Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	The following includes commitments, contingencies and unresolved contingencies that are material to NSP-Wisconsin’s financial position. Legal 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 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. 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. Settlement of approximately $3 million was reached in February 2021. The parties have sought and are awaiting court approval of the settlement. A hearing was held on July 22, 2021. A decision is anticipated in Q3. Arandell Corp. — The trial has been vacated and will be rescheduled after the court rules on the pending motions for reconsideration and for class certification. Xcel Energy has concluded that a loss is remote for the remaining lawsuit. Rate Matters 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%. In September 2016, the FERC issued an order (Opinion No. 551) granting a 10.32% base ROE 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 Opinion No. 551. In November 2019, the FERC issued an order (Opinion No. 569), which set the MISO base ROE at 9.88%, effective Sept. 28, 2016 and for the first complaint period. The FERC also dismissed the second complaint. In December 2019, MISO TOs filed a request for rehearing regarding the new ROE methodology announced in Opinion No. 569. Customers also filed requests for rehearing claiming, among other points, that the FERC erred by dismissing the second complaint without refunds. In May 2020, the FERC issued an order (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 first complaint period. The FERC also affirmed its decision in Opinion No. 569 to dismiss the second complaint. In November 2020, the FERC issued an order (Opinion No. 569-B) in response to rehearing requests. The FERC corrected certain inputs to its ROE calculation model, did not change the ROE effective Sept. 28, 2016, and for the first MISO complaint period and upheld its decision to deny refunds for the second complaint period. NSP-Minnesota has recognized a liability for its best estimate of final refunds to customers. Each 10 basis point reduction in ROE for the first complaint period, second complaint period, and subsequent period relative to amounts accrued would reduce Xcel Energy’s net income by $1 million, $1 million, and $2 million, respectively. The MISO TOs and various parties have filed petitions for review of Opinion Nos. 569, 569-A and 569-B at the D.C. Circuit with initial briefs filed in March 2021 and final briefs expected in August 2021. FERC NOPR on ROE Incentive Adders — In April 2021, the FERC issued a NOPR proposing to limit collection of ROE incentive adders for RTO membership to the first three years after an entity begins participation in an RTO. If adopted as a final rule, following a comment period expected to be complete by the end of 2021 or 2022, NSP-Wisconsin would prospectively discontinue charging their current 0.5% ROE incentive adders. Amounts related to a discontinuance of the adder would ultimately be offset by an increase in retail rates, following future rate cases. Environmental MGP, Landfill and Disposal Sites NSP-Wisconsin is currently investigating, remediating or performing post-closure actions at 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 costs incurred.

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 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.

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. Settlement of approximately $3 million was reached in February 2021. The parties have sought and are awaiting court approval of the settlement. A hearing was held on July 22, 2021. A decision is anticipated in Q3.

Arandell Corp. — The trial has been vacated and will be rescheduled after the court rules on the pending motions for reconsideration and for class certification. Xcel Energy has concluded that a loss is remote for the remaining lawsuit.

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%.

In September 2016, the FERC issued an order (Opinion No. 551) granting a 10.32% base ROE 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 Opinion No. 551.

In November 2019, the FERC issued an order (Opinion No. 569), which set the MISO base ROE at 9.88%, effective Sept. 28, 2016 and for the first complaint period. The FERC also dismissed the second complaint. In December 2019, MISO TOs filed a request for rehearing regarding the new ROE methodology announced in Opinion No. 569. Customers also filed requests for rehearing claiming, among other points, that the FERC erred by dismissing the second complaint without refunds.

In May 2020, the FERC issued an order (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 first complaint period. The FERC also affirmed its decision in Opinion No. 569 to dismiss the second complaint.

In November 2020, the FERC issued an order (Opinion No. 569-B) in response to rehearing requests. The FERC corrected certain inputs to its ROE calculation model, did not change the ROE effective Sept. 28, 2016, and for the first MISO complaint period and upheld its decision to deny refunds for the second complaint period. NSP-Minnesota has recognized a liability for its best estimate of final refunds to customers. Each 10 basis point reduction in ROE for the first complaint period, second complaint period, and subsequent period relative to amounts accrued would reduce Xcel Energy’s net income by $1 million, $1 million, and $2 million, respectively.

The MISO TOs and various parties have filed petitions for review of Opinion Nos. 569, 569-A and 569-B at the D.C. Circuit with initial briefs filed in March 2021 and final briefs expected in August 2021.

FERC NOPR on ROE Incentive Adders — In April 2021, the FERC issued a NOPR proposing to limit collection of ROE incentive adders for RTO membership to the first three years after an entity begins participation in an RTO. If adopted as a final rule, following a comment period expected to be complete by the end of 2021 or 2022, NSP-Wisconsin would prospectively discontinue charging their current 0.5% ROE incentive adders. Amounts related to a discontinuance of the adder would ultimately be offset by an increase in retail rates, following future rate cases.

NSP-Wisconsin is currently investigating, remediating or performing post-closure actions at 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 costs incurred.