Stock Price Performance The following graph shows a comparison of the cumulative total return on our common stock, the Standard & Poor's 500 Index and the Standard & Poor's 500 Retail Index.
The graph assumes that the value of an investment in our common stock and in each such index was $100 on December 30, 2006, and that any dividends have been reinvested.
The comparison in the graph below is based solely on historical data and is not intended to forecast the possible future performance of our common stock.
COMPARISON OF CUMULATIVE TOTAL RETURN AMONG ADVANCE AUTO PARTS, INC. , S&P 500 INDEX AND S&P 500 RETAIL INDEX
## Table 0 ##
At Dec.  31, 2009, commodity derivatives recorded to derivative instruments valuation included derivative contracts with gross notional amounts of approximately 37,932,000 megawatt hours (MwH) of electricity, 57,181,000 MMBtu of natural gas, and 3,580,000 gallons of vehicle fuel.
These amounts reflect the gross notional amounts of futures, forwards and FTRs and are not reflective of net positions in the underlying commodities.
Notional amounts for options are also included on a gross basis, but are weighted for the probability of exercise.
Credit Related Contingent Features — Contract provisions of the derivative instruments that the utility subsidiaries enter into may require the posting of collateral or settlement of the contracts for various reasons, including if the applicable utility subsidiary is unable to maintain its credit rating.
If the credit rating of PSCo at Dec.  31, 2009 were downgraded below investment grade, contracts underlying $0.6 million of derivative instruments in a liability position would have required Xcel Energy to post collateral or settle applicable contracts, which would have resulted in payments to counterparties of $3.4 million.
At Dec.  31, 2009, there was no collateral posted on these specific contracts.
Certain of the utility subsidiaries’ derivative instruments are also subject to contract provisions that contain adequate assurance clauses.
These provisions allow counterparties to seek performance assurance, including cash collateral, in the event that a given utility subsidiary’s ability to fulfill its contractual obligations is reasonably expected to be impaired.
As of Dec.  31, 2009, Xcel Energy’s utility subsidiaries had no collateral posted related to adequate assurance clauses in derivative contracts.14.
Financial Instruments The estimated Dec.  31 fair values of Xcel Energy’s recorded financial instruments are as follows:
## Table 1 ##
The fair value of cash and cash equivalents, notes and accounts receivable and notes and accounts payable are not materially different from their carrying amounts.
The fair value of Xcel Energy’s nuclear decommissioning fund is based on published trading data and pricing models, generally using the most observable inputs available for each class of security.
The fair values of Xcel Energy’s other investments are estimated based on quoted market prices for those or similar investments.
The fair values of Xcel Energy’s long-term debt is estimated based on the quoted market prices for the same or similar issues, or the current rates for debt of the same remaining maturities and credit quality.
The fair value estimates presented are based on information available to management as of Dec.  31, 2009 and 2008.
These fair value estimates have not been comprehensively revalued for purposes of these consolidated financial statements since that date, and current estimates of fair values may differ significantly.
Guarantees — Xcel Energy provides guarantees and bond indemnities supporting certain subsidiaries.
The guarantees issued by Xcel Energy guarantee payment or performance by its subsidiaries under specified agreements or transactions.
As a result, Xcel Energy’s exposure under the guarantees is based upon the net liability of the relevant subsidiary under the specified agreements or transactions.
Most of the guarantees issued by Xcel Energy limit the exposure of Xcel Energy to a maximum amount stated in the guarantees.
On Dec.  31, 2009 and 2008, Xcel Energy had issued guarantees of up to $76.4 million and $67.5 million, respectively, with $18.0 million and $18.2 million of known exposure under these guarantees, respectively.
In addition, Xcel Energy provides indemnity protection for bonds issued for itself and its subsidiaries.
The total amount of bonds with this indemnity outstanding as of Dec.  31, 2009 and 2008, was approximately $29.9 million and $27.9 million, respectively.
The total exposure of this indemnification cannot be determined at this time.
Xcel Energy believes the exposure to be significantly less than the total amount of bonds outstanding.
Given the similarity of the regulated electric utility operations of its utility subsidiaries, and the similarity of the regulated natural gas utility operations of its utility subsidiaries, Xcel Energy has the following reportable segments: regulated electric utility, regulated natural gas utility and all other.  ?
Xcel Energy’s regulated electric utility segment generates, transmits, and distributes electricity in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, North Dakota, South Dakota, Colorado, Texas, and New Mexico.
In addition, this segment includes sales for resale and provides wholesale transmission service to various entities in the United States.
Regulated electric utility also includes commodity trading operations.  ?
Xcel Energy’s regulated natural gas utility segment transports, stores and distributes natural gas primarily in portions of Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Dakota, Michigan and Colorado.
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 steam revenue, appliance repair services, nonutility real estate activities, revenues associated with processing solid waste into refuse-derived fuel and investments in rental housing projects that qualify for low-income housing tax credits.
