Regulatory Matters	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2015
Regulatory Matters	NOTE 6 – REGULATORY MATTERS UNITIL’S REGULATORY MATTERS ARE DESCRIBED IN NOTE 8 TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS IN ITEM 8 OF PART II OF UNITIL CORPORATION’S FORM 10-K FOR DECEMBER 31, 2014 AS FILED WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION ON JANUARY 28, 2015. Regulatory Matters 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 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. The 2014 TIRA provided for an annual increase in base distribution revenue of $1.3 million, effective May 1, 2014. On February 27, 2015 Northern Utilities filed its second annual TIRA for rates effective May 1, 2015, seeking an annual increase in base distribution revenue of $1.2 million. This filing remains pending. TIRA filings in future periods are projected to result in annual increases in revenue of approximately $1.0 million each year. Northern Utilities – 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. In addition, the settlement agreement provides for additional step adjustments in 2014 and 2015 to recover the revenue requirements associated with investments in gas mains 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. On February 27, 2015 Northern Utilities’ New Hampshire division filed for a step increase of $1.8 million in base distribution revenue effective May 1, 2015. On April 15, 2015, the NHPUC approved the step increase as filed by issuing an Order Nisi. The Order is effective April 28, 2015, subject to the right of any party to file comments or request a hearing prior to the effective date. Northern Utilities – Pipeline Refund – On May 12, 2010, Portland Natural Gas Transmission System (PNGTS) filed a Natural Gas Act Section 4 rate case with the FERC proposing increased pipeline rates of approximately 55 percent over the previously approved rate. The filing was docketed as RP10-729 and rates went into effect on December 1, 2010, subject to refund pending the determination in the rate proceeding. Northern Utilities and other long-term shippers on PNGTS opposed the proposed rate increase. On December 8, 2011, an Initial Decision was issued and on March 21, 2013, the FERC issued Opinion No. 524. Opinion No. 524 was appealed and the FERC issued Opinion No. 524-A on February 19, 2015 denying all appeals and ordering PNGTS to issue refunds to shippers within 60 days. Northern Utilities received a pipeline refund of $22.0 million on April 15, 2015. As a gas supply-related refund, the entire amount refunded will be credited to retail customers. Northern Utilities has proposed to credit the refund to customers over a three year period with interest and that proposal is pending review of the MPUC and the NHPUC. The Company has recorded Accrued Revenue and Regulatory Liabilities of $22.0 million each on its Consolidated Balance Sheets as of March 31, 2015. This amount has been presented on net basis on the Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows for the period ended March 31, 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, along with an approved return on equity of 9.67%. 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 up to a specific cost cap. On June 27, 2014, Granite State filed to increase its rates and annual revenue by an additional $0.6 million beginning August 1, 2014. With this filing, Granite State reached the cost cap. 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—Electric—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 $0.4 million related to capital construction and $1.7 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. 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 to replace aging natural gas pipeline infrastructure. The Company seeks approval to collect $0.3 million to recover the estimated cost to be incurred in calendar year 2015, the first year of the program, to replace eligible leak-prone infrastructure, with rates effective May 1, 2015. This matter remains pending. Fitchburg – Service Quality – On March 1, 2015, Fitchburg submitted its 2014 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 except for the metric related to consumer complaints. As a result of penalty offsets earned, no net penalty was assessed. The electric division met or exceeded all metric benchmarks. On December 22, 2014, the MDPU approved Fitchburg’s 2011 electric division Service Quality Report as filed. Fitchburg’s 2012, 2013, and 2014 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 joint utilities have filed a motion with the MDPU to reconsider the adoption of state-wide standards and have requested reconsideration and clarification on other technical issues. 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 has resolved some claims through settlement and will continue to work with various affected parties to resolve their claims. 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 is addressing 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. Plaintiffs have filed a renewed motion to certify a class under a different theory than previously argued. The Company has filed its opposition to this motion and has also filed a motion for summary judgment. Oral arguments on both motions are scheduled for June 5, 2015. The Town of Lunenburg has also filed a separate action in the Court arising out of the December 2008 ice storm. The Court accepted the parties’ joint schedule with discovery continuing into 2016 and trial likely in late 2016. The Company continues to believe these suits are without merit and will continue to defend itself vigorously.

NOTE 6 – REGULATORY MATTERS

UNITIL’S REGULATORY MATTERS ARE DESCRIBED IN NOTE 8 TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS IN ITEM 8 OF PART II OF UNITIL CORPORATION’S FORM 10-K FOR DECEMBER 31, 2014 AS FILED WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION ON JANUARY 28, 2015.

Regulatory Matters

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 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. The 2014 TIRA provided for an annual increase in base distribution revenue of $1.3 million, effective May 1, 2014. On February 27, 2015 Northern Utilities filed its second annual TIRA for rates effective May 1, 2015, seeking an annual increase in base distribution revenue of $1.2 million. This filing remains pending. TIRA filings in future periods are projected to result in annual increases in revenue of approximately $1.0 million each year.

Northern Utilities – 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. In addition, the settlement agreement provides for additional step adjustments in 2014 and 2015 to recover the revenue requirements associated with investments in gas mains 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. On February 27, 2015 Northern Utilities’ New Hampshire division filed for a step increase of $1.8 million in base distribution revenue effective May 1, 2015. On April 15, 2015, the NHPUC approved the step increase as filed by issuing an Order Nisi. The Order is effective April 28, 2015, subject to the right of any party to file comments or request a hearing prior to the effective date.

Northern Utilities – Pipeline Refund – On May 12, 2010, Portland Natural Gas Transmission System (PNGTS) filed a Natural Gas Act Section 4 rate case with the FERC proposing increased pipeline rates of approximately 55 percent over the previously approved rate. The filing was docketed as RP10-729 and rates went into effect on December 1, 2010, subject to refund pending the determination in the rate proceeding. Northern Utilities and other long-term shippers on PNGTS opposed the proposed rate increase. On December 8, 2011, an Initial Decision was issued and on March 21, 2013, the FERC issued Opinion No. 524. Opinion No. 524 was appealed and the FERC issued Opinion No. 524-A on February 19, 2015 denying all appeals and ordering PNGTS to issue refunds to shippers within 60 days. Northern Utilities received a pipeline refund of $22.0 million on April 15, 2015. As a gas supply-related refund, the entire amount refunded will be credited to retail customers. Northern Utilities has proposed to credit the refund to customers over a three year period with interest and that proposal is pending review of the MPUC and the NHPUC.

The Company has recorded Accrued Revenue and Regulatory Liabilities of $22.0 million each on its Consolidated Balance Sheets as of March 31, 2015. This amount has been presented on net basis on the Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows for the period ended March 31, 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, along with an approved return on equity of 9.67%. 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 up to a specific cost cap. On June 27, 2014, Granite State filed to increase its rates and annual revenue by an additional $0.6 million beginning August 1, 2014. With this filing, Granite State reached the cost cap. 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—Electric—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 $0.4 million related to capital construction and $1.7 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.

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 to replace aging natural gas pipeline infrastructure. The Company seeks approval to collect $0.3 million to recover the estimated cost to be incurred in calendar year 2015, the first year of the program, to replace eligible leak-prone infrastructure, with rates effective May 1, 2015. This matter remains pending.

Fitchburg – Service Quality – On March 1, 2015, Fitchburg submitted its 2014 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 except for the metric related to consumer complaints. As a result of penalty offsets earned, no net penalty was assessed. The electric division met or exceeded all metric benchmarks. On December 22, 2014, the MDPU approved Fitchburg’s 2011 electric division Service Quality Report as filed. Fitchburg’s 2012, 2013, and 2014 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 joint utilities have filed a motion with the MDPU to reconsider the adoption of state-wide standards and have requested reconsideration and clarification on other technical issues. 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 has resolved some claims through settlement and will continue to work with various affected parties to resolve their claims. 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 is addressing 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. Plaintiffs have filed a renewed motion to certify a class under a different theory than previously argued. The Company has filed its opposition to this motion and has also filed a motion for summary judgment. Oral arguments on both motions are scheduled for June 5, 2015. The Town of Lunenburg has also filed a separate action in the Court arising out of the December 2008 ice storm. The Court accepted the parties’ joint schedule with discovery continuing into 2016 and trial likely in late 2016. The Company continues to believe these suits are without merit and will continue to defend itself vigorously.