Population growth and changing politics in the Portland metro area have given Oregon Democrats a nearly complete hold on political power, from the governor’s office to supermajorities in both chambers of the Legislature.

Still, that made little difference last year when Republicans, who largely hail from rural districts and haven’t controlled the Legislature outright since 2002, twice brought Senate business to a standstill by walking out of that chamber to kill gun control, vaccine and climate change bills.

Now, Democrats and their environmentalist allies are poised to revive the greenhouse gas cap-and-trade bill in the 35-day session that begins in a week. And in a bid to appease rural opposition, they are proposing a cap-and-trade bill that would phase in carbon fees on gas and diesel on a geographic basis, giving Republican-dominated rural areas a multi-year or even permanent reprieve.

It’s the latest example of Oregon legislators customizing state law for different regions of the state, either to satisfy key opponents of a top-priority bill or to respond to the circumstances and views of rural Oregonians.

The highest profile example, the 2016 law raising the state’s minimum wage to tiers differentiated as “Portland,” “standard” and “non-urban,” served as inspiration for the latest iteration of the climate change bill, Gov. Kate Brown told reporters last week. The tweak would require fuel companies to begin paying fees on sales of gas and diesel in the Portland area starting in 2022 and in metro areas that consume more that 10 million gallons of fuel a year, such as Salem-Keizer, Eugene, Medford, Bend and Corvallis-Albany, in 2025. Carbon pricing on fuel would only expand statewide if 19 counties opted in.

“I focused on transportation because I knew, particularly after meeting with the Timber Unity folks, that was a really challenging issue for them,” the governor said, referring to a rural advocacy group formed in opposition to the 2019 climate change bill. “We put the minimum wage proposal on the table and took a look at how we could do something similar with (carbon fees on gas and diesel).”

At a time when much of the nation is divided geographically on hot-button issues such as environmental policy and reproductive rights, Oregon policymakers’ willingness to pass different laws for different communities could be seen as deepening rural-urban divisions within the state. There’s also a risk that the approach could water down policies to the point that they are meaningless or make them unwieldy to carry out, one local political scientist said. At least one lawmaker worries about the unintended consequences of ceasing to legislate for one Oregon.

Tessa Provins, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Pittsburgh who specializes in state and local politics, said that tailoring regulations to apply differently around the state could reflect a basic theory of political researchers: that policymakers “either advocate for, or fight against, policies they think will represent the interests of their constituents.” So it makes sense, she said, that representatives from urban areas with ample mass transit want a greenhouse gas charge on fuel, while rural lawmakers whose constituents might drive long distances in trucks and SUVs would be skeptical of such a plan. Giving lawmakers the option for regional policy making “is very powerful in being able to take into account the unique characteristics of a particular place,” Provins said.

Supporters of the approach say it better reflects the needs of a geographically large and economically diverse state, where local conditions vary greatly. And Oregon fits that bill, stretching over a larger area than all but eight other states. At least one other state, New York, also has a minimum wage law with different rates based on geography.

In Oregon, other examples of region-based legislation include a law passed last year that regulates diesel engine emissions only in the state’s three most populous counties. A 2017 law allows self-service fuel pumping in rural Oregon, and a 2015 law raised speed limits on several rural highways and a section of interstate through rural eastern Oregon.

Some supporters of cap-and-trade hope that phasing in one portion of their proposed regulations will show they listened — and responded — to the concerns of Republicans and rural constituents.

Rep. Karin Power, a Milwaukie Democrat who works as a lawyer for The Freshwater Trust, has played a central role in developing cap-and-trade proposals for both sessions. She said that as supporters listened to feedback on the plans, one theme that emerged was “the pretty significant difference in how much people drive in different parts of the state … In parts of southern Oregon and eastern Oregon, your doctor’s appointment might be two hours away.” A phased approach would also give rural areas a chance to watch regulations roll out first in urban areas, Power said.

Rep. Karin Power, D-Milwaukie, left, pictured in the Oregon House January 14, 2019.

But some opponents aren’t satisfied, saying it only makes the plan more complicated and does not address their fundamental problems with it.

“It’s a way for them to say, ‘We went out on the road, we listened. We’re still going to hit you with regulation, it’s just a little less,’” said Rep. Shelly Boshart Davis, R-Albany, a key opponent of the cap-and-trade bill and owner of Boshart Trucking. “It hides bad legislation … It makes it just a little bit easier to swallow.”

Rep. Shelly Boshart Davis, R-Albany, pictured to the left of Gov. Kate Brown back in 2015. At the time, Boshart Davis had not yet been elected.

