Our QF liability primarily consists of unrecoverable costs associated with three contracts covered under the PURPA. These contracts require us to purchase minimum amounts of energy at prices ranging from $118 to $130 per MWH through 2029. As of December 31, 2024, our estimated gross contractual obligation related to these contracts was approximately $229.0 million through 2029. A portion of the costs incurred to purchase this energy is recoverable through rates, totaling approximately $205.8 million through 2029. As contractual obligations are settled, the related purchases and sales are recorded within Fuel, purchased power and direct transmission expense and Electric revenues in our Consolidated Statements of Income. The present value of the remaining liability is recorded in Other noncurrent liabilities in our Consolidated Balance Sheets. The following summarizes the change in the liability (in thousands):

We have entered into various commitments, largely purchased power, electric transmission, coal and natural gas supply and natural gas transportation contracts. These commitments range from one to 24 years. Costs incurred under these contracts are included in Fuel, purchased power and direct transmission expense in the Consolidated Statements of Income and were approximately $290.1 million, $340.0 million and $328.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2024, 2023, and 2022, respectively. As of December 31, 2024, our commitments under these contracts were $345.8 million in 2025, $365.2 million in 2026, $350.4 million in 2027, $349.3 million in 2028, $350.2 million in 2029, and $2.5 billion thereafter. These commitments are not reflected in our Consolidated Financial Statements.

With the 2014 purchase of hydroelectric generating facilities and associated assets located in Montana, we assumed two Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) existing with state, federal and private entities. The MOUs are periodically updated and renewed and require us to implement plans to mitigate the impact of the projects on fish, wildlife and their habitats, and to increase recreational opportunities. The MOUs were created to maximize collaboration between the parties and enhance the possibility to receive matching funds from relevant federal agencies. Under these MOUs, we have a remaining commitment to

The operation of electric generating, transmission and distribution facilities, and gas gathering, storage, transportation and distribution facilities, along with the development (involving site selection, environmental assessments, and permitting) and construction of these assets, are subject to extensive federal, state, and local environmental and land use laws and regulations. Our activities involve compliance with diverse laws and regulations that address emissions and impacts to the environment, including air and water, protection of natural resources, avian and wildlife. We monitor federal, state, and local environmental initiatives to determine potential impacts on our financial results. As new laws or regulations are implemented, our policy is to assess their applicability and implement the necessary modifications to our facilities or their operation to maintain ongoing compliance.

Our environmental exposure includes a number of components, including remediation expenses related to the cleanup of current or former properties, and costs to comply with changing environmental regulations related to our operations. At present, our environmental reserve, which relates primarily to the remediation of former manufactured gas plant sites owned by us or for which we are responsible, is estimated to range between $19.0 million to $29.9 million. As of December 31, 2024, we had a reserve of approximately $23.7 million, which has not been discounted. Environmental costs are recorded when it is probable we are liable for the remediation and we can reasonably estimate the liability. We use a combination of site investigations and monitoring to formulate an estimate of environmental remediation costs for specific sites. Our monitoring procedures and development of actual remediation plans depend not only on site specific information but also on coordination with the different environmental regulatory agencies in our respective jurisdictions; therefore, while remediation exposure exists, it may be many years before costs are incurred.

We are permitted to recover the remediation costs related to certain environmental liabilities within rates. Over time, as costs become determinable, we may seek authorization to recover additional costs in rates or seek insurance reimbursement as available and applicable; therefore, although we cannot guarantee regulatory recovery for all remediation costs, we do not expect these costs to have a material effect on our consolidated financial position or results of operations.

South Dakota - A formerly operated manufactured gas plant located in Aberdeen, South Dakota, has been identified on the Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System list as contaminated with coal tar residue. We are currently conducting feasibility studies, implementing remedial actions pursuant to work plans approved by the South Dakota Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, and conducting ongoing monitoring and operation and maintenance activities. As of December 31, 2024, the reserve for remediation costs at this site was approximately $7.2 million, and we estimate that approximately $2.1 million of this amount will be incurred through 2029. The SDPUC permits the recovery of these costs within rates.

Montana - We own or have responsibility for sites in Butte, Missoula, and Helena, Montana on which former manufactured gas plants were located. The Butte and Helena sites, both listed as high priority sites on Montana’s state superfund list, were placed into the MDEQ voluntary remediation program for cleanup due to soil and groundwater impacts. Soil and coal tar were removed at the sites in accordance with the MDEQ requirements. Groundwater monitoring is conducted semiannually at both sites. At this time, we cannot estimate with a reasonable degree of certainty the nature and timing of additional remedial actions and/or investigations, if any, at the Butte site.

