How to:
Testimony

How do I impact change?

Why is it Important?

Testimony & Public Comment:

Public comment and testimony play a critical role in shaping legislation by ensuring that policies reflect the voices, concerns, and expertise of the communities they impact. Oregon’s legislative process is designed to be participatory, with public hearings offering a formal venue for individuals and organizations to provide input directly to lawmakers. Testimony—whether written or delivered in person—can influence how a bill is framed, amended, or prioritized, especially when it introduces new data, local context, or moral clarity that might otherwise be overlooked in closed-door negotiations.

For climate and environmental legislation, public engagement is especially vital. Policymakers often rely on lived experience, grassroots advocacy, and technical testimony to gauge the real-world implications of complex policies. For instance, rural voices can illuminate how wildfire funding or water access bills will play out on the ground, while environmental justice advocates can point out unintended harms or equity gaps in proposed measures. Robust participation not only strengthens the democratic process, but often yields more durable and accountable legislation.

In a state like Oregon, where procedural hurdles and minority walkouts can stall or kill bills, persistent public engagement becomes even more important. During budget hearings, Rules Committee sessions, or last-minute floor debates, testimony and comment can serve as both pressure and guidance. It signals to legislators that constituents are paying attention and mobilized—and that there is both demand for action and scrutiny of inaction. Over time, this civic presence helps create a legislative culture where evidence, equity, and urgency are harder to ignore.

Format Instructions

Submission Subject line: Rulemaking Comment: Please strengthen draft Climate Protection Program rules

Recipient’s Name: Dept. of Environmental Quality Office of Greenhouse Gas Programs

Part I – Introduce yourself

First name, last name

Identify that you are a rural Oregonian (Unless you live in one of the bigger cities like Portland, Eugene, Salem)

Explain why you are concerned about climate change. (Ideas: parent, grandparent, young person who will have to live with this mess, asthma is affected by the smoke, see the consequences like fire, hurricanes, etc., IPCC report – Warning: Code Red, other that applies to you.)

Part 2 – Acknowledge something Good

Express that you appreciate the time and hard work of all involved. (Ideas: thanks for requiring fossil gas companies to reduce their climate pollution, developing a Community Climate Investment fund, or something else you choose.)

Part 3 – Improvements needed

Please re-write in your own words that you are requesting that all of the following improvements be made in the draft rules for the Climate Protection Program:

Follow the science, which tells us we must cut our climate pollution by 50% by 2030.
Don’t give any polluters a free pass; hold large industrial sources accountable to mandatory declining emissions reductions.
Invest in projects that result in real, verifiable pollution reductions that benefit Oregonians most harmed by fossil fuels and climate change.

Part 4 – Closing

First name, last name

City (or county), Zip code

Example 1:

Testimony supporting House Bill 3932

Chair Lively, Vice Chairs Gamba and Levy and members of the Committee:
My name is Daniel Scotton and I am writing as Executive Director of Southern Oregon Climate Action Now. SOCAN is a grassroots climate organization of some 2,000 Southern Oregonians. We are concerned about the climate crisis and seek federal, state and local action to address it.

I am testifying today in support of HB 3932, as it represents a common sense approach to the protection of Oregon’s beaver population, and the biodiversity, improved water quality, and climate resilience that this keystone species supports. This bill provides protections for our State animal, and has specified carve outs that detractors have failed to recognize.

HB 3932 provides:
Protections for beaver populations, which is seen as a cost-effective, nature-based solution to restore and maintain healthy river ecosystems [1], and;
Intelligently provides exceptions for land management agencies to appropriately monitor flooding risk and beaver-related damage to infrastructure.

Beavers are quiet workers of the watershed — shaping rivers, building wetlands, and making room for life to return. Their dams slow water just enough to restore balance, creating habitat for fish, birds, insects, and plants alike. What’s remarkable is that in simply doing what they’ve always done, they help us meet this moment: healing ecosystems, buffering climate stress, and reminding us that resilience is often found in the overlooked. In Beaver: The North American Freshwater Climate Action Plan, the authors correctly acknowledge that, “It may seem trite to say that beavers are a key part of a national climate action plan, but the reality is that they are a force of 15–40 million (Naiman et al., 1988) highly skilled environmental engineers.” [1]

When beavers build, they leave behind something vital: water that stays. Their wetlands hold moisture on the land longer — slowing runoff, softening fire risk, and offering a lifeline during drought. Consequently, the authors suggest, “Therefore, long stretches of restored floodplains could function as a network of firebreaks, slowing the spread of wildfires and giving humans time to contain runaway wildfires before they reach a dangerous, out-of-control state (Fairfax & Whittle, 2020).”[1] In a time when landscapes dry faster and burn hotter, these natural reservoirs become quiet allies. They don’t ask for much. But they give us something we can’t afford to lose.

HB3932 provides sensible protections to the beaver, while providing exceptions where human intervention is inescapable. While these new rules may force the beaver-hunting enthusiasts to find solace in pursuing a less industrious rodent, protecting our State animal from recreational and commercial interests, is in the common interest.

SOCAN urges your support for HB3932.

Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,

Daniel Scotton
803 North Main St.
Ashland, OR
Director@socan.ec
541-890-0504

Example 2:

Testimony regarding SB827

Chair Lively and members of the House Committee on Climate, Energy and Environment:

As I have noted previously, Southern Oregon Climate Action Now is the oldest grassroots climate organization in the Rogue Valley and represents some 2,000 Southern Oregonians who are concerned about the climate crisis and seek federal, state and local action to address it. We are rural and coastal Southern Oregonians who live on the frontlines of the warming, reducing snowpack, heatwaves, drought, rising sea level and the increasing wildfire risk that these trends conspire to impose on us. Because of our concern, we pay close attention to efforts nationally, statewide, and locally that impact our collective efforts to address the climate crisis. As our logo above indicates, the focus of SOCAN is to promote action through science while encouraging that this be undertaken through a social justice lens.

Renewable energy sources are clearly superior to fossil fuel energy sources in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. Comparing the full lifecycle emissions of fossil fuels and renewable sources, natureOffice (2024) pointed out that “fossil fuel power plants produce between 900 and 1,200 g of CO2 equivalents per kilowatt hour (kWh) generated.” The same source, meanwhile, identifies onshore wind as producing between 12 and 15 g CO₂/kWh, offshore wind as producing 5 to 12 g CO₂/kWh, Solar sources as producing 20 – 50 g CO₂/kWh and hydropower as producing 1 – 30 g CO₂/kWh.

These values are largely consistent with those reported earlier in comparing renewable sources with fossil fuels (e.g., Sovacol 2008, Kim et al. 2012, Hsu et al. 2012, Burkhardt et al. 2012, Bruckner et al. 2014, Evans 2017, Pehl et al. 2017, Jacobson 2019. However, the efficacy of renewable sources is compromised by their being intermittent. Indeed, one of the dominant and reasonable criticisms of renewable energy sources is that the source is intermittent and therefore not dispatchable. As Biddle (2024) states: “Dispatchable generation refers to power sources that can be adjusted on demand by grid operators to match supply with electricity demand. Examples of dispatchable generation include coal-fired plants, natural gas plants, and large hydroelectric plants that can quickly ramp up or down depending on the grid’s needs.”

Meanwhile, the same author points out “Many renewable resources are considered non-dispatchable because they are inherently intermittent. For example, wind and solar aren’t dispatchable because the wind isn’t always blowing and the sun isn’t always shining. However, a battery energy storage system connected to a renewables plant would be considered dispatchable because the stored electricity can be released on demand.”

One solution to the problem of the intermittency of renewable energy sources, therefore, is to pair the source with a battery system that can counter the inevitable intermittency problem. SB827 addresses this problem as it applies to solar energy since it offers (OLIS 2025) Section 2(1)(a) “a program for providing rebates for the purchase, construction or installation of: (A) Solar electric systems; (B) Energy storage systems that will be paired at the time of installation with previously purchased and installed solar electric systems; and (C) Paired solar and storage systems.”

For the above reasons Southern Oregon Climate Action Now urges support for SB827.

Respectfully Submitted
Alan Journet Ph.D.
7113 Griffin Lane

Governor’s Comments:

History

A broad statewide coalition of climate activists have been monitoring the DEQ process from its inception in May over a year ago. Throughout this process, coalition leadership has been developing sign-on submissions to DEQ relating to the program while individuals have been submitting their own or organizational comments (SOCAN submission are available on the SOCAN OCAP (Oregon Climate Action Plan) page scroll down to the 07/13/2021 Update).

Additionally, a subset of the coalition members has formed an ad hoc group calling itself the Climate Protection Advocates. Feeling the need for a stronger response to the DEQ proposed rules, this subset (led by Diane Hodiak, Executive Director of 350.Deschutes, Stuart Liebowitz, Facilitator of the Douglas County Global Warming Coalition, and Alan Journet, Co-facilitator of SOCAN) developed a set of concerns and submitted these (along with signatories from some 20 regional and statewide organizations) requesting a meeting with Governor Brown to urge her to exert some pressure on DEQ to request strengthening the Climate Protection Program draft rules commensurate with our current urgency.

PRESS RELEASE – Climate Protection Advocates Meet with Governor Brown
What is my role in this plan?

It was suggested by one of the signatories that our effort might be strengthened if members of the signatory organizations submitted comments to the Governor on or about that date (13th) to underline the concerns and solutions. We are asking folks to review the list of concerns and solutions (below), identify concerns you share, and send a note to Governor Brown.
What points were identified by the Climate Protection Advocates?

Item One

Since the Executive Order targets at least 80% reductions from a 1990 baseline, the DEQ adjustment to a baseline of the 2017-2019 average should be accompanied by a concomitant adjustment in expected percentage of reductions since the latter emissions were some 11% higher than 1990.
The program should include stationary sources (industrial polluters) including fossil (natural) gas electricity generation facilities within the mandatory emissions reduction requirements applied to fossil fuel suppliers and gas utilities. This would result in these polluters needing to meet science-based emission reductions targets. This should include encouragement for early emissions reductions and mandate increasingly greater emissions reductions along with a plan to achieve them.

Per Executive Order 20-04, total GHG emission for all entities subject to these rules should be equal to or less than 32 Million Metric Tons of CO2 Equivalents by January 1, 2035 (i.e. at least 45% below 1990 level). Include electricity-generation sources that are not covered under HB 2021A.
In order to protect vulnerable communities, industrial polluters should not be allowed to buy Community Compliance Investment credits until they have met their emissions cap or demonstrated a commitment to meeting the cap in the near future.

Item Two:

DEQ should ensure that projects undertaken with Community Climate Investment funds (CCI credits that polluters can buy are the program’s carbon offset feature allowing polluters who cannot easily reduce their onsite emissions to fund projects elsewhere that can reduce emissions) comply with rules that assure their greenhouse gas emissions impact integrity (i.e. they really do reduce emissions / promote carbon sequestration). Also, such projects should not allow polluters to continue polluting to the detriment of affected communities, particularly vulnerable communities.

Rather than restricting CCI funds to projects that only reduce emissions, the CCI fund should also support projects that promote carbon sequestration preferably in rural Oregon, and follow the best practices of being real, measurable, additional, permanent, verifiable, and enforceable.

Item Three:

Fugitive emissions (i.e. greenhouse gas leakage) from pipelines, and transportation fueling should be included under the cap. Methane emissions from these entities should be required to have leak identification and be repaired when located. This would encourage industry cost savings as well as cleaner air. Regulation of Fuel Suppliers should include all carbon intensive fuels, such as propane, diesel, RNG, and Natural Gas. The program should also include full life cycle assessment of emissions as is required in similar air quality programs elsewhere.

How do I write this?

Please start by identifying why you are concerned about addressing the GHG issue and note that you are from rural Oregon (if that is the case). The reason for stressing this is that we need to make it clear that rural Oregonians want climate action. This is to counter the inevitable opposition argument that climate action is just another liberal Portland / urban Oregon plan to impose burdens on rural Oregonians. Then pick a point or two that resonates with you – you don’t need to address all the points.

If you want more background information or a summary of the CPP, visit the Background page. It might be optimal to write your comments first in a WORD document and then copy and paste to the Governor’s “Share Your Opinion” page. I am not aware that the Governor’s page has a word limit, but if you discover it does, please let me know.

Written Vs. Oral Testimony

Historically, oral testimony had to be delivered in the committee room in the Capitol in Salem. However, a combination of the COVID experience and Capitol construction mean that the video option is now available. Thus, we can now testify from the comfort of our own home and from across the state – giving rural and busy Oregonians a greater opportunity to engage.

In general, oral testimony will be limited to 2 or 3 minutes, depending often on how many individuals have signed up to testify and how long has been allocated to the item. Written testimony, on the other hand, is not limited in length, though brief and concise documents are more likely to be read by busy legislators and staff. A common tactic is to submit lengthier written testimony and then summarize and /or refer to that testimony in oral remarks. In many cases, the main value to testimony is to register one’s position for or against a bill with personal or data-driven / evidence -based reasons for that position.

Staff are often simply counting the number of comments they receive for or against to develop a sense of where the public sentiment falls on a bill. However, there are certainly times when lengthier detailed testimony and arguments for or against are valuable. If we can make the case that we are an expert on the subject of a bill, the lengthier testimony is definitely justified. Multiple signatures on the same letter probably count as one letter, so it’s probably better to have multiple individuals each submit their own letter – preferably not the same letter.

Oral Testimony:

Custom suggests that we start oral testimony by identifying who we are and where we live and identifying the bill about which we wish to comment and stating clearly whether we support or oppose it. This results in there being no doubt in anyone’s mind where we stand. I have seen and heard testimony where it was difficult to know this even after 2 – 3 minutes of talking.

This should be followed by the reasons for that position. Personal stories are probably better than data; the latter can probably better be presented in the written testimony (where citation of source or sources can be included) and your targets can re-read and review for clarity. If engaging in both oral and written testimony, note that the oral testimony can be much shorter than the written testimony; it is not necessary for the written and oral testimony to be identical.

Written Testimony:

It’s probably not necessary to start by identifying who you are (unless you represent an organization) since that, presumably, will be included with your signature. Written testimony can be submitted ahead of the committee meeting and within 48 hours after the meeting opens. Via OLIS it is possible to submit testimony directly, either by uploading a pdf or entering text (by copying and pasting if you wish). Be aware that written testimony will be publicly available so choose your comments and write accordingly. One unfortunate feature is that testimony does not follow a bill from committee to committee, so when a bill mover – for example to Ways and Means, it is appropriate to submit your testimony reworked for that committee. Most bills will pass through Ways and Means, when they are generally assigned to one of the sub-committees.

Some legislators (though certainly not all) do not pay attention to input they receive from Oregonians who are not their constituents. When contacting a committee in writing, it is potentially worthwhile to stress that as committee members, they represent the chamber and thus all Oregonians, so you are a constituent.

Extra Tips:

Whether oral or written, start testimony with the following salutation: “Chair Doe and members of the XXX committee:” Committee membership can be found on the Oregon Legislative Information System (OLIS) at https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/. See ‘What’s An OLIS?’

As bills pass through a committee, they may appear on the agenda of several meetings. This can include a Hearing where invited testimony only is heard, a Public Hearing where the public are invited to contribute oral and/or written testimony, and a Work Session when the committee doesn’t consider testimony but discusses, considers amendments, and votes. If, as a last resort, you wish to contact committee members after the Public Hearing deadline, it will be necessary to contact the members individually. Committee membership and member contact information is available at OLIS.

What’s an OLIS?

The Oregon Legislative Information System (OLIS) is the best portal to reach legislators, committees, and find out what is happening in Salem during and between legislative sessions. Here are some pointers on how it may be used by activists monitoring the legislature.

Learn More about OLIS:

Learn More

How to:Testimony