XML 39 R28.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.10.0.1

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2018
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 September 30, 2018, including those of our subsidiaries, were $12,034.4 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 sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, fine particulates, mercury, and GHGs; water intake and discharges; disposal of coal combustion products such as fly ash; and remediation of impacted properties, including former manufactured gas plant sites. Air Quality 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards 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 National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The EPA issued final nonattainment area designations on May 1, 2018. The following counties within our service territories were designated as partial nonattainment: Door, Kenosha, Manitowoc, Northern Milwaukee/Ozaukee, and Sheboygan shorelines. The state of Wisconsin will need to develop a state implementation plan to bring these areas back into attainment. We will be required to comply with this state implementation plan no earlier than 2020. We believe we are well positioned to meet the requirements associated with 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, and final performance standards for modified and reconstructed generating units and new fossil-fueled power plants. In February 2016, the Supreme Court stayed the effectiveness of the CPP until disposition of certain litigation in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the rule and, to the extent that further appellate review is sought, at the Supreme Court. In April 2017, pursuant to motions made by the EPA, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the challenges to the CPP, as well as related performance standards for new, reconstructed, and modified fossil-fueled power plants, to be held in abeyance, which remains the case. In December 2017, the EPA issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking to solicit input on whether it is appropriate to replace the CPP. Then, in August 2018, the EPA issued a proposed replacement rule for the CPP, the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule. The proposed ACE rule would require the EPA to develop emission guidelines for states to use to develop their individual state plans. The state plans would focus on reducing GHG emissions by improving the efficiency of fossil-fueled power plants. The type of power plants most likely affected by this rule would be coal-fueled electric generating units. The EPA is also considering revisions to new source review (NSR) permitting as part of this rulemaking that could allow certain power plant efficiency improvement projects to be implemented without triggering NSR permitting requirements. We submitted comments on the ACE rule by the October 31, 2018 due date. 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 goals of reducing CO 2 emissions by approximately 40% and 80% below 2005 levels by 2030 and 2050, respectively. We have implemented and continue to evaluate numerous options in order to meet our CO 2 reduction goals. As a result of our generation reshaping plan, we expect to retire 1,800 MW of coal generation by 2020, including PIPP, which we are required to retire by May 31, 2019, and Pleasant Prairie power plant, Pulliam power plant, and the jointly-owned Edgewater Unit 4 generation units, all of which have been retired. See Note 6, Property, Plant, and Equipment, for more information. In addition, we are evaluating our goals, and possible subsequent actions, with respect to national and international efforts to reduce future GHG emissions in order to limit future global temperature increases to less than two degrees Celsius. 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. WPS retired Pulliam Units 7 and 8 effective October 21, 2018. See Note 6, Property, Plant, and Equipment, for more information on the retirement of the Pulliam generating units. Therefore, WPS will not be required to make alterations to the existing water intake at Pulliam Units 7 and 8. Based on the reissued WPDES permit for Weston, 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 the Valley power plant. There has also been an interim EM BTA determination made by the WDNR as part of the reissued WPDES permit for Weston Units 3 and 4, and we intend to extrapolate these results to assess Weston Unit 2. The entrainment study and other technical information will be used by the WDNR to make a final 316(b) determination during the next five year WPDES permit term. At this time, we expect that the WDNR will conclude that the existing cooling tower systems for Weston Units 3 and 4 are BTA for both impingement and entrainment reduction. In addition, the WDNR has initially indicated that based on the low capacity utilization of Weston Unit 2, impingement mortality reduction technology will not be required and further entrainment reduction will not be necessary. Due to the retirements of Pleasant Prairie power plant and Pulliam Units 7 and 8 and our plans to retire PIPP, we do not believe that BTA determinations for EM will be necessary for these units. Although we currently believe that existing technologies at Port Washington Generating Station and OC 5 through OC 8 satisfy the EM BTA requirements, BTA determinations to address EM reduction requirements will not be made until discharge permits are renewed for these units. Until that time, we cannot determine what, if any, intake structure or operational modifications will be required to meet the new EM BTA requirements for these units. During 2018, we will continue to evaluate options to address the EM BTA requirements for these units. We have also provided information to the WDNR and the MDEQ about planned unit retirements. Based on discussions with the MDEQ, if we submit a signed certification stating that PIPP will be retired no later than the end of the next permit cycle (assumed to be October 1, 2023), the EM BTA requirements will be waived. We expect to submit the letter identifying the last operating date for PIPP to the MDEQ no later than early 2019, ahead of when the agency begins processing our pending application for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit reissuance. In light of the retirement of Pulliam Units 7 and 8, we will not be required to submit additional 316(b) information. As a result of past capital investments completed to address 316(b) compliance at WE and WPS, 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 Limitation Guidelines The EPA's final steam electric effluent limitation guidelines (ELG) rule took effect in January 2016. This rule created new requirements for several types of power plant wastewaters. The two new requirements that affect WE and WPS relate to discharge limits for bottom ash transport water (BATW) and wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD) wastewater. Various petitions challenging the rule were consolidated and are pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In April 2017, the EPA issued an administrative stay of certain compliance deadlines while further reviewing the rule. In September 2017, the EPA issued a final rule (Postponement Rule) to postpone the earliest compliance date to November 1, 2020 for the BATW and wet FGD wastewater requiremen ts. The latest ELG rule compliance date remains December 31, 2023 for any new wastewater treatment requirements contained in power plant discharge permits. This rule applies to wastewater discharges from our power plant processes in Wisconsin. Litigation over various aspects of the final ELG rule and the Postponement Rule is pending in several Federal Courts. Due to pending generating unit retirements, the only facilities that will require bottom ash system modifications are Weston Unit 3 and Oak Creek Units 7 and 8. One wastewater treatment system modification may be required for the wet FGD discharges from the six units that make up the OCPP and ERGS. As a result of past capital investments completed to address ELG compliance at WE and WPS, we believe our fleet overall is well positioned to meet this new regulation. Our power plant facilities already have advanced wastewater treatment technologies installed that meet many of the discharge limits established by this rule. However, as currently constructed, the ELG rule will require additional wastewater treatment retrofits as well as installation of other equipment to minimize process water use. The final rule would phase 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 would require additional zero liquid discharge or other advanced treatment capital improvements for the OCPP and ERGS. The rule also would require 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 would be required at OC 7, OC 8, and Weston Unit 3. We are beginning preliminary engineering for compliance with the rule and estimate approximately $70 million would be required to design and install these advanced treatment and bottom ash transport systems. This estimate reflects the retirements of certain of our generation plants as a result of our generation reshaping plan discussed in Climate Change above. 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) |  | September 30, 2018 |  | December 31, 2017
Regulatory assets |  | $ | 680.0 |  |  | $ | 676.6 |
Reserves for future remediation |  | 617.4 |  |  | 617.2 |
Consent Decrees Wisconsin Public Service Corporation Consent Decree – Weston and Pulliam Power Plants In November 2009, the EPA issued an 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. WPS retired Pulliam Units 7 and 8 effective October 21, 2018. See Note 6, Property, Plant, and Equipment, for more information about the retirement. Joint Ownership Power Plants Consent Decree – Columbia and Edgewater In December 2009, the EPA issued an 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. As a result of the continued implementation of the Consent Decree related to the jointly owned Columbia and Edgewater plants, the Edgewater 4 generating unit was retired effective September 28, 2018. See Note 6, Property, Plant, and Equipment, for more information about the retirement. 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.

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://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration