v2.4.0.6

Commitments And Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2012
Commitments And Contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (a) Capital Purchase Obligations - Alliant Energy and WPL have entered into capital purchase obligations that contain minimum future commitments related to capital expenditures for certain of their emission control projects. At December 31, 2012, Alliant Energy’s and WPL’s minimum future commitments related to capital expenditures for the installation of scrubbers and baghouses at WPL’s Columbia Units 1 and 2 to reduce SO2 and mercury emissions at the generating facility were $46 million. (b) Operating Expense Purchase Obligations - Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL have entered into various commodity supply, transportation and storage contracts to meet their obligations to deliver electricity and natural gas to IPL’s and WPL’s utility customers. Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL also enter into other operating expense purchase obligations with various vendors for other goods and services. At December 31, 2012, minimum future commitments related to these operating expense purchase obligations were as follows (in millions):
Alliant Energy | 2013 |  | 2014 |  | 2015 |  | 2016 |  | 2017 |  | Thereafter |  | Total
Purchased power (a): |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
DAEC (IPL) (b) |  | $200 |  |  |  | $34 |  |  |  | $— |  |  |  | $— |  |  |  | $— |  |  |  | $— |  |  |  | $234 |
Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant (Kewaunee) (WPL) | 77 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 77 |
Other | 8 |  |  | 14 |  |  | 30 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 52 |
| 285 |  |  | 48 |  |  | 30 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 363 |
Natural gas | 163 |  |  | 55 |  |  | 37 |  |  | 21 |  |  | 10 |  |  | 6 |  |  | 292 |
Coal (c) | 126 |  |  | 80 |  |  | 44 |  |  | 10 |  |  | 4 |  |  | — |  |  | 264 |
SO2 emission allowances (d) | — |  |  | — |  |  | 12 |  |  | 14 |  |  | 8 |  |  | — |  |  | 34 |
Other (e) | 22 |  |  | 4 |  |  | 3 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 29 |
|  | $596 |  |  |  | $187 |  |  |  | $126 |  |  |  | $45 |  |  |  | $22 |  |  |  | $6 |  |  |  | $982 |
IPL | 2013 |  | 2014 |  | 2015 |  | 2016 |  | 2017 |  | Thereafter |  | Total
Purchased power (a): |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
DAEC (b) |  | $200 |  |  |  | $34 |  |  |  | $— |  |  |  | $— |  |  |  | $— |  |  |  | $— |  |  |  | $234 |
Other | 1 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 1 |
| 201 |  |  | 34 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 235 |
Natural gas | 109 |  |  | 29 |  |  | 21 |  |  | 8 |  |  | 3 |  |  | 6 |  |  | 176 |
Coal (c) | 36 |  |  | 28 |  |  | 11 |  |  | 5 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 80 |
SO2 emission allowances (d) | — |  |  | — |  |  | 12 |  |  | 14 |  |  | 8 |  |  | — |  |  | 34 |
Other (e) | 9 |  |  | 2 |  |  | 1 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 12 |
|  | $355 |  |  |  | $93 |  |  |  | $45 |  |  |  | $27 |  |  |  | $11 |  |  |  | $6 |  |  |  | $537 |
WPL | 2013 |  | 2014 |  | 2015 |  | 2016 |  | 2017 |  | Thereafter |  | Total
Purchased power (a): |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Kewaunee |  | $77 |  |  |  | $— |  |  |  | $— |  |  |  | $— |  |  |  | $— |  |  |  | $— |  |  |  | $77 |
Other | 7 |  |  | 14 |  |  | 30 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 51 |
| 84 |  |  | 14 |  |  | 30 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 128 |
Natural gas | 54 |  |  | 26 |  |  | 16 |  |  | 13 |  |  | 7 |  |  | — |  |  | 116 |
Coal (c) | 19 |  |  | 18 |  |  | 11 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 48 |
Other (e) | 11 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 11 |
|  | $168 |  |  |  | $58 |  |  |  | $57 |  |  |  | $13 |  |  |  | $7 |  |  |  | $— |  |  |  | $303 |
(a) | Includes payments required by PPAs for capacity rights and minimum quantities of MWhs required to be purchased. Refer to Note 19 for additional information on purchased power transactions.
(b) | IPL is obligated to pay for capacity and energy delivered under the DAEC PPA. If energy delivered under the DAEC PPA is less than the targeted energy amount, an adjustment payment is made to IPL, which is reflected in IPL’s energy adjustment clause. In January 2013, the IUB issued an order approving a proposed DAEC PPA, with rights to purchase 431 MWs of capacity and the resulting energy from DAEC for a term from the expiration of the existing PPA in February 2014 through December 31, 2025. As of December 31, 2012, there was no minimum future commitment for the proposed DAEC PPA.
(c) | IPL and WPL entered into coal contracts (directly assigned to certain generating stations) and coal transportation contracts (directly assigned to corresponding transloading terminals), the amounts of which are included in each of the tables above. Also included in Alliant Energy’s and IPL’s tables is IPL’s respective portion of coal and coal transportation contracts related to jointly-owned generating stations not operated by IPL. In addition, Corporate Services entered into system-wide coal contracts on behalf of IPL and WPL of $71 million, $34 million, $22 million, $5 million and $4 million for 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017, respectively, to allow flexibility for the changing needs of the quantity of coal consumed by each. Coal contract quantities are allocated to specific IPL or WPL generating stations at or before the time of delivery based on various factors including projected heat input requirements, combustion compatibility and efficiency. These system-wide coal contracts have not been directly assigned to IPL and WPL since the specific needs of each utility were not yet known as of December 31, 2012 and therefore are excluded from IPL’s and WPL’s tables above.
(d) | Refer to Note 1(b) for discussion of $34 million of charges recognized by Alliant Energy and IPL in 2011 for forward contracts to purchase SO2 emission allowances.
(e) | Includes individual commitments incurred during the normal course of business that exceeded $1 million at December 31, 2012.
Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL enter into certain contracts that are considered leases and are therefore not included here, but are included in Note 3. (c) Legal Proceedings - Air Permitting Violation Claims - In 2009, the EPA sent a Notice of Violation (NOV) to WPL as an owner and the operator of the Edgewater Generating Station (Edgewater), the Nelson Dewey Generating Station (Nelson Dewey) and the Columbia Energy Center (Columbia). The NOV alleges that the owners of Edgewater, Nelson Dewey and Columbia failed to comply with appropriate pre-construction review and permitting requirements and as a result violated the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program requirements, Title V Operating Permit requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the Wisconsin state implementation plan (SIP). In September 2010, Sierra Club filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin a complaint against WPL, as owner and operator of Nelson Dewey and Columbia, based on allegations that modifications were made at the facilities without complying with the PSD program requirements, Title V Operating Permit requirements of the CAA and state regulatory counterparts contained within the Wisconsin SIP designed to implement the CAA. In October 2010, WPL responded to these claims related to Nelson Dewey and Columbia by filing with the U.S. District Court an answer denying the Columbia allegations and a motion to dismiss the Nelson Dewey allegations based on statute of limitations arguments. In November 2010, WPL filed a motion to dismiss the Nelson Dewey and Columbia allegations based on lack of jurisdiction. Sierra Club responded to the motions. In May 2012, the parties filed a Stipulation of Dismissal without Prejudice, and the court closed the case, although the Sierra Club is permitted to file a future lawsuit against WPL. In September 2010, Sierra Club filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin a complaint against WPL, as owner and operator of Edgewater, which contained similar allegations regarding air permitting violations at Edgewater. In the Edgewater complaint, additional allegations were made regarding violations of emission limits for visible emissions. In February 2011, WPL responded to these claims related to Edgewater by filing with the U.S. District Court an answer denying the allegations and a motion to dismiss the allegations based on lack of jurisdiction. Alliant Energy and WPL are defending against the allegations in the NOV and both lawsuits because they believe the projects at Edgewater, Nelson Dewey and Columbia were routine or not projected to increase emissions and therefore did not violate the requirements of the CAA. Simultaneously, WPL, the other owners of Edgewater and Columbia, the EPA and Sierra Club (collectively “the parties”) are exploring settlement options. Alliant Energy and WPL believe that the parties have reached agreement on general terms to settle these air permitting violation claims and are currently negotiating a consent decree based upon those general terms. Those terms are subject to change during the negotiations. Based on a review of existing EPA consent decrees, Alliant Energy and WPL anticipate that the final consent decree could include the installation of emission controls technology, changed operating conditions (including use of fuels other than coal and retirement of units), limitations on emissions, beneficial environmental mitigation projects and a civil penalty. Once the parties agree to the final terms, the Court must approve the consent decree. Alliant Energy and WPL cannot predict the outcome of these claims, but believe the outcome could be significant if the parties are unable to reach final agreement, or reach final agreement on different terms than currently anticipated, or if the Court does not approve the final consent decree. Alliant Energy and WPL currently expect to recover any material costs that could be incurred by WPL related to the terms of the final consent decree from WPL’s electric customers. Alliant Energy and WPL do not currently believe any material losses from these air permitting violation claims are both probable and reasonably estimated and therefore have not recognized any material loss contingency amounts related to these claims as of December 31, 2012. Alliant Energy Cash Balance Pension Plan (Plan) - In February 2008, a class-action lawsuit was filed against the Plan in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (Court). The complaint alleged that certain Plan participants who received distributions prior to their normal retirement age did not receive the full benefit to which they were entitled in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) because the Plan applied an improper interest crediting rate to project the cash balance account to their normal retirement age. These Plan participants were limited to individuals who, prior to normal retirement age, received a lump-sum distribution or an annuity payment. The Court originally certified two subclasses of plaintiffs that in aggregate include all persons vested or partially vested in the Plan who received these distributions from January 1, 1998 to August 17, 2006 including: (1) persons who received distributions from January 1, 1998 through February 28, 2002; and (2) persons who received distributions from March 1, 2002 to August 17, 2006. In June 2010, the Court issued an opinion and order that granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on liability. In December 2010, the Court issued an opinion and order that decided the interest crediting rate that the Plan used to project the cash balance accounts of the plaintiffs during the class period should have been 8.2% and that a pre-retirement mortality discount would not be applied to the damages calculation. In May 2011, the Plan was amended and the Plan subsequently made approximately $10 million in additional payments in 2011 to certain former participants in the Plan. This amendment was required based on an agreement Alliant Energy reached with the IRS, which resulted in a favorable determination letter for the Plan in 2011. In November 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint to assert that the 2011 amendment to the Plan was itself an ERISA violation. In March 2012, the Plan and the plaintiffs each filed motions for summary judgment related to the supplemental complaint, and the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, seeking to amend the class definition and for appointment of class representatives and class counsel. In July 2012, the Court issued an opinion and order granting plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, but only as to the interest crediting rate and the pre-retirement mortality discount claims of lump-sum recipients. As a result of the opinion and order, two new subclasses were certified in lieu of the prior subclass certification. Subclass A involves persons who received a lump-sum distribution between January 1, 1998 and August 17, 2006 and who received an interest crediting rate of less than 8.2% under the Plan as amended in May 2011. Subclass B involves persons who received a lump-sum distribution between January 1, 1998 and August 17, 2006 and who would have received a larger benefit under the Plan as amended in May 2011 if a pre-retirement mortality discount had not been applied. In the opinion and order the Court then granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as to the two subclasses, and denied as moot the parties’ motions for summary judgment with respect to issues beyond the two subclasses. In August 2012, as amended in September 2012, the Court entered a final judgment for the two subclasses in the total amount of $18.7 million. The judgment amount includes pre-judgment interest through July 2012 and takes into account the approximate $10 million of additional benefits paid by the Plan following the Plan amendment in 2011. In September 2012, the Plan appealed the judgment, and the interlocutory orders that led to the judgment, to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In November 2012, the Plan filed its opening brief in which it seeks to reverse all or part of the judgment. The judgment discussed above did not address any award for plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees or costs. In September 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion with the Court for payment of plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $9.6 million, of which $4.3 million was requested to be paid out of the common fund awarded to the two subclasses in the September 2012 judgment. In February 2013, the Court awarded plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $6.4 million. The Court ordered that all of the fees and costs be paid from the $18.7 million judgment previously awarded and not be in addition to that judgment. Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL have not recognized any material loss contingency amounts for the final judgment of damages as of December 31, 2012. A material loss contingency for the judgment will not be recognized unless a final unappealable ruling is received, or a settlement is reached, which results in an amendment to the Plan and payment of additional benefits to Plan participants. Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL are currently unable to predict the final outcome of the class-action lawsuit or the ultimate impact on their financial condition or results of operations but believe an adverse outcome could have a material effect on their retirement plan funding and expense. RMT Contract Disputes - In September 2011, RMT filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, which alleged, among other things, breach of contract against Cable System Installation (CSI), a subcontractor to RMT on several solar projects in New Jersey. The lawsuit sought to recover all costs incurred by RMT as a result of the breaches of contract by CSI. CSI filed an answer and counterclaims against RMT asserting that RMT owed CSI additional amounts for work performed under the contract that have not been paid to date. CSI filed liens against the projects based on claims that they have not been paid for work performed under the contract with RMT and filed lawsuits in New Jersey to foreclose upon the liens that it has filed in that jurisdiction. Vendors of CSI also filed lawsuits against RMT and liens against the projects based on claims that they have not been paid as required under their agreements with CSI. In January 2013, RMT entered into a confidential settlement agreement, which includes the release of all claims by all parties to this matter and the discharge of all liens related to this matter. The terms of the settlement did not have a material impact on Alliant Energy’s financial condition or results of operations. Other - Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL are involved in other legal and administrative proceedings before various courts and agencies with respect to matters arising in the ordinary course of business. Although unable to predict the outcome of these matters, Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL believe that appropriate reserves have been established and final disposition of these actions will not have a material effect on their financial condition or results of operations. (d) Guarantees and Indemnifications - RMT - In January 2013, Alliant Energy sold its remaining interest in RMT. RMT provides renewable energy services including construction and high voltage connection services for wind and solar projects. Alliant Energy provided indemnifications to the buyer of RMT for losses resulting from potential breach of the representations and warranties made by Alliant Energy as of the sale date and for the potential breach of its obligations under the sale agreement. These indemnifications are limited to $3 million and expire in July 2014. The dollar limit on these indemnifications is subject to increase, based on the amount, if any, of contingent consideration Alliant Energy is entitled to receive under the terms of the sale. Although unable to predict the outcome of these matters, Alliant Energy believes the likelihood of having to make any material cash payments under these indemnifications is remote. Alliant Energy also continues to guarantee RMT’s performance obligations related to certain of RMT’s projects that were commenced prior to Alliant Energy’s sale of RMT. As of December 31, 2012, Alliant Energy had $615 million of performance guarantees outstanding with $270 million, $294 million and $51 million expiring in 2013, 2014 and 2015, respectively. RMT has also provided surety bonds in support of the payment and performance obligations of certain of these projects, and Alliant Energy has guaranteed RMT’s indemnity obligations to the holders of such bonds. As of December 31, 2012, RMT provided $18 million in surety bonds guaranteed by Alliant Energy, which expire in 2013. Alliant Energy currently believes that no material cash payments will be made and has not recognized any material liabilities related to these obligations as of December 31, 2012. Refer to Note 17 for further discussion of RMT. Whiting - In 2004, Alliant Energy sold its remaining interest in Whiting. Whiting is an independent oil and gas company. Alliant Energy continues to guarantee the abandonment obligations of certain offshore platforms in California and related onshore plant and equipment that were owned by Whiting prior to Alliant Energy’s sale of Whiting. The guarantee does not include a maximum limit. As of December 31, 2012, the present value of the abandonment obligations is estimated at $30 million. Alliant Energy believes that no payments will be made under this guarantee. Alliant Energy has not recognized any material liabilities related to this guarantee as of December 31, 2012. Refer to Note 3(a) for discussion of Alliant Energy’s and WPL’s residual value guarantees of their synthetic leases. (e) Environmental Matters - Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL are subject to environmental regulations as a result of their current and past operations. These regulations are designed to protect public health and the environment and have resulted in compliance, remediation, containment and monitoring obligations, which are recorded as environmental liabilities. At December 31, current environmental liabilities were included in “Other current liabilities” and non-current environmental liabilities were included in “Other long-term liabilities and deferred credits” on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as follows (in millions):
| Alliant Energy |  | IPL |  | WPL
| 2012 |  | 2011 |  | 2012 |  | 2011 |  | 2012 |  | 2011
Current environmental liabilities |  | $3.7 |  |  |  | $4.8 |  |  |  | $2.5 |  |  |  | $3.5 |  |  |  | $1.2 |  |  |  | $1.3 |
Non-current environmental liabilities | 25.3 |  |  | 28.8 |  |  | 23.2 |  |  | 24.9 |  |  | 2.1 |  |  | 3.8 |
|  | $29.0 |  |  |  | $33.6 |  |  |  | $25.7 |  |  |  | $28.4 |  |  |  | $3.3 |  |  |  | $5.1 |
MGP Sites - IPL and WPL have current or previous ownership interests in 40 and 14 sites, respectively, previously associated with the production of gas for which they may be liable for investigation, remediation and monitoring costs. IPL and WPL have received letters from state environmental agencies requiring no further action at 13 and 9 of these sites, respectively. Additionally, IPL has met state environmental agency expectations at 3 additional sites requiring no further action for soil remediation. IPL and WPL are working pursuant to the requirements of various federal and state agencies to investigate, mitigate, prevent and remediate, where necessary, the environmental impacts to property, including natural resources, at and around the sites in order to protect public health and the environment. Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL record environmental liabilities related to these MGP sites based upon periodic studies. Such amounts are based on the best current estimate of the remaining amount to be incurred for investigation, remediation and monitoring costs for those sites where the investigation process has been or is substantially completed, and the minimum of the estimated cost range for those sites where the investigation is in its earlier stages. There are inherent uncertainties associated with the estimated remaining costs for MGP projects primarily due to unknown site conditions and potential changes in regulatory agency requirements. It is possible that future cost estimates will be greater than current estimates as the investigation process proceeds and as additional facts become known. The amounts recognized as liabilities are reduced for expenditures incurred and are adjusted as further information develops or circumstances change. Costs of future expenditures for environmental remediation obligations are not discounted. Management currently estimates the range of remaining costs to be incurred for the investigation, remediation and monitoring of these sites to be $18 million ($16 million for IPL and $2 million for WPL) to $42 million ($38 million for IPL and $4 million for WPL). At December 31, 2012, Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL recorded $29 million, $26 million and $3 million, respectively, in current and non-current environmental liabilities for their remaining costs to be incurred for these MGP sites. Refer to Note 1(b) for discussion of regulatory assets recorded by IPL and WPL, which reflect the probable future rate recovery of MGP expenditures. Considering the current rate treatment, and assuming no material change therein, Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL believe that the clean-up costs incurred for these MGP sites will not have a material effect on their financial condition or results of operations. Settlement has been reached with all of IPL’s and WPL’s insurance carriers regarding reimbursement for their MGP-related costs and such amounts have been accounted for as directed by the applicable regulatory jurisdiction. Other Environmental Contingencies - In addition to the environmental liabilities discussed above, Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL are also monitoring various environmental regulations that may have a significant impact on their future operations. Given uncertainties regarding the outcome, timing and compliance plans for these environmental matters, Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL are currently not able to determine the complete financial impact of these regulations but do believe that future capital investments and/or modifications to their electric generating facilities to comply with these regulations could be significant. Specific current, proposed or potential environmental matters that may require significant future expenditures are included below along with a brief description of these environmental regulations. Air Quality - CAIR/CSAPR - CAIR is an emissions trading program that requires SO2 and NOx emissions reductions at IPL’s and WPL’s fossil-fueled electric generating units (EGUs) with greater than 25 MW capacity located in Iowa and Wisconsin through installation of emission controls and/or purchases of allowances. The requirements for SO2 and NOx reductions started in 2010 and 2009, respectively. CSAPR was expected to replace CAIR starting in 2012, however, it was subsequently vacated and remanded to the EPA for further revision by the D.C. Circuit Court. In January 2013, the D.C. Circuit Court denied the EPA’s request for rehearing of the decision that vacated and remanded CSAPR for further revision. Petitioners may seek the Supreme Court’s review of this decision and, during the interim, CAIR remains effective. Clean Air Visibility Rule (CAVR) addresses regional haze at national parks and wilderness areas and is expected to require reductions in visibility-impairing emissions, including SO2, NOx and particulate matter, from certain EGUs by installing emission controls including those determined to be Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART). In 2012, the EPA published a final rule that would allow BART obligations for SO2 and NOx emissions to be fulfilled by compliance with CSAPR. In 2012, the EPA also approved the Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin CAVR plans, which would require compliance with CSAPR to fulfill BART requirements for SO2 and NOx emission reductions. In 2012, CSAPR requirements were vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court and the related rule that allowed for CAVR BART obligations to be met by CSAPR was challenged in the D.C. Circuit Court. It is unknown whether the EPA will allow BART to be fulfilled by CAIR, a modified CSAPR or another rule. This outcome remains uncertain pending the ongoing D.C. Circuit Court’s review of these regulations and the EPA’s responses to resolve the court orders on these rules. Utility MACT Rule requires compliance with numerical emission limitations and work practice standards for the control of mercury and other federal hazardous air pollutants for coal-fueled EGUs with greater than 25 MW capacity. Compliance is currently expected to be required by April 2015. In 2012, the EPA issued a proposed reconsideration to limited aspects to the Utility MACT rule including revisions to the startup and shutdown provisions for existing EGUs. The EPA plans to issue a final reconsideration rule by March 2013. Wisconsin State Mercury Rule requires WPL’s existing coal-fueled EGUs to reduce annual mercury emissions by 40% from a historic baseline beginning in 2010, and to either achieve a 90% annual mercury emissions reduction standard or limit the annual concentration of mercury emissions to 0.008 pounds of mercury per gigawatt-hour beginning in 2015. Wisconsin RACT Rule requires NOx emissions reductions at Edgewater to support achieving compliance with 2013 requirements since it is located in Sheboygan County, which is currently designated as a non-attainment area for Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). WPL installed NOx emission controls technologies at Edgewater, which met the 2009 to 2012 compliance requirements under this rule. In 2012, WPL completed the installation of an SCR at Edgewater to support achieving compliance with the 2013 requirements. Industrial Boiler and Process Heater MACT Rule requires reductions of emissions of hazardous air pollutants at certain EGUs, and auxiliary boilers and process heaters located at EGUs. In December 2012, the EPA issued a final reconsidered rule with a compliance deadline of early 2016 for major sources. The final rule remains subject to legal challenges in the D.C. Circuit Court. Ozone NAAQS Rule reduced the primary standard to a level of 0.075 parts per million. In 2012, the EPA issued a final rule that classifies Sheboygan County in Wisconsin as marginal non-attainment, which requires this area to achieve the eight-hour ozone NAAQS by December 2015. WPL operates Edgewater and the Sheboygan Falls Energy Facility in Sheboygan County, Wisconsin. Fine Particle NAAQS Rule - In 2012, the EPA issued a final rule revising the fine particle primary NAAQS (PM2.5 NAAQS), which strengthens the annual standard from 15 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) to 12 ug/m3. The EPA is expected to designate non-attainment areas for the revised annual PM2.5 NAAQS by December 2015. Compliance with the final rule is expected to be required by 2020 for non-attainment areas designated in 2015. Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) NAAQS Rule requires a new one-hour NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 100 parts per billion (ppb) and associated ambient air monitoring requirements, while maintaining the current annual standard of 53 ppb. The EPA is expected to re-evaluate non-attainment areas for the NO2 NAAQS in 2016 based on expanded monitoring data. The schedule for compliance has not yet been established. SO2 NAAQS Rule requires a new one-hour NAAQS for SO2 at a level of 75 ppb. The EPA plans to finalize non-attainment designations for the SO2 NAAQS for certain parts of Iowa and Wisconsin in June 2013. The compliance deadline for SO2 NAAQS is currently expected to be required by 2017 for non-attainment areas finalized in 2013. Water Quality - Section 316(b) of the Federal Clean Water Act proposal is expected to require modifications to cooling water intake structures to assure that these structures reflect the “best technology available” for minimizing adverse environmental impacts to fish and other aquatic life. The schedule for compliance has not yet been finalized; however, compliance will likely be required within eight years of the effective date of the final rule. A final rule is expected to be issued by the EPA in 2013. Wisconsin and Iowa State Thermal Rules may require modifications to certain of WPL’s and IPL’s EGUs to limit the amount of heat those facilities can discharge into Wisconsin and Iowa waters, respectively. Compliance with the thermal rules will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as discharge permits for WPL’s and IPL’s EGUs are renewed. Hydroelectric Fish Passage Device - FERC issued an order requiring an agency-approved fish passage to be installed at WPL’s Prairie du Sac hydro plant by December 2012. In 2012, FERC extended the installation deadline to July 1, 2015. In January 2013, WPL requested the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) delay or withdraw the fish passage requirement due to recent concerns regarding Asian carp and other invasive species. The FWS agreed to prepare an environmental impact study, during which time WPL is expected to request a further extension of the project deadlines. Land and Solid Waste - Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) could impose additional requirements for CCR management, beneficial use applications and disposal including operation and maintenance of coal ash surface impoundments (ash ponds) and/or landfills. The EPA issued a proposed regulation for public comment in 2010, and a final rule is expected in 2013. The schedule for compliance with the CCR Rule has not yet been established. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) - The EPA is re-evaluating the existing authorized uses of PCB-containing equipment and other applications. The EPA is expected to issue proposed PCB rules for public comment in 2014 and could include a possible mandate to phase out all PCB-containing equipment. The schedule for compliance with the PCB rule has not yet been established. Greenhouse Gases (GHG) Emissions - EPA New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for GHG Emissions from Electric Utilities is expected to require performance standards for GHG emissions from new and existing fossil-fueled EGUs. In 2012, the EPA published proposed NSPS for GHG, including carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from new fossil-fueled EGUs larger than 25 MW (not including simple-cycle combustion turbines), with an output-based emissions rate limitation of 1,000 pounds of CO2 per MWh. This emissions rate limitation is expected to be effective upon the EPA’s issuance of the final rule in the second quarter of 2013. The issuance of proposed regulations for existing EGUs remains delayed and it is anticipated the EPA will issue proposed regulations by the end of 2013. The schedule for compliance with the NSPS has not yet been established. (f) Credit Risk - Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL are subject to credit risk related to the ability of counterparties to meet their contractual payment obligations or the potential non-performance of counterparties to deliver contracted commodities, other goods or services at the contracted price. IPL and WPL provide regulated electricity and natural gas services to residential, commercial, industrial and wholesale customers in the Midwest region of the U.S. The geographic concentration of their customers did not contribute significantly to their overall exposure to credit risk. In addition, as a result of their diverse customer base, IPL and WPL did not have any significant concentration of credit risk for receivables arising from the sale of electricity and natural gas services. IPL and WPL are typically net buyers of commodities (primarily electricity, coal and natural gas) required to provide regulated electricity and natural gas services to their customers. As a result, IPL and WPL are also subject to credit risk related to their counterparties’ failures to deliver commodities at the contracted price. Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL maintain credit policies to minimize their credit risk. These credit policies include evaluation of the financial condition of counterparties, use of credit risk-related contingent provisions in certain commodity agreements that require credit support from counterparties that exceed certain exposure limits, diversification of counterparties to minimize concentrations of credit risk and the use of standardized agreements that facilitate the netting of cash flows associated with a single counterparty. Based on these credit policies, it is unlikely that a material effect on Alliant Energy’s, IPL’s or WPL’s financial condition or results of operations would occur as a result of counterparty non-performance. However, there is no assurance that such policies will protect Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL against all losses from non-performance by counterparties. Refer to Notes 1(p) and 12 for details of allowances for doubtful accounts and credit risk-related contingent features, respectively. (g) Collective Bargaining Agreements - At December 31, 2012, employees covered by collective bargaining agreements represented 55%, 67% and 80% of total employees of Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL, respectively. In August 2013, IPL’s collective bargaining agreement with International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 204 (Cedar Rapids) expires, representing 18% and 44% of total employees of Alliant Energy and IPL, respectively.
IPL [Member] |
Commitments And Contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (b) Operating Expense Purchase Obligations - Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL have entered into various commodity supply, transportation and storage contracts to meet their obligations to deliver electricity and natural gas to IPL’s and WPL’s utility customers. Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL also enter into other operating expense purchase obligations with various vendors for other goods and services. At December 31, 2012, minimum future commitments related to these operating expense purchase obligations were as follows (in millions):
Alliant Energy | 2013 |  | 2014 |  | 2015 |  | 2016 |  | 2017 |  | Thereafter |  | Total
Purchased power (a): |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
DAEC (IPL) (b) |  | $200 |  |  |  | $34 |  |  |  | $— |  |  |  | $— |  |  |  | $— |  |  |  | $— |  |  |  | $234 |
Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant (Kewaunee) (WPL) | 77 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 77 |
Other | 8 |  |  | 14 |  |  | 30 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 52 |
| 285 |  |  | 48 |  |  | 30 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 363 |
Natural gas | 163 |  |  | 55 |  |  | 37 |  |  | 21 |  |  | 10 |  |  | 6 |  |  | 292 |
Coal (c) | 126 |  |  | 80 |  |  | 44 |  |  | 10 |  |  | 4 |  |  | — |  |  | 264 |
SO2 emission allowances (d) | — |  |  | — |  |  | 12 |  |  | 14 |  |  | 8 |  |  | — |  |  | 34 |
Other (e) | 22 |  |  | 4 |  |  | 3 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 29 |
|  | $596 |  |  |  | $187 |  |  |  | $126 |  |  |  | $45 |  |  |  | $22 |  |  |  | $6 |  |  |  | $982 |
IPL | 2013 |  | 2014 |  | 2015 |  | 2016 |  | 2017 |  | Thereafter |  | Total
Purchased power (a): |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
DAEC (b) |  | $200 |  |  |  | $34 |  |  |  | $— |  |  |  | $— |  |  |  | $— |  |  |  | $— |  |  |  | $234 |
Other | 1 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 1 |
| 201 |  |  | 34 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 235 |
Natural gas | 109 |  |  | 29 |  |  | 21 |  |  | 8 |  |  | 3 |  |  | 6 |  |  | 176 |
Coal (c) | 36 |  |  | 28 |  |  | 11 |  |  | 5 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 80 |
SO2 emission allowances (d) | — |  |  | — |  |  | 12 |  |  | 14 |  |  | 8 |  |  | — |  |  | 34 |
Other (e) | 9 |  |  | 2 |  |  | 1 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 12 |
|  | $355 |  |  |  | $93 |  |  |  | $45 |  |  |  | $27 |  |  |  | $11 |  |  |  | $6 |  |  |  | $537 |
WPL | 2013 |  | 2014 |  | 2015 |  | 2016 |  | 2017 |  | Thereafter |  | Total
Purchased power (a): |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Kewaunee |  | $77 |  |  |  | $— |  |  |  | $— |  |  |  | $— |  |  |  | $— |  |  |  | $— |  |  |  | $77 |
Other | 7 |  |  | 14 |  |  | 30 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 51 |
| 84 |  |  | 14 |  |  | 30 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 128 |
Natural gas | 54 |  |  | 26 |  |  | 16 |  |  | 13 |  |  | 7 |  |  | — |  |  | 116 |
Coal (c) | 19 |  |  | 18 |  |  | 11 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 48 |
Other (e) | 11 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 11 |
|  | $168 |  |  |  | $58 |  |  |  | $57 |  |  |  | $13 |  |  |  | $7 |  |  |  | $— |  |  |  | $303 |
(a) | Includes payments required by PPAs for capacity rights and minimum quantities of MWhs required to be purchased. Refer to Note 19 for additional information on purchased power transactions.
(b) | IPL is obligated to pay for capacity and energy delivered under the DAEC PPA. If energy delivered under the DAEC PPA is less than the targeted energy amount, an adjustment payment is made to IPL, which is reflected in IPL’s energy adjustment clause. In January 2013, the IUB issued an order approving a proposed DAEC PPA, with rights to purchase 431 MWs of capacity and the resulting energy from DAEC for a term from the expiration of the existing PPA in February 2014 through December 31, 2025. As of December 31, 2012, there was no minimum future commitment for the proposed DAEC PPA.
(c) | IPL and WPL entered into coal contracts (directly assigned to certain generating stations) and coal transportation contracts (directly assigned to corresponding transloading terminals), the amounts of which are included in each of the tables above. Also included in Alliant Energy’s and IPL’s tables is IPL’s respective portion of coal and coal transportation contracts related to jointly-owned generating stations not operated by IPL. In addition, Corporate Services entered into system-wide coal contracts on behalf of IPL and WPL of $71 million, $34 million, $22 million, $5 million and $4 million for 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017, respectively, to allow flexibility for the changing needs of the quantity of coal consumed by each. Coal contract quantities are allocated to specific IPL or WPL generating stations at or before the time of delivery based on various factors including projected heat input requirements, combustion compatibility and efficiency. These system-wide coal contracts have not been directly assigned to IPL and WPL since the specific needs of each utility were not yet known as of December 31, 2012 and therefore are excluded from IPL’s and WPL’s tables above.
(d) | Refer to Note 1(b) for discussion of $34 million of charges recognized by Alliant Energy and IPL in 2011 for forward contracts to purchase SO2 emission allowances.
(e) | Includes individual commitments incurred during the normal course of business that exceeded $1 million at December 31, 2012.
Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL enter into certain contracts that are considered leases and are therefore not included here, but are included in Note 3. (c) Legal Proceedings - Air Permitting Violation Claims - In 2009, the EPA sent a Notice of Violation (NOV) to WPL as an owner and the operator of the Edgewater Generating Station (Edgewater), the Nelson Dewey Generating Station (Nelson Dewey) and the Columbia Energy Center (Columbia). The NOV alleges that the owners of Edgewater, Nelson Dewey and Columbia failed to comply with appropriate pre-construction review and permitting requirements and as a result violated the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program requirements, Title V Operating Permit requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the Wisconsin state implementation plan (SIP). In September 2010, Sierra Club filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin a complaint against WPL, as owner and operator of Nelson Dewey and Columbia, based on allegations that modifications were made at the facilities without complying with the PSD program requirements, Title V Operating Permit requirements of the CAA and state regulatory counterparts contained within the Wisconsin SIP designed to implement the CAA. In October 2010, WPL responded to these claims related to Nelson Dewey and Columbia by filing with the U.S. District Court an answer denying the Columbia allegations and a motion to dismiss the Nelson Dewey allegations based on statute of limitations arguments. In November 2010, WPL filed a motion to dismiss the Nelson Dewey and Columbia allegations based on lack of jurisdiction. Sierra Club responded to the motions. In May 2012, the parties filed a Stipulation of Dismissal without Prejudice, and the court closed the case, although the Sierra Club is permitted to file a future lawsuit against WPL. In September 2010, Sierra Club filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin a complaint against WPL, as owner and operator of Edgewater, which contained similar allegations regarding air permitting violations at Edgewater. In the Edgewater complaint, additional allegations were made regarding violations of emission limits for visible emissions. In February 2011, WPL responded to these claims related to Edgewater by filing with the U.S. District Court an answer denying the allegations and a motion to dismiss the allegations based on lack of jurisdiction. Alliant Energy and WPL are defending against the allegations in the NOV and both lawsuits because they believe the projects at Edgewater, Nelson Dewey and Columbia were routine or not projected to increase emissions and therefore did not violate the requirements of the CAA. Simultaneously, WPL, the other owners of Edgewater and Columbia, the EPA and Sierra Club (collectively “the parties”) are exploring settlement options. Alliant Energy and WPL believe that the parties have reached agreement on general terms to settle these air permitting violation claims and are currently negotiating a consent decree based upon those general terms. Those terms are subject to change during the negotiations. Based on a review of existing EPA consent decrees, Alliant Energy and WPL anticipate that the final consent decree could include the installation of emission controls technology, changed operating conditions (including use of fuels other than coal and retirement of units), limitations on emissions, beneficial environmental mitigation projects and a civil penalty. Once the parties agree to the final terms, the Court must approve the consent decree. Alliant Energy and WPL cannot predict the outcome of these claims, but believe the outcome could be significant if the parties are unable to reach final agreement, or reach final agreement on different terms than currently anticipated, or if the Court does not approve the final consent decree. Alliant Energy and WPL currently expect to recover any material costs that could be incurred by WPL related to the terms of the final consent decree from WPL’s electric customers. Alliant Energy and WPL do not currently believe any material losses from these air permitting violation claims are both probable and reasonably estimated and therefore have not recognized any material loss contingency amounts related to these claims as of December 31, 2012. Alliant Energy Cash Balance Pension Plan (Plan) - In February 2008, a class-action lawsuit was filed against the Plan in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (Court). The complaint alleged that certain Plan participants who received distributions prior to their normal retirement age did not receive the full benefit to which they were entitled in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) because the Plan applied an improper interest crediting rate to project the cash balance account to their normal retirement age. These Plan participants were limited to individuals who, prior to normal retirement age, received a lump-sum distribution or an annuity payment. The Court originally certified two subclasses of plaintiffs that in aggregate include all persons vested or partially vested in the Plan who received these distributions from January 1, 1998 to August 17, 2006 including: (1) persons who received distributions from January 1, 1998 through February 28, 2002; and (2) persons who received distributions from March 1, 2002 to August 17, 2006. In June 2010, the Court issued an opinion and order that granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on liability. In December 2010, the Court issued an opinion and order that decided the interest crediting rate that the Plan used to project the cash balance accounts of the plaintiffs during the class period should have been 8.2% and that a pre-retirement mortality discount would not be applied to the damages calculation. In May 2011, the Plan was amended and the Plan subsequently made approximately $10 million in additional payments in 2011 to certain former participants in the Plan. This amendment was required based on an agreement Alliant Energy reached with the IRS, which resulted in a favorable determination letter for the Plan in 2011. In November 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint to assert that the 2011 amendment to the Plan was itself an ERISA violation. In March 2012, the Plan and the plaintiffs each filed motions for summary judgment related to the supplemental complaint, and the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, seeking to amend the class definition and for appointment of class representatives and class counsel. In July 2012, the Court issued an opinion and order granting plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, but only as to the interest crediting rate and the pre-retirement mortality discount claims of lump-sum recipients. As a result of the opinion and order, two new subclasses were certified in lieu of the prior subclass certification. Subclass A involves persons who received a lump-sum distribution between January 1, 1998 and August 17, 2006 and who received an interest crediting rate of less than 8.2% under the Plan as amended in May 2011. Subclass B involves persons who received a lump-sum distribution between January 1, 1998 and August 17, 2006 and who would have received a larger benefit under the Plan as amended in May 2011 if a pre-retirement mortality discount had not been applied. In the opinion and order the Court then granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as to the two subclasses, and denied as moot the parties’ motions for summary judgment with respect to issues beyond the two subclasses. In August 2012, as amended in September 2012, the Court entered a final judgment for the two subclasses in the total amount of $18.7 million. The judgment amount includes pre-judgment interest through July 2012 and takes into account the approximate $10 million of additional benefits paid by the Plan following the Plan amendment in 2011. In September 2012, the Plan appealed the judgment, and the interlocutory orders that led to the judgment, to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In November 2012, the Plan filed its opening brief in which it seeks to reverse all or part of the judgment. The judgment discussed above did not address any award for plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees or costs. In September 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion with the Court for payment of plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $9.6 million, of which $4.3 million was requested to be paid out of the common fund awarded to the two subclasses in the September 2012 judgment. In February 2013, the Court awarded plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $6.4 million. The Court ordered that all of the fees and costs be paid from the $18.7 million judgment previously awarded and not be in addition to that judgment. Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL have not recognized any material loss contingency amounts for the final judgment of damages as of December 31, 2012. A material loss contingency for the judgment will not be recognized unless a final unappealable ruling is received, or a settlement is reached, which results in an amendment to the Plan and payment of additional benefits to Plan participants. Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL are currently unable to predict the final outcome of the class-action lawsuit or the ultimate impact on their financial condition or results of operations but believe an adverse outcome could have a material effect on their retirement plan funding and expense. RMT Contract Disputes - In September 2011, RMT filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, which alleged, among other things, breach of contract against Cable System Installation (CSI), a subcontractor to RMT on several solar projects in New Jersey. The lawsuit sought to recover all costs incurred by RMT as a result of the breaches of contract by CSI. CSI filed an answer and counterclaims against RMT asserting that RMT owed CSI additional amounts for work performed under the contract that have not been paid to date. CSI filed liens against the projects based on claims that they have not been paid for work performed under the contract with RMT and filed lawsuits in New Jersey to foreclose upon the liens that it has filed in that jurisdiction. Vendors of CSI also filed lawsuits against RMT and liens against the projects based on claims that they have not been paid as required under their agreements with CSI. In January 2013, RMT entered into a confidential settlement agreement, which includes the release of all claims by all parties to this matter and the discharge of all liens related to this matter. The terms of the settlement did not have a material impact on Alliant Energy’s financial condition or results of operations. Other - Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL are involved in other legal and administrative proceedings before various courts and agencies with respect to matters arising in the ordinary course of business. Although unable to predict the outcome of these matters, Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL believe that appropriate reserves have been established and final disposition of these actions will not have a material effect on their financial condition or results of operations. (e) Environmental Matters - Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL are subject to environmental regulations as a result of their current and past operations. These regulations are designed to protect public health and the environment and have resulted in compliance, remediation, containment and monitoring obligations, which are recorded as environmental liabilities. At December 31, current environmental liabilities were included in “Other current liabilities” and non-current environmental liabilities were included in “Other long-term liabilities and deferred credits” on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as follows (in millions):
| Alliant Energy |  | IPL |  | WPL
| 2012 |  | 2011 |  | 2012 |  | 2011 |  | 2012 |  | 2011
Current environmental liabilities |  | $3.7 |  |  |  | $4.8 |  |  |  | $2.5 |  |  |  | $3.5 |  |  |  | $1.2 |  |  |  | $1.3 |
Non-current environmental liabilities | 25.3 |  |  | 28.8 |  |  | 23.2 |  |  | 24.9 |  |  | 2.1 |  |  | 3.8 |
|  | $29.0 |  |  |  | $33.6 |  |  |  | $25.7 |  |  |  | $28.4 |  |  |  | $3.3 |  |  |  | $5.1 |
MGP Sites - IPL and WPL have current or previous ownership interests in 40 and 14 sites, respectively, previously associated with the production of gas for which they may be liable for investigation, remediation and monitoring costs. IPL and WPL have received letters from state environmental agencies requiring no further action at 13 and 9 of these sites, respectively. Additionally, IPL has met state environmental agency expectations at 3 additional sites requiring no further action for soil remediation. IPL and WPL are working pursuant to the requirements of various federal and state agencies to investigate, mitigate, prevent and remediate, where necessary, the environmental impacts to property, including natural resources, at and around the sites in order to protect public health and the environment. Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL record environmental liabilities related to these MGP sites based upon periodic studies. Such amounts are based on the best current estimate of the remaining amount to be incurred for investigation, remediation and monitoring costs for those sites where the investigation process has been or is substantially completed, and the minimum of the estimated cost range for those sites where the investigation is in its earlier stages. There are inherent uncertainties associated with the estimated remaining costs for MGP projects primarily due to unknown site conditions and potential changes in regulatory agency requirements. It is possible that future cost estimates will be greater than current estimates as the investigation process proceeds and as additional facts become known. The amounts recognized as liabilities are reduced for expenditures incurred and are adjusted as further information develops or circumstances change. Costs of future expenditures for environmental remediation obligations are not discounted. Management currently estimates the range of remaining costs to be incurred for the investigation, remediation and monitoring of these sites to be $18 million ($16 million for IPL and $2 million for WPL) to $42 million ($38 million for IPL and $4 million for WPL). At December 31, 2012, Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL recorded $29 million, $26 million and $3 million, respectively, in current and non-current environmental liabilities for their remaining costs to be incurred for these MGP sites. Refer to Note 1(b) for discussion of regulatory assets recorded by IPL and WPL, which reflect the probable future rate recovery of MGP expenditures. Considering the current rate treatment, and assuming no material change therein, Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL believe that the clean-up costs incurred for these MGP sites will not have a material effect on their financial condition or results of operations. Settlement has been reached with all of IPL’s and WPL’s insurance carriers regarding reimbursement for their MGP-related costs and such amounts have been accounted for as directed by the applicable regulatory jurisdiction. Other Environmental Contingencies - In addition to the environmental liabilities discussed above, Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL are also monitoring various environmental regulations that may have a significant impact on their future operations. Given uncertainties regarding the outcome, timing and compliance plans for these environmental matters, Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL are currently not able to determine the complete financial impact of these regulations but do believe that future capital investments and/or modifications to their electric generating facilities to comply with these regulations could be significant. Specific current, proposed or potential environmental matters that may require significant future expenditures are included below along with a brief description of these environmental regulations. Air Quality - CAIR/CSAPR - CAIR is an emissions trading program that requires SO2 and NOx emissions reductions at IPL’s and WPL’s fossil-fueled electric generating units (EGUs) with greater than 25 MW capacity located in Iowa and Wisconsin through installation of emission controls and/or purchases of allowances. The requirements for SO2 and NOx reductions started in 2010 and 2009, respectively. CSAPR was expected to replace CAIR starting in 2012, however, it was subsequently vacated and remanded to the EPA for further revision by the D.C. Circuit Court. In January 2013, the D.C. Circuit Court denied the EPA’s request for rehearing of the decision that vacated and remanded CSAPR for further revision. Petitioners may seek the Supreme Court’s review of this decision and, during the interim, CAIR remains effective. Clean Air Visibility Rule (CAVR) addresses regional haze at national parks and wilderness areas and is expected to require reductions in visibility-impairing emissions, including SO2, NOx and particulate matter, from certain EGUs by installing emission controls including those determined to be Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART). In 2012, the EPA published a final rule that would allow BART obligations for SO2 and NOx emissions to be fulfilled by compliance with CSAPR. In 2012, the EPA also approved the Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin CAVR plans, which would require compliance with CSAPR to fulfill BART requirements for SO2 and NOx emission reductions. In 2012, CSAPR requirements were vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court and the related rule that allowed for CAVR BART obligations to be met by CSAPR was challenged in the D.C. Circuit Court. It is unknown whether the EPA will allow BART to be fulfilled by CAIR, a modified CSAPR or another rule. This outcome remains uncertain pending the ongoing D.C. Circuit Court’s review of these regulations and the EPA’s responses to resolve the court orders on these rules. Utility MACT Rule requires compliance with numerical emission limitations and work practice standards for the control of mercury and other federal hazardous air pollutants for coal-fueled EGUs with greater than 25 MW capacity. Compliance is currently expected to be required by April 2015. In 2012, the EPA issued a proposed reconsideration to limited aspects to the Utility MACT rule including revisions to the startup and shutdown provisions for existing EGUs. The EPA plans to issue a final reconsideration rule by March 2013. Wisconsin State Mercury Rule requires WPL’s existing coal-fueled EGUs to reduce annual mercury emissions by 40% from a historic baseline beginning in 2010, and to either achieve a 90% annual mercury emissions reduction standard or limit the annual concentration of mercury emissions to 0.008 pounds of mercury per gigawatt-hour beginning in 2015. Wisconsin RACT Rule requires NOx emissions reductions at Edgewater to support achieving compliance with 2013 requirements since it is located in Sheboygan County, which is currently designated as a non-attainment area for Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). WPL installed NOx emission controls technologies at Edgewater, which met the 2009 to 2012 compliance requirements under this rule. In 2012, WPL completed the installation of an SCR at Edgewater to support achieving compliance with the 2013 requirements. Industrial Boiler and Process Heater MACT Rule requires reductions of emissions of hazardous air pollutants at certain EGUs, and auxiliary boilers and process heaters located at EGUs. In December 2012, the EPA issued a final reconsidered rule with a compliance deadline of early 2016 for major sources. The final rule remains subject to legal challenges in the D.C. Circuit Court. Ozone NAAQS Rule reduced the primary standard to a level of 0.075 parts per million. In 2012, the EPA issued a final rule that classifies Sheboygan County in Wisconsin as marginal non-attainment, which requires this area to achieve the eight-hour ozone NAAQS by December 2015. WPL operates Edgewater and the Sheboygan Falls Energy Facility in Sheboygan County, Wisconsin. Fine Particle NAAQS Rule - In 2012, the EPA issued a final rule revising the fine particle primary NAAQS (PM2.5 NAAQS), which strengthens the annual standard from 15 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) to 12 ug/m3. The EPA is expected to designate non-attainment areas for the revised annual PM2.5 NAAQS by December 2015. Compliance with the final rule is expected to be required by 2020 for non-attainment areas designated in 2015. Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) NAAQS Rule requires a new one-hour NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 100 parts per billion (ppb) and associated ambient air monitoring requirements, while maintaining the current annual standard of 53 ppb. The EPA is expected to re-evaluate non-attainment areas for the NO2 NAAQS in 2016 based on expanded monitoring data. The schedule for compliance has not yet been established. SO2 NAAQS Rule requires a new one-hour NAAQS for SO2 at a level of 75 ppb. The EPA plans to finalize non-attainment designations for the SO2 NAAQS for certain parts of Iowa and Wisconsin in June 2013. The compliance deadline for SO2 NAAQS is currently expected to be required by 2017 for non-attainment areas finalized in 2013. Water Quality - Section 316(b) of the Federal Clean Water Act proposal is expected to require modifications to cooling water intake structures to assure that these structures reflect the “best technology available” for minimizing adverse environmental impacts to fish and other aquatic life. The schedule for compliance has not yet been finalized; however, compliance will likely be required within eight years of the effective date of the final rule. A final rule is expected to be issued by the EPA in 2013. Wisconsin and Iowa State Thermal Rules may require modifications to certain of WPL’s and IPL’s EGUs to limit the amount of heat those facilities can discharge into Wisconsin and Iowa waters, respectively. Compliance with the thermal rules will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as discharge permits for WPL’s and IPL’s EGUs are renewed. Hydroelectric Fish Passage Device - FERC issued an order requiring an agency-approved fish passage to be installed at WPL’s Prairie du Sac hydro plant by December 2012. In 2012, FERC extended the installation deadline to July 1, 2015. In January 2013, WPL requested the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) delay or withdraw the fish passage requirement due to recent concerns regarding Asian carp and other invasive species. The FWS agreed to prepare an environmental impact study, during which time WPL is expected to request a further extension of the project deadlines. Land and Solid Waste - Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) could impose additional requirements for CCR management, beneficial use applications and disposal including operation and maintenance of coal ash surface impoundments (ash ponds) and/or landfills. The EPA issued a proposed regulation for public comment in 2010, and a final rule is expected in 2013. The schedule for compliance with the CCR Rule has not yet been established. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) - The EPA is re-evaluating the existing authorized uses of PCB-containing equipment and other applications. The EPA is expected to issue proposed PCB rules for public comment in 2014 and could include a possible mandate to phase out all PCB-containing equipment. The schedule for compliance with the PCB rule has not yet been established. Greenhouse Gases (GHG) Emissions - EPA New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for GHG Emissions from Electric Utilities is expected to require performance standards for GHG emissions from new and existing fossil-fueled EGUs. In 2012, the EPA published proposed NSPS for GHG, including carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from new fossil-fueled EGUs larger than 25 MW (not including simple-cycle combustion turbines), with an output-based emissions rate limitation of 1,000 pounds of CO2 per MWh. This emissions rate limitation is expected to be effective upon the EPA’s issuance of the final rule in the second quarter of 2013. The issuance of proposed regulations for existing EGUs remains delayed and it is anticipated the EPA will issue proposed regulations by the end of 2013. The schedule for compliance with the NSPS has not yet been established. (f) Credit Risk - Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL are subject to credit risk related to the ability of counterparties to meet their contractual payment obligations or the potential non-performance of counterparties to deliver contracted commodities, other goods or services at the contracted price. IPL and WPL provide regulated electricity and natural gas services to residential, commercial, industrial and wholesale customers in the Midwest region of the U.S. The geographic concentration of their customers did not contribute significantly to their overall exposure to credit risk. In addition, as a result of their diverse customer base, IPL and WPL did not have any significant concentration of credit risk for receivables arising from the sale of electricity and natural gas services. IPL and WPL are typically net buyers of commodities (primarily electricity, coal and natural gas) required to provide regulated electricity and natural gas services to their customers. As a result, IPL and WPL are also subject to credit risk related to their counterparties’ failures to deliver commodities at the contracted price. Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL maintain credit policies to minimize their credit risk. These credit policies include evaluation of the financial condition of counterparties, use of credit risk-related contingent provisions in certain commodity agreements that require credit support from counterparties that exceed certain exposure limits, diversification of counterparties to minimize concentrations of credit risk and the use of standardized agreements that facilitate the netting of cash flows associated with a single counterparty. Based on these credit policies, it is unlikely that a material effect on Alliant Energy’s, IPL’s or WPL’s financial condition or results of operations would occur as a result of counterparty non-performance. However, there is no assurance that such policies will protect Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL against all losses from non-performance by counterparties. Refer to Notes 1(p) and 12 for details of allowances for doubtful accounts and credit risk-related contingent features, respectively. (g) Collective Bargaining Agreements - At December 31, 2012, employees covered by collective bargaining agreements represented 55%, 67% and 80% of total employees of Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL, respectively. In August 2013, IPL’s collective bargaining agreement with International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 204 (Cedar Rapids) expires, representing 18% and 44% of total employees of Alliant Energy and IPL, respectively.
WPL [Member] |
Commitments And Contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (a) Capital Purchase Obligations - Alliant Energy and WPL have entered into capital purchase obligations that contain minimum future commitments related to capital expenditures for certain of their emission control projects. At December 31, 2012, Alliant Energy’s and WPL’s minimum future commitments related to capital expenditures for the installation of scrubbers and baghouses at WPL’s Columbia Units 1 and 2 to reduce SO2 and mercury emissions at the generating facility were $46 million. (b) Operating Expense Purchase Obligations - Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL have entered into various commodity supply, transportation and storage contracts to meet their obligations to deliver electricity and natural gas to IPL’s and WPL’s utility customers. Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL also enter into other operating expense purchase obligations with various vendors for other goods and services. At December 31, 2012, minimum future commitments related to these operating expense purchase obligations were as follows (in millions):
Alliant Energy | 2013 |  | 2014 |  | 2015 |  | 2016 |  | 2017 |  | Thereafter |  | Total
Purchased power (a): |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
DAEC (IPL) (b) |  | $200 |  |  |  | $34 |  |  |  | $— |  |  |  | $— |  |  |  | $— |  |  |  | $— |  |  |  | $234 |
Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant (Kewaunee) (WPL) | 77 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 77 |
Other | 8 |  |  | 14 |  |  | 30 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 52 |
| 285 |  |  | 48 |  |  | 30 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 363 |
Natural gas | 163 |  |  | 55 |  |  | 37 |  |  | 21 |  |  | 10 |  |  | 6 |  |  | 292 |
Coal (c) | 126 |  |  | 80 |  |  | 44 |  |  | 10 |  |  | 4 |  |  | — |  |  | 264 |
SO2 emission allowances (d) | — |  |  | — |  |  | 12 |  |  | 14 |  |  | 8 |  |  | — |  |  | 34 |
Other (e) | 22 |  |  | 4 |  |  | 3 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 29 |
|  | $596 |  |  |  | $187 |  |  |  | $126 |  |  |  | $45 |  |  |  | $22 |  |  |  | $6 |  |  |  | $982 |
IPL | 2013 |  | 2014 |  | 2015 |  | 2016 |  | 2017 |  | Thereafter |  | Total
Purchased power (a): |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
DAEC (b) |  | $200 |  |  |  | $34 |  |  |  | $— |  |  |  | $— |  |  |  | $— |  |  |  | $— |  |  |  | $234 |
Other | 1 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 1 |
| 201 |  |  | 34 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 235 |
Natural gas | 109 |  |  | 29 |  |  | 21 |  |  | 8 |  |  | 3 |  |  | 6 |  |  | 176 |
Coal (c) | 36 |  |  | 28 |  |  | 11 |  |  | 5 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 80 |
SO2 emission allowances (d) | — |  |  | — |  |  | 12 |  |  | 14 |  |  | 8 |  |  | — |  |  | 34 |
Other (e) | 9 |  |  | 2 |  |  | 1 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 12 |
|  | $355 |  |  |  | $93 |  |  |  | $45 |  |  |  | $27 |  |  |  | $11 |  |  |  | $6 |  |  |  | $537 |
WPL | 2013 |  | 2014 |  | 2015 |  | 2016 |  | 2017 |  | Thereafter |  | Total
Purchased power (a): |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Kewaunee |  | $77 |  |  |  | $— |  |  |  | $— |  |  |  | $— |  |  |  | $— |  |  |  | $— |  |  |  | $77 |
Other | 7 |  |  | 14 |  |  | 30 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 51 |
| 84 |  |  | 14 |  |  | 30 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 128 |
Natural gas | 54 |  |  | 26 |  |  | 16 |  |  | 13 |  |  | 7 |  |  | — |  |  | 116 |
Coal (c) | 19 |  |  | 18 |  |  | 11 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 48 |
Other (e) | 11 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 11 |
|  | $168 |  |  |  | $58 |  |  |  | $57 |  |  |  | $13 |  |  |  | $7 |  |  |  | $— |  |  |  | $303 |
(a) | Includes payments required by PPAs for capacity rights and minimum quantities of MWhs required to be purchased. Refer to Note 19 for additional information on purchased power transactions.
(b) | IPL is obligated to pay for capacity and energy delivered under the DAEC PPA. If energy delivered under the DAEC PPA is less than the targeted energy amount, an adjustment payment is made to IPL, which is reflected in IPL’s energy adjustment clause. In January 2013, the IUB issued an order approving a proposed DAEC PPA, with rights to purchase 431 MWs of capacity and the resulting energy from DAEC for a term from the expiration of the existing PPA in February 2014 through December 31, 2025. As of December 31, 2012, there was no minimum future commitment for the proposed DAEC PPA.
(c) | IPL and WPL entered into coal contracts (directly assigned to certain generating stations) and coal transportation contracts (directly assigned to corresponding transloading terminals), the amounts of which are included in each of the tables above. Also included in Alliant Energy’s and IPL’s tables is IPL’s respective portion of coal and coal transportation contracts related to jointly-owned generating stations not operated by IPL. In addition, Corporate Services entered into system-wide coal contracts on behalf of IPL and WPL of $71 million, $34 million, $22 million, $5 million and $4 million for 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017, respectively, to allow flexibility for the changing needs of the quantity of coal consumed by each. Coal contract quantities are allocated to specific IPL or WPL generating stations at or before the time of delivery based on various factors including projected heat input requirements, combustion compatibility and efficiency. These system-wide coal contracts have not been directly assigned to IPL and WPL since the specific needs of each utility were not yet known as of December 31, 2012 and therefore are excluded from IPL’s and WPL’s tables above.
(d) | Refer to Note 1(b) for discussion of $34 million of charges recognized by Alliant Energy and IPL in 2011 for forward contracts to purchase SO2 emission allowances.
(e) | Includes individual commitments incurred during the normal course of business that exceeded $1 million at December 31, 2012.
Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL enter into certain contracts that are considered leases and are therefore not included here, but are included in Note 3. (c) Legal Proceedings - Air Permitting Violation Claims - In 2009, the EPA sent a Notice of Violation (NOV) to WPL as an owner and the operator of the Edgewater Generating Station (Edgewater), the Nelson Dewey Generating Station (Nelson Dewey) and the Columbia Energy Center (Columbia). The NOV alleges that the owners of Edgewater, Nelson Dewey and Columbia failed to comply with appropriate pre-construction review and permitting requirements and as a result violated the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program requirements, Title V Operating Permit requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the Wisconsin state implementation plan (SIP). In September 2010, Sierra Club filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin a complaint against WPL, as owner and operator of Nelson Dewey and Columbia, based on allegations that modifications were made at the facilities without complying with the PSD program requirements, Title V Operating Permit requirements of the CAA and state regulatory counterparts contained within the Wisconsin SIP designed to implement the CAA. In October 2010, WPL responded to these claims related to Nelson Dewey and Columbia by filing with the U.S. District Court an answer denying the Columbia allegations and a motion to dismiss the Nelson Dewey allegations based on statute of limitations arguments. In November 2010, WPL filed a motion to dismiss the Nelson Dewey and Columbia allegations based on lack of jurisdiction. Sierra Club responded to the motions. In May 2012, the parties filed a Stipulation of Dismissal without Prejudice, and the court closed the case, although the Sierra Club is permitted to file a future lawsuit against WPL. In September 2010, Sierra Club filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin a complaint against WPL, as owner and operator of Edgewater, which contained similar allegations regarding air permitting violations at Edgewater. In the Edgewater complaint, additional allegations were made regarding violations of emission limits for visible emissions. In February 2011, WPL responded to these claims related to Edgewater by filing with the U.S. District Court an answer denying the allegations and a motion to dismiss the allegations based on lack of jurisdiction. Alliant Energy and WPL are defending against the allegations in the NOV and both lawsuits because they believe the projects at Edgewater, Nelson Dewey and Columbia were routine or not projected to increase emissions and therefore did not violate the requirements of the CAA. Simultaneously, WPL, the other owners of Edgewater and Columbia, the EPA and Sierra Club (collectively “the parties”) are exploring settlement options. Alliant Energy and WPL believe that the parties have reached agreement on general terms to settle these air permitting violation claims and are currently negotiating a consent decree based upon those general terms. Those terms are subject to change during the negotiations. Based on a review of existing EPA consent decrees, Alliant Energy and WPL anticipate that the final consent decree could include the installation of emission controls technology, changed operating conditions (including use of fuels other than coal and retirement of units), limitations on emissions, beneficial environmental mitigation projects and a civil penalty. Once the parties agree to the final terms, the Court must approve the consent decree. Alliant Energy and WPL cannot predict the outcome of these claims, but believe the outcome could be significant if the parties are unable to reach final agreement, or reach final agreement on different terms than currently anticipated, or if the Court does not approve the final consent decree. Alliant Energy and WPL currently expect to recover any material costs that could be incurred by WPL related to the terms of the final consent decree from WPL’s electric customers. Alliant Energy and WPL do not currently believe any material losses from these air permitting violation claims are both probable and reasonably estimated and therefore have not recognized any material loss contingency amounts related to these claims as of December 31, 2012. Alliant Energy Cash Balance Pension Plan (Plan) - In February 2008, a class-action lawsuit was filed against the Plan in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (Court). The complaint alleged that certain Plan participants who received distributions prior to their normal retirement age did not receive the full benefit to which they were entitled in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) because the Plan applied an improper interest crediting rate to project the cash balance account to their normal retirement age. These Plan participants were limited to individuals who, prior to normal retirement age, received a lump-sum distribution or an annuity payment. The Court originally certified two subclasses of plaintiffs that in aggregate include all persons vested or partially vested in the Plan who received these distributions from January 1, 1998 to August 17, 2006 including: (1) persons who received distributions from January 1, 1998 through February 28, 2002; and (2) persons who received distributions from March 1, 2002 to August 17, 2006. In June 2010, the Court issued an opinion and order that granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on liability. In December 2010, the Court issued an opinion and order that decided the interest crediting rate that the Plan used to project the cash balance accounts of the plaintiffs during the class period should have been 8.2% and that a pre-retirement mortality discount would not be applied to the damages calculation. In May 2011, the Plan was amended and the Plan subsequently made approximately $10 million in additional payments in 2011 to certain former participants in the Plan. This amendment was required based on an agreement Alliant Energy reached with the IRS, which resulted in a favorable determination letter for the Plan in 2011. In November 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint to assert that the 2011 amendment to the Plan was itself an ERISA violation. In March 2012, the Plan and the plaintiffs each filed motions for summary judgment related to the supplemental complaint, and the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, seeking to amend the class definition and for appointment of class representatives and class counsel. In July 2012, the Court issued an opinion and order granting plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, but only as to the interest crediting rate and the pre-retirement mortality discount claims of lump-sum recipients. As a result of the opinion and order, two new subclasses were certified in lieu of the prior subclass certification. Subclass A involves persons who received a lump-sum distribution between January 1, 1998 and August 17, 2006 and who received an interest crediting rate of less than 8.2% under the Plan as amended in May 2011. Subclass B involves persons who received a lump-sum distribution between January 1, 1998 and August 17, 2006 and who would have received a larger benefit under the Plan as amended in May 2011 if a pre-retirement mortality discount had not been applied. In the opinion and order the Court then granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as to the two subclasses, and denied as moot the parties’ motions for summary judgment with respect to issues beyond the two subclasses. In August 2012, as amended in September 2012, the Court entered a final judgment for the two subclasses in the total amount of $18.7 million. The judgment amount includes pre-judgment interest through July 2012 and takes into account the approximate $10 million of additional benefits paid by the Plan following the Plan amendment in 2011. In September 2012, the Plan appealed the judgment, and the interlocutory orders that led to the judgment, to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In November 2012, the Plan filed its opening brief in which it seeks to reverse all or part of the judgment. The judgment discussed above did not address any award for plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees or costs. In September 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion with the Court for payment of plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $9.6 million, of which $4.3 million was requested to be paid out of the common fund awarded to the two subclasses in the September 2012 judgment. In February 2013, the Court awarded plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $6.4 million. The Court ordered that all of the fees and costs be paid from the $18.7 million judgment previously awarded and not be in addition to that judgment. Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL have not recognized any material loss contingency amounts for the final judgment of damages as of December 31, 2012. A material loss contingency for the judgment will not be recognized unless a final unappealable ruling is received, or a settlement is reached, which results in an amendment to the Plan and payment of additional benefits to Plan participants. Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL are currently unable to predict the final outcome of the class-action lawsuit or the ultimate impact on their financial condition or results of operations but believe an adverse outcome could have a material effect on their retirement plan funding and expense. RMT Contract Disputes - In September 2011, RMT filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, which alleged, among other things, breach of contract against Cable System Installation (CSI), a subcontractor to RMT on several solar projects in New Jersey. The lawsuit sought to recover all costs incurred by RMT as a result of the breaches of contract by CSI. CSI filed an answer and counterclaims against RMT asserting that RMT owed CSI additional amounts for work performed under the contract that have not been paid to date. CSI filed liens against the projects based on claims that they have not been paid for work performed under the contract with RMT and filed lawsuits in New Jersey to foreclose upon the liens that it has filed in that jurisdiction. Vendors of CSI also filed lawsuits against RMT and liens against the projects based on claims that they have not been paid as required under their agreements with CSI. In January 2013, RMT entered into a confidential settlement agreement, which includes the release of all claims by all parties to this matter and the discharge of all liens related to this matter. The terms of the settlement did not have a material impact on Alliant Energy’s financial condition or results of operations. Other - Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL are involved in other legal and administrative proceedings before various courts and agencies with respect to matters arising in the ordinary course of business. Although unable to predict the outcome of these matters, Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL believe that appropriate reserves have been established and final disposition of these actions will not have a material effect on their financial condition or results of operations. (e) Environmental Matters - Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL are subject to environmental regulations as a result of their current and past operations. These regulations are designed to protect public health and the environment and have resulted in compliance, remediation, containment and monitoring obligations, which are recorded as environmental liabilities. At December 31, current environmental liabilities were included in “Other current liabilities” and non-current environmental liabilities were included in “Other long-term liabilities and deferred credits” on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as follows (in millions):
| Alliant Energy |  | IPL |  | WPL
| 2012 |  | 2011 |  | 2012 |  | 2011 |  | 2012 |  | 2011
Current environmental liabilities |  | $3.7 |  |  |  | $4.8 |  |  |  | $2.5 |  |  |  | $3.5 |  |  |  | $1.2 |  |  |  | $1.3 |
Non-current environmental liabilities | 25.3 |  |  | 28.8 |  |  | 23.2 |  |  | 24.9 |  |  | 2.1 |  |  | 3.8 |
|  | $29.0 |  |  |  | $33.6 |  |  |  | $25.7 |  |  |  | $28.4 |  |  |  | $3.3 |  |  |  | $5.1 |
