Wildfire bills get mixed reviews as a key legislative deadline looms
Lawmakers in both parties signaled Tuesday that they want the state to increase funding to fight and prevent wildfires – but they don’t want to tax beverage containers to do it. The House Committee on Climate, Energy and Environment voted Tuesday to forward to the House Revenue Committee a bill that proposes several new ways to fund wildfire suppression. That keeps the bill alive for further discussion ahead of a Wednesday deadline. The lawmakers didn’t give the bill an official yes or no when they sent it to the Revenue Committee. But several spoke against a proposed funding stream that has drawn some ire: Adding a non-refundable 5 cent charge on sales of most beverages in bottles and cans. One part of the bill proposes that charge on the sale of beverage containers. A group of three dozen people – including environmentalists, firefighters and timber representatives – charged with brainstorming wildfire funding options before the legislative session estimated the beverage tax could raise $200 million in the 2025-27 budget cycle. But proponents of Oregon’s Bottle Bill mounted opposition to the bottle and can charge, arguing it would undermine public support for the signature recycling program. For more than half a century, Oregonians have gotten their full deposit back when they redeem bottles and cans. Adding a sales tax will cause “friction,” said Devin Morales of the Oregon Beverage Recycling Cooperative.Lawmakers in both parties had their own concerns. Mark Gamba, a Democrat from Milwaukie, questioned the relationship between the Bottle Bill and wildfire funding. He wants the bottle tax proposal removed. “We have to fund wildfire. Period. Somehow,” he said. “Breaking a system we have right now, which is working really well, in order to pay for another environmental problem we have is really bad policy.” Wilsonville Democrat Courtney Neron, Salem Democrat Tom Andersen, Republican bill author Bobby Levy of Echo and Roseburg Republican Virgle Osborne also spoke against the idea.“We really should not be touching the Bottle Bill,” Osborne said. “But I’m also afraid that if we let this die we’re going to have another wildfire season with no funding.” Whether the Bottle Bill gets included in the bill is now a question for the Revenue Committee.One controversial utility bill dies, another lives to see tomorrowMeanwhile two wildfire bills from Rep. Pam Marsh, an Ashland Democrat, met different fates.Her proposal to start a multimillion-dollar wildfire fund that fire victims could tap to cover their losses died this week. House Judiciary Committee Chair Jason Kropf, a Democrat from Bend, announced Monday that the bill would not get a hearing. Marsh said the bill generated questions about which entities should pay into the fund, how much of fire victims’ costs should be repaid and how insurance companies would factor in. The bill drew written opposition from fire victims, including those irked at the idea that utility ratepayers would be asked to contribute. House Judiciary Committee members sent a second Marsh bill, which would allow utility companies that demonstrate they meet state standards for wildfire prevention to earn state safety certification, to the House Rules Committee for additional discussion. The bill would also give the Public Utility Commission authority to audit and inspect a utility’s wildfire mitigation work when deciding whether to issue that certification. That bill sparked pushback early on when some attorneys argued it could give utilities a “get out of jail free” defense to deflect legal liability if they started a fire, which Marsh disputed. Kropf, who co-sponsored the bill, emphasized Monday that the intent was to create a high standard for how utility companies should mitigate against the risk of wildfires and to ensure the companies are held to those standards. Marsh said Tuesday: “I feel good about the work that we’ve done to this point, although it’s been hard work … We’ve started to help people realize that we’ve just got to hold the utilities to a very high level of performance, we’ve got to be prepared for the fires that are inevitably coming our way – and now we probably need to broaden the circle and bring more people into the conversation.”Wildfire maps one step closer to repealThe Senate Committee on Natural Resources also voted Tuesday to advance a bill that would repeal a highly controversial wildfire risk map. In 2021, the Legislature directed the Oregon Department of Forestry and Oregon State University to develop a map to show Oregonians how much of a wildfire risk each property in high probability wildfire zone faces. The latest iteration, released in January, was also intended be used to decide where to prioritize fire mitigation efforts and which property owners would be subject to home hardening requirements.But it prompted huge pushback from rural property owners and lawmakers who interact with them.Republicans argue it is “riddled with inaccuracies” given that no one surveyed individual properties. Homeowners fear that insurance companies have used the map to change their premiums or deny coverage. Under state law, insurance companies are prohibited from using the map for that purpose, and the state’s Division of Financial Regulation argues they never have. But rural property owners have insisted they felt punitive effects from what they say is a flawed map.The Senate committee on Monday unanimously approved an amendment to Senate Bill 83 which repeals the map and related requirements. Sen. Jeff Golden told the Statesman Journal on Tuesday that while the bill gets rid of fire-hardening building requirements for homes in high wildfire risk areas, local jurisdictions could still enforce stricter fire standards. It moves to the Senate floor for a vote next. “The wildfire hazard map caused fear and uncertainty, burdening families with costly and unfair one-size-fits-all mandates,” House Minority Leader Christine Drazan, a Canby Republican, said in a news release. “With this step forward, we’re delivering the change that rural Oregon has long deserved.”Sami Edge covers higher education and politics for The Oregonian. You can reach her at sedge@oregonian.com or (503) 260-3430.Latest local politics stories
Wildfire funding plans are moving forward - but a proposal to tweak the Bottle Bill is ruffling feathers.
Lawmakers in both parties signaled Tuesday that they want the state to increase funding to fight and prevent wildfires – but they don’t want to tax beverage containers to do it.
The House Committee on Climate, Energy and Environment voted Tuesday to forward to the House Revenue Committee a bill that proposes several new ways to fund wildfire suppression.
That keeps the bill alive for further discussion ahead of a Wednesday deadline.
The lawmakers didn’t give the bill an official yes or no when they sent it to the Revenue Committee. But several spoke against a proposed funding stream that has drawn some ire: Adding a non-refundable 5 cent charge on sales of most beverages in bottles and cans.
One part of the bill proposes that charge on the sale of beverage containers. A group of three dozen people – including environmentalists, firefighters and timber representatives – charged with brainstorming wildfire funding options before the legislative session estimated the beverage tax could raise $200 million in the 2025-27 budget cycle.
But proponents of Oregon’s Bottle Bill mounted opposition to the bottle and can charge, arguing it would undermine public support for the signature recycling program.
For more than half a century, Oregonians have gotten their full deposit back when they redeem bottles and cans. Adding a sales tax will cause “friction,” said Devin Morales of the Oregon Beverage Recycling Cooperative.
Lawmakers in both parties had their own concerns.
Mark Gamba, a Democrat from Milwaukie, questioned the relationship between the Bottle Bill and wildfire funding. He wants the bottle tax proposal removed.
“We have to fund wildfire. Period. Somehow,” he said. “Breaking a system we have right now, which is working really well, in order to pay for another environmental problem we have is really bad policy.”
Wilsonville Democrat Courtney Neron, Salem Democrat Tom Andersen, Republican bill author Bobby Levy of Echo and Roseburg Republican Virgle Osborne also spoke against the idea.
“We really should not be touching the Bottle Bill,” Osborne said. “But I’m also afraid that if we let this die we’re going to have another wildfire season with no funding.”
Whether the Bottle Bill gets included in the bill is now a question for the Revenue Committee.
One controversial utility bill dies, another lives to see tomorrow
Meanwhile two wildfire bills from Rep. Pam Marsh, an Ashland Democrat, met different fates.
Her proposal to start a multimillion-dollar wildfire fund that fire victims could tap to cover their losses died this week.
House Judiciary Committee Chair Jason Kropf, a Democrat from Bend, announced Monday that the bill would not get a hearing. Marsh said the bill generated questions about which entities should pay into the fund, how much of fire victims’ costs should be repaid and how insurance companies would factor in. The bill drew written opposition from fire victims, including those irked at the idea that utility ratepayers would be asked to contribute.
House Judiciary Committee members sent a second Marsh bill, which would allow utility companies that demonstrate they meet state standards for wildfire prevention to earn state safety certification, to the House Rules Committee for additional discussion. The bill would also give the Public Utility Commission authority to audit and inspect a utility’s wildfire mitigation work when deciding whether to issue that certification.
That bill sparked pushback early on when some attorneys argued it could give utilities a “get out of jail free” defense to deflect legal liability if they started a fire, which Marsh disputed.
Kropf, who co-sponsored the bill, emphasized Monday that the intent was to create a high standard for how utility companies should mitigate against the risk of wildfires and to ensure the companies are held to those standards.
Marsh said Tuesday: “I feel good about the work that we’ve done to this point, although it’s been hard work … We’ve started to help people realize that we’ve just got to hold the utilities to a very high level of performance, we’ve got to be prepared for the fires that are inevitably coming our way – and now we probably need to broaden the circle and bring more people into the conversation.”
Wildfire maps one step closer to repeal
The Senate Committee on Natural Resources also voted Tuesday to advance a bill that would repeal a highly controversial wildfire risk map.
In 2021, the Legislature directed the Oregon Department of Forestry and Oregon State University to develop a map to show Oregonians how much of a wildfire risk each property in high probability wildfire zone faces. The latest iteration, released in January, was also intended be used to decide where to prioritize fire mitigation efforts and which property owners would be subject to home hardening requirements.
But it prompted huge pushback from rural property owners and lawmakers who interact with them.
Republicans argue it is “riddled with inaccuracies” given that no one surveyed individual properties. Homeowners fear that insurance companies have used the map to change their premiums or deny coverage. Under state law, insurance companies are prohibited from using the map for that purpose, and the state’s Division of Financial Regulation argues they never have. But rural property owners have insisted they felt punitive effects from what they say is a flawed map.
The Senate committee on Monday unanimously approved an amendment to Senate Bill 83 which repeals the map and related requirements.
Sen. Jeff Golden told the Statesman Journal on Tuesday that while the bill gets rid of fire-hardening building requirements for homes in high wildfire risk areas, local jurisdictions could still enforce stricter fire standards.
It moves to the Senate floor for a vote next.
“The wildfire hazard map caused fear and uncertainty, burdening families with costly and unfair one-size-fits-all mandates,” House Minority Leader Christine Drazan, a Canby Republican, said in a news release. “With this step forward, we’re delivering the change that rural Oregon has long deserved.”
Sami Edge covers higher education and politics for The Oregonian. You can reach her at sedge@oregonian.com or (503) 260-3430.