Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2023

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

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, 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 consolidated financial statements. Legal fees are generally 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 involving multiple plaintiffs 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.

One case remains active which includes a multi-district litigation matter consisting of a Wisconsin purported class (Arandell Corp.). The Court issued a ruling in June 2022 granting plaintiffs’ class certification. In April 2023, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard the defendants’ appeal challenging whether the district court properly assessed class certification. A decision relating to class certification is expected later this year. Xcel Energy considers the reasonably possible loss associated with this litigation to be immaterial.

Comanche Unit 3 Litigation — In 2021, CORE filed a lawsuit in Denver County District Court, alleging PSCo breached ownership agreement terms by failing to operate Comanche Unit 3 in accordance with prudent utility practices. In January 2022, the Court granted PSCo’s motion to dismiss CORE’s claims for unjust enrichment, declaratory judgment and damages for replacement power costs. In April 2022, CORE filed a supplement to include the January 2022 outage and damages related to this event. Also in 2022, CORE sent notice of withdrawal from the ownership agreement based on the same alleged breaches. In February 2023, CORE disclosed its expert witness, who estimated damages incurred of $270 million.

Also in February 2023, the court granted PSCo’s motion precluding CORE from seeking damages related to its withdrawal as part of the lawsuit. PSCo continues to believe CORE's claims are without merit and disputes CORE’s right to withdraw. The Denver District Court trial is scheduled to begin in October 2023.

Marshall Wildfire

In December 2021, a wildfire ignited in Boulder County, Colorado (the “Marshall Fire”), which burned over 6,000 acres and destroyed or damaged over 1,000 structures. On June 8, 2023, the Boulder County Sheriff’s Office released its Marshall Fire Investigative Summary and Review and its supporting documents (the “Sheriff’s Report”). According to an October 2022 statement from the Colorado Insurance Commissioner, the Marshall Fire is estimated to have caused more than $2 billion in property losses.

According to the Sheriff’s Report, on Dec. 30, 2021, a fire ignited on a residential property in Boulder, Colorado, located in PSCo’s service territory, for reasons unrelated to PSCo’s power lines. According to the Sheriff’s Report, approximately one hour and 20 minutes after the first ignition, a second fire ignited just south of the Marshall Mesa Trailhead in unincorporated Boulder County, Colorado, also located in PSCo’s service territory. According to the Sheriff’s Report, the second ignition started approximately 80 to 110 feet away from PSCo’s power lines in the area.

The Sheriff’s Report states that the most probable cause of the second ignition was hot particles discharged from PSCo’s power lines after one of the power lines detached from its insulator in strong winds, and further states that it cannot be ruled out that the second ignition was caused by an underground coal fire. According to the Sheriff’s Report, no design, installation or maintenance defects or deficiencies were identified on PSCo’s electrical circuit in the area of the second ignition. PSCo disputes that its power lines caused the second ignition.

As of July 24, 2023, PSCo is aware of approximately 8 complaints on behalf of at least 586 plaintiffs relating to the Marshall Fire and expects that it may receive further complaints. The complaints generally allege that PSCo’s equipment ignited the Marshall Fire and assert various causes of action under Colorado law, including negligence, premises liability, trespass, nuisance, and inverse condemnation.

Colorado courts do not apply strict liability in determining an electric utility company’s liability for fire-related damages. For inverse condemnation claims, Colorado courts assess whether a defendant acted with intent to take a plaintiff’s property or intentionally took an action which has the natural consequence of taking the property. For negligence claims, Colorado courts look to whether electric power companies have operated their system with a heightened duty of care consistent with the practical conduct of its business, and liability does not extend to occurrences that cannot be reasonably anticipated.

Under Colorado law, in a civil action other than a medical malpractice action, the total award for noneconomic loss is capped at $0.6 million for claims that accrued at the time of the Marshall Fire unless the court finds justification to exceed that amount by clear and convincing evidence, in which case the maximum doubles. Colorado law does not impose joint and several liability in tort actions. Instead, under Colorado law, a defendant is liable for the degree or percentage of the negligence or fault attributable to that defendant, except where the defendant conspired with another defendant. A jury’s verdict in a Colorado civil case must be unanimous.

