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, 2023, the Company has accrued approximately $4 million of probable loss contingencies associated with such actions and has estimated that the maximum amount of loss associated with reasonably possible loss contingencies associated with such actions, which can be reasonably estimated, is $3 million. For certain legal actions, the Company is unable to estimate possible losses. The Company believes that damages or settlements, if any, recovered by plaintiffs in such actions, other than as described in this Note 11—Commitments and Contingencies, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company. 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 the Company’s West Virginia subsidiary (“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. In January 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 of West Virginia challenging the West Virginia Circuit Court’s July 5, 2022 order, which petition was denied on June 8, 2023. On August 21, 2023, the Circuit Court set a date of September 9, 2024 for a class trial on issues relating to duty and breach of that duty. The trial will not find class-wide or punitive damages. 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. Given the current stage of this proceeding, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the amount of any reasonably possible loss or a range of loss 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. On January 12, 2023, after hearing oral argument, the court issued an oral ruling denying the Tennessee Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On February 9, 2023, the Tennessee Plaintiffs sought reconsideration of the ruling by the court, and any final ruling is appealable to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, as allowed under Tennessee law. On September 21, 2023, the court upheld its prior ruling but gave the Tennessee Plaintiffs the option to file an amended class definition. On October 12, 2023, the Tennessee Plaintiffs filed an amended class definition seeking certification of a business customer-only class. An order denying the original proposed class and addressing the proposed amended class has not been entered by the court and remains pending. 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,” and, together with the 2009 Order, the “Orders”) 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 Orders. 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 financing costs. 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 is also required to implement mitigation measures to avoid, minimize or offset significant environmental impacts from the construction and operation of the Water Supply Project and comply with a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, a reimbursement agreement for CPUC costs associated with that program, and reporting requirements on plant operations following placement of the Water Supply Project in service. Cal Am has incurred $233 million in aggregate costs as of September 30, 2023 related to the Water Supply Project, which includes $69 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. On December 5, 2022, the CPUC issued a final decision that authorized 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 final decision sets the cost cap for the proposed facilities at approximately $62 million. Cal Am may seek recovery of amounts above the cost cap in a subsequent rate filing or general rate case. Additionally, the final decision authorizes AFUDC at Cal Am’s actual weighted average cost of debt for most of the facilities. On December 30, 2022, Cal Am filed with the CPUC an application for rehearing of the CPUC’s December 5, 2022, final decision, and on March 30, 2023, the CPUC issued a decision denying Cal Am’s application for rehearing, but adopting its proposed AFUDC for already incurred and future costs. This decision also provided Cal Am the opportunity to serve supplemental testimony to increase its cost cap for certain of the Water Supply Project’s extraction wells. The amended water purchase agreement and a memorandum of understanding to negotiate certain milestones related to the expansion of the GWR Project have been signed by the relevant parties. Further hearings to be scheduled in a Phase 2 to this CPUC proceeding will focus on updated supply and demand estimates for the Water Supply Project. While Cal Am believes that its expenditures to date have been prudent and necessary to comply with the Orders, as well as relevant final decisions of the CPUC related thereto, 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 $112 million in aggregate construction costs, plus applicable AFUDC, previously approved by the CPUC in its 2016 final decision and its December 2022 final decision, as amended by its March 30, 2023 rehearing decision. Coastal Development Permit Application In 2018, Cal Am submitted a coastal development permit application (the “Marina 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 the Marina Application. Thereafter, Cal Am appealed this decision to the Coastal Commission, as permitted under the City’s code and the California Coastal Act. At the same time, Cal Am submitted an application (the “Original Jurisdiction Application”) to the Coastal Commission for a coastal development permit for those project components located within the Coastal Commission’s original jurisdiction. After Coastal Commission staff issued reports recommending denial of the Original Jurisdiction Application, noting potential impacts on environmentally sensitive habitat areas and wetlands and possible disproportionate impacts to communities of concern, in September 2020, Cal Am withdrew the Original Jurisdiction Application in order to address the staff’s environmental justice concerns. The withdrawal of the Original Jurisdiction Application did not impact Cal Am’s appeal of the City’s denial of the Marina Application, which remains pending before the Coastal Commission. In November 2020, Cal Am refiled the Original Jurisdiction Application. On October 5, 2022, Cal Am announced a phasing plan for the proposed desalination plant component of the Water Supply Project. The desalination plant and slant wells originally approved by the CPUC would produce up to 6.4 million gallons of desalinated water per day. Under the phased approach, the facilities would initially be constructed to produce up to 4.8 million gallons per day of desalinated water, enough to meet anticipated demand through about 2030, and