{"id":20896,"date":"2021-01-15T14:13:08","date_gmt":"2021-01-15T19:13:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/?p=20896"},"modified":"2025-12-03T12:44:01","modified_gmt":"2025-12-03T17:44:01","slug":"important-climate-rulemaking-kicks-off-in-oregon-what-were-watching","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2021\/01\/15\/important-climate-rulemaking-kicks-off-in-oregon-what-were-watching\/","title":{"rendered":"Important climate rulemaking kicks off in Oregon: What we\u2019re watching"},"content":{"rendered":"

Yesterday kicked off the official start of the \u201cClimate Protection Plan<\/a>\u201d rulemaking in Oregon, a process that is likely to answer whether Oregon will follow through on meeting its strong commitments to climate action. The stakes for this critical rulemaking are high: Oregon had one of its most destructive wildfire seasons on record last year and faces far more devastating climate impacts in the coming decades, if climate-warming pollution continues unchecked.<\/p>\n

While Governor Brown\u2019s climate executive order<\/a> from last year provides reasons for hope, there are already some red flags appearing as Oregon\u2019s lead environmental agency dives into this rulemaking. EDF analysis provided here reveals how the pace and scale of Oregon\u2019s policy action will impact total emissions this decade\u2014 and ultimately determine long-term climate damages.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Oregon\u2019s climate targets<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The legislature has committed to a number of climate targets\u2014including an at least 80% reduction below 1990 level of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050\u2014<\/strong>but has failed to adopt a plan to meet these targets or require an agency to do so. In March 2020, Governor Brown took the critical step of actually directing Oregon agencies<\/a> to turn goals into action and meet the 2050 target and an interim target of at least 45% below 1990 levels by 2035<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The centerpiece of this Executive Order was a directive to the Oregon\u2019s lead environmental agency to develop regulations to \u201ccap and reduce\u201d emissions from the state\u2019s major sources of GHG pollution. She positioned this policy as effectively providing the backstop to ensure Oregon achieves its targets explaining that<\/a> \u201ccaps will decline over time in order to meet our new greenhouse gas reduction goals.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Oregon climate action backstory<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Governor Brown\u2019s executive order followed two close attempts by the legislature in 2019 and 2020 to pass a climate program<\/a> to achieve the reduction goals, but those attempts were stymied by Republicans shamelessly abandoning the Capitol to avoid a vote<\/a> despite overwhelming support<\/a> from Oregonians for action and majority support<\/a> in the legislature.<\/p>\n

Yesterday, Oregon\u2019s Rulemaking Advisory Committee (RAC)<\/a> for the Climate Protection Plan convened for the first time. The group is intended to provide a diverse perspective to inform the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) as it develops a rulemaking package to meet Governor Brown\u2019s climate directives. Local environmental groups are <\/strong>raising important concerns<\/strong><\/a> that the composition of this group favors potentially regulated polluters<\/strong> over other stakeholder interests. <\/strong>While many members noted a desire to protect the climate for future generations and several business representatives mentioned emissions reduction efforts in their industry or company, the true commitment to policy action remains to be seen.<\/p>\n

Near term reductions matter more than a 2050 target<\/strong><\/h3>\n

As the RAC begins its work, EDF wants to send one clear opening message: Focus on a high ambition program that maximizes reductions as soon as possible, in the next 10 years<\/strong>. The IPCC’s 1.5 degrees special report<\/a> illustrates that deep reductions are necessary by 2030 to have any chance of limiting warming to safer levels — to 1.5\u00b0C or even 2\u00b0C. Reducing emissions of short-lived climate pollutants (e.g. methane) \u2013 which govern the rate of near-term warming \u2013 is crucial for slowing the pace<\/em> of warming. And reducing emissions of long-lived climate pollutants (e.g., carbon dioxide) \u2013 which govern the maximum extent of warming \u2013 is crucial for limiting the overall amount<\/em> of warming, and therefore the full extent of the climate damages. The earlier a ton of carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, the larger the cumulative buildup of long-lived pollutants will be and the greater the effect of that pollution on overall warming.<\/p>\n

Figure 1 below, created by EDF for Oregon based on data from Rhodium Group\u2019s U.S. Climate Service and Oregon\u2019s own climate data, demonstrates the differences in this cumulative pollution build up based on different trajectories to the same 2030 climate target.<\/p>\n

Figure 1: Differences in Cumulative Pollution Build up by Trajectory<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"Emissions<\/a>
The 2030 target shown in the figure reflects the emissions level needed to stay on a linear trajectory from 2021 BAU emissions to the state\u2019s 2035 target, assuming the first reductions from the program takes place in 2022. The 2035 target was estimated based on Oregon\u2019s GHG inventory. Note that the timeline only goes through 2030 because the Rhodium Group GHG emission projections we use for this analysis are only available through 2030. Power sector emissions in these projections are based on electricity consumption within the state, consistent with the state\u2019s GHG inventory.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

As illustrated in a business as usual (BAU) scenario, where no new climate policies are adopted, cumulative emissions rise far above the levels needed to meet Oregon\u2019s 2035 target (which is estimated in 2030 here). The three other trajectories showcase the emissions impact of three different potential pathways for policy action:<\/p>\n