Pine Valley Irrigation Seeks Interim Rate Increase to Finance New Well; Division of Public Utilities Recommends Approval

At a hearing before the Utah Public Service Commission, Michael Hammer, the commission’s designated presiding officer, heard testimony on Pine Valley Irrigation Company’s request for interim rate increases tied to financing a new culinary well and related infrastructure. The request is docket number 25-2179-01.

Lee Earl Snow, president of the Pine Valley Irrigation Company, testified under oath that the nonprofit utility serves roughly 800 hookups and that drought in recent years prompted the company to drill a well this summer and pursue system upgrades. "We need to have the rate increase to be able to afford to do the improvements and pay our loan back," Snow said, explaining the company expects to borrow approximately $1,600,000 to complete the well, pump facilities, chlorination equipment, system tie-ins and a small storage/meeting building. Snow told the commission Pine Valley has not raised rates since 2010.

Shauna Benvenu Springer, a witness for the Utah Division of Public Utilities, summarized the division’s review of Pine Valley’s filings. Springer said the division reviewed the application and attached exhibits for completeness under the applicable filing rules in Utah Code and the Utah Administrative Code and found the filing complete. Springer's summary included the division’s calculation that the company had 579 active customers and 227 standby connections for a total of 806 customers (as reported in the filing). She said financial statements showed a loss in calendar year 2023 and a gain in 2024, and that cemetery and irrigation operations had historically subsidized culinary operations.

On the basis of a limited, prima facie interim-rate review, Springer told the hearing the division concluded "there is adequate prima facie evidence to support the proposed interim rates," and that the requested interim rates appear "just and reasonable" and "in the public's interest." She emphasized that interim rates are subject to refund or a surcharge and are not final. The division moved to admit its March 19 and April 3 filings into the record; the hearing officer admitted them.

During a brief question-and-answer exchange, Snow asked how long an approved interim rate would remain in effect; Springer cited the statutory window and said the 45-day interim window from the filing date would end on 2026-04-26. The hearing record shows the company requested the interim rates to be effective 2026-04-26.

No final commission order on the general rate case was issued during this session. The hearing record reflects that exhibits and the division’s filings were admitted into evidence and that the Division recommended interim rates based on its prima facie review; any final rates and adjustments (including refunds or surcharges) will be determined in later stages of the docket.

The hearing officer closed the portion of the proceeding addressing the interim-rate testimony and thanked participants for their assistance.