XML 75 R26.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.0.8
Rate Matters (Tables)
 9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2014
Public Utilities, General Disclosures [Abstract]  
NSP-Minnesota's 2014 Electric Rate Case [Table Text Block]
The following table summarizes the DOC’s and NSP-Minnesota’s recommendations and includes the estimated impact of certain agreed-upon true-up adjustments:
2014 Rate Request (Millions of Dollars)
 
DOC
 
NSP-Minnesota
NSP-Minnesota’s filed rate request
 
$
192.7

 
$
192.7

Sales forecast
 
(43.2
)
 
(15.8
)
ROE
 
(36.2
)
 
—

Monticello EPU cost recovery
 
(33.9
)
 
—

Monticello EPU depreciation deferral
 
—

 
(12.2
)
Property taxes
 
(9.0
)
 
(9.0
)
PI EPU
 
(5.1
)
 
(5.1
)
Health care, pension and other benefits
 
(11.4
)
 
(1.9
)
Other, net
 
(8.0
)
 
(6.5
)
Total recommendation 2014 — unadjusted
 
$
45.9

 
$
142.2

Estimated true-up adjustments:
 
 
 
 
Sales forecast
 
$
18.3

 
$
(9.1
)
Property taxes
 
3.9

 
3.9

Total recommendation 2014 — adjusted
 
$
68.1

 
$
137.0

2015 Rate Request (Millions of Dollars)
 
DOC
 
NSP-Minnesota
NSP-Minnesota’s filed rate request
 
$
98.5

 
$
98.5

Monticello EPU cost recovery
 
29.1

 
—

Monticello EPU cost disallowance (a)
 
(10.2
)
 
—

Excess depreciation reserve adjustment (b)
 
(22.7
)
 
—

Depreciation
 
(17.5
)
 
—

Monticello EPU depreciation deferral
 
—

 
1.6

Monticello EPU step increase
 
—

 
10.1

Property taxes
 
(3.3
)
 
(3.3
)
Production tax credits to be included in base rates
 
(11.1
)
 
(11.1
)
DOE settlement proceeds
 
10.1

 
10.1

Emission chemicals
 
(1.6
)
 
(1.6
)
Other, net
 
(4.8
)
 
1.7

Total recommendation 2015 step increase
 
$
66.5

 
$
106.0

 
 
 
 
 
Unadjusted cumulative total for 2014 and 2015 step increase
 
$
112.4

 
$
248.2

 
 
 
 
 
Estimated adjusted cumulative total for 2014 and 2015 step increase
 
$
134.6

 
$
243.0


(a) 
In July 2014, the DOC recommended a disallowance of recovery of approximately $71.5 million of project costs on a Minnesota jurisdictional basis. This equates to a total NSP System disallowance of approximately $94 million. This would reduce NSP-Minnesota’s revenue requirement by approximately $10.2 million in 2015.
(b) 
Adjustment is due to timing differences and/or methodology of accelerating amortization of the excess depreciation reserve over three years.

NSP-Minnesota’s revised rate request, moderation plan, interim rate adjustments and impacts on expenses are detailed below:
(Millions of Dollars)
 
2014
 
Percentage
Increase
 
2015
 
Percentage
Increase
Rebuttal pre-moderation deficiency
 
$
250.6

 
 
 
$
67.8

 
 
Evidentiary hearing adjustments
 
(27.3
)
 
 
 
11.0

 
 
Revised pre-moderation deficiency
 
223.3

 
 
 
78.8

 
 
Moderation plan:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Excess depreciation reserve
 
(81.1
)
 
 
 
52.9

 
 
  DOE settlement proceeds
 
—

 
 
 
(25.7
)
 
 
Revised rate request
 
142.2

 
5.1%
 
106.0

 
3.8%
Interim rate adjustments
 
(65.3
)
 
 
 
65.3

 
 
PI EPU
 
4.8

 
 
 
(4.8
)
 
 
Revenue impact (a)
 
81.7

 
 
 
166.5

 
 
Excess depreciation reserve
 
81.1

 
 
 
(45.7
)
 
 
Sales forecast (b)
 
(9.1
)
 
 
 
—

 
 
DOE settlement proceeds
 
—

 
 
 
25.7

 
 
Estimated impact of request on operating income
 
$
153.7

 
 
 
$
146.5

 
 

(a) 
NSP-Minnesota’s total revenue for 2014 is capped at the interim rate level of $127 million and pre-tax operating income is capped at $208 million. This table demonstrates the impact of reducing NSP-Minnesota’s rebuttal request.
(b) 
NSP-Minnesota and the DOC have agreed to a sales true-up based on weather normalized sales for 2014, using standard weather coefficients. NSP-Minnesota periodically adjusts the coefficients in periods of extreme weather conditions to enhance weather impact estimates. As a result of the difference in the two methodologies, currently, approximately $9.1 million of revenue that NSP-Minnesota attributed to weather would be considered normal sales growth using the standard weather coefficients. The refund for the full year could vary from the estimate as of Sept. 30, 2014, depending on weather conditions.
South Dakota 2015 Electric Rate Case [Table Text Block]
The major components of the request are as follows:
(Millions of Dollars)
 
Request
Nuclear investments and operating costs
 
$
13.4

Other production, transmission and distribution
 
5.0

Technology improvements
 
2.1

Pension and operating and maintenance (O&M) expenses
 
1.6

Wind generation facilities
 
1.4

Capital structure
 
1.1

Incremental increase to base rates
 
$
24.6

 
 
 
Infrastructure rider to be included in base rates
 
$
(8.4
)
TCR rider to be included in base rates
 
(0.6
)
Net request
 
$
15.6
NSP-Wisconsin 2015 Electric Rate Case [Table Text Block]
(Millions of Dollars)
 
NSP-Wisconsin
Request
 
PSCW Staff Recommendation
Production and transmission fixed charges
 
$
28.1

 
$
26.4

Fuel and purchased power
 
13.9

 
11.1

Sub-Total
 
$
42.0

 
$
37.5

 
 
 
 
 
NSP-Minnesota transmission depreciation reserve
 
$
(16.2
)
 
$
(16.2
)
Monticello EPU deferral
 
(5.2
)
 
(5.2
)
Total
 
$
20.6

 
$
16.1
SPS' Texas 2014 Electric Rate Case [Table Text Block]
Although the parties to the settlement agreement have not prepared a calculation of the $37 million increase and do not agree about which specific costs are included, or not, in the agreed settlement revenue requirement, SPS’ reconciliation of its original request to the settlement increase is as follows:
(Millions of Dollars)
 
Settlement Agreement
Base rate increase request, January 2014
 
$
81.5

Revisions for updated information
 
(4.6
)
Revised request, April 2014
 
76.9

Remove proposed increase in depreciation
 
(16.0
)
Remove adjustment allocators for certain wholesale load reduction
 
(12.0
)
Revised amortizations (rate case expenses, pension and other post-employment benefits expense and gain on sale to Lubbock)
 
(9.0
)
Non-specified settlement adjustments
 
(2.9
)
Settlement base rate increase
 
$
37.0