Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
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, 2016, and in Notes 5 and 6 to the financial statements included in SPS’ Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly periods ended March 31, 2017 and June 30, 2017, 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. 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 897 megawatts (MW) of capacity under long-term PPAs as of Sept. 30, 2017 and Dec. 31, 2016, 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 2041. Environmental Contingencies Environmental Requirements Water and Waste Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) Waters of the United States Rule — In 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) published a final rule that significantly expanded the types of water bodies regulated under the CWA and broadened the scope of waters subject to federal jurisdiction. In October 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a nationwide stay of the final rule and subsequently ruled that it, rather than the federal district courts, had jurisdiction over challenges to the rule. In January 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to resolve the dispute as to which court should hear challenges to the rule. A ruling is expected in the first quarter of 2018. In February 2017, President Trump issued an executive order requiring the EPA and the Corps to review and revise the final rule. On June 27, 2017, the agencies issued a proposed rule that rescinds the 2015 final rule and reinstates the prior 1986 definition of “Water of the U.S.” The agencies are also undertaking a rulemaking to develop a new definition of “Waters of the U.S.” Federal CWA Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELG) — In 2015, the EPA issued a final ELG rule for power plants that use coal, natural gas, oil or nuclear materials as fuel and discharge treated effluent to surface waters as well as utility-owned landfills that receive coal combustion residuals. In September 2017, the EPA delayed the compliance date for flue gas desulfurization wastewater and bottom ash transport water until November 2020 while the agency conducts a rulemaking process to potentially revise the effluent limitations and pretreatment standards for these waste streams. Air Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission Standard for Existing Sources (Clean Power Plan or CPP) — In 2015, the EPA issued its final rule for existing power plants. Among other things, the rule requires that state plans include enforceable measures to ensure emissions from existing power plants achieve the EPA’s state-specific interim (2022-2029) and final (2030 and thereafter) emission performance targets. The CPP was challenged by multiple parties in the D.C. Circuit Court. In February 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order staying the final CPP rule. In September 2016, the D.C. Circuit Court heard oral arguments in the consolidated challenges to the CPP. The stay will remain in effect until the D.C. Circuit Court reaches its decision and the U.S. Supreme Court either declines to review the lower court’s decision or reaches a decision of its own. In March 2017, President Trump signed an executive order requiring the EPA Administrator to review the CPP rule and if appropriate, publish proposed rules suspending, revising or rescinding it. Accordingly, the EPA has requested that the D.C. Circuit Court hold the litigation in abeyance until the EPA completes its work under the executive order. The D.C. Circuit granted the EPA’s request and is holding the litigation in abeyance while considering briefs by the parties on whether the court should remand the challenges to the EPA rather than holding them in abeyance, determining whether and how the court continues or ends the stay that currently applies to the CPP. In October 2017, the EPA published a proposed rule to repeal the CPP, based on an analysis that the CPP exceeds the EPA’s statutory authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The EPA will take public comment on the proposal for 60 days. The EPA stated it has not yet determined whether it will promulgate a new rule to regulate GHG emissions from existing electric generating units. Regional Haze Rules — The regional haze program is designed to address widespread haze that results from emissions from a multitude of sources. The Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements of the EPA’s regional haze rules require the installation and operation of emission controls for industrial facilities emitting air pollutants that reduce visibility in national parks and wilderness areas. Under BART, regional haze plans identify facilities that will have to reduce Sulfur Dioxide (SO₂), Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) and particulate matter emissions and set emission limits for those facilities. BART requirements can also be met through participation in interstate emission trading programs such as the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and its successor, Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). Texas’ first regional haze plan has undergone federal review as described below. BART Determinations for Texas: Texas developed a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that found the CAIR equal to BART for electric generating units. As a result, no additional controls beyond CAIR compliance would have been required. In 2014, the EPA proposed to approve the BART portion of the SIP, with substitution of CSAPR compliance for Texas’ reliance on CAIR. In January 2016, the EPA adopted a final rule that deferred its approval of CSAPR compliance as BART until the EPA considered further adjustments to CSAPR emission budgets under the D.C. Circuit Court’s remand of the Texas SO₂emission budgets. The EPA then published a proposed rule in January 2017 that could have had the effect of requiring installation of dry scrubbers to reduce SO₂ emissions from Harrington Units 1 and 2. Investment costs associated with dry scrubbers for Harrington Units 1 and 2 could have been approximately $400 million. In September 2017, the EPA issued a final rule adopting a Texas only SO₂ trading program as a BART Alternative. The program allocated SO₂ allowances to electric generating units in Texas, including all three Harrington units and both Tolk units, consistent with their allocation under CSAPR, resulting in an emissions budget for Texas that is consistent with the EPA’s 2012 rule. SPS expects the allowance allocations to be sufficient for SO₂ emissions from Harrington and Tolk units in 2019 and future years. The anticipated costs of compliance are not expected to have a material impact on the results of operations, financial position or cash flows; and SPS believes that compliance costs would be recoverable through regulatory mechanisms. Reasonable Progress Rule: In January 2016, the EPA adopted a final rule establishing a federal implementation plan for the state of Texas, which 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. SPS appealed the EPA’s decision and requested a stay of the final rule. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Fifth Circuit) granted the stay. In March 2017, the Fifth Circuit remanded the rule to the EPA for reconsideration, while leaving the stay in effect. The Fifth Circuit is now holding the case in abeyance until the EPA completes its reconsideration of the rule. In the final BART rule that affects Tolk and Harrington described above, the EPA noted that it will address the remanded rule in a future action. Such a rule will address whether further SO₂ emission reductions are needed at Tolk to address the “reasonable progress” requirements of the regional haze program. The risk of these controls being imposed along with the risk of investments to provide additional cooling water to Tolk have caused SPS to seek to decrease the remaining depreciable life of the Tolk units. 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, 2016, and in Notes 5 and 6 to the financial statements included in SPS’ Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly periods ended March 31, 2017 and June 30, 2017, 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.

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 897 megawatts (MW) of capacity under long-term PPAs as of Sept. 30, 2017 and Dec. 31, 2016, 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 2041.

Environmental Contingencies

Environmental Requirements

Water and Waste

Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) Waters of the United States Rule — In 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) published a final rule that significantly expanded the types of water bodies regulated under the CWA and broadened the scope of waters subject to federal jurisdiction. In October 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a nationwide stay of the final rule and subsequently ruled that it, rather than the federal district courts, had jurisdiction over challenges to the rule. In January 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to resolve the dispute as to which court should hear challenges to the rule. A ruling is expected in the first quarter of 2018.

In February 2017, President Trump issued an executive order requiring the EPA and the Corps to review and revise the final rule. On June 27, 2017, the agencies issued a proposed rule that rescinds the 2015 final rule and reinstates the prior 1986 definition of “Water of the U.S.” The agencies are also undertaking a rulemaking to develop a new definition of “Waters of the U.S.”

Federal CWA Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELG) — In 2015, the EPA issued a final ELG rule for power plants that use coal, natural gas, oil or nuclear materials as fuel and discharge treated effluent to surface waters as well as utility-owned landfills that receive coal combustion residuals. In September 2017, the EPA delayed the compliance date for flue gas desulfurization wastewater and bottom ash transport water until November 2020 while the agency conducts a rulemaking process to potentially revise the effluent limitations and pretreatment standards for these waste streams.

Air

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission Standard for Existing Sources (Clean Power Plan or CPP) — In 2015, the EPA issued its final rule for existing power plants. Among other things, the rule requires that state plans include enforceable measures to ensure emissions from existing power plants achieve the EPA’s state-specific interim (2022-2029) and final (2030 and thereafter) emission performance targets.

The CPP was challenged by multiple parties in the D.C. Circuit Court. In February 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order staying the final CPP rule. In September 2016, the D.C. Circuit Court heard oral arguments in the consolidated challenges to the CPP. The stay will remain in effect until the D.C. Circuit Court reaches its decision and the U.S. Supreme Court either declines to review the lower court’s decision or reaches a decision of its own.

In March 2017, President Trump signed an executive order requiring the EPA Administrator to review the CPP rule and if appropriate, publish proposed rules suspending, revising or rescinding it. Accordingly, the EPA has requested that the D.C. Circuit Court hold the litigation in abeyance until the EPA completes its work under the executive order. The D.C. Circuit granted the EPA’s request and is holding the litigation in abeyance while considering briefs by the parties on whether the court should remand the challenges to the EPA rather than holding them in abeyance, determining whether and how the court continues or ends the stay that currently applies to the CPP.

In October 2017, the EPA published a proposed rule to repeal the CPP, based on an analysis that the CPP exceeds the EPA’s statutory authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The EPA will take public comment on the proposal for 60 days. The EPA stated it has not yet determined whether it will promulgate a new rule to regulate GHG emissions from existing electric generating units.

Regional Haze Rules — The regional haze program is designed to address widespread haze that results from emissions from a multitude of sources. The Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements of the EPA’s regional haze rules require the installation and operation of emission controls for industrial facilities emitting air pollutants that reduce visibility in national parks and wilderness areas. Under BART, regional haze plans identify facilities that will have to reduce Sulfur Dioxide (SO₂), Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) and particulate matter emissions and set emission limits for those facilities. BART requirements can also be met through participation in interstate emission trading programs such as the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and its successor, Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). Texas’ first regional haze plan has undergone federal review as described below.

BART Determinations for Texas: Texas developed a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that found the CAIR equal to BART for electric generating units. As a result, no additional controls beyond CAIR compliance would have been required. In 2014, the EPA proposed to approve the BART portion of the SIP, with substitution of CSAPR compliance for Texas’ reliance on CAIR. In January 2016, the EPA adopted a final rule that deferred its approval of CSAPR compliance as BART until the EPA considered further adjustments to CSAPR emission budgets under the D.C. Circuit Court’s remand of the Texas SO₂emission budgets. The EPA then published a proposed rule in January 2017 that could have had the effect of requiring installation of dry scrubbers to reduce SO₂ emissions from Harrington Units 1 and 2. Investment costs associated with dry scrubbers for Harrington Units 1 and 2 could have been approximately $400 million. In September 2017, the EPA issued a final rule adopting a Texas only SO₂ trading program as a BART Alternative. The program allocated SO₂ allowances to electric generating units in Texas, including all three Harrington units and both Tolk units, consistent with their allocation under CSAPR, resulting in an emissions budget for Texas that is consistent with the EPA’s 2012 rule. SPS expects the allowance allocations to be sufficient for SO₂ emissions from Harrington and Tolk units in 2019 and future years. The anticipated costs of compliance are not expected to have a material impact on the results of operations, financial position or cash flows; and SPS believes that compliance costs would be recoverable through regulatory mechanisms.

Reasonable Progress Rule: In January 2016, the EPA adopted a final rule establishing a federal implementation plan for the state of Texas, which 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. SPS appealed the EPA’s decision and requested a stay of the final rule. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Fifth Circuit) granted the stay. In March 2017, the Fifth Circuit remanded the rule to the EPA for reconsideration, while leaving the stay in effect. The Fifth Circuit is now holding the case in abeyance until the EPA completes its reconsideration of the rule. In the final BART rule that affects Tolk and Harrington described above, the EPA noted that it will address the remanded rule in a future action. Such a rule will address whether further SO₂ emission reductions are needed at Tolk to address the “reasonable progress” requirements of the regional haze program. The risk of these controls being imposed along with the risk of investments to provide additional cooling water to Tolk have caused SPS to seek to decrease the remaining depreciable life of the Tolk units.

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.