COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

9 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2011

Notes to Financial Statements [Abstract]

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

8. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Commitments

Laclede Gas has entered into various contracts, expiring on dates through 2017, for the storage, transportation, and supply of natural gas. Minimum payments required under the contracts in place at June 30, 2011 are estimated at approximately $206 million. Additional contracts are generally entered into prior to or during the heating season. Laclede Gas recovers its costs from customers in accordance with the PGA Clause.

In order to enhance its technology, customer service, and business processes, Laclede Gas began a multi-year project to replace most of the Utility’s existing software applications. At June 30, 2011, the Utility was contractually committed to project costs of approximately $14 million, most of which will be capital expenditures, and plans to pay approximately $8 million during the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2011. Total Utility capital expenditures for fiscal year 2011 are estimated at approximately $72 million, including payments associated with these commitments.

Leases and Guarantees

Laclede Gas has several operating leases for the rental of vehicles that contain provisions requiring Laclede Gas to guarantee certain amounts related to the residual value of the leased property. These leases have various terms, the longest of which extends into 2015. At June 30, 2011, the maximum guarantees under these leases are $0.9 million. However, the Utility believes it is unlikely that it will be subject to the maximum payment amount because it estimates that the residual value of the leased vehicles will be adequate to satisfy most of the guaranteed amounts. At June 30, 2011, the carrying value of the liability recognized for these guarantees was $0.2 million.

Contingencies

Laclede Gas owns and operates natural gas distribution, transmission, and storage facilities, the operations of which are subject to various environmental laws, regulations, and interpretations. While environmental issues resulting from such operations arise in the ordinary course of business, such issues have not materially affected Laclede Gas’ financial position and results of operations. As environmental laws, regulations, and their interpretations change, however, Laclede Gas may be required to incur additional costs.

As with other companies, Laclede Gas faces the risk of environmental liabilities. In the natural gas industry, these are typically associated with sites formerly owned or operated by gas distribution companies like Laclede Gas and/or its predecessor companies at which manufactured gas operations took place. At this time, Laclede Gas has identified three former manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites located in Missouri: one in Shrewsbury and two in the City of St. Louis.

With regard to the former MGP site located in Shrewsbury, Missouri, Laclede Gas and state and federal environmental regulators agreed upon certain remedial actions to a portion of the site in a 1999 Administrative Order on Consent (AOC), which actions have been completed. On September 22, 2008, EPA Region VII issued a letter of Termination and Satisfaction terminating the AOC. However, if after termination of the AOC, regulators require additional remedial actions, or additional claims are asserted, Laclede Gas may incur additional costs.

One of the sites located in the City of St. Louis is currently owned by a development agency of the City, which, together with other City development agencies, has selected a developer to redevelop the site. In conjunction with this redevelopment effort, Laclede Gas and another former owner of the site entered into an agreement (Remediation Agreement) with the City development agencies, the developer, and an environmental consultant that obligates one of the City agencies and the environmental consultant to remediate the site and obtain a No Further Action letter from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. The Remediation Agreement also provides for a release of Laclede Gas and the other former site owner from certain liabilities related to the past and current environmental condition of the site and requires the developer and the environmental consultant to maintain certain insurance coverages, including remediation cost containment, premises pollution liability, and professional liability. The operative provisions of the Remediation Agreement were triggered on December 20, 2010, on which date Laclede Gas and the other former site owner, as full consideration under the Remediation Agreement, paid a small percentage of the cost of remediation of the site. The amount paid by Laclede Gas, which is its only monetary obligation under the Remediation Agreement, did not materially impact the financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows of Laclede Gas.

Laclede Gas has not owned the other site located in the City of St. Louis for many years. In a letter dated June 29, 2011, the Attorney General for the State of Missouri informed Laclede Gas that the Missouri Department of Natural Resources had completed an investigation of the site. The Attorney General requested that Laclede Gas, and other past and current owners of the site, participate in the follow up investigations of the site. The Utility is evaluating the Attorney General’s request to ascertain whether, or to what extent, it will be involved in additional site investigations and/or site remediation. 

To date, amounts required for remediation at these sites have not been material. However, the amount of costs relative to future remedial actions at these and other sites is unknown and may be material. Laclede Gas has notified its insurers that it seeks reimbursement for costs incurred in the past and future potential liabilities associated with the MGP sites. While some of the insurers have denied coverage and reserved their rights, Laclede Gas continues to discuss potential reimbursements with them. In 2005, the Utility’s outside consultant completed an analysis of the MGP sites to determine cost estimates for a one-time contractual transfer of risk from each of the Utility’s insurers of environmental coverage for the MGP sites. That analysis demonstrated a range of possible future expenditures to investigate, monitor, and remediate these MGP sites from $5.8 million to $36.3 million based upon then currently available facts, technology, and laws and regulations. The actual costs that Laclede Gas may incur could be materially higher or lower depending upon several factors, including whether remedial actions will be required, final selection and regulatory approval of any remedial actions, changing technologies and governmental regulations, the ultimate ability of other potentially responsible parties to pay, the successful completion of remediation efforts required by the Remediation Agreement described above, and any insurance recoveries. Costs associated with environmental remediation activities are accrued when such costs are probable and reasonably estimable.

Laclede Gas anticipates that any costs it may incur in the future to remediate these sites, less any amounts received as insurance proceeds or as contributions from other potentially responsible parties, would be deferred and recovered in rates through periodic adjustments approved by the MoPSC. Accordingly, potential liabilities associated with remediating these sites are not expected to have a material impact on the future financial position and results of operations of Laclede Gas.

On December 28, 2006, the MoPSC Staff proposed a disallowance of $7.2 million related to Laclede Gas’ recovery of its purchased gas costs applicable to fiscal year 2005, which the Staff later reduced to a $1.7 million disallowance pertaining to Laclede Gas’ purchase of gas from a marketing affiliate, Laclede Energy Resources, Inc. (LER). The MoPSC Staff has also proposed disallowances of $2.8 million and $1.5 million of gas costs relating to Laclede Gas purchases of gas supply from LER for fiscal years 2006 and 2007, respectively. The MoPSC Staff proposed a number of non-monetary recommendations, based on its review of gas costs for fiscal years 2008 and 2009. Laclede Gas believes that the proposed disallowances lack merit and is vigorously opposing these adjustments in proceedings before the MoPSC. As such, no amount has been recorded in the financial statements for these proposed disallowances.

In connection with the affiliate transactions mentioned above, on July 7, 2010, the MoPSC Staff filed a complaint against Laclede Gas alleging that, by stating that it was not in possession of proprietary LER documents, Laclede Gas violated the MoPSC Order approving a 2001 Stipulation and Agreement that permitted Laclede Gas’ corporate reorganization into a holding company structure. Laclede Gas filed a counterclaim against the MoPSC Staff alleging that the Staff has failed to adhere to the pricing provisions of the MoPSC’s affiliate transaction rules and Laclede Gas’ Cost Allocation Manual. However, on November 3, 2010, the MoPSC issued an Order dismissing Laclede Gas’ counterclaim for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. On February 4, 2011, the MoPSC issued an Order finding that Laclede Gas violated the terms of the 2001 Stipulation and Agreement pertaining to Laclede Gas’ corporate reorganization and authorizing its General Counsel to seek penalties in court against Laclede Gas. On March 30, 2011, Laclede Gas filed a petition with the Cole County Circuit Court seeking judicial review of the February 4 Order. On May 19, 2011, the Commission’s General Counsel filed a petition with the Cole County Circuit Court seeking penalties in connection with the Commission’s February 4 Order. On July 7, 2011, the Circuit Court Judge signed an agreed Order holding the penalty case in abeyance while the February 4 Order is appealed. Laclede Gas believes that the complaint lacks merit and is vigorously opposing it.

Subsequent to the July 7, 2010 complaint, the MoPSC Staff filed a related complaint on October 6, 2010 against Laclede Gas, LER, and Laclede Group, alleging that the Utility has failed to comply with the MoPSC’s affiliate transaction rules. LER and Laclede Group both filed motions to dismiss, which were granted by the Commission on December 22, 2010. On January 26, 2011, the Commission also dismissed certain counts of the complaint against Laclede Gas. The remaining counts and a counterclaim against the Staff, filed by Laclede Gas, are still pending before the Commission. Laclede Gas believes that the complaint lacks merit and is vigorously opposing it.

On June 29, 2010, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs issued a Notice of Violations to Laclede Gas alleging lapses in certain employment selection procedures during a two-year period ending in February 2006. The Utility believes that the allegations lack merit and is vigorously defending its position. Management, after discussion with counsel, believes that the final outcome of these matters will not have a material effect on the financial position and results of operations of the Utility.

Laclede Gas is involved in other litigation, claims, and investigations arising in the normal course of business. Management, after discussion with counsel, believes that the final outcome of these matters will not have a material effect on the financial position, results of operations, or cash flows of the Utility.