ASUO moved to create a working group to finalize the resolution in support of option four of the thermal heating systems transition during their senate meeting on Nov. 10.

Rachel Withers, ASUO’s secretary of sustainability, introduced a senate resolution that proposed forming a working group to revise the resolution in support of option four of the thermal heating systems transition.

Withers said the thermal heating system transition is an effort to reduce emissions from the university’s heating system. There are four options the thermal heating systems task force must consider before recommending one of the options to President Scholz.

From there, Scholz will decide on an option, regardless of their recommendation, and present it to the Board of Trustees, who will make the final decision, she said.

“The decisions the university makes now to change, improve or build upon this system will have the largest effect [on the] carbon emissions the university is producing,” Finn Jacobson, ASUO vice president, said. “Reducing carbon emissions in our thermal heating system is imperative to achieving a large goal of carbon neutrality on campus.”

The task force narrowed down four options to consider. Option one is ‘systems as usual,’ where the university continues to use the current heating system and replace parts as needed, Withers said.

Option two is the electrode boiler, which uses electricity to produce heat. This option is divided into two sectors, with one having a larger boiler and the other having a smaller one, she said.

Options three and four use a heat recovery chiller, which uses hot water instead of steam. However, option four also has a geothermal aspect as it would store heat in the ground, Withers said.

Withers said options three and four—while sustainable—have their drawbacks. Both require the university to dig up current pipes and lay new pipelines, which is expensive and will cause disruption to campus due to construction. 

“It is the most expensive option,” she said. “There’s no getting around that, and I think it is a worthwhile investment that the school could make. As for the disruption aspect, I don’t think it’s honestly a big deal at all because when have we ever had a time on campus where there’s been no construction?”

If the Board of Trustees selects option three or four, they will break up reconstruction into six areas of campus. Each area will take two years of construction, and the project will last 12 years in total, Withers said.

Jacobson said campus disruption is one drawback of option four. Another drawback is the potential cost of option four, which could affect the tuition of incoming UO students.

The university has a fixed tuition model, meaning tuition is set once a student is accepted into UO and will not change throughout their time at the university. This means a current freshman may have a lower tuition cost than an incoming freshman, he said.

“To finance any of these options, there needs to be some sort of increase in tuition,” Jacobson said. “If you look at the university’s fiscal assets and resources, that is a fact of maintaining this campus.”

Despite the drawbacks of option four, ASUO—along with local environmentalists—signed a letter showing their support for the option. They believe it is the best option for the campus.

“This is very near and dear to my heart,” Withers said. “We are very conscious of how people feel about it.”

Regardless of the Board of Trustees’ decision, the university needs to take action to reduce its carbon emissions, Jacobson said. 

“If the University of Oregon does not take substantial action now to reduce our carbon emissions, then we could see a severe reduction in the appeal that the university makes, especially a university that prides itself in its ecological values in a state that prides itself on its environmental sustainability practices.” 

Withers said the working group will revise the senate resolution to “include a stronger voice of not wanting [option four] to impact students at this point.”

Jacobson said the working group will also make sure it meets the constitutional language requirements and regulations. Once that is completed and ready for a vote, the working group will pass it to the Senate floor at a future ASUO meeting.

“If the Senate votes to pass the resolution, then that will emerge as ASUO’s stance,” he said. “It puts forth the official opinion of the student government on behalf of students.”

ASUO is currently forming a working group and will provide an update at the meeting when the resolution is ready for a vote, Jacobson said.