Other Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2012

Other Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]

Other Commitments and Contingencies

6. Other Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation

On March 2, 2011, the City of Marianna 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. 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. In December 2011, the City of Marianna filed a motion for summary judgment. FPU opposed the motion. On April 3, 2012, the court conducted a hearing on the City of Marianna’s motion for summary judgment. The court subsequently denied in part and granted in part the City of Marianna’s motion after concluding that fact issues remained for trial with respect to each of the three alleged breaches of the Franchise Agreement. Mediation was conducted on May 11, 2012, and again on July 6, 2012, but no resolution was reached. The parties will continue to conduct informal negotiations to explore a potential settlement. The case is currently scheduled for trial on October 29, 2012. Unless resolved through informal negotiations, we anticipate that the case will be tried and intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously. We also intend to oppose the adoption of any proposed referendum to approve the purchase of the FPU property by the City of Marianna. We have expensed approximately $978,000 in legal costs associated with this litigation, approximately $440,000 of which was expensed in 2012.

We are involved in certain other legal actions and claims arising in the normal course of business. We are also involved in certain legal proceedings and administrative proceedings before various governmental agencies concerning rates. In the opinion of management, the ultimate disposition of these proceedings will not have a material effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

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 Peninsula Energy Services Company, Inc. (“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 2012, PESCO renewed contracts to purchase natural gas from various suppliers. These contracts expire in May 2013.

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 (formerly known as Jacksonville Electric Authority) 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 June 30, 2012, FPU was in compliance with all of the requirements of its fuel supply contracts.

Corporate Guarantees

The Board of Directors has authorized the Company to issue corporate guarantees securing obligations of our subsidiaries and to obtain letters of credit securing our obligations, including the obligations of our subsidiaries. The maximum authorized liability under such guarantees and letters of credit is $45 million.

We have issued corporate guarantees to certain vendors of our subsidiaries, primarily 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 the condensed consolidated financial statements when incurred. The aggregate amount guaranteed at June 30, 2012 was $27.7 million, with the guarantees expiring on various dates through June 2013.

Chesapeake guarantees the payment of FPU’s first mortgage bonds. The maximum exposure under the guarantee is the outstanding principal plus accrued interest balances. The outstanding principal balances of FPU’s first mortgage bonds approximate their carrying values (see Note 13, “Long-Term Debt,” to the 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, 2012, 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, 2013. There have been no draws on these letters of credit as of June 30, 2012. 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 between our Delaware and Maryland divisions and TETLP (the “Precedent Agreement”), which is described below.

Agreements for Access to New Natural Gas Supplies

On April 8, 2010, our Delaware and Maryland divisions entered into the Precedent Agreement 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 Dts/d and 15,900 Dts/d, respectively. The 34,100 Dts/d for our Delaware division and the 15,900 Dts/d for our Maryland division reflect the additional volume subscribed to by our divisions above the volume originally agreed to by the parties. These contracts will 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 have been received primarily from the Gulf of Mexico natural gas production region and have been transported through three interstate upstream pipelines, which interconnect directly or indirectly with Eastern Shore’s transmission system. The new firm transportation service contracts between our Delaware and Maryland divisions and TETLP will provide gas supply through an interconnection with Eastern Shore’s transmission system and provide access to new sources of supply 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. In accordance with the Precedent Agreement, our Delaware and Maryland divisions executed the required reservation rate agreements with TETLP on July 2, 2010.

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 $25.5 million as of June 30, 2012. 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.

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. Eastern Shore completed the extension project in December 2010 and commenced the service in January 2011. The rate for the transmission service on this extension is Eastern Shore’s current tariff rate for service in that area.

In November 2011, TETLP obtained the necessary authorizations from the FERC for construction and operation of its portion of the project. 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 transmission 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 sales tax audits in Florida. As of June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, we maintained accruals of $173,000 and $307,000, respectively, related to additional sales taxes and gross receipts taxes that we may owe to various states.