The landscape for climate funding has turned bleak since President Trump returned to office. But Portland’s dedicated clean energy fund has stood out as a remaining source of income for emissions reduction efforts—and other communities have taken note.
The Portland Clean Energy Community Benefits Fund (PCEF) was adopted by voters in 2018 to create a revenue stream for local climate justice and emissions reductions projects. PCEF, which is funded through a 1 percent surcharge on local sales at big businesses, has raised about $200 million a year since tax collection began in 2019. Environmental advocates in other cities are taking note.
In November, voters in Eugene will consider adopting a clean energy fund of their own, heavily inspired by PCEF. The Eugene Clean Energy Fund (ECEF) launched earlier this year as a local initiative petition, and advocates spent the spring and summer gathering signatures for the measure, successfully securing a spot for it on the fall ballot.
Aya Cockram, one of the chief petitioners for the ECEF initiative, said climate activists in Eugene have long looked to PCEF as a potential blueprint for climate funding in the city. While the city of Eugene set ambitious goals for reducing its greenhouse gas emissions, it isn’t currently on track to meet crucial benchmarks.
“[ECEF] was a long time in the making,” Cockram told the Mercury. “It’s becoming clear that if we don’t do something bold, then we’re never going to meet our climate goals, and our community is going to be increasingly unprepared to face the challenges that climate change is posing.”
As ECEF has found success, however, it’s also generated pushback, particularly from the local and statewide business lobby. Much of the opposition to the proposed Eugene program has been rooted in criticism of its Portland counterpart.
Opponents cite PCEF and its supposedly negative effects as a prime reason Eugene should avoid passing a similar measure. Anti-ECEF advocates say one of the reasons voters should reject the initiative is that “Portland has already tried it.”
“Portland’s clean energy fund has…raised prices, hurt Portland’s economy, and set off fights between politicians over pet projects,” opponents wrote on a website opposing ECEF. “Eugene should learn from Portland’s experiment, not repeat it.”
While Eugene and Portland are 100 miles apart on opposite ends of the Willamette Valley, it’s clear similar tactics have been used to oppose clean energy programs in both cities. In that sense, ECEF’s performance on the ballot this fall could also send a message about the popularity of Portland’s program, too.
The Eugene Clean Energy Fund
The Eugene Clean Energy Fund, if approved, would enact a 2 percent surcharge on gross profits from local sales at businesses earning more than $1 billion in national profits. The surcharge does not apply to profits on basic groceries, medicines, garbage and recycling, or health care services.
ECEF is expected to generate between $15 and $40 million per year, which would be divided among local nonprofit organizations to carry out renewable energy programs, green infrastructure projects, clean energy jobs training, and other related programs.
The projects are expected to achieve measurable greenhouse gas emissions reductions. ECEF would also prioritize funding projects that promote “social, economic, and environmental benefits,” particularly among marginalized populations. The projects would be determined by a committee of appointed members, who would be responsible for program evaluation. Most of the committee members would be appointed by the Eugene City Council, with additional member appointments coming from groups including the city’s sustainability and human rights commissions.
ECEF’s proposed funding mechanism—a surcharge on gross profits— distinguishes it from the Portland fund, which generates money through a tax on all local sales at large businesses. Those crafting the Eugene measure couldn’t copy PCEF’s exact revenue structure due to a state law passed in 2019, the year after Portland voters adopted the clean energy fund, preempting municipalities from imposing new taxes on commercial activity.
The preemption was included as an amendment to the Student Success Act, which implemented a new corporate activities tax to help fund education. ECEF seeks to bypass that preemption by taxing gross profits instead of corporate sales, which proponents say is adequate to protect the program from legal challenges.
The proposed measure has found substantial support from environmental advocacy groups and labor unions statewide. Some local businesses have also signed on in support. ECEF has also been endorsed by dozens of Oregon politicians, including US Senator Jeff Merkley, Oregon Labor Commissioner Christina Stephenson, and several Eugene City Council members and Eugene-area state representatives.
But the measure has also generated pushback in the form of a dedicated opposition campaign.
The anti-ECEF campaign
The Eugene initiative is facing many of the same arguments that have been used against PCEF, before and since its adoption. Shortly after ECEF qualified for the ballot in Eugene, opponents—many from the local business lobby—began organizing their own campaign. Earlier this month, Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce CEO Brittany Quick-Warner filed paperwork for a political action committee called Stop the Hidden Tax on Eugene.
Campaign finance records aren’t yet available for the PAC, but Oregon Business and Industry, the Oregon Bankers Association, and the Northwest Grocery Retail Association have all joined the local chamber of commerce in opposing the clean energy proposal.
The website for the anti-ECEF campaign focuses on the supposed price increases the clean energy fund will generate, alleging businesses responsible for the clean energy surcharge won’t “absorb new costs—[they’ll] pass them on.”
“That means $15 to $40 million a year in higher prices for the people who shop, eat, and live in Eugene,” the website says.
Tiffany Edwards, the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce’s vice president of policy and community development, told the Mercury her organization is “very concerned about who ends up actually paying this at the end of the day.”
Part of Edwards’ concern is that if large businesses like Amazon, Target, and Walmart raise their prices as a result of the clean energy fee, it’ll also end up raising prices at smaller businesses.
ECEF advocates say “it’s unclear how [the kinds of companies subject to the fee] would systemically pass this small fee onto consumers, particularly as it is a fee applied to gross profits rather than sales.”
“More importantly, this has not been the experience in Portland and the Chamber has yet to demonstrate how this would occur,” advocates noted in a statement responding to the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce’s concerns.
During the 2018 campaign against PCEF, program opponents also argued the measure’s 1 percent surcharge on sales at big businesses—intended to be paid by the businesses themselves—would trickle down to consumers and hurt the local economy. One person who made that argument during the initial PCEF campaign was Andrew Hoan, president and CEO of the Portland Metro Chamber.
In August, Hoan joined the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce for a policy breakfast centered on the ECEF proposal. The event was billed as a forum to discuss the proposed measure’s potential impacts on Eugene’s economy and local business climate.
Monice Wong, the Portland Metro Chamber’s media relations manager, told the Mercury Hoan was invited to speak at the policy breakfast to discuss his opposition to the 2018 PCEF campaign. But Wong said the Metro Chamber isn’t involved in the anti-ECEF campaign. Wong said the Metro Chamber’s stance on PCEF is best described by the 2025 report from a tax advisory group convened by Governor Tina Kotek’s Portland Central City Task Force. (Hoan was a member of the tax advisory group.)
The group made several recommendations pertaining to PCEF, and said the surcharge “contributes to Portland’s cumulative tax burden, which has been linked to growing challenges in business retention and job growth.” The Metro Chamber also outlined goals for PCEF in its 2026 policy agenda, saying it hoped the program would prioritize certain economic development needs.
Portland has faced certain economic challenges in recent years. But it’s difficult to prove the claim that PCEF has meaningfully raised consumer prices for Portlanders. PCEF proponents say the program has, in fact, been a significant boon for the local economy during a time of stagnation. The program’s $1.6 billion spending plan has included funding for climate jobs programs, capital for low-carbon housing development, and grants for small business owners looking to make their businesses more energy-efficient, reducing energy costs.
ECEF supporters also dispute the idea that the money paid to the clean energy fund would be taken out of the community. In its rebuttal to the local chamber of commerce, ECEF advocates pointed out that the funds would go back into the community and support economic development, like PCEF has.
Jenny Jonak, a longtime Eugene small business owner who owns a law firm and a commercial flower farm, is supportive of the measure. She said she believes ECEF was drafted to “avoid impacting small, locally-owned businesses.”
“There’s a myth that climate policy and business interests have to be opposed to each other,” Jonak told the Mercury. “Climate policy can support economic development policy.”
Those opposed to ECEF also raised concerns about its focus on nonprofit grants. Skeptics said they think ECEF will struggle to allocate its funds to nonprofit organizations to get projects up and running quickly.
Cockram said ECEF, learning from Portland’s early struggles getting PCEF funding out the door, contains a stipulation requiring at least 20 percent of energy efficiency funds to go to existing programs, including those managed by utility companies like the Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB). EWEB, Oregon’s largest customer-owned utility company, funds several carbon reduction programs, including electric car and bike rebates and solar installation projects.
Laura Sedwick, spokesperson for the Stop the Hidden Tax on Eugene PAC, said she saw ECEF as a program that’s good in theory, but could have unintended consequences. Sedwick also raised concerns about prioritizing a program like ECEF at a time when the city and state is struggling with funding for all kinds of basic services.
“I’ve seen so many times in Oregon, especially in Eugene, where well-intentioned initiatives create messy situations after the fact,” Sedwick told the Mercury. “I think the environment is really important…But we only get so many chances to pull in revenue from business.”
Sedwick described the ECEF proposal as a “nice to have” idea, but questions it as a top priority. She also said she thought the program reflected what she sees as a local and state tendency to “want to be so green and so pro-environment, we just stomp on business.”
ECEF advocates say the measure was meticulously crafted to achieve carbon-reduction goals, along with tackling social justice and economic priorities, without causing negative externalities. Cockram also said she “categorically disagrees” that climate change shouldn’t be treated as a pressing priority.
“Climate change is an existential threat that will affect every sector of our community, no matter if they took climate action or not,” Cockram said. “And this initiative is not just addressing climate change. There are many, many different issues that can be addressed through ECEF, while simultaneously allowing us to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and make Eugene a better place to live.”
A clean energy future
ECEF is coming up during an interesting time for its Portland counterpart. While PCEF has been much more financially successful than projections initially estimated, its success has put it at the center of some contentious political fights. City bureaus are increasingly reliant on PCEF in order to maintain basic city services, and the program has been proposed as a potential source of funding for the controversial Moda Center renovations. Earlier this year, the fund was targeted by an initiative hoping to permanently divert 25 percent of its revenue to hire police. (That effort failed.)
ECEF supporters aren’t deterred by the drama in Portland, though they acknowledge Eugene may face similar debates if the program is implemented. ECEF’s website points out that, despite the disagreements, the vast majority of PCEF’s revenue has gone to climate-focused projects.
ECEF’s performance on the ballot this fall may be a litmus test for the potency of arguments that have also been used against PCEF. The fund’s success could also lead to similar initiatives taking hold across the state, as climate impacts continue to pile up without the funding to address them.
Jonak, the Eugene small business owner, said regardless of your feelings on the measure, everyone can “look around us and see impacts of climate change,” from the lack of snowpack in the Cascades to hotter, drier summers. Jonak thinks ECEF is a good start for tackling the problems.
“The longer we wait to address these issues, the harder and more expensive it is going to be — and potentially irreversible,” Jonak said. “I want to be able to look my kids in the eye and tell them that we did what we could to preserve a world that allows them to be successful and enjoy the natural beauty of Oregon as we have.”
