6.	Commitments and Contingencies

Except to the extent noted below and in Note 5 to the consolidated financial statements in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q the circumstances set forth in Notes 11 and 12 to the consolidated financial statements included in PSCo's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended Dec. 31, 2012, appropriately represent, in all material respects, the current status of commitments and contingent liabilities, and are incorporated herein by reference. The following include commitments, contingencies and unresolved contingencies that are material to PSCo's financial position.

Purchased Power Agreements

Under certain purchased power agreements, PSCo purchases power from independent power producing entities that own natural gas fueled power plants 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 purchased power agreements create a variable interest in the associated independent power producing entity.

PSCo had approximately 1,433 megawatts (MW) of capacity under long-term purchased power agreements as of March 31, 2013 and Dec. 31, 2012 with entities that have been determined to be variable interest entities. 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. These agreements have expiration dates through the year 2028.

Environmental Contingencies

Regional Haze Rules — In 2005, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized amendments to its regional haze rules, known as best available retrofit technology (BART), 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. PSCo generating facilities are subject to BART requirements. Individual states were required to identify the facilities located in their states that will have to reduce sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate matter emissions under BART and then set emissions limits for those facilities.

In 2011, the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission approved a BART state implementation plan (SIP) incorporating the Colorado CACJA emission reduction plan, which will satisfy regional haze requirements. The Colorado legislature enacted a statute approving the SIP, which was signed into law in 2011. Subsequently, the Colorado Mining Association (CMA) challenged the SIP in a Colorado District Court. In June 2012, the CMA's appeal was dismissed. The CMA appealed this decision, which is now pending in the Colorado Court of Appeals.

In September 2012, the EPA granted final approval of the SIP, including the CACJA emission reduction plan for PSCo, as satisfying BART requirements. The emission controls are expected to be installed between 2014 and 2017. Projected costs for emission controls at the Hayden and Pawnee plants are $340.9 million. PSCo expects the cost of any required capital investment will be recoverable from customers.

In March 2013, WildEarth Guardians petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit to review the EPA's decision approving the SIP. WildEarth Guardians has stated that it will challenge the BART determination made for Comanche Units 1 and 2, which was a separate determination that was not part of the CACJA emission reduction plan. In comments before the EPA, WildEarth Guardians urged that current emission limitations be made more stringent, or that selective catalytic reduction be added to the units. PSCo has intervened in the case.

In 2010, two environmental groups petitioned the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) to certify that 12 coal-fired boilers and one coal-fired cement kiln in Colorado are contributing to visibility problems in Rocky Mountain National Park. The following PSCo plants are named in the petition: Cherokee, Hayden, Pawnee and Valmont. The groups allege that the Colorado BART rule is inadequate to satisfy the Clean Air Act mandate of ensuring reasonable further progress towards restoring natural visibility conditions in the park. It is not known when the DOI will rule on the petition.

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.

Environmental Litigation

Native Village of Kivalina vs. Xcel Energy Inc. et al. — In February 2008, the City and Native Village of Kivalina, Alaska, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Xcel Energy and 23 other utility, oil, gas and coal companies. Plaintiffs claim that defendants' emission of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases contribute to global warming, which is harming their village. Xcel Energy believes the claims asserted in this lawsuit are without merit and joined with other utility defendants in filing a motion to dismiss in June 2008. In October 2009, the U.S. District Court dismissed the lawsuit on constitutional grounds. In November 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit). In October 2012, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court's dismissal and subsequently rejected plaintiffs' request for rehearing. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a petition for review with the United States Supreme Court. It is unknown whether the United States Supreme Court will grant this petition. The amount of damages claimed by plaintiffs is unknown, but likely includes the cost of relocating the Village of Kivalina. Plaintiffs' alleged relocation is estimated to cost between $95 million to $400 million. Although Xcel Energy believes the likelihood of loss is remote based primarily on existing case law, it is not possible to estimate the amount or range of reasonably possible loss in the event of an adverse outcome of this matter. No accrual has been recorded for this matter.

Comer vs. Xcel Energy Inc. et al. — In May 2011, less than a year after their initial lawsuit was dismissed, plaintiffs in this purported class action lawsuit filed a second lawsuit against more than 85 utility, oil, chemical and coal companies in the U.S. District Court in Mississippi. The complaint alleges defendants' CO2 emissions intensified the strength of Hurricane Katrina and increased the damage plaintiffs purportedly sustained to their property. Plaintiffs base their claims on public and private nuisance, trespass and negligence. Among the defendants named in the complaint are Xcel Energy Inc., SPS, PSCo, NSP-Wisconsin and NSP-Minnesota. The amount of damages claimed by plaintiffs is unknown. The defendants believe this lawsuit is without merit and filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. In March 2012, the U.S. District Court granted this motion for dismissal. In April 2012, plaintiffs appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Oral arguments occurred in May 2013. It is uncertain when the Fifth Circuit will issue its decision. Although Xcel Energy believes the likelihood of loss is remote based primarily on existing case law, it is not possible to estimate the amount or range of reasonably possible loss in the event of an adverse outcome of this matter. No accrual has been recorded for this matter.

Employment, Tort and Commercial Litigation

Pacific Northwest Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Refund Proceeding — In July 2001, the FERC ordered a preliminary hearing to determine whether there were unjust and unreasonable charges for spot market bilateral sales in the Pacific Northwest for December 2000 through June 2001. PSCo supplied energy to the Pacific Northwest markets during this period and has been a participant in the hearings. In September 2001, the presiding Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that prices in the Pacific Northwest during the referenced period were the result of a number of factors, including the shortage of supply, excess demand, drought and increased natural gas prices. Under these circumstances, the ALJ concluded that the prices in the Pacific Northwest markets were not unreasonable or unjust and no refunds should be ordered. Subsequent to the ruling, the FERC has allowed the parties to request additional evidence. Parties have claimed that the total amount of transactions with PSCo subject to refund is $34 million. In June 2003, the FERC issued an order terminating the proceeding without ordering further proceedings. Certain purchasers filed appeals of the FERC's orders in this proceeding with the Ninth Circuit.

In an order issued in August 2007, the Ninth Circuit remanded the proceeding back to the FERC and indicated that the FERC should consider other rulings addressing overcharges in the California organized markets. The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for rehearing in April 2009, and the mandate was issued.

The FERC has issued an order on remand establishing principles for the review proceeding in October 2011. In September 2012, the City of Seattle filed its direct case against PSCo and other Pacific Northwest sellers claiming refunds for the period January 2000 through June 2001. Seattle indicated that for the period June 2000 through June 2001 PSCo had sales to the City of Seattle of approximately $50 million. The City of Seattle did not identify specific instances of unlawful market activity by PSCo, but rather based its claim for refunds on market dysfunction in the Western markets. PSCo submitted its answering case in December 2012.

On April 5, 2013, the FERC issued an order on rehearing of its remand order issued for the October 2011 review proceedings. The FERC confirmed that the City of Seattle would be able to attempt to obtain refunds back from January 2000, but reaffirmed the transaction-specific standard that the City of Seattle and other complainants would have to comply with to meet to obtain refunds. In addition, the FERC rejected the imposition of any market-wide remedies. Although the FERC order on rehearing established the period for which the City of Seattle could seek refunds as January 2000 through June 2001, it is unclear whether Seattle has a claim against PSCo prior to June 2000.

Preliminary calculations of the City of Seattle's claim for refunds from PSCo are approximately $28 million not including 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, not withstanding 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 FERC's standard will likely be challenged on appeal to 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.