Commitments and Contingencies

(a) Unconditional Purchase Obligations and Purchase Order Commitments

We routinely enter into long-term purchase and sale commitments for various quantities and lengths of time. We have obligations to distribute and sell electricity and natural gas to our customers and 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, 2013.



				Payments Due By Period
(Millions)	Date Contracts Extend Through	Total Amounts Committed		2014		2015		2016		2017		2018		Later Years
Electric utility
Purchased power	2029	$	762.4	$	75.4	$	32.2	$	28.2	$	26.9	$	26.3	$	573.4
Coal supply and transportation	2018	99.5		46.3		31.0		12.0		6.7		3.5		—
Natural gas utility supply and transportation	2024	274.6		46.9		43.4		40.1		38.5		38.0		67.7
Total		$	1,136.5	$	168.6	$	106.6	$	80.3	$	72.1	$	67.8	$	641.1

We also had commitments of $484.4 million in the form of purchase orders issued to various vendors at December 31, 2013, that relate to normal business operations, including construction projects.

(b) Environmental Matters

Air Permitting Violation Claims

Weston and Pulliam Clean Air Act (CAA) Issues:

In November 2009, the EPA issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) to us alleging violations of the CAA's New Source Review requirements relating to certain projects completed at the Weston and Pulliam plants from 1994 to 2009. We reached a settlement agreement with the EPA regarding this NOV and signed a Consent Decree. This Consent Decree was approved by the U.S. District Court (Court) in March 2013, after a public comment period. 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 (various options, including capital projects, are available), and


•	a civil penalty of $1.2 million.

As mentioned above, the Consent Decree contains a requirement to refuel, repower, and/or retire certain Weston and Pulliam units. As of December 31, 2013, the early retirement of certain Weston and Pulliam units mentioned in the Consent Decree was considered probable. See Note 4, Property, Plant, and Equipment, for more information.

We received approval from the PSCW in our 2014 rate order to recover prudently incurred 2014 costs as a result of complying with the terms of the Consent Decree, with the exception of the civil penalty. We also believe that prudently incurred costs after 2014 will be recoverable from customers based on past precedent with the PSCW.

In May 2010, we received from the Sierra Club a Notice of Intent to file a civil lawsuit based on allegations that we violated the CAA at the Weston and Pulliam plants. We 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, 2013. It is unknown whether the Sierra Club will take further action in the future.

Columbia and Edgewater CAA Issues:

In December 2009, the EPA issued an NOV to Wisconsin Power and Light (WP&L), the operator of the Columbia and Edgewater plants, and the other joint owners of these plants, including Madison Gas and Electric and us. The NOV alleges violations of the CAA's New Source Review requirements related to certain projects completed at those plants. We, WP&L, and Madison Gas and Electric (Joint Owners) reached a settlement agreement with the EPA regarding this NOV and signed a Consent Decree. This Consent Decree was approved by the Court in June 2013, after a public comment period. 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 our portion totaling $1.3 million (various options, including capital projects, are available), and


•	our portion of a civil penalty and legal fees totaling $0.4 million.

As mentioned above, the Consent Decree contains a requirement to refuel, repower, and/or retire certain of the Columbia and Edgewater units. As of December 31, 2013, no decision had been made on how to address this requirement. Therefore, retirement of the Columbia and Edgewater units mentioned in the Consent Decree was not considered probable.

We believe that significant costs prudently incurred as a result of complying with the terms of the Consent Decree, with the exception of the civil penalty, will be recoverable from customers.

Weston Title V Air Permit:

In November 2010, the WDNR provided a draft revised permit for the Weston 4 plant. We objected to proposed changes in mercury limits and requirements on the boilers as beyond the authority of the WDNR and met with the WDNR to resolve these issues. In September 2011, the WDNR issued an updated draft revised permit and a request for public comments. Due to the significance of the changes to the draft revised permit, the WDNR re-issued the draft revised permit for additional comments in February 2013. In July 2012, Clean Wisconsin filed a lawsuit against the WDNR alleging failure to issue or delay in issuing the Weston Title V permit. We and the WDNR both filed motions to dismiss Clean Wisconsin's lawsuit, which the Court granted in February 2013. Clean Wisconsin appealed this decision but voluntarily filed a dismissal of its appeal in July 2013, closing the lawsuit. The dismissal resulted from the WDNR sending the proposed permit to the EPA for action. Later in July 2013, the WDNR issued the air permit. In September 2013, we challenged various requirements in the permit by filing a contested case proceeding with the WDNR and also filed a Petition for Review in the Brown County Circuit Court. The Sierra Club and Clean Wisconsin also filed Petitions for Review and requests for contested case proceedings regarding various aspects of the permit. In October 2013, the WDNR granted all parties' requests for contested case proceedings, except one issue where they asked for clarifying information from us. The Petitions for Review, by all parties, have been stayed pending the resolution of the contested cases.

Mercury and Interstate Air Quality Rules

Mercury:

The State of Wisconsin's mercury rule requires a 40% reduction from historical baseline mercury emissions, beginning January 1, 2010, through the end of 2014. Beginning in 2015, electric generating units above 150 megawatts will be required to reduce mercury emissions by 90% from the historical baseline. Reductions can be phased in and the 90% target delayed until 2021 if additional sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide reductions are implemented. By 2015, electric generating units above 25 megawatts, but less than 150 megawatts, must reduce their mercury emissions to a level defined by the Best Available Control Technology rule. As of December 31, 2013, we estimated capital costs of approximately $8 million for our wholly owned plants to achieve the required reductions. The capital costs are expected to be recovered in future rates.

In December 2011, the EPA issued the final Utility Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), which will regulate emissions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants beginning in 2015. The State of Wisconsin is in the process of revising the state mercury rule to be consistent with the MATS rule. We are currently evaluating options for achieving the emission limits specified in this rule, but we do not anticipate the cost of compliance to be significant. We expect to recover future compliance costs in future rates.

Sulfur Dioxide and Nitrogen Oxide:

In July 2011, the EPA issued a final rule known as the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which numerous parties, including us, challenged in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit). The new rule was to become effective in January 2012. However, in December 2011, the CSAPR requirements were stayed by the D.C. Circuit and a previous rule, the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), was implemented during the stay period. In August 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued their ruling vacating and remanding CSAPR and simultaneously reinstating CAIR pending the issuance of a replacement rule by the EPA. In October 2012, the EPA and several other parties filed petitions for a rehearing of the D.C. Circuit's decision, which the D.C. Circuit denied in January 2013. In March 2013, the EPA requested that the United States Supreme Court (Supreme Court) review the D.C. Circuit's rejection of CSAPR. In June 2013, the Supreme Court agreed to review the case.

Under CAIR, units affected by the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) rule were considered in compliance with BART for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions if they were in compliance with CAIR. This determination was updated when CSAPR was issued (CSAPR satisfied BART), and the EPA has not revised it to reflect the reinstatement of CAIR. Although particulate emissions also contribute to visibility impairment, the WDNR's modeling has shown the impairment to be so insignificant that additional capital expenditures on controls may not be warranted.

Due to the uncertainty surrounding this rulemaking, we are currently unable to predict whether we will have to purchase additional emission allowances, idle or abandon certain units, or change how certain units are operated. We expect to recover any future compliance costs in future rates.

Manufactured Gas Plant Remediation

We operated facilities in the past at multiple sites for the purpose of manufacturing and storing manufactured gas. In connection with these activities, waste materials were produced that may have resulted in soil and groundwater contamination at these sites. Under certain laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment, we are required to undertake remedial action with respect to some of these materials. We are coordinating the investigation and cleanup of the sites subject to EPA jurisdiction under what is called a "multi-site" 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.

We are responsible for the environmental remediation of ten sites, of which seven have been transferred to the EPA Superfund Alternative Sites Program. Under the EPA's program, the remedy decisions at these sites will be made using risk-based criteria typically used at Superfund sites. Our balance sheets include liabilities of $64.4 million that we have estimated and accrued for as of December 31, 2013, for future undiscounted investigation and cleanup costs for all sites. We may adjust these estimates in the future due to remedial technology, regulatory requirements, remedy determinations, and any claims of natural resource damages. As of December 31, 2013, cash expenditures for environmental remediation not yet recovered in rates were $12.6 million. Our balance sheets also include a regulatory asset of $77.0 million at December 31, 2013, which is net of insurance recoveries received of $26.2 million, related to the expected recovery through rates of both cash expenditures and estimated future expenditures. Under current PSCW policies, we may not recover carrying costs associated with the cleanup expenditures.

Management believes that any costs incurred for environmental activities relating to former manufactured gas plant operations that are not recoverable through contributions from other entities or from insurance carriers have been prudently incurred and are, therefore, recoverable through rates. Accordingly, we do not expect these costs to have a material impact on our financial statements. However, any changes in the approved rate mechanisms for recovery of these costs, or any adverse conclusions by the PSCW or the MPSC with respect to the prudence of costs actually incurred, could materially affect recovery of such costs through rates.