|
|
Agenda
Thursday, January 05, 2012
9:30 AM start time
Utilities represented: Energy Facilities, Electricity, Natural Gas, Telecom
|
To view all documents related to the following Agenda items, visit eDockets
|
DELIBERATION ITEMS
No Items
|
DECISION ITEMS
| 1 |
E002/CN-08-185 |
Northern States Power Company (d/b/a Xcel Energy) |
Approved. |
| |
In the Matter of the Application of Northern States Power, a Minnesota Corporation, for a Certificate of need for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Extended Power Uprate.
Should the Commission accept the proposed changes to the timing of the project as identified in Xcel Energy’s Notice of Changed Circumstances: Extended Power Uprate (First and Second Notices)?
Should the Commission accept the proposed changes without recertification? (PUC: Kaluzniak; DOC: Commens - Rakow)
NOTE: The Company did not file reply comments. Staff supports the DOC recommendation to approve the Company's petitions.
|
| *2 |
E,G002/S-11-1058
|
Xcel Energy |
Approved. |
| |
In the Matter of the Petition of Northern States Power Company for Approval of Capital Structure for Issuance of Long-Term and Short-Term Securities for 2012.
Should the Commission approve Xcel Energy's proposed capital structure and capitalizations?
Should the Commission approve Xcel Energy's request for approval to issue securities? (PUC: Briefing Papers - Kaml)
|
| **3 |
G004/CI-11-1110 |
Great Plains Natural Gas Company |
Rate case, settlement discussions ordered; compliance filings required. |
| |
In the Matter of an Investigation of the Earnings Level of Great Plains Natural Gas Company, Division of MDU Resources Group, Inc.
Should the Commission require Great Plains to initiate a rate case proceeding under Minn. Stat. §216B.16? (PUC: BriefingPapers/Supplemental Exhibit - Brill, Gonzalez)
|
|
The following item will not be heard before 10:00 a.m.
|
| **4 |
P405/AR-11-562
|
Frontier Communications of Minnesota, Inc. |
Plan modified. |
| |
In the Matter of Frontier Communications of Minnesota's Proposal to Join an Existing AFOR Plan of its Corporate Affiliate Citizens Telecommunications of Minnesota.
Should the Commission approve Frontier's proposal to join an existing AFOR plan of Citizens Telecommunications of Minnesota?
A. Should the Commission approve Frontier's compliance filing regarding access charge reductions?
B. Should the Commission approve Frontier's compliance investment plan?
C. Should the Commission modify other aspects of Frontier's AFOR plan as proposed by the DOC? (PUC: Briefing Papers - Krishnan)
|
* One star indicates agenda item is unusual but is not disputed.
** Two stars indicate a disputed item or significant legal or procedural issue to be resolved.
(Ex Parte Rules apply)
|
|