Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Palo Verde Generating Station Spent Nuclear Fuel and Waste Disposal On December 19, 2012, APS, acting on behalf of itself and the participant owners of Palo Verde, filed a second breach of contract lawsuit against the United States Department of Energy ("DOE") in the United States Court of Federal Claims ("Court of Federal Claims"). The lawsuit sought to recover damages incurred due to DOE’s breach of the Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or High Level Radioactive Waste ("Standard Contract") for failing to accept Palo Verde's spent nuclear fuel and high level waste from January 1, 2007 through June 30, 2011, as it was required to do pursuant to the terms of the Standard Contract and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. On August 18, 2014, APS and DOE entered into a settlement agreement, stipulating to a dismissal of the lawsuit and payment of $57.4 million by DOE to the Palo Verde owners for certain specified costs incurred by Palo Verde during the period January 1, 2007 through June 30, 2011. APS’s share of this amount is $16.7 million. Amounts recovered in the lawsuit and settlement were recorded as adjustments to a regulatory liability and had no impact on the amount of reported net income. In addition, the settlement agreement, as amended, provides APS with a method for submitting claims and getting recovery for costs incurred through December 31, 2019. APS has submitted three claims pursuant to the terms of the August 18, 2014 settlement agreement, for three separate time periods during July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2017. The DOE has approved and paid $74.2 million for these claims (APS’s share is $21.6 million). The amounts recovered were primarily recorded as adjustments to a regulatory liability and had no impact on reported net income. In accordance with the 2017 Rate Case Decision, this regulatory liability is being refunded to customers (see Note 4). APS's next claim pursuant to the terms of the August 18, 2014 settlement agreement is required to be filed with DOE no later than October 31, 2018. The amounts recovered were primarily recorded as adjustments to a regulatory liability and had no impact on reported net income. Nuclear Insurance Public liability for incidents at nuclear power plants is governed by the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act ("Price-Anderson Act"), which limits the liability of nuclear reactor owners to the amount of insurance available from both commercial sources and an industry-wide retrospective payment plan. In accordance with the Price-Anderson Act, the Palo Verde participants are insured against public liability for a nuclear incident occurring on or prior to October 31, 2018 of up to approximately $13.1 billion per occurrence. Palo Verde maintains the maximum available nuclear liability insurance in the amount of $450 million, which is provided by American Nuclear Insurers ("ANI"). The remaining balance of approximately $12.6 billion of liability coverage is provided through a mandatory industry-wide retrospective premium program. If losses at any nuclear power plant covered by the program exceed the accumulated funds, APS could be responsible for retrospective premiums. For losses on or prior to October 31, 2018, the maximum total deferred premium per reactor under the program for each nuclear liability incident is approximately $127.3 million, subject to a maximum annual premium of $19 million per incident. Based on APS’s ownership interest in the three Palo Verde units, APS’s maximum retrospective premium per incident for all three units is approximately $111.1 million, with a maximum annual standard deferred premium of approximately $16.6 million. On September 24, 2018, the NRC announced a statutorily mandated once per five year inflation adjustment to the maximum total deferred premium and the annual standard deferred premium. Effective November 1, 2018, the inflation adjusted maximum total deferred premium per reactor is approximately $137.6 million per incident, subject to the maximum annual deferred premium of approximately $20.5 million. Based on APS’s ownership interest in the three Palo Verde units, for covered incidents occurring on or after November 1, 2018, APS’s maximum total deferred premium per incident for all three units is approximately $120.1 million, with a maximum annual standard deferred premium of approximately $17.9 million. The Palo Verde participants maintain insurance for property damage to, and decontamination of, property at Palo Verde in the aggregate amount of $2.8 billion. APS has also secured accidental outage insurance for a sudden and unforeseen accidental outage of any of the three units. The property damage, decontamination, and accidental outage insurance are provided by Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited ("NEIL"). APS is subject to retrospective premium adjustments under all NEIL policies if NEIL’s losses in any policy year exceed accumulated funds. The maximum amount APS could incur under the current NEIL policies totals approximately $24.8 million for each retrospective premium assessment declared by NEIL’s Board of Directors due to losses. In addition, NEIL policies contain rating triggers that would result in APS providing approximately $71.2 million of collateral assurance within 20 business days of a rating downgrade to non-investment grade. The insurance coverage discussed in this and the previous paragraph is subject to certain policy conditions, sublimits and exclusions. Contractual Obligations For the nine months ended September 30, 2018, our fuel and purchased power commitments decreased approximately $166 million from amounts reported at December 31, 2017, primarily due to the amended and restated Four Corners 2016 Coal Supply Agreement effective in the second quarter of 2018. The majority of these changes relate to the years 2023 and thereafter. Other than the items described above, there have been no material changes, as of September 30, 2018, outside the normal course of business in contractual obligations from the information provided in our 2017 Form 10-K. See Note 3 for discussion regarding changes in our long-term debt obligations. Superfund-Related Matters The Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act ("Superfund" or "CERCLA") establishes liability for the cleanup of hazardous substances found contaminating the soil, water or air. Those who generated, transported or disposed of hazardous substances at a contaminated site are among those who are potentially responsible parties ("PRPs"). PRPs may be strictly, and often are jointly and severally, liable for clean-up. On September 3, 2003, EPA advised APS that EPA considers APS to be a PRP in the Motorola 52^nd Street Superfund Site, Operable Unit 3 ("OU3") in Phoenix, Arizona. APS has facilities that are within this Superfund site. APS and Pinnacle West have agreed with EPA to perform certain investigative activities of the APS facilities within OU3. In addition, on September 23, 2009, APS agreed with EPA and one other PRP to voluntarily assist with the funding and management of the site-wide groundwater remedial investigation and feasibility study ("RI/FS"). Based upon discussions between the OU3 working group parties and EPA, along with the results of recent technical analyses prepared by the OU3 working group to supplement the RI/FS, APS anticipates finalizing the RI/FS in the spring of 2019. We estimate that our costs related to this investigation and study will be approximately $2 million. We anticipate incurring additional expenditures in the future, but because the overall investigation is not complete and ultimate remediation requirements are not yet finalized, at the present time expenditures related to this matter cannot be reasonably estimated. On August 6, 2013, the Roosevelt Irrigation District ("RID") filed a lawsuit in Arizona District Court against APS and 24 other defendants, alleging that RID’s groundwater wells were contaminated by the release of hazardous substances from facilities owned or operated by the defendants. The lawsuit also alleges that, under Superfund laws, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to RID. The allegations against APS arise out of APS’s current and former ownership of facilities in and around OU3. As part of a state governmental investigation into groundwater contamination in this area, on January 25, 2015, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality ("ADEQ") sent a letter to APS seeking information concerning the degree to which, if any, APS’s current and former ownership of these facilities may have contributed to groundwater contamination in this area. APS responded to ADEQ on May 4, 2015. On December 16, 2016, two RID environmental and engineering contractors filed an ancillary lawsuit for recovery of costs against APS and the other defendants in the RID litigation. That same day, another RID service provider filed an additional ancillary CERCLA lawsuit against certain of the defendants in the main RID litigation, but excluded APS and certain other parties as named defendants. Because the ancillary lawsuits concern past costs allegedly incurred by these RID vendors, which were ruled unrecoverable directly by RID in November of 2016, the additional lawsuits do not increase APS's exposure or risk related to these matters. On April 5, 2018, RID and the defendants in that particular litigation executed a settlement agreement, fully resolving RID's CERCLA claims concerning both past and future cost recovery. APS's share of this settlement was immaterial. In addition, the two environmental and engineering vendors voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit against APS and the other named defendants without prejudice. An order to this effect was entered on April 17, 2018. With this disposition of the case, the vendors may file their lawsuit again in the future. In addition, APS and certain other parties not named in the remaining RID service provider lawsuit may be brought into the litigation via third-party complaints filed by the current direct defendants. We are unable to predict the outcome of these matters; however, we do not expect the outcome to have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Environmental Matters APS is subject to numerous environmental laws and regulations affecting many aspects of its present and future operations, including air emissions of both conventional pollutants and greenhouse gases, water quality, wastewater discharges, solid waste, hazardous waste, and coal combustion residuals ("CCRs"). These laws and regulations can change from time to time, imposing new obligations on APS resulting in increased capital, operating, and other costs. Associated capital expenditures or operating costs could be material. APS intends to seek recovery of any such environmental compliance costs through our rates, but cannot predict whether it will obtain such recovery. The following proposed and final rules involve material compliance costs to APS. Regional Haze Rules. APS has received the final rulemaking imposing new pollution control requirements on Four Corners and the Navajo Plant. EPA will require these plants to install pollution control equipment that constitutes best available retrofit technology ("BART") to lessen the impacts of emissions on visibility surrounding the plants. In addition, EPA has issued a final rule for Regional Haze compliance at Cholla that does not involve the installation of new pollution controls and that will replace an earlier BART determination for this facility. See below for details of the Cholla BART approval. Four Corners. Based on EPA’s final standards, APS's 63% share of the cost of required controls for Four Corners Units 4 and 5 is approximately $400 million. In addition, APS and El Paso Electric Company ("El Paso") entered into an asset purchase agreement providing for the purchase by APS, or an affiliate of APS, of El Paso's 7% interest in Four Corners Units 4 and 5. 4CA purchased the El Paso interest on July 6, 2016. Navajo Transitional Energy Company, LLC ("NTEC") purchased the interest from 4CA on July 3, 2018. See "Four Corners Coal Supply Agreement - 4CA Matter" below for a discussion of the NTEC purchase. The cost of the pollution controls related to the 7% interest is approximately $45 million, which was assumed by NTEC through its purchase of the 7% interest. Navajo Plant. APS estimates that its share of costs for upgrades at the Navajo Plant, based on EPA’s Federal Implementation Plan ("FIP"), could be up to approximately $200 million; however, given the future plans for the Navajo Plant, we do not expect to incur these costs. See "Navajo Plant" in Note 4 for information regarding future plans for the Navajo Plant. Cholla. APS believed that EPA’s original 2012 final rule establishing controls constituting BART for Cholla, which would require installation of SCR controls, was unsupported and that EPA had no basis for disapproving Arizona’s State Implementation Plan ("SIP") and promulgating a FIP that was inconsistent with the state’s considered BART determinations under the regional haze program. In September 2014, APS met with EPA to propose a compromise BART strategy. APS would permanently close Cholla Unit 2 and cease burning coal at Units 1 and 3 by the mid-2020s. (See Note 4 for details related to the resulting regulatory asset.) APS made the proposal with the understanding that additional emission control equipment is unlikely to be required in the future because retiring and/or converting the units as contemplated in the proposal is more cost effective than, and will result in increased visibility improvement over, the current BART requirements for NOx imposed on the Cholla units under EPA's BART FIP. On October 16, 2015, ADEQ issued a revised operating permit for Cholla, which incorporates APS's proposal, and subsequently submitted a proposed revision to the SIP to EPA, which would incorporate the new permit terms. On June 30, 2016, EPA issued a proposed rule approving a revision to the Arizona SIP that incorporates APS’s compromise approach for compliance with the Regional Haze program. In early 2017, EPA approved a final rule incorporating APS's compromise proposal, which took effect for Cholla on April 26, 2017. Coal Combustion Waste. On December 19, 2014, EPA issued its final regulations governing the handling and disposal of CCR, such as fly ash and bottom ash. The rule regulates CCR as a non-hazardous waste under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA") and establishes national minimum criteria for existing and new CCR landfills and surface impoundments and all lateral expansions consisting of location restrictions, design and operating criteria, groundwater monitoring and corrective action, closure requirements and post closure care, and recordkeeping, notification, and internet posting requirements. The rule generally requires any existing unlined CCR surface impoundment that is contaminating groundwater above a regulated constituent’s groundwater protection standard to stop receiving CCR and either retrofit or close, and further requires the closure of any CCR landfill or surface impoundment that cannot meet the applicable performance criteria for location restrictions or structural integrity. Such closure requirements are deemed "forced closure" or "closure for cause" of unlined surface impoundments, and are the subject of recent regulatory and judicial activities described below. On December 16, 2016, President Obama signed the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation ("WIIN") Act into law, which contains a number of provisions requiring EPA to modify the self-implementing provisions of the Agency's current CCR rules under Subtitle D. Such modifications include new EPA authority to directly enforce the CCR rules through the use of administrative orders and providing states, like Arizona, where the Cholla facility is located, the option of developing CCR disposal unit permitting programs, subject to EPA approval. For facilities in states that do not develop state-specific permitting programs, EPA is required to develop a federal permit program, pending the availability of congressional appropriations. By contrast, for facilities located within the boundaries of Native American tribal reservations, such as the Navajo Nation, where the Navajo Plant and Four Corners facilities are located, EPA is required to develop a federal permit program regardless of appropriated funds. ADEQ has initiated a process to evaluate how to develop a state CCR permitting program that would cover electric generating units ("EGUs"), including Cholla. While APS has been working with ADEQ on the development of this program, we are unable to predict when Arizona will be able to finalize and secure EPA approval for a state-specific CCR permitting program. With respect to the Navajo Nation, APS has sought clarification as to when and how EPA would be initiating permit proceedings for facilities on the reservation, including Four Corners. We are unable to predict at this time when EPA will be issuing CCR management permits for the facilities on the Navajo Nation. At this time, it remains unclear how the CCR provisions of the WIIN Act will affect APS and its management of CCR. Based upon utility industry petitions for EPA to reconsider the RCRA Subtitle D regulations for CCR, which were premised in part on the CCR provisions of the 2016 WIIN Act, on September 13, 2017 EPA agreed to evaluate whether to revise these federal CCR regulations. On March 1, 2018, EPA issued a proposed rule that, among other things, seeks comment on potential changes to the federal CCR regulations, including allowances for greater flexibility in setting groundwater protection standards for certain regulated CCR constituents and with respect to implementing corrective action. On July 17, 2018, EPA finalized a revision to its RCRA Subtitle D regulations for CCR, only addressing certain portions of EPA's March 2018 proposal, while deferring for further consideration the vast majority of the potential regulatory changes contemplated in the March 2018 proposal. For the final rule issued on July 17, 2018, EPA established nationwide health-based standards for certain constituents of CCR subject to groundwater corrective action and delayed the closure deadlines for certain unlined CCR surface impoundments by 18 months (for example, those disposal units required to undergo forced closure). These changes to the federal regulations governing CCR disposal are unlikely to have a material impact on APS. As for those aspects of the March 2018 rulemaking proposal for which EPA has yet to take final action, it remains unclear which specific provisions of the federal CCR rules will ultimately be modified, how they will be modified, or when such modification will occur. Pursuant to a June 24, 2016 order by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the litigation by industry- and environmental-groups challenging EPA’s CCR regulations, EPA is required to complete a rulemaking proceeding in the near future concerning whether or not boron must be included on the list of groundwater constituents that might trigger corrective action under EPA’s CCR rules. Simultaneously with the issuance of EPA's proposed modifications to the federal CCR rules in response to industry petitions, on March 1, 2018, EPA issued a proposed rule seeking comment as to whether or not boron should be included on this list. EPA is not required to take final action approving the inclusion of boron. Should EPA take final action adding boron to the list of groundwater constituents that might trigger corrective action, any resulting corrective action measures may increase APS's costs of compliance with the CCR rule at our coal-fired generating facilities. At this time APS cannot predict the eventual results of this rulemaking proceeding concerning boron. On August 21, 2018, the D.C. Circuit Court issued its decision on the merits in this litigation. The Court upheld the legality of EPA’s CCR regulations, though it vacated and remanded back to EPA a number of specific provisions, which are to be corrected in accordance with the Court’s order. Among the issues affecting APS’s management of CCR, the D.C. Circuit’s decision vacated and remanded those provisions of the EPA CCR regulations that allow for the operation of unlined CCR surface impoundments, even where those unlined impoundments have not otherwise violated a regulatory location restriction or groundwater protection standard (i.e., otherwise triggering forced closure). At this time, it remains unclear how this D.C. Circuit Court decision will affect APS’s operations or any financial impacts, as EPA has yet to take regulatory action on remand to revise its 2015 CCR regulations consistent with the Court’s order. APS currently disposes of CCR in ash ponds and dry storage areas at Cholla and Four Corners. APS estimates that its share of incremental costs to comply with the CCR rule for Four Corners is approximately $22 million and its share of incremental costs to comply with the CCR rule for Cholla is approximately $20 million. The Navajo Plant currently disposes of CCR in a dry landfill storage area. APS estimates that its share of incremental costs to comply with the CCR rule for the Navajo Plant is approximately $1 million. Additionally, the CCR rule requires ongoing, phased groundwater monitoring. By October 17, 2017, electric utility companies that own or operate CCR disposal units, such as APS, must have collected sufficient groundwater sampling data to initiate a detection monitoring program. To the extent that certain threshold constituents are identified through this initial detection monitoring at levels above the CCR rule’s standards, the rule required the initiation of an assessment monitoring program by April 15, 2018. APS recently completed the statistical analyses for its CCR disposal units that triggered assessment monitoring. APS determined that several of its CCR disposal units at Cholla and Four Corners will need to undergo corrective action. In addition, to the extent that compliance with the CCR rule did not otherwise trigger the need for these CCR disposal units to close, such units must all cease operating and initiate closure by October of 2020. APS currently estimates that the additional incremental costs to complete this corrective action and closure work, along with the costs to develop replacement CCR disposal capacity, could be approximately $5 million for both Cholla and Four Corners. APS will initiate an assessment of corrective measures by January of 2019, during which APS will gather additional groundwater data, solicit input from the public, host a public hearing, and select a remedy. As such, this $5 million cost estimate may change based upon APS’s performance of the CCR rule’s corrective action assessment process, which APS anticipates completing during the summer or fall of 2019. Given uncertainties that may exist until we have fully completed the corrective action assessment process, we cannot predict any ultimate impacts to the Company; however, at this time we do not believe any potential change to the cost estimate would have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Clean Power Plan. On August 3, 2015, EPA finalized carbon pollution standards for EGUs. Shortly thereafter, a coalition of states, industry groups and electric utilities challenged the legality of these standards, including EPA's Clean Power Plan for existing EGUs, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. On February 9, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay of the Clean Power Plan pending judicial review of the rule, which temporarily delays compliance obligations under the Clean Power Plan. On March 28, 2017, President Trump issued an Executive Order that, among other things, instructs EPA to reevaluate Agency regulations concerning carbon emissions from EGUs and take appropriate action to suspend, revise or rescind the August 2015 carbon pollution standards for EGUs, including the Clean Power Plan. Also on March 28, 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice, on behalf of EPA, filed a motion with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Court to hold the ongoing litigation over the Clean Power Plan in abeyance pending EPA action in accordance with the Executive Order. At this time, the D.C. Circuit Court proceedings evaluating the legality of the Clean Power Plan remain on hold. Based upon EPA's reevaluation of the August 2015 carbon pollution standards and the legal basis for these regulations, on October 10, 2017, EPA issued a proposal to repeal the Clean Power Plan. That proposal