Commitments and Contingencies | Note 11: Commitments and Contingencies Contingencies The Company is routinely involved in legal actions incident to the normal conduct of its business. As of September 30, 2022, the Company has accrued approximatel y $4 million of probable loss contingencies and has estimated that the maximum amount of losses associated with reasonably possible loss contingencies that can be reasonably estimated is $3 million. For certain matters, claims and actions, the Company is unable to estimate possible losses. The Company believes that damages or settlements, if any, recovered by plaintiffs in such matters, claims or actions, other than as described in this Note 11—Commitments and Contingencies, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company. West Virginia Elk River Freedom Industries Chemical Spill On June 8, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia granted final approval of a settlement class and global class action settlement (the “Settlement”) for all claims and potential claims by all class members (collectively, the “West Virginia Plaintiffs”) arising out of the January 2014 Freedom Industries, Inc. chemical spill in West Virginia. The effective date of the Settlement was July 16, 2018. Under the terms and conditions of the Settlement, WVAWC and certain other Company-affiliated entities did not admit, and will not admit, any fault or liability for any of the allegations made by the West Virginia Plaintiffs in any of the actions that were resolved. The aggregate pre-tax amount contributed by WVAWC of the $126 million portion of the Settlement with respect to the Company, net of insurance recoveries, is $19 million. As of September 30, 2022, $0.5 million of the aggregate Settlement amount of $126 million has been reflected in accrued liabilities, and $0.5 million in offsetting insurance receivables have been reflected in other current assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. The amount reflected in accrued liabilities as of September 30, 2022 reflects reductions in the liability and appropriate reductions to the offsetting insurance receivable reflected in other current assets, associated with payments made to the Settlement fund, the receipt of a determination by the Settlement fund’s appeal adjudicator on all remaining medical claims and the calculation of remaining attorneys’ fees and claims administration costs. The Company funded WVAWC’s contributions to the Settlement through existing sources of liquidity. Dunbar, West Virginia Water Main Break Class Action Litigation On the evening of June 23, 2015, a 36-inch pre-stressed concrete transmission water main, installed in the early 1970s, failed. The water main is part of the West Relay pumping station located in the City of Dunbar, West Virginia and owned by WVAWC. The failure of the main caused water outages and low pressure for up to approximately 25,000 WVAWC customers. In the early morning hours of June 25, 2015, crews completed a repair, but that same day, the repair developed a leak. On June 26, 2015, a second repair was completed and service was restored that day to approximately 80% of the impacted customers, and to the remaining approximately 20% by the next morning. The second repair showed signs of leaking, but the water main was usable until June 29, 2015, to allow tanks to refill. The system was reconfigured to maintain service to all but approximately 3,000 customers while a final repair was being completed safely on June 30, 2015. Water service was fully restored by July 1, 2015 to all customers affected by this event. On June 2, 2017, a complaint captioned Jeffries, et al. v. West Virginia-American Water Company was filed in West Virginia Circuit Court in Kanawha County on behalf of an alleged class of residents and business owners who lost water service or pressure as a result of the Dunbar main break. The complaint alleges breach of contract by WVAWC for failure to supply water, violation of West Virginia law regarding the sufficiency of WVAWC’s facilities and negligence by WVAWC in the design, maintenance and operation of the water system. The Jeffries plaintiffs seek unspecified alleged damages on behalf of the class for lost profits, annoyance and inconvenience, and loss of use, as well as punitive damages for willful, reckless and wanton behavior in not addressing the risk of pipe failure and a large outage. In February 2020, the Jeffries plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class certification on the issues of breach of contract and negligence, and to determine the applicability of punitive damages and a multiplier for those damages if imposed. In July 2020, the Circuit Court entered an order granting the Jeffries plaintiffs’ motion for certification of a class regarding certain liability issues but denying certification of a class to determine a punitive damages multiplier. In August 2020, WVAWC filed a Petition for Writ of Prohibition in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia seeking to vacate or remand the Circuit Court’s order certifying the issues class. On January 28, 2021, the Supreme Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the Circuit Court for further consideration in light of a decision issued in another case relating to the class certification issues raised on appeal. On July 5, 2022, the Circuit Court entered an order again certifying a class to address at trial certain liability issues but not to consider damages. On August 26, 2022, WVAWC filed another Petition for Writ of Prohibition in the Supreme Court of Appeals challenging this latest class certification order. The Writ Petition has been supported by an amicus brief filed by certain water and utility industry trade groups. The Supreme Court of Appeals will decide whether to accept the Writ Petition by issuing a Rule to Show Cause. The Company and WVAWC believe that WVAWC has valid, meritorious defenses to the claims raised in this class action complaint. WVAWC is vigorously defending itself against these allegations. The Company cannot currently determine the likelihood of a loss, if any, or estimate the amount of any loss or a range of such losses related to this proceeding. Chattanooga, Tennessee Water Main Break Class Action Litigation On September 12, 2019, the Company’s Tennessee subsidiary (“TAWC”), experienced a leak in a 36-inch water transmission main, which caused