COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES 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 position 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. 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 we do not believe that a causal link between electromagnetic field exposure and injury has been generally established and accepted in the scientific community, the liabilities and costs imposed on our business could be significant if such a relationship is established or accepted. We are not aware of any pending or threatened claims against us 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, 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. Michigan Sales and Use Tax Audit The Michigan Department of Treasury has conducted sales and use tax audits of ITCTransmission for the audit periods April 1, 2005 through June 30, 2008 and October 1, 2009 through September 30, 2013. The Michigan Department of Treasury has denied ITCTransmission’s claims of the industrial processing exemption from use tax that it has taken beginning January 1, 2007. The exemption claim denials resulted in use tax assessments against ITCTransmission. ITCTransmission filed administrative appeals to contest these use tax assessments. In a separate, but related case involving a Michigan-based public utility that made similar industrial processing exemption claims, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled in July 2015 that the electric system, which involves altering voltage, constitutes an exempt, industrial processing activity. However, the ruling further held the electric system is also used for other functions that would not be exempt, and remanded the case to the Michigan Court of Claims to determine how the exemption applies to assets that are used in electric distribution activities. ITCTransmission is assessing the recent ruling in light of its specific facts, but cannot estimate the timing of any potential tax assessments or refunds. The amount of use tax associated with the exemptions taken by ITCTransmission through March 31, 2016 is estimated to be approximately $18.6 million including interest. This amount includes approximately $10.4 million, including interest, assessed for the audit periods noted above. ITCTransmission believes it is probable that portions of the use tax assessments could be sustained upon resolution of this matter. ITCTransmission has recorded $8.8 million and $5.9 million for this contingent liability, including interest, as of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively, primarily as an increase to property, plant and equipment, which is a component of revenue requirement in our cost-based formula rate. METC has also taken the industrial processing exemption, estimated to be approximately $10.4 million for periods still subject to audit. METC has not been assessed any use tax liability and has not recorded any contingent liability as of March 31, 2016 associated with this matter. In the event it becomes appropriate to record additional use tax liability relating to this matter, ITCTransmission and METC 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. Rate of Return on Equity Complaints 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 a complaint with the FERC under Section 206 of the FPA (the “Initial Complaint”), requesting that the FERC find the current 12.38% MISO regional base ROE rate (the “base ROE”) for all MISO TOs, including ITCTransmission, METC and ITC Midwest, to no longer be just and reasonable. The complainants sought a FERC order reducing the base ROE used in our MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries’ formula transmission rates to 9.15%. The Initial Complaint also alleged that the rates of any MISO TO using a capital structure with greater than 50% for the equity component are likewise not just and reasonable (our MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries use their actual capital structures, which target 60% equity, as FERC had previously authorized). The Initial Complaint also alleged the ROE adders currently approved for certain ITC Holdings operating companies, including an adder currently charged by ITCTransmission for being a member of an RTO and adders charged by ITCTransmission and METC for being independent TOs, are no longer just and reasonable, and sought to have them eliminated. On June 19, 2014, in a separate Section 206 complaint against the regional base ROE rate for ISO New England TOs, FERC adopted a new methodology for establishing base ROE rates for electric transmission utilities. The new methodology is based on a two-step DCF analysis that uses both short-term and long-term growth projections in calculating ROE rates for a proxy group of electric utilities. The previous methodology used only short-term growth projections. FERC also reiterated that it can apply discretion in determining how ROE rates are established within a zone of reasonableness and reiterated its policy for limiting the overall ROE rate for any company, including the base and all applicable adders, at the high end of the zone of reasonableness set by the two-step DCF methodology. The new method presented in the ISO New England ROE case will be used in resolving the MISO ROE case. On October 16, 2014, FERC granted the complainants’ request in part by setting the base ROE for hearing and settlement procedures, while denying all other aspects of the Initial Complaint. FERC found that the complainants failed to show that the use of