6.1a1 ERMUSR 06-13-2023 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Xcel will reassess investments in Minnesota after regulators' rate hike de... https://www.startribune.com/niinnesota-regulators-approve-9-percent-th... ADVERTISEMENT The utility filed a petition late Thursday asking the PUC to withdraw its $330 million Clean Transportation Portfolio proposal. The centerpiece of that plan would have Xcel building and owning 730 electric vehicle fast chargers in Minnesota (https://www.startribune.com/xcels-plan-for-largest-u-s-utility-owned-chargi_g- network-sparks-strong--oposition/600256296/)_, which would make the state home to the largest utility -owned charging system in the country. While the $192 million EV charger proposal has garnered praise for filling the state's charging gap, it has been roundly criticized by the EV charging and gas station industries, as well as the Minnesota Department of Commerce and many Xcel ratepayers, who would eventually pay for it. Xcel had dropped its rate request to $440 million from $498 mhllion late last year thtt s://www.startribune.com/state-agencies-oppose-IMm-xcel-rate-increase-for-2023 /600233141n and well below its initial request of $677 million, which would have amounted to a 21% increase. The biggest difference between what Xcel wanted and what Xcel got pivoted on the company's return on equity (ROE). Return on equity is a key measure of profitability, and the PUC granted Xcel an ROE well below what it requested. Minneapolis -based Xcel, which has about 1.3 million Minnesota customers, says it needs the rate increase for a variety of purposes such as basic upkeep of its system and to improve its distribution grid and pay for projects to further "the clean energy transition.' The company's three-year rate proposal came at a time when consumers were already buffeted by rising inflation of all sorts, particularly for energy and food. "Any rate increase is difficult for people," said Annie Levenson -Falk, head of the Citizens Utility Board of Minnesota (CUB), a ratepayer watchdog group. That said, she said CUB "was pleased with the outcome" of Xcel's rate case. "I think the PUC looked really hard to make sure ratepayers don't have to pay more than what they should to support the company's profits and its executive compensation." The PUC denied Xcel's request to approve long-term executive compensation expenses of $24.6 million over three years. Instead, the PUC approved a 15% cap on annual incentive compensation for individual pay. The PUC also approved far less than the $68 million in insurance premium costs that Xcel had wanted to include in its rate increase; and the commission rejected Xcel's request to include several million in company pension contributions in its rate base. The Minnesota Commerce Department, which represents ratepayers before the PUC, had recommended that Xcel get $325 million over three years. Administrative Law Judge Christa Moseng concluded (https://www.startribune.com /administrative -law -judge says-xcels-rate-increase-request-should-be-lower/600264815/) in April that Xcel should get $384 million over three years. Such judges are often appointed to contentious PUC proceedings, but their rulings are non -binding. 171 2 of 3 6/2/2023, 12:04 PM