Eight-state review: how other jurisdictions handle large loads, flexibility and risk allocation

REI staff summarized research on how eight states (Virginia, Texas, Oregon, Ohio, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and Indiana) approach forecasting, resource planning, emissions impacts, transmission planning, tariff design and risk allocation for large-load customers.

Liz Borgay and Katie Mulvaney highlighted a number of approaches that other jurisdictions are testing. Indiana's HB 1007 creates expedited pathways for approving generation projects triggered by load growth and a pathway specific to incremental large-load projects (including customer cost-sharing requirements). Nevada's Clean Transition Tariff (CTT) lets large-load customers pay for new clean resources via an ESA that must be submitted to the Nevada PUC for approval; NV Energy's first ESA under the CTT included a 115 MW advanced geothermal project.

Texas's SB 6 directs ERCOT and regulators to develop curtailment protocols and a competitive reliability service to procure demand reductions from large loads; it also requires disclosure of substantially similar interconnection requests submitted elsewhere in Texas. Several states use minimum-demand charges or long minimum-contract terms (commonly in the 80—85% range and contract lengths of 5—15 years) along with exit fees or collateral provisions to reduce the risk that new resources built for a customer shift to other ratepayers.

Staff noted that many of the tariffs and laws the team reviewed do not explicitly address greenhouse-gas accounting for behind-the-meter generation, with limited exceptions such as Oregon's HB 3546 which requires the PUC to consider emissions impacts when creating a large-load tariff. Staff suggested these state examples provide options the Colorado Commission could consider as it develops tariff design, reporting and risk-allocation measures.

Commissioners asked staff to track developments and update the Commission regularly as new tariffs, rules and studies emerge.