XML 64 R21.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.0.6

Commitments and Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | 8. Commitments and Contingencies. a. Environmental - MGE Energy and MGE. Water Quality Water quality regulations promulgated by the EPA and WDNR in accordance with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, or more commonly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), impose restrictions on discharges of various pollutants into surface waters. The CWA also regulates surface water quality issues that affect aquatic life, such as water temperatures, intake structures, and wetlands filling. The CWA also includes discharge standards, which require the use of effluent-treatment processes equivalent to categorical "best practicable" or "best available" technologies. The CWA regulates discharges from "point sources" such as power plants through establishing discharge limits in water discharge permits. MGE's power plants operate under Wisconsin Pollution Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) permits to ensure compliance with these discharge limits. EPA Cooling Water Intake Rules (Section 316(b)) Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act requires that the cooling water intake structures at electric power plants meet best available technology standards so that mortality from entrainment (drawing aquatic life into a plant's cooling system) and impingement (trapping aquatic life on screens) are reduced. Section 316(b) has been introduced in two phases. Phase I, which has been finalized, covered new facilities at the time that the rule was introduced. Phase II, which has not been finalized, is designed to cover what is defined as existing facilities. The EPA issued a proposed Phase II rule and alternative compliance strategies for existing facilities in April 2011 and has until June 27, 2013 to issue a final rule, pursuant to a settlement agreement. The currently proposed Phase II rule and potential alternatives allow for a state permitting agency's discretion in determining best technology available at plants that are under their permitting authority and is not requiring cooling towers in all instances. The WDNR holds permitting authority for Wisconsin and implementation of the rule will be through modification of the plants' WPDES permits. Blount and Columbia generating plants are subject to both the impingement and entrainment aspects of the current proposed rule. WCCF is subject to the impingement aspect only. The Elm Road Units are covered under Phase I of the rule and meets those requirements. We anticipate that under the current proposed rule, equipment would need to be installed at Blount, WCCF, and Columbia to meet these new standards. However it is not presently possible to estimate the potential costs associated with this rule because the rule has not been finalized. Air Quality Federal and state air quality regulations impose restrictions on emission of particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide (SO 2), nitrogen oxides (NO x), and other pollutants and require permits for operation of emission sources. These permits have been obtained by MGE and must be renewed periodically. Various initiatives, including interstate pollution transport rules, maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards, new source performance standards (NSPS), the Clean Air Visibility Rule (also known as the Regional Haze Rule), and mercury emissions limits are expected to result in additional operating and capital expenditure costs for electric generating units. Vacation of EPA's Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and Reinstatement of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) In 2005, EPA promulgated the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to reduce ozone and fine particulate matter emissions by reducing NO x and SO 2 emissions. NO x and SO 2 interact in the atmosphere to form ambient ozone from NO x and fine particulate matter pollution from NO x and SO 2. The CAIR generally requires NO x and SO 2 emission reductions from fossil fuel-fired EGUs (25 MW or greater) in the eastern half of the United States in two phases and includes a regional cap-and-trade system. The first phase (currently in place) requires annual regional emission reductions from 2003 levels of 55% for NO x and 40% for SO 2. The second phase (beginning in 2015) reduces regional NO x and SO 2 emissions further from 2003 levels to 65% and 70%, respectively. MGE owns or has partial ownership in several generation units currently subject to the CAIR: Blount, Columbia, Elm Road Units, and its combustion turbines located in West Marinette and Fitchburg. In December 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit remanded the CAIR to the EPA with directions to revise or replace the rule. The Court's remand order directed that the CAIR remain in effect until the EPA promulgated a replacement rule. The Court's order did not include a deadline for the EPA to act. In August 2011, the EPA responded to the remand of the CAIR by promulgating the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). However, in August 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated CSAPR and instructed the EPA to continue administering the CAIR pending finalizing a valid alternative program to control interstate pollution. In January 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied the EPA's petition for reconsideration en banc. The EPA and several environmental groups have appealed the D.C. Circuit Court's August 2012 decision to the Supreme Court in separate filings. At this time, the CAIR remains effective. MGE