Xcel Energy 2005 Annual Report Download - page 78

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 78 of the 2005 Xcel Energy annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.

Page out of 88

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88

2004, defendants, including e prime, filed motions to dismiss. In September 2004, the U.S. District Court denied the motions to dismiss. On
Jan. 25, 2005, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which defendants opposed. On Sept. 30, 2005, the U.S. District Court granted
plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On Oct. 17, 2005, defendants filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
challenging the class certification. On Dec. 5, 2005, e prime reached a tentative settlement with the plaintiffs that will require court approval.
The settlement will be paid by e prime, and is not expected to have a material financial impact on Xcel Energy.
Fairhaven Power Company vs. Encana Corporation et al.
On Sept. 14, 2004, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California by Fairhaven Power Co. and subsequently served on Xcel Energy. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of a
purported class of natural gas purchasers, alleges that Xcel Energy falsely reported natural gas trades to market trade publications in an
effort to artificially raise natural gas prices in California and engaged in a conspiracy with other sellers of natural gas to inflate prices. This
case has been consolidated with Texas-Ohio Energy, Inc. vs. Centerpoint Energy et al. and assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Pro.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted on December 19, 2005. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed.
Utility Savings and Refund Services LLP vs. Reliant Energy Services Inc.
On Nov. 29, 2004, a class action complaint was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California by Utility Savings and Refund Services LLP and subsequently served on Xcel Energy.
The lawsuit, filed on behalf of a purported class of natural gas purchasers, alleges that Xcel Energy falsely reported natural gas trades to
market trade publications in an effort to artificially raise natural gas prices in California and engaged in a conspiracy with other sellers of
natural gas to inflate prices. This case has been consolidated with Texas-Ohio Energy, Inc. vs. Centerpoint Energy et al and assigned to U.S.
District Court Judge Pro. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted on December 19, 2005. Plaintiffs subsequently appealed.
Abelman Art Glass vs. Ercana Corporation et al.
On Dec. 13, 2004, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California by Abelman Art Glass and subsequently served on Xcel Energy. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of a purported class
of natural gas purchasers, alleges that Xcel Energy falsely reported natural gas trades to market trade publications in an effort to artificially raise
natural gas prices in California and engaged in a conspiracy with other sellers of natural gas to inflate prices. This case has been consolidated
with Texas-Ohio Energy, Inc. vs. Centerpoint Energy et al. and assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Pro. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss,
which was granted on December 19, 2005.
Sinclair Oil Corporation vs. e prime inc. and Xcel Energy, Inc.
On July 18, 2005, Sinclair Oil Corporation filed a lawsuit against Xcel
Energy and its former subsidiary e prime in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, alleging liability and damages for
purported misreporting of price information for natural gas to trade publications in an effort to artificially increase natural gas prices. The
complaint also alleges that e prime and Xcel Energy engaged in a conspiracy with other gas sellers to inflate prices through alleged false
reporting of gas prices. In response, e prime and Xcel Energy filed a motion with the MDL Panel to have this matter transferred to U.S. District
Court Judge Pro and filed a second motion to dismiss the lawsuit. In response to this motion, the matter has been conditionally transferred to
Judge Pro. Sinclair subsequently filed a motion with the MDL Panel to vacate this transfer. The MDL Panel has yet to issue an order. e prime
and Xcel Energy also filed a motion to dismiss with the District Court in Oklahoma based upon the filed rate doctrine. This motion is being
held in abeyance pending a ruling from the MDL Panel.
Ever-Bloom Inc. vs. Xcel Energy Inc. and e prime et al.
On June 21, 2005, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California by Ever-Bloom, Inc. The lawsuit names as defendants, among others, Xcel Energy and e prim e. The law suit,
filed on behalf of a purported class of gas purchasers, alleges that defendants falsely reported natural gas trades to market trade publications
in an effort to artificially raise natural gas prices in California, purportedly in violation of the Sherman Act. Xcel Energy and e prime intend to
vigorously defend themselves against this claim.
Learjet, Inc. vs. e prime and Xcel Energy et al.
On Nov. 4, 2005, a purported class action complaint was filed in state court for Wyandotte
County of Kansas on behalf of all natural gas producers in Kansas. The lawsuit alleges that e prime, Xcel Energy and other named defendants
conspired to raise the market price of natural gas in Kansas by, among other things, inaccurately reporting price and volume information to
market trade publications. On Dec. 7, 2005, the defendants removed this matter to the U.S. District Court in Kansas. This case is in the early
stages; no discovery has been conducted and e prime and Xcel Energy intend to vigorously defend themselves against these claims.
J.P. Morgan Trust Company vs. e prime and Xcel Energy Inc. et al.
On Oct. 17, 2005, J.P. Morgan, in its capacity as the liquidating trustee
for Farmland Industries Liquidating Trust, filed an amended complaint in Kansas state court adding defendants, including Xcel Energy and
e prime, to a previously filed complaint alleging that the defendants inaccurately reported natural gas trades to market trade publications in
an effort to artificially raise natural gas prices. The lawsuit was removed to the U.S. District Court in Kansas and subsequently transferred to
U.S. District Court Judge Pro in Nevada, pursuant to an order from the MDL Panel. A motion to remand to state court has been filed by
plaintiffs and that motion is currently pending. This case is in the early stages, there has been no discovery and e prime and Xcel Energy
intend to vigorously defend themselves against these claims.
Payne et al. vs. PSCo et al.
In late October 2003, there was a wildfire in Boulder County, Colo. There was no loss of life, but there was
property damage associated with this fire. On Oct. 28, 2005, an action against PSCo related to this fire was filed in Boulder County District
Court. There are 28 plaintiffs, including individuals, the City of Jamestown and one private corporation, and three co-defendants, including
PSCo. Plaintiffs have asserted that a tree falling into PSCo distribution lines may have caused the fire. This lawsuit is in the early stages
and PSCo intends to vigorously defend itself against the claim. This lawsuit is not expected to have a material financial impact and PSCo
believes that its insurance coverage will cover any liability in this matter.
76 XCEL ENERGY 2005 ANNUAL REPORT
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS