XML 52 R38.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.4.0.3

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2015
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES. |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 31.COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES COMMITMENTS At December 31, 2015, Enbridge had commitments as detailed below:
| Total | Less than 1 year | 2 years | 3 years | 4 years | 5 years | Thereafter
(millions of Canadian dollars) |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Purchase of services, pipe and other materials, including transportation | 14,025 | 5,459 | 1,918 | 1,205 | 1,118 | 1,025 | 3,300
Capital and operating leases | 739 | 110 | 103 | 60 | 56 | 51 | 359
Maintenance agreements | 420 | 46 | 46 | 31 | 25 | 19 | 253
Land lease commitments | 363 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 298
Total | 15,547 | 5,628 | 2,080 | 1,309 | 1,212 | 1,108 | 4,210
ENBRIDGE ENERGY PARTNERS, L.P. As at December 31, 2015, Enbridge holds an approximate 35.7% (2014 - 33.7%) combined direct and indirect economic interest in EEP, which is consolidated with noncontrolling interests. Lakehead System Lines 6A and 6B Crude Oil Releases The Lakehead System Lines 6A and 6B Crude Oil Releases narratives below reflect the status of these crude oil releases up to February 19, 2016, the date of the original filing of the Company’s consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2015. For a current description of updates related to these crude oil releases since February 19, 2016, refer to the Company’s consolidated financial statements for the three months ended March 31, 2016 filed on May 12, 2016. Line 6B Crude Oil Release On July 26, 2010, a release of crude oil on Line 6B of EEP’s Lakehead System was reported near Marshall, Michigan. EEP estimates that approximately 20,000 barrels of crude oil were leaked at the site, a portion of which reached the Kalamazoo River via Talmadge Creek, a waterway that feeds the Kalamazoo River. The released crude oil affected approximately 61 kilometres (38 miles) of shoreline along the Talmadge Creek and Kalamazoo River waterways, including residential areas, businesses, farmland and marshland between Marshall and downstream of Battle Creek, Michigan. EEP continues to perform necessary remediation, restoration and monitoring of the areas affected by the Line 6B crude oil release. All the initiatives EEP is undertaking in the monitoring and restoration phase are intended to restore the crude oil release area to the satisfaction of the appropriate regulatory authorities. On March 14, 2013, EEP received an order from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (the EPA Order) which required additional containment and active recovery of submerged oil relating to the Line 6B crude oil release. In February 2015, the EPA acknowledged EEP’s completion of the EPA Order. In November 2014, regulatory authority was transferred from the EPA to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). The MDEQ has oversight over the submerged oil reassessment, sheen management and sediment trap monitoring and maintenance activities through a Kalamazoo River Residual Oil Monitoring and Maintenance Work Plan. In May 2015, EEP reached a settlement with the MDEQ and the Michigan Attorney General’s offices regarding the Line 6B crude oil release. As stipulated in the settlement, EEP agrees to: (1) provide at least 300 acres of wetland through restoration, creation, or banked wetland credits, to remain as wetland in perpetuity; (2) pay US$5 million as mitigation for impacts to the banks, bottomlands, and flow of Talmadge Creek and the Kalamazoo River for the purpose of enhancing the Kalamazoo River watershed and restoring stream flows in the River; (3) continue to reimburse the State of Michigan for costs arising from oversight of EEP activities since the release; and (4) continue monitoring, restoration and invasive species control within state-regulated wetlands affected by the release and associated response activities. The timing of these activities is based upon the work plans approved by the State of Michigan. As at December 31, 2015, EEP’s total cost estimate for the Line 6B crude oil release was US$1.2 billion ($193 million after-tax attributable to Enbridge), which is unchanged since December 31, 2014. As at December 31, 2014, the total cost estimate for the Line 6B crude oil release increased by US$86 million as compared to December 31, 2013. The total cost increase of US$86 million during the year ended December 31, 2014, was primarily related to the MDEQ approved Schedule of Work, completion of the dredge activities near Ceresco and Morrow Lake and estimated civil penalties under the Clean Water Act of the United States (Clean Water Act), as described below under Legal and Regulatory Proceedings. Expected losses