relies on EPA's current view as to the Agency's legal authority under Clean Air Act Section 111(d), which (in contrast to the Clean Power Plan) would limit the scope of any future Section 111(d) regulations to measures undertaken exclusively at a power plant's source of greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions. On December 18, 2017, EPA issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking through which EPA is soliciting comments as to potential replacements for the Clean Power Plan that would be consistent with EPA's current legal interpretation of the Clean Air Act. On August 21, 2018, EPA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for regulations that would replace the Clean Power Plan, which are based entirely upon measures that can be implemented to improve the heat rate of steam-electric power plants, essentially coal-fired EGUs. In contrast with the Clean Power Plan, EPA’s proposed “Affordable Clean Energy Rule” would not involve utility-level generation dispatch shifting away from coal-fired generation and toward renewable energy resources and natural gas-fired combined cycle power plants. In addition, to address the New Source Review implications of power plant upgrades potentially necessary to achieve compliance with the proposed Affordable Clean Energy Rule standards, EPA also proposed to revise the EPA's New Source Review regulations to more readily authorize the implementation of EGU efficiency upgrades. We cannot predict the outcome of EPA's regulatory actions related to the August 2015 carbon pollution standards for EGU's, including any actions related to EPA's repeal proposal for the Clean Power Plan or additional rulemaking actions to approve the EPA's recently proposed Affordable Clean Energy Rule. In addition, we cannot predict whether the D.C. Circuit Court will continue to hold the litigation challenging the original Clean Power Plan in abeyance in light of EPA's repeal proposal, which is still pending. Other environmental rules that could involve material compliance costs include those related to effluent limitations, the ozone national ambient air quality standard and other rules or matters involving the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, RCRA, Superfund, the Navajo Nation, and water supplies for our power plants. The financial impact of complying with current and future environmental rules could jeopardize the economic viability of our coal plants or the willingness or ability of power plant participants to fund any required equipment upgrades or continue their participation in these plants. The economics of continuing to own certain resources, particularly our coal plants, may deteriorate, warranting early retirement of those plants, which may result in asset impairments. APS would seek recovery in rates for the book value of any remaining investments in the plants as well as other costs related to early retirement, but cannot predict whether it would obtain such recovery. Federal Agency Environmental Lawsuit Related to Four Corners On April 20, 2016, several environmental groups filed a lawsuit against the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement ("OSM") and other federal agencies in the District of Arizona in connection with their issuance of the approvals that extended the life of Four Corners and the adjacent mine. The lawsuit alleges that these federal agencies violated both the Endangered Species Act ("ESA") and the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") in providing the federal approvals necessary to extend operations at the Four Corners Power Plant and the adjacent Navajo Mine past July 6, 2016. APS filed a motion to intervene in the proceedings, which was granted on August 3, 2016. On September 15, 2016, NTEC, the company that owns the adjacent mine, filed a motion to intervene for the purpose of dismissing the lawsuit based on NTEC's tribal sovereign immunity. On September 11, 2017, the Arizona District Court issued an order granting NTEC's motion, dismissing the litigation with prejudice, and terminating the proceedings. On November 9, 2017, the environmental group plaintiffs appealed the district court order dismissing their lawsuit. The parties anticipate oral arguments to be heard in early 2019. We cannot predict whether this appeal will be successful and, if it is successful, the outcome of further district court proceedings. Four Corners National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit On July 16, 2018, several environmental groups filed a petition for review before the EPA Environmental Appeals Board ("EAB") concerning the NPDES wastewater discharge permit for Four Corners, which was reissued on June 12, 2018. The environmental groups allege that the permit was reissued in contravention of several requirements under the Clean Water Act and did not contain required provisions concerning EPA’s 2015 revised effluent limitation guidelines for steam-electric EGUs, 2014 existing-source regulations governing cooling-water intake structures, and effluent limits for surface seepage and subsurface discharges from coal-ash disposal facilities. These groups are seeking to have the permit remanded back to EPA for revision to address these allegations. At this time, we cannot predict whether this EAB permit appeal will be successful, and if so whether the results of those proceedings will have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Four Corners Coal Supply Agreement Arbitration On June 13, 2017, APS received a Demand for Arbitration from NTEC in connection with the Coal Supply Agreement, dated December 30, 2013, under which NTEC supplies coal to APS and the other Four Corners owners (collectively, the “Buyer”) for use at the Four Corners Power Plant (the "2016 Coal Supply Agreement"). NTEC was originally seeking a declaratory judgment to support its interpretation of a provision regarding uncontrollable forces in the agreement that relates to annual minimum quantities of coal to be purchased by the Buyer. NTEC also alleged a shortfall in the Buyer’s purchases for the initial contract year of approximately $30 million. APS’s share of this amount is approximately $17 million. On September 20, 2017, NTEC amended its Demand for Arbitration, removing its request for a declaratory judgment and at such time was only seeking relief for the alleged shortfall in the Buyer's purchases for the initial contract year. On June 29, 2018, the parties settled the dispute for $45 million, which includes settlement for the initial contract year and the current contract year. APS’s share of this amount is approximately $34 million. In connection with the settlement, the parties amended the 2016 Coal Supply Agreement, including modifying the provisions that gave rise to this dispute. (See “4CA Matter” below for additional matters agreed to between 4CA and NTEC in the settlement arrangement.) The arbitration was dismissed on July 9, 2018. Coal Advance Purchase On March 12, 2018, APS paid to NTEC approximately $24 million as an advance payment for APS’s share of coal under the 2016 Coal Supply Agreement. The coal inventory purchased represents an amount that APS expects to use for its plant operations within the next year. 4CA Matter On July 6, 2016, 4CA purchased El Paso’s 7% interest in Four Corners. NTEC had the option to purchase the 7% interest within a certain timeframe pursuant to an option granted to NTEC. On December 29, 2015, NTEC provided notice of its intent to exercise the option. The purchase did not occur during the originally contemplated timeframe. Concurrent with the settlement of the 2016 Coal Supply Agreement matter described above, NTEC and 4CA agreed to allow for the purchase by NTEC of the 7% interest, consistent with the option. On June 29, 2018, 4CA and NTEC entered into an asset purchase agreement providing for the sale to NTEC of 4CA's 7% interest in Four Corners. Completion of the sale was subject to the receipt of approval by FERC, which was received on July 2, 2018, and the sale transaction closed on July 3, 2018. NTEC purchased the 7% interest at 4CA’s book value, approximately $70 million, and will pay 4CA the purchase price over a period of four years pursuant to a secured interest-bearing promissory note. In connection with the sale, Pinnacle West guaranteed certain obligations that NTEC will have to the other owners of Four Corners, such as NTEC's 7% share of capital expenditures and operating and maintenance expenses. Pinnacle West's guarantee is secured by a portion of APS's payments to be owed to NTEC under the 2016 Coal Supply Agreement. The 2016 Coal Supply Agreement contained alternate pricing terms for the 7% interest in the event NTEC did not purchase the interest. Until the time that NTEC purchased the 7% interest, the alternate pricing provisions were applicable to 4CA as the holder of the 7% interest. These terms included a formula under which NTEC must make certain payments to 4CA for reimbursement of operations and maintenance costs and a specified rate of return, offset by revenue generated by 4CA’s power sales. Such payments are due to 4CA at the end of each calendar year. A $10 million payment was due to 4CA at December 31, 2017, which NTEC satisfied by directing to 4CA a prepayment from APS of a portion of a future mine reclamation obligation. The balance of the amount under this formula at September 30, 2018 for the calendar year 2017 is approximately $20 million, which is due to 4CA at December 31, 2018. The balance of the amount under this formula at September 30, 2018 for the calendar year 2018 (up to the date that NTEC purchased the 7% interest) is approximately $10 million, which is due to 4CA at December 31, 2019. Financial Assurances In the normal course of business, we obtain standby letters of credit and surety bonds from financial institutions and other third parties. These instruments guarantee our own future performance and provide third parties with financial and performance assurance in the event we do not perform. These instruments support commodity contract collateral obligations and other transactions. As of September 30, 2018, standby letters of credit totaled $0.2 million and will expire in 2019. As of September 30, 2018, surety bonds expiring through 2019 totaled $36 million. The underlying liabilities insured by these instruments are reflected on our balance sheets, where applicable. Therefore, no additional liability is reflected for the letters of credit and surety bonds themselves. We enter into agreements that include indemnification provisions relating to liabilities arising from or related to certain of our agreements. Most significantly, APS has agreed to indemnify the equity participants and other parties in the Palo Verde sale leaseback transactions with respect to certain tax matters. Generally, a maximum obligation is not explicitly stated in the indemnification provisions and, therefore, the overall maximum amount of the obligation under such indemnification provisions cannot be reasonably estimated. Based on historical experience and evaluation of the specific indemnities, we do not believe that any material loss related to such indemnification provisions is likely. Pinnacle West has issued parental guarantees and has provided indemnification under certain surety bonds for APS which were not material at September 30, 2018. Since July 6, 2016, Pinnacle West has issued five parental guarantees for 4CA relating to payment obligations arising from 4CA’s acquisition of El Paso’s 7% interest in Four Corners, and pursuant to the Four Corners participation agreement payment obligations arising from 4CA’s ownership interest in Four Corners, two of which terminated in connection with the sale of 4CA's 7% interest to NTEC and two that will terminate in the near future. (See "Four Corners Coal Supply Agreement - 4CA Matter" above for information related to this sale.) In connection with the sale of 4CA's 7% interest to NTEC, Pinnacle West is guaranteeing certain obligations that NTEC will have to the other owners of Four Corners. (See "Four Corners Coal Supply Agreement - 4CA Matter" above for information related to this guarantee.) A maximum obligation is not explicitly stated in the guarantee and, therefore, the overall maximum amount of the obligation under such guarantee cannot be reasonably estimated; however, we consider the fair value of this guarantee to be immaterial.

