Commitments and Contingencies

Except to the extent noted below and in Note 5, the circumstances set forth in Notes 12, 13 and 14 to the consolidated financial statements included in Xcel Energy Inc.’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended Dec. 31, 2012, appropriately represent, in all material respects, the current status of commitments and contingent liabilities, including those regarding public liability for claims resulting from any nuclear incident, and are incorporated herein by reference. The following include commitments, contingencies and unresolved contingencies that are material to Xcel Energy’s financial position.

Purchased Power Agreements

Under certain purchased power agreements, NSP-Minnesota, PSCo and SPS purchase power from independent power producing entities for which the utility subsidiaries are required to reimburse 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 purchased power agreements create a variable interest in the associated independent power producing entity.

The Xcel Energy utility subsidiaries had approximately 3,406 megawatts (MW) and 3,324 MW of capacity under long-term purchased power agreements as of June 30, 2013 and Dec. 31, 2012, 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 consolidated financial statements because it does not have the power to direct the activities that most significantly impact the entities’ economic performance. These agreements have expiration dates through the year 2033.

Guarantees and Indemnifications

Xcel Energy Inc. and its subsidiaries provide guarantees and bond indemnities under specified agreements or transactions. The guarantees and bond indemnities issued by Xcel Energy Inc. guarantee payment or performance by its subsidiaries. As a result, Xcel Energy Inc.’s exposure under the guarantees and bond indemnities is based upon the net liability of the relevant subsidiary under the specified agreements or transactions. Most of the guarantees and bond indemnities issued by Xcel Energy Inc. and its subsidiaries limit the exposure to a maximum amount stated in the guarantees and bond indemnities. As of June 30, 2013 and Dec. 31, 2012, Xcel Energy Inc. and its subsidiaries had no assets held as collateral related to their guarantees, bond indemnities and indemnification agreements.

The following table presents guarantees and bond indemnities issued and outstanding for Xcel Energy Inc.:



(Millions of Dollars)	June 30, 2013		Dec. 31, 2012
Guarantees issued and outstanding	$	54.8	$	69.5
Current exposure under these guarantees	17.9		17.9
Bonds with indemnity protection	31.0		29.6

Indemnification Agreements

Xcel Energy Inc. and its subsidiaries provide indemnifications through contracts entered into in the normal course of business. 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. The maximum potential amount of future payments under these indemnifications cannot be reasonably estimated as the obligated amounts of these indemnifications often are not explicitly stated.

Environmental Contingencies

Ashland Manufactured Gas Plant (MGP) Site — NSP-Wisconsin has been named a potentially responsible party (PRP) for contamination at a site in Ashland, Wis. The Ashland/Northern States Power Lakefront Superfund Site (the Ashland site) includes property owned by NSP-Wisconsin, which was a site previously operated by a predecessor company as a MGP facility (the Upper Bluff), and two other properties: an adjacent city lakeshore park area (Kreher Park), on which an unaffiliated third party previously operated a sawmill and conducted creosote treating operations; and an area of Lake Superior’s Chequamegon Bay adjoining the park (the Sediments).

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its Record of Decision (ROD) in 2010, which describes the preferred remedy the EPA has selected for the cleanup of the Ashland site. In 2011, the EPA issued special notice letters identifying several entities, including NSP-Wisconsin, as PRPs, for future remediation at the site. The special notice letters requested that those PRPs participate in negotiations with the EPA regarding how the PRPs intended to conduct or pay for the remediation at the Ashland site. As a result of those settlement negotiations, the EPA agreed to segment the Ashland site into separate areas. The first area (Phase I Project Area) includes soil and groundwater in Kreher Park and the Upper Bluff. The second area includes the Sediments.

