Item 1A - Risk Factors
Like other companies in our industry, Xcel Energy, which includes NSP-Wisconsin, is subject to a variety of risks, many of which are beyond our control. Important risks that may adversely affect the business, financial condition and results of operations are further described below. These risks should be carefully considered together with the other information set forth in this report and in future reports that Xcel Energy files with the SEC.
Oversight of Risk and Related Processes
A key accountability of the Board is the oversight of material risk, and our Board employs an effective process for doing so. As outlined below, management and each Board committee has responsibility for overseeing the identification and mitigation of key risks and reporting its assessments and activities to the full Board.
Management identifies and analyzes risks to determine materiality and other attributes such as timing, probability and controllability. Management broadly considers our business, the utility industry, the domestic and global economies and the environment when identifying, assessing, managing and mitigating risk. Identification and analysis occurs formally through a key risk assessment process conducted by senior management, the financial disclosure process, the hazard risk management process and internal auditing and compliance with financial and operational controls. Management also identifies and analyzes risk through its business planning process and development of goals and key performance indicators, which include risk identification to determine barriers to implementing our strategy. At the same time, the business planning process identifies areas in which there is a potential for a business area to take inappropriate risk to meet goals, and determines how to prevent inappropriate risk-taking.
At a threshold level, we have developed a robust compliance program and promote a culture of compliance, including tone at the top, which mitigates risk. The process for risk mitigation includes adherence to our code of conduct and other compliance policies, operation of formal risk management structures and groups and overall business management to mitigate the risks inherent in the implementation strategy. Building on this culture of compliance, we manage and further mitigate risks through operation of formal risk management structures and groups, including management councils, risk committees and the services of internal corporate areas such as internal audit, the corporate controller and legal services.
Management communicates regularly with the Board and key stakeholders regarding risk. Senior management presents a periodic assessment of key risks to the Board. The presentation and the discussion of the key risks provides the Board with information on the risks management believes are material, including the earnings impact, timing, likelihood and controllability. Management also provides information to the Board in presentations and communications over the course of the year.
The Board approaches oversight, management and mitigation of risk as an integral and continuous part of its governance of the Company. First, the Board as a whole regularly reviews management’s key risk assessment and analyzes areas of existing and future risks and opportunities. In addition, the Board assigns oversight of certain critical risks to each of its four standing committees to ensure these risks are well understood and given focused oversight by the committee with the most applicable expertise. The Audit Committee is responsible for reviewing the adequacy of risk oversight and affirming that appropriate oversight occurs. New risks are considered and assigned as appropriate during the annual Board and committee evaluation process, and committee charters and annual work plans are updated accordingly. Committees regularly report on their oversight activities and certain risk issues may be brought to the full Board for consideration where deemed appropriate to ensure broad Board understanding of the nature of the risk. Finally, the Board conducts an annual strategy session where the Company’s future plans and initiatives are reviewed and confirmed.
Risks Associated with Our Business
Environmental Risks
We are subject to environmental laws and regulations, with which compliance could be difficult and costly.
We are subject to environmental laws and regulations that affect many aspects of our past, present and future operations, including air emissions, water quality, wastewater discharges and the generation, transport and disposal of solid wastes and hazardous substances. These laws and regulations require us to obtain and comply with a wide variety of environmental requirements including those for protected natural and cultural resources (such as wetlands, endangered species and other protected wildlife, and archaeological and historical resources), licenses, permits, inspections and other approvals. Environmental laws and regulations can also require us to restrict or limit the output of certain facilities or the use of certain fuels, shift generation to lower-emitting but potentially more costly facilities, install pollution control equipment at our facilities, clean up spills and other contamination and correct environmental hazards. Environmental regulations may also lead to shutdown of existing facilities, either due to the difficulty in assuring compliance or that the costs of compliance makes operation of the units no longer economical. Both public officials and private individuals may seek to enforce the applicable environmental laws and regulations against us. We may be required to pay all or a portion of the cost to remediate (i.e., clean-up) sites where our past activities, or the activities of certain other parties, caused environmental contamination. At Dec. 31, 2015, these sites included:
•
Sites of former MGPs operated by us, our predecessors or other entities; and
•
Third party sites, such as landfills, for which we are alleged to be a PRP that sent hazardous materials and wastes.
We are also subject to mandates to provide customers with clean energy, renewable energy and energy conservation offerings. Failure to meet the requirements of these mandates may result in fines or penalties, which could have a material effect on our results of operations. If our regulators do not allow us to recover all or a part of the cost of capital investment or the O&M costs incurred to comply with the mandates, it could have a material effect on our results of operations, financial position or cash flows.
In addition, existing environmental laws or regulations may be revised, and new laws or regulations may be adopted or become applicable to us, including but not limited to, regulation of mercury, NOx, SO2, CO2 and other GHGs, particulates, cooling water intakes, water discharges and ash management. We may also incur additional unanticipated obligations or liabilities under existing environmental laws and regulations.
We are subject to physical and financial risks associated with climate change.
Climate change can create physical and financial risk. Physical risks from climate change can include changes in weather conditions, changes in precipitation and extreme weather events.
Our customers’ energy needs vary with weather conditions, primarily temperature and humidity. For residential customers, heating and cooling represent their largest energy use. To the extent weather conditions are affected by climate change, customers’ energy use could increase or decrease. Increased energy use due to weather changes may require us to invest in additional generating assets, transmission and other infrastructure to serve increased load. Decreased energy use due to weather changes may result in decreased revenues. Extreme weather conditions in general require more system backup, adding to costs, and can contribute to increased system stress, including service interruptions. Weather conditions outside of our service territory could also have an impact on our revenues. We buy and sell electricity depending upon system needs and market opportunities. Extreme weather conditions creating high energy demand may raise electricity prices, which would increase the cost of energy we provide to our customers.
Severe weather impacts our service territories, primarily when thunderstorms, tornadoes and snow or ice storms occur. To the extent the frequency of extreme weather events increases, this could increase our cost of providing service. Changes in precipitation resulting in droughts or water shortages, whether caused by climate change or otherwise, could adversely affect our operations, principally our fossil generating units. A negative impact to water supplies due to long-term drought conditions could adversely impact our ability to provide electricity to customers, as well as increase the price they pay for energy. We may not recover all costs related to mitigating these physical and financial risks.
Climate change may impact a region’s economic health, which could impact our revenues. Our financial performance is tied to the health of the regional economies we serve. The price of energy has an impact on the economic health of our communities. The cost of additional regulatory requirements, such as regulation of CO2 emissions under section 111(d) of the CAA, or additional environmental regulation could impact the availability of goods and prices charged by our suppliers which would normally be borne by consumers through higher prices for energy and purchased goods. To the extent financial markets view climate change and emissions of GHGs as a financial risk, this could negatively affect our ability to access capital markets or cause us to receive less than ideal terms and conditions.
Financial Risks
Our profitability depends in part on our ability to recover costs from our customers and there may be changes in circumstances or in the regulatory environment that impair our ability to recover costs from our customers.
We are subject to comprehensive regulation by federal and state utility regulatory agencies. The state utility commissions regulate many aspects of our utility operations, including siting and construction of facilities, customer service and the rates that we can charge customers. The FERC has jurisdiction, among other things, over wholesale rates for electric transmission service, the sale of electric energy in interstate commerce and certain natural gas transactions in interstate commerce.
The profitability of our operations is dependent on our ability to recover the costs of providing energy and utility services to our customers and earn a return on our capital investment. We provide service at rates approved by one or more regulatory commissions. These rates are generally regulated and based on an analysis of our costs incurred in a test year. Thus, the rates we are allowed to charge may or may not match our costs at any given time. While rate regulation is premised on providing an opportunity to earn a reasonable rate of return on invested capital, in a continued low interest rate environment there has been pressure pushing down ROE. There can also be no assurance that the applicable regulatory commission will judge all of our costs to have been prudent, which could result in cost disallowances, or that the regulatory process in which rates are determined will always result in rates that will produce full recovery of such costs. Changes in the long-term cost-effectiveness or changes to the operating conditions of our assets may result in early retirements and there is no assurance that regulators would allow full recovery of all remaining costs. Rising fuel costs could increase the risk that we will not be able to fully recover our fuel costs from our customers. Furthermore, there could be changes in the regulatory environment that would impair our ability to recover costs historically collected from our customers.
Management currently believes these prudently incurred costs are recoverable given the existing regulatory mechanisms in place. However, adverse regulatory rulings or the imposition of additional regulations could have an adverse impact on our results of operations and hence could materially and adversely affect our ability to meet our financial obligations, including debt payments.
Any reductions in our credit ratings could increase our financing costs and the cost of maintaining certain contractual relationships.
We cannot be assured that any of our current ratings will remain in effect for any given period of time, or that a rating will not be lowered or withdrawn entirely by a rating agency. In addition, our credit ratings may change as a result of the differing methodologies or change in the methodologies used by the various rating agencies. Any downgrade could lead to higher borrowing costs. Also, we may enter into certain procurement and derivative contracts that require the posting of collateral or settlement of applicable contracts if credit ratings fall below investment grade.
We are subject to capital market and interest rate risks.
Utility operations require significant capital investment. As a result, we frequently need to access capital markets. Any disruption in capital markets could have a material impact on our ability to fund our operations. Capital markets are global in nature and are impacted by numerous issues and events throughout the world economy. Capital market disruption events and resulting broad financial market distress could prevent us from issuing new securities or cause us to issue securities with less than ideal terms and conditions, such as higher interest rates.
Higher interest rates on short-term borrowings with variable interest rates could also have an adverse effect on our operating results. Changes in interest rates may also impact the fair value of the debt securities in the master pension trust, as well as our ability to earn a return on short-term investments of excess cash.
We are subject to credit risks.
Credit risk includes the risk that our customers will not pay their bills, which may lead to a reduction in liquidity and an increase in bad debt expense. Credit risk is comprised of numerous factors including the price of products and services provided, the overall economy and local economies in the geographic areas we serve, including local unemployment rates.
Credit risk also includes the risk that various counterparties that owe us money or product will breach their obligations. Should the counterparties to these arrangements fail to perform, we may be forced to enter into alternative arrangements. In that event, our financial results could be adversely affected and we could incur losses.
One alternative available to address counterparty credit risk is to transact on liquid commodity exchanges. The credit risk is then socialized through the exchange central clearinghouse function. While exchanges do remove counterparty credit risk, all participants are subject to margin requirements, which create an additional need for liquidity to post margin as exchange positions change value daily. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) requires broad clearing of financial swap transactions through a central counterparty, which could lead to additional margin requirements that would impact our liquidity. However, we have taken advantage of an exception to mandatory clearing afforded to commercial end-users who are not classified as a major swap participant. The Board of Directors has authorized Xcel Energy and its subsidiaries to take advantage of this end-user exception.
We may at times have direct credit exposure as part of our local gas distribution company supply activity to various financial institutions trading for their own accounts or issuing collateral support on behalf of other counterparties. We may also have some indirect credit exposure due to participation in organized markets, such as SPP, PJM and MISO, in which any credit losses are socialized to all market participants.
Increasing costs associated with our defined benefit retirement plans and other employee benefits may adversely affect our results of operations, financial position or liquidity.
We have defined benefit pension and postretirement plans that cover most of our employees. Assumptions related to future costs, return on investments, interest rates and other actuarial assumptions, including mortality tables, have a significant impact on our funding requirements related to these plans. These estimates and assumptions may change based on economic conditions, actual stock and bond market performance, changes in interest rates and changes in governmental regulations. In addition, the Pension Protection Act changed the minimum funding requirements for defined benefit pension plans with modifications that allowed additional flexibility in the timing of contributions. Therefore, our funding requirements and related contributions may change in the future. Also, the payout of a significant percentage of pension plan liabilities in a single year due to high retirements or employees leaving the company could trigger settlement accounting and could require the company to recognize material incremental pension expense related to unrecognized plan losses in the year these liabilities are paid.
Increasing costs associated with health care plans may adversely affect our results of operations.
Our self-insured costs of health care benefits for eligible employees have increased in recent years. Increasing levels of large individual health care claims and overall health care claims could have an adverse impact on our operating results, financial position and liquidity. We believe that our employee benefit costs, including costs related to health care plans for our employees and former employees, will continue to rise. Changes in industry standards utilized by management in key assumptions (e.g., mortality tables) could have a significant impact on future liabilities and benefit costs. Legislation related to health care could also significantly change our benefit programs and costs.
Operational Risks
We are subject to commodity risks and other risks associated with energy markets and energy production.
We engage in wholesale sales and purchases of electric capacity, energy and energy-related products as well as natural gas. As a result we are subject to market supply and commodity price risk. Commodity price changes can affect the value of our commodity trading derivatives. We mark certain derivatives to estimated fair market value on a daily basis (mark-to-market accounting). Actual settlements can vary significantly from estimated fair values recorded, and significant changes from the assumptions underlying our fair value estimates could cause significant earnings variability.
If we encounter market supply shortages or our suppliers are otherwise unable to meet their contractual obligations, we may be unable to fulfill our contractual obligations to our customers at previously anticipated costs. Therefore, a significant disruption could cause us to seek alternative supply services at potentially higher costs or suffer increased liability for unfulfilled contractual obligations. Any significantly higher energy or fuel costs relative to corresponding sales commitments could have a negative impact on our cash flows and potentially result in economic losses. Potential market supply shortages may not be fully resolved through alternative supply sources and may cause short-term disruptions in our ability to provide electric and/or natural gas services to our customers. The impact of these cost and reliability issues depends on our operating conditions such as generation fuels mix, availability of water for cooling, availability of fuel transportation including rail shipments of coal, electric generation capacity, transmission, natural gas pipeline capacity, etc.
We share in the electric production and transmission costs of the NSP-Minnesota system, which is integrated with our system. Accordingly, our costs may be increased due to increased costs associated with NSP-Minnesota’s system.
Our electric production and transmission system is managed on an integrated basis with the electric production and transmission system of NSP-Minnesota. As discussed above, pursuant to the Interchange Agreement between NSP-Minnesota and us, we share, on a proportional basis, all costs related to the generation and transmission facilities of the entire integrated NSP System, including capital costs. Accordingly, if the costs to operate the NSP System increase, or revenue decreases, whether as a result of state or federally mandated improvements or otherwise, our costs could also increase and our revenues could decrease and we cannot guarantee a full recovery of such costs through our rates at the time the costs are incurred.
Although we do not own any nuclear generating facilities, because our production and transmission system is operated on an integrated basis with NSP-Minnesota’s (an affiliate of NSP-Wisconsin) production and transmission system, we may be subject to risks associated with NSP-Minnesota’s nuclear generation.
NSP-Minnesota’s two nuclear stations, PI and Monticello, subject it to the risks of nuclear generation, which include:
•
The risks associated with use of radioactive material in the production of energy, the management, handling, storage and disposal and the current lack of a long-term disposal solution for radioactive materials;
•
Limitations on the amounts and types of insurance available to cover losses that might arise in connection with nuclear operations; and
•
Uncertainties with respect to the technological and financial aspects of decommissioning nuclear plants at the end of their licensed lives. For example, similar to pensions, interest rate and other assumptions regarding decommissioning costs may change based on economic conditions and changes in the expected life of the asset may cause our funding obligations to change.
The NRC has authority to impose licensing and safety-related requirements for the operation of nuclear generation facilities. In the event of non-compliance, the NRC has the authority to impose fines and/or shut down a unit until compliance is achieved. Revised NRC safety requirements could necessitate substantial capital expenditures or a substantial increase in operating expenses. In addition, the Institute for Nuclear Power Operations reviews NSP-Minnesota’s nuclear operations and nuclear generation facilities. Compliance with the Institute for Nuclear Power Operations’ recommendations could result in substantial capital expenditures or a substantial increase in operating expenses.
If an incident did occur, it could have a material effect on our results of operations or financial condition. Furthermore, the non-compliance of other nuclear facilities operators or the occurrence of a serious nuclear incident at other facilities could result in increased regulation of the industry, which could then increase NSP-Minnesota’s compliance costs and impact the results of operations of its facilities.
Our utility operations are subject to long-term planning risks.
