Rules proposed to prevent customers from having to cover public utilities’ expenses for lobbyists, advertising and political contributions are too weak to prevent potential abuses, critics said.

A public meeting Monday drew speakers who want to see the Colorado Public Utilities Commission strengthen regulations to carry out a 2023 law that was passed after a widespread outcry over high utility bills.

Besides directing utilities to look at avoiding the kind of price jumps that doubled or tripled some Coloradans’ heat bills in early 2023, Senate Bill 23-291 prohibited utilities from adding expenses for lobbying, certain advertising, public relations, political contributions and membership dues to customers’ rates.

But the bill’s prime sponsors as well as a dozen Colorado organizations and a national watchdog group have argued the proposed regulations aren’t detailed or specific enough to ensure that ratepayers aren’t footing some of the bill. They said initial reports by Xcel Energy-Colorado, Black Hills Energy and Atmos Energy reveal “glaring reporting gaps.”

In a filing with the PUC, the bill’s sponsors, members of a select legislative committee, said they support requiring more specific information from utilities “to ensure that ratepayers are insulated from these costs.”

During Monday’s meeting, Laurie Anderson, a Broomfield City Council member who was representing Colorado Communities for Climate Action, said she is concerned about “the common practice” of utilities across the country using ratepayer money to influence politics.

“Income from monthly bills should never be used by a utility to lobby or work against laws and regulations that would lower those same bills,” Anderson said.

The companies required to report information on activities targeted by the law all objected to the level of detail sought by environmental and community groups and the Energy and Policy Institute, a national organization focused on utilities and renewable energy. Xcel Energy said in a document that the suggested changes to the PUC’s draft rules would result in administrative burdens, creating little or no benefit and possibly higher costs for rate cases.

Providing even more detailed, transaction-level detail, including by employee, “would necessitate a manual review process of upwards of 30,000 transactions annually,” Xcel contended.

Black Hills Energy and Atmos Energy also maintained that the burden of requiring more specifics would outweigh the benefits. The companies said more time is needed to respond to comments on the rules.

State Administrative Law Judge Robert Garvey, who oversaw the public meeting, said there will be an opportunity to file more comments and perhaps another meeting.

During Monday’s meeting, Garvey quizzed speakers about the utilities’ arguments, including that demanding more detailed reports on items they can’t charge customers for could end up boosting the companies’ overall expenses.

“Are we going to have to increase rate expenses to show that they didn’t do anything wrong?” Garvey asked. “I think the ratepayers don’t want to pay a whole lot more for nothing.”

But David Pomerantz, the executive director of the Energy and Policy Institute, said his organization offered examples of rules from other states where utilities must submit more specific data. He said the Colorado utilities’ initial reports contain mostly aggregate rather than specific information.

“The central purpose is to ensure compliance,” Pomerantz said. “Without itemized data, it’s impossible to verify.”

A 2023 nationwide report by the policy group explored ways to ensure that utility customers don’t pay for the companies’ political operations or practices that run counter to customers’ best interests. The group suggested that the Colorado PUC require utilities to itemize lists of expenses by employee and invoice and require companies to report on employees, affiliates and outside vendors conducting the kind of political activities singled out by the law.

“They’re kind of asking for blind trust here. We’re asking the commission to take a trust-but-verify stance,” Pomerantz said.