Relating to electric transmission systems; and prescribing an effective date.
HB 3336 directs Oregon’s large electric companies to more actively plan for and deploy “grid enhancing technologies” on transmission systems. The bill defines those technologies broadly to include tools such as dynamic line rating, advanced power flow control, topology optimization, advanced reconductoring, flexible AC transmission systems, and energy storage used as a transmission resource. It requires utilities, when filing resource or grid investment plans with the Public Utility Commission, to analyze alternatives and compare strategies for increasing transmission capacity and reliability, reducing congestion and curtailment, and improving the ability to connect new renewable and nonemitting resources.
The bill also requires each covered electric company to include a separate strategic plan for grid enhancing technologies in its clean energy plan and integrated resource plan, with timelines, progress reporting, and a focus on cost-effective deployment. The first plan must identify both short-term actions that can reasonably be completed by January 1, 2030, and longer-term actions. The Public Utility Commission must define “cost-effective” and set criteria for determining where these technologies should be used. The bill applies to plans filed on or after the effective date and takes effect 91 days after adjournment of the 2025 regular session.
HB 3336 amends Oregon utility planning and transmission siting policy by adding new planning, analysis, and reporting requirements for large electric companies that own transmission systems and sell more than 2 million megawatt hours annually. It affects the Public Utility Commission’s oversight of clean energy plans and integrated resource plans, and it requires utilities to consider grid-enhancing technologies as part of transmission upgrades and resource planning. The bill also creates a streamlined local-government review process for certain transmission line upgrades that stay within existing rights-of-way or easements and involve only grid-enhancing technologies and related safety modifications, while limiting hearings and appeals for those applications.
The bill appears to have generally favorable support, reflected in passage through both chambers and committee votes with comfortable margins, though not unanimous. The vote history suggests broad agreement that Oregon should modernize transmission planning to improve reliability, reduce congestion, and support clean energy integration. At the same time, the presence of several no votes in floor votes indicates some reservations remained, likely around utility regulation, local land-use authority, and the scope of expedited permitting.
The main points of contention are likely the bill’s balance between accelerating transmission upgrades and preserving local control and procedural review. Section 4 narrows local-government decision-making to clear and objective standards, bars public hearings, and limits appeals, which could concern local governments, land-use advocates, and nearby property owners. There may also be debate over how the Public Utility Commission defines “cost-effective,” how broadly grid-enhancing technologies are interpreted, and whether the bill sufficiently protects environmental, scenic, historic, and open-space areas while promoting faster transmission deployment.