Commitments and Contingencies

Except to the extent noted below and in Note 5 above, the circumstances set forth in Notes 10 and 11 to the consolidated financial statements included in NSP-Wisconsin’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended Dec. 31, 2014 and in Notes 5 and 6 to the consolidated financial statements included in NSP-Wisconsin’s Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the quarterly periods ended March 31, 2015 and June 30, 2015, appropriately represent, in all material respects, the current status of commitments and contingent liabilities, and are incorporated herein by reference. The following include commitments, contingencies and unresolved contingencies that are material to NSP-Wisconsin’s financial position.

Guarantees

NSP-Wisconsin provides a guarantee for payment of customer loans related to NSP-Wisconsin’s farm rewiring program. NSP-Wisconsin’s exposure under the guarantee is based upon the net liability under the agreement. The guarantee issued by NSP-Wisconsin limits its exposure to a maximum amount stated in the guarantee. The guarantee contains no recourse provisions and requires no collateral.

The following table presents the guarantee issued and outstanding for NSP-Wisconsin:



(Millions of Dollars)	Sept. 30, 2015		Dec. 31, 2014
Guarantees issued and outstanding	$	1.0	$	1.0
Current exposure under these guarantees	0.1		0.2

Environmental Contingencies

Ashland Manufactured Gas Plant (MGP) Site — NSP-Wisconsin has been named a potentially responsible party (PRP) for contamination at a site in Ashland, Wis. The Ashland/Northern States Power Lakefront Superfund Site (the Ashland site) includes property owned by NSP-Wisconsin, which was a site previously operated by a predecessor company as a MGP facility (the Upper Bluff), and two other properties: an adjacent city lakeshore park area (Kreher Park), on which an unaffiliated third party previously operated a sawmill and where NSP-Wisconsin believes wood treating operations were conducted; and an area of Lake Superior’s Chequamegon Bay adjoining the park (the Sediments).

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its Record of Decision (ROD) in 2010, which describes the preferred remedy the EPA has selected for the cleanup of the Ashland site. For the Sediments at the Ashland site, the ROD preferred remedy is a hybrid remedy involving both dry excavation and wet conventional dredging methodologies (the Hybrid Remedy). The ROD also identifies the possibility of a wet conventional dredging only remedy for the Sediments (the Wet Dredge), contingent upon the completion of a successful Wet Dredge pilot study.

In 2011, the EPA issued special notice letters identifying several entities, including NSP-Wisconsin, as PRPs, for future remediation at the Ashland site. As a result of settlement negotiations with NSP-Wisconsin, the EPA agreed to segment the Ashland site into separate areas. The first area (Phase I Project Area) includes soil and groundwater in Kreher Park and the Upper Bluff. The second area includes the Sediments.

In October 2012, a settlement among the EPA, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, the Bad River and Red Cliff Bands of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians and NSP-Wisconsin was approved by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. This settlement resolves claims against NSP-Wisconsin for its alleged responsibility for the remediation of the Phase I Project Area. Under the terms of the settlement, NSP-Wisconsin agreed to perform the remediation of the Phase I Project Area, but does not admit any liability with respect to the Ashland site. Fieldwork to address the Phase I Project Area at the Ashland site began at the end of 2012 and continues. Demolition activities occurred at the Ashland site in 2013. Soil, including excavation and treatment, as well as containment wall remedies were completed in early 2015. In fall 2015, the ground water remedy was initiated at the site with the installation of groundwater wells and the start of construction on the groundwater treatment plant. The final design for the Phase I remedy was approved by the EPA in September 2015. The current cost estimate for the cleanup of the Phase I Project Area is approximately $57 million, of which approximately $39 million has already been spent. The settlement also resolves claims by the federal, state and tribal trustees against NSP-Wisconsin for alleged natural resource damages at the Ashland site, including both the Phase I Project Area and the Sediments.

