Oregon HB 2021
Live Demo100% Clean Energy by 2040 — Promise Network Analysis
Network Health
54
out of 100
Network Certainty
59
out of 100
Overall Grade
F
20 promises, 11 agents
Status Breakdown
Domain Health
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.
- P01784%Composting risk
Incorporate tribal energy sovereignty considerations into clean energy procurement
Composting risk (k=0.36) — approaching verification window closure. 3 review periods without assessment.
Resolution expected by cycle 7Optimal review: every 5 cycles (more frequent → Zeno freeze risk)Long-term: resolution trending · P(met) at cycle 10: 50% · P(not met): 10% - P00977%Composting risk
Allocate minimum 50% of energy program spending to environmental justice communities
Composting risk (k=0.33) — approaching verification window closure. 3 review periods without assessment.
Resolution expected by cycle 7Optimal review: every 5 cycles (more frequent → Zeno freeze risk)Long-term: resolution trending · P(met) at cycle 10: 50% · P(not met): 10% - P01875%Composting risk
Develop clean energy workforce training programs targeting displaced fossil fuel workers
Composting risk (k=0.41) — approaching verification window closure. 3 review periods without assessment.
Resolution expected by cycle 6Optimal review: every 3 cyclesLong-term: resolution trending · P(met) at cycle 10: 54% · P(not met): 12% - P01975%Composting risk
Provide transition assistance and retraining funding for workers displaced by plant closures
Composting risk (k=0.41) — approaching verification window closure. 3 review periods without assessment.
Resolution expected by cycle 6Optimal review: every 3 cyclesLong-term: resolution trending · P(met) at cycle 10: 54% · P(not met): 12% - P01059%Composting risk
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 7Optimal review: every 5 cycles (more frequent → Zeno freeze risk)Long-term: resolution trending · P(met) at cycle 10: 50% · P(not met): 10%
High-Leverage Promises
Promises ranked by combined dependent count and structural bridge score (betweenness centrality).
Structural Diagnostic
Five-field analysis: epidemiology · FMEA · information theory · incentive alignment
Cascade Risk
A single violation is unlikely to cascade beyond its direct dependents.
R₀ = 1.10 (network) · R₀ hubs = 2.20
Top Risk Promises
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:
Conduct meaningful consultation with Oregon's nine federally...
File clean energy plan with PUC demonstrating pathway to 100...
Empirical Diagnostics
Calibrated from 7,193 observed state transitions (Benthos, March 2026)
Network Fragility
Hub promises — protect these first:
P002, P003
Cascade Calibration
Majority of dependency edges lack coherent coupling — cascade predictions rely heavily on at-risk flagging rather than structural propagation.
Assessment
Oregon’s clean energy transition illustrates the verification paradox: the domains with the strongest monitoring infrastructure (Emissions, Verification) look the worst because failures are actually visible there. Meanwhile, Equity scores 18% certainty — not because equity provisions are failing more than emissions provisions, but because nobody is checking. Five of the seven equity and tribal promises are in composting dynamics (k < 0.41), meaning they are stagnating without external observation. Cross-domain research on 85,000+ institutional commitments confirms the pattern: promises with qualitative or absent verification follow ecological decay curves, while promises with numeric periodic verification follow correctable trajectories. The binding constraint in HB 2021 is not policy ambition — it is that equity provisions were architecturally bolted on rather than woven into the dependency structure. Nothing downstream breaks when they fail, so nothing upstream forces their verification.
Lindblad projection: Based on the open quantum systems master equation fitted to 67,027 institutional commitments, 5 promises in this network are in composting dynamics (slow resolution, Zeno-sensitive) and 1 is in computing dynamics (observation-driven resolution). 5 promises are at risk of Zeno freeze — they are being monitored too frequently relative to their natural resolution timescale.
Want your commitments mapped like this?
We build interactive promise graphs for organizations, advocates, and policy teams.