Get Started for Free Contexxia identifies hard-to-find pieces of information in SEC filings. No more highlighters, no more redlining, no more poring over huge documents. MDU RESOURCES GROUP INC (67716) 10-Q published on Aug 04, 2017 at 9:20 am
Reporting Period: Jun 29, 2017
Leases In February 2016, the FASB issued guidance regarding leases. The guidance requires lessees to recognize a lease liability and a right-of-use asset on the balance sheet for operating and financing leases with terms of more than 12 months. The guidance remains largely the same for lessors, although some changes were made to better align lessor accounting with the new lessee accounting and to align with the revenue recognition standard. The guidance also requires additional disclosures, both quantitative and qualitative, related to operating and finance leases for the lessee and sales-type, direct financing and operating leases for the lessor. This guidance will be effective for the Company on January 1, 2019, and should be applied using a modified retrospective approach with early adoption permitted. There continues to be industry-specific implementation issues that are unresolved and the final resolution of these issues could significantly impact the number of contracts that would be considered a lease for the Company under the new guidance. Due to the uncertainty of these issues, the Company cannot estimate the potential impact the adoption of the new guidance will have on its results of operations, financial position, cash flows and disclosures. The Company is planning to adopt the standard on January 1, 2019, utilizing the practical expedient that allows the Company to not reassess whether an expired or existing contract contains a lease, the classification of leases or initial direct costs.
Montana-Dakota previously filed an application with the NDPSC on October 14, 2016, for an electric rate increase which also included a requested return on equity to be used in the determination of applications previously filed by Montana-Dakota for a renewable resource cost adjustment rider, an electric generation resource recovery rider, and a transmission cost adjustment rider, as discussed in the following paragraphs. On April 7, 2017, Montana-Dakota, the NDPSC Advocacy Staff and the interveners in the case filed a settlement agreement resolving all issues in the general rate case. The settlement agreement included a net increase of approximately $7.5 million or 3.7 percent above previously approved final rates and a true-up of the return on equity used in the interim renewable resource cost adjustment, the electric generation resource recovery and transmission cost adjustment riders of 9.45 percent; a return on equity of 9.65 percent for base rates and the renewable resource cost adjustment rider on a go-forward basis; and a return on equity of 9.45 percent through December 31, 2019, for the natural gas-fired internal combustion engines and associated facilities included in the electric generation resource recovery rider. A hearing on the settlement agreement was held on April 10, 2017. On June 16, 2017, the NDPSC approved the settlement agreement. On June 26, 2017, Montana-Dakota submitted a compliance filing and on July 14, 2017, submitted updated tariff sheets and a refund plan. The NDPSC approved the compliance filing and refund plan on July 26, 2017, with final rates effective with service rendered on or after August 7, 2017. The final rates are less than the interim rates currently in effect. Therefore, Montana-Dakota will refund the difference to customers, which is approximately 19 percent of the amount collected from the general rate case interim increase, along with refunds to reflect true-ups for the various riders, as applicable. The background information related to the settlement agreement and related applications are discussed in the following paragraphs.
The Company is party to claims and lawsuits arising out of its business and that of its consolidated subsidiaries, which may include, but are not limited to, matters involving property damage, personal injury, and environmental, contractual, statutory and regulatory obligations. The Company accrues a liability for those contingencies when the incurrence of a loss is probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. If a range of amounts can be reasonably estimated and no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount, then the minimum of the range is accrued. The Company does not accrue liabilities when the likelihood that the liability has been incurred is probable but the amount cannot be reasonably estimated or when the liability is believed to be only reasonably possible or remote. For contingencies where an unfavorable outcome is probable or reasonably possible and which are material, the Company discloses the nature of the contingency and, in some circumstances, an estimate of the possible loss. Accruals are based on the best information available, but in certain situations management is unable to estimate an amount or range of a reasonably possible loss including, but not limited to when: (1) the damages are unsubstantiated or indeterminate, (2) the proceedings are in the early stages, (3) numerous parties are involved, or (4) the matter involves novel or unsettled legal theories. The Company had accrued liabilities of $33.7 million, $27.4 million and $31.8 million, which have not been discounted, including liabilities held for sale, for contingencies, including litigation, production taxes, royalty claims and environmental matters at June 30, 2017 and 2016, and December 31, 2016, respectively, including amounts that may have been accrued for matters discussed in Litigation and Environmental matters within this note. The Company will continue to monitor each matter and adjust accruals as might be warranted based on new information and further developments. Management believes that the outcomes with respect to probable and reasonably possible losses in excess of the amounts accrued, net of insurance recoveries, while uncertain, either can’t be estimated or will not have a material effect upon the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Unless otherwise required by GAAP, legal costs are expensed as they are incurred.
Construction Services Capital Electric provided employees in 2012 to perform work for a contractor on a project in Kansas. One of the Capital Electric employees was injured while working on the project and brought a lawsuit against the contractor. Judgment was entered in favor of the employee and his spouse on November 3, 2016, in the amount of $44.8 million following a court determination that the employee’s injuries were caused by the contractor’s negligence. The contractor claims that Capital Electric was contractually required, but failed, to name the contractor as an additional insured under any liability policy in effect at the time of the project and that such failure resulted in the entry of judgment against the contractor. In March 2017, Capital Electric filed a petition for declaratory judgment in the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas for a judicial determination that any agreement between Capital Electric and the contractor for the project did not require Capital Electric to include the contractor as an additional insured under any liability policy issued to Capital Electric and that if such an agreement was found to exist, it would be void and unenforceable under Kansas law. No accrual has been recorded for this matter.
The second claim is for contamination at a site in Bremerton, Washington which was received in 1997. A preliminary investigation has found soil and groundwater at the site contain contaminants requiring further investigation and cleanup. The EPA conducted a Targeted Brownfields Assessment of the site and released a report summarizing the results of that assessment in August 2009. The assessment confirms that contaminants have affected soil and groundwater at the site, as well as sediments in the adjacent Port Washington Narrows. Alternative remediation options have been identified with preliminary cost estimates ranging from $340,000 to $6.4 million. Data developed through the assessment and previous investigations indicates the contamination likely derived from multiple, different sources and multiple current and former owners of properties and businesses in the vicinity of the site may be responsible for the contamination. In April 2010, the Washington DOE issued notice it considered Cascade a PRP for hazardous substances at the site. In May 2012, the EPA added the site to the National Priorities List of Superfund sites. Cascade has entered into an administrative settlement agreement and consent order with the EPA regarding the scope and schedule for a remedial investigation and feasibility study for the site. Current estimates for the cost to complete the remedial investigation and feasibility study are approximately $7.6 million of which $200,000 has been incurred. Cascade has accrued $7.4 million for the remedial investigation and feasibility study as well as $6.4 million for remediation of this site; however, the accrual for remediation costs will be reviewed and adjusted, if necessary, after completion of the remedial investigation and feasibility study. In April 2010, Cascade filed a petition with the WUTC for authority to defer the costs, which are included in other noncurrent assets, incurred in relation to the environmental remediation of this site. The WUTC approved the petition in September 2010, subject to conditions set forth in the order.