A8 The BulleTin • Wednesday, June 30, 2021
EDITORIALS & OPINIONS
AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER
Heidi Wright
Gerry O’Brien
Richard Coe
Publisher
Editor
Editorial Page Editor
Don’t be that guy
this Fourth of July
T
he guy who lit 10 acres of Pilot Butte on fire with illegal
fireworks in 2018 didn’t mean to do it.
He didn’t mean for people to have
to evacuate their homes.
He didn’t mean that people’s
power would be cut off.
He didn’t mean that U.S. Highway
20 would have to be blocked.
He didn’t think he would go to
jail.
He fought the tens of thousands of
dollars in restitution he was ordered
to pay.
He thought he knew what he was
doing when he lit the fuse.
Don’t be that guy this year.
The rules against fireworks in
Bend have been a kind of lightly en-
forced farce.
Window-rattling booms. Rock-
ets charging into the sky. We aren’t
talking about the professional, su-
pervised show from Pilot Butte. We
are talking about amateurs firing off
illegal fireworks in neighborhoods
for fun.
Bend police officers have never
had time to chase down every illegal
launch, racing from scene to scene
writing $750 tickets. For the most
part, the community has to rely on
people obeying the rules.
Some people don’t. It’s a celebra-
tion. It’s nostalgic. It’s patriotic. Add
danger and it’s a fiery brew people
can’t resist.
City officials have been debating
what to do about fireworks since,
well, Bend became a city. “The city
council seems disposed to reduce
the menace of the Fourth of July cel-
ebration by preventing the firing of
firecrackers and other fireworks in
the business district of Bend.” That’s
from The Bend Bulletin in 1905.
This year, the danger is about
as bad as it can be. The heat. The
drought. Shoot off fireworks and we
are just one mistake away from put-
ting firefighters in danger and much,
much worse.
Use of fireworks is banned in the
city of Bend through July 9. They
still can be sold, of course, which
doesn’t help matters. Professional
fireworks displays at Vince Genna
Stadium on July 3 and Pilot Butte
State Park on July 4 will continue
normally.
Don’t be that guy.
Should Bend push
more than the state?
T
he Earth is going to need to
last us a long time. So this
year Oregon legislators passed
House Bill 2021.
It sets new goals for renewable en-
ergy. Basically the state’s big electrical
providers have until 2040 to get their
greenhouse gas emissions to zero.
A Bend city working group met
Monday and considered if the city
should be more aggressive. Bend
could do more. It could through HB
2021 go sooner down the path. It’s
what is called a community green
tariff: require everyone in Bend to
buy green energy.
Many people can do that now.
Sign up for Pacific Power’s Blue Sky
program. Pay more to do more for
the environment. The problem is,
of course, people who are comfort-
ably well off can do that comfortably.
People who are living paycheck to
paycheck cannot.
The same issue applies if Bend
were to pursue a community green
tariff. Bend already has a high cost
of living. The city would look to in-
crease it further? There would be
ways to subsidize the increases for
people with lower incomes — by
charging people with higher in-
comes more.
Another idea the working group
discussed Monday was about build-
ers using natural gas heating in new
homes. Should the city incentivize
builders to use electricity instead?
Should the city require it? Is there a
way to generate incentives for peo-
ple to switch what they already have?
Where would the money come
from?
The city working group — a sub-
set of the city’s Environment and En-
ergy Climate Committee — didn’t
come to any firm conclusions. But
the full committee does make pol-
icy recommendations to the Bend
City Council. So when the working
group talks about something it’s not
outlandish to think that’s what the
full committee might propose to
the Bend City Council. If you have
an opinion about these issues, you
can reach members of the Bend City
Council at council@bendoregon.
gov.
Editorials reflect the views of The Bulletin’s editorial board, Publisher Heidi Wright, Editor
Gerry O’Brien and Editorial Page Editor Richard Coe. They are written by Richard Coe.
GUEST COLUMN
Rethink removal of Klamath River dams
BY WILLIAM E. SIMPSON II
F
or the past six years I have been
studying and writing about the
proposed Klamath River dams
removal project and its impacts on the
environment and localized threatened
and endangered species in the Klam-
ath River Canyon where the Copco
and Iron Gate lakes are.
The lake and shoreline-based eco-
systems of Copco and Iron Gate lakes
also provide critical habitat for both
threatened and endangered species of
flora and fauna. The 11 miles of the
Klamath River Canyon where these
lakes are located contains an amazing
diversity of wildlife, including 89 spe-
cies of birds and 71 species of plants
including trees, grasses and forbs.
