Bob Jenks Testifies on the Transition From Coal Proposal

Last week we told you about our involvement in an historic agreement reached through a collaborative effort between CUB, the state’s largest electric utilities, and a number of environmental groups. Today, as part of a presentation to a joint meeting of the House Energy and Environment and the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committees, I will be testifying about why I believe that this legislative proposal is in the best interest of utility customers. As part of this I wanted to give you an idea of what I will be saying in this testimony and encourage you to listen to the hearing, which will begin at 2:00pm Pacific.

You can see the agenda for the meeting here and watch the hearing live by visiting the OR Legislature online (scroll down in the menu titled “Live and Upcoming Meetings” to “House Interim Committee On Energy and Environment 2016-01-14 2:00 PM”; the video link will display as “In Progress – View Event”.)

The group that worked together to reach this agreement is hoping to see this proposal passed into law during the 2016 short session. So watch for updates and “calls to action” as needed in the next few weeks.

Here are the arguments I plan to make to committee members today:

I strongly believe that this legislation is in the best interests of customers.  First, this bill sets out a policy which is supported by customers. Polls, focus groups, customer surveys by utilities – I have seen a great deal of evidence that demonstrates that the customers I represent want to see coal phased out and they want to see us expand investment in clean energy.  This is what makes the ballot measure possible and this is why the utilities want to find a way to avoid the ballot measure.

This bill sets up the broad policy goals of phasing out Oregon’s coal usage over the next 20 years and doubling our commitment to renewables over the next 25 years.  But the bill also allows the specific transition plans to be developed in Integrated Resource Plans that are worked out under the direction of the Public Utility Commission.  And those planning processes are how we will determine the least cost way to make this transition. 

By combining this planning process with the flexibility that the agreement contains, we anticipate that the result will be lower implementation costs.  For example the initiative would phase out the coal plants based on the date that the utility has fully recovered its original investment.  Essentially this is the projected useful life of these plants that was set decades ago. Under the legislation, coal plants would be phased out by 2030, but the schedule would be based on least cost planning as informed by the Clean Power Plan.

Beyond using least cost planning to develop the implementation plans, there are several other essential consumer protections in this bill:
1. It retains the 4% cost cap that was in the original RPS. If it causes rates to be 4% higher than they would otherwise be, the Public Utility Commission (PUC) can temporarily suspend implementation of the RPS.
2. It would allow the utilities to request that the PUC put a pause on implementation if it is clear that reliability issues would arise.  And under this reliability provision, the PUC can order the utilities to take specific action to remedy the situation.
3. It makes clear that we will only invest in renewables after we have found all cost effective energy efficiency – our cheapest resource.
4. It retains the basic structure of how we currently develop resources. I already mentioned least cost planning, but it also includes competitive procurement through Requests for Proposals.
5. It ensures that the Renewable Energy Credits generated by qualifying projects can all be used for compliance.
6. It spreads this transition over the next 25 years.
7. It includes a community solar program that allows Oregonians who do not have a south facing roof the opportunity to reduce their power bills with an alternative kind of solar investment.

When we started these discussions at the end of October, I would have bet against success. The stakeholders involved did not speak a common language, they did not fully trust each other, and they had very different missions.  But we spent a lot of time together.  We were forced to actually listen to each other, and understand each other’s concerns.  Rather than a big, expensive, ugly fight over a ballot measure, stakeholders worked to find a common solution.  In the end, we came up with something that I personally think is better than the initiatives and great for Oregon.

To keep up with CUB, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter! You can also keep up to date with breaking news by joining our email list today!

• Share this post on Facebook.
• Share this post on LinkedIn.
• Share this post with email.

« Back