COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

We and our subsidiaries have significant commitments and contingencies arising from our operations, including those related to unconditional purchase obligations, operating leases, environmental matters, and enforcement and litigation matters.

Unconditional Purchase Obligations

We routinely enter into long-term purchase and sale commitments for various quantities and lengths of time. Our natural gas utilities have obligations to distribute and sell natural gas to their customers, and our electric utilities have obligations to distribute and sell electricity to their customers. The utilities expect to recover costs related to these obligations in future customer rates.

The following table shows our minimum future commitments related to these purchase obligations as of December 31, 2016, including those of our subsidiaries.



				Payments Due By Period
(in millions)	Date Contracts Extend Through	Total Amounts Committed		2017		2018		2019		2020		2021		Later Years
Electric utility:
Nuclear	2033	$	9,599.8	$	415.3	$	420.1	$	445.4	$	475.1	$	501.1	$	7,342.8
Purchased power	2027	693.3		111.3		75.9		66.2		66.3		63.9		309.7
Coal supply and transportation	2019	455.0		269.4		140.3		45.3		—		—		—
Natural gas utility supply and transportation	2028	1,229.4		341.7		285.5		237.5		159.7		78.6		126.4
Total		$	11,977.5	$	1,137.7	$	921.8	$	794.4	$	701.1	$	643.6	$	7,778.9

Operating Leases

We lease property, plant, and equipment under various terms. The operating leases generally require us to pay property taxes, insurance premiums, and maintenance costs associated with the leased property. Many of our leases contain one of the following options upon the end of the lease term: (a) purchase the property at the current fair market value, or (b) exercise a renewal option, as set forth in the lease agreement.

Rental expense attributable to operating leases was $15.1 million, $12.7 million, and $4.8 million in 2016, 2015, and 2014, respectively.

Future minimum payments under noncancelable operating leases are payable as follows:



Year Ending December 31	Payments (in millions)
2017	$	9.9
2018	8.8
2019	5.9
2020	5.3
2021	5.5
Later years	60.1
Total	$	95.5

Environmental Matters

Consistent with other companies in the energy industry, we face significant ongoing environmental compliance and remediation obligations related to current and past operations. Specific environmental issues affecting us include, but are not limited to, current and future regulation of air emissions such as SO₂, NOx, fine particulates, mercury, and GHGs; water discharges; disposal of coal combustion products such as fly ash; and remediation of impacted properties, including former manufactured gas plant sites.

We have continued to pursue a proactive strategy to manage our environmental compliance obligations, including:


•	the development of additional sources of renewable electric energy supply;


•	the addition of improvements for water quality matters such as treatment technologies to meet regulatory discharge limits and improvements to our cooling water intake systems;


•	the addition of emission control equipment to existing facilities to comply with ambient air quality standards and federal clean air rules;


•	the protection of wetlands and waterways, threatened and endangered species, and cultural resources associated with utility construction projects;


•	the retirement of old coal-fired power plants and conversion to modern, efficient, natural gas generation and super-critical pulverized coal generation;


•	the beneficial use of ash and other products from coal-fired and biomass generating units; and


•	the remediation of former manufactured gas plant sites.

Air Quality

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule

In July 2011, the EPA issued the CSAPR, which replaced a previous rule, the Clean Air Interstate Rule. The purpose of the CSAPR was to limit the interstate transport of NOx and SO₂ that contribute to fine particulate matter and ozone nonattainment in downwind states through a proposed allowance allocation and trading plan. After several lawsuits and related appeals, in October 2014, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision that allowed the EPA to begin implementing CSAPR on January 1, 2015. The emissions budgets of Phase I of the rule applied in 2015 and 2016, while the Phase II emissions budgets discussed below apply to 2017 and beyond.

In December 2015, the EPA published its proposed update to the CSAPR for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and issued the final rule in September 2016. Starting in 2017, this rule requires reductions in the ozone season (May 1 through September 30) NOxemissions from power plants in 23 states in the eastern United States, including Wisconsin. The EPA updated Phase II CSAPR NOxozone season budgets for electric generating units in the affected states. In the final rule, the EPA significantly increased the NOx ozone season budget from the proposed rule for Wisconsin starting in 2017. We believe we are well positioned to meet the rule requirements and do not expect to incur significant costs to comply with this rule.

Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards

The EPA issued a revised 1-Hour SO₂ NAAQS that became effective in August 2010. The EPA issued a final rule in August 2015 describing the implementation requirements and established a compliance timeline for the revised standard. The final rule affords state agencies some latitude in rule implementation. A nonattainment designation could have negative impacts for a localized geographic area, including additional permitting requirements for new or existing sources in the area.

In March 2015, a federal court entered a consent decree between the EPA and the Sierra Club and others agreeing to specific actions related to implementing the revised standard for areas containing large sources emitting above a certain threshold level of SO₂. The consent decree required the EPA to complete attainment designations for certain areas with large sources by no later than July 2016. SO₂emissions from PIPP are above the consent decree emission threshold, which means that the Marquette area required action earlier than would otherwise have been required under the revised NAAQS. However, we were able to show through modeling that the area should be designated as attainment. In July 2016, the EPA finalized its recommendation and published a notice in the Federal Register designating Marquette County, Michigan as unclassified/attainment, effective September 2016.

In June 2016, we provided modeling to the WDNR that shows the area around the Weston Power Plant to be in compliance. Based upon the submittal, the WDNR provided final modeling to the EPA demonstrating the area around the Weston Power Plant to be in compliance. We expect that the EPA will consider the WDNR's recommendation and finalize its recommended designation in August 2017, for finalization by the end of 2017.

We believe our fleet overall is well positioned to meet the new regulation and do not expect to incur significant costs to comply with this regulation.

8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards

The EPA completed its review of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard in November 2014, and announced a proposal to tighten (lower) the NAAQS. In October 2015, the EPA released the final rule, which lowered the limit for ground-level ozone. This is expected to cause nonattainment designations for some counties in Wisconsin with potential future impacts for our fossil-fueled power plant fleet. For nonattainment areas, the state of Wisconsin will have to develop a state implementation plan to bring the areas back into attainment. We will be required to comply with this state implementation plan no earlier than 2020 and are in the process of reviewing and determining potential impacts resulting from this rule. We believe we are well positioned to meet the rule requirements and do not expect to incur significant costs to comply with this rule.

Mercury and Other Hazardous Air Pollutants

In December 2011, the EPA issued the final MATS rule, which imposed stringent limitations on emissions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants from coal and oil-fired electric generating units beginning in April 2015. In addition, both Wisconsin and Michigan have state mercury rules that require a 90% reduction of mercury; however, these rules are not in effect as long as MATS is in place. In June 2015, the Supreme Court ruled on a challenge to the MATS rule and remanded the case back to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, ruling that the EPA failed to appropriately consider the cost of the regulation. The MATS rule remains in effect until the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals takes action on the EPA's April 2016 updated cost evaluation.

We believe that the WE and WPS fleets are well positioned to comply with the final MATS rule and do not expect to incur any significant additional costs to comply with this regulation. The addition of a dry sorbent injection system for further control of mercury and acid gases at PIPP was placed into service in March 2016, allowing PIPP to be in compliance with MATS. Construction and testing of the ReACT^TM multi-pollutant control system at Weston Unit 3 is complete, and the unit is currently in compliance with both MATS and the WPS Consent Decree emission requirements.

Climate Change

In 2015, the EPA issued the Clean Power Plan, a final rule regulating GHG emissions from existing generating units, a proposed federal plan and model trading rules as alternatives or guides to state compliance plans, and final performance standards for modified and reconstructed generating units and new fossil-fueled power plants. In October 2015, following publication of the final rule for existing fossil-fueled generating units, numerous states (including Wisconsin and Michigan), trade associations, and private parties filed lawsuits challenging the final rule, including a request to stay the implementation of the final rule pending the outcome of these legal challenges. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the stay request, but in February 2016, the Supreme Court stayed the effectiveness of the Clean Power Plan until disposition of the litigation in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and to the extent that further appellate review is sought, at the Supreme Court. In addition, in February 2016, the Governor of Wisconsin issued Executive Order 186, which prohibits state agencies, departments, boards, commissions, or other state entities from developing or promoting the development of a state plan. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals heard the case in September 2016.

The final rule for existing fossil-fueled generating units seeks to achieve state-specific GHG emission reduction goals by 2030, and would have required states to submit plans by September 2016. The goal of the final rule is to reduce nationwide GHG emissions by 32% from 2005 levels. The rule is seeking GHG emission reductions in Wisconsin and Michigan of 41% and 39%, respectively, below 2012 levels by 2030. Interim goals starting in 2022 would require states to achieve about two-thirds of the 2030 required reduction. The building blocks used by the EPA to determine each state's emission reduction requirements include a combination of improving power plant efficiency, increasing reliance on combined cycle natural gas units, and adding new renewable energy resources. We continue to evaluate possible reduction opportunities and actions that preserve fuel diversity, lower costs for our customers, and contribute towards long-term GHG reductions, given the uncertain future of the Clean Power Plan and current fuel and technology markets. Our evaluation to date indicates that the Clean Power Plan, as well as current fuel markets and advances in technology, are not expected to result in significant additional compliance costs, including capital expenditures, but could impact how we operate our existing fossil-fueled power plants and biomass facility.

However, the timelines for the 2022 through 2029 interim goals and the 2030 final goal for states, as well as all other aspects of the rule, likely will be changed due to the stay and subsequent legal proceedings. With the new Federal Executive Administration as of January 2017, the Clean Power Plan, or its successor, could be significantly changed from the final rule of October 2015. Notwithstanding the potential changes to the Clean Power Plan, addressing climate change is an integral component of our strategic planning process. We continue to reshape our portfolio of electric generation facilities with investments that will improve our environmental performance, including reduced GHG intensity of our operating fleet. As the regulation of GHG emissions takes shape, our plan is to work with our industry partners, environmental groups, and the State of Wisconsin, with a goal of reducing CO₂ emissions by approximately 40% below 2005 levels by 2030. We continue to evaluate numerous options in order to meet our CO₂ reduction goal, such as increased utilization of existing natural gas combined cycle units, co-firing or switching to natural gas in existing coal-fired units, reduced operation or retirement of existing coal-fired units, addition of new renewable energy resources (wind, solar), and consideration of supply and demand-side energy efficiency and distributed generation.

Draft Federal Plan and Model Trading Rules (Model Rules) were also published in October 2015 for use in developing state plans or for use in states where a plan is not submitted or approved. In December 2015, the state of Wisconsin submitted petitions for reconsideration of the EPA's final standards for existing, as well as for new, modified, and reconstructed generating units. A petition for reconsideration of the EPA's final standards for existing generating units was also submitted jointly by the Wisconsin utilities. Among other things, the petitions narrowly asked the EPA to consider revising the state goal for existing units to reflect the 2013 retirement of the Kewaunee Power Station, which could lower the state's CO₂equivalent reduction goal by about 10%. In May 2016, the EPA denied the state of Wisconsin's petition for reconsideration related to new, modified, and reconstructed generating units, except that the EPA deferred the portion related to the treatment of biomass. The EPA has not issued decisions yet regarding the above referenced petitions for reconsideration of the final EPA standards for existing generating units. In December 2016, the EPA withdrew the draft Model Rules and accompanying draft documents from the review process and made working drafts available to the public. They are not final documents, are not signed by the Administrator, and will not be published in the Federal Register. The EPA’s docket will remain open, with the potential for completing the agency’s work on these materials and finalizing them at a later date.

We are required to report our CO₂ equivalent emissions from our electric generating facilities under the EPA Greenhouse Gases Reporting Program. For 2015, we reported aggregated CO₂ equivalent emissions of approximately 31.0 million metric tonnes to the EPA. Based upon our preliminary analysis of the data, we estimate that we will report CO₂ equivalent emissions of approximately 29.6 million metric tonnes to the EPA for 2016. The level of CO₂ and other GHG emissions vary from year to year and are dependent on the level of electric generation and mix of fuel sources, which is determined primarily by demand, the availability of the generating units, the unit cost of fuel consumed, and how our units are dispatched by MISO.

We are also required to report CO₂ equivalent amounts related to the natural gas that our natural gas utilities distribute and sell. For 2015, we reported aggregated CO₂ equivalent emissions of approximately 27.2 million metric tonnes to the EPA. Based upon our preliminary analysis of the data, we estimate that we will report CO₂ equivalent emissions of approximately 26.7 million metric tonnes to the EPA for 2016.

Water Quality

Clean Water Act Cooling Water Intake Structure Rule

In August 2014, the EPA issued a final regulation under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act, which requires that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures at existing power plants reflect the Best Technology Available (BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental impacts from both impingement (entrapping organisms on water intake screens) and entrainment (drawing organisms into water intake). The rule became effective in October 2014, and applies to all of our existing generating facilities with cooling water intake structures, except for the ERGS units, which were permitted under the rules governing new facilities.

Facility owners must select from seven compliance options available to meet the impingement mortality (IM) reduction standard. The rule requires state permitting agencies to make BTA determinations, subject to EPA oversight, for IM reduction over the next several years as facility permits are reissued. Based on our assessment, we believe that existing technologies at our generating facilities, except for Pulliam Units 7 and 8 and Weston Unit 2, satisfy the IM BTA requirements. We plan to evaluate the available IM options for Pulliam Units 7 and 8. We also expect that limited studies will be required to support the future WDNR BTA determinations for Weston Unit 2. Based on preliminary discussions with the WDNR, we anticipate that the WDNR will not require physical modifications to the Weston Unit 2 intake structure to meet the IM BTA requirements based on low capacity use of the unit.

BTA determinations must also be made by the WDNR and MDEQ to address entrainment mortality (EM) reduction on a site-specific basis taking into consideration several factors. We have received an EM BTA determination by the WDNR, with EPA concurrence, for our intake modification at VAPP. BTA determinations for EM will be made in future permit reissuances for Pulliam Units 7 and 8, Weston Units 2 through 4, PWGS, Pleasant Prairie Power Plant, PIPP, and OC 5 through OC 8.

During 2017 and 2018, we will continue to complete studies and evaluate options to address the EM BTA requirements at our plants. With the exception of Pleasant Prairie Power Plant and Weston Units 3 and 4 (which all have existing cooling towers that meet EM BTA requirements) and VAPP, we cannot yet determine what, if any, intake structure or operational modifications will be required to meet the new EM BTA requirements at our facilities. We also expect that limited studies to support WDNR BTA determinations will be conducted at the Weston facility. Based on preliminary discussions with the WDNR, we anticipate that the WDNR will not require physical modifications to the Weston Unit 2 intake structure to meet the EM BTA requirements based on low capacity use of the unit. Based on discussions with the MDEQ, if we provide information about unit retirements with our next National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit application and then submit a signed certification by August 2017 stating that PIPP will be retired no later than the end of the next permit cycle (assumed to be October 1, 2022), then the EM BTA requirements will be waived. Entrainment studies are currently being conducted at Pulliam Units 7 and 8 and were recently completed at PIPP. See UMERC discussion in Note 22, Regulatory Environment, regarding the potential retirement of PIPP.

We believe our fleet overall is well positioned to meet the new regulation and do not expect to incur significant costs to comply with this regulation.

Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines

The EPA's final steam electric effluent guidelines rule took effect in January 2016 and applies to discharges of wastewater from our power plant processes in Wisconsin and Michigan. This rule is being litigated in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and may result in changes to the discharge requirements. The WDNR and MDEQ will continue to modify the state rules as necessary and incorporate the new requirements into our facility permits, which are renewed every five years. We expect the new requirements to be phased in between 2018 and 2023 as our permits are renewed. Our power plant facilities already have advanced wastewater treatment technologies installed that meet many of the discharge limits established by this rule. However, these standards will require additional wastewater treatment retrofits as well as installation of other equipment to minimize process water use. The final rule phases in new or more stringent requirements related to limits of arsenic, mercury, selenium, and nitrogen in wastewater discharged from wet scrubber systems. New requirements for wet scrubber wastewater treatment will require additional zero liquid discharge or other advanced treatment capital improvements for the Oak Creek site and Pleasant Prairie facilities. The rule also requires dry fly ash handling, which is already in place at all of our power plants. Dry bottom ash transport systems are required by the new rule, and modifications will be required at OC 7, OC 8, the Pleasant Prairie units, Pulliam Units 7 and 8, and Weston Unit 3. We are beginning preliminary engineering for compliance with the rule and estimate a total cost range of $80 million to $110 million for these advanced treatment and bottom ash transport systems. A similar system would be required at PIPP if we were not expecting to retire the plant. See UMERC discussion in Note 22, Regulatory Environment, regarding the potential retirement of PIPP.

Land Quality

Manufactured Gas Plant Remediation

We have identified sites at which our utilities or a predecessor company owned or operated a manufactured gas plant or stored manufactured gas. We have also identified other sites that may have been impacted by historical manufactured gas plant activities. Our natural gas utilities are responsible for the environmental remediation of these sites, some of which are in the EPA Superfund Alternative Approach Program. We are also working with various state jurisdictions in our investigation and remediation planning. These sites are at various stages of investigation, monitoring, remediation, and closure.

In addition, we are coordinating the investigation and cleanup of some of these sites subject to the jurisdiction of the EPA under what is called a "multisite" program. This program involves prioritizing the work to be done at the sites, preparation and approval of documents common to all of the sites, and use of a consistent approach in selecting remedies. At this time, we cannot estimate future remediation costs associated with these sites beyond those described below.

The future costs for detailed site investigation, future remediation, and monitoring are dependent upon several variables including, among other things, the extent of remediation, changes in technology, and changes in regulation. Historically, our regulators have allowed us to recover incurred costs, net of insurance recoveries and recoveries from potentially responsible parties, associated with the remediation of manufactured gas plant sites. Accordingly, we have established regulatory assets for costs associated with these sites.

We have established the following regulatory assets and reserves related to manufactured gas plant sites as of December 31:



(in millions)	2016		2015
Regulatory assets	$	702.7	$	697.0
Reserves for future remediation	633.4		628.0

Renewables, Efficiency, and Conservation

Wisconsin Legislation

In 2005, Wisconsin enacted Act 141, which established a goal that 10% of all electricity consumed in Wisconsin be generated by renewable resources by December 31, 2015. WE and WPS have achieved renewable energy percentages of 8.27% and 9.74%, respectively, and met their compliance requirements by constructing various wind parks, a biomass facility, and by also relying on renewable energy purchases. WE and WPS continue to review their renewable energy portfolios and acquire cost-effective renewables as needed to meet their requirements on an ongoing basis. The PSCW administers the renewable program related to Act 141, and each utility funds the program based on 1.2% of its annual operating revenues.

Michigan Legislation

In 2008, Michigan enacted Act 295, which required 10% of the state's energy to come from renewables by 2015 and energy optimization (efficiency) targets up to 1% annually by 2015. In December 2016, Michigan revised this legislation with Act 342, which requires additional renewable energy requirements beyond 2015. The new legislation retains the 10% renewable energy portfolio requirement for years 2016 through 2018, increases the requirement to 12.5% for years 2019 through 2020, and increases the requirement to 15.0% for 2021. WE and WPS were in compliance with these requirements as of December 31, 2016. The revised legislation continues to allow recovery of costs incurred to meet the standards and provides for ongoing review and revision to assure the measures taken are cost-effective.

Enforcement and Litigation Matters

We and our subsidiaries are involved in legal and administrative proceedings before various courts and agencies with respect to matters arising in the ordinary course of business. Although we are unable to predict the outcome of these matters, management believes that appropriate reserves have been established and that final settlement of these actions will not have a material effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

Paris Generating Station Units 1 and 4 Construction Permit

In December 2013, Act 91 was signed into law in Wisconsin, creating a process by which the EPA and WDNR were able to revise the regulations and emissions rates applicable to Paris Generating Station Units 1 and 4. Act 91, along with a new construction permit, allowed those units to restart after a temporary outage. In October 2014, the Sierra Club filed for a contested case hearing with the WDNR challenging this permit. In February 2013, the Sierra Club also filed for a contested case hearing with the WDNR in connection with the administrative order issued in this matter, which was granted. The Sierra Club has withdrawn the contested case hearing request, thereby concluding this matter.

Consent Decrees

Wisconsin Public Service Corporation Consent Decree – Weston and Pulliam

In November 2009, the EPA issued a NOV to WPS, which alleged violations of the CAA's New Source Review requirements relating to certain projects completed at the Weston and Pulliam plants from 1994 to 2009. WPS entered into a Consent Decree with the EPA resolving this NOV. This Consent Decree was entered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin in March 2013.

The final Consent Decree includes:


•	the installation of emission control technology, including ReACT™ on Weston 3,


•	changed operating conditions (including refueling, repowering, and/or retirement of units),


•	limitations on plant emissions,


•	beneficial environmental projects totaling $6.0 million, and


•	a civil penalty of $1.2 million.

The Consent Decree also contains requirements to refuel, repower, and/or retire certain Weston and Pulliam units. Effective June 1, 2015, WPS retired Weston Unit 1 and Pulliam Units 5 and 6. In March 2016, WPS submitted a proposed revision to the EPA to update requirements reflecting the conversion of Weston Unit 2 from coal to natural gas fuel, and also proposed revisions to the list of beneficial environmental projects required by the Consent Decree. These proposed revisions were approved by the EPA in May 2016. The revisions to the environmental projects are not expected to materially impact the overall costs noted above.

WPS received approval from the PSCW in its 2015 rate order to defer and amortize the undepreciated book value of the retired plant related to Weston Unit 1 and Pulliam Units 5 and 6 starting June 1, 2015, and concluding by 2023. Therefore, in June 2015, WPS recorded a regulatory asset of $11.5 million for the undepreciated book value. In addition, WPS received approval from the PSCW in its rate orders to recover prudently incurred costs as a result of complying with the terms of the Consent Decree, with the exception of the civil penalty.

Also, in May 2010, WPS received from the Sierra Club a Notice of Intent to file a civil lawsuit based on allegations that WPS violated the CAA at the Weston and Pulliam plants. WPS entered into a Standstill Agreement with the Sierra Club by which the parties agreed to negotiate as part of the EPA NOV process, rather than litigate. The Standstill Agreement ended in October 2012, but no further action has been taken by the Sierra Club as of December 31, 2016. It is unknown whether the Sierra Club will take further action in the future.

Joint Ownership Power Plants Consent Decree – Columbia and Edgewater

In December 2009, the EPA issued a NOV to Wisconsin Power and Light, the operator of the Columbia and Edgewater plants, and the other joint owners of these plants, including Madison Gas and Electric, WE (former co-owner of an Edgewater unit), and WPS. The NOV alleged violations of the CAA's New Source Review requirements related to certain projects completed at those plants. WPS, along with Wisconsin Power and Light, Madison Gas and Electric, and WE entered into a Consent Decree with the EPA resolving this NOV. This Consent Decree was entered by the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin in June 2013. WE paid an immaterial portion of the assessed penalty but has no further obligations under the Consent Decree.

The final Consent Decree includes:


•	the installation of emission control technology, including scrubbers at the Columbia plant,


•	changed operating conditions (including refueling, repowering, and/or retirement of units),


•	limitations on plant emissions,


•	beneficial environmental projects, with WPS's portion totaling $1.3 million, and


•	WPS's portion of a civil penalty and legal fees totaling $0.4 million.

The Consent Decree contains a requirement to, among other things, refuel, repower, or retire Edgewater Unit 4, of which WPS is a joint owner, by no later than December 31, 2018. In the first quarter of 2015, management of the joint owners recommended that Edgewater Unit 4 be retired in December 2018. However, a final decision on how to address the requirement for this unit has not yet been made by the joint owners, as early retirement is contingent on various operational and market factors, and other alternatives to retirement are still available.