Coffee with Cascade

On November 21, the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission is scheduled to adopt a carbon rationing scheme known as the Climate Protection Program.

The regulation will set a statewide cap on the emissions of human-caused carbon dioxide, and then steadily reduce the cap over time. By 2040, most fossil fuels will be outlawed.

The effects of this cap will be swift and painful. Based on experience in Washington and California, the DEQ regulation will increase the cost of gasoline sold in Oregon by at least 25 cents/gallon, and possibly as much as 45 cents.

None of this will benefit drivers, and it won’t even benefit the environment. Carbon rationing will force fuel suppliers to rely on corn-based ethanol and other agricultural commodities, which will vastly increase the amount of land, water and fertilizer needed to produce automotive fuel.

The Climate Protection Program was ordered by former Gov. Kate Brown, who is no longer in office. But elected officials who ARE in office should note that the number one message from voters in the recent election was that they can’t afford the rising cost of consumer goods.

If state legislative leaders are smart, they will tell DEQ to drop the carbon tax. Elections matter, even in Oregon.

Is more money the answer to Oregon’s abysmal K-12 academic rankings? 

The Heritage Foundation annually releases an Education Freedom Report Card, which ranks states according to

Oregon ranks at or near the bottom of all states in each category, including 51st overall and 35th in return on investment for education spending. Oregon students’ National Association of Education Progress (NAEP) scores rank 42nd in the country, even though Oregon spends above average per pupil annually (the 21st-most

In early October, the Portland Tribune reported that Oregon elementary students’ academic proficiency remains “significantly lower than pre-pandemic levels, with only 31% of all Oregon students testing at proficiency in math, 43% in English and 29% in science.” The Tribune noted that while every state “experienced a decrease in average assessment scores…between spring 2019 and 2022,” “compared to every other state, Oregon was third last for improvement in reading test scores….”

All children deserve effective educational options that meet their learning and developmental needs. Spending more money—in the same district schools that haven’t helped students succeed for decades—isn’t the answer. To show we’re serious about improving education outcomes, Oregon should reinstate graduation requirements, provide school choice including open enrollment across public school districts, and minimize time and expenditures focused on non-academic services and initiatives.

Thirty years ago, an iconic goal of liberal activists was to offer a free breakfast for all public school students, regardless of family income.

In response, Congress authorized a three-year pilot program to test the effects of universal free meals for students.

In 2004 the USDA Economic Research Service published the results of what it called the “definitive data on the impact of universal-free breakfast participation.” The study compared gains in standardized test scores for reading and math for universal-free breakfast participants and nonparticipants, and found “no significant differences.” 

Nonetheless, today more than 90% of Oregon public schools provide both a free breakfast and a free lunch to all students. Activists hope to make it 100% of students in 2025.

If they succeed, it’s unlikely that they will stop there. The next demand will be universal free dinners as well. It doesn’t matter that subsidized meals are unnecessary for most families, or that state intervention undermines the role of parents.

From the standpoint of advocates, the primary goal is to make as many services as possible free to students, whether it’s food, computers, or birth control.

Parents aren’t considered to be important. In fact, they are treated as a nuisance in such matters as school discipline or gender pronouns.

Parents who care about their children should continue to feed them breakfast at home, and pack them a lunch. “Free” is not always a good price when it comes to developing moral character in children.

On October 14, Google announced that it will finance the construction of seven small nuclear reactors in the U.S. built by energy start-up Kairos Power. The agreement will provide 500 megawatts of clean, reliable electricity to feed Google’s growing need for data centers.

This follows on the September 20th announcement by Microsoft and Constellation Energy that the Unit 1 nuclear reactor at Three Mile Island Generating Station will be re-started and Microsoft will buy all the output.

 These kinds of energy solutions are not allowed in Oregon because nuclear power has been banned for over 40 years. Coal and natural gas were also banned in 2021, so we have a planned shortage of electricity. It’s likely that we will face rolling blackouts on cold winter nights or hot summer days in the very near future.

When state legislators re-convene in February,

The Heritage Foundation annually releases an Education Freedom Report Card, which analyzes and ranks all 50

This year, Florida and Arizona again take first and second place. Both states have long been pioneers in broadly expanding students’ educational opportunities. Louisiana, West Virginia, and Wyoming made notable improvements, due to new Education Savings Account laws.

Unfortunately, Oregon still ranks at or near the bottom in

Oregon is also 50th in “teacher freedom.” The report explains: “Zero percent of teachers are alternatively certified, largely required to go through university-based colleges of education in order to enter the K-12 classroom. The Beaver State does not have full reciprocity of teacher licensure with other states.”

Oregon could improve its education freedom ranking by enacting an Education Savings Account program, making it easier for charter schools to open and operate, expanding families’ choices among traditional public schools, and reforming licensure so more good teachers can teach in Oregon. These goals should be at the top of Oregon policymakers’ education reform agendas.

