At a Colorado Public Utilities Commission public comment Zoom meeting this week more than 210 people registered to hear public comments on Xcel Energy’s latest rate increase request. All 33 people who chose to speak at the meeting were concerned about the proposed rate increase, and most of them were adamantly opposed to any rate increase.

PUC spokesperson Gail Connors began the Tuesday meeting by giving a brief presentation explaining the issue and quantifying Xcel’s rate request.

In Nov. 2022, Connors said, Xcel asked for a $312 million rate increase, and she said the company’s initial request would’ve increased its revenue by 8.2% and would’ve raised monthly rates for residential customers an average of 8.2% and monthly rates for small businesses, an average of 7.7%.

More than a dozen firms and organizations signed on to the proceeding as official parties.

Evan Orth, the first speaker, said he was insulted to see his $90 per-month energy bill jump to $150 this summer.

“I found this a bit insultory, considering that according to macrotrends.net, Xcel Energy’s year-ending profits from last year was an 8.7% increase over the previous year at $2.107 billion, and for the previous year, ended with $8.52 billion, which was an 11.2% increase over the year before that,” said Orth.

After months of hearings and negotiations Xcel came back with an amended proposal of between $45 and $97 million, subject to resolution of two outstanding issues.

“The agreement lowers the total amount initially requested in the case,” said Michelle Aguayo, spokesperson for Xcel Energy in a statement to The Denver Gazette. “Under the agreement, residential customers would see a 3.2% increase in their monthly bill, instead of the original 8.2% anticipated increase.”

The company filed a proposed settlement agreement at the end of last month reducing the revenue increase “into the 1.5 to 3% range or roughly between $45 million and $97 million depending on the resolution of two disputed issues that were not resolved in the settlement agreement,” said Connors.

“The first issue concerns how to pay off the remaining costs of coal plants that are closing earlier than originally planned,” said Connors.

The company plans to close four coal-fired powerplants by 2030 and converting the Pawnee plant near Fort Morgan from coal to natural gas at a cost of about $49 million. The closures include the troubled Comanche 3 plant near Pueblo.

The plant was built at a cost of more than $1 billion and was supposed to operate for 70 years. According to its 2021 electrical plan, Xcel asked the PUC to allow it to collect some or all of an estimated $732 million it could cost to pay off the remaining construction costs, anticipated profits, and cleanup of the site.

As part of the proposed settlement the company stripped out the coal plant shutdown costs and agreed to consider them in another proceeding before the PUC sometime in the future.

“The second issue concerns how public service recovers the money it spends investing in transmission projects ranging from replacement of existing lines to billing out new lines,” Connors added.

Xcel kicked off its $1.7 billion Power Pathway Project to build 550 miles of new high-voltage transmission lines in eastern Colorado in early June.

“Existing transmission on the eastern plains is nearly full and the addition of this additional transmission capacity is needed so that we can add more renewable energy to the grid,” said Robert Kenney, president of Xcel Energy Colorado at the groundbreaking ceremony near Fort Morgan. “The pathway will provide our high voltage backbone transmission and it will allow us to connect and unlock over 5,000 megawatts of new renewable energy produced right here in the eastern Colorado.”

Xcel has already received an “unprecedented” nearly 1,100 bids for new energy generation and storage, he said.

“Unfortunately, Excel does not see the human side of their continuous request for higher rates,” said Sarah Schueneman, Colorado state director for AARP. “Their exorbitant profits are at the expense of our seniors. This is the fifth request in five years. At what point is enough, enough? Two or 3% may not sound like a lot, but the truth is when you add up the collective increases year after year, the impact is significant.”

“We understand our customers are dealing with economic challenges, said Aguayo. “We also know they depend on safe reliable energy. Our proposal helps us maintain and strengthen the grid across the state, protecting it from increasing risks, including cyberattacks, wildfires and extreme weather. Investing in the system ensures we can complete the needed replacement of aging equipment and provide service to new homes and businesses.”