Several doctors, teachers and energy professionals were in the crowd for the Sandy City Council meeting on Aug. 13, all there to speak their views about a proposed agenda item that would determine whether or not the city of nearly 100,000 residents would have the option to opt into the Community Renewable Energy Program for cleaner air.

The Utah program passed into legislation in 2019 called the Utah Community Renewable Energy Act to transition all Rocky Mountain Power customers who opted into the program to 100% renewable energy by 2030.

In 2019, Councilmember Zach Robinson (now chair) brought the option to join the program to the council and Councilmember Aaron Dekeyzer (at the time a resident) advocated for the council to vote for it from the public comment dias. At the time, the majority “narrowly” voted against it.

In 2024, the recommendation for Sandy to join the program came from Dekeyzer, who is still a strong proponent of the program and referred to it as “one of the largest decarbonization efforts in the country.”

“Since [2019], the urgency of this issue has only intensified,” Dekeyzer said at the Aug. 13 city council meeting. “Today, we have a second chance to do something truly transformative for Sandy.”

“It is a step for a better, healthier future for our children,” Dekeyzer said.

After voting on the issue a second time on Aug. 13, the city opted out of the program again with a 5-2 vote.

In Utah, 18 cities, towns and counties have opted into the program, accounting for more than a quarter of Rocky Mountain Power customers in the state, per the Salt Lake Tribune.

“It’ll be interesting to see how many more sign on,” Dekeyzer said, adding more cities, including West Jordan and Midvale, are considering joining the program.

“A lot of the big ones signed on: Ogden, Salt Lake, [and] Park City,” he said. “It’s a quarter of all energy users, so it’s a fairly significant number.”

If the council had voted in favor of the program, it would’ve received voting power to change policies within the program including fees.

Main concerns about joining the program from councilmembers included costs associated with the program for both residents and the city as well as skepticism about whether the program would have a significant enough impact in the next five years.

In addition to a $2 to $7 more on their Rocky Mountain Power bill each month, residents would have been auto-enrolled in the program and required to opt out in the first 90 days. After three months, a required $20 to $30 termination fee would’ve been mandated to opt out. 

The additional monthly charge for participating in the program is planned to go toward funding a solar farm and wind farm, each generating 200 megawatts of power, Dekeyzer said.

“Now if it’s producing a quantifiable result, then maybe I could get behind an argument that it’s worth it. But so far in five years, nothing has happened,” Councilmember Cyndi Sharkey said. “There’s too many ‘ifs’ here.”

She criticized the program which hasn’t purchased one watt and half of the money raised has been spent on consultants. 

“I have a lot of heartburn over the way this program is set up and the amount of money that could be paid into this by unknowing Sandy customers who just don’t get the word in 90 days and are able to opt out of it,” Sharkey said. 

Sharkey said it sounds similar to the Blue Sky Fund with the goal for Rocky Mountain Power to shut down coal-based plants by 2030, which she paid into for 24 years. She said she canceled in May when the company pushed the goal back to 2042.

Additionally, the program fee for the city would’ve cost about $35,737 in the first and second years, equaling more than $71,000.

“We all want clean air, there isn’t any question about it,” Sharkey said, “But, I don’t think this is something that I could get behind.”

Although this program was voted down by the council, the conversation is still open about how the city can continue to lessen its carbon footprint.

Councilmember Brooke D’Sousa called it a “worthy goal.”

“I think renewable energy is something that needs to be more seriously considered,” D’Sousa said. 

“All of us have expressed, to some degree, our desire to reduce our environmental impacts,” Robinson said. “I am growing increasingly concerned—as a human, as a parent, as a member of this community, as a taxpayer of this city—that things are going in the wrong direction. This is a big problem in our community and big problems need big solutions.” λ