Docket Number	Docket Name	Company
UG 525	CASCADE NATURAL GAS CORPORATION REQUEST FOR A GENERAL RATE REVISION	CASCADE NATURAL GAS

Created Date	Comment Type	First Name	Last Name	Comment
12/10/2025 8:39:27 AM	General Comment	Heidi	Hartman	This comment was submitted via email and included an attachment. Because our public comment system cannot process attachments, a full version of the comment has been docketed and can be accessed in the “Actions” tab in eDockets. Dear Oregon Public Utility Commissioners: Please stop Line Extension Allowances for Cascade Natural Gas as soon as legally possible. This practice is unfair to ratepayers, who already pay enough for the energy they use, and it is unfair to other utilities that Cascade is the only utility in Oregon allowed to continue this practice. In addition to economic and competitiveness concerns, Line Extension Allowances multiply the many negative health, safety, and climate impacts of methane gas and its byproducts. They are also irrational, because they work against Oregon's climate goals, canceling hardwon pollution reductions in other sectors. Line Extension Allowances are not in the public interest. Please stop them immediately.
12/10/2025 9:06:44 AM	General Comment	Connie	Peterson	This comment was submitted via email and included an attachment. Because our public comment system cannot process attachments, a full version of the comment has been docketed and can be accessed in the “Actions” tab in eDockets. Dear Oregon Public Utility Commissioners: Please stop Line Extension Allowances for Cascade Natural Gas as soon as legally possible. This practice is unfair to ratepayers, who already pay enough for the energy they use, and it is unfair to other utilities that Cascade is the only utility in Oregon allowed to continue this practice. In addition to economic and competitiveness concerns, Line Extension Allowances multiply the many negative health, safety, and climate impacts of methane gas and its byproducts. They are also irrational, because they work against Oregon's climate goals, canceling hardwon pollution reductions in other sectors. Line Extension Allowances are not in the public interest. Please stop them immediately
12/10/2025 9:09:11 AM	General Comment	Byron	Pittam	This comment was submitted via email and included an attachment. Because our public comment system cannot process attachments, a full version of the comment has been docketed and can be accessed in the “Actions” tab in eDockets. Dear Oregon Public Utility Commissioners: Please stop Line Extension Allowances for Cascade Natural Gas as soon as legally possible. This practice is unfair to ratepayers, who already pay enough for the energy they use, and it is unfair to other utilities that Cascade is the only utility in Oregon allowed to continue this practice. In addition to economic and competitiveness concerns, Line Extension Allowances multiply the many negative health, safety, and climate impacts of methane gas and its byproducts. They are also irrational, because they work against Oregon's climate goals, canceling hardwon pollution reductions in other sectors. Line Extension Allowances are not in the public interest. Please stop them immediately.
12/10/2025 9:12:06 AM	General Comment	John	Murillo	This comment was submitted via email and included an attachment. Because our public comment system cannot process attachments, a full version of the comment has been docketed and can be accessed in the “Actions” tab in eDockets. Dear Oregon Public Utility Commissioners: Please stop Line Extension Allowances for Cascade Natural Gas as soon as legally possible. This practice is unfair to ratepayers, who already pay enough for the energy they use, and it is unfair to other utilities that Cascade is the only utility in Oregon allowed to continue this practice. In addition to economic and competitiveness concerns, Line Extension Allowances multiply the many negative health, safety, and climate impacts of methane gas and its byproducts. They are also irrational, because they work against Oregon's climate goals, canceling hardwon pollution reductions in other sectors. Line Extension Allowances are not in the public interest. Please stop them immediately.
12/10/2025 9:13:34 AM	General Comment	Beth	Jacobi	This comment was submitted via email and included an attachment. Because our public comment system cannot process attachments, a full version of the comment has been docketed and can be accessed in the “Actions” tab in eDockets. Dear Oregon Public Utility Commissioners: Please stop Line Extension Allowances for Cascade Natural Gas as soon as legally possible. This practice is unfair to ratepayers, who already pay enough for the energy they use, and it is unfair to other utilities that Cascade is the only utility in Oregon allowed to continue this practice. In addition to economic and competitiveness concerns, Line Extension Allowances multiply the many negative health, safety, and climate impacts of methane gas and its byproducts. They are also irrational, because they work against Oregon's climate goals, canceling hardwon pollution reductions in other sectors. Line Extension Allowances are not in the public interest. Please stop them immediately.
12/10/2025 9:15:05 AM	General Comment	Maureen	Sweeney	This comment was submitted via email and included an attachment. Because our public comment system cannot process attachments, a full version of the comment has been docketed and can be accessed in the “Actions” tab in eDockets. Dear Oregon Public Utility Commissioners: Please stop Line Extension Allowances for Cascade Natural Gas as soon as legally possible. This practice is unfair to ratepayers, who already pay enough for the energy they use, and it is unfair to other utilities that Cascade is the only utility in Oregon allowed to continue this practice. In addition to economic and competitiveness concerns, Line Extension Allowances multiply the many negative health, safety, and climate impacts of methane gas and its byproducts. They are also irrational, because they work against Oregon's climate goals, canceling hardwon pollution reductions in other sectors. Line Extension Allowances are not in the public interest. Please stop them immediately.
12/10/2025 9:17:37 AM	General (Docket-Specific)	Cheryl	Morgen	This comment was submitted via email and included an attachment. Because our public comment system cannot process attachments, a full version of the comment has been docketed and can be accessed in the “Actions” tab in eDockets. Dear Oregon Public Utility Commissioners: Please stop Line Extension Allowances for Cascade Natural Gas as soon as legally possible. This practice is unfair to ratepayers, who already pay enough for the energy they use, and it is unfair to other utilities that Cascade is the only utility in Oregon allowed to continue this practice. In addition to economic and competitiveness concerns, Line Extension Allowances multiply the many negative health, safety, and climate impacts of methane gas and its byproducts. They are also irrational, because they work against Oregon's climate goals, canceling hardwon pollution reductions in other sectors. Line Extension Allowances are not in the public interest. Please stop them immediately.
12/10/2025 9:26:45 AM	General (Docket-Specific)	Eileen	Sherry	This comment was submitted via email and included an attachment. Because our public comment system cannot process attachments, a full version of the comment has been docketed and can be accessed in the “Actions” tab in eDockets. Dear Oregon Public Utility Commissioners: Please stop Line Extension Allowances for Cascade Natural Gas as soon as legally possible. This practice is unfair to ratepayers, who already pay enough for the energy they use, and it is unfair to other utilities that Cascade is the only utility in Oregon allowed to continue this practice. In addition to economic and competitiveness concerns, Line Extension Allowances multiply the many negative health, safety, and climate impacts of methane gas and its byproducts. They are also irrational, because they work against Oregon's climate goals, canceling hardwon pollution reductions in other sectors. Line Extension Allowances are not in the public interest. Please stop them immediately.
12/10/2025 9:28:16 AM	General (Docket-Specific)	Taylor	Silvey	This comment was submitted via email and included an attachment. Because our public comment system cannot process attachments, a full version of the comment has been docketed and can be accessed in the “Actions” tab in eDockets. Dear Oregon Public Utility Commissioners: Please stop Line Extension Allowances for Cascade Natural Gas as soon as legally possible. This practice is unfair to ratepayers, who already pay enough for the energy they use, and it is unfair to other utilities that Cascade is the only utility in Oregon allowed to continue this practice. In addition to economic and competitiveness concerns, Line Extension Allowances multiply the many negative health, safety, and climate impacts of methane gas and its byproducts. They are also irrational, because they work against Oregon's climate goals, canceling hardwon pollution reductions in other sectors. Line Extension Allowances are not in the public interest. Please stop them immediately.
12/11/2025 12:32:37 AM	General Comment			Docket Name: CASCADE NATURAL GAS CORPORATION REQUEST FOR A GENERAL RATE REVISION Description: Heidi Hartman's Public Comment. Use the link below to view this document: http://edocs.puc.state.or.us/efdocs/HPC/ug525hpc342043058.pdf If you no longer wish to receive notifications in this docket, please contact the Administrative Hearings Division Support Unit at puc.hearings@puc.oregon.gov or (503)-378-6678
1/6/2026 9:34:00 AM	Oppose Docket	Jeff	Hagedorn	I received notice with my bill from Cascade Natural Gas that they are requesting a 17.40 percent rate increase for distribution system infrastructure. I am not in favor of this increase. It is too high for seniors on a fixed income. A 2 or 3 percent increase would be acceptable depending on what infrastructure is being built. Is it new new build for new customers? If yes, the new customers should pay for it. Thank you for your time.
1/29/2026 12:32:13 AM	General Comment			Dear Oregon Public Utility Commission, As a Cascade Natural Gas customer, I urge the Commission to prioritize energy affordability and only necessary costs in this Cascade rate case. In a time where so many Oregonians are struggling with energy affordability, I think the Commission should take a serious look into what Cascade is trying to increase rates for, and if it's fair or even smart to do so. The proposed $11 per month average increase may not seem like a lot by itself, but the increased impact in winter will hurt many Oregonians who are already struggling. Any unnecessary rate increases will risk adding pressure to our neighbors. Cascade’s request to raise rates for several items is unnecessary and risky to customers. Those being 1) the Line Extension Allowance, 2) risky bets on renewable natural gas, and 3) investments that overestimate the growth of the gas system. Line extension allowances are only benefiting the company's profits by charging customers like me to expand the gas hookups to new developments. The Commission ended this subsidy for NW Natural and Avista because it does not benefit customers. As folks all over the state choose to go electric and Cascade must reduce emissions, we must question if this subsidy should be continued. Removing it would save existing customers money. People should have their choice of what they want to use for heating and cooking in their homes, but Cascade would seek to penalize community members who make that change by charging penalties if a minimum usage isn’t met. I’m also very concerned that Cascade is not being realistic about how our state is changing and choosing to move into the future. Gas utilities must reduce their emissions by 2050, but we need that to be affordable. Cascade is looking to bet on renewable natural gas, which is expensive. Not to mention that we’re currently seeing the issues with these investments from NW Natural’s failed project in Lexington. Alternatives like moving customers to electric appliances also reduce gas use and are shown to be cheaper, practical, and better at reducing emissions. Oregonians cannot afford to pay the price for bad bets on renewable natural gas. I urge the Commission to require Cascade to review alternatives instead of continuing investments in natural gas. I’m also concerned that Cascade is spending too much for growth that isn’t happening. Cascade seems to be projecting more growth in its gas system than makes sense for Oregon. Approval of these overinvestments will strain Oregonian household budgets unnecessarily. Bend, Cascade’s largest service area, is actively considering policies that would shrink the gas system. It is irresponsible to make costly investments that do not account for the trends we see in Oregon. I urge the Commission to take a long look and choose metered and responsible investments over risky bets and outdated, expensive policies. Sincerely, Stephen Hocker Lincoln City, 97367
1/29/2026 12:32:16 AM	General Comment			Dear Oregon Public Utility Commission, As a Cascade Natural Gas customer, I urge the Commission to prioritize energy affordability and only necessary costs in this Cascade rate case. In a time where so many Oregonians are struggling with energy affordability, I think the Commission should take a serious look into what Cascade is trying to increase rates for, and if it's fair or even smart to do so. The proposed $11 per month average increase may not seem like a lot by itself, but the increased impact in winter will hurt many Oregonians who are already struggling. Any unnecessary rate increases will risk adding pressure to our neighbors. Cascade’s request to raise rates for several items is unnecessary and risky to customers. Those being 1) the Line Extension Allowance, 2) risky bets on renewable natural gas, and 3) investments that overestimate the growth of the gas system. Line extension allowances are only benefiting the company's profits by charging customers like me to expand the gas hookups to new developments. The Commission ended this subsidy for NW Natural and Avista because it does not benefit customers. As folks all over the state choose to go electric and Cascade must reduce emissions, we must question if this subsidy should be continued. Removing it would save existing customers money. People should have their choice of what they want to use for heating and cooking in their homes, but Cascade would seek to penalize community members who make that change by charging penalties if a minimum usage isn’t met. I’m also very concerned that Cascade is not being realistic about how our state is changing and choosing to move into the future. Gas utilities must reduce their emissions by 2050, but we need that to be affordable. Cascade is looking to bet on renewable natural gas, which is expensive. Not to mention that we’re currently seeing the issues with these investments from NW Natural’s failed project in Lexington. Alternatives like moving customers to electric appliances also reduce gas use and are shown to be cheaper, practical, and better at reducing emissions. Oregonians cannot afford to pay the price for bad bets on renewable natural gas. I urge the Commission to require Cascade to review alternatives instead of continuing investments in natural gas. I’m also concerned that Cascade is spending too much for growth that isn’t happening. Cascade seems to be projecting more growth in its gas system than makes sense for Oregon. Approval of these overinvestments will strain Oregonian household budgets unnecessarily. Bend, Cascade’s largest service area, is actively considering policies that would shrink the gas system. It is irresponsible to make costly investments that do not account for the trends we see in Oregon. I urge the Commission to take a long look and choose metered and responsible investments over risky bets and outdated, expensive policies. Sincerely, David Nichols Portland, 97213