service fluctuations or interruptions to TAWC customers and the issuance of a boil water notice. TAWC repaired the main by early morning on September 14, 2019, and restored full water service by the afternoon of September 15, 2019, with the boil water notice lifted for all customers on September 16, 2019. On September 17, 2019, a complaint captioned Bruce, et al. v. American Water Works Company, Inc., et al. was filed in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee against TAWC, the Company and American Water Works Service Company, Inc. (“Service Company” and, together with TAWC and the Company, collectively, the “Tennessee-American Water Defendants”), on behalf of a proposed class of individuals or entities who lost water service or suffered monetary losses as a result of the Chattanooga incident (the “Tennessee Plaintiffs”). The complaint alleged breach of contract and negligence against the Tennessee-American Water Defendants, as well as an equitable remedy of piercing the corporate veil. In the complaint as originally filed, the Tennessee Plaintiffs were seeking an award of unspecified alleged damages for wage losses, business and economic losses, out-of-pocket expenses, loss of use and enjoyment of property and annoyance and inconvenience, as well as punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and pre- and post-judgment interest. In September 2020, the court dismissed all of the Tennessee Plaintiffs’ claims in their complaint, except for the breach of contract claims against TAWC, which remain pending. In October 2020, TAWC answered the complaint, and the parties have been engaging in discovery. A hearing that had been originally scheduled for October 2022 to address the question of class certification has been postponed to January 2023. TAWC and the Company believe that TAWC has meritorious defenses to the claims raised in this class action complaint, and TAWC is vigorously defending itself against these allegations. The Company cannot currently determine the likelihood of a loss, if any, or estimate the amount of any loss or a range of such losses related to this proceeding. Alternative Water Supply in Lieu of Carmel River Diversions Compliance with Orders to Reduce Carmel River Diversions—Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Under a 2009 order (the “2009 Order”) of the State Water Resources Control Board (the “SWRCB”), the Company’s California subsidiary (“Cal Am”) is required to decrease significantly its yearly diversions of water from the Carmel River according to a set reduction schedule. In 2016, the SWRCB issued an order (the “2016 Order”) approving a deadline of December 31, 2021 for Cal Am’s compliance with these prior orders. Cal Am is currently involved in developing the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (the “Water Supply Project”), which includes the construction of a desalination plant, to be owned by Cal Am, and the construction of wells that would supply water to the desalination plant. In addition, the Water Supply Project also includes Cal Am’s purchase of water from a groundwater replenishment project (the “GWR Project”) between Monterey One Water and the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (the “MPWMD”). The Water Supply Project is intended, among other things, to fulfill Cal Am’s obligations under the 2009 Order and the 2016 Order. Cal Am’s ability to move forward on the Water Supply Project is subject to administrative review by the CPUC and other government agencies, obtaining necessary permits, and intervention from other parties. In September 2016, the CPUC unanimously approved a final decision to authorize Cal Am to enter into a water purchase agreement for the GWR Project and to construct a pipeline and pump station facilities and recover up to $50 million in associated incurred costs plus an allowance for funds used during construction (“AFUDC”), subject to meeting certain criteria. In September 2018, the CPUC unanimously approved another final decision finding that the Water Supply Project meets the CPUC’s requirements for a certificate of public convenience and necessity and an additional procedural phase was not necessary to consider alternative projects. The CPUC’s 2018 decision concludes that the Water Supply Project is the best project to address estimated future water demands in Monterey, and, in addition to the cost recovery approved in its 2016 decision, adopts Cal Am’s cost estimates for the Water Supply Project, which amounted to an aggregate of $279 million plus AFUDC at a rate representative of Cal Am’s actual weighted average cost of capital. The 2018 final decision specifies the procedures for recovery of all of Cal Am’s prudently incurred costs associated with the Water Supply Project upon its completion, subject to the frameworks included in the final decision related to cost caps, operation and maintenance costs, financing, ratemaking and contingency matters. The reasonableness of the Water Supply Project costs will be reviewed by the CPUC when Cal Am seeks cost recovery for the Water Supply Project. Cal Am has incurred $206 million in aggregate costs as of September 30, 2022 related to the Water Supply Project, which includes $55 million in AFUDC. In September 2021, Cal Am, Monterey One Water and the MPWMD reached an agreement on Cal Am’s purchase of additional water from an expansion to the GWR Project, which is not expected to produce additional water until 2024 at the earliest. The amended and restated water purchase agreement for the GWR Project expansion is subject to review and approval of the CPUC, and on November 29, 2021, Cal Am filed an application with the CPUC seeking review and approval of the amended and restated water purchase agreement. Cal Am is also requesting rate base treatment of the additional capital investment for certain Cal Am facilities required to maximize the water supply from the expansion to the GWR Project and a related Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project, totaling approximately $81 million. This amount is in addition to, and consistent in regulatory treatment with, the prior $50 million of cost recovery for facilities associated with the original water purchase agreement, which was approved by the CPUC in its 2016 final decision . In September 2022, the parties completed testimony related to this CPUC proceeding, and the parties are now meeting and