EWEB misses the mark
At a time when an increasing number of Lane County residents are struggling to make ends meet and avoid utility shutoffs, the Eugene Water & Electric Board has shortsightedly chosen not to reserve the bulk of $4.4 million in surplus funds for programs that help needy customers weather the tough economic times.
Instead, the board voted 3-2 at its Jan. 20 meeting to spend $2.3 million of that finite surplus to give all of its residential customers a $30 credit on their March utility bills. Most will no doubt happily accept the credit, but many would do without it willingly if they knew the money would go to keep on a neighbor�s heat and lights in the difficult, uncertain months ahead.
Granted, the board majority Commissioners Rich Cunningham, John Brown and JoAnn Ernst put roughly half the surplus into programs that assist low-income households with monthly bills, help customers with emergency expenditures and provide payment assistance to needy seniors, plus other programs that target the needy.
But the decision to spend $2.3 million on a one-time, across-the-board rebate suggests that Cunningham, Brown and Ernst may not fully grasp the magnitude of the economic crisis that is descending upon the Eugene-Springfield area.
The state Employment Department released statistics Monday showing that Lane County�s jobless rate hit 9.5 percent in December, more than 4 percent higher than a year earlier; most economists agree with grim confidence that the worst is yet to come. The board may soon regret its decision not to provide more help to the fast-growing ranks of those who need it the most.
To their credit, board President Ron Farmer and Commissioner Bob Cassidy voted against the spending package recommended by utility staff, arguing that a $30 one-time rebate for EWEB�s 78,000 residential customers wasn�t a meaningful reduction and would go to thousands of people who don�t need it. As Cassidy rightly observed, �We�re just flinging money out there.�
A more responsible option would have been for the board to approve the staff recommendation to spend roughly $2 million on programs that help needy customers. Then, instead of spending the remainder on a rebate, it could hold it in reserve in the likely eventuality it is needed to blunt the impact of a plunging economy. If economic recovery comes sooner and more robustly than expected, then the utility still could use the remaining surplus to provide a rebate to customers.
In fairness, the board majority may have wanted to extend a helping hand to those who are fortunate enough to still have jobs but whose wages and hours have been reduced or the many who are finding it increasingly difficult to balance the household budget at the end of each month.
While these customers may not qualify for the utility�s assistance programs, a $30 credit will help them make ends meet for one month at least. The board majority also may have taken into account that EWEB already has one of the most extensive programs in the nation for helping low-income customers.
But these are exceptional times, and the board should have made certain that its surplus funds were reserved for those who need it most and whose ranks are growing by the day.