actual or FERC-approved capital structures that include more than 50% equity is unjust and unreasonable. FERC also denied the request to terminate ITCTransmission’s and METC’s ROE incentives. The order reiterated that any TO’s total ROE rate is limited by the top end of a zone of reasonableness and the TO’s ability to implement the full amount of previously granted ROE adders may be affected by the outcome of the hearing. FERC set the refund effective date as November 12, 2013. During the fourth quarter of 2014, the MISO TOs engaged in the ordered FERC settlement procedures with the complainants, but were not able to reach resolution. On January 5, 2015, the Chief Judge of FERC issued an order which terminated settlement procedures and initiated the hearing process, with an initial decision due within 47 weeks of the order. On April 6, 2015, the MISO TOs filed expert witness testimony in the Initial Complaint proceeding supporting the existing base ROE as just and reasonable. However, in the event that FERC elects to change the base ROE, the testimony included a recommendation of 11.39% base ROE for the period of November 12, 2013 through February 11, 2015 (the “Initial Refund Period”). On December 22, 2015, the presiding administrative law judge issued an initial decision on the Initial Complaint, which recommended a base ROE of 10.32% for the Initial Refund Period, with a maximum ROE of 11.35%. The initial decision is a non-binding recommendation to FERC on the Initial Complaint, and exceptions to the initial decision have been filed by the MISO TOs and the complainants. In resolving the Initial Complaint, we expect FERC to establish a new base ROE and zone of reasonable returns that will be used to determine any potential refund liability for the Initial Refund Period. The new base ROE as well as any ROE adders, subject to the limitations of the top end of any zone of reasonableness that is established, are expected to be used to calculate the refund liability for the Initial Refund Period. We anticipate a FERC order on the Initial Complaint by the end of 2016. On February 12, 2015, an additional complaint was filed with the FERC under Section 206 of the FPA (the “Second Complaint”) 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 our MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries’ formula transmission rates to 8.67%, with an effective date of February 12, 2015. On March 11, 2015, the MISO TOs filed an answer to the Second Complaint with the FERC supporting the current base ROE as just and reasonable. On June 18, 2015, FERC accepted the Second Complaint and set it for hearing and settlement procedures. FERC also set the refund effective date for the Second Complaint as February 12, 2015. On October 20, 2015, the MISO TOs filed expert witness testimony in the Second Complaint proceeding supporting the existing base ROE as just and reasonable. However, in the event that FERC elects to change the base ROE, the testimony included a recommendation of 10.75% base ROE for the period of February 12, 2015 through May 11, 2016 (the “Second Refund Period”). Updated data to be considered in establishing any new base ROE was filed by the parties to the Second Complaint in January 2016, including a recommendation in the updated MISO TO expert witness testimony to use a 10.96% base ROE. In resolving the Second Complaint, we expect FERC to establish a new base ROE and zone of reasonable returns that will be used, along with any adders, to calculate the refund liability for the Second Refund Period. The initial decision on the Second Complaint is expected by June 30, 2016, with the related FERC order anticipated in 2017. We believe it is probable that refunds will be required for these matters and as of March 31, 2016, the estimated range of refunds on a pre-tax basis is expected to be from $186.9 million to $242.3 million for the period from November 12, 2013 through March 31, 2016. As of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, our MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries had recorded an aggregate estimated regulatory liability of $186.9 million and $168.0 million, respectively, representing the low end of the range of potential refunds as of those dates, as there is no best estimate within the range of refunds. The recognition of this estimated liability resulted in a reduction in revenues of $17.5 million and $7.5 million and an increase in interest expense of $1.4 million and $0.4 million for the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. This resulted in an estimated after-tax reduction to net income of $11.5 million and $4.8 million for the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. Based on the estimated range of refunds identified above, we believe that it is reasonably possible that these matters could result in an additional estimated pre-tax refund of up to $55.4 million (or a $34.0 million estimated after-tax reduction of net income) in excess of the amount recorded as of March 31, 2016. It is also possible the outcome of these matters could differ from the estimated range of losses and materially affect our consolidated results of operations due to the uncertainty of the calculation of an authorized base ROE along with the zone of reasonableness under the newly adopted two-step DCF methodology, which is subject to significant discretion by the FERC. As of March 31, 2016, our MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries had a total of approximately $3.0 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 reduction in the authorized ROE would reduce annual consolidated net income by approximately $3.0 million. In a separate but related matter, in November 2014, METC, ITC Midwest and other MISO TOs filed a request with FERC, under FPA Section 205, for authority to include a 50 basis point incentive adder for RTO participation in each of the TOs’ formula rates. On January 5, 2015, FERC approved the use of this incentive adder, effective January 6, 2015. Additionally, ITC Midwest filed a request with FERC, under FPA Section 205, in January 2015 for authority to include a 100 basis point incentive adder for independent transmission ownership, which is currently authorized for ITCTransmission and METC. On March 31, 2015, FERC approved the use of a 50 basis point incentive adder for independence, effective April 1, 2015. On April 30, 2015, ITC Midwest filed a request with FERC for rehearing on the approved incentive adder for independence and this request was subsequently denied by FERC on January 6, 2016. An appeal of FERC’s decision has been filed. The RTO participation incentive adder will be applied to METC’s and ITC Midwest’s base ROEs and the independence incentive adder will be applied to ITC Midwest’s base ROE in establishing their total authorized ROE rates, subject to the limitations of the top end of any zone of reasonableness that is established. Collection of these recently approved incentive adders is being deferred, pending the outcome of the ROE complaints. Challenges Regarding Bonus Depreciation See “Challenges Regarding Bonus Depreciation” in Note 3 for discussion of these challenges. Legal Matters Associated with Proposed Merger Following the announcement of the Merger (defined below in Note 11), four putative state class action lawsuits have been filed by purported shareholders of ITC Holdings on behalf of a purported class of ITC Holdings shareholders. Initially, the four actions (Paolo Guerra v. Albert Ernst, et al., Harvey Siegelman v. Joseph L. Welch, et al., Alan Poland v. Fortis Inc., et al., Sanjiv Mehrotra v. Joseph L. Welch, et al.) were filed in the Oakland County Circuit Court of the State of Michigan. The complaints name as defendants a combination of ITC Holdings and the individual members of the ITC Holdings board of directors, Fortis Inc. (“Fortis”), FortisUS Inc. (“FortisUS”) and Element Acquisition Sub Inc. (“Merger Sub”). The complaints generally allege, among other things, that (1) ITC Holdings’ directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger Agreement (defined below in Note 11), (including, but not limited to, various alleged breaches of duties of good faith, loyalty, care and independence), (2) ITC Holdings’ directors failed to take appropriate steps to maximize shareholder value and claims that the Merger Agreement contains several deal protection provisions that are unnecessarily preclusive and (3) a combination of ITC Holdings, Fortis, FortisUS and Merger Sub aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaints seek class action certification and a variety of relief including, among other things, enjoining defendants from completing the proposed Merger, unspecified rescissory and compensatory damages, and costs, including attorneys’ fees and expenses. The Siegelman case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on March 22, 2016. On March 23, 2016, the state court entered an order directing that the related cases be consolidated under the caption In re ITC Holdings Corporation Shareholder Litigation. On April 8, 2016, Poland filed an amended complaint to add derivative claims on behalf of ITC Holdings. On March 14, 2016, the Guerra state court action was dismissed by the plaintiff and refiled in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, as Paolo Guerra v. Albert Ernst, et al. The federal complaint names the same defendants (plus FortisUS), asserts the same general allegations and seeks the same types of relief as in the state court cases. On March 25, 2016, Guerra amended his federal complaint. The amended complaint dropped Fortis US, Fortis and Merger Sub as defendants and added claims alleging that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act because the preliminary proxy statement/prospectus, filed with the SEC in connection with the special meeting of shareholders to approve the Merger Agreement, is allegedly materially misleading and allegedly omits material facts that are necessary to render it non-misleading. Another lawsuit was filed on April 8, 2016 in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan captioned Harold Severance v. Joseph L. Welch et al. against the individual members of the ITC Holdings board of directors, Fortis, FortisUS and Merger Sub, asserting the same general allegations and seeking the same type of relief as Guerra. On April 22, 2016, the Mehrotra state court action was dismissed by the plaintiff and refiled in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, as Sanjiv Mehrotra v. Joseph L. Welch, et al. With the exception of Fortis, the federal complaint names the same defendants and asserts the same general allegations as the other federal complaints. We believe the lawsuits are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against them. Additional lawsuits arising out of or relating to the Merger Agreement or the Merger may be filed in the future. See Note 11 for additional discussion on the proposed Merger.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES

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 position 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.

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 we do not believe that a causal link between electromagnetic field exposure and injury has been generally established and accepted in the scientific community, the liabilities and costs imposed on our business could be significant if such a relationship is established or accepted. We are not aware of any pending or threatened claims against us 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, 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.

Michigan Sales and Use Tax Audit

The Michigan Department of Treasury has conducted sales and use tax audits of ITCTransmission for the audit periods April 1, 2005 through June 30, 2008 and October 1, 2009 through September 30, 2013. The Michigan Department of Treasury has denied ITCTransmission’s claims of the industrial processing exemption from use tax that it has taken beginning January 1, 2007. The exemption claim denials resulted in use tax assessments against ITCTransmission. ITCTransmission filed administrative appeals to contest these use tax assessments.

In a separate, but related case involving a Michigan-based public utility that made similar industrial processing exemption claims, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled in July 2015 that the electric system, which involves altering voltage, constitutes an exempt, industrial processing activity. However, the ruling further held the electric system is also used for other functions that would not be exempt, and remanded the case to the Michigan Court of Claims to determine how the exemption applies to assets that are used in electric distribution activities. ITCTransmission is assessing the recent ruling in light of its specific facts, but cannot estimate the timing of any potential tax assessments or refunds.

The amount of use tax associated with the exemptions taken by ITCTransmission through March 31, 2016 is estimated to be approximately $18.6 million including interest. This amount includes approximately $10.4 million, including interest, assessed for the audit periods noted above. ITCTransmission believes it is probable that portions of the use tax assessments could be sustained upon resolution of this matter. ITCTransmission has recorded $8.8 million and $5.9 million for this contingent liability, including interest, as of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively, primarily as an increase to property, plant and equipment, which is a component of revenue requirement in our cost-based formula rate.

METC has also taken the industrial processing exemption, estimated to be approximately $10.4 million for periods still subject to audit. METC has not been assessed any use tax liability and has not recorded any contingent liability as of March 31, 2016 associated with this matter. In the event it becomes appropriate to record additional use tax liability relating to this matter, ITCTransmission and METC 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.

Rate of Return on Equity Complaints

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 a complaint with the FERC under Section 206 of the FPA (the “Initial Complaint”), requesting that the FERC find the current 12.38% MISO regional base ROE rate (the “base ROE”) for all MISO TOs, including ITCTransmission, METC and ITC Midwest, to no longer be just and reasonable. The complainants sought a FERC order reducing the base ROE used in our MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries’ formula transmission rates to 9.15%. The Initial Complaint also alleged that the rates of any MISO TO using a capital structure with greater than 50% for the equity component are likewise not just and reasonable (our MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries use their actual capital structures, which target 60% equity, as FERC had previously authorized). The Initial Complaint also alleged the ROE adders currently approved for certain ITC Holdings operating companies, including an adder currently charged by ITCTransmission for being a member of an RTO and adders charged by ITCTransmission and METC for being independent TOs, are no longer just and reasonable, and sought to have them eliminated.

On June 19, 2014, in a separate Section 206 complaint against the regional base ROE rate for ISO New England TOs, FERC adopted a new methodology for establishing base ROE rates for electric transmission utilities. The new methodology is based on a two-step DCF analysis that uses both short-term and long-term growth projections in calculating ROE rates for a proxy group of electric utilities. The previous methodology used only short-term growth projections. FERC also reiterated that it can apply discretion in determining how ROE rates are established within a zone of reasonableness and reiterated its policy for limiting the overall ROE rate for any company, including the base and all applicable adders, at the high end of the zone of reasonableness set by the two-step DCF methodology. The new method presented in the ISO New England ROE case will be used in resolving the MISO ROE case.

On October 16, 2014, FERC granted the complainants’ request in part by setting the base ROE for hearing and settlement procedures, while denying all other aspects of the Initial Complaint. FERC found that the complainants failed to show that the use of actual or FERC-approved capital structures that include more than 50% equity is unjust and unreasonable. FERC also denied the request to terminate ITCTransmission’s and METC’s ROE incentives. The order reiterated that any TO’s total ROE rate is limited by the top end of a zone of reasonableness and the TO’s ability to implement the full amount of previously granted ROE adders may be affected by the outcome of the hearing. FERC set the refund effective date as November 12, 2013.

During the fourth quarter of 2014, the MISO TOs engaged in the ordered FERC settlement procedures with the complainants, but were not able to reach resolution. On January 5, 2015, the Chief Judge of FERC issued an order which terminated settlement procedures and initiated the hearing process, with an initial decision due within 47 weeks of the order. On April 6, 2015, the MISO TOs filed expert witness testimony in the Initial Complaint proceeding supporting the existing base ROE as just and reasonable. However, in the event that FERC elects to change the base ROE, the testimony included a recommendation of 11.39% base ROE for the period of November 12, 2013 through February 11, 2015 (the “Initial Refund Period”). On December 22, 2015, the presiding administrative law judge issued an initial decision on the Initial Complaint, which recommended a base ROE of 10.32% for the Initial Refund Period, with a maximum ROE of 11.35%. The initial decision is a non-binding recommendation to FERC on the Initial Complaint, and exceptions to the initial decision have been filed by the MISO TOs and the complainants. In resolving the Initial Complaint, we expect FERC to establish a new base ROE and zone of reasonable returns that will be used to determine any potential refund liability for the Initial Refund Period. The new base ROE as well as any ROE adders, subject to the limitations of the top end of any zone of reasonableness that is established, are expected to be used to calculate the refund liability for the Initial Refund Period. We anticipate a FERC order on the Initial Complaint by the end of 2016.

On February 12, 2015, an additional complaint was filed with the FERC under Section 206 of the FPA (the “Second Complaint”) 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 our MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries’ formula transmission rates to 8.67%, with an effective date of February 12, 2015. On March 11, 2015, the MISO TOs filed an answer to the Second Complaint with the FERC supporting the current base ROE as just and reasonable. On June 18, 2015, FERC accepted the Second Complaint and set it for hearing and settlement procedures. FERC also set the refund effective date for the Second Complaint as February 12, 2015.

On October 20, 2015, the MISO TOs filed expert witness testimony in the Second Complaint proceeding supporting the existing base ROE as just and reasonable. However, in the event that FERC elects to change the base ROE, the testimony included a recommendation of 10.75% base ROE for the period of February 12, 2015 through May 11, 2016 (the “Second Refund Period”). Updated data to be considered in establishing any new base ROE was filed by the parties to the Second Complaint in January 2016, including a recommendation in the updated MISO TO expert witness testimony to use a 10.96% base ROE. In resolving the Second Complaint, we expect FERC to establish a new base ROE and zone of reasonable returns that will be used, along with any adders, to calculate the refund liability for the Second Refund Period. The initial decision on the Second Complaint is expected by June 30, 2016, with the related FERC order anticipated in 2017.

We believe it is probable that refunds will be required for these matters and as of March 31, 2016, the estimated range of refunds on a pre-tax basis is expected to be from $186.9 million to $242.3 million for the period from November 12, 2013 through March 31, 2016. As of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, our MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries had recorded an aggregate estimated regulatory liability of $186.9 million and $168.0 million, respectively, representing the low end of the range of potential refunds as of those dates, as there is no best estimate within the range of refunds. The recognition of this estimated liability resulted in a reduction in revenues of $17.5 million and $7.5 million and an increase in interest expense of $1.4 million and $0.4 million for the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. This resulted in an estimated after-tax reduction to net income of $11.5 million and $4.8 million for the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

Based on the estimated range of refunds identified above, we believe that it is reasonably possible that these matters could result in an additional estimated pre-tax refund of up to $55.4 million (or a $34.0 million estimated after-tax reduction of net income) in excess of the amount recorded as of March 31, 2016. It is also possible the outcome of these matters could differ from the estimated range of losses and materially affect our consolidated results of operations due to the uncertainty of the calculation of an authorized base ROE along with the zone of reasonableness under the newly adopted two-step DCF methodology, which is subject to significant discretion by the FERC. As of March 31, 2016, our MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries had a total of approximately $3.0 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 reduction in the authorized ROE would reduce annual consolidated net income by approximately $3.0 million.

In a separate but related matter, in November 2014, METC, ITC Midwest and other MISO TOs filed a request with FERC, under FPA Section 205, for authority to include a 50 basis point incentive adder for RTO participation in each of the TOs’ formula rates. On January 5, 2015, FERC approved the use of this incentive adder, effective January 6, 2015. Additionally, ITC Midwest filed a request with FERC, under FPA Section 205, in January 2015 for authority to include a 100 basis point incentive adder for independent transmission ownership, which is currently authorized for ITCTransmission and METC. On March 31, 2015, FERC approved the use of a 50 basis point incentive adder for independence, effective April 1, 2015. On April 30, 2015, ITC Midwest filed a request with FERC for rehearing on the approved incentive adder for independence and this request was subsequently denied by FERC on January 6, 2016. An appeal of FERC’s decision has been filed. The RTO participation incentive adder will be applied to METC’s and ITC Midwest’s base ROEs and the independence incentive adder will be applied to ITC Midwest’s base ROE in establishing their total authorized ROE rates, subject to the limitations of the top end of any zone of reasonableness that is established. Collection of these recently approved incentive adders is being deferred, pending the outcome of the ROE complaints.

Challenges Regarding Bonus Depreciation

See “Challenges Regarding Bonus Depreciation” in Note 3 for discussion of these challenges.

Legal Matters Associated with Proposed Merger

Following the announcement of the Merger (defined below in Note 11), four putative state class action lawsuits have been filed by purported shareholders of ITC Holdings on behalf of a purported class of ITC Holdings shareholders. Initially, the four actions (Paolo Guerra v. Albert Ernst, et al., Harvey Siegelman v. Joseph L. Welch, et al., Alan Poland v. Fortis Inc., et al., Sanjiv Mehrotra v. Joseph L. Welch, et al.) were filed in the Oakland County Circuit Court of the State of Michigan. The complaints name as defendants a combination of ITC Holdings and the individual members of the ITC Holdings board of directors, Fortis Inc. (“Fortis”), FortisUS Inc. (“FortisUS”) and Element Acquisition Sub Inc. (“Merger Sub”). The complaints generally allege, among other things, that (1) ITC Holdings’ directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger Agreement (defined below in Note 11), (including, but not limited to, various alleged breaches of duties of good faith, loyalty, care and independence), (2) ITC Holdings’ directors failed to take appropriate steps to maximize shareholder value and claims that the Merger Agreement contains several deal protection provisions that are unnecessarily preclusive and (3) a combination of ITC Holdings, Fortis, FortisUS and Merger Sub aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaints seek class action certification and a variety of relief including, among other things, enjoining defendants from completing the proposed Merger, unspecified rescissory and compensatory damages, and costs, including attorneys’ fees and expenses. The Siegelman case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on March 22, 2016. On March 23, 2016, the state court entered an order directing that the related cases be consolidated under the caption In re ITC Holdings Corporation Shareholder Litigation. On April 8, 2016, Poland filed an amended complaint to add derivative claims on behalf of ITC Holdings.

On March 14, 2016, the Guerra state court action was dismissed by the plaintiff and refiled in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, as Paolo Guerra v. Albert Ernst, et al. The federal complaint names the same defendants (plus FortisUS), asserts the same general allegations and seeks the same types of relief as in the state court cases. On March 25, 2016, Guerra amended his federal complaint. The amended complaint dropped Fortis US, Fortis and Merger Sub as defendants and added claims alleging that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act because the preliminary proxy statement/prospectus, filed with the SEC in connection with the special meeting of shareholders to approve the Merger Agreement, is allegedly materially misleading and allegedly omits material facts that are necessary to render it non-misleading.

Another lawsuit was filed on April 8, 2016 in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan captioned Harold Severance v. Joseph L. Welch et al. against the individual members of the ITC Holdings board of directors, Fortis, FortisUS and Merger Sub, asserting the same general allegations and seeking the same type of relief as Guerra.

On April 22, 2016, the Mehrotra state court action was dismissed by the plaintiff and refiled in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, as Sanjiv Mehrotra v. Joseph L. Welch, et al. With the exception of Fortis, the federal complaint names the same defendants and asserts the same general allegations as the other federal complaints.

We believe the lawsuits are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against them. Additional lawsuits arising out of or relating to the Merger Agreement or the Merger may be filed in the future. See Note 11 for additional discussion on the proposed Merger.