This Discussion channel is currently closed.
Topic: Regarding the attached list of draft principles and objectives for alternative rate design (Attachment A):
Topic: Are there any identified principles or objectives that should be modified or removed from this list?
Topic: What rate designs are best situated for potential pilot projects, and are there any barriers to piloting the identified rate designs?
Topic: What lessons have been learned from previous rate design pilots in Minnesota, and how can that knowledge be applied to the current proceeding?
Topic: What are ways in which low income and other at risk or medical needs customers can continue to be served at an affordable cost? For example, could the creation of a specific low income rate design tariff be considered as a way to protect low income and other at-risk customers?
Topic: To date, the scope of this proceeding has been limited to residential class customers; should this proceeding be expanded to include alternative rate design for industrial and commercial customers?
Topic: What are necessary customer engagement and customer segmentation strategies that could support any transition to alternative rate design? Provide examples of such strategies.
Topic: Is there activity in other states on alternative rate design that would assist the Commission in the consideration of alternative rate designs, principles and objectives, or lessons from other pilots that could be used in the development of any pilots for Xcel?