COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	(J) COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company UI has a 9.5% stock ownership share in the Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (Connecticut Yankee), the carrying value of which was $0.2 million as of June 30, 2011. In 1996, the Board of Directors of Connecticut Yankee voted unanimously to retire the Connecticut Yankee nuclear plant (the Connecticut Yankee Unit) from commercial operation. Connecticut Yankee updates the cost of its remaining decommissioning activity, which consists primarily of ground water monitoring and nuclear fuel storage, at least annually, and provides UI with a projected recovery schedule depicting annual costs expected to be billed to UI, including a return on investment over the term of the projected recovery period. The present value of these costs is calculated using UI’s weighted-average cost of capital and, after consideration of recoverability, recorded as a Connecticut Yankee Contract Obligation and a corresponding regulatory asset. At June 30, 2011, UI has regulatory approval to recover in future rates (through the CTA) its $15.8 million regulatory asset for Connecticut Yankee over a term ending in 2015. DOE Spent Fuel Litigation In the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (the Act), Congress provided for the United States Department of Energy (DOE) to dispose of spent nuclear fuel and other high-level waste (hereinafter, Nuclear Waste) from nuclear generating plants. In 1983, Connecticut Yankee and the DOE entered into a standard disposal contract mandated by the Act which required the DOE to begin disposing of Connecticut Yankee’s Nuclear Waste by the end of January 1998. In 1998, Connecticut Yankee filed claims in the United States Court of Federal Claims seeking damages resulting from the breach of the 1983 contracts by the DOE. In September 2010, the Court issued its decision and awarded Connecticut Yankee damages of $39.7 million for its spent fuel-related costs through 2001. On November 8, 2010, the DOE appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and on November 19, 2010 Connecticut Yankee filed a notice of cross-appeal. UI’s 9.5% ownership share would result in a payment of approximately $3.8 million which, if awarded, would be refunded to customers. In December 2007, Connecticut Yankee filed a second set of complaints against the DOE seeking unspecified damages incurred since January 1, 2002 for the DOE’s failure to remove Connecticut Yankee’s spent fuel. In July 2009, Connecticut Yankee provided the DOE with a second set of damage claims totaling approximately $135 million for damages incurred from January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2008. UI’s 9.5% ownership share would result in a payment of approximately $12.8 million which, if awarded, would be refunded to customers. As an interim measure until the DOE complies with its contractual obligation to dispose of Connecticut Yankee’s spent fuel, Connecticut Yankee constructed an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI), utilizing dry-cask storage, on the site of the Connecticut Yankee Unit and completed the transfer of its Nuclear Waste to the ISFSI in 2005. Environmental Concerns In complying with existing environmental statutes and regulations and further developments in areas of environmental concern, including legislation and studies in the fields of water quality, hazardous waste handling and disposal, toxic substances, climate change and electric and magnetic fields, UIL Holdings and its wholly-owned direct and indirect subsidiaries may incur substantial capital expenditures for equipment modifications and additions, monitoring equipment and recording devices, and it may incur additional operating expenses. The total amount of these expenditures is not now determinable. Environmental damage claims may also arise from the operations of UIL Holdings’ subsidiaries. Significant environmental issues known to UIL Holdings at this time are described below. Site Decontamination, Demolition and Remediation Costs In November 2010, the EPA made inquiry of UI regarding the storage of PCB materials from the time they were brought to UI’s Shelton, CT facility from the field until their shipment to an authorized disposal facility, during the period from 2006 through June of 2010, and the maintenance of an annual document log in connection with the storage. The Company filed a response to this inquiry and subsequently received a letter of intent from the EPA to file an administrative complaint and assess a civil penalty of an immaterial amount. Discussions with the EPA are expected to take place in the third quarter of 2011. As of June 30, 2011, no liability related to this matter has been recorded. In June 2006, UI executed an agreement with the City of Bridgeport and its Redevelopment Authority (the City) for the transfer of title of UI’s Steel Point property to the City. Pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) among UI, the City of Bridgeport, and the City’s selected developer for the property, the City and the developer released UI from any further liability with respect to the Steel Point property after title transferred, and the City and/or the developer has indemnified UI for environmental matters related to the Steel Point property. The Steel Point property includes the land up to the bulkhead. The MOU provides that there is no indemnity for liability related to contaminated harbor sediments, and UI is not aware of any such claims. UI would seek to recover any uninsured costs related to such sediments that are UI’s responsibility, to the extent incurred, through the CTA, in accordance with the ratemaking treatment approved in PURA’s July 2006 decision. A site on the Mill River in New Haven was conveyed by UI in 2000 to an unaffiliated entity, Quinnipiac Energy LLC (QE), reserving to UI permanent easements for the operation of its transmission facilities on the site. At the time of the sale, a fund of approximately $1.9 million, an amount equal to the then-current estimate for remediation, was placed in escrow for purposes of bringing soil and groundwater on the site into compliance with applicable environmental laws. As of June 30, 2011, approximately $0.1 million of the escrow fund remains. QE has since sold the property to Evergreen Power, LLC (Evergreen Power) and Asnat Realty LLC (Asnat). UI is unaware of what agreement was reached between QE and Evergreen Power and Asnat regarding future environmental liability or what remediation activity remains to be undertaken at the site. In July 2008, Evergreen Power and Asnat submitted a claim to UI seeking compensation for environmental remediation on the property, including the existing building which remains on the site. UI could be required by applicable environmental laws to complete the remediation of any subsurface contamination at the site if it is determined that QE and/or Evergreen Power and Asnat have not completed the appropriate environmental remediation at the site. UI has not updated the original $1.9 million remediation estimate, and does not have specific knowledge of any remediation work done, or remaining to be done on behalf of QE or any subsequent owner. UIL Holdings cannot presently assess the potential financial impact, if any, of this claim. As such, as of June 30, 2011, no liability related to this claim has been recorded. In April 1999, UI completed the sale of its Bridgeport Harbor Station and New Haven Harbor Station generating plants in compliance with Connecticut’s electric utility industry restructuring legislation. With respect to the portion of the New Haven Harbor Station site that UI retained, UI has performed an additional environmental analysis, indicating that approximately $3.2 million in remediation expenses will be incurred. Actual remediation costs may be higher or lower than what is currently estimated. The required remediation is virtually all on transmission-related property and UI has accrued these estimated expenses, which were recovered in transmission rates. From 1961 to 1976, UI owned a parcel of property in Derby, CT, on which it operated an oil-fired electric generating unit. For several years, the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CDEP) has been monitoring and remediating a migration of fuel oil contamination from a neighboring parcel of property into the adjacent Housatonic River. Based on its own investigation to date, UI believes it has no responsibility for this contamination. If regulatory agencies determine that UI is responsible for the cost of these remediation activities, UI may incur substantial costs, no estimate of which is currently available. The Gas Companies own or have previously owned property where Manufactured Gas Plants (MGPs) historically operated. MGP operations have led to contamination of soil and groundwater with petroleum hydrocarbons, benzene and metals, among other things, at these properties, the regulation and cleanup of which is regulated by the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act as well as other federal and state statutes and regulations. Each of the Gas Companies has or had ownership interest in one of such properties contaminated as a result of MGP-related activities, as discussed below. Under the existing regulations, the cleanup of such sites requires state and at times, federal, regulators’ involvement and approval before cleanup can commence. In certain cases, such contamination has been evaluated, characterized and remediated. In other cases, the sites have been evaluated and characterized, but not yet remediated. Finally, at some of these sites, the scope of the contamination has not yet been fully characterized; no liability was recorded in respect of these sites as of June 30, 2011. The Gas Companies have, in the past, received approval for the recovery, in their rates, of MGP-related remediation expenses and expect to seek recovery in rates for ongoing MGP-related remediation expenses for all of their MGP sites. SCG owns property on Pine Street in Bridgeport, CT, the site of one of its former operations centers and a former MGP operation. As a result of litigation that was initiated by an abutting property owner, SCG entered into a consent order with CDEP for the cleanup of the site in 1998. The remediation of the site is being completed in two parts. Part A addressed ground water, free product and contamination that migrated to an abutting property and is completed. Part B addresses soil contamination at the site and is to be addressed by an approved engineered cap with a land use restriction. SCG recently responded to CDEP’s comments on its plan and is awaiting CDEP’s approval to begin Part B. Property located at 110 Pine Street, part of the original site, was sold in 1983. SCG may be subject to remediation expenses for this part of the site as a former owner of the property, the amount of which cannot be estimated at this time. This property is not part of the current remediation plan. Future remediation costs, for which SCG will seek recovery in rates, are expected to be in the range of $2 to $3 million. As of June 30, 2011, SCG has recorded a liability of $1.9 million for this site. SCG owns property on Housatonic Avenue in Bridgeport, CT, a former MGP site. The site is currently leased from SCG by a third party for surface storage purposes. Remediation of waste and contaminants associated with historic use of the site as an MGP, including potential groundwater contamination and soil contamination, has not commenced. Costs associated with the remediation of the site could be significant and will be subject to a review by PURA as to whether these costs are recoverable in rates. UIL Holdings cannot presently estimate the costs of remediation or the likelihood of recoverability. As such, as of June 30, 2011, no liability related to this claim has been recorded. SCG owns property located on Chapel Street in New Haven, CT, the site of one of its former operations centers and a former MGP site. The site is currently leased from SCG by a third party for surface storage purposes. Some portions of the original site, referred to as East Street, were sold in 1978. Limited remediation has occurred on two occasions, once in 1995 and again in 2008 to prevent contaminated ground water from migrating into the adjacent waterway. These remediation activities were prompted by breaks in the underground piping causing releases that required immediate resolution. Costs associated with the most recent remediation approximated $1.2 million and were disallowed by PURA in the 2009 SCG rate case decision and therefore, will not be recovered in customer rates. Other parts of the original site, including a parcel located on St. John's Street were sold by SCG prior to 1978. SCG may be subject to remediation expenses for this part of the site as a former owner of the property, the amount of which cannot be estimated at this time. Costs associated with the remediation of the site could be significant and will be subject to a review by PURA as to whether these costs are recoverable in rates. UIL Holdings cannot presently estimate the costs of remediation or the likelihood of recoverability. As such, as of June 30, 2011, no liability related to this claim has been recorded. A property located on Columbus Boulevard in Hartford, CT is the former Operations Center and Corporate Headquarters of CNG. The property is also a former MGP site. Except for the portion of the property that houses and is owned by the Hartford Steam Company, known as 60 Columbus Boulevard, and certain other small non-contiguous portions of this site owned by either TEN Companies, Inc. or CNG, most of the original MGP site was taken by the State of Connecticut for the Adriaen’s Landing project. This portion was remediated by the state for the project and, as such, has provided insurance to the company against future risk to CNG associated with additional remediation expenses for that portion of the property that was taken for the project. CNG remains liable for that portion of the property owned or formerly owned by CNG that was not subject to the taking. Costs associated with the remediation of the site could be significant, but cannot be estimated at this time, and will be subject to a review by PURA as to whether these costs are recoverable in rates. UIL Holdings cannot presently estimate the costs of remediation or the likelihood of recoverability. As such, as of June 30, 2011, no liability related to this claim has been recorded. A site on Mill Street in Greenfield, MA is currently owned by Berkshire and is used as a regional operations center. This site is on the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP) list of confirmed disposal sites and investigation and remediation of contamination resulting from disposal of byproducts and wastes generated by the historic coal and water gas manufacturing operations is ongoing. Extensive soil, and coal tar product non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) recovery and remediation work on the land side of the Berkshire property has been completed, and sediments containing NAPL have been removed from the adjoining Green River. However, further evaluation of the NAPL distribution in the river sediments and in the subsurface in stream banks on the adjacent property to the south are ongoing and will involve significant additional remediation activities. Future expenses potentially in excess of $5.0 million are anticipated. Even after completion of the additional remedial activities there will be ongoing monitoring and reporting to the MDEP will continue for the site in the foreseeable future. UIL Holdings has accrued $5.0 million for such expenses as of June 30, 2011. To date, Berkshire has received approval from the DPU for recovery of its environmental expenses in its customer rates. While management cannot predict the exact costs of the ongoing and future remediation and monitoring expenses, the company will seek regulatory rate recovery of these expenses. Middletown/Norwalk Transmission Project The general contractor and two subcontractors responsible for civil construction work in connection with the installation of UI’s portion of the Middletown/Norwalk Transmission Project’s underground electric cable system have filed lawsuits seeking payment for change order requests for approximately $34.5 million, plus interest and costs. UI is vigorously defending the litigation. To the extent that UI is required to satisfy any of the change order requests, UI would seek recovery through its transmission revenue requirement. GenConn On July 28, 2011, GenConn Devon and the former general contractor responsible for the construction of the GenConn Devon facility executed and delivered a settlement agreement with respect to change order requests and delay and impact claims and pursuant to which GenConn Devon paid a settlement amount of $10.5 million upon satisfaction of certain conditions performed by the former general contractor. In April 2011, the parties settled a claim by the general contractor for work at the GenConn Middletown facility and executed and delivered a settlement agreement pursuant to which GenConn Middletown paid a settlement amount of $3.0 million. GenConn will seek and expects to recover the associated costs through its annual regulatory proceeding. To the extent that there is any financial impact on GenConn, the effect on UIL Holdings’ Consolidated Financial Statements will be reflected in the carrying value of UIL Holdings’ 50% ownership position in GenConn and through “Income from Equity Investments” in the Consolidated Statement of Income. In September 2010, UIL Holdings entered into a Sponsor Guaranty and Payment Agreement (Sponsor Guaranty) in favor of the Royal Bank of Scotland PLC, as Administrative Agent under GenConn’s project financing arrangement, whereby UIL Holdings guaranteed to pay an amount up to $6.0 million in respect of amounts related to the former general contractor’s claims and litigation expenses as they relate to such claims described above. The settlements described above do not require the Sponsor Guaranty to be drawn upon and the Sponsor Guaranty terminated following payment of the settlement amounts and release of all associated liens. Given the settlements of the claims as described above, no liability has been recorded as of June 30, 2011. Purchase and Sale Agreement As part of its plan to consolidate operations and office personnel, on July 7, 2011, UI entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement for the sale of the Electric System Work Center (ESWC) located at 801 Bridgeport Avenue in Shelton, CT for approximately $10.2 million. UI acquired the ESWC for approximately $16 million dollars in 2004 and expects to recover any loss resulting from the sale of the property through the regulatory process. The transaction is expected to close by the first quarter of 2014 and requires PURA approval.

