Form 10-K
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the Fiscal Year Ended: December 31, 2009
Commission File Number: 001-11590
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
|
|
|
State of Delaware
|
|
51-0064146 |
|
|
|
(State or other jurisdiction of
incorporation or organization)
|
|
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.) |
|
|
|
909 Silver Lake Boulevard, Dover, Delaware 19904
(Address of principal executive offices, including zip
code)
302-734-6799
(Registrants telephone number, including area code)
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
|
|
|
Title of each class
|
|
Name of each exchange on which registered |
|
|
|
Common Stock par value per share $.4867
|
|
New York Stock Exchange, Inc. |
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
8.25% Convertible
Debentures Due 2014
(Title of class)
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule
405 of the Securities Act. Yes o. No þ.
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or
Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes o. No þ.
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by
Section 13 or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for
such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been
subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes þ. No o.
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its
corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted
pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months
(or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).
Yes o. No o.
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is
not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrants knowledge, in
definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K
or any amendments to this Form 10-K. þ
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a
non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of accelerated filer,
large accelerated filer and smaller reporting company in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check
one):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Large accelerated filer o
|
|
Accelerated filer þ
|
|
Non-accelerated filer o
|
|
Smaller Reporting Company o |
Indicate by a check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the
Act). Yes o. No þ.
The aggregate market value of the common shares held by non-affiliates of Chesapeake Utilities
Corporation as of June 30, 2009, the last business day of its most recently completed second fiscal
quarter, based on the last trade price on that date, as reported by the New York Stock Exchange,
was approximately $223.5 million.
As of February 28, 2010,
9,436,558 shares of common stock were outstanding.
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
Portions of the Proxy Statement for the 2010 Annual Meeting of Stockholders are incorporated by
reference in Part III.
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation
Form 10-K
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS
Frequently used abbreviations, acronyms, or terms used in this report:
Subsidiaries of Chesapeake Utilities Corporation
|
|
|
BravePoint
|
|
BravePoint, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Chesapeake Services
Company, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Chesapeake |
Chesapeake
|
|
The Registrant, the Registrant and its subsidiaries, or the Registrants
subsidiaries, as appropriate in the context of the disclosure |
Company
|
|
The Registrant, the Registrant and its subsidiaries or the Registrants
subsidiaries, as appropriate in the context of the disclosure |
ESNG
|
|
Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Chesapeake
|
FPU
|
|
Florida Public Utilities Company, a new wholly-owned subsidiary of
Chesapeake, effective October 28, 2009 |
OnSight
|
|
Chesapeake OnSight Services, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Chesapeake |
PESCO
|
|
Peninsula Energy Services Company, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Chesapeake |
PIPECO
|
|
Peninsula Pipeline Company, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Chesapeake |
Sharp
|
|
Sharp Energy, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Chesapeake and Sharps
subsidiary, Sharpgas, Inc. |
Xeron
|
|
Xeron, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Chesapeake |
Regulatory Agencies
|
|
|
Delaware PSC
|
|
Delaware Public Service Commission |
DOT
|
|
United States Department of Transportation |
EPA
|
|
United States Environmental Protection Agency |
FASB
|
|
Financial Accounting Standards Board |
FERC
|
|
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission |
FDEP
|
|
Florida Department of Environmental Protection |
Florida PSC
|
|
Florida Public Service Commission |
IRS
|
|
Internal Revenue Service |
Maryland PSC
|
|
Maryland Public Service Commission |
MDE
|
|
Maryland
Department of the Environment |
PSC
|
|
Public Service Commission |
SEC
|
|
Securities and Exchange Commission |
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 1
Other
|
|
|
AOCI
|
|
Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income |
DSCP
|
|
Directors Stock Compensation Plan |
GSR
|
|
Gas sales service rates |
HDD
|
|
Heating degree-days |
Mcf
|
|
Thousand Cubic Feet |
MWH
|
|
Megawatt Hour |
MGP
|
|
Manufactured Gas Plant |
NYSE
|
|
New York Stock Exchange |
PIP
|
|
Performance Incentive Plan |
S&P 500 Index
|
|
Standard
& Poors 500 Index |
SFAS
|
|
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards |
Accounting Standards
|
|
|
ASC
|
|
FASB Accounting Standards Codification TM(Codification) |
ASU
|
|
FASB Accounting Standards Update |
FSP
|
|
Financial Accounting Standards Board Staff Position |
GAAP
|
|
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles |
Page 2 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
Part I
References in this document to Chesapeake, the Company, we, us and our mean
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation and/or its wholly-owned subsidiaries, as appropriate in the
context of the disclosure.
Safe Harbor for Forward-Looking Statements
We make statements in this Form 10-K that do not directly or exclusively relate to historical
facts. Such statements are forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. You can typically identify forward-looking statements by
the use of forward-looking words, such as project, believe, expect, anticipate, intend,
plan, estimate, continue, potential, forecast or other similar words, or future or
conditional verbs such as may, will, should, would or could. These statements represent
our intentions, plans, expectations, assumptions and beliefs about future financial performance,
business strategy, projected plans and objectives of the Company. These statements are subject to
many risks and uncertainties. In addition to the risk factors described under Item 1A Risks
Factors, the following important factors, among others, could cause actual future results to
differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements:
|
|
|
state and federal legislative and regulatory initiatives that affect cost and
investment recovery, have an impact on rate structures, and affect the speed at and degree
to which competition enters the electric and natural gas industries (including
deregulation); |
|
|
|
|
the outcomes of regulatory, tax, environmental and legal matters, including whether
pending matters are resolved within current estimates; |
|
|
|
|
industrial, commercial and residential growth or contraction in our service
territories; |
|
|
|
|
the weather and other natural phenomena, including the economic, operational and other
effects of hurricanes and ice storms; |
|
|
|
|
the timing and extent of changes in commodity prices and interest rates; |
|
|
|
|
general economic conditions, including any potential effects arising from terrorist
attacks and any consequential hostilities or other hostilities or other external factors
over which we have no control; |
|
|
|
|
changes in environmental and other laws and regulations to which we are subject; |
|
|
|
|
the results of financing efforts, including our ability to obtain financing on
favorable terms, which can be affected by various factors, including credit ratings and
general economic conditions; |
|
|
|
|
declines in the market prices of equity securities and resultant cash funding
requirements for our defined benefit pension plans; |
|
|
|
|
the creditworthiness of counterparties with which we are engaged in transactions; |
|
|
|
|
growth in opportunities for our business units; |
|
|
|
|
the extent of success in connecting natural gas and electric supplies to transmission
systems and in expanding natural gas and electric markets; |
|
|
|
|
the effect of accounting pronouncements issued periodically by accounting
standard-setting bodies; |
|
|
|
|
conditions of the capital markets and equity markets during the periods covered by the
forward-looking statements; |
|
|
|
|
the ability to successfully execute, manage and integrate merger, acquisition or
divestiture plans, regulatory or other limitations imposed as a result of a merger,
acquisition or divestiture, and the success of the business following a merger,
acquisition or divestiture; |
|
|
|
|
the ability to manage and maintain key customer relationships; |
|
|
|
|
the ability to maintain key supply sources; |
|
|
|
|
the effect of spot, forward and future market prices on our distribution, wholesale
marketing and energy trading businesses; and |
|
|
|
|
the effect of competition on our businesses. |
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 3
Item 1. Business.
(a) Overview
We are a diversified utility company engaged in various energy and other businesses. Chesapeake
is a Delaware corporation that was formed in 1947. On October 28, 2009, we completed a merger
with Florida Public Utilities Company (FPU), pursuant to which FPU became a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Chesapeake. We operate in regulated energy businesses through our natural gas
distribution divisions in Delaware, Maryland and Florida, natural gas and electric distribution
operations in Florida through FPU, and natural gas transmission operations on the Delmarva
Peninsula and Florida through our subsidiaries, Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company (ESNG) and
Peninsula Pipeline Company, Inc. (PIPECO), respectively. Our unregulated businesses include
natural gas marketing operation through Peninsula Energy Services Company, Inc. (PESCO);
propane distribution operations through Sharp Energy, Inc. and its subsidiary Sharpgas, Inc.
(collectively Sharp) and FPUs propane distribution subsidiary, Flo-Gas Corporation; and
propane wholesale marketing operation through Xeron, Inc. (Xeron). We also have an advance
information services subsidiary, BravePoint, Inc. (BravePoint).
(b) Operating Segments
As a result of the merger with FPU, we changed our operating segments to better align with how
the chief operating decision maker (our Chief Executive Officer) views the various operations of
the Company. Our three operating segments are now composed of the following:
|
|
|
Regulated Energy. The regulated energy segment includes natural gas distribution,
electric distribution and natural gas transmission operations. All operations in this
segment are regulated, as to their rates and services, by the Public Service Commission
(PSC) having jurisdiction in each operating territory or by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) in the case of ESNG. |
|
|
|
Unregulated Energy. The unregulated energy segment includes natural gas marketing,
propane distribution and propane wholesale marketing operations, which are unregulated as to
their rates and services. |
|
|
|
Other. The Other segment consists primarily of the advanced information services
operation, unregulated subsidiaries that own real estate leased to Chesapeake and certain
corporate costs not allocated to other operations. |
The following table shows the size of each of our operating segments based on operating income
and net property, plant and equipment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Property, Plant |
|
(in thousands) |
|
Operating Income |
|
|
& Equipment |
|
Regulated Energy |
|
$ |
26,900 |
|
|
|
80 |
% |
|
$ |
387,022 |
|
|
|
89 |
% |
Unregulated Energy |
|
|
8,158 |
|
|
|
24 |
% |
|
|
37,900 |
|
|
|
8 |
% |
Other |
|
|
(1,322 |
) |
|
|
-4 |
% |
|
|
11,506 |
|
|
|
3 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
33,736 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
$ |
436,428 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additional financial information by business segment is included in Item 8 under the heading
Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements Note C, Segment Information.
Page 4 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
(i) Regulated Energy
Our regulated energy segment provides natural gas distribution services in Delaware, Maryland
and Florida, electric distribution services in Florida and natural gas transmission services in
Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Florida.
Natural Gas Distribution
Our Delaware and Maryland natural gas distribution divisions serve 51,736 residential and
commercial customers and 155 industrial customers in central and southern Delaware and
Marylands Eastern Shore. For the year ended December 31, 2009, operating revenues and
deliveries by customer class for our Delaware and Maryland distribution divisions were as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Revenues |
|
|
Deliveries |
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
(Mcfs) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
51,309 |
|
|
|
58 |
% |
|
|
2,747,162 |
|
|
|
36 |
% |
Commercial |
|
|
31,942 |
|
|
|
36 |
% |
|
|
2,693,724 |
|
|
|
35 |
% |
Industrial |
|
|
3,696 |
|
|
|
4 |
% |
|
|
1,827,153 |
|
|
|
24 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subtotal |
|
|
86,947 |
|
|
|
98 |
% |
|
|
7,268,039 |
|
|
|
95 |
% |
Interruptible |
|
|
977 |
|
|
|
1 |
% |
|
|
373,825 |
|
|
|
5 |
% |
Other (1) |
|
|
1,291 |
|
|
|
1 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
89,215 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
7,641,864 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Operating revenues from Other sources include unbilled revenue, rental of gas
properties, and other miscellaneous charges. |
Chesapeakes Florida natural gas distribution division provides unbundled natural gas
distribution services (the delivery of natural gas separated from the sale of the commodity)
to 13,268 residential and 1,176 commercial and industrial customers in 14 counties in Florida.
For the year ended December 31, 2009, operating revenues and deliveries by customer class for
our Florida distribution division were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Revenues |
|
|
Deliveries |
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
(Mcfs) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
3,682 |
|
|
|
30 |
% |
|
|
318,420 |
|
|
|
2 |
% |
Commercial |
|
|
3,043 |
|
|
|
25 |
% |
|
|
1,151,071 |
|
|
|
8 |
% |
Industrial |
|
|
4,260 |
|
|
|
34 |
% |
|
|
13,271,503 |
|
|
|
90 |
% |
Other(1) |
|
|
1,377 |
|
|
|
11 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
12,362 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
14,740,994 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Operating revenues from Other sources include unbilled revenue, conservation
revenue, fees for billing services provided to third-parties and other miscellaneous
charges. |
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 5
Our recent merger with FPU provides 51,536 additional residential, commercial and
industrial natural gas distribution customers in seven counties in Florida, which have
significantly expanded our existing natural
gas distribution operations in Florida. For the period from the merger closing (October 28,
2009) to December 31, 2009, operating revenues and deliveries by customer class for these new
customers added through the merger were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Revenues |
|
|
Deliveries |
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
(Mcfs) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
3,028 |
|
|
|
27 |
% |
|
|
180,572 |
|
|
|
16 |
% |
Commercial |
|
|
4,722 |
|
|
|
43 |
% |
|
|
496,183 |
|
|
|
45 |
% |
Industrial |
|
|
1,346 |
|
|
|
12 |
% |
|
|
320,680 |
|
|
|
29 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subtotal |
|
|
9,096 |
|
|
|
82 |
% |
|
|
997,435 |
|
|
|
90 |
% |
Other(1) |
|
|
2,045 |
|
|
|
18 |
% |
|
|
111,742 |
|
|
|
10 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
11,141 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
1,109,177 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Operating revenues from Other sources include unbilled revenue, under
(over) recoveries of fuel cost, conservation revenue, other miscellaneous charges and
adjustments for pass-through taxes. |
FPUs total natural gas deliveries in the full calendar year 2009, including deliveries
for the period prior to the merger, were 1,157,100 Mcfs, 2,942,800 Mcfs and 1,784,500 Mcfs for
residential, commercial and industrial customers, respectively.
Electric Distribution
Electric distribution is a new regulated energy business added to the Company as a result of
the FPU merger. FPU distributes electricity to 31,030 customers in five counties in northeast
and northwest Florida. For the period from the merger closing (October 28, 2009) to December
31, 2009, operating revenues and deliveries by customer class for FPUs electric distribution
services were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Revenues |
|
|
Deliveries |
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
(MWHs) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
6,140 |
|
|
|
50 |
% |
|
|
43,435 |
|
|
|
41 |
% |
Commercial |
|
|
6,273 |
|
|
|
52 |
% |
|
|
50,033 |
|
|
|
47 |
% |
Industrial |
|
|
1,004 |
|
|
|
8 |
% |
|
|
9,700 |
|
|
|
10 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subtotal |
|
|
13,417 |
|
|
|
110 |
% |
|
|
103,168 |
|
|
|
98 |
% |
Other(1) |
|
|
(1,174 |
) |
|
|
-10 |
% |
|
|
2,572 |
|
|
|
2 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
12,243 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
105,740 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Operating revenues from Other sources include unbilled revenue, under (over)
recoveries of fuel cost, conservation revenue, other miscellaneous charges and
adjustments for pass-through taxes. |
FPUs total deliveries of electricity in the full calendar year 2009, including
deliveries for the period prior to the merger, were 316,306 MWHs, 316,412 MWHs and 64,950 MWHs
for residential, commercial and industrial customers, respectively.
Page 6 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
Natural Gas Transmission
ESNG operates a 384-mile interstate pipeline system that transports natural gas from various
points in Pennsylvania to Chesapeakes Delaware and Maryland natural gas distribution
divisions, as well as to other utilities and industrial customers in southern Pennsylvania,
Delaware and on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. ESNG also provides swing transportation
service and contract storage services. For the year ended December 31, 2009, operating
revenues and deliveries by customer class for ESNG were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Revenues |
|
|
Deliveries |
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
(Mcfs) |
|
Local distribution companies |
|
$ |
19,699 |
|
|
|
76 |
% |
|
|
9,941,436 |
|
|
|
38 |
% |
Industrial |
|
|
4,907 |
|
|
|
19 |
% |
|
|
14,471,109 |
|
|
|
55 |
% |
Commercial |
|
|
1,336 |
|
|
|
5 |
% |
|
|
1,809,970 |
|
|
|
7 |
% |
Other (1) |
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subtotal |
|
|
25,977 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
26,222,515 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
Less: affiliated local distribution companies |
|
|
(12,709 |
) |
|
|
(49) |
% |
|
|
(5,578,918 |
) |
|
|
(21) |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total non-affiliated |
|
$ |
13,268 |
|
|
|
51 |
% |
|
|
20,643,597 |
|
|
|
79 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Operating revenues from Other sources are from rental of gas
properties. |
In 2005, we formed PIPECO to operate an intrastate pipeline to provide natural gas
transportation services to industrial customers in Florida. In December 2007, the Florida
Public Service Commission (Florida PSC) approved PIPECOs natural gas transmission pipeline
tariff, which established its operating rules and regulations. In January 2009, PIPECO began
providing natural gas transmission services to a customer for a period of 20 years at a fixed
monthly charge, through an 8-mile pipeline located in Suwanee County, Florida, which PIPECO
owns. For the year ended December 31, 2009, PIPECO had $264,000 in operating revenues under
the contract.
Supplies, Transmission and Storage
We believe that the availability of supply and transmission of natural gas and electricity is
adequate under existing arrangements to meet the anticipated needs of customers.
Natural Gas Distribution
Our Delaware and Maryland natural gas distribution divisions have both firm and interruptible
transportation service contracts with four interstate open access pipeline companies,
including the ESNG pipeline. These divisions are directly interconnected with the ESNG pipeline,
and have contracts with interstate pipelines upstream of ESNG, including Transcontinental Gas
Pipe Line Corporation (Transco), Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation (Columbia) and
Columbia Gulf Transmission Company (Gulf). The Transco and Columbia pipelines are directly
interconnected with the ESNG pipeline. The Gulf pipeline is directly interconnected with the
Columbia pipeline and indirectly interconnected with the ESNG pipeline. None of the upstream
pipelines is owned or operated by an affiliate of the Company. The Delaware and Maryland
divisions use their firm transportation supply resources to meet a significant percentage of
their projected demand requirements and they purchase natural gas supplies on the spot market
from various suppliers as needed to match firm supply and demand. This gas is transported by the
upstream pipelines and delivered to their interconnections with ESNG. These divisions also have
the capability to use propane-air peak-shaving to supplement or displace the spot market
purchases.
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 7
The following table shows the firm transmission and storage capacity that the Delaware and
Maryland divisions currently have under contract with ESNG and pipelines upstream of the ESNG
pipeline, including the respective contract expiration dates.
Delaware
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Firm transmission |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
capacity maximum |
|
|
Firm storage |
|
|
|
|
|
peak-day daily |
|
|
capacity maximum |
|
|
|
|
|
deliverability |
|
|
peak-day daily |
|
|
|
Pipeline |
|
(Mcfs) |
|
|
withdrawal (Mcfs) |
|
|
Expiration |
Transco |
|
|
20,699 |
|
|
|
6,190 |
|
|
Various dates between 2010 and 2028 |
Columbia |
|
|
17,836 |
|
|
|
7,946 |
|
|
Various dates between 2011 and 2020 |
Gulf |
|
|
850 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expires in 2014 |
ESNG |
|
|
63,482 |
|
|
|
4,006 |
|
|
Various dates between 2010 and 2024 |
Maryland
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Firm transmission |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
capacity maximum |
|
|
Firm storage |
|
|
|
|
|
peak-day daily |
|
|
capacity maximum |
|
|
|
|
|
deliverability |
|
|
peak-day daily |
|
|
|
Pipeline |
|
(Mcfs) |
|
|
withdrawal (Mcfs) |
|
|
Expiration |
Transco |
|
|
5,921 |
|
|
|
2,373 |
|
|
Various dates between 2010 and 2012 |
Columbia |
|
|
6,473 |
|
|
|
3,539 |
|
|
Various dates between 2011 and 2018 |
Gulf |
|
|
570 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expires in 2014 |
ESNG |
|
|
19,834 |
|
|
|
2,228 |
|
|
Various dates between 2010 and 2023 |
The Delaware and Maryland divisions currently have contracts with several suppliers for the
purchase of firm natural gas supply in the amount of their capacities on the Transco and
Columbia pipelines. They also have contracts for firm peaking gas supplies to be delivered to
their systems in order to meet the differential between their capacities on the ESNG pipeline
and capacities on pipelines upstream of ESNG. These supply contracts provide a maximum firm
daily entitlement of 13,237 Mcfs and 2,029 Mcfs for the Delaware and Maryland divisions,
respectively, delivered on the Transco, Columbia, and/or Gulf systems to ESNG for redelivery to
these divisions under firm transmission contracts. These gas supply contracts have various
expiration dates, and quantities may vary from day to day and month to month.
Chesapeakes Florida natural gas distribution division has firm transmission service contracts
with Florida Gas Transmission Company (FGT) and Gulfstream Natural Gas System, LLC
(Gulfstream). Pursuant to a program approved by the Florida PSC, all of the capacity under
these agreements has been released to various third-parties, including PESCO. Under the terms of
these capacity release agreements, Chesapeake is contingently liable to FGT and Gulfstream,
should any party that acquired the capacity through release fail to pay for the service.
Contracts by Chesapeakes Florida natural gas distribution division with FGT include: (a) a
contract, which expires on July 31, 2010, for daily firm transmission capacity of 22,901 Mcfs
for the months of November
through April, capacity of 19,594 Mcfs for the months of May through September, and 21,524 Mcfs
for October; and (b) a contract for daily firm transmission capacity of 974 Mcfs daily, which
expires in 2015. Chesapeakes contract with Gulfstream is for daily firm transmission capacity
of 9,737 Mcfs and expires in 2022.
Page 8 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
FPU has firm transmission service contracts with FGT and firm transportation contracts with
Florida City Gas (FCG) and Indiantown Gas Company (IGC). The additional contracts with FGT
include (a) a contract which expires on July 2020, for daily firm transmission capacity of
26,500 Mcfs for the months of November through March, 22,411 Mcfs for the month of April, 9,211
Mcfs for the months of May through September and 9,314 Mcfs for the month of October; (b) a
contract which expires in 2015 for daily firm transmission capacity of 10,286 Mcfs for the
months of November through April and 4,360 Mcfs for the months of May through October; (c) a
contract which expires in July 2020 for daily firm transmission capacity of 2,147 Mcfs for the
months of November through March, 1,745 Mcfs for the month of April, 470 Mcfs for the months of
May through September, and 896 Mcfs for the month of October; and (d) a contract for daily firm
transmission capacity of 1,774 Mcfs with various partial expiration dates between 2016 and 2023.
The contract with FCG, which expires in 2013, provides daily firm transportation capacity of
292 Mcfs on its Pioneer Pipeline. The contract with IGC, which expires in 2016, provides daily
firm transportation capacity of 487 Mcfs on its distribution system.
FPU uses gas marketers and producers to procure all its gas supplies for its natural gas
distribution operations. FPU also uses TECO Peoples Gas to provide wholesale gas sales service
in areas distant from its interconnections with FGT.
Natural Gas Transmission
ESNG has three contracts with Transco for a total of 7,045 Mcfs of firm peak day storage
entitlements and total storage capacity of 278,264 Mcfs, each of which expires in 2013. ESNG has
retained these firm storage services in order to provide swing transportation service and firm
storage service to those customers that have requested such service(s).
Electric Distribution
Our electric distribution operation through FPU purchases all of its wholesale electricity from
two suppliers: Gulf Power Company and JEA (formerly known as Jacksonville Electric Authority).
Both of these contracts are all requirements contracts that expire in December 2017. The JEA
contract provides generation, transmission and distribution service to northeast Florida.
The Gulf Power Company contract provides generation, transmission and distribution service
to northwest Florida.
Competition
See discussion of competition in Item 7 under the heading Managements Discussion and Analysis
of Financial Condition and Results of Operations Competition.
Rates and Regulation
Our natural gas and electric distribution operations are subject to regulation by the Delaware,
Maryland and Florida PSCs with respect to various aspects of their business, including rates for
sales and transportation to all customers in each respective jurisdiction. All of our firm
distribution sales rates are subject to fuel cost recovery mechanisms, which match revenues with
gas and electric supply and transportation costs and normally allow full recovery of such costs.
Adjustments under these mechanisms, which are limited to such costs, require periodic filings
and hearings with the state regulatory authority having jurisdiction.
ESNG is subject to regulation as an interstate pipeline by the FERC, which regulates the terms
and conditions of service and the rates ESNG can charge for its transmission and storage
services. PIPECO is subject to regulation by the Florida PSC.
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 9
The following table shows the regulatory jurisdictions under which our regulated energy
businesses currently operate, including the effective dates of the most recent full rate
proceedings and the rates of return that were authorized therein:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulatory |
|
Effective Date of |
|
Allowed |
|
Regulated Business |
|
Jurisdiction |
|
the Current Rates |
|
Rate of Return |
|
Chesapeake Delaware Division
|
|
Delaware PSC
|
|
9/3/2008
|
|
10.25 |
% (1) |
Chesapeake Maryland Division
|
|
Maryland PSC
|
|
12/1/2007
|
|
10.75 |
% (1) |
Chesapeake Florida Division
|
|
Florida PSC
|
|
1/14/2010
|
|
10.80 |
% (1) |
FPU Natural Gas
|
|
Florida PSC
|
|
1/14/2010 (3)
|
|
10.85 |
% (1) |
FPU Electric
|
|
Florida PSC
|
|
5/22/2008
|
|
11.00 |
% (1) |
ESNG
|
|
FERC
|
|
9/1/2007
|
|
13.60 |
% (2) |
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Allowed return on
equity. |
|
(2) |
|
Allowed overall pre-tax, pre-interest rate of return. |
|
(3) |
|
Effective date of the Order approving settlement agreement, which
adjusted rates originally approved on June 4, 2009. |
PIPECO, which is regulated by the Florida PSC, currently provides service to one customer
at a negotiated rate.
Management monitors the achieved rates of return of each of our regulated energy operations in
order to ensure timely filing of rate cases.
Regulatory Proceedings
See discussion of regulatory activities in Item 7 under the heading Managements Discussion and
Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations Rate Filings and Other Regulatory
Activities.
Seasonality of Natural Gas and Electric Distribution Revenues
Revenues from our residential and commercial natural gas distribution activities are affected by
seasonal variations in weather conditions, which directly influence the volume of natural gas
sold and delivered. Specifically, customer demand substantially increases during the winter
months, when natural gas is used for heating. Accordingly, the volumes sold for this purpose are
directly affected by the severity of winter weather and can vary substantially from year to
year. Sustained warmer-than-normal temperatures will tend to reduce use of natural gas, while
sustained colder-than-normal temperatures will tend to increase consumption. We measure the
relative impact of weather by using an accepted degree-day methodology. Degree-day data is used
to estimate amounts of energy required to maintain comfortable indoor temperature levels based
on each days average temperature. A degree-day is the measure of the variation in the weather
based on the extent to which the average daily temperature (from 10:00 am to 10:00 am) falls
below 65 degrees Fahrenheit. Each degree of temperature below 65 degrees Fahrenheit is counted
as one heating degree-day. Normal heating degree-days are based on the most recent 10-year
average.
For the electric distribution operations in northeast and northwest Florida, hot summers and
cold winters produce year-round electric sales that normally do not have large seasonal
fluctuations.
In an effort to stabilize the level of net revenues collected from customers regardless of
weather conditions, we received approval from the Maryland Public Service Commission (Maryland
PSC) on September 26, 2006 to
implement a weather normalization adjustment for our residential heating and smaller commercial
heating customers. A weather normalization adjustment is a billing adjustment mechanism that is
designed to eliminate the effect of deviations from average seasonal temperatures on utility net
revenues.
Page 10 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
(ii) Unregulated Energy
Our unregulated energy segment provides natural gas marketing, propane distribution and propane
wholesale marketing services to customers.
Natural Gas Marketing
Our natural gas marketing subsidiary, PESCO, provides natural gas supply and supply
management services to 2,123 customers in Florida and 11 customers on the Delmarva
Peninsula. It competes with regulated utilities and other unregulated third-party marketers
to sell natural gas supplies directly to commercial and industrial customers through
competitively-priced contracts. PESCO does not own or operate any natural gas transmission
or distribution assets. The gas that PESCO sells is delivered to retail customers through
affiliated and non-affiliated local distribution company systems and transmission pipelines.
PESCO bills its customers through the billing services of the regulated utilities that
deliver the gas, or directly, through its own billing capabilities. For the year ended
December 31, 2009, PESCOs operating revenues and deliveries were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Revenues |
|
|
Deliveries |
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
(Mcfs) |
|
Florida |
|
$ |
41,117 |
|
|
|
72 |
% |
|
|
7,066,144 |
|
|
|
71 |
% |
Delmarva |
|
|
16,386 |
|
|
|
28 |
% |
|
|
2,818,844 |
|
|
|
29 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
57,503 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
9,884,988 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PESCO currently has contracts with natural gas production companies for the purchase of
firm natural gas supplies. These contracts provide a maximum firm daily entitlement of
35,000 Mcfs, and expire in May of 2010. PESCO is currently in the process of obtaining and
reviewing proposals from suppliers and anticipates executing agreements prior to the end of
the term of the existing contracts.
Included in PESCOs operating revenue on the Delmarva Peninsula for 2009 was approximately
$10.6 million of various natural gas spot sales and services to Valero Energy Corporation
(Valero) for its Delaware City refinery operation. We previously reported on November 25,
2009 in a Form 8-K that Valero announced its intention to permanently shut down its Delaware
City refinery. Spot sales are not predictable, and, therefore, are not included in our
long-term financial plans or forecasts; nor do we anticipate sales to Valero in the future.
Propane Distribution
Propane is a form of liquefied petroleum gas, which is typically extracted from natural gas
or separated during the crude oil refining process. Although propane is a gas at normal
pressure, it is easily compressed into liquid form for storage and transportation. Propane
is a clean-burning fuel, gaining increased recognition for its environmental superiority,
safety, efficiency, transportability and ease of use relative to alternative forms of fossil
fuels. Propane is sold primarily in suburban and rural areas, which are not served by
natural gas distributors.
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 11
Sharp, our propane distribution subsidiary, serves 33,088 customers throughout Delaware, the
Eastern Shore of Maryland and Virginia and southeastern Pennsylvania. Sharps Florida
operation offers propane distribution services to 1,941 customers in parts of Florida. After
the merger with FPU, 1,642 customers previously served by Sharps Florida propane
distribution operation are now being served by FPUs propane distribution operation in an
effort to integrate operations. For the year ended December 31, 2009, operating revenues
and total gallons sold by Sharps Delmarva and Florida propane distribution operations were
as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Revenues |
|
|
Total Gallons Sold |
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
Delmarva |
|
$ |
54,850 |
|
|
|
96 |
% |
|
|
30,635 |
|
|
|
97 |
% |
Florida |
|
|
2,357 |
|
|
|
4 |
% |
|
|
853 |
|
|
|
3 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
57,207 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
31,488 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FPU has 13,651 propane distribution customers, including the customers previously
served by Sharps propane distribution operation in Florida as previously discussed, which
increased our propane customer base in Florida. For the period from the merger closing (on
October 28, 2009) to December 31, 2009, operating revenue and total gallons delivered to
these new customers were $3.0 million and 1.1 million gallons. FPUs total propane
deliveries in the full calendar year 2009, including the deliveries for the period prior to
the merger, were 5.7 million gallons.
Propane Wholesale Marketing.
Xeron, our propane wholesale marketing operation, markets propane to large, independent
petrochemical companies, resellers and retail propane companies in the southeastern United
States. The propane wholesale marketing business is affected by the propane wholesale price
volatility and supply levels. In 2009, Xeron had operating revenues totaling approximately
$2.3 million, net of the associated cost of propane sold. For further discussion on Xerons
trading and wholesale marketing activities, market risks and controls that monitor Xerons
risks, see Item 7 under the heading Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations Market Risk.
Xeron does not own physical storage facilities or equipment to transport propane; however,
it contracts for storage and pipeline capacity to facilitate the sale of propane on a
wholesale basis.
Supplies, Transportation and Storage
Our propane distribution operations purchase propane primarily from suppliers, including major
oil companies, independent producers of natural gas liquids and from Xeron. Supplies of propane
from these and other sources are readily available for purchase.
Our propane distribution operations use trucks and railroad cars to transport propane from
refineries, natural gas processing plants or pipeline terminals to our bulk storage facilities.
We own bulk propane storage facilities with an aggregate capacity of approximately 3.0 million
gallons at various locations in Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Florida. From
these storage facilities, propane is delivered by bobtail trucks, owned and operated by us, to
tanks located at the customers premises.
Competition
See discussion of competition in Item 7 under the heading Managements Discussion and Analysis
of Financial Condition and Results of Operations Competition.
Rates and Regulation
Natural gas marketing, propane distribution and propane wholesale marketing activities are not
subject to any federal or state pricing regulation. Transport operations are subject to
regulations concerning the transportation of hazardous materials promulgated by the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration within the United States Department of Transportation
(DOT) and enforced by the various states in which such operations take place. Propane
distribution operations are also subject to state safety regulations relating to hook-up and
placement of propane tanks.
Page 12 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
Seasonality of Propane Revenues
Revenues from our propane distribution sales activities are affected by seasonal variations in
weather conditions. Weather conditions directly influence the volume of propane sold and
delivered to customers; specifically, customers demand substantially increases during the
winter months when propane is used for heating. Accordingly, the propane volumes sold for this
purpose are directly affected by the severity of winter weather and can vary substantially from
year to year. Sustained warmer-than-normal temperatures will tend to reduce propane use, while
sustained colder-than-normal temperatures will tend to increase consumption.
(iii) Other
The Other segment consists primarily of our advanced information services subsidiary, other
unregulated subsidiaries that own real estate leased to Chesapeake and its subsidiaries and
certain unallocated corporate costs. Certain corporate costs that have not been allocated to
different operations consist of merger-related costs that have been expensed and have not been
allocated because such costs are not directly attributable to the business unit operations.
Advanced Information Services
Our advanced information services subsidiary, BravePoint, is headquartered in Norcross, Georgia,
and provides domestic and international clients with information technology services and
solutions for both enterprise and e-business applications.
Other Subsidiaries
Skipjack, Inc. and Eastern Shore Real Estate, Inc. own and lease office buildings in Delaware
and Maryland to affiliates of Chesapeake. Chesapeake Investment Company is an affiliated
investment company registered in Delaware.
(c) Other information about the Business
(i) Capital Budget
A discussion of capital expenditures by business segment and capital expenditures for
environmental remediation facilities is included in Item 7 under the heading Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations Liquidity and Capital
Resources.
(ii) Employees
As of December 31, 2009, we had a total of 757 employees, including 332 employees who joined the
Company as a result of the recent merger with FPU, 162 of whom are union employees represented by
three labor unions: the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the International
Chemical Workers Union and United Food and Commercial Workers Union, all of whose collective
bargaining agreements expire in 2010.
(iii) Financial Information about Geographic Areas
All of our material operations, customers, and assets occur and are located in the United States.
(d) Available Information
As a public company, we file annual, quarterly and other reports, as well as our annual proxy
statement and other information, with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The public
may read and copy any materials that we file with the SEC at the SECs Public Reference Room at
100 F Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20549-5546; the public may obtain information on the operation
of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330.
The SEC also maintains an Internet site that contains reports, proxy and information statements
and other information regarding the Company. The address of the SECs Internet website is
www.sec.gov. We make available, free of charge, on our Internet website, our Annual Report on
Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those
reports, as soon as reasonably practicable after such reports are electronically filed with or
furnished to the SEC. The address of our Internet website is www.chpk.com. The content of this
website is not part of this report.
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 13
We have a Business Code of Ethics and Conduct applicable to all employees, officers and directors
and a Code of Ethics for Financial Officers. Copies of the Business Code of Ethics and Conduct
and the Financial Officer Code of Ethics are available on our Internet website. We also adopted
Corporate Governance Guidelines and Charters for the Audit Committee, Compensation Committee, and
Corporate Governance Committee of the Board of Directors, each of which satisfies the regulatory
requirements established by the SEC and the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). The Board of
Directors has also adopted Corporate Governance Guidelines on Director Independence, which
conform to the NYSE listing standards on director independence. Each of these documents also is
available on our Internet website or may be obtained by writing to: Corporate Secretary; c/o
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation, 909 Silver Lake Blvd., Dover, DE 19904.
If we make any amendment to, or grant a waiver of, any provision of the Business Code of Ethics
and Conduct or the Code of Ethics for Financial Officers applicable to our principal executive
officer, president, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer or controller, the amendment
or waiver will be disclosed within four business days in a press
release, by website disclosure, or by filing a current report on Form
8-K with the SEC.
Our Chief Executive Officer certified to the NYSE on June 1, 2009 that, as of that date, he was
unaware of any violation by Chesapeake of the NYSEs corporate governance listing standards.
Item 1A. Risk Factors.
The following is a discussion of the primary financial, operational, regulatory and legal, and
environmental risk factors that may affect the operations and/or financial performance of our
regulated and unregulated businesses. Refer to the section entitled Managements Discussion and
Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations under Item 7 of this report for an
additional discussion of these and other related factors that affect our operations and/or
financial performance.
Financial Risks
The anticipated benefits of the merger with FPU may not be realized.
We entered into the merger with FPU with the expectation that the merger would result in various
benefits, including, among other things, synergies, cost savings and operating efficiencies.
Achieving these synergies, cost savings and operating efficiencies cannot be assured and failure to
achieve these benefits will adversely affect expected future performance of the Company. In
addition, the regulatory agencies that have jurisdiction over our regulated energy businesses and
operations may require us to pass on some, or all, of the achieved cost savings to ratepayers.
Instability and volatility in the financial markets could have a negative impact on our growth
strategy.
Our business strategy includes the continued pursuit of growth, both organically and through
acquisitions. To the extent that we do not generate sufficient cash from operations, we may incur
additional indebtedness to finance our growth. The turmoil experienced in the credit markets in
2008 and 2009 and its potential impact on the liquidity of major financial institutions may have an
adverse effect on our customers and our ability to fund our business strategy through borrowings,
under either existing or newly created arrangements in the public or private markets on terms we
believe to be reasonable. Specifically, we rely on access to both short-term and long-term capital
markets as a significant source of liquidity for capital requirements not satisfied by the cash
flows from our operations. Currently, $40 million of the total $100 million of short-term lines of
credit utilized to satisfy our short-term financing requirements are discretionary, uncommitted
lines of credit. We utilize discretionary lines of credit to reduce the cost associated with these
short-term financing requirements. We are committed to maintaining a sound capital structure and
strong credit ratings to provide the financial flexibility needed to access the capital markets
when required. However, if we are not able to access capital at competitive rates, our ability to
implement our strategic plan, undertake improvements and make other investments required for our
future growth may be limited.
Page 14 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
Unsound financial institutions could adversely affect the Company.
Our businesses have exposure to different industries and counterparties, and may periodically
execute transactions with counterparties in the financial services industry, including brokers and
dealers, commercial banks, investment banks and other institutional clients. These transactions may
expose us to credit risk in the event of default of a counterparty or client. There can be no
assurance that any such losses or impairments would not materially and adversely affect our
businesses and results of operations.
A downgrade in our credit rating could adversely affect our access to capital markets and our cost
of capital.
Our ability to obtain adequate and cost-effective capital depends on our credit ratings, which are
greatly affected by our financial performance and the liquidity of financial markets. A downgrade
in our current credit ratings could adversely affect our access to capital markets, as well as our
cost of capital.
Debt covenant obligations, if triggered, may affect our financial condition.
Our long-term debt obligations and committed short-term lines of credit contain financial covenants
related to debt-to-capital ratios and interest-coverage ratios. Failure to comply with any of these
covenants could result in an event of default which, if not cured or waived, could result in the
acceleration of outstanding debt obligations or the inability to borrow under certain credit
agreements. Any such acceleration would cause a material adverse change in our financial condition.
The continuation of recent economic conditions could adversely affect our customers and negatively
impact our financial results.
The slowdown in the U.S. economy, together with increased unemployment, mortgage and other
credit defaults and significant decreases in the values of homes and investment assets, have
adversely affected the financial resources of many domestic households. It is unclear whether
governmental responses to these conditions will be successful in lessening the severity or duration
of the current recession. As a result, our customers may use less natural gas, electricity or
propane and it may become more difficult for them to pay their bills. This may slow collections and
lead to higher than normal levels of accounts receivable, which in turn, could increase our
financing requirements and result in higher bad debt expense.
Further changes in economic conditions and interest rates may adversely affect our results of
operations and cash flows.
A continued downturn in the economies of the regions in which we operate might adversely affect our
ability to increase our customer base and cash flows at historical rates. Further, an increase in
interest rates, without the recovery of the higher cost of debt in the sales and/or transportation
rates we charge our utility customers, could adversely affect future earnings. An increase in
short-term interest rates would negatively affect our results of operations, which depend on
short-term lines of credit to finance accounts receivable and storage gas inventories, and to
temporarily finance capital expenditures.
Inflation may impact our results of operations, cash flows and financial position.
Inflation affects the cost of supply, labor, products and services required for operations,
maintenance and capital improvements. To help cope with the effects of inflation on our capital
investments and returns, we seek rate increases from regulatory commissions for regulated
operations and closely monitor the returns of our unregulated operations. There can be no assurance
that we will be able to obtain adequate and timely rate increases to offset the effects of
inflation. To compensate for fluctuations in propane gas prices, we adjust our propane selling
prices to the extent allowed by the market. There can be no assurance, however, that we will be
able to increase propane sales prices sufficiently to compensate fully for such fluctuations in the
cost of propane gas to us.
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 15
Our operations are exposed to market risks, beyond our control, which could adversely affect our
financial results and capital requirements.
Our natural gas marketing operation and propane wholesale marketing operation are subject to
market risks beyond their control, including market liquidity and commodity price volatility.
Although we maintain a risk management policy, we may not be able to offset completely the price
risk associated with volatile commodity prices, which could lead to volatility in earnings.
Physical trading also has price risk on any net open positions at the end of each trading day, as
well as volatility resulting from: (i) intra-day fluctuations of natural gas and/or propane prices,
and (ii) daily price movements between the time natural gas and/or propane is purchased or sold for
future delivery and the time the related purchase or sale is hedged. The determination of our net
open position at the end of any trading day requires Xeron to make assumptions as to future
circumstances, including the use of natural gas and/or propane by its customers in relation to its
anticipated market positions. Because the price risk associated with any net open position at the
end of such day may increase if the assumptions are not realized, we review these assumptions
daily. Net open positions may increase volatility in our financial condition or results of
operations if market prices move in a significantly favorable or unfavorable manner, because the
timing of the recognition of profits or losses on the economic hedges for financial accounting
purposes usually does not match up with the timing of the economic profits or losses on the item
being hedged. This volatility may occur, with a resulting increase or decrease in earnings or
losses, even though the expected profit margin is essentially unchanged from the date the
transactions were consummated.
Our energy marketing subsidiaries have credit risk and credit requirements that may adversely
affect our results of operations, cash flows and financial condition.
Our energy marketing subsidiaries extend credit to counterparties and continually monitor and
manage collections aggressively. Each of these subsidiaries is exposed to the risk that it may not
be able to collect amounts owed to it. If the counterparty to such a transaction fails to perform,
and any underlying collateral is inadequate, we could experience financial losses. These
subsidiaries are also dependent upon the availability of credit to buy propane and natural gas for
resale or to trade. If financial market conditions decline generally, or the financial condition of
these subsidiaries or of the Company declines, then the cost of credit available to these
subsidiaries could increase. If credit is not available, or if credit is more costly, our results
of operations, cash flows and financial condition may be adversely affected.
Current market conditions have had an adverse impact on the return on plan assets for our pension
plans, which may require significant additional funding and adversely affect the Companys cash
flows.
We have pension plans that have been closed to new employees. The costs of providing benefits and
related funding requirements of these plans are subject to changes in the market value of the
assets that fund the plans. As a result of
the extreme volatility and disruption in the domestic and international equity and bond markets in
recent years, the asset values of Chesapeakes and FPUs pension plans declined by $2.4 million and
$2.8 million, respectively, since 2008. The funded status of the plans and the related costs
reflected in our financial statements are affected by various factors that are subject to an
inherent degree of uncertainty, particularly in the current economic environment. Future losses of
asset values may necessitate accelerated funding of the plans in the future to meet minimum federal
government requirements. Downward pressure on the asset values of our pension plans may require us
to fund obligations earlier than originally planned, which would have an adverse impact on our cash
flows from operations, decrease borrowing capacity and increase interest expense.
Operational Risks
We may be unable to successfully integrate operations after the merger.
The merger between Chesapeake and FPU involves the integration of two companies that have
previously operated independently. The difficulties of combining the companies operations include,
among other things:
|
|
|
the necessity of coordinating geographically separated organizations, systems and facilities; |
|
|
|
combining the best practices of the two companies, including operations, financial and
administrative functions; and |
|
|
|
integrating personnel with diverse business backgrounds and different contractual terms
and conditions of employment. |
Page 16 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
The process of integrating operations could cause an interruption of, or loss of momentum in, the
activities of one or more of our businesses and the loss of key personnel. We will be subject to
employee workforce factors, including loss of employees, availability of qualified personnel,
collective bargaining agreements with unions and work stoppages that could affect our business and
financial condition. Our management team comprised of key personnel from both Chesapeake and FPU
has dedicated substantial efforts to integrating the businesses. Such efforts could divert
managements focus and resources from other strategic opportunities during the integration process.
The diversion of managements attention and any delays or difficulties encountered in connection
with the merger and the integration of the two companies operations could result in the disruption
of our ongoing businesses or inconsistencies in standards, controls, procedures and policies that
adversely affect our ability to maintain relationships with customers, suppliers, employees and
others with whom we have business dealings.
Fluctuations in weather may adversely affect our results of operations, cash flows and financial
condition.
Our natural gas and propane distribution operations are sensitive to fluctuations in weather
conditions, which directly influence the volume of natural gas and propane sold and delivered. A
significant portion of our natural gas and propane distribution revenues is derived from the sales
and deliveries of natural gas and propane to residential and commercial heating customers during
the five-month peak heating season (November through March). If the weather is warmer than normal,
we sell and deliver less natural gas and propane to customers, and earn less revenue. In addition,
hurricanes or other extreme weather conditions could damage production or transportation
facilities, which could result in decreased supplies of natural gas, propane and electricity,
increased supply costs and higher prices for customers.
Our electric operations, while generally less weather sensitive than natural gas and propane sales,
are also affected by variations in general weather conditions and unusually severe weather.
The amount and availability of natural gas, electricity and propane supplies are difficult to
predict; a substantial reduction in available supplies could reduce our earnings in those segments.
Natural gas, electricity and propane production can be affected by factors beyond our control, such
as weather, closings of generation facilities and refineries. If we are unable to obtain sufficient
natural gas, electricity and propane supplies to meet demand, results in those businesses may be
adversely affected.
We rely on a limited number of natural gas, electric and propane suppliers, the loss of which could
have a materially adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.
Our natural gas distribution and marketing operations, electric distribution operation and propane
operations have entered into various agreements with suppliers to purchase natural gas, electricity
and propane to serve their customers. The loss of any significant suppliers or our inability to
renew these contracts at favorable terms upon their expiration could significantly affect our
ability to serve our customers and have a material adverse impact on our financial condition and
results of operations.
We rely on having access to interstate natural gas pipelines transmission and storage capacity and
electric transmission capacity; a substantial disruption or lack of growth in these services may
impair our ability to meet customers existing and future requirements.
In order to meet existing and future customer demands for natural gas and electricity, we must
acquire both sufficient natural gas supplies, interstate pipeline transmission and storage
capacity, and electric transmission capacity to serve such requirements. We must contract for
reliable and adequate delivery capacity for our distribution systems while considering the dynamics
of the interstate pipeline and storage and electric transmission markets, our own on-system
resources, as well as the characteristics of our markets. Our financial condition and results of
operations would be materially and adversely affected if the future availability of these
capacities were insufficient to meet future customer demands for natural gas and electricity.
Currently, all of FPUs natural gas is transported through one pipeline system. Any interruption to
that system could adversely affect our ability to meet the demands of FPUs customers and our
earnings.
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 17
Commodity price changes may affect the operating costs and competitive positions of our natural
gas, electric and propane distribution operations, which may adversely affect our results of
operations, cash flows and financial condition.
Natural Gas/Electric. Higher natural gas prices can significantly increase the cost of gas
billed to our natural gas customers. Increases in the cost of coal and other fuels can
significantly increase the cost of electricity billed to our electric customers. Such cost
increases generally have no immediate effect on our revenues and net income because of our
regulated fuel cost recovery mechanisms. Our net income, however, may be reduced by higher expenses
that we may incur for uncollectible customer accounts and by lower volumes of natural gas and
electricity deliveries when customers reduce their consumption. Therefore, increases in the price
of natural gas, coal and other fuels can affect our operating cash flows and the competitiveness of
natural gas/electricity as energy sources and consequently have an adverse effect on our operating
cash flows.
Propane. Propane costs are subject to volatile changes as a result of product supply or
other market conditions, including weather and economic and political factors affecting crude oil
and natural gas supply or pricing. Such cost changes can occur rapidly and can affect
profitability. There is no assurance that we will be able to pass on propane cost increases fully
or immediately, particularly when propane costs increase rapidly. Therefore, average retail sales
prices can vary significantly from year to year as product costs fluctuate in response to propane,
fuel oil, crude oil and natural gas commodity market conditions. In addition, in periods of
sustained higher commodity prices, declines in retail sales volumes due to reduced consumption and
increased amounts of uncollectible accounts may adversely affect net income.
Our propane inventory is subject to inventory risk, which may adversely affect our results of
operations and financial condition.
Our propane distribution operations own bulk propane storage facilities, with an aggregate capacity
of approximately 3.0 million gallons. We purchase and store propane based on several factors,
including inventory levels and the price outlook. We may purchase large volumes of propane at
current market prices during periods of low demand and low prices, which generally occur during the
summer months. Propane is a commodity, and, as such, its unit price is subject to volatile
fluctuations in response to changes in supply or other market conditions. We have no control over
these market conditions. Consequently, the unit price of the propane that we purchase can change
rapidly over a short period of time. The market price for propane could fall below the price at
which we made the purchases, which would adversely affect our profits or cause sales from that
inventory to be unprofitable. In addition, falling propane prices may result in inventory
write-downs as required by U.S. generally accepted
accounting principles (GAAP) if the market price of propane falls below our weighted average cost
of inventory, which could adversely affect net income.
Operating events affecting public safety and the reliability our natural gas and electric
distribution systems could adversely affect the results of operations, cash flows and financial
condition.
Our business is exposed to operational events, such as major leaks, mechanical problems and
accidents, that could affect the public safety and reliability of our natural gas distribution and
transmission systems, significantly increase costs and cause loss of customer confidence. The
occurrence of any such operational events could adversely affect the results of operations,
financial condition and cash flows. If we are unable to recover from customers, through the
regulatory process, all or some of these costs and our authorized rate of return on these costs,
this also could adversely affect the results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
Our electric operation is subject to various operational risks, including accidents, outages,
equipment breakdowns or failures, or operations below expected levels of performance or efficiency.
Problems such as the breakdown or failure of electric equipment or processes and interruptions in
service which would result in performance below expected levels of output or efficiency,
particularly if extended for prolonged periods of time, could have a materially adverse effect on
our financial condition and results of operations.
Page 18 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
Because we operate in a competitive environment, we may lose customers to competitors which could
adversely affect our results of operations, cash flows and financial condition.
Natural Gas. Our natural gas marketing operations compete with third-party suppliers to
sell natural gas to commercial and industrial customers. Our natural gas transmission and
distribution operations compete with interstate pipelines when our transmission and/or distribution
customers are located close enough to a competing pipeline to make direct connections economically
feasible. Failure to retain and grow our customer base in the natural gas operations would have an
adverse effect on our financial condition, cash flows and results of operations.
Electric. While there is active wholesale power sales competition in Florida, our retail
electric business through FPU has remained substantially free from direct competition. Changes in
the competitive environment caused by legislation, regulation, market conditions or initiatives of
other electric power providers, particularly with respect to retail competition, could adversely
affect our results of operations, cash flows and financial condition.
Propane. Our propane distribution operations compete with other propane distributors,
primarily on the basis of service and price. Some of our competitors have significantly greater
resources. Our ability to grow the propane distribution business is contingent upon capturing
additional market share, expanding new service territories, and successfully utilizing pricing
programs that retain and grow our customer base. Failure to retain and grow our customer base in
our propane gas operations would have an adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows
and financial condition.
Our propane wholesale marketing operations will compete against various marketers, many of which
have significantly greater resources and are able to obtain price or volumetric advantages.
Changes in technology may adversely affect our advanced information services subsidiarys results
of operations, cash flows and financial condition.
BravePoint participates in a market that is characterized by rapidly changing technology and
accelerating product introduction cycles. The success of our advanced information services
operation depends upon our ability to address the rapidly changing needs of our customers by
developing and supplying high-quality, cost-effective products, product enhancements and services,
on a timely basis, and by keeping pace with technological developments and emerging industry
standards. There is no assurance that we will be able to keep up with technological advancements to
the degree necessary to keep our products and services competitive.
Our use of derivative instruments may adversely affect our results of operations.
Fluctuating commodity prices may affect our earnings and financing costs because our propane
distribution and wholesale marketing operations use derivative instruments, including forwards,
futures, swaps and puts, to hedge price risk. In addition, we have utilized in the past, and may
decide, after further evaluation, to continue to utilize derivative instruments to hedge price
risk. While we have a risk management policy and operating procedures in place to control our
exposure to risk, if we purchase derivative instruments that are not properly matched to our
exposure, our results of operations, cash flows, and financial condition may be adversely affected.
Changes in customer growth may affect earnings and cash flows.
Our ability to increase gross margins in our regulated energy and unregulated propane distribution
businesses is dependent upon growth in the residential construction market, adding new commercial
and industrial customers and conversion of customers to natural gas, electricity or propane from
other fuel sources. Slowdowns in these markets have and will continue to adversely affect our gross
margin in our regulated energy or propane distribution businesses, earnings and cash flows.
Our businesses are capital intensive, and the costs of capital projects may be significant.
Our businesses are capital intensive and require significant investments in internal infrastructure
projects. Our results of operations and financial condition could be adversely affected if we do
not pursue or are unable to manage such capital projects effectively or if full recovery of such
capital costs is not permitted in future regulatory proceedings.
Chesapeake
Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 19
Our facilities and operations could be targets of acts of terrorism.
Our natural gas and electric distribution, natural gas transmission and propane storage
facilities may be targets of terrorist activities that could disrupt our ability to meet customer
requirements. Terrorist attacks may also disrupt capital markets and our ability to raise capital.
A terrorist attack on our facilities, or those of our suppliers or customers, could result in a
significant decrease in revenues or a significant increase in repair costs, which could adversely
affect our results of operations, financial position and cash flows.
The risk of terrorism and political unrest and the current hostilities in the Middle East may
adversely affect the economy and the price and availability of propane, refined fuels, electricity
and natural gas.
Terrorist attacks, political unrest and the current hostilities in the Middle East may adversely
affect the price and availability of propane, refined fuels and natural gas, as well as our results
of operations, our ability to raise capital and our future growth. The impact that the foregoing
may have on our industry in general, and on us in particular, is not known at this time. An act of
terror could result in disruptions of crude oil, electricity or natural gas supplies and markets,
and our infrastructure facilities could be direct or indirect targets. Terrorist activity may also
hinder our ability to transport/transmit propane, electricity and natural gas if our means of
supply transportation, such as rail, power grid or pipeline, become damaged as a result of an
attack. A lower level of economic activity following such events could result in a decline in
energy consumption, which could adversely affect our revenues or restrict our future growth.
Instability in the financial markets as a result of terrorism could also affect our ability to
raise capital. Terrorist activity and hostilities in the Middle East could likely lead to increased
volatility in prices for propane, refined fuels, electricity and natural gas. We maintain insurance
policies with insurers in such amounts and with such coverage and deductibles as we believe are
reasonable and prudent. There can be no assurance, however, that such insurance will be adequate to
protect us from all material expenses related to potential future claims for personal injury and
property damage or that such levels of insurance will be available in the future at economical
prices.
Operational interruptions to our natural gas transmission and natural gas and electric distribution
activities, caused by accidents, malfunctions, severe weather (such as a major hurricane), a
pandemic or acts of terrorism, could adversely impact earnings.
Inherent in natural gas transmission and natural gas and electric distribution activities are a
variety of hazards and operational risks, such as leaks, ruptures, fires, explosions and mechanical
problems. If they are severe enough or if
they lead to operational interruptions, they could cause substantial financial losses. In addition,
these risks could result in the loss of human life, significant damage to property, environmental
damage and impairment of our operations. The location of pipeline, storage, transmission and
distribution facilities near populated areas, including residential areas, commercial business
centers, industrial sites and other public gathering places, could increase the level of damages
resulting from these risks. The occurrence of any of these events could adversely affect our
results of operations, cash flows and financial condition.
Our regulated energy business will be at risk if franchise agreements are not renewed.
Our regulated natural gas and electric distribution operations hold franchises in each of the
incorporated municipalities that require franchise agreements in order to provide natural gas and
electricity. Our natural gas and electric distribution operations are currently in negotiations for
franchises with certain municipalities for new service areas and renewal of some existing
franchises. Ongoing financial results would be adversely impacted from the loss of service to
certain operating areas within our electric or natural gas territories in the event that franchise
agreements were not renewed.
A strike, work stoppage or a labor dispute could adversely affect our results of operation.
We are party to collective bargaining agreements with various labor unions at some of our Florida
operations. A strike, work stoppage or a labor dispute with a union or employees represented by a
union could cause interruption to our operations. If a strike, work stoppage or other labor
dispute were to occur, our results could be adversely affected.
Page 20 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
Regulatory and Legal Risks
Regulation of the Company, including changes in the regulatory environment, may adversely affect
our results of operations, cash flows and financial condition.
The Delaware, Maryland and Florida PSCs regulate our utility operations in those states. ESNG is
regulated by the FERC. These commissions set the rates that we can charge customers for services
subject to their regulatory jurisdiction. Our ability to obtain timely future rate increases and
rate supplements to maintain current rates of return depends on regulatory approvals, and there can
be no assurance that our regulated operations will be able to obtain such approvals or maintain
currently authorized rates of return.
We are dependent upon construction of new facilities to support future growth in earnings in our
natural gas and electric distribution and natural gas transmission operations.
Construction of new facilities required to support future growth is subject to various regulatory
and developmental risks, including but not limited to: (a) our ability to obtain necessary
approvals and permits from regulatory agencies on a timely basis and on terms that are acceptable
to us; (b) potential changes in federal, state and local statutes and regulations, including
environmental requirements, that prevent a project from proceeding or increase the anticipated cost
of the project; (c) inability to acquire rights-of-way or land rights on a timely basis on terms
that are acceptable to us; (d) lack of anticipated future growth in available natural gas and
electricity supply; and (e) insufficient customer throughput commitments.
We are subject to operating and litigation risks that may not be fully covered by insurance.
Our operations are subject to the operating hazards and risks normally incidental to handling,
storing, transporting/ transmitting and delivering natural gas, electricity and propane to end
users. As a result, we are sometimes a defendant in legal proceedings arising in the ordinary
course of business. We maintain insurance policies with insurers in the amount of $50 million
covering general liabilities of the Company, which we believe are reasonable and prudent. There can
be no assurance, however, that such insurance will be adequate to protect us from all material
expenses related to potential future claims for personal injury and property damage or that such
levels of insurance will be available in the future at economical prices.
We have recorded significant amounts of goodwill and regulatory assets prior to obtaining a rate
order. An adverse outcome could result in an impairment of those assets.
The merger with FPU resulted in approximately $33.4 million in purchase premium which is currently
recorded as goodwill. We also incurred approximately $3.0 million in merger-related costs, $1.5
million of which was deferred as a regulatory asset. We will be seeking regulatory approval to
include these amounts in future rates in Florida. Other utilities in Florida, including Chesapeake
and FPU in the past, have been successful in recovering similar costs by demonstrating benefits to
customers attributable to the business combination. The ultimate outcome of such regulatory
proceedings will depend on various factors, including but not limited to, our ability to achieve
the anticipated benefits of the merger, the future regulatory environment in Florida and the future
results of our Florida regulated operations. If we are not successful in obtaining regulatory
approval to recover these costs in future rates, we will be required to perform impairment tests of
goodwill and regulatory assets, the results of which could be an impairment of all or part of the
goodwill and/or regulatory assets in the future.
Environmental Risks
Costs of compliance with environmental laws may be significant.
We are subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations governing environmental quality and
pollution control. These evolving laws and regulations may require expenditures over a long period
of time to control environmental effects at current and former operating sites, including former
manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites that we have acquired from third-parties. Compliance with
these legal obligations requires us to commit capital. If we fail to comply with environmental laws
and regulations, even if such failure is caused by factors beyond our control, we may be assessed
civil or criminal penalties and fines.
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 21
To date, we have been able to recover, through regulatory rate mechanisms, the costs associated
with the remediation of former MGP sites. There is no guarantee, however, that we will be able to
recover future remediation costs in the same manner or at all. A change in our approved rate
mechanisms for recovery of environmental remediation costs at former MGP sites could adversely
affect our results of operations, cash flows and financial condition.
Further, existing environmental laws and regulations may be revised, or new laws and regulations
seeking to protect the environment may be adopted and be applicable to us. Revised or additional
laws and regulations could result in additional operating restrictions on our facilities or
increased compliance costs, which may not be fully recoverable.
We may be exposed to certain regulatory and financial risks related to climate change.
Climate change is receiving ever increasing attention from scientists, legislators and regulators
alike. The debate is ongoing as to the extent to which our climate is changing, the potential
causes of this change and its potential impacts. Some attribute global warming to increased levels
of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, which has led to significant legislative and
regulatory efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
There are a number of legislative and regulatory proposals to address greenhouse gas emissions,
which are in various phases of discussion or implementation. The outcome of federal and state
actions to address global climate change could result in a variety of regulatory programs,
including potential new regulations, additional charges to fund energy efficiency activities, or
other regulatory actions. These actions could:
|
|
|
result in increased costs associated with our operations; |
|
|
|
increase other costs to our business; |
|
|
|
affect the demand for natural gas, electricity and propane; and |
|
|
|
impact the prices we charge our customers. |
Any action taken by federal or state governments mandating a substantial reduction in greenhouse
gas emissions could have far-reaching and significant impacts on the energy industry. We cannot
predict the potential impact of such laws or regulations on our future consolidated financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.
Pending environmental matters, particularly with respect to FPUs site in West Palm Beach, Florida,
may have a materially adverse effect on the Company and our results of operations.
We have participated in the investigation, assessment or remediation of environmental matters with
respect to certain of our properties and we believe the Company has certain exposures at six former
MGP sites. Those sites are located in Salisbury, Maryland, and Winter
Haven, Key West, Pensacola, Sanford and West Palm Beach, Florida. We have also been in discussions
with the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) regarding a seventh former MGP site located
in Cambridge, Maryland. The Key West, Pensacola, Sanford and West Palm Beach sites are related to
FPU, for which we assumed any existing and future contingencies in the merger with FPU.
Pursuant to a consent order that FPU entered into with the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (the FDEP) prior to our merger with FPU, FPU is obligated to assess and remediate
environmental impacts to soil and groundwater resulting from operation of the former West Palm
Beach MGP. Following completion of the assessment task, FPU retained a consultant to perform a
feasibility study to evaluate appropriate remedies for the site to respond to the reported
environmental impacts. The feasibility study was performed and subsequently revised as a result of
additional testing conducted at the site and extensive discussions with FDEP. The revised
feasibility study evaluates several alternative remedies for the site. Discussions with FDEP are
continuing, regarding selection of an appropriate remedy for the West Palm Beach site. Our current
estimate of total remediation costs and expenses, including legal and consulting expenses, for the
West Palm Beach site based on the likely remedy we believe will be approved by FDEP is between $7.8
million and $19.4 million; however, actual costs may be higher or lower than such range based upon
the final remedy required by FDEP.
Page 22 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
As of December 31, 2009, we had
recorded $531,000 in environmental liabilities related to
Chesapeakes MGP sites in Maryland and Winter Haven, Florida, representing our estimate of the
future costs associated with those sites. We had recorded approximately $1.7 million in assets for
future recovery of environmental costs to be received from our customers through our approved
rates. As of December 31, 2009, we had recorded approximately $12.3 million in environmental
liabilities related to FPUs MGP sites in Florida, primarily related to the West Palm Beach site.
Such amount represents our estimate as of December 31, 2009, of the future costs associated with
those sites, although FPU is approved to recover its environmental costs up to $14.0 million from
insurance and customers through approved rates. Of the approximately $12.3 million recorded as
environmental liabilities related to FPUs MGP sites in Florida as of December 31, 2009, we have
recovered approximately $5.7 million of environmental costs from insurance and customers through
rates, and have recorded approximately $6.6 million in assets for future recovery of environmental
costs to be received from FPUs customers through approved rates.
The costs and expenses we incur to address environmental issues at our sites may have a material
adverse effect on our results of operations and earnings to the extent that such costs and expenses
exceed the amounts we have accrued as environmental reserves or that we are otherwise permitted to
recover from customers through rates,. At present, we believe that the amounts accrued as
environmental reserves and that we are otherwise permitted to recover from customers through rates
are sufficient to fund the pending environmental liabilities described above.
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.
None.
Item 2. Properties.
(a) General
We own offices and operate facilities in the following locations: Pocomoke, Salisbury, Cambridge
and Princess Anne, Maryland; Dover, Seaford, Laurel and Georgetown, Delaware; Lecanto, Virginia;
and West Palm Beach, DeBary, Inglis, Marianna, Lantana, Lauderhill, Fernandina Beach and Winter
Haven, Florida. We rent office space in Dover, Ocean View, and South Bethany, Delaware; Jupiter,
Fernandina and Lecanto, Florida; Chincoteague and Belle Haven, Virginia; Easton, Maryland; Honey
Brook and Allentown, Pennsylvania; Houston, Texas; and Norcross, Georgia. In general, we believe
that our offices and facilities are adequate for the uses for which they are employed.
(b) Natural Gas Distribution
Our Delmarva natural gas distribution operation owns over 1,102 miles of natural gas distribution
mains (together with related service lines, meters and regulators) located in our Delaware and
Maryland service areas. Our Florida natural gas distribution operations, including Chesapeakes
Florida division and FPU in its service areas, own 2,404 miles of natural gas distribution mains
(and related equipment). Additionally, we have adequate gate stations to handle receipt of the gas
in each of the distribution systems. We also own facilities in Delaware and Maryland, which we use
for propane-air injection during periods of peak demand.
(c) Natural Gas Transmission
ESNG owns and operates approximately 384 miles of transmission pipeline, extending from supply
interconnects at Parkesburg, Pennsylvania; Daleville, Pennsylvania; and Hockessin, Delaware, to
approximately 80 delivery points in southeastern Pennsylvania, Delaware and the Eastern Shore of
Maryland.
PIPECO owns and operates approximately eight miles of transmission pipeline in Suwanee County,
Florida.
(d) Electric Distribution
The Companys electric distribution operation owns and operates 20 miles of electric transmission
line located in northeast Florida and 1,125 miles of electric distribution line located in
northeast and northwest Florida.
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 23
(e) Propane Distribution and Wholesale Marketing
Our Delmarva-based propane distribution operation owns bulk propane storage facilities, with an
aggregate capacity of approximately 2.4 million gallons, at 42 plant facilities in Delaware,
Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia, located on real estate that is either owned or leased by the
Company. Our Florida-based propane distribution operation owns 21 bulk propane storage facilities
with a total capacity of 642,000 gallons. Xeron does not own physical storage facilities or
equipment to transport propane; however, it leases propane storage and pipeline capacity from
non-affiliated third-parties.
(f) Lien
All of the properties owned by FPU are subject to a lien in favor of the holders of its first
mortgage bonds securing its indebtedness under its Mortgage Indenture and Deed of Trust. FPU owns
offices and operates facilities in the following locations: DeBary, Inglis, Marianna, Lantana,
Lauderhill and Fernandina, Florida. FPUs natural gas distribution operation owns 1,637 miles of
natural gas distribution mains (and related equipment) in its service areas. FPUs electric
distribution operation owns and operates 20 miles of electric transmission line located in
northeast Florida and 1,125 miles of electric distribution line located in northeast and northwest
Florida. FPUs propane distribution operation owns 18 bulk propane storage facilities with a total
capacity of 576,000 gallons located in south and central Florida.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
(a) General
The Company and its subsidiaries are currently involved in various legal actions and claims arising
in the normal course of business. The Company is also involved in certain administrative
proceedings before various governmental or regulatory agencies concerning rates. In the opinion of
management, the ultimate disposition of these current proceedings will not have a material effect
on the Companys consolidated financial position and results of operations.
(b) Environmental
See discussion of environmental commitments and contingencies in Item 8 under the heading Notes to
the Consolidated Financial Statements Note O, Environmental Commitments and Contingencies.
Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders.
A special meeting of the shareholders of the Company was held on October 22, 2009, to consider and
vote upon the following proposals:
|
(1) |
|
A proposal related to adoption of the merger agreement and approval of the merger with
Florida Public Utilities Company; |
|
(2) |
|
A proposal relating to the issuance of Chesapeake common stock in the merger; and |
|
(3) |
|
A proposal to approve adjournments or postponements of the special meeting, if
necessary, to permit further solicitation of proxies if there are not sufficient votes at
the end of the time in the special meeting to approve the above proposals. |
The proposals were approved as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Votes |
|
|
Votes Against |
|
|
|
|
|
|
For |
|
|
or Withheld |
|
|
Abstentions |
|
Adoption of the merger agreement and
approval of the merger |
|
|
5,186,617 |
|
|
|
85,243 |
|
|
|
27,204 |
|
Issuance of Chesapeake common stock in the merger |
|
|
5,186,617 |
|
|
|
85,243 |
|
|
|
27,204 |
|
Approve adjournment or postponement |
|
|
4,846,740 |
|
|
|
411,960 |
|
|
|
40,365 |
|
There were no broker non-votes.
Page 24 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
Item 4A. Executive Officers of the Registrant.
Set forth below are the names, ages, and positions of executive officers of the registrant with
their recent business experience. The age of each officer is as of the filing date of this report.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name |
|
Age |
|
Position |
John R. Schimkaitis
|
|
|
62 |
|
|
Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
Michael P. McMasters
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
President and Chief Operating Officer |
Beth W. Cooper
|
|
|
43 |
|
|
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
Stephen C. Thompson
|
|
|
49 |
|
|
Senior Vice President and President, ESNG |
Joseph Cummiskey
|
|
|
38 |
|
|
Vice President and President, PESCO |
John R. Schimkaitis is Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Chesapeake and its subsidiaries. Mr.
Schimkaitis assumed the role of Chief Executive Officer on January 1, 1999. Mr. Schimkaitis
previously served as President, Chief Operating Officer, Executive Vice President, Senior Vice
President, Chief Financial Officer, Vice President, Treasurer, Assistant Treasurer and Assistant
Secretary of Chesapeake.
Michael P. McMasters is President and Chief Operating Officer of Chesapeake. Mr.
McMasters assumed the role of President effective March 1, 2010. He has served as Chief Operating
Officer since September of 2008. Prior to these appointments, Mr. McMasters served as Senior
Vice President since 2004 and Chief Financial Officer of Chesapeake since 1996. He has
previously held the positions of Vice President, Treasurer, Director of Accounting and Rates,
and Controller. From 1992 to May 1994, Mr. McMasters was employed as Director of Operations
Planning for Equitable Gas Company.
Beth W. Cooper was appointed as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer in
September 2008 in addition to her duties as Treasurer and Corporate Secretary. Prior to this
appointment, Ms. Cooper served as Vice President and Corporate Secretary of Chesapeake Utilities
Corporation since July 2005. She has served as Treasurer of Chesapeake since 2003. She
previously served as Assistant Treasurer and Assistant Secretary,
Director of Internal Audit, Director of Strategic Planning, Planning Consultant, Accounting
Manager for Non-regulated Operations and Treasury Analyst. Prior to joining Chesapeake, she was
employed as an auditor with Ernst & Youngs Entrepreneurial Services Group.
Stephen C. Thompson is Senior Vice President of Chesapeake and President of ESNG. Prior
to becoming Senior Vice President in 2004, he served as Vice President of Chesapeake. He has
also served as Vice President, Director of Gas Supply and Marketing, Superintendent of ESNG and
Regional Manager for the Florida distribution operations.
Joseph Cummiskey was appointed as Vice President of Chesapeake and President of PESCO in
December 2009. Mr. Cummiskey joined Chesapeake in December 2005 as the Director of Propane
Supply and Wholesale Marketing. In 2008 and 2009, he served as the Director of Strategic
Planning/Corporate Development and Director of Propane Operations. Prior to joining Chesapeake,
Mr. Cummiskey was employed as a Natural Gas Liquids Regional Director for Ferrell North America.
In that position, he was responsible for the purchasing and distribution of Ferrells propane
supply.
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 25
Part II
Item 5. Market for the Registrants Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer
Purchases of Equity Securities.
(a) Common Stock Price Ranges, Common Stock Dividends and Shareholder Information:
The Companys common stock is listed on the NYSE under the symbol CPK. The high, low and closing
prices of the Companys common stock and dividends declared per share for each calendar quarter
during the years 2009 and 2008 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Declared |
|
Quarter Ended |
|
High |
|
|
Low |
|
|
Close |
|
|
Per Share |
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31 |
|
$ |
32.36 |
|
|
$ |
22.02 |
|
|
$ |
30.48 |
|
|
$ |
0.305 |
|
June 30 |
|
|
34.55 |
|
|
|
27.62 |
|
|
|
32.53 |
|
|
|
0.315 |
|
September 30 |
|
|
35.00 |
|
|
|
29.24 |
|
|
|
30.99 |
|
|
|
0.315 |
|
December 31 |
|
|
32.67 |
|
|
|
29.53 |
|
|
|
32.05 |
|
|
|
0.315 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31 |
|
$ |
33.60 |
|
|
$ |
27.21 |
|
|
$ |
29.64 |
|
|
$ |
0.295 |
|
June 30 |
|
|
31.88 |
|
|
|
25.02 |
|
|
|
25.72 |
|
|
|
0.305 |
|
September 30 |
|
|
34.84 |
|
|
|
24.65 |
|
|
|
33.21 |
|
|
|
0.305 |
|
December 31 |
|
|
34.66 |
|
|
|
21.93 |
|
|
|
31.48 |
|
|
|
0.305 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Holders
At December 31, 2009, there were 2,670 holders of record of Chesapeake common stock.
Dividends
We have paid a cash dividend to common stock shareholders for 49 consecutive years. Dividends are
payable at the discretion of our Board of Directors. Future payment of dividends, and the amount of
these dividends, will depend on our financial condition, results of operations, capital
requirements, and other factors. No securities were sold during the year 2009 that were not
registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
Indentures to the long-term debt of the Company contain various restrictions. In terms of
restrictions which limit the payment of dividends by Chesapeake, each of its Unsecured Senior Notes
contains a Restricted Payments covenant. The most restrictive covenants of this type are included
within the 7.83 percent Senior Notes, due January 1, 2015. The covenant provides that Chesapeake
cannot pay or declare any dividends or make any other Restricted Payments (such as dividends) in
excess of the sum of $10.0 million plus consolidated net income of the Company accrued on and after
January 1, 2001. As of December 31, 2009, Chesapeakes cumulative consolidated net income base was
$102.8 million, offset by Restricted Payments of $63.8 million, leaving $39.0 million of cumulative
net income free of restrictions.
Page 26 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
Each series of FPUs first mortgage bonds contains a similar restriction that limits the payment of
dividends by FPU. The most restrictive covenants of this type are included within the series that
is due in 2031, which provided that
FPU cannot make dividend or other restricted payments in excess of the sum of $2.5 million plus
FPUs consolidated net income accrued on and after January 1 2001. As of December 31, 2009, FPU
had the cumulative net income base of $32.7 million, offset by restricted payments of $22.1
million, leaving $10.6 million of cumulative net income of FPU free of restrictions based on this
covenant. In January 2010, this series of first mortgage bonds were redeemed prior to their
maturities. The second most restricted covenant of this type is included in the series that is due
in 2022, which provided that FPU cannot make dividend or other restricted payments in excess of the
sum of $2.5 million plus FPUs consolidated net income accrued on and after January 1, 1992. This
covenant provided FPU with the cumulative net income base of $56.0 million, offset by restricted
payments of $37.6 million, leaving $18.4 million of cumulative net income of FPU free of
restrictions as of December 31, 2009.
(b) Purchases of Equity Securities by the Issuer
The following table sets forth information on purchases by or on behalf of Chesapeake of shares of
its common stock during the quarter ended December 31, 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Number of Shares |
|
|
Maximum Number of |
|
|
|
Number |
|
|
Average |
|
|
Purchased as Part of |
|
|
Shares That May Yet Be |
|
|
|
of Shares |
|
|
Price Paid |
|
|
Publicly Announced Plans |
|
|
Purchased Under the Plans |
|
Period |
|
Purchased |
|
|
per Share |
|
|
or Programs (2) |
|
|
or Programs (2) |
|
October 1, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
through October 31, 2009 (1) |
|
|
587 |
|
|
$ |
30.14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
November 1, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
through November 30, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 1, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
through December 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
587 |
|
|
$ |
30.14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Chesapeake purchased shares of stock on the open market for the purpose of
reinvesting the dividend on deferred stock units held in the Rabbi Trust accounts for
certain Directors and Senior Executives under the Deferred Compensation Plan. The Deferred
Compensation Plan is discussed in detail in Note N to the Consolidated Financial
Statements. During the quarter, 587 shares were purchased through the reinvestment of
dividends on deferred stock units. |
|
(2) |
|
Except for the purpose described in Footnote (1), Chesapeake has no publicly
announced plans or programs to repurchase its shares. |
Discussion of compensation plans of Chesapeake and its subsidiaries, for which shares of Chesapeake
common stock are authorized for issuance, is included in the portion of the Proxy Statement
captioned Equity Compensation Plan Information to be filed no later than March 31, 2010, in
connection with the Companys Annual Meeting to be held on or about May 5, 2010 and, is
incorporated herein by reference.
(c) Chesapeake Utilities Corporation Common Stock Performance Graph
The following stock Performance Graph compares cumulative total shareholder return on a
hypothetical investment in our common stock during the five fiscal years ended December 31, 2009,
with the cumulative total shareholder return on a hypothetical investment in both (i) the Standard
& Poors 500 Index (S&P 500 Index), and (ii) an industry index consisting of Chesapeake and 11 of the
companies in the current Edward Jones Natural Gas Distribution Group, a published listing of
selected gas distribution utilities results. The Performance Graph for the previous year included
all but one of these same companies. Our Compensation Committee utilizes the Edward Jones Natural
Gas Distribution Group as our peer group to which our performance is compared for purposes of
determining the level of long-term performance awards earned by our named executives.
The eleven companies in the Edward Jones Natural Gas Distribution Group industry index include: AGL
Resources, Inc., Atmos Energy Corporation, Delta Natural Gas Company, Inc., Energy Inc., The
Laclede Group, Inc., New
Jersey Resources Corporation, Northwest Natural Gas Company, Piedmont Natural Gas Co., Inc., RGC
Resources, Inc., South Jersey Industries, Inc, and WGL Holdings, Inc.
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 27
The comparison assumes $100 was invested on December 31, 2004 in our common stock and in each of
the foregoing indices and assumes reinvested dividends. The comparisons in the graph below are
based on historical data and are not intended to forecast the possible future performance of our
common stock.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2009 |
|
Chesapeake |
|
$ |
100 |
|
|
$ |
120 |
|
|
$ |
124 |
|
|
$ |
133 |
|
|
$ |
137 |
|
|
$ |
145 |
|
Industry Index |
|
$ |
100 |
|
|
$ |
105 |
|
|
$ |
125 |
|
|
$ |
129 |
|
|
$ |
139 |
|
|
$ |
143 |
|
S&P 500 Index |
|
$ |
100 |
|
|
$ |
105 |
|
|
$ |
121 |
|
|
$ |
128 |
|
|
$ |
81 |
|
|
$ |
102 |
|
Page 28 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
Item 6. Selected Financial Data
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended December 31, |
|
2009(3) |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
Operating (1)
(in thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulated Energy |
|
$ |
139,099 |
|
|
$ |
116,468 |
|
|
$ |
128,850 |
|
Unregulated Energy |
|
|
119,973 |
|
|
|
161,290 |
|
|
|
115,190 |
|
Other |
|
|
9,713 |
|
|
|
13,685 |
|
|
|
14,246 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
$ |
268,785 |
|
|
$ |
291,443 |
|
|
$ |
258,286 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulated Energy |
|
$ |
26,900 |
|
|
$ |
24,733 |
|
|
$ |
21,809 |
|
Unregulated Energy |
|
|
8,158 |
|
|
|
3,781 |
|
|
|
5,174 |
|
Other |
|
|
(1,322 |
) |
|
|
(35 |
) |
|
|
1,131 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating income |
|
$ |
33,736 |
|
|
$ |
28,479 |
|
|
$ |
28,114 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income from continuing operations |
|
$ |
15,897 |
|
|
$ |
13,607 |
|
|
$ |
13,218 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assets
(in thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross property, plant and equipment |
|
$ |
543,746 |
|
|
$ |
381,689 |
|
|
$ |
352,838 |
|
Net property, plant and equipment (2) |
|
$ |
436,428 |
|
|
$ |
280,671 |
|
|
$ |
260,423 |
|
Total assets (2) |
|
$ |
617,102 |
|
|
$ |
385,795 |
|
|
$ |
381,557 |
|
Capital expenditures (1) |
|
$ |
26,294 |
|
|
$ |
30,844 |
|
|
$ |
30,142 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capitalization
(in thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stockholders equity |
|
$ |
209,781 |
|
|
$ |
123,073 |
|
|
$ |
119,576 |
|
Long-term debt, net of current maturities |
|
|
98,814 |
|
|
|
86,422 |
|
|
|
63,256 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total capitalization |
|
$ |
308,595 |
|
|
$ |
209,495 |
|
|
$ |
182,832 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current portion of long-term debt |
|
|
35,299 |
|
|
|
6,656 |
|
|
|
7,656 |
|
Short-term debt |
|
|
30,023 |
|
|
|
33,000 |
|
|
|
45,664 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total capitalization and short-term financing |
|
$ |
373,917 |
|
|
$ |
249,151 |
|
|
$ |
236,152 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
These amounts exclude the results of distributed energy and water services due to
their reclassification to discontinued operations.
The Company closed its distributed energy operation in 2007. All assets of all of the water
businesses were sold in 2004 and 2003. |
|
(2) |
|
SFAS No. 143 (now codified within FASB ASC 360 and 410) was adopted in the year
2001; therefore, it was not applicable for the
years prior to 2001. |
|
(3) |
|
These amounts include the financial position and results of operation of FPU for the
period from the merger (October 28, 2009)
to December 31, 2009. These amounts also include the effects of acquisition accounting and
issuance of Chesapeake common
shares as a result of the merger. These amounts may not be indicative of future results due to
the inclusion of merger effects.
See Item 8 under the heading Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements Note B,
Acquisitions and Dispositions for
addition discussions and presentation of pro forma results. |
|
(4) |
|
SFAS No. 123R (now codified within FASB ASC 718, 505 and 260 ) and SFAS No. 158
(codified within FASB ASC 715) were
adopted in the year 2006; therefore, they were not applicable for the years prior to 2006. |
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 29
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006 (4) |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
2004 |
|
|
2003 |
|
|
2002 |
|
|
2001 |
|
|
2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
124,631 |
|
|
$ |
124,563 |
|
|
$ |
98,139 |
|
|
$ |
92,079 |
|
|
$ |
82,098 |
|
|
$ |
87,444 |
|
|
$ |
82,490 |
|
|
94,320 |
|
|
|
90,995 |
|
|
|
67,607 |
|
|
|
59,197 |
|
|
|
40,728 |
|
|
|
56,970 |
|
|
|
50,428 |
|
|
12,249 |
|
|
|
13,927 |
|
|
|
12,209 |
|
|
|
12,292 |
|
|
|
12,430 |
|
|
|
13,992 |
|
|
|
12,259 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
231,200 |
|
|
$ |
229,485 |
|
|
$ |
177,955 |
|
|
$ |
163,568 |
|
|
$ |
135,256 |
|
|
$ |
158,406 |
|
|
$ |
145,177 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
18,593 |
|
|
$ |
16,248 |
|
|
$ |
16,258 |
|
|
$ |
16,219 |
|
|
$ |
14,867 |
|
|
$ |
14,060 |
|
|
$ |
12,672 |
|
|
3,675 |
|
|
|
4,197 |
|
|
|
3,197 |
|
|
|
4,310 |
|
|
|
1,158 |
|
|
|
1,259 |
|
|
|
2,261 |
|
|
1,064 |
|
|
|
1,476 |
|
|
|
722 |
|
|
|
1,050 |
|
|
|
580 |
|
|
|
902 |
|
|
|
1,152 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
23,332 |
|
|
$ |
21,921 |
|
|
$ |
20,177 |
|
|
$ |
21,579 |
|
|
$ |
16,605 |
|
|
$ |
16,221 |
|
|
$ |
16,085 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
10,748 |
|
|
$ |
10,699 |
|
|
$ |
9,686 |
|
|
$ |
10,079 |
|
|
$ |
7,535 |
|
|
$ |
7,341 |
|
|
$ |
7,665 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
325,836 |
|
|
$ |
280,345 |
|
|
$ |
250,267 |
|
|
$ |
234,919 |
|
|
$ |
229,128 |
|
|
$ |
216,903 |
|
|
$ |
192,925 |
|
$ |
240,825 |
|
|
$ |
201,504 |
|
|
$ |
177,053 |
|
|
$ |
167,872 |
|
|
$ |
166,846 |
|
|
$ |
161,014 |
|
|
$ |
131,466 |
|
$ |
325,585 |
|
|
$ |
295,980 |
|
|
$ |
241,938 |
|
|
$ |
222,058 |
|
|
$ |
223,721 |
|
|
$ |
222,229 |
|
|
$ |
211,764 |
|
$ |
49,154 |
|
|
$ |
33,423 |
|
|
$ |
17,830 |
|
|
$ |
11,822 |
|
|
$ |
13,836 |
|
|
$ |
26,293 |
|
|
$ |
22,057 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
111,152 |
|
|
$ |
84,757 |
|
|
$ |
77,962 |
|
|
$ |
72,939 |
|
|
$ |
67,350 |
|
|
$ |
67,517 |
|
|
$ |
64,669 |
|
|
71,050 |
|
|
|
58,991 |
|
|
|
66,190 |
|
|
|
69,416 |
|
|
|
73,408 |
|
|
|
48,409 |
|
|
|
50,921 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
182,202 |
|
|
$ |
143,748 |
|
|
$ |
144,152 |
|
|
$ |
142,355 |
|
|
$ |
140,758 |
|
|
$ |
115,926 |
|
|
$ |
115,590 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,656 |
|
|
|
4,929 |
|
|
|
2,909 |
|
|
|
3,665 |
|
|
|
3,938 |
|
|
|
2,686 |
|
|
|
2,665 |
|
|
27,554 |
|
|
|
35,482 |
|
|
|
5,002 |
|
|
|
3,515 |
|
|
|
10,900 |
|
|
|
42,100 |
|
|
|
25,400 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
217,412 |
|
|
$ |
184,159 |
|
|
$ |
152,063 |
|
|
$ |
149,535 |
|
|
$ |
155,596 |
|
|
$ |
160,712 |
|
|
$ |
143,655 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 30 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended December 31, |
|
2009(3) |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
Common Stock Data and Ratios |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic earnings per share from continuing operations (1) |
|
$ |
2.17 |
|
|
$ |
2.00 |
|
|
$ |
1.96 |
|
Diluted earnings per share from continuing operations (1) |
|
$ |
2.15 |
|
|
$ |
1.98 |
|
|
$ |
1.94 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Return on average equity from continuing operations (1) |
|
|
11.2 |
% |
|
|
11.2 |
% |
|
|
11.5 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common equity / total capitalization |
|
|
68.0 |
% |
|
|
58.7 |
% |
|
|
65.4 |
% |
Common equity / total capitalization and short-term financing |
|
|
56.1 |
% |
|
|
49.4 |
% |
|
|
50.6 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Book value per share |
|
$ |
22.33 |
|
|
$ |
18.03 |
|
|
$ |
17.64 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Market price: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High |
|
$ |
35.000 |
|
|
$ |
34.840 |
|
|
$ |
37.250 |
|
Low |
|
$ |
22.020 |
|
|
$ |
21.930 |
|
|
$ |
28.000 |
|
Close |
|
$ |
32.050 |
|
|
$ |
31.480 |
|
|
$ |
31.850 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average number of shares outstanding |
|
|
7,313,320 |
|
|
|
6,811,848 |
|
|
|
6,743,041 |
|
Shares outstanding at year-end |
|
|
9,394,314 |
|
|
|
6,827,121 |
|
|
|
6,777,410 |
|
Registered common shareholders |
|
|
2,670 |
|
|
|
1,914 |
|
|
|
1,920 |
|
|
Cash dividends declared per share |
|
$ |
1.25 |
|
|
$ |
1.21 |
|
|
$ |
1.18 |
|
Dividend yield (annualized) (2) |
|
|
3.9 |
% |
|
|
3.9 |
% |
|
|
3.7 |
% |
Payout ratio from continuing operations (1) (4) |
|
|
57.6 |
% |
|
|
60.5 |
% |
|
|
60.2 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additional Data |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customers (5) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural gas distribution |
|
|
117,887 |
|
|
|
65,201 |
|
|
|
62,884 |
|
Electric distribution |
|
|
31,030 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Propane distribution |
|
|
48,680 |
|
|
|
34,981 |
|
|
|
34,143 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Volumes(6) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural gas deliveries (in Mcfs) |
|
|
44,586,158 |
|
|
|
39,778,067 |
|
|
|
34,820,050 |
|
Electric Distribution (in MWHs) |
|
|
105,739 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Propane distribution (in thousands of gallons) |
|
|
32,546 |
|
|
|
27,956 |
|
|
|
29,785 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heating degree-days (Delmarva Peninsula) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actual HDD |
|
|
4,729 |
|
|
|
4,431 |
|
|
|
4,504 |
|
10-year average HDD (normal) |
|
|
4,462 |
|
|
|
4,401 |
|
|
|
4,376 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Propane bulk storage capacity (in thousands of gallons) |
|
|
3,042 |
|
|
|
2,471 |
|
|
|
2,441 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total employees (1) (7) |
|
|
757 |
|
|
|
448 |
|
|
|
445 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
These amounts exclude the results of distributed energy and water services due to
their reclassification to discontinued operations. The Companyclosed its distributed energy
operation in 2007. All assets of all of the water businesses were sold in 2004 and 2003. |
|
(2) |
|
Dividend yield (annualized) is calculated by multiplying the fourth quarter dividend
by four (4), then dividing that amount by the closing common stock price at December 31. |
|
(3) |
|
These amounts include the financial position and results of operation of FPU for
the period from the merger closing (October 28, 2009) to December 31, 2009. These amounts also include the
effects of acquisition accounting and issuance of Chesapeake common shares as a result of the
merger. These amounts may not be indicative of future results due to the inclusion of merger
effects.
See Item 8 under the heading Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements Note B,
Acquisitions and Dispositions for addition discussions and presentation of pro forma
results. |
|
(4) |
|
The payout ratio from continuing operations is calculated by dividing cash
dividends declared per share (for the year) by basic earnings per share from continuing
operations. |
|
(5) |
|
Customer data for 2009 includes 51,536, 31,030 and 13,651 of
natural gas distribution, electric distribution and propane distribution
customers, respectively, from FPU. |
|
(6) |
|
Volumes data for 2009 includes 1,109,177 Mcfs, 105,739 MWHs and 1.1 million gallons
for natural gas distribution, electric distribution and propane distribution, respectively, delivered by FPU
from October 28, 2009 through December 31, 2009. |
|
(7) |
|
Total employees for 2009 include 332
FPU employees added to the Company upon the merger, effective
October 28, 2009. |
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006 (8) |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
2004 |
|
|
2003 |
|
|
2002 |
|
|
2001 |
|
|
2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
1.78 |
|
|
$ |
1.83 |
|
|
$ |
1.68 |
|
|
$ |
1.80 |
|
|
$ |
1.37 |
|
|
$ |
1.37 |
|
|
$ |
1.46 |
|
$ |
1.76 |
|
|
$ |
1.81 |
|
|
$ |
1.64 |
|
|
$ |
1.76 |
|
|
$ |
1.37 |
|
|
$ |
1.35 |
|
|
$ |
1.43 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11.0 |
% |
|
|
13.2 |
% |
|
|
12.8 |
% |
|
|
14.4 |
% |
|
|
11.2 |
% |
|
|
11.1 |
% |
|
|
12.2 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
61.0 |
% |
|
|
59.0 |
% |
|
|
54.1 |
% |
|
|
51.2 |
% |
|
|
47.8 |
% |
|
|
58.2 |
% |
|
|
55.9 |
% |
|
51.1 |
% |
|
|
46.0 |
% |
|
|
51.3 |
% |
|
|
48.8 |
% |
|
|
43.3 |
% |
|
|
42.0 |
% |
|
|
45.0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
16.62 |
|
|
$ |
14.41 |
|
|
$ |
13.49 |
|
|
$ |
12.89 |
|
|
$ |
12.16 |
|
|
$ |
12.45 |
|
|
$ |
12.21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
35.650 |
|
|
$ |
35.780 |
|
|
$ |
27.550 |
|
|
$ |
26.700 |
|
|
$ |
21.990 |
|
|
$ |
19.900 |
|
|
$ |
18.875 |
|
$ |
27.900 |
|
|
$ |
23.600 |
|
|
$ |
20.420 |
|
|
$ |
18.400 |
|
|
$ |
16.500 |
|
|
$ |
17.375 |
|
|
$ |
16.250 |
|
$ |
30.650 |
|
|
$ |
30.800 |
|
|
$ |
26.700 |
|
|
$ |
26.050 |
|
|
$ |
18.300 |
|
|
$ |
19.800 |
|
|
$ |
18.625 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,032,462 |
|
|
|
5,836,463 |
|
|
|
5,735,405 |
|
|
|
5,610,592 |
|
|
|
5,489,424 |
|
|
|
5,367,433 |
|
|
|
5,249,439 |
|
|
6,688,084 |
|
|
|
5,883,099 |
|
|
|
5,778,976 |
|
|
|
5,660,594 |
|
|
|
5,537,710 |
|
|
|
5,424,962 |
|
|
|
5,297,443 |
|
|
1,978 |
|
|
|
2,026 |
|
|
|
2,026 |
|
|
|
2,069 |
|
|
|
2,130 |
|
|
|
2,171 |
|
|
|
2,166 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
1.16 |
|
|
$ |
1.14 |
|
|
$ |
1.12 |
|
|
$ |
1.10 |
|
|
$ |
1.10 |
|
|
$ |
1.10 |
|
|
$ |
1.07 |
|
|
3.8 |
% |
|
|
3.7 |
% |
|
|
4.2 |
% |
|
|
4.2 |
% |
|
|
6.0 |
% |
|
|
5.6 |
% |
|
|
5.8 |
% |
|
65.2 |
% |
|
|
62.3 |
% |
|
|
66.7 |
% |
|
|
61.1 |
% |
|
|
80.3 |
% |
|
|
80.3 |
% |
|
|
73.3 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
59,132 |
|
|
|
54,786 |
|
|
|
50,878 |
|
|
|
47,649 |
|
|
|
45,133 |
|
|
|
42,741 |
|
|
|
40,854 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33,282 |
|
|
|
32,117 |
|
|
|
34,888 |
|
|
|
34,894 |
|
|
|
34,566 |
|
|
|
35,530 |
|
|
|
35,563 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34,321,160 |
|
|
|
34,980,939 |
|
|
|
31,429,494 |
|
|
|
29,374,818 |
|
|
|
27,934,715 |
|
|
|
27,263,542 |
|
|
|
30,829,509 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24,243 |
|
|
|
26,178 |
|
|
|
24,979 |
|
|
|
25,147 |
|
|
|
21,185 |
|
|
|
23,080 |
|
|
|
28,469 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,931 |
|
|
|
4,792 |
|
|
|
4,553 |
|
|
|
4,715 |
|
|
|
4,161 |
|
|
|
4,368 |
|
|
|
4,730 |
|
|
4,372 |
|
|
|
4,436 |
|
|
|
4,389 |
|
|
|
4,409 |
|
|
|
4,393 |
|
|
|
4,446 |
|
|
|
4,356 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,315 |
|
|
|
2,315 |
|
|
|
2,045 |
|
|
|
2,195 |
|
|
|
2,151 |
|
|
|
1,958 |
|
|
|
1,928 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
437 |
|
|
|
423 |
|
|
|
426 |
|
|
|
439 |
|
|
|
455 |
|
|
|
458 |
|
|
|
471 |
|
|
|
|
(8) |
|
SFAS No. 123R (now codified within FASB ASC 718, 505 and 260 ) and SFAS No. 158
(codified within FASB ASC 715) were adopted in the year 2006; therefore, they were not applicable
for the years prior to 2006. |
Page 32 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
Item 7. Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations
This section provides managements discussion of Chesapeake and its consolidated subsidiaries, with
specific information on results of operations and liquidity and capital resources, as well as
discussion on how certain accounting principles affect our financial statements. It includes
managements interpretation of financial results of the Company and its operating segments, the
factors affecting these results, the major factors expected to affect future operating results,
investment and financing plans. This discussion should be read in conjunction with our consolidated
financial statements and notes thereto.
Several factors exist that could influence our future financial performance, some of which are
described in Item 1A above, Risk Factors. They should be considered in connection with evaluating
forward-looking statements contained in this report, or otherwise made by or on behalf of us, since
these factors could cause actual results and conditions to differ materially from those set out in
such forward-looking statements.
The following discussions and those later in the document on operating income and segment results
include use of the term gross margin. Gross margin is determined by deducting the cost of sales
from operating revenue. Cost of sales includes the purchased cost of natural gas, electricity and
propane and the cost of labor spent on direct revenue-producing activities. Gross margin should not
be considered an alternative to operating income or net income, which are determined in accordance
with GAAP. We believe that gross margin, although a non-GAAP measure, is useful and meaningful to
investors as a basis for making investment decisions. It provides investors with information that
demonstrates the profitability achieved by the Company under its allowed rates for regulated energy
operations and under its competitive pricing structure for unregulated natural gas marketing and
propane distribution operations. Chesapeakes management uses gross margin in measuring its
business units performance and has historically analyzed and reported gross margin information
publicly. Other companies may calculate gross margin in a different manner.
In addition, certain information is presented, which excludes for comparison purposes, result of
operations of FPU for the period from the merger closing (October 28, 2009) to December 31, 2009
and all merger-related costs incurred in connection with the FPU merger. Although the non-GAAP
measures are not intended to replace the GAAP measures for evaluation of Chesapeakes performance,
we believe that the portions of the presentation which excludes FPUs financial results for the
post-merger period and merger-related costs provide a helpful comparative basis for investors to
understand Chesapeakes performance.
(a) Introduction
Chesapeake is a diversified utility company engaged, directly or through subsidiaries, in regulated
energy businesses, unregulated energy businesses, and other unregulated businesses, including
advanced information services.
Our strategy is focused on growing earnings from a stable utility foundation and investing in
related businesses and services that provide opportunities for returns greater than traditional
utility returns. The key elements of this strategy include:
|
|
|
executing a capital investment program in pursuit of organic growth opportunities that
generate returns equal to or greater than our cost of capital; |
|
|
|
expanding the regulated energy distribution and transmission businesses through
expansion into new geographic areas and providing new services in our current service
territories; |
|
|
|
expanding the propane distribution business in existing and new markets through
leveraging our community gas system services and our bulk delivery capabilities; |
|
|
|
utilizing our expertise across our various businesses to improve overall performance; |
|
|
|
enhancing marketing channels to attract new customers; |
|
|
|
providing reliable and responsive customer service to retain existing customers; |
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 33
|
|
|
maintaining a capital structure that enables us to access capital as needed; |
|
|
|
maintaining a consistent and competitive dividend for shareholders; and |
|
|
|
creating and maintaining diversified customer base, energy portfolio and utility
foundation. |
(b) Highlights and Recent Developments
On October 28, 2009, we completed the previously announced merger with FPU. As a result of the
merger, FPU became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Chesapeake. The merger allowed us to become a
larger energy company serving approximately 200,000 customers in the Mid-Atlantic and Florida
markets, which is twice the number of energy customers we served previously. The merger increased
our overall presence in Florida by adding approximately 51,000 natural gas distribution customers
and 12,000 propane distribution customers to our existing natural gas and propane distribution
operations in Florida. It also introduces us to the electric distribution business as it
incorporates FPUs approximately 31,000 electric customers in northwest and northeast Florida.
Total consideration paid by Chesapeake in the merger was approximately $75.7 million, which
included approximately $16,000 paid in cash and 2,487,910 shares of common stock issued at a price
per share of $30.42. Net fair value of the assets acquired and liabilities assumed in the merger
was estimated at $42.3 million. This resulted in a purchase premium of $33.4 million, which was
reflected as goodwill. All of the purchase premium paid in the merger was related to the regulated
energy segment. Chesapeake also incurred approximately $3.0 million in merger-related costs
related to consummating the merger, merger-related litigation costs and costs incurred in
integrating operations of the two companies. As we intend to seek recovery through future rates of
the premium paid and merger-related costs we incurred, we have deferred approximately $1.5 million
of the merger-related costs as a regulatory asset as of December 31, 2009.
Our net income for 2009 was $15.9 million, or $2.15 per share (diluted), compared to $13.6 million,
or $1.98 per share (diluted), for 2008. These results include approximately $1.5 million in costs
expensed in 2009 and $1.2 million in costs related to our initial merger discussions with FPU,
which were terminated in 2008. The 2009 results also include approximately $1.8 million in net
income contributed by FPU for the period from the merger closing (October 28, 2009) to December 31,
2009. Excluding these merger-related items and net income contributed by FPU, our net income would
have been $15.3 million and $14.3 million, or $2.20 per share (diluted) and $2.08 per share
(diluted), in 2009 and 2008, respectively.
The following is a summary of key factors affecting our businesses and their impacts on our 2009
results. More detailed discussion and analysis are provided in the Results of Operations
section.
|
|
|
Weather. Weather in 2009 was seven percent colder than 2008 and six percent colder than
normal on the Delmarva Peninsula. We estimate that colder weather contributed
approximately $1.6 million in additional gross margin for our regulated energy and
unregulated energy operations on the Delmarva Peninsula in 2009 compared to 2008. |
|
|
|
Growth. Customer growth continued to be affected by current economic conditions.
Despite the slowdown in growth in the region, our Delaware and Maryland natural gas
distribution divisions achieved customer growth in 2009 compared to 2008, which contributed
$1.2 million in gross margin for the year. Chesapeakes Florida natural gas distribution
division experienced a net customer loss in 2009, which resulted in a gross margin decrease
of $190,000. A loss of three large industrial customers in Florida in late 2008 and 2009
contributed primarily to this gross margin decrease. Our natural gas transmission
subsidiary, ESNG, experienced continued growth in 2009 through new transmission services
and new expansion facilities. New firm services to an industrial customer in 2009
contributed $811,000 to ESNGs gross margin in 2009 and are expected to contribute
approximately $1.1 million to its gross margin in 2010. New system expansions in November
2008 and 2009 also contributed $939,000 to its gross margin growth in 2009. |
Page 34 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
|
|
|
Propane Prices. A sharp decline in propane prices in late 2008 resulted in inventory
and swap valuation adjustments of $1.8 million in 2008, but allowed our Delmarva propane
distribution operation to keep its propane cost low during the first half of 2009. The
absence of similar inventory valuation adjustments in 2009 and increased margin generated
from the low propane cost during the first half of 2009, coupled with sustained retail
prices, contributed to increased gross margin of $3.5 million in 2009 compared to 2008 for
the Delmarva propane distribution operation. Overall lack of volatility in wholesale
propane prices reduced opportunities for our propane wholesale marketing subsidiary, Xeron,
and decreased its trading volume by 57 percent in 2009 compared to 2008, which reduced its
gross margin by approximately $1.0 million. |
|
|
|
Natural Gas Spot Sale Opportunities. Our unregulated natural gas marketing subsidiary,
PESCO, was able to identify various spot sale opportunities in 2009, which contributed
significantly to the overall gross margin increase of $1.0 million in 2009. During 2009,
PESCO sold natural gas and services of $10.6 million to Valero for its Delaware City
refinery operation. Late in 2009, Valero announced its intention to permanently shut down
that refinery. While PESCOs sale to Valero in 2009 represented approximately 19 percent
of PESCOs total revenue for the year, spot sales are not predictable, and, therefore, are
not included in our long-term financial plans or forecasts; nor do we anticipate sales to
Valero in the future. |
|
|
|
Rates and Regulatory Matters. In July 2009, Chesapeakes Florida natural gas
distribution division filed with the Florida PSC its petition for a rate increase. In
August 2009, the Florida PSC approved an interim rate increase of approximately $418,000.
In December 2009, the Florida PSC approved a permanent rate increase of approximately $2.5
million, applicable to all meters read on or after January 14, 2010. In December 2009,
FPUs natural gas distribution operation settled its request for a permanent rate increase,
which had been approved by the Florida PSC in May 2009; however in June 2009, certain parts
of the order approving the increase were protested by the Office of Public Counsel. The
settlement allows an annual rate increase of approximately $8.0 million for FPUs natural
gas distribution operations. |
|
|
|
Information Technology Spending. The state of the economy continued to affect overall
information technology spending in 2009. Our advanced information services subsidiary,
BravePoint, continued to experience lower consulting revenues as billable consulting hours
declined by 28 percent in 2009 compared to 2008. We implemented cost-containment actions,
including layoffs and compensation adjustments, which reduced operating costs in 2009 by
$1.0 million. BravePoints professional database monitoring and support solution services,
added $218,000 to its gross margin in 2009. |
|
|
|
Interest Rates. We continued to experience low short-term interest rates throughout
2009 as our short-term weighted average interest rate decreased to 1.28 percent in 2009,
compared to 2.79 percent in 2008. The level of our short-term borrowings in 2009 was
reduced by the placement of $30.0 million of 5.93 percent Unsecured Senior Notes in October
2008 and a decline in working capital requirements due to lower commodity prices, lower
trading volume by the propane wholesale marketing subsidiary, lower income tax payments
from bonus depreciation and the timing of our capital expenditures. |
(c) Critical Accounting Policies
We prepare our financial statements in accordance with GAAP. Application of these accounting
principles requires the use of estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of
assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses, and related disclosures of contingencies during the
reporting period. We base our estimates on historical experience and on various assumptions that
are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for
making judgments about the carrying value of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent
from other sources. Since most of our businesses are regulated and the accounting methods used by
these businesses must comply with the requirements of the regulatory bodies, the choices available
are limited by these regulatory requirements. In the normal course of business, estimated amounts
are subsequently adjusted to actual results that may differ from estimates. Management believes
that the following policies require significant estimates or other
judgments of matters that are inherently uncertain. These policies and their application have been
discussed with our Audit Committee.
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 35
Regulatory Assets and Liabilities
As a result of the ratemaking process, we record certain assets and liabilities in accordance
with FASB Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) Topic 980, Regulated Operations,
consequently, the accounting principles applied by our regulated energy businesses differ in
certain respects from those applied by the unregulated businesses. Costs are deferred when there
is a probable expectation that they will be recovered in future revenues as a result of the
regulatory process. As more fully described in Item 8 under the heading Notes to the
Consolidated Financial Statements Note A, Summary of Accounting Policies, we have recorded
regulatory assets of $21.1 million and regulatory liabilities of $46.3 million, at December 31,
2009. If we were required to terminate application of this Topic, we would be required to
recognize all such deferred amounts as a charge or a credit to earnings, net of applicable
income taxes. Such an adjustment could have a material effect on our results of operations.
Valuation of Environmental Assets and Liabilities
As more fully described in Item 8 under the heading Notes to the Consolidated Financial
Statements Note O, Environmental Commitments and Contingencies, we have completed our
responsibilities related to one environmental site and are currently participating in the
investigation, assessment or remediation of seven other former manufactured gas plant sites.
Amounts have been recorded as environmental liabilities and associated environmental regulatory
assets based on estimates of future costs provided by independent consultants. There is
uncertainty in these amounts, because the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
or other applicable state environmental authority, may not have selected the final remediation
methods. In addition, there is uncertainty with regard to amounts that may be recovered from
other potentially responsible parties.
Since we believe that recovery of these expenditures, including any litigation costs, is
probable through the regulatory process, we have recorded a regulatory asset and corresponding
environmental liability. At December 31, 2009, we have recorded an environmental regulatory
asset of $7.5 million and a liability of $12.8 million for environmental costs.
Derivatives
We use derivative and non-derivative instruments to manage the risks related to obtaining
adequate supplies and the price fluctuations of natural gas, electricity and propane. We also
use derivative instruments to engage in propane marketing activities. We continually monitor
the use of these instruments to ensure compliance with our risk management policies and account
for them in accordance with appropriate GAAP. If these instruments do not meet the definition
of derivatives or are considered normal purchases and sales, they are accounted for on an
accrual basis of accounting.
The following is a review of our use of derivative instruments at December 31, 2009 and 2008:
|
|
|
During 2009 and 2008, our natural gas distribution, electric distribution, propane
distribution and natural gas marketing operations entered into physical contracts for
purchase or sale of natural gas, electricity and propane. These contracts either did not
meet the definition of derivatives as they did not have a minimum requirement to
purchase/sell or were considered normal purchases and sales as they provided for the
purchase or sale of natural gas, electricity or propane to be delivered in quantities
expected to be used and sold by our operations over a reasonable period of time in the
normal course of business. Accordingly, these contracts were accounted for on the accrual
basis of accounting. |
|
|
|
During 2008, the propane distribution operation entered into a swap agreement to protect
it from the impact of price increases on the Pro-Cap (propane price-cap) Plan that we offer
to customers. The propane prices declined significantly in late 2008 and we recorded a
mark-to-market adjustment of approximately $939,000, which increased our cost of propane
sales in 2008. In January 2009, we terminated this swap
agreement. During 2009, we purchased a put option related to the Pro-Cap Plan, which we
accounted for on a mark-to-market basis and recorded a loss of $41,000. |
Page 36 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
|
|
|
Xeron, our propane wholesale marketing subsidiary, enters into forward, futures and
other contracts that are considered derivatives. These contracts are marked-to-market,
using prices at the end of each reporting period, and unrealized gains or losses are
recorded in the Consolidated Statement of Income as revenue or expense. These contracts
generally mature within one year and are almost exclusively for propane commodities. For
the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, these contracts had net unrealized losses of
$1.6 million and net unrealized gains of $1.4 million, respectively. |
Operating Revenues
Revenues for our natural gas and electric distribution operations are based on rates approved by
the PSCs of the jurisdictions in which we operate. The natural gas transmission operations
revenues are based on rates approved by the FERC. Customers base rates may not be changed
without formal approval by these commissions. The PSCs, however, have authorized our regulated
operations to negotiate rates, based on approved methodologies, with customers that have
competitive alternatives. The FERC has also authorized ESNG to negotiate rates above or below
the FERC-approved maximum rates, which customers can elect as a recourse to negotiated rates.
For regulated deliveries of natural gas and electricity, we read meters and bill customers on
monthly cycles that do not coincide with the accounting periods used for financial reporting
purposes. We accrue unbilled revenues for natural gas and electricity that have been delivered,
but not yet billed, at the end of an accounting period to the extent that they do not coincide.
In connection with this accrual, we must estimate amounts of natural gas and electricity that
have not been accounted for on our delivery systems and must estimate the amount of the unbilled
revenue by jurisdiction and customer class. A similar computation is made to accrue unbilled
revenues for propane customers with meters, such as community gas system customers, and natural
gas marketing customers, whose billing cycles do not coincide with the accounting periods.
The propane wholesale marketing operation records trading activity for open contracts on a net
mark-to-market basis in our income statement. For certain propane distribution customers without
meters and advanced information services customers, we record revenue in the period the products
are delivered and/or services are rendered.
Each of our natural gas distribution operations in Delaware and Maryland, our bundled natural
gas distribution service in Florida and our electric distribution operation in Florida has a
purchased fuel cost recovery mechanism. This mechanism provides us with a method of adjusting
billing rates to customers to reflect changes in the cost of purchased fuel. The difference
between the current cost of fuel purchased and the cost of fuel recovered in billed rates is
deferred and accounted for as either unrecovered purchased fuel costs or amounts payable to
customers. Generally, these deferred amounts are recovered or refunded within one year.
We charge flexible rates to industrial interruptible customers on our natural gas distribution
systems to compete with the price of alternative fuel that they can use. Neither the Company nor
its interruptible customers is contractually obligated to deliver or receive natural gas on a
firm service basis.
Allowance for Doubtful Accounts
An allowance for doubtful accounts is recorded against amounts due to reduce the net receivable
balance to the amount we reasonably expect to collect based upon our collections experiences,
the condition of the overall economy and our assessment of our customers inability or
reluctance to pay. If circumstances change, however, our estimate of the recoverability of
accounts receivable may also change. Circumstances which could affect our estimates include, but
are not limited to, customer credit issues, the level of natural gas, electricity and propane
prices and general economic conditions. Accounts are written off once they are deemed to be
uncollectible.
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 37
Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits
Pension and other postretirement plan costs and liabilities are determined on an actuarial basis
and are affected by numerous assumptions and estimates including the market value of plan
assets, estimates of the expected returns on plan assets, assumed discount rates, the level of
contributions made to the plans, current demographic and actuarial mortality data. The assumed
discount rates and the expected returns on plan assets are the assumptions that generally have
the most significant impact on the pension costs and liabilities. The assumed discount rates,
the assumed health care cost trend rates and the assumed rates of retirement generally have the
most significant impact on our postretirement plan costs and liabilities. Additional information
is presented in Item 8 under the heading Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements Note
M, Employee Benefit Plans, including plan asset investment allocation, estimated future benefit
payments, general descriptions of the plans, significant assumptions, the impact of certain
changes in assumptions, and significant changes in estimates.
The total pension and other postretirement benefit costs included in operating income were
$892,000, $537,000, and $370,000 in 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively. The Company expects to
record pension and postretirement benefit costs in the range of $900,000 to $1.0 million for
2010 of which $275,000 is attributed to FPUs pension and medical plans. Actuarial assumptions
affecting 2010 include expected long-term rates of return on plan assets of 6.0 percent and 7.0
percent for Chesapeakes pension plan and FPUs pension plan, respectively, and discount rates
of 5.25 percent and 5.50 percent for Chesapeakes plan and FPUs plan, respectively. The
discount rate for each plan was determined by management considering high quality corporate bond
rates based on Moodys Aa bond index, the Citigroup yield curve, changes in those rates from the
prior year, and other pertinent factors, such as the expected lives of the plans and the
lump-sum-payment option.
Acquisition Accounting
The merger with FPU was accounted for under the acquisition method of accounting, with
Chesapeake treated as the acquirer. The acquisition method of accounting requires, among other
things, that the assets acquired and liabilities assumed in the merger be recognized at their
fair value as of the acquisition date. It also establishes that the consideration transferred
be measured at the closing date of the merger at the then-current market price. Fair value is
defined as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in
an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. In addition, market
participants are assumed to be buyers and sellers in the principal (or the most advantageous)
market for the asset or liability and fair value measures for an asset assume the highest and
best use by those market participants, rather than our intended use of those assets. Many of
these fair value measurements can be highly subjective and it is also possible that others
applying reasonable judgment to the same facts and circumstances could develop and support a
range of alternative estimated amounts. In estimating the fair value of the assets and
liabilities subject to rate regulation, we considered the nature and impact of regulations on
those assets and liabilities as a factor in determining their appropriate fair value. We also
considered the existence of a regulatory process that would allow, or sometimes require,
regulatory assets and liabilities to be established to offset the fair value adjustment to
certain assets and liabilities subject to rate regulation. If a regulatory asset or liability
should be established to offset the fair value adjustment based on the current regulatory
process, as was the case for fuel contracts and long-term debt, we did not gross-up our
balance sheet to reflect the fair value adjustment and corresponding regulatory asset/liability,
because such gross-up would not have resulted in a change to the value of net assets and
future earnings of the Company.
Total consideration paid by Chesapeake in the merger was $75.7 million. Net fair value of the
assets acquired and liabilities assumed in the merger was estimated to be $42.3 million. This
resulted in a purchase premium of $33.4 million, which was reflected as goodwill. Item 8 under
the heading Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements Note B, Acquisitions and
Dispositions describes more fully the purchase price allocation.
Page 38 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
The acquisition method of accounting also requires acquisition-related costs to be expensed in
the period in which those costs are incurred, rather than including them as a component of
consideration transferred. It also prohibits an accrual of certain restructuring costs at the
time of the merger for the acquiree. As we intend to
seek recovery in future rates in Florida of a certain portion of the purchase premium paid and
merger-related costs incurred, we also considered the impact of ASC Topic 980, Regulated
Operations, in determining proper accounting treatment for the merger-related costs. During
2009, we incurred approximately $3.0 million to consummate the merger, including the cost
associated with merger-related litigation, and to integrate operations following the merger. We
deferred approximately $1.5 million of the total costs incurred as a regulatory asset at
December 31, 2009, which represents our best estimate, based on similar proceedings in Florida
in the past, of the costs, which we expect to be permitted to recover when we complete the
appropriate rate proceedings. The remaining $1.5 million in costs have been expensed in our 2009
results.
(d) Results of Operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands except per share) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
For the Years Ended December 31, |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
(decrease) |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
(decrease) |
|
Business Segment: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulated Energy |
|
$ |
26,900 |
|
|
$ |
24,733 |
|
|
$ |
2,167 |
|
|
$ |
24,733 |
|
|
$ |
21,809 |
|
|
$ |
2,924 |
|
Unregulated Energy |
|
|
8,158 |
|
|
|
3,781 |
|
|
|
4,377 |
|
|
|
3,781 |
|
|
|
5,174 |
|
|
|
(1,393 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(1,322 |
) |
|
|
(35 |
) |
|
|
(1,287 |
) |
|
|
(35 |
) |
|
|
1,131 |
|
|
|
(1,166 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income |
|
|
33,736 |
|
|
|
28,479 |
|
|
|
5,257 |
|
|
|
28,479 |
|
|
|
28,114 |
|
|
|
365 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Income |
|
|
165 |
|
|
|
103 |
|
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
103 |
|
|
|
291 |
|
|
|
(188 |
) |
Interest Charges |
|
|
7,086 |
|
|
|
6,158 |
|
|
|
928 |
|
|
|
6,158 |
|
|
|
6,590 |
|
|
|
(432 |
) |
Income Taxes |
|
|
10,918 |
|
|
|
8,817 |
|
|
|
2,101 |
|
|
|
8,817 |
|
|
|
8,597 |
|
|
|
220 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income from Continuing Operations |
|
|
15,897 |
|
|
|
13,607 |
|
|
|
2,290 |
|
|
|
13,607 |
|
|
|
13,218 |
|
|
|
389 |
|
Loss from Discontinued Operations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income |
|
$ |
15,897 |
|
|
$ |
13,607 |
|
|
$ |
2,290 |
|
|
$ |
13,607 |
|
|
$ |
13,198 |
|
|
$ |
409 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted Earnings (Loss) Per Share |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Continuing operations |
|
$ |
2.15 |
|
|
$ |
1.98 |
|
|
$ |
0.17 |
|
|
$ |
1.98 |
|
|
$ |
1.94 |
|
|
$ |
0.04 |
|
Discontinued operations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted Earnings Per Share |
|
$ |
2.15 |
|
|
$ |
1.98 |
|
|
$ |
0.17 |
|
|
$ |
1.98 |
|
|
$ |
1.94 |
|
|
$ |
0.04 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a result of the merger with FPU in 2009, we changed our operating segments to better align with
how the chief operating decision maker (our Chief Executive Officer) views the various operations
of the Company. We revised the segment information for all periods presented to reflect the new
operating segments. Also during 2009, we decided not to allocate merger-related costs to our
operating segments for the purpose of reporting their operating profitability, because such costs
are not directly attributable to their operations. Consequently, all of the $1.5 million and $1.2
million of merger-related costs expensed in 2009 and 2008, respectively, are included in Other
segment.
2009 compared to 2008
Our net income increased by approximately $2.3 million in 2009 compared to 2008. Net income was
$15.9 million, or $2.15 per share (diluted), for 2009, compared to $13.6 million, or $1.98 per
share (diluted), for 2008. Our 2009 results include approximately $1.8 million in net income from
FPU for the period from the merger closing (October 28, 2009) to December 31, 2009. Our 2009
results also include approximately $1.5 million of merger-related costs expensed by the Company,
compared to $1.2 million in merger-related costs expensed in 2008. Absent the effect of the merger
and merger-related costs, we estimate that net income would have been $15.3 million, or $2.20 per
share (diluted), in 2009, compared to $14.3 million, or $2.08 per share (diluted), in 2008.
During 2009, Chesapeake incurred approximately $3.0 million related to consummating the merger,
merger-related litigation costs and costs of integrating operations of the two companies. New
accounting standards applicable to acquisitions, which became effective in 2009, require companies
to expense merger-related costs in the periods in
which they are incurred. Under the previous accounting standards, most of these merger-related
costs would have been considered a part of purchase price or liabilities assumed at the merger and
thus not expensed. In accounting for our merger-related
costs, we also considered the potential impact of the future regulatory process as we intend to
seek recovery in future rates of the premium paid and merger-related costs incurred. Similar
recovery treatment has been pursued successfully by other regulated utilities. As we account for
our regulated operations in accordance with ASC Topic 980, Regulated Operations, certain costs
that would otherwise have been expensed by unregulated enterprises may be deferred to reflect the
potential impact of the regulatory and rate-making actions. With regard to the $3.0 million in
merger-related costs incurred in 2009, we deferred approximately $1.5 million as a regulatory
asset, which represents our estimate, based on similar proceedings in Florida in the past, of the
costs that we expect to be permitted to recover when we complete the appropriate rate proceedings.
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 39
During 2008, we incurred and expensed approximately $1.2 million in merger-related costs. These
costs were related to our initial merger discussions with FPU, which were terminated in the second
quarter of 2008.
Our operating income increased by $5.3 million in 2009 compared to 2008. Included in operating
income for 2009 and 2008 are the $1.5 million and $1.2 million merger-related costs expensed in
2009 and 2008, respectively, which are included in the Other segments. Operating income from our
regulated energy segment increased by $2.2 million in 2009. This increase is attributed to $3.0
million of FPU operating income for the period after the merger and an increase in operating income
from the natural gas transmission operations through continued growth and new services. Offsetting
those increases was a decrease in operating income from Chesapeakes Florida natural gas
distribution operation as a result of lower-than-expected customer growth and loss of industrial
customers. Operating income for our unregulated energy segment increased by $4.4 million, which
includes $553,000 in operating income from FPU after the merger. The Delmarva propane distribution
operation contributed most of the increase in operating income by this segment. Delmarva propane
distribution operation recorded $1.8 million in unfavorable propane inventory and swap valuation
adjustments in 2008, which did not recur in 2009. These adjustments to the inventory costs in late
2008 and relatively low propane prices during the first half of 2009 allowed the Delmarva propane
distribution operation to maintain low propane inventory costs while sustaining its retail margins.
Operating income for the Other segment decreased by $1.3 million, primarily due to lower
operating results by the advanced information services operation and higher merger-related costs
expensed in 2009. The operating results of the advanced information services operation continued to
be negatively affected by the lower levels of information technology spending experienced in the
economy at large.
During 2009, we recognized increased corporate overhead costs of $1.2 million compared to 2008,
which were allocated to all of our segments. Payroll and benefits costs in corporate overhead
increased by $961,000 and $225,000, respectively, due to higher incentive compensation based on
improved operating results and increased costs associated with filling several key corporate
positions in 2008 and 2009. Also contributing to the increase were additional costs associated with
investor relations and financial reporting activities and increased pension costs as a result of a
decline in the value of pension investments in late 2008.
An increase of $928,000 in interest charges in 2009 compared to 2008 partially offset the increased
operating results. This increase reflects primarily the interest expense on FPUs long-term debt
and customer deposits and the placement of the $30 million Unsecured Senior Notes in October 2008.
We continued to invest in property, plant and equipment in 2009 to support current and future
growth opportunities, expending $26.3 million for such purposes.
2008 Compared to 2007
Our net income from continuing operations increased by $389,000 in 2008 compared to 2007. Net
income from continuing operations was $13.6 million, or $1.98 per share (diluted), for 2008,
compared to $13.2 million, or $1.94 per share (diluted), in 2007. Our 2008 results include a charge
of $1.2 million for merger-related costs that were
expensed in the second quarter of 2008 when our initial merger discussions with FPU were
terminated. Absent the charge for the unconsummated acquisition, the Company estimates that
period-over-period net income would have increased by $1.1 million in 2008 to $14.3 million, or
$2.08 per share (diluted).
Page 40 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
During 2007, we decided to close the distributed energy services company, Chesapeake OnSight
Services, LLC (OnSight), which consistently experienced operating losses since 2004. The results
of operations for OnSight were classified to discontinued operations and shown net of tax. The
discontinued operations experienced a net loss of $20,000 for 2007.
Our operating income increased by $365,000 in 2008 compared to 2007, including $1.2 million in
merger-related costs expensed in 2008, which are included in the Other segment. Operating income
from recurring operations increased by $1.5 million in 2008 compared to 2007. Our regulated energy
segment achieved an increase of $2.9 million in operating income from new services provided by the
natural gas transmission operation, four-percent customer growth for Chesapeakes natural gas
distribution operations and the successful completion of the Delaware rate proceedings. Our
unregulated energy segment experienced a decrease in operating income of $1.4 million, primarily as
a result of recording $1.8 million in unfavorable propane inventory and swap valuation adjustments
for the Delmarva propane distribution operations in the second half of 2008. The propane inventory
valuation adjustments were recorded to adjust the value of propane inventory and price swap
agreements to current market prices as propane prices declined significantly during the second half
of 2008. Operating income for the Other segment decreased by $1.2 million due to the
merger-related costs.
During 2008, we experienced increased corporate overhead costs, which were allocated to all of our
segments. The increase of $519,000 in corporate overhead costs in 2008 compared to 2007 resulted
primarily from increased payroll and benefit costs of $132,000 and $83,000, respectively, as
several key corporate positions that were vacant in 2007 were filled in 2008 and increased outside
services of $263,000 were incurred primarily for consulting costs relating to an independent
third-party compensation survey, strategic planning and growth initiatives.
A decrease of $432,000 in interest charges in 2008 compared to 2007 also contributed to the overall
increase in net income in 2008. Even though banks were tightening their lending in response to the
financial crisis, we were able to firm up our credit lines during this volatile period by
increasing our total committed short-term borrowing capacity from $15.0 million to $55.0 million.
In addition, on October 31, 2008, we executed a $30.0 million long-term debt placement of 5.93
percent Unsecured Senior Notes.
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 41
We continued to invest in property, plant and equipment in 2008 to support current and future
growth opportunities, expending $30.8 million for such purposes.
Regulated Energy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
For the Years Ended December 31, |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
(decrease) |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
(decrease) |
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue |
|
$ |
139,099 |
|
|
$ |
116,468 |
|
|
$ |
22,631 |
|
|
$ |
116,468 |
|
|
$ |
128,850 |
|
|
$ |
(12,382 |
) |
Cost of sales |
|
|
64,803 |
|
|
|
54,789 |
|
|
|
10,014 |
|
|
|
54,789 |
|
|
|
70,861 |
|
|
|
(16,072 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross margin |
|
|
74,296 |
|
|
|
61,679 |
|
|
|
12,617 |
|
|
|
61,679 |
|
|
|
57,989 |
|
|
|
3,690 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operations & maintenance |
|
|
32,569 |
|
|
|
25,369 |
|
|
|
7,200 |
|
|
|
25,369 |
|
|
|
25,061 |
|
|
|
308 |
|
Depreciation & amortization |
|
|
8,866 |
|
|
|
6,694 |
|
|
|
2,172 |
|
|
|
6,694 |
|
|
|
6,918 |
|
|
|
(224 |
) |
Other taxes |
|
|
5,961 |
|
|
|
4,883 |
|
|
|
1,078 |
|
|
|
4,883 |
|
|
|
4,201 |
|
|
|
682 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
47,396 |
|
|
|
36,946 |
|
|
|
10,450 |
|
|
|
36,946 |
|
|
|
36,180 |
|
|
|
766 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income |
|
$ |
26,900 |
|
|
$ |
24,733 |
|
|
$ |
2,167 |
|
|
$ |
24,733 |
|
|
$ |
21,809 |
|
|
$ |
2,924 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heating Degree-Day (HDD) and Customer Analysis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
For the Years Ended December 31, |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
(decrease) |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
(decrease) |
|
Heating degree-day data Delmarva |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actual HDD |
|
|
4,729 |
|
|
|
4,431 |
|
|
|
298 |
|
|
|
4,431 |
|
|
|
4,504 |
|
|
|
(73 |
) |
10-year average HDD |
|
|
4,462 |
|
|
|
4,401 |
|
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
4,401 |
|
|
|
4,376 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated gross margin per HDD |
|
$ |
2,429 |
|
|
$ |
1,937 |
|
|
$ |
492 |
|
|
$ |
1,937 |
|
|
$ |
1,937 |
|
|
$ |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated dollars per residential customer added: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross margin |
|
$ |
375 |
|
|
$ |
375 |
|
|
$ |
0 |
|
|
$ |
375 |
|
|
$ |
372 |
|
|
$ |
3 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
$ |
100 |
|
|
$ |
103 |
|
|
$ |
(3 |
) |
|
$ |
103 |
|
|
$ |
106 |
|
|
$ |
(3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average number of residential customers |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Delmarva |
|
|
46,717 |
|
|
|
45,570 |
|
|
|
1,147 |
|
|
|
45,570 |
|
|
|
43,485 |
|
|
|
2,085 |
|
Florida |
|
|
13,268 |
|
|
|
13,373 |
|
|
|
(105 |
) |
|
|
13,373 |
|
|
|
13,250 |
|
|
|
123 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
59,985 |
|
|
|
58,943 |
|
|
|
1,042 |
|
|
|
58,943 |
|
|
|
56,735 |
|
|
|
2,208 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 Compared to 2008
Operating income for the regulated energy segment increased by approximately $2.2 million, or nine
percent, in 2009, compared to 2008, which was generated from a gross margin increase of $12.6
million, offset partially by an operating expense increase of $10.4 million.
Gross Margin
Gross margin for our regulated energy segment increased by $12.6 million, or 20 percent. FPUs
natural gas and electric distribution operations had $9.2 million in gross margin for the period
from the merger closing (October 28, 2009) to December 31, 2009, which contributed to this
increase.
The natural gas distribution operations for the Delmarva Peninsula generated an increase in gross
margin of $1.3 million in 2009. The factors contributing to this increase are as follows:
|
|
|
Despite the continued slowdown in the new housing construction and industrial growth in
the region, the Delmarva natural gas distribution operations experienced growth in
residential, commercial, and industrial customers, which contributed $471,000, $149,000 and
$589,000, respectively, to the gross margin increase. A two-percent residential customer
growth experienced by the Delmarva natural gas distribution operation in 2009 was lower
than the growth experienced in recent years and we expect that trend to continue in the
near future. |
|
|
|
Colder weather on the Delmarva Peninsula contributed $449,000 to the increased gross
margin, as heating degree days increased by 298, or seven percent, compared to 2008. |
Page 42 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
|
|
|
The Delaware divisions new rate structure allows collection of miscellaneous service
fees of $256,000, which, although not representing additional revenue, had previously been
offset against other operating expenses. |
|
|
|
Interruptible sales to industrial customers decreased in 2009 due to a reduction in the
price of alternative fuels, which reduced gross margin by $355,000. |
|
|
|
Non-weather related customer consumption decreased in 2009, which reduced gross margin
by $187,000. The decrease in consumption is a result of conservation primarily by
residential customers. |
Chesapeakes Florida natural gas distribution operation experienced a decrease in gross margin of
$333,000, in 2009. This decrease was attributable to reduced consumption by residential and
non-residential customers and loss
of three industrial customers, one in 2008 and two in 2009, due to adverse economic conditions in
the region. This decrease was partially offset by an increase to gross margin of $99,000 due to
implementation of interim rates in the third quarter of 2009.
The natural gas transmission operations achieved gross margin growth of $2.5 million in 2009. The
factors contributing to this increase are as follows:
|
|
|
New long-term transmission services implemented by ESNG in November of 2008 and 2009,
which provided for an additional 5,459 Mcfs per day and 3,976 Mcfs per day, respectively,
added $939,000 to gross margin in 2009. |
|
|
|
New firm transmission services provided to an industrial customer for the period of
February 6, 2009 through October 31, 2009, provided for an additional 6,957 Mcfs per day
and added $574,000 to gross margin. In addition, ESNG entered into two additional firm
transmission service agreements with this customer: (1) 6,006 Mcfs per day from November
1, 2009 through November 30, 2009, which added $56,000 to gross margin for 2009; and (2)
9,662 Mcfs per day from November 1, 2009 through October 31, 2012, which added $181,000 to
gross margin in 2009 and will contribute $1.1 million in gross margin in 2010. |
|
|
|
In April 2009, ESNG changed its rates to recover specific project costs in accordance
with the terms of precedent agreements with certain customers. These new rates generated
$381,000 in gross margin for 2009 and will contribute $516,000 annually thereafter for a
period of 20 years. |
|
|
|
During January 2009, PIPECO, our intra-state pipeline subsidiary in Florida, began to
provide natural gas transmission service to a customer under a 20 year contract. This
agreement contributed $264,000 to gross margin in 2009. |
Other Operating Expenses
Other operating expenses for the regulated energy segment increased by $10.4 million, of which $6.2
million was related to other operating expenses of FPU for the period from the merger closing
(October 28, 2009) to December 31, 2009. The remaining increase in other operating expenses is due
primarily to the following factors:
|
|
|
Depreciation expense, asset removal costs and property taxes, collectively, increased by
approximately $1.4 million as a result of our continued capital investments to support
customer growth. Depreciation expense for 2008 also includes a $305,000 depreciation credit
as a result of the Delaware negotiated rate settlement agreement in the third quarter of
2008, of which $295,000 related to depreciation for the months of October through December
2007. |
|
|
|
Salaries and incentive compensation increased by $803,000, due primarily to compensation
adjustments implemented on January 1, 2009 for non-executive employees, based on a
compensation survey completed in the fourth quarter of 2008, and annual salary increases,
coupled with a slight increase in the accrual for incentive compensation. |
|
|
|
The allowance for uncollectible accounts in the natural gas operation increased by
$176,000 due to growth in customers and the general economic climate. |
|
|
|
Benefit costs increased by $373,000, due primarily to higher pension costs as a result
of the decline in the value of pension assets in 2008 and other benefit costs relating to
increased payroll costs. |
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 43
|
|
|
Increased information technology spending to continuously enhance our information
technology infrastructure and level of support generated increased costs of $285,000. |
|
|
|
Corporate overhead allocated to the regulated energy segment increased by approximately
$722,000 due to the factors previously discussed. |
Other Developments
The following developments, which are not discussed above, may affect the future operating results
of the regulated energy segment:
|
|
|
ESNG received notice from a customer of its intention not to renew two firm transmission
service contracts, one of which expired in October 2009 and the other is expiring in March
2010. If these contracts are not renewed, or equivalent firm service capacity is not
contracted to other customers, gross margin
could be reduced by approximately $427,000 in 2010. ESNG also received notice from a
smaller customer that it does not intend to renew its firm transmission service contract,
which expires in April 2010. Revenue from this contract provides annualized gross margin of
approximately $54,000. |
|
|
|
In December 2009, the Florida PSC approved a permanent rate increase of approximately
$2.5 million for Chesapeakes Florida natural gas distribution division, applicable to all
meters read on or after January 14, 2010. Also in December 2009, FPUs natural gas
distribution operation settled its request for a permanent rate increase, which was
approved by the Florida PSC in May 2009; however, in June 2009, certain parts of the order
were protested by the Office of Public Counsel. The settlement provides for an annual rate
increase of approximately $8.0 million. As a result of the settlement, FPU refunded
approximately $290,000 to its customers in February 2010, which represents revenues in
excess of the amounts provided by the settlement agreement that had been billed to
customers from June 4, 2009 to January 13, 2010. |
|
|
|
The Delaware division is currently involved in a regulatory proceeding regarding the
price it charged for the temporary release of transmission pipeline capacity to our natural
gas marketing subsidiary, PESCO. The Hearing Examiner recommended, among others, a refund
to our Delaware firm customers, which could be up to approximately $700,000, exclusive of
any interest, as of December 31, 2009. We disagree with the Hearing Examiners
recommendations and filed exceptions to those recommendations. We have not recorded a
liability for this contingency based on our current assessment of the case. We anticipate
a ruling by the Delaware PSC in March 2010. Item 8 under the heading, Notes to the
Consolidated Financial Statements Note P, Other Commitments and Contingencies provides
further discussions on this matter. |
2008 Compared to 2007
Operating income for the regulated energy segment increased by approximately $2.9 million in 2008
compared to 2007, which was attributable to a gross margin increase of $3.7 million, offset
partially by an operating expense increase of $766,000.
Gross Margin
Gross margin for our regulated segment increased by $3.7 million, or six percent, of which $2.0
million was attributable to the natural gas distribution operations and $1.7 million to the natural
gas transmission operation.
The Delmarva natural gas distribution operations generated an increase to gross margin of $1.8
million due to the following factors:
|
|
|
The average number of residential customers on the Delmarva Peninsula increased by
2,085, or five percent, for 2008, and we estimate that these additional residential
customers contributed approximately $850,000 to gross margin in 2008. |
|
|
|
Growth in commercial and industrial customers contributed $473,000 and $89,000,
respectively, to gross margin in 2008. |
|
|
|
Interruptible services revenue, net of required margin-sharing, increased by $307,000 as
customers took advantage of lower natural gas prices compared to prices for alternative
fuels. |
Page 44 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
|
|
|
We estimate that weather contributed $122,000 to gross margin, despite temperatures on
the Delmarva Peninsula being two percent warmer in 2008, compared to 2007. |
|
|
|
Partially offsetting these increases to gross margin was the negative impact of lower
consumption per customer in 2008 compared to 2007. We estimate that lower consumption per
customer reduced gross margin by $118,000. The lower consumption reflects customer
conservation efforts in light of higher energy costs, more energy-efficient housing, and
current economic conditions. |
Gross margin for the Florida natural gas distribution operation increased by $200,000 in 2008,
compared to 2007. The higher gross margin for the period was attributable primarily to a
one-percent growth in residential customers, an increase in non-residential customer volumes, and
higher revenues from third-party natural gas marketers.
The natural gas transmission operation achieved gross margin growth of $1.7 million in 2008, $1.2
million of which was attributable to new transmission capacity contracts implemented in November
2007 and 2008. In addition, the implementation of rate case settlement rates, effective September
1, 2007, contributed an additional $439,000 to gross margin in 2008. The remaining $61,000 increase
to gross margin was attributable primarily to higher interruptible sales revenue, net of required
margin-sharing.
Other Operating Expenses
Other operating expenses for the regulated energy segment increased by approximately $766,000, due
primarily to the following factors:
|
|
|
Payroll and benefit costs increased by $486,000 and $152,000, respectively, reflecting
annual compensation increases and increased staff to support compliance with new federal
pipeline integrity regulations and to serve the additional growth. |
|
|
|
Depreciation expense and asset removal costs decreased by approximately $1.5 million,
primarily as a result of our Delaware distribution operations rate proceedings in 2008 and
ESNGs rate settlement in September 2007, which provided for lower depreciation and asset
removal cost allowances. Higher depreciation expense from the increased level of capital
investment partially offset this decrease in 2008. |
|
|
|
Property taxes increased by approximately $609,000 due to the higher level of capital
investment and adjusted property assessments by various jurisdictions. |
|
|
|
Vehicle-related costs increased by $132,000 due to higher fuel and depreciation charges. |
|
|
|
Information technology costs increased by approximately $517,000 as a result of higher
spending to improve the infrastructure, including system performance, disaster recovery and
support. |
|
|
|
Corporate overhead costs allocated to the regulated energy segment increased by
approximately $385,000 as previously discussed. |
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 45
Unregulated Energy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
For the Years Ended December 31, |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
(decrease) |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
(decrease) |
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue |
|
$ |
119,973 |
|
|
$ |
161,290 |
|
|
$ |
(41,317 |
) |
|
$ |
161,290 |
|
|
$ |
115,190 |
|
|
$ |
46,100 |
|
Cost of sales |
|
|
90,408 |
|
|
|
138,302 |
|
|
|
(47,894 |
) |
|
|
138,302 |
|
|
|
91,727 |
|
|
|
46,575 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross margin |
|
|
29,565 |
|
|
|
22,988 |
|
|
|
6,577 |
|
|
|
22,988 |
|
|
|
23,463 |
|
|
|
(475 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operations & maintenance |
|
|
18,016 |
|
|
|
16,322 |
|
|
|
1,694 |
|
|
|
16,322 |
|
|
|
15,559 |
|
|
|
763 |
|
Depreciation & amortization |
|
|
2,415 |
|
|
|
2,024 |
|
|
|
391 |
|
|
|
2,024 |
|
|
|
1,842 |
|
|
|
182 |
|
Other taxes |
|
|
976 |
|
|
|
861 |
|
|
|
115 |
|
|
|
861 |
|
|
|
888 |
|
|
|
(27 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
21,407 |
|
|
|
19,207 |
|
|
|
2,200 |
|
|
|
19,207 |
|
|
|
18,289 |
|
|
|
918 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income |
|
$ |
8,158 |
|
|
$ |
3,781 |
|
|
$ |
4,377 |
|
|
$ |
3,781 |
|
|
$ |
5,174 |
|
|
$ |
(1,393 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Propane Heating Degree-Day (HDD) Analysis Delmarva
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
For the Years Ended December 31, |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
(decrease) |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
(decrease) |
|
Heating degree-days |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actual |
|
|
4,729 |
|
|
|
4,431 |
|
|
|
298 |
|
|
|
4,431 |
|
|
|
4,504 |
|
|
|
(73 |
) |
10-year average |
|
|
4,462 |
|
|
|
4,401 |
|
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
4,401 |
|
|
|
4,376 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated gross margin per HDD |
|
$ |
3,083 |
|
|
$ |
2,465 |
|
|
$ |
618 |
|
|
$ |
2,465 |
|
|
$ |
1,974 |
|
|
$ |
491 |
|
2009 compared to 2008
Operating income for the unregulated energy segment increased by approximately $4.4 million in 2009
compared to 2008, which was attributable to a gross margin increase of $6.6 million, offset
partially by an operating expense increase of $2.2 million.
Gross Margin
Gross margin for our unregulated energy segment increased by $6.6 million, or 29 percent, in 2009
compared to 2008. FPUs propane distribution operation contributed $1.8 million to gross margin
during the period from the merger closing (October 28, 2009) to December 31, 2009.
PESCO, our natural gas marketing operation, experienced an increase in gross margin of $1.0 million
in 2009. PESCO increased its sales volume by 13 percent in 2009 compared to 2008, as it benefited
from increased spot sale opportunities on the Delmarva Peninsula during 2009, which contributed
significantly to the gross margin increase. Spot sales are opportunistic and unpredictable, and
their future availability is highly dependent upon market conditions.
The propane distribution operation, excluding FPU, increased its gross margin by $4.8 million. The
absence of inventory valuation adjustments in 2009 and lower propane costs, coupled with sustained
retail prices, contributed $3.5 million of the gross margin increase. A sharp decline in propane
prices in late 2008 resulted in a loss associated with the inventory and swap valuation adjustments
of $1.8 million in 2008. These inventory adjustments in 2008 and relatively low propane prices
during the first half of 2009 allowed the Delmarva propane distribution operation to keep its
propane cost low. Colder weather on the Delmarva Peninsula in 2009 increased gross margin by $1.2
million, as temperatures were seven percent colder in 2009, compared to 2008. Gross margin for the
Florida propane distribution operation in 2009 remained unchanged from 2008 as increased margins
per retail gallon were offset by a decline in residential and non-residential consumption.
The propane wholesale marketing operation experienced a reduction in gross margin of $1.0 million
in 2009. The propane wholesale marketing operation typically capitalizes on price volatility by
selling at prices above cost and effectively managing the larger spreads between the market (spot)
prices and forward prices. Overall lack of volatility in wholesale propane prices in 2009,
compared to 2008, reduced such revenue opportunities and its trading volume by 57 percent.
Page 46 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
Other Operating Expenses
Total other operating expenses for the unregulated energy segment increased by $2.2 million in
2009, of which $1.2 million was related to other operating expenses of FPU during the period from
the merger closing (October 28, 2009) to December 31, 2009. The remaining increase in other
operating expenses is due primarily to the following factors:
|
|
|
Payroll costs increased by $301,000 in 2009 compared to 2008 due to annual salary
increases. |
|
|
|
Benefit costs increased by $167,000, due primarily to increased pension costs in 2009 as
a result of the decline in the value of pension plan assets. |
|
|
|
Depreciation expense increased by $249,000 as we continued to make capital investments
in the propane distribution operations. |
|
|
|
Additional costs of approximately $115,000 were incurred in 2009 to maintain propane
tanks in compliance with United States Department of Transportation standards. |
|
|
|
Corporate overhead allocated to the unregulated energy segment increased by
approximately $568,000 as previously discussed. |
|
|
|
These increases were partially offset by lower vehicle-related costs of $176,000,
primarily due to a decrease in the cost of fuel. |
Other Developments
The following developments, which are not discussed above, may affect the future operating results
of the unregulated energy segment:
|
|
|
On November 20, 2009, Valero announced that it was permanently shutting down its
refinery operation located in Delaware City, Delaware. During 2009, PESCO sold natural gas
and services for $10.6 million to Valero. PESCOs natural gas sales to Valero were on a
spot sale basis. PESCOs sale to Valero represented 19 percent of its total sales in 2009.
Spot sales are not predictable, and therefore, are not included in our long-term financial
plans or forecasts; nor do we anticipate sales to Valero in the future. |
|
|
|
In February 2010, Sharp, our Delmarva propane distribution subsidiary, purchased the
operating assets of a regional propane distributor serving approximately 1,000 retail
customers in Northampton and Accomack, Virginia. |
2008 Compared to 2007
Operating income for the unregulated energy segment decreased by approximately $1.4 million, or 27
percent, in 2008 compared to 2007, which was attributable to a gross margin decline of $475,000 and
an operating expense increase of $918,000.
Gross Margin
The period-over-period decrease in gross margin of $475,000, or two percent, for the unregulated
energy segment was due to $2.9 million in decreased gross margin for the propane distribution
operations, which was offset by the increase to gross margin of $901,000 for the propane wholesale
marketing operation and $1.5 million for the natural gas marketing operation.
The Delmarva propane distribution operations decrease in gross margin of $3.1 million resulted
from the following:
|
|
|
Gross margin decreased by $1.1 million in 2008, compared to 2007, primarily because of a
$0.04 decrease in the average gross margin per retail gallon attributable to inventory
write-downs of approximately $800,000 during 2008 in response to market prices below the
Companys inventory price per gallon. |
Chesapeake
Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 47
|
|
|
Wholesale propane prices rose dramatically during the spring of 2008, when they
traditionally fall. In efforts to protect the Company from the impact that additional price
increases would have on our Pro-Cap (propane price cap) Plan, the propane distribution
operation entered into a swap agreement. By the end of the period, the market price of
propane had plummeted well below the unit price in the swap agreement. As a result, we
marked the agreement relating to the January 2009 and February 2009 gallons to market,
which increased cost of sales by $939,000 in 2008. In January 2009, we terminated this
swap agreement. |
|
|
|
Non-weather-related volumes sold in 2008 decreased by 1.2 million gallons, or five
percent. This decrease in gallons sold reduced gross margin by approximately $867,000 for
the Delmarva propane distribution operation. Factors contributing to this decrease in
gallons sold included customer conservation and the timing of propane deliveries. |
|
|
|
Margins per gallon on the Pro-Cap Plan for the last four months of 2008 recovered to a
level just $113,000 below the prior years levels, despite realizing a charge to cost of
sales of $494,000 as the December gallons related to this plan were valued at current
market prices. |
|
|
|
Temperatures on the Delmarva Peninsula were two percent warmer in 2008 compared to 2007,
which contributed to a decrease of 248,000 gallons sold, or one percent. We estimated that
the warmer weather and decreased volumes sold had a negative impact of approximately
$180,000 on gross margin for the Delmarva propane distribution operation. |
|
|
|
Gross margin from miscellaneous fees, including items such as tank and meter rentals and
marketing pricing programs, increased by $271,000. |
The Florida propane distribution operation experienced an increase in gross margin of $181,000 in
2008, compared to 2007. The higher gross margin resulted from increases of four percent and 10
percent in the number of gallons sold to residential and commercial customers, respectively,
combined with a higher average gross margin per retail gallon.
Gross margin for the propane wholesale marketing operation increased by $901,000 in 2008, compared
to 2007. This increase reflects the operation capitalizing on a larger number of market
opportunities that arose in 2008 due to price volatility in the propane wholesale market. This
volatility created an opportunity for the operation to capture larger price-spreads between sales
contracts and purchase contracts in addition to larger spreads between the market (spot) prices and
forward propane prices.
Gross margin for the natural gas marketing operation increased by $1.5 million for 2008, compared
to 2007. The increase in gross margin was due to enhanced sales contract terms, margins on spot
sales of approximately $600,000 and 26-percent growth in its customer base. The increased customer
base contributed to a 41-percent increase in volumes sold in 2008.
Other Operating Expenses
Other operating expenses for the unregulated energy segment increased by $918,000 due primarily to
the following factors:
|
|
|
Payroll and benefit costs decreased by $186,000, due primarily to lower accrual for
incentive compensation as a result of lower operating results in 2008. |
|
|
|
Vehicle-related costs increased by $207,000 as a result of higher fuel costs and
continued maintenance of our delivery trucks. |
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization expense increased by $182,000 as a result of an increase
in our capital investments, primarily in Community Gas Systems. |
|
|
|
The allowance for uncollectible accounts increased by $436,000 due to increased revenue. |
|
|
|
Maintenance expense decreased by $193,000, due primarily to additional costs in 2007
associated with propane tank recertifications and maintenance to comply with the Department
of Transportation standards. |
|
|
|
Information technology costs increased by approximately $153,000 as a result of higher
spending to improve the infrastructure, including system performance, disaster recovery and
support. |
|
|
|
Corporate overhead costs increased by approximately $204,000 as previously discussed. |
Page 48 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
For the Years Ended December 31, |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
(decrease) |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
(decrease) |
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue |
|
$ |
11,998 |
|
|
$ |
15,373 |
|
|
$ |
(3,375 |
) |
|
$ |
15,373 |
|
|
$ |
15,721 |
|
|
$ |
(348 |
) |
Cost of sales |
|
|
6,036 |
|
|
|
8,034 |
|
|
|
(1,998 |
) |
|
|
8,034 |
|
|
|
8,260 |
|
|
|
(226 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross margin |
|
|
5,962 |
|
|
|
7,339 |
|
|
|
(1,377 |
) |
|
|
7,339 |
|
|
|
7,461 |
|
|
|
(122 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operations & maintenance |
|
|
4,859 |
|
|
|
5,206 |
|
|
|
(347 |
) |
|
|
5,206 |
|
|
|
5,333 |
|
|
|
(127 |
) |
Transaction-related costs |
|
|
1,478 |
|
|
|
1,153 |
|
|
|
325 |
|
|
|
1,153 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,153 |
|
Depreciation & amortization |
|
|
310 |
|
|
|
290 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
290 |
|
|
|
304 |
|
|
|
(14 |
) |
Other taxes |
|
|
640 |
|
|
|
728 |
|
|
|
(88 |
) |
|
|
728 |
|
|
|
697 |
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
7,287 |
|
|
|
7,377 |
|
|
|
(90 |
) |
|
|
7,377 |
|
|
|
6,334 |
|
|
|
1,043 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income Other |
|
|
(1,325 |
) |
|
|
(38 |
) |
|
|
(1,287 |
) |
|
|
(38 |
) |
|
|
1,127 |
|
|
|
(1,165 |
) |
Operating Income Eliminations |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income |
|
$ |
(1,322 |
) |
|
$ |
(35 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,287 |
) |
|
$ |
(35 |
) |
|
$ |
1,131 |
|
|
$ |
(1,166 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 compared to 2008
Operating loss for the Other segment increased by approximately $1.3 million in 2009 compared to
2008. The increased loss was attributable primarily to the gross margin decrease of $1.4 million in
the advanced information services operation.
Gross margin
The period-over-period decrease in gross margin for the Other segment was a result of a decrease
in consulting revenues by the advanced information services operation due primarily to a 28-percent
decrease in the number of billable consulting hours, coupled with a decline in training revenues.
The reduction in the number of billable consulting hours is a result of current economic conditions
in which information technology spending has not rebounded. The decrease in consulting revenues was
partially offset with an increase of $218,000 from BravePoints professional database monitoring
and support solution services, and increased product sales of $140,000. While there have been some
improvement in recent months, we do not expect customers information technology spending to return
to historical levels in the foreseeable future given the current economic climate.
Operating expenses
Other operating expenses decreased by $90,000 in 2009. The decrease in operating expenses was
attributable primarily to the cost containment actions, including layoffs and compensation
adjustments, implemented by the advanced information service operation in 2009 to reduce costs to
offset the decline in revenues. This decrease was offset by the increased merger-related costs.
2008 Compared to 2007
Operating income for the Other segment decreased by approximately $1.2 million in 2008 compared
to 2007, which was attributable to a gross margin decrease of $122,000 and an operating expense
increase of $1.0 million.
Gross margin
Our advanced information services operation contributed most of the gross margin for the Other
segment. Gross margin for our advanced services operation declined by approximately $152,000, which
was attributable to a decrease of $610,000 in consulting revenues as higher average billing rates
were not able to overcome a nine-percent decrease in the number of billable consulting hours. The
reduction in the number of billable hours was a result of economic conditions in which information
technology spending broadly declined. The decrease in consulting revenues was partially offset with
increased product sales and training revenues of $403,000 and $47,000, respectively.
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 49
The increase in other operating expenses in 2008 was primarily related to $1.2 million in
merger-related costs in 2008 that were expensed in the second quarter of 2008 when initial
discussions with FPU regarding a potential merger were terminated. Other operating expenses for our
advanced information services operation remained relatively unchanged in 2008 compared to 2007.
Other Income
Other income for 2009, 2008 and 2007 was $163,000, $103,000 and $291,000, respectively, which
includes interest income, late fees charged to customers and gains or losses from the sale of
assets.
Interest Expense
2009 Compared to 2008
Total interest expense for 2009 increased by approximately $928,000, or 15 percent, compared to
2008. Total interest expense for 2009 includes approximately $741,000 in FPUs interest expense for
the period from the merger closing (October 28, 2009) to December 31, 2009, which is primarily
related to $610,000 in interest on FPUs long-term debt and $115,000 in interest on customer deposits. FPUs weighted average interest rate was
7.41 percent for the period from the merger closing to December 31, 2009.
The remaining increase in interest expense in 2009 was attributable to the following factors:
|
|
|
Excluding FPUs long-term debt, interest expense on long-term debt increased by $990,000
as our average long-term debt balance increased to $92.1 million in 2009 from $76.2 million
in 2008. This increase was primarily related to the placement of $30.0 million of 5.93
percent Unsecured Senior Notes in October 2008. The weighted average interest rate on our
long-term debt remained unchanged at 6.37 percent in 2009, compared to 6.40 percent in
2008. |
|
|
|
Interest expense in short-term borrowing decreased by $852,000 in 2009, compared to
2008, as our average short-term borrowing balance decreased to $13.0 million in 2009 from
$38.3 million in 2008. The $30.0 million long-term placement in October 2008 contributed to
this decrease as well as a decrease in working capital requirements in 2009, compared to
2008, due to lower capital expenditures, lower income tax payments from bonus depreciation,
net tax operating losses carried forward from 2008 and lower commodity costs. The impact
from these factors was offset slightly by the increased working capital needs as a result
of the FPU merger. Also contributing to the decrease in interest expense in short-term
borrowing was a decrease in the weighted average short-term interest rate to 1.28 percent
in 2009 from 2.79 percent in 2008 as we continued to experience low interest rates
throughout 2009. |
|
|
|
Other interest charges increased by $49,000. |
In January 2010, we redeemed $28.7 million of the secured first mortgage bonds with a carrying
value of $27.2 million to increase financial flexibility by reducing the amount of the FPU secured
long-term debt and maintaining compliance with the covenants in our unsecured senior notes.
2008 Compared to 2007
Total interest expense for 2008 decreased by approximately $432,000, or seven percent, compared to
2007. The lower interest expense is primarily the result of the following:
|
|
|
Interest on long-term debt decreased by $263,000 in 2008, compared to 2007, as we
reduced our average long-term debt balance and weighted average interest rate. Our average
long-term debt balance during 2008 was $76.2 million, with a weighted average interest rate
of 6.40 percent, compared to $76.5 million, with a weighted average interest rate of 6.71
percent, for the same period in 2007. |
Page 50 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
|
|
|
Other interest charges decreased by $127,000 as higher amounts of interest capitalized
were partially offset by interest accrued on pending customer refunds. |
|
|
|
Interest on short-term borrowings decreased by $42,000 in 2008 compared to 2007, as the
weighted average interest rate was nearly 2.7 percentage points lower in 2008 offsetting a
$17.7 million increase in our average short-term borrowing balance. Our average short-term
borrowing during 2008 was $38.3 million, with a weighted average interest rate of 2.79
percent, compared to $20.6 million, with a weighted average interest rate of 5.46 percent,
for 2007. |
Income Taxes
2009 Compared to 2008
Income tax expense was $10.9 million in 2009, compared to $8.8 million in 2008, representing an
increase of $2.1 million. During 2009, we expensed approximately $871,000 in merger-related costs
that were determined to be non-deductible for income tax purposes. Excluding the impact of these
costs, our effective income tax rate for 2009 and 2008 remained primarily unchanged at 39.4 percent
and 39.3 percent, respectively. The increase in income tax expense reflects the increased taxable
income in 2009.
2008 Compared to 2007
Income tax expense was $8.8 million in 2008, compared to $8.6 million in 2007, representing an
increase of $200,000. Our effective income tax rate for 2008 and 2007 remained primarily unchanged
at 39.3 percent and 39.4 percent, respectively. The increase in income tax expense reflects the
increased taxable income in 2008.
Discontinued Operations
During 2007, we decided to close the distributed energy services subsidiary, OnSight, which had
experienced operating losses since its inception in 2004. The results of operations for OnSight
have been reclassified to discontinued operations and shown net of tax for all periods presented.
The discontinued operations experienced a net loss of $20,000 for 2007. We did not have any
discontinued operations in 2008 and 2009.
(e) Liquidity and Capital Resources
Our capital requirements reflect the capital-intensive nature of our business and are principally
attributable to investment in new plant and equipment and retirement of outstanding debt. We rely
on cash generated from operations, short-term borrowing, and other sources to meet normal working
capital requirements and to finance capital expenditures.
During 2009, net cash provided by operating activities was $45.8 million, cash used in investing
activities was $23.1 million, and cash used in financing activities was $21.4 million. Cash
provided during 2009 includes approximately $359,000 of net cash acquired in the merger with FPU.
During 2008, net cash provided by operating activities was $28.5 million, cash used by investing
activities was $31.2 million, and cash provided by financing activities was $1.7 million.
During 2007, net cash provided by operating activities was $25.7 million, cash used by investing
activities was $31.3 million, and cash provided by financing activities was $3.7 million.
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 51
As of December 31, 2009, we had four unsecured bank lines of credit with two financial
institutions, for a total of $90.0 million, none of which requires compensating balances. In
January 2010, the total unsecured bank lines of credit increased to $100.0 million, none of which
requires compensating balances. These bank lines are available to provide funds for our short-term
cash needs to meet seasonal working capital requirements and to fund temporarily portions of the
capital expenditure program. We are currently authorized by our Board of Directors to borrow up to
$85.0 million of short-term debt, as required, from these short-term lines of credit. In response
to the instability and volatility of the financial markets during 2008, we solidified our lines of
credit by converting $40.0 million of available credit under uncommitted lines to committed lines
of credit. Currently, two of the bank lines, totaling $60.0 million, are committed. Advances
offered under the uncommitted lines of credit are subject to the discretion of the banks. The
outstanding balance of short-term borrowing at December 31, 2009 and 2008 was $30.0 million and
$33.0 million, respectively. The level of short-term debt was reduced in late 2008 and throughout
2009 with funds provided from the placement of $30 million of 5.93 percent Unsecured Senior Notes
in October 2008. This reduction was offset in late 2009 by the increased working capital
requirements after the FPU merger.
We have budgeted $53.9 million for capital expenditures during 2010. This amount includes $49.2
million for the regulated energy segment, $3.3 million for the unregulated energy segment and $1.4
million for the Other segment. The amount for the regulated energy segment includes estimated
capital expenditures for the following: natural gas distribution operation ($20.2 million), natural
gas transmission operation ($25.4 million) and electric distribution operation ($3.6 million) for
expansion and improvement of facilities. The amount for the unregulated energy segment includes
estimated capital expenditures for the propane distribution operations for customer growth and
replacement of equipment. The amount for the Other segment includes an estimated capital
expenditure of $288,000 for the advanced information services operation with the remaining balance for
other general plant, computer software and hardware. We expect to fund the 2010 capital
expenditures program from short-term borrowing, cash provided by operating activities, and other
sources. The capital expenditure program is subject to continuous review and modification. Actual
capital requirements may vary from the above estimates due to a number of factors, including
changing economic conditions, customer growth in existing areas, regulation, new growth or
acquisition opportunities and availability of capital.
Capital Structure
In consummating the FPU merger, Chesapeake issued 2,487,910 shares of its common stock, valued at
approximately $75.7 million, in exchange for all outstanding common stock of FPU. We also became
subject to FPUs long-term debt of $47.8 million as a result of the merger. The following presents
our capitalization as of December 31, 2009 and 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt, net of current maturities |
|
$ |
98,814 |
|
|
|
32 |
% |
|
$ |
86,422 |
|
|
|
41 |
% |
Stockholders equity |
|
|
209,781 |
|
|
|
68 |
% |
|
|
123,073 |
|
|
|
59 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total capitalization, excluding short-term debt |
|
$ |
308,595 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
$ |
209,495 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2009, common equity represented 68 percent of total capitalization, compared to
59 percent at December 31, 2008. As of December 31, 2009, we classified as a current portion of
long-term debt two series of FPUs secured first mortgage bonds in the amount of approximately
$27.2 million because we redeemed them in January 2010 prior to their stated maturities in order to
maintain increased financial flexibility and compliance with the covenants in our Unsecured Senior
Notes. We used the short-term borrowing to finance the redemption of these bonds.
Page 52 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
The following presents our capitalization as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, if short-term borrowing
and the current portion of long-term debt were included in capitalization:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
Short-term debt |
|
$ |
30,023 |
|
|
|
8 |
% |
|
$ |
33,000 |
|
|
|
13 |
% |
Long-term debt, including current maturities |
|
|
134,113 |
|
|
|
36 |
% |
|
|
93,078 |
|
|
|
38 |
% |
Stockholders equity |
|
|
209,781 |
|
|
|
56 |
% |
|
|
123,073 |
|
|
|
49 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total capitalization, including short-term debt |
|
$ |
373,917 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
$ |
249,151 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excluding $75.7 million of the value of Chesapeakes common stock issued in the merger and $47.8
million of FPUs long-term debt included in our Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 2009,
total capitalization increased by $1.3 million in 2009.
We remain committed to maintaining a sound capital structure and strong credit ratings to provide
the financial flexibility needed to access capital markets when required. This commitment, along
with adequate and timely rate relief for our regulated operations, is intended to ensure our
ability to attract capital from outside sources at a reasonable cost. We believe that the
achievement of these objectives will provide benefits to our customers, creditors and investors.
Cash Flows Provided by Operating Activities
Our cash flows provided by operating activities were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended December 31, |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income |
|
$ |
15,897 |
|
|
$ |
13,607 |
|
|
$ |
13,198 |
|
Non-cash adjustments to net income |
|
|
28,319 |
|
|
|
22,919 |
|
|
|
15,829 |
|
Changes in assets and liabilities |
|
|
1,593 |
|
|
|
(7,982 |
) |
|
|
(3,346 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash from operating activities |
|
$ |
45,809 |
|
|
$ |
28,544 |
|
|
$ |
25,681 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Period-over-period changes in our cash flows from operating activities are attributable primarily
to changes in net income, depreciation, deferred taxes and working capital. Changes in working
capital are determined by a variety of factors, including weather, the prices of natural gas,
electricity and propane, the timing of customer collections, payments for purchases of natural gas,
electricity and propane, and deferred fuel cost recoveries.
We generate a large portion of our annual net income and subsequent increases in our accounts
receivable in the first and fourth quarters of each year due to significant volumes of natural gas
and propane delivered by our natural gas and propane distribution operations to customers during
the peak heating season. In addition, our natural gas and propane inventories, which usually peak
in the fall months, are largely drawn down in the heating season and provide a source of cash as
the inventory is used to satisfy winter sales demand.
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 53
In 2009, our net cash flow provided by operating activities was $45.8 million, an increase of $17.3
million compared to 2008. This increase includes $4.7 million in net cash flow provided by the
operating activities of FPU after the merger. The remaining increase was due primarily to the
following:
|
|
|
Net cash flows from the change in income taxes receivable and non-cash adjustments for
deferred income taxes were related to continued higher tax deductions provided by bonus
depreciation, which resulted in net federal income tax refunds received in 2009 and
continued to create higher book-to-tax timing differences; |
|
|
|
Net cash flows from changes in accounts receivable and accounts payable were due
primarily to the timing of collections and payments of trading contracts entered into by
our propane wholesale marketing operation; and |
|
|
|
Net cash flows from the increase in regulatory liabilities were due primarily to higher
over-collection of purchased gas costs by our Delmarva natural gas distribution operation. |
In 2008, our net cash flow provided by operating activities was $28.5 million, an increase of $2.9
million compared to 2007. The increase was due primarily to the following:
|
|
|
Net cash flows from changes in accounts receivable and accounts payable were due
primarily to the timing of collections and payments of trading contracts entered into by
our propane wholesale and marketing operation; |
|
|
|
Timing of payments for the purchase of propane inventory, natural gas purchases injected
into storage, and the relative decline in the unit price of these commodities; |
|
|
|
Reduction in regulatory liabilities, which resulted primarily from lower deferred gas
cost recoveries in our natural gas distribution operations as the price of natural gas
declined in the second half of 2008; |
|
|
|
Reduced payments for income taxes payable as a result of higher tax deductions provided
by the 2008 Economic Stimulus Act; and |
|
|
|
Cash flows provided by non-cash adjustments for deferred income taxes. The increase in
deferred income taxes is the result of higher book-to-tax timing differences during the
period that were generated by the Economic Stimulus Act, which authorized bonus
depreciation for certain assets. |
Cash Flows Used in Investing Activities
In 2009, net cash flows used by investing activities totaled $23.1 million, a decrease of $8.1
million compared to 2008. In 2008, net cash flows used by investing activities totaled $31.2
million, which remained relatively unchanged from net cash flows used by investing activities of
$31.3 million in 2007.
|
|
|
We acquired $359,000 in cash, net of cash paid, in the merger with FPU in 2009. |
|
|
|
We received $3.5 million in proceeds from an investment account related to future
environmental costs, which was previously included as a non-current investment, as we
transferred the amount to our general account that invests in overnight income-producing
securities. Our general account is considered cash equivalent. |
|
|
|
Cash utilized for capital expenditures was $26.6 million, $30.8 million and $31.3
million for 2009, 2008, and 2007, respectively. |
|
|
|
Environmental expenditures exceeded amounts recovered through rates charged to customers
in 2009, 2008 and 2007 by $418,000, $480,000 and $228,000, respectively. |
|
|
|
Sales of property, plant, and equipment generated $205,000 of cash in 2007. |
Page 54 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
Cash Flows Provided by Financing Activities
In 2009, net cash flows used by financing activities totaled $21.4 million, compared to net cash
flow provided by financing activities of $1.7 million and $3.7 million in 2008 and 2007,
respectively. Significant financing activities included the following:
|
|
|
During 2009 and 2008, we reduced our short-term debt by $3.8 million and $12.0 million,
respectively. During 2007, net borrowing of short-term debt increased by $18.7 million,
primarily to support our capital investments. |
|
|
|
In October 2008, we completed the placement of $30.0 million of 5.93 percent Unsecured
Senior Notes. |
|
|
|
We repaid $10.9 million of long-term debt during 2009, compared to $7.7 million of
long-term debt repaid during each of 2008 and 2007. |
|
|
|
We paid $8.0 million, $7.8 million and $7.0 million in cash dividends in 2009, 2008 and
2007, respectively. An increase in cash dividends paid in each year reflects the growth in
the annualized dividend rate. |
Contractual Obligations
We have the following contractual obligations and other commercial commitments as of December 31,
2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payments Due by Period |
|
|
|
Less than 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More than 5 |
|
|
|
|
Contractual Obligations |
|
year |
|
|
1 - 3 years |
|
|
3 - 5 years |
|
|
years |
|
|
Total |
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt (1) |
|
$ |
36,765 |
|
|
$ |
17,293 |
|
|
$ |
20,793 |
|
|
$ |
60,818 |
|
|
$ |
135,669 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating leases (2) |
|
|
866 |
|
|
|
1,449 |
|
|
|
865 |
|
|
|
2,031 |
|
|
|
5,211 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase obligations (3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transmission capacity |
|
|
11,133 |
|
|
|
38,589 |
|
|
|
20,447 |
|
|
|
63,028 |
|
|
|
133,197 |
|
Storage Natural Gas |
|
|
530 |
|
|
|
6,600 |
|
|
|
2,001 |
|
|
|
968 |
|
|
|
10,099 |
|
Commodities |
|
|
54,802 |
|
|
|
341 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
55,143 |
|
Electric supply |
|
|
574 |
|
|
|
1,149 |
|
|
|
1,149 |
|
|
|
2,298 |
|
|
|
5,170 |
|
Forward purchase contracts Propane (4) |
|
|
12,570 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,570 |
|
Other |
|
|
1,557 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,573 |
|
Unfunded benefits (5) |
|
|
371 |
|
|
|
1,504 |
|
|
|
847 |
|
|
|
4,926 |
|
|
|
7,648 |
|
Funded benefits (6) |
|
|
2,090 |
|
|
|
79 |
|
|
|
670 |
|
|
|
1,170 |
|
|
|
4,009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Contractual Obligations |
|
$ |
121,258 |
|
|
$ |
67,020 |
|
|
$ |
46,772 |
|
|
$ |
135,239 |
|
|
$ |
370,289 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Principal payments on long-term debt, see Item 8 under the heading Notes to the
Consolidated Financial Statements Note J, Long-Term Debt, for additional discussion of this
item. The expected interest payments on long-term debt are $7.5 million, $12.6 million, $10.1
million and $17.3 million, respectively, for the periods indicated above. Expected interest
payments for all periods total $47.6 million. |
|
(2) |
|
See Item 8 under the heading Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements Note
L, Lease Obligations, for additional discussion of this item.
|
|
(3) |
|
See Item 8 under the heading Notes to the Consolidated Financial statement Note
P, Other Commitments and Contingencies, in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for
further information. |
|
(4) |
|
We have also entered into forward sale contracts. See Market Risk of the
Managements Discussion and Analysis for further information.
|
|
(5) |
|
We have recorded
long-term liabilities of $7.6 million at December 31, 2009 for unfunded post-employment and
post-retirement benefit plans. The amounts specified in the table are based on expected payments to
current retirees and assumes a retirement age of 62 for currently active employees. There are many
factors that would cause actual payments to differ from these amounts, including early retirement,
future health care costs that differ from past experience and discount rates implicit in
calculations. |
|
(6) |
|
We have recorded long-term liabilities of $12.7 million at December 31, 2009 for two
qualified, defined benefit pension plans. The assets funding these plans are in a separate trust
and are not considered assets of the Company or included in the Companys balance sheets. The
Contractual Obligations table above includes $2.0 million, reflecting the expected payments the
Company will make to the trust funds in 2010. Additional contributions may be required in future
years based on the actual return earned by the plan assets and other actuarial assumptions, such as
the discount rate and long-term expected rate of return on plan assets. See Item 8 under the
heading Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements Note M, Employee Benefit Plans, for
further information on the plans. Additionally, the Contractual Obligations table includes deferred
compensation obligations totaling $2.0 million funded with Rabbi Trust assets in the same amount.
The Rabbi Trust assets are recorded under Investments on the Balance Sheet. We assume a retirement
age of 65 for purposes of distribution from this account. |
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 55
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements
We have issued corporate guarantees to certain vendors of our subsidiaries, primarily the propane
wholesale marketing subsidiary and the natural gas marketing subsidiary. These corporate guarantees
provide for the payment of propane and natural gas purchases in the event of the respective
subsidiarys default. None of these subsidiaries has ever defaulted on its obligations to pay its
suppliers. The liabilities for these purchases are recorded in the Consolidated Financial
Statements when incurred. The aggregate amount guaranteed at December 31, 2009 was $22.7 million,
with the guarantees expiring on various dates in 2010.
In addition to the corporate guarantees, we have issued a letter of credit to our primary insurance
company for $725,000, which expires on August 31, 2010. The letter of credit is provided as
security to satisfy the deductibles under our various insurance policies. There have been no draws
on this letter of credit as of December 31, 2009.
(f) Rate Filings and Other Regulatory Activities
Our natural gas distribution operations in Delaware, Maryland and Florida and electric distribution
operation in Florida are subject to regulation by their respective PSC; ESNG is subject to
regulation by the FERC; and PIPECO is subject to regulation by the Florida PSC. At December 31,
2009, Chesapeake was involved in rate filings and/or regulatory matters in each of the
jurisdictions in which it operates. Each of these rate filings or regulatory matters is fully
described in Item 8 under the heading Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements Note P,
Other Commitments and Contingencies.
(g) Environmental Matters
We continue to work with federal and state environmental agencies to assess the environmental
impact and explore corrective action at seven environmental sites (see Item 8 under the heading
Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements Note O, Environmental Commitments and
Contingencies for further detail on each site). We believe that future costs associated with these
sites will be recoverable in rates or through sharing arrangements with, or contributions by, other
responsible parties.
(h) Market Risk
Market risk represents the potential loss arising from adverse changes in market rates and prices.
Long-term debt is subject to potential losses based on changes in interest rates. Our long-term
debt consists of fixed-rate senior notes, secured debt and convertible debentures (see Item 8 under
the heading Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements Note J, Long-term Debt for annual
maturities of consolidated long-term debt). All of our long-term debt is fixed-rate debt and was
not entered into for trading purposes. The carrying value of long-term debt, including current
maturities, was $134.1 million at December 31, 2009, as compared to a fair value of $145.5 million,
based on a discounted cash flow methodology that incorporates a market interest rate that is based
on published corporate borrowing rates for debt instruments with similar terms and average
maturities with adjustments for duration, optionality, credit risk, and risk profile. We evaluate
whether to refinance existing debt or permanently refinance existing short-term borrowing, based in
part on the fluctuation in interest rates.
Our propane distribution business is exposed to market risk as a result of propane storage
activities and entering into fixed price contracts for supply. We can store up to approximately
four million gallons (including leased storage and rail cars) of propane during the winter season
to meet our customers peak requirements and to serve metered customers. Decreases in the wholesale
price of propane may cause the value of stored propane to decline. To mitigate the impact of price
fluctuations, we have adopted a Risk Management Policy that allows the propane distribution
operation to enter into fair value hedges or other economic hedges of our inventory.
Page 56 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
Our propane wholesale marketing operation is a party to natural gas liquids forward contracts,
primarily propane contracts, with various third-parties. These contracts require that the propane
wholesale marketing operation purchase or sell natural gas liquids at a fixed price at fixed future
dates. At expiration, the contracts are settled by the delivery of natural gas liquids to us or the
counter-party or booking out the transaction. Booking out is a procedure for financially settling
a contract in lieu of the physical delivery of energy. The propane wholesale marketing operation
also enters into futures contracts that are traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange. In certain
cases, the futures contracts are settled by the payment or receipt of a net amount equal to the
difference between the current market price of the futures contract and the original contract
price; however, they may also be settled by physical receipt or delivery of propane.
The forward and futures contracts are entered into for trading and wholesale marketing purposes.
The propane wholesale marketing business is subject to commodity price risk on its open positions
to the extent that market prices for natural gas liquids deviate from fixed contract settlement
prices. Market risk associated with the trading of futures and forward contracts is monitored daily
for compliance with our Risk Management Policy, which includes volumetric limits for open
positions. To manage exposures to changing market prices, open positions are marked up or down to
market prices and reviewed daily by our oversight officials. In addition, the Risk Management
Committee reviews periodic reports on markets and the credit risk of counter-parties, approves any
exceptions to the
Risk Management Policy (within limits established by the Board of Directors) and authorizes the use
of any new types of contracts. Quantitative information on forward and futures contracts at
December 31, 2009 and 2008 is presented in the following tables.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quantity in |
|
|
Estimated Market |
|
Weighted Average |
|
At December 31, 2009 |
|
gallons |
|
|
Prices |
|
Contract Prices |
|
Forward Contracts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sale |
|
|
11,944,800 |
|
|
$0.6900 $1.3350 |
|
$ |
1.1264 |
|
Purchase |
|
|
11,256,000 |
|
|
$0.7275 $1.3350 |
|
$ |
1.1367 |
|
Other Contract |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Put option |
|
|
1,260,000 |
|
|
$ |
|
$ |
0.1500 |
|
Estimated market prices and weighted average contract prices are in
dollars per gallon.
All contracts expire in the first quarter of 2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quantity in |
|
|
Estimated Market |
|
Weighted Average |
|
At December 31, 2008 |
|
gallons |
|
|
Prices |
|
Contract Prices |
|
Forward Contracts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sale |
|
|
10,626,000 |
|
|
$0.5450 $1.9100 |
|
$ |
0.9984 |
|
Purchase |
|
|
9,949,800 |
|
|
$0.7000 $1.9600 |
|
$ |
1.0233 |
|
Estimated market prices and weighted average contract prices are in
dollars per gallon.
All contracts expired in 2009.
At December 31, 2009 and 2008, we marked these forward and other contracts to market, using market
transactions in either the listed or OTC markets, which resulted in the following assets and
liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
Mark-to-market energy assets |
|
$ |
2,379 |
|
|
$ |
4,482 |
|
Mark-to-market energy liabilities |
|
$ |
2,514 |
|
|
$ |
3,052 |
|
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 57
Our natural gas distribution, electric distribution and natural gas marketing operations have
entered into agreements with natural gas and electricity suppliers to purchase natural gas and
electricity for resale to their customers. Purchases under these contracts either do not meet the
definition of derivatives or are considered normal purchases and sales and are accounted for on
an accrual basis.
(i) Competition
Our natural gas and electric distribution operations and our natural gas transmission operation
compete with other forms of energy including natural gas, electricity, oil and propane. The
principal competitive factors are price and, to a lesser extent, accessibility. Our natural gas
distribution operations have several large-volume industrial customers that are able to use fuel
oil as an alternative to natural gas. When oil prices decline, these interruptible customers may
convert to oil to satisfy their fuel requirements, and our interruptible sales volumes may decline.
Oil prices, as well as the prices of other fuels, fluctuate for a variety of reasons; therefore,
future competitive conditions are not predictable. To address this uncertainty, we use flexible
pricing arrangements on both the supply and sales sides of this business to compete with
alternative fuel price fluctuations. As a result of the transmission operations conversion to open
access and Chesapeakes Florida natural gas distribution divisions restructuring of its services,
these businesses have shifted from providing bundled transportation and sales service to providing
only transmission and contract storage services. Our electric distribution operation currently
does not face substantial competition as the electric utility industry in Florida has not been
deregulated. In addition, natural gas is the only viable alternative fuel to electricity in our
electric service territories and is available only in a small area.
Our natural gas distribution operations in Delaware, Maryland and Florida offer unbundled
transportation services to certain commercial and industrial customers. In 2002, Chesapeakes
Florida natural gas distribution division extended such service to residential customers. With such
transportation service available on our distribution systems, we are competing with third-party
suppliers to sell gas to industrial customers. With respect to unbundled transportation services,
our competitors include interstate transmission companies, if the distribution customers are
located close enough to a transmission companys pipeline to make connections economically
feasible. The customers at risk are usually large volume commercial and industrial customers with
the financial resources and capability to bypass our existing distribution operations in this
manner. In certain situations, our distribution operations may adjust services and rates for these
customers to retain their business. We expect to continue to expand the availability of unbundled
transportation service to additional classes of distribution customers in the future. We have also
established a natural gas marketing operation in Florida, Delaware and Maryland to provide such
service to customers eligible for unbundled transportation services.
Our propane distribution operations compete with several other propane distributors in their
respective geographic markets, primarily on the basis of service and price, emphasizing responsive
and reliable service. Our competitors generally include local outlets of national distributors and
local independent distributors, whose proximity to customers entails lower costs to provide
service. Propane competes with electricity as an energy source, because it is typically less
expensive than electricity, based on equivalent BTU value. Propane also competes with home heating
oil as an energy source. Since natural gas has historically been less expensive than propane,
propane is generally not distributed in geographic areas served by natural gas pipeline or
distribution systems.
The propane wholesale marketing operation competes against various regional and national marketers,
many of which have significantly greater resources and are able to obtain price or volumetric
advantages.
The advanced information services business faces significant competition from a number of larger
competitors having substantially greater resources available to them than does the Company. In
addition,
changes in the advanced information services business are occurring rapidly, and could adversely
affect the markets for the products and services offered by these businesses. This segment competes
on the basis of technological expertise, reputation and price.
Page 58 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
(j) Inflation
Inflation affects the cost of supply, labor, products and services required for operations,
maintenance and capital improvements. While the impact of inflation has remained low in recent
years, natural gas and propane prices are subject to rapid fluctuations. In the regulated natural
gas and electric distribution operations, fluctuations in natural gas and electricity prices are
passed on to customers through the fuel cost recovery mechanism in our tariffs. To help cope with
the effects of inflation on our capital investments and returns, we seek rate increases from
regulatory commissions for our regulated operations and closely monitor the returns of our
unregulated business operations. To compensate for fluctuations in propane gas prices, we adjust
propane selling prices to the extent allowed by the market.
Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.
Information concerning quantitative and qualitative disclosure about market risk is included in
Item 7 under the heading Managements Discussion and Analysis Market Risk.
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.
Managements Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial
reporting, as such term is defined in Rule 13a-15(f) of the Exchange Act. A companys internal
control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding
the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external
purposes in accordance with GAAP. A companys internal control over financial reporting includes
those policies and procedures that (i) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable
detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the
company; (ii) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit
preparation of financial statements in accordance with GAAP, and that receipts and expenditures of
the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of
the company; and (iii) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of
unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the companys assets that could have a material
effect on the financial statements.
Under the supervision and with the participation of management, including the principal executive
officer and principal financial officer, Chesapeakes management conducted an evaluation of the
effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting based on the criteria established in
a report entitled Internal Control Integrated Framework, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Because of its inherent limitations, internal control
over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any
evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become
inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or
procedures may deteriorate.
On October 28, 2009, the previously announced merger between Chesapeake and FPU was consummated.
Chesapeake is in the process of integrating FPUs operations and has not included FPUs activity in
its evaluation of internal control over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. See Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements Note B,
Acquisitions and Dispositions for additional information relating to the FPU merger. FPUs
operations constituted approximately 30 percent of total assets (excluding goodwill and other
intangible assets) as of December 31, 2009, and 10 percent of operating revenues for the year then
ended. FPUs operations will be included in Chesapeakes assessment as of December 31, 2010.
Chesapeakes management has evaluated and concluded that Chesapeakes internal control over
financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2009.
Chesapeake
Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 59
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
To the Board of Directors and
Stockholders of Chesapeake Utilities Corporation
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Chesapeake Utilities Corporation as
of December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders
equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period
ended December 31, 2009. Chesapeake Utilities Corporations management is
responsible for these consolidated financial statements. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight
Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are free of material
misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and
disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles
used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial
statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all
material respects, the financial position of Chesapeake Utilities Corporation as
of December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the results of their operations
and their cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2009 in conformity with accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States of America.
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight
Board (United States), Chesapeake Utilities Corporations internal control over financial reporting
as of December 31, 2009, based on criteria established in Internal ControlIntegrated Framework
issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO), and our
report dated March 8, 2010 expressed an unqualified opinion.
|
|
|
/s/ ParenteBeard LLC
ParenteBeard LLC
|
|
|
Malvern, Pennsylvania |
|
|
March 8, 2010 |
|
|
Page 60 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
Consolidated Statements of Income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended December 31, |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
(in thousands, except shares and per share data) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Revenues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulated Energy |
|
$ |
139,099 |
|
|
$ |
116,468 |
|
|
$ |
128,850 |
|
Unregulated Energy |
|
|
119,973 |
|
|
|
161,290 |
|
|
|
115,190 |
|
Other |
|
|
9,713 |
|
|
|
13,685 |
|
|
|
14,246 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating revenues |
|
|
268,785 |
|
|
|
291,443 |
|
|
|
258,286 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Expenses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulated energy cost of sales |
|
|
64,803 |
|
|
|
54,789 |
|
|
|
70,861 |
|
Unregulated energy cost of sales |
|
|
95,467 |
|
|
|
145,854 |
|
|
|
99,987 |
|
Operations |
|
|
50,706 |
|
|
|
43,476 |
|
|
|
42,243 |
|
Transaction-related costs |
|
|
1,478 |
|
|
|
1,153 |
|
|
|
|
|
Maintenance |
|
|
3,430 |
|
|
|
2,215 |
|
|
|
2,236 |
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
11,588 |
|
|
|
9,005 |
|
|
|
9,060 |
|
Other taxes |
|
|
7,577 |
|
|
|
6,472 |
|
|
|
5,785 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating expenses |
|
|
235,049 |
|
|
|
262,964 |
|
|
|
230,172 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income |
|
|
33,736 |
|
|
|
28,479 |
|
|
|
28,114 |
|
Other income, net of other expenses |
|
|
165 |
|
|
|
103 |
|
|
|
291 |
|
Interest charges |
|
|
7,086 |
|
|
|
6,158 |
|
|
|
6,590 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income Before Income Taxes |
|
|
26,815 |
|
|
|
22,424 |
|
|
|
21,815 |
|
Income taxes |
|
|
10,918 |
|
|
|
8,817 |
|
|
|
8,597 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income from continuing operations |
|
|
15,897 |
|
|
|
13,607 |
|
|
|
13,218 |
|
Loss from
discontinued operations, net of
tax benefit of $0, $0 and $11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income |
|
$ |
15,897 |
|
|
$ |
13,607 |
|
|
$ |
13,198 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
|
7,313,320 |
|
|
|
6,811,848 |
|
|
|
6,743,041 |
|
Diluted |
|
|
7,440,201 |
|
|
|
6,927,483 |
|
|
|
6,854,716 |
|
|
Earnings Per Share of Common Stock: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From continuing operations |
|
$ |
2.17 |
|
|
$ |
2.00 |
|
|
$ |
1.96 |
|
From discontinued operations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income |
|
$ |
2.17 |
|
|
$ |
2.00 |
|
|
$ |
1.96 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From continuing operations |
|
$ |
2.15 |
|
|
$ |
1.98 |
|
|
$ |
1.94 |
|
From discontinued operations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income |
|
$ |
2.15 |
|
|
$ |
1.98 |
|
|
$ |
1.94 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Dividends Declared Per Share of Common Stock |
|
$ |
1.250 |
|
|
$ |
1.210 |
|
|
$ |
1.175 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements.
Chesapeake
Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 61
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended December 31, |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Activities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income |
|
$ |
15,897 |
|
|
$ |
13,607 |
|
|
$ |
13,198 |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net operating cash: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
11,588 |
|
|
|
9,005 |
|
|
|
9,060 |
|
Depreciation and accretion included in other costs |
|
|
2,789 |
|
|
|
2,239 |
|
|
|
3,337 |
|
Deferred income taxes, net |
|
|
10,065 |
|
|
|
11,442 |
|
|
|
1,831 |
|
Gain on sale of assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(205 |
) |
Unrealized (gain) loss on commodity contracts |
|
|
1,606 |
|
|
|
(1,252 |
) |
|
|
(65 |
) |
Unrealized (gain) loss on investments |
|
|
(212 |
) |
|
|
509 |
|
|
|
(123 |
) |
Employee benefits and compensation |
|
|
1,217 |
|
|
|
152 |
|
|
|
1,004 |
|
Share based compensation |
|
|
1,306 |
|
|
|
820 |
|
|
|
990 |
|
Other, net |
|
|
(40 |
) |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
Changes in assets and liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sale (purchase) of investments |
|
|
(146 |
) |
|
|
(201 |
) |
|
|
229 |
|
Accounts receivable and accrued revenue |
|
|
(13,652 |
) |
|
|
19,411 |
|
|
|
(28,189 |
) |
Propane inventory, storage gas and other inventory |
|
|
2,597 |
|
|
|
(1,730 |
) |
|
|
1,193 |
|
Regulatory assets |
|
|
(1,842 |
) |
|
|
411 |
|
|
|
(345 |
) |
Prepaid expenses and other current assets |
|
|
(747 |
) |
|
|
(1,182 |
) |
|
|
(1,186 |
) |
Other deferred charges |
|
|
(83 |
) |
|
|
(153 |
) |
|
|
(2,478 |
) |
Long-term receivables |
|
|
191 |
|
|
|
207 |
|
|
|
84 |
|
Accounts payable and other accrued liabilities |
|
|
10,185 |
|
|
|
(15,033 |
) |
|
|
22,024 |
|
Income taxes receivable |
|
|
5,020 |
|
|
|
(6,155 |
) |
|
|
(159 |
) |
Accrued interest |
|
|
66 |
|
|
|
158 |
|
|
|
33 |
|
Customer deposits and refunds |
|
|
(75 |
) |
|
|
(502 |
) |
|
|
2,535 |
|
Accrued compensation |
|
|
(2,066 |
) |
|
|
(175 |
) |
|
|
946 |
|
Regulatory liabilities |
|
|
1,071 |
|
|
|
(3,107 |
) |
|
|
2,124 |
|
Other liabilities |
|
|
1,074 |
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
(157 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating activities |
|
|
45,809 |
|
|
|
28,544 |
|
|
|
25,681 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investing Activities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment expenditures |
|
|
(26,603 |
) |
|
|
(30,756 |
) |
|
|
(31,277 |
) |
Proceeds from sale of assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
205 |
|
Proceeds from investments |
|
|
3,519 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash acquired in the merger, net of cash paid |
|
|
359 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Environmental expenditures |
|
|
(418 |
) |
|
|
(480 |
) |
|
|
(228 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used by investing activities |
|
|
(23,143 |
) |
|
|
(31,236 |
) |
|
|
(31,300 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Financing Activities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock dividends |
|
|
(7,957 |
) |
|
|
(7,810 |
) |
|
|
(7,030 |
) |
Issuance of stock for Dividend Reinvestment Plan |
|
|
392 |
|
|
|
(118 |
) |
|
|
299 |
|
Change in cash overdrafts due to outstanding checks |
|
|
835 |
|
|
|
(684 |
) |
|
|
(541 |
) |
Net borrowing (repayment) under line of credit agreements |
|
|
(3,812 |
) |
|
|
(11,980 |
) |
|
|
18,651 |
|
Proceeds from issuance of long-term debt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
29,961 |
|
|
|
|
|
Repayment of long-term debt |
|
|
(10,907 |
) |
|
|
(7,658 |
) |
|
|
(7,656 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities |
|
|
(21,449 |
) |
|
|
1,711 |
|
|
|
3,723 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Increase (Decrease) in Cash and Cash Equivalents |
|
|
1,217 |
|
|
|
(981 |
) |
|
|
(1,896 |
) |
Cash and Cash Equivalents Beginning of Period |
|
|
1,611 |
|
|
|
2,592 |
|
|
|
4,488 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and Cash Equivalents End of Period |
|
$ |
2,828 |
|
|
$ |
1,611 |
|
|
$ |
2,592 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplemental Cash Flow Disclosures (see Note D)
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements.
Page 62 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
Consolidated Balance Sheets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
Assets |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
(in thousands, except shares and per share data) |
|
|
Property, Plant and Equipment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulated energy |
|
$ |
463,856 |
|
|
$ |
316,125 |
|
Unregulated energy |
|
|
61,360 |
|
|
|
51,827 |
|
Other |
|
|
16,054 |
|
|
|
12,255 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total property, plant and equipment |
|
|
541,270 |
|
|
|
380,207 |
|
Less: Accumulated depreciation and amortization |
|
|
(107,318 |
) |
|
|
(101,018 |
) |
Plus: Construction work in progress |
|
|
2,476 |
|
|
|
1,482 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net property, plant and equipment |
|
|
436,428 |
|
|
|
280,671 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investments |
|
|
1,959 |
|
|
|
1,601 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
2,828 |
|
|
|
1,611 |
|
Accounts receivable (less allowance for uncollectible
accounts of $1,609 and $1,159, respectively) |
|
|
70,029 |
|
|
|
52,905 |
|
Accrued revenue |
|
|
12,838 |
|
|
|
5,168 |
|
Propane inventory, at average cost |
|
|
7,901 |
|
|
|
5,711 |
|
Other inventory, at average cost |
|
|
3,149 |
|
|
|
1,479 |
|
Regulatory assets |
|
|
1,205 |
|
|
|
826 |
|
Storage gas prepayments |
|
|
6,144 |
|
|
|
9,492 |
|
Income taxes receivable |
|
|
2,614 |
|
|
|
7,443 |
|
Deferred income taxes |
|
|
1,498 |
|
|
|
1,578 |
|
Prepaid expenses |
|
|
5,843 |
|
|
|
4,679 |
|
Mark-to-market energy assets |
|
|
2,379 |
|
|
|
4,482 |
|
Other current assets |
|
|
147 |
|
|
|
147 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets |
|
|
116,575 |
|
|
|
95,521 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred Charges and Other Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill |
|
|
34,095 |
|
|
|
674 |
|
Other intangible assets, net |
|
|
3,951 |
|
|
|
164 |
|
Long-term receivables |
|
|
343 |
|
|
|
533 |
|
Regulatory assets |
|
|
19,860 |
|
|
|
2,806 |
|
Other deferred charges |
|
|
3,891 |
|
|
|
3,825 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred charges and other assets |
|
|
62,140 |
|
|
|
8,002 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Assets |
|
$ |
617,102 |
|
|
$ |
385,795 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements.
Chesapeake
Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 63
Consolidated Balance Sheets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
Capitalization and Liabilities |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
(in thousands, except shares and per share data) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capitalization |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stockholders equity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, par value $0.4867 per share
(authorized 12,000,000 shares) |
|
$ |
4,572 |
|
|
$ |
3,323 |
|
Additional paid-in capital |
|
|
144,502 |
|
|
|
66,681 |
|
Retained earnings |
|
|
63,231 |
|
|
|
56,817 |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
(2,524 |
) |
|
|
(3,748 |
) |
Deferred compensation obligation |
|
|
739 |
|
|
|
1,549 |
|
Treasury stock |
|
|
(739 |
) |
|
|
(1,549 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders equity |
|
|
209,781 |
|
|
|
123,073 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt, net of current maturities |
|
|
98,814 |
|
|
|
86,422 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total capitalization |
|
|
308,595 |
|
|
|
209,495 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current portion of long-term debt |
|
|
35,299 |
|
|
|
6,656 |
|
Short-term borrowing |
|
|
30,023 |
|
|
|
33,000 |
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
51,948 |
|
|
|
40,202 |
|
Customer deposits and refunds |
|
|
24,960 |
|
|
|
9,534 |
|
Accrued interest |
|
|
1,887 |
|
|
|
1,024 |
|
Dividends payable |
|
|
2,959 |
|
|
|
2,082 |
|
Accrued compensation |
|
|
3,445 |
|
|
|
3,305 |
|
Regulatory liabilities |
|
|
8,882 |
|
|
|
3,227 |
|
Mark-to-market energy liabilities |
|
|
2,514 |
|
|
|
3,052 |
|
Other accrued liabilities |
|
|
8,683 |
|
|
|
2,970 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities |
|
|
170,600 |
|
|
|
105,052 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred income taxes |
|
|
66,923 |
|
|
|
37,720 |
|
Deferred investment tax credits |
|
|
193 |
|
|
|
235 |
|
Regulatory liabilities |
|
|
4,154 |
|
|
|
875 |
|
Environmental liabilities |
|
|
11,104 |
|
|
|
511 |
|
Other pension and benefit costs |
|
|
17,505 |
|
|
|
7,335 |
|
Accrued asset removal cost Regulatory liability |
|
|
33,214 |
|
|
|
20,641 |
|
Other liabilities |
|
|
4,814 |
|
|
|
3,931 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred credits and other liabilities |
|
|
137,907 |
|
|
|
71,248 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other commitments and contingencies (Note P) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Capitalization and Liabilities |
|
$ |
617,102 |
|
|
$ |
385,795 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements.
Page 64 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
Consolidated Statements of Stockholders Equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common Stock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additional Paid-In |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive |
|
|
Deferred |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands, except per share and share data) |
|
Shares
(7) |
|
|
Par Value |
|
|
Capital |
|
|
Retained Earnings |
|
|
Loss |
|
|
Compensation |
|
|
Treasury Stock |
|
|
Total |
|
Balances at December 31, 2006 |
|
|
6,688,084 |
|
|
$ |
3,255 |
|
|
$ |
61,960 |
|
|
$ |
46,271 |
|
|
$ |
(334 |
) |
|
$ |
1,119 |
|
|
$ |
(1,119 |
) |
|
$ |
111,152 |
|
Net Income |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,198 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,198 |
|
Other comprehensive income, net of tax: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employee Benefit Plans, net of tax: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of prior service costs (4) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
Net loss (5) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(515 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(515 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive income |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,680 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividend Reinvestment Plan |
|
|
35,333 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
1,121 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,138 |
|
Retirement Savings Plan |
|
|
29,563 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
935 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
949 |
|
Conversion of debentures |
|
|
8,106 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
135 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
139 |
|
Share based compensation (1) (3) |
|
|
16,324 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
1,442 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,450 |
|
Deferred Compensation Plan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
285 |
|
|
|
(285 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Purchase of treasury stock |
|
|
(971 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(30 |
) |
|
|
(30 |
) |
Sale and distribution of treasury stock |
|
|
971 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
30 |
|
Cash dividends (2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7,931 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7,931 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balances at December 31, 2007 |
|
|
6,777,410 |
|
|
|
3,298 |
|
|
|
65,593 |
|
|
|
51,538 |
|
|
|
(852 |
) |
|
|
1,404 |
|
|
|
(1,404 |
) |
|
|
119,577 |
|
Net Income |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,607 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,607 |
|
Other comprehensive income, net of tax: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employee Benefit Plans, net of tax: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of prior service costs (4) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(71 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(71 |
) |
Net loss (5) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,825 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,825 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive income |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,711 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividend Reinvestment Plan |
|
|
9,060 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
269 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
274 |
|
Retirement Savings Plan |
|
|
5,260 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
156 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
159 |
|
Conversion of debentures |
|
|
10,397 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
171 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
176 |
|
Share based compensation (1) (3) |
|
|
24,994 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
442 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
454 |
|
Tax benefit on stock warrants |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50 |
|
Deferred Compensation Plan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
145 |
|
|
|
(145 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Purchase of treasury stock |
|
|
(2,425 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(72 |
) |
|
|
(72 |
) |
Sale and distribution of treasury stock |
|
|
2,425 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
72 |
|
|
|
72 |
|
Dividends on stock-based compensation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(81 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(81 |
) |
Cash dividends (2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8,247 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8,247 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balances at December 31, 2008 |
|
|
6,827,121 |
|
|
|
3,323 |
|
|
|
66,681 |
|
|
|
56,817 |
|
|
|
(3,748 |
) |
|
|
1,549 |
|
|
|
(1,549 |
) |
|
|
123,073 |
|
Net Income |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15,897 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15,897 |
|
Other comprehensive income, net of tax: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employee Benefit Plans, net of tax: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of prior service costs (4) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
Net Gain (5) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,217 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,217 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive income |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17,121 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividend Reinvestment Plan |
|
|
31,607 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
921 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
936 |
|
Retirement Savings Plan |
|
|
32,375 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
966 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
982 |
|
Conversion of debentures |
|
|
7,927 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
131 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
135 |
|
Share based compensation (1) (3) |
|
|
7,374 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
1,332 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,335 |
|
Deferred Compensation Plan (6) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(810 |
) |
|
|
810 |
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase of treasury stock |
|
|
(2,411 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(73 |
) |
|
|
(73 |
) |
Sale and distribution of treasury stock |
|
|
2,411 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
73 |
|
|
|
73 |
|
Common stock issued in the merger |
|
|
2,487,910 |
|
|
|
1,211 |
|
|
|
74,471 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
75,682 |
|
Dividends on stock-based compensation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(104 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(104 |
) |
Cash dividends (2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9,379 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9,379 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balances at December 31, 2009 |
|
|
9,394,314 |
|
|
$ |
4,572 |
|
|
$ |
144,502 |
|
|
$ |
63,231 |
|
|
$ |
(2,524 |
) |
|
$ |
739 |
|
|
$ |
(739 |
) |
|
$ |
209,781 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes amounts for shares issued for Directors compensation. |
|
(2) |
|
Cash dividends per share for the periods ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007 were
$1.250, $1.210 and $1.175 respectively. |
|
(3) |
|
The shares issued under the Performance Incentive Plan (PIP) are net of shares
withheld for employee taxes. For 2008 and 2007, the Company withheld 12,511 and 2,420 respectively
shares for taxes. The Company did not issue any shares for the PIP in 2009. |
|
(4) |
|
Tax expense (benefit) recognized on the prior service cost component of employees
benefit plans for the periods ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007 were approximately $5, ($52)
and ($2) respectively.
|
|
(5) |
|
Tax expense (benefit) recognized on the net gain (loss)
component of employees benefit plans for the periods ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007 were
$794, ($1,900) and ($340) respectively. |
|
(6) |
|
In May and November 2009, certain participants of the Deferred Compensation Plan
received distributions totaling $883. There were no distributions in 2008 and 2007. |
|
(7) |
|
Includes 28,452, 62,221 and 57, 309 shares at December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007,
respectively, held in a Rabbi Trust established by the Company relating to the Deferred
Compensation Plan. |
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements.
Chesapeake
Utilities Corporation 2009
Form 10-K Page 65
Notes
to the Consolidated Financial Statements
A. Summary of Accounting Policies
Nature of Business
Chesapeake, incorporated in 1947 in Delaware, is a diversified utility company engaged in regulated
energy, unregulated energy and other unregulated businesses. On October 28, 2009, we completed a
merger with FPU, pursuant to which FPU became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Chesapeake. Our
regulated energy business delivers natural gas to approximately 118,000 customers located in
central and southern Delaware, Marylands Eastern Shore and Florida and electricity to
approximately 31,000 customers in northeast and northwest Florida. Our regulated energy business
also provides natural gas transmission service primarily through a 384-mile interstate pipeline
from various points in Pennsylvania and northern Delaware to our natural gas distribution
affiliates in Delaware and Maryland as well as to other utility and industrial customers in
Pennsylvania, Delaware and the Eastern Shore of Maryland.
Our unregulated energy business includes natural gas marketing, propane distribution and propane
wholesale marketing operations. The natural gas marketing operation sells natural gas supplies
directly to commercial and industrial customers in Florida, Delaware and Maryland. The propane
distribution operation provides distribution service to 49,000 customers in Delaware, the Eastern
Shore of Maryland and Virginia, southeastern Pennsylvania and Florida. The propane wholesale
marketing operation markets propane to wholesale customers including large independent oil and
petrochemical companies, resellers and propane distribution companies in the southeastern United
States.
We also engage in non-energy businesses, primarily through our advanced information services
subsidiary, which provides information-technology-related business services and solutions for both
enterprise and e-business applications.
Principles of Consolidation
The Consolidated Financial Statements include the accounts of the Company and its wholly-owned
subsidiaries. As a result of the merger with FPU on October 28, 2009, FPUs financial position,
results of operations and cash flows have been consolidated into our results from the effective
date of the merger. We do not have any ownership interests in investments accounted for using the
equity method or any variable interests in a variable interest entity. All intercompany
transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.
System of Accounts
Our natural gas and electric distribution operations in Delaware, Maryland and Florida are subject
to regulation by their respective PSC with respect to their rates for service, maintenance of their
accounting records and various other matters. ESNG is an open access pipeline regulated by the
FERC. Our financial statements are prepared in accordance with GAAP, which give appropriate
recognition to the ratemaking and accounting practices and policies of the various regulatory
commissions. The unregulated energy and other unregulated businesses are not subject to regulation
with respect to rates, service or maintenance of accounting records.
Property, Plant, Equipment and Depreciation
Property, plant and equipment is stated at original cost less accumulated depreciation or fair
value, if impaired. Property, plant and equipment acquired in the merger were stated at fair value
at the time of the merger. Costs include direct labor, materials and third-party construction
contractor costs, allowance for capitalized interest and certain indirect costs related to
equipment and employees engaged in construction. The costs of repairs and minor replacements are
charged against income as incurred, and the costs of major renewals and betterments are
capitalized. Upon retirement or disposition of property of unregulated businesses, the gain or
loss, net of salvage value, is charged to income. Upon retirement or disposition of property of
regulated businesses, the gain or loss, net of salvage value, is charged to
accumulated depreciation. The provision for depreciation is computed using the straight-line method
at rates that amortize the unrecovered cost of depreciable property over the estimated remaining
useful life of the asset. Depreciation and amortization expenses for the regulated energy
operations are provided at various annual rates, as approved by the regulators.
Page 66 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
Useful Life (1) |
|
|
Plant in service |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mains |
|
$ |
237,133 |
|
|
$ |
184,125 |
|
|
27-62 years |
Services utility |
|
|
61,803 |
|
|
|
37,947 |
|
|
12-48 years |
Compressor station equipment |
|
|
24,981 |
|
|
|
24,981 |
|
|
42 years |
Liquefied petroleum gas equipment |
|
|
30,211 |
|
|
|
26,304 |
|
|
5-31 years |
Meters and meter installations |
|
|
28,419 |
|
|
|
19,479 |
|
|
Unregulated energy 3-33 years, regulated energy 14-49 years |
Measuring and regulating station
equipment |
|
|
19,131 |
|
|
|
15,092 |
|
|
14-54 years |
Office furniture and equipment |
|
|
15,587 |
|
|
|
12,536 |
|
|
Unregulated energy 4-7 years, regulated energy14-25 years |
Transportation equipment |
|
|
16,805 |
|
|
|
11,267 |
|
|
1-20 years |
Structures and improvements |
|
|
15,007 |
|
|
|
10,602 |
|
|
3-44 years (2) |
Land and land rights |
|
|
12,789 |
|
|
|
7,901 |
|
|
Not depreciable, except certain regulated assets |
Propane bulk plants and tanks |
|
|
12,181 |
|
|
|
6,296 |
|
|
12-40 years |
Electric transmission lines and
transformers |
|
|
29,736 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-41 years |
Poles and towers |
|
|
8,752 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-40 years |
Various |
|
|
28,735 |
|
|
|
23,677 |
|
|
Various |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total plant in service |
|
|
541,270 |
|
|
|
380,207 |
|
|
|
|
|
Plus construction work in progress |
|
|
2,476 |
|
|
|
1,482 |
|
|
|
|
|
Less accumulated depreciation |
|
|
(107,318 |
) |
|
|
(101,018 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net property, plant and equipment |
|
$ |
436,428 |
|
|
$ |
280,671 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Certain immaterial account balances may fall outside this range. |
|
|
|
The regulated operations compute depreciation in accordance with rates approved by either the state PSC
or the FERC. These rates are based on depreciation studies and may change periodically upon receiving approval from the
appropriate regulatory body. The depreciation rates shown above are based on the remaining useful lives of the assets at the
time of the depreciation study, rather than their original lives. The depreciation rates are composite, straight-line rates applied
to the average investment for each class of depreciable property and are adjusted for anticipated cost of removal less salvage
value. |
|
|
|
The non-regulated operations compute depreciation using the straight-line method over the estimated useful life of the asset. |
|
(2) |
|
Includes buildings, structures used in connection with natural gas, electric and propane operations, improvements to those
facilities and leasehold improvements. |
Plant in service includes $1.4 million of assets owned by one of our natural gas transmission
subsidiaries, which it uses to provide natural gas transmission service under a contract with a
third-party. This contract is accounted for as an operating lease due to exclusive use of the
assets by the customer. The service under this contract commenced in January 2009 and provides
$264,000 in annual revenues for a term of 20 years. Accumulated depreciation for these assets
total $74,000 at December 31, 2009.
Cash and Cash Equivalents
Our policy is to invest cash in excess of operating requirements in overnight income-producing
accounts. Such amounts are stated at cost, which approximates market value. Investments with an
original maturity of three months or less when purchased are considered cash equivalents.
Chesapeake
Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 67
Inventories
We use the average cost method to value propane, materials and supplies, and other merchandise
inventory. If market prices drop below cost, inventory balances that are subject to price risk are
adjusted to market values.
Regulatory Assets, Liabilities and Expenditures
We account for our regulated operations in accordance with ASC Topic 980, Regulated Operations.
This Topic includes accounting principles for companies whose rates are determined by independent
third-party regulators. When setting rates, regulators often make decisions, the economics of which
require companies to defer costs or revenues in different periods than may be appropriate for
unregulated enterprises. When this situation occurs, a regulated company defers the associated
costs as regulatory assets on the balance sheet and records them as expense on the income statement
as it collects revenues. Further, regulators can also impose liabilities upon a regulated company
for amounts previously collected from customers, and for recovery of costs that are expected to be
incurred in the future as regulatory liabilities.
At December 31, 2009 and 2008, the regulated utility operations had recorded the following
regulatory assets and liabilities on the Balance Sheets. These assets and liabilities will be
recognized as revenues and expenses in future periods as they are reflected in customers rates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
Regulatory Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Underrecovered purchased gas costs |
|
$ |
1,149 |
|
|
$ |
651 |
|
Income tax related amounts due from customers |
|
|
1,783 |
|
|
|
1,285 |
|
Deferred post retirement benefits |
|
|
3,636 |
|
|
|
83 |
|
Deferred transaction and transition costs |
|
|
1,486 |
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred piping and conversion costs |
|
|
1,061 |
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred development costs |
|
|
1,698 |
|
|
|
|
|
Environmental regulatory assets and expenditures |
|
|
7,510 |
|
|
|
779 |
|
Acquisition adjustment (1) |
|
|
795 |
|
|
|
|
|
Loss on reacquired debt |
|
|
154 |
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
1,793 |
|
|
|
834 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Regulatory Assets |
|
$ |
21,065 |
|
|
$ |
3,632 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulatory Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Self insurance |
|
$ |
982 |
|
|
$ |
912 |
|
Overrecovered purchased gas costs |
|
|
7,304 |
|
|
|
1,542 |
|
Shared interruptible margins |
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
232 |
|
Conservation cost recovery |
|
|
1,035 |
|
|
|
744 |
|
Rate refund(2) |
|
|
258 |
|
|
|
|
|
Income tax related amounts due to customers |
|
|
729 |
|
|
|
125 |
|
Storm reserve |
|
|
2,554 |
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued asset removal cost |
|
|
33,214 |
|
|
|
20,641 |
|
Other |
|
|
90 |
|
|
|
547 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Regulatory Liabilities |
|
$ |
46,250 |
|
|
$ |
24,743 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Net carrying value of goodwill from FPUs previous acquisition that is allowed to
be amortized pursuant to a rate order. |
|
(2) |
|
Refunded to FPU natural gas customers in February 2010. |
Included in the regulatory assets listed above is $1.5 million related to deferred merger-related
costs at December 31, 2009 for which we intend to seek recovery in future rates in Florida. Also
included in the regulatory assets listed above are $838,000 and $711,000 at December 31, 2009 and
2008, respectively, in other costs primarily related to income tax related amounts, for which we
are awaiting regulatory approval from various jurisdictions for recovery. For certain regulatory
assets, such as under-recovered purchased fuel costs, deferred rate case costs and development
costs, only recovery of the deferred costs is allowed in rates and we do not earn a return on those
regulatory assets.
Page 68 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
We monitor our regulatory and competitive environment to determine whether the recovery of our
regulatory assets continues to be probable. If we were to determine that recovery of these assets
is no longer probable, we would write off the assets against earnings. We believe that provisions
of ASC Topic 980 Regulated Operations continue to apply to our regulated operations, and that the
recovery of our regulatory assets is probable.
Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets
Goodwill is not amortized but is tested for impairment at least annually. In addition, goodwill of
a reporting unit is tested for impairment between annual tests if an event occurs or circumstances
change that would more likely than not reduce the fair value of a reporting unit below its carrying
value. Other intangible assets are amortized on a straight-line basis over their estimated economic
useful lives. Please refer to Note H, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets, to the Consolidated
Financial Statements for additional discussion of this subject.
Other Deferred Charges
Other deferred charges include discount, premium and issuance costs associated with long-term debt.
Debt costs are deferred and then are amortized to interest expense over the original lives of the
respective debt issuances.
Pension and Other Postretirement Plans
Pension and other postretirement plan costs and liabilities are determined on an actuarial basis
and are affected by numerous assumptions and estimates including the market value of plan assets,
estimates of the expected returns on plan assets, assumed discount rates, the level of
contributions made to the plans, and current demographic and actuarial mortality data. Management
annually reviews the estimates and assumptions underlying our pension and other postretirement plan
costs and liabilities with the assistance of third-party actuarial firms. The assumed discount
rates and the expected returns on plan assets are the assumptions that generally have the most
significant impact on our pension costs and liabilities. The assumed discount rates, health care
cost trend rates and rates of retirement generally have the most significant impact on our
postretirement plan costs and liabilities.
The discount rates are utilized principally in calculating the actuarial present value of our
pension and postretirement obligations and net pension and postretirement costs. When establishing
its discount rates, we consider high quality corporate bond rates based on Moodys Aa bond index,
the Citigroup yield curve, changes in those rates from the prior year, and other pertinent factors,
such as the expected life of each of our plans and their respective payment options.
The expected long-term rates of return on assets are utilized in calculating the expected returns
on plan assets component of our annual pension and plan costs. We estimate the expected returns on
plan assets of each of our plans by evaluating expected bond returns, asset allocations, the
effects of active plan management, the impact of periodic plan asset rebalancing and historical
performance. We also consider the guidance from our investment advisors in making a final
determination of our expected rates of return on assets.
We estimate the assumed health care cost trend rates used in determining our postretirement net
expense based upon actual health care cost experience, the effects of recently enacted legislation
and general economic conditions. Our assumed rate of retirement is estimated based upon our annual
reviews of participant census information as of the measurement date.
Chesapeake
Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 69
Income Taxes and Investment Tax Credit Adjustments
Deferred tax assets and liabilities are recorded for the tax effect of temporary differences
between the financial statements bases and tax bases of assets and liabilities and are measured
using the enacted tax rates in effect in the years in which the differences are expected to
reverse. The portions of our deferred tax liabilities applicable to regulated energy operations,
which have not been reflected in current service rates, represent income taxes recoverable through
future rates. Deferred tax assets are recorded net of any valuation allowance when it is more
likely than not that such tax benefits will be realized. Investment tax credits on utility property
have been deferred and are allocated to income ratably over the lives of the subject property.
We account for uncertainty in income taxes in the financial statements only if it is more likely
than not that an uncertain tax position is sustainable based on technical merits. Recognizable tax
positions are then measured to determine the amount of benefit recognized in the financial
statements.
Financial Instruments
Xeron, our propane wholesale marketing operation, engages in trading activities using forward and
futures contracts, which have been accounted for using the mark-to-market method of accounting.
Under mark-to-market accounting, our trading contracts are recorded at fair value, net of future
servicing costs. The changes in market price are recognized as gains or losses in revenues on the
consolidated income statement in the period of change. There were unrealized losses of $1.6 million
in 2009 and unrealized gains of $1.4 million in 2008. Trading liabilities are recorded in
mark-to-market energy liabilities. Trading assets are recorded in mark-to-market energy assets.
Our natural gas, electric and propane distribution operations have entered into agreements with
suppliers to purchase natural gas, electricity and propane for resale to their customers. Purchases
under these contracts either do not meet the definition of derivatives or are considered normal
purchases and sales and are accounted for on an accrual basis.
The propane distribution operation may enter into a fair value hedge of its inventory in order to
mitigate the impact of wholesale price fluctuations. During 2008, we entered into a swap agreement
to protect the Company from the impact that propane price increases would have on the Pro-Cap
(propane price cap) Plan that the Delmarva propane distribution operation offers to our customers.
Propane prices declined significantly in late 2008 and we recorded a mark-to-market loss of
approximately $939,000 on the swap
agreement in 2008, which increased the cost of propane sales. In January 2009, we terminated the
swap agreement. During 2009, we purchased a put option related to the Pro-Cap Plan, which we
accounted for on a mark-to-market basis, and recorded a loss of $41,000. At December 31, 2009 and
2008, we had $0 in fair value of the put agreement and $(105,000) in fair value of the swap
agreement, respectively.
Page 70 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
Earnings Per Share
Basic earnings per share are computed by dividing income available for common shareholders by the
weighted average number of shares of common stock outstanding during the period. Diluted earnings
per share are computed by dividing income available for common shareholders by the weighted average
number of shares of common stock outstanding during the period adjusted for the exercise and/or
conversion of all potentially dilutive securities, such as convertible debt and share-based
compensation. The calculations of both basic and diluted earnings per share are presented in the
following chart.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For
the Years Ended December 31, |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
(in thousands, except shares and per share data) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calculation of Basic Earnings Per Share: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income |
|
$ |
15,897 |
|
|
$ |
13,607 |
|
|
$ |
13,198 |
|
Weighted average shares outstanding |
|
|
7,313,320 |
|
|
|
6,811,848 |
|
|
|
6,743,041 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic Earnings Per Share |
|
$ |
2.17 |
|
|
$ |
2.00 |
|
|
$ |
1.96 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calculation of Diluted Earnings Per Share: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reconciliation of Numerator: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income |
|
$ |
15,897 |
|
|
$ |
13,607 |
|
|
$ |
13,198 |
|
Effect of 8.25% Convertible debentures |
|
|
79 |
|
|
|
89 |
|
|
|
96 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjusted numerator Diluted |
|
$ |
15,976 |
|
|
$ |
13,696 |
|
|
$ |
13,294 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reconciliation of Denominator: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted shares outstanding Basic |
|
|
7,313,320 |
|
|
|
6,811,848 |
|
|
|
6,743,041 |
|
Effect of dilutive securities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Share-based Compensation |
|
|
34,229 |
|
|
|
12,083 |
|
|
|
|
|
8.25% Convertible debentures |
|
|
92,652 |
|
|
|
103,552 |
|
|
|
111,675 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjusted denominator Diluted |
|
|
7,440,201 |
|
|
|
6,927,483 |
|
|
|
6,854,716 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted Earnings Per Share |
|
$ |
2.15 |
|
|
$ |
1.98 |
|
|
$ |
1.94 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock issued in connection with the FPU merger (See Note B, Acquisitions and Dispositions,
to the Consolidated Financial Statements) increased weighted average shares outstanding during
2009.
Operating Revenues
Revenues for our natural gas and electric distribution operations are based on rates approved by
the PSCs of the states in which they operate. The natural gas transmission operations revenues are
based on rates approved by the FERC. Customers base rates may not be changed without formal
approval by these commissions. The PSCs, however, have authorized our regulated operations to
negotiate rates, based on approved methodologies, with customers that have competitive
alternatives. The FERC has also authorized ESNG to negotiate rates above or below the FERC-approved
maximum rates, which customers can elect as a recourse to negotiated rates.
For regulated deliveries of natural gas and electricity, we read meters and bill customers on
monthly cycles that do not coincide with the accounting periods used for financial reporting
purposes. We accrue unbilled revenues for natural gas and electricity that have been delivered, but
not yet billed, at the end of an accounting period to the extent that they do not coincide. In
connection with this accrual, we must estimate the amount of natural gas and electricity that have
not been accounted for on our delivery systems and must estimate the amount of the unbilled revenue
by jurisdiction and customer class. A similar computation is made to accrue unbilled revenues for
propane customers with meters, such as community gas system customers, and natural gas marketing
customers, whose billing cycles do not coincide with the accounting periods.
The propane wholesale marketing operation records trading activity for open contracts on a net
mark-to-market basis in our consolidated statement of income. For propane distribution customers
without meters and advanced information services customers, we record revenue in the period the
products are delivered and/or services are rendered.
Chesapeake
Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 71
Each of our natural gas distribution operations in Delaware and Maryland, bundled natural gas
distribution service in Florida and electric distribution operation in Florida has a purchased fuel
cost recovery mechanism. This mechanism provides a method of adjusting the billing rates to reflect
changes in the cost of purchased fuel. The difference between the current cost of fuel purchased
and the cost of fuel recovered in billed rates is deferred and accounted for as either unrecovered
purchased fuel costs or amounts payable to customers. Generally, these deferred amounts are
recovered or refunded within one year.
We charge flexible rates to our natural gas distribution industrial interruptible customers to
compete with prices of alternative fuels, which these customers are able to use. Neither the
Company nor any of its interruptible customers is contractually obligated to deliver or receive
natural gas on a firm service basis.
Cost of Sales
Cost of sales includes the direct costs attributable to the products sold or services provided by
the Company for its regulated and unregulated energy segments. These costs include primarily the
variable cost of natural gas, electricity and propane commodities, pipeline capacity costs needed
to transport and store natural gas, transmission costs for electricity, transportation costs to
transport propane purchases to our storage facilities, and the direct cost of labor for our
advanced information services operation.
Operations and Maintenance Expenses
Operations and maintenance expenses are costs associated with the operation and maintenance of our
regulated and unregulated operations. Major cost components include operation and maintenance
salaries and benefits, materials and supplies, usage of vehicles, tools and equipment, payments to
contractors, utility plant maintenance, customer service, professional fees and other outside
services, insurance expense, minor amounts of depreciation, accretion of cost of removal for future
retirements of utility assets, and other administrative expenses.
Depreciation and Accretion Included in Operations Expenses
Depreciation and accretion included in operations expenses consist of the accretion of the costs of
removal for future retirement of utility assets, vehicle depreciation, computer software and
hardware depreciation, and other minor amounts of depreciation expense.
Allowance for Doubtful Accounts
An allowance for doubtful accounts is recorded against amounts due to reduce the net receivables
balance to the amount we reasonably expect to collect based upon our collections experiences and
managements assessment of our customers inability or reluctance to pay. If circumstances change,
our estimates of recoverable accounts receivable may also change. Circumstances which could affect
such estimates include, but are not limited to, customer credit issues, the level of natural gas,
electricity and propane prices and general economic conditions. Accounts are written off when they
are deemed to be uncollectible.
Certain Risks and Uncertainties
Our financial statements are prepared in conformity with GAAP, which require management to make
estimates in measuring assets and liabilities and related revenues and expenses (see Note O,
Environmental Commitments and Contingencies, and Note P, Other Commitments and Contingencies,
to the Consolidated Financial Statements for significant estimates). These estimates involve
judgments with respect to, among other things, various future economic factors that are difficult
to predict and are beyond the control of the Company; therefore, actual results could differ from
those estimates.
We record certain assets and liabilities in accordance with ASC Topic 980, Regulated Operations.
In applying provisions of this Topic, our regulated operations may defer costs or revenues in
different periods than our unregulated operations would recognize, resulting in their being
recorded as assets or liabilities on the applicable operations balance sheet. If we were required
to terminate the application of these provisions to our regulated operations, all such deferred
amounts would be recognized in the income statement at that time. This would result in a charge to
earnings, net of applicable income taxes, which could be material.
Page 72 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
Acquisition Accounting
The merger with FPU was accounted for under the acquisition method of accounting, with Chesapeake
treated as the acquirer. The acquisition method of accounting requires, among other things, that
the assets acquired and liabilities assumed in the merger be recognized at their fair value as of
the acquisition date. It also establishes that the consideration transferred be measured at the
closing date of the merger at the then-current market price. Fair value is defined as the price
that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction
between market participants at the measurement date. In addition, market participants are assumed
to be buyers and sellers in the principal (or the most advantageous) market for the asset or
liability and fair value measures for an asset assume the highest and best use by those market
participants, rather than the acquirers intended use of those assets. Many of these fair value
measurements can be highly subjective and it is also possible that others applying reasonable
judgment to the same facts and circumstances could develop and support a range of alternative
estimated amounts. In estimating the fair value of the assets and liabilities subject to rate
regulation, we considered the nature and impact of such regulations on those assets and liabilities
as a factor in determining their appropriate fair value. We also considered the existence of a
regulatory process that would allow, or sometimes require, regulatory assets and liabilities to be
established for fair value adjustment to certain assets and liabilities subject to rate regulation.
If a regulatory asset or liability should be established to offset the fair value adjustment based
on the current regulatory process, as was the case for fuel contracts and long-term debt, we did
not gross-up our balance sheet to reflect the fair value adjustment and corresponding regulatory
asset/liability, because such gross-up would not have resulted in a change to the value of net
assets and future earnings of the Company.
Total value of the consideration transferred by Chesapeake in the merger was $75.7 million. Net
fair value of the assets acquired and liabilities assumed in the merger was estimated to be $42.3
million. This resulted in a purchase premium of $33.4 million, which was reflected as goodwill.
Note B, Acquisitions and Dispositions, to the Consolidated Financial Statements describes more
fully the purchase price allocation.
The acquisition method of accounting also requires acquisition-related costs to be expensed in the
period in which those costs are incurred, rather than including them as a component of
considerations transferred. It also prohibits an accrual of certain restructuring costs at the
time of the merger for the acquiree. As we intend to seek recovery in future rates in Florida of a
certain portion of the purchase premium paid and merger-related costs incurred, we also considered
the impact of ASC Topic 980, Regulated Operations, in determining proper accounting treatment for
the merger-related costs. During 2009, we incurred approximately $3.0 million to consummate the
merger, including the cost associated with merger-related litigation, and integrate operations
following the merger. We deferred approximately $1.5 million of the total costs incurred as a
regulatory asset at December 31, 2009, which represents our estimate, based on similar proceedings
in Florida in the past, of the costs which we expect to be permitted to recover when we complete
the appropriate rate proceedings.
Subsequent Events
We have assessed and reported on subsequent events through the date of issuance of these
Consolidated Financial Statements.
Reclassifications
As a result of the merger with FPU in 2009, we changed our operating segments (see Note C, Segment
Information, to the Consolidated Financial Statements). We revised the 2008 and 2007 segment
information to reflect the new segments. We also revised the 2008 segment information by
reclassifying transaction costs, which were previously allocated to all segments, to the Other
segment. We reclassified certain amounts in the statements of income and cash flows for the years
ended December 31, 2008 and 2007, to conform to the current years presentation. These
reclassifications are considered immaterial to the overall presentation of our Consolidated
Financial Statements.
Chesapeake
Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 73
Codification
Beginning in the third quarter of 2009, we adopted the Financial Accounting Standards Board
(FASB) ASC, which is now the single source of authoritative accounting principles in the United
States. The adoption of the ASC did not have a material impact on our financial position and
results of operations. As a result of this adoption, we updated all references to accounting and
reporting standards included in this Form 10-K and in some instances provided references to both
pre-and post-Codification standards, as appropriate.
FASB Statements and Other Authoritative Pronouncements
Recent Accounting Pronouncements Yet to be Adopted by the Company
In November 2008, the SEC released a proposed roadmap regarding the potential use by U.S. issuers
of financial statements prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards
(IFRS), a comprehensive series of accounting standards published by the International Accounting
Standards Board (IASB). Under the proposed roadmap, we may be required to prepare financial
statements in accordance with IFRS as early as 2014. The SEC will make a determination in 2011
regarding the mandatory adoption of IFRS. In July 2009, the IASB issued an exposure draft of
Rate-regulated
Activities, which sets out the scope, recognition and measurement criteria, and accounting
disclosures for assets and liabilities that arise in the context of cost-of-service regulation, to
which we are subject in our rate-regulated businesses. We will continue to monitor the development
of the potential implementation of IFRS.
The FASB has issued ASU 2010-06, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (Topic 820): Improving
Disclosures about Fair Value Measurements. This ASU requires some new disclosures and clarifies
some existing disclosure requirements about fair value measurement as set forth in ASC Subtopic
820-10. The FASBs objective is to improve these disclosures and, thus, increase the transparency
in financial reporting. Specifically, ASU 2010-06 amends ASC Subtopic 820-10 to now require a
reporting entity to disclose separately the amounts of significant transfers in and out of Level 1
and Level 2 fair value measurements and describe the reasons for the transfers; and in the
reconciliation for fair value measurements using significant unobservable inputs, a reporting
entity should present separately information about purchases, sales, issuances, and settlements.
In addition, ASU 2010-06 clarifies certain requirements of the existing disclosures. ASU 2010-06
is effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2009, except for
disclosures about purchases, sales, issuances, and settlements in the roll forward of activity in
Level 3 fair value measurements. Those disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after
December 15, 2010, and for interim periods within those fiscal years. We are currently assessing
the potential impact of this pronouncement.
Other Accounting Amendments Adopted by the Company in 2009:
In December 2007, the FASB issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (SFAS) No. 141(R),
now codified within ASC Topic 805, Business Combinations. SFAS No.141(R): (a) defines the
acquirer as the entity that obtains control of one or more businesses in a business combination;
(b) establishes the acquisition date as the date that the acquirer achieves control; and (c)
requires the acquirer to recognize the assets acquired, liabilities assumed and any non-controlling
interests at their fair values as of the acquisition date. It also requires that
acquisition-related costs be expensed as incurred. Provisions of this standard were adopted
effective January 1, 2009. The merger with FPU, effective October 28, 2009, was accounted for using
provisions of this standard. For further discussion, see Note B, Acquisition and Dispositions to
the Consolidated Financial Statements.
In March 2008, the FASB issued SFAS No. 161, Disclosures about Derivative Instruments and Hedging
Activities, an amendment of FASB Statement No. 133. SFAS No. 161 was codified within ASC Sections
815-10-15 and 65, of the Topic, Derivatives and Hedging, and it requires enhanced disclosures
for derivative instruments and hedging activities including: (i) how and why a company uses
derivative instruments; (ii) how derivative instruments and related hedged items are accounted for
under the Derivatives and Hedging Topic, and (iii) how derivative instruments and related hedged
items affect a companys financial position, financial performance and cash flows. Disclosures
required by this standard were adopted by the Company, effective January 1, 2009. Adoption of this
standard did not have an impact on our consolidated financial position and results of operations.
These disclosures are discussed in Note E, Derivative Instruments, to the Consolidated Financial
Statements.
Page 74 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
In April 2008, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position (FSP) FAS 142-3, Determination of the Useful
Life of Intangible Assets, which is codified within ASC Sections 350-30-50, 55 and 65 of the
Topic, Intangibles Goodwill and Other, and ASC Section 275-10-50, of the Topic, Risks and
Uncertainties. It amended factors that should be considered in developing renewal or extension
assumptions used to determine the useful life of a recognized intangible asset. The intent of these
provisions is to improve the consistency between the useful life of a recognized intangible asset
and the period of expected cash flows used to measure the fair value of the asset. We adopted this
standard, effective January 1, 2009. Adoption of this standard did not have an impact on our
consolidated financial position and results of operations.
In May 2008, the FASB issued FSP APB 14-1, Accounting for Convertible Debt Instruments That May Be
Settled in Cash upon Conversion (Including Partial Cash Settlement), which was codified within:
(a) ASC Sections 470-20-10, 15, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55 and 65 of the Topic, Debt, (b) ASC
Section 815-15-55, of the Topic, Derivatives and Hedging, and (c) ASC Section 825-10-15, of the
Topic, Financial Instruments. FSP APB 14-1 clarifies that companies with convertible debt
instruments, which may be settled in cash upon either mandatory or optional conversion (including
partial cash settlement), should separately account for the liability and equity components in a
manner that will reflect the entitys nonconvertible debt borrowing rate when interest cost is
recognized in subsequent periods. We adopted this standard, effective, January 1, 2009. The
adoption of this standard did not have an impact on our consolidated financial position and results
of operations.
In September 2008, the FASB issued FSP Emerging Issues Task Force 03-6-1, Determining Whether
Instruments Granted in Share-Based Payment Transactions Are Participating Securities. This FSP,
codified within FASB ASC Sections 260-10-45, 55 and 65, of the Topic, Earnings Per Share,
clarifies that holders of outstanding unvested share-based payment awards containing rights to
nonforfeitable dividends participate with common shareholders in undistributed earnings. Awards of
this nature are considered participating securities, and the two-class method of computing basic
and diluted earnings per share must be applied. We adopted this standard, effective January 1,
2009. The adoption of this standard did not have an impact on our consolidated financial position
and results of operations.
In December 2008, the FASB issued FSP SFAS 132(R)-1, Employers Disclosures about Postretirement
Benefit Plan Assets. This FSP is codified within ASC Section 715-20-65, of the Topic,
Compensation Retirement Benefits. It expands the disclosure requirements of a defined benefit
pension or other postretirement plan by including the following discussions about plan assets: (i)
how investment allocation decisions are made, including the plans investment policies and
strategies; (ii) the major categories of plan assets; (iii) the inputs and valuation techniques
used to measure the fair value of plan assets; (iv) the effect of fair value measurements, using
significant unobservable inputs on changes in plan assets for the period; and (v) significant
concentrations of risk within plan assets. The disclosures required by this standard are discussed
in Note M, Employee Benefit Plans, to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
In April 2009, the FASB issued FSP FAS 107-1 and APB 28-1, Interim Disclosures about Fair Value of
Financial Instruments. This FSP, codified within ASC Section 825-10-65 of the Topic, Financial
Instruments, enhances consistency in financial reporting by increasing the frequency of fair value
disclosures. The provisions of this standard are effective for interim and annual reporting periods
ending after June 15, 2009, and they did not have an impact on our consolidated financial position
and results of operations. The disclosures required by this standard are discussed in Note F, Fair
Value of Financial Instruments, to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
In May 2009, the FASB issued SFAS No. 165, Subsequent Events, which we adopted in the second
quarter of 2009. The provisions of this standard, now residing in ASC Sections 855-10-05, 15, 25,
45, 50 and 55 of the Topic, Subsequent Events, establish general standards of accounting for, and
disclosure of, events that occur after the balance sheet date but before financial statements are
issued or are available to be issued. The adoption of this standard did not have an impact on our
consolidated financial position and results of operations.
Chesapeake
Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 75
In August 2009, the FASB issued FASB Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2009-05, Fair Value
Measurement and Disclosures Measuring Liabilities at Fair Value. This ASU provides clarification
that in circumstances in which a quoted price in an active market for an identical liability is not
available, a reporting entity is required to measure fair value, using either: (a) a valuation
technique that applies the quoted price of the identical liability when traded as an asset or
quoted prices for similar liabilities when traded as assets; or (b) another valuation technique
that is consistent with the principles of the Topic,
Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures. We adopted this ASU in the third quarter of 2009, and
the adoption of this standard did not have an impact on our consolidated financial position and
results of operations.
B. Acquisitions and Dispositions
FPU
On October 28, 2009, we completed the previously announced merger with FPU, pursuant to which FPU
became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Chesapeake. The merger was accounted for under the acquisition
method of accounting, with Chesapeake treated as the acquirer for accounting purposes.
The merger allowed us to become a larger energy company serving approximately 200,000 customers in
the Mid-Atlantic and Florida markets, which is twice the number of energy customers we served
previously. The merger increases our overall presence in Florida by adding approximately 51,000
natural gas distribution customers and 12,000 propane distribution customers to our existing
operations in Florida. It also introduces us to the electric distribution business as we
incorporate FPUs approximately 31,000 electric customers in northwest and northeast Florida.
In consummating the merger, we issued 2,487,910 shares of Chesapeake common stock at a price per
share of $30.42 in exchange for all outstanding common stock of FPU. We also paid approximately
$16,000 in lieu of issuing fractional shares in the exchange. There is no contingent consideration
in the merger. Total value of considerations transferred by Chesapeake in the merger was
approximately $75.7 million.
The assets acquired and liabilities assumed in the merger were recorded at their respective fair
values at the completion of the merger. For certain assets acquired and liabilities assumed, such
as pension and post-retirement benefit obligations, income taxes and contingencies without readily
determinable fair value, for which GAAP provides specific exception to the fair value recognition
and measurement, we applied other specified GAAP or accounting treatment as appropriate.
The following table summarizes the allocation of the purchase price to the assets acquired and
liabilities assumed at the date of the merger. Estimates of deferred income taxes and certain
accruals are subject to change, pending the finalization of income tax returns and availability of
additional information about the facts and circumstances that existed as of the merger closing. We
will complete the purchase price allocation as soon as practicable but no later than one year from
the merger closing.
Page 76 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
October 28, 2009 |
|
Purchase price |
|
$ |
75,699 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current assets |
|
|
26,761 |
|
Property, plant and equipment |
|
|
141,907 |
|
Regulatory assets |
|
|
17,918 |
|
Investments and other deferred charges |
|
|
3,659 |
|
Intangible assets |
|
|
4,019 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets acquired |
|
|
194,264 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long term debt |
|
|
47,812 |
|
Borrowings from line of credit |
|
|
4,249 |
|
Other current liabilities |
|
|
17,504 |
|
Other regulatory liabilities |
|
|
19,414 |
|
Pension and post retirement obligations |
|
|
14,276 |
|
Environmental liabilities |
|
|
12,414 |
|
Deferred income taxes |
|
|
20,850 |
|
Customer deposits and other liabilities |
|
|
15,467 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities assumed |
|
|
151,986 |
|
Net identifiable assets acquired |
|
|
42,278 |
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill |
|
$ |
33,421 |
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill of $33.4 million was recorded in connection with the merger, none of which is deductible
for tax purposes. All of the goodwill recorded in connection with the merger is related to the
regulated energy segment. We believe the goodwill recognized is attributable primarily to the
strength of FPUs regulated energy businesses and the synergies and opportunities in the combined
company. Intangible assets acquired in connection with the merger are related to propane customer
relationships ($3.5 million) and favorable propane contracts ($519,000). The intangible value assigned
to FPUs existing propane customer relationships will be amortized over a 12-year period based on
the expected duration of benefit arising from the relationships. The intangible value assigned to
favorable propane contracts, will be amortized over a period ranging from one to 14 months based on
contractual terms. See Note H, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets, to the Consolidated
Financial Statements.
Current assets of $26.7 million acquired during the merger include notes receivable of
approximately $5.8 million, for which we expect to receive payment in March 2010, and accounts
receivable of approximately $3.1 million, $6.0 million and $891,000 for natural gas, electric and
propane distribution businesses, respectively.
The financial position and results of operations and cash flows of FPU from the effective date of
the merger are consolidated in our Consolidated Financial Statements in 2009. The revenue and net
income from FPU for the post-merger period in 2009 included in our Consolidated Statements of
Income were $26.4 million and $1.8 million, respectively. The following table shows pro forma
results of operations for the year ended December 31, 2009, as if the merger had been completed at
January 1, 2009, as well as pro forma results of operations for the year ended December 31, 2008,
as if the merger had been completed at January 1, 2008.
Chesapeake
Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 77
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended December 31, |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
(in thousands, except per share data) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating revenues |
|
$ |
394,772 |
|
|
$ |
451,292 |
|
Operating Income |
|
|
44,382 |
|
|
|
38,468 |
|
Net Income |
|
|
20,872 |
|
|
|
17,544 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings per share basic |
|
$ |
2.23 |
|
|
$ |
1.89 |
|
Earnings per share diluted |
|
$ |
2.20 |
|
|
$ |
1.86 |
|
Pro forma results are presented for informational purposes only, and are not necessarily indicative
of what the actual results would have been had the acquisitions actually occurred on January 1,
2009, and January 1, 2008, respectively.
OnSight
During 2007, we decided to close our distributed energy services subsidiary, OnSight, which had
experienced operating losses since its inception in 2004. The results of operations for OnSight
have been reclassified to discontinued operations and shown net of tax for all periods presented.
The discontinued operations experienced a net loss of $20,000 for 2007. We did not have any
discontinued operations in 2008 and 2009.
C. Segment Information
We use the management approach to identify operating segments. We organize our business around
differences in regulatory environment and/or products or services, and the operating results of
each segment are regularly reviewed by the chief operating decision maker (our Chief Executive
Officer) in order to make decisions about resources and to assess performance. The segments are
evaluated based on their pre-tax operating income.
As a result of the merger with FPU, we changed our operating segments to better align with how the
chief operating decision maker views the various operations of the Company. Our three operating
segments are now composed of the following:
|
|
|
Regulated Energy. The regulated energy segment includes natural gas distribution,
electric distribution and natural gas transmission operations. All operations in this
segment are regulated, as to their rates and services, by the PSC having jurisdiction in
each operating territory or by the FERC in the case of ESNG. |
|
|
|
Unregulated Energy. The unregulated energy segment includes natural gas marketing,
propane distribution and propane wholesale marketing operations, which are unregulated as to
their rates and services. |
|
|
|
Other. The Other segment consists primarily of the advanced information services
operation, unregulated subsidiaries that own real estate leased to Chesapeake and certain
corporate costs not allocated to other operations. |
We also reclassified the segment information for 2008 and 2007 to reflect the new segments. During
2009, we also decided not to allocate merger-related transaction costs to different operations for
the purpose of reporting their operating profitability because such costs are not directly
attributable to their operations. To conform to the current years presentation, we revised the
2008 segment information by reclassifying transaction costs, which were previously allocated to all
segments, to the Other segment.
Page 78 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
The following table presents information about our reportable segments. The table excludes
financial data related to its former distributed energy service subsidiary, OnSight, which was
reclassified to discontinued operations for 2007.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended December 31, |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Revenues, Unaffiliated Customers |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulated Energy |
|
$ |
137,847 |
|
|
$ |
115,544 |
|
|
$ |
128,491 |
|
Unregulated Energy |
|
|
119,719 |
|
|
|
161,287 |
|
|
|
115,190 |
|
Other |
|
|
11,219 |
|
|
|
14,612 |
|
|
|
14,606 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating revenues, unaffiliated customers |
|
$ |
268,785 |
|
|
$ |
291,443 |
|
|
$ |
258,287 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intersegment Revenues (1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulated Energy |
|
$ |
1,252 |
|
|
$ |
924 |
|
|
$ |
359 |
|
Unregulated Energy |
|
|
254 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
779 |
|
|
|
761 |
|
|
$ |
1,115 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total intersegment revenues |
|
$ |
2,285 |
|
|
$ |
1,688 |
|
|
$ |
1,474 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulated Energy |
|
$ |
26,900 |
|
|
$ |
24,733 |
|
|
$ |
21,809 |
|
Unregulated Energy |
|
|
8,158 |
|
|
|
3,781 |
|
|
|
5,174 |
|
Other |
|
|
(1,322 |
) |
|
|
(35 |
) |
|
|
1,131 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income |
|
|
33,736 |
|
|
|
28,479 |
|
|
|
28,114 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other income |
|
|
165 |
|
|
|
103 |
|
|
|
291 |
|
Interest charges |
|
|
7,086 |
|
|
|
6,158 |
|
|
|
6,590 |
|
Income taxes |
|
|
10,918 |
|
|
|
8,817 |
|
|
|
8,597 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income from continuing operations |
|
$ |
15,897 |
|
|
$ |
13,607 |
|
|
$ |
13,218 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and Amortization |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulated Energy |
|
$ |
8,866 |
|
|
$ |
6,694 |
|
|
$ |
6,918 |
|
Unregulated Energy |
|
|
2,415 |
|
|
|
2,024 |
|
|
|
1,842 |
|
Other |
|
|
307 |
|
|
|
287 |
|
|
|
300 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total depreciation and amortization |
|
$ |
11,588 |
|
|
$ |
9,005 |
|
|
$ |
9,060 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital Expenditures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulated Energy |
|
$ |
22,917 |
|
|
$ |
25,386 |
|
|
$ |
23,087 |
|
Unregulated Energy |
|
|
1,873 |
|
|
|
3,417 |
|
|
|
5,290 |
|
Other |
|
|
1,504 |
|
|
|
2,041 |
|
|
|
1,765 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total capital expenditures |
|
$ |
26,294 |
|
|
$ |
30,844 |
|
|
$ |
30,142 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
All significant intersegment revenues are billed at market rates and have been
eliminated from consolidated revenues. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Identifiable Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulated Energy |
|
$ |
480,903 |
|
|
$ |
297,407 |
|
Unregulated Energy |
|
|
101,437 |
|
|
|
72,955 |
|
Other |
|
|
34,724 |
|
|
|
15,394 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total identifiable assets |
|
$ |
617,064 |
|
|
$ |
385,756 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 79
Our operations are almost entirely domestic. Our advanced information services subsidiary,
BravePoint, has infrequent transactions with foreign companies, located primarily in Canada, which
are denominated and paid in U.S. dollars. These transactions are immaterial to the consolidated
revenues.
D. Supplemental Cash Flow Disclosures
Cash paid for interest and income taxes during the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, and 2007
were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended December 31, |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash paid for interest |
|
$ |
6,703 |
|
|
$ |
5,835 |
|
|
$ |
5,592 |
|
Cash paid for income taxes |
|
$ |
1,111 |
|
|
$ |
3,885 |
|
|
$ |
7,009 |
|
Non-cash investing and financing activities during the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, and
2007 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended December 31, |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital property and equipment acquired on
account,
but not paid as of December 31 |
|
$ |
1,151 |
|
|
$ |
696 |
|
|
$ |
366 |
|
Merger with FPU |
|
$ |
75,682 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Retirement Savings Plan |
|
$ |
982 |
|
|
$ |
159 |
|
|
$ |
949 |
|
Dividends Reinvestment Plan |
|
$ |
692 |
|
|
$ |
208 |
|
|
$ |
841 |
|
Conversion of Debentures |
|
$ |
135 |
|
|
$ |
177 |
|
|
$ |
138 |
|
Performance Incentive Plan |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
568 |
|
|
$ |
435 |
|
Director Stock Compensation Plan |
|
$ |
214 |
|
|
$ |
181 |
|
|
$ |
184 |
|
Tax benefit on stock warrants |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
50 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
E. Derivative Instruments
As of December 31, 2009, we had the following outstanding trading contracts which we accounted for
as derivatives:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quantity in |
|
|
Estimated Market |
|
|
Weighted Average |
|
At December 31, 2009 |
|
gallons |
|
|
Prices |
|
|
Contract Prices |
|
Forward Contracts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sale |
|
|
11,944,800 |
|
|
$ |
0.6900 $1.3350 |
|
|
$ |
1.1264 |
|
Purchase |
|
|
11,256,000 |
|
|
$ |
0.7275 $1.3350 |
|
|
$ |
1.1367 |
|
Other Contract |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Put option |
|
|
1,260,000 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
0.1500 |
|
Estimated
market prices and weighted average contract prices are in dollars per
gallon.
All contracts expire in the first quarter of 2010.
Page 80 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
The following tables present information about the fair value and related gains and losses of our
derivative contracts. We did not have any derivative contracts with a credit-risk-related
contingency.
Fair values of the derivative contracts recorded in the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December
31, 2009 and 2008, are the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asset Derivatives |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value |
|
(in thousands) |
|
Balance Sheet Location |
|
|
December 31, 2009 |
|
|
December 31, 2008 |
|
Derivatives
not designated as fair value hedges: |
|
Forward contracts |
|
Mark-to-market energy assets |
|
|
$ |
2,379 |
|
|
$ |
4,482 |
|
Put option(1) |
|
Mark-to-market energy assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total asset derivatives |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2,379 |
|
|
$ |
4,482 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liability Derivatives |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value |
|
(in thousands) |
|
Balance Sheet Location |
|
|
December 31, 2009 |
|
|
December 31, 2008 |
|
Derivatives designated as fair value hedges: |
Propane swap agreement (2) |
|
Other current liabilities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
105 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives not designated as fair value
hedges: |
Forward contracts |
|
Mark-to-market energy liabilities |
|
|
|
2,514 |
|
|
|
3,052 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liability derivatives |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2,514 |
|
|
$ |
3,157 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
We purchased a put option for the Pro-Cap (propane price cap) plan
in September 2009. The put option, which expires on March 31, 2010, had a fair
value of $0 at December 31, 2009. |
|
(2) |
|
Our propane distribution operation entered into a propane swap
agreement to protect it from the impact that wholesale propane price increases
would have on the Pro-Cap plan that was offered to customers. We terminated
this swap agreement in January 2009. |
The effects of gains and losses from derivative instruments on the Consolidated Statement of
Income for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, are the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount of Gain (Loss) on Derivatives: |
|
|
|
Location of Gain |
|
For the Years Ended December 31, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
(Loss) on Derivatives |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
Derivatives designated as fair value hedges |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Propane swap agreement (1) |
|
Cost of Sales |
|
$ |
(42 |
) |
|
$ |
1,476 |
|
|
Derivatives not designated as fair value hedges |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Put Option (2) |
|
Revenue |
|
|
(41 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives not designated as fair value hedges |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized gains (losses) on forward contracts |
|
Revenue |
|
|
(1,565 |
) |
|
|
1,357 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(1,648 |
) |
|
$ |
2,833 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Our propane distribution operation entered into a propane swap
agreement to protect it from the impact that wholesale propane price increases
would have on the Pro-Cap (propane price cap) Plan that was offered to
customers. We terminated this swap agreement in January 2009. |
|
(2) |
|
We purchased a put option for the Pro-Cap plan in September 2009.
The put option, which expires on March 31, 2010, had a fair value of $0 at
December 31, 2009. |
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 81
The effects of trading activities on the Consolidated Statement of Income for the years ended
December 31, 2009 and 2008, are the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount of Trading Revenue: |
|
|
|
Location in the |
|
|
For the Years Ended December 31, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
Statement of Income |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
Realized gains on forward contracts |
|
Revenue |
|
$ |
3,830 |
|
|
$ |
1,935 |
|
Unrealized gains (losses) on forward contracts |
|
Revenue |
|
|
(1,565 |
) |
|
|
1,357 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2,265 |
|
|
$ |
3,292 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Fair Value of Financial Instruments
GAAP establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs to valuation methods used to
measure fair value. The hierarchy gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active
markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1 measurements) and the lowest priority to
unobservable inputs (Level 3 measurements). The three levels of the fair value hierarchy are the
following:
Level 1: Unadjusted quoted prices in active markets that are accessible at the measurement date
for identical, unrestricted assets or liabilities;
Level 2: Quoted prices in markets that are not active, or inputs which are observable, either
directly or indirectly, for substantially the full term of the asset or liability;
Level 3: Prices or valuation techniques requiring inputs that are both significant to the fair
value measurement and unobservable (i.e. supported by little or no market activity).
The following table summarizes our financial assets and liabilities that are measured at fair value
on a recurring basis and the fair value measurements, by level, within the fair value hierarchy
used at December 31, 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value Measurements Using: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Significant Other |
|
|
Significant |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quoted Prices in |
|
|
Observable |
|
|
Unobservable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Active Markets |
|
|
Inputs |
|
|
Inputs |
|
(in thousands) |
|
Fair Value |
|
|
(Level 1) |
|
|
(Level 2) |
|
|
(Level 3) |
|
Assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investments |
|
$ |
1,959 |
|
|
$ |
1,959 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Mark-to-market energy assets,
including put option |
|
$ |
2,379 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
2,379 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark-to-market energy liabilities |
|
$ |
2,514 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
2,514 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
Page 82 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
The following table summarizes our financial assets and liabilities that are measured at fair value
on a recurring basis and the fair value measurements, by level, within the fair value hierarchy
used at December 31, 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value Measurements Using: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Significant Other |
|
|
Significant |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quoted Prices in |
|
|
Observable |
|
|
Unobservable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Active Markets |
|
|
Inputs |
|
|
Inputs |
|
(in thousands) |
|
Fair Value |
|
|
(Level 1) |
|
|
(Level 2) |
|
|
(Level 3) |
|
Assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investments |
|
$ |
1,601 |
|
|
$ |
1,601 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Mark-to market energy assets |
|
$ |
4,482 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
4,482 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark-to market energy liabilities |
|
$ |
3,052 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
3,052 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
Propane swap agreement |
|
$ |
105 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
105 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
The following valuation techniques were used to measure fair value assets in the table above on a
recurring basis as of December 31, 2009 and 2008:
Level 1 Fair Value Measurements:
Investments The fair values of these trading securities are recorded at fair value based
on unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical securities.
Level 2 Fair Value Measurements:
Mark-to-market energy assets and liabilities These forward contracts are valued using market
transactions in either the listed or OTC markets.
Propane price swap agreement and put option The fair value of the propane price swap
agreement and put option is valued using market transactions for similar assets and liabilities
in either the listed or OTC markets.
At December 31, 2009, there were no non-financial assets or liabilities required to be reported at
fair value. We review our non-financial assets for impairment at least on an annual basis, as
required.
Other Financial Assets and Liabilities
Financial assets with carrying values approximating fair value include cash and cash equivalents
and accounts receivable. Financial liabilities with carrying values approximating fair value
include accounts payable and other accrued liabilities and short-term debt. The carrying value of
these financial assets and liabilities approximates fair value due to their short maturities and
because interest rates approximate current market rates for short-term debt.
At December 31, 2009, long-term debt, which includes the current maturities of long-term debt, had
a carrying value of $134.1 million, compared to a fair value of $145.5 million, using a discounted
cash flow methodology that incorporates a market interest rate based on published corporate
borrowing rates for debt instruments with similar terms and average maturities, with adjustments
for duration, optionality, and risk profile. At December 31, 2008, the estimated fair value was
approximately $92.3 million, compared to a carrying value of $93.1 million.
G. Investments
The investment balances at December 31, 2009 and 2008 represent a Rabbi Trust associated with our
Supplemental Executive Retirement Savings Plan and a Rabbi Trust related to a stay bonus agreement
with a former executive. We classify these investments as trading securities and report them at
their fair value. Any unrealized gains and losses, net of other expenses, are included in other
income in the consolidated statements of income. We also have an associated liability that is
recorded and adjusted each month for the gains and losses incurred by the Rabbi Trusts. At December
31, 2009 and 2008, total investments had a fair value of $2.0 million and $1.6 million,
respectively.
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 83
H. Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets
On October 28, 2009, we completed the merger with FPU, which resulted in $33.4 million in goodwill,
for the regulated energy segment. The regulated energy segment did not have goodwill prior to the
merger. As of December 31, 2009 and 2008, the unregulated energy segment reported $674,000 in
goodwill. No goodwill was recorded in the unregulated energy segment as a result of the merger with
FPU. We test for impairment of goodwill at least annually. The impairment testing for 2009 and
2008 indicated no impairment of goodwill.
We intend to seek recovery of the purchase premium related to the regulated operations through
future rates in Florida. If and when approval is obtained from the Florida PSC to recover all or
part of the purchase premium in future rates from customers, we will reclassify that portion of
goodwill, for which recovery has been authorized, to a regulatory asset.
The carrying value and accumulated amortization of intangible assets subject to amortization for
the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008 are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009 |
|
|
December 31, 2008 |
|
|
|
Gross |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carrying |
|
|
Accumulated |
|
|
Carrying |
|
|
Accumulated |
|
(in thousands) |
|
amount |
|
|
amortization |
|
|
amount |
|
|
amortization |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Favorable propane contracts |
|
$ |
519 |
|
|
$ |
169 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Customer relationships FPU |
|
|
3,500 |
|
|
|
49 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customer list |
|
|
115 |
|
|
|
97 |
|
|
|
115 |
|
|
|
90 |
|
Acquisition costs |
|
|
264 |
|
|
|
132 |
|
|
|
264 |
|
|
|
125 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
4,398 |
|
|
$ |
447 |
|
|
$ |
379 |
|
|
$ |
215 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the FPU merger, we acquired intangible assets related to propane customer relationships and
favorable propane contracts, which are shown separately on the table above, and are amortized over
a 12-year period and a period ranging from one to 14 months, respectively. Customer list and
acquisition costs are related to our acquisitions in the late 1980s and 1990s, which are
amortized over a 16-year period and a 40-year period, respectively.
Amortization expense of intangible assets for 2010 to 2014 is: $655,000 for 2010, $305,000 for
2011, $302,000 for 2012, $298,000 for 2013, and $298,000 for 2014.
Page 84 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
I. Income Taxes
We file a consolidated federal income tax return. Income tax expense allocated to our subsidiaries
is based upon their respective taxable incomes and tax credits. FPU will be included in our 2009
consolidated federal return for the post-merger period. State income tax returns are filed on a
separate company basis in most states where we have operations and/or are required to file. FPU
will continue to file a separate state income tax return in Florida.
In September 2008, the IRS completed its examination of our 2005 and 2006 consolidated federal
returns and issued its Examination Report. As a result of the examination, we reduced our income
tax receivable by $27,000 for the tax liability associated with disallowed expense deductions
included on the tax returns. We have amended our 2005 and 2006 federal and state corporate income
tax returns to reflect the disallowed expense deductions. We are no longer subject to income tax
examinations by the Internal Revenue Service for years before December 31, 2006. FPU filed a
separate federal income tax return for the period prior to the merger and is not subject to income
tax examinations by the IRS for years before December 31, 2005.
We generated net operating losses in 2008, for federal income tax purposes, which were generated
primarily from increased book-to-tax timing differences authorized by the 2008 American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act, which allowed bonus depreciation for certain assets. A federal tax net
operating loss of $9,049,132 was carried forward to 2009 and fully offset taxable income for the
year. As of December 31, 2009, we have a federal tax net operating loss of $202,000 which expires
in 2027. As of December 31, 2009, we also had tax net operating losses from various states
totaling $2.7 million, almost all of which expire in 2027. We have recorded a deferred tax asset
of $305,000 related to these carry-forwards. We have not recorded a valuation allowance to reduce
the future benefit of the tax net operating losses because we believe they will all be utilized.
The tables below provide the following: (a) the components of income tax expense; (b)
reconciliation between the statutory federal income tax rate and the effective income tax rate; and
(c) the components of accumulated deferred income tax assets and liabilities at December 31, 2009
and 2008.
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 85
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended December 31, |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Income Tax Expense |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(2,551 |
) |
|
$ |
5,512 |
|
State |
|
|
878 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,223 |
|
Investment tax credit adjustments, net |
|
|
(69 |
) |
|
|
(42 |
) |
|
|
(51 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current income tax expense (benefit) |
|
|
809 |
|
|
|
(2,593 |
) |
|
|
6,684 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred Income Tax Expense (1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment |
|
|
7,187 |
|
|
|
10,347 |
|
|
|
2,959 |
|
Deferred gas costs |
|
|
(786 |
) |
|
|
781 |
|
|
|
(629 |
) |
Pensions and other employee benefits |
|
|
(612 |
) |
|
|
(174 |
) |
|
|
(9 |
) |
Environmental expenditures |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
145 |
|
|
|
46 |
|
Net operating loss carryforwards |
|
|
4,043 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Merger related costs |
|
|
967 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reserve for insurance deductibles |
|
|
518 |
|
|
|
462 |
|
|
|
27 |
|
Other |
|
|
(1,215 |
) |
|
|
(151 |
) |
|
|
(492 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred income tax expense (benefit) |
|
|
10,109 |
|
|
|
11,410 |
|
|
|
1,902 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Income Tax Expense |
|
$ |
10,918 |
|
|
$ |
8,817 |
|
|
$ |
8,586 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended December 31,
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
Reconciliation of Effective Income Tax Rates (in thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Continuing Operations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal income tax expense (2) |
|
$ |
9,171 |
|
|
$ |
7,863 |
|
|
$ |
7,635 |
|
State income taxes, net of federal
benefit |
|
|
1,490 |
|
|
|
1,162 |
|
|
|
1,087 |
|
Merger related costs |
|
|
299 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ESOP dividend deduction |
|
|
(213 |
) |
|
|
(205 |
) |
|
|
(199 |
) |
Other |
|
|
171 |
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
74 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total continuing operations |
|
|
10,918 |
|
|
|
8,817 |
|
|
|
8,597 |
|
Discontinued operations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Income Tax Expense |
|
$ |
10,918 |
|
|
$ |
8,817 |
|
|
$ |
8,586 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effective income tax rate |
|
|
40.72 |
% |
|
|
39.32 |
% |
|
|
39.41 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At December 31, |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred Income Taxes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred income tax liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment |
|
$ |
75,898 |
|
|
$ |
41,248 |
|
Environmental costs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
395 |
|
Deferred gas costs |
|
|
689 |
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
3,162 |
|
|
|
2,414 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred income tax liabilities |
|
|
79,749 |
|
|
|
44,057 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred income tax assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension and other employee benefits |
|
|
6,406 |
|
|
|
4,679 |
|
Environmental costs |
|
|
1,802 |
|
|
|
|
|
Self insurance |
|
|
1,318 |
|
|
|
370 |
|
Storm reserve liability |
|
|
985 |
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred gas costs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
364 |
|
Other |
|
|
3,813 |
|
|
|
2,502 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred income tax assets |
|
|
14,324 |
|
|
|
7,915 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Deferred Income Taxes Per Consolidated Balance
Sheet |
|
$ |
65,425 |
|
|
$ |
36,142 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes $985,000, $1,588,000 and $260,000 of deferred state income taxes for the years 2009,
2008 and 2007, respectively. |
|
|
|
(2) |
|
Federal income taxes were recorded at 35% for each year represented. |
Page 86 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
J. Long-term Debt
Our outstanding long-term debt is as shown below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Secured first mortgage bonds: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.57% bond, due May 1, 2018 |
|
$ |
8,156 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
10.03% bond, due May 1, 2018 |
|
|
4,486 |
|
|
|
|
|
9.08% bond, due June 1, 2022 |
|
|
7,950 |
|
|
|
|
|
6.85% bond, due October 1, 2031 |
|
|
14,012 |
|
|
|
|
|
4.90% bond, due November 1, 2031 |
|
|
13,222 |
|
|
|
|
|
Uncollateralized senior notes: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.91% note, due October 1, 2010 |
|
|
909 |
|
|
|
1,818 |
|
6.85% note, due January 1, 2012 |
|
|
2,000 |
|
|
|
3,000 |
|
7.83% note, due January 1, 2015 |
|
|
10,000 |
|
|
|
12,000 |
|
6.64% note, due October 31, 2017 |
|
|
21,818 |
|
|
|
24,545 |
|
5.50% note, due October 12, 2020 |
|
|
20,000 |
|
|
|
20,000 |
|
5.93% note, due October 31, 2023 |
|
|
30,000 |
|
|
|
30,000 |
|
Convertible debentures: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8.25% due March 1, 2014 |
|
|
1,520 |
|
|
|
1,655 |
|
Promissory note |
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total long-term debt |
|
|
134,113 |
|
|
|
93,078 |
|
Less: current maturities |
|
|
(35,299 |
) |
|
|
(6,656 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total long-term debt, net of current maturities |
|
$ |
98,814 |
|
|
$ |
86,422 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annual maturities of consolidated long-term debt are as follows: $36,765 for 2010; $9,156 for 2011;
$8,136 for 2012; $8,136 for 2013; $12,656 for 2014 and $60,818 thereafter. The annual maturity for
2010 of $37,765 includes $28,700 of the secured first mortgage bonds redeemed prior to stated
maturity in January 2010.
Secured First Mortgage Bonds
In October 2009, we became subject to the obligations of FPUs secured first mortgage bonds in connection with the
merger. FPUs secured first mortgage bonds had a carrying value of $47.8 million ($49.3 million in
outstanding principal balance). The first mortgage bonds are secured by a lien covering all of
FPUs property. The 9.57 percent bond and 10.03 percent bond require annual sinking fund payments
of $909,000 and $500,000, respectively.
In January 2010, we redeemed the 6.85 percent and 4.90 percent series of FPUs secured first
mortgage bonds prior to their respective maturity for $28.7 million, which represented the
outstanding principal balance of those bonds. We used short-term borrowing to finance the
redemption of these bonds. The difference between the carrying value of those bonds and the amount
paid at redemption totaling $1.5 million was deferred as a regulatory asset.
Uncollateralized Senior Notes
On October 31, 2008, we issued $30 million of 5.93 percent uncollateralized senior notes to two
institutional investors. The terms of the senior notes require a semi-annual principal repayment of
$1.5 million in April and October of each year, commencing on April 30, 2014. The senior notes will
mature on October 31, 2023. The proceeds of the sale of the Senior Notes were used to refinance
capital expenditures and for general corporate purposes.
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 87
Convertible Debentures
The convertible debentures may be converted, at the option of the holder, into shares of our common
stock at a conversion price of $17.01 per share. During 2009 and 2008, debentures totaling $135,000
and $177,000, respectively, were converted to stock. The debentures are also redeemable for cash at
the option of the holder, subject to an annual non-cumulative maximum limitation of $200,000. In
2009 and 2008, no debentures were redeemed for cash. At the Companys option, the debentures may be
redeemed at stated amounts.
Debt Covenants
Indentures to our long-term debt contain various restrictions. The most stringent restrictions
state that we must maintain equity of at least 40 percent of total capitalization, and the
pro-forma fixed charge coverage ratio must be at least 1.2 times. In connection with the merger,
the uncollateralized senior notes were amended to include an additional covenant requiring the
Company to maintain no more than a 20-percent ratio of secured and subsidiary long-term debt to
consolidated tangible net worth by October 2011. Failure to comply with those covenants could
result in accelerated due dates and/or termination of the uncollateralized senior note agreements.
As of December 31, 2009, we are in compliance with all of our debt covenants and with the
redemption of FPUs 6.85 percent and 4.90 percent secured first mortgage bonds in January 2010, the
additional covenant requiring us to maintain no more than a 20-percent ratio of secured and
subsidiary long-term debt to consolidated tangible net worth has been met.
Each of Chesapeakes uncollateralized senior notes contains a Restricted Payments covenant as
defined in the note agreements. The most restrictive covenants of this type are included within the
7.83 percent senior notes, due January 1, 2015. The covenant provides that we cannot pay or declare
any dividends or make any other Restricted Payments (such as dividends) in excess of the sum of
$10.0 million, plus consolidated net income of the Company accrued on and after January 1, 2001. As
of December 31, 2009, the cumulative consolidated net income base was $102.8 million, offset by
Restricted Payments of $63.8 million, leaving $39.0 million of cumulative net income free of
restrictions.
Each series of FPUs first mortgage bonds contains a similar restriction that limits the payment of
dividends by FPU. The most restrictive covenants of this type are included within the series that
is due in 2031, which provided that FPU cannot make dividend or other restricted payments in excess
of the sum of $2.5 million plus FPUs consolidated net income accrued on and after January 1, 2001.
As of December 31, 2009, FPU had the cumulative net income base of $32.7 million, offset by
restricted payments of $22.1 million, leaving $10.6 million of cumulative net income of FPU free of
restrictions based on this covenant. In January 2010, this series of first mortgage bonds were
redeemed prior to their maturities. The second most restrictive covenant of this type is included
in the series that is due in 2022, which provided that FPU cannot make dividend or other restricted
payments in excess of the sum of $2.5 million plus FPUs consolidated net income accrued on and
after January 1, 1992. This covenant provides FPU with the cumulative net income base of $56.0
million, offset by restricted payments of $37.6 million, leaving $18.4 million of cumulative net
income of FPU free of restrictions as of December 31, 2009.
K. Short-term Borrowing
At December 31, 2009 and 2008, the Company had $30.0 million and $33.0 million, respectively, of
short-term borrowing outstanding under our bank credit facilities. The annual weighted average
interest rates on its short-term borrowing were 1.28 percent and 2.79 percent for 2009 and 2008,
respectively. We incurred commitment fees of $79,000 and $16,000 in 2009 and 2008, respectively.
In October 2009 in connection with the FPU merger, we became subject to $4.2 million in outstanding
borrowings under FPUs revolving line of credit. All of the outstanding borrowings were repaid in
full in November 2009 and FPUs revolving line of credit was terminated on November 23, 2009.
Page 88 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
As of December 31, 2009, we had four unsecured bank lines of credit with two financial
institutions, totaling $90.0 million, none of which requires compensating balances. The unsecured
bank lines of credit were increased to $100.0 million in January 2010. These bank lines are
available to provide funds for our short-term cash needs to meet seasonal working capital
requirements and to temporarily fund portions of our capital expenditures. We are currently
authorized by our Board of Directors to borrow up to $85.0 million of short-term debt, as required,
from these short-term lines of credit. We maintain both committed and uncommitted credit
facilities. Advances offered under the uncommitted lines of credit are subject to the discretion of
the banks.
Committed credit facilities
As of December 31, 2009 we had two committed revolving credit facilities totaling $55.0 million,
which were subsequently increased to $60.0 million in January 2010. The first facility is an
unsecured $30.0 million revolving line of credit that bears interest at the respective LIBOR rate,
plus 1.25 percent per annum. At December 31, 2009, there was $7.5 million available under this
credit facility.
The second facility is a $25.0 million committed revolving line of credit that bears interest at a
base rate plus 1.25 percent, if requested and advanced on the same day, or LIBOR for the applicable
period plus 1.25 percent if requested three days prior to the advance date. At December 31, 2009,
there was $18.3 million available under this credit facility. In January 2010, the second facility
was increased to a $30.0 million committed revolving line of credit with the same terms, resulting
in total committed revolving credit facilities of $60.0 million.
The availability of funds under our credit facilities is subject to conditions specified in the
respective credit agreements, all of which we currently satisfy. These conditions include our
compliance with financial covenants and the continued accuracy of representations and warranties
contained in these agreements. The Company is required by the financial covenants in our revolving
credit facilities to maintain, at the end of each fiscal year:
|
|
|
a funded indebtedness ratio of no greater than 65 percent; and |
|
|
|
a fixed charge coverage ratio of at least 1.20 to 1.0. |
We are in compliance with all of our debt covenants.
Uncommitted credit facilities
As of December 31, 2009, we had two uncommitted lines of credit facilities totaling $35.0 million,
which were subsequently increased to $40.0 million in January 2010. Advances offered under the
uncommitted lines of credit are subject to the discretion of the banks.
The first facility is an uncommitted $20.0 million line of credit that bears interest at a rate per
annum as offered by the bank for the applicable period. At December 31, 2009, the entire borrowing
capacity of $20.0 million was available under this credit facility.
The second facility is a $15.0 million uncommitted line of credit that bears interest at a rate per
annum as offered by the bank for the applicable period. At December 31, 2009, there was $14.3
million available under this credit facility, which was reduced by $725,000 for a letter of credit
issued to our primary insurance company. The letter of credit is provided as security to satisfy
the deductibles under our various insurance policies and expires on August 31, 2010. We do not
anticipate that this letter of credit will be drawn upon by the counter-party and we expect that it
will be renewed as necessary. In January 2010, the second facility was increased to a $20.0
million uncommitted line of credit with the same terms, resulting in total uncommitted revolving
credit facilities of $40.0 million.
L. Lease Obligations
We have entered into several operating lease arrangements for office space, equipment and pipeline
facilities. Rent expense related to these leases was $997,000, $880,000 and $736,000 for 2009, 2008
and 2007, respectively. Future minimum payments under our current lease agreements are $866,000,
$771,000, $677,000, $502,000 and $364,000 for the years 2010 through 2014, respectively; and $2.0
million thereafter, with an aggregate total of $5.2 million.
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 89
M. Employee Benefit Plans
Retirement Plans
We sponsor a defined benefit pension plan (Chesapeake Pension Plan), an unfunded pension
supplemental executive retirement plan (Chesapeake SERP), and an unfunded postretirement health
care and life insurance plan (Chesapeake Postretirement Plan). As a result of the merger with
FPU, we now sponsor and maintain a separate defined benefit pension plan for FPU (FPU Pension
Plan) and a separate unfunded postretirement medical plan for FPU (FPU Medical Plan).
We measure the assets and obligations of the defined benefit pension plans and other postretirement
benefits plans to determine the plans funded status as of the end of the year as an asset or a
liability on our consolidated balance sheets. We recognize as a component of accumulated other
comprehensive income/loss the changes in funded status that occurred during the year but that are
not recognized as part of net periodic benefit costs, except for the portion related to FPUs
regulated energy operations, which is deferred as a regulatory asset to be recovered in the future
pursuant to a previous order by the Florida PSC. The measurement dates were December 31, 2009 and
2008.
The amounts in accumulated other comprehensive income/loss for our pension and postretirement
benefits plans that are expected to be recognized as a component of net benefit cost in 2010 are
set forth in the following table.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chesapeake |
|
|
FPU |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chesapeake |
|
|
FPU |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension |
|
|
Pension |
|
|
Chesapeake |
|
|
Postretirement |
|
|
Medical |
|
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
Plan |
|
|
Plan |
|
|
SERP |
|
|
Plan |
|
|
Plan |
|
|
Total |
|
Prior service cost (credit) |
|
$ |
(5 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
19 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
14 |
|
Net (gain) loss |
|
$ |
(137 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
47 |
|
|
$ |
71 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(19 |
) |
The following table presents the amounts not yet reflected in net periodic benefit cost and
included in accumulated other comprehensive income/loss as of December 31, 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chesapeake |
|
|
FPU |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chesapeake |
|
|
FPU |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension |
|
|
Pension |
|
|
Chesapeake |
|
|
Postretirement |
|
|
Medical |
|
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
Plan |
|
|
Plan |
|
|
SERP |
|
|
Plan |
|
|
Plan |
|
|
Total |
|
Prior service cost (credit) |
|
$ |
(15 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
102 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
87 |
|
Net loss (gain) |
|
|
2,672 |
|
|
|
(540 |
) |
|
|
673 |
|
|
|
1,351 |
|
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
4,142 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subtotal |
|
|
2,657 |
|
|
|
(540 |
) |
|
|
775 |
|
|
|
1,351 |
|
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
4,229 |
|
Tax expense (benefit) |
|
|
(1,065 |
) |
|
|
208 |
|
|
|
(311 |
) |
|
|
(542 |
) |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
(1,705 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated other
comprehensive (income) loss |
|
$ |
1,592 |
|
|
$ |
(332 |
) |
|
$ |
464 |
|
|
$ |
809 |
|
|
$ |
(9 |
) |
|
$ |
2,524 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Defined Benefit Pension Plans
The Chesapeake Pension Plan was closed to new participants effective January 1, 1999 and was frozen
with respect to additional years of service or additional compensation effective January 1, 2005.
Benefits under the Chesapeake Pension Plan were based on each participants years of service and
highest average compensation, prior to the freezing of the plan.
The FPU Pension Plan covers eligible FPU non-union employees hired before January 1, 2005 and union
employees hired before the respective union contract expiration dates in 2005 and 2006. Prior to
the merger, the FPU Pension Plan was frozen with respect to additional years of service and
additional compensation effective December 31, 2009.
Our funding policy provides that payments to the trustee of each plan shall be equal to the minimum
funding requirements of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. We were not required
to make any funding payments to the Chesapeake Pension Plan in 2009 or to the FPU Pension Plan
subsequent to the merger closing in October 2009.
Page 90 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
The following schedule summarizes the assets of the Chesapeake Pension Plan, by investment type, at
December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007 and the assets of the FPU Pension Plan, by investment type, at
December 31, 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chesapeake |
|
|
FPU |
|
|
|
Pension Plan |
|
|
Pension Plan |
|
At December 31, |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2009 |
|
Asset Category |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity securities |
|
|
66.22 |
% |
|
|
48.70 |
% |
|
|
49.03 |
% |
|
|
63.00 |
% |
Debt securities |
|
|
33.76 |
% |
|
|
51.24 |
% |
|
|
50.26 |
% |
|
|
29.00 |
% |
Other |
|
|
0.02 |
% |
|
|
0.06 |
% |
|
|
0.71 |
% |
|
|
8.00 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
100.00 |
% |
|
|
100.00 |
% |
|
|
100.00 |
% |
|
|
100.00 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The asset listed as Other in the above table represents monies temporarily held in money market
funds, which invest at least 80 percent of their total assets in:
|
|
|
United States government obligations; and |
|
|
|
Repurchase agreements that are fully collateralized by such obligations. |
All of the assets held by the Chesapeake Pension Plan and FPU Pension Plan are classified under
Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy and are recorded at fair value based on unadjusted quoted
prices in active markets for identical securities.
The investment policy for the Chesapeake Pension Plan calls for an allocation of assets between
equity and debt instruments, with equity being 60 percent and debt at 40 percent, but allowing for
a variance of 20 percent in either direction. In addition, as changes are made to holdings, cash,
money market funds or United States Treasury Bills may be held temporarily by the fund. Investments
in the following are prohibited: options, guaranteed investment contracts, real estate, venture
capital, private placements, futures, commodities, limited partnerships and Chesapeake stock; short
selling and margin transactions are prohibited as well. Investment allocation decisions are made by
the Employee Benefits committee. During 2004, Chesapeake modified its investment policy to allow
the Employee Benefits Committee to reallocate investments to better match the expected life of the
plan.
The investment policy for the FPU Pension Plan is designed to achieve a long-term rate of return,
including investment income and appreciation, sufficient to meet the actuarial requirements of the
plan. The plans investment strategy is to achieve its return objectives by investing in a
diversified portfolio of equity, fixed income and cash securities seeking a balance of growth and
stability as well as an adequate level of liquidity for pension distributions as they fall due.
Plan assets are constrained such that no more than 10 percent of the portfolio will be invested in
any one issue. Investment allocation decisions for the FPU Pension Plan are made by the Pension
Committee.
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 91
The following schedule sets forth the funded status at December 31, 2009 and 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chesapeake |
|
|
FPU |
|
|
|
Pension Plan |
|
|
Pension Plan |
|
At December 31, |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2009 |
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in benefit obligation: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefit obligation beginning of year (1) |
|
$ |
11,593 |
|
|
$ |
11,074 |
|
|
$ |
46,851 |
|
Interest cost |
|
|
547 |
|
|
|
594 |
|
|
|
418 |
|
Change in assumptions |
|
|
(188 |
) |
|
|
268 |
|
|
|
|
|
Actuarial loss |
|
|
(307 |
) |
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
(1,544 |
) |
Benefits paid |
|
|
(518 |
) |
|
|
(427 |
) |
|
|
(305 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefit obligation end of year |
|
|
11,127 |
|
|
|
11,593 |
|
|
|
45,420 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in plan assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of plan assets beginning of year
(1) |
|
|
6,689 |
|
|
|
10,799 |
|
|
|
35,037 |
|
Actual return on plan assets |
|
|
1,278 |
|
|
|
(3,683 |
) |
|
|
1,695 |
|
Benefits paid |
|
|
(518 |
) |
|
|
(427 |
) |
|
|
(305 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of plan assets end of year |
|
|
7,449 |
|
|
|
6,689 |
|
|
|
36,427 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reconciliation: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funded status |
|
|
(3,678 |
) |
|
|
(4,904 |
) |
|
|
(8,993 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued pension cost |
|
$ |
(3,678 |
) |
|
$ |
(4,904 |
) |
|
$ |
(8,993 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assumptions: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discount rate |
|
|
5.25 |
% |
|
|
5.25 |
% |
|
|
5.75 |
% |
Expected return on plan assets |
|
|
6.00 |
% |
|
|
6.00 |
% |
|
|
7.00 |
% |
|
|
|
(1) |
|
FPU Pension Plans beginning balance reflects the benefit obligations as of the
merger date of October 28, 2009. |
Net periodic pension cost (benefit) for the plans for 2009, 2008, and 2007 include the components
shown below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chesapeake |
|
|
FPU |
|
|
|
Pension Plan |
|
|
Pension Plan(1) |
|
For the Years Ended December 31, |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2009 |
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Components of net periodic pension
cost (benefit): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest cost |
|
$ |
547 |
|
|
$ |
594 |
|
|
$ |
622 |
|
|
$ |
418 |
|
Expected return on assets |
|
|
(362 |
) |
|
|
(629 |
) |
|
|
(696 |
) |
|
|
(396 |
) |
Amortization of prior service cost |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Amortization of actuarial loss/gain |
|
|
237 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net periodic pension cost (benefit) |
|
$ |
417 |
|
|
$ |
(40 |
) |
|
$ |
(79 |
) |
|
$ |
22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assumptions: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discount rate |
|
|
5.25 |
% |
|
|
5.50 |
% |
|
|
5.50 |
% |
|
|
5.50 |
% |
Expected return on plan assets |
|
|
6.00 |
% |
|
|
6.00 |
% |
|
|
6.00 |
% |
|
|
7.00 |
% |
|
|
|
(1) |
|
FPU Pension Plans net periodic pension cost includes only the cost from the merger
closing (October 28, 2009) through December 31, 2009. |
Page 92 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
Pension Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan
The Chesapeake SERP was frozen with respect to additional years of service and additional
compensation as of December 31, 2004. Benefits under the Chesapeake SERP were based on each
participants years of service and highest average compensation, prior to the freezing of the plan.
The accumulated benefit obligation for the Chesapeake SERP, which is unfunded, was $2.5 million at
both December 31, 2009 and 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At December 31, |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
(In thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in benefit obligation: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefit obligation beginning of year |
|
$ |
2,520 |
|
|
$ |
2,326 |
|
Interest cost |
|
|
129 |
|
|
|
125 |
|
Actuarial (gain) loss |
|
|
(55 |
) |
|
|
39 |
|
Amendments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
119 |
|
Benefits paid |
|
|
(89 |
) |
|
|
(89 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefit obligation end of year |
|
|
2,505 |
|
|
|
2,520 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in plan assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of plan assets beginning
of year |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employer contributions |
|
|
89 |
|
|
|
89 |
|
Benefits paid |
|
|
(89 |
) |
|
|
(89 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of plan assets end of year |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reconciliation: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funded status |
|
|
(2,505 |
) |
|
|
(2,520 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued pension cost |
|
$ |
(2,505 |
) |
|
$ |
(2,520 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assumptions: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discount rate |
|
|
5.25 |
% |
|
|
5.25 |
% |
Net periodic pension costs for the Chesapeake SERP for 2009, 2008, and 2007 include the components
shown below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended December 31, |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Components of net periodic pension cost: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest cost |
|
$ |
130 |
|
|
$ |
125 |
|
|
$ |
123 |
|
Amortization of prior service cost |
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of actuarial loss |
|
|
54 |
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
52 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net periodic pension cost |
|
$ |
202 |
|
|
$ |
170 |
|
|
$ |
175 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assumptions: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discount rate |
|
|
5.25 |
% |
|
|
5.50 |
% |
|
|
5.50 |
% |
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 93
Other Postretirement Benefits Plans
The following schedule sets forth the status of other postretirement benefit plans:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chesapeake |
|
|
FPU |
|
|
|
Postretiment Plan |
|
|
Medical Plan |
|
At December 31, |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2009 |
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in benefit obligation: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefit obligation beginning of year (1) |
|
$ |
2,179 |
|
|
$ |
1,756 |
|
|
$ |
2,457 |
|
Service cost |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
Interest cost |
|
|
131 |
|
|
|
114 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
Plan participants contributions |
|
|
90 |
|
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
Actuarial (gain) loss |
|
|
378 |
|
|
|
345 |
|
|
|
(71 |
) |
Benefits paid |
|
|
(196 |
) |
|
|
(143 |
) |
|
|
(16 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefit obligation end of year |
|
|
2,585 |
|
|
|
2,179 |
|
|
|
2,417 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in plan assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of plan assets beginning of year
(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employer contributions(2) |
|
|
106 |
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
Plan participants contributions |
|
|
90 |
|
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
Benefits paid |
|
|
(196 |
) |
|
|
(143 |
) |
|
|
(16 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of plan assets end of year |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reconciliation: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funded status |
|
|
(2,585 |
) |
|
|
(2,179 |
) |
|
|
(2,417 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued pension cost |
|
$ |
(2,585 |
) |
|
$ |
(2,179 |
) |
|
$ |
(2,417 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assumptions: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discount rate |
|
|
5.25 |
% |
|
|
5.25 |
% |
|
|
5.75 |
% |
|
|
|
(1) |
|
FPU Medical Plans beginning balance reflects the benefit obligation as of the merger
date of October 28, 2009. |
|
(2) |
|
Chesapeakes Postretirement Plan does not receive a Medicare Part-D subsidy. The FPU
Medical Plan did not receive a significant subsidy for the post-merger period. |
Net periodic postretirement costs for 2009, 2008, and 2007 include the following components:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chesapeake |
|
|
FPU |
|
|
|
Postretirement Plan |
|
|
Medical Plan(1) |
|
For the Years Ended December 31, |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2009 |
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Components of net periodic
postretirement cost: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Service cost |
|
$ |
3 |
|
|
$ |
3 |
|
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
$ |
18 |
|
Interest cost |
|
|
131 |
|
|
|
114 |
|
|
|
102 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
Amortization of: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actuarial loss |
|
|
76 |
|
|
|
290 |
|
|
|
166 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net periodic postretirement cost |
|
$ |
210 |
|
|
$ |
407 |
|
|
$ |
274 |
|
|
$ |
41 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
FPU Medical Plans net periodic postretiment includes only the cost from the merger
date (October 28, 2009) through December 31, 2009. |
Page 94 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
Assumptions
The assumptions used for the discount rate to calculate the benefit obligation of all the plans
were based on the interest rates of high-quality bonds in 2009, reflecting the expected life of the
plans. In determining the average expected return on plan assets for each applicable plan, various
factors, such as historical long-term return experience, investment policy and current and expected
allocation, were considered. Since the Chesapeakes plans and FPUs plans have a different
expected life of the plan and investment policy, particularly in light of the lump-sum-payment
option provided in the Chesapeake Pension Plan, different discount rate and expected return on plan
asset assumptions were selected for Chesapeakes plans and FPUs plans. Since all of the pension
plans are frozen with respect to additional years of service and compensation, the rate of assumed
compensation rate increases is not applicable.
The health care inflation rate for 2009 used to calculate the benefit obligation is 7.50 percent
for medical and 8.50 percent for prescription drugs for the Chesapeake Postretirement Plan; and
10.50 percent for the FPU Medical Plan. A one-percentage point increase in the health care
inflation rate from the assumed rate would increase the accumulated postretirement benefit
obligation by approximately $708,000 as of January 1, 2010, and would increase the aggregate of the
service cost and interest cost components of the net periodic postretirement benefit cost for 2009
by approximately $30,000. A one-percentage point decrease in the health care inflation rate from
the assumed rate would decrease the accumulated postretirement benefit obligation by approximately
$594,000 as of January 1, 2010, and would decrease the aggregate of the service cost and interest
cost components of the net periodic postretirement benefit cost for 2009 by approximately $24,000.
Estimated Future Benefit Payments
In 2010, we expect to contribute $450,000 and $1.6 million to the Chesapeake Pension Plan and FPU
Pension Plan, respectively, and $88,000 to the Chesapeake SERP. We also expect to contribute
$115,000 and $144,000 to the Chesapeake Postretirement Plan and FPU Medical Plan, respectively, in
2010. The schedule below shows the estimated future benefit payments for each of our plans
previously described:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chesapeake |
|
|
FPU |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chesapeake |
|
|
FPU |
|
|
|
Pension |
|
|
Pension |
|
|
Chesapeake |
|
|
Postretirement |
|
|
Medical |
|
(in thousands) |
|
Plan(1) |
|
|
Plan(1) |
|
|
SERP(2) |
|
|
Plan(2) |
|
|
Plan(2)(3) |
|
2010 |
|
$ |
763 |
|
|
$ |
2,176 |
|
|
$ |
88 |
|
|
$ |
115 |
|
|
$ |
144 |
|
2011 |
|
|
429 |
|
|
|
2,308 |
|
|
|
797 |
|
|
|
113 |
|
|
|
158 |
|
2012 |
|
|
1,228 |
|
|
|
2,452 |
|
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
123 |
|
|
|
181 |
|
2013 |
|
|
484 |
|
|
|
2,617 |
|
|
|
82 |
|
|
|
127 |
|
|
|
176 |
|
2014 |
|
|
502 |
|
|
|
2,747 |
|
|
|
80 |
|
|
|
137 |
|
|
|
196 |
|
Years 2015 through 2019 |
|
|
3,649 |
|
|
|
14,914 |
|
|
|
634 |
|
|
|
781 |
|
|
|
1,215 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The pension plan is funded; therefore, benefit payments are expected
to be paid out of the plan assets. |
|
(2) |
|
Benefit payments are expected to be paid out of the general funds of
the Company. |
|
(3) |
|
These amounts are shown net of estimated Medicare Part-D reimbursements of
$10,000, $11,000, $11,000, $12,000 and $13,000 for the years 2010 to 2014 and $78,000 for years 2015
through 2019. |
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 95
Retirement Savings Plan
We sponsor two 401(k) retirement savings plans and one non-qualified supplemental employee
retirement savings plan.
Chesapeakes 401(k) plan is offered to all eligible employees, except for those FPU employees, who
have the opportunity to participate in FPUs 401(k) plan. We make matching contributions on up to
six percent of each Chesapeake employees eligible pre-tax compensation for the year, except for
the employees of our advanced information services subsidiary, as further explained below. The
match is between 100 percent and 200 percent of the employees contribution (up to six percent),
based on the employees age and years of service. The first 100 percent is matched with Chesapeake
common stock; the remaining match is invested in Chesapeakes 401(k) Plan according to each
employees election options. Employees are automatically enrolled at a two percent contribution,
with the option of opting out, and are eligible for the company match after three months of
continuing service, with vesting of 20 percent per year.
Effective July 1, 2006, our contribution made on behalf of the advanced information services
subsidiary employees, is a 50 percent matching contribution, on up to six percent of each
employees annual compensation contributed to the plan. The matching contribution is funded in
Chesapeake common stock. The plan was also amended at the same time to enable it to receive
discretionary profit-sharing contributions in the form of employee pre-tax deferrals. The extent to
which the advanced information services subsidiary has any dollars available for profit-sharing is
dependent upon the extent to which the segments actual earnings exceed budgeted earnings. Any
profit-sharing dollars made available to employees can be deferred into the plan and/or paid out in
the form of a bonus.
Effective January 1, 1999, we began offering a non-qualified supplemental employee retirement
savings plan (401(k) SERP) to our executives over a specific income threshold. Participants
receive a cash-only matching contribution percentage equivalent to their 401(k) match level. All
contributions and matched funds can be invested among the mutual funds available for investment.
These same funds are available for investment of employee contributions within Chesapeakes 401(k)
plan. All obligations arising under the 401(k) SERP are payable from our general assets, although
we have established a Rabbi Trust for the 401(k) SERP. As discussed further in Note G
Investments, to the Consolidated Financial Statements, the assets held in the Rabbi Trust
included a fair value of $1.9 million and $1.4 million at December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively,
related to the 401(k) SERP. The assets of the Rabbi Trust are at all times subject to the claims of
our general creditors.
We continue to maintain a separate 401(k) retirement savings plan for FPU. FPUs 401(k) plan
provides a matching contribution of 50 percent of an employees pre-tax contributions, up to six
percent of the employees salary, for a maximum company contribution of up to three percent.
Beginning in 2007, for non-union employees the plan provides a company match of 100 percent for the
first two percent of an employees contribution, and a match of 50 percent for the next four
percent of an employees contribution, for a total company match of up to four percent. Employees
are automatically enrolled at three percent contribution, with the option of opting out, and are
eligible for the company match after six months of continuous service, with vesting of 100 percent
after three years of continuous service.
Our contributions to the 401(k) plans totaled $1.6 million (including a $10,000 contribution made
to FPUs 401(k) plan after the merger), $1.6 million, and $1.5 million for the years ended December
31, 2009, 2008, and 2007, respectively. As of December 31, 2009, there are 10,281 shares reserved
to fund future contributions to Chesapeakes 401(k) plan.
Deferred Compensation Plan
On December 7, 2006, the Board of Directors approved the Chesapeake Utilities Corporation Deferred
Compensation Plan (Deferred Compensation Plan), as amended, effective January 1, 2007. The
Deferred Compensation Plan is a non-qualified, deferred compensation arrangement under which
certain executives and members of the Board of Directors are able to defer payment of all or a part
of certain specified types of compensation, including executive cash bonuses, executive performance
shares, and directors retainer and fees. At December 31, 2009, the Deferred Compensation Plan
consisted solely of shares of common stock related to the deferral of executive performance shares
and directors stock retainers.
Page 96 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
Participants in the Deferred Compensation Plan are able to elect the payment of benefits to begin
on a specified future date after the election is made in the form of a lump sum or annual
installments. Deferrals of executive cash bonuses and directors cash retainers and fees are paid
in cash. All deferrals of executive performance shares and directors stock retainers are paid in
shares of our common stock, except that cash is be paid in lieu of fractional shares.
We established a Rabbi Trust in connection with the Deferred Compensation Plan. The value of our
stock held in the Rabbi Trust is classified within the stockholders equity section of the Balance
Sheet and has been accounted for in a manner similar to treasury stock. The amounts recorded under
the Deferred Compensation Plan totaled $739,000 and $1.5 million at December 31, 2009 and 2008,
respectively.
N. Share-Based Compensation Plans
Our non-employee directors and key employees are awarded share-based awards through the Companys
Directors Stock Compensation Plan (DSCP) and the Performance Incentive Plan (PIP),
respectively. We record these share-based awards as compensation costs over the respective service
period for which services are received in exchange for an award of equity or equity-based
compensation. The compensation cost is based on the fair value of the grant on the date it was
awarded.
The table below presents the amounts included in net income related to share-based compensation
expense, for the restricted stock awards issued under the DSCP and the PIP for the years ended
December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended December 31, |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Directors Stock Compensation Plan |
|
$ |
191 |
|
|
$ |
180 |
|
|
$ |
181 |
|
Performance Incentive Plan |
|
|
1,115 |
|
|
|
640 |
|
|
|
809 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total compensation expense |
|
|
1,306 |
|
|
|
820 |
|
|
|
990 |
|
Less: tax benefit |
|
|
523 |
|
|
|
327 |
|
|
|
386 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Share-Based Compensation amounts included in
net income |
|
$ |
783 |
|
|
$ |
493 |
|
|
$ |
604 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock Options
We did not have any stock options outstanding at December 31, 2009, 2008 or 2007, nor were any
stock options issued during 2009, 2008 and 2007.
Directors Stock Compensation Plan
Under
the DSCP, each of our non-employee directors received in 2009 an annual retainer of 650 shares
of common stock and additional shares of common stock for serving as a committee chairperson. For
2009, the Corporate Governance and Compensation Committee Chairperson each received 150 additional
shares of common stock and the Audit Committee Chairperson received 250 additional shares of common
stock. Shares granted under the DSCP are issued in advance of the directors service period;
therefore, these shares are fully vested as of the grant date. We record a prepaid expense as of
the date of the grant equal to the fair value of the shares issued and amortize the expense
equally over a service period of one year.
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 97
A summary of stock activity under the DSCP is presented below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted Average |
|
|
|
Number of |
|
|
Grant Date |
|
|
|
Shares |
|
|
Fair Value |
|
Outstanding December 31, 2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Granted |
|
|
6,161 |
|
|
$ |
29.43 |
|
Vested |
|
|
6,161 |
|
|
$ |
29.43 |
|
Forfeited |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding December 31, 2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Granted(1) |
|
|
7,174 |
|
|
$ |
29.83 |
|
Vested |
|
|
7,174 |
|
|
$ |
29.83 |
|
Forfeited |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding December 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
On October 28, 2009, the Company added two new members to its Board of Directors;
each new board member was awarded 337 shares of common stock. |
We recorded compensation expense of $191,000, $180,000 and $181,000 related to DSCP awards for the
years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively.
The weighted-average grant-date fair value of DSCP awards granted during 2009 and 2008 was $29.83
and $29.43, per share, respectively. The intrinsic values of the DSCP awards are equal to the fair
market value of these awards on the date of grant. At December 31, 2009, there was $64,000 of
unrecognized compensation expense related to DSCP awards that is expected to be recognized over the
first four months of 2010.
As of December 31, 2009, there were 44,115 shares reserved for issuance under the terms of the
Companys DSCP.
Performance Incentive Plan (PIP)
Our Compensation Committee is authorized to grant key employees of the Company the right to receive
awards of shares of our common stock, contingent upon the achievement of established performance
goals. These awards are subject to certain post-vesting transfer restrictions.
In 2007, the Board of Directors granted each executive officer equity incentive awards, which
entitled each to earn shares of common stock to the extent that we achieved pre-established
performance goals at the end of a one-year performance period. In 2008, we adopted multi-year
performance plans to be used in lieu of the one-year awards. Similar to the one-year plans, the
multi-year plans provide incentives based upon the achievement of long-term goals, development and
the success of the Company. The long-term goals have both market-based and performance-based
conditions or targets.
The shares granted under the PIP in 2007 are fully vested, and the fair value of each share is
equal to the market price of our common stock on the date of the grant. The shares granted under
the 2008 and 2009 long-term plans have not vested as of December 31, 2009, and the fair value of
each performance-based condition or target is equal to the market price of our common stock on the
date of the grant. For the market-based conditions, we used the Black-Scholes pricing model to
estimate the fair value of each market-based award granted.
Page 98 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
A summary of stock activity under the PIP is presented below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of |
|
|
Weighted Average |
|
|
|
Shares |
|
|
Fair Value |
|
Outstanding December 31, 2007 |
|
|
33,760 |
|
|
$ |
29.90 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Granted |
|
|
94,200 |
|
|
$ |
27.84 |
|
Vested |
|
|
31,094 |
|
|
$ |
29.90 |
|
Fortfeited |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expired |
|
|
2,666 |
|
|
$ |
29.90 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding December 31, 2008 |
|
|
94,200 |
|
|
$ |
27.84 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Granted |
|
|
28,875 |
|
|
$ |
29.19 |
|
Vested |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fortfeited |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expired |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding December 31, 2009 |
|
|
123,075 |
|
|
$ |
28.15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In 2009, no shares under the PIP vested. In 2008, we withheld shares with value equivalent to the
employees minimum statutory obligation for the applicable income and other employment taxes, and
remitted the cash to the appropriate taxing authorities with the executives receiving the net
shares. The total number of shares withheld (12,511) for 2008 was based on the value of the PIP
shares on their vesting date, determined by the average of the high and low of our stock price. No
payments for the employees tax obligations were made to taxing authorities in 2009 as no shares
vested during this period. Total payments for the employees tax obligations to the taxing
authorities were approximately $383,000 in 2008.
We recorded compensation expense of $1.1 million, $640,000 and $809,000 related to the PIP for the
years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, and 2007, respectively.
The weighted-average grant-date fair value of PIP awards granted during 2009, 2008 and 2007 was
$29.19, $27.84 and $29.90, per share respectively. The intrinsic value of the PIP awards was $2.1
million and $1.1 million for 2009 and 2008, respectively. The intrinsic value of the 2007 awards
was equal to the fair market value of these awards on the date of grant.
As of December 31, 2009, there were 371,293 shares reserved for issuance under the terms of our
PIP.
O. Environmental Commitments and Contingencies
We are subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations governing environmental quality and
pollution control. These laws and regulations require us to remove or remedy the effect on the
environment of the disposal or release of specified substances at current and former operating
sites.
We have participated in the investigation, assessment or remediation and have certain exposures at
six former MGP sites. Those sites are located in Salisbury, Maryland, and Winter Haven, Key West,
Pensacola, Sanford and West Palm Beach, Florida. We have also been in discussions with the MDE
regarding a seventh former MGP site located in Cambridge, Maryland. The Key West, Pensacola,
Sanford and West Palm Beach sites are related to FPU, for which we assumed in the merger any
existing and future contingencies.
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 99
As of
December 31, 2009, we had recorded $531,000 in environmental
liabilities related to Chesapeakes MGP
sites in Maryland and Florida, representing our estimate of the future costs associated with those
sites. We had recorded approximately $1.7 million in regulatory and other assets for future recovery of
environmental costs from Chesapeakes customers through its approved rates. As of December 31,
2009, we had recorded approximately $12.3 million in environmental liabilities related to FPUs MGP
sites in Florida, primarily from the West Palm Beach site, which represents our estimate of the
future costs associated with those sites. FPU is approved to recover its environmental costs up to
$14.0 million from insurance and customers through rates. Approximately $5.7 million of FPUs
expected environmental costs has been recovered from insurance and customers through rates as of
December 31, 2009. We also had recorded approximately $6.6 million in regulatory assets for future recovery
of environmental costs from FPUs customers.
The following discussion provides details on each site.
Salisbury, Maryland
We have completed remediation of this site in Salisbury, Maryland, where it was determined that a
former MGP caused localized ground-water contamination. During 1996, we completed construction of
an Air Sparging and Soil-Vapor Extraction (AS/SVE) system and began remediation procedures. We
have reported the remediation and monitoring results to the MDE on an ongoing basis since 1996. In
February 2002, the MDE granted permission to decommission permanently the AS/SVE system and to
discontinue all on-site and off-site well monitoring, except for one well which is being maintained
for continued product monitoring and recovery. We have requested and are awaiting a No Further
Action determination from the MDE.
Through December 31, 2009, we have incurred and paid approximately $2.9 million for remedial
actions and environmental studies at this site and do not expect to incur any additional costs. We
have recovered approximately $2.1 million through insurance proceeds or in rates and have $783,000
of the clean-up costs not yet recovered.
Winter Haven, Florida
The Winter Haven site is located on the eastern shoreline of Lake Shipp, in Winter Haven, Florida.
Pursuant to a Consent Order entered into with the FDEP, we are obligated to assess and remediate
environmental impacts to the site resulting from the former operation of a MGP on the site. In
2001, FDEP approved a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) requiring construction and operation of a
bio-sparge/soil vapor extraction (BS/SVE) treatment system to address soil and groundwater
impacts at a portion of the site. The BS/SVE treatment system has been in operation since October
2002. The Fourteenth Semi-Annual RAP Implementation Status Report was submitted to FDEP in January
2010. The groundwater sampling results through October 2009 show, in general, a reduction in
contaminant concentrations over prior years, although the rate of reduction has declined recently.
Modifications and upgrades to the BS/SVE treatment system were completed in October 2009. At
present, we predict that remedial action objectives may be met for the area being treated by the
BS/SVE treatment system in approximately three years.
The BS/SVE treatment system does not address impacted soils in the southwest corner of the site.
We are currently completing additional soil and groundwater sampling at this location for the
purpose of designing a remedy for this portion of the site. Following the completion of this field
work, we will submit a soil excavation plan to FDEP for its review and approval.
FDEP has indicated that we may be required to remediate sediments along the shoreline of Lake
Shipp, immediately west of the site. Based on studies performed to date, we object to FDEPs
suggestion that the sediments have been adversely impacted by the former operations of the MGP.
Our early estimates indicate that some of the corrective measures discussed by FDEP could cost as
much as $1.0 million. We believe that corrective measures for the sediments are not warranted and
intend to oppose any requirement that we undertake corrective measures in the offshore sediments.
We have not recorded a liability for sediment remediation, as the final resolution of this matter
cannot be predicted at this time.
Page 100 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
Through December 31, 2009, we have incurred and paid approximately $1.4 million for this site and
estimates an additional cost of $531,000 in the future, which has been accrued. We have recovered
through rates $1.1 million of the costs and continue to expect that the remaining $885,000, which
is included in regulatory assets, will be recoverable from customers through our approved rates.
Key West, Florida
FPU formerly owned and operated an MGP in Key West, Florida. Field investigations performed in the
1990s identified limited environmental impacts at the site, which is currently owned by an
unrelated third party. FDEP has not required any further work at the site as of this time. Our
portion of the consulting/remediation costs which may be incurred at this site is projected to be
$93,000.
Pensacola, Florida
FPU formerly owned and operated an MGP in Pensacola, Florida. The MGP was also owned by Gulf Power
Corporation (Gulf Power). Portions of the site are now owned by the City of Pensacola and the
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). In October 2009, FDEP informed Gulf Power that FDEP
would approve a conditional No Further Action (NFA) determination for the site, which must
include a requirement for institutional/engineering controls. The group, consisting of Gulf Power,
City of Pensacola, FDOT and FPU, is proceeding with preparation of the necessary documentation to
submit the NFA justification. Consulting/remediation costs are projected to be $14,000.
Sanford, Florida
FPU is the current owner of property in Sanford, Florida, an MGP which was operated by several
other entities before FPU acquired the property. FPU was never an owner/operator of the MGP. In
late September 2006, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sent a Special Notice Letter,
notifying FPU, and the other responsible parties at the site (Florida Power Corporation, Florida
Power & Light Company, Atlanta Gas Light Company, and the City of Sanford, Florida, collectively
with FPU, the Sanford Group), of EPAs selection of a final remedy for OU1 (soils), OU2
(groundwater), and OU3 (sediments) for the site. The total estimated remediation costs for this
site were projected at the time by EPA to be approximately $12.9 million.
In January 2007, FPU and other members of the Sanford Group signed a Third Participation Agreement,
which provides for funding the final remedy approved by EPA for the site. FPUs share of
remediation costs under the Third Participation Agreement is set at five percent of a maximum of
$13 million, or $650,000. As of December 31, 2009, FPU paid $300,000 to the Sanford Group escrow
account for its share of funding requirements, and in January 2010, the Company paid the remaining
$350,000 of this funding requirement.
The Sanford Group, EPA and the U.S. Department of Justice entered into a Consent Decree in March
2008, which was entered by the federal court in Orlando on January 15, 2009. The Consent Decree
obligates the Sanford Group to implement the remedy approved by EPA for the site. The total cost
of the final remedy is now estimated at approximately $18 million. FPU has advised the other
members of the Sanford Group that it is unwilling at this time to agree to pay any sum in excess of
the $650,000 committed by FPU in the Third Participation Agreement.
Several members of the Sanford Group have concluded negotiations with two adjacent property owners
to resolve damages that the property owners allege they have/will incur as a result of the
implementation of the EPA-approved remediation. In settlement of these claims, members of the
Sanford Group, which in this instance does not include FPU, have agreed to pay specified sums of
money to the parties. FPU has refused to participate in the funding of the third party settlement
agreements based on its contention that it did not contribute to the release of hazardous
substances at the site giving rise to the third party claims.
As of December 31, 2009, FPUs remaining share of remediation expenses, including attorneys fees
and costs, is estimated to be $401,000, of which $350,000 was paid to the Sanford Group escrow
account in January 2010. However, the Company is unable to determine, to a reasonable degree of
certainty, whether the other members of the Sanford Group will accept FPUs asserted defense to
liability for costs exceeding $13 million to implement the final remedy for this site or will
pursue a claim against FPU for a sum in excess of the $650,000 that FPU has committed to fund under
the Third Participation Agreement.
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 101
West Palm Beach, Florida
We are currently evaluating remedial options to respond to environmental impacts to soil and
groundwater at and in the immediate vicinity of a parcel of property owned by FPU in West Palm
Beach, Florida upon which FPU previously operated an MGP. Pursuant to a Consent Order between FPU
and the FDEP, effective April 8, 1991, FPU completed the delineation of soil and groundwater
impacts at the site. On June 30, 2008, FPU transmitted a revised feasibility study, evaluating
appropriate remedies for the site, to the FDEP. On April 30, 2009, FDEP issued a remedial action
order, which it subsequently withdrew. In response to the order and as a condition to its
withdrawal, FPU committed to perform additional field work in 2009 and complete an additional
engineering evaluation of certain remedial alternatives. The scope of this work has increased in
response to FDEPs demands for additional information.
The feasibility study evaluated a wide range of remedial alternatives based on criteria provided by
applicable laws and regulations. Based on the likely acceptability of proven remedial technologies
described in the feasibility study and implemented at similar sites, management believes that
consulting/remediation costs to address the impacts now characterized at the West Palm Beach site
will range from $7.4 million to $18.9 million. This range of costs covers such remedies as in situ
solidification for deeper soil impacts, excavation of superficial soil impacts, installation of a
barrier wall with a permeable biotreatment zone, monitored natural attenuation of dissolved impacts
in groundwater, or some combination of these remedies.
Negotiations between FPU and the FDEP on a final remedy for the site continue. Prior to the
conclusion of those negotiations, we are unable to determine, to a reasonable degree of certainty,
the full extent or cost of remedial action that may be required. As of December 31, 2009, and
subject to the limitations described above, we estimate the remediation expenses, including
attorneys fees and costs, will range from approximately $7.8 million to $19.4 million for this
site.
We continue to expect that all costs related to these activities will be recoverable from customers
through rates.
Other
We are in discussions with the MDE regarding an MGP site located in Cambridge, Maryland. The
outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time; therefore, the Company has not recorded
an environmental liability for this location.
P. Other Commitments and Contingencies
Rates and Other Regulatory Activities
Our natural gas and electric distribution operations in Delaware, Maryland and Florida are subject
to regulation by their respective PSC; ESNG, our natural gas transmission operation, is subject to
regulation by the FERC. Chesapeakes Florida natural gas distribution division and FPUs natural
gas and electric operations continue to be subject to regulation by the Florida PSC as separate
entities.
Page 102 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
Delaware. On September 2, 2008, our Delaware division filed with the Delaware Public
Service Commission (Delaware PSC) its annual Gas Sales Service Rates (GSR) Application, seeking
approval to change its GSR, effective November 1, 2008. On September 16, 2008, the Delaware PSC
authorized the Delaware division to implement the GSR charges on a temporary basis, subject to
refund, pending the completion of full evidentiary hearings and a final decision. The Delaware
division was required by its natural gas tariff to file a revised application if its projected
over-collection of gas costs for the determination period of November 2007 through October 2008
exceeded four and one-half percent (4.5 percent) of total firm gas costs. As a result of a
significant decrease in the cost of natural gas, the Delaware division, on January 8, 2009, filed
with the Delaware PSC a supplemental GSR Application, seeking approval to change its GSR, effective
February 1, 2009. On January 29, 2009, the Delaware PSC authorized the Delaware division to
implement the revised GSR charges on a temporary
basis, subject to refund, pending the completion of full evidentiary hearings and a final decision.
On July 7, 2009, the Delaware PSC granted approval of a settlement agreement presented by the
parties in this docket, the Delaware PSC, our Delaware division and the Division of the Public
Advocate. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, our Delaware division, commencing in November
2009, adjusted the margin-sharing mechanism related to its Asset Management Agreement to reduce
its proportionate share of such margin. We anticipate a net margin reduction of approximately
$8,000 per year from this change.
As part of the settlement, the parties also agreed to develop a record in a later proceeding on the
price charged by the Delaware division for the temporary release of transmission pipeline capacity
to our natural gas marketing subsidiary, PESCO. On January 8, 2010, the Hearing Examiner in this
proceeding issued a report of Findings and Recommendations in which he recommended, among other
things, that the Delaware PSC require the Delaware division to refund to its firm service customers
the difference between what the Delaware division would have received had the capacity released to
PESCO been priced at the maximum tariff rates, and the amount actually received by the Delaware
division for capacity released to PESCO. We have estimated that, exclusive of any interest, the
amount that would have to be refunded if the Hearing Examiners recommendation is approved without
modification by the Delaware PSC is approximately $700,000 as of December 31, 2009. The Hearing
Examiner has also recommended that the Delaware PSC require us to adhere to asymmetrical pricing
principles regarding all future capacity releases by the Delaware division to PESCO, if any.
Accordingly, if the Hearing Examiners recommendation is approved without modification by the
Delaware PSC and if the Delaware division temporarily released any capacity to PESCO below the
maximum tariff rates, the Delaware division would have to credit to its firm service customers
amounts equal to the maximum tariff rates that the Delaware division pays for long-term capacity,
even though the temporary releases were made at lower rates based on competitive bidding procedures
required by the FERCs capacity release rules. We disagree with the Hearing Examiners
recommendations and filed exceptions to those recommendations on February 5, 2010. The hearing on
our exceptions took place before the Delaware PSC on February 18, 2010, but no ruling was made by
the Delaware PSC. We anticipate a ruling by the Delaware PSC in March 2010. We believe that the
Delaware division has been following proper procedures for capacity release established by the FERC
and based on a previous settlement approved by the Delaware PSC and therefore, we have not recorded
a liability for this contingency.
On December 2, 2008, our Delaware division filed two applications with the Delaware PSC, requesting
approval for a Town of Milton Franchise Fee Rider and a City of Seaford Franchise Fee Rider. These
Riders allow the division to recover from natural gas customers located within the Town of Milford
or the City of Seaford a proportionate share of the franchise fees paid by the division. The
Delaware PSC granted approval of both Franchise Fee Riders on January 29, 2009.
On September 4, 2009, our Delaware division filed with the Delaware PSC its annual GSR Application,
seeking approval to change its GSR, effective November 1, 2009. On October 6, 2009, the Delaware
PSC authorized the Delaware division to implement the GSR charges on November 1, 2009, on a
temporary basis, subject to refund, pending the completion of full evidentiary hearings and a final
decision. The Delaware division anticipates a final decision by the Delaware PSC on this
application in the second quarter of 2010.
On December 17, 2009, our Delaware division filed an application with the Delaware PSC, requesting
approval for an Individual Contract Rate for service to be rendered to a potential large industrial
customer. On or about October 2, 2009, the Delaware division entered into a negotiated gas service
agreement with a potential customer pursuant to which the Delaware division would provide
transportation, balancing, and gas delivery service to the customers facilities in Delaware. The
Delaware divisions obligations under the agreement are subject to several conditions, including
the condition that the agreement be approved by the Delaware PSC. The Delaware division and the
potential customer consider the specific terms and conditions of the agreement to be confidential
and proprietary. The Delaware division anticipates a final decision by the Delaware PSC on this
application in the first quarter of 2010.
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 103
Maryland. On December 16, 2008, the Maryland Public Service Commission (Maryland PSC)
held an evidentiary hearing to determine the reasonableness of the four quarterly gas cost recovery
filings submitted by our Maryland division during the 12 months ended September 30, 2008. No issues
were raised at the hearing, and on December 19, 2008, the Hearing Examiner in this proceeding
issued a proposed Order approving the divisions four quarterly filings, which became a final Order
of the Maryland PSC on January 21, 2009.
On April 24, 2009, the Maryland PSC issued an Order defining utilities payment plan parameters and
termination procedures that would increase the likelihood that customers could pay their past due
amounts to avoid termination of natural gas service. This Order requires our Maryland division to:
(a) provide customers in writing, prior to issuing a termination notice, certain details about
their past due balance and information about available payment plans, and (b) continue to offer
flexible and tailored payment plans. The Maryland division has implemented procedures to comply
with this Order.
On December 1, 2009, the Maryland PSC held an evidentiary hearing to determine the reasonableness
of the four quarterly gas cost recovery filings submitted by the Companys Maryland division during
the 12 months ended September 30, 2009. No issues were raised at the hearing, and on December 9,
2009, the Hearing Examiner in this proceeding issued a proposed Order approving the divisions four
quarterly filings. On January 8, 2010, the Maryland PSC issued an Order affirming the Hearing
Examiners decisions in the matter, but made certain clarifications and corrections to the text of
the proposed Order issued by the Hearing Examiner.
Florida. On July 14, 2009, Chesapeakes Florida division filed with the Florida PSC its
petition for a rate increase and request for interim rate relief. In the application, the Florida
division sought approval of: (a) an interim rate increase of $417,555; (b) a permanent rate
increase of $2,965,398, which represented an average base rate increase, excluding fuel costs, of
approximately 25 percent for the Florida divisions customers; (c) implementation or modification
of certain surcharge mechanisms; (d) restructuring of certain rate classifications; and (e)
deferral of certain costs and the purchase premium associated with the pending merger with FPU. On
August 18, 2009, the Florida PSC approved the full amount of the Florida divisions interim rate
request, subject to refund, applicable to all meters read on or after September 1, 2009. On
December 15, 2009, the Florida PSC: (a) approved a $2,536,307 permanent rate increase (86 percent
of the requested amount) applicable to all meters read on or after January 14, 2010; (b) determined
that there is no refund required of the interim rate increase; and (c) ordered Chesapeakes Florida
division and FPUs natural gas distribution operations to submit data no later than April 29, 2011
(which is 18 months after the merger) that details all known benefits, synergies and cost savings
that have resulted from the merger).
Also on December 15, 2009, the Florida PSC approved the settlement agreement for a final natural
gas rate increase of $7,969,000 for FPUs natural gas distribution operation, which represents
approximately 80 percent of the requested base rate increase of $9,917,690 filed by FPU in the
fourth quarter of 2008. The Florida PSC had approved an annual interim rate increase of $984,054
on February 10, 2009 and approved the permanent rate increase of $8,496,230 in an order issued on
May 5, 2009, with the new rates to be effective beginning on June 4, 2009. On June 17, 2009,
however, the Office of Public Counsel entered a protest to the Florida PSCs order and its final
natural gas rate increase ruling, which protest required a full hearing to be held within eight
months. Subsequent negotiations led to the settlement agreement between the Office of Public
Counsel and FPU, which the Florida PSC approved on December 15, 2009. The rates authorized
pursuant to the order approving the settlement agreement became effective on January 14, 2010 and
in February 2010, FPU refunded to its natural gas customers approximately $290,000 representing
revenues in excess of the amount provided by the settlement agreement that had been billed to
customers from June 2009 through January 14, 2010.
Page 104 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
On September 1, 2009, FPUs electric distribution operation filed its annual Fuel and Purchased
Power Recovery Clause, which seeks final approval of its 2008 fuel-related revenues and expenses
and new fuel rates for 2010. On January 4, 2010, the Florida PSC approved the proposed 2010 fuel
rates, effective on or after January 1, 2010.
On September 11, 2009, Chesapeakes Florida division and FPUs natural gas distribution operation
separately filed their respective annual Energy Conservation Cost Recovery Clause, seeking final
approval of their 2008 conservation-related revenues and expenses and new conservation surcharge
rates for 2010. On November 2, 2009, the Florida PSC approved the proposed 2010 conservation
surcharge rates for both the Florida division and FPU, effective for meters read on or after
January 1, 2010.
Also on September 11, 2009, FPUs natural gas distribution operation filed its annual Purchased Gas
Adjustment Clause, seeking final approval of its 2008 purchased gas-related revenues and expenses
and new purchased gas adjustment cap rate for 2010. On November 4, 2009, the Florida PSC approved
the proposed 2010 purchased gas adjustment cap, effective on or after January 1, 2010.
The City of Marianna Commissioners voted on July 7, 2009 to enter into a new ten year franchise
agreement with FPU effective February 1, 2010. The agreement provides that new interruptible and
time of use rates shall become available for certain customers prior to February 2011 or, at the
option of the City, the franchise agreement could be voided nine months after that date. The new
franchise agreement contains a provision for the City to purchase the Marianna portion of FPUs
electric system. Should FPU fail to make available the new rates, and if the franchise agreement
is then voided by the City and the City elects to purchase the Marianna portion of the distribution
system, it would require the city to pay FPU severance/reintegration costs, the fair market value
for the system, and an initial investment in the infrastructure to operate this limited facility.
If the City purchased the electric system, FPU would have a gain in the year of the disposition;
but, ongoing financial results would be negatively impacted from the loss of the Marianna area from
its electric operations.
ESNG. The following are regulatory activities involving FERC Orders applicable to ESNG and
the expansions of ESNGs transmission system:
System Expansion 2006 2008. In accordance with the requirements in the FERCs Order
Issuing Certificate for the 2006 2008 System Expansion, ESNG had until June 13, 2009, to
construct the remaining facilities that were authorized in the project filing. On February 3,
2009, ESNG requested authorization to modify the previously required completion date and to
commence construction of the facilities, which provide for the remaining 6,957 Mcfs of additional
firm service capacity previously approved by the FERC. On March 13, 2009, the FERC granted the
requested authorization. On October 30, 2009, ESNG received approval from the FERC to commence
services in November 2009 on this remaining portion of the 2006-2008 system expansion, which will
permit ESNG to realize an additional annualized gross margin of approximately $1.0 million.
Energylink Expansion Project (E3 Project). In 2006, ESNG proposed to develop, construct
and operate approximately 75 miles of new pipeline facilities from the existing Cove Point
Liquefied Natural Gas terminal in Calvert County, Maryland, crossing under the Chesapeake Bay into
Dorchester and Caroline Counties, Maryland, to points on the Delmarva Peninsula, where such
facilities would interconnect with ESNGs existing facilities in Sussex County, Delaware.
In April 2009, ESNG terminated the E3 Project and initiated billing to recover specified project
costs in accordance with the terms of the precedent agreements executed with the two participating
customers, one of which is Chesapeake, through its Delaware and Maryland divisions. These billings
will reimburse ESNG for the $3.17 million of costs incurred in connection with the E3 Project,
including the cost of capital, over a period of 20 years.
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 105
Prior Notice Request. On November 25, 2009 ESNG filed a prior notice request, proposing to
construct, own and operate new mainline facilities to deliver additional firm entitlements of 1,594
Mcfs per day of natural gas to Chesapeakes Delaware division. The FERC published notice of this
filing on December 7, 2009 and with no protest during the 60-day period following the notice, the
proposed activity became effective on February 6, 2010. ESNG expects to realize an annualized
margin of approximately $343,000 upon its completion of the facilities and implementation of the
new service.
FERC Order Nos. 712 and 712-A. In June and November 2008, the FERC issued Order Nos. 712
and 712-A, which revised its regulations regarding interstate natural gas pipeline capacity release
programs. The Orders: (a) remove the rate ceiling on capacity release transactions of one year or
less; (b) facilitate the use of asset management arrangements for certain capacity releases; and
(c) facilitate state-approved retail open access programs. The Orders required interstate gas
pipeline companies to remove any inconsistent tariff provisions within 180 days of the effective
date of the rule. On February 2, 2009, ESNG submitted revised tariff sheets to comply with the
requirements set forth in the Orders. Amended tariff sheets were subsequently filed on February
26, 2009, which made minor clarifications and corrections. On March 27, 2009, ESNG received FERC
approval of these amended tariff sheets with an effective date of March 1, 2009. Implementation of
these amended tariff provisions will have no financial impact on ESNG.
ESNG also had developments in the following FERC matters:
On April 30, 2009, ESNG submitted its annual Interruptible Revenue Sharing Report to the
FERC. ESNG reported in this filing that it refunded to its eligible firm customers a total
of $245,500, inclusive of interest, in the second quarter of 2009.
On May 29, 2009, ESNG submitted its annual Fuel Retention Percentage (FRP) and Cash-Out
Surcharge filings to the FERC. In these filings, ESNG proposed to implement an FRP rate of
0.12 percent and a zero rate for its Cash-Out Surcharge. ESNG also proposed to refund a
total of $294,540, inclusive of interest, to its eligible customers in the second quarter of
2009 by netting its over-recovered fuel cost against its under-recovered cash-out cost. The
FERC approved these proposals, and ESNG refunded $294,540 to customers in July 2009.
On June 1, 2009, ESNG submitted revised tariff sheets to comply with FERC Order No. 587-T,
which adopted Version 1.8 of the North American Energy Standards Board Wholesale Gas
Quadrants standards. FERC found this rule necessary to increase the efficiency of the
pipeline grid, make pipelines electronic communications more secure and provide consistency
with the mandate that agencies provide for electronic disclosure of information. ESNGs
revised tariff sheets were approved on August 11, 2009, by the FERC, which will have no
financial impact on ESNG.
On August 21, 2009, ESNG filed revised tariff sheets to reflect an increase in the Annual
Charge Adjustment (ACA) surcharge from $0.0017 per Dt to $0.0019 per Dt. The ACA surcharge
is designed to recover applicable program costs incurred by the FERC. The tariff sheets were
accepted as proposed and were made effective on October 1, 2009. As the ACA is
passed-through to ESNGs customers, there will be no financial impact on ESNG.
On December 11, 2009, ESNG filed revised tariff sheets to reflect a new section 42,
Consolidation of Service Agreements, to the General Terms and Conditions of its FERC Gas
Tariff. Section 42 states that shippers may, at their option and subject to certain
conditions, consolidate multiple service agreements under a rate schedule into a new service
agreement(s) under that rate schedule. The tariff sheets were accepted by the FERC on
January 7, 2010, as proposed and were made effective January 15, 2010. As this new section
allows for consolidation of existing service agreements only, there will be no financial
impact on ESNG.
Page 106 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
Natural Gas, Electric and Propane Supply
Our natural gas, electric and propane distribution operations have entered into contractual
commitments to purchase gas and electricity from various suppliers. The contracts have various
expiration dates. In March 2009, we renewed our contract with an energy marketing and risk
management company to manage a portion of our natural gas transportation and storage capacity. This
contract expires on March 31, 2012.
PESCO is currently in the process of obtaining and reviewing proposals from suppliers and
anticipates executing agreements before the existing agreements expire in May 2010.
FPUs electric fuel supply contracts require FPU to maintain an acceptable standard of
creditworthiness based on specific financial ratios. FPUs agreement with JEA requires FPU to
comply with the following ratios based on the result of the prior 12 months: (a) total liabilities
to tangible net worth less than 3.75 and (b) fixed charge coverage greater than 1.5. If either of
the ratios is not met by FPU, it has 30 days to cure the default or provide an irrevocable letter
of credit if the default is not cured. FPUs agreement with Gulf requires FPU to meet the
following ratios based on the average of the prior six quarters: (a) funds from operation interest
coverage (minimum of 2 to 1) and (b) total debt to total capital (maximum of 0.65 to 1). If FPU
fails to meet the requirements, it has to provide the supplier a written explanation of action
taken or proposed to be taken to be compliant. Failure to comply with the ratios specified in the
Gulf agreement could result in FPU providing an irrevocable letter of credit. FPU was in
compliance with these requirements as of December 31, 2009.
Corporate Guarantees
We have issued corporate guarantees to certain vendors of our subsidiaries, the largest portion of
which are for the Companys propane wholesale marketing subsidiary and its natural gas marketing
subsidiary. These corporate guarantees provide for the payment of propane and natural gas purchases
in the event of the respective subsidiarys default. Neither subsidiary has ever defaulted on its
obligations to pay its suppliers. The liabilities for these purchases are recorded in the
Consolidated Financial Statements when incurred. The aggregate amount guaranteed at December 31,
2009 was $22.7 million, with the guarantees expiring on various dates in 2010.
In addition to the corporate guarantees, we have issued a letter of credit to the Companys primary
insurance company for $725,000, which expires on August 31, 2010. The letter of credit is provided
as security to satisfy the deductibles under our various insurance policies. There have been no
draws on this letter of credit as of December 31, 2009. We do not anticipate that this letter of
credit will be drawn upon by the counterparty and we expect that it will be renewed to the extent
necessary in the future.
Other
We are involved in certain legal actions and claims arising in the normal course of business. We
are also involved in certain legal proceedings and administrative proceedings before various
governmental agencies concerning rates. In the opinion of management, the ultimate disposition of
these proceedings will not have a material effect on our consolidated financial position, results
of operations or cash flows.
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 107
Q. Quarterly Financial Data (Unaudited)
In the opinion of the Company, the quarterly financial information shown below includes all
adjustments necessary for a fair presentation of the operations for such periods. Due to the
seasonal nature of the Companys business, there are substantial variations in operations reported
on a quarterly basis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Quarters Ended |
|
March 31 |
|
|
June 30 |
|
|
September 30 |
|
|
December 31 |
|
(in thousands, except per share amounts) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 (1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Revenue |
|
$ |
104,479 |
|
|
$ |
40,834 |
|
|
$ |
31,758 |
|
|
$ |
91,715 |
|
Operating Income |
|
$ |
15,966 |
|
|
$ |
2,856 |
|
|
$ |
2,257 |
|
|
$ |
12,658 |
|
Net Income (Loss) |
|
$ |
8,593 |
|
|
$ |
806 |
|
|
$ |
308 |
|
|
$ |
6,190 |
|
Earnings (Loss) per share: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
$ |
1.26 |
|
|
$ |
0.12 |
|
|
$ |
0.04 |
|
|
$ |
0.71 |
|
Diluted |
|
$ |
1.24 |
|
|
$ |
0.12 |
|
|
$ |
0.04 |
|
|
$ |
0.71 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Revenue |
|
$ |
100,274 |
|
|
$ |
69,057 |
|
|
$ |
49,698 |
|
|
$ |
72,415 |
|
Operating Income |
|
$ |
14,041 |
|
|
$ |
4,329 |
|
|
$ |
1,170 |
|
|
$ |
8,938 |
|
Net Income (Loss) |
|
$ |
7,574 |
|
|
$ |
1,819 |
|
|
$ |
(198 |
) |
|
$ |
4,412 |
|
Earnings (Loss) per share: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
$ |
1.11 |
|
|
$ |
0.27 |
|
|
$ |
(0.03 |
) |
|
$ |
0.65 |
|
Diluted |
|
$ |
1.10 |
|
|
$ |
0.27 |
|
|
$ |
(0.03 |
) |
|
$ |
0.64 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The quarter ended December 31, 2009 includes the results from the merger with
FPU, which became effective on October 28, 2009. |
|
(2) |
|
The sum of the four quarters does not equal the total year due to rounding. |
Item 9. Changes In and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial
Disclosure.
None.
Item 9A. Controls and Procedures.
Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures
The Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, with the participation of
other Company officials, have evaluated the Companys disclosure controls and procedures (as such
term is defined under Rule 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended) as of December 31, 2009. Based upon their evaluation, the Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that the Companys disclosure controls and procedures
were effective as of December 31, 2009.
Changes in Internal Controls
Other than the Chesapeake and FPU merger discussed below, there has been no change in internal
control over financial reporting (as such term is defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(f)) that
occurred during the quarter ended December 31, 2009, that materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, internal control over financial reporting.
On October 28, 2009, the previously announced merger between Chesapeake and FPU was consummated.
Chesapeake is in the process of integrating FPUs operations and has not included FPUs activity in
its evaluation of internal control over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. See Item 8 under the heading Notes to the Consolidated Financial
Statements Note B, Acquisitions and Dispositions for additional information relating to the FPU
merger. FPUs operations constituted approximately 30 percent of total assets (excluding goodwill
and other intangible assets) as of December 31, 2009, and 10 percent of operating revenues for the
year then ended. FPUs operations will be included in Chesapeakes assessment as of December 31,
2010.
Page 108 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
CEO and CFO Certifications
The Companys Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer have filed with the SEC the
certifications required by Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 as Exhibits 31.1 and 31.2
to the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009. In
addition, on June 1, 2009 the Companys Chief Executive Officer certified to the NYSE that he was
not aware of any violation by the Company of the NYSE corporate governance listing standards.
Managements Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
The report of management required under this Item 9A is contained in Item 8 of this Form 10-K under
the caption Managements Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting.
Our independent auditors, ParenteBeard LLC, have audited and issued their report on effectiveness
of our internal control over financial reporting. That report appears in the following page.
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 109
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
To the Board of Directors and
Stockholders of Chesapeake Utilities Corporation
We have audited Chesapeake Utilities Corporations internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2009, based on criteria established in Internal ControlIntegrated Framework issued
by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Chesapeake
Utilities Corporations management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over
financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting included in the accompanying Managements Report on Internal Control Over Financial
Reporting appearing under Item 8. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the companys
internal control over financial reporting based on our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight
Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was
maintained in all material respects. Our audit of internal control over financial reporting
included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the
risk that a material weakness exists, and testing and evaluating the design and operating
effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk. Our audit also included performing
such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
A companys internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A
companys internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1)
pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the
transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that
transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company
are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company;
and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized
acquisition, use, or disposition of the companys assets that could have a material effect on the
financial statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or
detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are
subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that
the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
As indicated in the accompanying Managements Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting,
the Company completed a merger with Florida Public Utilities Company (FPU) in 2009. As permitted
by the Securities and Exchange Commission, management excluded the non-integrated FPU operations
from its assessment of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2009.
Non-integrated FPU operations constituted approximately 30 percent of total assets (excluding
goodwill and other intangible assets) as of December 31, 2009, and 10 percent of operating revenue
for the year then ended. Our audit of internal control over financial reporting of Chesapeake
Utilities Corporation as of December 31, 2009, did not include an evaluation of the internal
controls over financial reporting of the non-integrated operations of FPU.
In our opinion, Chesapeake Utilities Corporation maintained, in all material respects, effective
internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2009, based on criteria established in
Internal ControlIntegrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the
Treadway Commission (COSO).
We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight
Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheets of Chesapeake Utilities Corporation as of
December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders equity
and cash flows of Chesapeake Utilities Corporation, and our report dated March 8, 2010 expressed an
unqualified opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ ParenteBeard LLC
ParenteBeard LLC
Malvern, Pennsylvania
March 8, 2010
|
|
|
Page 110 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
Item 9B. Other Information.
None
Part III
Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers of the Registrant and Corporate Governanace.
The information required by this Item is incorporated herein by reference to the portions of the
Proxy Statement, captioned Election of Directors (Proposal 1), Information Concerning Nominees
and Continuing Directors, Corporate Governance, Committees of the Board Audit Committee and
Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance, to be filed not later than March 31,
2010, in connection with the Companys Annual Meeting to be held on or about May 5, 2010.
The information required by this Item with respect to executive officers is, pursuant to
instruction 3 of paragraph (b) of Item 401 of Regulation S-K, set forth in this report following
Item 4, as Item 4A, under the caption Executive Officers of the Company.
The Company has adopted a Code of Ethics for Financial Officers, which applies to its principal
executive officer, president, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer or controller, or
persons performing similar functions. The information set forth under Item 1 hereof concerning the
Code of Ethics for Financial Officers is filed herewith.
Item 11. Executive Compensation.
The information required by this Item is incorporated herein by reference to the portion of the
Proxy Statement, captioned Director Compensation, Executive Compensation and Compensation
Discussion and Analysis in the Proxy Statement to be filed not later than March 31, 2010, in
connection with the Companys Annual Meeting to be held on or about May 5, 2010.
Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder
Matters.
The information required by this Item is incorporated herein by reference to the portion of the
Proxy Statement, captioned Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management to be
filed not later than March 31, 2010, in connection with the Companys Annual Meeting to be held on
or about May 5, 2010.
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 111
The following table sets forth information, as of December 31, 2009, with respect to compensation
plans of Chesapeake and its subsidiaries, under which shares of Chesapeake common stock are
authorized for issuance:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(c) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of securities |
|
|
|
(a) |
|
|
(b) |
|
|
remaining available for future |
|
|
|
Number of securities to |
|
|
Weighted-average |
|
|
issuance under equity |
|
|
|
be issued upon exercise |
|
|
exercise price |
|
|
compensation plans |
|
|
|
of outstanding options, |
|
|
of outstanding options, |
|
|
(excluding securities |
|
|
|
warrants, and rights |
|
|
warrants, and rights |
|
|
reflected in column (a)) |
|
Equity compensation
plans approved by
security holders |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
439,258 |
(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity compensation
plans not approved by
security holders |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
439,258 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes 371,293 shares under the 2005 Performance Incentive Plan, 44,115 shares
available under the 2005 Directors Stock Compensation Plan, and 23,850 shares available
under the 2005 Employee Stock Awards Plan. |
Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence.
The information required by this Item is incorporated herein by reference to the portion of the
Proxy Statement captioned, Corporate Governance, to be filed no later than March 31, 2010 in
connection with the Companys Annual Meeting to be held on or about May 5, 2010.
Item 14. Principal Accounting Fees and Services.
The information required by this Item is incorporated herein by reference to the portion of the
Proxy Statement, captioned Fees and Services of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm, to
be filed not later than March 31, 2010, in connection with the Companys Annual Meeting to be held
on or about May 5, 2010.
Page 112 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
Part IV
Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules.
(a) |
|
The following documents are filed as part of this report: |
|
|
|
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm; |
|
|
|
Consolidated Statements of Income for each of the three years ended December 31, 2009,
2008, and 2007; |
|
|
|
Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008; |
|
|
|
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for each of the three years ended December 31,
2009, 2008, and 2007; |
|
|
|
Consolidated Statements of Stockholders Equity for each of the three years ended
December 31, 2009, 2008, and 2007; and |
|
|
|
Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements. |
|
2. |
|
Financial Statement Schedules: |
|
|
|
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm; |
|
|
|
Schedule I Parent Company Condensed Financial Statements; and |
|
|
|
Schedule II Valuation and Qualifying Accounts. |
All other schedules are omitted, because they are not required, are inapplicable, or the
information is otherwise shown in the financial statements or notes thereto.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 1.1
|
|
Underwriting Agreement entered into by Chesapeake Utilities Corporation and
Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated and A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., on November 15, 2007,
relating to the sale and issuance of 600,300 shares of Chesapeakes common stock, is
incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 1.1 of our Current Report on Form 8-K, filed
November 16, 2007, File No. 001-11590. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 2.1
|
|
Agreement and Plan of Merger between Chesapeake Utilities Corporation and
Florida Public Utilities Company dated April 17, 2009, is incorporated herein by reference
to Exhibit 2.1 of our Current Report on Form 8-K, filed April 20, 2009, File No. 001-11590. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 3.1
|
|
Restated Certificate of Incorporation of Chesapeake Utilities Corporation is
incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 3.1 of our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the period ended June 30, 1998, File No. 001-11590. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 3.2
|
|
Amended and Restated Bylaws of Chesapeake Utilities Corporation, effective
December 11, 2008, are incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 3 of the Companys
Current Report on Form 8-K, filed December 16, 2008, File No. 001-11590. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 4.1
|
|
Form of Indenture between Chesapeake and Boatmens Trust Company, Trustee,
with respect to the 8 1/4% Convertible Debentures is incorporated herein by reference to
Exhibit 4.2 of our Registration Statement on Form S-2, Reg. No. 33-26582, filed on January
13, 1989. |
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 113
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 4.2
|
|
Note Purchase Agreement, entered into by the Company on October 2, 1995,
pursuant to which Chesapeake privately placed $10 million of its 6.91% Senior Notes, due in
2010, is not being filed herewith, in accordance with Item 601(b)(4)(iii) of Regulation
S-K. We hereby agree to furnish a copy of that agreement to the SEC upon request. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 4.3
|
|
Note Purchase Agreement, entered into by Chesapeake on December 15, 1997,
pursuant to which Chesapeake privately placed $10 million of its 6.85% Senior Notes due in
2012, is not being filed herewith, in accordance with Item 601(b)(4)(iii) of Regulation
S-K. We hereby agree to furnish a copy of that agreement to the SEC upon request. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 4.4
|
|
Note Purchase Agreement entered into by Chesapeake on December 27, 2000,
pursuant to which Chesapeake privately placed $20 million of its 7.83% Senior Notes, due in
2015, is not being filed herewith, in accordance with Item 601(b)(4)(iii) of Regulation
S-K. We hereby agree to furnish a copy of that agreement to the SEC upon request. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 4.5
|
|
Note Agreement entered into by Chesapeake on October 31, 2002, pursuant to
which Chesapeake privately placed $30 million of its 6.64% Senior Notes, due in 2017, is
incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 2 of our Current Report on Form 8-K, filed
November 6, 2002, File No. 001-11590. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 4.6
|
|
Note Agreement entered into by Chesapeake on October 18, 2005, pursuant to
which Chesapeake, on October 12, 2006, privately placed $20 million of its 5.5% Senior
Notes, due in 2020, with Prudential Investment Management, Inc., is incorporated herein by
reference to Exhibit 4.1 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2005, File No. 001-11590. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 4.7
|
|
Note Agreement entered into by Chesapeake on October 31, 2008, pursuant to
which Chesapeake, on October 31, 2008, privately placed $30 million of its 5.93% Senior
Notes, due in 2023, with General American Life Insurance Company and New England Life
Insurance Company, is not being filed herewith, in accordance with Item 601(b)(4)(iii) of
Regulation S-K. We hereby agree to furnish a copy of that agreement to the SEC upon
request. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 4.8
|
|
Form of Senior Debt Trust Indenture between Chesapeake Utilities Corporation
and the trustee for the debt securities is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit
4.3.1 of our Registration Statement on Form S-3A, Reg. No. 333-135602, dated November 6,
2006. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 4.9
|
|
Form of Subordinated Debt Trust Indenture between Chesapeake Utilities
Corporation and the trustee for the debt securities is incorporated herein by reference to
Exhibit 4.3.2 of our Registration Statement on Form S-3A, Reg. No. 333-135602, dated
November 6, 2006. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 4.10
|
|
Form of debt securities is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.4
of our Registration Statement on Form S-3A, Reg. No. 333-135602, dated November 6, 2006. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 4.11
|
|
Form of Indenture of Mortgage and Deed of Trust between Florida Public
Utilities Company and the trustee, dated September 1, 1942 for the First Mortgage Bonds, is
incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 7-A of Florida Public Utilities Companys
Registration No. 2-6087. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 4.12
|
|
Fourteenth Supplemental Indenture entered into by Florida Public Utilities
Company on September 1, 2001, pursuant to which Florida Public Utilities Company, on
September 1, 2001, privately placed $15,000,000 of its 6.85% First Mortgage Bonds, is
incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4(b) of Florida Public Utilities Companys
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001, File No. 001-10608. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 4.13
|
|
Fifteenth Supplemental Indenture entered into by Florida Public Utilities
Company on November 1, 2001, pursuant to which Florida Public Utilities Company, on
November 1, 2001, privately placed $14,000,000 of its 4.90% First Mortgage Bonds, is
incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4(c) of Florida Public Utilities Companys
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001, File No.
001-10608 |
Page 114 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 4.14
|
|
Twelfth Supplemental Indenture entered into by Florida Public Utilities on
May 1, 1988, pursuant to which Florida Public Utilities Company, on May 1, 1988, privately
placed $10,000,000 and $5,000,000 of its 9.57% First Mortgage Bonds and 10.03% First
Mortgage Bonds, respectively, are incorporated herein by reference
to Exhibit 4 to Florida Public Utilities Companys
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 1988. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 4.15
|
|
Thirteenth Supplemental Indenture entered into by Florida Public Utilities
Company on June 1, 1992, pursuant to which Florida Public Utilities, on May 1, 1992,
privately placed $8,000,000 of its 9.08% First Mortgage Bonds, is incorporated herein by
reference to Exhibit 4 to Florida Public Utilities Companys
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 1992. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 10.1*
|
|
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation Cash Bonus Incentive Plan, dated January
1, 2005, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.3 of our Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, File No. 001-11590. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 10.2*
|
|
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation Directors Stock Compensation Plan,
adopted in 2005, is incorporated herein by reference to our Proxy Statement dated March 28,
2005, in connection with our Annual Meeting held on May 5, 2005, File No. 001-11590. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 10.3*
|
|
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation Employee Stock Award Plan, adopted in
2005, is incorporated herein by reference to our Proxy Statement dated March 28, 2005, in
connection with our Annual Meeting held on May 5, 2005, File No. 001-11590. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 10.4*
|
|
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation Performance Incentive Plan, adopted in
2005, is incorporated herein by reference to our Proxy Statement dated March 28, 2005, in
connection with our Annual Meeting held on May 5, 2005, File No. 001-11590. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 10.5*
|
|
Deferred Compensation Program, amended and restated as of January 1, 2009,
is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.5 of the Companys Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, File No. 001-11590. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 10.6*
|
|
Executive Employment Agreement dated December 29, 2006, by and between
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation and S. Robert Zola, is incorporated herein by reference to
Exhibit 10.7 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006, File
No. 001-11590. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 10.7*
|
|
Amendment to Executive Employment Agreement, effective January 1, 2009, by
and between Chesapeake Utilities Corporation and S. Robert Zola, is incorporated herein by
reference to Exhibit 10.7 of the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2008, File No. 001-11590. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 10.8*
|
|
Executive Employment Agreement dated December 31, 2009, by and between
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation and John R. Schimkaitis, is incorporated herein by
reference to Exhibit 10.1 of the Companys Current Report on Form 8-K, filed January 7,
2010, File No. 001-11590. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 10.9*
|
|
Executive Employment Agreement dated December 31, 2009, by and between
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation and Michael P. McMasters, is incorporated herein by
reference to Exhibit 10.2 of the Companys Current Report on Form 8-K, filed January 7,
2010, File No. 001-11590. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 10.10*
|
|
Executive Employment Agreement dated December 31, 2009, by and between
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation and Stephen C. Thompson, is incorporated herein by
reference to Exhibit 10.3 of the Companys Current Report on Form 8-K, filed January 7,
2010, File No. 001-11590. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 10.11*
|
|
Executive Employment Agreement dated December 31, 2009, by and between
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation and Beth W. Cooper, is incorporated herein by reference to
Exhibit 10.4 of the Companys Current Report on Form 8-K, filed January 7, 2010, File No.
001-11590. |
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 115
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 10.12*
|
|
Executive Employment Agreement dated December 31, 2009, by and between
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation and Joseph Cummiskey, is incorporated herein by reference
to Exhibit 10.5 of the Companys Current Report on Form 8-K, filed January 7, 2010, File
No. 001-11590. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 10.13*
|
|
Performance Share Agreement dated January 23, 2008 for the period 2008 to
2009, pursuant to Chesapeake Utilities Corporation Performance Incentive Plan by and
between Chesapeake Utilities Corporation and John R. Schimkaitis, is incorporated herein by
reference to Exhibit 10.11 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2007, File No. 001-11590. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 10.14*
|
|
Performance Share Agreement dated January 23, 2008 for the period 2008 to
2010, pursuant to Chesapeake Utilities Corporation Performance Incentive Plan by and
between Chesapeake Utilities Corporation and John R. Schimkaitis, is incorporated herein by
reference to Exhibit 10.12 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2007, File No. 001-11590. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 10.15*
|
|
Performance Share Agreement dated January 23, 2008 for the period 2008 to
2009, pursuant to Chesapeake Utilities Corporation Performance Incentive Plan by and
between Chesapeake Utilities Corporation and Michael P. McMasters, is incorporated herein
by reference to Exhibit 10.13 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2007, File No. 001-11590. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 10.16*
|
|
Performance Share Agreement dated January 23, 2008 for the period 2008 to
2010, pursuant to Chesapeake Utilities Corporation Performance Incentive Plan by and
between Chesapeake Utilities Corporation and Michael P. McMasters, is incorporated herein
by reference to Exhibit 10.14 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2007, File No. 001-11590. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 10.17*
|
|
Performance Share Agreement dated January 23, 2008 for the period 2008 to
2009, pursuant to Chesapeake Utilities Corporation Performance Incentive Plan by and
between Chesapeake Utilities Corporation and Stephen C. Thompson, is incorporated herein by
reference to Exhibit 10.15 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2007, File No. 001-11590. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 10.18*
|
|
Performance Share Agreement dated January 23, 2008 for the period 2008 to
2010, pursuant to Chesapeake Utilities Corporation Performance Incentive Plan by and
between Chesapeake Utilities Corporation and Stephen C. Thompson, is incorporated herein by
reference to Exhibit 10.16 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2007, File No. 001-11590. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 10.19*
|
|
Performance Share Agreement dated January 23, 2008 for the period 2008 to
2009, pursuant to Chesapeake Utilities Corporation Performance Incentive Plan by and
between Chesapeake Utilities Corporation and Beth W. Cooper, is incorporated herein by
reference to Exhibit 10.17 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2007, File No. 001-11590. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 10.20*
|
|
Performance Share Agreement dated January 23, 2008 for the period 2008 to
2010, pursuant to Chesapeake Utilities Corporation Performance Incentive Plan by and
between Chesapeake Utilities Corporation and Beth W. Cooper, is incorporated herein by
reference to Exhibit 10.18 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2007, File No. 001-11590. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 10.21*
|
|
Performance Share Agreement dated January 23, 2008 for the period 2008 to
2009, pursuant to Chesapeake Utilities Corporation Performance Incentive Plan by and
between Chesapeake Utilities Corporation and S. Robert Zola, is incorporated herein by
reference to Exhibit 10.19 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2007, File No. 001-11590. |
Page 116 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 10.22*
|
|
Performance Share Agreement dated January 23, 2008 for the period 2008 to
2010, pursuant to Chesapeake Utilities Corporation Performance Incentive Plan by and
between Chesapeake Utilities Corporation and S. Robert Zola, is incorporated herein by
reference to Exhibit 10.20 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2007, File No. 001-11590. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 10.23*
|
|
Form of Performance Share Agreement effective January 7, 2009, pursuant
to Chesapeake Utilities Corporation Performance Incentive Plan by and between Chesapeake
Utilities Corporation and each of John R. Schimkaitis, Michael P. McMasters, Beth W. Cooper
and Stephen C. Thompson, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.26 on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2008, File No. 001-11590. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 10.24*
|
|
Form of Performance Share Agreement effective January 6, 2010, pursuant
to Chesapeake Utilities Corporation Performance Incentive Plan by and between Chesapeake
Utilities Corporation and each of John R. Schimkaitis, Michael P. McMasters, Beth W.
Cooper, Stephen C. Thompson, and Joseph Cummiskey is filed herewith. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 10.25*
|
|
Performance Share Agreement dated January 20, 2010 for the period
2010 to 2011, pursuant to Chesapeake Utilities Corporation Performance Incentive Plan by and between
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation and Joseph Cummiskey is filed herewith. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 10.26*
|
|
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan,
as amended and restated effective January 1, 2009, is incorporated herein by reference to
Exhibit 10.28 of the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2008, File No. 001-11590. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 10.27*
|
|
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation Supplemental Executive Retirement
Savings Plan, as amended and restated effective January 1, 2009, is incorporated herein by
reference to Exhibit 10.29 of the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2008, File No. 001-11590. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 10.28*
|
|
Amended and Restated Electric Service Contract between Florida Public
Utilities Company and JEA dated November 6, 2008, is incorporated herein by reference to
Exhibit 10.1 of Florida Public Utilities Companys Current Report on Form 8-K, filed on
November 6, 2008, File No. 001-10908. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 10.29*
|
|
Networking Operating Agreement between Florida Public Utilities Company
and Southern Company Services, Inc. dated December 27, 2007 and amended on June 3, 2008, is
incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.3 of Florida Public Utilities Companys
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008, File No. 001-10608. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 10.30*
|
|
Network Integration Transmission Service Agreement between Florida Public
Utilities Company and Southern Company Services, Inc. dated December 27, 2007 and amended
on June 3, 2008, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.4 of Florida Public
Utilities Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008, File
No. 001-10608. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 10.31*
|
|
Form of Service Agreement for Firm Transportation Service between Florida
Public Utilities Company and Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC dated November 1, 2007
for the period November 2007 to February 2016 (Contract No. 107033), is incorporated herein
by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of Florida Public Utilities Companys Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007, File No. 001-10608. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 10.32*
|
|
Form of Service Agreement for Firm Transportation Service between Florida
Public Utilities Company and Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC dated November 1, 2007
for the period November 2007 to March 2022 (Contract No. 107034), is incorporated herein by
reference to Exhibit 10.2 of Florida Public Utilities Companys Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007, File No. 001-10608. |
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 117
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 10.33*
|
|
Form of Service Agreement for Firm Transportation Service between Florida
Public Utilities Company and Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC dated November 1, 2007
for the period November 2007 to February 2022 (Contract No. 107035), is incorporated herein
by reference to Exhibit 10.3 of Florida Public Utilities Companys Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007, File No. 001-10608. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 12
|
|
Computation of Ratio of Earning to Fixed Charges is filed herewith. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 14.1
|
|
Code of Ethics for Financial Officers is filed herewith. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 14.2
|
|
Business Code of Ethics and Conduct is filed herewith. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 21
|
|
Subsidiaries of the Registrant is filed herewith. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 23.1
|
|
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm is filed herewith. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 31.1
|
|
Certificate of Chief Executive
Officer of Chesapeake Utilities Corporation
pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a), dated March 8, 2010, is filed herewith. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 31.2
|
|
Certificate of Chief Financial Officer of Chesapeake Utilities Corporation
pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a), dated March 8, 2010, is filed herewith. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 32.1
|
|
Certificate of Chief Executive
Officer of Chesapeake Utilities Corporation
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, dated March 8, 2010, is filed herewith. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 32.2
|
|
Certificate of Chief Financial Officer of Chesapeake Utilities Corporation
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, dated March 8, 2010, is filed herewith. |
|
|
|
* |
|
Management contract or compensatory plan or agreement. |
Page 118 Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K
Signatures
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation
|
|
|
By: |
/s/ John R. Schimkaitis
|
|
|
|
John R. Schimkaitis |
|
|
|
Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|
|
|
Date: March 8, 2010 |
|
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed
below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates
indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Ralph J. Adkins
Ralph J. Adkins, Chairman of the Board
and Director
|
|
/s/ John R. Schimkaitis
John R. Schimkaitis,
Vice Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Director
|
|
|
Date:
February 24, 2010
|
|
Date: March 8, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Beth W. Cooper
Beth W. Cooper, Senior Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Date: March 8, 2010
|
|
/s/ Eugene H. Bayard
Eugene H. Bayard, Director
Date: February 24, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Richard Bernstein
Richard Bernstein, Director
|
|
/s/ Thomas J. Bresnan
Thomas J. Bresnan, Director
|
|
|
Date: February 24, 2010
|
|
Date: March 8, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Thomas P. Hill, Jr.
Thomas P. Hill, Jr., Director
|
|
/s/ Dennis S. Hudson, III
Dennis S. Hudson, III, Director
|
|
|
Date: February 24, 2010
|
|
Date: February 24, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Paul L. Maddock, Jr.
Paul L. Maddock, Jr., Director
|
|
/s/ J. Peter Martin
J. Peter Martin, Director
|
|
|
Date: February 24, 2010
|
|
Date: February 24, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Michael p. Mcmasters
Michael P. McMasters, President, Chief Operating Officer
and Director
Date: March 8, 2010
|
|
/s/ Joseph E. Moore, Esq
Joseph E. Moore, Esq., Director
Date: February 24, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Calvert A. Morgan, Jr
Calvert A. Morgan, Jr., Director
|
|
/s/ Dianna F. Morgan
Dianna F. Morgan, Director
|
|
|
Date: February 24, 2010
|
|
Date: February 24, 2010 |
|
|
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 2009 Form 10-K Page 119
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
To the Board of Directors and
Stockholders of Chesapeake Utilities Corporation
The audit referred to in our report dated March 8, 2010 relating to the consolidated financial
statements of Chesapeake Utilities Corporation as of December 31, 2009 and 2008 and for each of
the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2009, which is contained in Item 8 of this Form
10-K also included the audits of the financial statement schedules
listed in Item 15(a) 2. These
financial statement schedules are the responsibility of the Chesapeake Utilities Corporations
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statement schedules
based on our audits.
In our
opinion such financial statement schedules, when considered in relation to the basic
consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, in all material respects, the
information set forth therein.
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ ParenteBeard LLC
ParenteBeard LLC
|
|
|
Malvern, Pennsylvania |
|
|
March 8, 2010 |
|
|
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation and Subsidiaries
Schedule I
Parent Company Condensed Financial Statements
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation (Parent)
Condensed Balance Sheets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
Assets |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total property, plant and equipment |
|
$ |
191,440 |
|
|
$ |
185,416 |
|
Less: Accumulated depreciation and amortization |
|
|
(46,297 |
) |
|
|
(46,158 |
) |
Plus: Construction work in progress |
|
|
1,338 |
|
|
|
408 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net property, plant and equipment |
|
|
146,481 |
|
|
|
139,666 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investments |
|
|
1,959 |
|
|
|
1,601 |
|
Investments in subsidiaries |
|
|
160,150 |
|
|
|
73,410 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
973 |
|
|
|
1,534 |
|
Accounts receivable (less allowance for uncollectible
accounts of $458 and $398, respectively) |
|
|
9,356 |
|
|
|
11,848 |
|
Accrued revenue |
|
|
4,936 |
|
|
|
4,721 |
|
Accounts receivable from affiliates |
|
|
56,587 |
|
|
|
61,139 |
|
Propane inventory, at average cost |
|
|
624 |
|
|
|
648 |
|
Other inventory, at average cost |
|
|
971 |
|
|
|
983 |
|
Regulatory assets |
|
|
1,205 |
|
|
|
824 |
|
Storage gas prepayments |
|
|
6,144 |
|
|
|
9,492 |
|
Income taxes receivable |
|
|
822 |
|
|
|
3,547 |
|
Deferred income taxes |
|
|
1,909 |
|
|
|
1,743 |
|
Prepaid expenses |
|
|
3,047 |
|
|
|
1,974 |
|
Other current assets |
|
|
79 |
|
|
|
79 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets |
|
|
86,653 |
|
|
|
98,532 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred Charges and Other Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term receivables |
|
|
331 |
|
|
|
512 |
|
Regulatory assets |
|
|
3,610 |
|
|
|
2,060 |
|
Other deferred charges |
|
|
479 |
|
|
|
453 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred charges and other assets |
|
|
4,420 |
|
|
|
3,025 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Assets |
|
$ |
399,663 |
|
|
$ |
316,234 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements.
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation and Subsidiaries
Schedule I
Parent Company Condensed Financial Statements
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation (Parent)
Condensed Balance Sheets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
Capitalization and Liabilities |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capitalization |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stockholders equity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, par value $0.4867 per share
(authorized 12,000,000 shares) |
|
$ |
4,572 |
|
|
$ |
3,323 |
|
Additional paid-in capital |
|
|
144,502 |
|
|
|
66,681 |
|
Retained earnings |
|
|
63,231 |
|
|
|
56,817 |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
(2,865 |
) |
|
|
(3,748 |
) |
Deferred compensation obligation |
|
|
739 |
|
|
|
1,549 |
|
Treasury stock |
|
|
(739 |
) |
|
|
(1,549 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders equity |
|
|
209,440 |
|
|
|
123,073 |
|
|
Long-term debt, net of current maturities |
|
|
79,611 |
|
|
|
86,382 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total capitalization |
|
|
289,051 |
|
|
|
209,455 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current portion of long-term debt |
|
|
6,636 |
|
|
|
6,636 |
|
Short-term borrowing |
|
|
30,023 |
|
|
|
33,000 |
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
9,157 |
|
|
|
9,587 |
|
Customer deposits and refunds |
|
|
4,410 |
|
|
|
5,558 |
|
Accrued interest |
|
|
1,003 |
|
|
|
1,023 |
|
Dividends payable |
|
|
2,959 |
|
|
|
2,082 |
|
Accrued compensation |
|
|
2,450 |
|
|
|
1,994 |
|
Regulatory liabilities |
|
|
5,934 |
|
|
|
2,429 |
|
Other accrued liabilities |
|
|
1,647 |
|
|
|
1,602 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities |
|
|
64,219 |
|
|
|
63,911 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred income taxes |
|
|
16,494 |
|
|
|
13,204 |
|
Deferred investment tax credits |
|
|
157 |
|
|
|
193 |
|
Regulatory liabilities |
|
|
695 |
|
|
|
598 |
|
Environmental liabilities |
|
|
531 |
|
|
|
511 |
|
Other pension and benefit costs |
|
|
5,674 |
|
|
|
6,914 |
|
Accrued asset removal cost |
|
|
18,248 |
|
|
|
17,740 |
|
Other liabilities |
|
|
4,594 |
|
|
|
3,708 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred credits and other liabilities |
|
|
46,393 |
|
|
|
42,868 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other commitments and contingencies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Capitalization and Liabilities |
|
$ |
399,663 |
|
|
$ |
316,234 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements.
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation and Subsidiaries
Schedule I
Parent Company Condensed Financial Statements
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation (Parent)
Condensed Statements of Income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended December 31, |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Revenues |
|
$ |
101,577 |
|
|
$ |
103,733 |
|
|
$ |
119,402 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Expenses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of sales |
|
|
62,339 |
|
|
|
65,446 |
|
|
|
83,076 |
|
Operations |
|
|
18,487 |
|
|
|
16,039 |
|
|
|
16,454 |
|
Transaction-related costs |
|
|
1,478 |
|
|
|
1,153 |
|
|
|
|
|
Maintenance |
|
|
1,535 |
|
|
|
1,303 |
|
|
|
1,409 |
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
4,194 |
|
|
|
3,918 |
|
|
|
4,032 |
|
Other taxes |
|
|
3,564 |
|
|
|
3,380 |
|
|
|
2,989 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating expenses |
|
|
91,597 |
|
|
|
91,239 |
|
|
|
107,960 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income |
|
|
9,980 |
|
|
|
12,494 |
|
|
|
11,442 |
|
Income from equity investments |
|
|
12,042 |
|
|
|
7,781 |
|
|
|
7,679 |
|
Other income (loss), net of other expenses |
|
|
(30 |
) |
|
|
(106 |
) |
|
|
220 |
|
Interest charges |
|
|
3,066 |
|
|
|
3,026 |
|
|
|
3,195 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income Before Income Taxes |
|
|
18,926 |
|
|
|
17,143 |
|
|
|
16,146 |
|
Income taxes |
|
|
3,029 |
|
|
|
3,536 |
|
|
|
2,948 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income |
|
$ |
15,897 |
|
|
$ |
13,607 |
|
|
$ |
13,198 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements.
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation and Subsidiaries
Schedule I
Parent Company Condensed Financial Statements
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation (Parent)
Condensed Statements of Cash Flows
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended December 31, |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Activities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income |
|
$ |
15,897 |
|
|
$ |
13,607 |
|
|
$ |
13,198 |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net operating cash: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity earnings in subsidiaries |
|
|
(12,042 |
) |
|
|
(7,781 |
) |
|
|
(7,679 |
) |
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
4,190 |
|
|
|
3,918 |
|
|
|
4,268 |
|
Depreciation and accretion included in other costs |
|
|
1,773 |
|
|
|
1,389 |
|
|
|
1,646 |
|
Deferred income taxes, net |
|
|
2,821 |
|
|
|
5,147 |
|
|
|
(156 |
) |
Gain on sale of assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(205 |
) |
Unrealized (gain) loss on investments |
|
|
(212 |
) |
|
|
509 |
|
|
|
(123 |
) |
Employee benefits and compensation |
|
|
1,217 |
|
|
|
152 |
|
|
|
1,004 |
|
Share based compensation |
|
|
1,306 |
|
|
|
820 |
|
|
|
990 |
|
Other, net |
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
Changes in assets and liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sale (purchase) of investments |
|
|
(146 |
) |
|
|
(201 |
) |
|
|
229 |
|
Accounts receivable and accrued revenue |
|
|
(16,770 |
) |
|
|
(3,016 |
) |
|
|
(2,315 |
) |
Propane inventory, storage gas and other inventory |
|
|
3,383 |
|
|
|
(3,854 |
) |
|
|
1,427 |
|
Regulatory assets |
|
|
(1,825 |
) |
|
|
606 |
|
|
|
(526 |
) |
Prepaid expenses and other current assets |
|
|
(1,050 |
) |
|
|
(516 |
) |
|
|
(179 |
) |
Other deferred charges |
|
|
(72 |
) |
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
(61 |
) |
Long-term receivables |
|
|
181 |
|
|
|
199 |
|
|
|
76 |
|
Accounts payable and other accrued liabilities |
|
|
9,832 |
|
|
|
3,323 |
|
|
|
(403 |
) |
Income taxes receivable |
|
|
2,791 |
|
|
|
(3,113 |
) |
|
|
147 |
|
Accrued interest |
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
158 |
|
|
|
32 |
|
Customer deposits and refunds |
|
|
(1,147 |
) |
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
1,423 |
|
Accrued compensation |
|
|
352 |
|
|
|
377 |
|
|
|
326 |
|
Regulatory liabilities |
|
|
3,603 |
|
|
|
(2,379 |
) |
|
|
1,941 |
|
Other liabilities |
|
|
886 |
|
|
|
(23 |
) |
|
|
(151 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating activities |
|
|
14,956 |
|
|
|
9,359 |
|
|
|
14,916 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investing Activities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment expenditures |
|
|
(12,615 |
) |
|
|
(16,328 |
) |
|
|
(15,464 |
) |
Proceeds from sale of assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
205 |
|
Proceeds from investments |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
|
500 |
|
|
|
900 |
|
Cash acquired in the merger, net of cash paid |
|
|
(16 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Environmental expenditures |
|
|
(86 |
) |
|
|
(480 |
) |
|
|
(228 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used by investing activities |
|
|
(11,717 |
) |
|
|
(16,308 |
) |
|
|
(14,587 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Financing Activities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inter-company receivable (payable) |
|
|
13,379 |
|
|
|
4,302 |
|
|
|
(4,331 |
) |
Common stock dividends |
|
|
(7,957 |
) |
|
|
(7,810 |
) |
|
|
(7,030 |
) |
Issuance of stock for Dividend Reinvestment Plan |
|
|
392 |
|
|
|
(118 |
) |
|
|
299 |
|
Change in cash overdrafts due to outstanding checks |
|
|
835 |
|
|
|
(684 |
) |
|
|
(541 |
) |
Net borrowing (repayment) under line of credit agreements |
|
|
(3,812 |
) |
|
|
(11,980 |
) |
|
|
18,651 |
|
Proceeds from issuance of long-term debt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
29,961 |
|
|
|
|
|
Repayment of long-term debt |
|
|
(6,637 |
) |
|
|
(7,637 |
) |
|
|
(7,637 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities |
|
|
(3,800 |
) |
|
|
6,034 |
|
|
|
(589 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Cash and Cash Equivalents |
|
|
(561 |
) |
|
|
(915 |
) |
|
|
(260 |
) |
Cash and Cash Equivalents Beginning of Period |
|
|
1,534 |
|
|
|
2,449 |
|
|
|
2,709 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and Cash Equivalents End of Period |
|
$ |
973 |
|
|
$ |
1,534 |
|
|
$ |
2,449 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements.
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation and Subsidiaries
Schedule I
Parent Company Condensed Financial Statements
Notes to Financial Information
These condensed financial statements represent the financial information of Chesapeake Utilities
Corporation (parent company).
For information concerning Chesapeakes debt obligations, see Item 8 under the heading Notes to
the Consolidated Financial Statements Note J, Long-term Debt, and Note K, Short-term Borrowing.
For information concerning Chesapeakes material contingencies and guarantees, see Item 8 under the
heading Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements Note O, Environmental Commitments and
Contingencies, and Note P, Other Commitments and Contingencies.
Chesapeakes wholly-owned subsidiaries are accounted for using the equity method of accounting.
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation and Subsidiaries
Schedule II
Valuation and Qualifying Accounts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at |
|
|
Additions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beginning of |
|
|
Charged to |
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at End |
|
For the Year Ended December 31, |
|
Year |
|
|
Income |
|
|
Accounts(1) |
|
|
Deductions(2) |
|
|
of Year |
|
Reserve Deducted From Related Assets
Reserve for Uncollectible Accounts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
$ |
1,159 |
|
|
$ |
1,138 |
|
|
$ |
616 |
|
|
$ |
(1,304 |
) |
|
$ |
1,609 |
|
2008 |
|
$ |
952 |
|
|
$ |
1,186 |
|
|
$ |
241 |
|
|
$ |
(1,220 |
) |
|
$ |
1,159 |
|
2007 |
|
$ |
662 |
|
|
$ |
818 |
|
|
$ |
26 |
|
|
$ |
(554 |
) |
|
$ |
952 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Recoveries. |
|
(2) |
|
Uncollectible accounts charged off. |