{ "city": "bend", "canonicalVideoId": "bend-2026-04-08-bend-city-council-electrification-round-table", "source": { "meeting": { "fileName": "bend-2026-04-08-bend-city-council-electrification-round-table.json", "path": "data/cities/bend/source/meetings/bend-2026-04-08-bend-city-council-electrification-round-table.json", "sourceStem": "bend-2026-04-08-bend-city-council-electrification-round-table", "variantCount": 1, "variantFiles": [ "bend-2026-04-08-bend-city-council-electrification-round-table.json" ], "metadata": { "videoId": "bend-2026-04-08-bend-city-council-electrification-round-table", "title": "Bend City Council - Electrification Round Table", "date": "2026-04-08", "committee": "Bend City Council - Electrification Round Table", "detailUrl": "https://bend.granicus.com/AgendaViewer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=874", "videoUrl": "https://bend.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=874", "attachments": [ { "title": "Agenda", "url": "https://bend.granicus.com/AgendaViewer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=874" } ], "videoProvider": "granicus", "videoProviderId": "874", "rawData": { "date": "2026-04-08", "clipId": "874", "agendaUrl": "https://bend.granicus.com/AgendaViewer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=874" }, "transcriptSource": "official-subtitles" } }, "transcript": { "fileName": "bend-2026-04-08-bend-city-council-electrification-round-table.srt", "path": "data/cities/bend/source/transcripts/bend-2026-04-08-bend-city-council-electrification-round-table.srt", "sourceStem": "bend-2026-04-08-bend-city-council-electrification-round-table", "size": 143372, "variantCount": 1, "variantFiles": [ "bend-2026-04-08-bend-city-council-electrification-round-table.srt" ], "rawHash": "3f62cec25b85e60f162a7bcd62126dce5a1b963942b4a5eca0be85cacccfed43", "textHash": "3e1e5a3fd840cd5b0f3aa5ac21577467930277951fd9625c3494df48395b5e31", "entryCount": 1982, "wordCount": 12748, "speakerCount": 8, "speakers": [ "Brennan", "Cec", "John", "Mandy", "Mike", "Robin", "Sarah", "Steve" ], "urls": { "srt": "/bend/api/source/transcript/bend-2026-04-08-bend-city-council-electrification-round-table.srt", "text": "/bend/api/source/transcript/bend-2026-04-08-bend-city-council-electrification-round-table.txt" } } }, "parsed": { "persistedAt": "2026-04-14T03:48:24.104Z", "canonicalVideoId": "bend-2026-04-08-bend-city-council-electrification-round-table", "meeting": { "title": "Bend City Council - Electrification Round Table", "date": "2026-04-08", "committee": "Bend City Council - Electrification Round Table", "videoUrl": "https://bend.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=874", "detailUrl": "https://bend.granicus.com/AgendaViewer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=874", "attachments": [ { "title": "Agenda", "url": "https://bend.granicus.com/AgendaViewer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=874" } ], "sourceVideoId": "bend-2026-04-08-bend-city-council-electrification-round-table", "sourceFileName": "bend-2026-04-08-bend-city-council-electrification-round-table.json", "metadataVariantCount": 1, "metadataVariantIds": [ "bend-2026-04-08-bend-city-council-electrification-round-table" ] }, "transcript": { "sourceFileName": "bend-2026-04-08-bend-city-council-electrification-round-table.srt", "sourcePath": "/Users/thedjpetersen/code/seacc/data/cities/bend/source/transcripts/bend-2026-04-08-bend-city-council-electrification-round-table.srt", "variantCount": 1, "variantFiles": [ "bend-2026-04-08-bend-city-council-electrification-round-table.srt" ], "entryCount": 1982, "wordCount": 12748, "speakerCount": 8, "speakers": [ "Brennan", "Cec", "John", "Mandy", "Mike", "Robin", "Sarah", "Steve" ], "hash": "3e1e5a3fd840cd5b0f3aa5ac21577467930277951fd9625c3494df48395b5e31" }, "tags": [ "city:bend", "org:bend-city-council", "meeting:bend-2026-04-08-bend-city-council-electrification-round-table", "committee:bend-city-council-electrification-round-table", "year:2026", "month:2026-04", "date:2026-04-08" ], "text": "we are all here.\nWe will get started.\nAshley will start the meeting.\nShe needs to make sure both systems are going.\nWe have to be quiet while she is\ndoing that so we don't overlap. Good to go?\nGreat.\nWelcome everybody here today to\nour really important roundtable discussion. Thank\nthank you all for coming.\nGrad you could make it to the beautiful public works building.\nI want to go around the table to\nsee who we are and our association so we know everyone\nthat is here and get into the\nobjectives for the meeting and\npresentations. >> I never get to be first. City attorney for the city of\nbend.\nIan lighthouser.\nscott jones, human rights and\nequity commission chair.\nfranzosa city councilor.\nmike rhymely bend city councillor.\nDavid burger local 290 and also\nstate building trades knowledge steve platt city council.\nNor guise bend.\nchair of the environment and climate committee.\nmegan perkins bend city council lower.\nMayor of bend. >> CHAIRMAN Of bend economic\ndevelopment board. Allen spector cascade natural\ngas.\nAlisa dunlap specific power. Arielle mendez.\nChair of affordable housing\nadvisory committee. Central oregon builders\nassociation. cassie lacey city manager's\noffice.\nEric king, city manager.\nthanks everyone for being here. How this will work.\nThis is a round table discussion.\nThis is to bring different stakeholders to the table to\nlisten to presentations and get\nyour feedback and ideas.\nFor council this is a listening mode mostly today.\nIf we have clarifying or\ninformational questions jump in. We want to hear from the folks\nat the table.\nWe have an opportunity for utility providers to share\ninformation with us so they have presentations.\nThey will have unput on the two\nquestions we are talking about today.\nThose are input on exemptions to the fee and implementation\ntimeline and approach.\nWe will have the presentations first.\nEach utility provider will give the presentation and hold\nquestions until the end. We will take questions focusing\non information and clarity from utility providers.\nWe will get into the individual\nstakeholders your ideas and thoughts on these topics.\nWe will discuss that after the presentations are done.\nThere are a lot of us.\nIf you want to respond or ask a question or give input please\nstand up your card so I can see you.\nI will make sure we get to everybody.\nI will call on folks if we need to draw that information out.\nNot a time council will deliberate or decide anything today.\nWe are gathering information to feed into a work session on APRIL 22.\nCouncil will have time to deliberate, make decisions about\nthe future of this policy.\nA lot of it is based on information we are given today.\nThat is what we are doing today.\nI will throw it back to cassie for background how we got here\nand then presentations from utilities.\nthank you. Information I will share is\nbackground information.\nEssentially information that I shared in memo last week.\nI will be brief so we can move to discussion. Background.\nCity has been working on broader program to encourage\nelectrification of buildings in\nbend to achieve climate action\ngoals over last year and-a-half. Climate fee today we have been\nfocusing on for the last few\nmonths is part of the\ndisincentive and incentive\ncomponent of rural work plan.\nWe will create incentives using\nto encourage the electrification\nusing proceeds of fee and\nexploring additional monetary incentives.\nThe city is expanding more robust program to share\ninformation about electrifying\nbuildings or upcoming work a\nworkshop series is coming up APRIL 29.\nWe have consequent ones for the next three months.\nIn the last part of the plan\nmonitoring landscape for policy\nlevers for reducing gas use as\nwell in the future. background.\nKey steps so far.\nPolicy development process.\nCouncil direction to pursue fee incentive program in APRIL last year.\nWork sessions with the council\nin AUGUST, OCTOBER and DECEMBER focusing on potential fee,\nanalysis on costs impacts of\nelectrifying homes.\nEngagement options for incentives and fees.\nIn DECEMBER and FEBRUARY we shared calculation and approach\nto fee design. FEBRUARY council gave staff\ndirection to pursue fee as proposed.\nThey set fee level at reduced rate which we will talk about in\na minute.\nAt that meeting they directed\nstaff to convene this roundtable\nto focus on fee exemptions and timeline for file major policy\ndecisions we need council to\ngive direction on to get the fee policy complete.\nI will share a quick overview of\nthe proposed fee structure.\nSocial cost of carbon multiplied\nby net lifetime by gas appliance\ncorrelated to said of house.\nDamages from carbon dioxide.\nIt takes into account the amount\nof carbon gas appliance produces\nover lifetime of apappliance\nminus carbon alternative electric appliance would emit\nthat is the net carbon impact of gas appliance.\nTier is multiplier to acts for lower or higher energy use\ncarbon emissions from smaller or larger houses.\nWe established three tiers.\nLowest is homes 1600 square feet\nor less.\nThat is 65% tier factor.\n1600 or 3,000 is average.\nThat is 100%.\nThis doesn't get adjusted. Greater than thousand square\nfeet they are 150%. One additional adjustment to base line fee.\nWhat council directed in\nFEBRUARY to adjust to 20% of calculated value.\nThis wases to minimize\nadditional cost impact of fee on new construction recognizing we\nwant to continue supporting housing goals and help meet city\nclimate goals as well. This final slide is table of\nwhat would become the fee schedule.\nFee is established per appliance.\nEach piece of equipment has\ndollar value varying over the three tiers based on the tier\nfactor.\nNew home being built these are the amounts that would have to\nbe paid for each of the pieces\nof equipment.\nFor single house add together to get total fee based on what the\npresent in the house.\nFrom this table you can see an average size home all gas\nequipment total fee would be over $2,000.\nAmounts correlated to relative\nenergy use of equipment that is why gas furnaces are majority of\nfee by quite a bit.\nThat is summary of fee overview.\nI will now passover to utility\npresenter to hear from pacific\npower then cec and then cascade\nnatural gas.\nI am alisa dunlap.\nI will wait until she pulls up the slides.\nI spoke with council a couple\nmonths ago.\nmy presentation will be briefer. That doesn't mean the rest of\nyou shouldn't ask me questions.\nFeel free to ask detailed questions as we get into the\nroundtable discussion.\nOverview of pacific power.\nWe serve 600,000 customers across oregon.\nPrimarily rural utility.\nWe have service territory, very small portion of portlands and\nthen here in central oregon as\nwell as out on the coast. Breaking it down to\ninfrastructure that serves city\nof bend.\nWe have seven existing substations.\nIt is where high voltage power\ncomes in to be stopped down to voltages to serve the homes\nabbusinesses.\nThere are seven substations.\nFive are planned or have been upgraded in the last two to\nthree years. Two more are plan understand the\nnext two years to be upgraded.\nWe submitted plans for\nadditional substation in southeast bend within the next five years.\nWhy do I tell about infrastructure?\nHere is what is existing.\nWhat is existing is tapped out.\nWe are actively trying to keep up with growth and vitality of\nthe region much like the city is\nbuilding roads and sewer to expand serve growing needs of the community.\nWe are trying to expand the grid\nto support the growth.\nHere are details on what growth\nlooks like in bend. This growth chart council saw\nbefore, but this represents 3% growth rate expansion\nyear-over-year.\nThe reason the line at the bottom does not start at the\nsame spot is because the\nbaseline of where we sit for eye\nelectrical capacity and load has\ngrown year-over-year and it is getting high here is and higher.\nBend is second highest growth.\nBehind redmond. Bend 3%.\nRedmond 4.3%. Portland is far behind the\ngrowth of central oregon.\nThis is our compliance chart.\nYou have seen this before. Hb2021 I will give overview.\nI am sure my colleagues will speak to this regulation.\nState law passed in 2021.\nIt requires investor owned\nutilities to meet targets. 80% baseline by 2030.\nThis is projection of emissions reductions.\nWe are in active rfp for renewable resources for oregon.\nI have good news to report on that front.\nI thought I wouldn't be able to provide updates until the end of\nthe year.\nWe will have preliminary results available this summer.\nSomething I committed to city staff and council to provide\nupdates because this is sort of key piece of how you are going\nabout making these policy decisions.\nAs soon as I have preliminary results available I will share\nthose with council.\nThis will be the first rfp for\nrenewable resources since the\nchanges to federal production tax credits.\nI would be remiss if I did not say in from structure is needed\nto bring infrastructure to the region.\nTransmission lines and those take years to build.\nWe are kind of working in all of these phases concurrently trying\nto meet the target that are\ncurrently set in oregon law.\nLastly, things to consider.\nInfrastructure as the community continues to grow.\nWhere will additional substations go as we need them\nor other utilities need them?\nI put in here just a land calculation so we need three to\nfive acres for a substation.\nWe are going to need city\nsupport on finding places to put the infrastructure.\nI will say electrical infrastructure is not most\nexciting.\nIt comes with controversy. As we build out to support\ncommunity we need support of the\ncity. Existing load growth trend.\nThis is highest growing region.\nBend is behind redmond as second highest community.\nWe have a large interconnectionqued for new users.\nA lot of projects in the pipeline.\nThat is all going to be strained as we move forward.\nThat pushes the need for additional infrastructure to be\nbuilt and support for that.\nLastly, on compliance. Hb2021.\nThe reason that rfp is so\nimportant to give us market costs what renewable energy is\ngoing to cost.\nWithin hb2021 there is affordability cost off-ramp.\nMeaning if the costs are\ndetermined to be too high for\ncustomers, utilities are able to\npush outcome appliance dates to preserve affordability for\ncustomers.\nThat is something that is unknown at the moment.\nI think I would be remiss if I\ndidn't say there is discussion\nabout the oregon legislature in\n2027 potentially pivoting to\ndifferent emissions reductions models or regulations.\nIf that does change we will certainly continue to engage\nwith city staff on what compliance with whatever the new\nthing is or if we are on the current path we will continue to\nengage with the community.\nWith that I am finished with my presentation.\nthank you. Is there anyone with a question\nat this point about that information she presented?\nI have a question.\nYou talked about affordability off-ramp.\nIt is widely publicized\nrenewable energy solar and wind\nis less expensive than gas, coal, nuclear.\nHow do you judge that? That affordability?\nHow will that be judged?\nWhat will the all tentative be for emission free energy.\nIf you don't hit affordability\nyou buy more expensive power? >> I am unclear on your\nquestion. Right now the current rfp open\nfor renewable resources I am\naware we have solicited bids for wind, solar and battery.\nAll of those would go towards hb2021 compliance.\nI don't know the pricing. That is not public.\nWe are soliciting bids.\nwhen we see the pricing against the market and whatever else is\navailable in our resource\nportfolio, we will make cost affordability calculations at that point.\nAll of these things have to be\napproved by the oregon public utility commission.\nWhen we go into present the rfp results, at that point we can\npoint to market conditions that\nsay, yes, these are affordable.\nHere is the compliance pathway we are currently on.\nWe expect everything to move\nforward as shown in that slide\nor, no, we need to make adjustments what is coming back\nfrom the market.\nWe can't tax customers in a way\nto make power unaffordable. >> demand is also rising.\nYou talked bend is in a growth\nphase and demand is increasing\nhere.\nanyone else with a question?\nI have a question.\nAccording to your slide from\n29-30 you go from 30% to 80%.\nThat is 50% increase in renewables. You have rfp out.\nWhat is currently available in\nthat one year period that is\ngoing to make your portfolio 50% more?\nwe had question about this last time, too.\nI anticipate when this rfp\nresults comes to fruition and we have nor information that compliance chart will look\ndifferent. We will have more renewable\nenergy resources available in\nyears prior to 2029. I don't think it is going to\nstay the way it is right now\nwith significant cliff from 29 to 30.\nThis is our best guess based on what we know of market\nconditions absence the current rfp.\nyou were talking about the growth.\nMaybe I didn't understand. Growth doesn't show what you are\ngoing to have to make up for not\nhaving in gas and utilities\nwhich is more than 30% growth.\nIs that accounted for? >> natural gas will remain a\npart of the electric mix. It is coal that can know longer\nserve oregon customers in 2030.\nwhat I am saying the growth\nand demand you are going to have\nto provide to bend.\nfrom potential move from gas. Bend is very high growth rate.\nI think to do that type of calculation that is very much\ngetting in the weeds.\nI try to keep this high level as possible.\nI am happy to run those numbers.\nI did run a few of the numbers based on the fee presented from\nstaff at the last discussion.\nWe can talk about that if we\nneed to get into the details. >> what was on the slide is\nright now without the policy in place?\nright.\nsomething different if policy\nwas in place? >> yes.\nwe have two other presentations.\nI don't want to spend 40 to 50\nminutes so we can have discussion.\nlisa, how much growth is driven by residential and how\nmuch driven buy outs\nbuy out side residential. >> most of the growth in\nresidential is coming from multifamily housing which is\nalready electrified.\nThose are significant.\nThey are on par with a small manufacturer.\nthank you.\nMike: mike.\nI was going to ask the same question.\nthat worked out well. Garrett.\ndoes the timeline for\nexpansion of infrastructure include land use or how long it\ntakes to build substation.\nI don't think I laid out a timeline.\nthree to five acres is how much land we need for\nsubstation.\nI used to say you could builds a\nsubstation in three years. That is rocket speed.\nIt does take the land use\nprocess along with ordering long lead materials.\nYou could probably still do it in three years.\nMore like four to five years for a substation.\nany other questions?\nthank you for the\npresentation.\nAny strategies that can meet new\ndemand without transmission? Large load flexibility is a huge\nopportunity we have when we have\ncold snaps and heat waves how we\ncan keep the heat on. They don't meet the multiyear\ninfrastructure upgrades. >> we have robust demand\nresponse program that is rolled\nout to commercial and industrial first.\nIt came to bend last summer as residential program.\nWe are heavily encouraging energy efficiency.\nThose are two major ways we can\ncurb the need for transmission infrastructure.\nIt is necessary to get power from renewable energy resources\nnot related here or next to a\nload to serve the load.\nmoving to\nmoving to cc next. Your presentation. Thank\nthank you, lisa. >> brent ten pas.\nCentral electric cooperative. We appreciate the opportunity to\nbe here today.\nI also want to acknowledge cassie and her accessibility and\nreaching out in good conversations with her.\nVery good productive transparent conversations.\nThank you, cassie.\nIf pacific power is a rural utility, central electric is\nvery, very rural cooperative utility.\nI will give you brief background\nwho we are in my day-to-day\nthere are sometimes a lack of\nawareness who cec is and who we\nare in our mission to serve the\ngreater area.\nThe co opin the 1940s through\nthe rural electrification\nadministration in the f dr administration ranchers and\nfarmers borrowed 240,000 and\nstarted to build the system themselves. That has grown over the years.\nWe have a 5300 square file\nservice territory across five counties, tri-counties. 24 substations.\nWe are currently grading to\nconstruct a new substation for\nthe stevens ranch development.\nWe have 24 substations.\n4,000 miles of energized\npowerlines.\nThere is a snapshot of service territory.\nIf you go west you are looking at the ski resort.\nEast to iz, about 40 miles east\nof palina.\nNorth of madras.\nAs far south as brothers and I forget that little town out there.\nWe go pretty far south to hampton.\nThe yellow you see is\nunincorporated or unallocated territory.\nIf you are in the yellow area\nyou have a choice to connect\nwith cec or pacific power.\nEverything that you see there in\npink is pacific power.\nThat is a snapshot as of the end of 2025.\nWe are primarily residential\nirrigation frankly has slowly\nbeen declining over the years\nfor drought, farming, ranching, second and third generations\ndon't want to do it. Change in our make up.\nWe have commercial.\nAlso our largest number is the st. Charles hospital.\nAt the time it was constructed it was so far out it was in the\nservice territory.\nThat is an idea of growth over\nthe decades.\nZero in on the city of bend.\nRed line is the border. Pink is again pacific power.\nYellow would be unallocated. All of that growth on the east\ntsai\non east sideis service territory.\n7500 members in the city of\nbend. We will touch on it later.\nWith growth we will nearly\ndouble the number of members\nwithin the city of bend.\nWe purchase our power through\nbonneville power administration which managed columbia river\npower system.\nWe purchase power through\ngeneration cooperative pngc. Fuel mix is pretty clean\ndepending on the water year 89\nto 93 to 94% emission free.\nWe have 13% nuclear.\nWithin that 13% of nonspecified\nmarket purchases you will see\nsome small wind and solar.\nMost of those market purchases\nare more carbon intensive.\nThis is important to highlight.\nBpa is tier rate to balance low\ncost federal power with regional.\nPublic utilities, municipal utilities or co-ops.\nWe are coming to end of 20 year contract.