Rocky Mountain Power, DPU and OCS back settlement for large-load contract; witnesses say net benefits outweigh risks

Rocky Mountain Power asked the Utah Public Service Commission to approve its first large-load service contract (LLSC) under Senate Bill 132 and the commission’s large-load rules. Company witnesses described a contract with a reservation (fixed) charge, an energy (variable) charge and standard tariff charges; company testimony says reservation and incremental resource costs will be excluded from Utah revenue requirements and net power cost calculations so existing customers are not subsidizing the new load.

Craig M. Eller, the company’s senior vice president for business development, told commissioners the settlement stipulation filed March 13, 2026, clarifies accounting treatment: the LLSC customer’s coincident peak loads and usage would be removed from SG and SE allocation factors, net power cost would be reduced hour-by-hour by the customer’s actual energy usage multiplied by the hourly CAISO locational marginal price (LMP) during EDAM operations, and proposed resource costs and interim market purchases would be excluded from system costs used to set Utah rates. "The settlement stipulation ... clarifies the accounting treatment regarding these allocation factors and net power costs to ensure the LLSC will result in no net increases to the costs of other Utah customers," Eller said.

Raman Mitchell (managing director, energy supply management finance & net power cost) described separate accounting and crediting procedures the company will use: maintain distinct records for LLSC transactions; apply credits in general rate cases and energy balancing account (EBA) filings offsetting forecasted and actual energy charges; procure dedicated resources whose costs will be excluded from Utah rate base; and require the customer to pay applicable taxes and interconnection costs.

Tom Burns (vice president, resource planning and acquisitions) described Plexos production-cost modeling that compared the system under the 2025 IRP preferred portfolio with and without the LLSC and proposed resources. Burns said modeled scenarios showed no material reliability deterioration, and that the modeled net benefits and reliability outcomes support the prudence of the company’s decision to enter the LLSC.

After in-camera review of confidential testimony and workpapers, the Division of Public Utilities (DPU) and the Office of Consumer Services (OCS) told the commission they support the settlement stipulation. DPU witness Matthew Pernicoli said the division found the application complies with statutory filing requirements and concluded that, net, the customer bears attributable costs and ratepayers obtain net benefits. OCS analyst Cameron Hermas reached similar conclusions and recommended approval of the stipulation.

What the commission heard and did: Commissioners pressed company witnesses on how allocation adjustments and exclusion of incremental costs would operate in multi-state allocation proceedings and how the company will demonstrate on a going-forward basis that outcomes in EBAs and rate cases match the stipulated treatment. The commission admitted testimony and took the UAE access motion under advisement; it did not issue a final order on the settlement during the hearing.

The next steps for regulators: If the commission approves the stipulation, the order will specify the required accounting treatment and direct how the company must show separated accounting in EBAs and future rate proceedings. If significant divergences arise later, EBAs and general rate cases provide mechanisms for auditing and adjustment.

This story is driven by admitted testimony and settlement filings; confidential numbers supporting the company’s quantified net-benefit claims were presented as regulator-access-only and were not included in public testimony.