associated with the Line 6B crude oil release included those costs that were considered probable and that could be reasonably estimated at December 31, 2015. Despite the efforts EEP has made to ensure the reasonableness of its estimates, there continues to be the potential for EEP to incur additional costs in connection with this crude oil release due to variations in any or all of the cost categories, including modified or revised requirements from regulatory agencies, in addition to fines and penalties and expenditures associated with litigation and settlement of claims. Line 6A Crude Oil Release A release of crude oil from Line 6A of EEP’s Lakehead System was reported in an industrial area of Romeoville, Illinois on September 9, 2010. EEP estimates that approximately 9,000 barrels of crude oil were released, of which approximately 1,400 barrels were removed from the pipeline as part of the repair. Some of the released crude oil went onto a roadway, into a storm sewer, a waste water treatment facility and then into a nearby retention pond. All but a small amount of the crude oil was recovered. EEP completed excavation and replacement of the pipeline segment and returned it to service on September 17, 2010. EEP has completed the cleanup, remediation and restoration of the areas affected by the release. On October 21, 2013, the National Transportation Safety Board publicly posted their final report related to the Line 6A crude oil release which states the probable cause of the crude oil release was erosion caused by a leaking water pipe resulting from an improperly installed third-party water service line below EEP’s oil pipeline. The total estimated cost for the Line 6A crude oil release was approximately US$51 million ($7 million after-tax attributable to Enbridge) before insurance recoveries and excluding fines and penalties. These costs included emergency response, environmental remediation and cleanup activities with the crude oil release. As at December 31, 2015, EEP has no remaining estimated liability. Insurance EEP is included in the comprehensive insurance program that is maintained by Enbridge for its subsidiaries and affiliates which renews throughout the year. On May 1 of each year, the insurance program is renewed and includes commercial liability insurance coverage that is consistent with coverage considered customary for its industry and includes coverage for environmental incidents excluding costs for fines and penalties. A majority of the costs incurred in connection with the crude oil release for Line 6B are covered by Enbridge’s comprehensive insurance policy that expired on April 30, 2011, which had an aggregate limit of US$650 million for pollution liability for Enbridge and its affiliates. Including EEP’s remediation spending through December 31, 2015, costs related to Line 6B exceeded the limits of the coverage available under this insurance policy. Additionally, fines and penalties would not be covered under the existing insurance policy. As at December 31, 2015, EEP has recorded total insurance recoveries of US$547 million ($80 million after-tax attributable to Enbridge) for the Line 6B crude oil release out of the US$650 million aggregate limit. EEP will record receivables for additional amounts it claims for recovery pursuant to its insurance policies during the period it deems recovery to be probable. In March 2013, EEP and Enbridge filed a lawsuit against the insurer who is disputing recovery eligibility for Line 6B costs. In March 2015, Enbridge reached an agreement with that insurer to submit the claim to binding arbitration which is not scheduled to occur until the fourth quarter of 2016. While the Company believes that those costs are eligible for recovery, there can be no assurance that it will prevail in the arbitration. Enbridge renewed its comprehensive property and liability insurance programs under which the Company is insured through April 30, 2016 with a liability program aggregate limit of US$860 million, which includes sudden and accidental pollution liability. In the unlikely event multiple insurable incidents which in aggregate exceed coverage limits occur within the same insurance period, the total insurance coverage will be allocated among Enbridge entities on an equitable basis based on an insurance allocation agreement among Enbridge and its subsidiaries. Legal and Regulatory Proceedings A number of United States governmental agencies and regulators have initiated investigations into the Line 6B crude oil release. Five actions or claims are pending against Enbridge, EEP or their affiliates in United States federal and state courts in connection with the Line 6B crude oil release. Based on the current status of these cases, the Company does not expect the outcome of these actions to be material to its results of operations or financial condition. As at December 31, 