You are on page 1of 6






The Coalition of Ratepayers (“Coalition”), an unincorporated association of energy

consumers,1 by and through its undersigned attorney and pursuant to Rules 1401(a) and (c) of the

Public Utilities Commission of the State of Colorado’s (“Commission”) Rules of Practice and

Procedure, respectfully requests an order from the Commission granting its motion to intervene in

the above-captioned proceeding. The Coalition also submits these preliminary comments in

support of this motion.

As grounds for this motion, the Coalition states as follows:

This proceeding will have a substantial impact on the pecuniary and tangible interests of
members of the Coalition.

1. The Coalition is an unincorporated association of businesses and non-profit entities

authorized and in good standing to transact business within Colorado. All of the Coalition

members are employers that operate businesses within the service territory of Public Service

Company of Colorado (“PSCo”) and purchase electricity and related energy services from PSCo.

Coalition members are comprised of business and commercial customers of PSCo. For purposes of this
proceeding, Coalition members include: All Recycling, Inc., 88 Drive-In Theatre, LLC, Andersen’s Sales and
Salvage, Inc., Auto Collision Specialists of Greely, Inc., Radio Station KFKA, LLC, Leanin’ Tree, Inc., Meyer
Direct, Inc., Wells Ranch, LLP, Wells Trucking, LLC, the Independence Institute, and Westlake Wine & Spirits,
Inc. Coalition members may change over time as its members’ interests may appear.

The Coalition includes members that are primarily small businesses with a range of electricity

usage, including agricultural and commercial consumers.

2. On August 16, 2018, PSCo filed an application seeking approval of the proposed

Energy Services Agreement Memorandum of Understanding (the “ESA MOU”) between PSCo

and its largest retail electric customer, CF&I Steel L.P. (“EVRAZ”) pursuant to § 40-3-104.3,

C.R.S. The ESA MOU contemplates setting rates for EVRAZ for a 23-year term, and would

provide for development of a 240 MW net-metered solar generating facility located on EVRAZ’s

site. PSCo’s application also states that the ESA MOU is conditioned upon the Commission’s

approval of the Colorado Energy Plan (“CEP”)—either the Preferred Colorado Energy Plan

Portfolio or Alternative Colorado Energy Plan Portfolio.

3. The CEP is currently pending in Proceeding Nos. 16A-0396E (the “ERP

Proceeding”) and 17A-0797E (the “AD/RR Proceeding) and calls for the voluntary early

retirement of 660 MW of coal-fired generation resources, Comanche Units 1 and 2. The CEP

contemplates full cost recovery for PSCo for the early retirement, the costs of which will be borne

by Colorado ratepayers. Because the CEP will increase rates and the cost of service for the

Coalition’s members, the Coalition has been an active participant in the ERP and AD/RR

Proceedings and has opposed the CEP.

4. PSCo’s application ties together the fates of the ERP Proceeding and the ESA

MOU, improperly using this proceeding as a new forum to advance the CEP. The Coalition can

see no legitimate reason for PSCo to condition approval of the ESA MOU on adoption of the CEP,

other than as an end-run around the ERP Proceeding and an effort to improperly gain leverage in

support of the CEP. However, while the ESA MOU contemplates 240 MW of new solar generating

capacity, this can be accomplished without shutting down PSCo’s existing coal-fired generating

facilities. In fact, the “Preferred ERP Portfolio” in PSCo’s 120-Day Report in the ERP Proceeding

would add 322 MW of solar generation and 789 MW of wind, while retaining the current schedule

for retirement of Comanche Units 1 and 2 and achieving significant cost savings relative to the

CEP. In addition, the Alternative Colorado Energy Plan Portfolio would provide 457 MW of solar

generation and 1,131 MW of wind, and could be adopted while deferring the decision to retire

Comanche 2 until PSCo’s next electric resource planning proceeding.

5. Conditioning the success of a specific customer contract on adoption of PSCo’s

preferred resource plan in the separate ERP and AD/RR Proceedings could affect the outcome of

those pending proceedings, and the Coalition’s motion should be granted in the furtherance of due

process. The decision made in this proceeding and the ERP and AD/RR Proceedings will have a

direct and substantial impact on the electricity rates paid by members of the Coalition and the cost

of doing business in this state. Accordingly, the outcome of this proceeding substantially affects

the pecuniary and tangible interests of the members of the Coalition.

No other party represents the interests of the Coalition.

6. The objective of the Coalition is to obtain the most economical, reliable electricity

produced by a fuel mix that complies with state and federal law. These interests are not represented

by any current party to this proceeding. Commission Staff is statutorily charged with exploring

and promoting alternative and renewable energy development that may not result in the most

economical, least cost electricity. § 40-2-123(1), C.R.S. The OCC is statutorily charged with

representing both the broad “public interest” and “to the extent consistent therewith, the specific

interests of residential consumers, agricultural consumers, and small business consumers ….” §

40-6.5-104, C.R.S. The “public interest” is undefined and may include interests that are not aligned

with the Coalition’s goal of obtaining the most economical, reliable electricity for consumers (e.g.,

policy interests to reduce carbon output or achieve specific economic development plans). In
addition, both Staff and the OCC are signatories to the CEP stipulation, which the Coalition has


This intervention will advance the just resolution of this proceeding.

7. In authorizing a specific customer contract, § 40-3-104.3(1)(a)(I), C.R.S. requires

that the Commission determine that approval of the application is in the public interest and will

not adversely affect the remaining customers of the public utility. Members of the Coalition are

entitled to vet why the ESA MOU is tied to PSCo’s preferred outcome in the ERP Proceeding. If

PSCo could provide the same terms to EVRAZ regardless of whether the Preferred ERP Portfolio

or Preferred CEP Portfolio is adopted, then it is not in the public interest for PSCo to impose

onerous, unnecessary deal terms on a customer for the purpose of gaining an unfair advantage in

the resource planning process. Moreover, members of the Coalition are entitled to vet whether this

unprecedented contractual term in a potentially Commission-approved MOU will have a negative

financial impact on Colorado consumers.

The Coalition’s Motion is Compliant and Legally Adequate.

8. This intervention request is timely filed pursuant to Commission Rule 3106(f) as it

is within five days of the Commission’s notice of the proceeding on August 17, 2018.

9. Copies of pleadings, notices, exhibits and all other documents or materials in this

proceeding should be served on the Coalition of Ratepayers as follows:

Shayne Madsen
Attorney No. 8750
Meredith Kapushion
Attorney No. 36772
Madsen & Associates
7441 Old Mill Trail
Boulder, CO 80301
Phone No.: 303-588-1693

The Coalition of Ratepayers respectfully requests an order from the Commission granting

its intervention in this proceeding.

Respectfully submitted this 22nd day of August, 2018.

/s/ Meredith Kapushion

Shayne Madsen, #8750
Meredith Kapushion, #36772
Madsen & Associates, P.C.
7441 Old Mill Trail
Boulder, CO 80301
(ph) 303-588-1693



I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been served in
accordance with the governing procedural orders to all parties of record in this proceeding via the
Public Utilities Commission E-Filing system this 22nd day of August, 2018.

_/s/ Meredith Kapushion_________________

Meredith Kapushion