Background to
Commenting on the DEQ Climate Protection Program (CPP) Draft Rules
The story so far….
For many years, Oregon grassroots climate activists have been working with sympathetic state legislators to enact legislation that would establish a meaningful greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction program in the state, a program commensurate with what the best available science tells us we need.
Current best available science is contained in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2021 Assessment Report 6 of Working Group I on the Basic Physical Science. One of the more disturbing concepts presented in the report concerns the length of time we have to reach net zero emissions (meaning emissions resulting from our human economic activities are balanced by sequestration of atmospheric greenhouse gases) if we are to limit global warming to the 1.5⁰ Centigrade above pre-industrial conditions that the IPCC 2018 report ‘Global Warming of 1.5⁰’ indicated is necessary.
If we fail to limit warming, we are likely to cross tipping points in many critical areas and essentially consign future generations to an unlivable planet. The 2021 IPCC report argues that our budget for greenhouse gas emissions is such that to have a 50% chance of limiting warming as prescribed we have but 9 years (2030) to reach net zero emissions, while for a 66% chance we have 7 years (2028), and for an 83% chance, we have 5 years (2026) at the current rate of emissions.
As can readily be seen, this means the goals established in the purely voluntary GHG emissions program enacted in 2007 (HB3543) of 70% below 1990 levels by 2050 is completely inadequate. Of course, Oregon is not on an emissions reduction trajectory that will anywhere near meet even that goal anyway. This is why there has been such a strong push towards a legislatively enacted program that would impose greenhouse gas reductions.
This figure, from the Oregon Global Warming Commission Biennial Report 2020, depicts the historical trend in Oregon’s GHG emissions (black line) and the future trend (dashed red line) assuming we continue our Business As Usual behavior of increasing fossil fuel use and consequent GHG emissions.
The yellow dashed line represents the trajectory that the 2007 program targeted while the solid light green line just below that represents the trajectory required by Governor Brown’s Executive Order 20-04 (see below for discussion). The sudden drop in emissions depicted for 2030 results from passage in 2016 of SB1547, the Coal to Clean Bill that requires by 2030 all electricity sold in Oregon shall be generated in power plants that do not use coal as their feedstock.
Presumably, rather than modeling a gradual phase-out of coal, the modelers assumed a rather sudden phase-out. It is because the failure of Oregon to achieve the trajectory depicted above has been evident for many years that efforts to establish a program legislatively were initiated several years ago. These efforts culminated in meaningful bills that were stymied in 2019 (HB2020) and 2020 (SB1530) by Republican walk-outs from the legislative chambers who denied the chambers a quorum and thus thwarted passage of these (and many other) bills.
It was this history of legislative failure that led Governor Brown to issue Executive Order 20-04 in March 2020.
Governor Brown’s Executive Order 20-04 and Agency Response
The basic principle of Governor Brown’s Executive Order (EO) 20-04 is that 16 designated state agencies and commissions should use all their authority to develop plans that will result in Greenhouse Gas reductions:
emissions dropping by at least 45% from the 1990 level by 2035 and by at least 80% from the 1990 level by 2050.
This will be achieved while maintaining equity and social justice as a prime consideration, and ensuring that proposals shall be cost effective.
In addition, a specific charge was levelled at relevant agencies to promote carbon sequestration (the capture and storage of carbon from the atmosphere) in our natural and working lands since the science indicates we must both reduce emissions into the atmosphere and remove carbon from the atmosphere.
The collective agency/commission response to the EO has been dubbed the Oregon Climate Action Plan (OCAP)
While most agencies have developed or are developing climate programs, it is probable that the most critical of these is the Climate Protection Program (CPP) under development by the Department of Environmental Quality because this is the program that will contribute to reducing emissions from transportation fuel suppliers (combined with the beefed up clean fuels program), and stationary sources (i.e. industries and utilities).
DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality) Response
In response to their charge, from Governor Brown’s Executive Order, DEQ organized a series of Technical Workshops during summer and early fall 2020, followed by public Townhalls. The real business of developing a program was initiated in January of 2021 as a DEQ Rulemaking Advisory Committee (RAC), comprising representatives of stakeholders, started monthly meetings to offer commentary to DEQ on critical proposed components as DEQ developed the proposed program.
The final draft of the proposed Climate Protection Program rules was released by the DEQ Office of Greenhouse Gas Programs for a 60-day comment period in early August with a public comment deadline of October 4th. While there have been some positive aspects to the process and final rules (notably the transparency and willingness to discuss issues that DEQ has displayed throughout, and staff responsiveness to some concerns), it is the general feeling among those of us observing and engaging in this process that there are a number of opportunities that DEQ has missed.
It is to draw attention to these shortcomings, as well as compliment aspects we support, that we are encouraging as many folks as possible to submit comments to DEQ and/or Governor Brown on the draft rules. Comments are necessary both to resist opposition arguments and encourage strengthening on the rules.
The DEQ Climate Protection Program Nutshell
The basics of the DEQ program are:
- Fossil fuel suppliers (oil, gas, etc.) are subject to a cap on the emissions that can result from the combustion of the fuels they import and distribute. This cap reduces.
- Fossil gas utilities are subject to the same cap and reduce regulations
- Stationary Sources are not subject to the cap and reduce program but are subject to the requirement that they establish Best Available Emissions Reduction (BAER) protocols which are reviewed every five years.
- A carbon offset component exists within the program as a a Community Climate Investment fund. This will be administered by eligible non-profit organizations. Polluters (i.e. fossil fuel suppliers, gas utilities) who find it difficult to reduce emissions can purchase credits (equal to one ton of C emissions) from the CCI non-profit. The non-profit entity then invests these funds in projects that reduce emissions (and promote social justice goals). Polluters are allowed to buy and submit these credits to satisfy up to 10% of their compliance obligation (allowed emissions) initially, rising to 20% over the decade. As proposed, this feature does not allow these funds to be used for carbon sequestration projects but limits funding to emissions reduction projects. The price of the credits is determined as the social cost of carbon though there is no justification for this price that suggests it is sufficient to purchase a ton of GHG impact.
- The electricity sector is totally excluded from the program even though fossil (natural) gas electricity generators are among the largest GHG polluters in the state. However, passage of Oregon House Bill 2021 has generally overcome this exclusion by requiring the all electricity retailed in Oregon (regardless of source) shall be 100% fossil fuel free (i.e., clean) by 2040.
- Emissions from forestry operations (logging) and agriculture are not included in the program since they are not regulated. Notably, legislative action would be required to authorize DEQ to collect these data, and then regulate the emissions.
SOCAN Archive
Written Comments on the Climate Protection Program (CPP)
By Alan Journet
Suggestions incorporate advice from Renew Oregon, Communications Director, Brad Reed and SOCAN, Co-Facilitator, Alan Journet)
October 25th (Extended from 4th), 2021 Deadline to submit written comments
Comments on the CPP should either be e-mailed to GHGCR2021@deq.state.or.us or snail-mailed to Office of Greenhouse Gas Programs, DEQ, 700 NE Multnomah Street, Suite 600, Portland, OR 97232-4100. To be considered, comments must be received by 4:00 pm.
Please also send a copy to the Environmental Quality Commission: Stephanie.Caldera@deq.state.or.us Adjust your salutation to: “Chair George and members of the Environmental Quality Commission.”
Suggestions if your time is limited
Introduction
While some of us will, indeed, be submitting detailed analyses, comments, and suggestions, we do not expect everyone to go through the rules line by line and develop their own detailed evaluation and comments. Rather, we supply some key comments below. What is important is that we demonstrate broad public support for a rigorous Climate Protection Program. This is especially important for rural Oregonians.
This is because (a) we know that opponents will be mounting the same campaign they waged previously arguing that climate action is simply liberal Portland developing a program that rural Oregonians don’t want and that takes advantage of rural Oregonians, and (b) we know that industry representatives will be continuing the behavior they often exhibited during the RAC meeting of doing all they can to weaken the program.
As most of us know, we have reached a point where seeking reasons or excuses for not reducing emissions is no longer acceptable behavior. Instead, we must all commit to seeking ways we CAN reduce emissions. The time for prevarication is over.
Amid the suggestions for improvement, it is important to offer appreciation…an approach called: “Thanks and Spanks.”
If you would like to review the SOCAN comments on the DEQ CPP rules, visit SOCAN Comments to the EQC on the draft CPP rules.
The Good:
With hard work, the Oregon Climate Action Plan (OCAP) coalition and allies have made the draft program rules better in some places. However, the improvements are not guaranteed in the final rules and polluters are working to take them out. We must show support for the positive aspects to protect them, while asking for improvements (see also “The Bad” below).
For the first time in Oregon, fossil gas companies, like NW Natural and Avista, will be held accountable for reducing their climate pollution. No other climate program in our state does this.
- Example comment: For Oregon to take responsibility for our share of the climate crisis and prevent more harm to public health, we must hold the largest climate polluters accountable for reducing climate pollution. DEQ’s proposed Climate Protection Program requires fossil gas companies to reduce greenhouse gas pollution for the first time in Oregon. It’s a good start.
Regrettably, full life cycle assessment of methane emissions is not included in the program so fossil gas gets a free pass for these emissions. Additionally, the method by which fossil gas companies plan to reduce emissions is a crock – it involves replacing fracked fossil gas with RNG (Renewable Natural Gas) which (a) is not available in the volume claimed and (b) is not as clean as it’s portrayed to be (see What’s Up with RNG?). The bottom line is that Fossil Gas should play no role in a genuinely clean energy economy.
Oil companies selling in Oregon will be held accountable to reduce their climate pollution. Each year more oil companies, beginning with the largest, will be brought into the program until 2031 when roughly 98% of oil’s climate pollution will be regulated and must be reduced under the program.
- Example comment: DEQ’s proposal to include an increasing number of oil companies in the program each year is a good compromise from previous draft rules. I would encourage the final rules to go further to include more oil companies at a faster rate.
Community Climate Investments (CCI) are a DEQ-designed alternative for large polluters to account for 10-20% of their required climate pollution reduction in the Climate Protection Program. CCIs allow polluters to pay for clean energy projects in Oregon communities, rather than reduce their own pollution (see below: ‘What is a Community Climate Investment -CCI?’).
DEQ seems determined to keep CCIs as part of the Climate Protection Program, so we must fight to keep them as well-defined as possible. {see below ‘What is a Community Climate Investment (CCI)?}
Recent improvements to the draft rules include important new limitations on the use of CCIs, and increased oversight to ensure that the CCI program is meeting its climate and equity goals. We must defend these:
- Example comment: Community Climate Investments should be a more limited part of the Climate Protection Program. DEQ’s recent move to limit how many CCIs polluters can buy and use to comply with the program is a start and at minimum should stay at these new proposed levels or decrease further in the final rules, so polluters are required to reduce more emissions in their own operations.
- Example comment: I support a requirement for DEQ to review the CCI program every two years to ensure CCIs investments reduce an average of one ton of climate pollution each or more and prioritize investments in communities most impacted by climate damages. DEQ should include in its biennial report to the Environmental Quality Commission a recommendation for changing the price of CCIs as-needed to meet climate and equity goals.
The Bad:
While it has the potential to be a meaningful tool in Oregon’s work to replace fossil fuels with clean energy, the draft Climate Protection Program has problems, which keep it from living up to its name. We must fight to make this program as ambitious as possible, and urge DEQ to do the following–
FOLLOW THE SCIENCE:
The science is clear, every state and nation must cut climate pollution in half this decade. In the Climate Protection Program, “the cap” does most of the work.
- Example comment: DEQ’s current cap proposal does not reduce pollution fast enough and does not follow the science. Oregonians demand a cap that will cut 50% of climate pollution from the covered sources by 2030 and at least 90% by 2050.
HOLD ALL LARGE POLLUTERS ACCOUNTABLE:
In Oregon, there are currently no climate pollution regulations on major industrial emitters or “stationary sources” (picture smoke-belching factories). DEQ’s draft rules do not require industrial emitters to actually reduce their climate pollution. Instead it allows industrial polluters to self-identify what way is best to reduce their emissions and only update their plan twice per decade. Pollution from these sources could increase under this proposal, which flies in the face of its purpose and stifles innovation.
- Example comment: Stationary source polluters should not be exempted from the cap in the Climate Protection Program. If DEQ chooses to exempt industrial polluters from the overall program cap, it should at least require these sources follow some other form of mandatory emissions reductions, in line with the state’s climate targets. At minimum, an unbiased third-party should decide the actions industrial emitters must take to reduce climate and air pollution, and these plans should be reviewed every 3 years.
- Example comment: I urge DEQ, at a later date, to revisit regulating gas-burning power plants in Oregon, which are exempted from the program now. As our state’s largest individual climate polluters, the Climate Protection Program should required them to cut their pollution.
INVEST TO REDUCE POLLUTION & BENEFIT FRONTLINE COMMUNITIES:
Community Climate Investments (CCI) are a DEQ-designed alternative for large polluters to account for 10-20% of their required climate pollution reduction in the Climate Protection Program. CCIs allow polluters to pay for clean energy projects in Oregon communities, rather than reduce their own pollution. DEQ seems determined to keep CCIs as part of the Climate Protection Program, so we must fight to keep them as well-defined as possible to ensure they effectively reduce greenhouse gases AND benefit communities unfairly burdened by climate pollution. DEQ has made some improvements. However, the draft rules leave too much undefined.
Additionally, the CCI fund is precluded from supporting carbon sequestration projects. Given the ongoing effort of opponents to style climate action as liberal urban/Portland trying to establish a program that disadvantages rural Oregon, missing the opportunity to include an element that would largely support rural Oregon seems politically naïve.
- Example comment: A clear percentage of CCI investments should be guaranteed to those on the frontlines of harm from climate damage, such as low-income, rural, Tribal, and BIPOC communities. The current language is too vague, only prescribing that DEQ *may* prioritize CCI projects that benefit frontline communities, among other purposes.
- Example comment: Each CCI credit should eliminate one ton of climate pollution. DEQ should review all CCIs every two years to get as close to that target as possible.
- Example comment: The price of a CCI should be adjusted as-needed to make sure it covers the cost of investing in enough clean energy to reduce one ton of climate pollution.
- Example Comment: In order to provide a potential benefit to the frontline communities of rural Oregon, the CCI fund should include the option of supporting carbon sequestration projects.
What is a Community Climate Investment (CCI)?
Community Climate Investments (CCIs) are a DEQ-designed alternative for large polluters to account for 10-20% of their required emissions reduction in the Climate Protection Program. CCIs allow polluters to pay for clean energy projects in Oregon communities, rather than reduce their own pollution.
A polluter can buy a CCI credit and the money could go to projects like replacing a polluting gas furnace in an apartment building with energy-efficient, clean electric heat pumps, or buying an electric bus to eliminate diesel pollution in frontline communities.
These are worthwhile investments, potentially millions of dollars, and should be prioritized for communities on the frontlines of climate damage and most harmed by burning fossil fuels, especially Black, Indigenous, and communities of color, rural or low-income Oregonians. However, CCIs are a form of “offset,” which is controversial because they allow polluters to keep on polluting the communities around them instead of meeting their prescribed reduction limits.
Regulators often include offsets in programs like the Climate Protection Program (CPP) for flexibility for polluters (oil companies, fracked gas utilities) who claim they’re not able to meet their emissions reduction targets with available technology.
Such flexibility makes the program less strong on reducing climate pollution at the source– burning of fossil fuels. For that reason, we’re demanding DEQ limit the sales, total number, and length of time polluters can hang on to CCIs credits, and maintain a ban in the draft rules on trading or selling CCIs credits to other polluters.