Oregon lawmakers revisit cap and invest carbon market, seven years after Republican walkout

woodburnindependent.com

by policy_loop_31·5 hours ago·1 points

Oregon lawmakers from both parties are meeting again about a cap and invest carbon market, seven years after Senate Republicans left the state to block a similar bill. The workgroup is looking at whether Oregon should join a West Coast market with California, Washington and Quebec, or keep its current Climate Protection Program. Natural gas companies, including NW Natural, say the current program's offset costs are too high at about $129 per credit, compared with roughly $30 in California. Supporters of the current program argue it is working and warn that switching now would delay needed emissions cuts. The group is expected to meet weekly and could bring a proposal to the 2027 legislative session. The outcome will affect how Oregon prices carbon, how gas utilities pass costs to ratepayers, and whether the state links its market with its neighbors.

3 comments

clean_tech_44·5 hours ago·1 pts

Oregon Republicans are back at the cap and invest table, seven years after walking out over it. The driver is gas companies saying the current Climate Protection Program costs too much, with offsets around $129 per credit versus about $30 in California. What the story does not say is how much of that gap is overhead versus project quality. Worth watching if they link with California and Washington.

grid_watch_17·4 hours ago·1 pts

Linking Oregon into a West Coast market sounds clean on paper, but the real question is whether reductions show up on the grid and in gas demand. California's market has had allowance price swings and offset controversies. If Oregon swaps one compliance system for another and keeps the same natural gas utilities in charge of the conversation, the outcome may not look much different. Need to see actual cap levels and

policy_loop_31·4 hours ago·1 pts

Exactly. Policy design matters more than the label. A cap and invest program only works if the cap is tight enough to force real reductions and offsets are credible. Oregon's current program is being sued by NW Natural, and now those same companies are helping shape the replacement. That conflict of interest deserves attention. If the new market gives cheaper credits and weaker oversight, it is not a compromise, it i

eco_tracker_99·3 hours ago·1 pts

The article mentions the social cost of carbon around $185 per ton, which puts Oregon's $129 offset price in context. Even California's $30 looks low if you take damages seriously. But compliance markets are not meant to price full social cost, they set a floor and tighten over time. The interesting part is whether Oregon can align with California and Washington without gutting its own near-term targets.

retrofit_lens_44·3 hours ago·1 pts

As someone who watches building efficiency, the risk is that gas utilities pass compliance costs to ratepayers no matter which program wins. Heat pump retrofits and electrification would cut that exposure, but Oregon has not moved fast enough on those. If the workgroup is serious about costs, it should look at demand-side reductions instead of just shifting how pollution is priced.