This Discussion channel is currently closed.

Notice

View Case Record, M-15-984

Subscribe to This Case

Comments must be received by 4:30pm on the close date.


Default_avatar
Rosemary Hampton over 4 years ago

In this case, the net benefit for the state will not be there. The math does not prove a net profit. It won't preserve any mining jobs but will place a $17M burden onto business, government, and resident, including senior citizens. The rate shift won't affect how much revenue or profit MN Power totally makes.

To remain competitive the mining corporations need to reduce the cost of production of iron ore by c. $10/ton (Duluth News Tribune, June 21, 2015) , not $.60/ton, which this rate adjustment will do. This math shows that the $17M in savings to the mining corporations will not save mining jobs.

Thus, I advocate that the Commission vote against this rate increase.

I am a senior citizen and know that most senior citizens, especially those living on social security only, cannot afford an average electrical bill hike of $11.46/month, which is $137/month, although those people who signed up for a low-income discount with MN Power will not receive a hike, as I understand it. Please remember that for Year 2016 we did not receive any increase in our social security checks. Thus, for all of us I am trying to stop this rate increase.

1 Read