XML 28 R17.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.24.2.u1

Commitments and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2024
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 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 $35 million of losses for the verdict in 2023, including estimated interest and other costs. In early 2024, PSCo and CORE each filed appeals of the trial court’s decision to the Colorado Court of Appeals. Marshall Wildfire Litigation — In December 2021, a wildfire ignited in Boulder County, Colorado (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 (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 307 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 4,087 plaintiffs. 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. Discovery is now underway. 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 filed before Jan. 1, 2025, other than a medical malpractice action, the total award for noneconomic loss is capped at $0.6 million per defendant 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. 2024 Smokehouse Creek Fire Complex — On February 26, 2024, multiple wildfires began in the Texas Panhandle, including the Smokehouse Creek Fire and the 687 Reamer Fire, which burned into the perimeter of the Smokehouse Creek Fire (together, referred to herein as the “Smokehouse Creek Fire Complex”). The Texas A&M Forest Service issued incident reports that determined that the Smokehouse Creek Fire and the 687 Reamer Fire were caused by power lines owned by SPS after wooden poles near each fire origin failed. According to the Texas A&M Forest Service’s Incident Viewer and news reports, the Smokehouse Creek Fire Complex burned approximately 1,055,000 acres. SPS is aware of approximately 21 complaints, most of which have also named Xcel Energy Services Inc. as an additional defendant, relating to the Smokehouse Creek Fire Complex, including one putative class action on behalf of persons or entities who owned rangelands or pastures that were damaged by the fire. The complaints generally allege that SPS’s equipment ignited the Smokehouse Creek Fire Complex and seek compensation for losses resulting from the fire, asserting various causes of action under Texas law. In addition to seeking compensatory damages, certain of the complaints also seek exemplary damages. SPS has also received approximately 141 claims for losses related to the Smokehouse Creek Fire Complex through its claims process and has reached final settlements on 43 of those claims. In July 2024, SPS reached a settlement of a complaint related to one of the two fatalities believed to be associated with the Smokehouse Creek Fire Complex. Texas law does not apply strict liability in determining an electric utility company’s liability for fire-related damages. For negligence claims under Texas law, a public utility has a duty to exercise ordinary and reasonable care. Potential liabilities related to the Smokehouse Creek Fire Complex depend on various factors, including the cause of the equipment failure and the extent and magnitude of potential damages, including damages to residential and commercial structures, personal property, vegetation, livestock and livestock feed (including replacement feed), personal injuries and any other damages, penalties, fines or restitution that may be imposed by courts or other governmental entities if SPS is found to have been negligent. Based on the current state of the law and the facts and circumstances available as of the date of this filing, Xcel Energy believes it is probable that it will incur a loss in connection with the Smokehouse Creek Fire Complex and accordingly has accrued a $215 million estimated loss for the matter (before available insurance), presented in other current liabilities as of June 30, 2024. The aggregate liability of $215 million for claims in connection with the Smokehouse Creek Fire Complex (before available insurance) corresponds to the lower end of the range of Xcel Energy’s reasonably estimable range of losses, and is subject to change based on additional information. This $215 million estimate does not include, among other things, amounts for (i) potential penalties or fines that may be imposed by governmental entities on Xcel Energy, (ii) exemplary or punitive damages, (iii) compensation claims by federal, state, county and local government entities or agencies, (iv) compensation claims for damage to trees, railroad lines, or oil and gas equipment, or (v) other amounts that are not reasonably estimable. Xcel Energy remains unable to reasonably estimate any additional loss or the upper end of the range because there are a number of unknown facts and legal considerations that may impact the amount of any potential liability. In the event that SPS or Xcel Energy Services Inc. was found liable related to the litigation related to the Smokehouse Creek Fire Complex and was required to pay damages, such amounts could exceed our insurance coverage of approximately $500 million for the annual policy period and could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The process for estimating losses associated with potential claims related to the Smokehouse Creek Fire Complex requires management to exercise significant judgment based on a number of assumptions and subjective factors, including the factors identified above and estimates based on currently available information and prior experience with wildfires. As more information becomes available, management estimates and assumptions regarding the potential financial impact of the Smokehouse Creek Fire Complex may change. SPS records insurance recoveries when it is deemed probable that recovery will occur, and SPS can reasonably estimate the amount or range. SPS has recorded an insurance receivable for $215 million, presented within prepayments and other current assets as of June 30, 2024. While SPS plans to seek recovery of all insured losses, it is unable to predict the ultimate amount and timing of such insurance recoveries. 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. In May 2024, the ALJ recommended a customer refund of $34 million (less a portion of the proceeds received from the settlement with GE). The ALJ indicated that consideration of the $22 million of previously disallowed costs was not in the scope of their recommendation. Xcel Energy has recorded an estimate for a customer refund in this matter. A final decision by the MPUC is expected in late 2024. Minnesota 2023 Fuel Clause Adjustment — In March 2024, NSP-Minnesota filed its annual fuel clause adjustment true-up petition to the MPUC, with a proposed refund of $126 million for fuel over-recoveries in 2023. In April 2024, the DOC recommended the MPUC approve the non-nuclear aspects of the petition. In May 2024, the DOC and Minnesota OAG filed comments relating to an outage at the Prairie Island generating station that lasted from October 2023 through February 2024. The DOC recommended that NSP-Minnesota refund $20 million of replacement power costs for 2023 as well as a future refund of replacement power costs for 2024 once those costs are known. The OAG recommended that NSP-Minnesota refund $18 million of replacement power costs for 2023 and did not address 2024. In July 2024, NSP-Minnesota filed reply comments in the 2023 proceeding in support of its position that no customer refund for replacement power costs is warranted. A final decision by the MPUC is expected in late 2024. Environmental New and changing federal and state environmental mandates can create financial obligations 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 13 historical MGP, landfill or other disposal sites across its service territories, in addition to sites that are being addressed under current coal ash regulations (see below). Xcel Energy has recognized approximately $20 million of costs/liabilities for resolution of these issues; however, the final outcomes and timing are unknown. In addition, there may be regulatory recovery, insurance recovery and/or recovery from other potentially responsible parties, offsetting a portion of costs incurred. Water and Waste Coal Ash Regulation — Xcel Energy is subject to the CCR Rule, which imposes requirements for handling, storage, treatment and disposal of coal ash and other solid waste. In May 2024, final amendments to the CCR Rule were published. These include legacy CCR surface impoundments at inactive facilities and previously exempt areas where CCR was placed directly on land at CCR-regulated facilities, including areas of beneficial use. As a specific requirement of the CCR Rule, utilities must complete facility evaluations and groundwater sampling around their subject landfills, surface impoundments and certain other areas where coal ash was placed on land, as well as perform corrective actions where offsite groundwater has been impacted. If certain impacts to groundwater are detected, utilities may be required to perform additional groundwater investigations and/or perform corrective actions, typically beginning with an Assessment of Corrective Measures. Investigation and/or corrective action related to groundwater impacts are currently underway at certain active and closed coal-fueled generating facilities at a current estimated cost of at least $40 million. In addition, Xcel Energy expects to incur $15 million for investigations through 2028 to perform required reporting and assess whether corrective actions are necessary. Asset retirement obligations have been recorded for each of these activities, and amounts are expected to be recoverable through regulatory mechanisms. Xcel Energy has also identified coal ash that is expected to be required to be removed from certain closed coal-fueled generating facilities at estimated costs totaling approximately $100 million. Asset retirement obligations have been recorded, with the costs expected to be recoverable through regulatory mechanisms. Xcel Energy continues to evaluate the 2024 updates to the CCR rule, the interpretations of those updates and how they will apply to specific sites. Assessment of the recent updates to the CCR Rule and corresponding site investigation activities may result in updates to estimated costs as well as identification of additional required corrective actions. 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. 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 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. The rule took effect in NSP-Wisconsin in 2023 and 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. In June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order granting a stay of the final rule. We are assessing implementation of the stay order in Wisconsin. Leases Xcel Energy evaluates contracts that may contain leases, including PPAs and arrangements for the use of office space, land for solar developments and other facilities, vehicles and equipment. A contract contains a lease if it conveys the exclusive right to control the use of a specific asset. Components of lease expense:
|  | Three Months Ended June 30
(Millions of Dollars) |  | 2024 |  | 2023
Operating leases |  |  |  |
PPA capacity payments |  | $ | 57 |  |  | $ | 61 |
Other operating leases (a) |  | 11 |  |  | 12 |
Total operating lease expense (b) |  | $ | 68 |  |  | $ | 73 |
Finance leases |  |  |  |
Amortization of ROU assets |  | $ | 1 |  |  | $ | — |
Interest expense on lease liability |  | 3 |  |  | 4 |
Total finance lease expense |  | $ | 4 |  |  | $ | 4 |
(a)Includes short-term lease expense of $1 million and $3 million for 2024 and 2023, respectively. (b)PPA capacity payments are included in electric fuel and purchased power on the consolidated statements of income. Expense for other operating leases is included in O&M expense and electric fuel and purchased power.
|  | Six Months Ended June 30
(Millions of Dollars) |  | 2024 |  | 2023
Operating leases |  |  |  |
PPA capacity payments |  | $ | 115 |  |  | $ | 121 |
Other operating leases (a) |  | 22 |  |  | 24 |
Total operating lease expense (b) |  | $ | 137 |  |  | $ | 145 |
Finance leases |  |  |  |
Amortization of ROU assets |  | $ | 2 |  |  | $ | 1 |
Interest expense on lease liability |  | 7 |  |  | 8 |
Total finance lease expense |  | $ | 9 |  |  | $ | 9 |
(a)Includes short-term lease expense of $2 million and $5 million for 2024 and 2023, 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 June 30, 2024:
(Millions of Dollars) |  | PPA Operating Leases |  | Other Operating Leases |  | Total Operating Leases |  | Finance Leases (a)
Total minimum obligation |  | $ | 1,107 |  |  | $ | 360 |  |  | $ | 1,467 |  |  | $ | 213 |
Interest component of obligation |  | (135) |  |  | (145) |  |  | (280) |  |  | (150) |
Present value of minimum obligation |  | $ | 972 |  |  | 215 |  |  | 1,187 |  |  | 63 |
Less current portion |  |  |  |  |  | (226) |  |  | (2) |
Noncurrent operating and finance lease liabilities |  |  |  |  |  | $ | 961 |  |  | $ | 61 |
(a)Excludes certain amounts related to Xcel Energy’s 50% ownership interest in WYCO. Variable Interest Entities Under certain PPAs, NSP-Minnesota, PSCo and SPS purchase power from IPPs for which the utility subsidiaries are required to reimburse fuel costs, or to participate in tolling arrangements under which the utility subsidiaries procure the natural gas required to produce the energy that they purchase. 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 of capacity under long-term PPAs as of both June 30, 2024 and Dec. 31, 2023, with entities that have been determined to be variable interest entities. The PPAs have expiration dates through 2041. Other Guarantees and Bond Indemnifications — Xcel Energy 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 June 30, 2024 and Dec. 31, 2023, 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 $79 million and $75 million at June 30, 2024 and Dec. 31, 2023, 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/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 405 -SubTopic 30 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/405-30/tableOfContent Reference 2: 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 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/450/tableOfContent Reference 4: 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/1943274/2147478522/954-440-50-1 Reference 5: 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 6: 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