Eversource, CL&P, NSTAR Electric and PSNH are subject to environmental laws and regulations intended to mitigate or remove the effect of past operations and improve or maintain the quality of the environment. These laws and regulations require the removal or the remedy of the effect on the environment of the disposal or release of certain specified hazardous substances at current and former operating sites. Eversource, CL&P, NSTAR Electric and PSNH have an active environmental auditing and training program and each believes it is substantially in compliance with all enacted laws and regulations.

Included in the number of sites and reserve amounts above are former MGP sites that were operated several decades ago and manufactured natural gas from coal and other processes, which resulted in certain by-products remaining in the environment that may pose a potential risk to human health and the environment, for which Eversource may have potential liability. Eversource’s reserve balances related to these former MGP sites were $117.9 million and $117.1 million as of September 30, 2024 and December 31, 2023, respectively, and related primarily to the natural gas business segment.

These reserve estimates are subjective in nature as they take into consideration several different remediation options at each specific site. The reliability and precision of these estimates can be affected by several factors, including new information concerning either the level of contamination at the site, the extent of Eversource's, CL&P's, NSTAR Electric's and PSNH's responsibility for remediation or the extent of remediation required, recently enacted laws and regulations or changes in cost estimates due to certain economic factors. It is possible that new information or future developments could require a reassessment of the potential exposure to required environmental remediation. As this information becomes available, management will continue to assess the potential exposure and adjust the reserves accordingly.

Renewable Energy: Renewable energy contracts include non-cancelable commitments under contracts of CL&P for the purchase of energy and capacity from renewable energy facilities. The table now includes the long-term commitments of CL&P pertaining to renewable energy purchase contracts that have now commenced significant construction activities.

Additionally, Renewable Energy contract costs within long-term contractual arrangements at PSNH as of December 31, 2023 included renewable energy purchase contracts related to the purchase of capacity, energy and RECs from a New Hampshire generation plant totaling $503.2 million. The NHPUC approved the termination of the PPA related to this generation plant effective February 29, 2024. As of September 30, 2024, there are no remaining long-term renewable energy purchase contracts at PSNH.

In the normal course of business, Eversource parent provides credit assurances on behalf of its subsidiaries, including CL&P, NSTAR Electric and PSNH, in the form of guarantees. Management does not anticipate a material impact to net income or cash flows as a result of these various guarantees and indemnifications.

Guarantees issued on behalf of unconsolidated entities, including equity method ownership interests, for which Eversource parent is the guarantor, are recorded at fair value as a liability on the balance sheet at the inception of the guarantee. The fair value of guarantees issued on behalf of unconsolidated entities are recorded within Other Long-Term Liabilities on the balance sheet, and were $1.1 million and $4.4 million as of September 30, 2024 and December 31, 2023, respectively. Eversource regularly reviews performance risk under these guarantee arrangements, and believes the likelihood of payments being required under the guarantees is remote. In the event it becomes probable that Eversource parent will be required to perform under the guarantee, the amount of probable payment will be recorded.

On September 30, 2024, Eversource completed the sale of its 50 percent ownership share in the South Fork Wind and Revolution Wind projects to GIP. Under the agreement with GIP, Eversource’s existing and certain additional credit support obligations for Revolution Wind are expected to roll off as the project completes construction. On July 9, 2024, Eversource completed the sale of its 50 percent ownership share of Sunrise Wind to Ørsted. Under the agreement with Ørsted, Eversource’s existing credit support obligations for Sunrise Wind were either terminated or indemnified by Ørsted as a result of the sale.

As of September 30, 2024

Company (Obligor)

Description

Maximum Exposure
(in millions)

North East Offshore, LLC, Revolution Wind, LLC, and TurbineCo, LLC

Offshore wind construction-related purchase agreements with third-party contractors (1)

455.3

Eversource Investment LLC, Eversource Investment Service Company LLC and South Fork Class B Member, LLC

Offshore wind funding and indemnification obligations (2)

351.1

Eversource Investment LLC

Letters of Credit (3)

5.3

Eversource TEI LLC

South Fork Wind Tax Equity (4)

50.0

South Fork Wind, LLC

Power Purchase Agreement Security (5)

7.1

Various Eversource subsidiaries

Surety bonds (6)

31.1

(1) Eversource parent issued guarantees on behalf of its previously 50 percent-owned affiliate, Revolution Wind, LLC, and on behalf of TurbineCo, LLC (successor in interest to North East Offshore, LLC (NEO)), under which Eversource parent agreed to guarantee each entity’s performance of obligations under certain construction-related purchase agreements with third-party contractors, in an aggregate amount not to exceed $1.09 billion. Eversource parent’s obligations under the guarantees expire upon the earlier of (i) dates ranging between October 2024 and November 2027 and (ii) full performance of the guaranteed obligations. Eversource parent also issued a separate guarantee to Ørsted on behalf of NEO, under which Eversource parent agreed to guarantee 50 percent of NEO’s payment obligations under certain offshore wind project construction-related agreements with Ørsted in an aggregate amount not to exceed $62.5 million and expiring upon full performance of the guaranteed obligation.

(2) Eversource parent issued guarantees on behalf of its wholly-owned subsidiary Eversource Investment LLC (EI), which held Eversource's previous investments in offshore wind-related equity method investments until sale, and on behalf of its previously 50 percent-owned affiliate, South Fork Class B Member, LLC, whereby Eversource parent will guarantee each entity’s performance of certain funding obligations of the South Fork and Revolution Wind projects. Eversource parent also guaranteed certain indemnification obligations of EI associated with third party credit support for EI’s investment in NEO. On September 30, 2024, Eversource parent issued a guaranty on behalf of its wholly-owned subsidiary, Eversource Investment Service Company LLC, whereby Eversource parent will guarantee Eversource Investment Service Company LLC’s performance of certain indemnification obligations during the onshore construction phase of the Revolution Wind project, in an amount not to exceed $100.0 million. These guarantees will not exceed $1.62 billion and expire upon the full performance of the guaranteed obligations.

(3) Eversource parent entered into a guarantee on behalf of EI, under which Eversource parent would guarantee EI's obligations under a letter of credit facility with a financial institution that EI may request in an aggregate amount of up to approximately $25 million. As of September 30, 2024, EI has issued letters of credit on behalf of South Fork Wind, LLC and Revolution Wind, LLC totaling $5.3 million. The guarantee will remain in effect until full performance of the guaranteed obligations.

(4) Eversource parent issued a guarantee on behalf of its wholly-owned subsidiary, Eversource TEI LLC, whereby Eversource parent will guarantee Eversource TEI LLC’s performance of certain obligations, in an amount not to exceed $50.0 million, in connection with any remaining obligations under the LLC agreement. Eversource parent’s obligations expire upon the full performance of the guaranteed obligations.

(5) Eversource parent issued a guarantee on behalf of its previously 50 percent-owned affiliate, South Fork Wind, LLC, whereby Eversource parent will guarantee South Fork Wind, LLC's performance of certain obligations, in an amount not to exceed $7.1 million, under a Power Purchase Agreement between the Long Island Power Authority and South Fork Wind, LLC (the Agreement). The guarantee expires upon the later of (i) the end of the Agreement term and (ii) full performance of the guaranteed obligations.

(6) Surety bonds expire in 2024 and 2025. Expiration dates reflect termination dates, the majority of which will be renewed or extended. Certain surety bonds contain credit ratings triggers that would require Eversource parent to post collateral in the event that the unsecured debt credit ratings of Eversource parent are downgraded.

CL&P, NSTAR Electric and PSNH have plant closure and fuel storage cost obligations to the Yankee Companies, which have each completed the physical decommissioning of their respective nuclear power facilities and are now engaged in the long-term storage of their spent fuel. The Yankee Companies fund these costs through litigation proceeds received from the DOE and, to the extent necessary, through wholesale, FERC-approved rates charged under power purchase agreements with several New England utilities, including CL&P, NSTAR Electric and PSNH. CL&P, NSTAR Electric and PSNH, in turn recover these costs from their customers through state regulatory commission-approved retail rates. The Yankee Companies collect amounts that management believes are adequate to recover the remaining plant closure and fuel storage cost estimates for the respective plants. Management believes CL&P and NSTAR Electric will recover their shares of these obligations from their customers. PSNH has recovered its total share of these costs from its customers.

The Yankee Companies have filed complaints against the DOE in the Court of Federal Claims seeking monetary damages resulting from the DOE's failure to accept delivery of, and provide for a permanent facility to store, spent nuclear fuel pursuant to the terms of the 1983 spent fuel and high-level waste disposal contracts between the Yankee Companies and the DOE. The court previously awarded the Yankee Companies damages for Phases I, II, III and IV of litigation resulting from the DOE's failure to meet its contractual obligations. These Phases covered damages incurred in the years 1998 through 2016, and the awarded damages have been received by the Yankee Companies with certain amounts of the damages refunded to their customers.

DOE Phase V Damages - On March 25, 2021, each of the Yankee Companies filed a fifth set of lawsuits against the DOE in the Court of Federal Claims resulting from the DOE's failure to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel for disposal covering the years from 2017 to 2020. The Yankee Companies filed claims seeking monetary damages totaling $120.4 million for CYAPC, YAEC and MYAPC. Pursuant to a June 2, 2022 court order, the Yankee Companies were subsequently permitted to include monetary damages relating to the year 2021 in the DOE Phase V complaint. The Yankee Companies submitted a supplemental filing to include these costs of $33.1 million on June 8, 2022. In September 2024, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the Phase V complaint, subject to approval. As a result of the pending settlement agreement, the court delayed the scheduled start of the DOE Phase V trial from October 28, 2024 to until January 13, 2025, if necessary.

Four separate complaints were filed at the FERC by combinations of New England state attorneys general, state regulatory commissions, consumer advocates, consumer groups, municipal parties and other parties (collectively, the Complainants). In each of the first three complaints, filed on October 1, 2011, December 27, 2012, and July 31, 2014, respectively, the Complainants challenged the NETOs' base ROE of 11.14 percent that had been utilized since 2005 and sought an order to reduce it prospectively from the date of the final FERC order and for the separate 15-month complaint periods. In the fourth complaint, filed April 29, 2016, the Complainants challenged the NETOs' base ROE billed of 10.57 percent and the maximum ROE for transmission incentive (incentive cap) of 11.74 percent, asserting that these ROEs were unjust and unreasonable.

The ROE originally billed during the period October 1, 2011 (beginning of the first complaint period) through October 15, 2014 consisted of a base ROE of 11.14 percent and incentives up to 13.1 percent. On October 16, 2014, FERC issued Opinion No. 531-A and set the base ROE at 10.57 percent and the incentive cap at 11.74 percent for the first complaint period. This was also effective for all prospective billings to customers beginning October 16, 2014. This FERC order was vacated on April 14, 2017 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (the Court).

All amounts associated with the first complaint period have been refunded, which totaled $38.9 million (pre-tax and excluding interest) at Eversource and reflected both the base ROE and incentive cap prescribed by the FERC order. The refund consisted of $22.4 million for CL&P, $13.7 million for NSTAR Electric and $2.8 million for PSNH.

Eversource has recorded a reserve of $39.1 million (pre-tax and excluding interest) for the second complaint period as of both September 30, 2024 and December 31, 2023. This reserve represents the difference between the billed rates during the second complaint period and a 10.57 percent base ROE and 11.74 percent incentive cap. The reserve consisted of $21.4 million for CL&P, $14.6 million for NSTAR Electric and $3.1 million for PSNH as of both September 30, 2024 and December 31, 2023.

On October 16, 2018, FERC issued an order on all four complaints describing how it intends to address the issues that were remanded by the Court. FERC proposed a new framework to determine (1) whether an existing ROE is unjust and unreasonable and, if so, (2) how to calculate a replacement ROE. Initial briefs were filed by the NETOs, Complainants and FERC Trial Staff on January 11, 2019 and reply briefs were filed on March 8, 2019. The NETOs' brief was supportive of the overall ROE methodology determined in the October 16, 2018 order provided the FERC does not change the proposed methodology or alter its implementation in a manner that has a material impact on the results.

The FERC order included illustrative calculations for the first complaint using FERC's proposed frameworks with financial data from that complaint. Those illustrative calculations indicated that for the first complaint period, for the NETOs, which FERC concludes are of average financial risk, the preliminary just and reasonable base ROE is 10.41 percent and the preliminary incentive cap on total ROE is 13.08 percent.

If the results of the illustrative calculations were included in a final FERC order for each of the complaint periods, then a 10.41 percent base ROE and a 13.08 percent incentive cap would not have a significant impact on our financial statements for all of the complaint periods. These preliminary calculations are not binding and do not represent what we believe to be the most likely outcome of a final FERC order.

On November 21, 2019, FERC issued Opinion No. 569 affecting the two pending transmission ROE complaints against the Midcontinent ISO (MISO) transmission owners, in which FERC adopted a new methodology for determining base ROEs. Various parties sought rehearing. On December 23, 2019, the NETOs filed supplementary materials in the NETOs' four pending cases to respond to this new methodology because of the uncertainty of the applicability to the NETOs' cases. On May 21, 2020, the FERC issued its order in Opinion No. 569-A on the rehearing of the MISO transmission owners' cases, in which FERC again changed its methodology for determining the MISO transmission owners' base ROEs. On November 19, 2020, the FERC issued Opinion No. 569-B denying rehearing of Opinion No. 569-A and reaffirmed the methodology previously adopted in Opinion No. 569-A. The new methodology differs significantly from the methodology proposed by FERC in its October 16, 2018 order to determine the NETOs' base ROEs in its four pending cases. FERC Opinion Nos. 569-A and 569-B were appealed to the Court. On August 9, 2022, the Court issued its decision vacating MISO ROE FERC Opinion Nos. 569, 569-A and 569-B and remanded to FERC to reopen the proceedings. The Court found that FERC’s development of the new return methodology was arbitrary and capricious due to FERC’s failure to offer a reasonable explanation for its decision to reintroduce the risk-premium financial model in its new methodology for calculating a just and reasonable return.

On October 17, 2024, FERC issued an order on the remand of the MISO ROE proceedings. The order addressed the Court’s decision that the reintroduction of the risk-premium financial model in the ROE methodology was arbitrary and capricious by removing the risk-premium financial model from the ROE methodology. The removal of the risk-premium financial model was the only revision to FERC’s ROE methodology and resulted in a two-model approach utilizing the two-step discounted cash flow model and the capital asset pricing model. MISO was directed to provide refunds for the period November 12, 2013 to February 11, 2015 (the first MISO ROE complaint refund period) and for the period from September 28, 2016 (the date of FERC’s order on the first MISO ROE complaint) to October 17, 2024 by December 1, 2025. The order also stated that FERC does not preclude the use of the risk-premium financial model in future proceedings if the parties can demonstrate that FERC’s stated concerns around the inclusion of the model have been addressed.

Given the significant uncertainty regarding the applicability of the FERC order in the MISO transmission owners’ two complaint cases to the NETOs’ pending four complaint cases due to the complex differences between the cases, Eversource concluded that there is no reasonable basis for a change to the reserve or recognized ROEs for any of the complaints or subsequent periods at this time and Eversource cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for any of the four complaint proceedings at this time. The resolution of these proceedings could have a material impact on the results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.