Public Service Commission of Utah

2 010A N N U A L R E P O R T

for the period July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010

Public Service Commission of Utah

T E L E C O ME L E C T R I C I T Y N AT U R A L G A S WAT E R

2010 ANNUAL REPORTPUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF UTAH

C O N T E N T S

1 Letter to the Governor, Members of the Senate and Members of the House of Representatives

2 Public Service Commission of Utah Personnel and Organization Chart

3 2010 CommissionersTed Boyer – ChairmanRic Campbell – CommissionerRon Allen – Commissioner

4 History of the Public Service Commission of Utah and Regulatory Process

8 Overview of Electric Utilities— Electric Dockets— Electric Companies

20 Overview of Natural Gas Utility— Natural Gas Dockets— Natural Gas Companies

26 Overview of Telecommunications Utilities— Telecommunication Dockets— Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers— Competitive Local Exchange Carriers

38 Telecommunications Relay Services and Equipment Distribution Program

42 Overview of Water Utilities— Water Dockets— Water Companies

48 Complaint Resolution

12 0 1 0 A n n u a l R e p o r t

November 12, 2010

Honorable Gary HerbertGovernor, State of UtahHonorable Members of the SenateHonorable Members of the House of Representatives

It is a pleasure to present you the Annual Report for fiscal year2010 of the Public Service Commission of Utah. This report has beenprepared in accordance with Utah Code § 54-1-10, which requires theCommission submit to you a report of its activities during the fiscalyear ending June 30, 2010.

This annual report highlights the issues and activities the Commission has focused on during the year.

We look forward to your continued support as we serve the citizens of Utah.

Respectfully submitted,

Ted Boyer, Commission Chairman

Ric Campbell, Commissioner

Ron Allen, Commissioner

Public Service CommissionTED BOYERChairman

RIC CAMPBELLCommissioner

RON ALLENCommissionerState of Utah

GARY HERBERT.Governor

GREG BELLLieutenant Governor

Herbert M Wells Building, 160 East 300 South, Box 45585, Salt Lake City, UT 84145-0585 telephone (801) 530-6716 • facsimile (801) 530-6796 • www.psc.state.ut.us

SM

SM

Public UtilityEngineer

J E R R Y M A I O

P u b l i c S e r v i c e C o m m i s s i o n o f U t a h

2 2 0 1 0 A n n u a l R e p o r t

Electric and GasUtility TechnicalConsultant

C A R O L R E V E LT

Telecom-municationsTechnical

Consultant/Economist

J O H N S . H A R V E Y

Chief UtilityEconomist

J A M E S A . L O G A N

Equipment DeliveryPersonnel

B R A D B L A C K N E R


P A U L A R O S E


L O R R I D E A N

Office Technician

J E N N I F E R J O Y

Office Technician

T R I X I E B E H R

Accounting Technician

G A R Y W I D E R B U R G

TelecommunicationRelay Specialist

M A R Y B E T H G R E E N

Paralegal

S H E R I B I N T Z

PSC

Legal Counsel

D AV I D C L A R K

Commissioner

R I C C A M P B E L L

P E R S O N N E L

June 30, 2010

ChairmanTed Boyer

CommissionerRic Campbell

CommissionerRon Allen

Commission SecretaryJulie P. Orchard

Executive Staff DirectorRebecca Wilson

Legal CounselDavid Clark

Administrative Law JudgeRuben Arredondo

Telecommunications Technical Consultant/EconomistJohn S. Harvey

Chief Utility EconomistJames A. Logan

Electric and Gas UtilityTechnical ConsultantCarol Revelt

Public Utility EngineerJerry Maio

ParalegalSheri Bintz

Telecommunication Relay SpecialistMary Beth Green

Accounting TechnicianGary Widerburg

Office TechnicianTrixie Behr

Office TechnicianJennifer Joy

Equipment Delivery PersonnelBrad Blackner

Equipment Delivery PersonnelLorri Dean

Equipment Delivery PersonnelPaula Rose

O R G A N I Z A T I O N C H A R T

June 30, 2010

P U B L I C S E R V I C E C O MM I S S I O N

Chairman

T E D B O Y E R

Commissioner

R O N A L L E N

AdministrativeLaw Judge

R U B E N A R R E D O N D O

ExecutiveStaff Director

R E B E C C A W I L S O N

CommissionSecretary

J U L I E P. O R C H A R D

32 0 1 0 A n n u a l R e p o r t

C O M M I S S I O N C H A I R

Ted BoyerOriginal Term:

June 20, 2003 - March 1, 2009

Reappointed: March 27, 2009

Ted Boyer was appointed as acommissioner of the Public ServiceCommission on June 20, 2003 and as Chair on May 2, 2007.

Commissioner Boyer is a memberof the National Association of Regula-tory Utility Commissioners (NARUC)and serves on the Energy, Resourcesand the Environment Committee andInternational Committee, the RegionalOversight Committee, the Utah Privatization Policy Board, the UtahTelecommunications Advisory Council,the Steering Committee of the West-ern Renewable Energy Zones Projectof the Western Governor’s Associa-tion, a member of the Advisory Coun-cil for the Center for Public Utilities at New Mexico State University, amember of the Utility Facility ReviewBoard, a member of the Public Inter-est Advisory Committee of the Gas Technology Institute, and is a pastpresident of the Western Conferenceof Public Service Commissioners.

Prior to his appointment, Commis-sioner Boyer served as ExecutiveDirector of the Utah Department ofCommerce and before that as Directorof the Utah Real Estate Division. Afterreceiving his BS and MS degrees fromBrigham Young University, he earnedhis J. D. from the University of Utahand practiced law in Salt Lake City forover 20 years. He has also worked inthe steel industry, row-crop farmingand taught at Murray State University.

C O M M I S S I O N E R

Ric CampbellOriginal Term:

June 20, 2003 - March 1, 2009Reappointed:

March 1, 2007 - March 1, 2013

Ric Campbell was appointed to the Public Service Commission onMarch 1, 2001, and was reappointedon March 1, 2007, for an additional six year term.

Ric Campbell is a member of theNational Association of RegulatoryUtility Commissioners (NARUC) and serves on the Committee onElectricity as well as on the board ofDirectors. He also serves on the boardof Directors of the Western ElectricityCoordinating Council.

Prior to his appointment, he wasthe director of the Utah Division ofPublic Utilities. While at the Division,Ric also served as a member of theUtah Telecommunications AdvisoryCouncil and on the Utah RuralTelecommunications Task Force.

Before joining the Division, Ric was the Executive Director of theUtah Health Policy Commission. Prior to Ric’s public service in stategovernment, he worked for Shell OilCompany. Ric has a B.S. degree inAccounting from Brigham YoungUniversity and a M.S. degree inEconomics from the University ofUtah.

C O M M I S S I O N E R

Ron AllenOriginal Term:

March 18, 2005 - March 1, 20011

Ron Allen was appointed to his first term as a Commissioner of the Utah Public Service Commissionby Governor Jon M. Huntsman onMarch 18, 2005. His term expiresMarch 1, 2011.

Prior to his appointment he servedas a Utah State Senator representingMagna, West Valley and StansburyPark. While in the Utah senate heserved as Minority Whip and on the Executive Appropriations andExecutive Management Committees.Ron also served on the Utah TaxReview Commission and on thePrivatization Review Board. In addition,he served on the Energy and ElectricUtilities Committee for the NationalConference of State Legislatures. Roncurrently serves on the Gas Committeewith the National Association ofRegulatory Commissioners.

Ron is formerly a self-employedbusiness and technology consultantand has owned and operated severalUtah businesses, making the list ofUtah’s 100 fastest growing firmsseveral times. Ron has a B.S. degree in Accounting and an M.A. degree inArt History from the University of Utah.

P U B L I C S E R V I C E C O MM I S S I O N E R S

4 2 0 1 0 A n n u a l R e p o r t

H ISTORYP U B L I C S E R V I C E C O MM I S S I O N

O R I G I N S O F T H E P U B L I C S E R V I C E C O M M I S S I O N

Since its origin in the Public Utilities Act of 1917, the Commission has served the citizens of Utah through technical and economic regulation of the state’s public utility companies. These privately owned but government-regulated companies provide the tele-communications, electricity, natural gas, water, and sewerage systems through which important services are delivered to Utah households and businesses.

Utility systems are key structural elements of Utah’s economy. Collectively,

all such structural elements, whether provided by public authorities or

regulated private companies, are known as “infrastructure.” Roads, railways

and other modes of transportation, and communications and other network-

based services like electricity, natural gas and water, facilitate the flow of

goods and services between buyers and sellers, making this infrastructure

a prerequisite for economic growth.

Utility companies are certificated monopolies. With recent exceptions

primarily in the telecommunications industry, each utility is the sole provider

of utility service in a designated geographic area of the State called

“certificated service territory.”

Because there is no competition, federal and state law obligates the

Commission to promote and protect the public interest by ensuring that

public utility service is adequate in quality and reliability, and is available

to everyone at just and reasonable prices. This is the Commission’s goal.

The prices, terms and conditions of utility service affect the quality of the

State’s infrastructure.

The Commission’s responsi-bility is to ensure that publicutility service is adequate inquality and reliability, andavailable to everyone at justand reasonable prices.

52 0 1 0 A n n u a l R e p o r t

PSC

O R G A N I Z A T I O N O F T H E R E G U L A T O R YF U N C T I O N I N U T A H T O D A Y

Since 1983, when the legislature last reorganizedUtah’s public utility regulatory function, the Commissionhas been an independent entity with a small clerical,legal, and technical advisory staff. The Office of theCommission consists of a three-member commission,each commissioner appointed by the Governor to a six-year term; an administrative secretary and clerical staff;an executive staff director and technical staff; a legalcounsel and paralegal staff; and an administrative lawjudge. Currently the Commission employs 19 persons.

The Division of Public Utilities, within the UtahDepartment of Commerce, performs public utility auditsand investigations, helps resolve customer complaints,and enforces Commission Orders. Since the 1983reorganization, the Division has been empowered torepresent an impartially determined, broad publicinterest before the Commission. The Division employs a Director and a clerical and technical staff ofapproximately 30 people and receives legal assistancefrom the Office of the Attorney General. Also functioningwithin the Department of Commerce is the Office ofConsumer Services (formerly the Committee ofConsumer Services), the state agency advocate beforethe Commission for the interests of residential, smallcommercial and agricultural customers. The Office,established by the legislature in 1977, consists of six

citizens appointed by the Governor. It employs a directorand a five-member clerical and technical staff includinglegal assistance provided by the Office of the AttorneyGeneral.

H O W T H E C O M M I S S I O N W O R K S

As a regulatory decision making body, theCommission exercises a delegated legislative power.Each regulatory decision is reached quasi-judicially —that is to say, the decision must be based on evidence of record gathered in open public hearings in docketedproceedings. All dockets are closely scheduled, but the

due process rights of parties, carefully observed by theCommission, mainly govern their timing.

In the course of a hearing, parties participating mayinclude the subject public utility, the Division of PublicUtilities, and the Office of Consumer Services. Partiespresent the sworn testimony and evidence of expertwitnesses on matters at issue and witnesses are cross-examined by the attorneys assisting each party.

In cases where tens of millions of dollars may be atstake, or important issues of regulatory policy arise, anumber of other interveners, representing interests asdiverse as low-income customers, environmental groups,and large industrial customers, may also participate.They too will employ expert witnesses and attorneys.They will want to be involved because regulatorydecisions distribute outcomes as gains or losses toparticular parties. Cases raise issues of law, economics,accounting, finance, engineering, and service quality.

Reaching decisions, which balance the often-competing interests of concerned parties, in pursuit ofoutcomes, which protect and promote the overall publicinterest, is the Commission’s task. These decisions,reviewed by the Utah Supreme Court, must be drawndirectly from the evidentiary record created in openpublic hearings or filed on the public record.

During fiscal year 2010, 260 cases were open anddocketed and 222 orders were sent out. Of these, 42were resolved by written Commission order, followinghearing and deliberation on the evidentiary record.

Many of the remaining cases were handled informally.The more important cases, whether for regulatory policyor financial implications, are highlighted in the followingdiscussions of electricity, natural gas, telecommunications,and water. In Fiscal Year 2010 the Public ServiceCommission regulated 162 utility companies to includegas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and railways withgross intrastate revenues of $ 3.1 billion.


6 2 0 1 0 A n n u a l R e p o r t


72 0 1 0 A n n u a l R e p o r t

P S C C O M M I S S I O N E R S

Yrs. of Service Name Home Town

1917–21 Henry H. Blood Kaysville

1917–23 Joshua Greenwood Nephi

1917–25 Warren Stoutner Salt Lake City

1921–23 Abbot R. Heywood Ogden

1923–37 Elmer E. Corfman Salt Lake City

1923–37 Thomas E. McKay Huntsville

1925–33 George F. McGonagle Salt Lake City

1933–35 Thomas H. Humphreys Logan

1935–37 Joseph S. Snow St. George

1937–41 Ward C. Holbrook Clearfield

1937–41 Otto A. Wiesley Salt Lake City

1937–40 Walter K. Granger Cedar City

1941–43 George S. Ballif Provo

1941–49 Oscar W. Carlson Salt Lake City

1941–51 Donald Hacking Price

1943–52 W. R. McEntire Huntsville

1949–73 Hal S. Bennett Salt Lake City

1951–56 Stewart M. Hanson Salt Lake City

1952–72 Donald Hacking Price

1956–57 Rue L. Clegg Salt Lake City

1957–63 Jesse R. Budge Salt Lake City

1963–65 Raymond W. Gee Salt Lake City

1965–67 D. Frank Wilkins Salt Lake City

1967–69 Donald T. Adams Monticello

1969–72 John T. Vernieu Richfield

1972–75 Eugene S. Lambert Salt Lake City

1972–76 Frank S. Warner Ogden

1973–79 Olof E. Zundel Brigham City

1975–76 James N. Kimball Salt Lake City

1976–77 Joseph C. Folley Ogden

1976–82 Milly O. Bernard Salt Lake City

1977–80 Kenneth Rigtrup Salt Lake City

1979–85 David R. Irvine Bountiful

1980–89 Brent H. Cameron Salt Lake City

1982–95 James M. Byrne Salt Lake City

1985–92 Brian T. Stewart Farmington

1989–91 Stephen F. Mecham Salt Lake City

1991–92 Stephen C. Hewlett* Salt Lake City

1992–95 Stephen C. Hewlett Salt Lake City

1992–2003 Stephen F. Mecham Salt Lake City

1995–2005 Constance B. White Salt Lake City

1995–2001 Clark D. Jones Salt Lake City

2001–Present Richard M. Campbell Riverton

2003–Present Theodore Boyer Salt Lake City

2005–Present Ronald Allen West Valley City

*Commissioner Pro Tempore

P S C S E C R E T A R I E S

Yrs. of Service Name Home Town

1917–23 Thomas E. Banning Salt Lake City

1923–35 Frank L. Ostler Salt Lake City

1935–36 Theodore E. Thain Logan

1936–38 Wendell D. Larson Salt Lake City

1938–40 J. Allan Crockett Salt Lake City

1941–43 Charles A. Esser Salt Lake City

1943–44 Theodore E. Thain Logan

1945–48 Royal Whitlock Gunnison

1949–49 C.J. Stringham Salt Lake City

1949–56 Frank A. Yeamans Salt Lake City

1956–59 C.R. Openshaw, Jr. Salt Lake City

1959–60 Frank A. Yeamans Salt Lake City

1960–70 C.R. Openshaw, Jr. Salt Lake City

1970–71 Maurice P. Greffoz* Salt Lake City

1971–72 Eugene S. Lambert Salt Lake City

1972–77 Ronald E. Casper Salt Lake City

1977–79 Victor N. Gibb Orem

1979–81 David L. Stott Salt Lake City

1981–83 Jean Mowrey Salt Lake City

1983–86 Georgia Peterson Salt Lake City

1986–91 Stephen C. Hewlett Salt Lake City

1991–Present Julie Orchard Bountiful

*Acting Secretary

8 2 0 1 0 A n n u a l R e p o r t

ELECTRICITYU T I L I T I E S


E L E C T R I C U T I L I T I E S O V E R V I E W

The principal electric utility regulated by the Commission isPacifiCorp, an investor-owned utility serving approximately790,000 residential, commercial and industrial customers inUtah and doing business in the state as Rocky MountainPower. PacifiCorp also serves retail customers in five otherwestern states and wholesale customers throughout the west.PacifiCorp provides approximately 80 percent of the electricity to Utah homes and

businesses. Other Utah customers are served either by municipal utilities, which are not

regulated by the Commission, or by rural electric cooperatives, which are subject to

minimal state regulation. Thus, most of the Commission’s work in the electric

industry arises from regulation of PacifiCorp.

R A T E C H A N G E S

Under Utah Code 54-4-4, the Commission is responsible for determining

just and reasonable rates for PacifiCorp. During fiscal year 2010 the

Commission was involved in one general rate case filed by PacifiCorp.

In June 2009 PacifiCorp filed an application requesting authority to

increase its retail rates in Utah by an amount of $66.9 million. This request

was based upon a forecast test year ending June 30, 2010, using a 13-month

average rate base and a return on equity of 11.0 percent. In February 2010 the

Commission issued its Report and Order on Revenue Requirement, Cost of Service

and Spread of Rates wherein the Commission increased PacifiCorp’s annual revenue

requirement by $32.4 million, or 2.2 percent, based on a forecasted test period of 12

months ending June 2010 and an allowed rate of return on equity of 10.60 percent.

The Commission also approved a non-uniform percentage increase to be applied to

certain tariff customers’ bills as a line item prior to the Commission's determination of

rate design in Phase II of this docket.

Consistent with the spread of the $32.4 million overall revenue increase to rate

schedules approved in Phase I of this proceeding, in June 2010 the Commission

approved a Stipulation on Non-Residential Rate Design and decided rate design issues

for residential Schedule Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and mobile homes, Schedule No. 25.

92 0 1 0 A n n u a l R e p o r t

Most of the Commission’swork in the electric industryarises from regulation of PacifiCorp, the provider of 80 percent of the electricityto Utah homes and business.

E N E R G Y C O S T A D J U S T M E N T M E C H A N I S M

The 2009 Utah Senate Bill 75 provides theCommission, among other things, the authority toapprove an electrical or gas corporation energybalancing account. Senate Bill 75 also specifies anenergy balancing account shall become effective upon a Commission finding the energy balancing account is in the public interest, is for prudently incurred costs, andis implemented at the conclusion of a general rate case.

In March 2009, PacifiCorp filed for approval of anEnergy Cost Adjustment Mechanism (“ECAM”). Asproposed, the ECAM would allow PacifiCorp to collect orcredit the differences between the actual net power costsincurred to serve customers in Utah and the amountcollected from customers in Utah through rates set ingeneral rate cases. On amonthly basis, PacifiCorpproposes it will compare theactual system net powercosts to the net power costsembedded in rates from themost recent general rate caseand defer the differences in abalancing account. An ECAMrate will be calculatedannually to collect from orcredit to customers theaccumulated balance over the subsequent year.

After finding the issues surrounding an ECAM arenumerous, relatively complex, and must be carefullyconsidered to ensure the public interest is served, theCommission proceeded to address the issues in aphased approach. Phase I was designed to develop theevidentiary record of the need for an ECAM at this time.If the Commission found adoption of an ECAM is in thepublic interest, the design of an ECAM would beconsidered in Phase II. In February 2010 the Commissionissued a Report and Order concluding it will proceedwith further examination of an ECAM which wouldaddress the difficulties PacifiCorp raises about its powercosts and their impact on the company’s operations and in the State of Utah. Phase II of this proceeding, in whichthe Commission is considering the proposed ECAM andany modification or alternatives which other parties maypropose, will continue into fiscal year 2011.

M A J O R P L A N T A D D I T I O N S

The 2009 Utah Senate Bill 75 provides theCommission, among other things, the authority toapprove or deny an electrical or gas corporation'sapplication for cost recovery of a major plant addition. In February 2010 PacifiCorp filed an Application forAlternative Cost Recovery to increase rates to recover

an additional $33.7 million in revenue requirementassociated with the major plant additions of the BenLomond to Terminal transmission line and the DaveJohnston Power Plant Unit 3 emissions control measure.PacifiCorp also requested that the rate increaseassociated with these additions be deferred and madeeffective on January 1, 2011. In June 2010 theCommission issued a Report and Order approving aSettlement Stipulation providing for the recovery ofthese major plant additions. The Settlement Stipulationincluded a $30.8 million annual increase in Utah’srevenue requirement. The Commission also directedPacifiCorp to record approximately $2.6 million permonth as a Utah-specific regulatory asset beginning July 1, 2010, including a carrying charge of 0.695percent. The Settlement Stipulation did not resolve the ratemaking treatment of the regulatory asset.

L A R G E E L E C T R I CP O W E R P L A N TP R O C U R E M E N T

The Commissionimplements state law,specifically Utah Code 54-17 “Energy ResourceProcurement Act,”governing the procurementand approval of the

purchase of PacifiCorp’s large electric generating plants,otherwise known as significant energy resources. Duringthe past year PacifiCorp has been engaged in severalactivities pertaining to new resource acquisitions.

In September 2008, the Commission approvedPacifiCorp’s 2008 All-Source Request for Proposal (RFP).Due to the dramatic global economic downturn and theresulting reduction of customer loads, reduction in priceof commodities, potential reduction of future constructioncosts and other changes in economic and marketconditions, the All-Source RFP was suspended in April of2009. In October of 2009 PacifiCorp requested approval,which the Commission granted, to resume the All-SourceRFP. In February 2010, the Commission issued an order oneconomic modeling issues associated with the review ofthe bids received under this RFP. It is anticipated that thefinal selection of resources from this RFP will occur in early 2011.

P L A N N I N G F O R L E A S T C O S T A N D R E L I A B L E P O W E R S U P P LY

The Commission requires PacifiCorp to file anintegrated resource plan (“IRP”) describing how it willmeet future electric power needs in its six-state serviceterritory. In April 2010 the Commission issued an orderacknowledging PacifiCorp’s 2008 IRP concluding it


10 2 0 1 0 A n n u a l R e p o r t

generally adhered to the IRP Standards and Guidelines. Based on its assumptions of existing generation

capacity, generation plant life, length of existing purchasepower contracts, transmission transfer capability, and itsNovember 2008 load growth forecast, PacifiCorp’s 2008IRP identifies a deficiency between existing resources andpeak system requirements plus a 15 percent planningreserve1 of 277 megawatts beginning in 2010. This deficitgrows to 2,261 megawatts in 2012 and to 3,895megawatts in 2018. Assuming a 12 percent planningreserve, a deficiency of 498 megawatts begins in 2011.This deficiency grows to 1,936 megawatts in 2012 and to3,528 megawatts in 2018.

To serve system-wide peak hour demand through2018, cumulative supply additions and direct-controlload management or energy efficiency programs in the2008 IRP Preferred Portfolio range from 332 megawattsin 2009 to 4,643 megawattsin 2018. By 2018, theseresources consist of 2,723megawatts of intermittent,intermediate and base loadpower plant (including onelong-term firm unspecifiedpower purchase in 2012); 50to 1,382 megawatts inannual unspecified powerpurchases; and 1,111megawatts of direct-controlload management or utility energy efficiency programs.The proportion of additional resources are 59 percentlong-term generation plant or power purchase (31percent renewable energy, 18 percent gas, 4 percentunspecified long-term power purchase, 4 percent coal, 2 percent combined heat and power), 24 percent direct-control load management or energy efficiency utilityprograms, and 17 percent unspecified annual powerpurchases.

In March 31, 2010, PacifiCorp filed its 2008 IRPUpdate which concluded that additional supply is neededin order to meet PacifiCorp’s projected average annualsystem energy growth rate of 2.3 percent and Utahenergy growth of 2.7 percent through 2019. Commentson the IRP update were received in late June 2010.

T R A N S M I S S I O N E X P A N S I O N —C E R T I F I C A T E S O F C O N V E N I E N C E A N D N E C E S S I T Y — U T I L I T Y F A C I L I T Y R E V I E W B O A R D

Pursuant to Utah Code 54-4-25, prior to constructionor operation of a transmission line, an electric corporationmust obtain from the Commission a certificate thatpresent or future public convenience and necessity doesor will require construction.

In June 2010 the Commission granted, subject to conditions, PacifiCorp’s request for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct a new500/345 kV transmission line between its existing Mona Substation, located in Juab County, and a new substation located in Tooele County named the “Limber Substation.” This line will be approximately 65miles long. The project, as approved, also includes anapproximately 35 mile 345 kV line from the LimberSubstation to the existing Oquirrh Substation in WestJordan, Salt Lake County. These lines are estimated to be in service by 2013.

A dispute has arisen between PacifiCorp and Tooele County as to the location of portions of the new transmission line between the Limber and Oquirrhsubstations. The Commission does not have directauthority over transmission line siting. In 1997 the

Legislature created theUtility Facility Review Board(“Board”) to resolve certaindisputes between localgovernments and publicutilities regarding the sitingand construction of utilityfacilities. The Board iscomprised of theCommissioners and twolocal governmentrepresentatives appointed

by the Governor. In April 2010, PacifiCorp petitioned theBoard to review Tooele County’s denial of a conditionaluse permit to construct that portion of the new Limber toOquirrh transmission line that would cross Tooele Countyland. After evidentiary hearings and consideration ofcomments from members of the public, in June 2010 theBoard ruled the transmission line PacifiCorp intends toconstruct is needed to provide safe, reliable, adequate,and efficient service to PacifiCorp customers. TooeleCounty has appealed the Board’s decision to the UtahCourt of Appeals.

E L E C T R I C E N E R G Y C O N S E R V A T I O N

In June 2009 PacifiCorp filed an applicationrequesting approval of an adjustment to its Demand Side Management (DSM) Cost Adjustment tariff rider(appearing on customer bills as a line item entitled“Customer Efficiency Services”) to collect approximately$85.4 million per year to support the acquisition of cost effective energy efficiency and load managementresources. In this application PacifiCorp proposed toincrease the DSM surcharge by $56.3 million or 3.97percent resulting in a proposed total average DSMsurcharge of 6.16 percent. This adjustment wasnecessitated by an increase in the rate of participation in energy efficiency and load management programs,


112 0 1 0 A n n u a l R e p o r t

particularly the residential insulation program, whichresulted in the DSM program expenditures to rise abovewhat was currently being collected through the DSMsurcharge. In August 2009, the Commission approved a Stipulation resulting in an increase in Rocky MountainPower’s DSM tariff rider, on average, to 4.6 percent,effective September 1, 2009.

The Commission-approved energy efficiency programsurcharge of approximately 4.6 percent is applied to thebills of Rocky Mountain Power’s Utah customers. Therevenues collected are used to implement Commission-approved demand-side management (DSM) programs. In fiscal year 2010 approximately $63 million was collectedthrough the surcharge to cover expenditures for theapproximately 15 energy efficiency and demand sidemanagement programs offered by Rocky Mountain Power. These programs improve energy efficiency in new buildings and existingbuildings, encourage thepurchase of energy-efficientappliances, and directlycontrol air conditioners andirrigation systems. During2009, approximately 197megawatts of power andapproximately 228,000megawatt hours of energywere offset through theseprograms.

S E R V I C E T E R R I T O R Y D I S P U T E

In 2007 Rocky Mountain Power filed a complaintwith the Commission alleging Heber Light and Power is providing non-surplus retail electrical service tocustomers outside the municipal boundaries of itsmember cities in violation of Rocky Mountain’s Certificateand Utah law. While initially the parties attempted toresolve the issue, Heber Light and Power maintains theCommission does not have jurisdiction over this matter.In November 2008 the Commission issued a Report andOrder asserting its jurisdiction over Heber Light andPower and denying its motion to dismiss for lack ofjurisdiction.

In April 2009 Heber Light and Power filed a Motionto Stay these proceedings pending resolution of itsappeal of the Commission’s November 2008 Order to the Utah Supreme Court. In June 2009, the Commissionissued an order granting Heber Light and Power’s Motionto Stay and denying Rocky Mountain Power’s Motion toSet Schedule. Further action by the Commission in thiscase was contingent upon the outcome of Heber Lightand Power’s appeal to the Utah Supreme Court.

On April 30, 2010, the Utah Supreme Court ruledthe Commission does not have jurisdiction over HeberLight and Power, an interlocal entity, and that the

Commission should have granted Heber Light andPower’s Motion to Dismiss. As the Commission is withoutpower to hear the underlying basis for Rocky MountainPower’s complaint, the complaint was dismissed withprejudice.

R U L E M A K I N G

The Utah 2009 Senate Bill 75 included languagerequiring the Commission to create and finalize rulesconcerning the minimum requirements to be met for an application to be considered a complete filing forgeneral rate cases and major plant addition cases. TheCommission conducted a rulemaking proceeding duringthe summer of 2009 and on August 15, 2009, the finalrules were published in the Utah State Bulletin, with a 30day public comment period. The rules became effective

on September 23, 2009, asUtah Administrative Code(UAC) R746-700-1 throughR746-700-51. These rulesspecify in detail theinformation utilities mustprovide in support of majorplant addition and generalrate case applications.

In September 2009 anotice of the Commission’sproposed new electrical

interconnection rules was published in the Utah StateBulletin. This rule was developed with input received from parties during the many electrical interconnectionworking group meetings conducted pursuant to theCommission’s 2007 determination that it was appropriateto adopt the Electrical Interconnection Standard containedin the 2005 Federal Energy Policy Act, Following tworounds of comments UAC R746-312.ElectricalInterconnection became effective on April 30, 2010.

L E G I S L A T I V E C H A N G E S A N D F E D E R A L S T A N D A R D S

During the 2010 Utah legislative session severalsubstantive bills and one joint resolution were enactedamending Utah Code Title 54 — Public Utilities.

� HB145 — Renewable Energy Financing Provisions:This bill excludes from the definition of a "publicutility" an independent energy producer that providesservice to a customer on the real property where anindependent power production facility is located undercertain circumstances; changes definitions to providethat a facility used to supply energy for a specificcustomer may qualify as a customer generation systemunder Title 54, Chapter 15, Net Metering of Electricity;provides for actions by the Public Service Commission;


12 2 0 1 0 A n n u a l R e p o r t

and makes technical changes.

� HB192 — Renewable Energy — Methane Gas: Thisbill provides that electrical energy derived from methanegas from certain coal mine facilities is among the typesof waste gases considered as a renewable energy source under Title 54, Chapter 17, Energy ResourceProcurement Act; and makes technical changes.

� HB228 — Renewable Energy Source Amendments:This bill changes the definition of "renewable energysource" in Title 54, Chapter 17, Energy ResourceProcurement Act, to include energy derived frommunicipal solid waste; and makes technical changes.

� HB335 — Utility Related Exemptions: This billprovides that certain entities providing electricity tocertain owners and creditors are not considered anelectrical corporation or public utility under Title 54,Public Utilities; exemptsfrom various regulatoryprovisions electricityprovided to certain ownersand creditors; and makestechnical changes.

� HJR 33 — Marking ofUnderground UtilitiesJoint Resolution: Thisresolution urges the PublicService Commission toreview, in conjunction with utility companies, methodsof marking underground utilities; and urges that thereview take into account currently existing productsthat can provide a uniform system of markingunderground utilities.

� SB104 — Renewable Energy Modifications: This billincludes certain compressed air energy storagetechnology as a renewable energy source under Title54, Chapter 17, Energy Resource Procurement Act;and makes technical changes.

� SB137 — Coordination of Removing, Relocating, orAltering Utilities: This bill defines terms; provides fornotification and cooperation concerning utility facilitieslocated in the area of a proposed construction orreconstruction project on a public highway; provides a method for a public agency to identify a utilitycompany with a utility facility in the area of a proposedconstruction or reconstruction project on a publichighway; and makes technical changes.

In accordance with the requirements of the U.S.Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, the Commission commenced consideration anddetermination of four new electricity standards added to the Federal Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act(“PURPA”). The standards are: Integrated Resource

Planning, Rate Design Modifications to Promote EnergyEfficiency Investments, Consideration of Smart GridInvestments and Smart Grid Information. TheCommission hosted several technical conferences andwork group meetings to facilitate discussion of the issuespresented by these standards.

In August 2009 the Commission determined priorstate actions addressing energy efficiency are equal toand comparable with the PURPA Integrated ResourcePlanning Standard and adoption of the standard is notnecessary. In December 2009 the Commissiondetermined Utah Law, existing and ongoing Commissionorders on DSM, DSM cost recovery, and DSM education,and Utah Legislature’s 2009 House Joint Resolution areequal to and comparable with the intent of the PURPARate Design Standard and adoption of the PURPA RateDesign Standard is not necessary. In addition, the

Commission determined it is not appropriate toadopt the PURPA SmartGrid Investments Standard. The Commission adoptedthe Smart Grid InformationStandard.

T E C H N I C A LC O N F E R E N C E S

The Commissionsponsored the following technical conferences duringfiscal year 2010.

� July 14, 2009, Docket No. 09-035-T08, TechnicalConference on Modifications to Rocky MountainPower’s Schedule 93 — Demand Side ManagementCost Adjustment.

� June 18, 2009, Docket No. 09-035-03, TechnicalConference on Rocky Mountain Power’s Deferred TaxNormalization Method.

� November 2, 2009, Docket No. 07-035-94, Technicalconference on modeling issues associated with RockyMountain Power’s solicitation process for a flexibleresource.

� February 24, 2010, Docket No. 09-035-15, TechnicalConference on Rocky Mountain Power’s proposedEnergy Cost Adjustment Mechanism.

� June 1, 2010, Docket No. 10-035-38, TechnicalConference on Rocky Mountain Power’s proposedAccounting Order Regarding Post-RetirementPrescription Drug Coverage Tax Benefits.


132 0 1 0 A n n u a l R e p o r t

14 2 0 1 0 A n n u a l R e p o r t


152 0 1 0 A n n u a l R e p o r t

G E N E R A L C A S E S

07-035-22In the Matter of the Complaint of Rocky Mountain Power, adivision of PacifiCorp, againstHeber Light & Power RegardingUnauthorized Service by Heber Light & Power in AreasCertificated to Rocky MountainPower:

Order of Dismissal issued June 30,2010. On April 30, 2010, the UtahSupreme Court ruled theCommission does not havejurisdiction over Heber Light andPower (HL&P), an interlocal entity,and that the Commission shouldhave granted HL&P’s Motion toDismiss. See Heber Light & PowerCo. v. Utah PSC, 2010 UT 27. TheCommission therefore dismissesthe complaint with prejudice.

07-035-94In the Matter of the Applicationof PacifiCorp, by and through itsRocky Mountain Power Division,for Approval of a SolicitationProcess for a Flexible Resourcefor the 2012-2017 Time Period,and for Approval of a SignificantEnergy Resource Decision:

Order Approving Request toResume the All Source Request for Proposals issued October 26,2009. The Commission grantsPacifiCorp’s request to resume itsAll Source Request for Proposalsfor Resources.

Order on Economic ModelingIssues issued February 24, 2010.The Commission ordersPacifiCorp to use its proposedmodeling methods withexceptions for comparingportfolios and identifying finalshortlist resources.

Procedural Order issued March 18,2010. The Commission approvesPacifiCorp’s proposed schedulechanges for the bidder andstakeholder meeting and the datefor bidders to submit a notice ofintent to bid.

09-028-02In the Matter of the FormalComplaint of Complainantagainst Garkane Energy:

Order on Request for Review andRehearing issued July 2, 2009. The Commission denies GarkaneEnergy’s request forreconsideration and rehearing.

09-035-02In the Matter: the FormalComplaint of Complainantagainst Rocky Mountain Power:

Order of Dismissal IssuedNovember 16, 2009. TheCommission grants RockyMountain Power’s Motion toDismiss and dismisses the formalcomplaint with prejudice.

09-035-03In the Matter of the Division of Public Utilities’ Review andAudit of Rocky Mountain Power’sDeferred Tax NormalizationMethod:

Report and Order and Notice ofTechnical Conference issuedAugust 11, 2009. The Commissiondetermines interested parties shallbe allowed to raise the issue of tax normalization in this docket,discovery on the tax normalizationissue shall be permitted in thisdocket, and the Division of PublicUtilities shall file in this docket acopy of the correspondence fromit to the Company, dated July 8,2008, and filed in Docket No. 08-999-02, regarding deferred taxnormalization.

Order Approving StipulationRegarding Change in Income TaxTreatment of Repair Deductionsand Basis Normalization issuedDecember 8, 2009. TheCommission approves theStipulation Regarding Change inIncome Tax Treatment of RepairDeductions and BasisNormalization.

09-035-15In the Matter of the Applicationof Rocky Mountain Power forApproval of its Proposed EnergyCost Adjustment Mechanism:

Report and Order issued February8, 2010. The Commission givesnotice it will proceed to Phase II of this docket to consider theproposed Energy CostAdjustment Mechanism and anymodifications or alternatives whichparties might want to propose.

09-035-20In the Matter of the Applicationof US Magnesium LLC, forDetermination of Rates andConditions for InterruptibleService from and QF Sales toRocky Mountain Power:

Report and Order issuedDecember 23, 2009. TheCommission approves the PowerPurchase Agreement and ordersRocky Mountain Power to providethe hourly power purchased underthe power purchase agreement ona quarterly basis.

09-035-23In the Matter of the Applicationof Rocky Mountain Power forAuthority to Increase its RetailElectric Utility Service Rates inUtah and for Approval of itsProposed Electric ServiceSchedules and Electric ServiceRegulations:

Order on Motion to Bifurcateissued August 4, 2009. TheCommission orders the rate caseproceeding to be bifurcated intotwo phases.

Order issued October 19, 2009.The Commission ordersPacifiCorp to file with theCommission, and serve on otherparties, the 2009 Multi-StateProcess Preliminary Forecastdated August 17, 2009, and allapplicable work papers, as soonas possible and no later thanOctober 26, 2009. TheCommission also directs theDivision of Public Utilities, andinvites any other party, to respondto the following in rebuttaltestimony: 1) Is the continued useof the 2004 Stipulation terms forthe development of the Utahrevenue requirement in this casein the public interest?; and 2)

Whether there are alternatives for the development of revenuerequirement which would be justand reasonable in this case.

Order Staying October 19, 2009,Order issued November 9, 2009.The Commission stays theOctober 19, 2009, Order. TheCommission determines partiesneed not address the twoquestions contained in theOctober 19, 2009, Order inforthcoming testimony.

Order Denying Request to Strikeand Order Extending Filing Dateof Rebuttal Testimony issuedNovember 12, 2009.

The Commission denies RockyMountain Power’s request to strikethe testimony filed by the Divisionof Public Utilities on October 29,2009, and grants Rocky MountainPower’s request to extend thefiling date of responsive testimony.

Order on Request for Clarificationor Reconsideration of November9, 2009, Order issued November25, 2009. The Commission ordersthat parties may continue to usethe 2004 multi-state processstipulation’s mechanism in theirpreparation and presentationevidence regarding revenuerequirement, cost of service andrate design and need not addressthe questions contained in theOctober 19, 2009, Order.

Order Approving StipulationRegarding Change in Income TaxTreatment of Repair Deductionsand Basis Normalization issuedDecember 8, 2009. TheCommission approves the

E L E C T R I C D O C K E T S

Key:Docket NumberShort Title

Status as of June 30, 2010.


16 2 0 1 0 A n n u a l R e p o r t

Stipulation Regarding Change inIncome Tax Treatment of RepairDeductions and BasisNormalization.

Report and Order on RevenueRequirement, Cost of Service andSpread of Rates issued February18, 2010. The Commissionincreases Rocky Mountain Power’sannual revenue requirement by$32.4 million based on aforecasted test period of 12months ending June 2010 and anallowed rate of return on equity of 10.60 percent. The Commissiondetermines the revenue increasewill be collected through a non-uniform percentage increase tothe various rate schedules until the final rate design is determinedin Phase II of this docket.

Report and Order on Rate Designissued June 2, 2010. TheCommission approves aStipulation on Non-ResidentialRate Design and decides ratedesign issues for residentialSchedule Nos. 1, 2 and 3, andmobile homes Schedule No. 25.

09-035-27In the Matter of the ProposedRevisions to the Utah DemandSide Resource ProgramPerformance Standards:

Order issued October 7, 2009. The Commission approvesamending the 1995 demand sidemanagement performancestandards to include therecommendations containedwithin the Utah Demand SideManagement and OtherResources Benefit and CostAnalysis Guidelines andRecommendations Report subjectto comments and additions. TheCommission directs the Companyto file for approval the proposedcontent and format of therequired annual demand sidemanagement report within 45 daysof the date of the order.

Order issued December 21, 2009.The Commission approves thegeneral format and content of theproposed Annual Report withmodifications.

09-035-36In the Matter of the Applicationof Rocky Mountain Power for Approval of a StrategicCommunications and OutreachProgram for Demand SideManagement:

Order Approving First YearBudget issued November 9, 2009.The Commission approves the first year budget and action planfor the proposed StrategicCommunications and OutreachProgram for Demand SideManagement and directs RockyMountain Power to include avariance report in all futuredemand side managementreports and budgets.

Order Approving Second YearBudget with Conditions issuedMay 20, 2010. The Commissionconditionally approves the secondyear budget and action plan of theStrategic Communications andOutreach Program for DemandSide Management.

09-035-52In the Matter of the Applicationof Rocky Mountain Power forApproval of Pole AttachmentAgreement between PacifiCorpand TCG Utah:

Report and Order issued August11, 2009. The Commissionapproves Rocky Mountain Power’sPole Attachment Agreement withTCG Utah and directs RockyMountain Power to ensure thatfuture negotiated pole attachmentagreements are submitted to theCommission in a timely mannerand before any pole attachmentsare installed.

Report and Order issued October5, 2009. The Commission amendsits August 11, 2009, Report andOrder by incorporating anexception to the requirement that Rocky Mountain Power shallensure that no pole attachmentsare permitted prior to theexecution and commissionapproval of a pole attachmentcontract. The exception pertainsto certain classes of existingcustomers.

Order of Clarification issuedNovember 3, 2009. TheCommission corrects the firstparagraph of the October 5, 2009,Report and Order.

09-035-54In the Matter of the PendingApplication of Rocky MountainPower for a Certificate of PublicConvenience and NecessityAuthorizing Construction ofMona — Oquirrh new 500 kVdouble circuit line:

Report and Order issued July 22,2009. The Commission authorizesthe Rocky Mountain Power, theDivision of Public Utilities, and theOffice of Consumer Services toimmediately commence discovery.Interveners may participate indiscovery once grantedintervention.

Report and Order issued June 16,2010. The Commission grants,subject to conditions, a certificateof public convenience andnecessity authorizing RockyMountain Power to construct a500/345 kV transmission line andrelated facilities between itsexisting Mona and Oquirrhsubstations.

09-035-55In the Matter of the Applicationof PacifiCorp for Approval of anElectric Service Agreement forMilford Wind Corridor Phase I:

Report and Order ApprovingElectric Service Agreement issuedAugust 27, 2009. The Commissionapproves the Electric ServiceAgreement specifying rates, termsand conditions betweenPacifiCorp and Milford WindCorridor Phase I, LLC.

09-035-59In the Matter of the Applicationof Rocky Mountain Power forApproval of an Electric ServiceAgreement between RockyMountain Power and KennecottUtah Copper LLC:

Order Approving Power PurchaseAgreement issued November 25,2009. The Commission approvesthe Electric Service Agreementbetween Rocky Mountain Powerand Kennecott.

09-035-62In the Matter of the Applicationof Rocky Mountain Power forApproval of a Power PurchaseAgreement between PacifiCorpand Kennecott Utah Copper LLC:

Order Approving Power PurchaseAgreement issued November 10,2009. The Commission approvesthe Power Purchase Agreementbetween Rocky Mountain Powerand Kennecott.

09-035-101In the Matter of the Applicationof Rocky Mountain Power forApproval of an Electric ServiceAgreement between RockyMountain Power and Praxair, Inc.:

Order Approving Electric ServiceAgreement issued December 10,2009. The Commission approvesthe Electric Service Agreementbetween the Rocky MountainPower and Praxair.

09-035-102In the Matter of the Applicationof Rocky Mountain Power forApproval of a Power PurchaseAgreement between PacifiCorpand Tesoro Refining andMarketing Company:

Order Approving Power PurchaseAgreement issued December 10,2009. The Commission approvesthe Power Purchase Agreementbetween PacifiCorp and Tesoro.

09-035-104In the Matter of the Applicationof Rocky Mountain Power for Approval of a PartialRequirement Electric ServiceAgreement between PacifiCorpand Tesoro Refining andMarketing Company:

Order Approving PartialRequirement Master ElectricService Agreement issuedDecember 10, 2009. TheCommission approves the PartialRequirement Electric ServiceAgreement between RockyMountain Power and Tesoro.

Electric Dockets (Continued)




172 0 1 0 A n n u a l R e p o r t

09-2035-01In the Matter of theAcknowledgment of PacifiCorp’sIntegrated Resource Plan:

Report and Order issued April 1,2010. The Commissionacknowledges PacifiCorp’s 2008Integrated Resource Planconcluding it generally adheres to the Standards and Guidelines.The Commission providesguidance to assist in thedevelopment of the nextintegrated resource plan.

09-2508-01In the Matter of the Applicationof Garfield County, Utah ofBehalf of the Ticaboo ElectricImprovement District for aCertificate of Convenience andNecessity to Operate as a PublicUtility Rendering Electric PowerService:

Report and Order GrantingCertificate of Public Convenienceand Necessity issued November30, 2009. The Commission grantsTicaboo Electric ImprovementDistrict’s application for aCertificate of Public Convenienceand Necessity authorizing theprovision of electrical powerservices within the District’sboundaries.

10-035-01In the Matter of the Applicationof Rocky Mountain Power forApproval of Pole AttachmentAgreement between PacifiCorpand Leavitt Group Enterprises,Inc.:

Order Approving Pole AttachmentAgreement issued February 23,2010. The Commission approvesthe Pole Attachment Agreementbetween Rocky Mountain Powerand Leavitt Group Enterprises.

10-035-13 In the Matter of the Applicationof Rocky Mountain Power forAlternative Cost Recovery forMajor Plant Additions of the BenLomond to Terminal TransmissionLine and the Dave JohnstonGeneration Unit 3 EmissionsControl Measure:

Report and Order issued June 15,2010. The Commission approvesthe Settlement Stipulationproviding for the recovery of costsassociated with two major plantadditions, the Ben Lomond toTerminal transmission line and theDave Johnston Unit 3 emissionscontrol measure. The SettlementStipulation projects a $30.8 millionincrease in revenue requirementfor Utah customers.

10-035-15In the Matter of the Complaint of Cottonwood Hydro, LLC vs.Rocky Mountain Power:

Report and Order issued May 27,2010. The Commissiondetermines: the environmentalattributes (Renewable EnergyCertificates or RECs) and thepower output of a renewableenergy generator can be severed;that unless provided for otherwisein a contract, the RECs remainwith the generator of renewableenergy, and may be sold andvalued separately from the energyproduced or retained by thegenerator of the REC; andCottonwood Hydro owns its RECs.

10-035-39In the Matter of the Petition forReview between Rocky MountainPower and Tooele County forConsideration by the UtilityFacility Review Board:

Order issued on June 21, 2010.The Utility Facility Review Boardunanimously finds Rocky MountainPower’s proposed transmissionproject is needed to provide safe,reliable, adequate and efficientservice to its customers. The UtilityFacility Review Board directsTooele County to issue theconditional use permit within 60 days of the Order.

10-035-43In the Matter of the Applicationof Rocky Mountain Power forApproval of Standard Non-reciprocal Pole AttachmentAgreement:

Order issued May 17, 2010. TheCommission directs any interestedparty desiring to submitcomments on the application todo so no later than May 25, 2010.

T A R I F F C H A N G E S

09-022-T01In the Matter of: The BridgerValley Electric Board of Directorsauthorized a five percent rateincrease:

Tariff Acknowledgment Letterissued August 20, 2009. TheCommission acknowledges theproposed tariff revision with aneffective date of August 1, 2009.

09-028-T01In the Matter of Garkane’s new Rate Schedules:

Tariff Acknowledgment Letterissued August 11, 2009. TheCommission acknowledges theproposed tariff revision with aneffective date of July 1, 2009.

09-035-T04In the Matter of: The purpose of this filing is to proposechanges to the Company’s HomeEnergy Savings program offeredthrough Schedule 111:

Tariff approval letter issued July20, 2009. The Commissionapproves the proposed tariffrevisions with an effective date of June 1, 2009.

09-035-T08In the Matter of the Approval of Rocky Mountain Power’sAdvice No. 09-08 Schedule 193— Demand Side Management(DSM) Cost Adjustment:

Order Suspending Tariff, GrantingIntervention, and Notice of aTechnical Conference issued July7, 2009. The Commissionsuspends the proposed change to Schedule 193 — Demand SideManagement (DSM) CostAdjustment. The Commissionschedules a Technical Conferenceon these matters on Tuesday, July14, 2009.

Order Granting Approval of PhaseI Stipulation issued August 25,2009. The Commission approvesthe Stipulation with modifications.

09-035-T09In the Matter of: This filing issubmitted in compliance with the Commission’s Bench Orderissued on June 15, 2009 on theStipulation in Cost of Service,Rate Spread and Rate Design —Phase II in Docket No. 08-035-38:

Tariff approval letter issued July16, 2009. The Commissionapproves the tariff revisions withan effective date of June 16, 2009.

09-035-T10In the Matter of the Advice Filing09-09 of PacifiCorp d/b/a RockyMountain Power for Changes toSchedule 110 — Energy StarNew Homes Program:

Order Approving Tariff Modifica-tion issued August 6, 2009. The Commission approves theCompany’s proposed changes toSchedule No. 110, with modifica-tions, effective July 24, 2009.

Tariff Approval Letter issuedNovember 9, 2009. TheCommission approves theproposed tariff revisions.





18 2 0 1 0 A n n u a l R e p o r t

09-035-10In the Matter of: This filingproposes modifications to the 2008 Energy Star NewHomes program for the 2009program year:

Order Approving TariffModification issued August 6,2009. The Commission approvesthe proposed tariff revisions withmodification effective July 24, 2009.

Tariff Approval Letter issuedNovember 9, 2009. TheCommission approves theproposed tariff revisions with aneffective date of July 24, 2009.

09-035-T11In the Matter of: The purpose of this filing is to request a tarifflanguage modification in theCompany’s Cool Cash programtariff (Schedule 113):

Tariff Approval Letter issuedAugust 20, 2009. The Commissionapproves the proposed tariffrevisions with an effective date of August 22, 2009.

09-035-T12In the Matter of: The purpose of this filing is to consolidatetariff language to Electric ServiceRegulation No. 12 that wasapproved previously in twoseparate dockets, Docket 08-035-T05 and Docket 07-035-93:

Tariff Approval Letter issuedAugust 31, 2009. The Commissionapproves the proposed tariffrevisions with an effective date of August 31, 2009.

09-035-T13In the Matter of the Advice Filing09-13 of PacifiCorp d/b/a RockyMountain Power for ProposedFlexible Tariff Format forSchedule 111 — Home EnergySavings Program:

Order Approving Tariff withModification issued August 27,2009. The Commission approvesRocky Mountain Power’s proposedchanges to Schedule No. 111 with modifications effectiveSeptember 1, 2009.

Tariff Approval Letter issuedDecember 31, 2009. TheCommission approves theproposed tariff revisions effectiveSeptember 1, 2009.

09-035-T14In the Matter of the Advice Filing No. 09-12 — Annualupdate for Schedule 37 AvoidedCost Purchases From QualifyingFacilities (QF):

Order Suspending Tariff issuedAugust 31, 2009. The Commissionsuspends Rocky Mountain Power’sproposed tariff filing.

Order issued September 30, 2009.The Commission does notapprove the rates as filed. RockyMountain Power is directed torefile Schedule No. 37 rates andtariff sheets with the modificationsand explanations.

Report and Order ApprovingRates with Modifications issuedDecember 14, 2009. TheCommission approves ScheduleNo. 37 rates with modifications.

09-035-T15In the Matter of the rate designstipulation in Docket 08-035-38related to the Low IncomeLifeline Program. ProposedSchedule 3 and 91 of P.S.C.U. No. 47:

Tariff Approval Letter issuedOctober 29, 2009. TheCommission approves theproposed tariff revision effectiveNovember 1, 2009.

10-031-T01In the Matter of: In May, 2010,Mt. Wheeler Power Inc. revisedits Net Metering (Rate Code NM)to reflect a deduction in thecustomer charge:

Tariff Acknowledgment Letterissued June 24, 2010. TheCommission acknowledges theproposed tariff revision with aneffective date of May 11, 2010.

10-032-T01In the Matter of: Raft RiverElectric increased rates for the Utah area that they serve:

Tariff Acknowledgment Letterissued January 27, 2010. TheCommission acknowledges theproposed tariff revision with aneffective date of November 1,2009.

10-035-T01In the Matter of the Advice Filing10-01 of PacifiCorp d/b/a RockyMountain Power for SchedulesNo.70 — Renewable EnergyRider — Optional (Blue Sky Block Program) and No. 72 —Renewable Energy Rider —Optional Bulk Purchase Option(Blue Sky Bulk Program):

Order Approving TariffModifications issued May 13,2010. The Commission approvesthe proposed tariff revisions,effective February 8, 2010.

10-035-T02In the Matter of: This filing issubmitted in compliance with the Commission’s Phase I Orderon Revenue Requirement issuedFebruary 18, 2010, in Docket No.09-035-23 implementing a $32.4million increase in annual revenuerequirement:

Tariff Approval Letter issuedFebruary 25, 2010. TheCommission approves theproposed tariff revisions effectiveFebruary 18, 2010.

10-035-T03In the Matter of the Advice Filing10-03 of PacifiCorp d/b/a RockyMountain Power for ScheduleNo. 192 — Self-Direction Credit:

Order Approving Tariff issuedApril 22, 2010. The Commissionapproves the proposed tariff.

10-035-T04In the Matter of: Pursuant topage 24 of the Commissionorder received on February 12,2009 in Docket 08-035-78, theCompany submits the averageretail rates for the previousyear’s Federal EnergyRegulation Commission FormNo. 1 for the valuation of netexcess generation credits forlarge non-residential customersand submits further changes toits Schedule 135 in accordancewith recent interconnectionrules adopted in R746-312clarifying aggregation andwhen a disconnect switch isrequired:

Tariff Approval Letter issuedJune 30, 2010. The Commissionapproves the proposed tariffrevisions with modificationseffective July 1, 2010.

O T H E R I S S U E S

08-999-05In the Matter of theConsideration of the Amendmentof Title 16 U.S.C. 2621(d) and theAddition of Title 42 U.S.C. 6344by the U.S. Energy Independenceand Security Act of 2007:

Determination Concerning thePublic Utility Regulatory PoliciesAct (PURPA) Integrated ResourcePlanning (IRP) Standard issuedAugust 25, 2009. The Commissiondetermines the June 18, 1992,Report and Order on Standardsand Guidelines in Docket 90-2035-01 “In the Matter of Analysis of an Integrated Resource Plan for PacifiCorp,” existing andongoing Commission orders onperformance standards, demandside management, cost recovery,and guidance on integratedresource planning, and HouseJoint Resolution 9 are equal toand comparable with the intent of the PURPA IRP Standard andadoption of the PURPA IRPStandard is not necessary.

Determination Concerning thePURPA Rate Design Standardissued December 16, 2009. TheCommission determines priorstate actions addressing energyefficiency are equal to orcomparable with the PURPA RateDesign Standard and adoption of the standard is not necessary.

Determination Concerning thePURPA Smart Grid Investment andSmart Grid Information Standardsissued December 17, 2009. The




192 0 1 0 A n n u a l R e p o r t

Commission determines it is notappropriate to adopt the PURPASmart Grid Investments Standard.The Commission adopts the SmartGrid Information Standard.

09-R312-01In the Matter of: the Notice ofProposed New Rule 746-312,Standards for Interconnection of Electrical Generating Facilitiesto Public Jurisdiction under thePublic Service Commission:

On August 13, 2009, theCommission filed a proposed newrule for electrical interconnectionwith the Division of AdministrativeRules.

On December 12, 2009, theCommission filed a modifiedproposed new rule for electricalinterconnection with the Divisionof Administrative Rules.

The Electrical InterconnectionRule R746-312 became effectiveApril 30, 2010.

09-R700-01In the Matter of: the Rule 746-700, Complete filings forgeneral rate case and major plant additions:

Pursuant to state law andcomments received in Docket No. 09-999-08, In the Matter of: of the Rule-Making for ProvisionsDelineating “Complete”Application Requirements for RateCase and Major Plant AdditionApplications Pursuant to UtahCode Sections 54-7-12 and 54-7-13.4, on July 30, 2009, theCommission filed a proposed new rule for complete filings forgeneral rate case and major plantaddition applications with theDivision of Administrative Rules.

The Complete Filings for GeneralRate Case and Major PlantAddition Applications rule, R746-700, became effectiveSeptember 23, 2009.

09-999-12In the Matter of: of anInvestigation Regarding Third-Party Arrangements forRenewable Energy Generation:

On October 12, 2009, theCommission on its own motioninitiated a docket to investigatewhether, and the extent to which,certain third-party arrangementsfor renewable energy generationare subject to the Commission’sjurisdiction. Interested parties filedlegal briefs in November 2009.

E L E C T R I C U T I L I T YC O M PA N I E SOperating in the State of Utah under the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission


Bridger Valley Electric40014 Business Loop I-80PO Box 339Mountain ViewWY 82939-0399Tel: (307) 786-2800 (800) 276-3481Fax: (307) 786-4362www.bvea.net

Deseret Generation &Transmission Cooperative10714 South Jordan Gtwy.Suite 300South Jordan, UT 84095-3921Tel: (801) 619-6500 (800) 756-3428Fax: (801) 619-6599www.deseretgt.com

Dixie Escalante Rural Electric71 E. Highway 56HC 76 Box 95Beryl, UT 84714-5197Tel: (435) 439-5311Fax: (435) 439-5352www.dixiepower.com

Empire Electric Association801 N. BroadwayPO Box Drawer KCortez, CO 81321-0676Tel: (970) 565-4444 (800) 709-3726Fax: (970) 564-4404www.empireelectric.org

Flowell Electric Association495 N. 3200 W.Fillmore, UT 84631Tel: (435) 743-6214Fax: (435) 743-5722

Garkane Energy120 W. 300 S.PO Box 465Loa, UT 84747-0465Tel: (435) 836-2795 (800) 747-5403Fax: (435) 836-2497www.garkaneenergy.com

Moon Lake ElectricAssociation188 W. 200 N.PO Box 278Roosevelt, UT 84066-0278Tel: (435) 722-5428Fax: (435) 722-5433www.mleainc.com

MT Wheeler Power1600 Great Basin Blvd.PO Box 151000Ely, NV 89315Tel: (775) 289-8981 (800) 977-6937Fax: (775) 289-8987www.mwpower.net

PacifiCorp d/b/a Rocky Mountain PowerOne Utah Center201 S. Main St. Suite 2300Salt Lake City, UT 84140Tel: (801) 220-2000Fax: (801) 220-2798www.rockymtnpower.net

Raft River Rural Electric250 N. Main St.PO Box 617Malta, ID 83342-0617Tel: (208) 645-2211 (800) 342-7732Fax: (208) 645-2300www.rrelectric.com

South Utah Valley ElectricService District803 N. 500 E.PO Box 349Payson, UT 84651-0349Tel: (801) 465-8020Fax: (801) 465-8017www.strawberryelectric.com

Strawberry Water UsersAssociation745 N. 500 E.PO Box 70Payson, UT 84651-0070Tel: (801) 465-9273Fax: (801) 465-4580www.strawberrywater.com

Ticaboo Electric Service DistrictHighway 276Ticaboo, UT 84533Tel: (435) 788-2115Fax: (801) 465-4580

Wells Rural Electric Company1451 Humboldt Ave.PO Box 365Wells, NV 89835-0365Tel: (775) 752-3328Fax: (775) 752-3407www.wellsrec.com Key:

Docket NumberShort Title


20 2 0 1 0 A n n u a l R e p o r t

NATURALGASU T I L I T I E S


N A T U R A L G A S U T I L I T I E S O V E R V I E W

Questar Gas Company is the primary natural gas utility regu-lated by the Utah Public Service Commission for rate makingpurposes. Questar Gas currently provides natural gas distribu-tion services to over 875,000 customers in Utah and, unlikeother natural gas utilities, also owns natural gas productionresources which provide about 55 percent of its supply needs.

R A T E C H A N G E S

At least twice annually, as permitted by law, Questar Gas files a “pass-through”

application to adjust its rates so as to recover a portion of the cost of producing its

own gas, the cost of purchasing gas from others, and the costs associated with gas

gathering, storage, and interstate transportation. The remaining non-gas costs are

recovered in periodic general rate case proceedings. About 66 percent of

the total cost of providing natural gas service to customers in Utah,

some $545 million annually, is recovered by means of these pass-

through proceedings. Expedited pass-through proceedings

allow timely recovery of gas costs actually incurred. During

the proceeding new rates are established on a projected

basis. When actual costs vary from those projected, the

difference is maintained in a special balancing account and an appropriate rate

adjustment is made in the following pass-through proceeding.

With the approval of the Conservation Enabling Tariff Pilot Program in October

2006, and its two-year continuation in November 2007, Questar was provided a fixed

rate per customer to cover the costs of distributing natural gas in exchange for

promoting energy efficiency and conservation through demand-side management

(DSM) programs. In June 2010 the Commission approved a stipulation between parties

which changed the status of the conservation enabling tariff from a pilot program to an

ongoing program. Questar Gas files applications to amortize the conservation enabling

tariff balance and the demand-side management program balance with its pass-through

application.

212 0 1 0 A n n u a l R e p o r t

Questar Gas Company is

the only natural gas utility

regulated by the Utah Public

Service Commission for

rate making purposes.

During fiscal year 2010, Questar Gas Company’srates changed two times. On September 30, 2009, thePublic Service Commission approved an approximately$12 million increase in rates as proposed by Questar,effective October 1, 2009. This increase in rates wascomposed of a $32.8 million (3.97 percent) decreaseassociated with the gas cost pass-through proceeding, a $1.9 million (0.22 percent) increase in rates associatedwith the amortization of Questar’s conservation enablingtariff, and a $42.9 million (3.32 percent) increaseassociated with the amortization of Questar’s DemandSide Management (DSM) deferred account balance.

On June 1, 2010, the Commission approved a $25million (2.93 percent) increase in rates, effective June 1,2010, applicable to all firm sales classes. This rateincrease was due to the termination of the $0.24106 perdecatherm credit amortization of the commodity portionof rates due to theelimination of the balance in the pass-through accountowed to customers.

On June 3, 2010, theCommission approved ageneral rate case settlementstipulation addressingrevenue requirement, ratespread, and rate design. The settlement stipulationincreases Questar GasCompany’s annual distribution non-gas revenuerequirement by $2.6 million, effective August 1, 2010.The revenue requirement is based upon an average testyear ending December 31, 2010, and an allowed rate of return on equity of 10.35 percent. The revenuerequirement is allocated to all service schedules exceptfor FT-1L through a uniform increase of 1.03 percent.

G E N E R A L R A T E C A S E I S S U E S

The June 3, 2010, Commission-approved generalrate case settlement stipulation mentioned above alsoincluded several other noteworthy provisions.

An infrastructure tracker pilot program allowingQuestar to track and recover costs that are directlyassociated with replacement of aging infrastructure willbe implemented through an incremental surcharge to all services schedules other than two special contractcustomers. The surcharge is designed to track andcollect costs of replacement infrastructure betweengeneral rate cases.

The Company plans to invest up to $14.7 million inCompressed Natural Gas (CNG) infrastructure as part ofits commitment with the State of Utah to reinforce itsnatural gas vehicle (NGV) refueling infrastructure. Thisinvestment includes approximately four new CNG

stations, one portable CNG station and up to 18 public-station upgrades and is included in the newly-adjustedrates. Once Questar has completed construction of thisnew NGV refueling infrastructure, not to exceed $14.7million, the stipulation requires Questar to apply forCommission approval of any investment in NGVrefueling infrastructure requiring an annual capitalexpenditure exceeding $1.5 million.

Questar will implement a Low-Income AssistanceProgram applicable to customers certified by the UtahDepartment of Community and Culture as eligible for theUtah Home Energy Assistance Target (HEAT) Program. At present, a household earning 150% or less of thefederal poverty level is eligible for HEAT. Costs associatedwith administering the Low-Income Assistance Programand the credits given to the eligible customers will berecovered through a per decatherm surcharge collected

from all rate classes on anequal percentage basis,subject to a monthly percustomer cap of $50. Thetotal annual cost for thisprogram will be targeted tobe $1.5 million. A proposedProgram was submitted tothe Commission on June15, 2010, for approval withan effective date August 1, 2010.

Metered gas volumes will be adjusted for temperature andelevation to more accurately bill customers for actualusage.

Parties requested and the Commission approved theopening of a new docket to facilitate examination of theupdated distribution plant factor study and various costof service and rate design proposals. This docket wasopening in late June 2010.

N A T U R A L G A S V E H I C L E S

As a follow-up to the many comments received on Questar’s NGV service rate during the 2007 generalrate case proceeding, the Commission opened a newdocket to investigate Questar Gas Company’s servicesassociated with natural gas vehicles. During fiscal year2010, the Commission hosted three technicalconferences to discuss regulatory and public policyissues associated with natural gas vehicles. Participationat these technical conferences represented a broadrange of stakeholders including government officials,Questar Gas Company representatives, private industry,and the general public. The first technical conferenceaddressed the State of Utah’s long-term vision for naturalgas vehicles, including a discussion of infrastructurerequirements, and the planning for and cost, operation,


22 2 0 1 0 A n n u a l R e p o r t

maintenance and safety requirements of thisinfrastructure. The second technical conference focusedon the identification and discussion of the costs andbenefits, both public and private, of NGV usage. The third technical conference included a discussion of the role of, and interplay between, regulated andcompetitive market mechanisms to support the State’slong-term vision for natural gas vehicles.

R E S O U R C E P L A N N I N G

As required by the Commission, Questar Gasprepares and files an annual integrated resource plan(IRP) which it uses as a guide in meeting the natural gasrequirements of its customers on both a day-to-day andlong term basis. The standards and guidelines on whichthe IRP is based are intended to ensure Questar’s presentand future customers areprovided natural gas energyservices at the lowest costsconsistent with safe andreliable service, the fiscalrequirements of a financiallyhealthy utility and the long-run public interest.

As part of the IRPprocess, information onnatural gas supply anddemand, energy efficiencyand conservation, system constraints and capabilities,and gas drilling, gathering, transportation and storage,as well as results from a cost-minimizing stochasticmodel, are used to develop a resource acquisition planand strategy for a 20-year planning horizon, focusing on the immediate future. In the 2010 IRP for plan yearJune 1, 2010, through May 31, 2011, Questar indicates a balanced portfolio of 49.5 million decatherms ofpurchased gas and 67.7 million decatherms of Company-owned natural gas will be necessary to meet its annualdemand. In addition to projecting gas supplyrequirements and providing information on systemupgrade and replacement projects, Questar found thatprice stabilization measures for purchased gas contractsshould be undertaken to mitigate the risk of volatility inthe marketplace. In addition, Questar should continue to monitor and manage producer imbalances andimplement cost-effective energy efficiency measures.

On March 22, 2010, the Commission issued aReport and Order providing guidance to Questar on its 2009 Integrated Resource Plan and clarifying therequirements of the recently-issued 2009 IntegratedResource Plan Standards and Guidelines. In this Reportand Order the Commission directed the Company toinclude a discussion of the opposing views of the contentof the IRP during one of the 2010 IRP public inputmeetings. The Commission also encouraged open

dialogue between parties with the goal of reaching aconsensus, to the extent possible, on the differing viewsof specific issues identified in the parties’ comments.

In conjunction with Questar’s IRP process, theCommission held a technical conference addressingQuestar’s modeling and planning provisions associatedwith its high pressure and intermediate high pressuresystems.

N A T U R A L G A S C O N S E R V A T I O N

Since the Commission’s approval of Questar’sConservation Enabling Tariff pilot program, Questar, incollaboration with a Commission-established demand-side management advisory group, has actively designed,implemented, evaluated and revised cost-effectiveprograms to encourage residential and commercial

customers to conserveenergy through educationand the utilization ofenergy-efficiency productsand appliances. Theprograms currently offeredby Questar Gas are:ThermWise ApplianceRebate Program,ThermWise BuilderRebates Program,ThermWise Business

Rebates Program, ThermWise Weatherization RebatesProgram, ThermWise Home Energy Audit Program, LowIncome Weatherization Assistance Program, ThermWiseMulti-Family Rebates Program, ThermWise BusinessCustom Rebates Program, and a comprehensive MarketTransformation initiative. These programs offer rebates,fund training and grants, and provide information toQuestar Gas Company’s customers with the goal ofdecreasing energy consumption.

In December 2009 the Commission approvedQuestar’s estimated $36.1 million 2010 budget for itsDSM programs and market transformation initiative.Questar’s 2009 budget for DSM programs was $17.787million, but the actual amount spent was $46.254 milliondue to unanticipated participation in the ThermWiseWeatherization Rebates Program. Due to changes andrefinements made to the 2009 programs, Questarexpects the level of participation, and the overall costs,to be lower in 2010 than was the case in 2009. Questarestimates its 2010 DSM programs will reduce natural gasconsumption annually by 978,832 decatherms, which isequivalent to the annual natural gas consumption ofapproximately 12,000 homes based on an annualaverage usage of 80 decatherms. Questar also projectsapproximately 145,000 customers will participate in theprogram.


232 0 1 0 A n n u a l R e p o r t

In the December 2009 DSM filing, the Companycommented on the Utah Legislature’s 2009 House JointResolution 9. This resolution promotes cost-effectiveenergy efficiency and utility demand side management.The Company believes that the Application for Approvalof the Fourth Year DSM Budget, continuing the efforts ofthe previous three years, accomplishes the intent of theresolution.

As directed by the Commission, Questar GasCompany also filed and the Commission reviewedseveral quarterly reports pertaining to the status of DSMactivities and a report on regional DSM rebates.

L E G I S L A T I V E C H A N G E S A N D F E D E R A L S T A N D A R D S

During the 2010 Utah legislative session no majorbills were passed pertaining to natural gas utilities ascontained in Utah Code Title 54 — Public Utilities. The Utah Legislature, however, passed House JointResolution 33 (H.J.R. 33) urging the Commission toreview, in conjunction with utility companies, methods ofmarking underground utilities. H.J.R. 33 also urges thatthe review take into account currently existing productsthat can provide a uniform system of markingunderground utilities.

In accordance with the requirements of the U.S.Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, in mid-2008 the Commission commenced consideration anddetermination of two new natural gas standards addedto the federal Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act(“PURPA”). The standards are: Energy Efficiency and RateDesign Modifications to Promote Energy EfficiencyInvestments. In mid-December 2009, subsequent toreceiving comments from interested stakeholders, theCommission completed its deliberation on the twostandards. The Commission determined prior stateactions, state laws and current policies pertaining toenergy efficiency and rate design are equal to andcomparable with the PURPA Energy Efficiency and RateDesign Standards and adoption of the standards is notnecessary.


24 2 0 1 0 A n n u a l R e p o r t

08-057-22In the Matter of the Applicationof Questar Gas for Approval of Third Year Budget for 2009Demand Side ManagementPrograms and MarketTransformation Initiative:

Order for Remainder 2009 DSMExpenditures issued September21, 2009. The Commissiontentatively approves Questar GasCompany’s request to increase itsdemand side managementbudget for the remainder of 2009,and requires additional reports tobe filed.

09-057-07In the Matter of Questar GasCompany’s Integrated ResourcePlan for Plan Year: May 1, 2009 to April 30, 2010:

Report and Order issued March22, 2010. The Commissionprovides guidance on QuestarGas Company’s 2009 IntegratedResource Plan and clarifiesrequirements of the 2009Standards and Guidelines.

09-057-11In the Matter of the FormalComplaint of Complainantagainst Questar Gas Company:

Order of Dismissal issuedSeptember 29, 2009. TheCommission grants the parties’joint motion and dismisses thecomplaint with prejudice.

09-057-12In the Matter of the Pass-throughApplication of Questar GasCompany for an Adjustment inRates and Charges for NaturalGas Service in Utah:

Report and Order issued Septem-ber 30, 2009. The Commissionapproves the application on aninterim basis, pending finalDivision audit. The approval iseffective October 1, 2009.

09-057-13In the Matter of the ApplicationOf Questar Gas Company toAmortize the ConservationEnabling Tariff BalancingAccount:

Report and Order issued Septem-ber 30, 2009. The Commissionapproves the application on aninterim basis, pending finalDivision audit. The approval iseffective October 1, 2009.

09-057-14In the Matter of the Applicationof Questar Gas Company toAmortize the Demand SideManagement Deferred AccountBalance:

Report and Order issuedSeptember 30, 2009. TheCommission approves theapplication on an interim basis,pending final Division audit. The approval is effective October1, 2009.

09-057-15In the Matter of the Applicationfor Approval of Fourth YearBudget for 2010 Demand-SideManagement Programs andMarket Transformation Initiative

Order issued January 12, 2010. The Commission approves Questar Gas Company’s proposeddemand-side management andmarket transformation budget for2010 with the enhanced reportingrequirements proposed by theDivision of Public Utilities.

N AT U R A L G A S D O C K E T S



09-057-16In the Matter of the Applicationof Questar Gas Company toIncrease Distribution Non-GasRates and Charges and MakeTariff Modifications:

Report and Order issued June 3,2010. The Commission approves asettlement stipulation addressingrevenue requirement, rate spread,and rate design. The settlementstipulation increases Questar GasCompany’s annual distributionnon-gas revenue requirement by$2.6 million, effective August 1,2010. The revenue requirement isbased upon an average test yearending December 31, 2010, andan allowed rate of return on equityof 10.35 percent. The revenuerequirement is allocated to allservice schedules except for FT-1L through a uniform increaseof 1.03 percent. The approvedsettlement stipulation alsoincludes adjustment of meteredvolumes for temperature andelevation, implementation of an infrastructure tracker pilotprogram, movement of theconservation enabling tariff from a pilot to an ongoing program,investment in compressed naturalgas vehicle infrastructure,commitment to implement a low-income assistance program, andaccounting of costs associatedwith the new distribution integritymanagement rule program.


Order of Dismissal issued April 26,2010. The Commission dismissesthe complaint with prejudice.


Order of Dismissal issuedFebruary 9, 2010. The Commissiondismisses the complaint withprejudice.

10-057-01In the Matter of the FormalComplaint of Complainant vs.Questar Gas Company:

Report and Order issued May 3,2010. The Commission denies theQuestar Gas Company’s Motion to Dismiss and orders Questar Gas Company to reimburse theComplainant the amount QuestarGas Company charged thecomplainant for unauthorized gas usage.


Order of Dismissal issued May 26,2010. The Commission dismissesthe complaint with prejudice.


Order of Dismissal issued June 30,2010. The Commission dismissesthe complaint with prejudice.

10-057-05In the Matter of the Applicationof Questar Gas Company forAuthority to File a Change in its Existing Tariff:

Report and Order issued June 1,2010. The Commission approvesthe application and authorizesQuestar Gas Company to removethe credit amortization rate asfiled. The effective date is June 1,2010.


Order of Dismissal issued June 30, 2010. The Commissiondismisses the complaint withprejudice. The Commission alsoauthorizes Questar Gas Companyto: terminate complainant’s serviceat any time with proper notice;pursue any and all means ofcollection available to it fordelinquent amounts; and offer apayment arrangement if it desires.

09-057-T05In the Matter of this filing is tocomply with the Commissionorder dated September 30, 2009,in Docket Nos. 09-057-12, Pass-Through Application of QuestarGas Company for an Adjustmentin Rates and Charges for NaturalGas Service in Utah; 09-057-13,Application of Questar GasCompany to Amortize theConservation Enabling TariffBalancing Account; and 09-057-14, Application of Questar GasCompany to Amortize theDemand Side ManagementDeferred Account Balance:

Tariff Approval Letter issuedNovember 4, 2009. TheCommission approves theproposed tariff revisions with aneffective date of October 1, 2009.

10-057-T01In the Matter of this filing is tocomply with the Commissionorder dated January 12, 2010, in Docket No. 09-057-15,Application of Questar GasCompany for Approval of FourthYear Budget for 2010 Demand-Side Management Programs and Market TransformationInitiative in Utah:

Tariff Approval Letter issued April 26, 2010. The Commissionapproves the proposed tariffrevisions with an effective date of January 12, 2010.

10-057-T02In the Matter of this filing is tocomply with the Commissionorder dated June 1, 2010, inDocket No. 10-057-05,Application of Questar GasCompany for Authority to File a Change in its Existing Tariff:

Tariff Approval Letter issued June 24, 2010. The Commissionapproves the proposed tariffrevisions with an effective date of June 1, 2010.

08-999-06In the Matter of theConsideration of the Amendmentof Title 15 U.S.C. 303(b) by theU.S. Energy Independence andSecurity Act of 2007:

Determination Concerning the PURPA Natural Gas EnergyEfficiency and Rate DesignStandards issued December 15,2009. The Commission determinesprior State actions, State laws and current policies pertaining toenergy efficiency and rate designare equal to and comparable withthe PURPA Energy Efficiency andRate Design Standards andadoption of the standards is not necessary.


252 0 1 0 A n n u a l R e p o r t

NATU RA L G A S U T I L I T YCOMPAN I E SOperating in the State of Utah under thejurisdiction of the PublicService Commission

R EGU L ATORY A F FA I R S

Questar Gas Company180 E. 100 S.PO Box 45360Salt Lake City, UT 84145-0360Tel: (801) 324-5555Emergency: (800) 541-2824www.questargas.com

Wendover Gas Company285 S. 1st St.PO Box 274Wendover, UT 84083Tel: (775) 664-2291 (775) 664-3081Fax: (775) 664-4422

Natural Gas Dockets (Continued)



26 2 0 1 0 A n n u a l R e p o r t

TELECOMU T I L I T I E S


T E L E C O M M U N I C A T I O N S U T I L I T I E S O V E R V I E W

In fiscal year 2010 there were approximately 1 million traditional “land line” telephones operating in Utah. Therewere about 2 million wireless phones, and an unknown, butincreasing number of voice over internet protocol (VoIP)accounts within the state. Overall the telecommunications industry in Utah is characterized by intra-industry competition through competitive local

exchange companies, and inter-modal competition through wireless and VoIP

companies. As a result, the total number of traditional land line phone accounts in Utah

has been declining for several years, even as the population and the number of

businesses have been increasing.

The regulation of telecommunications companies providing telephone service in

Utah has changed significantly over the past 15 years. These changes are due to

significant alterations in the number and type of firms in the industry, the types of

technologies used, consumer preferences, and the legal landscape.

Qwest, the largest telecommunications company in Utah, operates under state pricing

flexibility rules and is subject to competition. Qwest primarily offers service to customers

located along the Wasatch Front and much of the I-15 corridor from Logan to St. George.

Qwest’s service territory includes about 90 percent of the state’s population. The

Commission subjects Qwest to the same service quality regulation as its competitors.

Since 1995 there have been 266 applications for Certificates of Public

Convenience and Necessity (certificates) and the Commission has issued

204 certificates to competitive local exchange companies (CLECs) in Qwest’s service

territory. In fiscal year 2010, there were 96 certificate holders, 61 of whom are active,

meaning they produced intra-state revenue during the year. Most of those active

CLECs provide service only to business customers. Most CLECs provide services

over Qwest’s public telephone network but Comcast offers VoIP over its own cable

network and interconnects with Qwest’s public telephone network.

Currently the Commission sets rates through traditional rate of return regulation

for the 16 independent incumbent telephone companies providing land line service in

the more rural areas of the state. These independent incumbents generally do not face

competition from CLECs, but, like Qwest, face competition from wireless and VoIP

service providers. The Commission does not directly regulate wireless providers, toll

resellers, and VoIP providers.

272 0 1 0 A n n u a l R e p o r t

In fiscal year 2010 there

were approximately 1 million

traditional “landline” tele-

phones and 2 million wireless

phones operating in Utah.

R E C E N T A C T I V I T Y

During the 2010 fiscal year, Utah continued to seeinterest from potential competitors to Qwest through theaddition of 12 applications for certification to compete inthe state. Two competitive local exchange carriers alsoleft the state. Additionally a few companies expressedinterest in competing in the rural areas of the state. In thepast several years the Commission addressed requestsfrom companies desiring to either compete in the serviceterritories of incumbent providers or to provide service inun-served rural areas of the state.

In one request, an affiliate of Beehive TelephoneCompany, Inc., All American Telephone Company, Inc.(“All American”), petitioned the Commission for acertificate to provide service in both Qwest’s serviceterritory and un-served areas. In Docket No. 08-2469-01,the Commission determinedAll American did not intendto provide service in eitherof these areas, but ratherdesired to serve only as adestination point for billableinter-state traffic. TheCommission rescinded thiscertificate based ondeficiencies in theapplication and theinappropriate practices ofthe company.

In another request, a cable company, BresnanBroadband of Utah, LLC (Bresnan), applied to competewith the local incumbent exchange company, UBTA-UBET Communications, Inc. (UBTA-UBET), in the Vernalarea. The Commission granted Bresnan a certificate inDocket No. 07-2476-01, however, UBTA-UBET would not allow Bresnan to interconnect with its facilities. TheCommission ordered UBTA-UBET to interconnect withthe cable company and resolved several interconnectiondisputes in subsequent proceedings. UBTA-UBETeventually purchased the assets of Bresnan in the Vernalarea, thereby eliminating this competitive alternative forcustomers in the area.

P R I C I N G F L E X I B I L I T Y

In 2005 and 2009 the Utah Legislature enactedamendments to the 1995 Utah TelecommunicationsReform Act (1995 Act). These amendments removed theincumbent tariff obligations from Qwest and generallyplaced the company on an equal footing with itscompetitors. In 2005 Qwest was required to offer a basicresidential phone line at the existing tariff rate but wasgranted pricing flexibility for all other residential andbusiness services. In 2009 the requirement to offer a

tariffed residential service was removed as well. [U.C.A.Title 54-8b-2.3 (1) (b) (iii)]. As a result Qwest now haspricing flexibility for all retail services. The law allows alllocal exchange companies in Qwest’s service area toimplement new prices five days after filing them with theCommission. The law also allows the Commission toreview whether the new prices are just and reasonableeither during the five days after filing, or after the pricingchange is implemented.

In 2001, Qwest received federal approval to moveinto long-distance markets in Utah, and subsequentlyoffered new options to customers. Qwest is nowcompeting “head-to-head” with competitors by offeringbundled services, including local, long-distance, wireless,internet, and some limited video services at marketdetermined rates.

I M P L E M E N T A T I O NO F C O M P E T I T I O N

In implementing the federal 1996Telecommunications Act (Act), the FederalCommunicationsCommission (FCC) and the courts have disagreedon the obligations the Actimposes on the major

telecommunications carriers. Initially the FCC requiredthe major carriers to lease, at rates determined by statecommissions, most of the unbundled network elements a CLEC might need to provide service. In subsequentyears, this requirement has been scaled back in variousways. The current rules embody a dramatically reducedobligation for Qwest to lease portions of its network toCLECs. Under the current rules, CLECs generally musteither build their own networks or enter into commercialagreements with Qwest, at higher than prior prices. As a result, Qwest faces less competition from CLECs.However, the market for telecommunications services has evolved and now Qwest faces greater competitionprimarily from wireless and VoIP providers. Potentialcompetitors have emerged in the form of cable, internet,or wireless providers who are bundling "voice services"with other product offerings. The Commission willcontinue to review the level of competition in the marketplace to ascertain if sufficient competition remains toprotect consumers' general interests.

The Commission observes an additional change inthe marketplace which is occurring with more frequency.This is the practice wherein real estate developers andproperty owners or managers enter into exclusivearrangements with telecommunications or other types ofaudio and video service providers in order to offer voice,


28 2 0 1 0 A n n u a l R e p o r t

video and data services within their developments to the exclusion of all other providers. Typically thesearrangements preclude competition among serviceproviders because potential competitors are not grantedaccess to rights-of-way or easements, and the selectedprovider will only lease portions of its network at pricesother local exchange companies find uneconomic. Sincethe developers can restrict access to rights-of-way andeasements it is not possible for a competing serviceprovider to place network facilities. As a result theresidents or commercial tenants in such developmentshave no choice of service providers. While theCommission views these arrangements as contrary to the state and federal legislative intent to promotecompetition, it lacks legal authority to require access for competing providers.

C E R T I F I C A T E S O F P U B L I CC O N V E N I E N C E A N D N E C E S S I T Y A N DI N T E R C O N N E C T I O N A G R E E M E N T S

As explained above the Commission continues togrant and revoke certificates and in fiscal year 2010 there were 96 CLECs, 61 of whom are actively servingcustomers in the state. In order to serve customers, aCLEC must interconnect its facilities with other carriersand the Commission continues to arbitrate and review“interconnection agreements” and “commercialagreements,” i.e. terms by which the incumbent andcompetitors interconnect facilities to provide effectiveand efficient service. These agreements facilitatecompetition by providing a means for competitor's andQwest’s networks to communicate.

T E L E C O M M U N I C A T I O N D O C K E T S

Of the hundreds of telecommunications dockets theCommission addressed this year, most concern the entryor exit of competitors, and the interaction betweenQwest and competitors as the marketplace adjusts to,and implements the relatively new FCC rules regardinginter-carrier relationships. These dockets addressedCertificate applications and cancellations, mergers andacquisitions, approval and enforcement ofinterconnection agreements, resolution of inter-carriercomplaints, approval of special contracts for regulatedservices, and other service issues. In addition there werethree general rate cases for the independent incumbentproviders in rural areas which included setting universalservice fund receipt levels, one stand alone universalservice fund eligibility determination, and 14 docketsaddressing formal customer complaints.


292 0 1 0 A n n u a l R e p o r t

R A T E C A S E S

09-2270-01In the Matter of the All WestCommunications, Inc.’sApplication for an Increase inRates and Charges and in USFEligibility:

Report and Order: TheCommission, having consideredthe testimony presented at thehearing, and having reviewed thestipulation, does hereby approvethe stipulation.

09-2419-01In the Matter of the Petition ofDirect Communications CedarValley, LLC for a Review of Ratesand Support from the StateUniversal Service Support Fund:

Report and Order ApprovingStipulation: Having found theStipulation between DirectCommunications Cedar Valley,LLC and the Division of PublicUtilities is just and reasonable inresult and is in the public interest,the Commission approves thesame and thereby approves theCompany’s rates and charges fortelecommunications services andsupport from the state UniversalService Support Fund ascontained in the Stipulation.

U S F E L I G I B I L I T Y

09-2302-01In the Matter of the Increase inUSF Eligibility for Carbon/EmeryTelcom, Inc.:

Report and Order: The Stipulationof the parties is approved.

C E R T I F I C A T EA P P L I C A T I O N S

09-051-02In the Matter of the Applicationof Beehive Telecom, Inc. for anAmended Certificate of PublicConvenience and Necessity toProvide Local Exchange Serviceswithin the State of Utah:

Order of Dismissal: Therefore,finding good cause appearing,and finding that Beehive does not oppose the Division’s Motion, we hereby dismiss the Applicationwithout prejudice.

09-2507-01In the Matter of the Applicationof NextGen Communications,Inc., for a Certificate of PublicConvenience and Necessity:

Report and Order: By this Reportand Order, the Public ServiceCommission of Utah (Commission)grants the request (Application) of NextGen Communications, Inc.(NextGen or Applicant) for aCertificate of Public Convenienceand Necessity (CPCN orcertificate) authorizing Applicantto provide public telecommun-ications services within Utah.

09-2509-01In the Matter of the Applicationof Liberty-Bell Telecom, LLC for aCertificate of Public Convenienceand Necessity to Provide Resoldand Facilities-Based LocalExchange TelecommunicationServices within the State of Utah:

Report and Order: By this Reportand Order, the Public ServiceCommission of Utah (Commission)grants the request (Application) of Liberty-Bell Telecom, LLC(Applicant) for a Certificate ofPublic Convenience and Necessity(Certificate) authorizing Applicantto provide public telecommun-ications services within Utah,excluding those local exchangeshaving fewer than 5,000 accesslines of an incumbent telephonecorporation with fewer than 30,000access lines in the state.

T E L E C O MM U N I C AT I O N SD O C K E T S



09-2510-01In the Matter of the Petition of Velocity The Greatest PhoneCompany Ever, Inc. for Authorityto offer Public Local Exchangeand InterexchangeTelecommunications Services:

Report and Order: By this Reportand Order, the Public ServiceCommission of Utah (Commission)grants the request (Application) of Velocity, The Greatest PhoneCompany Ever, Inc. (Applicant) for a Certificate of PublicConvenience and Necessity(Certificate) authorizing Applicantto provide public telecommun-ications services within Utah,excluding those local exchangeshaving fewer than 5,000 accesslines of an incumbent telephonecorporation with fewer than 30,000access lines in the state.

09-2505-01In the Matter of the Applicationof Entelegent Solutions, Inc., for a Certificate of PublicConvenience and Necessity toProvide Resold and Facilities-Based Local Exchange Serviceswithin The State of Utah:

Report and Order: By this Reportand Order, the Public ServiceCommission of Utah (Commission)grants the request (Application) of Entelegent Solutions, Inc.(Applicant) for a Certificate ofPublic Convenience and Necessity(Certificate) authorizing Applicantto provide public telecommun-ications services within Utah,excluding those local exchangeshaving fewer than 5,000 accesslines of an incumbent telephonecorporation with fewer than 30,000access lines in the state.

09-2513-01In the Matter of the Petition of Lifeconnex Telecom, LLC for Authority to Compete as aTelecommunications Corporationand to Offer Public LocalExchange TelecommunicationsServices:

Report and Order: By this Reportand Order, the Public ServiceCommission of Utah (Commission)grants the request (Application) of Lifeconnex Telecom, LLC(Applicant) for a Certificate ofPublic Convenience and Necessity(Certificate) authorizing Applicantto provide public telecommun-ications services within Utah,excluding those local exchangeshaving fewer than 5,000 accesslines of an incumbent telephonecorporation with fewer than 30,000access lines in the state.

09-2512-01In the Matter of the Applicationof NewPath Networks, LLC for aCertificate of Public Convenienceand Necessity to Compete as aCompetitive Access Providerwithin the State of Utah:

Order: Therefore, the Commissiondirects the Division to assumeNewPath will be providing aservice that may be considered alocal exchange service and/or apublic telecommunications serviceand review NewPath's technical,managerial, and financial abilitiesto determine if it has thequalifications to allow NewPath a CPCN.

09-2512-01In the Matter of the Applicationof NewPath Networks, LLC for aCertificate of Public Convenienceand Necessity to Compete as aCompetitive Access Providerwithin the State of Utah:

Report and Order: By this Reportand Order, the Public ServiceCommission of Utah (Commission)grants the request (Application) ofNewPath Networks, LLC(Applicant) for a Certificate ofPublic Convenience and Necessity(Certificate or CPCN) authorizing itto operate a distributed antenna(DAS) system in Utah.

09-2514-01In the Matter of the Applicationof Broadview Networks, Inc. for aCertificate of Public Convenienceand Necessity to Provide Resoldand Facilities-Based LocalExchange Services in the State of Utah:

Report and Order: By this Reportand Order, the Public ServiceCommission of Utah (Commission)grants the request (Application) ofBroadview Networks, Inc.(Applicant) for a Certificate ofPublic Convenience and Necessity(Certificate) authorizing Applicantto provide public telecommun-ications services within Utah,excluding those local exchangeshaving fewer than 5,000 accesslines of an incumbent telephonecorporation with fewer than 30,000access lines in the state.

09-2517-01In the Matter of the Applicationof Easton Telecom Services, LLC for a Certificate of PublicConvenience and Necessity toProvide Resold and Facilities-Based Local Exchange Serviceswithin the State of Utah:

Report and Order: By this Reportand Order, the Public ServiceCommission of Utah (Commission)grants the request (Application) of Easton Telecom, LLC(Applicant) for a Certificate ofPublic Convenience and Necessity(Certificate) authorizing Applicantto provide public telecommun-ications services within Utah,excluding those local exchangeshaving fewer than 5,000 accesslines of an incumbent telephonecorporation with fewer than 30,000access lines in the state.

09-2519-01In the Matter of the Applicationof Greenfly Networks, Inc., d/b/aClearfly Communications, for aCertificate of Public Convenienceand Necessity to Provide Resoldand Facilities-Based LocalExchange TelecommunicationsService within Utah:

Report and Order: By this Reportand Order, the Public ServiceCommission of Utah (Commission)grants the request (Application) of Greenfly Networks, Inc. d/b/aClearfly Communications(Applicant) for a Certificate ofPublic Convenience and Necessity(Certificate) authorizing Applicantto provide public telecommun-ications services within Utah,excluding those local exchangeshaving fewer than 5,000 accesslines of an incumbent telephonecorporation with fewer than 30,000access lines in the state.

09-2515-0In the Matter of the Petition of Broadvox-CLEC, LLC forAuthority to Compete as aTelecommunications Corporationand to Offer Public LocalExchange and InterexchangeTelecommunications Services:

Report and Order: By this Reportand Order, the Public ServiceCommission of Utah (Commission)grants the request (Application) of Broadvox-CLEC, LLC(Applicant) for a Certificate ofPublic Convenience and Necessity(Certificate) authorizing Applicantto provide public telecommun-ications services within Utah,excluding those local exchangeshaving fewer than 5,000 accesslines of an incumbent telephonecorporation with fewer than 30,000access lines in the state.

10-2520-01In the Matter of the Applicationof InTTec, Inc. for a Certificate of Public Convenience andNecessity to Provide Resold andFacilities-Based Local ExchangeServices within the State of Utah:

Report and Order: By this Reportand Order, the Public ServiceCommission of Utah (Commission)converts this matter to aninformally adjudicated matter.Additionally, the Commissiongrants the request (Application) of InTTec, Inc. (Applicant) for aCertificate of Public Convenienceand Necessity (Certificate)authorizing Applicant to providepublic telecommunicationsservices within Utah, excludingthose local exchanges having


30 2 0 1 0 A n n u a l R e p o r t

Telecommunications Dockets (Continued)



fewer than 5,000 access lines of anincumbent telephone corporationwith fewer than 30,000 access linesin the state.

09-2518-01In the Matter of the Applicationof IntelePeer, Inc. for a Certificateof Public Convenience andNecessity to Provide Resold andFacilities-Based Local ExchangeServices in the State of Utah:

Report and Order: By this Reportand Order, the Public ServiceCommission of Utah (Commission)converts this matter to aninformally adjudicated matter.Additionally, the Commissiongrants the request (Application) of IntelePeer, Inc (Applicant) for aCertificate of Public Convenienceand Necessity (Certificate)authorizing Applicant to providepublic telecommunicationsservices within Utah, excludingthose local exchanges havingfewer than 5,000 access lines of anincumbent telephone corporationwith fewer than 30,000 access linesin the state.

C E R T I F I C A T EC A N C E L L A T I O N S

09-2224-01In the Matter of the 1-800-Reconex Application forDecertification:

Report and Order: Certificate ofpublic convenience and necessitynumber 2224 is hereby cancelled.

I N T E R C O N N E C T I O N

09-2476-02In the Matter of the Petitions of Bresnan Broadband of Utah, LLC to Resolve Dispute OverInterconnection of EssentialFacilities and for Arbitration to Resolve Issues Relating to an Interconnection Agreementwith UBTA-UBETCommunications, Inc.:

Order on Motion to Stay: Giventhat the Commission waspresented evidence, after thehearing and order in this matterwas issued, that UBET may not beable to comply with theCommission’s order, we stay thatorder pending our review and finaldetermination of UBET and theUtah Rural Telecom Associations’petitions for reconsideration,review, or rehearing.

08-2476-02In the Matter of the Petitions of Bresnan Broadband of Utah, LLC to Resolve Dispute OverInterconnection of EssentialFacilities and for Arbitration to Resolve Issues Relating to an Interconnection Agreementwith UBTA-UBETCommunications, Inc.:

Order on Reconsideration, Reviewor Rehearing: UBTA-UBETCommunications, Inc. petitionedfor Reconsideration andRehearing. The Utah RuralTelecom Association alsopetitioned for Reconsideration,Review or Rehearing. We affirmour previously entered orderresolving interconnection dispute,except that we modify Section3.1.1 of the InterconnectionAgreement.

08-2476-02In the Matter of the Petitions of Bresnan Broadband of Utah, LLC to Resolve Dispute OverInterconnection of EssentialFacilities and for Arbitration toResolve Issues Relating to anInterconnection Agreement with UBTA-UBETCommunications, Inc.:

Report and Order: Motion for Stayis denied.

09-049-47In the Matter of theInterconnection Agreementbetween Qwest Corporation and InTTec, Inc.:

Report and Order RejectingInterconnection Agreement: The interconnection agreement at issue being defective asinvolving an entity that does notpossess a Certificate of PublicConvenience and Necessity(CPCN), and therefore against the public interest, convenience,and necessity, the Agreement was rejected.

09-049-44In the Matter of theInterconnection Agreementbetween Qwest Corporation andEaston Telecom Services, LLC:

Report and Order RejectingInterconnection Agreement: The interconnection agreement at issue being defective asinvolving an entity that does notpossess a Certificate of PublicConvenience and Necessity(CPCN), and therefore against the public interest, convenience,and necessity, the Agreement was rejected.

09-049-51In the Matter of theInterconnection Agreementbetween Qwest Corporation and iNetworks Group, Inc.:

Report and Order RejectingInterconnection Agreement: Theinterconnection agreement atissue being defective as involvingan entity that does not possess aCertificate of Public Convenienceand Necessity (CPCN), andtherefore against the publicinterest, convenience, andnecessity, the Agreement wasrejected.

09-049-57In the Matter of the Petition of Qwest Corporation forArbitration of an InterconnectionAgreement with FirstDigitalTelecom Pursuant to Section 252 of the FederalTelecommunications Act of 1996:

Order of Dismissal: TheCommission hereby orders thisPetition dismissed.

10-049-17In the Matter of the WirelineAdoption InterconnectionAgreement between QwestCorporation and TriarchMarketing, Inc. d/b/a TriarchCommunications:

Report and Order RejectingInterconnection Agreement: The proposed interconnectionagreement involved an entity thatdoes not possess a Certificate ofPublic Convenience and Necessity(CPCN) and therefore defectiveand against the public interest,convenience, and necessity. It wasrejected.

C A R R I E R T OC A R R I E RC O M P L A I N T S

08-2430-01In the Matter of Verizon’sObjection, Protest and Requestfor Investigation in Response to Qwest’s Recent Filing of itsRevised Access Service TariffSheets 13, 13.1, and 16:

Report and Order: Verizon’sObjection, Protest, and Requestfor Investigation is dismissed withprejudice;

09-2476-01In the Matter of the Complaint of Bresnan Broadband of Utah,LLC against UBTA-UBETCommunications, Inc.:

Report and Order: TheCommission finds that URTA’sintervention in this complaint isnot appropriate.

09-2476-01In the Matter of the Complaint of Bresnan Broadband of Utah,LLC against UBTA-UBETCommunications, Inc.:

Order of Dismissal: Therefore,finding good cause appearing forthe dismissal of the underlyingformal complaint, the Commissionhereby dismisses the complaintwith prejudice.

C U S T O M E RC O M P L A I N T S

09-049-45In the Matter of the FormalComplaint of Guillermo Tomasagainst Qwest Corporation:

Report and Order: Based on Mr.Tomas’s request, the Commissionhereby dismisses this formalcomplaint with prejudice.


312 0 1 0 A n n u a l R e p o r t




09-049-40In the Matter of the FormalComplaint of David Youngagainst Qwest Corporation:

Report and Order: TheCommission finds that Mr. Younghas not established any violationof Utah law, Commission rules, or company tariff by Qwest. Hisformal complaint is dismissed withprejudice.

09-2299-01In the Matter of the FormalComplaint of Stephen Baker and Baker Tile, Inc. againstIntegra Telecom, Inc.:

Report and Order: Based on theterms of the parties’ settlement,and finding the dismissal is in thepublic interest, the Commissionorders this formal complaintdismissed with prejudice.

09-049-40In the Matter of the FormalComplaint of David Youngagainst Qwest Corporation:

Amended Report and Order:Therefore, the Commission findsthat Mr. Young has not establishedany violation of Utah law,Commission rules, or companytariff by Qwest. The Commissionalso finds that Mr. Youngnegotiated with both Qwest andVerizon and his service issues wereresolved. Mr. Young, therefore,withdrew his complaint.

09-049-42In the Matter of the FormalComplaint of Dimas Rodarteagainst Qwest Corporation:

Report and Order: TheCommission does not havejurisdiction over the matter andmust dismiss the Complaint.

09-049-41In the Matter of the FormalComplaint of Tamara Houseragainst Qwest Corporation:

Report and Order: TheCommission does not havejurisdiction over the matter andmust dismiss the Complaint.

09-049-39In the Matter of the FormalComplaint by Mandi & BryceJacobson against QwestCorporation:

Report and Order: Pursuant tothe terms of the settlement, theCommission dismisses thecomplaint with prejudice.

09-049-43In the Matter of the FormalComplaint of Charles Paxtonagainst Qwest Communications:

Report and Order: Finding goodcause appearing for dismissal ofthe complaint, the Commissionhereby dismisses the underlyingcomplaint with prejudice.

09-049-48In the Matter of the FormalComplaint of Tower Tollesonagainst Qwest Communications:

Report and Order: Therefore, theCommission dismisses the formalcomplaint with prejudice.

09-052-01In the Matter of the FormalComplaint of Russell Riggsagainst South CentralCommunications:

Order: The hearing is herebycontinued and may be reset bythe Commission pending theCompany’s response.

09-049-54In the Matter of the FormalComplaint of Daniel Butt againstQwest Corporation:

Order of Dismissal: Therefore, thismatter is dismissed with prejudice.

09-052-01In the Matter of the FormalComplaint of Russell Riggsagainst South CentralCommunications:

Order of Dismissal: For thesereasons, Mr. Riggs’ complaint isdismissed with prejudice.

09-049-59In the Matter of the FormalComplaint of Diane Bartonagainst Qwest Corporation:

Order of Dismissal: Ms. Barton hasnot shown that the Company hasviolated any portion of its PriceList, Commission rule or statute byrefusing to provide service at herSandy address so long as theirremains an unpaid bill.

10-049-05In the Matter of the FormalComplaint of Nancy and GordonRogers against QwestCorporation:

Order of Dismissal: This matter is before the Commission on theformal complaint of Nancy andGordon Rogers against Qwest. Mr. Rogers has informed theCommission that he reached asettlement with Qwest, andagreed this complaint should bedismissed per the terms of theiragreement. Accordingly, per theterms of the parties’ agreement,this matter is dismissed withprejudice.

V I O L AT I O N S /I N V E S T I G AT I O N

08-2496-01In the Matter of theConsideration of the Rescission,Alteration, or Amendment of the Certificate of Authority of All American to Operate as a Competitive Local ExchangeCarrier within the State of Utah:

Report and Order: We havedetermined that we will grant the Request and Application and will issue our decision on the reconsideration, review, orrehearing pursuant to U.C.A. § 54-7-15 and § 63G-4-301.

08-2469-01In the Matter of theConsideration of the Rescission,Alteration, or Amendment of the Certificate of Authority of All American to Operate as aCompetitive Local ExchangeCarrier within the State of Utah:

Report and Order: All American’sMotion for extension of time tofile its amended petition isgranted. All American shall haveuntil Monday, August 31, 2009 tofile the amended petition.


Report and Order: In our view, astay would not be proper, becauseour denying All American andBeehive’s motions for summaryjudgment and motions to strikeare not final agency action.

08-2469-01In the Matter of theConsideration of the Rescission,Alteration, or Amendment of theCertificate of Authority of AllAmerican to Operate as aCompetitive Local ExchangeCarrier within the State of Utah:

Report and Order: This matter is before the Commission on AllAmerican’s (Company) Motion to Stay filed November 9, 2009.The Company requests theCommission stay theseproceedings pending theoutcome of the appeal before theSupreme Court. The Commissiondenies the Motion to Stay in thismatter for the reasons previouslystated in our August 24, 2009.


Order Shortening Time forDiscovery Turn-Around: TheCommission has reviewed themoving and responding papersand finds the discovery turn-around time should be shortened,thus allowing for the presentationof the most complete evidencebefore the Commission as itmakes a decision in this matter.


32 2 0 1 0 A n n u a l R e p o r t





Report and Order: All AmericanTelephone Company, Inc.(AATCO) petitioned theCommission for a nunc pro tuncamendment to its CPCN,authorizing it to operate as acompetitive local exchange carrier(CLEC) in the territory certificatedto Beehive Telephone Co., Inc.(Beehive). The Commissiondenied the nunc pro tunc aspectof the petition. With this order, the Commission denies theamendment, revokes AATCO’sCPCN, and orders AATCO’swithdrawal from Utah.


Order: We will grant theApplication and Request and willissue our decision pursuant toU.C.A. § 54-7-15 and § 63G-4-301.

A D M I N I S T R A T I V ER E G U L A T O R Y

09-2474-01In the Matter of the Request ofImpact Telecom, LLC for Approvalof a Proposed Name Change toNew Impact Telecom, Inc.:

Report and Order: Based on theabove findings, and finding thatthe name change is in the publicinterest, we approve the namechange from Impact Telecom, LLC to Impact Telecom, Inc.

09-2509-02In the Matter of the Applicationof Liberty-Bell Telecom, LLC for Approval of a Transfer ofCustomers of Impact Telecom,Inc. to Liberty-Bell Telecom, LLC:

Report and Order: Based on therecommendation of the Division,and finding that the public interestwill be served by approving thetransfer of the customers, theCommission does approve thetransfer of customers from Impactto Liberty. Impact may keep itsCPCN.

09-2383-01In the Matter of the JointApplication for Waiver ofComcast Phone of Utah, LLC andCIMCO Communications, Inc.:

Report and Order: Therequirements of Utah Code Ann.§54-8b-18 and Utah Admin. R746-349-5 are waived; The 20-daytentative period in Utah Admin.R746-110-2 is waived and thisOrder shall constitute a final order,effective as of the date ofissuance;

09-2410-01In the Matter of the JointApplication of BroadweaveNetworks, Inc. and VeracityCommunications, Inc. forApproval of a Transaction toCombine the Companies inVeracity Networks, LLC:

Order Approving Merger (FinalOrder): The Joint Application isapproved, and the transactionsdescribed in the Joint Applicationresulting in the formation ofVeracity Networks, LLC areapproved;

09-2461-01In the Matter of the JointApplication of BroadweaveNetworks, Inc. and VeracityCommunications, Inc. for Approval of a Transaction to Combine the Companies inVeracity Networks, LLC:

Order Approving Merger (FinalOrder): The Joint Application isapproved, and the transactionsdescribed in the Joint Applicationresulting in the formation ofVeracity Networks, LLC areapproved;

09-049-60In the Matter of the Qwest’sPetition for Review andTermination of Qwest’sPerformance Assurance PlanTermination pursuant to Section 16.3:

Order: Therefore, we direct theparties to meet and discuss theseissues to determine if a settlementamong the parties is possible. Wedirect the parties to jointly reportthe results of these meetings, andfile any resulting agreement,within 120 days of this Order.

10-2306-01In the Matter of the Transfer of Control of American FiberNetwork, Inc. to New EarthshellCorporation:

Order: Therefore, it is ordered thatthe joint application for approvalof a transfer of control of AFN toNEC is approved.

10-2275-01In the Matter of the JointApplication of MegaPath Inc.,DSLnet Communications, LLCand CCGI Holding Corporation,Inc. for Approval of the IndirectTransfer of Control of DSLnetCommunications, LLC:

Order Approving Indirect Transferof Control: The Commissionapproves the transaction that willpermit CCGI to acquire indirectcontrol of DSL.

10-2452-01In the Matter of the JointApplication of Comtel TelcomAssets, LP and Matrix Telecom,Inc. for Waiver of Utah CodeAnn. § 54-8b-18 and CommissionRule R746-349-5:

Report and Order: This matter isconverted to an informal matter

10-2501-01In the Matter of the JointApplication of BLC ManagementLLC d/b/a AnglesCommunication Solutions,Transfer of Control to BLCAcquisition Group, LLC:

Report and Order: The transfer ofcontrol of BLC Management, LLCd/b/a Angles CommunicationSolutions to BLC AcquisitionGroup, LLC is approved.

10-049-16In the Matter of the JointApplication of QwestCommunications International,Inc. and CenturyTel, Inc. forApproval of Indirect Transfer ofControl of Qwest Corporation,Qwest CommunicationsCompany, LLC, and Qwest LDCorporation:

Order: Based upon the Motion forAdmission Pro Hac Vice of Mark A. Davidson and the consent toappear as associate counsel byJames A. Holtkamp, it is herebyordered that Mark A. Davidson beadmitted pro hac vice as counselfor tw Telecom of Utah, LLC in theabove entitled matter.


332 0 1 0 A n n u a l R e p o r t




Albion Telephone Companyd/b/a ATC Communications225 W. North St.PO Box 98Albion, ID 83311Tel: (208) 673-5335 (800) 671-5335Fax: (208) 673-6200www.atccomm.comwww.atcnet.com

All West Communications50 W. 100 N.PO Box 588Kamas, UT 84036-0588Tel: (435) 783-4361 (888) 292-1414Fax: (435) 783-4928www.allwest.net

Bear Lake Communications35 S. State St.PO Box 7Fairview, UT 84629Tel: (435) 427-3331 (800) 427-8449Fax: (435) 427-3200www.cutel.com

Beehive Telephone Company2000 E. Sunset RoadLake Point, UT 84074-9779Tel: (801) 250-6639 (800) 629-9993Fax: (801) 250-4420www.beehive.net

Carbon Emery Telecom455 E. Hwy. 29PO Box 421Orangeville, UT 84537-0421Tel: (435) 748-2223Fax: (435) 748-5222www.emerytelcom.com

Central Utah Telephone35 S. State St.PO Box 7Fairview, UT 84629Tel: (435) 427-3331 (800) 427-8449Fax: (435) 427-3200www.cutel.com

Frontier Communication of UtahPO Box 708970Sandy, UT 84070-8970Tel: (801) 924-6360 (800) 373-5627Fax: (801) 924-6363www.frontieronline.com

Direct CommunicationsCedar Valley, LLC150 South MainPO Box 324Rockland, ID 83271-0324Tel: (208) 548-2345Fax: (208) 548-9911www.dcdi.net/eaglemtn

Emery Telephone455 E. Hwy. 29PO Box 629Orangeville, UT 84537-0629Tel: (435) 748-2223Fax: (435) 748-5222www.emerytelcom.net

Farmers Telephone Company26077 Hwy. 491PO Box 369Pleasant ViewCO 81331-0369Tel: (970) 562-4211 (877) 828-8656Fax: (970) 562-4214www.farmerstelcom.com

Gunnison TelephoneCompany29 South MainPO Box 850Gunnison, UT 84634-0850Tel: (435) 528-7236Fax: (435) 528-5558www.gtelco.net

Hanksville Telecom Inc.455 E. Hwy. 29PO Box 629Orangeville, UT 84537-0629Tel: (435) 748-2223Fax: (435) 748-5222www.emerytelcom.net

Manti TelecommunicationsCompany34 W. Union St.Manti, UT 84642-1356Tel: (435) 835-3391 (877) 835-3391Fax: (435) 835-7192www.manti.com

Navajo CommunicationsCompanyPO Box 708970Sandy, UT 84070-8970Tel: (801) 924-6360 (800) 373-5627Fax: (801) 924-6363www.frontieronline.com

Qwest Corporation250 Bell Plaza, Room 1603Salt Lake City UT 84111Tel: (801) 237-7200 (888) 642-9996 (800) 244-1111 Customer servicewww.qwest.com

South Central UtahTelephone45 N. 100 W.PO Box 555Escalante, UT 84726Tel: (435) 826-0225Fax: (435) 826-0826www.socen.com

Skyline Telecom35 S. State St.PO Box 7Fairview, UT 84629-0007Tel: (435) 427-3331 (800) 427-8449Fax: (435) 427-3200www.cutel.com

Uintah Basin Telecomd/b/a UBTA Communications211 E. 200 N.PO Box 398Roosevelt, UT 84066-2343Tel: (435) 646-5007 (888) 546-8282Fax: (435) 646-5011www.ubtanet.com

Union Telephone CompanyPO Box 160Mountain ViewWY 82939-0160Tel: (307) 782-6131 (800) 646-2355Fax: (307) 782-6913www.union-tel.com


34 2 0 1 0 A n n u a l R e p o r t

I N C U M B E N T L O C A L E X C H A N G E C A R R I E R S ( I L E C S )Operating in the State of Utah under the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission

360Networks (USA) Inc.867 Coal Creek CircleSuite 160Louisville, CO 80027-4670Tel: (303) 854-5000 (800) 576-1959Fax: (303) 854-5100www.360.net

Abovenet Inc. f/k/a MFN of Utah LLC360 Hamilton Ave., 7th FloorWhite Plains, NY 10601-1811Tel: (914) 421-6700 (888) 636-2778Fax: (914) 421-7688www.mfn.com

Access Point Inc.1100 Cresent GreenSuite 109Cary, NC 27511Tel: (919) 421-7546 (800) 957-6468Fax: (919) 851-5422www.accesspointinc.com

ACN CommunicationsService32991 Hamilton CourtFarmington Hills, MI 48334Tel: (248) 699-4000 (877) 226-1010Fax: (248) 489-5917www.acninc.com

Baldwin CountyInternet/DSSI Service, LLC1240 Commerce Drive, Ste AGulf Shores, AL 36542Tel: (919) 454-4176 (251) 224-7531www.baldwininternet.com

Affinity Network, Inc. d/b/a ANI Networks4380 Boulder Hwy.Las Vegas, NV 89121Tel: (702) 547-8485Fax: (702) 942-5005www.affinitynetworkinc.com

All American TelephoneCompany, Inc.8635 W. Sahara Ave.Suite 498Las Vegas, NV 89117Tel: (702) 499-9889Fax: (702) 920-8844

All West Utah Inc. d/b/a All West Utah CLEC50 W. 100 N.PO Box 588Kamas, UT 84036-0588Tel: (435) 783-4361 (866) 255-9378Fax: (435) 783-4928www.allwest.net

American Fiber Network Inc.d/b/a AFN9401 Indian Creek Pkwy.Suite 280Overland Park, KS 66210-2005Tel: (913) 338-2658 (800) 864-0583Fax: (913) 661-0538www.afnltd.com

American Fiber Systems100 Meridian CentreSuite 250Rochester, NY 14618-3979Tel: (585) 340-5400Fax: (585) 756-1966www.americanfibersystems.com

AT&T Communications of the Mountain States1875 Lawrence St., Suite 1405Denver, CO 80202-1847Tel: (303) 298-6741Fax: (303) 298-6301www.att.com

Baldwin CountyInternet/DSSI Service, LLC1240 Commerce Dr., Suite AGulf Shores, AL 36542Tel: (919) 454-4176 (251) 224-7531

Bandwidth.com CLEC, LLC4001 Weston ParkwayCary, NC 27513Tel: (919) 439-3571Tel: (800) 808-5150Fax: (919) 238-9903www.bandwidth.com

Beehive Telecom, Inc.2000 E, Sunset Rd.Lake Point, UT 84074-9779Tel: (435) 837-6000Fax: (435) 837-6109www.beehive.net

Bell South Long Distance400 Perimeter Center TerraceSuite 400Atlanta, GA 30346-1231Tel Res: 888-757-6500Tel Bus: 800-228-6075www.bellsouth.com

BLC Management LLC d/b/a Angles CommunicationSolutions11121 Highway 70, Suite 202Arlington, TN 38002 Tel: 901-373-310Tel: 877-264-537Fax: 901-758-4511www.anglescs.com

Bresnan Broadband of Utah,LLCc/o Holland & Hart LLP8390 E. Crescent Pkwy.Suite 400Greenwood VillageCO 80111Tel: (303) 290-1601Fax: (303) 975-5290

Broadband Dynamics, LLC8757 E. Via De Commercio 1st FloorScottsdale, AZ85258Tel: (408) 941-0444Tel: (800) 277-1580Fax: (480) 941-1143

Broadview Networks, Inc.100 Renaissance BoulevardKing of Prussia, PA 19406Tel:(610) 775-4877 (800) 276-2384 (267) 537-0074www.broadviewnet.com

Broadvox Holding Co., LLC1228 Euclid Ave., Suite 390Cleveland, OH 44115Tel: (216) 373-4623 (877) 884-6597Fax: (216) 373-4699www.broadvox.com

BT Communications Sales LLCf/k/a Concert Comm.11440 Commerce Park Dr.Reston, VA 20191-1555Tel: (703) 755-6730Fax: (703) 755-6750www.bt.com

Bullseye Telecom Inc.25925 Telegraph Road Suite 210South Field, MI 48033Tel: (248) 784-2500 (877) 638-2855Fax: (248) 784-2501www.bullseyetelecom.com

Central Telcom Services d/b/a CentraCom Interactive35 South State St.PO Box 7Fairview, UT 84629Tel: (435) 427-0656 (800) 427-8449Fax: (435) 427-0306www.cutel.com

Chase Com (Go Conference, Inc.)1612 State StreetSanta Barbara, CA 93101Tel: (800) 288-9807www.powercom.com

Comcast Phone of Utah LLCf/k/a AT&T Broadband Phoneof Utah LLC440 Yauger Way SWOlympia WA 98502-8153Tel: (360) 705-2537 ext 3404 (800) 288-2085Fax: (360) 754-5811www.comcast.com

Comm Partners, LLC3291 N. Buffalo Dr., Suite 150Las Vegas, NV 89129Tel: (702) 367-8647Fax: (702) 365-8647

Comtech 21 LLCOne Barnes Park SouthWallingford, CT 06492Tel: (203) 679-7257Fax: (203) 679-7387

Cordia CommunicationsCorp.445 Hamilton Ave., Suite 408White Plains, NY 10601Tel: (914) 948-5550Fax: (914) 948-5999

Cypress Communications15 Piedmont CenterAtlanta, GA 30305Tel: (404) 869-2500 (888) 528-1788Fax: (404) 338-8798

Dieca Communications d/b/a Covad Communications Co.7901 Lowry Bvld.Denver, CO 80230-6906Tel: (408) 616-6500 (888) 462-6823Fax: (408) 616-6501

DPI Teleconnect LLC2997 LBJ Fwy., Suite 225Dallas, TX 75234Tel: (972) 488-5500 (800) 687-6727Fax: (972) 488-8636www.dpiteleconnect.com

DSLNet CommunicationsLLC545 Long Wharf Dr., 5th FloorNew Haven CT 06511Tel: (203) 772-1000 (877) 375-6691Fax: (203) 624-3612www.dsl.net

Easton Telecom Services LLC3040 Brecksville RoadSummitt II Suite ARichfield, OH 44286Tel: (330) 659-6700 (800) 222-8122Fax: (330) 659-9379www.eastontelecom.com


352 0 1 0 A n n u a l R e p o r t

C O M P E T I T I V E L O C A L E X C H A N G E C A R R I E R S ( C L E C S )Operating in the State of Utah under the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission

Emery Telecom and Video Inc.450 E. Hwy. 29PO Box 550Orangeville, UT 84537-0550Tel: (435) 748-2223Fax: (435) 748-5222www.etv.net

Ernest Communications Inc.5275 Triangle Pkwy. Suite 150Norcross, GA 30092Tel: (770) 242-9069 (800) 456-8353Fax: (770) 448-4115www.ernestgroup.com

Entelegent Solutions, Inc.3800 Arco Corporate Dr.Suite 310Charlotte, NC 28273

Tel: (704) 936-2365 (800) 975-7192Fax: (866) 295-0471www.entelegent.com

Eschelon Telecom of Utah Inc.730 2nd Ave. South, Suite 900Minneapolis, MN 55402-2489Tel: (612) 376-4400 (888) 372-4356Fax: (612) 376-4411www.eschelon.com

FirstDigital Telecom LLC90 S. 400 W., Suite M-100Salt Lake City, UT 84101Tel: (801) 456-1000Fax: (801) 456-1010www.firstdigital.com

France Telecom2300 Corporate Park DriveMailstop SPO606Herndon VA 20171Tel: (703) 375-4919Fax: (703) 375-4905

Frontier Communicationsd/b/a Citizens Long DistancePO Box 708970Sandy, UT 84070-8970Tel: (801) 924-6360 (888) 535-4354Fax: (801) 924-6363

Global Connection of America3957 Pleasant Dale Rd.Atlanta, GA 30340Tel: (770) 457-7174 (877) 511-3009www.globalc-inc.com

Global CrossingTelemanagement1080 Pittsford Victor Rd.Pittsford, NY 14534Tel: (585) 255-1100 (800) 414-1973Fax: (585) 381-7592www.globalcrossing.com

Granite Telecommunications234 Copeland StreetQuincy MA 02169Tel: (617) 847-1500Fax: (617) 847-0931www.granitenet.com

GreenflyTelecommunications LLCd/b/a ClearflyCommunications550 S. 24th St. W. Suite 201Billings, MT 59102Tel: (406) 652-7500 (866) 652-7570Fax: (406) 869-4614www.clearfly.net

IDT America Corp.520 Broad StreetNewark, NJ 07102Tel: (800) 888-9126Fax: (973) 438-1455http://www.idt.net

Impact Telecom, LLC5909 NW ExpresswaySuite 101Oklahoma City, OK 73132Tel: (405) 755-8177Fax: (405) 755-8377

InContact, Inc.f/k/a UCN Inc.14870 S. Pony Express Rd.Bluffdale, UT 84065-4801Tel: (801) 320-3200 (888) 826-2344 or 0002Fax: (800) 352-8848www.inContact.com

Industrial Communicationsc/o General TelephonePO Box 610Bountiful, UT 84011Tel: 801-532-3500

iNetworks Group Inc.125 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 2510Chicago, IL 60606Tel: (312) 212-0822Fax: (312) 422-9201www.inetworksgroup.com

Integra Telecom of Utah LLC1201 NE Lloyd Blvd.Suite 500Portland, OR 97232-6902Tel: (503) 480-0504 (503) 453-8018www.integratelecom.com

IntelePeer2855 Campus Drive, Suite 200San Mateo, CA 94403Tel: (650) 525-9200Fax: (650) 287-2628www.intelepeer.com/contractus/contactus.php/

Intrado Communications Inc.1601 Dry Creek Dr.Longmont, CO 80503Tel: (720) 494-5800 (877-856-7504Fax: (720) 494-6600www.intrado.com

InTTec Inc.1001 S. Douglas HwySuite 201P.O. Box 2799Gillette, WY 82717-2799Tel: (307) 685-5536Fax: (307) 682-2519http://www/inttec.biz/

Level 3 Communications LLC1025 Eldorado Blvd.Broomfield, CO 80021-8869Tel: (720) 888-1000 (877) 453-8353Fax: (720) 888-5127www.level3.com

Liberty Bell Telecom, LLC2460 W. 26th AvenueSuite 380-CDenver, CO 80211Tel: (720) 855-2444 (866) 664-2355Fax: (303) 831-1988www.libertybelltelecom.com

Lifeconnex Telecom, LLC13700 Perdido Key Drive Unit B222Perdido Key, FL 32507Tel: (850) 308-1616 (866) 744-0946Fax: (850) 492-5085www.lifeconnex.net

Lightyear Network Solutions LLC1901 Eastpoint ParkwayLouisville, KY 40223Tel: (502) 244-6666

LSSI Corp.101 Fieldcrest Ave.Edison, NJ 08837Tel: (800) 210-9021Fax: (732) 512-2103www.lssi.net

Matrix Telecom Inc.300 N Meridian, Suite 200-NOklahoma City, OK 73107Tel: (888)-411-0111Fax: (405)-951-6312www.matrixtele.com

MCI CommunicationsServices, Inc.d/b/a Verizon BusinessServices201 Spear St., 9th FloorSan Francisco CA 94105Tel: (415) 228-1072 (800) 893-7589Fax: (415) 228-1094www.verizon.com

MCI Metro AccessTransmission Services LLCd/b/a Verizon BusinessServices201 Spear St., 9th FloorSan Francisco CA 94105Tel: (415) 228-1072 (800) 893-7589Fax: (415) 228-1094www.mci.com

McGraw Communications,Inc.228 E. 45th St.New York, NY 10017Tel: (212) 849-2367Fax: (646) 619-4734www.mcgrawcom.net

McLeod USATelecommunications6400 C St. SWPO Box 3177Cedar Rapids IA 52406-3177Tel: (319) 790-7055 (800) 500-3453Fax: (319) 790-7901www.mcleodusa.com

MetropolitanTelecommunications of Utah44 Wall St., 6th FloorNew York, NY 10005-2401Tel: (212) 607-2000Fax: (866) 667-3900

Mitel Netsolutions, Inc.7300 W. Boston St.Chandler, AZ 85226-3229Tel: (602) 798-7087Fax: (602) 798-7067www.mitel.com

Mobilitie LLC660 Newport Center Dr. Suite 200Newport Beach, CA 92660Tel: (949) 515-1500www.mobilities.com

Momentum Telecom, Inc.2700 Corporate Dr., Suite 200Birmingham, AL 35242Tel: (205) 978-4442 (877) 238-3713Fax: (205) 978-3402www.momentumtelecom.com


36 2 0 1 0 A n n u a l R e p o r t

CLECs (Continued)

Nettalk.com, Inc.1100 NW 163rd Dr.North Miami, FL 33169Tel: (305) 621-1200Fax: (305) 621-1201www.nettalk.com

Neutral Tandem — Utah LLCRichard Monto, GeneralCounsel550 W. Adams St., Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60661Tel: (312) 384-8090Fax: (312) 346-3276Email:[email protected]

www.neutraltandem.com

New Edge Network, Inc.3000 Columbia House Blvd.Suite 106Vancouver, WA 98661-2969Tel: (360) 693-9009 (877) 725-3343Fax: (360) 737-0828www.newedgenetworks.com

New Path Networks, LLC768 Garfield St.Seattle, WA 98109Tel: (206) 632-0931 (888) 632-0931Fax: (206) 632-9374www.newpathnetworks.net

Nextg Networks of Calif.2216 Otoole AvenueSan Jose, CA 95131-1326Tel: (408) 954-1580

Nextgen Communications, Inc.275 West St.Annapolis, MD 21401Tel: (410) 349-7090Fax: (410) 295-1884www.telecomsy.net

North CountyCommunications3802 Rosecrans St., Suite 485San Diego, CA 92110Tel: (619) 364-4750Fax: (619) 364-4777www.nccom.com

Orbitcom Inc.1701 N. Louise Ave.Sioux Falls, SD 57101Tel: (605) 977-6900

Pac-West Telecom Inc.1776 W March Ln, Suite 250Stockton CA 95207Tel: (209) 926-3300 (800) Pac WestFax: (209) 926-4585www.pacwest.com

Paetec600 Willowbrook Office ParksOne Paetec PlazaFairport, NY 14450-4223Tel: (585) 340-2500www.paetec.com

Preferred Long Distance Inc.16380 Ventura Blvd.Suite 350Encino, CA 91436-1716Tel: (888)-235-2026Fax: (818)-380-7054 or 7099www.pldtel.com

QuantumshiftCommunications, Inc.88 Rowland Way, Suite 300Novato CA 94945Tel: (415) 893-7180 (888) 800-1490Fax: (415) 893-0569www.quantumshift.com

Questar Infocom, Inc.180 E. 100 S.PO Box 45433Salt Lake CityUT 84145-0433Tel: (801) 324-5938 (800) 729-6790Fax: (801) 324-5131www.questarinfo.com

Qwest CommunicationCorporation1801 California StreetDenver, CO 80202Tel: (801) 237-7200 (888) 642-9996Fax: (801) 237-6542www.qwest.com

Redline Phone, Inc.Redline Phone Inc.770 E. Main Street #105Lehi, UT 84043Tel: (801) 228-1512Fax: (801) 990-3977www.redlinecommunications.com

Sage Telecom, Inc.805 Central Expressway SouthSuite 100Allen, TX 75013-2789Tel: (214) 495-4884Fax: (214) 495-4795www.sagetelecom.net

SBC Telecom, Inc.d/b/a AT&T Long Distance1010 N. St. Mary’s, Rm. 1335San Antonio, TX 78215Tel: (210) 246-8041 (877) 430-7228Fax: (210) 246-8759www.sbctelecom.com

Sierra PacificCommunications6100 Neil RoadReno, NV 89520Tel: (775) 834-3173Fax: (775) 834-4920

Sorenson Communications, Inc.f/k/a Sorenson Media, Inc.4192 S.Riverboat Rd.Suite 300Salt Lake City, UT 84123Tel: (801) 287-9400Fax: (801) 287-3294www.sorenson.com

South CentralCommunications TelcomServices, LLC45 N. 100 W.Escalante, UT 84726Tel: (435) 826-0225Fax: (435) 826-0827www.socen.com

Sprint Communications Company LP6391 Sprint Pkwy.MS: ksopht0101-Z2400Overland ParkKS 66241-2400Tel: (913) 315-4279 (800) 829-0965Fax: (913) 315-3303www.sprint.com

TCG Utah1875 Lawrence St.Suite 1405Denver, CO 80202-1847Tel: (303) 298-6741Fax: (303) 298-6301www.att.com

Telequality Communications, Inc.16601 Blanco RoadSan Antonio, TX 78232Tel: (210) 481-5499Fax: (210) 408-1700www.telequality.com

Trans NationalCommunicationsInternational, Inc. (TNCI)2 Charlesgate WestBoston, MA 02215Tel: (617) 369-1163Fax: (617) 369-1187www.tncii.com

tw Telecom of Utah, LLCf/k/a Time Warner Telecom of Utah LLC10475 Park Meadows Dr.Littleton, CO. 80124Tel: (760) 832-6275 (800) 829-0420Fax: (760) 778-6981www.twtelecom.com

Velocity The Greatest PhoneCompany Ever, Inc.7130 Spring Meadows West Dr.Holland, OH 43528Tel: (419) 868-9983 (866) 983-5624Fax: (419) 868-9986www.velocity.org

Veracity Communications379 North University AvenueSuite 301Provo, UT 84601-2878Tel: (801) 437-6578Fax: (801) 370-1104www.veracitycom.net

Wiltel Communications LLC(aka) WilliamsCommunications LLCOne Technology CenterMail Drop TC-7BTulsa, OK 74103Tel: (918) 547-6000 (800) 924-8903Fax: (918) 547-9446www.wiltelcommunications.com

X5 Solutions1520 4th Ave., Suite 500Seattle, WA 98101Tel: (206) 973-5800 (888) 973-5899www.x5solutions.com

Xmission Networks LLC51 E. 400 S., Suite 100Salt Lake City, UT 84111Tel: (801) 303-0819www.xmission.com

XO CommunicationsServices, Inc.8851 S. Sandy ParkwaySandy, UT 84070Tel: (801) 983-1600 (888) 575-6398Fax: (801) 983-1667www.xo.com

Ymax Comm. Corp.5700 Georgia AvePalm Beach, FL 33405Tel: (561) 856-3380 (888) 230-0060Fax: (561) 856-2328www.ymaxcorp.com

Zayo Metro, Inc.100 Meridian Centre Suite 250Rochester, NY 14618-3979Tel: (716) 340-5400Fax: (716) 756-1966www.americanfibersystems.com


372 0 1 0 A n n u a l R e p o r t

CLECs (Continued)

T E L E C O M M U N I C A T I O N S R E L A Y S E R V I C E & E Q U I P M E N T D I S T R I B U T I O N P R O G R A M

Fiscal Year 2010 meant change for Relay Utah regarding itsrelay services, the equipment distribution program, andsign language interpreter training programs. After 10 yearsof service with Sprint, the PSC awarded the telecommuni-cations relay service (TRS) and captioned telephone (CapTel) relay service contracts to Hamilton Relay Service. That contract became effective on January 28, 2010. Hamilton Relay is known for its

exemplary customer service and was able to provide an in-state outreach

coordinator as well as supplemental advertising and outreach services.

The telecommunication equipment vendor contracts expired as well,

so the PSC invited vendors to bid on amplified, text, wireless, and

captioned telephones and awarded six contracts.

The Utah Public Service Commission began providing relay

services in 1988. According to US statistics, approximately 220,000

Utahns are deaf or hard of hearing. Prior to the relay service, people

who were deaf relied on hearing children or hearing neighbors or family

in order to make a telephone call. With the advent of the relay service, a

person who was deaf had the option to use a text telephone (TTY)

and TRS. Now a person who is deaf, hard of hearing, or speech

disabled has a myriad of service and equipment options available: video relay service,

internet protocol relay, wireless pagers, captioned telephones, and amplified

telephones — wireless or landline. Now in addition to TRS, relay services include

Spanish language, Speech-to-Speech, Voice Carry Over/CapTel, and Hearing Carry

Over. The equipment available continues to improve, and the Commission has

witnessed enormous growth in the program over the last few years as the Commission

continues with education, advertising, and public relations targeted towards people

who are deaf or hard-of-hearing. The number of applicants, customers, and users of the

programs and services has continued to grow as residents become aware of PSC

programs. This is timely as the hard-of-hearing population continues to grow. Many

predict as baby boomers age with excellent health services and longevity of life, more

people will experience hearing loss.

The hard-of-hearing popula-tion continues to grow as predicted as baby boomersage and as health servicescontinue to improve, resultingin increased life expectancy.

38 2 0 1 0 A n n u a l R e p o r t

PSC

392 0 1 0 A n n u a l R e p o r t

O U T R E A C H

The Commission has continued its workingrelationship with Penna Powers Brian Haynes (PPBH) overthe last 8 years. PPBH assists with education, outreach,public relations, and grassroots activities for relayservices and equipment distribution. Each year PPBHand the PSC have used print, television, and radio toraise awareness of what is available through Relay Utah.With respect to print, PPBH advertised in theShakespearean Festival Playbills, the Fall Stage ArtsPrograms, in the Senior Blue Book in Utah’s SeniorReview, and in Utah Prime Times. This pastyear was the first to run ads in the Obituarysection of the Salt Lake Tribune and theDeseret News. On television, Relay Utahwas able to run 15 and 30 second spots on KJZZ 14, KSL 5, KTVX 4, and KUTV 2.During the Olympics, PPBH was able tosecure banner ads for Relay Utah on KSL.The program was in the 2 minute SeniorSpotlights on KJXX, on Good Things UtahSegment on KTVS and Studio 5 segments.Overall Relay Utah was advertised ontelevision for a grand total of 2,269 spots.

Relay Utah included three questions inthe Dan Jones & Associates annualomnibus survey conducted among 605individuals statewide. The survey providesan error tolerance of ±4.0%. The marketingefforts appear to be paying off asawareness and recall scores are broadlyrecognized. Overall awareness was 26%among all respondents with the highestscore among the 55-64 year old group at30%. More than half the participants recalled seeing orhearing advertising for Relay Utah services and products.3% of those polled who had recalled seeing or hearingadvertisements had in fact contacted Relay Utah forequipment and/or services. This research showed thatpast marketing efforts have been successful in motivatingcaretakers in the 35-64 year old demographic to takeaction.

Through grassroots efforts, the Commission reachedapproximately 2,800 seniors throughout the state byproviding information about the equipment program at11 separate health fairs/expositions. The PSC also didpower point presentations at senior centers, seniorhousing facilities, and area agencies on aging. Someother groups to focus on this past year were groupsrelated to foster grandparents, macular degenerationsupport groups, and healthcare workers for the home-bound. Through these 22 presentations, the Commissionwas able to reach another 600 potential consumersrounding out the total to 3,400 people in one year.

E Q U I P M E N T D I S T R I B U T I O N

Due to the statewide presentations by Commissionstaff as noted above and advertising efforts, applicationsfor specialized telecommunication equipment continueto grow year after year. Statewide distribution rose 17%in FY 2010 with 1,016 pieces of telecommunicationequipment such as amplified phones and captionedphones being allocated. Currently one Commission staffmember works full time to distribute equipment andprovide the necessary educational opportunities andtraining. Three part-time employees assist the PSC with

equipment distribution and training.These four equipment specialists coverthe entire state and provide unrivaledone-on-one training to each and everyconsumer. Pieced of Pieces of Fiscal Equipment Fiscal Equipment Year Distributed Year Distributed

2003 ................127 2007 ................674

2004 ................188 2008 ................641

2005 ................338 2009 ................865

2006 ................515 2010 .............1,016

Total ..............4,364

A M E R I C A N S I G N L A N G U A G EI N T E R P R E T E R T R A I N I N GP R O G R A M S

For four years, the Public ServiceCommission contracted with threeinterpreter training programs to meet a shortage in the industry of certifiedAmerican Sign Language interpreters.

Salt Lake Community College (SLCC), the ICAN Programthrough the Division of Services for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, and Utah Valley University were the threeprograms funded to provide classes, on-the-job trainingand/or mentoring. It was a fortunate time for thosestudying sign language interpreting in the State becauseof the availability of three different training programsable to meet a variety of needs between Orem and SaltLake, as well as the eventual addition of a mentoringprogram in St. George. These programs not only raisedthe number of certified interpreters but also allowed forthe creation of new, paid positions for teachers andmentors. Due to dwindling funds, the PSC is currentlyunder contract with the ICAN program because of itsunique mentoring program.

According to the Utah Interpreter Program, an entityoverseeing the testing and certification of interpreters,states that the number of professionally certified signlanguage interpreters had remained flat for years ataround 74 certifications when the PSC initiated the

Pieces of EquipmentDistributed

1,000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

FY 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10

procurement process. The following table shows thenumber of professional certifications for ASL interpretersand the increase by 92% over 5 years.

Fiscal Year Number of Professional Certifications

2005......................................................................74

2008....................................................................107

2009....................................................................126

2010....................................................................137

C A P T I O N E DT E L E P H O N E( C A P T E L )

Captioned telephoneswith captioning services aredesigned for people who arehard of hearing. Individualsable to speak for themselvesbut cannot hear the speakerover the telephone line canutilize relay operators using voice recognition technology.Ultratec designed the CapTel phone and ran several trialsbefore distribution became public. The State of Utah wasable to participate in one of those trials in the fall of 2003and has been distributing the CapTel since that time,though the FCC did not mandate the service. A newergeneration CapTel phone allows people who are hard of hearing to not only hear, but it also has captioning on a screen that allows users to read the conversation of the other person speaking on the telephone. Thistechnology makes a conversation more natural andenjoyable for everyone involved, and the CapTel isconsidered to be one of the most functionally equivalentforms of communication to be introduced. The newestgeneration of CapTel phones, the CapTel 800i connectsthrough high-speed Internet access. Other means ofusing the CapTel are now available through WebCapTel,2-line CapTel, and a CapTel with USB device for large-print captions on a computer monitor.

V I D E O R E L A Y S E R V I C E A N D I N T E R N E T P R O T O C O L R E L A Y

Video Relay Service (VRS) is one of the most excitingdevelopments in the field of telecommunication relayservices, and it has experienced tremendous growth in

Utah and nationally. VRS is a method of communicationthat allows a person who uses sign language to connectwith a Video Interpreter (VI) who is certified in AmericanSign Language. The VI is obtained using a computer ortelevision, a web camera, and a high-speed Internetconnection such as DSL, cable modem, or ISDN. The VIworks from a remote location and can see the user on ascreen. The phone conversation is interpreted real timeand allows people who are deaf to clearly express theirmessage in their own language without delay. In 2003,Sorenson Communications, a local Utah company,entered the VRS arena and quickly became the largestcarrier. Sorenson has continued to grow and expand thenumber of VRS call center locations in order to avoiddrawing too many certified interpreters away from otheremployment locations such as schools and communityservice opportunities. Sorenson is known for creating the

only equipment solely forthe use of people who are deaf, the Videophone,rather than retrofittingexisting equipment.Sorenson’s expandingbusiness development was projected by GovernorGary Herbert in his lastState of the State addressas being an excellentexample of Economic

Development in Utah. They continue to develop newtechnologies that will assist other users such as the hard of hearing population in Utah because of new equipmentthat is being placed on the market that will provideexcellent functional equivalency for individuals withhearing difficulty.

People who have hearing or speech disabilities maymake telephone calls on their computer through the useof an internet connection known as Internet ProtocolRelay (IP Relay). This can be used in place of a texttelephone (TTY) and a telephone or using VRS. IP Relaycan be accessed through providers like Hamilton Relay at www.hiprelay.com and Sorenson at www.siprelay.com.Benefits of IP Relay are its availability to anyone who hasaccess to the Internet via a computer, a personal digitalassistant, Web-capable telephone, or some other device.A high-speed connection is not necessary for IP Relayunlike VRS. IP Relay is available when a TTY may not beavailable, and some users say it is easier than a TTYbecause typing on a computer keyboard can be faster.More conversation is visible than on a TTY screen andcan be printed out or saved. IP Relay is available 24hours a day, 7 days a week just as traditional TRS isavailable.


40 2 0 1 0 A n n u a l R e p o r t

F U N D I N G

Funding for Relay Utah, the equipment distributionprogram, and the sign language interpreter trainingprograms derives from a monthly surcharge on Utahresidential and business telephone landlines, with amandated maximum not to exceed $.25 per month per telephone line. This rate is set by the Public ServiceCommission, and the current surcharge is presentlyassessed at $.10 per line per month. During Fiscal Year2010, the total amount received from the local exchangecarriers was approximately $1,146,813. The surchargepays for the Relay Utah services, finances the equipmentdistribution programs, pays for outreach and education,pays for the amounts awarded to the interpreter trainingprogram, as well as covers the related administrativecosts. During FY 2010, the Commission spent$1,667,846.79. TheCommission has relied uponsurplus funds to make up thedifference betweenexpenditures and revenue.The surplus amount hasdecreased as the number oftelephone landlines alsodecreased. There is also alooming mandate wherebythe FCC may delegate fiscalliability to the Utah PSC forthe provision of alternative relay services such as VRSand/or IP Relay for the state. These situations mayrequire action by either the Commission or theLegislature to ensure the stability of the services in thenear future either through the increase of the surchargeor to impose a surcharge on wireless and interconnectedVoice over Internet Protocol services.

Local Exchange Carrier Surcharge Amounts

Fiscal Year Surcharge Amount Collected by PSC

2005 ..........................................................$1,312,480

2006 ..........................................................$1,355,700

2007 ..........................................................$1,367,500

2008 ..........................................................$1,364,600

2009 ..........................................................$1,261,130

2010 ..........................................................$1,146,813

R E L A Y U T A H C O N S U M E R C O U N C I L ( R U C C )

Utah Code 54-8b-10 (7) states, “The Commissionshall solicit the advice, counsel, and physical assistanceof severely hearing or speech impaired persons andorganizations serving them in the design andimplementation of the program.” In order to comply withthis rule, in FY 2010 the Public Service Commission held

quarterly meetings with the Relay Utah ConsumerCouncil (RUCC). This council is comprised ofrepresentatives of different groups or organizations;individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or speechdisabled; and also individuals who use the servicesprovided by the Commission.

The RUCC meetings are currently held inconjunction with Hamilton Relay, Utah’s TRS and CTRSprovider as of January, 2010. Members of RUCC areactive in providing feedback and ideas of how to bestmeet the needs of relay consumers in Utah. Throughthese meetings and continued contact with relayconsumers, the Commission is able to gather informationfor better implementation of TRS and CapTel as well asthe equipment distribution program.

F U T U R E P L A N S

More changes are instore for Relay Utah. Theoffice handling TRS andequipment distribution isrelocating from the HeberM. Wells Building to 168North 1950 West in SaltLake City. This is beneficialto the program because theOutreach Coordinator forHamilton Relay will be able

to work closely in-office with the Relay Utah program staff.Relay Utah is also proud to announce that Utah will behosting conferences for the National Association of StateRelay Administrators (NASRA) and theTelecommunications Equipment Distribution ProgramAssociation (TEDPA) conferences in 2011. The NASRAconference will be held October 19-22, 2011, and theTEDPA conference will be held October 24 – 27, 2011,both will be held at the Salt Lake City Sheraton Hotel.

The Public Service Commission is committed toimproving and maintaining the quality of Relay Utahservices and equipment. The Commission constantlystrives to be proactive by providing the most functionallyequivalent forms of telecommunications available forpeople who are deaf, hard of hearing, and/or speechdisabled. Equipment continues to change, and theCommission adds more technologically appropriatetelecommunications equipment for all disability types.This past year the Commission added the Jitterbug©, a cellular phone designed for people who are hard ofhearing. As new services and equipment evolve, andnew FCC rules are added, these advancements continueto bring Relay Utah closer to what standard telephoneusers experience and enjoy every day. The Commissionlooks forward to the development of new and improvedtechnologies while continuing to provide the bestcustomer service available.


412 0 1 0 A n n u a l R e p o r t

42 2 0 1 0 A n n u a l R e p o r t

W A T E RP U B L I C S E R V I C E C O MM I S S I O N

U T I L I T I E S

W A T E R U T I L I T I E S O V E R V I E W

There is likely no utility service more crucial to Utah’s citizens than that providing clean, safe, culinary water. For the overwhelming majority of Utahns, culinary water isdelivered by municipal systems, quasi-governmental specialimprovement districts, or water districts. Irrigation water isdelivered by irrigation cooperatives in Utah. Some Utahs,however, receive their culinary water through privatelyowned water companies. The legislature has charged the Public Service Commission

with regulating those privately owned water companies. The Commission is charged

with ensuring that customers of privately owned water companies have access to

water at just and reasonable rates. The Commission has no jurisdiction over

municipal systems, quasi-governmental special improvement districts, or water

districts. Neither does it have jurisdiction over irrigation cooperatives.

Most Utah residents who are customers of private water companies, reside

primarily in sparsely populated rural areas. In recent years, relatively few new

culinary water companies have been organized. Most privately owned water

companies formed recently have been formed more with a view

toward serving as a marketing tool for real estate development,

than as an economically viable enterprises in their own right.

W A T E R C O M P A N I E S

This being the case, many of the new water companies have been set up as

non-profit cooperatives with the intent that control and ownership, with all the

responsibilities attendant thereto, will transfer to the lot owners as the lots are sold.

In the meantime, many developers subsidize their water companies to enable them

to offer attractive rates.

The Commission’s policy is to exercise its jurisdiction, which under the law it is

required to do, so long as the developer retains effective voting control of the water

company. Once the lot owners/water users have attained voting control, the

Commission relinquishes jurisdiction again as required by law.

432 0 1 0 A n n u a l R e p o r t

For the overwhelming major-ity of Utahns, culinary wateris delivered by municipal systems, quasi-governmentalspecial improvement districts, or water districts.

In uncontested cases, the Commission adjudicatesthe status of a water company informally, and thosecompanies, which appear to be bona-fide cooperatives,are issued informal letters of exemption without theformal entry of a Commission order. Those companiesfound to be subject to Commission jurisdiction areissued Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessityby formal Commission order. Currently there are 22investor-owned private water utilities and 21 homeowners’associations operating water utilities that are regulatedby the Commission.

C O M M I S S I O N J U R I S D I C T I O N

As with other utilities, the Commission exercisesregulatory jurisdiction over rates and changes in tariffs.Rate cases in the water context are relatively infrequent.Filing and prosecuting a rate case is somewhat costlyand complicated, so companies tend to apply only when the need for an increase is acute. The Commissionalso entertains consumer complaints regarding watercompanies as it does other utilities.

During fiscal year 2010, the Commission issued oneletter of exemption, approved rate increases requestedby five water utilities, approved a transfer of ownershipof a homeowner association’s water system to anotherwater company, began an investigation to determine if a water entity was a public utility, dismissed a complaint,and approved tariff terms and language for three water utilities. The Commission also repealed R-746-331-1,dealing with the conditions for finding of exemption ofmutual water corporations.

Some of the major issues the Commission dealt with this year were determination of whether an entitywas a public utility, water conservation rates, tiered ratestructures, and the implementation of capital reserveaccounts in water companies applying for a rate increase.One of the trends the Commission has been trying to remedy, per the Division of Public Utilities’recommendations, is the lack of capital reserve accountsby water utilities. Without capital reserves, water utilitiesface significant exposure to unsafe drinking water,disrepair, and ultimately inability to provides safe, cleanculinary water to their customers, when faced withsignificant repairs costs or emergencies. The Commissionhas ordered the implementation of capital reserveaccounts in new rate cases, and has issued guidelines for the use and monitoring of those funds.


44 2 0 1 0 A n n u a l R e p o r t

R746-331Repeal of Utah AdministrativeCode R746-331: Determinationof Exemption of Mutual WaterCorporations.

This Rule repeal was effectiveJune 30, 2010.

09-2438-01In the Matter of the Request ofPineview West Water Companyfor Approval of a Rate Increase:

Report and Order issued July 15,2009. The Commission hadoriginally disallowed purportedloans made by the developer tothe Company, to be included inthe rate base, and approved theCompany’s request to increaserates.The Commission thengranted the developer’s motionfor review and reconsideration to review the original orderdisallowing those purported loans.During this time, the developerfiled a civil complaint against theCompany, in the Third JudicialDistrict Court of Utah (Case No.090917357) seeking payment onthose purported loans. TheCommission stayed this matterpending the outcome in theDistrict Court.

09-010-01In the Matter of the Request ofHighland Water Company forApproval of a Rate Increase, RE:Late Payment Service Chargeand Returned Check Fee:

Report and Order issued August5, 2009. The Commission hadapproved a rate increase for theCompany in Docket No. 08-010-01. Shortly after the Commissionapproved that rate increase, theCompany requested permission to add other items to its tariff —items that it had neglected to add in Docket 08-010-01. Theadditional items were a latepayment service charge, areturned-check fee, andsupplementary water fee andsupplementary water rate. Thisdocket approved the addition ofthose items to the tariff.

86-999-08In the Matter of the Applicationof Deepwater DistributionCompany, Inc. for Exemption:

Report and Order issued August11, 2009. After review andreconsideration, and finding it hadno jurisdiction over the Company,the Commission granted theexemption.

09-2199-T01In the Matter of the Request ofWhite Hills Water Co. Inc. forApproval of Rate Increase:

Report and Order issued Septem-ber 24, 2009. The Commissionapproved the tariff amendmentsrelated to backflow prevention,late payments, decrease ofinterest rate and deposit amountchanges, and implementation of an institutional rate.

09-010-T01In the Matter of the Request of Highland Water Company, Inc.Compliance Tariff Filing asAmended by Commission Reportand Order of August 5:

Report and Order issued Septem-ber 28, 2009. The Commission had initially disapproved theCompany’s proposed tariff asbeing non-compliant withprevious Commission orders. The Division of Public Utilitiesassisted the Company inpreparing a tariff that wascompliant. That compliant tariffwas approved by the Commission.

WAT E RD O C K E T S



09-2404-02In the Matter of the Applicationof Cedar Point Water Company,for Approval of a Rate Increase:

Report and Order issuedDecember 16, 2009. TheCommission approved theunopposed application for rateincrease and also approvedadditional fees to be included in the tariff.

09-015-01In the Matter of the FormalComplaint and Request forAgency Action of Bear HollowRestoration, LLC against Leon H. Saunders; Landmark PlazaAssociates; Parley’s Creek, Ltd.;Parley’s Lane, Ltd.; Parley’s Park;Stuart A. Knowles; TrilogyLimited, L.P.; Trilogy AssetManagement, Inc.; Land andWater Resources, Inc.; LawrenceR. Knowles Irrevocable Trust:Leon H. Saunders, Stuart A.Knowles and Trilogy Limited, L.P. d/b/a SK Resources, a UtahGeneral Partnership and/or JointVenture, Summit WaterDistribution Company, a UtahCorporation:

Order on Motion to Dismiss issuedFebruary 4, 2010. Respondentsmade two Motions to Dismissbefore the Commission. One madeby respondents Leon H. Saunders;Landmark Plaza Associates; Parley’sCreek, Ltd.; Parley’s Lane, Ltd.;Parley’s Park; Stuart A. Knowles;Trilogy Limited, L.P.; Trilogy AssetManagement, Inc.; Land and WaterResources, Inc.; Lawrence R.Knowles Irrevocable Trust: Leon H.Saunders, Stuart A. Knowles andTrilogy Limited, L.P. d/b/a SKResources (collectivelyShareholders). A second made byrespondent Summit WaterDistribution Company (Summit).The respondents contended theCommission lacked jurisdictionover the subject matter of thecomplaint and also lackedjurisdiction over the respondents.The petitioner, Bear Hollow, LLCcontended the Commission didnot lack jurisdiction and asked foragency action commencing aninvestigation into the respondents’practices and ultimately assertingjurisdiction over respondents.

The Commission found that,based on the allegations in the complaint, it did not havejurisdiction over the respondentsand granted the Motions.Petitioner moved for rehearingand reconsideration and theCommission denied reconsideringits decision.

09-2440-01In the Matter of the Request fora Rate Increase of Hidden CreekWater Company:

Report and Order issued February9, 2010. The Company’s initialrequest for rate increase was found to be just and reasonableand was approved. Followingcomplaints from ratepayersalleging they had receivedinadequate notice of the hearingon the rate increase and of therate increase generally, theCommission stayed the orderpermitting the rate increase. Aftera technical conference, publicwitness comments, and a hearing,the Commission accepted anamended recommendation fromthe Division of Public Utilitiesregarding the rate increase andamended its previous order toreflect the amended, lower rates— including the implementationof a capital reserve account, overratepayer objections.

09-019-01In the Matter of the FormalComplaint of Nicole McMillian et al vs. Wilkinson CottonwoodMutual Water Company:

Order issued February 22, 2010.The Company moved to dismissthe complaint contending theCommission lacked jurisdictionover the Company. Given certainallegations in the complaint, theCommission found that it mighthave jurisdiction over theCompany. The Commissiondeclined to rule on the Motionpending a limited investigation by the Division of Public Utilities.The Division’s investigation willdetermine if the Company servesthose who are not shareholders.The investigation is ongoing.

09-2443-01In the Matter of the Request of WaterPro, Inc., for Approval of a Rate Increase:

Order of Dismissal issuedFebruary 22, 2010. On February 4,2010, WaterPro, Inc. notified theCommission, via letter, that it waswithdrawing its application for rateincrease. It stated it would re-fileat a later time. The Commissiontherefore dismissed theapplication without prejudice.

10-2440-T01In the Matter of the Tariff Filingof Hidden Creek Water Company:

Order issued May 3, 2010. Thisdocket was stayed until a finalorder is issued in Docket No. 09-2440-01 or as otherwise orderedby the Commission. The Order inDocket 09-2440-01 was issued andthe Company permitted to submitits new tariff.

09-2179-01In the Matter of the Request ofPine Valley Irrigation Companyfor Approval of a SpecialAssessment and Rate Increase:

Report and Order issued May 11,2010. The Company applied forapproval of a special assessmentand rate increase, as well as anexpansion of service area. TheCommission held a hearing inSaint George, Utah, where theCommission took public witnesstestimony over a period of twodays. Several witnesses opposedthe increase. Having found thatthe increase was necessary for the continued operation of theCompany, the Commission foundthe increase to be just andreasonable. The Commissionapproved the rate increase, theaddition of fees to the tariff, theimplementation of a capitalreserve account, the expansion ofservice area, and change in meterreading schedule. TheCommission did not order orapprove a special assessment.

09-075-01In the Matter of the Request ofSherwood Water Company forApproval of a Rate Increase:

Report and Order issued May 11,2010. The Commission held ahearing on the proposed increase,where public witness testimonywas taken. The Commissionapproved the proposed rateincrease and additional feeimplementation, finding they were just and reasonable. It alsoordered the implementation of a capital reserve account.

10-2194-01In the Matter of the Notice toTransfer the Water System ofDurfee Creek HomeownersAssociation and All AssetsAssociated with the WaterSystems to Liberty Pipeline:

Order issued May 26, 2010. TheCompany transferred all its assetsto Liberty Pipeline. Therefore it no longer required a certificate ofpublic convenience and necessity.The Commission canceledcertificate number 2728.


452 0 1 0 A n n u a l R e p o r t

Water Dockets (Continued)



Apple Valley WaterCompany2894 S. Cartland Dr.Box 225-9Apple Valley, UT 84737Tel: (435) 877-1023Fax: (435) 877-1072

Boulder King Ranch Estates WaterPO Box 1519Boulder, UT 84716Tel: (435) 335-7441Fax: (435) 645-3354

Bridge Hollow WaterAssociation600 Bridge Hollow Dr.Wanship, UT 84017

Bridgerland Water Company, Inc.PO Box 314Logan, UT 84323-0314Tel: (435) 755-3006Fax: (435) 755-3009

Canaan Springs WaterCompanyPO Box 840-488Hildale, UT 84784Tel: (435) 877-1409

Cedar Point Water Company20 S. 850 W. #1Hurricane, UT 84737-4867Tel: (435) 635-3394Fax: (435) 635-0264

Color Country OwnersAssociation2283 W. 2350 N.PO Box 912Cedar City, UT 84721-0912Tel: (435) 865-0677Fax: (435) 865-1090

Community Water c/o Norwest Corporation1840 Sunpeak Dr.Park City, UT 84098Tel: (435) 615-4840Fax: (435) 615-4855

Coyotes ’N Cowboys’Linecamp Subdivision, LLC1770 So. SR 22Antimony, UT 84712Tel: (435) 624-3216 (435) 624-3215Fax: (435) 624-3211

Dammeron Valley Water Company1 Dammeron Valley Dr. EastDammeron Valley, UT 84783Tel: (435) 574-2295Fax: (435) 627-1478www.dammeronvalley.com

Durfee Creek Homeowners Association1941 E. 6925 N.Liberty, UT 84310Tel: (801) 476-2373 (801) 775-2488Fax: (801) 974-5653

Eagles Landing Water Company, LLCP.O. Box 970729Orem, UT 84097-0729Tel: (801) 705-9910Fax: (801) 794-9669

Elk Ridge Estates Water CompanyPO Box 100013Alton, UT 84710Tel: (435) 648-2029Fax: (435) 648-2641

Falcon Crest Water Companyc/o Lonepeak Realty & Mgt.4115 S. 430 E. #201Salt Lake City, UT 84107Tel: (801) 268-1087Fax: (801) 262-7937

Harmony Heights WaterCompany722 E. 200 S., PO Box 487New Harmony, UT 84757Tel: (435) 586-9208Fax: (435) 586-9208

Harmony Mountain Ranch Water Company2116 N. Canyon Greens Dr.Washington, UT 84780-1963Tel: (435) 531-1717Fax: (435) 627-9383

Hidden Creek Water Company5225 S. Alvera CircleSalt Lake City, UT 84117-7105Tel: (801) 272-3525Fax: (801) 277-6691

Highlands’ Water Company Inc.5880 Highland DriveMorgan, UT 84050Tel: (801) 876-2510Cell: (801) 391-1105

Horseshoe Mountain Ranch Estates10160 Roseboro RoadSandy, UT 84092Tel: (801) 572-4728Fax: (801) 572-7456

Kwu Inc. d/b/a Kayenta Water Users800 N. Kayenta Pkwy.Ivins, UT 84738Tel: (435) 628-7234Fax: (435) 628-7707

Lake Front Estates WaterUsers AssociationPO Box 567Panguitch, UT 84757Tel: (435) 676-2349

Lakeview Water Corporation932 Ski Lake Dr.Huntsville, UT 84317Tel: (801) 745-3004Fax: (801) 745-3131

Legacy Sweetwater Inc.PO Box 277Mt. Pleasant, UT 84647Tel: (801) 491-9414Fax: (435) 491-8704

Long Valley Estates Water Co.610 San Miguel Canyon RoadRoyal Oaks, CA 95076-9024Tel: (831) 224-5059

Mountain Sewer Corporation932 S. 6525 E.Huntsville, UT 84317Tel: (801) 745-3004Fax: (801) 745-3131

Mountain Valley RanchesWater Service2274 W. 5875 N.Cedar City, UT 84720-5917Tel: (435) 586-2436

New Paria Water Company71 S. 7th Ave.Page, AZ 86040-0340Tel: (928) 645-9478Fax: (928) 645-5745

North Creek Ranch HOA2425 N. 530 E.PO Box 2030Beaver, UT 84713-2030Tel: (435) 438-6308Fax: (435) 738-2455

North Fork Water CompanyZion Mt. Resort 9065 W. Hwy 9Mt. Carmel, UT 84755Tel: (435) 632-6310 (866) 648-2555Fax: (435) 648-3302

Pine Valley Irrigation Co.132 E. 100 S.Pine Valley, UT 84781-2112Tel: (435) 574-2715

Pineview West Water Co.6084 S. 900 E. #202Salt Lake City, UT 84121Tel: (801) 521-7330

Sherwood Water Co.3140 N. 2000 W.PO Box 565Delta, UT 84624-0565Tel: (435) 864-2896Fax: (435) 864-4947

South Duchesne CulinaryWater Inc.289 W. Main St.PO Box 294Duchesne, UT 84021-0294Tel: (435) 738-6000Fax: (435) 738-6003

Storm Haven WaterCompany4782 S. Cove LaneHeber City, UT 84032-9641Tel: (435) 654-3119

Wanship Cottage Site Water Co.340 S. Main St.PO Box 176Coalville, UT 84017-0176Tel: (435) 336-5584Fax: (435) 336-2380

WaterPro Inc.12421 S. 800 E., PO Box 156Draper, UT 84020Tel: (801) 571-2232Fax: (801) 571-8054www.waterpro.net

West Slope Water Company94 E. 2530 N., PO Box 1081Cedar City, UT 84721-1081Tel: (435) 586-7688Fax: (435) 867-1001

White Hills Water CompanyPO Box 9440Salt Lake City UT 84109-0440Tel: (801) 485-5274

Wolf Creek Water Co.3718 N. Wolf Creek Dr.PO Box 658Eden, UT 84310-0658

Wolf Creek WaterConservancy Inc.3718 N. Wolf Creek Dr.PO Box 658Eden, UT 84310-0658Tel: (801) 745-3435Fax: (801) 745-3454


46 2 0 1 0 A n n u a l R e p o r t

WAT E R U T I L I T Y C O M PA N I E SOperating in the State of Utah under the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission

472 0 1 0 A n n u a l R e p o r t

48 2 0 1 0 A n n u a l R e p o r t

RESOLUTIONSP U B L I C S E R V I C E C O MM I S S I O N

C O M P L A I N T R E S O L U T I O N O V E R V I E W

M O N O P O L I E S

If a privately owned company is a monopoly, it is in positionto exploit its customers. Since that company will be thesole source of a good or service, its dissatisfied customershave nowhere else to turn to acquire the monopolizedservice or product at better price or quality. The customertakes what the monopoly offers or does without.

This picture changes in the case of services provided by regulated public utility

companies, as it should, because public utility services are necessities of modern life.

Households and businesses cannot do without these services. The Commission is the

intermediary between public utility monopolies and customers.

492 0 1 0 A n n u a l R e p o r t

The commission is the

intermediary between

household and business

customers and public

utility monopolies.

T H E R O L E O F T H E D I V I S I O N

A dissatisfied customer who cannotresolve service problems through contactwith the utility comes to state regulators for help. A walk-in, visit, a local call, or atoll-free 800 number connects the customerwith the staff of the Division of PublicUtilities. Division staff constructs a factualstatement, through discussions with boththe complainant and the utility, of theproblem. Often, this is enough to resolvethe difficulty.

In other instances, after Division contact,the utility itself takes action to correct theproblem. At times, a customer facingservice difficulty may ask the Committee of Consumer Services for help. Thoughfollowing the same sort of process theDivision does, if the Committee learns thatother customers face similar problems, itmay petition the Commission for action in

a manner having wider applicability. An example might be changes in latepayment arrangements to assist low-income customers or others havingdifficulty paying their bills.

T H E R O L E O F T H E C O M M I S S I O N

Oftentimes customers contact theCommission to converse directly with aCommissioner, the administrative secretaryor a member of the technical staff. This has the dual benefit, whether or not thecomplaint is resolved this way, of giving the customer direct contact with either anexpert or a decision-maker, while it keepsthe Commission aware of circumstances of utility service current in the community.But in cases where informal processes donot satisfy the customer, he or she is free to pursue formal action at the Commission.

F O R M A LC O M P L A I N T S

In cases involving factual disputes over which the Commission hasjurisdiction, the Commissionresolves a formal complaintby hearing before anadministrative law judge,who establishes the facts on the record and renders a recommended decision.

Docketed complaintcases resolved by theCommission through formalprocesses during the fiscalyear are listed below. By farmost customer complaintsare resolved, however, inthe informal waysmentioned.

The following table shows thenumber of informal complaintsprocessed by the Division ofPublic Utilities in FY 2010. Of these, became formalcomplaints before theCommission during FY 2010requiring a hearing by anAdministrative Law Judge.

Utility Complaint FY 2010

Electric ............................209

Natural Gas .....................193

Telecom – ILEC* ..............204

Telecom – CLEC* ...............63

Telecom – Long Distance...43

Water and Sewer...............17

Total ................................729

*ILEC – Incumbent LocalExchange Carrier

**CLEC – Competitive LocalExchange Carrier

PSC

160 East 300 South • Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

www.psc.utah.gov • (801) 530-6716 • Toll Free (800) 874-0904

Public Service Commission of Utah

Documents

Public Service Commission of Utah