UI has a 9.5% stock ownership share in the Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (Connecticut Yankee), the carrying value of which was $0.2 million as of June 30, 2011. In 1996, the Board of Directors of Connecticut Yankee voted unanimously to retire the Connecticut Yankee nuclear plant (the Connecticut Yankee Unit) from commercial operation. Connecticut Yankee updates the cost of its remaining decommissioning activity, which consists primarily of ground water monitoring and nuclear fuel storage, at least annually, and provides UI with a projected recovery schedule depicting annual costs expected to be billed to UI, including a return on investment over the term of the projected recovery period. The present value of these costs is calculated using UI’s weighted-average cost of capital and, after consideration of recoverability, recorded as a Connecticut Yankee Contract Obligation and a corresponding regulatory asset. At June 30, 2011, UI has regulatory approval to recover in future rates (through the CTA) its $15.8 million regulatory asset for Connecticut Yankee over a term ending in 2015.

In the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (the Act), Congress provided for the United States Department of Energy (DOE) to dispose of spent nuclear fuel and other high-level waste (hereinafter, Nuclear Waste) from nuclear generating plants. In 1983, Connecticut Yankee and the DOE entered into a standard disposal contract mandated by the Act which required the DOE to begin disposing of Connecticut Yankee’s Nuclear Waste by the end of January 1998.

In 1998, Connecticut Yankee filed claims in the United States Court of Federal Claims seeking damages resulting from the breach of the 1983 contracts by the DOE. In September 2010, the Court issued its decision and awarded Connecticut Yankee damages of $39.7 million for its spent fuel-related costs through 2001. On November 8, 2010, the DOE appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and on November 19, 2010 Connecticut Yankee filed a notice of cross-appeal. UI’s 9.5% ownership share would result in a payment of approximately $3.8 million which, if awarded, would be refunded to customers.

In December 2007, Connecticut Yankee filed a second set of complaints against the DOE seeking unspecified damages incurred since January 1, 2002 for the DOE’s failure to remove Connecticut Yankee’s spent fuel. In July 2009, Connecticut Yankee provided the DOE with a second set of damage claims totaling approximately $135 million for damages incurred from January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2008. UI’s 9.5% ownership share would result in a payment of approximately $12.8 million which, if awarded, would be refunded to customers. As an interim measure until the DOE complies with its contractual obligation to dispose of Connecticut Yankee’s spent fuel, Connecticut Yankee constructed an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI), utilizing dry-cask storage, on the site of the Connecticut Yankee Unit and completed the transfer of its Nuclear Waste to the ISFSI in 2005.

In complying with existing environmental statutes and regulations and further developments in areas of environmental concern, including legislation and studies in the fields of water quality, hazardous waste handling and disposal, toxic substances, climate change and electric and magnetic fields, UIL Holdings and its wholly-owned direct and indirect subsidiaries may incur substantial capital expenditures for equipment modifications and additions, monitoring equipment and recording devices, and it may incur additional operating expenses. The total amount of these expenditures is not now determinable. Environmental damage claims may also arise from the operations of UIL Holdings’ subsidiaries. Significant environmental issues known to UIL Holdings at this time are described below.

In November 2010, the EPA made inquiry of UI regarding the storage of PCB materials from the time they were brought to UI’s Shelton, CT facility from the field until their shipment to an authorized disposal facility, during the period from 2006 through June of 2010, and the maintenance of an annual document log in connection with the storage. The Company filed a response to this inquiry and subsequently received a letter of intent from the EPA to file an administrative complaint and assess a civil penalty of an immaterial amount. Discussions with the EPA are expected to take place in the third quarter of 2011. As of June 30, 2011, no liability related to this matter has been recorded.

In June 2006, UI executed an agreement with the City of Bridgeport and its Redevelopment Authority (the City) for the transfer of title of UI’s Steel Point property to the City. Pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) among UI, the City of Bridgeport, and the City’s selected developer for the property, the City and the developer released UI from any further liability with respect to the Steel Point property after title transferred, and the City and/or the developer has indemnified UI for environmental matters related to the Steel Point property. The Steel Point property includes the land up to the bulkhead. The MOU provides that there is no indemnity for liability related to contaminated harbor sediments, and UI is not aware of any such claims. UI would seek to recover any uninsured costs related to such sediments that are UI’s responsibility, to the extent incurred, through the CTA, in accordance with the ratemaking treatment approved in PURA’s July 2006 decision.

A site on the Mill River in New Haven was conveyed by UI in 2000 to an unaffiliated entity, Quinnipiac Energy LLC (QE), reserving to UI permanent easements for the operation of its transmission facilities on the site. At the time of the sale, a fund of approximately $1.9 million, an amount equal to the then-current estimate for remediation, was placed in escrow for purposes of bringing soil and groundwater on the site into compliance with applicable environmental laws. As of June 30, 2011, approximately $0.1 million of the escrow fund remains. QE has since sold the property to Evergreen Power, LLC (Evergreen Power) and Asnat Realty LLC (Asnat). UI is unaware of what agreement was reached between QE and Evergreen Power and Asnat regarding future environmental liability or what remediation activity remains to be undertaken at the site. In July 2008, Evergreen Power and Asnat

submitted a claim to UI seeking compensation for environmental remediation on the property, including the existing building which remains on the site. UI could be required by applicable environmental laws to complete the remediation of any subsurface contamination at the site if it is determined that QE and/or Evergreen Power and Asnat have not completed the appropriate environmental remediation at the site. UI has not updated the original $1.9 million remediation estimate, and does not have specific knowledge of any remediation work done, or remaining to be done on behalf of QE or any subsequent owner. UIL Holdings cannot presently assess the potential financial impact, if any, of this claim. As such, as of June 30, 2011, no liability related to this claim has been recorded.

In April 1999, UI completed the sale of its Bridgeport Harbor Station and New Haven Harbor Station generating plants in compliance with Connecticut’s electric utility industry restructuring legislation. With respect to the portion of the New Haven Harbor Station site that UI retained, UI has performed an additional environmental analysis, indicating that approximately $3.2 million in remediation expenses will be incurred. Actual remediation costs may be higher or lower than what is currently estimated. The required remediation is virtually all on transmission-related property and UI has accrued these estimated expenses, which were recovered in transmission rates.

