|
Hello Friends,
Although much of the legislation that flows through this
building never raises an eyebrow, every once in a while, a bill comes up that
strikes a chord and over the last two weeks, we have received literally
hundreds of emails and phone calls regarding SB 324. Much of this response was generated by a
mailer (read hit piece) that was sent to our district misrepresenting my
position on the bill.
First of all, it’s important to understand what SB 324
does – it removes the sunset provision of the Clean Fuels Program. Sunsets are placed on bills when the
Legislature decides that they want to “test drive” an idea and then reevaluate
it several years down the line to make sure that it really worked. With this particular program, I have come to
the conclusion that the program has not worked as envisioned, and furthermore,
it impacts my district negatively. Having
been the legislator that cleared the way for the passage of the original Clean
Fuels Bill in 2009, by resolving issues surrounding the impact of the bill on
Public Utility Districts and the trucking industry, I feel uniquely positioned
to evaluate the differences between the initial efforts and where the current
legislation takes us.
Let me state from the outset that I consider reductions in
carbon pollution essential to long-run global stability…economically, socially
and environmentally. I applaud the
sponsors of SB 324 for their efforts in committing our state to its fair share
of carbon reduction. Unfortunately,
however, the proposed legislation has too many shortcomings to allow it to
become law.
For the past four years, I have been assured by proponents
of SB 324 that an effective and timely means of abating excessive fuel cost
increases caused by the legislation would be developed. Four years later, that has yet to occur, and
that raises several red flags.
First, broken commitments mean broken trust as far as I’m
concerned. I have little faith that the
program is ready for roll out, that all the necessary safeguards are in place
or that the advocates are capable of managing that which they have
created. Secondly, a demonstrated
inability to develop an effective abatement formula gives me little confidence
that the proponents are competent to administer the complex energy credits
system laid out in the bill.
This leads me to the third red flag: SB 324, also known as the “Clean Fuels Bill,”
is supposed to make more clean fuels available to consumers. This is a thoroughly admirable goal, but
here’s the rub…among our more traditional fuels, it’s already “mission
accomplished.” Try finding any
non-ethanol gasoline these days. You
can’t – just ask all the upset boaters, snowmobilers and small engine
enthusiasts around our district if there’s any unblended gasoline to be
had. And for those consumers who've
moved on to electric cars, propane or a host of non-traditional fuels, it’s
been market forces (read transportation costs) that are leading to newer and
cleaner alternatives.
With consumers unable to significantly reduce their
individual carbon footprints on the one hand, while fuels costs threaten to
rise substantially on the other, little remains of SB 324’s original
promise. What does remain is an energy
tax credit system run by the State. This
is my fourth red flag.
Although much of the legislation that flows through this
building never raises an eyebrow, every once in a while, a bill comes up that
strikes a chord and over the last two weeks, we have received literally
hundreds of emails and phone calls regarding SB 324. Much of this response was generated by a
mailer (read hit piece) that was sent to my district misrepresenting my
position on the bill.
First of all, it’s important to understand what SB 324
does – it removes the sunset provision of the Clean Fuels Program. Sunsets are placed on bills when the
Legislature decides that they want to “test drive” an idea and then reevaluate
it several years down the line to make sure that it really worked. With this particular program, I have come to
the conclusion that the program has not worked as envisioned, and furthermore,
it impacts my district negatively. Having
been the legislator that cleared the way for the passage of the original Clean
Fuels Bill in 2009, by resolving issues surrounding the impact of the bill on
Public Utility Districts and the trucking industry, I feel uniquely positioned
to evaluate the differences between the initial efforts and where the current
legislation takes us.
Let me state from the outset that I consider reductions in
carbon pollution essential to long-run global stability…economically, socially
and environmentally. I applaud the
sponsors of SB 324 for their efforts in committing our state to its fair share
of carbon reduction. Unfortunately,
however, the proposed legislation has too many shortcomings to allow it to
become law.
For the past four years, I have been assured by proponents
of SB 324 that an effective and timely means of abating excessive fuel cost
increases caused by the legislation would be developed. Four years later, that has yet to occur, and
that raises several red flags.
First, broken commitments mean broken trust as far as I’m
concerned. I have little faith that the
program is ready for roll out, that all the necessary safeguards are in place
or that the advocates are capable of managing that which they have
created. Secondly, a demonstrated
inability to develop an effective abatement formula gives me little confidence
that the proponents are competent to administer the complex energy credits
system laid out in the bill.
This leads me to the third red flag: SB 324, also known as the “Clean Fuels Bill,”
is supposed to make more clean fuels available to consumers. This is a thoroughly admirable goal, but
here’s the rub…among our more traditional fuels, it’s already “mission
accomplished.” Try finding any
non-ethanol gasoline these days. You
can’t – just ask all the upset boaters, snowmobilers and small engine
enthusiasts around our district if there’s any unblended gasoline to be
had. And for those consumers who’ve
moved on to electric cars, propane or a host of non-traditional fuels, it’s
been market forces (read transportation costs) that are leading to newer and
cleaner alternatives.
With consumers unable to significantly reduce their
individual carbon footprints on the one hand, while fuels costs threaten to
rise substantially on the other, little remains of SB 324’s original
promise. What does remain is an energy
tax credit system run by the State. This
is my fourth red flag.
The last time Oregon got involved in something remotely
similar, it was a disaster. Readers may
remember the Business Energy Tax Credit (BETC) venture of the 2000s. Initially estimated to cost Oregon taxpayers
$3 million per project, with an original sunset date of 2012, the projects and
costs spiraled out of control with final payments being made on July 1, 2014. The final costs are still being
calculated. Current accounting shows
$947 million in project credits…the most generous in the nation.
I am fully prepared to extend the sunset on the Clean
Fuels Program in order to design a program that actually works. I have invited my colleagues from both sides
of the aisle to join me in a serious effort to make this happen, however the
vote on the bill is scheduled for either this week or next. By the time you read this column you may know
whether or not my efforts were successful.
In any event, I am a “no” on SB 324 as currently written.
I appreciate all of you who have contacted my office to share your thoughts on this. Please call or email anytime 503.986.1431 and rep.bradwitt@state.or.us.
Thanks for reading my newsletter,
Representative Brad Witt
House District 31
 This week Advocates from SEIU were in the Capitol to talk about concerns of working folks from around the state. They are hoping to chip away at current inequities where people working full time have to rely on state subsidies to provide for their families. Oregonians need real opportunities and a way to get into the middle class. This session they hope to see the Legislature make paid sick days the law in Oregon and see the state administer pre-tax retirement accounts that are available to every working Oregonian.
|
 Amani Center Executive Director Cassie Miller came to the office to talk about the need for Child Abuse Intervention Centers (CAICs) and their struggle to provide services. The Amani center works in partnership with law enforcement, medical, mental health providers and human service providers to act a resource for the child and caregiver. I have proudly signed on to HB2234 to help CAICs fund their important work.
|
 |
|
I was invited to the Oregon Historical Society's vault last weekend to get a first hand look at some uniquely Oregon objects. To the left is a piece of the Willamette Meteorite, discovered near West Linn. Although known to the Clackamas tribe in the area, its modern discovery was made by settler Ellis Hughes in 1902. It is the largest meteorite found in North America and the sixth largest in the world.
Below is an image of Captain Meriwether Lewis' branding Iron that was carried by the Corps of Discovery and used to mark several locations on the journey. It was amazing to hold these pieces of our natural and human history in my hands.
|
email: Rep.BradWitt@state.or.us I phone: 503-986-1431
address: 900 Court St NE, H-374, Salem, OR, 97301
website: http://www.oregonlegislature.gov/witt
| 
