[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",5979365,"mediaKeyId","5775757-09ff59676a1adf4ccf98e9398e681899","parentId",5775757,"title","Transmission access and cost-allocation emerge as central flash points in SB 132 rule debate","audioSeconds",2118,"startMs",1050000,"endMs",3168000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5775757-09ff59676a1adf4ccf98e9398e681899&start=1050&end=3168","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5775757-09ff59676a1adf4ccf98e9398e681899/thumbnail_1050000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/5979365/Utah/Transmission-access-and-cost-allocation-emerge-as-central-flash-points-in-SB-132-rule-debate","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5979365-af76c7936e6c40f00e5b4c12b3c77f5d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771014746&Signature=cQgrM-WIPKjXgQpqJlLcdflszMe526hIdAwwISNoHEaEvbl2QPcKifxEmzINrilCoD5CDdDXHEfRfc7KnASCMLDdvLN~erm3vLV6cBRmisi4~nuxHwNrxBNLp~Ijo4FwcQvRzLqV8kEjs2Z-AITMyny3S~3~n3yokgtT1fcCJ~O-2BN8Sk6aA8bgCAnTI6UlwvMC7mheBSqqiy0AlMr65aD9JjRLu0sYbMW9kQ7t2oKaV0W9TtS3u74v1eVio5-68-Zmp3Tsd86K-jjPUb7-WN6VUFzELHJ0kQqr9oXr8Wm2dXXZAWC0mC5bMWupSqdjLTmF7Rtw3untJ-K-YuVXtg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Public Service Commission of Utah","date","2025-09-18T04:54:18Z","article","Transmission access and how to allocate costs for large-load customers or connected generation systems emerged as a primary point of disagreement during the Utah Public Service Commission technical conference on implementing SB 132.

Why it matters: how transmission costs are allocated determines project economics for large industrial and data-center customers and affects whether costs are socialized across other customers or borne by the project sponsor; the choice also implicates FERC jurisdiction over the open access transmission tariff (OATT).

Positions and details: Rocky Mountain Power warned against rules that would compel changes to Pacificorp's open access transmission tariff, saying federal jurisdiction and existing FERC processes govern OATT amendments. \"The law clearly respects the jurisdictional boundary between the state and federal regulation,\" Rocky Mountain Power said. Some intervenors proposed a state-level tariff to provide predictable transmission-related charges for large customers, pointing to examples in Oregon and Arizona that use administrative mechanisms or state-authorized tariffs to align FERC and state jurisdictional responsibilities. One participant raised the possibility of an Arizona-style wholesale buy-through mechanism as an alternative.

Other technical points: participants discussed whether Senate Bill 132 unambiguously authorizes large load customers or private generators to use the utility's transmission system; several parties said the statute leaves that question open and recommended clear rule language to reduce downstream litigation. A FERC docket on colocated facilities (EL25-49-000) was mentioned as an external proceeding to monitor while state rules are developed.

Ending: No binding allocation method was chosen at the conference. Parties asked the commission to set rules that either provide clear guardrails for case-by-case evaluations or enable a front-end tariff approach to improve predictability for project developers; the commission will weigh those views in drafting rules.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Technical Conference (25-R318-01, Large-Scale Electric Service Requirements)","oneSentenceSummary","Parties at the SB 132 technical conference disputed how transmission costs should be allocated for large-load or connected generation customers, with suggestions ranging from case-by-case review to state-level tariffs or amendments to open-access tariffs.","taxTitle","Utah Public Service Commission, Utah Subcommittees, Commissions and Task Forces, Utah Legislative Branch, Utah","taxId",72399,"location","Utah","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},5979369,"Stakeholders split over whether Utah PSC can approve private-generation contracts; electrical-isolation and confidentiality rules debated",1192,1181000,2373000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5775757-09ff59676a1adf4ccf98e9398e681899&start=1181&end=2373","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5775757-09ff59676a1adf4ccf98e9398e681899/thumbnail_1181000.jpg","/articles/5979369/Utah/Stakeholders-split-over-whether-Utah-PSC-can-approve-private-generation-contracts-electrical-isolation-and-confidentiality-rules-debated","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5979369-a39a9127d6f2875dc5ad7cdb8279e4c8/orig.mp4?Expires=1771014746&Signature=KaU9UEUgcy6p9-qYii2jTlbm1ggCdYzRgdKkRi3K-1kWzPywyDGSxGLia0I799x5PYUf2R-x1lVGP4TneW0oXvnvJ8RQkdywVQw8Jzv4fodhldMpjuchdoFQXykXxnIt~y2MI09PvEiLctU3oTRRPvJCYWnlsh7d-v9zzrGwVkva2K6S3yHUMXmJSyYJmxmU4zUG28KP0fCyoirn7-6bojd1U4DDL~drFm6DYcWlBRBjYCWXOqyBfZSbWN9XGYb8oK8gsOqcqwJOmCpTrVaDlTk1Q4QTE~ZPs6J--eu-jNpTrnUYAIfeXrdnIpSIhn6-SL17P5GVCAzEzL1h~zr3Kw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Stakeholders at the Utah Public Service Commission\u0000technical conference debated whether Senate Bill 132 gives the commission approval authority over private generation contracts and how to balance confidentiality with the commission\u0000and utility\u0000need to verify electrical isolation and reliability.

Why it matters: the distinction determines what contracts must be submitted, who can review commercially sensitive terms and what documentation (for example, single-line diagrams or curtailment provisions) is required to show a resource is a closed private generation system rather than a connected generation system subject to utility oversight.

Positions and quotes: Utah Association of Energy's representative said, \"It is our position that SB 132 does not authorize the commission to have approval authority over those contracts.\" Craig Eller of Rocky Mountain Power said the company supports \"the commission's authority to review the registration and have a process around the approval of suppliers and private generation contracts.\" Several stakeholders and staff discussed using redacted confidential filings so the commission can review arrangements without public disclosure of commercial pricing; an Office of Consumer Services participant said the commission should at least be able to see private-generation contract terms in confidence.

Key technical points: participants agreed a core distinction in the statute is between a closed private-generation system that \"operates independently from the transmission system\" and a connected generation system that uses the grid. Several speakers said electrical-isolation proof (for example, single-line diagrams and curtailment provisions) is necessary for the commission and the division to verify whether a system qualifies as closed. Rocky Mountain Power said it needs enough technical detail to confirm systems are not relying on ancillary or backup grid services except where a large-load service contract is approved.

Confidentiality and process: parties suggested filing contracts confidentially with redactions for pricing and commercial credit terms; the commission's existing confidentiality rules were cited as sufficient to protect sensitive information while enabling staff review. Several participants emphasized the commission has a reporting duty and should be able to see contracts at least in redacted form to evaluate whether private arrangements pose reliability or cost-shift risks.

Ending: No formal decision was reached; the discussion concluded with an expectation that rules will articulate which contracts must be submitted, the confidentiality process for sensitive commercial terms and the technical evidence required to show a system is electrically isolated.","At the SB 132 technical conference, parties disagreed on whether the statute authorizes the commission to approve private, closed-site generation contracts and discussed what information the commission and utility should see, favoring redacted submissions and electrical-isolation proof.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},5979374,"Utah PSC sets compressed schedule for SB 132 rules, asks Rocky Mountain Power to file draft Oct. 1",4646,284000,4930000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5775757-09ff59676a1adf4ccf98e9398e681899&start=284&end=4930","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5775757-09ff59676a1adf4ccf98e9398e681899/thumbnail_284000.jpg","/articles/5979374/Utah/Utah-PSC-sets-compressed-schedule-for-SB-132-rules-asks-Rocky-Mountain-Power-to-file-draft-Oct-1","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5979374-d95fc5cc1bd6587dc25a253bc9b6295c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771014746&Signature=AsA~x0dd8kQLMBIpj7PwwHFtaK9yd-LAUbXv1eSXcuoXSOm4CuQwduYcIOjtEfcTM9BZFOd23d7sWkdKx4IO5qlkHcAih~TEmlTj~6MlTJyQVKG-R7PWRhbv-i7jDGyvqvB~DVlTMM1f8AGrqWCbJovT3RK~ByGZVlrDHIpSES-1hjnrc6RzC0ktserl~A1hmsCHqwOKNoQXdiESICEErfUqet7F5qKhGIrYg6mgg2LBQ8pWk18aYo8ilQJQS6Qd2ZjoMeYyukcdZazEDOLda7JXIEwGDc~kiITYzzj5fHs-iU1SIHGQkpCCBijsEx2IFvRXT6BJl0SuZV29bghZCA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Utah Public Service Commission and stakeholders at a technical conference agreed to a compressed schedule to develop administrative rules implementing Senate Bill 132, asking Rocky Mountain Power to file a proposed rule redline by Oct. 1 and setting parties\u0000reply comments for Oct. 10 as part of a series of deadlines leading to an Oct. 31 filing.

Commission staff said the commission needs proposed rule language and replied comments by Oct. 10 so the agency can meet statutory deadlines; Chair Jerry Fann noted a rule must be published by Oct. 31 so a 30-day public-comment period can follow. \"What the commission would like to see is post rule language and the the filed reply comments are due October 10,\" a commission representative said during the conference.

Why it matters: the schedule compresses multiple rounds of review into weeks and will shape how utilities, developers and regulators reconcile disagreements about contract review, cost allocation and registration processes under SB 132. Stakeholders said additional iterative rounds and a shared working draft would make responses more useful to the commission.

Most important facts first: Rocky Mountain Power agreed to prepare and file a clean and redlined version of a proposed rule on Oct. 1; parties will file reply comments on Oct. 10; the commission indicated it will provide interim feedback between Oct. 10 and Oct. 20 with a possible final round of comments around Oct. 20; the commission intends to file rules for publication by Oct. 31, after which a 30-day public comment period will follow. Commission staff also said they must hold a public hearing on the fee schedule before Nov. 1; an Oct. 30 hearing date was discussed as a tentative option.

Stakeholder concerns and process details: multiple intervenors said they preferred working from a single redlined draft rather than several competing formats. \"It feels like working from a common document might be really helpful rather than competing floating proposals,\" said one stakeholder during the conference. Rocky Mountain Power confirmed it would attempt to submit a redline of its earlier straw proposal by Oct. 1 and to follow up in its Oct. 10 filing.

Consultant role and iterations: Charles River Associates was newly retained to assist the commission; the consultant\u0000represented at the meeting said they were still getting up to speed and would listen to the flash points stakeholders identified rather than produce immediate analyses. The commission and several intervenors agreed rules could be iterative and refined after initial promulgation.

Lower-priority details and next steps: the schedule discussed includes an additional exchange of comments between Oct. 10 and Oct. 20 so the commission can give preliminary feedback before the Oct. 31 submission. The commission emphasized that some rule components may be revisited after initial adoption; the January 1 statutory target for certain rule obligations was mentioned as a further milestone. Parties were asked to use a stakeholder meeting scheduled for Sept. 26 (outside the commission record) to narrow disputes before formal filings.

Ending: The parties left the conference with an agreed procedural path: Rocky Mountain Power will file a proposed redline Oct. 1; parties will file comments Oct. 10; the commission will provide interim guidance before an anticipated final round around Oct. 20; and the commission intends to submit rules for publication by Oct. 31.","At a technical conference on SB 132 implementation, the Utah Public Service Commission and stakeholders agreed on a compressed drafting and comment schedule, including a company redline due Oct. 1, reply comments on Oct. 10 and a fee hearing to be held before Nov. 1.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Transmission access and cost-allocation emerge as central flash points in SB 132 rule debate

Stakeholders split over whether Utah PSC can approve private-generation contracts; electrical-isolation and confidentiality rules debated

Utah PSC sets compressed schedule for SB 132 rules, asks Rocky Mountain Power to file draft Oct. 1