\nThat tier 1 power for $40\nmegawatt comes off hydro system\nas well as bpa columbia generating in washington.\nIt is stable and predictable.\nTier 2 power is $70 a megawatt.\nAll of the growth we are\nexperiencing falls under tier 2.\nIt is more carbon intensive\nwhich impacts overall resource.\nPower costs 52% of our operating budget.\nBpa power is rising in cost.\nLast year they implemented 19%\nincrease for customers over three years.\nCec had to go out and raise its rates just over 9%.\nWe are starting cost service\nanalysis to look at what to do\nfor this year and the following\nyear to match that.\nOrganic growth which I touched\non we have seen increase 10% membership and we expect that\nagain over the next five years.\nThis is not just bend, but it is\nalso for us northwest redmond\nand sisters which is entirely in\nour service territory. Obviously greatest growth is in\nthe steven road development.\nAlso the multi-unit housing is driving upload as well.\nYou also have library there and just the other residential that\nis growing there.\nWe understand there is nearly\n7500 homes that will pretty much\ndouble our service meters just\nwithin the city of bend over the\nnext few years.\nOne of the things to touch on.\nResource adequacy is an\nincreasing challenge.\nOver last two years multiple\nheadlines about potential blackouts, 9 giga watt shortfall\nin that generation online not keeping pace with that shortfall.\nPut it into perspective.\n9 gigawatts would be like nine 1,000-megawatt power plants.\nState of oregon uses almost 7 gigawatts. Throw in peak load.\nThat is almost 9 gigawatts there\nto put example to that.\nIt's growing and resource\nadequacy is becoming ever\nincreasing issue as well as the\ncost for power is soaring. The data centers receive much of\nthe attention and blame for soaring energy demand.\nThey are playing a role in it. Pacific northwest is\nexperiencing great growth as we\nalso see here in central oregon. Greater electrification of homes\nincluding heating, air-conditioning, water heating,\nadoption of electric vehicles.\nThe other thing contributes is\nretirement of coal and less efficient natural gas that are\nnot replaced. Demand is outgrowing what is\ncoming online.\nThen you have the thorny knot of transmission constraints.\nHow will you import these firm resources into the state of\noregon?\nThe permitting and construction, everything that goes into\nconstruction.\nThose are all issues as my colleague has to work through\njust to have transmission to\nbring in and import that kind of power.\nWe took a serious hit just last month.\nMany of you MAY be following\nwhat is happening with the federal system and lawsuits\ngoing on for over a decade.\nA federal judge injunction\nissued to alter operations of bpa system.\nBottom line is that from APRIL\ninto summer, they are now going\nto buy pass generations.\nLosing several hundred average megawatt.\nThat is going to be lost for\npublic power that is pretty much overnight a 6% increase in costs\nof power on top of what we just\nnow have to deal with with the\nthree year 19% increase in power.\nHow are we meeting future demand?\nFirst and foremost we are going\nto promote efficient electricity\nuse to reduce tier 2 power performs to keep rates low.\nWe have never as co-op engaged in fuel switching.\nWe believed that members know\nwhat is best as far as meeting their energy needs.\nwhat we have done over the decades we have very robust\nenergy efficiency program as\nwell as rebates and inspections to help guide other members\nthrough energy choices to really\nif they choose to electrify and\ngo with high efficiency\nappliances to maintain affordability and responsible\nenergy use.\nYou know, we cannot afford to stand idly by and basically have\nbpa dictate to us what is\nhappening on tier 2.\nThrough our co-op we are looking\nat battery solar in the culver\narea among 25 members who wants\nto opt-in to help reduce tier 2\nreliance on bpa. We have also signed two\ndifferent power purchasing agreements wind and solar to\nhelp diversify our portfolio.\nWe are not seeing a lot of cost\nsavings from tier 2. Marginal difference than tier 2.\nAt the end in wrapping up, as\nnot for profit member owned utility.\nOur mission is to provide\nelectricity to members at lowest cost. Fulfilling that mission is more\ndifficult as we look at growth\nhow the energy industry is evolving.\nWe don't have full appreciation\nfor what the understanding what those potential financial\nimpacts would be for members.\nWe know more load coming on increases tier 2 costs and\nincreases infrastructure costs\nsizing things appropriately.\nWe are looking at the substation stevens ranch with hopefully\nconstruction time of three years.\nIt will cost about $13 million.\nwe are thinking about second substation to help meet the\nenergy needs in southeast bend.\nI will answer questions. >> questions?\nCouncilor mendez.\nthank you.\nYou said over 90% current mix is carbon emission free.\nCould you describe what the future expansion looks like in\nterms of carbon emission profile.\ncec or bpa?\nCec: cec.\nthat growth under tier 2 will\nbe more carbon intensive.\nI can't put a number on it.\nWe are proactive with wind and solar to shave some of that off.\nAs well through energy efficiency.\nWe have a challenge.\nPotentially that solar with the battary storage in culver could\nhelp as well.\nSteve: steve.\nyou talked about challenges\nwith transmission in the area of local and in the area.\nYou have city council and staff here listening.\nHow can we best help?\nwe have two different challenges.\nOur challenge is bpa.\nBpa is the transmission provider\nfor almost all of pacific northwest.\nTo give you example of the transmission constraints we have\nbeen experiencing in the primary\narea lack of transmission surface capacity.\nWe have spent over 10 years\nlobbying bpa to increase size of\nponderosa substation.\nAs well construct bonanza\nsubstation to step down that high voltage power.\nwe have finally gotten to a tipping points.\nThey are moving forward with funding.\nI can tell you that timeline has already been pushed out a couple\nmore years.\nWe have gone from looking at\npotentially having that online\nin 2029 to maybe 2032.\nAs those involved in edco know. We have to turn people and\nindustry away due to those\nconstraints.\nI liken bpa to naval aircraft carrier trying to turn it around.\nThat is the challenge we have\nwhen it comes to transmission.\nthank you.\nFinal question then cascade. >> I think you have similar\nproblems with distribution system.\nHow is the distribution system\nimpacted when people choose to\nput solar on their roof as well as plugging in electric vehicle\nand all of that stuff?\nI have solar on my roof.\nMy bill is minimal.\nHow does that help or harm the distribution?\nWhat is the status of the distribution network.\ntwo answers.\nIt is interesting because\nbelieve\nresidential rates are low.\nWe do not have a lot of solar. 45, $50,000 investment how low\nour rates are it didn't pencil out.\nThose that pay that premium for solar.\nWhen it comes to increasing load, electric vehicles,\ncharging at home, fully electrifying homes.\nWhat we have to do with the new\ndevelopments is resize infrastructure.\nOne of the biggest concerns was if the city was looking at\nputting in natural gas rights in legacy neighborhoods that would\nbe very problematic for cec\nbecause the other imagine from\nstructure was not built to ham that load.\nMembers pay for infrastructure upgrades. Line extension the member has to\npay out of pocket to do that.\nIt just comes down to knowing where and when that load is\nincreasing and making sure we\nhave the right infrastructure in place.\nI can't give you a specific answer to that question.\nI don't know if that helps.\nit does, yes.\nso we will move next to\ncascade natural gas. We do want to make sure we have\ntime for discussion.\nThere are slides from cng in that discussion.\nStarting the background slides\nand pause for questions and get\ninto that.\nI will invite my colleague to\nstart the presentation.\ngood afternoon. Don moore.\nRegion director for cascade natural gas.\nI support operations teams across oregon and washington.\nI grew up central oregon. I live here in bend.\nThis is my first roundtable. I saw a roundtable on the invite\nand all of the city of bend information.\nYet I was surprised when I walked in the room to see the\ntable in this configuration.\nWe appreciate the dialogue we have had with the city of bend.\nWe want to continue discussions\nwith the city what a well designed ordinance MAY look\nlike.\nSpecifically we want to ensure\nguardrails on housing\naffordability and energy\nreliable and path wades to recognize cascade investment in\nenergy efficiency and low carbon\nsolutions like renewable natural\ngas and dual fuel systems.\nIf the proposal today doesn't take that into consideration we\nneed to be realistic on the demand on the constrained system\nand environmental impact of\ngenerating that electricity. If the city policy does not\naccount for that it MAY cause\nmore problems than it solves.\nWe hope to work with rather than against bend.\nWe have a legal obligation to\nserve customers in bend and we\nthink we can make a compelling\ncase for keeping natural gas as\npardon of the bend energy mix. We have been serving central\noregon since 1960s.\nWe have 62000 customers here in central oregon, 11 communities.\nTo the far north madras and far south shamalt.\nWe have 35 local employees 25\nare bargain unit employees. Partners at pacific power and\ncentral oregon electric\nmentioned resource adequacy.\nCascade is not at odds with either of those utilities.\nIn fact, inner dependence\nbetween natural gas and electric\nutilities is only increasing.\nWe have sourced a study.\nPacific northwest utilities\nconference committee regional\nforecast 2025 to 2035.\nIt lays out in stark terms that\nthe pacific northwest energy\nsystem is constrained.\nNow in the pacific northwest winter peak exceeds summer peak.\nWhen it gets really cold you\nneed additional BTUs cascade provides.\nExtreme weather in JANUARY 14,\n2024 affected northwest including bend.\nDuring that 24 hour period\nduring one hour period 607 he --\n70% of the energy gas came from natural gas.\nIt is leaned on to provide capacity.\nThat is there.\nIndustry leaders in the 10 year forecast stressed urgency for\ncoordination and investment in\nboth natural gas and electric\nresources. Regional collaboration is\nessential. I believe you MAY not want\nnatural gas but you need it.\nThere is an interest and\nunderstanding local impact of emissions. Resource it is important to step\nback to understand the relative\namount of emissions resource is\nfrom 2023 oregon department environmental quality.\n35% of all emissions in 2023\ntransportation.\n29% electricity, 15% natural\ngas.\n3.4% of all emissions in 2023 were attributed to gas\ndistributed by cascade.\nThat is a small amount, cascade\nis investing in low carbon solutions.\nLike rmg and dual fuel systems.\nI will ask my colleague cole to\nshare information about those\ninvestments. >> don, quick introduction.\nI am manager of industrial SERVICEs cascade natural gas\nfocusing on renewable natural gas development.\nI have experience working at\ncombination electric and gas utility and electric cooperative.\nThat being said, I want to introduce you to some of the\nefforts cascade is doing. In\naddition to energy efficiency.\nInvestments in participation r&d\nthrough gas technology. Renewable natural gas.\nBiogas is existing resource\nwhether or not used or not is a good question.\nIt is through decomposition of\norganic materials in landfills, waste water treatment,\nagricultural sites and so forth. Really we have avenues to\nrepurpose this biogas.\nRefined upgraded to meet utility\nspecifications and utilized in utility transportation.\nWe make investments in renewable natural gas and we will discuss\nthose shortly.\nCascade renewable natural gas\nefforts are depicted here.\nThree projects renewable natural\ngas and two projects under development.\nOne is locally at the knot landfill.\nCascade will own and operate the natural gas plant to use that\nresource in the community.\nWe are looking forward to the\nopportunity to capture that, refine and utilize for benefit\nof customers.\nCascade efforts in renewable\nnatural gas are landfills and wastewater treatment plant being.\nWe have voluntary renewable gas program you can receive supply\nof\ngas that can help us drive our\nefforts in this emerging\ntechnology space. Additionally in bend we are\nworking on dual fuel heat pump system program.\nThis is trying to understand is\nutilization of dual fuel heat pumps.\nCan this be better system that\ncan benefit both electric and natural gas companies\nalleviating demand constraints\nexisting or future demand constraints.\nWhile also leveraging heating\ncooling for customers more cost-effective both summer and\nwinter. We believe it has great\nopportunity to benefit both constrainted grid and meet\ncustomer needs in local area and\nexpanded service territories.\nI will ask to pause and check\nin with questions so far.\nR and g this is a time to ask\nquestions before the policy.\nyour colleague said 3.4% of\nall emissions.\nAttributed to cascade natural gas.\nDoes that include emissions\nattributed to distribution leaks?\nwhen you say distribution.\nThese emissions are to the\nvolumes we provide new customers customers.\nIn use molecules we report on.\nWhen you talk about transportation can you provide\nmore context?\nI am hearing no.\nWould not account for distribution leaks?\nI can answer that question.\nso we can make sure it is on\nthe recording.\nSystems emissions. >> I didn't hear that.\nit is called system emissions\nand gas distributed.\nother questions. Sarah.\nI am curious about results of dual fuel heat pump.\nWhat data you expect to share and what that would be shared\nwith the community. >> reference there the gas\ntechnology institute is project partner.\nThey are active in utility\nindustry for pilots and research and development opportunities.\nPresentation that was presented\na few weeks ago at a large industry conference.\nPublicly available. Preliminary findings can be\nreferenced now then full findings anticipated to be in\nabout a year.\nLooking to utilize over a full calendar year to understand how\nthey operate for our customers.\nMike: mike.\ncan you talk about the full\ncost to deliver r and g to\ncapital plus deliver recompared\nto cost of natural gas.\nWhat is magnitude. >> renewable gas is more\nexpensive.\nWe are to comply with regulations.\nAt time of evaluations it was\nmost cost-effective to meet obligations.\nScope and scale.\nMy understanding based on previous analysis.\n[Inaudible]\nHigher offsetting needs for gas supply.\nThose equivalent volumes on\nboard injecting are serving needs of environmental\nrequirements and offsetting\nnatural gas volumes we would\ntypically source from fossil fuel.\nSteve: steve.\nI am interested in the\nlandfill capture locally.\nHow it is flared off. Two questions.\nHow many homes could be heated using that?\nWhat is expected timelie to get usable renewable natural gas off\nthat site?\nif you don't mind pivoting back one slide.\nIn state of oregon customers in\nlast evaluation last year 672 terms.\nAnticipated injecting 2.5 million terms.\n3700 homes worth of gas\nassociated with our volumes there.\nAs far as lifespan.\nI will acknowledge the fact the knot landfill is scheduled to close.\nThat is to move forward with this opportunity, this plant\nwill utilize gas continually\ngenerated over the lifetime which we are involved for 20\nyear period.\nThere will be renewable natural gas sourced from that site for\nat least the next 20 years.\n3700 homes off that site?\nthat's correct.\nthanks.\nany other questions?\ngo ahead.\nmy understanding r and g from\na variety of feedstocks.\nDairyman neurojects withdairyman now\ndairy and man new.\nIs cascade uses environmental\nattributes from that gas? >> you are correct in the fact\nthat different r and g sources\nhave different carbon intensity associated with them.\nCompany is not involved with anything with dairy.\nReason is most of those projects\nare sourced in the low carbon\nfuel standard in transportation\nindustry bigger financial driver.\nFederally mandated.\nFor purposes of compliance in\noregon more carbon agonotic.\nNot necessarily focusing on larger investments with dairy\nfacility with large digester to to be installed.\nNot something we are currently involved in.\nNot saying won't be involved in the future depending on the\nstate policies.\nif cascade gets involved in\nthe future those attributes\ndon't help with the cpp\ncompliance is that correct understanding?\nDepending how we are involved with the project we have\ndifferent structures. Carbon compliance could be\nsourced and utilized if we are\ninvolved with that project. Methane, raw gas and environment\ntell attributes associated.\nanyone else with a question?\nWhat I will ask cascade to do.\nNext slides are general feedback. Skip to implementation to make\nsure we get on record your\nfeedback on implementation timeframe and exemptions that\nare two things we are discussing today.\nMove to that slide and whoever\nis presenting on that slide for implementation timeframe.\nI would be glad to speak to that.\nAlyn spector from cascade natural gas.\nI appreciate the opportunity to speak at round table about\npotential ways to avoid\nunintended consequences of a potential fee.\nFirst, we feel strongly especially after hearing\nfeedback of electric utilities\nthat until compliance is\ndemonstrated with hb2021 there\nis no guarantee it is going to\nreduce carbon emissions. To put this in place.\nWe would ask that at the very least pacific power will have results this summer.\nThat is critical information and they are able to meet their\ngoals, the ordinance shouldn't move forward.\nLikewise, we have been working\nwith the city with the dual fuel\npilot we put together that pairs electric heat pump and gas\nfurnace to allow each to do what\nthey do best.\nFull findings integrated in MARCH 2027.\nWe would love to have that pilot complete and provide that data\nto the city to help inform what moves forward.\nIf the ordinance does pass we encourage the city explore this\nas multiyear pilot program. Implementation phased in overtime.\nI think it is very important to pay attention to impacts to\nenergy costs, to demand on grid for resource adequacy.\nImpacts to carbon to make sure\nwe are avoiding unintended consequences.\nBecause some of this analysis that the city had shared in\nprevious discussion showed\npotential for carbon to increase.\nat least until such time as\npacific power was meeting hb\nhb2021.\nLanguage also mandate that it be\ndiscontinued if there are\nresource adequacy issues,\ntargets not met or increases observed.\nWe know the city would be transparent on this.\nWe want to re-enforce revenue allocation should be transparent\nto the public. Modifications to strengthen\nordinance avoid unintended consequences.\nLike we said, it is very\nimportant to consider utility's capacity to meet state carbon\ngoals, look from a full fuel\ncycle electric and gas gas\nperspective as well. Pacific power ability to meet\n2021 or looking electric fuel\nmix as r and g is put into our\nplanning documents and shown to\ncomply with cpp, we ask that be taken into consideration when\nyou are looking at incremental carbon.\nIn terms of utility system.\nIt is critical that before this ordinance is forwarded that\nthere be an analysis of winter\npeak impacts to ensure that\ndisplaced demand can be met by the electric utilities.\nKeeping an eye on potential off raches.\nThe electric utilities experience infrastructure\nconstraints. If the intent of this ordinance\nto reduce carbon, pathways for\nlow efficiency electric\nequipment be eliminated.\nSo in terms of exemptions.\nI'm sure a lot of folks at the\ntable have feedback. We would love to see an\nexemption for affordable housing\nand housing for first time home buyers, understanding that bend\nis struggling with housing affordability issues.\nI think that just as members of the community we want to make\nsure the folks that work in bend\nare able to live in bend as well.\nHave potential delays on the exemption for the fee.\nIf there are impacts to development or if there is\ndelays that result from infrastructure constraints for\nincremental electric demand. Making sure infrastructure can\nbe built out to meet demand displaced by gas.\nIf we are able to comply with\nthe climate protection program,\nthere is a risk of of\nrisk of redone dancy\nin design of ordinance.\nIf we are in good faith\ncomplying with cpp fee remain dormant unless we are not able\nto make compliance. The other piece.\nGas plays a critical role in resource adequacy.\nGas and electric system work\ntogether very effective way.\nWe ask dual fuel and emergency back up health and safety value\nto homeowners to have that dual\nfuel system except in the fee. Reductions.\nBacking off the incremental\ncarbon from amount of r and g in\nsystem through integrated resource plan.\nReally what we are saying is we\ncan't afford to have the fee\nraising energy costs and carbon.\nThat just means making sure that\nthis is done the right way, that\nthe correct analysis goes into\nthe design of the ordinance and\nthat until carbon targets are\nmet, electrification targets are\nmet, this fee lie dormants. It is not decarbonization.\nAs previous city presentations have shown.\nThere is a risk for some path\nways with lower efficiency\nequipment until the targets met\nwith 2021, carbon MAY increase.\nKeep that in mind. We feel like ordinance should be\ndelayed until 2021 can be met.\nWe want to avoid duplicate fees by waiving charge if in compliance with climate\nprotection and delaying\nordinance until hybrid study complete. We are glad to continue to work\nwith the city to help forward\ndecarbonization solutions. We appreciate the time.\nthat is a good transition to\nthe discussion around these two categories, cascade gave input\nto implementation timeline and exception. Cassie has a couple slides.\nI want folks to give perspective\non those two things as well. What are the things on the list\nyou you agree or disagree with? What should the city do in these\ntwo areas.\nCassie will get us starting with exemptions.\ntwo topics we are looking for\ninput on.\nExceptions and implementation.\nExemptions we have three topics or ideas.