top of page
Back to All Legislative Reports
Climate Emergency

Legislative Report - Week of 3/3

Climate Emergency Team

 

Coordinator: Claudia Keith​

  • Efficient and Resilient Buildings: Bill Glassmire

  • Environmental Justice: Nancy Rosenberger

  • Environmental Rights Amendment: Claudia Keith

  • Natural Climate Solution - Forestry: Josie Koehne

  • CEI - Critical Energy Infrastructure : Nikki Mandell and Laura Rogers

  • Community Resilince & Emergency Management: Rebecca Gladstone 

  • Transportation: Claudia Keith

  • Joint Ways and Means - Budgets, Lawsuits, Green/Public Banking,

  • Divestment/ESG: Claudia Keith

  • Find additional Climate Change Advocacy volunteers in Natural Resources

Please see Climate Emergency Overview here.

Jump to a topic:



At this point in the session, we have identified a number of League policy and/or budget Climate Emergency priorities, and some of those now have posted League testimony. This year most of our priorities are included in the bipartisan 2025 Legislative Environmental Caucus Priorities,   Citizens Utility Board (CUB) Priorities and/or Oregon Conservation Network (OCN) priorities. OCN is the only formal environmental lobby coalition group in the building. 


Consequently, for some of these bills (especially those in a package) the League may just join coalition sign-on letters rather than providing individual testimony.



Climate Priorities with League Testimony




Natural and Working Lands


  • HB 5039 financial administration of the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board; JWM SC NR League testimony

  • HB3103-1 - Overweight Timber Harvest, H ALUNRW, League Oppose Testimony is planned for 3/3 PH.


Other Priorities 


  • HB 3477: Update to Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Goals. LC 1440. Bringing back SB 1559 (2024) moved to H CEE, Sponsored by Rep GAMBA, Sen Frederick, Golden, Patterson, Pham K, Taylor


  • 
HB 2566: Stand-alone Energy resilience Projects – H Governor Tina Kotek
, Public Hearing held  2/11/2024, 2 amendments proposed (H CEE), DOE presentation


  • HB 3365: climate change instruction /curriculum in public schools, Chief Sponsors: Rep Fragala, McDonald, House Education Committee Rep Andersen, Gamba, Lively, Neron, Senator Patterson, Pham, Taylor. House Cm Educ.

  • 
SJR 28: Environmental Rights Constitutional – Referral, Senate Rules, Amendment Leg Referral - Senator Golden, Representatives Andersen, Gamba, Senators Manning Jr, Prozanski, Representative Tran
. The League has tentative plans to write testimony (comments) on this bill later this month.


  • SB 679: Climate Liability, (Sen. Golden, Senate Energy and Environment 


  • SB 680: Climate Science / Greenwashing, Sen. Golden and Manning, moved to Judiciary, no recommendation, (S J) PH 2/26 Campos, Frederick, Gorsek, Patterson, Prozanski, Taylor


  • SB 681: Treasury: Fossil Fuel investment moratorium
, Sen Golden, Senate Finance and Revenue


  • SB 682: Climate Super Fund, Sen. Golden, Rep. Andersen, Gamba, Sen. Campos, Pham, SEE  


  • SB 688: Public Utility Commission performance-based regulation of electric utilities, Sen. Golden, Sen. Pham, SEE  


  • SB 827: Solar and Storage Rebate, SEE Work session 2/17, Gov. Kotek & DOE, Senate vote 21-7, moves to House 3/4


Energy Affordability and Utility Accountability Package

Oregonians are struggling to keep up with skyrocketing utility bills in the face of ever-worsening climate impacts. HB 3081 would create an active navigator to help Oregonians access energy efficiency incentives all in one place. SB 88 limits the ability of utility companies to charge ratepayers for lobbying, litigation costs, fines, marketing, industry fees, and political spending. LWVOR has signed on to letter support each of these bills.


HB 3546, the POWER Act,  The bill requires the Public Utility Commission (PUC) to create a new rate class for the largest energy users in the state. ( data centers and other high volume users) . These regulations would only apply to customers in the for-profit utility's service areas of PGE, Pacific Power, and Idaho Power. The League has approved being listed  on a coalition sign on advocacy letter ( please link to letter) . See the article here: Oregon lawmakers introduce legislation to rein in utility bills | KPTV  


Carbon sequestration/storage: See DOGAMI


Agency Budget (see Natural Resources Legislative Report) – Geologic Carbon Dioxide Sequestration Interactive Map | U.S. Geological Survey (usgs.gov).




