Power transmission lines near the Lake Side natural gas power plant in Vineyard are pictured on Sunday, Feb. 4, 2024. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch)
The Utah Public Service Commission won’t reconsider its decision on Rocky Mountain Power’s rate increase request, with commissioners saying they were offended by how the state’s largest utility worded its review request.
Arguing that Utah ratepayers shouldn’t bear other states’ costs, the commission ordered a 4.7% electricity residential rate increase in April, only about a quarter of the 18.1% Rocky Mountain Power requested last August, and even less than the initial 30% proposal that upset Utah elected officials.
The company requested reconsideration of that decision in May, calling it “shortsighted” and arguing the commission’s order “improperly denies the Company recovery of prudently incurred expenses” and reached conclusions that were unsupported or contradicted by evidence, compromising the utility’s financial stability and its ability to invest in the state.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
Describing the tone of Rocky Mountain Power’s request as “hyperbolic, intemperate, and occasionally disrespectful,” the commission rejected the utility’s argument that the April order didn’t cite evidence for many of its conclusions.
Rocky Mountain Power requests rehearing on partial electricity rate hike, calls order ‘shortsighted’
In the order issued on Thursday, commissioners also claimed that by using that language, the company “impugns the integrity” of the Public Service Commission, insinuating that the order seemed to be outcome-motivated “‘under the guise’ of controlling costs.”
“This offensive characterization is untrue, unhelpful in what has been a careful deliberative process, and the PSC is disappointed that RMP would stoop to what can be construed as an attack on the impartiality and integrity of the PSC,” the commission wrote.
After the denial, which was partially posted on June 26, the utility filed an appeal petition to the Utah Supreme Court, said David Eskelsen, Rocky Mountain Power spokesperson.
“We intend to avail ourselves of the full appeal process,” Eskelsen said. “We believe that our original request as it was revised in August last year, was prudent and reasonable.”
However, the commissioners believe the tone of the company’s request may be frowned upon by the courts. Additionally, they say some of the decisions Rocky Mountain Power is contesting, like the commission’s rejection of the company’s wildfire mitigation plan, could have been reviewed in other ways if Rocky Mountain Power had provided meaningful evidence about the cost-effectiveness of the plan.
The state and its regulatory agencies have shared a history of collaboration with Rocky Mountain Power, but that doesn’t “require Utahns to tolerate unfairness,” the commission said.
“Utah customers are not RMP’s guarantor of last resort for skyrocketing and imprudent costs that RMP incurs to protect its shareholders from policies and events arising in other states.”
An ‘appropriate’ response
Michele Beck, director of the Utah Office of Consumer Services, the state’s utility consumer advocate and one of the parties intervening in the rate increase case, described the paragraphs the commission wrote addressing Rocky Mountain Power’s request language as “very appropriate,” since the company’s application was “baffling,” “counterproductive, disappointing and, frankly, offensive.”
“They’re not just any old corporation. They provide us an essential service. And regulation is a substitute for competition and making sure that the terms and conditions are fair and appropriate,” Beck said. “So I very strongly agree with the commission’s comments on the tone, and I really hope that we can get past this, because in the end, this is about serving customers.”
The exchange between the company and the commission is unusual, Beck said, because taking such a tone is against the company’s interests.
“The utility needs to be concentrating on supporting their positions, on explaining why what they want to do is in the public interest,” she said. “And if they don’t even try to do that explanation, and if instead they revert simply to attacks, it does call into question, are they trying to do what’s in the public interest?”
For Beck, the commission’s order was good overall and impressively well-supported. One key element of the order was the commission holding Rocky Mountain Power to its burden of proof, she said.
“To me, Rocky Mountain Power should take a different lesson. They should say, ‘OK, we need to change our approach,’” she said. “And maybe they come back in and we find, ‘yes, it’s in the public interest to do more or different investments,’ but it’s not going to be a blank check for them.”
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.
