Enbridge Gas Utah presents 2026–27 IRP: forecasts 1.3 BCF design day, outlines projects and contract negotiations

At a technical conference before the Utah Public Service Commission, Enbridge Gas Utah presented its 2026–27 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), saying it forecasts a 1.3 billion cubic feet (BCF) design day for the coming heating season and outlining a mix of supply contracts, storage options and distribution projects to meet that peak.

Jennifer Nelson Clark, a presenter for Enbridge Gas Utah, led the review and walked commissioners and agency staff through the IRP sections, including an industry overview, demand forecast, system capabilities, distribution action plan and environmental review. "We're forecasting a 1.3 BCF design day," she said, and described historical and projected demand by customer class.

The company said its distribution system and feeder lines are sufficient to meet average daily and peak hourly demands under the IRP assumptions, and listed identified reinforcement projects: Rockport and Saratoga (2027), Ruby (2028), and Riverton Central and Eagle Mountain (2029 and beyond). Enbridge noted Feeder Line 135 is part of the southern extension near St. George.

On capital planning, Enbridge showed a multi‑year distribution action plan with estimated costs and revenue requirements. The six principal gate station projects were estimated at roughly $15 million each; Enbridge said it stages work in phases to keep individual project sizes manageable and will update cost estimates as interconnect agreements and vendor sizing are finalized. "We're targeting $15,000,000 for each of those phases," a company representative said.

Enbridge described how customer‑funded projects are treated in the plan: fully customer‑funded data center projects generally are not listed as company capital unless Enbridge retains a portion for broader system benefit. The company offered a model example: where a customer contributes to a feeder, Enbridge may take on the remaining system portion and record revenue requirement impacts accordingly.

On supply and purchased gas, Enbridge reported about 207,946 dekatherms per day of base‑load purchases and said it had since added roughly 20,000 dekatherms/day of fixed‑price contracts at $4.35 per dekatherm. The presenter framed that transaction as favorable timing for locking in winter supply costs.

The IRP shows company production of about 50.9 billion cubic feet for the IRP year—approximately 41.2% of forecasted demand—along with planned drilling (horizontal wells planned to start in August and produce volumes later in October). Enbridge said it will provide the commission the average cost‑of‑service price on request; a separate forecasting table referenced in the meeting put a comparable figure near $4.39.

Enbridge also reviewed transportation and storage arrangements. A significant portion of the company’s transportation capacity sits on Mountain West Pipeline; those contracts expire in 2027 and the company is renegotiating this summer. Enbridge reported it secured new capacity through open seasons on Northwest Pipeline and Kern River (the Kern River capacity is shaped for winter months and runs through 2029). The company said it holds rights of first refusal on renegotiations of some contracts.

On storage, Enbridge described injection and withdrawal patterns at contracted facilities—Clay Basin (largest contracted facility), aquifers, Magna LNG and a Spire storage contract—and said the system was at or near full capacity entering the off‑season. The presenter stated the LNG facility "can do 150,000 on a given day," but the transcript did not specify the unit for that number. Enbridge said storage RFP responses are still under evaluation and that storage planning will be revisited in a later technical conference or supplemental filing.

The IRP’s environmental review section reported greenhouse‑gas intensity and company sustainability efforts. Enbridge said it estimates "savings of 927,000 net tons of natural gas in 2024," and provided equivalents in the presentation: "49,000 metric tons of CO2 or nearly 11,000 passenger vehicles," while offering to follow up with the staff member who prepared the CO2 intensity figures to explain year‑to‑year variance.

Commission and agency participants pressed for clarifications throughout the session, asking for: (1) annual throughput numbers rather than daily figures; (2) an explanation from Enbridge's Richard Kaiser on why the number of anomalies repaired jumped between 2024 and 2025; (3) more detail on WEXPRO sustainability measures listed in section 12.2 of the IRP; and (4) the annual cost of firm peaking services. Enbridge agreed to provide the requested follow‑up materials and to schedule additional discussion if necessary.

No formal motions or votes were taken during the technical conference; staff and company representatives committed to provide follow‑up data and, if appropriate, to request a supplemental technical conference or submit supplemental IRP material to the commission.

The commission’s next procedural steps will depend on the follow‑up materials Enbridge provides; company and commission staff said they expect to circulate the requested data and to reconvene in the appropriate venue if further review is required.