COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2014
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	(J) COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES In the ordinary course of business, we are involved in various proceedings, including legal, tax, regulatory and environmental matters, which require management’s assessment to determine the probability of whether a loss will occur and, if probable, an estimate of probable loss. When assessments indicate that it is probable that a liability has been incurred and an amount can be reasonably estimated, we accrue a reserve and disclose the reserve and related matter. We disclose material matters when losses are probable but for which an estimate cannot be reasonably estimated or when losses are not probable but are reasonably possible. Subsequent analysis is performed on a periodic basis to assess the impact of any changes in events or circumstances and any resulting need to adjust existing reserves or record additional reserves. However, given the inherent unpredictability of these legal and regulatory proceedings, we cannot assure you that our assessment of such proceedings will reflect the ultimate outcome, and an adverse outcome in certain matters could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or cash flows. Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company UI has a 9.5% stock ownership share in the Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, an inactive nuclear generating company (Connecticut Yankee), the carrying value of which was $0.2 million as of September 30, 2014. Connecticut Yankee has completed the physical decommissioning of its generation facilities and is now engaged primarily in the long-term storage of its spent nuclear fuel. Connecticut Yankee collects its costs through wholesale FERC-approved rates from UI and several other New England utilities. UI recovers these costs from its customers through electric rates. On May 1, 2013, Connecticut Yankee filed an application with FERC to, among other things, reduce its rates and eliminate future decommissioning funding requirements for its owners, using the United States Department of Energy (DOE) damage award, discussed below. On June 27, 2013, FERC issued a final decision which approved both the proposed rate reduction and the elimination of future decommissioning funding requirements. As a result, UI’s obligation and corresponding regulatory asset were eliminated at that time. DOE Spent Fuel Litigation In 1998, Connecticut Yankee filed claims in the United States Court of Federal Claims seeking damages resulting from the breach of the 1983 spent fuel and high level waste disposal contract between Connecticut Yankee and 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, which was affirmed in May 2012. Connecticut Yankee received payment of the damage award and, in light of its ownership share, in July 2013 UI received approximately $3.8 million of such award which was credited back to customers through the CTA. In December 2007, Connecticut Yankee filed a second set of complaints with the United States Court of Federal Claims against the DOE seeking damages incurred since January 1, 2002 for the DOE’s failure to remove Connecticut Yankee’s spent fuel. In November 2013, the court issued a final judgment, which was not appealed, awarding Connecticut Yankee damages of $126.3 million. In light of its ownership share, in June 2014, UI received approximately $12.0 million of such award which was applied, in part, against the remaining storm regulatory asset balance. The remaining regulatory liability balance was applied to the GSC “working capital allowance” and will be returned to customers through the nonbypassable federally mandated congestion charge. See Note (C) “Regulatory Proceedings – Electric Distribution and Transmission – Other Proceedings” for additional information. In August 2013, Connecticut Yankee filed a third set of complaints with the United States Court of Federal Claims against the DOE seeking unspecified damages incurred since January 1, 2009. Environmental Matters 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, we may incur substantial capital expenditures for equipment modifications and additions, monitoring equipment and recording devices, as well as additional operating expenses. The total amount of these expenditures is not now determinable. Environmental damage claims may also arise from the operations of our subsidiaries. Significant environmental issues known to us at this time are described below. Site Decontamination, Demolition and Remediation Costs In 2000, UI conveyed a former generation site on the Mill River in New Haven (English Station) 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, 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 English Station site into compliance with applicable environmental laws. As of September 30, 2014, approximately $0.1 million of the escrow fund remained. In 2006, QE sold the property to Evergreen Power, LLC (Evergreen Power) and Asnat Realty LLC (Asnat). In January 2012, Evergreen Power and Asnat filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Connecticut against UI seeking, among other things: (i) an order directing UI to reimburse the plaintiffs for costs they have incurred and will incur for the testing, investigating and remediation of hazardous substances at the English Station site and (ii) an order directing UI to investigate and remediate the site. In May 2012, UI filed an answer and counterclaims. In July 2012, Evergreen Power and Asnat filed a motion for partial summary judgment with respect to UI’s liability under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, which was denied without prejudice. In December 2013, Evergreen and Asnat filed a subsequent lawsuit in Connecticut state court seeking among other things: (i) remediation of the property; (ii) reimbursement of remediation costs; (iii) termination of UI’s easement rights; (iv) reimbursement for costs associated with securing the property; and (v) punitive damages. UI believes the claims are without merit. UI’s knowledge of the current conditions at the English Station site is insufficient for it to make a reliable update of the original $1.9 million remediation estimate. Management cannot presently assess the potential financial impact, if any, of the suits, and thus has not recorded a liability related to it and no amount of loss, if any, can be reasonably estimated at this time. On April 8, 2013, DEEP issued an administrative order addressed to UI, QE, Evergreen Power, Asnat and others, ordering the parties to take certain actions related to investigating and remediating the English Station site. Mediation of the matter began in the fourth quarter of 2013 and is on-going. At this time, management cannot predict the financial impact on UI of the DEEP order or other matters relating to this site and no amount of loss, if any, can be reasonably estimated at this time. 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. The Gas Companies own or have previously owned properties where Manufactured Gas Plants (MGPs) had 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 an ownership interest in one of such properties contaminated as a result of MGP-related activities. 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 September 30, 2014 and no amount of loss, if any, can be reasonably estimated at this time. In the past, the Gas Companies have received approval for the recovery of MGP-related remediation expenses from customers through rates and will seek recovery in rates for ongoing MGP-related remediation expenses for all of their MGP sites. SCG owns properties on Housatonic Avenue in Bridgeport, and on Chapel Street in New Haven, and CNG owns a property located on Columbus Boulevard in Hartford, all of which are former MGP sites. Costs associated with the remediation of the sites could be significant and will be subject to a review by PURA as to whether these costs are recoverable in rates. We cannot presently reasonably estimate the costs or range of costs of remediation or the likelihood of recoverability. As a result, as of September 30, 2014, we have not recorded any liabilities related to these properties. Berkshire owns property on Mill Street in Greenfield, Massachusetts, a former MGP site. We estimate that expenses associated with the remaining remedial activities, as well as the required ongoing monitoring and reporting to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection will amount to approximately $2.9 million and have recorded a liability and offsetting regulatory asset for such expenses as of September 30, 2014. Historically, Berkshire has received approval from the DPU for recovery of environmental expenses in its customer rates. Berkshire formerly owned a site on East Street (the East Street Site) in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, a former MGP site. The East Street Site is part of a larger site known as the GE–Pittsfield/Housatonic River Site. Berkshire sold the East Street Site to the General Electric Company (GE) in the 1970s and was named a potentially responsible party for the site by the EPA in 1990. In December 2002, Berkshire reached a settlement with GE which provides, among other things, a framework for Berkshire and GE to allocate various monitoring and remediation costs at the East Street Site. As of September 30, 2014, we had accrued approximately $1.2 million and established a regulatory asset for these and future costs incurred by GE in responding to releases of hazardous substances at the East Street Site. Historically, Berkshire has received approval from the DPU for recovery of remediation expenses in its customer rates. 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 filed lawsuits in Connecticut state court on September 22, 2009, March 23, 2009 and January 25, 2010, respectively. The claims, as revised by the general contractor in October 2011, sought payment for change order requests of approximately $33.3 million, a 10% general contractor mark-up on any approved subcontractor change order claims (approximately $2.3 million), interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. In December 2011, UI settled claims brought by the two subcontractors and their respective lawsuits were dismissed with prejudice, reducing UI’s estimate of the general contractor’s claims to approximately $7.7 million, exclusive of the contractor’s claims for interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees. UI also pursued an indemnification claim against the general contractor for the payments made in settlement to the two subcontractors. On September 3, 2013, a Memorandum of Decision was issued by the court finding for UI on all claims but one related to certain change orders, and ordering UI to pay the Contractor approximately $1.3 million. The decision also found against UI on the indemnification claims. On October 22, 2013, the general contractor filed an appeal of the Court’s ruling. UI expects to recover any amounts paid to resolve the contractor and subcontractor claims through UI’s transmission revenue requirements. On April 30, 2013, an affiliate of the general contractor for the Middletown/Norwalk Transmission Project, purporting to act as a shareholder on behalf of UIL Holdings, filed a complaint against the UIL Holdings Board of Directors alleging that the directors breached a fiduciary duty by failing to undertake an independent investigation in response to a letter from the affiliate asking for an investigation regarding alleged improper practices by UI in connection with the Middletown/Norwalk Transmission Project. On October 25, 2013, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. On November 15, 2013, the plaintiff filed an appeal of the court order in the Connecticut Appellate Court, which remains pending.

(J) COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

In the ordinary course of business, we are involved in various proceedings, including legal, tax, regulatory and environmental matters, which require management’s assessment to determine the probability of whether a loss will occur and, if probable, an estimate of probable loss. When assessments indicate that it is probable that a liability has been incurred and an amount can be reasonably estimated, we accrue a reserve and disclose the reserve and related matter. We disclose material matters when losses are probable but for which an estimate cannot be reasonably estimated or when losses are not probable but are reasonably possible. Subsequent analysis is performed on a periodic basis to assess the impact of any changes in events or circumstances and any resulting need to adjust existing reserves or record additional reserves. However, given the inherent unpredictability of these legal and regulatory proceedings, we cannot assure you that our assessment of such proceedings will reflect the ultimate outcome, and an adverse outcome in certain matters could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or cash flows.

Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company

UI has a 9.5% stock ownership share in the Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, an inactive nuclear generating company (Connecticut Yankee), the carrying value of which was $0.2 million as of September 30, 2014. Connecticut Yankee has completed the physical decommissioning of its generation facilities and is now engaged primarily in the long-term storage of its spent nuclear fuel. Connecticut Yankee collects its costs through wholesale FERC-approved rates from UI and several other New England utilities. UI recovers these costs from its customers through electric rates.

On May 1, 2013, Connecticut Yankee filed an application with FERC to, among other things, reduce its rates and eliminate future decommissioning funding requirements for its owners, using the United States Department of Energy (DOE) damage award, discussed below. On June 27, 2013, FERC issued a final decision which approved both the proposed rate reduction and the elimination of future decommissioning funding requirements. As a result, UI’s obligation and corresponding regulatory asset were eliminated at that time.

DOE Spent Fuel Litigation

In 1998, Connecticut Yankee filed claims in the United States Court of Federal Claims seeking damages resulting from the breach of the 1983 spent fuel and high level waste disposal contract between Connecticut Yankee and 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, which was affirmed in May 2012. Connecticut Yankee received payment of the damage award and, in light of its ownership share, in July 2013 UI received approximately $3.8 million of such award which was credited back to customers through the CTA.

In December 2007, Connecticut Yankee filed a second set of complaints with the United States Court of Federal Claims against the DOE seeking damages incurred since January 1, 2002 for the DOE’s failure to remove Connecticut Yankee’s spent fuel. In November 2013, the court issued a final judgment, which was not appealed, awarding Connecticut Yankee damages of $126.3 million. In light of its ownership share, in June 2014, UI received approximately $12.0 million of such award which was applied, in part, against the remaining storm regulatory asset balance. The remaining regulatory liability balance was applied to the GSC “working capital allowance” and will be returned to customers through the nonbypassable federally mandated congestion charge. See Note (C) “Regulatory Proceedings – Electric Distribution and Transmission – Other Proceedings” for additional information.

In August 2013, Connecticut Yankee filed a third set of complaints with the United States Court of Federal Claims against the DOE seeking unspecified damages incurred since January 1, 2009.

Environmental Matters

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, we may incur substantial capital expenditures for equipment modifications and additions, monitoring equipment and recording devices, as well as additional operating expenses. The total amount of these expenditures is not now determinable. Environmental damage claims may also arise from the operations of our subsidiaries. Significant environmental issues known to us at this time are described below.

Site Decontamination, Demolition and Remediation Costs

In 2000, UI conveyed a former generation site on the Mill River in New Haven (English Station) 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, 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 English Station site into compliance with applicable environmental laws. As of September 30, 2014, approximately $0.1 million of the escrow fund remained. In 2006, QE sold the property to Evergreen Power, LLC (Evergreen Power) and Asnat Realty LLC (Asnat). In January 2012, Evergreen Power and Asnat filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Connecticut against UI seeking, among other things: (i) an order directing UI to reimburse the plaintiffs for costs they have incurred and will incur for the testing, investigating and remediation of hazardous substances at the English Station site and (ii) an order directing UI to investigate and remediate the site. In May 2012, UI filed an answer and counterclaims. In July 2012, Evergreen Power and Asnat filed a motion for partial summary judgment with respect to UI’s liability under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, which was denied without prejudice. In December 2013, Evergreen and Asnat filed a subsequent lawsuit in Connecticut state court seeking among other things: (i) remediation of the property; (ii) reimbursement of remediation costs; (iii) termination of UI’s easement rights; (iv) reimbursement for costs associated with securing the property; and (v) punitive damages. UI believes the claims are without merit. UI’s knowledge of the current conditions at the English Station site is insufficient for it to make a reliable update of the original $1.9 million remediation estimate. Management cannot presently assess the potential financial impact, if any, of the suits, and thus has not recorded a liability related to it and no amount of loss, if any, can be reasonably estimated at this time.

On April 8, 2013, DEEP issued an administrative order addressed to UI, QE, Evergreen Power, Asnat and others, ordering the parties to take certain actions related to investigating and remediating the English Station site. Mediation of the matter began in the fourth quarter of 2013 and is on-going. At this time, management cannot predict the financial impact on UI of the DEEP order or other matters relating to this site and no amount of loss, if any, can be reasonably estimated at this time.

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.

The Gas Companies own or have previously owned properties where Manufactured Gas Plants (MGPs) had 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 an ownership interest in one of such properties contaminated as a result of MGP-related activities. 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 September 30, 2014 and no amount of loss, if any, can be reasonably estimated at this time. In the past, the Gas Companies have received approval for the recovery of MGP-related remediation expenses from customers through rates and will seek recovery in rates for ongoing MGP-related remediation expenses for all of their MGP sites.

SCG owns properties on Housatonic Avenue in Bridgeport, and on Chapel Street in New Haven, and CNG owns a property located on Columbus Boulevard in Hartford, all of which are former MGP sites. Costs associated with the remediation of the sites could be significant and will be subject to a review by PURA as to whether these costs are recoverable in rates. We cannot presently reasonably estimate the costs or range of costs of remediation or the likelihood of recoverability. As a result, as of September 30, 2014, we have not recorded any liabilities related to these properties.

Berkshire owns property on Mill Street in Greenfield, Massachusetts, a former MGP site. We estimate that expenses associated with the remaining remedial activities, as well as the required ongoing monitoring and reporting to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection will amount to approximately $2.9 million and have recorded a liability and offsetting regulatory asset for such expenses as of September 30, 2014. Historically, Berkshire has received approval from the DPU for recovery of environmental expenses in its customer rates.

Berkshire formerly owned a site on East Street (the East Street Site) in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, a former MGP site. The East Street Site is part of a larger site known as the GE–Pittsfield/Housatonic River Site. Berkshire sold the East Street Site to the General Electric Company (GE) in the 1970s and was named a potentially responsible party for the site by the EPA in 1990. In December 2002, Berkshire reached a settlement with GE which provides, among other things, a framework for Berkshire and GE to allocate various monitoring and remediation costs at the East Street Site. As of September 30, 2014, we had accrued approximately $1.2 million and established a regulatory asset for these and future costs incurred by GE in responding to releases of hazardous substances at the East Street Site. Historically, Berkshire has received approval from the DPU for recovery of remediation expenses in its customer rates.

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 filed lawsuits in Connecticut state court on September 22, 2009, March 23, 2009 and January 25, 2010, respectively. The claims, as revised by the general contractor in October 2011, sought payment for change order requests of approximately $33.3 million, a 10% general contractor mark-up on any approved subcontractor change order claims (approximately $2.3 million), interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. In December 2011, UI settled claims brought by the two subcontractors and their respective lawsuits were dismissed with prejudice, reducing UI’s estimate of the general contractor’s claims to approximately $7.7 million, exclusive of the contractor’s claims for interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees. UI also pursued an indemnification claim against the general contractor for the payments made in settlement to the two subcontractors.

On September 3, 2013, a Memorandum of Decision was issued by the court finding for UI on all claims but one related to certain change orders, and ordering UI to pay the Contractor approximately $1.3 million. The decision also found against UI on the indemnification claims. On October 22, 2013, the general contractor filed an appeal of the Court’s ruling. UI expects to recover any amounts paid to resolve the contractor and subcontractor claims through UI’s transmission revenue requirements.

On April 30, 2013, an affiliate of the general contractor for the Middletown/Norwalk Transmission Project, purporting to act as a shareholder on behalf of UIL Holdings, filed a complaint against the UIL Holdings Board of Directors alleging that the directors breached a fiduciary duty by failing to undertake an independent investigation in response to a letter from the affiliate asking for an investigation regarding alleged improper practices by UI in connection with the Middletown/Norwalk Transmission Project. On October 25, 2013, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. On November 15, 2013, the plaintiff filed an appeal of the court order in the Connecticut Appellate Court, which remains pending.