This is an outrageous increase in rates for residential customers. Xcel should not be allowed to collect an "interim rate increase" but should have to await the Commission's decision. I feel quite sure that by cutting executive compensation, they would achieve the economies required to avoid the proposed increases. I live on a fixed income. It seems to me that Xcel is indifferent to the small cost-of-living increases allowed by Social Security. The Public Utility Commission should take this into account.

The rates indicated in their Rate Increase Notice are not, as indicated in the How to Learn More Section, on Xcel's website. That is probably why you receive no comments from the public. You need to enforce the rules that the are mocking by advertising non-existent information sources and assist the public in acquiring the data promised by them to evaluate the increase.

The Minnesota Building and Construction Trades Council community is comprised of 60,000+ men and women earning a living "Building Minnesota." We provide highly skilled workers to hundreds of employers throughout our State. One of our larger premier partners is Xcel Energy. Xcel Energy, and earlier NSP, has provided thousands of Minnesota Building and Construction Trades Council members great jobs for many decades. We expect that to continue for decades to come.

Recently, Xcel provided a resource plan to your agency; we support that plan and hope that you see the value this "Public Utility Company" provides to this region: a reliable source of strong baseload, a renewable plan that continues to exceed expectations, and a community-minded company that provides quality employment for all.

We believe that Xcel has a commitment to Minnesota, and we want that to continue. There are conversations by some organizations who think other options that should be considered when delivering power in the Xcel area network. I caution those that think private utilities would look out for the region’s best interest. There are a few district energy groups that do an outstanding job in the Xcel Energy Service area; hats off to them.

Our concern focuses on those energy providers that have and will subscribe to a very different business model then we, as Minnesotans, are accustomed to and have come to expect.

Good partners are rare. Let's continue on and support one that has provided stable, affordable, and innovative solutions in an ever-changing energy system.

Please see the attached letter in general support of the positive health effects of closing Sherco Units one and two. I am sending the letter on behalf of Health Professionals for a Healthy Climate, of which I am a member. Thanks!

Please see the attached letter in general support of the positive health effects of closing Sherco Units one and two. I am sending the letter on behalf of Health Professionals for a Healthy Climate, of which I am a member. Thanks!

Please see the attached letter in general support of the positive health effects of closing Sherco Units one and two. I am sending the letter on behalf of Health Professionals for a Healthy Climate, of which I am a member. Thanks!

This closing of the power plants will result in zero effect for controlling climate via CO2 emissions. If all the earth's CO2 contained in the air, waters and soil were in a 12-ounce can of soda, man's contribution would be a little over two drops. After receiving a $50 million donation, Sierra Club put together a group of some 200 lawyers and activists in 2010 and shut down some 200 coal fired power plants. The results? CO2 is still rising. They plan on shutting down a lot more, but will get nowhere because man's two drops in the can of CO2 is irrelevant in the vast carbon cycle system where CO2 is being absorbed and expelled at varying rates across the globe, partially due to rise and fall of heat applied by sun and volcanic undersea activity. Sierra Club might even be contributing to global warming by reducing the amount of reflective ash in the air which produces a shading effect. Climate engineers using solar radiation management techniques are working on cooling down certain regions by shading (maybe they should reopen the coal plants!). Clouds and volcanic eruptions already do something similar to this. i.e. Mt. Tambora in 1816 produced the year without summer. Take a look at the NOAA annual mean growth rate of CO2 chart covering 1960 through 2015 at Mauna Loa observatory. You will notice that CO2 growth rate dropped to .28 and .48 ppm for years 1964 and 1992. How come? Did people suddenly burn less coal and oil those years? No, it was Mt. Agung (1963-64) and Mt. Pinatubo (1991-92) blasting about one cubic mile of ash into the air to a height of some 22 miles. This causes a shading/cooling effect on the ocean which then expels less CO2. The Mauna Loa observatory would also experience some of this shading or at least detect the decrease of atmospheric CO2. Aren't environmentalists being cruel to green plants by trying to reduce their CO2 plant food intake?

This closing of the power plants will result in zero effect for controlling climate via CO2 emissions. If all the earth's CO2 contained in the air, waters and soil were in a 12-ounce can of soda, man's contribution would be a little over two drops. After receiving a $50 million donation, Sierra Club put together a group of some 200 lawyers and activists in 2010 and shut down some 200 coal fired power plants. The results? CO2 is still rising. They plan on shutting down a lot more, but will get nowhere because man's two drops in the can of CO2 is irrelevant in the vast carbon cycle system where CO2 is being absorbed and expelled at varying rates across the globe, partially due to rise and fall of heat applied by sun and volcanic undersea activity. Sierra Club might even be contributing to global warming by reducing the amount of reflective ash in the air which produces a shading effect. Climate engineers using solar radiation management techniques are working on cooling down certain regions by shading (maybe they should reopen the coal plants!). Clouds and volcanic eruptions already do something similar to this. i.e. Mt. Tambora in 1816 produced the year without summer. Take a look at the NOAA annual mean growth rate of CO2 chart covering 1960 through 2015 at Mauna Loa observatory. You will notice that CO2 growth rate dropped to .28 and .48 ppm for years 1964 and 1992. How come? Did people suddenly burn less coal and oil those years? No, it was Mt. Agung (1963-64) and Mt. Pinatubo (1991-92) blasting about one cubic mile of ash into the air to a height of some 22 miles. This causes a shading/cooling effect on the ocean which then expels less CO2. The Mauna Loa observatory would also experience some of this shading or at least detect the decrease of atmospheric CO2. Aren't environmentalists being cruel to green plants by trying to reduce their CO2 plant food intake?

Please see attached letter from the Saint Paul Area Chamber of Commerce. Thank you.