Residents tell Lane County commissioners EWEB estimated bills have left households with triple charges

Several Lane County residents told the Board of County Commissioners on March 18 that estimated billing practices by the Eugene Water & Electric Board have produced unexpectedly large electric charges for households in the Cedar Flat and Springfield areas.

At the commissioners' public-comment period, Diane Bernal said her February bill showed roughly 3,700 kilowatt-hours and a $429 charge, compared with a winter average of about $144. "If I add the increase to my cold month average of a hundred and $44, I would expect my bill to be about a hundred and $64, not 429," Bernal told the board. She said EWEB staff told her a previous January bill was an estimate and that the January meter reading was an undercount to which later usage had been added.

Marie Latino, who said she lives in Springfield on Cedar Flat, described a bill of $898 for a 29-day cycle and said she paid it even though she could not reconcile the usage. "There are people on social security," she said, describing neighbors who received thousand-dollar bills. "EWEB needs to deal with their customer service. They need to communicate with them." Lauren Remington told the board her winter bills had risen steadily over decades and that recent bills of $526 and $589 were forcing her to consider selling her home.

Speakers alleged EWEB had read meters in their neighborhoods despite the utility later labeling bills as estimates. Bernal said EWEB meter-reading staff were seen in her neighborhood on the scheduled read day and that she was told by a supervisor, Jason Stewart, that her questions had "shot a hole in all of my reasons." Latino told the board she had seen meter-reading trucks in her area and criticized what she called a lack of transparency and accountability from the public agency.

No board action on EWEB was taken at the meeting. County leaders acknowledged the public concern: the chair said the county respects First Amendment rights but asked commenters to avoid personal attacks. County staff did not offer a formal investigation timeline at the meeting; several public commenters said they planned to raise the issue with EWEB's board.

The testimony included specific numeric claims about individual bills and meter reads made by residents; the county did not independently verify those figures during the meeting. The speakers repeatedly urged clearer communication from EWEB and better customer-service responses to disputed bills.

Ending: The board did not vote on any EWEB-related measure at the March 18 meeting. Commissioners and county staff said they are aware of the public concern; residents in affected neighborhoods said they plan to pursue the matter with EWEB and the utility's governing board.