File #: Details 2021-210    Version: Name:
Type: TL - Transmission Line Status: Agenda Ready
File created: 8/12/2021 In control: PUC Agenda Meeting
On agenda: 9/7/2023 Final action:
Title: ** ET2/TL-21-434 Nexus Line, LLC In the Matter of the Petition to Transfer a Portion of the Route Permit for the HVDC Transmission Line System and Associated Facilities in Minnesota. 1. Has Nexus met the requirements of Order point 9 in the Commission's March 3 Order? If not, what requirements were not met? 2. Do the financial statements and other financial information provided by Nexus in its May 3, 2023 Petition demonstrate that the permittee has the ability to fund the decommissioning financial assurance? If not, what additional information should the Commission require Nexus to provide to demonstrate the permittee can fund the decommissioning financial assurance? 3. Do the proposed terms of the guaranty provide sufficient protections to ensure Minnesota ratepayers will not have to fund decommissioning of the high-voltage transmission line? If not, what changes should be made? 4. With the proposed guaranty, how will the public interest be protected in the event of the bankruptcy of...
Attachments: 1. Nexus Line Request to Change Form 5-3-23, 2. PUC Notice of Comment Period 5-15-23, 3. DOC-DER Request for Extension 6-30-23, 4. Nexus Line, LLC Reply Comments 6-30-23, 5. DOC-DER Comments 7-28-23, 6. Nexus Line PUBLIC Reply Comments 8-10-23, 7. LIUNA Reply Comments 8-11-23, 8. IUOE Reply Comments 9-5-23, 9. Briefing Papers

title

**                     ET2/TL-21-434                     Nexus Line, LLC

In the Matter of the Petition to Transfer a Portion of the Route Permit for the HVDC Transmission Line System and Associated Facilities in Minnesota.

 

1.                     Has Nexus met the requirements of Order point 9 in the Commission’s March 3 Order? If not, what requirements were not met?

2.                     Do the financial statements and other financial information provided by Nexus in its May 3, 2023 Petition demonstrate that the permittee has the ability to fund the decommissioning financial assurance? If not, what additional information should the Commission require Nexus to provide to demonstrate the permittee can fund the decommissioning financial assurance?

3.                     Do the proposed terms of the guaranty provide sufficient protections to ensure Minnesota ratepayers will not have to fund decommissioning of the high-voltage transmission line? If not, what changes should be made?

4.                     With the proposed guaranty, how will the public interest be protected in the event of the bankruptcy of the guarantor?

5.                     Is it in the public interest to switch from a letter of credit to a parental guaranty?

6.                     Are there other issues or concerns related to this matter the Commission should consider? (PUC: Janezich)