Contingent Liabilities and Commitments

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2010

Contingent Liabilities and Commitments [Abstract]

Note 16. Contingent Liabilities and Commitments

Issues Resulting from California Energy Crisis

Our former power business was engaged in power marketing in various geographic areas, including California. Prices charged for power by us and other traders and generators in California and other western states in 2000 and 2001 were challenged in various proceedings, including those before the FERC. We have entered into settlements with the State of California (State Settlement), major California utilities (Utilities Settlement), and others that substantially resolved each of these issues with these parties.

Although the State Settlement and Utilities Settlement resolved a significant portion of the refund issues among the settling parties, we continue to have potential refund exposure to nonsettling parties, including various California end users that did not participate in the Utilities Settlement. We are currently in settlement negotiations with certain California utilities aimed at eliminating or substantially reducing this exposure. If successful, and subject to a final “true-up” mechanism, the settlement agreement would also resolve our collection of accrued interest from counterparties as well as our payment of accrued interest on refund amounts. Thus, as currently contemplated by the parties, the settlement agreement would resolve most, if not all, of our legal issues arising from the 2000-2001 California Energy Crisis.

As a result of a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision, certain contracts that we entered into during 2000 and 2001 might have been subject to partial refunds depending on the results of further proceedings at the FERC. These contracts, under which we sold electricity, totaled approximately $89 million in revenue. While we were not a party to the cases involved in the U.S. Supreme Court decision, the buyer of electricity from us is a party to the cases and claimed that we must refund to the buyer any loss it suffers due to the FERC’s reconsideration of the contract terms at issue in the decision. In August 2010, the FERC ruled that settlement of the separate claims against the buyer required the dismissal of the buyer’s claims against us.

Certain other issues also remain open at the FERC and for other nonsettling parties.

Reporting of Natural Gas-Related Information to Trade Publications

Civil suits based on allegations of manipulating published gas price indices have been brought against us and others, in each case seeking an unspecified amount of damages. We are currently a defendant in class action litigation and other litigation originally filed in state court in Colorado, Kansas, Missouri and Wisconsin brought on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of gas in those states.

	•		The federal court in Nevada currently presides over cases that were transferred to it from state courts in Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, and Wisconsin. In 2008, the federal court in Nevada granted summary judgment in the Colorado case in favor of us and most of the other defendants, and on January 8, 2009, the court denied the plaintiffs’ request for reconsideration of the Colorado dismissal. We expect that the Colorado plaintiffs will appeal, but the appeal cannot occur until the case against the remaining defendant is concluded. In the other cases, our joint motions for summary judgment to preclude the plaintiffs’ state law claims based upon federal preemption have been pending since late 2009. If the motions are granted, we expect a final judgment in our favor which the plaintiffs could appeal. If the motions are denied, the current stay of activity would be lifted, class certification would be addressed, and discovery would be completed as the cases proceeded towards trial. Additionally, we would be unable to estimate a revised range of exposure until certain of these matters were resolved. However, it would be reasonably possible that such a range could include levels that would be material to our results of operations.

	•		On April 23, 2010, the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the state appellate court and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims against us on federal preemption grounds. The plaintiffs did not appeal this ruling to the United States Supreme Court. This case is now concluded in our favor.

	•		On September 24, 2010, the Missouri Supreme Court declined to hear the plaintiff’s appeal of the trial court’s dismissal of a case for lack of standing. The case is now concluded in our favor.

Environmental Matters

Continuing operations

Our interstate gas pipelines are involved in remediation activities related to certain facilities and locations for polychlorinated biphenyl, mercury contamination, and other hazardous substances. These activities have involved the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and various state environmental authorities. At December 31, 2010 we have accrued liabilities of $12 million for these costs. We expect that these costs will be recoverable through rates.

We also accrue environmental remediation costs for natural gas underground storage facilities, primarily related to soil and groundwater contamination. At December 31, 2010, we have accrued liabilities totaling $6 million for these costs.

In March 2008, the EPA proposed a penalty of $370,000 for alleged violations relating to leak detection and repair program delays at our Ignacio gas plant in Colorado and for alleged permit violations at a compressor station. We met with the EPA and are exchanging information in order to resolve the issues.

