Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	The following include commitments, contingencies and unresolved contingencies that are material to Xcel Energy’s financial position. Legal Xcel Energy is involved in various litigation matters in the ordinary course of business. The assessment of whether a loss is probable or is a reasonable possibility, and whether the loss or a range of loss is estimable, often involves a series of complex judgments about future events. Management maintains accruals for losses probable of being incurred and subject to reasonable estimation. Management is sometimes unable to estimate an amount or range of a reasonably possible loss in certain situations, including but not limited to when (1) the damages sought are indeterminate, (2) the proceedings are in the early stages, or (3) the matters involve novel or unsettled legal theories. In such cases, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the timing or ultimate resolution of such matters, including a possible eventual loss. For current proceedings not specifically reported herein, management does not anticipate that the ultimate liabilities, if any, would have a material effect on Xcel Energy’s financial statements. Unless otherwise required by GAAP, legal fees are expensed as incurred. Gas Trading Litigation — e prime is a wholly owned subsidiary of Xcel Energy. e prime was in the business of natural gas trading and marketing but has not engaged in natural gas trading or marketing activities since 2003. Multiple lawsuits seeking monetary damages were commenced against e prime and its affiliates, including Xcel Energy, between 2003 and 2009 alleging fraud and anticompetitive activities in conspiring to restrain the trade of natural gas and manipulate natural gas prices. Cases were all consolidated in the U.S. District Court in Nevada. Two cases remain active which include an MDL matter consisting of a Colorado purported class (Breckenridge) and a Wisconsin purported class (Arandell Corp.). Breckenridge/Colorado — In February 2019, the MDL panel remanded Breckenridge back to the U.S. District Court in Colorado. Arandell Corp. — In February 2019, the case was remanded back to the U.S. District Court in Wisconsin. Plaintiffs are seeking class certification. It is uncertain when the court will rule on this issue. Xcel Energy has concluded that a loss is remote for both remaining lawsuits. Rate Matters MEC Transactions — In November 2018, NSP-Minnesota reached an agreement with Southern Power Company (a subsidiary of Southern Company) to purchase MEC, a 760 MW natural gas combined cycle facility, for approximately $650 million. In September 2019, the MPUC denied NSP-Minnesota's request to purchase MEC as a rate base asset. In January 2020, the MPUC approved Xcel Energy’s plan to acquire MEC as a non-regulated investment and step into the existing PPAs with NSP-Minnesota. A newly formed non-regulated subsidiary of Xcel Energy completed the transaction to purchase MEC in January 2020. In April 2020, Xcel Energy reached agreement to sell MEC to Southwest Generation for $680 million, subject to working capital adjustments. Proceeds from the sale will primarily be used to reduce Xcel Energy’s overall financing needs. The transaction is not anticipated to have a material impact on long-term earnings per share and is expected to close in the third quarter of 2020. The sale will result in a gain, which Xcel Energy plans to use to fund its corporate giving efforts, including support related to COVID-19 recovery. NSP-Minnesota — Sherco — In NSP-Minnesota’s 2013 fuel reconciliation filing, the MPUC made recovery of replacement power costs associated with the 2011 incident at its Sherco Unit 3 plant provisional and subject to further review following conclusion of litigation commenced by NSP-Minnesota, SMMPA (Co-owner of Sherco Unit 3) and insurance companies against GE. In 2018, NSP-Minnesota and SMMPA reached a settlement with GE. NSP-Minnesota notified the MPUC of its proposal to refund the GE settlement proceeds back to customers through the FCA. The insurance providers continued their litigation against GE and the case went to trial. In 2018, GE prevailed in the lawsuit with the insurance companies, however, the jury found comparable fault, finding that GE was 52% and NSP-Minnesota was 48% at fault. At that point in the litigation, NSP-Minnesota was no longer involved in the case and was not present to make arguments about its role in the event. The specific issue leading to the fault apportionment was also not before the jury and not relevant to the outcome of the trial. In January 2019, the DOC recommended that NSP-Minnesota refund $20 million of previously recovered purchased power costs to its customers, based on the jury’s apportionment of fault. The OAG recommended the MPUC withhold any decision until the underlying litigation by the insurance providers (currently under appeal) is concluded. The DOC subsequently filed comments agreeing with the OAG’s recommendation to withhold a decision pending the outcome of any appeals. NSP-Minnesota filed reply comments arguing that the DOC recommendations are without merit and that it acted prudently in operating the plant and its settlement with GE was reasonable. In March 2019, MPUC approved NSP-Minnesota’s proposal to refund the GE settlement proceeds back to customers through the FCA. It also decided to withhold any decision as to NSP-Minnesota’s prudence in connection with the incident at Sherco Unit 3 until after conclusion of the pending litigation between GE and NSP-Minnesota’s insurers. The lower court’s decision was affirmed on appeal. In March 2020, NSP-Minnesota’s insurers filed a petition seeking additional review by the Minnesota Supreme Court, which remains pending. MISO ROE Complaints — In November 2013 and February 2015, customers filed complaints against MISO TOs including NSP-Minnesota and NSP-Wisconsin. The first complaint argued for a reduction in the base ROE in MISO transmission formula rates from 12.38% to 9.15%, and removal of ROE adders (including those for RTO membership). The second complaint sought to reduce base ROE from 12.38% to 8.67%. In September 2016, the FERC issued an order granting a 10.32% base ROE (10.82% with the RTO adder) effective for the first complaint period of Nov. 12, 2013 to Feb. 11, 2015 and subsequent to the date of the order. The D.C. Circuit subsequently vacated and remanded FERC Opinion No. 531, which had established the ROE methodology on which the September 2016 FERC order was based. On March 21, 2019, FERC announced a NOI seeking public comments on whether, and if so how, to revise ROE policies in light of the D.C. Circuit Court decision. FERC also initiated a NOI on whether to revise its policies on incentives for electric transmission investments, including the RTO membership incentive. In November 2019, the FERC issued an order adopting a new ROE methodology and settling the MISO base ROE at 9.88% (10.38% with the RTO adder), effective Sept. 28, 2016 and for the Nov. 12, 2013 to Feb. 11, 2015 refund period. The FERC also dismissed the second complaint. In December 2019, MISO TOs filed a request for rehearing. Customers also filed requests for rehearing claiming, among other points, that the FERC erred by dismissing the second complaint without refunds. FERC accepted the requests for rehearing in January 2020, however, it is uncertain when the FERC will act on the requests or any other pending matters related to the 2019 NOIs. NSP-Minnesota has recognized a liability for its best estimate of final refunds to customers. In March 2020, the FERC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding changes to its policies for transmission incentives, including a proposal to increase the RTO participation adder from 50 to 100 basis points and to make the adder available regardless of whether a utility’s ongoing participation in the RTO is voluntary or required by legislation or a regulator. It is uncertain if or when this change will be adopted and implemented as a final order. SPP OATT Upgrade Costs — Under the SPP OATT, costs of transmission upgrades may be recovered from other SPP customers whose transmission service depends on capacity enabled by the upgrade. SPP had not been charging its customers for these upgrades, even though the SPP OATT had allowed SPP to do so since 2008. In 2016, the FERC granted SPP’s request to recover these previously unbilled charges and SPP subsequently billed SPS approximately $13 million. In July 2018, SPS’ appeal to the D.C. Circuit over the FERC rulings granting SPP the right to recover these previously unbilled charges was remanded to the FERC. In February 2019, the FERC reversed its 2016 decision and ordered SPP to refund the charges retroactively collected from its transmission customers, including SPS, related to periods before September 2015. In April 2019, several parties, including SPP, filed requests for a rehearing. In February 2020, FERC issued an order rejecting all rehearing requests and providing certain clarifications. In March 2020, SPP and Oklahoma Gas & Electric separately filed petitions for review of FERC’s orders at the D.C. Circuit. SPS has intervened in both appeals in support of FERC. The timing of an appeals decision is uncertain. Any refunds received by SPS are expected to be given back to SPS customers through future rates. In October 2017, SPS filed a separate complaint against SPP asserting that SPP has assessed upgrade charges to SPS in violation of the SPP OATT. The FERC granted a rehearing for further consideration in May 2018. The timing of FERC action on the SPS rehearing is uncertain. If SPS’ complaint results in additional charges or refunds, SPS will seek to recover or refund the amounts through future SPS customer rates. Environmental MGP, Landfill and Disposal Sites Ashland MGP Site — NSP-Wisconsin was named a responsible party for contamination at the Ashland/Northern States Power Lakefront Superfund Site (the Site) in Ashland, Wisconsin. Remediation was completed in 2019 and restoration activities are anticipated to be completed in 2020. Groundwater treatment activities will continue for many years. The current cost estimate for remediation and restoration of the entire site is approximately $199 million. At March 31, 2020 and Dec. 31, 2019, NSP‑Wisconsin had a total liability of $22 million and $23 million, respectively, for the entire site. NSP-Wisconsin has deferred the unrecovered portion of the estimated Site remediation and restoration costs as a regulatory asset. The PSCW has authorized NSP-Wisconsin rate recovery for all remediation and restoration costs incurred at the Site. In its final December 2019 order approving 2020 and 2021 natural gas base rates, the PSCW authorized continued amortization of costs and application of a 3% carrying charge to the regulatory asset. Rice Yards (Denver ) MGP Site — PSCo is cooperating with the City of Denver on an environmental investigation of the Rice Yards Site in Denver, Colorado, which had various historic industrial uses by multiple parties, including railroad, maintenance shop, scrap metal yard and MGP operations. The area is being redeveloped into residential and commercial mixed uses, and PSCo is in discussions with the current property owner regarding legal claims related to the Rice Yards Site. In addition to the Rice Yards and Ashland Sites, Xcel Energy is currently investigating, remediating or performing post-closure actions at 11 other MGP, landfill or other disposal sites across its service territories. Xcel Energy has recognized its best estimate of costs/liabilities that will result from final resolution of these issues, however, the outcome and timing is unknown. In addition, there may be insurance recovery and/or recovery from other potentially responsible parties, offsetting a portion of costs incurred. Environmental Requirements — Water and Waste Coal Ash Regulation — Xcel Energy’s operations are subject to federal and state regulations that impose requirements for handling, storage, treatment and disposal of solid waste. Under the CCR Rule, utilities are required to complete groundwater sampling around their CCR landfills and surface impoundments. Currently, Xcel Energy has nine regulated ash units in operation. Xcel Energy is conducting groundwater sampling and, where appropriate, implementing assessment of corrective measures at certain CCR landfills and surface impoundments. In 2019, groundwater monitoring consistent with the CCR Rule was conducted. In NSP-Minnesota, no results above the groundwater protection standards in the rule were identified. In PSCo, statistically significant increases above background concentrations were detected at four locations. Subsequently, assessment monitoring samples were collected, and PSCo is evaluating options for corrective action at two locations. Until PSCo completes its assessment, it is uncertain what impact, if any, there will be on the operations, financial condition or cash flows. In August 2018, the D.C. Circuit ruled that the EPA cannot allow utilities to continue to use unlined impoundments (including clay lined impoundments) for the storage or disposal of coal ash. In November 2019, the EPA proposed rules in response to this decision. If finalized in their current form, these rules would require NSP-Minnesota to expedite closure plans for one impoundment at an estimated cost of $4 million and the construction of a new impoundment at the cost of $8 million. In 2019, NSP-Minnesota initiated the construction of this new impoundment, an ash pond, expected to be in service in 2020. Upon placing the new ash pond in service, the existing ash pond will be taken out of service, and closure activities as prescribed by the CCR Rule and the facility’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit will be initiated. In addition, the rules proposed by the EPA under the D.C. Circuit ruling may require PSCo to expedite the closure of one coal ash impoundment that was not previously required to close. PSCo is pursuing options through comment on the proposed rules or some other means to allow continued operation of this impoundment until the generating units are retired in 2025, at which time the impoundment would be closed. Closure costs for existing impoundments are included in the calculation of the asset retirement obligation liability. Leases Operating lease liabilities at Dec. 31, 2019 include a present value of remaining lease payments of approximately $400 million for the MEC PPAs. At March 31, 2020, NSP-Minnesota operating lease liabilities and related ROU assets are eliminated from Xcel Energy’s consolidated balance sheet following the completed January 2020 purchase of MEC by Xcel Energy. VIEs Under certain PPAs, NSP-Minnesota, PSCo and SPS purchase power from IPPs for which the utility subsidiaries are required to reimburse fuel costs, or to participate in tolling arrangements under which the utility subsidiaries procure the natural gas required to produce the energy that they purchase. These specific PPAs create a variable interest in the IPP. The utility subsidiaries had approximately 3,266 MW and 3,986 MW of capacity under long‑term PPAs at March 31, 2020 and Dec. 31, 2019, respectively, with entities that have been determined to be VIEs. Xcel Energy concluded that these entities are not required to be consolidated in its consolidated financial statements because it does not have the power to direct the activities that most significantly impact the entities’ economic performance. Agreements have expiration dates through 2041. Other Guarantees and Bond Indemnifications — Xcel Energy Inc. and its subsidiaries provide guarantees and bond indemnities, which guarantee payment or performance. Xcel Energy Inc.’s exposure is based upon the net liability under the specified agreements or transactions. Most of the guarantees and bond indemnities issued by Xcel Energy Inc. and its subsidiaries have a stated maximum amount. As of March 31, 2020 and Dec. 31, 2019, Xcel Energy Inc. and its subsidiaries had no assets held as collateral related to their guarantees, bond indemnities and indemnification agreements. Guarantees and bond indemnities issued and outstanding for Xcel Energy were $60 million and $62 million at March 31, 2020 and Dec. 31, 2019, respectively. Other Indemnification Agreements — Xcel Energy Inc. and its subsidiaries provide indemnifications through various contracts. These are primarily indemnifications against adverse litigation outcomes in connection with underwriting agreements, as well as breaches of representations and warranties, including corporate existence, transaction authorization and income tax matters with respect to assets sold. Xcel Energy Inc.’s and its subsidiaries’ obligations under these agreements may be limited in terms of duration and amount. Maximum future payments under these indemnifications cannot be reasonably estimated as the dollar amounts are often not explicitly stated.

