PUC rejects requests to reopen record on Public Service on-bill financing; seeks broader, executable CBAs and sets limits on renter eligibility process

The Public Utilities Commission on Jan. 7 resolved several rehearing and reargument requests in the on-bill financing (OBF) docket for Public Service Company of Colorado.

Wyatt Foreman, commission counsel, summarized staff recommendations and party pleadings. Staff asked the Commission to require that the company file a comprehensive, executable cost‑benefit analysis (CBA) for its OBF proposal that includes the modified utility cost test (MUCT/UCT), the modified total resource cost (MTRC), and the participant cost test (PCT), in addition to the company's previously discussed utility cost test. Commissioners said they wanted multiple tests and executable spreadsheets submitted so that different inputs and assumptions can be reviewed and rerun.

UCA argued the Commission's exceptions decision approving a loan‑loss reserve/ regulatory asset deprived parties of due process and lacked evidentiary support, and asked the Commission to reopen the record or defer the loan‑loss reserve decision to a later DSM/DSM‑B filing. SWEAP filed a motion for leave to respond; counsel recommended granting SWEAP's motion and commissioners agreed.

On the question of reopening the record to investigate CCEF's capacity to raise up to $100 million and whether the record supports creation of a loan‑loss reserve, commissioners generally rejected reopening the evidentiary record, finding that the Commission's prior decision and the record supported the regulatory asset approach while noting parties may raise issues in the upcoming DSMB proceeding. Counsel also clarified the Commission's prior direction that the company must file a report on the impact of any loan‑loss reserve in its 2026 DSMB filing.

UCA separately asked the Commission to determine whether renters can legally be responsible for landlord OBF obligations; UCA cited statutory provisions and urged caution. Counsel recommended the Commission interpret the cited statutes as protecting tenants from overcharges but not as categorically prohibiting landlords from passing through the actual cost of an OBF upgrade; the Commission agreed to make that limited finding and to rely on the 60–90 day notice process before expanding renter participation to allow further review and protections.

Commissioners also considered UCA and EOC proposals to scale the program to a limited pilot ($10 million) with a $25,000 per-premises cap and to exclude disconnections and renters; the panel generally declined to scale the program at this stage but required additional reporting and safeguards in subsequent DSM filings.

The Commission instructed staff to draft an ABC decision recording these determinations and directing the company to file executable CBAs and follow-up reports in the DSMB proceedings.