On January 14, 2025, PacifiCorp and ten of the eleven intervening parties filed a settlement stipulation with the Utah Public Service Commission in Phase II of Rocky Mountain Power’s General Rate Case, Docket No. 24-035-04. The Settlement Stipulation addressed all issues in Phase II of the docket, which considered cost of service and pricing.
Specifically, the Settlement Stipulation addressed rate spread, rate design, and Rocky Mountain Power’s proposed Capacity Reservation Charge and Excess Demand Charge for Large Customers. (For more information on large customer charges, see the January 9, 2025 Sanger Greene website posting “OPUC Authorizes PacifiCorp Oregon Rate Increase”). Regarding rate spread, the Settlement Stipulation provides for a less then average base revenue increase for Schedules 6 (General Service), 7 (Security Area Lighting), 8 (Large General Service), 10 (Irrigation), 11 (Street Lighting – company owned), 12 (Street Lighting – customer owned), and 23 (General Service Distribution Voltage). All other customer classes will receive an equal percentage base revenue increase necessary to recover the revenue requirement as established in Phase I of the proceeding.
Regarding rate design, the Settlement Stipulation calls for a $1 increase to the customer charge for multi-family customers, and $2 increase to the customer charge for single-family customers. Rocky Mountain Power will retain its inclining block rate structure and institute a time-of-use pilot effective December 1, 2025.
Negotiations regarding large customer charges to address utility concerns about excess reserved capacity – or capacity reserved for large customers but ultimately not used – and excess demand – or demand exceeding reserved capacity – resulted in a different approach than what Rocky Mountain Power initially proposed, and what PacifiCorp had proposed in its Oregon service territory. Rather than a Capacity Reservation Charge for all unused capacity, parties opted for a minimum demand charge whereby monthly on-peak power charges would be billed at the higher of actual on-peak usage and 75% of reserved capacity for customers with loads between 50 MW and 200 MW. For customers with loads greater than 200 MW, the Settlement Stipulation proposed that special contracts would include minimum contract lengths and minimum monthly on-peak power charges. It is unclear, but the provisions related to the large customer charges may be mooted by the recently passed Senate Bill (SB) 132, which modifies Rocky Mountain Power’s duty to serve “large loads” that are 100 megawatts or more in five years. SB 132 outlines a different process that creates a mechanism for customers with loads of more than 100 MW to negotiate separate Rocky Mountain Power.
On February 20, 2025, the Utah Public Service Commission issued a notice of intent to modify the Settlement Stipulation by increasing the Low-Income Lifeline Credit from $13.95/month to $18.00/month, pending no objection from stipulating parties. No parties objected to the notice. As of this writing, the Commission has not issued a final ruling but appears likely to approve the Settlement Stipulation.
Stipulating parties included: Rocky Mountain Power, the Division of Public Utilities, the Office of Consumer Services, Utah Association of Energy Users, the Federal Executive Agencies, Western Resource Advocates, the Utah Large Customer Group, Utah Clean Energy, Stadion LLC, Kroger, and Nucor Steel. Walmart was also a party to the case and did not oppose the Settlement Stipulation.
Sanger Greene PC represented Stadion LLC in the Rocky Mountain Power general rate case. Stadion LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Meta Platforms, Inc. Meta has ambitious climate and renewable energy goals, including sourcing 100 percent of its global operations from renewable energy and achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions across its value chain by 2030.
Disclaimer
These materials are intended to as informational and are not to be considered legal advice or legal opinion, nor do they create a lawyer-client relationship. Information included about previous case results does not assure a similar future result.
