Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Price City Council adopts purchase‑power cost‑adjustment resolution to smooth electric bill spikes
Summary
The council approved Resolution No. 2025‑25 to establish a purchase‑power cost‑adjustment clause that spreads wholesale power‑cost spikes across the following year; staff said a test case equates to about $1–$2 per month for an average household and that revenues will remain restricted to the electric utility for capital projects.
Price — The Price City Council voted to adopt Resolution No. 2025‑25 on Nov. 12, establishing a purchase‑power cost‑adjustment clause designed to smooth short‑term spikes in wholesale electricity costs by spreading those costs across the following year.
City staff described the change as an alternative to sudden rate increases during market spikes. "The concept is this is a more efficient it's an alternative to increasing rates with the utility," staff member Nick said during a presentation. He and other staff said a test case for an average household (about 750 kilowatt‑hours) would add "about between a dollar and $2" a month in the example the city ran.
Supporters said the mechanism reduces the risk that a single month’s wholesale‑market spike would make a household’s bill unaffordable and lead to service disconnections. "If we didn't do it, somebody could get a utility bill that they couldn't pay and get their power shut off in the middle of the summer," a council member said during the hearing.
Council questioned how frequently spikes occur and how any surplus would be handled. Staff said spikes are weather‑dependent — often during summer and sometimes in winter — and that the revenue collected under the clause must remain within the electric utility and be used for utility capital projects such as transformers and line work. Staff said the program could also accumulate funds over multiple years for larger projects rather than transferring money into the general fund.
After hearing public questions and council discussion, Council Member Miller moved to adopt Resolution No. 2025‑25; Council Member Chrisman seconded. The council approved the resolution by voice vote.
The resolution’s adoption follows an open public hearing the council opened earlier in the evening to collect input. Staff said the clause’s effective date would align with the city’s budget cycle and that the annual adjustment would be recalculated each year based on actual costs.
What happens next: the resolution was adopted and staff said the city will implement the adjustment clause in accordance with the timing described in the resolution and continue to brief council on any implementation details and projects funded from the utility‑restricted account.