Xcel Energy is involved in various litigation matters in the ordinary course of business. The assessment of whether a loss is probable or is a reasonable possibility, and whether the loss or a range of loss is estimable, often involves a series of complex judgments about future events. Management maintains accruals for losses probable of being incurred and subject to reasonable estimation. Management is sometimes unable to estimate an amount or range of a reasonably possible loss in certain situations, including but not limited to when (1) the damages sought are indeterminate, (2) the proceedings are in the early stages, or (3) the matters involve novel or unsettled legal theories.

In such cases, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the timing or ultimate resolution of such matters, including a possible eventual loss. For current proceedings not specifically reported herein, management does not anticipate that the ultimate liabilities, if any, would have a material effect on Xcel Energy’s financial statements. Unless otherwise required by GAAP, legal fees are expensed as incurred.

Gas Trading Litigation — e prime is a wholly owned subsidiary of Xcel Energy. e prime was in the business of natural gas trading and marketing but has not engaged in natural gas trading or marketing activities since 2003. Multiple lawsuits seeking monetary damages were commenced against e prime and its affiliates, including Xcel Energy, between 2003 and 2009 alleging fraud and anticompetitive activities in conspiring to restrain the trade of natural gas and manipulate natural gas prices. Cases were all consolidated in the U.S. District Court in Nevada. Two cases remain active which include an MDL matter consisting of a Colorado purported class (Breckenridge) and a Wisconsin purported class (Arandell Corp.).

Arandell Corp. — In February 2019, the case was remanded back to the U.S. District Court in Wisconsin. Plaintiffs are seeking class certification. It is uncertain when the court will rule on this issue.

MEC Transactions — In November 2018, NSP-Minnesota reached an agreement with Southern Power Company (a subsidiary of Southern Company) to purchase MEC, a 760 MW natural gas combined cycle facility, for approximately $650 million. In September 2019, the MPUC denied NSP-Minnesota's request to purchase MEC as a rate base asset. In January 2020, the MPUC approved Xcel Energy’s plan to acquire MEC as a non-regulated investment and step into the existing PPAs with NSP-Minnesota. A newly formed non-regulated subsidiary of Xcel Energy completed the transaction to purchase MEC in January 2020.

In April 2020, Xcel Energy reached agreement to sell MEC to Southwest Generation for $680 million, subject to working capital adjustments. Proceeds from the sale will primarily be used to reduce Xcel Energy’s overall financing needs. The transaction is not anticipated to have a material impact on long-term earnings per share and is expected to close in the third quarter of 2020.

NSP-Minnesota — Sherco — In NSP-Minnesota’s 2013 fuel reconciliation filing, the MPUC made recovery of replacement power costs associated with the 2011 incident at its Sherco Unit 3 plant provisional and subject to further review following conclusion of litigation commenced by NSP-Minnesota, SMMPA (Co-owner of Sherco Unit 3) and insurance companies against GE.

In 2018, NSP-Minnesota and SMMPA reached a settlement with GE. NSP-Minnesota notified the MPUC of its proposal to refund the GE settlement proceeds back to customers through the FCA. The insurance providers continued their litigation against GE and the case went to trial.

In 2018, GE prevailed in the lawsuit with the insurance companies, however, the jury found comparable fault, finding that GE was 52% and NSP-Minnesota was 48% at fault. At that point in the litigation, NSP-Minnesota was no longer involved in the case and was not present to make arguments about its role in the event. The specific issue leading to the fault apportionment was also not before the jury and not relevant to the outcome of the trial.

In January 2019, the DOC recommended that NSP-Minnesota refund $20 million of previously recovered purchased power costs to its customers, based on the jury’s apportionment of fault. The OAG recommended the MPUC withhold any decision until the underlying litigation by the insurance providers (currently under appeal) is concluded. The DOC subsequently filed comments agreeing with the OAG’s recommendation to withhold a decision pending the outcome of any appeals. NSP-Minnesota filed reply comments arguing that the DOC recommendations are without merit and that it acted prudently in operating the plant and its settlement with GE was reasonable.

In March 2019, MPUC approved NSP-Minnesota’s proposal to refund the GE settlement proceeds back to customers through the FCA. It also decided to withhold any decision as to NSP-Minnesota’s prudence in connection with the incident at Sherco Unit 3 until after conclusion of the pending litigation between GE and NSP-Minnesota’s insurers. The lower court’s decision was affirmed on appeal. In March 2020, NSP-Minnesota’s insurers filed a petition seeking additional review by the Minnesota Supreme Court, which remains pending.

MISO ROE Complaints — In November 2013 and February 2015, customers filed complaints against MISO TOs including NSP-Minnesota and NSP-Wisconsin. The first complaint argued for a reduction in the base ROE in MISO

transmission formula rates from 12.38% to 9.15%, and removal of ROE adders (including those for RTO membership). The second complaint sought to reduce base ROE from 12.38% to 8.67%. In September 2016, the FERC issued an order granting a 10.32% base ROE (10.82% with the RTO adder) effective for the first complaint period of Nov. 12, 2013 to Feb. 11, 2015 and subsequent to the date of the order. The D.C. Circuit subsequently vacated and remanded FERC Opinion No. 531, which had established the ROE methodology on which the September 2016 FERC order was based.

On March 21, 2019, FERC announced a NOI seeking public comments on whether, and if so how, to revise ROE policies in light of the D.C. Circuit Court decision. FERC also initiated a NOI on whether to revise its policies on incentives for electric transmission investments, including the RTO membership incentive.

In November 2019, the FERC issued an order adopting a new ROE methodology and settling the MISO base ROE at 9.88% (10.38% with the RTO adder), effective Sept. 28, 2016 and for the Nov. 12, 2013 to Feb. 11, 2015 refund period. The FERC also dismissed the second complaint. In December 2019, MISO TOs filed a request for rehearing. Customers also filed requests for rehearing claiming, among other points, that the FERC erred by dismissing the second complaint without refunds.

FERC accepted the requests for rehearing in January 2020, however, it is uncertain when the FERC will act on the requests or any other pending matters related to the 2019 NOIs. NSP-Minnesota has recognized a liability for its best estimate of final refunds to customers.

In March 2020, the FERC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding changes to its policies for transmission incentives, including a proposal to increase the RTO participation adder from 50 to 100 basis points and to make the adder available regardless of whether a utility’s ongoing participation in the RTO is voluntary or required by legislation or a regulator. It is uncertain if or when this change will be adopted and implemented as a final order.

SPP OATT Upgrade Costs — Under the SPP OATT, costs of transmission upgrades may be recovered from other SPP customers whose transmission service depends on capacity enabled by the upgrade. SPP had not been charging its customers for these upgrades, even though the SPP OATT had allowed SPP to do so since 2008. In 2016, the FERC granted SPP’s request to recover these previously unbilled charges and SPP subsequently billed SPS approximately $13 million.

In July 2018, SPS’ appeal to the D.C. Circuit over the FERC rulings granting SPP the right to recover these previously unbilled charges was remanded to the FERC. In February 2019, the FERC reversed its 2016 decision and ordered SPP to refund the charges retroactively collected from its transmission customers, including SPS, related to periods before September 2015. In April 2019, several parties, including SPP, filed requests for a rehearing. In February 2020, FERC issued an order rejecting all rehearing requests and providing certain clarifications. In March 2020, SPP and Oklahoma Gas & Electric separately filed petitions for review of FERC’s orders at the D.C. Circuit. SPS has intervened in both appeals in support of FERC. The timing of an appeals decision is uncertain. Any refunds received by SPS are expected to be given back to SPS customers through future rates.

In October 2017, SPS filed a separate complaint against SPP asserting that SPP has assessed upgrade charges to SPS in violation of the SPP OATT. The FERC granted a rehearing for further consideration in May 2018. The timing of FERC action on the SPS rehearing is uncertain. If SPS’ complaint results in additional charges or refunds, SPS will seek to recover or refund the amounts through future SPS customer rates.

Ashland MGP Site — NSP-Wisconsin was named a responsible party for contamination at the Ashland/Northern States Power Lakefront Superfund Site (the Site) in Ashland, Wisconsin. Remediation was completed in 2019 and restoration activities are anticipated to be completed in 2020. Groundwater treatment activities will continue for many years.

The current cost estimate for remediation and restoration of the entire site is approximately $199 million. At March 31, 2020 and Dec. 31, 2019, NSP‑Wisconsin had a total liability of $22 million and $23 million, respectively, for the entire site.

NSP-Wisconsin has deferred the unrecovered portion of the estimated Site remediation and restoration costs as a regulatory asset. The PSCW has authorized NSP-Wisconsin rate recovery for all remediation and restoration costs incurred at the Site. In its final December 2019 order approving 2020 and 2021 natural gas base rates, the PSCW authorized continued amortization of costs and application of a 3% carrying charge to the regulatory asset.

Rice Yards (Denver ) MGP Site — PSCo is cooperating with the City of Denver on an environmental investigation of the Rice Yards Site in Denver, Colorado, which had various historic industrial uses by multiple parties, including railroad, maintenance shop, scrap metal yard and MGP operations.

The area is being redeveloped into residential and commercial mixed uses, and PSCo is in discussions with the current property owner regarding legal claims related to the Rice Yards Site.

In addition to the Rice Yards and Ashland Sites, Xcel Energy is currently investigating, remediating or performing post-closure actions at 11 other MGP, landfill or other disposal sites across its service territories.

Xcel Energy has recognized its best estimate of costs/liabilities that will result from final resolution of these issues, however, the outcome and timing is unknown. In addition, there may be insurance recovery and/or recovery from other potentially responsible parties, offsetting a portion of costs incurred.

Coal Ash Regulation — Xcel Energy’s operations are subject to federal and state regulations that impose requirements for handling, storage, treatment and disposal of solid waste. Under the CCR Rule, utilities are required to complete groundwater sampling around their CCR landfills and surface impoundments. Currently, Xcel Energy has nine regulated ash units in operation.

Xcel Energy is conducting groundwater sampling and, where appropriate, implementing assessment of corrective measures at certain CCR landfills and surface impoundments. In 2019, groundwater monitoring consistent with the CCR Rule was conducted. In NSP-Minnesota, no results above the groundwater protection standards in the rule were identified. In PSCo, statistically significant increases above background concentrations were detected at four locations. Subsequently, assessment monitoring samples were collected, and PSCo is evaluating options for corrective action at two locations. Until PSCo completes its assessment, it is uncertain what impact, if any, there will be on the operations, financial condition or cash flows.

In August 2018, the D.C. Circuit ruled that the EPA cannot allow utilities to continue to use unlined impoundments (including clay lined impoundments) for the storage or disposal of coal ash. In November 2019, the EPA proposed rules in response to this decision. If finalized in their current form, these rules would require NSP-Minnesota to expedite closure plans for one impoundment at an estimated cost of $4 million and the construction of a new impoundment at the cost of $8 million. In 2019, NSP-Minnesota initiated the construction of this new impoundment, an ash pond, expected to be in service in 2020. Upon placing the new ash pond in service, the existing ash pond will be taken out of service, and closure activities as prescribed by the CCR Rule and the facility’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit will be initiated.

In addition, the rules proposed by the EPA under the D.C. Circuit ruling may require PSCo to expedite the closure of one coal ash impoundment that was not previously required to close. PSCo is pursuing options through comment on the proposed rules or some other means to allow continued operation of this impoundment until the generating units are retired in 2025, at which time the impoundment would be closed.

Operating lease liabilities at Dec. 31, 2019 include a present value of remaining lease payments of approximately $400 million for the MEC PPAs. At March 31, 2020, NSP-Minnesota operating lease liabilities and related ROU assets are eliminated from Xcel Energy’s consolidated balance sheet following the completed January 2020 purchase of MEC by Xcel Energy.

Under certain PPAs, NSP-Minnesota, PSCo and SPS purchase power from IPPs for which the utility subsidiaries are required to reimburse fuel costs, or to participate in tolling arrangements under which the utility subsidiaries procure the natural gas required to produce the energy that they purchase. These specific PPAs create a variable interest in the IPP.

The utility subsidiaries had approximately 3,266 MW and 3,986 MW of capacity under long‑term PPAs at March 31, 2020 and Dec. 31, 2019, respectively, with entities that have been determined to be VIEs. Xcel Energy concluded that these entities are not required to be consolidated in its consolidated financial statements because it does not have the power to direct the activities that most significantly impact the entities’ economic performance. Agreements have expiration dates through 2041.

Guarantees and Bond Indemnifications — Xcel Energy Inc. and its subsidiaries provide guarantees and bond indemnities, which guarantee payment or performance. Xcel Energy Inc.’s exposure is based upon the net liability under the specified agreements or transactions. Most of the guarantees and bond indemnities issued by Xcel Energy Inc. and its subsidiaries have a stated maximum amount. As of March 31, 2020 and Dec. 31, 2019, Xcel Energy Inc. and its subsidiaries had no assets held as collateral related to their guarantees, bond indemnities and indemnification agreements.

Other Indemnification Agreements — Xcel Energy Inc. and its subsidiaries provide indemnifications through various contracts. These are primarily indemnifications against adverse litigation outcomes in connection with underwriting agreements, as well as breaches of representations and warranties, including corporate existence, transaction authorization and income tax matters with respect to assets sold. Xcel Energy Inc.’s and its subsidiaries’ obligations under these agreements may be limited in terms of duration and amount. Maximum future payments under these indemnifications cannot be reasonably estimated as the dollar amounts are often not explicitly stated.