In October 2012, a settlement among the EPA, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), the Bad River and Red Cliff Bands of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians and NSP-Wisconsin was approved by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. This settlement resolves claims against NSP-Wisconsin for its alleged responsibility for the remediation of the Phase I Project Area. Under the terms of the settlement, NSP-Wisconsin agreed to perform the remediation of the Phase I Project Area, but does not admit any liability with respect to the Ashland site. The settlement reflects a cost estimate for the clean up of the Phase I Project Area of $40 million. The settlement also resolves claims by the federal, state and tribal trustees against NSP-Wisconsin for alleged natural resource damages at the Ashland site, including both the Phase I Project Area and the Sediments. As part of the settlement, NSP-Wisconsin has conveyed approximately 1,390 acres of land to the State of Wisconsin and tribal trustees. Fieldwork to address the Phase I Project Area at the Ashland site began at the end of 2012 and continues in 2013.

Negotiations between the EPA and NSP-Wisconsin regarding who will pay or perform the cleanup of the Sediments are ongoing. The EPA’s ROD for the Ashland site includes estimates that the cost of the preferred remediation related to the Sediments is between $63 million and $77 million, with a potential deviation in such estimated costs of up to 50 percent higher to 30 percent lower.

In August 2012, NSP-Wisconsin also filed litigation against other PRPs for their share of the cleanup costs for the Ashland site. Trial for this matter has been scheduled for June 2014. Negotiations between the EPA, NSP-Wisconsin and several of the other PRPs regarding the PRPs’ fair share of the cleanup costs for the Ashland site are also ongoing.

At June 30, 2013 and Dec. 31, 2012, NSP-Wisconsin had recorded a liability of $101.3 million and $103.7 million, respectively, for the Ashland site based upon potential remediation and design costs together with estimated outside legal and consultant costs; of which $14.3 million and $20.1 million, respectively, was considered a current liability. The reduction in recorded liability at June 30, 2013 reflects that cleanup has now commenced and costs are being incurred with respect to the Phase I Project Area. NSP-Wisconsin’s potential liability, the actual cost of remediation and the time frame over which the amounts may be paid are subject to change. NSP-Wisconsin also continues to work to identify and access state and federal funds to apply to the ultimate remediation cost of the entire site. Unresolved issues or factors that could result in higher or lower NSP-Wisconsin remediation costs for the Ashland site include the cleanup approach implemented for the Sediments, which party implements the cleanup, the timing of when the cleanup is implemented, potential contributions by other PRPs and whether federal or state funding may be directed to help offset remediation costs at the Ashland site.

NSP-Wisconsin has deferred the estimated site remediation costs, as a regulatory asset, based on an expectation that the PSCW will continue to allow NSP-Wisconsin to recover payments for environmental remediation from its customers. The PSCW has consistently authorized in NSP-Wisconsin rates recovery of all remediation costs incurred at the Ashland site, and has authorized recovery of MGP remediation costs by other Wisconsin utilities. External MGP remediation costs are subject to deferral in the Wisconsin retail jurisdiction and are reviewed for prudence as part of the Wisconsin retail rate case process. Under an existing PSCW policy, utilities have recovered remediation costs for MGPs in natural gas rates, amortized over a four- to six-year period. The PSCW historically has not allowed utilities to recover their carrying costs on unamortized regulatory assets for MGP remediation.

In a recent rate case decision, the PSCW recognized the potential magnitude of the future liability for the cleanup at the Ashland site. In December 2012, the PSCW granted an exception to its existing policy at the request of NSP-Wisconsin. The elements of this exception include: 1) approval to begin recovery of estimated Phase 1 Project costs beginning on Jan. 1, 2013; 2) approval to amortize these estimated costs over a ten-year period; and 3) approval to apply a three percent carrying cost to the unamortized regulatory asset. Implementation of this exception will help mitigate the rate impact to natural gas customers and the risk to NSP-Wisconsin from a longer amortization period.

Environmental Requirements

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) New Source Performance Standard Proposal (NSPS) and Emission Guideline for Existing Sources — In April 2012, the EPA proposed a GHG NSPS for newly constructed power plants. The proposal requires that carbon dioxide (CO₂) emission rates be equal to a natural gas combined-cycle plant, even if the plant is coal-fired. The EPA also proposed that NSPS not apply to modified or reconstructed existing power plants and that installation of control equipment on existing plants would not constitute a “modification” to those plants under the NSPS program. On June 25, 2013, President Obama issued a memorandum directing the EPA to re-propose GHG emission standards for new power plants and develop GHG emission standards for existing power plants. It is not possible to evaluate the impact of these regulations until the upcoming proposals and final requirements are known.

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) — In 2011, the EPA issued the CSAPR to address long range transport of particulate matter (PM) and ozone by requiring reductions in sulfur dioxide (SO₂) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) from utilities in the eastern half of the United States. For Xcel Energy, the rule would have applied in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Texas. The CSAPR would have set more stringent requirements than the proposed Clean Air Transport Rule and specifically would have required plants in Texas to reduce their SO₂ and annual NOx emissions. The rule also would have created an emissions trading program.

In August 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) vacated the CSAPR and remanded it back to the EPA. The D.C. Circuit stated that the EPA must continue administering the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) pending adoption of a valid replacement. Although the D.C. Circuit had denied all requests for rehearing, in June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court elected to review the D.C. Circuit’s 2012 decision to vacate the CSAPR. The Court has ordered the parties to file briefs in the appeal this fall and will likely issue a decision by June 2014.

As the EPA continues administering the CAIR while the CSAPR or a replacement rule is pending, Xcel Energy expects to comply with the CAIR as described below.

CAIR — In 2005, the EPA issued the CAIR to further regulate SO₂ and NOx emissions. The CAIR applies to Texas and Wisconsin. The CAIR does not apply to Minnesota.

Under the CAIR’s cap and trade structure, companies can comply through capital investments in emission controls or purchase of emission allowances from other utilities making reductions on their systems. NSP-Wisconsin purchased allowances in 2012 and plans to continue to purchase allowances in 2013 to comply with the CAIR. In the SPS region, installation of low-NOx combustion control technology was completed in 2012 on Tolk Unit 1. SPS plans to install the same combustion control technology on Tolk Unit 2 in 2017. These installations will reduce or eliminate SPS’ need to purchase NOx emission allowances. In addition, SPS has sufficient SO₂ allowances to comply with the CAIR in 2013. At June 30, 2013, the estimated annual CAIR NOx allowance cost for Xcel Energy did not have a material impact on the results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

Federal Clean Water Act - Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELG) — In June 2013, the EPA published a proposed ELG rule for power plants that use coal, natural gas, oil or nuclear materials as fuel and discharge treated effluent to surface waters as well as utility-owned landfills that receive coal combustion residuals (CCR). Refuse derived fuel, biomass and other alternatively fueled power plants are not addressed by the proposed revisions. The proposed rule identifies four potential regulatory options and invites comments on those regulatory approaches. The options differ in the number of waste streams covered, size of the units controlled and stringency of controls. The EPA is also seeking comment on the interaction between the ELG proposal and its proposed CCR rule, which is another proposed rule that would also regulate surface impoundments that store coal combustion byproducts (coal ash) and whether to regulate coal ash as hazardous or nonhazardous waste. A final rule is anticipated in 2014. Under the current proposed rule, facilities would need to comply as soon as possible after July 1, 2017 but no later than July 1, 2022. The impact of this rule on Xcel Energy is uncertain at this time.

Regional Haze Rules — In 2005, the EPA finalized amendments to its regional haze rules, known as best available retrofit technology (BART), which require the installation and operation of emission controls for industrial facilities emitting air pollutants that reduce visibility in certain national parks and wilderness areas. Xcel Energy generating facilities in several states are subject to BART requirements. Individual states were required to identify the facilities located in their states that will have to reduce SO₂, NOx and PM emissions under BART and then set emissions limits for those facilities.

PSCo

In 2011, the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission approved a BART state implementation plan (SIP) incorporating the Colorado CACJA emission reduction plan, which will satisfy regional haze requirements. The Colorado legislature enacted a statute approving the SIP (the Colorado SIP), which was signed into law in 2011. Subsequently, the Colorado Mining Association (CMA) challenged the Colorado SIP in a Colorado District Court. In June 2012, the CMA’s appeal was dismissed. The CMA appealed this decision, which is now pending in the Colorado Court of Appeals.

