- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- Public Service Co. of Colorado v. City of Boulder
Collection
Public Service Co. of Colorado v. City of Boulder
City of Boulder v. Public Service Co. of Colorado ↗
16SC894 Colo.1 entry
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
06/18/2018
Decision
Dismissal reversed and case directed to be returned to district court.
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the Public Service Company of Colorado’s (Xcel’s) lawsuit challenging a City of Boulder ordinance establishing a light and power utility was timely and viable. Xcel asserted that the ordinance violated the City Charter, which sets forth “metrics” that must be met for the City to have the authority to establish a utility. The Supreme Court did not weigh in on the merits of the case but directed that the case be returned to the district court for further proceedings on Xcel’s claim that the City did not satisfy the required metrics, which included a requirement of demonstrating that the utility could create a plan for reduced greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants and increased renewable energy.
Public Service Co. of Colorado v. City of Boulder ↗
2014CV30681Colo. App.2 entries
Public Service Co. of Colorado v. City of Boulder ↗
2016COA138Colo. App.1 entry
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
09/22/2016
Decision
Opinion issued ruling that district court lacked jurisdiction.
The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that a district court lacked jurisdiction over a challenge by Public Service Company of Colorado (Xcel) to ordinances passed by the City of Boulder to implement a charter amendment that authorized the City to establish a new light and power utility if certain conditions were met. (Xcel is the current provider of electricity to Boulder customers.) One of the charter amendment’s conditions required that the new utility have a plan for reduced greenhouse gas emissions and increased renewable energy. The two ordinances challenged by Xcel accepted a third-party expert’s conclusion that the conditions precedent had been met and stated the City’s intention to establish a new utility. The appellate court said that the district court had erred in dismissing Xcel’s action as time-barred, but that the district court did not have jurisdiction because the ordinances were not final actions. More documents in this case are available <a href="https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink8/0/fol/126574/Row1.aspx">here</a>.