Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Oregon Fossil Fuel Expansion Ban Initiative (2016)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Fossil Fuel Expansion Ban Initiative
Flag of Oregon.png
TypeStatute
OriginCitizens
TopicEnergy
StatusNot on the ballot


Not on Ballot
Proposed ballot measures that were not on a ballot
This measure was not put
on an election ballot

An Oregon Fossil Fuel Expansion Ban Initiative (Petition #1) did not make the November 8, 2016 ballot in Oregon as an initiated state statute. The measure, upon voter approval, would have banned the expansion of infrastructure related to fossil fuel extraction, processing, shipment, transportation or distribution in Oregon.[1]

The intent of the initiative, according to sponsors, was to combat climate change by stemming the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Supporters labeled the initiative The Clean Economy Initiative.[1]

Background

The ballot measure would have been a compromise deal among Pacific Power, PGE and other environmental groups. The negotiated package was in the state legislature as HB 4036. Renew Oregon had plans to seek the ballot in November if the legislature failed to act on the bill.[2]

Support

  • Pacific Power[2]

Arguments in favor

Rick Link, director of origination at Pacific Power, said,[2]

Even in an era of historically low natural gas prices, our analysis shows that renewable generation is the less expensive option and that additional renewable resources can be added while maintaining grid reliability.[3]

Opposition

  • Industrial Customers of Northwest Utilities[2]

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Oregon

A petition for the initiative was submitted to the Oregon Secretary of State by Katheryn Crane, Katie Mattenberger and Matthew Sanchez on August 2, 2013. Proponents needed to collect 1,000 signatures to get the secretary of state's office to draft a ballot title.[4]

A total of 88,184 valid signatures were required in order for the issue to land on the 2016 ballot, but no signatures were submitted.[5]

See also

Footnotes