Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Performance Contracting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears support for modernizing state energy performance contracting statutes
Summary
Supporters including energy service companies, trade associations and vendors urged the committee to pass House Bill 3653 to modernize Oregon's energy savings performance contracting (ESPC) rules, streamline procurement and broaden eligible measures to include renewables and avoided costs in cost-effectiveness analyses.
House Bill 3653 would allow authorized state agencies to enter into energy performance contracts (ESPCs) without requiring a competitive procurement if the agency follows rules adopted by the Attorney General, negotiates a performance guarantee, and enters into the contract with a qualified energy service company prequalified and approved by the Oregon Department of Energy.
Representative Emerson Levy described the bill as a targeted technical modernization to align Oregon’s ESPC framework with best practices in Washington, Colorado, and federal programs. Testimony from industry representatives emphasized the value of ESPCs in enabling facility upgrades without upfront capital, guaranteeing savings, and accounting for avoided maintenance and total cost of ownership.
Witnesses from Building Potential, McDonnell Miller Facility Solutions, McKinstry and other energy-service companies supported the bill, saying it streamlines procurement (allowing agencies to select from a DOE-qualified list rather than renegotiating an RFP for each project), broadens allowable measures to include on-site renewables and considers lifecycle and avoided costs when determining cost-effectiveness.
Supporters also provided comparative figures: Washington and Colorado programs have historically supported hundreds of millions to billions of dollars in investment and delivered recurring savings; representatives said fewer than 40 Oregon public agencies have used ESPCs to date, accounting for under $200 million in investment and missed opportunities for larger public savings.
Committee members generally received the testimony positively and asked for clarifications about the voluntary nature of ESPCs; witnesses said the program remains optional and provides agencies with another tool to finance efficiency and facility upgrades. The committee carried the work session to April 8 to allow paperwork and potential amendments to be prepared.
Why it matters: modernizing the ESPC statute could unlock more public investment in energy efficiency, reduce operating costs for public buildings and advance GHG reductions through guaranteed savings and broader eligible measures.
Next steps: committee to reconvene with paperwork and possible amendments on April 8.
