Docket Number	Docket Name	Company
UM 2273	INVESTIGATION INTO HOUSE BILL (HB) 2021 IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES

Created Date	Comment Type	First Name	Last Name	Comment
9/29/2025 2:08:41 PM	General (Docket-Specific)	Pat	DeLaquil	September 29, 2025 Public Utility Commission of Oregon 201 High Street, Suite 100 Salem, Oregon 97301 Comments regarding UM 2273: Investigation in House Bill 2021 Implementation Issues Dear Chair Tawney, Commissioners Perkins and Power: Mobilizing Climate Action Together (MCAT) is a community of volunteers working on advancing a healthy climate and a green economy for future generations. Many in our group have followed HB 2021 from its inception and have participated in the OPUC proceeding on this docket. While not experts in the field of utility ratemaking, we would like to offer our position on several key issues regarding how the HB 2021 cost cap should be implemented. Investments and Costs Eligible for HB 2021 Cost Cap Inclusion We fully agree with staff that the cost cap applies only to costs associated with sections 1 through 15 of HB 2021, and that the “counterfactual” model should remove only the constraints and assumptions required to ensure compliance with those sections, leaving in place all other policy requirement currently in force. We also support limited flexibility in the “but-for” test. During the IRP process, comparison of the counterfactual case versus the reference case should provide the core determination of whether or not a type of investment is eligible for inclusion in the cost cap. Investment types that occur in both the reference and counterfactual cases should be automatically excluded from the HB 2021 cost cap, and investment only included in the reference scenario would count towards the cost cap, once acted upon though a procurement process. The need for flexibility should be limited to transition and dual use issues, such as: 1. For an investment that meets both RPS and HB 2021 targets and first exceeds the RPS target, the incremental cost for the portion over RPS target would count towards the cost cap. 2. For a dual use investment that meets both HB 2021 and WRAP resource adequacy requirements, would also result in a proportional allocation to the HB 2021 cost cap. Investments that haven’t been examined through a counterfactual analysis could be proposed by the utilities, but would require an equivalent analysis to establish why the section 1-15 provisions of HB 2021 are the major drivers for the investment. Forecasted Costs We agree with the position stated by NWEC/RNW that the cost cap should apply “only to identifiable costs associated with utility investments capable of being recovered in rates via a general rate case or the application of Oregon’s renewable automatic adjustment clause, not hypothetical costs projected earlier in the planning and procurement process.” Therefore, we support staff’s position that a utility commitment to a project is required to meet the definition of “forecast costs.” Interaction Between HB 2021 and RPS Cost Caps We believe that there is a simple and clear-cut relationship between the requirements of HB 2021 and Oregon's Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). Until the RPS target is reached all qualifying investments only count towards the RPS, and only when the RPS targets are exceeded, do the additional costs count towards HB 2021 compliance. Time Period for Cost Cap Application We agree that the cost cap applies to individual years based on the relevant costs and revenue requirements for those years. However, the Staff proposal leaves to further development the question of how, during a cost cap proceeding, any updates to the utility’s projected revenue requirement for a particular year, should be made. In light of the desire to reduce the complexity and simplify the process of determining the HB 2021 cost impact, we recommend that the Commission employ the following simplifying assumptions to make Section 10 determinations a more feasible balance between climate goals and affordability: • The incremental compliance cost of HB 2021 (the numerator in the cost cap equation) should include existing approved and contract-based forecast costs for that year. • The revenue requirement, which is the sum of the following terms (and the denominator in the cost cap equation), should only be adjusted as follows: o Rate Base should be the most recent one approved by the OPUC, and should only be modified to include any rate base changes attributed to the actions taken for HB 2021 compliance in that year. o The Operating expenses most recently approved by the OPUC should be modified for: ? Real or projected changes in power purchase costs, where this modification should apply uniformly to power purchase costs in the denominator and the numerator, and ? The impact of single-issue ratemaking mechanisms, such as recover the costs of wildfire mitigation plans, or the Renewable Resources Automatic Adjustment Clause. Cumulative Rate Impact We support CUB’s position that a calculation of the cumulative rate impact for the purposes of the HB 2021 cost cap is based upon the current costs of both ac