>> we are all here.
We will get started.
Ashley will start the meeting.
She needs to make sure both systems are going.
We have to be quiet while she is
doing that so we don't overlap. Good to go?
Great.
Welcome everybody here today to
our really important roundtable discussion. Thank
thank you all for coming.
Grad you could make it to the beautiful public works building.
I want to go around the table to
see who we are and our association so we know everyone
that is here and get into the
objectives for the meeting and
presentations. >> I never get to be first. City attorney for the city of
bend.
Ian lighthouser.
>> scott jones, human rights and
equity commission chair.
>> franzosa city councilor.
>> mike rhymely bend city councillor.
David burger local 290 and also
state building trades knowledge steve platt city council.
Nor guise bend.
>> chair of the environment and climate committee.
>> megan perkins bend city council lower.
Mayor of bend. >> CHAIRMAN Of bend economic
development board. Allen spector cascade natural
gas.
Alisa dunlap specific power. Arielle mendez.
Chair of affordable housing
advisory committee. Central oregon builders
association. cassie lacey city manager's
office.
Eric king, city manager.
>> thanks everyone for being here. How this will work.
This is a round table discussion.
This is to bring different stakeholders to the table to
listen to presentations and get
your feedback and ideas.
For council this is a listening mode mostly today.
If we have clarifying or
informational questions jump in. We want to hear from the folks
at the table.
We have an opportunity for utility providers to share
information with us so they have presentations.
They will have unput on the two
questions we are talking about today.
Those are input on exemptions to the fee and implementation
timeline and approach.
We will have the presentations first.
Each utility provider will give the presentation and hold
questions until the end. We will take questions focusing
on information and clarity from utility providers.
We will get into the individual
stakeholders your ideas and thoughts on these topics.
We will discuss that after the presentations are done.
There are a lot of us.
If you want to respond or ask a question or give input please
stand up your card so I can see you.
I will make sure we get to everybody.
I will call on folks if we need to draw that information out.
Not a time council will deliberate or decide anything today.
We are gathering information to feed into a work session on APRIL 22.
Council will have time to deliberate, make decisions about
the future of this policy.
A lot of it is based on information we are given today.
That is what we are doing today.
I will throw it back to cassie for background how we got here
and then presentations from utilities.
>> thank you. Information I will share is
background information.
Essentially information that I shared in memo last week.
I will be brief so we can move to discussion. Background.
City has been working on broader program to encourage
electrification of buildings in
bend to achieve climate action
goals over last year and-a-half. Climate fee today we have been
focusing on for the last few
months is part of the
disincentive and incentive
component of rural work plan.
We will create incentives using
to encourage the electrification
using proceeds of fee and
exploring additional monetary incentives.
The city is expanding more robust program to share
information about electrifying
buildings or upcoming work a
workshop series is coming up APRIL 29.
We have consequent ones for the next three months.
In the last part of the plan
monitoring landscape for policy
levers for reducing gas use as
well in the future. background.
Key steps so far.
Policy development process.
Council direction to pursue fee incentive program in APRIL last year.
Work sessions with the council
in AUGUST, OCTOBER and DECEMBER focusing on potential fee,
analysis on costs impacts of
electrifying homes.
Engagement options for incentives and fees.
In DECEMBER and FEBRUARY we shared calculation and approach
to fee design. FEBRUARY council gave staff
direction to pursue fee as proposed.
They set fee level at reduced rate which we will talk about in
a minute.
At that meeting they directed
staff to convene this roundtable
to focus on fee exemptions and timeline for file major policy
decisions we need council to
give direction on to get the fee policy complete.
I will share a quick overview of
the proposed fee structure.
Social cost of carbon multiplied
by net lifetime by gas appliance
correlated to said of house.
Damages from carbon dioxide.
It takes into account the amount
of carbon gas appliance produces
over lifetime of apappliance
minus carbon alternative electric appliance would emit
that is the net carbon impact of gas appliance.
Tier is multiplier to acts for lower or higher energy use
carbon emissions from smaller or larger houses.
We established three tiers.
Lowest is homes 1600 square feet
or less.
That is 65% tier factor.
1600 or 3,000 is average.
That is 100%.
This doesn't get adjusted. Greater than thousand square
feet they are 150%. One additional adjustment to base line fee.
What council directed in
FEBRUARY to adjust to 20% of calculated value.
This wases to minimize
additional cost impact of fee on new construction recognizing we
want to continue supporting housing goals and help meet city
climate goals as well. This final slide is table of
what would become the fee schedule.
Fee is established per appliance.
Each piece of equipment has
dollar value varying over the three tiers based on the tier
factor.
New home being built these are the amounts that would have to
be paid for each of the pieces
of equipment.
For single house add together to get total fee based on what the
present in the house.
From this table you can see an average size home all gas
equipment total fee would be over $2,000.
Amounts correlated to relative
energy use of equipment that is why gas furnaces are majority of
fee by quite a bit.
That is summary of fee overview.
I will now passover to utility
presenter to hear from pacific
power then cec and then cascade
natural gas.
>> I am alisa dunlap.
I will wait until she pulls up the slides.
I spoke with council a couple
months ago.
my presentation will be briefer. That doesn't mean the rest of
you shouldn't ask me questions.
Feel free to ask detailed questions as we get into the
roundtable discussion.
Overview of pacific power.
We serve 600,000 customers across oregon.
Primarily rural utility.
We have service territory, very small portion of portlands and
then here in central oregon as
well as out on the coast. Breaking it down to
infrastructure that serves city
of bend.
We have seven existing substations.
It is where high voltage power
comes in to be stopped down to voltages to serve the homes
abbusinesses.
There are seven substations.
Five are planned or have been upgraded in the last two to
three years. Two more are plan understand the
next two years to be upgraded.
We submitted plans for
additional substation in southeast bend within the next five years.
Why do I tell about infrastructure?
Here is what is existing.
What is existing is tapped out.
We are actively trying to keep up with growth and vitality of
the region much like the city is
building roads and sewer to expand serve growing needs of the community.
We are trying to expand the grid
to support the growth.
Here are details on what growth
looks like in bend. This growth chart council saw
before, but this represents 3% growth rate expansion
year-over-year.
The reason the line at the bottom does not start at the
same spot is because the
baseline of where we sit for eye
electrical capacity and load has
grown year-over-year and it is getting high here is and higher.
Bend is second highest growth.
Behind redmond. Bend 3%.
Redmond 4.3%. Portland is far behind the
growth of central oregon.
This is our compliance chart.
You have seen this before. Hb2021 I will give overview.
I am sure my colleagues will speak to this regulation.
State law passed in 2021.
It requires investor owned
utilities to meet targets. 80% baseline by 2030.
This is projection of emissions reductions.
We are in active rfp for renewable resources for oregon.
I have good news to report on that front.
I thought I wouldn't be able to provide updates until the end of
the year.
We will have preliminary results available this summer.
Something I committed to city staff and council to provide
updates because this is sort of key piece of how you are going
about making these policy decisions.
As soon as I have preliminary results available I will share
those with council.
This will be the first rfp for
renewable resources since the
changes to federal production tax credits.
I would be remiss if I did not say in from structure is needed
to bring infrastructure to the region.
Transmission lines and those take years to build.
We are kind of working in all of these phases concurrently trying
to meet the target that are
currently set in oregon law.
Lastly, things to consider.
Infrastructure as the community continues to grow.
Where will additional substations go as we need them
or other utilities need them?
I put in here just a land calculation so we need three to
five acres for a substation.
We are going to need city
support on finding places to put the infrastructure.
I will say electrical infrastructure is not most
exciting.
It comes with controversy. As we build out to support
community we need support of the
city. Existing load growth trend.
This is highest growing region.
Bend is behind redmond as second highest community.
We have a large interconnectionqued for new users.
A lot of projects in the pipeline.
That is all going to be strained as we move forward.
That pushes the need for additional infrastructure to be
built and support for that.
Lastly, on compliance. Hb2021.
The reason that rfp is so
important to give us market costs what renewable energy is
going to cost.
Within hb2021 there is affordability cost off-ramp.
Meaning if the costs are
determined to be too high for
customers, utilities are able to
push outcome appliance dates to preserve affordability for
customers.
That is something that is unknown at the moment.
I think I would be remiss if I
didn't say there is discussion
about the oregon legislature in
2027 potentially pivoting to
different emissions reductions models or regulations.
If that does change we will certainly continue to engage
with city staff on what compliance with whatever the new
thing is or if we are on the current path we will continue to
engage with the community.
With that I am finished with my presentation.
>> thank you. Is there anyone with a question
at this point about that information she presented?
>> I have a question.
You talked about affordability off-ramp.
It is widely publicized
renewable energy solar and wind
is less expensive than gas, coal, nuclear.
How do you judge that? That affordability?
How will that be judged?
What will the all tentative be for emission free energy.
If you don't hit affordability
you buy more expensive power? >> I am unclear on your
question. Right now the current rfp open
for renewable resources I am
aware we have solicited bids for wind, solar and battery.
All of those would go towards hb2021 compliance.
I don't know the pricing. That is not public.
We are soliciting bids.
when we see the pricing against the market and whatever else is
available in our resource
portfolio, we will make cost affordability calculations at that point.
All of these things have to be
approved by the oregon public utility commission.
When we go into present the rfp results, at that point we can
point to market conditions that
say, yes, these are affordable.
Here is the compliance pathway we are currently on.
We expect everything to move
forward as shown in that slide
or, no, we need to make adjustments what is coming back
from the market.
We can't tax customers in a way
to make power unaffordable. >> demand is also rising.
You talked bend is in a growth
phase and demand is increasing
here.
>> anyone else with a question? >> I have a question.
According to your slide from
29-30 you go from 30% to 80%.
That is 50% increase in renewables. You have rfp out.
What is currently available in
that one year period that is
going to make your portfolio 50% more?
>> we had question about this last time, too.
I anticipate when this rfp
results comes to fruition and we have nor information that compliance chart will look
different. We will have more renewable
energy resources available in
years prior to 2029. I don't think it is going to
stay the way it is right now
with significant cliff from 29 to 30.
This is our best guess based on what we know of market
conditions absence the current rfp.
>> you were talking about the growth.
Maybe I didn't understand. Growth doesn't show what you are
going to have to make up for not
having in gas and utilities
which is more than 30% growth.
Is that accounted for? >> natural gas will remain a
part of the electric mix. It is coal that can know longer
serve oregon customers in 2030.
>> what I am saying the growth
and demand you are going to have
to provide to bend.
>> from potential move from gas. Bend is very high growth rate.
I think to do that type of calculation that is very much
getting in the weeds.
I try to keep this high level as possible.
I am happy to run those numbers.
I did run a few of the numbers based on the fee presented from
staff at the last discussion.
We can talk about that if we
need to get into the details. >> what was on the slide is
right now without the policy in place?
>> right. >> something different if policy
was in place? >> yes.
>> we have two other presentations.
I don't want to spend 40 to 50
minutes so we can have discussion.
>> lisa, how much growth is driven by residential and how
much driven buy outs
buy out side residential. >> most of the growth in
residential is coming from multifamily housing which is
already electrified.
Those are significant.
They are on par with a small manufacturer.
>> thank you. >> mike.
>> I was going to ask the same question.
>> that worked out well. Garrett.
>> does the timeline for
expansion of infrastructure include land use or how long it
takes to build substation.
>> I don't think I laid out a timeline.
>> three to five acres is how much land we need for
substation.
I used to say you could builds a
substation in three years. That is rocket speed.
It does take the land use
process along with ordering long lead materials.
You could probably still do it in three years.
More like four to five years for a substation.
>> any other questions? >> thank you for the
presentation.
Any strategies that can meet new
demand without transmission? Large load flexibility is a huge
opportunity we have when we have
cold snaps and heat waves how we
can keep the heat on. They don't meet the multiyear
infrastructure upgrades. >> we have robust demand
response program that is rolled
out to commercial and industrial first.
It came to bend last summer as residential program.
We are heavily encouraging energy efficiency.
Those are two major ways we can
curb the need for transmission infrastructure.
It is necessary to get power from renewable energy resources
not related here or next to a
load to serve the load.
>> moving to
moving to cc next. Your presentation. Thank
thank you, lisa. >> brent ten pas.
Central electric cooperative. We appreciate the opportunity to
be here today.
I also want to acknowledge cassie and her accessibility and
reaching out in good conversations with her.
Very good productive transparent conversations.
Thank you, cassie.
If pacific power is a rural utility, central electric is
very, very rural cooperative utility.
I will give you brief background
who we are in my day-to-day
there are sometimes a lack of
awareness who cec is and who we
are in our mission to serve the
greater area.
The co opin the 1940s through
the rural electrification
administration in the f dr administration ranchers and
farmers borrowed 240,000 and
started to build the system themselves. That has grown over the years.
We have a 5300 square file
service territory across five counties, tri-counties. 24 substations.
We are currently grading to
construct a new substation for
the stevens ranch development.
We have 24 substations.
4,000 miles of energized
powerlines.
There is a snapshot of service territory.
If you go west you are looking at the ski resort.
East to iz, about 40 miles east
of palina.
North of madras.
As far south as brothers and I forget that little town out there.
We go pretty far south to hampton.
The yellow you see is
unincorporated or unallocated territory.
If you are in the yellow area
you have a choice to connect
with cec or pacific power.
Everything that you see there in
pink is pacific power.
That is a snapshot as of the end of 2025.
We are primarily residential
irrigation frankly has slowly
been declining over the years
for drought, farming, ranching, second and third generations
don't want to do it. Change in our make up.
We have commercial.
Also our largest number is the st. Charles hospital.
At the time it was constructed it was so far out it was in the
service territory.
That is an idea of growth over
the decades.
Zero in on the city of bend.
Red line is the border. Pink is again pacific power.
Yellow would be unallocated. All of that growth on the east
tsai
on east sideis service territory.
7500 members in the city of
bend. We will touch on it later.
With growth we will nearly
double the number of members
within the city of bend.
We purchase our power through
bonneville power administration which managed columbia river
power system.
We purchase power through
generation cooperative pngc. Fuel mix is pretty clean
depending on the water year 89
to 93 to 94% emission free.
We have 13% nuclear.
Within that 13% of nonspecified
market purchases you will see
some small wind and solar.
Most of those market purchases
are more carbon intensive.
This is important to highlight.
Bpa is tier rate to balance low
cost federal power with regional.
Public utilities, municipal utilities or co-ops.
We are coming to end of 20 year contract.
That tier 1 power for $40
megawatt comes off hydro system
as well as bpa columbia generating in washington.
It is stable and predictable.
Tier 2 power is $70 a megawatt.
All of the growth we are
experiencing falls under tier 2.
