6. Commitments and Contingencies

Except as noted below and in Note 5 to the consolidated financial statements in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q the circumstances set forth in Notes 9 and 10 to the consolidated financial statements in NSP-Wisconsin's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended Dec. 31, 2011 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 the exposure of NSP-Wisconsin 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, 2012		Dec. 31, 2011
Guarantee issued and outstanding	$	1.0	$	1.0
Current exposure under the guarantee		0.4		0.5

Environmental Contingencies

MGP Sites

Ashland MGP Site — NSP-Wisconsin has been named a potentially responsible party (PRP) for contamination at a site in Ashland, Wis. 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 conducted creosote treating operations; 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 September 2010, which documents the remedy that the EPA has selected for the cleanup of the Ashland site. In April 2011, the EPA issued special notice letters identifying several entities, including NSP-Wisconsin, as PRPs, for future remediation at the site. The special notice letters requested that those PRPs participate in negotiations with the EPA regarding how the PRPs intended to conduct or pay for the remediation. As a result of those settlement negotiations, 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 (WDNR), 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. The settlement reflects a cost estimate for the clean up of the Phase I Project Area of $40 million. 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. As part of the settlement, NSP-Wisconsin will convey approximately 1,390 acres of land to the State of Wisconsin and tribes so that they may manage and preserve the natural resource benefits associated with those properties. Assuming final access agreements are obtained, fieldwork at the Ashland site will commence as early as November 2012.

Negotiations between the EPA and NSP-Wisconsin regarding who will pay or perform the cleanup of the Sediments are ongoing. The EPA's ROD for the Ashland site estimates that the cost of the preferred remediation related to the Sediments is between $63.3 million and $77.1 million, with a potential deviation in such estimated costs of up to 50 percent higher to 30 percent lower.

In August 2012, NSP-Wisconsin also filed litigation against other PRPs for their share of the cleanup costs for the Ashland site. Answers to the NSP-Wisconsin complaint were due from other parties on Oct. 22, 2012. The U.S. District Court has not yet issued a scheduling order for litigation.

At each of Sept. 30, 2012 and Dec. 31, 2011, NSP-Wisconsin had recorded a liability of $104.3 million for the Ashland site based upon potential remediation and design costs together with estimated outside legal and consultant costs; of which $26.6 million 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 until after negotiations or litigation with the EPA and other PRPs are fully resolved. 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, but are not limited to, the cleanup approach implemented for the Sediments, which party implements the cleanup, the timing of when the cleanup is implemented, the contributions, if any, by other PRPs and whether federal or state funding may be directed to help offset remediation costs at the Ashland site.

NSP-Wisconsin has deferred, as a regulatory asset, the estimated site remediation costs less insurance and rate recoveries, 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 in NSP-Wisconsin rates recovery of all remediation costs incurred at the Ashland site, and has authorized recovery of MGP remediation costs by other Wisconsin utilities. External MGP remediation costs are subject to deferral in the Wisconsin retail jurisdiction and are reviewed for prudence as part of the Wisconsin retail rate case process. Under an existing PSCW policy with respect to recovery of remediation costs for MGPs, utilities have recovered remediation costs in natural gas rates, amortized over a four- to six-year period. The PSCW has not allowed utilities to recover their carrying costs on unamortized regulatory assets for MGP remediation. In a recent rate case decision, the PSCW recognized the potential magnitude of the future liability for, and circumstances of, the cleanup at the Ashland site and indicated it may consider alternatives to its established MGP site cleanup cost accounting and cost recovery guidelines for the Ashland site in a future proceeding. Pursuant to the PSCW decision, NSP-Wisconsin proposed an alternative long-term plan to recover costs related to the Ashland site in the rate case application filed on June 1, 2012. As compared to the current cost recovery policy, NSP-Wisconsin's alternative proposal mitigates the rate impact to natural gas customers and allows for partial recovery of carrying costs. NSP-Wisconsin expects a decision on the alternative cost recovery plan by the end of 2012.

Other MGP Sites— NSP-Wisconsin is currently involved in investigating and/or remediating several other MGP sites where hazardous or other regulated materials may have been deposited. NSP-Wisconsin has identified three sites where former MGP activities have or may have resulted in actual site contamination and are under current investigation and/or remediation. At some or all of these MGP sites, there are other parties that may have responsibility for some portion of any remediation that may be conducted. NSP-Wisconsin anticipates that the majority of the remediation at these sites will continue through at least 2014. For these sites, NSP-Wisconsin had accrued $3.6 million and $3.3 million at Sept. 30, 2012 and Dec. 31, 2011, respectively. There may be insurance recovery and/or recovery from other PRPs that will offset any costs actually incurred at these sites. NSP-Wisconsin anticipates that any amounts actually spent will be fully recovered from customers.

Environmental Requirements

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) New Source Performance Standard Proposal (NSPS) and Emission Guideline for Existing Sources — In April 2012, the EPA proposed a GHG NSPS for newly constructed power plants. The proposal requires that carbon dioxide (CO2) emission rates be equal to those achieved by a natural gas combined-cycle plant, even if the plant is coal-fired. The EPA also proposed that NSPS not apply to modified or reconstructed existing power plants and that installation of control equipment on existing plants would not constitute a "modification" to those plants under the NSPS program. Xcel Energy submitted comments on the proposed GHG NSPS in June 2012. It is not possible to evaluate the impact of this regulation until its final requirements are known.

The EPA also plans to propose GHG regulations applicable to emissions from existing power plants under the Clean Air Act (CAA). It is not known when the EPA will propose new standards for existing sources.

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)— In July 2011, the EPA issued the CSAPR intended to address long range transport of particulate matter (PM) and ozone by requiring reductions in sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) from utilities located in the eastern half of the United States, including Wisconsin. The CSAPR would have set more stringent requirements than the proposed Clean Air Transport Rule. The rule also would have created an emissions trading program.

In August 2012, the U.S. 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 also stated that the EPA must continue administering the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) pending adoption of a valid replacement. In October 2012, the EPA, as well as state and local governments and environmental advocates, petitioned the D.C. Circuit to rehear the CSAPR appeal. It is not yet known whether the court will grant rehearing of the case, or how the EPA might approach a replacement rule. Therefore, it is not known what requirements may be imposed in the future.

If the EPA continues administering the CAIR while the CSAPR is pending, NSP-Wisconsin expects to comply with the CAIR primarily through the purchase of emissions allowances. Based on current CAIR allowance prices, the cost of CAIR compliance is not expected to have a material impact on 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 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 megawatts to demonstrate compliance within three to four years of the effective date. NSP-Wisconsin expects to comply with the EGU MATS rule through a combination of mercury and other emission control projects. NSP-Wisconsin believes these costs will be recoverable through regulatory mechanisms and does not expect a material impact on results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

Revisions to National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM — In June 2012, the EPA proposed to lower the primary (health-based) NAAQS for annual average fine PM and to retain the current daily standard for fine PM. In areas in which NSP-Wisconsin operates power plants, current monitored air concentrations are below the range of the proposed annual primary standard. The EPA also proposed to add a secondary (welfare-based) NAAQS to improve visibility, primarily in urban areas. NSP-Wisconsin expects the proposed visibility standard would likely be met where NSP-Wisconsin operates power plants based on currently available information. A final rule is expected in December 2012 and the EPA is expected to designate non-compliant locations by December 2014. If such areas are identified, states would then study the sources of the nonattainment and make emission reduction plans to attain the standards. It is not possible to evaluate the impact of this regulation further until its final requirements are known.

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 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 where (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.

Environmental Litigation

Native Village of Kivalina vs. Xcel Energy Inc. et al. — In February 2008, the City and Native Village of Kivalina, Alaska, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Xcel Energy Inc., the parent company of NSP-Wisconsin, and 23 other utility, oil, gas and coal companies. Plaintiffs claim that defendants' emission of CO2 and other GHGs contribute to global warming, which is harming their village. Xcel Energy Inc. believes the claims asserted in this lawsuit are without merit and joined with other utility defendants in filing a motion to dismiss in June 2008. In October 2009, the U.S. District Court dismissed the lawsuit on constitutional grounds. In November 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit). In October 2012 the Ninth Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court's dismissal. On Oct.14, 2012, plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing en banc. It is uncertain when the Ninth Circuit will respond to this petition. The amount of damages claimed by plaintiffs is unknown, but likely includes the cost of relocating the village of Kivalina. Plaintiffs' alleged relocation is estimated to cost between $95 million to $400 million. Although Xcel Energy Inc. believes the likelihood of loss is remote based primarily on existing case law, it is not possible to estimate the amount or range of reasonably possible loss in the event of an adverse outcome of this matter. No accrual has been recorded for this matter.

Comer vs. Xcel Energy Inc. et al. — In May 2011, less than a year after their initial lawsuit was dismissed, plaintiffs in this purported class action lawsuit filed a second lawsuit against more than 85 utility, oil, chemical and coal companies in the U.S. District Court in Mississippi. The complaint alleges defendants' CO2 emissions intensified the strength of Hurricane Katrina and increased the damage plaintiffs purportedly sustained to their property. Plaintiffs base their claims on public and private nuisance, trespass and negligence. Among the defendants named in the complaint are Xcel Energy Inc. and NSP-Wisconsin. The amount of damages claimed by plaintiffs is unknown. The defendants, including Xcel Energy Inc., believe this lawsuit is without merit and filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. In March 2012, the U.S. District Court granted this motion for dismissal. In April 2012, plaintiffs appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Although Xcel Energy Inc. believes the likelihood of loss is remote based primarily on existing case law, it is not possible to estimate the amount or range of reasonably possible loss in the event of an adverse outcome of this matter. No accrual has been recorded for this matter.