Xcel Energy 2008 Annual Report Download - page 152

Eskimo, who claim that Defendants’ emission of CO2 and other GHG contribute to global warming, which is harming
their village. Plaintiffs claim that as a consequence, the entire village must be relocated at a cost of between $95 million
and $400 million. Plaintiffs assert a nuisance claim under federal and state common law, as well as a claim asserting
‘‘concert of action’’ in which defendants are alleged to have engaged in tortious acts in concert with each other. Xcel
Energy was not named in the civil conspiracy claim. Xcel Energy believes the claims asserted in this lawsuit are without
merit and joined with other utility defendants in filing a motion to dismiss on June 30, 2008. The matter has now
been fully briefed, with oral arguments set for May 19, 2009. It is unknown when the court will render a decision.
Employment, Tort and Commercial Litigation
Siewert vs. Xcel Energy — In June 2004, plaintiffs, the owners and operators of a Minnesota dairy farm, brought an
action in Minnesota state court against NSP-Minnesota alleging negligence in the handling, supplying, distributing and
selling of electrical power systems; negligence in the construction and maintenance of distribution systems; and failure
to warn or adequately test such systems. Plaintiffs allege decreased milk production, injury, and damage to a dairy herd
as a result of stray voltage resulting from NSP-Minnesota’s distribution system. Plaintiffs claim losses of approximately
$7 million. NSP-Minnesota denies all allegations. After its motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims was denied,
NSP-Minnesota filed a motion to certify questions for immediate appellate review. In October 2007, the court granted
NSP- Minnesota’s motion for certification, and oral arguments took place on Sept. 11, 2008. Mediation took place on
Oct. 14, 2008, but the matter was not resolved. In December 2008, the Court of Appeals issued a decision ordering
dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief, but otherwise rejecting NSP-Minnesota’s contentions and ordering the
matter remanded for trial. The Minnesota Supreme Court subsequently granted NSP-Minnesota’s petition for further
review on Feb. 17, 2009.
Qwest vs. Xcel Energy Inc. — In June 2004, an employee of PSCo was seriously injured when a pole owned by Qwest
malfunctioned. In September 2005, the employee commenced an action against Qwest in Colorado state court in
Denver. In April 2006, Qwest filed a third party complaint against PSCo based on terms in a joint pole use agreement
between Qwest and PSCo. Pursuant to this agreement, Qwest asserted PSCo had an affirmative duty to properly train
and instruct its employees on pole safety, including testing the pole for soundness before climbing. In May 2006, PSCo
filed a counterclaim against Qwest asserting Qwest had a duty to PSCo and an obligation under the contract to
maintain its poles in a safe and serviceable condition. In May 2007, the matter was tried and the jury found Qwest
solely liable for the accident and this determination resulted in an award of damages in the amount of approximately
$90 million. On June 16, 2008, Qwest filed its appellate brief. The matter has been fully briefed by the parties and
oral arguments were presented on Feb. 18, 2009. PSCo is currently awaiting a decision by the court.
Hoffman vs. Northern States Power Company — In March 2006, a purported class action complaint was filed in
Minnesota state court, on behalf of NSP-Minnesota’s residential customers in Minnesota, North Dakota and South
Dakota for alleged breach of a contractual obligation to maintain and inspect the points of connection between
NSP-Minnesota’s wires and customers’ homes within the meter box. Plaintiffs claim NSP-Minnesota’s alleged breach
results in an increased risk of fire and is in violation of tariffs on file with the MPUC. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief
and damages in an amount equal to the value of inspections plaintiffs claim NSP-Minnesota was required to perform
over the past six years. In August 2006, NSP-Minnesota filed a motion for dismissal on the pleadings. In November
2006, the court issued an order denying NSP-Minnesota’s motion, but later, pursuant to a motion by NSP-Minnesota,
certified the issues raised in NSP-Minnesota’s original motion for appeal as important and doubtful, and
NSP-Minnesota filed an appeal with the Minnesota Court of Appeals. In January 2008, the Minnesota Court of
Appeals determined the plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the filed rate doctrine and remanded the case to the district
court for dismissal. Plaintiffs petitioned the Minnesota Supreme Court for discretionary review, and the Supreme Court
granted the petition. Oral argument took place on Nov. 4, 2008. It is unknown when a decision will be issued.
MGP Insurance Coverage Litigation — In October 2003, NSP-Wisconsin initiated discussions with its insurers
regarding the availability of insurance coverage for costs associated with the remediation of four former MGP sites
located in Ashland, Chippewa Falls, Eau Claire and LaCrosse, Wis. In lieu of participating in discussions, in October
2003, two of NSP-Wisconsin’s insurers, St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. and St. Paul Mercury Insurance Co.,
commenced litigation against NSP-Wisconsin in Minnesota state district court. In November 2003, NSP-Wisconsin
commenced suit in Wisconsin state court against St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. and its other insurers.
Subsequently, the Minnesota court enjoined NSP-Wisconsin from pursuing the Wisconsin litigation. The Wisconsin
action remains in abeyance.
142