With less than three weeks left in the 35-day Legislative Session, the complexities of politics and process are growing, causing tension to heighten for lawmakers, lobbyists, and Oregonians.

At the epicenter of the conflict is the debate on cap and trade. Three bills were unveiled prior to the start of the Legislative Session: SB 1530, HB 4159, and, SB 1574. All of which made it through the first three chamber deadlines. A fourth bill, HB 4167 was introduced Tuesday, by House Speaker Tina Kotek (D-Portland). Other carbon bills introduced include: HB 4066, HB 4151, and SB 1504.

Chamber Deadlines

Chamber deadlines set clear dates for bills to be scheduled for work sessions and to be moved from a policy committee in their respective chambers, in effect, setting an expiration date for bills that do not have political muster to move. The caveat is the deadline does not apply to non-policy committees- such as ways and means, or House or Senate rules or revenue committees. 

Each of the three original cap and trade bills made it through the deadline, and are now in different deadline-exempt committees to allow for nimble actions by the Legislature. The newest bill, HB 4167 was immediately sent to a deadline-exempt committee, the House committee on rules, a common practice for bills introduced post-deadline.

The Bills and the Process

Regardless of which bill was moved, if a bill were to move in the cap and trade discussion, it would need funding applied in order to be implemented. Each of the four bills being considered have or had subsequent referrals to ways and means for funding allocations.

The Primary Bill: SB 1530

After several hearings accompanied by emotional rallies on either side of the issue, SB 1530, the primary vehicle for cap and trade quickly passed out the senate committee on environment and natural resources, and cleared the ways and means subcommittee on natural resources on February 19. 

The subcommittee attached funding to the program through the -A59 amendment. The funding package was passed on a party-line vote. 

During the subcommittee, Representative Cederic Hayden (R-Roseburg) moved for adoption of the -A52 amendment, which would remove the emergency clause in the bill. The motion failed on a party-line vote. 

Representative Vikki Breese-Iverson (R-Prineville) then moved to adopt the -A43 amendment, which would refer the bill to the people. The motion also failed on a party-line vote. 

Rigorous debate ensued during the subcommittee’s hearing and work session. Prior to the vote, Breese-Iverson commented on the rushed-nature of the short session, “I don’t think we’ve had time to get detailed analysis on how it will impact the residents in our state. I don’t think we’re getting accurate numbers on the potential impacts because professional staff haven’t had enough time to do the proper analysis. We need that information to do our jobs and make educated choices on policy that does impact our districts.”

Representative Paul Holvey (D-Eugene), clarified his support of the bill prior to the vote, “I am supporting this measure, largely because I am convinced that lack of action will cost the state of Oregon, the people of Oregon a lot more going forward in terms of economy and dollars and revenues to this state and services. We are not in a position to mitigate the impacts that are coming at us now and this system will help us get there.”

SB 1530 now heads to the full committee on ways and means, and is scheduled for a special meeting Monday, February 24.

Questions remain on when SB 1530 will be up for a vote in ways and means, and whether or not key lawmakers will be replaced on the committee to ensure an affirmative vote on the measure.

SB 1574, HB 4159, HB 4167

The remaining bills are positioned in different committees to allow for additional action and discussion. 

SB 1574, the governor’s bill, was moved to the Senate committee on rules and has no hearings scheduled. 

HB 4159 and HB 4167, both sponsored by the speaker, were moved to the House committee on rules. HB 4167 was scheduled for a hearing February 20. The bill was introduced to model the amended version of SB 1530 and allow for more discussion on the overall concept in the House.

Walkout

The procedural tactic of “walking” or denying quorum was utilized in the 2019 Legislative Session, and has remained a threat amid cap and trade discussions. 

Senator Fred Girod (R-Stayton) signaled a walkout by one or some of the Senate Republicans may be eminent. In the ways and means natural resources subcommittee meeting Wednesday, Girod stated in opposition to SB 1530, “this is the most devastating thing I’ve ever seen for my district, and I was criticized for being one of those people that walked, and I feel like we have no choice.” He further exclaimed, “if that’s the only choice that’s left to us, then that’s what we’ll probably end up doing.”

Denial of quorum would block not only cap and trade legislation from passing the chamber’s floor, but all legislation, including budget modifications, funding requests, or policy tweaks.

Democrats control 18 seats in the Senate and 38 seats in the House, both chambers require at least two Republicans be present to achieve the two-thirds quorum necessary to conduct business. 

House Republicans have already staged their first walkout. House Republican Leader Christine Drazan (R-Canby) pointed to the pace of the Session as the reason stating, “we’re committed to ensuring that Oregonians have full access to the process…and slowing the pace down in that building is the best way to make sure that happens.”

But walkouts do not come without consequence, Speaker Kotek, in response to the slow-down, removed Representative Greg Smith (R-Heppner) from his post as the co-chair to the ways and means subcommittee on general government replacing him with Representative Pam Marsh (D-Ashland). “Being a chair comes with an extra set of responsibilities and expectations,” Kotek said in a statement. “Not only did Rep. Smith not come to work tonight, he didn’t submit an excuse for his absence.”

Next Steps

The Legislature is engaging in a push and pull of policy work, attempting to clear bills of the next hurdle before the final deadline on February 25. With the delicate nature of the cap and trade discussion, leadership appears to be slowing the movement of the cap and trade bills slow to ensure other key policy bills can be moved successfully through the legislative process.

How long they will hold the bills, or if they will pass cap and trade is still in question.

Contributed by: Megan Chuinard | Public Affairs Associate