An Oregon house divided against itself cannot pass climate legislation
A power plant at dusk. Photo courtesy of Adam via Flickr CC.
By Britt Masback ‘20
This month, for the fifth time in the span of just 10 months, Republican lawmakers packed up their offices and headed out of town.
The Oregon State legislature was not in a recess and the Republican lawmakers were not leaving for a planned vacation.
Instead, while Senate Democrats remained in Salem, Republicans headed home, attempting to prevent the passage by “any means necessary” of one piece of legislation: Senate Bill (SB) 1530.
This is the continuing saga of Oregon Senate Bill 1530, the so-called “Oregon Greenhouse Gas Initiative.” To some, this bill is Oregon’s opportunity to lead nationally on issues of sustainability and emissions reduction, a bill ready to cut statewide emissions at a time of increasing environmental and climatic concerns.
To others, this is just another move by the monied elite of Portland, Eugene, and Salem to push forward liberal policies at their expense. To most, it’s another example of gridlock in state government.
To all, it’s a bill that is stalled and likely dead in the legislature — a testament to the effectiveness of the passionate resistance of a stringent opposition.
An introduction: A bill to fight climate change emerges
At a time when action around climate change has picked up serious momentum in Oregon, SB 1530 emerged this winter as one potential statewide answer to the challenges of a fragile environment.
Similar to other states across the nation, Oregon is experiencing the effects of a warming climate, with greater extremity in weather events and cross-seasonal weather patterns. Recent wildfires, some reaching the outskirts of urban areas like Portland, have only reinforced the danger of these trends for the local citizenry.
Climate scientists warn that Oregon’s temperature will rise by a few degrees fahrenheit by 2050, with the climate becoming wetter in the winter and drier in the summer, with both developments likely to damage current biodiversity.
In response to these trends, SB 1530 — better known by its moniker as a “cap and trade policy” — is borne out of more than 10 years of legislative work and focused on cutting back on carbon emissions.
Cap and trade programs work by setting an overall cap for statewide emissions and then assigning allowances or credits to emitting entities such as plants, factories or farms to ensure that emissions stay under the cap. Companies that reduce their emissions can sell their extra permits to companies unable to reduce emissions.
If enacted, SB 1530 would oversee the formation of a dedicated emissions reduction board, the Oregon Greenhouse Gas Reduction Board (OGGRB), and would work towards specific emissions reduction levels across various industries.
As a whole, there would be three driving goals of the legislation: (1) set and meet emission levels reductions; (2) promote sequestration of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; (3) promote the adaptation and resilience of systems to prepare for further climatic shifts; and (4) provide assistance to the workers, groups and companies impacted most by a changing climate and/or the types of climate change policies proposed through SB 1530.
Through the first goal, the OGGRB would work towards emissions reductions of at least 45% below 1990 emission levels by 2035 and reductions of at least 80% below 1990 emission levels by 2050.
The board would place a cap on the total regulated GHG emissions from 2022 through 2050 and this cap would decrease over time, therefore pressuring companies to reduce emissions as the price of allowances rises.
To counteract their own emissions, entities would have the opportunity to buy and sell their allowances and buy “offsets,” essentially funding environmental projects.
If Oregon were to successfully pass the bill, they would become only the 12th state — and the second state in the West after California — to enact a form of the cap and trade doctrine and the only state to do so as part of a standalone system.
Not only would SB 1530 aim to reduce emissions, but funds gained from the auction process would also provide the state-needed funding for a whole host of climate policies. Auction money would be set aside for funds for highways, electric vehicle rebates, climate investments, a greenhouse gas initiative, and schools.
SB 1530 invokes a mix of hope and concern for Oregonians. Photo courtseey of Glen Bledsoe via Flickr CC.
A history: 10 years of climate legislation
SB 1530 is the second formal iteration of a cap and trade policy put forth by Senate Democrats. Last year, the issue exploded after the Senate took up consideration of House Bill 2020 (HB 2020), a similar but slightly less refined proposal.
Republican lawmakers also “walked out” of the Senate at that time, citing the impact on rural communities and those in industry, eventually fleeing the state completely to avoid a quorom call. That led to a widely publicized spat between Republicans and Democrats when Governor Kate Brown asked state troopers to track down the absent senators and bring them back to Salem.
Democrats proceeded to hold listening sessions across the state, put together working groups to discuss various solutions, and fund expert-driven studies to add legitimacy to the work of putting together cap and trade legislation.
From these discussions, the major change that emerged was language that broke the state up into additional regions (or “tiers”) and mandated that Portland’s fuel and natural gas emissions would be regulated first in 2022, with all other areas eased into the program by 2028.
Senate Democrats estimate that fuel costs for those in the Portland area will increase 20 cents a gallon in 2022 and that increases in counties to the west of the Cascades will not be impacted until 2025. What’s more, the rest of the state will not even be subjected to the program unless 23 additional counties opt into the program voluntarily.
A walkout and the end of SB 1530
Despite the initial attempts on both sides to compromise and find common ground, the bill once again stalled this year when it came to the Senate floor for a full vote. Republican Senators — alleging that the Democrats had misused their power to push the bill through committees — once again walked out of the Senate.
In the vast majority of states, the Republican walk-out wouldn’t matter as Democrats hold supermajorities in both bodies in Oregon— 18 of 30 seats in the Senate and 38 of 60 seats in the House of Representatives. Oregon, however, is one of a few states to require that a quorum (two-thirds in this case) of members in each body be present before any vote can take place.
Now, with the current legislation session coming to a close, those opposing the bill have achieved a temporary win and the bill is essentially dead.
The impact of the walk-out extends beyond climate reform. With no quorum, not only does SB 1530 die, but so do numerous other bills slated for a vote.
In state government, the legislature only meets once a year. In even years, like 2020, this session is only 35 days long for the entire year, and the walkout means that key legislation may now have to wait until 2021 for consideration.
After a year of booming tax revenues, the legislature was poised to spend more than $500 million on a series of critical infrastructure programs, bills protecting foster children and people vulnerable to pesticides, the houseless and those needing affordable housing, and police and firefighters.
The opposition defines the narrative
Throughout the process of formulating and debating the climate bill over the past couple of years, continued pushback from interest groups and citizens of all backgrounds was felt viscerally in Salem, with rabble-rousing protests and the circling of honking trucks a constant sight outside the capitol building.
The bill has prompted attacks from those in fuel and energy-dependent industries, such as those in manufacturing, transportation, farming, and cattle ranching. Interestingly, the bill has also run into opposition from liberal groups, including some in the Portland area.
Anne Marie Moss, a spokesperson for the Oregon Farm Bureau (OFB) — an organization dedicated to representing the voice of their nearly 7,000 member families in state politics, in the courts and through regulatory avenues — expressed her industry's concerns about SB 1530.
“The Oregon Farm Bureau strongly opposes SB 1530. Cap-and-trade and its carbon tax could be the final blow for families in agriculture and our already struggling rural communities,” Moss said.
Farmers like those at OFB are principally worried about two things. First, because farm operations are extremely energy dependent, Moss says they will “feel the hit a lot more than other industries.”
What’s more, farmers don’t necessarily have the option of raising prices to mitigate the rising front-end costs. “Most farmers are price-takers, meaning [they] cannot simply raise the prices of their products like a typical retailer, say a clothing store, because crop prices are set by the commodity market,” Moss added.
Moss argued that families across the board will see increases due to fuel and electricity bill increases, especially families already cash-strapped such as farmers. “Even the bill’s supporters admit that Oregon families could see as much as a $400 increase in costs in just the first year,” Moss observed.
Finally, Moss pointed out an aspect of the bill that could potentially affect farmers and others in similar work arrangements. The Democrats have proposed rolling out their gas and fuel taxes starting west and moving eastward. This, however, could lead to fissures in systems like farming which are built on competitive advantage.
Farmers in the west will still have to be price competitive with those in the east, yet with the addition of a tax or levy that only applies to them. As Moss puts it, “This tax creates a competitive disadvantage among farmers across county lines. It's bad policy and will lead to economic hardship for many.”
Jerome Rosa, the Executive Director of the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association (OCA), an 1,800 member organization working to advance the interest of the Cattle industry in Oregon, shared many of the concerns of Moss and the OFB.
Rosa believes much of the issue stems from Senate Democrats’ inability to understand the needs of rural workers like himself.
“Agriculture is the second largest economic driver in Oregon behind high tech. But folks, for instance, in Portland and Salem and Eugene, don't really see that and understand that because they don't see the beef industry much,” said Rosa.
Rosa generally feels that Senate Republicans — and the groups they represent like OCA — have been penalized during this year’s negotiations as a result of last year’s walkout.
“There was an exemption in the last cap and trade bill, for agricultural red dyed fuel. And so this was for off road vehicles. That exemption is not in place now. And it's like, well, okay, you guys wouldn't sign cap and trade before and we were trying to offer you this exemption, so guess what, you're not getting it this time.”
Moss agrees that this year’s bill is not an improvement over last year’s bill.
“SB 1530 does not reflect that the concerns of Oregon’s rural and agricultural communities have been heard in Salem. In fact, in some ways it is worse than last year’s HB 2020.”
Interestingly, industry based interest groups like the OFB are not the only voices speaking out against SB 1530. The bill has run into passionate opposition from leading environmental organizations such as OPAL Environmental Justice Oregon, Verde Northwest, and the Center for Sustainable Economy.
Mikhaila Bishop, a student at PSU and organizer for Sunrise PDX, a local youth movement aiming to activate young people around various climate initiatives, explained why her group opposed SB 1530. Like with most of their fellow dissenters in the environmental advocacy landscape, Sunrise PDX takes issue with the bill not because of what it sets out to accomplish, but because of what it stands to leave out.
First, Bishop points to a recent ProPublica investigation that found little correlation between California’s cap and trade program and a reduction in carbon emissions. In fact, that report found that oil and gas emissions rose by 3.5 percent after the policy was enacted.
Bishop and other organizers use California as an example of the many loopholes for industries that ultimately make something like SB 1530 functionally impotent.
As Bishop explained, there is a great deal of concern that, “polluters [could] maintain or even increase localized pollution if they can purchase enough credits,” and that the result would be an undue impact on the low-income communities and communities of color who are most commonly subject to climatic pollution.
Bishop further went on to suggest that by passing this measure, the state Senate was basically admitting to not caring about more aggressive change in the vein of the Green New Deal, which Sunrise PDX supports.
For Bishop, a big part of that action would, “include a moratorium on all new permits and projects that involve fossil fuel—rather than continue to work on cap-and-trade.”
When asked about the Republican-led walkout, Moss and Rosa both expressed their support of the move.
As Rosa explained, “Do we see that there's going to be some negative things? Because you know, some budgets for instance, aren't going to get approved. Yeah. We understand that, but we stand with the walkout… This cap and trade bill is just so crippling to our industry and agriculture in general.
Concern over a system of walkouts and deadlocks
While SB 1530 is all but dead, the fight for climate legislation continues. The Governor has affirmed her support for reducing emissions and has committed to achieving these ends through executive orders if need be. Meanwhile, Senate Democrats are working to organize a special session in the coming weeks or months.
While all of this occurs on center stage, others are calling for reform in the legislative system itself. The walkout and bitter series of deadlocks between Republicans and Democrats has many demanding change.
Walkouts have come under greater scrutiny as a tool of both political parties and have been used across the country since the turn of the century. John Yoo, a constitutional law expert at the University of California, Berkeley Law School and Co-Director of the California Constitution Center argues that while state and federal laws vary to a degree, the original intention of quorum rules was to prevent one group from legislating in private, not one group leaving to prevent legislation altogether.
According to Yoo, the Founding Fathers were, “quite worried about the idea that legislative leaders might try to rush through important acts of government by timing it when members of the minority might not be present to object.”
In addition, Yoo affirms the fact that the founders did not specify a need to have quorum for normal, business-as-usual, votes, “This shows that the founders generally rejected the idea that the Constitution should specify that certain numbers – a quorum – had to be present to pass a law, for example, of approve judges.”
Looking forward, many are simply asking the legislature to consider basic procedural reform. This could include removing the need for quorum, rethinking how committees delegate responsibilities, and other small procedural changes.
For the climate debate, there is no question the next few months will bring change of some kind. The question is whether this response will come from a place of coordination or will fall to the actions of a few.