The accompanying notes are an integral part of our condensed consolidated financial statements.
The accompanying notes are an integral part of our condensed consolidated financial statements.
The accompanying notes are an integral part of our condensed consolidated financial statements.
The accompanying notes are an integral part of our condensed consolidated financial statements.
The accompanying notes are an integral part of our condensed consolidated financial statements.
The accompanying notes are an integral part of our condensed consolidated financial statements.
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(unaudited)
Note 1. Background and Nature of Operations
Avangrid, Inc., formerly Iberdrola USA, Inc. (AVANGRID, we or the Company), is an energy services holding company engaged in the regulated energy distribution business through its principal subsidiary Avangrid Networks, Inc. (Networks) and in the renewable energy generation and gas storage and trading businesses through its principal subsidiary, Avangrid Renewables Holding, Inc. (ARHI). ARHI in turn holds subsidiaries including Avangrid Renewables, LLC (Renewables) and Enstor Gas, LLC (Gas). Iberdrola, S.A. (Iberdrola), a corporation organized under the laws of the Kingdom of Spain, owns 81.6% the outstanding common stock of AVANGRID. The remaining outstanding shares are publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange and owned by various shareholders. AVANGRID was originally organized in 1997 as NGE Resources, Inc. under the laws of New York as the holding company for the principal operating utility companies.
Note 2. Basis of Presentation
The accompanying notes should be read in conjunction with the notes to the consolidated financial statements of Avangrid, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2016 and 2015 and for the three years ended December 31, 2016 included in AVANGRID’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.
The accompanying unaudited financial statements are prepared on a consolidated basis and include the accounts of AVANGRID and its consolidated subsidiaries Networks and ARHI. Intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation. The year-end balance sheet data was derived from audited financial statements. The unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements for the interim periods have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (U.S. GAAP) for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, the interim condensed consolidated financial statements do not include all the information and note disclosures required by U.S. GAAP for complete financial statements.
We believe the disclosures made are adequate to make the information presented not misleading. In the opinion of management, the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements contain all adjustments necessary to present fairly our condensed consolidated balance sheets, condensed consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, cash flows and changes in equity for the interim periods described herein. All such adjustments are of a normal and recurring nature, except as otherwise disclosed. The results for the three months ended March 31, 2017, are not necessarily indicative of the results for the entire fiscal year ending December 31, 2017.
Note 3. Significant Accounting Policies and New Accounting Pronouncements
As of March 31, 2017, there have been no material changes to any significant accounting policies described in our consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, and for the three years ended December 31, 2016. The following are new accounting pronouncements issued since December 31, 2016, that we are evaluating to determine their effect on our condensed consolidated interim financial statements.
(a) Clarifying the definition of a business and the scope of asset derecognition guidance, and accounting for partial sales of nonfinancial assets
The
Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)
issued amendments in January 2017 to clarify the definition of a business, and in a second phase of the project, issued amendments in February 2017 concerning asset derecognition and partial sales of nonfinancial assets. The revised definition of a business sets out a new framework for a company to apply in classifying transactions as acquisitions (or disposals) of assets versus businesses. According to the revised definition, an integrated set of activities and assets is a business if it has at a minimum, an input and a substantive process that together significantly contribute to the ability to create outputs. The definition of outputs is narrowed and aligned with how outputs are described in Accounting Standards Codification, Topic 606, Revenue From Contracts With Customers (ASC 606). The amendments create a two-step method for assessing whether a transaction is an acquisition (disposal) of assets or a business. A set would not be a business when substantially all of the fair value of the gross assets acquired (disposed) is concentrated in a single identifiable asset or group of similar identifiable assets. Fewer transactions are expected to involve acquiring or selling a business as a result of the amendments.
The amendments issued in February 2017 clarify the scope of asset derecognition guidance and accounting for partial sales of nonfinancial assets, and also define in-substance nonfinancial assets. Those amendments apply to a company that: sells nonfinancial assets (land, buildings, materials and supplies, intangible assets) to noncustomers; sells nonfinancial assets and financial assets (cash, receivables) when the value is concentrated in the nonfinancial assets; or sells partial ownership interests in nonfinancial assets. The
11
amendments do not apply to sales to customers or to sales of businesses. The new guidance in ASC 610-20 on accounting for derecognition of a nonfinancial asset and an in-substance nonfinancial as
set applies only when the asset (or asset group) does not meet the definition of a business and is not a not-for-profit activity.
The amendments issued in both January 2017 and February 2017 as described above are effective for public entities for annual and interim periods in fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017, with early adoption permitted. We do not plan to early adopt. For the amendments concerning the definition of a business, an entity should apply the amendments prospectively on or after the effective date. For the amendments concerning asset derecognition and partial sales of nonfinancial assets an entity must apply them at the same time that it applies the new ASC 606 revenue recognition standard and may elect to apply the amendments retrospectively following either a full retrospective approach or a modified retrospective approach, but does not have to apply the same transition method as for ASC 606. Regardless of which transition method an entity applies to contracts with noncustomers, such as transactions within the scope of ASC 610-20, it must apply the amended definition of a business to those contracts. We expect the amendments issued in both January 2017 and February 2017 will affect our accounting for tax equity investments, which we expect to classify as noncontrolling interests in accordance with ASC 606. We are currently evaluating how our adoption of the amendments will affect our results of operations, financial position, cash flows, and disclosures.
(b) Improving the presentation of net periodic benefit costs
In March 2017 the FASB issued amendments to improve the presentation of net periodic pension cost and net periodic postretirement benefit cost in the financial statements. The amendments require an entity to present service cost separately from the other components of net benefit cost, and to report the service cost component in the income statement line item(s) where it reports the corresponding compensation cost. An entity is to present all other components of net benefit cost outside of operating cost, if it presents that subtotal. The amendments also allow only the service cost component to be eligible for capitalization when applicable (for example, as a cost of a self-constructed asset). The amendments are effective for public entities for annual and interim periods in fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017, with early adoption permitted. We do not plan to early adopt. An entity is required to apply the amendments retrospectively for the presentation of the service cost component and the other components of net periodic pension cost and net periodic postretirement benefit cost in the income statement and prospectively, on and after the effective date, for the capitalization of the service cost component of net periodic pension cost and net periodic postretirement benefit in assets. A practical expedient allows an entity to retrospectively apply the amendments on adoption to net benefit costs for comparative periods by using the amounts disclosed in the notes to financial statements for pension and postretirement benefit plans for those periods. We are currently evaluating how our adoption of the amendments will affect our results of operations, financial position, cash flows, and disclosures.
Note 4. Regulatory Assets and Liabilities
Pursuant to the requirements concerning accounting for regulated operations, our utilities capitalize, as regulatory assets, incurred and accrued costs that are probable of recovery in future electric and natural gas rates. We base our assessment of whether recovery is probable on the existence of regulatory orders that allow for recovery of certain costs over a specific period, or allow for reconciliation or deferral of certain costs. When costs are not treated in a specific order we use regulatory precedent to determine if recovery is probable. Our operating utilities also record, as regulatory liabilities, obligations to refund previously collected revenue or to spend revenue collected from customers on future costs. Substantially all assets or liabilities for which funds have been expended or received are either included in the rate base or are accruing a carrying cost until they will be included in the rate base. The primary items that are not included in the rate base or accruing carrying costs are the regulatory assets for qualified pension and other postretirement benefits, which reflect unrecognized actuarial gains and losses, debt premium, environmental remediation costs which is primarily the offset of accrued liabilities for future spending, unfunded future income taxes, which are the offset to the unfunded future deferred income tax liability recorded
,
asset retirement obligations, hedge losses and contracts for differences. The total amount of these items is approximately $2,212 million.
Regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities shown in the tables below result from various regulatory orders that allow for the deferral and/or reconciliation of specific costs. Regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities are classified as current when recovery or refund in the coming year is allowed or required through a specific order or when the rates related to a specific regulatory asset or regulatory liability are subject to automatic annual adjustment.
On June 15, 2016, the New York State Public Service Commission (NYPSC) approved the Joint Proposal (Proposal) in connection with a three-year rate plan for electric and gas service at New York State Electric & Gas Corporation (NYSEG) and Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E) effective May 1, 2016. Following the approval of the Proposal most of these items related to NYSEG are amortized over a five-year period, except the portion of storm costs to be recovered over ten years, unfunded deferred taxes being amortized over a period of fifty years and plant related tax items which are amortized over the life of associated plant. Annual amortization expense for NYSEG is approximately $16.5 million per rate year. RG&E items that are being amortized are plant related tax items, which are amortized over the life of associated plant, and unfunded deferred taxes being amortized over a period of fifty years. A majority of the other items related to RG&E, which net to a regulatory liability, remains deferred and will not be
12
amortized until future proceedings or will be used to recover costs of the Ginna
Reliability Support Services Agreement
(Ginna RSSA).
In the approved Proposal the allowed rate of return on common equity is 9.0% for all companies. The equity ratio for each company is 48%; however the equity ratio is set at 50% for earnings sharing calculation purposes. The customer share of any earnings above allowed levels increases as the ROE increases, with customers receiving 50%, 75% and 90% of earnings over 9.5%, 10.0% and 10.5% ROE, respectively, in the first year. The rate plans also include the implementation of a rate adjustment mechanism designed to return or collect certain defined reconciled revenues and costs; new depreciation rates; and continuation of the existing revenue decoupling mechanisms for each business.
In December 2016, PURA approved new distribution rate schedules for UI for three years which became effective January 1, 2017 and which, among other things, decreased the UI distribution and Competitive Transition Assessment (CTA) allowed ROE from 9.15% to 9.10%, continued UI’s existing earnings sharing mechanism by which UI and customers share on a 50/50 basis all distribution earnings above the allowed ROE in a calendar year, continued the existing decoupling mechanism, and approved the continuation of the requested storm reserve.
13
Current and non-current regulatory assets as of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively, consisted of:
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
As of
|
|
2017
|
|
|
2016
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension and other post-retirement benefits cost deferrals
|
|
$
|
23
|
|
|
$
|
22
|
|
Pension and other post-retirement benefits
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
Storm costs
|
|
|
40
|
|
|
|
40
|
|
Temporary supplemental assessment surcharge
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
Reliability support services
|
|
|
27
|
|
|
|
27
|
|
Revenue decoupling mechanism
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
|
15
|
|
Transmission revenue reconciliation mechanism
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
Electric supply reconciliation
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
13
|
|
Hedges losses
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
10
|
|
Contracts for differences
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
14
|
|
Hardship programs
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
16
|
|
Deferred property tax
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
10
|
|
Plant decommissioning
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
Deferred purchased gas
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
14
|
|
Deferred transmission expense
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
13
|
|
Environmental remediation costs
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
|
14
|
|
Other
|
|
|
36
|
|
|
|
48
|
|
Total Current Regulatory Assets
|
|
|
248
|
|
|
|
285
|
|
Non-current
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension and other post-retirement benefits cost deferrals
|
|
|
129
|
|
|
|
134
|
|
Pension and other post-retirement benefits
|
|
|
1,285
|
|
|
|
1,320
|
|
Storm costs
|
|
|
232
|
|
|
|
187
|
|
Deferred meter replacement costs
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
32
|
|
Unamortized losses on reacquired debt
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
20
|
|
Environmental remediation costs
|
|
|
285
|
|
|
|
287
|
|
Unfunded future income taxes
|
|
|
536
|
|
|
|
542
|
|
Asset retirement obligation
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
18
|
|
Deferred property tax
|
|
|
29
|
|
|
|
33
|
|
Federal tax depreciation normalization adjustment
|
|
|
160
|
|
|
|
161
|
|
Merger capital expense target customer credit
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
Debt premium
|
|
|
146
|
|
|
|
151
|
|
Reliability support services
|
|
|
49
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
Plant decommissioning
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
14
|
|
Contracts for differences
|
|
|
68
|
|
|
|
61
|
|
Hardship programs
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
18
|
|
Other
|
|
|
87
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
Total Non-current Regulatory Assets
|
|
$
|
3,111
|
|
|
$
|
3,091
|
|
“Pension and other post-retirement benefits” represent the actuarial losses on the pension and other post-retirement plans that will be reflected in customer rates when they are amortized and recognized in future pension expenses. “Pension and other post-retirement benefits cost deferrals” include the difference between actual expense for pension and other post-retirement benefits and the amount provided for in rates for certain of our regulated utilities. The recovery of these amounts will be determined in future proceedings.
