Commission Denies Motion to Strike Tri State's Phase 2 Testimony Amid Reliability Dispute

A pivotal discussion unfolded during the recent government meeting regarding Tri-State Generation and Transmission's testimony in the ongoing Energy Resource Planning (ERP) process. The focus was on a motion to strike parts of Tri-State's phase 2 testimony from the record, with opponents arguing that it violated a settlement agreement by applying different reliability standards to various portfolios.

The crux of the debate centered on whether Tri-State's comments suggested that only gas-inclusive portfolios were reliable, despite all portfolios having passed the agreed-upon reliability metrics. However, it was clarified that Tri-State did apply the required metrics uniformly across all portfolios, and no party disputed this fact. The settlement agreement allows all parties, including Tri-State, to present arguments regarding operational concerns and local constraints, as long as the portfolios meet the established reliability thresholds.

The speaker emphasized that striking testimony is a serious action typically reserved for clear violations of procedural rules. In this case, Tri-State's testimony was deemed to fall within the bounds of the settlement, reflecting its interpretation of reliability and operational needs. The recommendation was made to deny the request to strike Tri-State's comments, reinforcing the integrity of the settlement and ensuring that all parties can fully express their views in the phase 2 process.

This decision is crucial as it upholds the fairness and consistency of the proceedings, allowing for a comprehensive evaluation of which portfolio best meets the statutory criteria. The commission is now set to vote on this recommendation, which could significantly impact the future of energy resource planning in Colorado.