‘Emergency’ cry can’t mask motive

Houston, you have a problem.

Although a majority on Houston City Council shot down an ordinance late last week that would have declared an energy emergency in the small Southcentral city, it should worry all local residents that three of seven council members — Roger Purcell, Lee Himes and Rosemary Burnett — are willing to take such a drastic action as a knee-jerk reaction to escalating fuel prices.

Rising energy costs are a concern for us all and it’s proper for local governments to consider how they can be part of long-lasting solutions so that what is now a concern doesn’t bloom into an emergency. With gasoline prices in the Mat-Su Valley hovering at an average of about $4.069 a gallon for regular unleaded over the past week, we may be feeling more of a pinch at the pump, but nothing like what some other Alaska towns are facing.

In Bethel, regular unleaded is selling for between $4.64 and $4.98 a gallon, in Seward, $4.40, and $4.29 in Skagway. How higher prices are affecting Houston families should be a concern for the council and its residents. By attempting to declare Houston’s situation an “emergency” is not only premature, but does a disservice to the residents of the city who deserve a seat at the table in making long-term energy decisions.

It’s no secret that Purcell has been an advocate for some time of bringing a wood pellet plant to Houston. It was Purcell who drafted the proposed emergency ordinance in what seems a thinly veiled attempt to use rising fuel prices as a way to circumvent public input into the wood-pellet project. Should the council declare an “emergency,” it could then move forward on Purcell’s pet pellet plant project that would, under normal circumstances, have to be put under the public’s microscope first.

Mayor Sandy McDonald voted against declaring an emergency because the pellet plant is a project “Councilman Purcell would like to see move forward,” she said. “[It] has not gone under the scrutiny of the public and I believe it deserves it.”

Purcell says the issue must be treated as an emergency to try to secure funding from the state Legislature as it meets in special session next month. Purcell doesn’t indicate what sort of relief he expects the Legislature to dole out specifically to Houston, nor why Houston should receive preferential treatment, nor why the narrowly focused special session would or should be expanded to deal with any Houston-only “emergency.”

It seems clear to us Purcell is hoping the pellet plant will get a boost from the Legislature once it gets the blessing of city council. We wonder if Purcell’s sense of urgency has as much to do with his concern how the public will greet the pellet proposal, when it goes to public hearing, as the timing of the special session.

Like the boy who cried “wolf,” Purcell’s cry of “emergency” lacks sincerity and any basis that there is now a true emergency facing the people of Houston. Inflation, higher gasoline prices and higher fuel oil prices — and how those affect the marketplace — are inconvenient and worrisome. Is it enough to take money set aside to build a new city hall and use it to hire energy consultants, as the emergency ordinance had outlined?

Perhaps, but not without input and participation from residents on how to best use their money. Houston is in the same boat as the rest of Southcentral Alaska and much of the Lower 48. We all need to consider ways to conserve and make our energy dollars go further. It starts in the home. If it means eating out less each week, carpooling more or keeping the thermostat a couple of degrees cooler, then do it.

Should the energy crunch continue, Houston, Alaska and the United States may very well face an energy emergency in the not-so-distant future. For now, Purcell’s cry of “emergency” raises more eyebrows than alarm.