is currently in compliance with the CAIR Phase I requirements. MGE will be able to meet Phase II NO x emissions reductions through using our NO x allowances provided through the rule, and we will meet Phase II SO 2 emissions reductions through installation of pollution controls. New SO 2 controls at Columbia are already underway and are planned to be completed by mid 20 14 (see the discussion regarding the Columbia environmental project below). MGE expects that any costs incurred to meet Phase II of the CAIR will be fully recoverable through rates. MGE will monitor the Supreme Court's response to the CSAPR appeals and any subsequent actions by the EPA to continue to evaluate potential impacts to our operations. Clean Air Visibility Rule (CAVR) Air modeling indicates that SO 2 and NO x emissions (and to a lesser extent particulate matter) from Columbia may impair visibility at certain Class I Scenic Areas and may therefore be subject to the best available retrofit technology (BART) regulations, a subsection of the EPA's Clean Air Visibility Rule (CAVR), which may require pollution retrofits. The EPA had proposed that a power plant's compliance with emissions limitations in the CAIR and later under CSAPR could also serve as compliance with the BART regulations for SO 2 and NO x emissions. However, this proposal is now uncertain because of the D.C. Circuit decisions to remand the CAIR and vacate CSAPR and the EPA's decision to pursue Supreme Court review of the CSAPR vacature. See CAIR and CSAPR discussion above for additional information on these proceedings. Capital expenditures at Columbia under BART still remain a possibility however at this time, the BART regulatory obligations, compliance strategies and costs remain uncertain until the Supreme Court makes adecision regarding CSAPR. Wisconsin State Mercury Rule Beginning January 1, 2015, phase two of the Wisconsin mercury rule will require large coal-fired EGUs (larger than 150 MW) to reduce mercury emissions by 90%, or choose a multi-pollutant reduction approach, which allows a stepped approach to mercury reduction while reducing NO x and SO 2 emissions at prescribed rates. The Elm Road Units currently meet this requirement. The Col umbia co-owners expect to meet the 90% reduction option by installing baghou ses and scrubbers by mid 2014 (see the discussion regarding the Columbia environmental project below). With the finalization of the EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standard, or MATs, the WDNR is currently evaluating how the state mercury rule should be supplanted by the EPA's rule (see discussion on MATs below). Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATs) for Utility Boilers (Also Referred to as the Maximum Achievable Control Technology, or MACT) In December 2011, the EPA finalized its Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for coal and oil-burning EGU boilers. MATs will require emissions standards for mercury, non-mercury HAPs metals, and acid gases. Compliance with MATs is generally required three years from the rule issuance, but permitting authorities can grant an additional year for compliance to facilities. MGE's Columbia and Elm Road Units are subject to MATs. The Elm Road Unit's current pollution controls, and Columbia's planned mercury pollution controls (baghouse and scrubbers) to be installed by mid 2014, are expected to allow both facilities to comply with the MATs rule without extensions (see the discussion regarding Columbia environmental project below). National Ambient Air Quality Standards The EPA has developed National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six compounds currently identified as criteria pollutants: nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, ozone, sulfur dioxide, lead, and carbon monoxide. The NAAQS for criteria pollutants establish acceptable ambient air levels of each pollutant based on a review of their effects to human health and the environment, and changes to those NAAQS can affect compliance requirements and associated capital and operating costs. The EPA is required to review NAAQS every five years. Certain stationary sources, such as MGE's generation facilities, must meet NAAQS standards for emissions that travel offsite. Stationary source air quality modeling is used to determine whether emissions from permitted sources meet these NAAQS. Failure to meet NAAQS may require a permit applicant to incur capital or operational costs to bring a source into compliance. We cannot predict if MGE's permitted stationary sources will have difficulty meeting new standards not previously modeled. Modeling performed by the WDNR for MGE's permitted facilities has demonstrated compliance with current NAAQS. Additional modeling may be required in future permitting actions. MGE tracks NAAQS developments to determine if new standards may affect us. MGE is currently tracking two NAAQS developments: (1) determination and placement of monitoring networks in Wisconsin for the 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO 2) NAAQS (Wisconsin is currently considered in attainment with NO 2 NAAQS, however stationary source modeling may be required for NO 2 in the future) and (2) implementation requirements under the 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO 2) NAAQS. The EPA has issued draft guidance that indicates larger sources, such as Columbia, may be required to install ambient air monitors and/or perform dispersion modeling to demonstrate attainment. A concern has been raised regarding the current EPA-preferred dispersion model. The model may not be accurate for estimating SO 2 stationary source impacts and may overestimate off-site concentrations of SO 2 from stationary sources. The EPA is working to resolve issues with the model. Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine (RICE) MACT Standard In January 2013, the EPA finalized amendments to its RICE MACT standard. RICE MACT applies to industrial or electrical engines that are classified as reciprocating internal combustion engines. Engines owned by MGE that would fall under the RICE MACT rule include backup generators and small engines at various locations, including our fleet of distributed generators that serve as electric system backup and emergency dispatch. The distributed generators in particular will either require additional pollution controls or a change in how they are dispatched. MGE is continuing to evaluate the impacts to our engines based on this new standard, including evaluating the costs associated with adding pollution controls on some or all our aforementioned distributed generators. Greenhouse Gas Regulation On March 27, 2012, the EPA proposed GHG New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for coal fired and natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) EGUs. The proposal applies to new EGUs only. However, the EPA plans to propose NSPS for existing units some time in 2013 as part of a 2010 settlement agreement. There is a great deal of uncertainty as to what the EPA will include in their NSPS for existing units and thus we are unable to comment on potential impacts to MGE at this time. Columbia MGE and two other utilities jointly own Columbia, a coal-fired generating facility, which accounts for 225 MW (29%) of MGE's net summer generating capability. WPL is the plant operator and permit holder, and owns 46.2% of Columbia. Wisconsin Public Service Corporation (WPSC) owns a 31.8% interest, and MGE owns a 22% interest in Columbia. Based upon current available information, compliance with various environmental requirements and initiatives is expected to result in significant additional operating and capital expenditures at Columbia. Columbia Environmental Project In early 2011, the PSCW issued a Certificate and Order authorizing the construction of scrubbers and bag houses and associated equipment on Columbia Units 1 and 2 to reduce SO 2 and mercury emissions. The scrubbers and bag houses are expected to support compliance obligations for current and anticipated air quality regulations, including CAIR, CAIR's eventual replacement, the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATs), and the Wisconsin Mercury Rule. WPL, the plant operator, currently estimates that MGE's share of the capital expenditures required for this project is approximately $140 million. The project is underway and estimated to be completed by mid 2014. MGE's share of various contractual commitments entered for the project as of March 31, 201 3 is $56.7 million. These costs are expected to be capitalized and included in the consolidated balance sheets of MGE Energy and MGE. See Footnote 4 for further information regarding the Columbia environmental construction project. Title V Operating Permit Petition In September 2008, the WDNR issued a Title V renewal operating permit to WPL for Columbia. However, a citizen group petitioned the EPA to object to the permit renewal. In October 2009, the EPA issued an order granting in part and denying in part the petition and sent the operating permit back to the WDNR for further review based on the EPA order. In February 2011, the citizen group involved filed an action against the EPA in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin seeking to have the EPA take over the permit process. In June 2012, the EPA notified the plant operator of its intent to assume responsibility for issuing the renewed operating permit for Columbia, but agreed to provide the plant operator with more time to potentially resolve the issues raised in the EPA's order. On February 4, 2013, the parties involved dismissed the litigation without prejudice. The matter is still pending at the EPA but has been postponed pending possible resolution of the Clean Air Act litigation discussed below. MGE believes the permits currently in effect for Columbia remain in place at this time. MGE continues to follow these developments and is unable to predict the outcome of this matter and its impact on its operations or financial condition. Col umbia Clean Air Act Litigation In December 2009, the EPA sent a notice of violation (NOV) to MGE as one of the co-owners of Columbia. The NOV alleges that WPL, as operator, and the co-owners (WPL, WPS, and MGE) failed to comply with appropriate pre-construction review and permitting requirements and, as a result, violated the PSD program requirements, the Title V operating permit requirements of the CAA and the Wisconsin State Implementation Plan (SIP). In September 2010, Sierra Club filed a lawsuit against WPL alleging violations of the CAA at Columbia and other WPL-operated Wisconsin facilities. WPL responded that the projects at Columbia were routine, or not projected to increase emissions, and therefore did not violate the perm itting requirements of the CAA. In April 2013, WPL, as operator, along with the other owners of Columbia (MGE and WPS), entered into a consent decree with the EPA and the Sierra Club to resolve these claims, while admitting no liability. The consent decree has been lodged with, and is subject to approval by, the Court, which could occur in the second quarter of 20 13. The consent decree, requires installation of the following emission controls at Columbia; scrubbers and baghouses at Columbia Units 1 and 2 by December 31, 2014 and an SCR system at Columbia Unit 2 by December 31, 2018. In addition, the consent decree establishes emission rate limits for SO 2, nitrogen oxide (NO x) and particulate matter for Columbia Units 1 and 2. The consent decree also includes annual plant-wide emission caps for SO 2 and NO x for Columbia. MGE will also pay approximately $0.2 million as its share of a civil penalty and complete approximately $0.6 million in environmental mitigation projects. MGE currently expects to recover any material costs that could be incurred by MGE related to the terms of the final consent decree from MGE's electric customers, except for costs related to the civil penalty. In accordance with applicable accounting standards, MGE has accrued an amount for this matter representing its best estimate of its probable liability, based upon its assessm ent of the settlement. That accrued amount is not material to the financial statements. MGE believes the likelihood of a materially greater liability than the accrued amount is remote based upon the current status. b. Chattel Paper Agreement and Other Guarantees - MGE Energy and MGE. MGE makes available to qualifying customers a financing program for the purchase and installation of energy-related equipment that will provide more efficient use of utility service at the customer's property. MGE is party to a chattel paper purchase agreement with a financial institution under which it can sell or finance an undivided interest with recourse, in up to $10.0 million of the financing program receivables, until July 31, 20 13. At March 31, 2013, MGE has outstanding a $4.3 million interest in these receivables. MGE retains the servicing responsibility for these receivables. As of March 31, 2013, the servicing asset recognized by MGE is $0.2 million. MGE accounts for servicing rights under the amortization method. Initial determination of the servicing asset fair value is based on the present value of the estimated future cash flows. The discount rate is based on the PSCW authorized weighted cost of capital. MGE would be required to perform under its guarantee if a customer defaulted on its loan. The energy-related equipment installed at the customer sites is used to secure the customer loans. The loan balances outstanding at March 31, 2013, approximate the fair value of the energy-related equipment acting as collateral. The length of the MGE guarantee to the financial institution varies from one to ten years depending on the term of the underlying customer loan. Principal payments for the remainder of 2013 and the next four years on the loans are:
| (In thousands) |  | 2013 |  | 2014 |  | 2015 |  | 2016 |  | 2017 |
| Chattel Paper | $ | 531 | $ | 554 | $ | 867 | $ | 791 | $ | 382 |
c. Legal Matters - MGE Energy and MGE. MGE is involved in various legal matters that are being defended and handled in the normal course of business, including the Columbia matters discussed above. MGE maintains accruals for such costs that are probable of being incurred and subject to reasonable estimation. The accrued amount for these matters is not material to the financial statements. d. Purchase Contracts - MGE Energy and MGE. MGE Energy and MGE have entered into various commodity supply, transportation and storage contracts to meet their obligations to deliver electricity and natural gas to customers. As of March 31, 2013, the future commitments related to these purchase contracts were as follows:
| (In thousands) |  | 2013 |  | 2014 |  | 2015 |  | 2016 |  | 2017 |
| Coal(a) | $ | 16,922 | $ | 9,933 | $ | 9,252 | $ | 1,623 | $ | 1,040 |
| Purchase power(b) |  | 49,182 |  | 48,425 |  | 47,293 |  | 48,121 |  | 49,242 |
| Other |  | 1,939 |  | 0 |  | 0 |  | 0 |  | 0 |
|  | $ | 68,043 | $ | 58,358 | $ | 56,545 | $ | 49,744 | $ | 50,282 |
(a) Total coal commitments for the Columbia and Elm Road Units, including transportation. Fuel procurement for MGE's jointly owned Columbia and Elm Road Units are handled by WPL and WEPCO, respectively, who are the operators of those facilities. If any minimum purchase obligations must be paid under these contracts, management believes these obligations would be considered costs of service and recoverable in rates. (b) MGE has several purchase power agreements to help meet future electric supply requirements. Management expects to recover these cos ts in future customer rates. e. Smart Grid Investment Grant - MGE Energy and MGE. MGE was approved in 2010 by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under the federal stimulus program for a $5.5 million grant for smart grid projects. The DOE grant requires MGE to match the grant funding, bringing the total cost of the projects to more than $11 million. The projects involve the installation of technologies to boost efficiency, enhance service, and improve reliability for customers. The stimulus grant is being used to fund the following projects: advanced metering infrastructure, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles support, and distribution management. As of March 31, 2013, MGE has spent $9.6 million r elated to these projects and has outstan ding agreements to purchase $0.9 million in smart grid related products for the remainder of 2013.

X
- Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6952336&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name FASB Interpretation (FIN) -Number 14 -Paragraph 3 -LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy. Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name 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. Reference 6: 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 7: 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 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration