XML 28 R17.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.20.2

Commitments and Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | The following include commitments, contingencies and unresolved contingencies that are material to Xcel Energy’s financial position. 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, 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 Inc. 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 Inc., 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 — In February 2019, the MDL panel remanded Breckenridge back to the U.S. District Court in Colorado. Arandell Corp. — In February 2019, the case was remanded back to the U.S. District Court in Wisconsin. Plaintiffs are seeking class certification. It is uncertain when the court will rule on this issue. Xcel Energy has concluded that a loss is remote for both remaining lawsuits. Rate Matters and Other 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 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 filed comments agreeing 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, 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. The lower court’s decision was affirmed on appeal. In March 2020, NSP-Minnesota’s insurers filed a petition seeking additional review by the Minnesota Supreme Court. On April 28, 2020, the Minnesota Supreme Court denied the insurers’ petition for further review, ending the litigation. In accordance with a prior MPUC order, NSP-Minnesota made a compliance filing on Aug. 24, 2020 detailing all costs that resulted from the outage and all insurance recoveries received by NSP-Minnesota in connection with the outage. The MPUC has indicated it intends to review the prudence of the Company’s actions and costs in connection with the outage now that the ligation is complete. The MPUC has not specified what process it will use to complete that review. Westmoreland Arbitration — In November 2014, insurers for Westmoreland Coal Company filed an arbitration demand against NSP-Minnesota, SMMPA and Western Fuels Association, seeking recovery of alleged business losses due to a turbine failure at Sherco Unit 3. The Westmoreland insurers claim NSP-Minnesota’s invocation of the force majeure clause of the applicable coal supply agreement to stop the supply of coal was improper because the incident was allegedly caused by NSP-Minnesota’s failure to conform to industry maintenance standards. Westmoreland’s insurers quantified their losses as approximately $36 million. All parties tolled the arbitration pending resolution of a separate lawsuit brought by NSP-Minnesota, SMMPA, and their insurers against various GE entities based on the inspection and maintenance advice GE provided for Sherco Unit 3. In July 2020, the litigation has been resolved and notice of resolution was served, triggering the arbitration to resume. NSP-Minnesota denies the claims asserted by the Westmoreland insurers, believes it properly stopped the supply of coal based upon the force majeure provision in the coal supply agreement and intends to defend the matter. It is uncertain when a final resolution will occur, but it is unlikely an arbitration hearing will take place before 2021. At this early stage of the proceeding, before any discovery has been conducted, a reasonable estimate of damages or range of damages cannot be determined. 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 November 2019, the FERC issued Opinion No. 569 adopting a new ROE methodology and settling the MISO base ROE at 9.88% (10.38% with the RTO adder), effective Sept. 28, 2016 and for the refund period in the first complaint. The second complaint was also dismissed. In December 2019, MISO TOs filed a request for rehearing. Customers also filed requests for rehearing, claiming among other points, that the FERC erred by dismissing the second complaint without refunds. The FERC accepted the requests for rehearing in January 2020. In March 2020, the FERC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding changes to its policies for transmission incentives, including a proposal to increase the RTO participation adder from 50 to 100 basis points and to make the adder available regardless of whether a utility’s ongoing participation in the RTO is voluntary or required by legislation or a regulator. In May 2020, the FERC issued Opinion No. 569-A, which granted rehearing in part to Opinion 569 and further refined the FERC’s ROE methodology, most significantly to incorporate the risk premium model (in addition to the discounted cash flow and capital asset pricing models), resulting in a new base ROE of 10.02%, effective Sept. 28, 2016 and for the refund period in the first complaint. The FERC also affirmed its decision in Opinion 569 to dismiss the second complaint. The May 2020 FERC opinion remains subject to pending requests for rehearing, as well as the pending judicial review, NSP-Minnesota has recognized a liability for its best estimate of final refunds to customers. 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 September 2015. In March 2020, SPP and Oklahoma Gas & Electric separately filed petitions for review of FERC’s orders at the D.C. Circuit. SPS has intervened in both appeals in support of FERC. Any refunds received by SPS are expected to be given back to SPS customers through future rates. In October 2017, SPS filed a separate related complaint against SPP asserting that SPP has assessed upgrade charges to SPS in violation of the SPP OATT. In March 2018, the FERC issued an order denying the SPS complaint in its entirety, and finding SPP’s calculations to be consistent with the SPS Tariff. SPS filed a request for rehearing in April 2018. The FERC issued a tolling order granting a rehearing for further consideration in May 2018. If SPS’ complaint results in additional charges or refunds, SPS will seek to recover or refund the amounts through future SPS customer rates. MEC Transactions — In January 2020, Xcel Energy, Inc. purchased MEC, a 760 MW natural gas combined cycle facility, for approximately $650 million from Southern Power Company. In July 2020, Xcel Energy sold MEC to Southwest Generation for $684 million. The gain on sale of approximately $20 million, which was offset by charitable giving, including COVID-19 relief efforts, had no material impact on earnings in the third quarter of 2020. Environmental MGP, Landfill and Disposal 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 was completed in 2019 and restoration activities were completed in 2020. Groundwater treatment activities will continue for many years. The cost estimate for remediation and restoration of the entire site is approximately $199 million. At Sept. 30, 2020 and Dec. 31, 2019, NSP-Wisconsin had a total liability of $20 million and $23 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 and application of a 3% carrying charge to the regulatory asset. In addition to the Ashland Site, Xcel Energy is currently investigating, remediating or performing post-closure actions at 13 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 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 CCR landfills and surface impoundments. Currently, Xcel Energy has nine regulated ash units in operation. Xcel Energy is conducting groundwater sampling and, where appropriate, implementing assessment of corrective measures at certain CCR landfills and surface impoundments. Groundwater monitoring consistent with the CCR Rule continued in 2020. In NSP-Minnesota, no results above the groundwater protection standards in the rule were identified. In PSCo, statistically significant increases above background concentrations were detected at four locations. Subsequently, assessment monitoring samples were collected at these locations and, based on the results, PSCo is evaluating options for corrective action at two locations. At one location, monitoring results indicate potential offsite impacts to groundwater. Until PSCo completes its assessment, it is uncertain what impact, if any, there will be on the operations, financial condition or cash flows. On Aug. 28, 2020, the EPA published its final rule to implement a cease receipt and initiate a closure date of April 11, 2021 for all CCR impoundments affected by an August 2018 D.C. Circuit ruling. The D.C. Circuit concluded that the EPA cannot allow utilities to continue to use unlined impoundments (including clay lined impoundments) for the storage or disposal of coal ash. This final rule requires NSP-Minnesota to expedite closure plans for one impoundment at an estimated cost of $4 million and the construction of a new impoundment at the cost of $9 million. NSP-Minnesota completed construction of this new impoundment, an ash pond, and placed it in service on Oct. 5, 2020. With the new ash pond in service, NSP-Minnesota is required to initiate closure activities for the existing ash pond. In accordance with the CCR rule, NSP-Minnesota has five years to complete closure activities, and the facility’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit will be initiated. PSCo is pursuing options to provide alternative storage capacity consistent with the CCR Rule at one facility until the affected generating units are retired in 2025. Closure costs for existing impoundments are included in the calculation of the asset retirement obligation. VIEs 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. The utility subsidiaries had approximately 4,062 MW and 3,986 MW of capacity under long-term PPAs at Sept. 30, 2020 and Dec. 31, 2019, respectively, with entities that have been determined to be VIEs. Xcel Energy 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. The PPAs have 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 Sept. 30, 2020 and Dec. 31, 2019, 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 $62 million at Sept. 30, 2020 and Dec. 31, 2019. 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.

X
- References No definition available. + 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://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=121559207&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=121559207&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration