The Oregon Legislature is on track to make the state
more energy efficient, but bills that would have set up a mechanism to
specifically limit emissions have been left behind this session.
BETH CASPER
Statesman Journal
June 6, 2007
It's cool to rally around climate change these days, but taking real actions to cut greenhouse gases is not nearly as easy.
It's
true even in Oregon -- where the governor pushed to adopt stricter
tailpipe-emission standards, multiple groups have outlined specific
ways to cut Oregon's global warming contributions, and individuals are
doing their part by driving less and making their homes more energy
efficient.
Concern about the environment has been a
hallmark of this legislative session, yet two bills that would have set
a clear path for reducing Oregon's global warming emissions went no
further than one committee hearing.
In comparison to
neighboring Washington and California, Oregon looks like it took the
easy route: focusing on the trendy energy-efficiency movement and
renewable-energy mantra rather than stringent standards to cut
emissions from sources.
In a session packed with
environmental legislation -- expanding the bottle bill, implementing an
electronics waste recycling program and encouraging renewable energy --
something as broad as climate change needed to wait, legislators and
environment advocates said.
"We need to do more work
... reaching out to both members of the Legislature, as well as
industry and agriculture and forestry, to get everyone on the same page
in terms of how to be part of the solution," said Rep. Ben Cannon,
D-Portland. "In general, industry understands that it can be and needs
to be part of the answer. We can work hard in 2009 with real consensus
around cap-and-trade and performance plant standards."
The
cap-and-trade bill would have established an emissions cap for all
significant carbon emitters and allowed emitters to trade "credits" for
carbon reductions.
The other: A power plant
performance standard would have forbid utilities from investing long
term in a new power plant that pollutes more than a combined-cycle
natural gas plant, which currently is the cleanest fossil fuel plant.
That's not to say that climate change was ignored in Oregon's legislative session.
Cannon is a sponsor of
the climate change integration act, House Bill 3543, which would set
targets for reducing greenhouse gases to 10 percent below 1990 levels
by 2020 and 75 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. It also would create
a global warming commission and a research institute.
"I
am concerned that we need to do more than set targets," Cannon said.
"But (House Bill 3543) creates a framework for developing political
will."
Other bills that would reduce future
greenhouse gas emissions are moving through the Legislature -- under
less controversial titles, such as renewable energy and energy
efficiency.
"The cap-and-trade and emissions
performance standard legislation both involved very complex issues, and
it's clear there is a lot more discussion and education that needs to
happen of what the issues are and how these two pieces are an essential
part of the solution," said Jane Lubchenco, co-chairwoman of the
Governor's Advisory Group on Global Warming. "The bills that have
passed or are moving are less complex and easier to see some immediate
benefit."
The centerpiece of those bills -- and a
priority of Gov. Ted Kulongoski -- is a renewable energy standard that
requires most utilities to purchase 25 percent renewable energy by
2025. The idea is to meet future energy needs with wind, solar, wave
and geothermal energy rather than greenhouse gas-emitting facilities
such as coal-fired electricity plants.
Oregon's
standard will cut 5.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2025, an
amount equivalent to that emitted annually by about 950,000 cars,
according to the nonprofit Environment Oregon.
Other renewable-energy and energy-efficiency measures, which have an effect on greenhouse gas emissions:
| House
Bill 2876 requires the state by 2015 to reduce energy use in all
structures used by the state by 20 percent from 2000 levels. It means
an annual reduction of 83.5 million kilowatts of electricity, 3.5
million therms of natural gas and 110 gallons of fuel oil.Senate
Bill 576 requires state agencies and other large public entities to
construct or renovate buildings to be 20 percent more energy efficient
than state building code.Senate
Bill 375 establishes minimum energy-efficiency standards for commercial
appliances such as walk-in freezers, exit signs and clothes washers,
and residential products such as DVD players, audio products and
electric spas. The bill would reduce total carbon emissions by about 70
tons. By 2020, the more energy-efficient appliances save enough
electricity to power 20,000 Oregon households and enough natural gas to
power 28,000 households. By 2030 those figures rise to 27,000 and
59,000, respectively.House Bills 2210, 2211 and 2212 expand the business and residential tax credits for renewable energy. "These
bills move the (climate change) agenda forward and we are going to have
significant measurable reductions," said Gail Achterman, who was a
member of one of the governor's task forces on global warming. The
package of energy efficiency and renewable energy bills slows the
state's drastic increase in global warming emissions projected through
2025. In 2003, Oregonians emitted 11 metric tons of carbon dioxide per
person. The worldwide average is about 4 metric tons per person. "It
is pretty clear that climate change is altering the Pacific Northwest
as well as the rest of world," said Lubchenco, a distinguished
professor of zoology at Oregon State University. "We are seeing changes
in temperature, snowpack, timing of precipitation and sea-level rise.
Those are well-documented, and there is every reason to believe these
changes and others are likely to continue." Proponents of the legislation say it will make a difference, even though Oregon is a small state. "The
problems are real but we can address them," Lubchenco said. "There are
very real tangible things that can be done to make a difference. The
governor and Legislature are moving systematically in the direction of
addressing the issues." In comparison to Washington
and California, however, Oregon is falling behind -- even if all energy
efficiency, renewable energy and global warming legislation passes. Washington's
bill puts into law a timeline for reducing global warming pollution
from transportation, industry and power production. The bill severely
restricts the carbon emissions from power plants built or used to meet
Washington's customers needs; reduces climate pollution to half of 1990
levels by 2050, and triples the amount of clean-energy jobs in the
state to 25,000 by 2020. California already has set
a timeline and a cap for greenhouse gas emissions, but it still is
working on a mechanism for those reductions. They also have a power
plant performance standard. Its renewable energy standard is more
aggressive than Oregon's -- with a goal of having 20 percent renewable
energy by 2020. In addition, California has very
aggressive efficiency standards for buildings and appliances, a solar
initiative to encourage at least 3,000 megawatts of solar power on
rooftops by 2017, and a fuel standard that requires low carbon. "We
don't have the same set of happy circumstances (as California and
Washington)," said Sallie Schullinger-Krause, the global warming
program director for the Oregon Environmental Council. "We went into
this session prepared to work hard on a (renewable energy standard) and
a biofuels package, but we simply didn't have the legislative support
to see the global warming bills through with the exception of the
climate change integration act, which puts a body in place to help us
steer a course but it doesn't have any teeth to help us meet the goals.
And that's the biggest weakness of our legislation." In
reality, the biggest impact Oregon's actions may make is in forcing a
national policy, which has been elusive under the Bush administration. "There
are 3.5 million people in Oregon ... It is a relatively smallish state,
so whatever is done here is mostly symbolic," said political analyst
Bill Lunch. "Oregon is not totally trivial, but for any serious efforts
to address global warming to be successful or even have a chance of
success, they have to be national in scope or international." |
