XML 29 R17.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.0.8

Commitments And Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (a) Capital Purchase Obligations - Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL have entered into capital purchase obligations that contain minimum future commitments related to capital expenditures for certain of their emission controls and generation performance improvement projects. These projects include generation performance improvements at IPL’s Ottumwa Unit 1, installation of a scrubber at Lansing Unit 4 to reduce sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions at the generating facility and the installation of scrubbers and baghouses at WPL’s Columbia Units 1 and 2 to reduce SO2 and mercury emissions at the generating facility. At June 30, 2013, Alliant Energy’s, IPL’s and WPL’s minimum future commitments related to these projects were $65 million, $21 million and $44 million, respectively. (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 provide 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 June 30, 2013, minimum future commitments related to these operating expense purchase obligations were as follows (in millions):
| Alliant Energy |  | IPL |  | WPL
Purchased power (a): |  |  |  |  |
Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC) (IPL) (b) |  | $1,762 |  |  |  | $1,762 |  |  |  | $— |
Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant (Kewaunee) (WPL) | 38 |  |  | — |  |  | 38 |
Other (c) | 263 |  |  | 1 |  |  | 262 |
| 2,063 |  |  | 1,763 |  |  | 300 |
Natural gas | 363 |  |  | 227 |  |  | 136 |
Coal (d) | 236 |  |  | 122 |  |  | 114 |
SO2 emission allowances | 34 |  |  | 34 |  |  | — |
Other (e) | 32 |  |  | 18 |  |  | 9 |
|  | $2,728 |  |  |  | $2,164 |  |  |  | $559 |
(a) | Includes payments required by purchased power agreements (PPAs) for capacity rights and minimum quantities of MWhs required to be purchased.
(b) | Includes commitments incurred under an existing PPA that expires February 2014 and a new PPA completed in March 2013. The new PPA grants IPL 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. If energy delivered under the new PPA is less than the targeted energy amount, an adjustment payment will be made to IPL, which will be reflected in IPL’s energy adjustment clause.
(c) | In June 2013, WPL entered into a new PPA for a term from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2018.
(d) | Corporate Services entered into system-wide coal contracts on behalf of IPL and WPL that include minimum future commitments. These commitments were assigned to IPL and WPL based on information available as of June 30, 2013 regarding expected future usage, which is subject to change.
(e) | Includes individual commitments incurred during the normal course of business that exceeded $1 million at June 30, 2013.
(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 alleged 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 2010, the Sierra Club filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (Court) 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 2010, the 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 April 2013, WPL, along with the other owners of Edgewater and Columbia, entered into a Consent Decree with the EPA and the Sierra Club to resolve the claims relating to Edgewater, Columbia and Nelson Dewey, while admitting no liability. In June 2013, the Consent Decree was approved by the Court, thereby resolving all claims made in the lawsuits filed in both the Court and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Under the Consent Decree, WPL is required to install the following emission controls systems:
• | Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system at Edgewater Unit 5 by May 1, 2013 (placed in-service in December 2012);
• | Scrubbers and baghouses at Columbia Units 1 and 2 by December 31, 2014;
• | Scrubber and baghouse at Edgewater Unit 5 by December 31, 2016; and
• | SCR system at Columbia Unit 2 by December 31, 2018.
WPL is also required to fuel switch or retire Nelson Dewey Units 1 and 2 and Edgewater Unit 3 by December 31, 2015, and Edgewater Unit 4 by December 31, 2018. In addition, the Consent Decree establishes emission rate limits for SO2, nitrogen oxide (NOx) and particulate matter for Columbia Units 1 and 2, Nelson Dewey Units 1 and 2 and Edgewater Units 4 and 5. The Consent Decree also includes annual plant-wide emission caps for SO2 and NOx for Columbia, Edgewater and Nelson Dewey. WPL paid a civil penalty of approximately $2 million and will complete approximately $7 million in environmental mitigation projects. Final recovery of the costs expected to be incurred related to the Consent Decree will be decided by the PSCW in future rate cases or other proceedings. Alliant Energy and WPL currently expect to recover any material costs incurred by WPL related to compliance with the terms of the Consent Decree from WPL’s electric customers, except for costs related to the civil penalty. Alliant Energy Cash Balance Pension Plan (Plan) - In 2008, a class-action lawsuit was filed against the Plan in the 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 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 Internal Revenue Service, 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 with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in which it seeks to reverse all or part of the judgment. In April 2013, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments and has not yet issued its final decision. 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 June 30, 2013. 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. Flood Damage Claims - In June 2013, several plaintiffs filed a complaint against Cedar Rapids and Iowa City Railway Company (CRANDIC), Alliant Energy and various other defendants in the Iowa District Court for Linn County. Plaintiffs assert claims of negligence and strict liability based on their allegations that CRANDIC (along with other defendants) caused or exacerbated flooding of the Cedar River in June 2008. Plaintiffs allege that CRANDIC caused or exacerbated the flooding when a railroad bridge and rail cars owned by CRANDIC collapsed into the Cedar River on June 12, 2008. Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of residential and commercial property owners who allegedly incurred property damage from the 2008 flooding of the Cedar River. The complaint also alleges that Alliant Energy should be held liable for the actions of CRANDIC; however, Alliant Energy believes this allegation is without merit. In June 2013, CRANDIC and Alliant Energy filed their answer to the complaint denying all claims. In July 2013, a co-defendant removed the case from the Iowa District Court for Linn County to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, and CRANDIC and Alliant Energy filed a consent to the removal. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, and a case schedule has not yet been established. Alliant Energy and CRANDIC believe the case is without merit and are vigorously contesting the case. As a result, Alliant Energy does not currently believe any material losses from these claims are both probable and reasonably estimated and therefore has not recognized any material loss contingency amounts for this complaint as of June 30, 2013. Due to the early stages of the claim and the lack of specific damages identified, Alliant Energy is currently unable to provide an estimate of potential loss or range of potential loss. (d) Guarantees and Indemnifications - RMT - In January 2013, Alliant Energy sold RMT. RMT provided renewable energy services including construction and high voltage connection services for wind and solar projects. As part of the sale, 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. In addition, Alliant Energy, as part of the sale, indemnified the buyer for any claims, including claims of warranty under the project obligations that were commenced or are based on actions that occurred prior to the sale, except for liabilities already accounted for through adjustments to the purchase price. The indemnification obligations either cease to exist when the statute of limitation for such claims is met or, in the case of RMT’s projects, when the warranty period under the agreements expires. The warranty periods for RMT’s projects generally range from 12 to 60 months with the latest expiring in 2016. 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 June 30, 2013, Alliant Energy had $546 million of performance guarantees outstanding, with $199 million, $294 million and $53 million expiring in 2013, 2014 and 2015, respectively. Alliant Energy currently believes that no material cash payments will be made and has not recognized any material liabilities related to these matters as of June 30, 2013. Refer to Note 14 for further discussion of RMT. Whiting Petroleum Corporation (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 obligations related to the abandonment of certain platforms off the coast of 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 June 30, 2013, the present value of the abandonment obligations is estimated at $31 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 June 30, 2013. (e) Environmental Matters - Manufactured Gas Plant (MGP) Sites - IPL and WPL have current or previous ownership interests in various sites that are previously associated with the production of gas for which IPL and WPL may have future liability for investigation, remediation and monitoring costs. 