At the end of a question and answer forum set up to address questions and concerns about the University’s new energy fee surcharge, opposing sides agreed that conservation is a good way to address concerns on both sides of the issue.
Several University officials, students and a representative from the Oregon Students Association gathered in the International Student Association Lounge to discuss the energy fee surcharge created to accommodate rising energy costs. The “shady energy fee,” as it is referred to by the ASUO office, has angered many students, and the forum was held to allow them to address concerns and ask administrators questions about the fee.
ASUO Vice President Joy Nair said the ASUO would like to see alternatives to the fee, such as more work toward conservation. Provost John Moseley said the University is already taking conservation measures, and, in spite of cost increases, was able to decrease energy spending by 12 percent. Students would need to
contribute to further their conservation efforts, he said.
“To date, what we have done with conservation are things we can do without changing behavior,” Moseley said. “The next level of opportunity will be changing behavior.”
Director of Campus Operations George Hecht added that over the summer the University put up new lights and occupancy sensors in classrooms, and expects that will reduce the amount of wasted energy.
“By eliminating waste, we could save as much as 20 percent on costs,” Hecht said. “We are trying to do everything we can to conserve, and students can help, too.”
The panel suggested adjusting the thermostat and turning off lights and computers when leaving a room to save energy. There was also talk about creating a committee composed of students and faculty members who will work on researching and developing a campaign on ways the University can conserve energy.
“The way to deal with the surcharge is through conservation,” Moseley said. “Whatever we can save on conservation, I’m willing to reduce the fee by that much.”
Although Moseley said they do not want this fee, he does not think it is unfair. He said financially, their “backs are against the wall,” and without it they will have to cut from instructional services.
“I believe what we are doing is in the best interest of our students,” Moseley said. “We have limited funds and we have cut to the bone. We have nowhere else to go.”
Hecht added that 100 percent of this fee would be going to educational services. Areas such as athletics, housing and the EMU would not be covered by the surcharge.
OSA Communications Director John Wykoff, there to represent the students’ viewpoint, said, “First and foremost, this is an access issue.”
The process in which the energy fee was created had no student input, he said. He said the fact that some universities aren’t implementing the fee is also an issue.
“Students should have been in the process with OUS,” Wykoff said. “Students are angry about the surcharge, and we very much want to put this behind us and move on to other issues.”