[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-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],{"_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",6189733,"mediaKeyId","5055161-b27d66fe54bad50a7137e48202efa6d5","parentId",5055161,"title","Industry groups oppose 'take‑it‑or‑leave‑it' conforming bid PPA; trade groups and PUC staff propose narrower path","audioSeconds",174,"startMs",3569000,"endMs",3743000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5055161-b27d66fe54bad50a7137e48202efa6d5&start=3569&end=3743","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5055161-b27d66fe54bad50a7137e48202efa6d5/thumbnail_3569000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6189733/Colorado/Industry-groups-oppose-takeitorleaveit-conforming-bid-PPA-trade-groups-and-PUC-staff-propose-narrower-path","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6189733-feecddec039aaaa3b50a79ae5edceaeb/orig.mp4?Expires=1773688200&Signature=ZJR31sBFSVWRX1vBtsofAbUujRgqAcktObwhPpFESwaDzgckWmHX~38dLsfA7vVLY3dTkKHolFu7OA3aC29gbxho9FpAQ4S2SB2K6uCaxB1pA0bulw3-F8BVty4wJqMvzMqjYd5VgRDFO2ZFG6H754FLPRevATW0pfAlXpUU1iY5TjmyjLpBpzKAXh5uydjnXpUmmyzkLTLg0BLHirLn-vSPm9zA60eL53CX7GZVmP3gKLYbegXyP-OAw04RyksWZFfZZJHVwI1uZr1uoNUhxxZxxsX1wirdJtW3mNR9ZrFtoVS6mTIpYoIpBZlPI5f5N7Rp5M7svhaT9lDxevR-vA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-06-24T12:46:56.257Z","article","Debate over a conforming‑bid policy — a requirement that bidders sign a single model PPA without redlining — dominated testimony on Nov. 5. Industry trade groups (CIA, COSA and others) said a mandatory take‑it‑or‑leave‑it model would reduce competition, discourage smaller developers and shift risk in ways that raise costs.

Trade‑group arguments: Representatives said mandated model PPAs are unusual in Western RFP practice. They argued two consequences: (1) fewer qualified bids because many developers cannot obtain financing while accepting rigid, non‑negotiable terms; (2) higher prices because bidders will build substantial contingency premiums into offers if the contract locks them into business‑model exposures (e.g., change‑in‑law, tariffs, force majeure, security/LD levels).

Staff and company response: Public Service said it will file red‑lined model PPA language (JLB‑2) with its statement of position and is amenable to a process where other parties also submit redlines so the commission can choose language. Commissioners asked whether a notice‑and‑comment step, or a short stakeholder process, could yield final, commission‑approved contract terms without derailing RFP schedules; the company said it was willing to consider a responsive SOP process and to file a red‑line SOP to let parties respond narrowly on contract language.

Practical alternatives discussed: Several parties recommended compromise paths, including:
- Shortlist + best‑and‑final: evaluate a broad pool, narrow to a shortlist, then require shortlisted bidders to provide best‑and‑final offers and firm contract language, reducing rework and easing comparison.
- Targeted conforming terms: require conformity only on a limited list of high‑priority terms (pricing definition, online date, key dates) while letting other commercial terms be negotiated and shown as redlines in bids.
- Limited notice‑and‑comment: allow the company to submit its red‑lines in the SOP and provide a short, focused comment period for trade groups to respond before the RFP.

Why it matters: The choice affects how many bidders will participate, how quickly projects can be contracted and whether public service — and thus customers — will pay higher prices for reduced competitive entry.

Next steps: Company said it will submit red‑lined model language with its SOP; trade groups said a responsive, narrowly scoped SOP and a shortlist/best‑and‑final process are workable mitigations; commissioners asked parties to consider an expedited process that preserves both competition and contracting speed.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","24A-0442E, Public Service Company - 2024 JTS - 06.23.25 - HRA (8 of 9)","oneSentenceSummary","Trade associations told the commission a strict conforming‑bid model PPA would chill competition and reduce bids. They proposed alternatives: limited, targeted conformance on a small set of terms, a shortlist plus best‑and‑final stage, or a notice‑and‑comment process to craft contract language.","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},6189739,"PUC staff proposes tariff pass‑through (CKTE) for critical equipment; company and IPPs contest scope and safeguards",468,4367000,4835000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5055161-b27d66fe54bad50a7137e48202efa6d5&start=4367&end=4835","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5055161-b27d66fe54bad50a7137e48202efa6d5/thumbnail_4367000.jpg","/articles/6189739/Colorado/PUC-staff-proposes-tariff-passthrough-CKTE-for-critical-equipment-company-and-IPPs-contest-scope-and-safeguards","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6189739-cbf51e2f5bc754c13c23335086a0710a/orig.mp4?Expires=1773688200&Signature=fH90y~MfBUlAuGQ7IrApxHpTGUyppWOEtIRyeeq-spAT1IYr3wPD4KX~kuzecYUb48g6vNaMAslsiy9HFISDQOp-mfCbBK5id5z7bHka54C7pOff7lRObRrqvwhahSrdX-jfBIScClFVqmKb-DaemZ9i3t9u-R5sq3Mtk~pn18HM1sxO3XV~syFHELx-7zU7OkdNUlinIgsiLcHL1UtmA9ntRaTDdrKbU18GvqBLcjY0uU~~EzAob7nP0qE4Kxu7rGf0efcIN6mw1KrpxzE7wOiw4WWo1NRtaRZG4CSt8365wnupXalVHedoUJqDaSycCMlWUiKHiujVAukQK91NkQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At the Nov. 5 hearing, Colorado PUC staff laid out a structured approach to protect bidders and customers from sudden tariff shocks while preserving competitive selection. Staff’s Current Known Tariff Estimate (CKTE) proposal asks bidders to separate and document tariff‑sensitive major equipment costs in RFP bids, to update those estimates if tariffs change, and to allow an independent completeness review of tariff documentation. Staff also proposed a cap on acceptable tariff‑driven bid increases — cited in testimony as 20% — that would force a commission check‑in or project termination if surpassed.

Staff rationale and design: Staff argued tariffs are now a distinct, potentially large and volatile cost driver for some technology supply chains (e.g., inverters, major turbine components, batteries). The CKTE idea is to make tariff exposure transparent so the commission and the independent evaluator can compare bids on both commodity and tariff risk, and so that projects exceeding a pre‑set pass‑through threshold would be subject to additional scrutiny and possible pause or termination rather than automatic recovery of costs from all customers.

Key company and developer responses: Public Service signaled sympathy but urged the process be limited to “major equipment,” and proposed allowing only the biggest capital items (not entire project inputs) to be itemized. IPP trade groups warned that mandating detailed proprietary supplier contracts and pricing disclosures could chill bidding and harm competition. Staff said it would attempt to pare required supporting information to what’s necessary to substantiate tariff exposure but insisted on a verification role for the independent evaluator.

Operational details debated:
- Which items count as ‘major equipment’ and which countries of origin to require; staff was open to limits provided the RFP spells them out.
- Whether tariffs should be passed through wholesale (for covered items) or handled via a separate project review and cap; staff’s 20% trigger drew pushback, and several parties urged a “pause and review” instead of automatic termination.
- Update cadence: staff suggested updates when tariff rates change and a periodic minimum (e.g., every six months) for bidders that remain in the procurement queue.

Why it matters: Tariff shocks have been acute lately; staff framed CKTE as a middle path that keeps project economics transparent for evaluators without immediately socializing large, exogenous cost shocks across customers. Commissioners asked for drafting detail and ways to protect commercially sensitive supplier data while giving the commission and evaluators enough evidence to act.

Next steps: Staff said it will refine documentation/minimum requirements, and the company said it would consider a limited suite of required supporting documents. Parties recommended discussing final CKTE definitions during the statement‑of‑position exchange or in a short notice‑and‑comment step before Phase 2 RFPs.","Commission staff proposed a Current Known Tariff Estimate (CKTE) process to let bidders itemize tariff exposure for major equipment, require supporting sourcing documentation, and cap pass‑throughs (staff suggested 20% threshold) that would trigger project review; the company and developers urged narrower scope and simpler rules.",{"_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},6189744,"Commission hears company, staff and stakeholders map path for large‑load tariff, modeling and cluster studies",534,684000,1218000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5055161-b27d66fe54bad50a7137e48202efa6d5&start=684&end=1218","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5055161-b27d66fe54bad50a7137e48202efa6d5/thumbnail_684000.jpg","/articles/6189744/Colorado/Commission-hears-company-staff-and-stakeholders-map-path-for-largeload-tariff-modeling-and-cluster-studies","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6189744-264698bd41c7a1e06b1d922927202e48/orig.mp4?Expires=1773688200&Signature=L9wBrN1r2r692goBdeSW1aX0ZBR5pHPwOXzQT0OtF1orYiwZ2w6m9dOHUtxB4dkf7iu2fvBSqeldEN58S7yt-QkvhmXN6lLl8xFLttqf~zpCo0ce~0kdFenQ7-l7koRYS0TrGLjb1OYoIg5J1g0pw5jRlwTHwHDco3km2a9-pbwBxCzs090A7ZLpESg9CQWsEETn2xuIJNyc2N6An1nrqSSovOieEvgYoT9PZNDA2sijlRkGlyKSIu3HD-kpyz1olR~PtaT~Suug2VUwb9NX~99Braflnw~6s-02sGNINhS~amr7BX-5frir0iQyD5eNjRJLd3CfTJFk7eenNTwfaQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","An emerging policy front at the Colorado Public Utilities Commission centers on how to plan, pay for and regulate large new electricity loads — principally data centers and industrial customers bidding for 24/7 service — that the company says could add roughly 950 MW in its updated base forecast and a queue above 6,000 MW.

What officials said: Public Service witnesses told commissioners they are running parallel analyses — ENCOMPASS generation modeling and cluster transmission studies — to understand how these large loads affect resource choices and transmission needs. The company said it will run three sensitivity scenarios (base, rebuttal large‑load overlay and a higher large‑load “queue‑informed” case) and expects to file a large‑load tariff by Jan. 31, 2026. Staff and several commissioners pressed the company for more transparency: the company offered to file updated load forecasts 30 days before each RFP and to share interim modeling and the JTS Task Force report in the dockets.

Why it matters: Large-load interest has jumped since the company last ran its long‑range planning. Commissioners said they need clearer, standardized methods and earlier information so the Phase 2 (JTS) RFPs reflect realistic assumptions, and so rate and allocation impacts can be understood before long‑term contracts are approved.

Key details:
- Updated base forecast: Company testified that the updated base includes roughly 944–950 MW of large‑load additions, in three “bins”: local strategic economic development loads, existing data centers expanding, and 1 new large data center customer. The company said the short‑term path is to create a way to bring roughly 950 MW to service; longer‑term the queue exceeds 6 GW and cluster studies are underway.
- Modeling sequence: ENCOMPASS portfolios (generation) will be run with updated pricing and load assumptions; outputs will be ported into transmission power‑flow analyses. The company described a planned three‑sensitivity approach (no large loads, rebuttal large‑load add, and a ‘large‑load high’ based on queue and cluster study results).
- Cluster studies & ITA access: The company agreed to file the JTS Task Force and cluster study reports and to allow the independent transmission analyst (ITA) and commission staff secure access to models/data. Company witnesses said the ITA has full access to datasets, models and secure platforms for collaboration.
- Filing timetable: Company said it intends to kick off modeling in early Q3 and to file the large‑load tariff by Jan. 31, 2026; it offered to provide an updated load forecast 30 days before RFP issuance. Commissioners asked whether some model runs and draft results might be circulated earlier in a notice‑and‑comment or SOP‑responsive process; the company agreed to consider a pre‑filing stakeholder exchange but warned against delaying procurement timetables.

Next steps: Staff, company and intervenors will use the JTS process, cluster studies and ENCOMPASS re‑runs to create analysis for the Jan. 2026 filing. Commissioners asked for clear discipline on which assumptions (load, EV/PHEV splits, tariff pass‑through rules) will be locked into the RFPs.","Public Service and PUC staff described a multi‑step path to evaluate and, if needed, regulate new large loads — notably data center clusters — including refined load forecasts, ENCOMPASS and transmission modeling, cluster studies and a planned large‑load tariff filing targeted for Jan. 31, 2026.",{"_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},6189749,"Public Service reaffirms May Valley Longhorn cost estimate, says timing tweak needed for PIM",198,118000,316000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5055161-b27d66fe54bad50a7137e48202efa6d5&start=118&end=316","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5055161-b27d66fe54bad50a7137e48202efa6d5/thumbnail_118000.jpg","/articles/6189749/Colorado/Public-Service-reaffirms-May-Valley-Longhorn-cost-estimate-says-timing-tweak-needed-for-PIM","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6189749-785fd19e53edd010495587103eab71fd/orig.mp4?Expires=1773688200&Signature=CJt4ePKSZ~ZHQiA~BMFFgWm6JQ7hp~ZRQ~vIivTPB3WZ1bgcs~uEFx~a41yqv3-sYck0aVQkYTaIH~BqRUtoG5ZZsctZSL2RmfJZgVuTYA6cLyN2soEx7WKZiCOZfKLhGBlX-nX7O3pWCdEjQUQp7XGsoaZ-HGpcoTRt7q-Bdmm35nc-j5355LTXgKSHGphB3pcUbA29TkrClIutcA8y06VAfXuAcb6j6yLy2FLuCj0E8OlAWbe55bMv-GetD7nMkIQRzL3vRu~1FAjRskReVJzoHoviCWa7Mm7jqJFHEPSt3ArAfarfCL6wtagxrT6BhP8Mcbc2rNBSI9n-U60wTA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Public Service Company told the Colorado Public Utilities Commission on Nov. 5 that it stands by the $304,000,000 cost estimate included with rebuttal testimony for the May Valley Longhorn extension (MVLE), and that the figure should be the basis for a project performance‑incentive mechanism (PIM) if the commission approves an unconditional CPCN.

The company’s witness said the $304 million estimate is the appropriate starting point for a MVLE PIM but added a caveat: MVLE is a single‑segment transmission project and some timing assumptions embedded in the Pathway PIM — which was developed for multi‑segment builds — are not attainable for MVLE. The company told commissioners it wants to work with commission staff to document a PIM that tracks the Pathway structure but alters timing provisions to fit a single‑segment project.

Why it matters: Commission staff, intervenors and the company are trying to create PIM language that yields transparent, auditable performance tracking while reflecting real programmatic and construction constraints. MVLE’s single‑segment nature means the standard Pathway timing milestones could compress into an impractical schedule; the company proposed conferring with staff to produce a concrete PIM filing and then to submit it into the Pathway docket for ongoing reporting.

Details and context: Company testimony referenced the clean energy plan resource analyses (including the 2021 ERP) showing broad resource benefits for the corridor MVLE would open; witness testimony also flagged ELCC and PRM modeling that indicates enhanced accreditation values for wind sited in the project area. The company explained that if the commission instead leaves a conditional CPCN in place, the company reserves the right to update the MVLE estimate in a Phase 2 filing or when converting a conditional CPCN to an unconditional CPCN.

Next steps: The company said it will confer with staff and expected to docket a tangible PIM design that can be reported in the Pathway proceeding. Commissioners pressed that any PIM must have clear, enforceable reporting and that timing modifications be documented in the record.","Public Service Company told the Colorado PUC it stands by the $304 million May Valley Longhorn (MVLE) cost estimate used to design a performance‑incentive mechanism but said the timing rules in the Pathway PIM will need to be adjusted because MVLE is a single‑segment project.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Industry groups oppose 'take‑it‑or‑leave‑it' conforming bid PPA; trade groups and PUC staff propose narrower path

PUC staff proposes tariff pass‑through (CKTE) for critical equipment; company and IPPs contest scope and safeguards

Commission hears company, staff and stakeholders map path for large‑load tariff, modeling and cluster studies

Public Service reaffirms May Valley Longhorn cost estimate, says timing tweak needed for PIM