XML 137 R23.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.0.8

Commitments And Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2013
Commitments And Contingencies | 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 the installation of scrubbers and baghouses at IPL’s Ottumwa Unit 1 and WPL’s Columbia Units 1 and 2 to reduce SO2 and mercury emissions at the EGUs and generation performance improvements at IPL’s Ottumwa Unit 1. At December 31, 2013, Alliant Energy’s, IPL’s and WPL’s minimum future commitments related to these projects were $86 million, $35 million and $51 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 December 31, 2013, minimum future commitments related to these operating expense purchase obligations were as follows (in millions):
Alliant Energy | 2014 |  | 2015 |  | 2016 |  | 2017 |  | 2018 |  | Thereafter |  | Total
Purchased power (a): |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
DAEC (IPL) (b) |  | $120 |  |  |  | $119 |  |  |  | $127 |  |  |  | $138 |  |  |  | $128 |  |  |  | $1,025 |  |  |  | $1,657 |
Other | 52 |  |  | 73 |  |  | 45 |  |  | 44 |  |  | 44 |  |  | — |  |  | 258 |
| 172 |  |  | 192 |  |  | 172 |  |  | 182 |  |  | 172 |  |  | 1,025 |  |  | 1,915 |
Natural gas | 187 |  |  | 65 |  |  | 34 |  |  | 10 |  |  | 2 |  |  | 6 |  |  | 304 |
Coal (c) | 128 |  |  | 81 |  |  | 59 |  |  | 30 |  |  | 21 |  |  | — |  |  | 319 |
SO2 emission allowances (d) | — |  |  | 12 |  |  | 14 |  |  | 8 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 34 |
Other (e) | 8 |  |  | 3 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 11 |
|  | $495 |  |  |  | $353 |  |  |  | $279 |  |  |  | $230 |  |  |  | $195 |  |  |  | $1,031 |  |  |  | $2,583 |
IPL | 2014 |  | 2015 |  | 2016 |  | 2017 |  | 2018 |  | Thereafter |  | Total
Purchased power (a): |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
DAEC (b) |  | $120 |  |  |  | $119 |  |  |  | $127 |  |  |  | $138 |  |  |  | $128 |  |  |  | $1,025 |  |  |  | $1,657 |
Other | — |  |  | — |  |  | 1 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 1 |
| 120 |  |  | 119 |  |  | 128 |  |  | 138 |  |  | 128 |  |  | 1,025 |  |  | 1,658 |
Natural gas | 129 |  |  | 37 |  |  | 15 |  |  | 3 |  |  | 1 |  |  | 6 |  |  | 191 |
Coal (c) | 63 |  |  | 32 |  |  | 27 |  |  | 11 |  |  | 6 |  |  | — |  |  | 139 |
SO2 emission allowances (d) | — |  |  | 12 |  |  | 14 |  |  | 8 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 34 |
Other (e) | 5 |  |  | 1 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 6 |
| $317 |  |  | $201 |  |  |  | $184 |  |  |  | $160 |  |  |  | $135 |  |  |  | $1,031 |  |  |  | $2,028 |
WPL | 2014 |  | 2015 |  | 2016 |  | 2017 |  | 2018 |  | Thereafter |  | Total
Purchased power (a) |  | $52 |  |  |  | $73 |  |  |  | $44 |  |  |  | $44 |  |  |  | $44 |  |  |  | $— |  |  |  | $257 |
Natural gas | 58 |  |  | 28 |  |  | 19 |  |  | 7 |  |  | 1 |  |  | — |  |  | 113 |
Coal (c) | 65 |  |  | 49 |  |  | 32 |  |  | 19 |  |  | 15 |  |  | — |  |  | 180 |
Other (e) | 2 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 2 |
|  | $177 |  |  |  | $150 |  |  |  | $95 |  |  |  | $70 |  |  |  | $60 |  |  |  | $— |  |  |  | $552 |
(a) | Includes payments required by PPAs for capacity rights (Alliant Energy and IPL only) and minimum quantities of MWhs required to be purchased. Refer to Note 18 for additional information on purchased power transactions.
(b) | Includes commitments incurred under an existing PPA that expires February 2014 and a new PPA effective February 2014. 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 fuel adjustment clause.
(c) | 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 December 31, 2013 regarding expected future usage, which is subject to change.
(d) | Refer to Note 2 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, 2013.
Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL enter into certain contracts that are considered leases and are therefore not included here, but are included in Note 10. (c) Legal Proceedings - Cash Balance Plan - In 2008, a class-action lawsuit was filed against the Cash Balance Plan in the Court. The complaint alleged that certain Cash Balance 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 Cash Balance Plan applied an improper interest crediting rate to project the cash balance account to their normal retirement age. These Cash Balance Plan participants were limited to individuals who, prior to normal retirement age, received a lump-sum distribution or an annuity payment. In 2011, the Cash Balance Plan was amended and the Cash Balance Plan subsequently made approximately $10 million in additional payments in 2011 to certain former participants in the Cash Balance Plan. This amendment was required based on an agreement Alliant Energy reached with the IRS, which resulted in a favorable determination letter for the Cash Balance Plan in 2011. In 2012, the Court entered a final judgment in the class-action lawsuit, which was appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In August 2013, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on the case and remanded it to the Court to determine final damages. The Cash Balance Plan entered into a stipulation agreement with the plaintiffs, which was filed with the Court in December 2013 settling all open matters in the case. In January 2014, the Court entered final judgment in the total amount of $9.0 million. Plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and costs will be paid from the final damages. Due to the stipulation agreement filed with the Court in December 2013, Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL recognized the additional benefits to be paid to the plaintiffs in their Consolidated Statements of Income in 2013. As a result of the January 2014 final Court order requiring plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and costs to be paid out of the final judgment, Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL reversed the reserve previously recorded related to payment of plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and costs. As a result of recognizing the additional benefits of $9.0 million to be paid to the plaintiffs and reversing the previously recorded reserve of $6.7 million for plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and costs, there was not a net material impact on Alliant Energy’s, IPL’s or WPL’s results of operations for 2013. Flood Damage Claims - In June 2013, several plaintiffs purporting to represent a class of residential and commercial property owners filed a complaint against CRANDIC, Alliant Energy and various other defendants in the Iowa District Court for Linn County. Plaintiffs asserted 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. In July 2013, the case was removed from state court to federal court based on federal jurisdiction. In September 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims and transferred the case for resolution to the Surface Transportation Board, the administrative agency that oversees the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act. In October 2013, the plaintiffs appealed the federal court’s dismissal of the case to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Alliant Energy and CRANDIC believe the case is without merit and will continue to vigorously contest 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 December 31, 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. Smart Meters Patents - In 2011, a lawsuit was filed against WPL in the Court by TransData, a company that is claiming it has valid patents covering wireless smart electric meter technology. TransData alleges in the lawsuit that WPL used meters that contain technology that allegedly infringe on patents owned by TransData. In 2012, the lawsuit was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, whereby the lawsuit was consolidated with lawsuits TransData previously filed against various other utility companies. The smart meters in question were purchased by WPL from a third-party vendor. The third-party vendor, while not a party to the litigation, is defending WPL. WPL also believes that it has an indemnification agreement with the third-party vendor for any judgment that may result from the litigation. TransData is seeking injunctive relief and recovery of an unspecified amount of damages. Alliant Energy and WPL do not currently believe any material losses from this lawsuit are both probable and reasonably estimated, and therefore, have not recognized any material loss contingency amounts for this lawsuit as of December 31, 2013. Due to the lack of specific damages identified and the status of the litigation, WPL is currently unable to provide an estimate of potential loss or range of potential loss. 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 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 December 31, 2013, Alliant Energy had $347 million of performance guarantees outstanding with $294 million and $53 million expiring in 2014 and 2015, respectively. Although Alliant Energy has received warranty claims related to certain of these projects, it does not currently believe that material losses are both probable and reasonably estimated, and therefore, has not recognized any material liabilities related to these matters as of December 31, 2013. Due to the early stages of the warranty claims, Alliant Energy is currently unable to provide an estimate of potential loss or range of potential loss. Refer to Note 19 for further discussion of RMT. Whiting Petroleum - In 2004, Alliant Energy sold its remaining interest in Whiting Petroleum. Whiting Petroleum 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 Petroleum prior to Alliant Energy’s sale of Whiting Petroleum. The guarantee does not include a maximum limit. As of December 31, 2013, the present value of the abandonment obligations is estimated at $32 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, 2013. (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
| 2013 |  | 2012 |  | 2013 |  | 2012 |  | 2013 |  | 2012
Current environmental liabilities |  | $3.6 |  |  |  | $3.7 |  |  |  | $2.8 |  |  |  | $2.5 |  |  |  | $0.8 |  |  |  | $1.2 |
