Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Public Utilities Commission staff urges renotice of Public Service motion to delay Comanche 2 retirement and approve near‑term reliability actions
Loading...
Summary
Commission counsel told the Public Utilities Commission that Public Service Company of Colorado’s April 15 motion seeks variances, ECA funding and two‑day notice authority for compliance filings tied to Comanche Unit 2 and other near‑term reliability steps; staff recommended renoticing through April 29 so additional interveners can respond.
Commission counsel Erin McLaughlin told the Public Utilities Commission during a deliberation meeting that Public Service Company of Colorado filed an April 15 motion seeking approval of a reliability action plan, incremental quarterly funding through the electric commodity adjustment (ECA), variances from rule 36‑15, and authority to file tariff and compliance advice letters on two days' notice.
McLaughlin summarized the procedural background: the joint petition filed Nov. 10 by trial staff, the Colorado Energy Office, the Office of Utility Consumer Advocates and Public Service had sought a variance to move the planned retirement of Comanche Unit 2 from Dec. 31, 2025, to Dec. 31, 2026. She said the petitioners "asserted that good cause existed to grant the variance and that limited modification is in the public interest," and recounted that the commission had earlier adopted a two‑step process with a March 1 step‑1 report and a June 1 step‑2 application deadline.
Why it matters: the filings are framed as near‑term steps to address resource adequacy for summer 2026 and 2027 and would affect what resources the utility may acquire and how related costs are recovered. McLaughlin said the commission previously directed Public Service to provide more transparency after the March 1 report and noted the company reported it does not expect Pueblo Unit 3 to return to service in June 2026.
On the April 15 motion specifically, McLaughlin told commissioners the company sought a commission decision by May 8 but did not ask for shortened response times; she said parties would have 14 days to respond and that one late intervention had already been filed. Staff recommended renoticing the motion with an intervention and response period through April 29 "such that additional potential interveners may seek intervention and comment on the motion as well," and recommended setting responses from current parties and prospective interveners for April 29 so the commission can review them before deciding next steps.
Chair Eric Blank and other commissioners indicated they were prepared to issue an ABC order to implement that procedural schedule; Blank said he was "fine with an ABC order." The exchange at the meeting recorded agreement to set notice and the April 29 response deadline, but the transcript does not record a formal contested‑case hearing or a vote on the merits of the motion to grant the requested variances.
Next steps: the commission is expected to issue an ABC procedural order setting notice and intervention through April 29; parties and prospective interveners have until that date to file responses. The company’s separate step‑2 application remains due by June 1, and the company had requested a May 8 decision on its April 15 motion.
