Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021.03.11 Climate Policy Minutes Minutes for the Climate Policy Commission March 11, 2021 Page 1 of 6 MINUTES FOR THE CLIMATE POLICY COMMISSION Thursday, March 11, 2021; Held Electronically 1. Call to Order (item starts at approximately 00:05 on the video) Chair Rick Barth called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. Commissioners Chris Brown, Bob Kaplan, Ray Mallette, Gary Shaff, and Jeff Wyatt were present. Council liaison Tonya Graham and staff members Bridgette Bottinelli and Stu Green were also present. Commissioner Julian Bell was absent. 2. Consent Agenda 2.1. February 11, 2021 Minutes (00:08) Barth clarified that the 6.3 residential construction standards amendments would be recommendations not requirements as listed in the draft minutes. Shaff/Wyatt moved/seconded to approve the minutes with this change. Further discussion: none. All ayes; motion passed unanimously. 3. Announcements 3.1. Next Meeting: April 8, 2021 3.2. Council Update (1:08) Graham updated the Commission on the following items: • Work Plan Sessions and Priorities—Council held two sessions last week to review staff work and prioritize goals. A few projects included developing a microgrid system to support essential services during a natural disaster or other emergency, developing the Electric Master Plan, and holding a long-range strategic plan process. • U.S. Congress— Senator Merkley held a call with local representatives including Graham. Discussion surrounded how to harden electric utilities from wildfire risks and updating the electric system infrastructure. Congress also recently passed a new COVID-19 relief bill that will have some direct support for local jurisdictions. • Site Planning— Staff will present a site plan for the Hardesty property and the Wastewater Treatment Plant in the Spring to Council. The Water Treatment Plant upgrade will include climate certifications. The Emergency Operations Center has not fully moved to the Grove, but there is potential for a solar installation on the site there. Mallette asked if microgrid resilience was a concept. Graham answered yes for now,but other communities are developing projects mainly to prepare for earthquakes. Kaplan asked who was working with Graham on the microgrid development concept. Graham stated that she and Mayor Julie Akins will work on that project together. 3.3. Staff Update (7:28) Green gave an update on the following items (see attached Additional Staff Update for March Meeting memo for more details): • Climate and Energy Action Plan (LEAP) Progress Indicators—Green is updating the indicators to present during the annual staff report to Council in April. • Collaboration between climate groups—Members of the Conservation and Climate Outreach Commission (CCOC), Climate Policy Commission (CPC), and local partner groups are in the early stages of exploring what new climate action and CEAP implementation collaborations are possible. Minutes for the Climate Policy Commission March 11, 2021 Page 2 of 6 • Outreach Efforts—Graham and staff are looking into the possibility of integrating outreach efforts for future campaigns. • Electric Vehicle (EV) Chargers—Four electric vehicle chargers have been installed and will be operational soon at the Grove. Once active, there will be 16 public electric vehicle chargers in Ashland. • Incentives—The electric vehicle and e-bike incentives are still active and doing well. • House Bill 2398—Green and Graham have been working with a group of cities to advance House Bi112398. This Bill would require the State Reach Code to be at least 10 percent more efficient than the base code. This Bill would also allow jurisdictions to adopt the reach code as a minimum. • Oregon Climate Change Adaptation Framework—At the direction of Governor Brown, Department of Land Conservation and Development is coordinating the State of Oregon's work on the Oregon Climate Change Adaptation Framework. The Framework explores the impacts of climate change in Oregon and identifies how state agencies can effectively respond to them. Green will send around web link regarding the framework. • Future possible incentives—Green is working on possible incentives for small electric engines, induction cooktop, and all-electric new construction Bottinelli reminded the Commission of the wildfire and climate change event next Thursday from 1 to 2 p.m. with fire adapted communities. Graham added that Recology came to the last Council meeting and announced they are looking at electrifying their fleet over time. 3.4. Other Announcements from Commissioners (12:44) Wyatt watched the Oregon Department of Energy transportation charging infrastructure meeting. Highlights from the meeting included: • The Rocky Mountain Institute projects that Oregon will have a quarter of a million electric vehicles on the road by 2025. By 2030, 50 percent of new sales will be electric and by 2035 90 percent of new sales will be electric. • Issues preventing consumers from switching to electric vehicles include range anxiety, standardized charging infrastructure, and charging time. • A conceptual framework was developed with three different action categories: enable (public charging stations and standardizing infrastructure), accelerate (incentives and changes in building codes), and drive (more regulatory changes like mandating parking spaces be electric vehicle ready and taxing hydro carbons). Barth announced that CCOC is considering an electric landscaping equipment demo day. Green stated that CCOC plans on coordinating with Ashland Hardware for the event, but not date is set yet. There is a possibility that this demo day will align with a small electric engine incentive. 3.5. Reports from Representatives of Other Commissions None 4. Public Forum (15:34) Barth acknowledge that Lorrie Kaplan of Southern Oregon Climate Action Now submitted testimony for the meeting (see attached for testimony). 5. Old Business 51. Action Items Volunteer (16:00) Minutes for the Climate Policy Commission March 11, 2021 Page 3 of 6 Brown volunteered to take the action items for this meeting and Wyatt volunteered for next meeting. 5.2. Commissioner Recruitment (16:3 0) No updates. 5.3. Policy Recommendation Process (16:3 6) Barth acknowledged that Council will be asked to support House Bill 3055 at their March 16 meeting. He asked what happens after if Council approves to support the Bill. Graham responded that Council generally asks staff to draft a letter of support to send the State Representatives. 5.4. Formal Planning (18:08) Mallette stated that the Storm Drain Master Plan was reviewed by the Council at their March 1 Study Session. The Plan uses a 1973 NOAA rain study reference and Mallette would follow up with Public Works Director, Scott Fleury, if other data will be used. The Capital Improvements Program(CIP) was postponed until March 16 and CEAP goals were referenced in the Policies, Plans, and Goals section. The Talent Ashland Phoenix Intertie (TAP) Master Plan has been postponed until July. The Electric Master Plan and 10-Year Planning Study is still in progress. Kaplan asked about updating the Facilities Master Plan referenced in the CIP. Mallette stated that no date for the update has been scheduled yet. 5.5. Residential Construction Standards - PV Reservation(21:08) Brown kept the amendment language close to the 2015 proposed amendment that was presented at the last meeting. Green shared the amendment language with Solar Energy Analyst, Larry Giardina for feedback. The amendment was then sent to Planning staff for consideration. Brown and Green will check in with Planning staff regarding the status. Green stated that the new reach code has a solar ready provision that might need to be reconciled with the amendment when ready. 5.6. Formal Planning - Primer on Land Use Planning and Climate Change (23:33) Shaff referenced the attachment in the packet as background and a guide to get climate change issues into the Comprehensive Plan to help regulate the built environment through the Land Use Code. This would affect parking standards by requiring EV ready spaces and buildings by requiring solar orientation. Discussion included other ways to initiate changes. The Council could enact nuisance ordinances for some items or change building and development codes. A change to the Land Use Code is preferred by Shaff as new developments must follow those rules. The Land Use Code needs to be compliant with the Comprehensive Plan first. The elements that could be updated are energy and housing to ensure that CEAP goals and actions are reflected in the policy created around those two elements. CPC will have to wait until both are updated and help give input. 5.7. Natural Gas Emissions Reductions - Policy Recommendation (37:27) Wyatt and Mallette asked if the Commission wanted to work with staff to develop a policy on natural gas usage in Ashland based on what other communities are doing and to determine the future electric utility demand. Discussion surrounded what should be developed first the policy, the implementation plan, or both simultaneously. Barth, Mallette, and Wyatt wanted to work on the policy first to help form implementation actions by: Minutes for the Climate Policy Commission March 11, 2021 Page 4 of 6 • Determining the increase in demand for the electric utility for inclusion in the electric master plan. • Researching other West Coast communities like Eugene on what to include in the policy. • Determining a goal reduction in overall natural gas use or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by fuel switching or using renewable natural gas sources. • Reaching out to State representatives to help change regulations and practices statewide once the City adopts a policy. • Helping influence City actions and future infrastructure projects. Brown, Graham, Kaplan, and Shaff wanted to start with the implementation plan to help determine the goal by: • Engaging the community to see what reduction measures are actually achievable. • Researching if the City has regulatory authority to prohibit natural gas connections. • Developing possible incentives to help users be less impacted by the switch. • Receiving community buy in to help support the policy when going to Council. • Looking at the community's existing infrastructure for electric to see if increasing electrification efforts (fuel switching and solar production) and demand can be supported by the grid before developing a policy to put those changes in place. Mallette asked if the Commission should establish a goal first instead. Kaplan stated the CEAP goal could be used as the Commission's goal and help with planning for future electric demand. Kaplan asked if starting with City services first would help get community buy in. Green mentioned there were internal City policies from 2018 for both facilities and fleet regarding fossil fuel use. Kaplan asked if this would affect the pool redesign. Barth stated that APRC is mostly independent from the City and would not be constrained by those policies. Green noted that the Commission could work on programs like the energy retrofit program and others like the home energy score program to help reduce GHG emissions in Ashland. Mallette and Wyatt will research what other cities and communities how have endorsed similar implementation strategies are doing, determine potential policy pathways for Ashland, consider public input and comment needed, and establish a timeline for grid replacement of the energy provide by fossil fuels. 5.8. Natural Gas Emissions Reductions - Implementation Plan (1:23:44) Kaplan said the actions from the policy discussion can be included in the implementation plan along with identifying natural gas consumers. Actions to explore for the plan include: • Encouraging consumers switching from natural gas to electric through education programs with CCOC and incentive offerings. • Encouraging large users, like Southern Oregon University and Asante Ashland Community Hospital, to reduce emissions. • Creating an offset program to fund programs that help low income housing switch from natural gas to efficient electric systems similar to Missoula Montana's recent program. • Connecting with developers of new constructions to reduce the amount of new natural gas connections built. • Reviewing the franchise agreement with Avista so that more money can be paid to the City to help fund these projects. Some limitations exist as the Commission does not know how much the City can increase franchise fees. Franchise fees serve as a way for utility companies to Minutes for the Climate Policy Commission March 11, 2021 Page 5 of 6 avoid purchasing individual permits to work on the City's right-of-way. However, if buying individual permits is cheaper than the franchise fees then Avista could switch to buying individual permits instead. • Placing the natural gas emissions reduction implementation plan into the CEAP implementation plan built environment section once complete. Wyatt will create a short white paper to bring back to the Commission in a few months researching the actions outlined above including Eugene's situation on franchise fees with Northwest Natural Gas to see if these limitations can be resolved. Graham asked if there were any actions that the Commission could take on now or to wait for the budget process to allocate funds for actions first. Barth wanted to continue that discussion with Graham individually and to bring back for discussion at a future meeting. Shaff also had outlined different methods to reduce natural gas emissions. Barth asked that Kaplan, Graham, and Bell's outline be sent to him to combine with Shaff s and present at the next meeting. 5.9. CEAP Update - Measurement (1:45:46) Green showed and explained updated progress indicators for measuring 2019 GHG emissions by energy source not including consumption (see attached Additional Staff Update for March Meeting memo for referenced graphs). Around 56 to 60 percent of the emissions are transportation and 35 percent related to natural gas use (not including industrial emissions from production and transportation of natural gas). Questions from Commissioners included: • Timeframe for the global warming potential— 100 year similar to the standard was used. • Includes embedded emissions from manufacturing— These emissions would be included under consumption emissions. • How to help encourage residents to switch towards electric use— Suggestions from commissioners included both above, using a full inventory showing progress for those who need help choosing to switch. Green also showed a bar graph showing approximate GHG emissions by energy source from mid-2017 to 2020. Natural gas shows the most fluctuation throughout the seasons. The second graph shows the same energy data but if all energy was electric. This second all electric graph shows that emissions would reduce by 10 times. Below the blue and purple bars are the current electric use and the above space is what the electrical need would be. This would indicate a need to double our capacity and if done over a period of time could be done. While not a part of the official reporting this second graph is useful to decide how to invest to reduce emissions. Wyatt asked if monitoring taxes and fees on natural gas and electricity over time and counting the permits of appliances installed would help see a trend in behavior. Green said this was possible, but currently the permitting process does not have a way to report this and the count would have to be done manually. Barth stated that since the permits are online this can be done but preferred if the reporting was automated too. Kaplan asked how many appliances are permitted. Green was not sure, but Barth estimated from talking with local installers that larger projects always have a permit, but smaller repair jobs usually do not. Barth asked that CPC continue to work through the progress indicators with Green bring them back to a future meeting. Minutes for the Climate Policy Commission March 11, 2021 Page 6 of 6 5.10. CEAP Update - Action Measurement and Implementation (2:12:00) Barth asked if the Commission agreed with the attachment in the packet outlining Action Measurement and Action Implementation. Wyatt asked for an example of the community norm. Barth stated that he wanted buying a gas appliance to be as negatively viewed as smoking in confined areas and not wearing your seatbelt. Barth continued that the Action Implementation paragraph summarizes how outreach can be done. The first paragraph outlines why community outreach is needed, and the second paragraph describes working with stakeholders who will be more affected. An example of the second paragraph would be engaging professional landscapers on how to transition from gas powered landscaping equipment to electric. Relating to the first paragraph, establishing community norms would fall on CCOC and other local community groups. CPC can engage with these organizations but deciding how to implement outreach will not be CPC's responsibility. Kaplan was less clear as he sees the need to incorporate policy and implementation plans together. There is a role for CCOC to become involved, but their focus is currently on conservation efforts like reducing single use products instead of heavily focusing on implementing CEAP goals and actions. Green commented that CCOC and CPC can collaborate more, but CCOC was tasked with outreach to the community and CPC is tasked with developing policy for Council and Administrative review. Shaff saw that stakeholders are a joint audience for both. CPC will need to work with stakeholders to develop policies and CCOC can use the stakeholders to develop outreach efforts. Graham agreed and stated that now is a good time to restart the collaboration between both that was delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Graham asked if there was interest in reviewing CPC's projects with CCOC to plan future collaboration. Kaplan agreed and emphasized that engagement is more useful rather than education or outreach as engagement allows for a two- way conversation. Shaff stated that he viewed CCOC as wanting to be more involved in developing the policy as they will be providing outreach. Barth stated that he is connected with CCOC's chair and Green and Graham attend both meetings. Referring back to the main document, Wyatt stated that the first section was okay, but should note that the lower level actions will not all be measurable. 6. New Business (2:25:44) Barth acknowledged an email he received from Wyatt regarding the economic evaluation for the pool including the social cost of carbon that the Federal government is looking to adopt that would help them decide on electric over gas. 7. Wrap Up (2:27:11) 7.1. Topic Tracking and Potential Meeting Schedule Barth asked the Commission to review the schedule and inform him of any changes. Green announced that a new virtual solar net metering system has been approved. Kaplan added that this system will provide one third of one location's power and is will be the largest installation in the Rogue Valley. Chair Barth adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth Taylor CITY OF ASHLAND E) ni 0 TO: Climate Policy Commission FROM: Stu Green, Climate and Energy Analyst, City of Ashland DATE: March 10, 2021 RE: Additional Staff update for March meeting Updates from Staff • Email delays • Progress indicators update—this project has been a major focus in recent weeks. Preliminary Energy indicator charts are attached below for discussion. • Annual Staff report to Council - Apr 6 • Local Climate Partners Group—Members of CCOC and CPC and local partner groups are in the early stages of exploring what new collaborations are possible. There is an opportunity for local groups to work together to support local climate action and CEAP imlpementation. • Multi-Commission Outreach Campaign— Councilor Graham and staff are looking into the possibility of integrating outreach efforts for future campaigns. • New Vehicle Chargers—4 Level 2 plugs coming soon at the grove. These no-barrier chargers have no fees to pay or costs to join. Operating costs are defrayed by Oregon Clean Fuels Program revenue. • EV and e-bike incentives - programs are going well. Incentives applied for so far: e-bike (16/5 0) EV (15/70). • HB 2398 - Reach Code o Climate staff and Councilor Graham have been working with group of cities to advance HB 2398. This Bill would require the State Reach Code to be at least 10%more efficient than the base code. Importantly, this bill will also would allow jurisdictions to adopt the reach code as a minimum. • Oregon State Adaptation Framework ADMINISTRATION Tel:541-488-6002 20 East Main Street Fax:541-488-5311 . Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us o At the direction of Governor Brown, DLCD is coordinating the State of Oregon's work on the Oregon Climate Change Adaptation Framework. The Framework explores the impacts of climate change in Oregon and identifies how state agencies can effectively respond to them. DLCD is working with 24 state agencies— from Business Oregon to the Oregon Health Authority, the Oregon Department of Forestry to the Oregon Department of Energy, and many more. DLCD reviewed climate adaptation plans from 17 other states to identify the most effective government response strategies and, over many months, vetted them with the multi-agency group. The 2021 Framework builds on a 2010 Framework document, and will be adopted as part of Oregon's Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. o https://www.oregon.gov/lcd/CL/Pages/Adaptation- Framework.aspx?utm medium=email&utm source=govdelivery • State Transportation Electrification Infrastructure Needs Analysis— Staff participated in this ODOT study as a Consumer Owned Utility representative. htlps://www.oregon.gov/odot/Programs/Pages/TEINA.aspx • Future incentives: small electric engine, induction cooktop, all-electric new construction ADMINISTRATION Tel:541-488-6002 20 East Main Street Fax:541-488-5311 . Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 Fr www.ashland.or.us Draft Progress Indicators • This following two charts show estimated 2019 GHG from Electric,Natural Gas,and Vehicle Fuel Emissions. ADMINISTRATION Tel:541-488-6002 20 East Main Street Fax:541-488-5311 . Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 Fr www.ashland.or.us �rr ........... `2 0'1 91 r wpm 31 Res Cen�, �mi a[I Z"III, r,rh F t r i E1,e,c P., 2 r P,'of 'Trar!,,,,, T.'I J6, i ry ru,"iai,I G a s Gaii-S, ff��"..........I ................... ........................... ............ 0 0, d4v' '0")— fufb� ur 54" IFIOZ Ji 11 "JICII's, im ilk II Cl'ta r"t Usef I Ts 0 C 0 1 IIJJSI[Ikip s. ,h .............r�i In i��ri i �a Il III ADMINISTRATION Tel:541-488-6002 20 East Main Street Fax:541-488-5311 Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 ,'r www.ashland.or.us • The top half of the chart below shows approximate GHG by energy source from mid-2017 through 2020 A40 HTH� p Y Eer�j rrf')r�21�1 2"V'"7 CV'LL 0 n n rvz,a r,c AA U n,i C Pa E Our,of"@,,ttfd T f Ain!'i NO , Wd ANN, W P/00/1 PON U110/1 POO ON 1 0 0 01 1/////W .......... C W JIM ]KA" [ P, ,, P,, � , ,J, V P , 1p,J f' PJ " P ,�h,lV".J J t,"k0 PQ ,J h) P" Pi ""k ") P0J ) t�A J " NJ 0,J ,J PJ t,,) I J P-",w Pl,,'N IP4 10""'J, I or,,) P,,.k P o,l P",J IV FAO C-) tll"") C.,",$ ZZ") 4,"�"N C"',,)� Rl'�`) IF"" C.,"5 A (71,`�"'� v. (,C') 4.""5 '1 C-) A 4 A 4 4/7"""), K 73 lt,3 d"D 1)"D fll`�,) —1 01 V"d P,J, P P"'d P,A K,� P-0 P�,J A 3 j" j, A 4,3, 0"'3 Ij�J 1)44 ,fi)[ cfl, 111i, X �,,J* "'im, 45 Y ir,,P iitr cA �l,g, 47 2 1! 2!�, py Clj�21`e I E n erc�i y u�r r- "'t pa S I -e IJ i'n �411 .......... 0 [n rt ar�,Slrll 011, Am INNER LU( I Gas it AUW,,�MUL,'M UJI t"'i P"I 1�",,J tO P,4 0""A I,"//",x ti'll P1112 01111 t"111 �,'J f,%) ff"'J 0,,'k P�,(T t"J 63 1"'1 r,(") K) �,J ON'J, 6.,1, P,,J, P4, 6",� P-1 63 P"J, r"A P,3, P""I -'A (A -A —A -(j ­6 —Al ((A �A ..A (((A —A ..A (((Jjj Al 11A —A w(,A, m'm """"IN -A! 1?61 "i'd F�, P t 15 X"", ci,I Ir Y "I'Y" 111). '115,11"11"1111, "1", """ P,5( P""i (4-ca �,r k f FJ, r. • The bottom half chart uses the same energy data, but attempts to translate all fossil energy use into electrification. In other words if we could electrify all energy sources from this time period this would be the approximate energy need in MWh. • Assumptions for Energy Equivalency: * 50% efficiency gain in converting Natural Gas to electric. * 300 Wh/mi for all vehicle miles travelled. ADMINISTRATION Tel:541-488-6002 20 East Main Street Fax:541-488-5311 Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 ,'r wwwashland.or.us ............. L t L I �l 1�„J !r � J;`U t �f!r� � �` � � r /li 0 r l�!r ! �IFG� �i,,, S;O C ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... d�l 6 er on-fronting Climate Change To: City of Ashland Climate Policy Commission From: SOCAN-Ashland Climate Action Project Date: March 10, 2021 Re: Climate-related updates Thank you all for your amazing work to advance climate action in Ashland. We would like to share a few updates with members of the Commission. 1. Equity. It is important to ensure robust consideration of equity issues associated with fossil gas wind-down. Here is an excellent White a2er on the subect. In "EQUI'l-ABLE BUILDING A ["41AK["."WORIK F OR POWERING IIESI�-IEN"'I"'COK/IMI.,JN III""'['-IES,"The Greenlining Institute studied the challenges and opportunities that building electrification presents for low-income communities—70 percent of whom are renters caught up in a housing and energy affordability crisis. Quoting here from the Executive Summary: The framework fin ds that electrification can be a transformative force for low-income residents and it explains the steps the state must take to ensure that electrification helps close the clean energy gap in California and provides relief to millions of residents facing energy insecurity in the current system.... Meanwhile, the cost of safely maintaining California"s gas system is set to escalate dramatically in coming years as increasing infrastructure costs and safety upgrades combine with a decline in demand as the state transitions awayfrom it fuels to hit its climate targets. The result will be higher costs spread aroundfewer customers—leading to significantly higher gas bills and prompting those with the means to do so to move off the system for fin ancial, health, and environmental reasons.As this trend continues, gas customers who face barriers to electrification will need assistance to move to cleaner electric appliances to help shield the from the rising cost of gas. 2. We are in a process of interviewing various cities to explore what they have learned about climate plan implementation. Eugene just approved version 2.0 of their climate plan (CAP2.0). Two findings from this discussion: 0 a. E 'crene hhas a ve[y Lgg.g_ Eugene Climate Collaborative Partners. "CAP2.0focuses on engagement with systems-level actors,, or the Eugene Climate Collaborative Partners (ECC Partners). ECC Partners are specifically defined as organizations who have significant oversight and impact on comm fbssilfue/useondemissionnsorhovetheobilit»too/fectoralter systems that will enable the community to adapt and prepare for climate change. By starting with the E[[Partners, the C4P2.Olays the foundation to make/teosier/br everyone—individuals, househokds� businesses, ondotherorganizotions—totoke actions that support the CR[Jgools." ~^ values and wo d economic--which helps reduce the constant paralysis that can emerge