Commitments and Contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Commitments Washington Gas has certain natural gas contracts incurred in the normal course of business that require fixed and determinable payments in the future, including unconditional purchase obligations for pipeline capacity, transportation and storage services. Refer to Note 13- Commitments and Contingencies to the Financial Statements in Form 10-K for the calendar year ended December 31, 2019 for future payments. There were no significant changes to contractual obligations that are out of the normal course of business during the three months ended March 31, 2020 . Merger Commitments In connection with the Merger, Washington Gas and AltaGas have made commitments related to the terms of settlement agreement with the Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia (PSC of DC) and the conditions of approval from the Public Service Commission of Maryland (PSC of MD) and the Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC of VA). Among other things, these commitments included rate credits distributable to both residential and non-residential customers, gas expansion and other programs, various public interest commitments, and safety programs. As of March 31, 2020 , the cumulative amount of merger commitments expensed was $136.6 million , of which, $16.6 million has not been paid. In addition, there are certain additional regulatory commitments that were and will be expensed as the costs are incurred, including the hiring of damage prevention trainers in each jurisdiction for a total of $2.4 million over 5 years ; investing up to $70.0 million over a 10 -year period to further extend natural gas service; and spending $8.0 million for leak mitigation within 3 years after the Merger close. Additionally, there are a number of operational commitments that will have an impact on the ongoing business of Washington Gas, including reductions of leak backlogs, conducting a root cause analysis related to customer service, increasing supplier diversity, achieving synergy savings benefits, developing protocols for moving meters from inside to outside customers’ premises, as well as reporting and tracking related to all the commitments. Contingencies We account for contingent liabilities utilizing ASC Topic 450, Contingencies. By their nature, the amount of the contingency and the timing of a contingent event and any resulting accounting recognition are subject to our judgment of such events and our estimates of the amounts. Actual results related to contingencies may be difficult to predict and could differ significantly from the estimates included in reported earnings. Antero Contract In June 2019, a jury trial was held in the County Court for Denver, Colorado to consider a contractual dispute relating to gas pricing between Washington Gas and WGL Midstream (together, the Companies) and Antero Resources Corporation (Antero). Following the trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Antero for $95.9 million , of which $11.2 million was against Washington Gas, and $84.7 million against WGL Midstream. Following the official entry of the judgment, the Company filed an appeal on August 16, 2019. As a result of this verdict, it was determined that a loss contingency is probable and Washington Gas recorded an estimated liability and recognized a loss in June 2019. In addition, Washington Gas recorded a receivable from our trading partner, and a receivable related to sharing with our customers as the contract relates to asset optimization. Washington Gas has been accruing interest expense on a monthly basis associated with the liability since June 2019. At March 31, 2020 , the estimated liability with court fees and accrued interest was $11.9 million recorded in “Accounts payable and accrued liabilities” on Washington Gas' balance sheets. The receivable from our trading partner was $1.3 million in “Deferred charges and other assets-Other” , and sharing with customers was $4.8 million in “Regulatory assets - Gas costs” on the balance sheets. The interest expense associated with the legal liability was minimal for the three months ended March 31, 2020 . Regulatory Contingencies Certain legal and administrative proceedings incidental to our business, including regulatory contingencies, involve Washington Gas. In our opinion, we have recorded an adequate provision for probable losses or refunds to customers for regulatory contingencies related to these proceedings. Mary land Jurisdiction Maryland Show-Cause Order . On April 23, 2019, the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) held a hearing during which it found, among other things, that the probable cause of the August 10, 2016, explosion and fire at an apartment complex on Arliss Street in Silver Spring, Maryland “was the failure of an indoor mercury service regulator with an unconnected vent line that allowed natural gas into the meter room where it accumulated and ignited from an unknown ignition source. Contributing to the accident was the location of the mercury service regulators where leak detection by odor was not readily available.” Washington Gas disagrees with the NTSB’s probable cause findings. Following this hearing, on June 10, 2019, the NTSB issued an accident report. Following the NTSB hearing on September 5, 2019, the PSC of MD ordered the Company, within 30 days, to (i) provide a detailed response to the NTSB’s probable cause findings, and (ii) provide evidence regarding the status of a 2003 mercury regulator replacement program, and if the program was not completed, to show cause why the Commission should not impose a civil penalty on the Company. The Company timely responded to the PSC of MD’s Show-Cause Order, providing a detailed response to the NTSB’s probable cause findings, providing evidence regarding the status of its 2003 mercury regulator replacement program and demonstrating cause why the PSC of MD should not impose a civil penalty on the Company. Following the Company’s response, certain intervenors filed written comments and a public hearing was held on the matter, with some intervenors and members of the public advocating for penalties against the Company. The Company filed its rejoinder comments and the Show-Cause Order is working its way through the regulatory proceeding process with the PSC of MD. A hearing is expected to occur later this year. Management believes that the likelihood of a civil penalty is probable and has accrued $330,000 to reflect the minimum liability expected to result from the proceeding. Though the Company is unable to estimate the maximum possible penalty, other parties recommended penalties ranging from $32.0 million (Apartment and Office Building Association of Metropolitan Washington argued the Company should absorb all costs of removal and relocation of mercury service regulators) to $123.3 million (Office of People's Counsel argued the Company should absorb all costs of removal and relocation of mercury service regulators and pay a fine of $25,000 per day for each day mercury service regulators remain on the Company’s system). Environmental Matters We are subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations related to environmental matters. These laws and regulations may require expenditures over a long time frame to control environmental effects. Almost all of the environmental liabilities we have recorded are for costs expected to be incurred to remediate sites where we or a predecessor affiliate operated manufactured gas plants (MGPs). Washington Gas has identified up to ten sites where it or its predecessors may have operated MGPs. Washington Gas last used any such plant in 1984. In connection with these operations, we are aware that coal tar and certain other by-products of the gas manufacturing process are present at or near some former sites and may be present at others. At March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019 , Washington Gas reported a liability of $11.0 million and $10.7 million , respectively, on an undiscounted basis related to future environmental response costs. These estimates principally include the minimum liabilities associated with a range of environmental response costs expected to be incurred. At March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019 Washington Gas estimated the maximum liability associated with all of its sites to be approximately $30.9 million and $30.7 million , respectively. The estimates were determined by Washington Gas’ environmental experts, based on experience in remediating MGP sites and advice from legal counsel and environmental consultants. The variation between the recorded and estimated maximum liability primarily results from differences in the number of years that will be required to perform environmental response processes and the extent of remediation that may be required. Washington Gas is currently remediating its East Station property, located adjacent to the Anacostia River in Washington D.C., including ground water pump and treat, tar recovery, soil encapsulation and other treatment. Under a 2012 consent decree with the District of Columbia and the federal government, Washington Gas is also conducting a remedial investigation and feasibility study on an adjacent property owned by the District of Columbia. Additional remediation may be required at this property. In addition, at another adjoining property known as the “Boat Club Property,” located to the east of the property owned by the District of Columbia, Washington Gas agreed to perform a site investigation and report the findings pursuant to oversight by the District of Columbia Department of Energy and Environment (DOEE). This property was subject to a July 12, 2019, Administrative Order from the DOEE. This Administrative Order has been withdrawn and a consent order was negotiated and the Company is awaiting its issuance by the DOEE. Washington Gas received a letter in February 2016 from the DOEE and National Park Service regarding the Anacostia River Sediment Project, indicating that the District of Columbia is conducting a separate remedial investigation and feasibility study of the river to determine if and what cleanup measures may be required and to prepare a natural resource damage assessment. On December 27, 2019, DOEE issued an Anacostia River Sediment Project Proposed Plan, a River-wide Feasibility Study, and supporting documents for public comment. Although the Proposed Plan identifies East Station as one of fifteen potential environmental cleanup sites, DOEE is proposing to continue the remediation of East Station under Washington Gas’ existing Consent Decree rather than as part of the Anacostia River Sediment Project. DOEE is proposing to issue an Interim Record of Decision for remediation of “Early Action Areas” (that do not include East Station) in the Anacostia River by September 30, 2020. We are not able to estimate the total amount of potential costs or timing associated with the District of Columbia’s environmental investigation on the Anacostia River at this time. While an allocation method has not been established, Washington Gas has accrued an amount for estimated study costs based on a potential range of estimates. Regulatory orders issued by the PSC of MD allow Washington Gas to recover the costs associated with the sites applicable to Maryland over the period ending in 2025. Regulatory orders issued by the PSC of DC allow Washington Gas a three-year recovery of prudently incurred environmental response costs and allow Washington Gas to defer additional costs incurred between rate cases. Regulatory orders from the SCC of VA have generally allowed the recovery of prudent environmental remediation costs to the extent they were included in the underlying financial data supporting an application for rate change. At both March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019 , Washington Gas reported a regulatory asset of $7.0 million for the portion of environmental response costs that are expected to be recoverable in future rates. |