“Storm costs” for Central Maine Power (CMP), NYSEG and RG&E are allowed in rates based on an estimate of the routine costs of service restoration. The companies are also allowed to defer unusually high levels of service restoration costs resulting from major storms when they meet certain criteria for severity and duration. The portion of storm costs in the amount of $123 million is being recovered over ten-year period and the remaining portion is being amortized over five years following the approval of the Proposal by the NYPSC. UI is allowed to defer costs associated with any storm totaling $1 million or greater for future recovery. UI’s storm regulatory asset balance was $0 as of March 31, 2017.
14
“Deferred meter replacement costs” represent the deferral of the book value of retired meters which were replaced by advanced metering infrastructure meters. This amount is being amortized over the
initial depreciation period of related retired meters.
“Unamortized losses on reacquired debt” represent deferred losses on debt reacquisitions that will be recovered over the remaining original amortization period of the reacquired debt.
“Unfunded future income taxes” represent unrecovered federal and state income taxes primarily resulting from regulatory flow through accounting treatment and are the offset to the unfunded future deferred income tax liability recorded. The income tax benefits or charges for certain plant related timing differences, such as removal costs, are immediately flowed through to, or collected from, customers. This amount is being amortized as the amounts related to temporary differences that give rise to the deferrals are recovered in rates. Following the approval of the Proposal by the NYPSC, these amounts will be collected over a period of fifty years, and the NYPSC Staff will perform an audit of the unfunded future income taxes and other tax assets to verify the balances.
“Asset retirement obligations” (ARO) represent the differences in timing of the recognition of costs associated with our AROs and the collection of such amounts through rates. This amount is being amortized at the related depreciation and accretion amounts of the underlying liability.
“Deferred property taxes” represents the customer portion of the difference between actual expense for property taxes and the amount provided for in rates. The New York (NY) amount is being amortized over a five year period following the approval of the Proposal by the NYPSC.
“Federal tax depreciation normalization adjustment” represents the revenue requirement impact of the difference in the deferred income tax expense required to be recorded under the IRS normalization rules and the amount of deferred income tax expense that was included in cost of service for rates years covering 2011 forward. The recovery period in NY is from 27 to 39 years and for CMP this will be determined in future Maine Public Utility Commission (MPUC) rate proceedings.
“Hardship Programs” represent hardship customer accounts deferred for future recovery to the extent they exceed the amount in rates.
“Deferred Purchased Gas” represents the difference between actual gas costs and gas costs collected in rates.
“Environmental remediation costs” includes spending that has occurred and is eligible for future recovery in customer rates. Environmental costs are currently recovered through a reserve mechanism whereby projected spending is included in rates with any variance recorded as a regulatory asset or a regulatory liability. The amortization period will be established in future proceedings and will depend upon the timing of spending for the remediation costs. It also includes the anticipated future rate recovery of costs that are recorded as environmental liabilities since these will be recovered when incurred. Because no funds have yet been expended for the regulatory asset related to future spending, it does not accrue carrying costs and is not included within rate base.
“Contracts for Differences” represent the deferral of unrealized gains and losses on contracts for differences derivative contracts. The balance fluctuates based upon quarterly market analysis performed on the related derivatives. The amounts, which do not earn a return, are fully offset by a corresponding derivative asset/liability.
“Debt premium” represents the regulatory asset recorded to offset the fair value adjustment to the regulatory component of the non-current debt of UIL at the acquisition date. This amount is being amortized to interest expense over the remaining term of the related outstanding debt instruments.
“Deferred Transmission Expense” represents deferred transmission income or expense and fluctuates based upon actual revenues and revenue requirements.
15
Current and non-current regulatory liabilities as of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively, consisted of:
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
As of
|
|
2017
|
|
|
2016
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reliability support services (Cayuga)
|
|
$
|
1
|
|
|
$
|
3
|
|
Non by-passable charges
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
22
|
|
Energy efficiency portfolio standard
|
|
|
47
|
|
|
|
45
|
|
Gas supply charge and deferred natural gas cost
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
Transmission revenue reconciliation mechanism
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
Pension and other post-retirement benefits
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
Other post-retirement benefits cost deferrals
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
14
|
|
Carrying costs on deferred income tax bonus depreciation
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
15
|
|
Carrying costs on deferred income tax - Mixed Services
263(a)
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
Yankee DOE Refund
|
|
|
22
|
|
|
|
24
|
|
Merger related rate credits
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
Revenue decoupling mechanism
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
Other
|
|
|
58
|
|
|
|
38
|
|
Total Current Regulatory Liabilities
|
|
|
200
|
|
|
|
192
|
|
Non-current
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued removal obligations
|
|
|
1,126
|
|
|
|
1,117
|
|
Asset sale gain account
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
Carrying costs on deferred income tax bonus depreciation
|
|
|
91
|
|
|
|
95
|
|
Economic development
|
|
|
34
|
|
|
|
35
|
|
Merger capital expense target customer credit account
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
15
|
|
Pension and other post-retirement benefits
|
|
|
72
|
|
|
|
76
|
|
Positive benefit adjustment
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
|
42
|
|
New York state tax rate change
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
Post term amortization
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
Theoretical reserve flow thru impact
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
|
24
|
|
Deferred property tax
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
19
|
|
Net plant reconciliation
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
10
|
|
Variable rate debt
|
|
|
28
|
|
|
|
28
|
|
Carrying costs on deferred income tax - Mixed Services
263(a)
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
|
25
|
|
Rate refund – FERC ROE proceeding
|
|
|
26
|
|
|
|
26
|
|
Transmission congestion contracts
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
18
|
|
Merger-related rate credits
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
|
21
|
|
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
15
|
|
Asset retirement obligation
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
13
|
|
Earning sharing provisions
|
|
|
22
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
Middletown/Norwalk local transmission network service collections
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
19
|
|
Low income programs
|
|
|
48
|
|
|
|
46
|
|
Non-firm margin sharing credits
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
Deferred income taxes regulatory
|
|
|
574
|
|
|
|
565
|
|
Other
|
|
|
66
|
|
|
|
69
|
|
Total Non-current Regulatory Liabilities
|
|
$
|
2,329
|
|
|
$
|
2,318
|
|
“Reliability support services (Cayuga)” represents the difference between actual expenses for reliability support services and the amount provided for in rates. This will be refunded to customers within the next year.
“Non by-passable charges” represent the non by-passable charge paid by all customers. An asset or liability is recognized resulting from differences between actual revenues and the underlying cost being recovered. This liability will be refunded to customers within the next year.
16
“Energy efficiency portfolio standard” represents the difference between revenue billed to customers through an energy
efficiency charge and the costs of our energy efficiency programs as approved by the state authorities. This may be refunded to customers within the next year.
“Accrued removal obligations” represent the differences between asset removal costs recorded and amounts collected in rates for those costs. The amortization period is dependent upon the asset removal costs of underlying assets and the life of the utility plant.
“Asset sale gain account” represents the gain on NYSEG’s 2001 sale of its interest in Nine Mile Point 2 nuclear generating station. The net proceeds from the Nine Mile Point 2 nuclear generating station were placed in this account and will be used to benefit customers. The amortization period is five years following the approval of the Proposal by the NYPSC.
“Carrying costs on deferred income tax bonus depreciation” represent the carrying costs benefit of increased accumulated deferred income taxes created by the change in tax law allowing bonus depreciation. The amortization period is five years following the approval of the Proposal by the NYPSC.
“Economic development” represents the economic development program which enables NYSEG and RG&E to foster economic development through attraction, expansion, and retention of businesses within its service territory. If the level of actual expenditures for economic development allocated to NYSEG and RG&E varies in any rate year from the level provided for in rates, the difference is refunded to ratepayers. The amortization period is five years following the approval of the Proposal by the NYPSC.
“Merger capital expense target customer credit” account was created as a result of NYSEG and RG&E not meeting certain capital expenditure requirements established in the order approving the purchase of Energy East by Iberdrola. The amortization period is five years following the approval of the Proposal by the NYPSC.
“Pension and other postretirement benefits” represent the actuarial gains on other postretirement plans that will be reflected in customer rates when they are amortized and recognized in future expenses. Because no funds have yet been received for this, a regulatory liability is not reflected within rate base. They also represent the difference between actual expense for pension and other postretirement benefits and the amount provided for in rates. Recovery of these amounts will be determined in future proceedings.
“Positive benefit adjustment” resulted from Iberdrola’s 2008 acquisition of Energy East. This is being used to moderate increases in rates. The amortization period is five years following the approval of the Proposal by the NYPSC and included in the Ginna RSSA settlement.
“New York state tax rate change” represents excess funded accumulated deferred income tax balance caused by the 2014 New York state tax rate change from 7.1% to 6.5%. The amortization period is five years following the approval of the Proposal by the NYPSC.
“Post term amortization” represents the revenue requirement associated with certain expired joint proposal amortization items. The amortization period is five years following the approval of the Proposal by the NYPSC.
“Theoretical reserve flow thru impact” represents the differences from the rate allowance for applicable federal and state flow through impacts related to the excess depreciation reserve amortization. It also represents the carrying cost on the differences. The amortization period is five years following the approval of the Proposal by the NYPSC.
“Merger-related rate credits” resulted from the acquisition of UIL. This is being used to moderate increases in rates. In the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively, $2 million and $20 million of rate credits was applied against customer bills.
“Excess generation service charge” represents deferred generation-related and non by-passable federally mandated congestion costs or revenues for future recovery from or return to customers. The amount fluctuates based upon timing differences between revenues collected from rates and actual costs incurred.
“Low Income Programs” represent various hardship and payment plan programs approved for recovery.
“Other” includes cost of removal being amortized through rates and various items subject to reconciliation including variable rate debt, Medicare subsidy benefits and stray voltage collections.
