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 and in Notes 5 and 6 the consolidated financial statements included in NSP-Wisconsin’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly periods ended March 31, 2017 and June 30, 2017, 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)	Sept. 30, 2017		Dec. 31, 2016
Guarantee issued and outstanding	$	1.0	$	1.0
Current exposure under this guarantee	—		0.1

Environmental Contingencies

Ashland Manufactured Gas Plant (MGP) Site — NSP-Wisconsin was 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). 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 initiated field activities to perform a full scale wet dredge remedy of the Sediments in 2017 and anticipates completion of restoration activities in 2018.

The current remediation cost estimate for the entire site (both the Phase I Project Area and the Sediments) is approximately $162.9 million, of which approximately $131.8 million has been spent. As of Sept. 30, 2017 and Dec. 31, 2016, NSP-Wisconsin had recorded a total liability of $31.1 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 PSCW has 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 May 2017, NSP-Wisconsin filed a natural gas rate case which included recovery of additional expenses associated with remediating the Site. If approved, the annual recovery of MGP clean-up costs would increase from $12.4 million in 2017 to $18.1 million in 2018.

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 as of Sept. 30, 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 expanded the types of water bodies regulated under the CWA and broadened the scope of waters subject to federal jurisdiction. 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 in the first quarter of 2018.

In February 2017, President Trump issued an executive order requiring the EPA and the Corps to review and revise the final rule. On June 27, 2017, the agencies issued a proposed rule that rescinds the 2015 final rule and reinstates the prior 1986 definition of “Water of the U.S.” The agencies are also undertaking a rulemaking to develop a new definition of "Waters of the U.S."

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. In September 2017, the EPA delayed the compliance date for flue gas desulfurization wastewater and bottom ash transport water until November 2020 while the agency conducts a rulemaking process to potentially revise the effluent limitations and pretreatment standards for these waste streams.

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. The D.C. Circuit granted the EPA’s request and is holding the litigation in abeyance, while considering briefs by the parties on whether the court should remand the challenges to the EPA rather than holding them in abeyance, determining whether and how the court continues or ends the stay that currently applies to the CPP.

In October 2017, the EPA published a proposed rule to repeal the CPP, based on an analysis that the CPP exceeds the EPA’s statutory authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The EPA will take public comment on the proposal for 60 days. The EPA stated it has not yet determined whether it will promulgate a new rule to regulate GHG emissions from existing electric generating units.

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.

e prime, Xcel Energy and its other affiliates were sued along with several other gas marketing companies. The cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court in Nevada. Six of the cases remain active, which includes one multi-district litigation (MDL) matter consisting of a Colorado class (Breckenridge), a Wisconsin class (Arandell Corp.), a Missouri class, a Kansas class, and two other cases identified as “Sinclair Oil” and “Farmland.” A motion for class certification was denied and plaintiffs have appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Motions for summary judgment were granted by the MDL judge in favor of e prime and Xcel Energy in Sinclair Oil and Farmland. Plaintiffs in both cases appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit. Motions for summary judgment were also filed by defendants, including e prime, in all of the remaining lawsuits. These motions were denied and e prime subsequently filed an appeal in September 2017. Dates for all matters pending before the Ninth Circuit have not been scheduled. Xcel Energy, NSP-Wisconsin and e prime have concluded that a loss is remote.