Policy group's report backs power by PSE over PUDs
By Jeff Chew, Peninsula Daily News
Print This |
Email This
Recent Headlines
Suit filed to block hatchery salmon in Elwha River -- 2/9/12 -08:19 PM
Nominate volunteers for Clallam County Community Service Award -- 1/21/12 -09:01 PM
Nominate your community hero for Jefferson County Heart of Service award -- 1/18/12 -09:19 AM
Supporters of a vote to approve electric-service authority for the Jefferson County Public Utility District criticized the latest findings as off the mark for the East County — and somewhat inaccurate.
"Staying with the private utility company would likely result in a continuation of current levels of power service at roughly the same rates," policy analyst Brandon Houskeeper wrote in his review of ballot proposals in Jefferson, Island and Skagit counties.
Similar proposals to turn over the PSE electrical franchise to PUD's are also in Island and Skagit counties.
"Taking the evidence as a whole, it appears unlikely that shifting to government-owned utilities in Jefferson, Island and Skagit counties would result in improved service or reduced costs for residents and business owners."
Policy study
Washington Policy Center provides research for policymakers, the media and the general public as an independent, nonpartisan research and education organization located in Seattle.
The center publishes reports, sponsors events and conferences and educates citizens on public policy issues facing the region.
The Jefferson County proposal to grant the PUD — which now provides sewer and water services — new authority to go into the power business if the PUD commissioners choose is on the Nov. 4 ballot.
Houskeeper's analysis reports six basic conclusions:
In Jefferson County estimates range from as low as $30 million to $69 million (in a PUD-sponsored Hittle report) to $77 million to $100 million (from a PSE consultant).
'Vigorous debate'
Citing a "vigorous debate" over the issue of PUD power over Puget Sound Energy, Houskeeper said readers of his analysis "can judge for themselves what the true costs might be."
Bill Wise, co-facilitator of Citizens for Local Power, which supports the Nov. 4 ballot measure which appears as Proposition 1, cited "gaffes" in the report, including the statement that utility bills are taxes.
"The reality is that utility bills are utility bills," said Wise.
"A PUD operates at cost. Studies show that taxes are basically not a factor."
Citizens for Local Power list the PUD as a nonprofit, publicly operated agency compared with a private, shareholder-driven company such as Puget Sound Energy.
There would be no loss or gain in taxes with PUD power authority, Wise contends.
"PUD is limited in raising [property] taxes by 1 percent by the Eyman initiative," he said.
Wise was also critical of Houskeeper's reference to PUDs being at more risk of rate increases.
"This is a company that has raised rates eight times in the past six years," Wise said of Puget Sound Energy.
Wise also complained that the analysis widely quoted from PSE's contracted feasibility study of the costs and ramifications of PUD acquiring its Jefferson County facilities.
Wise called the UtiliPoint International study flawed in its conclusions about higher power rates with PUDs.
He said that while fuel cost continue to rise for PSE, hydropower guaranteed by Bonneville for new PUDs — including Jefferson — ensures more stable rates.
"The WPC report seems to have missed the fact that Jefferson County can get almost 100 percent of its power from BPA," he said, adding that the creation of 67 new jobs and a 6 million operating budget for PUD was also overlooked in the report.
________
Jefferson County Editor Jeff Chew can be reached at 360-385-2335 or jeff.chew@peninsuladailynews.com.
Last modified: October 01. 2008 9:00PM