Xcel Energy 2009 Annual Report Download - page 152

Native Village of Kivalina vs. Xcel Energy Inc. et al. — In 2008, the City and Native Village of Kivalina, Alaska, filed
a lawsuit in U. S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Xcel Energy and 23 other utilities, oil,
gas and coal companies. Plaintiffs claim that defendants’ emission of CO2 and other GHGs contribute to global
warming, which is harming their village. Xcel Energy believes the claims asserted in this lawsuit are without merit and
joined with other utility defendants in filing a motion to dismiss on June 30, 2008. On Oct. 15, 2009, the U. S.
District Court dismissed the lawsuit on constitutional grounds. On Nov. 5, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Comanche Unit 3 CAA Lawsuit — On July 2, 2009, WildEarth Guardians (WEG) filed a lawsuit against PSCo
alleging that PSCo violated the CAA by constructing Comanche Unit 3 without a final MACT determination from the
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Air Pollution Control Division (APCD). The state has
proposed a more stringent case-by-case MACT determination for Comanche Unit 3 that, if final, could increase the
operating costs of Comanche Unit 3. PSCo disputes these claims and has filed a motion to dismiss the suit. Comanche
Unit 3 was constructed with state-of-the-art emission controls and pursuant to a valid air permit issued by the APCD.
On Oct. 28, 2009, WEG filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking to enjoin PSCo from constructing,
modifying, or operating Comanche Unit 3 prior to receiving a final MACT determination. PSCo strongly opposes the
injunction. Among other issues, PSCo believes that WEG has failed to establish a substantial likelihood of prevailing on
the merits of the suit and that therefore there is no valid legal basis upon which an injunction should be issued. The
court has yet to rule on WEG’s motion and the group sought a temporary restraining order to stop Comanche Unit 3
from coming on-line. The court denied WEG’s request for a temporary restraining order on Jan. 26, 2010. On
Feb. 23, 2010, the court held a hearing on PSCo’s motion to dismiss. It is uncertain when the court will render a
decision.
Employment, Tort and Commercial Litigation
Siewert vs. Xcel Energy — In 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. 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 and heard oral arguments on Dec. 2, 2009. It is uncertain when the Minnesota Supreme Court will render a
decision.
Qwest vs. Xcel Energy Inc. — In 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. 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. In April 2009,
the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the jury verdict insofar as it relates to claims asserted by Qwest against PSCo.
Qwest filed a petition for rehearing with the Colorado Supreme Court in June 2009. On Feb. 22, 2010 issued a ruling
where it will review the Court of Appeals’ decision as to the punitive damages issue and will not review the Court of
Appeals’ decision as it relates to PSCo.
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 La Crosse, 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.
NSP-Wisconsin has reached settlements with 22 insurers, and these insurers have been dismissed from both the
Minnesota and Wisconsin actions. NSP-Wisconsin has also reached settlements in principle with Ranger Insurance
Company (Ranger), TIG Insurance Company (TIG), Royal Indemnity Company and Globe Indemnity Company.
142