XML 31 R20.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.7.0.1

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES We and our subsidiaries have significant commitments and contingencies arising from our operations, including those related to unconditional purchase obligations, environmental matters, and enforcement and litigation matters. Unconditional Purchase Obligations Our electric utilities have obligations to distribute and sell electricity to their customers, and our natural gas utilities have obligations to distribute and sell natural gas to their customers. The utilities expect to recover costs related to these obligations in future customer rates. In order to meet these obligations, we routinely enter into long-term purchase and sale commitments for various quantities and lengths of time. Our minimum future commitments related to these purchase obligations as of March 31, 2017, including those of our subsidiaries, were $11,774.4 million. 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 SO 2, 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. 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 SO 2 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 apply to 2017 and beyond. The EPA published its proposed update to the CSAPR for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in December 2015, and issued the final rule in September 2016. 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 SO 2 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 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 eastern portion of Kenosha County, along with Sheboygan County, are currently designated as nonattainment with the 2008 ozone standard. In response, Wisconsin has updated the 2008 ozone NAAQS attainment plan for Kenosha County and submitted it to the EPA for approval. The plan concluded that Wisconsin will not need to implement any new regulatory measures or programs. The area is forecasted to meet the standard by the 2018 compliance date due to emission control measures already in place. A final EPA action regarding Wisconsin's attainment plan is expected later in 2017. Wisconsin has not yet provided an attainment plan for Sheboygan County. After completing its review of the 2008 ozone standard, the EPA released a final rule in October 2015, which lowered the limit for ground-level ozone, creating a more stringent standard than the 2008 NAAQS. This is expected to cause nonattainment for Wisconsin's Lake Michigan shoreline counties (or partial counties), with potential future impacts for our fossil-fueled power plant fleet. In January 2017, the EPA released preliminary interstate ozone transport modeling for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The EPA is currently scheduled to finalize designations in October 2017. 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. We will not know the potential impacts for complying with the 2015 ozone NAAQS until the designations are final and until the state prepares a draft attainment plan. Although we are still in the process of reviewing and determining potential impacts resulting from this rule, we believe we are well positioned to meet the ozone standard and do not expect to incur significant costs to comply. Climate Change In 2015, the EPA issued a final rule regulating GHG emissions from existing generating units, referred to as the Clean Power Plan (CPP), 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 CPP, numerous states (including Wisconsin and Michigan) and other 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 CPP 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. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals heard one case in September 2016, and the other case is still pending. On April 28, 2017, pursuant to motions made by the EPA, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the cases to be held in abeyance, with supplemental briefs to be provided by May 15, 2017, addressing whether the cases should be remanded to the EPA rather than held in abeyance. The CPP 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. In March 2017, President Trump issued an executive order that, among other things, specifically directs the EPA to review, and if appropriate, initiate proceedings to suspend, revise, or rescind the CPP. The EPA announced that it has initiated this review. As a result of this order and related EPA review, as well as the ongoing legal proceedings, the timelines for the GHG emission reduction goals and all other aspects of the CPP are uncertain. In April 2017, the EPA withdrew the proposed rule for a federal plan and model trading rules that were published in October 2015 for use in developing state plans to implement the CPP or for use in states where a plan is not submitted or approved. In addition, the Governor of Wisconsin issued an executive order in February 2016, which prohibits state agencies, departments, boards, commissions, or other state entities from developing or promoting the development of a state plan. Notwithstanding the uncertain future of the CPP, and given current fuel and technology markets, we continue to evaluate opportunities and actions that preserve fuel diversity, lower costs for our customers, and contribute towards long-term GHG reductions. Our plan is to work with our industry partners, environmental groups, and the State of Wisconsin, with a goal of reducing CO 2 emissions by approximately 40% below 2005 levels by 2030. We continue to evaluate numerous options in order to meet our CO 2 reduction goal, such as increased use 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. We are required to report our CO 2 equivalent emissions from our electric generating facilities under the EPA Greenhouse Gases Reporting Program. For 2016, we reported aggregated CO 2 equivalent emissions of approximately 29.6 million metric tonnes to the EPA. The level of CO 2 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 CO 2 equivalent emissions from the natural gas that our natural gas utilities distribute and sell. For 2016, we reported aggregated CO 2 equivalent emissions of approximately 26.7 million metric tonnes to the EPA. 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, Port Washington Generating Station, 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 these 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), we cannot yet determine what, if any, intake structure or operational modifications will be required to meet the new EM BTA requirements at the 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 the UMERC discussion in Note 16, 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 (Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals) and may result in changes to the discharge requirements. In April 2017, the EPA granted a petition filed by the Utility Water Act Group to reconsider and stay the steam effluent guidelines and related compliance deadlines. On April 24, 2017, in response to a motion by the EPA, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a stay of the litigation for 120 days while the rule is being redrafted to address the petition's concerns. After a final rule is back in effect, the WDNR and MDEQ will 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 the UMERC discussion in Note 16, 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:
(in millions) |  | March 31, 2017 |  | December 31, 2016
Regulatory assets |  | $ | 685.4 |  |  | $ | 702.7 |
Reserves for future remediation |  | 630.5 |  |  | 633.4 |
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. 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. 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 March 31, 2017. 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. 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.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=68068213&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=73718637&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration