Lawmakers tried and narrowly failed last month to let independent energy suppliers compete with public utilities to power large projects, like data centers, when four House members killed the effort.
But starting next week, proponents get a second chance to launch that concept into a bill ahead of the winter lawmaking session.
That’s how Sen. Chris Rothfuss, D-Laramie, planned it, he told Cowboy State Daily on Monday.
First, The Pitch
The bill draft that came before the Aug. 27 meeting of the Joint Minerals Business And Economic Development Committee sought to let independent electricity producers serving one customer with a demand of more than 25 megawatts - or a group of up to four customers using more than 100 megawatts – sell their power.
Companies can generate power for themselves right now. But they can’t buy it from third-party, non-utility parties, Rothfuss told Cowboy State Daily.
This bill would have defined those independent suppliers as utilities, grafting them into Wyoming’s power supply laws.
That would throw a capitalistic market into the power utility space, which typically comprises a collection of monopolies that are regulated, rather than checked by competition.
The House of Representatives side of the committee killed the bill with a 4-4 tie.
Republican Reps. Kevin Campbell (Glenrock), Christopher Knapp (Gillette), Nina Webber (Cody) and Scott Heiner (Green River) voted against it.
Republican Reps. JT Larson (Rock Springs), JR Riggins (Casper), Mike Schmid (La Barge) and Martha Lawley (Worland) voted for it.
Every committee member from the Senate side voted in favor of adopting the bill.
Rocky Mountain Power Said Please Don’t
The energy sector, economic development proponents and local government officials told the committee that day that the power companies, in particular Rocky Mountain Power, aren’t keeping up with the demands of big industries.
Proponents of the law change pointed to onboarding data centers, the trona industry, and the power outages that roiled Carbon County this year.
Rocky Mountain Power vice president of government affairs Thom Carter countered, saying some of the regulatory burdens on the company prevent it from meeting big power demands.
“We don’t control the global supply chain,” said Carter.
He said Rocky Mountain Power wants customers to work on solutions with it, rather than take any delay as a no.
“I’m also saying I’m going to work with you to move that timeline down as quickly as I possibly can. So it’s not a ‘no,’” he said.
Carter said the company wants to work with companies.
“The timelines are killer and they are harmful for Wyoming, but we want to work together to lessen those timelines,” he said.
Laws preventing power utilities from building infrastructure in advance are hurting their ability to meet large customers’ needs as well, said Carter.
Rocky Mountain Power proposed a policy change with more “guardrails” than the large-load competitor bill.
On the other side, the trona industry, economic development groups, and the wind-farm-building company Anschutz Corp. urged lawmakers to pass the competition bill.
“The time is now,” said Kara Choquette, Anschutz vice president of communications and government relations for the company’s power generation and transmission affiliates. “Especially if you want to see more billion-dollar-scale investment in the energy sector. More tax revenues. More diverse economic development, and certainly more communities able to host these large electrical loads.”
Four hours of boisterous testimony later, it didn’t matter anyway, because the bill was struck down.
The Democrat Wants More Capitalism
That bill was underwhelming anyway, Rothfuss told Cowboy State Daily in a Monday phone interview.
The Blockchain, Financial Technology and Digital Innovation Technology Committee that he co-chairs is scheduled to field a version with more “meat” on it at its Sept. 28 meeting, he said.
If it became law, that bill would give the existing utility power supplier the right of first refusal. If the power company doesn’t agree to provide power to the large project within one year of its request, then independent power suppliers can move into that seller space.
The independent suppliers, under the bill’s language, could sell their power:
- pursuant to dealer contracts with their customers;
- if they don’t use the power company’s grid or facilities;
- if the power won’t be re-sold to the public;
- if they sell it to a group of customers using, collectively, more than 10 megawatts of power;
- if they don’t offload any costs onto people who aren’t their contracted customers;
- and if they don’t influence the grid-based power costs.
Rothfuss had a sense it would be a good idea to let the Blockchain Committee have a second bite at this one either way, he said.
“This was intentionally planned. I wanted to make sure we were starting our discussion of it after the Minerals Committee concluded their discussion,” he said.
Rothfuss is also a member of the Minerals Committee.
If the Minerals Committee passed a good bill, “that was going to be satisfactory.”
The Minerals Committee didn’t adopt any bill last month on introducing competition into the grid.
Knowing that was a possibility, Rothfuss noted, “I have two Blockchain Select Committee meetings after Minerals … I would expect it to pass.”
That’s unclear, but Sen. Tara Nethercott, R-Cheyenne, who already voted aye on the bill in the Minerals Committee, sits on Rothfuss’ Blockchain Committee, and it contains none of the House delegates who already voted no.
Even if the Minerals Committee adopts the competition bill, it could not become law until around March, after the legislative session that opens in January.
Grill
Sen. Stacy Jones, R-Rock Springs, who had voted in favor of the August version of the bill, grilled Carter during the meeting.
“Are you aware that Sweetwater County and parts of Carbon County really are not open for business right now?” she asked. “We have industry that would like to come in … how soon could you serve 50 megawatts of load to Sinclair, Rawlins and Sweetwater County?”
Carter said he’s acutely and uniquely aware of issues in that part of the state.
“And we are endeavoring to have productive conversations within that part of the state,” he said, again pointing to the “guardrail” policy change that the company supports.
The current system bars utility power companies from speculating and building out in advance of projects, he said.
“We have a component within our code, within our regulatory framework that talks about (infrastructure) being used and useful,” he said. “We have to be able to recover … everything we build.”
He said the company is studying its ability to grow the load in that part of the state. He said he didn’t have a timeline handy.
Campbell steered the conversation repeatedly back to non-power issues, like water consumption.
“If there’s limited resources and you guys give the first right of refusal, but then your customers need something, but there’s not enough natural resources to accommodate,” asked Campbell, “how does that go?”
Carter noted that sometimes in these debates, “electricity is being used as a shorthand for all infrastructure.”
People are trying to articulate that they need water, roads, fiber, airports, or workforce.
“But it starts with electricity. And I will recognize that,” he said in answer to Campbell’s question. Carter said the company would find “comprehensive” ways to work with communities.
‘Picking Winners And Losers’
Tyler Lindholm, Wyoming-based director of Americans for Prosperity and a force in Wyoming elections, voiced consternation in a Monday interview. He theorized that the bill would have protected the normal rate-payers from power price hikes from large-load customers coming onto the grid.
And he pointed to West Virginia’s growth since adopting similar legislation.
“For the legislators that voted no, a lot of those folks purport to support capitalism and the government not picking winners and losers,” said Lindholm, “and here’s their vote actually proving exactly why voters rejected them and didn’t believe them when they said they were in favor of those ideals, because their vote speaks very differently.”
The voters didn’t reject everyone who voted nay. Campbell and Knapp survived their primary elections, while Webber and Heiner did not. Lindholm’s comment referred to a broader rejection of the Wyoming Freedom Caucus and its allies.
Campbell and Knapp did not respond by publication to late-day voicemail requests for comment.
Clair McFarland can be reached at clair@cowboystatedaily.com.
