XML 36 R15.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.7.0.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Spent Nuclear Fuel and Waste Disposal On December 19, 2012, APS, acting on behalf of itself and the participant owners of Palo Verde, filed a second breach of contract lawsuit against the United States Department of Energy ("DOE") in the United States Court of Federal Claims ("Court of Federal Claims"). The lawsuit sought to recover damages incurred due to DOE’s breach of the Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or High Level Radioactive Waste ("Standard Contract") for failing to accept Palo Verde's spent nuclear fuel and high level waste from January 1, 2007 through June 30, 2011, as it was required to do pursuant to the terms of the Standard Contract and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. On August 18, 2014, APS and DOE entered into a settlement agreement, stipulating to a dismissal of the lawsuit and payment of $57.4 million by DOE to the Palo Verde owners for certain specified costs incurred by Palo Verde during the period January 1, 2007 through June 30, 2011. APS’s share of this amount is $16.7 million. Amounts recovered in the lawsuit and settlement were recorded as adjustments to a regulatory liability and had no impact on the amount of reported net income. In addition, the settlement agreement, as amended, provides APS with a method for submitting claims and getting recovery for costs incurred through December 31, 2019. APS has submitted three claims pursuant to the terms of the August 18, 2014 settlement agreement, for three separate time periods during July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2016. The DOE has approved and paid $65.2 million for these claims (APS’s share is $19 million). The amounts recovered were primarily recorded as adjustments to a regulatory liability and had no impact on reported net income. APS's next claim pursuant to the terms of the August 18, 2014 settlement agreement will be submitted to the DOE in the fourth quarter of 2017, and payment is expected in the second quarter of 2018. Nuclear Insurance Public liability for incidents at nuclear power plants is governed by the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act ("Price-Anderson Act"), which limits the liability of nuclear reactor owners to the amount of insurance available from both commercial sources and an industry-wide retrospective payment plan. In accordance with the Price-Anderson Act, the Palo Verde participants are insured against public liability for a nuclear incident up to approximately $13.4 billion per occurrence. Palo Verde maintains the maximum available nuclear liability insurance in the amount of $450 million, which is provided by American Nuclear Insurers ("ANI"). The remaining balance of approximately $13.0 billion of liability coverage is provided through a mandatory industry-wide retrospective premium program. If losses at any nuclear power plant covered by the program exceed the accumulated funds, APS could be responsible for retrospective premiums. The maximum retrospective premium per reactor under the program for each nuclear liability incident is approximately $127.3 million, subject to a maximum annual premium of $19 million per incident. Based on APS’s ownership interest in the three Palo Verde units, APS’s maximum retrospective premium per incident for all three units is approximately $111.1 million, with a maximum annual retrospective premium of approximately $16.6 million. The Palo Verde participants maintain insurance for property damage to, and decontamination of, property at Palo Verde in the aggregate amount of $2.8 billion. APS has also secured accidental outage insurance for a sudden and unforeseen accidental outage of any of the three units. The property damage, decontamination, and accidental outage insurance are provided by Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited ("NEIL"). APS is subject to retrospective premium adjustments under all NEIL policies if NEIL’s losses in any policy year exceed accumulated funds. The maximum amount APS could incur under the current NEIL policies totals approximately $24 million for each retrospective premium assessment declared by NEIL’s Board of Directors due to losses. In addition, NEIL policies contain rating triggers that would result in APS providing approximately $64.8 million of collateral assurance within 20 business days of a rating downgrade to non-investment grade. The insurance coverage discussed in this and the previous paragraph is subject to certain policy conditions, sublimits and exclusions. Contractual Obligations For the six months ended June 30, 2017, our fuel and purchased power commitments decreased approximately $670 million primarily due to updated estimated renewable energy purchases. The majority of these changes relate to the years 2022 and thereafter. Other than the items described above, there have been no material changes, as of June 30, 2017, outside the normal course of business in contractual obligations from the information provided in our 2016 Form 10-K. See Note 2 for discussion regarding