XML 94 R16.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.0.6
Commitments And Contingencies
 6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2012
Commitments And Contingencies
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
(a) Capital Purchase Obligations - Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL have entered into capital purchase obligations that contain minimum future commitments related to capital expenditures for certain of their emission control projects. At June 30, 2012, Alliant Energy’s, IPL’s and WPL’s respective minimum future commitments related to capital expenditures for the installation of scrubbers and baghouses at IPL’s Ottumwa Unit 1 and WPL’s Columbia Units 1 and 2 to reduce SO2 and mercury emissions at these generating facilities were $40 million, $8 million and $32 million, respectively.

(b) 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 IPL’s and WPL’s utility customers. Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL also enter into other operating expense purchase obligations with various vendors for other goods and services. At June 30, 2012, minimum future commitments related to these operating expense purchase obligations were as follows (in millions):
 
Alliant Energy
 
IPL
 
WPL
Purchased power (a):
 
 
 
 
 
Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC) (IPL)

$321

 

$321

 

$—

Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant (Kewaunee) (WPL)
114

 
—

 
114

Other
31

 
7

 
24

 
466

 
328

 
138

Natural gas
286

 
155

 
131

Coal (b)
244

 
85

 
55

SO2 emission allowances
34

 
34

 
—

Other (c)
32

 
15

 
17

 

$1,062

 

$617

 

$341


(a)
Includes payments required by PPAs for capacity rights and minimum quantities of MWhs required to be purchased. Excludes contracts that are considered operating leases.
(b)
Corporate Services entered into system-wide coal contracts on behalf of IPL and WPL that include minimum future commitments of $104 million that have not been directly assigned to IPL and WPL since the specific needs of each utility were not yet known as of June 30, 2012.
(c)
Includes individual commitments incurred during the normal course of business that exceeded $1 million at June 30, 2012.

(c) Legal Proceedings -
Air Permitting Violation Claims - In 2009, the EPA sent a Notice of Violation (NOV) to WPL as an owner and the operator of Edgewater Generating Station (Edgewater), Nelson Dewey Generating Station (Nelson Dewey) and Columbia Energy Center (Columbia). The NOV alleges that the owners of Edgewater, Nelson Dewey and Columbia failed to comply with appropriate pre-construction review and permitting requirements and as a result violated the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program requirements, Title V Operating Permit requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the Wisconsin state implementation plan (SIP).

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 Nelson Dewey and Columbia, based on allegations that modifications were made at the facilities without complying with the PSD program requirements, Title V Operating Permit requirements of the CAA and state regulatory counterparts contained within the Wisconsin 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. In May 2012, the parties filed a Stipulation of Dismissal without Prejudice, and the court closed the case.

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 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.

Alliant Energy and WPL are defending against these allegations because they believe the projects at Edgewater, Nelson Dewey and Columbia were routine or not projected to increase emissions and therefore did not violate the requirements of the CAA. Simultaneously, WPL, the other owners of Edgewater and Columbia, the EPA and Sierra Club (collectively “the parties”) are exploring settlement options. Alliant Energy and WPL believe that the parties have reached agreement on general terms to settle these air permitting violation claims and are currently negotiating a consent decree based upon those general terms. Those terms are subject to change during the negotiations. Based on a review of existing EPA consent decrees, Alliant Energy and WPL anticipate that the final consent decree could include the installation of emission control technology, changed operating conditions (including use of fuels other than coal and retirement of units), limitations on emissions, beneficial environmental mitigation projects, and a civil penalty.

Once the parties agree to the final terms, the Court must approve the settlement agreement. Alliant Energy and WPL cannot predict the outcome of these claims, but believe the outcome could be significant if the parties are unable to reach final agreement, or reach final agreement on different terms than currently anticipated, or if the Court does not approve the final settlement agreement.

Alliant Energy and WPL currently expect to recover any material costs that could be incurred by WPL related to the terms of the final consent decree from WPL’s electric customers. Therefore, 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 loss contingency amounts related to these claims as of June 30, 2012.

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 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 originally certified two subclasses of plaintiffs that in aggregate include all persons vested or partially vested in the Plan who received these distributions from January 1, 1998 to August 17, 2006 including: (1) persons who received distributions from January 1, 1998 through February 28, 2002; and (2) persons who received distributions from March 1, 2002 to August 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 May 2011, the Plan was amended and the Plan subsequently made approximately $10 million in additional payments in 2011 to certain former participants in the Plan. This amendment was required based on an agreement Alliant Energy reached with the IRS, which resulted in a favorable determination letter for the Plan in 2011. In September 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint to assert that the 2011 amendment to the Plan 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 supplemental complaint and the Plan filed an answer and an amended answer. In March 2012, the Plan and the plaintiffs each filed motions for summary judgment related to the supplemental complaint, and the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, seeking to amend the class definition and for reappointment of class representatives and class counsel. In April 2012, both the Plan and the plaintiffs filed briefs opposing the other party’s motion for summary judgment. The Plan also filed a brief opposing the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.

On July 2, 2012, the Court issued an opinion and order granting plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, but only as to the interest crediting rate and the pre-retirement mortality discount claims of lump-sum recipients. As a result of the opinion and order, two new subclasses were certified in lieu of the prior subclass certification. Subclass A involves persons who received a lump-sum distribution between January 1, 1998 and August 17, 2006 and who received an interest crediting rate of less than 8.2% under the Plan as amended in May 2011. Subclass B involves persons who received a lump-sum distribution between January 1, 1998 and August 17, 2006 and who would have received a larger benefit under the Plan as amended in May 2011 if a pre-retirement mortality discount had not been applied. In the opinion and order the Court then granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as to the two subclasses, and denied as moot the parties’ motions for summary judgment with respect to issues beyond the two subclasses. The Court ordered the parties to submit briefs addressing if additional notice is due the two certified subclasses and to submit draft judgment orders. The parties have filed briefs and are in agreement that no additional prejudgment notice is necessary. Plaintiffs have filed their proposed judgment alleging the Plan is liable to subclasses A and B in the amount of $18.7 million. The Plan has filed its proposed judgment alleging that if the opinion and order is affirmed, the Plan would be liable to subclasses A and B in the amount of $17.9 million. Both proposed judgment amounts include pre-judgment interest through July 2012 and take into account the approximate $10 million of additional benefits paid by the Plan following the plan amendment in 2011. The proposed judgment amounts do not include any award for plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees or costs. A motion for payment of plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and costs is expected to be filed post-judgment. The Plan expects to appeal the trial court judgment on liability and damages to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL have not recognized any material loss contingency amounts for the final judgment of damages as of June 30, 2012. A material loss contingency will not be recognized unless a final unappealable ruling is received, or a settlement is reached, which results in an amendment to the Plan and payment to Plan participants. 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 an adverse outcome could have a material effect on their retirement plan funding and expense.

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 vendors 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 filed an answer and counterclaims against RMT asserting that RMT owes CSI additional amounts for work performed under the contract that have not been paid to date. CSI also filed a motion requesting the case be transferred to New Jersey that has subsequently been denied by the court. CSI has filed liens against the projects based on claims that they have not been paid for work performed under the contract with RMT and vendors of CSI have filed liens against the projects based on claims that they have not been paid as required under their agreements with CSI. Three vendors of CSI have also filed lawsuits in New Jersey including claims against both CSI and RMT resulting from work allegedly performed by the three vendors but not paid by CSI or RMT. As of June 30, 2012, RMT has posted bonds of $17 million to discharge the liens filed against the New Jersey project sites by CSI and CSI’s vendors. 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 loss contingency amounts related to these claims as of June 30, 2012. 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 lawsuits. Alliant Energy also has not recognized any material benefits from the lawsuit filed by RMT against CSI as of June 30, 2012.

(d) Guarantees - 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 June 30, 2012, Alliant Energy had $595 million of performance guarantees outstanding with $34 million, $333 million, $181 million and $47 million expiring in 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015, 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 June 30, 2012, Alliant Energy had $88 million in surety bonds and related Alliant Energy performance guarantees outstanding with $86 million expiring in 2012 and $2 million expiring in 2013. Alliant Energy currently believes that no material cash payments will be made under any of these obligations. Alliant Energy has not recognized any material liabilities related to these obligations as of June 30, 2012.

Alliant Energy continues to guarantee the abandonment obligations of Whiting Petroleum Corporation (Whiting) under the Point Arguello partnership agreements following the sale of Alliant Energy’s remaining interest in Whiting in 2004. The guarantee does not include a maximum limit. As of June 30, 2012, the present value of the abandonment obligations is estimated at $29 million. Alliant Energy believes that no payments will be made under this guarantee. Alliant Energy has not recognized any material liabilities related to this guarantee as of June 30, 2012.

