Commitments and Contingencies

Except to the extent noted below and in Note 5 to the financial statements, the circumstances set forth in Notes 10 and 11 to the consolidated financial statements included in the NSP-Wisconsin Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended Dec. 31, 2017, as amended by the NSP-Wisconsin Amendment No. 1 to its Annual Report on Form 10-K/A, filed with the SEC on July 27, 2018, and in Notes 5 and 6 to NSP-Wisconsin's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, 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)	June 30, 2018		Dec. 31, 2017
Guarantee issued and outstanding	$	1.0	$	1.0
Current exposure under this guarantee	—		—

Environmental Contingencies

Ashland Manufactured Gas Plant (MGP) Site — NSP-Wisconsin was named a potentially responsible party 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), an adjacent city lakeshore park area (Kreher Park) (collectively the Phase I Area); and a sediment area of Lake Superior’s Chequamegon Bay (Phase II Area). NSP-Wisconsin initiated a wet dredge remedy of the Phase II area in 2017. NSP-Wisconsin anticipates completion of Phase II activities in 2018 with final site restoration activities in early 2019. Groundwater treatment activities at the Site will continue for many years.

The current cost estimate for the remediation of the entire site is approximately $175 million, of which approximately $146 million has been spent. As of June 30, 2018 and Dec. 31, 2017, NSP-Wisconsin recorded a total liability of $29 million and $30 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 December 2017, the PSCW approved an NSP-Wisconsin natural gas rate case, which included recovery of additional expenses associated with remediating the Site. The annual recovery of MGP clean-up costs increased from $12 million in 2017 to $18 million in 2018.

Other MGP, Landfill or Disposal Sites — In addition to the Ashland MGP Site, NSP-Wisconsin is currently involved in investigating and/or remediating an MGP, landfill or other disposal site. NSP-Wisconsin has identified one site where contamination is present and where investigation and/or remediation activities are currently underway. Other parties may have responsibility for some portion of the investigation and/or remediation activities. NSP-Wisconsin anticipates that these investigation or remediation activities will continue through at least 2018. NSP-Wisconsin accrued $0.1 million for this site as of June 30, 2018 and Dec. 31, 2017. NSP-Wisconsin anticipates that any amounts spent will be fully recovered from customers.

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 Inc. and its other affiliates were sued along with several other gas marketing companies. These cases were all consolidated in the U.S. District Court in Nevada. Six of the cases remain active, which includes a 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.” In March 2017, summary judgment was granted by the MDL judge in favor of Xcel Energy and e prime in the Sinclair Oil and Farmland cases. In November 2017, the U.S. District Court in Nevada granted summary judgment against two plaintiffs in the Arandell Corp. case in favor of Xcel Energy and NSP-Wisconsin, leaving only three individual plaintiffs remaining in the litigation. In addition, the plaintiffs’ motions for class certification and remand back to originating courts in these cases were denied in March 2017. Plaintiffs appealed the summary judgment motions granted in the Farmland and Sinclair Oil cases and the denial of class certification and remand to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit). In March 2018, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the summary judgment in the Farmland case. The Farmland defendants subsequently filed a request for further review by the Ninth Circuit, which was denied. In light of the decision in the Farmland case, the Sinclair plaintiffs have requested the Ninth Circuit to reverse the grant of summary judgment without hearing. Oral arguments were presented to the Ninth Circuit in July 2018 regarding this issue and the denial of class certification and it is uncertain when a decision will be issued. In addition, Xcel Energy, NSP-Wisconsin and e prime have concluded that a loss is remote.