changes in our long-term debt obligations. Superfund-Related Matters The Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act ("Superfund") establishes liability for the cleanup of hazardous substances found contaminating the soil, water or air. Those who generated, transported or disposed of hazardous substances at a contaminated site are among those who are potentially responsible parties ("PRPs"). PRPs may be strictly, and often are jointly and severally, liable for clean-up. On September 3, 2003, EPA advised APS that EPA considers APS to be a PRP in the Motorola 52 nd Street Superfund Site, Operable Unit 3 ("OU3") in Phoenix, Arizona. APS has facilities that are within this Superfund site. APS and Pinnacle West have agreed with EPA to perform certain investigative activities of the APS facilities within OU3. In addition, on September 23, 2009, APS agreed with EPA and one other PRP to voluntarily assist with the funding and management of the site-wide groundwater remedial investigation and feasibility study work plan ("RI/FS"). The OU3 working group parties have agreed to a schedule with EPA that calls for the submission of a revised draft RI/FS by November 2017. We estimate that our costs related to this investigation and study will be approximately $2 million. We anticipate incurring additional expenditures in the future, but because the overall investigation is not complete and ultimate remediation requirements are not yet finalized, at the present time expenditures related to this matter cannot be reasonably estimated. On August 6, 2013, the Roosevelt Irrigation District ("RID") filed a lawsuit in Arizona District Court against APS and 24 other defendants, alleging that RID’s groundwater wells were contaminated by the release of hazardous substances from facilities owned or operated by the defendants. The lawsuit also alleges that, under Superfund laws, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to RID. The allegations against APS arise out of APS’s current and former ownership of facilities in and around OU3. As part of a state governmental investigation into groundwater contamination in this area, on January 25, 2015, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality ("ADEQ") sent a letter to APS seeking information concerning the degree to which, if any, APS’s current and former ownership of these facilities may have contributed to groundwater contamination in this area. APS responded to ADEQ on May 4, 2015. On December 16, 2016, two RID contractors filed ancillary lawsuits for recovery of costs against APS and the other defendants. In addition, on March 15, 2017, the Arizona District Court granted partial summary judgment to RID for one element of RID's lawsuit against APS and the other defendants. On May 12, 2017, the court denied a motion for reconsideration as to this order. The court's order for partial summary judgment on this issue is interlocutory, as it only relates to one element of the lawsuit. We are unable to predict the outcome of these matters; however, we do not expect the outcome to have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Environmental Matters APS is subject to numerous environmental laws and regulations affecting many aspects of its present and future operations, including air emissions of both conventional pollutants and greenhouse gases, water quality, wastewater discharges, solid waste, hazardous waste, and coal combustion residuals ("CCRs"). These laws and regulations can change from time to time, imposing new obligations on APS resulting in increased capital, operating, and other costs. Associated capital expenditures or operating costs could be material. APS intends to seek recovery of any such environmental compliance costs through our rates, but cannot predict whether it will obtain such recovery. The following proposed and final rules involve material compliance costs to APS. Regional Haze Rules. APS has received the final rulemaking imposing new pollution control requirements on Four Corners and the Navajo Plant. EPA will require these plants to install pollution control equipment that constitutes best available retrofit technology ("BART") to lessen the impacts of emissions on visibility surrounding the plants. EPA recently approved a proposed rule for Regional Haze compliance at Cholla that does not involve the installation of new pollution controls and that will replace an earlier BART determination for this facility. See below for details of the recent Cholla BART approval. Four Corners. Based on EPA’s final standards, APS estimates that its 63% share of the cost of required controls for Four Corners Units 4 and 5 would be approximately $400 million. In addition, APS and El Paso Electric Company ("El Paso") entered into an asset purchase agreement providing for the purchase by APS, or an affiliate of APS, of El Paso's 7% interest in Four Corners Units 4 and 5. 4CA purchased the El Paso interest on July 6, 2016. Navajo Transitional Energy Company, LLC ("NTEC") has the option to purchase the interest within a certain timeframe pursuant to an option granted to NTEC. In December 2015, NTEC notified APS of its intent to exercise the option. The purchase did not occur during the originally contemplated timeframe. The parties are currently in discussions as to the future of the option transaction. The cost of the pollution controls related to the 7% interest is approximately $45 million, which will be assumed by the ultimate owner of the 7% interest. Navajo Plant. APS estimates that its share of costs for upgrades at the Navajo Plant, based on EPA’s Federal Implementation Plan ("FIP"), could be up to approximately $200 million. In October 2014, a coalition of environmental groups, an Indian tribe and others filed petitions for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit asking the Court to review EPA's final BART rule for the Navajo Plant. On March 20, 2017, the Court denied this petition for review and upheld the legality of EPA's final BART rule for the Navajo Plant. See "Navajo Plant" in Note 3 for information regarding future plans for the Navajo Plant. Cholla. APS believes that EPA’s original 2012 final rule establishing controls constituting BART for Cholla, which would require installation of SCR controls with a cost to APS of approximately $100 million, is unsupported and that EPA had no basis for disapproving Arizona’s State Implementation Plan ("SIP") and promulgating a FIP that is inconsistent with the state’s considered BART determinations under the regional haze program. Accordingly, on February 1, 2013, APS filed a Petition for Review of the final BART rule in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Briefing in the case was completed in February 2014. In September 2014, APS met with EPA to propose a compromise BART strategy. Pending certain regulatory approvals, APS would permanently close Cholla Unit 2 and cease burning coal at Units 1 and 3 by the mid-2020s. (See Note 3 for details related to the resulting regulatory asset.) APS made the proposal with the understanding that additional emission control equipment is unlikely to be required in the future because retiring and/or converting the units as contemplated in the proposal is more cost effective than, and will result in increased visibility improvement over, the current BART requirements for NOx imposed on the Cholla units under EPA's BART FIP. APS’s proposal involves state and federal rulemaking processes. In light of these ongoing administrative proceedings, on February 19, 2015, APS, PacifiCorp (owner of Cholla Unit 4), and EPA jointly moved the court to sever and hold in abeyance those claims in the litigation pertaining to Cholla pending regulatory actions by the state and EPA. The court granted the parties' unopposed motion on February 20, 2015. On October 16, 2015, ADEQ issued a revised operating permit for Cholla, which incorporates APS's proposal, and subsequently submitted a proposed revision to the SIP to the EPA, which would incorporate the new permit terms. On June 30, 2016, EPA issued a proposed rule approving a revision to the Arizona SIP that incorporates APS’s compromise approach for compliance with the Regional Haze program. In early 2017, EPA approved a final rule incorporating APS's compromise proposal, which took effect for Cholla on April 26, 2017. Coal Combustion Waste. On December 19, 2014, EPA issued its final regulations governing the handling and disposal of CCR, such as fly ash and bottom ash. The rule regulates CCR as a non-hazardous waste under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA") and establishes national minimum criteria for existing and new CCR landfills and surface impoundments and all lateral expansions consisting of location restrictions, design and operating criteria, groundwater monitoring and corrective action, closure requirements and post closure care, and recordkeeping, notification, and Internet posting requirements. The rule generally requires any existing unlined CCR surface impoundment that is contaminating groundwater above a regulated constituent’s groundwater protection standard to stop receiving CCR and either retrofit or close, and further requires the closure of any CCR landfill or surface impoundment that cannot meet the applicable performance criteria for location restrictions or structural integrity. While EPA has chosen to regulate the disposal of CCR in landfills and surface impoundments as non-hazardous waste under the final rule, the agency makes clear that it will continue to evaluate any risks associated with CCR disposal and leaves open the possibility that it may regulate CCR as a hazardous waste under RCRA Subtitle C in the future. On December 16, 2016, President Obama signed the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation ("WIIN") Act into law, which contains a number of provisions requiring EPA to modify the self-implementing provisions of the Agency's current CCR rules under Subtitle D. Such modifications include new EPA authority to directly enforce the CCR rules through the use of administrative orders and providing states, like Arizona, where the Cholla facility is located, the option of developing CCR disposal unit permitting programs, subject to EPA approval. For facilities in states that do not develop state-specific permitting programs, EPA is required to develop a federal permit program, pending the availability of congressional appropriations. By contrast, for facilities located within the boundaries of Native American tribal reservations, such as the Navajo Nation, where the Navajo Plant and Four Corners facilities are located, EPA is required to develop a federal permit program regardless of appropriated funds. At this time, EPA has yet to publish guidance or proposed rules implementing the CCR provisions of the WIIN Act. In addition, we are unable to predict when Arizona will be able to develop a state-specific permitting program. It is unclear what effects the CCR provisions of the WIIN Act will have on APS's management of CCR. APS currently disposes of CCR in ash ponds and dry storage areas at Cholla and Four Corners. APS estimates that its share of incremental costs to comply with the CCR rule for Four Corners is approximately $22 million and its share of incremental costs to comply with the CCR rule for Cholla is approximately $20 million. The Navajo Plant currently disposes of CCR in a dry landfill storage area. APS estimates that its share of incremental costs to comply with the CCR rule for the Navajo Plant is approximately $1 million, the majority of which has already been incurred. Additionally, the CCR rule requires ongoing, phased groundwater monitoring. By October 17, 2017, electric utility companies that own or operate CCR disposal units, such as APS, must collect sufficient groundwater sampling data to initiate a detection monitoring program. To the extent that certain threshold constituents are identified through this initial detection monitoring at levels above the CCR rule’s standards, the rule requires the initiation of an assessment monitoring program by April 15, 2018. If this assessment monitoring program reveals concentrations of certain constituents above the CCR rule standards that trigger remedial obligations, a corrective measures evaluation must be completed by October 12, 2018. Depending upon the results of such groundwater monitoring and data evaluations at each of Cholla, Four Corners and the Navajo Plant, we may be required to take corrective actions, the costs of which we are unable to reasonably estimate at this time. Pursuant to a June 24, 2016 order by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the litigation by industry- and environmental-groups challenging EPA’s CCR regulations, within the next three years EPA is required to complete a rulemaking proceeding concerning whether or not boron must be included on the list of groundwater constituents that might trigger corrective action under EPA’s CCR rules. EPA is not required to take final action approving the inclusion of boron, but EPA must propose and consider its inclusion. Should EPA take final action adding boron to the list of groundwater constituents that might trigger corrective action, any resulting corrective action measures may increase APS's costs of compliance with the CCR rule at our coal-fired generating facilities. At this time, though, APS cannot predict when EPA will commence its rulemaking concerning boron or the eventual results of those proceedings. Clean Power Plan. On August 3, 2015, EPA finalized carbon pollution standards for electric generating units ("EGUs"). Shortly thereafter, a coalition of states, industry groups and electric utilities challenged the legality of these standards, including EPA's Clean Power Plan for existing EGUs, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. On February 9, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay of the Clean Power Plan pending judicial review of the rule, which temporarily delays compliance obligations under the Clean Power Plan. On March 28, 2017, President Trump issued an Executive Order that, among other things, instructs EPA to reevaluate Agency regulations concerning carbon emissions from EGUs and take appropriate action to suspend, revise or rescind the August 2015 carbon pollution standards for EGUs, including the Clean Power Plan. Also on March 28, 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice, on behalf of EPA, filed a motion with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to hold the ongoing litigation over the August 2015 pollution standards in abeyance pending EPA action in accordance with the Executive Order. This motion was granted on April 28, 2017 by an order that held the case in abeyance for 60 days to give the litigation parties an opportunity to brief the Court as to whether to remand the proceedings back to EPA. At this time we cannot predict the outcome of EPA's review of the August 2015 carbon pollution standards and whether EPA will take action to suspend, rescind or revise these regulations. The carbon pollution standards for EGUs on state and tribal lands are described in detail in Note 10 of our 2016 Form 10-K. Other environmental rules that could involve material compliance costs include those related to effluent limitations, the ozone national ambient air quality standard and other rules or matters involving the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, RCRA, Superfund, the Navajo Nation, and water supplies for our power plants. The financial impact of complying with current and future environmental rules could jeopardize the economic viability of our coal plants or the willingness or ability of power plant participants to fund any required equipment upgrades or continue their participation in these plants. The economics of continuing to own certain resources, particularly our coal plants, may deteriorate, warranting early retirement of those plants, which may result in asset impairments. APS would seek recovery in rates for the book value of any remaining investments in the plants as well as other costs related to early retirement, but cannot predict whether it would obtain such recovery. Federal Agency Environmental Lawsuit Related to Four Corners On April 20, 2016, several environmental groups filed a lawsuit against the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement ("OSM") and other federal agencies in the District of Arizona in connection with their issuance of the approvals that extended the life of Four Corners and the adjacent mine. The lawsuit alleges that these federal agencies violated both the Endangered Species Act ("ESA") and the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") in providing the federal approvals necessary to extend operations at the Four Corners Power Plant and the adjacent Navajo Mine past July 6, 2016. APS filed a motion to intervene in the proceedings, which was granted on August 3, 2016. On September 15, 2016, NTEC, the company that owns the adjacent mine, filed a motion to intervene for the purpose of dismissing the lawsuit based on NTEC's tribal sovereign immunity. Because the court has placed a stay on all litigation deadlines pending its decision regarding NTEC's motion to dismiss, the schedule for briefing and the anticipated timeline for completion of this litigation will likely be extended. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter or its potential effect on Four Corners. Four Corners Coal Supply Agreement Arbitration On June 13, 2017, APS received a Demand for Arbitration from NTEC in connection with the 2016 Coal Supply Agreement, dated December 30, 2013, under which NTEC supplies coal to APS and the other Four Corners owners (collectively, the “Buyer”) for use at the Four Corners Power Plant. NTEC is seeking a declaratory judgment to support its interpretation of a provision regarding uncontrollable forces in the agreement that relates to annual minimum quantities of coal to be purchased by the Buyer. NTEC alleges a shortfall in the Buyer’s purchases for the initial contract year of approximately $27 million. APS’s share of this amount is approximately $17 million. We cannot predict the timing or outcome of this arbitration; however we do not expect the outcome to have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Financial Assurances In the normal course of business, we obtain standby letters of credit and surety bonds from financial institutions and other third parties. These instruments guarantee our own future performance and provide third parties with financial and performance assurance in the event we do not perform. These instruments support certain debt arrangements, commodity contract collateral obligations, and other transactions. As of June 30, 2017, standby letters of credit totaled $5 million and will expire in 2017 and 2018. As of June 30, 2017, surety bonds expiring through 2019 totaled $62 million. The underlying liabilities insured by these instruments are reflected on our balance sheets, where applicable. Therefore, no additional liability is reflected for the letters of credit and surety bonds themselves. We enter into agreements that include indemnification provisions relating to liabilities arising from or related to certain of our agreements. Most significantly, APS has agreed to indemnify the equity participants and other parties in the Palo Verde sale leaseback transactions with respect to certain tax matters. Generally, a maximum obligation is not explicitly stated in the indemnification provisions and, therefore, the overall maximum amount of the obligation under such indemnification provisions cannot be reasonably estimated. Based on historical experience and evaluation of the specific indemnities, we do not believe that any material loss related to such indemnification provisions is likely. Pinnacle West has issued parental guarantees and has provided indemnification under certain surety bonds for APS which were not material at June 30, 2017. Effective July 6, 2016, Pinnacle West has issued three parental guarantees for 4CA relating to payment obligations arising from 4CA’s acquisition of El Paso’s 7% interest in Four Corners, and pursuant to the Four Corners participation agreement payment obligations arising from 4CA’s ownership interest in Four Corners.

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://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=68068213&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=73718637&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration