Bill could limit how Oregon utilities pay for lobbying, ads
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
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 hours ago
- Yahoo
Lawmakers move forward on bill banning common grocery store item: 'They add unnecessary costs'
Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek signed a bill into law banning thick, reusable plastic bags from being used at grocery stores, restaurants, and retail outlets, The Oregonian reported. State Sen. Janeen Sollman, a Democrat from Hillsboro and the bill's chief sponsor, explained that "wasteful disposable plastics like thick plastic checkout bags aren't just annoying for consumers, they add unnecessary costs to our Oregon businesses, and are contributing to an ever increasing pile of plastic trash that is harming the environment and public health." Plastic bags are, indeed, harmful to the environment. After typically being used just once, they end up in landfills, where they can take up to 1,000 years to break down. The intention behind the thicker reusable bags was to steer consumers toward using them multiple times, thus eliminating more single-use plastic bags, but few people reuse them. Critics of plastic bag bans are concerned that they may lead to an increase in the purchase and usage of other types of plastic bags, but studies have shown that bans are effective in cutting down the overall usage of plastic bags. The manufacturing of plastic bags contributes to planet-warming pollution, so demand for them increases the problem that bans are trying to solve. When plastic bags are not disposed of properly, they often end up in bodies of water or caught in tree branches, posing a threat to wildlife and causing additional harm to the environment. The Ocean Conservancy reported that plastic bags are the most common form of single-use plastics found by International Coastal Cleanup volunteers. In addition to the plastic bags harming marine life, microplastics that result from the bags breaking down can be ingested by marine animals, compounding the threat. The Oregon ban is part of efforts by individual states to reduce the environmental impact of plastic bags. California has banned all plastic grocery bags to encourage the use of paper bags or reusable bags. Twelve states have some form of statewide ban on plastic bags. Charging money for them is one deterrent that has reduced usage in the United Kingdom. The growing awareness of the negative effects of plastic bags on ecosystems has inspired individuals and governments to take action. By opting for reusable bags when we shop and helping spread the word about the harm single-use plastic bags bring to the environment, we can be part of the solution. Should the government ban gas stoves? Yes Only in new buildings Only in restaurants No way Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Slimmed-down Oregon transportation bill dies on House floor. Here's what to know
PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) – While lawmakers in Salem discuss another amendment for transportation funding, people across the state are wondering what it will mean for them. A slimmed-down version of HB 2025 died on the House floor, forcing lawmakers to go back to the drawing board with time running out in the legislative session. Now, the House Rules Committee is discussing an amendment to HB 3402 that looks to bridge the Oregon Department of Transportation's funding gap. Kotek signs bill bringing Portland a 'step closer' to an MLB stadium ODOT has said if its $350 million shortfall is not addressed, several hundred jobs will be on the chopping block. The new amendment features bumps to registration and titling fees, with a 3-cent increase to the gas tax, allowing for all that money to go to ODOT. Portland Mayor Keith Wilson has also released a statement, pleading with lawmakers to include funding for cities as well: 'We can't afford a patchwork solution. Legislators, please don't leave Salem without addressing crumbling city transportation systems. We're calling on our state partners to lean into our shared commitment to building a resilient and future-ready transportation network for all Oregonians.' Oregon's minimum wage will increase once again in July 2025. Here's what to know Meanwhile, the owners of Gresham Ford are against any new taxes. Co-owner and general manager Bess Wills said they are too much for working families. 'We're all paying more,' she said. 'We would all be paying more. And the burden of this taxation — which I think maybe if we just tighten our belt and use some of the resources we already have — might be a better answer.' KOIN 6 reached out to Governor Tina Kotek's office to see if she will call a special session should lawmakers not settle on a bill before the session ends. A spokesperson said the governor is closely monitoring and has no other comment. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Oregon legislative session ends as hundreds of transportation jobs face cuts
SALEM, Ore. () — The Oregon Legislative Session concluded for the year late Friday night, with sine die officially adopted. Now, the death of one bill on the House floor with an added amendment is expected to usher in hundreds of layoffs for state transportation workers. House Bill 3402 passed out of committee with an amendment to help fund the Oregon Department of Transportation. It was headed to the House floor in the hopes that the bill can prevent the layoffs. Police officer found justified in shooting armed man This comes after a marathon committee meeting took place in Salem on Friday. The House Rules Committee discussed the amendment to HB 3402, looking to bridge the ODOT's funding gap, after a . ODOT has said if its $350 million shortfall is not addressed, several hundred jobs will be on the chopping block. The new amendment featured bumps to registration and titling fees, with a 3-cent increase to the gas tax, allowing for all that money to go to ODOT. The bill and all of its amendments were supposed to go before the House floor at 6 p.m. However, the deadline got extended several times until the House finally met after 8 p.m. Without the funding, ODOT could face 700-800 layoffs on Monday. House Republicans said working Oregonians don't want more taxes. Governor Tina Kotek said during the amendment's public hearing that not passing it would be catastrophic for Oregonians. Kotek said the possible ODOT job cuts include roles like incident response teams and maintenance crews, which would be 'unacceptable' for Oregonians. Meanwhile, House Minority Leader Christine Drazan echoed the sentiments of her Republican colleagues. 'It's really, really simple for us. Oregonians themselves have said our number one issue is affordability, and this is tone-deaf. It flies in the face of what Oregonians are telling us as policymakers that they need right now,' Drazan said. KOIN 6 News has reached out to ODOT for comment. We will update this story if we hear back. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.