Most electric utility investments are long-lived and are planned to be used for decades. Transmission and generation investments typically have long lead times, and therefore are planned well in advance of when they are brought in-service subject to long-term resource plans. These plans are based on numerous assumptions over the planning horizon such as: sales growth, customer usage, economic activity, costs, regulatory mechanisms, customer behavior, available technology and public policy. The electric utility sector is undergoing a period of significant change. For example, public policy has driven increases in appliance and lighting efficiency and energy efficient buildings, wider adoption and lower cost of renewable generation and distributed generation, shifts away from coal generation to decrease carbon dioxide emissions and increasing use of natural gas in electric generation driven by lower natural gas prices. These changes introduce additional uncertainty into long term planning which gives rise to a risk that the magnitude and timing of resource additions and growth in customer demand may not coincide, and that the preference for the types of additions may change from planning to execution.
The resource plans reviewed and approved by our state regulators assume continuation of the traditional utility cost of service model under which utility costs are recovered from customers as they receive the benefit of service. NSP-Wisconsin is engaged in significant and ongoing infrastructure investment programs to accommodate distributed generation and maintain high system reliability. NSP-Wisconsin is also investing in renewable and natural gas-fired generation to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions profile. Early plant retirements could expose us to premature financial obligations, which could result in less than full recovery of all remaining costs. Both decreasing use per customer driven by appliance and lighting efficiency and the availability of cost-effective distributed generation puts downward pressure on load growth. This could lead to under recovery of costs, excess resources to meet customer demand, and increases in electric rates.
Our natural gas transmission and distribution operations involve numerous risks that may result in accidents and other operating risks and costs.
Our natural gas transmission and distribution activities include a variety of inherent hazards and operating risks, such as leaks, explosions and mechanical problems, which could cause substantial financial losses. In addition, these risks could result in loss of human life, significant damage to property, environmental pollution, impairment of our operations and substantial losses to us. We maintain insurance against some, but not all, of these risks and losses.
The occurrence of any of these events not fully covered by insurance could have a material effect on our financial position and results of operations. For our natural gas transmission or distribution lines located near populated areas, the level of potential damages resulting from these risks is greater.
Additionally, the operating or other costs that may be required in order to comply with potential new regulations, including the Pipeline Safety Act, could be significant. The Pipeline Safety Act requires verification of pipeline infrastructure records by pipeline owners and operators to confirm the maximum allowable operating pressure of lines located in high consequence areas or more-densely populated areas. We have programs in place to comply with the Pipeline Safety Act and for systematic infrastructure monitoring and renewal over time. A significant incident could increase regulatory scrutiny and result in penalties and higher costs of operations.
As we are a subsidiary of Xcel Energy Inc., we may be negatively affected by events impacting the credit or liquidity of Xcel Energy Inc. and its affiliates.
If Xcel Energy Inc. were to become obligated to make payments under various guarantees and bond indemnities or to fund its other contingent liabilities, or if either Standard & Poor’s or Moody’s were to downgrade Xcel Energy Inc.’s credit rating below investment grade, Xcel Energy Inc. may be required to provide credit enhancements in the form of cash collateral, letters of credit or other security to satisfy part or potentially all of these exposures. If either Standard & Poor’s or Moody’s were to downgrade Xcel Energy Inc.’s debt securities below investment grade, it would increase Xcel Energy Inc.’s cost of capital and restrict its access to the capital markets. This could limit Xcel Energy Inc.’s ability to contribute equity or make loans to us, or may cause Xcel Energy Inc. to seek additional or accelerated funding from us in the form of dividends. If such event were to occur, we may need to seek alternative sources of funds to meet our cash needs.
As of Dec. 31, 2015, Xcel Energy Inc. and its utility subsidiaries had approximately $12.5 billion of long-term debt and $1.5 billion of short-term debt and current maturities. Xcel Energy Inc. provides various guarantees and bond indemnities supporting some of its subsidiaries by guaranteeing the payment or performance by these subsidiaries for specified agreements or transactions.
Xcel Energy also has other contingent liabilities resulting from various tax disputes and other matters. Xcel Energy Inc.’s exposure under the guarantees is based upon the net liability of the relevant subsidiary under the specified agreements or transactions. The majority of Xcel Energy Inc.’s guarantees limit its exposure to a maximum amount that is stated in the guarantees. As of Dec. 31, 2015, Xcel Energy had guarantees outstanding with a maximum stated amount of approximately $12.5 million and exposure of $0.1 million. Xcel Energy also had additional guarantees of $41.3 million at Dec. 31, 2015 for performance and payment of surety bonds for the benefit of itself and its subsidiaries, with total exposure that cannot be estimated at this time. If Xcel Energy Inc. were to become obligated to make payments under these guarantees and bond indemnities or become obligated to fund other contingent liabilities, it could limit Xcel Energy Inc.’s ability to contribute equity or make loans to us, or may cause Xcel Energy Inc. to seek additional or accelerated funding from us in the form of dividends. If such event were to occur, we may need to seek alternative sources of funds to meet our cash needs.
We are a wholly owned subsidiary of Xcel Energy Inc. Xcel Energy Inc. can exercise substantial control over our dividend policy and business and operations and may exercise that control in a manner that may be perceived to be adverse to our interests.
All of the members of our Board of Directors, as well as many of our executive officers, are officers of Xcel Energy Inc. Our Board makes determinations with respect to a number of significant corporate events, including the payment of our dividends.
We have historically paid quarterly dividends to Xcel Energy Inc. In 2015, 2014 and 2013 we paid $53.9 million, $43.8 million and $31.0 million of dividends to Xcel Energy Inc., respectively. If Xcel Energy Inc.’s cash requirements increase, our Board of Directors could decide to increase the dividends we pay to Xcel Energy Inc. to help support Xcel Energy Inc.'s cash needs. This could adversely affect our liquidity. The most restrictive dividend limitation for NSP-Wisconsin is imposed by our state regulatory commission. NSP-Wisconsin cannot pay annual dividends in excess of certain amounts if its calendar year average equity-to-total capitalization ratio is or falls below the state commission authorized level. See Item 5 for further discussion on dividend limitations.
Public Policy Risks
We may be subject to legislative and regulatory responses to climate change and emissions, with which compliance could be difficult and costly.
The EPA is regulating GHGs from power plants with state plans to achieve the EPA’s goals due by September 2018. Increased public awareness and concern regarding climate change may result in more state, regional and/or federal requirements to reduce or mitigate the effects of GHGs. Legislative and regulatory responses related to climate change and new interpretations of existing laws through climate change litigation create financial risk as our electric generating facilities may be subject to additional regulation at either the state or federal level in the future. Such regulations could impose substantial costs on our system. International agreements could have an impact to the extent they lead to future federal or state regulations.
The United States continues to participate in international negotiations related to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). In December 2015, the 21st Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC reached consensus among 190 nations on an agreement (the Paris Agreement) that establishes a framework for GHG mitigation actions by all countries (“nationally determined contributions”), with a goal of holding the increase in global average temperature to below 2o Celsius above pre-industrial levels and an aspiration to limit the increase to 1.5o Celsius. The Paris Agreement could result in future additional GHG reductions in the United States.
We have been, and in the future may be, subject to climate change lawsuits. An adverse outcome in any of these cases could require substantial capital expenditures and could possibly require payment of substantial penalties or damages. Defense costs associated with such litigation can also be significant. Such payments or expenditures could affect results of operations, cash flows and financial condition if such costs are not recovered through regulated rates.
The form and stringency of GHG regulation in the power sector has become more clear with the finalization of the Clean Power Plan by the EPA. The legality of the Clean Power Plan is being challenged in the courts. In addition, uncertainties remain regarding implementation plans in our states (and the federal plan imposed by the EPA for states who do not submit approvable plans), including what opportunities are available to reduce costs, whether and what type of emission trading will be available, how states will allocate the reduction burden among utilities, what actions are creditable and the indirect impact of carbon regulation on natural gas and coal prices.
An important factor is our ability to recover the costs incurred to comply with any regulatory requirements in a timely manner. If our regulators do not allow us to recover all or a part of the cost of capital investment or the O&M costs incurred to comply with the mandates, it could have a material effect on our results of operations.
We are also subject to a significant number of proposed and potential rules that will impact our coal-fired and other generation facilities. These include rules associated with emissions of SO2 and NOx, mercury, regional haze, ozone and particulate matter, water intakes, water discharges and ash management. The costs of investment to comply with these rules could be substantial and in some cases would lead to early retirement of coal units. We may not be able to timely recover all costs related to complying with regulatory requirements imposed on us.
Increased risks of regulatory penalties could negatively impact our business.
The Energy Act increased civil penalty authority for violation of FERC statutes, rules and orders. The FERC can now impose penalties of up to $1 million per violation per day, particularly as it relates to energy trading activities for both electricity and natural gas. In addition, NERC electric reliability standards and critical infrastructure protection requirements are mandatory and subject to potential financial penalties by regional entities, the NERC or the FERC for violations. If a serious reliability incident did occur, it could have a material effect on our operations or financial results. Some states have the authority to impose substantial penalties in the event of non-compliance.
We attempt to mitigate the risk of regulatory penalties through formal training on such prohibited practices and a compliance function that reviews our interaction with the markets under FERC and CFTC jurisdictions. However, there is no guarantee our compliance program will be sufficient to ensure against violations.
Macroeconomic Risks
Economic conditions impact our business.
Our operations are affected by local, national and worldwide economic conditions. Growth in our customer base is correlated with economic conditions. While the number of customers is growing, sales growth is relatively modest due to an increased focus on energy efficiency including federal standards for appliance and lighting efficiency and distributed generation, primarily solar PV. Instability in the financial markets also may affect the cost of capital and our ability to raise capital, which is discussed in the capital market risk section above.
Economic conditions may be impacted by insufficient financial sector liquidity leading to potential increased unemployment, which may impact customers’ ability to pay timely, increase customer bankruptcies, and may lead to increased bad debt.
Further, worldwide economic activity has an impact on the demand for basic commodities needed for utility infrastructure, such as steel, copper, aluminum, etc., which may impact our ability to acquire sufficient supplies. Additionally, the cost of those commodities may be higher than expected.
Our operations could be impacted by war, acts of terrorism, threats of terrorism or disruptions in normal operating conditions due to localized or regional events.
Our generation plants, fuel storage facilities, transmission and distribution facilities and information systems may be targets of terrorist activities. Any such disruption could result in a decrease in revenues and additional costs to repair and insure our assets. These disruptions could have a material impact on our financial condition and results of operations. The potential for terrorism has subjected our operations to increased risks and could have a material effect on our business. We have already incurred increased costs for security and capital expenditures in response to these risks. In addition, we may experience additional capital and operating costs to implement security for our plants, including NSP-Minnesota’s nuclear power plants under the NRC’s design basis threat requirements. We have also already incurred increased costs for compliance with NERC reliability standards associated with critical infrastructure protection. In addition, we may experience additional capital and operating costs to comply with the NERC critical infrastructure protection standards as they are implemented and clarified.
The insurance industry has also been affected by these events and the availability of insurance may decrease. In addition, the insurance we are able to obtain may have higher deductibles, higher premiums and more restrictive policy terms.
A disruption of the regional electric transmission grid, interstate natural gas pipeline infrastructure or other fuel sources, could negatively impact our business. Because our generation, the transmission systems and local natural gas distribution companies are part of an interconnected system, we face the risk of possible loss of business due to a disruption caused by the actions of a neighboring utility or an event (severe storm, severe temperature extremes, generator or transmission facility outage, pipeline rupture, railroad disruption, sudden and significant increase or decrease in wind generation or any disruption of work force such as may be caused by flu or other epidemic) within our operating systems or on a neighboring system. Any such disruption could result in a significant decrease in revenues and significant additional costs to repair assets, which could have a material impact on our financial condition and results.
The degree to which we are able to maintain day-to-day operations in response to unforeseen events will in part determine the financial impact of certain events on our financial condition and results. It is difficult to predict the magnitude of such events and associated impacts.
A cyber incident or cyber security breach could have a material effect on our business.
We operate in an industry that requires the continued operation of sophisticated information technology systems and network infrastructure. In addition, we use our systems and infrastructure to create, collect, use, disclose, store, dispose of and otherwise process sensitive information, including company data, customer energy usage data, and personal information regarding customers, employees and their dependents, contractors and other individuals.
Our generation, transmission, distribution and fuel storage facilities, information technology systems and other infrastructure or physical assets, as well as the information processed in our systems (e.g., information about our customers, employees, operations, infrastructure and assets) could be affected by cyber security incidents, including those caused by human error. Our industry has begun to see an increased volume and sophistication of cyber security incidents from international activist organizations, Nation States and individuals. Cyber security incidents could harm our businesses by limiting our generating, transmitting and distributing capabilities, delaying our development and construction of new facilities or capital improvement projects to existing facilities, disrupting our customer operations or exposing us to liability. Our generation, transmission systems and natural gas pipelines are part of an interconnected system. Therefore, a disruption caused by the impact of a cyber security incident of the regional electric transmission grid, natural gas pipeline infrastructure or other fuel sources of our third party service providers’ operations, could also negatively impact our business. In addition, such an event would likely receive regulatory scrutiny at both the federal and state level. We are unable to quantify the potential impact of cyber security threats or subsequent related actions. These potential cyber security incidents and corresponding regulatory action could result in a material decrease in revenues and may cause significant additional costs (e.g., penalties, third party claims, repairs, insurance or compliance) and potentially disrupt our supply and markets for natural gas, oil and other fuels.
We maintain security measures designed to protect our information technology systems, network infrastructure and other assets. However, these assets and the information they process may be vulnerable to cyber security incidents, including the resulting disability, or failures of assets or unauthorized access to assets or information. If our technology systems were to fail or be breached, or those of our third-party service providers, we may be unable to fulfill critical business functions, including effectively maintaining certain internal controls over financial reporting. We are unable to quantify the potential impact of cyber security incidents on our business.
Rising energy prices could negatively impact our business.
Although commodity prices are currently relatively low, if fuel costs increase, customer demand could decline and bad debt expense may rise, which could have a material impact on our results of operations. While we have fuel clause recovery mechanisms, higher fuel costs could significantly impact our results of operations if costs are not recovered. Delays in the timing of the collection of fuel cost recoveries as compared with expenditures for fuel purchases could have an impact on our cash flows. We are unable to predict future prices or the ultimate impact of such prices on our results of operations or cash flows.
Our operating results may fluctuate on a seasonal and quarterly basis and can be adversely affected by milder weather.
Our electric and natural gas utility businesses are seasonal, and weather patterns can have a material impact on our operating performance. Demand for electricity is often greater in the summer and winter months associated with cooling and heating. Because natural gas is heavily used for residential and commercial heating, the demand depends heavily upon weather patterns throughout our service territory and a significant amount of natural gas revenues are recognized in the first and fourth quarters related to the heating season. Accordingly, our operations have historically generated less revenues and income when weather conditions are milder in the winter and cooler in the summer. Unusually mild winters and summers could have an adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.
Item 1B
Item 1B - Unresolved Staff Comments
None.
Item 2
Item 2 - Properties
Virtually all of the utility plant property of NSP-Wisconsin is subject to the lien of its first mortgage bond indenture.
(a)
Refuse-derived fuel is made from municipal solid waste.
Electric utility overhead and underground transmission and distribution lines (measured in conductor miles) at Dec. 31, 2015:
NSP-Wisconsin had 204 electric utility transmission and distribution substations at Dec. 31, 2015.
Natural gas utility mains at Dec. 31, 2015:
Item 3
Item 3 - Legal Proceedings
NSP-Wisconsin 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.
Additional Information
See Note 11 to the consolidated financial statements for further discussion of legal claims and environmental proceedings. See Item 1 and Note 10 to the consolidated financial statements for discussion of proceedings involving utility rates and other regulatory matters.
Item 4
Item 4 - Mine Safety Disclosures
None.
PART II
Item 5
Item 5 - Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
NSP-Wisconsin is a wholly owned subsidiary of Xcel Energy Inc. and there is no market for its common equity securities. NSP-Wisconsin has dividend restrictions imposed by FERC rules and state regulatory commissions:
•
Dividends are subject to the FERC’s jurisdiction under the Federal Power Act, which prohibits the payment of dividends out of capital accounts; payment of dividends is allowed out of retained earnings only.
•
The most restrictive dividend limitation for NSP-Wisconsin is imposed by its state regulatory commission. NSP-Wisconsin cannot pay annual dividends during 2015 in excess of approximately $33.3 million if its calendar year average equity-to-total capitalization ratio is or falls below the state commission authorized level of 52.5 percent, as calculated consistent with PSCW requirements. NSP-Wisconsin’s calendar year average equity-to-total capitalization ratio calculated on this basis was 52.6 percent at Dec. 31, 2015 and $2.4 million in retained earnings was not restricted.
See Note 4 to the consolidated financial statements for further discussion of NSP-Wisconsin’s dividend policy.
The dividends declared during 2015 and 2014 were as follows:
Item 6
Item 6 - Selected Financial Data
This is omitted per conditions set forth in general instructions I (1) (a) and (b) of Form 10-K for wholly owned subsidiaries (reduced disclosure format).
Item 7
Item 7 - Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
Discussion of financial condition and liquidity for NSP-Wisconsin is omitted per conditions set forth in general instructions I (1) (a) and (b) of Form 10-K for wholly owned subsidiaries. It is replaced with management’s narrative analysis of the results of operations set forth in general instructions I (2) (a) of Form 10-K for wholly owned subsidiaries (reduced disclosure format).
Financial Review
The following discussion and analysis by management focuses on those factors that had a material effect on NSP-Wisconsin’s financial condition, results of operations and cash flows during the periods presented, or are expected to have a material impact in the future. It should be read in conjunction with the accompanying consolidated financial statements and related notes to the consolidated financial statements.
Forward-Looking Statements
Except for the historical statements contained in this report, the matters discussed herein are forward-looking statements that are subject to certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions. Such forward-looking statements are intended to be identified in this document by the words “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “objective,” “outlook,” “plan,” “project,” “possible,” “potential,” “should” and similar expressions. Actual results may vary materially. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made, and we expressly disclaim any obligation to update any forward-looking information. The following factors, in addition to those discussed elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2015 (including the items described under Factors Affecting Results of Operations; and the other risk factors listed from time to time by NSP-Wisconsin in reports filed with the SEC, including “Risk Factors” in Item 1A of this Annual Report on Form 10-K and Exhibit 99.01 hereto), could cause actual results to differ materially from management expectations as suggested by such forward-looking information: : general economic conditions, including inflation rates, monetary fluctuations and their impact on capital expenditures and the ability of NSP-Wisconsin and its subsidiaries to obtain financing on favorable terms; business conditions in the energy industry, including the risk of a slow down in the U.S. economy or delay in growth recovery; trade, fiscal, taxation and environmental policies in areas where NSP-Wisconsin has a financial interest; customer business conditions; actions of credit rating agencies; competitive factors, including the extent and timing of the entry of additional competition in the markets served by NSP-Wisconsin and its subsidiaries; unusual weather; effects of geopolitical events, including war and acts of terrorism; cyber security threats and data security breaches; state, federal and foreign legislative and regulatory initiatives that affect cost and investment recovery, have an impact on rates or have an impact on asset operation or ownership or impose environmental compliance conditions; structures that affect the speed and degree to which competition enters the electric and natural gas markets; costs and other effects of legal and administrative proceedings, settlements, investigations and claims; financial or regulatory accounting policies imposed by regulatory bodies; outcomes of regulatory proceedings; availability or cost of capital; and employee work force factors.
Results of Operations
NSP-Wisconsin’s net income was $74.6 million for 2015 compared with $70.6 million for 2014. Higher electric revenues, primarily due to an electric rate increase and lower O&M expenses were partially offset by higher depreciation, lower natural gas margins, and the impact of the Monticello LCM/EPU project loss. See Note 10 to the consolidated financial statements for further discussion of the Monticello LCM/EPU project loss.
Electric Revenues and Margin
Electric production expenses tend to vary with the quantity of electricity sold and changes in the unit costs of fuel and purchased power. The electric fuel and purchased power cost recovery mechanism of the Wisconsin jurisdiction may not allow for complete recovery of all expenses and, therefore, changes in fuel or purchased power costs can impact earnings. The following table details the electric revenues and margin:
The following tables summarize the components of the changes in electric revenues and electric margin for the year ended Dec. 31:
Electric Revenues
Electric Margin
Natural Gas Revenues and Margin
Total natural gas expense tends to vary with changing sales requirements and the cost of natural gas purchases. However, due to the design of purchased natural gas cost recovery mechanisms to recover current expenses for sales to retail customers, fluctuations in the cost of natural gas have little effect on natural gas margin. The following table details natural gas revenues and margin:
The following tables summarize the components of the changes in natural gas revenues and natural gas margin for the year ended Dec. 31:
Natural Gas Revenues
Natural Gas Margin
Non-Fuel Operating Expenses and Other Items
O&M Expenses - O&M expenses decreased $11.8 million, or 6.2 percent, for 2015 compared with 2014. The decrease was primarily due to Interchange Agreement billings with NSP-Minnesota related to timing of transmission projects.
Depreciation and Amortization - Depreciation and amortization increased $11.6 million, or 14.6 percent, for 2015 compared with 2014. The increase was primarily attributable capital investments.
Interest Charges - Interest charges increased $3.5 million, or 11.8 percent, for 2015 compared with 2014. The increase was primarily due to higher long-term debt levels.
Income Taxes - Income tax expense increased $1.8 million for 2015 compared with 2014. The increase in income tax expense was primarily due to higher pretax earnings in 2015. The ETR was 37.2 percent for 2015, compared with 37.5 percent for 2014.
Item 7A
Item 7A - Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
Derivatives, Risk Management and Market Risk
NSP-Wisconsin is exposed to a variety of market risks in the normal course of business. Market risk is the potential loss that may occur as a result of adverse changes in the market or fair value of a particular instrument or commodity. All financial and commodity-related instruments, including derivatives, are subject to market risk. See Note 9 to the consolidated financial statements for further discussion of market risks associated with derivatives.
NSP-Wisconsin is exposed to the impact of adverse changes in price for energy and energy-related products, which is partially mitigated by the use of commodity derivatives. In addition to ongoing monitoring and maintaining credit policies intended to minimize overall credit risk, when necessary, management takes steps to mitigate changes in credit and concentration risks associated with its derivatives and other contracts, including parental guarantees and requests of collateral. While NSP-Wisconsin expects that the counterparties will perform under the contracts underlying its derivatives, the contracts expose NSP-Wisconsin to some credit and nonperformance risk.
Though no material non-performance risk currently exists with the counterparties to NSP-Wisconsin’s commodity derivative contracts, distress in the financial markets may in the future impact that risk to the extent it impacts those counterparties. Distress in the financial markets may also impact the fair value of the securities in the master pension trust, as well as NSP-Wisconsin’s ability to earn a return on short-term investments of excess cash.
Commodity Price Risk - NSP-Wisconsin is exposed to commodity price risk in its electric and natural gas operations. Commodity price risk is managed by entering into short- and long-term physical purchase and sales contracts for natural gas used in distribution activities. Commodity price risk is also managed through the use of financial derivative instruments. NSP-Wisconsin’s risk management policy allows it to manage commodity price risk within each rate-regulated operation to the extent such exposure exists.
Interest Rate Risk - NSP-Wisconsin is subject to the risk of fluctuating interest rates in the normal course of business. NSP-Wisconsin’s risk management policy allows interest rate risk to be managed through the use of fixed rate debt, floating rate debt and interest rate derivatives such as swaps, caps, collars and put or call options.
At Dec. 31, 2015 and 2014, a 100 basis point change in the benchmark rate on NSP-Wisconsin’s variable rate debt would impact annual pretax interest expense by approximately $0.1 million and $0.8 million, respectively. See Note 9 to the consolidated financial statements for a discussion of NSP-Wisconsin’s interest rate derivatives.
Credit Risk - NSP-Wisconsin is also exposed to credit risk. Credit risk relates to the risk of loss resulting from counterparties’ nonperformance on their contractual obligations. NSP-Wisconsin maintains credit policies intended to minimize overall credit risk and actively monitors these policies to reflect changes and scope of operations.
At Dec. 31, 2015 and 2014, a 10 percent increase or decrease in commodity prices would have an immaterial impact on credit exposure.
NSP-Wisconsin conducts standard credit reviews for all counterparties. NSP-Wisconsin employs additional credit risk control mechanisms when appropriate, such as letters of credit, parental guarantees, standardized master netting agreements and termination provisions that allow for offsetting of positive and negative exposures. Credit exposure is monitored and, when necessary, the activity with a specific counterparty is limited until credit enhancement is provided. Distress in the financial markets could increase NSP-Wisconsin credit risk.
Item 8
Item 8 - Financial Statements and Supplementary Data
See Item 15 - 1 in Part IV for an index of financial statements included herein.
See Note 16 to the consolidated financial statements for summarized quarterly financial data.
Management Report on Internal Controls Over Financial Reporting
The management of NSP-Wisconsin is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting. NSP-Wisconsin’s internal control system was designed to provide reasonable assurance to Xcel Energy Inc.’s and NSP-Wisconsin’s management and board of directors regarding the preparation and fair presentation of published financial statements.
All internal control systems, no matter how well designed, have inherent limitations. Therefore, even those systems determined to be effective can provide only reasonable assurance with respect to financial statement preparation and presentation.
NSP-Wisconsin management assessed the effectiveness of NSP-Wisconsin’s internal control over financial reporting as of Dec. 31, 2015. In making this assessment, it used the criteria set forth by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) in Internal Control - Integrated Framework (2013). Based on our assessment, we believe that, as of Dec. 31, 2015, NSP-Wisconsin’s internal control over financial reporting is effective at the reasonable assurance level based on those criteria.
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Board of Directors and Stockholder of
Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin corporation
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets and statements of capitalization of Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin corporation, and subsidiaries (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, and the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, cash flows, and common stockholder’s equity for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2015. Our audits also included the financial statement schedule listed in the Index at Item 15. These financial statements and financial statement schedule are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the financial statements and financial statement schedule based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, such consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin corporation, and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2015, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Also, in our opinion, such financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.
NSP-WISCONSIN AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME
(amounts in thousands)
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
NSP-WISCONSIN AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
(amounts in thousands)
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
NSP-WISCONSIN AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(amounts in thousands)
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
NSP-WISCONSIN AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(amounts in thousands, except share and per share data)
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
NSP-WISCONSIN AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMMON STOCKHOLDER’S EQUITY
(amounts in thousands, except share data)
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
NSP-WISCONSIN AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CAPITALIZATION
(amounts in thousands, except share and per share data)
(a)
Resource recovery financing
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
1.
Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
Business and System of Accounts - NSP-Wisconsin is engaged in the regulated generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electricity and in the regulated purchase, transportation, distribution and sale of natural gas. NSP-Wisconsin’s consolidated financial statements and disclosures are presented in accordance with GAAP. All of NSP-Wisconsin’s underlying accounting records also conform to the FERC uniform system of accounts or to systems required by various state regulatory commissions, which are the same in all material respects.
Principles of Consolidation - NSP-Wisconsin’s consolidated financial statements include its wholly-owned subsidiaries and variable interest entities for which it is the primary beneficiary. In the consolidation process, all intercompany transactions and balances are eliminated. NSP-Wisconsin has investments in certain transmission facilities jointly owned with nonaffiliated utilities. NSP-Wisconsin's proportionate share of jointly owned facilities is recorded as property, plant and equipment on the consolidated balance sheets and NSP-Wisconsin's proportionate share of the operating costs associated with these facilities is included in its consolidated statements of income. See Note 5 for further discussion of jointly owned transmission facilities and related ownership percentages.
NSP-Wisconsin evaluates its arrangements and contracts with other entities to determine if the other party is a variable interest entity, if NSP-Wisconsin has a variable interest and if NSP-Wisconsin is the primary beneficiary. NSP-Wisconsin follows accounting guidance for variable interest entities which requires consideration of the activities that most significantly impact an entity’s financial performance and power to direct those activities, when determining whether NSP-Wisconsin is a variable interest entity’s primary beneficiary. See Note 11 for further discussion of variable interest entities.
Use of Estimates - In recording transactions and balances resulting from business operations, NSP-Wisconsin uses estimates based on the best information available. Estimates are used for such items as plant depreciable lives or potential disallowances, AROs, certain regulatory assets and liabilities, tax provisions, uncollectible amounts, environmental costs, unbilled revenues, jurisdictional fuel and energy cost allocations and actuarially determined benefit costs. The recorded estimates are revised when better information becomes available or when actual amounts can be determined. Those revisions can affect operating results.
Regulatory Accounting - NSP-Wisconsin accounts for certain income and expense items in accordance with accounting guidance for regulated operations. Under this guidance:
•
Certain costs, which would otherwise be charged to expense or OCI, are deferred as regulatory assets based on the expected ability to recover the costs in future rates; and
•
Certain credits, which would otherwise be reflected as income or OCI, are deferred as regulatory liabilities based on the expectation the amounts will be returned to customers in future rates, or because the amounts were collected in rates prior to the costs being incurred.
Estimates of recovering deferred costs and returning deferred credits are based on specific ratemaking decisions or precedent for each item. Regulatory assets and liabilities are amortized consistent with the treatment in the rate setting process.
If restructuring or other changes in the regulatory environment occur, NSP-Wisconsin may no longer be eligible to apply this accounting treatment, and may be required to eliminate regulatory assets and liabilities from its balance sheets. Such changes could have a material effect on NSP-Wisconsin’s financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. See Note 12 for further discussion of regulatory assets and liabilities.
Revenue Recognition - Revenues related to the sale of energy are generally recorded when service is rendered or energy is delivered to customers. However, the determination of the energy sales to individual customers is based on the reading of their meter, which occurs on a systematic basis throughout the month. At the end of each month, amounts of energy delivered to customers since the date of the last meter reading are estimated and the corresponding unbilled revenue is recognized. NSP-Wisconsin presents its revenues net of any excise or other fiduciary-type taxes or fees.
NSP-Wisconsin has various rate-adjustment mechanisms in place that provide for the recovery of purchased natural gas, electric fuel and purchased energy costs. These cost-adjustment tariffs may increase or decrease the level of revenue collected from customers and are revised periodically, for differences between the total amount collected under the clauses and the costs incurred. When applicable, under governing regulatory commission rate orders, fuel cost over-recoveries (the excess of fuel revenue billed to customers over fuel costs incurred) are deferred as regulatory liabilities and under-recoveries (the excess of fuel costs incurred over fuel revenues billed to customers) are deferred as regulatory assets. Under Wisconsin rules, NSP-Wisconsin must submit a forward looking fuel cost plan annually for approval by the PSCW. The rules also allow for deferral of any under-collection or over-collection of fuel costs in excess of a two percent annual tolerance band, for future rate recovery or refund, subject to PSCW approval.
Conservation Programs - NSP-Wisconsin participates in and funds conservation programs in its retail jurisdictions to assist customers in conserving energy and reducing peak demand on the electric and natural gas systems. NSP-Wisconsin recovers approved conservation program costs in base rate revenue.
For operations in the state of Wisconsin, NSP-Wisconsin is required to contribute 1.2 percent of its three-year average annual operating revenues to the statewide energy efficiency and renewable resource program Focus on Energy. Funding is collected through base rates, and there is no financial incentive provided to the utility. The PSCW has full oversight of Focus on Energy including auditing and verification of programs. The program portfolio is outsourced to a third-party administrator who subcontracts as necessary to implement programs.
Property, Plant and Equipment and Depreciation - Property, plant and equipment is stated at original cost. The cost of plant includes direct labor and materials, contracted work, overhead costs and AFUDC. The cost of plant retired is charged to accumulated depreciation and amortization. Amounts recovered in rates for future removal costs are recorded as regulatory liabilities. Significant additions or improvements extending asset lives are capitalized, while repairs and maintenance costs are charged to expense as incurred. Maintenance and replacement of items determined to be less than a unit of property are charged to operating expenses as incurred. Planned major maintenance activities are charged to operating expense unless the cost represents the acquisition of an additional unit of property or the replacement of an existing unit of property. Property, plant and equipment also includes costs associated with property held for future use. The depreciable lives of certain plant assets are reviewed annually and revised, if appropriate. Property, plant and equipment that is required to be decommissioned early by a regulator is reclassified as plant to be retired.
