Bend ECC pushes for climate pollution fee; staff recommends incentive-first approach and deferring regulatory pathways

City of Bend staff recommended that next steps on building electrification prioritize outreach and incentive design over immediate regulatory action, citing legal uncertainty about regulatory tools. After discussion, the Environmental Conservation Committee (ECC) voted to prepare a letter to the City Council urging the city to develop a climate pollution fee patterned after Ashland’s and to use fee revenue to incentivize electrification.

Staff recommendation: At an ECC meeting, Cassie, the ECC staff liaison, described a three-step staff workplan that starts with outreach and education, then moves into an incentives-and-disincentives design phase, and keeps regulatory options such as right-of-way restrictions and (NOS) regulations “on the table” for future consideration.

“The Outreach and Education Initiative includes all the work that Megan's been doing to kind of build out our platform,” Cassie said, describing work already underway. She said staff plans to launch an energy navigator program later in the summer or fall and to scope a builder-education effort over the biennium.

For the incentive phase, staff proposed convening a stakeholder group — continuing the joint committee of AHAC, BDAP and ECC — to analyze development data, consider development-code incentives, cash incentives and the possibility of a climate pollution fee as a revenue source and disincentive. Cassie said staff would gather local cost data on electrification to inform what kinds of incentives would be “compelling.”

On regulatory pathways — including right-of-way restrictions and NOS regulations — staff urged a “wait and see” approach, saying legal uncertainty means work now could consume staff time without producing an enforceable policy. Cassie said staff will continue to monitor legal precedent and provide a year-end update on whether the regulatory option is feasible.

Committee debate: ECC members expressed split views about sequencing and speed. Some members — including Neil and others — urged moving faster toward regulatory solutions for new construction to avoid locking in fossil-fuel infrastructure in the near term. Others, including members representing affordable housing and development interests at a joint meeting, had emphasized concerns about cost and affordability and preferred incentive-first approaches.

Cost and grid readiness: Committee members said a central technical question is whether electrification carries a local cost premium. Nick and Ray said the group needs better local cost data to understand whether electrification is more or less expensive across housing types (single-family, multifamily, affordable housing and commercial). Staff said consultants and in-house parametric data are available; staff also said it might hire an outside contractor if necessary to produce locally specific analyses.

The committee discussed grid capacity with staff reporting Pacific Power has regional transmission and local substation upgrades planned over several years; staff said upgrades may take 5–10 years at a regional level but utilities are investing to address local constraints.

Motion and outcome: With about an hour remaining, ECC member Rory moved that the committee write a letter to the City Council for the April 16 meeting recommending the city develop a climate pollution fee similar to Ashland’s, with revenue used to incentivize electrification. The motion was seconded and a recorded voice vote followed. Multiple ECC members said they were not yet ready to vote yes; one member stated an employment-related conflict and abstained. The committee chair declared the motion passed and said Rory and Neil would draft the letter for submission to council.

What the vote does (and does not): The ECC vote directs committee members to draft a letter urging council to begin a process to develop a fee; it does not itself create a city policy or impose a fee. Staff said council endorsement would be required before staff develops a fee design or allocates revenues for incentives.

Next steps: Staff said it will start data collection and analysis to inform the incentive design, plan the energy navigator program and continue public engagement in fall 2025; staff also offered to reconvene the joint advisory group sooner if the committee wants interim feedback on analysis. The council will receive staff’s workplan at its April 16 meeting, and staff said it would return with legal-context updates near year-end if regulatory options shift.

Ending: ECC members agreed to continue advising on incentives and data collection; several members said they would consider individual submissions to council if they wanted to state positions beyond the committee letter that Rory and Neil will draft.