PUD II

October 21, 2003 · Posted in Happy Fun! 

Haven’t gotten any research done (though check out Jack Bog and Portland Communique, but browsing Pacific Power propaganda, one thing reached out to me and stuck a thought in my brain: I’d pay an extra $.007/kwh to have my power company be called Surprise Valley Electrification.

Tags: no tags

Comments

  • nader
    When the ads coming from the citizens-organized-by-PGE-spawn-of-enron can't present one legitimate argument against the PUD it makes me suspicious. Especially when we already know they have a financial interest in avoiding a PUD.

    The ads say no one can guarantee that rates won't rise - well, duh! No one can guarantee they won't rise under PGEnron either. The ads say, a PUD would have to buy their power from someone else - well that's nothing new. Many power distributors are not the power producers, and quite frankly I think it's better that way. As long as the power producers also control the distribution, there is a possibility for manipulation.

    I am not saying that there aren't any possible downsides to a PUD, but I they aren't readily apparent. And the hard-sell doom and gloom politics of fear that is mounting such and active (and expensive) campaign to defeat the PUD are most certainly motivated by more than just good will and community spirit - One cannot ignore the fact that those arguing against the PUD stand to lose a giant cash cow, so prudence demands we view their arguments with a healthy dose of skepticism
  • It's tough for me to believe anything coming out of the mouths of PGE, er, the Cititzens when it comes to this issue. Check out last Sunday's Big O for Columbia County's experiences in 1999 when they voted to switch to a PUD. And, remember PGE's vociferous campaign against the ballot measure in the early '90s that would have directed them to shut down Trojan. They turned around two months later and shut it down anyway but totally at the expense of the ratepayers.
blog comments powered by Disqus