17
Note 5. Fair Value of Financial Instruments and Fair Value Measurements
We determine the fair value of our derivative assets and liabilities and available for sale non-current investments associated with Networks’ activities utilizing market approach valuation techniques:
•
|
We measure the fair value of our noncurrent investments using quoted market prices in active markets for identical assets and include the measurements in Level 1. The available for sale investments, which are Rabbi Trusts for deferred compensation plans, primarily consist of money market funds and are included in Level 1 fair value measurement.
|
•
|
NYSEG and RG&E enter into electric energy derivative contracts to hedge the forecasted purchases required to serve their electric load obligations. They hedge their electric load obligations using derivative contracts that are settled based upon Locational Based Marginal Pricing published by the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO). RG&E hedges 70% of its electric load obligations using contracts for a NYISO location where an active market exists. The forward market prices used to value RG&E’s open electric energy derivative contracts are based on quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities with no adjustment required and therefore we include the fair value in Level 1. NYSEG’s electric energy derivative contracts are exchange traded contracts in a NYISO location where an active market exists. The forward market prices used to value NYSEG’s open electric energy derivative contracts are based on quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities with no adjustment required and therefore we include the fair value in Level 1.
|
•
|
NYSEG and RG&E enter into natural gas derivative contracts to hedge their forecasted purchases required to serve their natural gas load obligations. The forward market prices used to value open natural gas derivative contracts are exchange-based prices for the identical derivative contracts traded actively on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX). Because we use prices quoted in an active market we include the fair value measurements in Level 1.
|
•
|
NYSEG, RG&E and CMP enter into fuel derivative contracts to hedge their unleaded and diesel fuel requirements for their fleet vehicles. Exchange-based forward market prices are used but because an unobservable basis adjustment is added to the forward prices we include the fair value measurement for these contracts in Level 3.
|
•
|
Contracts for differences (CfDs) entered into by UI are marked-to-market based on a probability-based expected cash flow analysis that is discounted at risk-free interest rates and an adjustment for non-performance risk using credit default swap rates. We include the fair value measurement for these contracts in Level 3 (See Note 6 for further discussion on CfDs).
|
We determine the fair value of our derivative assets and liabilities associated with Renewables and Gas activities utilizing market approach valuation techniques. Exchange-traded transactions, such as NYMEX futures contracts, that are based on quoted market prices in active markets for identical product with no adjustment are included in the Level 1 fair value. Contracts with delivery periods of two years or less which are traded in active markets and are valued with or derived from observable market data for identical or similar products such as over-the-counter NYMEX, foreign exchange swaps, and fixed price physical and basis and index trades are included in Level 2 fair value. Contracts with delivery periods exceeding two years or that have unobservable inputs or inputs that cannot be corroborated with market data for identical or similar products are included in Level 3 fair value. The unobservable inputs include historical volatilities and correlations for tolling arrangements and extrapolated values for certain power swaps. The valuation for this category is based on our judgments about the assumptions market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability since limited market data exists.
The carrying amounts for cash and cash equivalents, accounts receivable, accounts payable, notes payable and interest accrued approximate their estimated fair values and are considered as Level 1.
Restricted cash was $5 million as of both March 31, 2017, and December 31, 2016, which is included in “Other Assets” on the balance sheet.
18
The financial instruments measured at fair value as of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively, consisted of:
As of March 31, 2017
|
|
Level 1
|
|
|
Level 2
|
|
|
Level 3
|
|
|
Netting
|
|
|
Total
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Securities portfolio (available for sale)
|
|
$
|
40
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
40
|
|
Derivative assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative financial instruments - power
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
66
|
|
|
|
70
|
|
|
|
(57
|
)
|
|
86
|
|
Derivative financial instruments - gas
|
|
|
90
|
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
89
|
|
|
|
(165
|
)
|
|
30
|
|
Contracts for differences
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
17
|
|
Total
|
|
97
|
|
|
82
|
|
|
176
|
|
|
|
(222
|
)
|
|
133
|
|
Derivative liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative financial instruments - power
|
|
|
(27
|
)
|
|
|
(26
|
)
|
|
|
(5
|
)
|
|
|
53
|
|
|
|
(5
|
)
|
Derivative financial instruments - gas
|
|
|
(94
|
)
|
|
|
(18
|
)
|
|
|
(39
|
)
|
|
|
125
|
|
|
|
(26
|
)
|
Contracts for differences
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
(98
|
)
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
(98
|
)
|
Derivative financial instruments - other
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
Total
|
|
$
|
(121
|
)
|
|
$
|
(44
|
)
|
|
$
|
(143
|
)
|
|
$
|
178
|
|
|
$
|
(130
|
)
|
As of December 31, 2016
|
|
Level 1
|
|
|
Level 2
|
|
|
Level 3
|
|
|
Netting
|
|
|
Total
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Securities portfolio (available for sale)
|
|
$
|
40
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
40
|
|
Derivative assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative financial instruments - power
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
48
|
|
|
|
58
|
|
|
|
(42
|
)
|
|
|
75
|
|
Derivative financial instruments - gas
|
|
|
180
|
|
|
|
32
|
|
|
|
104
|
|
|
|
(239
|
)
|
|
|
77
|
|
Contracts for differences
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
20
|
|
Total
|
|
|
191
|
|
|
|
80
|
|
|
|
182
|
|
|
|
(281
|
)
|
|
|
172
|
|
Derivative liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative financial instruments - power
|
|
|
(24
|
)
|
|
|
(27
|
)
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
|
|
39
|
|
|
|
(15
|
)
|
Derivative financial instruments - gas
|
|
|
(213
|
)
|
|
|
(34
|
)
|
|
|
(53
|
)
|
|
|
257
|
|
|
|
(43
|
)
|
Contracts for differences
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
(95
|
)
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
(95
|
)
|
Total
|
|
$
|
(237
|
)
|
|
$
|
(61
|
)
|
|
$
|
(151
|
)
|
|
$
|
296
|
|
|
$
|
(153
|
)
|
The reconciliation of changes in the fair value of financial instruments based on Level 3 inputs for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively, is as follows:
|
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
2017
|
|
|
2016
|
|
Fair Value Beginning of Period,
|
|
$
|
31
|
|
|
$
|
(19
|
)
|
Gains recognized in operating revenues
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
(Losses) recognized in operating revenues
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
(6
|
)
|
Total gains recognized in operating revenues
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
Gains recognized in OCI
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
(Losses) recognized in OCI
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
—
|
|
Total gains recognized in OCI
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
Net change recognized in regulatory assets and liabilities
|
|
|
(5
|
)
|
|
|
(25
|
)
|
Purchases
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
Settlements
|
|
|
(6
|
)
|
|
|
(5
|
)
|
Fair Value as of March 31,
|
|
$
|
33
|
|
|
$
|
(45
|
)
|
Gains for the period included in operating revenues
attributable to the change in unrealized gains
relating to financial instruments still held at the reporting date
|
|
$
|
10
|
|
|
$
|
3
|
|
For assets and liabilities that are recognized in the condensed consolidated financial statements at fair value on a recurring basis, we determine whether transfers have occurred between levels in the hierarchy by re-assessing categorization based on the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement as a whole at the end of each reporting period. There have been no transfers between Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3 during the periods reported.
19
Level 3 Fair Value Measurement
The tables below illustrate the significant sources of unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement of our Level 3 derivatives, and the variability in prices for those transactions classified as Level 3 derivatives.
As of March 31, 2017
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Instruments
|
|
Instrument
Description
|
|
Valuation
Technique
|
|
Valuation
Inputs
|
|
Index
|
|
Avg.
|
|
Max.
|
|
Min.
|
Fixed price power
and gas swaps
|
|
Transactions
with
delivery
periods
|
|
Transactions
are
valued
against
forward
market
prices
|
|
Observable
and
extrapolated
forward
gas
and
power
prices
not
all
of
which
can
be
|
|
NYMEX
($/MMBtu)
|
|
$ 4.15
|
|
$ 7.37
|
|
$ 1.64
|
with delivery
|
|
exceeding two
|
|
on a
|
|
corroborated by
|
|
SP15
($/MWh)
|
|
$ 42.70
|
|
$80.28
|
|
$14.25
|
period > two
|
|
years
|
|
discounted
|
|
market data for
|
|
Mid C
($/MWh)
|
|
$ 34.04
|
|
$83.93
|
|
$ (0.50)
|
years
|
|
|
|
basis
|
|
identical or
|
|
Cinergy
($/MWh)
|
|
$ 35.91
|
|
$77.49
|
|
$18.53
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
similar
products
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our Level 3 valuations primarily consist of NYMEX gas and fixed price power swaps with delivery periods extending through 2024 and 2032, respectively. The gas swaps are used to hedge both gas inventory in firm storage and merchant wind positions. The power swaps are used to hedge merchant wind production in the West and Midwest.
We performed a sensitivity analysis around the Level 3 gas and power positions to changes in the valuation inputs. Given the nature of the transactions in Level 3, the only material input to the valuation is the market price of gas or power for transactions with delivery periods exceeding two years. The fixed price power swaps are economic hedges of future power generation, with decreases in power prices resulting in unrealized gains and increases in power prices resulting in unrealized losses. The gas swaps are economic hedges of gas storage inventory and merchant generation, with decreases in gas prices resulting in unrealized gains and increases in gas prices resulting in unrealized losses. As all transactions are economic hedges of the underlying position, any changes in the fair value of these transactions will be offset by changes in the anticipated purchase/sales price of the underlying commodity.
Two elements of the analytical infrastructure employed in valuing transactions are the price curves used in calculation of market value and the models themselves. We maintain and document authorized trading points and associated forward price curves, and we develop and document models used in valuation of the various products.
Transactions are valued in part on the basis of forward price, correlation, and volatility curves. We maintain and document descriptions of these curves and their derivations. Forward price curves used in valuing the transactions are applied to the full duration of the transaction.
The determination of fair value of the CfDs (see Note 6 for further details on CfDs) was based on a probability-based expected cash flow analysis that was discounted at risk-free interest rates, as applicable, and an adjustment for non-performance risk using credit default swap rates. Certain management assumptions were required, including development of pricing that extended over the term of the contracts. We believe this methodology provides the most reasonable estimates of the amount of future discounted cash flows associated with the CfDs. Additionally, on a quarterly basis, we perform analytics to ensure that the fair value of the derivatives is consistent with changes, if any, in the various fair value model inputs. Significant isolated changes in the risk of non-performance, the discount rate or the contract term pricing would result in an inverse change in the fair value of the CfDs. Additional quantitative information about Level 3 fair value measurements of the CfDs is as follows:
|
|
Range at
|
Unobservable Input
|
|
March 31, 2017
|
Risk of non-performance
|
|
0.58% - 0.66%
|
Discount rate
|
|
1.50% - 2.40%
|
Forward pricing ($ per MW)
|
|
$3.15 - $9.55
|
Fair Value of Debt
As of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016 debt consisted of first mortgage bonds, fixed and variable unsecured pollution control notes, other various non-current debt securities and obligations under capital leases. The estimated fair value of debt amounted to
20
$5,243 million and $5,204 million as of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively. The estimated fair value was determined, in most cases, by discounting the future cash flows at market interest rates. The
interest rates used to make these calculations take into account the risks associated with the electricity industry and the credit ratings of the borrowers in each case. The fair value hierarchy pertaining to the fair value of debt is considered as Level 2
, except for unsecured pollution control notes-variable with a fair value of $61 million as of both March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, which are considered Level 3. The fair value of these unsecured pollution control notes-variable are determined using
unobservable interest rates as the market for these notes is inactive.
Note 6. Derivative Instruments and Hedging
Our Networks, Renewables and Gas activities are exposed to certain risks, which are managed by using derivative instruments. All derivative instruments are recognized as either assets or liabilities at fair value on the condensed consolidated balance sheets in accordance with the accounting requirements concerning derivative instruments and hedging activities.
(a) Networks activities
NYSEG and RG&E have an electric commodity charge that passes through rates costs for the market price of electricity. They use electricity contracts, both physical and financial, to manage fluctuations in electricity commodity prices in order to provide price stability to customers. We include the cost or benefit of those contracts in the amount expensed for electricity purchased when the related electricity is sold. We record changes in the fair value of electric hedge contracts to derivative assets and / or liabilities with an offset to regulatory assets and / or regulatory liabilities, in accordance with the accounting requirements concerning regulated operations.
The amount recognized in regulatory assets for electricity derivatives was a loss of $20.1 million as of March 31, 2017, and $12.3 million as of December 31, 2016. The amount reclassified from regulatory assets and liabilities into income, which is included in electricity purchased, was a loss of $10.9 million and $34.8 million, for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively.
NYSEG and RG&E have purchased gas adjustment clauses that allow them to recover through rates any changes in the market price of purchased natural gas, substantially eliminating their exposure to natural gas price risk. NYSEG and RG&E use natural gas futures and forwards to manage fluctuations in natural gas commodity prices to provide price stability to customers. We include the cost or benefit of natural gas futures and forwards in the commodity cost that is passed on to customers when the related sales commitments are fulfilled. We record changes in the fair value of natural gas hedge contracts to derivative assets and / or liabilities with an offset to regulatory assets and / or regulatory liabilities in accordance with the accounting requirements for regulated operations.
