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.

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. 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.

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

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.

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 $30 million. A liability has been recorded for the portion of these actions that are estimable/probable, and are 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 $45 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 extracting the impacted groundwater. Xcel Energy anticipates costs to extract and contain the impacted groundwater from this release to be immaterial. The water is fully contained on-site and has not been detected in any drinking water. The release does not represent a risk to human health or the environment.

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 2017, the EPA adopted a final BART rule for Texas. Under that rule, Harrington Units 1, 2, and 3 and Tolk Units 1 and 2 participate in intrastate SO2 budget and trading program. The rule also implemented participation in a federal ozone season NOx budget and trading program, named the Cross State Air Pollution Rule. The EPA is reconsidering this rule and a proposal for reconsideration is anticipated in the second quarter of 2023.

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.


	Three Months Ended March 31
(Millions of Dollars)	2023		2022
Operating leases
PPA capacity payments	$	60	$	63
Other operating leases (a)	12		13
Total operating lease expense (b)	$	72	$	76
Finance leases
Amortization of ROU assets	$	1	$	1
Interest expense on lease liability	4		4
Total finance lease expense	$	5	$	5

(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.


(Millions of Dollars)	PPA Operating Leases		Other Operating Leases		Total Operating Leases		Finance Leases (a)
Total minimum obligation	$	1,223	$	257	$	1,480	$	225
Interest component of obligation	(160)		(76)		(236)		(160)
Present value of minimum obligation	$	1,063	181		1,244		65
Less current portion					(224)		(2)
Noncurrent operating and finance lease liabilities					$	1,020	$	63

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 March 31, 2023 and Dec. 31, 2022, respectively, with entities that have been determined to be variable interest entities. The PPAs have expiration dates through 2041.

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 March 31, 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 $62 million at both March 31, 2023 and Dec. 31, 2022.

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.