2015, included in EEP’s estimated costs related to the Line 6B crude oil release is US$44 million in fines and penalties. Of this amount, US$40 million relates to civil penalties under the Clean Water Act. While no final fine or penalty has been assessed or agreed to date, EEP believes that, based on the best information available at this time, the US$40 million represents an estimate of the minimum amount which may be assessed, excluding costs of injunctive relief that may be agreed to with the relevant governmental agencies. Given the complexity of settlement negotiations, which EEP expects will continue, and the limited information available to assess the matter, EEP is unable to reasonably estimate the final penalty which might be incurred or to reasonably estimate a range of outcomes at this time. Injunctive relief is likely to include further measures directed toward enhancing spill prevention, leak detection and emergency response to environmental events. The cost of compliance with such measures, when combined with any fine or penalty, could be material. EEP has entered into a tolling agreement with the applicable governmental agencies and discussions with these governmental agencies regarding fines, penalties and injunctive relief are ongoing. In June 2015, Enbridge reached a separate agreement with the United States (Federal Natural Resources Damages Trustees), State of Michigan (State Natural Resources Damages Trustees), Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of the Potawatomi Indians and the Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi Indians, and paid approximately US$4 million that was accrued to cover a variety of projects, including the restoration of 175 acres of oak savanna in Fort Custer State Recreation Area and wild rice beds along the Kalamazoo River. One claim related to the Line 6A crude oil release has been filed against Enbridge, EEP or their affiliates by the State of Illinois in the Illinois state court in connection with this crude oil release. On February 20, 2015, EEP agreed to a consent order releasing it from any claims, liability, or penalties. Lakehead System Line 14 Crude Oil Release On July 27, 2012, a release of crude oil was detected on Line 14 of EEP’s Lakehead System near Grand Marsh, Wisconsin. The estimated volume of oil released was approximately 1,700 barrels. EEP received a Corrective Action Order (CAO) from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) on July 30, 2012, followed by an amended CAO on August 1, 2012. Upon restart of Line 14 on August 7, 2012, PHMSA restricted the operating pressure to 80% of the pressure in place at the time immediately prior to the incident. During the fourth quarter of 2013, EEP received approval from the PHMSA to remove the pressure restrictions and to return to normal operating pressures for a period of 12 months. In December 2014, the PHMSA again considered the status of the pipeline in light of information they acquired throughout 2014. On December 9, 2014, EEP received a letter from the PHMSA approving its request to continue the normal operation of Line 14 without pressure restrictions. EEP has no remaining estimated liability for this release. AUX SABLE Notice of Violation In September 2014, Aux Sable US received a Notice and Finding of Violation (NFOV) from the EPA for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act related to the Leak Detection and Repair program, and related provisions of the Clean Air Act permit for Aux Sable’s Channahon, Illinois facility. As part of the ongoing process of responding to the September 2014 NFOV, Aux Sable discovered what it believes to be an exceedance of currently permitted limits for Volatile Organic Material. Aux Sable received a second NFOV from the EPA in April 2015 in connection with this potential exceedance. Aux Sable is engaged in discussions with the EPA to evaluate the potential impact and ultimate resolution of these issues. At this time, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the financial impact. TAX MATTERS Enbridge and its subsidiaries maintain tax liabilities related to uncertain tax positions. While fully supportable in the Company’s view, these tax positions, if challenged by tax authorities, may not be fully sustained on review. OTHER LITIGATION The Company and its subsidiaries are subject to various other legal and regulatory actions and proceedings which arise in the normal course of business, including interventions in regulatory proceedings and challenges to regulatory approvals and permits by special interest groups. While the final outcome of such actions and proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty, Management believes that the resolution of such actions and proceedings will not have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=51674963&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration