XML 33 R17.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.6.0.2

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Commitments The Company and the Utilities have entered into contracts with various counterparties, expiring on dates through 2031, for the storage, transportation, and supply of natural gas. Minimum payments required under the contracts in place at December 31, 2016 are estimated at approximately $1,463.4, $614.8, and $340.0 for the Company, Laclede Gas, and Alagasco, respectively. Additional contracts are generally entered into prior to or during the heating season of November through April. The Missouri Utilities recover their costs from customers in accordance with their PGA clause and Alagasco recovers its cost through its GSA rider. Contingencies The Company and Utilities account for environmental liabilities and other contingencies in accordance with accounting standards under the loss contingency guidance of ASC Topic 450, “Contingencies,” when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company and the Utilities own and operate natural gas distribution, transmission, and storage facilities, the operations of which are subject to various environmental laws, regulations, and interpretations. While environmental issues resulting from such operations arise in the ordinary course of business, such issues have not materially affected the Company’s or Utilities’ financial position and results of operations. As environmental laws, regulations, and their interpretations change, the Company or the Utilities may incur additional environmental liabilities that may result in additional costs, which may be material. In addition to matters noted below, the Company, Laclede Gas, and Alagasco are involved in other litigation, claims, and investigations arising in the normal course of business. Management, after discussion with counsel, believes that the final outcome will not have a material effect on the consolidated statements of income, balance sheets, and statements of cash flows of the Company, Laclede Gas, or Alagasco. However, there is uncertainty in the valuation of pending claims and prediction of litigation results. In the natural gas industry, many gas distribution companies have incurred environmental liabilities associated with sites they or their predecessor companies formerly owned or operated where manufactured gas operations took place. The Utilities each have former manufactured gas plant (MGP) operations in their respective service territories. Laclede Gas Laclede Gas has identified four former MGP sites in eastern Missouri where costs have been incurred and claims have been asserted: one in Shrewsbury, Missouri and three in the city of St. Louis, Missouri (City). Laclede Gas has enrolled two of the sites in the City in the Missouri Department of Natural Resources Brownfields/Voluntary Cleanup Program (BVCP). The third site in the City is the result of a new claim assertion by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and such claim is currently being investigated. In Laclede Gas’ western service area, MGE has enrolled all of its owned former manufactured gas plant sites in the BVCP. With regard to the former MGP site located in Shrewsbury, Missouri, Laclede Gas and state and federal environmental regulators agreed upon certain remedial actions to a portion of the site in a 1999 Administrative Order on Consent (AOC), which actions have been completed. On September 22, 2008, the EPA Region VII issued a letter of Termination and Satisfaction terminating the AOC. However, if after this termination of the AOC, regulators require additional remedial actions, or additional claims are asserted, Laclede Gas may incur additional costs. In conjunction with redevelopment of one of the sites located in the City, Laclede Gas and another former owner of the site entered into an agreement (Remediation Agreement) with the City development agencies, the developer, and an environmental consultant that obligates one of the City agencies and the environmental consultant to remediate the site and obtain a No Further Action letter from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). The Remediation Agreement also provides for a release of Laclede Gas and the other former site owner from certain liabilities related to the past and current environmental condition of the site and requires the developer and the environmental consultant to maintain certain insurance coverage, including remediation cost containment, premises pollution liability, and professional liability. The operative provisions of the Remediation Agreement were triggered on December 20, 2010, on which date Laclede Gas and the other former site owner, as full consideration under the Remediation Agreement, paid a small percentage of the cost of remediation of the site. The amount paid by Laclede Gas did not materially impact the financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows of the Company. Laclede Gas has not owned the other site located in the City for many years. In a letter dated June 29, 2011, the Attorney General for the state of Missouri informed Laclede Gas that the MDNR had completed an investigation of the site. The Attorney General requested that Laclede Gas participate in the follow up investigations of the site. In a letter dated January 10, 2012, Laclede Gas stated that it would participate in future environmental response activities at the site in conjunction with other potentially responsible parties (PRPs) that are willing to contribute to such efforts in a meaningful and equitable fashion. Accordingly, Laclede Gas entered into a cost sharing agreement for remedial investigation with other PRPs. Pending MDNR approval which has not occurred as of the date of filing, the remedial investigation of the site will begin. Additionally, in correspondence dated November 30, 2016, Region 7 of the EPA has asserted that Laclede Gas is liable under section 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) for alleged coal gas waste contamination at a site in the northern portion of the City on which Laclede Gas operated a manufactured gas plant. Laclede Gas has not owned or operated the site (also known as Station “B”) for over 70 years. Laclede Gas is currently preparing a response to the EPA and is anticipating the participation of former owners and operators of the site as PRPs. Laclede Gas has notified its insurers that it seeks reimbursement for costs incurred in the past and future potential liabilities associated with the MGP sites. While some of the insurers have denied coverage and reserved their rights, Laclede Gas continues to discuss potential reimbursements with them. On March 