Complementary Analysis
The takeaways from the modeling establish important directional insights. As ODOE engaged with the Advisory and Policy Working Groups, the process turned from the “what” (what is needed to meet our energy policy objectives?) to the “how” (how do we act to meet our goals?).
To inform this discussion, ODOE worked with our consultants to develop additional, complementary analyses to more deeply inform policy discussions. The Energy Pathways modeling looked at effects on Oregon’s economy as a whole but could not specify how different employment sectors, businesses, or households may be individually affected. The complementary analyses aimed to fill some of these gaps.
The Environmental Justice and Equity Working Group continued to meet between Phases 1 and 2 to inform the first three analyses listed below. They provided insights into the needs of environmental justice communities and perspectives on how to frame the analysis to inform future policies. The analyses were then shared more broadly for public input. These analyses included:
A household energy wallet analysis.
Air quality modeling and associated public health impacts analysis.
Geospatial mapping.
A study of employment effects.
Energy Wallet
The household energy wallet analysis served to better illuminate the benefits and challenges to five different sample Oregon households of adopting electric vehicles and efficient electric heat pumps when their old car or heater needs replacing. Parameters for five sample households were developed through engagement with the Environmental Justice and Equity working group, and with broader public input. The analysis considered adoption of these new technologies across different housing types and climates, and under a range of electricity and gas prices.
The analysis concluded that for the five sample households evaluated, electric vehicle and heat pump adoption generated significant reductions in energy use. However, while most households also saw financial savings, this was not the case for everyone. Electric vehicles delivered financial savings for most households, while heat pumps delivered bill savings in fewer circumstances. Several factors affected access and affordability to efficient electric cars and heating in the analysis. These include the upfront cost of new technologies, electricity and natural gas prices, and access to at-home charging. The type of building stock (single versus multifamily) also mattered. For gas heated homes, the switch to an efficient electric heat pump was often more expensive when different electricity and gas prices were modeled, though the need for air conditioning and lower electricity prices were found to improve its cost-effectiveness. Through the engagement process, ODOE heard that barriers such as affordability, living in rental housing, and access to clean technologies were particularly likely to affect Tribes and low-income, rural, and coastal communities.
Energy Wallet costs for households replacing their two vehicles with EVs in 2030 and 2035
Air Quality
To assess air quality, ODOE calculated changes in criteria air pollutants by modeling changes in energy demand and resource supply. This data was entered into the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Co-Benefits Risk Assessment, or COBRA model, to evaluate how changes in emissions of harmful air pollutants affect public health and health costs. In particular, reductions in air pollution can help prevent health conditions like respiratory and cardiovascular diseases and benefit some of the most vulnerable populations, including communities of color, pregnant women, older adults, children, and people who work outdoors. The analysis found significant health benefits associated with achieving Oregon’s GHG reduction emission and clean energy targets. The benefits were relatively similar across scenarios from the energy sector modeling and translated into cumulative benefits between $6.3 billion to $14.1 billion by 2050 from reduced mortality, fewer hospital admissions, and fewer missed workdays.
Jobs
The jobs analysis was built off of the economywide energy strategy modeling, and identified the scale of job growth minus job losses (resulting in net jobs) that might be expected across the seven scenarios modeled. The jobs analysis suggests that Oregon stands to realize significant net gains in jobs by achieving its energy policy objectives. There was significant net total job growth across all scenarios, with net job gains in the electricity, buildings, and fuels sectors, consistently outpacing net job losses in the transportation sector.
Energy employment by sector in Oregon 2024-2035
The Reference Scenario resulted in a total of roughly 12,900 more aggregate jobs across the four energy sectors in 2035 compared to 2024. Employment gains are most pronounced in the electricity sector while employment losses are most pronounced in the transportation sector. Looking across scenarios, the jobs analysis suggests a range of approximately 10,700 to 18,200 jobs could be gained in the electricity sector through 2035, and a range of approximately 6,700 and 7,500 jobs could be displaced from the transportation sector by 2035. With respect to the transportation sector, while employment in charging stations, vehicle manufacturing, and wholesale trade parts subsectors are expected to grow, these gains are expected to be outstripped by job losses in the fueling stations and vehicle maintenance subsectors. In considering these effects, the idea of co-locating fast charging stations at existing gas stations – which often offer food services, cashiering, and maintenance and site management – could be explored as a possible strategy to mitigate job losses in the fueling station subsector.
The technical analysis estimates similar levels of net job growth in Eastern and Western Oregon by 2035: roughly 6,500 jobs east of the Cascades and roughly 6,400 jobs to the west. This amounts to a 33 percent increase in energy sector jobs compared to 2024 in Eastern Oregon and a 5 percent increase in jobs in Western Oregon. This reflects the different starting points of the two areas, with Western Oregon having roughly 10 times more energy sector jobs in 2024 than Eastern Oregon. This means that relative to western Oregon, eastern Oregon is expected to see markedly larger job growth as a percentage of its 2024 baseline employment in the fuels and electricity sectors, highlighting a potential need for location-based workforce development strategies to help rural communities take full advantage of these employment opportunities.
Additional occupation-level analysis was conducted for the Reference Scenario. This modeling suggests that electricians, construction laborers, and HVAC and refrigeration mechanics and installers are the occupations likely to see the greatest numbers of new employees by 2035. This additional analysis also estimated job growth across three wage tiers, namely: Below a Living Wage (less than $33/hour), At a Living Wage ($33-$48/hour) and Above a Living Wage (more than $48/hour). Jobs are estimated to grow across all wage tiers with the distribution of energy sector jobs across wage tiers remaining essentially unchanged in 2035.
Benefits and Risks
In evaluating the complex interactions between the energy sector and these considerations, it is critical to identify approaches that maximize benefits while minimizing risk. Processes must also be equitable and follow the four pillars of energy justice described in the Equity and Environmental Justice Framework section to reduce disparities and bring along communities who have been left behind. Investing in the energy transition requires a recognition of areas where trade-offs exist and to navigate choices with as much information and transparency as possible. For example, tensions frequently exist between development of needed energy infrastructure and protection of natural and working lands, waters, and ecosystems. The energy transition is an economic transition and will create shifts in job and career opportunities and losses. In developing pathways, policies, and actions, ODOE has worked to recognize these tensions and to seek solutions that maximize positive effects while minimizing and mitigating negative impacts.
Key considerations in determining benefits and risks of actions