XML 49 R20.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.24.0.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | 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 imminently. 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 April 2022, CORE filed a supplement to include damages related to a 2022 outage. Also in 2022, CORE sent notice of withdrawal from the ownership agreement based on the same alleged breaches. In February 2023, the court granted PSCo’s motion precluding CORE from seeking damages related to its withdrawal as part of the lawsuit. In October 2023, the jury ruled that CORE may not withdraw as a joint owner of the facility but awarded CORE lost power damages of $26 million. PSCo recognized a $34 million loss for the verdict in the third quarter of 2023, including estimated interest and other costs. PSCo intends to file an appeal of this decision. Marshall Wildfire Litigation — 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. PSCo is aware of 302 complaints, most of which have also named Xcel Energy Inc. and Xcel Energy Services, Inc. as additional defendants, relating to the Marshall Fire. The complaints are on behalf of at least 4,047 plaintiffs, and one complaint is filed on behalf of a putative class of first responders who allegedly were exposed to the threat of serious bodily injury, or smoke, soot and ash from the Marshall Fire. 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, wrongful death, willful and wanton conduct, negligent infliction of emotional distress, loss of consortium and inverse condemnation. In addition to seeking compensatory damages, certain of the complaints also seek exemplary damages. In September 2023, the Boulder County District Court Judge consolidated eight lawsuits that were pending at that time into a single action for pretrial purposes and has subsequently consolidated additional lawsuits that have been filed. At the case management conference in February 2024, a trial date was set for September 2025. 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. 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. 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 per defendant 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 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. NSP-Minnesota notified the MPUC of its proposal to refund settlement proceeds to customers through the FCA. 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 January 2021, the OAG and DOC recommended that NSP-Minnesota refund approximately $17 million of replacement power costs previously recovered through the FCA. NSP-Minnesota responded 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 2023, NSP-Minnesota and various parties filed recommendations, including the DOC which recommended a $56 million customer refund. The Xcel Large Industrial customer group recommended a refund of $72 million. 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 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. Environmental New and changing federal and state environmental mandates can create financial liabilities for Xcel Energy, which are normally recovered through the regulated rate process. Site Remediation Various federal and state environmental laws impose liability where hazardous substances or other regulated materials have been released to the environment. Xcel Energy Inc.’s subsidiaries may sometimes pay all or a portion of the cost to remediate sites where past activities of their predecessors or other parties have caused environmental contamination. Environmental contingencies could arise from various situations, including sites of former MGPs; and third-party sites, such as landfills, for which one or more of Xcel Energy Inc.’s subsidiaries are alleged to have sent wastes to that site. MGP, Landfill and Disposal Sites Xcel Energy is investigating, remediating or performing post-closure actions at 12 historical MGP, landfill or other disposal sites across its service territories, excluding sites that are being addressed under current coal ash regulations (see below). Xcel Energy has recognized approximately $20 million 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, including the CCR Rule. As a specific requirement of the CCR Rule, utilities must complete groundwater sampling around their applicable landfills and surface impoundments as well as perform corrective actions where offsite groundwater has been impacted. If certain impacts to groundwater are detected, utilities are required to perform additional groundwater investigations and/or perform corrective actions beginning with an Assessment of Corrective Measures. Investigation and/or corrective action related to groundwater impacts are currently underway at four Xcel Energy sites under the federal CCR program at a current estimated cost of at least $40 million. A liability has been recorded and is expected to be fully recoverable through regulatory mechanisms. For required coal ash disposal, 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. 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. Environmental Requirements — Air Clean Air Act NOx Allowance Allocations — In June 2023, the EPA published final regulations for ozone 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 subject Xcel Energy fossil fuel-fired electric generating facilities. Subject 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 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. The regulation may become applicable in those states in the future, depending on the outcome of the litigation. The rule is in effect in NSP-Wisconsin but has been managed without the additional need for allowances. In February 2024, the EPA proposed to partially disapprove New Mexico’s state implementation plan and bring New Mexico into the federal Good Neighbor plan. Xcel Energy continues to evaluate impacts to generation units at SPS. Regional Haze Rules — The EPA has proposed rules addressing Regional Haze compliance in Texas, which address requirements for reasonable progress at Tolk and BART at Harrington. As proposed, these rules would not require additional controls at either facility, in part due to the conversion of Harrington to gas in 2025 and the planned retirement of Tolk. These rules will be monitored until final versions are published. AROs — AROs have been recorded for Xcel Energy’s assets. For nuclear assets, the ARO is associated with the decommissioning of NSP-Minnesota nuclear generating plants. Aggregate fair value of NSP-Minnesota’s legally restricted assets, for funding future nuclear decommissioning was $3.2 billion and $2.9 billion for 2023 and 2022, respectively. Xcel Energy’s AROs were as follows:
(Millions of Dollars) |  | Jan. 1, 2023 |  | Amounts Incurred (a) |  | Amounts Settled |  | Accretion |  | Cash Flow Revisions (b) |  | Dec. 31, 2023
Electric |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Nuclear |  | $ | 2,160 |  |  | $ | — |  |  | $ | — |  |  | $ | 105 |  |  | $ | (158) |  |  | $ | 2,107 |
Wind |  | 514 |  |  | 10 |  |  | — |  |  | 19 |  |  | (17) |  |  | 526 |
Steam, hydro and other production |  | 348 |  |  | — |  |  | (1) |  |  | 15 |  |  | (1) |  |  | 361 |
Distribution |  | 48 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 1 |  |  | — |  |  | 49 |
Natural gas |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Transmission and distribution |  | 307 |  |  | — |  |  |  |  | 14 |  |  | (149) |  |  | 172 |
Other |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Miscellaneous |  | 3 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 3 |
Total liability |  | $ | 3,380 |  |  | $ | 10 |  |  | $ | (1) |  |  | $ | 154 |  |  | $ | (325) |  |  | $ | 3,218 |
(a)Amounts incurred relate to the Northern Wind farm placed in service in NSP-Minnesota. (b)In 2023, AROs were revised for changes in timing and estimates of cash flows. Revisions in wind and nuclear AROs were primarily incurred due to changes in useful lives. Changes in gas transmission and distribution AROs were a result of updated gas line mileage and number of services, as well as changes to inflation and discount rate assumptions.
(Millions of Dollars) |  | Jan. 1, 2022 |  | Amounts Incurred (a) |  |  |  | Accretion |  | Cash Flow Revisions (b) |  | Dec. 31, 2022
Electric |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Nuclear |  | $ | 2,056 |  |  | $ | — |  |  |  |  | $ | 104 |  |  | $ | — |  |  | $ | 2,160 |
Wind |  | 478 |  |  | 25 |  |  |  |  | 19 |  |  | (8) |  |  | 514 |
Steam, hydro and other production |  | 288 |  |  | 34 |  |  |  |  | 12 |  |  | 14 |  |  | 348 |
Distribution |  | 47 |  |  | — |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |  | — |  |  | 48 |
Natural gas |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Transmission and distribution (c) |  | 279 |  |  | — |  |  |  |  | 12 |  |  | 16 |  |  | 307 |
