Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments

Capital Commitments — PSCo has made commitments in connection with a portion of its projected capital expenditures. PSCo’s capital commitments primarily relate to the following major projects:

Gas Transmission Integrity Management Programs — PSCo is proactively identifying and addressing the safety and reliability of natural gas transmission pipelines. The pipeline integrity efforts include primarily pipeline assessment and maintenance projects.

Electric Distribution Integrity Management Programs — PSCo is assessing aging infrastructure for distribution assets and replacing worn components to increase system performance.

Fuel Contracts — PSCo has entered into various long-term commitments for the purchase and delivery of a significant portion of its current coal and natural gas requirements. These contracts expire in various years between 2016 and 2060. PSCo is required to pay additional amounts depending on actual quantities shipped under these agreements.

The estimated minimum purchases for PSCo under these contracts as of Dec. 31, 2015, are as follows:



(Millions of Dollars)	Coal		Natural gas supply		Natural gas storage and transportation
2016	$	302.3	$	231.1	$	137.5
2017	230.3		129.5		137.2
2018	118.5		181.0		85.5
2019	42.0		187.6		51.0
2020	43.6		203.4		50.4
Thereafter	332.3		409.6		773.2
Total	$	1,069.0	$	1,342.2	$	1,234.8

Additional expenditures for fuel and natural gas storage and transportation will be required to meet expected future electric generation and natural gas needs. PSCo’s risk of loss, in the form of increased costs from market price changes in fuel, is mitigated through the use of natural gas and energy cost-rate adjustment mechanisms, which provide for pass-through of most fuel, storage and transportation costs to customers.

PPAs — PSCo has entered into PPAs with other utilities and energy suppliers with expiration dates through 2032 for purchased power to meet system load and energy requirements and meet operating reserve obligations. In general, these agreements provide for energy payments, based on actual energy delivered and capacity payments. Certain PPAs accounted for as executory contracts also contain minimum energy purchase commitments. Capacity and energy payments are typically contingent on the independent power producing entity meeting certain contract obligations, including plant availability requirements. Certain contractual payments are adjusted based on market indices. The effects of price adjustments on our financial results are mitigated through purchased energy cost recovery mechanisms.

Included in electric fuel and purchased power expenses for PPAs, accounted for as executory contracts, were payments for capacity of $69.5 million, $69.5 million and $72.7 million in 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. At Dec. 31, 2015, the estimated future payments for capacity and energy that PSCo is obligated to purchase pursuant to these executory contracts, subject to availability, are as follows:



(Millions of Dollars)	Capacity		Energy^(a)
2016	$	44.5	$	25.3
2017	24.3		4.4
2018	19.2		—
2019	10.3		—
2020	1.5		—
Thereafter	9.5		—
Total	$	109.3	$	29.7


^(a)	Excludes contingent energy payments for renewable energy PPAs.

Additional energy payments under these PPAs and PPAs accounted for as operating leases will be required to meet expected future electric demand.

Leases — PSCo leases a variety of equipment and facilities used in the normal course of business. Three of these leases qualify as capital leases and are accounted for accordingly. The assets and liabilities at the inception of a capital lease are recorded at the lower of fair market value or the present value of future lease payments and are amortized over the term of the contract.

WYCO was formed as a joint venture between Xcel Energy Inc. and Colorado Interstate Gas Company, LLC (CIG) to develop and lease natural gas pipeline, storage, and compression facilities. Xcel Energy Inc. has a 50 percent ownership interest in WYCO, and PSCo has no direct ownership interest. WYCO generally leases its facilities to CIG, and CIG operates the facilities, providing natural gas storage services to PSCo under separate service agreements.

PSCo accounts for its Totem natural gas storage service arrangement with CIG as a capital lease. As a result, PSCo had $132.9 million and $138.9 million of capital lease obligations recorded for the arrangement as of Dec. 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

PSCo records amortization for its capital leases as cost of natural gas sold and transported on the consolidated statements of income. Total amortization expenses under capital lease assets were approximately $8.2 million, $7.2 million, and $6.3 million for 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. Following is a summary of property held under capital leases:



(Millions of Dollars)	Dec. 31, 2015			Dec. 31, 2014
Gas storage facilities	$	200.5		$	200.5
Gas pipeline	20.7			20.7
Property held under capital leases	221.2			221.2
Accumulated depreciation	(57.2		)	(49.0		)
Total property held under capital leases, net	$	164.0		$	172.2

The remainder of the leases, primarily for office space, railcars, generating facilities, trucks, aircraft, cars and power-operated equipment are accounted for as operating leases. Total expenses under operating lease obligations were approximately $130.5 million, $126.2 million and $96.6 million for 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. These expenses include capacity payments for PPAs accounted for as operating leases of $113.5 million, $110.1 million and $79.6 million in 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively, recorded to electric fuel and purchased power expenses.

Included in the future commitments under operating leases are estimated future capacity payments under PPAs that have been accounted for as operating leases in accordance with the applicable accounting guidance. Future commitments under operating and capital leases are:



(Millions of Dollars)	Operating Leases		PPA ^{(a) (b)} Operating Leases		Total Operating Leases		Capital Leases
2016	$	12.0	$	102.2	$	114.2	$	29.3
2017	7.8		95.8		103.6		25.7
2018	7.4		96.0		103.4		25.3
2019	7.4		96.9		104.3		25.1
2020	7.4		97.7		105.1		24.9
Thereafter	39.5		579.7		619.2		486.5
Total minimum obligation							616.8
Interest component of obligation							(452.8		)
Present value of minimum obligation							$	164.0


^(a)	Amounts do not include PPAs accounted for as executory contracts.


^(b)	PPA operating leases contractually expire through 2032.

Variable Interest Entities — The accounting guidance for consolidation of variable interest entities requires enterprises to consider the activities that most significantly impact an entity’s financial performance, and power to direct those activities, when determining whether an enterprise is a variable interest entity’s primary beneficiary.

PPAs — Under certain PPAs, PSCo purchases power from independent power producing entities for which PSCo is required to reimburse natural gas fuel costs, or to participate in tolling arrangements under which PSCo procures the natural gas required to produce the energy that it purchases. These specific PPAs create a variable interest in the associated independent power producing entity.

PSCo has determined that certain independent power producing entities are variable interest entities. PSCo is not subject to risk of loss from the operations of these entities, and no significant financial support has been, or is in the future, required to be provided other than contractual payments for energy and capacity set forth in the PPAs.

PSCo has evaluated each of these variable interest entities 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. PSCo has concluded that these entities are not required to be consolidated in its consolidated financial statements because it does not have the power to direct the activities that most significantly impact the entities’ economic performance. PSCo had approximately 1,802 MW of capacity under long-term PPAs as of Dec. 31, 2015, and 2014 with entities that have been determined to be variable interest entities. These agreements have expiration dates through the year 2032.

Environmental Contingencies

PSCo has been or is currently involved with the cleanup of contamination from certain hazardous substances at several sites. In many situations, PSCo believes it will recover some portion of these costs through insurance claims. Additionally, where applicable, PSCo is pursuing, or intends to pursue, recovery from other PRPs and through the regulated rate process. New and changing federal and state environmental mandates can also create added financial liabilities for PSCo, which are normally recovered through the regulated rate process. To the extent any costs are not recovered through the options listed above, PSCo would be required to recognize an expense.

Site Remediation — Various federal and state environmental laws impose liability, without regard to the legality of the original conduct, where hazardous substances or other regulated materials have been released to the environment. PSCo may sometimes pay all or a portion of the cost to remediate sites where past activities of PSCo or other parties have caused environmental contamination. Environmental contingencies could arise from various situations, including sites of former MGPs operated by PSCo, its predecessors, or other entities; and third-party sites, such as landfills, for which PSCo is alleged to be a PRP that sent wastes to that site.

MGP Sites — PSCo is currently involved in investigating and/or remediating several MGP sites where regulated materials may have been deposited. PSCo has identified two sites where former MGP activities have or may have resulted in site contamination and are under current investigation and/or remediation. At some or all of these MGP sites, there are other parties that may have responsibility for some portion of any remediation. PSCo anticipates that the majority of the remediation at these sites will continue through at least 2016. PSCo had accrued $1.7 million and $1.8 million for both of these sites at Dec. 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. There may be insurance recovery and/or recovery from other PRPs that will offset any costs incurred. PSCo anticipates that any amounts spent will be fully recovered from customers.

Environmental Requirements

Water and Waste

Asbestos Removal — Some of PSCo’s facilities contain asbestos. Most asbestos will remain undisturbed until the facilities that contain it are demolished or removed. PSCo has recorded an estimate for final removal of the asbestos as an ARO. It may be necessary to remove some asbestos to perform maintenance or make improvements to other equipment. The cost of removing asbestos as part of other work is not expected to be material and is recorded as incurred as operating expenses for maintenance projects, capital expenditures for construction projects or removal costs for demolition projects.

Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELG) — In September 2015, the EPA issued a final ELG rule for power plants that use coal, natural gas, oil or nuclear materials as fuel and discharge treated effluent to surface waters as well as utility-owned landfills that receive coal combustion residuals. PSCo estimates that the cost to comply with the new ELG rule will range from $9 million to $21 million, and could change as PSCo continues to assess alternate compliance technologies. PSCo believes that compliance costs would be recoverable through regulatory mechanisms.

Federal CWA Section 316(b) — Section 316(b) of the federal CWA requires the EPA to regulate cooling water intake structures to assure that these structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impacts to aquatic species. The EPA published the final 316(b) rule in August 2014. The rule prescribes technology for protecting fish that get stuck on plant intake screens (known as impingement) and describes a process for site-specific determinations by each state for sites that must protect the small aquatic organisms that pass through the intake screens into the plant cooling systems (known as entrainment). The timing of compliance with the requirements will vary from plant-to-plant since the new rule does not have a final compliance deadline. PSCo does not anticipate the cost of compliance will have a material impact on the results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

Federal CWA Waters of the United States Rule — In June 2015, the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers published a final rule that significantly expands the types of water bodies regulated under the CWA and broadens the scope of waters subject to federal jurisdiction. The expansion of the term “Waters of the U.S.” will subject more utility projects to federal CWA jurisdiction, thereby potentially delaying the siting of new generation projects, pipelines, transmission lines and distribution lines, as well as increasing project costs and expanding permitting and reporting requirements. The rule went into effect in August 2015. In October 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a nationwide stay of the final rule, pending further legal proceedings.

Air

GHG Emission Standard for Existing Sources (Clean Power Plan or CPP) — In October 2015, a final rule was published by the EPA for GHG emission standards for existing power plants. States must develop implementation plans by September 2016, with the possibility of an extension to September 2018, or the EPA will prepare a federal plan for the state. Among other things, the rule requires that state plans include enforceable measures to ensure emissions from existing power plants achieve the EPA’s state-specific interim (2022-2029) and final (2030 and thereafter) emission performance targets. The CPP is currently being challenged by multiple parties in the D.C. Circuit Court. In January 2016, the D.C. Circuit Court denied requests to stay the effectiveness of the rule as well as ordered expedited review of the CPP, with briefings to be completed and oral arguments held by June 2016. Following the D.C. Circuit Court’s denial of motions for stay, multiple parties filed requests for stay with the U.S. Supreme Court. In February 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order staying the final CPP rule. The stay will remain in effect until, first, the D.C. Circuit Court and then the U.S. Supreme Court have ruled on the challenges to the CPP.

PSCo has undertaken a number of initiatives that reduce GHG emissions and respond to state renewable and energy efficiency goals. The CPP could require additional emission reductions in Colorado. If state plans do not provide credit for the investments we have already made to reduce GHG emissions, or if they require additional initiatives or emission reductions, then their requirements would potentially impose additional substantial costs. Until PSCo has more information about SIPs or knows the requirements of the EPA’s upcoming final rule on federal plans for the states that do not develop related plans, PSCo cannot predict the costs of compliance with the final rule once it takes effect. PSCo believes compliance costs will be recoverable through regulatory mechanisms. If our regulators do not allow us to recover all or a part of the cost of capital investment or the O&M costs incurred to comply with the CPP or cost recovery is not provided in a timely manner, it could have a material impact on results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

Regional Haze Rules — The regional haze program is designed to address widespread haze that results from emissions from a multitude of sources. In 2005, the EPA amended the BART requirements of its regional haze rules, which require the installation and operation of emission controls for industrial facilities emitting air pollutants that reduce visibility in certain national parks and wilderness areas. In its first regional haze SIP, Colorado identified the PSCo facilities that will have to reduce SO2, NOx and PM emissions under BART and set emissions limits for those facilities.

In 2011, the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission approved a SIP that included the CACJA emission reduction plan as satisfying regional haze requirements for facilities included within the CACJA plan. In addition, the SIP included a BART determination for Comanche Units 1 and 2. The EPA approved the SIP in 2012. Emission controls at Hayden Unit 1 were placed into service in November 2015 and Hayden Unit 2 is expected to be placed into service in late 2016, at an estimated combined cost of $75.2 million, completing the pollution control equipment required on PSCo plants under the CACJA. PSCo anticipates these costs will be fully recoverable through regulatory mechanisms.

Implementation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for SO₂ — The EPA adopted a more stringent NAAQS for SO₂ in 2010. In 2013, the EPA designated areas as not attaining the revised NAAQS, which did not include any areas where PSCo operates power plants. However, many other areas of the country were unable to be classified by the EPA due to a lack of air monitors.

