Colorado PUC lets noncompetitor parties see some Xcel large-load data under NDA
Colorado regulators narrowed a confidentiality fight in Xcel Energy’s large-load tariff case, allowing some customer-specific load and location data to be shared with noncompetitor interveners under nondisclosure agreements as the case moves toward a hearing later this year.
The Colorado Public Utilities Commission on June 10 narrowed a confidentiality dispute in Xcel Energy’s large-load tariff case, allowing noncompetitor interveners to access some customer-specific load forecast and locational data under nondisclosure agreements while keeping other sensitive information restricted.
At the same weekly commission meeting, commissioners also moved the case toward an evidentiary hearing that must conclude by Oct. 28, 2026, and directed parties to file a proposed procedural schedule by June 22.
The dispute is part of Public Service Company of Colorado’s proposed large-load tariff in Proceeding No. 26AL-0137E, which the commission says is aimed at high-demand projects such as large-scale data centers. The tariff could shape how very large new customers are served, how costs are allocated between those customers and other ratepayers, and how the utility plans for rapid load growth.
According to the June 10 meeting discussion, commission staff said Xcel had sought highly confidential treatment for 16 categories of information, with disputes focused on two of them: customer-specific load forecast and locational data, and information covered by third-party nondisclosure agreements.
Staff told commissioners that Western Resource Advocates had objected to limiting access to the load and locational data to staff, the Office of the Utility Consumer Advocate and the commission, arguing that noncompetitor interveners needed the information to analyze the application. Commissioners adopted staff’s recommendation to allow access to that category under the commission’s NDA procedures. Staff also said similar highly confidential large-load data are already shared under NDA in another Colorado proceeding.
For the separate category covering information protected by third-party nondisclosure agreements, staff recommended that it be made available only subject to NDA and other highly confidential handling procedures. But the public meeting record reviewed for this story does not fully spell out the final written order language for each subcategory, so the exact boundaries of what remains restricted are not yet clear.
The commission also granted intervention motions and approved pro hac vice requests in the case, according to the June 10 meeting record. Staff said parties include commission staff, the Office of the Utility Consumer Advocate and the Colorado Energy Office as of-right participants, along with permissive interveners representing energy users, environmental groups, local governments, utilities and large customers.
The meeting discussion specifically named entities including Advanced Energy United, Black Hills, Colorado Electric, the Corporate Energy Buyers Association, Colorado Energy Consumers, the City of Boulder, Data Center Coalition, Google, GreenLatinos, Monarch Energy Development, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Rewiring America, Southwest Energy Efficiency Project, United Power, Walmart and Western Resource Advocates. But several names in the accessible transcript were garbled, and Badger could not independently verify a complete post-ruling party roster from a public docket document before deadline.
Public-interest groups have already framed the case as a dispute over who should bear the costs of data-center-scale growth. In a May announcement, Earthjustice said its clients sought to participate to push for protections against higher electricity costs for residential customers and to limit grid impacts from very large new loads.
The PUC’s electric-rate-cases page describes the tariff as part of a framework for high-demand customers seeking innovative carbon-free power. Separate commission load-growth materials say large new load forecasts raise questions about whether existing tariffs equitably allocate the costs of serving those customers.
That helps explain why the June 10 ruling matters beyond a procedural discovery fight: by allowing some outside parties to review load and locational data under NDA, the commission expanded the information available to stakeholders trying to challenge or shape the tariff’s design, even as some material remains confidential.
The public record reviewed for this story did not establish whether the commission has since issued a separate written order setting exact hearing dates or further refining who may access each protected data category.