On December 19, 2012, APS, acting on behalf of itself and the participant owners of Palo Verde, filed a second breach of contract lawsuit against the United States Department of Energy ("DOE") in the United States Court of Federal Claims ("Court of Federal Claims"). The lawsuit sought to recover damages incurred due to DOE’s breach of the Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or High Level Radioactive Waste ("Standard Contract") for failing to accept Palo Verde's spent nuclear fuel and high level waste from January 1, 2007 through June 30, 2011, as it was required to do pursuant to the terms of the Standard Contract and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. On August 18, 2014, APS and DOE entered into a settlement agreement, stipulating to a dismissal of the lawsuit and payment of $57.4 million by DOE to the Palo Verde owners for certain specified costs incurred by Palo Verde during the period January 1, 2007 through June 30, 2011. APS’s share of this amount is $16.7 million. Amounts recovered in the lawsuit and settlement were recorded as adjustments to a regulatory liability and had no impact on the amount of reported net income. In addition, the settlement agreement, as amended, provides APS with a method for submitting claims and getting recovery for costs incurred through December 31, 2019.

APS has submitted three claims pursuant to the terms of the August 18, 2014 settlement agreement, for three separate time periods during July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2017. The DOE has approved and paid $74.2 million for these claims (APS’s share is $21.6 million). The amounts recovered were primarily recorded as adjustments to a regulatory liability and had no impact on reported net income. In accordance with the 2017 Rate Case Decision, this regulatory liability is being refunded to customers (see Note 4). APS's next claim pursuant to the terms of the August 18, 2014 settlement agreement is required to be filed with DOE no later than October 31, 2018. The amounts recovered were primarily recorded as adjustments to a regulatory liability and had no impact on reported net income.

Public liability for incidents at nuclear power plants is governed by the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act ("Price-Anderson Act"), which limits the liability of nuclear reactor owners to the amount of insurance available from both commercial sources and an industry-wide retrospective payment plan. In accordance with the Price-Anderson Act, the Palo Verde participants are insured against public liability for a nuclear incident occurring on or prior to October 31, 2018 of up to approximately $13.1 billion per occurrence. Palo Verde maintains the maximum available nuclear liability insurance in the amount of $450 million, which is provided by American Nuclear Insurers ("ANI"). The remaining balance of approximately $12.6 billion of liability coverage is provided through a mandatory industry-wide retrospective premium program. If losses at any nuclear power plant covered by the program exceed the accumulated funds, APS could be responsible for retrospective premiums. For losses on or prior to October 31, 2018, the maximum total deferred premium per reactor under the program for each nuclear liability incident is approximately $127.3 million, subject to a maximum annual premium of $19 million per incident. Based on APS’s ownership interest in the three Palo Verde units, APS’s maximum retrospective premium per incident for all three units is approximately $111.1 million, with a maximum annual standard deferred premium of approximately $16.6 million.

On September 24, 2018, the NRC announced a statutorily mandated once per five year inflation adjustment to the maximum total deferred premium and the annual standard deferred premium. Effective November 1, 2018, the inflation adjusted maximum total deferred premium per reactor is approximately $137.6 million per incident, subject to the maximum annual deferred premium of approximately $20.5 million. Based on APS’s ownership interest in the three Palo Verde units, for covered incidents occurring on or after November 1, 2018, APS’s maximum total deferred premium per incident for all three units is approximately $120.1 million, with a maximum annual standard deferred premium of approximately $17.9 million.

The Palo Verde participants maintain insurance for property damage to, and decontamination of, property at Palo Verde in the aggregate amount of $2.8 billion. APS has also secured accidental outage insurance for a sudden and unforeseen accidental outage of any of the three units. The property damage, decontamination, and accidental outage insurance are provided by Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited ("NEIL"). APS is subject to retrospective premium adjustments under all NEIL policies if NEIL’s losses in any policy year exceed accumulated funds. The maximum amount APS could incur under the current NEIL policies totals approximately $24.8 million for each retrospective premium assessment declared by NEIL’s Board of Directors due to losses. In addition, NEIL policies contain rating triggers that would result in APS providing approximately $71.2 million of collateral assurance within 20 business days of a rating downgrade to non-investment grade. The insurance coverage discussed in this and the previous paragraph is subject to certain policy conditions, sublimits and exclusions.

For the nine months ended September 30, 2018, our fuel and purchased power commitments decreased approximately $166 million from amounts reported at December 31, 2017, primarily due to the amended and restated Four Corners 2016 Coal Supply Agreement effective in the second quarter of 2018. The majority of these changes relate to the years 2023 and thereafter.

The Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act ("Superfund" or "CERCLA") establishes liability for the cleanup of hazardous substances found contaminating the soil, water or air. Those who generated, transported or disposed of hazardous substances at a contaminated site are among those who are potentially responsible parties ("PRPs"). PRPs may be strictly, and often are jointly and severally, liable for clean-up. On September 3, 2003, EPA advised APS that EPA considers APS to be a PRP in the Motorola 52^nd Street Superfund Site, Operable Unit 3 ("OU3") in Phoenix, Arizona. APS has facilities that are within this Superfund site. APS and Pinnacle West have agreed with EPA to perform certain investigative activities of the APS facilities within OU3. In addition, on September 23, 2009, APS agreed with EPA and one other PRP to voluntarily assist with the funding and management of the site-wide groundwater remedial investigation and feasibility study ("RI/FS"). Based upon discussions between the OU3 working group parties and EPA, along with the results of recent technical analyses prepared by the OU3 working group to supplement the RI/FS, APS anticipates finalizing the RI/FS in the spring of 2019. We estimate that our costs related to this investigation and study will be approximately $2 million. We anticipate incurring additional expenditures in the future, but because the overall investigation is not complete and ultimate remediation requirements are not yet finalized, at the present time expenditures related to this matter cannot be reasonably estimated.

