Get email alerts on the Transmission Costs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Transmission access and cost-allocation emerge as central flash points in SB 132 rule debate
Summary
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.
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.
AI generated
The text on this page is AI generated. Summaries, highlights, analysis, and video transcripts are all produced from the original source material.
AI can make mistakes, so if you spot one, and we will fix it for everyone.
Note: the source content is unaltered by us. Any content source we link to, be it a video, an audio recording, or a document, is presented exactly as its publisher released it. That publisher is usually a government body, sometimes an individual official or another organisation.
