Latest news with #Oregonians'
Yahoo
10-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Oregon senators kill proposal to make fossil fuels industry pay for climate-change driven disasters
Oregon is likely to experience more intense periods of drought, heavy rain and other major weather events and natural disasters as a result of climate change and more than a century of burning fossil fuels. A bill that would have required fossil fuels companies to pay into a fund to help respond to such disasters and to help Oregonians adapt to climate change was killed in the state Legislature. (Photo courtesy of the Oregon Department of Transportation) A bill that would have required fossil fuel companies doing business in Oregon to pay for the downstream and multigenerational costs of their climate pollution will not move forward. The Senate Committee on Energy and Environment Wednesday decided not to take a vote and advance Senate Bill 1187, the Make Polluters Pay Act, effectively letting the bill die in the committee. Sen. Janeen Sollman, D-Hillsboro, chair of the committee, told her colleagues there was not enough time to dedicate to any fixes the bill might need. The bill had its first public hearing Monday. 'Good legislation requires adequate time and attention from our staff, from agencies and advocates, to ensure that it achieves its intended goals,' Sollman said. 'I will continue to work in an open and inclusive way with anyone who wants to help protect Oregon's climate. And I look forward to having those urgent conversations.' The bill, sponsored by Sen. Khanh Pham, D-Portland, who is also a member of the committee, would have created a 'climate superfund' seeded with millions of dollars in damages from the handful of companies most responsible for emitting planet-warming greenhouse gasses causing catastrophic climate change. These include companies like Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and about 50 other oil, gas, coal and cement producers that are directly linked to 80% of the world's global greenhouse gas emissions during the past decade alone. Since 2020, wildfires, drought, heat waves and winter storms exacerbated by a warming planet have directly and indirectly killed hundreds of Oregonians and cost the state more than $5 billion, according to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Pham told her fellow committee members she was 'deeply disappointed' they would not take a vote and that she would continue advocating for the bill in the future. 'We've known climate change would lead to these catastrophic disasters since at least 1981,' she said. 'We have had 45 years to take action. And frankly, I think further delay in finding a way to help fund Oregonians' recovery and resilience building, and holding the fossil fuel industry accountable, is an insult to the people who have died, and the Oregonians who are paying to rebuild their lives and their communities out of their own pocket.' Thirty percent of the climate superfund dollars would have been set aside for the Oregon State Fire Marshal's Office to be used specifically for wildfire prevention and response across the state, and 40% of funds would have been directed to disadvantaged communities bearing disproportionate climate impacts from greenhouse gas pollution. It was modeled on similar legislation passed in Vermont and New York in 2024. California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Virginia are considering similar proposals in their own legislatures. At the bill's first hearing Monday, lawmakers heard from dozens of young Oregonians, as well as seniors from the volunteer advocacy group Third Act, who threw their support behind the bill. So many people showed up to testify that a second hearing room had to be opened up for the overflow. Just two people opposed the bill in person at the Monday hearing: Sharla Moffett, a lobbyist for Oregon Business and Industry, and Rocky Dallum, a lobbyist for the Northwest Pulp and Paper Association, an industry group representing pulp and paper mills across Oregon, Washington and Idaho. Moffett said the bill was 'sweeping' and 'impractical' and that she and others were not given enough time to weigh in on it. Dallum said the state's Climate Protection Program, which puts a declining cap on emissions from polluters over the next 25 years already offers an avenue for polluters to pay into climate adaptation and response, via the Community Climate Investments part of the program. Those investments are essentially carbon credits companies can buy to offset some of their greenhouse gas pollution, and the money is funneled to projects that reduce emissions. Study after study has shown that putting a price tag on each metric ton of carbon dioxide a company emits, such as a fine or tax, works at reducing emissions. Modeling from the MIT En-ROADS climate-solution simulator shows it is the single most effective policy decision any government could make to accelerate decarbonization and curb the worst effects of climate change by the end of the century. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
05-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Oregon, Washington sue Trump administration for ‘nonsense' election executive order
PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) – The states of Oregon and Washington filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration on Friday, challenging a late-March that would reshape elections across the United States. The executive order has several provisions, including requirements for voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship before they can register for federal elections and would only accept mail-in ballots that are received by Election Day – while 18 states including Oregon and Washington accept ballots as long as they are postmarked by Election Day. In their — filed in the U.S. District Court in the Western District of Washington at Seattle — Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield and Washington Attorney General Nick Brown argue that the order attacks election integrity and say Trump overstepped his presidential authority. DON'T MISS: Trump executive order will make Oregon elections 'less safe,' Secretary of State says 'President Trump's executive order is nothing more than a blatant attempt to rig the system and suppress votes,' Attorney General Rayfield said. 'He's trying to make it harder for people to vote. It's a direct assault on the Constitution and a brazen attempt to act like a king, dictating how states should run their elections. No president, no matter how hungry, gets to strip away our right to run our own voting system in Oregon or any other state.' The attorneys general argue that Trump's executive order will make it more difficult for eligible voters to cast their ballot, citing a 2023 Brennan Center report finding 9% of eligible voters in the U.S. do not have easy access to documents proving their citizenship. Rayfield and Brown added that the order will erode public trust in elections and will make it more expensive for states to administer elections—noting the order's 'confusing language' about the requirements to prove citizenship make it so any state voting system could be de-certified by the federal government. Close Thanks for signing up! Watch for us in your inbox. Subscribe Now Backing their case, Rayfield and Brown point to the Constitution's Elections clause, which allows states to run their own elections — with exceptions for actions by Congress — and argue Trump's order also violates the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act by 'unfairly making it harder to vote.' 'Oregon citizens have the right to hold their politicians accountable at the ballot box. It is our responsibility as a state to defend that right and run secure, fair elections,' Oregon Secretary of State Tobias Read said. 'The Trump Administration does not have the power to take away Oregonians' rights to vote and the funding we need to run secure elections. This Executive Order is nonsense. It's illegal. And, it will not stand.' In court, the attorneys general are seeking a declaration that some provisions in the order are unconstitutional and hope to prevent the federal government from implementing it. VIDEO: Homeowner records man threatening to deport roof workers, gets punched 'American democracy has given agency to the oppressed, hope to the weary, and belief that our society can work for everyone,' Washington Attorney General Brown said. 'These truths appeal to most people, but not to a bully and an authoritarian. Donald Trump fears what he can't control. He only feels safe when he has our rights under his thumb.' In a statement on Friday, Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs said, 'As our state's chief elections officer, I will not support measures that suppress Washington's voters under the guise of security, especially when other measures being taken by this administration leave our systems more vulnerable to real threats from foreign adversaries. This executive order is the latest in a troubling pattern of federal actions that conflict with state authority, create confusion around how elections are run, and make it harder for eligible Americans to vote — all while doing nothing meaningful to strengthen the security of our elections.' 'In Washington, we know what works. Requiring all ballots to be received by Election Day for federal races would have rejected more than 300,000 ballots in 2024 alone, disproportionately impacting rural and underserved communities. Similarly, mandating documentary proof of citizenship in order to register to vote would disenfranchise eligible voters – especially seniors, low-income individuals, and naturalized citizens – who may not have easy access to passports or other acceptable, but potentially costly, documents,' Hobbs furthered. Oregon Department of Education ends math, literacy programs after federal funding cuts While signing the executive order, Trump – who falsely blames his 2020 election loss on widespread voter fraud – said, 'There are other steps that we will be taking in the coming weeks, and we think we'll be able to end up getting fair elections,' as reported by The New York Times. Trump further claimed, 'This country is so sick because of the election, the fake elections and the bad elections, and we're going to straighten it out one way or the other.' Amid these claims of widespread voter fraud, the attorneys general point to an analysis by The Associated Press of the six battleground states that former President Biden won during the 2020 election. AP found a total of 475 potentially fraudulent votes, which would not have swayed the outcome of the election as Biden won those stated by a combined 311,257 votes. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
03-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Gov. Tina Kotek appears to have a clear path through next election
Gov. Tina Kotek claims victory in 2022. Columnist Randy Stapilus predicts Kotek has a straightforward path to reelection given current political conditions. (Photo by Jordan Gale/Oregon Capital Chronicle) Candidate filing for Oregon state offices won't begin until Sept. 11, but low-level rumbles have circulated for months about a prospectively competitive race for governor and that Democratic incumbent Tina Kotek is politically vulnerable. The idea is exaggerated. While conditions may change, the reality now is that she's strongly positioned for reelection next year to a second term. Some context is needed here. Public officials all over, from presidents down to the local level, have seen trust and popularity fall hard in recent years, but rates of reelection to offices high and low have not much dropped. In Oregon, this is an old story. It's true that Kotek's popularity has been low even by national standards. An August 2024 Morning Consult poll rated her (along with Rhode Island Gov. Dan McKee) as one of the two least popular governors in the nation, a finding in line with other surveys. A poll conducted in mid-March from DHM Research of the (Democratic-leaning) Portland metro area showed Kotek with a 42% favorable and 40% unfavorable rating, not a drastic change from earlier polls, and traditionally not a good place for a candidate for major office. Some of this may come from headlines over staff turnover or frustration in completing some key priorities. You also could say there was nothing unusual about this. In 2022, a FiveThirtyEight analysis ranked then-Gov. Kate Brown second from the bottom. Beaver State governors have experienced low levels of popularity for decades. The arrival of the Trump administration does, however, seem to have improved Oregonians' take on Kotek: For many voters in this blue state, after watching high-speed chaotic news out of D.C., impressions of Oregon and Portland are looking better. Skeptics also could point out that Kotek's win in 2022 was slender, with a margin of only 3.4% and well short of an outright majority. Such has been the grist for talk of a difficult Kotek re-election effort (which, of course, doesn't formally exist yet and won't for months at least, assuming she does run again). She's still the odds-on favorite. Why? You could look at the track record of Oregon governors running for reelection, few of whom have lost. The last was Democrat Robert Straub in 1978, and before that Democrat Robert Holmes in 1958. (Both faced politically strong Republican challengers, Vic Atiyeh and Mark Hatfield, respectively.) Incumbent statewide office holders in Oregon rarely lose reelection. But more than that, consider the prospects for the two elections between now and a second Kotek term. The Democratic primary is set for May 2026, and Kotek seems well-positioned for it. In 2022, she defeated Tobias Read, now secretary of state and then state treasurer, who has won three other recent statewide elections by strong margins. Kotek won in considerable part with the help of core organizational elements of the Oregon Democratic Party, including labor, environmental and other groups. There's been no indication she's lost any significant support from those groups since, and no reason to think her fundraising won't be at least adequate. Nor is there any clear evidence — though we're still early in the cycle — of a credible challenger. Read, settling in for a first term as secretary of state, would be unlikely to run, and the new Oregon attorney general and treasurer would be improbable contenders as well. None would be well positioned for it in 2026, even if they were strongly motivated to take on Kotek, which they may not be. So who in the Democratic Party would be positioned to take on an incumbent governor who has solid support from the party structure? No one, really. At the moment she seems likely to draw no more than minor in-party opposition. The general election picture looks even clearer. Republicans in 2022 made a serious effort to nominate a relatively broadly acceptable candidate, Christine Drazan (a former legislator now back in the legislature). They fell short, albeit not by a lot. Who is the Republican who could win a Republican primary and run much more powerfully than Drazan did? No names come to mind. In 2026, Oregon voters are likely to be more ramped up than they were then — against Republican President Donald Trump. Oregon Democrats may be notably motivated to cast their ballots, and in a straight party matchup, in this decade, the Democrat is likely to win. How does someone other than Kotek manage to win both primary (in either party) and general election for governor? Not easily, that's for sure. Again, conditions can change. But the path ahead for Oregon's top office seems clear for now. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
02-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
State updates hazardous substances list to include harmful forever chemicals, begins rulemaking
Firefighting foam 'unintentionally released' in an aircraft hangar at Travis Air Force Base in California on Sept. 24, 2013. Firefighting foam contains PFAS or "forever chemicals" that have gotten into the environment and groundwater. Oregon and other states are required to test for the contaminants during the next two years under guidance from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (Ken Wright/U.S. Air Force) Oregon's list of regulated hazardous substances is getting its first update in nearly two decades with the addition of six 'forever chemicals' known to harm human health. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality on Tuesday announced it would add six perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, to the state's list of more than 800 regulated contaminants and begin creating regulations to limit Oregonians' exposure to them. 'We need this rulemaking to hold parties responsible for contamination and to address that contamination,' said Sarah Van Glubt, a manager in DEQ's environmental cleanup program who is leading the rulemaking. 'Otherwise, right now, everything is voluntary. We can't require parties to test and treat for these chemicals.'. The Environmental Quality Commission is expected to vote on adding the chemicals to the state's list and adopting new regulations on or after May 21. Email comments to: PFAS2025@ Join a public hearing on April 22 at 11 a.m. here or 6 p.m. here PFAS are human-made chemical chains used in products such as flame retardants, nonstick cookware and waterproof clothing that do not break down or go away naturally but instead have for decades leached into rivers and streams and contaminated soil, water and even air. They are thought to now be in the blood of everyone in the U.S., according to research and testing from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and can lead to increased risks for cancers, heart damage, high cholesterol and birth defects, among other adverse health effects. Suspected sources of past or ongoing PFAS pollution in Oregon include 139 commercial airports that are or were required to maintain PFAS-containing firefighting foam on site, as well as 18 municipal fire training facilities near 20 of the most populous cities in the state, according to rulemaking documents from DEQ. Officials at Portland International Airport began testing for PFAS in 2017 in and around a firefighter training ground there used by the Air National Guard. They identified PFAS contamination adjacent to the nearby Columbia Slough and found PFAS-impaired fish and aquatic species. They've since switched to using PFAS-free firefighting foam and have begun initial stages of cleanup. Oregon lawmakers are considering a bill — Senate Bill 91 — that would ban PFAS from firefighting foam used on the ground by firefighters. The Oregon Senate voted to pass the bill nearly unanimously in February, but a vote in the House has not yet been scheduled. Other sites to potentially test for PFAS contamination include 22 bulk fuel facilities and 93 metal plating facilities in Oregon. In 2024, the U.S. Envionmental Protection Agency added several PFAS to the federal list of regulated hazardous substances, and mandated states begin testing for them in drinking water systems. The Oregon Health Authority has identified PFAS in 35 Oregon public drinking water systems, with 24 of those exceeding the EPA's new drinking water standards for the compounds. The state has until April 2026 to adopt the federal agency's new PFAS standards and public water systems have until April 2029 to comply with those standards. DEQ's new regulations would apply to PFAS pollution in rivers, lakes, soil and groundwater but would not address potential contamination released through the air, such as when biosolids and sewage sludge containing PFAS are burned, releasing PFAS into the air, or potential PFAS contamination from those biosolids being spread on farm fields as fertilizer. Biosolids filtered from Portland's sewer and wastewater get heated and dried out in anaerobic digestors and sent to farms in eastern Oregon as fertilizer. The department doesn't test those biosolids, which likely contain PFAS. Department spokesman Antony Sparrow said the EPA is developing a risk assessment for sewage sludge that will inform future state regulations. Van Glubt said the department is working on a strategic plan that would combine the work of DEQ's air, water, biosolids and other teams, as well as work being done at other agencies, to deal with ongoing PFAS issues. 'This rule making really is just addressing one piece of the puzzle,' she said. 'There are other issues at play with PFAS that will need to be addressed.'. Oregon's hazardous substances list was last updated in 2006, when environmental regulators added methane to the list. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
20-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The weighted vote — or veto
Pronghorn antelope roam near Rome in eastern Oregon. Two proposed constitutional amendments before the Legislature would give rural residents more power to determine which initiatives make the ballot. (Photo by Laura Tesler/Oregon Capital Chronicle) The premise behind two constitutional amendments proposed by Republican lawmakers is that it's too easy to place an initiative on the ballot in Oregon. Buried inside that premise is that idea that some Oregonians' clout in the initiative process should count more than for others. Both House Joint Resolution 3 and HJR 11 aim to change the number of petition signatures needed for initiative backers to win a spot on the ballot. Now, Oregonians who want to pass laws at the ballot need to gather valid signatures from 6% of the total number of votes cast for governor during the last gubernatorial election — just more than 88,000 signatures. The threshold for citizen-initiated constitutional amendments is higher at 8%, or nearly 118,000 signatures. HJR 11 would raise the initiative requirement from 6% to 8% — increasing the requirement by a third — and require the signatures be 'divided equally' among Oregon's six congressional districts. For citizen-proposed constitutional amendments, the requirement would rise from 8% to 10%. HJR 3 would require initiative backers to collect signatures from 6% of voters in each of Oregon's 36 counties — an even more difficult mark to reach in a politically polarized state. A March 10 hearing on both measures showed widespread opposition and, at the Legislature at least, limited support. HJR 11 drew 104 testimony submissions, with just 24 in support (and two neutral). For HJR 3, 78 witnesses submitted testimony — all in opposition. The level of criticism shouldn't surprise, given Oregon's historical background with ballot issues. Oregon was one of the first states to adopt the idea of developing legislation or constitution changes directly to the public. Throughout the state's history, voters have decided 881 ballot issues (almost a quarter of them related to taxes), but reaching the ballot has been no guarantor of passage. Fewer than half (411) of the measures won voter approval, which has evidently given no one a slam dunk at the polls. The argument that it's too easy to place an issue on the ballot might have some currency if the number of initiatives on the ballot has been exploding. But it hasn't: In fact, the number continues to fall. After a large number of initiatives presented shortly after the method was started, the number of initiatives slumped in the mid-20th century, then grew in its latter third, to 92 ballot issues in the 1970s, 73 in the 1980s and 105 in the 1990s. Then, in this century, the number has fallen steadily, from 86 in the 2000s, to 39 in the 2010s and just 13 so far in this decade. Besides that, significant numbers of ballot issue campaigns fall short of the ballot qualification even under current rules. The stronger support for these new resolutions — at least to judge from the amount of supportive testimony received — seems not to be for raising the overall petition signature level, but rather ensuring that every county provides significant support for it. Sen. Todd Nash, R-Enterprise, argued for example: 'This should be more representative from all of Oregon to gather those signatures. Right now, we're not seeing that shape up that way. It's coming from one concentrated area.' Eastern Oregon rancher Katie Baltzor said many ballot initiatives, 'are crafted by extreme groups that have a specific agenda that would be harmful to specific livelihoods, such as ours. Many conservative and moderate Eastern Oregonians feel they do not have a voice in the legislative or initiative process. It is too easy for these groups to gather all the signatures they need for a ballot initiative by going to a highly populated area.' Some of this ties into the Greater Idaho protest, or the idea that eastern Oregonians aren't being adequately heard in Salem — and there's a good argument that they sometimes aren't. In Idaho, because of legislative action, rural votes do count more because of per-county signature requirements, which have reduced the number of initiatives that hit the ballot. That, of course, has come at the expense of urban and suburban dwellers. The core problem the Oregon initiative limitation backers have is simply the large number of people in the more urban and suburban areas, mostly in the Willamette Valley: They're outvoted. The only way around that is to weigh some votes (or petition signatures) more heavily than others. Dan Meek of the Independent Party of Oregon offered an analogy: 'If HJR 11 is a good idea, then let's apply it to votes in the Oregon Legislature: In order to pass, a bill must be approved by members of the Legislature representing every CD. If the 10 state representatives and 5 state senators who represent districts within any of the 6 CDs do not provide majority votes in favor of a bill, then the bill fails. Thus, representatives and senators within each CD get to veto every bill. That is equivalent to the system proposed by HJR 11.' People cast votes, and make other decisions in state politics. Land acreage doesn't. Most likely, the Oregon Legislature will factor in those directions when it comes to these two resolutions. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
