XML 74 R15.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.1.9

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies | 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 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. The Maine Public Utilities Commission (MPUC), the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (MDPU), and the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission (NHPUC) have each continued to approve these reconciling rate mechanisms which allow Fitchburg, Unitil Energy and Northern Utilities to recover their actual wholesale energy costs for electric power and natural gas. 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. These assets have been principally recovered as of December 31, 2014. The remaining balance of these assets is $4.0 million as of December 31, 2014, including $2.1 million recorded in Current Assets as Accrued Revenue on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheet projected to be recovered in the next year and $1.9 million recorded in Regulatory Assets on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheet projected to be recovered over the next seven years. 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 Maine Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) approved a settlement agreement providing for a $3.8 million permanent increase in annual revenue for Northern Utilities’ Maine division, effective January 1, 2014. The settlement agreement also provided that the Company shall be allowed to implement a Targeted Infrastructure Replacement Adjustment (TIRA) rate mechanism to adjust base distribution rates annually to recover the revenue requirements associated with targeted investments in gas distribution system infrastructure replacement and upgrade projects. The TIRA has an initial term of four years and covers targeted capital expenditures in 2013 through 2016. On February 28, 2014 Northern Utilities filed its first annual TIRA for rates effective May 1, 2014, seeking an annual increase in base distribution revenue of $1.3 million. This filing was approved by the MPUC on April 29, 2014. TIRA filings in future periods are projected to result in annual increases in revenue of approximately $1.0 million each year. Northern Utilities—Base Rates—New Hampshire—On April 21, 2014, the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission (NHPUC) approved a settlement agreement providing for an increase of $4.6 million in distribution base revenue and a return on equity of 9.5% for Northern Utilities’ New Hampshire division. The newly-approved rates were reconciled to the effective date temporary rates were established, July 1, 2013. In addition, the settlement agreement provides for additional step adjustments in 2014 and 2015 to recover the revenue requirements associated with investments in gas main extensions and infrastructure replacement projects. The 2014 step adjustment provided for an annual increase in revenue of $1.4 million effective May 1, 2014. The 2015 step adjustment is for a projected annual increase in revenue of approximately $1.4 million effective May 1, 2015. Unitil Energy—Base Rates—On April 26, 2011, the NHPUC approved a rate settlement that extends through May 1, 2016 and provides for a long-term rate plan and earnings sharing mechanism, with a series of step adjustments to increase revenue in future years to support Unitil Energy’s continued capital improvements to its distribution system. On April 30, 2014, the NHPUC approved Unitil Energy’s third and final step increase of $1.5 million in annual revenue effective May 1, 2014. Granite State—Base Rates—Granite State has in place a FERC approved rate settlement agreement under which it is permitted each June to file for a rate adjustment to recover the revenue requirements associated with specified capital investments in gas transmission projects. On June 27, 2014, Granite State filed to increase its rates and annual revenue by an additional $0.6 million beginning August 1, 2014. The FERC accepted this filing on July 18, 2014 and the new rates became effective August 1, 2014. For 2015, the rate settlement agreement requires Granite State to file a Section 4 FERC rate case by June 2015 with rates effective by January 1, 2016. Fitchburg—Base Rates—E lectric—On May 30, 2014, the MDPU issued its final order approving a $5.6 million increase in Fitchburg’s electric revenue decoupling mechanisms (RDM) base revenue target, effective June 1, 2014. The MDPU approved a 9.7% return on equity and a common equity ratio of 48%. As part of the increase in base revenue, the MDPU approved the recovery, over three years, of $5.0 million of previously deferred emergency storm repair costs incurred in 2011 and 2012. In addition, the MDPU approved an expanded storm resiliency vegetation management program at an annual funding amount of $0.5 million. The MDPU also approved the recovery of $0.9 million over a five-year period of past due amounts associated with hardship accounts that are protected from shut-off. The impact of the rate order on previously capitalized or deferred items was not material. Major Storms—Fitchburg and Unitil Energy Fitchburg—2011 Storm Cost Deferral and 2012 Storm Costs—As part of its May 30, 2014 order approving a base rate increase for Fitchburg, the MDPU approved the recovery over three years, without carrying charges, of $5.0 million of costs of repair for damage due to severe storms, including previously deferred costs incurred in 2011, as well as costs incurred in 2012 as a result of Superstorm Sandy. 