Our Demands
Burning fossil fuels is the primary cause of climate change. The Oregon Treasury continues to invest in these fossil fuels, therefore Divest Oregon demands of the Oregon Treasurer and the Oregon Investment Council:
Invest in a just, climate-safe future
End investments in fossil fuels
Address climate risk transparently
How We Make Progress
What's New
Global emissions are up. Private equity is a culprit – and so is the Oregon Treasury. Private Equity Climate Risks consortium has just published its latest scorecard and report , endorsed by 21 organizations working on climate, environmental justice, financial accountability, and consumer issues documenting (pages 10-28) that: ⚠️ 20 private equity firms’ energy portfolios: are responsible for producing an estimated 1.5 gigatons of greenhouse gas emissions annually. include more than 1,000 assets: 244 energy companies 250 oil and gas fields 15,000 miles of pipelines 35 LNG terminals 13 coal terminals Dozens of LNG tankers Hundreds of fossil fuel power plants. The Guardian (9/15/2026) on the Private Equity Climate Risks report: World’s top 20 private equity firms produce more greenhouse gases a year than most countries, report finds : Firms manage $7.3tn in assets and could afford to transition away from fossil fuels yet invest in natural gas and coal-fired plants to power datacenters. “Private equity firms have emerged as the largest datacenter owners outside of big tech.” (See the case study on data centers starting on p 25 of the report.) What about Oregon? ⚠️Six private funds, held by the Oregon Treasury, hold at least 473 fossil fuel assets. These firms are: Blackstone, Brookfield Asset Management, Encap Investments, EQT, Global Infrastructure Partners (GIP), Quantum Capital. All are in the Real Assets holdings. As Private Equity Stakeholder Project commented to the Oregon Investment Council (see Public Comment book of 9/2/2026 , page 8): Through existing OST fund commitments, OPERF likely has exposure to many of these 473 fossil fuel assets, which also create global climate risk. Some funds held by OST are making new investments in fossil fuels, pushing the pension fund further from Oregon’s Climate Resilience Investment Act (CRIA) goals and creating more risk for the fund. One example: BlackRock’s GIP. Oregon invested in GIP (Global Investment Partners fund), created to finance a new LNG terminal (see Is the Oregon State Treasury Supporting Environmental Racism in the Gulf South? Divest Oregon 9/26/2024). The fund is now managed by BlackRock and it plans to acquire AES, a massive US-based utility company that also backs 23 fossil fuel-fired power plants globally. If the AES deal closes, BlackRock’s GIP will nearly double its fossil fuel power plant portfolio to 50, spanning 11 countries.
Photo by Héctor Berganza / Pexels
“As a PERS beneficiary, I am horrified that my pension funds private prison contractors and ICE detention centers.” Three recent Letters to the Editor of The Oregonian voice deep disquiet that the Treasury invests in immigrant detention facilities and spyware that are internationally recognized as engaging in human rights abuses and are flagrantly violating constitutional rights – instead of constructive investments. In June 2025, Oregon Treasury data shows investment of $51 million in CoreCivic and Geo Group, private prison contractors, and Palantir, maker of surveillance software used by ICE against US residents. Divest Oregon has been asking the Treasurer for years : Why aren’t investments screened to comply with Oregon Investment Council standards? See the blog: Why is the Treasury still investing workers’ retirement in fossil fuels, ICE contractors, and surveillance technology? for the backstory. In May, Treasurer Steiner stated that Treasury used its shareholder power to vote against four candidates for Geo Group’s board of directors because it was not conforming to Treasury’s investment standards – but kept the stock: Treasurer Steiner is “ deeply troubled ” about ICE contractor Geo Group…but OST has been a shareholder for years. The Treasury is investing public employee money. It has a responsibility to the beneficiaries and to all of us to follow its own investment guidelines. The letters voice a strong call for change: PERS should divest from ICE-contract prisons ( PDF , The Oregonian 7/27/2026) “Human Rights Watch reports that 52 people died in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the first 500 days of President Donald Trump’s second term…." “It is tempting to feel powerless about this senseless waste of life. But here in Oregon, we have an opportunity to make a difference. We can demand that the Oregon Public Employees Retirement System divest from The Geo Group and Core Civic, two of the largest for-profit private prison corporations, which contract with ICE to run immigration detention facilities.” Oregon shouldn’t invest in ICE prisons ( PDF , The Oregonian 7/31/2026) “As a PERS member, I am not comfortable profiting from other people’s misery, and I am confident that others feel the same." “Reduced public investments and increased public awareness could even make investments in Geo Group and CORE Civic less attractive. Oregon should lead opponents of the cruelty in this immigration crackdown, epitomized by these prisons." Divest PERS from ICE-contract prisons ( PDF , The Oregonian 8/3/2026) “As a PERS beneficiary, I am horrified that my pension funds private prison contractors and ICE detention centers." “Oregon State Treasurer Elizabeth Steiner said she was 'deeply troubled' by Geo Group’s practices, and that the Treasury had used its shareholder power to vote against four candidates for the company’s board. Has that vote had any noticeable effect? Will Geo Group change its business practices as a result? These companies might take notice if the Oregon Treasury began pulling its investments.” “Like the people of Minneapolis, Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield and Portland Mayor Keith Wilson stood up to ICE. This is the moment for our Treasury staff to show the same courage."
Photo by SpaceX on Unsplash In a July 1 article Reuters reported that Oregon Treasurer Steiner wanted guidance from the federal Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) about SpaceX. How should pension funds handle the new company with the giant market valuation? SEC Commissioner Mark Uyeda answered Elizabeth Steiner in an interview in Reuters . One takeaway is his simple point that if you don't like the governance arrangements of a stock, don't buy it. A message from the SEC's Uyeda: If you don't like SpaceX's governance, don't buy the shares ( Reuters Sustainable Finance , July 1, 2026) Note: The Oregon State Treasury has $6.8 million in exposure to SpaceX through one public equity index fund and one global equity portfolio ( Portland Business Journal July 2, 2026). Divest Oregon has made the same point to Treasurer Steiner, repeatedly. For example, Treasurer Steiner posted on Facebook on May 6, 2026 that she is “deeply troubled” by the ways ICE contractor Geo Group fails to adhere to Oregon Investment Council (OIC) policy. Divest Oregon responded : The Oregon Treasury has held stock in private prison/immigrant detention contractors for years, in spite of well-publicized abuse. If a company is violating OIC policy the Treasury has an obligation to sell the stock. In fact, Treasury’s screening process can and should prevent purchasing or holding stock that violates OIC/Treasury standards. The SEC Commissioner quoted in the Reuters ’ interview about SpaceX also says pension funds have the duty and ability to do such screening: Question by Reuters to SEC Commissioner Uyeda: "You write that ‘If prospective investors have concerns with the governance arrangements, then their most powerful tool is to not purchase shares of the stock.’ But critics like some big pension funds say the fast-track addition of SpaceX to big indexes could make them unwilling buyers of the stock. What would you say to such critics? Response from SEC Commissioner Uyeda: "Large pension funds have choices with respect to their investment decisions as part of their fiduciary duty to the plan. While index funds may have certain conveniences and low costs, there is a trade-off to outsourcing securities selection to a third party. There are alternatives, such as selecting a fund that follows a different index or is actively managed, or engaging in customized direct indexing that would provide more control over the portfolio.”