YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → YouTube transcript (u5rEUaz3PHU)

YouTube transcript (u5rEUaz3PHU) — Transcript

11,382 words · 1,874 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

28:35foreign
28:38good afternoon everyone thank you all
28:41for being here
28:43uh we are going to about to get going on
28:46the fifth
28:48public commentary in
28:5222r-0557eg they'll fish follow the
28:55printing to order just want to confirm
28:57that our court reporter Tracy is on and
28:59ready to go Tracy saw your name I just
29:01want to make sure
29:02you're ready to go before I get started
29:05good afternoon judge I'm ready to go
29:07thank you Tracy appreciate it nice to
29:09have you here
29:11okay
29:14we are on the record now in Colorado
29:16Public Utilities commission's preceding
29:19number 22R
29:22Dash zero five five seven e g
29:27my name is elenica Han and I am the
29:29administrative logist assigned to this
29:32proceeding
29:33it is Friday September 15 2023 at 1 30
29:37PM the scheduled time for this hearing
29:40to begin
29:43this matter comes on for a public
29:46commentary pursuant to decision number
29:53r23-0475-i dated July 25th 2023
29:58which continued the public commentary
30:00that was held in this roommate making
30:02proceeding on July 18th 2023.
30:07I want to welcome all of you and thank
30:09each and every one of you for being here
30:10today to provide public comments this is
30:13an important process and we'll hopefully
30:16make the rules that we end up with ones
30:19that are more workable for all of us
30:22involved
30:24um before we get to the public comment
30:26portion I do have a number of comments
30:29that I need to First make I want to say
30:31that some of my comments commencing this
30:33proceeding are repetitive of comments
30:35that I've made at earlier public comment
30:38hearings those were held on February
30:4027th April 4th May 15th and July 18 2023
30:46so to those of you who have already
30:48heard these opening statements I
30:50apologize for being repetitive but
30:53please understand that my comments are
30:54intended for the benefit of those that
30:56are new to this proceeding and this
30:58process and are for the benefit of
31:01anyone who might be listening on our
31:03webcast live streamed
31:08okay the purpose of this public comment
31:11hearing is to allow members of the
31:13public to provide comments regarding
31:15proposed modifications to the
31:18commission's rules governing electric
31:20and gas service
31:23this proceeding was initiated for the
31:25purpose of implementing Colorado house
31:28bill
31:3022-1018 that's 22-1018
31:34which is now codified in the Colorado
31:36revised statutes at section
31:4340-3-103.6 subsection 1.
31:47that provision instructed the commission
31:49to commence a rule-making proceeding to
31:51address the steps Gas and Electric
31:54utilities are to follow when
31:56disconnecting the service of a customer
31:58unable to pay their bill
32:00and also to cover the timeline for
32:03reconnecting such customers
32:06the commission's proposed changes to the
32:09rules modify certain definitions in the
32:11rules in particular the commission
32:13proposes to add different definitions to
32:16the rules for the terms
32:18Advanced metering infrastructure
32:21emergency or safety event or
32:24circumstance
32:25income qualified utility customer or
32:28low-income customer
32:30qualifying communication and
32:33utility assistance information
32:38second the modifications to the rules
32:40address steps utilities must follow and
32:42disconnecting or reconnecting a
32:44customer's gas or electric service
32:48and third the proposed changes to the
32:50rules that have been discussed thus far
32:52in Prior public comment hearings
32:55anticipate the inflammation
32:56implementation of remote disconnections
32:59and reconnections as well as a process
33:01for advising customers of these new
33:04procedures
33:07a few preliminary matters I need to
33:09cover before I turn to the procedures
33:11we'll be following today
33:13consistent with commission practice we
33:16are webcasting this hearing and we have
33:18a court reporter taking down everything
33:20that's being said because we have a
33:22court reporter I will ask that everyone
33:24speak only one at a time please speak
33:27slowly and clearly in order to ensure
33:30that we have a complete record
33:34um
33:34the chat function that is normally found
33:37in Zoom has been disabled for this
33:39hearing so please do not try to make
33:41comments using that chat function
33:45all right so Let Me Now cover the public
33:47how the public comment hearing will
33:49proceed
33:52you may provide written or oral comments
33:55written and oral comments will be given
33:58the same weight the commission does not
34:01give any greater weight to oral or to
34:04written comments and in fact the
34:06commission prefers written comments
34:08primarily because people tend to be
34:10clearer and or more persuasive in
34:13writing
34:14than when they present their comments
34:16orally
34:17they can also be more easily reviewed at
34:20a later time
34:21if you would prefer to submit written
34:24comments there are four primary ways to
34:27submit them
34:28through the commission's electronic
34:30filing system that can be found on the
34:32commission's website
34:34through the file a complaint or comment
34:37link that's on the commission's website
34:41by email or through snail mail using the
34:44US Postal Service
34:46the puc's website address is
34:49puc.colorado.gov
34:53the commission's email address and
34:55mailing address can be found on the
34:57commission's website
35:00to provide a written comment in any of
35:02these four ways please be sure to
35:05include this preceding number which is
35:1023r-0557eg again if you write a written
35:13comment we ask that you please include
35:15the proceeding number for this
35:16proceeding which is
35:2122r-0557 e g
35:26the commission also accepts oral
35:28comments and in addition to providing
35:30oral comments here today at the public
35:32comment hearing you can leave the
35:35commission a voicemail message with your
35:37oral comments at any time by calling 303
35:45-869-3490 again that's 303
35:49869-3490
35:53if you leave a voicemail message with
35:55your comments please be sure to include
35:57this again this preceding number
35:59which is 22r-0557eg
36:06your voicemail message comments will be
36:09transcribed and then the transcription
36:12will be placed in the record of this
36:13proceeding and I will review them
36:18okay if you are here to provide public
36:20comment today at the public comment
36:22hearing
36:23I will now go over the steps for
36:25providing comments during the hearing
36:28first if you haven't already please
36:30change your Zoom name to your first and
36:32last name
36:33this is important for a clear record and
36:36will let us know
36:37who is speaking and will let me know on
36:40whom I should call speak next
36:43in addition if you're here representing
36:45an organization or an entity I'd ask
36:46that you please include that information
36:48with your Zoom identification so that I
36:51know with whom you are here
36:55um if you don't know how to change your
36:56Zoom identifier you do that by hovering
36:59over the three dots next to your
37:01identification your name and then you
37:04can
37:05um
37:05I
37:06drop down box will pop up you can click
37:10on rename in the drop down box and then
37:13you can type in your full name and
37:15affiliation at that time
37:19next I'm going to ask that you use the
37:21raise hand Zoom feature to signal if you
37:24wish to speak
37:25to do so click the reactions button and
37:27click raise your hand
37:29please leave your hand raised until
37:31you've been called on
37:33if you no longer wish to speak you may
37:35lower your hand
37:37and if you don't know how to raise your
37:39hand at all it will use that feature you
37:42may instead turn on your video to signal
37:45that you wish to speak
37:47because of that I'm going to ask
37:49everyone please remain on mute
37:51with your camera turned off
37:53until your name is called
37:56and make sure you please mute your
37:59microphone when you are done speaking
38:01that will ensure that we don't get
38:03feedback or multiple people speaking at
38:06the same time
38:08please ensure that when you are speaking
38:10and giving comments that you speak
38:11slowly and enunciate as well as possible
38:14as I indicated only one person may speak
38:16at a time and I ask that no one speak
38:18over anyone else
38:20this will help ensure that the court
38:22reporter can hear and understand your
38:24comments and that way we can have a
38:26accurate and clean record of the
38:28proceeding
38:30also if someone has covered all of the
38:32points that you intended to include in
38:34your comments
38:35please feel free to in your comments
38:37just state that you agree with the
38:39points that were made by the other
38:41person
38:43if anyone is participating in this
38:44hearing by phone let me go over those
38:47procedures you will need to dial Star 9
38:50to use the raise hand Zoom feature
38:54you have to please listen very carefully
38:56for your area code and the last three
38:58digits of your phone number
39:00when you hear your number called you
39:02will need to dial Star 6 to unmute
39:05yourself
39:08when I call your name or phone number
39:10please unmute and turn on your video if
39:13you have that capability begin your
39:15comments by stating your first and last
39:17name first
39:19and when you are speaking please
39:20remember again that we have a court
39:22reporter who's making a transcript of
39:24everything that's said so speak clearly
39:26and slowly so that she can get
39:27everything down
39:30and if you are speaking too quickly and
39:32she can't understand you the quote
39:33reporter May interrupt you and ask you
39:35to clarify or restate what you've stated
39:41to those of you who are here today who
39:43do not wish to speak and are only here
39:44to observe we are live streaming this
39:47hearing on our website
39:49the link is in the bottom right corner
39:53puc.colorado.gov backslash webcasts
39:57when you go there you will see um we are
39:59in hearing room B so click on that
40:02um and you'll be
40:04take it to the webcast of the hearing
40:07um we ask if you are not making comments
40:09today to please use the webcast to
40:11observe the hearing and leave the zoom
40:13meeting but you'll know that you are
40:15free to join back at any time if you
40:17decide you do wish to make comments
40:22okay that's the conclusion of my opening
40:27statements and our
40:30precedent for how we proceed so let us
40:33then turn to the public comment portion
40:35of this hearing
40:38um I'd like to turn to the issues then
40:41we need to address today
40:43[Music]
40:44um
40:49I want to State first of all that I
40:51continued the hearing at the end of the
40:53July 18 2023 public comment hearing to
40:58allow interested persons an opportunity
40:59to review proposed consensus rules that
41:03were filed jointly by several interested
41:05entities immediately prior to the July
41:0718th hearing the entities that filed
41:11that joint consensus for joint proposed
41:14consensus rules were the energy Outreach
41:17Colorado
41:18the office of the utility consumer
41:20Advocate Public Service Company of
41:22Colorado
41:27and I believe also Black Hills Energy
41:33their proposed consensus rules were
41:36filed really just a few minutes before
41:37the scheduled time of the last public
41:40comment hearing which did not provide
41:42interested persons or myself much time
41:46to review them before the hearing
41:48commenced
41:50um so I wanted to allow additional time
41:52for another public common hearing after
41:54people had a chance to review them and
41:56to provide time to anyone who might be
41:58interested in providing written
42:00responses to the opposed consensus rules
42:06I asked anyone interested to provide me
42:09with written responsive comments to the
42:11proposed consensus ruled by August 11th
42:13of 2023 and on August 11th Colorado
42:17natural gas Inc and Atmos Energy filed
42:21their joint comments responding to the
42:23proposed consensus rules
42:26[Music]
42:26um
42:27I hope we have representatives from
42:29those two entities here today because I
42:31do have some questions about their
42:32comments that I would like them to
42:34address
42:35uh briefly though having carefully read
42:38those comments I am as I understand the
42:41positions of color on natural gas and
42:44Atmos
42:45um they've objected to certain portions
42:47of the consensus rules to the extent
42:49that they'd be required to provide
42:51public Outreach and notification to
42:53their customers even though they don't
42:55employ remote disconnection and don't
42:57have plans to implement that technology
42:59soon
43:01as I understand it they argue that
43:03requiring utilities to notify customers
43:05about disconnection procedures uh they
43:08think they argue it exceeds the scope of
43:10the initial rulemaking
43:12um noper the notice of public rulemaking
43:16and they contend that the proposed
43:18additional reporting requirements
43:19mandating that utilities advise the
43:22commission of their educational Outreach
43:24plans and programs could be overly
43:25burdensome for them
43:30um Colorado natural gas and Atmos
43:32suggest certain changes to the proposed
43:35consensus rules which may alleviate and
43:37address their concerns most notably
43:39they're suggesting changing the word a
43:43utility to Simply to to narrow it so
43:46that it covers a utility employing
43:48remote disconnection technology
43:52okay so with that preface I'd like to
43:55start with a discussion of atmoses and
43:57Colorado natural gas's comments to the
44:00newly filed proposed consensus rules and
44:03I'd greatly appreciate hearing from
44:05Atmos and Colorado natural gas about
44:07their joint position
44:10and then I'd like to hear from other
44:11entities
44:12um
44:13how about the consensus rules and their
44:16perspective regarding Colorado natural
44:18gases and atmosis Commons
44:23um
44:24okay first I would like clarification on
44:27one point from Colorado natural gas and
44:29Atmos
44:31in your responsive comments in your
44:35joints comments you focused on rules
44:38four four 4407 of the gas rules
44:42and I would like some clarification are
44:44you proposing then that changes your
44:48testing limited to the gas rules own or
44:51would they also apply to the electric
44:53rules which I think specifically the
44:55parallel one is Rule 3407.
44:59um
45:01Mr stoppel I saw you turn on your camera
45:03if you could go ahead and answer that
45:04question good afternoon happy to kick
45:07this off so I speaking for Atmos I think
45:10they are indifferent as to the changes
45:13to Electric rules because they do not
45:14apply to Atmos uh and that was why these
45:17comments Focus solely on the gas rules
45:21do you have any objection to making them
45:23parallel from from my perspective we're
45:25trying I mean I think the rules are
45:26right now designed to be parallel so
45:31I think it's
45:33well less complicated from my
45:35perspective if we're going to make this
45:36a change to the gastro that we also do
45:38it to the electric grill do you have any
45:39objection to doing that no objection to
45:41that uh so long as it's limiting these
45:44requirements to utilities employing
45:46remote disconnection uh which is why we
45:49thought is appropriate especially to
45:51limit that in the gas rules and for
45:54electric utilities it sounds like they
45:55either are or are going to pursue remote
45:58disconnection in Colorado uh and so you
46:01really want to make sure that's clear in
46:02the electric rules as well
46:04okay thank you very much Mr stoffel
46:09does anyone else have any um
46:12um response to my question about the
46:15parallel nature of the rules between the
46:18gas and the electric rules
46:20anyone from Colorado Natural Gas
46:28Mr de Domenico
46:30go ahead please state your name and your
46:32affiliation for the record and you're
46:34you're muted right now there you go
46:37with with the Colorado natural
46:40I think
46:42I think what Atmos uh about
46:45including it you know we're just wanting
46:48to address you gas utility rules
46:52okay
46:54so basically
46:56Colorado natural gas doesn't care if
46:57it's in the electricals
46:59one way or the other okay
47:01that's right that's very helpful I just
47:03wanted to make sure I didn't know
47:06whether you objected to it or just were
47:08indifferent thank you to your arm thank
47:11you Mr D Domenico appreciate it
47:16okay
47:17um let me ask then from the other
47:19utilities
47:20um on this one minor Point does anyone
47:24have any if we were to adopt the changes
47:27proposed by Colorado natural gas and
47:30Atmos to the consensus rules does
47:33anybody object or have a comment about
47:37paralleling them and mirroring them in
47:39the electric rules as well
47:45are there any electric utilities here Mr
47:48Bennett
47:50please state your name and your
47:51affiliation thank you uh Andrew Bennett
47:54when the average Colorado VP of etsy uh
47:56just from understanding so you're saying
47:58would we as people uh signing on to the
48:01consensus roles agree to take the
48:03opposed language for Atmos and C and G
48:06apply that to our consensus rules for
48:08both Gas and Electric
48:10yes that is exactly what I'm asking okay
48:13just wanted to verify um we'd be opposed
48:16to that I think the consensus rules that
48:18we adopted in conjunction with the
48:19utility consumer Advocate EOC the other
48:24two utilities which comprise of both Gas
48:25and Electric that we would stand by the
48:28consensus rules that we adopted and came
48:30up with previously
48:32so that we came up with sorry rather
48:35so you object to saying
48:39you wanted to say just a utility not
48:42a utility that engages in
48:45disconnect remote disconnection that was
48:47right
48:48right as I'm seeing it that this change
48:50is in order to
48:52keep Atmos and CNG from having to do
48:55similar customer Outreach and engagement
48:58as the other Gas and Electric utilities
49:00in the state
49:03what Outreach would they be required to
49:05do though if they're not engaging in
49:07remote disconnection
49:08well that's what I was trying to clarify
49:10do you mean across more because as I was
49:12reading in their comments they do not
49:14want to do any of the similar customer
49:16Outreach and engagement so if we're
49:19throwing all of that out that's where we
49:21would have concerns that they don't want
49:23to do any of the Outreach for customers
49:26about disconnections period
49:31um
49:33okay I guess I'm a little bit confused
49:35then
49:37um
49:39again Mr stoffel could you please
49:41clarify exactly the scope of atmos's
49:45proposal I think your initial
49:47understanding was correct that it's
49:49limiting the new requirements proposed
49:51in the consensus rules to utilities
49:53using remote disconnection that's not
49:56opposing any Outreach or education for
49:59other customers it's going back to what
50:01is really the status quo that education
50:04and Outreach for customers on the gas
50:06systems that are facing this connection
50:08is specific to those customers it is
50:11notifications provided to those
50:12customers it is door tags placed on
50:15those customers premises uh and all of
50:18that would continue and so that's that's
50:20what we're saying essentially well the
50:22new law imposes some different
50:25requirements around reconnection with
50:28the exception at the same day
50:29Communicator a qualified communication
50:31is provided that otherwise business as
50:34usual continues for Gas Utilities that
50:36are not intending to adopt or employ
50:39remote disconnect action and so that's
50:41why we're saying to the extent you adopt
50:43what's in the inconsensus rules apply
50:46that only to utilities that are using
50:48remote disconnection
50:51and so if Atmos at some point were to
50:53implement remote disconnection you would
50:56not be opposed to being subject to these
50:59Outreach and educational requirements
51:02correct
51:03okay thank you Mr staff I appreciate
51:06that Mr Bennett with that clarification
51:08what is your position
51:09so I think even with that clarification
51:11what we're still looking at is as Mr
51:13stoffel said is they want to maintain
51:14the status quo
51:16um in the consensus rules we adopted
51:18additional language about what it is
51:21that you're going to be doing your
51:22strategic planning and other things like
51:24that so
51:25I we would still want to see the same
51:28thing
51:29um remember black hills and Excel are
51:31both Gas Utilities as well so it'd be
51:33really weird where we would have the
51:36Electric Slide just by virtue of having
51:37a remote disconnection have to talk
51:39about their strategy around Outreach and
51:41customer engagement and yet the Gas
51:43Utilities would not be doing the same
51:45thing when at the end of the day the
51:47concern about disconnections
51:48reconnections goes across the board
51:50while they're talking Gas and Electric
51:52and that customer Outreach engagement
51:54and having a plan around it is important
51:58on both sides it's not just valuable
52:00only by virtue of having remote
52:01disconnections
52:03um so I I think
52:04you know if they're they're talking
52:06about they don't want to be beholden to
52:07a remote disconnection rule because they
52:10don't do that that's one thing but the
52:14additional language you know that was
52:15very important for the utility consumer
52:17Advocate and Mr uh Dixon's online if
52:19you'd like to speak about this but that
52:20was something that was very important to
52:21them as they shifted
52:23their position about getting
52:25uh strategic reporting out of utilities
52:28so
52:30I think so long as we're eliminating the
52:33additional rules going to the status quo
52:36where the Gas Utilities have to make no
52:38changes that's not something that EOC
52:40would be in support of and I'd let the
52:42other uh joint respondents respond as
52:44well
52:46thank you so much Mr Ben I appreciate it
52:48uh Mr D Domenico you've got your camera
52:51on would you like to go ahead and speak
52:53uh yes your honor our view on the
52:56Outreach is that if we were to implement
52:58remote disconnect technology we would
53:01have to file some filing with the
53:05commission anyway to Institute that
53:07either an advice letter or an
53:09application in that these other parties
53:13in this proceeding would have the
53:15opportunity to intervene and make
53:17recommendations as to what that
53:19reporting should be we wouldn't be
53:22opposed to having that discussion at
53:24that time we just think to put it in the
53:26rules now
53:28directed towards utilities that aren't
53:31even contemplating this type of activity
53:33the existing rules as they stand already
53:36provide for outreach further rule 4412j
53:40requires Us in the low income rules to
53:43meet with stakeholders annually that is
53:46an opportunity for us to contact conduct
53:49the Outreach they're discussing
53:53okay
53:55thank you so much Mr D Dominic I
53:56appreciate that clarification uh Mr
53:59Dixon you've got your camera on would
54:00you like to go ahead and speak yes this
54:02is Tom Dixon on behalf of the utility
54:04consumer Advocate first of all I'd like
54:06to say I have trouble hearing Mr D
54:08Domenico I know if you can get closer to
54:10this microphone that would be helpful I
54:12would agree with what Andrew Bennett has
54:14just said
54:15the Gas Utilities are trying to draw
54:18bright line based on whether or not
54:20remote disconnections are occurring
54:23the statute that was passed did not
54:25limit itself to remote disconnections it
54:28is a broad statute that says if you
54:30disconnect you must have a reconnection
54:33policy that's consistent with the
54:34statute there is nothing that says it
54:37has to be a remote disconnection or
54:39otherwise the statute recognized that
54:41something could be done remotely but it
54:43didn't condition its requirements on
54:45whether or not the entity the gas or
54:48electric utility was indeed exercising
54:50remote or applied remote disconnection
54:53so this bright line which is very
54:55obvious and makes a great deal of you
54:57can see it has no relevance to what the
54:59statute was about the statute was about
55:02generally reconnecting and disconnection
55:05policies and they apply to all Electric
55:07and Gas Utilities regardless of how they
55:10disconnect their customers and so I
55:12totally agree with Mr Mr Bennett these
55:15rules should be identical effectively
55:18because again the the process of
55:21disconnecting is a able to Gas and
55:24Electric utilities I don't dispute that
55:27Mr stoffel points out the utilities all
55:30do a lot of contact with customers in
55:32order to disconnect in fact Black Hills
55:34I think put in some evidence of their
55:36not I I may be wrong nine step but it
55:39may have been more or less processed
55:41that's not what we're talking about
55:42we're talking about a customer education
55:45program that is broader than just oh if
55:48you're under the if you're the one
55:49that's going to be disconnected we're
55:51now going to have an amount of contact
55:53with you to describe what's going to
55:55happen we're talking about providing
55:57customers notice for example clearly
56:00about what the new statute requires
56:02which again is not just you know a
56:05terrifying the fact of the matter is
56:07customers I would suspect rarely even
56:09look at tariffs or know what tariffs are
56:12what they look at is material that comes
56:14directly from the utility either through
56:16emails through
56:19telephone messages you know through text
56:22messaging again and if it's been
56:23approved as we've talked about or
56:25finally just simply uh snail mail or US
56:28mail where they provide information to
56:30customers as a customer both Atmos and
56:33and you and and public service I get
56:35emails text messages and I don't get any
56:37paper because I'm all electronic from
56:39the cut from those companies and it's
56:41very helpful and so that's what we're
56:43talking about what gives the customer
56:45notice of the process not telling the
56:48customer here's what the process is now
56:50that we're about to disconnect you
56:54thank you so much Mr Dixon appreciate it
56:57uh Mr stoffel you have your hand up
56:59would you like to speak again uh yes
57:01thank you I just wanted to respond to
57:03something Mr Dixon said and uh it it is
57:06not atmos's position that they do not
57:08have to comply with what's in the new
57:10law that that is absolutely uh clear
57:14that the reconnection requirements and
57:16exceptions to those requirements apply
57:18to all utilities what we are objecting
57:21to is the layering in on top of those
57:24requirements this proposal around
57:26customer education and Outreach strategy
57:29a multi-year plan ongoing reporting
57:32requirements which really as we
57:35understood as this proceeding evolved
57:37we're focused initially on remote
57:39disconnection and then several rounds
57:41into this became applied to all or
57:44proposed to be applied to all this
57:45connection so the right line we're
57:47proposing to draw is not relative to
57:50what the statute requires it's relative
57:53to what is outside of the statute that
57:55was proposed in the consensus rules
58:01got it thank you so much Mr stoffel
58:04Mr Dixon you turned your camera back on
58:06did you want to respond to Mr Stockton I
58:09didn't suggest they weren't going to
58:10comply with the statute this has nothing
58:11to do with complying with the statute
58:13this has to do with how do you educate
58:16your consumers
58:18about what the processes might be in the
58:20event they're in this situation it's not
58:23wait until you're in it and we'll tell
58:24you all you need to do to avoid it or to
58:27whatever and so the point is the statute
58:29created new obligations and I would
58:33suggest that most customers don't have a
58:36clue about what's either in the statute
58:38tariffs or even any uh material that's
58:41on the website of the utilities it's
58:44when they actually get documents sent to
58:46them or have meetings as is proposed
58:48that they might have that opportunity
58:50and to the extent that Mr D Dominico
58:54referred to the the meeting that is for
58:55low income obviously our customer
58:57education proposal in the consensus
58:59rules is not limited to low income
59:01however we did say we had no objection
59:03to having that annual meeting in
59:06conjunction with the existing rules it
59:08was never our intent to ever have
59:10multiple meetings one for low income and
59:12one for the rest of the customers our
59:14goal is to use one meeting make it as
59:17broad as possible and provide education
59:19to customers so they understand what the
59:21process might be in the event
59:24they found themselves in the situation
59:26of disconnection and how they could be
59:28reconnected immediately under the
59:30statute
59:32got it thank you so much Mr Dixon
59:37does anyone else have any comments or
59:40discussion they'd like to have regarding
59:42the Inc well proposed inclusion of a
59:46change in from a utility to a utility
59:49and playing remote disconnection
59:51technology with respect to the consensus
59:55rule requirements about reporting to
59:57Consumers
1:00:01anyone else have anything about that
1:00:05okay
1:00:11um
1:00:12next I wanted to address another comment
1:00:16made
1:00:17jointly by Atmos and Colorado natural
1:00:19gas in their
1:00:21um
1:00:22joint comments in response to the
1:00:24consensus rules
1:00:26in their joint comments they also
1:00:28discussed
1:00:30qualifying communication the definition
1:00:33of that and referenced proposed rule
1:00:364407 f
1:00:39um I've read atmos's natural cannot just
1:00:42come
1:00:43um but honestly I'm clear exactly what
1:00:45the position is and what objection is so
1:00:47I would ask
1:00:48from
1:00:50someone at most and somebody at Colorado
1:00:51and I should guess to please explain
1:00:54their objection to the definition of
1:00:55qualifying Communication in Greater
1:00:58detail
1:01:02this just awful or Mr de Domenico could
1:01:05either of you
1:01:06clarify a little bit
1:01:08where you're coming from under your
1:01:10objection to the definition of
1:01:12qualifying Communication in 4407 F go
1:01:15ahead Mr D Dominico uh your honor I
1:01:17think can you hear me better your honor
1:01:19yes that's much better great uh the
1:01:22intent of our comments they're mainly
1:01:25were to point out uh that we would like
1:01:28to retain what your honor had drafted uh
1:01:31in terms of what is a qualifying
1:01:33communication we also wanted to
1:01:35interject a little more clarity into the
1:01:38nuances around the language as far as
1:01:41when qualifying communication applies
1:01:43which is when a customer calls to
1:01:46reconnect service and the nuances
1:01:49whether or not that is same day or a day
1:01:52later uh that was the intent from cng's
1:01:55perspective at least I'll defer to Mr
1:01:57stoffel if he wants to add to that
1:02:03thank you
1:02:04thank you so much Mr Domenico Mr stoffel
1:02:07did you want to add to that yeah um
1:02:08nothing really to add to that I think we
1:02:10were just really trying to ensure that
1:02:12the intent in the original rules that
1:02:14your honor had drafted and proposed
1:02:16um remained in place while we also
1:02:18supported the clarification on this
1:02:21issue in the consensus rules so
1:02:23um we just wanted to make sure that as
1:02:25those two were merged what you had
1:02:27presented through the Draft rules was
1:02:29retained
1:02:33great thank you very much Mr stoffel
1:02:37does anyone have any resources to Mr
1:02:39stoffel's comments regarding the
1:02:41definition of qualifying communication
1:02:44uh uh Mr Denman and Mr Bennett popped up
1:02:47at the same time Mr Denman you're to my
1:02:48left so I guess I'll go with you first
1:02:49go ahead
1:02:51thank you your honor um
1:02:54based on my reading of the joint
1:02:57comments by CNG and Atmos I did not
1:03:00understand
1:03:02that those two participants supported
1:03:06the clarification and the consensus
1:03:09rules which appears on pages one and two
1:03:12of are pleading that was filed on July
1:03:1518th
1:03:17um I'm not sure
1:03:20um how to fit that in but let me just
1:03:23say what I I intended to say
1:03:26uh there are two places that the term
1:03:30qualifying communication appears and
1:03:33this new statute and the first
1:03:37uh maybe and um
1:03:41subsection 1.5 for NB paren Roman one of
1:03:46section 40-3-103.6
1:03:51and that deals with reconnections but
1:03:53the second place it appears is in
1:03:56[Music]
1:03:5840-3-103.6 param 3. and the latter uh
1:04:03while the statue of gives a definition
1:04:07that definition
1:04:09applies Beyond just reconnections and uh
1:04:14if I could
1:04:16Endeavor read it as says qualifying
1:04:19communication means one of the following
1:04:22methods of communicating with a utility
1:04:25customer about a possible upcoming
1:04:28disconnection or service
1:04:30and then it lays out various uh ways and
1:04:35in one of the subsections of the
1:04:40legislature said or the customer
1:04:41receives the utility Representatives
1:04:44text or email
1:04:47because we have always believed that the
1:04:51use of the word receives was vague and
1:04:53ambiguous
1:04:54and and thereby possibly leading to
1:04:57arguments that that statute was
1:04:59unconstitutional we thought it was a
1:05:02very good idea for these rules of
1:05:05commission to Define What receives means
1:05:07and the context um
1:05:10the definition and the use of qualifying
1:05:14Communications and so that's why that
1:05:19subsection F that we're proposed in the
1:05:22consensus rules is there and we believe
1:05:25that even though the legislature didn't
1:05:27Define receives the commission's rules
1:05:31could eliminate that
1:05:33ambiguity and vagueness that I discussed
1:05:38and so if
1:05:40based on what Mr stoffel said the
1:05:44participants at CNG and Atmos don't
1:05:47object your definition of receives uh
1:05:50I'm happy to hear it
1:05:54and I can just respond to clarify that
1:05:57that is consistent with our
1:05:58understanding that you know the the
1:06:00clarifying or qualifying communication
1:06:03is specifically defined in the statute
1:06:05but certainly needs some additional
1:06:07clarification uh to be implemented I
1:06:11think consistently across the board and
1:06:13I think the concern that was raised in
1:06:15the atmos and CNG Commons was that it
1:06:18didn't get expanded into some broader
1:06:21requirement than how it is used in the
1:06:24statute and that is specifically as an
1:06:26exception to the same day reconnection
1:06:28requirements
1:06:32thanks so much Mr stoffel Mr Bennett
1:06:34you've had your camera on for a bit
1:06:36please go ahead and speak I apologize
1:06:37for the delay no worries honor thank you
1:06:41um
1:06:41and again I think this is another
1:06:43clarification in the way that Atmos and
1:06:45CNG are proposing this as Mr softball
1:06:48said a merger of your rules and
1:06:50consensus rules uh that we make sure
1:06:52that they're not attempting to get the
1:06:54robo-dialers back in I think it's pretty
1:06:57clear through the many discussions we've
1:06:58had that statute says you have to speak
1:07:01with an employee when you go through the
1:07:02phone that uh you know in other meetings
1:07:04we said if you use the robo dialer to
1:07:06connect a live operator to a customer
1:07:08that's one thing but the use of a robo
1:07:10dialer in and of itself does not count
1:07:13and I think you may have had that in the
1:07:16original rules but I through the course
1:07:18I think we've gotten to that common
1:07:20understanding about the robo dialers
1:07:21with the exception I think CNG and Atmos
1:07:24have discussed it last time and to make
1:07:26sure that the
1:07:28language that they're just talking about
1:07:30emerging is not to bring that term back
1:07:33in because that's something that again
1:07:34EOC would oppose and I believe uh UC
1:07:38again won't speak with them but just
1:07:40from working with them
1:07:42thank you Mr Bennett and I'd be honest
1:07:44as I read the proposals I didn't
1:07:47interpret it to have included robocall
1:07:49so if I'm misinterpreting it and that
1:07:51was their intent somebody please speak
1:07:53up and tell me but I didn't I didn't
1:07:55read it that way and I don't think that
1:07:57was my understanding that is that that
1:08:00was not their intent
1:08:01So based on that if my understanding is
1:08:05correct then I sounds kind of like we're
1:08:07all on the same page about that one
1:08:08right I when I read it that's what I was
1:08:11assuming is we were trying to you know
1:08:12dial or go back to that previous version
1:08:15but if it's as you interpret it then
1:08:17then I'm fine as well okay okay I mean
1:08:20if
1:08:21there's something in there that I'm
1:08:22missing please point it out to me but as
1:08:25I read it it doesn't I don't think it
1:08:26says that
1:08:30am I missing something
1:08:32Mr G Domenico do you want to go ahead
1:08:34and speak well to be clear uh you know
1:08:36we use automated calling we think it
1:08:39works and has additional benefit you
1:08:43know to communicate with our customers
1:08:45so we have always recommended you retain
1:08:47automated calling you would change the
1:08:51rules previously to add automated
1:08:53calling and we're recommending you
1:08:55retain the language that you had already
1:08:57drafted
1:08:58that's our position
1:09:02okay so that's actually the opposite of
1:09:05what Mr Bennett wanted then so Mr
1:09:07Bennett to go ahead and speak you've got
1:09:08your hand up
1:09:09thank you your honor yes in that case
1:09:11then we would oppose that change by them
1:09:13uh
1:09:15it is quite clear in statute and if the
1:09:19lawyers want to make the legal arguments
1:09:20on that but from plain reading when it
1:09:22says an employee when you're going by
1:09:24phone you must speak with an employee
1:09:26I'll stand by my earlier statements that
1:09:30um unless Atmos and CNG are proposing
1:09:33that robo-dialers are utility employees
1:09:35which opens up a whole can of worms I
1:09:38believe we're going to say AI or robots
1:09:40or employees that that does not comport
1:09:42with statute
1:09:45okay thank you so much Mr Bennett
1:09:49uh Mr G Domenico did you want to respond
1:09:51to Mr Bennett you've got your camera on
1:09:53um I'm at this time not clear where
1:09:56exactly either word employees is used
1:09:59our understanding was the word was
1:10:01telephone call and we believe an
1:10:03automated call is a telephone call we
1:10:06can achieve the same result in our view
1:10:09as a text or email which is also a
1:10:13qualified communication to us we can
1:10:15convey the same information through an
1:10:18automated call uh to us it's
1:10:21additionality not a limiting factor so
1:10:24our advocacy is to expand the toolkit to
1:10:27communicate with customers not restrict
1:10:29it
1:10:31okay thank you so much for that
1:10:34clarification Mr D Domenico uh Mr Dixon
1:10:37did you want to comment you've turned
1:10:38your camera I have more of a question
1:10:40when Mr D Domenico says he's going to
1:10:43have a an auto call made which is going
1:10:45to provide some information is that a
1:10:48qualifying communication whether or not
1:10:50the customer picks up the phone and just
1:10:52gets a voicemail or as I think what Mr
1:10:56Bennett's suggesting using an automated
1:10:59call to get the customer and then if the
1:11:01customer gets on the phone provide that
1:11:04information is is what I'm hearing I'm
1:11:06trying to draw a distinction or see if
1:11:08there is a distinction between what Mr
1:11:10benedis said and Mr D Domenico is saying
1:11:13so perhaps they can clar Mr digo manico
1:11:15for starts can clarify as to whether or
1:11:18not his point is he just leaves the
1:11:20message whether or not the customer
1:11:21actually gets on the call
1:11:25Mr G Domenico do you want to go ahead
1:11:26and speak well we're in favor of the
1:11:29definition of receives that's been
1:11:31offered that we dialed the most recent
1:11:34phone number on file uh to the extent
1:11:38that it goes to a voicemail uh or the
1:11:42customer picks up and listens to the
1:11:44message the information that's conveyed
1:11:47that they may contact assistant agencies
1:11:50such as EOC such as leap other also to
1:11:55contact the company itself for further
1:11:57information still is delivered
1:12:02got it thank you so much Mr giudomenico
1:12:08Mr Dixon does that answer your question
1:12:10or did you want to respond to Mr D
1:12:12Domenico
1:12:13I think
1:12:15I think Mr D Dominica was equating
1:12:17delivered with received and we don't
1:12:20agree with that
1:12:21we believe the customer actually has to
1:12:23receive there has to be a means to know
1:12:25they received this information and I
1:12:28suggested way back when if you got a bad
1:12:30call a number that it said this number's
1:12:33been disconnected we know it wasn't
1:12:34received if you send a text message and
1:12:36it says this did not go through or an
1:12:38email you know it wasn't received so my
1:12:41point is is not to do to as Mr Bennett
1:12:45said an auto dialer that then gets the
1:12:48customer on who then hears the material
1:12:49from the employee we know it's been
1:12:52received
1:12:55okay
1:12:56thank you Mr Dixon
1:12:59does anybody else have any comments
1:13:00about that topic Mr Denman since I see
1:13:04your hand up please go ahead
1:13:07yes ma'am thank you
1:13:09um
1:13:10we believe that of our definition of
1:13:14received in the consensus
1:13:17rules eliminates the need for debate
1:13:20about robocallers
1:13:22uh the um
1:13:27you know the statute of
1:13:30doesn't talk about them I agree with
1:13:33what um maze
1:13:41um
1:13:42it does say telephone call text or email
1:13:45and
1:13:47uh
1:13:49the business about speaking directly
1:13:52with the customer of that subsection B
1:13:56of that statute and subsection C also
1:13:59says or the customer receives the
1:14:02utility represents text or email we
1:14:05believe our definition of receives
1:14:08eliminate your need to tackle what seems
1:14:11to be a more contentious and and frankly
1:14:15it it seems to me if you were to insert
1:14:18into our consensus definition and
1:14:21receive some prohibition on Robo calls
1:14:24you go beyond uh what we've agreed to
1:14:27so we would recommend you not do that
1:14:32thank you Elena
1:14:35thank you so much Mr Denman uh Mr
1:14:38Bennett did you want to respond to Mr
1:14:40Denman yeah I just wanted thank you Mr
1:14:42Denman for clarifications
1:14:44um I think we're the confusion or the
1:14:46point attention really arises is in that
1:14:48proposed rule that was issued that
1:14:50specifically said we can use Robo
1:14:53dialers
1:14:55um I think with consensus rules in light
1:14:57of the rather clear language and statute
1:14:59about the customer speaking with the
1:15:02utility representative that
1:15:04there there's no need to
1:15:06really have that extra prohibition
1:15:08because it it's clear we've talked about
1:15:11receiving statute talks about customers
1:15:14speaking with utility Representatives if
1:15:15it's by phone we have options of text
1:15:18and email
1:15:20um so from my perspective it's rather
1:15:23clear
1:15:24um I you know I think the rules that we
1:15:26worked on address the issues again you
1:15:29know we've belabored this point it seems
1:15:31like at every single meeting
1:15:34um and I thought we were on the same
1:15:36page but you know it seems like we in
1:15:39this last round of comments went back to
1:15:41square one so you know to Mr Denman I I
1:15:45know we seems like we've worked through
1:15:46this and I hate to go back to the
1:15:48beginning like you discussed but
1:15:50you know between consensus rules and
1:15:52statute I think we're there
1:15:57thank you Mr Bennett I appreciate your
1:15:59comments
1:16:01Mr demon do you want to respond to Mr
1:16:03Bennett
1:16:06um
1:16:06yes thank you Mr Bennett um we thought
1:16:09that it should have been resolved in our
1:16:11negotiation of the consensus rules
1:16:15um and um you know we stand by those
1:16:18consensus rules and uh
1:16:20thank uh Mr Bennett for his recollection
1:16:23of those discussions
1:16:26thank you Mr Mr Denman appreciate it
1:16:31Mr Dixon did you want to weigh in on
1:16:33that as well I want to make it clear we
1:16:35support the consensus rules nothing I
1:16:37said was to suggest otherwise so it to
1:16:39the extent that may be implied that's
1:16:41not my intent
1:16:42okay
1:16:43thank you Mr Dixon I appreciate that
1:16:49anybody else want to comment on the
1:16:52definition about of qualifying
1:16:54communication
1:16:58okay
1:17:05all right if you give me just one second
1:17:07let me make sure I'm in the right spot
1:17:08on my notes
1:17:10um
1:17:11okay the last point in Colorado natural
1:17:14gases and Atmos is joint comments was an
1:17:17objection to the inclusion of a
1:17:19requirement that utilities conduct at
1:17:20least one meeting with stakeholders and
1:17:22interested customers for Education
1:17:24Outreach and remote disconnection I
1:17:26think Mr Bennett touched on this briefly
1:17:30um
1:17:31but I just want to make sure we're all
1:17:32on the same page and I do have two
1:17:34questions about atmoses and Colorado
1:17:36natural gas's position
1:17:39um
1:17:41I guess first of all I wanted to know
1:17:43whether they are proposing
1:17:46that's for visual be it as they suggest
1:17:48for 44 oven in K to their language about
1:17:51ability and promote diction
1:17:53should the meeting required to be
1:17:55limited to utilities employing remote
1:17:58disconnection as well is that what
1:18:00you're asking for
1:18:03Mr stoffel or Mr Mr D Domenico
1:18:06that was for Atmos that was our
1:18:08understanding that this education and
1:18:11Outreach multi-year strategy and
1:18:13Reporting are all kind of together and
1:18:15they should all really just apply to
1:18:17utilities employing remote disconnection
1:18:20okay thank you Mr stoffel
1:18:24Mr G Domenico go ahead oh great that's
1:18:26my understanding
1:18:29okay
1:18:30great now let me to my next Point uh Mr
1:18:35Bennett touched on us I think which was
1:18:37already that he's they're not proposing
1:18:39as I understand at multiple meetings so
1:18:43um as Atmos and Colorado natural gas
1:18:46have pointed out they're already
1:18:47required to conduct annual meetings with
1:18:49low-income stakeholders and they're
1:18:51already doing
1:18:52that
1:18:53as I read the proposals and as I
1:18:57understand from Mr Bennett's comments
1:18:58earlier
1:19:00nothing I read indicated that the
1:19:01meetings can be com can't be combined
1:19:04that one meeting can cover all of those
1:19:07topics and address all those issues with
1:19:10the concerns stakeholders and customers
1:19:13I just want to make sure that my
1:19:15understanding is correct and there's
1:19:16nothing in anything that would be Pro
1:19:18require
1:19:20multiple meetings or separate meetings
1:19:22for all these and that there's nothing
1:19:23prohibiting the
1:19:25holding one meeting to cover all of
1:19:27these issues
1:19:30go ahead Mr Bennett thank you thank you
1:19:32and apologies if you can hear the lawn
1:19:34maintenance outside
1:19:36um so don't worry okay great because
1:19:38it's really loud for me
1:19:40um sorry yeah
1:19:42so from our perspective no there there
1:19:45wouldn't be something requiring separate
1:19:46meetings I think the intention was
1:19:49um we already have these meetings going
1:19:51on and the interest of having better
1:19:56informed customers and consumers and
1:19:58better informed utilities because they
1:20:00imagine to be a two-way street that we
1:20:03would combine these efforts and we could
1:20:04get this additional work completed and
1:20:07we again as we discussed earlier find
1:20:10Value and having both Gas and Electric
1:20:13utilities do this regardless of whether
1:20:15or not they're doing remote or
1:20:17traditional disconnections
1:20:18[Music]
1:20:21thank you so much Mr Bennett
1:20:23anybody else have any comments about
1:20:25that
1:20:29and I guess I would ask either
1:20:32Mr D Domenico or Mr stoffel to comment
1:20:34on atmoses and Colorado natural gases
1:20:37perspective and are you still objecting
1:20:40if your everyone's understanding is that
1:20:42one combined meeting is acceptable
1:20:45Mr stoffel
1:20:48so I I think the the critical issue is
1:20:51this isn't just having these meetings it
1:20:53ties in with the multi-year strategy and
1:20:55Reporting and so there's follow-up
1:20:59requirements tied to this specific
1:21:01meeting requirement I think that I'd ask
1:21:04the inverse question when we already
1:21:06have an existing requirement to meet
1:21:08annually to raise any issues of concern
1:21:10to these stakeholders why do we need a
1:21:13separate specific requirement that could
1:21:15be covered in that same meeting if this
1:21:18connection and reconnection are an issue
1:21:19they want to raise in that existing
1:21:21meeting so I think our concern is not
1:21:23only having it as a standalone
1:21:25requirement but also the conditional
1:21:28requirements attached to the additional
1:21:30requirements that are attached to that
1:21:31meeting and just lead to what is
1:21:34additional regulatory burden or as we've
1:21:37talked about utilities that are going to
1:21:39continue to try to prevent this
1:21:42connection as has been a theme
1:21:44throughout this whole case disconnection
1:21:46is not an objective of any of the
1:21:47utilities
1:21:49and so it's just layering in additional
1:21:52regulatory burden that really doesn't
1:21:54seem necessary for utilities that are
1:21:56not changing the technology used to
1:21:59conduct this connection and reconnection
1:22:02let me just ask you this though if it's
1:22:04just a point that needs to be made at
1:22:07the meeting that's already has to happen
1:22:10is that still overly burdensome though
1:22:12if it's just you know well there's five
1:22:14points you have to make six now and my
1:22:16point is it's not just the meeting it's
1:22:19also tied to the multi-year reporting
1:22:21strategy that we're also objecting to
1:22:23right so I think you have to lose
1:22:25together okay thank you Mr softball I
1:22:28appreciate it
1:22:30Mr Bennett you've got your camera on
1:22:32please go ahead
1:22:33thank you your honor uh again I
1:22:35reiterate our point that we believe that
1:22:38they're
1:22:40is a
1:22:41it's worthwhile to have these meetings
1:22:44and their strategy reporting and the
1:22:46strategies out in the open so that not
1:22:49only consumers know what's going on the
1:22:50consumer Advocates uh such as EOC EOC
1:22:54the commission who has expressed a lot
1:22:56of interest lately and disconnections
1:22:58and the impact that disconnections have
1:23:00on families that everyone knows what's
1:23:03going on there is a lot of expertise in
1:23:06the state and if we are all operating
1:23:08with black box operations it's pretty
1:23:11hard to improve and find out what others
1:23:13are doing that maybe we should adapt or
1:23:16maybe there's something that should
1:23:18become more widespread policy so it's
1:23:21not just for the benefit of you know
1:23:24work to do work this is important work
1:23:26so that we all know what's going on we
1:23:29can learn from each other and like Mr
1:23:31stoffel said they're not in the business
1:23:33of doing disconnections and this is
1:23:36something that we do not believe is very
1:23:37overly burdensome and has a lot of
1:23:40upside and benefit for consumers The
1:23:43Advocates that are operating in the
1:23:45space and the commission that has an
1:23:47interest in making sure that customers
1:23:49are educated informed about what's going
1:23:53on and not being disconnected and how to
1:23:55get access to resources you know over
1:23:57the past few years we've had multiple
1:23:59pieces of legislation addressing
1:24:01consumer rights and consumer protections
1:24:03and referral to resources we've had
1:24:06additional legislation to provide extra
1:24:08funds or resources
1:24:10so this is all a concerted effort and
1:24:13having something out there for all of us
1:24:16to see and make sure that we are working
1:24:19together on this is much more important
1:24:21I think than
1:24:22not wanting to file one report as being
1:24:25overly burdensome as you implied if it's
1:24:27just a fifth or sixth question in one
1:24:30meeting I I just I don't see how
1:24:33not asking that question and not filing
1:24:35that multi-report which again is not
1:24:38very burdensome on the utilities in
1:24:40light of what they're doing already
1:24:43um and that's literally just stating
1:24:44what you're doing why that would be so
1:24:46difficult that we would not do it in
1:24:49light of all of the upsides
1:24:53thank you so much Mr Bennett
1:24:56does anybody wish to respond to Mr
1:24:57Bennett's comments
1:25:00Mr D Domenico please go ahead yeah your
1:25:03honor I think you know our perspective
1:25:05is no one wants Black Box
1:25:09processes but it's been in the rules for
1:25:12years and years how we communicate with
1:25:15customers we just went through a
1:25:18preceding
1:25:2023m-0042 EG
1:25:22I'd recommend that your honor take
1:25:25administrative notice of that because it
1:25:28was a detailed look at disconnection
1:25:30reporting by the commission itself and
1:25:34we were working with the advisory staff
1:25:38to improve our reporting we took several
1:25:41steps to do that I don't think the idea
1:25:44that anything is a you know black box is
1:25:48accurate we've always been communicative
1:25:50about our processes willing to discuss
1:25:53them we file reports about
1:25:55disconnections we follow the procedures
1:25:57and the rules some rules aren't even
1:26:01being at issue in this proceeding such
1:26:04as medical certificates there's ways for
1:26:06customers to avoid disconnections that
1:26:09we haven't even discussed so I just want
1:26:11to raise the full Universe of what has
1:26:15been communicated and every time rules
1:26:17change we file an advice letter we
1:26:20advise customers through notice we don't
1:26:23just do it blindly where they don't get
1:26:26noticed they receive notice of changes
1:26:30just wanted to point that out
1:26:33um thank you so much Mr Domenico if I
1:26:35could ask you I want to make sure I had
1:26:37the proceeding number right was it 23
1:26:40m-0042eg the one you're referring to
1:26:42that's correct your honor okay that was
1:26:45referenced in your comments and I just
1:26:47wanted to make sure I had it correct so
1:26:49that I can find it and read it thank you
1:26:51thank you Mr dudamedico Mr Dixon you've
1:26:53got your camera on would you like to go
1:26:55ahead yeah well I don't dispute what Mr
1:26:57G Domenico said they've been doing all
1:26:59this for historically historically it's
1:27:01been in the rules we have a new statute
1:27:03we have new rules
1:27:05so it's not what you've done in the past
1:27:07and complying with those rules you have
1:27:09a new rule and a new statute and and
1:27:11I'll take the Liberty I just pulled up
1:27:13Colorado natural gas's question on how
1:27:16will my service be restored
1:27:18I will read it into the record
