SB 5519
Approves certain new or increased fees adopted by the State Department of Energy.
Jurisdiction
Oregon
Session
2025 Regular Session
At the request of
(at the request of Oregon Department of Administrative Services)
Take action
Record your position on this measure.
Sign in to record your position, submit testimony, or contact your legislator.
Sign in to take actionPublic sentiment
Support
0%
Oppose
100%
- Introduced
- Passed Senate
- Passed House
- To Governor
- Became Law
Bill overview
This bill approves new and increased fees adopted by the State Department of Energy. Specifically, it authorizes a four percent administrative cost charge for the Large Electric Consumer Public Purpose Program. The bill also declares an emergency, meaning it goes into effect on July 1, 2025. This action is intended to support the State Department of Energy’s operations.
Key provisions
- Approves a four percent administrative cost charge for the Large Electric Consumer Public Purpose Program.
- The charge is adopted by the State Department of Energy.
- The approval is subject to review and approval by the Oregon Department of Administrative Services.
- The bill declares an emergency, leading to an immediate effective date.
Who is affected
- Large Electric Consumers
- The State Department of Energy
- Oregon Department of Administrative Services
Notable changes
- Establishes a new fee structure for the Large Electric Consumer Public Purpose Program.
Fiscal impact
The bill’s fiscal impact is noted in the 2025-2027 Biennial Budget.
Sponsors
Official sponsors from legislative records.
Primary sponsor
Oregon Department of Administrative Services
Arguments in favor
Reasons to support this legislation.
No arguments in favor have been submitted.
Submit yoursArguments opposed
Reasons to oppose this legislation.
Some that the proposed special fee for the Large Electric Consumer Public Purpose Program is unnecessary, as the program is already partially funded through existing regulatory mechanisms. They contend that the additional revenue generated by the special fee would not be sufficient to justify the costs associated with implementing and administering the program. Furthermore, some opponents suggest that the special fee could disproportionately burden certain consumers, potentially undermining the program's intended goals of promoting energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. By questioning the need for a separate fee, these testifiers aim to ensure that any additional funding is allocated in a way that maximizes benefits while minimizing costs.
Source: Testimony Summaries