Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Except to the extent noted below and in Note 5 above, the circumstances set forth in Notes 10 and 11 to the financial statements included in SPS’ Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended Dec. 31, 2015, 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 SPS’ financial position. Purchased Power Agreements (PPAs) Under certain PPAs, SPS purchases power from independent power producing entities that own natural gas fueled power plants for which SPS is required to reimburse natural gas fuel costs, or to participate in tolling arrangements under which SPS 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. SPS had approximately 827 megawatts (MW) of capacity under long-term PPAs as of March 31, 2016 and Dec. 31, 2015, with entities that have been determined to be variable interest entities. SPS has 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. These agreements have expiration dates through 2033. Environmental Contingencies Environmental Requirements Air 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 best available retrofit technology (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 state implementation plan (SIP), Texas identified the SPS facilities that will have to reduce sulfur dioxide (SO₂₎, nitrogen oxide (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) emissions under BART and set emissions limits for those facilities. Texas developed a SIP that finds the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) equal to BART for electric generating units (EGUs). As a result, no additional controls beyond CAIR compliance would be required. In December 2014, the EPA proposed to approve the BART portion of the SIP, with the exception that the EPA would substitute Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) compliance for Texas’ reliance on CAIR. In January 2016, the EPA adopted a final rule that defers its approval of CSAPR compliance as BART until the EPA considers further adjustments to CSAPR emission budgets in relation to the 2012 particle national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). In March 2016, the EPA requested information under the Clean Air Act (CAA) related to EGUs at SPS’ plants. SPS replied to the request in April 2016 and identified Harrington Units 1 and 2, Jones Units 1 and 2, Nichols Unit 3 and Plant X Unit 4 as BART-eligible units. These units will be evaluated based on their impact on visibility. Additional emission control equipment under the EPA’s BART guidelines for PM, SO₂ and NOx could be required if a unit is determined to “cause or contribute” to visibility impairment. Xcel Energy cannot evaluate the impact of additional emission controls until the EPA concludes their evaluation of BART. The EPA is expected to issue a proposed rule in December 2016. In December 2014, the EPA proposed to disapprove the reasonable progress portions of the Texas SIP and instead adopt a federal implementation plan (FIP). In January 2016, the EPA adopted a final rule establishing a FIP for the state of Texas. As part of this final rule, the EPA imposed SO₂ emission limitations that reflect the installation of dry scrubbers on Tolk Units 1 and 2, with compliance required by February 2021. Investment costs associated with dry scrubbers could be approximately $600 million. In March 2016, SPS appealed the EPA’s decision and has asked the court to stay the final rule while it is being reviewed by the court. In addition, SPS filed a petition with the EPA requesting reconsideration of the final rule. SPS believes these costs would be recoverable through regulatory mechanisms if required, and therefore does not expect a material impact on results of operations, financial position or cash flows. Implementation of the 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 SPS 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 SPS’ Tolk and Harrington plants. The Tolk and Harrington Plants utilize low sulfur coal to reduce SO₂ emissions. In February 2016, the EPA notified the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) of its preliminary SO₂ designations. The EPA has proposed to designate the area near the Tolk plant as meeting the standard and the area near the Harrington plant as “unclassifiable.” If finalized as proposed, the unclassifiable areas will be monitored for three years and final designations will be made by December 2020. The EPA’s final decision is expected by July 2016. 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, which would be due in 18 months, designed to achieve the NAAQS within five years. The TCEQ could require additional SO₂ controls on one or more of the units at Tolk and Harrington. SPS cannot evaluate the impacts until the designation of nonattainment areas is made and any required state plans are developed. SPS believes that, should SO₂ 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. Legal Contingencies SPS 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 SPS’ financial statements. Unless otherwise required by GAAP, legal fees are expensed as incurred.

Commitments and Contingencies

Except to the extent noted below and in Note 5 above, the circumstances set forth in Notes 10 and 11 to the financial statements included in SPS’ Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended Dec. 31, 2015, 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 SPS’ financial position.

Purchased Power Agreements (PPAs)

Under certain PPAs, SPS purchases power from independent power producing entities that own natural gas fueled power plants for which SPS is required to reimburse natural gas fuel costs, or to participate in tolling arrangements under which SPS 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.

SPS had approximately 827 megawatts (MW) of capacity under long-term PPAs as of March 31, 2016 and Dec. 31, 2015, with entities that have been determined to be variable interest entities. SPS has 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. These agreements have expiration dates through 2033.

Environmental Contingencies

Environmental Requirements

Air

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 best available retrofit technology (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 state implementation plan (SIP), Texas identified the SPS facilities that will have to reduce sulfur dioxide (SO₂₎, nitrogen oxide (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) emissions under BART and set emissions limits for those facilities.

Texas developed a SIP that finds the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) equal to BART for electric generating units (EGUs). As a result, no additional controls beyond CAIR compliance would be required. In December 2014, the EPA proposed to approve the BART portion of the SIP, with the exception that the EPA would substitute Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) compliance for Texas’ reliance on CAIR. In January 2016, the EPA adopted a final rule that defers its approval of CSAPR compliance as BART until the EPA considers further adjustments to CSAPR emission budgets in relation to the 2012 particle national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). In March 2016, the EPA requested information under the Clean Air Act (CAA) related to EGUs at SPS’ plants. SPS replied to the request in April 2016 and identified Harrington Units 1 and 2, Jones Units 1 and 2, Nichols Unit 3 and Plant X Unit 4 as BART-eligible units. These units will be evaluated based on their impact on visibility. Additional emission control equipment under the EPA’s BART guidelines for PM, SO₂ and NOx could be required if a unit is determined to “cause or contribute” to visibility impairment. Xcel Energy cannot evaluate the impact of additional emission controls until the EPA concludes their evaluation of BART. The EPA is expected to issue a proposed rule in December 2016.

In December 2014, the EPA proposed to disapprove the reasonable progress portions of the Texas SIP and instead adopt a federal implementation plan (FIP). In January 2016, the EPA adopted a final rule establishing a FIP for the state of Texas. As part of this final rule, the EPA imposed SO₂ emission limitations that reflect the installation of dry scrubbers on Tolk Units 1 and 2, with compliance required by February 2021. Investment costs associated with dry scrubbers could be approximately $600 million. In March 2016, SPS appealed the EPA’s decision and has asked the court to stay the final rule while it is being reviewed by the court. In addition, SPS filed a petition with the EPA requesting reconsideration of the final rule. SPS believes these costs would be recoverable through regulatory mechanisms if required, and therefore does not expect a material impact on results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

Implementation of the 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 SPS 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 SPS’ Tolk and Harrington plants. The Tolk and Harrington Plants utilize low sulfur coal to reduce SO₂ emissions. In February 2016, the EPA notified the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) of its preliminary SO₂ designations. The EPA has proposed to designate the area near the Tolk plant as meeting the standard and the area near the Harrington plant as “unclassifiable.” If finalized as proposed, the unclassifiable areas will be monitored for three years and final designations will be made by December 2020. The EPA’s final decision is expected by July 2016.

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, which would be due in 18 months, designed to achieve the NAAQS within five years. The TCEQ could require additional SO₂ controls on one or more of the units at Tolk and Harrington. SPS cannot evaluate the impacts until the designation of nonattainment areas is made and any required state plans are developed. SPS believes that, should SO₂ 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.

Legal Contingencies

SPS 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 SPS’ financial statements. Unless otherwise required by GAAP, legal fees are expensed as incurred.