1/29/2026 12:32:18 AM	General Comment			Dear Oregon Public Utility Commission, As a Cascade Natural Gas customer, I urge the Commission to prioritize energy affordability and only necessary costs in this Cascade rate case. In a time where so many Oregonians are struggling with energy affordability, I think the Commission should take a serious look into what Cascade is trying to increase rates for, and if it's fair or even smart to do so. The proposed $11 per month average increase may not seem like a lot by itself, but the increased impact in winter will hurt many Oregonians who are already struggling. Any unnecessary rate increases will risk adding pressure to our neighbors. Cascade’s request to raise rates for several items is unnecessary and risky to customers. Those being 1) the Line Extension Allowance, 2) risky bets on renewable natural gas, and 3) investments that overestimate the growth of the gas system. Line extension allowances are only benefiting the company's profits by charging customers like me to expand the gas hookups to new developments. The Commission ended this subsidy for NW Natural and Avista because it does not benefit customers. As folks all over the state choose to go electric and Cascade must reduce emissions, we must question if this subsidy should be continued. Removing it would save existing customers money. People should have their choice of what they want to use for heating and cooking in their homes, but Cascade would seek to penalize community members who make that change by charging penalties if a minimum usage isn’t met. I’m also very concerned that Cascade is not being realistic about how our state is changing and choosing to move into the future. Gas utilities must reduce their emissions by 2050, but we need that to be affordable. Cascade is looking to bet on renewable natural gas, which is expensive. Not to mention that we’re currently seeing the issues with these investments from NW Natural’s failed project in Lexington. Alternatives like moving customers to electric appliances also reduce gas use and are shown to be cheaper, practical, and better at reducing emissions. Oregonians cannot afford to pay the price for bad bets on renewable natural gas. I urge the Commission to require Cascade to review alternatives instead of continuing investments in natural gas. I’m also concerned that Cascade is spending too much for growth that isn’t happening. Cascade seems to be projecting more growth in its gas system than makes sense for Oregon. Approval of these overinvestments will strain Oregonian household budgets unnecessarily. Bend, Cascade’s largest service area, is actively considering policies that would shrink the gas system. It is irresponsible to make costly investments that do not account for the trends we see in Oregon. I urge the Commission to take a long look and choose metered and responsible investments over risky bets and outdated, expensive policies. Sincerely, Donna Bonetti North Bend, 97459
1/29/2026 12:32:20 AM	General Comment			Dear Oregon Public Utility Commission, As a Cascade Natural Gas customer, I urge the Commission to prioritize energy affordability and only necessary costs in this Cascade rate case. In a time where so many Oregonians are struggling with energy affordability, I think the Commission should take a serious look into what Cascade is trying to increase rates for, and if it's fair or even smart to do so. The proposed $11 per month average increase may not seem like a lot by itself, but the increased impact in winter will hurt many Oregonians who are already struggling. Any unnecessary rate increases will risk adding pressure to our neighbors. Cascade’s request to raise rates for several items is unnecessary and risky to customers. Those being 1) the Line Extension Allowance, 2) risky bets on renewable natural gas, and 3) investments that overestimate the growth of the gas system. Line extension allowances are only benefiting the company's profits by charging customers like me to expand the gas hookups to new developments. The Commission ended this subsidy for NW Natural and Avista because it does not benefit customers. As folks all over the state choose to go electric and Cascade must reduce emissions, we must question if this subsidy should be continued. Removing it would save existing customers money. People should have their choice of what they want to use for heating and cooking in their homes, but Cascade would seek to penalize community members who make that change by charging penalties if a minimum usage isn’t met. I’m also very concerned that Cascade is not being realistic about how our state is changing and choosing to move into the future. Gas utilities must reduce their emissions by 2050, but we need that to be affordable. Cascade is looking to bet on renewable natural gas, which is expensive. Not to mention that we’re currently seeing the issues with these investments from NW Natural’s failed project in Lexington. Alternatives like moving customers to electric appliances also reduce gas use and are shown to be cheaper, practical, and better at reducing emissions. Oregonians cannot afford to pay the price for bad bets on renewable natural gas. I urge the Commission to require Cascade to review alternatives instead of continuing investments in natural gas. I’m also concerned that Cascade is spending too much for growth that isn’t happening. Cascade seems to be projecting more growth in its gas system than makes sense for Oregon. Approval of these overinvestments will strain Oregonian household budgets unnecessarily. Bend, Cascade’s largest service area, is actively considering policies that would shrink the gas system. It is irresponsible to make costly investments that do not account for the trends we see in Oregon. I urge the Commission to take a long look and choose metered and responsible investments over risky bets and outdated, expensive policies. Sincerely, Mollie Butler Portland, 97230
1/29/2026 12:32:23 AM	General Comment			Dear Oregon Public Utility Commission, As a Cascade Natural Gas customer, I urge the Commission to prioritize energy affordability and only necessary costs in this Cascade rate case. In a time where so many Oregonians are struggling with energy affordability, I think the Commission should take a serious look into what Cascade is trying to increase rates for, and if it's fair or even smart to do so. The proposed $11 per month average increase may not seem like a lot by itself, but the increased impact in winter will hurt many Oregonians who are already struggling. Any unnecessary rate increases will risk adding pressure to our neighbors. Cascade’s request to raise rates for several items is unnecessary and risky to customers. Those being 1) the Line Extension Allowance, 2) risky bets on renewable natural gas, and 3) investments that overestimate the growth of the gas system. Line extension allowances are only benefiting the company's profits by charging customers like me to expand the gas hookups to new developments. The Commission ended this subsidy for NW Natural and Avista because it does not benefit customers. As folks all over the state choose to go electric and Cascade must reduce emissions, we must question if this subsidy should be continued. Removing it would save existing customers money. People should have their choice of what they want to use for heating and cooking in their homes, but Cascade would seek to penalize community members who make that change by charging penalties if a minimum usage isn’t met. I’m also very concerned that Cascade is not being realistic about how our state is changing and choosing to move into the future. Gas utilities must reduce their emissions by 2050, but we need that to be affordable. Cascade is looking to bet on renewable natural gas, which is expensive. Not to mention that we’re currently seeing the issues with these investments from NW Natural’s failed project in Lexington. Alternatives like moving customers to electric appliances also reduce gas use and are shown to be cheaper, practical, and better at reducing emissions. Oregonians cannot afford to pay the price for bad bets on renewable natural gas. I urge the Commission to require Cascade to review alternatives instead of continuing investments in natural gas. I’m also concerned that Cascade is spending too much for growth that isn’t happening. Cascade seems to be projecting more growth in its gas system than makes sense for Oregon. Approval of these overinvestments will strain Oregonian household budgets unnecessarily. Bend, Cascade’s largest service area, is actively considering policies that would shrink the gas system. It is irresponsible to make costly investments that do not account for the trends we see in Oregon. I urge the Commission to take a long look and choose metered and responsible investments over risky bets and outdated, expensive policies. Sincerely, Chris Guillory Port Angeles, 98362
1/29/2026 12:32:25 AM	General Comment			Dear Oregon Public Utility Commission, As a Cascade Natural Gas customer, I urge the Commission to prioritize energy affordability and only necessary costs in this Cascade rate case. In a time where so many Oregonians are struggling with energy affordability, I think the Commission should take a serious look into what Cascade is trying to increase rates for, and if it's fair or even smart to do so. The proposed $11 per month average increase may not seem like a lot by itself, but the increased impact in winter will hurt many Oregonians who are already struggling. Any unnecessary rate increases will risk adding pressure to our neighbors. Cascade’s request to raise rates for several items is unnecessary and risky to customers. Those being 1) the Line Extension Allowance, 2) risky bets on renewable natural gas, and 3) investments that overestimate the growth of the gas system. Line extension allowances are only benefiting the company's profits by charging customers like me to expand the gas hookups to new developments. The Commission ended this subsidy for NW Natural and Avista because it does not benefit customers. As folks all over the state choose to go electric and Cascade must reduce emissions, we must question if this subsidy should be continued. Removing it would save existing customers money. People should have their choice of what they want to use for heating and cooking in their homes, but Cascade would seek to penalize community members who make that change by charging penalties if a minimum usage isn’t met. I’m also very concerned that Cascade is not being realistic about how our state is changing and choosing to move into the future. Gas utilities must reduce their emissions by 2050, but we need that to be affordable. Cascade is looking to bet on renewable natural gas, which is expensive. Not to mention that we’re currently seeing the issues with these investments from NW Natural’s failed project in Lexington. Alternatives like moving customers to electric appliances also reduce gas use and are shown to be cheaper, practical, and better at reducing emissions. Oregonians cannot afford to pay the price for bad bets on renewable natural gas. I urge the Commission to require Cascade to review alternatives instead of continuing investments in natural gas. I’m also concerned that Cascade is spending too much for growth that isn’t happening. Cascade seems to be projecting more growth in its gas system than makes sense for Oregon. Approval of these overinvestments will strain Oregonian household budgets unnecessarily. Bend, Cascade’s largest service area, is actively considering policies that would shrink the gas system. It is irresponsible to make costly investments that do not account for the trends we see in Oregon. I urge the Commission to take a long look and choose metered and responsible investments over risky bets and outdated, expensive policies. Sincerely, Maureen O'Neal Portland, 97223
1/29/2026 12:32:28 AM	General Comment			Dear Oregon Public Utility Commission, As a Cascade Natural Gas customer, I urge the Commission to prioritize energy affordability and only necessary costs in this Cascade rate case. In a time where so many Oregonians are struggling with energy affordability, I think the Commission should take a serious look into what Cascade is trying to increase rates for, and if it's fair or even smart to do so. The proposed $11 per month average increase may not seem like a lot by itself, but the increased impact in winter will hurt many Oregonians who are already struggling. Any unnecessary rate increases will risk adding pressure to our neighbors. Cascade’s request to raise rates for several items is unnecessary and risky to customers. Those being 1) the Line Extension Allowance, 2) risky bets on renewable natural gas, and 3) investments that overestimate the growth of the gas system. Line extension allowances are only benefiting the company's profits by charging customers like me to expand the gas hookups to new developments. The Commission ended this subsidy for NW Natural and Avista because it does not benefit customers. As folks all over the state choose to go electric and Cascade must reduce emissions, we must question if this subsidy should be continued. Removing it would save existing customers money. People should have their choice of what they want to use for heating and cooking in their homes, but Cascade would seek to penalize community members who make that change by charging penalties if a minimum usage isn’t met. I’m also very concerned that Cascade is not being realistic about how our state is changing and choosing to move into the future. Gas utilities must reduce their emissions by 2050, but we need that to be affordable. Cascade is looking to bet on renewable natural gas, which is expensive. Not to mention that we’re currently seeing the issues with these investments from NW Natural’s failed project in Lexington. Alternatives like moving customers to electric appliances also reduce gas use and are shown to be cheaper, practical, and better at reducing emissions. Oregonians cannot afford to pay the price for bad bets on renewable natural gas. I urge the Commission to require Cascade to review alternatives instead of continuing investments in natural gas. I’m also concerned that Cascade is spending too much for growth that isn’t happening. Cascade seems to be projecting more growth in its gas system than makes sense for Oregon. Approval of these overinvestments will strain Oregonian household budgets unnecessarily. Bend, Cascade’s largest service area, is actively considering policies that would shrink the gas system. It is irresponsible to make costly investments that do not account for the trends we see in Oregon. I urge the Commission to take a long look and choose metered and responsible investments over risky bets and outdated, expensive policies. Sincerely, Tracey Katsouros Waldorf, 20601
1/29/2026 12:32:30 AM	General Comment			Dear Oregon Public Utility Commission, As a Cascade Natural Gas customer, I urge the Commission to prioritize energy affordability and only necessary costs in this Cascade rate case. In a time where so many Oregonians are struggling with energy affordability, I think the Commission should take a serious look into what Cascade is trying to increase rates for, and if it's fair or even smart to do so. The proposed $11 per month average increase may not seem like a lot by itself, but the increased impact in winter will hurt many Oregonians who are already struggling. Any unnecessary rate increases will risk adding pressure to our neighbors. Cascade’s request to raise rates for several items is unnecessary and risky to customers. Those being 1) the Line Extension Allowance, 2) risky bets on renewable natural gas, and 3) investments that overestimate the growth of the gas system. Line extension allowances are only benefiting the company's profits by charging customers like me to expand the gas hookups to new developments. The Commission ended this subsidy for NW Natural and Avista because it does not benefit customers. As folks all over the state choose to go electric and Cascade must reduce emissions, we must question if this subsidy should be continued. Removing it would save existing customers money. People should have their choice of what they want to use for heating and cooking in their homes, but Cascade would seek to penalize community members who make that change by charging penalties if a minimum usage isn’t met. I’m also very concerned that Cascade is not being realistic about how our state is changing and choosing to move into the future. Gas utilities must reduce their emissions by 2050, but we need that to be affordable. Cascade is looking to bet on renewable natural gas, which is expensive. Not to mention that we’re currently seeing the issues with these investments from NW Natural’s failed project in Lexington. Alternatives like moving customers to electric appliances also reduce gas use and are shown to be cheaper, practical, and better at reducing emissions. Oregonians cannot afford to pay the price for bad bets on renewable natural gas. I urge the Commission to require Cascade to review alternatives instead of continuing investments in natural gas. I’m also concerned that Cascade is spending too much for growth that isn’t happening. Cascade seems to be projecting more growth in its gas system than makes sense for Oregon. Approval of these overinvestments will strain Oregonian household budgets unnecessarily. Bend, Cascade’s largest service area, is actively considering policies that would shrink the gas system. It is irresponsible to make costly investments that do not account for the trends we see in Oregon. I urge the Commission to take a long look and choose metered and responsible investments over risky bets and outdated, expensive policies. Sincerely, Bridget Callahan Westfir, 97492
1/29/2026 12:32:33 AM	General Comment			Dear Oregon Public Utility Commission, As a Cascade Natural Gas customer, I urge the Commission to prioritize energy affordability and only necessary costs in this Cascade rate case. In a time where so many Oregonians are struggling with energy affordability, I think the Commission should take a serious look into what Cascade is trying to increase rates for, and if it's fair or even smart to do so. The proposed $11 per month average increase may not seem like a lot by itself, but the increased impact in winter will hurt many Oregonians who are already struggling. Any unnecessary rate increases will risk adding pressure to our neighbors. Cascade’s request to raise rates for several items is unnecessary and risky to customers. Those being 1) the Line Extension Allowance, 2) risky bets on renewable natural gas, and 3) investments that overestimate the growth of the gas system. Line extension allowances are only benefiting the company's profits by charging customers like me to expand the gas hookups to new developments. The Commission ended this subsidy for NW Natural and Avista because it does not benefit customers. As folks all over the state choose to go electric and Cascade must reduce emissions, we must question if this subsidy should be continued. Removing it would save existing customers money. People should have their choice of what they want to use for heating and cooking in their homes, but Cascade would seek to penalize community members who make that change by charging penalties if a minimum usage isn’t met. I’m also very concerned that Cascade is not being realistic about how our state is changing and choosing to move into the future. Gas utilities must reduce their emissions by 2050, but we need that to be affordable. Cascade is looking to bet on renewable natural gas, which is expensive. Not to mention that we’re currently seeing the issues with these investments from NW Natural’s failed project in Lexington. Alternatives like moving customers to electric appliances also reduce gas use and are shown to be cheaper, practical, and better at reducing emissions. Oregonians cannot afford to pay the price for bad bets on renewable natural gas. I urge the Commission to require Cascade to review alternatives instead of continuing investments in natural gas. I’m also concerned that Cascade is spending too much for growth that isn’t happening. Cascade seems to be projecting more growth in its gas system than makes sense for Oregon. Approval of these overinvestments will strain Oregonian household budgets unnecessarily. Bend, Cascade’s largest service area, is actively considering policies that would shrink the gas system. It is irresponsible to make costly investments that do not account for the trends we see in Oregon. I urge the Commission to take a long look and choose metered and responsible investments over risky bets and outdated, expensive policies. Sincerely, Dana Weintraub Beaverton, 97003
1/29/2026 12:32:36 AM	General Comment			Dear Oregon Public Utility Commission, As a Cascade Natural Gas customer, I urge the Commission to prioritize energy affordability and only necessary costs in this Cascade rate case. How on earth does Cascade Natural Gas justify a whopping 17.4% rate increase? At a time when the cost of living is skyrocketing, Cascade should not be allowed to add to consumers' economic distress. In a time where so many Oregonians are struggling with energy affordability, the Commission should take a serious look into why Cascade is trying to increase rates, and if it's fair or even smart to do so. The proposed $11 per month average increase may not seem like a lot by itself, but the increased impact in winter will hurt many Oregonians who are already struggling. Any unnecessary rate increases will risk adding pressure to our neighbors. Cascade’s request to raise rates for several items is unnecessary and risky to customers. Those being 1) the Line Extension Allowance, 2) risky bets on renewable natural gas, and 3) investments that overestimate the growth of the gas system. Line extension allowances are only benefiting the company's profits by charging customers like me to expand the gas hookups to new developments. The Commission ended this subsidy for NW Natural and Avista because it does not benefit customers. As folks all over the state choose to go electric and Cascade must reduce emissions, we must question if this subsidy should be continued. Removing it would save existing customers money. People should have their choice of what they want to use for heating and cooking in their homes, but Cascade would seek to penalize community members who make that change by charging penalties if a minimum usage isn’t met. Cascade is not being realistic about how our state is changing and choosing to move into the future. Gas utilities must reduce their emissions by 2050, but we need that to be affordable. Cascade is looking to bet on renewable natural gas, which is expensive. Not to mention that we’re currently seeing the issues with these investments from NW Natural’s failed project in Lexington. Alternatives like moving customers to electric appliances also reduce gas use and are shown to be cheaper, practical, and better at reducing emissions. Oregonians cannot afford to pay the price for bad bets on renewable natural gas. I urge the Commission to require Cascade to review alternatives instead of continuing investments in natural gas. Cascade is spending too much for growth that isn’t happening. Cascade seems to be projecting more growth in its gas system than makes sense for Oregon. Approval of these overinvestments will strain Oregonian household budgets unnecessarily. Bend, Cascade’s largest service area, is actively considering policies that would shrink the gas system. It is irresponsible to make costly investments that do not account for the trends we see in Oregon. I urge the Commission to take a long look and choose metered and responsible investments over risky bets and outdated, expensive policies. Sincerely, Teresa DeLorenzo Astoria, 97103
1/29/2026 12:32:38 AM	General Comment			Dear Oregon Public Utility Commission, As a Cascade Natural Gas customer, I urge the Commission to prioritize energy affordability and only necessary costs in this Cascade rate case. In a time where so many Oregonians are struggling with energy affordability, I think the Commission should take a serious look into what Cascade is trying to increase rates for, and if it's fair or even smart to do so. The proposed $11 per month average increase may not seem like a lot by itself, but the increased impact in winter will hurt many Oregonians who are already struggling. Any unnecessary rate increases will risk adding pressure to our neighbors. Cascade’s request to raise rates for several items is unnecessary and risky to customers. Those being 1) the Line Extension Allowance, 2) risky bets on renewable natural gas, and 3) investments that overestimate the growth of the gas system. Line extension allowances are only benefiting the company's profits by charging customers like me to expand the gas hookups to new developments. The Commission ended this subsidy for NW Natural and Avista because it does not benefit customers. As folks all over the state choose to go electric and Cascade must reduce emissions, we must question if this subsidy should be continued. Removing it would save existing customers money. People should have their choice of what they want to use for heating and cooking in their homes, but Cascade would seek to penalize community members who make that change by charging penalties if a minimum usage isn’t met. I’m also very concerned that Cascade is not being realistic about how our state is changing and choosing to move into the future. Gas utilities must reduce their emissions by 2050, but we need that to be affordable. Cascade is looking to bet on renewable natural gas, which is expensive. Not to mention that we’re currently seeing the issues with these investments from NW Natural’s failed project in Lexington. Alternatives like moving customers to electric appliances also reduce gas use and are shown to be cheaper, practical, and better at reducing emissions. Oregonians cannot afford to pay the price for bad bets on renewable natural gas. I urge the Commission to require Cascade to review alternatives instead of continuing investments in natural gas. I’m also concerned that Cascade is spending too much for growth that isn’t happening. Cascade seems to be projecting more growth in its gas system than makes sense for Oregon. Approval of these overinvestments will strain Oregonian household budgets unnecessarily. Bend, Cascade’s largest service area, is actively considering policies that would shrink the gas system. It is irresponsible to make costly investments that do not account for the trends we see in Oregon. I urge the Commission to take a long look and choose metered and responsible investments over risky bets and outdated, expensive policies. Sincerely, GENE GRIFFITH Gold Beach, 97444
1/29/2026 12:32:41 AM	General Comment			Dear Oregon Public Utility Commission, As a Cascade Natural Gas customer, I urge the Commission to prioritize energy affordability and only necessary costs in this Cascade rate case. Thank goodness for CUB. They alert me to these plans and clearly explain the finer points of what's going on (that is, "the weeds"). In a time where so many Oregonians are struggling with energy affordability, I think the Commission should take a serious look into what Cascade is trying to increase rates for, and if it's fair or even smart to do so. The proposed $11 per month average increase may not seem like a lot by itself, but the increased impact in winter will hurt many Oregonians who are already struggling. Any unnecessary rate increases will risk adding pressure to our neighbors. Cascade’s request to raise rates for several items is unnecessary and risky to customers. Those being 1) the Line Extension Allowance, 2) risky bets on renewable natural gas, and 3) investments that overestimate the growth of the gas system. Line extension allowances are only benefiting the company's profits by charging customers like me to expand the gas hookups to new developments. The Commission ended this subsidy for NW Natural and Avista because it does not benefit customers. As folks all over the state choose to go electric and Cascade must reduce emissions, we must question if this subsidy should be continued. Removing it would save existing customers money. People should have their choice of what they want to use for heating and cooking in their homes, but Cascade would seek to penalize community members who make that change by charging penalties if a minimum usage isn’t met. I’m also very concerned that Cascade is not being realistic about how our state is changing and choosing to move into the future. Gas utilities must reduce their emissions by 2050, but we need that to be affordable. Cascade is looking to bet on renewable natural gas, which is expensive. Not to mention that we’re currently seeing the issues with these investments from NW Natural’s failed project in Lexington. Alternatives like moving customers to electric appliances also reduce gas use and are shown to be cheaper, practical, and better at reducing emissions. Oregonians cannot afford to pay the price for bad bets on renewable natural gas. I urge the Commission to require Cascade to review alternatives instead of continuing investments in natural gas. I’m also concerned that Cascade is spending too much for growth that isn’t happening. Cascade seems to be projecting more growth in its gas system than makes sense for Oregon. Approval of these overinvestments will strain Oregonian household budgets unnecessarily. Bend, Cascade’s largest service area, is actively considering policies that would shrink the gas system. It is irresponsible to make costly investments that do not account for the trends we see in Oregon. I urge the Commission to take a long look and choose metered and responsible investments over risky bets and outdated, expensive policies. Sincerely, Lyn Larson Corvallis, 97330
1/29/2026 12:32:43 AM	General Comment			Dear Oregon Public Utility Commission, As a Cascade Natural Gas customer, I urge the Commission to prioritize energy affordability and only necessary costs in this Cascade rate case. In a time where so many Oregonians are struggling with energy affordability, I think the Commission should take a serious look into what Cascade is trying to increase rates for, and if it's fair or even smart to do so. The proposed $11 per month average increase may not seem like a lot by itself, but the increased impact in winter will hurt many Oregonians who are already struggling. Any unnecessary rate increases will risk adding pressure to our neighbors. Cascade’s request to raise rates for several items is unnecessary and risky to customers. Those being 1) the Line Extension Allowance, 2) risky bets on renewable natural gas, and 3) investments that overestimate the growth of the gas system. Line extension allowances are only benefiting the company's profits by charging customers like me to expand the gas hookups to new developments. The Commission ended this subsidy for NW Natural and Avista because it does not benefit customers. As folks all over the state choose to go electric and Cascade must reduce emissions, we must question if this subsidy should be continued. Removing it would save existing customers money. People should have their choice of what they want to use for heating and cooking in their homes, but Cascade would seek to penalize community members who make that change by charging penalties if a minimum usage isn’t met. I’m also very concerned that Cascade is not being realistic about how our state is changing and choosing to move into the future. Gas utilities must reduce their emissions by 2050, but we need that to be affordable. Cascade is looking to bet on renewable natural gas, which is expensive. Not to mention that we’re currently seeing the issues with these investments from NW Natural’s failed project in Lexington. Alternatives like moving customers to electric appliances also reduce gas use and are shown to be cheaper, practical, and better at reducing emissions. Oregonians cannot afford to pay the price for bad bets on renewable natural gas. I urge the Commission to require Cascade to review alternatives instead of continuing investments in natural gas. I’m also concerned that Cascade is spending too much for growth that isn’t happening. Cascade seems to be projecting more growth in its gas system than makes sense for Oregon. Approval of these overinvestments will strain Oregonian household budgets unnecessarily. Bend, Cascade’s largest service area, is actively considering policies that would shrink the gas system. It is irresponsible to make costly investments that do not account for the trends we see in Oregon. I urge the Commission to take a long look and choose metered and responsible investments over risky bets and outdated, expensive policies. Sincerely, Patricia Jacobson Wilsonville, 97070
1/29/2026 12:32:45 AM	General Comment			Dear Oregon Public Utility Commission, As a Cascade Natural Gas customer, I urge the Commission to prioritize energy affordability and only necessary costs in this Cascade rate case. In a time where so many Oregonians are struggling with energy affordability, I think the Commission should take a serious look into what Cascade is trying to increase rates for, and if it's fair or even smart to do so. The proposed $11 per month average increase may not seem like a lot by itself, but the increased impact in winter will hurt many Oregonians who are already struggling. Any unnecessary rate increases will risk adding pressure to our neighbors. Cascade’s request to raise rates for several items is unnecessary and risky to customers. Those being 1) the Line Extension Allowance, 2) risky bets on renewable natural gas, and 3) investments that overestimate the growth of the gas system. Line extension allowances are only benefiting the company's profits by charging customers like me to expand the gas hookups to new developments. The Commission ended this subsidy for NW Natural and Avista because it does not benefit customers. As folks all over the state choose to go electric and Cascade must reduce emissions, we must question if this subsidy should be continued. Removing it would save existing customers money. People should have their choice of what they want to use for heating and cooking in their homes, but Cascade would seek to penalize community members who make that change by charging penalties if a minimum usage isn’t met. I’m also very concerned that Cascade is not being realistic about how our state is changing and choosing to move into the future. Gas utilities must reduce their emissions by 2050, but we need that to be affordable. Cascade is looking to bet on renewable natural gas, which is expensive. Not to mention that we’re currently seeing the issues with these investments from NW Natural’s failed project in Lexington. Alternatives like moving customers to electric appliances also reduce gas use and are shown to be cheaper, practical, and better at reducing emissions. Oregonians cannot afford to pay the price for bad bets on renewable natural gas. I urge the Commission to require Cascade to review alternatives instead of continuing investments in natural gas. I’m also concerned that Cascade is spending too much for growth that isn’t happening. Cascade seems to be projecting more growth in its gas system than makes sense for Oregon. Approval of these overinvestments will strain Oregonian household budgets unnecessarily. Bend, Cascade’s largest service area, is actively considering policies that would shrink the gas system. It is irresponsible to make costly investments that do not account for the trends we see in Oregon. I urge the Commission to take a long look and choose metered and responsible investments over risky bets and outdated, expensive policies. Sincerely, Paul F. Nett Portland, 97333
1/30/2026 12:32:16 AM	General Comment			Dear Oregon Public Utility Commission, As a Cascade Natural Gas customer, I urge the Commission to prioritize energy affordability and only necessary costs in this Cascade rate case. In a time where so many Oregonians are struggling with energy affordability, I think the Commission should take a serious look into what Cascade is trying to increase rates for, and if it's fair or even smart to do so. The proposed $11 per month average increase may not seem like a lot by itself, but the increased impact in winter will hurt many Oregonians who are already struggling. Any unnecessary rate increases will risk adding pressure to our neighbors. Cascade’s request to raise rates for several items is unnecessary and risky to customers. Those being 1) the Line Extension Allowance, 2) risky bets on renewable natural gas, and 3) investments that overestimate the growth of the gas system. Line extension allowances are only benefiting the company's profits by charging customers like me to expand the gas hookups to new developments. The Commission ended this subsidy for NW Natural and Avista because it does not benefit customers. As folks all over the state choose to go electric and Cascade must reduce emissions, we must question if this subsidy should be continued. Removing it would save existing customers money. People should have their choice of what they want to use for heating and cooking in their homes, but Cascade would seek to penalize community members who make that change by charging penalties if a minimum usage isn’t met. I’m also very concerned that Cascade is not being realistic about how our state is changing and choosing to move into the future. Gas utilities must reduce their emissions by 2050, but we need that to be affordable. Cascade is looking to bet on renewable natural gas, which is expensive. Not to mention that we’re currently seeing the issues with these investments from NW Natural’s failed project in Lexington. Alternatives like moving customers to electric appliances also reduce gas use and are shown to be cheaper, practical, and better at reducing emissions. Oregonians cannot afford to pay the price for bad bets on renewable natural gas. I urge the Commission to require Cascade to review alternatives instead of continuing investments in natural gas. I’m also concerned that Cascade is spending too much for growth that isn’t happening. Cascade seems to be projecting more growth in its gas system than makes sense for Oregon. Approval of these overinvestments will strain Oregonian household budgets unnecessarily. Bend, Cascade’s largest service area, is actively considering policies that would shrink the gas system. It is irresponsible to make costly investments that do not account for the trends we see in Oregon. I urge the Commission to take a long look and choose metered and responsible investments over risky bets and outdated, expensive policies. Sincerely, Juanita Rinas Eugene, 97402
1/30/2026 12:32:19 AM	General Comment			Dear Oregon Public Utility Commission, As a Cascade Natural Gas customer, I urge the Commission to prioritize energy affordability and only necessary costs in this Cascade rate case. In a time where so many Oregonians are struggling with energy affordability, I think the Commission should take a serious look into what Cascade is trying to increase rates for, and if it's fair or even smart to do so. The proposed $11 per month average increase may not seem like a lot by itself, but the increased impact in winter will hurt many Oregonians who are already struggling. Any unnecessary rate increases will risk adding pressure to our neighbors. Cascade’s request to raise rates for several items is unnecessary and risky to customers. Those being 1) the Line Extension Allowance, 2) risky bets on renewable natural gas, and 3) investments that overestimate the growth of the gas system. Line extension allowances are only benefiting the company's profits by charging customers like me to expand the gas hookups to new developments. The Commission ended this subsidy for NW Natural and Avista because it does not benefit customers. As folks all over the state choose to go electric and Cascade must reduce emissions, we must question if this subsidy should be continued. Removing it would save existing customers money. People should have their choice of what they want to use for heating and cooking in their homes, but Cascade would seek to penalize community members who make that change by charging penalties if a minimum usage isn’t met. I’m also very concerned that Cascade is not being realistic about how our state is changing and choosing to move into the future. Gas utilities must reduce their emissions by 2050, but we need that to be affordable. Cascade is looking to bet on renewable natural gas, which is expensive. Not to mention that we’re currently seeing the issues with these investments from NW Natural’s failed project in Lexington. Alternatives like moving customers to electric appliances also reduce gas use and are shown to be cheaper, practical, and better at reducing emissions. Oregonians cannot afford to pay the price for bad bets on renewable natural gas. I urge the Commission to require Cascade to review alternatives instead of continuing investments in natural gas. I’m also concerned that Cascade is spending too much for growth that isn’t happening. Cascade seems to be projecting more growth in its gas system than makes sense for Oregon. Approval of these overinvestments will strain Oregonian household budgets unnecessarily. Bend, Cascade’s largest service area, is actively considering policies that would shrink the gas system. It is irresponsible to make costly investments that do not account for the trends we see in Oregon. I urge the Commission to take a long look and choose metered and responsible investments over risky bets and outdated, expensive policies. Sincerely, margo wyse Mimbres, 88049
1/30/2026 12:32:21 AM	General Comment			Dear Oregon Public Utility Commission, As a Cascade Natural Gas customer, I urge the Commission to prioritize energy affordability and only necessary costs in this Cascade rate case. In a time where so many Oregonians are struggling with energy affordability, I think the Commission should take a serious look into what Cascade is trying to increase rates for, and if it's fair or even smart to do so. The proposed $11 per month average increase may not seem like a lot by itself, but the increased impact in winter will hurt many Oregonians who are already struggling. Any unnecessary rate increases will risk adding pressure to our neighbors. Cascade’s request to raise rates for several items is unnecessary and risky to customers. Those being 1) the Line Extension Allowance, 2) risky bets on renewable natural gas, and 3) investments that overestimate the growth of the gas system. Line extension allowances are only benefiting the company's profits by charging customers like me to expand the gas hookups to new developments. The Commission ended this subsidy for NW Natural and Avista because it does not benefit customers. As folks all over the state choose to go electric and Cascade must reduce emissions, we must question if this subsidy should be continued. Removing it would save existing customers money. People should have their choice of what they want to use for heating and cooking in their homes, but Cascade would seek to penalize community members who make that change by charging penalties if a minimum usage isn’t met. I’m also very concerned that Cascade is not being realistic about how our state is changing and choosing to move into the future. Gas utilities must reduce their emissions by 2050, but we need that to be affordable. Cascade is looking to bet on renewable natural gas, which is expensive. Not to mention that we’re currently seeing the issues with these investments from NW Natural’s failed project in Lexington. Alternatives like moving customers to electric appliances also reduce gas use and are shown to be cheaper, practical, and better at reducing emissions. Oregonians cannot afford to pay the price for bad bets on renewable natural gas. I urge the Commission to require Cascade to review alternatives instead of continuing investments in natural gas. I’m also concerned that Cascade is spending too much for growth that isn’t happening. Cascade seems to be projecting more growth in its gas system than makes sense for Oregon. Approval of these overinvestments will strain Oregonian household budgets unnecessarily. Bend, Cascade’s largest service area, is actively considering policies that would shrink the gas system. It is irresponsible to make costly investments that do not account for the trends we see in Oregon. I urge the Commission to take a long look and choose metered and responsible investments over risky bets and outdated, expensive policies. Sincerely, Tracey Katsouros Waldorf, 20601
1/30/2026 12:32:24 AM	General Comment			Dear Oregon Public Utility Commission, As a Cascade Natural Gas customer, I urge the Commission to prioritize energy affordability and only necessary costs in this Cascade rate case. In a time where so many Oregonians are struggling with energy affordability, I think the Commission should take a serious look into what Cascade is trying to increase rates for, and if it's fair or even smart to do so. The proposed $11 per month average increase may not seem like a lot by itself, but the increased impact in winter will hurt many Oregonians who are already struggling. Any unnecessary rate increases will risk adding pressure to our neighbors. Cascade’s request to raise rates for several items is unnecessary and risky to customers. Those being 1) the Line Extension Allowance, 2) risky bets on renewable natural gas, and 3) investments that overestimate the growth of the gas system. Line extension allowances are only benefiting the company's profits by charging customers like me to expand the gas hookups to new developments. The Commission ended this subsidy for NW Natural and Avista because it does not benefit customers. As folks all over the state choose to go electric and Cascade must reduce emissions, we must question if this subsidy should be continued. Removing it would save existing customers money. People should have their choice of what they want to use for heating and cooking in their homes, but Cascade would seek to penalize community members who make that change by charging penalties if a minimum usage isn’t met. I’m also very concerned that Cascade is not being realistic about how our state is changing and choosing to move into the future. Gas utilities must reduce their emissions by 2050, but we need that to be affordable. Cascade is looking to bet on renewable natural gas, which is expensive. Not to mention that we’re currently seeing the issues with these investments from NW Natural’s failed project in Lexington. Alternatives like moving customers to electric appliances also reduce gas use and are shown to be cheaper, practical, and better at reducing emissions. Oregonians cannot afford to pay the price for bad bets on renewable natural gas. I urge the Commission to require Cascade to review alternatives instead of continuing investments in natural gas. I’m also concerned that Cascade is spending too much for growth that isn’t happening. Cascade seems to be projecting more growth in its gas system than makes sense for Oregon. Approval of these overinvestments will strain Oregonian household budgets unnecessarily. Bend, Cascade’s largest service area, is actively considering policies that would shrink the gas system. It is irresponsible to make costly investments that do not account for the trends we see in Oregon. I urge the Commission to take a long look and choose metered and responsible investments over risky bets and outdated, expensive policies. Sincerely, Joyce Peck Portland, 97206
1/30/2026 12:32:26 AM	General Comment			Dear Oregon Public Utility Commission, As a Cascade Natural Gas customer, I urge the Commission to prioritize energy affordability and only necessary costs in this Cascade rate case. In a time where so many Oregonians are struggling with energy affordability, I think the Commission should take a serious look into what Cascade is trying to increase rates for, and if it's fair or even smart to do so. The proposed $11 per month average increase may not seem like a lot by itself, but the increased impact in winter will hurt many Oregonians who are already struggling. Any unnecessary rate increases will risk adding pressure to our neighbors. Cascade’s request to raise rates for several items is unnecessary and risky to customers. Those being 1) the Line Extension Allowance, 2) risky bets on renewable natural gas, and 3) investments that overestimate the growth of the gas system. Line extension allowances are only benefiting the company's profits by charging customers like me to expand the gas hookups to new developments. The Commission ended this subsidy for NW Natural and Avista because it does not benefit customers. As folks all over the state choose to go electric and Cascade must reduce emissions, we must question if this subsidy should be continued. Removing it would save existing customers money. People should have their choice of what they want to use for heating and cooking in their homes, but Cascade would seek to penalize community members who make that change by charging penalties if a minimum usage isn’t met. I’m also very concerned that Cascade is not being realistic about how our state is changing and choosing to move into the future. Gas utilities must reduce their emissions by 2050, but we need that to be affordable. Cascade is looking to bet on renewable natural gas, which is expensive. Not to mention that we’re currently seeing the issues with these investments from NW Natural’s failed project in Lexington. Alternatives like moving customers to electric appliances also reduce gas use and are shown to be cheaper, practical, and better at reducing emissions. Oregonians cannot afford to pay the price for bad bets on renewable natural gas. I urge the Commission to require Cascade to review alternatives instead of continuing investments in natural gas. I’m also concerned that Cascade is spending too much for growth that isn’t happening. Cascade seems to be projecting more growth in its gas system than makes sense for Oregon. Approval of these overinvestments will strain Oregonian household budgets unnecessarily. Bend, Cascade’s largest service area, is actively considering policies that would shrink the gas system. It is irresponsible to make costly investments that do not account for the trends we see in Oregon. I urge the Commission to take a long look and choose metered and responsible investments over risky bets and outdated, expensive policies. Sincerely, Pamela Smith Portland, 97201
1/30/2026 12:32:29 AM	General Comment			Dear Oregon Public Utility Commission, As a Cascade Natural Gas customer, I urge the Commission to prioritize energy affordability and only necessary costs in this Cascade rate case. In a time where so many Oregonians are struggling with energy affordability, I think the Commission should take a serious look into what Cascade is trying to increase rates for, and if it's fair or even smart to do so. The proposed $11 per month average increase may not seem like a lot by itself, but the increased impact in winter will hurt many Oregonians who are already struggling. Any unnecessary rate increases will risk adding pressure to our neighbors. Cascade’s request to raise rates for several items is unnecessary and risky to customers. Those being 1) the Line Extension Allowance, 2) risky bets on renewable natural gas, and 3) investments that overestimate the growth of the gas system. Line extension allowances are only benefiting the company's profits by charging customers like me to expand the gas hookups to new developments. The Commission ended this subsidy for NW Natural and Avista because it does not benefit customers. As folks all over the state choose to go electric and Cascade must reduce emissions, we must question if this subsidy should be continued. Removing it would save existing customers money. People should have their choice of what they want to use for heating and cooking in their homes, but Cascade would seek to penalize community members who make that change by charging penalties if a minimum usage isn’t met. I’m also very concerned that Cascade is not being realistic about how our state is changing and choosing to move into the future. Gas utilities must reduce their emissions by 2050, but we need that to be affordable. Cascade is looking to bet on renewable natural gas, which is expensive. Not to mention that we’re currently seeing the issues with these investments from NW Natural’s failed project in Lexington. Alternatives like moving customers to electric appliances also reduce gas use and are shown to be cheaper, practical, and better at reducing emissions. Oregonians cannot afford to pay the price for bad bets on renewable natural gas. I urge the Commission to require Cascade to review alternatives instead of continuing investments in natural gas. I’m also concerned that Cascade is spending too much for growth that isn’t happening. Cascade seems to be projecting more growth in its gas system than makes sense for Oregon. Approval of these overinvestments will strain Oregonian household budgets unnecessarily. Bend, Cascade’s largest service area, is actively considering policies that would shrink the gas system. It is irresponsible to make costly investments that do not account for the trends we see in Oregon. I urge the Commission to take a long look and choose metered and responsible investments over risky bets and outdated, expensive policies. Sincerely, Dana Weintraub Beaverton, 97003
1/30/2026 12:32:31 AM	General Comment			Dear Oregon Public Utility Commission, As a Cascade Natural Gas customer, I urge the Commission to prioritize energy affordability and only necessary costs in this Cascade rate case. As Oregonians struggle with an affordability crisis, the Commission should scrutinize Cascade's increase VERY closely. What are these rate increases for? Cascade’s request to raise rates for several items is unnecessary and risky to customers. Those being 1) the Line Extension Allowance, 2) risky bets on renewable natural gas, and 3) investments that overestimate the growth of the gas system. Line extension allowances are only benefiting the company's profits by charging customers like me to expand the gas hookups to new developments. The Commission has ALREADY ended this subsidy for NW Natural and Avista because it does not benefit customers. As folks all over the state choose to go electric and Cascade must reduce emissions, we must question if this subsidy should be continued. Removing it would save existing customers money. People should have their choice of what they want to use for heating and cooking in their homes, but Cascade would seek to penalize community members who make that change by charging penalties if a minimum usage isn’t met. I’m also very concerned that Cascade is not being realistic about how our state is changing and choosing to move into the future. Gas utilities must reduce their emissions by 2050. Cascade is looking to bet on renewable natural gas, which is expensive. Other utility companies (like W Natural’s failed project in Lexington) have already shown these types of investments can be suspect. And there ARE alternatives, like moving customers to electric appliances also reduce gas use. Oregonians cannot afford to pay the price for bad bets on renewable natural gas. I urge the Commission to require Cascade to review alternatives instead of continuing investments in natural gas. I’m also concerned that Cascade is spending too much for growth that isn’t happening. Cascade seems to be projecting more growth in its gas system than makes sense for Oregon. Approval of these overinvestments will strain Oregonian household budgets unnecessarily. Bend, Cascade’s largest service area, is actively considering policies that would shrink the gas system. It is irresponsible to make costly investments that do not account for the trends we see in Oregon. I urge the Commission to take a long look and choose metered and responsible investments over risky bets and outdated, expensive policies. Sincerely, Max Menchaca Portland, 97218
1/30/2026 12:32:33 AM	General Comment			Dear Oregon Public Utility Commission, As a Cascade Natural Gas customer, I urge the Commission to prioritize energy affordability and only necessary costs in this Cascade rate case. In a time where so many Oregonians are struggling with energy affordability, the Commission must take a serious look into what Cascade is trying to increase rates for, and if it's fair or even smart to do so. The proposed $11 per month average increase will hurt many Oregonians who are already struggling. Any unnecessary rate increases will risk adding pressure to our neighbors. Cascade’s request to raise rates for several items is unnecessary and risky to customers. Those being 1) the Line Extension Allowance, 2) risky bets on renewable natural gas, and 3) investments that overestimate the growth of the gas system. Line extension allowances are only benefiting the company's profits by charging customers like me to expand the gas hookups to new developments. The Commission ended this subsidy for NW Natural and Avista because it does not benefit customers. As folks all over the state choose to go electric and Cascade must reduce emissions, we must question if this subsidy should be continued. Removing it would save existing customers money. People should have their choice of what they want to use for heating and cooking in their homes, but Cascade would seek to penalize community members who make that change by charging penalties if a minimum usage isn’t met. I’m also very concerned that Cascade is not being realistic about how our state is changing and choosing to move into the future. Gas utilities must reduce their emissions by 2050, but we need that to be affordable. Cascade is looking to bet on renewable natural gas, which is expensive. Not to mention that we’re currently seeing the issues with these investments from NW Natural’s failed project in Lexington. Alternatives like moving customers to electric appliances also reduce gas use and are shown to be cheaper, practical, and better at reducing emissions. Oregonians cannot afford to pay the price for bad bets on renewable natural gas. I urge the Commission to require Cascade to review alternatives instead of continuing investments in natural gas. I’m also concerned that Cascade is spending too much for growth that isn’t happening. Cascade seems to be projecting more growth in its gas system than makes sense for Oregon. Approval of these overinvestments will strain Oregonian household budgets unnecessarily. Bend, Cascade’s largest service area, is actively considering policies that would shrink the gas system. It is irresponsible to make costly investments that do not account for the trends we see in Oregon. I urge the Commission to take a long look and choose metered and responsible investments over risky bets and outdated, expensive policies. Sincerely, Benjamin Rosen Portland, 97206
1/30/2026 12:32:36 AM	General Comment			Dear Oregon Public Utility Commission, As a Cascade Natural Gas customer, I urge the Commission to prioritize energy affordability and only necessary costs in this Cascade rate case. In a time where so many Oregonians are struggling with energy affordability, I think the Commission should take a serious look into what Cascade is trying to increase rates for, and if it's fair or even smart to do so. The proposed $11 per month average increase may not seem like a lot by itself, but the increased impact in winter will hurt many Oregonians who are already struggling. Any unnecessary rate increases will risk adding pressure to our neighbors. Cascade’s request to raise rates for several items is unnecessary and risky to customers. Those being 1) the Line Extension Allowance, 2) risky bets on renewable natural gas, and 3) investments that overestimate the growth of the gas system. Line extension allowances are only benefiting the company's profits by charging customers like me to expand the gas hookups to new developments. The Commission ended this subsidy for NW Natural and Avista because it does not benefit customers. As folks all over the state choose to go electric and Cascade must reduce emissions, we must question if this subsidy should be continued. Removing it would save existing customers money. People should have their choice of what they want to use for heating and cooking in their homes, but Cascade would seek to penalize community members who make that change by charging penalties if a minimum usage isn’t met. I’m also very concerned that Cascade is not being realistic about how our state is changing and choosing to move into the future. Gas utilities must reduce their emissions by 2050, but we need that to be affordable. Cascade is looking to bet on renewable natural gas, which is expensive. Not to mention that we’re currently seeing the issues with these investments from NW Natural’s failed project in Lexington. Alternatives like moving customers to electric appliances also reduce gas use and are shown to be cheaper, practical, and better at reducing emissions. Oregonians cannot afford to pay the price for bad bets on renewable natural gas. I urge the Commission to require Cascade to review alternatives instead of continuing investments in natural gas. I’m also concerned that Cascade is spending too much for growth that isn’t happening. Cascade seems to be projecting more growth in its gas system than makes sense for Oregon. Approval of these overinvestments will strain Oregonian household budgets unnecessarily. Bend, Cascade’s largest service area, is actively considering policies that would shrink the gas system. It is irresponsible to make costly investments that do not account for the trends we see in Oregon. I urge the Commission to take a long look and choose metered and responsible investments over risky bets and outdated, expensive policies. Sincerely, Scott Hillson West Linn, 97068
1/30/2026 12:32:38 AM	General Comment			Dear Oregon Public Utility Commission, As a Cascade Natural Gas customer, I urge the Commission to prioritize energy affordability and only necessary costs in this Cascade rate case. In a time where so many Oregonians are struggling with energy affordability, I think the Commission should take a serious look into what Cascade is trying to increase rates for, and if it's fair or even smart to do so. The proposed $11 per month average increase may not seem like a lot by itself, but the increased impact in winter will hurt many Oregonians who are already struggling. Any unnecessary rate increases will risk adding pressure to our neighbors. Cascade’s request to raise rates for several items is unnecessary and risky to customers. Those being 1) the Line Extension Allowance, 2) risky bets on renewable natural gas, and 3) investments that overestimate the growth of the gas system. Line extension allowances are only benefiting the company's profits by charging customers like me to expand the gas hookups to new developments. The Commission ended this subsidy for NW Natural and Avista because it does not benefit customers. As folks all over the state choose to go electric and Cascade must reduce emissions, we must question if this subsidy should be continued. Removing it would save existing customers money. People should have their choice of what they want to use for heating and cooking in their homes, but Cascade would seek to penalize community members who make that change by charging penalties if a minimum usage isn’t met. I’m also very concerned that Cascade is not being realistic about how our state is changing and choosing to move into the future. Gas utilities must reduce their emissions by 2050, but we need that to be affordable. Cascade is looking to bet on renewable natural gas, which is expensive. Not to mention that we’re currently seeing the issues with these investments from NW Natural’s failed project in Lexington. Alternatives like moving customers to electric appliances also reduce gas use and are shown to be cheaper, practical, and better at reducing emissions. Oregonians cannot afford to pay the price for bad bets on renewable natural gas. I urge the Commission to require Cascade to review alternatives instead of continuing investments in natural gas. I’m also concerned that Cascade is spending too much for growth that isn’t happening. Cascade seems to be projecting more growth in its gas system than makes sense for Oregon. Approval of these overinvestments will strain Oregonian household budgets unnecessarily. Bend, Cascade’s largest service area, is actively considering policies that would shrink the gas system. It is irresponsible to make costly investments that do not account for the trends we see in Oregon. I urge the Commission to take a long look and choose metered and responsible investments over risky bets and outdated, expensive policies. Sincerely, Andrew Kaufman Bend, 97701
1/30/2026 12:32:41 AM	General Comment			Dear Oregon Public Utility Commission, As a Cascade Natural Gas customer, I urge the Commission to prioritize energy affordability and only necessary costs in this Cascade rate case. A gas company is a business. Businesses are supposed to pay for their own infrastructure and investments. Businesses are supposed to allocate profits toward expansion. We, the taxpayers, should not be paying these expenses for the local gas company any more than we should pay them for Safeway or Home Depot. I assume that, behind the scenes, you are getting lobbied hard by industry. This is how corrupt decisions happen--industry has access, we have...an email. LISTEN TO US, your community. I volunteer as a mediator and I see first hand how much Oregon families are struggling to EAT. $11 is a day of food for a single parent of young children. Don't allow the wealthy, to once again, rig the economy to enrich themselves on the backs of poor families. Ugh. In a time where so many Oregonians are struggling with energy affordability, I think the Commission should take a serious look into what Cascade is trying to increase rates for, and if it's fair or even smart to do so. The proposed $11 per month average increase may not seem like a lot by itself, but the increased impact in winter will hurt many Oregonians who are already struggling. Any unnecessary rate increases will risk adding pressure to our neighbors. Cascade’s request to raise rates for several items is unnecessary and risky to customers. Those being 1) the Line Extension Allowance, 2) risky bets on renewable natural gas, and 3) investments that overestimate the growth of the gas system. Line extension allowances are only benefiting the company's profits by charging customers like me to expand the gas hookups to new developments. The Commission ended this subsidy for NW Natural and Avista because it does not benefit customers. As folks all over the state choose to go electric and Cascade must reduce emissions, we must question if this subsidy should be continued. Removing it would save existing customers money. People should have their choice of what they want to use for heating and cooking in their homes, but Cascade would seek to penalize community members who make that change by charging penalties if a minimum usage isn’t met. I’m also very concerned that Cascade is not being realistic about how our state is changing and choosing to move into the future. Gas utilities must reduce their emissions by 2050, but we need that to be affordable. Cascade is looking to bet on renewable natural gas, which is expensive. Not to mention that we’re currently seeing the issues with these investments from NW Natural’s failed project in Lexington. Alternatives like moving customers to electric appliances also reduce gas use and are shown to be cheaper, practical, and better at reducing emissions. Oregonians cannot afford to pay the price for bad bets on renewable natural gas. I urge the Commission to require Cascade to review alternatives instead of continuing investments in natural gas. I’m also concerned that Cascade is spending too much for growth that isn’t happening. Cascade seems to be projecting more growth in its gas system than makes sense for Oregon. Approval of these overinvestments will strain Oregonian household budgets unnecessarily. Bend, Cascade’s largest service area, is actively considering policies that would shrink the gas system. It is irresponsible to make costly investments that do not account for the trends we see in Oregon. I urge the Commission to take a long look and choose metered and responsible investments over risky bets and outdated, expensive policies. Sincerely, Angela Zehava Portland, 97202
1/30/2026 12:32:44 AM	General Comment			Dear Oregon Public Utility Commission, As a Cascade Natural Gas customer, I urge the Commission to prioritize energy affordability and only necessary costs in this Cascade rate case. In a time where so many Oregonians are struggling with energy affordability, I think the Commission should take a serious look into what Cascade is trying to increase rates for, and if it's fair or even smart to do so. The proposed $11 per month average increase may not seem like a lot by itself, but the increased impact in winter will hurt many Oregonians who are already struggling. Any unnecessary rate increases will risk adding pressure to our neighbors. Cascade’s request to raise rates for several items is unnecessary and risky to customers. Those being 1) the Line Extension Allowance, 2) risky bets on renewable natural gas, and 3) investments that overestimate the growth of the gas system. Line extension allowances are only benefiting the company's profits by charging customers like me to expand the gas hookups to new developments. The Commission ended this subsidy for NW Natural and Avista because it does not benefit customers. As folks all over the state choose to go electric and Cascade must reduce emissions, we must question if this subsidy should be continued. Removing it would save existing customers money. People should have their choice of what they want to use for heating and cooking in their homes, but Cascade would seek to penalize community members who make that change by charging penalties if a minimum usage isn’t met. I’m also very concerned that Cascade is not being realistic about how our state is changing and choosing to move into the future. Gas utilities must reduce their emissions by 2050, but we need that to be affordable. Cascade is looking to bet on renewable natural gas, which is expensive. Not to mention that we’re currently seeing the issues with these investments from NW Natural’s failed project in Lexington. Alternatives like moving customers to electric appliances also reduce gas use and are shown to be cheaper, practical, and better at reducing emissions. Oregonians cannot afford to pay the price for bad bets on renewable natural gas. I urge the Commission to require Cascade to review alternatives instead of continuing investments in natural gas. I’m also concerned that Cascade is spending too much for growth that isn’t happening. Cascade seems to be projecting more growth in its gas system than makes sense for Oregon. Approval of these overinvestments will strain Oregonian household budgets unnecessarily. Bend, Cascade’s largest service area, is actively considering policies that would shrink the gas system. It is irresponsible to make costly investments that do not account for the trends we see in Oregon. I urge the Commission to take a long look and choose metered and responsible investments over risky bets and outdated, expensive policies. Sincerely, Jeff Kuehl Gresham, 97080
1/30/2026 12:32:47 AM	General Comment			Dear Oregon Public Utility Commission, As a Cascade Natural Gas customer, I urge the Commission to prioritize energy affordability and only necessary costs in this Cascade rate case. In a time where so many Oregonians are struggling with energy affordability, I think the Commission should take a serious look into what Cascade is trying to increase rates for, and if it's fair or even smart to do so. The proposed $11 per month average increase may not seem like a lot by itself, but the increased impact in winter will hurt many Oregonians who are already struggling. Any unnecessary rate increases will risk adding pressure to our neighbors. Cascade’s request to raise rates for several items is unnecessary and risky to customers. Those being 1) the Line Extension Allowance, 2) risky bets on renewable natural gas, and 3) investments that overestimate the growth of the gas system. Line extension allowances are only benefiting the company's profits by charging customers like me to expand the gas hookups to new developments. The Commission ended this subsidy for NW Natural and Avista because it does not benefit customers. As folks all over the state choose to go electric and Cascade must reduce emissions, we must question if this subsidy should be continued. Removing it would save existing customers money. People should have their choice of what they want to use for heating and cooking in their homes, but Cascade would seek to penalize community members who make that change by charging penalties if a minimum usage isn’t met. I’m also very concerned that Cascade is not being realistic about how our state is changing and choosing to move into the future. Gas utilities must reduce their emissions by 2050, but we need that to be affordable. Cascade is looking to bet on renewable natural gas, which is expensive. Not to mention that we’re currently seeing the issues with these investments from NW Natural’s failed project in Lexington. Alternatives like moving customers to electric appliances also reduce gas use and are shown to be cheaper, practical, and better at reducing emissions. Oregonians cannot afford to pay the price for bad bets on renewable natural gas. I urge the Commission to require Cascade to review alternatives instead of continuing investments in natural gas. I’m also concerned that Cascade is spending too much for growth that isn’t happening. Cascade seems to be projecting more growth in its gas system than makes sense for Oregon. Approval of these overinvestments will strain Oregonian household budgets unnecessarily. Bend, Cascade’s largest service area, is actively considering policies that would shrink the gas system. It is irresponsible to make costly investments that do not account for the trends we see in Oregon. I urge the Commission to take a long look and choose metered and responsible investments over risky bets and outdated, expensive policies. Sincerely, Terry Jess Albany, 97321
1/30/2026 12:32:49 AM	General Comment			Dear Oregon Public Utility Commission, As a Cascade Natural Gas customer, I urge the Commission to prioritize energy affordability and only necessary costs in this Cascade rate case. In a time where so many Oregonians are struggling with energy affordability, I think the Commission should take a serious look into what Cascade is trying to increase rates for, and if it's fair or even smart to do so. The proposed $11 per month average increase may not seem like a lot by itself, but the increased impact in winter will hurt many Oregonians who are already struggling. Any unnecessary rate increases will risk adding pressure to our neighbors. Cascade’s request to raise rates for several items is unnecessary and risky to customers. Those being 1) the Line Extension Allowance, 2) risky bets on renewable natural gas, and 3) investments that overestimate the growth of the gas system. Line extension allowances are only benefiting the company's profits by charging customers like me to expand the gas hookups to new developments. The Commission ended this subsidy for NW Natural and Avista because it does not benefit customers. As folks all over the state choose to go electric and Cascade must reduce emissions, we must question if this subsidy should be continued. Removing it would save existing customers money. People should have their choice of what they want to use for heating and cooking in their homes, but Cascade would seek to penalize community members who make that change by charging penalties if a minimum usage isn’t met. I’m also very concerned that Cascade is not being realistic about how our state is changing and choosing to move into the future. Gas utilities must reduce their emissions by 2050, but we need that to be affordable. Cascade is looking to bet on renewable natural gas, which is expensive. Not to mention that we’re currently seeing the issues with these investments from NW Natural’s failed project in Lexington. Alternatives like moving customers to electric appliances also reduce gas use and are shown to be cheaper, practical, and better at reducing emissions. Oregonians cannot afford to pay the price for bad bets on renewable natural gas. I urge the Commission to require Cascade to review alternatives instead of continuing investments in natural gas. I’m also concerned that Cascade is spending too much for growth that isn’t happening. Cascade seems to be projecting more growth in its gas system than makes sense for Oregon. Approval of these overinvestments will strain Oregonian household budgets unnecessarily. Bend, Cascade’s largest service area, is actively considering policies that would shrink the gas system. It is irresponsible to make costly investments that do not account for the trends we see in Oregon. I urge the Commission to take a long look and choose metered and responsible investments over risky bets and outdated, expensive policies. Sincerely, Francisco Aguirre Gresham, 97080
1/30/2026 12:32:51 AM	General Comment			Dear Oregon Public Utility Commission, As a Cascade Natural Gas customer, I urge the Commission to prioritize energy affordability and only necessary costs in this Cascade rate case. In a time where so many Oregonians are struggling with energy affordability, I think the Commission should take a serious look into what Cascade is trying to increase rates for, and if it's fair or even smart to do so. The proposed $11 per month average increase may not seem like a lot by itself, but the increased impact in winter will hurt many Oregonians who are already struggling. Any unnecessary rate increases will risk adding pressure to our neighbors. Cascade’s request to raise rates for several items is unnecessary and risky to customers. Those being 1) the Line Extension Allowance, 2) risky bets on renewable natural gas, and 3) investments that overestimate the growth of the gas system. Line extension allowances are only benefiting the company's profits by charging customers like me to expand the gas hookups to new developments. The Commission ended this subsidy for NW Natural and Avista because it does not benefit customers. As folks all over the state choose to go electric and Cascade must reduce emissions, we must question if this subsidy should be continued. Removing it would save existing customers money. People should have their choice of what they want to use for heating and cooking in their homes, but Cascade would seek to penalize community members who make that change by charging penalties if a minimum usage isn’t met. I’m also very concerned that Cascade is not being realistic about how our state is changing and choosing to move into the future. Gas utilities must reduce their emissions by 2050, but we need that to be affordable. Cascade is looking to bet on renewable natural gas, which is expensive. Not to mention that we’re currently seeing the issues with these investments from NW Natural’s failed project in Lexington. Alternatives like moving customers to electric appliances also reduce gas use and are shown to be cheaper, practical, and better at reducing emissions. Oregonians cannot afford to pay the price for bad bets on renewable natural gas. I urge the Commission to require Cascade to review alternatives instead of continuing investments in natural gas. I’m also concerned that Cascade is spending too much for growth that isn’t happening. Cascade seems to be projecting more growth in its gas system than makes sense for Oregon. Approval of these overinvestments will strain Oregonian household budgets unnecessarily. Bend, Cascade’s largest service area, is actively considering policies that would shrink the gas system. It is irresponsible to make costly investments that do not account for the trends we see in Oregon. I urge the Commission to take a long look and choose metered and responsible investments over risky bets and outdated, expensive policies. Sincerely, Randy Harrison Eugene, 97402
1/30/2026 12:32:54 AM	General Comment			Dear Oregon Public Utility Commission, As a Cascade Natural Gas customer, I urge the Commission to prioritize energy affordability and only necessary costs in this Cascade rate case. In a time where so many Oregonians are struggling with energy affordability, I think the Commission should take a serious look into what Cascade is trying to increase rates for, and if it's fair or even smart to do so. The proposed $11 per month average increase may not seem like a lot by itself, but the increased impact in winter will hurt many Oregonians who are already struggling. Any unnecessary rate increases will risk adding pressure to our neighbors. Cascade’s request to raise rates for several items is unnecessary and risky to customers. Those being 1) the Line Extension Allowance, 2) risky bets on renewable natural gas, and 3) investments that overestimate the growth of the gas system. Line extension allowances are only benefiting the company's profits by charging customers like me to expand the gas hookups to new developments. The Commission ended this subsidy for NW Natural and Avista because it does not benefit customers. As folks all over the state choose to go electric and Cascade must reduce emissions, we must question if this subsidy should be continued. Removing it would save existing customers money. People should have their choice of what they want to use for heating and cooking in their homes, but Cascade would seek to penalize community members who make that change by charging penalties if a minimum usage isn’t met. I’m also very concerned that Cascade is not being realistic about how our state is changing and choosing to move into the future. Gas utilities must reduce their emissions by 2050, but we need that to be affordable. Cascade is looking to bet on renewable natural gas, which is expensive. Not to mention that we’re currently seeing the issues with these investments from NW Natural’s failed project in Lexington. Alternatives like moving customers to electric appliances also reduce gas use and are shown to be cheaper, practical, and better at reducing emissions. Oregonians cannot afford to pay the price for bad bets on renewable natural gas. I urge the Commission to require Cascade to review alternatives instead of continuing investments in natural gas. I’m also concerned that Cascade is spending too much for growth that isn’t happening. Cascade seems to be projecting more growth in its gas system than makes sense for Oregon. Approval of these overinvestments will strain Oregonian household budgets unnecessarily. Bend, Cascade’s largest service area, is actively considering policies that would shrink the gas system. It is irresponsible to make costly investments that do not account for the trends we see in Oregon. I urge the Commission to take a long look and choose metered and responsible investments over risky bets and outdated, expensive policies. Sincerely, Randy Harrison Eugene, 97402
1/30/2026 12:32:56 AM	General Comment			Dear Oregon Public Utility Commission, As a Cascade Natural Gas customer, I urge the Commission to prioritize energy affordability and only necessary costs in this Cascade rate case. In a time where so many Oregonians are struggling with energy affordability, I think the Commission should take a serious look into what Cascade is trying to increase rates for, and if it's fair or even smart to do so. The proposed $11 per month average increase may not seem like a lot by itself, but the increased impact in winter will hurt many Oregonians who are already struggling. Any unnecessary rate increases will risk adding pressure to our neighbors. Cascade’s request to raise rates for several items is unnecessary and risky to customers. Those being 1) the Line Extension Allowance, 2) risky bets on renewable natural gas, and 3) investments that overestimate the growth of the gas system. Line extension allowances are only benefiting the company's profits by charging customers like me to expand the gas hookups to new developments. The Commission ended this subsidy for NW Natural and Avista because it does not benefit customers. As folks all over the state choose to go electric and Cascade must reduce emissions, we must question if this subsidy should be continued. Removing it would save existing customers money. People should have their choice of what they want to use for heating and cooking in their homes, but Cascade would seek to penalize community members who make that change by charging penalties if a minimum usage isn’t met. I’m also very concerned that Cascade is not being realistic about how our state is changing and choosing to move into the future. Gas utilities must reduce their emissions by 2050, but we need that to be affordable. Cascade is looking to bet on renewable natural gas, which is expensive. Not to mention that we’re currently seeing the issues with these investments from NW Natural’s failed project in Lexington. Alternatives like moving customers to electric appliances also reduce gas use and are shown to be cheaper, practical, and better at reducing emissions. Oregonians cannot afford to pay the price for bad bets on renewable natural gas. I urge the Commission to require Cascade to review alternatives instead of continuing investments in natural gas. I’m also concerned that Cascade is spending too much for growth that isn’t happening. Cascade seems to be projecting more growth in its gas system than makes sense for Oregon. Approval of these overinvestments will strain Oregonian household budgets unnecessarily. Bend, Cascade’s largest service area, is actively considering policies that would shrink the gas system. It is irresponsible to make costly investments that do not account for the trends we see in Oregon. I urge the Commission to take a long look and choose metered and responsible investments over risky bets and outdated, expensive policies. Sincerely, Zechariah Heck Bend, 97701
1/30/2026 12:32:58 AM	General Comment			Dear Oregon Public Utility Commission, As a Cascade Natural Gas customer, I urge the Commission to prioritize energy affordability and only necessary costs in this Cascade rate case. In a time where so many Oregonians are struggling with energy affordability, I think the Commission should take a serious look into what Cascade is trying to increase rates for, and if it's fair or even smart to do so. The proposed $11 per month average increase may not seem like a lot by itself, but the increased impact in winter will hurt many Oregonians who are already struggling. Any unnecessary rate increases will risk adding pressure to our neighbors. Cascade’s request to raise rates for several items is unnecessary and risky to customers. Those being 1) the Line Extension Allowance, 2) risky bets on renewable natural gas, and 3) investments that overestimate the growth of the gas system. Line extension allowances are only benefiting the company's profits by charging customers like me to expand the gas hookups to new developments. The Commission ended this subsidy for NW Natural and Avista because it does not benefit customers. As folks all over the state choose to go electric and Cascade must reduce emissions, we must question if this subsidy should be continued. Removing it would save existing customers money. People should have their choice of what they want to use for heating and cooking in their homes, but Cascade would seek to penalize community members who make that change by charging penalties if a minimum usage isn’t met. I’m also very concerned that Cascade is not being realistic about how our state is changing and choosing to move into the future. Gas utilities must reduce their emissions by 2050, but we need that to be affordable. Cascade is looking to bet on renewable natural gas, which is expensive. Not to mention that we’re currently seeing the issues with these investments from NW Natural’s failed project in Lexington. Alternatives like moving customers to electric appliances also reduce gas use and are shown to be cheaper, practical, and better at reducing emissions. Oregonians cannot afford to pay the price for bad bets on renewable natural gas. I urge the Commission to require Cascade to review alternatives instead of continuing investments in natural gas. I’m also concerned that Cascade is spending too much for growth that isn’t happening. Cascade seems to be projecting more growth in its gas system than makes sense for Oregon. Approval of these overinvestments will strain Oregonian household budgets unnecessarily. Bend, Cascade’s largest service area, is actively considering policies that would shrink the gas system. It is irresponsible to make costly investments that do not account for the trends we see in Oregon. I urge the Commission to take a long look and choose metered and responsible investments over risky bets and outdated, expensive policies. Sincerely, Debra Rehn Portland, 97202
1/30/2026 12:33:01 AM	General Comment			Dear Oregon Public Utility Commission, As a Cascade Natural Gas customer, I urge the Commission to prioritize energy affordability and only necessary costs in this Cascade rate case. In a time where so many Oregonians are struggling with energy affordability, I think the Commission should take a serious look into what Cascade is trying to increase rates for, and if it's fair or even smart to do so. The proposed $11 per month average increase may not seem like a lot by itself, but the increased impact in winter will hurt many Oregonians who are already struggling. Any unnecessary rate increases will risk adding pressure to our neighbors. Cascade’s request to raise rates for several items is unnecessary and risky to customers. Those being 1) the Line Extension Allowance, 2) risky bets on renewable natural gas, and 3) investments that overestimate the growth of the gas system. Line extension allowances are only benefiting the company's profits by charging customers like me to expand the gas hookups to new developments. The Commission ended this subsidy for NW Natural and Avista because it does not benefit customers. As folks all over the state choose to go electric and Cascade must reduce emissions, we must question if this subsidy should be continued. Removing it would save existing customers money. People should have their choice of what they want to use for heating and cooking in their homes, but Cascade would seek to penalize community members who make that change by charging penalties if a minimum usage isn’t met. I’m also very concerned that Cascade is not being realistic about how our state is changing and choosing to move into the future. Gas utilities must reduce their emissions by 2050, but we need that to be affordable. Cascade is looking to bet on renewable natural gas, which is expensive. Not to mention that we’re currently seeing the issues with these investments from NW Natural’s failed project in Lexington. Alternatives like moving customers to electric appliances also reduce gas use and are shown to be cheaper, practical, and better at reducing emissions. Oregonians cannot afford to pay the price for bad bets on renewable natural gas. I urge the Commission to require Cascade to review alternatives instead of continuing investments in natural gas. I’m also concerned that Cascade is spending too much for growth that isn’t happening. Cascade seems to be projecting more growth in its gas system than makes sense for Oregon. Approval of these overinvestments will strain Oregonian household budgets unnecessarily. Bend, Cascade’s largest service area, is actively considering policies that would shrink the gas system. It is irresponsible to make costly investments that do not account for the trends we see in Oregon. I urge the Commission to take a long look and choose metered and responsible investments over risky bets and outdated, expensive policies. Sincerely, Dorothy Tharsing Bandon, 97411
1/30/2026 12:33:04 AM	General Comment			Dear Oregon Public Utility Commission, As a Cascade Natural Gas customer, I urge the Commission to prioritize energy affordability and only necessary costs in this Cascade rate case. In a time where so many Oregonians are struggling with energy affordability, I think the Commission should take a serious look into what Cascade is trying to increase rates for, and if it's fair or even smart to do so. The proposed $11 per month average increase may not seem like a lot by itself, but the increased impact in winter will hurt many Oregonians who are already struggling. Any unnecessary rate increases will risk adding pressure to our neighbors. Cascade’s request to raise rates for several items is unnecessary and risky to customers. Those being 1) the Line Extension Allowance, 2) risky bets on renewable natural gas, and 3) investments that overestimate the growth of the gas system. Line extension allowances are only benefiting the company's profits by charging customers like me to expand the gas hookups to new developments. The Commission ended this subsidy for NW Natural and Avista because it does not benefit customers. As folks all over the state choose to go electric and Cascade must reduce emissions, we must question if this subsidy should be continued. Removing it would save existing customers money. People should have their choice of what they want to use for heating and cooking in their homes, but Cascade would seek to penalize community members who make that change by charging penalties if a minimum usage isn’t met. I’m also very concerned that Cascade is not being realistic about how our state is changing and choosing to move into the future. Gas utilities must reduce their emissions by 2050, but we need that to be affordable. Cascade is looking to bet on renewable natural gas, which is expensive. Not to mention that we’re currently seeing the issues with these investments from NW Natural’s failed project in Lexington. Alternatives like moving customers to electric appliances also reduce gas use and are shown to be cheaper, practical, and better at reducing emissions. Oregonians cannot afford to pay the price for bad bets on renewable natural gas. I urge the Commission to require Cascade to review alternatives instead of continuing investments in natural gas. I’m also concerned that Cascade is spending too much for growth that isn’t happening. Cascade seems to be projecting more growth in its gas system than makes sense for Oregon. Approval of these overinvestments will strain Oregonian household budgets unnecessarily. Bend, Cascade’s largest service area, is actively considering policies that would shrink the gas system. It is irresponsible to make costly investments that do not account for the trends we see in Oregon. I urge the Commission to take a long look and choose metered and responsible investments over risky bets and outdated, expensive policies. Sincerely, Vern Owens Mulino, 97042
1/30/2026 12:33:06 AM	General Comment			Dear Oregon Public Utility Commission, As a Cascade Natural Gas customer, I urge the Commission to prioritize energy affordability and only necessary costs in this Cascade rate case. In a time where so many Oregonians are struggling with energy affordability, I think the Commission should take a serious look into what Cascade is trying to increase rates for, and if it's fair or even smart to do so. The proposed $11 per month average increase may not seem like a lot by itself, but the increased impact in winter will hurt many Oregonians who are already struggling. Any unnecessary rate increases will risk adding pressure to our neighbors. Cascade’s request to raise rates for several items is unnecessary and risky to customers. Those being 1) the Line Extension Allowance, 2) risky bets on renewable natural gas, and 3) investments that overestimate the growth of the gas system. Line extension allowances are only benefiting the company's profits by charging customers like me to expand the gas hookups to new developments. The Commission ended this subsidy for NW Natural and Avista because it does not benefit customers. As folks all over the state choose to go electric and Cascade must reduce emissions, we must question if this subsidy should be continued. Removing it would save existing customers money. People should have their choice of what they want to use for heating and cooking in their homes, but Cascade would seek to penalize community members who make that change by charging penalties if a minimum usage isn’t met. I’m also very concerned that Cascade is not being realistic about how our state is changing and choosing to move into the future. Gas utilities must reduce their emissions by 2050, but we need that to be affordable. Cascade is looking to bet on renewable natural gas, which is expensive. Not to mention that we’re currently seeing the issues with these investments from NW Natural’s failed project in Lexington. Alternatives like moving customers to electric appliances also reduce gas use and are shown to be cheaper, practical, and better at reducing emissions. Oregonians cannot afford to pay the price for bad bets on renewable natural gas. I urge the Commission to require Cascade to review alternatives instead of continuing investments in natural gas. I’m also concerned that Cascade is spending too much for growth that isn’t happening. Cascade seems to be projecting more growth in its gas system than makes sense for Oregon. Approval of these overinvestments will strain Oregonian household budgets unnecessarily. Bend, Cascade’s largest service area, is actively considering policies that would shrink the gas system. It is irresponsible to make costly investments that do not account for the trends we see in Oregon. I urge the Commission to take a long look and choose metered and responsible investments over risky bets and outdated, expensive policies. Sincerely, M. F. McAuliffe Portland, 97211
1/30/2026 12:33:09 AM	General Comment			Dear Oregon Public Utility Commission, As a Cascade Natural Gas customer, I urge the Commission to prioritize energy affordability and only necessary costs in this Cascade rate case. Thank goodness for CUB. They alert me to stuff like this that's going on, and explain the finer points (i.e., "the weeds") clearly so I can think intelligently about it as a natural gas customer. In a time where so many Oregonians are struggling with energy affordability, I think the Commission should take a serious look into what Cascade is trying to increase rates for, and if it's fair or even smart to do so. The proposed $11 per month average increase may not seem like a lot by itself, but the increased impact in winter will hurt many Oregonians who are already struggling. Any unnecessary rate increases will risk adding pressure to our neighbors. Cascade’s request to raise rates for several items is unnecessary and risky to customers. Those being 1) the Line Extension Allowance, 2) risky bets on renewable natural gas, and 3) investments that overestimate the growth of the gas system. Line extension allowances are only benefiting the company's profits by charging customers like me to expand the gas hookups to new developments. The Commission ended this subsidy for NW Natural and Avista because it does not benefit customers. As folks all over the state choose to go electric and Cascade must reduce emissions, we must question if this subsidy should be continued. Removing it would save existing customers money. People should have their choice of what they want to use for heating and cooking in their homes, but Cascade would seek to penalize community members who make that change by charging penalties if a minimum usage isn’t met. I’m also very concerned that Cascade is not being realistic about how our state is changing and choosing to move into the future. Gas utilities must reduce their emissions by 2050, but we need that to be affordable. Cascade is looking to bet on renewable natural gas, which is expensive. Not to mention that we’re currently seeing the issues with these investments from NW Natural’s failed project in Lexington. Alternatives like moving customers to electric appliances also reduce gas use and are shown to be cheaper, practical, and better at reducing emissions. Oregonians cannot afford to pay the price for bad bets on renewable natural gas. I urge the Commission to require Cascade to review alternatives instead of continuing investments in natural gas. I’m also concerned that Cascade is spending too much for growth that isn’t happening. Cascade seems to be projecting more growth in its gas system than makes sense for Oregon. Approval of these overinvestments will strain Oregonian household budgets unnecessarily. Bend, Cascade’s largest service area, is actively considering policies that would shrink the gas system. It is irresponsible to make costly investments that do not account for the trends we see in Oregon. I urge the Commission to take a long look and choose metered and responsible investments over risky bets and outdated, expensive policies. Sincerely, Lyn Larson Corvallis, 97330
1/30/2026 12:33:12 AM	General Comment			Dear Oregon Public Utility Commission, As a Cascade Natural Gas customer, I urge the Commission to prioritize energy affordability and only necessary costs in this Cascade rate case. In a time where so many Oregonians are struggling with energy affordability, I think the Commission should take a serious look into what Cascade is trying to increase rates for, and if it's fair or even smart to do so. The proposed $11 per month average increase may not seem like a lot by itself, but the increased impact in winter will hurt many Oregonians who are already struggling. Any unnecessary rate increases will risk adding pressure to our neighbors. Cascade’s request to raise rates for several items is unnecessary and risky to customers. Those being 1) the Line Extension Allowance, 2) risky bets on renewable natural gas, and 3) investments that overestimate the growth of the gas system. Line extension allowances are only benefiting the company's profits by charging customers like me to expand the gas hookups to new developments. The Commission ended this subsidy for NW Natural and Avista because it does not benefit customers. As folks all over the state choose to go electric and Cascade must reduce emissions, we must question if this subsidy should be continued. Removing it would save existing customers money. People should have their choice of what they want to use for heating and cooking in their homes, but Cascade would seek to penalize community members who make that change by charging penalties if a minimum usage isn’t met. I’m also very concerned that Cascade is not being realistic about how our state is changing and choosing to move into the future. Gas utilities must reduce their emissions by 2050, but we need that to be affordable. Cascade is looking to bet on renewable natural gas, which is expensive. Not to mention that we’re currently seeing the issues with these investments from NW Natural’s failed project in Lexington. Alternatives like moving customers to electric appliances also reduce gas use and are shown to be cheaper, practical, and better at reducing emissions. Oregonians cannot afford to pay the price for bad bets on renewable natural gas. I urge the Commission to require Cascade to review alternatives instead of continuing investments in natural gas. I’m also concerned that Cascade is spending too much for growth that isn’t happening. Cascade seems to be projecting more growth in its gas system than makes sense for Oregon. Approval of these overinvestments will strain Oregonian household budgets unnecessarily. Bend, Cascade’s largest service area, is actively considering policies that would shrink the gas system. It is irresponsible to make costly investments that do not account for the trends we see in Oregon. I urge the Commission to take a long look and choose metered and responsible investments over risky bets and outdated, expensive policies. Sincerely, Patricia Jacobson Wilsonville, 97070
1/30/2026 12:33:15 AM	General Comment			Dear Oregon Public Utility Commission, As a Cascade Natural Gas customer, I urge the Commission to prioritize energy affordability and only necessary costs in this Cascade rate case. In a time where so many Oregonians are struggling with energy affordability, I think the Commission should take a serious look into what Cascade is trying to increase rates for, and if it's fair or even smart to do so. The proposed $11 per month average increase may not seem like a lot by itself, but the increased impact in winter will hurt many Oregonians who are already struggling. Any unnecessary rate increases will risk adding pressure to our neighbors. Cascade’s request to raise rates for several items is unnecessary and risky to customers. Those being 1) the Line Extension Allowance, 2) risky bets on renewable natural gas, and 3) investments that overestimate the growth of the gas system. Line extension allowances are only benefiting the company's profits by charging customers like me to expand the gas hookups to new developments. The Commission ended this subsidy for NW Natural and Avista because it does not benefit customers. As folks all over the state choose to go electric and Cascade must reduce emissions, we must question if this subsidy should be continued. Removing it would save existing customers money. People should have their choice of what they want to use for heating and cooking in their homes, but Cascade would seek to penalize community members who make that change by charging penalties if a minimum usage isn’t met. I’m also very concerned that Cascade is not being realistic about how our state is changing and choosing to move into the future. Gas utilities must reduce their emissions by 2050, but we need that to be affordable. Cascade is looking to bet on renewable natural gas, which is expensive. Not to mention that we’re currently seeing the issues with these investments from NW Natural’s failed project in Lexington. Alternatives like moving customers to electric appliances also reduce gas use and are shown to be cheaper, practical, and better at reducing emissions. Oregonians cannot afford to pay the price for bad bets on renewable natural gas. I urge the Commission to require Cascade to review alternatives instead of continuing investments in natural gas. I’m also concerned that Cascade is spending too much for growth that isn’t happening. Cascade seems to be projecting more growth in its gas system than makes sense for Oregon. Approval of these overinvestments will strain Oregonian household budgets unnecessarily. Bend, Cascade’s largest service area, is actively considering policies that would shrink the gas system. It is irresponsible to make costly investments that do not account for the trends we see in Oregon. I urge the Commission to take a long look and choose metered and responsible investments over risky bets and outdated, expensive policies. Sincerely, Alan Eisenberg Portland, 97214
1/30/2026 12:33:17 AM	General Comment			Dear Oregon Public Utility Commission, As a Cascade Natural Gas customer, I urge the Commission to prioritize energy affordability and only necessary costs in this Cascade rate case. In a time where so many Oregonians are struggling with energy affordability, I think the Commission should take a serious look into what Cascade is trying to increase rates for, and if it's fair or even smart to do so. The proposed $11 per month average increase may not seem like a lot by itself, but the increased impact in winter will hurt many Oregonians who are already struggling. Any unnecessary rate increases will risk adding pressure to our neighbors. Cascade’s request to raise rates for several items is unnecessary and risky to customers. Those being 1) the Line Extension Allowance, 2) risky bets on renewable natural gas, and 3) investments that overestimate the growth of the gas system. Line extension allowances are only benefiting the company's profits by charging customers like me to expand the gas hookups to new developments. The Commission ended this subsidy for NW Natural and Avista because it does not benefit customers. As folks all over the state choose to go electric and Cascade must reduce emissions, we must question if this subsidy should be continued. Removing it would save existing customers money. People should have their choice of what they want to use for heating and cooking in their homes, but Cascade would seek to penalize community members who make that change by charging penalties if a minimum usage isn’t met. I’m also very concerned that Cascade is not being realistic about how our state is changing and choosing to move into the future. Gas utilities must reduce their emissions by 2050, but we need that to be affordable. Cascade is looking to bet on renewable natural gas, which is expensive. Not to mention that we’re currently seeing the issues with these investments from NW Natural’s failed project in Lexington. Alternatives like moving customers to electric appliances also reduce gas use and are shown to be cheaper, practical, and better at reducing emissions. Oregonians cannot afford to pay the price for bad bets on renewable natural gas. I urge the Commission to require Cascade to review alternatives instead of continuing investments in natural gas. I’m also concerned that Cascade is spending too much for growth that isn’t happening. Cascade seems to be projecting more growth in its gas system than makes sense for Oregon. Approval of these overinvestments will strain Oregonian household budgets unnecessarily. Bend, Cascade’s largest service area, is actively considering policies that would shrink the gas system. It is irresponsible to make costly investments that do not account for the trends we see in Oregon. I urge the Commission to take a long look and choose metered and responsible investments over risky bets and outdated, expensive policies. Sincerely, Bret A. Wonderlick Portland, 97212