Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2024

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

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, 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 April 2022, CORE filed a supplement to include damages related to a 2022 outage. Also in 2022, CORE sent notice of withdrawal from the ownership agreement based on the same alleged breaches.

In October 2023, the jury ruled that CORE may not withdraw as a joint owner of the facility but awarded CORE lost power damages of $26 million. PSCo recognized $35 million of losses for the verdict in 2023, including estimated interest and other costs. In early 2024, PSCo and CORE each filed appeals of the trial court’s decision to the Colorado Court of Appeals.

Marshall Wildfire

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.

PSCo is aware of 302 complaints, most of which have also named Xcel Energy Inc. and Xcel Energy Services Inc. as additional defendants, relating to the Marshall Fire. The complaints are on behalf of at least 4,047 plaintiffs, and one complaint is filed on behalf of a putative class of first responders who allegedly were exposed to the threat of serious bodily injury, or smoke, soot and ash from the Marshall Fire. 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, wrongful death, willful and wanton conduct, negligent infliction of emotional distress, loss of consortium and inverse condemnation. In addition to seeking compensatory damages, certain of the complaints also seek exemplary damages.

In September 2023, the Boulder County District Court Judge consolidated eight lawsuits that were pending at that time into a single action for pretrial purposes and has subsequently consolidated additional lawsuits that have been filed. At the case management conference in February 2024, a trial date was set for September 2025. Discovery is now underway.

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.

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. 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 per defendant 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 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.

Rate Matters

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.

Environmental

New and changing federal and state environmental mandates can create financial liabilities for PSCo, which are normally recovered through the regulated rate process.

Site Remediation

Various federal and state environmental laws impose liability 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 their predecessors or other parties have caused environmental contamination.

Environmental contingencies could arise from various situations, including sites of former MGPs; and third-party sites, such as landfills, for which PSCo is alleged to have sent wastes to that site.

MGP, Landfill and Disposal Sites

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 current coal ash regulations (see below).

PSCo has recognized approximately $6 million of costs/liabilities from final resolution of these issues; however, the outcome and timing are unknown. In addition, there may be regulatory recovery, 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, including the CCR Rule. As a specific requirement of the CCR Rule, utilities must complete groundwater sampling around their applicable landfills and surface impoundments as well as perform corrective actions where offsite groundwater has been impacted.

If certain impacts to groundwater are detected, utilities are required to perform additional groundwater investigations and/or perform corrective actions beginning with an Assessment of Corrective Measures.

Investigation and/or corrective action related to groundwater impacts are currently underway at four PSCo sites under the federal CCR program at a current estimated cost of at least $40 million. A liability has been recorded, deferred accounting related to these costs has been approved by the CPUC and amounts are expected to be fully recoverable through regulatory mechanisms.

For required coal ash disposal, 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, deferred accounting related to these costs has been approved by the CPUC and amounts are expected to be fully recoverable through regulatory mechanisms.

Leases

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.

Components of lease expense:

	Three Months Ended March 31
(Millions of Dollars)	2024		2023
Operating leases
PPA capacity payments	$	21	$	22
Other operating leases (a)	5		5
Total operating lease expense (b)	$	26	$	27
Finance leases
Amortization of ROU assets	$	1	$	1
Interest expense on lease liability	4		4
Total finance lease expense	$	5	$	5

(a)Includes immaterial short-term lease expense for both 2024 and 2023.

(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.

Commitments under operating and finance leases as of March 31, 2024:

(Millions of Dollars)	PPA Operating Leases		Other Operating Lease		Total Operating Leases		Finance Leases
Total minimum obligation	$	348	$	55	$	403	$	413
Interest component of obligation	(31)		(6)		(37)		(300)
Present value of minimum obligation	$	317	$	49	366		113
Less current portion					(102)		(3)
Noncurrent operating and finance lease liabilities					$	264	$	110

Variable Interest Entities 

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. PSCo has determined that certain IPPs are VIEs, however PSCo is not subject to risk of loss from the operations of these entities, and no significant financial support is required other than contractual payments for energy and capacity.

PSCo evaluated each of these VIEs 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 concluded that these entities are not required to be consolidated in its consolidated financial statements because PSCo does not have the power to direct the activities that most significantly impact the entities’ economic performance.

PSCo had approximately 1,207 MW of capacity under long-term PPAs at both March 31, 2024 and Dec. 31, 2023, with entities that have been determined to be VIEs. These agreements have expiration dates through 2032.