COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES Environmental Matters Our Regulated Operating Subsidiaries’ operations 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 hazardous materials and of solid and hazardous wastes, and impose obligations to investigate and remediate contamination in certain circumstances. Liabilities to investigate or remediate 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 at properties currently owned or operated by our Regulated Operating Subsidiaries. Such liabilities may arise even where the contamination does not result from noncompliance with applicable environmental laws. Under a number of 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 Regulated Operating Subsidiaries’ costs for such compliance in a manner that would be expected to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position or liquidity. Our Regulated Operating Subsidiaries’ assets and operations also involve the use of materials classified as hazardous, toxic or otherwise dangerous. Many of the properties our Regulated Operating Subsidiaries 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 Regulated Operating Subsidiaries’ facilities and equipment are often situated close to or on property owned by others so that, if they are the source of contamination, other’s property may be affected. For example, aboveground and underground transmission lines sometimes traverse properties that our Regulated Operating Subsidiaries do not own, and, at some of our Regulated Operating Subsidiaries’ transmission stations, transmission assets (owned or operated by our Regulated Operating Subsidiaries) and distribution assets (owned or operated by our Regulated Operating Subsidiaries’ transmission customer) are commingled. Some properties in which our Regulated Operating Subsidiaries have an ownership interest or at which they operate are, and others are suspected of being, affected by environmental contamination. Our Regulated Operating Subsidiaries are not aware of any pending or threatened claims against them with respect to environmental contamination, or of any investigation or remediation of contamination at any properties, that entail costs likely to materially affect them. Some facilities and properties are located near environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands. Claims have been made or threatened against electric utilities for bodily injury, disease or other damages allegedly related to exposure to electromagnetic fields associated with electric transmission and distribution lines. While our Regulated Operating Subsidiaries do not believe that a causal link between electromagnetic field exposure and injury has been generally established and accepted in the scientific community, if such a relationship is established or accepted, the liabilities and costs imposed on our business could be significant. We are not aware of any pending or threatened claims against our Regulated Operating Subsidiaries for bodily injury, disease or other damages allegedly related to exposure to electromagnetic fields and electric transmission and distribution lines that entail costs likely to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position or liquidity. 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, 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. The resolution of pending proceedings is not expected to have a material effect on our operations or consolidated financial statements in the period in which they are resolved. Michigan Sales and Use Tax Audit The Michigan Department of Treasury conducted a sales and use tax audit of ITCTransmission for the audit period April 1, 2005 through June 30, 2008 and has denied ITCTransmission’s use of the industrial processing exemption from use tax it has taken beginning January 1, 2007. ITCTransmission has certain administrative and judicial appeal rights. ITCTransmission believes that its utilization of the industrial processing exemption is appropriate and intends to defend itself against the denial of such exemption. However, it is reasonably possible that the assessment of additional use tax could be sustained after all administrative appeals and litigation have been exhausted. The amount of the potential use tax liability associated with the exemptions taken by ITCTransmission through September 30, 2013 is estimated to be approximately $18.0 million, which includes approximately $3.8 million assessed for the audit period April 1, 2005 through June 30, 2008, including interest. ITCTransmission has not recorded this contingent liability as of September 30, 2013. However, in the event it becomes appropriate to record additional use tax liability relating to this matter, ITCTransmission would record the additional use tax primarily as an increase to the cost of property, plant and equipment, as the majority of purchases for which the exemption was taken relate to equipment purchases associated with capital projects. METC has also taken the industrial processing exemption, estimated to be approximately $11.2 million for periods still subject to audit, however, METC has not recorded any contingent liabilities as of September 30, 2013 associated with this matter. These higher use tax expenses would be passed on to ITCTransmission’s and METC’s customers as the amounts are included as components of net revenue requirements and resulting rates. FERC Audit of ITC Midwest Certain staff of the FERC (“FERC audit staff”) have conducted an audit of ITC Midwest’s compliance with certain of the FERC’s regulations and the conditions established in the 2007 FERC order approving the acquisition of the transmission assets of IP&L by ITC Midwest. In 2011, the FERC issued an order that identified certain findings and recommendations of FERC audit staff relating to specific aspects of the accounting treatment for the acquisition that requires adjustments to ITC Midwest’s annual revenue requirement calculations and corresponding refunds. In 2012, ITC Midwest filed a refund report with the FERC which included adjustments to ITC Midwest’s annual revenue requirement calculations and corresponding refunds. On January 30, 2013, the FERC accepted ITC Midwest’s refund report which included the amount to be refunded in 2014. ITCTransmission and METC had applied an accounting treatment for their respective acquisitions similar to ITC Midwest, and on February 1, 2013, voluntarily filed compliance plans with FERC to address the findings raised with respect to the ITC Midwest audit. On July 5, 2013, the FERC accepted ITCTransmission’s and METC’s refund reports which included the amounts to be refunded in 2014. ITC Midwest, ITCTransmission and METC have recorded an aggregate regulatory liability for the refund and related interest of $13.0 million and $12.7 million as of September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively, in the condensed consolidated statements of financial position. The refund amounts are limited to 2010 and earlier periods. ITC Midwest Project Commitment In the Minnesota regulatory proceeding to approve ITC Midwest’s December 2007 acquisition of the transmission assets of IP&L, ITC Midwest agreed to build a certain project in Iowa, the 345 kV Salem-Hazelton line, and made a commitment to use commercially reasonable best efforts to complete the project prior to December 31, 2011. In the event ITC Midwest is found to have failed to meet this commitment, the allowed 12.38% rate of return on the actual equity portion of its capital structure would be reduced to 10.39% until such time as ITC Midwest completes the project, and ITC Midwest would refund with interest any amounts collected since the close date of the transaction that exceeded what would have been collected if the 10.39% return on equity had been used. Certain regulatory approvals were needed from the Iowa Utilities Board (“IUB”) before construction of the project could commence, but due to the IUB’s case schedule, these approvals were not received until the second quarter of 2011. As a result of the delay in the receipt of the necessary regulatory approvals, the project was not completed by December 31, 2011. We have notified the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission that the Salem-Hazleton line was placed into service on April 25, 2013, and requested confirmation from the commission that ITC Midwest has satisfied its commitment and that no refund is due as a result of the project not being completed by December 31, 2011. We believe we used commercially reasonable best efforts to meet the December 31, 2011 deadline, and therefore, we believe the likelihood of any material effect on the financial statements from this matter is remote.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES

Environmental Matters

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

Our Regulated Operating Subsidiaries’ assets and operations also involve the use of materials classified as hazardous, toxic or otherwise dangerous. Many of the properties our Regulated Operating Subsidiaries 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 Regulated Operating Subsidiaries’ facilities and equipment are often situated close to or on property owned by others so that, if they are the source of contamination, other’s property may be affected. For example, aboveground and underground transmission lines sometimes traverse properties that our Regulated Operating Subsidiaries do not own, and, at some of our Regulated Operating Subsidiaries’ transmission stations, transmission assets (owned or operated by our Regulated Operating Subsidiaries) and distribution assets (owned or operated by our Regulated Operating Subsidiaries’ transmission customer) are commingled.

Some properties in which our Regulated Operating Subsidiaries have an ownership interest or at which they operate are, and others are suspected of being, affected by environmental contamination. Our Regulated Operating Subsidiaries are not aware of any pending or threatened claims against them with respect to environmental contamination, or of any investigation or remediation of contamination at any properties, that entail costs likely to materially affect them. Some facilities and properties are located near environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands.

Claims have been made or threatened against electric utilities for bodily injury, disease or other damages allegedly related to exposure to electromagnetic fields associated with electric transmission and distribution lines. While our Regulated Operating Subsidiaries do not believe that a causal link between electromagnetic field exposure and injury has been generally established and accepted in the scientific community, if such a relationship is established or accepted, the liabilities and costs imposed on our business could be significant. We are not aware of any pending or threatened claims against our Regulated Operating Subsidiaries for bodily injury, disease or other damages allegedly related to exposure to electromagnetic fields and electric transmission and distribution lines that entail costs likely to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position or liquidity.

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, 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. The resolution of pending proceedings is not expected to have a material effect on our operations or consolidated financial statements in the period in which they are resolved.

Michigan Sales and Use Tax Audit

The Michigan Department of Treasury conducted a sales and use tax audit of ITCTransmission for the audit period April 1, 2005 through June 30, 2008 and has denied ITCTransmission’s use of the industrial processing exemption from use tax it has taken beginning January 1, 2007. ITCTransmission has certain administrative and judicial appeal rights.

ITCTransmission believes that its utilization of the industrial processing exemption is appropriate and intends to defend itself against the denial of such exemption. However, it is reasonably possible that the assessment of additional use tax could be sustained after all administrative appeals and litigation have been exhausted.

The amount of the potential use tax liability associated with the exemptions taken by ITCTransmission through September 30, 2013 is estimated to be approximately $18.0 million, which includes approximately $3.8 million assessed for the audit period April 1, 2005 through June 30, 2008, including interest. ITCTransmission has not recorded this contingent liability as of September 30, 2013. However, in the event it becomes appropriate to record additional use tax liability relating to this matter, ITCTransmission would record the additional use tax primarily as an increase to the cost of property, plant and equipment, as the majority of purchases for which the exemption was taken relate to equipment purchases associated with capital projects. METC has also taken the industrial processing exemption, estimated to be approximately $11.2 million for periods still subject to audit, however, METC has not recorded any contingent liabilities as of September 30, 2013 associated with this matter. These higher use tax expenses would be passed on to ITCTransmission’s and METC’s customers as the amounts are included as components of net revenue requirements and resulting rates.

FERC Audit of ITC Midwest

Certain staff of the FERC (“FERC audit staff”) have conducted an audit of ITC Midwest’s compliance with certain of the FERC’s regulations and the conditions established in the 2007 FERC order approving the acquisition of the transmission assets of IP&L by ITC Midwest. In 2011, the FERC issued an order that identified certain findings and recommendations of FERC audit staff relating to specific aspects of the accounting treatment for the acquisition that requires adjustments to ITC Midwest’s annual revenue requirement calculations and corresponding refunds. In 2012, ITC Midwest filed a refund report with the FERC which included adjustments to ITC Midwest’s annual revenue requirement calculations and corresponding refunds. On January 30, 2013, the FERC accepted ITC Midwest’s refund report which included the amount to be refunded in 2014.

ITCTransmission and METC had applied an accounting treatment for their respective acquisitions similar to ITC Midwest, and on February 1, 2013, voluntarily filed compliance plans with FERC to address the findings raised with respect to the ITC Midwest audit. On July 5, 2013, the FERC accepted ITCTransmission’s and METC’s refund reports which included the amounts to be refunded in 2014.

ITC Midwest, ITCTransmission and METC have recorded an aggregate regulatory liability for the refund and related interest of $13.0 million and $12.7 million as of September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively, in the condensed consolidated statements of financial position. The refund amounts are limited to 2010 and earlier periods.

ITC Midwest Project Commitment

In the Minnesota regulatory proceeding to approve ITC Midwest’s December 2007 acquisition of the transmission assets of IP&L, ITC Midwest agreed to build a certain project in Iowa, the 345 kV Salem-Hazelton line, and made a commitment to use commercially reasonable best efforts to complete the project prior to December 31, 2011. In the event ITC Midwest is found to have failed to meet this commitment, the allowed 12.38% rate of return on the actual equity portion of its capital structure would be reduced to 10.39% until such time as ITC Midwest completes the project, and ITC Midwest would refund with interest any amounts collected since the close date of the transaction that exceeded what would have been collected if the 10.39% return on equity had been used. Certain regulatory approvals were needed from the Iowa Utilities Board (“IUB”) before construction of the project could commence, but due to the IUB’s case schedule, these approvals were not received until the second quarter of 2011. As a result of the delay in the receipt of the necessary regulatory approvals, the project was not completed by December 31, 2011. We have notified the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission that the Salem-Hazleton line was placed into service on April 25, 2013, and requested confirmation from the commission that ITC Midwest has satisfied its commitment and that no refund is due as a result of the project not being completed by December 31, 2011. We believe we used commercially reasonable best efforts to meet the December 31, 2011 deadline, and therefore, we believe the likelihood of any material effect on the financial statements from this matter is remote.