conferring to set hearing dates during the fourth quarter of 2022. On September 30, 2022, a CPUC-assigned ALJ issued a proposed decision that would, if adopted by the CPUC, authorize Cal Am to enter into the amended water purchase agreement, and specifically to increase pumping capacity and reliability of groundwater extraction from the Seaside Groundwater Basin. The proposed decision sets the cost cap for the proposed facilities at approximately $45 million, and the remaining $36 million of costs initially requested have been deferred to a subsequent filing. Under the proposed decision, Cal Am may seek recovery of amounts above the cost cap in a subsequent rate filing or general rate case. Additionally, the proposed decision recommended AFUDC be authorized at Cal Am’s actual weighted average cost of debt. On October 20, 2022, the parties filed their comments to the proposed decision. Cal Am currently expects a CPUC ruling to be issued by the end of 2022. After that, this matter will remain open as part of a Phase 2 proceeding to update supply and demand amounts for the Water Supply Project and to address certain of the deferred capital requests. While Cal Am believes that its expenditures to date have been prudent and necessary to comply with the 2009 Order and the 2016 Order, as well as the CPUC’s 2016 and 2018 final decisions, Cal Am cannot currently predict its ability to recover all of its costs and expenses associated with the Water Supply Project and there can be no assurance that Cal Am will be able to recover all of such costs and expenses in excess of the $50 million in construction costs previously approved by the CPUC in its 2016 final decision. Coastal Development Permit Application In June 2018, Cal Am submitted a coastal development permit application to the City of Marina (the “City”) for those project components of the Water Supply Project located within the City’s coastal zone. Members of the City’s Planning Commission, as well as City councilpersons, have publicly expressed opposition to the Water Supply Project. In May 2019, the City issued a notice of final local action based upon the denial by the Planning Commission of Cal Am’s coastal development permit application. Thereafter, Cal Am appealed this decision to the California Coastal Commission (the “Coastal Commission”), as permitted under the City’s code and the California Coastal Act. At the same time, Cal Am submitted an application to the Coastal Commission for a coastal development permit for those project components located within the Coastal Commission’s original jurisdiction. In October 2019, staff of the Coastal Commission issued a report recommending a denial of Cal Am’s application for a coastal development permit with respect to the Water Supply Project, largely based on a memorandum prepared by the general manager of the MPWMD that contradicted findings made by the CPUC in its final decision approving the Water Supply Project. In November 2019, discussions between staffs of the Coastal Commission and the CPUC took place regarding the Coastal Commission staff recommendation, at which time the CPUC raised questions about the Coastal Commission staff’s findings on water supply and demand, groundwater impacts and the viability of a project that the Coastal Commission staff believes may be a possible alternative to the Water Supply Project. In August 2020, the staff of the Coastal Commission released a report again recommending denial of Cal Am’s application for a coastal development permit. Although the report concluded that the Water Supply Project would have a negligible impact on groundwater resources, the report also concluded it would impact other coastal resources, such as environmentally sensitive habitat areas and wetlands, and that the Coastal Commission staff believes that a feasible alternative project exists that would avoid those impacts. The staff’s report also noted disproportionate impacts to communities of concern. In September 2020, Cal Am withdrew its original jurisdiction application to allow additional time to address the Coastal Commission staff’s environmental justice concerns. The withdrawal of the original jurisdiction application did not impact Cal Am’s appeal of the City’s denial, which remains pending before the Coastal Commission. Cal Am refiled the original jurisdiction application in November 2020. In December 2020, the Coastal Commission sent to Cal Am a notice of incomplete application, identifying certain additional information needed to consider the application complete. In March 2021, Cal Am provided responses to the Coastal Commission’s notice of incomplete application. In June 2021, the Coastal Commission responded, acknowledging the responses and requesting certain additional information before the application could be considered complete. Cal Am responded with the requested additional information on January 11, 2022, and on February 8, 2022, the Coastal Commission requested additional information, and Cal Am responded with additional information. On September 1, 2022, the Coastal Commission deemed Cal Am’s application complete. A hearing on the application is expected in November 2022. Cal Am continues to work constructively with all appropriate agencies to provide necessary information in connection with obtaining required approvals for the Water Supply Project. However, there can be no assurance that the Water Supply Project in its current configuration will be completed on a timely basis, if ever. Beginning in January 2022, Cal Am expects to be able to comply with the diversion reduction requirements contained in the 2016 Order, but continued compliance with the diversion reduction requirements for 2023 and future years will depend on successful development of alternate water supply sources, sufficient to meet customer demand. The 2009 Order and the 2016 Order remain in effect until Cal Am certifies to the SWRCB, and the SWRCB concurs, that Cal Am has obtained a permanent supply of water to substitute for past unauthorized Carmel River diversions. While the Company cannot currently predict the likelihood or result of any adverse outcome associated with these matters, further attempts to comply with the 2009 Order and the 2016 Order may result in material additional costs and obligations to Cal Am, including fines and penalties against Cal Am in the event of noncompliance with the 2009 Order and the 2016 Order. |