A public comment period is included as part of every Integrated Resource Plan development. This happens for both full Integrated Resource Plans as well as plan updates. Customers can submit comments during the open public comment period from July 8, 2026 to August 7, 2026, by filling out the comment form on the main IRP page. All comments are reviewed by staff and Clark Public Utilities’ Board of Commissioners.
Please note that public comment submissions may contain links to external sites reflective of the commenter’s views. Links in submitted comments will take you away from our website and may expire in the future. Utility policy and direction is determined by the elected board of commissioners and implemented by staff. Many variables impact power planning so please note both comment and response dates and source when reviewing entries on this page, as responses or positions may shift.
Number of commenters: 46
Number of comments : 53
Clark Public Utilities thoroughly reviews all customer submissions received during the IRP Public Comment Process. Applicable identified opportunities for clarification, correction of errors or need for additional information to the Draft 2024 IRP Update will be reflected in the Final 2024 IRP Update before presentation to the utility’s board of commissioners on August 11th, 2026.
Submitted on: 7/13/2026
Hello,
The energy and peak projections in your IRP are based on the year 2026 which is only half complete. Maybe you should base projections on 2025.
Energy projections
I believe that Clark PUD supplied 5600 Gwh to your grid in 2025.
Your low projection for 2044 is 5761 ghw, almost no increase from 2025. Your high projection for 2044 is 6575 gwh, a 17% increase from 2025.. Is that realistic in light of a project 38% growth in population? (Maybe you are subtracting residential solar from your books.) Does your IRP forecast a high and low range for residential rooftop solar and batteries?
Peak Projections
I believe that your peak demand in 2025 was about 1,144 MW. If that is true then your forecast for peak demand of 1,112 MW by 2044 indicates no growth in peak. Is that your plan?
Population growth
The word population was not found in your update. The Economists working for the Washington State Office of Financial Management have forecast a population range for which Clark County is required to prepare. Within that range, Clark County adopted a population planning target of 718,154. This represents a 38% increase, an anticipated increase of 190,754 new residents, an estimated need for 103,695 new housing units and associated jobs. Does your IRP take that into account?
TE and BE
You acknowledge that electrification will shape your plans. Washington State is aggressively pursuing Transportation Electrification and Building Electrification. Should your Plan include plans for TE and BE?
Submitted on: 8/02/2026
Hello,
Thanks for giving us the opportunity to comment!
Load forecasts in 2024 were significantly higher than in 2026. What were the main drivers for this reduction? Are we seeing better utilization of energy efficiency or is it a slower move to full electrification? Less industrial load actually showing up? I did not see much of a discussion of the underlying reasons for the change in forecast. Thanks!
Submitted on: 8/02/2026
The Flexibility Product for our River Road Gas Plant (Action Item 3, page 21) seemed like a good investment 2 years ago in that our region appears to need more flexible capacity and less always-on, inflexible generation. I believe the Flexibility Product has been used in trial but have we actually used it during normal running time? The market price difference between high load hours and low load hours or day and night has not been very high for the past 2 years. Do we see this changing? Thanks!
Submitted on: 8/02/2026
Hello,
With climate change crashing in on people everywhere and the cost of sustainable green energy, quickly declining, I would like you to look to the near future and do everything you can to implement green energies and to enable our residence to do the same or to benefit from projects at scale.
Submitted on: 8/02/2026
We installed solar about 5 year ago. We got help and encouragement from the City.
I’ve heard that the number of rooftop solar installations has really gone down.
I really like it when my electric bill comes with a credit amount, not having to pay until later in the year.
Is there anything we can do to encourage more local solar? I think the current net-metering program is pretty fair.
Is the City still promoting solar power. I think you should.
Submitted on: 8/03/2026
Please move faster and expand robustly into renewable energy, especially solar plus batteries. I would love to see more community solar projects, incentives for people to add solar to their own homes, and incentives for people to add batteries to their home solar systems.
Submitted on: 8/03/2026
More solar, please! N.B. Camas/Washougal Port and now Ridgefield Port.
What about solar panels at Port of Vancouver or public buildings?
Thank you.
Submitted on: 8/03/2026
I would love to see more community solar. It’s an easy way for large numbers of people to contribute to clean energy and save on their bills. I am concerned about air quality especially since I have asthma so reducing green house gases is very important to me. Thank-you.
Submitted on: 8/03/2026
Thank you for decades of Attentive, reliable, truly excellent service. Please give the deepest possible consideration in implementing bold policy in clean energy investment. Solar is great. (We contributed with you for that a few years ago. ) We are continuing to grow fast, so we need vision that includes less and less reliance on dirty, dated energy sources. I encourage you to be a leader in decisions we can all be proud of.
Submitted on: 8/03/2026
Hello Clark PUD folks-
please allow me to share some thoughts about our county’s future energy needs and supply.
Before I do though, I want to say that your repeated statement that the county’s electricity ‘largely’ comes from clean hydroelectric power is very misleading if one is not looking at the actual numbers. To me just about half is not largely. I feel there is great danger in phrasing it like this, to where one could think everything is great already when things still need improvement.
The climate crisis is here, climate and multi ecosystem collapse has begun, so we can’t sugarcoat numbers.
Having said that, here are ways I would like Clark PUD act in order to to slow down the crisis:
1) thank you, and please continue with conservation/energy efficiency efforts
2) more community solar (I was lucky enough to snag a share in the Community Solar East project, but my household has already outgrown the maximal allotted share capacity after switching from a gas stove to an electric stove, and reducing car miles by using e-bikes. Perhaps you could re-calculate how much community solar a household would need to be totally electric including heat pump run heating/cooling/hot water/clothes dryer, as well as EV or at least ebike charging. So really what I’m asking is MUCH MORE community solar.
3) balcony solar- this is a very successful, decentralized, low cost way in Europe for lots of individual homes to supplement the grid. Please look into this!
4) small scale rooftop wind energy- we’re right on the Columbia Gorge, with plenty of wind!
5) does Clark PUD have the capacity to charge higher rates to larger businesses who have rooftops that could generate their own power through solar but don’t, and instead rely on the grid?
Thanks for all the work we do, keep it up 🙂
Submitted on: 8/03/2026
I am still very interested in supporting community solar but it has been already sold out when I tried. Will there be another offering soon? Also, I support solar batteries being placed at our community facilities.
Submitted on: 8/03/2026
Hi. I want to encourage you as an organization to do absolutely all you can to bring renewable energy to our county, especially in the form of solar. I see so many dark rooftops on new developments in the Ridgefield area that are prime areas for solar arrays. Instead, these dark asphalt shingles are absorbing tons of thermal heat, making our atmosphere even hotter. If all of these roofs were covered in solar panels, we would help keep the rooftops cooler while generating energy.
Another area I’d love to see solar is in parking lots. It’s a similar situation, taking a hard and dark surface that is creating heat islands and covering it with panels, thereby cooling the pavement while generating energy.
I brag about CPUD all the time. I wish that everyone had the experience of such a wonderful public utility. Thank you for your work, and let’s keep moving our county in a more sustainable direction!
Submitted on: 8/03/2026
Dear Clark Public Utilities Leaders: Thank you for providing affordable, reliable electricity for our community. As fires burn across our state, fellow citizens have lost their homes and livelihoods and in Clark County our windows are closed and our air purifiers are running and the national news if filled with weather related catastrophes every day, I hope our PUD can do more to tip help tip the balance of climate change. My family is doing its part. We have solar panels on our roof. We own shares in the Washougal Solar East Collaborative (thank you). We drive an electric car, have a heat pump water heater and HVAC etc. One thing in the IRP catches my eye, 42% hydropower. Given the ongoing drought, the dwindling snow pack and likely water wars on the horizon, I am not sure hydro will always be there for us in the quantity we have grown to expect. Can our PUD work to expand our use of solar, wind and batteries? Our PUD has the power to lead the way, to drive change when it is clearly needed urgently. Spain renewable (wind, solar and hydro) energy balance is between 51 and 81% depending on conditions. Only 11 to 13% is from hydropower. Clearly more can be done. Thank you for pushing hard to create a livable balance of power generation.
Submitted on: 8/03/2026
I urge you to learn the science of greenhouse gases and accept responsibility to reduce ghg emissions as fast as possible.
Instead of purchasing RECs, spend the money on local solar plus batteries. The cleaner our grid, the greater the reward from the Clean Fuels program. The cleaner our grid, the fewer the number of Renewable Energy Certificates you’ll need to purchase.
I urge you to develop or procure local solar plus battery projects because: we cannot depend on the availability long-distance transmission, because utility scale battery deployment can save excess wind and solar for use at night.
The way to make solar more affordable is to provide steady work for solar installers. Develop a plan to help them reduce the cost of customer acquisition.
In addition to Community Solar, consider paying for a solar project yourself in partnership with school districts. School districts could share or rent their rooftops and you could finance a solar project on their roof.
Consider installing grid scale batteries and solar near fleet depots, such as Frito Lay, police and sheriff’s offices, school bus barns and C-Tran.
I urge you to consider using EVs with 2-way charging as virtual power plants.
In conjunction with AMI, I urge you to adopt dynamic pricing based on market conditions. That can help to shave the peak.
Develop a plan to help entire neighborhoods switch from gas to electric and maybe solar and or batteries at the same time. We might achieve greater economies of scale if contractors could decarbonize entire neighborhoods rather than one building at a time hit or miss. As in California:
Hypothetically, here’s the conversation at the door. “Hi there, we need to replace the aging pipeline that serves your neighborhood. It’s going to cost this amount of money. We prefer to not do that and instead give you a $35,000 check to make your home all-electric. As long as you and all your neighbors can agree to take this check, then we’ll be shutting off the gas to this neighborhood in two, three years once we get this done.”
In 2024, California passed Senate Bill (SB) 1221 which establishes and encourages 30 neighborhood-scale “zonal electrification” pilot programs. Codified under the California Public Utilities Code Section 633, the law shifts the state’s approach from fragmented, building-by-building electrification (to a targeted, geographic strategy. It aims to lower state carbon emissions while avoiding the immense costs of replacing aging natural gas pipelines. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Pacific Gas and Electric has the Zonal Electrification Equity Pilot Program. It’s the first public RFP that’s been released by a utility to bring in consultants to help them across their entire service territory go out and do neighborhood-scale electrification. They have individuals doing digital outreach, mailer outreach, and door-to-door canvassing to recruit people.
Some pilot projects will involve thermal energy networks which work like ground-source heat pumps.
