XML 38 R27.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.22.1

Other Commitments And Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Other Commitments and Contingencies A. Guarantees and Indemnities. We and certain of our subsidiaries enter into various agreements providing financial or performance assurance to third parties on behalf of certain subsidiaries as a part of normal business. Such agreements include guarantees and stand-by letters of credit. These agreements are entered into primarily to support or enhance the creditworthiness otherwise attributed to a subsidiary on a stand-alone basis, thereby facilitating the extension of sufficient credit to accomplish the subsidiaries' intended commercial purposes. As of March 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021, we had issued stand-by letters of credit of $14.4 million and $18.9 million, respectively. We provide guarantees related to our future performance under BTAs for our renewable generation projects. At March 31, 2022, our guarantees for BTAs totaled $485.2 million. The amount of each guaranty will fluctuate upon the completion of the various steps outlined in each BTA. See ''- E. Other Matters - Generation Transition,'' below for more information. B. Legal Proceedings. On September 13, 2018, a series of fires and explosions occurred in Lawrence, Andover, and North Andover, Massachusetts related to the delivery of natural gas by Columbia of Massachusetts (the "Greater Lawrence Incident"). We have been subject to inquiries and investigations by government authorities and regulatory agencies regarding the Greater Lawrence Incident. On February 26, 2020, the Company and Columbia of Massachusetts entered into agreements with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts to resolve the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s investigation relating to the Greater Lawrence Incident, as described below. The Company and Columbia of Massachusetts entered into an agreement with the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office (among other parties) to resolve the Massachusetts DPU and the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office investigations, that was approved by the Massachusetts DPU on October 7, 2020 as part of the sale of the Massachusetts Business to Eversource. U.S. Department of Justice Investigation. On February 26, 2020, the Company and Columbia of Massachusetts entered into agreements with the U.S. Attorney's Office to resolve the U.S. Attorney's Office's investigation relating to the Greater Lawrence Incident. Columbia of Massachusetts agreed to plead guilty in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the ''Court'') to violating the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act (the ''Plea Agreement''), and the Company entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (the ''DPA''). On March 9, 2020, Columbia of Massachusetts entered its guilty plea pursuant to the Plea Agreement. The Court sentenced Columbia of Massachusetts on June 23, 2020, in accordance with the terms of the Plea Agreement (as modified). On June 23, 2021, the Court terminated Columbia of Massachusetts' period of probation under the Plea Agreement, which marked the completion of all terms of the Plea Agreement. Under the DPA, the U.S. Attorney's Office agreed to defer prosecution of the Company in connection with the Greater Lawrence Incident for a three-year period (which three-year period may be extended for twelve (12) months upon the U.S. Attorney’s Office's determination of a breach of the DPA) subject to certain obligations of the Company, including, but not limited to, the Company's agreement, as to each of the Company’s subsidiaries involved in the distribution of gas through pipeline facilities in Massachusetts, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Kentucky and Virginia to implement and adhere to each of the recommendations from the NTSB stemming from the Greater Lawrence Incident. Pursuant to the DPA, if the Company complies with all of its obligations under the DPA, the U.S. Attorney’s Office will not file any criminal charges against the Company related to the Greater Lawrence Incident. Private Actions. Various lawsuits, including several purported class action lawsuits, were filed by various affected residents or businesses in Massachusetts state courts against the Company and/or Columbia of Massachusetts in connection with the Greater Lawrence Incident. On March 12, 2020, the Court granted final approval of the settlement of the consolidated class action. With respect to claims not included in the consolidated class action, many of the asserted wrongful death and bodily injury claims have settled, and we continue to discuss potential settlements with remaining claimants. The outcomes and impacts of such private actions are uncertain at this time. Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit. On April 28, 2020, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed by the City of Detroit Police and Fire Retirement System in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against certain of the Company's current and former directors, alleging state-law claims for breaches of fiduciary duty with respect to the pipeline safety management systems relating to the distribution of natural gas prior to the Greater Lawrence Incident and also including federal-law claims related to our proxy statement disclosures regarding our safety systems. The remedies sought included damages for the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, corporate governance reforms, and restitution of any unjust enrichment. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit and oral argument was held on March 2, 2021. On March 9, 2021, the district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. It dismissed the federal-law claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the state-law claims, which were dismissed without prejudice. Following the dismissal of the federal court action, on April 29, 2021, the same plaintiff filed a shareholder derivative lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery against certain of our current and former directors. The new complaint alleged a single count for breach of fiduciary duty, and no longer alleged disclosure violations or breaches of federal securities laws. The complaint related to substantially the same matters as those alleged in the dismissed federal derivative complaint. The remedies sought included damages for the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, corporate governance reforms, and restitution of compensation by the individual defendants. On May 19, 2021, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and on July 2, 2021, they filed their opening brief in support of the motion. On August 26, 2021, rather than respond to the defendants' motion to dismiss and opening brief, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Like the original complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery, the amended complaint alleges a single count for breach of fiduciary duty, based on substantially similar allegations, and seeks substantially similar remedies. On September 10, 2021, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Briefing on the defendants' motion to dismiss was completed on January 10, 2022, and oral argument on the defendants' motion to dismiss took place on February 3, 2022. Because of the preliminary nature of this lawsuit, we are not able to estimate a loss or range of loss, if any, that may be incurred in connection with this matter at this time. Other Claims and Proceedings. We are also party to certain other claims, regulatory and legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business in each state in which we have operations, none of which we believe to be individually material at this time. Due to the inherent uncertainty of litigation, there can be no assurance that the resolution of any particular claim, proceeding or investigation would not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position or liquidity. If one or more other matters were decided against us, the effects could be material to our results of operations in the period in which we would be required to record or adjust the related liability and could also be material to our cash flows in the periods that we would be required to pay such liability. C. Other Greater Lawrence Incident Matters. In connection with the Greater Lawrence Incident, Columbia of Massachusetts, in cooperation with the Massachusetts Governor’s office, replaced the entire affected pipeline system. We invested approximately $258 million of capital spend for the pipeline replacement; this work was completed in 2019. We maintain property insurance for gas pipelines and other applicable property. Columbia of Massachusetts filed a proof of loss with its property insurer for the pipeline replacement. In January 2020, we filed a lawsuit against the property insurer, seeking payment of our property claim. On October 27, 2021, NiSource and the property insurer filed cross motions for summary judgment, each asking the court to determine whether there was coverage under the policy. After the cross motions for summary judgment were fully briefed, we reached an agreement to settle the coverage dispute for $105.0 million. After settlement payment was made, NiSource and its property insurer stipulated to the dismissal of the lawsuit on March 16, 2022. D. Environmental Matters. Our operations are subject to environmental statutes and regulations related to air quality, water quality, hazardous waste and solid waste. We believe that we are in substantial compliance with the environmental regulations currently applicable to our operations. It is management's continued intent to address environmental issues in cooperation with regulatory authorities in such a manner as to achieve mutually acceptable compliance plans. However, there can be no assurance that fines and penalties will not be incurred. Management expects a majority of environmental assessment and remediation costs and asset retirement costs, further described below, to be recoverable through rates. As of March 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021, we had recorded a liability of $91.3 million and $91.1 million, respectively, to cover environmental remediation at various sites. This liability is included in "Other accruals" and "Other noncurrent liabilities" in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets (unaudited). We recognize costs associated with environmental remediation obligations when the incurrence of such costs is probable and the amounts can be reasonably estimated. The original estimates for remediation activities may differ materially from the amount ultimately expended. The actual future expenditures depend on many factors, including laws and regulations, the nature and extent of impact and the method of remediation. These expenditures are not currently estimable at some sites. We periodically adjust our liability as information is collected and estimates become more refined. CERCLA. Our subsidiaries are potentially responsible parties at waste disposal sites under the CERCLA and similar state laws. Under CERCLA, each potentially responsible party can be held jointly, severally and strictly liable for the remediation costs as the EPA, or state, can allow the parties to pay for remedial action or perform remedial action themselves and request reimbursement from the potentially responsible parties. Our affiliates have retained CERCLA environmental liabilities, including remediation liabilities, associated with certain current and former operations. At this time, NIPSCO cannot estimate the full cost of remediating properties that have not yet been investigated, but it is possible that the future costs could be material to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (unaudited). MGP. We maintain a program to identify and investigate former MGP sites where Gas Distribution Operations subsidiaries or predecessors may have liability. The program has identified 53 such sites where liability is probable. Remedial actions at many of these sites are being overseen by state or federal environmental agencies through consent agreements or voluntary remediation agreements. We utilize a probabilistic model to estimate our future remediation costs related to MGP sites. The model was prepared with the assistance of a third party and incorporates our experience and general industry experience with remediating MGP sites. We complete an annual refresh of the model in the second quarter of each fiscal year. No material changes to the estimated future remediation costs were noted as a result of the refresh completed as of June 30, 2021. Our total estimated liability related to the facilities subject to remediation was $84.8 million and $85.1 million at March 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021, respectively. The liability represents our best estimate of the probable cost to remediate the MGP sites. We believe that it is reasonably possible that remediation costs could vary by as much as $17 million in addition to the costs noted above. Remediation costs are estimated based on the best available information, applicable remediation standards at the balance sheet date and experience with similar facilities. CCRs. We are in compliance with the EPA's final rule for the regulation of CCRs. The CCR rule also resulted in revisions to previously recorded legal obligations associated with the retirement of certain NIPSCO facilities. The actual asset retirement costs related to the CCR rule may vary substantially from the estimates used to record the increased asset retirement obligation due to the uncertainty about the requirements that will be established by environmental authorities, compliance strategies that will be used and the preliminary nature of available data used to estimate costs. As allowed by the rule, NIPSCO will continue to collect data over time to determine the specific compliance solutions and associated costs and, as a result, the actual costs may vary. NIPSCO will also continue to work with the EPA and the Indiana Department of Environmental Management to obtain administrative approvals associated with the CCR rule. In the event that the approvals are not obtained, future operations could be impacted. We cannot estimate the likelihood that the agencies will deny approvals or the financial impact on us if these approvals are not obtained. E. Other Matters. Generation Transition. NIPSCO has executed several PPAs to purchase 100% of the output from renewable generation facilities at a fixed price per MWh. Each facility supplying the energy will have an associated nameplate capacity, and payments under the PPAs will not begin until the associated generation facility is constructed by the owner/seller. NIPSCO has also executed several BTAs with developers to construct renewable generation facilities. NIPSCO's purchase obligation under each respective BTA is dependent on satisfactory approval of the BTA by the IURC, successful execution by NIPSCO of an agreement with a tax equity partner and timely completion of construction. NIPSCO has received IURC approval for all of its BTAs and PPAs. NIPSCO and the tax equity partner are obligated to make cash contributions to the joint venture that acquires the project at the date construction is substantially complete. Certain agreements require NIPSCO to make partial payments upon the developer's completion of significant construction milestones. Once the tax equity partner has earned its negotiated rate of return and we have reached the agreed upon contractual date, NIPSCO has the option to purchase at fair market value from the tax equity partner the remaining interest in the joint venture.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration