Senate committee hears push to expand Oregon community solar, resolve interconnection and tax issues

Senate Energy and Environment Committee members on Feb. 26 heard more than an hour of testimony on Senate Bill 92, a proposal to expand Oregon’s community solar program, reduce interconnection delays and create new compensation for battery storage.

Proponents said the current program is nearly full and that expanding capacity and changing interconnection rules are needed to complete projects that would serve low-income customers, irrigation districts and other community partners.

“ This project will serve over 150 low income households with up to a million dollars in deep utility bill savings over the next 20 years,” Evan Ramsey, senior director of the renewables program at the Bonneville Environmental Foundation, told the committee, describing a Portland project his group helped develop. Ramsey said about 25% of the program’s capacity had been reserved for nonprofit-led projects but that both the carve-out and overall program capacity are now exhausted for projects ready to move forward.

Why it matters: Witnesses said projects already built or funded risk being unable to interconnect under current limits and queue delays. Supporters framed SB 92 as a fix to allow community-based projects — including floating array and irrigation district projects in Southern Oregon — to become operational and deliver discounts to low-income subscribers.

Key details and debate

- Program cap and project size: Current rules cap community solar projects at 3 megawatts; the draft dash 2 amendment would raise that cap (supporters suggested 20 megawatts to align with utility procurement programs). Angela Crowley Cook, executive director of the Oregon Solar and Storage Industries Association (OSEA), described the dash 2 as a “full replacement” amendment that also increases flexibility on project location, size and subscriber rules.

- Interconnection: Multiple witnesses said long interconnection study and upgrade timelines — particularly in Pacific Power territory — are blocking projects. Crowley Cook said some projects “are fully built and have been waiting for a year to be connected to the grid.” The dash 2 would include new processes and potential penalties to accelerate interconnection; one proposal would allow project managers to hire third-party consultants to design and build upgrades rather than relying solely on the utility timeline.

- Battery compensation: The dash 2 asks the Public Utility Commission (PUC) to create a compensation rate that would make adding battery storage to community solar projects financially viable.

- Low-income and nonprofit carve-outs: Ramsey and other developers said recent projects rely on carve-outs and philanthropic grants to serve very low-income households. Ramsey described one PDX project as providing “up to a million dollars in deep utility bill savings over the next 20 years” to more than 150 households.

- Property tax and local revenue concerns: County and city groups said the bill as drafted would expand an existing ad valorem property-tax exemption that was negotiated for projects up to 3 MW, and they opposed extending that exemption to 20 MW without local consent. Brandon Persinger, who covers natural resources for the Association of Oregon Counties, said the change “would allow the project to be built anywhere in the 3 IOU territory without having the power be made available to those same rate payers” and expressed concern that counties and special districts could lose tax revenue while the energy benefits flow elsewhere.

- Examples of projects: Jack Friend, manager of Medford Irrigation District, described a proposed floating-solar installation on a reservoir that would produce about 2,000,000 kilowatt-hours per year; he said 50% of output would be allocated to Jackson County residents and 10% reserved for low-income households with discounts up to 40%. Friend said the district expects about $76,000 in annual revenue from generation that could be used for modernization.

What the committee heard about trade-offs

Supporters argued the cost to ratepayers is low relative to the benefits: Crowley Cook said she reviewed her own PGE bill and estimated the program cost as roughly five cents on a monthly bill example. Local governments warned that expanding non‑taxable property beyond negotiated levels would significantly reduce local revenue for services. Several witnesses said property-tax language remains under negotiation with counties and the Association of Oregon Counties.

No formal vote or final committee action was recorded during the hearing. Witnesses and committee members asked for time to negotiate outstanding tax and siting language and to craft amendments addressing interconnection enforcement and local revenue concerns.

Ending

Proponents asked the legislature for timely action to open capacity and resolve interconnection barriers; local-government groups asked for protections for property-tax bases and for clarity on siting rules before the bill advances. Committee members directed parties to continue negotiating amendment language before any work session.