Sheridan County Residents Voice Alarm Over Proposed 24% Electric Rate Hike by MDU

SHERIDAN, WY - In a packed public comment hearing at the Sheridan County Library on January 14, 2026, Sheridan County residents voiced strong concerns about Montana-Dakota Utilities (MDU) and its request for a $7.5 million electric rate increase, a proposal that would raise rates by 24.36% for Wyoming electric customers in MDU’s service territory.

The hearing was hosted by the Wyoming Public Service Commission (PSC), with Chairman Mike Robinson, Deputy Chairman Chris Petrie, and Commissioner Christopher Boswell participating in the proceeding.

For many in attendance, the concern wasn’t just the percentage, it was the timing and the impact. Commenters repeatedly described an already-tight local economy, rising household costs, and a large senior population on fixed incomes. Their message was consistent: a sudden jump of this size could push vulnerable households past the breaking point.

MDU’s Manager of Regulatory Affairs, Tara Vesey

The case: first general electric rate filing since 2016

The docket for the case is 20004-174-ER-25 (record materials referenced during the hearing include Record No. 17880). MDU says this is its first general electric rate case filing in Wyoming since 2016, with base rates last set in 2017 (excluding fuel and purchased power pass-through adjustments).

MDU also publicly notes that it filed the Wyoming electric increase request June 30 and that the filing would raise the bill for an average residential customer by roughly $27.80 per month if approved as filed.

MDU’s explanation: nine years of accumulated costs

MDU’s Manager of Regulatory Affairs, Tara Vesey, told attendees the company’s request reflects costs and investments accumulated since the last general rate case:

• $46 million in capital investments in the Wyoming electric service territory since 2016

• Roughly $3 million in higher operations and maintenance (O&M) costs over the same period

Vey highlighted major spending categories including upgrades and maintenance tied to the Wyodak Unit 3 (Y-Gen 3) coal-fired plant near Gillette, new substations, transmission and distribution work, transformer replacements, and pole replacements. She stressed that MDU has not had a general rate case to recover these investments until now.

She also cited increases in labor, software and cybersecurity needs, contract labor (including vegetation management and tree trimming), and higher insurance costs related to wildfire risk and coverage limits.

Consumer Advocate pushes for a lower increase

Notably, the Wyoming Office of Consumer Advocate (OCA) challenged the size of the proposed increase.

Deputy Administrator Justin Ballard said the OCA recommends a reduced $4.9 million increase, which he described as a major reduction from MDU’s filed request. Ballard also said the OCA opposes including costs for the Big Horn-to-Sheridan line in this case and rejects a proposed tariff rider that could add about 2.6% annually on top of the base increase.

“Our office is statutorily authorized to represent all ratepayers,” Ballard said, encouraging residents to review OCA testimony posted within the PSC docket.

Residents: “This is a one-time shock we can’t absorb”

Public comments dominated the evening and painted a clear picture of anxiety across the community:

Fixed-income seniors and vulnerable households

Retired nurse Roseanne Gentry of Big Horn described the “stacking” pressures on seniors: rising property taxes, insurance, and heating costs, now compounded by a large proposed electric increase. She called the hike a “huge one-time increase” that would be especially hard on elderly households already budgeting carefully.

Home care aide Candy Wheeler said she works with elderly and disabled residents,  including veterans and warned that many are already struggling to afford rent, heat, and essentials. She described power-outage risks for residents relying on medical equipment and questioned how an increase of this size would affect those least able to pay.

The Consumer Advocate recommends a smaller increase

Wyoming’s Office of Consumer Advocate (OCA), represented at the hearing by deputy administrator Justin Ballard, told the public it has recommended a significantly smaller increase than what MDU filed.

According to Ballard’s remarks at the hearing:

• MDU filed for about $7.5 million.

• OCA recommended about $4.9 million described as a sizable reduction from the company’s request.

• OCA also recommended excluding the Bighorn-to-Sheridan line from rates in this case.

• OCA opposed an additional proposed tariff rider that Ballard said would have added roughly 2.6% per year on top of the rate increase (as described during the hearing).

Ballard encouraged residents to review OCA’s testimony through the PSC docket materials and said his office is available to help ratepayers understand what is being requested and why.

Agriculture: fear of a ripple effect

Bill Bensel, speaking from an agricultural perspective, warned that irrigation-rate increases could be especially painful heading into spring and summer. He said a sharp increase could reduce irrigation, lower yields, and drive cost impacts throughout the local economy.

Outages and reliability: “We’re paying more, but going dark”

Several residents pointed to recent outages, including a five-and-a-half-hour blackout described during testimony, as evidence that reliability concerns remain. Others questioned whether rate increases tied to vegetation management and infrastructure upgrades will meaningfully improve performance, especially for customers in Story and rural areas.

A recurring frustration: lack of notice and communication

A repeated theme from residents: many learned of the hearing through Facebook or word-of-mouth, not directly from MDU.

Jim Powers said he only found out shortly before the meeting and argued that customers should be proactively informed and given plain-language explanations, not expected to navigate large technical filings.

Data center rumors addressed

Some residents raised concerns that growth or potential data-center load might be driving costs. In response, Vey said data centers are not being used as a basis for this case and described interruptible-rate structures that would make large loads subject to curtailment before residential customers.

What would this mean for a typical household?

During the hearing, Vesey stated that an average residential customer using about 800 kWh per month could see a bill impact of roughly $28 more per month under the filing.

MDU also emphasized that the fuel and purchased power portion of bills is adjusted through a pass-through mechanism and is not described by the company as a profit center. Those adjustments can change annually which some residents said contributed to the feeling that bills have already risen substantially in recent years.

What happens next

Hearing Officer Ivan Williams told attendees that public comments become part of the official record and encouraged residents to review the docket materials and stay engaged. Williams also provided a public contact number for follow-up questions: 307-777-5746.

A settlement in principle between MDU and the OCA was mentioned during the meeting, but attendees were told it was not yet filed or approved at the time of the hearing.

An evidentiary hearing is scheduled for February 17, 2026, in Cheyenne, where the PSC will hear testimony and make a decision based on prudence, necessity, and whether rates are “just and reasonable.”

Residents can find filings by searching the PSC docket using Docket No. 20004-174-ER-25 and Record No. 17880.

Bottom line

This case is shaping up to be one of the most closely watched utility proceedings in northern Wyoming in years. For MDU, it’s a question of recovering investments and covering rising costs after nearly a decade without a general rate reset. For many residents, it’s about basic affordability and whether a sudden increase of this magnitude is fair in a county with rapid growth, rising living costs, and a large population living on fixed incomes.

As one speaker put it plainly: people aren’t just asking whether the system needs investment. They’re asking who pays, how fast, and what happens to the neighbors who can’t keep up.