Hearing on Easy Care Transportation permit spotlights competing accounts of public need and airport activity

Administrative Law Judge Aviv Sev convened a hearing on May 8, 2026, on Easy Care Transportation’s application seeking PUC authority to operate shuttle, charter and sightseeing services across the Denver metro and mountain corridors. The hearing included sworn testimony, documentary evidence and a 136‑page log obtained from Denver International Airport that the intervenor said shows Epic Charter LLC vehicles entering airport property despite certificate restrictions.

Why it matters: The proceeding pits the applicant’s claim of unmet demand for smaller, on‑demand scheduled shuttles against an established carrier’s contention that existing permitted operators already serve the corridors and that granting a new authority would overlap and harm incumbents. The ALJ admitted contested exhibits and took the case under advisement; a written recommended decision is expected next.

Easy Care’s case: De Rubani, testifying and offering documentary support, said Easy Care has operated non‑medical transportation for more than a decade and has the staff, insurance and bank liquidity required for a certificate. The applicant introduced a bank letter and an annual budget (hearing exhibit 106) and a set of policy documents (exhibits 101, 105) that the ALJ admitted over repeated objections about late disclosure. "This document shows funds available at the time I submitted the application," De Rubani said of the bank letter, and told the ALJ the funds remain and would be used for payroll and insurance if a permit issues.

Operational model and market need: Easy Care’s operations manager, Nelson Gerro, described a model centered on small, efficient vehicles (fewer than nine passengers) and route optimization to reduce empty “dead miles.” Gerro testified the company already serves many Denver‑area counties under non‑PUC programs and could redeploy drivers and technology to provide scheduled airport and mountain services. He cited examples, including long waits after Red Rocks concerts, and said commissioned market research and aggregated statistics indicate gaps in year‑round service in some corridors.

Intervenor objections: Roman Lysenko, owner of Epic Charter LLC (doing business as Red Rock Shuttle), challenged the sufficiency of Easy Care’s proof of unmet need and questioned operational fitness. Lysenko introduced certificates of authority (admitted as hearing exhibit 200) showing Epic’s permitted authorities and said Epic’s fleet, which includes larger coaches and shuttles, can scale service if needed. He also noted that Easy Care presented multiple exhibits late and urged the ALJ to weigh that when assessing evidentiary weight.

Airport records and the disputed badge log: The ALJ admitted a 136‑page DIA log the applicant obtained by public records request (hearing exhibit 128). The intervenor highlighted entries it said show Epic Charter‑identified vehicles at airport access points during dates in the log; the applicant argued those public records illustrate current operations and support its need case. The ALJ admitted the DIA log over objection but cautioned that admission does not determine the ultimate weight of the evidence.

Evidentiary and procedural issues: Much of the hearing focused on foundational questions—who prepared documents, when they were obtained, and whether late filings prejudiced the intervenor. The ALJ repeatedly overruled disclosure objections but said he would assign weight to exhibits when issuing a recommendation. Several recesses were taken to allow the applicant time to upload and label exhibits.

What’s next: Judge Aviv Sev took the matter under advisement and said he will issue a written recommended decision addressing the statutory standards for managerial, financial and operational fitness and whether the applicant met its burden to show public need that existing certificate holders do not satisfy. No final PUC decision was announced at the hearing’s end.