YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → YouTube transcript (DMXubi3gLfs)

YouTube transcript (DMXubi3gLfs) — Transcript

19,396 words · 2,969 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

34:15I apologize, Commissioner Gilman. I I
34:17believe you're on mute.
34:21>> Nothing like starting it out like that.
34:23Thank you, [laughter] Mr. Um before we
34:27get started, I just wanted to check in
34:28with you uh to see if my mic was working
34:30now to see if uh public service has all
34:33the folks available that you intend to
34:36be bringing to the workshop.
34:40Oh yeah, we have everybody here and we
34:41are ready.
34:42>> Okay, it was also a very efficient mic
34:44check. So, thank you for that. Um, so we
34:48are now on the record. This is a
34:50workshop in proceeding number 24-0493G.
34:55In this proceeding, the commission's
34:57identifying and investigating the cost
34:59causation of residential development and
35:01other development of public service
35:03company of Colorado's gas utility
35:05operations pursuant to 40-3121
35:11uh the Colorado Revised Statute. The um
35:14commission must complete this analysis
35:17pursuant to Senate Bill 23 uh 291. So,
35:21the purpose of today's um meeting is to
35:24better understand some of the company's
35:26data filings, also see if there's any
35:28updates or additional insight as the
35:31commission um completes this important
35:33work. Um most of those data filings were
35:36made last year in order to um help us
35:39better understand some of the um
35:42developments that we're studying um in
35:45reference to that statutory language.
35:47So, today is July 7th, 2026. I am
35:50Commissioner Megan Gilman, the hearing
35:52commissioner for this proceeding. I've
35:54been designated by a vote of the three
35:57commissioners to hear this matter and to
35:59issue a recommended decision for
36:00consideration by the full commission. Uh
36:03today's conversation will be um will
36:06include representatives from the company
36:09only. For those listening but who are
36:11not on the speaking agenda today,
36:13including um uh other interested um
36:18interested groups or individuals, I
36:20would welcome uh written comments in
36:22response to anything you hear today or
36:24more generally on the topics uh being
36:26addressed in this proceeding. Written
36:28comments can be filed directly into this
36:30proceeding which again is proceeding
36:32number 24M-0493G
36:37or through uh through the commissioning
36:39e filings website. Sorry. Um so this um
36:45meeting today is being webcast on the
36:47internet and will be live at all times
36:50during uh the meeting including during
36:53any breaks if we do take breaks.
36:55Although we just have a 2-hour agenda
36:57today, so I'm not sure I'm anticipating
36:59a formal break at this point, but we'll
37:01see what's necessary. Um, so if we do go
37:04on break or if you do not intend to be
37:06speaking, please be mindful of your
37:08video microphone at all times. Um, so
37:11Mr. Manel, maybe I'll turn it over to
37:14you. And before we jump into some of the
37:16topics and questions that I was hoping
37:19to cover with you today, uh perhaps you
37:21could just provide me a brief
37:22introduction to um who's here today. And
37:26before we even do that, are there any
37:28individuals on your team who you think
37:30will need screen sharing capabilities
37:32that we should let Miss Frederrico know
37:34about?
37:37>> Um I I would say that um Mr. Vay I think
37:41is preparing to help uh introduce and
37:45lead the technical conference. Um you
37:48may have a few words as we start here
37:50this morning. In terms of uh sharing the
37:53screen, we don't have a presentation
37:56planned. I so no pre-planned
38:00uh sharing that I know of right now. Um
38:03>> I apologize I miss any other in terms of
38:05all of our witness introductions. We
38:07have quite a few people. Um,
38:11we're happy to go through those
38:12introductions. Now, it may also
38:16be um I there's so many names to keep
38:19track of. I I don't want we could also
38:21do it on by subject matter as questions
38:22arise. Whatever your preference is,
38:24Commissioner Gilman.
38:26>> Yeah, no worries. I think that's fine
38:28with me. um if you all know who's there
38:31perhaps just as we have um an individual
38:33speak um they could introduce themselves
38:36just so um our records are clear on
38:39who's here but I think that sounds like
38:40a pretty efficient way to go forward.
38:43>> Great.
38:44>> Okay, great. So um [clears throat] for
38:48substance Mr. Manel, I was planning on
38:50roughly dividing our discussion in today
38:53today into four general topics. um the
38:56last being quite quite minor I think
38:58compared to the first three. Um and
39:01those kind of mirror some of the
39:03advanced information we put out just to
39:05make sure you were sending the right
39:06folks and prepared um understood what we
39:09expected to talk about. Um so the first
39:11topic is on the revenue requirement
39:13calculations especially project specific
39:16revenue requirement calculations. The
39:18second would be more specifically on
39:20some of the data and information on the
39:22new business projects that were
39:23identified in the data request, then
39:26capacity expansion projects from the
39:28data request and some of those knock-on
39:31downstream new business projects that
39:33relate to those. Um, that that wording
39:37gets very clunky, but I think you know
39:39what I'm talking about. Um, and then
39:41perhaps a few questions at the end on
39:43the costbenefit analysis. Um, so those
39:46that was kind of the general um order I
39:50was going to take things and topic areas
39:51I would divide it into. So I don't know
39:54if you have any thoughts or issues with
39:57that. If not, we can dive right in.
39:59>> That's fine with us. And I I do believe
40:01that uh segus well with uh Mr. Pay who's
40:04also assisting our revenue requirements
40:06uh section of this tech conference.
40:09>> Okay, perfect. Um, if that works for
40:12you, then would you like me to just kind
40:14of get started on some questions and
40:16address them to Mr. Puket unless told
40:19otherwise?
40:24>> Uh, yeah.
40:26Sorry, Tyler. Yeah. Yeah. Commissioner
40:28Gilman, this is Jason Pay here. That
40:30that sounds good to us. I just have a
40:32couple opening comments I'm I'm happy to
40:34make. Um, but it shouldn't take too long
40:36here.
40:36>> Yeah, go for it.
40:39>> Okay, great. Great. Well, thanks for
40:40having us. Again, for the record, I'm
40:41Jason Pay. I'm a regulatory a regional
40:44vice president here for Excel in
40:46Colorado.
40:48We appreciate you having us here today.
40:50I'm joined by several experts here on
40:52our side. As we talked about, we'll have
40:54folks introduce themselves as their
40:56topics come up. Um, but just know that
40:58we've we've done our best to to get the
41:01right order of folks here um to be able
41:03to responsive to as many questions as
41:05possible. And as you know, of course,
41:07this has been a fairly unique proceeding
41:09um that we've had to pull across pull
41:12information together across multiple
41:13different business units. So, if there's
41:15not a specific uh answer that we're able
41:17to to get you here today, we're happy to
41:19to follow up. The
41:23a as you remember, of course, that the
41:25company's principal responses to the the
41:29questions you've issued have come in
41:31largely a year ago. the our first
41:33responses came in in July of last year
41:35which we supplemented in October. We
41:38also provided some additional
41:39information last night. Um so this has
41:42been a a process that's continued here.
41:45Since that time the company has focused
41:47its resources on other uh important
41:49proceedings including this one of course
41:52that includes the gas infrastructure
41:54plan and a gas ray case and there's been
41:56movement of the company's internal staff
41:59both within and outside of the company
42:00during that time. So, we've got some new
42:02subject matter experts here today, but
42:05again, we'll do our best to to get you
42:06the information you need, even if they
42:08are not necessarily um
42:11even if they were not here during the
42:13time that we submitted some of those
42:14init initial responses.
42:17Uh as an example, uh yesterday
42:22or or rather in late June, we received
42:24some additional requests from you on
42:27some of these projects uh in a series of
42:30questions. And last night we filed what
42:32we reasonably could on those topics to
42:35help get ahead a little bit of some of
42:37the information being requested. Uh it
42:40may have lagged a little bit through the
42:41through the commission's e filing
42:43system, but hopefully that came through
42:45this morning at the very latest. We've
42:47not had a chance to answer all of those
42:49questions. However, and this is just due
42:52to the fact that uh there's only been
42:54about a week or so of time between that
42:56June June 25th request uh and and as we
43:00gather here today, of course,
43:02recognizing the the holiday weekend and
43:04some other vacations that we were
43:06working around over the past week or
43:08two. Uh, and so long story short, we're
43:11happy to continue to get you the the
43:13data you need and hope today's
43:15conversation is is helpful to that. The
43:18the last point I'll make here is that
43:20we've got uh two overlapping proceedings
43:23dealing with some similar topics at the
43:25moment. Those are two litigated
43:27proceedings being the companies. We
43:30we'll do our best today to avoid going
43:32into topics that are being litigated in
43:34those two other forms, but do just want
43:36to highlight for everyone here and
43:38listening that there are some uh other
43:41litigated cases that we'll have to be
43:42mindful of. Um but other than that,
43:45we're here to help you with your
43:46questions and I'll kick it back to you,
43:48Commissioner Gilman.
43:51>> Yeah, thanks for that. And hopefully um
43:53especially being that the the REC case
43:55is primarily focused on 2025 and the GIF
43:57is primarily forward focused. I think a
44:00lot of these projects preede kind of the
44:04overlapping time frame of that but
44:06definitely let me know if you see a
44:08conflict. We've got Miss Dundas here
44:10with us today also to keep us on the
44:12straight narrow if things get
44:14complicated between the opening
44:16proceedings. But appreciate you uh
44:17pointing that out. But in in one kind of
44:21in a way we intentionally chose
44:23historical projects first of all because
44:25we had actual costs and actual usage so
44:28we can like do a more proper diagnosis I
44:30think of how that all looks. Um but also
44:34it it hopefully will keep us more out of
44:36any conflicts with those um more more
44:40forward-looking proceedings. Um also I
44:44haven't had time to look through um
44:45anything that came in last night. So, if
44:49in response to a question you think it
44:51would be helpful to bring something up
44:53there um that that you have handy, you
44:56know, we could have Miss Frederrico give
44:58you access just in case if you think
45:01like that might be the best way to
45:02respond to something as we go. So, just
45:05flag that as we go or if I can find it
45:08somewhere in there very specifically,
45:10like I think that would be very helpful
45:11since I just haven't gotten into it yet.
45:14>> Sounds great.
45:16>> Okay, awesome. Um so the first area I
45:19just wanted to get into was the revenue
45:22requirement calculations. So in the um
45:26uh original data request, we had asked
45:29for uh project specific revenue
45:32requirements for each of the projects
45:34identified um the the new business and
45:37capacity expansion projects being
45:38studied. And um I think the company had
45:41indicated this isn't something that like
45:44was done. So, I think you were trying to
45:46maybe recreate it or or look at that.
45:49Um, and as part of that, we had a um a
45:53document that showed um the company's
45:56response to that. So, um Miss
45:59Frederrico, I have that. Maybe I'll just
46:01pull it up as we talk. Um I labeled that
46:03doc one. These are named a little bit
46:07torturous things. So, um I just labeled
46:10them 1 2 3 4 5 6 Puerto Rico. we could
46:14go in order. Um, so maybe we can look at
46:17that first one. And I don't believe
46:20anything in here is confidential. I
46:23tried to scrub those as I went forward.
46:25So I think this was all publicly filed
46:28um items.
46:30>> I think that's right.
46:31>> If you can go to the revenue
46:32requirements tab and then just maybe
46:34make the view be uh normal, whatever
46:38it's called.
46:40uh
46:42click on view and maybe we can get it.
46:46Where do we go for the Yeah, there we
46:50go. Okay, perfect. Okay, so as we look
46:52at these um
46:55we have the different categories of
46:57incomes and expenses showing up
46:58especially on this revenue requirement
47:00tab which is in in part collecting some
47:02of that from elsewhere. And then as we
47:05go down on uh public service line 41,
47:09which is the last line of data, this
47:11would be basically the total revenue
47:13requirement that was submitted by the
47:16company, right? For each project.
47:20>> Yes. Yes, that's correct.
47:22>> Okay. And then if we go back up to the
47:24top, um this is and and I'm really just
47:28trying to understand this data so
47:30there's no like gotcha here. I want to
47:32make sure I understand what we're
47:33looking at. Um, and up at the top that
47:37says at December 2023.
47:40So, my understanding, especially with a
47:43revenue requirement of this type, is
47:44we're basically looking at like a point
47:46in time when this was done as of
47:49December 2023.
47:51This is what that looked like
47:54kind of based on how much was placed in
47:56service, you know, at that time.
47:59>> Yes, that's my understanding.
48:00Commissioner Gilman at that time. It
48:03probably also takes into account
48:05depreciation
48:07up until that point um which could be
48:09affecting those net plant levels. But
48:12but yes, it's a point in time look at
48:14the world.
48:15>> Okay. Okay. And so um with this one
48:19being December 2023, you know, I went
48:21back and looked at the timing of a lot
48:23of these projects. some came online in
48:262023 sometime. Um I think West Metro has
48:31actually a a very small amount actually
48:35placed in service in 2023. Um and the
48:39majority of the cost was in the uh HIPP
48:42or construction work in progress for
48:45West Metro. Does that like sound right
48:47to you?
48:48>> That sounds generally right with my
48:51understanding. So, so as I, you know, I
48:53was looking through these and kind of
48:55trying to compare the relative capital
48:58expense of the project to the revenue
49:00requirement, I would generally expect
49:03those to like somewhat track with each
49:05other, right? Do you have the same
49:06expectation? One goes up, one goes up
49:09like
49:10>> pretty proportional.
49:11>> Um,
49:12>> yes. Yes, that's correct. We often use a
49:14rule of thumb thumb on our side.
49:16Sometimes that's a little too high or
49:18too low, but but yes, that's correct,
49:20Commissioner.
49:21>> I'm curious, what is the rule of thumb
49:23on your side?
49:24>> I I generally refer to it, right? Not as
49:27a as a revenue requirement expert
49:29necessarily, but we usually estimate it
49:31as roughly a a 10% rule of thumb. So, if
49:35you think about the capex leading into a
49:37project, right? Of course, there's
49:39there's other O andM amounts or
49:41depreciation expense or AFUDC amounts to
49:45take into account, but you know, plus or
49:47minus, you tend to think about that
49:49total capex expenditure over the life of
49:52that project. And once it's in service,
49:54you can think about that revenue
49:55requirement uh generally as onetenth uh
49:58of those amounts.
50:00>> Okay. Okay. Thanks. That's helpful.
50:02Yeah. And there's kind of some oddities
50:04here. I'm not saying you put in the
50:05wrong data. It's just like this timing
50:07issue. So, if we scroll down, West
50:09Metro, which is a $14 million project.
50:13Um, if you scroll down to the bottom, it
50:16shows us a negative $64,000 revenue
50:19requirement. And if we chase on the
50:21other pages, it looks like just the vast
50:23majority was in construction work in
50:25progress and not actually in rebase at
50:29the time this was done is is what it
50:31looks like to me.
50:33We're happy to to run that down, but I
50:36agree that that seems like an anomaly.
50:38Uh because right right a project in
50:41service that had capex behind it is
50:43going to lead to a generally a positive
50:45revenue requirement. If there's some,
50:48you know, Quip or or AF AFUDC offset
50:51issues happening here to make that
50:52number go negative, I would just need a
50:55a little time to to look at those
50:57calculations.
50:58>> Okay. Yeah, I think that's like the most
51:00pronounced where it's like it's a $14
51:01million project. It doesn't actually in
51:04an ongoing way have a negative revenue
51:06requirement, but um that's just
51:09apparently what it looked like in
51:10December of 2023. Um so in looking at
51:14and then similarly in trying to
51:16understand these if if one of these
51:18projects were only in service part of
51:202023 like half the year
51:24it it's my understanding that revenue
51:26requirement would probably also look
51:28proportionally small for that year like
51:30at that point in time but then in 2024
51:33it would kind of look more normal um
51:36after it's been in service all year
51:39>> right so that that goes to the ratebased
51:41method methodology question. Uh assuming
51:44this was year-end amounts and we're
51:47using a year-end ratebased methodology
51:51uh there for our our kind of starting
51:52line, our starting rate baseline. If
51:55Miss Federico, if you could scroll up
51:56slightly, you know, since this is uh the
52:00the title of the sheet was at December
52:0231 and then informing that row two
52:06ratebased levels, I'm assuming that's
52:07going to be year-end balances. then then
52:10it won't really matter when in that year
52:12that project was in service. But if
52:14you're using a different methodology, of
52:16course, and I know this is an active
52:17issue in other cases, so I'll tread
52:20lightly here. If if you're using a a
52:22different methodology, that will of
52:24course change that that ratebased level.
52:26If you're using an average ratebased
52:29approach, it's not going to be the level
52:31at year end. It's going to be 113th
52:34of the number of months it was in
52:36service.
52:37>> Okay. So highly dependent on like how
52:39it's done. So um I was um trying to look
52:45at this and look for that rule of thumb
52:47that you had said you all have
52:49internally because if you look across
52:51and try and just do like a pretty simple
52:55ratio of the capital expense to the
52:57revenue requirement displayed here it's
52:59a little wacky I think because of just
53:02some of the probably newness of the
53:04projects like the
53:06>> partially done like whatever it is. um
53:09at this particular view. So I actually
53:13used and I referred to these in the
53:14decision we just put out on the 25th um
53:18several of the documents from the last
53:19GIP. So in that actually attachments to
53:23your testimony in JJP1 there was
53:26appendex 3, four, five which just showed
53:29um SSI new business and capacity
53:31expansion projects there. And then uh
53:35appendix six showed expected revenue
53:37requirements per project kind of similar
53:40to what we asked here only like in in
53:43real time in the GIF there. So um I
53:47looked at that. So happy to kind of show
53:50you through what I got there. Um
53:53let me see.
53:56Yeah. So Miss Fu Rico, maybe you can
53:58pull up um uh
54:01Oh no.
54:04I think it broke some of my
54:08M. Federico, are you able to
54:11display that as an Excel rather than a
54:13Google sheet? I think the Google sheet
54:15scrubbed some of the data and made it um
54:19not present. [clears throat]
54:21>> Sorry, are you talking about the same
54:22document one?
54:23>> No, document two.
54:25>> Document two. Yes, I can do that. It's
54:27just gonna I have to just download it.
54:28So, give me a second.
54:29>> Yeah, no worries. I've found that
54:30happens sometimes. um some of the the
54:33data doesn't come through. So hopefully
54:35that'll work through. Um so anyway, I
54:37looked at across like the SSI projects
54:41um some of the new business and capacity
54:44expansion there to try to look at what
54:47that rule of thumb was looking like. So
54:50here on the left we've got the
54:51forecasted capital expenditures from
54:54those GIP uh appendices and then on the
54:57right um the revenue requirement from
55:00appendix 6.
55:02And um
55:04you can see on the right it it looks
55:07like we probably get the most reasonable
55:11revenue requirement number the year
55:13after it's placed in service. Um which
55:16all kind of makes sense. So then I
55:18pulled that to look at the starting
55:19ratio and then the average annual
55:22reduction kind of in that ratio as it
55:24goes forward. Um it aligns pretty
55:27closely with what you were saying.
55:29There's a few anomalies here which I
55:31would probably have to chase back and
55:33see what was going on different types of
55:35projects or um perhaps we didn't capture
55:37all the expenses here. Um but more or
55:40less it looks like the average without
55:41those outlier pieces of data is about an
55:4511.23. 23%
55:48starting ratio between the capital
55:50expense to the annual revenue
55:52requirement. Um and then about a 32%
55:56decline in that value each year um in
56:00the ratio not 32% of um
56:04>> Right. Right.
56:06>> And so it sounds like that like somewhat
56:08aligns with with your expectations for
56:12what a reasonable revenue requirement
56:13might look like. Yeah, that's right.
56:16Yeah, generally in the 10% range. So, it
56:18seems like at least of the values I'm
56:19seeing here in column R, pretty similar
56:22to that. Again, maybe a couple wonky
56:25results that probably stem from timing
56:27or other quip or a AFUDC issues. Um, but
56:31but yes, that seems like it generally
56:33tracks.
56:34>> Okay. Yeah. And happy to show this to
56:36you, but um you can scroll down a
56:37little, Miss Ferdigo. It's all pretty um
56:40similar. And then I actually didn't
56:42include any of the mayoff because I it
56:45would take a lot of chase and I think a
56:47lot of those are testing and things that
56:49may not be actual just new pipe
56:51infrastructure. So um okay cool. Well, I
56:55just wanted to run that by you and see
56:57your thoughts on that in in looking at
57:01um at other ways to kind of estimate the
57:04um project specific revenue requirement
57:07rather than just looking at December
57:082023, which looks like it's just got
57:11some timing issues perhaps for several
57:12of the projects. Um so, thanks. That's
57:16helpful to look at that relationship. Um
57:19and yeah, I actually didn't see a ton of
57:21variation. like a lot of them are
57:23sitting right in the 11% like starting
57:25range. So, um felt pretty good about
57:28that. Okay. Um thanks Miss Frederrico.
57:30You can take that one down. Um but that
57:33was helpful um to go through. So um
57:36anything else on revenue requirement or
57:39like this discussion? I'm kind of ready
57:41to move on to new business unless you
57:43had anything to add to to that
57:45discussion. You think helpful?
57:48>> No, I don't I don't think so. So, it
57:50looks like you've you've looked at it in
57:51detail. Uh maybe just just reminding
57:54everyone that again we we often don't
57:57calculate these project specific revenue
58:00requirements as we as we've noted,
58:02right? Those those kind of all flow
58:03together into a into a rate case when
58:06you're calculating a cost of service or
58:08revenue requirement model in totality,
58:10of course, right? We've recreated those
58:12here on a project by project basis to
58:14help get at some of the questions um
58:17that SP23291
58:19are asking of the commission. Uh and
58:22it's and of course to be responsive to
58:23your request, but just wanted to
58:24reiterate that that's not a usual
58:26exercise. Usually all this stuff is
58:27lumped together and that maybe maybe
58:29better informs that kind of 10% rule of
58:32thumb.
58:33>> Okay, thanks. That's uh helpful. Um okay
58:38so we'll move on to the new business
58:41projects then. So um we had identified
58:44several new business projects in the
58:46original data request. Um so first of
58:50all some some time has passed. So I know
58:53in part we were asking about um
58:56projected values but also actual values
58:58to see um to what extent um the usage
59:03and peak has um deviated or kind of
59:07comported with the company's
59:09expectations at the onset of the
59:10project. So, um, maybe kind of more
59:14generally before getting into individual
59:16projects, just curious if you had any
59:18updates on that or if that's some of
59:20what was uploaded last night to just
59:22understand if there's any updates to
59:24understanding how the actual usage and
59:27uh, peak load is looking for these
59:28projects.
59:30>> Yeah, I think at this point I'll I'll
59:32lean on some of our other experts here u
59:35who are closer to some of the new
59:36business projects. So, I'll I'll turn it
59:38over the to the team to step in.
1:00:01Hello, Commissioner Gilman. Uh, I'm
1:00:03Richard Lucero. I'm the manager of gas
1:00:05systems engineering here in Colorado.
1:00:07Um, if you're able to, can you please
1:00:09clarify your question dealing with this
1:00:12new business and uh, what you're looking
1:00:14for?
1:00:16>> Yeah, absolutely. Um so in our new
1:00:19business, we do have from the original
1:00:21data response um for each of those
1:00:24projects
1:00:26kind of the expectations upon which the
1:00:28the project was based um in terms of the
1:00:32expected annual throughput,
1:00:35the expected um peak demand, especially
1:00:38broken apart residential and commercial
1:00:40for those that that contain both types.
1:00:43Um and just curious now some of these
1:00:46are 2 three years old you might have be
1:00:49at a different point in buildout of
1:00:51those there there was some initial
1:00:53actual data um provided last year but to
1:00:57the extent some of these are kind of
1:00:58actively being built out just wanted to
1:01:00understand if there are any updates to
1:01:02some of the information provided last
1:01:04year especially looking at actual meter
1:01:07reads um to compare to the projected
1:01:09values
1:01:11>> of course so um [clears throat]
1:01:13when you have actual peak load since
1:01:16over the last couple years we still have
1:01:18not had our design day. So we don't have
1:01:20the actual peak loads. Um
1:01:25we do have our CMM loads that project it
1:01:29however it's a calculation that's linear
1:01:31based on what we do see each winter. So
1:01:33we do have for some that did come online
1:01:36over the past few years. Uh but once
1:01:38again no actual usage yet. Once we have
1:01:41a design day, then we'll see those
1:01:42actual numbers.
1:01:45>> Okay.
1:01:46>> I'm sorry, Commissioner Gilman, just
1:01:48>> just to make sure that you're up to date
1:01:49on what we filed.
1:01:51>> Yeah.
1:01:51>> Uh yesterday and this morning. Not sure
1:01:54it' be helpful to bring it up or not,
1:01:56but we did file uh in response to some
1:01:59of these questions, what we're calling
1:02:01attachment A in the docket, which
1:02:04includes thing from
1:02:07uh where Richard was just describing as
1:02:08our CMM
1:02:10Uh, this is available in e filing. Uh,
1:02:13we could bring it up or um
1:02:16>> yeah, I mean, if you're able, we could
1:02:18probably give whoever wants the powers
1:02:21to to share it. Um, and then just to
1:02:25confirm, Mr. Lucero,
1:02:28um, the CMM projects what the peak is
1:02:32kind of extrapolates off of a month. it
1:02:36it looks at a monthly meter read
1:02:39then extrapolates out the temperature
1:02:41and does like the peak day estimation
1:02:45from that right so it's like it's still
1:02:47a base function of the actual usage
1:02:52>> it is just once again it's a month so
1:02:54get down to day and then hours um
1:02:58>> but if like a customer's total usage is
1:03:01lower than you expected their peak
1:03:04demand is also lower than you expected
1:03:06given the formula that you use.
1:03:12>> Are you saying based off what they
1:03:14applied for?
1:03:17>> Yes.
1:03:19If their actual usage is lower than you
1:03:22had anticipated, then this calculation
1:03:25of their peak hour demand is also lower
1:03:28by the same ratio.
1:03:32>> So I mean theoretically yes. However, we
1:03:35just can't compare that until we get an
1:03:37actual peak day,
1:03:40>> right? But the in the CMM, as I
1:03:44understand it, like this peak day is
1:03:46anticipated based off the actual meter
1:03:48reads, like the actual monthly meter
1:03:50reads as like the base input.
1:03:54Is that right?
1:04:00>> Hi there. I can jump in and help assist
1:04:01on this question. Hi. Uh, my name is
1:04:04Troy Nave. I'm the manager of the gas
1:04:06modeling group for Excel. Um, I helped
1:04:10put together the CMM data that was filed
1:04:13yesterday slash this morning. Um, so
1:04:17essentially the CMM data uses actual
1:04:19observed monthly meter reads, performs
1:04:22the the regression to estimate what a
1:04:26linear path would be for any uh desired
1:04:29observed uh temperature. So what we're
1:04:33showing here is the change in the yearly
1:04:37loading from CMM from last year to this
1:04:40year. Um so
1:04:42according to the question as I was
1:04:44hearing it before you were understanding
1:04:47that the observed uh meter reads would
1:04:51change your regression and then change
1:04:52your total loading towards what we would
1:04:55see in a hydraulic model. Is that
1:04:57correct?
1:04:58>> Yeah, that's the premise of my question.
1:05:00If the actual meter reads are lower than
1:05:03you originally expected then the
1:05:05resultant of that calculation is also
1:05:07lower.
1:05:09>> Yeah. So it is an accumulation of all
1:05:11meter reads uh observed in that time. Um
1:05:14so if you have all lower reads um it
1:05:18would lead you to have a lower
1:05:20regression that would lead you to have
1:05:22the lower total load at design day. Um
1:05:25but it's not always the case. Uh it just
1:05:28depends on what the trending data looks
1:05:30at um from the the CMM module.
1:05:34>> Okay. Got it. But like in a per project
1:05:36impact,
1:05:38if a specific project had lower meter
1:05:40reads than expected,
1:05:42the result of that calculation of that
1:05:44project's share of peak demand would be
1:05:49lower than the original.
1:05:52>> Yeah. from a a per premise standpoint.
1:05:55Yes, each premise gets their own
1:05:56regression. And so we might have a
1:05:59proposed loading for for that premise
1:06:01that we use for our design. Um and if we
1:06:04have lower observed meter reads for
1:06:06those months, um you could end up with
1:06:09lower total loading. Um but
1:06:13seeing how these projects build out, you
1:06:15have more and more premises that get
1:06:17added to those projects. um is where you
1:06:20would see some variability where some
1:06:22loading gets added. Um the meter reads
1:06:27the more you add the the more
1:06:28correlating data you have to use for the
1:06:31regression. So that's where over
1:06:34historical time that you see variations
1:06:37of certain loads going up, certain loads
1:06:39going down, just depending on what that
1:06:41observed data looks like.
1:06:43>> Okay. Um thanks. Uh yeah, uh Mr. P, have
1:06:49you guys figured out? Can you show what
1:06:50was
1:06:57>> Yeah, we can try to pull up what we've
1:06:59submitted. Um, just just give us a
1:07:02moment here.
1:07:02>> Yeah, no worries.
