[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6056914,"mediaKeyId","3308269-ec9cb62a870adba5371d12ad8c82dd86","parentId",3308269,"title","PUC hearing centers on securitization in Public Service wildfire plan as parties debate incentives","audioSeconds",13831,"startMs",3523000,"endMs",17354000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3308269-ec9cb62a870adba5371d12ad8c82dd86&start=3523&end=17354","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3308269-ec9cb62a870adba5371d12ad8c82dd86/thumbnail_3523000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6056914/Colorado/PUC-hearing-centers-on-securitization-in-Public-Service-wildfire-plan-as-parties-debate-incentives","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6056914-c5a056ef0e0631265b9d9da2f759b3ef/orig.mp4?Expires=1773617422&Signature=FCD0uPQAmB-XsvrgQCmylnNUizrktsVcW2uBiAbRC~4yw5qRheSNngNfkmtVpbPfr9a2iUyqczqaqMMavYnfxTafJ-tBhYSQqSM91-CO6vqCy1pG1aobCRH2cAZUfSyW6c0mSlwJCHl~G9hxCJ9eX8kr5Fgvt5wAVadXOsSn2Ylw4bWHQqkWrUs3FW8KE6X9H8OmfbHxs6wFhj-58OGRkBRR-pNar2GXJ0uYP2nHTHrjQyeIfQHJJ7WgF-XBP9DHNnq8bhJhEOJpv6zLJVL~LQYEiF3A6Nv0eolIlq58rrdHH6Sp0~qY1CnQK8gGAch1Smc4dQfVYGNdFrZn5pIang__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-05-13T19:45:35Z","article","Public Service Company of Colorado’s proposed wildfire mitigation package — which parties estimate at about $1.9 billion over three years — includes a settlement commitment that the utility will seek a financing order and pursue securitization of the investments. Commissioners and intervenors focused much of the May 13 Colorado Public Utilities Commission hearing on whether the settlement and the statute give the company a binding duty to complete securitization and on how much value securitization would deliver to customers.

The settlement, filed April 18, 2025, says the company will “file a financing order under the statute” and staff and other intervenors said that language was intended to require the company to make the financing‑order filing. “This provision in the settlement waives the company's discretion on filing that financing order,” company witness Paul McGregor said on the record when reading the settlement text into the record.

Why it matters: parties said securitization materially affects customer cost outcomes and the company’s short‑term finances. Company witness Jonathan Berman pointed to an illustrative company model showing present‑value customer savings of about $400 million to $403 million under securitization, while the company’s internal model showed the company would forego an estimated present value of roughly $545 million in equity earnings if securitization were executed. Commissioner questions centered on whether the settlement gives the company enough incentive to complete securitization and what should happen if it does not.

Details and debate

- Company testimony: Jonathan Berman told the commission he attached an “illustrative analysis” to his settlement testimony showing about a $400,000,000 present‑value savings to customers from securitization, and later pointed to a model cell that showed $403,000,000 in net present‑value benefit for customers under the filing. He also acknowledged the company’s calculation of a roughly $545,000,000 present‑value reduction in company equity return associated with securitization.

- Commissioners’ concern: Commissioners repeatedly asked whether, because Colorado Revised Statutes 40‑41‑103 says an electric utility “in its sole discretion may apply to the commission for a financing order,” the company could simply decide not to securitize. Chair Eric Blank read that statutory language into the record and asked the company to explain the apparent tension between the statute and the settlement’s commitments.

- Company position: Counsel and witnesses said the settlement requires the company to file the financing‑order application and that the “commercially reasonable efforts” language in the settlement was intended to address practical timing and market contingencies around issuing bonds by a targeted date (the settlement asks the company to make commercially reasonable efforts to secure issuance by Jan. 1, 2029). McGregor and Berman both told the commission the company intends to file and pursue the financing order; Berman said he would not oppose a commission order requiring the company to file the financing application by a specific date, while reserving the company’s operational input on the exact deadline.

