May 31, 2012 - On December 7, 2011, Northern States Power Company (NSP) filed a Motion to Withdraw its Application in this matter. The two other active parties in this proceeding, Calpine Corporation (Calpine), and the Minnesota Department of Commerce (Department, DOC) opposed the Motion by NSP.
May 30, 2012 - Has the MEO shown just cause to discharge or discipline the Employee?
Has the Employee shown extenuating circumstances justifying modification of the discipline?
If extenuating circumstances are shown, what discipline is appropriate?
May 25, 2012 - On October 4, 2011, Great River Energy filed an Application with the Public Utilities Commission to construct a new 115kV transmission line from Xcel Energy’s existing Crooked Lake Substation to the existing Enterprise Park Substation, which is owned by Anoka Municipal Utilities. The purpose of the project is to ensure continued reliable electric service to the people in the area. Increased demand and load growth are forecast on that electrical system. The 115kV system is anticipated to relieve pressure on the existing systems in the area that are now served by transmission lines with a maximum capacity of 69kV.
May 22, 2012 - The rules were adopted in compliance with all procedural requirements of Minnesota Statutes, chapter 14, and Minnesota Rules, chapter 1400. The following provision of the adopted rules is DISAPPROVED as not meeting the requirements of Minnesota Rules, Part 1400.2100, item D: rule part 9400.1500, subp. 1. All other parts of the rule are approved. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 14.26, subdivision 3(b), and Minnesota Rules, part 1400.2300, subpart 6, the rules will be submitted to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for review. See Memorandum.
May 17, 2012 - Did the Department demonstrate that reasonable cause exists to believe that the Licensee’s actions pose an imminent risk of harm to the health, safety or rights of persons served by her child care program?
May 17, 2012 - Did Respondents violate Minn. Stat. § 58.02 and 58.04 by engaging in unlicensed mortgage origination activities (soliciting, placing or negotiating a residential mortgage loan?) Did Respondents violate Minn. Stat. § 58.13, subds. 1(a)(6) by charging a fee for a product or service when that product or service was not provided? Did Respondents violate Minn. Stat. § 58.13, subd. 1(a)(9) by misrepresenting issuance of a refund when a modification was not achieved, by failing to disburse funds according to its contractual obligations, by failing to perform in conformance with its written agreement with J.O., and by misrepresenting to J.O. the facts surrounding his application? Did Respondents violate Minn. Stat. 58.13, subd. 1(a)(19) by placing before the public false statements and misrepresentations? Did Respondents violate Minn. Stat. § 58.14, by failing to respond to customers’ complaints? Did Respondents violate Minn. Stat. § 58.16, by failing to provide customers with written contracts at the time an advance fee was accepted? Did Respondents violate Minn. Stat. § 58.16, subd. 4, by failing to deposit advance customers’ fees in a trust account within three business days? Did Respondents violate Minn. Stat. § 325N, by making representations to homeowners that it would perform services on their behalf in order to obtain forbearance from existing mortgages and failing to meet the statutory disclosure requirements? Did Respondents violate Minn. Stat. § 325N.04 (1) by collecting compensation before fully performing each and every service? Did Respondents violate Minn. Stat. § 45.027, subd. 1a by failing to respond to the Department’s requests for information?
May 15, 2012 - The Department has the statutory authority to adopt the rules.
The rules were adopted in compliance with the procedural requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 14, and Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1400.
The adopted rules are APPROVED.