Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 11: Commitments and Contingencies Contingencies The Company is routinely involved in legal actions incident to the normal conduct of its business. As of June 30, 2024, the Company has accrued approximately $7 million of probable loss contingencies and has estimated that the maximum amount of loss associated with reasonably possible loss contingencies arising out of such legal actions, which can be reasonably estimated, is $3 million. For certain legal actions, the Company is unable to estimate possible losses. The Company believes that damages or settlements, if any, recovered by plaintiffs in such legal actions, other than as described in this Note 11—Commitments and Contingencies, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company. Dunbar, West Virginia Water Main Break Class Action Litigation On the evening of June 23, 2015, a 36-inch pre-stressed concrete transmission water main, installed in the early 1970s, failed. The water main is part of the West Relay pumping station located in the City of Dunbar, West Virginia and owned by the Company’s West Virginia subsidiary (“WVAWC”). The failure of the main caused water outages and low pressure for up to approximately 25,000 WVAWC customers. In the early morning hours of June 25, 2015, crews completed a repair, but that same day, the repair developed a leak. On June 26, 2015, a second repair was completed, and service was restored that day to approximately 80% of the impacted customers, and to the remaining approximately 20% by the next morning. The second repair showed signs of leaking, but the water main was usable until June 29, 2015, to allow tanks to refill. The system was reconfigured to maintain service to all but approximately 3,000 customers while a final repair was being completed safely on June 30, 2015. Water service was fully restored by July 1, 2015, to all customers affected by this event. On June 2, 2017, a complaint captioned Jeffries, et al. v. West Virginia-American Water Company was filed in West Virginia Circuit Court in Kanawha County on behalf of an alleged class of residents and business owners who lost water service or pressure as a result of the Dunbar main break. The complaint alleges breach of contract by WVAWC for failure to supply water, violation of West Virginia law regarding the sufficiency of WVAWC’s facilities and negligence by WVAWC in the design, maintenance and operation of the water system. The Jeffries plaintiffs seek unspecified alleged damages on behalf of the class for lost profits, annoyance and inconvenience, and loss of use, as well as punitive damages for willful, reckless and wanton behavior in not addressing the risk of pipe failure and a large outage. In February 2020, the Jeffries plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class certification on the issues of breach of contract and negligence, and to determine the applicability of punitive damages and a multiplier for those damages if imposed. In July 2020, the Circuit Court entered an order granting the Jeffries plaintiffs’ motion for certification of a class regarding certain liability issues but denying certification of a class to determine a punitive damages multiplier. In August 2020, WVAWC filed a Petition for Writ of Prohibition in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia seeking to vacate or remand the Circuit Court’s order certifying the issues class. In January 2021, the Supreme Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the Circuit Court for further consideration in light of a decision issued in another case relating to the class certification issues raised on appeal. In July 2022, the Circuit Court entered an order again certifying a class to address at trial certain liability issues but not to consider damages. In August 2022, WVAWC filed another Petition for Writ of Prohibition in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia challenging the West Virginia Circuit Court’s July 2022 order, which petition was denied on June 8, 2023. By order dated June 28, 2024, the Circuit Court set a new date of December 3, 2024, for a class trial on issues relating to duty and breach of that duty. This trial will not find class-wide or punitive damages. Mediation is scheduled to take place in August 2024. The Company and WVAWC believe that WVAWC has valid, meritorious defenses to the claims raised in this class action complaint. WVAWC is vigorously defending itself against these allegations. Given the current stage of this proceeding, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the amount of any reasonably possible loss or a range of loss related to this proceeding. Chattanooga, Tennessee Water Main Break Class Action Litigation On September 12, 2019, the Company’s Tennessee subsidiary (“TAWC”), experienced a leak in a 36-inch water transmission main, which caused service fluctuations or interruptions to TAWC customers and the issuance of a boil water notice. TAWC repaired the main by early morning on September 14, 2019, and restored full water service by the afternoon of September 15, 2019, with the boil water notice lifted for all customers on September 16, 2019. On September 17, 2019, a complaint captioned Bruce, et al. v. American Water Works Company, Inc., et al. was filed in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee against TAWC, the Company and American Water Works Service Company, Inc. (“Service Company” and, together with TAWC and the Company, collectively, the “Tennessee-American Water Defendants”), on behalf of a proposed class of individuals or entities who lost water service or suffered monetary losses as a result of the Chattanooga incident (the “Tennessee Plaintiffs”). The complaint alleged breach of contract and negligence against the Tennessee-American Water Defendants, as well as an equitable remedy of piercing the corporate veil. In the complaint as originally filed, the Tennessee Plaintiffs were seeking an award of unspecified alleged damages for wage losses, business and economic losses, out-of-pocket expenses, loss of use and enjoyment of property and annoyance and inconvenience, as well as punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and pre- and post-judgment interest. In September 2020, the court dismissed all of the Tennessee Plaintiffs’ claims in their complaint, except for the breach of contract claims against TAWC, which remain pending. In October 2020, TAWC answered the complaint, and the parties have been engaging in discovery. On January 12, 2023, after hearing oral argument, the court issued an oral ruling denying the Tennessee Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On February 9, 2023, the Tennessee Plaintiffs sought reconsideration of the ruling by the court, and any final ruling is appealable to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, as allowed under Tennessee law. On September 21, 2023, the court upheld its prior ruling but gave the Tennessee Plaintiffs the option to file an amended class definition. On October 12, 2023, the Tennessee Plaintiffs filed an amended class definition seeking certification of a business customer-only class. On December 1, 2023, TAWC filed a memorandum in opposition to the amended class definition. On January 18, 2024, and April 19, 2024, the court heard oral argument on the motions. On June 14, 2024, the court issued its written order denying the amended class and incorporating its denial of the original class. On June 21, 2024, the Tennessee Plaintiffs appealed both of the court’s orders denying class certification. The Company and TAWC believe that TAWC has valid, meritorious defenses to the claims raised in this class action complaint. TAWC is vigorously defending itself against these allegations. Given the current stage of this proceeding, the Company cannot currently determine the likelihood of a loss, if any, or estimate the amount of any loss or a range of loss related to this proceeding. Mountaineer Gas Company Main Break During the afternoon of November 10, 2023, WVAWC was informed that an 8-inch ductile iron water main owned by WVAWC, located on the West Side of Charleston, West Virginia and originally installed in approximately 1989, experienced a leak. In the early morning hours of November 11, 2023, WVAWC crews successfully completed a repair to the water main. A precautionary boil water advisory was issued the same day to approximately 300 WVAWC customers and ultimately lifted on November 12, 2023. On November 10, 2023, a break was reported in a low-pressure natural gas main located near the affected WVAWC water main, and an inflow of water into the natural gas main and associated delivery pipelines occurred. The natural gas main and pipelines are owned by Mountaineer Gas Company, a regulated natural gas distribution company serving over 220,000 customers in West Virginia (“Mountaineer Gas”). The resulting inflow of water into the natural gas main and related pipelines resulted in a loss of natural gas service to approximately 1,500 Mountaineer Gas customers, as well as water entering customer service lines and certain natural gas appliances owned or used by some of the affected Mountaineer Gas customers. Mountaineer Gas reported that restoration of natural gas service to all affected gas mains occurred on November 24, 2023. The timing, order and causation of both the WVAWC water main break and Mountaineer Gas’s main break are currently unknown and under investigation. To date, a total of four pending lawsuits have been filed against Mountaineer Gas and WVAWC purportedly on behalf of customers in Charleston, West Virginia related to these incidents. On November 14, 2023, a complaint captioned Ruffin et al. v. Mountaineer Gas Company and West Virginia-American Water Company was filed in West Virginia Circuit Court in Kanawha County on behalf of an alleged class of Mountaineer Gas residential and business customers and other households and businesses supplied with natural gas in Kanawha County, which lost natural gas service on November 10, 2023, as a result of these events. The complaint alleges, among other things, breach of contract by Mountaineer Gas, trespass by WVAWC, nuisance by WVAWC, violation of statutory obligations by Mountaineer Gas and WVAWC, and negligence by Mountaineer Gas and WVAWC. The complaint seeks class-wide damages against Mountaineer Gas and WVAWC for loss of use of natural gas, annoyance, inconvenience and lost profits, as well as punitive damages. On November 15, 2023, a complaint captioned Toliver et al. v. West Virginia-American Water Company and Mountaineer Gas Company was filed in West Virginia Circuit Court in Kanawha County on behalf of an alleged class of all natural persons or entities who are citizens of the State of West Virginia and who are customers of WVAWC and/or Mountaineer Gas in the affected areas. The complaint alleges against Mountaineer Gas and WVAWC, among other things, negligence, nuisance, trespass and strict liability, as well as breach of contract against Mountaineer Gas. The complaint seeks class-wide damages against Mountaineer Gas and WVAWC for property damage, loss of use and enjoyment of property, annoyance and inconvenience and business losses, as well as punitive damages. On November 16, 2023, a complaint captioned Dodson et al. v. West Virginia American Water and Mountaineer Gas Company was filed in West Virginia Circuit Court in Kanawha County on behalf of an alleged class of all West Virginia citizens living between Pennsylvania Avenue south of Washington Street, and Iowa Street, who are customers of Mountaineer Gas. The complaint alleges against Mountaineer Gas and WVAWC, among other things, negligence, nuisance, trespass, statutory code violations and unfair or deceptive business practices. The complaint seeks class-wide damages against Mountaineer Gas and WVAWC for property loss and damage, loss of use and enjoyment of property, mental and emotional distress, and aggravation and inconvenience, as well as punitive damages. On January 4, 2024, a fourth complaint, captioned Thomas v. West Virginia-American Water Company and Mountaineer Gas Company, was filed in West Virginia Circuit Court in Kanawha County asserting similar allegations as those included in the Ruffin, Toliver and Dodson lawsuits, with the addition of counts alleging unjust enrichment and violations of the West Virginia Human Rights Act and the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act. On November 17, 2023, the Ruffin plaintiff filed a motion to consolidate the class action lawsuits before a single judge in Kanawha County Circuit Court. On June 14, 2024, the judge in the Ruffin case partially granted the motion by transferring all of the four class action lawsuits to her court but deferring as premature consolidation of the cases. On December 5, 2023, a complaint captioned Mountaineer Gas Company v. West Virginia-American Water Company was filed in West Virginia Circuit Court in Kanawha County seeking damages under theories of trespass, negligence and implied indemnity. The damages being sought related to the incident include, among other things, repair and response costs incurred by Mountaineer Gas and attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred by Mountaineer Gas. On December 14, 2023, Mountaineer Gas filed a motion with the Supreme Court of West Virginia to transfer this case to the West Virginia Business Court. On December 29, 2023, WVAWC filed a joinder in the motion to transfer the case. WVAWC has also filed a partial motion to dismiss this lawsuit. On March 6, 2024, the motion to transfer the complaint captioned Mountaineer Gas Company v. West Virginia-American Water Company to the West Virginia Business Court was granted and trial and resolution judges were assigned. Mountaineer Gas voluntarily dismissed its implied indemnity count against WVAWC, rendering moot WVAWC’s partial motion to dismiss, and on May 31, 2024, WVAWC answered the complaint. On December 20, 2023, Mountaineer Gas filed answers to each of the first three class action lawsuits, which included cross-claims against WVAWC alleging that Mountaineer Gas is without fault for the claims and damages alleged in the lawsuits and WVAWC should be required to indemnify Mountaineer Gas for any damages and for attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred by Mountaineer Gas in the lawsuits. WVAWC has filed a partial motion to dismiss certain claims in the Ruffin, Toliver, Dodson and Thomas lawsuits and a motion to dismiss the cross-claims asserted against WVAWC therein by Mountaineer Gas. Mountaineer Gas subsequently voluntarily dismissed its cross-claims. On January 30, 2024, a motion was filed with the West Virginia Supreme Court on behalf of the Toliver plaintiff to refer the four class action complaints and the Mountaineer Gas complaint to the West Virginia Mass Litigation Panel. On February 7, 2024, WVAWC filed a motion joining in that referral request. On February 19, 2024, Mountaineer Gas filed a motion opposing the referral of the four class action complaints and the Mountaineer Gas complaint to the West Virginia Mass Litigation Panel. On March 28, 2024, the Kanawha County Circuit Court trial judge filed a memorandum opposing the referral. On May 31, 2024, the West Virginia Supreme Court denied the motion seeking referral. The Kanawha County Circuit Court has set a trial date of February 2, 2026, for the class action complaints. On December 6, 2023, WVAWC initiated a process whereby Mountaineer Gas customers could file claims with WVAWC and seek payment from WVAWC of up to $2,000 in damages per affected household for the inconvenience arising from a loss of use of their appliances and documented out-of-pocket expenses as a result of the natural gas outage. In light of the diminishing number of new claims being filed, the claims process was concluded on March 8, 2024. As of June 30, 2024, a total of 589 Mountaineer Gas customers completed this claims process, and each of those customers has been paid by WVAWC an average of approximately $1,500. In return, these customers were required to execute a partial release of liability in favor of WVAWC. On November 16, 2023, the Public Service Commission of West Virginia (the “WVPSC”) issued an order initiating a general investigation into both the water main break and natural gas outages occurring in this incident to determine the cause or causes thereof, as well as breaks and outages generally throughout the systems of WVAWC and Mountaineer Gas and the utility practices of both utilities. Following a series of disagreements among the parties regarding the scope of discovery, the WVPSC closed the general investigation into both utilities and ordered a separate general investigation for each utility. The WVPSC focused the two general investigations away from the cause of the events and instead on the maintenance practices of each utility during and after the main breaks. On January 29, 2024, the Consumer Advocate Division of the WVPSC filed a motion to intervene in the WVAWC general investigation. WVAWC is cooperating with its general investigation. On March 1, 2024, the staff of the WVPSC issued an initial memorandum in each separate general investigation for Mountaineer Gas and WVAWC. On April 24, 2024, the staff issued a final joint memorandum in the Mountaineer Gas general investigation stating its view that Mountaineer Gas responded appropriately, reasonably and according to Mountaineer Gas’s written procedures. The staff is making no recommendations for improvements to Mountaineer Gas and is recommending that the Mountaineer Gas general investigation be closed. On July 24, 2024, the staff issued a final joint memorandum in the WVAWC general investigation finding no indication of systematic failure by WVAWC and concluding WVAWC’s maintenance and operating procedures were adequate to ensure safe and reliable service, subject to the implementation by WVAWC of three recommended operational improvements. Both general investigations remain pending. The Company and WVAWC believe that the causes of action and other claims asserted against WVAWC in the class action complaints and the lawsuit filed by Mountaineer Gas are without merit and that WVAWC has meritorious defenses to such claims, and WVAWC is defending itself vigorously in these litigation proceedings. Given the current stage of these proceedings and the general investigation, the Company and WVAWC are currently unable to predict the outcome of any of the proceedings described above, and the Company cannot currently determine the likelihood of a loss, if any, or estimate the amount of any loss or a range of loss related to this proceeding. Alternative Water Supply in Lieu of Carmel River Diversions Compliance with Orders to Reduce Carmel River Diversions—Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Under a 2009 order (the “2009 Order”) of the State Water Resources Control Board (the “SWRCB”), the Company’s California subsidiary (“Cal Am”) is required to decrease significantly its yearly diversions of water from the Carmel River according to a set reduction schedule. In 2016, the SWRCB issued an order (the “2016 Order,” and, together with the 2009 Order, the “Orders”) approving a deadline of December 31, 2021, for Cal Am’s compliance with these prior orders. Cal Am is currently involved in developing the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (the “Water Supply Project”), which includes the construction of a desalination plant, to be owned by Cal Am, and the construction of wells that would supply water to the desalination plant. In addition, the Water Supply Project also includes Cal Am’s purchase of water from a groundwater replenishment project (the “GWR Project”) between Monterey One Water and the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (the “MPWMD”). The Water Supply Project is intended, among other things, to fulfill Cal Am’s obligations under the Orders. Cal Am’s ability to move forward on the Water Supply Project is subject to administrative review by the CPUC and other government agencies, obtaining necessary permits, and intervention from other parties. In September 2016, the CPUC unanimously approved a final decision to authorize Cal Am to enter into a water purchase agreement for the GWR Project and to construct a pipeline and pump station facilities and recover up to $50 million in associated incurred costs, plus an allowance for funds used during construction (“AFUDC”), subject to meeting certain criteria. In September 2018, the CPUC unanimously approved another final decision finding that the Water Supply Project meets the CPUC’s requirements for a certificate of public convenience and necessity and an additional procedural phase was not necessary to consider alternative projects. The CPUC’s 2018 decision concludes that the Water Supply Project is the best project to address estimated future water demands in Monterey, and, in addition to the cost recovery approved in its 2016 decision, adopts Cal Am’s cost estimates for the Water Supply Project, which amounted to an aggregate of $279 million plus AFUDC at a rate representative of Cal Am’s actual financing costs. The 2018 final decision specifies the procedures for recovery of all of Cal Am’s prudently incurred costs associated with the Water Supply Project upon its completion, subject to the frameworks included in the final decision related to cost caps, operation and maintenance costs, financing, ratemaking and contingency matters. The reasonableness of the Water Supply Project costs will be reviewed by the CPUC when Cal Am seeks cost recovery for the Water Supply Project. Cal Am is also required to implement mitigation measures to avoid, minimize or offset significant environmental impacts from the construction and operation of the Water Supply Project and comply with a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, a reimbursement agreement for CPUC costs associated with that program, and reporting requirements on plant operations following placement of the Water Supply Project in service. Cal Am has incurred $255 million in aggregate costs as of June 30, 2024, related to the Water Supply Project, which includes $80 million in AFUDC. In September 2021, Cal Am, Monterey One Water and the MPWMD reached an agreement on Cal Am’s purchase of additional water from an expansion to the GWR Project. On December 5, 2022, the CPUC issued a final decision that authorized Cal Am to enter into the amended water purchase agreement, and specifically to increase pumping capacity and reliability of groundwater extraction from the Seaside Groundwater Basin. The final decision sets the cost cap for the proposed facilities at approximately $62 million. Cal Am may seek recovery of amounts above the cost cap in a subsequent rate filing or general rate case. Additionally, the final decision authorizes AFUDC at Cal Am’s actual weighted average cost of debt for most of the facilities. On December 30, 2022, Cal Am filed with the CPUC an application for rehearing of the CPUC’s December 5, 2022, final decision, and on March 30, 2023, the CPUC issued a decision denying Cal Am’s application for rehearing, but adopting its proposed AFUDC for already incurred and future costs. This decision also provided Cal Am the opportunity to serve supplemental testimony to increase its cost cap for certain of the Water Supply Project’s extraction wells. The amended water purchase agreement and a memorandum of understanding to negotiate certain milestones related to the expansion of the GWR Project have been signed by the relevant parties. Further hearings were scheduled in a Phase 2 to this CPUC proceeding to focus on updated supply and demand estimates for the Water Supply Project, and Phase 2 testimony was completed in September 2022. On October 23, 2023, a status conference was held to determine procedural steps to conclude the proceeding, and further evidentiary hearings were held in March 2024. While Cal Am believes that its expenditures to date have been prudent and necessary to comply with the Orders, as well as relevant final decisions of the CPUC related thereto, Cal Am cannot currently predict its ability to recover all of its costs and expenses associated with the Water Supply Project and there can be no assurance that Cal Am will be able to recover all of such costs and expenses in excess of the $112 million in aggregate construction costs, plus applicable AFUDC, previously approved by the CPUC in its 2016 final decision and its December 2022 final decision, as amended by its March 30, 2023, rehearing decision. Coastal Development Permit Application In 2018, Cal Am submitted a coastal development permit application (the “Marina Application”) to the City of Marina (the “City”) for those project components of the Water Supply Project located within the City’s coastal zone. Members of the City’s Planning Commission, as well as City councilpersons, have publicly expressed opposition to the Water Supply Project. In May 2019, the City issued a notice of final local action based upon the denial by the Planning Commission of the Marina Application. Thereafter, Cal Am appealed this decision to the Coastal Commission, as permitted under the City’s code and the California Coastal Act. At the same time, Cal Am submitted an application (the “Original Jurisdiction Application”) to the Coastal Commission for a coastal development permit for those project components located within the Coastal Commission’s original jurisdiction. After Coastal Commission staff issued reports recommending denial of the Original Jurisdiction Application, noting potential impacts on environmentally sensitive habitat areas and wetlands and possible disproportionate impacts to communities of concern, in September 2020, Cal Am withdrew the Original Jurisdiction Application in order to address the staff’s environmental justice concerns. In November 2020, Cal Am refiled the Original Jurisdiction Application. In October 2022, Cal Am announced a phasing plan for the proposed desalination plant component of the Water Supply Project. The desalination plant and slant wells originally approved by the CPUC would produce up to 6.4 million gallons of desalinated water per day. Under the phased approach, the facilities would initially be constructed to produce up to 4.8 million gallons per day of desalinated water, enough to meet anticipated demand through about 2030, and would limit the number of slant wells initially constructed. As demand increases in the future, desalination facilities would be expanded to meet the additional demand. The phased approach seeks to meet near-term demand by allowing for additional supply as it becomes needed, while also providing an opportunity for regional future public participation and was developed by Cal Am based on feedback received from the community. In November 2022, the Coastal Commission approved the Marina Application and the Original Jurisdiction Application with respect to the phased development of the proposed desalination plant, subject to compliance with a number of conditions, all of which Cal Am expects to satisfy. In December 2022, the City, Marina Coast Water District (“MCWD”), MCWD’s groundwater sustainability agency, and the MPWMD jointly filed a petition for writ of mandate in Monterey County Superior Court against the Coastal Commission, alleging that the Coastal Commission violated the California Coastal Act and the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) in issuing a coastal development permit to Cal Am for construction of the slant wells. Cal Am is named as a real party in interest. On April 24, 2024, the court granted defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed one of four causes of action in the petition. The three remaining claims challenge the Coastal Commission’s substantive compliance with certain provisions of CEQA, the California Coastal Act, and due process requirements in considering Cal Am’s application. Trial in this matter has been set for November 13, 2024. Following the issuance of the coastal development permit, Cal Am continues to work constructively with all appropriate agencies to provide necessary information in connection with obtaining the remaining required permits for the Water Supply Project. However, there can be no assurance that the Water Supply Project in its current configuration will be completed on a timely basis, if ever. For the year ended December 31, 2023, Cal Am has complied with the diversion limitations contained in the 2016 Order. Continued compliance with the diversion limitations in 2024 and future years may be impacted by a number of factors, including, without limitation, potential recurrence of drought conditions in California and the exhaustion of water supply reserves, and will require successful development of alternate water supply sources sufficient to meet customer demand. The Orders remain in effect until Cal Am certifies to the SWRCB, and the SWRCB concurs, that Cal Am has obtained a permanent supply of water to substitute for past unauthorized Carmel River diversions. While the Company cannot currently predict the likelihood or result of any adverse outcome associated with these matters, further attempts to comply with the Orders may result in material additional costs and obligations to Cal Am, including fines and penalties against Cal Am in the event of noncompliance with the Orders. Cal Am’s Action for Damages Following Termination of Regional Desalination Project (“RDP”) In 2010, the CPUC had approved the RDP, which was a precursor to the current Water Supply Project and called for the construction of a desalination facility in the City of Marina. The RDP was to be implemented through a Water Purchase Agreement and ancillary agreements (collectively, the “Agreements”) among MCWD, Cal Am and the Monterey County Water Resources Agency (“MCWRA”). In 2011, due to a conflict of interest concerning a former member of MCWRA’s Board of Directors, MCWRA stated that the Agreements were void, and, as a result, Cal Am terminated the Agreements. In ensuing litigation filed by Cal Am in 2012 to resolve the termination of the RDP, the court in 2015 entered a final judgment agreeing with Cal Am’s position that four of the five Agreements are void, and one, the credit line agreement, is not void. As a result of this litigation, Cal Am was permitted to institute further proceedings, discussed below, to determine the amount of damages that may be awarded to Cal Am as a result of the failure of the RDP. In 2015, Cal Am and MCWRA filed a complaint in San Francisco County Superior Court against MCWD and RMC Water and Environment, a private engineering consulting firm (“RMC”), seeking to recover compensatory, consequential and incidental damages associated with the failure of the RDP, as well as punitive and treble damages, statutory penalties and attorneys’ fees. In 2019, MCWD was granted a motion for summary judgment related to the tort claims in the complaint. A settlement as to the non-tort claims was finalized and entered into in March 2020. In July 2020, Cal Am appealed the grant of summary judgment on MCWD’s tort claims, and in December 2022, the trial court’s decision was reversed with instructions to vacate its prior orders granting MCWD’s motions for summary judgment and to enter new orders denying the motions. In February 2023, MCWD filed a petition for review of the appellate decision with the California Supreme Court, which was denied in March 2023. A hearing on MCWD’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is scheduled for August 16, 2024. The trial date of August 5, 2024, has been vacated, and will be rescheduled at a later date. Proposed Acquisition of Monterey System Assets — MPWMD Condemnation Action Local Agency Formation Commission Litigation The water system assets of Cal Am located in Monterey, California (the “Monterey system assets”) are the subject of a condemnation action by the MPWMD stemming from a November 2018 public ballot initiative. In 2019, the MPWMD issued a preliminary valuation and cost of service analysis report, finding in part that (1) an estimate of the Monterey system assets’ total value plus adjustments would be approximately $513 million, (2) the cost of service modeling results indicate significant annual reductions in revenue requirements and projected monthly water bills, and (3) the acquisition of the Monterey system assets by the MPWMD would be economically feasible. In 2020, the MPWMD certified a final environmental impact report, analyzing the environmental impacts of the MPWMD’s project to (1) acquire the Monterey system assets through the power of eminent domain, if necessary, and (2) expand its geographic boundaries to include all parts of this system. In February 2021, the MPWMD filed an application with the Local Agency Formation Commission of Monterey County (“LAFCO”) seeking approval to become a retail water provider and annex approximately 58 parcels of land into the MPWMD’s boundaries. In June 2021, LAFCO’s commissioners voted to require a third-party independent financial study as to the feasibility of an acquisition by the MPWMD of the Monterey system assets. In December 2021, LAFCO’s commissioners denied the MPWMD’s application to become a retail water provider, determining that the MPWMD does not have the authority to proceed with a condemnation of the Monterey system assets. In April 2022, the MPWMD filed a lawsuit against LAFCO challenging its decision to deny the MPWMD’s application seeking approval to become a retail water provider. In June 2022, the court granted, with conditions, a motion by Cal Am to intervene in the MPWMD’s lawsuit against LAFCO. In December 2022, the court sustained in part, and denied in part, demurrers that had been filed by LAFCO seeking to dismiss the MPWMD’s lawsuit. On December 11, 2023, the Monterey County Superior Court issued a writ of mandate directing LAFCO to vacate and set aside its original denial of the MPWMD’s application to serve as a retail water provider (in conjunction with its effort to acquire the Monterey system assets) and, if requested, to re-hear the application in compliance with all applicable law. The court held that LAFCO incorrectly applied two statutory standards and noted a lack of sufficient evidence to support certain of LAFCO’s factual findings. As a result, the LAFCO denial has been nullified and LAFCO will be required to hold another hearing on the MPWMD’s application. On February 8, 2024, and February 9, 2024, respectively, Cal Am and LAFCO each filed a notice of appeal with the California Court of Appeal regarding the Monterey County Superior Court’s decision to issue the writ of mandate. The MPWMD filed a notice of cross-appeal on February 15, 2024. Cal Am is evaluating potential additional actions to seek to uphold LAFCO’s denial of the MPWMD’s application, including filing other challenges and/or making suitable presentations at a subsequent LAFCO rehearing. MPWMD Condemnation Actions Separate from the proceedings related to the MPWMD’s application with LAFCO, by letter dated October 3, 2022, the MPWMD notified Cal Am of a decision to appraise the Monterey system assets and requesting access to a number of Cal Am’s properties and documents to assist the MPWMD with such an appraisal. Cal Am responded by letter on October 24, 2022, denying the request for access, stating that the MPWMD does not have the right to appraise Cal Am’s system without LAFCO approval to become a retail water provider. On April 28, 2023, Cal Am rejected an offer by the MPWMD to purchase the Monterey system assets for $448.8 million. Over the written and oral objections of Cal Am, at a hearing held on October 10, 2023, the MPWMD adopted a resolution of necessity to authorize it to file an eminent domain lawsuit with respect to the Monterey system assets. On December 15, 2023, the MPWMD filed a lawsuit in Monterey County Superior Court seeking to condemn the Monterey system assets. On February 26, 2024, Cal Am filed a motion requesting the Monterey County Superior Court dismiss the MPWMD’s lawsuit seeking to condemn Cal Am’s Monterey system assets. Cal Am’s motion asserts that the MPWMD lacks legal authorization from both the California legislature and LAFCO to become a retail water provider and the lawsuit improperly seeks to effect a taking of property outside the boundaries of the MPWMD’s territory. An initial hearing on Cal Am’s motion to dismiss was held on May 3, 2024, and a subsequent hearing is scheduled for August 23, 2024. While the Company cannot currently predict the outcome of the MPWMD’s eminent domain lawsuit, the Company believes that, given existing legal precedent related to similar attempts by public agencies in California to take over water systems and its other defenses, Cal Am should be able to defend itself successfully against this lawsuit. West Virginia Elk River Freedom Industries Chemical Spill On June 8, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia granted final approval of a settlement class and global class action settlement (the “Settlement”) for all claims and potential claims by all class members (collectively, the “West Virginia Plaintiffs”) arising out of the January 2014 Freedom Industries, Inc. chemical spill in West Virginia. The effective date of the Settlement was July 16, 2018. Under the terms and conditions of the Settlement, WVAWC and certain other Company affiliated entities did not admit, and will not admit, any fault or liability for any of the allegations made by the West Virginia Plaintiffs in any of the actions that were resolved. As of June 30, 2024, $0.5 million of the aggregate Settlement amount of $126 million remains reflected in accrued liabilities, and $0.5 million in an offsetting insurance receivable remains reflected in other current assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets pending resolution of all asserted actual or potential claims associated with this matter. The amount reflected in accrued liabilities reflects the status of the liability and the offsetting insurance receivable reflected in other current assets, each as of June 30, 2024.

The Company is routinely involved in legal actions incident to the normal conduct of its business. As of June 30, 2024, the Company has accrued approximately $7 million of probable loss contingencies and has estimated that the maximum amount of loss associated with reasonably possible loss contingencies arising out of such legal actions, which can be reasonably estimated, is $3 million. For certain legal actions, the Company is unable to estimate possible losses. The Company believes that damages or settlements, if any, recovered by plaintiffs in such legal actions, other than as described in this Note 11—Commitments and Contingencies, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company.

On the evening of June 23, 2015, a 36-inch pre-stressed concrete transmission water main, installed in the early 1970s, failed. The water main is part of the West Relay pumping station located in the City of Dunbar, West Virginia and owned by the Company’s West Virginia subsidiary (“WVAWC”). The failure of the main caused water outages and low pressure for up to approximately 25,000 WVAWC customers. In the early morning hours of June 25, 2015, crews completed a repair, but that same day, the repair developed a leak. On June 26, 2015, a second repair was completed, and service was restored that day to approximately 80% of the impacted customers, and to the remaining approximately 20% by the next morning. The second repair showed signs of leaking, but the water main was usable until June 29, 2015, to allow tanks to refill. The system was reconfigured to maintain service to all but approximately 3,000 customers while a final repair was being completed safely on June 30, 2015. Water service was fully restored by July 1, 2015, to all customers affected by this event.

On June 2, 2017, a complaint captioned Jeffries, et al. v. West Virginia-American Water Company was filed in West Virginia Circuit Court in Kanawha County on behalf of an alleged class of residents and business owners who lost water service or pressure as a result of the Dunbar main break. The complaint alleges breach of contract by WVAWC for failure to supply water, violation of West Virginia law regarding the sufficiency of WVAWC’s facilities and negligence by WVAWC in the design, maintenance and operation of the water system. The Jeffries plaintiffs seek unspecified alleged damages on behalf of the class for lost profits, annoyance and inconvenience, and loss of use, as well as punitive damages for willful, reckless and wanton behavior in not addressing the risk of pipe failure and a large outage.

In February 2020, the Jeffries plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class certification on the issues of breach of contract and negligence, and to determine the applicability of punitive damages and a multiplier for those damages if imposed. In July 2020, the Circuit Court entered an order granting the Jeffries plaintiffs’ motion for certification of a class regarding certain liability issues but denying certification of a class to determine a punitive damages multiplier. In August 2020, WVAWC filed a Petition for Writ of Prohibition in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia seeking to vacate or remand the Circuit Court’s order certifying the issues class. In January 2021, the Supreme Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the Circuit Court for further consideration in light of a decision issued in another case relating to the class certification issues raised on appeal. In July 2022, the Circuit Court entered an order again certifying a class to address at trial certain liability issues but not to consider damages. In August 2022, WVAWC filed another Petition for Writ of Prohibition in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia challenging the West Virginia Circuit Court’s July 2022 order, which petition was denied on June 8, 2023. By order dated June 28, 2024, the Circuit Court set a new date of December 3, 2024, for a class trial on issues relating to duty and breach of that duty. This trial will not find class-wide or punitive damages. Mediation is scheduled to take place in August 2024.

The Company and WVAWC believe that WVAWC has valid, meritorious defenses to the claims raised in this class action complaint. WVAWC is vigorously defending itself against these allegations. Given the current stage of this proceeding, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the amount of any reasonably possible loss or a range of loss related to this proceeding.

On September 12, 2019, the Company’s Tennessee subsidiary (“TAWC”), experienced a leak in a 36-inch water transmission main, which caused service fluctuations or interruptions to TAWC customers and the issuance of a boil water notice. TAWC repaired the main by early morning on September 14, 2019, and restored full water service by the afternoon of September 15, 2019, with the boil water notice lifted for all customers on September 16, 2019.

On September 17, 2019, a complaint captioned Bruce, et al. v. American Water Works Company, Inc., et al. was filed in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee against TAWC, the Company and American Water Works Service Company, Inc. (“Service Company” and, together with TAWC and the Company, collectively, the “Tennessee-American Water Defendants”), on behalf of a proposed class of individuals or entities who lost water service or suffered monetary losses as a result of the Chattanooga incident (the “Tennessee Plaintiffs”). The complaint alleged breach of contract and negligence against the Tennessee-American Water Defendants, as well as an equitable remedy of piercing the corporate veil. In the complaint as originally filed, the Tennessee Plaintiffs were seeking an award of unspecified alleged damages for wage losses, business and economic losses, out-of-pocket expenses, loss of use and enjoyment of property and annoyance and inconvenience, as well as punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and pre- and post-judgment interest.

In September 2020, the court dismissed all of the Tennessee Plaintiffs’ claims in their complaint, except for the breach of contract claims against TAWC, which remain pending. In October 2020, TAWC answered the complaint, and the parties have been engaging in discovery. On January 12, 2023, after hearing oral argument, the court issued an oral ruling denying the Tennessee Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On February 9, 2023, the Tennessee Plaintiffs sought reconsideration of the ruling by the court, and any final ruling is appealable to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, as allowed under Tennessee law. On September 21, 2023, the court upheld its prior ruling but gave the Tennessee Plaintiffs the option to file an amended class definition. On October 12, 2023, the Tennessee Plaintiffs filed an amended class definition seeking certification of a business customer-only class. On December 1, 2023, TAWC filed a memorandum in opposition to the amended class definition. On January 18, 2024, and April 19, 2024, the court heard oral argument on the motions. On June 14, 2024, the court issued its written order denying the amended class and incorporating its denial of the original class. On June 21, 2024, the Tennessee Plaintiffs appealed both of the court’s orders denying class certification.

The Company and TAWC believe that TAWC has valid, meritorious defenses to the claims raised in this class action complaint. TAWC is vigorously defending itself against these allegations. Given the current stage of this proceeding, the Company cannot currently determine the likelihood of a loss, if any, or estimate the amount of any loss or a range of loss related to this proceeding.

During the afternoon of November 10, 2023, WVAWC was informed that an 8-inch ductile iron water main owned by WVAWC, located on the West Side of Charleston, West Virginia and originally installed in approximately 1989, experienced a leak. In the early morning hours of November 11, 2023, WVAWC crews successfully completed a repair to the water main. A precautionary boil water advisory was issued the same day to approximately 300 WVAWC customers and ultimately lifted on November 12, 2023.

On November 10, 2023, a break was reported in a low-pressure natural gas main located near the affected WVAWC water main, and an inflow of water into the natural gas main and associated delivery pipelines occurred. The natural gas main and pipelines are owned by Mountaineer Gas Company, a regulated natural gas distribution company serving over 220,000 customers in West Virginia (“Mountaineer Gas”). The resulting inflow of water into the natural gas main and related pipelines resulted in a loss of natural gas service to approximately 1,500 Mountaineer Gas customers, as well as water entering customer service lines and certain natural gas appliances owned or used by some of the affected Mountaineer Gas customers. Mountaineer Gas reported that restoration of natural gas service to all affected gas mains occurred on November 24, 2023. The timing, order and causation of both the WVAWC water main break and Mountaineer Gas’s main break are currently unknown and under investigation.

To date, a total of four pending lawsuits have been filed against Mountaineer Gas and WVAWC purportedly on behalf of customers in Charleston, West Virginia related to these incidents. On November 14, 2023, a complaint captioned Ruffin et al. v. Mountaineer Gas Company and West Virginia-American Water Company was filed in West Virginia Circuit Court in Kanawha County on behalf of an alleged class of Mountaineer Gas residential and business customers and other households and businesses supplied with natural gas in Kanawha County, which lost natural gas service on November 10, 2023, as a result of these events. The complaint alleges, among other things, breach of contract by Mountaineer Gas, trespass by WVAWC, nuisance by WVAWC, violation of statutory obligations by Mountaineer Gas and WVAWC, and negligence by Mountaineer Gas and WVAWC. The complaint seeks class-wide damages against Mountaineer Gas and WVAWC for loss of use of natural gas, annoyance, inconvenience and lost profits, as well as punitive damages.

On November 15, 2023, a complaint captioned Toliver et al. v. West Virginia-American Water Company and Mountaineer Gas Company was filed in West Virginia Circuit Court in Kanawha County on behalf of an alleged class of all natural persons or entities who are citizens of the State of West Virginia and who are customers of WVAWC and/or Mountaineer Gas in the affected areas. The complaint alleges against Mountaineer Gas and WVAWC, among other things, negligence, nuisance, trespass and strict liability, as well as breach of contract against Mountaineer Gas. The complaint seeks class-wide damages against Mountaineer Gas and WVAWC for property damage, loss of use and enjoyment of property, annoyance and inconvenience and business losses, as well as punitive damages.

On November 16, 2023, a complaint captioned Dodson et al. v. West Virginia American Water and Mountaineer Gas Company was filed in West Virginia Circuit Court in Kanawha County on behalf of an alleged class of all West Virginia citizens living between Pennsylvania Avenue south of Washington Street, and Iowa Street, who are customers of Mountaineer Gas. The complaint alleges against Mountaineer Gas and WVAWC, among other things, negligence, nuisance, trespass, statutory code violations and unfair or deceptive business practices. The complaint seeks class-wide damages against Mountaineer Gas and WVAWC for property loss and damage, loss of use and enjoyment of property, mental and emotional distress, and aggravation and inconvenience, as well as punitive damages.

On January 4, 2024, a fourth complaint, captioned Thomas v. West Virginia-American Water Company and Mountaineer Gas Company, was filed in West Virginia Circuit Court in Kanawha County asserting similar allegations as those included in the Ruffin, Toliver and Dodson lawsuits, with the addition of counts alleging unjust enrichment and violations of the West Virginia Human Rights Act and the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act.

On December 5, 2023, a complaint captioned Mountaineer Gas Company v. West Virginia-American Water Company was filed in West Virginia Circuit Court in Kanawha County seeking damages under theories of trespass, negligence and implied indemnity. The damages being sought related to the incident include, among other things, repair and response costs incurred by Mountaineer Gas and attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred by Mountaineer Gas. On December 14, 2023, Mountaineer Gas filed a motion with the Supreme Court of West Virginia to transfer this case to the West Virginia Business Court. On December 29, 2023, WVAWC filed a joinder in the motion to transfer the case. WVAWC has also filed a partial motion to dismiss this lawsuit. On March 6, 2024, the motion to transfer the complaint captioned Mountaineer Gas Company v. West Virginia-American Water Company to the West Virginia Business Court was granted and trial and resolution judges were assigned. Mountaineer Gas voluntarily dismissed its implied indemnity count against WVAWC, rendering moot WVAWC’s partial motion to dismiss, and on May 31, 2024, WVAWC answered the complaint.

On December 20, 2023, Mountaineer Gas filed answers to each of the first three class action lawsuits, which included cross-claims against WVAWC alleging that Mountaineer Gas is without fault for the claims and damages alleged in the lawsuits and WVAWC should be required to indemnify Mountaineer Gas for any damages and for attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred by Mountaineer Gas in the lawsuits. WVAWC has filed a partial motion to dismiss certain claims in the Ruffin, Toliver, Dodson and Thomas lawsuits and a motion to dismiss the cross-claims asserted against WVAWC therein by Mountaineer Gas. Mountaineer Gas subsequently voluntarily dismissed its cross-claims. On January 30, 2024, a motion was filed with the West Virginia Supreme Court on behalf of the Toliver plaintiff to refer the four class action complaints and the Mountaineer Gas complaint to the West Virginia Mass Litigation Panel. On February 7, 2024, WVAWC filed a motion joining in that referral request. On February 19, 2024, Mountaineer Gas filed a motion opposing the referral of the four class action complaints and the Mountaineer Gas complaint to the West Virginia Mass Litigation Panel. On March 28, 2024, the Kanawha County Circuit Court trial judge filed a memorandum opposing the referral. On May 31, 2024, the West Virginia Supreme Court denied the motion seeking referral. The Kanawha County Circuit Court has set a trial date of February 2, 2026, for the class action complaints.

On December 6, 2023, WVAWC initiated a process whereby Mountaineer Gas customers could file claims with WVAWC and seek payment from WVAWC of up to $2,000 in damages per affected household for the inconvenience arising from a loss of use of their appliances and documented out-of-pocket expenses as a result of the natural gas outage. In light of the diminishing number of new claims being filed, the claims process was concluded on March 8, 2024. As of June 30, 2024, a total of 589 Mountaineer Gas customers completed this claims process, and each of those customers has been paid by WVAWC an average of approximately $1,500. In return, these customers were required to execute a partial release of liability in favor of WVAWC.

On November 16, 2023, the Public Service Commission of West Virginia (the “WVPSC”) issued an order initiating a general investigation into both the water main break and natural gas outages occurring in this incident to determine the cause or causes thereof, as well as breaks and outages generally throughout the systems of WVAWC and Mountaineer Gas and the utility practices of both utilities. Following a series of disagreements among the parties regarding the scope of discovery, the WVPSC closed the general investigation into both utilities and ordered a separate general investigation for each utility. The WVPSC focused the two general investigations away from the cause of the events and instead on the maintenance practices of each utility during and after the main breaks. On January 29, 2024, the Consumer Advocate Division of the WVPSC filed a motion to intervene in the WVAWC general investigation. WVAWC is cooperating with its general investigation.

On March 1, 2024, the staff of the WVPSC issued an initial memorandum in each separate general investigation for Mountaineer Gas and WVAWC. On April 24, 2024, the staff issued a final joint memorandum in the Mountaineer Gas general investigation stating its view that Mountaineer Gas responded appropriately, reasonably and according to Mountaineer Gas’s written procedures. The staff is making no recommendations for improvements to Mountaineer Gas and is recommending that the Mountaineer Gas general investigation be closed. On July 24, 2024, the staff issued a final joint memorandum in the WVAWC general investigation finding no indication of systematic failure by WVAWC and concluding WVAWC’s maintenance and operating procedures were adequate to ensure safe and reliable service, subject to the implementation by WVAWC of three recommended operational improvements. Both general investigations remain pending.

The Company and WVAWC believe that the causes of action and other claims asserted against WVAWC in the class action complaints and the lawsuit filed by Mountaineer Gas are without merit and that WVAWC has meritorious defenses to such claims, and WVAWC is defending itself vigorously in these litigation proceedings. Given the current stage of these proceedings and the general investigation, the Company and WVAWC are currently unable to predict the outcome of any of the proceedings described above, and the Company cannot currently determine the likelihood of a loss, if any, or estimate the amount of any loss or a range of loss related to this proceeding.

Under a 2009 order (the “2009 Order”) of the State Water Resources Control Board (the “SWRCB”), the Company’s California subsidiary (“Cal Am”) is required to decrease significantly its yearly diversions of water from the Carmel River according to a set reduction schedule. In 2016, the SWRCB issued an order (the “2016 Order,” and, together with the 2009 Order, the “Orders”) approving a deadline of December 31, 2021, for Cal Am’s compliance with these prior orders.

Cal Am is currently involved in developing the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (the “Water Supply Project”), which includes the construction of a desalination plant, to be owned by Cal Am, and the construction of wells that would supply water to the desalination plant. In addition, the Water Supply Project also includes Cal Am’s purchase of water from a groundwater replenishment project (the “GWR Project”) between Monterey One Water and the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (the “MPWMD”). The Water Supply Project is intended, among other things, to fulfill Cal Am’s obligations under the Orders.

Cal Am’s ability to move forward on the Water Supply Project is subject to administrative review by the CPUC and other government agencies, obtaining necessary permits, and intervention from other parties. In September 2016, the CPUC unanimously approved a final decision to authorize Cal Am to enter into a water purchase agreement for the GWR Project and to construct a pipeline and pump station facilities and recover up to $50 million in associated incurred costs, plus an allowance for funds used during construction (“AFUDC”), subject to meeting certain criteria.

In September 2018, the CPUC unanimously approved another final decision finding that the Water Supply Project meets the CPUC’s requirements for a certificate of public convenience and necessity and an additional procedural phase was not necessary to consider alternative projects. The CPUC’s 2018 decision concludes that the Water Supply Project is the best project to address estimated future water demands in Monterey, and, in addition to the cost recovery approved in its 2016 decision, adopts Cal Am’s cost estimates for the Water Supply Project, which amounted to an aggregate of $279 million plus AFUDC at a rate representative of Cal Am’s actual financing costs. The 2018 final decision specifies the procedures for recovery of all of Cal Am’s prudently incurred costs associated with the Water Supply Project upon its completion, subject to the frameworks included in the final decision related to cost caps, operation and maintenance costs, financing, ratemaking and contingency matters. The reasonableness of the Water Supply Project costs will be reviewed by the CPUC when Cal Am seeks cost recovery for the Water Supply Project. Cal Am is also required to implement mitigation measures to avoid, minimize or offset significant environmental impacts from the construction and operation of the Water Supply Project and comply with a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, a reimbursement agreement for CPUC costs associated with that program, and reporting requirements on plant operations following placement of the Water Supply Project in service. Cal Am has incurred $255 million in aggregate costs as of June 30, 2024, related to the Water Supply Project, which includes $80 million in AFUDC.

In September 2021, Cal Am, Monterey One Water and the MPWMD reached an agreement on Cal Am’s purchase of additional water from an expansion to the GWR Project. On December 5, 2022, the CPUC issued a final decision that authorized Cal Am to enter into the amended water purchase agreement, and specifically to increase pumping capacity and reliability of groundwater extraction from the Seaside Groundwater Basin. The final decision sets the cost cap for the proposed facilities at approximately $62 million. Cal Am may seek recovery of amounts above the cost cap in a subsequent rate filing or general rate case. Additionally, the final decision authorizes AFUDC at Cal Am’s actual weighted average cost of debt for most of the facilities. On December 30, 2022, Cal Am filed with the CPUC an application for rehearing of the CPUC’s December 5, 2022, final decision, and on March 30, 2023, the CPUC issued a decision denying Cal Am’s application for rehearing, but adopting its proposed AFUDC for already incurred and future costs. This decision also provided Cal Am the opportunity to serve supplemental testimony to increase its cost cap for certain of the Water Supply Project’s extraction wells. The amended water purchase agreement and a memorandum of understanding to negotiate certain milestones related to the expansion of the GWR Project have been signed by the relevant parties. Further hearings were scheduled in a Phase 2 to this CPUC proceeding to focus on updated supply and demand estimates for the Water Supply Project, and Phase 2 testimony was completed in September 2022. On October 23, 2023, a status conference was held to determine procedural steps to conclude the proceeding, and further evidentiary hearings were held in March 2024.

While Cal Am believes that its expenditures to date have been prudent and necessary to comply with the Orders, as well as relevant final decisions of the CPUC related thereto, Cal Am cannot currently predict its ability to recover all of its costs and expenses associated with the Water Supply Project and there can be no assurance that Cal Am will be able to recover all of such costs and expenses in excess of the $112 million in aggregate construction costs, plus applicable AFUDC, previously approved by the CPUC in its 2016 final decision and its December 2022 final decision, as amended by its March 30, 2023, rehearing decision.

In 2018, Cal Am submitted a coastal development permit application (the “Marina Application”) to the City of Marina (the “City”) for those project components of the Water Supply Project located within the City’s coastal zone. Members of the City’s Planning Commission, as well as City councilpersons, have publicly expressed opposition to the Water Supply Project. In May 2019, the City issued a notice of final local action based upon the denial by the Planning Commission of the Marina Application. Thereafter, Cal Am appealed this decision to the Coastal Commission, as permitted under the City’s code and the California Coastal Act. At the same time, Cal Am submitted an application (the “Original Jurisdiction Application”) to the Coastal Commission for a coastal development permit for those project components located within the Coastal Commission’s original jurisdiction. After Coastal Commission staff issued reports recommending denial of the Original Jurisdiction Application, noting potential impacts on environmentally sensitive habitat areas and wetlands and possible disproportionate impacts to communities of concern, in September 2020, Cal Am withdrew the Original Jurisdiction Application in order to address the staff’s environmental justice concerns. In November 2020, Cal Am refiled the Original Jurisdiction Application.

In October 2022, Cal Am announced a phasing plan for the proposed desalination plant component of the Water Supply Project. The desalination plant and slant wells originally approved by the CPUC would produce up to 6.4 million gallons of desalinated water per day. Under the phased approach, the facilities would initially be constructed to produce up to 4.8 million gallons per day of desalinated water, enough to meet anticipated demand through about 2030, and would limit the number of slant wells initially constructed. As demand increases in the future, desalination facilities would be expanded to meet the additional demand. The phased approach seeks to meet near-term demand by allowing for additional supply as it becomes needed, while also providing an opportunity for regional future public participation and was developed by Cal Am based on feedback received from the community.

In November 2022, the Coastal Commission approved the Marina Application and the Original Jurisdiction Application with respect to the phased development of the proposed desalination plant, subject to compliance with a number of conditions, all of which Cal Am expects to satisfy. In December 2022, the City, Marina Coast Water District (“MCWD”), MCWD’s groundwater sustainability agency, and the MPWMD jointly filed a petition for writ of mandate in Monterey County Superior Court against the Coastal Commission, alleging that the Coastal Commission violated the California Coastal Act and the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) in issuing a coastal development permit to Cal Am for construction of the slant wells. Cal Am is named as a real party in interest. On April 24, 2024, the court granted defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed one of four causes of action in the petition. The three remaining claims challenge the Coastal Commission’s substantive compliance with certain provisions of CEQA, the California Coastal Act, and due process requirements in considering Cal Am’s application. Trial in this matter has been set for November 13, 2024.

Following the issuance of the coastal development permit, Cal Am continues to work constructively with all appropriate agencies to provide necessary information in connection with obtaining the remaining required permits for the Water Supply Project. However, there can be no assurance that the Water Supply Project in its current configuration will be completed on a timely basis, if ever. For the year ended December 31, 2023, Cal Am has complied with the diversion limitations contained in the 2016 Order. Continued compliance with the diversion limitations in 2024 and future years may be impacted by a number of factors, including, without limitation, potential recurrence of drought conditions in California and the exhaustion of water supply reserves, and will require successful development of alternate water supply sources sufficient to meet customer demand. The Orders remain in effect until Cal Am certifies to the SWRCB, and the SWRCB concurs, that Cal Am has obtained a permanent supply of water to substitute for past unauthorized Carmel River diversions. While the Company cannot currently predict the likelihood or result of any adverse outcome associated with these matters, further attempts to comply with the Orders may result in material additional costs and obligations to Cal Am, including fines and penalties against Cal Am in the event of noncompliance with the Orders.

In 2010, the CPUC had approved the RDP, which was a precursor to the current Water Supply Project and called for the construction of a desalination facility in the City of Marina. The RDP was to be implemented through a Water Purchase Agreement and ancillary agreements (collectively, the “Agreements”) among MCWD, Cal Am and the Monterey County Water Resources Agency (“MCWRA”). In 2011, due to a conflict of interest concerning a former member of MCWRA’s Board of Directors, MCWRA stated that the Agreements were void, and, as a result, Cal Am terminated the Agreements. In ensuing litigation filed by Cal Am in 2012 to resolve the termination of the RDP, the court in 2015 entered a final judgment agreeing with Cal Am’s position that four of the five Agreements are void, and one, the credit line agreement, is not void. As a result of this litigation, Cal Am was permitted to institute further proceedings, discussed below, to determine the amount of damages that may be awarded to Cal Am as a result of the failure of the RDP.

In 2015, Cal Am and MCWRA filed a complaint in San Francisco County Superior Court against MCWD and RMC Water and Environment, a private engineering consulting firm (“RMC”), seeking to recover compensatory, consequential and incidental damages associated with the failure of the RDP, as well as punitive and treble damages, statutory penalties and attorneys’ fees. In 2019, MCWD was granted a motion for summary judgment related to the tort claims in the complaint. A settlement as to the non-tort claims was finalized and entered into in March 2020. In July 2020, Cal Am appealed the grant of summary judgment on MCWD’s tort claims, and in December 2022, the trial court’s decision was reversed with instructions to vacate its prior orders granting MCWD’s motions for summary judgment and to enter new orders denying the motions. In February 2023, MCWD filed a petition for review of the appellate decision with the California Supreme Court, which was denied in March 2023. A hearing on MCWD’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is scheduled for August 16, 2024. The trial date of August 5, 2024, has been vacated, and will be rescheduled at a later date.

The water system assets of Cal Am located in Monterey, California (the “Monterey system assets”) are the subject of a condemnation action by the MPWMD stemming from a November 2018 public ballot initiative. In 2019, the MPWMD issued a preliminary valuation and cost of service analysis report, finding in part that (1) an estimate of the Monterey system assets’ total value plus adjustments would be approximately $513 million, (2) the cost of service modeling results indicate significant annual reductions in revenue requirements and projected monthly water bills, and (3) the acquisition of the Monterey system assets by the MPWMD would be economically feasible. In 2020, the MPWMD certified a final environmental impact report, analyzing the environmental impacts of the MPWMD’s project to (1) acquire the Monterey system assets through the power of eminent domain, if necessary, and (2) expand its geographic boundaries to include all parts of this system.

In February 2021, the MPWMD filed an application with the Local Agency Formation Commission of Monterey County (“LAFCO”) seeking approval to become a retail water provider and annex approximately 58 parcels of land into the MPWMD’s boundaries. In June 2021, LAFCO’s commissioners voted to require a third-party independent financial study as to the feasibility of an acquisition by the MPWMD of the Monterey system assets. In December 2021, LAFCO’s commissioners denied the MPWMD’s application to become a retail water provider, determining that the MPWMD does not have the authority to proceed with a condemnation of the Monterey system assets. In April 2022, the MPWMD filed a lawsuit against LAFCO challenging its decision to deny the MPWMD’s application seeking approval to become a retail water provider. In June 2022, the court granted, with conditions, a motion by Cal Am to intervene in the MPWMD’s lawsuit against LAFCO. In December 2022, the court sustained in part, and denied in part, demurrers that had been filed by LAFCO seeking to dismiss the MPWMD’s lawsuit.

On December 11, 2023, the Monterey County Superior Court issued a writ of mandate directing LAFCO to vacate and set aside its original denial of the MPWMD’s application to serve as a retail water provider (in conjunction with its effort to acquire the Monterey system assets) and, if requested, to re-hear the application in compliance with all applicable law. The court held that LAFCO incorrectly applied two statutory standards and noted a lack of sufficient evidence to support certain of LAFCO’s factual findings. As a result, the LAFCO denial has been nullified and LAFCO will be required to hold another hearing on the MPWMD’s application. On February 8, 2024, and February 9, 2024, respectively, Cal Am and LAFCO each filed a notice of appeal with the California Court of Appeal regarding the Monterey County Superior Court’s decision to issue the writ of mandate. The MPWMD filed a notice of cross-appeal on February 15, 2024. Cal Am is evaluating potential additional actions to seek to uphold LAFCO’s denial of the MPWMD’s application, including filing other challenges and/or making suitable presentations at a subsequent LAFCO rehearing.

Separate from the proceedings related to the MPWMD’s application with LAFCO, by letter dated October 3, 2022, the MPWMD notified Cal Am of a decision to appraise the Monterey system assets and requesting access to a number of Cal Am’s properties and documents to assist the MPWMD with such an appraisal. Cal Am responded by letter on October 24, 2022, denying the request for access, stating that the MPWMD does not have the right to appraise Cal Am’s system without LAFCO approval to become a retail water provider. On April 28, 2023, Cal Am rejected an offer by the MPWMD to purchase the Monterey system assets for $448.8 million. Over the written and oral objections of Cal Am, at a hearing held on October 10, 2023, the MPWMD adopted a resolution of necessity to authorize it to file an eminent domain lawsuit with respect to the Monterey system assets. On December 15, 2023, the MPWMD filed a lawsuit in Monterey County Superior Court seeking to condemn the Monterey system assets. On February 26, 2024, Cal Am filed a motion requesting the Monterey County Superior Court dismiss the MPWMD’s lawsuit seeking to condemn Cal Am’s Monterey system assets. Cal Am’s motion asserts that the MPWMD lacks legal authorization from both the California legislature and LAFCO to become a retail water provider and the lawsuit improperly seeks to effect a taking of property outside the boundaries of the MPWMD’s territory. An initial hearing on Cal Am’s motion to dismiss was held on May 3, 2024, and a subsequent hearing is scheduled for August 23, 2024.

On June 8, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia granted final approval of a settlement class and global class action settlement (the “Settlement”) for all claims and potential claims by all class members (collectively, the “West Virginia Plaintiffs”) arising out of the January 2014 Freedom Industries, Inc. chemical spill in West Virginia. The effective date of the Settlement was July 16, 2018. Under the terms and conditions of the Settlement, WVAWC and certain other Company affiliated entities did not admit, and will not admit, any fault or liability for any of the allegations made by the West Virginia Plaintiffs in any of the actions that were resolved.

As of June 30, 2024, $0.5 million of the aggregate Settlement amount of $126 million remains reflected in accrued liabilities, and $0.5 million in an offsetting insurance receivable remains reflected in other current assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets pending resolution of all asserted actual or potential claims associated with this matter. The amount reflected in accrued liabilities reflects the status of the liability and the offsetting insurance receivable reflected in other current assets, each as of June 30, 2024.