PUC denies CU-Boulder motion in city’s municipalization case

BOULDER — The Colorado Public Utilities Commission on Wednesday denied a motion by the University of Colorado to hold in abeyance a motion by the city of Boulder requesting permission to supplement its application to create a municipal electric utility.

The city’s motion is also requesting a discovery period of 60 days during which the city would gather from Xcel Energy detailed information needed to help determine the best way to interconnect a city-run utility with Xcel’s system.

CU-Boulder, an intervenor in the case, had argued in its own motion that it would be unnecessary for parties in the proceeding to enter into discovery and disclose potentially sensitive customer information when it remains unclear whether the PUC will even consider Boulder’s application in the first place. Xcel has filed a motion to dismiss Boulder’s application, a matter that likely won’t be decided until late this month at the earliest.

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).

But the commissioners, at their weekly Wednesday meeting in Denver, saw CU’s motion as unnecessary.

“The commission didn’t see the need to restrict how or when to deal with these motions,” PUC spokesman Terry Bote said.

In addition to denying CU’s motion, the PUC extended the deadline for responses to Boulder’s motion to Oct. 14. That deadline had originally been Wednesday, but commissioners decided to allow for extra time because some parties in the case might have been awaiting a ruling on the CU motion.

Final briefs in favor of Xcel’s motion to dismiss are due Wednesday (Oct. 7), with briefs opposing Xcel’s motion due Oct. 14. That, in some ways, achieves the result CU’s motion had sought. Because responses to Boulder’s motion to supplement are also now due Oct. 14, it’s unlikely that the PUC will rule on either motion before its Oct. 21 meeting at the earliest. Neither motion has yebeen placed on a PUC agenda yet.