Lawmakers press utilities, co‑ops and developers on pathways for big electricity customers as ‘energy‑dominance’ debate continues

Lawmakers pressed investor‑owned utilities, rural electric cooperatives and economic‑development advocates on whether and how the state should create a path for large new electricity customers to gain access to power faster and at predictable prices.

LSO introduced draft 27 LSO23, an energy‑dominance package that would create a narrow exemption from public‑utility regulation for electricity generators that serve very large customers (the draft included placeholders such as generators that exclusively serve a single customer with demand at or above 25 megawatts or up to four customers aggregating to 100 megawatts). An alternate staff version limited the exemption to projects supporting new or expanded demand after July 1, 2027 and gave the Public Service Commission authority to request qualifying information from applicants.

Rocky Mountain Power’s Tom Carter told the committee that some of the state’s most urgent barriers are transmission lead times, supply‑chain delays and planning timelines—constraints that mean customers, including large industrial and hyperscale data‑center loads, often require faster paths than traditional ratebase investments permit. Carter described a three‑part solution used in Utah (SB132): a creditworthiness screen and firm timelines to separate speculative proposals from real projects; options for utility‑led service with strict protections so non‑participants don’t pay; and a limited alternative route for third‑party generation if the utility cannot serve within the required time or price. He and Rocky Mountain Power emphasized protections needed for existing customers and for backup service obligations.

Cooperative utilities offered a different but complementary approach. Tri‑State and Basin Electric detailed “high‑impact” tariffs and processes for loads starting near 45 MW: a 150‑day initial evaluation cycle, independent evaluation, minimum monthly billing options, security deposits, and a “bring‑your‑own‑resource” program that allows customers to offset security with customer‑sited, commissioned capacity. Tri‑State also described an “islanded micro‑grid” approach that lets a data center or industrial campus begin operations behind a standalone system and later tie into the grid when transmission is feasible.

Industry and consumer voices pressed competing concerns. Mining and trona manufacturers said existing customers already face capacity and reliability constraints and asked for mechanisms to secure power or to pursue third‑party generation where the incumbent utility cannot deliver in a timely, reliable manner. Data‑center developers and independent generators said a clear, limited statutory pathway for third‑party generation would help lock projects into Wyoming and attract investment; the Office of Consumer Advocate advised caution about a blanket 25‑MW exemption and recommended statutory clarity for the PSC’s role.

The Public Service Commission told the committee it has a pending rulemaking to permit designation of some non‑utility generators that serve proximate non‑residential customers; the commission’s draft rule contains an application process and a commitment to a decision within a year. The PSC encouraged parties to participate in that docket and reminded stakeholders the commission is the forum for formal complaints about utility conduct.

Committee action and next steps: Members voted to request a bill draft adopting elements of the PSC rule as a statutory vehicle and directed staff to compare the PSC rule and LSO’s draft 27 LSO23 for the next meeting, asking utilities and other stakeholders to provide specific language and data. Committee leaders said they want a short, certainty‑providing statutory framework that protects existing ratepayers while allowing timely, credit‑backed options for new large loads.

Representative quotes: “We have to ask ourselves, will this have a net positive impact on every customer base or will it pit customer against customer?” Tom Carter asked, drawing attention to rate‑class impacts. Tri‑State’s Matt Fitzgibbon said, “Large loads are important to Tri‑State…and we are invested in developing our communities,” emphasizing safeguards for rural consumers.

What to watch: staff comparisons of the PSC rule and LSO draft at the committee’s next meeting; any revised LSO language that narrows eligibility, specifies consumer protections and sets clear credit/security requirements for large‑load customers.