Transportation Priorities


Transportation package that prioritizes climate, equity, and wildlife


This package would build on the historic gains of HB 2017 (which included investments in public transit, safe routes to School, and vehicle electrification), to shift the focus to multimodal, safety, and climate-forward investments. This promises to create a system that saves money over time and builds a more resilient, equitable, and healthy future for all Oregonians. (see OCN Press Release)


In Extraordinary Hearing, ODOT Explains Billion-Dollar Budget Blunder


“Monday night’s presentation from the Oregon Department of Transportation to the Joint Committee on Transportation, however, was anything but routine, leaving one lawmaker sputtering in frustration. About one hour and ten minutes into a hearing on the state highway fund, Travis Brouwer, ODOT’s assistant director and top finance official told lawmakers how the agency made a more than $1 billion error in its 2023-25 budget. To put the “error” in perspective, a January audit of ODOT pegged the actual damage as $1.1 billion out of a $5.9 billion biennial budget. In other words, the agency expected to have nearly 19% more revenue than it actually generated.”


House Climate Energy and Environment (CE&E) Public Hearing Notes


House CE&E heard testimony on two bills, both supported by  Oregon Climate Equity Network (OCEN), focused on expanding Oregon's electric transmission grid capacity. 


HB 3628 would create the Oregon Electric Transmission Authority (OETA) to support the expansion of transmission capacity by financing, developing, building, upgrading, owning and operating transmission infrastructure. The OETA would establish transmission corridors with statewide significance and could finance transmission projects by issuing revenue bonds and collecting a charge from large industrial electricity customers. The bill would also establish a Tribal Advisory Council of members appointed by Oregon tribes. Sunset date would be January 2, 2032. 

 

Supporters noted that Oregon has one of the nation's longest backlogs of generation projects waiting to connect to the grid, with 182 gigawatts of renewable energy in the queue. Without doubling our transmission capacity, these projects will not be able to connect. OETA would develop a statewide strategy for transmission development. Seven other states have implemented ETAs successfully and others (including Washington) are considering creating them. OETA would not be a new state agency duplicating what others are doing, but an independent public corporation with an annual budget limited to $2 million. This low-risk investment by the state could deliver significant economic benefits over time. Amendments are likely coming to address labor language and other issues with the bill.


Republicans on the committee raised concern that the new authority, if granted the power of eminent domain, could “bully” landowners into giving up their land for transmission right of way. The Oregon Municipal Electric Utilities,  and The Oregon People’s Utility District Association opposed the bill, voicing a number of specific concerns. PGE did not oppose the bill but questioned how much the authority could accomplish with limited budget and staff in terms of resolving siting and permitting bottlenecks and stated that the authority should focus first on upgrading the capacity of existing transmission lines rather than building new lines. Supporters and opponents alike decried the new federal administration's threat to the funding and staffing of the Bonneville Power Administration, the backbone of the Northwest transmission system.


HB 3336 would declare state policy that electric companies must:


a.     Meet the required clean energy targets in ORS 469A.410; 

b.     Develop sufficient resources to meet load growth.

c.     Create efficiencies and resilience in the transmission system; and 

d.     Maintain energy affordability. 

 

Electric utilities would have to file strategic plans with PUC to use cost-effective grid enhancing technologies (GETS, defined in the bill) and update the plans every two years. A utility would have to carry out its first filed strategic plan by January 1, 2030. 

 

Climate Solutions and other supporters said grid enhancement is a least-cost, least-risk alternative to development of new transmission lines. These new technologies are ramping up to deployment at scale, though they challenge the business model of utilities, which can’t monetize investments in GETS as they would with investments in capital projects. Wide-scale deployment should make a positive (downward) impact on utility rates. PGE expressed no opposition and noted that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission  is working at the federal level to encourage the use of GETs to improve the electrical grid.


Senate Energy and Environment 2/24, Landfill Gas Monitoring Bill


Senate E&E heard testimony on SB 726, which would require the owner or operator of a municipal solid waste landfill to monitor surface emissions of methane gas and report the results to DEQ as specified in the bill, beginning July 1, 2026. To collect emissions data, the owner/operator would have to use advanced methane detection technology, defined as satellite monitoring, airflight monitoring, drones, or remote direct monitoring technology that yields emission volumes and point-source locations. The Environmental Quality Commission would have to establish monitoring and mitigation requirements by rule.


Currently, the U.S. EPA requires large landfill operators to measure methane emissions using Method 21--basically walking the landfill surface with a handheld leak detection device--and report the data to the EPA. The EPA has approved only one alternative test method, using drone technology from a single vendor, Sniffer Robotics.


Mounting concern about emissions from the Coffin Butte landfill in Benton County drove the introduction of this bill, and dozens of area residents submitted written and oral testimony in support, though the current version does not address Coffin Butte directly.


Supporters called SB 726 a critical step for improving environmental protection and public health. Landfills are the third largest source of human-derived methane in the environment. The walking method misses methane that could be detected and captured -- a Lane County witness called it a "joke" providing opportunities to game the system to evade compliance requirements. Widely available advanced methods make it possible to cost-effectively monitor more of the landfill surface and gather the most accurate data possible. Most landfills in Oregon are privately operated and can afford to use advanced technology in addition to Method 21. The bill would not change enforcement or emission limits but does need some amendments to make sure we don’t require the use of technology that isn’t available yet.


The landfill industry raised concerns about requiring the use of new technologies that may not be ready for use in regulatory compliance. Oregon Refuse and Recycling Assn. opposed the bill on grounds that it is overly broad and would impose a cost burden on smaller landfill operations of some counties. Sen. Golden noted that the required DEQ rulemaking through a RAC would likely be able to address those concerns.


Pro-Nuclear Bills


House CE&E heard testimony on two pro-nuclear bills: 


  • HB 2038 – Requires ODOE to study and report on nuclear energy advantages, construction feasibility, support for current energy systems, economic impacts, safety, reliability, waste disposal, etc.

  • HB 2410 – Allows issuance of a site certificate for a small modular reactor (SMR) demonstration project in Umatilla County, subject to a referendum of county residents. 


Max Woods, ODOE's assistant director for nuclear safety and energy security, gave invited testimony on Measure 7 background, status of current U.S. nuclear facilities, waste disposal issues, and multibillion-dollar investments in SMRs especially by tech companies.


HB 2038 sponsors touted the advantages of nuclear energy for driving down costs, reducing reliance on foreign sources, increasing localization of electricity generation, providing reliability and stability, economic growth, workforce development, etc. They acknowledged long lead times for project development and said Oregon's permitting processes need to be speeded up in order to bring SMRs online soon. They brought forward other witnesses to testify as to the industry's track record of safety and risk management.


Reps. Marsh and Gamba asked whether the sponsors would entertain amendments aimed at making the bill's language more neutral rather than promotional, e.g. by requiring the study to address advantages "and disadvantages." Rep. Diehl said OK. 


Columbia Riverkeeper and Physicians for Social Responsibility strongly opposed the bill, saying ODOE should not spend time and money to promote nuclear power but should use any spare resources to study how to increase safe renewable energy. Another witness called the bill "absurd" drawing a reprimand from Rep. Osborne.


HB 2410 sponsors said Oregon needs to explore this sustainable source of electric power in a responsible, forward-thinking manner. Rural communities especially need reliable power. The bill has sideboards including the required county referendum. Umatilla County Commissioner Dan Dorran strongly supported the bill. Maureen McGee, an attorney for the county, stated that Measure 7 "did not place a constitutional prohibition on nuclear in Oregon, nor does such a prohibition exist. Instead, it created new provisions within the Energy Facility Siting Council  (EFSC) statute that produced insurmountable barriers to EFSC's ability to approve new siting of nuclear facilities, thus serving as a practical moratorium on development of nuclear energy." She acknowledged the need for amendments to HB 2410 aimed at technical fixes and ensuring tribal consultation.


Opponents noted that nuclear projects around the world have taken much longer to build and cost much more than originally estimated by proponents, creating significant financial risk for investors and ratepayers. In Georgia, ratepayers were recently hit with a 23% rate hike to cover cost overruns of the state's new nuclear plant. 


Members of the Confederated Tribes of Umatilla presented emotional testimony bearing on their exclusion from decisions about use of their tribal land and insisted on the need for consultation re siting of nuclear facilities. Columbia Riverkeeper and Sierra Club joined in strong opposition. League of Oregon Cities supported the bill if limited to the SMR option.


Senate E&E has scheduled public hearings next Thursday 3/5 on Sen. Brock Smith's bills SB 215 and SB 216 to repeal the statutory prohibition against issuing a site certificate for a nuclear power plant unless and until the federal government has established a licensed repository for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste; also a hearing on Sen. Bonham's SB 635, directing OSU to conduct a feasibility study on nuclear energy generation in Oregon.



Interested in reading additional reports? Please see our Governance, Natural Resources, and Social Policy report sections.


bottom of page