1:27:20when you you will need to contact our
1:27:23customer service center
1:27:25at
1:27:28800-720-8193 to schedule a time for your
1:27:31service to be restored once you have
1:27:34paid your past due amount or entered
1:27:36into a payment agreement C J Will
1:27:38reconnect your service within 24 hours
1:27:41excluding weekends or how and holidays
1:27:43or within 12 hours if customer pays
1:27:46after hours
1:27:48then it goes on to say
1:27:50how much will it cost to restore my bill
1:27:52the amount your service was disconnected
1:27:54for and any amount for which it has
1:27:56since become more than 30 days past due
1:27:58a collection trip charge of forty three
1:28:01dollars when service was disconnected
1:28:02for the non-payment and restore service
1:28:05charge of 43 dollars per service per
1:28:07call your account may be charged a
1:28:09deposit up to 90 days estimated gas
1:28:12usage at that address that does not
1:28:14reflect the current law on on
1:28:19reconnection pure and simple I have
1:28:21searched their website to see where I
1:28:22could find it the point I'm getting at
1:28:24this is me I have a modicum of knowledge
1:28:27of how to search websites for utilities
1:28:30I don't know if an average consumer
1:28:31would be able to figure out what the new
1:28:34law has said and how that new law is
1:28:36being implemented and so our whole
1:28:38customer education process is to bring
1:28:40that to the attention to the customers
1:28:43in advance of finding themselves in this
1:28:45circumstance you know so to speak when
1:28:47you finally lose that one last paycheck
1:28:49and you're now in big trouble
1:28:52you shouldn't have some knowledge in
1:28:53advance of what you got to deal with and
1:28:55that's all we're talking about it's not
1:28:56about the fact that the utilities have
1:28:58done this in the past they haven't done
1:29:00what the new law requires in the past
1:29:02and I'm not arguing about their the
1:29:03quality of what they've done in the past
1:29:05based on prior rules and statutes
1:29:09thank you so much Mr Dixon I appreciate
1:29:12that Mr stoffel you've got your hand up
1:29:14would you like to go ahead and speak yes
1:29:15thank you I I just wanted to make sure
1:29:17the record is clear that the new law
1:29:19requires implementing regulations it
1:29:21requires the commission to implement
1:29:23rules adopting these standards for
1:29:27disconnection and reconnection it is not
1:29:29self-effectuating these are not
1:29:31effective as we sit here today and so
1:29:33that given what Mr Dixon said about
1:29:35cng's practices I just wanted to make
1:29:37sure that it's clear that these rules
1:29:39have not been adopted to implement the
1:29:41statute
1:29:45thank you so much Mr staffel
1:29:49um Mr Denman you've got your hand up on
1:29:50Mr D Domenico you turned on your camera
1:29:52I think Mr D Domenico had his camera on
1:29:55first semester Dem if you could just
1:29:56hold on for one minute and let Mr D
1:29:58Dominico speak go ahead certainly and
1:30:01I'll be pretty brief your honor CNG has
1:30:04every intention once your honor issues a
1:30:07decision in this proceeding to update uh
1:30:10it's its website and its tariffs uh we
1:30:13we are fully cognizant to that
1:30:15requirement and we'll notify our
1:30:17customers when we do so thank you
1:30:20thank you Mr dudamenico Mr Denman please
1:30:23go ahead thank you your honor more of
1:30:26the administrative of the process
1:30:29comment uh Mr D Dominico asked you to
1:30:33take administrative notice of preceding
1:30:3723m-042 EG
1:30:39I have reviewed the commission z-filing
1:30:43uh
1:30:45preceding detail page for that there are
1:30:48a lot of documents in that proceeding
1:30:51and I thought
1:30:53perhaps to assist you with making sure
1:30:57the record is clear he might tell you
1:31:00what exactly in that proceeding you
1:31:03should take administrative notice of
1:31:06there are a lot of monthly reports and
1:31:08other pleadings for example filed and
1:31:11that I it appeared to me that he was
1:31:14interested in the major decisions that
1:31:17the commission reached in that
1:31:20proceeding which were cited in the joint
1:31:23comments by CNG and Atmos but
1:31:26I just suggest you clarify what he's
1:31:29asking you to take administrative notice
1:31:31so thank you thank you Mr Jim and that
1:31:34is good advice and I really appreciate
1:31:36it my assumption perhaps incorrectly was
1:31:40that Mr D Domenico is referring to these
1:31:42two decisions that are referenced in the
1:31:44joint Commons those decision numbers
1:31:48c23-0240 and
1:31:52c23-0361 Mr Dominico if you could just
1:31:55let me know was there anything else in
1:31:57the file for proceeding number
1:32:0123m-0042eg that you wanted me to take
1:32:04judicial notice of please tell me
1:32:05otherwise I'm going to assume it's just
1:32:06those two decisions oh your honor I
1:32:09recommend and I don't know if this was
1:32:11attached uh
1:32:13in any decision but there were final
1:32:16report formats
1:32:18that were and they are on the
1:32:20commission's website
1:32:24final report format for the disconnect
1:32:27annual report let me be clear okay
1:32:31okay
1:32:33make a note of that
1:32:39your honors it helps um
1:32:43the
1:32:45attachments a to decision
1:32:50c23-0096 is a monthly report form I
1:32:54don't know if there were others but I
1:32:56know that decision at least had that
1:32:58attachment
1:33:01maybe okay
1:33:02got it thank you Mr Denman
1:33:07appreciate it
1:33:12anyone else have any comments about that
1:33:14issue in that topic
1:33:19okay
1:33:24I want to then open it up does anyone
1:33:26else have any disappoints Basics consist
1:33:30rules on July 2020 because they have the
1:33:32just literally men before that last
1:33:34public comment hearing it was difficult
1:33:37to discuss them in great detail at that
1:33:39hearing so if there's any points
1:33:41regarding that
1:33:43proposed consensus rule that anyone
1:33:45wants to discuss please bring them up
1:33:46now thank you anyone
1:33:54okay no one else has any comments or
1:33:57statements they want to make about the
1:33:58proposed consensus rules
1:34:03Mr Dixon do you want to say something go
1:34:04ahead well I just think it's important
1:34:07to note the proposed consensus rules
1:34:09were agreed to by two utilities rather
1:34:11large utilities that operate both Gas
1:34:13and Electric Service
1:34:16um this is a customer education issue it
1:34:18isn't really as I've said over and over
1:34:20again it's not about remote
1:34:22disconnections and I I take full
1:34:24responsibility that the UCA brought up
1:34:26this issue in an effort to prohibit
1:34:29remote disconnections we backed away
1:34:31from that and have since focused on the
1:34:33broad nature of what the statute
1:34:34addressed we recognize the statute
1:34:36itself had no comment on the validity of
1:34:39remote disconnections one way or another
1:34:42so we have focused on what it started at
1:34:44about
1:34:46disconnections and reconnections for all
1:34:48services no matter how it's done
1:34:51and so that's the purpose we have so we
1:34:53have two major utilities who agree now
1:34:56CNG and Atmos like to present the fact
1:34:58that they're rather small compared to
1:35:00public service but they're not small
1:35:01companies I mean these companies have
1:35:04operations in other states Atmos is a
1:35:06great large company so just because it's
1:35:09as and by the way it's it's a customer
1:35:11account in Colorado is not unlike that
1:35:13of Black Hills uh for its Jack gas side
1:35:16it's not identical but it's similar uh
1:35:19but this whole idea that they're too
1:35:20small to tell their customers what's
1:35:21going on
1:35:23just doesn't hold any water
1:35:26customers are customers regardless of
1:35:28the size of utility and these rules
1:35:30apply regarding these statutes apply and
1:35:33I find it interesting to say these are
1:35:34self-effectuating because it's my
1:35:35understanding and again reading the very
1:35:37language on cng's tariffs it contains
1:35:39the prohibitions that are contained in
1:35:41the statute which according to Mr
1:35:43stoffel is not self-effectuating so I
1:35:45have some issue with that
1:35:47the statute says what the statute says
1:35:49and and so to the fact I guess we're
1:35:51saying what I'm hearing Mr stuff will
1:35:53say is don't pay attention to the
1:35:55statute until you issue rules and
1:35:57they're finally approved I have some
1:35:59problem with that legal argument I'll
1:36:00leave it at that
1:36:03your honor if I may respond
1:36:07sorry of course Mr Stafford it was not
1:36:10created new it was amended and the rules
1:36:13already addressed this connection as Mr
1:36:16diametero said earlier so there are
1:36:19already requirements in place in the
1:36:21rules that were in place before the
1:36:22statute before it was amended that the
1:36:24utilities are complying with and now
1:36:26we're talking about amending the current
1:36:29rules to reflect the amendment to the
1:36:31statute and so it's the new requirements
1:36:35around same-day reconnection and quote
1:36:39the exception for qualified
1:36:40Communications are new and that's what
1:36:43we're talking about here and that's what
1:36:45until it is adopted into effective rules