The amount recognized in regulatory liabilities for natural gas hedges was a gain of $0.5 million as of March 31, 2017, and $3.5 million as of December 31, 2016. The amount reclassified from regulatory assets and liabilities into income, which is included in natural gas purchased, was a gain of $0.6 million and a loss $3.4 million, for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively.
Pursuant to PURA, UI and Connecticut’s other electric utility, The Connecticut Light and Power Company (CL&P), each executed two long-term CfDs with certain incremental capacity resources, each of which specifies a capacity quantity and a monthly settlement that reflects the difference between a forward market price and the contract price. The costs or benefits of each contract will be paid by or allocated to customers and will be subject to a cost-sharing agreement between UI and CL&P pursuant to which approximately 20% of the cost or benefit is borne by or allocated to UI customers and approximately 80% is borne by or allocated to CL&P customers.
PURA has determined that costs associated with these CfDs will be fully recoverable by UI and CL&P through electric rates, and UI has deferred recognition of costs (a regulatory asset) or obligations (a regulatory liability). For those CfDs signed by CL&P, UI records its approximate 20% portion pursuant to the cost-sharing agreement noted above. As of March 31, 2017, UI has recorded a gross derivative asset of $17 million ($0 of which is related to UI’s portion of the CfD signed by CL&P), a regulatory asset of $81 million, a gross derivative liability of $98 million ($76 million of which is related to UI’s portion of the CfD signed by CL&P) and a regulatory liability of $0. As of December 31, 2016, UI had recorded a gross derivative asset of $19 million ($0 of which is related to UI’s portion of the CfD signed by CL&P), a regulatory asset of $75 million, a gross derivative liability of $95 million ($70 million of which is related to UI’s portion of the CfD signed by CL&P) and a regulatory liability of $0.
21
The unrealized gains and losses from fair value adjustments to these derivatives, which are recor
ded in regulatory assets or regulatory liabilities, for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively, were as follows:
|
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2017
|
|
|
2016
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulatory Assets - Derivative liabilities
|
|
$
|
5
|
|
|
$
|
(3
|
)
|
Regulatory Liabilities - Derivative assets
|
|
$
|
1
|
|
|
$
|
(22
|
)
|
The net notional volumes of the outstanding derivative instruments associated with Networks activities as of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively, consisted of:
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
As of
|
|
2017
|
|
|
2016
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wholesale electricity purchase contracts (MWh)
|
|
|
5.0
|
|
|
5.6
|
Natural gas purchase contracts (Dth)
|
|
|
6.0
|
|
|
5.8
|
Fleet fuel purchase contracts (Gallons)
|
|
|
2.3
|
|
|
2.3
|
The offsetting of derivatives, location in the condensed consolidated balance sheet and amounts of derivatives associated with Networks activities as of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively, consisted of:
As of March 31, 2017
|
|
Current
Assets
|
|
|
Noncurrent
Assets
|
|
|
Current
Liabilities
|
|
|
Noncurrent
Liabilities
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not designated as hedging instruments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative assets
|
|
$
|
16
|
|
|
$
|
10
|
|
|
$
|
6
|
|
|
$
|
1
|
|
Derivative liabilities
|
|
|
(5
|
)
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
(39
|
)
|
|
|
(86
|
)
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
(33
|
)
|
|
|
(85
|
)
|
Designated as hedging instruments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative assets
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
Derivative liabilities
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
—
|
|
Total derivatives before offset of cash collateral
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
(34
|
)
|
|
|
(85
|
)
|
Cash collateral receivable
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
Total derivatives as presented in the balance sheet
|
|
$
|
11
|
|
|
$
|
9
|
|
|
$
|
(22
|
)
|
|
$
|
(77
|
)
|
As of December 31, 2016
|
|
Current
Assets
|
|
|
Noncurrent
Assets
|
|
|
Current
Liabilities
|
|
|
Noncurrent
Liabilities
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not designated as hedging instruments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative assets
|
|
$
|
19
|
|
|
$
|
16
|
|
|
$
|
7
|
|
|
$
|
5
|
|
Derivative liabilities
|
|
|
(7
|
)
|
|
|
(5
|
)
|
|
|
(40
|
)
|
|
|
(79
|
)
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
(33
|
)
|
|
|
(74
|
)
|
Designated as hedging instruments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative assets
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
Derivative liabilities
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
Total derivatives before offset of cash collateral
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
(33
|
)
|
|
|
(74
|
)
|
Cash collateral receivable
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
Total derivatives as presented in the balance sheet
|
|
$
|
12
|
|
|
$
|
11
|
|
|
$
|
(23
|
)
|
|
$
|
(72
|
)
|
22
The effect of derivatives in cash f
low hedging relationships on Other Comprehensive Income (OCI) and income for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively, consisted of:
Three Months Ended March 31,
|
|
(Loss) Recognized
in OCI on Derivatives
|
|
|
Location of
Loss Reclassified
from Accumulated
OCI into Income
|
|
Loss
Reclassified
from Accumulated
OCI into Income
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
Effective Portion (a)
|
|
|
Effective Portion (a)
|
|
2017
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest rate contracts
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
$
|
2
|
|
Commodity contracts
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
Operating expenses
|
|
|
—
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
|
$
|
2
|
|
2016
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest rate contracts
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
$
|
2
|
|
Commodity contracts
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
Operating expenses
|
|
|
1
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
3
|
|
(a)
Changes in OCI are reported on a pre-tax basis. The reclassified amounts of commodity contracts are included within “Purchase power, natural gas and fuel used” line item within operating expenses in the condensed consolidated statements of income.
The net loss in accumulated OCI related to previously settled forward starting swaps and accumulated amortization is $74.9 million and $76.7 million as of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively. We recorded $2.0 million and $2.0 million in net derivative losses related to discontinued cash flow hedges for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively. We will amortize approximately $8.0 million of discontinued cash flow hedges in 2017. During the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, there was no ineffective portion for cash flow hedges.
The unrealized loss of $0.8 million on hedge activities is reported in OCI because the forecasted transaction is considered to be probable as of March 31, 2017. We expect that $0.8 million of those losses will be reclassified into earnings within the next twelve months. The maximum length of time over which we are hedging our exposure to the variability in future cash flows for forecasted fleet fuel transactions is twelve months.
(b) Renewables and Gas activities
We sell fixed-price gas and power forwards to hedge our merchant wind assets from declining commodity prices for our Renewables business. We also purchase fixed-price gas and basis swaps and sell fixed-price power in the forward market to hedge the spark spread or heat rate of our merchant thermal assets. We also enter into tolling arrangements to sell the output of our thermal generation facilities.
Our gas business purchases and sells both fixed-price gas and basis swaps to hedge the value of contracted storage positions. The intent of entering into these swaps is to fix the margin of gas injected into storage for subsequent resale in future periods. We also enter into basis swaps to hedge the value of our contracted transport positions. The intent of buying and selling these basis swaps is to fix the location differential between the price of gas at the receipt and delivery point of the contracted transport in future periods.
Both Renewables and Gas have proprietary trading operations that enter into fixed-price power and gas forwards in addition to basis swaps. The intent is to speculate on fixed-price commodity and basis volatility in the U.S. commodity markets.
Renewables will periodically designate derivative contracts as cash flow hedges for both its thermal and wind portfolios. To the extent that the derivative contracts are effective in offsetting the variability of cash flows associated with future power sales and gas purchases, the fair value changes are recorded in OCI. Any hedge ineffectiveness is recorded in current period earnings. For thermal operations, Renewables will periodically designate both fixed price NYMEX gas contracts and AECO basis swaps that hedge the fuel requirements of its Klamath Plant in Klamath, Oregon. Renewables will also designate fixed price power swaps at various locations in the U.S. market to hedge future power sales from its Klamath facility and various wind farms.
Gas also periodically designates NYMEX fixed price derivative contracts as cash flow hedges related to its firm storage trading activities. To the extent that the derivative contracts are effective in offsetting the variability of cash flows associated with future gas sales and purchases, the fair value changes are recorded in OCI. Any hedge ineffectiveness is recorded in current period earnings. Derivative contracts entered into to hedge the gas transport trading activities are not designated as cash flow hedges, with all changes in fair value of such derivative contracts recorded in current period earnings.
23
The net notional volumes of outstanding derivative instruments associated with Renewables and Gas activities as of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively, consisted of:
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
As of
|
|
2017
|
|
|
2016
|
|
(MWh/Dth in millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wholesale electricity purchase contracts
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
Wholesale electricity sales contracts
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
Natural gas and other fuel purchase contracts
|
|
|
314
|
|
|
|
329
|
|
Financial power contracts
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
Basis swaps – purchases
|
|
|
60
|
|
|
|
49
|
|
Basis swaps – sales
|
|
|
76
|
|
|
|
45
|
|
The fair values of derivative contracts associated with Renewables and Gas activities as of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively, consisted of:
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
As of
|
|
2017
|
|
|
2016
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wholesale electricity purchase contracts
|
|
$
|
(10
|
)
|
|
$
|
(2
|
)
|
Wholesale electricity sales contracts
|
|
|
25
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
Natural gas and other fuel purchase contracts
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
30
|
|
Financial power contracts
|
|
|
64
|
|
|
|
56
|
|
Basis swaps – purchases
|
|
|
(8
|
)
|
|
|
3
|
|
Basis swaps – sales
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
Total
|
|
$
|
82
|
|
|
$
|
91
|
|
The effect of trading derivatives associated with Renewables and Gas activities for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, consisted of:
|
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2017
|
|
|
2016
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wholesale electricity purchase contracts
|
|
$
|
(3
|
)
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
Wholesale electricity sales contracts
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
Financial power contracts
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
|
|
1
|
|
Financial and natural gas contracts
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
(30
|
)
|
Total Gain (Loss)
|
|
$
|
5
|
|
|
$
|
(30
|
)
|
The effect of non-trading derivatives associated with Renewables and Gas activities for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, consisted of:
|
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2017
|
|
|
2016
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wholesale electricity purchase contracts
|
|
$
|
(6
|
)
|
|
$
|
(3
|
)
|
Wholesale electricity sales contracts
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
Financial power contracts
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
Financial and natural gas contracts
|
|
|
(4
|
)
|
|
|
(9
|
)
|
Total Gain (Loss)
|
|
$
|
17
|
|
|
$
|
(5
|
)
|
Such gains and losses are included in “Operating revenues” and in “Purchased power, natural gas and fuel used” operating expenses in the condensed consolidated statements of income, depending upon the nature of the transaction.