Oregon’s minimum wage law isn’t particularly inspiring to Boshart Davis, either. Her family also farms, and she said the minimum wage is too high given that teenagers hired during summers are learning on the job.

Sen. Betsy Johnson, D-Scappoose, represents a rural coastal district and is one of three Democrats in the upper chamber who opposed the 2019 climate bill. She was also unimpressed by the new proposal to phase in gas and diesel fees differently around the state.

“I think this legislative approach is fraught with problems,” she said. “If it’s good for one Oregonian, it ought to be good for all Oregonians.” Johnson said she is concerned about “the implementation of this regionalism and unintended consequences.”

Sen. Betsy Johnson, D-Scappoose, pictured on Jan. 14, 2019.Dave Killen

Phillip J. Cooper, professor of local government at Portland State University’s Mark Hatfield School of Government, agreed there is a danger of creating “a Swiss cheese policy” with so many exceptions that it is difficult to administer. However, Cooper said, “one-size-fits-all policies don’t work very well in states that are as diverse as most states are.”

Oregon’s regional minimum wage law grew out of an effort to understand the goal of such a mandate and different cost of living and other economic factors around the state, according to one of the central figures who helped develop it. Caitlin Baggott Davis is executive director of North Star Civic Foundation, which worked with the Northwest Health Foundation in 2015 to lead discussions around the state about raising the minimum wage. North Star Civic was formed that year by New Season Market co-founder Stan Amy, Rejuvenation Hardware founder Jim Kelly and New Villages Group Executive Vice President Christy Eugenis to explore whether philanthropic organizations could help generate productive conversations about some of Oregon’s most polarizing problems.

At the time, various advocacy groups and lawmakers favored competing minimum wage increases. Groups filed two ballot initiatives to raise wage guidelines if lawmakers failed to act: one would have upped the minimum to $13.50 an hour, the other to $15 an hour.

Baggott Davis said that in contrast to states with city-by-city minimum wages, Oregon’s pay law still ties the state together under “a coherent plan for all of Oregon to move forward together ...”

“The way we thought about it with minimum wage is, ‘How do we come up with a comprehensive plan that recognizes our differences,’ rather than ‘How do we submit to our differences in a way that pulls us apart,’” Baggott Davis said. “The policy itself should knit us together across difference.”

Sen. Michael Dembrow, D-Portland, was involved in passing the minimum wage law, as well as the diesel emissions regulations centered around Portland. He’s also one of the Democrats most involved with the carbon cap-and-trade legislation.

Sen. Michael Dembrow, D-Portland, speaks to demonstrators gathered at the Oregon Capitol building in support of the climate change bill in 2019.

“It’s really not dissimilar to what we’re dealing with here with the climate action program,” Dembrow said of creating a tiered minimum wage. “We heard a lot of need to see the minimum wage increased, and we received a lot of concern from rural parts of the state that it would be hard for them to implement it.” He noted that without access to public transit and carpooling, many rural Oregonians have fewer options to reduce their transportation-related carbon emissions.

After years of trying to pass a statewide ban on older diesel truck engines, a group of lawmakers including Dembrow and Power finally got the Portland-focused law across the finish line last year. “I wouldn’t say that the only problems are in the Portland metro area, but clearly the problem is most acute here,” Dembrow said. “So at the end of the day, it made sense to do it that way … That approach caused the bill to be passed in a bipartisan manner, and that was good.”

A bipartisan task force, which Boshart Davis is helping to lead, is looking at whether to eventually take the incentives portion of the diesel policy, which helps trucking companies purchase cleaner vehicles, statewide.

Provins, the University of Pittsburgh political science professor, said a benefit of regional policymaking can be “that it allows for policy innovation.” There are downsides, too. “It can also spur policy advancement in some regions but not others, so there’s asymmetric policy advancement,” she said. “If we have some areas that are producing high emissions but not being included in policy, it could be impactful on a statewide basis.”

Power said some laws, such as workplace safeguards, must apply statewide. But “the geographic differences between all of our regions and the industries that have flourished there do merit some tailored legislation. It’s hard to do one size fits all — when we have such a large state — all the time.”

This story has been updated to reflect the following clarification: the task force looking at expanding Oregon’s diesel truck emissions program is specifically considering whether to expand incentives to help businesses upgrade their vehicles, and how to pay for such incentives.

— Hillary Borrud | hborrud@oregonian.com | 503-294-4034 | @hborrud

Subscribe to Oregonian/OregonLive newsletters and podcasts for the latest news and top stories.