- Parties’ view and remedies: The Office of the Utility Consumer Advocate (UCA) and intervenors pressed for firmer commitments. UCA witness Joseph Pereira said the settlement should be read to require the filing and that, if securitization failed, the company could still seek recovery in a later rate case at the cost of long‑term debt but that UCA would oppose any effort by the company to seek a full WACC if securitization did not occur. Staff witness Dipesh Depew and other intervenors told the commission they supported the settlement overall but said clearer, enforceable filing timing would increase certainty for customers.

Unresolved and forward steps

No final financing order was issued at the hearing. Commissioners invited the parties to submit limited post‑hearing statements of position on narrow questions, and several commissioners asked the parties to produce filings or stipulations that would give the commission clearer assurance the company will follow through on a securitization filing. Staff said it and other parties could work with the company to tighten timing language if the commission requested it.

Ending

The hearing record closed for live testimony after the parties finished questioning witnesses. Commissioners signaled they will weigh the settlement’s tradeoffs — faster mitigation for higher near‑term capital spending paired with securitization savings for customers — and directed parties to submit further positions and, if necessary, proposed order language clarifying the company’s filing obligations.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","24A-0296E Public Service Company - Wildfire Mitigation Plan - 05.13.25- HRA (3 of 9)","oneSentenceSummary","Public Service Company of Colorado’s proposed wildfire mitigation package — which parties estimate at about $1.9 billion over three years — includes a settlement commitment that the utility will seek a financing order and pursue securitization of the investments.","taxTitle","Public Utilities Commission, Governor's Boards and Commissions, Organizations, Executive, Colorado","taxId",28165,"location","Colorado","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6056893,"Commissioners press company on $1.9B illustrative budget, TCA treatment and prudence review for transmission rebuilds",3404,4270000,7674000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3308269-ec9cb62a870adba5371d12ad8c82dd86&start=4270&end=7674","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3308269-ec9cb62a870adba5371d12ad8c82dd86/thumbnail_4270000.jpg","/articles/6056893/Colorado/Commissioners-press-company-on-19B-illustrative-budget-TCA-treatment-and-prudence-review-for-transmission-rebuilds","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6056893-1c2b98028f55d4f06afa69cddfd5632b/orig.mp4?Expires=1773617422&Signature=Mr73yZbA9-qKU5HORimyWm6DTVSv7r6XlX9nqMehjEQvCIl-3gOlES0jyrks12JA~ea27oS2GOi6-YxCqeR-PNh3t4TFxnoyMTewjwNy1~ubNvMdXAD4eijfKwqWvPjlCbNQJqi0jz5jOAUXPxzF8mhobbZ7fF55P8aaLnh~E3aVFSJ8-Jtkt5-dHRMK1EqSRpARbvAl8iu~nlBmT2i9Oo4FKYDAQOvEdyOBrL57DA8F2XqpaS8T3gdnx~MIUGlj9V7PnrNlf2ZKWjAnbkZPcyHUJeg4dBZ6Sa--kue2pTumAECitNjTHh-SOnrBO-BGmc1WK~Hr1qk6xEsFMuqKDQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A major focus of the May 13 hearing was how large elements of the company’s three‑year illustrative wildfire mitigation budget will be recovered, particularly transmission rebuilds routed through the Transmission Cost Adjustment (TCA), and whether parties preserve the ability to challenge spending levels in prudence reviews.

Key on‑record points

- Illustrative budget and scope: Company testimony and rebuttal exhibits presented an illustrative three‑year spending plan of about $1.9 billion, including roughly $1.6 billion of capital and a couple hundred million dollars of O&M. The settlement references that spending but does not create a fixed numerical cap in the settlement text; company witnesses described the figures in the filings as illustrative estimates.

- TCA and prudence: Commissioners asked whether parties (including UCA and staff) would retain the ability to argue that specific TCA entries — including a transmission line rebuild line item shown in the rebuttal budget — were excessive. Company witnesses and intervenor UCA witness Joseph Pereira said the settlement does not waive parties’ rights to challenge prudence: prudence reviews and TCA filings remain venues for review of execution and cost. The company said the settlement does not establish a strict budget cap that would prevent prudence review or TCA oversight.

- Concern about scope and oversight: Staff and intervenors expressed concern that some transmission rebuilds could be routed to the TCA with limited down‑the‑road opportunity for the commission to manage overall spending if prudence is set aside. Witnesses emphasized the settlement’s prudence review mechanisms and recommended that the commission retain its conventional oversight when transmission expenditures are presented for recovery.

Ending

No final allocation or cap was imposed at the hearing. Commissioners requested clearer explanations on how the forecasted transmission rebuild costs will be presented in upcoming TCA filings, and asked the parties to explain how prudence review and contestability will operate as those investments move from forecast to actual construction and recovery.","Commissioners pressed company witnesses about an illustrative $1.9 billion wildfire mitigation spending plan and how transmission rebuilds in that plan would be handled through the TCA and prudence review processes.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6056899,"Settlement narrows battery rebate program to medically certified customers in high‑risk zones",456,3124000,3580000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3308269-ec9cb62a870adba5371d12ad8c82dd86&start=3124&end=3580","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3308269-ec9cb62a870adba5371d12ad8c82dd86/thumbnail_3124000.jpg","/articles/6056899/Colorado/Settlement-narrows-battery-rebate-program-to-medically-certified-customers-in-highrisk-zones","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6056899-ce573505b14421139aa4cf063af904e2/orig.mp4?Expires=1773617422&Signature=Kxfcjd72FsfxHl53mLr018VA7D8Wl16pMBH9~UnCT1vj1drQEq6rnepjn9DBDlsGoUMdy5XhK2DpAFJPfNfE5Yfj7Bm6uMMoXi7JBzxHP20pR-8uO~k69mF~hXSylla8w9Kx4huBP9e4WVdlol57Wkw2C4DKfMwcY7Yzx3FlV0J2295IQ~UM7TgMNsKbrKuTUAhqLd5dH1rMBUidupTpYy7x0Y43qoo1yyU80dvRVdsgvwGNuzM4iclQV7j8WIe7XTc~VP~y~JGbEEK0OnbQV01k7dl5IehtcSCAZaQle8wUlHU9NmFHzS52LoKqYFVHWbmMdpXrc7Numwwm6q2atg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The settlement narrows the company’s original battery proposals and commits to a targeted program offering incentives for battery energy storage systems (BESS) for medically certified and Colorado medical‑exempt customers located in higher wildfire risk areas (tiers 2 and 3). Company witness Jonathan Berman said the settlement intends to “target that program to medical certification and Colorado medical exempt customers” and testified the program budget was drafted to cover eligible medical customers in those tiers.

Why it matters: Medically vulnerable customers are most at risk during Public Safety Power Shutoffs (PSPS). Parties asked how many customers would be eligible, how the company will prioritize outreach to the most at‑risk areas, and whether batteries deployed through this program will be configured to participate in other programs (demand response, virtual power plants) during normal operations.

Key details on program design and outreach

- Target population and budget: Berman said the company intends to target medically certified and medical‑exempt customers in tiers 2 and 3 and that the settlement includes an illustrative annual program budget of $2,000,000 intended to cover eligible customers in those tiers.

- Eligibility scale and outreach: The company did not provide a precise count of eligible medical customers in testimony; Berman said he did not have that figure on hand but expected it was a small percentage of customers in the tiers and that the $2 million budget was intended to be sufficient. Commissioners pressed for targeted outreach to the areas most likely to experience PSPS events; Berman agreed that marketing and prioritized outreach in high‑risk communities would be appropriate.

- Integration with other programs: Commissioners asked whether batteries deployed under the medical‑targeted program would be enabled to participate in other grid programs (for example, utility control or third‑party aggregation for peak management). Berman said the company had not finalized program structure details but acknowledged that “that's a reasonable assumption and request” and that the company would consider enabling multi‑purpose use as the program is designed.

Ending

The settlement creates a narrowly targeted, medically focused battery incentive program with a modest illustrative budget. The commission and intervenors asked the company to provide more specific enrollment projections, outreach plans, and a description of how devices could be integrated with broader grid programs in subsequent filings or program design documents.","The settlement narrows the company's battery energy storage program to medically certified and Colorado medical‑exempt customers in higher wildfire risk areas (tiers 2 and 3), with an illustrative $2 million annual budget.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6056904,"Witnesses discuss wildfire risk mapping (Technosilva) and camera sharing; company says contract limits sharing",7643,2667000,10310000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3308269-ec9cb62a870adba5371d12ad8c82dd86&start=2667&end=10310","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3308269-ec9cb62a870adba5371d12ad8c82dd86/thumbnail_2667000.jpg","/articles/6056904/Colorado/Witnesses-discuss-wildfire-risk-mapping-Technosilva-and-camera-sharing-company-says-contract-limits-sharing","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6056904-b3ea3106e72a864f15bca3270053f079/orig.mp4?Expires=1773617422&Signature=lW~rRnmvQ6J6LtokRD7Yy5OP--6YjIrMw7qhlOyZTMgQOwVR8bjq5CKP98B6MKn9vNkIYBR6mLuznCy-bkpjMja0mgWEo26BPzw~BbVy7Jvxm8U24lgl67iR9WagHW82UuTW-JwfbtGr5o8nxWAtsGa-z2Ca9HPnGldFDJd0QMKqdNaeB7BisomAdosVaA7-gNlGBOPR7zmmNTRV7Y2oL49qnoVANbJiNE8dmbeNf6iopqE1rH1un89VQay6vm1c0W-D3Lh5pPelBP3yMzANSEe0zE9ZuYgBrwwCQ3QLy8f9a0rYpzMe9BQchtNbENO7j8XKb7hpZPJxnXgWJhM8rQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Commission staff, intervenors and commissioners asked the company to clarify how the firm’s risk mapping and detection tools — including a commercial modeling product referenced in testimony as Technosilva and a planned network of AI‑enabled detection cameras — will be used for planning, whether outputs will be shared with municipalities and insurers, and how mature the company’s ability is to quantify risk reductions to support underwriting or other partners.

What was on the record

- Risk mapping and tiers: Commissioners noted that the company uses detailed modeling outputs but operationalizes them as a three‑tier risk system (tiers 1–3). Paul McGregor, the company’s vice president for wildfire risk management, said the company’s approach combines the detailed HFA (high‑fire‑hazard) and distribution‑feeder modeling and that “we look at both the tier and the particular circuit characteristics” when prioritizing mitigations.

- Technosilva sharing and constraints: Witnesses said the company will check contractual limits before sharing raw Technosilva outputs. Berman and McGregor both told the commission they would need to confirm licensing terms; McGregor said the planning module called “Firesite” and the operational modules could be useful to partners but sharing is subject to the company’s license and intellectual‑property terms.

- Camera feeds and public‑safety access: Paragraph 43 of the settlement commits the company to share real‑time wildfire camera feeds with public‑safety partners; McGregor said the company aims to deploy 135 cameras by the end of the WMP cycle and to provide feeds to emergency responders under appropriate data‑sharing arrangements. “We do share that with a number of external first responders and public safety partners,” McGregor said on the record.

- Maturity of risk‑reduction measurement: Western Resource Advocates witness Claire Valentine and company witness McGregor agreed the modeling capability is still maturing. McGregor said the current model is “version 1” and useful to prioritize mitigations; he and intervenors said California utilities have more mature datasets for measuring pre‑/post‑mitigation ignition outcomes and that Colorado’s approach should evolve with more comparative analyses.

Ending

Company witnesses committed to check Technosilva licensing terms and to work with public‑safety partners on camera data sharing under confidentiality or NDAs. Parties and commissioners encouraged a structured forum in future filings to refine model inputs and to produce comparative and sensitivity analyses that would improve confidence in risk‑reduction estimates.","Commissioners pressed Public Service and its witnesses about how detailed risk outputs from Technosilva are being used, whether the company will share model outputs with municipalities and insurance underwriters, and how camera feeds will be shared with public‑safety partners.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6056910,"Company to file PSPS playbook under confidentiality; PUC presses on access and OEM coordination",8083,2691000,10774000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3308269-ec9cb62a870adba5371d12ad8c82dd86&start=2691&end=10774","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3308269-ec9cb62a870adba5371d12ad8c82dd86/thumbnail_2691000.jpg","/articles/6056910/Colorado/Company-to-file-PSPS-playbook-under-confidentiality-PUC-presses-on-access-and-OEM-coordination","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6056910-808fda18232e2ce24749d6e890464728/orig.mp4?Expires=1773617422&Signature=G50LAVMDN9Aw6~8aATe0AENYfTi8miWtSqZ0snKRzoRN8Qi2rPjb40thLUoNg-5ncClKplJ~Uu-gq5EK~bIF2YACiMH7NuxpWMpKKFsj-a7zTz6h24WeAj2NTqMl-tEI3W2Vs-rHNZWrC47-GpoPOC1Ra6SmTsPMlZ7K1smb2dM5YXmMe~SAVJJeW2buocDD866tqDK~N9nbt7UxzN3xMmwPKLvVbu0QH8JpTq7GXBvrs78gIhxi4QefnMGzUgf9Kk7dL~1nFSeMQbseqH6MAdoj0xRCNRCQlcsTDdhdKXoqlBF8aVwJQKd3PpbAdl300YeBZFXq83NivgQNcnrA0A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The May 13 evidentiary hearing covered the company’s commitments for PSPS planning, community engagement, and access to operational materials for public‑safety partners. Company witnesses said the utility will file an internal PSPS playbook within 30 days after a final commission decision; that filing is expected to be confidential but accessible to parties to the settlement and to emergency‑management partners on a need‑to‑know basis.

Why it matters: Local governments and emergency managers told the commission they need operational detail and timeliness to prepare for PSPS events. Municipal counsel and intervenors pressed the company for a redacted public version of the playbook, recurring tabletop exercises that include OEMs and small jurisdictions, and named points of contact for local emergency managers.

What company witnesses said

- Filing and confidentiality: Company counsel and witness Jonathan Berman said the PSPS playbook — described as the company’s internal operational guide to executing PSPS events — will be submitted under confidentiality with party access. “It’ll have a confidential — it’ll be a confidential filing, but all the parties to this proceeding should have access to it,” Berman said on the record.

- Updates and exercises: Berman and Paul McGregor (vice president, wildfire risk management) told commissioners the company expects to iterate the playbook and that updates will follow operational experience and drill learnings. McGregor described prior drills and said the company will continue to invite OEMs and public‑safety partners to participate in tabletop and field exercises; he said exercise rosters often require non‑disclosure arrangements.

- Access and public versions: Commissioners asked whether a public, redacted version could be posted for municipalities that are not parties. McGregor said redaction and scrubbed public versions are feasible: “If that was redacted out and then we perform some kind of scrubbing review of any sensitive content, I I don't think that's beyond the realms of impossibility.”

Municipal and stakeholder concerns

- Local points of contact: Municipal representatives and commissioners stressed the need for single, named contacts for local emergency managers during PSPS events. Company witness McGregor said the company has a staffing plan for incident command system (ICS) roles and at least one experienced contact who will work with OEMs; the company committed to expand that capacity.

- Critical‑facility coordination: The settlement includes a commitment to identify and coordinate with “critical facilities.” Company witnesses said lists are under development and that the community engagement team will own outreach and maintenance of those lists.

Ending

Company witnesses emphasized continuing drills, iterative improvement of the playbook, and willingness to share operational material with public‑safety partners under appropriate confidentiality agreements. Commissioners and municipal intervenors asked the parties to flesh out public redaction options and to include underserved jurisdictions in tabletop exercises going forward.","Witnesses told the commission the company will file a Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) playbook within 30 days of a final order and that the playbook will likely be a confidential filing with party access; commissioners and municipal intervenors pushed for redacted public versions and broad OEM/municipal participation in tabletop exercises.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

PUC hearing centers on securitization in Public Service wildfire plan as parties debate incentives

Commissioners press company on $1.9B illustrative budget, TCA treatment and prudence review for transmission rebuilds

Settlement narrows battery rebate program to medically certified customers in high‑risk zones

Witnesses discuss wildfire risk mapping (Technosilva) and camera sharing; company says contract limits sharing

Company to file PSPS playbook under confidentiality; PUC presses on access and OEM coordination