The recent energy crunch has left some Washington cities with as much as a 43 percent rate increase, and California with rolling blackouts.
Meanwhile, faced with rising wholesale electricity costs, the Eugene Water and Electric Board has been struggling to find a way to increase residential rates without rendering area residents incapable of paying their bills.
EWEB Fiscal Services Supervisor Dick Varner offered the EWEB board some rate increase models at its meeting Tuesday, including the inverted rate model, an option that the public has simultaneously loved and hated.
The possibility of the board making a decision Tuesday prompted more than 30 area residents to come and speak their minds, a rather large turnout for an EWEB event.
The most controversial proposal is the inverted rate model, which will charge residents more if they exceed a certain level of energy use. Varner said the board is considering the inverted rate option because it provides an incentive for energy conservation.
“We are trying to provide enough of an incentive for people to conserve without putting a huge difference in their bills,” Varner said. His plans include dividing consumers into payment blocks based on energy consumption.
For example, the first block in one of the inverted models has a cutoff at 1,250 kilowatt-hours. Those whose energy use is above this level will begin paying the rate set for the second block. They will be charged the lower rate for the first 1,250 kWh, and will be charged the higher rate for the kilowatt-hours that exceed the 1,250 cutoff.
But some residents think the inverted rate would be harmful to those on fixed incomes.
“The inverted model hits powerless people the hardest,” Jean Melton said. Melton works for Alvord Taylor, a company that provides housing for low-income and disabled people. She said these residents can’t help being home all day, and therefore will suffer because of their unavoidable higher energy use.
There are also those who think the inverted rate is too socially conscious.
“It’s not the job of EWEB to do social work with the tiered, manipulated rate structure,” said David Blain, who spoke against the inverted rate model.
Others argue that the inverted plan will punish those who do everything they can to conserve but still can’t lower their usage level.
“The inverted plan is sending the wrong message,” Craig Mayne said. “Asking only part of the community to shoulder the bulk of the amount of energy use. Just because someone is a heavy user does not mean that they are wasteful.”
After hearing a long line of speakers criticize the plan at Tuesday’s meeting, EWEB decided to postpone its decision on how to increase rates. But the utility is not throwing out the inverted rate structure. In fact, the board asked Varner to research successful inverted rate models used by other utilities.
“We need the inverted rate structure,” Stephanie Midkiff, a University law librarian, said Tuesday. “People won’t change their conservation habits until they’re forced to, and they aren’t forced to until it hits their pocket books.”
Most people who spoke in favor of the inverted rate model believe it will properly reward those who have been conserving and remove the burden of paying for those who use more energy.
“Inverted is more equitable,” Melvin Erickson said. “Those who use less should not have to subsidize for those who use more. People need to be motivated to use less electricity.”
Others think this sort of rate model should have been in action all along.
“An inverted rate is long overdue,” said Shawn Boles, who spoke in favor of the model.
The board has not made any decisions yet, and will consider different cutoff points for energy use to better serve Eugene residents. Varner said the majority of resident energy bills currently fall below the proposed cutoff point of 1,250 kWh.