Commission debates Public Service’s bid to join SPP Markets Plus; no vote, review continued to next week

Colorado’s Public Utilities Commission on July 23 took testimony and deliberated at length over Public Service Company of Colorado’s application to join the Southwest Power Pool’s Markets Plus organized wholesale electricity market, but commissioners did not take a final vote and agreed to continue the matter next week.

Public Service seeks a commission finding that participation in Markets Plus is in the public interest and authorization to recover related costs through the company’s electric commodity adjustment (ECA). Staff and multiple intervenors presented competing views about whether Markets Plus meets the commission’s rule 37‑53 standards for greenhouse‑gas tracking, market operational protocols, sufficient modeling of net benefits and consumer protections.

Advisory staff senior analyst Gerald Deaver summarized the company’s request and the record. The company estimates Phase 1 SPP costs at about $2,000,000 for tariff development and Phase 2 implementation costs for SPP of roughly $150,000,000 to be recovered through an administrative fee. Public Service estimates an annual administrative fee liability of about $10,000,000 with initial financing‑related costs of roughly $4,000,000 annually for the first five years, and collateral requirements of $2,000,000 in cash and an $18,000,000 letter of credit. The company also identified integration costs of about $13,000,000–$15,000,000 for internal IT and software changes and estimated Western Resource Adequacy Program (RAP) costs of about $750,000 annually plus a one‑time $200,000 entry fee.

Parties were divided. Trial staff and the Colorado Energy Office said the record did not clearly demonstrate that benefits exceed costs and suggested the commission could deny the application. The Office of the Utility Consumer Advocate said Markets Plus could yield reliability benefits and recommended approval with guardrails and consumer protections. Several intervenors—Colorado Energy Consumers, Tri‑State Generation and Transmission Association, Black Hills Colorado Electric and conservation groups—urged denial or further study, citing uncertainties about GHG accounting protocols, seams between Markets Plus and other Western market constructs (notably an expanding RTO West), and limitations of the company’s modeling. Holy Cross Electric Association and Tri‑State supported the company but urged conditions related to GHG tracking commitments.

Commission deliberations focused on three core concerns stated in the record: whether Markets Plus has final, reliable greenhouse‑gas tracking and accounting protocols sufficient for Colorado’s statutory emission requirements; whether Markets Plus has or can be expected to put in place operational policies to optimize dispatch and unit commitment across seams (particularly between Markets Plus and a planned RTO West); and whether the company’s modeling and analytic support adequately show net benefits that exceed the expected costs.

Commissioner Eric Blank said non‑quantified benefits — including common resource‑adequacy frameworks across Colorado balancing authorities, consistent GHG accounting, and continued access to transparent wholesale price signals — weighed in favor of keeping Market Plus funding and engagement in place. Commissioner Gilman expressed skepticism that the evidentiary record shows near‑term net benefits and questioned whether the state should fund what might be a costly endeavor with uncertain returns; Gilman noted alternative, narrower options might address resource‑adequacy concerns without full Markets Plus participation. Commissioner Plant said the statutory deadline to consider an organized wholesale market and near‑term cost comparisons complicated the decision and expressed concern about committing to costs that might not transfer if Colorado later evaluates other market options.

No final vote was taken; commissioners asked staff and counsel to return with additional detail and to continue deliberations next week. Commissioners also discussed scheduling differences if the matter were heard en banc versus by a hearing commissioner, because an en banc schedule would push hearings later into the year while a hearing commissioner schedule would accelerate the record and recommended decision timeline.

Why it matters: Markets Plus would expand day‑ahead and real‑time market operations in the Western interconnection and could change how generation is dispatched and how emissions are tracked. The commission’s decision will affect customer bills, utility operations and Colorado’s approach to greenhouse‑gas accounting and resource adequacy across multiple balancing authorities.

What’s next: The commission will continue deliberations at next week’s weekly meeting; staff and counsel will provide additional analyses on modeling, GHG protocols and cost‑recovery guardrails.

Speakers who appear in the story are listed in the speakers section.