Skip to main content
Portland City Councilor Candace Avalos is proposing a requirement for building owners to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% every five years for buildings with a footprint of 20,000 square feet or greater, reaching 0% emissions by no later than 2050.
The new code would apply to both commercial and residential buildings, excluding regulated affordable housing. If passed, Avalos’ policy would require annual progress reports from buildings subject to the new rules. If a building misses the emission reduction target, the owner would pay a “carbon pollution impact fee” for each metric ton of carbon emissions exceeding the goal.
In a statement, Avalos said the policy would “improve health, affordability, and climate resilience for Portlanders who need it most.”
In an Oct. 20 letter to members of the council’s Housing and Permitting Committee, 20 business and real estate groups requested that the committee pause consideration of the policy until “stakeholders have meaningful opportunities for engagement, updated analysis is completed and published,” and existing state requirements are evaluated.
The groups, including the Portland Metro Chamber, wrote that “the diversity of organizations signing this letter reflects a broad concern that the current proposal is moving forward without the level of engagement, transparency, and evaluation necessary to ensure affordable, reliable and increasingly decarbonized housing and energy.”
Most of the people that testified at the Oct. 20 Housing and Permitting Committee about the policy—many of them from industry, landlord and building groups, but also some from universities and hospitals like Providence and Legacy—opposed the new regulations, calling them rushed and crafted without input from stakeholders.
“Housing providers of Multifamily NW remain very concerned with the uncertainty and liabilities this ordinance would impose on Portland’s rental housing market,” said Multifamily NW’s Jonathan Clay. “Portland needs a better policy that doesn’t force arbitrary, unfazed building retrofits that neither renters nor housing providers can frankly afford. This policy’s process has been blazingly fast.”
Others, meanwhile, sang the praises of the policy as a much-needed step in protecting tenants from the dangerous effects of worsening climate change.
“It’s critical that our city take action now to reduce emissions from buildings and improve the health and well-being of those who live and work in them,” said Samantha Hernandez, advocacy manager at the Coalition of Communities of Color.
Most stakeholders that testified requested that the council pause the policy and go back to stakeholders to get more input on what is and isn’t feasible.
Following testimony, Avalos defended her policy and said her office and city staff had performed extensive stakeholder outreach. “We’re going to have to agree to disagree,” she said.
The policy discussion will continue at a subsequent Housing and Permitting Committee on Dec. 1.