On August 6, 2013, the Roosevelt Irrigation District ("RID") filed a lawsuit in Arizona District Court against APS and 24 other defendants, alleging that RID’s groundwater wells were contaminated by the release of hazardous substances from facilities owned or operated by the defendants. The lawsuit also alleges that, under Superfund laws, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to RID. The allegations against APS arise out of APS’s current and former ownership of facilities in and around OU3. As part of a state governmental investigation into groundwater contamination in this area, on January 25, 2015, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality ("ADEQ") sent a letter to APS seeking information concerning the degree to which, if any, APS’s current and former ownership of these facilities may have contributed to groundwater contamination in this area. APS responded to ADEQ on May 4, 2015. On December 16, 2016, two RID environmental and engineering contractors filed an ancillary lawsuit for recovery of costs against APS and the other defendants in the RID litigation. That same day, another RID service provider filed an additional ancillary CERCLA lawsuit against certain of the defendants in the main RID litigation, but excluded APS and certain other parties as named defendants. Because the ancillary lawsuits concern past costs allegedly incurred by these RID vendors, which were ruled unrecoverable directly by RID in November of 2016, the additional lawsuits do not increase APS's exposure or risk related to these matters.

On April 5, 2018, RID and the defendants in that particular litigation executed a settlement agreement, fully resolving RID's CERCLA claims concerning both past and future cost recovery. APS's share of this settlement was immaterial. In addition, the two environmental and engineering vendors voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit against APS and the other named defendants without prejudice. An order to this effect was entered on April 17, 2018. With this disposition of the case, the vendors may file their lawsuit again in the future. In addition, APS and certain other parties not named in the remaining RID service provider lawsuit may be brought into the litigation via third-party complaints filed by the current direct defendants. We are unable to predict the outcome of these matters; however, we do not expect the outcome to have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

quality, wastewater discharges, solid waste, hazardous waste, and coal combustion residuals ("CCRs"). These laws and regulations can change from time to time, imposing new obligations on APS resulting in increased capital, operating, and other costs. Associated capital expenditures or operating costs could be material. APS intends to seek recovery of any such environmental compliance costs through our rates, but cannot predict whether it will obtain such recovery. The following proposed and final rules involve material compliance costs to APS.

Regional Haze Rules. APS has received the final rulemaking imposing new pollution control requirements on Four Corners and the Navajo Plant. EPA will require these plants to install pollution control equipment that constitutes best available retrofit technology ("BART") to lessen the impacts of emissions on visibility surrounding the plants. In addition, EPA has issued a final rule for Regional Haze compliance at Cholla that does not involve the installation of new pollution controls and that will replace an earlier BART determination for this facility. See below for details of the Cholla BART approval.

Four Corners. Based on EPA’s final standards, APS's 63% share of the cost of required controls for Four Corners Units 4 and 5 is approximately $400 million. In addition, APS and El Paso Electric Company ("El Paso") entered into an asset purchase agreement providing for the purchase by APS, or an affiliate of APS, of El Paso's 7% interest in Four Corners Units 4 and 5. 4CA purchased the El Paso interest on July 6, 2016. Navajo Transitional Energy Company, LLC ("NTEC") purchased the interest from 4CA on July 3, 2018. See "Four Corners Coal Supply Agreement - 4CA Matter" below for a discussion of the NTEC purchase. The cost of the pollution controls related to the 7% interest is approximately $45 million, which was assumed by NTEC through its purchase of the 7% interest.

Navajo Plant. APS estimates that its share of costs for upgrades at the Navajo Plant, based on EPA’s Federal Implementation Plan ("FIP"), could be up to approximately $200 million; however, given the future plans for the Navajo Plant, we do not expect to incur these costs. See "Navajo Plant" in Note 4 for information regarding future plans for the Navajo Plant.

Cholla. APS believed that EPA’s original 2012 final rule establishing controls constituting BART for Cholla, which would require installation of SCR controls, was unsupported and that EPA had no basis for disapproving Arizona’s State Implementation Plan ("SIP") and promulgating a FIP that was inconsistent with the state’s considered BART determinations under the regional haze program. In September 2014, APS met with EPA to propose a compromise BART strategy. APS would permanently close Cholla Unit 2 and cease burning coal at Units 1 and 3 by the mid-2020s. (See Note 4 for details related to the resulting regulatory asset.) APS made the proposal with the understanding that additional emission control equipment is unlikely to be required in the future because retiring and/or converting the units as contemplated in the proposal is more cost effective than, and will result in increased visibility improvement over, the current BART requirements for NOx imposed on the Cholla units under EPA's BART FIP.

On October 16, 2015, ADEQ issued a revised operating permit for Cholla, which incorporates APS's proposal, and subsequently submitted a proposed revision to the SIP to EPA, which would incorporate the new permit terms. On June 30, 2016, EPA issued a proposed rule approving a revision to the Arizona SIP that incorporates APS’s compromise approach for compliance with the Regional Haze program. In early 2017, EPA approved a final rule incorporating APS's compromise proposal, which took effect for Cholla on April 26, 2017.

minimum criteria for existing and new CCR landfills and surface impoundments and all lateral expansions consisting of location restrictions, design and operating criteria, groundwater monitoring and corrective action, closure requirements and post closure care, and recordkeeping, notification, and internet posting requirements. The rule generally requires any existing unlined CCR surface impoundment that is contaminating groundwater above a regulated constituent’s groundwater protection standard to stop receiving CCR and either retrofit or close, and further requires the closure of any CCR landfill or surface impoundment that cannot meet the applicable performance criteria for location restrictions or structural integrity. Such closure requirements are deemed "forced closure" or "closure for cause" of unlined surface impoundments, and are the subject of recent regulatory and judicial activities described below.

On December 16, 2016, President Obama signed the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation ("WIIN") Act into law, which contains a number of provisions requiring EPA to modify the self-implementing provisions of the Agency's current CCR rules under Subtitle D. Such modifications include new EPA authority to directly enforce the CCR rules through the use of administrative orders and providing states, like Arizona, where the Cholla facility is located, the option of developing CCR disposal unit permitting programs, subject to EPA approval. For facilities in states that do not develop state-specific permitting programs, EPA is required to develop a federal permit program, pending the availability of congressional appropriations. By contrast, for facilities located within the boundaries of Native American tribal reservations, such as the Navajo Nation, where the Navajo Plant and Four Corners facilities are located, EPA is required to develop a federal permit program regardless of appropriated funds.

ADEQ has initiated a process to evaluate how to develop a state CCR permitting program that would cover electric generating units ("EGUs"), including Cholla. While APS has been working with ADEQ on the development of this program, we are unable to predict when Arizona will be able to finalize and secure EPA approval for a state-specific CCR permitting program. With respect to the Navajo Nation, APS has sought clarification as to when and how EPA would be initiating permit proceedings for facilities on the reservation, including Four Corners. We are unable to predict at this time when EPA will be issuing CCR management permits for the facilities on the Navajo Nation. At this time, it remains unclear how the CCR provisions of the WIIN Act will affect APS and its management of CCR.

