Case Title: Blosser/Romain v. Rosenblum

Citation: 

Docket Number: S063528

State: oregon

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Date: 2015-11-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
312	
November 27, 2015	
No. 50
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE 
STATE OF OREGON
Nik BLOSSER,
Petitioner,
v.
Ellen F. ROSENBLUM,
Attorney General, State of Oregon,
Respondent.
(S063528 (Control))
Paul R. ROMAIN,
Petitioner,
v.
Ellen F. ROSENBLUM,
Attorney General, State of Oregon,
Respondent.
(S063532)
En Banc
On petition to review ballot title first filed September 3, 
2015; considered and under advisement November 3, 2015.
Steven C. Berman, of Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & 
Shlachter, PC, Portland, filed the petition and reply for peti-
tioner Blosser.
Paul R. Romain, The Romain Group, LLC, Portland, filed 
the petition and reply for petitioner Romain.
Matthew J. Lysne, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, 
filed the answering memorandum for respondent. With him 
on the memorandum were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney 
General, and Paul L. Smith, Deputy Solicitor General.
BALDWIN, J.
The ballot title is referred to the Attorney General for 
modification.
Case Summary: Petitioners sought review of the Attorney General’s certified 
ballot title for Initiative Petition 46 (2016), which, if enacted, would amend several 
aspects of a bill that the legislature enacted during the 2015 legislative session 
Cite as 358 Or 312 (2015)	
313
relating to the authority of the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission 
to adopt standards and requirements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 
Petitioners argued that the caption, the “yes” and “no” result statements, and 
the summary do not substantially comply with requirements set out in ORS 
250.035(2). Held: The certified caption, “yes” result statement, and summary do 
not substantially comply with statutory requirements.
The ballot title is referred to the Attorney General for modification.
314	
Blosser/Romain v. Rosenblum (IP 46)
	
BALDWIN, J.
	
In these consolidated cases, petitioners seek review 
of the Attorney General’s certified ballot title for Initiative 
Petition 46 (2016) (IP 46), contending that the caption, the 
“yes” result statement, and the summary do not comply 
with requirements set out in ORS 250.035(2). We review the 
certified ballot title to determine whether it substantially 
complies with those requirements. See ORS 250.085(5) (set-
ting out that standard). For the reasons explained below, we 
refer the ballot title to the Attorney General for modification 
of the caption, the “yes” result statement, and the summary.
	
IP 46, which is appended to this opinion, is an alter-
native proposal to Initiative Petition 45 (2016) (IP 45). These 
same petitioners have challenged the certified ballot title 
for that initiative petition, addressed in a separate opinion 
issued this day. See Blosser/Romain v. Rosenblum (IP 45), 
358 Or 295, ___ P3d ___ (2015) (referring certified ballot 
title for IP 45 to Attorney General for modification of caption 
and “yes” result statement). Like IP 45, IP 46 is a proposed 
statute that would amend aspects of a bill that the legis-
lature enacted during the 2015 legislative session, Senate 
Bill (SB) 324 (2015), Or Laws 2015, ch 4. In Blosser/Romain 
(IP 45), we summarized SB 324 as follows:
“SB 324 made changes to a 2009 state law that permitted 
the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) to 
adopt standards and requirements to reduce greenhouse 
gas emissions, and to adopt low carbon fuel standards for 
gasoline, diesel, and alternative fuels, as well as a schedule 
to reduce by 2020 the average amount of greenhouse gas 
emissions by 10 percent below 2010 levels. Or Laws 2009, 
ch 754, §§ 3(2), 6(2)(a), 6(2)(b). SB 324 changed the EQC’s 
general permissive authority to adopt low carbon fuel stan-
dards to a directive, but left in place the EQC’s permissive 
authority to adopt a schedule for reducing greenhouse gas 
emissions, newly extended to 2025. Or Laws 2015, ch  4, 
§ 3(2)(a), 3(2)(b)(A). SB 324 further directed the EQC to 
adopt rules to manage and contain the cost of compliance 
with the standards, expressly permitting alternative com-
pliance by obtaining and trading credits for fuels used as 
substitutes for gasoline or diesel. Id. § 3(2)(d).”
Blosser/Romain (IP 45), 358 Or at ___.
Cite as 358 Or 312 (2015)	
315
	
IP 46 would change parts of the original 2009 law 
and SB 324, repeating some—but not all—of the changes 
contained in IP 45, and making other changes. See Blosser/
Romain (IP 45), 358 Or at ___ (describing changes that 
IP 45 would make to 2009 law and SB 324). As with IP 45, 
IP 46 would limit application of the state’s low carbon fuel 
standards to blended liquid fuels. IP 46, § 1(1)(b). Also as 
with IP 45, IP 46 bases its definition of “low carbon fuel 
standards” on fuels “available in commercial quantities” in 
Oregon, expressly defining that phrase as alternative fuels 
“actually * 
* 
* available in this state in sufficient quanti-
ties for all persons who import gasoline or diesel to comply 
with the standards.” Id. §  1(1)(d). Further, “[a]s a means 
for managing and containing the costs of compliance with 
the standards,” IP 46 would require the EQC to adopt rules 
for blending liquid fuels. Those rules would be subject to a 
restriction on the amount of ethanol or biodiesel that may 
be used in creating blended fuels and also to a prohibition 
against requiring the blending of any low carbon intensity 
fuel that is more expensive than the gasoline or diesel into 
which it is blended. Id. § 1(2)(c).
	
Finally, again as with IP 45, IP 46 would elimi-
nate the cost-containment provision set out SB 324, which, 
in addition to expressly requiring the EQC to adopt cost-
containment rules, also permits alternative compliance 
with the standards by obtaining and trading fuel credits. 
Id. § 1(2) (eliminating paragraph (d) from SB 324, Or Laws 
2015, ch 4, § 3(2)(d)). IP 46 would replace that provision with 
a new provision that requires the EQC to notify all Oregon 
gasoline and diesel fuel importers when it has determined 
that any alternative fuel is “available in commercial quanti-
ties.” Id. § 1(2)(d). Unlike IP 45, however, IP 46 further pro-
vides that any person required to blend fuels under IP 46 
may contest the EQC’s finding of commercial availability 
in the same manner provided for challenging the adoption 
of an administrative rule. IP 46, § 1(2)(d); see ORS 183.400 
(validity of any rule may be determined upon petition for 
judicial review to court of appeals); ORS 183.497 (court in 
rules challenge proceeding may award attorney fees to pre-
vailing petitioner).
316	
Blosser/Romain v. Rosenblum (IP 46)
	
The Attorney General drafted a ballot title for IP 46, 
ORS 250.065(3), and the Secretary of State circulated that 
title for public comment, ORS 250.067(1). After receiving 
comments, the Attorney General modified its draft ballot 
title, ORS 250.067(2)(a), and certified the following ballot 
title to the Secretary of State:
“Restricts low carbon fuel standards to 
requiring blends of gasoline/diesel with 
commercially available fuels
“Result of ‘Yes’ Vote:  ‘Yes’ vote restricts low carbon fuel 
standards to requiring blending gasoline or diesel with 
commercially available liquid fuels; eliminates fuel credit 
system for satisfying standards.
“Result of ‘No’ Vote:  ‘No’ vote retains low carbon fuel 
standards for liquid, non-liquid transportation fuels; stan-
dards allow obtaining fuel credits to satisfy standards, 
require rules to control costs.
“Summary:  Currently, Environmental Quality Commis-
sion sets low carbon fuel standards for reducing aver-
age greenhouse gas emissions from gasoline, diesel, and 
other transportation fuels, including non-liquid fuels. 
Commission currently must adopt rules to control costs, 
must allow fuel distributors to meet standards by purchas-
ing credits from others whose products exceed required 
standards. Measure restricts low carbon fuel standards to 
apply only to blending gasoline and diesel with other liq-
uid fuels, making standards inapplicable to other types 
of fuels and eliminating the credit system. Measure fur-
ther provides that adopted standards cannot require car-
bon reductions unless low carbon fuel needed to meet the 
blending requirements is ‘available in commercial quanti-
ties’ (defined) and costs no more than the gasoline or diesel 
into which it is blended. Other provisions.”
	
Petitioners are electors who timely submitted com-
ments about the Attorney General’s draft ballot title and 
who now are dissatisfied with the certified ballot title, ORS 
250.085(2). Petitioner Blosser challenges the caption, the 
“yes” result statement, and the summary, including com-
ponents added after the comment period ended. See ORS 
250.085(6) (permitting Supreme Court consideration of such 
arguments). Petitioner Romain also challenges the caption 
Cite as 358 Or 312 (2015)	
317
and the summary, as well as the “no” result statement, con-
sistently with his earlier comments.
	
