PSC hearing flags 30‑day notice question after Enbridge corrects transportation imbalance charge

Enbridge Gas Utah filed corrected tariff exhibits on Sept. 11 that changed the company’s daily transportation imbalance charge to about $0.07783 per dekatherm, and the Utah Public Service Commission hearing officer said the revision raised a statutory timing question the commission must resolve.

The hearing officer opened the consolidated virtual hearing Sept. 24 and said the corrected filing in Docket 25‑057‑16 “strikes me as potentially more than just a simple correction, and instead appears to possibly substantively affect rates,” and asked the parties to address whether Utah Code §54‑3‑3’s 30‑day notice requirement applies and, if it does, whether good cause exists to allow a deviation.

Why it matters: If the commission treats the Sept. 11 correction as a new rate filing, statute 54‑3‑3 generally requires at least 30 days’ notice for a change in rates unless the commission allows a deviation. Enbridge and the Division of Public Utilities (DPU) agreed the question is principally relevant to the TIC (transportation and imbalance charge) in Docket 25‑057‑16 but could affect the timing or implementation of related tariff sheets filed across the consolidated dockets.

What Enbridge presented

Jordan K. Stevenson, Enbridge’s manager of regulation and the company’s witness in Docket 25‑057‑16, testified the corrected exhibits reflect a change in the TIC to 7.78¢ per dekatherm and said the company did not intend the correction to be a standalone re‑filing of rates. “This charge will be applied to the transportation service volumes that differ from nominated volumes by more than 5%. This charge is just reasonable and in the public interest, and the company requests approval of these interim rates effective 10/01/2025,” Stevenson testified.

Counsel for Enbridge, Jennifer Clark, told the hearing officer she did not object to DPU’s procedural filings and argued the corrected submission is a correction, not a new rate filing, and therefore should not automatically restart any 30‑day clock. Clark also offered an alternative: if the commission treats the correction as triggering the 30‑day rule, Enbridge would be prepared to make an oral showing of good cause after testimony is in.

DPU’s position

DPU witnesses said the division had reviewed the corrected exhibits and recommended interim approval of the TIC adjustment. DPU technical consultant Ryan Daigle told the commission the TIC methodology follows the approach approved in prior dockets and recommended interim approval effective Oct. 1 because the TIC is subject to DPU audit. Daigle summarized the numeric change: “The proposed adjustment represents an increase from $0.07641 per dekatherm to $0.07783 per dekatherm…” and recommended interim approval pending audit.

Hearing‑officer direction and next steps

Hearing Officer Delaney repeatedly told parties he wanted a clear record on whether the Sept. 11 correction should be treated as a new rate filing under Utah Code §54‑3‑3 and associated PSC rules, and he asked the parties to consider two lines of argument: (1) the 30‑day statute does not apply to the TIC because the filing is a non‑rate charge or a correction, or (2) if it does apply, the company should be allowed to make an oral motion showing good cause supported by evidence developed in testimony. He gave Enbridge the first opportunity to present a legal overview on that question and indicated DPU would have an opportunity to respond.

Quantities and immediate impacts

- Revised TIC: 0.07783 per dekatherm (proposed), up from 0.07641 per dekatherm as noted in DPU’s review. - Customers directly subject to TIC: approximately 1,200 transportation service customers (company estimate); total EGU customer base cited in testimony: about 1.2 million customers.

What the hearing record shows and does not show

The record shows Enbridge filed corrected exhibits on Sept. 11 and did not explicitly address the 30‑day rule or attempt a good‑cause showing in that filing. DPU’s initial comments likewise did not raise the statute in early filings; DPU later recommended interim approval based on its audit authority and the TIC methodology. The commission has not issued a decision during the hearing; the officer directed parties to present legal argument and evidence on whether the 30‑day notice requirement applies and, if so, whether good cause exists.

Ending

The hearing officer asked Enbridge to be ready to present legal argument and to develop factual testimony on the record supporting either that the 30‑day rule does not apply to the corrected TIC or, alternately, that good cause exists to permit the requested effective date. The commission will take the parties’ forthcoming argument and evidence under advisement before issuing any interim or final order in Docket 25‑057‑16.