Note 8: 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 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 of 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 year, is $12.7 million as of December 31, 2013 including $10.2 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.

Northern Utilities—Base Rates—Maine—On December 27, 2013, the MPUC approved a settlement agreement providing for a $3.8 million permanent increase in annual revenue for Northern Utilities’ Maine operations, effective January 1, 2014. The settlement agreement also provided that the Company shall be allowed to implement a Targeted Infrastructure Replacement Adjustment (TIRA) to provide for annual adjustments to distribution base rates to recover costs associated with the Company’s investments in targeted operational and safety-related infrastructure replacement and upgrade projects. The TIRA will have an initial term of four years, and covers expenditures in each of the Calendar Years 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016. The settlement agreement also provides for Earning Sharing where Northern would be allowed to retain all earnings up to a return of 10%. Earnings in excess of 10% and up to and including 11% will be shared equally, between ratepayers and the Company. Earnings in excess of 11% shall be returned to ratepayers. The settlement agreement continues and revises the service quality plan (SQP) that Northern has been operating under since 2004 and established in Docket No. 2002-140. The revised SQP consists of seven metrics with an appurtenant administrative penalty for failure to meet any of the seven metrics. The settlement agreement further provides that Northern will be subject to a maximum annual penalty of $500,000 if it fails to meet any of the baseline performance targets under the revised SQP.

Northern Utilities—Base Rates—New Hampshire—In April 2013, Northern Utilities’ New Hampshire operations filed a rate case with the NHPUC requesting approval to increase its natural gas distribution base rates by $5.2 million in gas distribution base revenue or approximately 9.4 percent over test year operating revenue. The filing included a proposed multi-year rate plan that included cost tracking mechanisms to recover future capital costs associated with Northern Utilities’ infrastructure replacements and safety and reliability improvements to the natural gas distribution system. Northern Utilities has been authorized to implement temporary rates to collect a $2.5 million increase (annualized) in gas distribution revenue, effective July 1, 2013. The Company is currently in settlement discussions with the NHPUC and expects a final rate order from the NHPUC in the first half of 2014. Once permanent rates are approved by the NHPUC, they will be reconciled to the date temporary rates were established, July 1, 2013.

Unitil Energy—Base Rates—Unitil Energy’s second step increase of $2.8 million went into effect on May 1, 2013, which included rate increases to recover capital improvements, increased spending for its vegetation management and reliability enhancement programs and an increase in its storm reserve fund. 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 step increases in annual revenue on May 1, 2012, May 1, 2013 and May 1, 2014, to support Unitil Energy’s continued capital improvements to its distribution system. Unitil Energy’s first step increase was approved as filed, effective May 1, 2012.

Granite State—Base Rates—In June 2013, Granite State submitted to the FERC its latest incremental annual rate adjustment, in the amount of $0.4 million, with rates effective August 1, 2013. The FERC approved the increase on July 30, 2013. 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 gas transmission plant projects.

Fitchburg—Electric Base Rates Filed—In July 2013, Fitchburg filed a rate case with the MDPU requesting approval to increase its electric distribution rates. The Company requested an increase of $6.7 million in electric base revenue or approximately 11.5 percent over test year operating revenue. Included in the amount of this annual increase is approximately $2.1 million for the recovery over a three year period of extraordinary storm costs incurred by the Company related to three severe storms, Tropical Storm Irene, the October 2011 snowstorm and Superstorm Sandy. The filing includes a proposed modified revenue decoupling mechanism by means of an annual revenue adjustment mechanism by either a capital cost tracker mechanism or a multi-year rate plan featuring a revenue cap index. The filing also includes a proposal to establish a major storm reserve fund to address the costs of future major storms by collecting $2.8 million per year through a reconciling storm recovery adjustment factor beginning January 1, 2015. The rate case filing is subject to regulatory review with hearings scheduled throughout January 2014 and approval with final rate orders expected in the second quarter of 2014.

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. Fitchburg and Unitil Energy incurred approximately $1.1 million and $2.7 million, respectively, in costs for the repair and replacement of electric distribution systems damaged during the storm, including $0.3 million and $0.4 million related to capital construction for Fitchburg and Unitil Energy, respectively. The amount and timing of the cost recovery of these storm restoration expenditures for Fitchburg will be determined in its rate case. The cost recovery for Unitil Energy has been approved as discussed below. 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.

Fitchburg—Storm Cost Deferral—On May 1, 2012 the MDPU approved Fitchburg’s request to defer $4.3 million of storm costs associated with two severe storms which occurred in 2011, and Fitchburg is seeking recovery of these costs in the electric rate case it filed in July 2013.

Unitil Energy—2012 Storm Costs—On April 25, 2013, the NHPUC approved the recovery of $2.3 million of costs to repair damage to Unitil Energy’s electrical system resulting from Superstorm Sandy over a five-year period, with carrying charges at the Company’s long-term cost of debt, net of deferred taxes, or 4.52%, applied to the uncollected balance through the recovery period.

Fitchburg—Electric Operations—On November 15, 2013, Fitchburg submitted its annual reconciliation of costs and revenues for transition and transmission under its restructuring plan. The filing also includes the reconciliation of costs and revenues for a number of other surcharges and cost factors which are subject to review and approval by the MDPU. Many of the surcharges and cost factors were redesigned based on cost-based rate design in compliance with a MDPU order in its Investigation into Cost-Based Rate Design for Reconciliation Factors, which resulted from the “Act Relative to Competitively Priced Electricity in the Commonwealth”, signed into law by the Governor of Massachusetts on August 3, 2012. All of the rates were approved effective January 1, 2014 for billing purposes, subject to reconciliation, pending investigation by the MDPU. This matter remains pending.

Fitchburg—Service Quality—On March 1, 2013, Fitchburg submitted its 2012 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 March 29, 2013, the MDPU issued its order approving the 2011 Service Quality Report for Fitchburg’s gas division. The 2011-2012 Service Quality reports for Fitchburg’s electric division remain 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 has been an active participant in this docket, which remains pending.

Fitchburg—Other—On February 5, 2013, there was a natural gas explosion in the city of Fitchburg, Massachusetts in an area served by Fitchburg’s gas division resulting in property damage to a number of commercial and residential properties. The MDPU, pursuant to its authority under state and federal law, has commenced an investigation of the incident, with which Fitchburg is cooperating. The Company does not believe this incident or investigation will have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.

On February 11, 2009, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (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. Briefs were filed in June 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 first two 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 are under review in a separately designated docket.

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 acquisitions 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 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 December 17, 2013, the MDPU issued an order establishing the new rate design allocation methodologies. Fitchburg has participated with the other electric utilities and entered into long-term renewable contracts for its pro-rata share of renewable energy projects. The facility associated with one of these contracts has been constructed and is operating. The other contracts are pending approval by the MDPU as well as subsequent facility construction and operation. These facilities are anticipated to begin operation by the end of 2016. Fitchburg will recover its costs associated with long-term renewable contracts on a fully reconciling basis through a MDPU-approved cost recovery mechanism.

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.

On December 23, 2013 the MDPU issued two orders related to Grid Modernization. The MDPU opened an investigation on its own motion into Modernization of the Electric Grid and, in a separate but related order, opened an investigation into Electric Vehicles and Electric Vehicle Charging. The stated objective of the Grid Modernization proceeding is to ensure that the electric distribution companies “adopt grid modernization policies and practices” and all related objectives. It sets forth a straw proposal which would require each electric distribution company to submit a ten-year strategic grid modernization plan (GMP) within six months of a final Order. As part of the GMP each company must also include a comprehensive advanced metering plan (CAMP), and each company is required to achieve advanced metering functionality. The filing of a GMP will be a recurring obligation and must be updated as part of subsequent base distribution rate cases, which by statute must occur no less often than every five years. A cost recovery mechanism is proposed only for investments in advanced metering. The MDPU also proposes to address in separate, upcoming proceedings (1) time varying rates, (2) cybersecurity, privacy, and access to meter data, and (3) electric vehicles (EVs). In the Electric Vehicle Order, the MDPU seeks to establish policies and regulations that will help facilitate and accommodate the widespread adoption of EVs. Among other objectives, the proceeding looks to evaluate (1) EV charging and its impact on the electric distribution system, (2) electric distribution company involvement in EV charging, (3) residential metering practices and rates for EVs, and (4) consumer protection issues. Both of these matters remain pending.

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 evaluated 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 final audit report was issued on February 28, 2013 and the Company submitted its plan to address the audit findings and implement the audit recommendations on March 29, 2013. The Company submitted its quarterly progress update on the implementation of the audit recommendations on April 30, 2013. On June 5, 2013 the FERC advised the Company that the audit is complete; no further action is required by the Company. The audit findings did not have an impact on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.

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 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 would now proceed with only the twelve named plaintiffs seeking damages; however, the plaintiffs have appealed this decision to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (the “SJC”). The SJC has accepted the matter for review. The Town of Lunenburg has also filed a separate action in Massachusetts Worcester County Superior Court arising out of the December 2008 ice storm. The parties to this action have agreed to put this matter on hold pending the decision of the Supreme Judicial Court in Bellermann. The Company continues to believe these suits are 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 material compliance with applicable environmental and safety laws and regulations, and the Company believes that as of December 31, 2013, 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.

Northern Utilities Manufactured Gas Plant Sites—Northern Utilities has an extensive program to identify, investigate and remediate former manufactured gas plant (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, Lewiston and Scarborough sites. The site in Portland has been investigated and remedial activities are ongoing with the most recent phase completed in December 2013. Although Northern Utilities recently finalized a long-term lease on the Portland property, the State of Maine has announced its intention to acquire the site in the short-term for the expansion of the adjacent marine terminal. Future operation, maintenance and remedial costs have been accrued, although there will be uncertainty regarding future costs pending either State acquisition or 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 Environmental Obligations on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 2013 are accrued liabilities totaling $1.8 million associated with Northern Utilities’ environmental remediation obligations for former MGP sites. In addition to the amounts noted above, there are $1.0 million of accrued liabilities in Other Current Liabilities on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 2013 associated with Northern Utilities’ environmental remediation obligations for former MGP sites. Corresponding Regulatory Assets were recorded to reflect that the future recovery of these environmental remediation costs is expected based on regulatory precedent and established practices.

Fitchburg’s Manufactured Gas Plant Site—Fitchburg is in the process of seeking regulatory approval to implement a permanent remediation solution at the former MGP site at Sawyer Passway, located in Fitchburg, Massachusetts. Included in Environmental Obligations on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31, 2013 are accrued liabilities totaling $12.0 million related to estimated future cleanup 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. 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.

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 2013 and 2012.

ENVIRONMENTAL OBLIGATIONS


(Millions)	December 31,
	2013		2012
Total Environmental Obligations—Balance at Beginning of Period	$	14.8	$	14.7
Changes in Estimates		—		0.1
Liabilities Assumed		—		—
Less: Payments / Reductions		—		—

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

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

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