Legal Opinion

Glustrom v. Colorado Public Utilities Commission

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided June 25, 2012No. 11SA164PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Eid

{1 With the approval of the Public Utilities Commission ("PUC"), in 2005 the Public Service Company of Colorado ("Xcel") began constructing a coal-fired electric power unit known as Comanche 8. When Xeel sought to recover a portion of its construction costs nearly four years later in a rate proceeding, Leslie Glustrom intervened. Glustrom sought to introduce testimony that Xeel acted improperly and, consequently, should not recover its costs. The PUC excluded most of her testimony, a ruling that lustrom challenged. Glustrom separately challenged the depreciation rate and the possibility that…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
  2. Smyth v. AmesSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
  3. Smyth v. Ames; Smyth v. Smith; Smyth v. HigginsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
  4. Duquesne Light Co. v. BaraschSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  5. Denver Union Stock Yard Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1938

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Mississippi Power Co. v. Mississippi Public Service CommissionMississippi Supreme Court · 2015
  2. Mississippi Power Company, Inc. v. Mississippi Public Service CommissionMississippi Supreme Court · 2015

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API