[0:03] Good morning, everyone. Today is Thursday, August 20th, 2026. This is an agenda meeting in the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. My name is Katie Seben. I chair the Commission. And I'll take the roll of the other commissioners who are present. Commissioner Pertridge here. Commissioner Ham. Commissioner Sullivan.

[0:23] President.

[0:25] Commissioner Tuma.

[0:25] Of here.

[0:26] A quorum is present.

[0:28] Before we begin with our full agenda today, I'd just like to take a moment to recognize

[0:34] Mark Fornier, who's at the back of the room and has a docket up later this afternoon.

[0:41] Thanks for standing Mark.

[0:43] It's his last day with a public utilities commission.

[0:47] Mark has served us with distinction since 1989.

[0:51] And for many of those years, he was an analyst in the telecom unit, helping guide the commission through the implementation of the Federal 1996 Telecom Act, which required state commissions to introduce competition and emerging technologies in the telecom space.

[1:10] From 2013 to 2016, as Energy Work was increasing, Mark worked exclusively on energy

[1:18] documents, including gas and electric service quality, sip writers, and cooperative resource

[1:24] plans.

[1:26] He then began easing back into Telecom and his expertise has helped us shape our evolving

[1:32] work.

[1:33] So thank you for your work on more than 1,300 documents during your time at the Commission.

[1:40] Thank you, Mark, I'll turn it over to Commissioner Tuma, who also wanted to thank you for your service.

[1:46] Mark, I really appreciate working with you, you're just a steady keel.

[1:50] That's why I always think, and very steady, always have good advice.

[1:54] I took over the telecom stuff from Lift Shultz House, Clueless, and you have been just a rock

[2:00] to work with. I can't tell you how much I've appreciated the time I've had with you,

[2:04] and understanding how the process works.

[2:06] and thank you for your service.

[2:08] It's been wonderful.

[2:09] I hope you have a good time.

[2:11] Get a catch a lot of fish and do a lot of good things.

[2:14] So thank you so much.

[2:25] OK, our first docate today will be introduced by Jacques Carvo.

[2:30] Please introduce docate number one.

[2:34] Good morning, Chair Steven and commissioners.

[2:36] Item number one is docate number ESS26184 involving

[2:40] L-S-P-C-G storage L-L-C in the matter of their application for a site permit for the up-to-80

[2:47] megawatt Cottage Grove Best Project and Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota.

[2:52] The questions before the commission are, should the commission require an addendum to the

[2:56] environmental assessment for the project?

[2:58] If an addendum is required, should the commission authorize the executive secretary to approve

[3:02] the scope of an EAA addendum?

[3:05] If an addendum is required, should the commission extend the six months statutory deadline for

[3:09] commission to make a decision, not to exceed nine months, should the commission issue the draft

[3:14] site permit prepared by energy infrastructure permitting staff, including the proposed special

[3:18] permit conditions, and should the commission request that an administrative lodge judge from the

[3:23] Court of Administrative Hearings conduct public hearings for the project and prepare some

[3:26] summary of public testimony as expeditiously as possible. Staff has the following open remarks.

[3:32] The briefing paper on page 9 mentions updates,

[3:35] the sections 1, 2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.2, 2.3, 3 and 4 of the draft site permit, staff notes.

[3:43] There is no section 2.2 or 2.3 in the draft permit.

[3:46] Staff has no further remarks and is available for questions.

[3:50] Thank you.

[3:51] Thank you.

[3:51] If the parties could come forward, please.

[3:55] We'll begin with questions from commissioners.

[3:59] The applicant's online, I guess.

[4:02] So commissioner Sullivan

[4:06] just even I don't have any questions at this point in time

[4:10] I'm ready to make a motion whenever you're ready. I know that

[4:16] You know, I guess the only thing I would ask is if the

[4:20] If the city has any concerns, I think the city is is squared away, but

[4:26] I think

[4:29] Ms. Sabatka is there from the city or who's online from the city of Cottage Grove?

[4:35] Have you could please turn your camera on if you are or speak up?

[4:44] Yes, so that's me. So, I'm a Sabatka from City of Cottage Grove. I'm a Lannis Sabatka, the Assistant City Engineer.

[4:50] As a whole, the city appreciates the commission for including the comments that we had shared

[4:54] on my acknowledging their requirements with the city.

[4:57] We appreciate the collaboration and the coordination and look at the

[5:02] No, we don't have any problem with the way that the briefing papers lay out where we are and where we're headed, that's clear.

[5:14] That is very clear. We do not. We appreciate the inclusion of this specific

[5:18] stipulations for our requirements and calling out our specific ordinances. So as

[5:22] a full of the city is appreciative and supportive of how it's progressing.

[5:27] And also, thank you very much and we appreciate the city's involvement in our

[5:31] docket. I know that perhaps Leonard Wabbashah from Shaka P. Midawakitan Sioux was

[5:40] going to join? Are there any tribal representatives online that wanted to identify themselves

[5:47] or speak to the docket?

[5:53] Okay, I don't see anyone.

[5:56] So Commissioner Sullivan, before you make

[6:00] a motion commissioner, Tuma has a question. Mr. Mallard, thanks for being on. I was noting

[6:09] that there is some discussion about insurance and the best project we just had down in Southern

[6:16] Minnesota, Midwater Bess. We had some insurance language very specific to that permit in our

[6:22] staff to not include any language here in the draft, but I think it's important that we do have

[6:27] insurance language in there. So I was just going to poke at you and say, I think that should be

[6:33] part of the discussion going forward to make sure that you put together some language that

[6:38] you're comfortable with in the permit. I think we're still trying to level set how

[6:45] best language and insurance language should be here at the commission. So you're the

[6:50] second test case is trying to figure out what that looks like is what I would say to you. So

[6:54] I'm looking at insurance and I'm sure we will have that as part of the discussion and probably

[6:59] a permit condition. I just wanted to make sure you're comfortable with working on some language

[7:04] as we go forward around insurance requirements in the permit.

[7:09] And Mr. Mueller, please identify yourself for the record.

[7:18] Get your seat.

[7:19] You've been in good morning, commissioners, David Mueller from Fedor Accent by our

[7:21] partner on behalf of the applicant, LSP, CGs or storage.

[7:28] We also have a project representative from paneling capital under clink sick is also online.

[7:36] But I appreciate the staff briefing papers and I appreciate, you know, we had done a

[7:40] response.

[7:40] We, of course, obviously, have insurance for the project and will, but we'd be willing

[7:44] to work well and add additional language through the process and special condition or whatever

[7:50] is necessary.

[7:51] I respond to the time we haven't seen the mid-water written in the order yet, and so that's

[7:55] why we did the way we responded in our supplemental comments, but we do support the staff

[8:01] recommendations on three, five and eight, including all the special permit conditions

[8:05] for the City of Kajgrove.

[8:07] That was good.

[8:08] Looking forward to it.

[8:09] Thank you.

[8:11] Anything else, commissioners?

[8:13] Commissioner Sullivan, could you make a motion please?

[8:16] I'm happy to make a motion.

[8:17] Thank you.

[8:19] First of all, I did want to just note that I appreciated the work that the developer has already

[8:25] done reaching out to the tribal communities and the work that they've done.

[8:30] and let the city, and I think that they've shown,

[8:34] like they've put the work in,

[8:37] at least up to this point,

[8:39] and I appreciate that, Mr. Moore,

[8:41] I appreciate your willingness to continue working on those issues

[8:44] with insurance.

[8:45] I didn't think at this point, it was necessary to include

[8:47] some of the stuff, Commissioner Tuma,

[8:50] so that's why I'm comfortable with decision options,

[8:52] moving decision options, three, five, and eight,

[8:57] And I'm happy to answer any questions.

[9:01] Is there any discussion of Commissioner Sullivan's motion?

[9:05] All those in favor, please say aye.

[9:08] I pose the motion prevailed five to zero.

[9:12] Thank you.

[9:14] Sitting folks too.

[9:16] And our staff.

[9:19] And we'll take up item two when folks get ready next.

[9:46] Ms. Jackson and Ms. Johnson,

[9:48] and thank you for your work on this.

[9:50] Please introduce the item.

[9:55] Good morning, chair Seaman and commissioners.

[9:58] Item number two is for Dr.

[10:00] Number E01-5-CN-25-111. In the matter of the application of Minnesota Power and American Transmission

[10:10] Company for a certificate of need and route permit for the Iron Range St. Louis County Arrowhead

[10:16] 345 Kilocal Transmission Project. The questions before the commission are, are there any

[10:22] contested issues of fact with respect to the representations made in the certificate of need

[10:27] application and are there any other issues or concerns related to this matter? I have no further marks, but I am available for questions. Thank you.

[10:36] Thank you very much. I think this is pretty clear a procedural decision for the commission to make at this point.

[10:44] I do have a question for the department if they're available.

[10:53] Good morning.

[10:54] Could you please state your name for the record and the organization you're representing?

[10:59] Yes, my name is Forest.

[11:00] I'd bow and I'm with the Minnesota Department of Commerce.

[11:03] Thank you very much for being here.

[11:05] Are you comfortable with the,

[11:08] I just wanted to confirm that you are comfortable with the staff recommendation.

[11:13] foundation that we could handle this certificate of a need application through contested case proceedings.

[11:21] What decision option number two?

[11:24] So we absolutely are here.

[11:26] Okay.

[11:26] Great.

[11:27] Are there other questions from commissioners?

[11:30] Then I would move decision option two to decline to refer their certificate of need application to the court of administrative hearings.

[11:39] for contested case proceedings under Minnesota statute 1457. Is there any discussion?

[11:48] Hearing none, all of them favor of my motion, please say aye.

[11:52] Aye. I opposed the motion prevails. Thank you very much.

[11:58] Thank you to our staff and next we'll move on to item 3 when folks get ready.

[12:42] Good morning, Mr. Manning. Please introduce item number three for us.

[12:47] Good morning, Chair.

[12:48] See you in commissioners.

[12:49] Agenda item number three is docket number e999 slash CI 19704.

[12:55] And the matter of an investigation is into self commitment and self scheduling

[12:58] of large base load generation facilities.

[13:01] This docket was last before the commission on October 23, 2025.

[13:06] The questions for the commission today are have the utilities provided

[13:10] the data equipment information, the 2025 compiling compliance

[13:14] filings on self commitment should the utilities be required to provide additional

[13:18] information or take additional steps regarding self commitment at this time

[13:22] should the filing of this report be combined with the annual fuel true

[13:25] of reporting is recommended by joint parties in the December 29, 2025 letter

[13:30] and should the filing requirements for future years be modified

[13:33] parties and staff are available for questions. Thank you.

[13:37] Thank you. Should we have the parties come forward first and stay to appearances,

[13:48] the utilities that are representing, or the people that are representing the utilities in

[13:53] the department, if they could come forward? Well, why don't we start with Audertale since it

[14:02] looks like water tails online.

[14:05] So whoever's answering questions for water tail,

[14:09] please identify yourself and the organization

[14:11] you're representing.

[14:18] We can't hear you missed on Afriel, I'm not sure why.

[14:37] Now, yes, now we can.

[14:40] I apologize.

[14:41] We did a sound check, but then I got kicked out

[14:43] and came back again.

[14:44] And everything was different, apparently.

[14:47] My name is Lauren Donapriel, and I am the Senior Associate

[14:51] General Council for our Audertail Power Company and with me to answer questions I have Ryan Vetzlop, who is our manager.

[15:00] Our marketing and generation operations. And Paula Foster, who is there, our regulatory analyst on this matter.

[15:08] Okay, thank you. And starting on my right for Minnesota power.

[15:14] Good morning, Chair C. Ben, commissioners, maprotein and behalf of Minnesota power.

[15:20] Good morning, Lauren Steinhouser on behalf of Excel Energy. Good morning, Sydney leave with the Minnesota Department of Commerce.

[15:28] Okay, thank you.

[15:29] and we'll start with commissioner questions, commissioner, huh?

[15:35] Thank you. Thank you, Chair Sivan. I do not have a question, but I think step raise this

[15:42] question, and then I think I agree with it. The main reason we are discussing this today is because

[15:48] we are trying to change the venue of discussing this issue from the CCI data to the triple A

[15:54] markets. I agree with it because this

[15:58] market is mature. I think it has a

[16:01] significant impact to the optimal

[16:03] dispatch of our coal plants. I think

[16:06] that save a lot of money for our

[16:08] way pairs. Now it's I think given

[16:11] this maturity and the apartments are

[16:13] green ones, we can move these to the

[16:15] cheap late markets. When there is an

[16:17] annual true up, we can discuss this

[16:18] issue as a part of those overall

[16:22] discussion.

[16:25] Are there other questions for the utilities?

[16:31] Ms. Donafrio, as I know that for

[16:35] Audertail AME is taking effect or is now taken effect.

[16:41] And this is this docket doesn't cover AME as an operational

[16:47] economic output for your coal facilities, but in anticipation of AME, I don't know how

[16:57] else to say it, like happening now in 2026, what do you think or is it too hard to

[17:03] speculate? Is there anything that you're seeing that you want the commission to be aware of

[17:08] as it relates to AME that you see coming.

[17:16] Certainly, and I will point that question

[17:20] to Ryan Rett's law chair Stevens,

[17:23] as I think he has a better grasp on the day-to-day

[17:26] of how that's working.

[17:29] Mr. Rett's law, just state your name quickly, please.

[17:32] Thank you.

[17:34] Thank you, chair Stevens.

[17:35] Ryan Rett's law for the latter two of power.

[17:37] I am the manager of wholesale marketing here.

[17:42] Yeah, in regards to Amy, thank you for the question.

[17:46] The thing that I would note for us, especially with regard to the self-committ filing,

[17:51] is we'll have to figure out how we're going to report that next year.

[17:56] You know, partial year will have Amy in it and partial of the year will not have Amy in it.

[18:02] And, you know, what we want to look at when that split happens and it'll change the reporting a little that didn't want to maybe have some discussions around that.

[18:14] So far, since June 1st, County Amie has run very little, I think through July was maybe like seven hours.

[18:23] I think it's something like that. I'm not sure whether it precise number is, but it has not been much.

[18:32] And the other thing I would just notice is just, or mention is, you know, there are times

[18:40] when we will see some megawatt hours fall into coyote and me when we do some necessary

[18:45] testing.

[18:46] I'm not sure if that's been discussed in too much detail.

[18:51] But we will see some generated generation megawatts allocated there, but they should be very

[18:57] limited as well.

[18:58] So, and do you think that we have any evidence or any other questions?

[19:03] No, I appreciate that and I did, like, as you were answering it,

[19:08] made me, your point about how it could affect the reporting because of the,

[19:14] because of the changes that are occurring.

[19:17] Is there anything that you think we should ask you to do in addition for reporting into the,

[19:26] fuel-clogs docket now that will be that might just be helpful or that I assume you file

[19:35] information if we asked for it anyway, whether we ordered it or not, but anything because

[19:40] of that change that you think is helpful to include in the reports.

[19:45] You know, Commissioner, chair Seben, thank you.

[19:50] I would, I'm maybe not be the very best person to answer to that question, but I will say that

[19:55] we have set up a new asset owner within my soda capture most of those

[20:05] I'm expecting that all of our dollars in costs will get, and credits will get allocated correctly.

[20:17] So, I can't think of anything at this time.

[20:20] I was more concerned about, you know, once we go

[20:24] from having reporting CODE as one entity,

[20:28] and then we get to June 1st of 2026,

[20:31] and we're now splitting it between CODE and me

[20:33] and the code is shared of CODE.

[20:37] You know, how will we want that reported

[20:40] for the self-commentment process?

[20:44] I'm not the person to ask. Dr. Leave, do you have any thoughts on this or further, I assume you

[20:50] can ask questions as this continues to unfold if you need more information?

[20:58] Sure, Steven. I don't know that we've thought this through completely at this point. I think

[21:02] we would bring it up as the filings are coming forward, but I'll ask Dr. Raccoe if he hasn't

[21:09] Anything else to add there?

[21:11] No.

[21:13] He's shaking.

[21:13] He said no.

[21:14] He says no.

[21:15] Okay.

[21:16] Surprise.

[21:17] Yes.

[21:18] Well, we can always add if there's not sufficient information.

[21:22] We can always continue to handle that in the docket and.

[21:28] And sure.

[21:29] We would be more than happy to visit with how how that reporting format should be changed.

[21:35] and so we two different units, as we closer to that time period.

[21:40] And you're willing to work, of course, with our staff and the department as they want on that.

[21:48] Yeah, great.

[21:50] Any other questions from commissioners?

[21:53] And Commissioner Ham, do you want to make a motion?

[22:05] them.

[22:09] Is there any discussion of Commissioner Homs motion? All in favor please say aye.

[22:14] Aye. Opposed. The motion prevails. Thank you very much everyone.

[22:20] Thank you.

[23:02] Christian noises are analysts for agenda item four. Please introduce the item.

[23:07] Yes. Good morning, Chair Steven and Commissioner. As item number four is

[23:11] Docket number E002 comma PT 7157 slash SA-25-129

[23:24] involving Excel energy and the city of

[23:27] Slayton in the matter of the petition of the city of Slayton for determination of compensation

[23:32] for a city acquisition of Excel energy electric service territory.

[23:38] The question before the commission is should the commission accept, reject, or modify,

[23:42] the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations provided by the Court of Administrative

[23:48] hearings. We had a late filed letter of decision options by the City of Slayton,

[23:55] which staff compiled with the original decision options. We also have new decision options

[24:01] submitted by Commissioner Partridge, both sets of decision options are available in the back corner

[24:06] and are set at the commissioner stations.

[24:11] We have representatives from Excel energy,

[24:14] the City of Slayton and the Department of Commerce available for commissioner questions.

[24:19] I have no further remarks but also available for questions. Thank you.

[24:25] It's the parties could please come forward.

[24:27] We'll begin with opening statements from the parties.

[24:43] For three parties we have a lot of people who want to,

[24:47] and not enough chairs. So if you are not speaking right at the beginning, you're welcome to still sit at that second row of chairs if and then we can call you up if.

[25:00] If you want to address the commission or the commission asks you a question, but

[25:21] so because we had some late filed comments and decision options, I thought it would be a good idea to just have parties begin with outlining to us where your final positions are and what decision options or action you'd like the commission to take.

[25:40] And we'll begin this morning, how about with the Department of Commerce, who's on my far left,

[25:49] if you could please introduce yourself and state anything you'd like.

[25:55] I'd appreciate it.

[25:57] Good morning, commissioners.

[25:59] I'm at Hondo Assistant Attorney General.

[26:01] It's not on.

[26:05] The camera went to you.

[26:07] So I think I think.

[26:09] Good.

[26:13] of commerce today. The Department continues to support its contributions to the record in this matter

[26:19] and the Department supports decision option one, accepting the ALJ report and its entirety.

[26:25] While all of the final costs have not been finalized yet based on the information currently in the

[26:30] record, estimated compensation per accepting the ALJ report consists of a lump sum payment of a

[26:41] 1,616.79 mills per kilowatt hour over a period of 10 years for loss revenue.

[26:50] Additionally, based on August 2026, Status of the ER Interconnection Q at the late-in-West

[26:57] Substation, there aren't active studies at this time, therefore, partridge new 10A decision

[27:04] option may be unnecessary.

[27:07] Thank you.

[27:09] Thank you. Next we'll hear from the City of Slayton and please state your name for the

[27:16] record and then provide comments.

[27:21] Mr.

[27:25] Weir, I'm sorry, but I should have told you

[27:27] there's a button at the bottom there. Oh, thank you. There we go. So the folks online can

[27:31] hear. Can you just repeat that? It's certainly a good morning, Trustee Ben. Commissioner

[27:34] is my name is Josh Weer on behalf of the City of Slayton.

[27:39] And the City of Slayton respectfully asked the Commission to adopt the city's decision options

[27:43] all to four, new six, and new eight.

[27:48] The central issue in this case is loss of revenue.

[27:51] The city in Excel take very different positions on this.

[27:54] The city's expert, David Berg, evaluated Excel's actual, unrecoverable losses during

[28:01] a reasonable adjustment period needed to bring any losses down to zero.

[28:05] As a approach has grounded in principles of cost avoidance, in mitigation, in consistent

[28:10] with commission president.

[28:12] Buying these principles to the city established a full record of evidence showing that

[28:16] Slayton represents less than one tenth of one percent of Excel's Minnesota load, and that

[28:22] Excel can and most certainly will redeploy resources from Slayton to serve other customers.

[28:28] The four megawatts of capacity now serve in Slayton and will not sit idle, their capacity

[28:33] that Excel can use elsewhere, delaying new construction and avoiding costs that would otherwise

[28:38] put upward pressure on rates.

[28:41] Excel's model takes the opposite approach.

[28:43] It relies on overly optimistic statewide projections and assumptions and would let Excel continue

[28:49] collecting 70% of Slayton revenues while providing no service.

[28:54] While it uses those resources to serve other customers, and it's growing load-based,

[28:59] the ALJ's recommendations did not address the city's evidence on these key points.

[29:03] For example, city witness Mark Fretch offered un-rebuted testimony of his first-hand knowledge

[29:09] and experience as an employee of Excel, and its ability to adjust and reallocate resources

[29:14] after a loss in load within a five-year period, and potentially within even the first year.

[29:20] The recommendation also found only $254 a year in avoidable distribution costs, and amount

[29:27] insufficient to cover depreciation on even a handful of transformers, let alone the $3 million

[29:33] distribution system the city would be purchased in.

[29:36] In most concern, the recommendation did not even discuss Mr. Fritch's testimony, the distribution

[29:41] cost avoidance issues that the city pointed out, or the cost savings from redeploying

[29:47] sources instead of building new ones.

[29:50] Touching briefly on the site in West Substation, the record shows that Slayton's historical

[29:54] load on it uses only 28.6% of the substations overall.

[30:00] Local capacity, and that the sub-station remains important for Excel's interconnection needs. Mr. Bergs Treatment of the sub-station is part of the loss of revenue consideration, fairly compensates Excel for this issue.

[30:12] Lastly, on integration costs, the commission should award proven costs, not possibilities, speculative engineering studies, hypothetical DER impacts, and undefined future expenses should not be awarded.

[30:25] Excel is not shown what these costs are, or that they are reasonable and prudent.

[30:30] At bottom, this case asks whether compensation will reflect actual on recoverable losses,

[30:35] or hypothetical future revenues. The record supports only one answer,

[30:39] and the commission should adopt the city's approach.

[30:43] With that, I would ask permission, Mr. Malchow, the City of Meshare,

[30:46] also it's a brief remarks prepared if the commission would like to hear them now,

[30:50] or we could wait until you get into the commission's questions.

[30:53] Thank you.

[30:54] Why don't we hold off and then we'll hear him when we get into questions.

[31:00] So, next Excel, please.

[31:03] Thank you, Chair.

[31:04] My name is Ryan Barlow from the law firm of Cozen, O'Connor, appearing on behalf of Excel energy.

[31:09] Also with me today is Ian Dodson from Excel.

[31:12] And we have some other folks available if there are technical questions that you need answers to.

[31:17] I want to first clarify what the company's role is in this case.

[31:21] If Slayton leaves our system, the company will lose around $3 million of revenue each year.

[31:28] Unless that can be offset with avoided costs, or with just compensation from Slayton,

[31:35] that will lead to a rate increase for our other customers.

[31:38] And our primary goal in this case is to protect our other customers from that rate increase,

[31:43] which would be caused by Slayton's choice to leave.

[31:46] To that end, we have committed that any just compensation we receive from Slayton will be refunded to our other customers to protect them from that rate impact.

[31:56] We generally agree with the conclusions and recommendations in the ALJ report.

[32:01] We disagree on a few technical areas, including the time period and growth rates,

[32:06] but there are two other things I want to call attention to in particular.

[32:09] The first is related to engineering studies. We are supportive of the direction of new decision

[32:16] option 10A, filed by Commissioner Partridge. We're happy to provide a compliance filing after any

[32:22] studies are complete. We would propose a change to the scope. While there are some solar interconnection

[32:28] issues, our concern about engineering studies is broader and I'm happy to discuss this in more detail,

[32:34] but I know you only want two minutes here. So we would propose to expand that so that it covers

[32:39] any engineering studies that we are required to do because of the

[32:43] exit of slate and from our system and I have some language that I can provide at the

[32:47] right time. Second, we're aligned with the ALJ's overall recommendation on the

[32:53] treatment of the slate and west substation, but the ALJ also recommended that we

[32:58] be required to provide some additional information after this hearing. We think that

[33:04] we've already provided all of that information. I'm not going to walk through it here,

[33:08] that we listed it on page 13 of our exceptions.

[33:11] So our request is just that we not be required

[33:14] to make that extra filing, and I have language

[33:17] for that to share at the right time.

[33:20] If the commission does want us to provide more information

[33:23] about that substation, we would ask for some guidance

[33:25] on what you're looking for.

[33:27] For my perspective, we think we've put everything

[33:29] into the record to do that calculation already,

[33:32] and we're not sure what else there would be that's needed.

[33:34] And finally, staff reached out to ask that we have cost calculations available.

[33:41] I've got that if you need it, I confirm that our current recommendation is what we put

[33:46] in our exceptions.

[33:47] It's a lump sum payment of approximately $35 million.

[33:51] I know that the ALJ recommended splitting that into mill rates, and we can provide that calculation.

[33:56] We also have the calculations for the different time periods that are in the briefing

[34:00] papers and decision options.

[34:05] Thank you.

[34:05] Okay, we'll begin with Commissioner questions, who would like to begin, Commissioner Sullivan?

[34:15] Commissioner Parcher wants to go first, I can, but I just have a couple kind of high-level questions.

[34:23] In general, I mean, I reviewed the record and I found that ALJ's recommendation kind of revolving around where I was at.

[34:33] You know, I think that the blending of generation, planning, and distribution planning

[34:42] in 10 years. I mean, I was kind of more like an 15-year frame, but 10 years I'm okay with,

[34:48] but so I'm kind of in that spot and I've been looking forward to the conversation here to really

[34:52] kind of titrate in where exactly I'm at. But there's a couple of things that I was wondering about

[34:58] from the city of Slayton's perspective.

[35:00] And I appreciate that this all started because of poor service, that at least some incidents of poor service, I think objectively the numbers are kind of some years you're up a, you know, a little bit worse, some years you're a little bit better and you kind of, kind of, but there are some really bad examples out there, like in particular, you know, when the fire department had to come out for four hours and water the ground.

[35:27] I mean, I think that's unacceptable and I completely appreciate your exasperation with that situation.

[35:39] And service in the South has been an issue that this incident has been an issue that this commission has been focused on.

[35:45] So it's not great to hear that.

[35:49] But there are a couple things that I am worried about in their higher level.

[35:56] One of them is, what is the, and these are, I'm interested in what the, the community

[36:03] is thinking long term, but, would you be, in creating slight municipal utilities, would

[36:10] that be a forever entity or would you be coming back to the commission at some point in

[36:16] the future and looking to do basically a service territory swap, where you're going to just

[36:20] and it all over to Noel's County in the electorate.

[36:25] I chair Stephen Commissioner Sullivan,

[36:27] I appreciate the question.

[36:28] So I just need to state your name for the record, too.

[36:31] Josh Malchow City Administrator for the City of Slayton, Minnesota.

[36:35] Appreciate being here today, appreciate the question.

[36:38] 100% this is a forever thing for us.

[36:40] We are not looking at doing what I would phrase

[36:44] as a bait and switch to the community,

[36:46] where we sold it to them on a bond issue referendum

[36:49] and statutory referendum question, and then all of a sudden turn around and do that again.

[36:57] Um, to try to make a quick buck, we, your 100% correct.

[37:00] We got into this not because we're looking for a cash cow revenue stream.

[37:06] We got into it because we think that we can do it better and more responsive to the community.

[37:11] Mm-hmm.

[37:11] I mean, under state law, that is the right of the community to do, so I appreciate that.

[37:16] Another question that I had is, I have, so, I mean, how long would nobody's county electric,

[37:28] do you have, you'll have a contract with them for services?

[37:31] Are you, can you say how long that contract would be, or, I mean, if you're like, no, I don't

[37:35] know that's fine too.

[37:37] Nothing signed yet.

[37:38] I think as part of the record, actually, in terms of Excel's testimony, they did a data

[37:42] request and got some emails which is completely fine.

[37:47] The draft not approved by either their board or our board is 10 years at this current time.

[37:53] Okay.

[37:54] And then just be for O&M, power purchase, we don't have anything, we can do whatever we want there of course.

[38:00] I would just be for operations and maintenance and billing.

[38:03] And then so, okay, I got it.

[38:07] And then another question I had is in regards to community solar gardens.

[38:12] And, I mean, there are, I recognize that there are costs that the company is incurred

[38:19] because of the CSG program, and I think that those are costs that, you know, they

[38:25] should be rightly compensated for, but I'm wondering if that community has, and I, when reading

[38:31] the record, I was struck that there was a one-sixth of the residents of Slayton or on

[38:39] is she is that right that was the number that's in the record that I saw that is in the record I

[38:46] don't have the information in front of me hasn't aside I think it'd be kind of interesting to see

[38:50] what percentage of them voted to get rid of the company but um I do think it has the I don't know

[38:58] in the list commission I don't think is a lot of jurisdiction but I hope that the city is thinking

[39:02] through like how are those those people are going to have a fundamentally different arrangement with

[39:09] blatant and nobles than they will with Excel, and I would think that I don't know what

[39:18] you're thinking about regarding a very significant portion of the population that's on

[39:25] CSG programs, you know that that value of solar rate, I don't know exactly what it depends

[39:31] out to right now, but it's probably somewhere in the neighborhood of $120 or maybe what

[39:37] or, you know, it's a lot less than nobles that nobles and the city are going to have to

[39:46] fulfill if those people are going to be kind of made whole. So I'm just kind of curious what you're

[39:52] thinking about with that or if you're like, well that's a tomorrow problem.

[39:57] It's a little bit of both.

[40:00] So we do recognize that we want to offer the same type of programming that people are able to do now.

[40:08] An issue that we see is number one, we stand by our testimony that we don't believe it's an open checkbook.

[40:14] So to speak for these ongoing costs to the company as appropriate, but to the ratepayers themselves, that's a different story.

[40:22] And I'll speak to that. There's many, many, many different solar developers that have signed up for people in our community for community solar.

[40:33] Whether it's 10 years, 15 years or 20 years, and so when you asked how many people are in it, and it generally how much they're getting for a credit, that's really difficult to answer, because it's, it's so many different developers that have signed people up.

[40:50] of by way of the community.

[40:52] The CSG would all be via solar, I think, so like that would all be.

[40:57] But what we have in town is people that are flashing the Excel card, so to speak, and they're

[41:04] a third party, and those third parties, fundamentally they have to all satisfy states at you

[41:11] as community solar gardens are currently set up, but how that third party takes it is anybody's

[41:20] So there isn't a set of contractual terms for every single customer, I guess, is what I'm saying.

[41:29] Well, I appreciate you answering these questions.

[41:32] These are just things that are not going around in the back of this dude's head right now.

[41:37] I mean, they're not just things that are looking.

[41:41] I am concerned about, and I appreciate you mentioned,

[41:44] was kind of concerned about the bait and switch, not that we have a lot of authority, you

[41:51] know, you know, I just, we have to, as a, the entity that protects utility service

[42:00] territories, I think we just have to be on alert for that. We also protect municipal service

[42:06] territories, so it's just something I was concerned about and also just wanted to hear more

[42:12] from your perspective about, you know, how you're thinking about some of these other practical,

[42:16] what I think of problems, so that's all I have.

[42:21] Chris, are you sure, Tuma?

[42:24] You know, I can defer again to Mr. Partridge. I wanted to dive into what Excel thinks about

[42:31] your 15, but I didn't want to steal any of your Thunder. I've had done some reading on it

[42:37] from the legal standpoint, but you know, comfortable with holding off too, so.

[42:45] Would it be okay if I just provided some overview of kind of what I put together?

[42:52] So first of all, to the city of Slayton, echoing what Commissioner Sullivan said to you,

[42:58] I am very empathetic to the service quality issues that you had.

[43:03] And I,

[43:09] personally, would have liked to have an opportunity, you know, through a complaint

[43:14] process to help improve those.

[43:20] So anyway, I just want to say, you know, I think that the service quality issues that you

[43:26] faced were unacceptable to me, and I think to this whole commission.

[43:30] So, I want to start with that, however, it's really important for us to make sure that we are protecting existing rate pairs from any kind of cost shift.

[43:42] And as we know distribution system and the electric system overall is extremely expensive, and that is why we have to socialize it over large groups of people and customers.

[43:54] And so when we take a small piece off of it, it is very expensive, even the small piece can become very expensive.

[44:05] So, in reading the ALJ's report, I think it was clear that what she was trying to do is to balance these long-term assets and long-term planning with the realization that the company can shift and has some flexibility in the midterm to make changes for how they allocate those resources.

[44:25] will also ensuring that their recovering loss revenues in order to keep existing rate payers

[44:32] whole. And so I want to start with that that you know I would like to be able to say to the

[44:38] city of Slayton you know here's a good deal for you but in doing that we would be potentially

[44:43] shifting costs on to existing rate payers. And so it's just a very challenging as you know

[44:49] position for the Commission to be in, we are sympathetic to your concerns and your experience

[44:55] and also really want to be protective of existing ratepayers.

[45:00] I think the decision option 10, aye, that I put in was an opportunity to both recognize that there isn't good data within the record to say whether there will be engineering studies, whether there will be additional costs and what those would be.

[45:20] And so my goal here was to say we aren't saying that those would automatically be considered just compensation and be rolled into that amount.

[45:29] But to say that, we would want to see what those costs are and that the company would have to prove that those were unavoidable, that they were caused by the transfer to the city of Slayton and that they were prudently incurred.

[45:44] And then if we saw those, we would have the Department of Commerce, I'm sure would review those very closely.

[45:52] We and our staff would review those closely and you would have an opportunity to review those and respond to them.

[45:57] So it was to recognize that there may be costs, they were not quantified in the record and we would do our due diligence to make sure that those were unavoidable associated with the transfer and prudent.

[46:17] So that's kind of where that came from.

[46:19] I am interested in hearing from the company what additional costs I did see I want to note that there was

[46:26] conversation in the record around disputes and I think Commissioner Sullivan brought this up.

[46:33] You have a significant number of residents who are subscribers to community solar gardens.

[46:40] They will, as I understand, lose those subscriptions. As you mentioned, those contracts between the

[46:47] President and the community solar garden owner are different, the terms, the expenses, those

[46:55] residents may incur when they have to exit those contracts, that's not something that

[47:02] we oversee, it's not something that you oversee, it is very likely to be phone calls that

[47:11] Excel, the company receives, there may be legal action between residents and the community

[47:18] solar garden owners, you know, I hopefully that won't implicate the company, but I would

[47:26] be surprised if it did not. And so I did see that you had also mentioned those types of costs

[47:33] of dealing with those complaints and resolutions to those. Where can you expand upon what you

[47:40] or thinking in terms of additional engineering studies.

[47:43] Thank you Chair Commissioner Partridge.

[47:46] First, yes, we have raised the possibility for costs like that to help customers who

[47:51] are becoming not our customers.

[47:53] We would like those included if they arise, particularly if there are legal issues that

[47:58] we get entangled in, that will cause costs for our customers.

[48:02] That's not the focus of what I mentioned earlier.

[48:05] While we have mentioned the possibility for engineering studies relating to solar gardens

[48:10] that are in the queue, our actual greatest concern about engineering studies is just related

[48:15] to the loss of slate and load from our system.

[48:19] The substation near slate and called slate and west serves almost entirely and only

[48:24] the city of Slayton.

[48:26] It right now has very substantial generation from community solar gardens and some other

[48:31] distributed generation.

[48:33] If Slayton exits our system, we will lose almost 99% of customer load from that substation

[48:40] which creates a situation where you've got substantial generation and almost no load

[48:44] to balance it.

[48:46] It is our obligation to make sure the system is safe and reliable and we are going

[48:50] to have to do engineering studies to make sure that that substation remains safe

[48:54] and reliable if slate and exits.

[48:57] We haven't done that work yet because it will be expensive and we don't want to do it until

[49:02] slate and has confirmed that they're going to leave.

[49:04] If we do the engineering studies and there's going to have to be transmission

[49:08] studies as well. It is possible that they will say everything's fine and then it's just the

[49:13] cost of the studies. It's possible they're going to show you need significant upgrades to

[49:17] the transmission system or the substation or that you need to curtail this community solar

[49:21] gardens until changes are made. All of those costs if they happen would be caused only because

[49:28] the slate and decision to leave the system. I understand that we haven't quantified it,

[49:33] don't know how until the studies are done. But what our primary interest is, are other customers

[49:39] shouldn't have to bear those costs. And so our recommendation would be to modify new decision

[49:46] option 10A by just striking the words secondary solar interconnection studies so that any engineering

[49:53] studies that we have to do and any upgrades the identify would be within the scope were entirely

[49:59] comfortable.

[50:00] With the idea that we have to prove that the studies were needed, we have to prove that the upgrades identified

[50:05] were needed and prudent. We don't object to that at all.

[50:10] But that would be our proposal on

[50:11] Thanks, Denise.

[50:13] You know, Mr. Parttree, fine with this this is a small town attorney kicking and why don't

[50:19] you just say what you just said as opposed to any.

[50:22] I would be worried if I were representing Slayton that is why it opened to any study.

[50:28] If it's substation and we limit it to the substation and transmission, connected there

[50:33] too, I think adding words to it as opposed to deleting words would make more sense.

[50:39] You're coming to that, Mr. Burl.

[50:43] Commissioner Tuma, I don't have any objections to adding more words.

[50:47] I thought it was just easier to take words out, but if you'd like us to develop that

[50:50] language, we can do it right now if I have a couple of minutes.

[50:54] And we can do it at some point, but I would feel more comfortable adding, adding what

[50:59] you just said as opposed to leaving it open to studies, having gone through CSG world, it makes

[51:09] I just want to ask something really quick and I know I don't want to, while we're on CSG, I just want to be clear to the company.

[51:18] The company would not, we would have to pay for engineering studies, you'd have to pay for it.

[51:23] An analysis of what the impact would be, how the system changes around it, I get all that.

[51:29] But I do want to be clear, the company would no longer be paying the CSG tariff to those

[51:34] developers, which then flows through to the ultimately the member of the CSG or the subscriber

[51:46] to the CSG. Thank you, Chair Commissioner Sullivan. I think I understand your question,

[51:53] but if I miss it, please let me know. So we have confirmed that the CSGs themselves are outside

[51:58] of city limits. So they'll continue to be, you know, active community solar gardens. We will continue

[52:05] to have to pay them the community, the value of solar rate for whatever they produce. I don't

[52:11] know what their relationship is with the customers living in Slayton. But yes, the customers in

[52:16] Slayton that we're getting bill credits would not get bill credits any longer.

[52:21] So the developer would get a credit, but the person who is insulated because they're no longer

[52:29] a customer of Excel energy or no longer qualified for the credit, right?

[52:36] The subscriber no longer qualifies for the credit because they're no longer a member of whether

[52:41] no longer a customer of Excel or right pair.

[52:44] Chair, Commissioner Sullivan, yes, that's right.

[52:46] We're going to continue to have to pay the solar garden developer for all of the generation

[52:52] that they produce, but any customers that currently live in slate and won't be eligible

[52:57] to be a subscriber to the solar gardens because they won't be Excel energy customers any longer.

[53:03] It's a tough situation for those customers.

[53:06] There's not a lot that we can do, but we wanted to make sure, like, there's the engineering

[53:12] issue with the queue then there's this issue about existing customers and there's some of

[53:16] these things. These are new issues that we haven't seen before we wanted to make sure that the

[53:20] commission was aware of them. Thank you. One more follow-up on that if I can. Mr. Barlow, when you said

[53:28] that the company would have to incur legal costs for disputes from subscribers,

[53:36] why would the company

[53:36] have to incur those costs, because wouldn't it be up to the city of Slayton now if Slayton

[53:45] saying, you know, people within Slayton who are current community solar garden subscribers

[53:51] are going to have to talk to the city about why they lost their CSG subscription, not Excel.

[54:02] Thank you, Chair.

[54:04] I guess, thank you, Chair.

[54:07] There are a few things that we can see as potentials are hope.

[54:11] And what we believe is most likely is there's no legal disputes.

[54:14] This can just move forward.

[54:15] Slating can decide what they want to do and it can be executed.

[54:20] But if customers have contracts with developers that are Excel energy solar gardens,

[54:27] It may not be clear to customers that we're not responsible for those solar gardens and, you know, we could get embroiled in those disputes.

[54:35] We also think there's a possibility that if slate and exit the system, we're going to have to curtail some generation from those solar gardens to keep the system stable until we can do engineering studies.

[54:45] We don't know if that's possible, if that's going to happen, but it's possible.

[54:49] This situation is so new we've never experienced the loss of an entire city from our system before.

[54:55] We think there's some legal risk. Our point of view is that it it shouldn't be

[55:00] On our customers to pay for that. But I also want to say, this, the legal risk issue is not, you know, we think that's, like, good to include, but it's not the most critical issue to resolve today.

[55:16] Commissioner Purchage. Can you explain Mr. Barlow if you curtail the community solar gardens in that area? What happens? Do the developers just lose revenue? Do you?

[55:32] have an obligation to pay?

[55:38] Yeah, thank you chair commissioner partridge.

[55:41] I don't think it's entirely clear because again,

[55:44] I don't want to keep reciting this, but it's not happened before.

[55:48] If we have to curtail, we don't want to pay for energy that we're not receiving.

[55:53] And so that would be our intention.

[55:55] What rights the developers have in that situation, I don't know.

[56:00] And is the logical result of this that if the commission moves forward now, that will be a dispute between Excel and the city of Slayton to further resolve or is that something that you anticipate will come back to the commission?

[56:19] Thank you chair. My hope would be that if any of this comes off weekend, we're cooperatively with the city. I know we're here on a dispute here, but we're happy to work with them to resolve anything.

[56:29] I don't think that sounds like a commission dispute to me that sounds like a court dispute.

[56:34] And for the city of Slayton, any response to this exchange specifically about CSGs and that,

[56:42] because I was soon like my fellow commissioners have picked up in the record.

[56:46] Some of your constituents will be concerned if they lose the subsidy they're getting from their CSG provider.

[56:55] And I sort of heard through your comments earlier that, you know, that's between the subscriber and the developer to work out that subsidy that they're currently getting.

[57:09] And it won't necessarily fall on the city of Slayton.

[57:14] But then when this exchange just happened, it sort of brought up additional complexity.

[57:20] So what kind of what's your response to what you just heard and what guidance can you give

[57:26] the commission that you're I think one thing too is we have had a history and since

[57:34] the community solar gardens inception like a lot of interest from constituents and a lot

[57:40] of questions that come to our consumer affairs office about it and I anticipate this will continue

[57:49] in this instance, but is the city pretty comfortable taking on that you are going to have to

[57:55] proactively talk to your constituents who are community, solar garden, subscribers about what

[58:01] this means for the subsidy that they get right now. Thank you, Chair Steven. There's a couple of

[58:10] issues there in your question, and so just to kind of take them in order. I would agree with you

[58:19] with the CSG issues and so I think the city is fully prepared to do the outreach and work with folks

[58:25] to talk about and understand that part. In addition to I would echo that the departments

[58:31] witnessed Mr. Tegel and put in pretty substantial testimony about the kind of the contracting

[58:37] nature of the different providers out there and how those would be issues between the subscriber

[58:45] and the developer, and to which neither Excel or the city are parties, right?

[58:52] And so the company is unfortunately asking the city to kind of indemnify it against

[58:57] any possible claims that might come up that could potentially fall back on the company without

[59:03] ever seeing those claims.

[59:05] So our position is just simply that any claims that come up in the future should just stand on

[59:09] their own merit.

[59:10] And if they come up, we can, as Mr. Barlow noted, we can try to work those out, or if we

[59:14] to let you get those. We could do that. At this point we don't even really know what those

[59:19] claims would be. Who they would be against if they would be against the city or Excel or

[59:25] anybody. And frankly we think that that's something that should just stand on its own merits

[59:31] and then not be predetermined to fall completely on the city of Slay. And what about what Mr. Barlow said

[59:37] about possibly having to curtail some of the solar gardens in the area? So with respect to the

[59:43] engineering studies at the substation. I would actually have deferred to Mr. Berg to answer those

[59:48] questions about the engineering nature of all the load flows through the substation.

[59:54] Yes, thank you. My name is Dave Berg. I'm a consultant for the City of Slighten.

[1:00:00] One of the interesting things about this is so the company is claiming that at times without the city load on their substation, that, let's say, those electrons will flow out of the substation.

[1:00:13] What they're not pointing out is the fact that, and it's already constructed, is that nobles co-op is built a new substation, I don't know, a quarter of a mile down the road.

[1:00:24] That's connected to the same transmission line that Excel substation is connected to so what will happen is

[1:00:32] Those electrons would you know they would flow out of the substation

[1:00:36] Quarter of a mile down the road and back into the city through the connection to the noble substation

[1:00:41] I've actually done a fair amount of transmission and distribution planning in in my career and this is

[1:00:47] This is not an issue in fact

[1:00:49] I can tell you right now that there are many times when the city of Slayton load

[1:00:53] And let's take a nice spring Sunday, when the load is very low, that those community solar

[1:00:59] gardens already are probably generating more power than what is being consumed within the

[1:01:05] city of Slayton, and yes, in fact, those electrons are flowing out onto the transmission

[1:01:09] system.

[1:01:10] But the way our system is designed and built, it handles that, that is not a problem.

[1:01:16] And I think from an engineering perspective, that this issue is just not an issue.

[1:01:21] I just think it's one of the many things that they've sort of put on the plate to try to make this as difficult as possible for the city of Slayton, but I'd simply do not see this as an issue.

[1:01:32] Okay, thank you Commissioner Partridge. Sorry, I can interject it earlier.

[1:01:49] Thank you.

[1:01:50] And the significant proportion of that energy becomes a non-subscriber, and what will be the

[1:01:56] weight, Excel will pay, that the CSG owners, is it avoided cost or is it similar to

[1:02:05] a current the CSG weights?

[1:02:09] Um, thank you, sir, Commissioner Ham.

[1:02:10] That's a good question.

[1:02:12] I don't think it has not come up in this case, so I don't know that we've done that analysis.

[1:02:16] I think that you're right that it might be the non-subscriber rate, but I can't confirm we can look into that and get back to you if that's something you'd like to know.

[1:02:25] Yeah, I don't know. You can say that portion of that 2021 subscriber is getting tinged that units, but it pays us again if it can be not.

[1:02:36] I had a concern that those CSG units may not be economically viable.

[1:02:42] Then what will happen in under that case?

[1:02:47] Well, Chair, Commissioner Ham, that's something we're concerned about.

[1:02:50] If this happens and those solar gardens essentially go out of business, we don't know what will happen.

[1:02:55] And part of our interest, again, is making sure that whatever happens there,

[1:02:59] none of that rules back on our other customers with increased costs.

[1:03:02] So what is the Excel's obligation under that case?

[1:03:08] Thank you, Chair Commissioner, I think that's a good question, but I just don't know the answer to it.

[1:03:12] Thank you.

[1:03:16] I do want to talk a little bit about it.

[1:03:18] I'd like Mr. Partridge, where you're going with ten and I at concept of ten.

[1:03:25] And to me, what's critical for this commission, as we walk out of this hearing,

[1:03:31] we get to a clear, identified final number that's not disputed.

[1:03:36] that we're not leaving anything open and land. I don't know if you could put up

[1:03:44] some additions that I thought to this because I think that's what I'm struggling with and I think

[1:03:48] that's where you're trying to get to because I don't want to go back here and get into more

[1:03:52] disputes unless we have to and I like to put a nail in this and that is to require them to make

[1:04:04] compliance filing, pick a date, and let them pick it, and then they tell us what these

[1:04:10] costs are, and then further we have them complete what they think, the final computation

[1:04:17] or compensation compensation, English words now, what the final compensation is, Excel tells

[1:04:24] it, what that is.

[1:04:25] It's like, to me, it's a real estate transaction, okay, I don't go in a real estate transaction

[1:04:30] until I have the seller tell me what price they're putting the property up for,

[1:04:34] And if I have any escrow afterward, I need to know exactly how that's going to be determined.

[1:04:39] And then there's objections within 10 days by the department or the city.

[1:04:45] And so I'm just trying to build off of what I think you're trying to accomplish here.

[1:04:51] And I certainly would be open to the language that they had talked about adding to it regarding the substation.

[1:04:57] Because I hear a lot of things that everybody's saying.

[1:05:00] Our related, I don't think they are, but we'll find out, once we do these studies, and that we do our order today, whatever that's going to be, and we can get that number in the record so we can set a date and say we're done.

[1:05:16] Because that's our job is to come up with a number of the sales. So I just don't know, you don't have to agree to it now. I just wanted to get it out.

[1:05:24] we're talking about Newtann. I would like to build on it to just to credit

[1:05:28] create a. This is this is it. We're done. Good luck.

[1:05:37] Thank you chair commissioner

[1:05:37] Tuma. As I said before we've got no problem showing our homework here. I have I have

[1:05:43] two thoughts about this. The first is that this work and the cost to do the work studies

[1:05:51] are really only needed if Slayton decides to move forward.

[1:05:56] And so we, this case, is to set up just compensation, but Slayton then has a decision

[1:06:02] about whether to move forward and when, and so if Slayton decides not to move forward or if

[1:06:08] it takes them some time to make that decision.

[1:06:10] For example, if the transfer is happening a year and a half from now, I'm not an engineer,

[1:06:17] but having spoken with the engineers, that timing means like how long are the results of an engineering study good.

[1:06:24] Um, so we will do it, but our intent was to not do the studies until Slayton had told us they're going forward so that we know that the results are most accurate.

[1:06:34] I don't think that this timing fits perfectly into there.

[1:06:37] I'm not sure right now how to solve it.

[1:06:40] The other is that I would just want to make sure and it's our intent that we do the studies and then we talk with Slayton about them.

[1:06:47] So whatever timing is set I want to make sure there's time like our preference would not be we do the studies

[1:06:53] We file them the slate and only has 10 days to object our preference would be we do the studies

[1:06:58] We meet with slate and if they want to have their engineers look at it

[1:07:02] They get that chance. We resolve it without having to come back to the commission

[1:07:05] That's some of this is my frustration with this whole thing is if we're gonna keep dragging things out forever and ever

[1:07:11] whenever, you know, our job is to come up with a compensation rate, and I was hoping that we

[1:07:18] could accomplish that today. I mean, it sounds like the department has given me a number

[1:07:23] from the ALJ, but you seem to keep wanting to throw things in. And so that's what I'm trying to,

[1:07:29] I'm struggling with here. I want to give a number. That's our obligation in duty to

[1:07:35] Slayton. They're the petitioned us, and they asked for a number. I want to give them a number.

[1:07:40] and you're telling me, we can't give them a number.

[1:07:42] Thank you, Chair Commissioner Tuma.

[1:07:45] If the Commission tells us to do the studies now,

[1:07:47] we will do them.

[1:07:48] But what that means is there's a possibility

[1:07:50] that when the transfer happens, something about the system

[1:07:52] has changed, that means it's different results,

[1:07:55] and then we can't recover that from Slayton,

[1:07:58] and it's our other customers paying for those costs.

[1:08:01] Our primary goal is to avoid that.

[1:08:03] I understand the goal that you're trying to set

[1:08:05] and they're in conflict.

[1:08:08] So, Slayton, help me walk through this, I'm trying to get you a number, I don't know what

[1:08:13] you're looking for today.

[1:08:14] My goal is to give you a number, I actually think I would have found in your favor if I

[1:08:19] was ALJ.

[1:08:20] I thought you mentioned burden, but that's neither here nor there, we have to have that discussion

[1:08:24] later.

[1:08:25] But I'm looking at this now, post whatever you decide, because a five of us have to decide,

[1:08:30] I'm trying to get to a final, this is done.

[1:08:36] I also don't want to shift costs on to other ratepayers.

[1:08:39] So help me out.

[1:08:40] What would you recommend as far as let's get the final number

[1:08:44] in this dock at its closed?

[1:08:46] Thank you, Commissioner.

[1:08:48] Two months.

[1:08:48] I think the two modified new 10A.

[1:08:55] I think it achieves what the city has asked for in this

[1:08:58] and that it provides for some close scrutiny of whether these costs are necessary and prudent and for us to actually look at what they are.

[1:09:09] And so I think from the city's perspective, we would be okay with something similar to the proposed option that's up on the screen here with the idea that I don't disagree with Mr. Barlow that they would be nice to talk to them about it.

[1:09:22] I also think that 10 days to look at a study and to say whether or not we have projections to it is more than adequate to just look at it and see if we object.

[1:09:31] And so I think that doesn't mean that we can't then talk about it after the fact.

[1:09:36] And so I think this this option has modified sets up.

[1:09:43] We're going to give it back to you and it's going to be an absurd number.

[1:09:48] Your expert witness is convinced it's not going to be an absurd number. That's where I'm going to guess it's going to be okay, but again

[1:09:57] Let's say it's an absurd number and

[1:10:00] You guys all decide, you know what? We're pulling the plug. Nobles, we're not going forward. It's done. Okay.

[1:10:07] At some point, I don't want to pay for that study. Okay. Is there a desire or agreement that you have as far as study payments that you have if you do not go forward?

[1:10:20] Good question, Commissioner, too much, I see that that's not something that we've talked

[1:10:24] about.

[1:10:25] I would say that coming up with an estimate of these costs is not the same as doing the

[1:10:32] full study.

[1:10:32] Right, I think it would be reasonable to require an estimate of the cost, which would be something

[1:10:36] less than actually having the engineers crunch all the numbers and do the study.

[1:10:42] Because as I understand, Mr. Barlow was talking about, is the study itself plus then all

[1:10:48] things that the study then recommends, and so I think that's a level of detail that's not

[1:10:55] absolutely necessary for what we're talking about here. And so I think our compromise would

[1:11:00] be to ask for estimates, at least that we could look at and potentially object to the estimates.

[1:11:10] So thank you, Chair Sivan. Commissioner Tuma, and then to the city of Slayton,

[1:11:14] And I appreciate that, but the issue that I'm concerned about is that we do an engineering

[1:11:23] study find there are required upgrades, and we've already given you a number and you're

[1:11:29] on your way.

[1:11:31] Mr. Barlow, who pays for the upgrades if that happens?

[1:11:36] Thank you, Chair Commissioner Partridge.

[1:11:37] It would be our other customers.

[1:11:38] It would be included in rates.

[1:11:40] The problem that I see is that we can't legally tell them they cannot recover those costs.

[1:11:46] We can't tell Excel to eat those costs.

[1:11:50] That's unconstitutional.

[1:11:53] So I am very uncomfortable with the idea that we just set a number so that you can make a decision.

[1:12:00] And then we find out that there are significant upgrades.

[1:12:04] we find out that CSG owners are suing Excel energy because they're being curtailed, or any other

[1:12:13] number of things that are in this record and then existing customers are just pain those.

[1:12:20] You all have left the system. We have no authority to come back and tell you that you need to help

[1:12:34] As we've said, we are all really sympathetic to the service issues that you're experiencing.

[1:12:40] Did you consider just filing a formal complaint with us so that we could initiate an

[1:12:46] investigation and require upgrades?

[1:12:49] I mean, I know that that takes time, but so does a transfer.

[1:12:59] Thank you, Commissioner.

[1:13:03] We're fixating on a couple of things here and I think we're in my

[1:13:07] opinion maybe missing the force of the trees here. We initially started talking about this over

[1:13:13] four years ago as a city council in a community because of the service if you use and it

[1:13:18] blossomed into more than that. It's the fact that end user rates are 19 and a half to 21 and a half

[1:13:25] and our feasibility study were significantly lower than that, and so it's not shell and one sentence, it's we think we can offer better, more responsive service for the same or cheaper rate, and so it is not a while you guys can have to love the handle here, because you have some service issues, it is a list of four or five things and not just one.

[1:13:55] The community solar garden thing is so unique because it is a program that's in state

[1:14:03] statute and is to my knowledge somebody correct me if I'm wrong only with Excel energy, right?

[1:14:10] And so we as a community are not saying tough everyone we don't care about your community solar garden

[1:14:18] subscription, but nobles, nor, sleep, and municipal electric has the opportunity to mirror

[1:14:26] that program, because we don't have the statutory authority to do that.

[1:14:30] So we are sympathetic to people losing their credit.

[1:14:35] We have every intention of offering, rebate type of programs that nobles already has.

[1:14:41] We would mirror their programs or off-peek on-peek, is it solar, perhaps not, is it

[1:14:48] energy usage based programs, absolutely. But as the testimony is already showed and we've

[1:14:55] kind of sent a few times here. I don't know if the community solar garden issue.

[1:15:00] Is directly part of this discussion today? Because it would be between the subscriber and the, you know, we're just the just compensation part.

[1:15:12] Mr. Malchaya, I appreciate that. I think, from my perspective, it's not that I feel strongly that those subscribers deserve solar garden subscriptions. That's not what I'm voicing a concern about.

[1:15:26] I appreciate that you will have other opportunities for them to roll in perhaps other programs that can provide similar benefits, whether they're still there or not. That's great.

[1:15:37] The issue I have is all of the complex contractual agreements that both the subscriber has and that will be outside of our jurisdiction, but may implicate the company.

[1:15:54] may implicate the city again, not my problem, but also then the obligation that the company

[1:16:02] has to those CSG owners and the costs that that could put on other rate pairs.

[1:16:12] You know, it is a program there, there, they exist, what, you know, so we have to think about

[1:16:19] cost that they will cause to excel system because we don't want additional costs to be borne

[1:16:26] by existing ratepayers who are outside of the city of Sleaten. And this is very challenging

[1:16:33] because it isn't just a real estate transaction. You're not just buying house, you're not

[1:16:38] just buying assets. This is a long-term service as well. And so it is very challenging to say, you know,

[1:16:48] Here is the amount we're going to include this lean, you know, we're going to put it all together.

[1:16:54] It's the one-time payment and then we move on because they're all of these additional pieces

[1:17:00] that we don't really know what they're going to cost.

[1:17:07] I'll just leave it at that and turn it over.

[1:17:12] That was a really helpful commissioner for our church. Thank you.

[1:17:15] And my question, oh, sorry, did you, did you want to respond

[1:17:21] to Commissioner Parchage, please go ahead?

[1:17:23] If I may, you've seen Commissioner Parchage.

[1:17:27] I see that there's two issues, right?

[1:17:28] So one is the potential litigation between subscribers

[1:17:32] and the developers.

[1:17:33] And so our position on that is that that's litigation

[1:17:36] and to the extent that that overflows

[1:17:38] on either the city or the company.

[1:17:40] Those are 100% issues that can be dealt

[1:17:43] within the litigation, right?

[1:17:44] So if somebody sues and it goes to the company and they disagree with that, they would have

[1:17:49] the right in that litigation to employ the city and say it's not our fault, it's the

[1:17:53] city's fault.

[1:17:54] And so we could deal with those issues in those cases.

[1:17:57] Let me just stop you there.

[1:17:58] Who pays for their lawyers?

[1:18:01] Again, that's something that we could address in that litigation.

[1:18:04] There's attorneys, fees, provisions, and some of these things, I don't have those in front

[1:18:07] of me.

[1:18:08] I'm not sure how any of that would go.

[1:18:09] And so we're just asking that the Commission not prejudged that and let those claims stand

[1:18:14] or fall on their own merit and that we would work those out at the time.

[1:18:17] So, so, does the first thing I want to respond to?

[1:18:20] Secondly, is just, again, the issue of the engineering studies related to the transfer.

[1:18:26] And I think our testimony was pretty clear that we generally agreed with Mr. Tiglund on that.

[1:18:32] And that our two expert witnesses, Mr. Berg and then Mr. Mitchell, both looked at this

[1:18:38] said that there did not appear to be any kind of transition, or transmission, interconnection,

[1:18:45] study required by myself, but that recognized that Excel may have its own business practices,

[1:18:52] that it perhaps would want to do one. Right? And so to the extent that Excel wants to study something,

[1:18:59] we feel that that's their optional kind of exploratory thing, that if they wish to do that,

[1:19:05] that that's not necessarily caused by the city's leaving a system right it's not

[1:19:11] mandatory by my so it's not mandatory by the commission and it's just Excel it's choosing

[1:19:16] to do this and so that those costs should not necessarily fall back on the city.

[1:19:21] To the city, the voter approved amount, I can say the number is $7 million that is the initial

[1:19:32] payment is my understanding and then there's the mill rate that's added on I mean that wasn't

[1:19:40] contemplated in the voter approved referendum was it? Is there like does the mill my thinking here

[1:19:51] is that could we adjust the mill rate to account for the unknown C.S.G.

[1:20:01] So the essentially like once we know what the result of the CSG leaving the system and what Excel said about there could be real costs that are borne by Excel rate pairs could those costs, so that they're not coming on to Excel rate pairs, be subsumed into the mill rate.

[1:20:30] in some way so that you would still have an initial payment that is, you know, if we did the

[1:20:40] ALJ suggestion, it's still under the cap that your voters approved, but then the mill rate could

[1:20:47] escalate to account for the true costs for slayton to take over the service territory and that

[1:20:57] could be determined like at the mill rate could be adjusted at a different, through a different

[1:21:02] process or I don't know what it is. I'm just trying to think through like how we solve this

[1:21:09] because to my colleagues' points, like we need to know what we're approving so that we're

[1:21:16] doing our due diligence to come up with a fair conclusion for slate and but also for the

[1:21:25] of Excel, subscribers who are, we don't, we know that we can't have them bare significant

[1:21:33] costs because that would be unjust and unfair. So do you understand my question and does

[1:21:39] it make sense? It does. Hopefully you understand my answer because that might go a little bit too.

[1:21:46] I would Commissioner Homb asked very specific questions about this.

[1:21:55] What is the specific financial impact?

[1:21:57] Who pays subscribers or the tariffs and all that?

[1:22:02] Nobody in this room, including myself or Mr. Bottleow or anybody,

[1:22:07] seems to know that answer right now today.

[1:22:10] And so, I think if you're asking, I'll answer your question in two parts, Madam Chair.

[1:22:19] I think implementation wise, yes, that's if the commission orders that as a future adjuster to the mill rate, certainly,

[1:22:32] politically,

[1:22:33] physically, does that mean that we would agree with that? I would say no. I mean that seems like this open

[1:22:42] checkbook type of idea that we've opposed in our testimony thus far of this ongoing CSG issue that

[1:22:49] right now, nobody can answer if it's going to fall directly on the Excel rate pairs. I understand

[1:22:57] completely that it's within the purview of the commission to protect those rate pairs after

[1:23:02] eggs of the system. But I'm not hearing that anybody knows that whether that damage, so to

[1:23:08] speak, is going to truly happen or not. Yeah. Okay. In relation to Commissioner Tuma's proposed

[1:23:15] language, Mr. Wears already answered that generally,

[1:23:22] but Mr. Bottle was saying, well, we don't

[1:23:24] want to do anything until we know that slate and is going to leave, Mr. Commissioner Tuma

[1:23:30] question it among that and I would mirror those questions like what we can't say that we're

[1:23:34] going to leave if the acquisition cost is $50 million in the middle rate is 116.79. That's

[1:23:43] not going to work. That's not fiscally responsible for the city of Slating in any way shape

[1:23:47] or form. So if the acquisition cost is $4 million in the middle rate is $4.5 million or 20

[1:23:54] whatever, then we can have a discussion. But if the order from the PUC is going to be the

[1:24:00] four and a half and then the 116.79, like that, that's the main issue here. And I understand

[1:24:08] that CSG is part of that middle rate calculation, but is it the most large part, or are there

[1:24:14] other things that we need to talk about here to see where that middle rate is at?

[1:24:20] And Mr. Barlow, for the company, is that in your estimation is the adjustment of the

[1:24:26] mill rate, something that could be a path forward for the utility for Excel to come to

[1:24:35] agreement with Slayton.

[1:24:38] Thank you, Chair.

[1:24:41] I'll say first that we would prefer that it be included in the mill rate as opposed to

[1:24:46] excluded.

[1:24:47] But, as I understand what you're suggesting, what that would involve is that we do the studies that will have some cost.

[1:24:56] And it may be as Mr. Berg suggests, and we don't have to do any up.

[1:25:00] And that's a great outcome. We feel that it's only responsible for us to do the studies. If significant upgrades are required, put in them in the mill rate, what that means is we outlay all the money to make those investments. And we recover it over time.

[1:25:17] How long would it take you to do that? The engineering studies that we're talking about here?

[1:25:22] I have that question. I have that question. I have six weeks or six weeks.

[1:25:28] I have that question out to the team and I don't have any answer yet.

[1:25:31] I don't think it's a year, I don't think it's six weeks.

[1:25:34] I'd hope it's less than six months, but it depends on the complexity once we get into it.

[1:25:40] Again, I don't want to over-complicate this, but there's an active interconnection queue in the region.

[1:25:45] As Miss Hundall noted, those projects are currently not moving forward,

[1:25:50] But if projects like part of the issue is when you're losing load and adding gardens like there's multiple studies happening at the same time and our engineers just haven't done that before.

[1:26:00] I mean, so it's not a good resolution then to just like table the issue and wait for you to do the engineering studies because then the city would be waiting and those.

[1:26:14] I mean, I'm just and I'll turn to the department for what they recommend, but it seems like we don't have a full record to determine the just compensation for all parties here, and I guess I'm just trying to be like what's the way out of this and how long will it take to have a fuller record so then we can decide.

[1:26:40] Thank you, Chair. The first thing I want to say, I do think you have the record to move forward.

[1:26:44] I understand that it wouldn't be Commissioner Tuma's preference, but we think the Commission can and shouldn't move forward today with the recommendations, recognizing that some of these issues about engineering studies will get resolved over time, and if they're disputes, those limited issues can come back.

[1:26:59] Are you just saying, Mr. Barlow, you're fine with Excel rate pairs taking on those costs, then? Because like that's a solution for Excel is then.

[1:27:10] like the commissions left with passing along the costs for

[1:27:16] significant CSG costs that you've alluded to.

[1:27:21] And then the commission is left with saying, like, you know,

[1:27:24] slate and out of the picture and Excel will come to us and be like,

[1:27:27] well, you said we had to do this. So here's the bill passing on to

[1:27:31] rate pairs. Like, it's not a, it's not a great

[1:27:35] Solution for us here. I apologize if I'm a spoke that's not at all what I was suggesting. What I was suggesting is the commission should find that those things will be included in just compensation at the time of the transfer.

[1:27:48] With an order point like that, we're comfortable getting to work.

[1:27:51] Because then, sorry just so I understand, I'm sorry I'm slow.

[1:27:55] that you're saying some of those costs could be incorporated into the

[1:28:00] mill rate even though we don't know what that is and then or you're saying, sorry, I don't get

[1:28:09] way. Yeah, I think you're hearing studies and this cost attributable to the CSG like

[1:28:15] leaving the system or not. How does those costs not get passed back to Excel rate

[1:28:21] Cheers.

[1:28:22] Chair, I think the only potential risk, if the Commission moves forward as we have recommended,

[1:28:29] is if we do the engineering studies and then slightness is not to leave.

[1:28:34] Those would be costs.

[1:28:35] We might, I'm assuming, slighting, I mean, we can talk to slightness, slighting is willing

[1:28:39] to cover those.

[1:28:41] But those costs are meaningful, but we don't anticipate that will be like the studies

[1:28:46] themselves won't be many millions of dollars.

[1:28:48] So we think that's a solvable problem.

[1:28:50] In the alternative, as we have indicated in our papers, if

[1:28:54] slateness willing to agree that they'll pay for the studies, we'll get going immediately.

[1:29:00] Like that's something we're prepared to do.

[1:29:03] So Commissioner Partridge, I think, thank you chair. I think just to clarify that

[1:29:09] I think different from Commissioner Tuma's interpretation of what just compensation would be.

[1:29:16] You know, the ALJ didn't determine a number, but instead the formula.

[1:29:22] And then my additional decision options build on that formula, which means there wouldn't be a number today.

[1:29:29] There would be sort of a formula that says the ALJ's recommendation is this.

[1:29:35] It doesn't include a mill rate, but then it would leave open other categories to be calculated.

[1:29:42] And I think to the city of Slayton, that's perhaps inadequate for you to feel comfortable making a decision because we don't have a number, I think, from my perspective, it's a chicken and eggs thing where we don't know the number because...

[1:30:00] First of all, this is novel. We've not had this happen before I think the ALJ mentioned we have done territory transfers, but we've never had municipalization happen, at least in recent history where any of us can remember, find it.

[1:30:17] And so, we're walking into this unknown and having a specific number and choosing that

[1:30:25] and selecting it today to chair Steven's point, leaves us open to potentially additional

[1:30:32] cost-getting born by existing rate pairs, whereas leaving it open to a formula-based definition

[1:30:41] of just compensation, leaves you all open, the city of Flaton, to potential risk that studies

[1:30:48] identify upgrades, study costs, or higher than expected, and you have to bear that, or litigation

[1:30:57] from CSG owners, etc, etc. So I think we're kind of, I feel like we're stuck in between

[1:31:06] you're not going to hear a place where I feel like I don't want to give you a specific number

[1:31:11] and then find out later that their additional costs and now you're gone and we have

[1:31:18] no choice but to pass them to ratepayers.

[1:31:21] I think that's where I was trying to get to Mr. Partridge is that at some point we have

[1:31:26] to come up with a number and we have to just do the studies.

[1:31:29] That's why I was trying to build off your number 10, you're saying let's go and let's get

[1:31:33] that stuff done and I agree with your formula argument. We're not going to get the number

[1:31:37] today. We're just going to get some path forward, but I would like that path forward to

[1:31:43] have an end. That's what I'm trying to say. Let's just do this study. Frankly, the CSG argument

[1:31:51] about the subscribers, none of our business. It's going to be a mess. I think we've let them know

[1:31:57] that's going to be a mess. I think they know that now and it's not our problem. But the problem

[1:32:03] is that distribution system and transmission system

[1:32:07] interconnected how they interrelate to each other.

[1:32:09] It needs to be studied, and we need to know

[1:32:11] if there needs to be any upgrades to the substations.

[1:32:14] And it sounds like they're not worried about it.

[1:32:17] Even I've heard indications.

[1:32:18] They're not too worried about it,

[1:32:20] but we just need to know what the cost of this study is.

[1:32:23] And if it were me sitting there with my clients,

[1:32:24] I would say, you know what, client, let's just split the cost.

[1:32:29] This is our escrow here.

[1:32:31] Let's just split the cost of these studies before we degree to that, though they have to give

[1:32:35] them an estimate of what the study's cost is going to be, and they have to be okay with,

[1:32:39] and I would probably add that to this decision option within 10 days of today.

[1:32:45] They have to give them an estimate of what those costs are, and then let's let them work

[1:32:50] out these last details after we know what the cost of this study tells us, and that should

[1:32:56] give us a number. That's what I'm thinking but I could be often law law land. We won't

[1:33:03] comment on that. No, what the vote would be. I don't think. No, no, no, five. You would be

[1:33:15] with me on the thank you. Mr. Barlow. Thank you chair. I apologize for raising my hand. I

[1:33:22] don't have a response. I just we've heard back on the timing. What we're hearing right

[1:33:26] is that a distribution study takes four to six months. Transmission study precedes on my

[1:33:32] so schedule. So we understand that that happens quarterly and if it's unusually complicated

[1:33:37] could take a couple of extra months if upgrades are identified that extends the myso time line

[1:33:43] and the myso time line is not entirely in our control. Fisher Sullivan.

[1:33:50] This is just good to

[1:33:51] think you're in stink here. I mean, I, I just, Commissioner Tuma, one thing I, I don't,

[1:33:59] the way that I heard Mr. Barlow's response to one of my questions was that the CSG problem

[1:34:05] would become our problem if Excel rate pairs are paying for basically like ghost CSG facilities

[1:34:13] that there are no subscribers to anymore. Like, and then those done facilities would have

[1:34:19] be curtailed, I mean those that would be millions of dollars that would be going for effectively

[1:34:25] nothing.

[1:34:26] Why is that the record?

[1:34:27] Well, precisely, I harm the percent of grade, why isn't that in the record?

[1:34:32] I'm a complete agreement with you on that.

[1:34:37] But I don't know, like I do want to say, like I am super annoyed with Excel, not YouTube

[1:34:44] personally, but I'm annoyed with the company, because this is a problem that the company

[1:34:48] created with the service. And, you know, we've been having issues with service in Southern Minnesota for a long time, and I think it's been getting better, but I mean the example.

[1:35:00] Those that I read in the Star of Tribune and some of this is just completely unacceptable and now you

[1:35:05] got the community that is completely 100% against you. And this is a problem that created the

[1:35:11] original sin is the poor service that this company rendered in the city of Slayton. And I

[1:35:19] You know, I'm Mr. Bala, I'll give you a chance to respond, but like, so I'm, but I really

[1:35:25] am sitting here today, and I'm thinking, and I really appreciate all the work that

[1:35:29] Commissioner Parcher has done in this conversation, but I'm super uncomfortable. We could

[1:35:35] set up a formula. The city of Slayton's not going to like that. We could set up a number,

[1:35:39] and then, sort of, or Excel rate pairs are completely at risk. And like, you know, to

[1:35:47] like, I totally agree, you're like, well, yeah, I don't know what the number is going to be.

[1:35:53] Like, it could be a black check. I mean, the flip of that is what we're facing.

[1:35:57] And I have no faith that, you know, you're going to come back with some of the engineering analysis,

[1:36:03] and I don't think the city's going to be cool with that. I think they're like, oh my God, this is ridiculous.

[1:36:09] And I mean, I don't know.

[1:36:12] Maybe this is more of deliberations and not questions, but I'm just like,

[1:36:17] Let's let Mr. Barlow respond.

[1:36:20] Thank you, Chair.

[1:36:20] Commissioner Sullivan.

[1:36:22] I do have to respond on the service quality issues.

[1:36:26] Commissioner, I recognize your frustration.

[1:36:28] There have obviously been incidents in slate and they're very unfortunate.

[1:36:32] We're not trying to walk away from those.

[1:36:34] Those things should not have happened.

[1:36:37] But I think it's also important that the decisions in this case

[1:36:40] not be made based on specific incidents.

[1:36:43] As you acknowledged earlier when you look at the long-term data,

[1:36:46] Slatens Reliability is relatively similar to the rest of the region,

[1:36:50] which is not that different from the rest of the state.

[1:36:53] Some years it's up, some years it's down.

[1:36:56] I also want to make clear as we put into the record,

[1:36:59] when Slatens brought their concerns about reliability to us, we responded.

[1:37:04] We have replaced thousands of feet of distribution line in the city in the last four years.

[1:37:08] We have replaced hundreds of distribution poles.

[1:37:11] We have spent tens of millions of dollars to rebuild the transmission system in the Slayton region.

[1:37:17] That's an example of us being responsive to the needs of our customers.

[1:37:21] I understand Slayton's frustration and the genesis of it like we get that.

[1:37:27] But we have taken significant actions and made significant investments to make reliability and Slayton better.

[1:37:34] And I don't want that to go on a dress here.

[1:37:36] And we'll get let the city respond and then get to commissioner Ham's question.

[1:37:42] Very quickly, and my council wants to respond to the improvements just so happened to coincide with the filing of the contested case hearing and not really any moment before that.

[1:37:53] Which was about a year and a half or two years.

[1:37:58] And sir, say your name and your welcome to respond to.

[1:38:05] No, it's a different type of dot.

[1:38:12] Hi, my name is Blake Ronmus, I'm on the Slating City Council.

[1:38:17] Thank you all for your time.

[1:38:21] Mr. Sullivan, I feel the exact feeling that you are.

[1:38:27] I'm super annoyed here.

[1:38:31] All along this entire process.

[1:38:33] These are the kind of things that Excel has been bringing up to basically

[1:38:36] money the waters and try and make this not happen. If they, I believe, if they truly

[1:38:43] thought that these were issues, they would have had brought them forth by now. They've

[1:38:49] had plenty of time to do so. I think they're just bringing them up to further

[1:38:55] money the waters and try and make this not happen. As far as the community

[1:38:59] solar gardens, now anybody can correct me if I'm wrong here, at one point in time the

[1:39:04] The community solar gardens needed to be right adjacent to the community they were serving.

[1:39:11] And that's no longer the case, correct?

[1:39:14] So those community solar gardens, that are in slightly, in a sense,

[1:39:18] could be resold to or subscribe to a subscriber right here in the Twin Cities.

[1:39:26] from what I'm personally seeing with the people trying to get subscribers signed up.

[1:39:35] They're knocking down the doors.

[1:39:36] I honestly don't think they can build the community solar gardens as fast as they're getting people to subscribe to them.

[1:39:46] So I personally don't think it would be an issue if the slight and subscribers left because there's plenty of opportunity for them to go elsewhere.

[1:39:55] I think the developers would just re-

[1:40:00] Resell those subscriptions. I also think that's, I mean, they're just using this as another excuse to muddy the waters. That's my opinion.

[1:40:09] But it makes real good sense to me. Thank you.

[1:40:13] Thank you. Commissioner Hum.

[1:40:16] Thank you, Chair Steven. So I'll just turn this discussion a little bit in different directions.

[1:40:20] I think a city mentioned that not only the service quality data concern with the rates.

[1:40:25] So I want to give you the facts you need to consider if you are really worried about the rates.

[1:40:33] Because based on deal what I see here you are going to have only flexibility with the generation portion.

[1:40:40] You are going to take a transmission service from Excel because you are located within the Excel service area.

[1:40:47] In the wholesale weights, you are neutral.

[1:40:51] However, in the Excel retail rates, Excel suppose two, credit,

[1:40:58] rate pairs with a certain credit.

[1:41:01] That's not going to be your credit anymore, if you get out.

[1:41:05] So you have to put that in the condition.

[1:41:08] And then, generation side, these days, there's no such thing as access capacity.

[1:41:14] That means you have to buy brand new capacity most likely, which will be very, very expensive these days.

[1:41:23] As of now, Excel energy, I know you are not happy with their rates, but at least in the generation portion, they average out all their flip.

[1:41:32] They charge you average price, not the most expensive rates.

[1:41:37] So, all these things being included, just simply comparing Norbert's co-ops rates with

[1:41:44] Excel's rate, will not translate into your own system after you create your own system.

[1:41:51] Because Norbert's account, co-op, has a WAPA allocation, you're not going to get that.

[1:41:56] Also GRE has a very favorable financing.

[1:41:59] If they are properly doing the retail credit for their transfer heli system, your rates will

[1:42:06] get that because you are going to pay Excel their full wholesale rate without retail credit.

[1:42:15] So that's why I hope you take all those into account when you are making your final decision,

[1:42:22] because simply comparing noble school price with the Excel price will not come to your benefit.

[1:42:28] My biggest concern is, I don't know what is the actual number of people taking Excel affordability

[1:42:37] program in your community.

[1:42:40] You are not going to get that program from Excel.

[1:42:43] You have to create your own affordability program to help those people.

[1:42:47] So I hope that you have a good plan to help those people who need to help and then create

[1:42:53] that program when you are initiating this.

[1:43:04] Thank you, Commissioner Ham, your rate questions are legitimate relative to rates, and until I am a rate guy, that's what I do for a living primarily is rates.

[1:43:17] And one of the things when you sort of talk about affordability for the city and while the CSG discussion has been interesting, quite frankly, it's not the elephant in the room.

[1:43:29] And when we talk about affordability for the city to do this, it's really been, it's really about the mill rate.

[1:43:35] And I think from the city's perspective, the fact that we haven't discussed that at all, is interesting.

[1:43:42] In that, you know, the 100, well, just brought to 117 mills.

[1:43:47] And I know precedence is important to the commission.

[1:43:50] It's like four times higher than anything the commission has ever approved before.

[1:43:55] And there are specific items within Excel's analysis, which are in going opposition to precedence.

[1:44:05] You mentioned the generation issue, the generation issue and relative to the Rochester 498 case with people's co-op, which actually I was a part of that case.

[1:44:16] There are avoidance distribution costs, which actually has a math there, and dominimizes that number to almost zero.

[1:44:26] Their view around what they might be able to say from a customer service perspective, which they negated to almost nothing.

[1:44:35] The idea that the city should pay for all of the substation, even though the city only utilizes a portion of the substation.

[1:44:41] I think each of those items is incredibly important,

[1:44:46] and not only for this case, but for the precedent that's set for future cases.

[1:44:51] I can guarantee you that at 117 mils per kilowatt hour, there will never be another acquisition

[1:44:55] of a single customer in this state under any circumstances.

[1:45:00] Because that's literally equal to the retail rate. If you look at Excel's testimony, their year one loss of revenue is greater than their year one revenues.

[1:45:15] So basically what they're arguing is not only won't we save money by not serving Slayton, we will actually cost us even more money for not serving Slayton.

[1:45:25] And the city feels like through the process that the detailed analysis that we submitted within our testimony has largely been ignored and not even commented on.

[1:45:39] And we think that it's not only important for this case, but for future cases that there's a vigorous discussion at this level about some of these items.

[1:45:49] I'll leave it at that for now.

[1:46:01] Mr. Barlow.

[1:46:04] I don't want to respond to all of that, but I do want to respond to something that was just said about the first year lost revenues.

[1:46:12] That's simply not the case.

[1:46:14] Our math shows that the first year that's lately's the system we will lose about 3.03 million dollars in revenues.

[1:46:23] Our methodology treats 2.1 million of that as lost.

[1:46:27] that is obviously not higher than the amount of revenues we would have received. I just

[1:46:32] felt that it was important to get that clear on the record.

[1:46:38] So we'll take a break, but I'm sorry.

[1:46:43] Could I just respond to that before we take a break just simply?

[1:46:47] I can point to their testimony.

[1:46:49] Were there year one loss of revenue payment according to their witness,

[1:46:52] Ms. Peterson is $3,153,000 and $21.

[1:46:59] And the revenue is $3,054,023.

[1:47:03] So actually, their first year in their testimony

[1:47:05] in her survey buttle testimony is greater than the revenue.

[1:47:09] So for the city of Slayton, if we adopted just to be clear,

[1:47:14] if we adopted what the Department of Commerce

[1:47:17] overall advises that we do that we adopt that ALJ report would this city be moved forward

[1:47:26] with the acquisition?

[1:47:30] The ALJ being 10 years at 116.79 mills and 4.0 points.

[1:47:39] Yeah.

[1:47:39] That's in the record.

[1:47:41] That's what we're having a little trouble like why we're going back and forth so much

[1:47:47] because there is an ALJ report here that and the department is saying adopt the ALJ report

[1:47:57] just to be clear and just to be clear the city is saying that that doesn't work for the city.

[1:48:06] I would echo your frustrations, Madam Chair, and while we're going back and forth on all these

[1:48:11] different things when to use the phrase elephant in the room is very accurate and yes, the

[1:48:16] 116.79 is the middle-degree.

[1:48:20] It's the problem.

[1:48:22] 40 mils is okay.

[1:48:25] We're not able to have more usual.

[1:48:26] We're not going to negotiate between parties right now.

[1:48:32] I just wanted to try to clarify where the different advice to the commission is coming from.

[1:48:41] And before we take a break for the department,

[1:48:45] I didn't mean to kind of leave you out of this argument,

[1:48:48] but is there, or this dispute?

[1:48:50] Is there anything that was said earlier that you want to correct?

[1:48:55] I know that the department takes complaints from consumers about CSG,

[1:49:01] so I'm sure you will be happy to help if that is the result here.

[1:49:07] But anything else you wanted to add about what you've heard

[1:49:10] this morning before we take a break.

[1:49:13] Sure, thanks, Chair Seabin.

[1:49:16] We spent a lot of time talking about the CSGs.

[1:49:19] I just wanted to point out that there's only 2.5 megawatts of CSGs

[1:49:27] connected to the slate and West Substations, which is a great deal.

[1:49:33] In our testimony, we did provide that and the ALJ report affirm this that Excel shouldn't

[1:49:43] be allowed to recover integration expenses related to CSGs, but as the conversation

[1:49:48] evolved this morning,

[1:49:53] the Department would be fine with assessing engineering studies and

[1:49:57] transmission studies that are particularly real.

[1:50:00] I'm delighted to that slate and west substation and appreciate Commissioner Partridge's clarification.

[1:50:08] Sorry, I didn't track that. You'd be fine attributing the engineering cost to which party?

[1:50:14] To assessing the outcome of those studies and then at that time seeing which party would be responsible in a line with what Commissioner Partridge had provided at the outset.

[1:50:29] So, what would Commissioner Partridge please?

[1:50:34] Thank you, Chair Seabin.

[1:50:36] I think after the break, it may be helpful if Ms. Campbell could maybe provide some of her insight on the mill rate.

[1:50:48] And, you know, how the department arrived at that being and appropriate amount if she's willing.

[1:50:56] Yeah, chair Stephen commissioner partridge. We can bring up a department witness for that. Sure. Okay. Thank you

[1:51:02] Okay, the commission is going to stand and recess until one o'clock

[1:51:07] So we'll be back at one o'clock. Thank you

[3:01:51] The commissioner will come back from its recess, and while we turn to commissioner partridge, if commissioner partridge, you wanted to start with whatever you wanted.

[3:02:03] Yes, thank you, Chair Steven. I was hoping to hear from Ms. Campbell from the Department of Commerce on her thoughts and her process in revealing the proposed mill rate that is included in the LG's report as her recommendation for us.

[3:02:26] Miss Campbell, welcome. When you're ready, please state your name for the record.

[3:02:35] Good afternoon, Nancy Campbell, for the Minnesota Department of Commerce.

[3:02:48] Nancy Campbell, for the Minnesota Department of Commerce.

[3:02:51] You're a catch-up.

[3:02:52] Oh, I'll do that.

[3:02:53] Oh, yeah.

[3:02:58] We are getting new microphones, but not until September.

[3:03:03] We've only been saying that for like two years.

[3:03:05] You asked the table.

[3:03:09] Please, for not green anymore.

[3:03:19] Sorry.

[3:03:19] I'm causing problems.

[3:03:21] It's not you.

[3:03:22] I'm going to the Senate Department of Commerce.

[3:03:26] I'll have to be happy to take a stab at the question that I was asked.

[3:03:31] The Department.

[3:03:32] I mean, generally, I think the short answer is the Department things that you should adopt

[3:03:38] the administrative lodge judge decision option one.

[3:03:41] and some kind of revised 10A and I would probably make a change to the 10A that we

[3:03:50] saw modified by Tuma to get rid of the solar part at the sub station part and

[3:03:57] maybe split the engineering study costs. I think that made a lot of sense. I think

[3:04:01] that was Commissioner Tuma that recommended that. Getting into the specifics.

[3:04:10] The

[3:04:11] what's fair. Our position was somewhere between the parties, the city of Slayton wanted

[3:04:18] five years for the last revenues. Excel wanted 20 years. The Department recommended 10 years.

[3:04:24] We had two case presidents where the commissions already decided that. The administrative

[3:04:28] law judge agreed with us on that. I think the stranded costs is the thing that was like

[3:04:34] a little bit different, the administrative law judge took a pretty strict reading, and he also,

[3:04:42] ALG also seemed to rely on the Commission's past precedent about saying that it had to be

[3:04:49] actual avoided costs that would be shed due to the loss of the customer, and that the

[3:04:55] avoided cost must be actual, clear and demonstrable, and that's why I think.

[3:05:00] The ALJ went more with, more with excels approach, and excels approach was 30.72% of the costs were avoidable, and 69.28% were not avoidable for the stranded costs, whereas city of Slayton had about 2.8% of the costs being, our 97.2% being avoidable, and 2.8% actually being stranded.

[3:05:28] So, anyway, the Department's position is kind of in the middle of these two, which to me suggested probably is a reasonable outcome.

[3:05:37] They've been a straight-of-law judge agreed with us and applied past the past two commission orders.

[3:05:43] And that's why we think decision-option one agreeing with the ALJ report makes the most sense.

[3:05:49] I think we're spending a lot of time on some issues that I don't think are that big of a deal for the engineering study.

[3:05:54] you heard that, you know, they're going to still have a load.

[3:05:58] It's just a quarter of a mile down on the transmission line

[3:06:01] or something to that extent.

[3:06:02] It doesn't seem like that's going to be a big deal.

[3:06:05] So I don't think we should spend a lot of time on it.

[3:06:07] But that's why I think Roy's 10A would take care of that.

[3:06:12] And then for this CSG, for what it's worth,

[3:06:15] we think that should be a developed or operator issue.

[3:06:19] And we don't think that needs to be addressed here.

[3:06:23] Thank you, Ms. Campbell. I appreciate that, and I appreciate your review for the city.

[3:06:29] I know you don't appear before us very often, but I think one thing I'll say of Ms. Campbell's

[3:06:36] review is that if she has looked at it and signed off on it, I know there is never a rubber stamp,

[3:06:41] and I very much rely on her expertise in advice in these situations.

[3:06:46] I did over lunch, put together some modified language, building off of Commissioner Tuma's,

[3:06:55] modified Commissioner, whatever iteration it was.

[3:06:59] So here's the version 8.0 or whatever it is of this decision option.

[3:07:05] And I think that Alliance with what Miss Kimball has just said.

[3:07:10] It doesn't specifically state that the engineering study cost should be split.

[3:07:14] It would leave that up for a compliance filing, but I'm open to adding that just I can give you all a couple minutes to read over it and can you just talk us through what the stuff is to like the new language on

[3:07:32] It's late in West substation. Yes. So the idea here would be that I would put forward essentially the proposal in my new decision options filed on the 19th which would be to accept the report with modifications.

[3:07:51] The main modification here is that first it would allow for our decision today for the city to take that back to make a decision at the council level or wherever you would need to have this conversation to decide if you wanted to move forward.

[3:08:07] understanding what the just compensation formula would look like.

[3:08:13] You could let us know how many days you would need for that, or if you needed months.

[3:08:18] I don't know, but let us know after we've made our decision, how long you need to contemplate your next steps.

[3:08:25] We would write that in, and then the city would notify Excel of whether they wanted to move forward.

[3:08:30] At that point, Excel would need to initiate the study of the Slayton West substation and then

[3:08:39] provide us a compliance filing, showing what costs are unavoidable, associated on caused by

[3:08:46] the Slayton transfer and pruningly incurred as part of the just compensation for the transfer.

[3:08:54] Put that into a compliance filing and it would allow for parties to weigh in.

[3:08:59] I would, again, ask that the department would be willing to review that when it comes in and

[3:09:06] provide their feedback if you need additional time, you know, 10 days is not necessarily

[3:09:15] necessary for my perspective, so like for you all to weigh in on that city as well would be

[3:09:22] asked to weigh in, so if you need more than 10 days, I can completely understand that.

[3:09:28] And that would allow for those additional study costs in any potential upgrades to that

[3:09:34] substation caused by the transfer to be contemplated as part of just compensation.

[3:09:42] Then the other decision options I have would be in just to be clear.

[3:09:47] I want to know where we're working off the staff compiled decision options.

[3:09:50] So the numbering is different from what was in their original briefing papers.

[3:09:53] I just had a minor panic a minute to go about that.

[3:09:57] It would be 11.

[3:10:01] Which is just a slight modification of a statement within the ALJ report about exalt, waving its rights.

[3:10:13] My new 14 is filed on the 19th, which is related to the burden of proof. Again, doesn't change any of the calculation of just compensation.

[3:10:25] and just modifying a finding within the ALJ report, and then determining that the city, sorry,

[3:10:34] hydrogen of 15, which determines that the city complied with requirements of the statute.

[3:10:45] And that would be my proposal to move forward.

[3:10:51] One minor suggestion on your 10, I don't know if land if you can get it back up and as I was thinking through this trying to imagine that I think that where if this city chooses to continue to pursue the transfer I don't think I don't want there to be an indication that they must make their final choice at this at this stage the final choice would be after we give the final price.

[3:11:18] Yes, so is that okay with you? Okay, good. I think that's what I was trying to get to and I didn't

[3:11:23] clearly state it when I put my decision option together.

[3:11:31] And commissioners might need a break to

[3:11:34] consult with staff because we didn't we didn't see this at before commissioner

[3:11:41] I'm going to share a picture just to explain it, but thoughts from the parties on commissioner

[3:11:47] and partages,

[3:11:50] new language here, or her overall motion, and we'll start with the city of

[3:11:58] Slain.

[3:11:59] Oh, and Mr. Weaver answers specifically to the framing of the question. I just have a question.

[3:12:05] Ms. Campbell's number that she's referring to is the 116.79 correct.

[3:12:11] And the report, that's DLCs and ALJs.

[3:12:16] Yes.

[3:12:16] There's even, yes.

[3:12:18] I shouldn't actually probably speak for Ms. Campbell, but yes, she's not in it.

[3:12:23] It is.

[3:12:23] The number included in the ALJ report.

[3:12:25] And then that four point whatever million for the acquisition.

[3:12:28] Yes.

[3:12:30] And that would be part of commissioner and partages overall motion.

[3:12:33] Yes.

[3:12:34] Yeah, to clarify.

[3:12:36] The motion would be to accept the ALJ's recommendation only with the modification of the 10A.

[3:12:45] And then those clarifications on certain legal statements within the document.

[3:12:50] I'm sure the other Josh has something to say about this question.

[3:12:54] I just would say prior to lunch, it seemed like we were finally heading into some in-depth

[3:13:01] discussion of what's in that 116.79 millerate, and I really hope that we get to get into

[3:13:09] that before any motions hit the table, I guess, my comment.

[3:13:15] Is the city want to make an overall statement about the remainder of Commissioner of

[3:13:21] should just propose here, proposal?

[3:13:25] Thank you.

[3:13:25] Chairman, Commissioner Parchridge.

[3:13:27] I guess with respect to the overall context of it, I mean, let's just start with an arrow

[3:13:33] issue first.

[3:13:33] I would say that the city would not be strongly opposed to the kind of Parchridge alternative

[3:13:39] 10A, I think that that would be a relatively doable way to do it.

[3:13:47] What would be the date number of days you need for that blank?

[3:13:52] Can the first blank in ten A?

[3:13:56] Thank you.

[3:13:57] Commissioner Steven, I guess I would say that it kind of depends on the rest of the motion

[3:14:02] if it's going to be a hundred and six-day in-mills.

[3:14:07] Sorry, maybe we're not being clear as a commission.

[3:14:11] I think that or as a where we're at,

[3:14:13] What I was trying to ask is, or get Commissioner Partridge to articulate is, or what she did articulate is how she would modify new alternative 10A.

[3:14:27] But that's just one piece of what would be our overall decision, which Commissioner Partridge is saying, her overall motion, we still need to vote on.

[3:14:38] and we want to hear from you what you think is if we adapted what she said like most of the

[3:14:45] ALJ report with the few exceptions that are outlined here. So the ALJ report again contains

[3:14:54] the lump sum initial payment that mill rate for 10 years and the other findings of

[3:15:00] The A.L.J. report. If that helps, what I'm trying to get is like, so if we, if the commission

[3:15:07] move forward with that, then that would be our overall order that would come out. And I think

[3:15:15] what my question here then is her new language says within blank days from today. The city,

[3:15:24] well you will tell Excel whether or not you want to move forward with the transfer and so how many days

[3:15:31] do you think if that's if all of that happened so how many days from today do you need to go consult

[3:15:38] with the city about now that you know what the terms would be more or less you know whether you want to

[3:15:44] move forward with the transfer. Thank you, Jersey. I think that's pretty straightforward. Then I mean

[3:15:51] the city is Mr. Milchau indicated, 116 mills is not pencil out for the city and so that's I mean we

[3:15:59] think you don't care how many days we could tell us now in our five seconds. Yeah it would

[3:16:05] 30 days would be more than adequate that 116 mills would be close to effectively double in rates

[3:16:12] for people in slayton and would not be something that the city would be like late to pursue.

[3:16:16] Yeah, no, I understand that I think I'm just trying to like the commission may be ready to make a decision and if we're saying these are the other decision options we're adopting that will result in an order that will

[3:16:32] You know that you may not be happy with what we're deciding on those other factors so that that's fair

[3:16:41] So, thank you.

[3:16:43] Sure, Steven.

[3:16:43] I would put it.

[3:16:44] There's kind of three categories, right?

[3:16:45] One is the 116 mills and things in that range where it would be an obvious, no, for

[3:16:51] the city.

[3:16:52] If it was 4.2 mills and something closer to our range, I think maybe 60 days would be adequate.

[3:16:59] If it's somewhere in the middle, in between those two things, I think it's a closer call for the

[3:17:03] question and it would probably require maybe some more public engagement at the city level.

[3:17:07] And so I think if it, if we come down something in that range,

[3:17:10] I would respectfully request more time.

[3:17:13] And so I see some more of a template we're trying to do.

[3:17:16] It's 120 days.

[3:17:17] I think it would be adequate.

[3:17:19] I appreciate that.

[3:17:21] And did we hear from the department on commissioner,

[3:17:26] partages overall framing of the, of a path forward here,

[3:17:34] I think from what I heard, it's largely department earlier was supportive of moving forward

[3:17:40] with the ALJ report and most of the provisions in it, so any other comments on this

[3:17:46] on this other language?

[3:17:48] Sure, Stephen.

[3:17:50] The department's fine with Alternative 10A, that's posted on the screen, as far as the burden

[3:17:57] of proof and accelerating its challenge, we would maintain that the ALJ has those positions.

[3:18:12] We would continue to support the ALJ's articulation of those.

[3:18:18] So does that mean are you okay with Partridge New 14 and 15?

[3:18:24] Is that what that was talking about?

[3:18:26] The Department wouldn't be supporting Partridge New 14.

[3:18:32] And tell me why?

[3:18:33] Because the Department continues to support the way the ALJ articulated the burden of proof.

[3:18:40] Okay, as it relates to that statute there.

[3:18:43] Okay.

[3:18:44] And if we want to, if Commissioner Partridge wants to ask more questions about that,

[3:18:52] or if you have more specificity to what particular fine means, it is that it might be helpful

[3:19:01] for me when I am looking this over when we can come back to that or Commissioner of

[3:19:09] Partridge if you wanted to.

[3:19:11] So, full disclosure that we of course have our own legal team that helps advise us on these.

[3:19:18] And, as I understand it, the new 14 does not modify any of the recommendations, the compensation, or the ultimate transfer.

[3:19:32] It's simply a interpretation of the law.

[3:19:37] So does that mean that you don't support the overall approach, or that you just don't necessarily agree on that particular issue,

[3:19:45] or that you haven't analyzed it very much.

[3:19:47] Sure, Steven, Commissioner Partridge. I think the latter.

[3:19:52] Just something you haven't looked into.

[3:19:54] Yep. Okay.

[3:19:56] But overall would support your...

[3:19:57] Okay, that's helpful.

[3:20:00] Similarly with the move 15, this just shows states that the city has latent complied with the requirements of the statute to bring the issue of just compensation forward, and that the commission, essentially, we don't have to make a determination of whether, or we are not allowed by law to really consider whether they're going to contract with a third party to help support them.

[3:20:30] maintaining their utility. Again, this doesn't change the ultimate outcome or compensation

[3:20:38] for the transfer is more of a statement of law that clarifies something within the report.

[3:20:45] Is this something that would give you concern about the overall package or just

[3:20:51] to disagree or have not analyzed?

[3:20:53] And Chair Sivan, Commissioner Partridge, as it pertains to decision option 15, the department

[3:20:59] doesn't have a strong stance on that, so it doesn't change our position on the overall

[3:21:06] package.

[3:21:07] Okay, that's very helpful for me.

[3:21:09] So 14 and 15, it sounds like it's just like our attorneys, when or in you Commissioner

[3:21:17] Partridge when you looked at new 14 and new 15. It's just a different way of stating the burden of proof that

[3:21:25] That is that right yet essentially like it's saying the same thing as the LJ said for the outcome

[3:21:32] It's just a slight modification around the which party has the burden of proof

[3:21:38] Right to determine perhaps I might be using this wrong

[3:21:42] But I think Mr. Dornfeld would call it Dicta

[3:21:47] Is that right?

[3:21:49] Maybe that.

[3:21:50] Okay.

[3:21:52] It's part of the overall package, but not really all that relevant to the practicality of this.

[3:21:59] And commissioners, if you want to talk with our attorneys about this, we can take a break for that to happen too.

[3:22:10] I'm sorry you wanted to comment on partridge, new 14 or new 15.

[3:22:14] I did. Thank you, Chair Savin, Commissioner Percher. I disagree. I do believe the burden of proof is important in this case.

[3:22:22] I would zoom out to the fact that again, neither party had any slate and specific cost data

[3:22:29] informing any of the numbers here.

[3:22:32] And so it's critical that we consider the lack of that kind of affirmative evidence that the burden of proof is

[3:22:41] has been applied to the city in this case, right?

[3:22:44] And that's a, I'll say, a radical departure from every area of law where a claimant

[3:22:51] is seeking damages and the burden is on them to prove the damages.

[3:22:57] So consistent, we breathe this issue thoroughly and the general run of eminent domain cases.

[3:23:05] The city has the burden to come forward and show the petition that the city has satisfied

[3:23:10] the statutory criteria for the transfer to actually happen, but then when it comes to the

[3:23:16] matter of compensation, it's on the property owner to prove up their actual damages if

[3:23:21] in the loss. It's not on the government to prove that. And so as we submitted that burden is

[3:23:29] properly on Excel, and especially with the lack of slate and specific data here, we feel it's

[3:23:35] important to not put the city in an impossible burden of just proving the thing that nobody

[3:23:41] could possibly prove. And so we would respectfully disagree with the the party's new

[3:23:46] 14. Okay and this isn't an eminent domain proceeding but maybe I'm not going to get into an argument

[3:23:56] with you about that. But let's turn to the company on commissioner partages new language that

[3:24:07] she put forward that is shaping up to be like an overall decision option package where the

[3:24:16] commission would have an order coming out of this. Concerns that have an already been articulated

[3:24:24] or thoughts on a language contained on the screen or that's otherwise new.

[3:24:32] Thank you, Chair.

[3:24:33] Oh, sorry.

[3:24:34] Too loud.

[3:24:35] I'll take this in two pieces.

[3:24:36] First, the new alternative.

[3:24:38] I don't know what version of 10A.

[3:24:40] We are comfortable with this language.

[3:24:43] On the timing for the compliance filing,

[3:24:45] we would suggest six months.

[3:24:47] We're pretty confident that the distribution engineering work will be done by then.

[3:24:51] If the MISO work is not done, what we would do is provide an update.

[3:24:56] That's a little bit out of our control. We're hopeful that it would be done.

[3:25:00] On the rest of the package,

[3:25:03] we think there's substantial evidence in the record that would support our recommendation on the last revenues. I know the commission hasn't been interested in discussing that. I'm happy to talk about it further if you would like.

[3:25:17] We put in a lot of evidence to support the two changes that we're proposing, but other than that, we're comfortable with the rest of the decision options.

[3:25:29] You know, Madam Chair.

[3:25:30] Commissioner.

[3:25:33] Reviewed everything.

[3:25:35] You know, this process works.

[3:25:37] You had a chance from the ALJ.

[3:25:39] You know, so we have what we have in the record.

[3:25:41] And that's, I think, the frustrating thing about this.

[3:25:43] You all got to want to continue to argue with each other.

[3:25:46] Arguments over.

[3:25:46] You had your chance for the ALJ.

[3:25:48] We've read all the reply comments to the exceptions and the exceptions.

[3:25:55] All that evidence, trade secret, whole bunch of stuff.

[3:25:58] I mean, it's thick.

[3:26:01] Okay, so we've gone through it.

[3:26:03] So I don't know why we're still

[3:26:06] spinning around wanting to fight with each other.

[3:26:08] Okay, I get it, you're not getting along

[3:26:10] and it didn't go well.

[3:26:11] I've been in litigation before too, okay?

[3:26:13] But at this stage, I'm ready.

[3:26:15] I know where I'm at.

[3:26:16] I thought the city approved their burden.

[3:26:19] I thought they met their burden.

[3:26:20] I thought their decision option was good,

[3:26:22] but I'm also open to hearing what you have to say

[3:26:25] on the Hail J. So I'm not really inclined

[3:26:27] want to sit there and rehash it. Mr. Berg, I appreciate it reading your testimony. It was very

[3:26:33] well done. I enjoyed the read, but only once. Okay, so I mean, I don't want to keep going around

[3:26:39] it again and again and again. It was a very good, it was very well laid out. I think you put a very

[3:26:43] good case together. Okay, that's where I'm at. Okay, and I know all my fellow commissioners have done

[3:26:50] the same thing, if dug into this in depth. So I don't, Mr. Varlay, I appreciate you wanting to,

[3:26:55] You know, re-argue your case and your briefs and everything, but you add your chance, you know, judge

[3:27:02] Mosling is a good judge, you add your chance, okay. And I know you have new information, that's part

[3:27:08] of the problem that I get into is that it just keeps turning. It feels like I'm revisiting a past

[3:27:13] IRPs where I'm constantly getting new information at the last minute trying to do this and do that.

[3:27:19] I got, I got a record, I'm comfortable with my record. I think it's a good record. I think both

[3:27:24] parties have done a good job. So I don't know where my fellow commissioners are at, but I

[3:27:30] just want to do this pretty good. Are you frustrated that you don't think that the loss

[3:27:36] revenue that is coming up wasn't incorporated into the mill rate? You know, because I read

[3:27:42] it as just to try to articulate like commissioner partridge laid out a decision option path

[3:27:51] that is mostly accepting the ALG report.

[3:27:54] And that kind of, there has been a lot of record evidence

[3:27:58] that to your point, the judge incorporated

[3:28:01] into the recommendation that we now have.

[3:28:05] And I understand that the city doesn't agree

[3:28:07] with many of the components that made up that lump sum

[3:28:12] or the mill rate.

[3:28:15] But I think for our role is to step back

[3:28:20] and be like, what does the evidence that we have now show

[3:28:24] will be fair for all parties?

