Guest View-Shirl Lamonna: The Unintended Consequences Of An Energy Amendment

Resident Shirl Lamonna spoke at the last Oro Valley Town Council meeting regarding the proposed energy amendment to the General Plan.  Her remarks were heard by Council and the few who remained in the room at 11:30 that night.  We felt her remarks deserved the "light of day."

---
What do a rancher, governor, poultry producer, gas station manager and restaurant owner all have in common? Certainly not much in their daily lives – but they’ve all come together to petition the EPA to waive the ethanol requirement that diverts corn from food to an inefficient fuel and directly affects the price of food in grocery stores and restaurants due to this summer’s drought.

Yes. This mandate has created winners and losers, and the aforementioned group falls into the losing category: the ranchers who don’t have food for their livestock; the convenience stores faced with exiting the business or investing hundreds of thousands of dollars to retrofit fueling equipment; the poultry producers who have to pay exorbitant prices to meet their corn needs; the restaurants that each must pay $18K more annually due to higher food prices; and all of us who have to pay more for the foods we consume.

I share this as a perfect example of the "law of unintended consequences" – where the actions of people and government always have effects that are unanticipated or unintended.

And that’s my fear with the proposed energy amendment to the general plan. Oh it sounds good. Who doesn’t want to save energy and  protect the environment for future generations? But why do this now when it’s not required for a town of our size; when the politics and corruption of climate science has been revealed in 129 different scandals? When the AZ legislature is likely to pass a bill prohibiting the implementation of such requirements?

We’ve been told that this plan is voluntary, not mandatory. I’m a bit skeptical on that. In order to meet goals, the town will have to tap into energy savings in the 2 biggest usage groups: residential and transportation. This will be accomplished thru supporting regional and state programs and the adoption of the International Energy Conservation Code which places strict regulations not only on new construction but also on alterations, renovations and remodels of residential housing.  Please don’t misunderstand: There is nothing wrong with all this if you want it, but everything is wrong if you don’t.

Where’s our freedom of choice?

Shouldn’t we have the right to choose to live in an apartment or a single family home with a yard?

Shouldn’t we have the right to choose how we face our house on our lot and whether to purchase solar with its lengthy payback period and how high to set our thermostats for heat or air?

Shouldn’t we be able to use standard lightbulbs and  protect ourselves from the hazards of breaking CFL bulbs containing mercury?

Shouldn’t we be able to say "no" to Smart meters given the World Health Organization’s classification of them as a carcinogen on par with lead and DDT?

Shouldn’t we be able to plant trees in our yard for privacy?

Shouldn’t we be able to choose the type of covers and heaters for our pools?

Shouldn’t we consider whether white roofs are really a good idea for the desert given the Stanford Study which found that reflecting sunlight back into space could prevent cloud formation and therefore cause higher overall temperatures or reduce rainfall?

And shouldn’t we be able to choose the type of car we drive?  How many of the mere 55,000 electric cars sold nationwide in the last 3 yrs can possibly be in Oro Valley.  So, why are we investing in more battery charging stations?

Clearly, the addition of this energy amendment to our general plan has the potential for unintended consequences on Oro Valley residents and businesses at a time when the economy is already suffering. Is that what you want for our Oro Valley?
---

Why The Energy Amendment Didn't Pass

---
Last Wednesday, the Oro Valley Town Council held a public hearing on a general plan amendment that would add a new element to the General Plan:  The Energy Element.  The item failed 5-2.   A second motion to include this item in the 2015 General Plan also failed.

The amendment touched on things such as the color of a roof; requiring construction to have solar compatibility in new or remodeled residences.  Suggesting how a home should be oriented vis a vis the sun in order to maximize "energy efficiency".

The concern by some on Council was that these ideas will eventually turn into mandates.  This they believe to be true even if "they" tell us "it ain't so."  There are some who do not like mandates, whether it be the Government telling you to use hazardous light bulbs that use mercury; or a homeowners association dictating the color of you house.

The discussion of this amendment began more than six hours into the council meeting.

Council Member Bill Garner "cut to the chase." Adding an energy element is not required until the Town reaches a population of 50,000. Oro Valley's current population is 41,000.  In addition, he asked why the town is spending its' time on things that we are already doing in the community, since some of the items in the amendment are already being done by residents and businesses in the town.  "We are putting mandates in.... We are (already) as a community being sustainable."

Mayor Hiremath noted that he was troubled with what he saw as mandates in this amendment:  "If all the woulds, were shoulds," He noted  "I'd be more comfortable with it."   He noted that these ideas increase the cost of new homes by $1,000.  "A non mandated policy would be a much easier transition."

Council Member Hornat noted that there is no reason to mandate anything.  He noted that when the market will justify the costs, the ideas will be implemented. "I cant' support this. This just goes way too far... Our energy element, if we ever have one, should be two sentences:  We think its a good idea. Be aware."  Later, he noted that "we have no business of being in this business," referring to the business of regulating individual behavior.

Council Member Zinkin, a supporter of energy conservation, noted: "We are two years away from having the voters approve an updated General  Plan. Let them decide on this."  He stated that he does not view the amendment as a mandate; rather he sees it as a document stating the vision of what Oro Valley would like to see in energy conservation.

Council Member Burns spoke in favor of the amendment, feeling that the amendment is about "energy conservation."  He did not consider the amendment a manage.  It would be a mandate only if it was approved by the voters in an updated general plan. He believe that the amendment, if approved by Council, should only be considered a guide and a vision; that it should not become "law."

Council Member Waters did not speak on the matter. Council Member Snider asked questions to clarify the meaning of portions of the amendment.

The public hearing segment of the program was sparse, with only three speakers enduring the long 6 hour 30 minute wait to speak on this issue.  One, from the Southern Arizona Home Builder's Association ("SAHBA"), noted that the ideas in the amendment suggested the possibility of future mandates.  One, resident Bill Adler, said that the amendment is a "direction document" that could be ignored if the council wished as, he alleges, council has ignored other parts of the general plan.  Resident Shirl Lammona noted the many unintended consequences that government regulations in this area cause.

Clearly, there is room for understanding on both sides of the issue.  Was this amendment a "directional document" stating a vision; or was it a document upon which code would be based?  

"If the town is supportive of this, then they will support it," noted Council Member Garner, speaking of it's possible inclusion in the 2015 General Plan update.

We would like to see new version of the energy element; one that states it as a vision; one that, in no way, suggests that it requires mandatory action and building code inclusion; one that does not appear to be a mandate; one that is created by residents who bring differing views to the document.  We would like to see this version included in the 2015 General Plan Update. Then, let the voters decide.
---

Bits and Pieces

---
  The USAT announced that the Duathalon National Championship, which occurs in Oro Valley, will run in October 26, 2013.  This is a move of the event from  April.

The Duathalon will serve as the 2013 Paraduathlon National Championship.
----

The Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously approved adding an energy element to the general plan.  The amendment next moves to the Oro Valley Town Council for discussion and possible enactment.
---
Last Wednesday night's armed home invasion on the 11000 block of North Meadow Sage is a grim reminder that no town, even one protected as Oro Valley, is immune from the crime.  The crime occurred in the early evening with the resident home.  It was a brazen crime committed by three underage youths. They will most certainly be caught and have the pleasure of spending years in juvenile detention.
---

Fry's (Rooney Ranch) is at it again. This time they have eight pallets of grocery items in front of their entrance. This has got to violate some code.  If it doesn't violate some code than it ought to.

We, too, want to support  Oro Valley business; but moving "tons" of in-store merchandise outside, blocking the entrance and exit is, at a minimum,  a safety hazard.

That said, on the way in there is a beautiful display of seasonal floral between the two entrance/exit ways.
---

Energy General Plan Amendment: Foolishness

---

Tonight there is the second hearing on a proposed energy general plan amendment. This is the last hearing before the measure moves to town council. The  hearing is being conducted by the Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Commission.  The idea of inserting an energy element into the general plan was approved for further evaluation by the town council in April.  Since then, town staff, with the aid of others, and after several neighborhood meetings, has proposed a 5-page amendment.

The proposed energy amendment is solely about renewable energy.  It includes:

• Ensure new residential, multi-family, and commercial buildings, as appropriate, are constructed with cost effective measures to accommodate future solar systems. (14.1.8)
• Develop design guidelines and incentives to encourage the passive and active solar orientation of lots during the planning stages of new subdivisions (14.1.9)
• Establish design guidelines to address the positioning of pole-mounted solar systems. (14.1.11)
• Adopt the most up-to-date International Energy Conservation Code in concert with regional jurisdictions and stakeholders.(14.2.3)

It even includes an education plan for the town to engage.
---
Here are are three reasons why this propose general plan amendment should not be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission:

1. A general plan amendment should be done only for something that requires urgent remediation.  This is not the case with this proposed energy amendment to the general plan.  There is no urgency at all.  In fact, the town is not required by the State of Arizona to include an energy element to his general plan until the population reaches 50,000.  We are at least five years from that.  So, we ask, where's the fire?
2. A cost effective renewable energy technology has not yet been developed. It is not feasible to ask homebuilders to build to a future standard technology that does not exist today.
3. The amendment will substantially increase the cost of construction both residential and commercial in Oro Valley.  It will put Oro Valley at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to attracting commercial and residential construction.  This is just the opposite of what most on council want to do.

There is also a fourth reason that this proposed amendment should not be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission.   It is that the area of renewable energy is subject to political debate.  Not everyone is in agreement that doing these things are necessary or that they make sense.   Adding this element to the general plan requires getting approval of the voters, not the opinion of a few.

---

---