\nSome came up from our utility presenters and other discussions\nwith the council or community members.\nThe three topics we would like feedback on.\nWhether there should be exemption for deed restricted\naffordable housing, homes with\ndual fuel heat pumps and homes using renewable natural gas.\nI think conversation on\nrenewable natural gas as we thought about this in the last\nweek.\nIt feels it MAY be challenging\nto exempt a single home.\nMore broadly should there becomedation for use of\nrenewable natural gas on individual home basis or\npotentially as cascade proposed\nthat it would be factored into the fee equation.\nThe mix of the fee equation and\nthen it would be adjusted system-wide.\nThose are the three ideas.\nAffordable housing, rng and\nother additional ideas from round table participants.\nfor our participants.\nIf you want to comment on these ideas, present your own ideas\nthis is the point to get that conversation started.\nWe have committee folks,\naffordable housing committee.\nI can guess what you might want to say.\nWhoever wants to start us off.\nWe are gathering information.\nWe are all respectful of every one's position.\nWe want to hear conflicting\npositions how to deliberator on\nthis to be pick. Garrett, kick us off.\ndeed restricted affordable housing look at ami target\nknowing bend's housing crisis is\naround the entire.\nI am throwing that out there for\nconsideration. >> other thoughts?\nNo, we shouldn't have\nhave the exemptions.\nWe want to hear it all.\nMandy: mandy.\nthe affordable housing\ncommittee does want an exemption for deed restricted affordable\nhousing.\nI would agree with garrett that\nmaybe we should extend that just because we do have a problem\nwith our middle housing as\nwell-being more affordable in bend.\ncan you both expand?\nQuantify what you mean by middle\nhousing what that looks like.\nI will throw it up there 120% is our preference.\nOpen to conversation on that.\nthat is online with what we end up with as well.\nother thoughts?\nI know people have them. >> general question.\nAre we talking about what could\nbe done with the fee if there is\na fee imposed to help offset that?\nnot today. Revenue is going to be spent\nthat is a separate conversation.\nIf that helps you think about\nthe exemption feel free free to\nexpand on that.\nenvironment and climate\ncommittee supports exemption deed restricted affordable\nhousing. Most is all electric.\nThis\nthis is a signal from ecc to\nremove barriers to affordable\nhousing as bend needs more.\nI can go down the list for dual fuel equipment.\nEcc does not support exemption.\nWe support fee reduction for mixed fuel heating systems.\nWe think adding heat pump should be acknowledged.\nWe don't want to create loophole\nwhere you don't pay a fee.\nYou can adjust settings so gas kicks in at 50 .\nThat would be a gas system.\nWe want to have the rate be conservative reflecting\ncontinued gas use and\nrecognizing the contribution of electric heat pump.\nIn terms of rng we do not\nsupport exemption or reduction for rng.\nIt is simply injected into the gas apply with other fuels.\nRng is important and useful. It should be prioritized for\nmore hard to electrify sectors\nsuch as heavy industry and transportation and not\nresidential buildings that are\neasier to electrify. >> all right.\nOther thoughts? Sarah.\nI guess I was going to second\nthe comment around ami level\nalso 80 and 120 from chamber\nperspective work force housing band is important to focus on.\nOne other thing we are talking\nabout and this is not pertaining\nto multi-family per se defining\nwhat that looks like because in\nsome instances like quad or\nduplex or quadplex.\nWhat that looks\nlooks like to ensure builders are aware of that.\nwhen we talked about the fee\nnot applying to large\nmulti-family developments. Is there ability to be clear in\nour code what that means and what this would apply to?\nit is something we plan to\nbring to the council on APRIL 22 because that question.\nwe have heard from the council\nwe don't want to apply to multi-family.\nWhere is that cut off? We entered discussions with\nstaff this week to define those. We will talk about it with the council.\nI would rather wait.\nWe are actively discussing it.\nI would like to wait.\nthey are flagging for clarity.\nin the definitions what the\ncode is applicable to where that would be defined and we will\ninclude that in the discussion\non the 22nd. >> scott.\nthanks.\nHuman rights commission would support deed restricted\naffordable housing exemption\nalong with affordable housing advisory committee recognizing\nto be fair and equitable with\nthat middle range up to 120%.\nJust wanted to emphasize that from our perspective.\nThank you.\ngo ahead.\naffordable housing.\nWe think the vast majority of\naffordable housing is already\nall electric or multi-family that is do nothing addition to\nthe policy.\nFrom my perspective the looming equity issue I see around\nexpanding fossil-fuel network\nand this is in the oregon state\nenergy strategy.\nRisks of having gas asset and\nhaving homeowner middle or low income or renter sadeled with\ngetting gas out of the house\nthat is equity crisis on the horizon.\nAnything to reduce fossil fuel expansion.\ntwo-thirdses gas bill today are maintenance and that is not going away.\nIt is important we neat goals\ntoday.\nI want everybody to be cognizant\nthe more we build out the fossil-fuel.\nMore we take to electric fiit is\ngoing to disproportionately hit\npeople least able to deal with that.\nMulti fuel equipment cascade pilot is good example.\nThere are many combinations dual\nfuel house.\nDifferent heat pumps.\nSet points tweaked differently by different renters.\nThe range of outcomes is huge.\nAs city is considering that, be conservative and realistic.\nNot every house is switching\nfrom gas to electric at 35 .\nRealistic carbon benefit is more marginal when we think in\npractice how dual fuel systems are rolled out. Renewable natural gas.\nLast time I was at industry\nconference in nashville we had lunch or dinner with three\nseparate clients. They were all talking about a\ncool project.\nIt was not the same project.\nI would expect gas utilities\nlooking at the small pool of available projects.\nWe shouldn't be hedging bets\nthat cascade will meet all\ncompliance goals through rng alone.\nPublic utility commission has not acknowledge would long-range\nplanning to comply with cpp.\nCity of bend should be cognizant of that.\nallen for your long-range plan.\nWhen do you think that will go\nthrough the process and be\ncomplete for you and your plans?\nI might defer to my colleague\non that.\ncontext when you say commission recognition.\nCan you clarify how you view\nthat?\ncascade was making insufficient supporting\nassumptions about cost.\nThey do not think cost\nassumptions are realistically\nguaranteeing low rates.\nHow does cascade resolve that if\nit is 90% of compliance portfolio?\nthat is a specific question.\nwhat I am looking for is\ntimelines.\nThat is what we are talking about today.\nImplementation timelines. When is pacific power going to\ncomply? Timelines for you all.\nWe know there are specific places and back and forth.\nWhat is the expectation when we get to the point where you have\na plan that is the thing you are\nimplementing?\nabsolutely.\nBest cost options of rng. Timeline I can't speak to that\ntodays. I will be glad to follow up with\nthe city with more detail. What I will say the projects\nthat we are discussing today.\nThere are three that are fully operational right now.\nIt is more than hypothetical.\nIn terms how that is going to be\nutilized for cpp compliance we continue to have those\nconversations with regulators. If it is a priority of\ncommunities that is for\ncompliance that is something we would take back to integrated\nresource planning team.\nWe would start that conversation\nto work with the city to\nincorporate that in a way that\nis satisfactory to the city and regulators. We would be happy to continue\nthose discussions.\nfor councilors to gather information.\nWe are not at the same level\nmany of you are.\nWhen you talk in acronyms, I ask\nthat you take it on a level we can understand.\nI apologize.\nthat is okay.\nWe haven't heard from david or john.\nYou don't have to if there is\nanything to add.\nI will go ahead.\nLocal 290 would support deed restriction for affordable\nhousing.\n120 ami.\nObviously we are in full support\nhomes with dual fuel equipment.\nI have had it in my homes in central oregon since 2002.\nThey work great. They both supply when the\ntemperatures are low and gas can\nmake up that difference. When the heat pumps can't.\nThey work very well in this climate.\nThat is something that needs to be thought of, too.\nDual fuel projects like that are\ndifferent in different climate.\nThis climate supports the good\ndual fuel program.\nMild climates not so much.\nWe have pretty decent winters,\nnot this year.\nRenewable natural gas we support 100%.\nTo think in the future to add to\nthat just because technologies change and things change.\nWhat might be available changes\nis there might be hydrogen mix\nin natural gas to do the same\nthing to reduce carbon of the\ngas.\nJohn: john.\ncan we go back.\nThere was a stat about the\nimpact of carbon from cascade\nnatural gas presented that\nshowed that 15% emissions from\nnatural gas versus 29% from electricity.\nCan you help us understand that?\nIt makes it stand like the\nimpact of electricity has twice\nthe carbon outputna natural gas is that twice supply coming from\nelectricity versus natural gas? How do we understand.\nI will share sources for the study to provide more information.\nSome of it does pertain to\nscaling the delivery of gas\nversus delivery of electricity\nlooking at the fuel mix of the electric system today.\nLooking at the direct use of\nnatural gas versus the use of\nnonrenewable energy for electric generation.\nThere are multiple factors that go into that.\nI would be very happy to make\nsure -- there is a link to the\nsource on the slides now up on the city website.\nin the deq study from oregon.\nGood question. >> I guess that's still trying\nto process what you are saying. However, I guess in terms what\nis asked in exemptions here.\nConversations at bdad support exemptions around deed\nrestricted affordable housing we\nbelieve the housing crisis is\nreal and we want to support ways\nto offset that impact to homeowners.\nWe support continuing to do\nprojects dual fuel proof of concept.\nThere needs to be more data to\nsupport the fee structure and outcomes that that ultimately\ngets passed to the home owners.\nThose are the discussions we\nhave. >> garrett.\nthere is a lot of action at\nthe state to reduce fears to\nbuilding certain housing types,\ncondos in the triplex, fourplex and beyond.\nMaybe consideration for exemptions to hold off on those\nhousing types to begin with to let progress play out to see if\nwe can bring to market rather\nthan adding hurdle to development.\nsomething to separate by housing types.\nOther thoughts on exemptions.\nIf you think of one later we\nwill come back to you. Sarah.\na couple comments about the\nstranded asset for exemptions of ami's of housing.\nAll homes will be dual fuel. Infrastructure will be laid for\ngas and electricity because of\nthe nature of the choice issue.\nI think that eliminates concept of stranded asset.\nThink about this broadly when we\nthink about what that ami exemption would look like. >> thank you.\nI think to make sure we are grounding for anyone watching.\nWe are talking about one time\nfee at beginning of new\nconstruction.\nThese exemptions at time of new construction.\nFinal thoughts on exemptions\nbefore implementation timeline. Robin.\nI wanted to add that ecc only\nsupports one exemption deed\nrestricted affordable housing. We want to limit exemption.\nEvery exemption reduces\nemissions that this has.\nEvery exemption adds\nadministrative burden to the\npolicy, additional tracking, calculations, enforcement.\nWe have had 20% of the snowpack in deschutes.\nWe need more climate action now.\nThose exemptions limit impact of the policy.\nWe advocate for less exemptions.\nthank you for that.\none consideration not voiced\nis winter heating via electric\nis more demand than summer. If there are developments that\ncannot meet that incremental\ndevelopment that regards large\nupgrades by electric utilities\nthey would penalize and delay\nwhile that infrastructure is\nbuilt out gas resource adequacy\nto mead that and get that up and running sooner. >> final thought?\nI had other ideas.\nany home that has natural gas\nthat is going to include solar. Put an exemption on home that\nhas that.\nAnother one could be any home\nthat for the future behind every appliance has both gas and electric.\nWhat they choose now can be\nwhatever service they want. It could be changed at any point.\nNot extra cost down the road.\nit is already available and\nbuilt into the home. >> thoughts on those ideas?\none thing on solar. Ecc we touched on that in our\nlast meeting.\nIf we want to add solar to the\nconversation we don't want exemption but reduced fee in calculation.\nThat would be based on the size\nof the system and size of the house.\nAs we know with the grid being\ndirty, these local renewable\nemissions could really support\nto make that grid cleaner.\nWe don't want it as exemption. You could have one panel on your\nhome and that would eliminate the fee.\nWe want to acknowledge addition of solar because we think it is\nan important part of this\nconversation, a reduction. >> brennan.\nreiterate robin's point as\nwell and when we consider\nexemptions look in totality.\nWhat can realistically be administered by a team of two in\nthe city. Back to sarah's point.\nI want to push back on the idea\nstranded assets are a stranded issue.\nAffordable single family housing\nbuilt all electric in bend and\nsisters and many others. Good proof of concept gas is\nonly utility you don't need to live in a house.\nthank you. Final thoughts on exemptions\nbefore implementation?\nto echo sarah's point.\nIn talking to builders how fee is per equipment.\nAll infrastructure is brought\nout to new construction gas and\nelectric to convert in the\nfuture so we don't run into risk\nof stranded asset. >> allen.\nTo the point of limited staff to administer this.\nThat is why and talking about\nthe fuel mix today not being decarbonized on electric tsai.\nThat is why it is important to\nhave this fee lie dormant until\nthe carbon intentionally of\nelectricity and gas when that switches.\nThen the fee can take effect. >> next topic.\nWhen should this be in effect. Timeline, considerations there\nwhich you have given us in your\npresentation which I took notes\non. >> implementation timeline\nlooking for feedback on\neffective date of fee. Starting point date we would\nlike to put out would go into effect JANUARY 1, 2028.\nSome of the things that we\nthought of when we were thinking about appropriate timeline.\nPacific power's compliance for\nhouse bill 2021.\nPart was based on understanding\nthat pacific power has rfp open\nthis year that might take to\nends of year for costs to give information about compliance\ntimelines.\nWe might get information sooner. That is interesting\nconsideration.\nAnother one is ideas implementation of OCTOBER 2026\nthat becomes mandatory APRIL of 2027 legislative session next year.\nWe did hear from pacific power\ntoday there is potential rumors\nof changes to greenhouse gas\nbill 2021 which would have significant impact on how fee is\ncalculated. Anything in the legislative\nsession we need time to accommodate.\nthis is the starting place.\nHappy to hear about the timeline or other considerations.\nThinking about the the things and\nwhen the fee should be in effect.\nOur next topic.\nI want to acknowledge 5:30 P.M.\nIf not done at 6:00 we will keep going.\nIf you can stay, that is great. If you have to leave at 6:00\ntell me so I can call on you.\nWho wants to kickoff on implementation ideas or\nthoughts. >> pacific power does not have timeline.\nWe will keep staff and council\nappraised of changes in the regulatory compliance and go\nover anything in the legislative session to impact gas emissions\nfor us.\nthank you for that.\nI think my thought would be\nthat if I believe council's\nintent is to reduce carbon,\nright, in the city?\nUntil pacific power gets to where they reduce emissions.\nThey say they can meet that goal around 2029 or 30.\nI ask it be pushed out until\n2029 or 30 medical\n30 or until they prove they met that goal.\nwe are wants to participate in the pilot program.\nI would love to have that play\nout, study data prior to fee being imposed.\nHappy to get into more depth what we envision from pilot.\nwe haven't had chance to do that in two minutes to council.\nOpen to questions. >> policymaking is not perfect.\nWe are never going to make decisions in a vacuum.\nIf it is ongoing pilot or pilot\nthat might happen in the future,\nhb2021 or climate protection or\nbuilding code update or speculation on legislative\nsession or new federal administration.\nSomething dynamic that is nature of the things.\nAt some point we have to stop\ncollecting data and do something\nbecause we are in a vacuuming of leadership.\nWe are backsliding since the\nfirst inventory.\nBend admissions have gone up 20%.\nWe are headed for bad wildfire season.\nWe have to just try something at some point.\nThis is already a very modest option.\nOriginally the restriction was\non the table.\nIt is scaled back the level of\naction because of concerns from\naffordable housing and economic development.\nWe need to remember climate\naction is being go stewards of\nenvironment be with healthy air.\nThat makes bend economically viable. We need to try something and\ncheck in on policy. That is good development.\nWe think the city should do that\nto make sure it is not having unintended consequences.\nSome are wrong and useful.\nWe need to try to collect real data and tweak things down the\nroad. april 2027. >> what day.\nin line with the building\ncodes update for developers to\nhave single compliance calendar.\necc recommends start day JULY 1, 2027.\nWe do not think we should wait\nuntil JANUARY 1, 2028 primarily due to speculation of legislative session.\nIf anything comes up in that\nlegislative session we could\ndelay and amend as needed. We need climate action now.\nI want to note based on, david, your point.\nThese appliances can last up to 20 years.\nIf we install electric now or gas now, those will last for 20\nyears.\nIn that 20 year lifespan we are assuming pacific power could\nchange drastically.\nWe want to build smart from the\nstart knowing these systems last\nquite awhile.\nSarah: sarah.\nwe would land with garrett\nand the conversations around the pilot.\nWhen I look at forming opinion on implementation of this.\nI think about north star housing\naffordabilities. 53% of the people working in\nbend don't live in bend.\nThat is something we need to do something about.\nYesterday we were at park side place. We are making progress.\nWe can't hold gas on that kind of progress.\nThat is my lens I am coming from trying to balance with the\nconcerns that we are talking about with climate. -\nI think it is important that we\nhave a lot of different policymaking at the city\nsometimes happens in silos.\nWe have the home hardening building 327 expedited that\nmakes sense to expedite from\nwildlife, wildfire prevention, tree code conversation, natural\ngas fee code conversation.\nAll of these things are tiny chunks of affordabilities.\nTime and space to sequence some\nof those decisions in a manner that makes sense and affects\naffordability and what we do for the community is something I\nsupport and members support.\nI guess I will leave it at that. I would love to hear more about\nthe pilot at garrett.\ndid you have a question?\ncassie, I want to set for the room.\nBuilding code update coming in right here.\nCan you tell us to explain the effect of that building code in\nterms of installation of new\nequipment into homes in the hvac world.\nif a building codes person wants to jump in.\nI will take a stab at it.\nImproves energy efficiency with\nnew construction by 30%.\nI think that is maybe all I can\nsay confidently. Anything to add from the building people?\nwhat I am trying to get at.\nIn most cases a c unit installed\nin a home will require a heat pump.\nthank you for reminding me about that part.\nAnother part of the code\nair-conditioning installed it has to be heat pump to ensure\nany home with air-conditioning\nwhich is many of them have a heat pump.\nGas furnace sets up for duel fuel options that will have an\nimpact as well. >> I am asking that question\nbecause I do acknowledge\naffordability and agree with sarah it is my north star as\nwell.\nThat is a way to really avoid a\nlarge portion of al lakarstify.\nThat is $1,500 bucks in cost.\nThree quarters of fee goes away\nwhen this drops into our laps here in APRIL next year.\nI think that helps with affordability.\nuntil we make decision on the\ndual fuel systems.\nIf someone puts in gas furnace cost would be there.\nIt could be automatically\ndriving more electric systems if people put it in for sure.\nthank you.\nI will go to you and then to garrett.\na couple members of committee\nthat were concerned about the layering on of fees.\nIf we go route of exemption for\nup to 1:20 A.M. I, there is less\nconcern because it was the hardening.\nWe want to reduce barriers for affordable middle.\ngarrett pilot program could\nyou explain we are in the world of timeline.\nWhat do you mean?\nthe time limited aspect study\nat least a year to collect the\nenergy use data to understand the grid impacts. Construction data collection.\nThis is what I vision how this\ncomes to life. Three members of production builders now.\nWe hope to do this at scale.\nWilling in upcoming projecs to\nidentify select homes to have a side by sides comparison\nbuilding all electric next to\nall gas. The reason that selecting homes\nin same project matters.\nAll projects are different.\nSame land two different products\nbest way to collect data. Alongside high efficient\nelectric equipment was mentioned.\nWe have high performance builders.\nOne has offered to be a consultant.\nWe want to look at climate goals.\nHere is time line.\nOur members talked like quickest two years to get homes\nidentified, built, sold and study.\nTwo to three is roughly what we are thinking with city support\nand permitting process.\nWe could get closer to two.\nAlso, a piece I missed with home selection we need diverse\nselection of homes.\nTownhome, single story detached,\ntwo-story detached how it contributes to emissions and\nwhat affordability looks like in direct costs.\nwhat you are saying policy\nwould not apply city-wide two to\nthree years only in certain ways\nas we study data before going\ncity-wide? >> yes.\nI tried to make as brief as possible. >> I understood it.\nMandy. >> brief question.\nWhy would you not look retroactively at information\nthere are houses and buildings and data.\nwhy would you need to builds\nhomes, wait timeframes versus\nidentifying the homes.\none of the challenges with\ndevelopment costs it is sourced regionally not specifically to\nbend. We have unique codes.\nTo do here to collect local data\nwould be most impact\nimpact full. Second part of question.\nwhy won't you identify locally?\nthat is comparing variables.\nAll electric home built here and here.\nThere are different costs\nassociated with that because of difference in pieces of land.\nSide by sides with gas and and\nelectric home we control the variables.\nany other questions on that\nor ideas?\nCouncilor mendez. >> we heard concern about\ndelaying until we have more sent\non the pathway to complying with hb2021.\nWe talk about importance of\ncomparing high efficiency to low\nefficiency electrification.\nCouncil had a preference for\nhigh efficiency electric appliances.\nTo what extent does 2021\ncompliance the efficiency of the\nelectrical appliances\nimplemented?\neven with -- with low\nefficiency equipment, pacific\npower not in compliance with\n2021 is a very big problem.\nHigh emission electricity and quantity consumed is high\nbecause of low efficiency. Efficient equipment the concern\ngoes down because it should be less energy used in total since\nthat is used efficiency. Electricity used is dirty.\nThe concern is still there.\nOur analysis shows that using\ntoday's mix even when pacific power homes some of the\nequipment including high efficiency equipment over the\nlife cycle of the equipment\nwould still have like a higher\ncarbon impact using high\nefficiency heat pump at today's\ngrid mix compared to gas. Grid mix still matters with high\nefficiency.\nIt matters a lot with low efficiency.\nFrom a cost perspective and grid perspective.\nanything to add to that?\nshe did great job.\nother ideas or information\nthat folks want us to know?\nI would like to support the pilot programs.\nNot only with all electric and\nall gas, but adding possibly a\nthird which is a hybrid home whatever that MAY be, not just\none or the other. Different ways of doing that.\nWhen you touched on the efficiencies, when you talk\nabout all electric home, most affordable housing currently\nthat I see being produced out\nthere is using the most horrible electric appliances.\nThat is something we need to\nlook at. >> great.\nOther thoughts on this part of\nthe discussion? >> question about the pilot idea.\nIn addition to why not look retroactively?\nIf you have gone to the\nneighbor's house and felt it is too cold or too hot compared to your house.\nYou know the baseline of what\nyou set the thermostat to makes\na difference if home are same\nand right next to each other.\nPuzzled why it would be so important two houses next to\neach other.\nHow do we control for thermostat size?\nwe hope to have enough scale\nto take average to calculate for energy use.\nThat is a big piece of that if\nwe want to study grid and\nutility rates we track usage\ndata which we need help from utility friends at the end of\nthe room to do. At big enough scale we could\naverage that out.\nOne more piece. That came up in our conversations with members.\nIf the fees associated with individual piece of equipment.\nIf council or city wanted to see\nthat hybrid approach we are happy to do that.\nIf someone wanted to pay for gas fireplace upgrade we could do\nhome or two for that.\nWe are flexible and appreciate\nfeedback from the city.\nRobin: robin.\necc does not support pilot.\nWe don't think waiting three\nyears to have that pilot is good\nuse of time. With in that three years will be\nthousands of homes that will not be potentially all electric\nbecause of that.\nWe think it is part of a delay tactic.\nWe want to implement the policy\none year after passed.\nDevelopers are used to having a new code one year after it is\npassed they will have that one\nyear in order to implement this\nnew policy.\nBrennan: brennan.\nsimilar vein to robin.\n80% of housing stock in next 20 years we kicked bucket two or\nfour years that is 20% of the housing stock city has done\nnothing to push development towards all electric.\nI think the city has relative\nlehigh confidence this is the\nclimate solution we need in our\nclimate action plan strategy es2a.\nDevelop policies to limit fossil\nfuel use in new construction.\nWe\nyou said before you were okay\nbuilding sunsets or check ins. What does that look like to you?\nWhat are your ideas? >> staying in step with building\ncodes. Every three years.%\nat end of two years city is done\ncollecting data the last year so\nbuilding codes is 2027. By 2029 city is done collecting\ndata and can look back.\nHow many people paid the fee,\ndid it impact housing production rate?\nLook at that and make it into\neffect with next building codes update 2030.\nI want to ask brandt.\nI heard from allen and elisa on timeline. Do you have thoughts on\nimplementation timeline.\nnot specific timeline.\nthank you.\nquestion for cassie.\nThe pilot and thousands of homes.\nWhat were the assumptions that\nwere made about people going to\n-- what percentage new homes\nbuilt would comply with the fee entirely or would comply with\nsome of it?\nTrying to remember what the\ncalculation made or assumption?\nHow many people would pay fee at\n20% level and how many would\nforget it and go all electric.\nI have our consultant on the line right now.\nIf you are listening daniel I\nwill ask if you have that data handy.\nat 20% we expect 25% of homes\nbuilt to go electric. >> thank you.\nquick follow up on that.\nwhen you made that calculation and assumption were\nyou aware of the building code\nchange that councilor platt just\nasked about if you put\nair-conditioning in the house it has to be heat pump and not\nstand alone air conditioner and\nhow that influences how many\npeople decide to go all electric because of the building code?\nwe are basing this off\nwillingness to adopt studies on electrification take don't\nconsider mandatory building code\nthat would be something else to take into consideration.\nfinal thoughts on implementation?\nAllen then garrett.\none thing I like about the multiyear pilot.\nIn addition to testing to make\nsure carbon reductions are\nachieved, affordability aspect. Is the resource adequacy.\nThat is so essential.\nAllowing a few winters to pass,\nlooking at winter peak demand\nand impacts to the end user, to\nthe homeowner, electric home,\ngas home, hybrid home and compare if there are peak events\nthat take place, I think that is crucial especially since as we\nsaid before we are a winter peaking region. >> garrett.\nwhy letting the pilot play out would be helpful.\nI talked in builders in washington as well.\nThere were supply change\nchallenges with appliance and\nequipment providers. Giving runway for the market to\nget that as well.\nTo sarah's point the layered\ncost will impact builders.\nif this wases to go in we do\na recommended date. Is the recommendation for you\nall with the timeline and runway?\nas much runway as possible. 2028.\nany other thoughts?\ncascade would like to request\nthat MAY be the study reincorporate future assumptions\nof the electric supply costs.\nWe have heard both central\nelectric cooperative and pacific power have new information.\nA lot of discussion on affordability as upfront cost.\nHow about ongoing cost for residents here.\nMore dollars spent on utility cost the more it will take away\nfrom dollars available for\neconomy in the city of bend be. >> the city\ncity of bend. >> has staff thought about\nrecommendation of 2028 or mid\n2027, would staff be interested\nin doing check ins or how often would staff look at data to\nupdate the fee as it goes forward.\nany policy like this good\nidea to have periodic check ins to scan for any issues.\none, check in I would recommend\nis regardless of whether 2027 or\n2028 or later is at certain period, one month before or\nthree months before check in to\nrecalibrate the fee calculation.\nWe need that information to make the calculation work.\nI would definitely recommend that.\nThe cycle after that I think I\ndon't have a specific recommendation right now.\nI can think about that for the 22nd.\nIt is a discussion with council.\nBalancing the effort to have\nenough time to have meaningful\ndata where you are not reviewing\ntoo soon so the data does not have variation with being responsive.\nEvery couple years, I would\nthink. >> okay.\nWe have gotten a lot of good information from everyone.\nI appreciate everyone here\nsharing with us. We have heard different\nperspective around urgency and\nwhy delay might be desirable. I appreciate that.\nI was going to ask eric taking notes and I have been taking\nnotes as well.\nDoes this reflect the top level things we will bring into the\nwork session and we will close it out.\nI don't want to go through\neach group said this.\nGeneral themes of other ideas. Housing mix.\n120 ami expanding on that.\nInput from utilities in terms of\ncalibrates with the metrics. >> we had a mix of support\nversus not support for dual fuel heat pumps and renewable natural gas.\nThat is something to look for\ndirection on those different\nthings you have heard.\nI heard a lot about pilot\nprogram, wanting to try policy,\nget it going sooner.\nOn the exemptions some sort of\ntalking about affordable housing\nhow we are going to exempt that potentially.\nCassie what you said is right.\nMissed opinions on dual fuel and\nrng and reductions or putting\nthings into calculation versus exemptions.\nThose were all things we captured.\nAround solar as well discussion\nof that, too. We will bring all of that to\ncouncil.\nI want to level set that staff is going to bring to council.\nSome ideas are more intensive or might take more looking into\nthan others. Deed restricted affordable\nhousing is clear and straightforward.\nPilot program, megawatts solar are more involved.\nWe will ask staff to tell us\nwhich of these could we do on the time line we want now pass\nthis in JUNE and which might not\nbe ready or available for fully\nflushed ideas. We will discuss with council\nwhat to do with that information and how to proceed.\nReally good ideas to bring to\nthe table for our discussion on\nthe 22nd. Any other final thoughts from\ncouncil?\nI took a lot of notes.\nThank you for your perspectives and your guidance.\nappreciate everybody being here.\nBeing respectful and having a good back and forth.\nif something comes to you that didn't come to your mind\ntoday at the table send it to\ncassie, make sure she gets that\nif you had a good thought.\nWe still want to hear it or you are debriefing over coffee and\nthey give you an idea, send it\nto us so we can think about\nthat. Perfectly on time.\nGood job. Thank you. Live cc by aberdeen captioning. 