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, require reporting of emissions from certain equipment, establish standards for the management, treatment, storage, transportation and disposal of hazardous materials and of solid and hazardous wastes, and impose obligations to investigate and remediate contamination in certain circumstances. Liabilities 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 financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. Our assets and operations also involve the use of materials classified as hazardous, toxic or otherwise dangerous. Some 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 above ground 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. Some of our facilities and electrical equipment may also contain asbestos containing materials. Our facilities and equipment are often situated close to or on property owned by others so that, if they are the source of contamination, the property of others may be affected. For example, above ground 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, including wetlands and habitat for threatened and endangered species. Litigation We are involved in certain legal proceedings before various courts, governmental agencies and mediation panels concerning matters arising in the ordinary course of business. These proceedings include certain contract disputes, eminent domain and vegetation management activities, regulatory matters and pending judicial matters. We cannot predict the final disposition of such proceedings. We regularly review legal matters and record provisions for claims that are considered probable of loss. Rate of Return on Equity Complaints Two complaints were filed with the FERC by combinations of consumer advocates, consumer groups, municipal parties and other parties challenging the base ROE in MISO. The complaints were filed with the FERC under Section 206 of the FPA requesting that the FERC find the MISO regional base ROE rate (the “base ROE”) for all MISO TO’s, including our MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries, to no longer be just and reasonable. Initial Complaint On November 12, 2013, the Association of Businesses Advocating Tariff Equity, Coalition of MISO Transmission Customers, Illinois Industrial Energy Consumers, Indiana Industrial Energy Consumers, Inc., Minnesota Large Industrial Group and Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group (collectively, the “complainants”) filed the Initial Complaint with the FERC. The complainants sought a FERC order to reduce the base ROE used in the formula transmission rates for our MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries to 9.15%, reducing the equity component of our capital structure and terminating the ROE adders approved for certain Regulated Operating Subsidiaries. The FERC set the base ROE for hearing and settlement procedures, while denying all other aspects of the Initial Complaint. The ROE collected through the MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries’ rates during the period November 12, 2013 through September 27, 2016 consisted of a base ROE of 12.38% plus applicable incentive adders. On September 28, 2016, the FERC issued the September 2016 Order that set the base ROE at 10.32%, with a maximum ROE of 11.35%, effective for the period from November 12, 2013 through February 11, 2015 based on a two-step DCF methodology adopted in previous complaint matters for other utilities. The September 2016 Order required our MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries to provide refunds, including interest, which were completed in 2017. Additionally, the base ROE established by the September 2016 Order was to be used prospectively from the date of that order until a new approved base ROE was established by the FERC. On October 28, 2016, the MISO TOs, including our MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries, filed a request with the FERC for rehearing of the September 2016 Order regarding the short-term growth projections in the two-step DCF analysis. Additional impacts to the base ROE for the period of the Initial Complaint and the related accrued refund liabilities resulted from the November 2019 Order and May 2020 Order issued by the FERC, as discussed below. Second Complaint On February 12, 2015, the Second Complaint was filed with the FERC by Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation, Mississippi Delta Energy Agency, Clarksdale Public Utilities Commission, Public Service Commission of Yazoo City and Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc., seeking a FERC order to reduce the base ROE used in the formula transmission rates of our MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries to 8.67%, with an effective date of February 12, 2015. On June 30, 2016, the presiding ALJ issued an initial decision that recommended a base ROE of 9.70% for the refund period from February 12, 2015 through May 11, 2016, with a maximum ROE of 10.68%, which also would be applicable going forward from the date of a final FERC