Listen to this article 3 min
Portland General Electric's latest rate case will get the usual lengthy consideration after state utility regulators on Thursday denied a bid by a ratepayer advocate to have the case thrown out.
In doing so, the Public Utility Commission chided the Citizens' Utility Board for bringing an unprecedented motion to dismiss.
CUB sought dismissal after PGE (NYSE: POR) in late February proposed a 7.4% overall average rate increase in 2025. It would come on top of a series of price hikes by PGE — and amid rate filings by other utilities — that have made energy affordability an issue in Oregon.
The typical general rate case is analyzed, argued and negotiated by the utility and stakeholders over 10 months. The three-person, governor-appointed commission ultimately decides rates, often by approving stipulations reached by the parties.
Commissioners had indicated skepticism about the CUB motion in oral arguments earlier this month. In their written order, signed by all three commissioners, they said the law and longstanding commission practice were on PGE's side.
The commission got there by roundly rejecting CUB's argument that even if all of PGE's contentions in its filing were true, the proposed rate increase would not be "fair, just and reasonable."
"PGE has alleged that for its new test year it will fall short of the revenue requirement it needs to run its business and have the opportunity to earn an authorized rate of return," the commissioners wrote. "Accepting this allegation as true, which we are required to do in evaluating a motion to dismiss, leaves us no grounds to dismiss the case."
After elaborating on their rationale, the commissioners wrote:
"Given these factors, we are surprised that CUB asks us to (dismiss the case). We depend on long-term, expert participants like CUB to be constructive leaders for a new generation of ratepayer and energy justice advocates in this process. Those advocates, as well as the general public should not operate under the impression the Commission can take summary action without the essential legal conditions being met."
The commissioners acknowledged "we are navigating a fast-changing and challenging time in the electricity sector," requiring "flexibility and creative solutions for adapting ratemaking to new realities." But they suggested advocates pushed too far with the motion to dismiss.
"CUB and others should continue to engage on this effort, but need to recognize that our ability to evolve is limited to the bounds of our authority granted by statute," they wrote.
All that said, the regulators also conceded "the fundamental asymmetry of resources between the company and stakeholders like CUB," a circumstance exacerbated now by rate cases from other utilities including PacifiCorp (Pacific Power) and NW Natural.
"We remain open to suggestions from CUB and stakeholders for actions within our legal authority that we may take to eliminate barriers and facilitate meaningful participation," the commissioners wrote.
In an email statement, CUB questioned the PUC's priorities.
After the oral argument on the 16th, where CUB was asked what kind of a message adopting our motion would send to Wall Street, but no one asked PGE about the impact on customers of continuous rate cases, it was pretty clear that the Commission is on a different page than CUB.
We think there is a big problem with PGE. It is operating under an "all of the above" business model and its employees are discouraged from challenging new potential investments. This is not sustainable because customers cannot afford it. Customers need regulators to place some constraints around the company. But the PUC and its regulatory process is focused around the needs of utilities, not the needs of customers.
PGE, responding to a request for comment, said it "is and will continue to be fully engaged in the Rate Review process administered by the Oregon Public Utility Commission."