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) only finalized the overarching rules and guidelines for the voluntary program in July 2026. [1, 3]
Although No actual SB 1221 pilot projects have been formally approved or are active yet, certain areas are substantially farther along in community outreach, mapping, and foundational work:
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) is widely considered the furthest ahead in its organizational readiness. [1, 2]
• Zonal Electrification Equity Pilot: PG&E has moved aggressively by issuing public requests for proposals (RFPs) to hire consultants for territory-wide, neighborhood-scale electrification. They began active “door-to-door” and digital recruiting to secure the required neighborhood consent. [1]
• Pre-existing Gas-to-Electric Infrastructure: PG&E historically built out its own mapping systems before the state mandated them. They have already tested localized decommissioning, including a foundational pilot to electrify roughly 1,200 state university-owned housing units. [1]
2. Alameda and San Diego Counties
When the CPUC selected its initial priority decarbonization zones at the census tract level, two counties stood out with disproportionately high representations: [1]
Alameda County / City of Albany: The City of Albany proactively pursued a federal Department of Energy grant to move a low-income neighborhood off the gas grid. Because they started community outreach and engineering layout early, they are serving as a prominent first “test case” to provide insights for future SB 1221 pilots. [1]
________________________________________
San Diego County: San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) has actively mapped its grid pipeline replacement projects to quickly align with the CPUC’s prioritized census tracts. [1, 2]
3. Mobilehome Park Utility Conversions
While not strictly under SB 1221, a parallel CPUC statewide initiative is converting submetered mobilehome parks to direct utility service. The CPUC expanded this framework to mandate full behind-the-meter electrification (free panel upgrades, rewiring, and appliance replacement) at selected parks served by PG&E, Southern California Edison, and SDG&E. This serves as the state’s closest active blueprint for managing whole-neighborhood gas shutoffs. [1]
________________________________________
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) leads the regulatory framework to approve and deploy these pilot projects through 2030. [1, 2]
Key Mechanisms of the Law
• The 30-Pilot Cap: The law authorizes the CPUC to approve up to 30 neighborhood-scale decarbonization pilot projects across California. These projects are collectively capped at affecting no more than 1% of each gas utility’s total customer base. [1, 3]
• No-Cost Upgrades for Residents: Instead of spending millions of ratepayer dollars repairing or replacing old gas pipelines, utilities can redirect those funds to provide free electric appliances (such as heat pumps and electric water heaters) to program participants. [1, 3]
• The 67% Consent Threshold: To bypass a utility’s historical “obligation to serve” gas, a pilot project can transition an entire zone off the gas grid only if at least 67% of the property owners in that zone provide written consent. [1, 2]
• Strict Cost-Effectiveness Testing: A pilot project is only approved if the utility proves that installing zero-emission electric alternatives is cheaper than repairing or replacing the existing natural gas pipeline infrastructure. [1, 2]
Equity, Labor, and Protections
• Prioritizing Disadvantaged Communities: The CPUC incorporates equity considerations by prioritizing low-income or heavily polluted census tracts using the state’s CalEnviroScreen metrics.
• Rate and Tenant Protections: The law directs utilities to establish incremental rate discounts or adjustments so that participants in low-income energy assistance programs (CARE/FERA) do not experience increased utility bills from switching to electricity. It also mandates tenant notification protections in master-metered buildings.
• Labor Protections: SB 1221 prohibits gas corporations from involuntarily laying off workers as a result of these pilots and gives project preference to contractors utilizing prevailing wages and high-road job training programs. [1, 2, 5]
Complementary Frameworks
While SB 1221 handles targeted grid decommissioning, earlier frameworks like SB 1477 (which created the BUILD and TECH initiatives) paved the way by testing consumer incentive models for clean heating technologies. Additionally, AB 39 (the Local Electrification Planning Act) complements zonal efforts by mandating cities and counties with over 75,000 residents to integrate comprehensive zero-emission infrastructure mapping into their local planning. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Submitted on: 8/03/2026
We like the idea of our current Greenlights program but we’d like to see it invest in local solar projects that the public can actually go visit. Local solar is so inspiring! We need it on our house as well.
Submitted on: 8/04/2026
The PUD has worked hard at keeping prices low. However, I am concerned that the cost of doing so has put us behind in developing a clean energy economy and has not taken into account the pollution costs of continuing to use the River Road plane. I would like to encourage more local solar projects and money spent on increasing clean energy. Nuclear energy is not clean energy and the waste it produces still does not have a viable solution. Please put money into solar and wind rather than nuclear.
Submitted on: 8/05/2026
Thank you for the chance to comment on the 2024 Draft Integrated Resource Plan Update. Please try to source more energy from wind and solar. I would like to see more solar here in our community including community solar projects and incentives to put solar on commercial and residential buildings. Thank you for your recent purchase of utility-scale solar. Please try to make additional similar purchases. Please try to continually decrease the amount that we rely on energy from the River Road power plant.
Submitted on: 8/05/2026
Please consider, More clean energy. It’s clear we are suffering so much from the global climate crisis. Today our area has one of the five worst air pollution findings in the entire world. I hear on the radio there will be more and more demand for electricity as people switched to HVAC and other ways of heating and require more air conditioning. Please add more clean energy like rooftop solar. We have so many rooftops. Please do not go to small modular nuclear reactors that nuclear waste will always be with us and will cause so many problems of its own. Thank you for all you do to supply our area reliably with energy.
Submitted on: 8/05/2026
• Grid Utilization: Conduct a grid utilization assessment down to the substation and feeder level and make the results public. Then develop a plan to increase grid utilization where most beneficial. Put this into your IRP.
• Plan for Grid Scale Batteries. Work with your jurisdictions to develop ordinances that welcome grid scale batteries in neighborhoods while also ensuring public safety and environmental protection. See what SnoPUD and Sumner WA are doing. https://www.opb.org/article/2026/08/03/snohomish-county-building-largest-battery-plant-in-washington/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=First%20Look%20August%204%202026&utm_content=First%20Look%20August%204%202026+CID_33ae0be09a39d0102058681c50285870&utm_source=firstlook&utm_term=Washingtons%20largest%20battery%20plant
Submitted on: 8/06/2026
Dear PUD Leadership:
Thank you for providing us the opportunity to comment on the Draft Integrated Resource Plan Update and thank you for your commitment to clean and affordable power. I’m hoping you will continue to use and support solar energy in every way possible. We have solar panels on our roof which power our electric car and our heat pump. Although we use the PUD for some power in February and March, we also have some power independence which perhaps will offset in a very small way the increased power demands of our quickly growing population. I just wish that rooftop solar was more affordable for our neighbors and friends.
On a larger scale, I understand that solar power is less costly to maintain than traditional power and certainly is less costly than buying energy on the energy market. It also is far less polluting than the natural gas plant we are currently relying on during peak demand.
Please bring as much solar power to our community as you can in the next few years.
Many thanks —
Submitted on: 8/06/2026
Hello and thank you for continuing to providing safe and reliable power to the service area! As an active participant in the City of Vancouver Climate Action Framework update, I’m concerned about climate change and its impacts on our local communities, and the pressures faced by Clark PUD. I’ve several times have wanted to purchase community solar, however it has been sold out both times I attempted to purchase. Is there anyway we could increase the amount of community solar offerings and Clark PUD can play a more proactive role in this regard? I know the City of Vancouver and all 3 Ports have ambitious climate targets and they would be likely purchasers as well. Thank you for your support in bringing more alternative power opportunities to our community and the service area and to keep our costs in check.
Submitted on: 8/06/2026
Thank you for providing us with reliable power! I’m concerned about climate change and would like to do more locally. I’ve wanted to purchase community solar but it has been sold out both times I tried. Is there anyway we could increase the amount of community solar offerings? I know the City of Vancouver and all 3 Ports have ambitious climate targets and they would be likely purchasers as well. Thank you.
Submitted on: 8/06/2026
Thank you for providing us with reliable power! I’m concerned about climate change and would like to do more locally. I’ve wanted to purchase community solar, but it has been sold out both times I tried. Is there any way we could increase the amount of community solar offerings? I know the City of Vancouver and all 3 Ports have ambitious climate targets, and they would be likely purchasers as well. Community solar projects are an excellent way for our local utilities to reduce their carbon intensity and offer their customers a low-cost way of participating in renewable energy projects. Thank you.
Submitted on: 8/06/2026
Are we doing any pilot projects with utility scale batteries? Are we doing any pilot projects with customer sited batteries? I’ve heard that customer-sited batteries can really help with demand charges. Also, commercial batteries could really help with resilience. I’d also like to see a residential battery pilot project especially for customers far down the distribution lines that might have wells or septic pumps. I’d really like to see us deploy more batteries of all sizes! I think solar plus batteries at facilities like schools, churches, fire stations, and police stations would really help with local resilience. Could our PUD own and control the batteries to help with peaking while still giving the site backup power should outages occur? That seems like a winning combination. Thanks!
Submitted on: 8/06/2026
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I appreciate our low power rates and the good work done by Clark Public Utilities to obtain power from a mix of generation resources that is helping us get to a clean energy economy. I have purchased shares in both Community Solar projects; I know that both projects sold out quickly and many customers missed out on the chance to support solar power generation while getting credit on their utility bills. I encourage you to be more energetic in seeking other opportunities for Community Solar, such as with the Port of Vancouver, City of Vancouver (new operations center for example) or large warehouse projects. The port districts and the City of Vancouver have ambitious greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets so they would be both likely solar project hosts and power purchasers as well. I would like to see Clark Public Utilities have enough solar power generation capacity that the River Road generating plant would not be needed in the summer.
I also am interested in battery storage as a way to store excess power generation. I have read that customer-sited batteries can help with peak load demand and store solar and wind power for when it is most needed. I urge Clark Public Utilities to initiate a pilot utility scale battery storage project to test and demonstrate a way to create local resilience against droughts, fires, earthquakes and other disasters that might cut off distant power generation sources. Also, solar+batteries at local community facilites like schools and fire stations could create distributed resilience within neighborhoods. The current fires in Spokane may demonstrate the flaws in centralized utilities and the values in distributed generation since people with homes that did not burn are not able to return to their homes due to the lack of water and power utilities.
Finally, I urge collaboration between the City of Vancouver’s update of its Climate Action Framework and this update of your Integrated Resource Plan. It appears to me that there could be opportunities for collaboration as both local entities seek some of the same goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and creating local resilience against the impacts of climate change.
Submitted on: 8/06/2026
Please include more community and individual rooftop solar and battery storage in long term planning. I believe, in the long run, increasing local solar energy would contribute to reliability, affordability and sustainability of the Utility. Thank you.
Submitted on: 8/06/2026
First, thank you for your work so far and now I’d like to ask you to use your expertise to look even further ahead.
What can we do to:
not be so reliant on the gas plant, especially in summer
encourage/make available more rooftop solar for residences
My concerns: the environment, Climate change, and Effects of pollution.
Submitted on: 8/06/2026
Thank you for your recent purchases of utility-scale solar! Would it be possible to purchase more? I’d like to see us have enough solar so that we don’t have to run our gas plant during the summer. I’m concerned about our local air quality, and local or regional solar should work pretty well up here during the summer.
Also, I would like to see more incentives for rooftop solar with batteries for individual property owners. I would invest with a strong program.
Submitted on: 8/06/2026
Thanks for your Community Solar and Utility Scale solar investments to date. I invested in the Community Solar East project as I believe solar is valuable in our area in particular to minimize fossil fuel power generation needs in the summer and early fall… when we tend to have frequent clear sunny skies but limited water flows for hydro generation.
Is there more we can do to utilize solar power in these months?
Submitted on: 8/06/2026
Honorable PUD Commissioners,
I am very pleased that we have an efficiently run public utility. I am also pleased that we can write to encourage our commissioners to keep advancing renewable energy resources. I am a genuine proponent of rooftop solar, as it reduces overall load on transmission lines. I also strongly encourage you to help define legislation for an incentive package for new residential and industrial developers to build solar-ready buildings, schools, and homes.
Energy needs will increase, and you have the authority to manage the growth and cost of our renewable energy supply.
Submitted on: 8/06/2026
I very much appreciate that my power comes from a publicly owned utility. I appreciate that CPU consistently provides me reliable and low-cost power. But I would encourage CPU to do more to expand its development of renewables.
The recent project with the Port of Camas / Washougal is a great example of what is possible when public entities cooperate to develop renewables. That cooperation could be expanded to included cooperation with the city of Vancouver, Port of Vancouver, and school districts.
I know the 2026 IRP Progress Report states CPU continues to evaluate renewable resource opportunities. I would hope CPU makes significant progress in working to ensure those opportunities are turned into actual projects that increase CPU’s renewable portfolio, particularly community solar projects. The response to the Port of Camas / Washougal’s community solar project indicates your customers want more opportunities to participate in community solar projects.
I appreciate the inclusion of efforts to evaluate and procure battery storage resources. I specifically appreciate that the Report suggests cooperation with other public entities. Like adoption of other renewables, I would like to see robust efforts in this regard and significant progress toward acquiring storage resources as they become more available.
I am very concerned about the possibility CPU will invest in SMNRs. The Report states CPU continues to monitor developments in emerging “carbonfree” dispatchable resources. I don’t believe SMNRs should be included in CPU’s portfolio and would hope CPU would not pursue any nuclear development. The cost and timeline for development is prohibitive. CPU acknowledges it considers higher costs related to renewables. As with renewables, CPU should consider the higher costs for SMNRs before committing to any contracts that include CPU’s commitment to fund development of or purchase of nuclear power.
My final comment relates to CPU’s use of REC purchases to meet CETA requirements. Although legally allowed, RECs do little to reduce carbon emissions. We all would be better served by aggressive efforts to develop more community solar and more projects in cooperation with other public entities that actually reduce greenhouse emissions.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Report.
Submitted on: 8/06/2026
Thank you for providing Clark PUD users with reliable and excellent electrical service that remains affordable for most users. Appreciate that we are fortunate to have a not-for-profit customer owned utility.
I’d like to see you move to more solar at the neighborhood and individual household level. Our household on the westside of Vancouver would really like to be a part of a community solar project in the not too far future. I’d also like to see a path toward widespread use of balcony solar. Perhaps a partnership with a manufacturer of balcony solar panels. Balcony solar along with rooftop solar and batteries could help to fill in the gap from not running the River Road Generation Station. Every energy choice will be expensive, in dollars and human and environmental consequences, but that expense will be dwarfed by the effects of climate change on our world.
Submitted on: 8/06/2026
Thank you for keeping our rates low! My understanding is that we have some of the lowest power prices in the country and this should help us get to a clean energy economy faster. But I am concerned about local pollution and my understanding is that we don’t include any local pollution costs when deciding what energy to use. None of my friends or neighbors know that we actually rely on a gas plant down on River Road for a significant amount of our power. Have we ever looked at the local impacts of that pollution? I’d like to see some discussion of how the tradeoff between pollution and low power prices is determined. Thanks!
Submitted on: 8/06/2026
Dear Clark Public Utilities,
Thank you for the reliable, affordable power you provide our community. I’m writing to encourage you to imagine great possibilities in your Integrated Resource Plan update.
I’d love to see more clean, renewable energy, especially local solar. The recent solar purchases are a great start. Could we please do more? Enough so that we don’t need to run the gas plant on River Road during the summer. I’m concerned about local air quality and the pollution that comes with relying on gas. I’d like to see those costs talked about openly when decisions are made about where our power comes from.
I’ve heard the community solar program sold out both times that it was offered and that many more people wanted to buy into that program but couldn’t. There’s clearly demand. The City of Vancouver and all three Ports have set ambitious climate goals and could be partners in expanding this.
Batteries are another opportunity. Solar plus(+) batteries at schools, daycares, fire stations, police stations, churches and grocery stores would make our community stronger and more prepared for outages. If the PUD owned and managed those batteries, it could help during times of high demand while still giving those sites backup power.
I’ve also heard rooftop solar installations have dropped. I’d like to see the PUD encourage more local solar and help it thrive in balance with what’s already working.
Thank you for considering these comments. I want our PUD to have the public support it needs to do more of the right thing.
Submitted on: 8/06/2026
Thank you for keeping our power costs down! I appreciated our local PUD’s efforts to benefit customers, and have used many of your programs to install solar panels and energy efficient appliances, etc.
As part of your planning, I’d really like to see less reliance on the gas power plant which is producing climate pollution, and less purchasing of nuclear power which still has all the same hazards about the risk of meltdowns and what to do with the radioactive waste. Please keep emphasizing and increasing clean energy sources.
I’m also interested in the idea of developing battery storage. Putting solar plus batteries at facilities like schools, churches, fire stations, and police stations would really help with local resilience. Could our PUD own and control the batteries to help with peaking while still giving the site backup power should outages occur?
Another potential savings is to help subsidize and encourage low-income housing to install heat pumps rather than using gas. They are safer, more energy efficient and pollute less. With summers getting hotter, the ability for heat pumps to provide air conditioning could save lives.
One other issue to be alert to is to not let data centers gobble up all our energy and water resources that are needed for farming and for the citizens who live here. We can do without AI, but we can’t do without water, heat and cooling
Thank you.
Submitted on: 8/06/2026
Thank you for all your efforts at keeping costs low and for your efforts in expanding usage of green energy. I’m writing to ask that you take further steps to expand our green energy usage, I’m deeply concerned about climate change and we need to do all we can to drastically reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. Not only does it help combat climate change but it brings down prices even further.
Thank you!
Submitted on: 8/06/2026
CPU
RE: 2026 IRP Progress Report
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the 2026 IRP Progress Report and for your consideration of these comments.
I live in Vancouver and for years have been active in asking the city to develop a climate action plan. After Vancouver’s Climate Action Framework was developed, I have continued to monitor its implementation. It is with the CAF’s greenhouse gas emission reduction goals in mind that I make these comments.
1. Collaborate with the City of Vancouver
I encourage CPU to address Vancouver’s GHG reduction goals along with meeting Washington state laws and goals such as CETA and the CCA. Vancouver’s goals are more ambitious than the state’s; it would be wonderful if CPU were to act as a collaborator with the city to reach those goals.
For example, the City of Vancouver and the Port of Vancouver had both expressed desires to create more distributed energy centers using large rooftops for community solar and other planned real estate developments for thermal heating and cooling systems. City and Port leaders have expressed frustration that CPU does not seem interested in collaborating on such projects. I encourage you to discuss collaboration with the City, Port and local school districts as part of CPU’s resource planning.
2. Continue to contract for sources of clean power in addition to BPA
I appreciate that CPU contracted with additional sources of clean power outside what is made available through BPA. I hope CPU will extend its contracts for the Box Canyon hydro project, Combine Hills and other solar and wind projects, as well as any others which become available and can add to CPU’s clean energy portfolio. And again, please work on more locally produced power such as community solar.
3. Stop relying on RECs
The purchase of RECs, as proposed in the IRP, is a false solution to meeting GHG reduction goals. RECs often do not really reduce GHG production and in particular do not positively affect local emissions. I would like to see CPU eliminate entirely reliance on RECs as a means to reduce emissions or to meet state and City requirements.
4. Reduce reliance on RRGP more quickly than currently planned
The development of load flexibility at the RRGP has been helpful in reducing local emissions and meeting local targets. However, the RRGP still contributes to global warming and gases which are dangerous to health not only with the emissions from burning fossil fuel but also in the upstream production of methane gas used to power the generators.
An idea I heard from Gordon Matthews is that CPU, together with the Port of Vancouver, could purchase excess clean power (e.g. wind or solar) at times when it is available on the market at low cost and use that power to create hydrogen fuel, which could then be stored for times when it can be used to power the RRGP generators. I hope you will explore this idea further.
5. Collaborate with Vancouver to help fund residential energy conservation programs
Regarding energy conservation, CPU is definitely on the right track with its programs promoting energy conservation. The City of Vancouver also wants to encourage greater energy conservation of existing buildings, particularly privately owned single family homes and multifamily residential buildings. However, the City does not have the funds to create all of the programs it would like. I encourage CPU to increase its grants, loans and subsidies and the marketing of them, to the owners of these buildings both in the City and Clark County, to allow these building to become more energy efficient.
6. Do not participate in nuclear power
CPU currently uses some nuclear power because it is part of the BPA portfolio. However, CPU has also considered partnering with Energy Northwest nuclear power programs. Nuclear is not clean power; the radioactive waste cannot be disposed of and heated water is released into rivers causing habitat degradation. Further, nuclear plants use great amounts of water for cooling, and we no longer have excess water resources. In contrast, clean energy sources such as solar and wind are not experimental and can be built and online much more quickly than nuclear power. Nuclear is a false solution to our energy needs.
7. Promote legislation to allow fuel switching
Finally, for years CPU has said its hands are tied by state law preventing the promotion of fuel switching and therefore CPU cannot encourage owners to convert from gas to electric power. I urge you to continue to explore avenues to do so, including lobbying the legislature to change the law so we can electrify more buildings more quickly.
Thank you.
Submitted on: 8/06/2026
I appreciate the hard work and concentrated effort our PUD staff puts into thoughtfully and comprehensively updating the IRP.
This week has been a tough one for our county with this heat stretch and poor air quality that as an elder I can feel affecting my breathing and stamina. This is a compelling reminder of the reality we face as climate impacts affect our health and well being.
I have a gas furnace that I have wanted to change out to an electric heat pump that would provide me with cooling in times like these, but have not been able to accomplish the switch financially due to our PUD’s policy that prevents incentive assistance due to its “fuel switching” interpretation, and hope our PUD will advocate with the legislature to change this going forward.
In the meantime, I am a participant in both community solar projects, appreciate the third being offered in Ridgefield, and encourage Clark to work with the Port of Vancouver to pursue a community solar project there as well. Investments in the two utility scale solar projects are important, and I urge our PUD to support future legislation that could move balcony solar forward for our local community use as soon as possible.
Governor Ferguson has noted that WA state ranks last in all states for deploying renewables, and hopefully we can be more proactive in changing that.
I am encouraged by the inclusion of distributed energy resources and energy storage to complement renewables, which can help our utility ensure energy resilience to manage peaking without resorting to unnecessary and health-harming use of the River Road gas plant, which I continue to believe can be best utilized as a backup only for rare extreme weather that might
bring on rare outages.
I support Clark continuing to pursue energy efficiency applications even though the common thought is that low hanging fruit has been covered. There is still room to support new building performance standards, ongoing industrial upgrades, and monitoring continuous technological changes that can tap significant savings potential.
