02/09/1981 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e . would have to be spent. It is important to take advantage of this and the conservation prescribed is of substantial savings to the community. EWEB approached the city for assistance eighteen months ago and advised of future power shortages in the mid-1980's. EWEB has indicated that conservation is the cheapest way to approach this problem. There will be a hearing required in 1984 and continued approval is based on a financing program being available. There is a need to go further to include commercial properties. Mr. Wiley was con- sulted by Mr. Obie and felt that the prescripted standards fell far short of what is cost-effective. Future issues to address are: 1) the inclusion of an appeals process; and 2) the definition of non-compliance. He would vote in favor of the ordinance. Ms. Miller said work had been done on the ordinance for over a year and that she was becoming very familiar with its provisions, potential issues, and other items considered but not taken. Important points to keep in mind: 1) distri- bution and generation of electricity is a group effort; 2) generation of new electricity for Eugene would require substantial public indebtedness with higher electric rates; and 3) there is doubt as to what sort of electric genera- tion would be available and if they would be on line in time to supply adequate electricity. Faced with those facts, it did not seem enough to let the Federal government take care of it. Rather, it seemed the city could do better on a local level as a community. The plans of other cities, as well as other sources, were considered and the objections heard tonight were not new. Bureaucratic costs were taken into account. A cost of two cents per kilowatt hour for electricity would be saved through weatherization compared with five cents per kilowatt hour for new generation. The magnitude of difference overwhelms any quibbling. It has been suggested that the ordinance wait until the non-residential program is ready. There is a chance that the city is doing too little, too late, and not much chance of doing too much, too fast. The community has a commitment to provide adequate supplies of various energy forms that people can afford. There will be amendments to the ordinance which is a framework so that people know what the city expects of them in the way of residential weatheri- zation. The appeals process is, at present, automatically built into the Housing Code which can be relied upon. A better process might be worked out in the next three and a half years. It is the duty of Eugene to take a leadership position and recognize the problem before it is faced with a crisis. Ms. Wooten commented that the council was faced with a question of how future electricity would be paid for. The best option is conservation through weatheri- zation and to do this an ordinance had to be written. She supported the ordi- nance but with concerns: 1) the appeals process; 2) the ordinance is, perhaps, not equitable and should apply to all people across the board; and 3) tenants and their ability to pay for weatherization. Financing through the BPA, Section 6-A, should be encouraged as the first priority. Finally, she was heartened at the numbers of concerned citizens who participated to solve a common problem and the council will act to solve it. In 1984 the ordinance will be subject and open to change as it is tonight. Mr. Lindberg appreciated the concerns of those who testified. The council needs to address the issue further and look into commercial, industrial, and high- density housing units. Finally, it was not often that a city gets to address the energy crisis, inflation, and air quality in one cost-effective measure. He felt that the ordinance was a citizen's program. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 1981 Page 12