Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Palo Verde Generating Station Spent Nuclear Fuel and Waste Disposal On December 19, 2012, APS, acting on behalf of itself and the participant owners of Palo Verde, filed a second breach of contract lawsuit against DOE in the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Court of Federal Claims”). The lawsuit sought to recover damages incurred due to DOE’s breach of the Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or High Level Radioactive Waste (“Standard Contract”) for failing to accept Palo Verde’s spent nuclear fuel and high level waste from January 1, 2007, through June 30, 2011, pursuant to the terms of the Standard Contract and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. On August 18, 2014, APS and DOE entered into a settlement agreement, which required DOE to pay the Palo Verde owners for certain specified costs incurred by Palo Verde during the period January 1, 2007, through June 30, 2011. In addition, the settlement agreement provided APS with a method for submitting claims and getting recovery for costs incurred through December 31, 2016, which was extended to December 31, 2025. APS has submitted eight claims pursuant to the terms of the August 18, 2014 settlement agreement, for eight separate time periods during July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2021. The DOE has approved and paid $123.9 million for these claims (APS’s share is $36.0 million). The amounts recovered were primarily recorded as adjustments to a regulatory liability and had no impact on reported net income. In accordance with the 2017 Rate Case Decision, this regulatory liability is being refunded to customers. See Note 4. On October 31, 2022, APS filed its ninth claim pursuant to the terms of the August 18, 2014 settlement agreement. On March 16, 2023, the DOE approved a payment in the amount of $14.3 million (APS’s share is $4.2 million), and on April 6, 2023, APS received this payment. Nuclear Insurance Public liability for incidents at nuclear power plants is governed by the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (“Price-Anderson Act”), which limits the liability of nuclear reactor owners to the amount of insurance available from both commercial sources and an industry-wide retrospective payment plan. In accordance with the Price-Anderson Act, the Palo Verde participants are insured against public liability for a nuclear incident up to approximately $13.7 billion per occurrence. Palo Verde maintains the maximum available nuclear liability insurance in the amount of $450 million, which is provided by American Nuclear Insurers. The remaining balance of approximately $13.2 billion of liability coverage is provided through a mandatory, industry-wide retrospective premium program. If losses at any nuclear power plant covered by the program exceed the accumulated funds, APS could be responsible for retrospective premiums. The maximum retrospective premium per reactor under the program for each nuclear liability incident is approximately $137.6 million, subject to a maximum annual premium of approximately $20.5 million per incident. Based on APS’s ownership interest in the three Palo Verde units, APS’s maximum retrospective premium per incident for all three units is approximately $120.1 million, with a maximum annual retrospective premium of approximately $17.9 million. The Palo Verde participants maintain insurance for property damage to, and decontamination of, property at Palo Verde in the aggregate amount of $2.8 billion. APS has also secured accidental outage insurance for a sudden and unforeseen accidental outage of any of the three units. The property damage, decontamination, and accidental outage insurance are provided by Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited (“NEIL”). APS is subject to retrospective premium adjustments under all NEIL policies if NEIL’s losses in any policy year exceed accumulated funds. The maximum amount APS could incur under the current NEIL policies totals approximately $22.4 million for each retrospective premium assessment declared by NEIL’s Board of Directors due to losses. Additionally, at the sole discretion of the NEIL Board of Directors, APS would be liable to provide approximately $62.6 million in deposit premium within 20 days of request as assurance to satisfy any site obligation of retrospective premium assessment. The insurance coverage discussed in this, and the previous paragraph, is subject to certain policy conditions, sublimits, and exclusions. Contractual Obligations As of June 30, 2023, our fuel and purchased power and purchase obligation commitments have increased by $5.5 billion from the information provided in our 2022 Form 10-K. The change is primarily due to new purchased power and energy storage commitments and also includes a $505 million reduction of commitments due to the termination of an energy storage purchased power contract for a project that was not developed. The majority of the changes relate to 2025 and thereafter. This amount includes approximately $4.3 billion of commitments relating to purchased power lease contracts. See Note 14. Other than the items described above, there have been no material changes, as of June 30, 2023, outside the normal course of business in contractual obligations from the information provided in our 2022 Form 10-K. See Note 3 for discussion regarding changes in our short-term and long-term debt obligations. Superfund and Other Related Matters The Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (“Superfund” or “CERCLA”) establishes liability for the cleanup of hazardous substances found contaminating the soil, water or air. Those who released, generated, transported to or disposed of hazardous substances at a contaminated site are among the parties who are potentially responsible (each a “PRP”). PRPs may be strictly, jointly, and severally liable for clean-up. On September 3, 2003, EPA advised APS that EPA considers APS to be a PRP in the Motorola 52nd Street Superfund Site, Operable Unit 3 (“OU3”) in Phoenix, Arizona. APS has facilities that are within this Superfund site. APS and Pinnacle West have agreed with EPA to perform certain investigative activities of the APS facilities within OU3. In addition, on September 23, 2009, APS agreed with EPA and one other PRP to voluntarily assist with the funding and management of the site-wide groundwater remedial investigation and feasibility study (“RI/FS”). The RI/FS for OU3 was finalized and submitted to EPA at the end of 2022. APS cannot predict the EPA’s timing with respect to this matter. APS’s estimated costs related to this investigation and study is approximately $3 million. APS anticipates incurring additional expenditures in the future, but because the ultimate remediation requirements are not yet finalized by EPA, at the present time expenditures related to this matter cannot be reasonably estimated. On August 6, 2013, the Roosevelt Irrigation District (“RID”) filed a lawsuit in Arizona District Court against APS and 24 other defendants, alleging that RID’s groundwater wells were contaminated by the release of hazardous substances from facilities owned or operated by the defendants. The lawsuit also alleges that, under Superfund laws, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to RID. The allegations against APS arise out of APS’s current and former ownership of facilities in and around OU3. As part of a state governmental investigation into groundwater contamination in this area, on January 25, 2015, the ADEQ sent a letter to APS seeking information concerning the degree to which, if any, APS’s current and former ownership of these facilities may have contributed to groundwater contamination in this area. APS responded to ADEQ on May 4, 2015. On December 16, 2016, two RID environmental and engineering contractors filed an ancillary lawsuit for recovery of costs against APS and the other defendants in the RID litigation. That same day, another RID service provider filed an additional ancillary CERCLA lawsuit against certain of the defendants in the main RID litigation but excluded APS and certain other parties as named defendants. Because the ancillary lawsuits concern past costs allegedly incurred by these RID vendors, which were ruled unrecoverable directly by RID in November of 2016, the additional lawsuits do not increase APS’s exposure or risk related to these matters. On April 5, 2018, RID and the defendants in that particular litigation executed a settlement agreement, fully resolving RID’s CERCLA claims concerning both past and future cost recovery. APS’s share of this settlement was immaterial. In addition, the two environmental and engineering vendors voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit against APS and the other named defendants without prejudice. An order to this effect was entered on April 17, 2018. With this disposition of the case, the vendors may file their lawsuit again in the future. On August 16, 2019, Maricopa County, one of the three direct defendants in the service provider lawsuit, filed a third-party complaint seeking contribution for its liability, if any, from APS and 28 other third-party defendants. On September 30, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona granted partial summary judgment to the direct defendants for $20.7 million of the approximately $21.2 million in CERCLA response costs claimed by the service provider. Based on the court’s denial of the service provider’s motion for reconsideration, the service provider filed a motion for entry of judgment on June 12, 2023, and waived its rights to recover the remaining approximately $500,000 in claimed response costs, for the stated purpose of appealing the September 2022 summary judgment order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. We are unable to predict the outcome of any further litigation related to the claim for $20.7 million in response costs; however, we do not expect the outcome to have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. On February 28, 2022, EPA provided APS with a request for information under CERCLA related to APS’s Ocotillo power plant site located in Tempe, Arizona. In particular, EPA seeks information from APS regarding APS’s use, storage, and disposal of substances containing per-and polyfluoroalkyl (“PFAS”) compounds at the Ocotillo power plant site in order to aid EPA’s investigation into actual or threatened releases of PFAS into groundwater within the South Indian Bend Wash (“SIBW”) Superfund site. The SIBW Superfund site includes the APS Ocotillo power plant site. APS filed its response to this information request on April 29, 2022. On January 17, 2023, EPA contacted APS to inform the Company that it would be commencing on-site investigations within the SIBW site, including the Ocotillo power plant, and performing a remedial investigation and feasibility study related to potential PFAS impacts to groundwater over the next two to three years. APS estimates that its costs to oversee and participate in the remedial investigation work will be approximately $1.7 million. At the present time, we are unable to predict the outcome of this matter and any further expenditures related to necessary remediation, if any, or further investigations cannot be reasonably estimated. Four Corners SCR Cost Recovery As part of APS’s 2019 Rate Case, APS included recovery of the deferral and rate base effects of the Four Corners SCR project. On November 2, 2021, the 2019 Rate Case decision was approved by the ACC allowing approximately $194 million of SCR related plant investments and cost deferrals in rate base and to recover, depreciate and amortize in rates based on an end-of-life assumption of July 2031. The decision also included a partial and combined disallowance of $215.5 million on the SCR investments and deferrals. APS believes the SCR plant investments and related SCR cost deferrals were prudently incurred, and on December 17, 2021, APS filed its Notice of Direct Appeal at the Arizona Court of Appeals requesting review of the $215.5 million disallowance. The Arizona Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on November 30, 2022. On March 6, 2023, the Court of Appeals issued its order in the matter, vacating the ACC’s disallowance of the SCR investment and remanding the matter back to the ACC for further review in accordance with ACC rules and the order of the Court of Appeals. On June 21, 2023, the ACC approved a joint settlement filed by APS and the ACC’s Legal Division that resolved all issues relating to the 2019 Rate Case decision, including recovery of the cost of the Four Corners SCRs. See Note 4 for additional information regarding the Four Corners SCR cost recovery and the 2019 Rate Case. Environmental Matters APS is subject to numerous environmental laws and regulations affecting many aspects of its present and future operations, including air emissions of both conventional pollutants and greenhouse gases, water quality, wastewater discharges, solid waste, hazardous waste, and coal combustion residuals (“CCRs”). These laws and regulations can change from time to time, imposing new obligations on APS resulting in increased capital, operating, and other costs. Associated capital expenditures or operating costs could be material. APS intends to seek recovery of any such environmental compliance costs through our rates but cannot predict whether it will obtain such recovery. The following proposed and final rules involve material compliance costs to APS. Coal Combustion Waste. On December 19, 2014, EPA issued its final regulations governing the handling and disposal of CCR, such as fly ash and bottom ash. The rule regulates CCR as a non-hazardous waste under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) and establishes national minimum criteria for existing and new CCR landfills and surface impoundments and all lateral expansions. These criteria include standards governing location restrictions, design and operating criteria, groundwater monitoring and corrective action, closure requirements and post closure care, and recordkeeping, notification, and internet posting requirements. The rule generally requires any existing unlined CCR surface impoundment to stop receiving CCR and either retrofit or close, and further requires the closure of any CCR landfill or surface impoundment that cannot meet the applicable performance criteria for location restrictions or structural integrity. Such closure requirements are deemed “forced closure” or “closure for cause” of unlined surface impoundments and are the subject of the regulatory and judicial activities described below. Since these regulations were finalized, EPA has taken steps to substantially modify the federal rules governing CCR disposal. While certain changes have been prompted by utility industry petitions, others have resulted from judicial review, court-approved settlements with environmental groups, and statutory changes to RCRA. The following lists the pending regulatory changes that, if finalized, could have a material impact as to how APS manages CCR at its coal-fired power plants: •Following the passage of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act in 2016, EPA possesses authority to either authorize states to develop their own permit programs for CCR management or issue federal permits governing CCR disposal both in states without their own permit programs and on tribal lands. Although ADEQ has taken steps to develop a CCR permitting program, and new state legislation has been adopted providing ADEQ with appropriate permitting authority for CCR under the state solid waste management program, it is not clear when that program will be put into effect. On December 19, 2019, EPA proposed its own set of regulations governing the issuance of CCR management permits, which would impact facilities like Four Corners located on the Navajo Nation. The proposal remains pending. •On March 1, 2018, as a result of a settlement with certain environmental groups, EPA proposed adding boron to the list of constituents that trigger corrective action requirements to remediate groundwater impacted by CCR disposal activities. Apart from a subsequent proposal issued on August 14, 2019, to add a specific, health-based groundwater protection standard for boron, EPA has yet to take action on this proposal. •With respect to APS’s Cholla facility, APS’s application for alternative closure was submitted to EPA on November 30, 2020. While EPA has deemed APS’s application administratively “complete,” the Agency’s approval remains pending. If granted, this application would allow the continued disposal of CCR within Cholla’s existing unlined CCR surface impoundments until the required date for ceasing coal-fired boiler operations in April 2025. This application will be subject to public comment and, potentially, judicial review. We expect to have a proposed decision from EPA regarding Cholla sometime in 2023. •On May 18, 2023, EPA published a proposal that expands the scope of federal CCR regulations to address the impacts from historical CCR disposal activities that would have ceased prior to 2015. EPA proposes to define a new class of CCR management units (“CCRMUs”) that broadly encompass any location at an operating coal-fired power plant where CCR would have been placed on land. As proposed, this would include not only historically closed landfills and surface impoundments but also prior applications of CCR beneficial use. EPA expects to finalize this proposal by spring of 2024. We cannot at this time predict the outcome of these regulatory proceedings or when EPA will take final action on those matters that are still pending. Depending on the eventual outcome, the costs associated with APS’s management of CCR could materially increase, which could affect APS’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. APS currently disposes of CCR in ash ponds and dry storage areas at Cholla and Four Corners. APS estimates that its share of incremental costs to comply with the CCR rule for Four Corners is approximately $30 million and its share of incremental costs to comply with the CCR rule for Cholla is approximately $19 million. The Navajo Plant disposed of CCR only in a dry landfill storage area. To comply with the CCR rule for the Navajo Plant, APS’s share of incremental costs was approximately $1 million, which has been incurred. Additionally, the CCR rule requires ongoing, phased groundwater monitoring. As of October 2018, APS has completed the statistical analyses for its CCR disposal units that triggered assessment monitoring. APS determined that several of its CCR disposal units at Cholla and Four Corners will need to undergo corrective action. In addition, under the current regulations, all such disposal units must have ceased operating and initiated closure by April 11, 2021, at the latest (except for those disposal units subject to alternative closure). APS completed the assessments of corrective measures on June 14, 2019; however, additional investigations and engineering analyses that will support the remedy selection are still underway. In addition, APS will also solicit input from the public and host public hearings as part of this process. Based on the work performed to date, APS currently estimates that its share of corrective action and monitoring costs at Four Corners will likely range from $10 million to $15 million, which would be incurred over 30 years. As to Cholla, APS currently estimates that its share of corrective action and monitoring costs at this facility will likely range from $35 million to $40 million, which similarly would be incurred over 30 years. As APS continues to implement the CCR rule’s corrective action assessment process, the current cost estimates may change. Given uncertainties that may exist until we have fully completed the corrective action assessment and final remedy selection process, APS cannot predict any ultimate impacts to APS; however, at this time APS does not believe that any potential changes to the cost estimate for Four Corners or Cholla would have a material impact on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows. EPA Power Plant Carbon Regulations. EPA’s regulation of carbon dioxide emissions from electric utility power plants has proceeded in fits and starts over most of the last decade. Starting on August 3, 2015, EPA finalized the Clean Power Plan, which was the Agency’s first effort at such regulation through system-wide generation dispatch shifting. Those regulations were subsequently repealed by the EPA on June 19, 2019 and replaced by the Affordable Clean Energy (“ACE”) regulations, which were a far narrower set of rules. While the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit subsequently vacated the ACE regulations on January 19, 2021, and ordered a remand for EPA to develop replacement regulations consistent with the original 2015 Clean Power Plan, the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently reversed that decision on June 30, 2022, holding that the Clean Power Plan exceeded EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act. In the latest set of proposed rules, released on May 23, 2023, EPA contemplates emission standards and guidelines for various subcategories of new and existing power plants. Unlike EPA’s Clean Power Plan regulations from 2015, which took a broad, system-wide approach to regulating carbon emissions from electric utility fossil-fuel burning power plants, the most recent proposal is limited to measures that can be installed at individual power plants to limit planet-warming emissions. As such, for new natural gas-fired combustion turbine power plants, EPA is proposing that carbon emission performance standards apply based on the annual capacity factors. For the highest utilization combustion turbines, EPA is therefore proposing that such facilities be retrofitted for carbon capture and sequestration or utilization controls (“CCS”) or varying levels of hydrogen gas (“H2”) co-firing. As for existing natural gas-fired combustion turbines, EPA is imposing similar control requirements at large, high utilization generating units, but is otherwise not proceeding at this time with further regulation. As such, under EPA’s proposal, this means that both new and existing peaking gas-fired combustion turbines (i.e., those with a 20% or less annual capacity factor) are effectively unregulated under the proposed regulations. For coal-fired power plants, instead of imposing regulations based on capacity and utilization, EPA has developed subcategories based on planned retirement dates. This means that facilities retiring between 2030 and before 2040 must meet increasingly stringent emission limits up to natural-gas co-firing starting in 2030. However, for those facilities with no planned retirement date prior to 2040, EPA is requiring those plants to be retrofitted with CCS controls by 2030. EPA expects to take final action on this proposal by spring or summer of 2024. At this time, APS cannot predict the outcome of this rulemaking or when EPA will take final action. In addition, APS is continuing to evaluate this proposal and its potential impact on APS’s operations. Depending on the eventual outcome, the costs associated with APS’s operation of its current and future thermal power plants could materially increase, which could affect APS’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Other environmental rules that could involve material compliance costs include those related to effluent limitations, the ozone national ambient air quality standard and other rules or matters involving the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, RCRA, Superfund, the Navajo Nation, and water supplies for our power plants. The financial impact of complying with current and future environmental rules could jeopardize the economic viability of APS’s fossil-fuel powered plants or the willingness or ability of power plant participants to fund any required equipment upgrades or continue their participation in these plants. The economics of continuing to own certain resources, particularly our coal plants, may deteriorate, warranting early retirement of those plants, which may result in asset impairments. APS would seek recovery in rates for the book value of any remaining investments in the plants, as well as other costs related to early retirement, but cannot predict whether it would obtain such recovery. Four Corners National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) Permit The latest NPDES permit for Four Corners was issued on September 30, 2019. Based upon a November 1, 2019 filing by several environmental groups, the Environmental Appeals Board (“EAB”) took up review of the Four Corners NPDES Permit. The EAB denied the environmental group petition on September 30, 2020. While on January 22, 2021, the environmental groups filed a petition for review of the EAB’s decision with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the parties to the litigation (including APS) finalized a settlement on May 2, 2022. This settlement requires investigation of thermal wastewater discharges from Four Corners, administratively closes the litigation filed in January of 2021, and is not expected to have a material impact on APS’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Four Corners — 4CA Matter On July 6, 2016, 4CA purchased El Paso’s 7% interest in Four Corners. NTEC purchased this 7% interest on July 3, 2018, from 4CA. NTEC purchased the 7% interest at 4CA’s book value, approximately $70 million, and paid 4CA the purchase price over a period of four years pursuant to a secured interest-bearing promissory note, which was paid in full as of June 30, 2022. In connection with the sale, Pinnacle West guaranteed certain obligations that NTEC will have to the other owners of Four Corners, such as NTEC’s 7% share of capital expenditures and operating and maintenance expenses. Pinnacle West’s guarantee is secured by a portion of APS’s payments to be owed to NTEC under the 2016 Coal Supply Agreement. BCE Matters Tenaska Clear Creek Wind, LLC, the developer, owner, and operator of the Clear Creek wind farm, has disputed the proposed cost allocation of system upgrades related to connecting the Clear Creek wind farm to the transmission system and filed a complaint with FERC on May 21, 2021, which was granted in part and denied in part on December 16, 2021. Tenaska Clear Creek Wind, LLC filed a request for rehearing, which was denied on September 9, 2022. Subsequently, Tenaska Clear Creek Wind, LLC filed with FERC a request for rehearing and a motion for stay of the September 9, 2022 order. FERC denied the request for rehearing and the motion for stay with substantive discussion in an order issued on February 16, 2023. Tenaska Clear Creek Wind, LLC, has filed Petitions for Review of the relevant orders with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which are still pending. Tenaska Clear Creek Wind, LLC filed its opening brief on June 30, 2023. Tenaska Clear Creek Wind, LLC filed a second complaint with FERC on May 25, 2022, alleging that the wind farm was being curtailed in a discriminatory manner. The May 25, 2022 Complaint was denied by FERC on December 15, 2022, and Tenaska Clear Creek Wind, LLC requested rehearing of the denial on January 13, 2023. The request for rehearing was denied by FERC with substantive discussion in an order issued on April 20, 2023. Tenaska Clear Creek Wind, LLC has filed Petitions for Review of the relevant orders with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which are still pending. Due to the disputed system upgrades and the related curtailment, the Clear Creek wind farm has experienced a significant reduction in power generation that has had a material adverse impact on the project’s ability to generate cash flow for investors. These energy curtailments are expected to persist, unless and until system upgrades are implemented to alleviate the present transmission system congestion, or the disputes are determined in favor of, or settled in a manner favorable to, Tenaska Clear Creek Wind, LLC. As such, during the fourth quarter of 2022, due to these ongoing disputes, cost allocation uncertainties, and no probable favorable resolution, BCE determined its equity method investment was fully impaired. Prior to the impairment, the investment had a carrying value of $17.1 million, which has been written-down to reflect the investment’s estimated fair value of zero, as of December 31, 2022. Pinnacle West’s Consolidated Statement of Income for the year ended December 31, 2022 included an after-tax loss of $12.8 million relating to this impairment. BCE and Ameresco, Inc. jointly own a special purpose entity that is sponsoring the Kūpono Solar project. This project is a 42 MW solar and battery storage facility in Oʻahu, Hawaii that will supply clean renewable energy and capacity under a 20-year power purchase agreement with Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. The Kūpono Solar project is expected to be completed in 2024. On April 18, 2023, the Kūpono Solar special purpose entity entered into a $140 million non-recourse construction financing agreement. The construction financing will convert into a sale leaseback agreement upon commercial operation of the project. The financing agreement requires $40 million of sponsor equity, which has been funded by the project’s equity participants. In connection with the financing, Pinnacle West has issued performance guarantees relating to the project. Financial Assurances In the normal course of business, we obtain standby letters of credit and surety bonds from financial institutions and other third parties. These instruments guarantee our own future performance and provide third parties with financial and performance assurance in the event we do not perform. These instruments support commodity contract collateral obligations and other transactions. As of June 30, 2023, standby letters of credit totaled approximately $12 million and will expire in 2023 and 2024. As of June 30, 2023, surety bonds expiring through 2025 totaled approximately $20 million. The underlying liabilities insured by these instruments are reflected on our balance sheets, where applicable. Therefore, no additional liability is reflected for the letters of credit and surety bonds themselves. We enter into agreements that include indemnification provisions relating to liabilities arising from or related to certain of our agreements. Most significantly, APS has agreed to indemnify the equity participants and other parties in the Palo Verde sale leaseback transactions with respect to certain tax matters. Generally, a maximum obligation is not explicitly stated in the indemnification provisions and, therefore, the overall maximum amount of the obligation under such indemnification provisions cannot be reasonably estimated. Based on historical experience and evaluation of the specific indemnities, we do not believe that any material loss related to such indemnification provisions is likely. Pinnacle West has issued parental guarantees and has provided indemnification under certain surety bonds for APS which were not material at June 30, 2023. In connection with the sale of 4CA’s 7% interest to NTEC, Pinnacle West is guaranteeing certain obligations that NTEC will have to the other owners of Four Corners. See “Four Corners — 4CA Matter” above for information related to this guarantee. Pinnacle West has not needed to perform under this guarantee. A maximum obligation is not explicitly stated in the guarantee and, therefore, the overall maximum amount of the obligation under such guarantee cannot be reasonably estimated; however, we consider the fair value of this guarantee, including expected credit losses, to be immaterial. In connection with BCE’s acquisition of minority ownership positions in the Clear Creek wind farm in Missouri and Nobles 2 wind farm in Minnesota, Pinnacle West guaranteed the obligations of BCE subsidiaries to make required equity contributions to fund project construction (the “Equity Contribution Guarantees”) and to make production tax credit funding payments to borrowers of the projects (the “PTC Guarantees”). The amounts guaranteed by Pinnacle West are reduced as payments are made under the respective guarantee agreements. As of June 30, 2023, there is approximately $33 million of remaining guarantees primarily relating to the PTC Guarantees that is expected to terminate by 2030. In connection with the credit agreement entered into by Los Alamitos, a special purpose subsidiary of BCE, on February 11, 2022, Pinnacle West guaranteed up to $42 million primarily related to the bridge loan. See Note 3 for additional details. On April 18, 2023, Pinnacle West issued performance guarantees in connection with BCE’s Kūpono investment project financing. BCE holds an equity method investment relating to the Kūpono project. See discussion above.

On December 19, 2012, APS, acting on behalf of itself and the participant owners of Palo Verde, filed a second breach of contract lawsuit against DOE in the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Court of Federal Claims”). The lawsuit sought to recover damages incurred due to DOE’s breach of the Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or High Level Radioactive Waste (“Standard Contract”) for failing to accept Palo Verde’s spent nuclear fuel and high level waste from January 1, 2007, through June 30, 2011, pursuant to the terms of the Standard Contract and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. On August 18, 2014, APS and DOE entered into a settlement agreement, which required DOE to pay the Palo Verde owners for certain specified costs incurred by Palo Verde during the period January 1, 2007, through June 30, 2011. In addition, the settlement agreement provided APS with a method for submitting claims and getting recovery for costs incurred through December 31, 2016, which was extended to December 31, 2025.

APS has submitted eight claims pursuant to the terms of the August 18, 2014 settlement agreement, for eight separate time periods during July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2021. The DOE has approved and paid $123.9 million for these claims (APS’s share is $36.0 million). The amounts recovered were primarily recorded as adjustments to a regulatory liability and had no impact on reported net income. In accordance with the 2017 Rate Case Decision, this regulatory liability is being refunded to customers. See Note 4. On October 31, 2022, APS filed its ninth claim pursuant to the terms of the August 18, 2014 settlement agreement. On March 16, 2023, the DOE approved a payment in the amount of $14.3 million (APS’s share is $4.2 million), and on April 6, 2023, APS received this payment.

Public liability for incidents at nuclear power plants is governed by the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (“Price-Anderson Act”), which limits the liability of nuclear reactor owners to the amount of insurance available from both commercial sources and an industry-wide retrospective payment plan. In accordance with the Price-Anderson Act, the Palo Verde participants are insured against public liability for a nuclear incident up to approximately $13.7 billion per occurrence. Palo Verde maintains the maximum available nuclear liability insurance in the amount of $450 million, which is provided by American Nuclear Insurers. The remaining balance of approximately $13.2 billion of liability coverage is provided

through a mandatory, industry-wide retrospective premium program. If losses at any nuclear power plant covered by the program exceed the accumulated funds, APS could be responsible for retrospective premiums. The maximum retrospective premium per reactor under the program for each nuclear liability incident is approximately $137.6 million, subject to a maximum annual premium of approximately $20.5 million per incident. Based on APS’s ownership interest in the three Palo Verde units, APS’s maximum retrospective premium per incident for all three units is approximately $120.1 million, with a maximum annual retrospective premium of approximately $17.9 million.

The Palo Verde participants maintain insurance for property damage to, and decontamination of, property at Palo Verde in the aggregate amount of $2.8 billion. APS has also secured accidental outage insurance for a sudden and unforeseen accidental outage of any of the three units. The property damage, decontamination, and accidental outage insurance are provided by Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited (“NEIL”). APS is subject to retrospective premium adjustments under all NEIL policies if NEIL’s losses in any policy year exceed accumulated funds. The maximum amount APS could incur under the current NEIL policies totals approximately $22.4 million for each retrospective premium assessment declared by NEIL’s Board of Directors due to losses. Additionally, at the sole discretion of the NEIL Board of Directors, APS would be liable to provide approximately $62.6 million in deposit premium within 20 days of request as assurance to satisfy any site obligation of retrospective premium assessment. The insurance coverage discussed in this, and the previous paragraph, is subject to certain policy conditions, sublimits, and exclusions.

As of June 30, 2023, our fuel and purchased power and purchase obligation commitments have increased by $5.5 billion from the information provided in our 2022 Form 10-K. The change is primarily due to new purchased power and energy storage commitments and also includes a $505 million reduction of commitments due to the termination of an energy storage purchased power contract for a project that was not developed. The majority of the changes relate to 2025 and thereafter. This amount includes approximately $4.3 billion of commitments relating to purchased power lease contracts. See Note 14.

The Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (“Superfund” or “CERCLA”) establishes liability for the cleanup of hazardous substances found contaminating the soil, water or air. Those who released, generated, transported to or disposed of hazardous substances at a contaminated site are among the parties who are potentially responsible (each a “PRP”). PRPs may be strictly, jointly, and severally liable for clean-up. On September 3, 2003, EPA advised APS that EPA considers APS to be a PRP in the Motorola 52nd Street Superfund Site, Operable Unit 3 (“OU3”) in Phoenix, Arizona. APS has facilities that are within this Superfund site. APS and Pinnacle West have agreed with EPA to perform certain investigative activities of the APS facilities within OU3. In addition, on September 23, 2009, APS agreed with EPA and one other PRP to voluntarily assist with the funding and management of the site-wide groundwater remedial investigation and feasibility study (“RI/FS”). The RI/FS for OU3 was finalized and submitted to EPA at the end of 2022. APS cannot predict the EPA’s timing with respect to this matter. APS’s estimated costs related to this investigation and study is approximately $3 million. APS anticipates incurring additional expenditures in the future, but because the ultimate remediation requirements are not yet finalized by EPA, at the present time expenditures related to this matter cannot be reasonably estimated.

On August 6, 2013, the Roosevelt Irrigation District (“RID”) filed a lawsuit in Arizona District Court against APS and 24 other defendants, alleging that RID’s groundwater wells were contaminated by the release of hazardous substances from facilities owned or operated by the defendants. The lawsuit also alleges that, under Superfund laws, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to RID. The allegations against APS arise out of APS’s current and former ownership of facilities in and around OU3. As part of a state governmental investigation into groundwater contamination in this area, on January 25, 2015, the ADEQ sent a letter to APS seeking information concerning the degree to which, if any, APS’s current and former ownership of these facilities may have contributed to groundwater contamination in this area. APS responded to ADEQ on May 4, 2015. On December 16, 2016, two RID environmental and engineering contractors filed an ancillary lawsuit for recovery of costs against APS and the other defendants in the RID litigation. That same day, another RID service provider filed an additional ancillary CERCLA lawsuit against certain of the defendants in the main RID litigation but excluded APS and certain other parties as named defendants. Because the ancillary lawsuits concern past costs allegedly incurred by these RID vendors, which were ruled unrecoverable directly by RID in November of 2016, the additional lawsuits do not increase APS’s exposure or risk related to these matters.

On April 5, 2018, RID and the defendants in that particular litigation executed a settlement agreement, fully resolving RID’s CERCLA claims concerning both past and future cost recovery. APS’s share of this settlement was immaterial. In addition, the two environmental and engineering vendors voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit against APS and the other named defendants without prejudice. An order to this effect was entered on April 17, 2018. With this disposition of the case, the vendors may file their lawsuit again in the future. On August 16, 2019, Maricopa County, one of the three direct defendants in the service provider lawsuit, filed a third-party complaint seeking contribution for its liability, if any, from APS and 28 other third-party defendants. On September 30, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona granted partial summary judgment to the direct defendants for $20.7 million of the approximately $21.2 million in CERCLA response costs claimed by the service provider. Based on the court’s denial of the service provider’s motion for reconsideration, the service provider filed a motion for entry of judgment on June 12, 2023, and waived its rights to recover the remaining approximately $500,000 in claimed response costs, for the stated purpose of appealing the September 2022 summary judgment order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. We are unable to predict the outcome of any further litigation related to the claim for $20.7 million in response costs; however, we do not expect the outcome to have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

On February 28, 2022, EPA provided APS with a request for information under CERCLA related to APS’s Ocotillo power plant site located in Tempe, Arizona. In particular, EPA seeks information from APS regarding APS’s use, storage, and disposal of substances containing per-and polyfluoroalkyl (“PFAS”) compounds at the Ocotillo power plant site in order to aid EPA’s investigation into actual or threatened releases of PFAS into groundwater within the South Indian Bend Wash (“SIBW”) Superfund site. The SIBW Superfund site includes the APS Ocotillo power plant site. APS filed its response to this information request on April 29, 2022. On January 17, 2023, EPA contacted APS to inform the Company that it would be commencing on-site investigations within the SIBW site, including the Ocotillo power plant, and performing a remedial investigation and feasibility study related to potential PFAS impacts to groundwater over the next two to three years. APS estimates that its costs to oversee and participate in the remedial investigation work will be approximately $1.7 million. At the present time, we are unable to predict the outcome of this matter and any further expenditures related to necessary remediation, if any, or further investigations cannot be reasonably estimated.

As part of APS’s 2019 Rate Case, APS included recovery of the deferral and rate base effects of the Four Corners SCR project. On November 2, 2021, the 2019 Rate Case decision was approved by the ACC allowing approximately $194 million of SCR related plant investments and cost deferrals in rate base and to recover, depreciate and amortize in rates based on an end-of-life assumption of July 2031. The decision also included a partial and combined disallowance of $215.5 million on the SCR investments and deferrals. APS believes the SCR plant investments and related SCR cost deferrals were prudently incurred, and on December 17, 2021, APS filed its Notice of Direct Appeal at the Arizona Court of Appeals requesting review of the $215.5 million disallowance. The Arizona Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on November 30, 2022. On March 6, 2023, the Court of Appeals issued its order in the matter, vacating the ACC’s disallowance of the SCR investment and remanding the matter back to the ACC for further review in accordance with ACC rules and the order of the Court of Appeals. On June 21, 2023, the ACC approved a joint settlement filed by APS and the ACC’s Legal Division that resolved all issues relating to the 2019 Rate Case decision, including recovery of the cost of the Four Corners SCRs. See Note 4 for additional information regarding the Four Corners SCR cost recovery and the 2019 Rate Case.

APS is subject to numerous environmental laws and regulations affecting many aspects of its present and future operations, including air emissions of both conventional pollutants and greenhouse gases, water quality, wastewater discharges, solid waste, hazardous waste, and coal combustion residuals (“CCRs”). These laws and regulations can change from time to time, imposing new obligations on APS resulting in increased capital, operating, and other costs. Associated capital expenditures or operating costs could be material. APS intends to seek recovery of any such environmental compliance costs through our rates but cannot predict whether it will obtain such recovery. The following proposed and final rules involve material compliance costs to APS.

Coal Combustion Waste. On December 19, 2014, EPA issued its final regulations governing the handling and disposal of CCR, such as fly ash and bottom ash. The rule regulates CCR as a non-hazardous waste under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) and establishes national minimum criteria for existing and new CCR landfills and surface impoundments and all lateral expansions. These criteria include standards governing location restrictions, design and operating criteria, groundwater monitoring and corrective action, closure requirements and post closure care, and recordkeeping, notification, and internet posting requirements. The rule generally requires any existing unlined CCR surface impoundment to stop receiving CCR and either retrofit or close, and further requires the closure of any CCR landfill or surface impoundment that cannot meet the applicable performance criteria for location restrictions or structural integrity. Such closure requirements are deemed “forced closure” or “closure for cause” of unlined surface impoundments and are the subject of the regulatory and judicial activities described below.

Since these regulations were finalized, EPA has taken steps to substantially modify the federal rules governing CCR disposal. While certain changes have been prompted by utility industry petitions, others have resulted from judicial review, court-approved settlements with environmental groups, and statutory changes to RCRA. The following lists the pending regulatory changes that, if finalized, could have a material impact as to how APS manages CCR at its coal-fired power plants:

programs and on tribal lands. Although ADEQ has taken steps to develop a CCR permitting program, and new state legislation has been adopted providing ADEQ with appropriate permitting authority for CCR under the state solid waste management program, it is not clear when that program will be put into effect. On December 19, 2019, EPA proposed its own set of regulations governing the issuance of CCR management permits, which would impact facilities like Four Corners located on the Navajo Nation. The proposal remains pending.

•On March 1, 2018, as a result of a settlement with certain environmental groups, EPA proposed adding boron to the list of constituents that trigger corrective action requirements to remediate groundwater impacted by CCR disposal activities. Apart from a subsequent proposal issued on August 14, 2019, to add a specific, health-based groundwater protection standard for boron, EPA has yet to take action on this proposal.

•With respect to APS’s Cholla facility, APS’s application for alternative closure was submitted to EPA on November 30, 2020. While EPA has deemed APS’s application administratively “complete,” the Agency’s approval remains pending. If granted, this application would allow the continued disposal of CCR within Cholla’s existing unlined CCR surface impoundments until the required date for ceasing coal-fired boiler operations in April 2025. This application will be subject to public comment and, potentially, judicial review. We expect to have a proposed decision from EPA regarding Cholla sometime in 2023.

•On May 18, 2023, EPA published a proposal that expands the scope of federal CCR regulations to address the impacts from historical CCR disposal activities that would have ceased prior to 2015. EPA proposes to define a new class of CCR management units (“CCRMUs”) that broadly encompass any location at an operating coal-fired power plant where CCR would have been placed on land. As proposed, this would include not only historically closed landfills and surface impoundments but also prior applications of CCR beneficial use. EPA expects to finalize this proposal by spring of 2024.

We cannot at this time predict the outcome of these regulatory proceedings or when EPA will take final action on those matters that are still pending. Depending on the eventual outcome, the costs associated with APS’s management of CCR could materially increase, which could affect APS’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

APS currently disposes of CCR in ash ponds and dry storage areas at Cholla and Four Corners. APS estimates that its share of incremental costs to comply with the CCR rule for Four Corners is approximately $30 million and its share of incremental costs to comply with the CCR rule for Cholla is approximately $19 million. The Navajo Plant disposed of CCR only in a dry landfill storage area. To comply with the CCR rule for the Navajo Plant, APS’s share of incremental costs was approximately $1 million, which has been incurred. Additionally, the CCR rule requires ongoing, phased groundwater monitoring.

As of October 2018, APS has completed the statistical analyses for its CCR disposal units that triggered assessment monitoring. APS determined that several of its CCR disposal units at Cholla and Four Corners will need to undergo corrective action. In addition, under the current regulations, all such disposal units must have ceased operating and initiated closure by April 11, 2021, at the latest (except for those disposal units subject to alternative closure). APS completed the assessments of corrective measures on June 14, 2019; however, additional investigations and engineering analyses that will support the remedy selection are still underway. In addition, APS will also solicit input from the public and host public hearings as part of this process. Based on the work performed to date, APS currently estimates that its share of corrective action and monitoring costs at Four Corners will likely range from $10 million to $15 million, which would be incurred

over 30 years. As to Cholla, APS currently estimates that its share of corrective action and monitoring costs at this facility will likely range from $35 million to $40 million, which similarly would be incurred over 30 years. As APS continues to implement the CCR rule’s corrective action assessment process, the current cost estimates may change. Given uncertainties that may exist until we have fully completed the corrective action assessment and final remedy selection process, APS cannot predict any ultimate impacts to APS; however, at this time APS does not believe that any potential changes to the cost estimate for Four Corners or Cholla would have a material impact on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

EPA Power Plant Carbon Regulations. EPA’s regulation of carbon dioxide emissions from electric utility power plants has proceeded in fits and starts over most of the last decade. Starting on August 3, 2015, EPA finalized the Clean Power Plan, which was the Agency’s first effort at such regulation through system-wide generation dispatch shifting. Those regulations were subsequently repealed by the EPA on June 19, 2019 and replaced by the Affordable Clean Energy (“ACE”) regulations, which were a far narrower set of rules. While the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit subsequently vacated the ACE regulations on January 19, 2021, and ordered a remand for EPA to develop replacement regulations consistent with the original 2015 Clean Power Plan, the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently reversed that decision on June 30, 2022, holding that the Clean Power Plan exceeded EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act.

In the latest set of proposed rules, released on May 23, 2023, EPA contemplates emission standards and guidelines for various subcategories of new and existing power plants. Unlike EPA’s Clean Power Plan regulations from 2015, which took a broad, system-wide approach to regulating carbon emissions from electric utility fossil-fuel burning power plants, the most recent proposal is limited to measures that can be installed at individual power plants to limit planet-warming emissions.

As such, for new natural gas-fired combustion turbine power plants, EPA is proposing that carbon emission performance standards apply based on the annual capacity factors. For the highest utilization combustion turbines, EPA is therefore proposing that such facilities be retrofitted for carbon capture and sequestration or utilization controls (“CCS”) or varying levels of hydrogen gas (“H2”) co-firing. As for existing natural gas-fired combustion turbines, EPA is imposing similar control requirements at large, high utilization generating units, but is otherwise not proceeding at this time with further regulation. As such, under EPA’s proposal, this means that both new and existing peaking gas-fired combustion turbines (i.e., those with a 20% or less annual capacity factor) are effectively unregulated under the proposed regulations.

For coal-fired power plants, instead of imposing regulations based on capacity and utilization, EPA has developed subcategories based on planned retirement dates. This means that facilities retiring between 2030 and before 2040 must meet increasingly stringent emission limits up to natural-gas co-firing starting in 2030. However, for those facilities with no planned retirement date prior to 2040, EPA is requiring those plants to be retrofitted with CCS controls by 2030.

EPA expects to take final action on this proposal by spring or summer of 2024. At this time, APS cannot predict the outcome of this rulemaking or when EPA will take final action. In addition, APS is continuing to evaluate this proposal and its potential impact on APS’s operations. Depending on the eventual outcome, the costs associated with APS’s operation of its current and future thermal power plants could materially increase, which could affect APS’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Other environmental rules that could involve material compliance costs include those related to effluent limitations, the ozone national ambient air quality standard and other rules or matters involving the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, RCRA, Superfund, the Navajo Nation, and water supplies for our power plants. The financial impact of complying with current and future environmental rules

could jeopardize the economic viability of APS’s fossil-fuel powered plants or the willingness or ability of power plant participants to fund any required equipment upgrades or continue their participation in these plants. The economics of continuing to own certain resources, particularly our coal plants, may deteriorate, warranting early retirement of those plants, which may result in asset impairments. APS would seek recovery in rates for the book value of any remaining investments in the plants, as well as other costs related to early retirement, but cannot predict whether it would obtain such recovery.

The latest NPDES permit for Four Corners was issued on September 30, 2019. Based upon a November 1, 2019 filing by several environmental groups, the Environmental Appeals Board (“EAB”) took up review of the Four Corners NPDES Permit. The EAB denied the environmental group petition on September 30, 2020. While on January 22, 2021, the environmental groups filed a petition for review of the EAB’s decision with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the parties to the litigation (including APS) finalized a settlement on May 2, 2022. This settlement requires investigation of thermal wastewater discharges from Four Corners, administratively closes the litigation filed in January of 2021, and is not expected to have a material impact on APS’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

On July 6, 2016, 4CA purchased El Paso’s 7% interest in Four Corners. NTEC purchased this 7% interest on July 3, 2018, from 4CA. NTEC purchased the 7% interest at 4CA’s book value, approximately $70 million, and paid 4CA the purchase price over a period of four years pursuant to a secured interest-bearing promissory note, which was paid in full as of June 30, 2022.

In connection with the sale, Pinnacle West guaranteed certain obligations that NTEC will have to the other owners of Four Corners, such as NTEC’s 7% share of capital expenditures and operating and maintenance expenses. Pinnacle West’s guarantee is secured by a portion of APS’s payments to be owed to NTEC under the 2016 Coal Supply Agreement.

Tenaska Clear Creek Wind, LLC, the developer, owner, and operator of the Clear Creek wind farm, has disputed the proposed cost allocation of system upgrades related to connecting the Clear Creek wind farm to the transmission system and filed a complaint with FERC on May 21, 2021, which was granted in part and denied in part on December 16, 2021. Tenaska Clear Creek Wind, LLC filed a request for rehearing, which was denied on September 9, 2022. Subsequently, Tenaska Clear Creek Wind, LLC filed with FERC a request for rehearing and a motion for stay of the September 9, 2022 order. FERC denied the request for rehearing and the motion for stay with substantive discussion in an order issued on February 16, 2023. Tenaska Clear Creek Wind, LLC, has filed Petitions for Review of the relevant orders with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which are still pending. Tenaska Clear Creek Wind, LLC filed its opening brief on June 30, 2023.

Tenaska Clear Creek Wind, LLC filed a second complaint with FERC on May 25, 2022, alleging that the wind farm was being curtailed in a discriminatory manner. The May 25, 2022 Complaint was denied by FERC on December 15, 2022, and Tenaska Clear Creek Wind, LLC requested rehearing of the denial on January 13, 2023. The request for rehearing was denied by FERC with substantive discussion in an order issued on April 20, 2023. Tenaska Clear Creek Wind, LLC has filed Petitions for Review of the relevant orders with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which are still pending.

Due to the disputed system upgrades and the related curtailment, the Clear Creek wind farm has experienced a significant reduction in power generation that has had a material adverse impact on the project’s ability to generate cash flow for investors. These energy curtailments are expected to persist, unless and until system upgrades are implemented to alleviate the present transmission system congestion, or the disputes are determined in favor of, or settled in a manner favorable to, Tenaska Clear Creek Wind, LLC. As such, during the fourth quarter of 2022, due to these ongoing disputes, cost allocation uncertainties, and no probable favorable resolution, BCE determined its equity method investment was fully impaired. Prior to the impairment, the investment had a carrying value of $17.1 million, which has been written-down to reflect the investment’s estimated fair value of zero, as of December 31, 2022. Pinnacle West’s Consolidated Statement of Income for the year ended December 31, 2022 included an after-tax loss of $12.8 million relating to this impairment.

BCE and Ameresco, Inc. jointly own a special purpose entity that is sponsoring the Kūpono Solar project. This project is a 42 MW solar and battery storage facility in Oʻahu, Hawaii that will supply clean renewable energy and capacity under a 20-year power purchase agreement with Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. The Kūpono Solar project is expected to be completed in 2024. On April 18, 2023, the Kūpono Solar special purpose entity entered into a $140 million non-recourse construction financing agreement. The construction financing will convert into a sale leaseback agreement upon commercial operation of the project. The financing agreement requires $40 million of sponsor equity, which has been funded by the project’s equity participants. In connection with the financing, Pinnacle West has issued performance guarantees relating to the project.

In the normal course of business, we obtain standby letters of credit and surety bonds from financial institutions and other third parties. These instruments guarantee our own future performance and provide third parties with financial and performance assurance in the event we do not perform. These instruments support commodity contract collateral obligations and other transactions. As of June 30, 2023, standby letters of credit totaled approximately $12 million and will expire in 2023 and 2024. As of June 30, 2023, surety bonds expiring through 2025 totaled approximately $20 million. The underlying liabilities insured by these instruments are reflected on our balance sheets, where applicable. Therefore, no additional liability is reflected for the letters of credit and surety bonds themselves.

We enter into agreements that include indemnification provisions relating to liabilities arising from or related to certain of our agreements. Most significantly, APS has agreed to indemnify the equity participants and other parties in the Palo Verde sale leaseback transactions with respect to certain tax matters. Generally, a maximum obligation is not explicitly stated in the indemnification provisions and, therefore, the overall maximum amount of the obligation under such indemnification provisions cannot be reasonably estimated. Based on historical experience and evaluation of the specific indemnities, we do not believe that any material loss related to such indemnification provisions is likely.

Pinnacle West has issued parental guarantees and has provided indemnification under certain surety bonds for APS which were not material at June 30, 2023. In connection with the sale of 4CA’s 7% interest to NTEC, Pinnacle West is guaranteeing certain obligations that NTEC will have to the other owners of Four Corners. See “Four Corners — 4CA Matter” above for information related to this guarantee. Pinnacle West has not needed to perform under this guarantee. A maximum obligation is not explicitly stated in the guarantee and, therefore, the overall maximum amount of the obligation under such guarantee cannot be reasonably estimated; however, we consider the fair value of this guarantee, including expected credit losses, to be immaterial.

In connection with BCE’s acquisition of minority ownership positions in the Clear Creek wind farm in Missouri and Nobles 2 wind farm in Minnesota, Pinnacle West guaranteed the obligations of BCE subsidiaries to make required equity contributions to fund project construction (the “Equity Contribution Guarantees”) and to make production tax credit funding payments to borrowers of the projects (the “PTC Guarantees”). The amounts guaranteed by Pinnacle West are reduced as payments are made under the respective guarantee agreements. As of June 30, 2023, there is approximately $33 million of remaining guarantees primarily relating to the PTC Guarantees that is expected to terminate by 2030.