Share to Facebook Share to Twitter Bookmark and Share
Meeting Name: PUC Agenda Meeting Agenda status: Final
Meeting date/time: 9/7/2023 10:00 AM  
Meeting location:
Published agenda: Agenda Agenda Published minutes: Not available  
Meeting video:  
File #Ver.Agenda #NameTypeTitleActionAction Details
Details 2016-131 121. M - Miscellaneous** E002/M-13-867 Xcel Energy In the Matter of a Petition for Approval of Northern States Power Company, dba Xcel Energy, for Approval of its Community Solar Garden Program. Should the Commission extend the residential adder for the 2023 value of solar (VOS) vintage? (PUC: Strauss)  Action details
Details 2022-212 22. TL - Transmission Line* ET2/TL-22-235 Great River Energy In the Matter of the Application of Great River Energy for a Route Permit to Rebuild the Existing 69 kV ST-WW Transmission Line to 115 kV in Stearns County, Minnesota. 1. Should the Commission adopt the Administrative Law Judge's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation? 2. Should the Commission find that the Environmental Assessment and the record created at the public hearing adequately address the issues identified in the scoping decision? 3. Should the Commission require the use of an Independent Third-Party Monitor to assist DOC EERA and Commission staff in monitoring compliance of construction and restoration activities of the project? 4. Should the Commission issue a Route Permit identifying a specific route and permit conditions to rebuild the existing 69 kV ST-WW Transmission Line to 115 kV in Stearns County? (PUC: Panait)  Action details
Details 2021-210 33. TL - Transmission Line** 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 guar  Action details