Opinion
4A
Saturday, April 10, 2021
Other Views
Urban, younger
Oregonians
believe they can
have more impact
A
large percentage (43%) of Oregonians do not
believe they can make their community a better
place to live, according to a recent Oregon
Values and Beliefs Center survey. That figure becomes a
majority among Oregonians ages 65 and over; just 62%
do not believe they can have a big or moderate effect
on their com-
munity. That
percentage is
KEVIN
also a majority
FRAZIER
among rural
LAW STUDENT
Oregonians
(54%). Compar-
atively, urban (64%) and younger (66%) Oregonians feel
much more capable of having a positive effect.
What explains these differences?
There’s no one answer. Instead a variety of factors
have convinced some Oregonians that the system is just
too stacked against them to be able to turn the gears in
their favor.
One explanatory factor: access to information. Nearly
6 in 10 urban Oregonians have a high degree of trust in
the people who publish the news about their community,
whereas just 4 in 10 rural Oregonians share that view.
There’s also a 10 percentage point gap in how much Ore-
gonians in the tri-county area trust broadcast news when
compared to Oregonians in the rest of the state (57%
versus 47%).
The connection between faith in local news and faith
in capacity to incite change makes sense. If you feel con-
fident that you know what’s going on in your neck of the
woods, then you likely feel capable of getting involved
or at least staying informed about major changes in your
community.
Another factor impacting the impact gap — personal
security. Oregonians 65 and over seem to feel more in
control over their personal well-being. A full 85% of
these older Oregonians reported they feel able to con-
trol what is important in their lives on a majority of days.
That number plummets to 65% for Oregonians between
18 and 29 years old. Perhaps insecurity about their own
lives spurs younger Oregonians to feel as though it’s only
through community-wide changes that they can improve
their own well-being.
One final factor and more evidence for the thesis: dis-
parities in how much people feel as though community
leaders care about their needs. Almost 60% of younger
Oregonians agree that “(t)he people running my com-
munity don’t really care much about what happens to
me.” On the opposite side of the spectrum, only 44% of
older Oregonians doubt the responsiveness of their com-
munity leaders.
Why these gaps matter
Our democracy hinges on its perceived legitimacy.
If people don’t feel as though the levers of change are
responsive to their efforts to make their community
better, then faith and participation in our democracy
understandably decreases. Consider that around half of
Oregonians in the tri-county area are somewhat or very
satisfied with the way our democracy works, but only
39% of Oregonians in the rest of the state share that
level of satisfaction.
The aforementioned factors suggest that we’ve got a
lot of work to do when it comes to giving Oregonians
the information and leaders they deserve.
What are some ways to chip away at this impact gap?
First, address news deserts. Oregonians in every
community deserve news that’s well-funded and
well-resourced so that they can keep local officials
accountable and share opportunities about how and
when to get involved.
Second, make our elected officials more account-
able to voters, not special interests. One way this is hap-
pening is through campaign finance reform. This will
help give all Oregonians a chance to impact an election,
while also reducing the extreme sway wealthy individ-
uals and organizations hold over candidates.
Third, we can end the idea of Oregon exceptionalism
when it comes to good governance. This may sound
harsh, but Oregon is not living up to its own standards
when it comes to being a leader in democracy. Across
the urban/rural divide and age spectrum, only 1 out of
every 4 Oregonians think the state’s democracy has
gotten stronger in the last four years. That’s abysmal.
To improve our democracy here in Oregon,
we have to be more open about the fact that it’s flawed
and more intentional about instituting meaningful
reforms.
———
Kevin Frazier was raised in Washington County.
He is pursuing a law degree at the University of
California, Berkeley School of Law.
My Voice
Are you willing to pay for the B2H project?
FUJI
KREIDER
LA GRANDE
P
eople ask, “Is that still going
on?” Yes, it’s true the massively
destructive Boardman to Hem-
ingway (B2H) transmission project
is still under review. Each time we’ve
asked folks to speak out, it’s more crit-
ical that they do.
Thursday, April 15, is the final
hearing at the Oregon Public Utilities
Commission on Idaho Power’s 2019
energy plan, which features B2H.
The OPUC commissioners have been
impressed with the number of public
comments already received, and now
is the most important opportunity to
speak out with your reactions to Idaho
Power’s power play.
Building the line will guarantee
them cost recovery and a hefty 7.6%
profit based on the project’s $1.2 bil-
lion cost. Good for them. Bad for us.
In 2015 when I started tracking
these plans (integrated resources
plans), the Idaho Power Company
claimed it needed 351 megawatts of
energy by 2026 to replace energy
from coal plant closures. Rather than
building its own resources to satisfy
this need, the company wanted to
buy energy from the Mid Columbia
energy trading hub and transmit it
hundreds of miles away. That’s where
the B2H comes in.
Closing coal plants is definitely
worth supporting. But destroying hun-
Letters
Thoughts on CHD, urban renewal
The recent letters on the Center
for Human Development by Barbara
Smutz and Hazel Spiegel were great.
