Committee hears extensions and changes to Oregon heat‑pump rebate programs after strong uptake

A public hearing on House Bill 2567 on Feb. 11 covered proposed changes to Oregon’s state heat‑pump incentive programs and featured testimony from Oregon Department of Energy staff, program administrators and contractors who have implemented installations statewide.

What the bill would do House Bill 2567 would make a series of changes to the Community Heat Pump Deployment program (CHIPDIP) and the Oregon Rental Heat Pump Program. Key provisions presented to the committee include: - Extend the rental program sunset to Jan. 2, 2032, giving more time for tribes and low‑income rental households to access funding. - Change prioritization language from "environmental justice communities" to a broader "disadvantaged communities" definition that includes socioeconomic and environmental burdens and rural/coastal communities. - Remove the statutory 15% cap on administrative and marketing expenses for program administrators and let the Oregon Department of Energy set the cap by rule to better compensate community partners and outreach. - Require the department to report on the residential heat‑pump rebates to the Legislature in even‑numbered years through 2032 and consider allowing contractor incentives to encourage installations in remote or frontier areas.

Program performance and numbers Christy Split and Caitlin Lynch of the Oregon Department of Energy summarized program data through the most recent reporting windows. For the Community Heat Pump Deployment program, as of Sept. 30, 2024, the department had obligated more than $7.5 million to program administrators and transferred nearly $1 million to the rental program for tribal members; the community program supported roughly $2.5 million in project costs and more than 287 owner‑occupied homes.

For the Oregon Rental Heat Pump Program, which the department administers directly, Split reported that through January 2025 the program had registered 1,805 contractors, issued more than $11 million in heat‑pump rebates and nearly $2.5 million in upgrade grants, supporting about $26 million in total project costs for roughly 3,000 rental homes.

Administrators and contractors describe demand and benefits Multiple program administrators and contractors testified in support of HB 2567. Caitlin Lynch said regional administrators design programs to meet local conditions; examples included high‑capacity systems for cold northeastern counties and no‑cost installations in Lake County. Claire Swanback of Community Energy Project and Abbasi Umo, an in‑home auditor, described beneficiaries who previously had no functioning heating system or relied on costly space heaters. "At least half of the clients that we've served through this program were living with no functioning heating systems before this help was available," Swanback said.

Contractors and administrators told the committee the programs are often fully subscribed and that funding quickly runs out when new allocations are made. Molly Hatfield of Earth Advantage said her organization has overseen 249 installations in its region and warned that some regional allocations are already fully spent. "Allowing its funding to run out would squander the momentum that administrators and installers have worked so hard to create," she told the committee.

Technical and policy questions Committee members asked about performance in very cold climates, backup heat, contractor capacity in rural areas, and stacking of incentives with utilities and Energy Trust of Oregon. Witnesses said technology for cold climates has improved and that program rules allow households to keep or add backup heat sources. Split and administrators noted that incentives are often stacked with utility or Energy Trust programs and that the department is exploring contractor incentives to increase work in frontier counties.

Next steps The department said the proposal and amendments were developed with the program’s advisory council and regional administrators; the committee closed the public hearing with seven witnesses providing limited testimony in favor of the bill. No committee vote was recorded during the hearing; the department will supply any fiscal details or proposed rule changes for future committee action.

Ending: Program administrators and contractors urged lawmakers to provide additional funding and to adopt the statutory clarifications in HB 2567 so the programs can continue responding to strong statewide demand.