This is the second installment of a three-part series on the development of the Oregon Energy Strategy (OES) from April 2024 through September 2025. You can find the first installment, Oregon Energy Strategy: Energy Pathways Analysis, here and the third installment, Oregon Energy Strategy: Jobs Analysis, here.
The Clean Energy Transition Institute (CETI) was selected as the technical consultant for this project along with a team comprised of: Energy Pathways Modelers Jeremy Hargreaves, Ben Haley, and Jamil Farbes of Evolved Energy Research; Technical Modeling Consultant Elaine Hart of Sylvan Energy Analytics; Equity Advisor Angela Long of Rockcress Consulting; CETI Equity Analyst Mariah Caballero; CETI Research Analyst Ruby Moore-Bloom; and CETI Founder and Executive Director Eileen V. Quigley. Together, we refer to this group as the CETI-OES Team.
On August 14, 2025, the Oregon Department of Energy (ODOE) released a draft Oregon Energy Strategy, which will be open for public comment through September 22, 2025. The final Oregon Energy Strategy will be delivered to the state’s Governor and Legislature by November 1, 2025.
This blog gives an overview of the three complementary analyses produced for the Oregon Energy Strategy technical analysis, focusing on the high-level methodology and key takeaways. View the Complementary Analysis Technical Report for the full final results.
Energy pathways modeling is the primary tool used in the Oregon Energy Strategy technical approach, but models have analytical limits, and certain equity considerations may be difficult to quantify, namely questions around energy burden, affordability, health impacts, community well-being, and economic vulnerabilities.
In addition to energy modeling, the CETI-OES Team produced three complementary environmental justice- and equity-focused analyses to feed into the Oregon Energy Strategy: Air Quality Modeling, an Energy Wallet, and Geospatial Mapping. The three analyses were designed to supplement the energy modeling with additional information to help guide policy discussions in early 2025. Figure 1 shows the relationship between the energy pathways modeling and additional analyses (the Jobs Analysis is discussed in the third blog of this series).
The CETI-OES Team collaborated extensively with ODOE and the Environmental Justice & Equity Working Group to develop the Air Quality, Energy Wallet, and Geospatial Mapping analyses and also received public comment on the draft technical approach.
Reducing pollutant emissions provides health benefits to Oregonians, in addition to the climate benefits from reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Air Quality modeling, led by Evolved Energy Research, evaluated changes in energy demand and supply alongside corresponding changes in air pollutant emissions.
Reductions in air pollution can help prevent health conditions like respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. The Air Quality modeling used the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Co-Benefits Risk Assessment (COBRA) model to consider the health impacts of changes in fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and secondary particulate matter such as nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur oxides (SOx).
The analysis found significant health benefits associated with achieving Oregon’s emission and clean energy targets. The health benefits were relatively similar across all energy modeling scenarios and translated to between $6.3 billion to $14.1 billion in cumulative present value benefits by 2050 from reduced mortality, fewer hospital admissions, and fewer missed workdays. The range of projected benefits accounts for uncertainties in estimating health impacts of changing air quality included in the COBRA model.
While the energy modeling focused on economy-wide impacts, there was also interest in examining impacts at a household level. The CETI-OES Team developed an analysis that would look at a household’s “energy wallet” as energy usage shifts with electrification measures.
The Energy Wallet examined a household’s energy use and associated costs as they switch to an electric vehicle (EV) and heat pump when their internal combustion engine (ICE) car and heating system needs replacing. The analysis was undertaken for five sample households and considered different housing types, climates, and electricity and gas prices.
In this analysis, the household’s energy wallet included the use of electricity, natural gas, and gasoline. The team considered including additional household fuels, such as propane, but decided to focus on the state’s two most common heating fuels—electricity and natural gas—given the scope of this analysis. Future analysis could expand to include additional fuel types.
The analysis found that all five sample households would experience significant reductions in energy use from adopting EVs and heat pumps. Some households also saw cost savings, but this was not the case for all sample households evaluated.
Switching to an EV was more likely to deliver cost savings for sample households in most cases, while heat pumps delivered cost savings in some, but not all, circumstances. Households starting with electric heat were more likely to save money with heat pumps due to the significant efficiency gains.
On the other hand, savings for homes heated with natural gas depended on both the gas rate and the electricity rate. Another factor for savings was whether the household receiving a heat pump had air conditioning to begin with. These households experienced greater savings when switching to a heat pump that provides both heating and cooling than those that did not have air conditioning to replace.
The cost effectiveness of these switches depended on several additional factors, including installation cost, access to technology based on household income, access to at-home charging, technological developments, and production/supply chain challenges. Upfront costs must be addressed to ensure equal access to the potential savings from electrification, and intentional policies that ensure environmental justice and equitable solutions are necessary.
There are several potential areas for further research coming out of this work. For example, it would be interesting to examine additional sample households with different characteristics affecting their energy use. Future research could also consider integrating sensitivities for different heat pump installation costs or EV purchases. The energy wallet concept could also be developed into an interactive tool that customers could use to inform decision making.
Lastly, the CETI-OES Team worked with ODOE and other partners to develop a series of maps representing important economic, environmental, and social considerations to support an equitable clean energy transition. The mapping approach used publicly available datasets, including some that are no longer accessible (e.g., the Department of Energy’s Climate and Economic and Justice Screening Tool, or CEJST), making these maps a very valuable resource.
The maps are meant to be used to assess the potential effects of energy policy options on different communities and help inform more equitable policy development. For example, one map shows the community-level relationship between average energy burden and percentage of manufactured homes. Another displays the community-level relationship between projected wildfire risk and percentage of individuals employed in outdoor roles (agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting, and mining).
If you want to receive updates from CETI straight to your inbox, subscribe here.
%20(1).jpeg)
.jpg)
.jpeg)
