Oregon HB 2021
Snapshot · March 2026 · not live100% Clean Energy by 2040 — Promise Network Analysis
Start here: one promise, four steps
This law makes 20 promises to Oregonians. We track who promised what, and whether anyone is checking. This is a snapshot from March 2026, based on public reports through 2024, and it is not updated live.
Step 1: One promise
Everything on this page is built from promises like this one.
- Who promised
- Portland General Electric
- Promised to
- Oregon PUC
- The promise
- “File clean energy plan with PUC demonstrating pathway to 100% clean electricity”
- How it's checked
- Official filing, by Oregon PUC
- Status
- Confirmed keptPGE filed its Clean Energy Plan (CEP) in March 2022, approved by PUC in November 2022.
Step 2: Promises lean on each other
5 other promises depend on this one:
- PGE: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80% below baseline by 2030, 90% by 2035, 100% by 2040 (slipping)
- PGE: Procure renewable energy resources sufficient to meet clean energy targets (confirmed kept)
- PGE: Incorporate tribal energy sovereignty considerations into clean energy procurement (no verdict yet)
- and 2 more.
And it leans on one itself: Oregon PUC: “Conduct meaningful consultation with Oregon's nine federally recognized tribes on clean energy planning” (slipping).
Step 3: What if it broke?
This one was kept. Suppose it hadn't been: the What-if says all 5 of those promises would become less likely to be kept.
That is what the map is for: seeing what else a slip would reach. The What-if is a model, not a forecast.
Step 4: What we found
The equity promises are the least-checked part of the law. 3 of the 5 have no one assigned to check them, so nobody can say whether they are being kept. Meanwhile emissions, the area checked most closely, looks worst, because checking is what makes problems visible.
The rest of this page is the detail on all 20 promises.
Where the 20 promises stand
Assessment
The area checked most closely looks worst, because problems there are visible. Emissions promises are checked by state audits, and emissions has the lowest score of any area: 15 of 100.
Equity promises look uncertain because almost nobody is checking them. 3 of the 5 equity promises have no one assigned to check them, and for equity is 18 of 100.
Of the 7 equity and tribal promises, 3 are the kind that gets harder to resolve the longer it goes unchecked. No other promise in the law depends on the equity promises, so when one fails, nothing downstream forces anyone to check it.
Research on World Bank projects finds the same pattern: programs that are checked more closely surface more problems.
Overall, 6 of 20 promises are confirmed kept, 7 are slipping or broken, and 7 have no verdict yet or no way to be checked.
Overall
: 54 of 100
The average of every promise's status (confirmed kept 100, no verdict yet 60, slipping 30, no way to check 20, broken 0).
59 of 100
How settled these statuses are. It is low where nobody has checked.
Health by area
Promise score and certainty for each area, out of 100.
What to check first
Where a fresh check would tell us the most, in order.
PGE: Allocate minimum 50% of energy program spending to environmental justice communities
Its deadline passed with no verdict. Only the party that made it reports on it.
No verdict yetP009
PGE: Provide direct benefits to environmental justice communities from clean energy transition
No one is assigned to check it.
No way to checkP010
Oregon PUC: Ensure energy burden for low-income customers does not increase due to clean energy transition
No one is assigned to check it.
No way to checkP011
PacifiCorp: Provide direct benefits to environmental justice communities from clean energy transition
No one is assigned to check it.
No way to checkP012
PGE: File clean energy plan with PUC demonstrating pathway to 100% clean electricity
5 other promises depend on this one.
Confirmed keptP002
Technical detailsModel diagnostics, k values, and cycle projections behind the summary above.
Network Health (same number as the promise score)
54 out of 100
Verification Dynamics
Bayesian certainty — how confident we are in the health assessment.
Dynamical regime distribution
Verification Priorities
?Promises where verifying NOW has the highest marginal impact on network confidence.
- P00962%Composting risk
PGE: Allocate minimum 50% of energy program spending to environmental justice communities
Composting risk (k=0.48) — approaching verification window closure. 3 review periods without assessment.
Resolution expected by cycle 5Optimal review: every 3 cyclesLong-term: resolution trending · P(met) at cycle 10: 72% · P(not met): 2% - P01057%Composting risk
PGE: Provide direct benefits to environmental justice communities from clean energy transition
Composting risk (k=0.28) — approaching verification window closure. 3 review periods without assessment.
Resolution expected by cycle 3Optimal review: every 3 cycles (reviewed more often than it can change)Long-term: resolution trending · P(met) at cycle 10: 76% · P(not met): 11% - P01157%Composting risk
Oregon PUC: Ensure energy burden for low-income customers does not increase due to clean energy transition
Composting risk (k=0.28) — approaching verification window closure. 3 review periods without assessment.
Resolution expected by cycle 3Optimal review: every 3 cycles (reviewed more often than it can change)Long-term: resolution trending · P(met) at cycle 10: 76% · P(not met): 11% - P01257%Composting risk
PacifiCorp: Provide direct benefits to environmental justice communities from clean energy transition
Composting risk (k=0.28) — approaching verification window closure. 3 review periods without assessment.
Resolution expected by cycle 3Optimal review: every 3 cycles (reviewed more often than it can change)Long-term: resolution trending · P(met) at cycle 10: 76% · P(not met): 11% - P00255%Bottleneck
PGE: File clean energy plan with PUC demonstrating pathway to 100% clean electricity
Structural bottleneck: 5 downstream promises depend on this. Currently well-verified — confirm it's holding.
High-Leverage Promises
Ranked by how much else would slip if each promise broke, in the model's what-if engine. Ranks only.
Reliabilities are default estimates, not measured.
Structural Diagnostic
Five-field analysis: epidemiology · FMEA · information theory · incentive alignment. Each applies a published model's form to this network's structure; no coefficient was fitted to promise data.
Cascade Risk
A single violation is unlikely to cascade beyond its direct dependents.
R₀ = 1.10 (network) · R₀ hubs = 2.20
Watch list: slipping or weakly verified
Answers a different question from High-Leverage Promises: which promises are currently at risk and least checked, not which hold the plan up.
Ranked by Risk Priority Number (RPN = Severity × Occurrence × Detection). Network reliability: 47.4%.
Severity 10 · Occurrence 7 · Detection 7
High severity: failure cascades to 12 downstream promises across 5 domains. High likelihood of failure based on current status (degraded). Hard to detect: verification is self-report.
Severity 10 · Occurrence 7 · Detection 5
High severity: failure cascades to 5 downstream promises across 4 domains. High likelihood of failure based on current status (degraded). Moderately detectable: verification is filing.
Severity 5 · Occurrence 7 · Detection 3
Moderate severity: failure cascades to 2 downstream promises across 1 domain. High likelihood of failure based on current status (degraded). Easily detected: verification is audit.
Severity 3 · Occurrence 7 · Detection 5
Low severity: failure cascades to 1 downstream promise across 1 domain. High likelihood of failure based on current status (degraded). Moderately detectable: verification is filing.
Severity 3 · Occurrence 5 · Detection 7
Low severity: failure cascades to 1 downstream promise across 1 domain. Moderate likelihood of failure based on current status (declared). Hard to detect: verification is self-report.
Verification Infrastructure
54% of this network's state is unobservable.
Incentive Alignment
Highest Agency Cost:
Oregon PUC: Conduct meaningful consultation with Oregon's ni...
PGE: File clean energy plan with PUC demonstrating pathway t...
Empirical Diagnostics
Each figure carries its evidence class: fitted on data, an estimate, or a rule we wrote.
Network Fragility
Which promises the rest depend on most: see High-Leverage Promises above, ranked by what would slip if each one broke.
Cascade Calibration
Most dependency edges run through unverified promises — cascade predictions rely on at-risk flagging more than on structural propagation.
Outcome projection
Outcome projection: Using a three-state transition model — fitted on 11,994 MONA conditions for the composting and transitional regimes; the computing and pressure parameters are estimates not yet validated on a cohort — 3 promises in this network are in composting dynamics (a promise left unchecked gets harder to resolve) and 0 are in computing dynamics (observation-driven resolution) . 3 promises are at risk of over-review — they are being reviewed more often than they can change .
Want your commitments mapped like this?
We build interactive promise graphs for organizations, advocates, and policy teams.