Public Utilities Commission schedules prehearing conference in Public Service $333 million rate case

The Public Utilities Commission scheduled a prehearing conference for June 4 at 2:00 p.m. to address competing filings and a proposed comprehensive non-unanimous settlement in Public Service’s electric rate case, 25-0494E.

Ellie Freriedman, advisory staff, told commissioners the company’s filing from Nov. 21, 2025 requests "among other things a base rate increase of about $333 million." Freriedman said eight parties have been granted intervention, including the Office of Utility Consumer Advocate (UCA), AARP, the City of Boulder, Colorado Energy Consumers, Energy Outreach Colorado, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 111, Federal Executive Agencies and Walmart.

Ruthie Harper, commission counsel, summarized recent procedural filings: several rounds of pre-filed testimony; an evidentiary hearing originally scheduled for June 11–18; a May 29 notice and motion from settling parties seeking to amend the schedule and a May 29 notice of a comprehensive non-unanimous settlement in principle; and an opposed June 2 joint motion to approve that settlement and to vacate early hearing dates.

Harper said that at the end of the day UCA, on behalf of itself, AARP, the City of Boulder and Energy Outreach Colorado, filed a joint response asking the commission to treat the agreement as a stipulation rather than as a settlement, which the response argues would make settlement-supporting testimony unnecessary. The responding parties also requested leave to file opposition testimony one week after settlement testimony if the commission treats the filing as a settlement.

Chair Eric Blank told the commission he would schedule a prehearing conference the next day and emphasized that "the burden of proof has been and remains on the company and the settling parties. End of story." He asked the joint parties to consider filing testimony that ranks the top concerns (on the order of 10–15 issues), explains why each issue is a priority, and relies on pre-filed answers and cross-answer testimony to populate the record.

Blank and commissioners discussed hearing logistics: vacating the initially scheduled June 11–12 dates would compress the remaining hearing time to roughly 22–24 hours over three and a half days, of which Blank estimated roughly 25% would be needed for commissioner questioning and redirect. He asked parties to confer on a revised cross-examination matrix to limit total cross to approximately 17–18 hours to make the shortened schedule workable.

Commissioner Plant said the chair’s approach "seems to work" and that whether moving the hearing week will provide adequate time depends on the parties. Another commissioner agreed, restating availability for a 2 p.m. prehearing conference while noting the schedule compression increases the importance of party cooperation on cross-examination.

A written decision scheduling the prehearing conference was promised; the prehearing conference is set for June 4 at 2:00 p.m. The evidentiary hearing currently remains scheduled for June 11–18 unless the commission issues further schedule changes after the prehearing conference.

Votes and formal actions during the meeting were limited: commissioners indicated verbal approval of the consent agenda; the commission scheduled the prehearing conference for June 4 at 2:00 p.m. and instructed staff to issue a written scheduling decision.