The Oregon State Court of Appeals invalidated rules written by the state Environmental Quality Commission for implementing the state’s Climate Protection Program. The state legislation creating this program required the EQC to explain “Any alternatives the commission considered and the reasons that the alternatives were not pursued.” In response, the agency claimed that it “considered many alternatives” but didn’t describe a single one or explain why it was rejected.
Smokey, the Antiplanner dog, checks out the environmental quality of an Oregon stream.
This is entirely typical of government planning today. I’ve reviewed many plans that didn’t bother to identify and evaluate any alternatives because planners were so certain they knew what was right and anything else was wrong. What is atypical is that a state court has enforced the law requiring identification and evaluation of alternatives. Continue reading
