Oregon Gets Long Overdue Severe Weather Shutoff Rules

Last summer, after years of back and forth between key stakeholders – including energy utilities, Oregon Public Utility Commission’s (OPUC) Consumer Services Division, CUB, and others – OPUC Staff set into motion three “Low-Income Issue” dockets: AR 601 (Severe Weather Moratorium on Service Disconnection); AR 602 (Service Disconnection Reports from Energy Utilities);  and UM 1787 (Investigation into Percentage of Income Payment Program). CUB is pleased to report that stakeholder agreement was reached earlier this month with regard to new rules for energy utilities when it comes to disconnecting service in the event of severe (extremely hot or cold) weather (AR 601).

That important backstory here is that, to no great surprise, most states that experience severe weather conditions have adopted clear rules prohibiting energy utilities from shutting off service in the event of severe weather conditions. This, of course, makes perfect sense. Because when at the height of winter (especially a winter like this one) and the temperatures drop well below freezing, or when during the dog-days of summer the National Weather Service (NWS) delivers a heat advisory, families should not – under any circumstance – have their power or gas shut off due to billing issues.

Losing power or gas to heat or cool one’s home, or to feed and bathe oneself under severe weather conditions, is unacceptable in any time and place – but especially in the 21st Century and in the richest country in the world. The trouble is that until codifying these new rules to prohibit energy utilities from doing so, it has always been (and still is) a possibility in Oregon.

To be clear, energy utilities do not go out of their way to turn off the lights, heat, or air conditioning when the weather turns extreme. Before formalizing new rules, each utility had either a set of rules or an existing voluntary protection program already in place

Yet CUB and key stakeholders like PUC Staff and Community Action Partnership of Oregon (CAPO) felt strongly that inconsistent and voluntary protections do not cut it when it comes to adequately protecting vulnerable customers from shutoffs in cases of extreme weather.

The new rules aim to remedy this concern by applying them across the board, to all investor-owned energy utilities in Oregon. And while they will not be codified into State law until later this spring, the key points are as follows:

1. Moratorium takes effect when the daily high temperature is forecast below freezing;
2. Moratorium takes effect during a NWS Heat Advisory declaration;
3. Once declared, the moratorium stays in effect for at least 24 hours;
4. A utility can elect, instead, to create/offer an opt-in/voluntary “winter protection plan” in all or part of its service territory.

The rules seem pretty straightforward. Although readers will likely (and rightfully so) wonder about point number four – where a utility can either create or offer an existing winter protection program.

Allow me to explain:

Oregon, as we all know, is a climatically diverse state. The Cascade Range cuts right through our middle to produce drastically different seasonal weather conditions from East to West and North to South. Deep Southeastern Oregon, for instance, experiences on average, far more days each year below freezing than virtually anywhere else in the state.  And so a uniform, statewide severe weather moratorium that prohibits disconnections when the temperature drops below freezing would, during a “normal” year, exist from perhaps mid-November through the end of March in that region.

Now, on the surface, this does not sound like such a bad idea. In fact, CUB advocated for just that. However, the argument made by Idaho Power was that given the persistently cold temperatures of their Southeastern Oregon service territory, customers should have the option to voluntarily opt-in to a winter protection program, and that any such protection program should have a different temperature threshold (25 degrees Fahrenheit) than the rest of the State.

Ultimately, Idaho Power made the effective argument that given the projected length of the winter moratorium in their territory, too many customers would find themselves buried in past-due bills come spring when the moratorium lifts.

In the end, while CUB and CAPO disagreed with Idaho Power’s premise, finding compromise among all parties was necessary to establish these critically important statewide rules.

Stay tuned to CUB’s blog for updates to come on the two remaining low-income dockets.

To keep up with CUB, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter!

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

« Back