(e) Environmental Matters -
Manufactured Gas Plant (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 13 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. Management currently estimates the range of remaining costs to be incurred for the investigation, remediation and monitoring of these sites to be $20 million ($18 million for IPL and $2 million for WPL) to $44 million ($40 million for IPL and $4 million for WPL). At June 30, 2012, Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL recorded $31 million, $28 million and $3 million, respectively, in current and non-current environmental liabilities for their remaining costs to be incurred for these MGP sites.

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 matters, 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 matters that may require significant future expenditures by Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL include, among others: CAIR, CSAPR, Clean Air Visibility Rule (CAVR), Utility MACT Rule, Wisconsin State Mercury Rule, Wisconsin RACT Rule, Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Rule, Fine Particle NAAQS Rule, Nitrogen Dioxide NAAQS Rule, SO2 NAAQS Rule, Industrial Boiler and Process Heater MACT Rule, Federal Clean Water Act including Section 316(b), Wisconsin and Iowa State Thermal Rules, Hydroelectric Fish Passage Device, Coal Combustion Residuals, Polychlorinated Biphenyls, and various legislation and EPA regulations to monitor and regulate the emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) including the EPA New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) for GHG Emissions from Electric Utilities and the EPA GHG Tailoring Rule. Some recent developments concerning these environmental matters are included below:

Air Quality -
CAVR - In June 2012, the EPA published a final rule that would allow Best Available Retrofit Technology Rule (BART) obligations for SO2 and NOx emissions to be fulfilled by CSAPR. In June 2012, the EPA also finalized the Iowa and Minnesota CAVR plans, which will require CSAPR to fulfill BART requirements for SO2 and NOx emission reductions. The EPA has not yet finalized the CAVR plan for Wisconsin.

Ozone NAAQS Rule - In May 2012, the EPA issued a final rule that classifies Sheboygan County in Wisconsin as marginal non-attainment, which requires this area to achieve the eight-hour ozone NAAQS by December 2015. WPL operates Edgewater and the Sheboygan Falls Energy Facility in Sheboygan County, Wisconsin.

Fine Particle NAAQS Rule - In June 2012, the EPA issued a proposed rule revising the fine particle primary NAAQS (PM2.5 NAAQS). The proposed rule would strengthen the annual standard from 15 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) to a level between 12 ug/m3 and 13 ug/m3. In addition, the proposal would set a new 24-hour standard to improve visibility. The EPA is under a court order to issue the final rule by December 2012. The EPA is expected to designate non-attainment areas for the revised PM2.5 NAAQS by December 2014. Compliance with the final rule is expected to be required by 2019 for non-attainment areas designated in 2014.

Water Quality -
Hydroelectric Fish Passages Device - In March 2012, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) extended the deadline to install an agency-approved fish passage device at WPL’s Prairie du Sac hydro plant to July 1, 2015.

GHG Emissions -
EPA NSPS for GHG Emissions from Electric Utilities - In April 2012, the EPA published proposed NSPS for GHG, including carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from new fossil-fueled electric generating units (EGUs) larger than 25 MW (not including simple-cycle combustion turbines), with an output-based emissions rate limitation of 1,000 pounds of CO2 per MWh. This emissions rate limitation is expected to be effective upon the EPA’s issuance of the final rule in the second quarter of 2013.
IPL [Member]
  
Commitments And Contingencies
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
(a) Capital Purchase Obligations - Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL have entered into capital purchase obligations that contain minimum future commitments related to capital expenditures for certain of their emission control projects. At June 30, 2012, Alliant Energy’s, IPL’s and WPL’s respective minimum future commitments related to capital expenditures for the installation of scrubbers and baghouses at IPL’s Ottumwa Unit 1 and WPL’s Columbia Units 1 and 2 to reduce SO2 and mercury emissions at these generating facilities were $40 million, $8 million and $32 million, respectively.

(b) 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 IPL’s and WPL’s utility customers. Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL also enter into other operating expense purchase obligations with various vendors for other goods and services. At June 30, 2012, minimum future commitments related to these operating expense purchase obligations were as follows (in millions):
 
Alliant Energy
 
IPL
 
WPL
Purchased power (a):
 
 
 
 
 
Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC) (IPL)

$321

 

$321

 

$—

Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant (Kewaunee) (WPL)
114

 
—

 
114

Other
31

 
7

 
24

 
466

 
328

 
138

Natural gas
286

 
155

 
131

Coal (b)
244

 
85

 
55

SO2 emission allowances
34

 
34

 
—

Other (c)
32

 
15

 
17

 

$1,062

 

$617

 

$341


(a)
Includes payments required by PPAs for capacity rights and minimum quantities of MWhs required to be purchased. Excludes contracts that are considered operating leases.
(b)
Corporate Services entered into system-wide coal contracts on behalf of IPL and WPL that include minimum future commitments of $104 million that have not been directly assigned to IPL and WPL since the specific needs of each utility were not yet known as of June 30, 2012.
(c)
Includes individual commitments incurred during the normal course of business that exceeded $1 million at June 30, 2012.

(c) Legal Proceedings -
Air Permitting Violation Claims - In 2009, the EPA sent a Notice of Violation (NOV) to WPL as an owner and the operator of Edgewater Generating Station (Edgewater), Nelson Dewey Generating Station (Nelson Dewey) and Columbia Energy Center (Columbia). The NOV alleges that the owners of Edgewater, Nelson Dewey and Columbia failed to comply with appropriate pre-construction review and permitting requirements and as a result violated the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program requirements, Title V Operating Permit requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the Wisconsin state implementation plan (SIP).

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 Nelson Dewey and Columbia, based on allegations that modifications were made at the facilities without complying with the PSD program requirements, Title V Operating Permit requirements of the CAA and state regulatory counterparts contained within the Wisconsin 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. In May 2012, the parties filed a Stipulation of Dismissal without Prejudice, and the court closed the case.

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 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.

Alliant Energy and WPL are defending against these allegations because they believe the projects at Edgewater, Nelson Dewey and Columbia were routine or not projected to increase emissions and therefore did not violate the requirements of the CAA. Simultaneously, WPL, the other owners of Edgewater and Columbia, the EPA and Sierra Club (collectively “the parties”) are exploring settlement options. Alliant Energy and WPL believe that the parties have reached agreement on general terms to settle these air permitting violation claims and are currently negotiating a consent decree based upon those general terms. Those terms are subject to change during the negotiations. Based on a review of existing EPA consent decrees, Alliant Energy and WPL anticipate that the final consent decree could include the installation of emission control technology, changed operating conditions (including use of fuels other than coal and retirement of units), limitations on emissions, beneficial environmental mitigation projects, and a civil penalty.

Once the parties agree to the final terms, the Court must approve the settlement agreement. Alliant Energy and WPL cannot predict the outcome of these claims, but believe the outcome could be significant if the parties are unable to reach final agreement, or reach final agreement on different terms than currently anticipated, or if the Court does not approve the final settlement agreement.

Alliant Energy and WPL currently expect to recover any material costs that could be incurred by WPL related to the terms of the final consent decree from WPL’s electric customers. Therefore, 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 loss contingency amounts related to these claims as of June 30, 2012.

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 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 originally certified two subclasses of plaintiffs that in aggregate include all persons vested or partially vested in the Plan who received these distributions from January 1, 1998 to August 17, 2006 including: (1) persons who received distributions from January 1, 1998 through February 28, 2002; and (2) persons who received distributions from March 1, 2002 to August 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 May 2011, the Plan was amended and the Plan subsequently made approximately $10 million in additional payments in 2011 to certain former participants in the Plan. This amendment was required based on an agreement Alliant Energy reached with the IRS, which resulted in a favorable determination letter for the Plan in 2011. In September 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint to assert that the 2011 amendment to the Plan 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 supplemental complaint and the Plan filed an answer and an amended answer. In March 2012, the Plan and the plaintiffs each filed motions for summary judgment related to the supplemental complaint, and the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, seeking to amend the class definition and for reappointment of class representatives and class counsel. In April 2012, both the Plan and the plaintiffs filed briefs opposing the other party’s motion for summary judgment. The Plan also filed a brief opposing the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.

On July 2, 2012, the Court issued an opinion and order granting plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, but only as to the interest crediting rate and the pre-retirement mortality discount claims of lump-sum recipients. As a result of the opinion and order, two new subclasses were certified in lieu of the prior subclass certification. Subclass A involves persons who received a lump-sum distribution between January 1, 1998 and August 17, 2006 and who received an interest crediting rate of less than 8.2% under the Plan as amended in May 2011. Subclass B involves persons who received a lump-sum distribution between January 1, 1998 and August 17, 2006 and who would have received a larger benefit under the Plan as amended in May 2011 if a pre-retirement mortality discount had not been applied. In the opinion and order the Court then granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as to the two subclasses, and denied as moot the parties’ motions for summary judgment with respect to issues beyond the two subclasses. The Court ordered the parties to submit briefs addressing if additional notice is due the two certified subclasses and to submit draft judgment orders. The parties have filed briefs and are in agreement that no additional prejudgment notice is necessary. Plaintiffs have filed their proposed judgment alleging the Plan is liable to subclasses A and B in the amount of $18.7 million. The Plan has filed its proposed judgment alleging that if the opinion and order is affirmed, the Plan would be liable to subclasses A and B in the amount of $17.9 million. Both proposed judgment amounts include pre-judgment interest through July 2012 and take into account the approximate $10 million of additional benefits paid by the Plan following the plan amendment in 2011. The proposed judgment amounts do not include any award for plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees or costs. A motion for payment of plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and costs is expected to be filed post-judgment. The Plan expects to appeal the trial court judgment on liability and damages to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL have not recognized any material loss contingency amounts for the final judgment of damages as of June 30, 2012. A material loss contingency will not be recognized unless a final unappealable ruling is received, or a settlement is reached, which results in an amendment to the Plan and payment to Plan participants. 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 an adverse outcome could have a material effect on their retirement plan funding and expense.

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 vendors 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 filed an answer and counterclaims against RMT asserting that RMT owes CSI additional amounts for work performed under the contract that have not been paid to date. CSI also filed a motion requesting the case be transferred to New Jersey that has subsequently been denied by the court. CSI has filed liens against the projects based on claims that they have not been paid for work performed under the contract with RMT and vendors of CSI have filed liens against the projects based on claims that they have not been paid as required under their agreements with CSI. Three vendors of CSI have also filed lawsuits in New Jersey including claims against both CSI and RMT resulting from work allegedly performed by the three vendors but not paid by CSI or RMT. As of June 30, 2012, RMT has posted bonds of $17 million to discharge the liens filed against the New Jersey project sites by CSI and CSI’s vendors. 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 loss contingency amounts related to these claims as of June 30, 2012. 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 lawsuits. Alliant Energy also has not recognized any material benefits from the lawsuit filed by RMT against CSI as of June 30, 2012.

(d) Guarantees - 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 June 30, 2012, Alliant Energy had $595 million of performance guarantees outstanding with $34 million, $333 million, $181 million and $47 million expiring in 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015, 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 June 30, 2012, Alliant Energy had $88 million in surety bonds and related Alliant Energy performance guarantees outstanding with $86 million expiring in 2012 and $2 million expiring in 2013. Alliant Energy currently believes that no material cash payments will be made under any of these obligations. Alliant Energy has not recognized any material liabilities related to these obligations as of June 30, 2012.

Alliant Energy continues to guarantee the abandonment obligations of Whiting Petroleum Corporation (Whiting) under the Point Arguello partnership agreements following the sale of Alliant Energy’s remaining interest in Whiting in 2004. The guarantee does not include a maximum limit. As of June 30, 2012, the present value of the abandonment obligations is estimated at $29 million. Alliant Energy believes that no payments will be made under this guarantee. Alliant Energy has not recognized any material liabilities related to this guarantee as of June 30, 2012.

(e) Environmental Matters -
Manufactured Gas Plant (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 13 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. Management currently estimates the range of remaining costs to be incurred for the investigation, remediation and monitoring of these sites to be $20 million ($18 million for IPL and $2 million for WPL) to $44 million ($40 million for IPL and $4 million for WPL). At June 30, 2012, Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL recorded $31 million, $28 million and $3 million, respectively, in current and non-current environmental liabilities for their remaining costs to be incurred for these MGP sites.

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 matters, 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 matters that may require significant future expenditures by Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL include, among others: CAIR, CSAPR, Clean Air Visibility Rule (CAVR), Utility MACT Rule, Wisconsin State Mercury Rule, Wisconsin RACT Rule, Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Rule, Fine Particle NAAQS Rule, Nitrogen Dioxide NAAQS Rule, SO2 NAAQS Rule, Industrial Boiler and Process Heater MACT Rule, Federal Clean Water Act including Section 316(b), Wisconsin and Iowa State Thermal Rules, Hydroelectric Fish Passage Device, Coal Combustion Residuals, Polychlorinated Biphenyls, and various legislation and EPA regulations to monitor and regulate the emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) including the EPA New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) for GHG Emissions from Electric Utilities and the EPA GHG Tailoring Rule. Some recent developments concerning these environmental matters are included below:

Air Quality -
CAVR - In June 2012, the EPA published a final rule that would allow Best Available Retrofit Technology Rule (BART) obligations for SO2 and NOx emissions to be fulfilled by CSAPR. In June 2012, the EPA also finalized the Iowa and Minnesota CAVR plans, which will require CSAPR to fulfill BART requirements for SO2 and NOx emission reductions. The EPA has not yet finalized the CAVR plan for Wisconsin.

Ozone NAAQS Rule - In May 2012, the EPA issued a final rule that classifies Sheboygan County in Wisconsin as marginal non-attainment, which requires this area to achieve the eight-hour ozone NAAQS by December 2015. WPL operates Edgewater and the Sheboygan Falls Energy Facility in Sheboygan County, Wisconsin.

Fine Particle NAAQS Rule - In June 2012, the EPA issued a proposed rule revising the fine particle primary NAAQS (PM2.5 NAAQS). The proposed rule would strengthen the annual standard from 15 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) to a level between 12 ug/m3 and 13 ug/m3. In addition, the proposal would set a new 24-hour standard to improve visibility. The EPA is under a court order to issue the final rule by December 2012. The EPA is expected to designate non-attainment areas for the revised PM2.5 NAAQS by December 2014. Compliance with the final rule is expected to be required by 2019 for non-attainment areas designated in 2014.

Water Quality -
Hydroelectric Fish Passages Device - In March 2012, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) extended the deadline to install an agency-approved fish passage device at WPL’s Prairie du Sac hydro plant to July 1, 2015.

GHG Emissions -
EPA NSPS for GHG Emissions from Electric Utilities - In April 2012, the EPA published proposed NSPS for GHG, including carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from new fossil-fueled electric generating units (EGUs) larger than 25 MW (not including simple-cycle combustion turbines), with an output-based emissions rate limitation of 1,000 pounds of CO2 per MWh. This emissions rate limitation is expected to be effective upon the EPA’s issuance of the final rule in the second quarter of 2013.
WPL [Member]
  
Commitments And Contingencies
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
(a) Capital Purchase Obligations - Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL have entered into capital purchase obligations that contain minimum future commitments related to capital expenditures for certain of their emission control projects. At June 30, 2012, Alliant Energy’s, IPL’s and WPL’s respective minimum future commitments related to capital expenditures for the installation of scrubbers and baghouses at IPL’s Ottumwa Unit 1 and WPL’s Columbia Units 1 and 2 to reduce SO2 and mercury emissions at these generating facilities were $40 million, $8 million and $32 million, respectively.

(b) 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 IPL’s and WPL’s utility customers. Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL also enter into other operating expense purchase obligations with various vendors for other goods and services. At June 30, 2012, minimum future commitments related to these operating expense purchase obligations were as follows (in millions):
 
Alliant Energy
 
IPL
 
WPL
Purchased power (a):
 
 
 
 
 
Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC) (IPL)

$321

 

$321

 

$—

Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant (Kewaunee) (WPL)
114

 
—

 
114

Other
31

 
7

 
24

 
466

 
328

 
138

Natural gas
286

 
155

 
131

Coal (b)
244

 
85

 
55

SO2 emission allowances
34

 
34

 
—

Other (c)
32

 
15

 
17

 

$1,062

 

$617

 

$341


(a)
Includes payments required by PPAs for capacity rights and minimum quantities of MWhs required to be purchased. Excludes contracts that are considered operating leases.
(b)
Corporate Services entered into system-wide coal contracts on behalf of IPL and WPL that include minimum future commitments of $104 million that have not been directly assigned to IPL and WPL since the specific needs of each utility were not yet known as of June 30, 2012.
(c)
Includes individual commitments incurred during the normal course of business that exceeded $1 million at June 30, 2012.

(c) Legal Proceedings -
Air Permitting Violation Claims - In 2009, the EPA sent a Notice of Violation (NOV) to WPL as an owner and the operator of Edgewater Generating Station (Edgewater), Nelson Dewey Generating Station (Nelson Dewey) and Columbia Energy Center (Columbia). The NOV alleges that the owners of Edgewater, Nelson Dewey and Columbia failed to comply with appropriate pre-construction review and permitting requirements and as a result violated the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program requirements, Title V Operating Permit requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the Wisconsin state implementation plan (SIP).

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 Nelson Dewey and Columbia, based on allegations that modifications were made at the facilities without complying with the PSD program requirements, Title V Operating Permit requirements of the CAA and state regulatory counterparts contained within the Wisconsin 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. In May 2012, the parties filed a Stipulation of Dismissal without Prejudice, and the court closed the case.

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 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.

Alliant Energy and WPL are defending against these allegations because they believe the projects at Edgewater, Nelson Dewey and Columbia were routine or not projected to increase emissions and therefore did not violate the requirements of the CAA. Simultaneously, WPL, the other owners of Edgewater and Columbia, the EPA and Sierra Club (collectively “the parties”) are exploring settlement options. Alliant Energy and WPL believe that the parties have reached agreement on general terms to settle these air permitting violation claims and are currently negotiating a consent decree based upon those general terms. Those terms are subject to change during the negotiations. Based on a review of existing EPA consent decrees, Alliant Energy and WPL anticipate that the final consent decree could include the installation of emission control technology, changed operating conditions (including use of fuels other than coal and retirement of units), limitations on emissions, beneficial environmental mitigation projects, and a civil penalty.

Once the parties agree to the final terms, the Court must approve the settlement agreement. Alliant Energy and WPL cannot predict the outcome of these claims, but believe the outcome could be significant if the parties are unable to reach final agreement, or reach final agreement on different terms than currently anticipated, or if the Court does not approve the final settlement agreement.

Alliant Energy and WPL currently expect to recover any material costs that could be incurred by WPL related to the terms of the final consent decree from WPL’s electric customers. Therefore, 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 loss contingency amounts related to these claims as of June 30, 2012.

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 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 originally certified two subclasses of plaintiffs that in aggregate include all persons vested or partially vested in the Plan who received these distributions from January 1, 1998 to August 17, 2006 including: (1) persons who received distributions from January 1, 1998 through February 28, 2002; and (2) persons who received distributions from March 1, 2002 to August 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 May 2011, the Plan was amended and the Plan subsequently made approximately $10 million in additional payments in 2011 to certain former participants in the Plan. This amendment was required based on an agreement Alliant Energy reached with the IRS, which resulted in a favorable determination letter for the Plan in 2011. In September 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint to assert that the 2011 amendment to the Plan 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 supplemental complaint and the Plan filed an answer and an amended answer. In March 2012, the Plan and the plaintiffs each filed motions for summary judgment related to the supplemental complaint, and the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, seeking to amend the class definition and for reappointment of class representatives and class counsel. In April 2012, both the Plan and the plaintiffs filed briefs opposing the other party’s motion for summary judgment. The Plan also filed a brief opposing the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.

On July 2, 2012, the Court issued an opinion and order granting plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, but only as to the interest crediting rate and the pre-retirement mortality discount claims of lump-sum recipients. As a result of the opinion and order, two new subclasses were certified in lieu of the prior subclass certification. Subclass A involves persons who received a lump-sum distribution between January 1, 1998 and August 17, 2006 and who received an interest crediting rate of less than 8.2% under the Plan as amended in May 2011. Subclass B involves persons who received a lump-sum distribution between January 1, 1998 and August 17, 2006 and who would have received a larger benefit under the Plan as amended in May 2011 if a pre-retirement mortality discount had not been applied. In the opinion and order the Court then granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as to the two subclasses, and denied as moot the parties’ motions for summary judgment with respect to issues beyond the two subclasses. The Court ordered the parties to submit briefs addressing if additional notice is due the two certified subclasses and to submit draft judgment orders. The parties have filed briefs and are in agreement that no additional prejudgment notice is necessary. Plaintiffs have filed their proposed judgment alleging the Plan is liable to subclasses A and B in the amount of $18.7 million. The Plan has filed its proposed judgment alleging that if the opinion and order is affirmed, the Plan would be liable to subclasses A and B in the amount of $17.9 million. Both proposed judgment amounts include pre-judgment interest through July 2012 and take into account the approximate $10 million of additional benefits paid by the Plan following the plan amendment in 2011. The proposed judgment amounts do not include any award for plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees or costs. A motion for payment of plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and costs is expected to be filed post-judgment. The Plan expects to appeal the trial court judgment on liability and damages to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL have not recognized any material loss contingency amounts for the final judgment of damages as of June 30, 2012. A material loss contingency will not be recognized unless a final unappealable ruling is received, or a settlement is reached, which results in an amendment to the Plan and payment to Plan participants. 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 an adverse outcome could have a material effect on their retirement plan funding and expense.

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 vendors 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 filed an answer and counterclaims against RMT asserting that RMT owes CSI additional amounts for work performed under the contract that have not been paid to date. CSI also filed a motion requesting the case be transferred to New Jersey that has subsequently been denied by the court. CSI has filed liens against the projects based on claims that they have not been paid for work performed under the contract with RMT and vendors of CSI have filed liens against the projects based on claims that they have not been paid as required under their agreements with CSI. Three vendors of CSI have also filed lawsuits in New Jersey including claims against both CSI and RMT resulting from work allegedly performed by the three vendors but not paid by CSI or RMT. As of June 30, 2012, RMT has posted bonds of $17 million to discharge the liens filed against the New Jersey project sites by CSI and CSI’s vendors. 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 loss contingency amounts related to these claims as of June 30, 2012. 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 lawsuits. Alliant Energy also has not recognized any material benefits from the lawsuit filed by RMT against CSI as of June 30, 2012.

(d) Guarantees - 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 June 30, 2012, Alliant Energy had $595 million of performance guarantees outstanding with $34 million, $333 million, $181 million and $47 million expiring in 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015, 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 June 30, 2012, Alliant Energy had $88 million in surety bonds and related Alliant Energy performance guarantees outstanding with $86 million expiring in 2012 and $2 million expiring in 2013. Alliant Energy currently believes that no material cash payments will be made under any of these obligations. Alliant Energy has not recognized any material liabilities related to these obligations as of June 30, 2012.

Alliant Energy continues to guarantee the abandonment obligations of Whiting Petroleum Corporation (Whiting) under the Point Arguello partnership agreements following the sale of Alliant Energy’s remaining interest in Whiting in 2004. The guarantee does not include a maximum limit. As of June 30, 2012, the present value of the abandonment obligations is estimated at $29 million. Alliant Energy believes that no payments will be made under this guarantee. Alliant Energy has not recognized any material liabilities related to this guarantee as of June 30, 2012.

(e) Environmental Matters -
Manufactured Gas Plant (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 13 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. Management currently estimates the range of remaining costs to be incurred for the investigation, remediation and monitoring of these sites to be $20 million ($18 million for IPL and $2 million for WPL) to $44 million ($40 million for IPL and $4 million for WPL). At June 30, 2012, Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL recorded $31 million, $28 million and $3 million, respectively, in current and non-current environmental liabilities for their remaining costs to be incurred for these MGP sites.

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 matters, 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 matters that may require significant future expenditures by Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL include, among others: CAIR, CSAPR, Clean Air Visibility Rule (CAVR), Utility MACT Rule, Wisconsin State Mercury Rule, Wisconsin RACT Rule, Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Rule, Fine Particle NAAQS Rule, Nitrogen Dioxide NAAQS Rule, SO2 NAAQS Rule, Industrial Boiler and Process Heater MACT Rule, Federal Clean Water Act including Section 316(b), Wisconsin and Iowa State Thermal Rules, Hydroelectric Fish Passage Device, Coal Combustion Residuals, Polychlorinated Biphenyls, and various legislation and EPA regulations to monitor and regulate the emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) including the EPA New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) for GHG Emissions from Electric Utilities and the EPA GHG Tailoring Rule. Some recent developments concerning these environmental matters are included below:

Air Quality -
CAVR - In June 2012, the EPA published a final rule that would allow Best Available Retrofit Technology Rule (BART) obligations for SO2 and NOx emissions to be fulfilled by CSAPR. In June 2012, the EPA also finalized the Iowa and Minnesota CAVR plans, which will require CSAPR to fulfill BART requirements for SO2 and NOx emission reductions. The EPA has not yet finalized the CAVR plan for Wisconsin.

Ozone NAAQS Rule - In May 2012, the EPA issued a final rule that classifies Sheboygan County in Wisconsin as marginal non-attainment, which requires this area to achieve the eight-hour ozone NAAQS by December 2015. WPL operates Edgewater and the Sheboygan Falls Energy Facility in Sheboygan County, Wisconsin.

Fine Particle NAAQS Rule - In June 2012, the EPA issued a proposed rule revising the fine particle primary NAAQS (PM2.5 NAAQS). The proposed rule would strengthen the annual standard from 15 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) to a level between 12 ug/m3 and 13 ug/m3. In addition, the proposal would set a new 24-hour standard to improve visibility. The EPA is under a court order to issue the final rule by December 2012. The EPA is expected to designate non-attainment areas for the revised PM2.5 NAAQS by December 2014. Compliance with the final rule is expected to be required by 2019 for non-attainment areas designated in 2014.

Water Quality -
Hydroelectric Fish Passages Device - In March 2012, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) extended the deadline to install an agency-approved fish passage device at WPL’s Prairie du Sac hydro plant to July 1, 2015.

GHG Emissions -
EPA NSPS for GHG Emissions from Electric Utilities - In April 2012, the EPA published proposed NSPS for GHG, including carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from new fossil-fueled electric generating units (EGUs) larger than 25 MW (not including simple-cycle combustion turbines), with an output-based emissions rate limitation of 1,000 pounds of CO2 per MWh. This emissions rate limitation is expected to be effective upon the EPA’s issuance of the final rule in the second quarter of 2013.