Property, plant and equipment is tested for impairment when it is determined that the carrying value of the assets may not be recoverable. A loss is recognized in the current period if it becomes probable that part of a cost of a plant under construction or recently completed plant will be disallowed for recovery from customers and a reasonable estimate of the disallowance can be made. For investments in property, plant and equipment that are abandoned and not expected to go into service, incurred costs and related deferred tax amounts are compared to the discounted estimated future rate recovery, and a loss is recognized, if necessary.
NSP-Wisconsin records depreciation expense related to its plant using the straight-line method over the plant’s useful life. Actuarial life studies are performed and submitted to the state and federal commissions for review. Upon acceptance by the various commissions, the resulting lives and net salvage rates are used to calculate depreciation. Depreciation expense, expressed as a percentage of average depreciable property, was approximately 3.4, 3.3 and 3.5 percent for the years ended Dec. 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively.
Leases - NSP-Wisconsin evaluates a variety of contracts for lease classification at inception, including rental arrangements for office space, vehicles and equipment. Contracts determined to contain a lease because of per unit pricing that is other than fixed or market price, terms regarding the use of a particular asset, and other factors are evaluated further to determine if the arrangement is a capital lease. See Note 11 for further discussion of leases.
AFUDC - AFUDC represents the cost of capital used to finance utility construction activity. AFUDC is computed by applying a composite financing rate to qualified CWIP. The amount of AFUDC capitalized as a utility construction cost is credited to other nonoperating income (for equity capital) and interest charges (for debt capital). AFUDC amounts capitalized are included in NSP-Wisconsin’s rate base for establishing utility service rates.
Generally, AFUDC costs are recovered from customers as the related property is depreciated. However, in some cases, the PSCW has allowed an AFUDC calculation greater than the FERC-defined AFUDC rate, resulting in higher recognition of AFUDC. In some cases for certain transmission projects, the FERC has approved a more current recovery of the cost of capital associated with large capital projects, resulting in a lower recognition of AFUDC.
AROs - NSP-Wisconsin accounts for AROs under accounting guidance that requires a liability for the fair value of an ARO to be recognized in the period in which it is incurred if it can be reasonably estimated, with the offsetting associated asset retirement costs capitalized as a long-lived asset. The liability is generally increased over time by applying the effective interest method of accretion, and the capitalized costs are depreciated over the useful life of the long-lived asset. Changes resulting from revisions to the timing or amount of expected asset retirement cash flows are recognized as an increase or a decrease in the ARO. NSP-Wisconsin also recovers through rates certain future plant removal costs in addition to AROs. The accumulated removal costs for these obligations are reflected in the balance sheets as a regulatory liability. See Note 11 for further discussion of AROs.
Income Taxes - NSP-Wisconsin accounts for income taxes using the asset and liability method, which requires the recognition of deferred tax assets and liabilities for the expected future tax consequences of events that have been included in the financial statements. NSP-Wisconsin defers income taxes for all temporary differences between pretax financial and taxable income, and between the book and tax bases of assets and liabilities. NSP-Wisconsin uses the tax rates that are scheduled to be in effect when the temporary differences are expected to reverse. The effect of a change in tax rates on deferred tax assets and liabilities is recognized in income in the period that includes the enactment date.
Deferred tax assets are reduced by a valuation allowance if it is more likely than not that some portion or all of the deferred tax asset will not be realized. In making such a determination, all available evidence is considered, including scheduled reversals of deferred tax liabilities, projected future taxable income, tax planning strategies and recent financial operations.
Due to the effects of past regulatory practices, when deferred taxes were not required to be recorded due to the use of flow through accounting for ratemaking purposes, the reversal of some temporary differences are accounted for as current income tax expense. Tax credits are recorded when earned unless there is a requirement to defer the benefit and amortize it over the book depreciable lives of the related property. The requirement to defer and amortize only applies to federal ITCs. Utility rate regulation also has resulted in the recognition of certain regulatory assets and liabilities related to income taxes, which are summarized in Note 12.
NSP-Wisconsin follows the applicable accounting guidance to measure and disclose uncertain tax positions that it has taken or expects to take in its income tax returns. NSP-Wisconsin recognizes a tax position in its consolidated financial statements when it is more likely than not that the position will be sustained upon examination based on the technical merits of the position. Recognition of changes in uncertain tax positions are reflected as a component of income tax.
NSP-Wisconsin reports interest and penalties related to income taxes within the other income and interest charges sections in the consolidated statements of income.
Xcel Energy Inc. and its subsidiaries, including NSP-Wisconsin, file consolidated federal income tax returns as well as combined or separate state income tax returns. Federal income taxes paid by Xcel Energy Inc. are allocated to Xcel Energy Inc.’s subsidiaries based on separate company computations of tax. A similar allocation is made for state income taxes paid by Xcel Energy Inc. in connection with combined state filings. Xcel Energy Inc. also allocates its own income tax benefits to its direct subsidiaries which are recorded directly in equity by the subsidiaries based on the relative positive tax liabilities of the subsidiaries.
See Note 6 for further discussion of income taxes.
Types of and Accounting for Derivative Instruments - NSP-Wisconsin uses derivative instruments in connection with its utility commodity price and interest rate activities, including forward contracts, futures, swaps and options. All derivative instruments not designated and qualifying for the normal purchases and normal sales exception, as defined by the accounting guidance for derivatives and hedging, are recorded on the consolidated balance sheets at fair value as derivative instruments. This includes certain instruments used to mitigate market risk for the utility operations. The classification of changes in fair value for those derivative instruments is dependent on the designation of a qualifying hedging relationship. Changes in fair value of derivative instruments not designated in a qualifying hedging relationship are reflected in current earnings or as a regulatory asset or liability. The classification as a regulatory asset or liability is based on commission approved regulatory recovery mechanisms.
Interest rate hedging transactions are recorded as a component of interest expense. NSP-Wisconsin is allowed to recover in electric or natural gas rates the costs of certain financial instruments purchased to reduce commodity cost volatility. For further information on derivatives entered to mitigate commodity price risk on behalf of electric and natural gas customers, see Note 9.
Cash Flow Hedges - Certain qualifying hedging relationships are designated as a hedge of a forecasted transaction or future cash flow (cash flow hedge). Changes in the fair value of a derivative designated as a cash flow hedge, to the extent effective, are included in OCI, or deferred as a regulatory asset or liability based on recovery mechanisms until earnings are affected by the hedged transaction.
Normal Purchases and Normal Sales - NSP-Wisconsin enters into contracts for the purchase and sale of commodities for use in its business operations. Derivatives and hedging accounting guidance requires a company to evaluate these contracts to determine whether the contracts are derivatives. Certain contracts that meet the definition of a derivative may be exempted from derivative accounting if designated as normal purchases or normal sales.
NSP-Wisconsin evaluates all of its contracts at inception to determine if they are derivatives and if they meet the normal purchases and normal sales designation requirements. See Note 9 for further discussion of NSP-Wisconsin’s risk management and derivative activities.
Fair Value Measurements - NSP-Wisconsin presents cash equivalents, interest rate derivatives and commodity derivatives at estimated fair values in its consolidated financial statements. Cash equivalents are recorded at cost plus accrued interest; money market funds are measured using quoted net asset values. For interest rate derivatives, quoted prices based primarily on observable market interest rate curves are used as a primary input to establish fair value. For commodity derivatives, the most observable inputs available are generally used to determine the fair value of each contract. In the absence of a quoted price for an identical contract in an active market, NSP-Wisconsin may use quoted prices for similar contracts, or internally prepared valuation models to determine fair value. See Note 9 for further discussion.
Cash and Cash Equivalents - NSP-Wisconsin considers investments in certain instruments, including commercial paper and money market funds, with a remaining maturity of three months or less at the time of purchase, to be cash equivalents.
Accounts Receivable and Allowance for Bad Debts - Accounts receivable are stated at the actual billed amount net of an allowance for bad debts. NSP-Wisconsin establishes an allowance for uncollectible receivables based on a policy that reflects its expected exposure to the credit risk of customers.
Inventory - All inventory is recorded at average cost.
RECs - RECs are marketable environmental instruments that represent proof that energy was generated from eligible renewable energy sources. RECs are awarded upon delivery of the associated energy and can be bought and sold. RECs are typically used as a form of measurement of compliance to RPS enacted by those states that are encouraging construction and consumption from renewable energy sources, but can also be sold separately from the energy produced. NSP-Wisconsin acquires RECs from the generation or purchase of renewable power.
When RECs are purchased or acquired in the course of generation they are recorded as inventory at cost. The cost of RECs that are utilized for compliance purposes is recorded as electric fuel and purchased power expense.
Sales of RECs that are purchased or acquired in the course of generation are recorded in electric utility operating revenues on a gross basis. The cost of these RECs and related transaction costs are recorded in electric fuel and purchased power expense.
Emission Allowances - Emission allowances, including the annual SO2 and NOx emission allowance entitlement received from the EPA, are recorded at cost plus associated broker commission fees. NSP-Wisconsin follows the inventory accounting model for all emission allowances. Sales of emission allowances are included in electric utility operating revenues and the operating activities section of the consolidated statements of cash flows.
Environmental Costs - Environmental costs are recorded when it is probable NSP-Wisconsin is liable for remediation costs and the liability can be reasonably estimated. Costs are deferred as a regulatory asset if it is probable that the costs will be recovered from customers in future rates. Otherwise, the costs are expensed. If an environmental expense is related to facilities currently in use, such as emission-control equipment, the cost is capitalized and depreciated over the life of the plant.
Estimated remediation costs, excluding inflationary increases, are recorded based on experience, an assessment of the current situation and the technology currently available for use in the remediation. The recorded costs are regularly adjusted as estimates are revised and remediation proceeds. If other participating PRPs exist and acknowledge their potential involvement with a site, costs are estimated and recorded only for NSP-Wisconsin’s expected share of the cost. Any future costs of restoring sites where operation may be extended are treated as a capitalized cost of plant retirement. The depreciation expense levels recoverable in rates include a provision for removal expenses, which may include final remediation costs. Removal costs recovered in rates before the related costs are incurred are classified as a regulatory liability.
See Note 11 for further discussion of environmental costs.
Benefit Plans and Other Postretirement Benefits - NSP-Wisconsin maintains pension and postretirement benefit plans for eligible employees. Recognizing the cost of providing benefits and measuring the projected benefit obligation of these plans under applicable accounting guidance requires management to make various assumptions and estimates.
Based on regulatory recovery mechanisms, certain unrecognized actuarial gains and losses and unrecognized prior service costs or credits are recorded as regulatory assets and liabilities, rather than OCI.
See Note 7 for further discussion of benefit plans and other postretirement benefits.
Guarantees - NSP-Wisconsin recognizes, upon issuance or modification of a guarantee, a liability for the fair market value of the obligation that has been assumed in issuing the guarantee. This liability includes consideration of specific triggering events and other conditions which may modify the ongoing obligation to perform under the guarantee.
The obligation recognized is reduced over the term of the guarantee as NSP-Wisconsin is released from risk under the guarantee. See Note 11 for specific details of issued guarantees.
Subsequent Events - Management has evaluated the impact of events occurring after Dec. 31, 2015 up to the date of issuance of these consolidated financial statements. These statements contain all necessary adjustments and disclosures resulting from that evaluation.
2.
Accounting Pronouncements
Recently Issued
Revenue Recognition - In May 2014, the FASB issued Revenue from Contracts with Customers, Topic 606 (ASU No. 2014-09), which provides a framework for the recognition of revenue, with the objective that recognized revenues properly reflect amounts an entity is entitled to receive in exchange for goods and services. The new guidance also includes additional disclosure requirements regarding revenue, cash flows and obligations related to contracts with customers. As a result of the FASB’s July 2015 deferral of the standard’s required implementation date, the guidance is effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after Dec. 15, 2017. NSP-Wisconsin is currently evaluating the impact of adopting ASU 2014-09 on its consolidated financial statements.
Consolidation - In February 2015, the FASB issued Amendments to the Consolidation Analysis, Topic 810 (ASU No. 2015-02), which reduces the number of consolidation models and amends certain consolidation principles related to variable interest entities. This guidance will be effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after Dec. 15, 2015, and early adoption is permitted. NSP-Wisconsin does not expect the implementation of ASU 2015-02 to have a material impact on its consolidated financial statements.
Presentation of Debt Issuance Costs - In April 2015, the FASB issued Simplifying the Presentation of Debt Issuance Costs, Subtopic 835-30 (ASU No. 2015-03), which amends existing guidance to require the presentation of debt issuance costs on the balance sheet as a deduction from the carrying amount of the related debt, instead of an asset. This guidance will be effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after Dec. 15, 2015, and early adoption is permitted. Other than the prescribed reclassification of assets to an offset of debt on the consolidated balance sheets, NSP-Wisconsin does not expect the implementation of ASU 2015-03 to have a material impact on its consolidated financial statements.
Fair Value Measurement - In May 2015, the FASB issued Disclosures for Investments in Certain Entities that Calculate Net Asset Value per Share (or Its Equivalent), Topic 820 (ASU No. 2015-07), which removes the requirement to categorize fair value measurements using a net asset value methodology in the fair value hierarchy. This guidance will be effective on a retrospective basis, effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after Dec. 15, 2015, and early adoption is permitted. Other than the reduced disclosure requirements, NSP-Wisconsin does not expect the implementation of ASU 2015-07 to have a material impact on its consolidated financial statements.
Presentation of Deferred Taxes - In November 2015, the FASB issued Balance Sheet Classification of Deferred Taxes, Topic 740 (ASU No 2015-17), which removes the requirement to present deferred tax assets and liabilities as current and noncurrent on the balance sheet based on the classification of the related asset or liability, and instead requires classification of all deferred tax assets and liabilities as noncurrent. This guidance will be effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after Dec. 15, 2016, and early adoption is permitted. Other than the prescribed classification of all deferred tax assets and liabilities as noncurrent, NSP-Wisconsin does not expect the implementation of ASU 2015-17 to have a material impact on its consolidated financial statements.
Classification and Measurement of Financial Instruments - In January 2016, the FASB issued Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities, Subtopic 825-10 (ASU No. 2016-01), which among other changes in accounting and disclosure requirements, replaces the cost method of accounting for non-marketable equity securities with a model for recognizing impairments and observable price changes, and also eliminates the available-for-sale classification for marketable equity securities. Under the new guidance, other than when the consolidation or equity method of accounting is utilized, changes in the fair value of equity securities are to be recognized in earnings. This guidance will be effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after Dec. 15, 2017. NSP-Wisconsin is currently evaluating the impact of adopting ASU 2016-01 on its consolidated financial statements.
3.
Selected Balance Sheet Data
(a)
Accounts receivable, net includes an immaterial amount due from affiliates for 2015 and 2014, respectively.
4.
Borrowings and Other Financing Instruments
Commercial Paper - NSP-Wisconsin meets its short-term liquidity requirements primarily through the issuance of commercial paper and borrowings under its credit facility. Commercial paper outstanding for NSP-Wisconsin was as follows:
Letters of Credit - NSP-Wisconsin may use letters of credit, generally with terms of one-year, to provide financial guarantees for certain operating obligations. At Dec. 31, 2015 and 2014, there were no letters of credit outstanding.
Credit Facility - In order to use its commercial paper program to fulfill short-term funding needs, NSP-Wisconsin must have a revolving credit facility in place at least equal to the amount of its commercial paper borrowing limit and cannot issue commercial paper in an aggregate amount exceeding available capacity under this credit facility. The line of credit provides short-term financing in the form of notes payable to banks, letters of credit and back-up support for commercial paper borrowings.
Credit Agreement - NSP-Wisconsin has a five-year credit agreement with a syndicate of banks. The total size of the credit facility is $150 million and the credit facility terminates in October 2019.
NSP-Wisconsin has the right to request an extension of the termination date for an additional one-year period. All extension requests are subject to majority bank group approval.