Based upon utility industry petitions for EPA to reconsider the RCRA Subtitle D regulations for CCR, which were premised in part on the CCR provisions of the 2016 WIIN Act, on September 13, 2017 EPA agreed to evaluate whether to revise these federal CCR regulations. On March 1, 2018, EPA issued a proposed rule that, among other things, seeks comment on potential changes to the federal CCR regulations, including allowances for greater flexibility in setting groundwater protection standards for certain regulated CCR constituents and with respect to implementing corrective action. On July 17, 2018, EPA finalized a revision to its RCRA Subtitle D regulations for CCR, only addressing certain portions of EPA's March 2018 proposal, while deferring for further consideration the vast majority of the potential regulatory changes contemplated in the March 2018 proposal. For the final rule issued on July 17, 2018, EPA established nationwide health-based standards for certain constituents of CCR subject to groundwater corrective action and delayed the closure deadlines for certain unlined CCR surface impoundments by 18 months (for example, those disposal units required to undergo forced closure). These changes to the federal regulations governing CCR disposal are unlikely to have a material impact on APS. As for those aspects of the March 2018 rulemaking proposal for which EPA has yet to take final action, it remains unclear which specific provisions of the federal CCR rules will ultimately be modified, how they will be modified, or when such modification will occur.

constituents that might trigger corrective action under EPA’s CCR rules. Simultaneously with the issuance of EPA's proposed modifications to the federal CCR rules in response to industry petitions, on March 1, 2018, EPA issued a proposed rule seeking comment as to whether or not boron should be included on this list. EPA is not required to take final action approving the inclusion of boron. Should EPA take final action adding boron to the list of groundwater constituents that might trigger corrective action, any resulting corrective action measures may increase APS's costs of compliance with the CCR rule at our coal-fired generating facilities. At this time APS cannot predict the eventual results of this rulemaking proceeding concerning boron.

On August 21, 2018, the D.C. Circuit Court issued its decision on the merits in this litigation. The Court upheld the legality of EPA’s CCR regulations, though it vacated and remanded back to EPA a number of specific provisions, which are to be corrected in accordance with the Court’s order. Among the issues affecting APS’s management of CCR, the D.C. Circuit’s decision vacated and remanded those provisions of the EPA CCR regulations that allow for the operation of unlined CCR surface impoundments, even where those unlined impoundments have not otherwise violated a regulatory location restriction or groundwater protection standard (i.e., otherwise triggering forced closure). At this time, it remains unclear how this D.C. Circuit Court decision will affect APS’s operations or any financial impacts, as EPA has yet to take regulatory action on remand to revise its 2015 CCR regulations consistent with the Court’s order.

APS currently disposes of CCR in ash ponds and dry storage areas at Cholla and Four Corners. APS estimates that its share of incremental costs to comply with the CCR rule for Four Corners is approximately $22 million and its share of incremental costs to comply with the CCR rule for Cholla is approximately $20 million. The Navajo Plant currently disposes of CCR in a dry landfill storage area. APS estimates that its share of incremental costs to comply with the CCR rule for the Navajo Plant is approximately $1 million. Additionally, the CCR rule requires ongoing, phased groundwater monitoring. By October 17, 2017, electric utility companies that own or operate CCR disposal units, such as APS, must have collected sufficient groundwater sampling data to initiate a detection monitoring program. To the extent that certain threshold constituents are identified through this initial detection monitoring at levels above the CCR rule’s standards, the rule required the initiation of an assessment monitoring program by April 15, 2018.

APS recently completed the statistical analyses for its CCR disposal units that triggered assessment monitoring. APS determined that several of its CCR disposal units at Cholla and Four Corners will need to undergo corrective action. In addition, to the extent that compliance with the CCR rule did not otherwise trigger the need for these CCR disposal units to close, such units must all cease operating and initiate closure by October of 2020. APS currently estimates that the additional incremental costs to complete this corrective action and closure work, along with the costs to develop replacement CCR disposal capacity, could be approximately $5 million for both Cholla and Four Corners. APS will initiate an assessment of corrective measures by January of 2019, during which APS will gather additional groundwater data, solicit input from the public, host a public hearing, and select a remedy. As such, this $5 million cost estimate may change based upon APS’s performance of the CCR rule’s corrective action assessment process, which APS anticipates completing during the summer or fall of 2019. Given uncertainties that may exist until we have fully completed the corrective action assessment process, we cannot predict any ultimate impacts to the Company; however, at this time we do not believe any potential change to the cost estimate would have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Clean Power Plan. On August 3, 2015, EPA finalized carbon pollution standards for EGUs. Shortly thereafter, a coalition of states, industry groups and electric utilities challenged the legality of these standards, including EPA's Clean Power Plan for existing EGUs, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. On February 9, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay of the Clean Power Plan pending judicial review of the rule, which temporarily delays compliance obligations under the Clean Power Plan. On March 28, 2017,

President Trump issued an Executive Order that, among other things, instructs EPA to reevaluate Agency regulations concerning carbon emissions from EGUs and take appropriate action to suspend, revise or rescind the August 2015 carbon pollution standards for EGUs, including the Clean Power Plan. Also on March 28, 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice, on behalf of EPA, filed a motion with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Court to hold the ongoing litigation over the Clean Power Plan in abeyance pending EPA action in accordance with the Executive Order. At this time, the D.C. Circuit Court proceedings evaluating the legality of the Clean Power Plan remain on hold.

Based upon EPA's reevaluation of the August 2015 carbon pollution standards and the legal basis for these regulations, on October 10, 2017, EPA issued a proposal to repeal the Clean Power Plan. That proposal relies on EPA's current view as to the Agency's legal authority under Clean Air Act Section 111(d), which (in contrast to the Clean Power Plan) would limit the scope of any future Section 111(d) regulations to measures undertaken exclusively at a power plant's source of greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions. On December 18, 2017, EPA issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking through which EPA is soliciting comments as to potential replacements for the Clean Power Plan that would be consistent with EPA's current legal interpretation of the Clean Air Act.

On August 21, 2018, EPA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for regulations that would replace the Clean Power Plan, which are based entirely upon measures that can be implemented to improve the heat rate of steam-electric power plants, essentially coal-fired EGUs. In contrast with the Clean Power Plan, EPA’s proposed “Affordable Clean Energy Rule” would not involve utility-level generation dispatch shifting away from coal-fired generation and toward renewable energy resources and natural gas-fired combined cycle power plants. In addition, to address the New Source Review implications of power plant upgrades potentially necessary to achieve compliance with the proposed Affordable Clean Energy Rule standards, EPA also proposed to revise the EPA's New Source Review regulations to more readily authorize the implementation of EGU efficiency upgrades.

We cannot predict the outcome of EPA's regulatory actions related to the August 2015 carbon pollution standards for EGU's, including any actions related to EPA's repeal proposal for the Clean Power Plan or additional rulemaking actions to approve the EPA's recently proposed Affordable Clean Energy Rule. In addition, we cannot predict whether the D.C. Circuit Court will continue to hold the litigation challenging the original Clean Power Plan in abeyance in light of EPA's repeal proposal, which is still pending.

Other environmental rules that could involve material compliance costs include those related to effluent limitations, the ozone national ambient air quality standard and other rules or matters involving the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, RCRA, Superfund, the Navajo Nation, and water supplies for our power plants. The financial impact of complying with current and future environmental rules could jeopardize the economic viability of our coal plants or the willingness or ability of power plant participants to fund any required equipment upgrades or continue their participation in these plants. The economics of continuing to own certain resources, particularly our coal plants, may deteriorate, warranting early retirement of those plants, which may result in asset impairments. APS would seek recovery in rates for the book value of any remaining investments in the plants as well as other costs related to early retirement, but cannot predict whether it would obtain such recovery.

alleges that these federal agencies violated both the Endangered Species Act ("ESA") and the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") in providing the federal approvals necessary to extend operations at the Four Corners Power Plant and the adjacent Navajo Mine past July 6, 2016. APS filed a motion to intervene in the proceedings, which was granted on August 3, 2016.

On September 15, 2016, NTEC, the company that owns the adjacent mine, filed a motion to intervene for the purpose of dismissing the lawsuit based on NTEC's tribal sovereign immunity. On September 11, 2017, the Arizona District Court issued an order granting NTEC's motion, dismissing the litigation with prejudice, and terminating the proceedings. On November 9, 2017, the environmental group plaintiffs appealed the district court order dismissing their lawsuit. The parties anticipate oral arguments to be heard in early 2019. We cannot predict whether this appeal will be successful and, if it is successful, the outcome of further district court proceedings.

On July 16, 2018, several environmental groups filed a petition for review before the EPA Environmental Appeals Board ("EAB") concerning the NPDES wastewater discharge permit for Four Corners, which was reissued on June 12, 2018. The environmental groups allege that the permit was reissued in contravention of several requirements under the Clean Water Act and did not contain required provisions concerning EPA’s 2015 revised effluent limitation guidelines for steam-electric EGUs, 2014 existing-source regulations governing cooling-water intake structures, and effluent limits for surface seepage and subsurface discharges from coal-ash disposal facilities. These groups are seeking to have the permit remanded back to EPA for revision to address these allegations. At this time, we cannot predict whether this EAB permit appeal will be successful, and if so whether the results of those proceedings will have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

On June 13, 2017, APS received a Demand for Arbitration from NTEC in connection with the Coal Supply Agreement, dated December 30, 2013, under which NTEC supplies coal to APS and the other Four Corners owners (collectively, the “Buyer”) for use at the Four Corners Power Plant (the "2016 Coal Supply Agreement"). NTEC was originally seeking a declaratory judgment to support its interpretation of a provision regarding uncontrollable forces in the agreement that relates to annual minimum quantities of coal to be purchased by the Buyer. NTEC also alleged a shortfall in the Buyer’s purchases for the initial contract year of approximately $30 million. APS’s share of this amount is approximately $17 million. On September 20, 2017, NTEC amended its Demand for Arbitration, removing its request for a declaratory judgment and at such time was only seeking relief for the alleged shortfall in the Buyer's purchases for the initial contract year.

On June 29, 2018, the parties settled the dispute for $45 million, which includes settlement for the initial contract year and the current contract year. APS’s share of this amount is approximately $34 million. In connection with the settlement, the parties amended the 2016 Coal Supply Agreement, including modifying the provisions that gave rise to this dispute. (See “4CA Matter” below for additional matters agreed to between 4CA and NTEC in the settlement arrangement.) The arbitration was dismissed on July 9, 2018.

On July 6, 2016, 4CA purchased El Paso’s 7% interest in Four Corners. NTEC had the option to purchase the 7% interest within a certain timeframe pursuant to an option granted to NTEC. On December 29, 2015, NTEC provided notice of its intent to exercise the option. The purchase did not occur during the originally contemplated timeframe. Concurrent with the settlement of the 2016 Coal Supply Agreement matter described above, NTEC and 4CA agreed to allow for the purchase by NTEC of the 7% interest, consistent with the option. On June 29, 2018, 4CA and NTEC entered into an asset purchase agreement providing for the sale to NTEC of 4CA's 7% interest in Four Corners. Completion of the sale was subject to the receipt of approval by FERC, which was received on July 2, 2018, and the sale transaction closed on July 3, 2018. NTEC purchased the 7% interest at 4CA’s book value, approximately $70 million, and will pay 4CA the purchase price over a period of four years pursuant to a secured interest-bearing promissory note. In connection with the sale, Pinnacle West guaranteed certain obligations that NTEC will have to the other owners of Four Corners, such as NTEC's 7% share of capital expenditures and operating and maintenance expenses. Pinnacle West's guarantee is secured by a portion of APS's payments to be owed to NTEC under the 2016 Coal Supply Agreement.

The 2016 Coal Supply Agreement contained alternate pricing terms for the 7% interest in the event NTEC did not purchase the interest. Until the time that NTEC purchased the 7% interest, the alternate pricing provisions were applicable to 4CA as the holder of the 7% interest. These terms included a formula under which NTEC must make certain payments to 4CA for reimbursement of operations and maintenance costs and a specified rate of return, offset by revenue generated by 4CA’s power sales. Such payments are due to 4CA at the end of each calendar year. A $10 million payment was due to 4CA at December 31, 2017, which NTEC satisfied by directing to 4CA a prepayment from APS of a portion of a future mine reclamation obligation. The balance of the amount under this formula at September 30, 2018 for the calendar year 2017 is approximately $20 million, which is due to 4CA at December 31, 2018. The balance of the amount under this formula at September 30, 2018 for the calendar year 2018 (up to the date that NTEC purchased the 7% interest) is approximately $10 million, which is due to 4CA at December 31, 2019.

In the normal course of business, we obtain standby letters of credit and surety bonds from financial institutions and other third parties. These instruments guarantee our own future performance and provide third parties with financial and performance assurance in the event we do not perform. These instruments support commodity contract collateral obligations and other transactions. As of September 30, 2018, standby letters of credit totaled $0.2 million and will expire in 2019. As of September 30, 2018, surety bonds expiring through 2019 totaled $36 million. The underlying liabilities insured by these instruments are reflected on our balance sheets, where applicable. Therefore, no additional liability is reflected for the letters of credit and surety bonds themselves.

We enter into agreements that include indemnification provisions relating to liabilities arising from or related to certain of our agreements. Most significantly, APS has agreed to indemnify the equity participants and other parties in the Palo Verde sale leaseback transactions with respect to certain tax matters. Generally, a

maximum obligation is not explicitly stated in the indemnification provisions and, therefore, the overall maximum amount of the obligation under such indemnification provisions cannot be reasonably estimated. Based on historical experience and evaluation of the specific indemnities, we do not believe that any material loss related to such indemnification provisions is likely.

Pinnacle West has issued parental guarantees and has provided indemnification under certain surety bonds for APS which were not material at September 30, 2018. Since July 6, 2016, Pinnacle West has issued five parental guarantees for 4CA relating to payment obligations arising from 4CA’s acquisition of El Paso’s 7% interest in Four Corners, and pursuant to the Four Corners participation agreement payment obligations arising from 4CA’s ownership interest in Four Corners, two of which terminated in connection with the sale of 4CA's 7% interest to NTEC and two that will terminate in the near future. (See "Four Corners Coal Supply Agreement - 4CA Matter" above for information related to this sale.)