Latest news with #JordanGale
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
After reaching historic lows, hydropower generation in the Northwest expected to rise in 2025
Water flows out of the Bonneville Dam along the Columbia River between Multnomah County, Oregon and Skamania County, Washington. on Tuesday, July 23, 2024. (Jordan Gale/Oregon Capital Chronicle) After dropping to historic levels last year due to ongoing drought and high temperatures, hydropower generated in the Northwest is expected to rise slightly this year from much needed precipitation. Hydropower in the region is expected to increase about 17% compared to last year, a welcome boost to growing energy demand, but will still be below the 10-year average, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Officials at the Energy Information Administration published their 2025 forecast on May 19, as well as annual expectations for water supplies in key river basins generating the hydroelectricity. Overall hydropower generation in the U.S. is expected to rise 7.5% in 2025, which will also still keep overall hydropower generation below the 10-year average. Hydropower represents about 6% of the country's electricity. The increase in hydropower expected in 2025 is due in large part to above average precipitation in northern California, Oregon and eastern Washington during the past winter and this spring. Parts of southeast Oregon received record rainfall this spring, causing Gov. Tina Kotek in March to declare a state of emergency. Despite the increased precipitation in some parts of the state, the Upper Columbia River Basin near Grand Coulee Dam in Washington will have a below-normal water supply this year when compared to the past 30 years, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Northwest River Forecast Center. Water supply will be about normal or above normal in the southern portion of the Columbia River, which includes the Snake River Basin. Eleven Western states produce up to 60% of the country's hydroelectricity. Washington, California and Oregon are the three largest contributors, with dams in Oregon and Washington producing more than one-third of all U.S. hydropower. About 40% of the electricity used in Oregon comes from the region's hydroelectric dams. But ongoing drought, periods of low precipitation and rising summer temperatures that melt mountain snowpack too quickly have led to lower-than-usual power generating capacity at dams in the West. Both Oregon and Washington generated 20% less hydropower in 2023 than they did in 2021, and hydropower generation in the Northwest dropped to a historic 22-year low between Oct. 2022 and Sept. 2023. Hydropower generated in 2024 was the lowest it's been since 2010, according to the federal Energy Information Administration. The loss in generating capacity has cost the hydropower industry billions in revenue in recent years, according to researchers from the University of Alabama. The sector lost about 300 million megawatt hours of power generation between 2003 and 2020 due to drought and low water compared with the long-term average, equating to about $28 billion in lost revenue. Half of the drop in power generation was due to drought in Oregon, Washington and California. In Oregon, the hydroelectricity sector is estimated to have lost more than $1.5 billion in revenue over those 18 years. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
07-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Bills to regulate private utilities, curb gas and electric costs for Oregonians at a standstill
Powerlines in Hood River County above the Columbia River July 25, 2024. Oregon Legislators are considering several bills aimed at regulating the state's monopoly utilities. (Photo by Jordan Gale/Oregon Capital Chronicle) Legislators are considering at least six bills this session aimed at curbing spending from private, investor-owned monopoly utilities and limiting how and when those utilities can recover costs from customers. The slate of bills, largely supported by environmental and social justice groups and the watchdog Citizens' Utility Board, and largely opposed by the state's three monopoly electric and three monopoly gas utilities, are currently at a standstill in legislative revenue and rules committees that are exempt from traditional deadlines for decision-making. The proposals follow five years of residential rate increases that have led to record power and gas shut offs for Oregonians. In 2024, Oregon's private investor-owned utilities collectively cut off gas and power to nearly 70,000 households, according to data from the Citizens' Utility Board. They also come as most Oregonians pay far more for electricity and gas than they did five years ago: Electricity rates are 50% higher and natural gas rates are nearly 40% higher than they were five years ago. Gov. Tina Kotek has expressed support for several of the bills lawmakers are proposing to rein in the private utilities. 'What I want to see for the end of this session is a renewed commitment to keeping utility rates low, giving the Public Utility Commission additional tools to do that, and more opportunities to put more of the burden on folks who are using the energy,' Kotek said at a news conference Monday. 'Some of the large users, like data centers, should be doing more of their fair share.' Senate Bill 688 What it does: The bill would give the Oregon Public Utility Commission, which regulates the monopoly utilities operating in the state, the power to require those utilities meet certain performance targets in order to raise rates. Those targets include reducing capital and energy costs, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, investing in community solar and microgrids and ensuring low-income Oregonians aren't cut off from power. Currently, utilities borrow from their investors and guarantee about a 9% return on the investment when they build out their infrastructure. Ratepayers cover both the costs of repayment and the investors' profit. Bill sponsors said this incentivizes companies not to save ratepayers money, but to make needless and expensive investments in infrastructure to reward investors. Who's behind it?: State Sens. Khanh Pham, D-Portland, and Jeff Golden, D-Ashland, sponsored the bill. It has the support of the Citizens' Utility Board, environmental groups and the League of Oregon Cities, who said that private, monopoly utilities lack financial incentives to contain costs because their profits come from investments in expanding. 'It's time we modernize the process,' Nolan Pleše, a lobbyist for the League of Oregon Cities, wrote in submitted testimony. Who's opposed?: Officials from Portland General Electric, or PGE, say the bill as amended imposes regulations utilities are already required to follow, such as requiring private utilities to acquire cost-effective energy and to reduce emissions. 'PGE is already heavily engaged in many of the activities the bill seeks to incent,' company lobbyist Greg Alderson wrote in submitted testimony. Bill status: The bill received two public hearings in the Senate Committee on Energy and Environment in March, where it passed near unanimously from the committee to the Joint Ways and Means Committee with the recommendation they also vote to approve it. It's been sitting in the Ways and Means committee without a scheduled vote since March 27. Senate Bill 88 What it does: The bill would prohibit private utilities from charging customers to cover the costs of lobbying, lawsuits, political contributions, industry association membership fees and marketing and advertising. Currently the Public Utility Commission decides to what degree companies can raise customer rates to cover these costs. Who's behind it?: The bill is being considered at the request of the Senate Committee on Energy and Environment. More than 130 letters of testimony have been submitted in support of the bill, including from environmental groups, the Oregon Solar and Storage Industries Association and the Citizens' Utility Board. 'We've seen in recent years the way our traditional processes for assigning rates to residential customers has become unbalanced,' Jennifer Hill-Hart, a lobbyist for the Citizens' Utility Board, said in a public hearing on the bill Monday. 'Utilities have the upper hand, from control of when they come in for a rate case, to what is included in the general rate case. This is to the disservice of customers, and has outcomes that not only affect affordability but fairness and transparency.' Who's opposed?: Private monopoly utilities, the industry group Northwest Gas Association and the Local 290 Plumbers and Steamfitters. Brad Archuleta, an organizer with the plumbers and steamfitters union, said his members are worried that utilities will cut costs elsewhere if they can't raise customer rates to pay for membership fees and advertising. 'If SB 88 moves forward, utilities may be forced to cut corners and look for shortcuts,' Archuleta wrote. 'We need to ensure the folks who are building out our energy system are paid well, and the market has the ability to grow and welcome more union jobs.' Bill status: The Senate Energy and Environment Committee sent the bill to the Senate Rules Committee in March without recommending its passage — a common maneuver to give lawmakers more time to work on amendments or gather support for a measure. The Rules Committee held a public hearing for the bill Monday and has not yet scheduled a vote. House Bill 3179 What it does: Also known as the FAIR Energy Act, this bill would limit private, investor-owned utility rate requests, allowing them only once every 18 months. Rate increases would have to go into effect before Nov. 1 or after March 31 so ratepayers would not suddenly be hit with a bigger bill in winter when usage is highest. The bill would also require the Public Utility Commission to consider the cumulative economic impact of a rate increase on customers over time and to analyze company profits from the 24 months leading up to a request to increase rates. Who's behind it?: State Reps. Nathan Sosa, D-Hillsboro, and Pam Marsh, D-Ashland, and state Sens. Kathleen Taylor, D-Milwaukee, and Janeen Sollman, D-Hillsboro. The bill has the support of the NW Energy Coalition, Citizens' Utility Board and the city of Portland. 'Energy rates have increased dramatically in recent years, and today too many Portlanders are struggling to pay their energy bills,' wrote Eric Engstrom, Portland's interim director of planning and sustainability. 'HB 3179 seeks to center households and families by requiring greater transparency, additional consumer protections, and an assessment of the real human impacts of utility rate increases.' Who's opposed?: Private monopoly utilities, the Alliance of Western Energy Customers and Oregon Business and Industry, a statewide business association, are among bill opponents. Bill status: The House Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection sent it to the House Rules Committee in April. A public hearing for the bill in the Rules Committee is scheduled for Wednesday. House Bill 3546 What it does: HB 3546 is also known as the POWER Act. It creates a separate customer class for data centers, which are the largest and fastest-growing energy users in the state. This would allow the Public Utility Commission to ensure charges for grid expansion and infrastructure needed to power those data centers are not being passed onto residential and commercial customers. Who's behind it?: The bill is sponsored by a bipartisan group of lawmakers including state Reps. Pam Marsh, D-Ashland, Mark Owens, R-Crane, Dacia Grayber, D-Portland, and state Sens. Jeff Golden, D-Ashland, and Janeen Sollman, D-Hillsboro. It has received nearly 200 letters of testimony including more than 180 in support from environmental groups, city mayors and the monopoly utilities. 'While the existing regulatory framework is established to protect customers and align the costs of energy infrastructure with the customers benefiting from these investments, the scale, pace and uncertainty surrounding this potential load growth requires additional regulatory updates to protect all customers while creating a path for large customers to expand their businesses,' wrote Pacific Power lobbyist Annette Price in her submitted testimony. Who's opposed?: Among the nine letters of opposition are ones from the Alliance of Western Energy Consumers, the Data Center Coalition and Amazon Web Services. 'As society continues to rely more heavily on technology, global demands for energy and grid capacity continue to grow. It is important for states like Oregon to consider the positive opportunities of data centers in both AI development and sustainable energy solutions to meet these interconnected challenges,' said Shannon Kellogg, a vice president and lobbyist for Amazon, in her submitted testimony. Bill status: The bill passed the House in April on a 41-16 vote, with several Republicans joining Democrats in voting to approve. It had its second of two public hearings in the Senate Energy and Environment Committee on Monday. A vote in the committee has not yet been scheduled. House Bill 3081 What it does: The bill would direct the Oregon Department of Energy to create a website, in multiple languages, where Oregonians can find and apply for state and federal tax incentives, rebates and discounts on energy-efficient heating and cooling pumps, zero-emissions vehicles and investments in home and building weatherization. It would also require the agency to hire staff to help Oregonians navigate applications and apply for the incentives, and to get more low-income Oregonians applying. Who's behind it?: State Rep. Emerson Levy, D-Bend. More than 80 letters of support have been submitted, including many from environmental groups and from the Citizens' Utility Board. 'Since many energy incentive programs have different rules and requirements, they can be complex and overwhelming to navigate,' said Eliza Walton, coalition director of the Oregon Conservation Network, in written testimony. If the bill passes, 'Oregonians will get direct assistance from someone in their part of the state to make their home projects more affordable through locating programs they qualify for, connect with trusted contractors, and ask questions along the way.' Who's opposed?: The public utility districts and cooperatively-owned utilities. Jennifer Joly, director of the Oregon Municipal Electric Utilities Association, said utilities themselves already offer customers direction with applications for tax rebates and discounts, and that the state's attempts at creating a sort of clearing house for deals so far has had shortcomings. 'We continue to be concerned about spending at ODOE,' she wrote. 'In a new era of likely declining federal incentives for energy efficiency, we question the creation of a call center and clearinghouse.' Bill status: House Bill 3081 passed unanimously out of the House Climate, Energy and Environment Committee and awaits a hearing and vote in the Joint Ways and Means Committee. House Bill 3792 What it does: The bill would double the amount of money electric utilities contribute to the state's Energy Assistance Program annually from $20 million to $40 million, which serves low-income customers struggling to pay their utility bills. Who's behind it?: State Rep. Tom Andersen, D-Salem, is the bill's sponsor. It has the support of Portland city leaders as well as Multnomah County leaders and environmental and social groups such as AARP. 'Given the rapid escalation in utility rates in Oregon, HB 3792 will help older Oregonians not only pay their bills but stay in their homes,' wrote Andrea Meyer, a lobbyist for AARP of Oregon. Who's opposed?: Portland General Electric. Company lobbyist Greg Alderson said PGE is concerned that increasing the amount of money in the Energy Assistance Program does not address the root causes of high electricity bills, and that the money would be better spent ensuring people have an effective and efficient heat source in their homes, which would lower their bills. 'Limited bill assistance resources primarily go toward covering large bills and balances each year for customers experiencing persistent high energy burden, in many cases the same customers, rather than addressing the underlying contributing factors,' Alderson said in written testimony. Bill status: The bill advanced on a party-line vote in April from the House Commerce and Consumer Protection Committee to the Joint Ways and Means Committee. It is still in the Ways and Means Committee without a scheduled vote. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
10-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
BPA announces intention to split with California and join new Southwest energy market
Powerlines in Hood River County above the Columbia River move electricity from the Bonneville Dam to customers across the region on July 25, 2024. (Photo by Jordan Gale/Oregon Capital Chronicle) The nonprofit federal administration that provides one-third of the Northwest's electricity is preparing to part ways with its current Western energy market and sell its excess energy to companies and electric cooperatives as far away as Louisiana. Bonneville Power Administration officials announced in a draft policy proposal released Wednesday that they intend to leave the California-controlled 'real-time' market they've participated in since 2022 and join a new 'day-ahead' energy market based out of Little Rock, Arkansas. The move sparked concern and criticism from public utility commissioners and lawmakers in Oregon and Washington, as well as large investor-owned utilities in the region who say it will drive up rates for their millions of customers and cause grid reliability issues. Most utilities in the West today operate in a 'real-time market,' where each one sets its supply and demand schedule for the next day without seeing what other member utilities are planning, and they buy and sell power on an as-needed basis in the market. In a day-ahead market, everyone shares energy generating capacity and anticipated needs a day ahead, and the market prices are negotiated based on that information. This means a new slate of customers would be able to buy power from BPA that has previously only been available to utilities operating in the 10 states covered by California's 'real-time' system, which includes all or parts of Oregon, Washington, Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. Although California is developing its own 'day-ahead' market, BPA does not intend to join it. BPA officials will issue a final decision in May on joining the Southwest Power Pool's Markets+ system, instead of California's Extended Day-Ahead Market, or EDAM, system. BPA officials expect by October 2028 the agency would be operating in the Southwest Power Pool. If BPA joins the Southwest Pool, it would still sell energy first to the 140 consumer-owned utilities in the Northwest that it is legally required to serve before selling its excess power. BPA would also continue to sell surplus power to Northwest utilities. BPA officials have asserted for years that California has too much power over the region-wide energy system because the California Independent System Operator is governed in part by the California Legislature. The Southwest Power Pool, on the other hand, is governed by a board that includes power producers and utilities. It serves all or some of Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas and Wyoming. Critics of BPA's decision to leave the California market and join the Southwest Power Pool say that it would cost Northwest utilities — serving the bulk of residents in the region — big money that they'll have to pass onto their consumers. With BPA out, the pool of energy that Western utilities can purchase from would be smaller and from potentially more expensive sources. It would also delay a long-awaited dream of creating a truly regionally integrated Western grid that could help states collectively manage big transmission issues, boost clean energy generation and address safety issues, lawmakers said. Oregon's U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat, has called on BPA for months to reconsider its inclination towards the Southwest Power Pool, which several analyses — including a BPA-commissioned study — have shown will cost more upfront and could lead to higher electricity costs for ratepayers across the Northwest. 'This hasty draft decision by the BPA is not good news for electricity consumers in Oregon and the Pacific Northwest,' Wyden said in an emailed statement. Kandi Young, a spokesperson for Oregon's Public Utility Commission, which has also been critical of BPA's leanings towards the Southwest Pool, said in an email that model's in the BPA-commissioned study show the agency would save customers in the Northwest $4.4 billion in the next decade by choosing to join California's day-ahead market as opposed to the Southwest Power Pool. 'We look forward to further discussion with BPA on how these regional benefits should be viewed alongside the factors they have prioritized,' she said. Doug Johnson, a senior spokesperson for BPA, said in an email that the analysis shows higher upfront costs in joining the Southwest Pool but lower costs over time, and that California's EDAM market would cost more on an annual basis after implementation. The Bonneville Power Administration is a federal agency responsible for selling hydroelectricity generated from 31 federal dams and a nuclear plant in the Columbia Basin at wholesale rates. BPA is not supposed to collect a profit on its electricity sales, which currently power more than one-third of all the electricity used in the Northwest. BPA is obligated first to sell power to 140 consumer-owned utilities in the region, and then it sells the excess to other consumer and private-investor owned utilities in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and areas of Montana, California, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming. It delivers that electricity via 15,000 miles of transmission lines in oversees in the region, representing 75% of the Northwest's high voltage transmission system. In announcing its intent to join the Southwest Power Pool, BPA has the support of most of the utilities it serves by law, including the backing of the Portland-based Public Power Council, a nonprofit industry group representing consumer-owned utilities in the Northwest that get priority purchase power from the Bonneville Power Administration. Since 2022, BPA has sold its excess power to other Northwest utilities and California's real-time energy market, managed by CAISO. The California-based market is responsible for energy trading across about 80% of the electrical grid in 10 Western states. Most of that energy trading happens via a supercomputer in Folsom, California, which can move energy, such as that coming from BPA, where it's needed in real time and shut down power where it could be dangerous in real-time, like during a wildfire. California, like the Southwest Power Pool, is creating a new day-ahead market where instead of buying, selling and moving energy in real time, members can trade and prices can be negotiated in advance. The biggest utilities in the West, such as PacifiCorp, PGE and Seattle City Light, are choosing to stay with California in its new day-ahead market. Some, such as Puget Sound Energy and Avista, have been waiting to see what BPA decides. The large utilities are concerned that if BPA is removed from the Western power pool, it will drive up prices across the region and create expensive inefficiencies. Letha Tawney, one of three commissioners on the Oregon Public Utility Commission, said if BPA leaves the Western market, it will create needless problems. If a transmission line trips off because of a wildfire, or a coal plant goes down, the supercomputer in Folsom can quickly reroute energy across the region. Without BPA on its radar, a system operator in California would have to call operators in Little Rock to ask what each was seeing on their own maps of the Western energy load. To try to address these concerns, public utilities commissioners, utilities officials and state leaders have created an initiative meant to move some governance away from California and to spread it more broadly across members. BPA officials have said they appreciate the effort — called the 'Pathways Initiative' — but still see California as legislatively bound to serving its state's customers before the region's customers. 'Bonneville staff is concerned that the vast majority of the benefits realized from creating a Westwide market would flow to California,' officials wrote in their recommendation. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
05-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Bill could limit how Oregon utilities pay for lobbying, ads
Powerlines in Hood River County above the Columbia River move electricity from the Bonneville Dam to customers across the region on July 25, 2024. (Photo by Jordan Gale/Oregon Capital Chronicle) A bill that aims to ensure Oregon ratepayers are not paying for utilities' lobbying and advertising expenses could provide transparency and some relief from high energy bills for Oregon ratepayers. On Monday, the state Senate Committee on Energy and Environment heard Senate Bill 88, labeled the 'Get the Junk out of our Rates' bill by advocates. Natural gas rates and electric rates are set through a process that allows utilities to charge rates that cover the cost of doing business, and then to turn a profit. The bill would essentially create more clarity around utility spending and when it must come out of those allowed profits. If they spend on advertising, political influence, litigation, or pay for trade associations or membership fees and fines, that spending would not be allowed to push up rates — it would have to be taken from profits instead. Some of the state's largest private utilities and their trade groups have opposed the bill, arguing that inflation, safety repairs and compliance with regulatory mandates are what drive rates higher — and that the proposed legislation is not necessary, because their allowable spending is already regulated. Sen. Janeen Sollman, D-Hillsboro, said the bill is about transparency and will allow Oregonians to better understand what can and cannot be included when rates are set. But she warned that ratepayers may not see a significant decrease on their energy bills with this proposed legislation. 'I want to be really clear with folks too, just so they have kind of a level setting is — You're not going to see a big difference on your utility bill with this bill,' she said. 'This isn't the bill that I've seen that people are saying, 'Oh, they're going to save me money,' so I want to really make sure that people understand.' The bill would require utilities to submit a report to the Oregon Public Utility Commission on spending that is nonrecoverable from ratepayers. Senate Bill 88 comes at a time when many Oregonians are paying 50% more on their energy bills than they did five years ago. Although lawmakers say the legislation would not provide much relief on energy bills, it would create more transparency. It would also help streamline the utilities' rate case process, which is the regulatory process in which the Public Utility Commission and intervenors, like nonprofit consumer advocacy groups, vet and question utility rates. Senate Bill 88 would ensure that shareholders profits are reduced to pay for costs related to advertising or lawyer fees or political influence — and that spending can't be baked into rate structures. Sarah Wochele is the policy associate with Oregon Citizens' Utility Board, or CUB, a nonprofit utility watchdog group created by voters in 1984. She said during a general rate setting process, intervenors comb through hundreds of pages of testimony. Because it can be a tedious task, Wochele said, the current process favors trying to keep rates down by going after higher costs. That sometimes leads to not discussing smaller utility spending choices. 'These are things such as costs related to advertising, activity related to supporting advertising, costs from travel, lodging, entertainment, food for utilities boards of directors,' she said. 'CUB has seen utilities try to include Blazer basketball tickets and Oregon Ducks football tickets in rates. Another utility once tried to include baby pigs for a 4-H program in eastern Washington.' Nearly three years ago, dozens of organizations and some lawmakers called on an investigation into what they claimed was NW Natural's 'misleading advertisement' to the public and in school work books. At the time, Oregon CUB became aware of the alleged misuse of funds during NW Natural's general rate case. Avista Natural Gas has also been found to use ratepayer funds to fight state climate action regulation. Carra Sahler, director and staff attorney of the Green Energy Institute at Lewis and Clark Law School, said Oregonians are tightening their belts and this bill would help utilities do the same. 'The proposal is intended to provide a bright line direction about what is recoverable from ratepayers and what isn't,' she said. 'The point of the bill is to cut out the needless back and forth between ratepayers advocates like the Citizens Utility Board, other intervenors, staff at the public utility commission, and the utilities themselves.' Similar bills have been passed in other parts of the country, like Colorado, Connecticut and Maine. Stephanie Chase is the research and communications manager for the Energy and Policy Institute, a watchdog organization that counters misinformation by fossil fuel and utility interests. She said those states passed similar legislation in 2023 and ratepayers are already seeing benefits. For example, a recent analysis from her organization found that since the law went into effect in Connecticut, the state's investor-owned utilities have disclosed over $9.7 million that was spent on costs that are not allowed to be recovered from ratepayers. 'In Colorado, the Public Utility Commission disallowed more than $775,000 in annual costs for lobbying fees, trade association dues, and investor relations that one utility at Xcel Energy had tried to recover,' she said. Overall, she said, among the immediate benefits Senate Bill 88 would be 'bright lines' around certain costs and expenses, that make it easier to highlight during the general rate case process and save the PUC and intervenors' time during the settlement process. Those bright lines are found in other states. But utilities like Cascade Natural Gas, Northwest Natural and the Northwest Gas Association oppose the bill claiming it's redundant with what already exists in current law and with the Public Utility Commission's orders on reviewing costs to determine if they are appropriate to recover from ratepayers. 'It's already within the PUC's power and means to impose penalties for violation of rule, law and order,' Cascade Natural Gas external affairs manager Alyn Spector said. For example, PUC allows utilities to recover 75% of their trade association fees, and are permitted to engage in 'just and reasonable' promotional activities. The utilities' also say the bill does not address energy affordability, is not clear on what type of community engagement would be allowed as an expense, and would require utilities to spend additional resources on providing an additional annual report. 'As written, we're afraid that the bill would stifle innovation by punishing utilities who attempt to recover costs on overly broad definitions of advertising and political influence activity. We do try to be good stewards of ratepayer dollars.' This story was originally published by Oregon Public Broadcasting. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
25-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Lawmakers introduce dozens of proposed constitutional amendments
Republican Sen. David Brock Smith is behind a proposal that would not not allow people over 72 to run for state office in Oregon. (Photo by Jordan Gale/Oregon Capital Chronicle) Two years ago, Oregon lawmakers faced several dozen proposed constitutional amendments that reflected a range of frustrations with the state's governing document. Even more of that is back in this year's session. Lawmakers and committees have introduced 50 proposed constitutional amendments, with about twice as many in the Senate than the House. Any that pass — and the odds are few will — would be referred to the ballot November ballot in 2026 for a final decision. Some of these proposals are new this session, but others have been tried and failed before. Many would involve a reduction or expansion of one side's governing leverage. Some of the proposals are from Democrats, who hold a supermajority in both chambers, giving them the authority to raise taxes without Republican support. But most are from Republicans The new Senate Republican leader, Daniel Bonham of The Dalles, is one of the most prolific amendment sponsors, fielding a dozen. As in past sessions, one of the most overtly political of topics — redistricting — is proposed for constitutional amendment. Two Senate Joint Resolutions, 8 and 21, address legislative reapportionment by proposing a redistricting commission, an idea that has failed in the Legislature before. SJR 14 has another twist: It would increase Senate membership from 30 to 36, with each county electing a senator. You might expect that Republicans, long in the minority, would look for ways to impede the majority's ability to act, and you would be right. At least a half-dozen constitutional proposals seek to do just that by changing the rules for passing a measure. Under current rules, bills pass with a simple majority except revenue raising bills, which require a three-fifths supermajority in favor. Senate Joint Resolution 7, sponsored by Republican Sens. Bonham and Kim Thatcher of Keizer and Rep. E. Werner Reschke of Malin, would require a two-thirds majority in favor in each chamber to pass bills with an emergency clause to enact them sooner than normal. Now, such bills pass with a simple majority. SJR 12 would mandate a two-thirds majority to pass bills in even-numbered sessions. SJR 26 would end even-year regular sessions completely. Another amendment that could have unpredictable effects if passed, SJR 9 by Republican Sen. Fred Girod of Stayton, would 'prohibit members of the legislative assembly from voting on legislative measures when faced with a conflict of interest. Permits a vote to occur if the legislative entity is otherwise unable to muster sufficient votes to pass or defeat the measure.' Three more Republican-backed proposed amendments (SJRs 10, 11 and 23) would constrain legislative budget-writing. Others with Republican backing would limit the Democratic-controlled executive branch. SJR 18 would limit the time spans of emergency declarations by the governor, and SJR 31 would block a governor or agency from mandating use of a vaccine. Under other SJRs, legislative approval would be needed for some pardons and other actions (19 and 20), or for new or increased fees assessed by agencies (HJR 1). Approaching the question of control differently, a group of four Democrats — Sens. Khanh Pham of Portland and Jeff Golden of Ashland and Reps. David Gomberg of Otis and Nathan Sosa of Hillsboro — propose reducing the quorum needed to conduct business from two-thirds to one-half plus one. Republicans in recent years occasionally have used the high quorum requirement to block legislation. Still others would affect voters, or ballot status for ballot issues, directly. Three — SJR 30 and HJRs 3 and 11 — would change the rules for petitions for initiatives, raising the bar for petitioners. Another, HJR 5 by Sen. David Brock Smith, would add a new qualification for running for state office: a maximum age of 72 as of election day. (That would mean that current Republican President Donald Trump would be disqualified from running for Oregon office.) Apart from the relatively partisan amendments, a number of substantive topics — generally with clear partisan appeal on their own — also have been proposed. Many were framed as 'constitutional rights,' including: A right to fish and hunt (SJR 13) An end to the death penalty in Oregon (SJR 16) A parental right to choose a school for their children (SJR 24) A right to carry a concealed firearm (SJR 27) A right to a 'clean, safe and healthy environment' (SJR 28) Few of all these measures are likely to pass the Legislature and reach the ballot. Voters, of course, can choose to gather enough signature to get them on the ballot themselves by petition. That could transform some of these ideas into political battles ranging far outside the statehouse. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
