Other Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2013
Text Block [Abstract]
Other Commitments and Contingencies	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 sought 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. 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 had 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. 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 issues of fact remained for trial with respect to each of the three alleged breaches of the Franchise Agreement. Prior to the February 2013 trial date, FPU and the City of Marianna reached an agreement in principle to resolve their dispute, which resulted in the City of Marianna dismissing its legal action with prejudice on February 11, 2013. Subsequently, FPU and the City of Marianna entered into a settlement agreement, which contemplated, among other items, the City of Marianna proceeding with a referendum on the purchase of FPU’s facilities within the City of Marianna. On April 9, 2013, the referendum took place, and the citizens of the City of Marianna voted, by a wide margin, to reject the purchase of FPU’s facilities by the City of Marianna. As a result of the dismissal with prejudice of the legal action by the City of Marianna and the outcome of the referendum on the purchase of FPU’s facilities, we no longer have any contingencies related to claims by the City of Marianna. We are involved in certain other legal actions and claims arising in the normal course of business. We are also involved in certain legal 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 We have entered into contractual commitments to purchase gas, electricity and propane from various suppliers. The contracts have various expiration dates. For our Delaware and Maryland natural gas distribution divisions, we had a contract with an unaffiliated energy marketing and risk management company to manage a portion of their natural gas transportation and storage capacity, which expired on March 31, 2013. On April 1, 2013, we entered into a new contract with a different company to perform similar asset management functions. The new contract expires on March 31, 2015. As discussed in Note 4, Acquisitions, in May 2013, Sandpiper entered into a capacity, supply and operating agreement with EGWIC to purchase propane over a six -year term. Sandpiper's initial annual commitment is estimated at approximately 7.4 million gallons. Sandpiper has the option to enter into either a fixed per-gallon price for some or all of the propane purchases or a market-based price utilizing one of two local propane pricing indices. Chesapeake’s Florida natural gas distribution division has firm transportation service contracts with FGT and 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 the capacity charge. In May 2013, PESCO renewed contracts to purchase natural gas from various suppliers. These contracts expire in May 2014. PESCO is currently obtaining and reviewing proposals from suppliers and anticipates executing agreements before the existing agreements expire. 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 nine 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 December 31, 2013, FPU was in compliance with all of the requirements of its fuel supply contracts. Sharp entered into a separate supply and operating agreement with EGWIC. Under this agreement, Sharp has a commitment to supply propane to EGWIC over a six -year term. Sharp's initial annual commitment is estimated at approximately 7.4 million gallons. The agreement between Sharp and EGWIC is separate from the agreement between Sandpiper and EGWIC, and neither agreement permits the parties to set off the rights and obligations specified in one agreement against those specified in the other agreement. The total purchase obligations for natural gas, electric and propane supplies are $98.2 million for 2014, $129.9 million for 2015-2016, $88.6 million for 2017-2018 and $147.6 million thereafter. 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 $45.0 million. We have issued corporate guarantees to certain vendors of our subsidiaries, the largest portion of which are for Xeron and PESCO. 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 when incurred. The aggregate amount guaranteed at December 31, 2013 was $31.1 million, with the guarantees expiring on various dates through December 30, 2014. 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, 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, 2014, 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 $1.1 million, which expires on December 2, 2014, as security to satisfy the deductibles under our various insurance policies. As a result of a change in our primary insurance company in 2010, we renewed and decreased the letter of credit to $304,000 to our former primary insurance company, which will expire on June 1, 2014. There have been no draws on these letters of credit as of December 31, 2013. 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 $2.3 million to TETLP related to the precedent agreement and firm transportation service agreement between our Delaware and Maryland divisions. Tax-related Contingencies We are subject to various audits and reviews by the federal, state and local and other regulatory authorities regarding income taxes and taxes other than income. As of December 31, 2013, we maintained a liability of $300,000 related to unrecognized income tax benefits and $1.0 million related to contingencies for taxes other than income. As of December 31, 2012, we maintained a liability of $300,000 related to unrecognized income tax benefits and $82,000 related to contingencies for taxes other than income. We recorded an additional accrual in 2013 related to taxes other than income based upon a re-assessment of these tax-related contingencies.

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 sought 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. 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 had 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. 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 issues of fact remained for trial with respect to each of the three alleged breaches of the Franchise Agreement.

Prior to the February 2013 trial date, FPU and the City of Marianna reached an agreement in principle to resolve their dispute, which resulted in the City of Marianna dismissing its legal action with prejudice on February 11, 2013. Subsequently, FPU and the City of Marianna entered into a settlement agreement, which contemplated, among other items, the City of Marianna proceeding with a referendum on the purchase of FPU’s facilities within the City of Marianna. On April 9, 2013, the referendum took place, and the citizens of the City of Marianna voted, by a wide margin, to reject the purchase of FPU’s facilities by the City of Marianna. As a result of the dismissal with prejudice of the legal action by the City of Marianna and the outcome of the referendum on the purchase of FPU’s facilities, we no longer have any contingencies related to claims by the City of Marianna.

We are involved in certain other legal actions and claims arising in the normal course of business. We are also involved in certain legal 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

We have entered into contractual commitments to purchase gas, electricity and propane from various suppliers. The contracts have various expiration dates. For our Delaware and Maryland natural gas distribution divisions, we had a contract with an unaffiliated energy marketing and risk management company to manage a portion of their natural gas transportation and storage capacity, which expired on March 31, 2013. On April 1, 2013, we entered into a new contract with a different company to perform similar asset management functions. The new contract expires on March 31, 2015.

As discussed in Note 4, Acquisitions, in May 2013, Sandpiper entered into a capacity, supply and operating agreement with EGWIC to purchase propane over a six -year term. Sandpiper's initial annual commitment is estimated at approximately 7.4 million gallons. Sandpiper has the option to enter into either a fixed per-gallon price for some or all of the propane purchases or a market-based price utilizing one of two local propane pricing indices.

Chesapeake’s Florida natural gas distribution division has firm transportation service contracts with FGT and 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 the capacity charge.

In May 2013, PESCO renewed contracts to purchase natural gas from various suppliers. These contracts expire in May 2014. PESCO is currently obtaining and reviewing proposals from suppliers and anticipates executing agreements before the existing agreements expire.

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 nine 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 December 31, 2013, FPU was in compliance with all of the requirements of its fuel supply contracts.

Sharp entered into a separate supply and operating agreement with EGWIC. Under this agreement, Sharp has a commitment to supply propane to EGWIC over a six -year term. Sharp's initial annual commitment is estimated at approximately 7.4 million gallons. The agreement between Sharp and EGWIC is separate from the agreement between Sandpiper and EGWIC, and neither agreement permits the parties to set off the rights and obligations specified in one agreement against those specified in the other agreement.

The total purchase obligations for natural gas, electric and propane supplies are $98.2 million for 2014, $129.9 million for 2015-2016, $88.6 million for 2017-2018 and $147.6 million thereafter.

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 $45.0 million.

We have issued corporate guarantees to certain vendors of our subsidiaries, the largest portion of which are for Xeron and PESCO. 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 when incurred. The aggregate amount guaranteed at December 31, 2013 was $31.1 million, with the guarantees expiring on various dates through December 30, 2014.

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, 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, 2014, 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 $1.1 million, which expires on December 2, 2014, as security to satisfy the deductibles under our various insurance policies. As a result of a change in our primary insurance company in 2010, we renewed and decreased the letter of credit to $304,000 to our former primary insurance company, which will expire on June 1, 2014. There have been no draws on these letters of credit as of December 31, 2013. 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 $2.3 million to TETLP related to the precedent agreement and firm transportation service agreement between our Delaware and Maryland divisions.

Tax-related Contingencies

We are subject to various audits and reviews by the federal, state and local and other regulatory authorities regarding income taxes and taxes other than income. As of December 31, 2013, we maintained a liability of $300,000 related to unrecognized income tax benefits and $1.0 million related to contingencies for taxes other than income. As of December 31, 2012, we maintained a liability of $300,000 related to unrecognized income tax benefits and $82,000 related to contingencies for taxes other than income. We recorded an additional accrual in 2013 related to taxes other than income based upon a re-assessment of these tax-related contingencies.