Bill would require utilities to evaluate grid‑enhancing technologies as near‑term transmission option

House Bill 3336 would require investor‑owned electric companies to analyze the cost effectiveness and timing of grid‑enhancing technologies (GETs) and to file strategic plans with the Oregon Public Utility Commission when GETs are cost effective.

Provisions and rationale: Representative Mark Gamba told the committee GETs — including reconductoring, advanced conductors, dynamic line ratings and power‑flow controls — can expand capacity on existing transmission lines faster and for far less cost than building new high‑voltage lines. "It's basically like Google Maps for the grid," Gamba said, describing topology optimization and power‑flow controls that route power more efficiently. Witnesses testified GETs can increase usable line capacity, reduce curtailment of renewable generation, and help manage wildfire risk by reducing line sag and enabling real‑time monitoring.

Who testified: Witnesses supporting the bill included Joshua Bassifin, Clean Energy Program Director at Climate Solutions; Julia Selker of the Watt Coalition (dynamic line ratings and related technologies); Emily Moore of Sightline Institute; and company and industry representatives from Amazon Web Services, the Technology Association of Oregon and Portland General Electric. Climate Solutions and others highlighted projections of rapid load growth driven by data centers and electrification and argued GETs should be explicitly modeled alongside new transmission and storage in integrated resource plans.

Barriers and committee questions: Witnesses said GETs have not been deployed at scale in Oregon because of technology adoption lags, programmatic incentives for capital investments, and permitting or operational constraints (for instance, reconductoring an existing single‑path line can require outages and careful planning). Representative Helm and others asked whether the bill gives the PUC sufficient enforcement authority; proponents said HB 3336 uses available regulatory processes (IRPs/Clean Energy Plans) to require modeling and planning rather than mandate specific retrofits. Representative Levy raised rate impacts; witnesses said GETs are typically lower cost than new transmission and can reduce long‑term upward pressure on rates if deployed at scale.

Outcome and next steps: The hearing generated broad stakeholder support and technical questions; committee members asked for follow‑up materials on measured cost and reliability impacts. No final committee vote was taken at the hearing.

Ending: Supporters asked the committee to advance HB 3336 so utilities will systematically evaluate GETs as a near‑term, lower‑cost way to increase grid capacity while longer‑lead transmission projects are developed.