Contingent Liabilities and Commitments	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Contingent Liabilities and Commitments [Abstract]
CONTINGENT LIABILITIES AND COMMITMENTS	2. CONTINGENT LIABILITIES AND COMMITMENTS. Rate Matters. On August 31, 2006, we submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) a general rate filing (Docket No. RP06-569) principally designed to recover increased costs. The rates became effective March 1, 2007, subject to refund and the outcome of a hearing. All issues in this proceeding except one have been resolved by settlement. The one issue reserved for litigation or further settlement relates to our proposal to change the design of the rates for service under one of our storage rate schedules, which was implemented subject to refund on March 1, 2007. A hearing on that issue was held before a FERC Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in July 2008. In November 2008, the ALJ issued an initial decision in which he determined that our proposed incremental rate design is unjust and unreasonable. On January 21, 2010, the FERC reversed the ALJ’s initial decision, and approved our proposed incremental rate design. Certain parties have requested rehearing of the FERC’s order. If the FERC were to reverse their opinion on rehearing, we believe any refunds would not be material to our results of operations. Environmental Matters. We have had studies underway to test some of our facilities for the presence of toxic and hazardous substances to determine to what extent, if any, remediation may be necessary. We have responded to data requests from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state agencies regarding such potential contamination of certain of our sites. On the basis of the findings to date, we estimate that environmental assessment and remediation costs under various federal and state statutes will total approximately $7 million to $9 million (including both expense and capital expenditures), measured on an undiscounted basis, and will be spent over the next four to six years. This estimate depends on a number of assumptions concerning the scope of remediation that will be required at certain locations and the cost of the remedial measures. We are conducting environmental assessments and implementing a variety of remedial measures that may result in increases or decreases in the total estimated costs. At June 30, 2011, we had a balance of approximately $3.4 million for the expense portion of these estimated costs recorded in current liabilities ($0.8 million) and other long-term liabilities ($2.6 million) in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. At December 31, 2010, we had a balance of approximately $3.8 million for the expense portion of these estimated costs recorded in current liabilities ($0.8 million) and other long-term liabilities ($3.0 million) in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. Although we discontinued the use of lubricating oils containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the 1970s, we have discovered residual PCB contamination in equipment and soils at certain gas compressor station sites. We have worked closely with the EPA and state regulatory authorities regarding PCB issues, and we have a program to assess and remediate such conditions where they exist. In addition, we commenced negotiations with certain environmental authorities and other parties concerning investigative and remedial actions relative to potential mercury contamination at certain gas metering sites. All such costs are included in the $7 million to $9 million range discussed above. We have been identified as a potentially responsible party (PRP) at various Superfund and state waste disposal sites. Based on present volumetric estimates and other factors, our estimated aggregate exposure for remediation of these sites is less than $0.5 million. The estimated remediation costs for all of these sites are included in the $7 million to $9 million range discussed above. Liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (and applicable state law) can be joint and several with other PRPs. Although volumetric allocation is a factor in assessing liability, it is not necessarily determinative; thus, the ultimate liability could be substantially greater than the amounts described above. We are also subject to the Federal Clean Air Act (Act) and to the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (1990 Amendments), which added significantly to the existing requirements established by the Act. Pursuant to requirements of the 1990 Amendments and EPA rules designed to mitigate the migration of ground-level ozone (NOx), we are planning installation of air pollution controls on existing sources at certain facilities in order to reduce NOx emissions. For many of these facilities, we are developing more cost effective and innovative compressor engine control designs. In March 2008, the EPA promulgated a new, lower National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone. Within two years, the EPA was expected to designate new eight-hour ozone non-attainment areas. However, in September 2009, the EPA announced it would reconsider the 2008 NAAQS for ground level ozone to ensure that the standards were clearly grounded in science and were protective of both public health and the environment. As a result, the EPA delayed designation of new eight-hour ozone non-attainment areas under the 2008 standards until the reconsideration is complete. In January 2010, the EPA proposed to further reduce the ground-level ozone NAAQS from the March 2008 levels. The timing of finalization of the new ground-level ozone standard is uncertain. Designation of new eight-hour ozone non-attainment areas are expected to result in additional federal and state regulatory actions that will likely impact our operations and increase the cost of additions to property, plant and equipment. We are unable at this time to estimate the cost of additions that may be required to meet this new regulation. Additionally, in August 2010, the EPA promulgated National Emission Standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) regulations that will impact our operations. The emission control additions required to comply with the hazardous air pollutant regulations are estimated to include costs in the range of $25 million to $30 million through 2013, the compliance date. Furthermore, the EPA promulgated the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Mandatory Reporting Rule on October 30, 2009, which requires facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more carbon dioxide (CO₂) equivalent per year from stationary fossil-fuel combustion sources to report GHG emissions to the EPA annually beginning March 31, 2011 for calendar year 2010. On March 18, 2011, EPA extended this reporting deadline to September 30, 2011. On November 30, 2010, the EPA issued additional regulations that expand the scope of the Mandatory Reporting Rule to include fugitive and vented greenhouse gas emissions effective January 1, 2011. Facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more CO₂ equivalent per year from stationary fossil-fuel combustion and fugitive/vented sources combined will be required to report GHG combustion and fugitive/vented emissions to the EPA annually beginning March 31, 2012 for calendar year 2011. Compliance with this reporting obligation is estimated to cost $7 million to $9 million over the next four to five years. In February 2010, the EPA promulgated a final rule establishing a new one-hour nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) NAAQS. The effective date of the new NO₂ standard was April 12, 2010. This new standard is subject to numerous challenges in the federal court. We are unable at this time to estimate the cost of additions that may be required to meet this new regulation. We consider prudently incurred environmental assessment and remediation costs and the costs associated with compliance with environmental standards to be recoverable through rates. To date, we have been permitted recovery of environmental costs, and it is our intent to continue seeking recovery of such costs through future rate filings. As a result, as estimated costs of environmental assessment and remediation are incurred, they are recorded as regulatory assets in the Consolidated Balance Sheet until collected through rates. However, we had no uncollected environmental related regulatory assets at June 30, 2011 or December 31, 2010. By letter dated September 20, 2007, the EPA required us to provide information regarding natural gas compressor stations in the states of Mississippi and Alabama as part of the EPA’s investigation of our compliance with the Act. By January 2008, we responded with the requested information. By Notices of Violation (NOVs) dated March 28, 2008, the EPA found us to be in violation of the requirements of the Act with respect to these compressor stations. We met with the EPA in May 2008 to discuss the allegations contained in the NOVs; in June 2008, we submitted to the EPA a written response denying the allegations. The EPA has requested additional information pertaining to these compressor stations and in May 2011, we submitted information in response to the EPA’s latest request. In August, 2010, the EPA requested, and we provided, similar information for a compressor station in Maryland. Safety Matters. Pipeline Integrity Regulations We have developed an Integrity Management Plan that we believe meets the United States Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) final rule that was issued pursuant to the requirements of the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002. The rule requires gas pipeline operators to develop an integrity management program for transmission pipelines that could affect high consequence areas in the event of pipeline failure. The Integrity Management Program includes a baseline assessment plan along with periodic reassessments to be completed within required timeframes. In meeting the integrity regulations, we have identified high consequence areas and developed our baseline assessment plan. We are on schedule to complete the required assessments within required timeframes. Currently, we estimate that the cost to complete the required initial assessments over the period of 2011 through 2012 and associated remediation will be primarily capital in nature and range between $80 million and $110 million. Ongoing periodic reassessments and initial assessments of any new high consequence areas will be completed within the timeframes required by the rule. Management considers the costs associated with compliance with the rule to be prudent costs incurred in the ordinary course of business and, therefore, recoverable through our rates. Appomattox, Virginia Pipeline Rupture On September 14, 2008, we experienced a rupture of our 30-inch diameter mainline B pipeline near Appomattox, Virginia. The rupture resulted in an explosion and fire which caused several minor injuries and property damage to several nearby residences. On September 25, 2008, PHMSA issued a Corrective Action Order which required that we operate three of our mainlines in a portion of Virginia at reduced operating pressure and prescribed various remedial actions. After completion of some of the remedial actions PHMSA approved our requests to restore the affected pipelines to normal operating pressure. By letter dated April 29, 2010, PHMSA confirmed that the remaining remedial actions should be completed by December 31, 2010. This deadline was subsequently extended by PHMSA to September 30, 2011. In 2009, PHMSA proposed, and we paid, a $1.0 million civil penalty related to this matter. Other Matters. Various other proceedings are pending against us incidental to our operations. Summary. Litigation, arbitration, regulatory matters, environmental matters and safety matters are subject to inherent uncertainties. Were an unfavorable ruling to occur, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on the results of operations in the period in which the ruling occurs. Management, including internal counsel, currently believes that the ultimate resolution of the foregoing matters, taken as a whole and after consideration of amounts accrued, insurance coverage, recovery from customers or other indemnification arrangements, will not have a material adverse effect upon our future liquidity or financial position. Other Commitments. Commitments for construction and gas purchases We have commitments for construction and acquisition of property, plant and equipment of approximately $263.8 million at June 30, 2011. We have commitments for gas purchases of approximately $2.6 million at June 30, 2011. See Note 1 for our discussion of our agency agreement with WPXEM.

2. CONTINGENT LIABILITIES AND COMMITMENTS.

Rate Matters.

On August 31, 2006, we submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) a general rate filing (Docket No. RP06-569) principally designed to recover increased costs. The rates became effective March 1, 2007, subject to refund and the outcome of a hearing. All issues in this proceeding except one have been resolved by settlement.

The one issue reserved for litigation or further settlement relates to our proposal to change the design of the rates for service under one of our storage rate schedules, which was implemented subject to refund on March 1, 2007. A hearing on that issue was held before a FERC Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in July 2008. In November 2008, the ALJ issued an initial decision in which he determined that our proposed incremental rate design is unjust and unreasonable. On January 21, 2010, the FERC reversed the ALJ’s initial decision, and approved our proposed incremental rate design. Certain parties have requested rehearing of the FERC’s order. If the FERC were to reverse their opinion on rehearing, we believe any refunds would not be material to our results of operations.

Environmental Matters.

We have had studies underway to test some of our facilities for the presence of toxic and hazardous substances to determine to what extent, if any, remediation may be necessary. We have responded to data requests from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state agencies regarding such potential contamination of certain of our sites. On the basis of the findings to date, we estimate that environmental assessment and remediation costs under various federal and state statutes will total approximately $7 million to $9 million (including both expense and capital expenditures), measured on an undiscounted basis, and will be spent over the next four to six years. This estimate depends on a number of assumptions concerning the scope of remediation that will be required at certain locations and the cost of the remedial measures. We are conducting environmental assessments and implementing a variety of remedial measures that may result in increases or decreases in the total estimated costs. At June 30, 2011, we had a balance of approximately $3.4 million for the expense portion of these estimated costs recorded in current liabilities ($0.8 million) and other long-term liabilities ($2.6 million) in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. At December 31, 2010, we had a balance of approximately $3.8 million for the expense portion of these estimated costs recorded in current liabilities ($0.8 million) and other long-term liabilities ($3.0 million) in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet.

Although we discontinued the use of lubricating oils containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the 1970s, we have discovered residual PCB contamination in equipment and soils at certain gas compressor station sites. We have worked closely with the EPA and state regulatory authorities regarding PCB issues, and we have a program to assess and remediate such conditions where they exist. In addition, we commenced negotiations with certain environmental authorities and other parties concerning investigative and remedial actions relative to potential mercury contamination at certain gas metering sites. All such costs are included in the $7 million to $9 million range discussed above.

We have been identified as a potentially responsible party (PRP) at various Superfund and state waste disposal sites. Based on present volumetric estimates and other factors, our estimated aggregate exposure for remediation of these sites is less than $0.5 million. The estimated remediation costs for all of these sites are included in the $7 million to $9 million range discussed above. Liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (and applicable state law) can be joint and several with other PRPs. Although volumetric allocation is a factor in assessing liability, it is not necessarily determinative; thus, the ultimate liability could be substantially greater than the amounts described above.

We are also subject to the Federal Clean Air Act (Act) and to the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (1990 Amendments), which added significantly to the existing requirements established by the Act. Pursuant to requirements of the 1990 Amendments and EPA rules designed to mitigate the migration of ground-level ozone (NOx), we are planning installation of air pollution controls on existing sources at certain facilities in order to reduce NOx emissions. For many of these facilities, we are developing more cost effective and innovative compressor engine control designs.

In March 2008, the EPA promulgated a new, lower National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone. Within two years, the EPA was expected to designate new eight-hour ozone non-attainment areas. However, in September 2009, the EPA announced it would reconsider the 2008 NAAQS for ground level ozone to ensure that the standards were clearly grounded in science and were protective of both public health and the environment. As a result, the EPA delayed designation of new eight-hour ozone non-attainment areas under the 2008 standards until the reconsideration is complete. In January 2010, the EPA proposed to further reduce the ground-level ozone NAAQS from the March 2008 levels. The timing of finalization of the new ground-level ozone standard is uncertain. Designation of new eight-hour ozone non-attainment areas are expected to result in additional federal and state regulatory actions that will likely impact our operations and increase the cost of additions to property, plant and equipment. We are unable at this time to estimate the cost of additions that may be required to meet this new regulation.

Additionally, in August 2010, the EPA promulgated National Emission Standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) regulations that will impact our operations. The emission control additions required to comply with the hazardous air pollutant regulations are estimated to include costs in the range of $25 million to $30 million through 2013, the compliance date.

Furthermore, the EPA promulgated the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Mandatory Reporting Rule on October 30, 2009, which requires facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more carbon dioxide (CO₂) equivalent per year from stationary fossil-fuel combustion sources to report GHG emissions to the EPA annually beginning March 31, 2011 for calendar year 2010. On March 18, 2011, EPA extended this reporting deadline to September 30, 2011. On November 30, 2010, the EPA issued additional regulations that expand the scope of the Mandatory Reporting Rule to include fugitive and vented greenhouse gas emissions effective January 1, 2011. Facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more CO₂ equivalent per year from stationary fossil-fuel combustion and fugitive/vented sources combined will be required to report GHG combustion and fugitive/vented emissions to the EPA annually beginning March 31, 2012 for calendar year 2011. Compliance with this reporting obligation is estimated to cost $7 million to $9 million over the next four to five years.

In February 2010, the EPA promulgated a final rule establishing a new one-hour nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) NAAQS. The effective date of the new NO₂ standard was April 12, 2010. This new standard is subject to numerous challenges in the federal court. We are unable at this time to estimate the cost of additions that may be required to meet this new regulation.

We consider prudently incurred environmental assessment and remediation costs and the costs associated with compliance with environmental standards to be recoverable through rates. To date, we have been permitted recovery of environmental costs, and it is our intent to continue seeking recovery of such costs through future rate filings. As a result, as estimated costs of environmental assessment and remediation are incurred, they are recorded as regulatory assets in the Consolidated Balance Sheet until collected through rates. However, we had no uncollected environmental related regulatory assets at June 30, 2011 or December 31, 2010.

By letter dated September 20, 2007, the EPA required us to provide information regarding natural gas compressor stations in the states of Mississippi and Alabama as part of the EPA’s investigation of our compliance with the Act. By January 2008, we responded with the requested information. By Notices of Violation (NOVs) dated March 28, 2008, the EPA found us to be in violation of the requirements of the Act with respect to these compressor stations. We met with the EPA in May 2008 to discuss the allegations contained in the NOVs; in June 2008, we submitted to the EPA a written response denying the allegations. The EPA has requested additional information pertaining to these compressor stations and in May 2011, we submitted information in response to the EPA’s latest request. In August, 2010, the EPA requested, and we provided, similar information for a compressor station in Maryland.

Safety Matters.

Pipeline Integrity Regulations We have developed an Integrity Management Plan that we believe meets the United States Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) final rule that was issued pursuant to the requirements of the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002. The rule requires gas pipeline operators to develop an integrity management program for transmission pipelines that could affect high consequence areas in the event of pipeline failure. The Integrity Management Program includes a baseline assessment plan along with periodic reassessments to be completed within required timeframes. In meeting the integrity regulations, we have identified high consequence areas and developed our baseline assessment plan. We are on schedule to complete the required assessments within required timeframes. Currently, we estimate that the cost to complete the required initial assessments over the period of 2011 through 2012 and associated remediation will be primarily capital in nature and range between $80 million and $110 million. Ongoing periodic reassessments and initial assessments of any new high consequence areas will be completed within the timeframes required by the rule. Management considers the costs associated with compliance with the rule to be prudent costs incurred in the ordinary course of business and, therefore, recoverable through our rates.

Appomattox, Virginia Pipeline Rupture On September 14, 2008, we experienced a rupture of our 30-inch diameter mainline B pipeline near Appomattox, Virginia. The rupture resulted in an explosion and fire which caused several minor injuries and property damage to several nearby residences. On September 25, 2008, PHMSA issued a Corrective Action Order which required that we operate three of our mainlines in a portion of Virginia at reduced operating pressure and prescribed various remedial actions. After completion of some of the remedial actions PHMSA approved our requests to restore the affected pipelines to normal operating pressure. By letter dated April 29, 2010, PHMSA confirmed that the remaining remedial actions should be completed by December 31, 2010. This deadline was subsequently extended by PHMSA to September 30, 2011. In 2009, PHMSA proposed, and we paid, a $1.0 million civil penalty related to this matter.

Other Matters.

Various other proceedings are pending against us incidental to our operations.

Summary.

Litigation, arbitration, regulatory matters, environmental matters and safety matters are subject to inherent uncertainties. Were an unfavorable ruling to occur, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on the results of operations in the period in which the ruling occurs. Management, including internal counsel, currently believes that the ultimate resolution of the foregoing matters, taken as a whole and after consideration of amounts accrued, insurance coverage, recovery from customers or other indemnification arrangements, will not have a material adverse effect upon our future liquidity or financial position.