NOTE 12 — COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

(a) Unconditional Purchase Obligations and Purchase Order Commitments

We and our subsidiaries routinely enter into long-term purchase and sale commitments for various quantities and lengths of time. The regulated natural gas utilities have obligations to distribute and sell natural gas to their customers, and the regulated 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. Additionally, the majority of the energy supply contracts entered into by Integrys Energy Services are to meet its obligations to deliver energy to customers. The following table shows our minimum future commitments related to these purchase obligations as of March 31, 2013, including those of our subsidiaries.



				Payments Due By Period
(Millions)	Date Contracts Extend Through	Total Amounts Committed		2013		2014		2015		2016		2017		Later Years
Natural gas utility supply and transportation	2028	$	823.2	$	124.9	$	156.3	$	137.9	$	125.7	$	86.9	$	191.5
Electric utility
Purchased power	2029	852.6		121.3		37.7		33.0		29.4		28.4		602.8
Coal supply and transportation	2017	122.7		44.4		41.2		30.4		6.2		0.5		—
Nonregulated electricity and natural gas supply	2020	830.6		479.8		305.9		34.3		4.6		1.3		4.7
Total		$	2,629.1	$	770.4	$	541.1	$	235.6	$	165.9	$	117.1	$	799.0

We and our subsidiaries also had commitments of $713.5 million in the form of purchase orders issued to various vendors at March 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 WPS 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. WPS reached a settlement agreement with the EPA regarding this NOV and signed a Consent Decree, which was filed in the U.S. District Court (Court) in January 2013. This Consent Decree was approved by the Court in March 2013, after a public comment period. The final Consent Decree includes:


•	the installation of emission control technology, including ReACT™ or an approved alternative, 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 March 31, 2013, no decision had been made on how to address this requirement. Therefore, retirement of the Weston and Pulliam 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.

In May 2010, WPS received from the Sierra Club a Notice of Intent (NOI) 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 March 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 WPS. The NOV alleges violations of the CAA's New Source Review requirements related to certain projects completed at those plants. WPS, WP&L, and Madison Gas and Electric (Joint Owners) reached a settlement agreement with the EPA regarding this NOV and signed a Consent Decree, which was filed in the Court on April 22, 2013. The Consent Decree includes:


•	the installation of emission control technology, including the installation of 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 (various options, including capital projects, are available), and


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

The public comment period will end on May 28, 2013. The final terms of the Consent Decree may be different than currently anticipated.

As mentioned above, the Consent Decree contains a requirement to refuel, repower, and/or retire certain of the Columbia and Edgewater units. As of March 31, 2013, no decision had been made on how to address this requirement. Therefore, retirement of the Colombia 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.

In September 2010, the Sierra Club filed a lawsuit against WP&L, which included allegations that modifications made at the Edgewater plant did not comply with the CAA. A similar case had also been filed by the Sierra Club related to the Columbia plant, which was dismissed without prejudice due to the impending settlement and Consent Decree. As part of the Consent Decree settlement, the Sierra Club filed a new suit related to the Columbia plant, which gave notice of the filing of the Consent Decree. It is anticipated that the Sierra Club will dismiss both suits against WP&L once the Consent Decree is approved by the Court.

Weston Title V Air Permit:

In November 2010, the WDNR provided a draft revised permit for the Weston 4 plant. WPS 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 suit against the WDNR alleging failure to issue or delay in issuing the Weston Title V permit. WPS 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 briefs have not yet been filed in the appeal. We do not expect this matter to have a material impact on our financial statements.

Pulliam Title V Air Permit:

The WDNR issued a renewal of the permit for the Pulliam plant in April 2009. In June 2010, the EPA issued an order directing the WDNR to respond to comments raised by the Sierra Club in its June 2009 petition requesting the EPA to object to the permit.

In April 2011, WPS received notification that the Sierra Club filed a civil lawsuit against the EPA based on what the Sierra Club alleged to be an unreasonable delay in responding to the June 2010 order. WPS is not a party to this litigation, but intervened to protect its interests. In February 2012, the WDNR sent a proposed permit and response to the EPA for a 45-day review, which allowed the parties to enter into a settlement agreement that has been approved by the Court.