when policies are advanced that look at only one of these dimensions. "The Triple Bottom L/ne, orTD/, isoframework the City of Eugene is using to reach its sustainobility goals. /t-'s designed to help us think about and explore the environmental, equity and economic impacts, benefits and trade-offs of our decisions. /t,so decision making framework that can beadopted to any organization such os business, non-profit, governmental or community groups. /f you would like to begin using this approach /nyour organization, a TBL tool has been developed to guide you through this process."' We encourage all Ashland commissions to consider an approach like this. 3. Upcoming zoom conversation 1",,,,J),aturd1 Gas,-ffl loss'i�f 11� F�luell You Came to L ove Seduced by melflrlhanic,,,,��I, nm�,,�iillll p11(,.,,,,.Y1gued by heartbij�irn A ZoommCo:verestlon— Merch 25,7-8:30pnm ljj�lilo re III ter"l,' Studies show that most Americans think natural gas is a clean fuel that does little harm from a climate or pollution perspective. Residential and commercial use of natural gas in Oregon has soared in recent decades. We hear a lot about "decarbonization", but in some ways, natural gas--which is primarily methane--is in some ways worse than coal.This panel discussion will update us on the latest research on the climate, environmental, and health impacts of natural gas, including impacts on indoor air quality from gas appliances. We'll also touch on the gas bans that many cities and other government entities have enacted and how gas companies have responded to these bans. This is the first in a series of conversations we will host in 2021on the economic, social equity, and practical implications of our natural gas connections--and our desire to sever them. Panelists: Dan Serres, Conservation Director, Columbia Riverkeeper;David Farrer, Toxicologist, Oregon Health Authority;and Tom Graly, Co-leader of the Berkeley Climate Action Coolition"s Electrification Working Group Future programs will focus on (1) experience of cities that have taken steps to reduce fossil gas utilization; (2) steps that households can take to reduce their fossil gas utilization. We always welcome input from the Commission on our programs. We hope to support and amplify your work through public education. 4. Along those same lines, SOCAN-Ashland would be happy to host topics that the Commission members would like to delve into for their own learning to optimize their ability to serve the Commission,that cannot be done in the context of regular Commission meetings. For example, if there are particular cities that you would want us to invite for a panel discussion we could do that. Registration for such programs would not be limited to CPC members and the programs would not be described in any way as CPC programs. Please consider. 5. Upcoming SOCAN Monthly Meeting. SOCAN Monthly Meeting: Bringing Social Equity to Climate Advocacy March 30 @ 6:00 pm -7:00 pm Li i k t( i� I .r Sp e r Cecilia t n , n Founder, iiIII°i° III °"III°" a i, icy Director, Be 1111 t° III iii w 1 i r 0 Ll III . While II face the looming r is of climate change, communities color, ri l communities rural Oregonians arer li this existential threat.The Almeda and South Obenchainfires were vividI is reality, any of the hardesti residents re from historically marginalized is v communities. compound the devastatingimpacts of the fires,there are very-real risks that these residents ill be unablestay as our communities rebuild. time, r r r iv Order - ,the OregonClimate iPlan ( ) is shining spotlight climate environmental justice legislation has been introduced to incorporate an 11equity lens" into multiplelevels lipolicy. What does "climate i ? Does an equitys r ct from or strengthen climate advocacy? Does it make a difference?What is meant by the phrase "just transition"? How can we infuse social equityinto the fabricr climate policy v c c ? Cecilia Estolano, Founder of Estolanovi r , and Asma Mandi, Policy Director of Better World Group, r December 2020 "State of rego iii Cl i r i a��te L:1ty BI I::e p r i r°X' will join zoom to help us workachieve r equitable, climate-adapted futu Registration Rit — �iii�iii°m � ° r g iii&tei (After registering,you'll receive a confit i ail with Zoom link join .) SOCAN is monthly on the last Tuesday of each month. Meetings are currentlyi Id via Zoom. We explore i related climate change throughr vi . These meetings are freepublic. Please feel free to contact ACAP Chair Lorrie Kaplan at lorrie@socan.eco or 240-676-0040 to discuss how we can best work together. Thank you for your consideration.