Utah regulators hear debate over Rocky Mountain Power’s Community Clean Energy Program valuation, REC treatment and customer notices

The Utah Public Service Commission on Dec. 18 heard testimony and cross‑examination over Rocky Mountain Power’s Community Clean Energy Program (docket 25‑035‑06), a voluntary opt‑out program created under the Community Clean Energy Act of 2019. Witnesses for intervenors, the Division of Public Utilities and the Office of Consumer Services set out competing recommendations over how to value program resources, handle renewable energy credits, size reserve funds, and notify customers before enrollment.

Carl G. Boothman of Western Resource Advocates urged the commission to adopt a system‑level present value revenue requirement differential (PVRRD) approach rather than a bifurcated East/West avoided‑cost method. Boothman said PVRRD is less sensitive to proxy‑resource timing and would reduce the steep avoided‑cost volatility now observed in Rocky Mountain Power’s IRP filings. He also warned against charging program participants for a hypothetical monetized REC value, arguing, "no value is given, thus no value should be charged."

Mark Fulmer, testifying for Sierra Club, recommended the commission continue to use Schedule 38 to estimate energy benefits while requiring Rocky Mountain Power to produce a PVRRD calculation as a check. Fulmer told the commission that program models should include economic curtailment and that transmission expansion costs that benefit nonparticipating customers should not be charged to program participants.

The Division of Public Utilities said the program concept is reasonable in principle but cautioned that approval should be conditional. Division witness Robert A. Davis recommended convening a stakeholder work group and adopting annual reporting templates so the commission can monitor whether program rates and calculations avoid shifting costs or benefits to nonparticipating customers. The Division’s consultant, Timothy Linnell of Daymark, proposed annual updates of Schedule 38 energy values with a separately handled capacity valuation tied to the company’s planning process; he also recommended an annual reconciliation to keep reserve targets on track.

The Office of Consumer Services (OCS) urged stringent transparency and consumer protections. Anthony Sandonato (OCS) recommended delaying customer notices and charging until a specific PPA has been executed and approved, or alternatively using a robust, plainly explained projected‑rate notice with an explicit true‑up and re‑notice mechanism if pricing materially changes. OCS also recommended that participants pay on a per‑kilowatt‑hour basis rather than a fixed monthly fee, that program bills show separate line items for administrative and resource reserve funds, and that RECs be retained by RMP and retired on behalf of participants or otherwise compensated when system value is lost.

Several commissioners pressed witnesses about practical tradeoffs. Commissioner Harvey focused on two recurrent concerns: the accuracy of avoided‑cost/REC valuations and the timing risk to developers’ eligibility for federal production tax credits (PTCs). Witnesses acknowledged the PTC rules impose milestone timing (witnesses referenced a begin‑construction deadline and a four‑year commercial operation window) and that delays in PPA approval and customer notice could compress developers’ available time to qualify.

No final decision was taken at the hearing. The testimonies and exhibits from intervenors and staff were admitted into the record without objection. Commissioners and parties discussed conditional approaches the commission could adopt — for example, approving the program concept while requiring additional rulemaking or stakeholder work groups, annual reconciliations, and more detailed filings at the time each PPA is proposed for approval. Transcripts of the hearing will be available in the record by Jan. 5, 2026.

The commission is expected to weigh these competing valuation and consumer‑protection proposals in subsequent filings and in any future approval orders for the program.