We begin with petitioner Romain’s challenge to 
the caption. As with IP 45, petitioner Romain argues that, 
as part of setting out the subject matter of IP 46, the cap-
tion should mention the elimination of the ability to obtain 
and trade fuel credits as a means of alternatively comply-
ing with low carbon fuel standards. For the reasons set 
out in Blosser/Romain (IP 45), 358 Or at ___, we agree 
and refer the caption to the Attorney General for modifi-
cation. See ORS 250.035(2)(a) (caption limited to 15 words 
and must “reasonably identif[y] the subject matter” of pro-
posed measure); Whitsett v. Kroger, 348 Or 243, 247, 230 
P3d 545 (2010) (“subject matter” refers to “actual major 
effect” or, if more than one, all such effects within limit of 
word count).
	
Petitioner Blosser also challenges the caption, argu-
ing that it should refer to the provision of IP 46 that permits 
any person required to blend fuels to contest an EQC finding 
that alternative fuels are “available in commercial quanti-
ties,” IP 46, § 1(2)(d), by filing an administrative action sim-
ilar to an administrative rules challenge. Petitioner Blosser 
relies on Greenberg v. Myers, 340 Or 65, 70-72, 127 P3d 1192 
(2006), and other cases for the proposition that voters must 
be notified when a proposed measure provides or creates 
a cause of action. The Attorney General responds that the 
administrative action provision is not an actual major effect 
that must be mentioned in the caption.1
	
Petitioner Blosser is correct that, to accurately 
describe an actual effect of the proposed measure at issue, 
a caption appropriately may or even perhaps should refer 
to a new authorization of legal action. As illustrated by 
Greenberg, however, the assessment whether to include such 
a reference may depend on the nature and complexity of the 
measure, as well as the nature of the new authorization, 
given the 15-word limit set out in ORS 250.035(2)(a). See 
	
1  In that regard, the Attorney General notes that existing law provides a 
mechanism for challenging agency actions in other than a contested case, ORS 
183.484, and argues that the administrative action provision set out in IP 46 is, 
“at most,” a substitute for that general remedy.
318	
Blosser/Romain v. Rosenblum (IP 46)
340 Or at 70-72 (measure at issue incorporated multi-part 
enforcement scheme including new forms of liability that 
“would enact major changes to Oregon law that likely would 
be significant to the voting public”). Given the 15-word limit, 
together with the complexity of the key provisions of IP 46 
that change the nature of the low carbon fuel standards 
and compliance with those standards, and the similarity 
of its administrative action provision to existing remedies, 
we conclude that the caption was not required to refer to 
the provision of IP 46 that authorizes administrative action 
to challenge an EQC commercial availability finding. As 
explained below, however, we agree with petitioner Blosser 
that the summary should refer to that provision.
	
Turning to the “yes” result statement, petitioner 
Blosser raises a similar challenge to use of the words “com-
mercially available” that he raised as to IP 45—that is, that 
those words are misleading given the elaboration in IP 46 
as to the meaning of the phrase “available in commercial 
quantities.” See Blosser/Romain (IP 45), 358 Or at ___ 
(describing challenge, in light of express definition of “avail-
able in commercial quantities,” IP 45, § 1(4), including cost 
and other restrictions); compare IP 46, § 1(2)(c)(B) (rules for 
blending liquid fuels “available in commercial quantities” 
may not require blending of alternative fuel more expensive 
than gasoline or diesel fuel). As in Blosser/Romain (IP 45), 
we agree with petitioner Blosser that, without referring 
to the express “expens[e]” limitation that applies to any 
requirement under IP 46 to blend alternative fuels with 
gasoline or diesel, IP 46, § 1(2)(c)(B), the words “commer-
cially available” in the “yes” result statement are mislead-
ing and the statement therefore must be modified. See ORS 
250.035(2)(b) (“yes” result statement must set out simple 
and understandable statement of not more than 25 words 
that describes result if measure is approved).2
	
2  We note that the Attorney General also used the words “commercially 
available” in the caption for IP 46, although she did not do so in the caption for 
IP 45. Blosser/Romain (IP 45), 358 Or at ___. In Blosser/Romain (IP 45), peti-
tioner Romain argued that the caption should include a reference to commercial 
availability, but petitioner Blosser countered that such a reference would be mis-
leading, and we agreed with petitioner Blosser. Id. at ___. As to IP 46, however, 
no party challenges the Attorney General’s inclusion of the words “commercially 
available” in the caption.
Cite as 358 Or 312 (2015)	
319
	
Petitioner Blosser also argues, as he did with the 
caption, that the “yes” result statement should notify voters 
that IP 46 authorizes legal action by way of an administra-
tive challenge. As with the caption, in light of the 25-word 
limit on the “yes” result statement and the complexity of the 
key provisions of IP 46 already noted in the “yes” result state-
ment, we conclude that that statement was not required to 
include a reference to the administrative challenge provision.
	
