2. Safe Harbor
This material includes forward-looking statements that are subject to
certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions. Such forward-looking
statements include projected earnings, cash flows, capital
expenditures and other statements and are identified in this document
by the words “anticipate,” “estimate,” “expect,” “projected,”
“objective,” “outlook,” “possible,” “potential” and similar
expressions. Actual results may vary materially. Factors that could
cause actual results to differ materially include, but are not limited to:
general economic conditions, including the availability of credit,
actions of rating agencies and their impact on capital expenditures;
business conditions in the energy industry; competitive factors;
unusual weather; effects of geopolitical events, including war and acts
of terrorism; changes in federal or state legislation; regulation; actions
of accounting regulatory bodies; the higher degree of risk associated
with Xcel Energy’s nonregulated businesses compared with
Xcel Energy’s regulated business; and other risk factors listed from
time to time by Xcel Energy in reports filed with the SEC, including
Exhibit 99.01 to Xcel Energy’s report on Form 10-K for year 2006.
4. A Record of Achievement
2006–2007 Rate relief: $400 million
— 2006 Minnesota electric rate case: $131 million
— 2006 Colorado electric rate case: $151 million
— 2006 Wisconsin gas and electric rate cases: $47 million
— 2007 Colorado gas rate case: $32 million
2006–2007 Rider revenue: $180 million
2006–2007 Legislation
— Colorado Transmission rider
— Minnesota and Colorado Renewable riders
— Minnesota Environmental riders
5. Keys to Regulatory Success
Highly collaborative
— Engage regulatory staffs; customers; low income
and environmental groups
— Commissions
Transparent
— Strategy and leadership are open and accessible
— Business is easy to understand
Environmental leadership
— Align our business plans with preferred
public policy
Execution
— Legislative / regulatory integration
— Data integrity
— Resources
6. Wisconsin Rate Case
Electric and gas request: $72.7 million
ROE: 11%; Equity ratio: 53.9%
Staff recommendation: $48.4 million
— ROE 10.75%; Equity ratio: 53.6%
— Includes two non-income adjustments:
— $6 million in fuel due to interim filing
— $6 million in increased sales revenue
— Support for our 2009 reopener – estimated
at $30 million
Industrial intervenors: 10% ROE; 50% equity ratio,
reduction in nuclear expense
Commission action expected later this month
7. New Mexico Rate Case
Electric request: $17.3 million
ROE: 11.0%; Equity ratio: 51.2%
First New Mexico rate case since 1998
Following PNM’s electric rate case
Order expected July 2008
8. North Dakota Rate Case
Plan to file December 2007
ROE: 11.5%; Equity ratio: 51.8%
Proposed to share wholesale margins
Interim rates effective February 2008
Drivers:
— MERP (King and High Bridge)
— 825 Transmission project
— Nuclear O&M
9. FERC Rate Cases
NSP transmission: Filed September 28, 2007
— Formula rate: Future test year
— Return on CWIP for major investments
SPS transmission: To be filed in December 2007
— Formula rate: Historic with projected plant additions
— Return on CWIP for major investments
PSCo production case
— Filing date: First quarter 2008
SPS production case
— Filing date: First quarter 2008
— Seek to include Lea Power project
10. Projected Rider Revenue
Dollars in millions
240
CO AQIR
$207
MN Renewable Energy Standard
200
CO Trans Cost Adjustment
MN Trans Cost Recovery $169
MN MERP
160
120
$107
$73
80
40
0
2006 2007 2008 2009
11. Anticipated Regulatory Filings – 2008
Texas electric rate case: Spring 2008
— Interim rates for Lea Power Partners
— Key case for customer commitment
Colorado electric rate case: Fall 2008
— Establish forecast test year
— Final rates effective mid-2009
Minnesota electric rate case: Fall 2008
— Address nuclear investments and recovery
— Interim rates effective early 2009
12. New Initiatives
Demand-side management incentives
— Colorado: Proposal seeks 20% of NPV of benefits
— Minnesota: Will seek to increase current sharing
during this resource planning cycle
Nuclear recovery
— Petition to levelize outage costs
— Seek nuclear rider recovery in next rate case
MERP and mercury reductions
— Sherco upgrades: $1.1 billion
Heat recovery rider
— Texas turbine upgrades at Tolk & Harrington
13. Summary
Strong track record
— Average 70 – 80% recovery
Ambitious agenda
— Potential of eight rate cases during 2008
Multiple annual rate cases
— Five investment rider mechanisms in-place
in 2008
Strategy designed to achieve regulatory goals
