The Colorado Public Utilities Commission on Oct. 1 granted an alternative request from Western Resource Advocates, Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council asking the commission to clarify—rather than strike—paragraph 90 of its phase 2 decision in Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association’s electric resource plan proceeding.

Commission advisory staffer Mr. Davis told commissioners the petitioners did not contest approval of Tri-State’s preferred portfolio but argued paragraph 90 "announces a new standard of review without citing any supporting legal authority." Davis recommended the commission confirm that rule 36 0 5 h remains the controlling standard and that paragraph 90 explains how the commission exercised discretion under that rule. Commissioners agreed and directed staff to adopt language that describes paragraph 90 as an explanation of how the commission applied rule 36 0 5 h and the factors the legislature and rulemaking required the commission to consider.

Why it matters: The exchange focuses on how the commission frames its standard for approving an electric resource plan (ERP) for a multistate, not-for-profit entity like Tri-State. Clarifying paragraph 90 avoids creating what intervenors called an un-noticed new standard of approval and preserves the rule-based standard cited in the commission’s electric rules.

Details: Mr. Davis noted paragraph 90 was based on language proposed by Chair Eric Blank and agreed by the other commissioners during deliberations. The commission agreed the paragraph should be read as an explanation of applying rule 36 0 5 h consistent with Senate Bill 19 2 36 and associated rulemaking, including consideration of multi-state jurisdiction, ownership structure and state energy policy goals.

Next steps: The commission agreed to issue two ABC-style decisions adopting the clarification language; staff will prepare the written decision to reflect the explanatory framing of paragraph 90.