PUC trial staff urges approval of Power Pathway segment, citing statewide reliability and climate goals while flagging local issues

Trial staff witnesses for the Public Utilities Commission told the commission on Friday that the Public Service Company of Colorado’s Segment 5 filings met the PUC’s siting and application rules but that local concerns merited conditions or settlement discussions.

Manjari Bhatt, a licensed professional engineer with PUC trial staff, reviewed the record and said the applicant’s outreach for Segment 5 was extensive, pointing to virtual and in-person meetings, tens of thousands of mailed notices and substantial public comment. Bhatt testified staff found the company’s wildfire mitigation materials and a segment-specific wildfire mitigation plan adequate for staff’s review and noted staff had met with company representatives to inquire whether an eastern-route option was technically feasible; after that consultation staff concluded the eastern route was not viable in the company’s analysis. (Manjari Bhatt, PUC trial staff.)

James Lester of the Colorado Energy Office urged the commission to consider statewide benefits, including transmission reliability and the role of the Power Pathway loop in enabling future renewable interconnections. Lester acknowledged there were no currently identified renewable resources in Segment 5 but said the broader loop’s completion affects projects across eastern Colorado and state climate objectives.

Senior economist Jeff Fiedler summarized trial staff’s legal framing under PUC rules 3700–3707: staff found the company’s application materially complete and meeting the rule criteria, but Fiedler highlighted outstanding local issues such as countersigned fire-protection forms and proposed impact fees. He recommended that the commission, if inclined to approve, consider imposing record-based conditions and encourage the parties to pursue settlement discussions to reconcile local impacts with statewide needs. “I think…a mutually beneficial agreement between the company and the county would be the CEO’s preference,” Fiedler said, referring to the Colorado Energy Office’s position.

Staff repeatedly emphasized that some local requirements (for example, whether a particular fee complies with state statutes) could not lawfully be imposed by the company if they conflicted with higher law; staff avoided endorsing fees that might violate statutes while encouraging feasible mitigation. In several exchanges staff and the company said they had engaged informally to explore whether practical modifications could reduce delay and local impacts, but parties reported the county told staff no settlement without an eastern route would be acceptable.

Next steps: staff recommended the commission consider whether any record-based conditions would mitigate local impacts, and encouraged the parties to attempt negotiated solutions before or during commission adjudication.