Enbridge seeks permission to extend gas service to South Rim; commissioners press on costs, affordability and contaminated soils

Enbridge Gas Utah presented plans to extend natural gas service to the unincorporated South Rim area near Stockton in Tooele County during a Utah Public Service Commission technical conference. The company identified about 356 potential customers and proposed building roughly 16,510 feet of 6‑inch high‑pressure main, about 68,975 feet of intermediate‑high‑pressure pipe (various sizes), approximately 50,700 feet of service lines and a new regulator station.

The project matter drew detailed questions from commissioners and Division staff about customer affordability, program spending caps, environmental constraints and construction costs. Melinda Cramuel, the PSCs facilitator for the conference, opened the session and led introductions.

Why it matters: Enbridge said the average company cost per potential customer in this project footprint is roughly $67,000, far above the companys cited rural average of about $5,800 per customer. Commissioners pressed the company on how household conversion costs, low‑income assistance and rebate eligibility could affect uptake and whether uncertain survey response rates justify the project at this time.

Enbridge described its outreach and customer interest steps, including a June 10 open house at the Stockton fire station, door hangers and a project webpage. The company reported survey results on its slides: 135 respondents indicated they were interested, 11 said they were unsure, and 19 were shown on the slide as a separate response category. Company witnesses said response rate was lower than other projects and attributed that in part to the absence of an incorporated city government or a clearly identified HOA leader in South Rim.

On affordability and conversion costs, Enbridge said costs vary greatly by household. The company explained conversion needs can include appliance conversion kits, new appliances, ductwork, fuel lines and venting, and that its operations staff address those questions at open houses and in preconstruction outreach. Enbridge acknowledged it had not calculated median household income in the project area nor quantified how many potential customers might qualify for state low‑income assistance; instead, it said it relies on survey interest and historical participation in earlier projects. Enbridge told the commission preconstruction representatives and open‑house staff would refer customers who say they are on fixed incomes to available assistance programs administered by state agencies.

Commissioners also asked about the programs spending limits. Enbridge presented exhibits showing caps it said the company must observe (a line described in briefing as 2% of DNG within a three‑year period and 5% for total program spending). Company witnesses said the combined effect of previously approved communities and the South Rim and Fairfield proposals remains below those caps.

On engineering and sizing, company witnesses said they selected a 6‑inch high‑pressure main for this route rather than an 8‑inch intermediate‑high‑pressure line because of distance, the communitys footprint and existing Stockton regulator infrastructure. Staff noted that technical designs can be oversize for reasonable projected growth so lines do not require replacement within decades; Enbridge said engineers use county growth rates and standard anticipated growth inputs rather than developer commitments when sizing.

Environmental and permitting issues were a focus. Enbridge said the proposed high‑pressure route runs south of, but near, the Jacobs Smelter Superfund delineation for Stockton; the company is developing a soil management plan with state regulators and the city and expects to test soils, cap with clean soils where required and dispose of contaminated material as necessary. Contaminants mentioned include lead, arsenic and mercury. The company also identified a delineated wetland (Rush Lake, described on aerial imagery as typically dry) and said it will pursue the appropriate nationwide permit to construct through the area.

On schedule and procurement, Enbridge said that, if the commission issued a favorable ruling by March, the company would finalize design and issue bids in March and could construct between April and November the following year. The company described bidding all elements together but using separate purchase orders so multiple contractors can be assigned work; it said construction inspection, daily field reporting and invoice processes differ between high‑pressure and IHP workstreams.

Company financial practices described include tracking all hours and expenses to project/WBS numbers tied to specific assets (HP line, regulator station, IHP segments), and a monthly reporting cadence for spent/forecast and contingency management. Enbridge said project estimates include a contingency (company described it in discussion as roughly 15–20%) and described how under‑budget funds would be handled consistent with prior projects.

What was not decided: The conference was a technical meeting for questions and did not include a commission vote. Staff repeatedly asked for additional clarifications the company said it would provide, including exhibit reconciliations on per‑customer cost spreadsheets, more detailed contractor cost estimates for conversion and, at the commissions request, a payback/recovery timeline analysis the company said it could produce but had not yet prepared.

The conference ended after a final round of questions and scheduling discussion; Melinda Cramuel closed the session and thanked participants.