Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Investments Climate topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Treasurer and labor representatives debate House Bill 22100 goal to reduce carbon intensity in state's pension portfolio
Summary
Oregon Treasurer Elizabeth Steiner testified in support of House Bill 22100, saying a net‑zero by 2050 direction would protect pension beneficiaries by mitigating climate‑related financial risk; legislators and union representatives questioned legal, fiduciary and performance implications
The House Committee on Emergency Management, General Government, and Veterans heard testimony on Jan. 28 regarding House Bill 22100, which would direct the Oregon Investment Council and state treasurer to reduce the carbon intensity of the state’s investment portfolio.
Oregon Treasurer Elizabeth Steiner (testifying remotely) said Treasury’s primary duty is to protect the long‑term returns of the Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund (OPERF) and argued reducing exposure to carbon‑intensive investments is part of fulfilling fiduciary duties. Steiner described OPERF’s exposure to fossil fuel investments as about $3.6 billion — roughly 3.7% of a near‑$94 billion portfolio based on the data she cited — and said the Treasury is developing amendments that would guide a transition to net‑zero emissions in the portfolio by 2050 while retaining flexibility to preserve returns and diversification.
Steiner told the committee the proposed approach would require biennial reporting to the Legislature, incorporate best available science, and state a preference for “climate‑positive” investments that, she said, can offer attractive returns while managing transition and regulatory risks that may make carbon‑intensive holdings more volatile or prone to becoming stranded assets.
Representative Ed Diehl urged a no vote in testimony, arguing that imposing climate goals on public pension investments risks violating fiduciary duty and could reduce returns, citing legal and research concerns. Diehl referenced court rulings and published analyses he said demonstrate conflicts between fiduciary duties and politically motivated investment goals.
Sue Palmiter, co‑lead of the Divest Oregon coalition, said her group had not seen the final amendment language and would not take a position yet, but described the bill and related proposals (including the PAWS Act in the Senate) as complementary and said they support a climate risk lens to protect beneficiaries. Mike Powers of SEIU Local 503 said his union generally supports the concept, calling for robust climate risk analysis while stressing the need to protect retiree benefits.
Committee members discussed legal limits, fiduciary obligations and the role of the Legislature. Several members asked Treasury to continue consultations with labor and stakeholders and to provide amended language; the committee chair said a follow‑up public hearing would be scheduled after amendments are filed.
