Commitments and Contingencies (Notes)
|
12 Months Ended | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dec. 31, 2013
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Commitments and Contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Environmental Electric Air - DTE Electric is subject to the EPA ozone and fine particulate transport and acid rain regulations that limit power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Since 2005, the EPA and the State of Michigan have issued additional emission reduction regulations relating to ozone, fine particulate, regional haze, mercury, and other air pollution. These rules have led to additional controls on fossil-fueled power plants to reduce nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, mercury and other emissions. To comply with these requirements, DTE Electric has spent approximately $2 billion through 2013. The Company estimates DTE Electric will make capital expenditures of approximately $280 million in 2014 and up to approximately $1.2 billion of additional capital expenditures through 2021 based on current regulations. Further, additional rulemakings are expected over the next few years which could require additional controls for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and other hazardous air pollutants. The Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), finalized in July 2011, requires further reductions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emissions beginning in 2012. On December 30, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C.) Circuit granted the motions to stay the rule, leaving DTE Electric temporarily subject to the previously existing Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). On August 21, 2012, the Court issued its decision, vacating CSAPR and leaving CAIR in place. The EPA's petition seeking a rehearing of the U.S. Court of Appeals' decision regarding the CSAPR was denied on January 24, 2013. On June 24, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the EPA's petition asking the Court to review the D.C. Circuit Court's decision on CSAPR. A ruling by the Supreme Court is expected in 2014. Notwithstanding the appeal filed with the Supreme Court, the EPA and a number of states have started working on the framework of revised CSAPR regulations which we anticipate to be proposed in the next few years. The Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS) rule, formerly known as the Electric Generating Unit Maximum Achievable Control Technology (EGU MACT) Rule, was finalized on December 16, 2011. The MATS rule requires reductions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants beginning in April 2015, with a potential extension to April 2016. DTE Electric has requested and been granted compliance date extensions for some units to April 2016. DTE Electric has tested technologies to determine technological and economic feasibility as MATS compliance alternatives to Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) systems. Implementation of Dry Sorbent Injection (DSI) and Activated Carbon Injection (ACI) technologies will allow several units that would not have been economical for FGD installations to continue operation in compliance with MATS. In July 2009, DTE Energy received a Notice of Violation/Finding of Violation (NOV/FOV) from the EPA alleging, among other things, that five DTE Electric power plants violated New Source Performance standards, Prevention of Significant Deterioration requirements, and operating permit requirements under the Clean Air Act. In June 2010, the EPA issued a NOV/FOV making similar allegations related to a project and outage at Unit 2 of the Monroe Power Plant. In March 2013, DTE Energy received a supplemental NOV from the EPA relating to the July 2009 NOV/FOV. The supplemental NOV alleged additional violations relating to the New Source Review provisions under the Clean Air Act, among other things. In August 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice, at the request of the EPA, brought a civil suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against DTE Energy and DTE Electric, related to the June 2010 NOV/FOV and the outage work performed at Unit 2 of the Monroe Power Plant, but not relating to the July 2009 NOV/FOV. Among other relief, the EPA requested the court to require DTE Electric to install and operate the best available control technology at Unit 2 of the Monroe Power Plant. Further, the EPA requested the court to issue a preliminary injunction to require DTE Electric to (i) begin the process of obtaining the necessary permits for the Monroe Unit 2 modification and (ii) offset the pollution from Monroe Unit 2 through emissions reductions from DTE Electric's fleet of coal-fired power plants until the new control equipment is operating. On August 23, 2011, the U.S. District Court judge granted DTE Energy's motion for summary judgment in the civil case, dismissing the case and entering judgment in favor of DTE Energy and DTE Electric. On October 20, 2011, the EPA caused to be filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On March 28, 2013, the Court of Appeals remanded the case to the U.S. District Court for review of the procedural component of the New Source Review notification requirements. On September 3, 2013, the EPA caused to be filed a motion seeking leave to amend their complaint regarding the June 2010 NOV/FOV adding additional claims related to outage work performed at the Trenton Channel and Belle River power plants as well as additional claims related to work performed at the Monroe Power Plant. In addition, the Sierra Club caused to be filed a motion to add a claim regarding the River Rouge Power Plant. The EPA and Sierra Club motions are currently pending with the U.S. District Court Judge. DTE Energy and DTE Electric believe that the plants identified by the EPA, including Unit 2 of the Monroe Power Plant, have complied with all applicable federal environmental regulations. Depending upon the outcome of discussions with the EPA regarding the two NOVs/FOVs, DTE Electric could be required to install additional pollution control equipment at some or all of the power plants in question, implement early retirement of facilities where control equipment is not economical, engage in supplemental environmental programs, and/or pay fines. The Company cannot predict the financial impact or outcome of this matter, or the timing of its resolution. On March 13, 2013, the Sierra Club filed suit against DTE Energy and DTE Electric alleging violations of the Clean Air Act at four of DTE Electric's coal-fired power plants. The plaintiffs allege 1,499 6-minute periods of excess opacity of air emissions from 2007-2012 at those facilities. The suit asks that the court enjoin DTE Energy and DTE Electric from operating the power plants except in complete compliance with applicable laws and permit requirements, pay civil penalties, conduct beneficial environmental mitigation projects, pay attorney fees and require the installation of any necessary pollution controls or to convert and/or operate the plants' boilers on natural gas to avoid additional violations and to off-set historic unlawful emissions. In December 2013, a U.S. District Court judge issued an order dismissing, without prejudice, the plaintiff's complaint allowing them to file an amended complaint by January 17, 2014. The order dismissing the complaint resulted from a considerable number of plaintiff's claims being time barred based on the statute of limitations. On January 17, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint for the period January 13, 2008 - June 30, 2012, reducing the total number of 6-minute periods from 1,499 to 1,139. DTE Energy and DTE Electric plan to file an answer to the amended complaint in the first quarter of 2014. The resolution of this matter is not expected to have a material effect on the Company's operations or financial statements. Water - In response to an EPA regulation, DTE Electric would be required to examine alternatives for reducing the environmental impacts of the cooling water intake structures at several of its facilities. Based on the results of completed studies and expected future studies, DTE Electric may be required to install technologies to reduce the impacts of the water intake structures. The initial rule published in 2004 was subsequently remanded and a proposed rule published in 2011. The proposed rule specified an eight year compliance timeline. Final action on this rule has been delayed and is expected in 2014. Depending on final regulations, its requirements may require modifications to some existing intake structures and could impact the rates we charge our customers. It is not possible to quantify the impact of those expected rulemakings at this time. On April 19, 2013, the EPA proposed revised steam electric effluent guidelines regulating wastewater streams from coal-fired power plants including multiple possible options for compliance. The rules are expected to be finalized by May 2014. DTE Electric has provided comments to the EPA. However, it is not possible at this time to quantify the impacts of these developing requirements. Contaminated and Other Sites — Prior to the construction of major interstate natural gas pipelines, gas for heating and other uses was manufactured locally from processes involving coal, coke or oil. The facilities, which produced gas, have been designated as manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites. DTE Electric conducted remedial investigations at contaminated sites, including three former MGP sites. The investigations have revealed contamination related to the by-products of gas manufacturing at each site. In addition to the MGP sites, the Company is also in the process of cleaning up other contaminated sites, including the area surrounding an ash landfill, electrical distribution substations, electric generating power plants, and underground and aboveground storage tank locations. The findings of these investigations indicated that the estimated cost to remediate these sites is expected to be incurred over the next several years. At December 31, 2013 and 2012, the Company had $8 million and $9 million, respectively, accrued for remediation. Any change in assumptions, such as remediation techniques, nature and extent of contamination and regulatory requirements, could impact the estimate of remedial action costs for the sites and affect the Company’s financial position and cash flows. The Company believes that the likelihood of a materially greater liability than the accrued amount is remote based on current knowledge of the conditions at each site. DTE Electric owns and operates three permitted engineered ash storage facilities to dispose of fly ash from coal fired power plants. The EPA has published proposed rules to regulate coal ash under the authority of the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The proposed rule published in June 2010 contains two primary regulatory options to regulate coal ash residue. The EPA is currently considering either designating coal ash as a “Hazardous Waste” as defined by RCRA or regulating coal ash as non-hazardous waste under RCRA. Agencies and legislatures have urged the EPA to regulate coal ash as a non-hazardous waste. If the EPA designates coal ash as a hazardous waste, the agency could apply some, or all, of the disposal and reuse standards that have been applied to other existing hazardous wastes to disposal and reuse of coal ash. Some of the regulatory actions currently being contemplated could have a significant impact on our operations and financial position and the rates we charge our customers. It is not possible to quantify the impact of those expected rulemakings at this time. Gas Contaminated Sites — Gas segment, owned or previously owned, 15 former MGP sites. Investigations have revealed contamination related to the by-products of gas manufacturing at each site. In addition to the MGP sites, the Company is also in the process of cleaning up other contaminated sites. Cleanup activities associated with these sites will be conducted over the next several years. The MPSC has established a cost deferral and rate recovery mechanism for investigation and remediation costs incurred at former MGP sites. As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, the Company had $28 million and $29 million, accrued for remediation, respectively. Any change in assumptions, such as remediation techniques, nature and extent of contamination and regulatory requirements, could impact the estimate of remedial action costs for the sites and affect the Company’s financial position and cash flows. The Company anticipates the cost amortization methodology approved by the MPSC for DTE Gas, which allows DTE Gas to amortize the MGP costs over a ten-year period beginning with the year subsequent to the year the MGP costs were incurred and the cost deferral and rate recovery mechanism for Citizens approved by the City of Adrian, will prevent environmental costs from having a material adverse impact on the Company’s results of operations. Non-utility The Company’s non-utility businesses are subject to a number of environmental laws and regulations dealing with the protection of the environment from various pollutants. The Michigan coke battery facility received and responded to information requests from the EPA that resulted in the issuance of a NOV in June 2007 alleging potential maximum achievable control technologies and new source review violations. The EPA is in the process of reviewing the Company’s position of demonstrated compliance and has not initiated escalated enforcement. At this time, the Company cannot predict the impact of this issue. Furthermore, the Michigan coke battery facility is the subject of an investigation by the MDEQ concerning visible emissions readings that resulted from the Company self reporting to MDEQ questionable activities by an employee of a contractor hired by the Company to perform the visible emissions readings. At this time, the Company cannot predict the impact of this investigation. The Company received two NOVs from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) in 2010 alleging violations of the permit for the Pennsylvania coke battery facility in connection with coal pile storm water runoff. The Company has implemented best management practices to address this issue. The Company recently received a permit to upgrade its existing waste water treatment system and is currently seeking a permit from the PADEP to upgrade its wastewater treatment technology to a biological treatment facility. The Company expects to spend less than $3 million on the existing waste water treatment system to comply with existing water discharge requirements and to upgrade its coal pile storm water runoff management program. The Company believes that its non-utility businesses are substantially in compliance with all environmental requirements, other than as noted above. Other In March 2011, the EPA finalized a new set of regulations regarding the identification of non-hazardous secondary materials that are considered solid waste, industrial boiler and process heater maximum achievable control technologies (IBMACT) for major and area sources, and commercial/industrial solid waste incinerator new source performance standard and emission guidelines (CISWI). The effective dates of the major source IBMACT and CISWI regulations were stayed and a re-proposal was issued by the EPA in December 2011. Final IBMACT and CISWI were issued by the EPA in December 2012. The Company is developing compliance plans to upgrade or convert existing industrial boilers to natural gas and to perform required energy assessments in compliance with the applicable new standards. Capital costs for the boiler conversions and the expenses for the one-time energy assessments are not expected to be material. In 2010, the EPA finalized a new 1-hour sulfur dioxide ambient air quality standard that requires states to submit plans for non-attainment areas to be in compliance by 2017. Michigan's non-attainment area includes DTE Energy facilities in southwest Detroit and areas of Wayne County. Preliminary modeling runs by the MDEQ suggest that emission reductions may be required by significant sources of sulfur dioxide emissions in these areas, including DTE Electric power plants and our Michigan coke battery. The state implementation plan process is in the gathering stage and any required emission reductions for DTE Energy sources to meet the standard cannot be estimated currently. Nuclear Operations Property Insurance DTE Electric maintains property insurance policies specifically for the Fermi 2 plant. These policies cover such items as replacement power and property damage. The Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited (NEIL) is the primary supplier of the insurance policies. DTE Electric maintains a policy for extra expenses, including replacement power costs necessitated by Fermi 2’s unavailability due to an insured event. This policy has a 12-week waiting period and provides an aggregate $490 million of coverage over a three-year period. DTE Electric has $500 million in primary coverage and $2.25 billion of excess coverage for stabilization, decontamination, debris removal, repair and/or replacement of property and decommissioning. The combined coverage limit for total property damage is $2.75 billion, subject to a $1 million deductible. As of April 1, 2013, the total limit for property damage for non-nuclear events is $1.8 billion and an aggregate of $327 million of coverage for extra expenses over a two-year period. In 2007, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Extension Act of 2005 (TRIA) was extended through December 31, 2014. A major change in the extension is the inclusion of “domestic” acts of terrorism in the definition of covered or “certified” acts. For multiple terrorism losses caused by acts of terrorism not covered under the TRIA occurring within one year after the first loss from terrorism, the NEIL policies would make available to all insured entities up to $3.2 billion, plus any amounts recovered from reinsurance, government indemnity, or other sources to cover losses. Under the NEIL policies, DTE Electric could be liable for maximum assessments of up to approximately $34 million per event if the loss associated with any one event at any nuclear plant should exceed the accumulated funds available to NEIL. Public Liability Insurance As required by federal law, DTE Electric maintains $375 million of public liability insurance for a nuclear incident. For liabilities arising from a terrorist act outside the scope of TRIA, the policy is subject to one industry aggregate limit of $300 million. Further, under the Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 2005, deferred premium charges up to $127.3 million could be levied against each licensed nuclear facility, but not more than $19 million per year per facility. Thus, deferred premium charges could be levied against all owners of licensed nuclear facilities in the event of a nuclear incident at any of these facilities. Nuclear Fuel Disposal Costs In accordance with the Federal Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, DTE Electric has a contract with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for the future storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel from Fermi 2. DTE Electric is obligated to pay the DOE a fee of 1 mill per kWh of Fermi 2 electricity generated and sold. The fee is a component of nuclear fuel expense. The DOE's Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository program for the acceptance and disposal of spent nuclear fuel was terminated in 2011. DTE Electric currently employs a spent nuclear fuel storage strategy utilizing a fuel pool. The Company continues to develop its on-site dry cask storage facility and has scheduled the initial offload from the spent fuel pool in 2014. The dry cask storage facility is expected to provide sufficient spent fuel storage capability for the life of the plant as defined by the original operating license. DTE Electric is a party in the litigation against the DOE for both past and future costs associated with the DOE's failure to accept spent nuclear fuel under the timetable set forth in the Federal Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. In July 2012, DTE Electric executed a settlement agreement with the federal government for costs associated with the DOE's delay in acceptance of spent nuclear fuel from Fermi 2 for permanent storage. The settlement provided for a payment of approximately $48 million, received in August 2012, for delay-related costs experienced by DTE Electric through 2010, and a claims process for submittal of delay-related costs from 2011 through 2013. DTE Electric has begun the claims process and claims are being settled on a timely basis. The settlement proceeds reduced the cost of the dry cask storage facility assets. In January 2014, the settlement agreement was extended through 2016. The federal government continues to maintain its legal obligation to accept spent nuclear fuel from Fermi 2 for permanent storage. Issues relating to long-term waste disposal policy and to the disposition of funds contributed by DTE Electric ratepayers to the federal waste fund await future governmental action. In February 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (COA) granted a motion to reopen the fee adequacy litigation to review the DOE's latest fee adequacy report which was released in January 2013. In November 2013, the COA issued a decision ordering the DOE to submit a proposal to Congress to reduce the nuclear waste fee to zero until the DOE enacts an alternative nuclear waste management plan. In January 2014, the DOE submitted such a proposal to Congress that will take effect in 90 legislative calendar days, absent legislative action to the contrary. Simultaneously, the DOE filed a petition for rehearing of the November 2013 decision with the COA. DTE Electric continues to pay fees to the U.S. government's nuclear waste fund pending further developments in this proceeding. Synthetic Fuel Guarantees The Company discontinued the operations of its synthetic fuel production facilities throughout the United States as of December 31, 2007. The Company provided certain guarantees and indemnities in conjunction with the sales of interests in its synfuel facilities. The guarantees cover potential commercial, environmental, oil price and tax-related obligations and will survive until 90 days after expiration of all applicable statutes of limitations. The Company estimates that its maximum potential liability under these guarantees at December 31, 2013 is approximately $1.1 billion. Payment under these guarantees is considered remote. Reduced Emissions Fuel Guarantees The Company has provided certain guarantees and indemnities in conjunction with the sales of interests in its reduced emissions fuel facilities. The guarantees cover potential commercial, environmental, and tax-related obligations and will survive until 90 days after expiration of all applicable statutes of limitations. The Company estimates that its maximum potential liability under these guarantees at December 31, 2013 is approximately $144 million. Payment under these guarantees is considered remote. Other Guarantees In certain limited circumstances, the Company enters into contractual guarantees. The Company may guarantee another entity’s obligation in the event it fails to perform. The Company may provide guarantees in certain indemnification agreements. Finally, the Company may provide indirect guarantees for the indebtedness of others. The Company’s guarantees are not individually material with maximum potential payments totaling $60 million at December 31, 2013. Payment under these guarantees is considered remote. The Company is periodically required to obtain performance surety bonds in support of obligations to various governmental entities and other companies in connection with its operations. As of December 31, 2013, the Company had approximately $41 million of performance bonds outstanding. In the event that such bonds are called for nonperformance, the Company would be obligated to reimburse the issuer of the performance bond. The Company is released from the performance bonds as the contractual performance is completed and does not believe that a material amount of any currently outstanding performance bonds will be called. Labor Contracts There are several bargaining units for the Company's approximately 4,900 represented employees. The majority of the represented employees are under contracts that expire in 2016 and 2017. Purchase Commitments As of December 31, 2013, the Company was party to numerous long-term purchase commitments relating to a variety of goods and services required for the Company’s business. These agreements primarily consist of fuel supply commitments, renewable energy contracts and energy trading contracts. The Company estimates that these commitments will be approximately $8.6 billion from 2014 through 2051 as detailed in the following table:
The Company also estimates that 2014 capital expenditures will be approximately $2.3 billion. The Company has made certain commitments in connection with expected capital expenditures. Bankruptcies The Company purchases and sells electricity, natural gas, coal, coke and other energy products from and to governmental entities and numerous companies operating in the steel, automotive, energy, retail, financial and other industries. Certain of its customers have filed for bankruptcy protection under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The Company regularly reviews contingent matters relating to these customers and its purchase and sale contracts and records provisions for amounts considered at risk of probable loss. The Company believes its accrued amounts are adequate for probable loss. The Company's utilities provide services to the city of Detroit, Michigan (Detroit). Detroit filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection on July 18, 2013. The Company had pre-petition accounts receivable of approximately $20 million outstanding as of the bankruptcy filing date. Detroit has been paying amounts owed in a timely manner and its accounts are substantially current. The Company does not expect Detroit's bankruptcy filing to have a material impact on its financial results. Other Contingencies The Company is involved in certain other legal, regulatory, administrative and environmental proceedings before various courts, arbitration panels and governmental agencies concerning claims arising in the ordinary course of business. These proceedings include certain contract disputes, additional environmental reviews and investigations, audits, inquiries from various regulators, and pending judicial matters. The Company cannot predict the final disposition of such proceedings. The Company regularly reviews legal matters and records provisions for claims that it can estimate and are considered probable of loss. The resolution of these pending proceedings is not expected to have a material effect on the Company’s operations or financial statements in the periods they are resolved. See Notes 4 and 11 for a discussion of contingencies related to derivatives and regulatory matters. |