The Colorado Public Utilities Commission of the State of Colorado conducted a public comment hearing via Zoom meeting on Thursday, August 3, at 11:30 a.m, for the Proceeding No. 22r-0491GPS in the matter of the proposed rules regulating pipeline operations and gas pipeline safety.

Administrative Law Judge Farley led the meeting, saying that the purpose is to allow members of the public to comment regarding the consensus position taken by the PUC. Written and oral comments will both be treated the same, but the Commission appreciates written comments.

“As the foundation for the consensus position, we are also endorsing the redlined rules forwarded by Mark and Julie Nygren,” Farley added. “The PUC Pipeline Safety Program clearly does not have the resources to meet state and federal requirements for pipeline safety oversight. Testimony from the last two hearings, and the ‘scathing’ report by the State Auditor, underscore the need for swift reform.

“During this rulemaking, both the Nygrens and Adams County testified that they did not receive a response from PUC after reporting pipeline leaks. The State Audit confirms that the PUC Pipeline Safety Program has a history of being unresponsive to complaints from the public.

“The audit also makes it clear that operators’ reporting of leaks has been incomplete and enforcement of PUC rules has been almost non-existent since at least 2017. The Notice of Rulemaking limited the scope of this rulemaking to the implementation of Senate Bill 21-108.

“We understand that additional legislation will be necessary to give the PUC Pipeline Safety Program the direction and staffing necessary to carry out its federally designated duties and to keep Colorado safe from avoidable pipeline safety incidents,” the background material concluded.

The Colorado Office of the State Auditor, Department of Regulatory Agencies, according to the “Gas Pipeline Safety Program Performance Audit,” May 2023, state that “undersigned local governments and organizations hope to support legislative reform of the agency next year; however, we have an important opportunity and obligation to pass strong pipeline safety rules now that are within the scope of this rulemaking.”

There are three categories of rules that should be addressed in this rulemaking: (1) pipeline mapping, (2) annual reporting of all leaks, and (3) advanced leak detection. These reforms will help protect the environment, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and save lives.

In Colorado, leak detection and repair is generally conducted by the industry itself. There should be a profit incentive to keep the product in the pipeline where it can be sold, and to prevent expensive leaks and remediation; however, those incentives are weighed differently by each individual operator.

There is a wide disparity within the industry over how and when a pipeline is inspected, maintained, repaired, and replaced. The PUC cannot allow operators to continue to cut corners by delaying pipeline inspections or utilizing antiquated and unreliable inspection methods.

The good news is that advanced leak detection technologies are evolving quickly and becoming less expensive every year. The draft rules permit operators to design an advanced leak detection program that suits their particular pipeline system.

In conclusion, Senate Bill 21-108 mandates greater transparency through publicly accessible pipeline maps as well as increased annual reporting from operators. It also requires the use of advanced leak detection technologies.

It is agreed that half measures will only delay much-needed reforms. The Notice of Rulemaking “welcomed the submission of alternative proposed rules including both individual proposals and consensus proposals joined by multiple stakeholders.”

Judge Farley said advanced leak technology is in the early stages of rulemaking and will be ongoing for some time. Advanced leak technician technology will not be addressed at this meeting., he continued.

HD 25 State Representative Tammy Story shared some remarks. She said that pipeline safety is not adequately prioritized and has extreme deficiencies. The status of natural gas lines went unanswered for years.

She worked for a leak detection company in the past and found leaks. Two years after Senate Bill 21-08 was passed, rulemaking is under way. The rules should require mapping and reporting of leaks. Reporting of pipeline leaks and allowing leaks to be fixed will help with climate change, she insisted. It should be addressed immediately, she added. “The urgency cannot be overstated.”

Judge Farley asked what to include regarding the public’s need for information and proximity to the property they own. “What infrastructure is important?” he asked.

Story said she is not blind to the concern that people feel the system is less secure. “They [the industry] will never eliminate all the risks. It needs to be at a scale that preserves and protects.”

Jessica Lowrey and Keith Hay with the Colorado Energy Office said investor utilities don’t have all this information for this rule. It is expensive and time-consuming to garner this information. One of the outstanding questions is, Should cost be an issue? Lowrey said it is a statutory requirement.

“The outcome we want to achieve and information that can be used are what upgrades will need to be made. Right now, we are somewhat blind to the infrastructure. A PDF version of a map would focus on the outcome that is driving the focus on mapping.”

Steve Denman with the Public Service Co. said they would have to spend millions. “It would be like trying to get blood out of a stone,” he said. “We don’t need this rule making.”

Angela Monroe with Colorado Natural Gas said the rule would be an administrative burden. She suggested a table of lists of information that couldn’t be used for “bad acts.” They have concerns.

The Nygrens of Johnstown, Colorado, said their home was demolished because of a pipeline gas fire. More than 50 pipelines have not been reported. Pipeline operators don’t have to report. Twenty local governments have supported the redlined rules.

Judge Farley concluded the public hearing and said he will have to present a recommendation to the commissioners, and then those with concerns can file objections to the commissioners.

Additional Information on this proceeding can be found by visiting Proceeding No. 22R-0491GPS.

Comment Process:

Public comments can also be provided by submitting written comments through the Commission’s Electronic Filing System (E-Filings); or

Writing or calling Gail Conners at 303-894-2827, gail.conners@state.co.us.

Submitting written comments using the Commission’s online form https:// Public Utilities Commission | Public Utilities Commission (colorado.gov)

Submitting through email at dora_puc_website@state.co.us.

Mailing comments to the Commission’s offices at: Colorado Public Utilities Commission, 1560 Broadway, Suite 250, Denver, CO 80202

Calling 303-869-3490 to leave oral comments (English and Spanish options).