It is more carbon intensive
which impacts overall resource.
Power costs 52% of our operating budget.
Bpa power is rising in cost.
Last year they implemented 19%
increase for customers over three years.
Cec had to go out and raise its rates just over 9%.
We are starting cost service
analysis to look at what to do
for this year and the following
year to match that.
Organic growth which I touched
on we have seen increase 10% membership and we expect that
again over the next five years.
This is not just bend, but it is
also for us northwest redmond
and sisters which is entirely in
our service territory. Obviously greatest growth is in
the steven road development.
Also the multi-unit housing is driving upload as well.
You also have library there and just the other residential that
is growing there.
We understand there is nearly
7500 homes that will pretty much
double our service meters just
within the city of bend over the
next few years.
One of the things to touch on.
Resource adequacy is an
increasing challenge.
Over last two years multiple
headlines about potential blackouts, 9 giga watt shortfall
in that generation online not keeping pace with that shortfall.
Put it into perspective.
9 gigawatts would be like nine 1,000-megawatt power plants.
State of oregon uses almost 7 gigawatts. Throw in peak load.
That is almost 9 gigawatts there
to put example to that.
It's growing and resource
adequacy is becoming ever
increasing issue as well as the
cost for power is soaring. The data centers receive much of
the attention and blame for soaring energy demand.
They are playing a role in it. Pacific northwest is
experiencing great growth as we
also see here in central oregon. Greater electrification of homes
including heating, air-conditioning, water heating,
adoption of electric vehicles.
The other thing contributes is
retirement of coal and less efficient natural gas that are
not replaced. Demand is outgrowing what is
coming online.
Then you have the thorny knot of transmission constraints.
How will you import these firm resources into the state of
oregon?
The permitting and construction, everything that goes into
construction.
Those are all issues as my colleague has to work through
just to have transmission to
bring in and import that kind of power.
We took a serious hit just last month.
Many of you MAY be following
what is happening with the federal system and lawsuits
going on for over a decade.
A federal judge injunction
issued to alter operations of bpa system.
Bottom line is that from APRIL
into summer, they are now going
to buy pass generations.
Losing several hundred average megawatt.
That is going to be lost for
public power that is pretty much overnight a 6% increase in costs
of power on top of what we just
now have to deal with with the
three year 19% increase in power.
How are we meeting future demand?
First and foremost we are going
to promote efficient electricity
use to reduce tier 2 power performs to keep rates low.
We have never as co-op engaged in fuel switching.
We believed that members know
what is best as far as meeting their energy needs.
what we have done over the decades we have very robust
energy efficiency program as
well as rebates and inspections to help guide other members
through energy choices to really
if they choose to electrify and
go with high efficiency
appliances to maintain affordability and responsible
energy use.
You know, we cannot afford to stand idly by and basically have
bpa dictate to us what is
happening on tier 2.
Through our co-op we are looking
at battery solar in the culver
area among 25 members who wants
to opt-in to help reduce tier 2
reliance on bpa. We have also signed two
different power purchasing agreements wind and solar to
help diversify our portfolio.
We are not seeing a lot of cost
savings from tier 2. Marginal difference than tier 2.
At the end in wrapping up, as
not for profit member owned utility.
Our mission is to provide
electricity to members at lowest cost. Fulfilling that mission is more
difficult as we look at growth
how the energy industry is evolving.
We don't have full appreciation
for what the understanding what those potential financial
impacts would be for members.
We know more load coming on increases tier 2 costs and
increases infrastructure costs
sizing things appropriately.
We are looking at the substation stevens ranch with hopefully
construction time of three years.
It will cost about $13 million.
we are thinking about second substation to help meet the
energy needs in southeast bend.
I will answer questions. >> questions?
Councilor mendez.
>> thank you.
You said over 90% current mix is carbon emission free.
Could you describe what the future expansion looks like in
terms of carbon emission profile.
>> cec or bpa? >> cec.
>> that growth under tier 2 will
be more carbon intensive.
I can't put a number on it.
We are proactive with wind and solar to shave some of that off.
As well through energy efficiency.
We have a challenge.
Potentially that solar with the battary storage in culver could
help as well. >> steve. >> you talked about challenges
with transmission in the area of local and in the area.
You have city council and staff here listening.
How can we best help?
>> we have two different challenges.
Our challenge is bpa.
Bpa is the transmission provider
for almost all of pacific northwest.
To give you example of the transmission constraints we have
been experiencing in the primary
area lack of transmission surface capacity.
We have spent over 10 years
lobbying bpa to increase size of
ponderosa substation.
As well construct bonanza
substation to step down that high voltage power.
we have finally gotten to a tipping points.
They are moving forward with funding.
I can tell you that timeline has already been pushed out a couple
more years.
We have gone from looking at
potentially having that online
in 2029 to maybe 2032.
As those involved in edco know. We have to turn people and
industry away due to those
constraints.
I liken bpa to naval aircraft carrier trying to turn it around.
That is the challenge we have
when it comes to transmission.
>> thank you.
Final question then cascade. >> I think you have similar
problems with distribution system.
How is the distribution system
impacted when people choose to
put solar on their roof as well as plugging in electric vehicle
and all of that stuff?
I have solar on my roof.
My bill is minimal.
How does that help or harm the distribution?
What is the status of the distribution network.
>> two answers.
It is interesting because
believe
residential rates are low.
We do not have a lot of solar. 45, $50,000 investment how low
our rates are it didn't pencil out.
Those that pay that premium for solar.
When it comes to increasing load, electric vehicles,
charging at home, fully electrifying homes.
What we have to do with the new
developments is resize infrastructure.
One of the biggest concerns was if the city was looking at
putting in natural gas rights in legacy neighborhoods that would
be very problematic for cec
because the other imagine from
structure was not built to ham that load.
Members pay for infrastructure upgrades. Line extension the member has to
pay out of pocket to do that.
It just comes down to knowing where and when that load is
increasing and making sure we
have the right infrastructure in place.
I can't give you a specific answer to that question.
I don't know if that helps.
>> it does, yes.
>> so we will move next to
cascade natural gas. We do want to make sure we have
time for discussion.
There are slides from cng in that discussion.
Starting the background slides
and pause for questions and get
into that.
>> I will invite my colleague to
start the presentation.
>> good afternoon. Don moore.
Region director for cascade natural gas.
I support operations teams across oregon and washington.
I grew up central oregon. I live here in bend.
This is my first roundtable. I saw a roundtable on the invite
and all of the city of bend information.
Yet I was surprised when I walked in the room to see the
table in this configuration.
We appreciate the dialogue we have had with the city of bend.
We want to continue discussions
with the city what a well designed ordinance MAY look
like.
Specifically we want to ensure
guardrails on housing
affordability and energy
reliable and path wades to recognize cascade investment in
energy efficiency and low carbon
solutions like renewable natural
gas and dual fuel systems.
If the proposal today doesn't take that into consideration we
need to be realistic on the demand on the constrained system
and environmental impact of
generating that electricity. If the city policy does not
account for that it MAY cause
more problems than it solves.
We hope to work with rather than against bend.
We have a legal obligation to
serve customers in bend and we
think we can make a compelling
case for keeping natural gas as
pardon of the bend energy mix. We have been serving central
oregon since 1960s.
We have 62000 customers here in central oregon, 11 communities.
To the far north madras and far south shamalt.
We have 35 local employees 25
are bargain unit employees. Partners at pacific power and
central oregon electric
mentioned resource adequacy.
Cascade is not at odds with either of those utilities.
In fact, inner dependence
between natural gas and electric
utilities is only increasing.
We have sourced a study.
Pacific northwest utilities
conference committee regional
forecast 2025 to 2035.
It lays out in stark terms that
the pacific northwest energy
system is constrained.
Now in the pacific northwest winter peak exceeds summer peak.
When it gets really cold you
need additional BTUs cascade provides.
Extreme weather in JANUARY 14,
2024 affected northwest including bend.
During that 24 hour period
during one hour period 607 he --
70% of the energy gas came from natural gas.
It is leaned on to provide capacity.
That is there.
Industry leaders in the 10 year forecast stressed urgency for
coordination and investment in
both natural gas and electric
resources. Regional collaboration is
essential. I believe you MAY not want
natural gas but you need it.
There is an interest and
understanding local impact of emissions. Resource it is important to step
back to understand the relative
amount of emissions resource is
from 2023 oregon department environmental quality.
35% of all emissions in 2023
transportation.
29% electricity, 15% natural
gas.
3.4% of all emissions in 2023 were attributed to gas
distributed by cascade.
That is a small amount, cascade
is investing in low carbon solutions.
Like rmg and dual fuel systems.
I will ask my colleague cole to
share information about those
investments. >> don, quick introduction.
I am manager of industrial SERVICEs cascade natural gas
focusing on renewable natural gas development.
I have experience working at
combination electric and gas utility and electric cooperative.
That being said, I want to introduce you to some of the
efforts cascade is doing. In
addition to energy efficiency.
Investments in participation r&d
through gas technology. Renewable natural gas.
Biogas is existing resource
whether or not used or not is a good question.
It is through decomposition of
organic materials in landfills, waste water treatment,
agricultural sites and so forth. Really we have avenues to
repurpose this biogas.
Refined upgraded to meet utility
specifications and utilized in utility transportation.
We make investments in renewable natural gas and we will discuss
those shortly.
Cascade renewable natural gas
efforts are depicted here.
Three projects renewable natural
gas and two projects under development.
One is locally at the knot landfill.
Cascade will own and operate the natural gas plant to use that
resource in the community.
We are looking forward to the
opportunity to capture that, refine and utilize for benefit
of customers.
Cascade efforts in renewable
natural gas are landfills and wastewater treatment plant being.
We have voluntary renewable gas program you can receive supply
of
gas that can help us drive our
efforts in this emerging
technology space. Additionally in bend we are
working on dual fuel heat pump system program.
This is trying to understand is
utilization of dual fuel heat pumps.
Can this be better system that
can benefit both electric and natural gas companies
alleviating demand constraints
existing or future demand constraints.
While also leveraging heating
cooling for customers more cost-effective both summer and
winter. We believe it has great
opportunity to benefit both constrainted grid and meet
customer needs in local area and
expanded service territories.
>> I will ask to pause and check
in with questions so far.
R and g this is a time to ask
questions before the policy.
>> your colleague said 3.4% of
all emissions.
Attributed to cascade natural gas.
Does that include emissions
attributed to distribution leaks?
>> when you say distribution.
These emissions are to the
volumes we provide new customers customers.
In use molecules we report on.
When you talk about transportation can you provide
more context?
>> I am hearing no.
Would not account for distribution leaks?
>> I can answer that question. >> so we can make sure it is on
the recording.
Systems emissions. >> I didn't hear that.
>> it is called system emissions
and gas distributed.
>> other questions. Sarah.
>> I am curious about results of dual fuel heat pump.
What data you expect to share and what that would be shared
with the community. >> reference there the gas
technology institute is project partner.
They are active in utility
industry for pilots and research and development opportunities.
Presentation that was presented
a few weeks ago at a large industry conference.
Publicly available. Preliminary findings can be
referenced now then full findings anticipated to be in
about a year.
Looking to utilize over a full calendar year to understand how
they operate for our customers. >> mike. >> can you talk about the full
cost to deliver r and g to
capital plus deliver recompared
to cost of natural gas.
What is magnitude. >> renewable gas is more
expensive.
We are to comply with regulations.
At time of evaluations it was
most cost-effective to meet obligations.
Scope and scale.
My understanding based on previous analysis.
[Inaudible]
Higher offsetting needs for gas supply.
Those equivalent volumes on
board injecting are serving needs of environmental
requirements and offsetting
natural gas volumes we would
typically source from fossil fuel. >> steve. >> I am interested in the
landfill capture locally.
How it is flared off. Two questions.
How many homes could be heated using that?
What is expected timelie to get usable renewable natural gas off
that site?
>> if you don't mind pivoting back one slide.
In state of oregon customers in
last evaluation last year 672 terms.
Anticipated injecting 2.5 million terms.
3700 homes worth of gas
associated with our volumes there.
As far as lifespan.
I will acknowledge the fact the knot landfill is scheduled to close.
That is to move forward with this opportunity, this plant
will utilize gas continually
generated over the lifetime which we are involved for 20
year period.
There will be renewable natural gas sourced from that site for
at least the next 20 years.
>> 3700 homes off that site? >> that's correct. >> thanks.
>> any other questions?
>> go ahead. >> my understanding r and g from
a variety of feedstocks.
Dairyman neurojects withdairyman now
dairy and man new.
Is cascade uses environmental
attributes from that gas? >> you are correct in the fact
that different r and g sources
have different carbon intensity associated with them.
Company is not involved with anything with dairy.
Reason is most of those projects
are sourced in the low carbon
fuel standard in transportation
industry bigger financial driver.
Federally mandated.
For purposes of compliance in
oregon more carbon agonotic.
Not necessarily focusing on larger investments with dairy
facility with large digester to to be installed.
Not something we are currently involved in.
Not saying won't be involved in the future depending on the
state policies.
>> if cascade gets involved in
the future those attributes
don't help with the cpp
compliance is that correct understanding?
Depending how we are involved with the project we have
different structures. Carbon compliance could be
sourced and utilized if we are
involved with that project. Methane, raw gas and environment
tell attributes associated.
>> anyone else with a question?
What I will ask cascade to do.
Next slides are general feedback. Skip to implementation to make
sure we get on record your
feedback on implementation timeframe and exemptions that
are two things we are discussing today.
Move to that slide and whoever
is presenting on that slide for implementation timeframe.
>> I would be glad to speak to that.
Alyn spector from cascade natural gas.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak at round table about
potential ways to avoid
unintended consequences of a potential fee.
First, we feel strongly especially after hearing
feedback of electric utilities
that until compliance is
demonstrated with hb2021 there
is no guarantee it is going to
reduce carbon emissions. To put this in place.
We would ask that at the very least pacific power will have results this summer.
That is critical information and they are able to meet their
goals, the ordinance shouldn't move forward.
Likewise, we have been working
with the city with the dual fuel
pilot we put together that pairs electric heat pump and gas
furnace to allow each to do what
they do best.
Full findings integrated in MARCH 2027.
We would love to have that pilot complete and provide that data
to the city to help inform what moves forward.
If the ordinance does pass we encourage the city explore this
as multiyear pilot program. Implementation phased in overtime.
I think it is very important to pay attention to impacts to
energy costs, to demand on grid for resource adequacy.
Impacts to carbon to make sure
we are avoiding unintended consequences.
Because some of this analysis that the city had shared in
previous discussion showed
potential for carbon to increase.
at least until such time as
pacific power was meeting hb
hb2021.
Language also mandate that it be
discontinued if there are
resource adequacy issues,
targets not met or increases observed.
We know the city would be transparent on this.
We want to re-enforce revenue allocation should be transparent
to the public. Modifications to strengthen
ordinance avoid unintended consequences.
Like we said, it is very
important to consider utility's capacity to meet state carbon
goals, look from a full fuel
cycle electric and gas gas
perspective as well. Pacific power ability to meet
2021 or looking electric fuel
mix as r and g is put into our
planning documents and shown to
comply with cpp, we ask that be taken into consideration when
you are looking at incremental carbon.
In terms of utility system.
It is critical that before this ordinance is forwarded that
there be an analysis of winter
peak impacts to ensure that
displaced demand can be met by the electric utilities.
Keeping an eye on potential off raches.
The electric utilities experience infrastructure
constraints. If the intent of this ordinance
to reduce carbon, pathways for
low efficiency electric
equipment be eliminated.
So in terms of exemptions.
I'm sure a lot of folks at the
table have feedback. We would love to see an
exemption for affordable housing
and housing for first time home buyers, understanding that bend
is struggling with housing affordability issues.
I think that just as members of the community we want to make
sure the folks that work in bend
are able to live in bend as well.
Have potential delays on the exemption for the fee.
If there are impacts to development or if there is
delays that result from infrastructure constraints for
incremental electric demand. Making sure infrastructure can
be built out to meet demand displaced by gas.
If we are able to comply with
the climate protection program,
there is a risk of of
risk of redone dancy
in design of ordinance.
If we are in good faith
complying with cpp fee remain dormant unless we are not able
to make compliance. The other piece.
Gas plays a critical role in resource adequacy.
Gas and electric system work
together very effective way.
We ask dual fuel and emergency back up health and safety value
to homeowners to have that dual
fuel system except in the fee. Reductions.
Backing off the incremental
carbon from amount of r and g in
system through integrated resource plan.
Really what we are saying is we
can't afford to have the fee
raising energy costs and carbon.
That just means making sure that
this is done the right way, that
the correct analysis goes into
the design of the ordinance and
that until carbon targets are
met, electrification targets are
met, this fee lie dormants. It is not decarbonization.
As previous city presentations have shown.
There is a risk for some path
ways with lower efficiency
equipment until the targets met
with 2021, carbon MAY increase.
Keep that in mind. We feel like ordinance should be
delayed until 2021 can be met.
We want to avoid duplicate fees by waiving charge if in compliance with climate
protection and delaying
ordinance until hybrid study complete. We are glad to continue to work
with the city to help forward
decarbonization solutions. We appreciate the time.
>> that is a good transition to
the discussion around these two categories, cascade gave input
to implementation timeline and exception. Cassie has a couple slides.
I want folks to give perspective
on those two things as well. What are the things on the list
you you agree or disagree with? What should the city do in these
two areas.
Cassie will get us starting with exemptions.
>> two topics we are looking for
input on.
Exceptions and implementation.
Exemptions we have three topics or ideas.
Some came up from our utility presenters and other discussions
with the council or community members.
The three topics we would like feedback on.
Whether there should be exemption for deed restricted
affordable housing, homes with
dual fuel heat pumps and homes using renewable natural gas.
I think conversation on
renewable natural gas as we thought about this in the last
week.
It feels it MAY be challenging
to exempt a single home.
More broadly should there becomedation for use of
renewable natural gas on individual home basis or
potentially as cascade proposed
that it would be factored into the fee equation.
The mix of the fee equation and
then it would be adjusted system-wide.
Those are the three ideas.
Affordable housing, rng and
other additional ideas from round table participants.
>> for our participants.
If you want to comment on these ideas, present your own ideas
this is the point to get that conversation started.
We have committee folks,
affordable housing committee.
I can guess what you might want to say.
Whoever wants to start us off.
We are gathering information.
We are all respectful of every one's position.
We want to hear conflicting
positions how to deliberator on
this to be pick. Garrett, kick us off.
>> deed restricted affordable housing look at ami target
knowing bend's housing crisis is
around the entire.
I am throwing that out there for
consideration. >> other thoughts?
No, we shouldn't have
have the exemptions.
We want to hear it all. >> mandy. >> the affordable housing
committee does want an exemption for deed restricted affordable
housing.
I would agree with garrett that
maybe we should extend that just because we do have a problem
with our middle housing as
well-being more affordable in bend.
>> can you both expand?
Quantify what you mean by middle
housing what that looks like.
>> I will throw it up there 120% is our preference.
Open to conversation on that.
>> that is online with what we end up with as well.
>> other thoughts?
I know people have them. >> general question.
Are we talking about what could
be done with the fee if there is
a fee imposed to help offset that?
>> not today. Revenue is going to be spent
that is a separate conversation.
If that helps you think about
the exemption feel free free to
expand on that.
>> environment and climate
committee supports exemption deed restricted affordable
housing. Most is all electric.
This
this is a signal from ecc to
remove barriers to affordable
housing as bend needs more.
I can go down the list for dual fuel equipment.
Ecc does not support exemption.
We support fee reduction for mixed fuel heating systems.
We think adding heat pump should be acknowledged.
We don't want to create loophole
where you don't pay a fee.
You can adjust settings so gas kicks in at 50 .
That would be a gas system.
We want to have the rate be conservative reflecting
continued gas use and
recognizing the contribution of electric heat pump.
In terms of rng we do not
support exemption or reduction for rng.
It is simply injected into the gas apply with other fuels.
Rng is important and useful. It should be prioritized for
more hard to electrify sectors
such as heavy industry and transportation and not
residential buildings that are
easier to electrify. >> all right.
Other thoughts? Sarah.
>> I guess I was going to second
the comment around ami level
also 80 and 120 from chamber
perspective work force housing band is important to focus on.
One other thing we are talking
about and this is not pertaining
to multi-family per se defining
what that looks like because in
some instances like quad or
duplex or quadplex.
What that looks
looks like to ensure builders are aware of that.
>> when we talked about the fee
not applying to large
multi-family developments. Is there ability to be clear in
our code what that means and what this would apply to?
>> it is something we plan to
bring to the council on APRIL 22 because that question.
we have heard from the council
we don't want to apply to multi-family.
Where is that cut off? We entered discussions with
staff this week to define those. We will talk about it with the council.
I would rather wait.
We are actively discussing it.
I would like to wait.
>> they are flagging for clarity.
>> in the definitions what the
code is applicable to where that would be defined and we will
include that in the discussion
on the 22nd. >> scott.
>> thanks.
Human rights commission would support deed restricted
affordable housing exemption
along with affordable housing advisory committee recognizing
to be fair and equitable with
that middle range up to 120%.
Just wanted to emphasize that from our perspective.
Thank you.
>> go ahead.
>> affordable housing.
We think the vast majority of
affordable housing is already
all electric or multi-family that is do nothing addition to
the policy.
From my perspective the looming equity issue I see around
expanding fossil-fuel network
and this is in the oregon state
energy strategy.
Risks of having gas asset and
having homeowner middle or low income or renter sadeled with
getting gas out of the house
that is equity crisis on the horizon.
Anything to reduce fossil fuel expansion.
two-thirdses gas bill today are maintenance and that is not going away.
It is important we neat goals
today.
I want everybody to be cognizant
the more we build out the fossil-fuel.
More we take to electric fiit is
going to disproportionately hit
people least able to deal with that.
Multi fuel equipment cascade pilot is good example.
There are many combinations dual
fuel house.
Different heat pumps.
Set points tweaked differently by different renters.
The range of outcomes is huge.
As city is considering that, be conservative and realistic.
Not every house is switching
from gas to electric at 35 .
Realistic carbon benefit is more marginal when we think in
practice how dual fuel systems are rolled out. Renewable natural gas.
Last time I was at industry
conference in nashville we had lunch or dinner with three
separate clients. They were all talking about a
cool project.
It was not the same project.
I would expect gas utilities
looking at the small pool of available projects.
We shouldn't be hedging bets
that cascade will meet all
compliance goals through rng alone.
Public utility commission has not acknowledge would long-range
planning to comply with cpp.
City of bend should be cognizant of that.
>> allen for your long-range plan.
When do you think that will go
through the process and be
complete for you and your plans?
>> I might defer to my colleague
on that.
>> context when you say commission recognition.
Can you clarify how you view
that?
>> cascade was making insufficient supporting
assumptions about cost.
They do not think cost
assumptions are realistically
guaranteeing low rates.
How does cascade resolve that if
it is 90% of compliance portfolio?
>> that is a specific question. >> what I am looking for is
timelines.
That is what we are talking about today.
Implementation timelines. When is pacific power going to
comply? Timelines for you all.
We know there are specific places and back and forth.
What is the expectation when we get to the point where you have
a plan that is the thing you are
implementing?
>> absolutely.
Best cost options of rng. Timeline I can't speak to that
todays. I will be glad to follow up with
the city with more detail. What I will say the projects
that we are discussing today.
There are three that are fully operational right now.
It is more than hypothetical.
In terms how that is going to be
utilized for cpp compliance we continue to have those
conversations with regulators. If it is a priority of
communities that is for
compliance that is something we would take back to integrated
resource planning team.
We would start that conversation
to work with the city to
incorporate that in a way that
is satisfactory to the city and regulators. We would be happy to continue
those discussions.
>> for councilors to gather information.
We are not at the same level
many of you are.
When you talk in acronyms, I ask
that you take it on a level we can understand.
>> I apologize.
>> that is okay.
We haven't heard from david or john.
You don't have to if there is
anything to add.
>> I will go ahead.
Local 290 would support deed restriction for affordable
housing.
120 ami.
Obviously we are in full support
homes with dual fuel equipment.
I have had it in my homes in central oregon since 2002.
They work great. They both supply when the
temperatures are low and gas can
make up that difference. When the heat pumps can't.
They work very well in this climate.
That is something that needs to be thought of, too.
Dual fuel projects like that are
different in different climate.
This climate supports the good
dual fuel program.
Mild climates not so much.
We have pretty decent winters,
not this year.
Renewable natural gas we support 100%.
To think in the future to add to
that just because technologies change and things change.
What might be available changes
is there might be hydrogen mix
in natural gas to do the same
thing to reduce carbon of the
gas. >> john. >> can we go back.
There was a stat about the
impact of carbon from cascade
natural gas presented that
showed that 15% emissions from
natural gas versus 29% from electricity.
Can you help us understand that?
It makes it stand like the
impact of electricity has twice
the carbon outputna natural gas is that twice supply coming from
electricity versus natural gas? How do we understand.
>> I will share sources for the study to provide more information.
Some of it does pertain to
scaling the delivery of gas
versus delivery of electricity
looking at the fuel mix of the electric system today.
Looking at the direct use of
natural gas versus the use of
nonrenewable energy for electric generation.
There are multiple factors that go into that.
I would be very happy to make
sure -- there is a link to the
source on the slides now up on the city website.
>> in the deq study from oregon.
Good question. >> I guess that's still trying
to process what you are saying. However, I guess in terms what
is asked in exemptions here.
Conversations at bdad support exemptions around deed
restricted affordable housing we
believe the housing crisis is
real and we want to support ways
to offset that impact to homeowners.
We support continuing to do
projects dual fuel proof of concept.
There needs to be more data to
support the fee structure and outcomes that that ultimately
gets passed to the home owners.
Those are the discussions we
have. >> garrett.
>> there is a lot of action at
the state to reduce fears to
building certain housing types,
condos in the triplex, fourplex and beyond.
Maybe consideration for exemptions to hold off on those
housing types to begin with to let progress play out to see if
we can bring to market rather
than adding hurdle to development.
>> something to separate by housing types.
Other thoughts on exemptions.
If you think of one later we
will come back to you. Sarah.
>> a couple comments about the
stranded asset for exemptions of ami's of housing.
All homes will be dual fuel. Infrastructure will be laid for
gas and electricity because of
the nature of the choice issue.
I think that eliminates concept of stranded asset.
Think about this broadly when we
think about what that ami exemption would look like. >> thank you.
I think to make sure we are grounding for anyone watching.
We are talking about one time
fee at beginning of new
construction.
These exemptions at time of new construction.
Final thoughts on exemptions
before implementation timeline. Robin.
>> I wanted to add that ecc only
supports one exemption deed
restricted affordable housing. We want to limit exemption.
Every exemption reduces
emissions that this has.
Every exemption adds
administrative burden to the
policy, additional tracking, calculations, enforcement.
We have had 20% of the snowpack in deschutes.
We need more climate action now.
Those exemptions limit impact of the policy.
We advocate for less exemptions.
>> thank you for that.
>> one consideration not voiced
is winter heating via electric
is more demand than summer. If there are developments that
cannot meet that incremental
development that regards large
upgrades by electric utilities
they would penalize and delay
while that infrastructure is
built out gas resource adequacy
to mead that and get that up and running sooner. >> final thought?
>> I had other ideas.
>> any home that has natural gas
that is going to include solar. Put an exemption on home that
has that.
Another one could be any home
that for the future behind every appliance has both gas and electric.
What they choose now can be
whatever service they want. It could be changed at any point.
Not extra cost down the road.
it is already available and
built into the home. >> thoughts on those ideas?
>> one thing on solar. Ecc we touched on that in our
last meeting.
If we want to add solar to the
conversation we don't want exemption but reduced fee in calculation.
That would be based on the size
of the system and size of the house.
As we know with the grid being
dirty, these local renewable
emissions could really support
to make that grid cleaner.
We don't want it as exemption. You could have one panel on your
home and that would eliminate the fee.
We want to acknowledge addition of solar because we think it is
an important part of this
conversation, a reduction. >> brennan.
>> reiterate robin's point as
well and when we consider
exemptions look in totality.
What can realistically be administered by a team of two in
the city. Back to sarah's point.
I want to push back on the idea
stranded assets are a stranded issue.
Affordable single family housing
built all electric in bend and
sisters and many others. Good proof of concept gas is
only utility you don't need to live in a house.
>> thank you. Final thoughts on exemptions
before implementation?
>> to echo sarah's point.
In talking to builders how fee is per equipment.
All infrastructure is brought
out to new construction gas and
electric to convert in the
future so we don't run into risk
of stranded asset. >> allen.
To the point of limited staff to administer this.
That is why and talking about
the fuel mix today not being decarbonized on electric tsai.
That is why it is important to
have this fee lie dormant until
the carbon intentionally of
electricity and gas when that switches.
Then the fee can take effect. >> next topic.
When should this be in effect. Timeline, considerations there
which you have given us in your
presentation which I took notes
on. >> implementation timeline
looking for feedback on
effective date of fee. Starting point date we would
like to put out would go into effect JANUARY 1, 2028.
Some of the things that we
thought of when we were thinking about appropriate timeline.
