Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	13. Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings On April 30, 2010, the Company received notice of an administrative complaint filed by its former chief financial officer. The complaint was filed with the Hartford, Connecticut office of the U.S. Department of Labor (“U.S. DOL”) under Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”) and alleged, among other things, that the Company’s termination of her employment on April 19, 2010 was retaliatory and due to her alleged protected activity associated with comments she made to the Company’s Board of Directors at their meeting on March 26, 2010. On June 14, 2010, the Company filed its response to the complaint denying the allegations and requesting a dismissal of the matter. On September 27, 2013, the U.S. DOL issued preliminary findings on the matter concluding there was reasonable cause to support the former employee’s claims and ordering the Company to pay damages in excess of $1.9 million and take certain other actions. On October 22, 2013, the Company filed its Objections and Request for Hearing with the U.S. DOL which triggered the appointment of an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), and the scheduling of a hearing on the merits of the matter. Thereafter, the parties agreed to participate in a U.S. DOL mediation process on February 7, 2014. On March 13, 2014, the parties entered into a settlement agreement which provided for payment of a one-time lump sum amount of $0.4 million to the former employee, along with issuance of 75,000 shares of Company stock. The settlement was formally approved by the ALJ. As a result, there were mutual releases of all claims and a dismissal of the SOX complaint. The Company reserved $0.6 million at December 31, 2013, which included the lump sum amount, the market value of the common stock and accrued legal expenses incurred. The settlement was paid and stock issued in April 2014, and the Company recorded an additional $0.1 million related to the increase in the fair value of its common stock at the time of issuance. On November 15, 2013, BP Products North America (“BP”) instituted claims against Johnson Matthey (“JM”) as the parent company of and purchaser of Applied Utility Systems, Inc. (“AUS”), a former subsidiary of the Company. On May 12, 2010, JM tendered to the Company a claim for indemnification under the Asset Purchase Agreement dated October 1, 2009, (the “Asset Purchase Agreement”), among JM, the Company and AUS. On June 11, 2013, BP, JM and the Company entered into a Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release pursuant to which they settled all claims. The settlement agreement had no material impact on the Company. Under the indemnification clauses of the Asset Purchase Agreement, the Company may be liable for legal expenses incurred by JM. These legal costs may be offset against funds withheld by JM from the acquisition of AUS. In connection with the Asset Purchase Agreement, on October 1, 2009, JM presented the Company with an indemnification claim seeking recovery of the net amount of $0.9 million after offsetting the funds withheld by JM from the acquisition of AUS. These claims are for matters relating to various customer contracts that JM purchased, including the BP contract discussed above. The Company and JM have entered into discussions relating to the application of offsets and the validity of the claims presented. The Company has offered a settlement amount of $0.2 million and has reserved for this amount since the fourth quarter of 2013. Since the discussions are ongoing, the ultimate costs associated with this matter cannot be determined at this time. In addition to the foregoing, the Company is involved in legal proceedings from time to time in the ordinary course of its business. Management does not believe that any of these claims and proceedings against it are likely to have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Accordingly, the Company cannot determine the final amount, if any, of its liability beyond the amount accrued in the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements as of June 30, 2014, nor is it possible to estimate what litigation-related costs will be in the future. Sales and Use Tax Audit The Company is undergoing a sales and use tax audit by the State of California (the "State") on AUS for the period of 2007 through 2009. The audit has identified a project performed by the Company during that time period for which sales tax was not collected and remitted and for which the State asserts that proper documentation of resale may not have been obtained and that the Company owes sales tax of $1.4 million.The Company contends and believes that it received sufficient and proper documentation from its customer to support not collecting and remitting sales tax from that customer and is actively disputing the audit report with the State. On August 12, 2013, the Company appeared at an appeals conference with the State Board of Equalization ("BOE"). On July 21, 2014, the Company received a Decision and Recommendation (“D&R”) from the BOE. The D&R’s conclusion was that the basis for the calculation of the aforementioned $1.4 million tax due should be reduced from $12.2 million to $9.0 million with a commensurate reduction in the tax owed to the State. Regardless of this finding, the Company continues to believe that it will prevail in this matter, as it believes that the State did not adequately address the legal arguments related to the Company’s acceptance of the valid resale certificate from its customer. The Company has not agreed to these findings, and therefore, it will be appealing at a higher level at the BOE. Accordingly, no accrual has been recorded for this matter as the Company does not assess a loss as being probable. Should the Company not prevail in this matter, it will pursue reimbursement from the customer for all assessments from the State.

Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2014

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

13. Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

On April 30, 2010, the Company received notice of an administrative complaint filed by its former chief financial officer. The complaint was filed with the Hartford, Connecticut office of the U.S. Department of Labor (“U.S. DOL”) under Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”) and alleged, among other things, that the Company’s termination of her employment on April 19, 2010 was retaliatory and due to her alleged protected activity associated with comments she made to the Company’s Board of Directors at their meeting on March 26, 2010. On June 14, 2010, the Company filed its response to the complaint denying the allegations and requesting a dismissal of the matter. On September 27, 2013, the U.S. DOL issued preliminary findings on the matter concluding there was reasonable cause to support the former employee’s claims and ordering the Company to pay damages in excess of $1.9 million and take certain other actions. On October 22, 2013, the Company filed its Objections and Request for Hearing with the U.S. DOL which triggered the appointment of an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), and the scheduling of a hearing on the merits of the matter. Thereafter, the parties agreed to participate in a U.S. DOL mediation process on February 7, 2014. On March 13, 2014, the parties entered into a settlement agreement which provided for payment of a one-time lump sum amount of $0.4 million to the former employee, along with issuance of 75,000 shares of Company stock. The settlement was formally approved by the ALJ. As a result, there were mutual releases of all claims and a dismissal of the SOX complaint. The Company reserved $0.6 million at December 31, 2013, which included the lump sum amount, the market value of the common stock and accrued legal expenses incurred. The settlement was paid and stock issued in April 2014, and the Company recorded an additional $0.1 million related to the increase in the fair value of its common stock at the time of issuance.

On November 15, 2013, BP Products North America (“BP”) instituted claims against Johnson Matthey (“JM”) as the parent company of and purchaser of Applied Utility Systems, Inc. (“AUS”), a former subsidiary of the Company. On May 12, 2010, JM tendered to the Company a claim for indemnification under the Asset Purchase Agreement dated October 1, 2009, (the “Asset Purchase Agreement”), among JM, the Company and AUS. On June 11, 2013, BP, JM and the Company entered into a Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release pursuant to which they settled all claims. The settlement agreement had no material impact on the Company. Under the indemnification clauses of the Asset Purchase Agreement, the Company may be liable for legal expenses incurred by JM. These legal costs may be offset against funds withheld by JM from the acquisition of AUS.

In connection with the Asset Purchase Agreement, on October 1, 2009, JM presented the Company with an indemnification claim seeking recovery of the net amount of $0.9 million after offsetting the funds withheld by JM from the acquisition of AUS. These claims are for matters relating to various customer contracts that JM purchased, including the BP contract discussed above. The Company and JM have entered into discussions relating to the application of offsets and the validity of the claims presented. The Company has offered a settlement amount of $0.2 million and has reserved for this amount since the fourth quarter of 2013. Since the discussions are ongoing, the ultimate costs associated with this matter cannot be determined at this time.

In addition to the foregoing, the Company is involved in legal proceedings from time to time in the ordinary course of its business. Management does not believe that any of these claims and proceedings against it are likely to have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Accordingly, the Company cannot determine the final amount, if any, of its liability beyond the amount accrued in the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements as of June 30, 2014, nor is it possible to estimate what litigation-related costs will be in the future.

Sales and Use Tax Audit

The Company is undergoing a sales and use tax audit by the State of California (the "State") on AUS for the period of 2007 through 2009. The audit has identified a project performed by the Company during that time period for which sales tax was not collected and remitted and for which the State asserts that proper documentation of resale may not have been obtained and that the Company owes sales tax of $1.4 million.The Company contends and believes that it received sufficient and proper documentation from its customer to support not collecting and remitting sales tax from that customer and is actively disputing the audit report with the State. On August 12, 2013, the Company appeared at an appeals conference with the State Board of Equalization ("BOE"). On July 21, 2014, the Company received a Decision and Recommendation (“D&R”) from the BOE. The D&R’s conclusion was that the basis for the calculation of the aforementioned $1.4 million tax due should be reduced from $12.2 million to $9.0 million with a commensurate reduction in the tax owed to the State. Regardless of this finding, the Company continues to believe that it will prevail in this matter, as it believes that the State did not adequately address the legal arguments related to the Company’s acceptance of the valid resale certificate from its customer. The Company has not agreed to these findings, and therefore, it will be appealing at a higher level at the BOE. Accordingly, no accrual has been recorded for this matter as the Company does not assess a loss as being probable. Should the Company not prevail in this matter, it will pursue reimbursement from the customer for all assessments from the State.

- Definition

The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.

+ References+ Details