BAKER CITY
A4
Opinion
WRITE A LETTER
news@bakercityherald.com
Thursday, July 28, 2022 • Baker City, Oregon
EDITORIAL
Questions about the
future of natural
gas in Oregon
T
he Oregon Public Utility Commission is
shaping the future of how you heat your home,
heat your water and cook your food.
The big question: What should be the role of natural
gas?
Under the state’s climate protection program, per-
haps not much. Oregon natural gas companies must
collectively achieve emissions reductions of 50% by
2035 and 90% by 2050.
What do natural gas companies think about that
plan? Not much. They sued the state over it.
The PUC’s job is to regulate utilities in Oregon. It
has to weigh the interests of consumers and also en-
sure utilities make enough money to provide reliable
and safe service. It is looking at the state’s climate pro-
tection program advanced by an executive order from
Gov. Kate Brown. The PUC wants to know the impact
on consumer bills. It’s looking for ways to reduce that
impact and accommodate the utilities. The commis-
sioners, appointed by the governor, listened to hours
of testimony on July 12, and there is a draft version of
a state report.
The price of natural gas, well you likely guessed it,
it’s expected to go up. Cascade Natural Gas has esti-
mated its prices for residential consumers are may
climb by 43% by 2040, if the state’s climate protection
plan goes into effect as planned. By using hydrogen or
synthetic or renewable natural gas, natural gas com-
panies may be able to meet the state’s emission goals.
But some people are not sure that would work. In any
case, if prices rise or because of a change in attitudes,
consumers may shift away from natural gas. When it
comes time to replace or install water heaters, ranges,
or heating systems, consumers may go electric.
Wealthier consumers may just switch. Lower-in-
come consumers may not. It could create a situation
where fewer customers are supporting the natural gas
system. Prices for those people will rise and some con-
sumers may be left stranded with higher costs. Natu-
ral gas companies could be stranded with more infra-
structure than they need.
PUC Commissioner Mark Thompson asked repeat-
edly July 12: What is right for consumers? Should the
PUC prioritize decarbonization or controlling costs?
Some people want Oregon to clamp down on ex-
panding natural gas service — no more natural gas
line growth, no more gas appliances in new homes.
Others say if Oregon does that, prices will spike and
consumers will suffer. Oregon may have to suffer
blackouts because the electrical grid is not prepared
for a dramatic increase in load.
The natural gas utilities called on July 12 for more
analysis. The current study by the PUC focuses nar-
rowly on natural gas. Natural gas utilities want a de-
carbonization analysis that looks at both natural gas
and electric utilities to see how it fits together. Oth-
erwise, how could the state know what the least cost,
least risk path forward is?
Bob Jenks is the executive director of the Citizens
Utility Board. It’s that group’s role to be the voice of
consumers in Oregon utility regulation. Jenks is dis-
mayed that the PUC’s draft report contained a funda-
mental assumption that natural gas service needs to
expand in Oregon. He pointed out natural gas com-
panies have sued to block the climate protection plan.
They are representing the interests of their sharehold-
ers. And they have yet to explain how they are going
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with their cus-
tomer base, he said.
We heard a lot of important questions July 12. How
are consumers going to be protected from rising
costs? How are lower-income Oregonians going to be
helped to make the switch if that is necessary? What
is the true potential for alternatives gases? How well
planned out is the expansion of the electrical grid if
consumers switch?
We didn’t hear good answers. And the first deadline
for natural gas companies to start meeting emissions
goals is not that far away. It’s like Kim Herb, a PUC
staff member, said at the July 12 meeting: “There’s a
lot we don’t know and yet, we need to move fast.”
Unsigned editorials are the opinion of the Baker City
Herald. Columns, letters and cartoons on this page ex-
press the opinions of the authors and not necessarily
that of the Baker City Herald.
COLUMN
Council supports plan to resume work on forest plans
cific Northwest Regional Office
o the communities
and the Malheur, Umatilla and
surrounding theBlue
Wallowa-Whitman National
Mountains National For- Forests met with the Eastern
ests:
Oregon Counties Association
The Blues Intergovernmen- in April 2019, to coordinate,
tal Council (BIC) supports the better understand concerns,
USDA Forest Service’s plans to and identify opportunities to
reinitiate Forest Plan Revision approach forest planning and
for the Malheur, Umatilla, and management in a new way.
Wallowa-Whitman National
The participants recognized
Forests. The work completed
the need to explore unique ap-
by the BIC over the past two
proaches and work together at
years has established key foun- a larger scale, which included
dations that will be crucial
other government entities
components of an improved
within and surrounding the
Forest Plan Revision process by Blue Mountains geographic
reflecting local values, incor-
area.
porating input, and providing
The various government
robust opportunities for mean- entities officially formed the
ingful engagement.
Blues Intergovernmental
On March 14, 2019, the
Council (BIC) in November
Forest Service deputy chief is- 2019, to serve as an overarch-
sued instruction to the Forest
ing entity and develop joint
Service Pacific Northwest Re- recommendations on the most
gional Forester to withdraw the contentious issues identified
Blue Mountains Revised Land in the Blue Mountains For-
Management Plans, Final En- est Plan Revision process. The
vironmental Impact Statement BIC members include leaders
and draft Record of Decision. from all 14 local counties, as
This decision came after nearly well as federal, state, and tribal
15 years of a highly conten-
government entities. The di-
tious public planning process
verse membership of the BIC
in which numerous commu-
ensures numerous perspectives
nity members and leaders felt and interests are represented.
frustrated, misunderstood, and
Over the two years since the
ignored. The objection process BIC formed, members worked
yielded over 350 objections to together to develop desired
the Forest Plans, which made
conditions for Forest Service
clear that the public did not see consideration on several key
how input provided had been and previously polarizing is-
incorporated nor did the plans sues in the withdrawn Blue
fully account for the unique so- Mountains Forest Plans, in-
cial and economic needs of the cluding riparian livestock graz-
affected communities.
ing, fisheries, hydrology, forest
Following the withdrawal
health, and access. The BIC
of the Blue Mountains Forest
also commissioned and over-
Plans, leadership from the Pa- saw the completion of a so-
BY SUSAN ROBERTS
T
cioeconomic analysis that will
offer data to help consider im-
pacts of forest management de-
cisions to local communities.
The BIC-endorsed desired
conditions serve as recommen-
dations to the Forest Service to
inform the Forest Plan Revi-
sion process (with a minority
report included for the access
issue). The collective work over
the past two years has fostered
trust and strengthened rela-
tionships between the key in-
tergovernmental groups within
the BIC and the Forest Service.
The BIC members and lead-
ership from the Blue Moun-
tains National Forests feel this
unique approach will provide
a crucial foundation for suc-
cess in accomplishing For-
est Plan Revision for the Blue
Mountains in a timely manner.
By building off the past plan
revision analysis, the BIC’s
endorsed desired conditions
products, and connections that
each member has with various
community perspectives, we
have an exceptional opportu-
nity to develop updated Forest
Plans for these National Forests
that provide for the sustainable
needs of the landscape and the
needs of current and future
generations.
Building off these accom-
plishments, the BIC believes
that the Forest Service should
move forward with the plan re-
vision process under the 2012
Planning Rule, with the goal
of working together to develop
sustainable Forest Plans that
reflect local values, incorpo-
rate input, and provide robust
opportunities for meaningful
engagement. We support the
Forest Service’s plan to estab-
lish a local team and would
urge this be done as quickly as
possible to maintain the for-
ward momentum the BIC has
achieved in these last two years.
By working together through
this intergovernmental forum,
the BIC can serve as a bridge
between the Forest Service and
communities surrounding the
Blue Mountains to help repair
and build trust, provide clarity
about the planning process and
plan components, complement
Forest Service public outreach
efforts, and bring continual
feedback to the Forest Service
regarding ways to improve the
process or products.
While there will still be pas-
sion around important issues,
we feel that through the joint
efforts between the BIC and
the Forest Service we have built
important relationships and de-
veloped key recommendations
that address much of the previ-
ous controversy. This has built
a solid foundation to move for-
ward now with Plan Revision.
Thank you for the consid-
eration and recognition of the
vast progress that has been
made in the Blue Mountains.
We look forward to working
together with the Forest Ser-
vice to steward these National
Forest lands in a way that pro-
vides for sustainable land man-
agement while considering the
communities’ economic and
social-cultural health.

Susan Roberts, a co-convener and
Wallowa County commissioner,
submitted this on behalf of the Blues
Intergovernmental Council.
COLUMN
What’s missing from the 77-minute Uvalde video?
BY JOHN M. CRISP
I
t’s not easy to make sense
of the 77-minute video
shot from an overhead
camera near the classrooms
where 19 children and two
teachers were murdered in
Uvalde, Texas, on May 24.
The video — released re-
cently by the Austin Amer-
ican-Statesman — has an
audio track that is garbled
to near-unintelligibility. The
gunshots — more than a
hundred — are audible, but
the screams of the terrified
children have been, appro-
priately, erased. The camera
captures an important slice
of the events of May 24, but
only a slice.
In other words, a signifi-
cant amount of the context is
not represented in the video.
But there’s enough to deeply
disturb most viewers.
An initial attempt to sub-
due the shooter fails. Then
the video shows more than
an hour of powerful-look-
ing, well-armed men milling
around in the hall, apparently
uncertain what to do.
Sometimes they barri-
cade behind ballistic shields
and train four or five weap-
ons down a long, empty
hallway toward the class-
rooms for minutes at a time.
Other times they stroll up
and down the same hallway,
seemingly unconcerned.
Sometimes the officers —
representing at least five law
enforcement agencies — ap-
pear to be examining the
building’s floor plan. Some-
times they text or talk on
their phones.
They gesture, wave, signal
each other, appearing to plan
and strategize, but then for
long minutes nothing hap-
pens.
At one point, an armed,
helmeted member of the
sheriff ’s department strolls
casually through an area pre-
viously barricaded by four
or five men to use the wall-
mounted hand sanitizer dis-
penser.
In short, it’s hard to tell
what — if anything — is hap-
pening. The word that kept
occurring to me as I watched
was “confusion.”
Experts better trained to
evaluate situations such as
this one were unsparing in
their criticism. Former Aus-
tin, Houston and Miami
police chief Art Acevedo
called the episode “the most
incompetent response that
I’ve ever seen. It’s not defen-
sible.”
Acevedo is correct: The in-
action of these officers is im-
possible to defend. But at the
risk of appearing to defend
them, I offer two elements of
context that aren’t immedi-
ately apparent in the video:
Despite the bluster and
bravado from some quarters,
none of us knows how we
would behave in these cir-
cumstances. After the Park-
land, Florida, school shoot-
ing that killed 17, former
President Donald Trump
said that he would have run
into the building “even if I
didn’t have a weapon.”
Sure. But people of a more
thoughtful turn of mind
must concede that while they
think they know what they
would do, they can’t know for
sure until they are in the sit-
uation.
Of course, this isn’t a de-
fense of these officers. Bad
leadership and a failure of
courage appear to have im-
mobilized them. If they don’t
have the initiative and cour-
age to act, they are in the
wrong profession.
The second element not
immediately apparent in the
video isn’t a defense of them
either.
But it illuminates the ques-
tion of responsibility for the
failures in Uvalde.
The Uvalde shooter grew
up in a culture awash in guns.
It’s not just the 400 million
weapons in the hands of pri-
vate citizens. Gunplay is an
essential element of our en-
tertainment, in movies, tele-
vision and video games. Kids
can’t be blamed for growing
up thinking that weapons are
part of what it means to be
an American.
The Uvalde shooter evi-
dently had mental problems,
but no one paid much atten-
tion. Nevertheless, as soon
as he turned 18, we gave him
legal access to high-pow-
ered, high-capacity weapons
of war.
A few things the officers
milling around confusedly
in the hallway could be sure
of: The kid was in a defensive
position.
He was probably ready to
die. He very likely had a mag-
azine in his semi-automatic
weapon that holds at least 30
rounds.
If you judge these officers
harshly, well, they deserve
it. But don’t forget that we’re
asking them to do something
that you and I might not have
the courage to do.
And the most important
thing that would make these
officers’ jobs a little safer —
limiting access to high-pow-
ered, high-capacity, semi-au-
tomatic weapons — we
absolutely refuse to do.

John M. Crisp, an op-ed columnist
for Tribune News Service, lives
in Texas and can be reached at
jcrispcolumns@gmail.com.