order. The Second Complaint was dismissed as a result of the November 2019 Order and the dismissal of the complaint was reaffirmed in the May 2020 Order, as discussed below. November 2019 Order On November 21, 2019, the FERC issued an order in the MISO ROE Complaints which applied a methodology to the Initial Complaint period that used two financial models to determine the base ROE. The FERC determined that the base ROE for the Initial Complaint should be 9.88% and the top of the range of reasonableness for that period should be 12.24% and that this base ROE should apply during the first refund period of November 12, 2013 to February 11, 2015 and from the date of the September 2016 Order prospectively. In the November 2019 Order, the FERC also dismissed the Second Complaint. Therefore, based on the November 2019 Order, for the Second Complaint refund period from February 12, 2015 to May 11, 2016, no refund is due. As a result, in 2019, we reversed the aggregate estimated current liability we had previously recorded for the Second Complaint. In addition, for the period from May 12, 2016 to September 27, 2016, no refund is due because no complaint had been filed for that period. The FERC ordered refunds to be made in accordance with the November 2019 Order. The MISO TOs, including our MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries, and several other parties filed requests for rehearing of the November 2019 Order. The MISO TOs asserted that the methodology applied by the FERC in the November 2019 Order does not allow the MISO TOs to earn a reasonable rate of return on their investment, as required by precedent. On January 21, 2020, the FERC issued an order granting rehearing of the November 2019 Order for further consideration. May 2020 Order On May 21, 2020, the FERC issued an order on rehearing of the November 2019 Order. In this order, the FERC revised its November 2019 Order methodology, finding that three financial models should be used to determine the base ROE, among other revisions. By applying the new methodology, the FERC determined that the base ROE for the Initial Complaint should be 10.02% and the top of the range of reasonableness for that period should be 12.62%. The FERC determined that this base ROE should apply during the first refund period of November 12, 2013 to February 11, 2015 and from the date of the September 2016 Order prospectively. The FERC ordered refunds to be made in accordance with the May 2020 Order. Refund settlements were finalized during the three months ended March 31, 2022. In the May 2020 Order, the FERC also reaffirmed its decision to dismiss the Second Complaint and its finding that no refunds would be ordered on the Second Complaint. August 2022 D.C. Circuit Court Decision On August 9, 2022, in response to appeals of the FERC's orders on the MISO ROE Complaints, the D.C. Circuit Court issued an opinion that rejected the FERC’s use of a risk premium model in the methodology used to determine the revised base ROE for MISO TOs. The D.C. Circuit Court decision vacated the FERC’s orders on the MISO ROE Complaints, dismissed the remaining outstanding appeals of these orders and remanded the matter to the FERC for further proceedings. Financial Statement Impacts As of December 31, 2021, we had recorded an aggregate current regulatory asset and liability of $1 million and less than $1 million, respectively, in the consolidated statements of financial position. These impacts reflect amounts owed from or due to customers under the terms outlined in the May 2020 Order and the November 2019 Order on the Initial Complaint and the periods subsequent to the September 2016 Order. During the year ended December 31, 2022, we received net settlement payments of less than $1 million owed from customers related to this matter. During the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, we refunded net settlement payments of $5 million and $31 million, respectively, due to customers related to this matter. As of December 31, 2022, there are no remaining regulatory assets or liabilities recorded related to this matter. It is possible that the base ROE established in the May 2020 Order may be revised and that we could be required to provide additional material refunds upon resolution of the proceedings. We are determining next steps in response to the August 2022 D.C. Circuit Court decision and awaiting action by the FERC in these proceedings to provide further insight into possible changes to our base ROE and the periods for which a revised ROE applies. We cannot predict whether these proceedings will have a material impact, or estimate the possible impact, on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The recognition of the obligations associated with the MISO ROE Complaints resulted in the following impacts to the consolidated statements of comprehensive income: Year Ended December 31, (In millions of USD) 2022 2021 2020 Revenue increase $ — $ — $ 32 Interest expense decrease — — (3) Estimated net income increase — — 25 See Note 5 for a summary of our base ROE and