Negotiations are ongoing between the EPA and NSP-Wisconsin regarding who will pay for or perform the cleanup of the Sediments and what remedy will be implemented at the site to address the Sediments. It is NSP-Wisconsin’s view that the Hybrid Remedy is not safe or feasible to implement. The EPA’s ROD for the Ashland site includes estimates that the cost of the Hybrid Remedy is between $63 million and $77 million, with a potential deviation in such estimated costs of up to 50 percent higher to 30 percent lower. In November 2013, NSP-Wisconsin submitted a revised Wet Dredge pilot study work plan proposal to the EPA. In May 2014, NSP-Wisconsin entered into a final administrative order on consent (AOC) for the Wet Dredge pilot study with the EPA. In early 2015, NSP-Wisconsin entered into an AOC to construct a breakwater at the site to serve as wave attenuation and containment for a wet dredge pilot study and full scale sediment remedy at the site. Construction of the breakwater is underway with anticipated completion in early 2016. A wet dredge pilot study is anticipated to commence in summer 2016.

In August 2012, NSP-Wisconsin also filed litigation against other PRPs for their share of the cleanup costs for the Ashland site. A final settlement has been reached between NSP-Wisconsin, along with the EPA, and two of the PRPs, Wisconsin Central Ltd. and Soo Line Railroad Co. (collectively, the “Railroad PRPs”) resolving claims relating to the Railroad PRPs’ share of the costs of cleanup at the Ashland site. NSP-Wisconsin also entered into a second private party settlement agreement with LE Myers Co. Under the agreements, the Railroad PRPs contributed $10.5 million and LE Myers Co. contributed $5.4 million to the costs of the cleanup at the Ashland site. The agreements for the Railroad PRPs and LE Myers Co. were approved by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin in 2015 and payment has been received. As discussed below, existing PSCW policy requires that any payments received from PRPs be used to reduce the amount of the cleanup costs ultimately recovered from customers. Trial with the remaining PRPs for this matter, County of Ashland and City of Ashland, took place in May 2015. In September 2015, the Court ruled that the County of Ashland is not a liable party and the City of Ashland, although a liable party, is not required to contribute any funds to the cleanup of the site. NSP-Wisconsin filed a notice of appeal with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in October 2015.

At Sept. 30, 2015 and Dec. 31, 2014, NSP-Wisconsin had recorded a liability of $95.7 million and $107.6 million, respectively, for the Ashland site based upon potential remediation and design costs together with estimated outside legal and consultant costs; of which $16.6 million and $28.9 million, respectively, was considered a current liability. NSP-Wisconsin’s potential liability, the actual cost of remediation and the time frame over which the amounts may be paid are subject to change. NSP-Wisconsin also continues to work to identify and access state and federal funds to apply to the ultimate remediation cost of the entire site. Unresolved issues or factors that could result in higher or lower NSP-Wisconsin remediation costs for the Ashland site include the cleanup approach implemented for the Sediments, which party implements the cleanup, the timing of when the cleanup is implemented and whether federal or state funding may be directed to help offset remediation costs at the Ashland site.

NSP-Wisconsin has deferred the estimated site remediation costs, as a regulatory asset, based on an expectation that the PSCW will continue to allow NSP-Wisconsin to recover payments for environmental remediation from its customers. The PSCW has consistently authorized NSP-Wisconsin rate recovery for all remediation costs incurred at the Ashland site, and has authorized recovery of MGP remediation costs by other Wisconsin utilities. Under the established PSCW policy, once deferred MGP remediation costs are determined by the PSCW to be prudent, utilities are allowed to recover those deferred costs in natural gas rates, typically over a four- to six-year amortization period. The PSCW historically has not allowed utilities to recover their carrying costs on unamortized regulatory assets for MGP remediation.

The PSCW reviewed the existing MGP cost recovery policy as it applied to the Ashland site in the context of NSP-Wisconsin’s 2013 general rate case. In December 2012, the PSCW recognized the potential magnitude of the future liability for the cleanup at the Ashland site and granted an exception to its existing policy at the request of NSP-Wisconsin. The elements of this exception include: (1) approval to begin recovery of estimated Phase 1 Project costs beginning on Jan. 1, 2013; (2) approval to amortize these estimated costs over a ten-year period; and (3) approval to apply a three percent carrying cost to the unamortized regulatory asset. In a 2014 rate case decision, the PSCW continued the cost recovery treatment with respect to the 2013 and 2014 cleanup costs for the Phase I Project Area and allowed NSP-Wisconsin to increase its 2014 amortization expense related to the cleanup by an additional $1.1 million to offset the need for a rate decrease for the natural gas utility. Cost recovery will continue at the level set in the 2014 rate case through 2015. In May 2015, NSP-Wisconsin filed its 2016 rate case, in which it requested an increase to the annual recovery for MGP clean-up costs from $4.7 million to $7.6 million. A decision is anticipated in December 2015.

Environmental Requirements

Water

Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELG) — In September 2015, the EPA issued a final ELG rule for power plants that use coal, natural gas, oil or nuclear materials as fuel and discharge treated effluent to surface waters as well as utility-owned landfills that receive coal combustion residuals. NSP-Wisconsin is currently reviewing the final rule and cannot predict, at this time, whether the costs of compliance with the final rule will have a material impact on the results of operations, financial position or cash flows. NSP-Wisconsin believes that compliance costs would be recoverable through regulatory mechanisms.

Federal CWA Waters of the United States Rule — In June 2015, the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers published a final rule that significantly expands the types of water bodies regulated under the CWA and broadens the scope of waters subject to federal jurisdiction. The expansion of the term “Waters of the U.S.” will subject more utility projects to federal CWA jurisdiction, thereby potentially delaying the siting of new generation projects, pipelines, transmission lines and distribution lines, as well as increasing project costs and expanding permitting and reporting requirements. The rule went into effect in August 2015. On Oct. 9, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a nationwide stay of the final rule, pending further legal proceedings.

Air

Green House Gas (GHG) Emission Standard for Existing Sources — In June 2014, the EPA published its proposed rule on GHG emission standards for existing power plants. A final rule was published in October 2015. States must develop implementation plans by September 2016, with the possibility of an extension to September 2018. If a state decides not to submit a plan, the EPA will prepare a federal plan for the state. In addition, the EPA published a proposed model federal plan and will provide a 90-day public comment period on the federal plan once it has been published in the Federal Register. Among other things, the rule requires that state plans include enforceable measures to ensure emissions from existing power plants in the state achieve the EPA’s state-specific interim (2022-2029) and final (2030 and thereafter) emission performance targets. The plan will likely require additional emission reductions in states in which NSP-Wisconsin operates. Until NSP-Wisconsin has reviewed the final rule and has more information about state implementation plans, NSP-Wisconsin cannot predict whether the costs of compliance with the final rule will have a material impact on the results of operations, financial position or cash flows. NSP-Wisconsin believes that compliance costs will be recoverable through regulatory mechanisms.

GHG New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) Proposal — In January 2014, the EPA re-proposed a GHG NSPS for newly constructed power plants which would set performance standards (maximum carbon dioxide emission rates) for coal- and natural gas-fired power plants. For coal power plants, the NSPS requires an emissions level equivalent to partial carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology; for natural gas-fired power plants, the NSPS reflects emissions levels from combined cycle technology with no CCS. The NSPS does not apply to modified or reconstructed existing power plants. In addition, installation of control equipment on existing plants would not constitute a “modification” to those plants under the NSPS program. The final rule was published in October 2015. NSP-Wisconsin does not anticipate the costs of compliance with the final rule will have a material impact on the results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

GHG NSPS for Modified and Reconstructed Power Plants — In June 2014, the EPA published a proposed NSPS that would apply to GHG emissions from power plants that are modified or reconstructed. A final rule was published in October 2015. A modification is a change to an existing source that increases the maximum achievable hourly rate of emissions. A reconstruction involves the replacement of components at a unit to the extent that the capital cost of the new components exceeds 50 percent of the capital cost of an entirely new comparable unit. The standards do not require installation of CCS technology. Instead, the standard for coal-fired power plants requires a combination of best operating practices and equipment upgrades. The standards for natural gas-fired power plants require emissions standards based on efficient combined cycle technology. These requirements would only apply if NSP-Wisconsin were to modify or reconstruct an existing power plant in the future in a way that triggers applicability of this rule.

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) — CSAPR addresses long range transport of particulate matter and ozone by requiring reductions in sulfur dioxide (SO₂₎ and nitrous oxide (NOx) from utilities in the eastern half of the United States, including Wisconsin, using an emissions trading program.

In August 2012, the United States District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) vacated the CSAPR and remanded it back to the EPA. The D.C. Circuit stated the EPA must continue administering the Clean Air Interstate Rule pending adoption of a valid replacement. In April 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case to the D.C. Circuit. The Supreme Court held that the EPA’s rule design did not violate the Clean Air Act and that states had received adequate opportunity to develop their own plans. Because the D.C. Circuit overturned the CSAPR on two over-arching issues, there are many other issues the D.C. Circuit did not rule on that were considered on remand. In July 2015, the D.C. Circuit issued an opinion which found the reduction budgets exceed what is necessary for Texas to reduce its impact on downwind states that do not meet ambient air quality standards. The D.C. Circuit remanded the matter to the EPA to reconsider the emission budgets. While the EPA reconsiders emission budgets, the D.C. Circuit left CSAPR in effect.

In October 2014, the D.C. Circuit granted the EPA’s request to begin to implement CSAPR by imposing its 2012 compliance obligations starting in January 2015. While the litigation continues, the EPA is administering the CSAPR in 2015.

NSP-Wisconsin can operate within its CSAPR emission allowance allocation for SO₂. NSP-Wisconsin is complying with the CSAPR for NOx in 2015 through operational changes or allowance purchases. CSAPR compliance in 2015 is not having a material impact on the results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

Electric Generating Unit (EGU) Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) Rule — The final EGU MATS rule became effective in April 2012. The EGU MATS rule sets emission limits for acid gases, mercury and other hazardous air pollutants and requires coal-fired utility facilities greater than 25 MW to demonstrate compliance within three to four years of the effective date. In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to review the D.C. Circuit’s decision that upheld the MATS standard. By April 2015, the MATS compliance deadline, NSP-Wisconsin had met the EGU MATS rule by ending use of coal at Bay Front Unit 5. In June 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the EPA acted unreasonably by not considering the cost to regulate mercury and other hazardous air pollutants. The D.C. Circuit, on remand, will decide whether to leave MATS in effect while the EPA considers such costs in making a new determination. NSP-Wisconsin believes EGU MATS costs will be recoverable through regulatory mechanisms and does not anticipate a material impact on the results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

Industrial Boiler (IB) Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Rules — In 2011, the EPA finalized IB MACT rules to regulate boilers and process heaters fueled with coal, biomass and liquid fuels, which would apply to NSP-Wisconsin’s Bay Front Units 1 and 2. The project to meet the requirements was completed in September 2015 with an estimated cost of approximately $20 million.

Revisions to the NAAQS for Ozone — In October 2015, the EPA revised the NAAQS for ozone by lowering the eight-hour standard from 75 parts per billion (ppb) to 70 ppb. Current monitored air quality concentrations in areas of Wisconsin, where NSP-Wisconsin operates, are below the new standard. Therefore, NSP-Wisconsin does not expect a material impact on results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

Legal Contingencies

NSP-Wisconsin is involved in various litigation matters that are being defended and handled in the ordinary course of business. The assessment of whether a loss is probable or is a reasonable possibility, and whether the loss or a range of loss is estimable, often involves a series of complex judgments about future events. Management maintains accruals for such losses that are probable of being incurred and subject to reasonable estimation. Management is sometimes unable to estimate an amount or range of a reasonably possible loss in certain situations, including but not limited to when (1) the damages sought are indeterminate, (2) the proceedings are in the early stages, or (3) the matters involve novel or unsettled legal theories. In such cases, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the timing or ultimate resolution of such matters, including a possible eventual loss. For current proceedings not specifically reported herein, management does not anticipate that the ultimate liabilities, if any, arising from such current proceedings would have a material effect on NSP-Wisconsin’s financial statements. Unless otherwise required by GAAP, legal fees are expensed as incurred.

Employment, Tort and Commercial Litigation

Gas Trading Litigation — e prime, inc. (e prime) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Xcel Energy. e prime was in the business of natural gas trading and marketing, but has not engaged in natural gas trading or marketing activities since 2003. Thirteen lawsuits were commenced against e prime and Xcel Energy (and NSP-Wisconsin, in two instances) between 2003 and 2009 alleging fraud and anticompetitive activities in conspiring to restrain the trade of natural gas and manipulate natural gas prices. The cases were consolidated in U.S. District Court in Nevada. In 2009, five of the cases were settled and one was dismissed. The U.S. District Court in 2011 issued an order dismissing entirely six of the remaining seven lawsuits, and partially dismissing the seventh. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which reversed the District Court. The matter was ultimately heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in early 2015, which agreed with the Ninth Circuit and remanded the matter to the U.S. District Court. In September 2015, the District Court held a status conference and set deadlines for certain litigation related activities in 2016. A trial date has not yet been set, but is not expected to occur prior to late 2016 or early 2017. Xcel Energy and e prime have concluded that a loss is remote with respect to this matter.