My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5.2. ERMUSR 09-10-2013
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Utilities Commission
>
Packets
>
2003-2013
>
2013
>
09-10-2013
>
5.2. ERMUSR 09-10-2013
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/12/2013 10:37:00 AM
Creation date
9/12/2013 10:36:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
ERMUSR
date
9/10/2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE PAYMENT INCREASE <br /> HF 1075 Rep. Andrew Falk (DFL - Murdock) <br /> No Senate companion bill <br /> To increase the amount Xcel pays into the Renewable Development Fund (RDF) each year <br /> from $500,000 to$3 million per Prairie Island cask and from $350,000 to $3 million per <br /> Monticello cask. <br /> RES CREDIT FOR GEOTHERMAL ENERGY SAVINGS <br /> HF 1079 Rep. John Benson (DFL - Minnetonka) <br /> No Senate companion bill <br /> To allow utilities to apply net electrical consumption reductions from geothermal heating <br /> and cooling systems toward their Renewable Energy Standard requirements. <br /> DISTRIBUTED GENERATION STUDY <br /> HF 1093 Rep. Pat Garofalo (R- Farmington) <br /> SF 972 Sen.Julie Rosen (R- Fairmont) <br /> To require the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission to open a public docket for the <br /> purpose of analyzing the costs and benefits in Minnesota of distributed solar generation <br /> and strategies to maximize the benefits and minimize the costs.The analysis of distributed <br /> solar generation must include,without limitation, the following: <br /> (1) its use to address transmission constraints and strategies to optimize that use; <br /> (2) its affect on grid reliability and strategies to improve that affect; <br /> (3) cost-effective strategies for deployment; <br /> (4) appropriate sizing of solar projects and economies of scale; <br /> (5) the cost-effectiveness of competing solar technologies and trends for that <br /> cost-effectiveness; <br /> (6) comprehensive assessments of its direct and indirect costs and benefits; <br /> (7) comparison of its costs and benefits to the cost and benefits of other strategies to <br /> meet the state's electric generation needs; and <br /> (8) the effect of a comparable expenditure on energy conservation on both the <br /> demand and supply side. <br /> MMUA testified in favor of this bill before the Senate Energy and Environment <br /> Committee as an alternative to passing the omnibus energy bill. <br /> 84 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.