Following a lawsuit alleging that the EPA had not completed its area designations in the time required by the CAA and under a consent decree the EPA is requiring states to evaluate areas in three phases. The first phase includes areas near PSCo’s Pawnee plant. The Pawnee plant recently installed an SO₂ scrubber to reduce SO₂ emissions. The Colorado Department of Health and Environment made recommendations for unclassified and nonattainment areas to the EPA in September 2015. The EPA’s final decision is expected by summer 2016. It is anticipated that the areas near PSCo’s other power plants would be evaluated in the next designation phase, ending December 2017. If an area is designated nonattainment, the respective states will need to evaluate all SO₂ sources in the area. The state would then submit an implementation plan for the respective areas which would be due in 18 months, designed to achieve the NAAQS within five years. PSCo cannot evaluate the impacts of this ruling until the final designation of unclassified and nonattainment areas is made and any required state plan has been developed.

Revisions to the NAAQS for Ozone — In October 2015, the EPA revised the NAAQS for ozone by lowering the eight-hour standard from 75 parts per billion (ppb) to 70 ppb. In Colorado, the Denver Metropolitan Area is currently not meeting the prior ozone standard and will therefore not meet the new, more stringent, standard. If not in attainment, impacted areas would study the sources of nonattainment and make emission reduction plans to attain the new standards. These plans would be due to the EPA in 2020. In conjunction with the CACJA, PSCo has or plans to shut down coal-fired plants in the Denver area, has installed NOx controls on Pawnee and Hayden Unit 1 and will finish installing NOx controls on Hayden Unit 2 in late 2016. The final designation of nonattainment areas will be made in late 2017 based on air quality data years 2014 through 2016. PSCo cannot evaluate the impacts of this ruling in Colorado until the designation of nonattainment areas is made and any required state plan has been developed. PSCo believes that, should NOx control systems be required for a plant, compliance costs will be recoverable through regulatory mechanisms and therefore does not expect a material impact on results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

Asset Retirement Obligations

Recorded AROs — AROs have been recorded for property related to the following: electric production (steam, wind, other and hydro), electric distribution and transmission, natural gas production, natural gas transmission and distribution, natural gas storage and common general property. The electric production obligations include asbestos, ash-containment facilities, radiation sources, storage tanks and control panels. The asbestos recognition associated with electric production includes certain specific plants. The AROs recorded for PSCo steam and other production relate to ash-containment facilities such as bottom ash ponds, evaporation ponds and solid waste landfills. PSCo has also recorded AROs for the retirement and removal of assets at certain wind production facilities for which the land is leased and removal is required by contract.

PSCo recognized an ARO for the retirement costs of natural gas mains and lines and for the retirement of above ground gas gathering, extraction and wells related to gas storage facilities. In addition, an ARO was recognized for the removal of electric transmission and distribution equipment, which consists of many small potential obligations associated with PCBs, mineral oil, storage tanks, lithium batteries, mercury and street lighting lamps. The electric and common general AROs include small obligations related to storage tanks, radiation sources and office buildings.

In April 2015, the EPA published the final rule regulating the management and disposal of coal combustion byproducts (e.g., coal ash) as a nonhazardous waste to the Federal Register. The rule became effective in October 2015. The estimated costs to comply with the final rule were incorporated into the cash flow revisions in 2015.

A reconciliation of PSCo’s AROs for the years ended Dec. 31, 2015 and 2014 is as follows:



(Thousands of Dollars)	Beginning Balance Jan. 1, 2015		Accretion		Cash Flow Revisions ^(a)			Ending Balance Dec. 31, 2015 ^(b)
Electric plant
Steam and other production asbestos	$	36,856	$	1,820	$	—		$	38,676
Steam and other production ash containment	61,885		2,769		6,113			70,767
Wind production	2,095		18		(121		)	1,992
Electric distribution	1,182		47		(99		)	1,130
Other	1,150		46		(142		)	1,054
Natural gas plant
Gas transmission and distribution	117,474		4,694		—			122,168
Other	3,886		153		(114		)	3,925
Common and other property
Common miscellaneous	768		28		—			796
Total liability	$	225,296	$	9,575	$	5,637		$	240,508


^(a)	In 2015, AROs were revised for changes in estimated cash flows and the timing of those cash flows. Changes in the ash containment ARO were mainly related to the final coal ash rule mentioned above.


^(b)	There were no ARO liabilities recognized or settled during the year ended Dec. 31, 2015.



(Thousands of Dollars)	Beginning Balance Jan. 1, 2014		Liabilities Recognized		Accretion		Cash Flow Revisions ^(a)			Ending Balance Dec. 31, 2014 ^(b)
Electric plant
Steam and other production asbestos	$	23,914	$	747	$	1,597	$	10,598		$	36,856
Steam and other production ash containment	29,234		—		1,897		30,754			61,885
Wind production	2,953		—		22		(880		)	2,095
Electric distribution	1,176		—		43		(37		)	1,182
Other	1,017		—		41		92			1,150
Natural gas plant
Gas transmission and distribution	788		18,252		50		98,384			117,474
Other	575		2,865		24		422			3,886
Common and other property
Common miscellaneous	741		—		27		—			768
Total liability	$	60,398	$	21,864	$	3,701	$	139,333		$	225,296


^(a)	In 2014, revisions were made to various AROs due to revised estimated cash flows and the timing of those cash flows. Changes in estimated excavation costs and the timing of future retirement activities resulted in revisions to AROs related to gas transmission and distribution.


^(b)	There were no ARO liabilities settled during the year ended Dec. 31, 2014.

Indeterminate AROs —PSCo has certain underground natural gas storage facilities that have special closure requirements for which the final removal date cannot be determined. Additionally, outside of the known and recorded asbestos AROs, other plants or buildings may contain asbestos due to the age of many of PSCo’s facilities, but no confirmation or measurement of the amount of asbestos or cost of removal could be determined as of Dec. 31, 2015. Therefore, an ARO has not been recorded for these facilities.

Removal Costs — PSCo records a regulatory liability for the plant removal costs of generation, transmission and distribution facilities that are recovered currently in rates. Generally, the accrual of future non-ARO removal obligations is not required. However, long-standing ratemaking practices approved by applicable state and federal regulatory commissions have allowed provisions for such costs in historical depreciation rates. These removal costs have accumulated over a number of years based on varying rates as authorized by the appropriate regulatory entities. Given the long time periods over which the amounts were accrued and the changing of rates over time, PSCo has estimated the amount of removal costs accumulated through historic depreciation expense based on current factors used in the existing depreciation rates. Removal costs as of Dec. 31, 2015 and 2014 were $364 million and $366 million, respectively.

Legal Contingencies

PSCo is involved in various litigation matters that are being defended and handled 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 such losses that are 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, arising from such current proceedings would have a material effect on PSCo’s financial statements. Unless otherwise required by GAAP, legal fees are expensed as incurred.

Employment, Tort and Commercial Litigation

Pacific Northwest FERC Refund Proceeding — A complaint with the FERC posed that sales made in the Pacific Northwest in 2000 and 2001 through bilateral contracts were unjust and unreasonable under the Federal Power Act. The City of Seattle (the City) alleges between $34 million to $50 million in sales with PSCo is subject to refund. In 2003, the FERC terminated the proceeding, although it was later remanded back to the FERC in 2007 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit).

In May 2015 in the remand proceeding, the FERC issued an order rejecting the City's claim that any of the sales made resulted in an excessive burden and concluded that the City failed to establish a causal link between any contracts and any claimed unlawful market activity. In June 2015, the City requested the FERC grant rehearing of its order, which the FERC denied in December. The City may appeal this order.

Also in December 2015, the Ninth Circuit issued an order and held that the standard of review applied by the FERC to the contracts which the City was challenging is appropriate. The Ninth Circuit dismissed questions concerning whether the FERC properly established the scope of the hearing, and determined that the challenged orders are preliminary and that the Ninth Circuit lacks jurisdiction to review evidentiary decisions until after the FERC's proceedings are final. The City joined the State of California in its request seeking rehearing of this order.

Preliminary calculations of the City of Seattle’s claim for refunds from PSCo are approximately $28 million excluding interest. PSCo has concluded that a loss is reasonably possible with respect to this matter; however, given the surrounding uncertainties, PSCo is currently unable to estimate the amount or range of reasonably possible loss in the event of an adverse outcome of this matter. In making this assessment, PSCo considered two factors. First, notwithstanding PSCo’s view that the City of Seattle has failed to apply the standard that the FERC has established in this proceeding, and the recognition that this case raises a novel issue and the scope of the proceeding established by FERC is being challenged in the Ninth Circuit, the outcome of such an appeal cannot be predicted with any certainty. Second, PSCo would expect to make equitable arguments against refunds even if the City of Seattle were to establish that it was overcharged for transactions. If a loss were sustained, PSCo would attempt to recover those losses from other PRPs. No accrual has been recorded for this matter.

Other Contingencies

See Note 11 for further discussion.