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
2/3/2026 12:32:17 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, Jynx Houston Portland, 97215
2/3/2026 12:32:22 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
2/3/2026 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, BC Shelby Portland, 97209
2/3/2026 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, Jan Bird Joseph, 97846
2/4/2026 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. This 100% UNNECESSARY INCREASE, especially during winter, will hurt many Oregonians who are barely making it day to day and week to week.. Any unnecessary rate increases are simply Humpty Trumpty crap attempting to remove more low income and shift our states, nation and world to one for filthy stinking rich multi-millionaires and billionaires. And we haven't even covered Cascade's pollution. Any increases whatsoever should go to making all Oregonians safer living in the very air we all breathe together! Yes, ALL Oregonians means you, too. Please don't support any corporate attempts at increases in rates when they don't evaluate the trends, needs, and positive actions our State of Oregon must promote to stay viable and healthy for each and every Oregon citizen. I urge the Commission to take a long look and choose metered and responsible investments over risky bets and outdated, expensive policies. Sincerely, Hal Anthony Grants Pass, 97526
2/4/2026 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, Kristy Giles Clackamas, 97015
2/4/2026 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, Luke Wisher Portland, 97206
2/12/2026 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, Rodney Tarter Umatilla, 97882
2/19/2026 1:03:16 PM	General Comment	Ryane	Birch	With everything on the rise on cost of living already out of reach for many, please for the love of all that is good do not let Cascade gas have that expansive of an increase. The number one thing they list it for is for profits for their shareholders. This is deeply disconnected from their customer base and will likely cause shut off in and around several homes. We are already facing a housing crisis with several homeless population in and around CO. This is an absolutely ridiculous request on their behalf. Please consider us all.
2/20/2026 12:32:26 AM	General Comment			We are very much opposed to the proposed rate increase for our gas utilities. We are financially unable to meet this obligation should it pass since we have only social security and a small monthly retirement income to live on month to month. With our current cost of living expense, we do well to afford groceries after paying our monthly obligations. This is NOT the year to be asking for an increase and are very much OPPOSED to this rate increase. Larry and Nelli Douglas Ontario, Oregon 97914
2/24/2026 9:37:34 AM	General (Docket-Specific)	Jeremiah	Paparazzo	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.
2/24/2026 9:41:22 AM	General (Docket-Specific)	Karen	Booth	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.
2/24/2026 9:47:37 AM	General (Docket-Specific)	Kathy	Persinger	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.
2/24/2026 9:48:51 AM	General (Docket-Specific)	Linda	Hendrix	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.
2/24/2026 9:50:27 AM	General (Docket-Specific)	Linda	Hendrix	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.
2/24/2026 9:51:35 AM	General (Docket-Specific)	Cierra	Buer	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.
2/24/2026 9:52:37 AM	General (Docket-Specific)	Alice	Hodgdon	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.
2/24/2026 9:53:36 AM	General (Docket-Specific)	AJ	Cho	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.
2/24/2026 9:54:49 AM	General (Docket-Specific)	Frances	Greenlee	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.
2/24/2026 9:55:51 AM	General (Docket-Specific)	Judith	Anderson	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.
2/24/2026 9:57:24 AM	General (Docket-Specific)	Judith	Anderson	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.
2/25/2026 12:32:23 AM	General Comment			ken_wilkins@baylor.edu. Dear Oregon Public Utility Commissioners, I write both as a Cascade Natural Gas customer (living in Petrosa, a Pahlisch development in Bend) and as a member of the Board of Directors of 350Deschutes.org (an intervener organization in this matter). I have numerous misgivings about line extension allowances (LEA’s). At the personal level, when we purchased our home in Petrosa two years ago, we were forced to accept gas appliances, which we did not want. We were not even given opportunity to opt for electric appliances. This collusion between builders and natural gas suppliers is not in consumers’ best interest. Ironically, during the four prior decades when we lived in Texas, a state with an abundance of natural gas, we never had gas appliances. In fact, gas wasn’t available in newer subdivisions as most builders didn’t install gas supply lines. This saved building costs and reduced home prices for buyers. This also had positive health effects: Absence of natural gas eliminated the source of hazardous fumes that can cause asthma and that pose fire—and explosion—risks. At a broader level, science has demonstrated that continued reliance on natural gas (and other fossil fuels) causes great harm to the environment. Methane, and carbon dioxide from combustion of natural gas, are potent greenhouse gasses (GHGs). Accumulation of these GHGs is driving global heating that is already having deleterious effects—ranging from more-frequent and more-intense storms to health effects to wildfire to crop failures to sea level rise and much more . . . We are in a climate crisis and continued use of fossil gas exacerbates these problems. Bend is a growing city, with extensive new housing being built. If natural gas is allowed in these new homes, that will lock in production of GHGs for decades. It is time to wean ourselves of natural gas appliances. Ending Cascade’s LEAs is a vital step, not only in combatting the climate crisis, but improving the health of residents of these new homes and reducing wildfire risks. Please hold Cascade Natural Gas accountable for failing to comply with your Order directing the company to address its Line Extension Allowance policy earlier this year. Thank you, Ken Wilkins, Ph.D. Board member, 350Deschutes.org 3029 NE Nipper Drive Bend, Oregon 97701 Get Outlook for iOS
2/25/2026 12:32:27 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
3/2/2026 12:32:22 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. 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 over-investments 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, Marsha Schauer Beaverton, 97007
3/2/2026 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, margo wyse Mimbres, 88049
3/2/2026 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, Donna Bonetti North Bend, 97459
3/2/2026 10:52:04 AM	General (Docket-Specific)	Alan	Journet	Colleagues: I write as cofacilitator of Southern Oregon Climate Action Now, an organization of 2,000 Southern Oregonians living on the frontlines and concerned about the climate crisis. We seek local, state and federal action to address this crisis. We are well aware that the combustion of fossil fuels, including methane gas, is the primary cause for the climate crisis we are experiencing and urge action to reduce or eliminate this behavior. Like other fossil fuels, the product called natural gas - basically methane in sheep's clothing - s as bad as burning oil and coal because of the fugitive emissions. The claims of utilities that theirs is 'the clean fossil fuel' and that they are reducing greenhouse gas emissions are a crock. The PUC should not be fooled any longer by their campaign of misinformation and disinformation. Given the requirements of HB2021 in 2021 Oregon's electricity is becoming cleaner and cleaner while methane gas is not. We urge the PUC to refuse efforts on the part of utilities to bring yet more gas pipelines into the state for whatever purpose. It's time we weaned ourselves from this atrocious energy source and turned to electricity andut an end to the fossil gas myth and socially irresponsible business model.
3/3/2026 3:55:29 PM	Oppose Docket	Michael	Erickson	I am strongly opposed to a 17.4% rate increase. How does increasing the rate this much benefit me as a public utilities consumer, does my service get any better, am I getting better natural gas, what justifies such a high increase? I understand small rate hikes of 2-5% here and there that is a part of running a business, but when you have the monopoly on the service, and it is now considered a public utility you don't just get to increase rates without any check on rate increases, so I hope the commission does the right thing here and says "no" to this unbelievable rate hike, which is pretty much the same as a tax hike but without allowing us to vote on it. Allowing such a rate hike to happen will cause people to suffer, especially our most vulnerable citizens, and I would hope that the commission takes that into account. This 17.4% increase is way outside the growth of inflation and for those on a fixed income, you will be forcing them to be choosing in some circumstances between heat and food, because of this increase. Again, I implore the commission to do the right thing and vote no on this rate revision, we would almost certainly never accept a 17.4% increase in cost in any other aspect of our life, I cannot believe that we would accept this as an acceptable increase. Thank you for your time and consideration.
3/4/2026 5:02:40 PM	Oppose Docket	Kirk	Barnes	I adamantly oppose yet another Cascade Natural Gas rate increase that is well above the annual cost of living, 15.82% is beyond ridiculous. Please deny this ridiculous request.
3/4/2026 9:01:32 PM	Support Docket	Marcee	Hillman Moeggenberg	I believe this is a necessary step. Like most people, I wish my cost of living wasn’t increasing, but the rising costs that affect households also affect the people who operate and work for Cascade Natural Gas. Fuel costs and other operational expenses have gone up across the board. If those increases are not passed along at all, the burden has to be absorbed somewhere within the organization. In many cases, that can ultimately affect employees or the ability to maintain reliable service. It’s worth noting that this is Cascade Natural Gas first general rate case since 2020, which shows consideration for its customers. At the same time, utilities must remain financially stable in order to continue providing safe and reliable service to the communities they serve.
3/5/2026 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, Rory Isbell Bend, 97703
3/5/2026 6:46:49 AM	Oppose Docket	j	w	Don't raise the rates again!! That is way above the cost of living index.
3/5/2026 7:19:16 AM	Oppose Docket			Rate increases at the time of economic uncertainty with regard to customers joys, affordability of living is inappropriate. Cost of living coupled is already high in central oregon and wages are still catching up to this cost of living and inflation. Also, our city continues to grow and new natural gas customers continue to come online. This request is an unfair move on the public and is curious after a mild season as well. One might speculate that Cascade Natural is looking to increase at this time because of our mild winter which should be investigate as possibly fraudulent to the community.
3/5/2026 7:56:39 AM	Oppose Docket	Pennie	Lancaster	Why because you want tax payers to pay more for using gas its so wrong this needs to stop.
3/5/2026 7:57:36 AM	Oppose Docket	Kelly	Rompel	Please do not allow such a large increase in costs from Cascade gas company. I understand costs need to increase however the increase they are requesting is far too large on residential families.
3/5/2026 7:59:49 AM	Oppose Docket	Delores	Rodenfels	As you know, those of us on a fixed income feel every increase. With the skyrocketing increase in fuel, food, Insurance, and pretty much everything, it’s a heavy load to bear. For so many it adds to the juggling act between necessities. Luxuries are no longer even in the mix. This seems like an excessive jump.
3/5/2026 8:21:41 AM	Oppose Docket	JANET	COLE	I am writing regarding the proposed increase for Cascade Natural Gas. We just had an increase fairly recently. This is a substantial proposed increase. I was told before that the last increase was to help pay for the unpaid bills during Covid. (My comment was "So I am paying for someone else's bill." The answer was "well, yes").Another increase is something that the citizens of Oregon can't afford. With the proposed transportation tax, increase in food and gas and all the other price hikes, Oregonians are struggling to make ends meet.. Let me also state that as a retired senior, we DO NOT get pay raises. (Usually the cost of living increase we get is eaten up by increases in our medical coverage.) Therefore, we always need to squeeze any rate increases out of our already tight budgets. An $11 increase is huge. We turn down our heat in the winter, we are careful in how we use both electric and gas and yet they continue to want more money from us. I really don't know how this is going to help the middle/low income people meet all their needs. Please do not post my email on your web site.
3/5/2026 8:37:23 AM	Oppose Docket	Dirk	Benson	Re: the proposed rate increase, people on fixed income who may receive a 2% COLA can not afford these continual 16% utility increases. If funds are required for system improvements, thise should be short-term costs/increases like bonds. Is there not grant money available? How about those big beautiful tarrifs?
3/5/2026 4:49:03 PM	Oppose Docket	Kim	Muinch	Just deliver gas. No renewables. If the system is to expand to serve new development, developers pay 100%. This is a public utility, not a risky venture. Shareholders deserve a modest return. As your rates increase, conversion to propane or electric becomes feasible.
3/5/2026 6:09:49 PM	Oppose Docket			A 15.8% rate hike is a considerable and devasting hike when many individuals are already having to make difficult decisions of which bills to pay or go without something. If you're going to raise prices and fees, only raise them on higher income earners who can obviously afford it, not the lower and middle working class and retirees. Gasoline is now going up. Groceries and other expenses have already been making it difficult to make ends meet.
3/5/2026 8:14:17 PM	Oppose Docket	Linda	Anzellotti	I will try to keep this comment with facts: The therms currently being charged to us, are Delivery therms: .39467, Cost of Gas therms .53625, AND climate therms .0321 AND Public purpose Fund at 6.123% for 1 therm cost us per therm. $1.02758. Where in the USA will you find this high of a charge for therms? Reno's NV ENERGY charges .46973 per them period. This is from a Feb 2026 bill. Gas Consumption Charge 52.000 Therms x 0.46973 $24.43 (no other therm charges). With natural gas prices going down, how can Cascade Natural Gas justify this rate? We're in Central Oregon for heaven sake, there is no room for most of us after retirement to afford the high price of Oregon's natural gas prices now. It's almost triple what Nevada is charging. Do you see what is going on here. The state of Oregon is allowing this large corporation MDU Resources Group, which makes billions in profit to continue to use us Oregonians to fill their stock holders pockets by increase the dividends and guess who is paying for it. and we do not get any better service. If you want to be fair, we need another Gas company in this area to compete. Otherwise we depend on you...Oregon Public Utility to fight for us Oregonians. Thank you
3/6/2026 12:32:28 AM	General Comment			Good afternoon, I would like to submit a public comment to you concerning the rate increase Cascade Gas is asking for. Over the last few years, these utilities have asked for and been granted rate increases of 15-20%, and they have been approved, so I doubt anything I will say will change that, but I have to try. I am a senior citizen on a fixed income with little savings serviced by Cascade Gas. While these utilities request these rate increases, senior citizens, in our most recent social security benefit increase received 2.8% and previous years were not much better. I would like to ask you what meal I should cut out of my day since I am down to two a day, to try and pay for these enormous rate requests. Not only senior citizens are affected and Oregon is now one of the most taxed State in the union, how are were to survive these increases. I tell you, we can't. I guess your answer is to throw on another blanket and live with it. Fine for you, and next spring, it's possible you will find me under several blankets, but no longer trying to stay warm. Believe me, this is real. I also find it odd that since Natural Gas is a commodity traded on exchanges, that the price does go down, but we never hear about that, nor is it ever a consideration. No rate increase, please. Thank you very much for your time. John L. Jones.
3/6/2026 12:32:30 AM	General Comment			A raise of 16% is outrageous. As senior citizens living on Social Security, inflation under the current administration has already stretched the limits of what we can afford.We are being gouged from all sides at the expense of profit for corporations. A modest raise that reflects the current 2.8% inflationary rate would be expected. When streaming services started dramatically raising their rates by 10-25%, we had options. We simply dropped the ones least used in order to pay for insurance, food and utilities. Price gouging must be stopped. Rich Mires CNGC Customer richmires@gmail.com<mailto:richmires@gmail.com>
3/6/2026 12:32:33 AM	General Comment			Hello my name is Darren Puckett. I am a cascade natural gas customer. I get where they’re coming from… we all want more, but us “customers” aren’t recieving good enough raises at work to accommodate how expensive this economy is. That being said I don’t think raising rates is a good idea. Thanks for allowing customers’ input on the rate increase idea. Sent from my iPhone
3/6/2026 12:32:35 AM	General Comment			The Oregon Public Utility Commission (PUC) is reviewing a proposed 17.4% rate increase by Cascade Natural Gas for late 2026, which includes contentious "line extension allowance" subsidies for new, largely residential customer hookups. Consumer advocates, including the Oregon Citizens' Utility Board (CUB), argue these subsidies unfairly force existing customers to pay for system expansion. Cascade is the last remaining Oregon gas utility utilizing "line extension allowances," which are subsidies that help pay for installing natural gas in new developments. This policy is not in the best interest of customers, especially as it shifts financial burden from shareholders to ratepayers. The PUC previously ordered the elimination of similar subsidies for NW Natural and Avista, suggesting and must end to this practice for Cascade. Any increase proposal approved by the PUC without first ordering CNG to end existing expansion subsidies will is at the detriment of credibility of the PUC leadership. If the PUC finds there is a direct need for cost increase as due to maintenance of existing infrastructure and need for improved safety. The approved increase should only reflect that portion of CNGs proposed increase. My opposition reflects a reasonable solution to a practice that should have never been allowed to begin with. Thank you for your attention on this matter. Chris Waine Mobile 541.314.5309 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
3/6/2026 11:16:59 AM	General (Docket-Specific)	Noel	Nelson	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.
3/7/2026 9:35:12 AM	Support Docket	Gail	Sorensen	these increases of over even 10% every year are very impactful as all other services also increase their fees but not by such high amounts. My home was built with natural gas appliance and fireplace (not my choice so dealing with both electric and gas bills) so short of replacing everything else gas in my home I'm held hostage to the rate increases (I live alone on one income so every increase is even more impactful). I think the amount is excessive and I'm making an assumption that some of this $$ need is related to new building demands. The city continues to make poor decisions about allowing over building in Bend which is tapping all of the resources in the area. I would propose putting a majority of the of increase on NEW construction and lower increases on existing homes. I've been in Bend 30 years and watch the out of control growth rapid growth sucking down resources. Thanks for listening.
3/8/2026 12:03:31 PM	Oppose Docket	Ann	Turner	Dear PUC, I am a retired physician and member of Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, working to protect the environment from the greatest threats to survival. You must Stop Cascade Natural Gas’ Line Extension Allowance (LEA) practice immediately. Recently, I have been looking at new townhouses in the Portland metro area and have been amazed that all of them have heat pumps and a few even have heat pump water heaters. None of them have GAS. I believe that this is because NW Natural has had to phase-out its Line Extension Allowance, no longer making it profitable for developers and builders to put in gas lines. This has undoubtedly made these homes more affordable because home buyers are paying for gas in the price of their new home. Affordability is already the biggest issue driving houselessness. Why should Cascade Natural Gas be permitted the LEA when the other Oregon gas utilities are not permitted to do so. Line Extension Allowances lock new homeowners into gas until they can afford to go “electric.” This is not only expensive but makes home environments unhealthy, increasing the risk of cancer, respiratory illnesses, especially asthma in children, carbon monoxide poisoning, and exposure to toxic chemicals besides methane, like cancer-causing benzene. Besides the safety risk of carbon monoxide poisoning, gas is also explosive and burdens communities and taxpayers with additional safety protection and monitoring costs. It harms all Oregonians by contributing to increased climate change with its extreme weather events and hotter climate fostering heat domes and forest fires. Methane is 86 times more potent than CO2 in trapping heat in the atmosphere. Reducing methane is the single most effective way to decrease the health and safety impacts of climate change in the short term. Cascade Natural Gas must step up to the place and work to support Oregon’s Climate goals, rather than working against them. For all these reasons, Line Extension Allowances are not in the public interest. They should be eliminated immediately. I urge you to stop allowing LEA’s for Cascade Natural Gas to protect us now and future generations from the ravages of climate change. Thank you!
3/9/2026 12:32:29 AM	General Comment			I am writing in opposition of a 15.82% increase in your rates. The article I just read states, on average the increase will be approximately $11.07/month. Well, here's my problem. My water bill in my community just increased $14/mo, our Medicare premiums just went up $40/month, our little community wants a school bond to pass in May that would increase my property taxes by $20/mo, our electric company forced a 21% increase on us in the last 2 years, which costs us, on average $30/month and we received a 2.8% COLA for social security, which amounted to $40. So, you do the math, I can't see where we can afford your 15.82% increase. You might offer us a plan where we may qualify for assistance, however, we don't qualify! Everyone wants an increase while we're supposed to live within our means! Well, it's getting tougher, with every utility, bond measure, and government tax, wanting a "small" portion of that. We'd love to have a 15% increase in our income, but sadly, that's not the case. Please reconsider this increase. It's unaffordable.
3/10/2026 12:32:27 AM	General Comment			To The PUC, Times are challenging already in our community with higher gasoline prices (up over $0.60 per gal in the last month), grocery prices significantly up, and health insurance costs (up around 300%). The proposed price hike from Cascade Natural Gas of over 15% is just another blow to our families. We are all looking to provide for our families, and create a better life - with price hikes like this we all loose! Due to this news, families around the Bend and coverage areas will have to do without something (use less gas (i.e. be cold) or have to cut back on an already tight budget). Our dollar does not go far in recent years, now Cascade Natural Gas is going to make it even tougher for our community and our families. Best, Doug Doug Marrone m: 310.926.3350 • @dougmarrone0110
3/10/2026 9:46:10 AM	Oppose Docket	Marilyn	Costamagna	Comment forwarded by Stop NW Gas Expansion Coalition, entered by PUC staff - cw This is a public comment to the Oregon Public Utility Commission.: 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 hard-won pollution reductions in other sectors. Line Extension Allowances are not in the public interest. Please stop them immediately. Stop NW Gas Expansion may send this comment on my behalf.: ? Checked I'm a Cascade Gas customer. (not required): ? Checked
3/10/2026 9:51:11 AM	Oppose Docket	Judith	Lienhard	Comment forwarded by Stop NW Gas Expansion Coalition, entered by PUC staff - cw This is a public comment to the Oregon Public Utility Commission.: 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 hard-won pollution reductions in other sectors. Line Extension Allowances are not in the public interest. Please stop them immediately. Stop NW Gas Expansion may send this comment on my behalf.: ? Checked I'm a Cascade Gas customer. (not required): ? Unchecked
3/10/2026 10:38:21 AM	Oppose Docket	Karen	Erde	Comment forwarded by Stop NW Gas Expansion Coalition, entered by PUC staff - cw This is a public comment to the Oregon Public Utility Commission.: 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 hard-won pollution reductions in other sectors. Line Extension Allowances are not in the public interest. Please stop them immediately. Stop NW Gas Expansion may send this comment on my behalf.: ? Checked I'm a Cascade Gas customer. (not required): ? Unchecked
3/10/2026 12:53:02 PM	Oppose Docket	Tonia	Twigger	Comment forwarded by Stop NW Gas Expansion Coalition, entered by PUC staff - cw This is a public comment to the Oregon Public Utility Commission.: 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 hard-won pollution reductions in other sectors. Line Extension Allowances are not in the public interest. Please stop them immediately. Stop NW Gas Expansion may send this comment on my behalf.: ? Checked I'm a Cascade Gas customer. (not required): ? Checked
3/10/2026 12:55:12 PM	Oppose Docket	John	Gillette, M.D.	Comment forwarded by Stop NW Gas Expansion Coalition, entered by PUC staff - cw This is a public comment to the Oregon Public Utility Commission.: 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 hard-won pollution reductions in other sectors. Line Extension Allowances are not in the public interest. Please stop them immediately. Stop NW Gas Expansion may send this comment on my behalf.: ? Checked I'm a Cascade Gas customer. (not required): ? Unchecked
3/10/2026 12:56:41 PM	Oppose Docket	Hilda	Welch	Comment forwarded by Stop NW Gas Expansion Coalition, entered by PUC staff - cw This is a public comment to the Oregon Public Utility Commission.: 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 hard-won pollution reductions in other sectors. Line Extension Allowances are not in the public interest. Please stop them immediately. Stop NW Gas Expansion may send this comment on my behalf.: ? Checked I'm a Cascade Gas customer. (not required): ? Unchecked
3/10/2026 12:58:23 PM	Oppose Docket	Louise	Gordon	Comment forwarded by Stop NW Gas Expansion Coalition, entered by PUC staff - cw This is a public comment to the Oregon Public Utility Commission.: 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 hard-won pollution reductions in other sectors. Line Extension Allowances are not in the public interest. Please stop them immediately. Stop NW Gas Expansion may send this comment on my behalf.: ? Checked I'm a Cascade Gas customer. (not required): ? Unchecked
3/10/2026 12:59:50 PM	Oppose Docket	Laura	Rogers	Comment forwarded by Stop NW Gas Expansion Coalition, entered by PUC staff - cw This is a public comment to the Oregon Public Utility Commission.: 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 hard-won pollution reductions in other sectors. Line Extension Allowances are not in the public interest. Please stop them immediately. Stop NW Gas Expansion may send this comment on my behalf.: ? Checked I'm a Cascade Gas customer. (not required): ? Unchecked
3/10/2026 1:01:27 PM	Oppose Docket	Danielle	Currey	Comment forwarded by Stop NW Gas Expansion Coalition, entered by PUC staff - cw This is a public comment to the Oregon Public Utility Commission.: 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 hard-won pollution reductions in other sectors. Line Extension Allowances are not in the public interest. Please stop them immediately. Stop NW Gas Expansion may send this comment on my behalf.: ? Checked I'm a Cascade Gas customer. (not required): ? Unchecked
3/10/2026 1:55:36 PM	Oppose Docket	Regna	Merritt	Comment forwarded by Stop NW Gas Expansion Coalition, entered by PUC staff - cw This is a public comment to the Oregon Public Utility Commission.: 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 hard-won pollution reductions in other sectors. Line Extension Allowances are not in the public interest. Please stop them immediately. Stop NW Gas Expansion may send this comment on my behalf.: ? Checked I'm a Cascade Gas customer. (not required): ? Unchecked
3/10/2026 1:59:10 PM	Oppose Docket	Cynthia	Enlow	Comment forwarded by Stop NW Gas Expansion Coalition, entered by PUC staff - cw This is a public comment to the Oregon Public Utility Commission.: 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 hard-won pollution reductions in other sectors. Line Extension Allowances are not in the public interest. Please stop them immediately. Stop NW Gas Expansion may send this comment on my behalf.: ? Checked I'm a Cascade Gas customer. (not required): ? Unchecked
3/10/2026 2:00:19 PM	Oppose Docket	Robert	Burch	Comment forwarded by Stop NW Gas Expansion Coalition, entered by PUC staff - cw This is a public comment to the Oregon Public Utility Commission.: 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 hard-won pollution reductions in other sectors. Line Extension Allowances are not in the public interest. Please stop them immediately. Stop NW Gas Expansion may send this comment on my behalf.: ? Checked I'm a Cascade Gas customer. (not required): ? Checked
3/10/2026 2:01:33 PM	Oppose Docket	Buck	Clarke	Comment forwarded by Stop NW Gas Expansion Coalition, entered by PUC staff - cw This is a public comment to the Oregon Public Utility Commission.: 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 hard-won pollution reductions in other sectors. Line Extension Allowances are not in the public interest. Please stop them immediately. Stop NW Gas Expansion may send this comment on my behalf.: ? Checked I'm a Cascade Gas customer. (not required): ? Unchecked
3/10/2026 2:02:48 PM	Oppose Docket	Susan	Heath	Comment forwarded by Stop NW Gas Expansion Coalition, entered by PUC staff - cw This is a public comment to the Oregon Public Utility Commission.: 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 hard-won pollution reductions in other sectors. Line Extension Allowances are not in the public interest. Please stop them immediately. Stop NW Gas Expansion may send this comment on my behalf.: ? Checked I'm a Cascade Gas customer. (not required): ? Unchecked
3/10/2026 2:03:59 PM	Oppose Docket	Linda	Donnelly	Comment forwarded by Stop NW Gas Expansion Coalition, entered by PUC staff - cw This is a public comment to the Oregon Public Utility Commission.: 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 harmful because they work against Oregon's climate goals, canceling hard-won pollution reductions in other sectors. Line Extension Allowances are not in the public interest. Please stop them immediately. Stop NW Gas Expansion may send this comment on my behalf.: ? Checked I'm a Cascade Gas customer. (not required): ? Unchecked
3/10/2026 2:06:38 PM	Oppose Docket	Kathleen	Pinsonault	Comment forwarded by Stop NW Gas Expansion Coalition, entered by PUC staff - cw This is a public comment to the Oregon Public Utility Commission.: 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 hard-won pollution reductions in other sectors. Line Extension Allowances are not in the public interest. Please stop them immediately. Stop NW Gas Expansion may send this comment on my behalf.: ? Checked Stop NW Gas Expansion may contact me. (not required): ? Checked I'm a Cascade Gas customer. (not required): ? Unchecked
3/10/2026 2:08:07 PM	Oppose Docket	Cam	Wolff	Comment forwarded by Stop NW Gas Expansion Coalition, entered by PUC staff - cw This is a public comment to the Oregon Public Utility Commission.: 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 hard-won pollution reductions in other sectors. Line Extension Allowances are not in the public interest. Please stop them immediately. Stop NW Gas Expansion may send this comment on my behalf.: ? Checked I'm a Cascade Gas customer. (not required): ? Unchecked
3/10/2026 2:09:08 PM	Oppose Docket	Dave	Ruud	Comment forwarded by Stop NW Gas Expansion Coalition, entered by PUC staff - cw This is a public comment to the Oregon Public Utility Commission.: 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 hard-won pollution reductions in other sectors. Line Extension Allowances are not in the public interest. Please stop them immediately. Stop NW Gas Expansion may send this comment on my behalf.: ? Checked I'm a Cascade Gas customer. (not required): ? Checked
3/10/2026 2:14:47 PM	Oppose Docket	Dana	Mozer	Comment forwarded by Stop NW Gas Expansion Coalition, entered by PUC staff - cw This is a public comment to the Oregon Public Utility Commission.: 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 hard-won pollution reductions in other sectors. Line Extension Allowances are not in the public interest. Please stop them immediately. Stop NW Gas Expansion may send this comment on my behalf.: ? Checked I'm a Cascade Gas customer. (not required): ? Unchecked
3/10/2026 2:16:05 PM	Oppose Docket	Virginia	Feldman	Comment forwarded by Stop NW Gas Expansion Coalition, entered by PUC staff - cw This is a public comment to the Oregon Public Utility Commission.: Dear Oregon Public Utility Commissioners: As a physician, I urge you to stop Line Extension Allowances for Cascade Natural Gas as soon as legally possible. In addition to economic and competitiveness concerns, Line Extension Allowances multiply the many negative health and safety impacts of methane gas and its byproducts. This affects the lives of my patients. It is also 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. They work against Oregon's climate goals, canceling hard-won pollution reductions in other sectors. Line Extension Allowances are not in the public interest. Please stop them immediately. Stop NW Gas Expansion may send this comment on my behalf.: ? Checked I'm a Cascade Gas customer. (not required): ? Checked
3/10/2026 2:22:07 PM	Oppose Docket	Veronica	Poklemba	Comment forwarded by Stop NW Gas Expansion Coalition, entered by PUC staff - cw This is a public comment to the Oregon Public Utility Commission.: 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 hard-won pollution reductions in other sectors. Line Extension Allowances are not in the public interest. Please stop them immediately. Stop NW Gas Expansion may send this comment on my behalf.: ? Checked I'm a Cascade Gas customer. (not required): ? Unchecked
3/10/2026 2:23:28 PM	Oppose Docket	Debby	Vajda	Comment forwarded by Stop NW Gas Expansion Coalition, entered by PUC staff - cw This is a public comment to the Oregon Public Utility Commission.: 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 hard-won pollution reductions in other sectors. Line Extension Allowances are not in the public interest. Please stop them immediately. Stop NW Gas Expansion may send this comment on my behalf.: ? Checked I'm a Cascade Gas customer. (not required): ? Unchecked
3/10/2026 2:25:05 PM	Oppose Docket	Mak	Darienzo	Comment forwarded by Stop NW Gas Expansion Coalition, entered by PUC staff - cw This is a public comment to the Oregon Public Utility Commission.: 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 hard-won pollution reductions in other sectors. Line Extension Allowances are not in the public interest. Please stop them immediately. Stop NW Gas Expansion may send this comment on my behalf.: ? Checked I'm a Cascade Gas customer. (not required): ? Unchecked
3/10/2026 2:26:16 PM	Oppose Docket	Randy	Knop	Comment forwarded by Stop NW Gas Expansion Coalition, entered by PUC staff - cw This is a public comment to the Oregon Public Utility Commission.: 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 hard-won pollution reductions in other sectors. Line Extension Allowances are not in the public interest. Please stop them immediately. Stop NW Gas Expansion may send this comment on my behalf.: ? Checked I'm a Cascade Gas customer. (not required): ? Unchecked
3/10/2026 2:27:46 PM	Oppose Docket	Pete & Jeanie	Barkett	Comment forwarded by Stop NW Gas Expansion Coalition, entered by PUC staff - cw This is a public comment to the Oregon Public Utility Commission.: 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 hard-won pollution reductions in other sectors. Line Extension Allowances are not in the public interest. Please stop them immediately. Stop NW Gas Expansion may send this comment on my behalf.: ? Checked I'm a Cascade Gas customer. (not required): ? Unchecked
3/10/2026 2:29:04 PM	Oppose Docket	Joseph	Stenger	Comment forwarded by Stop NW Gas Expansion Coalition, entered by PUC staff - cw This is a public comment to the Oregon Public Utility Commission.: 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 hard-won pollution reductions in other sectors. Line Extension Allowances are not in the public interest. Please stop them immediately. Stop NW Gas Expansion may send this comment on my behalf.: ? Checked I'm a Cascade Gas customer. (not required): ? Unchecked
3/10/2026 2:30:51 PM	Oppose Docket	Elizabeth	Spillman	Comment forwarded by Stop NW Gas Expansion Coalition, entered by PUC staff - cw This is a public comment to the Oregon Public Utility Commission.: 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 hard-won pollution reductions in other sectors. Line Extension Allowances are not in the public interest. Please stop them immediately. Stop NW Gas Expansion may send this comment on my behalf.: ? Checked I'm a Cascade Gas customer. (not required): ? Unchecked
3/10/2026 2:32:01 PM	Oppose Docket	Tony	Romero	Comment forwarded by Stop NW Gas Expansion Coalition, entered by PUC staff - cw This is a public comment to the Oregon Public Utility Commission.: 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 hard-won pollution reductions in other sectors. Line Extension Allowances are not in the public interest. Please stop them immediately. Stop NW Gas Expansion may send this comment on my behalf.: ? Checked I'm a Cascade Gas customer. (not required): ? Unchecked
3/11/2026 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, Daniel Jaynes Bend, 97703
3/11/2026 1:09:01 PM	Oppose Docket	Kimberly	Guerra	Comment forwarded by Stop NW Gas Expansion Coalition, entered by PUC staff - cw This is a public comment to the Oregon Public Utility Commission.: 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 hard-won pollution reductions in other sectors. Line Extension Allowances are not in the public interest. Please stop them immediately. Stop NW Gas Expansion may send this comment on my behalf.: ? Checked I'm a Cascade Gas customer. (not required): ? Unchecked
3/11/2026 3:21:22 PM	Oppose Docket	Alice	Hodgdon	Comment forwarded by Stop NW Gas Expansion Coalition, entered by PUC staff - cw This is a public comment to the Oregon Public Utility Commission.: 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 hard-won pollution reductions in other sectors. Line Extension Allowances are not in the public interest. Please stop them immediately. Stop NW Gas Expansion may send this comment on my behalf.: ? Checked I'm a Cascade Gas customer. (not required): ? Checked
3/11/2026 3:25:06 PM	Oppose Docket	Anne-Marie	Eklund	Comment forwarded by Stop NW Gas Expansion Coalition, entered by PUC staff - cw This is a public comment to the Oregon Public Utility Commission.: 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 hard-won pollution reductions in other sectors. Line Extension Allowances are not in the public interest. Please stop them immediately. Stop NW Gas Expansion may send this comment on my behalf.: ? Checked I'm a Cascade Gas customer. (not required): ? Checked
3/11/2026 3:28:55 PM	Oppose Docket	AJ	Cho	Comment forwarded by Stop NW Gas Expansion Coalition, entered by PUC staff - cw This is a public comment to the Oregon Public Utility Commission.: 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 hard-won pollution reductions in other sectors. Line Extension Allowances are not in the public interest. Please stop them immediately. Stop NW Gas Expansion may send this comment on my behalf.: ? Checked I'm a Cascade Gas customer. (not required): ? Checked
3/16/2026 4:54:57 PM	Oppose Docket	Helga	Burkhardt	Comment forwarded by Stop NW Gas Expansion Coalition, entered by PUC staff - cw This is a public comment to the Oregon Public Utility Commission.: 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 hard-won pollution reductions in other sectors. Line Extension Allowances are not in the public interest. Please stop them immediately. Stop NW Gas Expansion may send this comment on my behalf.: ? Checked I'm a Cascade Gas customer. (not required): ? Checked
3/16/2026 4:57:18 PM	Oppose Docket	Kerie	Raymond	Comment forwarded by Stop NW Gas Expansion Coalition, entered by PUC staff - cw This is a public comment to the Oregon Public Utility Commission.: 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 hard-won pollution reductions in other sectors. Line Extension Allowances are not in the public interest. Please stop them immediately. Stop NW Gas Expansion may send this comment on my behalf.: ? Checked Docket UG 525 Cascade Natural Gas Rate Case I'm a Cascade Gas customer. (not required): ? Checked
3/18/2026 12:04:12 PM	Oppose Docket	James	WYATT JR	My family and i are against the proposed increase.
3/18/2026 2:33:16 PM	Oppose Docket	Lori	Wyman	I oppose the request to increase the residential costs approximately $11.07 a month and/or 16-17.4%. Residential customers are already strapped with the increased inflation and rising costs that "All" utilities have already implemented, and now even higher costs. The notice states they have not requested an increase since 2020 which is untrue. Cascade had an increase of 25.1% November 1, 2022, due to high wholesale gas prices. They state the new increase of 16-17.4% will support system reliability improvements and cover the cost of rising operation and maintenance and states they need the increase for increased shareholder profits, which is unacceptable. Cascade has reduced their workforce, and they are required to keep the system safe as mandated by federal and state laws as well as Utility Commission oversight. Their operation costs have gone down, and this appears to be purely an increase mostly for shareholders and some potential projects. They should have used the last rate increase wisely. Consumers cannot afford another 16-17.4% or $11 higher bill. They must find other ways to cut cost and be more efficient. Please stop over pricing utility costs.
3/18/2026 4:10:32 PM	Oppose Docket	Jennifer	Alderson	I oppose the request to increase the residential costs approximately $11.07 a month and/or 16-17.4%. Residential customers are already strapped with the increased inflation and rising costs that "All" utilities have already implemented, and now even higher costs. The notice states they have not requested an increase since 2020 which is untrue. Cascade had an increase of 25.1% November 1, 2022, due to high wholesale gas prices. They state the new increase of 16-17.4% will support system reliability improvements and cover the cost of rising operation and maintenance and states they need the increase for increased shareholder profits, which is unacceptable. Cascade has reduced their workforce, and they are required to keep the system safe as mandated by federal and state laws as well as Utility Commission oversight. Their operation costs have gone down, and this appears to be purely an increase mostly for shareholders and some potential projects. They should have used the last rate increase wisely. Consumers cannot afford another 16-17.4% or $11 higher bill. They must find other ways to cut cost and be more efficient. Please stop over pricing utility costs.