would limit the number of slant wells initially constructed. As demand increases in the future, desalination facilities would be expanded to meet the additional demand. The phased approach seeks to meet near-term demand by allowing for additional supply as it becomes needed, while also providing an opportunity for regional future public participation and was developed by Cal Am based on feedback received from the community. On November 17, 2022, the Coastal Commission approved the Marina Application and the Original Jurisdiction Application with respect to the phased development of the proposed desalination plant, subject to compliance with a number of conditions, all of which Cal Am expects to satisfy. On December 29, 2022, the City, Marina Coast Water District (“MCWD”), MCWD’s groundwater sustainability agency, and the MPWMD jointly filed a petition for writ of mandate in Monterey County Superior Court against the Coastal Commission, alleging that the Coastal Commission violated the California Coastal Act and the California Environmental Quality Act in issuing a coastal development permit to Cal Am for construction of the slant wells. Cal Am is named as a real party in interest. This matter remains pending. Following the issuance of the coastal development permit, Cal Am continues to work constructively with all appropriate agencies to provide necessary information in connection with obtaining the remaining required permits 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. For the year ended December 31, 2022, Cal Am has complied with the diversion limitations contained in the 2016 Order. Continued compliance with the diversion limitations in 2023 and future years may be impacted by a number of factors, including, without limitation, continued drought conditions in California and the exhaustion of water supply reserves, and will require successful development of alternate water supply sources sufficient to meet customer demand. The Orders 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 Orders 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 Orders. Potential Condemnation of Monterey System Assets The water system assets of Cal Am located in Monterey, California (the “Monterey system assets”) are the subject of a potential condemnation action by the MPWMD stemming from a November 2018 public ballot initiative. In 2019, the MPWMD issued a preliminary valuation and cost of service analysis report, finding in part that (1) an estimate of the Monterey system assets’ total value plus adjustments would be approximately $513 million, (2) the cost of service modeling results indicate significant annual reductions in revenue requirements and projected monthly water bills, and (3) the acquisition of the Monterey system assets by the MPWMD would be economically feasible. In 2020, the MPWMD certified a final environmental impact report, analyzing the environmental impacts of the MPWMD’s project to (1) acquire the Monterey system assets through the power of eminent domain, if necessary, and (2) expand its geographic boundaries to include all parts of this system. In February 2021, the MPWMD filed an application with the Local Agency Formation Commission of Monterey County (“LAFCO”) seeking approval to become a retail water provider and annex approximately 58 parcels of land into the MPWMD’s boundaries. In June 2021, LAFCO’s commissioners voted to require a third-party independent financial study as to the feasibility of an acquisition by the MPWMD of the Monterey system assets. In December 2021, LAFCO’s commissioners denied the MPWMD’s application to become a retail water provider, determining that the MPWMD does not have the authority to proceed with a condemnation of the Monterey system assets. On April 1, 2022, the MPWMD filed a lawsuit against LAFCO challenging its decision to deny the MPWMD’s application seeking approval to become a retail water provider. By letter dated October 3, 2022, the MPWMD notified Cal Am of a decision to appraise the Monterey system assets and requesting access to a number of Cal Am’s properties and documents to assist the MPWMD with such an appraisal. Cal Am responded by letter on October 24, 2022, denying the request for access, stating that the MPWMD does not have the right to appraise Cal Am’s system without LAFCO approval to become a retail water provider. On April 28, 2023, Cal Am rejected an offer by the MPWMD to purchase the Monterey system assets for $448.8 million. Over the written and oral objections of Cal Am, at a hearing held on October 10, 2023, the MPWMD adopted a resolution of necessity to authorize it to file an eminent domain lawsuit with respect to the Monterey system assets. While the Company cannot currently predict the outcome of any such lawsuit, the Company believes that, given existing legal precedent related to similar attempts by public agencies in California to take over water systems, Cal Am should be able to defend itself successfully against an eminent domain lawsuit by the MPWMD. On October 25, 2023, the Monterey County Superior Court issued an Intended Statement of Decision to issue a writ of mandate directing LAFCO to vacate and set aside its original denial of the MPWMD’s application to serve as a retail water provider (in conjunction with its effort to acquire the Monterey water system assets) and to reconsider the application in compliance with all applicable law. The court held that LAFCO incorrectly applied two statutory standards and noted a lack of sufficient evidence to support certain of LAFCO’s factual findings. Once the writ of mandate is issued, the LAFCO denial will be nullified and LAFCO will be required to hold another hearing on the MPWMD’s application. Cal Am is evaluating potential actions relative to the writ of mandate, including filing an appeal or other challenge and/or making suitable presentations at a subsequent LAFCO rehearing. 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. As of September 30, 2023, $0.5 million of the aggregate Settlement amount of $126 million remains reflected in accrued liabilities, and $0.5 million in an offsetting insurance receivable remains reflected in other current assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets pending resolution of all asserted actual or potential claims associated with this matter. The amount reflected in accrued liabilities reflects the status of the liability and the offsetting insurance receivable reflected in other current assets, each as of September 30, 2023. |