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. IPL and WPL are currently monitoring and/or remediating 27 and 5 sites, respectively. 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 $16 million ($14 million for IPL and $2 million for WPL) to $30 million ($26 million for IPL and $4 million for WPL). At June 30, 2013, Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL recorded $26 million, $23 million and $3 million, respectively, in other current and non-current environmental liabilities for their remaining costs to be incurred for these MGP sites. 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 include, among others: Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), Clean Air Visibility Rule, Utility Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Rule, Wisconsin State Mercury Rule, Wisconsin Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Rule, Industrial Boiler and Process Heater MACT Rule, Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Rule, Fine Particle NAAQS Rule, Nitrogen Dioxide NAAQS Rule, SO2 NAAQS Rule, Federal Clean Water Act including Section 316(b), Wisconsin and Iowa State Thermal Rules, Hydroelectric Fish Passage Device, Effluent Limitation Guidelines, Coal Combustion Residuals, Polychlorinated Biphenyls, and various legislation and EPA regulations to monitor and regulate the emission of greenhouse gases (GHG), including New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for GHG Emissions from Electric Utilities. Some recent developments concerning these environmental matters are included below: Water Quality - Effluent Limitation Guidelines are expected to require changes to discharge limits for wastewater from steam electric generating units (EGUs). In June 2013, the EPA published proposed effluent limitation guidelines for public comment. Compliance with these proposed guidelines would be required after July 1, 2017 but before July 1, 2022, depending on each facility’s wastewater permit cycle for existing steam EGUs and immediately upon operation for new steam EGUs constructed after the issuance of the final guidelines. GHG Emissions - EPA NSPS for GHG Emissions from Electric Utilities - The EPA is currently expected to issue revised proposed NSPS for GHG for new EGUs by September 20, 2013. A date for finalizing these standards has not yet been established. The EPA is expected to issue proposed and final NSPS for GHG for existing EGUs by June 1, 2014 and June 1, 2015, respectively, which would provide guidelines that states must follow to achieve required GHG reductions. SIPs that provide details of how these guidelines are to be met will be required from state agencies by June 30, 2016.
IPL [Member] |
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (a) Capital Purchase Obligations - Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL have entered into capital purchase obligations that contain minimum future commitments related to capital expenditures for certain of their emission controls and generation performance improvement projects. These projects include generation performance improvements at IPL’s Ottumwa Unit 1, installation of a scrubber at Lansing Unit 4 to reduce sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions at the generating facility and the installation of scrubbers and baghouses at WPL’s Columbia Units 1 and 2 to reduce SO2 and mercury emissions at the generating facility. At June 30, 2013, Alliant Energy’s, IPL’s and WPL’s minimum future commitments related to these projects were $65 million, $21 million and $44 million, respectively. (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 provide 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 June 30, 2013, minimum future commitments related to these operating expense purchase obligations were as follows (in millions):
| Alliant Energy |  | IPL |  | WPL
Purchased power (a): |  |  |  |  |
Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC) (IPL) (b) |  | $1,762 |  |  |  | $1,762 |  |  |  | $— |
Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant (Kewaunee) (WPL) | 38 |  |  | — |  |  | 38 |
Other (c) | 263 |  |  | 1 |  |  | 262 |
| 2,063 |  |  | 1,763 |  |  | 300 |
Natural gas | 363 |  |  | 227 |  |  | 136 |
Coal (d) | 236 |  |  | 122 |  |  | 114 |
SO2 emission allowances | 34 |  |  | 34 |  |  | — |
Other (e) | 32 |  |  | 18 |  |  | 9 |
|  | $2,728 |  |  |  | $2,164 |  |  |  | $559 |
(a) | Includes payments required by purchased power agreements (PPAs) for capacity rights and minimum quantities of MWhs required to be purchased.
(b) | Includes commitments incurred under an existing PPA that expires February 2014 and a new PPA completed in March 2013. The new PPA grants IPL 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. If energy delivered under the new PPA is less than the targeted energy amount, an adjustment payment will be made to IPL, which will be reflected in IPL’s energy adjustment clause.
(c) | In June 2013, WPL entered into a new PPA for a term from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2018.
(d) | Corporate Services entered into system-wide coal contracts on behalf of IPL and WPL that include minimum future commitments. These commitments were assigned to IPL and WPL based on information available as of June 30, 2013 regarding expected future usage, which is subject to change.
(e) | Includes individual commitments incurred during the normal course of business that exceeded $1 million at June 30, 2013.
(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 alleged 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 2010, the Sierra Club filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (Court) 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 2010, the 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 April 2013, WPL, along with the other owners of Edgewater and Columbia, entered into a Consent Decree with the EPA and the Sierra Club to resolve the claims relating to Edgewater, Columbia and Nelson Dewey, while admitting no liability. In June 2013, the Consent Decree was approved by the Court, thereby resolving all claims made in the lawsuits filed in both the Court and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Under the Consent Decree, WPL is required to install the following emission controls systems:
• | Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system at Edgewater Unit 5 by May 1, 2013 (placed in-service in December 2012);
• | Scrubbers and baghouses at Columbia Units 1 and 2 by December 31, 2014;
• | Scrubber and baghouse at Edgewater Unit 5 by December 31, 2016; and
• | SCR system at Columbia Unit 2 by December 31, 2018.
WPL is also required to fuel switch or retire Nelson Dewey Units 1 and 2 and Edgewater Unit 3 by December 31, 2015, and Edgewater Unit 4 by December 31, 2018. In addition, the Consent Decree establishes emission rate limits for SO2, nitrogen oxide (NOx) and particulate matter for Columbia Units 1 and 2, Nelson Dewey Units 1 and 2 and Edgewater Units 4 and 5. The Consent Decree also includes annual plant-wide emission caps for SO2 and NOx for Columbia, Edgewater and Nelson Dewey. WPL paid a civil penalty of approximately $2 million and will complete approximately $7 million in environmental mitigation projects. Final recovery of the costs expected to be incurred related to the Consent Decree will be decided by the PSCW in future rate cases or other proceedings. Alliant Energy and WPL currently expect to recover any material costs incurred by WPL related to compliance with the terms of the Consent Decree from WPL’s electric customers, except for costs related to the civil penalty. Alliant Energy Cash Balance Pension Plan (Plan) - In 2008, a class-action lawsuit was filed against the Plan in the 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 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 Internal Revenue Service, 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 with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in which it seeks to reverse all or part of the judgment. In April 2013, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments and has not yet issued its final decision. 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 June 30, 2013. 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. Flood Damage Claims - In June 2013, several plaintiffs filed a complaint against Cedar Rapids and Iowa City Railway Company (CRANDIC), Alliant Energy and various other defendants in the Iowa District Court for Linn County. Plaintiffs assert claims of negligence and strict liability based on their allegations that CRANDIC (along with other defendants) caused or exacerbated flooding of the Cedar River in June 2008. Plaintiffs allege that CRANDIC caused or exacerbated the flooding when a railroad bridge and rail cars owned by CRANDIC collapsed into the Cedar River on June 12, 2008. Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of residential and commercial property owners who allegedly incurred property damage from the 2008 flooding of the Cedar River. The complaint also alleges that Alliant Energy should be held liable for the actions of CRANDIC; however, Alliant Energy believes this allegation is without merit. In June 2013, CRANDIC and Alliant Energy filed their answer to the complaint denying all claims. In July 2013, a co-defendant removed the case from the Iowa District Court for Linn County to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, and CRANDIC and Alliant Energy filed a consent to the removal. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, and a case schedule has not yet been established. Alliant Energy and CRANDIC believe the case is without merit and are vigorously contesting the case. As a result, Alliant Energy does not currently believe any material losses from these claims are both probable and reasonably estimated and therefore has not recognized any material loss contingency amounts for this complaint as of June 30, 2013. Due to the early stages of the claim and the lack of specific damages identified, Alliant Energy is currently unable to provide an estimate of potential loss or range of potential loss. (d) Guarantees and Indemnifications - RMT - In January 2013, Alliant Energy sold RMT. RMT provided renewable energy services including construction and high voltage connection services for wind and solar projects. As part of the sale, 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. In addition, Alliant Energy, as part of the sale, indemnified the buyer for any claims, including claims of warranty under the project obligations that were commenced or are based on actions that occurred prior to the sale, except for liabilities already accounted for through adjustments to the purchase price. The indemnification obligations either cease to exist when the statute of limitation for such claims is met or, in the case of RMT’s projects, when the warranty period under the agreements expires. The warranty periods for RMT’s projects generally range from 12 to 60 months with the latest expiring in 2016. 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 June 30, 2013, Alliant Energy had $546 million of performance guarantees outstanding, with $199 million, $294 million and $53 million expiring in 2013, 2014 and 2015, respectively. Alliant Energy currently believes that no material cash payments will be made and has not recognized any material liabilities related to these matters as of June 30, 2013. Refer to Note 14 for further discussion of RMT. Whiting Petroleum Corporation (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 obligations related to the abandonment of certain platforms off the coast of 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 June 30, 2013, the present value of the abandonment obligations is estimated at $31 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 June 30, 2013. (e) Environmental Matters - Manufactured Gas Plant (MGP) Sites - IPL and WPL have current or previous ownership interests in various sites that are previously associated with the production of gas for which IPL and WPL may have future liability for investigation, remediation and monitoring costs. 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. IPL and WPL are currently monitoring and/or remediating 27 and 5 sites, respectively. 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 $16 million ($14 million for IPL and $2 million for WPL) to $30 million ($26 million for IPL and $4 million for WPL). At June 30, 2013, Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL recorded $26 million, $23 million and $3 million, respectively, in other current and non-current environmental liabilities for their remaining costs to be incurred for these MGP sites. 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 include, among others: Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), Clean Air Visibility Rule, Utility Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Rule, Wisconsin State Mercury Rule, Wisconsin Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Rule, Industrial Boiler and Process Heater MACT Rule, Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Rule, Fine Particle NAAQS Rule, Nitrogen Dioxide NAAQS Rule, SO2 NAAQS Rule, Federal Clean Water Act including Section 316(b), Wisconsin and Iowa State Thermal Rules, Hydroelectric Fish Passage Device, Effluent Limitation Guidelines, Coal Combustion Residuals, Polychlorinated Biphenyls, and various legislation and EPA regulations to monitor and regulate the emission of greenhouse gases (GHG), including New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for GHG Emissions from Electric Utilities. Some recent developments concerning these environmental matters are included below: Water Quality - Effluent Limitation Guidelines are expected to require changes to discharge limits for wastewater from steam electric generating units (EGUs). In June 2013, the EPA published proposed effluent limitation guidelines for public comment. Compliance with these proposed guidelines would be required after July 1, 2017 but before July 1, 2022, depending on each facility’s wastewater permit cycle for existing steam EGUs and immediately upon operation for new steam EGUs constructed after the issuance of the final guidelines. GHG Emissions - EPA NSPS for GHG Emissions from Electric Utilities - The EPA is currently expected to issue revised proposed NSPS for GHG for new EGUs by September 20, 2013. A date for finalizing these standards has not yet been established. The EPA is expected to issue proposed and final NSPS for GHG for existing EGUs by June 1, 2014 and June 1, 2015, respectively, which would provide guidelines that states must follow to achieve required GHG reductions. SIPs that provide details of how these guidelines are to be met will be required from state agencies by June 30, 2016.
WPL [Member] |
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (a) Capital Purchase Obligations - Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL have entered into capital purchase obligations that contain minimum future commitments related to capital expenditures for certain of their emission controls and generation performance improvement projects. These projects include generation performance improvements at IPL’s Ottumwa Unit 1, installation of a scrubber at Lansing Unit 4 to reduce sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions at the generating facility and the installation of scrubbers and baghouses at WPL’s Columbia Units 1 and 2 to reduce SO2 and mercury emissions at the generating facility. At June 30, 2013, Alliant Energy’s, IPL’s and WPL’s minimum future commitments related to these projects were $65 million, $21 million and $44 million, respectively. (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 provide 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 June 30, 2013, minimum future commitments related to these operating expense purchase obligations were as follows (in millions):
| Alliant Energy |  | IPL |  | WPL
Purchased power (a): |  |  |  |  |
Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC) (IPL) (b) |  | $1,762 |  |  |  | $1,762 |  |  |  | $— |
Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant (Kewaunee) (WPL) | 38 |  |  | — |  |  | 38 |
Other (c) | 263 |  |  | 1 |  |  | 262 |
| 2,063 |  |  | 1,763 |  |  | 300 |
Natural gas | 363 |  |  | 227 |  |  | 136 |
Coal (d) | 236 |  |  | 122 |  |  | 114 |
SO2 emission allowances | 34 |  |  | 34 |  |  | — |
Other (e) | 32 |  |  | 18 |  |  | 9 |
|  | $2,728 |  |  |  | $2,164 |  |  |  | $559 |
(a) | Includes payments required by purchased power agreements (PPAs) for capacity rights and minimum quantities of MWhs required to be purchased.
(b) | Includes commitments incurred under an existing PPA that expires February 2014 and a new PPA completed in March 2013. The new PPA grants IPL 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. If energy delivered under the new PPA is less than the targeted energy amount, an adjustment payment will be made to IPL, which will be reflected in IPL’s energy adjustment clause.
(c) | In June 2013, WPL entered into a new PPA for a term from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2018.
(d) | Corporate Services entered into system-wide coal contracts on behalf of IPL and WPL that include minimum future commitments. These commitments were assigned to IPL and WPL based on information available as of June 30, 2013 regarding expected future usage, which is subject to change.
(e) | Includes individual commitments incurred during the normal course of business that exceeded $1 million at June 30, 2013.
(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 alleged 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 2010, the Sierra Club filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (Court) 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 2010, the 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 April 2013, WPL, along with the other owners of Edgewater and Columbia, entered into a Consent Decree with the EPA and the Sierra Club to resolve the claims relating to Edgewater, Columbia and Nelson Dewey, while admitting no liability. In June 2013, the Consent Decree was approved by the Court, thereby resolving all claims made in the lawsuits filed in both the Court and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Under the Consent Decree, WPL is required to install the following emission controls systems:
• | Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system at Edgewater Unit 5 by May 1, 2013 (placed in-service in December 2012);
• | Scrubbers and baghouses at Columbia Units 1 and 2 by December 31, 2014;
• | Scrubber and baghouse at Edgewater Unit 5 by December 31, 2016; and
• | SCR system at Columbia Unit 2 by December 31, 2018.
WPL is also required to fuel switch or retire Nelson Dewey Units 1 and 2 and Edgewater Unit 3 by December 31, 2015, and Edgewater Unit 4 by December 31, 2018. In addition, the Consent Decree establishes emission rate limits for SO2, nitrogen oxide (NOx) and particulate matter for Columbia Units 1 and 2, Nelson Dewey Units 1 and 2 and Edgewater Units 4 and 5. The Consent Decree also includes annual plant-wide emission caps for SO2 and NOx for Columbia, Edgewater and Nelson Dewey. WPL paid a civil penalty of approximately $2 million and will complete approximately $7 million in environmental mitigation projects. Final recovery of the costs expected to be incurred related to the Consent Decree will be decided by the PSCW in future rate cases or other proceedings. Alliant Energy and WPL currently expect to recover any material costs incurred by WPL related to compliance with the terms of the Consent Decree from WPL’s electric customers, except for costs related to the civil penalty. Alliant Energy Cash Balance Pension Plan (Plan) - In 2008, a class-action lawsuit was filed against the Plan in the 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 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 Internal Revenue Service, 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 with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in which it seeks to reverse all or part of the judgment. In April 2013, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments and has not yet issued its final decision. 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 June 30, 2013. 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. Flood Damage Claims - In June 2013, several plaintiffs filed a complaint against Cedar Rapids and Iowa City Railway Company (CRANDIC), Alliant Energy and various other defendants in the Iowa District Court for Linn County. Plaintiffs assert claims of negligence and strict liability based on their allegations that CRANDIC (along with other defendants) caused or exacerbated flooding of the Cedar River in June 2008. Plaintiffs allege that CRANDIC caused or exacerbated the flooding when a railroad bridge and rail cars owned by CRANDIC collapsed into the Cedar River on June 12, 2008. Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of residential and commercial property owners who allegedly incurred property damage from the 2008 flooding of the Cedar River. The complaint also alleges that Alliant Energy should be held liable for the actions of CRANDIC; however, Alliant Energy believes this allegation is without merit. In June 2013, CRANDIC and Alliant Energy filed their answer to the complaint denying all claims. In July 2013, a co-defendant removed the case from the Iowa District Court for Linn County to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, and CRANDIC and Alliant Energy filed a consent to the removal. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, and a case schedule has not yet been established. Alliant Energy and CRANDIC believe the case is without merit and are vigorously contesting the case. As a result, Alliant Energy does not currently believe any material losses from these claims are both probable and reasonably estimated and therefore has not recognized any material loss contingency amounts for this complaint as of June 30, 2013. Due to the early stages of the claim and the lack of specific damages identified, Alliant Energy is currently unable to provide an estimate of potential loss or range of potential loss. (d) Guarantees and Indemnifications - RMT - In January 2013, Alliant Energy sold RMT. RMT provided renewable energy services including construction and high voltage connection services for wind and solar projects. As part of the sale, 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. In addition, Alliant Energy, as part of the sale, indemnified the buyer for any claims, including claims of warranty under the project obligations that were commenced or are based on actions that occurred prior to the sale, except for liabilities already accounted for through adjustments to the purchase price. The indemnification obligations either cease to exist when the statute of limitation for such claims is met or, in the case of RMT’s projects, when the warranty period under the agreements expires. The warranty periods for RMT’s projects generally range from 12 to 60 months with the latest expiring in 2016. 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 June 30, 2013, Alliant Energy had $546 million of performance guarantees outstanding, with $199 million, $294 million and $53 million expiring in 2013, 2014 and 2015, respectively. Alliant Energy currently believes that no material cash payments will be made and has not recognized any material liabilities related to these matters as of June 30, 2013. Refer to Note 14 for further discussion of RMT. Whiting Petroleum Corporation (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 obligations related to the abandonment of certain platforms off the coast of 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 June 30, 2013, the present value of the abandonment obligations is estimated at $31 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 June 30, 2013. (e) Environmental Matters - Manufactured Gas Plant (MGP) Sites - IPL and WPL have current or previous ownership interests in various sites that are previously associated with the production of gas for which IPL and WPL may have future liability for investigation, remediation and monitoring costs. 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. IPL and WPL are currently monitoring and/or remediating 27 and 5 sites, respectively. 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 $16 million ($14 million for IPL and $2 million for WPL) to $30 million ($26 million for IPL and $4 million for WPL). At June 30, 2013, Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL recorded $26 million, $23 million and $3 million, respectively, in other current and non-current environmental liabilities for their remaining costs to be incurred for these MGP sites. 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 include, among others: Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), Clean Air Visibility Rule, Utility Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Rule, Wisconsin State Mercury Rule, Wisconsin Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Rule, Industrial Boiler and Process Heater MACT Rule, Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Rule, Fine Particle NAAQS Rule, Nitrogen Dioxide NAAQS Rule, SO2 NAAQS Rule, Federal Clean Water Act including Section 316(b), Wisconsin and Iowa State Thermal Rules, Hydroelectric Fish Passage Device, Effluent Limitation Guidelines, Coal Combustion Residuals, Polychlorinated Biphenyls, and various legislation and EPA regulations to monitor and regulate the emission of greenhouse gases (GHG), including New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for GHG Emissions from Electric Utilities. Some recent developments concerning these environmental matters are included below: Water Quality - Effluent Limitation Guidelines are expected to require changes to discharge limits for wastewater from steam electric generating units (EGUs). In June 2013, the EPA published proposed effluent limitation guidelines for public comment. Compliance with these proposed guidelines would be required after July 1, 2017 but before July 1, 2022, depending on each facility’s wastewater permit cycle for existing steam EGUs and immediately upon operation for new steam EGUs constructed after the issuance of the final guidelines. GHG Emissions - EPA NSPS for GHG Emissions from Electric Utilities - The EPA is currently expected to issue revised proposed NSPS for GHG for new EGUs by September 20, 2013. A date for finalizing these standards has not yet been established. The EPA is expected to issue proposed and final NSPS for GHG for existing EGUs by June 1, 2014 and June 1, 2015, respectively, which would provide guidelines that states must follow to achieve required GHG reductions. SIPs that provide details of how these guidelines are to be met will be required from state agencies by June 30, 2016.

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: 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 2: 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 3: 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 4: 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 5: 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 6: 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 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