In September 2007, the EPA requested, and our Transco subsidiary later provided, information regarding natural gas compressor stations in the states of Mississippi and Alabama as part of the EPA’s investigation of our compliance with the Clean Air Act. On March 28, 2008, the EPA issued notices of violation alleging violations of Clean Air Act requirements at these compressor stations. We met with the EPA in May 2008 and submitted our response denying the allegations in June 2008. In July 2009, the EPA requested additional information pertaining to these compressor stations and in August 2009, we submitted the requested information. On August 20, 2010, the EPA requested and our Transco subsidiary provided, similar information for a compressor station in Maryland.

Former operations, including operations classified as discontinued

We have potential obligations in connection with assets and businesses we no longer operate. These potential obligations include the indemnification of the purchasers of certain of these assets and businesses for environmental and other liabilities existing at the time the sale was consummated. Our responsibilities include those described below.

	•		Potential indemnification obligations to purchasers of our former agricultural fertilizer and chemical operations and former retail petroleum and refining operations;

	•		Former petroleum products and natural gas pipelines;

	•		Discontinued petroleum refining facilities;

•

Former exploration and production and mining operations.

At December 31, 2010, we have accrued environmental liabilities of $31 million related to these matters.

Actual costs for these matters could be substantially greater than amounts accrued depending on the actual number of contaminated sites identified, the actual amount and extent of contamination discovered, the final cleanup standards mandated by the EPA and other governmental authorities. Any incremental amount cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.

Certain of our subsidiaries have been identified as potentially responsible parties at various Superfund and state waste disposal sites. In addition, these subsidiaries have incurred, or are alleged to have incurred, various other hazardous materials removal or remediation obligations under environmental laws.

Environmental matters — general

The EPA and various state regulatory agencies routinely promulgate and propose new rules, and issue updated guidance to existing rules. These new rules and rulemakings include, but are not limited to, rules for reciprocating internal combustion engine maximum achievable control technology, new air quality standards for ground level ozone, and one hour nitrogen dioxide emission limits. We are unable to estimate the costs of asset additions or modifications necessary to comply with these new regulations due to uncertainty created by the various legal challenges to these regulations and the need for further specific regulatory guidance.

Other Legal Matters

Gulf Liquids litigation

Gulf Liquids contracted with Gulsby Engineering Inc. (Gulsby) and Gulsby-Bay (a joint venture between Gulsby and Bay Ltd.) for the construction of certain gas processing plants in Louisiana. National American Insurance Company (NAICO) and American Home Assurance Company provided payment and performance bonds for the projects. In 2001, the contractors and sureties filed multiple cases in Louisiana and Texas against Gulf Liquids and us.

In 2006, at the conclusion of the consolidated trial of the asserted contract and tort claims, the jury returned its actual and punitive damages verdict against us and Gulf Liquids. Based on our interpretation of the jury verdicts, we recorded a charge based on our estimated exposure for actual damages of approximately $68 million plus potential interest of approximately $20 million. In addition, we concluded that it was reasonably possible that any ultimate judgment might have included additional amounts of approximately $199 million in excess of our accrual, which primarily represented our estimate of potential punitive damage exposure under Texas law.

From May through October 2007, the court entered seven post-trial orders in the case (interlocutory orders) which, among other things, overruled the verdict award of tort and punitive damages as well as any damages against us. The court also denied the plaintiffs’ claims for attorneys’ fees. On January 28, 2008, the court issued its judgment awarding damages against Gulf Liquids of approximately $11 million in favor of Gulsby and approximately $4 million in favor of Gulsby-Bay. Gulf Liquids, Gulsby, Gulsby-Bay, Bay Ltd., and NAICO appealed the judgment. In February 2009, we settled with certain of these parties and reduced our liability as of December 31, 2008, by $43 million, including $11 million of interest. On February 17, 2011, the Texas Court of Appeals upheld the dismissals of the tort and punitive damages claims and reversed and remanded the contract claim and attorney fee claims for further proceedings. The appellate court ruling is subject to a potential appeal to the Texas Supreme Court. If the appellate court judgment is upheld, our remaining liability will be substantially less than the amount of our accrual for these matters.

Royalty litigation

In September 2006, royalty interest owners in Garfield County, Colorado, filed a class action suit in Colorado state court alleging that we improperly calculated oil and gas royalty payments, failed to account for the proceeds that we received from the sale of gas and extracted products, improperly charged certain expenses, and failed to refund amounts withheld in excess of ad valorem tax obligations. We reached a final partial settlement agreement for an amount that was previously accrued. We received a favorable ruling on our motion for summary judgment on one claim now on appeal by plaintiffs. We anticipate trial on the other remaining issue related to royalty payment calculation and obligations under specific lease provisions in 2011. While we are not able to estimate the amount of any additional exposure at this time, it is reasonably possible that plaintiff’s claims could reach a material amount.

Other producers have been in litigation or discussions with a federal regulatory agency and a state agency in New Mexico regarding certain deductions used in the calculation of royalties. Although we are not a party to these matters, we have monitored them to evaluate whether their resolution might have the potential for unfavorable impact on our results of operations. One of these matters involving federal litigation was decided on October 5, 2009. The resolution of this specific matter is not material to us. However, other related issues in these matters that could be material to us remain outstanding. We received notice from the U.S. Department of Interior Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) in the fourth quarter of 2010, intending to clarify the guidelines for calculating federal royalties on conventional gas production applicable to our federal leases in New Mexico. The ONRR’s guidance provides its view as to how much of a producer’s bundled fees for transportation and processing can be deducted from the royalty payment. Using these guidelines would not result in a material difference in determining our historical federal royalty payments for our leases in New Mexico. No similar specific guidance has been issued by ONRR for leases in other states, but such guidelines are expected in the future. The issuance of similar guidelines in Colorado and other states could affect our previous royalty payments and the effect could be material to our results of operations.

Other

In 2003, we entered into an agreement to sublease certain underground storage facilities to Liberty Gas Storage (Liberty). We have asserted claims against Liberty for prematurely terminating the sublease, and for damage caused to the facilities. In February 2011, Liberty subsequently indicated that they intend to assert a counterclaim for costs in excess of $200 million associated with its use of the facilities. Due to the lack of information currently available, we are unable to evaluate the merits of the potential counterclaim and determine the amount of any possible liability.

Other Divestiture Indemnifications

Pursuant to various purchase and sale agreements relating to divested businesses and assets, we have indemnified certain purchasers against liabilities that they may incur with respect to the businesses and assets acquired from us. The indemnities provided to the purchasers are customary in sale transactions and are contingent upon the purchasers incurring liabilities that are not otherwise recoverable from third parties. The indemnities generally relate to breach of warranties, tax, historic litigation, personal injury, property damage, environmental matters, right of way and other representations that we have provided.

At December 31, 2010, we do not expect any of the indemnities provided pursuant to the sales agreements to have a material impact on our future financial position. However, if a claim for indemnity is brought against us in the future, it may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in the period in which the claim is made.

In addition to the foregoing, various other proceedings are pending against us which are incidental to our operations.

Summary

Litigation, arbitration, regulatory matters, and environmental matters are subject to inherent uncertainties. Were an unfavorable ruling to occur, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on the results of operations in the period in which the ruling occurs. Management, including internal counsel, currently believes that the ultimate resolution of the foregoing matters, taken as a whole and after consideration of amounts accrued, insurance coverage, recovery from customers or other indemnification arrangements, will not have a material adverse effect upon our future liquidity or financial position.

Commitments

Commitments for construction and acquisition of property, plant and equipment are approximately $226 million at December 31, 2010.

As part of managing our commodity price risk, we utilize contracted pipeline capacity primarily to move our natural gas production to other locations with more favorable pricing differentials. Our commitments under these contracts are as follows:


	(Millions)
2011	$	143
2012		137
2013		125
2014		127
2015		120
Thereafter		404

Total	$	1,056

We also have certain commitments to an equity investee for natural gas gathering and treating services which total $181 million over approximately seven years.