Portland Announces Carbon Tax Proposal
The City of Portland is considering implementing a Carbon Tax scheme, based on the energy efficiency of buildings in the city. City Commissioner Dan Saltzman announced the plan at a conference on green building.
From the Oregonian:
In a bold move to curb the growth of greenhouse gas emissions from the Portland area, city officials plan to charge builders hundreds of dollars for each new home that is not extremely energy efficient. And it would require, as part of every existing home sale, that an energy efficiency report be done by home inspectors.Believed to be the first of its kind in the nation, the carbon fee and inspection requirement would levy taxes upon builders who merely comply with the energy efficiency requirements of the Oregon building code, already one of the most stringent in the nation. It would then pay cash rewards to developers who make buildings that save at least 45 percent more energy than the code requires.
The plan will go before Portland residents, in hearings, in January. With passage, the carbon-fee rules would be in place by 2010.
City Commissioner Dan Saltzman announced the plan for Portland in Chicago on Tuesday night at the Greenbuild International Conference and Expo, drawing 20,000 environmentally conscious developers and building materials manufacturers from around the world. He did so at an invitation-only reception at the PDX Lounge, a showroom of sustainable products made by Oregon-based architecture firms, wood products companies and furniture designers. Mayor Tom Potter, present for the announcement, said he supports it.
"This is obviously an ambitious and potentially controversial undertaking, but with the new urgency and call to action on issues around global warming, this is the type of policy that Portland needs to be a leader," Saltzman said.
The Oregonian also offers details of the plan:
For existing homes and comercial buildings:-Upon property sale, seller must disclose results of an energy performance rating.
-Performance rating could reveal inadequate insulation and show efficiency levels of furnaces, water heaters, air conditioners, and windows.
-Home inspectors and commercial building inspectors could produce the ratings, potentially for about the same price of a home inspection.
-City would collect data for analysis of region's greenhouse gas production.For new homes, offices, retail centers and multifamily housing:
-Builders would be charged a fee if construction meets Oregon building code for energy efficiency.
-Builders could avoid fee by producing a building 30 percent more energy efficient than code requires.
-Builders could get cash back from the city for making a building at least 45 percent more efficient than code.
-City would pay for builder training in the next two years, before implementation. Then, fees would cover most implementation costs.For new offices, retail centers and multifamily housing:
-City would require buildings to be commissioned, a formal inspection of heating, cooling and other systems to ensure building operates as efficiently as designed.
Read the rest. What do you think of the plan?
Discuss.
|
Nov. 08, 2007
Posted in in the news 2007. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Nov 8, '07
This should be good. It's ignorant and counterproductive on several fronts...should play well in Portland.
12:19 p.m.
Nov 8, '07
Finally taking climate change seriously. Kudos to Saltzman. We need to be taking bold steps, and this seems to be one.
And it's smart, using economic signals and choices to drive the market. Those who want to build green get helped, those who don't want to go beyond the minimum legal requirements can pay others to build green.
Nov 8, '07
A pet peeve of mine, I was actually talking about this in Australia this summer (or was it winter? I'm so confused), calling it a "scheme" is a phenomenally bad idea, it makes it sound nefarious, like we're plotting something evil. The response I got in Australia (regarding an emissions trading scheme) was that that language had been used for a long time and it wasn't changeable at the stage of the debate that they were in. We on the other hand have control over what we call these things, and "carbon tax scheme" is a very poor language structure to use if we really want to implement carbon taxes. "Carbon tax system" or just "carbon tax" works just fine, I think its a big mistake to use the word "scheme"
Nov 8, '07
it's going to end up making building more expensive because right now it is v. v. difficult to meet the minimum standards for energy efficiency, at least for commercial buildings. mind you, i think that it is good that our state code is as agressive as it is. but penalizing those builders who are unwilling or unable to go beyond "the minimum" is going to end up - penalizing most builders. and the costs will be passed on accordingly.
and the commissioning requirement is a big fat waste of money. IME.
Nov 8, '07
Bill, mind naming one of those levels?
And Cwech, the whole phrase is terrible. "Energy efficiency credits" would be better.
Nov 8, '07
Big golf clap for the do gooders showing off their green street cred with this new tax "scheme" (nice word).
It should go down about as well as th special tax that was placed in Porland (just Portland) that drove out all of the venture capital firms. That tax ended up netting the city $0.00 in taxes as all firms left. Pure genious.
We in the suburbs will continue to sit back and laugh at the combined braintrust of PDX govt.
Nov 8, '07
Don't mind a bit James.
This kind of measure assumes that Oregonians have swallowed the "global warming is man caused and we had better do something about it because the entire terrible scenario is beyond reasonable debate" hook clear to our collective gills. Not all have.
What’s worse, not even 'most' have.
I'd grant you that Oregons leadership has…just look to the top of the page. There’s power and control to be had for the taking…money to be made. For me it is just sad that socialists have entrenched this far into my beloved home. It’s my fault for not standing up sooner.
I know the sense of urgency social engineers feel...time is of the essence if they want to get government structures in place, funding and legislation passed, and a sense of normalcy established before it becomes entirely apparent, even to the man in the street (and by casual observation), what a colossal hood wink this is.
We only have a few more below average hurricane seasons or ice caps melting on Mars type events before people will begin to wake up and see the vaudevillian production currently under way by alarmists...before people realize that “hey, this is an entirely natural evolution/cycle we appear to be going thru" and "hey, this might actually be a good thing".
Perhaps we'd be better off preparing rather than mitigating.
I rambled, sorry.
Nov 8, '07
Thank you, Bill, for clarifying that the rationale for your statement is climate change denial. Did you know that those who believe climate change should not be a serious priority for politicians represent only 8 percent of the population? And while this specific program hasn't been polled, 75 percent of Americans say they would pay more for cleaner energy. So your perception of public opinion is monumentally out of whack. Thanks for sharing your opinions, though.
Nov 8, '07
James X, If curbing greenhouse gasses is so important, why is it that only new construction and remodles are the only ones who have to comply? If this is that important, everyone in Portland should have to comply, now. And the argument that it would be too expensive shouldn't be a defense. If it's that important and as many people as you say support reduction of greenhouse gasses, this should be a priority. Don't wait to build new or remodel. If people loose their houses because they can not comply that's just too bad, perhaps the house could be sold to someone who can upgrade it.
Truely, I'm not being flip, if this is such an important issue why isn't Portland going to the line with it?
Nov 8, '07
Glad you're on board, Joanne. I'd also be in favor of using some sort of monetary deterrent/incentive to improve the scores of existing structures.
7:25 p.m.
Nov 8, '07
I'd also be in favor of using some sort of monetary deterrent/incentive to improve the scores of existing structures.
I think the Portland carbon tax policy does do something to existing structures--as I understand it, homeowners are required to get an energy audit of their homes and disclose performance at the point of sale. This will encourage sellers to updgrade the energy performance and efficiency of their home the same way people upgrade things like sewer lines today.
Nov 8, '07
Wow, only in Portland do builders get assessed a fine for building to code. WTF.
Let's see....another tax for homeowners. Great. Just what we needed.
8:04 p.m.
Nov 8, '07
I love the idea of being more energy efficient, environmentally friendly with your house, etc. I'm hope that once we have a house, we can look at doing a grey water setup where we can use non-toilet water for things like watering the flowers.
However, I have to admit I am worried about this plan. Buying a house is already quite expensive. It's the reason why we're still in an apartment as opposed to a house. It's the same reason why many people are still in apartments around the metro area. And we're always treated as second class residents because we don't own, therefore must not care about the community.
We'd be happy to get into a home, but most homes that aren't smack in the middle of an extremely high crime area, or are bigger than our apartment, cost too much. Just 2 years or so ago, I was looking at a number of houses for $130,000-160,000 that were a decent size. Now those same homes are going for $25,000-290,000.
We're already pricing all the low income and lower middle income people out of Portland. My worry is that, while a good idea, that this will be another program to do that.
Nov 8, '07
James and Leslie, the fee and credit policy targets new construction and remodels because it is far more cost-effective to upgrade energy at those points. The city is wise to us the most cost-effective avenues first to get at CO2 reductions. IN fact, many of these upgrades are actually net cost savings over time because of the reduction in energy bills. Other policy designs, like incentives for lighting retrofits, and appliance standards, help get at existing bldgs, and many more are sure to follow.
And Bill, I am certainly waiting for those ice caps to melt on Mars. That will definitely be convincing evidence that global warming is a'collossal hood wink'; between that and Santa wearing an extra scarf, without a doubt we would have a hoax here.
8:46 p.m.
Nov 8, '07
My sense is that this is too little, too late. We have past the point where anticipatory actions (like this, or like a gas or carbon tax) could have reduced our carbon usage. The market is going to take over and give us the strongest of signals, endless price increases, to reduce our carbon based energy usage. Oil has reached $100 per barrel, and gas is approaching $4.00 per gallon. China and India are consuming at ever increasing rates. Thinks what a larger war in the Middle East, like Iran, could do to oil prices. I don't see rising gas prices stopping at $4.00 gallon. We are all going to have very strong incentives ($'s) to conserve. It won't be fun.
A larger strategic vision, one I have been urging on both the Portland City Council and state legislators, is to recognize the importance of China (without illusions as to what kind of a political system they now have) to our future. We do not solve the problems of global warming, energy supplies, terrorism, and a longer list of global problems without China. We need to cultivate a long term connection to China, and that means teaching our students Mandarin and sending them to China to study. As one thinks about global warming, consider one forecast that "the Chinese market in 2040 by itself will probably be larger than the combined markets of the U.S., the EU15, India, and Japan" means for future carbon-based energy usage.
We could fight politically here in Portland over minor improvements while losing track of the larger drama playing out globally. And we might be putting our political capital on the wrong issue.
Nov 8, '07
I wish you were right that the market is going to price us out of carbon usage. But just like it wasn't the shortage of stones that ended the stone age, it won't be a shortage of carbon resources that ends the fossil fuel age. There is enough carbon in the coal, low-grade oils, and gases to probably push our atmosphere well toward a 1000-2000 ppm CO2.
I 100% agree that we need to get China on board - but it won't be by showing them how to use up all the C in the Earth's crust; it has to be by showing them an alternative - and that is what a small step, too small I agree, in Portland is doing.
Nov 8, '07
James,that my opinions are out of whack with the perceptions here please me...perceptibly; it doesn't surprise me.
Quoting abccbscnnnbc validates it not a bit. I've read the IPCC reports a little on my own. Speaking for myself, I'm capable of gleaning what I need an dhave the little training I need to understand science...this ain't it.
As I said in my original post...'social engineers' are against the wall here. Time is tight and I expect the message to become very shrill, very quickly because quite frankly unless you get on the move, it will be very embarrassing for you. There's nothing there that is man made. There's nothing there that may be man mitigated. When things change...as they surely will. You simply must have your machine in place to take credit. I uderstand all that.
I know you. I stand against you. That's all I'm saying.
oh oregonj...santa called, he has your hat.
Nov 9, '07
Bill, I was responding specifically to: "This ... assumes that Oregonians have swallowed the 'global warming is man caused and we had better do something about it ... hook ... not even 'most' have."
If by "most" you mean "greater than 92 percent of the population," I guess you're right. But I kind of think you're spectacularly wrong.
Nov 9, '07
Dave Porter is right. For all that everyone is all on about global warming, I'm much more worried about international trade and globalization. When you look at the influx of foreign products and animals into this country, we have much bigger and immediately threatening boogy men standing right outside our door.
Nov 9, '07
James, at the risk of strangling that last little bit of common sense that scrambles around here fearing for its poor life, again:
Qutoing abccbscnnnbc doesn't matter. I don't believe your source. Did Dan Rather feed it to you?
Do you understand the implication? Sure you do, but you accept it as much as I do your source.
There is no evidence that man is causing any global warming...none.
Nov 9, '07
"we're always treated as second class residents because we don't own, therefore must not care about the community."
for real? who treats you this way and what do they do? i love having a healthy mix of houses and apartments in my neighborhood.
9:18 a.m.
Nov 9, '07
petrichor:
It's an extremely common occurrence. Renters are often seen as not paying taxes and not invested in their community. I'm sure some don't care about their community, but plenty of us do. We just can't afford a house, and it's getting harder and harder to buy.
I've sat through neighborhood meetings where leaders in the community made passing comments about how they don't invite residents of apt complexes to events, meetings, etc because they don't want to participate, don't care, etc.
The comments about renters during the recent meetings about the living conditions in rental units were even worse.
When I met with people from the city about reorganizing my neighborhood association, they were excited. They said there had been to much of an anti-apartment resident attitude in the city, and it would be great to have the neighborhood with the most renter owned units per capita reorganized and participating.
We're regularly ignored on a multitude of issues and actions. We don't even get canvassed that often. With the new tool in the VAN allowing people to cut apt units off walking lists, I'm worried that might happen even more. Hopefully it won't be used much outside of areas with a high concentration with limited access buildings.
Nov 9, '07
The general thrust of this plan is very good. Global warming is real, and this plan is an important part of the overall effort to combat it. 24% of the energy we use goes towards the heating and lighting of our buildings.
Those worried about the negative economic consequences of a plan like this should remember that basic economic theory holds that a negative externality such as Global Warming should be "internalized" to address the gap between what is privately and publicly efficient. Real economists should be celebrating efforts such as this one.
Nov 9, '07
It will be fun to see where all of the penatly tax revenue goes.
Of course, we'll hear that it is going to fund a cleaner environment, but we all know better.
Thus, the environment won't be helped one bit, and a fund is created to payoff political friends whose businesses are selected to implement this terribly important environmental projects. Sounds a lot like the payoffs (err, contracts) to developers in the Pearl and SoWa.
We will just sit back and watch home values move higher in the suburbs as people flee the Peoples Republic of Lunacy.
1:52 p.m.
Nov 9, '07
Portland has a talented pool of green builders, and increasing the pace will only further push down the front-end building costs of building green. This proposal also has the potential of saving homeowners thousands of dollars in long-term operational costs, with lower energy bills and healthier living spaces for Portland families.
The city has been really aggressive in providing builders and individual homeowners the tools and information they need to build green. I have personally participated in the excellent -- and totally voluntary -- G/rated program through the Office of Sustainable Development. The information I learned there was invaluable when digging into my first project.
It's important to note that some of the most exciting green building projects happening in Portland are not higher end condos, but affordable and workforce housing in Portland neighborhoods. Providing a modest amount of money back to green builders of workforce housing is a good idea.
I appreciate the city's leadership. My understanding is that this will be revenue neutral, but will help expand our already healthy green building sector. It's not substantially different from requiring Detroit to meet minimal fuel efficiency targets, and the transactional effect is likely to save Portland families money, not drive up costs.
Nov 9, '07
hey charlie, do you have the names and info on the green building projects for affordable and workforce housing that are going on in portland? i'm involved in a similar effort here in corvallis, and we're always looking for model projects to study, learn from, &c. you can email me if you want to discuss separately.
thanks! oh, and do you know, are these projects that are undertaken by private developers, the City, non-profits, or ???
3:57 p.m.
Nov 9, '07
Trishka, email me off-line at [email protected] or give me a call after 5 p.m. at (503) 913-5407. Best, Charlie
11:04 p.m.
Nov 9, '07
Energy savings later isn't going to change how much money a bank will give you to buy a house.
I'm a pretty big advocate of the environment. However, I also worry about the ability of those at lower incomes to buy a house. It's getting harder and harder for those at the lower income levels to buy a house in the Portland area. They're getting pushed further and further to the east, which is putting a heavy load on the local cities and school districts.
What happens is we push more and more people into apartment units, which are often times the least efficient and most harmful to the environment. Appliances are the cheapest they can buy, which are the least efficient. Their water heaters are usually the cheapest and least efficient. And apartments tend to use extremely inefficient ways of heating units.
My electric bill in our apartment typically runs higher than houses that are larger and are regularly using heat/air. Not only that, but because the heating systems in apartment units are often times so inefficient (and take way too long), it encourages using fireplaces more often (which creates air pollution problems).
Nov 10, '07
Jenni,
Your concerns are valid, but I think they can be addressed if DDG's point about internalizing a "negative externality" is followed.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but, in layman's terms, I understand it to mean something like "you shouldn't sell a product cheaply, if is going to cost someone else a lot more down the road." So, fuels like gasoline, that have lots of "externalized" costs (climate change, war, costs of lobbying government officials and of paying for brand new $27 billion cities in Saudi Arabia, etc.) should cost more to the consumer than fuels (like bio-diesel made from waste veggie oil) that don't have these same costs.
In this context, I take it to mean that, inefficient building practices should be taxed to reflect their ultimate true cost. The cool thing about this is, if done right, that same money can be used to reduce the cost to the consumer of efficient building, so that they are actually cheaper than inefficient building.
A simple example would be to tax non-energy star compliant appliances, and use the money to reduce the cost of compliant ones.
The beauty is that market forces will soon take over, since sales of efficient products go up, and inefficient ones go down. This makes efficient ones more profitable to produce and market than inefficient ones, making them cheaper still, etc.
You're right that, now, lower-income folks are often stuck making energy-inefficient choices, because they can't afford otherwise. On a global scale, that's where China and India get off telling the rich countries "you fix your own mess, then we'll talk," burning all the oil and coal they can find in the mean time.
But, at least locally, we do have the power to skew things in a direction that will make it easier for people to make the choices that, in the long run, will be the most cost-effective for everyone.
I do agree, however, that we need this on a regional or state-wide level, or else you'll just have cheaper, less-efficient housing in Beaverton and Gresham. The same is true for PDX's bio-diesel law. It is great that all diesel sold in Portland is B5, but think of how much more demand we could create (and how much carbon emissions could be reduced) in the entire metro are or state sold B5? Do we really have to go around and lobby each and every city council? I'm too old for that!
Nov 10, '07
It took many centuries for belief in a flat earth to yield to the facts. Unfortunately, we do not have centuries to mitigate what will likely be a global warming disaster.
The arguments for discounting human caused global warming become more preposterous all the time. they are based on poor interpretation, dubious data, and faulty reasoning.
Act, Portland. Act fast.
Nov 10, '07
It took many centuries for belief in a flat earth to yield to the facts. Unfortunately, we do not have centuries to mitigate what will likely be a global warming disaster.
The arguments for discounting human caused global warming become more preposterous all the time. they are based on poor interpretation, dubious data, and faulty reasoning.
Act, Portland. Act fast.
yeah yeah...John Coleman is a dunce too.
"It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus. "
Doesn't carry near as much weight as Hollwywood or algore or your talking head at abccbsnbccnn...now there's some serious weight.
Any idea becomes mainstream, even when it's a lie...if you only hear one side....ask Goebbels. The vaunted computer model does not even account....does not account for insolation. Th leagest heat source in our solar system is not considered...the source of all energy on our planet is not considered in the "man made global warming" model.
Have you seen the code? Do you know anyone who has seen the code? Didn't think so.
This is poor poor "science"...ready made for the socialist mindset. You couldn't ask for a better fit. The clueless will forge ahead ignoring the truth but not to worry...it will out and you'll have to look for another sandbox to play in. Grown ups need to run the government, not children.
10:22 a.m.
Nov 11, '07
Energy savings later isn't going to change how much money a bank will give you to buy a house.
Jenni, if you have $200,000 and you are looking in the Portland market, chances are an existing home is going to best fit your budget. That's not a bad thing: a lot of the homes that are 80 to 100 years old -- besides having charm and attention to detail -- are built for the way people live, and have little wasted space like you see in so many suburban "great rooms." Basically, everything you need and nothing you don't. That's what Libby and I have, and we couldn't be happier.
But for existing homes, the green building proposal will do nothing to affect home prices one way or the other. What it will do is provide consumers better information before they make the biggest investment most families have.
For new workforce homes that are green -- and already there are entire neighborhoods of affordable green housing coming online -- this will lower the price (marginally) for consumers. For Portland's larger market, it will further drive down costs of going green.
Two of the most important issues facing Portland in the next 20 years are how we keep families from being priced out of town, and how we build better, greener homes that save energy and money for Portland families. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
Like I wrote before, there's already great green building happening here in town. If there wasn't a critical mass of forward-thinking green builders, this proposal would be a lot harder. But I think Portland's homebuilders, even some initially uncomfortable with this requirement, are up to the challenge.
Nov 11, '07
bill,
There's no sense arguing science with you. Let's look at this politically. The kind of widespread conspiracy you posit to pull the global warming wool over the public's eyes would only be possible if backed by dominant economic forces who could pay-off scientists, politicians, and bureaucrats; and pay for PR, think-tanks, and media shills. But the interested dominant economic forces are opposed to taking the issue of global warming seriously. That is why the US Senate voted close to unanimously to reject the Kyoto Protocols. That is why Republican administrations have carefully done nothing whatsoever to combat the problem. The petroleum and coal lobbies are crushingly powerful, and they play hardball. To suggest that a bunch of wacko environmentalists have been able to force acceptance of a phony scientific consensus under these circumstances strains credulity to the breaking point.
You sound like a wacko conspiracy theorist.
Nov 11, '07
bill,
There's no sense arguing science with you. Let's look at this politically. The kind of widespread conspiracy you posit to pull the global warming wool over the public's eyes would only be possible if backed by dominant economic forces who could pay-off scientists, politicians, and bureaucrats; and pay for PR, think-tanks, and media shills. But the interested dominant economic forces are opposed to taking the issue of global warming seriously. That is why the US Senate voted close to unanimously to reject the Kyoto Protocols. That is why Republican administrations have carefully done nothing whatsoever to combat the problem. The petroleum and coal lobbies are crushingly powerful, and they play hardball. To suggest that a bunch of wacko environmentalists have been able to force acceptance of a phony scientific consensus under these circumstances strains credulity to the breaking point.
You sound like a wacko conspiracy theorist.
Hey come on Tom...you concede there's no arguing the science with me...then turn around and ask me to believe you anyway? This hoax is entirely about science....and there ain't aany there. Read the IPCC reports yourself if you think there is.
I may be wacko...just not as wacko as you apparently.
Nov 12, '07
from Wikipedia:
"With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no scientific bodies of national or international standing are known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate."
Is this apparent consensus the result of physical coercion by environmentalists, scientists who like to play practical jokes, or the influence of drugs put in our water by communists?
<h2>Or perhaps GW deniers are silly people with an empty argument.</h2>