Enbridge, intervenors spar over TBF load, billing determinants and allocation in Utah rate case
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Witnesses disputed how to reflect a single large transportation bypass‑firm (TBF) customer whose planned ramp in mid‑2026 drives a material portion of projected 2026 volumes. UAE seeks a month‑by‑month alignment so costs and billing determinants match; Enbridge proposes caps or phased mitigation.
SALT LAKE CITY — A dispute over how to treat one large industrial customer’s projected increase in firm demand next June took center stage at the Utah Public Service Commission’s hearing on Enbridge Gas Utah’s phase 2 rate case.
Courtney Higgins, testifying for the Utah Association of Energy Users, urged the commission to adjust billing determinants so the higher projected TBF (transportation bypass‑firm) load is applied to every month of the 2026 test period. She said the company’s approach — allocating a full year of demand‑related costs based on an end‑of‑year high‑demand number while designing rates using a blend of five months at lower demand and seven months at higher demand — overstates TBF rates and shifts costs to other customers. Higgins estimated the change would reduce the phase‑2 revenue deficiency by roughly $1.8 million versus Enbridge’s numbers.
Enbridge’s witness Austin Summers acknowledged a substantial projected increase for a single TBF account, and offered two mitigation options: a temporary cap on revenue allocation to the TBF class equal to 1.5 times the overall system increase, or studying phased billing. Summers said the company’s model reflects known information for the test period and that rate design must match the volumes used to collect total revenue.
Division and Office of Consumer Services witnesses probed the mechanics and fairness of the competing treatments. They noted the test period is a future 2026 forecast and urged care before adopting measures that would effectively extend the functional revenue consequences beyond the statutory test period window. Several commissioners and intervenors also flagged administrative and implementation complexities for phased or month‑by‑month rate changes.
Higgins and UAE argued the requested adjustment is narrowly tailored to ensure internal consistency between cost allocation (which in Enbridge’s filings used a year‑end demand figure) and billing determinants (which used a mixed month approach). She said the alternative proposed by Summers — limiting the TBF increase to 1.5 times the system average — would be a reasonable fallback if the commission declines the month‑by‑month treatment.
No formal decision was reached at the hearing. The commission asked parties to identify issues that are already agreed so the agency can streamline the order drafting process. The hearing recessed to a public witness session and will continue on the record the next business day.