1:07:03>> It look it looks like uh, Commissioner
1:07:05Gilman, I can do it. Um, if I'm given
1:07:07permission to share.
1:07:09>> Okay, Mr. Federico, can we enable Mr.
1:07:11Manel as the host or whatever happened?
1:07:14>> Yes, they just did. He should be able to
1:07:16share now, Mr. Manel. Okay.
1:07:37Just confirming that you guys can see my
1:07:38screen now. Is that correct?
1:07:40>> Yeah.
1:07:45>> Okay. So, these are the new business
1:07:47projects
1:07:49and then um total load is in what what
1:07:53units are are we looking at?
1:07:56>> Yes. So that would be
1:07:59MCFH.
1:08:02>> Okay. So that's a a peak hour basically.
1:08:07>> Correct. This would be the peak hour
1:08:10projection for design day conditions for
1:08:12these weather zones.
1:08:14>> Okay. Peak hour extrapolation basically.
1:08:17Um
1:08:19and then residential load is is they're
1:08:24the residential portion of that.
1:08:27Commercial is the commercial portion of
1:08:29that.
1:08:32Total customers is is a count.
1:08:36>> Correct.
1:08:37>> Okay. So that's the count of total
1:08:39customers and that's year beginning or
1:08:41year end.
1:08:44>> Uh that would be at year beginning.
1:08:47Okay, cool.
1:08:48>> In March specifically. Yes.
1:08:50>> And then just curious if number 58 came
1:08:53online in that year, are they excluded
1:08:55from this or number 58 just kind of got
1:08:58managed in a little in the usage?
1:09:01>> It's just dependent on when the report
1:09:04was ran um throughout the year as
1:09:07premises get added to GIS, this number
1:09:09could be increased as we see those
1:09:12premises come online. Um, so I'm not
1:09:14sure if I completely answered your
1:09:16question there, but let me know.
1:09:18>> Yeah, I'm just curious if the the loads
1:09:20we're seeing segregated out the 57
1:09:23units. I'm just looking at Aspen Creek
1:09:25just to shorthand. Um, are the loads
1:09:29segregating out the 57 that were
1:09:31complete at the beginning of the year?
1:09:32So, we have 12 full months of data for
1:09:35that precise number of units. Or if
1:09:38number 58 come online in April, do we
1:09:41have twothirds of a year for another
1:09:44unit [clears throat] maybe?
1:09:46>> Yeah, I'm not sure if I'm quite
1:09:48understanding the question. Is there any
1:09:50way to get some more clarifying
1:09:52information there? I'm not understand
1:09:54the additional customer.
1:09:56>> Are these um are these new business
1:09:58projects still being built out?
1:10:01>> Correct. Yes.
1:10:02>> Okay. So presuming there is some growth
1:10:06of customers during the year,
1:10:11does this load figure we're seeing for
1:10:13that year include those that might be on
1:10:16for a partial of the year or that is
1:10:17segregated to only what was online at
1:10:19the beginning of the year?
1:10:23>> Yes. So the total loading that we're
1:10:25seeing here is the uh CMM projected
1:10:28loading for those 57 customers
1:10:30specifically is not representative of
1:10:33the total buildout of the development.
1:10:35>> Okay, got it. Great. Thank you. Because
1:10:37it looks like say for Aspen Creek, you
1:10:39know, we added 40 customers roughly um
1:10:42in the year, but the loads are frozen in
1:10:46time at the 57 for 2025 and then at 95
1:10:50for 2026. So thank you that I I just
1:10:54It's a little hard when these things
1:10:55come in to understand if the data is all
1:10:57like apples to apples. We're looking at
1:10:59exactly this many. But that was very
1:11:01helpful to understand. Okay. Um All
1:11:04right. Perfect. Um thank you. That's
1:11:08very helpful. And then um are there
1:11:11others Mr. Manel too that we should in?
1:11:17>> We have filed other information but not
1:11:19on this topic.
1:11:20>> Oh okay. Okay great. Um so this is the
1:11:23the peak demand load um but not annual
1:11:28usage
1:11:30right
1:11:32>> that's correct this is the projected uh
1:11:35design day loading
1:11:37>> okay and is there any update that
1:11:39includes the annual usage based on that
1:11:42number of customers online for the whole
1:11:43year
1:11:45>> not at this time
1:11:47>> okay is that conceivably available
1:11:51is conceivably available. We were unable
1:11:54to put that together for this today.
1:11:56>> Okay. Okay. Um
1:11:59Okay, let's see. Um
1:12:04Okay, thank you for showing that. That
1:12:06was helpful. I think we can take it
1:12:07down. Um so, Mr. Puket, probably um some
1:12:12questions just on kind of process with a
1:12:14new business request to to start us out
1:12:16here. Um
1:12:18it sounded like that was the totality of
1:12:21before we go there information updated
1:12:24on usage or peak demand in the interim.
1:12:27Is that is that fair?
1:12:30>> I think that's right unless uh someone
1:12:32jumps in to correct me.
1:12:33>> Okay. Okay. That's that's my my going
1:12:36assumption. Um okay. So when you get a
1:12:39new business request in um of course for
1:12:43gas service only as we're talking about
1:12:45today and that's hundreds or thousands
1:12:48of homes say um that are going to be
1:12:52built uh over years maybe decades uh to
1:12:55come.
1:12:57I'm curious just like a general
1:12:58description on how that infrastructure
1:13:01is sized because there's kind of the
1:13:03immediate area infrastructure, some
1:13:05upstream infrastructure that maybe need
1:13:08to be upsized for the full build out.
1:13:10Like how do you stage when you build out
1:13:13if you're getting a new business request
1:13:15in that has a really large number of
1:13:18units?
1:13:20So, so again, I think it'll be a similar
1:13:22team here with with Richard and Troy,
1:13:24but maybe others you can walk through
1:13:25that that process of right scoping the
1:13:28full project. Um, making sure that we're
1:13:30being as efficient as possible because
1:13:32we only want to break the ground once,
1:13:34right, to make sure this is
1:13:35cost-effective. So, I'll hand it over to
1:13:37our new business experts here.
1:13:43>> Thank you. Um, so Richard Lucero again.
1:13:47So with those um we obviously
1:13:49[clears throat] see a wide range of
1:13:51those developments. One that like what
1:13:53you stated might be one year, might be
1:13:5510 years. I mean we've had a few that
1:13:57have been going on for my career here at
1:13:58Excel. We try to work with them up front
1:14:01on their full buildout. So then we don't
1:14:03have to go back in there because then
1:14:05that's additional cost to the customer
1:14:07if we need to upsize a main. Um so we
1:14:10work with them try to get the full build
1:14:12out try to get the whole asbuilts for uh
1:14:15the plats for their subdivisions
1:14:17developments and try to anticipate their
1:14:20boundaries as far as how far possibly a
1:14:23rig station or meter station needs to
1:14:24fill feed out um whether it's a square
1:14:28mile a few square miles um we definitely
1:14:30try to work with them upfront before we
1:14:32start quoting specking any of those
1:14:35things.
1:14:37Okay. So, in that regard, if let's see
1:14:40the pro, you don't need to name it. I I
1:14:42don't even know which one it is, but the
1:14:44project that's been going on your whole
1:14:45career. Um, I don't know, hundreds,
1:14:49thousands of homes, whatever it may be.
1:14:51Um, so your process is to get their full
1:14:55buildout plans and then essentially
1:14:58upfront when they start building
1:15:01size all of the infrastructure under the
1:15:04assumption that that full buildout is
1:15:07definitively what will happen.
1:15:09>> Correct.
1:15:10>> Okay. Um
1:15:13and then um how do you look do you look
1:15:17at that time at upstream impacts? Like
1:15:20how far upstream do you go at that point
1:15:23in time? The load hasn't showed up yet
1:15:25in your hydraulic modeling, right? But
1:15:27it's kind of projected to come online.
1:15:29So how does this trickle upstream and
1:15:32trying to identify kind of all of the
1:15:35impacts of this new development?
1:15:38So with working with the customer get
1:15:40their full buildout, we definitely look
1:15:41at upstream. Um I think that was stated
1:15:44in our last um meeting about a year ago
1:15:48based on certain loads. So if it's above
1:15:5010 MCFH, we work upstream to see if
1:15:54there's any needed reinforcements,
1:15:56upsizing of that sort for these
1:15:58customers.
1:16:00>> Okay. And then um
1:16:04at what point kind of is that their cost
1:16:06responsibility versus the systems cost
1:16:08responsibility? I guess it would depend
1:16:10on the line extension policy.
1:16:12>> That will depend on the tariffs at that
1:16:14time of the application.
1:16:17>> Okay. Um good segue into my next
1:16:20question. So this this project that's
1:16:23been going on for your whole career, I
1:16:25don't know how long your career is
1:16:26there, but I'm just just imagining this
1:16:28fantastical buildout. Um,
1:16:32are they grandfathered in basically to
1:16:35the line extension policy at the time
1:16:37they submit that first application or is
1:16:42there a certain time period at which
1:16:43it's like no now you're on the new line
1:16:45extension policy kind of how does that
1:16:47typically work?
1:16:53>> So typically as long as they have for Go
1:16:55ahead.
1:16:56>> No, no, go for it, Richard. Sorry. Oh,
1:16:59you're good. Um, so as long as they have
1:17:01formally applied for whatever may be
1:17:05filing 1 2 3 4 5, as long as they have
1:17:07formally applied, um, the line extension
1:17:11policy stays with those filings.
1:17:16>> Okay. Uh, help me understand what's
1:17:18formally applied mean or unless you need
1:17:20to add something, Mr. forget, but just
1:17:22gonna
1:17:24>> Yeah, I was just gonna right building
1:17:27off of what Richard's saying, right?
1:17:29There there's phases to this development
1:17:31whereby at times, right, every project
1:17:34is different. And so based on the
1:17:37request on what the customer needs at
1:17:38that time, the applicable line extension
1:17:40policy at that time is what governs. If
1:17:43the line extension policy changes over
1:17:45time and there's other parts of this
1:17:47request that that have subsequent
1:17:50um formal formal requests coming to the
1:17:54to the company to serve during that
1:17:57time. It's going to be what's applicable
1:17:59in the company's tariffs at that moment
1:18:02>> at the time of the formal application.
1:18:05So, but there's nothing like if I'm
1:18:07going to take 15 years to build a
1:18:08development, I can put them all in my
1:18:10initial application.
1:18:13>> Well, I think
1:18:14>> it
1:18:17I think what's important there is what's
1:18:19being request requested at that upfront
1:18:21moment, right? If this is a a large
1:18:23development serving a large number of
1:18:25residential households, you're probably
1:18:27talking about infrastructure that's
1:18:29offsite, right? to what's needed um from
1:18:32a broader system capacity perspective to
1:18:34to get service to that kind of property
1:18:36line. If then we're talking about in
1:18:37subsequent years now you're talking
1:18:39about um gas distribution main you're
1:18:42talking about service laterals right
1:18:43those requests might come later on and
1:18:46so so there's a potential for for
1:18:48various line extension policies in place
1:18:50at various times to be in play here if
1:18:53it's not all upfront given on the given
1:18:56the size and and needs of that specific
1:18:58project.
1:19:01>> Okay.
1:19:01>> Does that help clarify commissioner?
1:19:03>> Yeah. Um,
1:19:06okay. And I I don't know. I don't know
1:19:08how to know what's typical, you know,
1:19:10like if we've got a thousand homes, like
1:19:14first of all, because everyone takes a
1:19:16different amount of time to build out,
1:19:17right? Um, and then everyone might have
1:19:21a different infrastructure situation. So
1:19:24and just I like kind of generally I wish
1:19:26I had a better understanding of like
1:19:27what is all going in in one trunch up
1:19:30front but u may be pretty situationally
1:19:34dependent. Maybe we can figure out in
1:19:36some of these examples. U maybe that's
1:19:38the best way to to kind of understand
1:19:40how some of this goes. Um and then so
1:19:43walk me through um he had said um
1:19:48formally applied. So what does formally
1:19:51apply entail?
1:19:56I I might kick this back over to to
1:19:58Richard, right? Because our customers
1:20:00customers will work through the the
1:20:01builder's call call line as I understand
1:20:04the process, but Richard can certainly
1:20:06go into more depth.
1:20:09>> Exactly. Once they come through the
1:20:10builder's call line with the number of
1:20:12units and their loads, um then they have
1:20:16applied and that's when we work with our
1:20:19hydraulic modeling system to add in all
1:20:21those loads. the number of units and how
1:20:24much flow will be on the pipeline to
1:20:25figure out if there needs to be some
1:20:26sort of on-site off-site reinforcements.
1:20:31>> Okay. So, um I'm hearing now that
1:20:34formally applied means I call the
1:20:36builder call line. I say I have 3,000
1:20:39units. I expect every unit is going to
1:20:42use X amount or in total we'll use X
1:20:45amount and this is when I want it to be
1:20:47ready.
1:20:49>> Exactly. Yeah. And that then we have uh
1:20:51our own internal desires that will go
1:20:53back and forth to make sure everything
1:20:54is there that's needed or if there is
1:20:56more of a buildout. Um what can we
1:20:58anticipate?
1:21:00>> Okay. Is there any um like commitment on
1:21:05the part of the developer when you start
1:21:08[clears throat] all of this planning and
1:21:10then subsequent investments? Is there
1:21:12like a signature an agreement somewhere?
1:21:20So, it's pretty much
1:21:23we have had customers change their
1:21:26loads, number, units. Um, but
1:21:30I would say it's fairly formal once they
1:21:34do get the bill and we give them a quote
1:21:36saying, "All right, this is your load.
1:21:37This is the number of units. This is the
1:21:39gas lines that need to go into the
1:21:41ground.
1:21:42Here's your quote."
1:21:44So you're giving them a quote for the
1:21:45customer contribution portion of
1:21:48whatever infrastructure needs to go in.
1:21:51>> Correct.
1:21:52>> Up to a certain
1:21:54point on on or off site.
1:21:57>> Correct.
1:21:58>> Okay. Um so you give them the bill and
1:22:01say it's going to be this much. It's
1:22:02going to be $3 million. Um but that $3
1:22:06million might be spent over the course
1:22:08of a few years. When is that money due?
1:22:17I'll invite someone else to answer if
1:22:19they can. Um, it will be up front and
1:22:21then yes, as far as whatever we quoted,
1:22:23so whether it's a mile worth of main,
1:22:26it's however long that takes to install,
1:22:28whether it's a month or a year.
1:22:35>> So, it's due before you start the
1:22:38project or once it's completed.
1:22:41before.
1:22:43>> Okay.