MGP Sites - IPL and WPL have current or previous ownership interests in 40 and 14 sites, respectively, previously associated with the production of gas for which they may be liable for investigation, remediation and monitoring costs. IPL and WPL have received letters from state environmental agencies requiring no further action at 13 and 9 of these sites, respectively. Additionally, IPL has met state environmental agency expectations at 3 additional sites requiring no further action for soil remediation. IPL and WPL are working pursuant to the requirements of various federal and state agencies to investigate, mitigate, prevent and remediate, where necessary, the environmental impacts to property, including natural resources, at and around the sites in order to protect public health and the environment. Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL record environmental liabilities related to these MGP sites based upon periodic studies. Such amounts are based on the best current estimate of the remaining amount to be incurred for investigation, remediation and monitoring costs for those sites where the investigation process has been or is substantially completed, and the minimum of the estimated cost range for those sites where the investigation is in its earlier stages. There are inherent uncertainties associated with the estimated remaining costs for MGP projects primarily due to unknown site conditions and potential changes in regulatory agency requirements. It is possible that future cost estimates will be greater than current estimates as the investigation process proceeds and as additional facts become known. The amounts recognized as liabilities are reduced for expenditures incurred and are adjusted as further information develops or circumstances change. Costs of future expenditures for environmental remediation obligations are not discounted. Management currently estimates the range of remaining costs to be incurred for the investigation, remediation and monitoring of these sites to be $18 million ($16 million for IPL and $2 million for WPL) to $42 million ($38 million for IPL and $4 million for WPL). At December 31, 2012, Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL recorded $29 million, $26 million and $3 million, respectively, in current and non-current environmental liabilities for their remaining costs to be incurred for these MGP sites. Refer to Note 1(b) for discussion of regulatory assets recorded by IPL and WPL, which reflect the probable future rate recovery of MGP expenditures. Considering the current rate treatment, and assuming no material change therein, Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL believe that the clean-up costs incurred for these MGP sites will not have a material effect on their financial condition or results of operations. Settlement has been reached with all of IPL’s and WPL’s insurance carriers regarding reimbursement for their MGP-related costs and such amounts have been accounted for as directed by the applicable regulatory jurisdiction. Other Environmental Contingencies - In addition to the environmental liabilities discussed above, Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL are also monitoring various environmental regulations that may have a significant impact on their future operations. Given uncertainties regarding the outcome, timing and compliance plans for these environmental matters, Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL are currently not able to determine the complete financial impact of these regulations but do believe that future capital investments and/or modifications to their electric generating facilities to comply with these regulations could be significant. Specific current, proposed or potential environmental matters that may require significant future expenditures are included below along with a brief description of these environmental regulations. Air Quality - CAIR/CSAPR - CAIR is an emissions trading program that requires SO2 and NOx emissions reductions at IPL’s and WPL’s fossil-fueled electric generating units (EGUs) with greater than 25 MW capacity located in Iowa and Wisconsin through installation of emission controls and/or purchases of allowances. The requirements for SO2 and NOx reductions started in 2010 and 2009, respectively. CSAPR was expected to replace CAIR starting in 2012, however, it was subsequently vacated and remanded to the EPA for further revision by the D.C. Circuit Court. In January 2013, the D.C. Circuit Court denied the EPA’s request for rehearing of the decision that vacated and remanded CSAPR for further revision. Petitioners may seek the Supreme Court’s review of this decision and, during the interim, CAIR remains effective. Clean Air Visibility Rule (CAVR) addresses regional haze at national parks and wilderness areas and is expected to require reductions in visibility-impairing emissions, including SO2, NOx and particulate matter, from certain EGUs by installing emission controls including those determined to be Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART). In 2012, the EPA published a final rule that would allow BART obligations for SO2 and NOx emissions to be fulfilled by compliance with CSAPR. In 2012, the EPA also approved the Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin CAVR plans, which would require compliance with CSAPR to fulfill BART requirements for SO2 and NOx emission reductions. In 2012, CSAPR requirements were vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court and the related rule that allowed for CAVR BART obligations to be met by CSAPR was challenged in the D.C. Circuit Court. It is unknown whether the EPA will allow BART to be fulfilled by CAIR, a modified CSAPR or another rule. This outcome remains uncertain pending the ongoing D.C. Circuit Court’s review of these regulations and the EPA’s responses to resolve the court orders on these rules. Utility MACT Rule requires compliance with numerical emission limitations and work practice standards for the control of mercury and other federal hazardous air pollutants for coal-fueled EGUs with greater than 25 MW capacity. Compliance is currently expected to be required by April 2015. In 2012, the EPA issued a proposed reconsideration to limited aspects to the Utility MACT rule including revisions to the startup and shutdown provisions for existing EGUs. The EPA plans to issue a final reconsideration rule by March 2013. Wisconsin State Mercury Rule requires WPL’s existing coal-fueled EGUs to reduce annual mercury emissions by 40% from a historic baseline beginning in 2010, and to either achieve a 90% annual mercury emissions reduction standard or limit the annual concentration of mercury emissions to 0.008 pounds of mercury per gigawatt-hour beginning in 2015. Wisconsin RACT Rule requires NOx emissions reductions at Edgewater to support achieving compliance with 2013 requirements since it is located in Sheboygan County, which is currently designated as a non-attainment area for Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). WPL installed NOx emission controls technologies at Edgewater, which met the 2009 to 2012 compliance requirements under this rule. In 2012, WPL completed the installation of an SCR at Edgewater to support achieving compliance with the 2013 requirements. Industrial Boiler and Process Heater MACT Rule requires reductions of emissions of hazardous air pollutants at certain EGUs, and auxiliary boilers and process heaters located at EGUs. In December 2012, the EPA issued a final reconsidered rule with a compliance deadline of early 2016 for major sources. The final rule remains subject to legal challenges in the D.C. Circuit Court. Ozone NAAQS Rule reduced the primary standard to a level of 0.075 parts per million. In 2012, the EPA issued a final rule that classifies Sheboygan County in Wisconsin as marginal non-attainment, which requires this area to achieve the eight-hour ozone NAAQS by December 2015. WPL operates Edgewater and the Sheboygan Falls Energy Facility in Sheboygan County, Wisconsin. Fine Particle NAAQS Rule - In 2012, the EPA issued a final rule revising the fine particle primary NAAQS (PM2.5 NAAQS), which strengthens the annual standard from 15 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) to 12 ug/m3. The EPA is expected to designate non-attainment areas for the revised annual PM2.5 NAAQS by December 2015. Compliance with the final rule is expected to be required by 2020 for non-attainment areas designated in 2015. Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) NAAQS Rule requires a new one-hour NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 100 parts per billion (ppb) and associated ambient air monitoring requirements, while maintaining the current annual standard of 53 ppb. The EPA is expected to re-evaluate non-attainment areas for the NO2 NAAQS in 2016 based on expanded monitoring data. The schedule for compliance has not yet been established. SO2 NAAQS Rule requires a new one-hour NAAQS for SO2 at a level of 75 ppb. The EPA plans to finalize non-attainment designations for the SO2 NAAQS for certain parts of Iowa and Wisconsin in June 2013. The compliance deadline for SO2 NAAQS is currently expected to be required by 2017 for non-attainment areas finalized in 2013. Water Quality - Section 316(b) of the Federal Clean Water Act proposal is expected to require modifications to cooling water intake structures to assure that these structures reflect the “best technology available” for minimizing adverse environmental impacts to fish and other aquatic life. The schedule for compliance has not yet been finalized; however, compliance will likely be required within eight years of the effective date of the final rule. A final rule is expected to be issued by the EPA in 2013. Wisconsin and Iowa State Thermal Rules may require modifications to certain of WPL’s and IPL’s EGUs to limit the amount of heat those facilities can discharge into Wisconsin and Iowa waters, respectively. Compliance with the thermal rules will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as discharge permits for WPL’s and IPL’s EGUs are renewed. Hydroelectric Fish Passage Device - FERC issued an order requiring an agency-approved fish passage to be installed at WPL’s Prairie du Sac hydro plant by December 2012. In 2012, FERC extended the installation deadline to July 1, 2015. In January 2013, WPL requested the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) delay or withdraw the fish passage requirement due to recent concerns regarding Asian carp and other invasive species. The FWS agreed to prepare an environmental impact study, during which time WPL is expected to request a further extension of the project deadlines. Land and Solid Waste - Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) could impose additional requirements for CCR management, beneficial use applications and disposal including operation and maintenance of coal ash surface impoundments (ash ponds) and/or landfills. The EPA issued a proposed regulation for public comment in 2010, and a final rule is expected in 2013. The schedule for compliance with the CCR Rule has not yet been established. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) - The EPA is re-evaluating the existing authorized uses of PCB-containing equipment and other applications. The EPA is expected to issue proposed PCB rules for public comment in 2014 and could include a possible mandate to phase out all PCB-containing equipment. The schedule for compliance with the PCB rule has not yet been established. Greenhouse Gases (GHG) Emissions - EPA New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for GHG Emissions from Electric Utilities is expected to require performance standards for GHG emissions from new and existing fossil-fueled EGUs. In 2012, the EPA published proposed NSPS for GHG, including carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from new fossil-fueled EGUs larger than 25 MW (not including simple-cycle combustion turbines), with an output-based emissions rate limitation of 1,000 pounds of CO2 per MWh. This emissions rate limitation is expected to be effective upon the EPA’s issuance of the final rule in the second quarter of 2013. The issuance of proposed regulations for existing EGUs remains delayed and it is anticipated the EPA will issue proposed regulations by the end of 2013. The schedule for compliance with the NSPS has not yet been established. (f) Credit Risk - Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL are subject to credit risk related to the ability of counterparties to meet their contractual payment obligations or the potential non-performance of counterparties to deliver contracted commodities, other goods or services at the contracted price. IPL and WPL provide regulated electricity and natural gas services to residential, commercial, industrial and wholesale customers in the Midwest region of the U.S. The geographic concentration of their customers did not contribute significantly to their overall exposure to credit risk. In addition, as a result of their diverse customer base, IPL and WPL did not have any significant concentration of credit risk for receivables arising from the sale of electricity and natural gas services. IPL and WPL are typically net buyers of commodities (primarily electricity, coal and natural gas) required to provide regulated electricity and natural gas services to their customers. As a result, IPL and WPL are also subject to credit risk related to their counterparties’ failures to deliver commodities at the contracted price. Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL maintain credit policies to minimize their credit risk. These credit policies include evaluation of the financial condition of counterparties, use of credit risk-related contingent provisions in certain commodity agreements that require credit support from counterparties that exceed certain exposure limits, diversification of counterparties to minimize concentrations of credit risk and the use of standardized agreements that facilitate the netting of cash flows associated with a single counterparty. Based on these credit policies, it is unlikely that a material effect on Alliant Energy’s, IPL’s or WPL’s financial condition or results of operations would occur as a result of counterparty non-performance. However, there is no assurance that such policies will protect Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL against all losses from non-performance by counterparties. Refer to Notes 1(p) and 12 for details of allowances for doubtful accounts and credit risk-related contingent features, respectively. (g) Collective Bargaining Agreements - At December 31, 2012, employees covered by collective bargaining agreements represented 55%, 67% and 80% of total employees of Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL, respectively. In August 2013, IPL’s collective bargaining agreement with International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 204 (Cedar Rapids) expires, representing 18% and 44% of total employees of Alliant Energy and IPL, respectively.

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 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 2: 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=6952336&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name FASB Interpretation (FIN) -Number 14 -Paragraph 3 -LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy. Reference 4: 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=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 Reference 5: 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 6: 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 7: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) -Number 5 -Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12 -LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration