|
Details 2015-134
| 13 | 1. | | CN - Certificate of Need | ** PL9/CN-14-916; Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership
PL9/PPL-15-137;
PL9/C-20-801
In the Matter of the Application of Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership, for a Certificate of Need and Route Permit for the Proposed Line 3 Replacement Project in Minnesota from the North Dakota Border to the Wisconsin Border;
In the Matter of Honor the Earth’s October 27, 2020 Petition for Investigation and Complaint Concerning the Capacity of the Enbridge Mainline System.
Should the Commission reconsider its December 9, 2020 Order Denying Motion for Stay Pending Appeal? (PUC: Ek)
The Commission has the authority to accept or decline a petition for reconsideration with or without a hearing or oral argument (Minnesota Rules 7829.3000, Subpart 6) In other words, a decision on a petition for reconsideration can be made without taking oral comments at the Commission meeting. | |
Action details
|
|
Details 2017-170
| 2 | 2. | | M - Miscellaneous | * E015/AA-20-463; Minnesota Power;
E999/CI-03-802 All Commission-Regulated Electric Utilities
In the Matter of Minnesota Power’s Petition for Approval of the Annual Forecasted Fuel and Purchased Energy;
In the Matter of an Investigation into the Appropriateness of Electric Energy Cost Adjustments.
1. Should the Commission approve Minnesota Power’s request for an extension of time to file its reply comments in its 2021 FCA forecast petition?
2. Should the Commission delegate to the Commission’s Executive Secretary the ability to vary the timelines set forth in the Commission’s June 12, 2019 Order in the FCA reform proceeding? (PUC: Bonnett, Alonso, Bender) | |
Action details
|
|
Details 2018-011
| 1 | 3. | | C - Complaint | ** G011,002/C-17-802 Minnesota Energy Resources Corporation;
Northern States Power Company d/b/a Xcel Energy
In the Matter of the Formal Complaint and Petition for Relief by Minnesota Energy Resources Corporation (MERC) Against Northern States Power Company d/b/a Xcel Energy (Xcel).
· Does the Commission have jurisdiction over MERC’s complaint?
o If yes, would a Commission investigation into MERC’s allegations against Xcel-Gas be in the public interest?
o If no, should the Commission dismiss and close this docket?
· If the Commission chooses to investigate the complaint, how should the Commission proceed? Should the Commission send this Complaint to the Office of Administrative Hearings as a contested case? Alternatively, should the Commission make its decision based on available information at this Agenda Meeting?
· Should the Commission stop Xcel from using its Natural Gas Competitive Agreement until the Commission resolves the legal questions raised by MERC in this docket or in the Commission’s generic investigation into the use of incentives by natural gas utilitie | |
Action details
|