XML 34 R15.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.3.1.900

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2015
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 MPUC, the MDPU, and the 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, 2015. The remaining balance of these assets is $1.9 million as of December 31, 2015, including $0.3 million recorded in Current Assets as Accrued Revenue on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheet projected to be recovered in the next year and $1.6 million recorded in Regulatory Assets on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheet projected to be recovered over the next six years. Unitil’s distribution companies have a continuing obligation to submit filings in Massachusetts and New Hampshire 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 division, effective January 1, 2014. The settlement agreement also allowed the Company 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. The 2015 TIRA provided for an annual increase in base distribution revenue of $1.2 million, effective May 1, 2015. Northern Utilities—Base Rates—New Hampshire—On April 21, 2014, the NHPUC approved a settlement agreement providing for an increase of $4.6 million in distribution base revenue, effective May 1, 2014. The settlement agreement provided 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 provided for an annual increase of $1.8 million in revenue effective May 1, 2015. Northern Utilities—Pipeline Refund—On February 19, 2015 the FERC issued Opinion No. 524-A, the final order in Portland Natural Gas Transmission’s (PNGTS) Section 4 rate case, requiring PNGTS to issue refunds to shippers. 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 Northern Utilities’ customers and marketers. In New Hampshire, the refund will be credited to all customers over a three year period as directed by the NHPUC. In Maine, the refund has been divided into two parts, as directed by the MPUC. Maine retail customers who purchase their gas directly from Northern Utilities will be credited their portion of the refund over a three year period. The second part of the refund was paid on October 5, 2015 as a one-time lump sum payment directly to marketers who transport gas on Northern Utilities’ distribution system. The Company has recorded current and noncurrent Regulatory Liabilities of $7.6 million and $8.1 million, respectively, on its Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 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. The third and final step increase of $1.5 million in annual revenue was effective May 1, 2014. Granite State—Base Rates—Granite State had in place a FERC approved amended settlement agreement under which it had been 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. The final rate adjustment under this agreement was effective August 1, 2014. Granite State has received FERC approval of a second amended settlement agreement under which it will continue to be permitted to file annually, each June, for a rate adjustment to recover the revenue requirements associated with specified capital investments in gas transmission projects up to a cost cap. The FERC approval of the second amended settlement included a rate increase of $0.4 million, effective August 1, 2015. Fitchburg—Base Rates—Electric—On May 30, 2014, the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (MDPU) approved a $5.6 million increase in Fitchburg’s base revenue decoupling 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. On June 16, 2015, Fitchburg filed for a $3.8 million increase in electric base revenue decoupling target, which represents a 5.6 percent increase over 2014 test year operating electric revenues. The filing included a request for approval of a capital cost recovery mechanism to recover prudently incurred additions to utility plant on an annual basis. Discovery and hearings have been completed and briefs have been filed. By statute, the MDPU is afforded ten months to act on a request for a rate increase. A decision is expected by the end of April, 2016. Fitchburg—Base Rates—Gas—On June 16, 2015, Fitchburg filed for a $3.0 million increase in gas base revenue decoupling target, which represents an 8.3 percent increase over 2014 test year total gas operating revenues. Discovery and hearings have been completed and briefs have been filed. By statute, the MDPU is afforded ten months to act on a request for a rate increase. A decision is expected by the end of April, 2016. 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 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. NHPUC Energy Efficiency Resource Standard Proceeding—On May 8, 2015, the NHPUC issued an order of notice commencing a proceeding to establish an Energy Efficiency Resource Standard, an energy efficiency policy with specific targets or goals for energy savings that New Hampshire electric and gas utilities must meet. In this proceeding the Commission will define the savings targets and address issues related to public and private funding; program cost recovery; lost-revenue recovery (e.g. decoupling); performance-based incentives and penalties; program administration; and evaluation, measurement, and verification. Initial comments were filed by interested parties on December 9, 2015, and the matter remains pending. Northern Utilities—Other—In the fourth quarter of 2015, Northern Utilities completed the transition into a new Distribution Operations Center (DOC) for its operations in Portland, Maine. The new property includes an existing building and is located at 376 Riverside Industrial Parkway in Portland, Maine. On September 19, 2014, Northern Utilities sold its existing DOC facility located at 1075 Forest Avenue in Portland, Maine. While the new DOC facility was being renovated, Northern Utilities leased back its existing DOC facility from the new owner. The new DOC facility was needed due to space limitations at the existing DOC. In recent years Northern Utilities’ 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. Northern Utilities recognized a net gain on sale of the Forest Avenue property of $0.9 million in the fourth quarter of 2015. Fitchburg—Electric Operations—On November 24, 2014, Fitchburg submitted its 2014 annual reconciliation of costs and revenues for transition and transmission under its restructuring plan, including the reconciliation of costs and revenues for a number of other surcharges and cost factors, for review and approval by the MDPU. All of the rates were approved, subject to investigation and reconciliation, effective January 1, 2015 for billing purposes, and given final approval by the MDPU on June 16, 2015. On November 17, 2015, Fitchburg submitted its 2015 annual reconciliation of costs and revenues for transition and transmission under its restructuring plan, including the reconciliation of costs and revenues for a number of other surcharges and cost factors, for review and approval by the MDPU. All of the rates were approved, subject to investigation and reconciliation, effective January 1, 2016 for billing purposes, and given final approval by the MDPU on December 29, 2015. 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. On April 30, 2015, the MDPU approved the Company’s plan and allowed the Company 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, effective May 1, 2015. The second annual filing, to recover the estimated costs to be incurred in calendar year 2016, was made on October 31, 2015. The Company seeks approval to collect in rates $0.9 million for the costs of its cumulative capital investments for 2015 and 2016, effective May 1, 2016. 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 July 7, 2015, the MDPU approved Fitchburg’s 2013 gas division Service Quality Report as filed. On October 21, 2015, the MDPU approved Fitchburg’s 2012 electric division Service Quality Report as filed. On November 25, 2015, the MDPU approved Fitchburg’s 2014 gas division Service Quality Report as filed. Fitchburg’s 2013 and 2014 electric division 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 filed a motion with the MDPU to reconsider the adoption of state-wide standards and requested reconsideration and clarification on other technical issues. On December 18, 2015, the MDPU issued its order on the motion to reconsider, and issued revised guidelines. The new guidelines reverse the change to state-wide standards in favor of the company specific standards currently in place, eliminate several metric and reporting requirements and revise several existing metrics in addition to the changes noted above. 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, commenced an investigation of the incident, with which Fitchburg cooperated. The MDPU released its report of the incident on May 7, 2015, without finding of fault. No further action or investigation by the MDPU is anticipated. 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. On May 20, 2015, the MDPU issued its decision, allowing Fitchburg to retain the bad debt amounts that were previously collected in rates, and no refunds or other adjustments were required. This matter is now closed. The final decision did not have an impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements. 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 provided guidance and filing requirements for the business case justification that the electric companies must file as part of their GMPs. The second order required 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. Fitchburg and the Commonwealth’s three other electric distribution companies filed their initial GMPs on August 19, 2015. These filing are currently under the MDPU’s review. The MDPU is addressing in separate proceedings (1) cybersecurity, privacy, and access to meter data, and (2) electric vehicles. These matters remain pending. FERC Transmission Formula Rate Proceeding—On December 28, 2015, FERC issued an order, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act, instituting a proceeding concerning the justness and reasonableness of ISO-New England, Inc. Participating Transmission Owners’ Regional Network Service and Local Network Service formula rates and to develop formula rate protocols for these rates. Fitchburg and Unitil Energy are Participating Transmission Owners, although Unitil Energy does not own transmission plant. To the extent that this proceeding results in any changes to the rates being charged, a refund period will begin as of January 4, 2016. The Company does not believe this investigation will have a material adverse 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 its financial position, operating results or cash flows. 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 Bellermann 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 SJC, and the SJC upheld the lower Court’s order. Subsequently, Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion to certify a class under a different theory than previously argued. The Company filed its opposition to this motion and also filed a motion for summary judgment. On July 27, 2015, the Court issued its decision allowing class certification and denying the Company’s motion for summary judgment. The Company appealed this decision to the SJC, and on October 15, 2015, the SJC granted the Company’s motion for direct review of the case, and it is being briefed by the parties and set for oral argument during the first quarter of 2016. The Town of Lunenburg has 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 that both of these suits are without merit and will continue to defend itself vigorously. The Company believes, based upon information furnished by counsel and others, that the ultimate resolution of these suits will not have a material impact on its financial position, operating results or cash flows. 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, 2015, 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. In Maine, Northern Utilities has documented the presence of MGP sites in Lewiston and Portland, and a former MGP disposal site in Scarborough. 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, Dover, Somersworth, Portsmouth, Lewiston and Scarborough sites, though future activities may be required. The site in Portland has been investigated and remedial activities have largely been completed. Final remediation activities were completed in the fourth quarter of 2015, and closure documentation will be prepared for submittal to the regulatory agency in the first half of 2016. In the second quarter of 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 this taking, and pursuant to an agreement between the State of Maine and Northern Utilities, future remedial activities necessitated as a result of development of the site will be primarily the responsibility of the State of Maine. Although remediation at the site in Exeter has been substantially completed, sediment contamination attributed to the former MGP was identified off-site. This off-site location has been investigated and remediation activities in Exeter commenced in the fourth quarter of 2015. The anticipated completion of these activities is in the first quarter of 2016. The NHPUC and MPUC have approved regulatory mechanisms for the recovery of MGP environmental costs. For Northern Utilities’ New Hampshire division, the NHPUC has approved the recovery of MGP environmental costs over succeeding seven-year periods, without carrying costs. For Northern Utilities’ Maine division, the MPUC has authorized the recovery of environmental remediation costs over succeeding five-year periods, without carrying costs. 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 completed the scheduled site work at the former MGP site at Sawyer Passway, located in Fitchburg, Massachusetts in the fourth quarter of 2014. The closure documentation for the site was submitted in the fourth quarter of 2015 and is under review by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. 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, 2015 and 2014. Environmental Obligations
|  | (millions) |
|  | Fitchburg |  |  | Northern Utilities |  |  | Total |
|  | 2015 |  |  | 2014 |  |  | 2015 |  |  | 2014 |  |  | 2015 |  |  | 2014 |
Total Balance at Beginning of Period |  | $ | 1.9 |  |  | $ | 12.0 |  |  | $ | 3.6 |  |  | $ | 2.8 |  |  | $ | 5.5 |  |  | $ | 14.8 |
Additions |  |  | — |  |  |  | — |  |  |  | 2.9 |  |  |  | 1.3 |  |  |  | 2.9 |  |  |  | 1.3 |
Less: Payments / Reductions |  |  | 0.7 |  |  |  | 10.1 |  |  |  | 4.9 |  |  |  | 0.5 |  |  |  | 5.6 |  |  |  | 10.6 |
Total Balance at End of Period |  | $ | 1.2 |  |  | $ | 1.9 |  |  | $ | 1.6 |  |  | $ | 3.6 |  |  | $ | 2.8 |  |  | $ | 5.5 |
Less: Current Portion |  |  | 0.2 |  |  |  | 1.9 |  |  |  | 1.1 |  |  |  | 1.6 |  |  |  | 1.3 |  |  |  | 3.5 |
Noncurrent Balance at December 31, 2014 |  | $ | 1.0 |  |  | $ | — |  |  | $ | 0.5 |  |  | $ | 2.0 |  |  | $ | 1.5 |  |  | $ | 2.0 |

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 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 2: 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=51674963&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 3: 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 4: 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 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