Logan council rejects joining UAMPS baseload gas project after lengthy public hearing

The Logan City Council on Jan. 7 denied a resolution that would have committed the city to a power sales contract for a combined-cycle natural gas baseload plant being developed by Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS).

The action followed a public hearing that drew more than 50 speakers and more than two hours of testimony. Proponents, including Logan City staff and representatives of UAMPS, argued the subscription would help secure local, dispatchable capacity. Opponents — neighborhood residents, students, environmental advocates and members of the city’s renewable advisory group — urged the council to delay and to prioritize local renewable options and conservation.

Why it matters: Council members said they must weigh the city’s forecasted growth and reliability requirements against long-term climate, health and fiscal concerns voiced by many residents. The UAMPS project would supply large-scale baseload power to municipal utilities; joining would create a multi‑decade contractual and financial commitment.

Mark Montgomery, Logan’s director of Light and Power, outlined the utility’s forecast and rationale for participating. He told the council that Logan’s analysis shows a need to replace expiring local capacity over the next two decades and that the UAMPS plant would add firm, dispatchable capacity timed to come online in the early 2030s. Yuqi, identified at the hearing as a resource manager for Logan City, presented the utility’s 20‑year baseload forecast showing projected baseload needs rising from about 53 megawatts today to roughly 84 megawatts by 2044, and explained regulatory changes that reduce how much solar is counted toward capacity requirements in regional markets.

UAMPS officials, including Mason Baker, chief executive officer, said the interlocal utility formed in 1980 to serve member cities and counties. "We exist for the benefit of our members," Baker said, describing UAMPS’s planning role and the association’s view that a diversified set of resources — including the proposed combined‑cycle unit — helps members avoid spikes like those seen in 2022 on the open market.

Speakers opposing the city’s participation described health and climate risks and urged a longer review of renewables, storage and conservation. "It's not a bridge," said Patrick Feldman, a Logan resident. "It's a commitment to an energy source that keeps us tethered to a path that we know is unsustainable." Several residents said that projects built in Utah have frequently exported their energy to out‑of‑state buyers, leaving local communities with the air and climate impacts but not the long‑term benefits.

Members of the Renewable Energy and Sustainability Advisory Board (RESAB) and other local experts offered alternatives, including large local solar-plus‑storage configurations and geothermal, and urged the council to insist on more time to vet community proposals — including a RESAB model spreadsheet that council members said they had reviewed but not fully reconciled with staff forecasts.

Council debate focused on two competing risks: leaving the city exposed to volatile market purchases (which the utility said in 2022 led to large surcharge costs) or locking the city into a multi‑decade contract for natural gas capacity. Council members repeatedly emphasized the difficulty of predicting the pace of renewable deployments, transmission availability and technology change.

After discussion the council approved a motion to deny the resolution authorizing Logan’s participation in the UAMPS power sales contract. The denial was approved by a unanimous roll‑call vote; council members did not adopt a substitute commitment at the meeting.

What happens next: Staff and the council said they will continue pursuing renewable projects and battery storage opportunities that are under discussion, and that the utility will keep evaluating market purchases and local generation needs. UAMPS representatives said the larger project will proceed with other participants regardless of Logan's decision.

Public comment also produced several other matters the council said it would track: requests that the city accelerate local renewable siting (including possible use of former evaporation ponds), more detailed financial comparisons between ownership and power‑purchase approaches, and clearer descriptions of how potential hydrogen conversion or other technology transitions would be handled if the city joined a fossil‑fuel project.

The council’s vote does not prohibit future participation in other projects; it simply declined the specific power‑sales contract covered by the resolution on the table that evening.