The staff at CHD has done so much
for the citizens in this area of Oregon
and we are so indebted to them. We
have compared the outstanding work
the CHD staff did here in La Grande
with what two of our daughters expe-
rienced. They live in Korea and North
Carolina and have not been able to get
a COVID-19 vaccine shot yet.
Changing the subject. I have a real
concern over the La Grande urban
renewal. We paid $325 to urban
renewal this last tax year. I would
rather see that money go to street
improvement.
There was a time when a person
going into a business dealt with a
lending institution, bank or whatever
and never received funds to start that
business, or once in business they
didn’t get a grant from something
like urban renewal. Why should the
dreds of miles of private and public
lands, habitats and sacred places — in
addition to us footing the bill — is not
the way. Contrary to the company’s
green-washing narrative, there are
many ways for it to get or make the
energy it may need.
Now, after six years and three
IRPs, the “need” has been reduced
from 351 MW to 42 MW — and in
the Idaho’s PUC review, the company
states the need will be only 5 MW by
2029! This reduction has been occur-
ring even with Idaho Power actively
resisting more solar and wind con-
tracts, battery storage or building any
of its own energy resources. It has dis-
couraged renewable energy projects
through state legislation and is de-in-
centivizing rooftop solar among cus-
tomers. The industry’s innovations,
appliance and building efficiencies,
and people’s own conservation, con-
tinues driving down the need.
That’s right — 42 or 5 MW of
energy need by 2029? They can easily
make that up with a small solar farm
or simple energy efficiencies, respec-
tively. My point is: There is plenty of
energy and energy generation poten-
tial in Idaho. The “need” can be easily
canceled. So without a need, why the
B2H? For Idaho Power it’s all about
profits. Not only through the guaran-
teed return on investment on the cap-
ital project (B2H), but the company
can continue to gain profits through
transmission tariffs. At the Oregon
Public Utilities Commission the dis-
cussion has evolved into “regional
grid capacity and resiliency,” and
“costs to the ratepayers.” (Since the
BPA is currently a partner in the B2H
that means that we, as Oregon Trail
Electric Cooperative members, are
also ratepayers in this arrangement.)
I’ve asked for an analysis on
upgrading and reconductoring the three
lines that go from the Mid Columbia
Hub to Idaho, from 230-kilovolt to
345-kV lines. The increased capacity
of these three lines could yield a total
of 345 kV more capacity. These lines
could be fire-hardened; they could be
digitized and the corridors could be
cleared out — all benefiting actions
bringing much more security and resil-
iency into the current system while
reducing fire risks.
If Idaho Power really needed the
capacity in the future — which is
questionable — the Oregon PUC (the
regulators in this case) should order
the company to study upgrading
before planning and building new!
There won’t be another opportu-
nity to influence the OPUC for at least
another year, and by then much more
work will be completed in the per-
mitting process. Not good. There-
fore, we need to tell the OPUC: Do not
acknowledge this project any longer!
We can’t afford it and it is not needed.
Write Now (before April 15) to puc.
publiccomments@state.or.us. For more
info, check out www.stopb2h.org.
Now is the time to act!
———
Fuji Kreider has lived in
La Grande 34 years and is a
member of the local nonprofit
Stop B2H Coalition..
citizens of La Grande be taxed to
help a business when they give that
business funds by purchasing an item
from them?
Give this some serious thought.
Gary Feasel
La Grande
be built a few blocks from a beau-
tiful mountain lake, the key feature
of the cherished and historical city
of La Grande Morgan Lake Park. If
the B2H line impacted such a park in
Portland, I do not believe it would be
going forward.
Fire risks are another cost/hard-
ship passed on to our fire-vulnerable
rural communities. Rural citizens
demand to be treated fairly and to
have our environment considered and
protected.
There are other options to building
the B2H line, even if a transmission
line is determined to be necessary.
Concerned citizens with STOP B2H
Coalition have outlined many such
alternatives (see www.stopb2h.org).
I’ve asked the commission to pursue
these options, taking into account
environmental justice issues and the
true cost of the B2H transmission
lines to economically disadvantaged
rural communities.
Please consider doing the same
before the 15th. Write: puc.public-
comments@state.or.us.
Kathryn Andrew
La Grande
Environmental justice lacking in
proposed B2H transmission line
On Thursday, April 15, the Oregon
Public Utility Commission will hold
its final hearing on Idaho Power’s
2019 energy plan, which includes the
Boardman to Hemingway transmis-
sion line.
I’ve urged OPUC to acknowledge
issues of environmental justice when
considering approval for the B2H
transmission line.
I believe Idaho Power is not shoul-
dering the true environmental cost
of the proposed B2H line, that Idaho
Power is instead passing the cost of
impacts to economically disadvan-
taged rural communities.
For instance, Idaho Power claims
“no significant impact” for 150-
foot transmission towers that would