Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2019

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Environmental Loss Contingency Disclosure [Text Block]

Environmental

MGP Sites

Ashland MGP Site — NSP-Wisconsin was named a responsible party for contamination at the Ashland/Northern States Power Lakefront Superfund Site (the Site) in Ashland, Wisconsin. Remediation and restoration activities are anticipated to be completed in 2019 and groundwater treatment activities will continue for many years.

The current cost estimate for remediation and restoration of the entire site is approximately $190 million. At June 30, 2019 and Dec. 31, 2018, NSP-Wisconsin had a total liability of $26 million and $27 million, respectively, for the entire site.

NSP-Wisconsin has deferred the unrecovered portion of the estimated Site remediation and restoration costs as a regulatory asset. The PSCW has authorized NSP-Wisconsin rate recovery for all remediation and restoration costs incurred at the Site. In 2012, the PSCW agreed to allow NSP-Wisconsin to pre-collect certain costs, to amortize costs over 10 years and to apply a 3% carrying cost to the unamortized regulatory asset.

MGP, Landfill or Disposal Sites — PSCo is cooperating with the City of Denver on an environmental investigation of the Rice Yards Site in the Central Platte Valley of Denver, Colorado, which had various historic industrial uses by multiple parties, including railroad, maintenance shop, scrap metal yard, and MGP operations. In the 1990’s, environmental remediation activities took place at the site under state oversight to accommodate the development of an amusement park and parking lots. The area is being redeveloped into residential and commercial mixed uses, and PSCo is in discussions with the current property owner regarding legal claims related to the Rice Yards Site.

In addition, Xcel Energy is currently investigating or remediating 11 other MGP, landfill or other disposal sites across its service territories.

Xcel Energy has recognized its best estimate of costs/liabilities that will result from final resolution of these issues, however, the outcome and timing is unknown.  In addition, there may be insurance recovery and/or recovery from other potentially responsible parties, offsetting a portion of the costs incurred.

Environmental Requirements — Water and Waste

Coal Ash Regulation — Xcel Energy’s operations are subject to federal and state laws that impose requirements for handling, storage, treatment and disposal of solid waste.

Under the CCR Rule, utilities are required to complete groundwater sampling around their CCR landfills and surface impoundments. By the end of 2019, only nine of Xcel Energy’s regulated ash units are expected to be in operation. Xcel Energy is conducting groundwater sampling, and where appropriate, initiating the assessment of corrective measures and evaluating whether corrective action is required at any CCR landfills or surface impoundments.

Until Xcel Energy completes its assessment, it is uncertain what impact, if any, there will be on the operations, financial condition or cash flows.

Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]

Legal

Xcel Energy is involved in various litigation matters in the ordinary course of business. The assessment of whether a loss is probable or is a reasonable possibility, and whether the loss or a range of loss is estimable, often involves a series of complex judgments about future events. Management maintains accruals for losses probable of being incurred and subject to reasonable estimation. Management is sometimes unable to estimate an amount or range of a reasonably possible loss in certain situations, including but not limited to when (1) the damages sought are indeterminate, (2) the proceedings are in the early stages, or (3) the matters involve novel or unsettled legal theories.

In such cases, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the timing or ultimate resolution of such matters, including a possible eventual loss. For current proceedings not specifically reported herein, management does not anticipate that the ultimate liabilities, if any, would have a material effect on Xcel Energy’s financial statements. Unless otherwise required by GAAP, legal fees are expensed as incurred.

Gas Trading Litigation — e prime is a wholly owned subsidiary of Xcel Energy. e prime was in the business of natural gas trading and marketing but has not engaged in natural gas trading or marketing activities since 2003.  Multiple lawsuits seeking monetary damages were commenced against e prime and its affiliates, including Xcel Energy, between 2003 and 2009 alleging fraud and anticompetitive activities in conspiring to restrain the trade of natural gas and manipulate natural gas prices. Cases were all consolidated in the U.S. District Court in Nevada.

Two cases remain active which include an MDL matter consisting of a Colorado purported class (Breckenridge) and a Wisconsin purported class (Arandell Corp.).

Breckenridge/Colorado - The MDL panel remanded Breckenridge back to the U.S. District Court in Colorado and assigned to a judge.

Arandell Corp. - In February 2019, Xcel Energy filed a no opposition motion to have the case remanded back to the U.S. District Court in Wisconsin. The motion was granted and the case has been remanded back to the District Court.

Xcel Energy has concluded that a loss is remote for both remaining lawsuits.

Line Extension Disputes — In December 2015, the DRC filed a lawsuit seeking monetary damages in the Denver District Court, stating PSCo failed to award proper allowances and refunds for line extensions to new developments pursuant to the terms of electric and gas service agreements. The dispute involves claims by over fifty developers. In February 2018, the Colorado Supreme Court denied DRC’s petition to appeal the Denver District Court’s dismissal of the lawsuit, effectively terminating this litigation. However, in January 2018, DRC filed a new lawsuit in Boulder County District Court, asserting a single claim that PSCo was required to file its line extension agreements with the CPUC but failed to do so.

This claim is similar to the arguments previously raised by DRC. PSCo filed a motion to dismiss this claim, which was granted in May 2018. DRC subsequently filed an appeal to the Colorado Court of Appeals. Briefs have been filed and it is uncertain when a decision will be rendered.

PSCo has concluded that a loss is remote with respect to both of these matters as the service agreements were developed to implement CPUC approved tariffs and PSCo has complied with the tariff provisions. If a loss were sustained, PSCo believes it would be allowed to recover costs through traditional regulatory mechanisms. Amount or range in dispute is presently unknown and no accrual has been recorded for this matter.

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies

The following include commitments, contingencies and unresolved contingencies that are material to Xcel Energy’s financial position.

Rate Matters

NSP-Minnesota — Sherco — In NSP-Minnesota’s 2013 fuel reconciliation filing, the MPUC made recovery of replacement power costs associated with the 2011 incident at its Sherco Unit 3 plant provisional and subject to further review following conclusion of litigation commenced by NSP-Minnesota, SMMPA (Co-owner of Sherco Unit 3) and insurance companies against GE.

In 2018, NSP-Minnesota and SMMPA reached a settlement with GE. NSP-Minnesota has notified the MPUC of its proposal to refund the GE settlement proceeds back to customers through the FCA.

The insurance providers continued their litigation against GE and the case went to trial. In 2018, GE prevailed in the lawsuit with the insurance companies, however, the jury found comparable fault, finding that GE was 52% and NSP-Minnesota was 48% at fault. At that point in the litigation, NSP-Minnesota was no longer involved in the case and was not present to make arguments about its role in the event. The specific issue leading to the fault apportionment was also not before the jury and not relevant to the outcome of the trial.

In January 2019, the DOC recommended that NSP-Minnesota refund $20 million of previously recovered purchased power costs to its customers, based on the jury’s apportionment of fault. The OAG recommended the MPUC withhold any decision until the underlying litigation by the insurance providers (currently under appeal) is concluded. The DOC subsequently agreed with the OAG’s recommendation to withhold a decision pending the outcome of any appeals. NSP-Minnesota filed reply comments arguing that the DOC recommendations are without merit and that it acted prudently in operating the plant and its settlement with GE was reasonable.

In March 2019, the MPUC approved NSP-Minnesota’s proposal to refund the GE settlement proceeds back to customers through the FCA. It also decided to withhold any decision as to NSP-Minnesota’s prudence in connection with the incident at Sherco Unit 3 until after conclusion of the pending litigation between GE and NSP-Minnesota’s insurers.

MISO ROE Complaints — In November 2013 and February 2015, customers filed complaints against MISO TOs including NSP-Minnesota and NSP-Wisconsin. The first complaint argued for a reduction in the base ROE in MISO transmission formula rates from 12.38% to 9.15%, and removal of ROE adders (including those for RTO membership). The second complaint sought to reduce base ROE from 12.38% to 8.67%.

In September 2016, the FERC issued an order granting a 10.32% base ROE (10.82% with the RTO adder) effective for the first complaint period of Nov. 12, 2013 to Feb. 11, 2015 and subsequent to the date of the order. The D.C. Circuit subsequently vacated and remanded FERC Opinion No. 531, which had established the ROE methodology on which the September 2016 FERC order was based.

In October 2018, the FERC issued an ROE order that addressed the D.C. Circuit’s actions. Under a new proposed two step ROE approach, the FERC indicated an intention to dismiss an ROE complaint if the existing ROE falls within the range of just and reasonable ROEs based on equal weighting of the DCF, CAPM, and Expected Earnings models. The FERC proposed that if necessary, it would then set a new ROE by averaging the results of these models plus a Risk Premium model.

The FERC subsequently made preliminary determinations in a November 2018 order that the MISO TO’s base ROE in effect for the first complaint period (12.38%) was outside the range of reasonableness, and should be reduced. The FERC indicated its preliminary analysis using the new ROE approach resulted in a base ROE of 10.28% for the first complaint period, compared to the previously ordered base ROE of 10.32%. NSP-Minnesota has recognized a current refund liability consistent with its best estimate of the final ROE, pending further FERC action as early as the second half of 2019.

On March 21, 2019, the FERC announced a NOI seeking public comments on whether, and if so how, to revise ROE policies in light of the D.C. Circuit Court decision. FERC also initiated a NOI on whether to revise its policies on incentives for electric transmission investments, including the RTO membership incentive. Initial comments on both NOIs were due in June 2019, with reply comments due in the third quarter of 2019, pending further FERC action as early as the second half of 2019.

SPP OATT Upgrade Costs — Under the SPP OATT, costs of transmission upgrades may be recovered from other SPP customers whose transmission service depends on capacity enabled by the upgrade. SPP had not been charging its customers for these upgrades, even though the SPP OATT had allowed SPP to do so since 2008. In 2016, the FERC granted SPP’s request to recover these previously unbilled charges and SPP subsequently billed SPS approximately $13 million.

In July 2018, SPS’ appeal to the D.C. Circuit over the FERC rulings granting SPP the right to recover these previously unbilled charges was remanded to the FERC. In February 2019, the FERC reversed its 2016 decision and ordered SPP to refund the charges retroactively collected from its transmission customers, including SPS, related to periods before Sept. 2015. In April 2019, several parties, including SPP, filed requests for rehearing. The timing of a FERC response to the rehearing requests is uncertain. Any refunds received by SPS are expected to be given back to SPS customers through future rates.

In October 2017, SPS filed a separate complaint against SPP asserting that SPP has assessed upgrade charges to SPS in violation of the SPP OATT. The FERC granted a rehearing for further consideration in May 2018. The timing of FERC action on the SPS rehearing is uncertain. If SPS’ complaint results in additional charges or refunds, SPS will seek to recover or refund the amounts through future SPS customer rates.

Leases

Xcel Energy evaluates contracts that may contain leases, including PPAs and arrangements for the use of office space and other facilities, vehicles and equipment. Under ASC Topic 842, adopted by Xcel Energy on Jan. 1, 2019, a contract contains a lease if it conveys the exclusive right to control the use of a specific asset. A contract determined to contain a lease is evaluated further to determine if the arrangement is a finance lease.

ROU assets represent Xcel Energy's rights to use leased assets. Starting in 2019, the present value of future operating lease payments are recognized in other current liabilities and noncurrent operating lease liabilities. These amounts, adjusted for any prepayments or incentives, are recognized as operating lease ROU assets.

Most of Xcel Energy’s leases do not contain a readily determinable discount rate. Therefore, the present value of future lease payments is calculated using the applicable Xcel Energy subsidiary’s estimated incremental borrowing rate (weighted-average of 4.1%). Xcel Energy has elected the practical expedient under which non-lease components, such as asset maintenance costs included in payments, are not deducted from minimum lease payments for the purposes of lease accounting and disclosure.

Leases with an initial term of 12 months or less are classified as short-term leases and are not recognized on the consolidated balance sheet.

Operating lease ROU assets:

(Millions of Dollars)	June 30, 2019
PPAs	$	1,642
Other	201
Gross operating lease ROU assets	1,843
Accumulated amortization	(80		)
Net operating lease ROU assets	$	1,763

In 2019, ROU assets for finance leases are included in other noncurrent assets, and the present value of future finance lease payments is included in other current liabilities and other noncurrent liabilities. Prior to 2019, finance leases were included in property, plant and equipment, the current portion of long-term debt and long-term debt.

Xcel Energy’s most significant finance lease activities are related to WYCO. WYCO is a joint venture with CIG to develop and lease natural gas pipeline, storage and compression facilities. Xcel Energy Inc. has a 50% ownership interest in WYCO. WYCO leases its facilities to CIG, and CIG operates the facilities, providing natural gas storage and transportation services to PSCo under separate service agreements.

PSCo accounts for its Totem natural gas storage service and Front Range pipeline arrangements with CIG and WYCO, respectively, as finance leases. Xcel Energy Inc. eliminates 50% of the finance lease obligation related to WYCO in the consolidated balance sheet along with an equal amount of Xcel Energy Inc.’s equity investment in WYCO.

Finance lease ROU assets:

(Millions of Dollars)	June 30, 2019
Gas storage facilities	$	201
Gas pipeline	21
Gross finance lease ROU assets	222
Accumulated amortization	(80		)
Net finance lease ROU assets	$	142

Components of lease expense:

(Millions of Dollars)	Three Months Ended June 30, 2019		Six Months Ended June 30, 2019
Operating leases
PPA capacity payments	$	53	$	105
Other operating leases (a)	8		17
Total operating lease expense (b)	$	61	$	122
Finance leases
Amortization of ROU assets	$	2	$	3
Interest expense on lease liability	5		9
Total finance lease expense	$	7	$	12

^(a)  Includes short-term lease expense of $2 million for three months ended June 30, 2019 and $3 million for six months ended June 30, 2019.

