Bend staff presents electrification cost study; council asks for a lower-fee focus and more validation
Loading...
Summary
City staff presented a rapid cost-to-electrify analysis showing an estimated $12,000–$14,000 upfront premium for an all-efficient electric home versus a gas baseline; councilors asked for a lower, revenue-focused fee design, and committee members urged more builder outreach to validate numbers.
Staff presented a consultant’s preliminary cost-to-electrify analysis and sought committee feedback ahead of a Dec. 10 council work session and a planned joint committee launch in January. "A gas house was about $11,000 in equipment costs," the presenter said; by contrast, an all-efficient electric scenario that included heat-pump water heaters and heat-pump dryers totaled roughly $25,000, producing a $12,000–$14,000 upfront premium in the consultant’s quick analysis.
The presenter emphasized sensitivity to assumptions: a cheap electric equipment scenario was shown at under $5,000, greenhouse-gas outcomes depend on appliance efficiency and grid mix, and staff modeled both current generation and a 2030 projection (an 80% renewable case for Pacific Power) that improved GHG outcomes for electric scenarios. "If people were putting in inefficient electric appliances, we would actually see an increase in greenhouse gas emissions," staff said; but with efficient equipment and a cleaner grid, electrification shows clear GHG benefits.
Committee members raised substantive technical and process questions: the analysis did not include gas line-extension costs or some home upgrade costs (staff noted Cascade Natural Gas indicated a mid‑$6,000 line-extension allowance that could be added), multifamily buildings were not modelled in this quick study, and builders questioned the air-conditioning and other component assumptions. "Some of the numbers seem pretty high. I've gotten quotes that differ," one committee member said.
On policy design, staff told council members they must choose between a high fee sized to change builder and buyer behavior (which would reduce fee revenue) and a lower fee that would raise funds to invest in electrification incentives. Councilors indicated a preference leaning toward a lower fee that generates revenue for incentives, and staff recommended distinguishing efficient electric equipment in the fee design and using a tiered structure by house size rather than one flat factor.
Next steps: staff will conduct targeted stakeholder interviews with local builders to validate cost assumptions, produce an additional memo with alternative fee designs for council review on Dec. 10, and launch the joint public committee process in January to work through technical details and public engagement.
