PUC delays decision on Xcel’s motion to dismiss Boulder municipalization case

The Colorado Public Utilities Commission at its weekly Wednesday meeting in Denver delayed making a decision on Xcel Energy’s motion to dismiss the city of Boulder’s application to create a municipal electric utility, asking both sides for narrowly focused briefs regarding whether the city’s plan violates the doctrine of regulated monopoly.

Xcel filed its motion to dismiss in August, a motion that was backed by PUC staff on grounds that the city’s application was incomplete and didn’t comply with past decisions by the PUC.

The commissioners ruled Wednesday that Xcel’s motion would be construed specifically as a motion to dismiss for violation of the doctrine of regulated monopoly. Briefs in support of Xcel’s motion are due by Oct. 7, with briefs in opposition due by Oct. 14, PUC spokesman Terry Bote said. Once all briefs are filed, the PUC will set a new meeting date for deciding whether to grant the motion.

SPONSORED CONTENT

Federal District Court Rules Corporate Transparency Act Unconstitutional . . . But Most Small Businesses Must Still Comply

Lyons Gaddis Real Estate and Business Attorney Cameron Grant shares important details of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA).

The PUC had ruled previously that, under the doctrine of regulated monopoly, Boulder could not acquire Xcel customers outside its city limits without proving that Xcel is unwilling or unable to provide service. Alternatively, the city could acquire Xcel’s certificate of public convenience and necessity to serve those customers.

Boulder is seeking to acquire the Xcel equipment necessary to create its own electric utility to serve its residents. That includes some equipment that serves Xcel customers outside the city limits. Boulder officials, in their municipalization application, felt they had gotten around the doctrine of regulated monopoly issue by opting not to claim the county residents as customers and instead proposing a wheeling agreement in which Xcel could distribute power over the city’s lines to serve the company’s customers who resided within the city’s acquisition area.

But both Xcel and the PUC staff have argued that such a wheeling agreement would leave Xcel as the service provider for county residents in name and billing only and leave the company with little role in actually providing service or maintaining reliability for them.

Last week, the city requested permission from the PUC to supplement its application with options for how to arrange interconnection between its system and Xcel’s as alternatives to the wheeling arrangement. The PUC did not address that issue Wednesday because parties in the proceeding have until Oct. 7 to respond to the city’s motion to supplement.