Docket Number	Docket Name	Company
UE 443	PGE ADVICE NO. 24-13 (ADV 1630) SCHEDULE 300 LEA	PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC

Created Date	Comment Type	First Name	Last Name	Comment
5/6/2026 6:10:34 AM	Oppose Docket	David	Kime	To the Commissioners, I am an Oregon residential customer of Pacific Power writing to oppose the scale of the proposed rate increase and to request targeted reductions to protect affordability and ensure fair risk allocation. Electricity is an essential service. Recent, repeated rate increases have materially raised my monthly costs, and another double-digit increase—particularly one driven in part by wildfire-related expenses—creates real strain for households like mine. Incremental increases year after year are not incremental to customers; they compound. I am not asking the Commission to ignore real system needs. Reliability, wildfire mitigation, and grid hardening are important. However, the core question in this case is **who should bear the financial risk** of those investments and past decisions. I urge the Commission to take the following actions: **1) Disallow or limit recovery of wildfire-related costs that are not prudently incurred.** Customers should not be the default insurer of last resort. Where risks are foreseeable and tied to utility operations, a meaningful share should remain with shareholders to preserve proper incentives for risk management. **2) Reduce the allowed return on equity (ROE).** Even modest adjustments to ROE can materially reduce customer impacts without jeopardizing access to capital. Current economic conditions do not justify outsized returns while customers face essential-service affordability challenges. **3) Scrutinize capital spending and phase non-critical projects.** Not all proposed investments are equally urgent. The Commission should require clear prioritization of projects that directly improve safety and reliability and defer or stage others to smooth rate impacts. **4) Protect residential customers through stronger bill mitigation.** If any increase is approved, it should be moderated and phased in, with expanded bill assistance and protections for low- and moderate-income households. **5) Tie cost recovery to performance.** Where possible, link recovery of major cost categories to measurable outcomes (e.g., wildfire risk reduction, outage performance), ensuring customers pay for results—not just spending. Oregonians expect a balanced approach: reliable service at a reasonable cost, and a fair sharing of risks between customers and shareholders. The current proposal does not strike that balance. I respectfully ask the Commission to significantly reduce the requested increase and apply stricter standards to cost recovery and returns.