Process for Purpose

The report argues that traditional quasi-judicial regulatory processes are inadequate for the scale of current electricity system transformations and proposes a four-stage framework—initiation, vision communication, conduction, and delivery of outcomes—to achieve more successful reforms.

• Successful utility regulatory reform typically follows a four-stage sequence: initiating the reform process, communicating the vision for reform, conducting the reform process, and delivering reform outcomes.
• Regulatory processes are categorized as either investigatory, which explore grid needs and reform options without immediate rule changes, or decisional, which aim to adopt new programs or rules.
• The initiation of reform can be driven by various actors, including utility regulators, legislatures, governors, stakeholders, or utilities, but public utilities commissions are typically where the final details are deliberated and the scope of regulations is set.
• Regulators' willingness to initiate reform is influenced by their perceived statutory authority and political feasibility; in the absence of specific clean energy mandates, they often justify reform using traditional mandates like safety, reliability, and just and reasonable rates.
• A guiding vision is essential for reform and should articulate the opportunity, the benefits to customers and the grid, the expected outputs, and how those outputs will inform future policy implementation.
• While nondocketed processes can be more accessible and open, docketed proceedings provide greater transparency, credibility, and a formal record that prevents skewed perspectives from ex parte communications.
• Rulemaking proceedings are generally viewed as the most effective decisional tool for holistic reform, whereas rate cases are often too time-constrained and utility-driven to allow for ambitious systemic change.
• To bridge the gap between investigation and full-scale reform, regulators can use pilots as regulatory test beds to experiment with new ideas, provided they are tied to future decisions and a broader vision.

APA

Cross-Call, D., Goldenberg, C., & Wang, C. (2019). Process for Purpose. RMI. https://rmi.org/app/uploads/2019/02/rmi-process-for-purpose.pdf

Chicago

Cross-Call, Dan, Cara Goldenberg, and Claire Wang. Process for Purpose. RMI, 2019. https://rmi.org/app/uploads/2019/02/rmi-process-for-purpose.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Cross-Call |first1=Dan |last2=Goldenberg |first2=Cara |last3=Wang |first3=Claire |title=Process for Purpose |publisher=RMI |date=February 2019 |url=https://rmi.org/app/uploads/2019/02/rmi-process-for-purpose.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{crosscall2019process, author = {Cross-Call, Dan and Goldenberg, Cara and Wang, Claire}, title = {{Process for Purpose}}, institution = {RMI}, year = {2019}, month = feb, url = {https://rmi.org/app/uploads/2019/02/rmi-process-for-purpose.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }