Environmental Liabilities	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2018
Environmental Remediation Obligations [Abstract]
Environmental Liabilities	Environmental Liabilities Environmental laws, regulations and compliance programs may occasionally require changes in our operations and facilities and may increase the cost of electric and natural gas service. We do not provide for accruals of legal costs expected to be incurred in connection with loss contingencies. Waste sites The Environmental Protection Agency and various state environmental agencies, as appropriate, have notified us that we are among the potentially responsible parties that may be liable for costs incurred to remediate certain hazardous substances at twenty-five waste sites, which do not include sites where gas was manufactured in the past. Fifteen of the twenty-five sites are included in the New York State Registry of Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites; six sites are included in Maine’s Uncontrolled Sites Program and one site is included on the Massachusetts Non-Priority Confirmed Disposal Site list. The remaining sites are not included in any registry list. Finally, nine of the twenty-five sites are also included on the National Priorities list. Any liability may be joint and several for certain sites. We have recorded an estimated liability of $5 million related to ten of the twenty-five sites. We have paid remediation costs related to the remaining fifteen sites and do not expect to incur additional liabilities. Additionally, we have recorded an estimated liability of $8 million related to another ten sites where we believe it is probable that we will incur remediation costs and or monitoring costs, although we have not been notified that we are among the potentially responsible parties or that we are regulated under State Resource Conservation and Recovery Act programs. We recorded a corresponding regulatory asset because we expect to recover these costs in rates. It is possible the ultimate cost to remediate these sites may be significantly more than the accrued amount. Our estimate for costs to remediate these sites ranges from $12 million to $21 million as of September 30, 2018. Factors affecting the estimated remediation amount include the remedial action plan selected, the extent of site contamination, and the allocation of the clean-up costs. Manufactured Gas Plants We have a program to investigate and perform necessary remediation at our fifty-three sites where gas was manufactured in the past (Manufactured Gas Plants, or MGPs). Eight sites are included in the New York State Registry; twelve sites are included in the New York Voluntary Cleanup Program; three sites are part of Maine’s Voluntary Response Action Program and two sites are part of Maine’s Uncontrolled Sites Program. The remaining sites are not included in any registry list. We have entered into consent orders with various environmental agencies to investigate and where necessary remediate forty-nine of the fifty-three sites. Our estimate for all costs related to investigation and remediation of the fifty-three sites ranges from $213 million to $442 million as of September 30, 2018. Our estimate could change materially based on the facts and circumstances derived from site investigations, changes in required remedial actions, changes in technology relating to remedial alternatives and changes to current laws and regulations. Certain of our Connecticut and Massachusetts regulated gas companies own or have previously owned properties where MGPs had historically operated. MGP operations have led to contamination of soil and groundwater with petroleum hydrocarbons, benzene and metals, among other things, at these properties, the regulation and cleanup of which is regulated by the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act as well as other federal and state statutes and regulations. Each of the companies has or had an ownership interest in one or more such properties contaminated as a result of MGP-related activities. Under the existing regulations, the cleanup of such sites requires state and at times, federal, regulators’ involvement and approval before cleanup can commence. In certain cases, such contamination has been evaluated, characterized and remediated. In other cases, the sites have been evaluated and characterized, but not yet remediated. Finally, at some of these sites, the scope of the contamination has not yet been fully characterized; no liability was recorded for these sites as of September 30, 2018 and no amount of loss, if any, can be reasonably estimated at this time. In the past, the companies have received approval for the recovery of MGP-related remediation expenses from customers through rates and will seek recovery in rates for ongoing MGP-related remediation expenses for all of their MGP sites. As of September 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, the liability associated with our MGP sites in Connecticut, the remediation costs of which could be significant and will be subject to a review by PURA as to whether these costs are recoverable in rates, was $99 million and $100 million, respectively. Our total recorded liability to investigate and perform remediation at all known inactive MGP sites discussed above and other sites was $374 million and $389 million as of September 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, respectively. We recorded a corresponding regulatory asset, net of insurance recoveries and the amount collected from FirstEnergy, as described below, because we expect to recover the net costs in rates. Our environmental liability accruals are recorded on an undiscounted basis and are expected to be paid through the year 2054. FirstEnergy NYSEG sued FirstEnergy under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act to recover environmental cleanup costs at sixteen former manufactured gas sites, which are included in the discussion above. In July 2011, the District Court issued a decision and order in NYSEG’s favor, requiring FirstEnergy to pay NYSEG approximately $60 million for past and future clean-up costs at the sixteen sites in dispute. On September 9, 2011, FirstEnergy paid NYSEG $30 million, representing their share of past costs of $27 million and pre-judgment interest of $3 million. FirstEnergy appealed the decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. On September 11, 2014, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s decision in NYSEG’s favor, but modified the decision for nine sites, reducing NYSEG’s damages for incurred costs from $27 million to $22 million, excluding interest, and reducing FirstEnergy’s allocable share of future costs at these sites. NYSEG refunded FirstEnergy the excess $5 million in November 2014. FirstEnergy remains liable for a substantial share of clean up expenses at nine MGP sites. Based on current projections, FirstEnergy’s share is estimated at approximately $22 million. This amount is being treated as a contingent asset and has not been recorded as either a receivable or a decrease to the environmental provision. Any recovery will be flowed through to NYSEG ratepayers. Century Indemnity and OneBeacon On August 14, 2013, NYSEG filed suit in federal court against two excess insurers, Century Indemnity and OneBeacon, who provided excess liability coverage to NYSEG. NYSEG seeks payment for clean-up costs associated with contamination at 22 former manufactured gas plants. Based on estimated clean-up costs of $282 million, the carriers’ allocable share could equal or exceed approximately $89 million, excluding pre-judgment interest, although this amount may change substantially depending upon the determination of various factual matters and legal issues during the case. Century Indemnity and OneBeacon have answered, admitting issuance of the excess policies, but contesting coverage and providing documentation proving they received notice of the claims in the 1990s. On March 31, 2017, the District Court granted motions filed by Century Indemnity and One Beacon dismissing all of NYSEG’s claims against both defendants on the grounds of late notice. NYSEG filed a motion with the District Court on April 14, 2017 seeking reconsideration of the Court’s decision, which was denied by an order dated March 27, 2018. NYSEG filed a notice appealing the District Court’s dismissal on April 9, 2018. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter; however, any recovery will be flowed through to NYSEG ratepayers. English Station In January 2012, Evergreen Power, LLC (Evergreen Power) and Asnat Realty LLC (Asnat), then and current owners of a former generation site on the Mill River in New Haven (the English Station site) that UI sold to Quinnipiac Energy in 2000, filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Connecticut against UI seeking, among other things: (i) an order directing UI to reimburse the plaintiffs for costs they have incurred and will incur for the testing, investigation and remediation of hazardous substances at the English Station site and (ii) an order directing UI to investigate and remediate the site. This proceeding had been stayed in 2014 pending resolutions of other proceedings before the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) concerning the English Station site. In December 2016, the court administratively closed the file without prejudice to reopen upon the filing of a motion to reopen by any party. In December 2013, Evergreen Power and Asnat filed a subsequent lawsuit in Connecticut state court seeking among other things: (i) remediation of the English Station site; (ii) reimbursement of remediation costs; (iii) termination of UI’s easement rights; (iv) reimbursement for costs associated with securing the property; and (v) punitive damages. This lawsuit had been stayed in May 2014 pending mediation. Due to lack of activity in the case, the court terminated the stay and scheduled a status conference for July 6, 2017. On July 5, 2017, Asnat filed a pretrial memorandum claiming damages of $10 million for “environmental remediation activities” and lost use of the property. In December 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Request for Leave to Amend Complaint and Motion to Cite-In Additional Parties, including former UIL officers and employees and other UI officers, which motion was approved in February 2018. Plaintiffs filed a revised complaint with the court on April 16, 2018 alleging fraud and unjust enrichment against UIL and UI and adding former UIL officers as named defendants alleging fraud. The complaint was further revised July 3, 2018. We filed a Motion to Dismiss in August 2018. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter. On April 8, 2013, DEEP issued an administrative order addressed to UI, Evergreen Power, Asnat and others, ordering the parties to take certain actions related to investigating and remediating the English Station site. Mediation of the matter began in the fourth quarter of 2013 and concluded unsuccessfully in April 2015. This proceeding was stayed while DEEP and UI continue to work through the remediation process pursuant to the consent order described below. Status reports are periodically filed with the DEEP. On August 4, 2016, DEEP issued a partial consent order (the consent order), that, subject to its terms and conditions, requires UI to investigate and remediate certain environmental conditions within the perimeter of the English Station site. Under the consent order, to the extent that the cost of this investigation and remediation is less than $30 million, UI will remit to the State of Connecticut the difference between such cost and $30 million to be used for a public purpose as determined in the discretion of the Governor of the State of Connecticut, the Attorney General of the State of Connecticut and the Commissioner of DEEP. UI is obligated to comply with the terms of the consent order even if the cost of such compliance exceeds $30 million. Under the terms of the consent order, the State will discuss options with UI on recovering or funding any cost above $30 million such as through public funding or recovery from third parties; however, it is not bound to agree to or support any means of recovery or funding. UI has initiated its process to investigate and remediate the environmental conditions within the perimeter of the English Station site pursuant to the consent order. As of September 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, the amount reserved for this matter was $20 million and $25 million, respectively. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Environmental Liabilities

