Note 5: Commitments and Contingencies

Regulatory Matters

Overview—Unitil’s distribution utilities deliver electricity and/or natural gas to customers in the Company’s service territories at rates established under traditional cost of service regulation. Under this regulatory structure, Unitil Energy, Fitchburg, and Northern Utilities recover the cost of providing distribution service to their customers based on a representative test year, in addition to earning a return on their capital investment in utility assets. Fitchburg’s electric and gas divisions also operate under revenue decoupling mechanisms. As a result of the restructuring of the utility industry in New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Maine, most Unitil customers have the opportunity to purchase their electric or natural gas supplies from third-party suppliers. For Northern Utilities, only business customers have the opportunity to purchase their natural gas supplies from third-party suppliers at this time. Most small and medium-sized customers, however, continue to purchase such supplies through Unitil Energy, Fitchburg and Northern Utilities as the providers of basic or default service energy supply. Unitil Energy, Fitchburg and Northern Utilities purchase electricity or natural gas for basic or default service from unaffiliated wholesale suppliers and recover the actual costs of these supplies, without profit or markup, through reconciling, pass-through rate mechanisms that are periodically adjusted.

In connection with the implementation of retail choice, Unitil Power and Fitchburg divested their long-term power supply contracts through the sale of the entitlements to the electricity sold under those contracts. Unitil Energy and Fitchburg recover in their rates all the costs associated with the divestiture of their power supply portfolios and have secured regulatory approval from the NHPUC and MDPU, respectively, for the recovery of power supply-related stranded costs and other restructuring-related regulatory assets. The remaining balance of these assets, to be recovered principally over the next one to two years, is $24.3 million as of December 31, 2012 including $13.3 million recorded in Current Assets as Accrued Revenue on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheet. Unitil’s distribution companies have a continuing obligation to submit filings in both states that demonstrate their compliance with regulatory mandates and provide for timely recovery of costs in accordance with their approved restructuring plans.

Fitchburg—Base Rates—On August 1, 2011, the MDPU issued an order approving increases of $3.3 million and $3.7 million in annual distribution revenues for Fitchburg’s electric and gas divisions, respectively. The MDPU also approved revenue decoupling mechanisms and a return on equity of 9.2% for both the electric and gas divisions of Fitchburg. The rate increase for Fitchburg’s electric division included the recovery of $11.4 million of previously deferred emergency storm restoration costs associated with the December 2008 ice storm, which costs are to be amortized and recovered over seven (7) years without carrying costs.

Granite State—Base Rates—Granite State has in place a FERC approved rate settlement agreement under which it is permitted each June to file a limited Section 4 rate case that includes incremental annual rate adjustments to recover the revenue requirements for certain specified future capital cost additions to transmission plant projects totaling up to $11.4 million. Of the $11.4 million, $4.0 million of capital spending is being recovered in current rates. On June 29, 2012, Granite State submitted to the FERC an incremental annual rate adjustment filing of $0.3 million due to capital costs additions of $2.4 million, with rates effective August 1, 2012. On July 27, 2012, the FERC accepted the tariffs as proposed.

Unitil Energy—Base Rates—On April 26, 2011, the NHPUC approved a rate settlement with a permanent increase of $5.2 million in annual revenue effective July 1, 2010, and an additional increase of $5.0 million in annual revenue effective May 1, 2011. The settlement extends through May 1, 2016 and provides for a long-term rate plan and earnings sharing mechanism, with estimated future increases of $1.5 million to $2.0 million in annual revenue to occur on May 1, 2012, May 1, 2013 and May 1, 2014, to support Unitil Energy’s continued capital improvements to its distribution system. The rate plan allows Unitil to file for additional rate relief if its return on equity is less than 7% and a sharing of earnings with customers if its return on equity is greater than 10% in a calendar year. Unitil Energy filed its first step adjustment filing for $1.5 million for implementation on May 1, 2012, to recover increased spending for its vegetation management program and reliability enhancement program. The adjustment filing was approved by the NHPUC with minor modifications.

Northern Utilities—Base Rates—Maine—On November 29, 2011, the MPUC approved a $7.8 million permanent increase in annual distribution revenue for Northern Utilities’ Maine operations, effective January 1, 2012, and an additional permanent increase in annual distribution revenue of $0.85 million to recover the costs of 2011 cast iron pipe replacement capital spending effective May 1, 2012. The settlement precludes Northern Utilities from filing for a new base rate increase with an effective date prior to January 1, 2014.

Northern Utilities—Base Rates—New Hampshire—On April 24, 2012, the NHPUC approved a settlement agreement providing for a $3.7 million permanent increase in annual distribution revenues for Northern Utilities’ New Hampshire operations, effective May 1, 2012. The permanent rate increase was reconciled back to August 1, 2011, the effective date of temporary rates.

Major Storms—Fitchburg and Unitil Energy

Superstorm Sandy—On October 29-30, 2012, a severe storm struck the Eastern seaboard of the United States, causing extensive damage to electric facilities and loss of service to significant numbers of customers of several utilities. Based on its preliminary assessment, Fitchburg and Unitil Energy incurred approximately $1.1 million and $2.6 million, respectively, in costs for the repair and replacement of electric distribution systems damaged during the storm. The amount and timing of the cost recovery of these storm restoration expenditures will be determined in future regulatory proceedings. The Company does not believe these storm restoration expenditures and the timing of cost recovery will have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations. This matter remains pending.

Fitchburg—Storm Cost Deferral Petition—On December 16, 2011, Fitchburg filed a request with the MDPU for authorization to defer, for future recovery in rates, the costs incurred to perform storm-related emergency repairs on its electric distribution system as a result of two storms, Tropical Storm Irene, which occurred on August 28, 2011, and a severe snow storm, which occurred on October 29-30, 2011. Fitchburg estimates that, including capitalized amounts, it incurred $1.5 million in costs for Tropical Storm Irene and $3.3 million in costs for the October 2011 snow storm. The Company has requested approval to defer and accrue carrying charges on approximately $4.3 million of the storm costs that were not capitalized into utility plant. On May 1, 2012 the MDPU approved the request to defer the storm costs and ordered that the issue of carrying charges would be addressed in the Company’s next base rate proceeding.

Unitil Energy—2011 Storm Costs—On December 16, 2011, Unitil Energy filed a petition with the NHPUC to increase its storm recovery adjustment factor effective May 1, 2012, to recover the approximately $4.4 million of costs of repairing damage to its electrical system resulting from the August 2011 Tropical Storm Irene and the October 2011 snow storm. On April 24, 2012, the NHPUC issued an order approving recovery of the costs over a five year period with a carrying cost rate of 4.52%, subject to reconciliation.

Fitchburg—Electric Operations—On November 30, 2012, Fitchburg submitted its annual reconciliation of costs and revenues for Transition and Transmission under its restructuring plan. The filing includes the reconciliation of costs and revenues for a number of surcharges and cost factors which are under individual review in separate proceedings before the MDPU, including the Pension/PBOP Adjustment Factor, Residential Assistance Adjustment Factor, Net Metering Recovery Surcharge, Attorney General Consultant Expense Factor and Revenue Decoupling Adjustment Factor. The rates were approved effective January 1, 2013, subject to reconciliation pending investigation by the MDPU. This matter remains pending.

Fitchburg—Gas Operations—On November 2, 2011, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) issued its decision vacating an MDPU order issued on November 2, 2009 which had ordered Fitchburg to refund natural gas costs, plus interest. The Company had previously recorded a pre-tax charge to earnings and recognized a Regulatory Liability of $4.9 million in the fourth quarter of 2009 based on the MDPU’s original order. As a result of the SJC’s decision, the Regulatory Liability was adjusted and the Company recognized a pre-tax credit to earnings of $4.7 million in the fourth quarter of 2011 as a $4.5 million reduction in Purchased Gas expense and a reduction of $0.2 million in Interest Expense, net.

The Company began the recoupment of the amounts previously refunded, with interest, effective January 1, 2012. In order to minimize the rate impact on customers, the recoupment is scheduled to occur over three consecutive heating seasons, beginning January 1, 2012.

