The Eugene Water & Electric Board has some decisions to make regarding the impending electricity price increase that is a result of the recent energy crisis. EWEB’s Rates and Financial Planning Manager Dick Varner presented the board with the choices it must make: first, how much of a price increase is necessary and second, which of the proposals developed by EWEB’s staff it would accept.
This hearing was designed to be an informational one, said EWEB Vice President Peter Bartel. EWEB’s staff had been asked to develop some plausible scenarios for the board to consider instigating.
Varner presented these scenarios to the board, but pointed out that a 15 percent price increase was unavoidable regardless of which scenario was accepted.
“[Because of] the impact from Bonneville Power Administration raising its rates by 30 percent, we’ll need the 15 percent increase to get us through to Oct. 1, 2001,” Varner said.
Board members voiced concerns about the large percentage proposed for the price increase, but realized there was no way around it.
“I don’t like entertaining a 15 percent increase: It sucks,” said EWEB Commissioner Susie Smith. “But I think we have been presented with a realistic number. There’s been a lot of sound work done on this issue, and it leads to an uncomfortable decision.”
Some members of the public voiced concerns they wished the board to take into consideration when choosing a suitable plan.
Jake Elston, a plant manager for Willamette Industries, wanted the board to realize what a price increase would do to big businesses.
“We spent over $1.6 million in electric bills last year,” Elston said. “Big businesses are struggling to keep their doors open just like smaller businesses.”
Other concerns related to what could be done for the environment while the energy crisis is being addressed.
“All of the actions around the rate increase should also consider global warming,” medical herbist Moshe Immerman said.
Immerman also suggested that the increase should be 18 percent, with the extra three percent dedicated to conservation.
The board recognized issues addressed by the public, and agreed that it should also be concerned about the increase’s effect on lower-income energy users.
“This increase will mostly affect people who we think we have been protecting,” Bartel said.
One of the plans that received a positive response from board members was a block proposal that would provide inverted rate options. The plan would reward residential energy users for keeping their usage below an as-yet-to-be-determined level. Usage over this level would result in a higher price per kilowatt hour.
“Some residential consumers are overly zealous with consumption, sometimes using more than a small business,” said EWEB Commissioner Sandra Bishop. “We should be charging them more.”
The board will be making a final decision at a hearing scheduled for Feb. 6. Bartel said the key features that the board is now concerned with are getting the public to conserve its energy and invest in renewable energy sources, finding a way to assist lower-income families during the increase, and informing high consumers they will pay more if they don’t limit their usage.
EWEB employees were asked to further refine the inverted block proposal and make sure 15 percent is the final number to be used for rate hikes.