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. Thanksgiving 2014 Snow Storm—Both Fitchburg and Unitil Energy experienced a significant snow storm that began the afternoon of November 26, 2014 and ended the morning of November 27, 2014, Thanksgiving Day. Unitil Energy spent approximately $2.1 million for the repair and replacement of electric distribution systems damaged during the storm, including $0.1 million related to capital construction and $2.0 million for which Unitil Energy will seek recovery of through its approved storm reserve fund, subject to review by the NHPUC in a future regulatory proceeding. Fitchburg spent approximately $0.3 million for the repair and replacement of electric distribution systems damaged during the storm, including $0.1 million related to capital construction and $0.2 million in storm expense. As Fitchburg does not have an approved storm reserve fund, these expenses resulted in a pre-tax charge against 2014 earnings of $0.2 million. 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. Northern Utilities—Approval of Authority for Debt Issuance: In April 2014, Northern Utilities filed petitions with the MPUC and the NHPUC for authority to issue senior unsecured notes up to an aggregate amount of $50 million. The petitions were approved by the MPUC and NHPUC on June 10, 2014 and June 23, 2014, respectively. Northern Utilities—Other—On September 12, 2014, Northern Utilities purchased a property for its new Maine Gas Distribution Operations Center (DOC). The new property includes an existing building and is located at 400 Riverside Industrial Parkway in Portland, Maine. In addition, on September 19, 2014, Northern Utilities sold its existing DOC facility located at 1075 Forest Avenue in Portland, Maine. The MPUC approved the sale of Northern Utilities’ existing DOC facility. The approval to sell was contingent upon completion of the acquisition of the new DOC property. The new DOC facility was needed due to space limitations at the existing DOC. In recent years the Company’s gas expansion initiative and the work associated with it resulted in staff, company vehicles, and material storage additions to a facility that could not adequately handle these additions. The new DOC facility is currently undergoing renovations and the Company plans to occupy the new DOC in 2015. Until the Company moves into the new DOC facility, it is leasing its previous DOC facility from the new owner under a lease that can be cancelled by the Company with a 30 day notice at any time. Fitchburg—Electric Operations—On November 24, 2014, 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. All of the rates were approved effective January 1, 2015 for billing purposes, subject to reconciliation pending investigation by the MDPU. This matter remains pending. Fitchburg—Gas Operations—On June 26, 2014, the Governor of Massachusetts signed into law a gas leak bill providing for the following, among other items: amends MDPU’s ability to fine gas companies for violations of gas pipeline safety rules consistent with federal law; establishes a uniform natural gas leak classification standard for the Commonwealth; provides that the MDPU investigate new programs and policies to facilitate customer conversions to natural gas; and establishes an infrastructure replacement program to address aging natural gas pipeline infrastructure. The infrastructure replacement program allows gas distribution companies to accelerate the replacement of eligible infrastructure in order to improve public safety or infrastructure reliability, and to reduce or potentially reduce lost and unaccounted for natural gas. The law also authorizes gas companies to begin to recover through rates the estimated costs associated with infrastructure plans once they are approved by the MDPU, subject to reconciliation to actual prudently incurred costs. Pursuant to this new law, on October 31, 2014, Fitchburg Gas filed with the MDPU a 20 year gas system enhancement plan (GSEP) to replace aging natural gas pipeline infrastructure. The Company seeks approval to collect $0.3 million to recover the estimated cost to replace eligible leak-prone infrastructure in the first year of the program, calendar year 2015. This matter remains pending. Fitchburg—Service Quality—On March 1, 2014, Fitchburg submitted its 2013 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 its gas division. The electric division met or exceeded all metric benchmarks except for two measures relating to the performance of certain individual distribution circuits as compared to the performance of the system as a whole. However, as a result of penalty offsets earned in six metrics where company performance exceeded the benchmark measure, no penalties are assessed. On December 22, 2014, the MDPU approved Fitchburg’s 2011 electric division Service Quality Report as filed. Fitchburg’s 2012 and 2013 Service Quality Reports remain pending. Amendments to MDPU Service Quality Guidelines—On December 22, 2014, the MDPU issued an order adopting new Service Quality Guidelines. The new guidelines, which are to be implemented over several years, establish state-wide standards for most metrics, impose new methods for calculating penalty thresholds, eliminate the ability to offset subpar performance in one metric by exemplary performance in another, and add several new or enhanced metrics. The Company does not believe that the MDPU’s new Service Quality Guidelines will have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations. 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, results of operations or cash flows. 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 Fitchburg’s rate cases in 2006 (gas) and 2007 (electric) satisfied the requirement for a hearing ordered by the SJC. The MDPU opened a docket to address the amounts collected by Fitchburg between the time the MDPU first approved dollar for dollar collection of Fitchburg’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 December 23, 2013, the MDPU opened an investigation into Modernization of the Electric Grid. The stated objective of the Grid Modernization proceeding is to ensure that the electric distribution companies “adopt grid modernization policies and practices.” On June 12, 2014, the MDPU issued its first Grid Modernization order, setting forth a requirement that each electric distribution company submit a ten-year strategic Grid Modernization Plan (GMP). As part of the GMP, each company must include a five-year Short-Term Investment Plan (STIP), which must include an approach to achieving advanced metering functionality within five years of the Department’s approval of the GMP. 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. Capital investments contained in the STIP are eligible for pre-authorization, meaning that the MDPU will not revisit in later filings whether the company should have proceeded with these investments. On November 5, 2014, the MDPU issued two inter-related orders regarding Grid Modernization. The first order provides guidance and filing requirements for the business case justification that the electric companies must file as part of their GMPs. The second order requires the electric companies to implement sufficient advanced metering functionality to enable the sale of electricity to Basic Service customers via time varying rates (rates which vary depending upon the period or time of day that the electricity is consumed). The MDPU determined that time varying rates will establish pricing signals that will enable customers to save money by altering usage patterns and reducing peak load, among other enumerated benefits. The electric companies’ initial GMPs are to be filed within nine months of the November 2014 orders. The MDPU also proposes to address in separate proceedings (1) cybersecurity, privacy, and access to meter data, and (2) electric vehicles. These matters remain pending. 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’s Massachusetts based utility, 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. 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. The plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (the “SJC”), and the SJC has now upheld the lower Court’s order. The Company does not have any information at this time as to whether the plaintiffs will proceed with their lawsuit on an individual basis in light of the decision by the SJC. The Town of Lunenburg has also filed a separate action in the Court arising out of the December 2008 ice storm. 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, 2014, 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. Final remediation activities in Portland are scheduled to occur in 2015. In May 2014, the State of Maine completed its taking of the site via eminent domain for the expansion of the adjacent marine terminal. As a result of the outcome of negotiations with the State of Maine, future operation, maintenance and remedial costs have been accrued, to ensure that applicable remedial activities are completed. Additionally, as a result of the eminent domain taking by the State of Maine, a long-term lease on the property previously entered into by Northern Utilities and New Yard LLC in 2013, to redevelop the Portland site as a possible boat repair facility was terminated. 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. The Environmental Obligations table below shows the amounts accrued for Northern Utilities related to estimated future cleanup costs 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 began work on the permanent remediation solution at the former MGP site at Sawyer Passway, located in Fitchburg, Massachusetts in the second quarter of 2014. The scheduled site work was completed in December 2014. A limited sediment investigation is nearing completion—the results of which will be included in the closure documentation associated with the permanent remediation solution. During the second quarter of 2014, the Company updated its estimate for remediation of this site based upon revised estimates from the consultant performing the work. Consequently, the Company’s previously recorded estimate for this work was adjusted from $12.0 million to $5.5 million. As of December 31, 2014, $3.6 million was spent on this remediation project. The Environmental Obligations table below shows the amounts accrued for Fitchburg related to estimated future cleanup costs for permanent remediation of the Sawyer Passway site with a corresponding Regulatory Asset recorded to reflect that the recovery of these environmental remediation costs are 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 sets forth a summary of changes in the Company’s liability for Environmental Obligations for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013. Environmental Obligations
|  | (millions) |
|  | Fitchburg |  |  | Northern Utilities |  |  | Total |
|  | 2014 |  |  | 2013 |  |  | 2014 |  |  | 2013 |  |  | 2014 |  |  | 2013 |
Total Balance at Beginning of Period |  | $ | 12.0 |  |  | $ | 12.0 |  |  | $ | 2.8 |  |  | $ | 2.8 |  |  | $ | 14.8 |  |  | $ | 14.8 |
Additions |  |  | — |  |  |  | 0.2 |  |  |  | 1.3 |  |  |  | 0.4 |  |  |  | 1.3 |  |  |  | 0.6 |
Less: Payments / Reductions |  |  | 10.1 |  |  |  | 0.2 |  |  |  | 0.5 |  |  |  | 0.4 |  |  |  | 10.6 |  |  |  | 0.6 |
Total Balance at End of Period |  | $ | 1.9 |  |  | $ | 12.0 |  |  | $ | 3.6 |  |  | $ | 2.8 |  |  | $ | 5.5 |  |  | $ | 14.8 |
Less: Current Portion |  |  | 1.9 |  |  |  | — |  |  |  | 1.6 |  |  |  | 1.0 |  |  |  | 3.5 |  |  |  | 1.0 |
Noncurrent Balance at December 31, 2014 |  | $ | — |  |  | $ | 12.0 |  |  | $ | 2.0 |  |  | $ | 1.8 |  |  | $ | 2.0 |  |  | $ | 13.8 |

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 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 2: 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 3: 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=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 4: 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 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