Implementing the Oregon Energy Strategy

ODOE, with assistance from the OPUC and in coordination with the Governor’s Office, researched perspectives on challenges to building transmission infrastructure in Oregon and studied approaches to prioritizing and building transmission infrastructure in other states. The proposed framework draws on lessons from Oregon and other states in identifying elements of a draft framework for strategic transmission siting in Oregon.

ODOE received technical assistance from the National Governors Association Policy Academy in undertaking research to inform this memo. This included convening an in-person workshop in May 2026, during which ODOE collected perspectives on challenges and potential solutions from investor- and consumer-owned utilities, the Bonneville Power Administration, private developers, Tribes, local governments, landowners, advocacy groups, and peer agencies. ODOE also issued a questionnaire in August 2026 to deepen understanding of the themes that emerged from the workshop and seek broader perspectives on key issues. Insights from that questionnaire have informed the final recommendations. In October 2026 ODOE will hold a final workshop, in cooperation with the NGA Policy Academy, to discuss the findings of this memo in the context of broader work underway to address the need for transmission expansion in Oregon.

Transmission infrastructure is critical for Oregonians’ personal well-being, economic prosperity, and climate and environmental protection. It delivers the electricity that powers our daily lives and enables businesses to grow and thrive. It also provides access to least-cost clean electricity across Oregon and the West, making it a critical component for achieving Oregon’s decarbonization objectives. For these reasons, expanding and modernizing the grid is an essential goal for Oregon.

At the same time, transmission poses challenges. Transmission lines and infrastructure can have negative impacts for specific local communities in contrast to the benefits for the larger system. As long, linear projects, transmission lines often cross a combination of Tribal reservations and ceded lands, private property, and protected state and federal lands and waters. While transmission lines may bring overall economic benefit, they can adversely affect important cultural and natural resources as well as home and property values where they are sited. Early and frequent meaningful engagement is important to ensure that negative effects are avoided wherever possible, minimized if not possible to avoid, and mitigated.

In the research conducted for this memo, five core values repeatedly surfaced that should be considered as the state pursues transmission acceleration: (1) affordability, (2) securing reliability, (3) preserving cultural resources, (4) protecting natural and working lands, and (5) fostering transparency and engagement.

Transmission infrastructure projects are large, capital-intensive, and complex. Several areas were identified that can contribute to long timelines to plan for, permit, and construct transmission infrastructure. We do not characterize these areas as good or bad, or as problems that need to be “solved.” Rather, these are complexities that need to be addressed when considering how to reduce the timelines for transmission development:

• Long, linear projects cross multiple lands and waters, including under Tribal, private, state, and federal ownership, and often require long processes to undertake the required biological and anthropological studies, and to gain access.

• Permitting processes are complex and involve multiple jurisdictions (Tribal, local, state, multi-state, federal) and timelines. Transmission lines can face multiple permitting and process layers that can lead to long timelines, including where processes run sequentially rather than concurrently. Varying appeal pathways for major decisions in permitting at the state and county levels and condemnation proceedings add legal complexity, draw out timelines, and add to the cost of transmission line permitting.

• Projects that cross multiple states bring up additional difficult questions about cost allocation and involve increased complexity around siting and permitting.

• Outreach to affected landowners and broader public engagement is essential to securing access to land and identifying least-conflict solutions to siting. This takes time. Opposition to a line can contribute to significant delays through lengthy appeals processes that ensure due process.

• It takes time to secure financing for large transmission investments, and often multiple parties are involved in sponsoring a project. These are multifaceted interactions and transactions that require time to negotiate.

• Utilities in Oregon and across most of the West are not part of a Regional Transmission Organization. This leads to fragmented approaches to transmission planning and investment, increasing complexity and timelines, creating inefficient solutions, and risking underbuilding necessary infrastructure.

• Wildfire risk and liability is raising borrowing costs for some utilities, making it more difficult and expensive to finance lines, which ultimately drives up electricity rates.