24
The offsetting of derivatives, location in the condensed consolidated balance sheet and amounts of derivatives associated with Renewables
and Gas activities as of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively, consisted of:
As of March 31, 2017
|
|
Current
Assets
|
|
|
Noncurrent
Assets
|
|
|
Current
Liabilities
|
|
|
Noncurrent
Liabilities
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not designated as hedging instruments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative assets
|
|
$
|
79
|
|
|
$
|
117
|
|
|
$
|
100
|
|
|
$
|
6
|
|
Derivative liabilities
|
|
|
(30
|
)
|
|
|
(7
|
)
|
|
|
(115
|
)
|
|
|
(10
|
)
|
|
|
|
49
|
|
|
|
110
|
|
|
|
(15
|
)
|
|
|
(4
|
)
|
Designated as hedging instruments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative assets
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
Derivative liabilities
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
(15
|
)
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
(15
|
)
|
|
|
—
|
|
Total derivatives before offset of cash collateral
|
|
|
65
|
|
|
|
116
|
|
|
|
(30
|
)
|
|
|
(4
|
)
|
Cash collateral receivable (payable)
|
|
|
(19
|
)
|
|
|
(49
|
)
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
Total derivatives as presented in the balance sheet
|
|
$
|
46
|
|
|
$
|
67
|
|
|
$
|
(28
|
)
|
|
$
|
(3
|
)
|
As of December 31, 2016
|
|
Current
Assets
|
|
|
Noncurrent
Assets
|
|
|
Current
Liabilities
|
|
|
Noncurrent
Liabilities
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not designated as hedging instruments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative assets
|
|
$
|
198
|
|
|
$
|
108
|
|
|
$
|
78
|
|
|
$
|
7
|
|
Derivative liabilities
|
|
|
(118
|
)
|
|
|
(4
|
)
|
|
|
(132
|
)
|
|
|
(16
|
)
|
|
|
|
80
|
|
|
|
104
|
|
|
|
(54
|
)
|
|
|
(9
|
)
|
Designated as hedging instruments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative assets
|
|
|
25
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
Derivative liabilities
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
(39
|
)
|
|
|
(21
|
)
|
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
(39
|
)
|
|
|
(21
|
)
|
Total derivatives before offset of cash collateral
|
|
|
104
|
|
|
|
108
|
|
|
|
(93
|
)
|
|
|
(30
|
)
|
Cash collateral receivable (payable)
|
|
|
(17
|
)
|
|
|
(46
|
)
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
|
24
|
|
Total derivatives as presented in the balance sheet
|
|
$
|
87
|
|
|
$
|
62
|
|
|
$
|
(52
|
)
|
|
$
|
(6
|
)
|
The effect of derivatives in cash flow hedging relationships on OCI and income for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively, consisted of:
Three Months Ended March 31,
|
|
Gain Recognized
in OCI on Derivatives
|
|
|
Location of
Gain Reclassified
from Accumulated
OCI into Income
|
|
Loss (Gain)
Reclassified
from Accumulated
OCI into Income
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
Effective Portion (a)
|
|
|
Effective Portion (a)
|
|
2017
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commodity contracts
|
|
$
|
4
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$
|
33
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
33
|
|
2016
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commodity contracts
|
|
$
|
3
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$
|
(46
|
)
|
Total
|
|
$
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
(46
|
)
|
|
(a)
|
Changes in OCI are reported on a pre-tax basis.
|
Amounts are reclassified from accumulated OCI into income in the period during which the transaction being hedged affects earnings or when it becomes probable that a forecasted transaction being hedged would not occur. Notwithstanding future changes in prices, approximately $0.5 million of gain included in accumulated OCI at March 31, 2017, is expected to be reclassified into earnings within the next 12 months. During the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, we recorded a net loss of $0.3 million and $4.4 million, respectively, in earnings as a result of ineffectiveness from cash flow hedges. The net loss in accumulated OCI related to a discontinued cash flow hedge is $0.5 million as of March 31, 2017. This amount will be amortized in 2018.
25
(c) Counterparty credit risk management
NYSEG and RG&E face risks related to counterparty performance on hedging contracts due to counterparty credit default. We have developed a matrix of unsecured credit thresholds that are dependent on the counterparty’s or the counterparty’s guarantor’s applicable credit rating, normally Moody’s or Standard & Poor’s. When our exposure to risk for a counterparty exceeds the unsecured credit threshold, the counterparty is required to post additional collateral or we will no longer transact with the counterparty until the exposure drops below the unsecured credit threshold.
The wholesale power supply agreements of UI contain default provisions that include required performance assurance, including certain collateral obligations, in the event that UI’s credit rating on senior debt were to fall below investment grade. If such an event had occurred as of March 31, 2017, UI would have had to post an aggregate of approximately $11 million in collateral.
We have various master netting arrangements in the form of multiple contracts with various single counterparties that are subject to contractual agreements that provide for the net settlement of all contracts through a single payment. Those arrangements reduce our exposure to a counterparty in the event of default on or termination of any single contract. For financial statement presentation purposes, we offset fair value amounts recognized for derivative instruments and fair value amounts recognized for the right to reclaim or the obligation to return cash collateral arising from derivative instruments executed with the same counterparty under a master netting arrangement. The amounts of cash collateral under master netting arrangements that have not been offset against net derivative positions were $23 million and $20 million as of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively. Derivative instruments settlements and collateral payments are included in “Other assets/liabilities” of operating activities in the condensed consolidated statements of cash flows.
Certain of our derivative instruments contain provisions that require us to maintain an investment grade credit rating on our debt from each of the major credit rating agencies. If our debt were to fall below investment grade, we would be in violation of those provisions and the counterparties to the derivative instruments could request immediate payment or demand immediate and ongoing full overnight collateralization on derivative instruments in net liability positions. The aggregate fair value of all derivative instruments with credit risk related contingent features that are in a liability position as of March 31, 2017 is $20.1 million, for which we have posted collateral.
Note 7. Contingencies
We are party to various legal disputes arising as part of our normal business activities. We assess our exposure to these matters and record estimated loss contingencies when a loss is likely and can be reasonably estimated.
Transmission - ROE Complaint – CMP and UI
On September 30, 2011, the Massachusetts Attorney General, Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission, Rhode Island Division of Public Utilities and Carriers, Vermont Department of Public Service, numerous New England consumer advocate agencies and transmission tariff customers collectively filed a complaint (Complaint I) with the FERC pursuant to sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Power Act. The filing parties sought an order from the FERC reducing the 11.14% base return on equity used in calculating formula rates for transmission service under the ISO-New England Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) to 9.2%. CMP and UI are New England Transmission Owners (NETOs) with assets and service rates that are governed by the OATT and therefore are affected by any FERC order resulting from the filed complaint.
On June 19, 2014, the FERC issued its decision in Complaint I, establishing an ROE methodology and setting an issue for a paper hearing. On October 16, 2014, FERC issued its final decision in Complaint I setting the base ROE at 10.57% and a maximum total ROE of 11.74% (base plus incentive ROEs) for the October 2011 – December 2012 period as well as prospectively from October 16, 2014, and ordered the NETOs to file a refund report. On November 17, 2014, the NETOs filed the requested refund report.
On March 3, 2015, the FERC issued an order on requests for rehearing of its October 16, 2014 decision. The March order upheld the FERC’s June 19, 2014 decision and further clarified that the 11.74% ROE cap will be applied on a project specific basis and not on a transmission owner’s total average transmission return. In June 2015 the NETOs and complainants both filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia of the FERC’s final order. On April 14, 2017, the Court of Appeals (the Court) issued its decision. The Court vacated FERC’s decision on Complaint I and remanded it to FERC. The Court found that FERC, as directed by statute, did not determine first that the existing ROE was unjust and unreasonable before determining a new ROE. The Court ruled that FERC must first determine that the then existing 11.14% base ROE was unjust and unreasonable before selecting the 10.57% as the new base ROE. The Court also found that FERC did not provide reasoned judgment as to why 10.57%, the point ROE at the midpoint of the upper end of the zone of reasonableness, is a just and reasonable ROE as FERC only explained in its order that the
26
midpoint of 9.39% was not just and reasonable and a higher base ROE was warranted. The parties or FERC could appea
l the decision to the United States Supreme Court or FERC could provide additional justification and issue a decision on remand. We cannot predict the outcome of an appeal or other action by FERC
.
On December 26, 2012, a second ROE complaint (Complaint II) for a subsequent rate period was filed requesting the ROE be reduced to 8.7%. On June 19, 2014, FERC accepted Complaint II, established a 15-month refund effective date of December 27, 2012, and set the matter for hearing using the methodology established in Complaint I.
On July 31, 2014, a third ROE complaint (Complaint III) was filed for a subsequent rate period requesting the ROE be reduced to 8.84%. On November 24, 2014, FERC accepted the Complaint III, established a 15-month refund effective date of July 31, 2014, and set this matter consolidated with Complaint II for hearing in June 2015. Hearings were held in June 2015 on Complaints II and III before a FERC Administrative Law Judge, relating to the refund periods and going forward period. On July 29, 2015, post-hearing briefs were filed by parties and on August 26, 2015 reply briefs were filed by parties. On July 13, 2015, the NETOs filed a petition for review of FERC’s orders establishing hearing and consolidation procedures for Complaints II and III with the U.S. Court of Appeals. The FERC Administrative Law Judge issued an Initial Decision on March 22, 2016. The Initial Decision determined that: (1) for the 15-month refund period in Complaint II, the base ROE should be 9.59% and that the ROE Cap (base ROE plus incentive ROEs) should be 10.42% and (2) for the 15-month refund period in Complaint III and prospectively, the base ROE should be 10.90% and that the ROE Cap should be 12.19%. The Initial Decision is the Administrative Law Judge’s recommendation to the FERC Commissioners. The FERC is expected to make its final decision later in 2017, once FERC has enough commissioners to provide a quorum for decision-making.
CMP and UI reserved for refunds for Complaints I, II and III consistent with the FERC’s March 3, 2015 final decision in Complaint I. The CMP and UI total reserve associated with Complaints II and III is $21.9 million and $4.4 million, respectively, as of March 31, 2017, which has not changed since December 31, 2016, except for the accrual of carrying costs. If adopted as final, the impact of the initial decision would be an additional aggregate reserve for Complaints II and III of $17.1 million, which is based upon currently available information for these proceedings. We cannot predict the outcome of the Complaint II and III proceedings.
On April 29, 2016, a fourth ROE complaint (Complaint IV) was filed for a rate period subsequent to prior complaints requesting the base ROE be 8.61% and ROE Cap be 11.24%. The NETOs filed a response to the Complaint IV on June 3, 2016. On September 20, 2016, FERC accepted the Complaint IV, established a 15-month refund effective date of April 29, 2016, and set the matter for hearing and settlement judge procedures. On February 1, 2017, the complainants filed their initial testimony recommending a base ROE of 8.59%. On March 23, 2017, the NETOs filed their answering testimony supporting the continuation of the base ROE from Complaint I of 10.57%. A range of possible outcomes is not able to be determined at this time due to the preliminary state of this matter. We cannot predict the outcome of the Complaint IV proceeding. Hearings are being held later this year with an expected Initial Decision from the Administrative Law Judge in November 2017.
Yankee Nuclear Spent Fuel Disposal Claim
CMP has an ownership interest in Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company, Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, and Yankee Atomic Electric Company (the Yankee Companies), three New England single-unit decommissioned nuclear reactor sites, and UI has an ownership interest in Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company. Every six years, pursuant to the statute of limitations, the Yankee Companies file a lawsuit to recover damages from the Department of Energy (DOE or Government) for breach of the Nuclear Spent Fuel Disposal Contract to remove Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) and Greater than Class C Waste (GTCC) as required by contract and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act beginning in 1998. The damages are the incremental costs for the Government’s failure to take the spent nuclear fuel.
In 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals issued a favorable decision in the Yankee Companies’ claim for the first six year period (Phase I). Total damages awarded to the Yankee Companies were nearly $160 million. The Yankee Companies won on all appellate points in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s unanimous decision. The Federal Appeals Court affirmed the September 2010 U.S. Court of Federal Claims award of $39.7 million to Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company; affirmed the Court of Federal Claims award of $81.7 million to Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company; and increased Yankee Atomic Electric Company’s damages award from $21.4 million to $38.3 million. The Phase I damage award became final on December 4, 2012. The Yankee Companies received payment from DOE in January 2013. CMP’s share of the award was approximately $36.5 million which was credited back to customers. UI’s share of the award was $3.8 million which was credited back to customers.
In November 2013 the U.S. Court of Claims issued its decision in the Phase II case (the second six-year period). The court’s decision awarded the Yankee Companies a combined $235.4 million (Connecticut Yankee $126.3 million, Maine Yankee $37.7 million, and Yankee Atomic $73.3 million). The Phase II period covers January 1, 2002, through December 31, 2008, for Connecticut Yankee and Yankee Atomic, and January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2008, for Maine Yankee. Maine Yankee’s damage award was lower
27
because it
recovered a larger amount in the Phase I case ($82 million) and its decommissioning was both less expensive and completed sooner than the other Yankee Companies. The damage awards flow through the Yankee Companies to shareholders (including CMP and UI) to
reduce retail customer charges.
