Seattle City Light 2016 ANNUAL REPORT | Audited Financial Statements 73 THE CITY OF SEATTLE—CITY LIGHT DEPARTMENT NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2016 AND 2015 - 73 - $1.7 million and $2.5 million to Pend Oreille County, and $1.1 million and $1.0 million to Whatcom County in 2016 and 2015, respectively. Energy Crisis Refund Litigation — The Department (City) is involved in various legal proceedings relating to the enormous price spikes in energy costs in California and the rest of the West Coast in 2000 and 2001. ● California Refund Case, Appeals and Related Litigation—In a proceeding before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), various public and private California entities (the California Parties) sought refunds in markets that had been created by the State of California. In February 2011, the City agreed to a settlement, which was eventually approved by the trial court and by FERC. Under the settlement, the City has resolved this matter for $9.0 million, none of which was immediately paid by the Department. As part of the settlement, the City has assigned its accounts receivable from the California Independent Systems Operator to the California Parties, which was valued at approximately $1.4 million at the time of the settlement agreement. The balance of over $7.6 million is contingent upon the Department recovering monies in the Pacific Northwest Refund Case, discussed below. To date, the Department has received $4.6 million in payments in the Pacific Northwest Refund Case, half of which has been paid to the California parties pursuant to the settlement. ● Pacific Northwest Refund Case—In a proceeding before FERC, various buyers of energy, including the City, sought refunds from various sellers on energy sales in the Pacific Northwest between December 1999 and June 2001. The case was tried at FERC between August and October of 2013. In March 2014, the FERC administrative law judge issued an Initial Decision denying all refunds. In May 2014, the City filed a brief objecting to the Initial Decision. Prior to the FERC trial, the City settled refund claims with fourteen entities, with a combined total settlement amount of $4.6 million. In February 2015, after hearing argument in a related case, the Ninth Circuit sua sponte reactivated certain City Light appeals previously stayed at the Ninth Circuit that were primarily related to City Light’s appeal of the FERC’s determination that the Mobile-Sierra presumption applied to the contracts at issue and whether FERC had improperly excluded certain evidence that City Light had presented in order to overcome the Mobile-Sierra presumption. After a truncated briefing schedule, oral arguments were heard in June 2015. On December 17, 2015, the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion finding that the Mobile-Serra presumption does apply to the issues in this case. The Ninth Circuit also determined that it did not have jurisdiction over the evidentiary issues. On December 31, 2015, FERC issued its decision largely confirming the Initial Decision issued by the administrative law judge on March 28, 2014. City Light filed its notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit on February 22, 2016. In October 2016, City Light settled all remaining claims in this longstanding litigation for a non-material amount. On November 4, 2016, The Ninth Circuit granted City Light’s motion to voluntarily dismiss its appeal.  Centralia Steam Plant Project Asbestos Claims – In 2013, the Department received notice of a lawsuit that had been filed against PacifiCorp (the successor in interest of the former operator of the Centralia Steam Plant Project) by an employee of a contractor who worked at the Project between April 26, 1971 and December 3, 1971. The claimant alleges he developed mesothelioma as a result of his exposure to asbestos during the time he worked at the Project. PacifiCorp provided notice to the Department, and all the other former owners of the Project that, as a former owner of the Project, it could liable for any liabilities resulting from the construction not covered by insurance in proportion to its ownership share. Based on the agreement for the construction and ownership of the Project, the Department owned 8% of the Project during the material times. Recently, the Department received additional notice indicating there are two additional decedent estates have filed lawsuits against the former operator alleging similar claims. The Department is not named in any of the litigation and trial dates for these cases against the former