5. Commitments and Contingencies

Except as noted below, the circumstances set forth in Notes 10 and 11 to the consolidated financial statements in NSP-Wisconsin's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended Dec. 31, 2012 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)	March 31, 2013		Dec. 31, 2012
Guarantee issued and outstanding	$	1.0	$	1.0
Current exposure under the guarantee		0.3		0.4

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 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 2010, which describes the preferred remedy the EPA has selected for the cleanup of the Ashland site. In 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 at the Ashland site. 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. Fieldwork to address the Phase I Project Area at the Ashland site began at the end of 2012 and continues in 2013.

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 includes estimates that the cost of the preferred remediation related to the Sediments 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 August 2012, NSP-Wisconsin also filed litigation against other PRPs for their share of the cleanup costs for the Ashland site. Trial for this matter has been scheduled for June 2014.

At March 31, 2013 and Dec. 31, 2012, NSP-Wisconsin had recorded a liability of $103.8 million and $103.7 million, respectively, for the Ashland site based upon potential remediation and design costs together with estimated outside legal and consultant costs; of which $18.1 million and $20.1 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, potential contributions 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 the estimated site remediation costs, as a regulatory asset, based on an expectation that the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (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, utilities have recovered remediation costs for MGPs in natural gas rates, amortized over a four- to six-year period. The PSCW historically 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 the cleanup at the Ashland site. In December 2012, the PSCW 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. Implementation of this exception will help mitigate the rate impact to natural gas customers and the risk to NSP-Wisconsin from a longer amortization period.

Environmental Requirements

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)— In 2011, the EPA issued the CSAPR to address long range transport of particulate matter (PM) and ozone by requiring reductions in sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) from utilities 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. In January 2013, the D.C. Circuit denied all requests for rehearing. In March 2013, the EPA and a coalition of environmental advocacy groups separately petitioned for U.S. Supreme Court review of the CSAPR decision. It is not known whether the Supreme Court will decide to review the D.C. Circuit's decision.

As the EPA continues administering the CAIR while the CSAPR or a replacement rule is pending, NSP-Wisconsin expects to comply with the CAIR as described below.

CAIR — In 2005, the EPA issued the CAIR to further regulate SO2 and NOx emissions. Under the CAIR's cap and trade structure, companies can comply through capital investments in emission controls or purchase of emission allowances from other utilities making reductions on their systems. NSP-Wisconsin purchased allowances in 2012 and plans to continue to purchase allowances in 2013 to comply with the CAIR. At March 31, 2013, the estimated annual CAIR NOx allowance cost for NSP-Wisconsin did not have a material impact on the 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.

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 and 23 other utility, oil, gas and coal companies. Plaintiffs claim that defendants' emission of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases contribute to global warming, which is harming their village. Xcel Energy 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 and subsequently rejected plaintiffs' request for rehearing. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a petition for review with the United States Supreme Court. It is unknown whether the United States Supreme Court will grant 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 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., SPS, PSCo, NSP-Wisconsin and NSP-Minnesota. The amount of damages claimed by plaintiffs is unknown. The defendants 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. Oral arguments occurred in May 2013. It is uncertain when the Fifth Circuit will issue its decision. Although Xcel Energy 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.