Should this have instead been called the Data Center Solicitation?

PUC posts 276-page decision after a year-plus evaluaton of Xcel Energy’s Just Transition Solicitation

by Allen Best

A month ago, when in Steamboat Springs, we stopped by to talk with Routt County Commissioner Tim Redmond, whose testimony is cited in the Colorado PUC’s 276-page decision. The long-awaited decision, the summation of the deliberations by the three commissioners during a handful of sometimes-long sessions in August, was posted to the PUC website Thursday afternoon.

It was called Xcel Energy’s Just Transition Solicitation. But in reading this 276-page document (Okay, we only made it through 100 pages last night), we wonder if it should instead be called the Xcel Energy Data Center Solicitation. Or the Xcel Energy Large Load Solicitation.

“Large load” was used on 59 pages of the decision and “data center” on 28 pages. In contract, “just transition” was on 54 pages.

You can download the decision here.

Xcel’s “ask” in this proceeding was absolutely huge. When it submitted the proposal in October 2024, Xcel said it would need almost 14,000 megawatts of new resources. In contrast, the company’s 2021 plan, then the largest in Colorado’s history, was comprised of 5,900 megawatts.

Data centers and AI are not the entire story of this growth in demand. There are also EVs and BE (beneficial electrification). It makes for interesting reading for those of us who are energy wonks. The PUC commissioners accepted some of what Xcel proposed, but it was also clear that two groups, Western Resource Advocates and Southwest Energy Efficiency Project, had presented arguments and evidence that the PUC commissioners found persuasive.

Just transition gets several dozen pages. That includes how Hayden and Routt County will be assisted in this change. Redmond was mayor of Hayden before becoming a Routt County commissioner. (And it mentions a filing bearing Redmond’s name).This section also addresses assistance to Morgan County and Pueblo.

The PUC says that Xcel should have to pony up some money for Craig, as it owns part of a couple of coal plants there soon to be retired. (Well, at least they will unless ordered by the Trump administration to remain in operation).

The PUC lacks jurisdiction over some of the other owners of the plants, including Platte River Power Authority, but suggests that those other utilities should also pitch in. (We have to wonder about the implications for Comanche 3, which is co-owned by two-electrical cooperatives in addition to Xcel Energy).

Notable in the first 100 pages was a section where the PUC commissioners clearly are irritated with Xcel. Here, we quote:

“Despite existing technology that can, for example, cost-effectively manage EV charging by time-of-day, despite the fact that EV batteries soon may be able to back-feed homes in ways that offset other peak demands, and despite Commission orders to significantly increase managed charging incentives, the regulated system must do better at driving EV charging and other similar BE loads off the critical system peak demand hours. The promise of these technologies is to flexibly reduce demand at critical times, yet the Company seems unable or unwilling to take advantage of these opportunities, which looks to result in higher resource needs, adverse rate impacts and reliability risk.”

Expect to hear much more about this in weeks and months ahead.

And we hope to offer a more complete synopsis of the PUC decision in coming days.