Comments must be received by 4:30pm on the close date.
This Discussion channel is currently closed.
Topic: Does MP’s proposed rate for EITE customers comply with Minn. Stat. §216B.1696, including the types of customers eligible for the rate, the criteria for qualification for the rate, the individual design elements of the rate, and the specific rate option proposed?
Topic: What criteria should the Commission use to evaluate whether MP’s proposed EITE rate schedule provides net benefit to the utility or the state as required by Minn. Stat. §216B.1696, subd. 2(b)? Has MP demonstrated that its proposed EITE rate schedule provides such net benefit?
Topic: Are there additional or alternative rate options for EITE customers that would better meet the policy goals of the statute?
Topic: Does MP’s action on the deposit of $10,000 for low-income funding comply with Minn. Stat. §216B.1696, subd. 3, and is it reasonable?
Topic: Under Minn. Stat. §216B.1696, subd. 2(d), the Commission shall allow recovery of costs in the next general rate case or through an EITE cost recovery rate rider between general rate cases. Should the Commission allow MP to implement a cost recovery rider prior to its next general rate case?