Pacific power's compliance for
house bill 2021.
Part was based on understanding
that pacific power has rfp open
this year that might take to
ends of year for costs to give information about compliance
timelines.
We might get information sooner. That is interesting
consideration.
Another one is ideas implementation of OCTOBER 2026
that becomes mandatory APRIL of 2027 legislative session next year.
We did hear from pacific power
today there is potential rumors
of changes to greenhouse gas
bill 2021 which would have significant impact on how fee is
calculated. Anything in the legislative
session we need time to accommodate.
>> this is the starting place.
Happy to hear about the timeline or other considerations.
Thinking about the the things and
when the fee should be in effect.
Our next topic.
I want to acknowledge 5:30 P.M.
If not done at 6:00 we will keep going.
If you can stay, that is great. If you have to leave at 6:00
tell me so I can call on you.
Who wants to kickoff on implementation ideas or
thoughts. >> pacific power does not have timeline.
We will keep staff and council
appraised of changes in the regulatory compliance and go
over anything in the legislative session to impact gas emissions
for us.
>> thank you for that.
>> I think my thought would be
that if I believe council's
intent is to reduce carbon,
right, in the city?
Until pacific power gets to where they reduce emissions.
They say they can meet that goal around 2029 or 30.
I ask it be pushed out until
2029 or 30 medical
30 or until they prove they met that goal.
>> we are wants to participate in the pilot program.
I would love to have that play
out, study data prior to fee being imposed.
Happy to get into more depth what we envision from pilot.
we haven't had chance to do that in two minutes to council.
Open to questions. >> policymaking is not perfect.
We are never going to make decisions in a vacuum.
If it is ongoing pilot or pilot
that might happen in the future,
hb2021 or climate protection or
building code update or speculation on legislative
session or new federal administration.
Something dynamic that is nature of the things.
At some point we have to stop
collecting data and do something
because we are in a vacuuming of leadership.
We are backsliding since the
first inventory.
Bend admissions have gone up 20%.
We are headed for bad wildfire season.
We have to just try something at some point.
This is already a very modest option.
Originally the restriction was
on the table.
It is scaled back the level of
action because of concerns from
affordable housing and economic development.
We need to remember climate
action is being go stewards of
environment be with healthy air.
That makes bend economically viable. We need to try something and
check in on policy. That is good development.
We think the city should do that
to make sure it is not having unintended consequences.
Some are wrong and useful.
We need to try to collect real data and tweak things down the
road. april 2027. >> what day.
>> in line with the building
codes update for developers to
have single compliance calendar.
>> ecc recommends start day JULY 1, 2027.
We do not think we should wait
until JANUARY 1, 2028 primarily due to speculation of legislative session.
If anything comes up in that
legislative session we could
delay and amend as needed. We need climate action now.
I want to note based on, david, your point.
These appliances can last up to 20 years.
If we install electric now or gas now, those will last for 20
years.
In that 20 year lifespan we are assuming pacific power could
change drastically.
We want to build smart from the
start knowing these systems last
quite awhile.
>> sarah. >> we would land with garrett
and the conversations around the pilot.
When I look at forming opinion on implementation of this.
I think about north star housing
affordabilities. 53% of the people working in
bend don't live in bend.
That is something we need to do something about.
Yesterday we were at park side place. We are making progress.
We can't hold gas on that kind of progress.
That is my lens I am coming from trying to balance with the
concerns that we are talking about with climate. -
I think it is important that we
have a lot of different policymaking at the city
sometimes happens in silos.
We have the home hardening building 327 expedited that
makes sense to expedite from
wildlife, wildfire prevention, tree code conversation, natural
gas fee code conversation.
All of these things are tiny chunks of affordabilities.
Time and space to sequence some
of those decisions in a manner that makes sense and affects
affordability and what we do for the community is something I
support and members support.
I guess I will leave it at that. I would love to hear more about
the pilot at garrett.
>> did you have a question?
>> cassie, I want to set for the room.
Building code update coming in right here.
Can you tell us to explain the effect of that building code in
terms of installation of new
equipment into homes in the hvac world.
>> if a building codes person wants to jump in.
I will take a stab at it.
Improves energy efficiency with
new construction by 30%.
I think that is maybe all I can
say confidently. Anything to add from the building people?
>> what I am trying to get at.
In most cases a c unit installed
in a home will require a heat pump.
>> thank you for reminding me about that part.
Another part of the code
air-conditioning installed it has to be heat pump to ensure
any home with air-conditioning
which is many of them have a heat pump.
Gas furnace sets up for duel fuel options that will have an
impact as well. >> I am asking that question
because I do acknowledge
affordability and agree with sarah it is my north star as
well.
That is a way to really avoid a
large portion of al lakarstify.
That is $1,500 bucks in cost.
Three quarters of fee goes away
when this drops into our laps here in APRIL next year.
I think that helps with affordability.
>> until we make decision on the
dual fuel systems.
If someone puts in gas furnace cost would be there.
It could be automatically
driving more electric systems if people put it in for sure.
>> thank you.
>> I will go to you and then to garrett.
>> a couple members of committee
that were concerned about the layering on of fees.
If we go route of exemption for
up to 1:20 A.M. I, there is less
concern because it was the hardening.
We want to reduce barriers for affordable middle.
>> garrett pilot program could
you explain we are in the world of timeline.
What do you mean?
>> the time limited aspect study
at least a year to collect the
energy use data to understand the grid impacts. Construction data collection.
This is what I vision how this
comes to life. Three members of production builders now.
We hope to do this at scale.
Willing in upcoming projecs to
identify select homes to have a side by sides comparison
building all electric next to
all gas. The reason that selecting homes
in same project matters.
All projects are different.
Same land two different products
best way to collect data. Alongside high efficient
electric equipment was mentioned.
We have high performance builders.
One has offered to be a consultant.
We want to look at climate goals.
Here is time line.
Our members talked like quickest two years to get homes
identified, built, sold and study.
Two to three is roughly what we are thinking with city support
and permitting process.
We could get closer to two.
Also, a piece I missed with home selection we need diverse
selection of homes.
Townhome, single story detached,
two-story detached how it contributes to emissions and
what affordability looks like in direct costs.
>> what you are saying policy
would not apply city-wide two to
three years only in certain ways
as we study data before going
city-wide? >> yes.
I tried to make as brief as possible. >> I understood it.
Mandy. >> brief question.
Why would you not look retroactively at information
there are houses and buildings and data.
why would you need to builds
homes, wait timeframes versus
identifying the homes.
>> one of the challenges with
development costs it is sourced regionally not specifically to
bend. We have unique codes.
To do here to collect local data
would be most impact
impact full. Second part of question.
>> why won't you identify locally?
>> that is comparing variables.
All electric home built here and here.
There are different costs
associated with that because of difference in pieces of land.
Side by sides with gas and and
electric home we control the variables.
>> any other questions on that
or ideas?
Councilor mendez. >> we heard concern about
delaying until we have more sent
on the pathway to complying with hb2021.
We talk about importance of
comparing high efficiency to low
efficiency electrification.
Council had a preference for
high efficiency electric appliances.
To what extent does 2021
compliance the efficiency of the
electrical appliances
implemented?
>> even with -- with low
efficiency equipment, pacific
power not in compliance with
2021 is a very big problem.
High emission electricity and quantity consumed is high
because of low efficiency. Efficient equipment the concern
goes down because it should be less energy used in total since
that is used efficiency. Electricity used is dirty.
The concern is still there.
Our analysis shows that using
today's mix even when pacific power homes some of the
equipment including high efficiency equipment over the
life cycle of the equipment
would still have like a higher
carbon impact using high
efficiency heat pump at today's
grid mix compared to gas. Grid mix still matters with high
efficiency.
It matters a lot with low efficiency.
From a cost perspective and grid perspective.
>> anything to add to that?
>> she did great job.
>> other ideas or information
that folks want us to know?
>> I would like to support the pilot programs.
Not only with all electric and
all gas, but adding possibly a
third which is a hybrid home whatever that MAY be, not just
one or the other. Different ways of doing that.
When you touched on the efficiencies, when you talk
about all electric home, most affordable housing currently
that I see being produced out
there is using the most horrible electric appliances.
That is something we need to
look at. >> great.
Other thoughts on this part of
the discussion? >> question about the pilot idea.
In addition to why not look retroactively?
If you have gone to the
neighbor's house and felt it is too cold or too hot compared to your house.
You know the baseline of what
you set the thermostat to makes
a difference if home are same
and right next to each other.
Puzzled why it would be so important two houses next to
each other.
How do we control for thermostat size?
>> we hope to have enough scale
to take average to calculate for energy use.
That is a big piece of that if
we want to study grid and
utility rates we track usage
data which we need help from utility friends at the end of
the room to do. At big enough scale we could
average that out.
One more piece. That came up in our conversations with members.
If the fees associated with individual piece of equipment.
If council or city wanted to see
that hybrid approach we are happy to do that.
If someone wanted to pay for gas fireplace upgrade we could do
home or two for that.
We are flexible and appreciate
feedback from the city. >> robin. >> ecc does not support pilot.
We don't think waiting three
years to have that pilot is good
use of time. With in that three years will be
thousands of homes that will not be potentially all electric
because of that.
We think it is part of a delay tactic.
We want to implement the policy
one year after passed.
Developers are used to having a new code one year after it is
passed they will have that one
year in order to implement this
new policy.
>> brennan. >> similar vein to robin.
80% of housing stock in next 20 years we kicked bucket two or
four years that is 20% of the housing stock city has done
nothing to push development towards all electric.
I think the city has relative
lehigh confidence this is the
climate solution we need in our
climate action plan strategy es2a.
Develop policies to limit fossil
fuel use in new construction.
We
>> you said before you were okay
building sunsets or check ins. What does that look like to you?
What are your ideas? >> staying in step with building
codes. Every three years.%
at end of two years city is done
collecting data the last year so
building codes is 2027. By 2029 city is done collecting
data and can look back.
How many people paid the fee,
did it impact housing production rate?
Look at that and make it into
effect with next building codes update 2030.
>> I want to ask brandt.
I heard from allen and elisa on timeline. Do you have thoughts on
implementation timeline.
>> not specific timeline.
>> thank you.
>> question for cassie.
The pilot and thousands of homes.
What were the assumptions that
were made about people going to
-- what percentage new homes
built would comply with the fee entirely or would comply with
some of it?
Trying to remember what the
calculation made or assumption?
How many people would pay fee at
20% level and how many would
forget it and go all electric.
>> I have our consultant on the line right now.
If you are listening daniel I
will ask if you have that data handy.
>> at 20% we expect 25% of homes
built to go electric. >> thank you.
>> quick follow up on that.
>> when you made that calculation and assumption were
you aware of the building code
change that councilor platt just
asked about if you put
air-conditioning in the house it has to be heat pump and not
stand alone air conditioner and
how that influences how many
people decide to go all electric because of the building code?
>> we are basing this off
willingness to adopt studies on electrification take don't
consider mandatory building code
that would be something else to take into consideration.
>> final thoughts on implementation?
Allen then garrett.
>> one thing I like about the multiyear pilot.
In addition to testing to make
sure carbon reductions are
achieved, affordability aspect. Is the resource adequacy.
That is so essential.
Allowing a few winters to pass,
looking at winter peak demand
and impacts to the end user, to
the homeowner, electric home,
gas home, hybrid home and compare if there are peak events
that take place, I think that is crucial especially since as we
said before we are a winter peaking region. >> garrett.
>> why letting the pilot play out would be helpful.
I talked in builders in washington as well.
There were supply change
challenges with appliance and
equipment providers. Giving runway for the market to
get that as well.
To sarah's point the layered
cost will impact builders.
>> if this wases to go in we do
a recommended date. Is the recommendation for you
all with the timeline and runway?
>> as much runway as possible. 2028.
>> any other thoughts?
>> cascade would like to request
that MAY be the study reincorporate future assumptions
of the electric supply costs.
We have heard both central
electric cooperative and pacific power have new information.
A lot of discussion on affordability as upfront cost.
How about ongoing cost for residents here.
More dollars spent on utility cost the more it will take away
from dollars available for
economy in the city of bend be. >> the city
city of bend. >> has staff thought about
recommendation of 2028 or mid
2027, would staff be interested
in doing check ins or how often would staff look at data to
update the fee as it goes forward.
>> any policy like this good
idea to have periodic check ins to scan for any issues.
one, check in I would recommend
is regardless of whether 2027 or
2028 or later is at certain period, one month before or
three months before check in to
recalibrate the fee calculation.
We need that information to make the calculation work.
I would definitely recommend that.
The cycle after that I think I
don't have a specific recommendation right now.
I can think about that for the 22nd.
It is a discussion with council.
Balancing the effort to have
enough time to have meaningful
data where you are not reviewing
too soon so the data does not have variation with being responsive.
Every couple years, I would
think. >> okay.
We have gotten a lot of good information from everyone.
I appreciate everyone here
sharing with us. We have heard different
perspective around urgency and
why delay might be desirable. I appreciate that.
I was going to ask eric taking notes and I have been taking
notes as well.
Does this reflect the top level things we will bring into the
work session and we will close it out.
>> I don't want to go through
each group said this.
General themes of other ideas. Housing mix.
120 ami expanding on that.
Input from utilities in terms of
calibrates with the metrics. >> we had a mix of support
versus not support for dual fuel heat pumps and renewable natural gas.
That is something to look for
direction on those different
things you have heard.
>> I heard a lot about pilot
program, wanting to try policy,
get it going sooner.
On the exemptions some sort of
talking about affordable housing
how we are going to exempt that potentially.
Cassie what you said is right.
Missed opinions on dual fuel and
rng and reductions or putting
things into calculation versus exemptions.
Those were all things we captured.
Around solar as well discussion
of that, too. We will bring all of that to
council.
I want to level set that staff is going to bring to council.
Some ideas are more intensive or might take more looking into
than others. Deed restricted affordable
housing is clear and straightforward.
Pilot program, megawatts solar are more involved.
We will ask staff to tell us
which of these could we do on the time line we want now pass
this in JUNE and which might not
be ready or available for fully
flushed ideas. We will discuss with council
what to do with that information and how to proceed.
Really good ideas to bring to
the table for our discussion on
the 22nd. Any other final thoughts from
council?
>> I took a lot of notes.
Thank you for your perspectives and your guidance.
>> appreciate everybody being here.
Being respectful and having a good back and forth.
>> if something comes to you that didn't come to your mind
today at the table send it to
cassie, make sure she gets that
if you had a good thought.
We still want to hear it or you are debriefing over coffee and
they give you an idea, send it
to us so we can think about
that. Perfectly on time.
Good job. Thank you. Live cc by aberdeen captioning. 1-800-688-6621.