Utah PSC hears testimony on including Piaance development in WEXPRO II portfolio; no final order issued

Enbridge Gas Utah and WEXPRO asked the Utah Public Service Commission on Feb. 25, 2025, to approve including the Piaance development as a WEXPRO II property, a request company witnesses said will lower the overall cost of service gas for customers.

The Division of Public Utilities recommended approval even while flagging five concerns about the application — chiefly that the production is outside Utah, WEXPRO will not operate the wells, and the filing format and timing needed adjustments — and described three caveats the company agreed to address. “The net present value is positive,” Division witness Eric Orton said, summarizing the division’s economic analysis and concluding the acquisition should lower the company’s overall cost of service gas.

Company witnesses Kelly Mendenhall (Enbridge Gas Utah) and Brady Rasmussen (WEXPRO) told the commission the acquisition is structured as a joint development agreement (JDA) in which WEXPRO will take a working interest but will not be the operating party. Rasmussen said the arrangement is consistent with prior WEXPRO portfolio additions because it represents an acquisition of property rights even if WEXPRO is not the operator. Mendenhall said the company expects the inclusion to be “reasonable and in the customers’ best interest.”

Division testimony listed five concerns and three caveats. The caveats were: (1) that the WEXPRO hydrocarbon monitor receive required information before the seven-working-day turnaround clock begins; (2) that a list of 12 additional supporting items be provided to the Division with future filings; and (3) that certain exhibits be filed as Excel spreadsheets rather than PDFs. The parties agreed on procedures to address those caveats: Rasmussen committed that WEXPRO will provide the hydrocarbon monitor the necessary information at least two weeks before filing, and the Division said standard data requests will be used to obtain the additional items rather than amending the WEXPRO II agreement. “We will provide the hydrocarbon monitor the necessary information 2 weeks before we file our application with the commissions,” Rasmussen said.

The Office of Consumer Services also reviewed costs, supply impacts and risks and recommended approval, saying likely benefits outweigh potential downsides. Attorney Patricia E. Schmidt, representing the Division in the hearing, and the Division’s witness Orton each confirmed on the record that the company’s proposed procedural commitments addressed the Division’s concerns sufficiently to recommend approval.

The hearing record includes admission of company exhibits (direct and rebuttal testimony and accompanying exhibits) and Division and Office testimony. Commissioners asked about the magnitude of expected cost savings and procedural details; company witnesses characterized the expected reduction relative to market price as a “good difference” at the time of the acquisition but did not quantify a dollar amount. Commissioner questions also clarified that adopting any procedural requirements into the WEXPRO II agreement could require coordinating with regulators in other jurisdictions.

No final commission action was announced at the hearing; the presiding officer said the commission will issue a written order. The Division noted the WEXPRO hydrocarbon monitor, Tim Wilcox, remains available for questions. The record therefore reflects agreement on procedural steps and a Division recommendation to approve inclusion of the Piaance development, with a remaining open concern that the gas is produced outside Utah but deemed not sufficient to prevent approval.