[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-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],{"_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",6343247,"mediaKeyId","2252735-a7cbdd388f45979bcc909339ccad96b1","parentId",2252735,"title","Lawmakers hear broad support, questions for microgrid package as witnesses urge PUC framework and third‑party interconnection option","audioSeconds",780,"startMs",786000,"endMs",5640,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2252735-a7cbdd388f45979bcc909339ccad96b1&start=786&end=5","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2252735-a7cbdd388f45979bcc909339ccad96b1/thumbnail_786000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6343247/Oregon/Lawmakers-hear-broad-support-questions-for-microgrid-package-as-witnesses-urge-PUC-framework-and-thirdparty-interconnection-option","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6343247-114e7057eabb12ecebb877e5dfd5b4db/orig.mp4?Expires=1775760981&Signature=SLKf7OeghAH2A-v60oRdhCcnOrVaXieIDiXkM8WCzyH0hjZVvMS2iRiR4x0jscg1H9ldp3rrHI4uYLsDDoXCzGwUWx-VbuOrmXrgc~drN2pdnWycMGxRdYATWUD1xGvxtFzHJKegZXaPhoMCs2mmzZnFj~f1UcLLAQO-9nPdArkL2PzAPEA3JUYx-WVsUjfRKg5wSCXnocR~dWDTWM8xm6tIjso6F8YtrQx4TSh3fHOFF8MTxx7wgHjiYzfER4yNQQGJ~afAoo4NbB7E44XZtopYURWRTvjN4i-qzPxPAy6eeRWm7ngTQ5eqtbdVUuSAp~G-dtLknaOax2b3hKHT1w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Oregon State Legislature","date","2025-02-06T00:00:00Z","article","House Climate, Energy, and Environment Committee members opened a series of hearings Feb. 6 on three related measures aimed at expanding microgrid deployment and community energy resilience: House Bill 2066 (PUC investigation and regulatory framework for microgrids), House Bill 2064 (grid disconnection standards and community microgrid zones), and House Bill 2065 (allow third‑party interconnection/engineering studies).

Proponents representing utilities, counties, nonprofits, local governments and industry described microgrids as a resilience tool against increasingly frequent outages from wildfires, extreme weather and seismic events. Alex Klingman of Sustainable Northwest said the bills respond to requests from rural communities seeking “energy independence, resilience, and disaster preparedness,” and urged lawmakers to pass HB 2066 to give the Public Utility Commission (PUC) a directive to “determine the benefits and constraints of microgrid development” and clarify ownership and compensation frameworks.

Multiple witnesses told the committee that unclear rules and long interconnection timelines are the primary barriers to projects. Commissioner John Hillock described local impacts from extended outages and urged state standards enabling islanding capability and third‑party planning to speed projects. Gavin Collier and Eric Strid, representing county energy programs and a local energy council, said outages create severe economic losses for small businesses and that microgrids could provide designated places of refuge and protect critical services. “Power was out in parts of the city for 16 hours,” Commissioner Hillock said in recounting a hailstorm; other witnesses gave similar concrete outage anecdotes and economic loss estimates.

Technical and industry witnesses from the Microgrid Resources Coalition (Ally Ditrio), Reimagine Power (Zoe Bennett), Spark Northwest (John Singh), Climate Solutions (Joshua Bassofin), and the Microgrid Resources Coalition urged the committee to direct the PUC to create clear interconnection, ownership and compensation rules. Ally Ditrio said microgrids “are a really critical tool for ensuring energy resilience in communities” and that a clear regulatory framework would allow communities to monetize grid services and increase deployment. Several witnesses emphasized the bills are intended to be technology‑agnostic; Dan Whelan (Sustainable Northwest government affairs) said they are “agnostic on the power source.”

Industry and local government proponents also asked the committee to allow qualified third‑party engineers to perform interconnection and engineering studies so projects do not stall for months or years while utilities manage a backlog. Proponents stressed third‑party studies would be subject to utility review and professional licensure: Shannon Souza, a licensed engineer, said such work carries professional liability and “we are upholding public safety,” and the proposals retain the utility’s final approval authority. Ally Ditrio and Angela Crowley Cook of the Oregon Solar and Storage Industries Association argued the change would reduce a bottleneck that is slowing community solar and other distributed projects.

The League of Oregon Cities (Nolan Plesha) and other municipal witnesses supported the bills while requesting amended language to clarify the PUC’s authority over consumer‑owned utilities (COUs) and to preserve local governance structures for COUs. Sharla Moffat of Oregon Business and Industry registered concerns about potential cost shifting and regulatory gaps; OBI said the bills “blur the lines” between regulated utilities and microgrids and urged additional negotiation with utilities before the bills move forward.

Witnesses pointed to existing state work—Oregon Department of Energy planning and past grant programs—as complementary efforts. Testifiers cited Colorado’s microgrid roadmap and grant programs as models that have advanced project deployment in other states. No committee vote was taken; the session closed after testimony and questions. Committee members asked proponents for follow‑up materials including a one‑page summary of problems and bill provisions and suggested edits to clarify PUC authority over COUs.

Key distinctions recorded in testimony: HB 2066 directs the PUC to investigate and propose a regulatory framework (ownership, interconnection, compensation); HB 2064 focuses on grid disconnection procedures and designating microgrid zones to power critical infrastructure during outages; HB 2065 would allow applicants to contract licensed third‑party consultants to perform required interconnection studies subject to utility review and professional stamps of approval.

No formal action was recorded; the committee closed the hearings after questions and asked proponents to provide clarifications on COU language and a concise summary of the package’s objectives.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Committee On Climate, Energy, and Environment 02/06/2025","oneSentenceSummary","Lawmakers heard broad testimony Feb. 6 on a three‑bill package to accelerate community microgrids in Oregon, with proponents saying clearer PUC rules, defined disconnection standards and the option for third‑party interconnection studies would unlock projects for rural and urban communities alike.","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},6343249,"Oregon Department of Forestry backs repeal of little‑used ‘permit closure’ for forests, frames change as administrative cleanup",719,134000,853000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2252735-a7cbdd388f45979bcc909339ccad96b1&start=134&end=853","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2252735-a7cbdd388f45979bcc909339ccad96b1/thumbnail_134000.jpg","/articles/6343249/Oregon/Oregon-Department-of-Forestry-backs-repeal-of-littleused-permit-closure-for-forests-frames-change-as-administrative-cleanup","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6343249-9a044c7a0ce5cbfb24378ba8ce026a8c/orig.mp4?Expires=1775760981&Signature=FdK3zzfxhaM7ruMq0IdNAMcWW2DxYyhtEeQSxSy-X2j-c0Q72TlrBX3wDVtcd7N5VuDOgj807ofLOlYyCiyLvCBByxncpCTItWD4qBXB9mtLQ7lByXgKneAryzMpjL4t4Hr2DFy8nQfXZaeneKAy0WCCERnWAeuNEAA3QDlyqX84P2jhrWtZEyuuPUPWL9pOydPczx-pVKuP-tfFwM98ZRv0L0EgPLm0Z0B9b0isOqjCeOIo0Ws4H0iYP0ezlUkrOpUB5Rezxz~TbTAPlDfNjfRgO5MA4qtpVmpZlRC8dF28gDA9YoPaaYJASIyBbkEL4h9U8XE5CiYSs3YMzgLp3w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Climate, Energy, and Environment Committee Chair Courtney Lively opened a public hearing Feb. 6 on House Bill 2817, which would remove statutory authority for a specific type of public entry restriction—called a “permit closure”—on forest land during periods of high fire danger.

Department of Forestry legislative coordinator Derek Wheeler and Deputy Chief of Policy and Planning Levi Hopkins testified the permit‑closure tool has not been used in recent memory and creates an administrative burden that could divert staff from wildfire suppression. “House Bill 2817 eliminates permit entry closure on forest land due to fire danger,” Wheeler said. Hopkins testified that permit closures are distinct from other public restrictions and from industrial logging restrictions governed by the industrial fire precaution level (IFPL) system.

The bill’s sponsors and department witnesses said the change is intended to streamline public‑access rules during fire season and avoid use of a labor‑intensive permitting process when staffing will likely be focused on fire response. Hopkins told the committee, “House Bill 2817 proposes to remove a type of public use closure that creates a significant administrative burden on the department at the same time when department staff are critically needed for wildfire suppression.” He reiterated that the removal “does not affect industrial activities on forest land, including timber sales on state forests, in any way that isn't already able to do so.”

Committee members pressed the department for clarification. Representative Maxine Gamba asked why the statute should be changed if the closure is not being used; Hopkins replied that removing the language would reduce future confusion and administrative workload. Representative Ken Osborne expressed stronger concerns about public access, saying, “That does not sit well with me, that's public lands ... I will never support that,” and asked whether the change would effectively give managers broader discretion to close public lands. Wheeler and Hopkins responded that HB 2817 does not create new authority and is intended only to remove an obsolete tool.

Department testimony described three categories of public closures: regulated‑use closures (which restrict fire‑prone activities such as campfires and off‑road driving), permit closures (entry only by a forester‑issued permit), and absolute closures (prohibiting all public use). Hopkins told the committee staff could not find records of recent use of either permit or absolute closures but said absolute closures are less administratively burdensome and could remain a tool if needed.

Wheeler provided acreage and administrative context: the Department’s Forest Protection Division oversees wildfire prevention and suppression across roughly 16,200,000 acres (about half the state); private lands under the Forest Resources Division make up about 34% of Oregon’s forest lands (just over 10,000,000 acres); and the State Forest Division directly manages state forests. The department described the IFPL system as a separate regulatory track that governs industrial timber activities and is not linked to public‑use closures addressed in the bill.

No formal action or vote on HB 2817 was recorded during the hearing; the committee closed the hearing after questions and testimony.

Clarifying details recorded in testimony include acreage figures and the department’s explanation that permit closures have not been used recently and that regulated closures routinely address the bulk of public fire‑danger restrictions. Officials emphasized the bill is an administrative clean‑up and, they said, would not expand suppression authorities or alter logging‑related restrictions covered by IFPL rules.

The committee’s hearing record shows questions from multiple lawmakers about the implications for public access and whether the bill would shift closure authority; the department repeatedly framed the bill as removing an unused, administratively costly tool rather than granting new powers.","House Climate, Energy, and Environment Committee Chair Courtney Lively opened a Feb. 6 public hearing on House Bill 2817, which would repeal a rarely used Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) \"permit closure\" authority for forest land during high fire danger.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Lawmakers hear broad support, questions for microgrid package as witnesses urge PUC framework and third‑party interconnection option

Oregon Department of Forestry backs repeal of little‑used ‘permit closure’ for forests, frames change as administrative cleanup