Opinion: UO should transition its thermal systems off fossil fuels, but it seems reluctant to do so.
———-
This summer, the UO Thermal Systems Task Force was supposed to be receiving input from the student body on which of its four university thermal system options they would most prefer. The task force carried out this questioning in an effort to decarbonize the university’s heating systems, its largest source of emissions.
The task force was originally started after a push from the student body and Climate Justice League, when a meeting with then-president Michael Schill resulted in a new climate action plan.
However, the task force has made these decarbonization efforts difficult. There’s also a fear that President John Scholz may choose to not change anything, because that’s one of the choices that UO’s Thermal Systems Task Force gave itself.
First, we have to talk about the four options that the task force has presented to the university.
“Option One: Business as Usual” had the highest emissions by far, but had a low initial cost and a moderately-high annual cost.
“Option Two: Electrode Steam Boilers” had the highest annual and initial costs by far, but the lowest emissions.
“Option Three: Heat Recovery Chiller” had a high initial cost but the second-lowest operating cost and only moderate emissions reductions.
“Option Four: Heat Recovery Chiller – Alternate Source” had the highest initial cost, but the lowest annual cost of all the options, and the second-lowest emissions.
But what was Option One again? Well, it’s officially called “business as usual.” In other words, “don’t do anything.”
The university has said that state regulations by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality — called the “Climate Protection Plan” — will inevitably reduce the school’s emissions no matter what.
This would be fine and dandy, except for the fact that utility and fossil fuel companies like Northwest Natural are hard at work filing lawsuits to weaken the Climate Protection Plan or render it ineffective altogether. Both are efforts UO is fully aware of.
Additionally, these natural gas companies are almost certainly hoping President Scholz will choose not to transition the university off of their energy. After all, don’t underestimate these utility companies — it was due to Northwest Natural’s lobbying efforts that the Eugene fossil fuel ordinance was reversed only a few months after its passage in early 2023.
This leads me to another point: transitioning UO off fossil fuels is not only about reducing our emissions, but also reducing the power of fossil fuel interests. We shouldn’t give them an inch.
Luckily, UO has allowed student input in two public hearings. One was held in spring 2023, where, thanks to the efforts of ASUO and the Climate Justice League student group, students filled the hearing.
The first hearing was for the task force to brief the student body about its four plans, their costs relative to emissions and gauge interest via papers and Google Forms at the end.
However, during the hearing students were only given vague descriptions of each option and an unbelievably simple graph of the initial costs versus annual operating costs and their emissions.
At the end of the spring meeting, the Thermal Systems Task Force asked all of us which option we preferred. Now, each person had their own opinion, I’m sure, but to everybody I talked to after the hearing Option Four seemed the most preferable, based on the minimal amount of information we were given.
Despite the meeting, no student groups officially endorsed any option, likely because of the vague information. However, it’s safe to say that most student groups would support any option other than Option One: Don’t Do Anything.
President Scholz is set to make his recommendation to the Board of Trustees during winter term.
The university is in a rare position here to make the choice to retool its thermal heating systems away from fossil fuels.
And if it decides not to transition off fossil fuels, the university will look irresponsible for its decision to shirk the duty it gave itself. A decision to maintain business as usual will be at odds with UO’s environmentally friendly appearance, and it will be a stain on its moral reputation.
Other schools have been making similar changes successfully, such as Stanford, which has retooled its building heat recovery system. So why can’t UO?