In January 2014 the government informed the Yankee Companies that it would not appeal the Trial Court decision, as a result the Yankee Companies received full payment in April 2014
. CMP’s share of the award was approximate
ly $28.2 million which was credited back to customers. UI received approximately $12 million of such award which was applied, in part, against its remaining storm regulatory asset balance. The remaining regulatory liability balance was applied to UI’s gene
ration service charge “working capital allowance” and was returned to customers through the non-by-passable federally mandated congestion charge.
In August 2013, the Yankee Companies filed a third round of claims against the Government seeking damages for the years 2009-2014 (Phase III). The Phase III trial was completed in July 2015 and the court issued its decision on March 25, 2016, awarding the Yankee Companies a combined $76.8 million (Connecticut Yankee $32.6 million, Maine Yankee $24.6 million and Yankee Atomic $19.6 million). The damage awards will potentially flow through the Yankee Companies to shareholders, including CMP and UI, upon FERC approval, and will reduce retail customer charges or otherwise as specified by law. CMP and UI will receive their proportionate share of the awards that flow through based on percentage ownership. On July 18, 2016, the notice of appeal period expired and the Phase III trial award became final. On October 14, 2016, the Yankee Companies received the Government's payment of the damage award of a combined $41.6 million (Connecticut Yankee $18.4 million, Maine Yankee $3.6 million and Yankee Atomic $19.6 million). In December 2016 CMP and UI received their proportionate share of $4.2 million of the Phase III damage awards, based on percentage ownership, and CMP received an additional $21.5 million for SNF trust refund relating to excess funds of Maine Yankee unrelated to Phase III. All amounts will flow through to customers.
NYPSC Staff Review of Earnings Sharing Calculations and Other Regulatory Deferrals
In December 2012, the NYPSC Staff (Staff) informed NYSEG and RG&E that the Staff had conducted an audit of the companies’ annual compliance filings (ACF) for 2009 through August 31, 2010, and the first rate year of the current rate plan, September 1, 2010 through August 31, 2011. The Staff’s preliminary findings indicated adjustments to deferred balances primarily associated with storm costs and the treatment of certain incentive compensation costs for purposes of the 2011 ACF. The Staff’s findings included approximately $9.8 million of adjustments to deferral balances and customer earnings sharing accruals. NYSEG and RG&E reviewed the Staff’s adjustments and work papers and responded in early 2013. NYSEG and RG&E disagreed with certain Staff conclusions and as a result recorded a $3.4 million reserve in December 2012 in anticipation of settling the issues identified by the Staff. In the Proposal approved by the NYPSC (see Note 4) the parties agreed that in full and final resolution of all issues identified for all years through 2012, and in full and final resolution of storm-related deferrals through 2014, the companies will add $2.4 million to the customer share of earnings sharing. The Staff indicated in December 2016 that it had completed its review of 2013 and 2014 ACFs and no additional issues were identified.
New York State Department of Public Service Investigation of the Preparation for and Response to the March 2017 Windstorm
At the direction of Governor Andrew Cuomo, on March 11, 2017 the New York State Department of Public Service (the “Department”) commenced an investigation of NYSEG’s and RG&E’s preparation for and response to the March 2017 windstorm, which affected more than 219,000 customers. The Department investigation will include a comprehensive review of NYSEG’s and RG&E’s preparation for and response to the windstorm, including the all aspects of the companies’ filed and approved emergency plan. The Department held public hearings on April 12 and 13, 2017. We cannot predict the outcome of this investigation.
California Energy Crisis Litigation
Two California agencies brought a complaint in 2001 against a long-term power purchase agreement entered into by Renewables, as seller, to the California Department of Water Resources, as purchaser, alleging that the terms and conditions of the power purchase agreement were unjust and unreasonable. FERC dismissed Renewables from the proceedings; however, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed FERC's dismissal of Renewables.
Joining with two other parties, Renewables filed a petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court on May 3, 2007. In an order entered on June 27, 2008, the Supreme Court granted Renewables’ petition for certiorari, vacated the appellate court's judgment, and remanded the case to the appellate court for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in a similar case. In light of the Supreme Court's order, on December 4, 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated its prior opinion and remanded the complaint proceedings to the FERC for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's rulings. In 2014 FERC assigned an administrative law judge to conduct evidentiary hearings. Following discovery, the FERC Trial Staff recommended that the complaint against Renewables be dismissed
.
28
A hearing was held before an administrative law judge of FERC in November and early December 2015. A preliminary proposed ruling by the administrative law judge was issued on Apri
l 12, 2016. The proposed ruling found no evidence that Renewables had engaged in any unlawful market contract that would justify finding the Renewables power purchase agreements unjust and unreasonable. However, the proposed ruling did conclude that price
of the power purchase agreements imposed an excessive burden on customers in the amount of
$259 million.
Renewables position, as presented at hearings and agreed by FERC Trial Staff, is that Renewables entered into bilateral power purchase contracts appro
priately and complied with all applicable legal standards and requirements. The parties have submitted to FERC briefs on exceptions to the administrative law judge’s proposed ruling. There is no specific timetable to FERC’s ruling. We cannot predict the ou
tcome of this proceeding.
Guarantee Commitments to Third Parties
As of March 31, 2017, we had approximately $2.7 billion of standby letters of credit, surety bonds, guarantees and indemnifications outstanding. These instruments provide financial assurance to the business and trading partners of AVANGRID and its subsidiaries in their normal course of business. The instruments only represent liabilities if AVANGRID or its subsidiaries fail to deliver on contractual obligations. We therefore believe it is unlikely that any material liabilities associated with these instruments will be incurred and, accordingly, as of March 31, 2017, neither we nor our subsidiaries have any liabilities recorded for these instruments.
Note 8. Environmental Liabilities
Environmental laws, regulations and compliance programs may occasionally require changes in our operations and facilities and may increase the cost of electric and natural gas service. We do not provide for accruals of legal costs expected to be incurred in connection with loss contingencies.
Waste sites
The Environmental Protection Agency and various state environmental agencies, as appropriate, have notified us that we are among the potentially responsible parties that may be liable for costs incurred to remediate certain hazardous substances at twenty-five waste sites, which do not include sites where gas was manufactured in the past. Fifteen of the twenty-five sites are included in the New York State Registry of Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites; six sites are included in Maine’s Uncontrolled Sites Program and one site is included on the Massachusetts Non- Priority Confirmed Disposal Site list. The remaining sites are not included in any registry list. Finally, nine of the twenty-five sites are also included on the National Priorities list. Any liability may be joint and severable for certain sites.
We have recorded an estimated liability of $6 million related to ten of the twenty-five sites. We have paid remediation costs related to the remaining fifteen sites and do not expect to incur additional liabilities. Additionally, we have recorded an estimated liability of $8 million related to another ten sites where we believe it is probable that we will incur remediation costs and or monitoring costs, although we have not been notified that we are among the potentially responsible parties or that we are regulated under State Resource Conservation and Recovery Act programs. We recorded a corresponding regulatory asset because we expect to recover these costs in rates. It is possible the ultimate cost to remediate these sites may be significantly more than the accrued amount. Our estimate for costs to remediate these sites ranges from $12 million to $22 million as of March 31, 2017. Factors affecting the estimated remediation amount include the remedial action plan selected, the extent of site contamination, and the portion of remediation attributed to us.
Manufactured Gas Plants
We have a program to investigate and perform necessary remediation at our fifty-three sites where gas was manufactured in the past (Manufactured Gas Plants, or MGPs). Eight sites are included in the New York State Registry; eleven sites are included in the New York Voluntary Cleanup Program; three sites are part of Maine’s Voluntary Response Action Program and with two of such sites being part of Maine’s Uncontrolled Sites Program. The remaining sites are not included in any registry list. We have entered into consent orders with various environmental agencies to investigate and where necessary remediate forty-nine of the fifty-three sites.
Our estimate for all costs related to investigation and remediation of the fifty-three sites ranges from $221 million to $465 million as of March 31, 2017. Our estimate could change materially based on facts and circumstances derived from site investigations, changes in required remedial actions, changes in technology relating to remedial alternatives, and changes to current laws and regulations.
As of both March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, the liability associated with MGP sites in Connecticut, the remediation costs of which could be significant and will be subject to a review by PURA as to whether these costs are recoverable in rates, was $97 million.
29
The liability to investigate and perform remediation
at the known inactive MGP sites was $384 million and $388 million as of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively. We recorded a corresponding regulatory asset, net of insurance recoveries and the amount collected from FirstEnergy, as described be
low, because we expect to recover the net costs in rates. Our environmental liability accruals are recorded on an undiscounted basis and are expected to be paid through the year 2053.
Certain other Connecticut and Massachusetts regulated gas companies own or have previously owned properties where MGPs had historically operated. MGP operations have led to contamination of soil and groundwater with petroleum hydrocarbons, benzene and metals, among other things, at these properties, the regulation and cleanup of which is regulated by the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act as well as other federal and state statutes and regulations. Each of the companies has or had an ownership interest in one or more such properties contaminated as a result of MGP-related activities. Under the existing regulations, the cleanup of such sites requires state and at times, federal, regulators’ involvement and approval before cleanup can commence. In certain cases, such contamination has been evaluated, characterized and remediated. In other cases, the sites have been evaluated and characterized, but not yet remediated. Finally, at some of these sites, the scope of the contamination has not yet been fully characterized; no liability was recorded in respect of these sites as of March 31, 2017 and no amount of loss, if any, can be reasonably estimated at this time. In the past, the companies have received approval for the recovery of MGP-related remediation expenses from customers through rates and will seek recovery in rates for ongoing MGP-related remediation expenses for all of their MGP sites.
FirstEnergy
NYSEG sued FirstEnergy under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act to recover environmental cleanup costs at sixteen former manufactured gas sites, which are included in the discussion above. In July 2011, the District Court issued a decision and order in NYSEG’s favor. Based on past and future clean-up costs at the sixteen sites in dispute, FirstEnergy would be required to pay NYSEG approximately $60 million if the decision were upheld on appeal. On September 9, 2011, FirstEnergy paid NYSEG $30 million, representing their share of past costs of $27 million and pre-judgment interest of $3 million.
FirstEnergy appealed the decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. On September 11, 2014, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s decision in NYSEG’s favor, but modified the decision for nine sites, reducing NYSEG’s damages for incurred costs from $27 million to $22 million, excluding interest, and reducing FirstEnergy’s allocable share of future costs at these sites. NYSEG refunded FirstEnergy the excess $5 million in November 2014.
FirstEnergy remains liable for a substantial share of clean up expenses at nine MPG sites. In January 2015, NYSEG sent FirstEnergy a demand for $16 million representing FirstEnergy’s share of clean-up expenses incurred by NYSEG at the nine sites from January 2010 to November 2014 while the District Court appeal was pending. Nearly all of this amount has been paid by FirstEnergy. FirstEnergy would also be liable for a share of post 2014 costs, which, based on current projections, would be $26 million. This amount is being treated as a contingent asset and has not been recorded as either a receivable or a decrease to the environmental provision. Any recovery will be flowed through to NYSEG ratepayers.
Century Indemnity and OneBeacon
On August 14, 2013, NYSEG filed suit in federal court against two excess insurers, Century Indemnity and OneBeacon, who provided excess liability coverage to NYSEG. NYSEG seeks payment for clean-up costs associated with contamination at 22 former manufactured gas plants. Based on estimated clean-up costs of $282 million, the carriers’ allocable share could equal or exceed approximately $89 million, excluding pre-judgment interest, although this amount may change substantially depending upon the determination of various factual matters and legal issues during the case.
