Kearns Rejects Clean Energy Program After Residents Push Back on Monthly Fee

Kearns officials have decided not to join Utah’s Community Clean Energy Program after a tense public debate over cost, trust, and how much say residents should have before being charged more on their power bills.

The Kearns City Council voted “no” again during a special session on Friday, ending the city’s push to reconsider the program before a June 2 deadline. The decision came after residents raised strong concerns about the program’s structure, especially its automatic enrollment model and added cost for Rocky Mountain Power customers.

The program, created through Utah legislation passed in 2019, is designed to help participating communities support the development of new renewable energy resources. It works through local governments and Rocky Mountain Power, with customers in participating communities automatically enrolled unless they choose to opt out.

For many Kearns residents, that was the problem.

The estimated charge was about $4 per month, or roughly $50 per year. Some people saw that as a modest cost to support renewable energy. Others saw it as another bill hitting a lower-income, fixed-income community at the wrong time.

That split turned a clean energy proposal into a broader fight over affordability and local trust.

The Program Was About Clean Power. The Debate Became About Cost.

On paper, the Community Clean Energy Program has a clear goal: help cities and counties move toward cleaner electricity by supporting new renewable energy resources.

But in Kearns, the policy details got buried under a basic household question.

Can residents afford another charge?

Kearns resident Miranda Giles said many people in the community support renewable energy, but the program’s opt-out structure made the cost harder to accept. She described Kearns as a lower-income, fixed-income community and said that $50 a year matters to people in the current economy.

That is the center of the issue.

Clean energy can have strong public support. But when the funding method shows up as a new line item on a utility bill, the politics change fast.

Residents were not only arguing about solar or wind. They were asking why customers should pay more when they already pay Rocky Mountain Power for electricity. Giles argued that it was frustrating to see residents fighting over a small but meaningful annual cost while utility shareholders benefit from large profits.

That argument landed with many people in the room.

After the council voted no again, the decision received applause from those attending the meeting.

Automatic Enrollment Became the Flashpoint

The most controversial part of the program was not simply the $4 monthly charge. It was the fact that customers would be automatically enrolled if Kearns opted in.

Residents would have the ability to opt out. But many objected to the burden being placed on them to take action.

Council Member Patrick Schaeffer told KJZZ that many residents who contacted him were frustrated by the idea of being placed into something without choosing to opt in on their own.

That is a big distinction.

An opt-in program asks residents to volunteer.
An opt-out program enrolls them first and asks them to leave if they object.

For public policy, that structure matters. Automatic enrollment can help programs reach scale. But it can also feel like a quiet fee increase, especially if residents do not feel fully informed.

Resident Jenny Williams, who attended the May 11 meeting, said the issue was not whether people support renewable energy. She said many residents support responsible energy development. The concern was whether local customers should be automatically enrolled in a program that may increase utility costs and require them to opt out within a specific timeframe.

That is the kind of concern that can sink a program even when the underlying goal is popular.

A Survey Added More Conflict

The council had already voted to opt out of the program on May 11. But after that decision, the city created a survey to get more resident feedback.

That move created confusion.

Some residents wondered why the city was still discussing the program after the council had already voted it down. KJZZ reported that the survey caused unintended conflict in Kearns because some people saw it as reopening an issue the public had already settled.

Mayor Jesse Valdez said he did not leave the May 11 meeting with a clear conscience. He felt the city had failed to properly inform residents about the program and said the survey was meant to give more people a chance to be heard.

Valdez said he was not for or against the program and would support whatever decision the council made. His point was process: if the city had not informed residents well enough, he wanted more input before the deadline.

Some residents agreed.

One resident, identified as Will, told KJZZ he had not heard about the program before and said the survey did not limit or exclude anyone. He said $4 can be a lot for people, but he supported asking more residents for their views.

Others saw it differently.

Resident Cassandra Call Hodges wrote online that the council already held a public meeting, residents showed up, community members spoke clearly, and the council listened by voting the program down. In her view, that was how representative government was supposed to work.

The survey became its own issue. It was no longer only about clean energy. It became a question of whether officials were listening or trying to revisit a decision they did not like.