Fitchburg—Service Quality—On March 1, 2012, Fitchburg submitted its 2011 Service Quality Reports for both its gas and electric divisions. Fitchburg reported that it met or exceeded its benchmarks for service quality performance in all metrics for both its gas and electric divisions. On January 13, 2012, the MDPU issued its order approving the 2010 Service Quality Report for Fitchburg’s gas division. The 2010 Service Quality report for Fitchburg’s electric division remains pending.

On December 11, 2012, the MDPU opened an investigation into the service quality provided by the gas and electric distribution companies in Massachusetts and the Service Quality guidelines currently in effect. The MDPU investigation will review existing and potential new reliability, safety, and customer satisfaction metrics; potential penalties for downed wire response; potential clean energy metrics; penalty provisions, including penalty offsets for superior performance in other metrics for poor performance on a different metric; and review of historic data for use in establishing service quality benchmarks. Fitchburg will be an active participant in this docket, which remains pending.

Fitchburg—Other—On February 11, 2009, the SJC issued its decision in the Attorney General’s (AG) appeal of the MDPU orders relating to Fitchburg’s recovery of bad debt expense. The SJC agreed with the AG that the MDPU was required to hold hearings regarding changes in Fitchburg’s tariff and rates, and on that basis vacated the MDPU orders. The SJC, however, declined to rule on an appropriate remedy, and remanded the cases back to the MDPU for consideration of that issue. In the Company’s August 1, 2011 rate decision, the MDPU held that the approval of dollar for dollar collection of supply-related bad debt in the Company’s rate cases in 2006 (gas) and 2007 (electric) satisfied the requirement for a hearing ordered by the SJC. The MDPU has opened a docket to address the amounts collected by Fitchburg between the time the MDPU first approved dollar for dollar collection of the Company’s bad debt, and the rate decisions in 2006 and 2007. The MDPU has set a procedural schedule providing for the filing of testimony, issuance of discovery and an evidentiary hearing in May 2013. This matter remains pending before the MDPU.

On July 2, 2008, the Governor of Massachusetts signed into law “The Green Communities Act” (the GC Act), an energy policy statute designed to substantially increase energy efficiency and the development of renewable energy resources in Massachusetts. The GC Act provides for utilities to recover in rates the incremental costs associated with its various mandated programs. Several regulatory proceedings have been initiated to implement various provisions of the GC Act, including provisions for each distribution company to file enhanced three-year energy efficiency investment plans, plans to establish smart grid pilot programs, proposals to purchase long-term contracts for renewable energy, special tariffs to allow the net metering of customer-owned renewable generation, and terms and conditions for purchasing supplier receivables. Fitchburg’s initial three year energy efficiency investment plans, plans to establish smart grid pilot programs, net metering tariffs and proposals to purchase long-term contracts for renewable energy have been approved by the MDPU. Terms and conditions for purchasing supplier receivables and Fitchburg’s filing for the next three year energy efficiency investment plans are under review in separately designated dockets.

On August 3, 2012, the Governor of Massachusetts signed into law “An Act Relative to Competitively Priced Electricity in the Commonwealth”, which both increases electric distribution companies’ obligations to purchase renewable energy resources and the availability of net metering. This act also includes changes to the MDPU’s ratemaking procedures and authority for reviewing mergers and acquisition for electric and gas distribution companies. With these changes, electric distribution companies are required to file rate schedules every five years, and gas distribution companies every ten years. The MDPU has also opened a proceeding, as mandated by the act, to establish a cost-based rate design for costs that are currently recovered from distribution customers through a reconciling factor.

On August 6, 2012, the Governor of Massachusetts also signed into law “An Act Relative to the Emergency Response of Public Utilities”, which establishes a new storm trust fund and requires that penalties levied by the MDPU for violations of its emergency preparedness rules be credited to customers.

Unitil Energy—Annual Rate Reconciliation Filing—On June 15, 2012, Unitil Energy filed its annual reconciliation and rate filing, for rates effective August 1, 2012, including reconciliation of prior year costs and revenues. This filing was approved by the NHPUC on July 20, 2012 with minor modifications.

