Utah PSC hears settlement to add Piance Phase 2 to WEXPRO II portfolio

SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah Public Service Commission on Aug. 6, 2025, took into the record a settlement stipulation that would include the Piance Phase 2 development as a WEXPRO 2 property and admitted prefiled testimony and confidential exhibits from the company, the Division of Public Utilities and the Office of Consumer Services.

The stipulation would add an additional working‑interest agreement executed on April 17, 2025, between WEXPRO and a majority owner/operator of wells in the Piance Basin in western Colorado to the WEXPRO II portfolio. Austin Summers, director of regulatory and pricing for Enbridge Gas Utah, summarized the settlement to the commission and said, "the settlement is not final until the commission approves it in an order." He asked the commission to approve inclusion of the Piance Phase 2 development as a WEXPRO 2 property.

Why it matters: The WEXPRO II framework governs how WEXPRO production counts toward utility supply caps and how any savings relative to market prices are shared between WEXPRO and Enbridge customers. Past settlement modifications — notably the Trail and 2015 Canyon Creek stipulations — lowered production caps and revised how returns and cost sharing are calculated. Adding new properties to the portfolio affects future cost‑of‑service gas available to Utah ratepayers and how any below‑market savings are reported and shared.

Summary of stipulation and company position

Summarizing the filing, Summers said paragraphs 1–14 of the stipulation recap the WEXPRO II history and prior stipulations. He said the Canyon Creek modifications reduced the production cap from 65% to 55%, clarified the five‑year forward curve calculation used as a price hurdle, and stipulated cost sharing for dry holes and noncommercial wells. Summers told the commission the Piance Phase 2 properties are not inside the original WEXPRO‑1 development area but that WEXPRO nonetheless sought commission approval for inclusion in WEXPRO 2. He said paragraph 24 of the stipulation states the parties agree the Piance Phase 2 development "should be approved as a WexPro 2 property," and paragraph 26 commits the company to improve monthly 191‑account reporting to make shared savings more transparent.

Division and Office positions

Eric Orton, a utility technical consultant at the Utah Division of Public Utilities, testified the division reviewed the application, data responses and a confidential hydrocarbon monitor report and recommended approval despite two stated concerns: whether these types of non‑operator working interest agreements are properly housed under the WEXPRO II framework, and provisions that could require utility customers to bear costs they did not cause. Orton said, "The division recommends that the commission approve the settlement stipulation as filed, which will result in the inclusion of this additional reserve called the Piance II development as set forth in the application as a WexPro 2 property. . . . the stipulation is just and reasonable in result and would be in the public interest by providing net benefits to rate payers." The division and company agreed to meet before the next application to discuss the division’s concerns.

Bela Vastag, a utility technical consultant for the Office of Consumer Services, also supported the stipulation in a brief statement, saying the inclusion would keep WEXPRO cost‑of‑service supply nearer the 55% cap and provide a hedge against price spikes and supply disruptions. Vastag noted the company committed to clearer reporting of shared savings on the monthly 191 account.

Issues raised and remaining questions

Commissioners and intervenors pressed several practical issues during questioning: how divergent outcomes between the Utah and Wyoming commissions would be handled (Summers and Orton said both commissions must approve inclusion and that if one commission declines the property would not be included); timing needs for company plans (Summers said the company was hoping for an order by Sept. 1 and expects to begin field activity in November if approved); the mechanics and historical frequency of shared‑savings payments (witnesses said shared savings have been rare and would normally show as a separate line in monthly 191 reporting, typically zero in months without shared savings); and whether non‑operator participation by WEXPRO is acceptable under the WEXPRO II approvals process (the parties agreed to continue education and discussion and to resolve outstanding questions before the next application).

Formal record actions

The commission admitted prefiled testimony and exhibits for the company and later admitted the settlement stipulation into the record after Robert Moore moved for its admission. The division’s direct testimony and the confidential hydrocarbon monitor report were admitted at the division’s request. The Office of Consumer Services’ testimony and confidential exhibits were also admitted. There was no final commission vote on the stipulation in the hearing; Chair Fenn said the commission would take the matter under advisement and issue a written order as staff capacity allows.

What’s next

Parties agreed to meet to attempt to resolve the division’s two concerns (shared‑savings reporting and treatment of non‑operated properties) within the coming months. The Utah decision will also await the corresponding Wyoming proceeding; witnesses said both state commissions must approve inclusion for the property to be added to the WEXPRO portfolio. The commission did not announce a decision date and will issue a written order after review.

Ending

No commissioner requested additional testimony. The hearing record contains admitted testimony and confidential hydrocarbon monitor material; the commission will issue a written order after review of the stipulation and exhibits.