At a Utah Public Service Commission hearing, Rocky Mountain Power, represented by counsel Catherine Smith, presented Pacificorp witness Ivaris Meldraj to request commission approval of sixth amendments to power purchase agreements with Kennecott Utah Copper LLC for the company’s refinery and smelter.

Meldraj said the refinery agreement provides for sale of up to 7.54 megawatts from a waste-heat-fired cogeneration facility near Magna, Utah, and that the proposed amendment (docket 25-035-56) would extend the agreement’s term for 12 months, from Jan. 1, 2026, through Dec. 31, 2026. Concerning the smelter, Meldraj said the original agreement provides for sale of up to 31.8 megawatts from Kennecott’s waste-heat-fired cogeneration facility and that the company seeks the same 12-month extension in docket 25-035-57. "With the current term set to expire 12/31/2025, I respectfully request the commission issue its order in these proceedings by 12/31/2025, if possible, so that no time lapses between agreements," Meldraj said.

Meldraj told the commission that the purchase prices in both amendments are calculated using the methodology previously approved by the commission in docket number 03-035-14 and reaffirmed in docket number 12-035-100. He said the company believes both amendments comply with relevant commission orders and are in the public interest.

Annette Orton, a utility analyst for the Utah Division of Public Utilities, testified that the Division reviewed Rocky Mountain Power’s applications and supporting work papers and filed action request responses on Nov. 4, 2025. "The Division recommends the commission approve the amendments to the nonfirm power purchase agreements between Rocky Mountain Power and Kennecott Utah Copper LLC," Orton said. She added that the Division found the amendments similar to prior years’ contracts, consistent with commission guidelines, and that the method for calculating the avoided energy cost has been previously found to be just and reasonable.

The hearing record shows the company moved to admit its application and work papers (work papers 3 and 4 marked confidential) in both dockets and the hearing officer admitted those materials into evidence. The Division similarly moved to admit its action request responses filed Nov. 4, 2025; the hearing officer admitted those filings as well. Neither the company nor the Division faced cross-examination at the hearing.

No formal commission vote or final order was recorded during the session. The parties concluded testimony and the presiding officer closed the hearing. The company had requested that an order, if issued, be dated by Dec. 31, 2025, to avoid a lapse between contract terms.

What happens next is procedural: the commission will consider the record, including the company’s filings and the Division’s recommendation, before issuing any order on dockets 25-035-56 and 25-035-57.