Other features of NSP-Wisconsin’s credit facility include:
•
The credit facility has a financial covenant requiring that the debt-to-total capitalization ratio be less than or equal to 65 percent. NSP-Wisconsin was in compliance as its debt-to-total capitalization ratio was 46 percent and 48 percent at Dec. 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. If NSP-Wisconsin does not comply with the covenant, an event of default may be declared, and if not remedied, any outstanding amounts due under the facility can be declared due by the lender.
•
The credit facility has a cross-default provision that provides NSP-Wisconsin will be in default on its borrowings under the facility if NSP-Wisconsin or any of its subsidiaries whose total assets exceed 15 percent of NSP-Wisconsin’s consolidated total assets, default on certain indebtedness in an aggregate principal amount exceeding $75 million.
•
NSP-Wisconsin was in compliance with all financial covenants on its debt agreements as of Dec. 31, 2015 and 2014.
•
The interest rates under the line of credit are based on Eurodollar borrowing margins ranging from 87.5 to 175 basis points per year based on the applicable long-term credit ratings.
•
The commitment fees, also based on applicable long-term credit ratings, are calculated on the unused portion of the lines of credit at a range of 7.5 to 27.5 basis points per year.
At Dec. 31, 2015, NSP-Wisconsin had the following committed credit facility available (in millions):
(a)
This credit facility matures in October 2019.
(b)
Includes outstanding commercial paper.
All credit facility bank borrowings, outstanding letters of credit and outstanding commercial paper reduce the available capacity under the credit facility. NSP-Wisconsin had no direct advances on the credit facility outstanding at Dec. 31, 2015 and 2014.
Other Short-Term Borrowings - The following table presents the notes payable of Clearwater Investments, Inc., a NSP-Wisconsin subsidiary, to Xcel Energy Inc.:
Long-Term Borrowings and Other Financing Instruments
Generally, all real and personal property of NSP-Wisconsin is subject to the liens of its first mortgage indentures. Debt premiums, discounts and expenses are amortized over the life of the related debt. The premiums, discounts and expenses associated with refinanced debt are deferred and amortized over the life of the related new issuance, in accordance with regulatory guidelines.
In 2015, NSP-Wisconsin issued $100 million of 3.3 percent first mortgage bonds due June 15, 2024. In 2014, NSP-Wisconsin issued $100 million of 3.30 percent first mortgage bonds due June 15, 2024.
During the next five years, NSP-Wisconsin has long-term debt maturities of $150 million due in 2018.
Deferred Financing Costs - Other assets included deferred financing costs of approximately $5.1 million and $4.3 million, net of amortization, at Dec. 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. NSP-Wisconsin is amortizing these financing costs over the remaining maturity periods of the related debt.
Dividend Restrictions - NSP-Wisconsin’s dividends are subject to the FERC’s jurisdiction, which prohibits the payment of dividends out of capital accounts; payment of dividends is allowed out of retained earnings only.
The most restrictive dividend limitation for NSP-Wisconsin is imposed by its state regulatory commission. NSP-Wisconsin cannot pay annual dividends in excess of approximately $33.3 million if its calendar year average equity-to-total capitalization ratio is or falls below the state commission authorized level of 52.5 percent, as calculated consistent with PSCW requirements. NSP-Wisconsin’s calendar year average equity-to-total capitalization ratio calculated on this basis was 52.6 percent at Dec. 31, 2015 and $2.4 million in retained earnings was not restricted.
5.
Joint Ownership of Transmission Facilities
Following are the investments by NSP-Wisconsin in jointly owned transmission facilities and the related ownership percentages as of Dec. 31, 2015:
NSP-Wisconsin’s share of operating expenses and construction expenditures are included in the applicable utility accounts. Each of the respective owners is responsible for providing its own financing.
6.
Income Taxes
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 - In December 2015, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Act) was signed into law. The Act provides for the following:
•
Immediate expensing, or “bonus depreciation,” of 50 percent for property placed in service in 2015, 2016, and 2017; 40 percent for property placed in service in 2018; and 30 percent for property placed in service in 2019. Additionally, some longer production period property placed in service in 2020 will be eligible for bonus depreciation;
•
PTCs at 100 percent of the credit rate ($0.023 per KWh) for wind energy projects that begin construction by the end of 2016; 80 percent of the credit rate for projects that begin construction in 2017; 60 percent of the credit rate for projects that begin construction in 2018; and 40 percent of the credit rate for projects that begin construction in 2019. The wind energy PTC was not extended for projects that begin construction after 2019;
•
ITCs at 30 percent for commercial solar projects that begin construction by the end of 2019; 26 percent for projects that begin construction in 2020; 22 percent for projects that begin construction in 2021; and 10 percent for projects thereafter;
•
R&E credit was permanently extended; and
•
Delay of two years (until 2020) of the excise tax on certain employer-provided health insurance plans.
The accounting related to the Act was recorded beginning in the fourth quarter of 2015 because a change in tax law is accounted for beginning in the period of enactment.
Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2014 - In 2014, the Tax Increase Prevention Act (TIPA) was signed into law. The TIPA provides for the following:
•
The R&E credit was extended for 2014;
•
PTCs were extended for projects that began construction before the end of 2014 with certain projects qualifying into future years; and
•
50 percent bonus depreciation was extended one year through 2014. Additionally, some longer production period property placed in service in 2015 is also eligible for 50 percent bonus depreciation.
The accounting related to the TIPA was recorded beginning in the fourth quarter of 2014 because a change in tax law is accounted for in the period of enactment.
American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 - In 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act (ATRA) was signed into law. The ATRA provided for the following:
•
The top tax rate for dividends increased from 15 percent to 20 percent. The 20 percent dividend rate is now consistent with the tax rates for capital gains;
•
The R&E credit was extended for 2012 and 2013;
•
PTCs were extended for projects that began construction before the end of 2013 with certain projects qualifying into future years; and
•
50 percent bonus depreciation was extended one year through 2013. Additionally, some longer production period property placed in service in 2014 is also eligible for 50 percent bonus depreciation.
The accounting related to the ATRA, including the provisions related to 2012, was recorded beginning in the first quarter of 2013 because a change in tax law is accounted for in the period of enactment.
Federal Audit - NSP-Wisconsin is a member of the Xcel Energy affiliated group that files a consolidated federal income tax return. In the third quarter of 2012, the IRS commenced an examination of tax years 2010 and 2011, including the 2009 carryback claim. As of Dec. 31, 2015, the IRS had proposed an adjustment to the federal tax loss carryback claims that would result in $14 million of income tax expense for the 2009 through 2011 and 2013 claims, the recently filed 2014 claim, and the anticipated claim for 2015. NSP-Wisconsin is not expected to accrue any income tax expense related to this adjustment. In the fourth quarter of 2015, the IRS forwarded the issue to the Office of Appeals (Appeals); however, the outcome and timing of a resolution is uncertain. The statute of limitations applicable to Xcel Energy's 2009 through 2011 federal income tax returns expires in December 2016 following an extension to allow additional time for the Appeals process. In the third quarter of 2015, the IRS commenced an examination of tax years 2012 and 2013. As of Dec. 31, 2015, the IRS had not proposed any material adjustments to tax years 2012 and 2013.
State Audits - NSP-Wisconsin is a member of the Xcel Energy affiliated group that files consolidated state income tax returns. As of Dec. 31, 2015, NSP-Wisconsin’s earliest open tax year that is subject to examination by state taxing authorities under applicable statutes of limitations is 2011. As of Dec. 31, 2015, there were no state income tax audits in progress.
Unrecognized Tax Benefits - The unrecognized tax benefit balance includes permanent tax positions, which if recognized would affect the annual ETR. In addition, the unrecognized tax benefit balance includes temporary tax positions for which the ultimate deductibility is highly certain but for which there is uncertainty about the timing of such deductibility. A change in the period of deductibility would not affect the ETR but would accelerate the payment of cash to the taxing authority to an earlier period.
A reconciliation of the amount of unrecognized tax benefit is as follows:
A reconciliation of the beginning and ending amount of unrecognized tax benefit is as follows:
The unrecognized tax benefit amounts were reduced by the tax benefits associated with NOL and tax credit carryforwards. The amounts of tax benefits associated with NOL and tax credit carryforwards are as follows:
It is reasonably possible that NSP-Wisconsin’s amount of unrecognized tax benefits could significantly change in the next 12 months as the IRS Appeals and audit progress and state audits resume. As the IRS Appeals and audit progress, it is reasonably possible that the amount of unrecognized tax benefit could decrease up to approximately $2 million.
The payable for interest related to unrecognized tax benefits is partially offset by the interest benefit associated with NOL and tax credit carryforwards. The payables for interest related to unrecognized tax benefits at Dec. 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013 were not material. No amounts were accrued for penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits as of Dec. 31, 2015, 2014 or 2013.
Other Income Tax Matters - NOL amounts represent the amount of the tax loss that is carried forward and tax credits represent the deferred tax asset. NOL and tax credit carryforwards as of Dec. 31 were as follows:
The federal carryforward periods expire between 2021 and 2035. The state carryforward periods expire between 2027 and 2031.
Total income tax expense from operations differs from the amount computed by applying the statutory federal income tax rate to income before income tax expense. The following reconciles such differences for the years ending Dec. 31:
The components of income tax expense for the years ending Dec. 31 were:
The components of deferred income tax expense for the years ending Dec. 31 were:
The components of the net deferred tax liability (current and noncurrent) at Dec. 31 were as follows:
7.
Benefit Plans and Other Postretirement Benefits
Consistent with the process for rate recovery of pension and postretirement benefits for its employees, NSP-Wisconsin accounts for its participation in, and related costs of, pension and other postretirement benefit plans sponsored by Xcel Energy Inc. as multiple employer plans. NSP-Wisconsin is responsible for its share of cash contributions, plan costs and obligations and is entitled to its share of plan assets; accordingly, NSP-Wisconsin accounts for its pro rata share of these plans, including pension expense and contributions, resulting in accounting consistent with that of a single employer plan exclusively for NSP-Wisconsin employees.
Xcel Energy, which includes NSP-Wisconsin, offers various benefit plans to its employees. Approximately 71 percent of employees that receive benefits are represented by several local labor unions under several collective-bargaining agreements. At Dec. 31, 2015, NSP-Wisconsin had 400 bargaining employees covered under a collective-bargaining agreement, which expires at the end of 2016.
The plans invest in various instruments which are disclosed under the accounting guidance for fair value measurements which establishes a hierarchical framework for disclosing the observability of the inputs utilized in measuring fair value. The three levels in the hierarchy and examples of each level are as follows:
Level 1 - Quoted prices are available in active markets for identical assets as of the reporting date. The types of assets included in Level 1 are highly liquid and actively traded instruments with quoted prices.
Level 2 - Pricing inputs are other than quoted prices in active markets, but are either directly or indirectly observable as of the reporting date. The types of assets included in Level 2 are typically either comparable to actively traded securities or contracts, or priced with models using highly observable inputs.
Level 3 - Significant inputs to pricing have little or no observability as of the reporting date. The types of assets included in Level 3 are those with inputs requiring significant management judgment or estimation.
Specific valuation methods include the following:
Cash equivalents - The fair values of cash equivalents are generally based on cost plus accrued interest; money market funds are measured using quoted net asset values.
Insurance contracts - Insurance contract fair values take into consideration the value of the investments in separate accounts of the insurer, which are priced based on observable inputs.
Investments in equity securities and other funds - Equity securities are valued using quoted prices in active markets. Preferred stock is valued using recent trades and quoted prices of similar securities. The fair values for commingled funds, private equity investments and real estate investments are measured using net asset values, which take into consideration the value of underlying fund investments, as well as the other accrued assets and liabilities of a fund, in order to determine a per share market value. The investments in commingled funds may be redeemed for net asset value with proper notice. Proper notice varies by fund and can range from daily with one or two days notice to annually with 90 days notice. Private equity investments require approval of the fund for any unscheduled redemption, and such redemptions may be approved or denied by the fund at its sole discretion. Unscheduled distributions from real estate investments may be redeemed with proper notice, which is typically quarterly with 45-90 days notice; however, withdrawals from real estate investments may be delayed or discounted as a result of fund illiquidity. Based on the plan’s evaluation of its ability to redeem private equity and real estate investments, fair value measurements for private equity and real estate investments have been assigned a Level 3.
Investments in debt securities - Fair values for debt securities are determined by a third party pricing service using recent trades and observable spreads from benchmark interest rates for similar securities.
Derivative Instruments - Fair values for foreign currency derivatives are determined using pricing models based on the prevailing forward exchange rate of the underlying currencies. The fair values of interest rate derivatives are based on broker quotes that utilize current market interest rate forecasts.
Pension Benefits
Xcel Energy, which includes NSP-Wisconsin, has several noncontributory, defined benefit pension plans that cover almost all employees. Generally, benefits are based on a combination of years of service, the employee’s average pay and, in some cases, social security benefits. Xcel Energy Inc.’s and NSP-Wisconsin’s policy is to fully fund into an external trust the actuarially determined pension costs recognized for ratemaking and financial reporting purposes, subject to the limitations of applicable employee benefit and tax laws.
In addition to the qualified pension plans, Xcel Energy maintains a supplemental executive retirement plan (SERP) and a nonqualified pension plan. The SERP is maintained for certain executives that were participants in the plan in 2008, when the SERP was closed to new participants. The nonqualified pension plan provides unfunded, nonqualified benefits for compensation that is in excess of the limits applicable to the qualified pension plans. The total obligations of the SERP and nonqualified plan as of Dec. 31, 2015 and 2014 were $41.8 million and $46.5 million, respectively, of which $0.7 million and $0.8 million, respectively, was attributable to NSP-Wisconsin. In 2015 and 2014, Xcel Energy recognized net benefit cost for financial reporting for the SERP and nonqualified plans of $9.5 million and $4.7 million, respectively, of which amounts attributable to NSP-Wisconsin were immaterial. Benefits for these unfunded plans are paid out of Xcel Energy’s consolidated operating cash flows.
Xcel Energy Inc. and NSP-Wisconsin base the investment-return assumption on expected long-term performance for each of the investment types included in the pension asset portfolio and consider the historical returns achieved by the asset portfolio over the past 20-year or longer period, as well as the long-term return levels projected and recommended by investment experts. Xcel Energy Inc. and NSP-Wisconsin continually review the pension assumptions. The pension cost determination assumes a forecasted mix of investment types over the long term.
•
Investment returns in 2015, 2014 and 2013 were below the assumed level of 7.25 percent for all years; and
•
In 2016, NSP-Wisconsin’s expected investment-return assumption is 7.10 percent.
The assets are invested in a portfolio according to Xcel Energy Inc.’s and NSP-Wisconsin’s return, liquidity and diversification objectives to provide a source of funding for plan obligations and minimize the necessity of contributions to the plan, within appropriate levels of risk. The principal mechanism for achieving these objectives is the projected allocation of assets to selected asset classes, given the long-term risk, return, and liquidity characteristics of each particular asset class. There were no significant concentrations of risk in any particular industry, index, or entity. Market volatility can impact even well-diversified portfolios and significantly affect the return levels achieved by pension assets in any year.
The following table presents the target pension asset allocations for NSP-Wisconsin at Dec. 31 for the upcoming year:
The ongoing investment strategy is based on plan-specific investment recommendations that seek to minimize potential investment and interest rate risk as a plan’s funded status increases over time. The investment recommendations result in a greater percentage of long-duration fixed income securities being allocated to specific plans having relatively higher funded status ratios and a greater percentage of growth assets being allocated to plans having relatively lower funded status ratios. The aggregate projected asset allocation presented in the table above for the master pension trust results from the plan-specific strategies.
Pension Plan Assets
The following tables present, for each of the fair value hierarchy levels, NSP-Wisconsin’s pension plan assets that are measured at fair value as of Dec. 31, 2015 and 2014:
The following tables present the changes in NSP-Wisconsin’s Level 3 pension plan assets for the years ended Dec. 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013:
(a)
Transfers out of Level 3 into Level 2 were principally due to diminished use of unobservable inputs that were previously significant to these fair value measurements and were subsequently sold during 2013.
Benefit Obligations - A comparison of the actuarially computed pension benefit obligation and plan assets for NSP-Wisconsin is presented in the following table:
(a)
Amounts are recognized in noncurrent liabilities on NSP-Wisconsin’s consolidated balance sheets.
Mortality - In 2014, the Society of Actuaries published a new mortality table and projection scale that increased the overall life expectancy of males and females. NSP-Wisconsin has reviewed its own population through a credibility analysis and adopted the RP 2014 table, with modifications, based on its population and specific experience. During 2015, a new projection table was released (MP 2015). NSP-Wisconsin evaluated the updated projection table and concluded that the methodology adopted at Dec. 31, 2014 is consistent with the recently updated table and continues to be representative of its population.
Cash Flows - Cash funding requirements can be impacted by changes to actuarial assumptions, actual asset levels and other calculations prescribed by the funding requirements of income tax and other pension-related regulations. Required contributions were made in 2013 through 2016 to meet minimum funding requirements.
Total voluntary and required pension funding contributions across all four of Xcel Energy’s pension plans were as follows:
•
$125.0 million in January 2016, of which $7.4 million was attributable to NSP-Wisconsin;
•
$90.1 million in 2015, of which $4.9 million was attributable to NSP-Wisconsin;
•
$130.6 million in 2014, of which $8.0 million was attributable to NSP-Wisconsin; and
•
$192.4 million in 2013, of which $11.3 million was attributable to NSP-Wisconsin.
For future years, Xcel Energy and NSP-Wisconsin anticipate contributions will be made as necessary.
Plan Amendments - In 2015 and 2014, there were no plan amendments made which affected the benefit obligation. Xcel Energy, which includes NSP-Wisconsin, amended the plan in 2013 resulting in a decrease of the projected benefit obligation due to fully insuring the long-term disability benefit for NSP bargaining participants. This decrease was partially offset by an increase to the projected benefit obligation resulting from a change in the discount rate basis for lump sum conversion of annuities for participants in the Xcel Energy Pension Plan.
Benefit Costs - The components of NSP-Wisconsin’s net periodic pension cost were:
In addition to the benefit costs in the table above, for the pension plans sponsored by Xcel Energy, Inc., costs are allocated to NSP-Wisconsin based on Xcel Energy Services Inc. employees’ labor costs. Amounts allocated to NSP-Wisconsin were $1.9 million, $1.7 million and $2.2 million in 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. Pension costs include an expected return impact for the current year that may differ from actual investment performance in the plan. The return assumption used for 2015 pension cost calculations is 7.10 percent. The cost calculation uses a market-related valuation of pension assets. Xcel Energy, including NSP-Wisconsin, uses a calculated value method to determine the market-related value of the plan assets. The market-related value begins with the fair market value of assets as of the beginning of the year. The market-related value is determined by adjusting the fair market value of assets to reflect the investment gains and losses (the difference between the actual investment return and the expected investment return on the market-related value) during each of the previous five years at the rate of 20 percent per year. As these differences between actual investment returns and the expected investment returns are incorporated into the market-related value, the differences are recognized over the expected average remaining years of service for active employees.
Defined Contribution Plans
Xcel Energy, which includes NSP-Wisconsin, maintains 401(k) and other defined contribution plans that cover substantially all employees. The expense to these plans for NSP-Wisconsin was approximately $1.4 million in 2015 and 2014, and $1.3 million in 2013.
Postretirement Health Care Benefits
Xcel Energy, which includes NSP-Wisconsin, has a contributory health and welfare benefit plan that provides health care and death benefits to certain Xcel Energy retirees. NSP-Wisconsin discontinued contributing toward health care benefits for nonbargaining employees retiring after 1998 and for bargaining employees who retired after 1999.
Regulatory agencies for nearly all retail utility customers have allowed rate recovery of accrued postretirement benefit costs.
Plan Assets - Certain state agencies that regulate Xcel Energy Inc.’s utility subsidiaries also have issued guidelines related to the funding of postretirement benefit costs. These assets are invested in a manner consistent with the investment strategy for the pension plan.
The following table presents the target postretirement asset allocations for Xcel Energy Inc. and NSP-Wisconsin at Dec. 31 for the upcoming year:
Xcel Energy Inc. and NSP-Wisconsin base investment-return assumptions for the postretirement health care fund assets on expected long-term performance for each of the investment types included in the asset portfolio. Assumptions and target allocations are determined at the master trust level. The investment mix at each of Xcel Energy Inc.’s utility subsidiaries may vary from the investment mix of the total asset portfolio. The assets are invested in a portfolio according to Xcel Energy Inc.’s and NSP-Wisconsin’s return, liquidity and diversification objectives to provide a source of funding for plan obligations and minimize the necessity of contributions to the plan, within appropriate levels of risk. The principal mechanism for achieving these objectives is the projected allocation of assets to selected asset classes, given the long-term risk, return, correlation and liquidity characteristics of each particular asset class. There were no significant concentrations of risk in any particular industry, index, or entity. Market volatility is not considered to be a material factor in postretirement health care costs.
The following tables present, for each of the fair value hierarchy levels, NSP-Wisconsin’s proportionate allocation of the total postretirement benefit plan assets that are measured at fair value as of Dec. 31, 2015 and 2014:
For the year ended Dec. 31, 2015 and 2014 there were no assets transferred in or out of Level 3. The following table presents the changes in NSP-Wisconsin’s Level 3 postretirement benefit plan assets for the year ended 2013:
(a)
Transfers out of Level 3 into Level 2 were principally due to diminished use of unobservable inputs that were previously significant to these fair value measurements and were subsequently sold during 2013.
Benefit Obligations - A comparison of the actuarially computed benefit obligation and plan assets for NSP-Wisconsin is presented in the following table:
Effective Jan. 1, 2016, the initial medical trend rate was decreased from 6.5 percent to 6.0 percent. The ultimate trend assumption remained at 4.5 percent. The period until the ultimate rate is reached is three years. Xcel Energy Inc. and NSP-Wisconsin base the medical trend assumption on the long-term cost inflation expected in the health care market, considering the levels projected and recommended by industry experts, as well as recent actual medical cost increases experienced by the retiree medical plan.
A one-percent change in the assumed health care cost trend rate would have the following effects on NSP-Wisconsin:
Cash Flows - The postretirement health care plans have no funding requirements under income tax and other retirement-related regulations other than fulfilling benefit payment obligations, when claims are presented and approved under the plans. Additional cash funding requirements are prescribed by certain state and federal rate regulatory authorities. Xcel Energy, which includes NSP-Wisconsin, contributed $18.3 million, $17.1 million and $17.6 million during 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively, of which $1.0 million, $1.0 million and $1.5 million were attributable to NSP-Wisconsin. Xcel Energy expects to contribute approximately $12.3 million during 2016, of which $1.4 million is attributable to NSP-Wisconsin.
Plan Amendments - In 2015 and 2014, there were no plan amendments made which affected the benefit obligation.
Benefit Costs - The components of NSP-Wisconsin’s net periodic postretirement benefit costs were:
In addition to the benefit costs in the table above, for the postretirement health care plans sponsored by Xcel Energy, Inc., costs are allocated to NSP-Wisconsin based on Xcel Energy Services Inc. employees’ labor costs.
Projected Benefit Payments
The following table lists NSP-Wisconsin’s projected benefit payments for the pension and postretirement benefit plans:
Multiemployer Plans
NSP-Wisconsin contributes to several union multiemployer pension plans, none of which are individually significant. These plans provide pension benefits to certain union employees, including electrical workers and other construction and facilities workers who may perform services for more than one employer during a given period and do not participate in the NSP-Wisconsin sponsored pension plans. Contributing to these types of plans creates risk that differs from providing benefits under NSP-Wisconsin sponsored plans, in that if another participating employer ceases to contribute to a multiemployer plan, additional unfunded obligations may need to be funded over time by remaining participating employers.
Contributions to multiemployer plans were as follows for the years ended Dec. 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013. There were no significant changes to the nature or magnitude of the participation of NSP-Wisconsin in multiemployer plans for the years presented:
8.
Other Income, Net
Other income, net for the years ended Dec. 31 consisted of the following:
9.
Fair Value of Financial Assets and Liabilities
Fair Value Measurements
The accounting guidance for fair value measurements and disclosures provides a single definition of fair value and requires certain disclosures about assets and liabilities measured at fair value. A hierarchical framework for disclosing the observability of the inputs utilized in measuring assets and liabilities at fair value is established by this guidance. The three levels in the hierarchy are as follows:
Level 1 - Quoted prices are available in active markets for identical assets or liabilities as of the reporting date. The types of assets and liabilities included in Level 1 are highly liquid and actively traded instruments with quoted prices.
Level 2 - Pricing inputs are other than quoted prices in active markets, but are either directly or indirectly observable as of the reporting date. The types of assets and liabilities included in Level 2 are typically either comparable to actively traded securities or contracts, or priced with models using highly observable inputs.
Level 3 - Significant inputs to pricing have little or no observability as of the reporting date. The types of assets and liabilities included in Level 3 are those valued with models requiring significant management judgment or estimation.
Specific valuation methods include the following:
Cash equivalents - The fair values of cash equivalents are generally based on cost plus accrued interest; money market funds are measured using quoted net asset values.
Interest rate derivatives - The fair values of interest rate derivatives are based on broker quotes that utilize current market interest rate forecasts.
Commodity derivatives - The methods used to measure the fair value of commodity derivative forwards and options utilize forward prices and volatilities, as well as pricing adjustments for specific delivery locations, and are generally assigned a Level 2. When contractual settlements extend to periods beyond those readily observable on active exchanges or quoted by brokers, the significance of the use of less observable forecasts of long-term forward prices and volatilities on a valuation is evaluated, and may result in Level 3 classification.
Derivative Instruments Fair Value Measurements
NSP-Wisconsin enters into derivative instruments, including forward contracts, futures, swaps and options, for trading purposes and to manage risk in connection with changes in interest rates and utility commodity prices.
Interest Rate Derivatives - NSP-Wisconsin enters into various instruments that effectively fix the interest payments on certain floating rate debt obligations or effectively fix the yield or price on a specified benchmark interest rate for an anticipated debt issuance for a specific period. These derivative instruments are generally designated as cash flow hedges for accounting purposes.
At Dec. 31, 2015, accumulated other comprehensive losses related to interest rate derivatives included $0.1 million of net losses expected to be reclassified into earnings during the next 12 months as the related hedged interest rate transactions impact earnings, including forecasted amounts for unsettled hedges, as applicable.
Commodity Derivatives - NSP-Wisconsin may enter into derivative instruments to manage variability of future cash flows from changes in commodity prices in its electric and natural gas operations, as well as for trading purposes. This could include the purchase or sale of natural gas to generate electric energy and natural gas for resale.
The following table details the gross notional amounts of commodity options at Dec. 31:
(a)
Amounts are not reflective of net positions in the underlying commodities.
(b)
Notional amounts for options are included on a gross basis, but are weighted for the probability of exercise.
Consideration of Credit Risk and Concentrations - NSP-Wisconsin continuously monitors the creditworthiness of the counterparties to its interest rate derivatives and commodity derivative contracts prior to settlement, and assesses each counterparty’s ability to perform on the transactions set forth in the contracts. Given this assessment, as well as an assessment of the impact of NSP-Wisconsin’s own credit risk when determining the fair value of derivative liabilities, the impact of considering credit risk was immaterial to the fair value of unsettled commodity derivatives presented in the consolidated balance sheets.
NSP-Wisconsin employs additional credit risk control mechanisms when appropriate, such as letters of credit, parental guarantees, standardized master netting agreements and termination provisions that allow for offsetting of positive and negative exposures. Credit exposure is monitored and, when necessary, the activity with a specific counterparty is limited until credit enhancement is provided.
Financial Impact of Qualifying Cash Flow Hedges - The impact of qualifying interest rate cash flow hedges on NSP-Wisconsin’s accumulated other comprehensive loss, included in the consolidated statements of common stockholder’s equity and in the consolidated statements of comprehensive income, is detailed in the following table:
Pre-tax losses related to interest rate derivatives reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive loss into earnings were $0.1 million for each of the years ended Dec. 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013.
During the years ended Dec. 31, 2015 and 2013 changes in the fair value of natural gas commodity derivatives resulted in net losses of $0.7 million and $0.1 million, recognized as regulatory assets and liabilities. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2014, changes in the fair value of natural gas commodity derivatives resulted in net gains of $0.1 million, recognized as regulatory assets and liabilities. The classification as a regulatory asset or liability is based on commission approved regulatory recovery mechanisms.
During the years ended Dec. 31, 2015 and 2013, $1.4 million and $0.7 million of natural gas commodity derivatives settlement losses were recognized and immaterial gains were recognized for the year ended Dec. 31, 2014, and were subject to purchased natural gas cost recovery mechanisms, which result in reclassifications of derivative settlement gains and losses out of income to a regulatory asset or liability, as appropriate.
NSP-Wisconsin had no derivative instruments designated as fair value hedges during the years ended Dec. 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013. Therefore, no gains or losses from fair value hedges or related hedged transactions were recognized for these periods.
Recurring Fair Value Measurements - The following table presents for each of the fair value hierarchy levels, NSP-Wisconsin’s derivative assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis:
(a)
NSP-Wisconsin nets derivative instruments and related collateral in its consolidated balance sheet when supported by a legally enforceable master netting agreement, and all derivative instruments and related collateral amounts were subject to master netting agreements at Dec. 31, 2015 and 2014. The counterparty netting amounts presented exclude settlement receivables and payables and non-derivative amounts that may be subject to the same master netting agreements.
(b)
Included in other current assets balance of $2.4 million and other current liabilities balance of $15.8 million at Dec. 31, 2015 in the consolidated balance sheets.
(c)
Included in other current assets balance of $6.9 million at Dec. 31, 2014 in the consolidated balance sheets.
Fair Value of Long-Term Debt
As of Dec. 31, 2015 and 2014, other financial instruments for which the carrying amount did not equal fair value were as follows:
The fair value of NSP-Wisconsin’s long-term debt is estimated based on recent trades and observable spreads from benchmark interest rates for similar securities. The fair value estimates are based on information available to management as of Dec. 31, 2015 and 2014, and given the observability of the inputs to these estimates, the fair values presented for long-term debt have been assigned a Level 2.
10.
Rate Matters
Recently Concluded Regulatory Proceedings - PSCW
NSP-Wisconsin - Wisconsin 2016 Electric and Gas Rate Case - In May 2015, NSP-Wisconsin filed a request with the PSCW seeking an increase in annual electric rates of $27.4 million, or 3.9 percent, and an increase in natural gas rates of $5.9 million, or 5.0 percent, effective Jan. 1, 2016. The rate filing was based on a 2016 forecast test year, a ROE of 10.2 percent, an equity ratio of 52.5 percent and a forecasted average rate base of approximately $1.2 billion for the electric utility and $111.2 million for the natural gas utility.
In December 2015, the PSCW approved an electric rate increase of approximately $7.6 million, or 1.1 percent, and a natural gas rate increase of $4.2 million, or 3.6 percent, based on a 10.0 percent ROE and an equity ratio of 52.5 percent. New rates went into effect in January 2016. As shown below, NSP-Wisconsin received approximately 65 percent of the non-fuel and purchased power portion of its requested electric rate increase and 71 percent of its requested natural gas rate increase.
The major components of the requested rate increases and the PSCW's approval are summarized as follows:
Recently Concluded Regulatory Proceedings - MPUC
Nuclear Project Prudence Investigation - In 2013, NSP-Minnesota completed the Monticello LCM/EPU project. The multi-year project extended the life of the facility and increased the capacity from 600 to 671 MW. The Monticello LCM/EPU project expenditures were approximately $665 million. Total capitalized costs were approximately $748 million, which includes AFUDC. In 2008, project expenditures were initially estimated at approximately $320 million, excluding AFUDC.
In 2013, the MPUC initiated an investigation to determine whether the final costs for the Monticello LCM/EPU project were prudent.
In March 2015, the MPUC voted to allow for full recovery, including a return, on approximately $415 million of the total plant costs (inclusive of AFUDC), but only allow recovery of the remaining $333 million of costs with no return on this portion of the investment over the remaining life of the plant. Further, the MPUC determined that only 50 percent of the investment was considered used and useful for 2014. As a result of these determinations, Xcel Energy recorded an estimated pre-tax loss of $129 million in the first quarter of 2015, after which the remaining book value of the Monticello project represented the present value of the estimated future cash flows. As NSP-Wisconsin shares in the costs of the Monticello plant through the Interchange Agreement with NSP-Minnesota, the MPUC decision also affects NSP-Wisconsin. NSP-Wisconsin’s portion of the $129 million pre-tax loss, recorded in the first quarter of 2015, was approximately $5 million.
Pending Regulatory Proceedings - FERC
MISO ROE Complaints/ROE Adder - In November 2013, a group of customers filed a complaint at the FERC against MISO TOs, including NSP-Minnesota and NSP-Wisconsin. The complaint argued for a reduction in the ROE in transmission formula rates in the MISO region from 12.38 percent to 9.15 percent, a prohibition on capital structures in excess of 50 percent equity, and the removal of ROE adders (including those for RTO membership and being an independent transmission company), effective Nov. 12, 2013.
Subsequently, the FERC adopted a new ROE methodology, which requires electric utilities to use a two-step discounted cash flow analysis that incorporates both short-term and long-term growth projections to estimate the cost of equity.
The ROE complaint was set for full hearing procedures. The complainants and intervenors filed testimony recommending a ROE between 8.67 percent and 9.54 percent. The FERC staff recommended a ROE of 8.68 percent. The MISO TOs recommended a ROE not less than 10.8 percent. In December 2015, an ALJ initial decision was issued recommending a ROE of 10.32 percent. Briefs on exceptions challenging the ALJ recommendation were filed in January 2016. A FERC order is expected to be issued later in 2016.
Certain MISO TOs separately requested FERC approval of a 50 basis point ROE adder for RTO membership, which was approved effective Jan. 6, 2015, subject to the outcome of the ROE complaint. The total ROE, including the RTO membership adder, may not exceed the top of the discounted cash flow range under the new ROE methodology. Certain intervenors sought rehearing of the FERC order granting the ROE adder and FERC action is pending.
In February 2015, certain intervenors filed a second complaint to reduce the MISO region ROE to 8.67 percent, prior to an adder. FERC set the second complaint for hearings, and established a refund effective date of Feb. 12, 2015. The complainants and intervenors filed direct testimony in September 2015, the MISO TOs filed answering testimony in October 2015 and FERC staff filed testimony in November 2015. In January 2016, all parties updated their ROE analyses. The complainants and intervenors recommended ROEs between 8.72 percent and 9.32 percent while FERC staff recommended a ROE of 8.78 percent. The MISO TOs recommended a ROE of 10.96 percent. Hearings were held before an ALJ in February 2016. An ALJ initial decision is expected in June 2016 with a FERC decision expected in late 2016 or 2017.
NSP-Minnesota recorded a current liability representing the current best estimate of a refund obligation associated with the new ROE, including the RTO membership adder, as of Dec. 31, 2015. The new FERC ROE methodology is estimated to reduce transmission revenue, net of expense, between $8 million and $10 million annually for the NSP System.
11.
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments
Fuel Contracts - NSP-Wisconsin has entered into various long-term commitments for the purchase and delivery of a significant portion of its current coal and natural gas requirements. These contracts expire in various years between 2016 and 2029. In addition, NSP-Wisconsin is required to pay additional amounts depending on actual quantities shipped under these agreements. As NSP-Wisconsin does not have an automatic electric fuel adjustment clause for Wisconsin retail customers, NSP-Wisconsin utilizes deferred accounting treatment for future rate recovery or refund when fuel costs differ from the amount included in rates by more than two percent on an annual basis, as determined by the PSCW after an opportunity for a hearing and an earnings test based on NSP-Wisconsin’s authorized ROE.
The estimated minimum purchases for NSP-Wisconsin under these contracts as of Dec. 31, 2015 are as follows:
(a)
Excludes additional amounts allocated to NSP-Wisconsin through intercompany charges.
Additional expenditures for fuel and natural gas storage and transportation will be required to meet expected future electric generation and natural gas needs.
Leases - NSP-Wisconsin leases a variety of equipment and facilities used in the normal course of business. These leases, primarily for office space, trucks, aircraft, cars and power-operated equipment, are accounted for as operating leases. Total expenses under operating lease obligations were approximately $1.1 million, $1.3 million and $1.4 million for 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively.
Future commitments under operating leases are:
Variable Interest Entities - The accounting guidance for consolidation of variable interest entities requires enterprises to consider the activities that most significantly impact an entity’s financial performance, and power to direct those activities, when determining whether an enterprise is a variable interest entity’s primary beneficiary.
NSP-Wisconsin has entered into limited partnerships for the construction and operation of affordable rental housing developments which qualify for low-income housing tax credits. NSP-Wisconsin has determined the low-income housing limited partnerships to be variable interest entities primarily due to contractual arrangements within each limited partnership that establish sharing of ongoing voting control and profits and losses that does not consistently align with the partners’ proportional equity ownership. These limited partnerships are designed to qualify for low-income housing tax credits, and NSP-Wisconsin generally receives a larger allocation of the tax credits than the general partners at inception of the arrangements. NSP-Wisconsin has determined that it has the power to direct the activities that most significantly impact these entities’ economic performance, and therefore NSP-Wisconsin consolidates these limited partnerships in its consolidated financial statements.
Equity financing for these entities has been provided by NSP-Wisconsin and the general partner of each limited partnership, and NSP-Wisconsin’s risk of loss is limited to its capital contributions, adjusted for any distributions and its share of undistributed profits and losses; no significant additional financial support has been, or is in the future, required to be provided to the limited partnerships by NSP-Wisconsin. Mortgage-backed debt typically comprises the majority of the financing at inception of each limited partnership and is paid over the life of the limited partnership arrangement. Obligations of the limited partnerships are generally secured by the housing properties of each limited partnership, and the creditors of each limited partnership have no significant recourse to NSP-Wisconsin or its subsidiaries. Likewise, the assets of the limited partnerships may only be used to settle obligations of the limited partnerships, and not those of NSP-Wisconsin or its subsidiaries.
Amounts reflected in NSP-Wisconsin’s consolidated balance sheets for low-income housing limited partnerships include the following:
Joint Operating System - The electric production and transmission system of NSP-Wisconsin is managed as an integrated system with that of NSP-Minnesota, jointly referred to as the NSP System. The electric production and transmission costs of the entire NSP System are shared by NSP-Minnesota and NSP-Wisconsin. A FERC approved agreement between the two companies, called the Interchange Agreement, provides for the sharing of all costs of generation and transmission facilities of the system, including capital costs. Such costs include current and potential obligations of NSP-Minnesota related to its nuclear generating facilities.
NSP-Minnesota’s public liability for claims resulting from any nuclear incident is limited to $13.5 billion under the Price-Anderson amendment to the Atomic Energy Act. NSP-Minnesota has secured $375 million of coverage for its public liability exposure with a pool of insurance companies. The remaining $13.1 billion of exposure is funded by the Secondary Financial Protection Program, available from assessments by the federal government in case of a nuclear accident. NSP-Minnesota is subject to assessments of up to $127.3 million per reactor per accident for each of its three licensed reactors, to be applied for public liability arising from a nuclear incident at any licensed nuclear facility in the United States. The maximum funding requirement is $19.0 million per reactor during any one year. These maximum assessment amounts are both subject to inflation adjustment by the NRC and state premium taxes. The NRC’s last adjustment was effective September 2013.
NSP-Minnesota purchases insurance for property damage and site decontamination cleanup costs from Nuclear Electric Insurance Ltd. (NEIL). The coverage limits are $2.3 billion for each of NSP-Minnesota’s two nuclear plant sites. NEIL also provides business interruption insurance coverage, including the cost of replacement power obtained during certain prolonged accidental outages of nuclear generating units. Premiums are expensed over the policy term. All companies insured with NEIL are subject to retroactive premium adjustments if losses exceed accumulated reserve funds. Capital has been accumulated in the reserve funds of NEIL to the extent that NSP-Minnesota would have no exposure for retroactive premium assessments in case of a single incident under the business interruption and the property damage insurance coverage. However, in each calendar year, NSP-Minnesota could be subject to maximum assessments of approximately $19.9 million for business interruption insurance and $43.7 million for property damage insurance if losses exceed accumulated reserve funds.
Guarantees - NSP-Wisconsin provides a guarantee for payment of customer loans related to NSP-Wisconsin’s farm rewiring program. NSP-Wisconsin’s exposure under the guarantee is based upon the net liability under the agreement. The guarantee issued by NSP-Wisconsin limits the exposure of NSP-Wisconsin to a maximum amount stated in the guarantee. The guarantee contains no recourse provisions and requires no collateral.
The following table presents the guarantee issued and outstanding for NSP-Wisconsin:
(a)
The debtor becomes the subject of bankruptcy or other insolvency proceedings.
Environmental Contingencies
NSP-Wisconsin has been or is currently involved with the cleanup of contamination from certain hazardous substances at several sites. In many situations, NSP-Wisconsin believes it will recover some portion of these costs through insurance claims. Additionally, where applicable, NSP-Wisconsin is pursuing, or intends to pursue, recovery from other PRPs and through the regulated rate process. New and changing federal and state environmental mandates can also create added financial liabilities for NSP-Wisconsin, which are normally recovered through the regulated rate process. To the extent any costs are not recovered through the options listed above, NSP-Wisconsin would be required to recognize an expense.
Site Remediation - Various federal and state environmental laws impose liability, without regard to the legality of the original conduct, where hazardous substances or other regulated materials have been released to the environment. NSP-Wisconsin may sometimes pay all or a portion of the cost to remediate sites where past activities of NSP-Wisconsin or other parties have caused environmental contamination. Environmental contingencies could arise from various situations, including sites of former MGPs operated by NSP-Wisconsin, its predecessors, or other entities; and third-party sites, such as landfills, for which NSP-Wisconsin is alleged to be a PRP that sent wastes to that site.
MGP Sites
Ashland MGP Site - NSP-Wisconsin has been named a PRP for contamination at a site in Ashland, Wis. The Ashland/Northern States Power Lakefront Superfund Site (the Site) includes property owned by NSP-Wisconsin, previously operated by a MGP facility (the Upper Bluff), and two other properties: an adjacent city lakeshore park area (Kreher Park); and an area of Lake Superior’s Chequamegon Bay adjoining the park (the Sediments).
In 2010, the EPA issued its Record of Decision (ROD), including their preferred remedy for the Sediments which is a hybrid remedy involving both dry excavation and wet conventional dredging methodologies (the Hybrid Remedy). A wet conventional dredging only remedy (the Wet Dredge), contingent upon the completion of a successful Wet Dredge pilot study, is another possibility.
In 2012, under a settlement agreement, NSP-Wisconsin agreed to perform the remediation of the Phase I Project Area (which includes the Upper Bluff and Kreher Park areas of the Site). Fieldwork began in 2012 and continues. Excavation and containment remedies are complete. A long-term groundwater pump and treatment program is now underway. The final design was approved by the EPA in late 2015. The current cost estimate for the cleanup of the Phase I Project Area is approximately $65 million, of which approximately $47 million has already been spent.
Negotiations are ongoing between the EPA and NSP-Wisconsin regarding who will pay for or perform the cleanup of the Sediments and which remedy will be implemented. The EPA’s ROD includes estimates that the cost of the Hybrid Remedy is between $63 million and $77 million, with a potential deviation in such estimated costs of up to 50 percent higher to 30 percent lower. NSP-Wisconsin believes the Hybrid Remedy is not safe or feasible to implement. In 2015, NSP-Wisconsin constructed a breakwater at the site to serve as wave attenuation and containment for a wet dredge pilot study and full scale sediment remedy at the site. The wet dredge pilot study is anticipated to commence in spring 2016.
As a result of litigation and settlements approved by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin in 2015, three other PRPs have contributed $15.9 million to the remediation of the site. Settlements in principle were also reached with the City of Ashland and the County of Ashland in January 2016, and NSP-Wisconsin anticipates that its litigation efforts against other PRPs are complete.
At Dec. 31, 2015 and 2014, NSP-Wisconsin had recorded a liability of $94.4 million and $107.6 million, respectively, for the Site based upon potential remediation and design costs together with estimated outside legal and consultant costs; of which $17.0 million and $28.9 million, respectively, was considered a current liability. NSP-Wisconsin’s potential liability, the actual cost of remediation and the time frame over which the amounts may be paid are subject to change. NSP-Wisconsin also continues to work to identify and access state and federal funds to apply to the ultimate remediation cost of the entire site. Unresolved issues or factors that could result in higher or lower NSP-Wisconsin remediation costs for the Site include the cleanup approach implemented for the Sediments, which party implements the cleanup, the timing of when the cleanup is implemented and whether federal or state funding may be directed to help offset remediation costs at the Site.
NSP-Wisconsin has deferred the estimated site remediation costs as a regulatory asset. The PSCW has consistently authorized NSP-Wisconsin rate recovery for all remediation costs incurred at the Site. In a December 2012 decision, the PSCW agreed to allow NSP-Wisconsin to pre-collect certain costs, to amortize costs over a ten-year period, and to apply a three percent carrying cost to the unamortized regulatory asset. In December 2015, the PSCW approved NSP-Wisconsin’s 2016 rate case request for an increase to the annual recovery for MGP clean-up costs from $4.7 million to $7.6 million.
Other MGP Sites - NSP-Wisconsin is currently involved in investigating and/or remediating several other MGP sites where regulated materials may have been deposited. NSP-Wisconsin has identified one site where former MGP activities may have resulted in site contamination and is under current investigation. At this MGP site, there are other parties that may have responsibility for some portion of any remediation. NSP-Wisconsin anticipates that the majority of the remediation at this site will continue through at least 2016. NSP-Wisconsin had accrued $0.2 million for this site at Dec. 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. There may be insurance recovery and/or recovery from other PRPs that will offset any costs incurred. NSP-Wisconsin anticipates that any amounts spent will be fully recovered from customers.
Environmental Requirements
Water and Waste
Asbestos Removal - Some of NSP-Wisconsin’s facilities contain asbestos. Most asbestos will remain undisturbed until the facilities that contain it are demolished or removed. NSP-Wisconsin has recorded an estimate for final removal of the asbestos as an ARO. It may be necessary to remove some asbestos to perform maintenance or make improvements to other equipment. The cost of removing asbestos as part of other work is not expected to be material and is recorded as incurred as operating expenses for maintenance projects, capital expenditures for construction projects or removal costs for demolition projects.
Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELG) - In September 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. NSP-Wisconsin has reviewed the final rule and is in the process of evaluating whether the costs of compliance could have a material impact on the results of operations, financial position or cash flows. NSP-Wisconsin believes that compliance costs would be recoverable through regulatory mechanisms.
Federal CWA Section 316(b) - Section 316(b) of the federal CWA requires the EPA to regulate cooling water intake structures to assure that these structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impacts to aquatic species. The EPA published the final 316(b) rule in August 2014. The rule prescribes technology for protecting fish that get stuck on plant intake screens (known as impingement) and describes a process for site-specific determinations by each state for sites that must protect the small aquatic organisms that pass through the intake screens into the plant cooling systems (known as entrainment). The timing of compliance with the requirements will vary from plant-to-plant since the new rule does not have a final compliance deadline. Many of the compliance requirements depend on site-specific determinations by state regulators; therefore, the exact cost is somewhat uncertain. NSP-Wisconsin believes at least two plants could be required by state regulators to make improvements to reduce entrainment. NSP-Wisconsin estimates the likely cost for complying with impingement requirements may be incurred between 2016 and 2027 and is approximately $4 million and anticipates these costs will be fully recoverable in rates.
Federal CWA Waters of the United States Rule - In June 2015, the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers published a final rule that significantly expands the types of water bodies regulated under the CWA and broadens the scope of waters subject to federal jurisdiction. The expansion of the term “Waters of the U.S.” will subject more utility projects to federal CWA jurisdiction, thereby potentially delaying the siting of new generation projects, pipelines, transmission lines and distribution lines, as well as increasing project costs and expanding permitting and reporting requirements. The rule went into effect in August 2015. In October 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a nationwide stay of the final rule, pending further legal proceedings.
Air
GHG Emission Standard for Existing Sources (Clean Power Plan or CPP) - In October 2015, a final rule was published by the EPA for GHG emission standards for existing power plants. States must develop implementation plans by September 2016, with the possibility of an extension to September 2018, or the EPA will prepare a federal plan for the state. 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 is currently being challenged by multiple parties in the D.C. Circuit Court. In January 2016, the D.C. Circuit Court denied requests to stay the effectiveness of the rule as well as ordered expedited review of the CPP, with briefings to be completed and oral arguments held by June 2016. Following the D.C. Circuit Court’s denial of motions for stay, multiple parties filed requests for stay with the U.S. Supreme Court. In February 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order staying the final CPP rule. The stay will remain in effect until, first, the D.C. Circuit Court and then the U.S. Supreme Court have ruled on the challenges to the CPP.
NSP-Wisconsin has undertaken a number of initiatives that reduce GHG emissions and respond to state renewable and energy efficiency goals. The CPP could require additional emission reductions in states in which NSP-Wisconsin operates. If state plans do not provide credit for the investments we have already made to reduce GHG emissions, or if they require additional initiatives or emission reductions, then their requirements would potentially impose additional substantial costs. Until NSP-Wisconsin has more information about SIPs or knows the requirements of the EPA’s upcoming final rule on federal plans for the states that do not develop related plans, NSP-Wisconsin cannot predict the costs of compliance with the final rule once it takes effect. NSP-Wisconsin believes compliance costs will be recoverable through regulatory mechanisms. If our regulators do not allow us to recover all or a part of the cost of capital investment or the O&M costs incurred to comply with the CPP or cost recovery is not provided in a timely manner, it could have a material impact on results of operations, financial position or cash flows.
CSAPR - CSAPR addresses long range transport of PM and ozone by requiring reductions in SO2 and NOx from utilities in the eastern half of the United States, including Wisconsin, using an emissions trading program. CSAPR compliance in 2015 did not and 2016 is not expected to have a material impact on the results of operations, financial position or cash flows.
CSAPR was adopted to address interstate emissions impacting downwind states’ attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 particulate NAAQS. As the EPA revises the NAAQS, it will consider whether to make any further reductions to CSAPR emission budgets and whether to change which states are included in the emissions trading program. In December 2015, the EPA proposed adjustments to CSAPR emission budgets which address attainment of the more stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS. If adopted as proposed, the ozone season emission budget for NOx is not expected to impact NSP-Wisconsin.
Revisions to the NAAQS for Ozone - In October 2015, the EPA revised the NAAQS for ozone by lowering the eight-hour standard from 75 parts per billion (ppb) to 70 ppb. Current monitored air quality concentrations in areas of Wisconsin, where NSP-Wisconsin operates, are below the new standard. Therefore, NSP-Wisconsin does not expect a material impact on results of operations, financial position or cash flows.
Asset Retirement Obligations
Recorded AROs - AROs have been recorded for property related to the following: electric production (steam, other and hydro), electric distribution and transmission, natural gas distribution, and general property. The electric production obligations include asbestos, ash-containment facilities, storage tanks and control panels. The asbestos recognition associated with electric production includes certain specific plants. AROs also have been recorded for NSP-Wisconsin steam production related to ash-containment facilities such as bottom ash ponds, evaporation ponds and solid waste landfills.
NSP-Wisconsin has recognized an ARO for the retirement costs of natural gas mains and lines and for the removal of electric transmission and distribution equipment, which consists of many small potential obligations associated with PCBs, mineral oil, storage tanks, lithium batteries, mercury and street lighting lamps. The electric and common general AROs include small obligations related to storage tanks and office buildings.
In April 2015, the EPA published the final rule regulating the management and disposal of coal combustion byproducts (e.g., coal ash) as a nonhazardous waste to the Federal Register. The rule became effective in October 2015. No cash flow revisions were necessary, as a result of the final rule, as of Dec. 31, 2015.
A reconciliation of NSP-Wisconsin’s AROs for the years ended Dec. 31, 2015 and 2014 is as follows:
(a)
There were no ARO liabilities recognized or settled during the year ended Dec. 31, 2015.
(b)
Included in other long-term liabilities balance in the consolidated balance sheet.
(a)
In 2014, revisions were made to various AROs due to revised estimated cash flows and the timing of those cash flows. Changes in estimated excavation costs and the timing of future retirement activities resulted in revisions to AROs related to gas distribution.
(b)
There were no ARO liabilities settled during the year ended Dec. 31, 2014.
(c)
Included in other long-term liabilities balance in the consolidated balance sheet.
Indeterminate AROs - Outside of the known and recorded asbestos AROs, other plants or buildings may contain asbestos due to the age of many of NSP-Wisconsin’s facilities, but no confirmation or measurement of the amount of asbestos or cost of removal could be determined as of Dec. 31, 2015. Therefore, an ARO has not been recorded for these facilities.
Removal Costs - NSP-Wisconsin records a regulatory liability for the plant removal costs of generation, transmission and distribution facilities that are recovered currently in rates. Generally, the accrual of future non-ARO removal obligations is not required. However, long-standing ratemaking practices approved by applicable state and federal regulatory commissions have allowed provisions for such costs in historical depreciation rates. These removal costs have accumulated over a number of years based on varying rates as authorized by the appropriate regulatory entities. Given the long time periods over which the amounts were accrued and the changing of rates over time, NSP-Wisconsin has estimated the amount of removal costs accumulated through historic depreciation expense based on current factors used in the existing depreciation rates. Accordingly, the recorded amounts of estimated future removal costs are considered regulatory liabilities. Removal costs as of Dec. 31, 2015 and 2014 were $132 million and $123 million, respectively.
Legal Contingencies
NSP-Wisconsin 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 NSP-Wisconsin’s financial statements. Unless otherwise required by GAAP, legal fees are expensed as incurred.
Gas Trading Litigation - e prime, inc. (e prime) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Xcel Energy. e prime was in the business of natural gas trading and marketing, but has not engaged in natural gas trading or marketing activities since 2003. Thirteen lawsuits were commenced against e prime and Xcel Energy (and NSP-Wisconsin, in two instances) between 2003 and 2009 alleging fraud and anticompetitive activities in conspiring to restrain the trade of natural gas and manipulate natural gas prices. The cases were consolidated in U.S. District Court in Nevada. In 2009, five of the cases were settled and one was dismissed. The U.S. District Court in 2011 issued an order dismissing entirely six of the remaining seven lawsuits, and partially dismissing the seventh. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissals to the Ninth Circuit, which reversed the District Court. The matter was ultimately heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in early 2015, which agreed with the Ninth Circuit and remanded the matter to the U.S. District Court. In September 2015, the District Court held a status conference and set deadlines for certain litigation related activities in 2016. A trial date has not yet been set, but is not expected to occur prior to late 2016 or early 2017. Xcel Energy and e prime have concluded that a loss is remote with respect to this matter.
Other Contingencies
See Note 10 for further discussion.
12.
Regulatory Assets and Liabilities
NSP-Wisconsin’s consolidated financial statements are prepared in accordance with the applicable accounting guidance, as discussed in Note 1. Under this guidance, regulatory assets and liabilities are created for amounts that regulators may allow to be collected, or may require to be paid back to customers in future electric and natural gas rates. Any portion of the business that is not rate regulated cannot establish regulatory assets and liabilities. If changes in the utility industry or the business of NSP-Wisconsin no longer allow for the application of regulatory accounting guidance under GAAP, NSP-Wisconsin would be required to recognize the write-off of regulatory assets and liabilities in net income or OCI.
The components of regulatory assets shown on the consolidated balance sheets of NSP-Wisconsin at Dec. 31, 2015 and 2014 are:
(a)
Includes the non-qualified pension plan.
The components of regulatory liabilities shown on the consolidated balance sheets of NSP-Wisconsin at Dec. 31, 2015 and 2014 are:
At Dec. 31, 2015 and 2014, approximately $1.0 million and $12.1 million of NSP-Wisconsin’s regulatory assets represented past expenditures not currently earning a return, respectively. This amount primarily includes Monticello EPU costs and recoverable purchased natural gas and electric energy costs.
13.
Other Comprehensive Income
Changes in accumulated other comprehensive loss, net of tax, for the years ended Dec. 31, 2015 and 2014 were as follows:
Reclassifications from accumulated other comprehensive loss for the years ended Dec. 31, 2015 and 2014 were as follows:
(a)
Included in interest charges.
14.
Segments and Related Information
Operating results from the regulated electric utility and regulated natural gas utility are each separately and regularly reviewed by NSP-Wisconsin’s chief operating decision maker. NSP-Wisconsin evaluates performance based on profit or loss generated from the product or service provided. These segments are managed separately because the revenue streams are dependent upon regulated rate recovery, which is separately determined for each segment.
NSP-Wisconsin has the following reportable segments: regulated electric utility, regulated natural gas utility and all other.
•
NSP-Wisconsin’s regulated electric utility segment generates electricity which is transmitted and distributed in Wisconsin and Michigan.
•
NSP-Wisconsin’s regulated natural gas utility segment purchases, transports, stores and distributes natural gas in portions of Wisconsin and Michigan.
•
Revenues from operating segments not included above are below the necessary quantitative thresholds and are therefore included in the all other category. Those primarily include investments in rental housing projects that qualify for low-income housing tax credits.
Asset and capital expenditure information is not provided for NSP-Wisconsin’s reportable segments because as an integrated electric and natural gas utility, NSP-Wisconsin operates significant assets that are not dedicated to a specific business segment, and reporting assets and capital expenditures by business segment would require arbitrary and potentially misleading allocations which may not necessarily reflect the assets that would be required for the operation of the business segments on a stand-alone basis.
To report income from operations for regulated electric and regulated natural gas utility segments, the majority of costs are directly assigned to each segment. However, some costs, such as common depreciation, common O&M expenses and interest expense are allocated based on cost causation allocators. A general allocator is used for certain general and administrative expenses, including office supplies, rent, property insurance and general advertising.
The accounting policies of the segments are the same as those described in Note 1.
(a)
Operating revenues include $163 million, $145 million and $137 million of intercompany revenue for the years ended Dec. 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013 respectively. See Note 15 for further discussion of related party transactions by operating segment.
15.
Related Party Transactions
Xcel Energy Services Inc. provides management, administrative and other services for the subsidiaries of Xcel Energy Inc., including NSP-Wisconsin. The services are provided and billed to each subsidiary in accordance with service agreements executed by each subsidiary. NSP-Wisconsin uses services provided by Xcel Energy Services Inc. whenever possible. Costs are charged directly to the subsidiary and are allocated if they cannot be directly assigned.
The electric production and transmission costs of the entire NSP System are shared by NSP-Minnesota and NSP-Wisconsin. The Interchange Agreement provides for the sharing of all costs of generation and transmission facilities of the system, including capital costs.
The table below contains significant affiliate transactions among the companies and related parties including billings under the Interchange Agreement for the years ended Dec. 31:
(a)
Pursuant to orders issued by the PSCW in December 2013 and February 2014, the 2014 amounts do not reflect $5.2 million of purchased power expenses deferred as a regulatory asset and $11.0 million of transmission costs deferred as a regulatory liability billed to NSP-Wisconsin through the Interchange Agreement from NSP-Minnesota.
Accounts receivable and payable with affiliates at Dec. 31 were:
16.
Summarized Quarterly Financial Data (Unaudited)
Item 9
Item 9 - Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure
None.
Item 9A
Item 9A - Controls and Procedures
Disclosure Controls and Procedures
NSP-Wisconsin maintains a set of disclosure controls and procedures designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed in the reports that it files or submits under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is recorded, processed, summarized, and reported within the time periods specified in SEC rules and forms. In addition, the disclosure controls and procedures ensure that information required to be disclosed is accumulated and communicated to management, including the chief executive officer (CEO) and chief financial officer (CFO), allowing timely decisions regarding required disclosure. As of Dec. 31, 2015, based on an evaluation carried out under the supervision and with the participation of NSP-Wisconsin’s management, including the CEO and CFO, of the effectiveness of its disclosure controls and the procedures, the CEO and CFO have concluded that NSP-Wisconsin’s disclosure controls and procedures were effective.
Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
No change in NSP-Wisconsin’s internal control over financial reporting has occurred during the most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, NSP-Wisconsin’s internal control over financial reporting. NSP-Wisconsin maintains internal control over financial reporting to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of the financial reporting. NSP-Wisconsin has evaluated and documented its controls in process activities, general computer activities, and on an entity-wide level. During the year and in preparation for issuing its report for the year ended Dec. 31, 2015 on internal controls under section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, NSP-Wisconsin conducted testing and monitoring of its internal control over financial reporting. Based on the control evaluation, testing and remediation performed, NSP-Wisconsin did not identify any material control weaknesses, as defined under the standards and rules issued by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board and as approved by the SEC and as indicated in Management Report on Internal Controls herein.
Effective January 2016, NSP-Wisconsin implemented the general ledger modules of a new enterprise resource planning (“ERP”) system to improve certain financial and related transaction processes. During 2016 and 2017, NSP-Wisconsin will continue implementing additional modules and expects to begin conversion of existing work management system to this same ERP system. In connection with this ongoing implementation, NSP-Wisconsin is updating its internal control over financial reporting, as necessary, to accommodate modifications to its business processes and accounting procedures. NSP-Wisconsin does not believe that this implementation will have an adverse effect on its internal control over financial reporting.
This annual report does not include an attestation report of NSP-Wisconsin’s independent registered public accounting firm regarding internal control over financial reporting. Management’s report was not subject to attestation by NSP-Wisconsin’s independent registered public accounting firm pursuant to the rules of the SEC that permit NSP-Wisconsin to provide only management’s report in this annual report.
Item 9B
Item 9B - Other Information
None.
PART III
Items 10, 11, 12 and 13 of Part III of Form 10-K have been omitted from this report for NSP-Wisconsin in accordance with conditions set forth in general instructions I (1) (a) and (b) of Form 10-K for wholly-owned subsidiaries.
Item 10
Item 10 - Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance
Item 11
Item 11 - Executive Compensation
Item 12
Item 12 - Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters
Item 13
Item 13 - Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence
Information required under this Item is contained in Xcel Energy Inc.’s Proxy Statement for its 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, which is incorporated by reference.
Item 14
Item 14 - Principal Accountant Fees and Services
The information required by Item 14 of Form 10-K is set forth under the heading “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm - Audit and Non-Audit Fees” in Xcel Energy Inc.’s definitive Proxy Statement for the 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders which definitive Proxy Statement is expected to be filed with the SEC on or about April 4, 2016. Such information set forth under such heading is incorporated herein by this reference hereto.
PART IV
Item 15
Item 15 - Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules
SCHEDULE II
NSP-WISCONSIN AND SUBSIDIARIES
VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
YEARS ENDED DEC. 31, 2015, 2014 AND 2013
(amounts in thousands)
(a)
Recovery of amounts previously written off.
(b)
Deductions relate primarily to bad debt write-offs.
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this annual report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY
(A WISCONSIN CORPORATION)
Feb. 22, 2016
/s/ TERESA S. MADDEN
Teresa S. Madden
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Director
(Principal Financial Officer)
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities on the date indicated above.
/s/ BEN FOWKE
/s/ MARK E. STOERING
Ben Fowke
Mark E. Stoering
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Director
President and Director
(Principal Executive Officer)
/s/ TERESA S. MADDEN
/s/ JEFFREY S. SAVAGE
Teresa S. Madden
Jeffrey S. Savage
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Director
Senior Vice President, Controller
(Principal Financial Officer)
(Principal Accounting Officer)
/s/ MARVIN E. MCDANIEL, JR.
Marvin E. McDaniel, Jr.
Director
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION TO BE FURNISHED WITH REPORTS FILED PURSUANT TO SECTION 15(D) OF THE ACT BY REGISTRANTS WHICH HAVE NOT REGISTERED SECURITIES PURSUANT TO SECTION 12 OF THE ACT
NSP-Wisconsin has not sent, and does not expect to send, an annual report or proxy statement to its security holder.