[3:28:28] And it's sort of like, we can say,

[3:28:30] I said the ALJ report was well done and made sense,

[3:28:37] you know, from my read of it.

[3:28:40] And then it's like, these issues keep coming up today.

[3:28:44] And it's like, but then you go back and it's like,

[3:28:49] it kind of is incorporated into the record already. So, you know, I think it's our job to be

[3:28:57] clear about what our role is as the commission is to put an offer out there, which if I

[3:29:04] understand commissioner partages motion correctly is like mostly the ALJ report with some

[3:29:11] tweaks and I get that the city doesn't think that's a great outcome for for the city of

[3:29:20] But that's not that's up for you guys to decide then is this the compensation we want to

[3:29:27] pay Excel to make Excel rate pairs whole or fair, you know, it's a fair compensation.

[3:29:36] So I'm sorry that there are you in too, but I think if we step back and are like we have a good record,

[3:29:42] the Department of Commerce is supportive of what Commissioner Partridge is doing too.

[3:29:50] I think it's, I get that no one's happy, but what else do you have?

[3:29:56] And I'm agreeing with you, man.

[3:29:58] I just want to get, I just want to make it for...

[3:30:00] We have reviewed this record. I don't need to hear the arguments over and over again as well. I'm trying to say, you know, it's a close call. I mean, I think I close call in my mind. I do view Excel a little different than what people's and Rochester would be like. That's why I don't know if I'd weigh much on that precedent. I think Excel is a vertical integrity utility has ability to move its investments around more robustly than would people's down in Rochester would have been. But it's really not apples to apples too, because it was only a part of it.

[3:30:30] take over and so we're not looking at a whole substation move and so there's a lot of things you

[3:30:35] can go both ways. Now, if I were sitting in the judges, you know, I want to make that very clear.

[3:30:40] If I was sitting in the judges, you, I probably would have said that the city met their burden.

[3:30:45] I would be comfortable with what their recommendation has. But again, I think it's extremely close

[3:30:49] call and I would not necessarily go against this camel too because she understands the finances

[3:30:54] far better than I do. So that's the kind of how I fell on it. I mean, I'm not the way the

[3:31:01] cartridge motion is right now. I don't think I've already guessed it. So I mean, it's just struggling

[3:31:05] with it's a close call. Because of the payment or because of the, that's what I'm not tracking

[3:31:12] what you're saying. Where a close call is is that I don't think that they don't have as,

[3:31:17] they're not at as difficult of a position under this statute to figure out their lost revenues,

[3:31:23] or last revenues is the thing, the legislature put in there, to keep it from becoming a game

[3:31:29] where utilities are getting played by the communities and back and forth and back and forth.

[3:31:35] So that was their barrier. And so in analyzing it, I would have been a little bit more lenient

[3:31:43] on that number. I probably would have leaned more towards where the city was at just because I think

[3:31:48] Excel has the ability to move assets around a lot more efficiently than say people's

[3:31:52] That was what the Department's argument was.

[3:31:55] We have a precedent.

[3:31:56] We're going to run with the precedent.

[3:31:58] That puts us at 10 years.

[3:32:00] That was fair.

[3:32:01] And that was their analysis.

[3:32:03] I would have probably muddled around with that 10 years a little bit.

[3:32:06] If I sat as the judge.

[3:32:08] I'm not the judge right now.

[3:32:09] I have to determine whether this ALJ report and commissioner partage is motion is sufficient.

[3:32:14] But I'm just saying, I struggled with it.

[3:32:17] I mean, I just because I view the way exalcon handle their lost revenue and people's could would have been two different things and I probably would have looked at ten years versus five years a little differently.

[3:32:28] But I have right now on front of me ten years and so I have to now make the top decision is that is that a good outcome with all these other changes.

[3:32:37] Sorry, I didn't mean to put you so much on the spot, but it is and I know I know you want to say something but work.

[3:32:43] I'm just talking to the commissioners right now.

[3:32:46] We have to make a decision out of five of us independently.

[3:32:49] And we don't get to talk to each other about it.

[3:32:52] So this is why-

[3:32:53] You just heard our conversation.

[3:32:55] We would have, if it legislates, you're back in the bathrooms.

[3:32:57] But we can't do that.

[3:32:58] So that's why I'm trying to just see where my colleagues are

[3:33:02] to kind of try to help us figure out what we're going to do.

[3:33:06] So I'm not trying to be disrespectful.

[3:33:08] I'm trying to hear where my colleagues are

[3:33:11] because like I said earlier, this is new language and we're all kind of trying to figure it out on where we're comfortable with.

[3:33:21] Commissioner Sullivan, do you want to think about things or say anything now or have a sense of where you are that would be helpful or Commissioner Hump?

[3:33:34] Thank you, Chair Stephen.

[3:33:36] Yeah, sometimes this is very counterintuitive, but I think that typically our utility has a large capital investment and a lot of the operation has a economies of scale.

[3:33:50] I think that's why they have a monopoly and we have a regulatory compact.

[3:33:54] That's why sometimes you just do the simple accounting calculation that doesn't meet this

[3:34:01] number based on the economy of scale.

[3:34:04] So that can make things difficult to understand sometimes.

[3:34:11] So that's why I don't think we need to go into one detail.

[3:34:16] I agree that I think a record is records and based on this record, I can make a decision.

[3:34:20] today that I understand the frustration and the city that simple accounting number sometimes

[3:34:28] doesn't meet these overall lost opportunity class, which is the opportunity cost concept

[3:34:36] and that economics of scale, that number is very confusing numbers. But I think it's a

[3:34:43] well-founded economic number. I think that's why I can make a decision based on today's number.

[3:34:49] I mean, if I were right to statute, I wouldn't, I wouldn't, I wouldn't, I wouldn't say.

[3:34:53] The mutants you get to, you just pay the depreciation cost, the cost after depreciation.

[3:34:58] Okay, but you asked to become a mutant.

[3:35:00] Okay, and you must stay immune for X-Men number of years. You can't go in and out in and out. And any legislature, case that lost revenue as kind of the stop gaps so that they're not just grabbing, you know, deciding, we're going to go with the auditor tail this this month and we're going to go with nobles next year and we're going to, they needed to put something in there to keep that from happening. That's right, strongly disagree to Mr. Barrel and glad you didn't raise it up on, you know, the fact that they have to be immune. I don't think they have to go into a lot, but,

[3:35:30] That's just irrelevant, but that's where I looked at it.

[3:35:34] I said the legislature put that in this as the guard, and now we have to interpret it,

[3:35:38] which is not an easy interpretation as you're just pointed out, Commissioner Hallm, and I do

[3:35:43] put a lot of value in how Ms. Campbell looks at these issues, because she has done a swell

[3:35:50] over the years and rate cases, so that's a lot, a lot of this going on.

[3:35:56] so. Commissioner Sullivan and then we'll take a break.

[3:36:02] I'm right now I'm ready to go. So

[3:36:08] I don't have like any outtake or for vote. I don't mean outtake or anything. I'm I'm just

[3:36:15] you're ready to vote on Commissioner Partridge's motion. Yep. In support of it.

[3:36:21] Well we can wait. Well I mean this is my chance. I feel like no I don't. I just

[3:36:26] I mean, no, I think, and I have reviewed the ALJ's decision.

[3:36:34] I kind of said where I was at before at the, from the jump that, you know, I was in the

[3:36:41] blend between, you know, the longer term generation costs, distribution costs, I said 15

[3:36:48] years, so actually like, I would, the city probably wouldn't want to hear, but I'd have probably

[3:36:52] a little bit higher millerate because of the reasons that Commissioner Ham was mentioning

[3:36:57] and I do think these economies of scale are they can obfuscate or they can make it look

[3:37:05] like it's less expensive than it actually is and so I mean I'm ultimately you know I'm

[3:37:15] frustrated the whole situation and I think that the city has been put in a bad spot

[3:37:24] And, you know, but the numbers are the numbers and I know the city disagrees with the numbers and I know they'd rather have had it's talk more about it today, but I can assure you we've reviewed the documents and we've reviewed them and thought them through and the conversation that you heard here, like Commissioner Seaman had said is these are the things that we have to hash out between us and we have to have that conversation between these issues.

[3:37:47] are, you know, we have to see where everybody's at, but, I mean, I'm ready to go on the

[3:37:55] underlying decision, so.

[3:37:57] Okay.

[3:37:58] I just want to talk to the attorneys about the burden of proof issue one more time.

[3:38:06] So, we'll need a few minutes to do that, and then we can come back from, uh,

[3:38:14] about about 10 minutes from a recess.

[3:38:18] So the Commission stands in recess.

[4:06:13] The commission will come back from its recess and Mr. Black, I understand you wanted to address the commission briefly, please.

[4:06:22] And state your name and the organization you're representing for the record.

[4:06:25] Thank you, Madam Chair and commissioners. My name is Bill Black. I'm government relations attorney for the Minnesota Municipal Utilities Association.

[4:06:32] I just wanted to state real briefly that the impact of this decision may be much wider than we are all talking about, whether or not

[4:06:41] It's like, and does municipalize the impact on municipal utilities ability to grow with their

[4:06:46] cities, could be devastated with a precedent of 116 mills.

[4:06:52] Okay, Mr. Black, is this information, or are you a party in the record?

[4:06:58] We did not file to be heard.

[4:07:00] And I think at this point, like, we're, you're trying to, like, blowing us up in a way.

[4:07:07] I'm not really comfortable with.

[4:07:09] So we appreciate that you always had time to file comments into the record and could have

[4:07:18] petitioned to be a party, but I have a feeling that if I let you keep talking someone

[4:07:24] else is going to be really angry at the commission and then we're going to have other

[4:07:30] issues to have to handle.

[4:07:32] So, thank you and my apologies for saying you could speak and then cutting you off.

[4:07:41] Commissioner Partridge, on your overall motion and the legal issues that you discussed

[4:07:50] with staff on the break, could you provide comments, please?

[4:07:55] Thank you, Chair Steven.

[4:07:57] So I am prepared to make an overall motion the I will be making a modification, what I had initially said, which is that I will just remove my new 14.

[4:08:09] I think that the bottom line is that under either burden of proof, the result is the same in my mind that we have sufficient information into the record to make our decision.

[4:08:22] And that we, as a commission, don't really need to weigh in on that particular item.

[4:08:29] So, your striking, your overall motion would not include partridge new 14.

[4:08:35] Yes. And I would like to give a complete overall motion when you're ready to.

[4:08:42] Yes. Thank you.

[4:08:45] You ready?

[4:08:47] And are you working off of your off of the briefing paper?

[4:08:55] Okay.

[4:08:56] Or is it going on the screen?

[4:08:58] I don't know.

[4:08:59] The new language may be too.

[4:09:02] Thank you.

[4:09:04] Mr. Patterson, if you would pull up the new modified modified modified 10A.

[4:09:14] And then my proposed motion would be working off of staff's, or refers to staff's compiled

[4:09:24] decision options from August 16th, just noting that those numbers are different than

[4:09:30] what was in the briefing papers, so I apologize for that, and then my own filing data

[4:09:37] to August 19th. So it's sorry for two different documents, Chair. My proposal is adopting

[4:09:45] decision option number three, which is to accept the ALJ report with modifications.

[4:09:53] The

[4:09:54] modified 10A that is shown on the screen, noting that we do need some...

[4:10:00] Number to fill in here for days after this decision.

[4:10:07] Decision option 11, which is to determine that

[4:10:11] Excel has not waved its right to dispute the property sales associated with the transfer. And then

[4:10:18] cartridge, new 15 is determined that the city of Slayton has complied with the requirements of

[4:10:23] statute to 16D-45 to bring the issue of just compensation before the commission and to the

[4:10:30] extent that Excel argues the city's proposal does not constitute a municipal utility

[4:10:34] to 16D-45 does not direct the commission to make that determination when a utility of

[4:10:39] jacks to acquisition of its property.

[4:10:41] So that is my complete motion again, three modified 10A 11 and my new 15.

[4:10:49] And since I was the one that put 10 forward and listening to the conversations, I understand

[4:10:52] more of the city's response would. But I think we should put 30 days in there just to give

[4:10:58] time for discussion. But I do hear what the city's saying. And for the department earlier,

[4:11:08] you said you didn't have strong feelings about partridge, new 15 and commissioner partridge is not

[4:11:18] moving new 15, 14 anymore.

[4:11:21] And so could you comment on both of those?

[4:11:24] I assume you're fine then, not moving new 14,

[4:11:27] but what about partridge new 15?

[4:11:31] Did you have any time on the break to think about that more?

[4:11:35] Chair Sivan,

[4:11:38] with new 14 being removed.

[4:11:41] That was the major concern that we had.

[4:11:43] 15 wasn't as concerning.

[4:11:45] um as far as um so you're fine with including

[4:11:51] partridge new 15 yeah that's fine okay great um sorry

[4:11:56] something else a decision option 11 we didn't support

[4:12:01] that uh we believe Excel has whipped it's right to

[4:12:04] procedurally challenge tell me a little bit more about that

[4:12:08] because I my brain wasn't focused on that short um

[4:12:13] I'd suggest not, but that's okay.

[4:12:16] We believe the department believes that Excel has waived its opportunity to procedurally challenge

[4:12:21] and waver and that's because we've endured an entire contested case process and there has been

[4:12:30] ample time and Excel has continued participation has waived that.

[4:12:37] And Mr. Barlow on that number 11.

[4:12:43] Thank you chair. We're fine with decision option 11. I don't, we have been objecting. I understand

[4:12:50] the commission's going to move forward. I'm not trying to make an argument about that, but

[4:12:55] I don't understand how you could find that we've. I'm sorry. I don't really understand

[4:12:59] Ms. Hundals analysis, but we're comfortable with 11. We don't think it's critical to

[4:13:03] the decision in it largely restates what we've been saying in the case.

[4:13:16] I'm going to share. I mean, I, we can get into it. We really don't need to. I, I just don't think it is our business simply put. I mean, it's just not.

[4:13:26] The legislature put put in the way this statute is to be read. If you read it, it's very clear. They say municipality and don't say that that is going to become.

[4:13:38] There's a municipal utility, it just has a municipality and that's very clearly defined

[4:13:43] in the statute, and they use in 2016B municipal utility multiple places, so they obviously

[4:13:49] knew the difference.

[4:13:50] I don't know why we're even delving into this issue at all.

[4:13:54] I mean, it's outside of our jurisdiction, if they want to go to the legislature, if

[4:13:59] they think they have an action in court, which I don't think they do, they can deal with

[4:14:02] that.

[4:14:02] But in front of us, we have a statute, there was a petition in front of us.

[4:14:06] we need to determine what the fair value is for this municipality and that's what we're doing.

[4:14:10] So you just assume leave decision option 11 out. Is that what you're saying?

[4:14:15] I just don't think it matters. So I'm fine with it again. So you're fine with it in.

[4:14:21] Okay. Any other commissioner want to comment on the overall motion?

[4:14:30] Are parties ready to or our commissioners ready to vote on the overall motion?

[4:14:36] clear on what it is. Yeah, can I just make one statement? I do want to just say that the

[4:14:41] job of the commission is to look within the record and review the record and we cannot

[4:14:48] on the fly and on the bench start coming up with new numbers and negotiating new numbers with

[4:14:54] parties. And so we are making our decision with what's in the record. And I just want to

[4:15:00] I wanted to reiterate that I think it's in state and multiple times, but this commission has to review what's in the record and work with the numbers and data that we have, and I have nothing else that I wanted to add.

[4:15:13] Okay, on commissioner, um, cartridges of, we just rest in it really quick.

[4:15:24] Yeah, decision

[4:15:25] option three,

[4:15:31] the modified 10 A,

[4:15:38] 11,

[4:15:44] and partridge new 15. And just to be clear, the department,

[4:15:52] and you're supportive of the overall motion.

[4:15:55] Yes, she's not in.

[4:15:57] We've got that before.

[4:15:59] The city of Slayton, we understand you don't like the motion

[4:16:03] overall and you're opposed to it correct.

[4:16:06] That's correct, Madam Chair.

[4:16:08] And Excel on the overall motion.

[4:16:13] Thank you, Chair.

[4:16:14] We would have recommended some different things

[4:16:16] but we understand the motion and I'm not here

[4:16:18] to bracelet a bunch of objections at this point.

[4:16:22] It seems like the commission's got to go right.

[4:16:25] I'm very unhappy.

[4:16:27] There we go.

[4:16:28] Okay.

[4:16:28] Well, everyone's clear on what the motion is.

[4:16:32] And we'll proceed to vote on Commissioner Partridge's overall motion.

[4:16:37] All in favor, please say aye.

[4:16:38] Aye.

[4:16:40] Opposed.

[4:16:40] The motion prevails.

[4:16:42] Thank you very much, everyone.

[4:16:47] We have a lot of people who have been waiting for documents five and six in the back.

[4:16:51] So we'll get started on DACA 5 as soon as folks get in place.

[4:17:00] Thanks for your patience.

[4:17:06] It's a little bit after 12.30.

[4:17:11] Well, it's before 12.30 in Hawaii.

[4:17:50] And didn't decide that we're going to get you up here earlier.

[4:17:56] I saw you hiding in the back there.

[4:18:00] Good

[4:18:13] news, Mr. Barallaud, didn't throw you under the bus, so.

[4:18:19] No.

[4:18:22] Go right ahead.

[4:18:43] Mr. Durand, please introduce item number four or five.

[4:18:48] I mean, let's not do four again.

[4:18:54] I hope this one is a little simpler, but mostly.

[4:18:58] Good afternoon, Chair Sivan, and commissioners.

[4:19:01] Item number five is for a doc at number e99-9-c-i-16-521, and the

[4:19:08] updating in the matter of updating the generic standards for the interconnection

[4:19:12] in operation of distributed generation facilities established under Minnesota Statue

[4:19:17] 16B 11 or 1611. The question before the commission is should the commission approve the technical subgroups proposed changes to the MNIP and the TIR regarding battery energy stored systems and limited slash non export systems.

[4:19:34] There are no wait file comments or decision options. Staff has no further remarks, but it is a little bit more questions. Thank you.

[4:19:42] Okay, thank you, and we weren't going to have opening comments, right?

[4:19:48] First, before we begin, and I'm sure other commenters will, or other commissioners will say this,

[4:19:54] but I wanted to really think all of the parties, and especially you, Mr. Diana.

[4:20:00] For working through so much of the stakeholder process that has led to this good outcome, I know it's been a ton of extra work and you were, you know, very minnesota and saying, no, it wasn't me, it was other people, but we know that you did a ton of work, so.

[4:20:19] He's learning from Arizona too.

[4:20:23] Thank you very much Mr. Durian for all your work on this item and not just in preparing

[4:20:29] the briefing papers, but the work for the technical subgroup too, so we appreciate that.

[4:20:35] So Commissioner Sullivan, I mean, excuse me. Thank you, Chair Sivan. I concur with that.

[4:20:42] Yes, as a lead commissioner for the DCWG, I watched how Mr Durian was working on this issue

[4:20:49] And a lot of people doesn't see what he's doing behind the scene on this kind of work, and I think we should give him a lot of credit.

[4:20:56] And also I really respect all those working group participants. I think it is a lot of work.

[4:21:05] But also, as I said during the meeting, and I think a tiny sense, we need to move on quickly as soon as possible.

[4:21:12] So if there is any small difference, we better move on and if you can fix it, some small difference later, we can do it later.

[4:21:22] I think I really appreciate all the participant of the DGWG and then also at the one point I think the DGWG member was able to bring commissioner for more commissioner measure to the table and that was very helpful.

[4:21:39] things that I don't have any specific question except I have some possible motions so I can ask

[4:21:49] party about that. That might be a more productive rather than I do the Q&A. So I'll make

[4:21:56] a mark motion and then see what reaction we are getting from the party.

[4:22:03] So at this time, I'm thinking

[4:22:06] about moving decision option 1, 3, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, and 16,

[4:22:32] and then I can ask a

[4:22:33] is whether there's a acceptable one at and so let's start with the easy target, Mr. Heinen.

[4:22:48] Chair Seabin, Commissioner's Adam Heinen with the Code Electric Association. Overall, Commissioner

[4:22:55] Ham, draft motion is not a jack tumultus, couple items, you know, three we had, you know,

[4:23:04] decisions before it be preferred, but I think we can live with decision options three, especially if we have a little more discussion around the insurance question and then

[4:23:17] I think we are okay with the

[4:23:20] I already have of the. Okay, thank you.

[4:23:28] Sure, see you in the commissioner, huh?

[4:23:30] Oh, it's a lot louder.

[4:23:37] We'll try that again.

[4:23:41] And state your name to Mr.

[4:23:44] Sure, see you in the commissioner,

[4:23:46] how I'm operating with Minnesota power.

[4:23:49] Overall, support the motion.

[4:23:53] I just wanted to note as well with

[4:23:55] I believe it was a decision option, three minutes of power actually would prefer decision

[4:24:02] option for as well, and that one, the 40 versus 50 for similar reasons to what Excel

[4:24:08] and Dakota indicated, and also I've been told by our technical folks as well that moving

[4:24:13] from 40 to 50 for kind of a standard contract throws in a little bit of a complication

[4:24:20] because you can do a 200 amp board for a 40 kilowatt, but as soon as you move to 50,

[4:24:25] there's a requirement to move to 320 so there's just a little bit more complexity on

[4:24:33] our end as far as that limited, you know, that number right there between the 40 and 50.

[4:24:39] But it's something we can work through if need be.

[4:24:43] Thank you.

[4:24:44] So my question along the line is not about the engineering reliability issue.

[4:24:51] So you can deduct through your contract where whoever is trying to do so that's why I'm more comfortable with the bigger larger

[4:25:00] terms, aye, nay, nay, aye, nay, aye, nay, nay, nay, nay, nay, nay, no, no, no no. This is, as a, terms, yes, as a, now. At this point, what side?

[4:25:00] Therefore, this side, this side, the side of the society, the side of the society. I would like to be more convening with the fortie because you are already having the system, but if, if anybody wants to do 50 with a paying extra because of a certain energy and you should, it is up to the party who wants to do that? That was my rationale there.

[4:25:21] Mr. Dennis.

[4:25:23] Thank you, Chair and Commissioner Ham.

[4:25:28] For Excel energy, sorry.

[4:25:31] The overall motion I think is generally fine.

[4:25:35] We share softly the concerns that minutes

[4:25:38] of power expressed on decision options three and four.

[4:25:43] The only thing I do note is decision options 13 would be

[4:25:46] You know, having a work group to discuss, changing, having an identity-new form, state-like contract.

[4:25:55] If that moves forward, that would require or change to the rules to be reopened in the rulemaking.

[4:26:02] So I'm going to make sure, but that can be discussed at the work group.

[4:26:05] I like that.

[4:26:07] Thank you.

[4:26:12] Sidney Lee with the Minnesota Department of Commerce.

[4:26:15] Mr. Hong, could you, was it 8 and 11?

[4:26:21] I just want to make sure I heard it correctly.

[4:26:23] That's great.

[4:26:25] Yes, it is in that package and 11 is in that package.

[4:26:29] Okay, and nothing additional after 8, right?

[4:26:33] No, there is a no notification, nothing, so.

[4:26:37] Okay, then the department has no concerns with the draft motion.

[4:26:41] Thank you.

[4:26:41] Steve

[4:26:46] Coleman, I was an individual participant in this. I agree with all of the

[4:26:54] motion, except that I do prefer option 5 over 6 and would believe it would

[4:27:06] encourage more distributed energy resources, and looks forward to availability of export

[4:27:20] capacity, which was not there when the interpretation was more of a nameplate capacity.

[4:27:29] So I think one is looking to the past and one is looking to the future, but I appreciate your motion.

[4:27:41] Mr. Zahn.

[4:27:45] Madam Chair commissioners, Curtis Onon, behalf of Mincea.

[4:27:48] And I want to recognize too, Mr. Durran, and I wrecked for really helping out with this process.

[4:27:52] I thought it was absolutely fantastic and was happy to be part of it.

[4:27:57] We support one in three with regard to six, eight and 12 are concerned to be that it's inconsistent with the clear statutory language.

[4:28:07] We support 13 and I would disagree with Mr. Deniston that doing a denim for the uniform statewide contract requires rule making,

[4:28:14] because that's the whole point of it's to avoid that wouldn't be changing the uniform statewide contract and obviously support 16 as well.

[4:28:20] Thank you.

[4:28:22] Thank you.

[4:28:30] Any other questions from commissioners?

[4:28:33] Mister Dennis and I'm sorry. Sorry. There's a money on line. Oh, sorry. We forgot.

[4:28:38] Outer tail. Hi, Mr. Stephenson. Please state your name for the record.

[4:28:43] Thank you, Madam Chair. Curie Stephenson on behalf of otter tail power company. I just wanted to make sure that we noted in the record that we do support Commissioner Homs motion.

[4:28:53] Thank you. Commissioner Tuma.

[4:28:55] I'm just going to not my notes, Mr. Hammond, it's Excel Energy, it's suggested six in the process.

[4:29:05] And I had my notes, you know, we don't even really take action on this.

[4:29:10] So what is the desire that we actually modify?

[4:29:14] 1.1.1 to clearly indicate that it's 10 megawatts of name capacity, because I thought that's what it is now.

[4:29:22] And that's what my confusion is, why we need to state that the sky is blue, but help me out.

[4:29:28] I might be missing.

[4:29:29] Sure.

[4:29:31] Thank you, Sharon.

[4:29:32] To Mr. and to some people, you know, even though I think the sky is blue, some people

[4:29:36] and the work group were saying it's a different color.

[4:29:39] And therefore, in section 1.1, we think it's important to create the additional clarity.

[4:29:47] The answer to the word nameplate before capacity.

[4:29:50] and I think that's where we're going and I guess I didn't want to what that looks like and I

[4:29:56] get your argument that you know if you look at Flint Hills it would have.

[4:30:00] The doors the way they're building at a get that argument, but shouldn't that be a charge to the working group to figure that out as opposed to just saying it's ten megawatts were done. That's why I'm worried about what we're saying it's done.

[4:30:17] No. No. No. So, thank you, Chair and Commissioner of Tumat. So, with Flint Hills, there

[4:30:24] were 45 megawatt solar facility. We processed that application. We used Minder as a guide

[4:30:33] post to what to do and then we filed them in DIA as modified with relined changes to have the

[4:30:40] commission approved that end up being approved on the 30-day negative check-off. So,

[4:30:48] it's

[4:30:48] standing was that men to apply, had a 10 megawatt,

[4:30:52] namely capacity cap.

[4:30:54] We still need to use that to inform us

[4:30:56] on how to process other applications that exceeded that.

[4:30:59] He said, you mentioned fields.

[4:31:01] We've also done some with the University of Minnesota

[4:31:03] at our public record.

[4:31:07] In the department, you were thinking differently.

[4:31:11] I mean, you seem to be comfortable with things

[4:31:13] where things are at.

[4:31:14] I just want to pre-decide that we could do something

[4:31:16] more along the lines of what was being suggested by some folks, but I just want to pre-decided

[4:31:22] here. I didn't think I'd have enough information. So where are you at as far as six is concerned?

[4:31:29] Dr. Lee, chair Steven Commissioner and Tuma, we prefer five. We don't have a strong opinion on

[4:31:38] this one. I think this is the mindip. This is not about the expert capacity versus the

[4:31:45] play a discussion that's going on related to net metering rates.

[4:31:49] And those two things are completely separate.

[4:31:52] The Department recognizes as a policy position on the mid-depth.

[4:31:56] There's potentially value in citing it as export capacity, because it would encourage

[4:32:02] people to have larger systems behind the meter for self-serving electricity.

[4:32:08] And it acknowledges that we have technology advancements that allow the export capacity to

[4:32:15] metered, such that the system impact, which is really what the mandate is about, is protected

[4:32:19] at that 40KW, but it's again, it's a policy decision and I don't think we have a strong feeling

[4:32:26] either way, but we think generally we had to pick, we would choose five.

[4:32:33] I think Mr. Hong, that's what the concern was just trying to understand where to go with this.

[4:32:38] I didn't want to pre-judge kind of where we go with all of this because there are other things

[4:32:42] happening in this space, so I guess I had no action on five or six, but I was gonna get

[4:32:50] your understanding what you're thinking.

[4:32:54] Yeah, thank you. So yeah, I think a lot of discussion

[4:32:58] going on is a definition of capacity in many different places. So that's why for now, I think

[4:33:04] we can move on quickly. That's why I mentioned that at this point, the gameplay capacity will

[4:33:10] these things faster. So that's why that was my rationale, but if party has a very strong

[4:33:17] position, we can deal with it in a different way, but I think they may take more time,

[4:33:26] and if you don't make a decision on this one, we may have to send it back, or we go to the other

[4:33:30] direction. I don't know how strong utility will react to it. So that's why I try to move it quicker.

[4:33:37] sooner is better than trying to precisely making that final decision.

[4:33:42] Well, that's helpful to me, because I just want to make a seem like we're making a final judgment on where this ends up,

[4:33:47] because a lot of the debate we're going to have is over what should be the technology,

[4:33:54] and how would you discern the technology and what is available to the grid versus to help behind the meter.

[4:34:02] A little bit of discussion kind of where we're having up and up or so, you know,

[4:34:05] what are these devices and how are they working and I just don't know if we have a

[4:34:10] we're at the point of final decision but it helps me to know that we're just trying to keep things

[4:34:14] moving fast and that's helpful and not making a final decision.

[4:34:24] Any other questions from commissioners and commissioners, how will you please renew your motion?

[4:34:31] Thank you, Chelsea events. I was just really paid my original draft motion.

[4:34:36] That is 1, 3, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13 and 16.

[4:34:49] Is there any discussion?

[4:34:51] All in favor, please say aye.

[4:34:53] Aye.

[4:34:54] Opposed, emotion prevails.

[4:34:57] Thank you, everyone.

[4:34:59] That was quick.

[4:35:00] How much work went into that? We appreciate it very much.

[4:35:26] MPRP, any just sent it? The MPRP?

[4:35:33] Oh, no, this is the preliminary packet, so it's not the whole thing.

[4:35:41] Okay.

[4:35:45] Yeah, I was supposed to be the next week I think I got it.

[4:36:10] Ms. Brown-Hus, please introduce our last agenda item for us.

[4:36:19] Good afternoon, Chair C. Ben and Commissioners.

[4:36:21] Item number six is, is docket P407 405 DTL26-266 and the matter of frontier communications

[4:36:31] of Minnesota and citizens telecommunications company of Minnesota LLC for approval of the

[4:36:37] proposed customer transition plan.

[4:36:40] The question before the commission is, how should the commission proceed with frontier communications of Minnesota and citizens telecommunications company of Minnesota's proposed customer transition plan petition.

[4:36:52] A late file letter was received from volunteer communications on August 18 and Commissioner Tuma filed new and revised decision options on August 18.

[4:37:01] Yesterday, Wednesday, staff filed revised decision options, hard copies of the compiled

[4:37:07] late-filed decision options are available in the back of the room.

[4:37:11] I have no further remarks, but I am available for questions.

[4:37:14] Thank you.

[4:37:17] And Ms. Brownhust, we weren't, we're going to have opening statements from parties, or maybe

[4:37:22] just ask them, sorry, I didn't have a note here, so if the parties can come forward, we'll

[4:37:30] begin with please, if you could identify yourselves and then state your preferred decision options

[4:37:40] given the late filed ones, that would be helpful.

[4:38:00] Who would like to begin?

[4:38:02] Mr. Barlow.

[4:38:05] Thank you, Chair.

[4:38:06] My name is Ryan Barlow from the law firm of Cozen, O'Connor.

[4:38:09] I'm representing Frontier in Citizens.

[4:38:12] Also, today, representing the same group is Dan Khan, from the law firm of WVK, he's available

[4:38:18] remotely.

[4:38:20] In addition, we have Paul Vazington from Verizon, the parent of Frontier in Citizens.

[4:38:26] Good afternoon, chair seat in this one.

[4:38:28] It's really loud.

[4:38:30] I'm going to back up Catherine Hinderley on behalf of the Office of the Attorney General

[4:38:34] Residential Utilities Division.

[4:38:39] Amber at Hundell, representing the Department of Commerce, and sorry, I don't have everybody's

[4:38:49] name in front of me, but the folks online who are representing parties, I can't see

[4:38:56] your names, if you could each identify yourself, selves.

[4:39:02] My camera's not working, unfortunately, this is Carson Tracquist, and the President of Local

[4:39:06] 72, 70 communication workers in America.

[4:39:09] I represent the Telecom technicians in southern and western Minnesota.

[4:39:15] Good

[4:39:19] afternoon, Karen.

[4:39:20] Go ahead, Dan.

[4:39:22] Good afternoon, Karen commissioners.

[4:39:24] My name is Dan Khan of the law firm, Wilkinson Barker-Nauer.

[4:39:28] And I'm here on behalf of Frontier and Citizens.

[4:39:35] And I'm Paul Vasington.

[4:39:37] Last name is spelled Viesin Victor, AS, ING, T-O-N.

[4:39:41] Senior Director of Regulatory and Government Affairs with Verizon, which is the parent company now

[4:39:47] of the frontier in citizens. Okay, and just for clarification, Mr. Barlow will be your primary

[4:39:55] spokesperson for both you, Mr. Con, and you, Mr. Bassington.

[4:40:01] Okay.

[4:40:04] Is there anybody else we missed? Okay. Then Mr. Barlow, please comment on the decision options.

[4:40:15] Thank you, Chair. Commissioners, I hope you had an opportunity to review our letter that we filed a few days ago.

[4:40:21] We filed it in the hopes of narrowing the issues that needed to be resolved at this procedural hearing.

[4:40:25] We continue to recommend the decision options outlined in there, which would be the modified version of eight that we provided, and

[4:40:33] 7, 9, and 10, and

[4:40:36] With that package were comfortable with decision option 2 as well.

[4:40:44] And miss Hinerley.

[4:40:46] Thank you chair Stephen.

[4:40:47] The OIG is supportive of modified Tuma 2, modified Tuma 4, and modified Tuma 7 both A and B.

[4:40:57] And for the department.

[4:40:59] Thank you, Chair Steven, the Department supports modified Tuma 2, modified Tuma 4, and modified Tuma 7A and B.

[4:41:10] Mr. Turnquist.

[4:41:13] Yes, ma'am.

[4:41:15] I have not seen yesterday's publications, so I can't really speak educated on it.

[4:41:22] Okay, no problem.

[4:41:25] Commissioner Tuma, why don't we turn to you then for first-for questions to the parties?

[4:41:31] Yeah, let's start with if you put up the statute, I just wanted to walk through it with Mr.

[4:41:38] Mr. Barlow.

[4:41:40] Understanding this is novel and we're starting it and I appreciate how you laid out your decision option.

[4:41:49] And I just wanted to be clear kind of how I'm proceeding in my mind at looking at this statute.

[4:41:56] And what was critical to convey, the statute is pretty simple.

[4:41:59] We're just trying to assist copper.

[4:42:01] That's only people that are going to be named to your copper people.

[4:42:05] We're still on copper, gramma, people who just haven't got rid of their copper lines.

[4:42:11] And we're trying to mitigate them to broadband, or maybe wireless, that's what I was trying

[4:42:17] to get myself around and it's basically to get that you get out of obligation to serve.

[4:42:24] There is a change in the telecom world.

[4:42:26] We got it to opportunity to be with Mr.

[4:42:29] Mr. Forney at a day and he has seen it all from the beginning to the end.

[4:42:33] And so we're in this transition of moving it.

[4:42:36] And central to that is the definition of alternative provider.

[4:42:41] It seems to be critical to our state statute.

[4:42:43] And so I put it up here, I'll turn to provider, is one or more providers, the federal communications

[4:42:52] has identified through the broadband data collection.

[4:42:55] And so I delved into that, if you could go to the next slide, I gave you Lanna on this.

[4:43:03] And so I try to understand what that was.

[4:43:06] And so here it is, FCC has this document.

[4:43:12] this is right on the FCC website, it's 4597 the Lancy Court. I don't know if I want to

[4:43:17] announce that too much, but that might be a goofy Bohemian who's working on a shed in this

[4:43:22] backyard and if you could just kind of scroll its zoom in on the right-hand side. This is data

[4:43:31] that the FCC has been collecting. Scroll down so you can see all the providers that that goofy

[4:43:36] Bohemian would have potential that say they can serve us and so this is data that is being

[4:43:44] collected by the FCC has been collected over the years I think in part to start getting

[4:43:48] to this transition Mr. Barlow and I see that I have obviously I have my son would not

[4:43:55] let me get off of the spectrum because I get a thousand down and 35 up okay everybody else

[4:44:02] not even close. But their fixed wireless, some of them satellite, I have a few that would

[4:44:08] qualify. So go back to the statute. And so what the statute for providers says that

[4:44:17] successor data for a wire line, broad base access service through fiber,

[4:44:23] after optic cable to the home, 25 down, 3 up, and then there's 120% of the cost.

[4:44:34] So this data is essentially out there of all these providers that I could qualify for.

[4:44:41] And if I still was on copper, for Eisen, who was my provider, could come to me and say,

[4:44:48] We're going to take you off and you have charter there, and or expect them now, and so you would be, you know, you'd be someone who qualified to be removed.

[4:45:00] We move from the copper system. But then there was this or that caused me a little bit of confusion, and I want you to clarify, is or a request by a telephone company or a telecommunication carrier,

[4:45:16] the federal communication has a debt approved adequate replacement provider who meets the requirements of this section.

[4:45:25] And if I'm reading that statute correctly, Mr. Barlow, if I didn't have a spectrum, I would

[4:45:34] still, if one of those providers requested to be named, and I'll turn it to providers,

[4:45:43] which is critical to the statute, that's all you have to give people notice them.

[4:45:47] If one of them would notify you that they were wanting to be an alternative provider in your

[4:45:54] plan, okay? Then I could still, even though I don't have spectrum, I could still then would

[4:46:00] be a copper person who could essentially lose my copper service under the plant. Is that

[4:46:05] a fair interpretation of how this works?

[4:46:08] Thank you Chair Commissioner Tuma. Yes, I think I agree with everything that you said. I just

[4:46:12] want to provide one clarification. Our petition is based entirely on part two of that statute.

[4:46:19] We have filed a simultaneous petition with the FCC asking for approval as an adequate

[4:46:24] replacement, certain locations in Minnesota and in another other states as well. When the FCC

[4:46:30] approved that, it will satisfy the requirements of provision to for those locations.

[4:46:37] And so that's what I'm getting my head around. You can stay right there because I'm struggling

[4:46:43] with our responsibility because you filed an petition. If you look at my new two, okay Mr. Barlow,

[4:46:51] Those words should look very familiar to you.

[4:46:54] I just took your first paragraph of your petition and I put it in a decision option.

[4:47:00] It's your application to us under a state statute.

[4:47:05] And so I'm trying to apply that state statute.

[4:47:08] And when I read that state statute, one of the requirements,

[4:47:11] the customer transition plan is clearly identify the alternative providers

[4:47:16] to customers in the affected area. It did say just one. It doesn't say all either. Okay, but I think it applies all who have

[4:47:28] requested. And so even though you may want to get that approved by the FCC, if Starlink or AT&T was 25-3, I mean,

[4:47:40] barely qualifies. Says somewhere we request to be on the alternative provider list. They should

[4:47:49] be on the alternative provider list that you need to make clearly identified for all copper

[4:47:56] customers. That's the way I read this law. Thank you Chair Commissioner. I don't think that's

[4:48:03] how it works in that when you file a petition to the FCC, you only need to file a petition to

[4:48:11] FCC, you're filing a petition with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission under the Minnesota

[4:48:17] statute to 3, 7, 1, 8, 1. That's what I have in front of me now. So I'm reading this

[4:48:25] language and it says a request by a telephone company or by the petition or not by the

[4:48:33] applicant, a company, okay, and I have several companies that would qualify if they want to be an alternative provider.

[4:48:42] So that's what I'm struggling with. I mean, I, this is the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.

[4:48:48] The last place I want to be is FCC, so I've got bless you all that have to do that.

[4:48:53] But thank you, Chair Commissioner, too.

[4:48:55] And if we get a little bit deeper in the FCC stuff, I'm going to call on Mr. Con for support.

[4:48:59] But I think I can answer your question.

[4:49:02] The way that I read this language is when a telephone company

[4:49:05] or a carrier files a request with the FCC

[4:49:09] to be designated as an adequate replacement,

[4:49:12] that's on a location by location basis.

[4:49:14] So this location front here has file the petition

[4:49:19] to be identified our adequate services at that location.

[4:49:23] The only people who will file that are entities

[4:49:26] that are currently providing copper service

[4:49:28] those specific locations. No one else would file an adequate replacement filing for locations

[4:49:35] that which they don't have copper. So what our petition is is that we have we have asked them

[4:49:42] in a solar commission we're saying these are what we anticipate will be our adequate

[4:49:47] replacement approved by the FCC. Under state law those will be alternative providers for which

[4:49:55] We are moving forward and so that's what we have identified in our petition.

[4:50:00] It's hindering. Help me out. I mean, I was reading your stuff. It seems like you think it's a little broader than that. And I can't remember which one, which one. I was a Mr. Turnquist or somebody said, you need to prove it. Let's all. And I'm trying to, you know, I don't think you have to list all providers, but you just, I think you have to do it to all alternative providers in the definition of the statute. That's what I'm seeing, but you correct me if I'm wrong.

[4:50:24] Chair, Stephen, Commissioner Tuma, I would disagree with Mr. Barlas interpretation, because I believe, first off, it would read out that last phrase that you have highlighted in blue, which is meets the requirements of this section.

[4:50:38] So, it might not look like it from the outside, but this statute had a very long and vigorous

[4:50:45] debate behind the scenes of the legislature, and ensuring that the Minnesota Commission

[4:50:49] continued to have some rains on FCC determinations was one of the things that many stakeholders

[4:50:57] felt important to preserve. And what we landed on was meets the requirement of this section,

[4:51:02] so that the Commission could determine, even if it's approved by the FCC, does that meet the

[4:51:07] requirements, you know, that you have highlighted in one, which is off the screen right now,

[4:51:12] about being, you know, 25 down, three up.

[4:51:15] In terms of what information needs to be provided in the petition, or two consumers, I agree.

[4:51:21] It doesn't say alternative providers, singular.

[4:51:24] It doesn't say all.

[4:51:25] And I think the commission has some discretion as the expert in this area to determine what level of alternative providers that it believes is necessary for

[4:51:34] customers who will be losing their telephone service to be provided with so that they

[4:51:40] can continue to have reliable communication in order to call their loved ones access

[4:51:46] 911, have their home alarm systems work etc. So I think that you have some discretion

[4:51:53] to determine what breadth alternative providers should be provided by the company.

[4:52:00] if you have from the department or

[4:52:04] Miss Arnold.

[4:52:05] Chair Steven Commissioner Tuma.

[4:52:07] We agree with

[4:52:09] the phrasing that

[4:52:11] Miss Henry provided

[4:52:12] we don't believe that

[4:52:15] the

[4:52:16] every single alternative provider needs to be

[4:52:20] provided and in order to have a complete application here

[4:52:23] but it's within the commission's

[4:52:27] as to the number of alternative providers

[4:52:30] the Department wants to avoid a situation where a lot of that searching for alternative providers

[4:52:37] falls on the customer.

[4:52:40] I don't know what the FCC is intending by their order, but I think our legislature intended

[4:52:45] informed copper customers so that they have the options that are in front of us because it's

[4:52:51] going to get changed to suddenly on them and they need to make a decision otherwise they might

[4:52:55] not be able to call 911 or were the grandkids, I think that was the intent of this statue,

[4:53:02] as I read it and I agree with you on that. I'm not going to delve too far because we're

[4:53:08] pretty exhausted already if you have a determined that. But I do want to talk a little bit about

[4:53:14] process and so what I tried to do with four Mr. Marlow was to create a flexible process

[4:53:26] for the parties to sit down before September 11th or September 10th I should say, and figure

[4:53:36] out what information needs to be in the record.

[4:53:39] I don't know whether there is trade secret information in that, but I think what I was

[4:53:44] trying to create here, because I do give you a chance to explain if you don't agree with

[4:53:50] some of this and you've tried to explain some of it already.

[4:53:52] But this is preliminary, we're just setting up a process.

[4:53:55] And so what I thought by doing the modified four is that I'm hoping that you all can sit down.

[4:54:03] And that's the next question I'm going to ask you to sit down and kind of get the scope of what the discovery is going to be and what it's going to look like.

[4:54:11] If it gets into trade secret, we got a process.

[4:54:14] Okay? If Mr. Ternquist wants to be a party and an intervener, I would hope you include him in this discussion now.

[4:54:19] But I would encourage him to be intervened in this.

[4:54:23] I was trying to find a short way of doing it, but our attorneys very well.

[4:54:27] Corrected me that I couldn't do a shortcut on interveners.

[4:54:30] They have to petition and anybody could object.

[4:54:33] So I would hope the workers join as a party.

[4:54:37] But so Mr. Barrelow, I put number four in there.

[4:54:40] I know you had number eight and you wanted to kind of get onto your list of things you wanted to provide.

[4:54:45] But I think I want to have at least you have a discussion with these folks.

[4:54:49] Maybe your list is the list. I did a side-by-side. There's a few things I probably wouldn't have added that I'd like

[4:54:55] But there's but I kind of want you to have a conversation. So before Labor Day, are you willing to sit down?

[4:55:00] With the parties and the workers to identify a discovery process that you can tell us what it's going to be by September 10.

[4:55:11] Thank you, Chair Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma, I have to say I'm trying to catch up because what you've just described as a match with the filing process that I see outlined in option 4.

[4:55:23] If you're asking us if we'll sit down and have a conversation with my colleagues at the department and the OIG, we're happy to do that.

[4:55:28] we've already met with them, on this case, we're going to continue to be engaged.

[4:55:33] What the language here looks like to me is that we would make a filing, and I can represent

[4:55:41] that the information that we would provide is the information that we've listed in our

[4:55:45] modified decision-option aid, and then it's not clear to me what would happen next, but

[4:55:52] if that turns into an extended dispute with multiple rounds of filings and we're still

[4:55:58] That's my concern, okay, Mr. Barlow, is I'm trying to give you an opportunity. Yes, you're to file something, but my hope is that you sit down with with your folks and say, look, I agree with you on this, but I can modify it by this and you have a conversation on September 10. We're flying. We're on our way.

[4:56:19] Question or two, but we're happy to have that conversation. I just want to be real direct though.

[4:56:23] I don't know that we're going to reach an agreement that's going to resolve the objection

[4:56:26] and then we'll come back here and try to figure it out because we're trying to do this

[4:56:31] expedited.

[4:56:32] So in other words, it's not in front of an ALJ, it's going to have to come back to us in

[4:56:37] some fashion and I'm trying to speed things up so I'm not too excited about what I'm hearing,

[4:56:49] but Mr. Newly, okay, trying to sit down

[4:56:51] and see if you can work out a discovery process

[4:56:55] so that you can get the information

[4:56:56] you need to be able to analyze this filing.

[4:57:01] Yeah, chair Stephen, Commissioner Tuma,

[4:57:03] I'm a little troubled by Mr. Barlow's pessimism.

[4:57:06] I think that our intention here,

[4:57:07] certainly as the OIG, is not to be

[4:57:11] in any way disruptive of trying to meet the goals

[4:57:15] of 271-81, which frankly are very similar

[4:57:18] to the goals of the FCC's network modernization order.

[4:57:21] It's to allow companies to exit copper

[4:57:24] in a way that is safe and preserves essential services

[4:57:27] for people who don't have an adequate alternative.

[4:57:30] I think I know from the OIG's perspective,

[4:57:32] we are very willing to think creatively

[4:57:34] about how we can most efficiently get people

[4:57:38] the information they need and get us

[4:57:40] and the Department of Commerce the information we need

[4:57:43] to ensure that folks have an adequate alternative.

[4:57:49] I hope that Verizon is willing to work with us on that.

[4:57:54] I think that none of us want to be in a situation where we might be in several months if this is going slowly.

[4:57:59] So we certainly understand our obligations to try to get this to work.

[4:58:05] And I hope that Verizon considers very strongly that we are willing to work with them.

[4:58:10] And we don't want a situation of this dragging on for a long time either.

[4:58:14] So, I hope that they will reconsider working with us to get us the information we need rather than insisting on modified decision option 8 if we meet and to prolonging dispute about this.

[4:58:26] This Raymond and his dad.

[4:58:31] Chair Seaman Commissioner Tuma, the department is more than happy to discuss further with Frontier.

[4:58:39] And then Mr. Tranquist,

[4:58:42] if Mr. Commissioner Tuma, I agree with a lot of what you're stating.

[4:58:47] My biggest concern is most frontier customers other than the south metro of the Twin Cities are rural customers.

[4:58:54] Where the reason they're still on our DSL and our voice services is because it's the only option.

[4:58:59] I guess what I would like to see if possible is just a little more of a plan, what's going to happen with those customers

[4:59:05] because cellular is not an option in some of those locations.

[4:59:10] The minister, I don't know if you can see your TBI or your screen, but if you could

[4:59:15] put up the number 11 that I drafted I, as I was working to try to figure out how to get

[4:59:22] you in the process, Mr. Turnquist, I think it's best that you become a party and so because

[4:59:32] this is an expedited. We don't have an ALJ to make decisions. I thought I would empower the

[4:59:39] executive secretary to approve or deny intervention petitions. This is meant to accommodate you

[4:59:46] if you want to become a party. And so I would encourage you to become a party. And so I just

[4:59:53] wanted to hear from you whether you would be willing to do that. And I think I would then encourage

[5:00:00] Parties here to include you on the discussions. So let me know your thoughts.

[5:00:05] I'm happy to help. I mean, as a technician at 30 years with this company, I understand that technology

[5:00:10] has changed. I mean, it's not the same world it was then. I just want to make sure that our customers are

[5:00:16] treated fairly as we transition. And so if you need any help, but for certainly contact our staff,

[5:00:24] and they'll help you to file it's nothing very complicated to file the petition to intervene.

[5:00:30] And we'll make sure that you're included in our semester bar,

[5:00:34] although even though you're not seeing much space in the discussions,

[5:00:39] you're okay having Mr. Turnquist in those discussions early on here.

[5:00:43] Are you doing?

[5:00:45] Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Tuma.

[5:00:47] I mean, we're happy to communicate with the CWA.

[5:00:50] I can't confirm what position we take if they try to intervene.

[5:00:53] This is not a contested case.

[5:00:55] So intervention doesn't have the same process or steps

[5:00:58] that it would in a different proceeding.

[5:01:01] But I'm sorry, I don't know if I missed it,

[5:01:03] but I feel like I'm just seeing a lot of things

[5:01:06] because I just drafted to you.

[5:01:10] So yes, you have a right to object, I'm not saying,

[5:01:12] but I would hope that you would include them

[5:01:14] in your discussions early on.

[5:01:15] Again, we're trying to move expeditiously.

[5:01:17] I want you of all the people here.

[5:01:19] I'm for dereg, I've ever been a very clear one

[5:01:22] for every dereg bill in my life.

[5:01:24] So, but I have an obligation, bad decision to.

[5:01:28] But I have an obligation under the statute here to make sure we are following the statute carefully.

[5:01:36] And so that's.

[5:01:38] I'm pretty much worried.

[5:01:39] I need to be madam chair.

[5:01:41] So I'm happy to to make.

[5:01:42] I was really happy with where you're going until that last comment.

[5:01:46] I'm going to share two on because I think your comment about being for D reg is.

[5:01:52] And maybe I'm riffing a little bit off a Mr. Turnquist here.

[5:01:57] But, Mr. Turngoyce, I think you understand better than I do certainly that, you know,

[5:02:04] we have the statute that was passed by the legislature and we have to do our best to

[5:02:14] effectuate what the legislature told us to do. But to Commissioner Tumas and I know you didn't

[5:02:19] see it, new modified for, I think the importance of having CWA involved is finding that is helping

[5:02:31] the commission determine that the filing requirements that are required under the statute

[5:02:39] are robust enough for the public and your workers to be able to understand. That's one string

[5:02:48] that we really do have control over at least and so I really like the way this is headed

[5:02:57] or you're modified for it is headed and to Mr. Barlow like I sort of understand what

[5:03:05] you're saying but you know earlier and I know I appreciate that the companies are willing

[5:03:12] to work with parties on the process that's laid out.

[5:03:19] But from my view, if you ask the questions and the other ones

[5:03:24] of the public that and get the information out there,

[5:03:29] that's going to help the commission

[5:03:31] affectuate the statute in the way that you're wine us to do anyway.

[5:03:36] so I think it's incumbent on the telephone companies to work with the parties here for the actual

[5:03:50] meetings that will take place that will help inform the public about the new law.

[5:03:55] And so maybe I'm picking a scape here that we can move over, but

[5:04:03] Tell me again what's wrong with modified tumor four that you're not real come for with?

[5:04:10] Thank you chair. I think is it because the infre because it's the is it the first part about finding the

[5:04:16] petition incomplete

[5:04:17] or no

[5:04:18] Think it's here. Um, I have several concerns with

[5:04:22] 204 the first one is yes. We feel that our petition is complete

[5:04:25] Please, I'm sorry. I'm not trying to argue, but I am but the way I read it or talked about it with staff was that

[5:04:33] Part of your petition still includes the outreach plan to the public to inform them about the other options that are available to customers.

[5:04:45] Is it not? And so that's how I read Tuma New 4 that we're still in that process of determining the notice requirements to the public.

[5:04:57] that's what you're going to work out with them.

[5:05:00] Other parties, and then we'll move through the docket that will help us determine whether the petition

[5:05:09] should be granted in the end.

[5:05:13] Thank you, Chair. I think I understand what you're asking my apologies if I miss. We feel that our

[5:05:18] petition is complete. We have agreed to provide some of the additional information that's

[5:05:24] requested. We don't necessarily think that was required to have a complete petition, but we're willing to

[5:05:29] it. The things that we've left off our list are the things that would be burdensome, or that

[5:05:35] would be more relevant to a decision about whether our technology is an adequate replacement.

[5:05:41] And so that's where our focus is, that's a decision that's going to be made by the FCC.

[5:05:47] And so that information isn't needed here and what we want to make sure that this is focused on

[5:05:52] the customer transition plan, which we're here to cooperate with the commission on doing the customer

[5:05:58] transition plan, but not in approving the discontinuance, which is a decision that will be made by the FCC.

[5:06:04] So my primary concern with the modified four, that is that in combination with modified seven,

[5:06:11] it's creating an awful lot of process, steps that might require, they're going to add

[5:06:15] comment periods, they're going to have us back at the commission for every disagreement, and that that's

[5:06:21] going to add time. And once the FCC approves discontinuance, which we expect is going to happen

[5:06:27] relatively quickly, possibly tomorrow,

[5:06:32] anything that inhibits us from moving forward with that

[5:06:34] is a potential problem that we just don't think is necessary to work through today. We think

[5:06:40] that the package we've outlined gets us moving forward. It avoids a very challenging discussion

[5:06:45] that we don't need to have about legal issues. Whereas I'm concerned that this puts us on a path

[5:06:52] to have that legal discussion, not necessarily today, but to have it when we might not need

[5:06:58] to have it at all.

[5:06:59] I don't know what legal discussion he's worried about having, because I have an obligation

[5:07:04] under a petition, you filed, you know, you filed this petition under Minnesota statute.

[5:07:12] I have an obligation under Minnesota law if you're going to disconnect copper customers that

[5:07:17] you used to have a state required, I mean I know there's a federal requirement, but there's

[5:07:21] requirement that you provide service to. And so now we're going to not provide service and we want to make sure that they have full notice.

[5:07:29] I don't care whether I discontinue or have to make a discontinue decision. I don't care about that.

[5:07:34] I have to apply 8181. That's what I'm most to do. And that is I need to lecture everybody knows who their adequate providers are.

[5:07:45] Okay.

[5:07:46] How we establish what adequate providers are.

[5:07:49] All of that information is what our state statute requires.

[5:07:53] I don't know what the feds are doing.

[5:07:54] I don't care.

[5:07:55] I have a petition you filed.

[5:07:57] And so I think it's pretty clear.

[5:07:59] And I think the department's in the,

[5:08:01] in the, in the OIG thing is clear.

[5:08:03] This is the process we get there.

[5:08:06] I can't help you that if you disagree,

[5:08:09] we had a created decision process.

[5:08:11] If we're not going to go in front of an ALJ, it's us.

[5:08:13] I'm trying to speed it up by giving our executive secretary some authority, but I want to be

[5:08:19] also careful there because this is the first time we've dealt with this, okay, and so if we're

[5:08:25] going to deal with it the first time we want to make sure we do it right instead of good

[5:08:29] precedent. And so that's what I'm trying to make sure I'm balancing here. It's not nothing too

[5:08:33] tricky about it. So when you're ready, I can have my promotion, but Commissioner Sullivan.

[5:08:40] that was that was helpful kosher to it. I guess Mr. Bala like the statute

[5:08:45] two thirty seven point one eight one. Isn't that a statute that the telecom industry

[5:08:51] brought to the legislature?

[5:08:55] Thank you to your commissioners all of

[5:08:57] then I think so, but I have to say I was not a person. I know the answer is it is.

[5:09:01] So I just hit that was right. But I like I guess I'm sorry. Commissioner, I do

[5:09:06] just need to say that since that statute was passed, the FCC has taken a very

[5:09:10] significant action and has set, you know, put pretty significant things in an order that

[5:09:17] state laws that interfere with the FCC's authority to approve discontinuance of mis-gerestictional

[5:09:22] service are preempted.

[5:09:25] I want to be clear, we did not recommend decision-option one that's not what I'm recommending

[5:09:30] today.

[5:09:30] We don't think that conversation is necessary.

[5:09:33] But what we are saying is that 237.81 has to be applied in a way that does not interfere

[5:09:39] with the FCC's jurisdiction, and we think that Commissioner, with all respect, Commissioner,

[5:09:44] to whom we think that your decision options take a step in that direction that's not

[5:09:47] necessary, and then our package would move forward without those concerns.

[5:09:51] You want to know that until there's a final order, so I mean, that's.

[5:09:55] So, I mean, I, Mr. Baalow, you know.

[5:10:00] I am not familiar with the FCC, particular decision that came out that you're referring to.

[5:10:07] I mean, I know that something happened, but I do know that federal agencies are always deferential to state authority.

[5:10:15] And they recognize that there is a nexus between state and federal authority, that it's not always a black and white zone, that it's very gray, and they are always deferential to state authority.

[5:10:28] But they are also, as a federal agency, they always are going to say, well, you know, there is a supremacy clause, and they are going to say, you know, when there's a conflict and it's a clear conflict federal law, you know, of course.

[5:10:42] But that being said, this is a statute that the industry came to the legislature with and no less than a year ago, said they would do this. And now they're saying they'll be not.

[5:10:55] And I just think that feels a little bit like they're playing with, you know, crooked dice.

[5:11:02] Thank you, Chair Commissioner Sullivan.

[5:11:03] You can feel free.

[5:11:04] I know you've already had to do it once.

[5:11:09] With the high-dogen on and go.

[5:11:12] But I mean, like, it just is, I think it stinks.

[5:11:17] Thank you, Chair Commissioner Sullivan.

[5:11:18] I understand the frustration.

[5:11:20] And I do want to reflect, though, like, we filed the petition.

[5:11:26] We did not take the position and we're not taking the position that that statute's ineffective.

[5:11:30] We're here to cooperate with the commission, making sure that customers get the information

[5:11:35] that's required by the statute.

[5:11:36] We think we've done that and we think that some of the extra things that people are asking

[5:11:40] for are really targeted at doing a reevaluation of what's an adequate replacement.

[5:11:45] That's what we're concerned about.

[5:11:51] Thank you, Chair Sivan, so I understand we have to deal with the legal and law, but I think

[5:11:59] however we are talking about potential people's life. The service has a potential impact

[5:12:04] to people's life and personally I was tracking not to happen in the UK transition. There

[5:12:10] was a two year delay plus I think there is a severe penalty for certain company through

[5:12:16] through this potential issue.

[5:12:18] I think that's why your industry was asking

[5:12:20] basically towards to create the law of state law.

[5:12:24] So you guys can avoid that situation.

[5:12:28] Being said, I hope, I think just checking the box

[5:12:32] with the law and exercising federal agencies power.

[5:12:37] I think we have to deal with this one properly.

[5:12:41] Otherwise, today's opportunity discussion

[5:12:44] in politics can become top of why you're a transition problem.

[5:12:49] This can be the front page of every newspaper.

[5:12:53] So that's why I think I commissioned a two-mile saying that we should do it properly.

[5:12:57] So I hope that's the understanding of the industry.

[5:13:00] Thank you, Chair Commissioner.

[5:13:01] I had wanted to have an opportunity to say earlier, but I do want to make clear.

[5:13:08] We are only proposing to discontinue copper service for specific customer locations that

[5:13:14] an approved adequate replacement, which is Verizon Wireless, Verizon Fiber, Verizon Fixed Wireless.

[5:13:21] And we're also committing that no customer is going to get left behind. So if we've got an approval

[5:13:26] for a location for fixed wireless or mobile and our text go out there and the service doesn't connect,

[5:13:33] that person's going to continue to get copper service. We're not disconnecting anyone from

[5:13:38] the connectivity and we've committed to file on September 10th more information about how our

[5:13:43] technology interacts with things like TTY and medical devices and other equipment like that

[5:13:49] where it's critical. We're here to cooperate with the Commission and do this right so that we can get

[5:13:55] customers on better technology and make sure that everybody is connected.

[5:14:01] Mr. Barlow, I think we share the same goal of informing the public and that's why I'm still

[5:14:09] really strongly supportive of Commissioner Tuma's modified for, because it shapes the parameters

[5:14:15] of your customer transition plan and the notification to the customers about what their

[5:14:21] alternative is.

[5:14:23] And so, I mean, I think we're still, we're moving in the direction that the legislature

[5:14:29] told us to hear if the Commissioner Tuma's decision options and, you know, it's going to

[5:14:38] take work on your client's behalf to really work with the department, the CWA and the OIG to

[5:14:51] do that outreach that is required under the law and the necessary information because

[5:14:57] you know, as well as...

[5:15:00] Those of us seeing up here because you used to work at the Commission, the public is going to call not your companies that you're representing now, but they're going to call the public agencies to ask for help with what's happening.

[5:15:14] And so we have a vested interest in making sure that your outreach to these customers is robust and complete.

[5:15:21] So, hopefully that happens and we can agree to disagree on portions of this, but we share

[5:15:32] the same goals and educating the public about their options.

[5:15:37] So Commissioner Tuma, any other questions in your, um, commissioners, any other questions

[5:15:45] in your overall motion or overall, on the docket?

[5:15:50] I guess I just want to ask I'm going to share two of you wants to take back is

[5:15:57] The red comment

[5:15:59] Why I meant I meant I meant that's it. That was it in the lie. Even I

[5:16:04] Even I am with you and following the law. Okay, I would move with two modified two

[5:16:13] modified four

[5:16:14] modified seven and

[5:16:17] the new

[5:16:19] 11 to allow for the delegation executive secretary to approve intervenors.

[5:16:27] All in favor of Commissioner Tuma's motion, please say aye.

[5:16:32] Opposed the motion prevails.

[5:16:35] Thank you, everyone.

[5:16:36] There's no other work before the commission were adjourned for the day.

[5:16:40] Well, it's a country.

[5:16:41] There's a federal government that tried to fill the space, but they really did.

[5:16:48] So yeah, that's the good way to go.

PUC Agenda Meeting on 2026-08-20 10:00 AM

Agenda

Transcript