In May 2012, the Sierra Club filed another petition requesting that the EPA again object to the proposed permit and response, which the EPA denied in January 2013. The Sierra Club did not appeal the EPA decision. The Sierra Club also recently filed a request for a contested case proceeding regarding the permit, which was granted in part by the WDNR. A schedule has not yet been set for the contested case proceeding.

We are reviewing all of these matters, but we do not expect them to have a material impact on our financial statements.

Columbia Title V Air Permit:

In February 2011, the Sierra Club filed a lawsuit against the EPA seeking to have the EPA take over the Title V permit process for the Columbia plant. The Sierra Club alleges the EPA must now act on the reconsideration of the Title V permit since the WDNR has exceeded its time frame in which to respond to an EPA order issued in 2009. In May 2011, the WDNR issued a revised draft Title V permit in response to the EPA's order.

In June 2012, WP&L received notice from the EPA of the EPA's proposal for WP&L to apply for a federally-issued Title V permit since the WDNR has not addressed the EPA's objections to the Title V permit issued for the Columbia plant. A hearing has been set for June 3, 2013. If the EPA decides to require the submittal of an operation permit application, it would be due within six months of the EPA's notice to WP&L. WP&L believes the previously issued Title V permit for the Columbia plant is still valid.

We do not expect this matter to have a material impact on our financial statements.

WDNR Issued NOVs:

Since 2008, WPS has received four NOVs from the WDNR alleging various violations of the different air permits for the entire Weston plant and Weston 1, Weston 2, and Weston 4 individually. WPS also received an NOV for a clerical error involving pages missing from a quarterly report for Weston. Corrective actions have been taken for the events in the five NOVs. In December 2011, the WDNR referred several of the claims in the NOVs to the state Justice Department for enforcement. WPS began discussing the pending NOVs and their resolution with the Justice Department in late 2012. We do not expect this matter to have a material impact on our financial statements.

Weston 4 Construction Permit

From 2004 to 2009, the Sierra Club filed various petitions objecting to the construction permit issued for the Weston 4 plant. In June 2010, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the Weston 4 construction permit, but directed the WDNR to reopen the permit to set specific visible emissions limits. In July 2010, WPS, the WDNR, and the Sierra Club filed Petitions for Review with the Wisconsin Supreme Court. In March 2011, the Wisconsin Supreme Court denied all Petitions for Review. Other than the specific visible emissions limits issue, all other challenges to the construction permit are now resolved. WPS is working with the WDNR to resolve this issue as part of the current construction permit renewal process. We do not expect this matter to have a material impact on our financial statements.

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 March 31, 2013, WPS estimates capital costs of approximately $8 million for its 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 assessing how its current mercury rule will be impacted by 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 WPS, challenged in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit). The new rule was to become effective January 1, 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.

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 are not warranted.

Due to the uncertainty surrounding this rulemaking, we are currently unable to predict whether WPS will have to purchase additional emission allowances, idle or abandon certain units, or change how certain units are operated. WPS expects to recover any future compliance costs in future rates. The potential impact on Integrys Energy Services is not expected to be material.

Manufactured Gas Plant Remediation

Our natural gas utilities, their predecessors, and certain former affiliates 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, our natural gas utilities are required to undertake remedial action with respect to some of these materials. They 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.

Our natural gas utilities are responsible for the environmental remediation of 53 sites, of which 20 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. As of March 31, 2013, we estimated and accrued for $639.6 million of 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 March 31, 2013, cash expenditures for environmental remediation not yet recovered in rates were $30.0 million. We recorded a regulatory asset of $669.6 million at March 31, 2013, which is net of insurance recoveries received of $63.1 million, related to the expected recovery through rates of both cash expenditures and estimated future 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 for MGU, NSG, PGL, and WPS. 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 various regulatory commissions with respect to the prudence of costs actually incurred, could materially affect recovery of such costs through rates.