12/22/1980 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r' . measures were not working enough. Only through the law did he feel we conserve voluntarily. 5) EWEB did not have police power to implement mandatory measures. ,6) Local government attempts to institute mandatory measures have not been easy as it is a very controversial issue. At the goals session, the council discussed other issues and voted on their priorities. Energy conservation became the council's No.1 priority a year ago. As a result, the council set up an Energy Conservation Board. They selected Councilors Obie and Miller, Camilla Pratt, and Planning Commission members Eleanor Mulder and Adrienne Lannom. The council charged in the bylaws of the Conservation Board to examine and develop for presentation to the council recommendations on incentives, educa- tional programs', and mandatory measures to increase energy efficiency. The topic areas were existing and future structures, commercial and industrial facilities, transportation systems, and waste collection systems. Spec i fi ca lly, the council charged the Policy Board to solicit and encourage intensive input from affected interest groups and the general public. To address the issues, the board held meetings in the spring and heard testimony from invited guests. At the end of each meeting, they invited public input. The board heard a diversified group of speakers including the Oil Heat Institute, Northwest Natural Gas, the State DOE. They also heard testimony from EWEB discussing the State curtailment program. Under Stage 2 of the existing curtailment program, the major users in Eugene will be required by existing law to cut off I service. Under Stage 3, by existing State law, there are provisions for .black- ! out and voltage reductions. . The board examined voluntary measures of conservation already being accomplished; the Whiteaker Neighborhood Group, the Oregon energy extension program, the Bethel energy-efficient program. One proposal to have solar subdivisions is being discussed by the Planning Commission on January 6, 1981. Small business energy conservation efforts are being examined through HUD and DOE grants. Next year, the board will examine i large apartments, commercial and industrial sectors. The board discovered that I retrofitting existing structures represents a significant amount of energy that could be recovered and used to help us provide energy at a cheaper cost than through the generation of new resources. The question was how to do it. The board examined a variety of ways. One was a two-tier electrical rate structure for weatherized and unweatherized homes. Another was weatherization at the time of resale similar to the Portland program. Another was an energy audit at the time of resale. One was an energy use disclosure at the time of resale. i Another was a prescriptive standard. The essence of the testimony received was that voluntary measures were not enough. The board examined the most palatable way to institute a mandatory energy conservation effort in this community. The ordinance represents a proposal discussed by the Energy Board on March 5, 1980. It is a proposal that has remained the same as in the public hearing at that time, as well as subsequent public hearings. There are two changes: Water tank temperature setting and water flow restrictors were removed from the prescriptive standards. The board felt it involved a change in lifestyle of the residents. In August the proposal ! was presented to the council. Council requested it be presented in ordinance , . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 22, 1980 Page 11