned or operated by our transmission customers.

Some properties in which we have an ownership interest or at which we operate are, or are suspected of being, affected by environmental contamination. We are not aware of any pending or threatened claims against us with respect to environmental contamination relating to these properties, or of any investigation or remediation of contamination at these properties, that entail costs likely to materially affect us. Some facilities and properties are located near environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands.

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, eminent domain and vegetation management activities, 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.

Rate of Return on Equity Complaints

Two complaints were filed with the FERC by combinations of consumer advocates, consumer groups, municipal parties and other parties challenging the base ROE in MISO. The complaints were filed with the FERC under Section 206 of the FPA requesting that the FERC find the MISO regional base ROE rate (the “base ROE”) for all MISO TO’s, including our MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries, to no longer be just and reasonable.

Initial Complaint

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 the Initial Complaint with the FERC. The complainants sought a FERC order to reduce the base ROE used in the formula transmission rates for our MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries to 9.15%, reducing the equity component of our capital structure and terminating the ROE adders approved for certain Regulated Operating Subsidiaries. The FERC set the base ROE for hearing and settlement procedures, while denying all other aspects of the Initial Complaint. The ROE collected through the MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries’ rates during the period November 12, 2013 through September 27, 2016 consisted of a base ROE of 12.38% plus applicable incentive adders.

On September 28, 2016, the FERC issued the September 2016 Order that set the base ROE at 10.32%, with a maximum ROE of 11.35%, effective for the period from November 12, 2013 through February 11, 2015 based on a two-step DCF methodology adopted in previous complaint matters for other utilities. The September 2016 Order required our MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries to provide refunds, including interest, which were completed in 2017. Additionally, the base ROE established by the September 2016 Order was to be used prospectively from the date of that order until a new approved base ROE was established by the FERC. On October 28, 2016, the MISO TOs, including our MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries, filed a request with the FERC for rehearing of the September 2016 Order regarding the short-term growth projections in the two-step DCF analysis. Additional impacts to the base ROE for the period of the Initial Complaint and the related accrued refund liabilities resulted from the November 2019 Order and May 2020 Order issued by the FERC, as discussed below.

Second Complaint

On February 12, 2015, the Second Complaint was filed with the FERC 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 the formula transmission rates of our MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries to 8.67%, with an effective date of February 12, 2015.

On June 30, 2016, the presiding ALJ issued an initial decision that recommended a base ROE of 9.70% for the refund period from February 12, 2015 through May 11, 2016, with a maximum ROE of 10.68%, which also would be applicable going forward from the date of a final FERC order. The Second Complaint was dismissed as a result of the November 2019 Order and the dismissal of the complaint was reaffirmed in the May 2020 Order, as discussed below.

Related FERC Orders

In April 2017, the D.C. Circuit Court vacated certain precedent-setting FERC orders that established and applied the two-step DCF methodology for the determination of base ROE for ISO New England TOs. The court remanded the orders to the FERC for further justification of its establishment of the new base ROE for the ISO New England TOs. The vacated orders in the ISO New England matters also provided the precedent for the September 2016 Order on the Initial Complaint and the ALJ initial decision on the Second Complaint for our MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries. On October 16, 2018, in the New England matters, the FERC issued an order on remand which proposed a new methodology for 1) determining when an existing ROE is no longer just and reasonable; and 2) setting a new just and reasonable ROE if an existing ROE has been found not to be just and reasonable.

The FERC issued a similar order, the November 2018 Order, in the MISO ROE Complaints, establishing a paper hearing on the application of the proposed new methodology to the proceedings pending before the FERC involving the ROE of the MISO TOs, including our MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries. The November 2018 Order included illustrative, non-binding calculations for the ROE that could have been established for the Initial Complaint using the FERC's proposed methodology. The November 2018 Order and our response to the order through briefs and reply briefs did not provide a reasonable basis for a change to the reserve or ROEs utilized for any of the complaint refund periods nor all subsequent periods.

November 2019 Order

On November 21, 2019, the FERC issued an order in the MISO ROE Complaints. The FERC did not adopt the methodology proposed in the November 2018 Order, but rather applied a methodology to the Initial Complaint period that used two financial models to determine the base ROE. The FERC determined that the base ROE for the Initial Complaint should be 9.88% and the top of the range of reasonableness for that period should be 12.24% and that this base ROE should apply during the first refund period of November 12, 2013 to February 11, 2015 and from the date of the September 2016 Order prospectively. In the November 2019 Order, the FERC also dismissed the Second Complaint. Therefore, based on the November 2019 Order, for the Second Complaint refund period from February 12, 2015 to May 11, 2016, no refund is due. As a result, we reversed the aggregate estimated current liability we had previously recorded for the Second Complaint, as noted below in “Financial Statement Impacts”. In addition, for the period from May 12, 2016 to September 27, 2016, no refund is due because no complaint had been filed for that period. The FERC ordered refunds to be made in accordance with the November 2019 Order and, on December 18, 2019, the FERC granted an extension until December 23, 2020 for settlement of the refunds. The MISO TOs, including our MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries, and several other parties filed requests for rehearing of the November 2019 Order. The MISO TOs filed their request for rehearing primarily on the basis that the methodology applied by the FERC in the November 2019 Order does not allow the MISO TOs to earn a reasonable rate of return on their investment, as required by precedent. On January 21, 2020, the FERC issued an order granting rehearing for further consideration.

May 2020 Order

On May 21, 2020, the FERC issued an order on rehearing of the November 2019 Order. In this order, the FERC revised its November 2019 Order methodology, finding that three financial models should be used to determine the base ROE, among other revisions. By applying the new methodology, FERC determined that the base ROE for the Initial Complaint should be 10.02% and the top of the range of reasonableness for that period should be 12.62%. The FERC determined that this base ROE should apply during the first refund period of November 12, 2013 to February 11, 2015 and from the date of the September 2016 Order prospectively. The FERC ordered refunds to be made in accordance with the May 2020 Order by December 23, 2020. In the May 2020 Order, the FERC also reaffirmed its decision to dismiss the Second Complaint and its finding that no refunds would be ordered on the Second Complaint. Our MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries are parties to multiple appeals of the September 2016 Order, November 2019 Order and May 2020 Order at the D.C. Circuit Court.

Financial Statement Impacts

In the condensed consolidated statements of financial position as of June 30, 2020 and in the consolidated statements of financial position as of December 31, 2019, we had recorded an aggregate current regulatory liability of $16 million and $70 million, respectively, to reflect amounts due to customers under the terms outlined in the May 2020 Order and the November 2019 Order on the Initial Complaint and the periods subsequent to the September 2016 Order. During the six months ended June 30, 2020, we refunded $20 million of the regulatory liability to customers. We had recorded an aggregate estimated current regulatory liability in the consolidated statements of financial position of $151 million as of December 31, 2018 for the Second Complaint, which was reversed in November 2019 following the November 2019

Order. Although the November 2019 Order and May 2020 Order dismissed the Second Complaint with no refunds required, it is possible upon appeal that our MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries will be required to provide refunds related to the Second Complaint and these refunds could be material.

Our MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries currently record revenues at the base ROE of 10.02% established in the May 2020 Order plus applicable incentive adders. See Note 5 for a summary of incentive adders for transmission rates.

The recognition of the obligations associated with the MISO ROE Complaints resulted in the following impacts to the condensed consolidated statements of comprehensive income:


	Three months ended						Six months ended
	June 30,						June 30,
(in millions)	2020		2019		2020		2019
Revenue increase	$	32	$	—	$	32	$	—
Interest expense (decrease) increase	(3)		2		(3)		4
Estimated net income increase (reduction)	26		(2)		25		(3)

As of June 30, 2020, our MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries had a total of approximately $5 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 change in the authorized ROE would impact annual consolidated net income by approximately $5 million.

Development Projects

Development projects may result in payments to developers that are contingent on the projects reaching certain milestones indicating that the projects are financially viable. We believe it is reasonably possible that we will be required to make these contingent development payments up to a maximum amount of $120 million for the period from 2020 through 2023. In the event it becomes probable that we will make these payments, we would recognize the liability and the corresponding intangible asset or expense as appropriate.