From 1961 to 1976, UI owned a parcel of property in Derby, CT, on which it operated an oil-fired electric generating unit. For several years, the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CDEP) has been monitoring and remediating a migration of fuel oil contamination from a neighboring parcel of property into the adjacent Housatonic River. Based on its own investigation to date, UI believes it has no responsibility for this contamination. If regulatory agencies determine that UI is responsible for the cost of these remediation activities, UI may incur substantial costs, no estimate of which is currently available.

The Gas Companies own or have previously owned property where Manufactured Gas Plants (MGPs) historically operated. MGP operations have led to contamination of soil and groundwater with petroleum hydrocarbons, benzene and metals, among other things, at these properties, the regulation and cleanup of which is regulated by the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act as well as other federal and state statutes and regulations. Each of the Gas Companies has or had ownership interest in one of such properties contaminated as a result of MGP-related activities, as discussed below. Under the existing regulations, the cleanup of such sites requires state and at times, federal, regulators’ involvement and approval before cleanup can commence. In certain cases, such contamination has been evaluated, characterized and remediated. In other cases, the sites have been evaluated and characterized, but not yet remediated. Finally, at some of these sites, the scope of the contamination has not yet been fully characterized; no liability was recorded in respect of these sites as of June 30, 2011. The Gas Companies have, in the past, received approval for the recovery, in their rates, of MGP-related remediation expenses and expect to seek recovery in rates for ongoing MGP-related remediation expenses for all of their MGP sites.

SCG owns property on Pine Street in Bridgeport, CT, the site of one of its former operations centers and a former MGP operation. As a result of litigation that was initiated by an abutting property owner, SCG entered into a consent order with CDEP for the cleanup of the site in 1998. The remediation of the site is being completed in two parts. Part A addressed ground water, free product and contamination that migrated to an abutting property and is completed. Part B addresses soil contamination at the site and is to be addressed by an approved engineered cap with a land use restriction. SCG recently responded to CDEP’s comments on its plan and is awaiting CDEP’s approval to begin Part B. Property located at 110 Pine Street, part of the original site, was sold in 1983. SCG may be subject to remediation expenses for this part of the site as a former owner of the property, the amount of which cannot be estimated at this time. This property is not part of the current remediation plan. Future remediation costs, for which SCG will seek recovery in rates, are expected to be in the range of $2 to $3 million. As of June 30, 2011, SCG has recorded a liability of $1.9 million for this site.

SCG owns property on Housatonic Avenue in Bridgeport, CT, a former MGP site. The site is currently leased from SCG by a third party for surface storage purposes. Remediation of waste and contaminants associated with historic use of the site as an MGP, including potential groundwater contamination and soil contamination, has not commenced. Costs associated with the remediation of the site could be significant and will be subject to a review by PURA as to whether these costs are recoverable in rates. UIL Holdings cannot presently estimate the costs of remediation or the likelihood of recoverability. As such, as of June 30, 2011, no liability related to this claim has been recorded.

SCG owns property located on Chapel Street in New Haven, CT, the site of one of its former operations centers and a former MGP site. The site is currently leased from SCG by a third party for surface storage purposes. Some portions of the original site, referred to as East Street, were sold in 1978. Limited remediation has occurred on two occasions, once in 1995 and again in 2008 to prevent contaminated ground water from migrating into the adjacent waterway. These remediation activities were prompted by breaks in the underground piping causing releases that required immediate resolution. Costs associated with the most recent remediation approximated $1.2 million and were disallowed by PURA in the 2009 SCG rate case decision and therefore, will not be recovered in customer rates. Other parts of the original site, including a parcel located on St. John's Street were sold by SCG prior to 1978. SCG may be subject to remediation expenses for this part of the site as a former owner of the property, the amount of which cannot be estimated at this time. Costs associated with the remediation of the site could be significant and will be subject to a review by PURA as to whether these costs are recoverable in rates. UIL Holdings cannot presently estimate the costs of remediation or the likelihood of recoverability. As such, as of June 30, 2011, no liability related to this claim has been recorded.

A property located on Columbus Boulevard in Hartford, CT is the former Operations Center and Corporate Headquarters of CNG. The property is also a former MGP site. Except for the portion of the property that houses and is owned by the Hartford Steam Company, known as 60 Columbus Boulevard, and certain other small non-contiguous portions of this site owned by either TEN Companies, Inc. or CNG, most of the original MGP site was taken by the State of Connecticut for the Adriaen’s Landing project. This portion was remediated by the state for the project and, as such, has provided insurance to the company against future risk to CNG associated with additional remediation expenses for that portion of the property that was taken for the project. CNG remains liable for that portion of the property owned or formerly owned by CNG that was not subject to the taking. Costs associated with the remediation of the site could be significant, but cannot be estimated at this time, and will be subject to a review by PURA as to whether these costs are recoverable in rates. UIL Holdings cannot presently estimate the costs of remediation or the likelihood of recoverability. As such, as of June 30, 2011, no liability related to this claim has been recorded.

A site on Mill Street in Greenfield, MA is currently owned by Berkshire and is used as a regional operations center. This site is on the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP) list of confirmed disposal sites and investigation and remediation of contamination resulting from disposal of byproducts and wastes generated by the historic coal and water gas manufacturing operations is ongoing. Extensive soil, and coal tar product non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) recovery and remediation work on the land side of the Berkshire property has been completed, and sediments containing NAPL have been removed from the adjoining Green River. However, further evaluation of the NAPL distribution in the river sediments and in the subsurface in stream banks on the adjacent property to the south are ongoing and will involve significant additional remediation activities. Future expenses potentially in excess of $5.0 million are anticipated. Even after completion of the additional remedial activities there will be ongoing monitoring and reporting to the MDEP will continue for the site in the foreseeable future. UIL Holdings has accrued $5.0 million for such expenses as of June 30, 2011.

To date, Berkshire has received approval from the DPU for recovery of its environmental expenses in its customer rates. While management cannot predict the exact costs of the ongoing and future remediation and monitoring expenses, the company will seek regulatory rate recovery of these expenses.

The general contractor and two subcontractors responsible for civil construction work in connection with the installation of UI’s portion of the Middletown/Norwalk Transmission Project’s underground electric cable system have filed lawsuits seeking payment for change order requests for approximately $34.5 million, plus interest and costs. UI is vigorously defending the litigation. To the extent that UI is required to satisfy any of the change order requests, UI would seek recovery through its transmission revenue requirement.

On July 28, 2011, GenConn Devon and the former general contractor responsible for the construction of the GenConn Devon facility executed and delivered a settlement agreement with respect to change order requests and delay and impact claims and pursuant to which GenConn Devon paid a settlement amount of $10.5 million upon satisfaction of certain conditions performed by the former general contractor. In April 2011, the parties settled a claim by the general contractor for work at the GenConn Middletown facility and executed and delivered a settlement agreement pursuant to which GenConn Middletown paid a settlement amount of $3.0 million. GenConn will seek and expects to recover the associated costs through its annual regulatory proceeding. To the extent that there is any financial impact on GenConn, the effect on UIL Holdings’ Consolidated Financial Statements will be reflected in the carrying value of UIL Holdings’ 50% ownership position in GenConn and through “Income from Equity Investments” in the Consolidated Statement of Income.

In September 2010, UIL Holdings entered into a Sponsor Guaranty and Payment Agreement (Sponsor Guaranty) in favor of the Royal Bank of Scotland PLC, as Administrative Agent under GenConn’s project financing arrangement, whereby UIL Holdings guaranteed to pay an amount up to $6.0 million in respect of amounts related to the former general contractor’s claims and litigation expenses as they relate to such claims described above. The settlements described above do not require the Sponsor Guaranty to be drawn upon and the Sponsor Guaranty terminated following payment of the settlement amounts and release of all associated liens. Given the settlements of the claims as described above, no liability has been recorded as of June 30, 2011.

As part of its plan to consolidate operations and office personnel, on July 7, 2011, UI entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement for the sale of the Electric System Work Center (ESWC) located at 801 Bridgeport Avenue in Shelton, CT for approximately $10.2 million. UI acquired the ESWC for approximately $16 million dollars in 2004 and expects to recover any loss resulting from the sale of the property through the regulatory process. The transaction is expected to close by the first quarter of 2014 and requires PURA approval.