rp_0201_9b.html
Budget Woes Threaten Oregon SBC
Abudget deficit of more than $800 million prompted a bipartisan group of five Oregon
lawmakers to propose dipping into the state’s System Benefits Charge
(SBC
) established as part of Oregon’s utility restructuring law for statewide investments in conservation, alternative energy sources and low-income weatherization. Tasked with developing ways to meet the deficit, the lawmakers proposed to divert $30 million or nearly half of the SBC to the state’s general fund.
The Fair and Clean Energy Coalition
(FCEC
), an alliance of consumer and environmental advocates which played a key role in passing the law in 1999, anticipated the threat months ago and ran a quiet, but intense defensive campaign. Jeff Bissonnette
, director of the Coalition, was also preparing to mobilize a louder grassroots response if needed.
Despite reassurances from both Senate party leaders that the proposal wouldn’t go through, Bissonnette and FCEC members and allies took the threat seriously. “Anytime two-thirds of the legislature gets it into their heads to do something, it’s foolish to think it can’t be done. That’s why we’re focusing on the political fight rather than a legal defense.” The Coalition’s efforts paid off. SBC funds were absent from recent budget proposals by the Governor and the Legislature.
The proposal to dip into the energy fund faced some major roadblocks. SBC investments are collected only from customers of Oregon’s investor-owned utilities. Because publicly-owned utility customers do not contribute to it, using SBC revenues for general fund obligations would violate the constitution as a recent legislative counsel opinion confirmed. Overcoming the constitutional block would require a major effort. Similarly, large industrial customers, who can invest part of their contributions to the SBC in their own facilities, would strongly resist allowing that money to flow to the state Treasury.
— Steven Weiss & Mark Glyde