Coffee with Cascade

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.

Cities in Oregon are required to have Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs). However, those boundaries are not supposed to be permanent limits to urban expansion. UGBs are required to include enough land to allow for adequate housing over a 20-year period.

The Portland regional government, known as Metro, is in the process of analyzing the need for expansion of the Portland UGB. In a draft report released in July, Metro proposes to maintain such a tight land supply that single family homes would only account for 23% of all new housing. The rest of the units would be apartments or other forms of high-density living.

Surveys show that 80% of the population aspires to live in homes, and 53% already do in the Portland region. Therefore, it’s shocking that Metro is planning to take away the option of home ownership for 77% of future buyers.

Metro is seeking public input on its draft growth plan, and testimony will be accepted until August 22. Citizens who desire to live in single family homes should demand that Metro approve an expansion of the growth boundary sufficient to accommodate both homes and apartments in future development.

Oregon politicians banned the use of coal for electricity generation by 2030 and natural gas by 2040, pushing utilities to rely more on wind and solar energy. These sources often produce less than 10% of Oregon’s electricity needs, forcing utilities to engage in a costly overbuild of wind and solar infrastructure. Given that weather is unpredictable, how much overbuilding will be required to meet demand is unknown.

The grid must always balance supply and demand, and dispatchable energy must quickly adjust. Currently, energy storage at grid scale lasts only four hours before depleting, while wind and solar can be dormant for days. The premise that wind and solar energy could be reliable sources of electricity is fundamentally flawed.

When these electricity sources produce more than needed, electricity is curtailed as excess electricity is cut off from the grid and wasted. As we overbuild wind and solar to meet increasing demand, the cost of curtailed electricity grows. By the year 2040, over 80% of wind electricity may be curtailed during high production months. This will add to the cost of electricity.

In 2007, the Oregon Legislature passed House Bill 2620. The law mandates any major infrastructure project over $5 million, or any renovation which exceeds 50% of the current building’s value, to devote 1.5% of its entire budget to “Green Energy Technology” (GET). Since 2014, more than 50 of these statewide projects have been for schools, where solar panels are overwhelmingly the GET of choice.

Reports submitted to the Oregon Department of Energy show that two-thirds of school projects are outfitted with solar panels that will not break even on their investment for the next 50 years. The industry-accepted break-even limit is 25 years, assuming they last that long before requiring replacement.

A project cannot be excused from the 1.5% rule simply because the GET is not cost-effective. School districts that expressed concerns over this, including McMinnville and LaGrande, were allowed to defer costly GET installations to future construction projects. However, that postpones the expenditure.

The Board of Portland Public Schools plans to spend more than $22 million on solar arrays at rebuilds of Cleveland, Jefferson, and Ida B. Wells high schools; and none of them will pay for themselves. If taxpayers knew about these investments, it’s unlikely they would approve.

The Oregon Legislature should either repeal the 1.5% GET mandate or allow project sponsors the freedom to opt-out if projects are too expensive.

When an Electric Vehicle is marketed as “zero-emission,” consumers expect their car does not cause pollution, right? Well, in the case of zero-emission vehicles, the phrase only refers to “tailpipe exhaust emissions of certain pollutants or greenhouse gases,” according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. Many miss this fine print and buy EVs, believing they are helping the environment. 

In reality, while removing the element of exhaust, EVs emit 20-26% more tire dust annually than gas cars due to their added battery weight. 

That battery is lithium ion, which is both volatile and susceptible to catching fire. These fires emit toxic gas and burn so hot that they are difficult and dangerous to extinguish. 

Building the components of an EV requires 84% more minerals than a gas car. This adds significantly to the outsourced emissions via mining. One such lithium mining operation in Chile used 65% of the region’s water, leaving the inhabitants to find other water sources while causing contamination that killed animals and ruined farmland. 

Consumers should be aware EVs are not “zero-emission” and do cause significant harm to the environment. I fear consumers are being misled by this term, so environmental regulators should stop requiring manufacturers to market EVs as “zero-emission” vehicles. 

The Portland Expo Center has been serving our region through trade shows and local events for nearly 60 years. However, the facility has been under-maintained, and in 2019 upgrades to the Oregon Convention Center made the Expo Center obsolete.

The Expo Center is operated by Metro, which is looking for alternative uses for that site. In June, a public meeting was held to unveil Metro’s latest vision, which is a recreational sports center featuring basketball and volleyball courts, ice skating rinks, and turf fields.

However, sports facilities are expensive both to build and operate. Metro’s forecast for the Expo Center rebuild is expected to cost $225-450 million in taxpayer dollars. Metro claims that no further subsidies would be necessary because the facility would be self-sustaining.

However, similar facilities around the country are currently losing half a million to two million dollars annually.

Metro will hold another public meeting on the project in December. At that time the agency should consider additional options. One could be to sell the property. Another could be to convert it to a homeless shelter, with spaces set aside for people living in vehicles.

Other venues operated by Metro, including the Convention Center and the Portland Zoo, have never been self-sustaining. Voters should be skeptical of claims that a new sports complex will pay for itself.