^(b)  PPA capacity payments are included in electric fuel and purchased power on the consolidated statements of income. Expense for other operating leases is included in O&M expense and electric fuel and purchased power.

NSP-Minnesota has requested regulatory approval to purchase the MEC in the third quarter of 2019.  NSP-Minnesota currently receives energy and capacity from MEC under PPAs expiring in 2026 and 2039. Pending its expected purchase by NSP-Minnesota, operating lease liabilities at June 30, 2019 currently include a present value of $428 million for PPA capacity payments.

Future commitments under operating and finance leases as of June 30, 2019:

(Millions of Dollars)	PPA (a) (b) Operating Leases			Other Operating Leases			Total Operating Leases			Finance  Leases (c)
2019	$	118		$	12		$	130		$	6
2020	237			25			262			14
2021	243			24			267			14
2022	226			27			253			12
2023	218			21			239			12
Thereafter	959			136			1,095			220
Total minimum obligation	2,001			245			2,246			278
Interest component of obligation	(355		)	(55		)	(410		)	(195		)
Present value of minimum obligation	$	1,646		$	190		1,836			83
Less current portion							(189		)	(4		)
Noncurrent operating and finance lease liabilities							$	1,647		$	79
Weighted-average remaining lease term in years							9.7			37.2

^(a)  Amounts do not include PPAs accounted for as executory contracts and/or contingent payments, such as energy payments on renewable PPAs.

^(b)  PPA operating leases contractually expire at various dates through 2033.

^(c)  Excludes certain amounts related to Xcel Energy’s 50% ownership interest in WYCO.

Future commitments under operating and finance leases as of Dec. 31, 2018:

(Millions of Dollars)	PPA (a) (b) Operating Leases		Other Operating Leases		Total Operating Leases		Finance Leases (c)
2019	$	207	$	32	$	239	$	14
2020	208		26		234		14
2021	210		25		235		14
2022	197		24		221		12
2023	186		22		208		12
Thereafter	883		154		1,037		220
Total minimum obligation							286
Interest component of obligation							(201		)
Present value of minimum obligation							$	85

^(a)  Amounts do not include PPAs accounted for as executory contracts and/or contingent payments, such as energy payments on renewable PPAs.

^(b)  PPA operating leases contractually expire at various dates through 2033.

^(c) 

Excludes certain amounts related to Xcel Energy’s 50% ownership interest in WYCO.

Variable Interest Entities

NSP-Minnesota, PSCo and SPS purchase power from IPPs and are required to reimburse the IPPs for natural gas or biomass fuel costs, or to participate in tolling arrangements under which the utility subsidiaries procure the natural gas required to produce the energy that they purchase. These specific PPAs create a variable interest in the associated IPP.

The Xcel Energy utility subsidiaries had approximately 3,986 MW and 3,770 MW of capacity under long-term PPAs as of June 30, 2019 and Dec. 31, 2018, respectively, with entities that have been determined to be variable interest entities. Xcel Energy has concluded that these entities are not required to be consolidated in its financial statements because it does not have the power to direct the activities that significantly impact the entities’ economic performance. These agreements have various expiration dates through 2041.

Other

Guarantees and Bond Indemnifications — Xcel Energy Inc. and its subsidiaries provide guarantees and bond indemnities which guarantee payment or performance. Xcel Energy Inc.’s exposure is based upon the net liability under the specified agreements or transactions. Most of the guarantees and bond indemnities issued by Xcel Energy Inc. and its subsidiaries have a stated maximum amount. As of June 30, 2019 and Dec. 31, 2018, Xcel Energy Inc. and its subsidiaries had no assets held as collateral related to their guarantees, bond indemnities and indemnification agreements.

Guarantees and bond indemnities issued and outstanding for Xcel Energy were $58 million and $69 million at June 30, 2019 and Dec. 31, 2018, respectively.

Other Indemnification Agreements — Xcel Energy Inc. and its subsidiaries provide indemnifications through various contracts. These are primarily indemnifications against adverse litigation outcomes in connection with underwriting agreements, as well as breaches of representations and warranties, including corporate existence, transaction authorization and income tax matters with respect to assets sold. Xcel Energy Inc.’s and its subsidiaries’ obligations under these agreements may be limited in terms of duration and amount. Maximum future payments under these indemnifications cannot be reasonably estimated as the dollar amounts are often not explicitly stated.