2.1 Climate Policy Introduction and Policy Language from SD15
EWEB Climate Change Policy SD15 – Climate Policy Section
The Board authorizes, delegates, and directs the General Manager to participate in local, state, and regional efforts to encourage, develop and enact measures to minimize and/or mitigate GHG emissions that contribute to climate change. Consistent with Board Policy (GP13), prior to legislative sessions the Board develops and guides EWEB’s positions relative to legislation, including those related to climate and environmental policy supporting this directive.
Climate policy passed at the federal, regional, state, and local levels provides the setting for our work on climate change. Much is evolving at these various levels. EWEB actively engages in this area to meet and go beyond our compliance obligations, educate policymakers about the intricacies of the electric power and water sectors, and partner with key stakeholders to build the future that we want to see based on the values of our customers.
EWEB’s Climate Change Policy SD15 highlights the importance of participating in policy discussions at various levels to minimize and mitigate GHG emissions. This chapter seeks to outline a high-level summary of the activities happening at various levels of government from the federal to the local level, while providing readers with relevant links and resources for additional reading as well as describing the impacts to EWEB.
Additionally, EWEB seeks to articulate guiding principles that staff aim to follow in their work. Principles can relate to any topic where EWEB invests effort, staff time, or resources. Principles on topics related to climate change will be included in this chapter of the Guidebook. Focus areas for EWEB Principles can range from policy advocacy work, program development, or even research and application of new technologies. The last section of this chapter seeks to publish these established principles for transparency and ease of reference.
Content currently included in v2.0:
- Policy summaries and links for climate initiatives at the federal, regional, state, and local levels
- Global/Federal: The Paris Accord, BIL/IIJA, IRA, SEC Enforcement Task Force on Climate & ESG
- Regional: Western Energy Imbalance Market (EIM); Extended Day Ahead Market (EDAM); Western Regional Adequacy Program (WRAP); Western Climate Initiative (WCI); Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI); Regional Climate Forecasts and Analyses
- California: AB-32 Cap-and-trade; Low Carbon Fuels Standard; SB-100 100 Percent Clean Energy Act; Tailpipe Emissions Standards; California Independent System Operator (CAISO)
- Washington: I-937 Energy Independence Act, Clean Energy Transformation Act (CETA), Climate Commitment Act (CCA), Clean Fuels Standard
- Oregon: Executive Order 20-04; Clean Electricity Standard; Clean Fuels Program; Clean Electricity and Coal Transition Plan; Renewable Portfolio Standard; Emissions Performance Standard
- Eugene: Climate Recovery Ordinance; CAP 2.0
- Principles to guide EWEB investment of staff time and financial resources:
- Carbon Policy & GHG Reduction Principles
- Distributed Generation Principles
- Green Hydrogen Principles
- EWEB Rate Design Principles
Content planned for future Guidebook Versions:
- Additional details about federal funding opportunities under the BIL/IIJA and IRA
- Additional principles to guide EWEB investment of staff time and financial resources
Explore this webpage: 2.2 Global / Federal Initiatives | 2.3 Regional Initiatives | 2.4 State of Oregon Initatives | 2.5 Local Eugene Intiatives | 2.6 EWEB's Climate Guidebook Principles to Guide Policy and Programs
2.2 Global / Federal Initiatives
2.2.1 Global Efforts & the Paris Accord
The past three decades have produced a series of international multilateral treaties, agreements, and frameworks on climate change policy as part of a worldwide effort to reduce GHG emissions and the impacts of global climate change. These international efforts have been based on the research produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change that represents 195 member organizations.
The first notable and binding of these international agreements was the Kyoto Protocol, signed in 1997 and building upon the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The Protocol sought to reduce GHG emissions in the atmosphere to “a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”. There were two compliance periods. The first ran from 2008-2012 and the second from 2012-2020. As of 2020, the United States was the only signatory that did not ratify the Protocol. Currently there are 192 parties to the Kyoto Protocol.
Most recently, the Paris Agreement, an international treaty intended to keep the rise in mean global temperature to well below 2 °C (3.6 °F) above pre-industrial levels, and preferably limit the increase to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F), was signed in 2016. It is estimated that to stay below 1.5 °C of global warming, global emissions need to be cut by roughly 50% by 2030. As of 2023, 195 members of the UNFCCC are parties to the agreement. The United States signed the Paris Agreement in 2016, subsequently withdrew in 2020, and rejoined in 2021. Recently enacted federal GHG investments (see U.S. Federal Policy section) have lent credibility to the U.S. readmission to the treaty and its leadership role in global efforts to address climate change.
While these international agreements are notable progress in an international response to global climate change, they are also generally viewed by experts as not binding with sufficient rigor and not always practicable (i.e., some countries lack sufficient financing capability to reach targets) to the extent required to ensure targets are reached. Further global coordination and commitment to GHG reduction efforts is essential.
Why does this matter to EWEB?
Since current international agreements are nonbinding, direct impacts on EWEB will be minimal. However, if world leaders continue to delay on robust climate action, the resulting physical changes to the climate will impact every community around the globe, including EWEB’s. Federal efforts in the United States to demonstrate commitment to the Paris Accord have led to new federal investments in funding for programs to reduce emissions (Inflation Reduction Act and Infrastructure Investment in Jobs Act). These grant programs are available to groups like EWEB.
Links and Relevant Resources:
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Assessment Reports (include AR6 from 2023)
- United Nations work on Climate Change
- Kyoto Protocol Text
- United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Information about the Paris Agreement
2.2.2 U.S. Federal Policy
At a national level, the United States has recently made a major change in its approach to national climate policy. This change comes a decade after the U.S. House of Representatives approved a national emissions trading program, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, a bill that then languished in the U.S. Senate, failing to become law. After subsequent repeated failures of national market-based emissions trading programs in Congress, national climate policy efforts have pivoted away from market-based emission trading programs towards investment and regulatory efforts. In particular, a clean energy investment approach to national GHG reduction policy has been politically successful recently as evidenced by key climate provisions advanced in the passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) in Nov. 2021 and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) in Aug. 2022.
National regulatory efforts to cap emissions may yet be forthcoming but face significant hurdles, given that such efforts would likely require 60 votes to overcome a filibuster in the U.S. Senate. In the meantime, using the national budget reconciliation process, which only requires a simple majority vote in Congress, the federal government has enacted provisions in IIJA and IRA that are estimated by Princeton University to reduce national GHG emissions by at least 40% relative to 2005 levels over the next decade.
Simultaneously, in the U.S. investors are demanding disclosure of climate and environmental, social and governance (ESG) information. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has proposed a new climate disclosure rule. Many companies and governments currently disclose climate, water, and forestry risks and impacts to investors via CDP, a nonprofit organization that runs a global disclosure system.
Why does this matter to EWEB?
The IIJA and IRA are poised to have profound impacts on the clean energy economy. Energy producers – such as developers and owners of wind farms and other renewable energy generators – will be able to access tax credits leading to greater investment in renewable energy and lower prices. Energy consumers – such as EWEB customers – will be able to take advantage of rebates and incentives to install high-efficiency electric heat pumps and to buy electric vehicles, among other electric products. Due to this legislation, it is expected that renewable energy will be more abundant and cheaper for EWEB to procure, while demand for electricity will be higher as EWEB’s customers continue to electrify.
Links and Relevant Resources:
- United States Department of Energy, Inflation Reduction Act of 2022
- Congress.gov – Infrastructure Investment in Jobs Act
- IIJA Implementation Resources from Government Finance Officers Association
- US Securities and Exchange Commission Climate and ESG Risks and Opportunities
- CDP Global Disclosure System
2.3 Regional Initiatives
2.3.1 The U.S. Electricity Grids
People often refer to “the electricity grid” in the United States as if it were a single network of generating resources and infrastructure to deliver electricity from where it is produced to where it is consumed. In reality, in North America, there are four grids, or major electric system networks, as shown in the map below. The Western Interconnection (of which EWEB is part) and the Eastern Interconnection are the two major networks. Texas and Quebec are served by two smaller networks. The Western and Eastern Interconnections are divided by the Rocky Mountains and very little, if any, electricity is passed between them.
Electricity in the United States is managed under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). FERC is an independent agency responsible for regulating the interstate transmission of electricity, natural gas, and oil. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) is a nonprofit international regulatory authority whose mission is to assure the effective and efficient reduction of risks to the reliability and security of the grid. FERC and Canadian governmental agencies oversee NERC’s operations.
The Western Interconnect includes two Canadian provinces, 14 Western U.S. states, and northern Baja Mexico. It has several unique characteristics that distinguish it from the other North American interconnects. Within the Western Interconnect, 87% of land is public or protected compared to only 27% within the Eastern Interconnect. In the West, we also have longer transmission lines compared to the East that connect remote electricity generating facilities to population centers. This pattern allows the West to take advantage of different supply-and-demand patterns, and different renewable energy sources, as electricity is transported over long distances.
Another difference between the East and West has to do with how electricity supply and demand is managed. The map from The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) shows the balancing authorities within each of the U.S. interconnections. Per EIA, a Balancing Authority is an entity that, “ensures, in real time, that power system demand and supply are balanced. This balance is needed to maintain the safe and reliable operation of the power system. If demand and supply fall out of balance, local or even wide-area blackouts can result.” All the regional transmission organizations (RTOs) or independent system operators (ISOs) in the U.S. also function as balancing authorities.
- The Eastern Interconnection includes 36 balancing authorities, of which five are in Canada and the rest are in the United States.
- ERCOT, or the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, contains one balancing authority.
- The Western Interconnection has 37 balancing authorities, including two in Canada, one in Mexico, and the remainder located in the U.S.
Why does this matter to EWEB?
EWEB is part of the Western Interconnection and therefore the electricity EWEB delivers to customers comes from this large, subnational grid. In some circumstances, it makes sense to calculate the carbon intensity of electricity based on the overall makeup of this large Western grid, since electrons flow freely across it. In other circumstances, it makes more sense for EWEB to calculate the carbon intensity of electricity based just on the energy EWEB generates or buys.
Links and Relevant Resources:
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
- North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC)
- Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC)
- Energy Information Administration, U.S. Electric Power Regions
2.3.2 Regionalization and Organized Markets
While approximately 60% of the U.S. electric supply is managed by an Independent System Operator (ISO) or a Regional Transmission Organization (RTO), Pacific Northwest utilities do not presently participate in an organized market, except for those utilities that voluntarily participate in the real-time Western Energy Imbalance Market (EIM).
Currently, most electricity market transactions in the Pacific Northwest are conducted bilaterally (1:1) between utilities, independent power producers, and marketers. Similarly, the Pacific Northwest’s transmission system is operated by individual transmission owners, requiring projects to pay separate charges (often referred to as “wheeling” charges) to deliver power across each transmission system. There are approximately three dozen balancing authorities (BAs) currently operating across the Western United States, with each responsible for balancing supply and demand within their footprint. Over the last 25 years, the region has considered several utility-led initiatives to coordinate transmission planning and operations or to centralize electricity market functions. The only initiative that has been implemented to date is the Western EIM.
There are multiple regional efforts and initiatives underway past and present that endeavor to fulfill multiple functions that an organized/centralized market can provide:
- Shared transmission planning by a single entity
- Single transmission provider and tariff administrator
- Single transmission operator
- Single Balancing Authority
- Common Resource Adequacy Standard
- Market Operator: a single independent entity and centralized day ahead and/or within-hour optimization and dispatch with reliability
The Western EIM has achieved success with a low-cost, voluntary option using available and free transmission and leveraging the existing California Independent System Operator (CAISO) infrastructure. However, the Western EIM serves only a small portion of the functions that are offered by traditional ISOs and RTOs, and free transmission is not replicable in future approaches. Regional efforts to advance a Pacific Northwest organized market have been hampered by the uniqueness of the Bonneville Power Administration, statutory preference power rights for publicly owned utilities in the region, and proper valuation of hydropower resources.
Agreement on governance models and the equitable allocation of costs and benefits in an organized market is a complicated task to successfully complete. However, utilities and stakeholders continue work on initiatives such as an Extended Day Ahead Market (EDAM) through CAISO or via the Markets+ model being proposed by the Southwest Power Pool. The hope with these two different models for a day ahead market is that significant societal and environmental benefits in grid efficiency, consumer savings, and decarbonization will result from optimizing load and generation diversity over large geographical and climate footprints. Initiatives can also use the existing transmission system more efficiently and work on planning, investing, and building necessary new transmission more effectively to move energy from where it is plentiful to where it is not, at any given time.
Why does this matter to EWEB?
Organized markets or other regional initiatives could carry with them requirements around resource adequacy or the dispatch of electricity generating resources. This means that EWEB may be required to plan to have a buffer of extra energy resources available, so that shortages don’t occur during times of high demand. EWEB is tracking the evolving requirements that may arise and is accounting for them in our Integrated Resource Planning process.
Links and Relevant Resources:
- Western Energy Imbalance Market website
- CAISO Extended Day-Ahead Market (EDAM)
- Markets+, Southwest Power Pool
- Western Resource Adequacy Program
2.3.3 Regional Climate Policies
In the absence of a national binding emissions cap and/or comprehensive regulatory emissions reduction targets, state efforts to accomplish regional equivalents have been established. Current initiatives include the Western Climate Initiative (California, Quebec, Novia Scotia, and Washington, which is pending) and the electric sector only Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) including Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Massachusetts, Maryland, and Rhode Island.
Why does this matter to EWEB?
Regional climate policies could affect the price of carbon and the availability of certain kinds of energy resources.
Links and Relevant Resources:
2.3.4 Regional Climate Forecasts & Analyses
In 1980, The Northwest Power Act authorized the states of Montana, Idaho, Washington, and Oregon to plan for the energy future of the Pacific Northwest and to balance energy requirements with environmental concerns. The Northwest Power and Conservation Council was created to do this work. The Act required the new organization to both create a fish and wildlife program and to develop a 20-year least-cost power plan to be updated every five years. The Power Plan includes forecasts for both future electricity demand as well as future electricity and natural gas prices. It also includes an assessment of the amount of cost-effective energy efficiency that can be acquired over the 20-year term of the plan, and an assessment of a least-cost generating resources portfolio. The plan supports Bonneville Power Administration’s resource decision-making.
Other regional organizations in the Pacific Northwest are in the process of evaluating the patchwork of state-level policies within the region and how they intersect, as well as various pathways to get to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions within the Pacific Northwest.
Links and Relevant Resources:
- 1980 Northwest Power Act
- Northwest Power and Conservation Council
- 2021 Northwest Power Plan (March 2022)
- Pacific Northwest Power Supply Adequacy Assessment for 2027 (January 2023)
- Net-Zero Northwest: Technical and Economic Pathways to 2050 (NZNW) (June 2023)
- The Brattle Group Greenhouse Gas and Clean Energy Accounting Methodology Catalogue (June 2023)
2.3.5 Neighboring State Initiatives
2.3.5.1 California: AB 32 – Cap and Trade and Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS)
The California legislature passed AB 32 in 2006 requiring the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to undertake a statewide effort to reduce global warming pollution. After extensive stakeholder input, research and analysis, CARB decided that cap-and-trade regulation should be the centerpiece of the 70 separate measures used to cut GHG emissions. Other measures included statewide regulations on building, vehicle, and appliance energy efficiency standards. AB 32’s cap-and-trade rule became active Jan. 1, 2013. The sunset date of the cap-and-trade program was extended from 2020 to 2030 through the passage of AB 398 in 2017 and the program is now designed to meet a target of reducing emissions by at least 40% below 1990 levels by 2030.
The Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) was also a key measure recommended through AB 32 that began implementation in 2011. This is a program designed to decrease the carbon intensity of transportation fuels to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, reduce dependency on petroleum products, and improve air quality. Oregon’s Clean Fuels Program is modeled after the California LCFS.
Links and Relevant Resources:
- California Air Resources Board, AB-32 Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006
- California Air Resource Board, AB-32 Climate Change Scoping Plan
- California Low Carbon Fuels Standard
2.3.5.2 California: SB 100 – 100 Percent Clean Energy Act
Passed in 2018, SB 100 marks California's firm commitment to developing renewable electricity infrastructure to replace fossil fuel-powered electricity. Its two main goals are: a) by 2030, 60% of all electricity generated will be from renewable sources; b) by 2045, 100% of electricity for the whole state will be renewable. Legacy hydropower is not eligible for the 60% target, but after 2030 hydropower may qualify for the remaining 40% of SB 100 compliance.
Links and Relevant Resources:
2.3.5.3 California: Tailpipe Emissions Standards
Under Section 209 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), California was given the ability to apply for special waivers to apply its own emission standards for new motor vehicles, rather than the federal standard. In 1967, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) was formed and enacted the nation’s first stringent vehicle emission standards. Other states began to consider their own standards. Fearing a patchwork of differing state standards, automakers lobbied successfully for the passage of a National Emissions Standards Act that restricted states from enacting standards more restrictive than the new national standard. However, the existing stringent California standard was granted a permanent waiver; legal precedent has determined that other states may exceed federal standards if they adopt an equivalent facsimile of the California standard. Oregon is one of 16 states to adopt the California standard.
In August 2022, California set new targets requiring 100% new car sales to be zero emission by 2035. Oregon followed suit and adopted California’s rule just a few months later.
Links and Relevant Resources:
2.3.5.4 California: CAISO and Western Energy Imbalance Market (EIM)
In 1998, the California Legislature created the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), a nonprofit Independent System Operator (ISO) that oversees the majority of California’s bulk electric system, transmission lines, electricity market, and infrastructure planning on behalf of members, instead of individual entities. CAISO forecasts electrical demand and dispatches the lowest cost generator to meet demand while ensuring enough transmission capacity for delivery of power.
In 2014, the Western Energy Imbalance Market (EIM) was launched by the CAISO to establish lower cost and cleaner approaches to integrating fluctuations in intermittent renewable power generation into supply and demand by automatically finding lower-cost resources over broader geographical footprints to meet real-time power needs. While the CAISO was directed by the California legislature to participate in the EIM, non-CAISO entities may also join the Western EIM. PacifiCorp was the first initial volunteer, and today there are 23 EIM participants.
The Enhanced Day Ahead Market (EDAM) has been proposed and would build on the success of the EIM in pursuit of reliability, economic, and environmental benefits through increased regional coordination and resource optimization. It would provide additional market efficiency by integrating renewable resources using day-ahead unit commitment and scheduling across a larger area. The EDAM proposal is in an advanced stage of development through a public/stakeholder process as of November 2022.
Links and Relevant Resources:
2.3.5.5 Washington: I 937 Energy Independence Act (EIA)
Washington State has also passed several laws in recent years to address greenhouse gas emissions and renewable energy provisions. The Energy Independence Act (EIA), approved by the voters in 2006 through the passage of Initiative 937, requires Washington electric utilities serving at least 25,000 retail customers to use renewable energy and energy conservation. There are 18 Washington utilities subject to the EIA. They provide 80% of the electricity sold to Washington retail customers.
The EIA established a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) with renewable energy targets as a percentage of customer load. The targets increased over time, from 3% in 2012, to 9% in 2016, to 15% in 2020. Eligible resources include water, wind, solar energy, geothermal energy, landfill gas, wave, ocean or tidal power, gas for sewage treatment plants, and biodiesel fuel and biomass energy. Hydropower eligibility is limited to incremental generation due to efficiency improvements made after 1999, and the hydro project must be either owned by one of the 18 EIA-qualifying utilities or marketed by the Bonneville Power Administration.
Significantly, EIA requires that utilities must pursue all conservation that is cost-effective, reliable, and feasible. They need to identify the conservation potential over a 10-year period and set two-year targets.
Links and Relevant Resources:
2.3.5.6 Washington: Clean Energy Transformation Act (CETA)
SB 5116, the Clean Energy Transformation Act (CETA) was approved by the Washington Legislature in 2019, committing Washington to an electricity supply free of greenhouse gas emissions (all non-emitting electricity sources qualify) by 2045 via staged compliance:
- By 2025 utilities will remove coal-fired generation from Washington's allocation of electricity.
- By 2030, Washington retail sales will be carbon-neutral (20% of compliance can be achieved using Renewable Energy Certificates, alternative compliance payments ($100 per ton of carbon), or Energy Transformation Projects that decarbonize other sectors of the economy.
- By 2045, Washington retail sales will be 100% renewable and non-carbon-emitting.
CETA has other notable provisions. It grants the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC) the authority to shift investor-owned utilities from a return-on-capital model to a performance-based model. Rather than profit (and returns to shareholders) coming purely from investments in capital projects, utilities’ returns could be determined based on their performance against metrics set by the UTC, such as carbon reduction or equity. The bill also requires utilities to consider equity in electric system benefits and increase customer bill assistance.
Why does this matter to EWEB?
Initiatives in neighboring states have varying levels of impact on EWEB. Broadly speaking, policies in California and Washington can increase or decrease the availability of certain kinds of energy resources, affecting region-wide energy markets.
Links and Relevant Resources:
2.4 State of Oregon Initiatives
2.4.1 Climate Action Plan (CAP) – Executive Order 20-04
Gov. Kate Brown signed Executive Order 20-04 on March 10, 2020, directing multiple state agencies to take actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst effects of climate change. EO 20-04 outlined State of Oregon GHG reduction goals of at least 45% below 1990 emissions levels by 2035 and at least 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.
The centerpiece of EO 20-04 was the establishment of the Climate Protection Program (CPP). The Climate Protection Program set a declining limit, or cap, on greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels used throughout Oregon, including diesel, gasoline, natural gas, and propane used in transportation, residential, commercial, and industrial settings. The program also regulated site-specific greenhouse gas emissions at manufacturing facilities, such as emissions from industrial processes, with a best available emissions reductions approach. Notably, the program did not apply to electricity, a decision made because the legal authority of the program did not extend to electricity imported from out of state and there would be complications from applying the program only to in-state electric generating units. The CPP required that covered entities reduce greenhouse gas emissions and allowed covered entities to comply in part with Community Climate Investments (CCIs)– contributing funds to authorized third-party entities to implement projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Oregon.
In December 2023, the CPP was invalidated by the Oregon Court of Appeals due to insufficient notice requirements during the 2021 rulemaking process. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has stated that they seek to reestablish a climate mitigation program.
Why does this matter to EWEB?
The Climate Protection Program, if reinstated, could affect the market for fossil fuel-based technologies, contributing to electrification of transportation and other sectors. This could increase demand for the electricity that EWEB supplies.
Links and Relevant Resources:
- State of Oregon, Executive Orders
- Oregon Public Utility Commission, Executive Order 20-04 Resources
- Oregon Department of Energy, Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions, State GHG reduction goals
- Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Climate Protection Program 2024
2.4.2 HB 2021 - Oregon Clean Electricity Standard
Oregon’s CES was enacted in 2021 and sets targets requiring Oregon’s two largest and investor-owned utilities, Portland General Electric and PacifiCorp, as well as assorted Electricity Service Suppliers (ESSs), to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions associated with their retail electricity sold in Oregon to:
- 80% below baseline emissions levels by 2030;
- 90% below baseline emissions levels by 2035; and
- 100% below baseline emissions levels by 2040.
The CES also enacted a permanent moratorium on the siting of new natural gas power plants in Oregon and established an annual statewide Community Energy Grant Program.
Why does this matter to EWEB?
Though EWEB is not subject to the emissions reduction requirements of HB 2021, those requirements will prompt Oregon’s two largest utilities (PGE and PacifiCorp) to build increasing amounts of carbon-free resources, such as wind and solar which will affect regional energy markets in hard to predict ways.
Links and Relevant Resources:
- HB 2021 Oregon Clean Electricity Standard
- Oregon Clean Energy Targets (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality)
2.4.3 Oregon Clean Fuels Program (CFP)
The Oregon CFP is a program designed to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels, similar to laws in both CA and WA. The original CFP legislation set a target of a 10% reduction in carbon intensity by 2025. Under Executive Order 20-04, the program was expanded, and additional targets were set: a 20% reduction by 2030 and 37% reduction by 2035.
Regulated entities include transportation fuel producers and importers of fossil gasoline, fossil diesel, ethanol, biodiesel, and renewable diesel. They are required to meet the declining carbon intensity cap for the fuels they sell.
One way to meet the program requirements is to purchase credits from entities that generate credits by developing low-carbon transportation fuels. Credits are measured in metric tons of GHGs. Credits can be sold to regulated entities, which in turn produce revenue to pay for projects that lower GHGs. For information about how to estimate credits or to which entities the credits will flow under the program, please see Appendix E: Resources for Entities Seeking to Estimate the GHG Impact of Transportation Electrification Projects and Potential Credit Generation Under the Oregon Clean Fuels Program.
Why does this matter to EWEB?
Under the Oregon Clean Fuels Program (CFP), EWEB is authorized to be an aggregator of credits attributed to residential EV charging. EWEB may use the revenue from these credits to make investments in transportation electrification and decarbonization. Additionally, EWEB owns EV charging infrastructure at the Roosevelt Operations Center (for our owned fleet vehicles and for public use in our employee parking lot), and at our Hayden Bridge water treatment facility located along the McKenzie River. EWEB generates additional CFP credits from these owned charging stations.
Links and Relevant Resources:
2.4.4 SB 1547, Clean Electricity and Coal Transition Plan
Enacted in 2016, SB 1547 requires Oregon’s two largest investor-owned utilities, Portland General Electric and PacifiCorp, to phase out coal-fired electricity from their retail sales in Oregon by 2030 and double their original Oregon Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) targets from 25% to 50% by 2040.
Why does this matter to EWEB?
Fewer coal plants result in less dispatchable (able to be turned on and off) energy on the grid, making regional grid reliability more challenging. EWEB, like utilities across the region, will have to adapt to these new dynamics.
Links and Relevant Resources:
- Oregon State Legislature SB 1547 bill information and overview
- Oregon Public Utility Commission 2021 Report to the Oregon Legislatures on SB1547 (2016): Impact of Increased Renewable Portfolio Requirements
2.4.5 Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS)
The Oregon RPS requires large electric utilities (over 3% of Oregon electric load), including EWEB, to meet 25% of their electric load with qualifying renewable electricity. Two tiers of small electric utilities are required to meet 10% or 5% of electric load with qualifying renewable electricity respectively. Although legacy hydropower is not a qualifying renewable source of electricity under the RPS, legacy hydropower is exempt from displacement and carries no compliance/mitigation requirement.
Why does this matter to EWEB?
Because of EWEB’s hydropower-dominant portfolio, the utility has been exempted from RPS requirements. However, this exemption is not guaranteed if EWEB’s portfolio mix changes.
Links and Relevant Resources:
2.4.6 Emissions Performance Standard (EPS)
The EPS sets a greenhouse gas emissions limit of 1,100 pounds (0.5 metric tons) of greenhouse gases per megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity for the siting of any new electricity generation facility in Oregon, effectively prohibiting the construction of any new coal-fired electricity generating unit in Oregon. Though natural gas electric generating units would meet the 1,100 pounds threshold, they are now prohibited by the recently enacted Oregon Clean Electricity Standard (see above).
Why does this matter to EWEB?
The prohibition on these carbon-intensive dispatchable fossil fuel sources of electricity in Oregon can affect reliability across the entire region, especially during peak times of high electricity demand when dispatchable power is often required, if they can’t be replaced with low-carbon dispatchable sources.
Links and Relevant Resources:
2.4.7 Advanced Clean Car II Rule
In 2022, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality adopted the Advanced Clean Car II Rule, which is modeled after California’s Tailpipe Emissions Standards. Both rules require that 100% of new, light-duty vehicle sales in their states be zero emission by 2035.
Why does this matter to EWEB?
EWEB’s electrification forecasts already assume high levels of electric vehicle adoption in the next 20 years. The Advanced Clean Car II Rule effectively formalizes that demand increase. EWEB predicts that vehicle electrification will be the greatest driver of increases in demand for electricity in the next 20 years. It will be critical for EWEB to manage EV charging to avoid significant increases to peak demand as EV adoption increases.
Links and Relevant Resources:
2.5 Local Eugene Initiatives
2.5.1 Eugene Climate Recovery Ordinance (CRO) and Climate Action Plan (CAP) 2.0
Eugene’s Climate Recovery Ordinance
Community Goals:
- Reduce community fossil fuel use by 50% of 2010 levels by 2030.
- Reduce total community greenhouse gas emissions to an amount that is no more than the City of Eugene's average share of a global atmospheric greenhouse gas level of 350 ppm by 2100, which was estimated in 2016 to require an annual average emission reduction level of 7.6%.
City Operation Goals:
- All City of Eugene owned facilities and operations shall be carbon neutral by 2020, meaning no net release of greenhouse gas emissions.
- Reduce the City of Eugene's use of fossil fuels by 50% compared to 2010 usage.
Source: City of Eugene, Climate Recovery Ordinance
Eugene has a long history of climate action within both city government operations and the community. The city conducted its first Community Climate and Energy Action Plan in 2010. In 2014, City Council passed the first version of its Climate Recovery Ordinance (CRO), which was updated to its current form in 2016. The CRO includes four bold goals – two focused on the community, including residents and businesses, and two focused on city operations (see box).
To implement the CRO and determine what actions are already planning and/or underway, and what actions are still needed to reach the goals of the CRO, Eugene launched its Climate Action Plan (CAP) 2.0 process beginning in 2018. EWEB was an active participant in the CAP 2.0 development process from 2018-2019 as a large-lever shareholder. Large-lever shareholders participating in the Eugene Climate Collaborative (ECC) were deliberately defined as “organizations who have significant oversight and impact on community-wide fossil fuel use and emissions or have the ability to affect or alter systems that will enable the community to adapt and prepare for climate change.”
ECC partners include: the City of Eugene, Lane County, Bethel School District, Eugene 4J School District, Lane Community College (LCC), University of Oregon, Lane Transit District (LTD), Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB), Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC), Northwest Natural, PeaceHealth, and the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce.
CAP 2.0 was published in summer 2020 and includes many voluntary commitments within the document from Eugene Climate Collaborative partners, including 15 commitments from EWEB. Please see Appendix F for specific reporting on EWEB’s commitments in CAP2.0.
Why does this matter to EWEB?
EWEB supports the objectives of the Climate Recovery Ordinance and is committed to advancing our voluntary commitments in Eugene’s CAP 2.0, including tracking our progress through this Guidebook.
Links and Relevant Resources:
