Note 9 - Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2013

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

Note 9 - Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies

Other than the changes in our debt, see Note 6 herein, there were no significant changes to our contractual obligations beyond those described in Note 11 to our Consolidated Financial Statements and related notes as filed in Item 8 of our 2012 Form 10-K.

We have incurred various contractual obligations and financial commitments in the normal course of our operating and financing activities that are reasonably likely to have a material effect on liquidity or the availability of capital resources. Contractual obligations include future cash payments required under existing contractual arrangements, such as debt and lease agreements. These obligations may result from both general financing activities and from commercial arrangements that are directly supported by related revenue-producing activities.

Contingencies and Guarantees

Contingent financial commitments, such as financial guarantees, represent obligations that become payable only if certain predefined events occur and include the nature of the guarantee and the maximum potential amount of future payments that could be required of us as the guarantor. We have certain subsidiaries that enter into various financial and performance guarantees and indemnities providing assurance to third parties. We believe the likelihood of payment under our guarantees and indemnities is remote. No liability has been recorded for such guarantees and indemnifications as the fair value is insignificant.

Regulatory Matters

On December 21, 2012, Atlanta Gas Light filed a petition with the Georgia Commission for approval to resolve an imbalance of approximately 4.8 Bcf of natural gas related to Atlanta Gas Light’s use of retained storage assets to operationally balance the system for the benefit of the natural gas market. We believe that any costs associated with resolving the imbalance are recoverable from Marketers. The resolution of this imbalance will be decided by the Georgia Commission and we are unable to predict the ultimate outcome.

Environmental Matters

We are subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations governing environmental quality and pollution control. These laws and regulations require us to remove or remedy the effect on the environment of the disposal or release of specified substances at our current and former operating sites. The following table provides more information on the costs related to remediation of our current and former operating sites as of June 30, 2013.

In millions	Probabilistic model cost estimates			Engineering estimates		Amount recorded		Expected costs over next twelve months
Illinois	$208	-	$458	$	42	$	250	$	34
New Jersey	146	-	240		5		151		15
Georgia and Florida	42	-	100		11		56		8
North Carolina		n/a			11		11		5
Total	$396	-	$798	$	69	$	468	$	62

Our environmental remediation cost liabilities are estimates of future remediation costs for our current and former operating sites that are contaminated. Our estimates are based on conventional engineering estimates and the use of probabilistic models of potential costs when such estimates cannot be made, which is generally the case when remediation has not commenced or during the early years of a remediation effort. For those elements of the program where we cannot perform engineering estimates, there remains considerable variability in future cost estimates. Accordingly, we have established a probabilistic model to determine a range of potential expenditures to remediate and monitor our former operating sites. We cannot, at this time, identify any single number within this range as a better estimate of likely future costs, and we generally have recorded the low end of the range for our probabilistic cost estimates.

As we conduct the actual remediation and enter into cleanup contracts, we are increasingly able to provide conventional engineering estimates of the likely costs of many elements of the remediation program. These estimates contain various engineering assumptions, which we refine and update on an ongoing basis. With the exception of our North Carolina site, these costs are recoverable from our customers as they are paid and, accordingly, we have recorded a regulatory asset associated with the recorded liabilities. For more information on our environmental remediation costs, see Note 11 to our Consolidated Financial Statements and related notes as filed in Item 8 of our 2012 Form 10-K.

Litigation

We are involved in litigation arising in the normal course of business. Although in some cases the company is unable to estimate the amount of loss reasonably possible in addition to any amounts already recognized, it is possible that the resolution of these contingencies, either individually or in aggregate, will require the company to take charges against, or will result in reductions in, future earnings. Management believes that while the resolution of these contingencies, whether individually or in aggregate, could be material to earnings in a particular period, they will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or cash flows. For additional litigation information, see Note 11 in our Consolidated Financial Statements and related notes in Item 8 of our 2012 Form 10-K.

PBR Proceeding From 2000 to 2002 Nicor Gas operated a PBR plan for natural gas costs. Under this plan, Nicor Gas’ total gas supply costs were compared to a market-sensitive benchmark. Savings and losses relative to the benchmark were determined annually and shared equally with sales customers. The PBR plan was under review by the Illinois Commission since 2002 due to allegations that Nicor Gas acted improperly in connection with the plan. On June 27, 2002, the Citizens Utility Board (CUB) filed a motion to reopen the record in the Illinois Commission’s proceedings to review the PBR plan (the “Illinois Commission Proceedings”). As a result of the motion to reopen, Nicor Gas entered into a stipulation with the staff of the Illinois Commission and CUB providing for additional discovery. The Illinois Attorney General’s Office (IAGO) has also intervened in this matter. In addition, the IAGO issued Civil Investigation Demands (CIDs) to CUB and the Illinois Commission staff. The CIDs ordered that CUB and the Illinois Commission staff produce all documents relating to any claims that Nicor Gas may have presented, or caused to be presented, regarding false information related to its PBR plan. We have committed to cooperate fully in the reviews of the PBR plan.

The Nicor Board of Directors directed management to, among other things, make appropriate adjustments to account for, and fully address, the adverse consequences to ratepayers, and conduct a detailed study of the adequacy of internal accounting and regulatory controls. The adjustments were made in prior years’ financial statements resulting in a $25 million liability. Included in this $25 million liability is a $4 million loss contingency. A $2 million adjustment to the previously recorded liability, which is discussed below, was made in 2004 increasing the recorded liability to $27 million. By the end of 2003, Nicor Gas completed steps to correct the weaknesses and deficiencies identified in the detailed study of the adequacy of internal controls.

On February 5, 2003, CUB filed a motion for $27 million in sanctions against Nicor Gas in the Illinois Commission Proceedings. In that motion, CUB alleged that Nicor Gas’ responses to certain CUB data requests were false. Also on February 5, 2003, CUB stated in a press release that, in addition to $27 million in sanctions, it would seek additional refunds to consumers. On March 5, 2003, the Illinois Commission staff filed a response brief in support of CUB’s motion for sanctions. On May 1, 2003, the Administrative Law Judges assigned to the proceeding issued a ruling denying CUB’s motion for sanctions. CUB has filed an appeal of the motion for sanctions with the Illinois Commission, and the Illinois Commission has indicated that it will not rule on the appeal until the final disposition of the Illinois Commission Proceedings. It is not possible to determine how the Illinois Commission will resolve the claims of CUB or other parties to the Illinois Commission Proceedings.

In 2004, Nicor Gas became aware of additional information relating to the activities of individuals affecting the PBR plan for the period from 1999 through 2002, including information consisting of third party documents and recordings of telephone conversations from Entergy-Koch Trading, LP (EKT), a natural gas, storage and transportation trader and consultant with whom Nicor Gas did business under the PBR plan. Review of additional information completed in 2004 resulted in the $2 million adjustment to the previously recorded liability referenced above.

The evidentiary hearings on this matter were stayed in 2004 in order to permit the parties to undertake additional third party discovery from EKT. In December 2006, the additional third party discovery from EKT was obtained and the Administrative Law Judge issued a scheduling order that provided for Nicor Gas to submit direct testimony by April 13, 2007. Nicor Gas submitted direct testimony in April 2007, rebuttal testimony in April 2011 and surrebuttal testimony in December 2011. In surrebuttal testimony, we sought $6 million, which included interest due to us of $2 million, as of December 31, 2011. The staff of the Illinois Commission, IAGO and CUB submitted direct testimony to the Illinois Commission in April 2009 and rebuttal testimony in October 2011. In rebuttal testimony, the staff of the Illinois Commission, IAGO and CUB requested refunds of $85 million, $255 million and $305 million, respectively.

In February 2012, we committed to a stipulated resolution of issues, which existed prior to our acquisition of Nicor Gas, with the staff of the Illinois Commission that would include crediting Nicor Gas customers $64 million. There were no new developments between the date of acquisition and the date of the stipulated resolution. The CUB and IAGO were not parties to the stipulated resolution and continue to pursue their claims in this proceeding. Evidentiary hearings before the Administrative Law Judges were held during the first quarter of 2012 and post-trial legal briefs from the parties were submitted during the second quarter of 2012. Following the submission of legal briefs, on November 5, 2012, the Administrative Law Judges issued a proposed order for a refund of $72 million to ratepayers. During the fourth quarter of 2012, we increased our accrual by $8 million for a total of $72 million as a result of these developments and its effect on the estimated liability.

On June 7, 2013, the Illinois Commission issued an order requiring us to refund $72 million to Nicor Gas’ current customers over a 12-month period and we began issuing these refunds in July 2013. We maintain that the appropriate PBR refund is $64 million, consistent with the stipulated resolution with the Illinois Commission staff, and have filed an appeal for the amount in excess of that specified in the stipulated resolution. Any appeal must be filed by August 19, 2013.

Nicor Services Warranty Product Actions Nicor Gas, Nicor Services and Nicor are defendants in a putative class action initially filed in September 2011, in state court in Cook County, Illinois. The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of customers of Nicor Gas who purchased the Gas Line Comfort Guard product from Nicor Services. The plaintiffs variously allege that the marketing, sale and billing of the Nicor Services Gas Line Comfort Guard violate the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, constitute common law fraud and result in unjust enrichment of Nicor Services and Nicor Gas. The plaintiffs seek, on behalf of the classes they purport to represent, actual and punitive damages, interest, costs, attorney fees and injunctive relief. While we are unable to predict the outcome of these matters or to reasonably estimate our potential exposure related thereto, if any, and have not recorded a liability associated with this contingency, the final disposition of this matter is not expected to have a material adverse impact on our liquidity or financial condition.

Other We also are involved in an investigation by the United States Environmental Protection Agency regarding the applicable regulatory requirements for polychlorinated biphenyl in the Nicor Gas distribution system. While we are unable to predict the outcome of this matter or to reasonably estimate our potential exposure related thereto, if any, and have not recorded a liability associated with this contingency, the final disposition of this matter is not expected to have a material adverse impact on our liquidity or financial condition.

For additional litigation information on these matters, see Note 11 in our Consolidated Financial Statements and related notes in Item 8 of our 2012 Form 10-K.

In addition to the matters set forth above, we are involved in legal or administrative proceedings before various courts and agencies with respect to general claims, taxes, environmental, gas cost prudence reviews and other matters. Although we are unable to determine the ultimate outcomes of these other contingencies, we believe that our financial statements appropriately reflect these amounts, including the recording of liabilities when a loss is probable and reasonably estimable.