Colorado law caps punitive or exemplary damages to an amount equal to the amount of the actual damages awarded to the injured party, except the court may increase any award of punitive damages to a sum up to three times the amount of actual damages if the conduct that is the subject of the claim has continued during the pendency of the case or the defendant has acted in a willful and wanton manner during the action which further aggravated plaintiff’s damages.

In the event Xcel Energy Inc. or PSCo was found liable related to this litigation and were required to pay damages, such amounts could exceed our insurance coverage of approximately $500 million and have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. However, due to uncertainty as to the cause of the fire and the extent and magnitude of potential damages, Xcel Energy Inc. and PSCo are unable to estimate the amount or range of possible losses in connection with the Marshall Fire.

Rate Matters and Other

Xcel Energy’s operating subsidiaries are involved in various regulatory proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. Until resolution, typically in the form of a rate order, uncertainties may exist regarding the ultimate rate treatment for certain activities and transactions. Amounts have been recognized for probable and reasonably estimable losses that may result. Unless otherwise disclosed, any reasonably possible range of loss in excess of any recognized amount is not expected to have a material effect on the consolidated financial statements.

Sherco — In 2018, NSP-Minnesota and SMMPA (Co-owner of Sherco Unit 3) reached a settlement with GE related to a 2011 incident, which damaged the turbine at Sherco Unit 3 and resulted in an extended outage for repair. NSP-Minnesota notified the MPUC of its proposal to refund settlement proceeds to customers through the fuel clause adjustment.

In March 2019, the MPUC approved NSP-Minnesota’s settlement refund proposal. Additionally, the MPUC decided to withhold any decision as to NSP-Minnesota’s prudence in connection with the incident at Sherco Unit 3 until after conclusion of an appeal pending between GE and NSP-Minnesota’s insurers. In February 2020, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of GE. In March 2020, NSP-Minnesota’s insurers filed a petition seeking additional review by the Minnesota Supreme Court. In April 2020, the Minnesota Supreme Court denied the insurers’ petition for further review, ending the litigation.

In January 2021, the OAG and DOC recommended that NSP-Minnesota refund approximately $17 million of replacement power costs previously recovered through the fuel clause adjustment. NSP-Minnesota subsequently filed its response, asserting that it acted prudently in connection with the Sherco Unit 3 outage, the MPUC has previously disallowed $22 million of related costs and no additional refund or disallowance is appropriate.

In July 2022, the MPUC referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings to conduct a contested case on the prudence of the replacement power costs incurred by NSP-Minnesota. In June 2023, NSP-Minnesota and the DOC filed direct testimony. The DOC changed its recommendation to a refund of either $58 million or $72 million based on methodologies that do not account for prior disallowances or other amounts returned to customers plus interest. No other party filed direct testimony. A final decision by the MPUC is expected in mid-2024. A loss related to this matter is deemed remote.

MISO ROE Complaints — In November 2013 and February 2015, customer groups filed two ROE complaints against MISO TOs, which includes NSP-Minnesota and NSP-Wisconsin. The first complaint requested a reduction in base ROE transmission formula rates from 12.38% to 9.15% for the time period of Nov. 12, 2013 to Feb. 11, 2015, and removal of ROE adders (including those for RTO membership). The second complaint requested, for a subsequent time period, a base ROE reduction from 12.38% to 8.67%.

The FERC subsequently issued various related orders (including Opinion Nos. 569, 569A and 569B) related to ROE methodology/calculations and timing. NSP-Minnesota has processed refunds to customers for applicable complaint periods based on the ROE in the most recent applicable opinions.

The MISO TOs and various other parties have filed petitions for review of the FERC’s most recent applicable opinions at the D.C. Circuit. In August 2022, the D.C. Circuit ruled that FERC had not adequately supported its conclusions, vacated FERC’s related orders, and remanded the issue back to FERC for further proceedings, which remain pending. Additional exposure, if any, related to this matter is expected to be immaterial.

