Docket Number	Docket Name	Company
UM 2345	PACIFICORP CONTINUAL PROGRESS TOWARDS HB 2021 COMPLIANCE	PACIFIC POWER

Comment Number	Created Date	Email Received Date	Company Name	Comment Type	Source Type	First Name	Last Name	Email	Nearest City	Comment
UM 2345-1	1/30/2025 3:58:27 PM		PACIFIC POWER	Oppose Docket	Web	Tom	Easley		CORVALLIS	I have been a Pacific Power customer since I moved to Oregon four years ago. Last year I retired after 39 years in the public policy profession, working primarily in the State of Colorado. The last 18 years of that work focused on state and local government climate and clean energy policy, at both the legislative and regulatory levels. Given this background, after examining the issues that Docket UM 2345 covers, I was frankly very surprised to find that in Oregon the utility companies are still challenging the PUC’s basic authority and responsibilities to establish an effective regulatory framework, one that places reasonable curbs on the greenhouse and hazardous gas emissions of profit-driven corporations under PUC jurisdiction. The simple fact is that for-profit utility companies are compelled to act to protect their capital investments sunk into power sources dependent on fossil fuels. Yet what are woefully inadequately considered are the externalities that power companies are not required to account for in their bottom line calculations - in other words, the social costs of carbon-based power production. In Colorado, we worked very hard to get social costs of carbon considered in cost-benefit analyses mandated by regulatory policies. And that is having demonstrably positive outcomes in the electric resource plans and proceedings under the authority of the Colorado PUC. I strongly urge you to consider doing the same for future proceedings, at the very least using the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2022 proposal of $190 per ton of CO2 equivalent. In this proceeding, PacfiCorp is trying to advance the patently absurd position that in HB 2021 the Legislature limited the Commission’s actions to acknowledgement only of utility company plans, a direct contravention of its established authority and responsibility to adopt regulations governing compliance with the state’s 2030 climate and clean energy goals. In my opinion, this proceeding is very much related to the legislation being considered in the current legislative session, directing the PUC to establish a special rate structure for Oregon’s most prominent welfare queens, the corporate data centers taking advantage of tax breaks as they strive to meet the extraordinary power demands of AI-driven technology, already at 10 percent of the total electric demand and destined to skyrocket upwards. There is obviously a huge role for the PUC in that effort, and I urge you to put the utility companies on notice that you fully intend to follow through on your responsibilities to build the regulatory framework that accomplishes the strong direction set forth in state policy. You can do so by quickly and firmly rejecting PacifiCorp’s outrageous position that you have only an advisory role in its plans to meet the state’s climate and clean energy goals. Or not to meet them, as is at the core of PacifiCorp’s claims in this proceeding. The climate crisis is real and adopting actions to curb it are urgent. Let’s all please move forward on focusing our attention on meeting the state’s goals, rather than wasting time on PacifiCorp’s egregious maneuvers to avoid them. Thank you.