Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 12 – Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings From time to time, the Company is involved in lawsuits that have arisen in the ordinary course of business. The Company is contesting each of these lawsuits vigorously and believes it has defenses to the allegations that have been made. On February 25, 2013, one of the Company’s former officers, Jonathan Harrington, filed a lawsuit captioned “Jonathan Harrington v. Energy West, Inc. and Does 1-4,” Case No. DDV-13-159 in the Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County. Mr. Harrington claims that he was terminated in violation of Montana statute requiring just cause for termination. In addition, he alleges claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress and negligent slander. Mr. Harrington is seeking relief for economic loss, including lost wages and fringe benefits for a period of at least four years from the date of discharge, together with interest. Mr. Harrington is an Ohio resident and was employed in the Company’s Ohio corporate offices. On March 20, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on the basis that Mr. Harrington was an Ohio employee, not a Montana employee, and therefore the statute does not apply. The motion has been fully briefed but has not been ruled on by the Court. Likewise, Mr. Harrington has requested oral argument but the Court has not indicated whether such request will be granted. The Company believes his claims under Montana law are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend this case on all grounds. In the Company’s opinion, the outcome of this legal action will not have a material adverse effect on the financial condition, cash flows or results of operations of the Company. PUCO Audits The Company accounts for purchased gas costs in accordance with procedures authorized by the utility commissions in the states in which it operates. Purchased gas costs that are different from those provided for in present rates, and approved by the respective commission, are accumulated and recovered or credited through future rate changes. The GCRs are monitored closely by the regulatory commissions in all of the states in which the Company operates and are subject to periodic audits or other review processes. During the year ended December 31, 2010, the PUCO conducted audits of NEO and Orwell’s rates as filed from September 2007 through August 2009 and January 2008 through June 2010, respectively. The PUCO provided the primary audit findings during the fourth quarter of 2010, taking the position that NEO had not included approximately $1,100,000 of costs and Orwell included an excess of approximately $1,050,000 of costs in the filings under audit. On October 26, 2011, the PUCO adopted and approved a Joint Stipulation that finalizes the adjustments for NEO and Orwell to approximately $1,100,000 and ($964,000), respectively. However, the Joint Stipulation modified the refund period for Orwell to one year as compared to two years as originally identified. The Company considered the modification to be material and sought rehearing. On December 22, 2011, the PUCO affirmed its Finding and Order requiring Orwell’s refund to be completed over twelve months. The collection and repayment of the under-recovery and over-recovery for NEO and Orwell began in February, 2012, respectively. These adjustments appeared on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets as part of “recoverable cost of gas purchases” and “over-recovered gas purchases.” The remaining balance in NEO’s recovered cost of gas purchases are $163,633 and $707,002 at June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively. The remaining balance in Orwell’s over-recovered gas purchases are $0 and $237,175 at June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively. During the year ended December 31, 2011, the PUCO conducted an audit of Brainard’s rates as filed from July 2009 through June 2011. The Staff of the PUCO recommended a finding that Brainard collected excess gas costs of approximately $104,000. The Company agreed that excess gas costs were collected, but only in the amount of approximately $48,000. An evidentiary hearing was convened on November 3, 2011, resumed on March 27, 2012 and concluded on April 12, 2012. On August 8, 2012 the PUCO issued its order requiring that Brainard refund approximately $104,000 with interest over twelve months. The Company filed an application for rehearing on September 26, 2012 which was denied by entry on rehearing issued on September 26, 2012. The Company initiated the refund commencing in October 2012. These adjustments appear on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets as part of “over-recovered gas purchases.” The remaining balance in Brainard’s over-recovered gas purchases are $9,082 and $99,479 at June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively. On January 23, 2013, the Commission directed the Commission Staff to examine the compliance of NEO and Orwell under the GCR mechanism. NEO’s GCR audit covered the period from September 2009 through May 2012, and Orwell’s GCR was audited from July 2010 through June 2012. Commission Staff has requested in its report and testimony adjustments to the GCR calculations that would result in a liability for NEO to its customers. The Company determined that it was probable that the proposed NEO GCR adjustment will ultimately be made and as a result, the Company has recorded a $943,550 liability as its best estimate of the GCR adjustment. This amount represents the amount the PUCO calculated related to its audit of the Company’s GCR rate. At this time the final outcome of this matter cannot be determined and may be materially different. The Commission Staff also suggested an adjustment that would result in a liability for Orwell to its customers of $251,081. This amount is not materially different from the liability Orwell currently has recorded to its customers. As a result, no amount has been recorded in connection with the proposed Orwell GCR adjustment. Trade Receivables Included in the accounts receivable, trade line item on the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet are $1,179,368 and $1,139,778, net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $774,000 at June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012 respectively, for amounts due to the Company by a large industrial customer that is currently under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. All but $185,786 of the amounts were incurred after the customer’s petition for bankruptcy was filed and the Company believes it will ultimately receive payment as the customer emerges from bankruptcy protection.

Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2013

Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]

Note 12 – Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

From time to time, the Company is involved in lawsuits that have arisen in the ordinary course of business. The Company is contesting each of these lawsuits vigorously and believes it has defenses to the allegations that have been made.

On February 25, 2013, one of the Company’s former officers, Jonathan Harrington, filed a lawsuit captioned “Jonathan Harrington v. Energy West, Inc. and Does 1-4,” Case No. DDV-13-159 in the Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County. Mr. Harrington claims that he was terminated in violation of Montana statute requiring just cause for termination. In addition, he alleges claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress and negligent slander. Mr. Harrington is seeking relief for economic loss, including lost wages and fringe benefits for a period of at least four years from the date of discharge, together with interest. Mr. Harrington is an Ohio resident and was employed in the Company’s Ohio corporate offices. On March 20, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on the basis that Mr. Harrington was an Ohio employee, not a Montana employee, and therefore the statute does not apply. The motion has been fully briefed but has not been ruled on by the Court. Likewise, Mr. Harrington has requested oral argument but the Court has not indicated whether such request will be granted. The Company believes his claims under Montana law are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend this case on all grounds.

In the Company’s opinion, the outcome of this legal action will not have a material adverse effect on the financial condition, cash flows or results of operations of the Company.

PUCO Audits

The Company accounts for purchased gas costs in accordance with procedures authorized by the utility commissions in the states in which it operates. Purchased gas costs that are different from those provided for in present rates, and approved by the respective commission, are accumulated and recovered or credited through future rate changes. The GCRs are monitored closely by the regulatory commissions in all of the states in which the Company operates and are subject to periodic audits or other review processes.

During the year ended December 31, 2010, the PUCO conducted audits of NEO and Orwell’s rates as filed from September 2007 through August 2009 and January 2008 through June 2010, respectively. The PUCO provided the primary audit findings during the fourth quarter of 2010, taking the position that NEO had not included approximately $1,100,000 of costs and Orwell included an excess of approximately $1,050,000 of costs in the filings under audit. On October 26, 2011, the PUCO adopted and approved a Joint Stipulation that finalizes the adjustments for NEO and Orwell to approximately $1,100,000 and ($964,000), respectively. However, the Joint Stipulation modified the refund period for Orwell to one year as compared to two years as originally identified. The Company considered the modification to be material and sought rehearing. On December 22, 2011, the PUCO affirmed its Finding and Order requiring Orwell’s refund to be completed over twelve months. The collection and repayment of the under-recovery and over-recovery for NEO and Orwell began in February, 2012, respectively. These adjustments appeared on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets as part of “recoverable cost of gas purchases” and “over-recovered gas purchases.” The remaining balance in NEO’s recovered cost of gas purchases are $163,633 and $707,002 at June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively. The remaining balance in Orwell’s over-recovered gas purchases are $0 and $237,175 at June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively.

During the year ended December 31, 2011, the PUCO conducted an audit of Brainard’s rates as filed from July 2009 through June 2011. The Staff of the PUCO recommended a finding that Brainard collected excess gas costs of approximately $104,000. The Company agreed that excess gas costs were collected, but only in the amount of approximately $48,000. An evidentiary hearing was convened on November 3, 2011, resumed on March 27, 2012 and concluded on April 12, 2012. On August 8, 2012 the PUCO issued its order requiring that Brainard refund approximately $104,000 with interest over twelve months. The Company filed an application for rehearing on September 26, 2012 which was denied by entry on rehearing issued on September 26, 2012. The Company initiated the refund commencing in October 2012. These adjustments appear on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets as part of “over-recovered gas purchases.” The remaining balance in Brainard’s over-recovered gas purchases are $9,082 and $99,479 at June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively.

On January 23, 2013, the Commission directed the Commission Staff to examine the compliance of NEO and Orwell under the GCR mechanism. NEO’s GCR audit covered the period from September 2009 through May 2012, and Orwell’s GCR was audited from July 2010 through June 2012. Commission Staff has requested in its report and testimony adjustments to the GCR calculations that would result in a liability for NEO to its customers. The Company determined that it was probable that the proposed NEO GCR adjustment will ultimately be made and as a result, the Company has recorded a $943,550 liability as its best estimate of the GCR adjustment. This amount represents the amount the PUCO calculated related to its audit of the Company’s GCR rate. At this time the final outcome of this matter cannot be determined and may be materially different. The Commission Staff also suggested an adjustment that would result in a liability for Orwell to its customers of $251,081. This amount is not materially different from the liability Orwell currently has recorded to its customers. As a result, no amount has been recorded in connection with the proposed Orwell GCR adjustment.

Trade Receivables

Included in the accounts receivable, trade line item on the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet are $1,179,368 and $1,139,778, net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $774,000 at June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012 respectively, for amounts due to the Company by a large industrial customer that is currently under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. All but $185,786 of the amounts were incurred after the customer’s petition for bankruptcy was filed and the Company believes it will ultimately receive payment as the customer emerges from bankruptcy protection.

- Definition

The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.

+ References+ Details