Other Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Other Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]

Other Commitments and Contingencies

5. Other Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation

In May 2010, an FPU propane customer filed a class action complaint against FPU in Palm Beach County, Florida, alleging, among other things, that FPU acted in a deceptive and unfair manner related to a particular charge by FPU on its bills to propane customers and the description of such charge. The suit sought to certify a class comprised of FPU propane customers to whom such charge was assessed since May 2006 and requested damages and statutory remedies based on the amounts paid by FPU customers for such charge. FPU vigorously denied any wrongdoing and maintained that the particular charge at issue is customary, proper and fair. Without admitting any wrongdoing, validity of the claims or a properly certifiable class for the complaint, FPU entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiff in September 2010 to avoid the burden and expense of continued litigation. The court approved the final settlement agreement, and the judgment became final on March 13, 2011. In 2010, we recorded $1.2 million of the total estimated costs related to this litigation. Pursuant to the final settlement agreement, the distribution to the class was made by May 13, 2011.

On March 2, 2011, the City of Marianna, Florida filed a complaint against FPU in the Circuit Court of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Jackson County, Florida. In the complaint, the City of Marianna alleged three breaches of the Franchise Agreement by FPU: (i) FPU failed to develop and implement TOU and interruptible rates that were mutually agreed to by the City of Marianna and FPU; (ii) mutually agreed upon TOU and interruptible rates by FPU were not effective or in effect by February 17, 2011; and (iii) FPU did not have such rates available to all of FPU’s customers located within and without the corporate limits of the City of Marianna. The City of Marianna is seeking a declaratory judgment allowing it to exercise its option under the Franchise Agreement to purchase FPU’s property (consisting of the electric distribution assets) within the City of Marianna. Any such purchase would be subject to approval by the Marianna Commission, which would also need to approve the presentation of a referendum to voters in the City of Marianna related to the purchase and the operation by the City of Marianna of an electric distribution facility. If the purchase is approved by the Marianna Commission and the referendum is approved by the voters, the closing of the purchase must occur within 12 months after the referendum is approved. On March 28, 2011, FPU filed its answer to the declaratory action by the City of Marianna, in which it denied the material allegations by the City of Marianna and asserted several affirmative defenses. The litigation remains pending and discovery is still underway. On August 3, 2011, the City of Marianna notified FPU that it was formally exercising its option to purchase FPU’s property. On August 31, 2011, FPU advised the City of Marianna that it has no right to exercise the purchase option under the Franchise Agreement and that FPU would continue to oppose the effort by the City of Marianna to purchase FPU’s property. FPU intends to continue its vigorous defense of the lawsuit filed by the City of Marianna and intends to oppose the adoption of any proposed referendum to approve the purchase of the FPU property in the City of Marianna.

Natural Gas, Electric and Propane Supply

Our natural gas, electric and propane distribution operations have entered into contractual commitments to purchase gas, electricity and propane from various suppliers. The contracts have various expiration dates. We have a contract with an energy marketing and risk management company to manage a portion of our natural gas transportation and storage capacity. This contract expires on March 31, 2013.

Chesapeake’s Florida natural gas distribution division has firm transportation service contracts with Florida Gas Transmission Company (“FGT”) and Gulfstream Natural Gas System, LLC (“Gulfstream”). Pursuant to a capacity release program approved by the Florida PSC, all of the capacity under these agreements has been released to various third parties, including PESCO. Under the terms of these capacity release agreements, Chesapeake is contingently liable to FGT and Gulfstream, should any party that acquired the capacity through release fail to pay for the service.

In May 2011, PESCO renewed contracts to purchase natural gas from various suppliers. These contracts expire in May 2012.

As discussed in Note 3 “Rates and Other Regulatory Activities,” on January 25, 2011, FPU entered into an amendment to its Generation Services Agreement with Gulf Power, which reduces the capacity demand quantity and provides the savings necessary to support the TOU and interruptible rates for the customers in the City of Marianna, both of which were approved by the Florida PSC. The amendment also extends the current agreement by two years, with a new expiration date of December 31, 2019.

FPU’s electric fuel supply contracts require FPU to maintain an acceptable standard of creditworthiness based on specific financial ratios. FPU’s agreement with JEA requires FPU to comply with the following ratios based on the results of the prior 12 months: (a) total liabilities to tangible net worth less than 3.75 times, and (b) fixed charge coverage ratio greater than 1.5 times. If either ratio is not met by FPU, it has 30 days to cure the default or provide an irrevocable letter of credit if the default is not cured. FPU’s electric fuel supply agreement with Gulf Power requires FPU to meet the following ratios based on the average of the prior six quarters: (a) funds from operations interest coverage ratio (minimum of 2 times), and (b) total debt to total capital (maximum of 65 percent). If FPU fails to meet the requirements, it has to provide the supplier a written explanation of actions taken or proposed to be taken to become compliant. Failure to comply with the ratios specified in the Gulf Power agreement could result in FPU providing an irrevocable letter of credit. As of September 30, 2011, FPU was in compliance with all of the requirements of its fuel supply contracts.

Corporate Guarantees

The Board of Directors has previously authorized the Company to issue up to $35 million of corporate guarantees or letters of credit on behalf of our subsidiaries. On March 2, 2011, the Board increased this limit from $35 million to $45 million.

We have issued corporate guarantees to certain vendors of our subsidiaries, the largest portion of which are for our propane wholesale marketing subsidiary and our natural gas marketing subsidiary. These corporate guarantees provide for the payment of propane and natural gas purchases in the event of the respective subsidiary’s default. Neither subsidiary has ever defaulted on its obligations to pay its suppliers. The liabilities for these purchases are recorded in our financial statements when incurred. The aggregate amount guaranteed at September 30, 2011 was $26.7 million, with the guarantees expiring on various dates through December 2012.

Chesapeake guarantees the payment of FPU’s first mortgage bonds. The maximum exposure under the guarantee is the outstanding principal and accrued interest balances. The outstanding principal balances of FPU’s first mortgage bonds approximate their carrying values (see Note 12, “Long-Term Debt,” to the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements for further details).

In addition to the corporate guarantees, we have issued a letter of credit for $1.0 million, which expires on September 12, 2012, related to the electric transmission services for FPU’s northwest electric division. We have also issued a letter of credit to our current primary insurance company for $656,000, which expires on December 2, 2011, as security to satisfy the deductibles under our various outstanding insurance policies. As a result of a change in our primary insurance company in 2010, we renewed the letter of credit for $725,000 to our former primary insurance company, which will expire on June 1, 2012. There have been no draws on these letters of credit as of September 30, 2011. We do not anticipate that the letters of credit will be drawn upon by the counterparties, and we expect that the letters of credit will be renewed to the extent necessary in the future.

We provided a letter of credit for $2.5 million to TETLP related to the Precedent Agreement, which is further described below.

Agreements for Access to New Natural Gas Supplies

On April 8, 2010, our Delaware and Maryland divisions entered into a Precedent Agreement with TETLP to secure firm transportation service from TETLP in conjunction with its new expansion project, which is expected to expand TETLP’s mainline system by up to 190,000 Dts/d. The Precedent Agreement provides that, upon satisfaction of certain conditions, the parties will execute two firm transportation service contracts, one for our Delaware division and one for our Maryland division, for 34,100 and 15,900 Dts/d, respectively, including the additional volume subscribed in a subsequent agreement, to be effective on the service commencement date of the project, which is currently projected to occur in November 2012. Each firm transportation service contract shall, among other things, provide for: (a) the maximum daily quantity of Dts/d described above; (b) a term of 15 years; (c) a receipt point at Clarington, Ohio; (d) a delivery point at Honey Brook, Pennsylvania; and (e) certain credit standards and requirements for security. Commencement of service and TETLP’s and our rights and obligations under the two firm transportation service contracts are subject to satisfaction of various conditions specified in the Precedent Agreement.

Our Delmarva natural gas supplies are currently received primarily from the Gulf of Mexico natural gas production region and are transported through three interstate upstream pipelines, two of which interconnect directly with Eastern Shore’s transmission system. The new firm transportation service contracts between our Delaware and Maryland divisions and TETLP will provide an additional direct interconnection with Eastern Shore’s transmission system and access to new sources of natural gas supplies from other natural gas production regions, including the Appalachian production region, thereby providing increased reliability and diversity of supply. They will also provide our Delaware and Maryland divisions with additional upstream transportation capacity to meet current customer demands and to plan for sustainable growth.

The Precedent Agreement provides that the parties shall promptly meet and work in good faith to negotiate a mutually acceptable reservation rate. Failure to agree upon a mutually acceptable reservation rate would have enabled either party to terminate the Precedent Agreement, and would have subjected us to reimburse TETLP for certain pre-construction costs; however, on July 2, 2010, our Delaware and Maryland divisions executed the required reservation rate agreements with TETLP.

The Precedent Agreement requires us to reimburse TETLP for our proportionate share of TETLP’s pre-service costs incurred to date, if we terminate the Precedent Agreement, are unwilling or unable to perform our material duties and obligations thereunder, or take certain other actions whereby TETLP is unable to obtain the authorizations and exemptions required for this project. If such termination were to occur, we estimate that our proportionate share of TETLP’s pre-service costs could be approximately $3.8 million as of September 30, 2011. If we were to terminate the Precedent Agreement after TETLP completed its construction of all facilities, which is expected to be in the fourth quarter of 2012, our proportionate share could be as much as approximately $50 million. The actual amount of our proportionate share of such costs could differ significantly and would ultimately be based on the level of pre-service costs at the time of any potential termination. As our Delaware and Maryland divisions have now executed the required reservation rate agreements with TETLP, we believe that the likelihood of terminating the Precedent Agreement and having to reimburse TETLP for our proportionate share of TETLP’s pre-service costs is remote.

As previously mentioned, we have provided a letter of credit to TETLP for $2.5 million, which is the maximum amount required under the Precedent Agreement with TETLP.

On March 17, 2010, our Delaware and Maryland divisions entered into a separate Precedent Agreement with Eastern Shore to extend its mainline by eight miles to interconnect with TETLP at Honey Brook, Pennsylvania. As discussed in Note 3, “Rates and Other Regulatory Activities,” to the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements, Eastern Shore completed the extension project in December 2010 and commenced the service in January 2011. The rate for the transportation service on this extension is Eastern Shore’s current tariff rate for service in that area.

TETLP is proceeding with obtaining the necessary approvals, authorizations or exemptions for construction and operation of its portion of the project, including, but not limited to, approval by the FERC. TETLP is expecting the FERC approval by the end of 2011. Our Delaware and Maryland divisions require no regulatory approvals or exemptions to receive transmission service from TETLP or Eastern Shore.

As the Eastern Shore and TETLP firm transportation services commence, our Delaware and Maryland divisions incur costs for those services based on the agreed and FERC-approved reservation rates, which will become an integral component of the costs associated with providing natural gas supplies to our Delaware and Maryland divisions and will be included in the annual GSR filings for each of our respective divisions.

Non-income-based Taxes

From time to time, we are subject to various audits and reviews by the states and other regulatory authorities regarding non-income-based taxes. We are currently undergoing a sales tax audit in Florida. As of September 30, 2011, we maintained an accrual of $578,000 related to additional sales taxes and gross receipts taxes owed to various states, all of which were recorded in 2010.

Other Contingency

As of September 30, 2011, we maintained a $750,000 accrual, which was recorded in 2010 based on management’s assessment of FPU’s earnings and regulatory risk to its earnings associated with possible Florida PSC action related to our requested recovery and the matters set forth in the “Come-Back” filing (See Note 3, “Rates and Other Regulatory Activities,” to the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements for further discussion).