Other |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Miscellaneous |  | 3 |  |  | — |  |  |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 3 |
Total liability |  | $ | 3,151 |  |  | $ | 59 |  |  |  |  | $ | 148 |  |  | $ | 22 |  |  | $ | 3,380 |
(a)Amounts incurred related to the wind farms placed in service in 2022 for NSP-Minnesota (Dakota Range and Rock Aetna) and steam production pond remediation costs for PSCo. (b)In 2022, AROs were revised for changes in timing and estimates of cash flows. Revisions in steam, hydro and other production AROs were primarily related to changes in cost estimates for remediation of ash containment facilities. Changes in gas transmission and distribution AROs were primarily related to changes in labor rates coupled with increased gas line mileage and number of services. (c)Prior periods have been reclassified to conform with current year presentation. Indeterminate AROs — Outside of the recorded asbestos AROs, other plants or buildings may contain asbestos due to the age of many of Xcel Energy’s facilities, but no confirmation or measurement of the cost of removal could be determined as of Dec. 31, 2023. Therefore, an ARO was not recorded for these facilities. Nuclear Nuclear Insurance — NSP-Minnesota’s public liability for claims from any nuclear incident is limited to $16.2 billion under the Price-Anderson amendment to the Atomic Energy Act. NSP-Minnesota has $450 million of coverage for its public liability exposure with a pool of insurance companies. The remaining $15.8 billion of exposure is funded by the Secondary Financial Protection Program available from assessments by the federal government. NSP-Minnesota is subject to assessments of up to $166 million per reactor-incident for each of its three reactors, for public liability arising from a nuclear incident at any licensed nuclear facility in the United States. The maximum funding requirement is $25 million per reactor-incident during any one year. Maximum assessments are subject to inflation adjustments. NSP-Minnesota purchases insurance for property damage and site decontamination cleanup costs from NEIL and EMANI. The coverage limits are $2.8 billion for each of NSP-Minnesota’s two nuclear plant sites. NEIL also provides business interruption insurance coverage up to $490 million and $420 million at Monticello and Prairie Island, respectively, including the cost of replacement power during prolonged accidental outages of nuclear generating units. Premiums are expensed over the policy term. All companies insured with NEIL are subject to retroactive premium adjustments if losses exceed accumulated reserve funds. Capital has been accumulated in the reserve funds of NEIL and EMANI to the extent that NSP-Minnesota would have no exposure for retroactive premium assessments in case of a single incident under the business interruption and the property damage insurance coverage. NSP-Minnesota could be subject to annual maximum assessments of $15 million for business interruption insurance and $32 million for property damage insurance if losses exceed accumulated reserve funds. Nuclear Fuel Disposal — NSP-Minnesota is responsible for temporarily storing spent nuclear fuel from its nuclear plants. The DOE is responsible for permanently storing spent fuel from U.S. nuclear plants, but no such facility is yet available. NSP-Minnesota owns temporary on-site storage facilities for spent fuel at its Monticello and PI nuclear plants, which consist of storage pools and dry cask facilities. The Monticello dry-cask storage facility currently stores all 30 of the authorized canisters. Monticello’s future spent fuel will continue to be placed in its spent fuel pool. The decommissioning plan addresses the disposition of spent fuel at the end of the licensed life. In October 2023, a CON for additional storage at the Monticello site was approved by the MPUC to support possible life extension to 2040. The PI dry-cask storage facility currently stores 50 of the 64 authorized casks. In February 2023, NSP-Minnesota filed a CON with the MPUC for additional storage at PI to support possible life extension to 2054. Regulatory Plant Decommissioning Recovery — Decommissioning activities for NSP-Minnesota’s nuclear facilities are planned to begin at the end of each unit’s authorized retirement dates, which can be different than the currently approved NRC operating licenses. These decommissioning activities are planned to be completed at both facilities by 2101. NSP-Minnesota’s current operating licenses allow continued use of its Monticello nuclear plant until 2030 and its PI nuclear plant until 2033 for Unit 1 and 2034 for Unit 2. The MPUC reaffirmed a 60-year DECON scenario, where Monticello continues operations under a 10-year license extension (approved in August 2022). NRC approval of the extension is pending. In February 2023, NSP-Minnesota also filed an application with the NDPSC for an Advance Determination of Prudence for continued operation of the Monticello Plant until at least 2040. A decision is expected in 2024. Future decommissioning costs of nuclear facilities are estimated through triennial periodic studies that assess the costs and timing of planned nuclear decommissioning activities for each unit. The MPUC ordered the next triennial decommissioning study be filed by Dec. 1, 2024. Obligations for decommissioning are expected to be funded 100% by the external decommissioning trust fund. NSP-Minnesota had $3.2 billion and $2.9 billion of assets held in external decommissioning trusts at Dec. 31, 2023, and 2022, respectively. See Note 10 to the consolidated financial statements for additional discussion. 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. A contract determined to contain a lease is evaluated further to determine if the arrangement is a finance lease. ROU assets represent Xcel Energy's rights to use leased assets. The present value of future operating lease payments is recognized in other current liabilities and noncurrent operating lease liabilities. These amounts, adjusted for any prepayments or incentives, are recognized as operating lease ROU assets. Most of Xcel Energy’s leases do not contain a readily determinable discount rate. Therefore, the present value of future lease payments is generally calculated using the applicable Xcel Energy subsidiary’s estimated incremental borrowing rate (weighted average of 4.4%). For currently exiting asset classes, Xcel Energy has elected the practical expedient under which non-lease components, such as asset maintenance costs included in payments, are not deducted from lease payments for the purposes of lease accounting and disclosure. Leases with an initial term of 12 months or less are classified as short-term leases and are not recognized on the consolidated balance sheet. Operating lease ROU assets:
(Millions of Dollars) |  | Dec. 31, 2023 |  | Dec. 31, 2022
PPAs |  | $ | 1,832 |  |  | $ | 1,669 |
Other |  | 315 |  |  | 244 |
Gross operating lease ROU assets |  | 2,147 |  |  | 1,913 |
Accumulated amortization |  | (930) |  |  | (709) |
Net operating lease ROU assets |  | $ | 1,217 |  |  | $ | 1,204 |
ROU assets for finance leases are included in other noncurrent assets, and the present value of future finance lease payments is included in other current liabilities and other noncurrent liabilities. Xcel Energy’s most significant finance lease activities are related to WYCO, a joint venture with CIG, to develop and lease natural gas pipeline, storage and compression facilities. Xcel Energy Inc. has a 50% ownership interest in WYCO. WYCO leases its facilities to CIG, and CIG operates the facilities, providing natural gas storage and transportation services to PSCo under separate service agreements. PSCo accounts for its Totem natural gas storage service and Front Range pipeline arrangements with CIG and WYCO, respectively, as finance leases. Xcel Energy Inc. eliminates 50% of the finance lease obligation related to WYCO in the consolidated balance sheet along with an equal amount of Xcel Energy Inc.’s equity investment in WYCO. Finance lease ROU assets:
(Millions of Dollars) |  | Dec. 31, 2023 |  | Dec. 31, 2022
Gas storage facilities |  | $ | 160 |  |  | $ | 160 |
Gas pipeline |  | 21 |  |  | 21 |
Gross finance lease ROU assets |  | 181 |  |  | 181 |
Accumulated amortization |  | (67) |  |  | (64) |
Net finance lease ROU assets |  | $ | 114 |  |  | $ | 117 |
Components of lease expense:
(Millions of Dollars) |  | 2023 |  | 2022 |  | 2021
Operating leases |  |  |  |  |  |
PPA capacity payments |  | $ | 241 |  |  | $ | 241 |  |  | $ | 251 |
Other operating leases (a) |  | 42 |  |  | 39 |  |  | 36 |
Total operating lease expense (b) |  | $ | 283 |  |  | $ | 280 |  |  | $ | 287 |
Finance leases |  |  |  |  |  |
Amortization of ROU assets |  | $ | 3 |  |  | $ | 4 |  |  | $ | 7 |
Interest expense on lease liability |  | 15 |  |  | 16 |  |  | 17 |
Total finance lease expense |  | $ | 18 |  |  | $ | 20 |  |  | $ | 24 |
(a)Includes short-term lease expense of $3 million, $6 million, and $5 million for 2023, 2022 and 2021, 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. Commitments under operating and finance leases as of Dec. 31, 2023:
(Millions of Dollars) |  | PPA (a) (b) Operating Leases |  | Other Operating Leases |  | Total Operating Leases |  | Finance Leases (c)
2024 |  | $ | 244 |  |  | $ | 33 |  |  | $ | 277 |  |  | $ | 10 |
2025 |  | 245 |  |  | 26 |  |  | 271 |  |  | 10 |
2026 |  | 216 |  |  | 22 |  |  | 238 |  |  | 9 |
2027 |  | 162 |  |  | 22 |  |  | 184 |  |  | 8 |
2028 |  | 107 |  |  | 22 |  |  | 129 |  |  | 8 |
Thereafter |  | 259 |  |  | 162 |  |  | 421 |  |  | 173 |
Total minimum obligation |  | 1,233 |  |  | 287 |  |  | 1,520 |  |  | 218 |
Interest component of obligation |  | (157) |  |  | (99) |  |  | (256) |  |  | (154) |
Present value of minimum obligation |  | $ | 1,076 |  |  | 188 |  |  | 1,264 |  |  | 64 |
Less current portion |  |  |  |  |  | (226) |  |  | (2) |
Noncurrent operating and finance lease liabilities |  |  |  |  |  | $ | 1,038 |  |  | $ | 62 |
Weighted-average remaining lease term in years |  |  |  |  |  | 8.2 |  | 36.8
(a)Amounts do not include PPAs accounted for as executory contracts and/or contingent payments, such as energy payments on renewable PPAs. (b)PPA operating leases contractually expire at various dates through 2039. (c)Excludes certain amounts related to Xcel Energy’s 50% ownership interest in WYCO. PPAs and Fuel Contracts Non-Lease PPAs — NSP-Minnesota, PSCo and SPS have entered into PPAs with other utilities and energy suppliers for purchased power to meet system load and energy requirements, operating reserve obligations and as part of wholesale and commodity trading activities. In general, these agreements provide for energy payments, based on actual energy delivered, and may also include capacity payments. Certain non-lease PPAs with various expiration dates through 2033, contain minimum energy purchase commitments. Total energy payments on those contracts were $214 million, $182 million and $149 million in 2023, 2022 and 2021, respectively. Included in electric fuel and purchased power expenses for PPAs accounted for as executory contracts were payments for capacity of $77 million, $75 million and $69 million in 2023, 2022 and 2021, respectively. Capacity and energy payments are contingent on the IPPs meeting contract obligations, including plant availability requirements. Certain contractual payments are adjusted based on market indices. The effects of price adjustments on financial results are mitigated through purchased energy cost recovery mechanisms. At Dec. 31, 2023, the estimated future payments for capacity and energy that the utility subsidiaries of Xcel Energy are obligated to purchase pursuant to these non-lease contracts, subject to availability, were as follows:
(Millions of Dollars) |  | Capacity |  | Energy (a)
2024 |  | $ | 80 |  |  | $ | 207 |
2025 |  | 45 |  |  | 94 |
2026 |  | 28 |  |  | 47 |
2027 |  | 9 |  |  | 10 |
2028 |  | 1 |  |  | 10 |
Thereafter |  | 2 |  |  | 18 |
Total |  | $ | 165 |  |  | $ | 386 |
(a)Excludes contingent energy payments for renewable energy PPAs. Fuel Contracts — Xcel Energy has entered into various long-term commitments for the purchase and delivery of a significant portion of its coal, nuclear fuel and natural gas requirements. These contracts expire between 2024 and 2060. Xcel Energy is required to pay additional amounts depending on actual quantities delivered under these agreements. Estimated minimum purchases under these contracts as of Dec. 31, 2023:
(Millions of Dollars) |  | Coal |  | Nuclear fuel |  | Natural gas supply |  | Natural gas storage and transportation
2024 |  | $ | 350 |  |  | $ | 142 |  |  | $ | 339 |  |  | $ | 311 |
2025 |  | 157 |  |  | 179 |  |  | 13 |  |  | 284 |
2026 |  | 81 |  |  | 63 |  |  | — |  |  | 276 |
2027 |  | 56 |  |  | 180 |  |  | — |  |  | 238 |
2028 |  | 21 |  |  | 50 |  |  | — |  |  | 111 |
Thereafter |  | 1 |  |  | 177 |  |  | — |  |  | 442 |
Total |  | $ | 666 |  |  | $ | 791 |  |  | $ | 352 |  |  | $ | 1,662 |
VIEs PPAs — 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. Xcel Energy has determined that certain IPPs are VIEs, however Xcel Energy is not subject to risk of loss from the operations of these entities, and no significant financial support is required other than contractual payments for energy and capacity. 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 evaluated each of these VIEs for possible consolidation, including review of qualitative factors such as the length and terms of the contract, control over O&M, control over dispatch of electricity, historical and estimated future fuel and electricity prices and financing activities. Xcel Energy concluded that these entities are not required to be consolidated in its consolidated financial statements because Xcel Energy does not have the power to direct the activities that most significantly impact the entities’ economic performance. The utility subsidiaries had approximately 3,751 MW and 3,961 MW of capacity under long-term PPAs at Dec. 31, 2023 and 2022, respectively, with entities that have been determined to be VIEs. These agreements have expiration dates through 2041. Fuel Contracts — SPS purchases all of its coal requirements for its Harrington and Tolk plants from TUCO Inc. under contracts that will expire in December 2024 and December 2027, respectively. TUCO arranges for the purchase, receiving, transporting, unloading, handling, crushing, weighing and delivery of coal to meet SPS’ requirements. TUCO is responsible for negotiating and administering contracts with coal suppliers, transporters and handlers. SPS has not provided any significant financial support to TUCO, other than contractual payments for delivered coal. However, the fuel contracts create a variable interest in TUCO due to SPS’ reimbursement of fuel procurement costs. SPS has determined that TUCO is a VIE, however it has concluded that SPS is not the primary beneficiary because it does not have the power to direct the activities that most significantly impact TUCO’s economic performance. Low-Income Housing Limited Partnerships — Eloigne and NSP-Wisconsin have entered into limited partnerships with affordable rental housing activities that qualify for low-income housing tax credits. Eloigne and NSP-Wisconsin, as primary beneficiaries of these activities, consolidate these limited partnerships in their consolidated financial statements. Amounts reflected in Xcel Energy’s consolidated balance sheets for these investments include $41 million of assets and $35 million of liabilities at Dec. 31, 2023, and $44 million of assets and $35 million of liabilities at Dec. 31, 2022. Other Technology Agreements — Xcel Energy has several contracts for information technology services that extend through 2027. The contracts are cancelable, although there are financial penalties for early termination. Xcel Energy capitalized or expensed $28 million, $181 million and $103 million associated with these vendors in 2023, 2022 and 2021, respectively. Committed minimum payments under these obligations as follows:
(Millions of Dollars) |  | Minimum Payments
2024 |  | $ | 18 |
2025 |  | 14 |
2026 |  | 13 |
2027 |  | 12 |
2028 |  | — |
Thereafter |  | — |
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 Dec. 31, 2023 and 2022, 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 $75 million and $62 million at Dec. 31, 2023 and 2022, respectively. Other Indemnification Agreements — Xcel Energy Inc. and its subsidiaries provide indemnifications through various contracts. These are primarily indemnifications against adverse litigation outcomes in connection with underwriting agreements, as well as breaches of representations and warranties, including corporate existence, transaction authorization and income tax matters with respect to assets sold. Xcel Energy Inc.’s and its subsidiaries’ obligations under these agreements may be limited in terms of duration and amount. Maximum future payments under these indemnifications cannot be reasonably estimated as the dollar amounts are often not explicitly stated.

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://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//450/tableOfContent Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147480327/954-440-50-1 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 5: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//440/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration