Minnesota Public ...
  • Sign In
This Discussion channel is currently closed.

Discussion: Petition by Otter Tail Power Company (OTP) for Approval of an Energy-Intensive Trade-Exposed (EITE) Customer Rate | M-17-257

Notice

View Case Record, M-17-257

Subscribe to This Case

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

Topics

Topic: Does OTP’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?
0 Responses
View Topic
Topic: What criteria should the Commission use in determining whether electric rates are competitive?
0 Responses
View Topic
Topic: What criteria should the Commission use to evaluate whether OTP’s proposed EITE rate schedule provides a net benefit to the utility or to the state as required by Minn. Stat. § 216B.1696, subd. 2(b)? Has OTP demonstrated that its proposed EITE rate schedule provides such net benefit?
0 Responses
View Topic
Topic: Are there additional or alternative rate options for EITE customers that would better meet the policy goals of the statute?
0 Responses
View Topic
Topic: Does OTP’s action on the deposit of $10,000 for low-income funding comply with Minn. Stat. § 216B.1696, subd. 3, and is it reasonable?
0 Responses
View Topic
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 OTP to implement an EITE surcharge factor and EITE tracker account prior to its next general rate case?
0 Responses
View Topic
Topic: Please provide comments regarding any other issues relevant to the Commission’s review of OTP’s petition.
0 Responses
View Topic