Oregon

Statistically speaking: Oregon Ducks tied for least sacks allowed through 8 games by any team since at least 2009

Published

3 years ago

October 30, 2022

Statistically speaking: Oregon Ducks tied for least sacks allowed through 8 games by any team since at least 2009

RUSHING OFFENSE
2013: 273.5 (1st, ninth)
2014: 234.5 (1st, twentieth)
2015: 279.9 (1st, fifth)
2016: 226.4 (2nd, twenty seventh)
2017: 251.0 (2nd, twelfth)
2018: 179.4 (4th, 54th)
2019: 174.9 (2nd, 51st)
2020: 166.7 (seventh, 61st)
2021: 202.4 (4th, twenty fourth)
After Georgia: 140 (ninth, 74th)
After Japanese Washington: 201.5 (third, thirty seventh)
After BYU: 205.0 (third, thirty sixth)
After Washington State: 198.2 (third, twenty ninth)
After Stanford: 228.8 (1st, tenth)
After Arizona: 241.7 (1st, eighth)
After bye: 241.7 (1st, tenth)
After UCLA: 244.6 (1st, fifth)
After Cal: 235.8 (1st, ninth)
Why: Oregon ran for 174 yards and three touchdowns on 40 carries RUSHING DEFENSE
2013: 165.5 (sixth, 66th)
2014: 165.4 (tenth, sixtieth)
2015: 178.8 (sixth, 73rd)
2016: 246.5 (eleventh, 121st)
2017: 128.5 (2nd, twenty fifth)
2018: 144.3 (fifth, forty third)
2019: 108.9 (2nd, thirteenth)
2020: 169.6 (seventh, seventieth)
2021: 144.1 (sixth, 53rd)
After Georgia: 132 (fifth, 71st)
After Japanese Washington: 116 (4th, 53rd)
After BYU: 97.7 (4th, thirty third)
After Washington State: 86.5 (2nd, sixteenth)
After Stanford: 94.6 (2nd, sixteenth)
After Arizona: 98.0 (1st, nineteenth)
After bye: 98.0 (1st, thirteenth)
After UCLA: 110.6 (2nd, nineteenth)
After Cal: 105.8 (1st, fifteenth)
Why: Cal ran for 74 yards on 26 carries NET PUNTING
2013: 38.49 (third, twenty seventh)
2014: 36.40 (eighth, 82nd)
2015: 31.85 (twelfth, 126th)
2016: 34.68 (eleventh, 113th)
2017: 34.35 (eleventh, 123rd)
2018: 36.85 (tenth, 83rd)
2019: 38.50 (seventh, 63rd)
2020: 39.36 (4th, forty ninth)
2021: 37.13 (eleventh, 103rd)
After Georgia: 38.75 (4th, 72nd)
After Japanese Washington: 38.8 (seventh, 81st)
After BYU: 37.43 (seventh, 92nd)
After Washington State: 37.33 (seventh, 94th)
After Stanford: 38.4 (sixth, eightieth)
After Arizona: 37.79 (sixth, eighty fifth)
After bye: 37.79 (seventh, 87th)
After UCLA: 37.75 (seventh, eighty fifth)
After Cal: 37.59 (fifth, eighty fifth)
Why: Andrew Boyle had two punts for 72 yards PASSING OFFENSE
2013: 291.5 (4th, twenty first)
2014: 312.5 (third, tenth)
2015: 258.3 (seventh, thirty sixth)
2016: 265.3 (fifth, thirty first)
2017: 189.9 (tenth, 94th)
2018: 247.8 (seventh, forty ninth)
2019: 258.2 (fifth, forty first)
2020: 248.1 (4th, forty seventh)
2021: 221.3 (seventh, 76th)
After Georgia: 173 (eleventh, 99th)
After Japanese Washington: 257 (eighth, 57th)
After BYU: 247 (eighth, 68th)
After Washington State: 296.8 (third, twenty fourth)
After Stanford: 270.2 (sixth, forty second)
After Arizona: 270.8 (fifth, thirty fifth)
After bye: 270.8 (seventh, forty second)
After UCLA: 272.6 (eighth, thirty sixth)
After Cal: 290.0 (4th, twenty third)
Why: Bo Nix threw for 412 yards PASSING DEFENSE
2013: 204.5 (1st, twenty first)
2014: 264.3 (seventh, 108th)
2015: 306.5 (eleventh, a hundred and twenty fifth)
2016: 271.9 (tenth, 113th)
2017: 240.6 (eighth, 89th)
2018: 241.6 (eighth, 82nd)
2019: 220.1 (2nd, 53rd)
2020: 236.3 (seventh, 66th)
2021: 241.4 (eighth, 88th)
After Georgia: 439 (twelfth, a hundred and thirtieth)
After Japanese Washington: 263 (eleventh, 98th)
After BYU: 277 (twelfth, 114th)
After Washington State: 301.5 (twelfth, a hundred and twenty fifth)
After Stanford: 282.2 (twelfth, 119th)
After Arizona: 275.3 (twelfth, 114th)
After bye: 275.3 (twelfth, 113th)
After UCLA: 273.4 (eleventh, a hundred and fifteenth)
After Cal: 280.2 (eleventh, 119th)
Why: Cal threw for 328 yards KICK RETURNS
2013: 21.69 (fifth, 59th)
2014: 19.69 (eleventh, 92nd)
2015: 25.16 (1st, fifteenth)
2016: 23.67 (1st, sixteenth)
2017: 22.73 (third, twenty ninth)
2018: 20.18 (seventh, seventieth)
2019: 26.28 (2nd, eighth)
2020: 19.23 (eighth, 84th)
2021: 22.53 (sixth, forty fifth)
After Georgia: 9.0 (tenth, 108th)
After Japanese Washington: 14.67 (eleventh, 114th)
After BYU: 15.5 (tenth, 109th)
After Washington State: 15.6 (twelfth, 116th)
After Stanford: 13.0 (twelfth, a hundred and twenty fifth)
After Arizona: 13.0 (twelfth, 126th)
After bye: 13.0 (twelfth, 127th)
After UCLA: 15.08 (eleventh, 123rd)
After Cal: 15.62 (tenth, 122nd)
Why: Kris Hutson had a 22-yard return PASS EFFICIENCY OFFENSE
2013: 164.91 (1st, fifth)
2014: 180.78 (1st, 1st)
2015: 161.86 (2nd, ninth)
2016: 151.57 (2nd, nineteenth)
2017: 143.34 (4th, thirty second)
2018: 142.67 (4th, forty fourth)
2019: 158.11 (third, thirteenth)
2020: 158.76 (1st, 14th)
2021: 138.84 (sixth, 62nd)
After Georgia: 85.22 (twelfth, 122nd)
After Japanese Washington: 141.89 (ninth, 67th)
After BYU: 151.37 (sixth, forty fifth)
After Washington State: 159.24 (sixth, thirty sixth)
After Stanford: 148.64 (sixth, forty fourth)
After Arizona: 150.05 (sixth, thirty ninth)
After bye: 150.05 (fifth, forty first)
After UCLA: 158.71 (4th, seventeenth)
After Cal: 163.15 (third, eleventh)
Why: Nix was 27 of 35 with three touchdowns and two interceptions PASS EFFICIENCY DEFENSE
2013: 105.75 (1st, seventh)
2014: 125.18 (third, 54th)
2015: 139.14 (eighth, ninety fifth)
2016: 143.16 (tenth, 103rd)
2017: 122.85 (fifth, forty eighth)
2018: 124.95 (4th, forty ninth)
2019: 113.69 (2nd, 14th)
2020: 124.02 (third, thirtieth)
2021: 127.01 (fifth, forty first)
After Georgia: 207.50 (twelfth, 129th)
After Japanese Washington: 164.47 (twelfth, 117th)
After BYU: 158.32 (eleventh, 116th)
After Washington State: 155.04 (eleventh, 116th)
After Stanford: 149.80 (eleventh, 111th)
After Arizona: 142.21 (ninth, 98th)
After bye: 142.21 (ninth, a centesimal)
After UCLA: 141.52 (ninth, a centesimal)
After Cal: 141.26 (ninth, a hundred and first)
Why: Jack Plummer was 20 of 33 with a landing and two interceptions and Kai Millner was 8 of 11 with two touchdowns KICK RETURN DEFENSE
2013: 21.65 (ninth, seventieth)
2014: 21.39 (seventh, 72nd)
2015: 22.42 (tenth, 86th)
2016: 20.52 (eighth, 63rd)
2017: 22.14 (sixth, 86th)
2018: 22.68 (ninth, a hundred and fifth)
2019: 24.43 (tenth, 118th)
2020: 21.33 (sixth, 66th)
2021: 23.0 (eighth, 102nd)
After Georgia: 36.0 (twelfth, 127th)
After Japanese Washington: 27.8 (twelfth, 121st)
After BYU: 25.0 (tenth, 112th)
After Washington State: 25.0 (eleventh, 108th)
After Stanford: 24.54 (eleventh, 112th)
After Arizona: 25.57 (eleventh, one hundred and twentieth)
After bye: 25.57 (eleventh, 121st)
After UCLA: 24.59 (tenth, a hundred and fifteenth)
After Cal: 24.59 (tenth, 117th)
Why: Cal didn’t return a kickoff TOTAL OFFENSE
2013: 565.0 (1st, 2nd)
2014: 547.0 (1st, third)
2015: 538.2 (1st, fifth)
2016: 491.7 (2nd, fifteenth)
2017: 440.9 (4th, thirtieth)
2018: 427.2 (third, forty first)
2019: 433.1 (4th, fortieth)
2020: 412.9 (sixth, forty ninth)
2021: 423.6 (fifth, fiftieth)
After Georgia: 313.0 (twelfth, 106th)
After Japanese Washington: 485.5 (sixth, forty sixth)
After BYU: 452.0 (seventh, forty eighth)
After Washington State: 495.0 (third, seventeenth)
After Stanford: 499.0 (third, thirteenth)
After Arizona: 512.5 (1st, fifth)
After bye: 512.5 (1st, eighth)
After UCLA: 517.1 (1st, fifth)
After Cal: 525.8 (1st, third)
Why: Oregon gained 586 yards on 75 performs TOTAL DEFENSE
2013: 370.1 (third, thirty seventh)
2014: 429.7 (eighth, 87th)
2015: 485.3 (twelfth, 116th)
2016: 518.4 (eleventh, 126th)
2017: 369.2 (4th, forty sixth)
2018: 385.9 (sixth, fifty fifth)
2019: 329.1 (2nd, twenty second)
2020: 405.9 (fifth, 62nd)
2021: 385.6 (eighth, 72nd)
After Georgia: 571.0 (twelfth, 129th)
After Japanese Washington: 379.0 (tenth, 77th)
After BYU: 374.7 (tenth, 78th)
After Washington State: 388.0 (ninth, eightieth)
After Stanford: 376.8 (seventh, 73rd)
After Arizona: 373.3 (seventh, 68th)
After bye: 373.3 (fifth, 61st)
After UCLA: 384.0 (seventh, 77th)
After Cal: 386.0 (sixth, 76th)
Why: Cal gained 402 yards on 70 performs PUNT RETURNS
2013: 12.39 (2nd, nineteenth)
2014: 12.48 (third, twelfth)
2015: 12.58 (4th, twenty third)
2016: 7.55 (seventh, 73rd)
2017: 6.44 (eighth, 79th)
2018: 11.95 (1st, twenty ninth)
2019: 14.33 (third, ninth)
2020: 7.0 (seventh, 62nd)
2021: 10.0 (seventh, fortieth)
After Georgia: 0.0 (ninth, 77th)
After Japanese Washington: 8.8 (fifth, forty seventh)
After BYU: 6.17 (eighth, 86th)
After Washington State: 6.17 (seventh, 92nd)
After Stanford: 5.5 (ninth, 99th)
After Arizona: 5.0 (tenth, 109th)
After bye: 5.0 (tenth, 109th)
After UCLA: 5.0 (ninth, a hundred and fifth)
After Cal: 6.18 (eighth, 87th)
Why: Kris Hutson had two returns for 23 yards SCORING OFFENSE
2013: 45.5 (1st, 4th)
2014: 45.4 (1st, 4th)
2015: 43.0 (1st, fifth)
2016: 35.4 (4th, twenty seventh)
2017: 36.0 (third, 18th)
2018: 34.8 (2nd, twenty fifth)
2019: 35.4 (2nd, sixteenth)
2020: 31.3 (4th, forty second)
2021: 31.4 (third, forty second)
After Georgia: 3.0 (twelfth, a hundred and thirtieth)
After Japanese Washington: 36.5 (fifth, fiftieth)
After BYU: 36.5 (fifth, fiftieth)
After Washington State: 39.5 (fifth, twenty fifth)
After Stanford: 40.6 (fifth, sixteenth)
After Arizona: 42.0 (1st, ninth)
After bye: 42.0 (2nd, ninth)
After UCLA: 42.4 (1st, seventh)
After Cal: 42.4 (1st, fifth)
Why: Oregon scored 42 factors SCORING DEFENSE
2013: 20.5 (2nd, thirteenth)
2014: 23.6 (2nd, thirtieth)
2015: 37.5 (twelfth, a hundred and fifteenth)
2016: 41.4 (eleventh, 126th)
2017: 29.0 (eighth, 81st)
2018: 25.4 (sixth, forty eighth)
2019: 16.5 (2nd, ninth)
2020: 28.3 (sixth, 59th)
2021: 27.0 (ninth, seventy fifth)
After Georgia: 49.0 (twelfth, 121st)
After Japanese Washington: 31.5 (eleventh, a centesimal)
After BYU: 27.7 (tenth, eighty fifth)
After Washington State: 31.0 (tenth, 94th)
After Stanford: 30.2 (ninth, 97th)
After Arizona: 28.8 (eighth, 83rd)
After bye: 28.8 (eighth, 81st)
After UCLA: 29.0 (tenth, 87th)
After Cal: 28.4 (eighth, 81st)
Why: Cal scored 24 factors PUNT RETURN DEFENSE
2013: 3.25 (1st, ninth)
2014: 5.75 (third, thirty sixth)
2015: 15.28 (twelfth, 124th)
2016: 7.94 (sixth, 68th)
2017: 6.55 (seventh, 58th)
2018: 7.36 (fifth, 51st)
2019: 7.42 (third, sixty fourth)
2020: 7.44 (4th, seventieth)
2021: 11.07 (tenth, 113th)
After Georgia: 0.0 (2nd, thirteenth)
After Japanese Washington: 0.0 (1st, thirteenth)
After BYU: 0.0 (1st, 14th)
After Washington State: 0.0 (1st, ninth)
After Stanford: 11.0 (ninth, 98th)
After Arizona: 14.67 (eleventh, 118th)
After bye: 14.67 (twelfth, one hundred and twentieth)
After UCLA: 14.67 (twelfth, 122nd)
After Cal: 14.67 (eleventh, 123rd)
Why: Cal didn’t return a punt SACKS ALLOWED
2013: 18 sacks, 1.38 per sport (third, twenty ninth)
2014: 31 sacks, 2.07 per sport (4th, 63rd)
2015: 39 sacks, 3.00 per sport (ninth, 111th)
2016: 29 sacks, 2.42 per sport (tenth, 91st)
2017: 25 sacks, 1.92 per sport (fifth, 54th)
2018: 22 sacks, 1.69 per sport (4th, thirty fifth)
2019: 25, 1.79 per sport (4th, forty ninth)
2020: 11, 1.57 per sport (fifth, twenty ninth)
2021: 24, 1.71 per sport (4th, thirty sixth)
After Georgia: 0, 0 per sport (1st, 1st)
After Japanese Washington: 0, 0 per sport (1st, 1st)
After BYU: 0, 0 per sport (1st, 1st)
After Washington State: 0, 0 per sport (1st, 1st)
After Stanford: 1, 0.2 per sport (1st, 1st)
After Arizona: 1, 0.17 per sport (1st, 1st)
After bye: 1, 0.17 per sport (1st, 1st)
After UCLA: 1, 0.14 per sport (1st, 1st)
After Cal: 1, 0.12 per sport (1st, 1st)
Why: Cal didn’t have a sack SACKS
2013: 28 sacks, 2.15 per sport (seventh, 52nd)
2014: 37 sacks, 2.47 per sport (seventh, thirty eighth)
2015: 38 sacks, 2.92 per sport (2nd, ninth)
2016: 25 sacks, 2.08 per sport (sixth, 61st)
2017: 33 sacks, 2.54 per sport (fifth, twenty eighth)
2018: 29 sacks, 2.23 per sport (seventh, 57th)
2019: 41, 2.93 per sport (1st, sixteenth)
2020: 12, 1.71 per sport (ninth, 91st)
2021: 23, 1.64 per sport (eighth, 104th)
After Georgia: 0, 0 per sport (twelfth, n/a)
After Japanese Washington: 2, 1.0 per sport (ninth, 109th)
After BYU: 3, 1.0 per sport (ninth, one hundred and tenth)
After Washington State: 7, 1.75 per sport (eighth, 82nd)
After Stanford: 10, 2.2 per sport (fifth, fifty fifth)
After Arizona: 12, 2.17 per sport (fifth, sixtieth)
After bye: 12, 2.17 per sport (sixth, sixtieth)
After UCLA: 12, 1.86 per sport (seventh, 83rd)
After Cal: 14, 1.88 per sport (seventh, eighty fifth)
Why: Oregon had two sacks PENALTIES AND TURNOVERS THIRD-DOWN CONVERSIONS
2013: 43.1 % (fifth, forty fifth)
2014: 49.5 % (1st, ninth)
2015: 39.1 % (ninth, 69th)
2016: 39.1 % (seventh, 79th)
2017: 41.0 % (ninth, 56th)
2018: 42.9 % (4th, thirty fourth)
2019: 41.8 % (seventh, forty fourth)
2020: 43.2 % (sixth, forty fourth)
2021: 51.1 (1st, 4th)
After Georgia: 46.7 (sixth, 52nd)
After Japanese Washington: 58.6 (2nd, eleventh)
After BYU: 51.2 (third, twenty third)
After Washington State: 48.1 (fifth, twenty eighth)
After Stanford: 44.4 (fifth, thirty sixth)
After Arizona: 45.9 (sixth, thirty first)
After bye: 45.9 (fifth, thirty second)
After UCLA: 46.5 (fifth, thirtieth)
After Cal: 46.9 (fifth, twenty seventh)
Why: Oregon was 5 of 10 on third down THIRD-DOWN DEFENSE
2013: 40.3 % (tenth, 71st)
2014: 42.3 % (twelfth, 89th)
2015: 42.2 % (seventh, 93rd)
2016: 48.5 % (eleventh, 122nd)
2017: 33.3 % (2nd, twenty fourth)
2018: 37.1 % (fifth, forty fifth)
2019: 33.2 % (2nd, twenty second)
2020: 41.4 % (fifth, seventy fifth)
2021: 46.0 (tenth, 118th)
After Georgia: 90.0 (twelfth, 131st)
After Japanese Washington: 60.9 (twelfth, a hundred and thirtieth)
After BYU: 57.9 (eleventh, 129th)
After Washington State: 54.0 (eleventh, 128th)
After Stanford: 48.5 (eleventh, 126th)
After Arizona: 50.6 (eleventh, 127th)
After bye: 50.6 (eleventh, 129th)
After UCLA: 50.5 (eleventh, 129th)
After Cal: 47.3 (ninth, 126th)
Why: Cal was 4 of 15 on third down TURNOVER MARGIN
2013: plus-10, 0.77 per sport (2nd, seventeenth)
2014: plus-23, 1.53 per sport (1st, 1st)
2015: plus-five, 0.38 per sport (third, thirty fourth)
2016: minus-three, minus-0.25 per sport (tenth, eighty fifth)
2017: even, 0.00 per sport (seventh, sixty fourth)
2018: plus-five, 0.38 per sport (third, thirty fifth)
2019: plus-16, 1.14 per sport (1st, fifth)
2020: minus-9, -1.29 per sport (eleventh, 121st)
2021: plus-9, 0.64 per sport (third, 18th)
After Georgia: minus-2, -2.00 per sport (eleventh, one hundred and tenth)
After Japanese Washington: zero, 0.0 per sport (seventh, 66th)
After BYU: minus-1, -0.33 per sport (tenth, eightieth)
After Washington State: 0, 0.0 per sport (seventh, sixty fourth)
After Stanford: 0, 0.0 per sport (sixth, 59th)
After Arizona: plus-3, 0.5 per sport (fifth, thirty eighth)
After bye: plus-3, 0.5 per sport (fifth, thirty second)
After UCLA: plus-4, 0.57 per sport (fifth, thirty second)
After Cal: plus-4, 0.50 per sport (fifth, thirty first)
Why: Oregon threw two interceptions and had two interceptions RED ZONE OFFENSE
2013: 78.4 % (eleventh, 94th)
2014: 86.3 % (seventh, forty third)
2015: 85.7 % (eighth, 52nd)
2016: 82.4 % (ninth, 79th)
2017: 89.3 % (third, twenty seventh)
2018: 84.3 % (sixth, sixty fourth)
2019: 77.8 % (eleventh, 96th)
2020: 86.7 % (seventh, thirty ninth)
2021: 84.2 % (sixth, 63rd)
After Georgia: 50.0 % (twelfth, 119th)
After Japanese Washington: 90.9 % (4th, forty fifth)
After BYU: 94.4 % (2nd, twenty fourth)
After Washington State: 92.0 % (4th, thirty eighth)
After Stanford: 93.3 % (third, twenty third)
After Arizona: 94.1 % (2nd, sixteenth)
After bye: 94.1 % (1st, thirteenth)
After UCLA: 92.3 % (1st, 18th)
After Cal: 87.0 % (third, forty fifth)
Why: Oregon scored 4 touchdowns on seven crimson zone journeys RED ZONE DEFENSE
2013: 80.4 % (4th, fortieth)
2014: 84.7 % (eighth, 82nd)
2015: 90.9 % (tenth, 116th)
2016: 89.2 % (tenth, a centesimal)
2017: 82.6 % (fifth, sixtieth)
2018: 83.7 % (sixth, 74th)
2019: 76.9 % (2nd, twenty third)
2020: 83.9 % (sixth, sixty fourth)
2021: 86.9 % (tenth, ninety fifth)
After Georgia: one hundred pc (eighth, 79th)
After Japanese Washington: one hundred pc (eleventh, 98th)
After BYU: 91.7 % (eleventh, 107th)
After Washington State: 94.1 % (twelfth, 116th)
After Stanford: 94.7 % (twelfth, 124th)
After Arizona: 87.5 % (ninth, 96th)
After bye: 87.5 % (tenth, 96th)
After UCLA: 85.7 % (tenth, 82nd)
After Cal: 84.4 % (eighth, 74th)
Why: Cal scored two touchdowns and a discipline purpose on 4 crimson zone journeys PENALTY YARDS PER GAME
2013: 70.15 (tenth, 116th)
2014: 72.27 (eighth, a hundred and fifteenth)
2015: 61.00 (tenth, 92nd)
2016: 75.83 (twelfth, 126th)
2017: 88.31 (twelfth, 129th)
2018: 47.92 (4th, forty first)
2019: 61.57 (ninth, 103rd)
2020: 50.86 (sixth, sixtieth)
2021: 64.57 (ninth, 111th)
After Georgia: 35 (4th, twenty second)
After Japanese Washington: 45 (sixth, thirty fourth)
After BYU: 46.0 (fifth, thirty seventh)
After Washington State: 56.25 (sixth, sixty fourth)
After Stanford: 72.0 (eleventh, a hundred and fifteenth)
After Arizona: 69.33 (eleventh, one hundred and tenth)
After bye: 69.33 (eleventh, a hundred and fifteenth)
After UCLA: 66.57 (tenth, 106th)
After Cal: 62.0 (tenth, 98th)
Why: Oregon dedicated 4 penalties for 30 yards

Source link

Oregon

Oregon housing budget would fund shelters, slash eviction prevention

Published

17 hours ago

June 11, 2025

Press Room

Oregon housing budget would fund shelters, slash eviction prevention

FILE – Rapid Response Bio-Clean teams perform removals of homeless camps in Portland’s Old Town Chinatown, March 9, 2025. Through the House Bill 5011, the Oregon Housing and Community Services Department would see its two-year budget cut by a range from $1 billion to more than $2.6 billion starting July 1, 2025.

Kristyna Wentz-Graff / OPB

Oregon lawmakers have unveiled a budget bill that would continue to funnel vast sums of money toward homeless shelters statewide while slashing funds for preventing evictions.

Democrats advanced the bill through a legislative subcommittee on a 5-2 party-line vote Tuesday, sending it to leaders on the Joint Committee on Ways and Means, who write the state’s budget.

Under Gov. Tina Kotek, Oregon has invested billions of dollars toward housing and homelessness in recent years, but the state continues to struggle with rising homelessness, evictions and a shortage of affordable housing.

Now, through House Bill 5011, the state’s Housing and Community Services Department would see its two-year budget reduced by roughly $1 billion to more than $2.6 billion starting July 1.

“The state has fewer resources than was anticipated when the Governor released her recommended budget in December, and she has appreciated that legislators have difficult decisions to make,” Roxy Mayer, Kotek’s press secretary, said in a statement Wednesday.

Funds to prevent eviction would see the biggest hit. The latest budget bill allocates $33.6 million toward programs like rental assistance or legal services that intend to keep Oregonians from becoming homeless in the first place.

That’s almost $100 million less than what was allocated in the current budget. For the upcoming biennium, Kotek had asked for $173.2 million to keep those programs running.

The latest budget proposal has enough money to serve about 4,300 households facing eviction, compared to more than 27,700 in the budget lawmakers passed in 2023, according to the nonprofit Oregon Law Center.

Oregon’s housing crisis persists. Here’s what lawmakers are doing about it

The budget would also allocate $50.3 million toward helping Oregonians transition from homelessness to stable housing (Kotek had asked for $188.2 million), and $87.4 million for long-term rental assistance (Kotek’s request: $105.2 million). The governor is reviewing the budget, Mayer said.

“The Governor expects to be disappointed and hopes there will be additional investments in homelessness and housing in the end-of-session bill,” said Mayer.

The bill comes as the Legislature has $500 million less in revenue than formerly predicted for the state’s next budget, largely due to ongoing trade tensions and slow economic growth.

With only a few weeks left in this year’s legislative session, lawmakers are weighing a variety of competing priorities, such as Kotek’s proposal to dedicate hundreds of millions of dollars toward Oregon’s education and behavioral health systems.

In a statement Tuesday night, Democrats described the bill as “an ambitious plan to expand affordable housing, reduce homelessness, and protect vulnerable families.”

“This budget should serve as a clear sign to all Oregonians that housing remains a statewide priority, even amid federal uncertainty and economic strain,” Sen. Mark Meek, D-Gladstone, the co-chair of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Economic Development, which advanced the budget.

“We’ve made real progress, but we know that we must continue building on the work we’ve done until we solve this crisis.”

But on Tuesday, some committee members voiced concern that the state has been too slow to dole out funds through its housing programs — including for wildfire survivors — and they say regulations have stymied housing production.

“It feels like we should be seeing a lot more results for the dollars we’re investing, and I think there is ongoing frustration with Oregonians that we aren’t,” said Rep. Jami Cate, R-Lebanon, who voted against advancing the bill out of committee. “It seems that often the problem is growing.”

The bill comes as eviction filings last year surged to record highs — 27,290 cases total — and homelessness increased. Meanwhile, local governments issued fewer housing permits for the second consecutive year, falling to the lowest level in 12 years.

Rep. David Gomberg, D-Otis, co-chair of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Economic Development, said Tuesday that he pressed the state housing department for progress updates in recent months.

“The answer we’ve consistently received is that there was a big program and it took them a while to stand it up and to begin to get things moving.

“So I’m looking forward to success,” he said. “I also want to note that the budget we’re approving today is a far cry from what was requested by the governor.”

Oregon governor’s $217M homeless shelter bill faces uncertain future as budget woes mount

Housing and tenant advocates fear that backing off investments for eviction prevention could propel more people into homelessness, as many Oregonians face a shortage of housing and costs that have exceeded their wages.

“We understand that it’s a tough budget environment,” Sybil Hebb, the director of legislative advocacy for the Oregon Law Center, told OPB Wednesday. “But I think we were shocked and really devastated to see the proposed severity of the cuts.”

Hebb says that investing in eviction prevention is the best way to decrease costs on the social safety net by keeping people from being trapped in the cycle of homelessness.

“People are living very close to the bone these days, and housing is extremely expensive,” said Hebb.

She added: “Any unexpected expense or unplanned illness can put people temporarily upside down. These are dollars and resources and services that help people through that immediate crisis to make sure that it doesn’t turn into a long term.”

Despite recent concerns that the state might step back its role in funding shelters, the budget would allocate nearly $205 million to support homeless and emergency shelters. Kotek had asked for more than $217 million.

“Shelter dollars in the bill will help our local partners keep their doors open and beds available,” Rep. Pam Marsh, D-Ashland, chair of the House Committee on Housing and Homelessness, said in a statement Wednesday.

“That’s essential, because our shelters are the entry point to the continuum of services that enable individuals to regain stability and find permanent housing.”

The budget would also dedicate $10 million toward housing programs for Oregon’s nine federally recognized tribes.

Source link

Oregon

Power shutoffs banned during extreme summer heat in Oregon

Published

2 days ago

June 10, 2025

Press Room

Power shutoffs banned during extreme summer heat in Oregon

The Oregon Public Utility Commission has approved temporary rules to protect low-income residential customers from power disconnections during high summer heat.

The ban starts this month and runs through October and is meant to ensure Oregonians – including those who rely on medical devices – can safely cope with extreme temperatures. The protections stem from a bill passed in 2021, dubbed the Energy Affordability Act, which required the commission to adopt measures to reduce the burden of high electricity costs for Oregonians.

Under the new rules, all investor-owned electric utilities – Portland General Electric, PacifiCorp and Idaho Power – are prohibited from disconnecting service due to non-payment during major heat waves.

The rules apply when the National Weather Service or another local jurisdiction issues a heat advisory or extreme heat watch or warning or when a local air quality alert is issued.

Customers also are protected in the 24 hours before a qualifying hot spell and in the 48 hours after. They’re also protected 24 hours after an air quality alert has been issued.

Customers whose utility services were disconnected up to seven days before a heat event can request to be reconnected without delay once the extreme weather begins.

Typically, utilities can charge a reconnection fee and require customers to pay at least a portion of their past due bills before reconnecting them. But the new rules waive upfront reconnection fees for medical certificate account holders and discount program participants earning less than 10% of state median income. (Once the heat wave is over, customers are still responsible for paying their past due bills and reconnection fees).

The new rules also require utilities to inform customers about the protections so they can quickly get service reconnected.

The commission is poised to adopt permanent rules by the end of next year.

Customer advocates hailed the rules in the wake of the state’s first high heat event earlier this week.

“This past weekend, we saw record-breaking heat that threatened the health and safety of our seniors, neighbors with disabilities, and families. These new protections mean that no one will be left at home in danger without electricity simply because their energy bills are too expensive,” said Charlotte Shuff, a spokesperson for the Oregon Citizens’ Utility Board, a nonprofit organization that advocates for utility customers and supported the measures.

— Gosia Wozniacka covers environmental justice, climate change, the clean energy transition and other environmental issues. Reach her at gwozniacka@oregonian.com or 971-421-3154.

Source link

Oregon

Could Trump deploy Oregon National Guard if immigration protests escalate?

Published

2 days ago

June 10, 2025

Press Room

Could Trump deploy Oregon National Guard if immigration protests escalate?

PORTLAND Ore. (KPTV) – If protests break out in Oregon in response to federal immigration raids, President Donald Trump could legally mobilize the state’s National Guard, like he has done recently in Los Angeles.

Federal law grants the president authority to federalize a state’s National Guard under Title 10 of the U.S. Code, Section 12406, in situations of “insurrection, invasion, or rebellion,” or when it becomes “impracticable” to enforce federal law by regular means. In such a scenario, Guard troops are placed under federal control, though their roles would be largely restricted to protecting federal personnel or property. They would not be allowed to arrest civilians due to the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of federal military forces in domestic law enforcement.

This means, that if Trump evoked this authority during immigration-related unrest, Oregon’s Guard troops could not act as police officers.

The president also has access to the Insurrection Act, a more sweeping statue that allows deployment of active-duty military or federalized Guard troops without a governor’s consent.

While this law has rarely been used, it could theoretically be used if civil disorder severely threatened federal operations.

There have been ICE protests in Portland recently, but they have been largely peaceful.

On Monday, during a press conference, Gov. Tina Kotek indicated she would push back against any such actions.

She described Guard troops being federalized in California as, “an alarming disregard for the safety of Americans and their ability to govern themselves.”

“The president’s unlawful actions undermine our local authorities, who should be able to do their jobs without a federal intervention escalating and inflaming the situation,” said Kotek.

So, Trump has the authority, but his power is limited for how Guard troops can enforce the law. Any attempt to deploy the Guard to quell protests would also likely be met with lawsuits from the state of Oregon.

Source link