Rocky Mountain Power Says It Is Following State Law

FOX 13 asked Rocky Mountain Power why customers would face an added charge when they already pay their utility bills. The company said the Community Clean Energy Program was created by state legislation and is not a Rocky Mountain Power program.

The utility said individual cities and counties must decide whether to participate by adopting a local ordinance. If they do, customers in that community are automatically enrolled, but each customer keeps the ability to opt out.

Rocky Mountain Power also said customers who opt out remain on their existing rate schedule and that the law does not allow costs or benefits to shift to customers who do not participate. It said participating customer funds would be used to develop new clean energy resources, cover program administration, and handle related costs as the program matures.

The company said its role is to work with participating communities and regulators while continuing to provide safe and reliable electricity to all customers.

That explanation did not settle the debate in Kearns.

For opponents, the issue was still simple: residents should not be automatically charged for a program many felt they did not choose.

Supporters Say the Program Could Have Given Kearns More Leverage

Not everyone opposed the program.

Some residents and officials argued that joining could have helped Kearns push for cleaner energy and greater accountability from Rocky Mountain Power.

Valdez said in a city YouTube video that he viewed the program as a tool for accountability and a way for the community to use its collective size to demand local renewable infrastructure. He also said opting out entirely could remove an affordable option that average Kearns households do not otherwise have.

Supporters also pointed out that low-income assistance and opt-out steps were part of the discussion. Resident Starla Baca told KJZZ there were low-income solutions for people who could not afford the $4 increase, as well as easy opt-out steps if Kearns joined the program. She supported the survey and saw it as a way to let more residents respond.

That side of the debate focused on access.

Many households cannot install rooftop solar. Renters, low-income households, and people without suitable roofs often have few direct ways to participate in clean energy. A community-level program can offer a shared pathway.

But in Kearns, that argument ran into cost anxiety.

Why This Decision Matters Beyond Kearns

Kearns is not a large city making national energy policy. But the debate shows a bigger challenge for clean energy programs.

People may support renewable energy in principle. But when the program involves automatic enrollment, fees, utility billing, and unclear local benefits, support can weaken quickly.

That is especially true in communities where household budgets are tight.

The Kearns debate shows several lessons:

• Clean energy programs need clear communication before votes happen.
• Opt-out models can create mistrust, even when legally allowed.
• Small monthly fees can feel large in lower-income communities.
• Residents want to know exactly what they get in return.
• Support for renewable energy does not always mean support for a utility-bill charge.
• Local officials need to settle process questions before asking residents to trust policy details.

That is the real story.

Not anti-clean-energy anger. Not simple support either.

It was a community asking who pays, who decides, and who benefits.

Mayor Says the Issue Was About Community Values

After the final “no” vote, Mayor Valdez said residents were not ready for the program. He said their concerns went beyond whether the city should opt in or opt out. The deeper question, he said, was about where the community’s values lie.

That line fits the debate.

Some residents valued clean energy and long-term investment. Others valued affordability, consent, and protection from another automatic fee. Many likely valued both but did not trust the program design.

That is where public policy gets hard.

A good goal can still fail if the structure feels wrong.

The Bottom Line

Kearns rejected the Community Clean Energy Program after residents pushed back on cost, automatic enrollment, and transparency.

The council had already voted to opt out, then considered the issue again after a city survey caused more debate. At the special session, officials heard more concerns, revisited the arguments, and voted no again.

The key facts are clear:

• The Community Clean Energy Program would have added about $4 per month for enrolled Rocky Mountain Power customers.
• Customers would have been automatically enrolled unless they opted out.
• Kearns first voted to opt out on May 11.
• A city survey later reopened debate and caused confusion.
• Residents raised concerns about affordability, transparency, and automatic enrollment.
• Rocky Mountain Power said the program was created by state law and that nonparticipating customers would not bear program costs.
• The council ultimately voted no again and declined to participate.

This was not a fight over whether clean energy is good.

It was a fight over trust.

Kearns residents looked at the program and asked a basic question: if the community is already under financial pressure, why should another charge start by default?

For now, that question decided the vote.