File #: Details 2017-218    Version: Name:
Type: M - Miscellaneous Status: Agenda Ready
File created: 10/19/2017 In control: PUC Agenda Meeting
On agenda: 7/29/2021 Final action:
Title: ** G011/M-17-409 Minnesota Energy Resources Corporation In the Matter of a Petition by the Minnesota Energy Resources Corporation (MERC) for Approval of Farm Tap Customer-Owned Fuel Line Replacement Plan, Tariff Amendments, and Deferred Accounting. 1. Should the Commission accept MERC's Phase I report and permit continued deferred accounting of the costs incurred through the evaluation and implementation of Phase II? 2. Has MERC provided the information required in the Commission's November 30, 2017 Order? 3. Should the Commission determine that the costs incurred in Phase I and Phase II of the farm tap project satisfy the definition of gas utility infrastructure costs, and therefore, are eligible for recovery in a future GUIC Rider filing? 4. Should the Commission authorize MERC to move forward with implementation of its revised Phase II farm tap replacement project and approve the proposed schedule for the implementation of Phase II? (PUC: Bonnett, McShane)
Attachments: 1. PUC Order 11-30-17, 2. PUBLIC MERC Report 12-30-19, 3. MERC Letter 3-20-20, 4. PUBLIC DOC Comments 9-14-20, 5. OAG RUD Comments 9-14-20, 6. MERC Reply Comments 10-1-20, 7. 1 NNGC Response to IR 6-1-21, 8. 2 NNGC Response to IR 6-1-21, 9. 2a NNGC Response to IR 6-1-21, 10. 3 NNGC Response to IR 6-1-21, 11. 4 NNGC Response to IR 6-1-21, 12. 5 NNGC Response to IR 6-1-21, 13. 6 NNGC Response to IR 6-1-21, 14. 7 NNGC Response to IR 6-1-21, 15. Briefing Papers, 16. Decision Options - Commissioner Tuma

title

**                     G011/M-17-409                     Minnesota Energy Resources Corporation

In the Matter of a Petition by the Minnesota Energy Resources Corporation (MERC) for Approval of Farm Tap Customer-Owned Fuel Line Replacement Plan, Tariff Amendments, and Deferred Accounting.

 

1.                     Should the Commission accept MERC's Phase I report and permit continued deferred accounting of the costs incurred through the evaluation and implementation of Phase II?

2.                     Has MERC provided the information required in the Commission's November 30, 2017 Order?

3.                     Should the Commission determine that the costs incurred in Phase I and Phase II of the farm tap project satisfy the definition of gas utility infrastructure costs, and therefore, are eligible for recovery in a future GUIC Rider filing?

4.                     Should the Commission authorize MERC to move forward with implementation of its revised Phase II farm tap replacement project and approve the proposed schedule for the implementation of Phase II? (PUC: Bonnett, McShane)