Unitil Energy—Billing Adjustment—In August 2011, Unitil Energy and one of its larger customers in New Hampshire entered into an agreement regarding a billing error that resulted from a transformer connected to the customer’s meter, which had been mislabeled by the manufacturer, and caused Unitil Energy to overcharge the customer for bills issued from October 2004 through January 2011. The amount of the customer’s overpayment was calculated to be $1.8 million. As a result of the agreement, Unitil Energy reimbursed the customer $1.8 million plus $0.3 million of interest. The Company recognized a non-recurring charge of $0.4 million for distribution charges plus interest in 2011 related to this agreement and filed with the NHPUC for recovery of the remaining amount of the reimbursement to this customer for reconciling electric supply related charges.

As a result of this metering issue, which was discovered in February 2011, certain other customers in the Company’s service areas were under-billed from October 2004 through January 2011 for reconciling supply-related charges. Accordingly, the Company requested authorization from the NHPUC to adjust reconciling account balances and process the billing correction. A settlement agreement between Unitil Energy, the Office of Consumer Advocate and the NHPUC Staff was filed with the NHPUC, providing for recovery by the Company from its under-billed customers of approximately $1.4 million of the amount it had reimbursed the large customer. On January 25, 2013, the NHPUC approved the settlement agreement.

Northern Utilities—Cast Iron Pipe Replacement Program—On July 30, 2010, the MPUC approved a settlement agreement providing for an accelerated replacement program for cast iron distribution pipe remaining in portions of Northern Utilities’ Maine service areas. Under the agreement, Northern Utilities is proceeding with a comprehensive upgrade and replacement program, which will provide for the systematic replacement of cast iron, wrought iron and bare steel pipe in Northern Utilities’ natural gas distribution system in Portland and Westbrook, Maine and the conversion of the system to intermediate pressure. The agreement establishes the objective of completing the program by the end of the 2024.

Unitil Corporation—FERC Audit—On November 3, 2011, the FERC commenced an audit of Unitil Corporation, including its associated service company and its electric and natural gas distribution companies. Among other requirements, the audit will evaluate the Company’s compliance with: i) cross-subsidization restrictions on affiliate transactions; ii) regulations under the Energy Policy Act of 2005; and the iii) uniform system of accounts for centralized service companies. The Company expects the final audit report will be issued in the first quarter of 2013.

Legal Proceedings

The Company is involved in legal and administrative proceedings and claims of various types, which arise in the ordinary course of business. The Company believes, based upon information furnished by counsel and others, that the ultimate resolution of these claims will not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position.

In early 2009, a putative class action complaint was filed against Unitil Corporation’s (the “Company”) Massachusetts based utility, Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company (“Fitchburg”), in Massachusetts’ Worcester Superior Court (the “Court”), (captioned Bellerman et al v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company). The Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, including the cost of temporary housing and alternative fuel sources, emotional and physical pain and suffering and property damages allegedly incurred by customers in connection with the loss of electric service during the ice storm in Fitchburg’s service territory in December, 2008. The Complaint, as amended, includes M.G.L. ch. 93A claims for purported unfair and deceptive trade practices related to the December 2008 ice storm. On September 4, 2009, the Superior Court issued its order on the Company’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, granting it in part and denying it in part. Following several years of discovery, the plaintiffs in the complaint filed a motion with the Court to certify the case as a class action. On January 7, 2013, the Court issued its decision denying plaintiffs’ motion to certify the case as a class action. As a result of this decision, the lawsuit will now continue with only the twelve named plaintiffs seeking damages. Future proceedings may include an appeal of this decision or a trial on the claims of the twelve named plaintiffs. The Company continues to believe the suit is without merit and will continue to defend itself vigorously.

Environmental Matters

The Company’s past and present operations include activities that are generally subject to extensive and complex federal and state environmental laws and regulations. The Company believes it is in compliance with applicable environmental and safety laws and regulations, and the Company believes that as of December 31, 2012, there were no material losses reasonably likely to be incurred in excess of recorded amounts. However, we cannot assure you that significant costs and liabilities will not be incurred in the future. It is possible that other developments, such as increasingly stringent federal, state or local environmental laws and regulations could result in increased environmental compliance costs.

Fitchburg’s Manufactured Gas Plant Site—Fitchburg continues to work with environmental regulatory agencies to identify and assess environmental issues at the former manufactured gas plant (MGP) site at Sawyer Passway, located in Fitchburg, Massachusetts. Fitchburg proceeded with site remediation work as specified on the Tier 1B permit issued by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, which allowed Fitchburg to achieve temporary closure of the site. A status of temporary closure requires Fitchburg to monitor the site until a feasible permanent remediation alternative can be developed and completed.

Fitchburg recovers the environmental response costs incurred at this former MGP site in gas rates pursuant to the terms of a cost recovery agreement approved by the MDPU. Pursuant to this agreement, Fitchburg is authorized to amortize and recover environmental response costs from gas customers over succeeding seven-year periods, without carrying costs. Fitchburg had filed suit against several of its former insurance carriers seeking coverage for past and future environmental response costs at the site. In January 2011, Fitchburg settled with the remaining insurance carriers for approximately $2.0 million and received these payments in the first quarter of 2011. Any recovery that Fitchburg receives from insurance or third-parties with respect to environmental response costs, net of the unrecovered costs associated therewith, are shared equally between Fitchburg and its gas customers.

Fitchburg is in the process of developing long-range plans for a feasible permanent remediation solution for the Sawyer Passway site, including alternatives for re-use of the site. Included on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31, 2012 and 2011 in Environmental Obligations are accrued liabilities totaling $12.0 million and $12.0 million, respectively, related to estimated future clean-up costs for permanent remediation of the Sawyer Passway site. A corresponding Regulatory Asset was recorded to reflect that the recovery of this environmental remediation cost is probable through the regulatory process. The amounts recorded do not assume any amounts are recoverable from insurance companies or other third-parties.

Northern Utilities Manufactured Gas Plant Sites—Northern Utilities has an extensive program to identify, investigate and remediate former MGP sites that were operated from the mid-1800s through the mid-1900s. In New Hampshire, MGP sites were identified in Dover, Exeter, Portsmouth, Rochester and Somersworth. This program has also documented the presence of MGP sites in Lewiston and Portland, Maine and a former MGP disposal site in Scarborough, Maine. Northern Utilities has worked with the environmental regulatory agencies in both New Hampshire and Maine to address environmental concerns with these sites.

Northern Utilities or others have substantially completed remediation of the Exeter, Rochester, Somersworth, Portsmouth, and Scarborough sites. The sites in Lewiston and Portland have been investigated and remedial activities are currently underway. Additionally, Northern Utilities has executed a Letter of Intent with New Yard, LLC to redevelop the Portland site as a boat repair facility with lease proceeds being used to offset remediation costs. Future operation, maintenance and remedial costs have been accrued, although there will be uncertainty regarding future costs until all remedial activities are completed.

The NHPUC and MPUC have approved the recovery of MGP environmental costs. For Northern Utilities’ New Hampshire division, the NHPUC approved the recovery of MGP environmental costs over a seven-year amortization period. For Northern Utilities’ Maine division, the MPUC authorized the recovery of environmental remediation costs over a rolling five-year amortization schedule.

Included in the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31, 2012 and 2011 are current and non-current accrued liabilities totaling $2.8 million and $2.7 million, respectively, associated with Northern Utilities environmental remediation obligations for these former MGP sites. A corresponding Regulatory Asset was recorded to reflect that the recovery of these environmental remediation cost is probable through the regulatory process.

The Company’s ultimate liability for future environmental remediation costs, including MGP site costs, may vary from estimates, which may be adjusted as new information or future developments become available. Based on the Company’s current assessment of its environmental responsibilities, existing legal requirements and regulatory policies, the Company does not believe that these environmental costs will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations.

The following table shows the balances and activity in the Company’s liability for Environmental Obligations for 2012 and 2011.

ENVIRONMENTAL OBLIGATIONS


(Millions)	December 31,
	2012		2011
Total Environmental Obligations—Balance at Beginning of Period	$	14.7	$	14.6
Changes in Estimates		0.1		0.1
Liabilities Assumed		—		—
Less: Payments / Reductions		—		—

Total Environmental Obligations—Balance at End of Period		14.8		14.7
Less: Current Portion⁽¹⁾		1.0		0.2

Environmental Obligations—noncurrent—Balance at End of Period	$	13.8	$	14.5

⁽¹⁾	Reflects amounts included in Other Current Liabilities on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets.