CUB Endorses Portland Clean Energy Fund
Posted on August 29, 2018 by Bob Jenks
Tags, Energy
The Oregon Citizens’ Utility Board (CUB) endorses the Portland Clean Energy Fund (PCEF) measure on the November 2018 ballot.
CUB has long supported energy efficiency and renewable energy programs funded by dollars collected via governmental jurisdictions, such as state and federal tax credits, and dollars collected from utility customers. The PCEF follows in this tradition and is especially important because addressing climate change with energy programs linked to public health, affordable housing, and other co-benefits requires comprehensive and innovative approaches. Furthermore, PCEF leadership from a wide range of Portland organizations, representing the interests of people of color and our low-income neighbors, is a critical and all-too-often missing element in facilitating such innovation. For these reasons, CUB urges passage of the PCEF ballot measure.
CUB specifically rebuts the notion that the energy and important co-benefits due to programs funded by PCEF investments could instead be achieved by Energy Trust of Oregon (ETO) programs. The ETO was created to provide efficient administration of renewable and conservation programs required by CUB-supported legislation establishing a charge on the bills of Oregon’s major electric utilities. For every $1 invested in ETO energy efficiency programs, all Portland General Electric and Pacific Power customers save $3 in reduced resource costs because more expensive electricity does not have to be purchased.
However, PCEF investments are also needed, especially those linked to important co-benefits that exceed the resource-cost parameters of ratepayer-funded ETO programs. For example, poorly weatherized homes negatively affect the health of their residents, particularly older adults and our neighbors managing chronic health conditions. Portland’s affordable housing crisis is aggravated due to inadequate energy efficiency and home-health investment. Portland needs such investments given that 213,000 out of 249,000 single and multiple family housing units would benefit from energy efficiency improvements. There are also significant job creation and training opportunities linked to these energy investments. Therefore, CUB supports governmental action to achieve these important co-benefits while also supporting the ETO’s focus on ratepayer-funded energy programs appropriately managed under resource cost guidelines.
Another driver for governmental action is the critical need to reduce carbon emissions and address the effects of climate change, such as the record-setting heat experienced this summer in Portland. ETO’s energy efficiency analysis, governed by utility regulators, includes expected carbon regulation costs, but does not include the negative economic or public health effects widely associated with carbon emissions, often referred to as the social cost of carbon. Utility regulators are concerned about the economic cost of complying with future climate regulation. More is needed, though, which is why CUB supports community efforts addressing much broader climate change impacts. For example, CUB advocated for the City of Portland’s 100 percent renewables by 2050 resolution as an important step toward achieving Portland’s Climate Action Plan. The PCEF will ensure a stable funding source for more programs to reduce carbon emissions.
Moreover, the PCEF will complement and facilitate innovation beyond current ETO programs by providing valuable community co-benefits. Achieving these energy program co-benefits is the job of government and, therefore, appropriately requires the use of tax dollars. CUB supports the use of state and federal funding authority for energy programs and sees significant value in the PCEF approach, especially given Portland’s climate change goals.
The PCEF’s broad public benefits warrant funding through a small surcharge on large retail companies. This emphasis on large companies is appropriate because, in Oregon, many large industrial and commercial businesses enjoy a special exemption, allowing them to avoid substantial contributions to ETO energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. For example, seven percent of Portland General Electric and Pacific Power residential customers’ bills support ETO energy programs, whereas only three percent of large commercial and industrial customers support those same programs
In summary, energy improvements are not an either/or between ETO programs and PCEF investments. Rather, both existing programs and PCEF investments are required to address the unmet need for energy improvements in Portland and to address climate change. The innovative approaches fostered by the diverse leadership behind PCEF will ensure the effectiveness of PCEF investments for the benefit of all Portlanders.
For even further insight, CUB encourages readers to review the Portland City Club’s PCEF analysis.
To keep up with CUB, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter!
09/21/18 | 0 Comments | CUB Endorses Portland Clean Energy Fund