Next, petitioner Blosser argues that the summary 
should notify voters that IP 46 authorizes legal action, in the 
form of an administrative challenge by any person required 
to blend fuels to an EQC finding of commercial availability, 
potentially including prevailing party attorney fee awards. 
Although we disagreed above with petitioner Blosser’s argu-
ments that the caption and the “yes” result statement must 
refer to that provision, we agree that the express authoriza-
tion in IP 46 to challenge an EQC determination on commer-
cial availability by administrative action is a major effect 
that should be mentioned in the summary. See generally 
Wilkeson v. Myers, 329 Or 540, 546, 992 P2d 456 (1999) (new 
enforcement provision in proposed measure would enact sig-
nificant change to current law); Mabon v. Kulongoski, 324 
Or 315, 319-20, 925 P2d 1234 (1996) (general standing pro-
vision qualified as part of subject matter of measure).3
	
Finally, both petitioners raise other challenges to 
the summary, and petitioner Romain raises an additional 
challenge to the “no” result statement, ORS 250.035(2)(c), 
that are similar to challenges that they raised—and we 
rejected—as to IP 45. Blosser/Romain (IP 45), 358 Or at 
___, ___. We similarly reject them here without further 
discussion.
	
We refer the ballot title for IP 46 to the Attorney 
General for modification of the caption, the “yes” result 
statement, and the summary, as described in this opinion.
	
The ballot title is referred for modification.
	
3  In modifying the summary in that regard, the Attorney General should 
consider whether, within the 125-word limit, the summary also should refer to 
the potential availability of attorney fees. See Novick/Crew v. Myers, 337 Or 568, 
574, 100 P3d 1064 (2004) (noting word limit as consideration whether Attorney 
General must include similar detail in summary).
320	
Blosser/Romain v. Rosenblum (IP 46)
APPENDIX
Relating to transportation fuel cost containment.
Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
	
Section 1.  Section 6, chapter 754, Oregon Laws 
2009, as amended by Section 3, chapter 4, Oregon Laws 
2015, is amended to read:
	
Sec. 6.  (1)  As used in this section:
	
(a)  “Greenhouse gas” has the meaning given that 
term in ORS 468A.210.	
	
(b)  “Low carbon fuel standards” means standards 
for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions [on average, 
per unit of fuel energy] by the blending of liquid fuel 
available in commercial quantities in this state.
	
(c)  “Motor vehicle” has the meaning given that 
term in ORS 801.360.
	
(d)  “Available in commercial quantities” 
means that the fuel must actually be available in 
this state in sufficient quantities for all persons 
who import gasoline or diesel to comply with the 
standards.
	
(2)(a)  The Environmental Quality Commission 
shall adopt by rule low carbon fuel standards for gasoline, 
diesel and liquid fuels used as substitutes for gasoline and 
diesel.
	
(b)  The commission may adopt the following 
related to the standards, including but not limited to:
	
(A)  A schedule to phase in implementation of the 
standards in a manner that reduces the average amount of 
greenhouse gas emissions per unit of fuel energy of the fuels 
by 10 percent below 2010 levels by the year 2025 or by a 
later date if the commission determines that an extension is 
appropriate to implement the standards;
	
(B)  Standards for greenhouse gas emissions 
attributable to the fuels throughout their lifecycles, includ-
ing by not limited to emissions from the production, storage, 
Cite as 358 Or 312 (2015)	
321
transportation and combustion of the fuels and from changes 
in land use associated with the fuels;
	
(C)  Provisions allowing the use of all types of 
liquid low carbon fuels to meet the low carbon fuel stan-
dards [,including but not limited to biofuels, biogas, natural 
gas, liquefied petroleum gas, gasoline, diesel, hydrogen and 
electricity];
	
(D)  Standards for the issuance of deferrals, estab-
lished with adequate lead time, as necessary to ensure ade-
quate fuel supplies;
	
(E)  Exemptions for fuels that are used in volumes 
below thresholds established by the commission; and
	
(F)  Standards, specifications, testing require-
ments and other measures as needed to ensure the qual-
ity of fuels produced in accordance with the low carbon fuel 
standards, including but not limited to the requirements of 
ORS 646.910 to 646.923 and administrative rules adopted 
by the State Department of Agriculture for motor fuel qual-
ity. [and]
	
[(G)  Adjustments to the amounts of greenhouse gas 
emissions per unit of fuel energy assigned to fuels for combus-
tion and drive train efficiency.]
	
[(c)  Before adopting standards under this section, 
the commission shall consider the low carbon fuels standards 
of other states, including but not limited to Washington, for 
the purpose of determining schedules and goals for the reduc-
tion of the average amount of greenhouse gas emissions per 
unit of fuel energy and the default values for these reductions 
for applicable fuels.]
	
(c)  As a means for managing and containing 
the costs of compliance with the standards, the com-
mission shall adopt by rule provisions for blending 
liquid fuels available in commercial quantities in this 
state. Provisions adopted under this subparagraph 
may not:
	
(A)  Require that any person who imports 
gasoline or diesel fuel blends into that fuel more 
322	
Blosser/Romain v. Rosenblum (IP 46)
ethanol or biodiesel than required by ORS 646.913 
and 646.922; or
	
(B)  Provide for or require that any person 
who imports gasoline or diesel fuel blend into that 
fuel any alternative fuel that is more expensive than 
the gasoline or diesel fuel into which it is blended.
	
(d)  The commission shall notify all persons 
who import gasoline or diesel fuel into this state 
when it has determined that any liquid fuel used as 
a substitute for gasoline or diesel is available in com-
mercial quantities in this state. Any person required 
to blend that substitute fuel may contest the finding 
of commercial availability in the manner provided 
for challenging administrative rule adoption.
	
[(d)  The commission shall adopt by rule provisions 
for managing and containing the costs of compliance with the 
standards, including but not limited to provisions to facili-
tate compliance with the standards by ensuring that persons 
may obtain credits for fuels used as substitutes for gasoline 
or diesel and by creating opportunities for persons to trade 
credits.]
	
(e)  The commission shall exempt from the stan-
dards any person who imports in a calendar year less than 
500,000 gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel, in total. Any fuel 
imported by persons that are related or share common own-
ership or control shall be aggregated together to determine 
whether a person is exempt under the paragraph.
	
(f)(A)  The commission by rule shall prohibit fuels 
that contain biodiesel from being considered an alternative 
fuel under these standards unless the fuel meets the follow-
ing standards:
	
(i)  Fuel that consists entirely of biodiesel, desig-
nated by B100, shall comply with ASTM D 6751 and shall 
have an oxidation stability induction period of not less than 
eight hours as determined by the test method described in 
European standard EN 15751; and
	
(ii)  Fuel that consists of a blend of diesel fuel and 
between 6 and 20 volume percent biodiesel, and designated 
Cite as 358 Or 312 (2015)	
323
as biodiesel blends B6 to B20, shall comply with ASTM D 
7467 and shall have an oxidation stability induction period 
of not less than 20 hours as determined by the test method 
described in European standard EN 15751.
	
(B)  The commission may adopt rules different from 
those required under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph if 
an ASTM or EN standard applicable to biodiesel is approved 
or amended after March 12, 2015, or if the commission finds 
that different rules are necessary due to changes in technol-
ogy or fuel testing or production methods.
	
(C)  As used in this subsection, “biodiesel” means 
a motor vehicle fuel consisting of mono-alkyl esters of long 
chain fatty acids derived from vegetable oils, animal fats or 
other nonpetroleum resources, not including palm oil.
	
(g)  The commission may not differentiate 
among crude oils in determining the lifecycle carbon 
intensity value for gasoline and diesel.
	
(3)  In adopting rules under this section, the 
Environmental Quality Commission shall evaluate:
	
(a)  Safety, feasibility, net reduction of greenhouse 
gas emissions and cost-effectiveness;
	
(b)  Potential adverse impacts to public health and 
the environment, including but not limited to air quality, 
water quality and the generation and disposal of waste in 
this state;
	
(c)  Flexible implementation approaches to mini-
mize compliance costs; and
	
(d)  Technical and economic studies of comparable 
greenhouse gas emission reduction measures implemented 
in other states and any other studies as determined by the 
commission.
	
(4)(a)  The provisions of this section do not apply 
to fuel that is demonstrated to have been used in any of the 
following:
	
(A)  Motor vehicle registered as farm vehicle under 
the provisions of ORS 805.300.
324	
Blosser/Romain v. Rosenblum (IP 46)
	
(B)  Farm tractors, as defined in ORS 801.265.
	
(C)  Implements of husbandry, as defined in ORS 
801.310.
	
(D)  Motor trucks, as defined in ORS 801.355, used 
primarily to transport logs.
	
(E)  Motor vehicles that are not designed primar-
ily to transport persons or property, that are operated on 
highways only incidentally, and that are used primarily for 
construction work.
	
(F)  Watercraft.
	
(G)  Railroad locomotives.
	
(b)  The Environmental Quality Commission shall 
adopt by rule standards for persons to qualify for the exemp-
tions provided in this subsection.