I remain deeply concerned that Clark continues to “recognize the potential for next-generation nuclear technologies to contribute to long-term resource needs.” Our investment of $200K in the Energy Northwest proposal at Hanford, which remains a long way off with uncertain timeline and follows the pattern of rising costs and delaying timeline endemic to nuclear projects, was in my estimation ratepayer dollars not well spent, made over ratepayer concerns that reflect the problems the industry continues to evidence in spite of the promotion of Energy Northwest and currently Amazon investment. I appreciate that staff have noted that “… SMR and advanced geothermal development efforts in the United States remain in early stages, with evolving project timelines, costs, and regulatory frameworks. I urge staff and Commissioners to pay close attention to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s overhaul of regulations which are centered squarely on benefiting the industry with cost savings at the expense of the safety and public health of citizens. In particular the overhaul of radiation exposure standards does not follow the decades of science (domestic and international that holds that there IS NO SAFE dose of radiation exposure, which is particularly a risk for women, children and pregnant women) and if proposed changes are implemented our health and safety will be increasingly at risk. The oversight functions of the NRC are being severely compromised in favor of industry promotion, which fails to safeguard the public and utility ratepayer’s best interests, in both the short as well as long term time frames.
There is state legislation that gets introduced each session that affects utility and ratepayer interests, and for ratepayer engagement and transparency, I encourage Clark to provide information to ratepayers about what legislation is being followed and supported or opposed by our Clark utility (both the City and Port provide a legislative priorities update at the start of the session and a wrap up when the session concludes). Inviting ratepayers to understand, ask questions, and provide input would be useful engagement.
Finally, Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit comments and to review other ratepayer comments on this public comment page.
Submitted on: 8/07/2026
I would like to urge you to offer incentives for people with gas heaters and water heaters to install electric heat pumps and heat pump hot water heaters. We must transition away from harmful greenhouse gas fossil fuels. I wish Clark PUD would be part of the solution rather than an organization that only helps people who already are using electric utilities.
Submitted on: 8/07/2026
Thank you for keeping our rates low! My understanding is that we have some of the lowest power prices in the country and this should help us get to a clean energy economy faster. But I am concerned about local pollution and my understanding is that we don’t include any local pollution costs when deciding what energy to use. None of my friends or neighbors know that we actually rely on a gas plant down on River Road for a significant amount of our power. Have we ever looked at the local impacts of that pollution? I’d like to see some discussion of how the tradeoff between pollution and low power prices is determined. Thanks!
Submitted on: 8/07/2026
Thank you for keeping our rates low! My understanding is that we have some of the lowest power prices in the country and this should help us get to a clean energy economy faster. But I am concerned about local pollution and my understanding is that we don’t include any local pollution costs when deciding what energy to use. None of my friends or neighbors know that we actually rely on a gas plant down on River Road for a significant amount of our power. Have we ever looked at the local impacts of that pollution? I’d like to see some discussion of how the tradeoff between pollution and low power prices is determined.
We need a far higher amount of local renewables in our energy mix. I would love to see us urgently develop ways to more quickly deploy solar on all available roofs as well as a distributed battery system to make our grid as resilient, local, and renewable as possible.
Thank you so much for your efforts!!
Submitted on: 8/07/2026
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the IRP as we move forward during this period of climate disruption and a bonanza of heating-cooling technology options. I also want to mention that I appreciate Clark Public Utilities long standing efforts to keep rates low and to provide assistance to low income users.
My dream come true would be to install a heat pump to replace my natural gas powered air conditioning system and lower my winter heating costs. Right now the cost of replacing my current system is beyond my means.
If balcony solar were available to me, I’d be researching it this very moment. I live in an HOA neighborhood and the political gyrations to install roof top solar are challenging.
Lastly, I think battery technology is the way of the future and Clark Public Utilities should go all in. It provides resilience to solar and wind technology. In my little HOA of 106 residences could install solar and battery technology, we could be our own little self service system of heating and cooling access! It’s affordable, non pulluting, safe and achievable.
What’s the downside of that?
Submitted on: 8/07/2026
Thanks for the opportunity to weigh in on CPU’s IRP It is certainly important to take a look at where we are headed in the light of recent conditions. It would be hard to miss the effects of our changing climate this year, especially in view of the problems taxing populations around the world. Heat, floods, drought, wildfires, etc. seem to be spreading misery everywhere.
As climate chaos is largely caused by our use of fossil fuels, we should be doing all we can to phase them out as rapidly as possible and move toward clean renewable sources of energy. For example, I would like to see more community solar projects. With the federal residential solar tax credit dropped, I think community solar projects have a huge appeal – the projects you have done so far have been so popular that it was really difficult to buy into them. There are surely more rooftops available around Clark County than just the Ports of Camas/Washougal and Ridgefield. What about the Port of Vancouver (already has transmission lines), warehouses, schools, parking lots, shopping malls, small farms with fields no longer in production? Community solar also alleviates the problem of transmission lines over long distances and battery storage would help even more.
Hydro does not supply quite half of our energy needs now and I do not think we can count on it being even that reliable forever. A shrinking snow pack and persistent drought have plagued us in recent years and will probably cut into hydro-power generation eventually (the needs of salmon could also have an impact).
River Road is fine for back-up energy production in the future, but it is a top polluter in our county, a source of nitrogen oxide, fine particulate matter, etc. This is on top of the harms from fracked gas with its methane emissions and transport problems. I hope it can be phased out even ahead of schedule.
The developers of SMNR’s are trying to make nuclear seem the answer to fossil fuel pollution problems. They also claim they will supply the needs of the new data centers coming on line now. The waste products from SMNR’s are different from large nuclear reactors, but it is still highly radioactive and dangerous for thousands of years. In the 80+ years since waste was first produced, the U.S. has failed to develop a safe, permanent nuclear waste repository. In addition, the mining, processing and transport of nuclear fuel have problems of their own. At the same time, the current administration has proposed new rules for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. They want to lower the allowable nuclear radiation standards that have been in place for many years. This can expose the public to excess nuclear radiation, known to be harmful to human health, especially women and children. The combination of lower standards and rushing to develop new nuclear technology could cause dangerous problems well into the future. I think CPU should write off the $200,000 spent to investigate the possibilities of the new SMNR’a for Clark PUD, declare victory, and invest future funds in safe, reliable, clean renewables like solar, wind and batteries.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. Despite the terrifying climate chaos of this summer and recent years, I feel we can work our way back to a more livable future. We have the technology, we just need the will.
Submitted on: 8/07/2026
I see that in 2024, solar energy did not rate a category of its own in the CPU Fuels Mix, and I assume it is bundled into the 18.55% unspecified sources. I would hope for our publicly owned utility to be a leader rather than a laggard in sustainable energy. With nuclear energy still – after 7-plus decades! – unable to prove itself cost-effective (at least in the US) or safe (in the short term and in the long term – for different reasons), I hope we make no additional commitments to that technology and instead invest in those both safe and cost-effetive: solar and wind, with hydro as a waning source.
CPU management and commission maintain artificially low rates to keep people happy now, but we know that gas will bite us in the end. And nuclear will too, later if not sooner. Please, more solar, now!
Submitted on: 8/07/2026
I think solar plus batteries at facilities like schools, churches, fire stations, and police stations would really help with local resilience. Could our PUD own and control the batteries to help with peaking while still giving the site backup power should outages occur? That seems like a winning combination. Thanks
Submitted on: 8/07/2026
Thank you for providing us with reliable power. Batteries seem to be a pretty exciting area. Are we doing any pilot projects with utility scale batteries? Are we doing any pilot projects with customer sited batteries? I’ve heard that customer-sited batteries can really help with demand charges. Also, commercial batteries could really help with resilience. I’d also like to see a residential battery pilot project especially for customers far down the distribution lines that might have wells or septic pumps.
Submitted on: 8/07/2026
Hello! I truly appreciate our PUD’s low rates, the reliable power and especially the community solar projects, in which we have invested. What is sure and inevitable is the increasing risks associated with climate change, whether we like it or not. Here is what I would like to see : LESS reliance on the River Road gas plant, MORE community solar, INCENTIVES for more roof-top solar, commercial BATTERY projects. In short, I encourage you to be bold and to be leaders in cleaning up our energy sources.
Thank you so much for what you’ve already done!
Submitted on: 8/07/2026
Thank you for your recent purchases of utility-scale solar. Is there any way we can purchase more? We don’t need to heat our planet any more than we already do, as seen with all the fires across the planet this year, and solar would be one way to still fulfill energy needs. Anything clean, such as solar or wind, is needed in greater quantities.
Submitted on: 8/07/2026
Thanks for the opportunity to comment. I have invested in both community solar projects, and am aware that share in both projects have sold out very fast. I urge you to develop still more similar projects and give such opportunities for your customers to show their interest and commitment to clean energy. As a companion to solar and wind energy, I also urge you to invest in utility scale batteries to better manage the offsets in peak renewables production v. peak demand in our local market. Further diversification in local production of clean electricity could be achieved by encouraging institutional users like schools, government buildings, etc. to install solar and battery systems, and also by working with local government to encourage large parking lot owners like the Vancouver Mall, Wal-mart, etc. to add shading photovoltaic roofs above their parking spaces, like those commonly seen or even mandatory in Europe. Thank you.
Submitted on: 8/07/2026
Dear Clark PUD Commissioners and Staff,
I am sending the following comments on the Integrated Resource Plan concerning future power sources.
Nuclear energy and SMRs (Small Modular Reactors) create dangerous waste that lasts for thousands of years.
SMRs in a study by the University of Pennsylvania (PNAS) and checked by Stanford University are evaluated:
“Here, we compare three distinct SMR designs to an 1,100-MWelec pressurized water reactor in terms of the energy-equivalent volume, (radio-)chemistry, decay heat, and fissile isotope composition of (notional) high-, intermediate-, and low-level waste streams. Results reveal that water-, molten salt–, and sodium-cooled SMR designs will increase the volume of nuclear waste in need of management and disposal by factors of 2 to 30.”
However, along with more solar farms, rooftop solar, and batteries is geothermal energy.
Potential sites for power extraction around Mt Hood and Mount St Helens, have already been found. Also, the proposed power cables under the Columbia River, the Cascade Renewable Transmission Project, from The Dalles to proposed data centers around Portland, costing $1.5 billion dollars for a initial estimate, would be better spent developing geothermal than endangering the Columbia River and its fish runs. There is no mention that I have seen for the transported energy from wind farms in eastern Oregon via cable to be shared with Washington.
I encourage our Clark PUD to develop this path to safer, renewable energy.
Submitted on: 8/07/2026
Thanks for EV chargers at a very good rate, but you are losing money by letting people stay at chargers longer then they need to. Charge point on Forth Plain charges them a fine for staying to long.
Submitted on: 8/07/2026
PUD Board,
Please focus on wind and solar energy for energy projects. The current fire emergencies in our area are proof that we need to get off all CO2 and methane emitting sources of fuel, as such fires will only get worse with increasing global warming.
As for nuclear, it is not a clean fuel but a serious health—especially cancer—risk to residents here. It took 80 years and solid determination from Governor Inslee to get started with finding a safe way to store nuclear fuel, and doing it right is expensive. Nuclear energy in general is far more expensive than other sources of energy. SMRs are just a smaller version of the same old thing. As always, it will be the taxpayers that get stuck with the bill.
Wind and solar and their battery storage are getting better and more efficient all the time. It makes good sense politically, economically, and ecologically to focus on these truly renewable sources of fuel.