XML 40 R23.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.7.0.1

Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Contingencies | Contingencies The Company is party to claims and lawsuits arising out of its business and that of its consolidated subsidiaries, which may include, but are not limited to, matters involving property damage, personal injury, and environmental, contractual, statutory and regulatory obligations. The Company accrues a liability for those contingencies when the incurrence of a loss is probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. If a range of amounts can be reasonably estimated and no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount, then the minimum of the range is accrued. The Company does not accrue liabilities when the likelihood that the liability has been incurred is probable but the amount cannot be reasonably estimated or when the liability is believed to be only reasonably possible or remote. For contingencies where an unfavorable outcome is probable or reasonably possible and which are material, the Company discloses the nature of the contingency and, in some circumstances, an estimate of the possible loss. Accruals are based on the best information available, but in certain situations management is unable to estimate an amount or range of a reasonably possible loss including, but not limited to when: (1) the damages are unsubstantiated or indeterminate, (2) the proceedings are in the early stages, (3) numerous parties are involved, or (4) the matter involves novel or unsettled legal theories. The Company had accrued liabilities of $33.7 million, $27.4 million and $31.8 million, which have not been discounted, including liabilities held for sale, for contingencies, including litigation, production taxes, royalty claims and environmental matters at June 30, 2017 and 2016, and December 31, 2016, respectively, including amounts that may have been accrued for matters discussed in Litigation and Environmental matters within this note. The Company will continue to monitor each matter and adjust accruals as might be warranted based on new information and further developments. Management believes that the outcomes with respect to probable and reasonably possible losses in excess of the amounts accrued, net of insurance recoveries, while uncertain, either can’t be estimated or will not have a material effect upon the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Unless otherwise required by GAAP, legal costs are expensed as they are incurred. Litigation Construction Services Capital Electric provided employees in 2012 to perform work for a contractor on a project in Kansas. One of the Capital Electric employees was injured while working on the project and brought a lawsuit against the contractor. Judgment was entered in favor of the employee and his spouse on November 3, 2016, in the amount of $44.8 million following a court determination that the employee’s injuries were caused by the contractor’s negligence. The contractor claims that Capital Electric was contractually required, but failed, to name the contractor as an additional insured under any liability policy in effect at the time of the project and that such failure resulted in the entry of judgment against the contractor. In March 2017, Capital Electric filed a petition for declaratory judgment in the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas for a judicial determination that any agreement between Capital Electric and the contractor for the project did not require Capital Electric to include the contractor as an additional insured under any liability policy issued to Capital Electric and that if such an agreement was found to exist, it would be void and unenforceable under Kansas law. No accrual has been recorded for this matter. Environmental matters Portland Harbor Site In December 2000, Knife River - Northwest was named by the EPA as a PRP in connection with the cleanup of a riverbed site adjacent to a commercial property site acquired by Knife River - Northwest from Georgia-Pacific West, Inc. in 1999. The riverbed site is part of the Portland, Oregon, Harbor Superfund Site. The EPA wants responsible parties to share in the cleanup of sediment contamination in the Willamette River. To date, costs of the overall remedial investigation and feasibility study of the harbor site are being recorded, and initially paid, through an administrative consent order by the LWG, a group of several entities, which does not include Knife River - Northwest or Georgia-Pacific West, Inc. Investigative costs are indicated to be in excess of $100 million. On January 6, 2017, Region 10 of the EPA issued a ROD with its selected remedy for cleanup of the in-river portion of the site. Implementation of the remedy is expected to take up to 13 years with a present value cost estimate of approximately $1 billion. Corrective action will not be taken until remedial design/remedial action plans are approved by the EPA. Knife River - Northwest also received notice in January 2008 that the Portland Harbor Natural Resource Trustee Council intends to perform an injury assessment to natural resources resulting from the release of hazardous substances at the Harbor Superfund Site. The Portland Harbor Natural Resource Trustee Council indicates the injury determination is appropriate to facilitate early settlement of damages and restoration for natural resource injuries. It is not possible to estimate the costs of natural resource damages until an assessment is completed and allocations are undertaken. Based upon a review of the Portland Harbor sediment contamination evaluation by the Oregon DEQ and other information available, Knife River - Northwest does not believe it is a responsible party. In addition, Knife River - Northwest has notified Georgia-Pacific West, Inc., that it intends to seek indemnity for liabilities incurred in relation to the above matters pursuant to the terms of their sale agreement. Knife River - Northwest has entered into an agreement tolling the statute of limitations in connection with the LWG's potential claim for contribution to the costs of the remedial investigation and feasibility study. By letter in March 2009, LWG stated its intent to file suit against