Commissioner Megan Gilman opened a public comment hearing on Nov. 18, 2025, in proceeding 25ADash0220G to gather testimony on Xcel Energy’s proposed 2025–2030 gas infrastructure plan. Commissioners heard roughly three dozen oral comments — from city council members, county commissioners, health professionals, small‑business owners and community organizers — nearly all urging tighter limits on new gas infrastructure and stronger requirements for alternatives such as electrification, geothermal systems and weatherization.

Why it matters: Speakers framed the plan as a long‑lived commitment that could lock ratepayers into decades of costs and pollution. Multiple commenters cited analyses and company figures alleging that projects in the plan would cost billions and that a large share of proposed projects fall in disproportionately impacted communities. They told the PUC that building new pipelines risks creating “stranded assets” that future customers would pay for through increased rates.

“Xcel should halt expansion of its ratepayer‑funded gas system,” said Mike Baum of Sustainable Resilient Longmont, noting that new pipes last 30 to 70 years and are added to the rate base. Josh Cooperman, a Louisville city council member, said Xcel’s plan should "conform to Colorado’s mandated climate goals" and avoid hookups for new residential development except where gas is essential.

Public‑health and environmental justice concerns were frequent. A pediatric emergency physician speaking for Healthy Air and Water Colorado warned that continued expansion of gas infrastructure “harms the health at every stage,” citing links between fossil fuel pollution and respiratory and cardiovascular disease. Patricia Garcia Nelson of Green Latinos said the group’s spatial analysis found approximately 70% of the 63 proposed projects lie in or adjacent to census tracts the state identifies as disproportionately impacted, and urged mandatory nonpipeline‑alternative analysis for projects in those areas.

Several commenters focused on cost and rate dynamics. Speakers referenced company profit figures and rate components, arguing that utilities can pass fuel and infrastructure costs through to customers. One commenter summarized company data claiming the plan’s infrastructure component could raise usage charges significantly; another warned that customers already bore the costs after past emergency events.

What commenters asked the PUC to do: Common requests included (1) avoid or limit new gas hookups and new service territory expansions; (2) require mandatory nonpipeline alternative (NPA) analyses for each project; (3) verify assumptions used to compare electric and gas infrastructure costs; (4) prioritize electrification incentives, rebates and outreach; and (5) protect disproportionately impacted communities with cumulative‑impact reviews and enforceable timelines for repairs.

What the PUC said: Commissioner Gilman noted the proceeding is ongoing, that commissioners would not respond during oral comments, and that the evidentiary record remains open for written submissions; she also reminded commenters of a second oral hearing scheduled for Jan. 20, 2026.

No formal decisions or votes were taken at the hearing. The comments will be part of the evidentiary record the commission reviews before the PUC issues any rulings on certificates of public convenience and necessity or plan approvals.

Next steps: The commission will consider the oral and written record along with evidence presented in the case before reaching any decisions. Written comments may be filed through the PUC’s e‑filing system or the commission’s online comment form (reference proceeding number 25ADash0220G).