Lawmakers hear bill requiring replacement before retiring dispatchable generators

House Bill 3247 would require an electric company to acquire a replacement resource that provides equal reliable or dispatchable electricity before retiring a dispatchable generating facility, lawmakers heard March 6 in the House Climate, Energy and Environment Committee.

Representative Ed Diehl (spoke under the name Ed Deal in the hearing) introduced the bill and said it is intended to protect grid reliability as the state adds renewable resources that are intermittent. “This bill ensures that Oregon maintains a stable, reliable, and dispatchable power supply, which is essential for a productive and prosperous society,” he told the committee, defining dispatchable resources as those that can ramp up and down on demand.

Witnesses described recent local examples that shaped the testimony. State Representative E. Warner Raschke said the recent removal of four Klamath River hydroelectric dams reduced roughly 50 megawatts of in‑state dispatchable capacity and was replaced by about 20 megawatts of solar; he said that illustrates the need to secure comparable dispatchable resources before retirements. Mark Marrano, a policy commenter, urged lawmakers to study Europe’s experience and said some countries that moved too quickly away from dispatchable sources experienced price volatility and supply stress.

Supporters described the bill as a safeguard rather than a ban: it would require utilities to secure replacement dispatchable resources (for example, hydro, geothermal, natural gas, nuclear, or other forms of firm generation or storage) before retiring an existing dispatchable unit. Testimony emphasized that wind and solar are intermittent and therefore do not substitute directly for dispatchable capacity unless paired with firming resources.

Committee members raised questions about whether the bill applies to fossil plants, hydro dams, or cogeneration, and how the state would handle decisions made outside of its direct control (for example, federal licensing or decisions by multi‑state utilities). Sponsors said the bill would apply broadly to dispatchable sources and includes language to seek waivers or state pushback if decisions are beyond Oregon’s control.

Several witnesses framed the bill as protecting jobs and affordability as well as reliability. Nick Stark of the Oregon Freedom Coalition and other witnesses told the committee that having adequate in‑state dispatchable capacity helps keep prices lower and reduces reliance on imported power; they urged legislative caution before permitting retirements without replacements.

No vote was taken; the committee closed the hearing and adjourned for the session. Members asked staff to follow up on technical and jurisdictional complications, including interactions with multi‑state utilities and FERC processes for dams and generation.