10-K - SCANA Corporation

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table of Contents PSNC Energy owns, through a wholly-owned subsidiary, 17% of Pine Needle LNG Company, LLC. Pine Needle owns and operates a liquefaction, storage and regasification facility in North Carolina. ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS Certain material legal proceedings and environmental and regulatory matters and uncertainties, some of which remain outstanding at December 31, 2011, are described below. These issues affect the Company and, to the extent indicated, also affect Consolidated SCE&G. In December 2009, the EPA issued a final finding that atmospheric concentrations of GHG endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of Section 202(a) of the CAA. The rule, which became effective in January 2010, enables the EPA to regulate GHG emissions under the CAA. The EPA has committed to issue new rules regulating such emissions in 2012. The Company expects that any costs incurred to comply with GHG emission requirements will be recoverable through rates. In 2005, the EPA issued the CAIR, which required the District of Columbia and 28 states, including South Carolina, to reduce nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions in order to attain mandated state levels. CAIR set emission limits to be met in two phases beginning in 2009 and 2015, respectively, for nitrogen oxide and beginning in 2010 and 2015, respectively, for sulfur dioxide. SCE&G and GENCO determined that additional air quality controls would be needed to meet the CAIR requirements. On July 6, 2011 the EPA issued the CSAPR. This rule replaced CAIR and the Clean Air Transport Rule proposed in July 2010 and is aimed at addressing power plant emissions that may contribute to air pollution in other states. CSAPR requires states in the eastern United States to reduce power plant emissions, specifically sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide. On December 30, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued an order staying CSAPR and reinstating CAIR pending resolution of an appeal of CSAPR. Air quality control installations that SCE&G and GENCO have already completed should assist the Company in complying with the CSAPR and the reinstated CAIR. The Company will continue to pursue strategies to comply with all applicable environmental regulations. Any costs incurred to comply with this rule or other rules issued by the EPA in the future are expected to be recoverable through rates. In June 2010, the EPA issued a final rule for a one-hour ambient air quality standard for sulfur dioxide. This new standard may require some of SCE&G’s smaller coal-fired units to reduce their sulfur dioxide emissions to a level to be determined by EPA and/or DHEC. The costs incurred to comply with this new standard are expected to be recovered through rates. In 2005, the EPA issued the CAMR which established a mercury emissions cap and trade program for coal-fired power plants. Numerous parties challenged the rule and, on February 8, 2008, the United States Circuit Court for the District of Columbia vacated the rule for electric utility steam generating units. In March 2011, the EPA proposed new standards for mercury and other specified air pollutants. The rule, which becomes effective on April 16, 2012, provides up to four years for facilities to meet the standards. The rule is currently being evaluated by the Company. Any costs incurred to comply with this rule or other rules issued by the EPA in the future are expected to be recoverable through rates. SCE&G has been named, along with 53 others, by the EPA as a PRP at the AER Superfund site located in Augusta, Georgia. The PRPs funded a Remedial Investigation and Risk Assessment which was completed and approved by the EPA and funded a Feasibility Study that was completed in 2010. A clean-up cost has been estimated and the PRPs have agreed to an allocation of those costs based primarily on volume and type of material each PRP sent to the site. SCE&G’s allocation did not have a material impact on its results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. SCE&G is responsible for four decommissioned MGP sites in South Carolina which contain residues of by-product chemicals. These sites are in various stages of investigation, remediation and monitoring under work plans approved by DHEC. SCE&G anticipates that major remediation activities at these sites will continue until 2014 and will cost an additional $8.3 million. SCE&G expects to recover any cost arising from the remediation of MGP sites through rates. PSNC Energy is responsible for environmental clean-up at five sites in North Carolina on which MGP residuals are present or suspected. PSNC Energy’s actual remediation costs for these sites will depend on a number of factors, such as actual site conditions, third-party claims and recoveries from other PRPs. PSNC Energy has recorded a liability and associated regulatory asset of approximately $3.1 million, the estimated remaining liability at December 31, 2011. PSNC Energy expects to recover through rates any cost, net of insurance recovery, allocable to PSNC Energy arising from the remediation of these sites. 24
Table of Contents Litigation In May 2004, a purported class action lawsuit currently styled as Douglas E. Gressette and Mark Rudd, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v. South Carolina Electric & Gas Company and SCANA Communications, Inc. was filed in South Carolina’s Circuit Court of Common Pleas for the Ninth Judicial Circuit. The plaintiffs alleged that SCE&G made improper use of certain electric transmission easements and rights-of-way by allowing fiber optic communication lines and/or wireless communication equipment to transmit communications other than SCE&G’s electricity-related internal communications and asserted causes of action for unjust enrichment, trespass, injunction and declaratory judgment. While SCE&G and SCI believe their actions were consistent with governing law and the applicable documents granting easements and rights-of-way, this case, with Circuit Court approval in August 2010, has been settled as to all easements and rights of ways currently containing fiber optic communications lines in South Carolina. This settlement did not have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. SCANA and SCE&G are also engaged in various other claims and litigation incidental to their business operations which management anticipates will be resolved without a material impact on their respective results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES Not Applicable 25
Page 1 and 2: Table of Contents UNITED STATES SEC
Page 3 and 4: Table of Contents CAUTIONARY STATEM
Page 5 and 6: Table of Contents TERM MEANING MGP
Page 7 and 8: Table of Contents Regulated Utiliti
Page 9 and 10: Table of Contents Electric Intercon
Page 11 and 12: Table of Contents Gas Cost, Supply
Page 13 and 14: Table of Contents SCE&G holds licen
Page 15 and 16: Table of Contents PSNC Energy’s r
Page 17 and 18: Table of Contents Furthermore, rece
Page 19 and 20: Table of Contents One rating agency
Page 21 and 22: Table of Contents • Uncertainties
Page 23: Table of Contents ELECTRIC PROPERTI
Page 27 and 28: Table of Contents PART II ITEM 5. M
Page 29 and 30: Table of Contents SCANA CORPORATION
Page 31 and 32: Table of Contents Key Earnings Driv
Page 33 and 34: Table of Contents Retail Gas Market
Page 35 and 36: Table of Contents • 2010 vs 2009
Page 37 and 38: Table of Contents • 2011 vs 2010
Page 39 and 40: Table of Contents The Company’s c
Page 41 and 42: Table of Contents With respect to h
Page 43 and 44: Table of Contents Air Quality With
Page 45 and 46: Table of Contents Electric Operatio
Page 47 and 48: Table of Contents the effects of di
Page 49 and 50: Table of Contents substantial compl
Page 51 and 52: Table of Contents ITEM 7A. QUANTITA
Page 53 and 54: Table of Contents ITEM 8. FINANCIAL
Page 55 and 56: Table of Contents See Notes to Cons
Page 57 and 58: Table of Contents See Notes to Cons
Page 59 and 60: Table of Contents NOTES TO CONSOLID
Page 61 and 62: Table of Contents costs for turbine
Page 63 and 64: Table of Contents Fuel costs, emiss
Page 65 and 66: Table of Contents In May 2009, two
Page 67 and 68: Table of Contents Accumulated defer
Page 69 and 70: Table of Contents SCANA issued comm
Page 71 and 72: Table of Contents The difference be
Page 73 and 74: Table of Contents losses from its h
Page 75 and 76:
Table of Contents The effect of der
Page 77 and 78:
Table of Contents 8. EMPLOYEE BENEF
Page 79 and 80:
Table of Contents The Company’s p
Page 81 and 82:
Table of Contents Net Periodic Bene
Page 83 and 84:
Table of Contents Equity Awards In
Page 85 and 86:
Table of Contents SCE&G maintains a
Page 87 and 88:
Table of Contents 11. AFFILIATED TR
Page 89 and 90:
Table of Contents 13. QUARTERLY FIN
Page 91 and 92:
Table of Contents ITEM 7. MANAGEMEN
Page 93 and 94:
Table of Contents retain large comm
Page 95 and 96:
Table of Contents • 2011 vs 2010
Page 97 and 98:
Table of Contents regulations, will
Page 99 and 100:
Table of Contents on its draws, whi
Page 101 and 102:
Table of Contents To help mitigate
Page 103 and 104:
Table of Contents The RSA allows na
Page 105 and 106:
Table of Contents site of Summer St
Page 107 and 108:
Table of Contents ITEM 7A. QUANTITA
Page 109 and 110:
Table of Contents ITEM 8. FINANCIAL
Page 111 and 112:
Table of Contents December 31, (Mil
Page 113 and 114:
Table of Contents See Notes to Cons
Page 115 and 116:
Table of Contents NOTES TO CONSOLID
Page 117 and 118:
Table of Contents $32.7 million, of
Page 119 and 120:
Table of Contents 2. RATE AND OTHER
Page 121 and 122:
Table of Contents Regulatory Assets
Page 123 and 124:
Table of Contents 4. LONG-TERM AND
Page 125 and 126:
Table of Contents The tax effects o
Page 127 and 128:
Table of Contents The fair value of
Page 129 and 130:
Table of Contents 8. EMPLOYEE BENEF
Page 131 and 132:
Table of Contents The pension plan
Page 133 and 134:
Table of Contents Net Periodic Bene
Page 135 and 136:
Table of Contents Nonvested shares
Page 137 and 138:
Table of Contents Claims and Litiga
Page 139 and 140:
Table of Contents Disclosure of Rep
Page 141 and 142:
Table of Contents ITEM 9. CHANGES I
Page 143 and 144:
Table of Contents SCE&G: Evaluation
Page 145 and 146:
Table of Contents ITEM 14. PRINCIPA
Page 147 and 148:
Table of Contents Schedule II—Val
Page 149 and 150:
Table of Contents SIGNATURES Pursua
Page 151 and 152:
Table of Contents Applicable to Exh
Page 153 and 154:
Exhibit 12.01 SCANA CORPORATION CAL
Page 155 and 156:
Exhibit 23.01 CONSENT OF INDEPENDEN
Page 157 and 158:
Exhibit 24.01 POWER OF ATTORNEY KNO
Page 159 and 160:
Exhibit 31.01 CERTIFICATION I, Kevi
Page 161 and 162:
Exhibit 31.03 CERTIFICATION I, Kevi
Page 163 and 164:
Exhibit 32.01 SCANA CORPORATION CER
Page 165 and 166:
Exhibit 32.03 SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTR
Page 167 and 168:
scg-20111231.xml
Page 169 and 170:
scg-20111231_cal.xml
Page 171 and 172:
scg-20111231_pre.xml
show all

10-K - SCANA Corporation

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?