incentive adders for transmission rates. As of December 31, 2022, our MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries had a total of approximately $5 billion of equity in their collective capital structures for ratemaking purposes. Based on this level of aggregate equity, we estimate that each 10 basis point change in the authorized ROE would impact annual consolidated net income by approximately $5 million. Purchase Obligations At December 31, 2022, we had purchase obligations of $137 million representing commitments for materials, services and equipment that had not been received as of December 31, 2022, primarily for construction and maintenance projects for which we have an executed contract. Of these purchase obligations, $125 million is expected to be paid in 2023, with the majority of the items related to materials and equipment that have long production lead times. Other Commitments METC Amended and Restated Purchase and Sale Agreement for Ancillary Services. Since METC does not own any generating facilities, it must procure ancillary services from third party suppliers, such as Consumers Energy. Currently, under the Ancillary Services Agreement, METC pays Consumers Energy for providing certain generation-based services necessary to support the reliable operation of the bulk power grid, such as voltage support and generation capability and capacity to balance loads and generation. Amended and Restated Easement Agreement. Under the Easement Agreement, Consumers Energy provides METC with an easement to the land on which a majority of METC’s transmission towers, poles, lines and other transmission facilities used to transmit electricity for Consumers Energy and others are located. The term of the Easement Agreement runs through December 31, 2050 and is subject to 10 automatic 50-year renewals thereafter unless METC gives notice of nonrenewal at least one year in advance. METC pays Consumers Energy $10 million in annual rent per year for the easement and also pays for any rentals, property, taxes, and other fees related to the property covered by the Easement Agreement. Payments to Consumers Energy under the Easement Agreement are charged to operation and maintenance expense in our consolidated statements of comprehensive income. ITC Midwest Operations Services Agreement For 34.5 kV Transmission Facilities. ITC Midwest and IP&L entered into the OSA under which IP&L performs certain operations functions for ITC Midwest’s 34.5 kV transmission system. The OSA provides that when ITC Midwest upgrades 34.5 kV facilities to higher operating voltages it may notify IP&L of the change and the OSA is no longer applicable to those facilities. ITC Great Plains Amended and Restated Maintenance Agreement. Sunflower and ITC Great Plains have entered into the Sunflower Agreement pursuant to which Sunflower has agreed to perform various field operations and maintenance services related to certain ITC Great Plains assets. Concentration of Credit Risk Our credit risk is primarily with DTE Electric, Consumers Energy and IP&L, which were responsible for approximately 21.0%, 24.0% and 25.4%, respectively, or $310 million, $354 million and $375 million, respectively, of our consolidated billed revenues for the year ended December 31, 2022. This portion of total billed revenues of DTE Electric, Consumers Energy and IP&L include the collection of 2020 revenue accruals and deferrals and exclude any amounts for the 2022 revenue accruals and deferrals that were included in our 2022 operating revenues but will not be billed to our customers until 2024. Under DTE Electric’s and Consumers Energy’s current rate structure, DTE Electric and Consumers Energy include in their retail rates the actual cost of transmission services provided by ITCTransmission and METC, respectively, in their billings to their customers, effectively passing through to end-use consumers the total cost of transmission service. IP&L currently includes in their retail rates an allowance for transmission services provided by ITC Midwest in their billings to their customers. However, any financial difficulties experienced by DTE Electric, Consumers Energy or IP&L may affect their ability to make payments for transmission service to ITCTransmission, METC, and ITC Midwest, which could negatively impact our business. MISO, as our MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries’ billing agent, bills DTE Electric, Consumers Energy, IP&L and other customers on a monthly basis and collects fees for the use of the MISO Regulated Operating Subsidiaries’ transmission systems. SPP is the billing agent for ITC Great Plains and bills transmission customers for the use of ITC Great Plains transmission systems. MISO and SPP have implemented strict credit policies for its members’ customers, which include customers using our transmission systems. Specifically, MISO and SPP require a letter of credit or cash deposit equal to the credit exposure, which is determined by a credit scoring model and other factors, from any customer using a member’s transmission system. |