Non-current environmental liabilities | 15.4 |  |  | 25.3 |  |  | 13.6 |  |  | 23.2 |  |  | 1.7 |  |  | 2.1 |
|  | $19.0 |  |  |  | $29.0 |  |  |  | $16.4 |  |  |  | $25.7 |  |  |  | $2.5 |  |  |  | $3.3 |
MGP Sites - IPL and WPL have current or previous ownership interests in v arious sites that are previously associated with the production of gas for which IPL and WPL have, or may have in the 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 these former MGP 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 former 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 $13 million ($11 million for IPL and $2 million for WPL) to $30 million ($27 million for IPL and $3 million for WPL). At December 31, 2013, Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL recorded $19 million, $16 million and $3 million, respectively, in other current and non-current environmental liabilities for their remaining costs to be incurred for these MGP sites. Refer to Note 2 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. WPL Consent Decree - In 2009, the EPA sent an NOV to WPL as an owner and the operator of Edgewater, Nelson Dewey and Columbia alleging 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 PSD program requirements, Title V Operating Permit requirements of the CAA and the Wisconsin SIP. In 2010, the Sierra Club filed complaints against WPL, as owner and operator of Nelson Dewey and Columbia, and separately as owner and operator of Edgewater, 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 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 against WPL. Under the Consent Decree, WPL is required to install the following emission controls systems:
• | 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, NOx and PM 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 in 2013 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 certain of the environmental mitigation projects and the civil penalty. 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. Several of these environmental regulations are subject to legal challenges, reconsideration and/or other uncertainties. 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 EGUs 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 is an emissions trading program that requires SO2 and NOx emissions reductions at certain of IPL’s and WPL’s fossil-fueled EGUs located in Iowa and Wisconsin through installation of emission controls and/or purchases of allowances. CAVR requires states to develop and implement plans to address visibility impairment in designated national parks and wilderness areas. These implementation plans require BART emission controls and other additional measures needed for reducing state contributions to regional haze. MATS Rule requires compliance with emission limits for mercury and other HAPs. Compliance is required by April 2015; however, an entity can request an additional year for compliance for certain EGUs. Wisconsin State Mercury Rule requires WPL’s existing coal-fueled EGUs to comply with mercury emission limits beginning in 2010. Industrial Boiler and Process Heater MACT Rule requires compliance with HAPs emission limitations at certain EGUs and fossil-fueled auxiliary boilers and process heaters located at EGUs by early 2016. Ozone NAAQS Rule - The ozone NAAQS rule may require a reduction of NOx emissions in certain non-attainment areas based on classifications assigned by the EPA. In 2012, the EPA issued a final rule that classifies Sheboygan County in Wisconsin as marginal ozone non-attainment, which requires this area to achieve compliance with the ozone NAAQS by December 2015. WPL operates Edgewater and Sheboygan Falls in Sheboygan County, Wisconsin. Fine Particulate (PM2.5) NAAQS Rule requires a reduction of SO2, NOx and PM emissions in certain non-attainment areas. The EPA is expected to designate non-attainment areas for the revised annual PM2.5 NAAQS by December 2014. Compliance with the final rule is expected to be required by 2020 for non-attainment areas designated in 2014. EPA NSPS for GHG Emissions from Electric Utilities would establish CO2 emissions limits for certain new fossil-fueled EGUs. Marshalltown is expected to be impacted by these proposed standards and would be constructed to achieve compliance with these standards. Also, WPL’s potential generation investment could be impacted by these standards. A date for finalizing these standards has not yet been established. The EPA is expected to issue proposed and final NSPS for GHG emissions for existing EGUs by June 1, 2014 and June 1, 2015, respectively, which would provide guidelines that states must follow to achieve required GHG emissions reductions. SIPs that provide details of how these guidelines are to be met would be required from state agencies by June 30, 2016. Water Quality - Section 316(b) of the Federal Clean Water Act proposal would 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. Hydroelectric Fish Passage Device - WPL is currently required to install an agency-approved fish passage device at its Prairie du Sac hydro plant by July 1, 2015. Effluent Limitation Guidelines proposal would require changes to discharge limits for wastewater from steam EGUs. 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. Land and Solid Waste - 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. (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 and 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 or 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. In 2013, IPL entered into a new PPA, which 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. This PPA exposes Alliant Energy and IPL to risk of counterparty non-performance. However, such risk is mitigated by IPL’s fuel-related cost recovery mechanisms. Refer to Note 16(b) for further discussion of the DAEC PPA. Based on these credit policies and utility cost recovery mechanisms, 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(m) and 15 for details of allowances for doubtful accounts and credit risk-related contingent features, respectively. (g) Collective Bargaining Agreements - At December 31, 2013, employees covered by collective bargaining agreements represented 57%, 67% and 80% of total employees of Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL, respectively. In May 2014, WPL’s collective bargaining agreement with IBEW Local 965 expires, representing 26% and 80% of total employees of Alliant Energy and WPL, respectively.
IPL [Member] |
Commitments And Contingencies | 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 the installation of scrubbers and baghouses at IPL’s Ottumwa Unit 1 and WPL’s Columbia Units 1 and 2 to reduce SO2 and mercury emissions at the EGUs and generation performance improvements at IPL’s Ottumwa Unit 1. At December 31, 2013, Alliant Energy’s, IPL’s and WPL’s minimum future commitments related to these projects were $86 million, $35 million and $51 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 December 31, 2013, minimum future commitments related to these operating expense purchase obligations were as follows (in millions):
Alliant Energy | 2014 |  | 2015 |  | 2016 |  | 2017 |  | 2018 |  | Thereafter |  | Total
Purchased power (a): |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
DAEC (IPL) (b) |  | $120 |  |  |  | $119 |  |  |  | $127 |  |  |  | $138 |  |  |  | $128 |  |  |  | $1,025 |  |  |  | $1,657 |
Other | 52 |  |  | 73 |  |  | 45 |  |  | 44 |  |  | 44 |  |  | — |  |  | 258 |
| 172 |  |  | 192 |  |  | 172 |  |  | 182 |  |  | 172 |  |  | 1,025 |  |  | 1,915 |
Natural gas | 187 |  |  | 65 |  |  | 34 |  |  | 10 |  |  | 2 |  |  | 6 |  |  | 304 |
Coal (c) | 128 |  |  | 81 |  |  | 59 |  |  | 30 |  |  | 21 |  |  | — |  |  | 319 |
SO2 emission allowances (d) | — |  |  | 12 |  |  | 14 |  |  | 8 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 34 |
Other (e) | 8 |  |  | 3 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 11 |
|  | $495 |  |  |  | $353 |  |  |  | $279 |  |  |  | $230 |  |  |  | $195 |  |  |  | $1,031 |  |  |  | $2,583 |
IPL | 2014 |  | 2015 |  | 2016 |  | 2017 |  | 2018 |  | Thereafter |  | Total
Purchased power (a): |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
DAEC (b) |  | $120 |  |  |  | $119 |  |  |  | $127 |  |  |  | $138 |  |  |  | $128 |  |  |  | $1,025 |  |  |  | $1,657 |
Other | — |  |  | — |  |  | 1 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 1 |
| 120 |  |  | 119 |  |  | 128 |  |  | 138 |  |  | 128 |  |  | 1,025 |  |  | 1,658 |
Natural gas | 129 |  |  | 37 |  |  | 15 |  |  | 3 |  |  | 1 |  |  | 6 |  |  | 191 |
Coal (c) | 63 |  |  | 32 |  |  | 27 |  |  | 11 |  |  | 6 |  |  | — |  |  | 139 |
SO2 emission allowances (d) | — |  |  | 12 |  |  | 14 |  |  | 8 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 34 |
Other (e) | 5 |  |  | 1 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 6 |
| $317 |  |  | $201 |  |  |  | $184 |  |  |  | $160 |  |  |  | $135 |  |  |  | $1,031 |  |  |  | $2,028 |
WPL | 2014 |  | 2015 |  | 2016 |  | 2017 |  | 2018 |  | Thereafter |  | Total
Purchased power (a) |  | $52 |  |  |  | $73 |  |  |  | $44 |  |  |  | $44 |  |  |  | $44 |  |  |  | $— |  |  |  | $257 |
Natural gas | 58 |  |  | 28 |  |  | 19 |  |  | 7 |  |  | 1 |  |  | — |  |  | 113 |
Coal (c) | 65 |  |  | 49 |  |  | 32 |  |  | 19 |  |  | 15 |  |  | — |  |  | 180 |
Other (e) | 2 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 2 |
|  | $177 |  |  |  | $150 |  |  |  | $95 |  |  |  | $70 |  |  |  | $60 |  |  |  | $— |  |  |  | $552 |
(a) | Includes payments required by PPAs for capacity rights (Alliant Energy and IPL only) and minimum quantities of MWhs required to be purchased. Refer to Note 18 for additional information on purchased power transactions.
(b) | Includes commitments incurred under an existing PPA that expires February 2014 and a new PPA effective February 2014. 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 fuel adjustment clause.
(c) | 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 December 31, 2013 regarding expected future usage, which is subject to change.
(d) | Refer to Note 2 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, 2013.
Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL enter into certain contracts that are considered leases and are therefore not included here, but are included in Note 10. (c) Legal Proceedings - Cash Balance Plan - In 2008, a class-action lawsuit was filed against the Cash Balance Plan in the Court. The complaint alleged that certain Cash Balance 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 Cash Balance Plan applied an improper interest crediting rate to project the cash balance account to their normal retirement age. These Cash Balance Plan participants were limited to individuals who, prior to normal retirement age, received a lump-sum distribution or an annuity payment. In 2011, the Cash Balance Plan was amended and the Cash Balance Plan subsequently made approximately $10 million in additional payments in 2011 to certain former participants in the Cash Balance Plan. This amendment was required based on an agreement Alliant Energy reached with the IRS, which resulted in a favorable determination letter for the Cash Balance Plan in 2011. In 2012, the Court entered a final judgment in the class-action lawsuit, which was appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In August 2013, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on the case and remanded it to the Court to determine final damages. The Cash Balance Plan entered into a stipulation agreement with the plaintiffs, which was filed with the Court in December 2013 settling all open matters in the case. In January 2014, the Court entered final judgment in the total amount of $9.0 million. Plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and costs will be paid from the final damages. Due to the stipulation agreement filed with the Court in December 2013, Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL recognized the additional benefits to be paid to the plaintiffs in their Consolidated Statements of Income in 2013. As a result of the January 2014 final Court order requiring plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and costs to be paid out of the final judgment, Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL reversed the reserve previously recorded related to payment of plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and costs. As a result of recognizing the additional benefits of $9.0 million to be paid to the plaintiffs and reversing the previously recorded reserve of $6.7 million for plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and costs, there was not a net material impact on Alliant Energy’s, IPL’s or WPL’s results of operations for 2013. Flood Damage Claims - In June 2013, several plaintiffs purporting to represent a class of residential and commercial property owners filed a complaint against CRANDIC, Alliant Energy and various other defendants in the Iowa District Court for Linn County. Plaintiffs asserted 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. In July 2013, the case was removed from state court to federal court based on federal jurisdiction. In September 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims and transferred the case for resolution to the Surface Transportation Board, the administrative agency that oversees the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act. In October 2013, the plaintiffs appealed the federal court’s dismissal of the case to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Alliant Energy and CRANDIC believe the case is without merit and will continue to vigorously contest 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 December 31, 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. Smart Meters Patents - In 2011, a lawsuit was filed against WPL in the Court by TransData, a company that is claiming it has valid patents covering wireless smart electric meter technology. TransData alleges in the lawsuit that WPL used meters that contain technology that allegedly infringe on patents owned by TransData. In 2012, the lawsuit was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, whereby the lawsuit was consolidated with lawsuits TransData previously filed against various other utility companies. The smart meters in question were purchased by WPL from a third-party vendor. The third-party vendor, while not a party to the litigation, is defending WPL. WPL also believes that it has an indemnification agreement with the third-party vendor for any judgment that may result from the litigation. TransData is seeking injunctive relief and recovery of an unspecified amount of damages. Alliant Energy and WPL do not currently believe any material losses from this lawsuit are both probable and reasonably estimated, and therefore, have not recognized any material loss contingency amounts for this lawsuit as of December 31, 2013. Due to the lack of specific damages identified and the status of the litigation, WPL is currently unable to provide an estimate of potential loss or range of potential loss. 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
| 2013 |  | 2012 |  | 2013 |  | 2012 |  | 2013 |  | 2012
Current environmental liabilities |  | $3.6 |  |  |  | $3.7 |  |  |  | $2.8 |  |  |  | $2.5 |  |  |  | $0.8 |  |  |  | $1.2 |
Non-current environmental liabilities | 15.4 |  |  | 25.3 |  |  | 13.6 |  |  | 23.2 |  |  | 1.7 |  |  | 2.1 |
|  | $19.0 |  |  |  | $29.0 |  |  |  | $16.4 |  |  |  | $25.7 |  |  |  | $2.5 |  |  |  | $3.3 |
MGP Sites - IPL and WPL have current or previous ownership interests in v arious sites that are previously associated with the production of gas for which IPL and WPL have, or may have in the 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 these former MGP 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 former 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 $13 million ($11 million for IPL and $2 million for WPL) to $30 million ($27 million for IPL and $3 million for WPL). At December 31, 2013, Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL recorded $19 million, $16 million and $3 million, respectively, in other current and non-current environmental liabilities for their remaining costs to be incurred for these MGP sites. Refer to Note 2 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. WPL Consent Decree - In 2009, the EPA sent an NOV to WPL as an owner and the operator of Edgewater, Nelson Dewey and Columbia alleging 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 PSD program requirements, Title V Operating Permit requirements of the CAA and the Wisconsin SIP. In 2010, the Sierra Club filed complaints against WPL, as owner and operator of Nelson Dewey and Columbia, and separately as owner and operator of Edgewater, 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 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 against WPL. Under the Consent Decree, WPL is required to install the following emission controls systems:
• | 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, NOx and PM 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 in 2013 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 certain of the environmental mitigation projects and the civil penalty. 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. Several of these environmental regulations are subject to legal challenges, reconsideration and/or other uncertainties. 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 EGUs 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 is an emissions trading program that requires SO2 and NOx emissions reductions at certain of IPL’s and WPL’s fossil-fueled EGUs located in Iowa and Wisconsin through installation of emission controls and/or purchases of allowances. CAVR requires states to develop and implement plans to address visibility impairment in designated national parks and wilderness areas. These implementation plans require BART emission controls and other additional measures needed for reducing state contributions to regional haze. MATS Rule requires compliance with emission limits for mercury and other HAPs. Compliance is required by April 2015; however, an entity can request an additional year for compliance for certain EGUs. Wisconsin State Mercury Rule requires WPL’s existing coal-fueled EGUs to comply with mercury emission limits beginning in 2010. Industrial Boiler and Process Heater MACT Rule requires compliance with HAPs emission limitations at certain EGUs and fossil-fueled auxiliary boilers and process heaters located at EGUs by early 2016. Ozone NAAQS Rule - The ozone NAAQS rule may require a reduction of NOx emissions in certain non-attainment areas based on classifications assigned by the EPA. In 2012, the EPA issued a final rule that classifies Sheboygan County in Wisconsin as marginal ozone non-attainment, which requires this area to achieve compliance with the ozone NAAQS by December 2015. WPL operates Edgewater and Sheboygan Falls in Sheboygan County, Wisconsin. Fine Particulate (PM2.5) NAAQS Rule requires a reduction of SO2, NOx and PM emissions in certain non-attainment areas. The EPA is expected to designate non-attainment areas for the revised annual PM2.5 NAAQS by December 2014. Compliance with the final rule is expected to be required by 2020 for non-attainment areas designated in 2014. EPA NSPS for GHG Emissions from Electric Utilities would establish CO2 emissions limits for certain new fossil-fueled EGUs. Marshalltown is expected to be impacted by these proposed standards and would be constructed to achieve compliance with these standards. Also, WPL’s potential generation investment could be impacted by these standards. A date for finalizing these standards has not yet been established. The EPA is expected to issue proposed and final NSPS for GHG emissions for existing EGUs by June 1, 2014 and June 1, 2015, respectively, which would provide guidelines that states must follow to achieve required GHG emissions reductions. SIPs that provide details of how these guidelines are to be met would be required from state agencies by June 30, 2016. Water Quality - Section 316(b) of the Federal Clean Water Act proposal would 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. Hydroelectric Fish Passage Device - WPL is currently required to install an agency-approved fish passage device at its Prairie du Sac hydro plant by July 1, 2015. Effluent Limitation Guidelines proposal would require changes to discharge limits for wastewater from steam EGUs. 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. Land and Solid Waste - 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. (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 and 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 or 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. In 2013, IPL entered into a new PPA, which 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. This PPA exposes Alliant Energy and IPL to risk of counterparty non-performance. However, such risk is mitigated by IPL’s fuel-related cost recovery mechanisms. Refer to Note 16(b) for further discussion of the DAEC PPA. Based on these credit policies and utility cost recovery mechanisms, 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(m) and 15 for details of allowances for doubtful accounts and credit risk-related contingent features, respectively. (g) Collective Bargaining Agreements - At December 31, 2013, employees covered by collective bargaining agreements represented 57%, 67% and 80% of total employees of Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL, respectively. In May 2014, WPL’s collective bargaining agreement with IBEW Local 965 expires, representing 26% and 80% of total employees of Alliant Energy and WPL, respectively.
WPL [Member] |
Commitments And Contingencies | 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 the installation of scrubbers and baghouses at IPL’s Ottumwa Unit 1 and WPL’s Columbia Units 1 and 2 to reduce SO2 and mercury emissions at the EGUs and generation performance improvements at IPL’s Ottumwa Unit 1. At December 31, 2013, Alliant Energy’s, IPL’s and WPL’s minimum future commitments related to these projects were $86 million, $35 million and $51 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 December 31, 2013, minimum future commitments related to these operating expense purchase obligations were as follows (in millions):
Alliant Energy | 2014 |  | 2015 |  | 2016 |  | 2017 |  | 2018 |  | Thereafter |  | Total
Purchased power (a): |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
DAEC (IPL) (b) |  | $120 |  |  |  | $119 |  |  |  | $127 |  |  |  | $138 |  |  |  | $128 |  |  |  | $1,025 |  |  |  | $1,657 |
Other | 52 |  |  | 73 |  |  | 45 |  |  | 44 |  |  | 44 |  |  | — |  |  | 258 |
| 172 |  |  | 192 |  |  | 172 |  |  | 182 |  |  | 172 |  |  | 1,025 |  |  | 1,915 |
Natural gas | 187 |  |  | 65 |  |  | 34 |  |  | 10 |  |  | 2 |  |  | 6 |  |  | 304 |
Coal (c) | 128 |  |  | 81 |  |  | 59 |  |  | 30 |  |  | 21 |  |  | — |  |  | 319 |
SO2 emission allowances (d) | — |  |  | 12 |  |  | 14 |  |  | 8 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 34 |
Other (e) | 8 |  |  | 3 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 11 |
|  | $495 |  |  |  | $353 |  |  |  | $279 |  |  |  | $230 |  |  |  | $195 |  |  |  | $1,031 |  |  |  | $2,583 |
IPL | 2014 |  | 2015 |  | 2016 |  | 2017 |  | 2018 |  | Thereafter |  | Total
Purchased power (a): |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
DAEC (b) |  | $120 |  |  |  | $119 |  |  |  | $127 |  |  |  | $138 |  |  |  | $128 |  |  |  | $1,025 |  |  |  | $1,657 |
Other | — |  |  | — |  |  | 1 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 1 |
| 120 |  |  | 119 |  |  | 128 |  |  | 138 |  |  | 128 |  |  | 1,025 |  |  | 1,658 |
Natural gas | 129 |  |  | 37 |  |  | 15 |  |  | 3 |  |  | 1 |  |  | 6 |  |  | 191 |
Coal (c) | 63 |  |  | 32 |  |  | 27 |  |  | 11 |  |  | 6 |  |  | — |  |  | 139 |
SO2 emission allowances (d) | — |  |  | 12 |  |  | 14 |  |  | 8 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 34 |
Other (e) | 5 |  |  | 1 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 6 |
| $317 |  |  | $201 |  |  |  | $184 |  |  |  | $160 |  |  |  | $135 |  |  |  | $1,031 |  |  |  | $2,028 |
WPL | 2014 |  | 2015 |  | 2016 |  | 2017 |  | 2018 |  | Thereafter |  | Total
Purchased power (a) |  | $52 |  |  |  | $73 |  |  |  | $44 |  |  |  | $44 |  |  |  | $44 |  |  |  | $— |  |  |  | $257 |
Natural gas | 58 |  |  | 28 |  |  | 19 |  |  | 7 |  |  | 1 |  |  | — |  |  | 113 |
Coal (c) | 65 |  |  | 49 |  |  | 32 |  |  | 19 |  |  | 15 |  |  | — |  |  | 180 |
Other (e) | 2 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 2 |
|  | $177 |  |  |  | $150 |  |  |  | $95 |  |  |  | $70 |  |  |  | $60 |  |  |  | $— |  |  |  | $552 |
(a) | Includes payments required by PPAs for capacity rights (Alliant Energy and IPL only) and minimum quantities of MWhs required to be purchased. Refer to Note 18 for additional information on purchased power transactions.
(b) | Includes commitments incurred under an existing PPA that expires February 2014 and a new PPA effective February 2014. 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 fuel adjustment clause.
(c) | 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 December 31, 2013 regarding expected future usage, which is subject to change.
(d) | Refer to Note 2 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, 2013.
Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL enter into certain contracts that are considered leases and are therefore not included here, but are included in Note 10. (c) Legal Proceedings - Cash Balance Plan - In 2008, a class-action lawsuit was filed against the Cash Balance Plan in the Court. The complaint alleged that certain Cash Balance 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 Cash Balance Plan applied an improper interest crediting rate to project the cash balance account to their normal retirement age. These Cash Balance Plan participants were limited to individuals who, prior to normal retirement age, received a lump-sum distribution or an annuity payment. In 2011, the Cash Balance Plan was amended and the Cash Balance Plan subsequently made approximately $10 million in additional payments in 2011 to certain former participants in the Cash Balance Plan. This amendment was required based on an agreement Alliant Energy reached with the IRS, which resulted in a favorable determination letter for the Cash Balance Plan in 2011. In 2012, the Court entered a final judgment in the class-action lawsuit, which was appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In August 2013, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on the case and remanded it to the Court to determine final damages. The Cash Balance Plan entered into a stipulation agreement with the plaintiffs, which was filed with the Court in December 2013 settling all open matters in the case. In January 2014, the Court entered final judgment in the total amount of $9.0 million. Plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and costs will be paid from the final damages. Due to the stipulation agreement filed with the Court in December 2013, Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL recognized the additional benefits to be paid to the plaintiffs in their Consolidated Statements of Income in 2013. As a result of the January 2014 final Court order requiring plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and costs to be paid out of the final judgment, Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL reversed the reserve previously recorded related to payment of plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and costs. As a result of recognizing the additional benefits of $9.0 million to be paid to the plaintiffs and reversing the previously recorded reserve of $6.7 million for plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and costs, there was not a net material impact on Alliant Energy’s, IPL’s or WPL’s results of operations for 2013. Flood Damage Claims - In June 2013, several plaintiffs purporting to represent a class of residential and commercial property owners filed a complaint against CRANDIC, Alliant Energy and various other defendants in the Iowa District Court for Linn County. Plaintiffs asserted 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. In July 2013, the case was removed from state court to federal court based on federal jurisdiction. In September 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims and transferred the case for resolution to the Surface Transportation Board, the administrative agency that oversees the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act. In October 2013, the plaintiffs appealed the federal court’s dismissal of the case to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Alliant Energy and CRANDIC believe the case is without merit and will continue to vigorously contest 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 December 31, 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. Smart Meters Patents - In 2011, a lawsuit was filed against WPL in the Court by TransData, a company that is claiming it has valid patents covering wireless smart electric meter technology. TransData alleges in the lawsuit that WPL used meters that contain technology that allegedly infringe on patents owned by TransData. In 2012, the lawsuit was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, whereby the lawsuit was consolidated with lawsuits TransData previously filed against various other utility companies. The smart meters in question were purchased by WPL from a third-party vendor. The third-party vendor, while not a party to the litigation, is defending WPL. WPL also believes that it has an indemnification agreement with the third-party vendor for any judgment that may result from the litigation. TransData is seeking injunctive relief and recovery of an unspecified amount of damages. Alliant Energy and WPL do not currently believe any material losses from this lawsuit are both probable and reasonably estimated, and therefore, have not recognized any material loss contingency amounts for this lawsuit as of December 31, 2013. Due to the lack of specific damages identified and the status of the litigation, WPL is currently unable to provide an estimate of potential loss or range of potential loss. 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
| 2013 |  | 2012 |  | 2013 |  | 2012 |  | 2013 |  | 2012
Current environmental liabilities |  | $3.6 |  |  |  | $3.7 |  |  |  | $2.8 |  |  |  | $2.5 |  |  |  | $0.8 |  |  |  | $1.2 |
Non-current environmental liabilities | 15.4 |  |  | 25.3 |  |  | 13.6 |  |  | 23.2 |  |  | 1.7 |  |  | 2.1 |
|  | $19.0 |  |  |  | $29.0 |  |  |  | $16.4 |  |  |  | $25.7 |  |  |  | $2.5 |  |  |  | $3.3 |
MGP Sites - IPL and WPL have current or previous ownership interests in v arious sites that are previously associated with the production of gas for which IPL and WPL have, or may have in the 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 these former MGP 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 former 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 $13 million ($11 million for IPL and $2 million for WPL) to $30 million ($27 million for IPL and $3 million for WPL). At December 31, 2013, Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL recorded $19 million, $16 million and $3 million, respectively, in other current and non-current environmental liabilities for their remaining costs to be incurred for these MGP sites. Refer to Note 2 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. WPL Consent Decree - In 2009, the EPA sent an NOV to WPL as an owner and the operator of Edgewater, Nelson Dewey and Columbia alleging 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 PSD program requirements, Title V Operating Permit requirements of the CAA and the Wisconsin SIP. In 2010, the Sierra Club filed complaints against WPL, as owner and operator of Nelson Dewey and Columbia, and separately as owner and operator of Edgewater, 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 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 against WPL. Under the Consent Decree, WPL is required to install the following emission controls systems:
• | 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, NOx and PM 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 in 2013 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 certain of the environmental mitigation projects and the civil penalty. 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. Several of these environmental regulations are subject to legal challenges, reconsideration and/or other uncertainties. 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 EGUs 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 is an emissions trading program that requires SO2 and NOx emissions reductions at certain of IPL’s and WPL’s fossil-fueled EGUs located in Iowa and Wisconsin through installation of emission controls and/or purchases of allowances. CAVR requires states to develop and implement plans to address visibility impairment in designated national parks and wilderness areas. These implementation plans require BART emission controls and other additional measures needed for reducing state contributions to regional haze. MATS Rule requires compliance with emission limits for mercury and other HAPs. Compliance is required by April 2015; however, an entity can request an additional year for compliance for certain EGUs. Wisconsin State Mercury Rule requires WPL’s existing coal-fueled EGUs to comply with mercury emission limits beginning in 2010. Industrial Boiler and Process Heater MACT Rule requires compliance with HAPs emission limitations at certain EGUs and fossil-fueled auxiliary boilers and process heaters located at EGUs by early 2016. Ozone NAAQS Rule - The ozone NAAQS rule may require a reduction of NOx emissions in certain non-attainment areas based on classifications assigned by the EPA. In 2012, the EPA issued a final rule that classifies Sheboygan County in Wisconsin as marginal ozone non-attainment, which requires this area to achieve compliance with the ozone NAAQS by December 2015. WPL operates Edgewater and Sheboygan Falls in Sheboygan County, Wisconsin. Fine Particulate (PM2.5) NAAQS Rule requires a reduction of SO2, NOx and PM emissions in certain non-attainment areas. The EPA is expected to designate non-attainment areas for the revised annual PM2.5 NAAQS by December 2014. Compliance with the final rule is expected to be required by 2020 for non-attainment areas designated in 2014. EPA NSPS for GHG Emissions from Electric Utilities would establish CO2 emissions limits for certain new fossil-fueled EGUs. Marshalltown is expected to be impacted by these proposed standards and would be constructed to achieve compliance with these standards. Also, WPL’s potential generation investment could be impacted by these standards. A date for finalizing these standards has not yet been established. The EPA is expected to issue proposed and final NSPS for GHG emissions for existing EGUs by June 1, 2014 and June 1, 2015, respectively, which would provide guidelines that states must follow to achieve required GHG emissions reductions. SIPs that provide details of how these guidelines are to be met would be required from state agencies by June 30, 2016. Water Quality - Section 316(b) of the Federal Clean Water Act proposal would 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. Hydroelectric Fish Passage Device - WPL is currently required to install an agency-approved fish passage device at its Prairie du Sac hydro plant by July 1, 2015. Effluent Limitation Guidelines proposal would require changes to discharge limits for wastewater from steam EGUs. 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. Land and Solid Waste - 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. (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 and 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 or 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. In 2013, IPL entered into a new PPA, which 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. This PPA exposes Alliant Energy and IPL to risk of counterparty non-performance. However, such risk is mitigated by IPL’s fuel-related cost recovery mechanisms. Refer to Note 16(b) for further discussion of the DAEC PPA. Based on these credit policies and utility cost recovery mechanisms, 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(m) and 15 for details of allowances for doubtful accounts and credit risk-related contingent features, respectively. (g) Collective Bargaining Agreements - At December 31, 2013, employees covered by collective bargaining agreements represented 57%, 67% and 80% of total employees of Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL, respectively. In May 2014, WPL’s collective bargaining agreement with IBEW Local 965 expires, representing 26% and 80% of total employees of Alliant Energy and WPL, 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 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 2: 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 3: 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 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration