Dozens of Minnesotans have objected to Xcel Energy’s plans to shift away from flat pricing, including a single parent working two jobs who realized she would have just one hour on weekdays to run her dishwasher or washing machine without incurring the spiked rate.
“I will ... be penalized by paying higher prices,” Marie Weekly wrote to the Public Utilities Commission (PUC), “just because I have to work, and I am lower middle class.”
Weekly isn’t alone in her criticism. State and nonprofit consumer advocates said Xcel’s plan for higher Minnesota electric rates during evening hours and lower overnight costs is too aggressive, and several groups told the PUC last week Xcel’s justification for the plan was flawed, based on a pilot project for “time-of-use” rates that arguably did not achieve the goal of reducing electricity use when demand is highest.
Attorney General Keith Ellison’s office said in a Friday letter the two-year pilot program of 10,000 customers in Minneapolis and Eden Prairie produced “meager” results that do not “instill confidence that moving [Xcel’s] entire customer base to [time of use] will succeed at this time.”
Xcel spokesman Kevin Coss said Xcel is reviewing the feedback and could adopt some suggestions, but the criticism could influence the PUC’s final word on approving, modifying or rejecting Xcel’s rate design.
Dynamic pricing for electric rates — like a surcharge during busy hours for a rideshare service — is becoming more common in the U.S., and many in Minnesota’s energy sector support the concept. In theory, the rates incentivize people to shift when they use electricity, easing pressure on the grid when people are home from work in the evening and using the most power.
Evening out that electric use can help Xcel tap into cheap wind power at night or even avoid building new power plants, which is important as electric need grows with the rise of heat pumps, electric vehicles, electric stoves and data centers.
Coss said time-of-use rates aim “to give customers more control over their electric bill without reducing their energy usage.” Some also argue higher prices during peak demand is more fair because it’s more expensive to deliver that power, and thus people who impose fewer system costs could end up with cheaper bills.