Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2019

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies

The following include commitments, contingencies and unresolved contingencies that are material to NSP-Wisconsin’s financial position.

Legal Contingencies

NSP-Wisconsin 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 herein, management does not anticipate that the ultimate liabilities, if any, would have a material effect on NSP-Wisconsin’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. 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, 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 - The MDL panel remanded Breckenridge back to the U.S. District Court in Colorado and assigned to a judge.

Arandell Corp. - In February 2019, Xcel Energy filed a no opposition motion to have the case remanded back to the U.S. District Court in Wisconsin. The motion was granted and the case has been remanded back to the District Court.

Xcel Energy has concluded that a loss is remote for both remaining lawsuits.

Rate Matters

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 October 2018, the FERC issued an ROE order that addressed the D.C. Circuit’s actions. Under a new proposed two step ROE approach, the FERC indicated an intention to dismiss an ROE complaint if the existing ROE falls within the range of just and reasonable ROEs based on equal weighting of the DCF, CAPM, and Expected Earnings models. The FERC proposed that if necessary, it would then set a new ROE by averaging the results of these models plus a Risk Premium model.

The FERC subsequently made preliminary determinations in a November 2018 order that the MISO TO's base ROE in effect for the first complaint period (12.38%) was outside the range of reasonableness, and should be reduced. The FERC indicated its preliminary analysis using the new ROE approach resulted in a base ROE of 10.28% for the first complaint period, compared to the previously ordered base ROE of 10.32%. NSP-Minnesota has recognized a current refund liability consistent with its best estimate of the final ROE, pending further FERC action as early as the second half of 2019.

On March 21, 2019, FERC announced a NOI seeking public comments on whether, and if so how, to revise ROE policies in light of the D.C. Circuit Court decision. FERC also initiated a NOI on whether to revise its policies on incentives for electric transmission investments, including the RTO membership incentive. Initial comments on both NOIs were due in June 2019, with reply comments due in July 2019. No final FERC action is expected before the second half of 2019.

Environmental

MGP 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 and restoration activities are anticipated to be completed in 2019 and groundwater treatment activities will continue for many years.

The current cost estimate for remediation and restoration of the entire site is approximately $190.0 million. At June 30, 2019 and Dec. 31, 2018, NSP-Wisconsin had a total liability of $25.9 million and $26.9 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. In 2012, the PSCW agreed to allow NSP-Wisconsin to pre-collect certain costs, to amortize costs over 10 years and to apply a 3% carrying cost to the unamortized regulatory asset.

MGP, Landfill or Disposal Sites — NSP-Wisconsin is currently investigating or remediating two MGP, landfill or other disposal sites across its service territories.

NSP-Wisconsin 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 the costs incurred.