1:22:45And then if you have that situation
1:22:46where a developer is like, "Hey, I know
1:22:48I said 5,000, but things got tough and
1:22:51now it's 2,000 units."
1:22:54But you put in the infrastructure up
1:22:56front.
1:22:59What happens then?
1:23:03>> I I might jump in here, Commissioner
1:23:04Gilman. This is actually a topic that's
1:23:07that's live in the ongoing gas ray case,
1:23:10so we might want to
1:23:11>> Okay.
1:23:11>> stay a little bit further away from
1:23:12that.
1:23:13>> You've read more than me so far. Okay,
1:23:15no worries. Um
1:23:18Okay. Um at what interval
1:23:21do develop is is there a regular
1:23:24cadence? Tell me if this is too close to
1:23:26Mr. P, but I think this is like a
1:23:28generic operations question. Is there a
1:23:30regular cadence or interval at which a
1:23:33developer you require a developer to or
1:23:36developers typically update you on their
1:23:38buildout plans? Now we're building a
1:23:41different number of units next year. Now
1:23:43we're building fewer units in total. Um
1:23:46is there any regular cadence with what
1:23:48you expect um reporting from them?
1:23:54>> That's a good question. Again, I'll kind
1:23:56of defer to to Richard on this. And I
1:23:59know depending on the development,
1:24:00right, we might have more or less less
1:24:02touch spaces uh with the developer based
1:24:05on the complexity and the needs. Um but
1:24:08but I'm sure it again varies by project.
1:24:11So I'm I'm sure Richard can can speak
1:24:13more.
1:24:15>> It really does vary. um some that add-on
1:24:19such as your example commissioner um
1:24:21that add-on since we did not know about
1:24:24that additional load that additional
1:24:26number that's a new application we did
1:24:29not account for those additional houses
1:24:31businesses whatever it may be
1:24:34>> okay so if they adjust their number up
1:24:36new application
1:24:39basically
1:24:40>> correct
1:24:40>> new line expansion policy new whatever
1:24:42whole new thing
1:24:43>> correct
1:24:44>> um
1:24:46if I'm going to build a development.
1:24:48It's going to take me 10 years. I'm
1:24:49going to build however many thousands of
1:24:51houses. Um, you've said you're going to
1:24:55upsize everything at the upfront
1:24:59so that you don't have to dig up the
1:25:00ground again. Um, I'm curious, does that
1:25:04customer then have basically like
1:25:06reserved capacity coming to them? Like
1:25:10they're not actually drawing it yet.
1:25:12it's not going to show up in your
1:25:14hydraulic model as real load, but you're
1:25:16expecting it to go here. How do you kind
1:25:18of functionalize, you know, do you
1:25:21reserve or allocate that for the
1:25:23customer that you understand to be
1:25:25coming and and to use it?
1:25:30>> So, I'm going to restate it a little bit
1:25:33what you said. So, the customer has
1:25:36applied. Let's say they had a
1:25:38reinforcement, they have paid for it. If
1:25:41they have paid for it, yes, their load
1:25:44is so-called preserved on the system.
1:25:47>> Okay. And how far upstream do you track
1:25:52that increase in in load
1:25:55to to look for potential um capacity
1:25:58expansion needs upstream?
1:26:01>> That once again hits that about 10 MCFH
1:26:04threshold. Then we send it upstream to
1:26:06see if our bulk system needs any
1:26:08reinforcements, if they can handle the
1:26:09load. Okay. And that's looking at
1:26:12basically like every interim pipe
1:26:14segment from interstate pipeline down as
1:26:17necessary
1:26:19>> from all the way from our town border
1:26:20stations um where we [clears throat] buy
1:26:23from our upstream suppliers. Yes.
1:26:26>> Okay. Got it. Um okay. Let's see. Um,
1:26:34sorry I'm like jumping around a little
1:26:36because I I like hear something and need
1:26:38to figure out how it works. We'll see.
1:26:40Um
1:26:44and so then in your um
1:26:55okay then I'm just curious also kind of
1:26:57generically um when a developer gives
1:27:00you I I think you've said um for a lot
1:27:03of these projects if not all of these
1:27:04projects that your expectations for the
1:27:08throughput as well as the peak need are
1:27:10coming from the developers, right? Like
1:27:13that's the source of the data.
1:27:16>> Correct.
1:27:17>> And so how and to what extent do you
1:27:21kind of vet that to say is this
1:27:23reasonable for however many single
1:27:26family homes or a commercial building,
1:27:29you know, how do you assess if if what
1:27:32they're asking for is rational?
1:27:35So, usually we do ask for an appliance
1:27:37breakdown so we can see what would they
1:27:39use on a peak day. So, outdoor fire
1:27:42pits, we really don't think anyone's
1:27:45going to be outside in a fire pit at
1:27:48negative degree days. Um, so we try to
1:27:50get the whole breakdown what they could
1:27:52be using, especially on those ones that
1:27:55do require any sort of uh
1:27:57reinforcements. We want to try to help
1:27:59them. So we try to work with them on
1:28:01verifying what they're actually using at
1:28:03each residential, commercial, whatever
1:28:06it may be.
1:28:08>> So is there a certain size of request
1:28:10that gets this sort of back and forth
1:28:13with the company about break it down for
1:28:16us by appliance and let's back out
1:28:18things that are like not reasonable to
1:28:20be used on peak or likely not
1:28:22coincident. Um, like is there a certain
1:28:25size threshold where you're like now
1:28:27we're going to or do you do this for
1:28:28every single family home all the way up
1:28:30to 5,000 houses?
1:28:32>> I'd say we try to for every single one.
1:28:35Um, however, definitely when there's
1:28:37some sort of reinforcement or upsize, we
1:28:39really push to get those data points. So
1:28:41then it helps out the customer and the
1:28:42company.
1:28:44>> A reinforcement or an upsize like
1:28:46offsite of their building because
1:28:48they're they're causing more um more
1:28:50expense offsite. Correct.
1:28:53>> Okay, got it. Um Okay. Um
1:28:59and then I I'm just like curious, do do
1:29:00you track the the success of those
1:29:02interactions? Like do these requests
1:29:05typically change after that involvement?
1:29:08They typically go up, down, like I'm
1:29:11just curious, how does this go or you
1:29:13typically find what the developer
1:29:15submitted is is a okay?
1:29:19I would say we're still waiting on some
1:29:21developments for that peak design day.
1:29:24Um, but then it's also a calculation
1:29:26through CMM where we take the monthly
1:29:29and we get down to the day to the hour.
1:29:31So, can't really speak to that.
1:29:35>> Okay. You were talking like actual
1:29:36versus the projected like how accurate
1:29:38are we, right? I'm also curious like
1:29:42just just during the life of that
1:29:43interaction of do you have your loads
1:29:45right for the request? I'm a little
1:29:47curious. What sort of movement do you
1:29:49typically see? Is it like most people
1:29:53are a little off base? Most people are
1:29:55really accurate. I I'm just curious like
1:29:58how effective that interaction is at
1:30:01like changing things.
1:30:03>> It really varies. It depends on what
1:30:06type of appliance and even customers
1:30:08that move in there to use it. Um it
1:30:10depends how much they use each one. Some
1:30:13neighbors you can say don't use the
1:30:14appliances the same as others.
1:30:19um for usage, right? But if it's the
1:30:22same appliance, it's the same peak
1:30:23demand.
1:30:26>> I would say it still varies. People set
1:30:28their thermostats at different
1:30:29temperatures,
1:30:31>> right? But the design day, everyone's
1:30:35furnace is running at full blast, right?
1:30:37>> I would say most.
1:30:41>> Okay.
1:30:42um
1:30:44for um so I wanted to get into a few um
1:30:49more specific project questions um on
1:30:52the projects on the list if that works
1:30:54for you Mr. Puket.
1:30:57Okay. Um so I'm going to start with
1:30:59Aurora Highlands which is one of the
1:31:02projects. Um get up like all my notes
1:31:06here. Too many sources.
1:31:10Um,
1:31:11okay. So, if we go to Aurora Highlands,
1:31:15um, there was just a difference in unit
1:31:18counts. I wanted to verify for you
1:31:20what's accurate. Um,
1:31:23so in your data response for Aurora
1:31:27Highlands, I'm happy to pull it up. Um,
1:31:29Miss Puerto Rico, that was document
1:31:31four.
1:31:33Um on page two
1:31:36it indicates a total of um 9,601
1:31:41total units
1:31:43and it gives a breakdown that um just
1:31:46shy of 8,000 of those are single family.
1:31:49Yeah, there you go. So you can see there
1:31:52that breakdown just shy of 8,000 single
1:31:55family and then 42 48 multifamily. Do
1:31:58you see that?
1:32:02>> Yep. Yep, we can see that.
1:32:04>> Okay. Um, so those two numbers add up to
1:32:0712,218,
1:32:09not 9,600.
1:32:11So I wasn't sure which number we should
1:32:16actually be using for total unit count.
1:32:19Like what is accurate?
1:32:22Do you see my my issue?
1:32:25>> Yes, I see how those those numbers are
1:32:26not the same. Uh I I'll lean on uh
1:32:30Richard again to
1:32:33or or or others to to chime in on what
1:32:35might be driving those differences.
1:32:38>> Okay.
1:32:42>> Yes. For that one specifically,
1:32:46we would have to dig into um we don't
1:32:51have an answer right now.
1:32:52>> Okay. So, let's just u mark that as a
1:32:54follow-up item. Um just curious what the
1:32:58accurate total count is and the accurate
1:33:02breakdown between um single family,
1:33:05multif family, town home um type this
1:33:09that makes sense.
1:33:12Um and then
1:33:13>> yeah, we'll follow up on that.
1:33:15>> Yeah, no worries. Um later on in this
1:33:17data response um it indicates that um at
1:33:22the time of the 2025 data 17 units had
1:33:25been built out of the total. Does that
1:33:27sound fair?
1:33:32>> We can go down. It's
1:33:34>> Yeah, if you could just scroll down a
1:33:35little bit so we can all see that
1:33:37commission
1:33:37>> right in the middle 17 active
1:33:40residential.
1:33:42Um I was just curious if you were aware
1:33:44if those were um single family, town
1:33:47hall, multif family, if there's like any
1:33:48insight into that.
1:33:50>> Uh we can only speak to that they're
1:33:52residential. We don't have a breakdown
1:33:54of uh if they're multifamily,
1:33:58single family. We don't have that
1:33:59breakdown.
1:34:01>> Okay. So you don't have internal
1:34:02recording as to the type of premises
1:34:04that come online.
1:34:06>> Correct.
1:34:10There's no recording in your like your
1:34:11customer database about the type of
1:34:13property.
1:34:16>> It's just the rate code. So if it's
1:34:17commercial, residential, industrial.
1:34:22>> Interesting. Okay. Um
1:34:27Okay. Um
1:34:30so for the residential portion of the
1:34:32project um the company indicated right
1:34:35here in the middle of this page that you
1:34:37had uh used an estimate about six
1:34:39decades a month. So totaling 72 decades
1:34:42a year. It doesn't say that but I did
1:34:44the math. Um for how much each average
1:34:48residents would likely use. Um
1:34:53so uh it looks like the um actual
1:34:58average um right below that. Yeah, just
1:35:03a bit below was 62.1 decor annually per
1:35:07customer.
1:35:10See that in the second box from the
1:35:12bottom.
1:35:17>> Yeah, just reading the whole thing.
1:35:18Sorry.
1:35:39do not have an answer currently for you.
1:35:44>> Yeah, Mr.
1:35:46>> This is um Megan Thorp. I'm a senior
1:35:49engineer on the gas strategic planning
1:35:50team. Uh could you repeat the question
1:35:52and I can see if I can uh maybe help
1:35:54address it?
1:35:56>> Yeah, just trying to understand in a way
1:35:57kind of projected versus actuals for
1:36:00this project. It looks like we've only
1:36:01got 1,7 active residential properties.
1:36:05Um, so it looks in the second box like
1:36:08the company's assumption was that the
1:36:10annual usage would be around six decades
1:36:12a month, which would be 72 decathms a
1:36:14year. And in the second from the bottom
1:36:17box, it looks like we identify the
1:36:20average actual annual usage of those,
1:36:242017, I presume, at 62.1 decades for the
1:36:29year. So just I just want to make sure
1:36:31those were talking about the same thing
1:36:33like if one is projected and one is
1:36:34actual but that that is a is a
1:36:38comparison.
1:36:39Yeah, great question. Um so the uh
1:36:43answer that's higher up on the page uh
1:36:46was calculated using uh annual usage per
1:36:51customer based off the rate codes. Uh so
1:36:54that was a calculated value. So not uh
1:36:57one we use in design day planning and
1:36:59not project specific projected or actual
1:37:04uh if that helps clarify that higher up
1:37:07value of the six decathrms per month.
1:37:10>> Okay. So the six sorry the origin of the
1:37:13six decor per month you're saying is
1:37:15like the residential rate code which I
1:37:18think I heard from Muero includes it
1:37:20could be single family, multif family,
1:37:22town home, whatever if it's residential.
1:37:25Um that's what like the average that
1:37:29annual usage that you tend to see per
1:37:31customer.
1:37:32>> Um I think that's generally correct. Um
1:37:37it's used in sales forecasting which I'm
1:37:40not an expert in. Uh but those are where
1:37:44those values came from is a usage per
1:37:47customer by rate code uh used in sales
1:37:50forecasting.
1:37:52>> Got it. Okay. Okay. And so um okay so
1:37:58that was like generally the expectation
1:38:00but the if I'm looking at the second
1:38:03from the bottom box the actual that
1:38:06we've seen thus far for the 2017
1:38:08premises for 2025
1:38:12was 62.1 decadrms for the year. So
1:38:16beating your average a little bit and
1:38:18more efficient or whatever right?
1:38:21>> Uh yes that generally sounds correct.
1:38:24>> Okay. Okay. Um
1:38:26Okay. Um
1:38:32Okay.
1:38:39Sorry, I'm just checking on my questions
1:38:41here.
1:38:55Um, on page six of this, if we can go
1:38:58down a little bit,
1:39:00um, the company provided the average
1:39:02annual revenue per customer expectation.
1:39:05Um, and that is
1:39:10Where is it?
1:39:14That's where my notes said it was. Maybe
1:39:17on the page right before.
1:39:26>> All right, I'll find it. But we do have
1:39:28>> I think it was on page five,
1:39:30commissioner, right there in this in the
1:39:32penultimate row. Yep.
1:39:40Sorry, which row?
1:39:43>> Maybe I'm referring to a different row,
1:39:45but you were wondering about the
1:39:46revenue.
1:39:48>> That's a revenue requirement. There
1:39:50should be a place where it looks at the
1:39:53um expected revenue per customer. Let me
1:39:57see. I can find it really quick.
