350.org has had good intentions but has refused to acknowledge facts with their electrification ordinance. I presented concerns, historical data and lessons learned to them, which they refuse to discuss.

Most houses built 50 years ago were electric as it cost 1 cent per kilowatt-hour. Today it’s averaging 10 cents or more, making electric resistant heat very expensive — far more than gas, which reflects the trends in heating over the last 40 years.

Today there are very few industrial or commercial buildings that heat with electricity, because of cost, inefficiency and energy density. Requiring them to change will most likely curtail most new industries within city boundaries. Is that 350.org’s intent?

The area of energy we should focus on is energy conservation which has many Achilles heels. Including ‘projected’ savings (not verified), focus on lighting and heat pumps (low hanging fruit) but not sufficiently on weatherization, and most programs benefiting upper classes, while many rate structures undermine conservation and low-income users. 

With global warming, we need to focus on the greatest climate threats first, which is Seneca’s biomass plant. The Register-Guard revealed that EWEB is paying Seneca almost 9 cents/KWH, which is 2½ times BPA’s wholesale rate in a non-disclosure contract. Then Eugene gets all the pollution for free. One study showed how biomass is 40 times dirtier than coal and 300 times than natural gas, a function of energy density. Where is common sense?

Don’t support this electrification ordinance, as it’s pennywise and tons foolish.

Craig Patterson

McKenzie Bridge

Comments are closed.