Century Indemnity and One Beacon have answered admitting issuance of the excess policies, but contesting coverage and providing documentation proving they received notice of the claims in the 1990s. On March 31, 2017, the District Court granted motions filed by Century Indemnity and One Beacon dismissing all of NYSEG’s claims against both defendants on the grounds of late notice. NYSEG filed a motion with the District Court on April 14, 2017 seeking reconsideration of the Court’s decision and is researching grounds for further appeal if the reconsideration motion is denied. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter; however, any recovery will be flowed through to NYSEG ratepayers.
English Station
In January 2012, Evergreen Power, LLC (Evergreen Power) and Asnat Realty LLC (Asnat), then and current owners of a former generation site on the Mill River in New Haven (the English Station site) that UI sold to Quinnipiac Energy in 2000, filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Connecticut against UI seeking, among other things: (i) an order directing UI to reimburse the plaintiffs for costs they have incurred and will incur for the testing, investigation and remediation of hazardous substances at the English Station
30
site and (ii) an order directing UI to investigate and remediate the site. This proceed
ing had been stayed in 2014 pending resolutions of other proceedings before DEEP concerning the English Station site. In December 2016, the court administratively closed the file without prejudice to reopen upon the filing of a motion to reopen by any par
ty. In December 2013, Evergreen and Asnat filed a subsequent lawsuit in Connecticut state court seeking among other things: (i) remediation of the property; (ii) reimbursement of remediation costs; (iii) termination of UI’s easement rights; (iv) reimburse
ment for costs associated with securing the property; and (v) punitive damages
This lawsuit had been stayed in May 2014 pending mediation. Due to lack of activity in the case, the court terminated the stay
and scheduled a status conference on or before Au
gust 1, 2017.
On April 8, 2013, DEEP issued an administrative order addressed to UI, Evergreen Power, Asnat and others, ordering the parties to take certain actions related to investigating and remediating the English Station site. Mediation of the matter began in the fourth quarter of 2013 and concluded unsuccessfully in April 2015. This proceeding was stayed while DEEP and UI continue to work through the remediation process pursuant to the consent order described below. A status report was filed with the court in December 2016 and the next status report is due in May 2017.
On August 4, 2016, DEEP issued the consent order that, subject to its terms and conditions, requires UI to investigate and remediate certain environmental conditions within the perimeter of the English Station site. Under the consent order, to the extent that the cost of this investigation and remediation is less than $30 million, UI will remit to the State of Connecticut the difference between such cost and $30 million to be used for a public purpose as determined in the discretion of the Governor of the State of Connecticut, the Attorney General of the State of Connecticut, and the Commissioner of DEEP. UI is obligated to comply with the terms of the consent order even if the cost of such compliance exceeds $30 million. Under the terms of the consent order, the State will discuss options with UI on recovering or funding any cost above $30 million such as through public funding or recovery from third parties; however, it is not bound to agree to or support any means of recovery or funding.
In connection with the consent order, on August 4, 2016, DEEP also issued a Consent Order to Evergreen Power, Asnat, and certain related parties that provides UI access to investigate and remediate the English Station site consistent with the consent order. UI has initiated its process to investigate and remediate the environmental conditions within the perimeter of the English Station site pursuant to the consent order.
As of December 31, 2016, we reserved $30 million for this case. As of March 31, 2017, the reserve amount remained unchanged. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Note 9. Post-retirement and Similar Obligations
We made no pension contributions for the three months ended March 31, 2017. We expect to make $33 million of contributions for the remainder of 2017.
The components of net periodic benefit cost for pension benefits for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively, consisted of:
|
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2017
|
|
|
2016
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Service cost
|
|
$
|
11
|
|
|
$
|
11
|
|
Interest cost
|
|
|
35
|
|
|
|
35
|
|
Expected return on plan assets
|
|
|
(50
|
)
|
|
|
(51
|
)
|
Amortization of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prior service costs
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
Actuarial loss
|
|
|
32
|
|
|
|
38
|
|
Net Periodic Benefit Cost
|
|
$
|
28
|
|
|
$
|
33
|
|
31
The components of net periodic benefit cost for postretirement benefits for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively, consisted of:
|
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2017
|
|
|
2016
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Service cost
|
|
$
|
1
|
|
|
$
|
1
|
|
Interest cost
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
Expected return on plan assets
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
Amortization of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prior service costs
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
Actuarial loss
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
Net Periodic Benefit Cost
|
|
$
|
3
|
|
|
$
|
4
|
|
Note 10. Equity
As of March 31, 2017, our share capital consisted of 500,000,000 shares of common stock authorized, 309,670,932 shares issued and 309,069,291 shares outstanding, 81.6% of which is owned by Iberdrola, each having a par value of $0.01, for a total value of common stock capital of $3 million and additional paid in capital of $13,653 million. As of December 31, 2016, our share capital consisted of 500,000,000 shares of common stock authorized, 309,600,439 shares issued and 308,993,149 shares outstanding, 81.5% of which was owned by Iberdrola, each having a par value of $0.01, for a total value of common stock capital of $3 million and additional paid in capital of $13,653 million. We had 485,810 and 491,459 shares of common stock held in trust and no convertible preferred shares outstanding as of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively. During the three months ended March 31, 2017, we issued 70,493 shares of common stock and released 5,649 shares of common stock held in trust each having a par value of $0.01. During the three months ended March 31, 2016, we issued 97,479 shares of common stock and released 132,800 shares of common stock held in trust each having a par value of $0.01.
On April 28, 2016, we entered into a repurchase agreement with J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC. (JPM), pursuant to which JPM will, from time to time, acquire, on behalf of AVANGRID, shares of common stock of AVANGRID. The purpose of the stock repurchase program is to allow AVANGRID to maintain the relative ownership percentage by Iberdrola at 81.5%. The stock repurchase program may be suspended or discontinued at any time upon notice. As of March 31, 2017, we have 115,831 shares of common stock of AVANGRID, which were repurchased during 2016 in the open market. The total cost of repurchase, including commissions, was $5 million.
Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss
Accumulated OCI for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively, consisted of:
|
|
As of December 31,
|
|
|
Three Months Ended March 31,
|
|
|
As of March 31,
|
|
|
As of December 31,
|
|
|
Three Months Ended March 31,
|
|
|
As of March 31,
|
|
|
|
2016
|
|
|
2017
|
|
|
2017
|
|
|
2015
|
|
|
2016
|
|
|
2016
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain on revaluation of defined benefit plans,
net of income tax expense of $2.8 for 2016
|
|
$
|
(14
|
)
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
(14
|
)
|
|
$
|
(21
|
)
|
|
$
|
4
|
|
|
$
|
(17
|
)
|
Loss for nonqualified pension plans
|
|
|
(7
|
)
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
(7
|
)
|
|
|
(8
|
)
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
(8
|
)
|
Unrealized gain during period on derivatives
qualifying as cash flow hedges, net of income tax
expense of $1.3 for 2017 and $1.2 for 2016
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
33
|
|
Reclassification to net income of losses (gains) on
cash flow hedges, net of income tax expense
(benefit) of $13.6 for 2017 and $(16.6) for 2016(a)
|
|
|
(70
|
)
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
|
(47
|
)
|
|
|
(54
|
)
|
|
|
(26
|
)
|
|
|
(80
|
)
|
Gain (loss) on derivatives qualifying as cash flow
hedges
|
|
|
(65
|
)
|
|
|
25
|
|
|
|
(40
|
)
|
|
|
(23
|
)
|
|
|
(24
|
)
|
|
|
(47
|
)
|
Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss
|
|
$
|
(86
|
)
|
|
$
|
25
|
|
|
$
|
(61
|
)
|
|
$
|
(52
|
)
|
|
$
|
(20
|
)
|
|
$
|
(72
|
)
|
(a)
|
Reclassification is reflected in the operating expenses line item in the condensed consolidated statements of income.
|
32
Note 11. Earnings Per Share
Basic earnings per share is computed by dividing net income attributable to AVANGRID by the weighted-average number of shares of our common stock outstanding. During the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, while we did have securities that were dilutive, these securities did not result in a change in our earnings per share calculation for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016.
The calculations of basic and diluted earnings per share attributable to AVANGRID, for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively, consisted of:
|
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2017
|
|
|
2016
|
|
(Millions, except for number of shares and per share data)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Numerator:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income attributable to AVANGRID
|
|
$
|
239
|
|
|
$
|
212
|
|
Denominator:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average number of shares outstanding - basic
|
|
|
309,508,889
|
|
|
|
309,538,215
|
|
Weighted average number of shares outstanding - diluted
|
|
|
309,837,442
|
|
|
|
309,808,006
|
|
Earnings per share attributable to AVANGRID
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings Per Common Share, Basic
|
|
$
|
0.77
|
|
|
$
|
0.69
|
|
Earnings Per Common Share, Diluted
|
|
$
|
0.77
|
|
|
$
|
0.69
|
|
Note 12. Segment Information
Our segment reporting structure uses our management reporting structure as its foundation to reflect how AVANGRID manages the business internally and is organized by type of business. We report our financial performance based on the following three reportable segments:
•
|
Networks: including all the energy transmission and distribution activities, and any other regulated activity originating in New York and Maine, and regulated electric distribution, electric transmission and gas distribution activities originating in Connecticut and Massachusetts. The Networks reportable segment includes eight rate regulated operating segments. These operating segments generally offer the same services distributed in similar fashions, have the same types of customers, have similar long-term economic characteristics and are subject to similar regulatory requirements, allowing these operations to be aggregated into one reportable segment.
|
•
|
Renewables: activities relating to renewable energy, mainly wind energy generation and trading related with such activities.
|
•
|
Gas: including gas trading and storage businesses carried on by the AVANGRID Group.
|
Products and services are sold between reportable segments and affiliate companies at cost. The chief operating decision maker evaluates segment performance based on segment adjusted EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization) defined as net income adding back income tax expense, depreciation and amortization and interest expense net of capitalization, and then subtracting other income and (expense) and earnings from equity method investments per segment. Segment income, expense, and assets presented in the accompanying tables include all intercompany transactions that are eliminated in the condensed consolidated financial statements.
33
Segment information as of and for the three months ended March 31, 2017, consisted of:
Three Months Ended March 31, 2017
|
|
Networks
|
|
|
Renewables
|
|
|
Gas
|
|
|
Other (a)
|
|
|
AVANGRID
Consolidated
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue - external
|
|
$
|
1,460
|
|
|
$
|
285
|
|
|
$
|
14
|
|
|
$
|
(1
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,758
|
|
Revenue - intersegment
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
(12
|
)
|
|
|
—
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
113
|
|
|
|
78
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
197
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
336
|
|
|
|
56
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
398
|
|
Adjusted EBITDA
|
|
|
449
|
|
|
|
133
|
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
595
|
|
Earnings (losses) from equity method investments
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
$
|
267
|
|
|
$
|
257
|
|
|
$
|
1
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
525
|
|
As of March 31, 2017
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
13,168
|
|
|
|
8,133
|
|
|
|
496
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
21,797
|
|
Equity method investments
|
|
|
149
|
|
|
|
235
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
384
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
20,998
|
|
|
$
|
9,996
|
|
|
$
|
1,041
|
|
|
$
|
(639
|
)
|
|
$
|
31,396
|
|
(a)
|
Does not represent a segment. It mainly includes Corporate and intersegment eliminations.
|
Included in revenue-external for the three months ended March 31, 2017, are: $921 million from regulated electric operations, $537 million from regulated gas operations and $2 million amounts from other operations of Networks; $285 million from renewable energy generation of Renewables; $4 million from gas storage services and $10 million from gas trading operations of Gas.