In September 2012, the EPA granted final approval of the Colorado SIP, including the CACJA emission reduction plan for PSCo, as satisfying BART requirements. The emission controls are expected to be installed between 2014 and 2017. Projected costs for emission controls at the Hayden and Pawnee plants are $340.8 million. PSCo expects the cost of any required capital investment will be recoverable from customers.

In March 2013, WildEarth Guardians petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10^th Circuit to review the EPA’s decision approving the Colorado SIP. WildEarth Guardians has stated that it will challenge the BART determination made for Comanche Units 1 and 2, which was a separate determination that was not part of the CACJA emission reduction plan. In comments before the EPA, WildEarth Guardians urged that current emission limitations be made more stringent, or that Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) be added to the units. PSCo has intervened in the case.

In 2010, two environmental groups petitioned the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) to certify that 12 coal-fired boilers and one coal-fired cement kiln in Colorado are contributing to visibility problems in Rocky Mountain National Park. The following PSCo plants are named in the petition: Cherokee, Hayden, Pawnee and Valmont. The groups allege that the Colorado BART rule is inadequate to satisfy the Clean Air Act (CAA) mandate of ensuring reasonable further progress towards restoring natural visibility conditions in the park. It is not known when the DOI will rule on the petition.

NSP-Minnesota

In 2009, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) approved the SIP for Minnesota (the Minnesota SIP), and submitted it to the EPA for approval. The MPCA selected the BART controls for Sherco Units 1 and 2 to improve visibility in the national parks. The MPCA concluded SCRs should not be required because the minor visibility benefits derived from SCRs do not outweigh the substantial costs. The MPCA’s source-specific BART controls for Sherco Units 1 and 2 consist of combustion controls for NOx and scrubber upgrades for SO₂. The combustion controls have been installed on Sherco Units 1 and 2. The scrubber upgrades are underway and scheduled to be completed by January 2015.

The EPA’s preliminary review of the Minnesota SIP in 2011 indicated that SCR controls should be added to Sherco Units 1 and 2. Subsequently, the EPA and MPCA both determined that CSAPR meets BART requirements for purposes of the Minnesota SIP. In addition, the MPCA retained its source-specific BART determination for Sherco Units 1 and 2 from the 2009 Minnesota SIP. The EPA approved the Minnesota SIP for electric generating units (EGUs), and also approved the source-specific emission limits for Sherco Units 1 and 2 as strengthening the Minnesota SIP, but avoided characterizing them as BART limits.

In August 2012, the National Parks Conservation Association, Sierra Club, Voyageurs National Park Association, Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy and Fresh Energy appealed the EPA’s approval of the Minnesota SIP to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The Court denied intervention in the case to NSP-Minnesota and other regulated parties who petitioned to intervene. In June 2013, the Court ordered this case to be held in abeyance until the U.S. Supreme Court decides the CSAPR case.

The estimated cost for meeting the BART, regional haze and other CAA requirements is approximately $50 million, of which $34 million has already been spent on projects to reduce NOx emissions on Sherco Units 1 and 2. Xcel Energy anticipates that all costs associated with BART compliance will be fully recoverable through regulatory recovery mechanisms. If the above litigation results in further EPA proceedings concerning the Minnesota SIP, such proceedings may consider whether SCRs should be required for Sherco Units 1 and 2.

In addition to the regional haze rules, there are other visibility rules related to a program called the Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment (RAVI) program. In 2009, the DOI certified that a portion of the visibility impairment in Voyageurs and Isle Royale National Parks is reasonably attributable to emissions from NSP-Minnesota’s Sherco Units 1 and 2. The EPA is required to make its own determination as to whether Sherco Units 1 and 2 cause or contribute to RAVI and, if so, whether the level of controls required by the MPCA is appropriate. The EPA plans to issue a separate notice on the issue of BART for Sherco Units 1 and 2 under the RAVI program. It is not yet known when the EPA will publish a proposal under RAVI or what that proposal will entail. In December 2012, a lawsuit against the EPA was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota by the following organizations: National Parks Conservation Association, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness, Voyageurs National Park Association, Fresh Energy and Sierra Club. The lawsuit alleges that the EPA has failed to perform a nondiscretionary duty to determine BART for the Sherco Units 1 and 2 under the RAVI program. The EPA filed an answer denying the allegations and asserting that it did not have a nondiscretionary duty under the RAVI program. The Court denied NSP-Minnesota’s motion to intervene in July 2013. NSP-Minnesota appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

SPS

Harrington Units 1 and 2 are potentially subject to BART. Texas has developed a SIP (the Texas SIP) that finds the CAIR equal to BART for EGUs. As a result, no additional controls beyond CAIR compliance would be required. In May 2012, the EPA deferred its review of the Texas SIP in its final rule allowing states to find that CSAPR compliance meets BART requirements for EGUs. It is not yet known how the D.C. Circuit’s reversal of the CSAPR may impact the EPA’s approval of the Texas SIP.

New Mexico GHG Regulations — In 2010, the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board (EIB) adopted two regulations to limit GHG emissions, including CO₂ emissions from power plants and other industrial sources. The EIB repealed both regulations in the first quarter of 2012. Western Resource Advocates and New Energy Economy, Inc. filed appeals with the New Mexico Court of Appeals to challenge each of the EIB’s decisions to repeal the two GHG rules. After the appellants filed unopposed motions to dismiss, the court dismissed these appeals in July 2013.

Legal Contingencies

Xcel Energy is involved in various litigation matters that are being defended and handled 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 such losses that are 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, arising from such current proceedings would have a material effect on Xcel Energy’s financial statements. Unless otherwise required by GAAP, legal fees are expensed as incurred.

Environmental Litigation

Native Village of Kivalina vs. Xcel Energy Inc. et al. — In February 2008, the City and Native Village of Kivalina, Alaska, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Xcel Energy and 23 other utility, oil, gas and coal companies. Plaintiffs claim that defendants’ emission of CO₂ and other greenhouse gases contribute to global warming, which is harming their village. Xcel Energy believes the claims asserted in this lawsuit are without merit and joined with other utility defendants in filing a motion to dismiss in June 2008. In October 2009, the U.S. District Court dismissed the lawsuit on constitutional grounds. In November 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit). In October 2012, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court’s dismissal and subsequently rejected plaintiffs’ request for rehearing. In May 2013 the U.S. Supreme Court denied plaintiffs’ request for review, which brings this litigation to a close. No accrual has been recorded for this matter.

Comer vs. Xcel Energy Inc. et al. — In May 2011, less than a year after their initial lawsuit was dismissed, plaintiffs in this purported class action lawsuit filed a second lawsuit against more than 85 utility, oil, chemical and coal companies in the U.S. District Court in Mississippi. The complaint alleges defendants’ CO₂ emissions intensified the strength of Hurricane Katrina and increased the damage plaintiffs purportedly sustained to their property. Plaintiffs base their claims on public and private nuisance, trespass and negligence. Among the defendants named in the complaint are Xcel Energy Inc., SPS, PSCo, NSP-Wisconsin and NSP-Minnesota. The amount of damages claimed by plaintiffs is unknown. The defendants believe this lawsuit is without merit and filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. In March 2012, the U.S. District Court granted this motion for dismissal. In April 2012, plaintiffs appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In May 2013, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of this lawsuit. It is uncertain whether plaintiffs will seek further review of this decision. Although Xcel Energy believes the likelihood of loss is remote based upon existing case law, it is not possible to estimate the amount or range of reasonably possible loss in the event of an adverse outcome of this matter. No accrual has been recorded for this matter.

Employment, Tort and Commercial Litigation

Merricourt Wind Project Litigation — In April 2011, NSP-Minnesota terminated its agreements with enXco Development Corporation (enXco) for the development of a 150 MW wind project in southeastern North Dakota. NSP-Minnesota’s decision to terminate the agreements was based in large part on the adverse impact this project could have on endangered or threatened species protected by federal law and the uncertainty in cost and timing in mitigating this impact. NSP-Minnesota also terminated the agreements due to enXco’s nonperformance of certain other conditions, including failure to obtain a Certificate of Site Compatibility and the failure to close on the contracts by an agreed upon date of March 31, 2011. NSP-Minnesota recorded a $101 million deposit in the first quarter of 2011, which was collected in April 2011. In May 2011, NSP-Minnesota filed a declaratory judgment action in the U.S. District Court in Minnesota to obtain a determination that it acted properly in terminating the agreements. enXco also filed a separate lawsuit in the same court seeking approximately $240 million for an alleged breach of contract. NSP-Minnesota believes enXco’s lawsuit is without merit. On Oct. 22, 2012, NSP-Minnesota filed a motion for summary judgment. In April 2013, the U.S. District Court granted NSP-Minnesota’s motion and entered judgment in its favor. On April 23, 2013 enXco filed a notice of appeal to the Eighth Circuit. It is uncertain when the Eighth Circuit will decide this appeal. Although Xcel Energy believes the likelihood of loss is remote based on existing case law and the U.S. District Court’s April 2013 decision, it is not possible to estimate the amount or range of reasonably possible loss in the event of an adverse outcome of this matter. No accrual has been recorded for this matter.

Exelon Wind (formerly John Deere Wind) Complaint — Several lawsuits in Texas state and federal courts and regulatory proceedings have arisen out of a dispute concerning SPS’ payments for energy and capacity produced from the Exelon Wind subsidiaries’ projects. There are two main areas of dispute. First, Exelon Wind claims that it established legally enforceable obligations (LEOs) for each of its 12 wind facilities in 2005 through 2008 that require SPS to buy power based on SPS’ forecasted avoided cost as determined in 2005 through 2008. Although SPS has refused to accept Exelon Wind’s LEOs, SPS accepts that it must take energy from Exelon Wind under SPS’ PUCT-approved Qualifying Facilities (QF) Tariff. Second, Exelon Wind has raised various challenges to SPS’ PUCT-approved QF Tariff, which became effective in August 2010. The state and federal lawsuits and regulatory proceedings are in various stages of litigation. SPS believes the likelihood of loss in these lawsuits and proceedings is remote based primarily on existing case law and while it is not possible to estimate the amount or range of reasonably possible loss in the event of an adverse outcome, SPS believes such loss would not be material based upon its belief that it would be permitted to recover such costs, if needed, through its various fuel clause mechanisms. No accrual has been recorded for this matter.

Pacific Northwest FERC Refund Proceeding — In July 2001, the FERC ordered a preliminary hearing to determine whether there were unjust and unreasonable charges for spot market bilateral sales in the Pacific Northwest for December 2000 through June 2001. PSCo supplied energy to the Pacific Northwest markets during this period and has been a participant in the hearings. In September 2001, the presiding Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that prices in the Pacific Northwest during the referenced period were the result of a number of factors, including the shortage of supply, excess demand, drought and increased natural gas prices. Under these circumstances, the ALJ concluded that the prices in the Pacific Northwest markets were not unreasonable or unjust and no refunds should be ordered. Subsequent to the ruling, the FERC has allowed the parties to request additional evidence. Parties have claimed that the total amount of transactions with PSCo subject to refund is $34 million. In June 2003, the FERC issued an order terminating the proceeding without ordering further proceedings. Certain purchasers filed appeals of the FERC’s orders in this proceeding with the Ninth Circuit.

In an order issued in August 2007, the Ninth Circuit remanded the proceeding back to the FERC and indicated that the FERC should consider other rulings addressing overcharges in the California organized markets. The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for rehearing in April 2009, and the mandate was issued.

The FERC issued an order on remand establishing principles for the review proceeding in October 2011. In September 2012, the City of Seattle filed its direct case against PSCo and other Pacific Northwest sellers claiming refunds for the period January 2000 through June 2001. The City of Seattle indicated that for the period June 2000 through June 2001 PSCo had sales to the City of Seattle of approximately $50 million. The City of Seattle did not identify specific instances of unlawful market activity by PSCo, but rather based its claim for refunds on market dysfunction in the Western markets. PSCo submitted its answering case in December 2012.

