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, 2016, 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 has a stated maximum amount. The guarantee contains no recourse provisions and requires no collateral. These agreements have expiration dates through 2020.

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



(Millions of Dollars)	March 31, 2017		Dec. 31, 2016
Guarantee issued and outstanding	$	1.0	$	1.0
Current exposure under this guarantee	0.1		0.1

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 Site) includes NSP-Wisconsin property, previously operated as a MGP facility (the Upper Bluff), and two other properties: an adjacent city lakeshore park area (Kreher Park); and an area of Lake Superior’s Chequamegon Bay adjoining the park.

In 2012, NSP-Wisconsin agreed to remediate the Phase I Project Area (which includes the Upper Bluff and Kreher Park areas of the Site), under a settlement agreement with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), The current cost estimate for the cleanup of the Phase I Project Area is approximately $77.2 million, of which approximately $57.2 million has been spent.

NSP-Wisconsin performed a wet dredge pilot study in 2016 and demonstrated that a wet dredge remedy can meet the performance standards for remediation of the Sediments. As a result, the EPA authorized NSP-Wisconsin to extend the wet dredge pilot to additional areas of the Site. In January 2017, NSP-Wisconsin agreed to remediate the Phase II Project Area (the Sediments), under a settlement agreement with the EPA. The settlement was approved by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin NSP-Wisconsin has initiated field activities to perform a full scale wet dredge remedy of the Sediments in 2017, with performance of restoration activities in 2018.

At March 31, 2017 and Dec. 31, 2016, NSP-Wisconsin had recorded a total liability of $62.1 million and $64.3 million, respectively, for the entire site.

NSP-Wisconsin has deferred the unrecovered portion of the estimated Site remediation costs as a regulatory asset. The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSCW) has consistently authorized NSP-Wisconsin rate recovery for all remediation costs incurred at the Site. In 2012, the PSCW agreed to allow NSP-Wisconsin to pre-collect certain costs, to amortize costs over a ten-year period and to apply a three percent carrying cost to the unamortized regulatory asset. In April 2016, NSP-Wisconsin filed a limited natural gas rate case for recovery of additional expenses associated with remediating the Site. In December 2016, the PSCW issued a written order approving the requested increase in annual recovery of MGP clean-up costs from $7.6 million in 2016 to $12.4 million in 2017.

Other MGP Sites — In addition to the site in Ashland, Wis., NSP-Wisconsin has identified one site where former MGP disposal activities may have resulted in site contamination and is under current investigation. There are other parties that may have responsibility for some portion of any remediation. NSP-Wisconsin anticipates that the majority of the investigation or remediation at this site will continue through at least 2018. NSP-Wisconsin had accrued $0.1 million for this site at March 31, 2017 and Dec. 31, 2016. There may be insurance recovery and/or recovery from other PRPs to offset any costs incurred. NSP-Wisconsin anticipates that any significant amounts incurred will be recovered from customers.

Environmental Requirements

Water and Waste

Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) Waters of the United States Rule — In 2015, the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 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 final rule 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. In October 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a nationwide stay of the final rule and subsequently ruled that it, rather than the federal district courts, had jurisdiction over challenges to the rule. In January 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to resolve the dispute as to which court should hear challenges to the rule. A ruling is expected by the end of 2017.

In February 2017, President Trump issued an executive order requiring the EPA and the Corps to review and revise the final rule. The executive order directs the agencies to consider interpreting the term “Waters of the U.S.” in a manner that is more narrow than the final rule. In March 2017, the EPA and the Corps published formal notice of the agencies’ intent to review the final rule and engage in further rulemaking.

Federal CWA Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELG) — In 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 continues to evaluate the cost of compliance at its facilities potentially affected by this rule. NSP-Wisconsin believes that compliance costs would be recoverable through regulatory mechanisms. Consolidated challenges to the rule are being heard by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. On April 12, 2017, the EPA issued an administrative stay to delay the ELG rule’s compliance deadlines during the pendency of the ongoing litigation in order to give the agency the opportunity to reconsider and review the rule.

Air

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission Standard for Existing Sources (Clean Power Plan or CPP) — In 2015, the EPA issued its final rule for existing power plants. Among other things, the rule requires that state plans include enforceable measures to ensure emissions from existing power plants achieve the EPA’s state-specific interim (2022-2029) and final (2030 and thereafter) emission performance targets.

The CPP was challenged by multiple parties in the D.C. Circuit Court. In February 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order staying the final CPP rule. In September 2016, the D.C. Circuit Court heard oral arguments in the consolidated challenges to the CPP. The stay will remain in effect until the D.C. Circuit Court reaches its decision and the U.S. Supreme Court either declines to review the lower court’s decision or reaches a decision of its own.

In March 2017, President Trump signed an executive order requiring the EPA Administrator to review the CPP rule and if appropriate, publish proposed rules suspending, revising or rescinding it. Accordingly, the EPA has requested that the D.C. Circuit Court hold the litigation in abeyance until the EPA completes its work under the executive order. Parties in the litigation, who support the CPP, have filed briefs opposing the EPA’s motion. A court ruling on the EPA’s motion is expected in the second quarter of 2017.

NSP-Wisconsin has undertaken a number of initiatives that reduce GHG emissions and respond to state renewable and energy efficiency goals. The CPP could require additional emission reductions in states in which NSP-Wisconsin operates. If state plans do not provide credit for the investments NSP-Wisconsin has already made to reduce GHG emissions, or if they require additional initiatives or emission reductions, then their requirements would potentially impose additional substantial costs. NSP-Wisconsin cannot predict the costs of compliance with the final rule once it takes effect due to the uncertainty about what, if anything, the final rules may require. NSP-Wisconsin believes compliance costs will be recoverable through regulatory mechanisms. If NSP-Wisconsin’s regulators do not allow recovery of all or a part of the cost of capital investment or the operating and maintenance (O&M) costs incurred to comply with the CPP or cost recovery is not provided in a timely manner, it could have 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. Five of the cases have since been settled and seven remain active, which include one multi-district litigation (MDL) matter consisting of a Colorado class (Breckenridge), a Wisconsin class (NSP-Wisconsin), a Kansas class, and two other cases identified as “Sinclair Oil” and “Farmland.” In November 2016, the MDL judge dismissed e prime and Xcel Energy from the Farmland lawsuit, and Farmland has appealed the dismissal. Motions for summary judgment were filed by defendants, including e prime, in all of the remaining lawsuits. In March 2017 the U.S. District Court issued an order dismissing the claims against e prime in the Sinclair lawsuit and denied plaintiffs motions for class certification in the other lawsuits. The U.S. District Court did not grant e prime’s summary judgment motions in the Wisconsin or Colorado cases. Xcel Energy, NSP-Wisconsin and e prime have concluded that a loss is remote.