Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Confidentiality Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah intervenors press for limited access to confidential Rocky Mountain Power LLSC materials; utility cites competitive harm
Summary
At a Utah Public Service Commission hearing, Utah Association of Energy Users asked to see regulator-only explanatory material (not price terms) for Rocky Mountain Power’s proposed large-load contract; the utility opposed, citing SB132-era competitive sensitivity. Commissioners proceeded with testimony and left the access motion under advisement.
Phil Russell, representing the Utah Association of Energy Users (UAE), asked the Utah Public Service Commission for limited, regulator-access-only review of portions of Rocky Mountain Power’s large-load service contract filing that the company had redacted as commercially sensitive. Russell said UAE is not seeking price or credit terms but needs the explanatory methodology behind the energy and reservation charges to evaluate whether the company’s accounting treatment would prevent costs from shifting to other customers.
"We are not seeking access to the price terms or the credit terms," Russell said, "what I do need to see is the explanation for how the charges ... prevent the shift of cost to other customers." Russell proposed that only he and UAE witness Justin Bieber — both of whom have signed the commission NDA — be allowed to review the material under confidentiality protections.
Rocky Mountain Power, through counsel Ashley Walker, opposed expanding access. Walker said that Senate Bill 132 and the new large-load rules create a competitive environment in which methodology, inputs and variables for pricing can be commercially sensitive, allowing competitors or counterparties to infer proprietary pricing or negotiation strategies if disclosed. "This is the Coke recipe," Walker said in describing the sensitivity of the methodology, arguing the company could be put at a competitive disadvantage if methodology variables were revealed.
Commissioners asked whether alternative protective measures (limited access to counsel or experts under NDA) would be adequate. Rocky Mountain Power said some limited information might be appropriate in other contexts but argued that the particular methodology at issue here, and its potential for enabling back-calculation of sensitive commercial terms, is too sensitive for such a treatment. UAE countered that limited, confidential review — not public disclosure — would suffice for intervenors to evaluate the company’s claim that other customers would be held harmless.
The commission decided not to grant immediate public disclosure and instead proceeded with witness testimony using public summaries; it instructed parties to flag any movement into highly confidential material while questioning. The commission did not resolve the UAE motion on the record that day and indicated it may take the matter under advisement after reviewing the hearing record and the settlement stipulation filed March 13, 2026.
What happens next: the commission has statutory deadlines tied to approval of large-load contracts and must consider the settlement stipulation, the record developed in this hearing, and the access motion. Parties told the commission they will continue to provide public summaries and that any necessary confidential review could happen under supervision or in subsequent EBA or rate cases where separated accounting records will be auditable.
The hearing included multiple company witnesses and intervenor testimony; the commission heard, but did not immediately rule on, UAE’s motion for expanded regulator-only access.
The commission has not yet issued a decision on the access motion or on final approval of the settlement stipulation.