Segment information for the three months ended March 31, 2016, consisted of:
Three Months Ended March 31, 2016
|
|
Networks
|
|
|
Renewables
|
|
|
Gas
|
|
|
Other (a)
|
|
|
AVANGRID
Consolidated
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue - external
|
|
$
|
1,390
|
|
|
$
|
276
|
|
|
$
|
3
|
|
|
$
|
1
|
|
|
$
|
1,670
|
|
Revenue - intersegment
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
(11
|
)
|
|
|
—
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
118
|
|
|
|
80
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
205
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
312
|
|
|
|
49
|
|
|
|
(10
|
)
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
349
|
|
Adjusted EBITDA
|
|
|
430
|
|
|
|
129
|
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
554
|
|
Earnings (losses) from equity method investments
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
$
|
206
|
|
|
$
|
70
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
276
|
|
As of December 31, 2016
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
13,032
|
|
|
|
8,015
|
|
|
|
501
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
21,548
|
|
Equity method investments
|
|
|
151
|
|
|
|
236
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
387
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
20,753
|
|
|
$
|
9,884
|
|
|
$
|
1,124
|
|
|
$
|
(452
|
)
|
|
$
|
31,309
|
|
(a)
|
Does not represent a segment. It mainly includes Corporate and intersegment eliminations.
|
Included in revenue-external for the three months ended March 31, 2016, are: $913 million from regulated electric operations, $477 million from regulated gas operations and no amounts from other operations of Networks; $276 million from renewable energy generation of Renewables; $7 million from gas storage services and $(4) million from gas trading operations of Gas.
34
Reconciliation of consolidated Adjusted EBITDA to the AVANGRID consolidated Net Income for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively, is as follows:
|
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2017
|
|
|
2016
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated Adjusted EBITDA
|
|
$
|
595
|
|
|
$
|
554
|
|
Less:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
197
|
|
|
|
205
|
|
Interest expense, net of capitalization
|
|
|
71
|
|
|
|
84
|
|
Income tax expense
|
|
|
103
|
|
|
|
104
|
|
Add:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other income
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
|
49
|
|
Earnings from equity method investments
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
Consolidated Net Income
|
|
$
|
239
|
|
|
$
|
212
|
|
Note 13. Related Party Transactions
We engage in related party transactions that are generally billed at cost and in accordance with applicable state and federal commission regulations.
Related party transactions for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively, consisted of:
Three Months Ended March 31,
|
|
2017
|
|
|
2016
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
Sales To
|
|
|
Purchases
From
|
|
|
Sales To
|
|
|
Purchases
From
|
|
Iberdrola Canada Energy Services, Ltd
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
(10
|
)
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
(5
|
)
|
Iberdrola Renovables Energía, S.L.
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
Iberdrola, S.A.
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
(9
|
)
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
(8
|
)
|
Other
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
In addition to the statements of income items above, we made purchases of turbines for wind farms from Siemens-Gamesa, in which our ultimate parent, Iberdrola, has an 8.1% ownership. The amounts capitalized for these transactions were $66 million and $269 million as of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively. In addition, included in “Other Assets” are $62 million of safe harbor turbine payments we made to Siemens-Gamesa as of March 31, 2017.
Related party balances as of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively, consisted of:
As of
|
|
March 31, 2017
|
|
|
December 31, 2016
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
Owed By
|
|
|
Owed To
|
|
|
Owed By
|
|
|
Owed To
|
|
Iberdrola Canada Energy Services, Ltd.
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
(20
|
)
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
(14
|
)
|
Siemens-Gamesa
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
(105
|
)
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
(181
|
)
|
Iberdrola, S.A.
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
(9
|
)
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
(30
|
)
|
Iberdrola Energy Projects, Inc.
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
Iberdrola Renovables Energía, S.L.
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
Other
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
22
|
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
Transactions with Iberdrola, our majority shareholder, relate predominantly to the provision and allocation of corporate services and management fees. Also included within the Purchases From category are charges for credit support relating to guarantees Iberdrola has provided to third parties guaranteeing our performance. All costs that can be specifically allocated, to the extent possible, are charged directly to the company receiving such services. In situations when Iberdrola corporate services are provided to two or more companies of AVANGRID any costs remaining after direct charge are allocated using agreed upon cost allocation methods designed to allocate those costs. We believe that the allocation method used is reasonable.
Transactions with Iberdrola Canada Energy Services predominantly relate to the purchase of gas for ARHI’s gas-fired cogeneration facility in Klamath, Oregon.
There have been no guarantees provided or received for any related party receivables or payables. These balances are unsecured and are typically settled in cash. Interest is not charged on regular business transactions but is charged on outstanding loan balances. There have been no impairments or provisions made against any affiliated balances.
35
Networks holds an approximate 20% ownership interest in the r
egulated New York TransCo, LLC (New York TransCo). Through New York TransCo, Networks has formed a partnership with Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation, Consolidated Edison, Inc., National Grid, plc and Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. to develo
p a portfolio of interconnected transmission lines and substations to fulfill the objectives of the New York energy highway initiative, which is a proposal to install up to 3,200 MW of new electric generation and transmission capacity in order to deliver m
ore power generated from upstate New York power plants to downstate New York. As of March 31, 2017 the amount receivable from New York TransCo was $11 million.
AVANGRID manages its overall liquidity position as part of the broader Iberdrola Group and is a party to a notional cash pooling agreement with Bank Mendes Gans, N.V. (BMG), along with certain subsidiaries of Iberdrola. Cash surpluses remaining after meeting the liquidity requirements of AVANGRID and its subsidiaries may be deposited at BMG. Deposits, or credit balances, serve as collateral against the debit balances of other parties to the notional cash pooling agreement. The BMG balance at both March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, was zero.
Note 14. Accounts Receivable
Accounts receivable include amounts due under deferred payment arrangements (DPA). A DPA allows the account balance to be paid in installments over an extended period of time, which generally exceeds one year, by negotiating mutually acceptable payment terms and not bearing interest. The utility company generally must continue to serve a customer who cannot pay an account balance in full if the customer (i) pays a reasonable portion of the balance; (ii) agrees to pay the balance in installments; and (iii) agrees to pay future bills within thirty days until the DPA is paid in full. Failure to make payments on a DPA results in the full amount of a receivable under a DPA being due. These accounts are part of the regular operating cycle and are classified as current.
We establish provisions for uncollectible accounts for DPAs by using both historical average loss percentages to project future losses and by establishing specific provisions for known credit issues. Amounts are written off when reasonable collection efforts have been exhausted. DPA receivable balances were $58 million and $54 million at March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively. The allowance for doubtful accounts for DPAs at March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, was $31 million and $30 million, respectively. Furthermore, the provision for bad debts associated with the DPAs for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016 was $1 million and $(1) million, respectively.
Note 15. Income Tax Expense
The effective tax rate for the three months ended March 31, 2017, was 30.1%, which is lower than the 35% statutory federal income tax rate predominantly due to the recognition of production tax credits associated with wind production. Additionally, a $14 million increase in income tax expense is due to unfunded future income tax to reflect the change from a flow through to normalization method, which has been recorded as an increase to revenue, with an offsetting and equal increase to income tax expense. This increase was offset by other discrete tax adjustments during the period. The effective tax rate for the three months ended March 31, 2016, was 32.9%, which is lower than the 35% statutory federal income tax rate primarily due to the recognition of production tax credits associated with wind production.
Note 16. Stock-Based Compensation Expense
Pursuant to the 2016 Avangrid, Inc. Omnibus Incentive Plan 5,327 additional performance stock units (PSUs) were granted to certain officers and employees of AVANGRID in March 2017. The PSUs will vest upon achievement of certain performance- and market-based metrics related to the 2016 through 2019 plan and will be payable in three equal installments in 2020, 2021 and 2022.
The fair value on the grant date was determined
$31.80 per share.
The total stock-based compensation expense, which is included in operations and maintenance of the condensed consolidated statements of income, for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, was $1.3 million and $1.4 million, respectively.
The total liability relating to stock-based compensation, which is included in other non-current liabilities, was $9.6 million and $9.5 million as of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively. Before 2016 the Company’s historical stock-based compensation expense and liabilities were based on shares of Iberdrola and not on shares of the Company. These Iberdrola shares-based awards were early terminated at the end of 2015, and the liability will be settled in two equal installments no later than June 30, 2017 and March 30, 2018.
Note 17. Tax Equity Financing Arrangements
The sale of a membership interest in the tax equity financing arrangements (TEFs) represents the sale of an equity interest in a structure that is considered in substance real estate. Under existing guidance for real estate financings, the membership interests in the TEFs we sold to the third-party investors are reflected as a financing obligation in the consolidated balance sheets. We continue to fully consolidate the TEFs’ assets and liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets and to report the results of the TEFs’ operations in the consolidated statements of income. The presentation reflects revenues and expenses from the TEFs’ operations on a fully consolidated basis. We consolidate the TEF’s based on being the primary beneficiary for these variable interest entities (VIEs). The
36
liabilities are increased for cash contrib
uted by the third-party investors, interest accrued, and the federal income tax impact to the third-party investors of the allocation of taxable income. Interest is accrued on the balance using the effective interest method and the third-party investors’ t
argeted rate of return. The balance accrued interest at an average rate of 5.3% and 5.4% as of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively. The liabilities are reduced by cash distributions to the third-party investors, the allocation of production
tax credits to the third-party investors, and the federal income tax impact to the third-party investors of the allocation of taxable losses. This treatment is expected to remain consistent over the terms of the TEFs.
The assets and liabilities of these VIEs totaled approximately $1,293 million and $218 million, respectively, at March 31, 2017. As of December 31, 2016, the assets and liabilities of VIEs totaled approximately $1,343 million and $244 million, respectively. At March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, the assets and liabilities of the VIEs consisted primarily of property, plant and equipment, equity method investments and TEF liabilities. At March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, equity method investments of VIEs were approximately $159 million and $161 million, respectively.
At December 31, 2016, we considered the following four structures to be TEFs: (1) Aeolus Wind Power II LLC, (2) Aeolus Wind Power III LLC, (3) Aeolus Wind Power IV LLC, and (4) Locust Ridge Wind Farm, LLC (collectively, Aeolus). In February 2017, we acquired the tax equity investor’s interest in Locust Ridge Wind Farm, LLC for $5 million. This acquisition converted the partnership to a single member limited liability company and it no longer qualifies as a VIE.
We retain a class of membership interest and day-to-day operational and management control of Aeolus, subject to investor approval of certain major decisions. The third-party investors do not receive a lien on any Aeolus assets and have no recourse against us for their upfront cash payments.
Wind power generation is subject to certain favorable tax treatments in the U.S. In order to monetize the tax benefits generated by Aeolus, we have entered into the Aeolus structured institutional partnership investment transactions related to certain wind farms. Under the Aeolus structures, we contribute certain wind assets, relating both to existing wind farms and wind farms that are being placed into operation at the time of the relevant transaction, and other parties invest in the share equity of the Aeolus limited liability holding company. As consideration for their investment, the third parties make either an upfront cash payment or a combination of upfront cash and issuance of fixed and contingent notes.
The third party investors receive a disproportionate amount of the profit or loss, cash distributions and tax benefits resulting from the wind farm energy generation until the investor recovers its investment and achieves a cumulative annual after-tax return. Once this target return is met, the relative sharing of profit or loss, cash distributions and taxable income or loss between the Company and the third party investor flips, with the company taking a disproportionate share of such amounts thereafter. We also have a call option to acquire the third party investors’ membership interest within a defined time period after this target return is met.
Our Aeolus interests are not subject to any rights of investors that may restrict our ability to access or use the assets or to settle any existing liabilities associated with the interests.
Note 18. Subsequent Events
On April 20, 2017, the board of directors of AVANGRID declared a quarterly dividend of $0.432 per share on its common stock. This dividend is payable on July 3, 2017 to shareholders of record at the close of business on June 9, 2017.
37