Environmental laws, regulations and compliance programs may occasionally require changes in our operations and facilities and may increase the cost of electric and natural gas service. We do not provide for accruals of legal costs expected to be incurred in connection with loss contingencies.

Waste sites

The Environmental Protection Agency and various state environmental agencies, as appropriate, have notified us that we are among the potentially responsible parties that may be liable for costs incurred to remediate certain hazardous substances at twenty-five waste sites, which do not include sites where gas was manufactured in the past. Fifteen of the twenty-five sites are included in the New York State Registry of Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites; six sites are included in Maine’s Uncontrolled Sites Program and one site is included on the Massachusetts Non-Priority Confirmed Disposal Site list. The remaining sites are not included in any registry list. Finally, nine of the twenty-five sites are also included on the National Priorities list. Any liability may be joint and several for certain sites.

We have recorded an estimated liability of $5 million related to ten of the twenty-five sites. We have paid remediation costs related to the remaining fifteen sites and do not expect to incur additional liabilities. Additionally, we have recorded an estimated liability of $8 million related to another ten sites where we believe it is probable that we will incur remediation costs and or monitoring costs, although we have not been notified that we are among the potentially responsible parties or that we are regulated under State Resource Conservation and Recovery Act programs. We recorded a corresponding regulatory asset because we expect to recover these costs in rates. It is possible the ultimate cost to remediate these sites may be significantly more than the accrued amount. Our estimate for costs to remediate these sites ranges from $12 million to $21 million as of September 30, 2018. Factors affecting the estimated remediation amount include the remedial action plan selected, the extent of site contamination, and the allocation of the clean-up costs.

Manufactured Gas Plants

We have a program to investigate and perform necessary remediation at our fifty-three sites where gas was manufactured in the past (Manufactured Gas Plants, or MGPs). Eight sites are included in the New York State Registry; twelve sites are included in the New York Voluntary Cleanup Program; three sites are part of Maine’s Voluntary Response Action Program and two sites are part of Maine’s Uncontrolled Sites Program. The remaining sites are not included in any registry list. We have entered into consent orders with various environmental agencies to investigate and where necessary remediate forty-nine of the fifty-three sites.

Our estimate for all costs related to investigation and remediation of the fifty-three sites ranges from $213 million to $442 million as of September 30, 2018. Our estimate could change materially based on the facts and circumstances derived from site investigations, changes in required remedial actions, changes in technology relating to remedial alternatives and changes to current laws and regulations.

Certain of our Connecticut and Massachusetts regulated gas companies own or have previously owned properties where MGPs had historically operated. MGP operations have led to contamination of soil and groundwater with petroleum hydrocarbons, benzene and metals, among other things, at these properties, the regulation and cleanup of which is regulated by the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act as well as other federal and state statutes and regulations. Each of the companies has or had an ownership interest in one or more such properties contaminated as a result of MGP-related activities. Under the existing regulations, the cleanup of such sites requires state and at times, federal, regulators’ involvement and approval before cleanup can commence. In certain cases, such contamination has been evaluated, characterized and remediated. In other cases, the sites have been evaluated and characterized, but not yet remediated. Finally, at some of these sites, the scope of the contamination has not yet been fully characterized; no liability was recorded for these sites as of September 30, 2018 and no amount of loss, if any, can be reasonably estimated at this time. In the past, the companies have received approval for the recovery of MGP-related remediation expenses from customers through rates and will seek recovery in rates for ongoing MGP-related remediation expenses for all of their MGP sites.

As of September 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, the liability associated with our MGP sites in Connecticut, the remediation costs of which could be significant and will be subject to a review by PURA as to whether these costs are recoverable in rates, was $99 million and $100 million, respectively.

Our total recorded liability to investigate and perform remediation at all known inactive MGP sites discussed above and other sites was $374 million and $389 million as of September 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, respectively. We recorded a corresponding regulatory asset, net of insurance recoveries and the amount collected from FirstEnergy, as described below, because we expect to recover the net costs in rates. Our environmental liability accruals are recorded on an undiscounted basis and are expected to be paid through the year 2054.

FirstEnergy

NYSEG sued FirstEnergy under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act to recover environmental cleanup costs at sixteen former manufactured gas sites, which are included in the discussion above. In July 2011, the District Court issued a decision and order in NYSEG’s favor, requiring FirstEnergy to pay NYSEG approximately $60 million for past and future clean-up costs at the sixteen sites in dispute. On September 9, 2011, FirstEnergy paid NYSEG $30 million, representing their share of past costs of $27 million and pre-judgment interest of $3 million.

FirstEnergy appealed the decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. On September 11, 2014, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s decision in NYSEG’s favor, but modified the decision for nine sites, reducing NYSEG’s damages for incurred costs from $27 million to $22 million, excluding interest, and reducing FirstEnergy’s allocable share of future costs at these sites. NYSEG refunded FirstEnergy the excess $5 million in November 2014.

FirstEnergy remains liable for a substantial share of clean up expenses at nine MGP sites. Based on current projections, FirstEnergy’s share is estimated at approximately $22 million. This amount is being treated as a contingent asset and has not been recorded as either a receivable or a decrease to the environmental provision. Any recovery will be flowed through to NYSEG ratepayers.

Century Indemnity and OneBeacon

On August 14, 2013, NYSEG filed suit in federal court against two excess insurers, Century Indemnity and OneBeacon, who provided excess liability coverage to NYSEG. NYSEG seeks payment for clean-up costs associated with contamination at 22 former manufactured gas plants. Based on estimated clean-up costs of $282 million, the carriers’ allocable share could equal or exceed approximately $89 million, excluding pre-judgment interest, although this amount may change substantially depending upon the determination of various factual matters and legal issues during the case.

Century Indemnity and OneBeacon have answered, admitting issuance of the excess policies, but contesting coverage and providing documentation proving they received notice of the claims in the 1990s. On March 31, 2017, the District Court granted motions filed by Century Indemnity and One Beacon dismissing all of NYSEG’s claims against both defendants on the grounds of late notice. NYSEG filed a motion with the District Court on April 14, 2017 seeking reconsideration of the Court’s decision, which was denied by an order dated March 27, 2018. NYSEG filed a notice appealing the District Court’s dismissal on April 9, 2018. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter; however, any recovery will be flowed through to NYSEG ratepayers.

English Station

In January 2012, Evergreen Power, LLC (Evergreen Power) and Asnat Realty LLC (Asnat), then and current owners of a former generation site on the Mill River in New Haven (the English Station site) that UI sold to Quinnipiac Energy in 2000, filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Connecticut against UI seeking, among other things: (i) an order directing UI to reimburse the plaintiffs for costs they have incurred and will incur for the testing, investigation and remediation of hazardous substances at the English Station site and (ii) an order directing UI to investigate and remediate the site. This proceeding had been stayed in 2014 pending resolutions of other proceedings before the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) concerning the English Station site. In December 2016, the court administratively closed the file without prejudice to reopen upon the filing of a motion to reopen by any party. In December 2013, Evergreen Power and Asnat filed a subsequent lawsuit in Connecticut state court seeking among other things: (i) remediation of the English Station site; (ii) reimbursement of remediation costs; (iii) termination of UI’s easement rights; (iv) reimbursement for costs associated with securing the property; and (v) punitive damages. This lawsuit had been stayed in May 2014 pending mediation. Due to lack of activity in the case, the court terminated the stay and scheduled a status conference for July 6, 2017. On July 5, 2017, Asnat filed a pretrial memorandum claiming damages of $10 million for “environmental remediation activities” and lost use of the property. In December 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Request for Leave to Amend Complaint and Motion to Cite-In Additional Parties, including former UIL officers and employees and other UI officers, which motion was approved in February 2018. Plaintiffs filed a revised complaint with the court on April 16, 2018 alleging fraud and unjust enrichment against UIL and UI and adding former UIL officers as named defendants alleging fraud. The complaint was further revised July 3, 2018. We filed a Motion to Dismiss in August 2018. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

On April 8, 2013, DEEP issued an administrative order addressed to UI, Evergreen Power, Asnat and others, ordering the parties to take certain actions related to investigating and remediating the English Station site. Mediation of the matter began in the fourth quarter of 2013 and concluded unsuccessfully in April 2015. This proceeding was stayed while DEEP and UI continue to work through the remediation process pursuant to the consent order described below. Status reports are periodically filed with the DEEP.

On August 4, 2016, DEEP issued a partial consent order (the consent order), that, subject to its terms and conditions, requires UI to investigate and remediate certain environmental conditions within the perimeter of the English Station site. Under the consent order, to the extent that the cost of this investigation and remediation is less than $30 million, UI will remit to the State of Connecticut the difference between such cost and $30 million to be used for a public purpose as determined in the discretion of the Governor of the State of Connecticut, the Attorney General of the State of Connecticut and the Commissioner of DEEP. UI is obligated to comply with the terms of the consent order even if the cost of such compliance exceeds $30 million. Under the terms of the consent order, the State will discuss options with UI on recovering or funding any cost above $30 million such as through public funding or recovery from third parties; however, it is not bound to agree to or support any means of recovery or funding. UI has initiated its process to investigate and remediate the environmental conditions within the perimeter of the English Station site pursuant to the consent order.

As of September 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, the amount reserved for this matter was $20 million and $25 million, respectively. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter.