International GAAP® 2019: Generally Accepted Accounting Practice under International Financial Reporting Standards
Page 381
1,141
Funding obligation target
1,153
1,125
Fortum’s share of the State Nuclear Waste Management Fund
1,125
1,094
Share of the fund not recognised in the balance sheet
267
264
Legal liability for Loviisa nuclear power plant
The legal liability on 31 December 2017, decided by the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment in December
2017, was EUR 1,161 million.
The legal liability is based on a cost estimate, which is done every year, and a technical plan, which is made every
third year. The current technical plan was updated in 2016. Following the update of the technical plan in 2016, the
liability increased due to updated cost estimates relating to interim and final storage of spent fuel. The legal liability is determined by assuming that the decommissioning would start at the beginning of the year following the assessment
year.
Fortum’s share in the State Nuclear Waste Management Fund
According to Nuclear Energy Act, Fortum is obligated to contribute funds in full to the State Nuclear Waste
Management Fund to cover the legal liability. Fortum contributes funds to the Finnish State Nuclear Waste
Management Fund based on the yearly funding obligation target decided by the governmental authorities in December
in connection with the decision of size of the legal liability. The current funding obligation target decided in December 2017 is EUR 1,153 million.
Nuclear provisions
EUR million
2017
2016
BS 1 January
830 810
Additional provisions
4
6
Used during the year
–21
–20
Unwinding of discount
45
34
BS 31 December
858 830
Fortum’s share in the State Nuclear Waste Management Fund
858
830
Nuclear provision and fund accounted according to IFRS [extract]
Nuclear provisions include the provision for decommissioning and the provision for disposal of spent fuel. The
carrying value of the nuclear provisions, calculated according to IAS 37, increased by EUR 28 million compared to
31 December 2016, totalling EUR 858 million on 31 December 2017. The provisions are based on the same cash
flows for future costs as the legal liability, but the legal liability is not discounted to net present value.
The carrying value of the Fund in the balance sheet cannot exceed the carrying value of the nuclear provisions
according to IFRIC Interpretation 5. The Fund is from an IFRS perspective overfunded with EUR 267 million, since
Fortum’s share of the Fund on 31 December 2017 was EUR 1,125 million and the carrying value in the balance sheet
was EUR 858 million.
Fortum’s share of the Finnish Nuclear Waste Management Fund in Fortum’s balance sheet can in maximum be equal
to the amount of the provisions according to IFRS. As long as the Fund is overfunded from an IFRS perspective, the
effects to operating profit from this adjustment will be positive if the provisions increase more than the Fund and
negative if actual value of the fund increases more than the provisions.
1930 Chapter 27
6.3.3.B
Accounting for obligations to make additional contributions
IFRIC 5 requires that when a contributor has an obligation to make potential
additional contributions, for example, in the event of the bankruptcy of another
contributor or if the value of the investments held by the fund decreases to an extent
that they are insufficient to fulfil the fund’s reimbursement obligations, this obligation
is a contingent liability that is within the scope of IAS 37. The contributor shall
recognise a liability only if it is probable that additional contributions will be made.
[IFRIC 5.10].
6.3.3.C
Gross presentation of interest in the fund and the decommissioning
liability
IFRIC 5 requires the contributor to a fund to recognise its obligations to pay
decommissioning costs as a liability and recognise its interest in the fund separately,
unless the contributor is not liable to pay decommissioning costs even if the fund fails
to pay. [IFRIC 5.7]. Accordingly, in most cases it would not be appropriate to offset the
decommissioning liability and the interest in the fund.
The Interpretations Committee reached this conclusion because IAS 37 requires an
entity that remains liable for expenditure to recognise a provision even where
reimbursement is available and to recognise a separate reimbursement asset only when
the entity is virtually certain that it will be received when the obligation is settled.
[IFRIC 5.BC7]. The Interpretations Committee also noted that the conditions in IAS 32 –
Financial Instruments: Presentation – for offsetting a financial asset and a financial
liability would rarely be met because of the absence of a legal right of set off and the
likelihood that settlement will not be net or simultaneous. [IAS 32.42]. Arguments that the
existence of a fund allows derecognition of the liability by analogy to IAS 39; or a net
presentation similar to a pension fund, were also rejected. [IFRIC 5.BC8].
6.3.3.D
Disclosure of interests arising from decommissioning, restoration and
environmental rehabilitation funds
IFRIC 5 requires the following disclosures:
• a contributor should disclose the nature of its interest in a fund and any restrictions
on access to the assets in the fund; [IFRIC 5.11]
• when a contributor has an obligation to make potential additional contributions
that is not recognised as a liability (see 6.3.3.B above), it should provide the
contingent liability disclosures required by IAS 37 (see 7.2 below); [IFRIC 5.12]
and
• when a contributor accounts for its right to receive reimbursement from the fund
as a reimbursement right under IAS 37 in accordance with paragraph 9 of IFRIC 5
(see 6.3.3.A above), it should disclose the amount of the expected reimbursement
and the amount of any asset that has been recognised for that expected
reimbursement. [IFRIC 5.13].
Provisions, contingent liabilities and contingent assets 1931
6.3.4
Interaction of leases with asset retirement obligations
An entity may sometimes (expect to) use a leased asset to carry out decommissioning or
remediation work for which it has recognised a decommissioning, remediation or asset
retirement provision. For example, at the end of life of an oil field, an entity may use a
leased ship or rig to undertake the plugging and abandonment of oil wells. The entity
may have included the estimated cost of plugging and abandonment of the wells in the
decommissioning provision set up at the commencement of oil production. If an entity
uses leased assets to carry out decommissioning or remediation work for which it
recognised a decommissioning, remediation, or asset retirement provision, the question
arises as to whether, at lease commencement, the entity’s recognition of a lease liability
for the leased assets in accordance with IFRS 16 results in derecognition of the asset
retirement obligation recognised in the balance sheet. Given that, prior to the
commencement of any asset retirement oblig
ation related activities, the entity still has
an obligation to rehabilitate under IAS 37, it cannot derecognise the asset retirement
obligation. Instead, it now has a separate lease liability for the financing of the lease of
the asset. Accordingly, acquiring the right-of-use asset does not result in the
derecognition of the asset retirement obligation liability, rather it would be the activity
undertaken or output of the asset which would ultimately settle the asset retirement
obligation. This is discussed further in Chapter 39 at 17.3.8.
6.4
Environmental provisions – general guidance in IAS 37
The standard illustrates its recognition requirements in two examples relating to
environmental provisions. The first deals with the situation where it is virtually certain
that legislation will be enacted which will require the clean-up of land already
contaminated. In these circumstances, the virtual certainty of new legislation being
enacted means that the entity has a present legal obligation as a result of the past event
(contamination of the land), requiring a provision to be recognised. [IAS 37 IE Example 2A].
However, in its discussion about what constitutes an obligating event, the standard
notes that ‘differences in circumstances surrounding enactment make it impossible to
specify a single event that would make the enactment of a law virtually certain. In
many cases, it will be impossible to be virtually certain of the enactment of a law until
it is enacted.’ [IAS 37.22]. The second example deals with a similar situation, except that
the entity is not expected to be legally required to clean it up. Nevertheless, the entity
has a widely publicised environmental policy undertaking to clean up all
contamination that it causes, and has a record of honouring this policy. In these
circumstances a provision is still required because the entity has created a valid
expectation that it will clean up the land, meaning that the entity has a present
constructive obligation as a result of past contamination. [IAS 37 IE Example 2B]. It is
therefore clear that where an entity causes environmental damage and has a present
legal or constructive obligation to make it good; it is probable that an outflow of
resources will be required to settle the obligation; and a reliable estimate can be made
of the amount, a provision will be required. [IAS 37.14].
1932 Chapter 27
One company making provision for environmental costs is AkzoNobel, which describes
some of the uncertainties relating to its measurement in the extract below.
Extract 27.6: Akzo Nobel N.V. (2017)
Notes to the Consolidated financial statements [extract]
17.
Other provisions and contingent liabilities [extract]
Environmental liabilities
We are confronted with substantial costs arising out of environmental laws and regulations, which include obligations
to eliminate or limit the effects on the environment of the disposal or release of certain wastes or substances at various sites. Proceedings involving environmental matters, such as the alleged discharge of chemicals or waste materials
into the air, water, or soil, are pending against us in various countries. In some cases, this concerns sites divested in prior years or derelict sites belonging to companies acquired in the past.
Environmental liabilities can change substantially due to the emergence of additional information on the nature or
extent of the contamination, the geological circumstances, the necessity of employing particular methods of
remediation, actions by governmental agencies or private parties, or other factors.
The provisions for environmental costs amounted for €103 million at year-end 2017 (2016: €252 million). The
provision has been discounted using an average pre-tax discount rate of 1.8 percent (2016: 2.0 percent). While it is
not feasible to predict the outcome of all pending environmental exposures, it is reasonably possible that there will
be a need for future provisions for environmental costs which, in management’s opinion, based on information
currently available, would not have a material effect on the company’s financial position but could be material to the
company’s results of operations in any one accounting period.
If the expenditure relating to an environmental obligation is not expected to be incurred
for some time, a significant effect of the standard is its requirement that provisions
should be discounted, which can have a material impact.
6.5
Liabilities associated with emissions trading schemes
A number of countries around the world either have, or are developing, schemes to
encourage reduced emissions of pollutants, in particular of greenhouse gases. These
schemes comprise tradable emissions allowances or permits, an example of which is a ‘cap
and trade’ model whereby participants are allocated emission rights or allowances equal to
a cap (i.e. a maximum level of allowable emissions) and are permitted to trade those
allowances. A cap and trade emission rights scheme typically has the following features:20
• an entity participating in the scheme (participant) is set a target to reduce its
emissions to a specified level (the cap). The participant is issued allowances equal
in number to its cap by a government or government agency. Allowances may be
issued free of charge, or participants may pay the government for them;
• the scheme operates for defined compliance periods;
• participants are free to buy and sell allowances;
• if at the end of the compliance period a participant’s actual emissions exceeded its
emission rights, the participant will incur a penalty;
• in some schemes emission rights may be carried forward to future periods; and
• the scheme may provide for brokers – who are not themselves participants – to
buy and sell emission rights.
Provisions, contingent liabilities and contingent assets 1933
In response to diversity in the accounting for cap and trade emission rights schemes, the
Interpretations Committee added this matter to its agenda. Accordingly, in
December 2004 the IASB issued IFRIC 3 to address the accounting for emission
allowances that arise from cap and trade emission rights schemes.
IFRIC 3 took the view that a cap and trade scheme did not give rise to a net asset or
liability, but that it gave rise to various items that were to be accounted for separately:21
(a) an asset for allowances held – Allowances, whether allocated by government or
purchased, were to be regarded as intangible assets and accounted for under
IAS 38. Allowances issued for less than fair value were to be measured initially at
their fair value;22
(b) a government grant – When allowances are issued for less than fair value, the
difference between the amount paid and fair value was a government grant that
should be accounted for under IAS 20 – Accounting for Government Grants and
Disclosure of Government Assistance. Initially the grant was to be recognised as
deferred income in the statement of financial position and subsequently recognised
as income on a systematic basis over the compliance period for which the
allowances were issued, regardless of whether the allowances were held or sold;23
(c) a liability for the obligation to deliver allowances equal to emissions that have be
en
made – As emissions are made, a liability was to be recognised as a provision that
falls within the scope of IAS 37. The liability was to be measured at the best estimate
of the expenditure required to settle the present obligation at the end of the reporting
period. This would usually be the present market price of the number of allowances
required to cover emissions made up to the end of the reporting period.24
However, the interpretation met with significant resistance because application of
IFRIC 3 would result in a number of accounting mismatches:25
• a measurement mismatch between the assets and liabilities recognised in
accordance with IFRIC 3;
• a mismatch in the location in which the gains and losses on those assets are
reported; and
• a possible timing mismatch because allowances would be recognised when they
are obtained – typically at the start of the year – whereas the emission liability
would be recognised during the year as it is incurred.
Consequently, the IASB decided in June 2005 to withdraw IFRIC 3 despite the fact that
it considered it to be ‘an appropriate interpretation of existing IFRSs’.26 The IASB
activated its project on emission trading schemes in December 2007 but work was
suspended in November 2010. In May 2012, IASB members gave their unanimous
support to giving priority to restarting research on emission trading schemes.27 In
February 2015, the project was renamed from ‘Emission trading schemes’ to ‘Pollutant
pricing mechanisms’. This change was to reflect a decision by the Board in January 2015
to broaden the scope of the project to consider a variety of schemes that use emission
allowances and other financial tools to manage the emission of pollutants. The Board
also decided in January 2015 that they would take a ‘fresh start’ approach to the project
rather than starting from the tentative decisions made in the previous project.28 After
considering feedback from the 2015 Agenda Consultation, the Board decided to transfer