(13) COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

(a) Operating Expense Purchase Obligations - Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL have entered into various commodity supply, transportation and storage contracts to meet their obligations to deliver electricity and natural gas to their utility customers. Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL also enter into other operating expense purchase obligations with various vendors for other goods and services. At Dec. 31, 2011, Alliant Energy's, IPL's and WPL's minimum future commitments related to these operating expense purchase obligations were as follows (in millions):


Alliant Energy	2012		2013		2014		2015		2016		Thereafter		Total
Purchased power (a):
DAEC (IPL) (b)	$	178	$	200	$	34	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	412
Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant (Kewaunee) (WPL)		72		77		—		—		—		—		149
Other		38		8		—		—		—		1		47

		288		285		34		—		—		1		608
Natural gas		152		60		34		23		21		16		306
Coal (c)		149		106		40		18		—		—		313
SO2 emission allowances (d)		—		—		—		12		14		8		34
Other (e)		89		24		—		—		—		—		113

	$	678	$	475	$	108	$	53	$	35	$	25	$	1,374



IPL	2012		2013		2014		2015		2016		Thereafter		Total
Purchased power (a):
DAEC (b)	$	178	$	200	$	34	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	412
Other		9		—		—		—		—		1		10

		187		200		34		—		—		1		422
Natural gas		83		22		14		10		8		9		146
Coal (c)		43		26		22		7		—		—		98
SO2 emission allowances (d)		—		—		—		12		14		8		34
Other (e)		49		16		—		—		—		—		65

	$	362	$	264	$	70	$	29	$	22	$	18	$	765


WPL	2012		2013		2014		2015		2016		Thereafter		Total
Purchased power (a):
Kewaunee	$	72	$	77	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	149
Other		29		8		—		—		—		—		37

		101		85		—		—		—		—		186
Natural gas		69		38		20		13		13		7		160
Coal (c)		18		18		18		11		—		—		65
Other (e)		8		8		—		—		—		—		16

	$	196	$	149	$	38	$	24	$	13	$	7	$	427

(a)	Includes payments required by PPAs for capacity rights and minimum quantities of MWhs required to be purchased. Refer to Note 21 for additional information on purchased power transactions.

(b)	IPL is obligated to pay for capacity and energy delivered under the DAEC PPA. If energy delivered under the DAEC PPA is less than the targeted energy amount, an adjustment payment is made to IPL, which is reflected in IPL's energy adjustment clause.

(c)

IPL and WPL enter into coal transportation contracts that are directly assigned to their specific generating stations, the amounts of which are included in Alliant Energy's, IPL's and WPL's tables above. Also included in Alliant Energy's and IPL's tables is IPL's respective portion of coal and coal transportation contracts related to jointly-owned generating stations not operated by IPL. In addition, Corporate Services entered into system-wide coal contracts on behalf of IPL and WPL of $88 million for 2012 and $62 million for 2013 to allow flexibility for the changing needs of the quantity of coal consumed by each. Coal contract quantities are allocated to specific IPL or WPL generating stations at or before the time of delivery based on various factors including projected heat input requirements, combustion compatibility and efficiency. These system-wide coal contracts have not been directly assigned to IPL and WPL since the specific needs of each utility were not yet known as of Dec. 31, 2011 and therefore are excluded from IPL's and WPL's tables above.

(d)	Refer to Note 1(b) for discussion of $34 million of charges recognized by Alliant Energy and IPL in 2011 for IPL's forward contracts to purchase SO2 emission allowances.

(e)	Includes individual commitments incurred during the normal course of business that exceeded $1 million at Dec. 31, 2011.

Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL enter into certain contracts that are considered leases and are therefore not included here, but are included in Note 3.

(b) Legal Proceedings -

Air Permitting Violation Claims - In September 2010, Sierra Club filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin a complaint against WPL, as owner and operator of the Nelson Dewey Generating Station (Nelson Dewey) and the Columbia Energy Center (Columbia), based on allegations that modifications were made at the facilities without complying with the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program requirements, Title V Operating Permit requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and state regulatory counterparts contained within the Wisconsin state implementation plan (SIP) designed to implement the CAA. In October 2010, WPL responded to these claims related to Nelson Dewey and Columbia by filing with the U.S. District Court an answer denying the Columbia allegations and a motion to dismiss the Nelson Dewey allegations based on statute of limitations arguments. In November 2010, WPL filed a motion to dismiss the Nelson Dewey and Columbia allegations based on lack of jurisdiction. Sierra Club has responded to the motions. WPL and Sierra Club are engaged in settlement negotiations. In January 2012, the Court reset the trial date to Dec. 10, 2012 and scheduled a status conference for Feb. 15, 2012 to receive an update on settlement progress. At the Feb. 15, 2012 status conference, the Court reaffirmed the Dec. 10, 2012 trial date, but set a pre-trial schedule that allows the parties to work toward settlement.

In September 2010, Sierra Club filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin a complaint against WPL, as owner and operator of the Edgewater Generating Station (Edgewater), which contained similar allegations regarding air permitting violations at Edgewater. In the Edgewater complaint, additional allegations were made regarding violations of emission limits for visible emissions. In February 2011, WPL responded to these claims related to Edgewater by filing with the U.S. District Court an answer denying the allegations and a motion to dismiss the allegations based on lack of jurisdiction. WPL and Sierra Club are engaged in settlement negotiations. In December 2011, the Court stayed all discovery and scheduling deadlines for 60 days (through Feb. 15, 2012) so that the Parties may continue settlement negotiations. In February 2012, the Court extended the stay through April 16, 2012.

In December 2009, the EPA sent a Notice of Violation (NOV) to WPL as an owner and the operator of Edgewater, Nelson Dewey and Columbia. The NOV alleges that the owners failed to comply with appropriate pre-construction review and permitting requirements and as a result violated the PSD program requirements, Title V Operating Permit requirements of the CAA and the Wisconsin SIP. WPL is engaged in settlement negotiations with the EPA in conjunction with the settlement negotiations with the Sierra Club discussed above.

In response to similar EPA CAA enforcement initiatives, certain utilities have elected to settle with the EPA, while others have elected to litigate. If the EPA and/or Sierra Club successfully prove their claims that projects completed in the past at Edgewater, Nelson Dewey and Columbia required either a state or federal CAA permit, WPL may, under the applicable statutes, be required to pay civil penalties in amounts of up to $37,500 per day for each violation and/or complete actions for injunctive relief. Payment of fines and/or injunctive relief could be included in a settlement outcome. Injunctive relief contained in settlements or court-ordered remedies for other utilities required the installation of emission control technology, changed operating conditions including use of alternative fuels other than coal, caps for emissions and limitations on generation including retirement of generating units, and other beneficial environmental projects. If similar remedies are required for final resolution of these matters at Edgewater, Nelson Dewey and Columbia, Alliant Energy and WPL would incur additional capital and operating expenditures. Alliant Energy and WPL are continuing to analyze the allegations and are unable to predict the impact of the allegations on their financial condition or results of operations, but believe that the outcome could be significant. WPL and the other owners of Edgewater and Columbia are exploring settlement options while simultaneously defending against these allegations. Alliant Energy and WPL believe the projects at Edgewater, Nelson Dewey and Columbia were routine or not projected to increase emissions and therefore did not violate the permitting requirements of the CAA.

Alliant Energy and WPL do not currently believe any material losses from these air permitting violation claims are both probable and reasonably estimated and therefore have not recognized any material related loss contingency amounts as of Dec. 31, 2011. Alliant Energy and WPL are not able to estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss related to these air permit violation claims given the various litigation and settlement scenarios being pursued to resolve this contingency as well as uncertainty regarding which, if any, allegations will be determined to be violations and the nature and cost of any fines and injunctive relief that could be required to resolve any violations.

Alliant Energy Cash Balance Pension Plan (Plan) - In February 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Plan in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (Court). The complaint alleged that certain Plan participants who received distributions prior to their normal retirement age did not receive the full benefit to which they were entitled in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) because the Plan applied an improper interest crediting rate to project the cash balance account to their normal retirement age. These Plan participants were limited to individuals who, prior to normal retirement age, received a lump sum distribution or an annuity payment. The Court certified two subclasses of plaintiffs that in aggregate include all persons vested or partially vested in the Plan who received these distributions from Jan. 1, 1998 to Aug. 17, 2006 including: (1) persons who received distributions from Jan. 1, 1998 through Feb. 28, 2002; and (2) persons who received distributions from March 1, 2002 to Aug. 17, 2006.

In June 2010, the Court issued an opinion and order that granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability in the lawsuit and decided with respect to damages that prejudgment interest on damages would be allowed. In December 2010, the Court issued an opinion and order that decided the interest crediting rate that the Plan used to project the cash balance accounts of the plaintiffs during the class period should have been 8.2% and that a pre-retirement mortality discount would not be applied to the damages calculation. In March 2011, the Court issued an opinion and order that prejudgment interest on damages would be calculated using the average prime rate from the date that the Plan failed to make the total payment to a particular participant through the date of the final judgment (which has not yet been issued). In September 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint to assert that the 2011 amendment to the Plan, made to conform with the IRS determination letter (described below), was itself an ERISA violation. In November 2011, the Court allowed the filing of the Plaintiffs' supplemental complaint and denied a separate motion for reconsideration filed by the Plan arguing that certain of Plaintiffs' claims were time-barred. Following the November 2011 ruling, Plaintiffs filed a new complaint. The Plan filed an answer in January 2012, pursuant to the scheduling order issued by the Court. Following resolution of the new complaint, the Plan may appeal the final judgment to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Based on opinions and orders issued by the Court to date and the $10.2 million of IRS-related offset benefits paid by the Plan in 2011, the Plan currently estimates that the final trial court judgment of damages, after offsetting the additional benefits paid to participants by the Plan, may be up to approximately $17 million, which includes prejudgment interest through Dec. 31, 2011, but does not include any award for plaintiffs' attorney's fees or costs or the potential value of additional claims newly asserted in the supplemental complaint by the Plaintiffs in November 2011 whose value is not yet known. Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL do not currently believe any material losses related to the final judgment of damages from this class action lawsuit are both probable and reasonably estimated, and therefore have not recognized any material loss contingency amounts for the final judgment of damages as of Dec. 31, 2011. Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL are currently unable to predict the final outcome of the class action lawsuit or the ultimate impact on their financial condition or results of operations but believe the outcome could have a material effect on their retirement plan funding and expense.

The IRS also considered the interest crediting rate used to project the cash balance account to participants' normal retirement age as part of its review of Alliant Energy's request for a favorable determination letter with respect to the tax-qualified status of the Plan. Alliant Energy reached an agreement with the IRS, which resulted in a favorable determination letter for the Plan in 2011. The agreement with the IRS required Alliant Energy to amend the Plan in 2011 resulting in $10.2 million of aggregate additional benefits paid to certain former participants in the Plan in 2011. The $10.2 million of aggregate payments are an offset against any final judgment of damages by the Court in the case discussed above, in whole or in part, depending on the scope of the final judgment. Refer to Note 6(a) for discussion of the additional benefits costs recognized by Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL in 2011 related to the $10.2 million of benefit payments.

RMT Contract Disputes - In September 2011, RMT filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin alleging, among other things, breach of contract against Cable System Installation (CSI), a subcontractor to RMT on several solar projects in New Jersey. The complaint alleges that CSI breached its contract with RMT by failing to complete the work, by failing to complete the work in a timely manner, by failing to perform work according to the contract, for abandonment of work, and for other related claims. RMT incurred additional costs to replace CSI and to complete CSI's work with alternative subcontractors, incurred liquidated damages assessed by the project owners due to project delays, and had liens filed by CSI's subcontractors that CSI has not paid. The lawsuit seeks to recover all costs incurred by RMT as a result of the breaches of contract by CSI. CSI has asserted that RMT owes CSI additional amounts for work performed under the contract that have not been paid to date. CSI and sub-contractors of CSI have filed liens against the projects based on claims that they have not been paid as required under their agreements. As of Dec. 31, 2011, RMT has posted bonds of $21 million to discharge the liens filed by CSI and CSI's subcontractors against the project sites. Alliant Energy does not currently believe any material losses from these claims are both probable and reasonably estimated and therefore has not recognized any material related loss contingency amounts as of Dec. 31, 2011. Alliant Energy is currently not able to estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss related to these claims given the early state of the lawsuit. Alliant Energy also has not recognized any material benefits from the lawsuit as of Dec. 31, 2011.

Other - Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL are involved in other legal and administrative proceedings before various courts and agencies with respect to matters arising in the ordinary course of business. Although unable to predict the outcome of these matters, Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL believe that appropriate reserves have been established and final disposition of these actions will not have a material effect on their financial condition or results of operations.

(c) Guarantees and Indemnifications - Alliant Energy provided indemnifications associated with various sales of its non-regulated businesses/assets for losses resulting from potential breach of the representations and warranties made by Alliant Energy on the sale dates and for the breach of its obligations under the sale agreements. Alliant Energy believes the likelihood of having to make any material cash payments under these indemnifications is remote. Alliant Energy has not recognized any material liabilities related to these indemnifications as of Dec. 31, 2011. The terms of the indemnifications provided by Alliant Energy at Dec. 31, 2011 for the various sales were generally as follows (in millions):


Businesses/Assets Sold	Disposal Date	Maximum Limit			Expiration Date
New Zealand	Fourth quarter of 2006	$	163	(a)	March 2012
Mexico	Second quarter of 2007		20		June 2012

(a)	Based on exchange rate at Dec. 31, 2011

Alliant Energy also continues to guarantee the abandonment obligations of WPC under the Point Arguello partnership agreements. The guarantee does not include a maximum limit. As of Dec. 31, 2011, the present value of the abandonment obligations is estimated at $32 million. Alliant Energy believes that no payments will be made under this guarantee.

RMT provides renewable energy services to clients throughout the U.S., including facility siting, permitting, design, procurement, construction and high voltage connection services for wind and solar projects. Alliant Energy has guaranteed RMT's performance obligations related to certain of these projects. As of Dec. 31, 2011, Alliant Energy had $554 million of performance guarantees outstanding with $101 million, $339 million and $114 million expiring in 2012, 2013 and 2014, respectively. RMT has also provided surety bonds in support of the payment and performance obligations of certain of these projects and Alliant Energy has guaranteed RMT's indemnity obligations to the surety company. As of Dec. 31, 2011, Alliant Energy had $119 million in surety bonds and related Alliant Energy performance guarantees outstanding, all with expiration dates in 2012. Alliant Energy currently believes that no material cash payments will be made under any of these obligations.

Refer to Note 3(a) for discussion of Alliant Energy's and WPL's residual value guarantees of their synthetic leases.

(d) Environmental Matters - Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL are subject to environmental regulations as a result of their current and past operations. These regulations are designed to protect public health and the environment and have resulted in compliance, remediation, containment and monitoring obligations, which are recorded as environmental liabilities. At Dec. 31, current environmental liabilities were included in "Other current liabilities" and non-current environmental liabilities were included in "Other long-term liabilities and deferred credits" on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as follows (in millions):


	Alliant Energy				IPL				WPL
	2011		2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
Current environmental liabilities	$	4.8	$	7.1	$	3.5	$	6.8	$	1.3	$	0.3
Non-current environmental liabilities		28.8		25.8		24.9		21.6		3.8		4.1

	$	33.6	$	32.9	$	28.4	$	28.4	$	5.1	$	4.4

MGP Sites - IPL and WPL have current or previous ownership interests in 40 and 14 sites, respectively, previously associated with the production of gas for which they may be liable for investigation, remediation and monitoring costs. IPL and WPL have received letters from state environmental agencies requiring no further action at 11 and 9 of these sites, respectively. Additionally, IPL has met state environmental agency expectations at 3 additional sites requiring no further action for soil remediation. IPL and WPL are working pursuant to the requirements of various federal and state agencies to investigate, mitigate, prevent and remediate, where necessary, the environmental impacts to property, including natural resources, at and around the sites in order to protect public health and the environment.

Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL record environmental liabilities related to these MGP sites based upon periodic studies. Such amounts are based on the best current estimate of the remaining amount to be incurred for investigation, remediation and monitoring costs for those sites where the investigation process has been or is substantially completed, and the minimum of the estimated cost range for those sites where the investigation is in its earlier stages. There are inherent uncertainties associated with the estimated remaining costs for MGP projects primarily due to unknown site conditions and potential changes in regulatory agency requirements. It is possible that future cost estimates will be greater than current estimates as the investigation process proceeds and as additional facts become known. The amounts recognized as liabilities are reduced for expenditures incurred and are adjusted as further information develops or circumstances change. Costs of future expenditures for environmental remediation obligations are not discounted to their fair value. Management currently estimates the range of remaining costs to be incurred for the investigation, remediation and monitoring of these sites to be $19 million ($15 million for IPL and $4 million for WPL) to $45 million ($39 million for IPL and $6 million for WPL). At Dec. 31, 2011, Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL had recorded $33 million, $28 million and $5 million, respectively, in current and non-current environmental liabilities for their remaining costs to be incurred for these MGP sites.

Refer to Note 1(b) for discussion of regulatory assets recorded by IPL and WPL, which reflect the probable future rate recovery of MGP expenditures. Considering the current rate treatment, and assuming no material change therein, Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL believe that the clean-up costs incurred for these MGP sites will not have a material effect on their respective financial condition or results of operations. Settlement has been reached with all of IPL's and WPL's insurance carriers regarding reimbursement for their MGP-related costs and such amounts have been accounted for as directed by the applicable regulatory jurisdiction.

Other Environmental Contingencies - In addition to the environmental liabilities discussed above, Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL are also monitoring various environmental regulations that may have a significant impact on their future operations. Given uncertainties regarding the outcome, timing and compliance plans for these environmental regulations, Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL are currently not able to determine the complete financial impact of these regulations but do believe that future capital investments and/or modifications to their electric generating facilities to comply with these regulations could be significant. Specific current, proposed or potential environmental regulations that may require significant future expenditures by Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL are included below along with a brief description of these environmental regulations.

Air Quality -

CAIR is an emissions trading program that requires SO2 and NOx emissions reductions at IPL's and WPL's fossil-fueled EGUs with greater than 25 MW capacity located in Iowa and Wisconsin through installation of emission controls and/or purchases of allowances. The requirements for NOx and SO2 reductions started in 2009 and 2010, respectively. The requirements of CAIR remain subject to further review by the federal courts and EPA.

CSAPR (formerly known as the Clean Air Transport Rule) was expected to require SO2 and NOx emissions reductions from IPL's and WPL's fossil-fueled EGUs with greater than 25 MW of capacity located in Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin. CSAPR emissions reductions were expected to replace CAIR beginning in 2012. However, in December 2011, the CSAPR requirements were stayed by the federal courts and CAIR was reinstated. The requirements of CSAPR remain subject to further review by the federal courts and EPA.

Clean Air Visibility Rule (CAVR) addresses regional haze at national parks and wilderness areas and is expected to require reductions in visibility-impairing emissions, including SO2, NOx and particulate matter, from certain EGUs by installing emission controls including those determined to be Best Available Retrofit Technology. The requirements of CAVR remain subject to further review by the federal courts and the EPA. The CAVR SIPs will determine required compliance actions and deadlines.

Utility Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Rule requires compliance with numerical emission limitations and work practice standards for the control of mercury and other federal hazardous air pollutants for coal- and oil-fueled EGUs with greater than 25 MW capacity. Compliance is currently expected to be required by April 2015.

Wisconsin State Mercury Rule requires WPL's existing coal-fueled EGUs to reduce annual mercury emissions by 40% from a historic baseline beginning in 2010, and to either achieve a 90% annual mercury emissions reduction standard or limit the annual concentration of mercury emissions to 0.008 pounds of mercury per gigawatt-hour beginning in 2015.

Wisconsin RACT Rule requires NOx emissions reductions at Edgewater to achieve compliance with 2013 requirements since it is located in Sheboygan County, which is currently designated as a non-attainment area for Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). WPL installed NOx emission control technologies at Edgewater to meet 2009 to 2012 compliance requirements under this rule.

Ozone NAAQS Rule reduced the primary standard to a level of 0.075 parts per million. The schedule for compliance with the Ozone NAAQS Rule has not yet been established.

Fine Particle NAAQS Rule is expected to require SO2 and NOx emission reductions in areas designated as non-attainment. The EPA lowered the 24-hour standard and left the annual standard unchanged. In response to a court decision, the EPA is reviewing whether the annual fine particulate matter standard should also be lowered. The schedule for compliance with the Fine Particle NAAQS Rule has not yet been established.

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) NAAQS Rule requires a new one-hour NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 100 parts per billion (ppb) and associated ambient air monitoring requirements, while maintaining the current annual standard of 53 ppb. The EPA is expected to re-evaluate non-attainment areas for the NO2 NAAQS in 2016 based on expanded monitoring data. The schedule for compliance has not yet been established.

SO2 NAAQS Rule requires a new one-hour NAAQS for SO2 at a level of 75 ppb. The EPA's final designations identifying non-attainment areas for the SO2 NAAQS are expected to be issued in 2012. The compliance deadline for SO2 NAAQS is currently expected to be required by 2017 for non-attainment areas.

Industrial Boiler and Process Heater MACT Rule requires reductions of emissions of hazardous air pollutants at EGUs with less than 25 MW capacity, and auxiliary boilers and process heaters located at EGUs. The requirements of this rule remain subject to further review by the EPA, which proposed a reconsidered rule in December 2011 and expects to issue a final reconsidered rule by April 2012. The compliance deadline for existing units located at major sources subject to the final Industrial Boiler and Process Heater MACT rule is currently 2014, but expected to be extended to mid-2015 pursuant to the final reconsidered rule.

Water Quality -

Section 316(b) of the Federal Clean Water Act proposal is expected to require modifications to cooling water intake structures to assure that these structures reflect the "best technology available" for minimizing adverse environmental impacts to fish and other aquatic life. The schedule for compliance has not yet been finalized; however, compliance will be required within eight years of the effective date of the final rule. The EPA expects to issue a final rule in 2012.

Wisconsin and Iowa State Thermal Rules may require modifications to certain of WPL's and IPL's EGUs to limit the amount of heat those facilities can discharge into Wisconsin and Iowa waters, respectively. Compliance with the thermal rules will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as discharge permits for WPL's and IPL's EGUs are renewed.

Hydroelectric Fish Passages and Fish Protective Devices - FERC issued an order requiring an agency-approved fish passage to be installed at WPL's Prairie du Sac hydro plant by December 2012. Alliant Energy and WPL currently expect to request an extension from FERC in 2012.

Land and Solid Waste -

Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) could impose additional requirements for CCR management, beneficial use applications and disposal including operation and maintenance of coal ash surface impoundments (ash ponds) and/or landfills. The EPA issued a proposed regulation for public comment in 2010, and a final rule is expected by late 2012. The schedule for compliance with the CCR Rule has not yet been established.

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) - The EPA is re-examining the current authorized uses of PCB in electrical equipment and other applications to determine if these uses present an unreasonable risk of injury to health and the environment. The EPA is expected to issue proposed PCB rules for public comment in 2013 and could include a possible mandate to phase out all PCB-containing equipment. The schedule for compliance with the PCB Rule has not yet been established.

Greenhouse Gases (GHG) Emissions -

EPA New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) for GHG Emissions from Electric Utilities is expected to require performance standards for GHG emissions from new and existing fossil-fueled EGUs. The EPA announced the issuance of proposed regulations will be delayed for existing EGUs and has not yet established a new schedule. The EPA's proposed rule for new EGUs is also delayed and is currently expected to be issued in the first quarter of 2012. The schedule for compliance with the NSPS has not yet been established.

EPA GHG Tailoring Rule establishes GHG emissions thresholds for construction and operation of facilities emitting GHG incorporated with air permits applied for after January 2011. The rule also requires new and significantly modified facilities to demonstrate use of the Best Available Control Technologies and energy efficiency measures to minimize GHG emissions.

(e) Credit Risk - Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL are subject to credit risk related to the ability of counterparties to meet their contractual payment obligations or the potential non-performance of counterparties to deliver contracted commodities, other goods or services at the contracted price.

IPL and WPL provide regulated electricity and natural gas services to residential, commercial, industrial and wholesale customers in the Midwest region of the U.S. The geographic concentration of their customers did not contribute significantly to their overall exposure to credit risk. In addition, as a result of their diverse customer base, IPL and WPL did not have any significant concentration of credit risk for receivables arising from the sale of electricity and natural gas services.

IPL and WPL are typically net buyers of commodities (primarily electricity, coal and natural gas) required to provide regulated electricity and natural gas services to their customers. As a result, IPL and WPL are also subject to credit risk related to their counterparties' failures to deliver commodities at the contracted price.

RMT provides renewable energy services to clients throughout the U.S., including facility siting, permitting, design, procurement, construction and high voltage connection services for wind and solar projects. RMT has a concentration of credit risk for receivables arising from their services given the large scope of individual projects. In addition, RMT has extended short-term financing to certain of its customers during construction of their projects, resulting in credit risk. As of Dec. 31, 2011, RMT had $13 million of notes receivable related to short-term financings extended to customers, which was recorded in "Prepayments and other" on Alliant Energy's Consolidated Balance Sheet.

Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL maintain credit policies to minimize their credit risk. These credit policies include evaluation of the financial condition of counterparties, use of credit risk-related contingent provisions in certain commodity agreements that require credit support from counterparties that exceed certain exposure limits, diversification of counterparties to minimize concentrations of credit risk and the use of standardized agreements that facilitate the netting of cash flows associated with a single counterparty. Based on these credit policies, it is unlikely that a material effect on Alliant Energy's, IPL's or WPL's financial condition or results of operations would occur as a result of counterparty non-performance. However, there is no assurance that such policies will protect Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL against all losses from non-performance by counterparties.

Refer to Notes 1(p), 4(b) and 12 for details of allowances for doubtful accounts, RMT's customer accounts receivable, and credit risk-related contingent features, respectively.

Commitments And Contingencies

(13) COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

(a) Operating Expense Purchase Obligations - Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL have entered into various commodity supply, transportation and storage contracts to meet their obligations to deliver electricity and natural gas to their utility customers. Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL also enter into other operating expense purchase obligations with various vendors for other goods and services. At Dec. 31, 2011, Alliant Energy's, IPL's and WPL's minimum future commitments related to these operating expense purchase obligations were as follows (in millions):


Alliant Energy	2012		2013		2014		2015		2016		Thereafter		Total
Purchased power (a):
DAEC (IPL) (b)	$	178	$	200	$	34	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	412
Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant (Kewaunee) (WPL)		72		77		—		—		—		—		149
Other		38		8		—		—		—		1		47

		288		285		34		—		—		1		608
Natural gas		152		60		34		23		21		16		306
Coal (c)		149		106		40		18		—		—		313
SO2 emission allowances (d)		—		—		—		12		14		8		34
Other (e)		89		24		—		—		—		—		113

	$	678	$	475	$	108	$	53	$	35	$	25	$	1,374



IPL	2012		2013		2014		2015		2016		Thereafter		Total
Purchased power (a):
DAEC (b)	$	178	$	200	$	34	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	412
Other		9		—		—		—		—		1		10

		187		200		34		—		—		1		422
Natural gas		83		22		14		10		8		9		146
Coal (c)		43		26		22		7		—		—		98
SO2 emission allowances (d)		—		—		—		12		14		8		34
Other (e)		49		16		—		—		—		—		65

	$	362	$	264	$	70	$	29	$	22	$	18	$	765


WPL	2012		2013		2014		2015		2016		Thereafter		Total
Purchased power (a):
Kewaunee	$	72	$	77	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	149
Other		29		8		—		—		—		—		37

		101		85		—		—		—		—		186
Natural gas		69		38		20		13		13		7		160
Coal (c)		18		18		18		11		—		—		65
Other (e)		8		8		—		—		—		—		16

	$	196	$	149	$	38	$	24	$	13	$	7	$	427

(a)	Includes payments required by PPAs for capacity rights and minimum quantities of MWhs required to be purchased. Refer to Note 21 for additional information on purchased power transactions.

(b)	IPL is obligated to pay for capacity and energy delivered under the DAEC PPA. If energy delivered under the DAEC PPA is less than the targeted energy amount, an adjustment payment is made to IPL, which is reflected in IPL's energy adjustment clause.

(c)

IPL and WPL enter into coal transportation contracts that are directly assigned to their specific generating stations, the amounts of which are included in Alliant Energy's, IPL's and WPL's tables above. Also included in Alliant Energy's and IPL's tables is IPL's respective portion of coal and coal transportation contracts related to jointly-owned generating stations not operated by IPL. In addition, Corporate Services entered into system-wide coal contracts on behalf of IPL and WPL of $88 million for 2012 and $62 million for 2013 to allow flexibility for the changing needs of the quantity of coal consumed by each. Coal contract quantities are allocated to specific IPL or WPL generating stations at or before the time of delivery based on various factors including projected heat input requirements, combustion compatibility and efficiency. These system-wide coal contracts have not been directly assigned to IPL and WPL since the specific needs of each utility were not yet known as of Dec. 31, 2011 and therefore are excluded from IPL's and WPL's tables above.

(d)	Refer to Note 1(b) for discussion of $34 million of charges recognized by Alliant Energy and IPL in 2011 for IPL's forward contracts to purchase SO2 emission allowances.

(e)	Includes individual commitments incurred during the normal course of business that exceeded $1 million at Dec. 31, 2011.