Informational hearing: committee hears microgrid bills aimed at community resilience, interconnection speed and PUC investigation

The Senate Energy and Environment Committee held an informational hearing on May 14 to review two microgrid bills and related programs aimed at improving community energy resilience and speeding interconnection of distributed resources.

Daniel Whalen, government affairs director at Sustainable Northwest, explained the bills’ aims and why rural communities have pressed for microgrid options after recent wildfires, ice storms and repeated public safety power shutoffs. Whalen said microgrids are not experimental technology but “off‑the‑shelf stuff” organized differently to allow communities to keep power to critical services during extended outages.

House Bill 2066 directs the Oregon Public Utility Commission to investigate the benefits and constraints of microgrid development, clarify ownership and operational responsibilities for community‑led microgrids, and recommend interconnection standards and definitions for “islanding” (the ability to operate independently from the wider grid). Whalen said the PUC investigation would help communities decide whether microgrids are appropriate and would inform fair interconnection and cost allocation practices.

House Bill 2065 would let communities contract with licensed third‑party experts to perform studies and engineering evaluations needed for interconnection and would require professional stamping for studies used to interconnect community energy projects. Whalen said the measure aims to overcome a shortage of utility and technical staff that slows interconnection reviews and project development.

Nolan Moser, executive director of the Oregon Public Utility Commission, described the PUC’s approach and noted the wide variety of microgrid configurations. He said the PUC has engaged the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to help identify a regulatory framework and that microgrids offer “resilience value” for communities while enabling local clean energy investments. Moser flagged core issues the PUC would expect to address in any framework: technical standards, roles and responsibilities, cost allocation, liability and the interplay with existing monopoly utility service models.

Lehi Ditrio of Reimagine Power and the Microgrid Resources Coalition described microgrids’ operational benefits in both “blue sky” (normal) and “black sky” (emergency) conditions. Ditrio said widely deployed microgrids can provide grid services such as firm clean capacity and frequency regulation that lower system costs and reduce long‑distance transmission investments. He urged clear regulatory rules and compensation mechanisms so private capital and third‑party developers can scale projects.

Committee members asked for technical examples and operating case studies. Whalen and Ditrio pointed to existing projects elsewhere—Blue Lake Rancheria (tribal microgrid in Northern California), projects in Hawaii and California, and a design consultant who helped Wallowa County’s microgrid planning—as examples the committee could examine. Whalen also summarized the Oregon Department of Energy’s county energy resiliency planning grant program: 19 counties received $50,000 planning grants (March awards noted in committee testimony), and HB 3171 would extend the timeline for remaining counties to access the program.

Senators discussed tradeoffs between investing in additional long‑distance transmission versus distributed approaches such as microgrids. Several committee members said microgrids could attract private capital and provide customized, lower‑cost solutions in many communities. The PUC said the agency is “on new ground” but will study best practices and existing examples to inform potential rulemaking.

Because this was an informational hearing, no committee votes were taken on the microgrid bills. Testimony and committee questions emphasized further technical briefings and suggested bringing designers or operators of functioning microgrids to a future committee meeting or a field visit to an operating system.

Next steps: the committee did not take action on the bills during the hearing. The PUC and stakeholders indicated they will provide additional technical examples and reports to the committee record to assist in drafting possible future rulemaking or statutory language.