This week the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is holding its final public hearing on a plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 90% from fossil fuels used in Oregon.

Since there is a rough proportionality between fossil fuel combustion and CO2 emissions, that means the DEQ rule is a mandate to reduce the actual use of carbon-based fuels by 90%. This would essentially shut down the Oregon economy. 

DEQ’s program goes by the Orwellian name of “Climate Protection Program,” but it will have no effects on global climate. Any carbon dioxide reductions occurring in Oregon will be immediately offset by growing emissions elsewhere, which will be true for decades.

The primary result of DEQ’s rationing scheme will be rising energy prices, and the rapid exodus of people and businesses to other states.

DEQ’s Climate Protection Program was ordered by

Environmental advocates who demand that we buy certain products rarely seem concerned about cost.

But earlier this week, New York Times reporter Christopher Flavelle wrote about his experience last July replacing his home air conditioner with a heat pump. As a “climate” reporter, he felt obligated to buy the heat pump based on claims that it would have fewer greenhouse gas emissions than a traditional air conditioner. But when it came time to make the purchase, he experienced sticker shock.

He ultimately bought a heat pump for $14,540, less $2,400 in subsidies, making it slightly more expensive than an air conditioner. He was assured that the unit would pay for itself, but he didn’t find that very satisfying. He wrote:

Until now, encouraging people to pay more upfront, on the promise of saving later, made sense to me, at least in a country that relies heavily on personal decisions to fight climate change. But when you’re the one paying, it feels like a lot to ask. Maybe the most valuable thing I got…was some humility.

The world would be a better place if climate reporters, government regulators, and elected officials all learned the same lesson.

The Oregon Convention Center (OCC) was opened in 1990 with the backing of Metro, the Portland regional government. It was opened to create more economic growth opportunities in Portland.

In 2003 the convention center was underperforming, and Metro made the decision to upgrade. This renovation came with the promise of generating surplus revenue.

Unfortunately, the site continued to underperform, leading Metro to invest in the construction of an on-site hotel that would be owned and managed by Hyatt but subsidized by public funding. Metro would provide $60 million of the $74 million in public funding through revenue bonds.

 Metro justified this by stating it would push convention related spending in Portland to over a billion dollars annually. This decision was strongly opposed by both residents and private hotel operators in Portland. As of 2023, the site was only providing $330 million in convention related spending.

Metro is now considering renovating the Portland Expo Center into a sport venue.  Projections for the upgraded Expo show positive cashflow. However, large publicly financed projects have failed to meet financial forecasts. When Metro officials meet in December to discuss the Expo Center project, they should consider the past before committing to public funding.

The Oregon Legislature has mandated that large utilities deliver 100% emissions-free electricity by 2040. Since coal and natural gas account for more than 45% of Oregon’s electricity generation, replacing those fuels with emission-free alternatives will be difficult.

Moreover, the closer Oregon gets to 100% reduction, the more expensive it will get. This challenge stems from the fact that the two preferred power sources – industrial-scale wind and solar – are weather dependent. This will require over-building, plus batteries and back-up power supplies. Estimates suggest that achieving the final 1% of decarbonization in the Northwest may require expenditure of between $100 billion and $170 billion.

As Oregon adds more wind and solar facilities, the effect of decreasing marginal returns becomes stronger. Each additional unit of reduction produces progressively smaller environmental benefits relative to cost. In simpler terms, it costs more to receive less. If we ever hit 99% reduction, the cost of the final 1% will escalate dramatically, offering minimal benefit at a towering expense.

Given the lack of a cost-effective solution and the uncertainty of its necessity, the commitment to achieving 100% reduction is questionable. Fully eliminating emissions may not justify the steep payment. Instead of blindly pursuing decarbonization polices, Oregon should promote an adaptable, feasible approach to electricity generation before committing to a costly 100% reduction path for carbon dioxide emissions.

The modernization of Benson Polytechnic High School is nearing completion. Originally budgeted for $202 million in 2016 and funded by a voter-approved bond in 2017, the scope of the project was subsequently expanded along with the cost. The revised budget, partially paid for through another bond in 2020, was $410 million.

Part of the problem is that the school is oversized. Benson enrollment last year was 823, but the new school was designed for 1,700. Enrollment has decreased by almost 50% over the past 30 years, and there is little chance that it will grow significantly. Many of the classrooms will simply be mothballed.

The next school up for modernization is Jefferson High School, and the Board plans to make the same mistake. The target enrollment is 1,700, but there were only 481 students in May. The construction budget has grown from $311 million in 2020 to $491 in 2024. Since the District doesn’t have the money, the Board plans to ask for an additional $125 million in May of 2025, as part of a much larger bond request of $2.9 billion.

School board members are required to manage public funds as a “prudent person” would, but overbuilding schools by 100% or more is the opposite of prudent behavior.