In August 2016, the MDEQ sent us a Notice of Potential Liability and Request for Remedial Action regarding the Helena site. In October 2019, we submitted a third revised Remedial Investigation Work Plan (RIWP) for the Helena site addressing MDEQ comments. The MDEQ approved the RIWP in March 2020 and field work was completed in 2022. We submitted a Remedial Investigation Report (RI Report) summarizing the work completed to MDEQ in March 2022 and are awaiting its review and comments as to any additional field work. We now expect the MDEQ review of the RI Report to be concluded in 2025, and any additional field work to commence following that.

MDEQ has indicated it expects to proceed in listing the Missoula site as a Montana superfund site. After researching historical ownership, we have identified another potentially responsible party with whom we have entered into an agreement allocating third-party costs to be incurred in addressing the site. The other party has assumed the lead role at the site and has expressed its intention to submit a voluntary remediation plan for the Missoula site to MDEQ. At this time, we cannot estimate with a reasonable degree of certainty the nature and timing of risk-based remedial action, if any, at the Missoula site.

Global Climate Change - National and international actions have been initiated to address global climate change and the contribution of GHG including, most significantly, carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane emissions from natural gas. These actions include legislative proposals, Executive, Congressional and EPA actions at the federal level, state level activity, investor activism and private party litigation relating to emissions. Coal-fired plants have come under particular scrutiny due to their level of emissions. We have joint ownership interests in four coal-fired electric generating plants, all of which are operated by other companies. We are responsible for our proportionate share of the capital and operating costs while being entitled to our proportionate share of the power generated.

EPA Rules - Congress has not passed any federal climate change legislation regarding GHG emissions from coal fired plants, and we cannot predict the timing or form of any potential legislation. Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) confers authority on EPA and the states to regulate emissions, including GHGs, from existing stationary sources. In April 2024, the EPA released final rules related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards (GHG Rules) for existing coal-fired facilities and new coal and natural gas-fired facilities as well as final rules strengthening the MATS requirements (MATS Rules). In particular, the GHG Rules will (i) strengthen the current New Source Performance Standards for newly built fossil fuel-fired stationary combustion turbines (generally natural gas-fired); (ii) establish emission guidelines for states to follow in limiting carbon pollution from existing fossil fuel-fired steam generating electric generating units (including coal, oil and natural gas-fired units); and (iii) establish emission guidelines for large, frequently used existing fossil fuel-fired stationary combustion turbines (generally natural gas-fired). The MATS Rules will strengthen emission limits for acid gases, mercury, and other hazardous air pollutants from new and existing electric generating units. Compliance with the rules will require expensive upgrades at Colstrip Units 3 and 4 with proposed compliance dates that may not be achievable and / or require technology that is unproven, resulting in significant impacts to costs of the facilities. The final MATS and GHG Rules require compliance as early as 2027 and 2032, respectively.

Previous efforts by the EPA were met with extensive litigation, and this time is no different. We, along with many other utilities, electric cooperatives, organizations, and states, have petitioned for judicial review of the GHG and MATS Rules with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The United States Supreme Court denied multiple stay requests related to the MATS and GHG Rules. The litigation on the merits continues for both the MATS and GHG Rules in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and decisions are expected in 2025. If the MATS Rule and GHG Rule are ultimately enforced, it would result in additional material compliance costs. We will continue working with federal and state regulatory authorities, other utilities, and stakeholders to seek relief from the MATS and GHG regulations that, in our view, disproportionately impact customers in our region.

These GHG and MATS Rules as well as future additional environmental requirements - federal or state - could cause us to incur material costs of compliance, increase our costs of procuring electricity, decrease transmission revenue and impact cost recovery. Technology to efficiently capture, remove and/or sequester such GHG emissions or hazardous air pollutants may not be available within a timeframe consistent with the implementation of any such requirements.

The states of Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota have developed and submitted to the EPA, for its approval, their respective State Implementation Plans (SIP) for Regional Haze compliance. While these states, among others, did not meet the EPA’s July 31, 2021, submission deadline, they were all submitted in 2022. The Montana SIP as drafted and submitted to EPA does not call for additional controls for our interest in Colstrip Unit 4. The draft North Dakota SIP does not require any additional controls at the Coyote generating facility. Similarly, the draft South Dakota SIP does not require any additional controls at the Big Stone generating facility. Until these SIPs are finalized and approved by EPA, the potential remains that installation of additional emissions controls might be required at these facilities.

We routinely engage the services of a third-party environmental consulting firm to assist in performing a comprehensive evaluation of our environmental reserve. Based upon information available at this time, we believe that the current environmental reserve properly reflects our remediation exposure for the sites currently and previously owned by us. The portion of our environmental reserve applicable to site remediation may be subject to change as a result of the following uncertainties:

On April 1, 2016, the State of Montana (State) filed a complaint on remand (the State’s Complaint) with the Montana First Judicial District Court (State District Court), naming us, along with Talen Montana, LLC (Talen) as defendants. The State claimed it owns the riverbeds underlying 10 of our, and formerly Talen’s, hydroelectric facilities (dams, along with reservoirs and tailraces) on the Missouri, Madison and Clark Fork Rivers, and seeks rents for Talen’s and our use and occupancy of such lands. The facilities at issue include the Hebgen, Madison, Hauser, Holter, Black Eagle, Rainbow, Cochrane, Ryan, and Morony facilities on the Missouri and Madison Rivers and the Thompson Falls facility on the Clark Fork River. We acquired these facilities from Talen in November 2014.

The litigation has a long prior history. In 2012, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision holding that the Montana Supreme Court erred in not considering a segment-by-segment approach to determine navigability and relying on present day recreational use of the rivers. It also held that what it referred to as the Great Falls Reach “at least from the head of the first waterfall to the foot of the last” was not navigable for title purposes, and thus the State did not own the riverbeds in that segment. The United States Supreme Court remanded the case to the Montana Supreme Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with its opinion. Following the 2012 remand, the case laid dormant for four years until the State’s Complaint was filed with the State District Court. On April 20, 2016, we removed the case from State District Court to the United States District Court for the District of Montana (Federal District Court). On August 1, 2018, the Federal District Court granted our and Talen’s motions to dismiss the State’s Complaint as it pertains to the navigability of the riverbeds associated with four of our hydroelectric facilities near Great Falls. A bench trial before the Federal District Court commenced January 4, 2022, and concluded on January 18, 2022, which addressed the issue of navigability concerning our other six facilities. On August 25, 2023, the Federal District Court issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order (the "Order"), which found all but one of the segments of the riverbeds in dispute not navigable, and thus not owned by the State of Montana. The one segment found navigable, and thus owned by the State, was the segment on which the Black Eagle development was located. The State filed a motion to pursue an interlocutory appeal of the Order, and on January 2, 2024, the Federal District Court certified the Order for appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal was argued on January 15, 2025, and we await the court's disposition. Damages were bifurcated by agreement and will be tried separately for the Black Eagle segment, and any other segments found navigable, should the State prevail on appeal.

We dispute the State’s claims and intend to continue to vigorously defend the lawsuit. If the Federal District Court calculates damages as the State District Court did in 2008, we do not anticipate the resulting annual rent for the Black Eagle segment would have a material impact to our financial position or results of operations. We anticipate that any obligation to pay the State rent for use and occupancy of the riverbeds would be recoverable in rates from customers, although there can be no assurances that the MPSC would approve any such recovery.

On October 21, 2021, the Montana Environmental Information Center and the Sierra Club filed a lawsuit in Montana State District Court, against the MDEQ and NorthWestern, alleging that the environmental analysis conducted by MDEQ prior to issuance of the YCGS air quality construction permit was inadequate. On April 4, 2023, the Montana District Court issued an order finding MDEQ's environmental analysis was deficient in not addressing exterior lighting and greenhouse gases and remanded it back to MDEQ to address the deficiencies and vacated the YCGS air quality permit pending that remand. As a result of the vacatur of the permit, we paused construction. On June 8, 2023, the Montana District Court granted our motion to stay the order vacating the air quality permit pending the outcome of our appeal to the Montana Supreme Court. We recommenced YCGS construction in June 2023 and placed the plant in service in October 2024. On January 3, 2025, the Montana Supreme Court ordered that the YCGS air quality permit be reinstated. The Court remanded the matter back to MDEQ for supplemental analysis regarding lighting and greenhouse gas emissions in Montana. YCGS is commercially operable with the reinstated air quality permit.