1:39:59>> I had it. I just must have written down
1:40:01the wrong page.
1:40:04There it is on the top of page six. It
1:40:06looks like second row.
1:40:08>> Ah yes, there we are. Okay. Um
1:40:12okay. So when the company then
1:40:15identified the average annual revenue
1:40:16per customer expectation, are you
1:40:19familiar with this based on the
1:40:21assumption of the 72 decath per year of
1:40:25usage that seems to be from the rate
1:40:28code of residential as like what's used
1:40:32in I think we heard from Miss Thorp
1:40:34that's the general revenue forecasting
1:40:37number. So it makes sense to me that's
1:40:39what that's the usage that's based on.
1:40:41But I was just curious if you could
1:40:42clarify.
1:40:50>> Yeah, I'm wondering if if Megan could
1:40:52confirm that as well. It seems
1:40:53reasonable that it would be the the
1:40:56expected use multiplied by the the base
1:40:59rate charge there. Um but but we'll let
1:41:02the team confirm.
1:41:06Yeah, the the values that I was
1:41:08discussing above were the um uh were
1:41:12tied to the sales forecasting.
1:41:15So, I guess I'm not familiar enough to
1:41:18confidently speak to to speak to this
1:41:22area.
1:41:24>> Okay. Maybe we can have you all clarify
1:41:27just what what amount of usage the 329
1:41:32assumes in a yearly basis. basically.
1:41:35>> Yep. We can take that as an action item.
1:41:37>> Okay. Um
1:41:41uh are we familiar for the Aurora
1:41:43Highlands project which to my
1:41:45understanding started in 2020? Um
1:41:49somewhere between 9,000 and 12,000 homes
1:41:52potentially depending how our numbers
1:41:55shake out here. Um, can can you give me
1:41:58any insights as to the buildout schedule
1:42:00and like kind of expected conclusion of
1:42:02construction? It seems like we had just
1:42:04over a thousand constructed by 2025 and
1:42:08I think it started in 2020. So just
1:42:10curious a like what insights do we have
1:42:12on what that buildout schedule looks
1:42:14like and how has that kind of evolved um
1:42:16over the years.
1:42:24>> Specific to the Aurora Highlands
1:42:26project, right, Commissioner?
1:42:27>> Yeah.
1:42:28>> Yeah. We're going to see if we can pull
1:42:29up those multi-year build out here
1:42:33>> uh to get you an answer. I don't think
1:42:34we have it at our fingertips.
1:42:37>> Okay. We can circle back to that. Um,
1:42:40I'll make myself some sort of color
1:42:43coding to come back to that. Um,
1:42:48for the Aurora Islands project, um, this
1:42:51probably a Mr. Lucero question. Um, the
1:42:54company identified that prior to the
1:42:57project, um, there was, this is like a
1:43:00few pages down. I think we asked this or
1:43:02no, it's right right there. Right on our
1:43:05page. um 18A10
1:43:09or right kind of third from the bottom.
1:43:12So we've asked prior to the project how
1:43:15much upstream capacity was available and
1:43:17the company answer that 431.3
1:43:20MSCFH
1:43:22was available and then after
1:43:24construction of the project the next box
1:43:26down how much is available and the
1:43:28company identified there was no
1:43:29available capacity after this project.
1:43:33Um, and then we had asked if the company
1:43:36had identified any upstream capacity
1:43:39constraint and the company responded
1:43:40that they did not. I'm just having a
1:43:43little bit of trouble understanding that
1:43:44combination of information if we've gone
1:43:47down to zero available capacity.
1:43:50Um, seems like a capacity constraint, I
1:43:53guess.
1:43:57>> Yeah, this is Megan again. Um, I can
1:43:59speak to this at a high level.
1:44:03um with this new business project um and
1:44:06the provided information, it seems
1:44:08likely that it was um sized to serve
1:44:13their request specifically. And so
1:44:16that's the um reason for those details
1:44:21there.
1:44:23Um what are you seeing with size to um
1:44:27serve their request the upstream pipe?
1:44:34>> Um oh I see. Sorry I misunderstood.
1:44:37>> Yeah no no worries.
1:44:39The the question is that the company
1:44:42identifies there's no available upstream
1:44:43capacity after the construction of this
1:44:46project but does not identify any um
1:44:49upstream capacity constraints which
1:44:51seems in conflict with each other.
1:44:54>> Gotcha. Okay. So yeah, it looks like
1:44:56this project uh did take the available
1:45:00capacity
1:45:01and so um no capacity expansion was
1:45:07planned to be needed specifically
1:45:09towards this area perhaps. Um and so
1:45:14that's what's noted there.
1:45:18>> Um maybe a little more in depth too on
1:45:21some of the numbers. So, this indicates
1:45:24there was 431 MFCH
1:45:28available before the project. Um,
1:45:32elsewhere in this data response, it
1:45:34identifies that the project's estimated
1:45:36peak demand was,499
1:45:40MFCH. So, pretty far in excess of the
1:45:44431.
1:45:46Um, let me know if I've got my units
1:45:50crossed or those things can't be
1:45:52compared, but it seems as though in
1:45:55comparing those numbers, it would take
1:45:56the full available capacity and then
1:45:58some. Um, so I'm just a little confused
1:46:01by that data.
1:46:03>> Yeah, that's a great question. Um, it
1:46:06sounds like we will need to dig into
1:46:08this a little further uh to be able to
1:46:12to address that question.
1:46:17Okay.
1:46:21Okay.
1:46:27And perhaps I I would appreciate like if
1:46:30it's a wholesome answer. Well, no. I
1:46:33guess this wasn't up. I was going to say
1:46:36if it was upgraded preemptively, but
1:46:38clearly it was not. We're saying there
1:46:39was no capacity. Capacity was not
1:46:42updated. That looks like
1:46:46>> Hey, Commissioner Gilen, I can maybe
1:46:48speak a little more to that. Brian
1:46:50Griffith, member of the gas modeling
1:46:52team. Um, so the way these were
1:46:55evaluated was the point where project
1:46:57would connect. I'm not exactly familiar
1:46:59with how this project was laid out, but
1:47:01I believe most of them were extensions
1:47:03at the end of a project. So if the
1:47:05project was connecting onto an existing
1:47:07line, the point where it connected to
1:47:08that existing line is where we evaluate
1:47:10how much capacity was there. So in this
1:47:13case, as Megan was saying, the project
1:47:17was likely designed for this customer so
1:47:20that we got to the point that we are at
1:47:22our minimums, but we don't have anything
1:47:23more for anybody downstream. The
1:47:25upstream part is not being brought not
1:47:28being brought below any of its minimums.
1:47:30So that's why we are saying that there's
1:47:31no immediate upstream capacity
1:47:34constraint.
1:47:36>> Okay. So are you saying the the pipe
1:47:38upstream with where fix my terminology
1:47:41if I if I messed up but the pipe
1:47:43upstream where this project is pulling
1:47:46off you're saying was likely sized in
1:47:49anticipation of this project and then it
1:47:52just fits perfectly right in.
1:47:57Yeah, I think I would maybe need to know
1:47:59exactly how this project was laid out
1:48:01and I don't recall. Um, but I think if
1:48:04you imagine a stub, a piece of pipe
1:48:06that's ending and this project is at the
1:48:08end of it, the point that we extending
1:48:11from that stub um that that's the
1:48:14portion that this project would refer to
1:48:17and that piece is only going to be the
1:48:18size for this project. There's no more
1:48:20downstream customers.
1:48:24>> Okay. Um, I might add a little color to
1:48:28this, I think, as we think it through.
1:48:30I'm still like a little unclear where we
1:48:33are on this one. So, um, perhaps we will
1:48:36add a little color to to a followup, um,
1:48:40for for your folks. I I think a a sketch
1:48:43and understanding how this relates to
1:48:45the other infrastructure as well as kind
1:48:49of what all had previously been upsized
1:48:53and and when and if that was in
1:48:55anticipation of this project um would be
1:48:58very helpful to to better understanding
1:49:00the actual issue. So if that sounds
1:49:03reasonable, Mr. Okay, we can um just put
1:49:06some actual terminology around that, but
1:49:08I I I'm thinking right now that's the
1:49:10suite of information that would help us
1:49:12like better understand why at least just
1:49:15these numbers aren't making sense in my
1:49:16head to like understand where we're at
1:49:18here.
1:49:19>> Yeah, that that that sounds good.
1:49:20Commissioner Gilman, we're happy to if
1:49:22you wanted to issue a specific question
1:49:24there, we can we're happy to respond to
1:49:26it.
1:49:27>> Okay. Yeah. I mean, I think generally
1:49:28it'll be can we get a sketch of how this
1:49:31project actually interconnects to the
1:49:33surrounding infrastructure from where
1:49:35it's fed and at what point and under
1:49:38what assumptions were those pieces
1:49:40upgraded? Um, upsized, you know,
1:49:44whatever. Um, do you see any reason that
1:49:47would not work? I'll get you some exact
1:49:49terminology, but that's what I'm
1:49:51thinking.
1:49:52>> Yep. We'll we'll get working on that.
1:49:54>> Okay. Um,
1:49:58okay. Okay. Um, gonna move on. We can
1:50:02take this one down to the Canyons
1:50:05project.
1:50:06Canyon's another new business project.
1:50:09Um,
1:50:11here we also have a differing number of
1:50:13units that was actually identified in
1:50:15the 2024 gas rate case in hearing
1:50:19exhibit 105 ARG5.
1:50:22Um this project was shown as 1,500
1:50:25homes, 250 town homes, 325 apartments,
1:50:30which totals 225 units.
1:50:33Um the data request in this proceeding
1:50:36identified 750 homes, 325 town homes for
1:50:41a total of 175 units. So about a
1:50:44thousand fewer units, 950 fewer units.
1:50:48So, I was curious um if this is the more
1:50:52accurate, more up-to-date information
1:50:54we're seeing in this data request, and
1:50:56if so, any color on when that update was
1:50:59made from the developer um to you all.
1:51:06>> I'm sorry, Commissioner, I might have
1:51:07missed your beginning beginning
1:51:09description here. Was that on a capacity
1:51:11expansion project?
1:51:12>> No, still new business.
1:51:14>> Canyons. Okay. Yeah. So, it's a
1:51:16different it's a difference between what
1:51:18was shown in the 2024 gas rate case,
1:51:19which totaled 2,25
1:51:22um residential units, and what's shown
1:51:25in this data request, which totals, 175
1:51:28residential units.
1:51:30>> Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying. Yeah,
1:51:32I'll I'll defer to our uh gas team
1:51:35experts here. Sure.
1:51:38>> Hello, Commissioner Goodman. Um I'm
1:51:39Spencer Jones. I'm with the new business
1:51:42team kind of responsible for handling
1:51:44these capacity projects. So currently
1:51:46the company does not have any recent
1:51:49updates that was that was provided
1:51:51outside this docket. Um the source of
1:51:53the initial values in the 24 or 2024 GRC
1:51:57were from the initial application the
1:52:00company received for the expected full
1:52:01buildout of this project. The second
1:52:04values are more reflective of the latest
1:52:06version of the applicants as they come
1:52:08in more iter iteratively. Um kind of as
1:52:11how they are currently phasing things
1:52:13out and kind of more those detailed um
1:52:16looks into their subdivisions as they
1:52:19build out.
1:52:21>> Okay. So um I guess is your current
1:52:26expectation that they will build 175
1:52:29residential units or 2025?
1:52:32um 2000.
1:52:34>> You're still expecting 2,000?
1:52:36>> Yes.
1:52:37>> Okay. But they don't have an application
1:52:39in for the 2000. Is that like
1:52:42>> um this kind of goes back to our initial
1:52:44process where we get that kind of ask
1:52:46for that overview from the developers to
1:52:49kind of understand what they want and
1:52:51what they need for their long-term
1:52:53plans. And then yes, they start coming
1:52:55in in more of their plots and detailed
1:52:58views where we can kind of start deeming
1:53:01their on-site infrastructure design.
1:53:04>> Okay. So, um the infrastructure that the
1:53:07company has built out is anticipating
1:53:10the 2025 home.
1:53:14>> Yes.
1:53:15>> Okay. Um, and what I'm hearing is the
1:53:19developer has not said they don't expect
1:53:21that many, but rather they're having
1:53:25peace meal applications come in, which
1:53:28at this point in time total a lower
1:53:30total.
1:53:32>> Uh, could you repeat that? Sorry.
1:53:34>> Yeah. So, you haven't received
1:53:37information or understood from the
1:53:39developer that they expect a smaller
1:53:41total buildout. It's just that you're
1:53:44seeing more like peace meal for the more
1:53:46immediate buildout come in which is a
1:53:48smaller number.
1:53:49>> That is correct.
1:53:51>> Okay. Um and then for canyons, let me
1:53:58just open that. Sorry.
1:54:03I wasn't sure what direction that was
1:54:05going to go because I really sincerely
1:54:07did not know how many units we were
1:54:09looking at. Um
1:54:11okay. So, let me see the I'm just seeing
1:54:14how many units. Are you aware how many
1:54:17units were in the 2025 um actual data
1:54:20that was provided?
1:54:25>> I think uh yeah, do you know that?
1:54:28>> Um we don't currently know the exact
1:54:30numbers. Um we could definitely take
1:54:32some time to find that for you if
1:54:34needed. Uh maybe from more a high level
1:54:36>> Oh, I found it.
1:54:37>> Oh, did you? Okay. page three of the
1:54:40data specific to that project, one
1:54:42active residential permit.
1:54:45>> I believe that is what we currently have
1:54:46for the CMM data portion of it. Um I can
1:54:50speak to maybe a bit that from a higher
1:54:52level um we can confirm that the
1:54:54construction of the town homes have been
1:54:56completed and in addition to a few um
1:55:00commercial properties.
1:55:01>> Okay. Um so this project started in
1:55:052022.
1:55:07Do you understand from the developer any
1:55:09difference in the pace from what they
1:55:11were originally expecting? Trying to
1:55:13understand if this started in 2022 and
1:55:15as of 2025 we only had one active
1:55:18residential property. Sounds like we may
1:55:19have a few more active now. Um but in
1:55:22the first three years there was one.
1:55:25Just curious if if you have a buildout
1:55:27schedule expected from this developer.
1:55:32>> We of course need to follow up with the
1:55:34developer. Um, currently we do not have
1:55:37um an expected buildout for them or a
1:55:40kind of comparison that we can make from
1:55:42what they initially gave us.
1:55:45>> Okay. When a project um applies, do you
1:55:49get a buildout schedule? We expect this
1:55:51many units in this year, this many in
1:55:53this year, this many in this year.
1:55:56>> Um, we of course do our best to try to
1:55:58um diver as much information as possible
1:56:00in that regard. Um, often enough they'll
1:56:03kind of give us our buildout schedules
1:56:04for their relatively first up and
1:56:06cominging phases and then a more broad
1:56:08sense of expect you know phases to come
1:56:11on in 2030 um in a more broad
1:56:14year-to-year basis. Um, for this one we
1:56:17would again have to kind of follow up
1:56:18with the developers to understand that
1:56:20information.
1:56:21>> Okay. But you're generally requesting
1:56:25I say fairly accurate but like in the
1:56:27near term the next five years or
1:56:29whatever that to be relatively accurate
1:56:33per year and then you think it gets a
1:56:35little fuzzier when you get on into
1:56:36next.
1:56:38>> We definitely dig um initially with the
1:56:40projects because a lot of these um
1:56:42projects require infrastructure to be
1:56:45put out into where they are currently
1:56:47at. So that kind of initial inservice
1:56:50date is kind of the first number that we
1:56:52really need to kind of figure out these
1:56:54projects and then kind of as the
1:56:56buildouts kind of build out, we have the
1:56:59infrastructure out there ready for them.
1:57:01>> Okay. Um but as I'm understanding it, if
1:57:04they perhaps slow down, that's not
1:57:07necessarily some sort of automatic
1:57:09update that is coming to you. That would
1:57:11require you to kind of proactively reach
1:57:13out to the developer at this point to
1:57:14say, "Hey, what's going on? Is there an
1:57:16update on these buildouts?
1:57:18>> That is correct.
1:57:19>> Mhm.
1:57:20>> Um
1:57:24um I'm just curious on some of these was
1:57:27looking at especially at what the the
1:57:30information provided by the developer
1:57:32which kind of was shown in each project
1:57:34specific data response and comparing
1:57:37those
1:57:39um and there there's a pretty
1:57:41significant difference. um you know the
1:57:44Canyon's development is about 70% higher
1:57:47on uh estimated peak demand per
1:57:49residential customer than um Aurora
1:57:53Highlands but that could be that your
1:57:55number of units was not accurate so
1:57:57totally sure on those numbers at this
1:57:59point that was based on the um 175 um
1:58:05but say for um Cole Creek Canyons we've
1:58:08got about five times the per customer
1:58:12expected peak demand as Aurora Highlands
1:58:15for Aspen Creek it's about two times two
1:58:19and a half times and then Rooney Valley
1:58:22like eight times what's expected per c
1:58:25per residential customer from as
1:58:28compared to Aurora Highlands. So kind of
1:58:30going back to that process of working
1:58:33with the developers to ensure it's
1:58:35accurate and how things are going. Um
1:58:41I it it it is not something I'm familiar
1:58:44with. I guess I would say uh to see a
1:58:47residential property
1:58:50within reason that has eight times the
1:58:52load of another new business residential
1:58:55property per unit. So just curious
1:58:59how that all works with your vetting and
1:59:01discussions with these developers.
1:59:08Yeah, I can speak to that once again.
1:59:09So, not every residential home is the
1:59:12same. Um, for example, like the Cole
1:59:14Creek um customers work all custom
1:59:16homes. So, we do have expectation that
1:59:18those are substantially larger than
1:59:20small residentials that you might see.
1:59:22Um, more Highlands Ranch um in addition
1:59:25to that, town homes um often are a lot
1:59:27smaller than what you would find for a
1:59:29single family home. So, of course, it
1:59:31varies from customer to customer. um we
1:59:33usually rely heavily on the data that is
1:59:35provided again from those developments
1:59:37and those kind of um uh utilities or
1:59:42excuse me appliances that the customers
1:59:44are providing to us. Um we use that
1:59:47through our vetting process to kind of
1:59:48try to track down what we feel is a good
1:59:51estimate for the region and the style of
1:59:54home for that and then try to pace that
1:59:57across those um homes that they plan to
2:00:00build. So of course it varies. So, I
2:00:02would expect to see variety in all of
2:00:04these.
2:00:07>> Um,
2:00:09I I don't know much about the Rooney
2:00:10Valley homes. Are those
2:00:1440,000 foot homes? Are these homes?
2:00:19>> Um, I could speak a bit to that. Um, so
2:00:22again, um, there we did identify a bit
2:00:25of a discrepancy in there. Um based on
2:00:27the company's review, the company did
2:00:29find that the peak demand of the overall
2:00:30project was supposed to be 540 million
2:00:33standard compete and that was consistent
2:00:35what we provided in July's 2025. Um
2:00:38however, the current number of homes is
2:00:40much greater than what we provided in
2:00:42the July 2025 um which is more
2:00:45reflective of applicants initial
2:00:47request.
2:00:49>> Um so what's the total number of homes
2:00:51for Rooney Valley?
2:00:53Um we need to have a followup with the
2:00:56um developer to actually find that
2:00:58number.
2:01:00>> Um but yes, it's much larger than that
2:01:03640 I believe it was or 675.
2:01:07>> Yeah.
2:01:08>> Um okay. So you at at the time of last
2:01:11summer had the numbers correct for the
2:01:17estimated or requested peak demand
2:01:21but it did not correlate to an accurate
2:01:23number of units.
2:01:26>> Um that is correct.
2:01:28>> Okay. And you don't have that number
2:01:30right now?
2:01:31>> We do not.
2:01:33>> Okay. Um I guess we'll just throw out
2:01:36there. Are any of the other number of
2:01:38units wrong?
2:01:41[laughter]
2:01:49>> Not not to our knowledge at this moment.
2:01:51Those are kind of the main two that we
2:01:53kind of had
2:01:54>> um identified in the last few days and
2:01:56been trying to um find for you.
2:01:59>> Okay. But canyons is the higher number
2:02:01from the rate case, not from the data
2:02:03request here. and Aurora Highlands is a
2:02:06bit unknown
2:02:08>> to be determined.
2:02:10Okay. Um, Col Creek Canyon Pines is
2:02:12still 90.
2:02:15Aspen Creek is still 315.
2:02:22Um so another kind of question on
2:02:26process is I know you had identified
2:02:29like town homes use a different amount
2:02:30than multif family use a different
2:02:32amount than single family but the
2:02:34company does not estimate them in that
2:02:37way right it's just per unit and does
2:02:40not decipher
2:02:42um necessarily like that six
2:02:44decaththerms per
2:02:46year expect per month sorry expected
2:02:50usage is not there's No different
2:02:52assumption for town homes, right, for
2:02:55multif family.
2:02:58>> I'm going to again defer to the gas team
2:03:01here, but I think it's specific to the
2:03:02requests that that are coming in, right?
2:03:04We don't treat every request the same.
2:03:06We look at what's being installed, uh,
2:03:09what the developer needs.
2:03:12>> Okay.
2:03:15Um
2:03:17so on um
2:03:19>> wait before we move on Richard did you
2:03:21have anything to add on to that?
2:03:23>> Oh you nailed it. I mean once we get
2:03:25those appliances usually in those town
2:03:27homes we do see that the plants are
2:03:29smaller and demand less BT use of gas.
2:03:33>> Okay.
2:03:35Um
2:03:37so um similar to Aurora Highlands for
2:03:41the Cole Creek Canyon Pines I think um
2:03:46the company had identified with regard
2:03:48to the upstream capacity. Let me just
2:03:51make sure I'm on the right one.
2:03:54Yeah. um had identified with respect to
2:03:57upstream capacity question that there
2:04:00was 12 MSCFH
2:04:02um available upstream capacity prior to
2:04:04the project and four after the project
2:04:08but the project itself has a peak uh
2:04:10designed day peak hour demand of 46.6
2:04:13MSCFH. So maybe someone can help me
2:04:17understand how these numbers work
2:04:19together because it seems as though in
2:04:22your assessment of upstream capacity you
2:04:24only reduced it by 8 MFCH although are
2:04:27saying that the project itself is 46.6
2:04:46Th this might be a question for the
2:04:49modeling team in particular in advance
2:04:52of the project. Uh so I might uh
2:04:56see if someone from that team can chime
2:04:58in here.
2:05:03>> Yeah, we'll see if Brian can join us. If
2:05:04not, um Grace Jones, I'm the manager of
2:05:06gas strategic planning. Nice to see you,
2:05:08Commissioner Gilman. Um, I think in
2:05:10regards to all of these um, new business
2:05:13projects for that particular data set,
2:05:15what would be really helpful is maps to
2:05:18be completely transparent, which I do
2:05:20think were provided as part of the gas
2:05:22rate cases since these are historical
2:05:23projects. So, that shouldn't be too
2:05:25challenging to uncover and provide over.
2:05:29Um, but I think the map is going to show
2:05:31what when we're looking too far upstream
2:05:34from the project, the capacity is going
2:05:36to be showing really significant
2:05:38different numbers. And so I think maybe
2:05:40a recommendation I would have is for you
2:05:43it um to potentially pose us with some
2:05:46questions, but we could also come back
2:05:47with a more wholesome analysis of of how
2:05:50we conducted that analysis. Where is the
2:05:52pipe in relation to the other piece of
2:05:54pipe? So that it can make a lot more
2:05:55sense. But that's just my
2:05:57recommendation. that would be very
2:05:59helpful. I'll try and put together that
2:06:01similar to the the other one we were
2:06:03looking at um which was like I think the
2:06:06Aurora Highlands um yeah similar to that
2:06:10just trying to understand you know these
2:06:11numbers don't add up. [laughter]
2:06:13>> Yeah.
2:06:14>> And there must be something I'm not
2:06:16seeing or understanding and want to
2:06:18understand like how this analysis is
2:06:20actually done and how these numbers make
2:06:22sense. I think trying to understand
2:06:24hydraulic modeling without a picture of
2:06:27what we're looking at is pretty
2:06:28challenging. So I think that will help.
2:06:31>> Okay. Okay. Cool. That works. Um yeah,
2:06:35Mr. Griffin
2:06:37>> can try to explain that one. I think
2:06:39picture is definitely would help. I
2:06:41think the previous one I was trying to
2:06:42explain a stub type scenario and in that
2:06:45case the project was at the end of that
2:06:47stub. So it's kind of like at that point
2:06:48that you have a localized low point. So
2:06:51that's where the evaluation was done
2:06:52that we were out of capacity. In this
2:06:55case, the Cole Creek Pines project a
2:06:58little bit downstream was the low point
2:07:00in this vicinity. So that's why it
2:07:02doesn't work out, low point in terms of
2:07:05pressure. Um, so I think it was maybe a
2:07:07few miles downstream. That was the end
2:07:09of that IP pipeline and that was the
2:07:12point that we need to maintain above a
2:07:14certain pressure. So it didn't work out
2:07:16directly as you add the load subtract
2:07:18that much and that's how much you might
2:07:19have remaining because you had to
2:07:20consider that point that was a little
2:07:21bit farther downstream and what they
2:07:23actually had to the inlet of their I
2:07:25believe regulator station was the
2:07:27structure or the of their infrastructure
2:07:29at that point if that makes sense. I
2:07:31definitely think maps would help but I
2:07:33hope that'll help a little bit.
2:07:34>> Let me try in my brain. If you pull it
2:07:36off further upstream than what your
2:07:38numbers indicate, then the you're
2:07:42pulling it off at a higher pressure and
2:07:44the pressure differential is not as much
2:07:46further down wherever you're doing this
2:07:48calculation.
2:07:50>> Something like that. I think it's the
2:07:52fact that you need to keep your eye on
2:07:53that point farther down. So,
2:07:55>> you need a picture, but Okay. All right.
2:07:57>> Yeah.
2:07:58>> Um, okay. I'm gonna keep us moving just
2:08:00because we have I have forgetting to
2:08:02come out the expansion. Um
2:08:04>> just one quick thing on that that might
2:08:06help is just remember that capacity is
2:08:08different than supply. And so when we
2:08:11have that designed day peak hour gas
2:08:13demand um pulling off that's going to be
2:08:16a different value than how much capacity
2:08:18do we have upstream. So that's how much
2:08:20load can you take at that exact point
2:08:22not how much load can you take
2:08:23downstream. So, just want to try to
2:08:25differentiate between capacity of a
2:08:27pipeline, which is how much it can move
2:08:29at that exact point, and supply, which
2:08:31is how much molecules are actually in
2:08:33the gas. Um, but we can explain that a
2:08:35little bit more in our follow-up as
2:08:36well.
2:08:37>> That would be good. I'm I'm going to
2:08:39play this back later and try to to sort
2:08:42through that, but yes, in writing like
2:08:45better understanding how that works. Um
2:08:47just real quick on the prospect valley
2:08:50dairy. I understand this is a RNG um
2:08:53supply point um and just wanted to
2:08:56understand um just any like really high
2:09:00level details on that like how much um
2:09:02RNG is being purchased and um you know
2:09:06where that's coming in or I I don't know
2:09:09that that was part of a clean heat plan.
2:09:11This is just like curious on the general
2:09:13setup of that.
2:09:21>> I would just point out that this is one
2:09:22we addressed in our our notice
2:09:25um this morning.
2:09:27>> Okay.
2:09:28>> Where the company explained that it's
2:09:29not it's not purchased any RNG from this
2:09:31project and it's not funded through the
2:09:32cleaning budget.
2:09:36>> Okay. Sorry. The company hasn't
2:09:37purchased any RNG from it. Cor correct
2:09:41>> planning to
2:09:43I guess what's the purpose of the pipe
2:09:45if you're not going to
2:09:48>> what's the use of it I guess
2:09:51>> I can't speak to those issues but I I
2:09:53was just putting what's in our notice
2:09:54but
2:09:55>> okay thank you
2:09:57ju just a little bit of um clarity on
2:10:01that one so you need natural gas to make
2:10:03RNG and so this is actually a new
2:10:05business project in which they are
2:10:07requesting natural gas from us in in
2:10:09order to produce their RNG. Um, we are
2:10:11not currently taking it back onto our
2:10:13system.
2:10:15>> Thank you. That was that was helpful.
2:10:19Excellent. Um, but it says that there
2:10:22well I guess I guess sort of uh light
2:10:24bulb but um in the data response for
2:10:27that particular project it says no load
2:10:30but you are describing load. So I guess
2:10:33we have no expectation on why you expect
2:10:35the sales to be there which are
2:10:36questions we asked in the data response
2:10:38but the company had responded that there
2:10:39is no load.
2:10:42>> I can follow up on that. Um certainly I
2:10:45know that the RNG does come back into
2:10:46our system but we're just a transporter.
2:10:48It's not that the company itself is
2:10:50purchasing that gas but I can follow up
2:10:52on the demand piece.