Knife River - Northwest and others to recover LWG's investigation costs to the extent Knife River - Northwest cannot demonstrate its non-liability for the contamination or is unwilling to participate in an alternative dispute resolution process that has been established to address the matter. At this time, Knife River - Northwest has agreed to participate in the alternative dispute resolution process. The Company believes it is not probable that it will incur any material environmental remediation costs or damages in relation to the above referenced matter. Manufactured Gas Plant Sites There are three claims against Cascade for cleanup of environmental contamination at manufactured gas plant sites operated by Cascade's predecessors. The first claim is for contamination at a site in Eugene, Oregon which was received in 1995. There are PRPs in addition to Cascade that may be liable for cleanup of the contamination. Some of these PRPs have shared in the investigation costs. It is expected that these and other PRPs will share in the cleanup costs. The Oregon DEQ released a ROD in January 2015 that selected a remediation alternative for the site as recommended in an earlier staff report. The total estimated cost for the selected remediation, including long term maintenance, is approximately $3.5 million of which $320,000 has been incurred. It is not known at this time what share of the cleanup costs will actually be borne by Cascade; however, Cascade has paid 50 percent of the ongoing investigation and design costs and anticipates its proportional share of the final costs could be approximately 50 percent. Cascade has an accrual balance of $1.6 million for remediation of this site. In January 2013, the OPUC approved Cascade's application to defer environmental remediation costs at the Eugene site for a period of 12 months starting November 30, 2012. Cascade received orders reauthorizing the deferred accounting for the 12-month periods starting November 30, 2013, December 1, 2014, and December 1, 2015. Cascade has requested authority to defer accounting for the 12-month period starting December 1, 2016, which is pending before the OPUC. The second claim is for contamination at a site in Bremerton, Washington which was received in 1997. A preliminary investigation has found soil and groundwater at the site contain contaminants requiring further investigation and cleanup. The EPA conducted a Targeted Brownfields Assessment of the site and released a report summarizing the results of that assessment in August 2009. The assessment confirms that contaminants have affected soil and groundwater at the site, as well as sediments in the adjacent Port Washington Narrows. Alternative remediation options have been identified with preliminary cost estimates ranging from $340,000 to $6.4 million. Data developed through the assessment and previous investigations indicates the contamination likely derived from multiple, different sources and multiple current and former owners of properties and businesses in the vicinity of the site may be responsible for the contamination. In April 2010, the Washington DOE issued notice it considered Cascade a PRP for hazardous substances at the site. In May 2012, the EPA added the site to the National Priorities List of Superfund sites. Cascade has entered into an administrative settlement agreement and consent order with the EPA regarding the scope and schedule for a remedial investigation and feasibility study for the site. Current estimates for the cost to complete the remedial investigation and feasibility study are approximately $7.6 million of which $200,000 has been incurred. Cascade has accrued $7.4 million for the remedial investigation and feasibility study as well as $6.4 million for remediation of this site; however, the accrual for remediation costs will be reviewed and adjusted, if necessary, after completion of the remedial investigation and feasibility study. In April 2010, Cascade filed a petition with the WUTC for authority to defer the costs, which are included in other noncurrent assets, incurred in relation to the environmental remediation of this site. The WUTC approved the petition in September 2010, subject to conditions set forth in the order. The third claim is for contamination at a site in Bellingham, Washington. Cascade received notice from a party in May 2008 that Cascade may be a PRP, along with other parties, for contamination from a manufactured gas plant owned by Cascade and its predecessor from about 1946 to 1962. The notice indicates that current estimates to complete investigation and cleanup of the site exceed $8.0 million. Other PRPs have reached an agreed order and work plan with the Washington DOE for completion of a remedial investigation and feasibility study for the site. A report documenting the initial phase of the remedial investigation was completed in June 2011. There is currently not enough information available to estimate the potential liability to Cascade associated with this claim although Cascade believes its proportional share of any liability will be relatively small in comparison to other PRPs. The plant manufactured gas from coal between approximately 1890 and 1946. In 1946, shortly after Cascade's predecessor acquired the plant, it converted the plant to a propane-air gas facility. There are no documented wastes or by-products resulting from the mixing or distribution of propane-air gas. Cascade has not recorded an accrual for this site. Cascade has received notices from and entered into agreement with certain of its insurance carriers that they will participate in defense of Cascade for these contamination claims subject to full and complete reservations of rights and defenses to insurance coverage. To the extent these claims are not covered by insurance, Cascade intends to seek recovery through the OPUC and WUTC of remediation costs in its natural gas rates charged to customers. The accruals related to these matters are reflected in regulatory assets. Guarantees In June 2016, WBI Energy sold all of the outstanding membership interests in Dakota Prairie Refining. In connection with the sale, Centennial agreed to continue to guarantee certain debt obligations of Dakota Prairie Refining which totaled $58.5 million at June 30, 2017, and are expected to mature by 2023. Tesoro agreed to indemnify Centennial for any losses and litigation expenses arising from the guarantee. The estimated fair values of the indemnity asset and guarantee liability are reflected in deferred charges and other assets - other and deferred credits and other liabilities - other, respectively, on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Continuation of the guarantee was required as a condition to the sale of Dakota Prairie Refining. In March 2016, a sale agreement was signed to sell Fidelity's assets in the Paradox Basin. In connection with the sale, Centennial agreed to guarantee Fidelity's indemnity obligations associated with the Paradox assets. The guarantee was required by the buyer as a condition to the sale of the Paradox Basin assets. In 2009, multiple sale agreements were signed to sell the Company's ownership interests in the Brazilian Transmission Lines. In connection with the sale, Centennial agreed to guarantee payment of any indemnity obligations of certain of the Company's indirect wholly owned subsidiaries who were the sellers in three purchase and sale agreements for periods ranging up to 10 years from the date of sale. The guarantees were required by the buyers as a condition to the sale of the Brazilian Transmission Lines. Certain subsidiaries of the Company have outstanding guarantees to third parties that guarantee the performance of other subsidiaries of the Company. These guarantees are related to construction contracts, insurance deductibles and loss limits, and certain other guarantees. At June 30, 2017, the fixed maximum amounts guaranteed under these agreements aggregated $106.2 million. The amounts of scheduled expiration of the maximum amounts guaranteed under these agreements aggregate $6.6 million in 2017; $24.8 million in 2018; $20.2 million in 2019; $47.4 million in 2020; $500,000 in 2021; $2.7 million thereafter; and $4.0 million, which has no scheduled maturity date. There were no amounts outstanding under the above guarantees at June 30, 2017. In the event of default under these guarantee obligations, the subsidiary issuing the guarantee for that particular obligation would be required to make payments under its guarantee. Certain subsidiaries have outstanding letters of credit to third parties related to insurance policies and other agreements, some of which are guaranteed by other subsidiaries of the Company. At June 30, 2017, the fixed maximum amounts guaranteed under these letters of credit aggregated $33.8 million. The amounts of scheduled expiration of the maximum amounts guaranteed under these letters of credit aggregate $33.1 million in 2017 and $700,000 in 2018. There were no amounts outstanding under the above letters of credit at June 30, 2017. In the event of default under these letter of credit obligations, the subsidiary issuing the letter of credit for that particular obligation would be required to make payments under its letter of credit. In addition, Centennial, Knife River and MDU Construction Services have issued guarantees to third parties related to the routine purchase of maintenance items, materials and lease obligations for which no fixed maximum amounts have been specified. These guarantees have no scheduled maturity date. In the event a subsidiary of the Company defaults under these obligations, Centennial, Knife River or MDU Construction Services would be required to make payments under these guarantees. Any amounts outstanding by subsidiaries of the Company for these guarantees were reflected on the Consolidated Balance Sheet at June 30, 2017. In the normal course of business, Centennial has surety bonds related to construction contracts and reclamation obligations of its subsidiaries. In the event a subsidiary of Centennial does not fulfill a bonded obligation, Centennial would be responsible to the surety bond company for completion of the bonded contract or obligation. A large portion of the surety bonds is expected to expire within the next 12 months; however, Centennial will likely continue to enter into surety bonds for its subsidiaries in the future. At June 30, 2017, approximately $765.5 million of surety bonds were outstanding, which were not reflected on the Consolidated Balance Sheet. Variable interest entities The Company evaluates its arrangements and contracts with other entities to determine if they are VIEs and if so, if the Company is the primary beneficiary. Fuel Contract Coyote Station entered into a coal supply agreement with Coyote Creek that provides for the purchase of coal necessary to supply the coal requirements of the Coyote Station for May 2016 through December 2040. Coal purchased under the coal supply agreement is reflected in inventories on the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheets and is recovered from customers as a component of electric fuel and purchased power. The coal supply agreement creates a variable interest in Coyote Creek due to the transfer of all operating and economic risk to the Coyote Station owners, as the agreement is structured so the price of the coal will cover all costs of operations as well as future reclamation costs. The Coyote Station owners are also providing a guarantee of the value of the assets of Coyote Creek as they would be required to buy the assets at book value should they terminate the contract prior to the end of the contract term and are providing a guarantee of the value of the equity of Coyote Creek in that they are required to buy the entity at the end of the contract term at equity value. Although the Company has determined that Coyote Creek is a VIE, the Company has concluded that it is not the primary beneficiary of Coyote Creek because the authority to direct the activities of the entity is shared by the four unrelated owners of the Coyote Station, with no primary beneficiary existing. As a result, Coyote Creek is not required to be consolidated in the Company's financial statements. At June 30, 2017, the Company's exposure to loss as a result of the Company's involvement with the VIE, based on the Company's ownership percentage, was $42.1 million.

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 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration