On the agenda: Hurricane meeting — Data Center (Feb 11)

Power Board
Mac J. Hall, Chair
Dave Imlay, Vice Chair
Colt Stratton
Kerry Prince
Mark Maag
Angie Erickson

Mayor
Clark Fawcett
City Manager
Kaden C. DeMille

Power Board Meeting Agenda
2/11/2026
3:00 PM
Power Department Meeting Room – 526 W 600 N
Notice is hereby given that the Power Board will hold a Regular Meeting in the Power Department Meeting room located
at 526 W 600 N, Hurricane, UT. A silent roll call will be taken, along with the Pledge of Allegiance and prayer by invitation.

AGENDA
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Prayer
3. Approval of minutes from December 3, 2025 Special Meeting, December 10, 2025 Meeting, and
January 14, 2026 Meeting
STAFF REPORTS
Mike Johns/Power Director
Brian Anderson/Transmission & Distribution Superintendent
Mike Ramirez/Service Superintendent
Jared Ross/Substation & Generation Foreman
OLD BUSINESS
1. Discussion and possible recommendation on a rate track direction for the Cost of Service Study –
Mike Johns
NEW BUSINESS
1. UAMPS Updates
2. Closed Meeting pursuant to Utah Code Section 52-4-205, upon request
ADJOURNMENT
The above notice was posted to the Hurricane City website, the Utah State Public Notice Website, and at the following locations:
1. Hurricane City Office – 147 North 870 West, Hurricane, UT
2. US Post Office – 1075 West 100 North, Hurricane, UT
3. Washington County Library (Hurricane Branch) – 36 South 300 West, Hurricane, UT
REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION: Hurricane City will make efforts to provide reasonable accommodations to disabled members of the
public in accessing City programs, please contact the Executive Assistant, 435-635-5536, at least 24 hours in advance if you have special
needs.

5 2 6 W e s t 6 0 0 N o r t h • H u r r i c a n e , Uta h • 8 4 7 3 7
P h o n e ( 4 3 5 ) 6 35 - 5 5 3 6 • F a x ( 4 3 5 ) 6 3 5 - 4 1 2 7 • w w w . c i t y o f h u r r i c a n e . c o m

Mayor
Nanette Billings
City Manager
Kaden C. DeMille

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

Power Board
Mac J. Hall, Chair
Dave Imlay, Vice Chair
David Hirschi
Colt Stratton
Kerry Prince
Mark Maag

The Hurricane City Power Board met on December 3, 2025, at 4:00 p.m. at the Clifton Wilson Substation located at
526 W 600 N.
In attendance were Mac Hall, Dave Imlay, David Hirschi, Colt Stratton, Kerry Prince, Mark Maag, Mike Johns, Brian
Anderson, Mike Ramirez, Nanette Billings, Kaden DeMille, Dayton Hall, and Crystal Wright.
Mac Hall welcomed everyone to the meeting and offered the prayer.
Discussion regarding the Cost of Service Study: Mike Johns stated this is just a discussion item today. Mac Hall
explained in the previous board meeting Jillian Jurcyzk with Utility Financial Solutions (UFS) was seeking direction.
Some of those decisions would present a potential shift in the way we have operated so that is why he requested
everyone be in attendance for this discussion before any decisions are made. Mike Johns began the need for
direction regarding whether we want to maintain the current cash target calculation from our existing Cash Reserve
Policy approved by resolution. If we would like to maintain that existing policy, how would we like to achieve that
cash target? If we would like to alter that existing policy regarding cash, what does the board feel is appropriate and
is there any direction to the type of rate plan including bonding, rate adjustments, or the introduction of a power
cost adjustment (PCA)? He reviewed the breakdown of our current cash reserve policy, showing the percentages in
the policy reflected in actual numbers. This policy shows a current total cash target of $28.1M, and we currently have
just over $18M. Crystal Wright showed the UFS method of calculating the minimum cash reserve level. UFS is looking
for direction as to where we would like to be so they can move forward with the rate design portion of the study.
Kaden DeMille explained we’ve always taken the stance that we would weather the fluctuating power market and to
do that and remain financially healthy we adopted that cash reserve policy as a protection. He explained that UFS is
stating that cash amount is higher than is typical. He asked the board if they desire to change the methodology that
has long been used to transfer some of the risk of the fluctuating power market onto residents through a PCA and
potentially lower that cash reserve amount. Dave Imlay expressed his feeling that a PCA gets us completely away
from what it means to be a public power entity. He feels like it is wrong not to protect the residents from the risk as
much as we can. Kaden DeMille stated that’s why he has been so interested in an Advanced Metering Infrastructure
(AMI) system. Having infrastructure available to be able to institute a time-of-day rate allows residents an
opportunity to take more control over their individual usage to save themselves money on their power bill. It is an
appealing solution and is moving forward but will take a few years before it’s possible. Mike Johns reinforced that
UFS isn’t telling us what to do. They are giving recommendations based on what they’ve seen from studies with many
other entities in the industry. We have the freedom to set our own policies, and they will build a plan to help us
achieve our goals. They are showing us the difference in what is commonly seen and where we stand. This opens the
conversation about where we want to be, and they will move forward from there. Dave Imlay stated that maybe it’s
a possibility to lower the months of operating expenses we hold to lower that total cash reserve amount. Colt
Stratton was concerned about lowering that below what our financial advisors have stated we need to hold. Dave
Imlay asked if the bond rating of the Power Department affects the bond rating for Hurricane City as a whole. Kaden
DeMille replied they have historically been treated separately. The last time an enterprise fund bonded, everything
considered was tied to their individual finances and rates. He stated part of the issue is the $18M we have as part of
our cash reserve policy is all lumped together into one budget code. Our software hasn’t been able to keep up with

5 2 6 W e s t 6 0 0 N o r t h • H u r r i c a n e , Uta h • 8 4 7 3 7
P h o n e ( 4 3 5 ) 6 35 - 5 5 3 6 • F a x ( 4 3 5 ) 6 3 5 - 4 1 2 7 • w w w . c i t y o f h u r r i c a n e . c o m

Hurricane City Power Board Meeting
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87

-2-

the growth of the city, which requires more codes to track financial items. Depreciation, cash, and impact fee money
are all lumped together and it would be helpful to break that out for more clarity, but it will take time to get those
split into multiple codes. Mac Hall described when power rates increased substantially in 2001, the city actively
raised rates to meet what we could. The inclusion of a PCA would have potentially quadrupled some residents’ power
bills during that time. His concern is that it feels a little like an open checkbook, and we may see some pushback from
it. Our existing practice allows us to keep power rates at a steady cost for our residents. There was a discussion about
how PCA works. Crystal Wright gave an example to explain using fictitious numbers. In the example, the power rate
was $.08/kWh. A rolling 12-month average calculation was used, and it was determined that the actual cost of power
over that period was $.09/kWh. Everyone was already paying $.08/kWh so there would be an addition of $.01/kWh
PCA to meet the actual cost of power that the utility paid. That also works in the reverse. If it was determined that
the actual cost of power over that period was $.07/kWh the PCA would be -$.01/kWh. UFS has stated the best time
to implement a PCA is when power costs are stable, which is now. Mac Hall reminded the board this is only for the
actual cost of power, as base rates handle the money needed for maintenance and the utility would still have to bond
or use impact fees for new infrastructure projects. Councilman David Hirschi said the average citizen will not
understand this. He continued that it’s a good problem to have that we are most of the way to the existing cash
reserve target already. Crystal Wright stated that Jillian Jurcyzk with UFS commended our board and City Council
from the very beginning of the study for making difficult choices to approve rate increases as was necessary for the
financial health of the utility. Councilman David Hirschi replied there is trust in the staff at the power company for
being diligent in making good recommendations and he appreciates their good work. Mike Johns stated that’s why
he had the PCA option left in the slides. He feels like his responsibility as the Power Director from a business
standpoint is to protect the financial health of the utility and that option leaves the least amount of risk on the utility.
Dave Imlay stated that during the 2007-08 period we had a negative cash reserve because power prices were so high
and our loads had decreased significantly because of the recession. We had a lot of debt. That experience reinforced
the need for and importance of a cash reserve. Mac Hall reasoned that if the Power Department was seriously
looking at going into the All-In Requirements Pool with UAMPS, he thinks the PCA option would make more sense. If
we’re not, then he likes our current system the best. Mike Johns stated that the All-In Requirements option as well as
the Extended Day Ahead Market (EDAM) which is coming both bring potential power pricing increases. He explained
we’ve been working closely with UAMPS, and they’re doing their best to predict and provide information for
guidance, but there’s a lot being implemented at the same time and there’s uncertainty about unknowns. This is
another reason that implementing a PCA makes a lot of sense in his mind. Councilman David Hirschi asked if that’s
what his recommendation is. Mike Johns stated yes, based strictly on business perspective, it puts the city at the
least amount of risk and liability with the big shifts in the power industry coming. He would also like to maintain our
existing cash reserve policy. Mayor Nanette Billings stated she feels like we need to decide between the two. If we
keep the larger cash reserve amount, then we need to weather the power market costs and not implement a PCA.
Dave Imlay asked how many MVA has been built into the Capital Facilities Plan and if there’s a way to cut back on
something to lower that capital amount. Mike Johns stated that it’s not just trying to acquire capacity at an MVA
level, but the location of where the MVA is needed that’s causing the problem. Mayor Nanette Billings suggested
using cash reserve funds in lieu of bonding to avoid debt or having developers fund infrastructure in trade for impact
fee vouchers. Crystal Wright stated it’s a risk to use cash reserves to purchase materials for infrastructure and then
not have the reserves available in case of large power pricing fluctuations. Mark Maag wanted to clarify that as the
new substations are built it would also be increasing the total amount we needed to hold in reserve. Mike Johns
confirmed that to be true because one component of our policy is to hold 38% of depreciable assets. There was a
discussion about how the 12-month rolling average of a PCA would work. The department would still have to
weather the storm to an extent with a PCA because we would have to pay each bill and then it would take 12 months
of billing to get that back through utility bills. Mac Hall stated there is no decision needed on this agenda and asked if
there was anything the board would like to see before needing to decide. Colt Stratton asked Kaden DeMille to
investigate how our bond rating would be affected if we lowered our cash reserve amount. Kerry Prince asked what

Hurricane City Power Board Meeting
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96

-3-

needs to be decided first. Mike Johns answered that the cash policy needs to be decided first, which will provide
direction for the rate modeling to come next. There was a short discussion about different options including
lengthening the time to hit the cash reserve target, potential bonding, as well as the political pressure and
development agreements with installation timelines that must be met. Mac Hall reinforced that UFS is looking for
direction on our cash policy and target and then they’ll put together a plan to get to that goal. Dave Imlay made a
motion to provide UFS the direction to move forward with the 5-year plan and keep our existing cash reserve policy
with no PCA. Kerry seconded that direction. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 5:25 p.m. The next Power Board meeting is scheduled for December 10, 2025, at 3:00 p.m.

Mayor
Nanette Billings
City Manager
Kaden C. DeMille

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

Power Board
Mac J. Hall, Chair
Dave Imlay, Vice Chair
David Hirschi
Colt Stratton
Kerry Prince
Mark Maag

The Hurricane City Power Board met on December 10, 2025, at 3:00 p.m. at the Clifton Wilson Substation located at
526 W 600 N.
In attendance were Mac Hall, Dave Imlay, David Hirschi, Colt Stratton, Kerry Prince, Mark Maag, Mike Johns, Brian
Anderson, Mike Ramirez, Jared Ross, Kaden DeMille, Dayton Hall, Mike Vercimak, Weston Walker, Fred Resch,
Nanette Billings, Clark Fawcett, Kent Stephens, Jillian Jurczyk (remote attendance), and Crystal Wright.
Mac Hall welcomed everyone to the meeting. Dave Imlay led the Pledge of Allegiance and Dayton Hall offered the
prayer.
Discussion and possible recommendation to the City Council regarding the Cost of Service Study: Mike Johns
welcomed Jillian Jurczyk with Utility Financial Solutions (UFS), who is conducting our Cost of Service and Rate Study.
She has updated slides and information based on direction received from the Power Board at the interim board
meeting as well as the assumptions used with information from the updated impact fee & capital facility plan
amendment. Nanette Billings asked why the growth rate presented decreased from 5% to 1% after the first few years
and would also like to know if our power supply cost projections equal the .75% increase that’s listed. Jillian Jurczyk
explained that the growth projection was conservative intentionally. The further we go out in projections the less
accurate they are. The prudent thing to do would be to make some initial choices and begin moving forward. Then
look again at the financials within the next three years maximum to review the financial position before moving
forward with any of the later years. She explained exactly how a rolling average is used to calculate a PCA. The PCA
accomplishes what Nanette Billings suggested with matching power supply costs. Clark Fawcett asked some
questions about how accumulated depreciation is being handled in this model. Dayton Hall summarized that we are
looking for direction for three things: our cash reserve policy, whether to implement a PCA or not, and how long we
want to take to meet our financial goals. Mike Johns explained that because of potential volatility in our future with
the implementation of EDAM that the PCA helps protect our cash reserves and financial outlook. Clark Fawcett stated
he feels like we need to remove the depreciation portion out of the cash reserve discussion because it skews things.
We cannot use depreciation money as operating cash. It is held for its specific purpose. Colt Stratton and Dave Imlay
both expressed concerns with the PCA option. Colt Stratton specifically stated we do not need the higher cash
reserve amount if the PCA option is selected. There was a long discussion about how a PCA could be implemented
with the current utility billing software as well as the timeframe that would be needed. Dayton Hall wanted to clarify
that we do not have to take this to the City Council yet. He suggested coming up with a rate structure showing a plan
with and without a PCA, especially if we don’t desire any changes to our existing cash reserve policy. Once we have a
package with all of it presented, then bring that entire package back to the Power Board and City Council for
decision. The department has been requesting direction and feedback and that has been provided. A discussion was
held regarding scheduling a work meeting with the Power Board and the City Council after the beginning of the year.
Clark Fawcett stated that scheduling that meeting is fine, however, the City Council relies on a recommendation from
the Power Board knowing that they have vetted and had the detailed discussions ahead of the presentation to the
City Council. That will still be needed from this board. Dave Imlay made a recommendation regarding the cash
reserve policy to figure out where Finance, Administration and department staff would like to be and then ask for the
Power Board’s approval of that. If those people agree, then it’s an easy approval because the people intimately

5 2 6 W e s t 6 0 0 N o r t h • H u r r i c a n e , Uta h • 8 4 7 3 7
P h o n e ( 4 3 5 ) 6 35 - 5 5 3 6 • F a x ( 4 3 5 ) 6 3 5 - 4 1 2 7 • w w w . c i t y o f h u r r i c a n e . c o m

Hurricane City Power Board Meeting
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86

-2-

involved with the key information have made that decision. The board’s decision was made to pull this item off the
City Council agenda, simplify the options to a 5-yr rate structure with and without a PCA, and gather a
recommendation for the cash reserve policy from city staff.
Discussion and possible recommendation to the City Council on a Power Line Extension request for Kachina Ridge:
Brian Anderson explained that Kent Stephens with the Kachina Ridge development is in attendance to answer any
questions. Kent Stephens explained where the development is located, which is a large portion of the plateau above
Hurricane. Brian Anderson stated with the application they provided they would need just over ½ of a circuit of
power for their project. He stated there is only a small single-phase line going up that hill and the development
would need to provide a three-phase circuit instead. The developer completed a feasibility study and cost analysis
with ICPE and has stated they have acquired the easements needed. Brian Anderstate stated easements still need to
be confirmed by staff. He explained the process that the developer will need to follow to complete this extension as
well as some equipment needing to be purchased for switching between circuits to provide capacity and balance the
circuits once it’s constructed. David Hirschi asked how many units there are. Kent Stephens replied there are
approximately 580 units on approximately 70 acres. They’re still waiting for their sensitive land application approval
before they’re able to finalize those details. There is a mixture of residential, a hotel, and a restaurant included in the
development agreement. Dave Imlay made a motion to recommend approval of the power line extension request for
Kachina Ridge. Mark Maag seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
Discussion and possible recommendation to the City Council regarding Impact Fee Analysis & Capital Facilities Plan
Amendment: Mike Johns described the additions to the impact fee study for two new substations that were
identified after the original study had been completed. He showed the substations as well as the transmission lines
needed to tie them to the system. Those were the only changes to the existing study that was already approved and
is currently in effect. There’s a minimal impact on the costs to development because these additions provide some
excess capacity. It wasn’t necessarily capacity itself that was needed, but localized capacity specific to where the
developments will be located. The amendment adds a 1% increase to existing impact fee costs. Colt Stratton
recommended approval of the Impact Fee Analysis & Capital Facilities Plan Amendment as proposed. Dave Imlay
seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. This item will not appear on the City Council agenda until January
15th since it must be publicly noticed first.
Mike Johns: Mike Johns shared that Riley Stegich is currently working on his Apprentice Step Testing.
Brian Anderson: Brian Anderson the 1100 West project is still underway. We have also installed Christmas
decorations and are keeping them maintained while they’re up.
Jared Ross: Jared Ross noted they’ve been busy. They have Generator 8 completely torn down and he described the
work they’re doing on it. They’ve also done repairs at the substations. He stated they’ve held a pre-bid meeting for
the Sky Mountain Substation civil portion. Sealed bids will be opened soon. Dave Imlay stated he wanted to
commend the Substation Crew. There are very few utilities that can complete the work with the generators in-house
that we do because of the expertise of Jared Ross and his crew. Mike Johns agreed with this.
David Hirschi wanted to thank the Power Department for the exceptional reliability and service they provide our
community. Nanette Billings discussed an email that had been sent by Karl Rasmussen regarding some solutions he is
proposing for developments being able to move forward without currently adequate infrastructure. Dayton Hall
described how he has structured agreements with ways for developers to move forward which accomplishes already
what is being proposed in the email. Karl Rasmussen has an existing client which chose not to utilize that option.

Hurricane City Power Board Meeting
87
88
89
90

-3-

There was a brief discussion about development or reimbursement agreement challenges and how they are
structured.
Meeting adjourned at 5:07 p.m. The next Power Board meeting is scheduled for January 7, 2026, at 3:00 p.m.

Mayor
Clark Fawcett
City Manager
Kaden C. DeMille

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39

Power Board
Mac J. Hall, Chair
Dave Imlay, Vice Chair
Colt Stratton
Kerry Prince
Mark Maag
Vacant Seat

The Hurricane City Power Board met on January 14, 2026, at 3:00 p.m. at the Clifton Wilson Substation located at 526
W 600 N.
In attendance were Mac Hall, Dave Imlay, Mark Maag, Mike Johns, Brian Anderson, Mike Ramirez, Jared Ross, Kaden
DeMille, Dayton Hall, Mike Vercimak, Fred Resch, Kael Hirschi, Richard Hirschi, Rhett Hirschi, Kyson Spendlove, and
Crystal Wright.
Mac Hall welcomed everyone to the meeting. Mac Hall led the Pledge of Allegiance and offered the prayer. Dave
Imlay motioned to approve the minutes from the October 28, 2025, Special Meeting. Mark Maag seconded the
motion. Motion passed unanimously. Mark Maag motioned to approve the minutes from the November 12, 2025,
Meeting. Dave Imlay seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
Mike Johns: Mike Johns provided a brief update on the Cost of Service study. We held a meeting with administration
and department staff as directed and have decided that the existing cash reserve policy is where we will stay. We
have relayed that information to Utility Financial Solutions (UFS), and they will update the presentation with two 5year options. One will include a Power Cost Adjustment (PCA) and one without a PCA. We will be scheduling a work
meeting with the new City Council to introduce this topic as well as others that will be coming before them for
decisions soon.
Brian Anderson: Brian Anderson stated the Line Crew has been working on 1100 West. They pulled wire today from
2300 South to 3000 South. We’re waiting on some poles so we will move to the 2800 West project until the rest of
the poles are here. Christmas decorations have been removed for the year.
Mike Ramirez: Mike Ramirez reported that we’ve received delivery of a lot of the Advanced Metering Infrastructure
(AMI) Equipment from Eaton and the supplies needed to install those gateways. He also provided an update on the
Grid Reliance Grant and the reporting that was submitted. We’ve received an approved purchase order for the
remainder of the engineering for the 600 North project which the grant was for. We will be submitting
reimbursements to the grant as the expenses start to come in. Mike Johns stated we’ve been working with ICPE on
putting the projects we’ve requested of them in order by our priority.
Jared Ross: Jared Ross reported on the Generator 8 rebuild that is taking place. There was piston damage found in all
but two due to deposits in the cylinder liners. Due to that we will be installing cylinder packs. We will also roll main
bearings in. This will be a total end frame rebuild which is more extensive than Generator 6 was last year. We’re
about done cleaning up and will begin assembling it hopefully next week. There were questions about what is causing
the extra piston damage and if we can expect that same damage each year as we continue each engine rebuild. Jared
Ross stated that the engines operate and function best when they start up and run continuously. It’s harder on them
to start and stop them like we do for our load peak shaving. He expects to find similar results in the remaining
engines.

5 2 6 W e s t 6 0 0 N o r t h • H u r r i c a n e , Uta h • 8 4 7 3 7
P h o n e ( 4 3 5 ) 6 35 - 5 5 3 6 • F a x ( 4 3 5 ) 6 3 5 - 4 1 2 7 • w w w . c i t y o f h u r r i c a n e . c o m

Hurricane City Power Board Meeting
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87

-2-

Discussion and possible recommendation to the City Council on Pre-Approved Contractor Re-Certification Course
including fees: Mike Ramirez explained how the existing high voltage prequalified contractor approval process works
and the fee schedule that is in place. We need to increase that fee schedule and he explained the justification for that
increase in cost. We also need to implement a recertification because as materials and processes change there is a
need to have a formal update process for the contractors. This would allow us to provide updates on changes that
have occurred during the year as well as keep our contractor contact list current with qualified and knowledgeable
contractors. This recertification will be mandatory on an annual basis. Contractors will be removed from our list if
they do not attend the annual recertification. Mike Ramirez stated this is new and explained how he envisions the
process working. Dave Imlay made a motion to approve the fee increase to the proposed amount for the original
contractor application and to approve the annual recertification process and proposed fee. Mark Maag seconded the
motion. Motion passed unanimously.
Discussion and possible recommendation to the City Council on Approval of Bid Award for Civil Portion of Sky
Mountain Substation: Jared Ross presented the bid process and information. We submitted all the bids received to
ICPE for an independent bid evaluation. ICPE recommended removing the two lowest bids due to excluding materials
and services that were required from their bids. Based on cost and conformance to specification, ICPE recommended
the bid be awarded to Diamond W Construction based on cost, with consideration given to Interstate Rock based on
previous experience. Both companies are local companies based on their current business licenses. One item that
was discussed was to make sure that we receive a timeline from either company that is selected. The final decision
for approval should require a project schedule. Dave Imlay made a motion to recommend awarding the bid to
Diamond W Construction based on meeting the qualifications as well as low bid and ICPE’s recommendation. He
requested to have the project schedule provided by Diamond W Construction. Mac Hall seconded the motion.
Motion passed unanimously. Diamond W Construction stated they anticipate being complete by June or July 2026
but will submit a project schedule within a few days.
UAMPS Updates: Mike Johns reported on the Southwest Utah Technical Task Force (SWUTTF) update. This task force
is a collaboration between PacifiCorp, Dixie Power, St George, Santa Clara, Washington, and us. This includes all the
entities included in overseeing the grid and power flow for Washington County. Mac Hall stated this task force is
court mandated. Mike Johns continued with the item that was discussed at the meeting which was that PacifiCorp is
reaching capacity on the 69KV line out of Purgatory Substation. By next year, if one transformer is lost at the
substation, the loads are higher than the other transformer can handle without having to curtail the load. Hurricane’s
master plan is to finish a 138KV line out of the Purgatory Substation and loop it throughout Hurricane City. That will
reduce some of the load off PacifiCorp’s 69KV line and our new growth would be fed by 138KV, however it’s not
possible to have that completed by next year. This means we will have an increased reliability risk on that line out of
Purgatory Substation. The task force is discussing potential solutions to work through contingencies for all of
Washington County. The worst-case scenario would include having to wait 12-14 hours for a mobile transformer to
be shipped and set up. This scenario enhances our efforts to keep trying to get that 138KV line finished. There was a
conversation at the last Central-St George UAMPS project meeting about potentially re-adding Hurricane’s 138KV
loop back into that project. It wasn’t well received the first time it was presented since it primarily impacts only
Hurricane. However, St George has proposed a 138KV loop into the project which has no direct benefit to Hurricane
and attempting to have us pay a share of that. Mike Johns denied his approval of that proposal using their denial of
our 138KV loop proposal as a partial reason. The Central-St George project committee agreed to re-evaluate the
inclusion of Hurricane’s 138KV loop as a result. Mike Johns also added that PacifiCorp is still planning on building a
345KV line down from Three Peaks to Purgatory and is still on track to have that energized by 2032.
There was a brief discussion regarding the Power Board vacancy before the meeting was adjourned.
Meeting adjourned at 3:57 p.m. The next Power Board meeting is scheduled for February 11, 2026, at 3:00 p.m.

BUDGET

AVERAGE YEARLY POWER PRICES

25-26 bdgt amount (thru Dec 2025)
BDGT Year to Date
2016

2017

2018

2019

2024

2025

Jan

$57.87 $59.07 $60.62 $59.75 $57.76 $60.14 $68.25 $132.44 $80.85

$73.20

Feb

$62.38 $63.04 $60.96 $67.00 $60.67 $63.19 $70.88

$83.72

$71.23

$74.69

Mar

$61.77 $60.99 $60.09 $65.17 $64.67 $63.64 $67.28

$87.92

$70.62

$77.45

Apr

$59.71 $59.49 $55.02 $55.44 $55.92 $61.86 $82.63

$75.32

$70.32

$76.44

May

$65.51 $60.32 $58.86 $58.55 $58.55 $59.69 $72.66

$67.45

$64.54

$63.90

June

$65.51 $58.54 $52.17 $55.30 $53.44 $86.91 $77.60

$69.52

$63.88

$63.66

Jul

$56.95 $58.29 $67.87 $54.29 $55.98 $81.04 $85.31

$90.48

$70.51

$71.49

Aug

$57.67 $59.00 $66.55 $54.58 $78.40 $72.03 $96.60

$84.39

$67.05

$65.48

Sep

$56.97 $62.36 $55.00 $54.34 $64.93 $82.38 $127.29 $83.74

$66.46

$74.68

Oct

$59.23 $59.79 $59.36 $59.70 $62.82 $75.92 $83.45

$83.77

$75.82

$71.95

Nov

$64.18 $62.14 $64.60 $63.80 $63.60 $70.47 $96.34

$73.03

$85.85

$81.66

Dec

$61.51 $58.80 $61.61 $58.55 $60.33 $70.07 $161.27 $71.99

$68.50

$75.69

Yr Avg

$60.64 $60.15 $60.23 $58.87 $61.42 $70.61 $90.80

$83.65

$71.30

$72.52

Weighted Avg

$59.55 $59.90 $60.56 $58.11 $61.98 $72.46 $92.09

$84.16

$70.50

$71.50
Cy to
Date

These figures capture the total cost of power to the power department.
The power department uses costs only associated with the purchasing
and generation of power and includes debt payments and interest

2020

2021

2022

$72.37
$72.35
2023

Dec
$161.27
$160.00
$150.00
$140.00
$130.00
$120.00
$110.00
$100.00
$90.00
$80.00
$70.00

$71.99

$70.07
$61.51

$60.00

$58.80

$61.61

$58.55

$60.33

2019

2020

$75.69
$68.50

$50.00

2016

2017

2018

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

Weighted Average
$140.00

$130.00

$120.00

$110.00

$100.00

$93.67

$90.00

$84.16

$80.00

$73.27

$70.00

$70.50

$60.00
$59.55

$59.90

$60.56

2016

2017

2018

$71.50

$61.98
$58.06

$50.00
2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

Avg Monthly Price
$165.00
$155.00
$145.00
$135.00
$125.00
$115.00
$105.00
$95.00
$85.00
$75.00
$65.00
$55.00
$45.00
Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

June

Jul

Aug

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

Sep
2023

Oct
2024

Nov
2025

Dec

Avg Monthly Price (5 Yrs)
$165.00

$155.00

$145.00

$135.00

$125.00

$115.00

$105.00

$95.00

$85.00

$75.00

$65.00

$55.00

$45.00
Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

June

Jul

2020

2021

2022

2023

Aug
2024

Sep
2025

Oct

Nov

Dec

2021 - 2025 KW LOAD
64,000

54,000

44,000

34,000

24,000

14,000

4,000

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

Base Load 21

Base Load 22

Base Load 23

Base Load 24

Base Load 25

2021 - 2025 KWH LOAD

27,000,000
25,000,000
23,000,000
21,000,000
19,000,000
17,000,000
15,000,000
13,000,000
11,000,000
9,000,000
7,000,000
5,000,000

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

Solar KwH
200,000

180,000

160,000

140,000

120,000

100,000

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

0
JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY
2021

JUN
2022

JUL
2023

AUG
2024

2025

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

Hurricane City Power
Electric Financial Projection Study

Jillian Jurczyk, Rates Manager
Utility Financial Solutions, LLC

Financial Outlook
Assumptions
Fiscal
Year Inflation
2026 2.6%
2027 2.6%
2028 2.6%
2029 2.6%
2030 2.6%
2031 2.6%

Growth
8.0%
23.7%
6.9%
3.6%
3.5%
3.6%

Purchase
Impact Fee
Retail
Total Capital
Power Change
Related
Funded
Improvement Impact Fee
$/kWh
Capital
Capital
Plan
Revenue
3.0%
$ 3,357,692 $ 7,498,424 $ 10,856,115 $ 3,474,009
3.0%
$11,786,572 $ 8,156,866 $ 19,943,438 $11,103,594
3.0%
5,536,153
3,831,280
9,367,433
4,007,793
3.0%
2,322,173
1,607,053
3,929,226
2,232,189
3.0%
3,252,482
2,250,872
5,503,354
2,275,568
3.0%
589,834
408,193
998,027
2,366,738

*Growth and Capital are provided through the Impact Fee Study by LRB
*Impact fee revenue is calculated using approved rates and the increase in load projected

1

Financial Outlook
Capital
Current Capital Spending
• Average annual capital spending for existing
infrastructure is ~$1.6M year and ~$2.4M for
new infrastructure.
Forecasted Capital Spending
• New growth is driving large projects and increasing the average spending to
~$10.8M over the next 5 years.
Funding Implications
• Impact fee recovery can lag, as projects are completed before new growth
connects.
• Capital projects significantly influence cash balances
2

Financial Outlook
No Change
Projected
Adjusted
Optimal
Fiscal
Rate
Operating
Operating Impact Fee Operating
Timing
Year Adjustments
Income
Income
Cash
Cash
7/1/2026 2027
0.00%
$ 2,144,966 $ 2,463,028 $ 2,570,210 $ 8,963,330
7/1/2027 2028
0.00%
1,778,343
2,823,468
1,041,851
8,556,978
7/1/2028 2029
0.00%
1,258,959
2,974,603
951,867
9,944,924
7/1/2029 2030
0.00%
650,640
3,186,623
(25,048) 10,210,890
7/1/2030 2031
0.00%
74,944
3,226,837
1,751,856 11,778,808

Projected
Hurricane City
Cash Balances Cash Target
(Operating &
Annual
Impact)
Calculation
$ 11,533,540 $ 36,850,951
9,598,829
41,709,959
10,896,790
43,963,424
10,185,842
46,863,102
13,530,664
48,048,884

3

Five Year Plan
70% Financed + 2.5% Rate Adjustments
Projected
Debt
Adjusted
Optimal
Rate
Coverage Operating
Operating Impact Fee Operating
Timing Adjustments
Ratio
Income
Income
Cash
Cash
7/1/2026
2.50%
9.39 $ 2,738,567 $ 2,445,980 $ 2,570,210 $28,820,154
7/1/2027
2.50%
4.31
3,063,442
2,847,844
1,041,851 34,117,361
7/1/2028
2.50%
3.35
3,281,065
2,999,508
951,867 37,957,345
7/1/2029
2.50%
3.12
3,477,467
3,222,138
(25,048) 42,296,459
7/1/2030
2.50%
3.22
3,780,509
3,237,092
1,751,856 45,639,247

Estimated Average Residential
Impact (Year 1):
$2.80 / month @ 1000 kWh usage

Projected
Hurricane City
Cash Balances Cash Target
(Operating &
Annual
Impact)
Calculation
$ 31,390,365 $ 36,876,210
35,159,212
41,764,643
38,909,211
44,049,470
42,271,411
46,983,391
47,391,103
48,206,565

% Financed -->

70%

Fiscal
Year
Bonding
2027 $ 13,960,406
2028
6,557,203
2029
2,750,458
2030
3,852,348
2031
698,619

Period
20
20
20
20
20

Rate
5.00%
5.00%
5.00%
5.00%
5.00%

4

Power Cost Adjustment Plan
70% Financed + PCA (no additional adjustments)
Estimated
Timing PCA Impact
7/1/2026
2.08%
7/1/2027
2.33%
7/1/2028
2.42%
7/1/2029
2.56%
7/1/2030
2.72%

Debt
Adjusted
Optimal
Coverage Operating
Operating Impact Fee Operating
Ratio
Income
Income
Cash
Cash
9.32 $ 2,627,675 $ 2,445,980 $ 2,570,210 $28,700,882
4.21
2,840,219
2,847,844
1,041,851 33,756,125
3.21
2,944,269
2,999,508
951,867 37,228,958
2.94
3,019,844
3,222,138
(25,048) 41,066,899
3.00
3,194,266
3,237,092
1,751,856 43,764,980

Estimated Average Residential Impact
(Year 1):
$2.31 / month @ 1000 kWh usage
*this is dependent on power supply costs

Projected
Hurricane City
Cash Balances Cash Target
(Operating &
Annual
Impact)
Calculation
$ 31,271,092 $ 36,850,951
34,797,976
41,709,959
38,180,825
43,963,424
41,041,851
46,863,102
45,516,836
48,048,884

% Financed -->

70%

Fiscal
Year
Bonding
2027 $ 13,960,406
2028
6,557,203
2029
2,750,458
2030
3,852,348
2031
698,619

Period
20
20
20
20
20

Rate
5.00%
5.00%
5.00%
5.00%
5.00%

5

PCA - What is a Rolling Average?
Twelve-Month Rolling Average PCA
• Power supply costs are reviewed each month
• The PCA charged to customers changes monthly based on the average power
cost over the previous 12-months

• Goal of balancing power costs every 12 months
• Smooths out fluctuations while maintaining financial integrity

6

What is a Rolling Average?
*Showing 6-month example
Example Numbers

Month
One
7.0

Month
Two
8.0

Month
Three
9.0

Month
Four
7.5

Month
Five
8.2

Month
Six
9.2
8.2

Month
Seven
7.5

Month
Eight
8.0

Month
Nine
9.5

Month
Ten
8.5

Month
Eleven
7.5

Month
Twelve
9.0

8.2
8.4
8.3
8.3
8.4
8.3
Example Numbers
Rolling Average

7.5
8.2

8.0
8.4

9.5
8.3

8.5
8.3

7.5
8.4

9.0
8.3

These are example numbers to show the mathematics of rolling average
7

PCA Quick Facts
• The difference between the rolling average and “base” amount in the retail
rates for power supply is the PCA for that month.
• Hurricane City currently recovers ~$0.08 / kWh towards power supply in
the published rate tariff
• If power costs were less than the base, customers will receive a bill credit
• Ex. Average Power Costs = $0.075, PCA = $0.005 credit to customers
• If power costs were higher than the base, customers will have a bill charge for
the unrecovered power costs
• Ex. Average Power Costs = $0.084, PCA = $0.004 charge to customers

8

Crystal Wright
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

[email protected]
Monday, February 9, 2026 8:45 AM
Crystal Wright
PCA
PCA Opinion.docx

Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:

Follow up
Flagged

Crystal,
Attached is something I would like to be included to the Power Board packet.
Also, on the PCA, I would like a hard recommendation from Power Staff and Kaden on moving to a PCA or
staying with the current rate setting method.
Dave

-Source Unknown from Google Search
I want to put this out there because people need to understand what is happening, and because this kind of billing is
not being explained honestly.
I budget carefully. I track my expenses. I live on a fixed income. I am disabled, which means surprises are not an
inconvenience. They are a real problem. My electric bill is normally around $120. That number is predictable, stable,
and budgeted for.
This month, my bill is $358.
My usage did not meaningfully change. I did not add appliances. I did not change habits. Nothing about how I use
electricity is different from the month before.
The increase is almost entirely due to something called a “Power Cost Adjustment.” This is not based on customer
behavior. It is a pass-through charge that shifts increased fuel and wholesale power costs directly onto customers,
without warning, without meaningful notice, and without any requirement that the bill remain predictable or
affordable.
The base rate stayed reasonable. The adjustment more than doubled the bill.
This is the part that matters:
You cannot budget for a bill that triples without warning while being told you “used electricity normally.” That is not
responsible pricing. That is volatility being dumped onto the people least able to absorb it.
If a grocery store did this, it would be called price gouging.
If a landlord did this, it would be illegal.
Utilities are allowed to do it because they are monopolies and customers have no alternative.
This affects retirees, disabled people, families living paycheck to paycheck, and anyone who plans responsibly instead
of keeping excess cash on hand “just in case” the electric company decides to reprice last month after the fact.
This is not about refusing to pay for electricity. It is about transparency, predictability, and basic fairness. If costs are
going to spike, customers deserve advance notice and protections against sudden, extreme bill shock.
A system that can triple a household’s electric bill without any change in usage is not functioning in the public’s
interest. It is functioning exactly as designed, and that design deserves scrutiny.
I am posting this so others understand that if this happens to them, it is not because they did something wrong.
1

UAMPS
Updates

Amended & Restated Pooling Agreement
Governing Board Talking Points
February 2026
Purpose
• Update the 1980 Pooling Agreement to support mandatory participation in
organized wholesale power markets.
• Align UAMPS operations with PacifiCorp’s entry into the Extended Day-Ahead
Market (EDAM) effective May 2026.
• Provide a clear, modern framework for governance, planning, cost allocation, and
risk management.
Why This Is Needed Now
• PacifiCorp’s participation in EDAM requires UAMPS and its members to comply with
centralized market rules.
• The current Pooling Agreement was designed for a bilateral market and does not
address today’s market complexity.
• The amended agreement ensures continued, compliant participation while
preserving UAMPS’ agency role.
Key Changes
• Obligates Participants to purchase power and resource sufficiency requirements in
excess of owned resources through UAMPS.
• Establishes formal market planning tools, including:
o Annual Purchase Plan
o Load and Resource Forecasts
o Resource Sufficiency Obligations
• Authorizes UAMPS to make market purchases on behalf of Participants under an
approved plan.
Governance & Oversight
• Creates a Project Management Committee (PMC), consistent with other UAMPS
projects.
• One voting representative per Participant; PMC actions require board ratification.
• Establishes an advisory committee to support policy development and operational
practices.
• Requires an annual internal audit of market operations and settlements.
1

Cost Allocation & Financial Protections
• Costs and revenues directly attributable to a Participant are allocated to that
Participant.
• Shared costs are allocated based on Load Ratio Share or another PMC-approved
method.
• Incorporates payment obligations, rate covenant, audit rights, and transparency
provisions that support credit strength.
Term & Effectiveness
• Effective May 1, 2026.
• Replaces the existing Pooling Agreement in its entirety.
• Remains in effect unless terminated with five years’ notice (shorter period requires
PMC approval).
Participants Governing Board Approval
• Approve authorizing resolution approving the execution of the Amended and
Restated Pooling Agreement
• Seek approval 30 days prior to the effective date of May 1, 2026

2

Paragonah
Town

South Utah Valley
Electric Service District

In conjunction with the above members,

2026 Scholarship Opportunity
UAMPS is committed to continuing to support renewable energy and will
be awarding four $2,500 scholarships in 2026 to High School seniors who
demonstrate interest in an educational path that will promote
renewable energy development in the state of Utah.
Eligibility:
•
•
•
•

High School seniors who will attend a post-secondary 2-year or 4-year college or
educational trade program.
Reside in a household within a UAMPS member municipality or entity participating
in the Steel Solar (A) project (see logos above for participating cities or entities).
3.0 GPA
U.S. Citizen

Application submission:
•

•
•
•
•

In your own words and without the use of AI, write a 500 to1,000-word essay on the
benefits of renewable energy, and how your educational and career plan will
promote or advance the use and production of renewable energy. Include your
planned field of study. Include a copy of your most recent transcript as the last
page.
Include a cover page with your name, high school, date, email, phone number and
address. Do not put your name on any other pages of the essay.
Send your essay and any questions to [email protected]
Essays due by midnight on February 28th, 2026.
Winners will be notified by phone and email by March 31, 2026

Helpful resources

Resources:
College or Certificate options:
https://www.linemancentral.com/states/utah
https://www.slcc.edu/workforce-training/energy-career-trainingindex.aspx
https://www.mslcat.org
https://catalog.utahtech.edu/programs/earth-environmentalsciences/earth-energy-environmental-science-geosciencebs/index.html

Other resources:
www.epic.utah.edu
https://getintoenergy.org/student-pathways/
https://www.energy.gov/eere/renewable-energy
www.uamps.com

December 2025
Project Meeting Overview Report
CARBON FREE POWER PROJECT (CFPP)
1. Philo Shelton was re-elected Project Chair.
2. Discussed in Executive Session:
a.

Project wind down status, timeline and DOE engagement.

CENTRAL-ST. GEORGE PROJECT
1. Mike Johns was elected Project Chair.
2. Discussed the Santa Clara Reroute including material procurement quotes.
3. Approved Santa Clara Reroute materials, as discussed.
4. Discussed the Operations Report including substation reports for the month of
November.

COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT (CRSP)
1. Darren Hess was re-elected Project Chair.
2. Discussed the Operations Report including output for each resource for the month of
November.

CRAIG MONA PROJECT
1. Isaac Jones was elected Project Chair.
2. Discussed the Operations Report including transmission line usage for the month of
November.
1

Project Meeting Overview Report

FIRM POWER SUPPLY PROJECT
1. Mark Montgomery was re-elected Project Chair.
2. Discussed the Operations Report including output and scheduling from each
resource for the month of November.

GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS PROJECT (GPA)
1. Les Williams was re-elected Project Chair.
2. Discussed Federal & State Legislation including Executive Branch and
Congressional Updates:
a.

Federal update including a review of the government shutdown &
reopening, President Trump's approval rate, voter demographics and tariffs.

b.

2026 Election including the Senate and the balance of power in the House.

c.

Other items including Small Cell, permitting reform and APPA PowerPAC.

d.

State update including redistricting, Utah Special Session and General
Session.

e.

UAMPS & UMPA sponsored events during this year’s Session including
Morning Breakout (January 26th) and Legislative Reception (February
17th).

HORSE BUTTE PROJECT (HBW)
1. Bruce Rigby was re-elected Project Chair.
2. Discussed Plant Operations including monthly statistics and a summary of work completed
& still in progress.
3. Discussed Aircraft Detection Lighting System (ADLS) to comply with Idaho State Law
HB146 including project details, cost estimate and next steps.
4. Discussed the implementation of a Wildfire Mitigation Plan, as discussed in the Member
Services Project.
5. Discussed the Operations Report including production output for the month of November.

2

Project Meeting Overview Report

HUNTER PROJECT
1. Jason Norlen was re-elected Project Chair.
2. Discussed the Operations Report including plant scheduled output for the month of
November.

INTERMOUNTAIN POWER PROJECT (IPP)
1. Allen Johnson was elected Project Chair.
2. Discussed seasonal callback including forecasting, overview of generating units, Natural
Gas units nearing completion, callback timeline and pricing for callback vs term
purchases.
3. Discussed plant update including overview of the units, potential tour, stranded coal
update and decommissioning fund.
4. Discussed the Operations Report including scheduled output for the month of November.

MEMBER SERVICES PROJECT
1. Josey Parsons was re-elected Project Chair.
2. Discussed Member Equipment including retirement ofthe Battery Test Set and
getting costs for updating all the equipment.
3. Approved the retirement of the UAMPS Battery Test Set, as presented.
4. Discussed in Executive Session:
a.

b.

Fire Mitigation Plans as a prudent utility practice for UAMPS Projects and
Member systems to identify risk exposure and implement preparedness &
preventative measures to mitigate legal, financial and community wildfire
risk.
Results of consultant engagement, selection of consultant, and next steps.

5. Approved the Board delegating authority to the Project Management
Committee to move forward with the Fire Mitigation Plan Service, as presented.
6. Guest Speaker:
a.

Mike Melton, Deputy State Fire Management Officer, spoke about fire
mitigation plans.

3

Project Meeting Overview Report

MILLARD COUNTY PROJECT
1. Joel Eves was re-elected Project Chair.
2. Discussed in Executive Session:
a.

Engineering Class 3 timeline update including quotes, status on equipment,
public outreach and next steps.

3. Approved resolution relating to the Millard County Power Project; delegating
authority to the Project Management Committee to modify the target price inputs;
approve the Class 3 Project Cost Estimate; determine whether the target price has
been exceeded; and related matters.

NATURAL GAS PROJECT
1. Jason Miller was re-elected Project Chair.
2. Discussed the Operations Report including the MMBtu scheduled for the month of
November.

NEBO PROJECT
1. Brian Wright was elected Project Chair.
2. Discussed plant operations including November statistics, regulatory actions, trainings,
other maintenance items and transmission updates.
3. Discussed outage update including turbine repairs for both the Gas and Steam Turbines,
additional inspection details, the different scenario walkthroughs, next steps and staff
recommendation.
4. Approved the Board delegating authority to the Nebo Project Management
Committee to determine any additional repairs to be completed on the Steam
Turbine relating to stage 18 and any other repairs deemed necessary.
5. Discussed the implementation of a Wildfire Mitigation Plan, as discussed in the Member
Services Project.
6. Discussed the Operations Report for the month of November including Nebo energy
breakdown and Nebo sales margins.

4

Project Meeting Overview Report

POOL PROJECT
1. Jeremy Franklin was re-elected Project Chair.
2. Discussed the Amended and Restated Pooling Agreement including general areas of
concern and clarifying questions.
3. Approved the Board delegating authority to the Pool Project Management
Committee to approve the form of the Restated and Amended Pooling Agreement,
as discussed.
4. Discussed the PX & Scheduling Report including a yearly history of peak and energy
load as well as member internal generation.
5. Discussed the upcoming fiscal year forecast including individual member forecasts that
were distributed. Forecasts show load & resources and shortage/surplus from comparing
load to resources.
6. Discussed EDAM including implementation update and parallel operations.
7. Discussed the Operations Report for the month of November including load peak and
energy.

POWER COUNTY PROJECT
1. Brian Jeppson was re-elected Project Chair.
2. Discussed in Executive Session:
a.

Project update including status on siting, partners, initial design, target price
and public-facing elements.

RESOURCE PROJECT
1. Nick Tatton was elected Project Chair.
2. Discussed in Executive Session:
a.
HBWII and Uinta Wind projects including wind status and new wind.
a.

Geothermal development including Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) terms,
Rodatherm Project development, new geothermal and next steps.

b.

Battery Storage including exploration and implementation.

5

Project Meeting Overview Report

SAN JUAN PROJECT
1. Ty Bailey was elected Project Chair.

VEYO HEAT RECOVERY PROJECT
1. Kent Kummer was re-elected Project Chair.
2. Discussed Bond Refunding including an overview, potential savings, an explanation
of the Bond Resolution and next steps.
3. Approved resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of Veyo Heat Recovery
Project Revenue Bonds, delegating authority to the Project Management
Committee to approve the terms of the Bonds, the Project Agreements and all
other actions in connection with the Bonds and the refunding of the Refunded
Bonds, as discussed.
4. Discussed project outage including newly installed generator, internal inspection,
leak monitoring and the replacement of multiple parts.
5. Discussed the implementation of a Wildfire Mitigation Plan, as discussed in the
Member Services Project.
6. Discussed the Operations Report including scheduling Veyo for the month of
November with peak output and tripped/restricted hours.

ANNUAL MEMBER MEETING
1. Elected Project Directors.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
1. Elected UAMPS Officers:
a.

Rick Hansen was re-elected Chair.

b.

Shane Ward was re-elected Vice Chair.

c.

Greg Bellon was re-elected Secretary.

d.

Shawn Black was re-elected Treasurer.

2. Discussed Rate Stabilization Fund including overview, background & rationale,
program structure, member feedback and staff recommendations.

6

Project Meeting Overview Report

3. Approved the FY2027 Budget Policy (Draft #2), authorizing UAMPS staff and
the Budget Committee to develop the FY2027 UAMPS Budget in accordance
with this approved policy.
4. Discussed the 2026 Budget Committee and meeting schedule for in-person
meetings.
5. Approved the form of the All-Requirements Agreement, as presented and
discussed.
6. Discussed the new UAMPS Mission, Vision & Values statements including intended
use and next steps in implementation.
7. Approved new UAMPS Mission, Vision & Values statements, as presented and
discussed.
8. Discussed ERMP Review including annual review process, checklist questions and
EDAM considerations.
9. Approved all action items for the Project Meetings.

7

Utah State Legislature Legislative Process Summary

The Utah Constitution requires that each
bill “shall be read by title three separate
times in each house.”
(Art. VII Sec. 2)

House

Senate
Bill File

Bills can be a priority bill, and each legislator has up to three priority bills.

Bill # (HB _ or SB _ ) (Numbered)
The bill is introduced into the Legislature and referred to the Rules Committee.

Rules Committee (First Reading)
The Rules Committee recommends to the presiding officer the standing committee
to which the bill should be referred. The standing committee, in an open meeting,
reviews the bill and receives public testimony.

Standing Committee
The bill is presented in a standing committee meeting by the bill sponsor. The
committee members ask questions and discuss the bill. The committee may
amend, hold, table, substitute, or make a favorable recommendation on the bill.

Floor (Second and Third Reading)
The bill is debated on the floor of each chamber. Second reading occurs differently for
the House and the Senate: In the House, the committee report is read and adopted, but a
bill may not be amended or debated. In the Senate, a bill is debated and can be amended.
The third reading in each chamber is similar and a bill can be amended.

Vote Threshold to Pass

House: 38

Senate 15
Standing Committee

The bill is presented in a standing committee meeting in the other body after
passing on the floor of the original body.

Floor
The bill is debated on the floor of the other body.

Signed by Speaker and Senate President
Once the bill has passed both bodies, it is signed by the Speaker of the House and the
President of the Senate.

Enrollment
The Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel prepares the bill in final form.
This is called the "enrolled" bill.

Governor
The enrolled bill is sent to the Governor for his action. He can either sign the bill, veto it,
or allow it become law without his signature.

Effective Date
A bill enacted by the Legislature is effective 60 days following adjournment, unless
another date is specified in the bill. It then becomes law.

MEMO
TO
FROM
DATE
SUBJECT

GPA
Mike Squires, Managing Director of Government Affairs
January 26, 2026
2026 Utah General Session Overview

Background: The 2026 General Utah Session runs from January 20 – March 6, 2026. Legislators passed
several large energy-related bills over the past few sessions. So, while there will be some new bills on subjects
such as RMP, markets, nuclear energy, etc. it is unlikely that there will be a large bill similar to the large load
bill in the 2025 General Session.
Utah Legislative Leadership:
House: (NOTE: House leadership changed since 2025 General Session.)

Speaker Schultz

Majority Leader Snider

Maj. Whip Pierucci

Asst. Maj. Whip Bolinder

Maj. Leader Cullimore

Maj. Whip Wilson

Asst. Maj. Whip McKell

Senate:

President Adams

UAMPS Legislative Tracker:
UAMPS maintains a legislative tracker that will provide an overview of the bills that UAMPS is monitoring and their status. For more information about
the way in which UAMPS determined which bills to track, please refer to the “UAMPS Legislative Process 101” document.
Below is a quick update of those bills that UAMPS is tracking as of the first week of the session. Some bills have already been removed from the tracker
because they proved to be less relevant to UAMPS and UAMPS members. (Columns that are shaded are those that UAMPS is no longer tracking.)
Bill #

Short Title

Sponsor

HB0013

Municipal Services Fees and Political Subdivision
Lien Amendments

Cutler

HB0016

Solar Power Plant Amendments

Jack

HB0076

Data Center Water Policy Amendments

Koford

HB0078

Nuclear Regulatory Amendments

Albrecht

HB0079

Governmental Immunity Amendments

Gwynn

HB0111

Wildlife Amendments

Bolinder

HB0165

Critical Infrastructure Amendments

Brooks

HB0175

Public Funds and Political Activities Amendments

Lee

HB0185

Carbon Credit Amendments

Shelley

HB0224

Electricity Rate Amendments

Albrecht

General Summary
This bill authorizes municipalities to place
a political subdivision lien on property for
certain past due services and makes
related amendments.
This bill enacts provisions related to utility
scale solar power plants.
This bill addresses reporting related to
water use and data centers.
This bill establishes the Nuclear Energy
Regulatory Office within the Division of
Waste Management and Radiation
Control.
This bill amends the Governmental
Immunity Act of Utah.
This bill addresses the management of
wildlife resources and wildlife habitats.
This bill relates to critical infrastructure
protection and communications security.
This bill addresses political activities of
persons receiving public funds.
This bill addresses requirements relating
to a carbon credit transaction.
This bill modifies provisions related to
energy balancing account cost recovery
for electrical corporations.

UAMPS Position
Neutral

Neutral
Studying

Studying

Neutral
Studying
Studying
Neutral
Neutral

HB0238

Utah Energy Generation and Transmission
Planning

Albrecht

HB0201

Radioactive Waste Facility Tax Amendments

Albrecht

HB0249

Federal Funds Modifications

Roberts

HB0252

Tariff Payment Tax Credit

Stoddard

HCR001

House Concurrent Resolution Regarding
Advanced Nuclear Manufacturing

Albrecht

HCR005

House Concurrent Resolution on State
Management of Federal Public Lands

Eliason

SB0021

Geothermal Amendments

McKell

SB0011

Property Rights Ombudsman Act Amendments

Pitcher

SB0020

Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment
Technical Changes

Stratton

SB0135

Nuclear Reprocessing Amendments

Owens

SCR001

Concurrent Resolution Regarding Nuclear Energy

Owens

This bill enacts provisions establishing
requirements for Public Service
Commission participation in regional
transmission organizations and
independent system operators.
This bill extends the radioactive waste
facility expansion tax.
This bill modifies provisions related to
federal funds.
This bill enacts an individual income tax
credit for certain tariff payments.
This resolution expresses support for the
advanced nuclear manufacturing industry
and declares the state's desire to have
nuclear manufacturing done in the state.
This resolution urges the federal
government and state entities to identify
public lands for the state to manage for
outdoor recreation.
This bill addresses geothermal resources
or fluids.
This bill modifies the date on which the
Land Use and Eminent Domain Advisory
Board repeals.
This bill addresses obsolete programs and
makes other technical changes to statutes
within the purview of natural resources,
agriculture, and environment or related
legislative committees.

Neutral

Neutral
Studying
Studying

Support

Studying

Neutral
Studying

Neutral

Neutral
This resolution expresses support and
intent for Utah to pursue Agreement State
status with the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission for additional elements of the
nuclear fuel cycle.

Support

Committee Leadership:
Outlined in the UAMPS Legislative Process 101 document, there are four committees whose activity UAMPS
monitors: House/Senate Public Utilities, Energy and Technology (PUET) Committee; House/Senate Natural
Resources Committee; House/Senate Political Subdivisions Committee; and House/Senate Transportation
Committee. The last two (political subdivisions and transportation) usually do not mark up as much relevant
legislation to UAMPS as the first two (PUET and natural resources).

Rep. Jack
House PUET Chair
(Rep. Peterson Vice Chair)

Rep. Albrecht
House Natural Resources Chair
(Rep. Shipp Vice Chair)

Rep. Dunnigan
Political Subdivisions Chair
(Rep. Tracy Miller Vice Chair)

Sen. Harper
Senate PUET Chair

Sen. Owens
Natural Resources Chair

Sen. Winterton
Political Subdivisions Chair

Executive Branch:
Nothing in the Governor’s budget directly impacts UAMPS. On December 3, 2015 Governor Cox presented his
$30.7B budget. Of interest to UAMPS, the Governor has requested approximately $20.4 M for nuclear power
development (site prep, infrastructure, regulatory framework) and approximately $4.3 M for geothermal
research.
Energy Issues in 2026:
As of the first week, energy appears is less of a focus for legislators. As of the first week, there are bills on the
following:






Geothermal: Providing additional definitions around geothermal projects.
Nuclear energy: Supporting advanced nuclear manufacturing and a bill providing the state a larger role
in the nuclear regulatory process.
Rocky Mountain Power: Creating a sharing band to RMP’s energy balancing account and Utah Public
Service Commission (PSC) access to EDAM information.
Solar: Creating a new net metering approach that would apply only to RMP.
Critical infrastructure: Requiring the state to study critical infrastructure and information that may be
vulnerable to foreign entities.

Member Access to Bill Information:
UAMPS will mark up the bills that it is following with UAMPS comments. These along with the Power Points
that UAMPS will review each Thursday discussing the more relevant bills will be available by going to:
https://uampsnet.sharepoint.com/sites/2026UtahSessionMaterials

UAMPS Bill Analysis Overview
There are several procedural steps that must occur from the time that a bill is numbered
until the time that a bill is presented to the governor for a signature. This process is
subject political considerations as much as it is subject to the normal process. Though
relevant, some bills are not fully evaluated based on their chances of being enacted.

Step 1:
UAMPS filters bills as they are introduced based off the following: (1) subject matter; (2)
committee of jurisdiction; (3) legislation adopted by an interim committee and designated
as a “committee bill;” and (4) bill sponsor.
Relevant committees of jurisdiction for UAMPS include:
House/Senate Political Subdivisions Cmte.

House/Senate Natural Resources Cmte.

House/Senate Public Utilities Cmte.

House/Senate Transportation Cmte.

Step 2:
Following a general read through of a bill, UAMPS adds a bill to the bill tracker and
consults the bill sponsor and committee meeting calendar to ensure that bills that have
passed rules and are assigned to a standing committee are prioritized. Even a bill that is
harmful to UAMPS or UAMPS members is not fully vetted if the bill has no support, is held
up in the Rules Committee, or opposed by House or Senate leadership.

Step 3:
All bills that are identified in Steps 1 and 2 are further evaluated according to their
perceived impact on UAMPS and UAMPS members combined with their ability to “move”
or be referred to a standing committee. Oftentimes, bill sponsors are amenable to
changes and where possible UAMPS seeks to amend or improve legislation before the bill
is discussed in a standing committee meeting.

Step 4:
Bills that survive Steps 1-3 are further evaluated and if needed will be opposed or
supported.