Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

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

Legal

PSCo is involved in various litigation matters in the ordinary course of business. The assessment of whether a loss is probable or is a reasonable possibility, and whether the loss or a range of loss is estimable, often involves a series of complex judgments about future events. Management maintains accruals for losses probable of being incurred and subject to reasonable estimation.

Management is sometimes unable to estimate an amount or range of a reasonably possible loss in certain situations, including but not limited to, when (1) the damages sought are indeterminate, (2) the proceedings are in the early stages, or (3) the matters involve novel or unsettled legal theories. In such cases, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the timing or ultimate resolution of such matters, including a possible eventual loss.

For current proceedings not specifically reported herein, management does not anticipate that the ultimate liabilities, if any, would have a material effect on PSCo’s financial statements. Unless otherwise required by GAAP, legal fees are expensed as incurred.

Gas Trading Litigation — e prime is a wholly owned subsidiary of Xcel Energy. e prime was in the business of natural gas trading and marketing but has not engaged in natural gas trading or marketing activities since 2003. Multiple lawsuits seeking monetary damages were commenced against e prime and its affiliates, including Xcel Energy, between 2003 and 2009 alleging fraud and anticompetitive activities in conspiring to restrain the trade of natural gas and manipulate natural gas prices. Cases were all consolidated in the U.S. District Court in Nevada.

Two cases remain active which include an MDL matter consisting of a Colorado purported class (Breckenridge) and a Wisconsin purported class (Arandell Corp.).

Breckenridge/Colorado — In February 2019, the MDL panel remanded Breckenridge back to the U.S. District Court in Colorado.

Arandell Corp. — In February 2019, the case was remanded back to the U.S. District Court in Wisconsin. Plaintiffs are seeking class certification. It is uncertain when the court will rule on this issue.

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

Environmental

MGP, Landfill and Disposal Sites

PSCo is cooperating with the City of Denver on an environmental investigation of the Rice Yards Site in Denver, Colorado, which had various historic industrial uses by multiple parties, including railroad, maintenance shop, scrap metal yard and MGP operations.

In June 2020, PSCo resolved claims by the current property owner and agreed to contribute up to a maximum of $9.3 million towards future environmental investigation, remediation and mitigation measures over the next 15 years.

In addition to the Rice Yards Site, PSCo is currently investigating, remediating or performing post-closure actions at two other MGP, landfill or other disposal sites across its service territory.

PSCo has recognized its best estimate of costs/liabilities that will result from final resolution of these issues, however, the outcome and timing is unknown. In addition, there may be insurance recovery and/or recovery from other potentially responsible parties, offsetting a portion of costs incurred.

Environmental Requirements — Water and Waste

Coal Ash Regulation — PSCo’s operations are subject to federal and state regulations that impose requirements for handling, storage, treatment and disposal of solid waste. Under the CCR Rule, utilities are required to complete groundwater sampling around their CCR landfills and surface impoundments. Currently, PSCo has six regulated ash units in operation.

PSCo is conducting groundwater sampling and where appropriate, implementing assessment of corrective measures at certain CCR landfills and surface impoundments. In 2019, groundwater monitoring consistent with the CCR Rule was conducted. Statistically significant levels above background concentrations were detected at four locations.

Subsequently, assessment monitoring samples were collected at these locations and, based on the results, PSCo is evaluating options for corrective action at two locations. At one location, monitoring results indicate potential offsite impacts to groundwater. Until PSCo completes its assessment, it is uncertain what impact, if any, there will be on the operations, financial condition or cash flows.

In August 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the EPA cannot allow utilities to continue to use unlined impoundments (including clay lined impoundments) for the storage or disposal of coal ash. In November 2019, the EPA proposed rules in response to this decision that, if finalized in their current form, may require PSCo to expedite closure of one coal ash impoundment that was not previously required to close. In March 2020, the EPA published a proposed CCR Rule amendment that, if adopted, would allow unlined impoundments that ‘perform as effectively’ as lined ones to continue to operate under a state or federal CCR permit program. PSCo is pursuing options to provide alternative storage capacity consistent with the CCR Rule until the generating units are retired in 2025.

Closure costs for existing impoundments are included in the calculation of the asset retirement obligation liability.

VIEs 

Under certain PPAs, PSCo purchases power from IPPs for which PSCo is required to reimburse 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 IPP.

PSCo had approximately 1,518 MW and 1,442 MW of capacity under long-term PPAs at June 30, 2020 and Dec. 31, 2019, respectively, with entities that have been determined to be VIEs. PSCo 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. Agreements have expiration dates through 2032.