Bend Electrification
For over a year, the Bend Council has been working to “…promote welfare and reduce economic cost to Bendites by mitigating the impacts associated with fossil fuel emissions…” Incentives have been proposed to reduce CO2 emissions from gas by electrifying new homes in Bend. Using the EPA’s 2023 “Social Cost of Carbon” ($ of damage per ton of CO2 emissions from burning natural gas) as the cornerstone, the calculated environmental damage of running gas appliances equals (SCC) *(CO2 tons per appliance/year) * (life of appliance).
Once realizing how expensive the nominal fee would be per house ($9,771), only 20% of that number ($1,954) will be the proposed fee for new homes. An admin. fee of $362,153 /yr is predicted.
But when projected out 10 years, considering initial investment and fuel costs, electric is likely to be more expensive than gas. And currently the majority of incremental electricity in Oregon is still generated by burning gas, so switching to electricity at this point will actually result in MORE CO2 emissions, with less efficiency and further burden a constrained grid. Oregon HB 2021 mandates that Pacific Power increase the percent of their renewable generated electricity from 19% (2024) to 85% by 2030. The whisper is that it can’t be done. And that is the case around the world.
Another problem is that the EPA SCC model is a global cost model and not appropriate for local areas. Under the EPA model, a release of a ton of CO2 in Bend will do damage somewhere in the world. But for many reasons that CO2 may not do the same damage in Bend.
Shortly after the 2023 EPA study release, researchers found that the data in the agricultural impact section that had predicted significant damage was in error. After correction there was no damage to agricultural productivity due to CO2 and even a small improvement.
Likewise for sea level change. The EPA study used methods that pre-dated the more recent USGS data that now shows that roughly half of sea level rise in the USA was from subsidence. So, the EPA model used inappropriately, and questionable damage assessments led to the single number that the entire “Bend Climate Fee” rests on.
Even at 20% of the EPA model, the CO2 impact on Bend is likely to be less. Bend doesn’t have an extremely hot climate, is far from the sea, has very little agriculture, and has vast forested land nearby to sequester CO2. If Bend homeowners will be obliged to pay a fee, then they should know exactly how it is calculated. 20% times something that is wrong does not make it correct. If the errors in the cornerstone calculation are not recognized then Bend will be open to criticism and even legal action.
Contact the Council and ask for a public question and answer session and ask why a reward program for residential rooftop solar panels, which will not have grid issues has not been considered.
—David White
The High Cost of Gaslighting Bend
The collective meltdown over Bend’s proposed Climate Pollution Fee is as predictable as a July haze over the Cascades. For decades, we’ve allowed developers to hook our future to a fossil fuel respirator while pretending “natural gas” isn’t just a slow-motion arson of the High Desert. The mental gymnastics required to oppose this fee are truly Olympic-grade. Opponents are performing backflips to regurgitate the same tired oil and gas industry propaganda that has been debunked for years. It takes a staggering amount of cognitive dissonance to claim you care about “affordability” while fighting to keep residents tethered to the fluctuating prices of a dying industry.
Let’s be clear about the actual mechanics here: the goal of this policy is for builders to choose efficient electric construction from the start and avoid the climate fee altogether. It’s an invitation to be part of the climate solution. This isn’t a “shakedown”— it’s a long-overdue invoice for those who refuse to evolve. To the local suits whining about “energy choice,” let’s be real: the only choice they’re defending is the freedom to lock families into a volatile, methane-leaking monopoly while our Ponderosas turn to kindling.
We are living in a powder keg, and this fee is the fire suppressant we need. We should be using that revenue to pull heat pumps out of the dreams of the working class and put them into their living rooms. We aren’t just building houses; we’re building a fortress against a heating planet. If a developer can’t find $2,100 to offset the carbon debt they’re tattooing onto our skyline, perhaps they should just make the right choice in the first place.
The era of noxious, dirty hookups is dead. It’s time we stopped subsidizing the apocalypse and started building a town powered by the sun and the wind. City Council, stand your ground. Keep the fee, ignore the industry scripts, and let’s get on with the electric revolution.
Stay wired, Bend.
—Barry Wicks
Why Do Some People Object to the Franklin Avenue Project
In its March 26th “pee tunnel” opinion piece, the Source asked the above question. Here are why some people object to this project. “Some people” factcheck. First, this project does not eliminate the “pee tunnel.” Pedestrians and bicyclists will still use the tunnel, and the tunnel will still provide a location for individuals to relieve themselves.
The April 7 open house listed safer walking and biking as the main benefit of the Franklin Avenue project. Bicyclists get “buffered bike lanes,” but the only other design measure is more paint at intersections.
The engineers ignored the findings of the Bend Area Transportation Safety Action Plan which said, “89% of crashes occur within 250 feet of an intersection.” Franklin will end up being a less safe street because adding paint doesn’t offset the bad driving or bad bicycling from increased congestion as the Greenwood Avenue pilot road diet proved. Also, the design fails to address the poor sight distance on both sides of the overpass. Then the designers added on-street parking spaces which increases the number of potential “conflicts points” and violates the Transportation System Plan’s mobility goal #9.
The designers demonstrate “tunnel vision” by focusing on buffered bike lanes when thinking “outside the tunnel” would lead to a safer design. Here is a safer design. This is one of the “just the facts” studies posted on Accountability4Bend.com, an educational website providing data-driven factchecking to the city’s vision-driven agenda.
—Michael Walker
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
