NOR 42059
Docket Yard · docketyard.org/d/NOR-42059 · entries shown: all, newest first
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY MINNESOTA D/B/A XCEL ENERGY V. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
Caption from the Board’s record.
17 filings, 10 decisions and 0 environmental comments observed here; last checked 11 Oct 2026, 07:36 UTC; last new entry 26 Aug 2026, 15:22 UTC.
Entries
-
served (printed as 8/7/2003)Decision33888SecretaryGRANTED NSP'S REQUEST, THIS RATE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AND THE PROCEEDING IS DISCONTINUED.
-
(printed as 8/1/2003)MotionNorthern States Power D/B/A Excel Energy
-
(printed as 7/31/2003)Report208578Status ReportNorthern States Power D/B/A Excel Energy, Union Pacific Railroad Company
-
served (printed as 7/15/2003)Decision33824Secretary(1) HELD THIS PROCEEDING IN ABEYANCE; AND (2) ORDERED THAT THE PARTIES ADVISE THE BOARD ON THE STATUS OF THEIR SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BY JULY 31, 2003.
-
(printed as 7/11/2003)Motion208350Motion/Petition/RequestNorthern States Power D/B/A Excel Energy, Union Pacific Railroad Company
-
served (printed as 6/6/2003)Decision33613SecretaryGRANTED THE PROPOSALS TO MODIFY PROTECTIVE ORDERS ISSUED IN 12 STAND-ALONE COST RAIL RATE PROCEEDINGS.
-
(printed as 5/9/2003)Motion207796Motion/Petition/RequestNorthern States Power D/B/A Excel Energy, Union Pacific Railroad Company
-
served (printed as 4/25/2003)Decision33519SecretaryDIRECTED THAT PARTIES TO THE CAPTIONED STAND-ALONE COST PROCEEDINGS SHOULD REVIEW AND JOINTLY PROPOSE ANY NECESSARY MODIFICATIONS OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDERS GOVERNING THESE PROCEEDINGS BY MAY 9, 2003.
-
(printed as 12/11/2002)Errata206817Errata SheetUnion Pacific Railroad Company
-
served (printed as 8/19/2002)Decision32974SecretaryGRANTED UP'S REQUEST FOR 14-DAY EXTENSIONS, UNTIL OCTOBER 4 AND NOVEMBER 1, 2002, RESPECTIVELY, FOR SUBMITTING REPLY AND REBUTTAL EVIDENCE IN THE RATE COMPLAINT PROCEEDING INSTITUTED BY COMPLAINANT NSP.
-
(printed as 8/15/2002)Letter206049LetterNorthern States Power D/B/A Excel Energy
-
(printed as 8/14/2002)Reply206040ReplyUnion Pacific Railroad Company
-
(printed as 8/13/2002)RequestUnion Pacific Railroad Company
-
(printed as 8/8/2002)Reply206006ReplyNorthern States Power D/B/A Excel Energy
-
(printed as 8/2/2002)Letter205974LetterUnion Pacific Railroad Company
-
served (printed as 7/3/2002)Decision32875Secretary(1) GRANTED THE MOTION FILED JUNE 26, 2002, BY NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY MINNESOTA AND UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY REQUESTING THAT THE PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE BE REACTIVATED; AND (2) ADJUSTED THE PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE ACCORDINGLY.
-
(printed as 6/26/2002)Motion205711Motion/Petition/RequestUnion Pacific Railroad Company, Northern States Power D/B/A Excel Energy
-
served (printed as 5/24/2002)Decision32304Entire Board(1) GRANTED DEFENDANT'S REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A DECEMBER 31, 2001 CUT-OFF DATE FOR DISCOVERY; AND (2) GRANTED AND DENIED, TO THE EXTENT DISCUSSED IN THIS DECISION, COMPLAINANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER IN THIS PROCEEDING.
-
(printed as 4/11/2002)Letter205172LetterUnion Pacific Railroad Company
-
(printed as 2/26/2002)Motion204850Motion To WithdrawNorthern States Power D/B/A Excel Energy
-
(printed as 2/20/2002)Reply204808ReplyUnion Pacific Railroad Company
-
(printed as 2/12/2002)Letter204746LetterUnion Pacific Railroad Company
-
(printed as 2/5/2002)Reply204713ReplyUnion Pacific Railroad Company
-
(printed as 2/1/2002)SupplementNorthern States Power D/B/A Excel Energy
-
served (printed as 11/23/2001)Decision32327SecretaryGRANTED UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY'S REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION TO SUBMIT A REPLY TO THE MOTION TO COMPEL FILED ON NOVEMBER 9, 2001, BY NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY MINNESOTA.
-
served (printed as 4/24/2001)Decision31824SecretarySUSPENDED THE PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE PENDING NOTIFICATION BY THE PARTIES, EITHER JOINTLY OR SEPARATELY, AS REGARDS REACTIVATION OF THE SCHEDULE.
-
served (printed as 3/9/2001)Decision31669Secretary(1) GRANTED THE JOINT MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; (2) DIRECTED THAT THE PARTIES COMPLY WITH THE PROTECTIVE ORDER IN THE APPENDIX TO THIS DECISION; AND (3) SET A PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE.
Nothing of that kind in this docket.