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, 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 consolidated financial statements. Legal fees are generally expensed as incurred.

Comanche Unit 3 Litigation — In 2021, CORE filed a lawsuit in Denver County District Court, alleging PSCo breached ownership agreement terms by failing to operate Comanche Unit 3 in accordance with prudent utility practices. In January 2022, the Court granted PSCo’s motion to dismiss CORE’s claims for unjust enrichment, declaratory judgment and damages for replacement power costs. In April 2022, CORE filed a supplement to include the January 2022 outage and damages related to this event. Also in 2022, CORE sent notice of withdrawal from the ownership agreement based on the same alleged breaches. In February 2023, CORE disclosed its expert witness, who estimated damages incurred of $270 million.

Also in February 2023, the court granted PSCo’s motion precluding CORE from seeking damages related to its withdrawal as part of the lawsuit. PSCo continues to believe CORE's claims are without merit and disputes CORE’s right to withdraw. The Denver District Court trial is scheduled to begin in October 2023.

In December 2021, a wildfire ignited in Boulder County, Colorado (the “Marshall Fire”), which burned over 6,000 acres and destroyed or damaged over 1,000 structures. On June 8, 2023, the Boulder County Sheriff’s Office released its Marshall Fire Investigative Summary and Review and its supporting documents (the “Sheriff’s Report”). According to an October 2022 statement from the Colorado Insurance Commissioner, the Marshall Fire is estimated to have caused more than $2 billion in property losses.

According to the Sheriff’s Report, on Dec. 30, 2021, a fire ignited on a residential property in Boulder, Colorado, located in PSCo’s service territory, for reasons unrelated to PSCo’s power lines. According to the Sheriff’s Report, approximately one hour and 20 minutes after the first ignition, a second fire ignited just south of the Marshall Mesa Trailhead in unincorporated Boulder County, Colorado, also located in PSCo’s service territory. According to the Sheriff’s Report, the second ignition started approximately 80 to 110 feet away from PSCo’s power lines in the area.

The Sheriff’s Report states that the most probable cause of the second ignition was hot particles discharged from PSCo’s power lines after one of the power lines detached from its insulator in strong winds, and further states that it cannot be ruled out that the second ignition was caused by an underground coal fire. According to the Sheriff’s Report, no design, installation or maintenance defects or deficiencies were identified on PSCo’s electrical circuit in the area of the second ignition. PSCo disputes that its power lines caused the second ignition.

As of July 24, 2023, PSCo is aware of approximately 8 complaints on behalf of at least 586 plaintiffs relating to the Marshall Fire and expects that it may receive further complaints. The complaints generally allege that PSCo’s equipment ignited the Marshall Fire and assert various causes of action under Colorado law, including negligence, premises liability, trespass, nuisance, and inverse condemnation.

Colorado courts do not apply strict liability in determining an electric utility company’s liability for fire-related damages. For inverse condemnation claims, Colorado courts assess whether a defendant acted with intent to take a plaintiff’s property or intentionally took an action which has the natural consequence of taking the property. For negligence claims, Colorado courts look to whether electric power companies have operated their system with a heightened duty of care consistent with the practical conduct of its business, and liability does not extend to occurrences that cannot be reasonably anticipated.

Under Colorado law, in a civil action other than a medical malpractice action, the total award for noneconomic loss is capped at $0.6 million for claims that accrued at the time of the Marshall Fire unless the court finds justification to exceed that amount by clear and convincing evidence, in which case the maximum doubles. Colorado law does not impose joint and several liability in tort actions. Instead, under Colorado law, a defendant is liable for the degree or percentage of the negligence or fault attributable to that defendant, except where the defendant conspired with another defendant. A jury’s verdict in a Colorado civil case must be unanimous.

Colorado law caps punitive or exemplary damages to an amount equal to the amount of the actual damages awarded to the injured party, except the court may increase any award of punitive damages to a sum up to three times the amount of actual damages if the conduct that is the subject of the claim has continued during the pendency of the case or the defendant has acted in a willful and wanton manner during the action which further aggravated plaintiff’s damages.

In the event Xcel Energy Inc. or PSCo was found liable related to this litigation and were required to pay damages, such amounts could exceed our insurance coverage of approximately $500 million and have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. However, due to uncertainty as to the cause of the fire and the extent and magnitude of potential damages, Xcel Energy Inc. and PSCo are unable to estimate the amount or range of possible losses in connection with the Marshall Fire.

PSCo is involved in various regulatory proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. Until resolution, typically in the form of a rate order, uncertainties may exist regarding the ultimate rate treatment for certain activities and transactions. Amounts have been recognized for probable and reasonably estimable losses that may result. Unless otherwise disclosed, any reasonably possible range of loss in excess of any recognized amount is not expected to have a material effect on the consolidated financial statements.

PSCo is investigating, remediating or performing post-closure actions at two MGP, landfill or other disposal sites across its service territory, excluding sites that are being addressed under coal ash regulations.

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

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 applicable landfills and surface impoundments as well as perform corrective actions where offsite groundwater has been impacted.

PSCo has executed an agreement with a third party that will excavate and process ash for beneficial use (at two sites) at a cost of approximately $45 million. An estimated liability has been recorded and amounts are expected to be fully recoverable through regulatory mechanisms.

PSCo evaluates contracts that may contain leases, including PPAs and arrangements for the use of office space and other facilities, vehicles and equipment. A contract contains a lease if it conveys the exclusive right to control the use of a specific asset.


	Three Months Ended June 30
(Millions of Dollars)	2023		2022
Operating leases
PPA capacity payments	$	23	$	23
Other operating leases (a)	5		4
Total operating lease expense (b)	$	28	$	27
Finance leases
Amortization of ROU assets	$	—	$	1
Interest expense on lease liability	4		4
Total finance lease expense	$	4	$	5

(b)PPA capacity payments are included in electric fuel and purchased power on the consolidated statements of income. Expense for other operating leases is included in O&M expense and electric fuel and purchased power.


	Six Months Ended June 30
(Millions of Dollars)	2023		2022
Operating leases
PPA capacity payments	$	45	$	48
Other operating leases (a)	10		10
Total operating lease expense (b)	$	55	$	58
Finance leases
Amortization of ROU assets	$	1	$	2
Interest expense on lease liability	8		8
Total finance lease expense	$	9	$	10


(Millions of Dollars)	PPA Operating Leases		Other Operating Lease		Total Operating Leases		Finance Leases
Total minimum obligation	$	416	$	67	$	483	$	427
Interest component of obligation	(43)		(7)		(50)		(311)
Present value of minimum obligation	$	373	$	60	433		116
Less current portion					(93)		(3)
Noncurrent operating and finance lease liabilities					$	340	$	113

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 they purchase. These specific PPAs create a variable interest in the IPP.

PSCo had approximately 1,509 MW and 1,442 MW of capacity under long-term PPAs at June 30, 2023 and Dec. 31, 2022 with entities that have been determined to be variable interest entities. PSCo concluded that these entities are not required to be consolidated in its financial statements because it does not have the power to direct the activities that most significantly impact the entities’ economic performance. The PPAs have expiration dates through 2032.