Salt Lake City — Members of the public urged the Utah Public Service Commission on Thursday to reject Rocky Mountain Power’s 2025 integrated resource plan, saying the proposal keeps coal plants in service too long, understates health and climate costs, and relies on confidential assumptions that prevent public scrutiny.

Commissioner David Clark opened the hearing on docket 25O3522 and said written statements already filed in the docket are part of the record. The commission accepted in-person oral comments from roughly a dozen speakers; Chair Jerry Fenn was not present but will view the recorded proceeding, Clark said.

Why it matters: Commenters said the IRP’s choice to remove retirement dates for the Hunter and Huntington coal plants would lock ratepayers into higher fuel and pollution costs, risk public health in communities near coal operations, and forgo federal tax credits for timely renewable projects. Several speakers cited Rocky Mountain Power’s own modeling to say retiring Hunter by 2030 would be less costly for customers than the company’s chosen path.

Caroline Gleick, who described herself as having worked on energy and environmental policy at state and federal levels, told the commission, “Retiring Hunter by 2030 is lower cost for customers” and urged the commission to require an updated IRP that follows a least-cost, least-risk standard and increases procurement of solar, storage and geothermal. Gleick also said Utah households have seen electricity prices rise about 15% in the past year and that "1 in 4 households struggles to pay their bill." (First reference at 22:45.)

Public health and local impacts were recurring themes. Jane Myers of West Jordan criticized the IRP for not accounting for pollution-related health costs, and provided speaker-sourced figures comparing average energy prices she cited in the hearing: wind $37/MWh, solar $38/MWh, combined-cycle gas $48/MWh, geothermal $66/MWh and coal $71/MWh. Emma Verhame, a Rose Park resident expecting a child, said the plan’s extended coal timetable and emphasis on nuclear over geothermal would raise costs and expose future generations to poorer air quality. "Who's gonna pay for that choice then when fuel prices increase? It's gonna be the ratepayers," Verhame said. (First reference at 55:46.)

Transparency and procurement choices also drew criticism. Stan Holmes, outreach coordinator for Utah Citizens Advocating Renewable Energy (UCARE), said stakeholder input forms were missing from Appendix M of the IRP and raised concerns about coal-supply safety at recently reopened mines feeding Pacificorp’s units. Holmes further criticized a confidential treatment of cost and performance assumptions tied to a proposed Natrium nuclear project, saying the Natrium details are "confidential and are not summarized in the supply side resource table." He urged the commission to require fuller disclosure before accepting the plan. (First reference at 47:15.)

Other speakers emphasized regional environmental stakes. Tilden Warner, a University of Utah student, said additional carbon emissions would harm the Great Salt Lake and local climate regulation; Jonah Entwistle from Park City warned that declining snowpack threatens water supply and urged near-term renewable procurement to capture expiring federal incentives.

Several commenters urged the commission to require Rocky Mountain Power to pursue shovel-ready renewable projects that can access investment tax credits (ITC) and production tax credits (PTC) before they expire, and to expand geothermal procurement in Utah counties named in testimony (Beaver, Millard, Emery). Some speakers also questioned the use of carbon-capture and sequestration as a rationale for continued coal use.

What the commission said and next steps: Clark reminded the room that written submissions are part of the docket and that the hearing was being recorded; he closed the session and adjourned. No vote or formal action on the IRP occurred during the public hearing. The record for docket 25O3522 will include these oral statements, which commissioners said they will review as they consider the IRP and any subsequent filings.

Representative quotes used in this article are drawn from the hearing record and attributed only to speakers who gave the statements at the public hearing.