2:10:54>> Um just to confirm that it's in fact
2:10:56zero
2:10:57>> and it may it may be that it's not peak.
2:10:59Um so I'll figure it out. Yeah, if you
2:11:02can follow up on that and then the
2:11:03accuracy of any like responses from the
2:11:06original dot request in terms of annual
2:11:09usage peak demand expectation that's
2:11:11based on um that would be helpful
2:11:13because I think all of those were given
2:11:15a a zero before and it would be helpful
2:11:18to understand if that's not accurate.
2:11:21Um okay.
2:11:25Okay. All right. I think I'm ready to
2:11:27ask a couple questions about capacity
2:11:29expansion projects. Now I'm speaking
2:11:31even faster than before. Um
2:11:36so um in looking at these um
2:11:40for each of the capacity expansion
2:11:42projects we requested you identify the
2:11:45company identify downstream new business
2:11:48projects that came online in the five
2:11:51years preceding capacity expansion
2:11:53projects kind of so we could see the
2:11:55relationship and what's going on
2:11:56downstream. So, um, now when I talk
2:11:59about new business projects, it's the
2:12:01ones from that list,
2:12:04um, of the identified downstream new
2:12:06business projects. So, um, I know it's
2:12:08it's difficult to explain, but I think
2:12:10we're all on the same page on that, Mr.
2:12:11Fuket, unless unless that's confusing.
2:12:16>> Makes sense.
2:12:17>> Okay, cool. Um, in looking at that data,
2:12:22um, let's see. Um, maybe we could pull
2:12:27it up. I copied the um,
2:12:31one second. Shoot. I'm trying to move
2:12:33fast. Sorry.
2:12:36Um,
2:12:39it is
2:12:42document six. Uh, Miss Federico,
2:12:47this is a public version, so it just
2:12:50doesn't identify the names of the
2:12:53developments or a number if it's less
2:12:55than 15. I think those are like the
2:12:57primary differentiations on the public
2:12:59version. Um, but the the data is pretty
2:13:01similar. So, we'll pull that up. Um, uh,
2:13:07so this was submitted by the company.
2:13:09Um, I added that that peach row. So I
2:13:13will say that is the a deviation from
2:13:15what you submitted but I added it just
2:13:17to do some quick math for us as we
2:13:20discussed today. Um okay so as we look
2:13:24at these um you know one thing we had um
2:13:29the company provide the projected peak
2:13:32and projected
2:13:34um uh daily average.
2:13:37Just a question in the data here. Um,
2:13:40Morty know this for daily average that
2:13:43like literally is average for the year.
2:13:45If so, if I multiply that by 365, should
2:13:48that come out to be the annual usage?
2:13:53>> Yeah, just looking at the spreadsheet
2:13:55here. Um,
2:13:59yeah, I think for actual daily average
2:14:02that is correct. Okay. So that
2:14:04multiplied by 365 is annual uh usage
2:14:07basically. Um okay. And then um I was
2:14:13curious if um for for these um
2:14:16subdivisions all you know in in the
2:14:19confidential version we have an exact
2:14:21number of premises understandably with
2:14:23the with 15 1515 rule. Those have been a
2:14:27bit obscured in this version. Um but I
2:14:30was curious if the the data the company
2:14:33provides here I think is probably based
2:14:35on the latest you had in you know in
2:14:372025.
2:14:38Um I was curious if there are
2:14:40circumstances in which the total count
2:14:43of active premises.
2:14:45Okay. So the the total count of active
2:14:48premises should be reflective of the
2:14:50actual data. We're not like using a a
2:14:53higher number like if it's not built
2:14:55out, you're not using the total builtout
2:14:58number. Like this data is based on the
2:15:00active premises at the time the data was
2:15:02pulled, right?
2:15:04>> Um that generally sounds correct. I
2:15:06believe 18B8 also had a time frame
2:15:10specified. Um if I recollect it was
2:15:14within 5 years of the data pool. So
2:15:17within the five years uh preceding last
2:15:21summer roughly
2:15:23>> right the the new business came online
2:15:25within the five years preceding.
2:15:28>> Yep. Okay cool. Um so I I think my
2:15:32question here really is as we look at
2:15:34the projected no matter which column we
2:15:37look at right if we look at the peak
2:15:38hourly the peak day or the daily average
2:15:42they all actually operate in the same
2:15:44ratio right so so they all change by the
2:15:46same amount as we compare the projected
2:15:49to the actual I just did it here for
2:15:51columns D and E
2:15:53um we see really across the board the um
2:15:58actual be a a fairly small fraction of
2:16:02the projected value. So this holds and
2:16:06that this um percentage comes out the
2:16:08same whether we do it on peak hour or
2:16:10peak day or or average day. Um and so I
2:16:15actually total it at the at the bottom
2:16:17too. If we scroll all the way down to
2:16:19the data which is 287 is when the data
2:16:23ends. I put a total line there.
2:16:26Um so in total um we saw the actual come
2:16:31in at 3%
2:16:35of the projected
2:16:37and I was curious any like explanation
2:16:40on what we're looking at here. That
2:16:42seems like a pretty significant
2:16:44deviation.
2:16:45[snorts]
2:16:46>> Yeah. Um, so I think part of this could
2:16:51tie to your inquiry about uh,
2:16:54subdivision 104.
2:16:56Um, more generally and broadly speaking
2:17:00though, um, I think the stage of
2:17:03buildout and occupancy are likely to be
2:17:06some major uh, contributors as well.
2:17:12>> Okay.
2:17:16And uh let's go to subdivision 104. So
2:17:18that's on line 109. Um this has like a
2:17:22kind of wildly high um figures. Is are
2:17:24those figures a mistake or there's
2:17:27something else going on there?
2:17:29>> Yeah. So upon receiving um the the
2:17:33notice of topics for today, uh we did
2:17:36review per the request and it did appear
2:17:41to have a few factors swaying in. Uh so
2:17:45one being that the starting with that
2:17:48peak hour projected load um did appear
2:17:51to be double counted. Um and
2:17:54additionally while the projected value
2:17:57is based off the application or
2:18:00applications depending on the line offer
2:18:02new gas service um it appears through
2:18:05discussions with the customer likely uh
2:18:08it was determined there was a unit error
2:18:10on the application from which we derived
2:18:12the data and so it would also need to be
2:18:15divided by a thousand to correct for
2:18:17that unit error from the data source.
2:18:21>> Okay. Um would you mind mind to update
2:18:23that one um and just provide that
2:18:26summary as to why and then just resubmit
2:18:29this um document?
2:18:32>> Um are any others inaccurate in a way
2:18:35similar to that that that you can
2:18:37identify?
2:18:39>> Uh not to my knowledge at this time. I
2:18:42think uh as you brought up that was the
2:18:44the big outlier.
2:18:46>> Okay. Um, so I mean I've got an active
2:18:51version of this. I think you know even
2:18:53if I make it something quite quite
2:18:55rational I think um
2:18:58many of the other categories are still
2:19:03that that was just one. It has not
2:19:06swayed the entire um situation. So even
2:19:09if we look at say um the first project
2:19:13on the list which is the Breen Ridge
2:19:15reinforcement which didn't include that
2:19:17project that total group of projects is
2:19:20at 16%
2:19:22of the projected
2:19:24um and so now now the data you're
2:19:28pulling here was likely the most recent
2:19:31time frame right at that point in 2025.
2:19:36Uh which data in particular?
2:19:39>> That's whole sheet.
2:19:40>> Okay. Gotcha. Yeah. So the the projected
2:19:43values were
2:19:46um based off of the
2:19:48>> work on the beginning, right? Yeah. The
2:19:50actual I guess I would say
2:19:52>> and correct CMM data was as of the uh
2:19:56date of the data pool um last summer.
2:20:00>> Okay. for the
2:20:03>> I'm trying to figure out what's
2:20:05rational, frankly, to ask is a followup
2:20:09here to have you all provide
2:20:13more color on this. Um,
2:20:18it's it's difficult. I mean, I'm looking
2:20:19at data that shows the actual usage is
2:20:23um well less than 20% in almost every
2:20:27case as what the company projects or or
2:20:29the developer projects or whoever is
2:20:31projecting. Um
2:20:34so I don't want it this to be like a
2:20:36giant fishing expedition, but it feels
2:20:38like really
2:20:40difficult data to comprehend. So um I
2:20:44don't know. I mean, a lot of these
2:20:46subdivisions are very small number of
2:20:48units, so I I don't anticipate we're
2:20:51having a huge like occupancy problem in
2:20:54the data in a lot of it. Um, I don't
2:20:58know. Do you have any ideas for me if if
2:21:00there's a really obvious way to remove
2:21:05like some data that would be inaccurate
2:21:08um
2:21:10in these
2:21:12I mean this seems to indicate something
2:21:14rather substantial in the estimates
2:21:18and I'm trying to figure out how do we
2:21:20get this more accurate. I don't want to
2:21:22say it's off by this much if there's
2:21:24like occupancy problems or something
2:21:26that could be sused out by additional
2:21:28information, but I also don't want to
2:21:30send you on a fishing expedition that
2:21:31can't be done.
2:21:34>> Yeah, definitely. Um, we we could look
2:21:37to pull uh 2026
2:21:40actual data as well to try to help
2:21:42further vet. Um,
2:21:46and perhaps I can get with the team here
2:21:48to to get some other ideas of, you know,
2:21:51what else we could potentially look to
2:21:54provide.
2:21:56>> Yeah, that that's a good idea. Perhaps
2:21:58we could just have this and and kind of
2:22:00amend on. Um, clearly like if the number
2:22:03of active premises is different, we'd
2:22:05have to update that as well. Um, so I
2:22:09think that would that would be really
2:22:10helpful. Thank you. No, I'm really just
2:22:12grasping like I want to understand what
2:22:14this is showing. Um, and these are
2:22:17pretty dramatic
2:22:19percentages
2:22:21um to be looking at.
2:22:24>> Yeah, I would just second Megan's
2:22:26suggestion that pulling data from 2026
2:22:28would be really valuable. Um, because we
2:22:32do only update our CMM module once a
2:22:34year, this means that this data was
2:22:36probably like all the way from the April
2:22:38time frame of 2025. Um, so it's pretty
2:22:42outdated at this point. And if the
2:22:43builders were still developing, that can
2:22:46severely impact what CMM is going to
2:22:48project for that load. Additionally, if
2:22:50we don't have like a full year of
2:22:52occupancy, sometimes the linear
2:22:53regression can understate the amount of
2:22:56gas demand that they might use, like if
2:22:57they've only been in the home for a
2:22:59couple months. Um, so as a first step, I
2:23:02would say that that's a that's a great
2:23:03idea and support um that as well.
2:23:06>> Can I have one more suggestion? I mean,
2:23:08I I don't want it to take forever, too.
2:23:11So, I want to be like cognizant of what
2:23:13I'm asking for and make sure that's
2:23:14something that can be done in weeks, not
2:23:16months. Um,
2:23:18>> I wonder if you can color code or
2:23:21whatever inservice date year and that
2:23:24might better help to flag those that
2:23:27might be so new they're less accurate.
2:23:30Um, you know, if we're seeing one that's
2:23:332023, more likelihood it's occupied than
2:23:362020 big or well that wouldn't be in
2:23:39there, but 2025. just an idea of like
2:23:43another way to help
2:23:45shed some color on, you know, if we're
2:23:48seeing every time the 2025s are more
2:23:52skewed because maybe they're not
2:23:53occupied, whatever. Um, that's just
2:23:56another idea on maybe how to deal with
2:23:58the the newness of the premises to like
2:24:00help identify that.
2:24:02So, the challenge is going to be that
2:24:04for each of these subdivisions, what we
2:24:06what we have to do is actually go into
2:24:08our mapping system and pull the active
2:24:11premises. When we do that, it will say
2:24:13when the premise became active, but it's
2:24:15not going to be like assigned to the
2:24:17subdivision. It's going to be assigned
2:24:18to each individual premise. Um, and then
2:24:21we put that into the CMM um poll to get
2:24:24that data out. So, my concern is if we
2:24:26want this to take weeks and not months,
2:24:29um we might need to pair down uh the
2:24:32number of subdivisions that we look at
2:24:34because this is looking like a pretty
2:24:35large list.
2:24:36>> Um and then I'd also
2:24:38>> Sorry.
2:24:39>> Yeah. No, I'd also
2:24:40>> a lot of these are only a handful. So,
2:24:42it might be one,
2:24:44>> you know, like I don't want like Yeah. I
2:24:47just want it to be whatever's rational,
2:24:48but I would like to understand if
2:24:50there's an analytical reason for what
2:24:52I'm looking at to better understand that
2:24:56>> because frankly, they're wild
2:24:57percentages of
2:24:59>> yeah,
2:24:59>> the projected load. And I think it's
2:25:02something we all need to understand
2:25:04better. Why are we looking at loads that
2:25:06are 2% of what was projected? Um, so
2:25:11whatever is rational, I'd like to be
2:25:13reasonable with what we get, but I would
2:25:15really like to like just get some more
2:25:17light on this. Okay, I am going to move
2:25:19on for just a minute since we have like
2:25:2110 minutes left. Um, okay. Um,
2:25:29there
2:25:32okay, let me see.
2:25:36Just just a question about terminology.
2:25:39Um there's there's a few circumstances I
2:25:42think where the number of premises
2:25:44listed on the the confidential version
2:25:46of this varies from the number of firm
2:25:50downstream residential
2:25:53customers like it was added. Well, if
2:25:56it's not added, I just answered my own
2:25:58question there. Let me say
2:26:02>> you have the uh the document so you can
2:26:04point to the spot. Perfect. Um, I will
2:26:08just say because I'll probably have you
2:26:10follow up on this just given our time.
2:26:12In each of the project specific
2:26:14responses for the capacity expansion
2:26:16projects, we had asked the number of
2:26:19firm residential customers added
2:26:20downstream in the five years prior
2:26:24and numbers were given for that. Then on
2:26:27this document, numbers were given for
2:26:29the number of active premises in the
2:26:32preceding five years. Um, in every case
2:26:36those numbers are not the same number.
2:26:39And perhaps we inadvertently use like a
2:26:42term of art that's meaning something
2:26:44different to you, but it's a little
2:26:45confusing to me to see in one portion of
2:26:48the data response a different number of
2:26:53basically downstream new residential
2:26:56customers in the last five years than on
2:26:58the other data source. So, um, are you
2:27:01clear the two areas I'm looking at
2:27:03comparing? And I would say in almost
2:27:05every case, and it might be the meaning
2:27:06of the word premise, but I I'm just
2:27:08hoping you can shed more light on to me
2:27:10why I'm seeing these numbers not align.
2:27:12Um, it's for every project. I will say
2:27:16in almost every project, the number of
2:27:19new active premises in the five years
2:27:22that are on that downstream project list
2:27:24that we're looking at here is lower.
2:27:27often in some cases significantly lower
2:27:30than the number identified on the
2:27:32project sheets which was called number
2:27:34of firm residential customers added
2:27:37downstream in the five years prior. Um
2:27:39the one exception is the winter park tie
2:27:41which is the exact opposite.
2:27:44So um I was trying to be on to something
2:27:47and then the other one went the other
2:27:49direction and I'm not sure but some
2:27:50explanation on what each of those mean
2:27:52since they are different and I kind of
2:27:54thought they would be the same numbers.
2:27:56Yeah, definitely. So, um looking at um
2:28:00you know the added downstream of the
2:28:02identified various capacity expansion
2:28:05projects and the five years prior to the
2:28:07time the project was completed. Uh so
2:28:10that time frame was interpreted as 5
2:28:12years prior to the inservice date across
2:28:15the board.
2:28:16>> And so um to do that we looked at new
2:28:21service install dates and then looked in
2:28:23that time frame.
2:28:25And then further down in the request was
2:28:29the other item and I think there was a
2:28:33time frame on that. Trying to find it
2:28:36here. That was different. So that's
2:28:40certainly a part of that. I think
2:28:44they were both five years.
2:28:52They were both five years. I don't spend
2:28:53our last five minutes on it, but I I
2:28:55will put that in writing and ideally we
2:28:57can just get some how did you interpret
2:28:59them? Why are these different numbers
2:29:00would be very helpful. Um
2:29:05um if we scroll up just a touch case uh
2:29:09Miss Ferrico um subdivisions 70 and 71
2:29:13um are are large subdivisions identified
2:29:15here in the Rampart range um uh capacity
2:29:20expansion project. um especially se uh
2:29:2471
2:29:26and um it looks like that is you know
2:29:29the kind of the predominant need I guess
2:29:33preceding the rampart range project is
2:29:35that a fair assessment
2:29:40with a 181
2:29:43units added
2:29:48>> it's it's tough just going off of a
2:29:50spreadsheet I I think this is another
2:29:52one where a map would be invaluable uh
2:29:55to positively answer that for that
2:29:59specific uh subdivision.
2:30:01>> Okay.
2:30:04Um and do we have a full buildout
2:30:08estimation for that subdivision? And
2:30:10would the upsizing of rampart range be
2:30:13based on a full buildout um expectation
2:30:15as was discussed prior for new business
2:30:18projects?
2:30:22I don't have that information before me
2:30:24right now. Um, but I imagine we could
2:30:28provide an answer on that.
2:30:31>> Okay. I I I don't want to divulge the
2:30:34name, although I do believe there is a
2:30:36document in rate case somewhere which
2:30:37already links these two names, but I
2:30:39I'll look into that later. Um I I I have
2:30:43a a number from the uh uh a different uh
2:30:48gas rate case that identifies the total
2:30:50number there. Um but to the extent that
2:30:52subdivision 71 is already under
2:30:55construction and its full buildout,
2:31:00let's just say for argument sake
2:31:01includes a significantly higher number
2:31:04than the active premises. Um the rampart
2:31:07range builds out would have been built
2:31:09to accommodate that buildout number from
2:31:12what I heard earlier today. Is that
2:31:14accurate?
2:31:20I think I'll need a map just to I don't
2:31:22remember which one's subdivision 70 or
2:31:2571. Sorry. So it's difficult for me to
2:31:28to recollect exactly.
2:31:33And I think I'm picking up your
2:31:34question, Commissioner Gilman. So, if
2:31:36this subdivision applied, paid the
2:31:39amount that they were supposed to, and
2:31:40we are in agreement with them, then yes,
2:31:43um that would be included in our
2:31:44hydraulic model and considered during
2:31:46our annual capacity expansion planning
2:31:48process um for which this Rampart range
2:31:51project was identified. So to the extent
2:31:53that all of that load has been applied
2:31:54for, then yes, it would be in the
2:31:55hydraulic model and considered when we
2:31:58designed these capacity expansion
2:31:59projects.
2:32:00>> Okay. And if projects specific to that
2:32:03development have been showing up in rate
2:32:06cases, it's fair to assume that process
2:32:08has occurred.
2:32:09>> I would make that assumption. Correct.
2:32:11>> Okay. Um
2:32:16Okay, let me see. Um also just curious
2:32:20kind of the um we've got a a number of
2:32:25um
2:32:27kind of more generally I guess for you,
2:32:29Miss Jones. um we've been looking
2:32:31through rate cases back to 2017 just
2:32:36like a hobby um and have been
2:32:40identifying the word breenidge comes up
2:32:43a lot there's a lot of summit county
2:32:44expenditures right like there's been
2:32:46growth in those areas and and I think we
2:32:49generally know that um just like back of
2:32:53the envelope looking at what I've seen
2:32:54in a lot of these RA cases combining
2:32:57Breen Ridge Dylan Valley, other Summit
2:33:01County, other kind of grand county
2:33:05related that are all subject to the MEP
2:33:07project. Um, I've got about $32 million
2:33:11worth of capacity expansions um in the
2:33:14past several rate cases and I'm just
2:33:17curious like what is the internal
2:33:19process as those kind of intermediate
2:33:23capacity expansions are taking place to
2:33:26look upstream at that time to understand
2:33:29if the broader system is capable of what
2:33:32is being added downstream.
2:33:36So I think to answer your question I
2:33:38would maybe reiterate that our annual
2:33:40capacity expansion planning process does
2:33:42look all the way from the supply point
2:33:44down to the enduse customers. So we are
2:33:46completing that analysis. However, we're
2:33:49only looking five years into the future
2:33:51and we can only kind of apply growth for
2:33:54things such as residential and small
2:33:56commercial because we don't want to
2:33:58overbuild our system either and have
2:34:01this system where there's a lot of
2:34:02capacity reserve and nobody's using it.
2:34:04So, we kind of have the intention that
2:34:07first they come and then we will build.
2:34:09Um, so inherent in that process, I
2:34:11think, is the risk that there will be a
2:34:14large development or several large
2:34:16developments in an area that could cause
2:34:19an upstream reinforcement that you
2:34:20weren't aware of. Um, and that's sort of
2:34:23the balancing act of planning is making
2:34:25sure that you're accounting for enough
2:34:27normal growth that you are keeping ahead
2:34:29and making sure our system stays
2:34:30reliable, but not assuming that we're
2:34:33going to have this massive amount of
2:34:34growth that we're doing projects that
2:34:36are too large. and they'll like first
2:34:39they come and then you will build
2:34:40concept that you just talked about
2:34:42that's kind of exclusive to the below 10
2:34:46MFC MFH
2:34:50um developments right because I think we
2:34:52were hearing before if you're above that
2:34:54level you get this whole special process
2:34:57where we're working with you to
2:34:58understand and as a matter of fact most
2:35:00of the infrastructure is built before
2:35:02the premises are built in order to serve
2:35:05them
2:35:05>> the distribution infrastructure is built
2:35:08before the um you know they come in and
2:35:11build. In regards to the upstream
2:35:14reinforcement, yes, we do a capacity
2:35:16check to make sure that the upstream
2:35:18system is sufficient. But what we're
2:35:20seeing with a lot of these new business
2:35:22projects is that it will knock down a
2:35:25minimum inlet pressure by like 1 PSI and
2:35:28then 1 PSI. And the remedy would be to
2:35:30replace 10 ft. We're obviously not going
2:35:32to go in and replace 10 feet and then
2:35:34replace 10 feet and replace 10 feet. So
2:35:36we keep them in our model and review
2:35:38them on an annual basis as an aggregate
2:35:41so that we're doing one larger project
2:35:43to address that kind of upstream system
2:35:45reinforcement need as opposed to um
2:35:49doing kind of peacemeal projects along
2:35:52the way. The other thing is if it's an
2:35:55issue that we can mitigate through an
2:35:56operational measure like bypassing a
2:35:58regulator station, we might do that for
2:36:00a couple years as well to try to again
2:36:02mitigate having to do a bunch of
2:36:04capacity expansion projects upstream. So
2:36:06I think it's the latter. The larger
2:36:08projects are being considered in our
2:36:10capacity expansion planning process, but
2:36:13we're waiting effectively for the
2:36:15upstream system to have a large enough
2:36:18issue that it makes sense to go in and
2:36:20remediate.
2:36:22Okay. Um,
2:36:25and to the extent that you're modeling,
2:36:28if you get a very large new development,
2:36:32thousands of homes at the time you get
2:36:36that though, you would be modeling
2:36:38upstream as part of your process and
2:36:41identifying that need kind of in real
2:36:44time rather than waiting for those units
2:36:46to show up, right? Like that would be
2:36:49part of your process. Correct.
2:36:52>> Okay. Um so if you had say thousands of
2:36:55home that necessitates an upstream
2:36:58capacity expansion that would be
2:37:00identified as part of assessing the new
2:37:03business project
2:37:06>> if the new business project was above
2:37:08above that threshold. Yes. And then
2:37:10depending on how bad the time Yeah.
2:37:14>> Yes. And then depending on how
2:37:16significant the issue is, we might scope
2:37:18a project at that time or just wait
2:37:20until our annual process. So I think in
2:37:23the data sheets that we provided you um
2:37:26a good example would be on the capacity
2:37:28expansion projects specifically those
2:37:30located in like Denver Front Range
2:37:32there's a question in there and I can't
2:37:34recall what it is but it's like what's
2:37:35the hydraulic analysis results and one
2:37:38of the compressors that we obviously
2:37:40keep an eye on is the Marshall
2:37:41compressor station. And so we were able
2:37:43to numericate like how much did it drop
2:37:46the inlet pressure to the Marshall
2:37:47compressor station. So we're logging it
2:37:49in that way, not necessarily logging the
2:37:52scope of the project associated with
2:37:53remediating it.
2:37:55>> And I think there were several projects
2:37:57here that did end up reducing the inlet
2:38:00pressure into the Marshall compressor
2:38:01station. Right.
2:38:02>> Right. And that we have a very
2:38:04integrated system um that's definitely a
2:38:07critical compressor station on our
2:38:08system in order to maintain reliable
2:38:11service. though.
2:38:12>> Okay. And so those projects individually
2:38:14didn't necessarily like straw that broke
2:38:17the camel's back. Now we have an issue,
2:38:18but clearly we already have an issue in
2:38:20the Eastern Mountain system and we
2:38:21already have an issue that the company
2:38:22is trying to address in terms of
2:38:24maintaining more pressure with other
2:38:27infrastructure projects going into that
2:38:28compressor station in the first place.
2:38:31>> I'm not sure what additional
2:38:33infrastructure projects going into
2:38:35Marshall are being done right now, but
2:38:36yes, no individual new business requests
2:38:38caused like a a large scale capacity
2:38:42expansion project. It's really the
2:38:43aggregate of everything,
2:38:45>> right? But if a new business project
2:38:48reduces
2:38:50a critical pressure into there, it is
2:38:53contributing in some way but not sole
2:38:56reason, right?
2:38:57>> Yeah.
2:38:58>> Okay. Um
2:39:01Okay. Uh I think we're we're clearly at
2:39:05time. Um, I think I've asked most of the
2:39:09questions about this data that I wanted
2:39:11to ask. Um, and we'll I I'll work on Mr.
2:39:16P's um followup, especially reiterating
2:39:19some of these things, but I think you
2:39:20already know a few of them, so um you
2:39:24can we can take this down, Mr. Puerto
2:39:26Rico. Thank you. Um,
2:39:29you already know a few of them. Um, but
2:39:32I will uh try to get that out uh as soon
2:39:35as I can, especially while they're fresh
2:39:38fresh in my mind before moving on to
2:39:39other other topics.
2:39:42>> Yep. Yep. That all sounds right.
2:39:44>> Okay. All right. Cool. Well, we'll get
2:39:46that out. Um curious just so we're like
2:39:50of the same expectation. Um I think some
2:39:53of this information already exists and
2:39:56it's already available. Um,
2:40:01I think it's just like the 2026 update
2:40:04to the downstream new business projects
2:40:06might be more
2:40:08>> might be the the largest
2:40:10>> maybe piece of analysis as part of this.
2:40:13Yeah,
2:40:13>> sounds like most the other maps should
2:40:16already be a thing that exists and kind
2:40:19of diagram as to how things connect and
2:40:22updates to accurate numbers of um
2:40:25customers and things should be
2:40:27relatively straightforward. So, I'm
2:40:29hoping we're in the in the weeks, not
2:40:32months realm here and that will be my
2:40:35expectation in issuing that. And I guess
2:40:38I would say especially for those things
2:40:39that are more straightforward, um, feel
2:40:42free to bifurcate your response and get
2:40:45us those things that are immediately
2:40:47available, you know, as soon as you have
2:40:49them. Um, and you know, perhaps just
2:40:51that 2026 stuff takes a little longer as
2:40:53my guess.
2:40:56>> Yeah. Yeah, we we can certainly look to
2:40:57do that. Get you the stuff we have
2:40:59faster.
2:41:00>> Okay, that's awesome. Um,
2:41:03I don't have anything else. Anything
2:41:05else from you, Mr. K or your team?
2:41:08>> No, no, nothing else from our end. Um,
2:41:10hopefully this was helpful to you and uh
2:41:12just wanted to thanks all the Thank you
2:41:14to all the the gas folks on our side uh
2:41:17that joined us today.
2:41:18>> Yeah, thanks to your folks for joining
2:41:20and I will look at what was submitted um
2:41:22last night or this morning, whenever
2:41:24that was, uh as soon as I'm able and um
2:41:28thanks to you all for making the time
2:41:29and our group, our team is Puerto Rico
2:41:31as usual for driving us through here.
2:41:34Um, and um, uh, yeah, thank thanks for
2:41:38getting this scheduled. I'll send that
2:41:40followup and just crank it out. I, you
2:41:42know, I just I I want to literally
2:41:45understand what you're sending in and be
2:41:47sure we are in response representing
2:41:49back the most accurate version of
2:41:51things. And so, um, this has been
2:41:53helpful to to sort that out and better
2:41:55understand what's been submitted and
2:41:57what else we can get to make, um, in
2:41:59some cases things more accurate, um, so
2:42:02that so that we're working with the best
2:42:03information going forward.
2:42:05>> So,
2:42:06>> yeah, sounds good.
2:42:07>> Yeah. Thanks, folks. Um, we are
2:42:09adjourned, uh, today. Thanks so much.
2:42:12Bye.
2:42:14>> Bye.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of YouTube transcript (DMXubi3gLfs) , generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 19,396 words across 2,969 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.