Transcript of the PUC Declining My Intervener Request

Transcribed by A.I. so there's homophones in places

00:00:03 Mitchell DiCenso

Turns out of your Commission Council for decision today is whether to grant or deny late filed intervention by Mr. David Thielen on April 24th, 2025 in the intervention, Mr. Thielen states that he's an individual stakeholder with a substantial interest in Colorado's clean energy transition. And is seeking intervention in this proceeding to advocate for the inclusion of proven nuclear power plant design in phase twos competitive solicitation process.

Specifically, Mr. Thielen states the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved and certified particular nuclear reactor designs that the Commission should consider these options and the request for proposal and bid evaluation in phase two as they offer significant advantages for Colorado's in the future.

In the intervention, Mr. Thielen addresses various aspects of these NRC certified nuclear signs including reliability and baseload power emissions reductions, just transition benefits and economic and safety advantages.

Mr. Thielen is a resident of Colorado and does not have legal representation and he is therefore seeking Pro se Jupiter status of this proceeding.

I can pause here for discussion or procedure. Offline your recommendations.

00:01:16 Eric Blank

Yeah. We brought them a recommendation.

00:01:20 Mitchell DiCenso

Recommends to deny Mr. Thielen’s late filed infection under Commission Rule 1401 a the Commission may for good cause shown allow late intervention subject to reasonable procedural requirements and provided the movement meets the requirements for permission permissive intervention under row 14 O 1C.

In addition to requiring a pecuniary intangible interest not otherwise represented 1401 C requires that a movement who's a residential customer discuss in the motion whether the distinct interest of the consumer is either not adequately represented by UCA or inconsistent with other classes of consumers represented by UCA.

Mr. Thielen has failed to demonstrate good cost for late intervention and does not establish grounds for permissive intervention under Commission rule. The intervention similarly fall short of demonstrating that UCA cannot adequately represent his interest in this proceeding.

Notably, the indifference should just not address any of these substitute requirements. Particularly at this late stage of the proceeding, where answer testimony has already been filed.

We recommend the Commission deny Mr. Thielen’s intervention, but encourage him to participate in this proceeding through public comments. In his intervention, Mr. Thielen commits to, among other things providing evidence based comments, participating in public comment hearings and submitting written comments.

Council believes Mr. Thielen can adequately advocate for his position. and included him of nuclear energy through these forms, without being a party to this procedure.

00:02:48 Eric Blank

I agree with the recommendation. I have a lot of concerns about running the process like this with the first third parties. It's varied weight filed and we read the public comments written public comments, so I believe that we'll give Mr. Thielen and an opportunity to weigh into the process so I agree.

Commissioner, German.

00:03:20 Megan Gilman

Yeah.

00:03:21 Tom Plant

Thanks Richard. Just said though, I also agree and would encourage the. The applicants to participate in the public comment process. We should.

00:03:36 Eric Blank

And then that can be an ABC order.

Thank you, Mr. DiCenso