HB 2186 is Bad Legislation

May 22, 2009

by Darrel Purkerson, PUD Board President

I am writing in response to Representative Brad Witt's opinion piece in support of HB 2186, which addresses greenhouse gas emissions. The Consumer Owned Utilities in Columbia County have opposed this legislation and have been actively working with a coalition of utilities, farmers, unions and businesses from across the state who also oppose HB 2186 - and for good reason. It would require that medium- and heavy-duty trucks be retrofitted to be "more aerodynamic", require "lower-carbon" fuels to be used in Oregon's trucking industry, and could wreak havoc on the availability of tires for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. We are all concerned about this approach to curbing greenhouse gas emissions and have encouraged the Legislature to avoid unintended consequences for Oregonians that result from taking legislative action without using sound science or studying the resulting economic impacts.

We have recent experience with unintended consequences. Oregon's ethanol requirement, passed in 2007, required 10% ethanol in gasoline. Vehicle mileage in Oregon dropped-some manufacturers say as much as 20%. Some car and fleet owners have had to repair fuel and engine systems due to damage from ethanol use. Boat owners have to smuggle ethanol-free gas into Oregon, as ethanol becomes corrosive when it comes in contact with water.

HB 2186 calls for the use of "lower carbon" fuels. What are those fuels? How will they be better than ethanol? The bill's supporters have suggested that placing more electric vehicles on the road is one approach. While that may be practical for the metro areas, it is not practical for rural Oregon. How will HB 2186 balance the projected increased energy consumption from a fleet of electric vehicles against another climate bill, SB 80, which would require a reduction in energy consumption? These are important questions that must be answered prior to issuing mandates.

If a proven, cost-effective and appropriate way to retrofit trucks to make them more aerodynamic to save on fuel costs had been developed, wouldn't folks already be doing it? Oregon's economy is in terrible shape. We shouldn't do anything that could make our local businesses less profitable or put more jobs at risk. This is not the time to force businesses throughout Oregon to spend money they don't have.

We support Representative Debbie Boone's Amendment to this Bill. It would study prudent and rational means to move forward with greenhouse gas emission reduction. Rushing into legislation before thoroughly reviewing its impacts will cause unintended consequences, further hurting Oregonians and their businesses. The concepts in HB 2186 should be studied first, well before rules are adopted and mandates are made.

Mandating the use of unproven technologies and fuels without proper study is bad public policy. This bill should be made a "study-only" bill.