1:36:48do not apply but I'm not saying that
1:36:51there are no restrictions or
1:36:53prohibitions around disconnection uh
1:36:56it's we're just evolving as the law
1:36:58around those issues have evolved
1:37:04thank you for that explanation Mr
1:37:06stoffel does anybody have any response
1:37:08or any comment they'd like to make in
1:37:10response to Mr stoffel or Mr Dixon
1:37:16no okay
1:37:20all right any other points anyone or
1:37:23topics or
1:37:25comments anyone would like to make about
1:37:27the joint response filed by Atmos and
1:37:30Colorado natural gas anything else
1:37:33anybody wants to say about that
1:37:40all right
1:37:41um let me just
1:37:43ask generally of the few topics that
1:37:46we've been talking about and have come
1:37:47up repeatedly even in this hearing
1:37:49issues of robocalls and qualifying
1:37:51Communications and the use of the advice
1:37:53letter proceedings does anybody have
1:37:56anything else they want to add about
1:37:57those topics
1:38:03no okay
1:38:06um I appreciate all your feedback on
1:38:07those specific
1:38:10um
1:38:10discrete issues and I'll now applaud any
1:38:13additional topic or comments anyone
1:38:15wants to make about the rulemaking
1:38:17process generally and the proposed rules
1:38:20generate generally does anyone have any
1:38:22other
1:38:23topics comments they would like to make
1:38:25about just the proposed rules in general
1:38:31foreign
1:38:37okay last call anybody have any
1:38:39additional comments that anyone would
1:38:40like to make or any topics anyone wants
1:38:43to discuss before we close the public
1:38:45comment portion of this hearing
1:38:52okay
1:38:55it looks as if no one has any additional
1:38:56comments so I think we have become to
1:38:58the conclusion of the comment portion of
1:39:01this public comment hearing I want to
1:39:03thank you all for your comments
1:39:05regarding the proposed modifications to
1:39:07the rules governing the disconnection of
1:39:09gas and electric service
1:39:11at this time it appears that no one has
1:39:14any additional comments to offer and
1:39:15that we've come to the conclusion of
1:39:17today's public comment discussion
1:39:24now my inclination at this point because
1:39:27it appears that we've discussed these
1:39:30topics quite thoroughly over several
1:39:32public comment hearings and that many
1:39:35issues have been resolved between the
1:39:38various stakeholders to these rules
1:39:42um
1:39:43and regarding some of the contentious
1:39:45issues concerning the proposed gas and
1:39:47electricals
1:39:49it is my belief that any further
1:39:51discussion is not necessary or warranted
1:39:54and I'm inclined to not continue the
1:39:57public commentary again that this would
1:39:59be our concluding public commentary on
1:40:01this issue
1:40:03I guess I would ask if anyone objection
1:40:05has a belief or a need to have one more
1:40:08public comment hearing I'm willing but
1:40:10at this point my inclination is to close
1:40:13the hearing portion of this proceeding
1:40:15at this time
1:40:18Mr Denman Mr Dixon I would very much
1:40:21appreciate you put your perspective on
1:40:23this thank you your honor uh we agree
1:40:26with you that you have thoroughly uh
1:40:32beating a dead horse
1:40:34you're really solicited and we have uh
1:40:38we participants are thoroughly provided
1:40:40you with a robust record in this
1:40:43proceeding and we agree with you that
1:40:46there's no need for another
1:40:48continued we'll make their hearing in
1:40:51this proceeding and we thank you very
1:40:53much for your patience and consideration
1:40:55of our written comments and particularly
1:40:58the consensus rules that we tend to with
1:41:00our colleagues
1:41:02well I honestly appreciate all of your
1:41:04comments I very much appreciate the
1:41:06consensus rules that I know every all
1:41:08the interested stakeholders worked so
1:41:10hard to hash out and uh it honestly
1:41:12makes my job in many ways much easier Mr
1:41:15Dixon please go ahead first of all I
1:41:17agree completely with Mr Denman I think
1:41:19this has been come down to two major
1:41:21topics you've got a set of consensus
1:41:23rules and you have an objection and I
1:41:25think that's where this case resides I
1:41:27don't want to write any more comments I
1:41:29don't want to talk about it anymore I
1:41:31want to see you we love reading Archer
1:41:33Dixon I do love reading your comments
1:41:35though thank you but my point is I'm
1:41:37looking forward to your ruling one way
1:41:39or another and you know the big thing we
1:41:41need now is a decision and I would
1:41:43appreciate that at your convenience okay
1:41:47thank you so much Mr Dixon
1:41:49all right then I will go ahead and we'll
1:41:51be closing the public common hearing
1:41:54portion of this proceeding
1:41:57um although the hearing portion will be
1:41:58closing I just want to make clear that
1:42:01interested persons or stakeholders are
1:42:03still free to submit additional written
1:42:06comments or leave a verbal comment on
1:42:09the commission's voicemail
1:42:10because there is no deadline for
1:42:13submitting comments and cons in written
1:42:15more voice more will be accepted by the
1:42:18commission until this evening is closed
1:42:19and let me make later that way closing
1:42:21the hearing portion but not the
1:42:22proceeding itself
1:42:25um we just won't be having another
1:42:26public commentary at which oral comments
1:42:30will be taken
1:42:32um as I indicated at the beginning of
1:42:34the hearing all written comments will be
1:42:36added to the record of this proceeding
1:42:37and all verbal messages left with the
1:42:39commission regarding
1:42:41the gas and electric rules will be
1:42:43transcribed and filed in the record of
1:42:45this proceeding as well uh Mr Dixon
1:42:47please go ahead I was just going to say
1:42:49I would hope we have an agreement
1:42:51between the utilities that is public
1:42:53service Black Hills Electric Black Hills
1:42:55gas
1:42:56Colorado natural gas and Atmos as well
1:42:58as the energy Outreach Colorado and the
1:43:01utility consumer Advocate that the fun
1:43:03that we will not file more written
1:43:05comments to have this continue on that
1:43:09really what you're talking about
1:43:10although we are entitled to so I don't
1:43:12want to suggest we can't but what I
1:43:14think you're getting at is the public
1:43:15would be able to file comments or any
1:43:18other party that even hasn't been
1:43:19involved because that's what the statute
1:43:21on rulemaking allows but I will support
1:43:23represent to you that UCA has no
1:43:26intention of putting in any more
1:43:27comments we've said what we need to see
1:43:29and they're in there and we again
1:43:31appreciate all your efforts in in
1:43:33listening to all the comments that have
1:43:35been filed so I just hope that the
1:43:38utilities and the players that you'll
1:43:40see and UCA can agree we have no
1:43:42intention of following more comments
1:43:45thank you so much Mr Dixon I I do
1:43:47appreciate that very much but as you
1:43:48indicated I wanted to make sure that the
1:43:51public at large and any interested
1:43:53stakeholders understand that although
1:43:55the hearing portion is closed
1:43:57comments can continue to be accepted
1:44:00um
1:44:01I would find any wishing meant any
1:44:02further comments please ensure their
1:44:05voicemail message or income includes
1:44:06proceeding which is 52 R Dash zero zero
1:44:11I'm sorry zero five five seven EG let me
1:44:14say that again since I didn't say it
1:44:15clearly 22r-0557eg
1:44:22um I would caution anyone though that
1:44:24anyone who does decide to submit
1:44:26additional comments after they
1:44:29closing of this hearing portion
1:44:32um
1:44:32that although I don't know when my
1:44:34decision will issue it's my hope that it
1:44:37will be within the next 30 to 45 days
1:44:40and therefore if anyone has an intention
1:44:43of filing any additional written
1:44:45comments or leaving an additional
1:44:46voicemail message comment that you
1:44:49please do so within the next two weeks
1:44:50or so so that I have an opportunity to
1:44:52review those before I draft the decision
1:44:57that then brings this public comment
1:45:00Hearing in proceeding number
1:45:0422r-0557eg to a close again I want to
1:45:08thank all of you for participating I
1:45:10want to thank everyone for their
1:45:11thoughtful and thorough and helpful
1:45:14comments
1:45:15um I think they had a very productive
1:45:16conversation and a productive discussion
1:45:19on how these rules are going to play out
1:45:21and I truly appreciate all of your work
1:45:24and cooperation in getting to this point
1:45:27we are adjourned and the hearing portion
1:45:29of this rulemaking proceeding number
1:45:3322r-0557eg is now closed thanks very
1:45:37much and have a good afternoon and a
1:45:38good weekend everyone thank you your
1:45:40Harley
1:45:41thank you Mr Denman thank you
1:45:44thank you thank you
1:45:47thank you your honor have a good weekend
1:45:49you too Mr Dixon

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of YouTube transcript (u5rEUaz3PHU) , generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 11,382 words across 1,874 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.