[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6287870,"mediaKeyId","2546191-414438281f92a0d26671a1096b2fb2a5","parentId",2546191,"title","Bill to speed transmission permits draws support from developers and concerns from farmers and landowners","audioSeconds",1893,"startMs",4367475,"endMs",6261190,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2546191-414438281f92a0d26671a1096b2fb2a5&start=4367&end=6261","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2546191-414438281f92a0d26671a1096b2fb2a5/thumbnail_4367475.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6287870/Oregon/Bill-to-speed-transmission-permits-draws-support-from-developers-and-concerns-from-farmers-and-landowners","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6287870-839ae4ce8e6f56ac98b55babb72db85b/orig.mp4?Expires=1770667086&Signature=iHzpRrikr955AnMGLG-cmt9ChtYBvol25297CVJKIEiRXYskZm9UiCew1g76OG3kgiD9UJjfICWetO5gsaSF4dvCqFMb1EtAEwUY2TAMK0t1ai0mdJYqFK8sw3cKJqZdwhGUYoXCuR7UTiP9FKk-H9p2FSgqZUWpu9fq71D5MOJRmNpDNS-Y5iLmo2nVHljtZ7WaH4SPRzuwEdDr2pXT52YwNUezTpt5FBM0fFxpR-CA4-~va4cTtdgPYyWMN8W2MXDncGCN0p4qwJ9Tj5M6Y~eic2wGrFEp3UMLA8-Mn6y2JH-5wnPjiEUfU2Gx7gmBvv8stzmokPke2ssl04ymBA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Oregon State Legislature","date","2025-03-11T00:00:00Z","article","Representative Mark Gamba told the committee on March 11 that House Bill 3681 contains nine proposals intended to speed transmission permitting and reduce delays that developers say have held projects up for decades.

Gamba noted the Boardman‑to‑Hemingway project as an example: “The Boardman to Hemingway transmission line … began its process in 2007. … that’s close to a 20‑year process, from application to anticipated completion,” he said, arguing that permitting delays threaten timely build‑out of transmission needed for clean energy.

What the bill would do

Key elements include directing the Energy Facility Siting Council (FSEC) to make a best effort to conclude contested cases within 12 months; clarifying that appeals of FSEC final orders should go directly to the Oregon Supreme Court; allowing minor site‑boundary changes without a full amendment; enabling simultaneous review of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) and local land‑use approval; and clarifying standards for standing and use of site certificates in eminent domain proceedings.

Support from developers and utilities

Idaho Power and Portland General Electric, which both participated in a multi‑stakeholder transmission working group, testified in favor. Nate Fisher of Idaho Power described prolonged case timelines on Boardman‑to‑Hemingway and said the bill’s concepts are intended to avoid redundant, sequential agency processes that add time and cost.

“We filed a preliminary application for site certificate in 2013 … the contested case lasted 27 months,” Fisher said, and the final order issued in 2022. He and other supporters argued that clearer timelines and jurisdictional rules would improve certainty for large transmission projects.

Obsidian Renewables, a project developer, urged the committee to adopt a limited administrative fix in the dash‑1 amendment that would streamline routine extensions for projects that cannot begin construction within existing certificate deadlines.

Concerns from agriculture and land‑use advocates

The Oregon Farm Bureau and individual landowners opposed provisions they said would erode local land‑use protections and increase eminent‑domain risk for Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) land. Ryan Crabill of the Farm Bureau said the bill “disproportionately harms rural communities and Oregon’s agricultural lands,” and urged protections for farmland and landowner rights.

Irene Gilbert, an attorney who participated in prior Boardman‑to‑Hemingway appeals, warned that directing appeals to the Oregon Supreme Court without a comprehensive contested‑case record risks denying litigants meaningful review.

“I urge you to continue to require non‑contested cases the opportunity to go to circuit court, actually have a file develop,” Gilbert said, arguing the Supreme Court needs a full record to review contested matters.

Agency and stakeholder balances

Multiple energy and renewable‑development interests supported the package as targeted procedural fixes that would reduce duplication and clarify timing. Renewable Northwest and other advocates said the proposals are modest, taken together, and would make permitting for renewables and transmission more efficient. The Department of Energy (FSEC staff) and proponents emphasized that contested cases already follow extensive public processes prior to appeals.

Next steps

Committee members debated jurisdictional and land‑use concerns and asked for amendments; a dash‑1 amendment was posted and a dash‑2 was expected to follow. No committee vote was recorded in the hearing transcript; committee closed the hearing March 11 and moved on to other business.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Committee On Climate, Energy, and Environment 03/11/2025 8:00 AM","oneSentenceSummary","House Bill 3681 would change state transmission‑siting procedures to shorten permitting timelines and clarify appeals and standing; developers and utilities supported the changes as necessary to build transmission more quickly, while farm and land‑use representatives warned the bill could weaken protections for farmland and thin judicial review.","taxTitle","Climate, Energy, and Environment, House of Representatives, Committees, Legislative, Oregon","taxId",17502,"location","Oregon","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6287880,"House committee hears bill to update Oregon greenhouse-gas targets, set net‑zero by 2050",2914,2800,2917095,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2546191-414438281f92a0d26671a1096b2fb2a5&start=2&end=2917","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2546191-414438281f92a0d26671a1096b2fb2a5/thumbnail_2800.jpg","/articles/6287880/Oregon/House-committee-hears-bill-to-update-Oregon-greenhouse-gas-targets-set-netzero-by-2050","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6287880-fb39737fb4c9bd3fc49c7e87a239760c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770667086&Signature=KtFURLO1gNbcfmnXWU4eSx4q9iEmIDMG~rXQMdwa44EmtRDKGoR-C7MGgBrZYqvQlrfMUDsfkmyU8dohP8gWvO-N3MFfNXorDgxZkPy8mM2UC~zN2xJPXsqkPvdjD2ej39qaZP7eqpHbX8t3Lv4O~svoW8W0aAyKLiHQN~I4irXBpHicwBEJYbvdmwUGmkl2qJQaXUQvD4-hWtDzB4UFZcSUjUxbt2~AM2Zp51YKCRacaRbY~vy0gPRbP-p6Kf5fV8av-0LTxGEIIEoeVoPQjnwwrJnfwjbdKMgBVzZtp46dn36cOzMGVWVqJ4Dg35FACvAZjhHobt3SAM9~gODSpw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Mark Gamba, sponsor of House Bill 3477, told the House Climate, Energy and Environment Committee on March 11 that the measure would update Oregon’s statutory greenhouse‑gas reduction goals and set a statutory goal of achieving net‑zero emissions no later than 2050.

The bill would remove the 2010 and 2020 interim goals from statute, add a new 2040 interim target and align the long‑term target with the best available climate science, supporters said. Catherine McDonald, chair of the Oregon Climate Action Commission, told the committee the commission’s technical work shows accelerated policy could meet an earlier interim goal and generate economic and health benefits.

“By being more ambitious, we will provide significant benefits to Oregon’s economy,” McDonald said, summarizing the commission’s Transformational Integrated Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction (TIGR) analysis.

Why it matters: Supporters said updated targets would align state benchmarks with international science, help track progress and signal investment opportunities. Opponents said the change could reopen or trigger state rules that affect housing, land use and energy‑intensive industries before practical technologies or compliance pathways are in place.

Testimony and evidence

Rep. Mark Gamba (bill sponsor) said the statutory change is intended to reflect current climate science and to provide clearer benchmarks for future policy decisions. Catherine McDonald, chair of the Climate Action Commission (formerly the Global Warming Commission), described the commission’s 2023 TIGR analysis and roadmap, which the commission says shows a pathway to meet a 2035 target earlier and estimates substantial cumulative economic and public‑health benefits and job creation if accelerated policy is implemented.

“Those interim goals are really important to help us better track progress over time,” McDonald said.

Nora Apter, Oregon director for Climate Solutions, said the bill “does not create any new authority” for state agencies and urged the committee to update statute to reflect current science so Oregon can capture economic opportunities tied to clean energy.

Industry and local concerns

Representatives of real‑estate, business and forest and manufacturing interests urged caution. Brock Nation, policy director for Oregon Realtors, opposed the bill as written because of its connections to the Department of Land Conservation and Development’s Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities (CFEC) rules; he warned that the CFEC implementation uses vehicle‑miles‑traveled (VMT) as a proxy and that some city case studies show limited ability to meet modeled VMT reductions.

“While Oregon Realtor supports proposals to address the threats posed by pollution … we can’t support House Bill 34 77 due to its transitive impact on housing production,” Nation said.

Josh Estes of the Association of Western Pulp and Paperworkers and Rocky Dalam of the Northwest Pulp and Paper Association said energy‑intensive, trade‑exposed (EITE) industries lack commercially viable “best available technologies” in some cases and that accelerating targets before compliance pathways are realistic risks job losses.

“Advancing this bill at this time is premature,” Estes said, asking for protections and realistic pathways for EITE sectors.

Questions from lawmakers

Representative Owens pressed for Oregon‑specific, sectoral detail on how the targets would translate into changes in transportation, energy or costs to Oregonians. Chair Lively and other witnesses pointed to ongoing and forthcoming TIGR analysis updates, and McDonald and others said additional Oregon‑based research such as Oregon State University’s climate reports could be provided to the committee.

Representative Osborne said he did not accept the science underpinning the bill and urged attention to active forest management; others on the committee disputed that perspective and urged reliance on the commission’s technical work.

Other testimony

Public witnesses included employees and volunteers who described personal experiences with wildfire smoke, heat events and local economic impacts. Zachary Price of Pac Clean and other clean‑energy proponents urged the committee to include separate targets for greenhouse‑gas removals in statute to spur investment in direct‑air capture and sequestration opportunities in Oregon.

Next steps

The committee closed the public hearing on HB 3477 and moved to later agenda items. No committee action or vote on the bill was recorded in the hearing record.

","Representative Mark Gamba told the House Climate, Energy and Environment Committee on March 11 that House Bill 3477 would update Oregon’s greenhouse‑gas reduction goals, set a new 2040 interim target and establish a statutory net‑zero goal no later than 2050.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":81,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6287874,"Committee debates bill to scale up distributed power plants; utilities and industry split on third‑party aggregators",1450,4367095,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2546191-414438281f92a0d26671a1096b2fb2a5&start=2917&end=4367","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2546191-414438281f92a0d26671a1096b2fb2a5/thumbnail_2917095.jpg","/articles/6287874/Oregon/Committee-debates-bill-to-scale-up-distributed-power-plants-utilities-and-industry-split-on-thirdparty-aggregators","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6287874-f594a4a9120dc4de30905a30a9c475f2/orig.mp4?Expires=1770667086&Signature=WLRMM0~JdD~FJ9NvpbpEnSJHU-okdXwv8vLPH4x7awnvRbTHyans-5xv9qx8082KZ2~I~ptJkWVn9AIUnd~teJALP~8297Qdbxl7Hc58RqCddyVx~-DxK2WnNxwyFQglcThgnRxEAr8LGk9CiSUlV1dLwkWbpJtVIPLABSwDXdcPa0xYcNBNwE-o9bdrM-qEqRSbli2n13I9NIYXG6m3EXz~TQrdfURj8GVYrL8CzbPnQUglnOp0CSFv5dmcYt4oqvU4AiiR86o8O2rNy49hFIobJdSKkX1iAQ-ev1KczHeDP7ASyqcWRW8mpYMYZhY6YSBVF4AYukyxmlsts0zuyA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Bill 3609, presented March 11 to the House Climate, Energy and Environment Committee, would require electric companies to develop and file distributed power plant (virtual power plant) programs with the Oregon Public Utility Commission. Supporters said the programs use customer‑owned resources – rooftop solar, batteries, smart thermostats and electric vehicles – to provide grid services and reduce peak demand.

“Distributed power plants are the only resource with the potential to provide resource adequacy at a negative net cost to society,” Shannon Anderson of Solar United Neighbors Action told the panel, citing Brattle Group analysis.

Angela Crowley Cook, executive director of the Oregon Solar and Storage Industries Association (OSEA), said utilities in Oregon have pilot programs and third‑party aggregators can scale enrollment and reduce utility administrative costs.

Opposition from Portland General Electric

Jason Salmi Klas, senior manager of strategy and planning at Portland General Electric (PGE), said PGE is developing its own virtual power plant (VPP) and that HB 3609 “represents significant risk to customer protection, increases utility system costs, and undermines sound regulatory practices.”

“This bill prioritizes aggregators over customers,” Salmi Klas said, and it “mandates aggregator compensation without requiring customer compensation.” He argued third‑party aggregators lack regulatory oversight and that separate markets for distributed energy resources (DERs) in other states, notably California, had integration problems.

Supporters’ case

Advocates said distributed power plants can be deployed quickly, defer costly transmission upgrades and provide customer bill savings. Shannon Anderson highlighted examples in California and New England where aggregators have coordinated thousands of residential batteries and solar systems to provide capacity during peak demand.

“Third party aggregators can help distributed energy resources like battery storage become more affordable and available through financing arrangements for customers,” Anderson said.

Committee questions and clarifications

Representative Levy asked whether the bill would apply to electric cooperatives; Angela Crowley Cook replied the bill’s program would be administered by the Public Utility Commission and target investor‑owned utilities, not co‑ops. Lawmakers and witnesses discussed pilot timelines, customer protections, and how to define compensation and dispatch rules.

PGE responses and concerns about pilots

PGE acknowledged it has run pilots for several years but said many only recently became cost‑effective and that the utility is expanding programs and investing in distribution system capabilities. PGE warned that codifying rigid dispatch parameters, penalties and a compensation framework in statute could limit operators’ flexibility and fragment DER management across too many parties.

No committee action on HB 3609 was recorded in the hearing record; the committee closed the hearing and moved to the next bill.

","House Bill 3609 would require electric companies to develop distributed power plant programs that aggregate customer‑owned resources to provide grid services; proponents told the committee the approach can quickly add capacity and lower costs, while Portland General Electric warned the bill would prioritize third‑party aggregators over customers and risk added system costs.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Bill to speed transmission permits draws support from developers and concerns from farmers and landowners

House committee hears bill to update Oregon greenhouse-gas targets, set net‑zero by 2050

Committee debates bill to scale up distributed power plants; utilities and industry split on third‑party aggregators