Relating to microgrids; and prescribing an effective date.
HB 2066 directs Oregon’s Public Utility Commission to investigate and create a regulatory framework for microgrids and community microgrids within electric utility service territories. The bill defines key terms such as microgrid, community microgrid, microgrid operator, and front-of-meter resources, and requires the framework to address ownership, deployment, interconnection, safety, performance, application and approval procedures, compensation, and cost allocation. It also requires the framework to account for the reliability, resilience, and economic benefits of microgrids, including their role in supporting zero-emissions energy and service continuity during emergencies and public safety power shutoffs.
The bill also extends beyond utility regulation into land use and building policy. It authorizes local governments to create microgrid zones and adopt land use regulations that encourage compatible development, subject to approval by the PUC or a consumer-owned utility governing body depending on the service territory. In addition, the Department of Consumer and Business Services must adopt building code rules that support integration of buildings with community microgrids. The PUC must complete its investigation and adopt the framework within 18 months, and the bill increases the PUC’s expenditure authority by $410,136 to implement the new duties.
HB 2066 adds new provisions to ORS chapter 757, ORS chapter 455, and ORS chapter 197, creating a statewide policy structure for microgrids and community microgrids. It requires the PUC to establish rules governing utility and third-party participation, compensation for energy and resilience services, sale of excess energy, shared costs, and coordination between microgrid operators and electric companies, while preserving the utility’s control over its own distribution infrastructure. It also gives local governments a new planning tool through microgrid zones and requires state building code updates to facilitate building integration with community microgrids.
The bill appears to have broad support overall, reflected in strong committee and floor votes in both chambers. The House committee advanced the measure 11-1 and later 21-2 on the amended version, followed by 40-1 in House third reading and 26-3 in Senate third reading. That voting pattern suggests general agreement that microgrids are a useful resilience and clean-energy tool, with only limited opposition or reservations.
The main points of contention likely center on how microgrids should be regulated, who should pay for them, and how much authority local governments and nonutility entities should have. The bill’s compensation and cost-allocation provisions, including recovery from customers in a microgrid zone or local distribution system, may raise concerns about cost shifting. Another likely issue is the balance between encouraging community microgrids and protecting electric companies’ control over distribution infrastructure, which the bill explicitly preserves. The requirement for PUC approval of microgrid zones in utility territories also suggests a role for utility oversight that may have been important in resolving concerns.