SPP OATT Upgrade Costs — Costs of transmission upgrades may be recovered from other SPP customers whose transmission service depends on capacity enabled by the upgrade under the SPP OATT. 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 2018, SPS’ appeal to the D.C. Circuit over the FERC rulings granting SPP the right to recover previously unbilled charges was remanded to the FERC. In 2019, the FERC reversed its 2016 decision and ordered SPP to refund charges retroactively collected from its transmission customers, including SPS, related to periods before September 2015. In 2020, SPP and Oklahoma Gas & Electric separately filed petitions for review of the FERC’s orders at the D.C. Circuit. In 2021, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision denying these appeals and upholding the FERC’s orders. Refunds received by SPS are expected to be given back to SPS customers through future rates.

In 2017, SPS filed a separate related complaint asserting SPP assessed upgrade charges to SPS in violation of the SPP OATT. In 2018, the FERC issued an order denying the SPS complaint. SPS filed a request for rehearing in 2018. The FERC subsequently issued a tolling order granting a rehearing for further consideration. If SPS’ complaint results in additional charges or refunds, SPS will seek to recover or refund the amount through future SPS customer rates. In 2020, SPS filed a petition for review of the FERC’s 2018 orders at the D.C. Circuit. In February 2022, FERC issued an order rejecting SPS’ request for hearing. SPS has appealed that order. That appeal has been combined with SPS’ prior appeal.

Environmental

MGP, Landfill and Disposal Sites

Xcel Energy is investigating, remediating or performing post-closure actions at twelve MGP, landfill or other disposal sites across its service territories, excluding sites that are being addressed under coal ash regulations.

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

Environmental Requirements — Water and Waste

Coal Ash Regulation — Xcel Energy’s operations are subject to federal and state regulations 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 applicable landfills and surface impoundments as well as perform corrective actions where offsite groundwater has been impacted.

As of June 30, 2023, Xcel Energy had eight regulated ash units in operation.

PSCo has executed an agreement with a third party that will excavate and process ash for beneficial use (at two sites) at a cost of approximately $45 million. An estimated liability has been recorded and amounts are expected to be fully recoverable through regulatory mechanisms.

Investigation and feasibility studies for additional corrective action related to offsite groundwater are ongoing (at three Colorado sites). While the results are uncertain, additional costs are estimated to be at least $40 million. A liability has been recorded and is expected to be fully recoverable through regulatory mechanisms.

Federal Clean Water Act Section 316(b) — The Federal Clean Water Act requires the EPA to regulate cooling water intake structures to assure they reflect the best technology available for minimizing impingement and entrainment of aquatic species.

Estimated capital expenditures of approximately $50 million may be required to comply with the requirements. Xcel Energy anticipates these costs will be recoverable through regulatory mechanisms.

Monticello Tritium — Monticello regularly monitors onsite tritium levels (a weak radioactive isotope that is a byproduct of plant operations) from releases in groundwater monitoring wells onsite. In late 2022, Xcel Energy detected a release of tritium to groundwater and reported the event to the NRC and the State of Minnesota. Xcel Energy has completed repairs, replaced the source of the release and is in the process of mitigating the impact to groundwater, while continuing to monitor onsite wells and evaluating potential future actions for additional containment. The release does not represent a risk to human health or the environment.

Environmental Requirements — Air

Clean Air Act NOx Allowance Allocations — In June 2023, after disapproving state implementation plans, the EPA published final regulations under the "Good Neighbor" provisions of the Clean Air Act. The final rule applies to generation facilities in Minnesota, Texas and Wisconsin, as well as other states outside of our service territory. The rule establishes an allowance trading program for NOx that will impact Xcel Energy fossil fuel-fired electric generating facilities. Applicable facilities will have to secure additional allowances, install NOx controls and/or develop a strategy of operations that utilizes the existing allowance allocations. Guidelines are also established for allowance banking and emission limit backstops.

While the financial impacts of the final rule are uncertain and dependent on market forces and anticipated generation, Xcel Energy anticipates the annual costs could be significant, but would be recoverable through regulatory mechanisms.

SPS and NSP-Minnesota have joined other impacted companies in litigation challenging the EPA’s disapproval of Texas and Minnesota state implementation plans. Currently, the regulation is under a judicial stay for both Texas and Minnesota and not applicable to SPS and NSP-Minnesota until litigation concludes.

Regional Haze Rules — In 2016, the EPA adopted a final rule establishing a federal implementation plan for reasonable further progress under the regional haze program for the state of Texas. The rule imposes SO2 emission limitations which would require the installation of dry scrubbers on Tolk Units 1 and 2; compliance would have been required by February 2021. SPS appealed the EPA’s decision and obtained a stay of the final rule. In July 2023, the EPA issued a prepublication proposed rule to address the first planning period for the Clean Air Act regional haze reasonable further progress requirements in Texas. As proposed, no additional controls are required at SPS generating facilities.

In 2017, the EPA adopted a final BART rule for Texas. Under that rule, Harrington Units 1 and 2 participate in an intrastate SO2 budget trading program to meet BART requirements. The rule also implemented participation in a federal ozone season NOx budget and trading program, named the Cross State Air Pollution Rule.

The EPA has proposed to require installation of SO2 controls as BART rather than participation in the trading program. For Harrington Units 1 and 2, EPA has alternatively proposed that Harrington may comply with the SO2 control requirements by agreeing to include the planned January 1, 2025 gas conversion in the federal plan.

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. A contract contains a lease if it conveys the exclusive right to control the use of a specific asset.

Components of lease expense:



	Three Months Ended June 30
(Millions of Dollars)	2023		2022
Operating leases
PPA capacity payments	$	61	$	60
Other operating leases (a)	12		9
Total operating lease expense (b)	$	73	$	69
Finance leases
Amortization of ROU assets	$	—	$	1
Interest expense on lease liability	4		4
Total finance lease expense	$	4	$	5

(a)Includes short-term lease expense of $3 million and $2 million for 2023 and 2022, respectively.

(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.


	Six Months Ended June 30
(Millions of Dollars)	2023		2022
Operating leases
PPA capacity payments	$	121	$	123
Other operating leases (a)	24		20
Total operating lease expense (b)	$	145	$	143
Finance leases
Amortization of ROU assets	$	1	$	2
Interest expense on lease liability	8		8
Total finance lease expense	$	9	$	10

(a)Includes short-term lease expense of $5 million and $3 million for 2023 and 2022, respectively.

Commitments under operating and finance leases as of June 30, 2023:


(Millions of Dollars)	PPA Operating Leases		Other Operating Leases		Total Operating Leases		Finance Leases (a)
Total minimum obligation	$	1,166	$	250	$	1,416	$	222
Interest component of obligation	(150)		(74)		(224)		(158)
Present value of minimum obligation	$	1,016	176		1,192		64
Less current portion					(226)		(2)
Noncurrent operating and finance lease liabilities					$	966	$	62

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

Variable Interest Entities

Under certain PPAs, NSP-Minnesota, PSCo and SPS purchase power from IPPs for which the utility subsidiaries are required to reimburse 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 IPP.

In addition, certain solar PPAs provide an option to purchase emission allowances or sharing provisions related to production credits generated by the solar facility under contract. These specific PPAs create a variable interest in the IPP.

Xcel Energy 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 most significantly impact the entities’ economic performance.

The utility subsidiaries had approximately 4,053 MW and 3,961 MW of capacity under long-term PPAs at June 30, 2023 and Dec. 31, 2022, respectively, with entities that have been determined to be variable interest entities. The PPAs have expiration dates through 2041.

Other

Guarantees and Bond Indemnifications — Xcel Energy provides guarantees and bond indemnities, which guarantee payment or performance. Xcel Energy Inc.’s exposure is based upon the net liability under the agreements. Most of the guarantees and bond indemnities issued by Xcel Energy have a stated maximum amount.

As of June 30, 2023 and Dec. 31, 2022, Xcel Energy 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 approximately $63 million and $62 million at June 30, 2023 and Dec. 31, 2022, respectively.

Other Indemnification Agreements — Xcel Energy provides 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’s obligations under these agreements may be limited in duration and amount. Maximum future payments under these indemnifications cannot be reasonably estimated.