Performance Outcomes: Affordability, Reliability, Customer Service Quality, Environmental Performance, and Cost-effectively Aligning Generation to Load.

Also keeping in mind that metrics should be related to three categories: customer focus, utility performance, and public policy.

a. Please list proposed metrics by outcome.

b. Parties are asked to be as specific as reasonably possible (e.g., "demand response" could be more specific in a number of ways, such as: "demand response capacity," "demand response customer participation," or "demand response called upon annually.").

c. Identify whether each proposed metric is new or already being reported.

d. Identify whether each proposed metric complies with the Commission-established design principles. Please explain any deviations.

e. For an existing metric, should any changes be made to bring the metric into alignment with the performance outcomes and/or metric design principles? Please explain.

f. For a new metric that does not have an agreed-upon formula or data source, please describe what should be considered in further developing the metric to align it with the seven design principles.

In particular, commenters should consider whether their chosen metrics are appropriate for this docket as it relates to Xcel’s multi-year rate plan versus whether certain existing metrics should simply be updated in other dockets applicable to all electric investor owned utilities.

Should the Commission seek to limit itself to a specific number of metrics, either in total or under each Outcome, and why? In the alternative, should the Commission establish priorities on implementing certain metrics, such as metrics that directly fall under statutory energy policies?

Should the Commission mandate that the metrics it eventually selects be part of a dashboard in a publicly-accessible area, such as Xcel’s website?