1-800-688-6621." }, "summary": { "generatedAt": "2026-04-14T04:30:02.400Z", "model": "sonnet", "source": { "type": "meeting", "videoId": "bend-2026-04-08-bend-city-council-electrification-round-table", "parsedPath": "/Users/thedjpetersen/code/seacc/data/cities/bend/parsed/meetings/bend-2026-04-08-bend-city-council-electrification-round-table.json", "transcriptHash": "3e1e5a3fd840cd5b0f3aa5ac21577467930277951fd9625c3494df48395b5e31" }, "result": { "headline": "Bend City Council Electrification Roundtable: Fee Exemptions and Implementation Timeline Debated", "summary": "On April 8, 2026, Bend City Council convened a listening roundtable at the Public Works building to gather stakeholder input on two open policy questions before a scheduled April 22 work session: (1) what exemptions, if any, should apply to a proposed new-construction \"climate fee\" on gas appliances, and (2) when the fee should take effect. The council did not deliberate or decide anything — the session was explicitly framed as information-gathering. All three regional utilities presented infrastructure and compliance context, followed by open discussion among builders, labor, equity, affordable housing, environment, and economic development representatives.", "keyPoints": [ "The proposed fee applies only at time of new construction. It is calculated as: social cost of carbon × net lifetime carbon of a gas appliance × a size-tier multiplier (65% for homes ≤1,600 sq ft, 100% for 1,600–3,000 sq ft, 150% for >3,000 sq ft), then reduced to 20% of that calculated value per February council direction. For an average-size all-gas home, the total fee would exceed $2,000, with gas furnaces comprising the largest share.", "Pacific Power (Alisa Dunlap) reported Bend is its second-fastest-growing service area (3% annually, behind Redmond at 4.3%). Seven substations serve the city; five have been recently upgraded, two more planned, and a southeast Bend substation is in the pipeline for the next five years — each requiring 3–5 acres and roughly 4–5 years to build. A renewable energy RFP is underway; preliminary results expected this summer. HB 2021 targets 80% clean generation by 2030 but includes an affordability off-ramp. The 2027 Oregon legislative session may revisit or replace HB 2021.", "Central Electric Cooperative (Brent Ten Pas) serves ~7,500 members in Bend and expects to nearly double that with east-side growth, including the Stevens Ranch development. CEC buys 89–94% carbon-free power through Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) but growth falls under more expensive, more carbon-intensive Tier 2 power ($70/MWh vs. $40/MWh Tier 1). BPA's rates rose 19% over three years; CEC passed through ~9%. A federal judge's April injunction affecting BPA operations will add roughly 6% more to power costs. A new $13M substation for Stevens Ranch is planned with a ~3-year construction timeline.", "Cascade Natural Gas (Don Moore, Cole [last name not given], Alyn Spector) argued that natural gas provides essential winter-peak capacity — citing that on January 14, 2024, gas supplied 70% of regional energy during one critical hour. Cascade stated its distributed gas accounts for 3.4% of Oregon's 2023 emissions (per DEQ), compared to 29% attributed to electricity generation. A participant challenged whether that 3.4% figure includes system/distribution leaks; a Cascade representative said it covers system emissions and gas distributed. Cascade is developing three operational renewable natural gas (RNG) projects and two under development, including capture at the Knott Landfill (Bend), projected to serve ~3,700 homes for at least 20 years. A dual-fuel heat pump pilot with the Gas Technology Institute is underway; full findings expected March 2027.", "Exemptions discussed: (a) Deed-restricted affordable housing — broad support across Human Rights Commission (Scott Jones), Affordable Housing Advisory Committee (Mandy/Arielle Mendez), Environment and Climate Committee (ECC/Robin), Labor Local 290 (David Burger), EDCO (John), and the Chamber (Sarah). Most participants favored extending to homes up to 120% AMI, not just deed-restricted units. (b) Dual-fuel heat pump systems — ECC supports a fee reduction (not full exemption), calibrated to reflect continued gas use; Local 290 supports full exemption; others cautioned about variability in real-world set points. (c) RNG — ECC and a utility consultant (Brennan) oppose exemption or reduction, arguing RNG is scarce and better directed to hard-to-electrify sectors; Cascade advocates for factoring RNG into the system-wide fee calculation. (d) Solar — ECC supports a fee reduction (not exemption) proportional to system size, not a blanket exemption. (e) Multi-family definition — staff is actively working on where the cutoff lies; will be presented April 22.", "Implementation timeline proposals ranged widely: Cascade requested the fee lie dormant until HB 2021 compliance is demonstrated (implying 2029–2030 at earliest) and until the dual-fuel pilot is complete (2027). ECC recommended July 1, 2027. City staff's current placeholder is January 1, 2028. Central Oregon Builders Association (Garrett) proposed a 2–3 year side-by-side pilot of all-electric vs. all-gas homes before citywide implementation, with city support on permitting. ECC (Robin) and Brennan opposed any pilot delay, estimating thousands of homes would be built without the fee in the interim. Staff noted a forthcoming building code change (likely April 2027) will require any home with air conditioning to install a heat pump, which could significantly shift the cost calculus.", "Staff consultant (Daniel, on phone) noted that at the 20% fee level, the model assumes roughly 25% of new homes would go all-electric. That projection was acknowledged to not yet incorporate the upcoming mandatory heat-pump/AC building code change.", "Cassie Lacey (City Manager's Office) summarized that the April 22 work session will cover: the full set of exemption options (with staff flagging which are straightforward vs. require more analysis), the implementation date, multi-family definitions, and periodic check-in / fee recalibration mechanisms. Mayor Sarah (last name unclear from transcript) asked participants to send any additional thoughts to Cassie before the 22nd." ], "decisions": [ "No decisions were made at this meeting. Council was in listening mode only.", "Staff will bring the full range of exemption and timeline options to the April 22 council work session, with analysis of which options are administratively feasible on the desired timeline.", "Staff will also bring a recommendation on the multi-family housing definition cutoff on April 22.", "Staff will consider recommending a fee recalibration check-in roughly one month or three months before the effective date, and periodic reviews (roughly every two years) thereafter." ], "followUps": [ "April 22, 2026 — Council work session: deliberation and decisions on exemptions, implementation timeline, and multi-family definitions.", "April 29, 2026 — First in a series of public workshops on building electrification (monthly through at least July).", "Summer 2026 — Pacific Power expects preliminary RFP results for renewable energy resources; Alisa Dunlap committed to sharing those with council as soon as available.", "March 2027 — Full findings expected from Cascade/Gas Technology Institute dual-fuel heat pump pilot.", "April 2027 (approx.) — Oregon building code update takes effect, requiring heat pumps in any home installing air conditioning.", "2027 Oregon Legislative Session — Possible revision or replacement of HB 2021 greenhouse gas targets; staff flagged this as a timeline consideration.", "Cascade's Alyn Spector committed to following up with city staff on RNG compliance timeline details he could not provide at the meeting.", "Participants were invited to send additional written input to Cassie Lacey before the April 22 session." ], "notablePeople": [ "Cassie Lacey — City Manager's Office; presented background and fee structure, facilitated discussion", "Sarah (Mayor of Bend; last name not clearly captured in transcript) — facilitated meeting", "Alisa Dunlap — Pacific Power, presented grid capacity and HB 2021 compliance outlook", "Brent Ten Pas — Central Electric Cooperative, presented CEC infrastructure and cost challenges", "Don Moore — Cascade Natural Gas, regional director, presented company position", "Cole (last name not given) — Cascade Natural Gas, manager of industrial services, presented RNG projects", "Alyn Spector — Cascade Natural Gas, presented exemption and timeline positions", "Arielle Mendez — Bend City Council; also noted as chair of Affordable Housing Advisory Committee (transcript may conflate two people — Mandy was also named in connection with affordable housing committee)", "Robin — ECC (Environment and Climate Committee) chair; advocated for minimal exemptions and earlier implementation", "Brennan — Affiliation unclear from transcript; supported earlier implementation, opposed pilot delay", "Garrett — Central Oregon Builders Association; proposed 2–3 year side-by-side pilot program", "Sarah — Bend Chamber of Commerce (noted separately from Mayor Sarah; transcript uses first names only, creating potential confusion)", "Scott Jones — Human Rights and Equity Commission chair", "David Burger — IBEW Local 290 and Oregon State Building Trades; supported dual-fuel exemption and affordable housing exemption", "John — EDCO (Bend Economic Development Board) chair; supported affordable housing exemption and dual-fuel proof-of-concept", "Steve Platt — Bend City Council; asked about transmission support and building code interaction", "Mike Rhymely — Bend City Council", "Eric King — City Manager (noted as taking notes)", "Ian Lighthouser — City Attorney", "Daniel (last name not given, on phone) — City consultant; provided the 25% electrification adoption estimate" ], "uncertainty": "Speaker identification is unreliable throughout. The transcript uses first names only (or no names) for many exchanges, and at least two participants named 'Sarah' appear to be different people (the Mayor and a Chamber representative). 'Mandy' and 'Arielle Mendez' may be the same person or two different people — the transcript is ambiguous. 'Brennan' and 'Garrett' have no affiliations clearly stated in the transcript (affiliations above are inferred from context). Cole from Cascade Natural Gas is never given a last name. The transcript is machine-generated (Aberdeen Captioning) and contains multiple garbled passages — notably the emissions statistics exchange, the RNG carbon-intensity discussion, and several cross-talk moments where attributions are lost. Some figures (e.g., '607 he -- 70%' for the January 2024 cold snap) appear corrupted. The 3.4% emissions figure from Cascade and the clarification about whether it includes distribution leaks was partially inaudible per the transcript itself. The consultant 'Daniel' was participating by phone and his responses are not captured." } }, "hindsight": null, "urls": { "meeting": "/bend/meeting/bend-2026-04-08-bend-city-council-electrification-round-table", "raw": "/bend/api/meeting/bend-2026-04-08-bend-city-council-electrification-round-table/raw.json", "sourceMeeting": "/bend/api/source/meeting/bend-2026-04-08-bend-city-council-electrification-round-table.json" } }