Docket Nos. EL24-74
I concur with today’s order and write separately to emphasize the following points. As today’s order notes,[1] Public Service Company of Colorado’s (PSCo) proposed Colorado Power Pathway transmission project (Power Pathway) was neither submitted nor selected by WestConnect for inclusion in a regional transmission plan and, as a result, PSCo appropriately treated Power Pathway as a Local Transmission Project for cost allocation purposes.
Although Colorado Cities argues that potential beneficiaries exist beyond PSCo’s wholesale transmission customers, Power Pathway was ultimately approved by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (Colorado Commission) to, among other things, advance the State of Colorado’s public policies.[2] Thus, Power Pathway is a state-approved public policy-driven project.
For this reason, allocating costs solely to PSCo’s wholesale transmission customers is appropriate, just as costs of New York Independent System Operator, Inc.- and California Independent System Operator Corp.-planned projects implementing New York and California’s public policies are allocated exclusively to New York and California customers, respectively. So, if Power Pathway were selected by WestConnect for inclusion in a regional transmission plan and regionally cost allocated to consumers in non-consenting states within the WestConnect region, such a result would likely be unjust and unreasonable. That is not the case here.
For these reasons, I respectfully concur.
______________________________
Mark C. Christie
Commissioner