Over the past few weeks, I have
in greater depth examined what has
been proposed, including the costs of
the project to remove the hydroelec-
tric dams — three in Siskiyou County,
California, and one in Oregon.
It has become clear to me, even
in light of the recent Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission decision,
that the project is no longer viable
based upon the projected budget of
$450 million, estimated in 2012.
Shockingly, the same cost projec-
tion is being promoted to legislators
and taxpayers in Oregon and Califor-
nia today by Klamath River Renewal
Corp.
That now obsolete cost estimate
for the Klamath River dams removal
project was made 8 years before the
dramatic impacts of COVID on the
costs and delivery times for every-
thing from fuel, to materials, to labor
and even project insurance.
Graph analyses explaining rap-
idly escalating costs and economic
impacts by the Associated General
Contractors of America related to
construction projects exemplifies
the huge cost increases and long de-
lays that have occurred since COVID
(www.agc.org/sites/default/files/AGC
2021 Inflation Alert — Ver1.1.pdf).
“The construction industry is cur-
rently experiencing an unprecedented
mix of steeply rising materials prices,
snarled supply chains and staffing
difficulties, combined with slumping
demand that is keeping many con-
tractors from passing on their added
costs,” according to the report. “This
combination threatens to push some
firms out of business and add to the
industry’s nearly double-digit unem-
ployment rate. The situation calls for
immediate action by federal trade of-
ficials to end tariffs and quotas that
are adding to price increases and sup-
ply shortages.
“Officials at all levels of government
need to identify and remove or lessen
any unnecessary or excessive imped-
iments to the importation, domestic
production, transport and delivery of
construction materials and products.
“Project owners need to recognize
how much conditions have changed
for projects begun or awarded in the
early days of the pandemic or before
and to consider providing greater
flexibility and cost-sharing. Con-
tractors should become even more
vigilant about changes in materials
costs and expected delivery dates and
should communicate the information
promptly to current and prospective
clients.
“This report is intended to provide
all parties with better understanding
of the current situation, the impact
on construction firms and projects,
its likely course in the next several
months, and possible steps to mitigate
the damage.”
It seems certain the prior cost esti-
mate for the Klamath Dams Removal
project by KRRC is now obsolete, and
that a new estimate, based upon the
current data related to costs might be
on the order of $800 million.
And, the timeline for the project
is arguably no longer valid as well; as
delays happen, which as we read will
surely occur, costs will increase even
further.
Will Oregon and California taxpay-
ers be subjected to this boondoggle?
The economic hardship related to
this potential price tag, coupled with
increasing liabilities that the project
would place on taxpayers of Oregon
and California, coupled with poten-
tial devastation to the environment
and rare species of flora and fauna
demands that the Klamath Dam re-
moval project be reevaluated top-to-
bottom!
We must demand that legislators
in Oregon and California hold public
hearings on the matter ASAP!
e
William E. Simpson II is a naturalist studying the
wildlife in the area around the Klamath Dams. He
is the author of two published books and more
than 100 published articles on subjects related
to wild horses, wildlife, wildfire, and public land
management. More at www.WHFB.us. This
column originally appeared in the Capital Press.
Letters policy: Letters should be limited to one issue, contain no more than 250 words and include the writer’s phone number
and address for verification. We edit letters for brevity, grammar, taste and legal reasons. Email: letters@bendbulletin.com
Motivate the economy to work on net zero carbon emissions
BY BRENDA PACE
Editor’s note: This is the final in
a series of four columns on climate
change and potential legislation that
may give readers information they can
take action on in the effort to meet car-
bon emission reduction goals.
he Oregon Department of Wa-
ter Resource’s recent
report, “Groundwater
Resource Concerns” described
the Deschutes River Basin as
a watershed of concern. Wa-
ter levels in wells are dropping
east, north and south of Bend.
Some areas can blame the
piping of canals or increased
Pace
development, but as far back
as 2008, Marshal Gannett of the U.S.
Geological Survey said, “We found, de-
pending on where you are, these things
have different influences … Climate
was the biggest cause of decline.”
After three articles in this series, it’s
time for a summary. First, at 419 parts
per million the level of carbon is higher
than seen in human history and climb-
ing. Carbon is the cause of increas-
ing heat and the associated weather.
Second, the United States has not co-
alesced around atmospheric carbon
through either government expendi-
tures, regulations or a carbon price.
If expenditure legislation can be
passed, the most productive measure
T
would be to improve the electrical grid
to support the electrification of much
of transport and industry. Since local
electrical utilities are regulated by state
commissions that often mandate low
retail prices, they are unable to achieve
the task unaided.
A regulation to use low carbon pro-
cesses in industries such as
steel and concrete while in
the process of improving our
infrastructure would be pos-
itive.
A carbon price would cost
fossil fuel producers $15 per
ton of carbon content initially,
thereafter increasing by $10
a year. The logic of a carbon
price is clear — when the price of car-
bon climbs higher, use less and at a cer-
tain price, none at all. The revenues are
largely returned to households.
Climate scientists have estimated
that to avoid the worst effects of cli-
mate change, we must achieve net zero
carbon emissions by 2050 (Interna-
tional Panel on Climate Change). Net
zero means any carbon emitted will
be sequestered. Sequestration means
carbon is captured in products (like ce-
ment), soils, plants and underground.
By 2050 then, the atmosphere would
be carbon neutral, plateauing and be-
ginning to decline.
Significantly, the aforementioned
IPCC projections and virtually all cli-
mate models assume a price on carbon
because it is the most effective instru-
ment to achieve net zero by 2050, ac-
cording to scientists and economists.
Scientists and economists, how-
ever, are not alone. A multitude of
businesses share a prefer-
ence for carbon pricing in-
cluding the United States
Chamber of Commerce,
the Business Roundtable,
the American Bankers As-
sociation, Financial Ser-
vices Forum, the American
Property Casualty Associ-
ation, the Commodity Fu-
tures Association, and most
recently, the American Petroleum As-
sociation.
What do these huge associations and
their many members see in a carbon
price? In their announcements, they
describe it as sustaining industry, as
predictable and durable (endures for
the transition to net zero), countrywide
(not scattered jurisdictions), and sup-
porting innovation and free enterprise.
Most importantly, a carbon price
creates a level playing field on which
business can compete. With the same
rules and risks, everyone can invest.
For example, business investment can
share in the upgrading of the electrical
grid, not just taxpayers and ratepayers.
With a carbon price, markets and in-
vestors can help to finance new tech-
nology, innovation and production
throughout the economy.
Some believe that establishing a car-
bon price that encourages the economy
to reduce carbon will allow big busi-
ness to game the system
and rig the outcome. Sure,
big companies can control
their markets short term
but not long term. Standard
and Poor’s index of 500 of
the biggest companies is il-
lustrative in that 400 have
been replaced by more suc-
cessful companies over the
last 50 years. Business must
adjust as cost and demand changes.
Further, the simplicity of charging at
the source of production for fossil fuels
leaves little room for avoidance or ma-
nipulation.
As for jobs, we should note how far
green industry has come. Jobs in all
kinds of renewables are already equal
to 70% of all fossil fuel jobs (2020 U.S.
Energy & Employment Report).
Again, a carbon price structure that
returns a dividend to households en-
sures that it is not a drag on consumer
spending. An estimate by the Depart-
ment of the Treasury for 2017 set rev-
enue at $60 billion which would work
out to about $400 per household ini-
tially and $1,200 or more after four
years. This is important since personal
expenditures constitute 68% of the
American economy (Federal Reserve
of St Louis). Such a structure supports
both households and employment.
Finally, many local politicians sup-
port a carbon price. For example, the
Oregon Senate passed Senate Joint
Resolution 5 which names the Inno-
vation and Carbon Dividend Act, HR
2307, my personal favorite. Utah’s cur-
rent and former House members have
announced their support and polling
shows that a significant majority of the
population does too.
So, what to do? Changing your per-
sonal carbon footprint is, of course,
beneficial, but we need national policy
to bend the curve on carbon emissions.
Please make a phone call, send an
email, schedule a visit to U.S. Sens. Ron
Wyden and Jeff Merkley, Rep. Cliff
Bentz or send a card to President Joe
Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris,
EPA Administrator Michael Regan or
Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm.
You can join Citizens Climate Lobby
with a working chapter right here in
Bend.
e
Brenda Pace is retired from Pace Research Co., a
regional economics consultancy, and the Center
for Natural Lands Management, a habitat
management nonprofit for endangered species
responsible for more than 75,000 acres.