To report income from continuing operations for regulated electric and regulated natural gas utility segments, Xcel Energy must assign or allocate all costs and certain other income.
In general, costs are: ?
Directly assigned wherever applicable; ?
Allocated based on cost causation allocators wherever applicable; and ?
Allocated based on a general allocator for all other costs not assigned by the above two methods.
The accounting policies of the segments are the same as those described in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements.
## Table 2 ##
Xcel Energy depends on its subsidiaries to pay dividends.
All of Xcel Energy Inc. ’s utility subsidiaries’ 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.
Due to certain restrictive covenants, Xcel Energy Inc.  is required to be current on particular interest payments before dividends can be paid.
As discussed below, the most restrictive dividend limitations for NSP-Minnesota, NSP-Wisconsin and SPS are imposed by their respective state regulatory commission.
PSCo’s 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.
Only NSP-Minnesota has a first mortgage indenture which places certain restrictions on the amount of cash dividends it can pay to Xcel Energy Inc. , the holder of its common stock.
Even with this restriction, NSP-Minnesota could have paid more than $1.4 billion and $1.3 billion in additional cash dividends to Xcel Energy Inc.  at Dec.  31, 2013 and 2012, respectively.
NSP-Minnesota’s state regulatory commissions indirectly limit the amount of dividends NSP-Minnesota can pay by requiring an equity-to-total capitalization ratio between 46.8 percent and 57.2 percent.
NSP-Minnesota’s equity-to-total capitalization ratio was 52.5 percent at Dec.  31, 2013 and $912 million in retained earnings was not restricted.
Total capitalization for NSP-Minnesota was $8.5 billion at Dec.  31, 2013, which did not exceed the limit of $9.0 billion.
NSP-Wisconsin cannot pay annual dividends in excess of approximately $31.2 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 52.8 percent at Dec.  31, 2013 and $17.1 million in retained earnings was not restricted.
SPS’ state regulatory commissions indirectly limit the amount of dividends that SPS can pay Xcel Energy Inc.  by requiring an equityto-total capitalization ratio (excluding short-term debt) between 45.0 percent and 55.0 percent.
In addition, SPS may not pay a dividend that would cause it to lose its investment grade bond rating.
SPS’ equity-to-total capitalization ratio (excluding short-term debt) was 53.2 percent at Dec.  31, 2013 and $359 million in retained earnings was not restricted.
The issuance of securities by Xcel Energy Inc.  generally is not subject to regulatory approval.
However, utility financings and certain intra-system financings are subject to the jurisdiction of the applicable state regulatory commissions and/or the FERC under the Federal Power Act.  ?
PSCo currently has authorization to issue up to an additional $1 billion of long-term debt and up to $800 million of short-term debt.  ?
SPS currently has no authorization to issue any long-term debt in 2014 and up to $400 million of short-term debt.  ?
NSP-Wisconsin currently has authorization to issue up to an additional $150 million of long-term debt and up to $150 million of short-term debt.  ?
NSP-Minnesota has authorization to issue long-term securities provided the equity-to-total capitalization ratio remains between 46.8 percent and 57.2 percent and to issue short-term debt provided it does not exceed 15 percent of total capitalization.
Total capitalization for NSP-Minnesota cannot exceed $9 billion.
Xcel Energy believes these authorizations are adequate and will seek additional authorization when necessary; however, there can be no assurance that additional authorization will be granted on the timeframe or in the amounts requested.5.
Joint Ownership of Generation, Transmission and Gas Facilities Following are the investments by Xcel Energy Inc. ’s utility subsidiaries in jointly owned generation, transmission and gas facilities and the related ownership percentages as of Dec.  31, 2013:
## Table 3 ##

<table><tr><td>Company/Index</td><td>December 30, 2006</td><td>December 29, 2007</td><td>January 3, 2009</td><td>January 2, 2010</td><td>January 1, 2011</td><td>December 31, 2011</td></tr><tr><td>Advance Auto Parts</td><td>$100.00</td><td>$108.00</td><td>$97.26</td><td>$116.01</td><td>$190.41</td><td>$201.18</td></tr><tr><td>S&P 500 Index</td><td>100.00</td><td>104.24</td><td>65.70</td><td>78.62</td><td>88.67</td><td>88.67</td></tr><tr><td>S&P Retail Index</td><td>100.00</td><td>82.15</td><td>58.29</td><td>82.36</td><td>101.84</td><td>104.81</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td> </td><td colspan="2"> 2009</td><td colspan="2"> 2008</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> Carrying Amount</td><td> Fair Value</td><td> Carrying Amount</td><td> Fair Value</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td colspan="4"> (Thousands of Dollars) </td></tr><tr><td>Nuclear decommissioning fund</td><td>$1,248,739</td><td>$1,248,739</td><td>$1,075,294</td><td>$1,075,294</td></tr><tr><td>Other investments</td><td>9,649</td><td>9,649</td><td>9,864</td><td>9,864</td></tr><tr><td>Long-term debt, including current portion</td><td>8,432,442</td><td>9,026,257</td><td>8,290,460</td><td>8,562,277</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td> </td><td> Regulated Electric</td><td> Regulated Natural Gas</td><td>All Other</td><td>Reconciling Eliminations</td><td> Consolidated Total</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td colspan="5"> (Thousands of Dollars) </td></tr><tr><td> 2009</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Operating revenues from external customers</td><td>$7,704,723</td><td>$1,865,703</td><td>$73,877</td><td>$—</td><td>$9,644,303</td></tr><tr><td>Intersegment revenues</td><td>816</td><td>2,931</td><td>—</td><td>-3,747</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Total revenues</td><td>$7,705,539</td><td>$1,868,634</td><td>$73,877</td><td>$-3,747</td><td>$9,644,303</td></tr><tr><td>Depreciation and amortization</td><td>$711,090</td><td>$95,633</td><td>$11,329</td><td>$—</td><td>$818,052</td></tr><tr><td>Interest charges and financing costs</td><td>371,525</td><td>44,572</td><td>109,844</td><td>-4,086</td><td>521,855</td></tr><tr><td>Income tax expense (benefit)</td><td>357,128</td><td>81,956</td><td>-67,770</td><td>—</td><td>371,314</td></tr><tr><td>Income (loss) from continuing operations</td><td>611,851</td><td>108,948</td><td>23,000</td><td>-58,275</td><td>685,524</td></tr><tr><td> 2008</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Operating revenues from external customers</td><td>$8,682,993</td><td>$2,442,988</td><td>$77,175</td><td>$—</td><td>$11,203,156</td></tr><tr><td>Intersegment revenues</td><td>973</td><td>6,793</td><td>—</td><td>-7,766</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Total revenues</td><td>$8,683,966</td><td>$2,449,781</td><td>$77,175</td><td>$-7,766</td><td>$11,203,156</td></tr><tr><td>Depreciation and amortization</td><td>$715,695</td><td>$99,306</td><td>$13,378</td><td>$—</td><td>$828,379</td></tr><tr><td>Interest charges and financing costs</td><td>352,083</td><td>45,819</td><td>131,371</td><td>-15,392</td><td>513,881</td></tr><tr><td>Income tax expense (benefit)</td><td>345,543</td><td>73,647</td><td>-80,504</td><td>—</td><td>338,686</td></tr><tr><td>Income (loss) from continuing operations</td><td>552,300</td><td>129,298</td><td>27,346</td><td>-63,224</td><td>645,720</td></tr><tr><td> 2007</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Operating revenues from external customers</td><td>$7,847,992</td><td>$2,111,732</td><td>$74,446</td><td>$—</td><td>$10,034,170</td></tr><tr><td>Intersegment revenues</td><td>1,000</td><td>16,680</td><td>—</td><td>-17,680</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Total revenues</td><td>$7,848,992</td><td>$2,128,412</td><td>$74,446</td><td>$-17,680</td><td>$10,034,170</td></tr><tr><td>Depreciation and amortization</td><td>$695,571</td><td>$96,323</td><td>$13,837</td><td>$—</td><td>$805,731</td></tr><tr><td>Interest charges and financing costs</td><td>318,937</td><td>43,985</td><td>180,757</td><td>-14,834</td><td>528,845</td></tr><tr><td>Income tax expense (benefit)</td><td>343,184</td><td>50,150</td><td>-98,850</td><td>—</td><td>294,484</td></tr><tr><td>Income (loss) from continuing operations</td><td>554,670</td><td>108,054</td><td>-22,583</td><td>-64,242</td><td>575,899</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>(Thousands of Dollars)</td><td>Plant inService</td><td>AccumulatedDepreciation</td><td>CWIP</td><td>Ownership %</td></tr><tr><td>NSP-Minnesota</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Electric Generation:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sherco Unit 3</td><td>$596,314</td><td>$371,925</td><td>$4,533</td><td>59.0%</td></tr><tr><td>Sherco Common Facilities Units 1, 2 and 3</td><td>145,579</td><td>87,289</td><td>61</td><td>80.0</td></tr><tr><td>Sherco Substation</td><td>4,790</td><td>2,884</td><td>—</td><td>59.0</td></tr><tr><td>Electric Transmission:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Grand Meadow Line and Substation</td><td>10,647</td><td>1,225</td><td>—</td><td>50.0</td></tr><tr><td>CapX2020 Transmission</td><td>340,333</td><td>77,803</td><td>503,714</td><td>53.3</td></tr><tr><td>Total NSP-Minnesota</td><td>$1,097,663</td><td>$541,126</td><td>$508,308</td><td></td></tr></table>

Question: What is the average value of the Total revenues for Regulated Natural Gas in 2007 , 2008 , and 2009 ? (in thousand)
Answer: 2148942.33333