California has essentially been “going it alone” on comprehensive climate policy in the United States for the last decade or so. But starting in 2019, that might just change. Oregon’s legislature is seriously considering adopting a cap-and-trade program next year, which would signify a major in-country expansion of California’s approach and provide more momentum for multi-state action to address climate change.

Oregon Coastal Caucus in the Chinook Casino ballroom in Lincoln City, Oregon

This week I’m at the Oregon Coast Caucus Economic Summit in Lincoln City, Oregon, an annual event organized by the bipartisan coastal delegation in the state’s legislature. A key theme of the event is climate policy. Despite the hyper-partisan poisoning of the climate debate around the country, here Republican legislators seem comfortable discussing carbon policies.

Why the difference? Two reasons: first, the Oregon coast is experiencing the negative impacts of climate change, particularly from ocean acidification and its negative effect on local oyster farms. Second, the Oregon coast is impoverished, yet with significant forest resources, leading many coastal representatives to view a state-level carbon policy as an opportunity to generate revenue that can then be spent locally.

The speaker of the Oregon House of Representatives, Tina Kotek, is fully committed to adopting a cap-and-trade (or “cap-and-invest” as they’re calling it) program. But Kotek was rebuffed by Senate President and fellow-Democrat Peter Courtney this year due to the short even-year legislative session and complexity of the issue. However, at their joint lunch panel today, Senator Courtney pledged to bring the issue to a vote in 2019. Insiders I spoke with at the conference believe they will have the votes to pass it. The wildcard, however, is that the current governor, Kate Brown, is up for re-election this year and is facing a tough Republican challenger, funded in part by Nike founder Phil Knight.

But assuming the debate goes forward next year, the contours appeared to reveal themselves at the conference. Some businesses obviously don’t want the program at all, primarily out of fear of higher energy and transportation costs (although Oregon’s grid is already quite green and unlikely to be negatively impacts by any compliance obligations). The trucking industry wants any revenue raised to go to road repair, which would hardly be a way to encourage greenhouse gas reductions. However, this outcome might be unavoidable to some extent, due to a recent Oregon Supreme Court decision that limits funds raised from transportation to highway spending only. But I’m told creative workarounds could be found, such as using any proceeds to fund transit lanes on highways or electric vehicle charging stations along routes. Meanwhile, utilities would like to be exempt entirely from the program, much as they essentially were in the early days of the California program. The list of business concerns goes on from there.

The good news is that all of these issues can likely be resolved with robust discussion, study and debate. And based on what I’ve heard so far at the summit, state leaders are already well on their way. For those who are in favor of multi-state coalitions to address climate change, it’s a welcome sight.