On April 5, 2013, the FERC issued an order on rehearing of its remand order issued for the October 2011 review proceedings. The FERC confirmed that the City of Seattle would be able to attempt to obtain refunds back from January 2000, but reaffirmed the transaction-specific standard that the City of Seattle and other complainants would have to comply with to obtain refunds. In addition, the FERC rejected the imposition of any market-wide remedies. Although the FERC order on rehearing established the period for which the City of Seattle could seek refunds as January 2000 through June 2001, it is unclear what claim the City of Seattle has against PSCo prior to June 2000. In the proceeding, The City of Seattle does not allege specific misconduct or tariff violations by PSCo but instead asserts generally that the rates charged by PSCo and other sellers were excessive. A FERC hearing on the issue is scheduled to begin in August 2013.

Preliminary calculations of the City of Seattle’s claim for refunds from PSCo are approximately $28 million not including interest. PSCo has concluded that a loss is reasonably possible with respect to this matter; however, given the surrounding uncertainties, PSCo is currently unable to estimate the amount or range of reasonably possible loss in the event of an adverse outcome of this matter. In making this assessment, PSCo considered two factors. First, not withstanding PSCo’s view that the City of Seattle has failed to apply the standard that the FERC has established in this proceeding, and the recognition that this case raises a novel issue and the FERC’s standard has been challenged on appeal to the Ninth Circuit, the outcome of such an appeal cannot be predicted with any certainty. Second, PSCo would expect to make equitable arguments against refunds even if the City of Seattle were to establish that it was overcharged for transactions. If a loss were sustained, PSCo would attempt to recover those losses from other PRPs. No accrual has been recorded for this matter.

Nuclear Power Operations and Waste Disposal

Nuclear Waste Disposal Litigation — In 1998, NSP-Minnesota filed a complaint in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims against the United States requesting breach of contract damages for the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) failure to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel by Jan. 31, 1998, as required by the contract between the United States and NSP-Minnesota. NSP-Minnesota sought contract damages in this lawsuit through Dec. 31, 2004. In September 2007, the court awarded NSP-Minnesota $116.5 million in damages. In August 2007, NSP-Minnesota filed a second complaint; this lawsuit claimed damages for the period Jan. 1, 2005 through Dec. 31, 2008.

In July 2011, the United States and NSP-Minnesota executed a settlement agreement resolving both lawsuits, providing an initial $100 million payment from the United States to NSP-Minnesota, and providing a method by which NSP-Minnesota can recover its spent fuel storage costs through 2013, estimated to be an additional $100 million. The settlement does not address costs for used fuel storage after 2013; such costs could be the subject of future litigation. NSP-Minnesota received the initial $100 million payment in August 2011, the second installment of $18.6 million in March 2012, and the third installment of $20.7 million in October 2012. NSP-Minnesota’s third claim submission, in the amount of $42.8 million, was filed May 15, 2013 for costs incurred in 2012. The DOE has until Sept. 1, 2013 to accept or deny the claim, in whole or in part. Amounts received from the first installments were subsequently credited to customers, except for approved reductions such as legal costs, customer credit amounts still in process at June 30, 2013, and amounts set aside to be credited through another regulatory mechanism.

In NSP-Wisconsin’s 2012 Electric and Gas Rate Case, the PSCW authorized NSP-Wisconsin to utilize the proceeds from the second and third installments to be included as a reduction of the 2013 electric rate increase. In December 2012, the MPUC approved NSP-Minnesota’s triennial nuclear decommissioning filing which required NSP-Minnesota to place the Minnesota retail portion of the DOE settlement payments for the third installment of $15.3 million and the anticipated fourth installment in 2013 into the nuclear decommissioning fund when received. NSP-Minnesota proposed to contribute the second, third and fourth installments to the nuclear decommissioning fund to offset the increase in the decommissioning accrual that was included in the 2012 North Dakota electric rate case. That filing is pending NDPSC action.