PUC upholds ALJ finding that RMNG compressor replacement does not require CPCN; staff exceptions denied
Loading...
Summary
An administrative law judge found that replacing two aging compressors at RMNG’s Crystal River station with a like-for-like unit is an 'ordinary course of business' action not requiring a certificate of public convenience and necessity; the commission denied staff exceptions that sought a broader alternatives analysis and agreed to revisit rulemaking separately.
The Colorado Public Utilities Commission on Dec. 30 affirmed the administrative law judge’s finding that Rocky Mountain Natural Gas does not need a certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) to replace two aging compressors at its Crystal River compressor station with a single equivalent unit.
Lindsay Dundas, commission counsel, summarized the petition and the ALJ’s recommended decision, which found the replacement to be an "ordinary course of business" activity under Colorado statute 40-5-101(1)(a)(3) and therefore not a CPCN-triggering project. The record showed the two compressors were installed in 1989 and 1990, posed maintenance challenges because of age and parts scarcity, and that the replacement would not expand system capacity or service territory.
Staff filed exceptions asking the commission to expressly affirm that equivalent compressor replacements fall within the ordinary-course exception only after an alternatives analysis (including electrification). Dundas recommended denying staff’s exceptions, saying that raising the policy issue here would amount to an impermissible rule change in a petition focused on a specific utility project. She said staff is free to open a future rulemaking to consider prospective rule changes.
Commissioners discussed the policy implications and several said staff’s concerns about alternatives and electrification were worth exploring in a formal gas rulemaking. The commission did not adopt staff’s exceptions and instead opted to table further policy action for a separate rulemaking process.
The commission’s action preserves the ALJ’s factual findings (limited to the project before the PUC) while acknowledging the broader policy questions could be addressed in a dedicated rulemaking docket.
