This Discussion channel is currently closed.
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?
Topic: What criteria should the Commission use in determining whether electric rates are competitive?
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?
Topic: Are there additional or alternative rate options for EITE customers that would better meet the policy goals of the statute?
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?
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?
Topic: Please provide comments regarding any other issues relevant to the Commission’s review of OTP’s petition.