10, 2015, Laclede Gas received a Section 104(e) information request from EPA Region 7 regarding the former Thompson Chemical/Superior Solvents site in the City. In turn, Laclede Gas issued a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the EPA on April 3, 2015, in an effort to identify the basis of the inquiry. The FOIA response from the EPA was received on July 15, 2015 and a response was provided to the EPA on August 15, 2015. MGE has seven owned MGP sites enrolled in the BVCP, including Joplin MGP #1, St. Joseph MGP #1, Kansas City Coal Gas Station B, Kansas City Station A Railroad area, Kansas City Coal Gas Station A North, Kansas City Coal Gas Station A South, and Independence MGP #2. Source removal has been conducted at all of the owned sites since 2003 with the exception of Joplin. On September 15, 2016, a request was made with the MDNR for a restrictive covenant use limitation with respect to Joplin. Remediation efforts at the seven sites are at various stages of completion, ranging from groundwater monitoring and sampling following source removal activities to the aforementioned request in respect to Joplin. As part of its participation in the BVCP, MGE communicates regularly with the MDNR with respect to its remediation efforts and monitoring activities at these sites. On May 11, 2015, MDNR approved the next phase of investigation at the Kansas City Station A North and Railroad area. To date, costs incurred for all Missouri Utilities’ MGP sites for investigation, remediation and monitoring these sites have not been material. However, the amount of costs relative to future remedial actions at these and other sites is unknown and may be material. The actual future costs that Laclede Gas may incur could be materially higher or lower depending upon several factors, including whether remediation actions will be required, final selection and regulatory approval of any remedial actions, changing technologies and government regulations, the ultimate ability of other PRPs to pay, the successful completion of remediation efforts required by the Remediation Agreement described above, and any insurance recoveries. In 2013, Laclede Gas retained an outside consultant to conduct probabilistic cost modeling of 19 former MGP sites owned or operated by Laclede Gas in eastern Missouri or MGE in western Missouri. The purpose of this analysis was to develop an estimated range of probabilistic future liability for each site. That analysis, completed in August 2014, provided a range of demonstrated possible future expenditures to investigate, monitor and remediate all 19 MGP sites. Laclede Gas has recorded its best estimate of the probable expenditures that relate to these matters. The amount is not material. Costs associated with environmental remediation activities are accrued when such costs are probable and reasonably estimable. To the extent such costs (less any amounts received from insurance proceeds or as contributions from other PRPs), are incurred prior to a rate case, Laclede Gas would request from the MoPSC authority to defer such costs and collect them in the next rate case. Laclede Gas and the Company do not expect potential liabilities that may arise from remediating these sites to have a material impact on their future financial condition or results of operations. Alagasco Alagasco is in the chain of title of nine former MGP sites, four of which it still owns, and five former manufactured gas distribution sites, one of which it still owns. As of December 31, 2016, Alagasco does not foresee a probable or reasonably estimable loss associated with these nine former MGP sites. Alagasco and the Company do not expect potential liabilities that may arise from remediating these sites to have a material impact on their future financial condition or results of operations. In 2012, Alagasco responded to an EPA Request for Information Pursuant to Section 104 of CERCLA relating to the 35th Avenue Superfund Site located in North Birmingham, Jefferson County, Alabama. Alagasco was identified as a PRP under CERCLA for the cleanup of the site or costs the EPA incurs in cleaning up the site. At this point, Alagasco has not been provided information that would allow it to determine the extent, if any, of its potential liability with respect to the 35th Avenue Superfund Site and vigorously denies its inclusion as a PRP. On December 17, 2013, an incident occurred at a Housing Authority apartment complex in Birmingham, Alabama that resulted in one fatality, personal injuries and property damage. Alagasco cooperated with the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) which investigated the incident. The NTSB report of findings was issued on March 30, 2016 and no safety recommendations, fines, or penalties were contained therein. Alagasco has been named as a defendant in several lawsuits arising from the incident, and additional lawsuits and claims may be filed against Alagasco. Mobile Gas Mobile Gas is in the chain of title of one former MGP site which it still owns in Mobile, Alabama. On September 15, 2010, Mobile Gas filed an application to enroll the site into the Alabama Department of Environmental Management’s (ADEM) Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP). This application was accepted by ADEM on November 16, 2010. Investigation and testing have been completed. As of September 30, 2016, Mobile Gas has an approved remediation plan from ADEM which is currently in the process of being executed. Mobile Gas and the Company do not expect potential liabilities that may arise from remediating this site to have a material impact on their future financial condition or results of operations. Since April 2012, a total of 14 lawsuits have been filed against Mobile Gas in Mobile County Circuit Court alleging that in the first half of 2008, Mobile Gas spilled tert-butyl mercaptan, an odorant added to natural gas for safety reasons, in Eight Mile, Alabama. Eleven of the lawsuits have been settled. The remaining three lawsuits, which include approximately 270 individual plaintiffs, allege nuisance, fraud and negligence causes of actions, and seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. A claim has been made against the insurance carriers for Mobile Gas requesting reimbursement for costs accrued in respect to this spill, and a related receivable has been recorded. Mobile Gas and the Company do not expect potential liabilities that may arise from these lawsuits to have a material impact on their future financial condition 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=68068213&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=73718637&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration