November 05, 2003
(Updated) More Coverage On PUD Vote Aftermath
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.
Today's Oregonian post-mortems the PUD vote and what, if anything, it means for the future:
The vote is not an obituary for public power. The city of Portland is still trying to buy 114-year-old PGE from Enron. And PUD supporters are seeking to put similar measures on five other county ballots.
...
Brian Gard, chairman of the opposition campaign, Citizens Against the Government Takeover, called the no vote "surprisingly strong."
"This is a pretty strong mandate that not only did (voters) not want this little tax, but, more importantly, that they didn't want a PUD," Gard said. "At the very least this should give the city serious pause."
Portland City Commissioner Erik Sten, who is helping lead the city's efforts to acquire PGE, said he does not read the outcome as a rejection of public power given the lopsided campaign spending.
Sten, who remained officially neutral in the campaign, said a city purchase of PGE would not require property taxes, threaten PacifiCorp or split PGE's service territory, as the PUD effort would have.
"There's no good reason to trust Enron because this ballot measure went down," Sten said. "It doesn't solve the problems this community has either way, and I think we need to keep working on a solution that does."
Elsewhere, the paper editorializes on the matter as well, calling the proposed City of Portland takeover of PGE "a more carefully considered" and "a sober, careful project" as compared to the PUD initiatives.
OPB also covers the continuing debate over what messages should be taken from the election, and what the opposing parties in the PUD battle think it means for the City's plans for PGE. Industry flacks continue to call the PUD vote a referendum on the very idea of public power, while PUD partisans continue to argue that Enron will do all it can to break up PGE.
Meanwhile, KATU interviewed PGE's Chief Executive Officer, although they didn't appear to bother asking her about the future of PGE, settling instead for simply letting her put out the company's spin on the election essentially unchallenged.
Tomorrow's Portland Mercury, unsurprisingly, slams the vote, mainly placing the blame on the financial imbalances in the campaign.
While I continue to believe that was a major factor in all of this, there's some fair criticism from Jack Bogdanski in comments to this earlier item pointing out the failure of PUD backers to try to seize control of the debate early, before the monied interests organized their front group -- for example, by "sitting down with The Oregonian editorial board a year ago."
Further meanwhile, Emma sees the campaign as evidence of the failure of the so-called Oregon System of direct democracy.
Update
Well, now the public discussion between the City and PGE is starting to get a little rougher, as indicated by comments from Peggy Fowler, PGE's CEO, and Commissioner Erik Sten in today's Oregonian:
Enron would consider another offer from the city, she said. "They always have another opportunity if they can get everything together and tidy up financing," she said. "The city hasn't been able to step up to that."
But Fowler said investors would be better able to bear the risks and costs of raising capital needed by a utility. She added that the city should focus on areas of its traditional responsibility, such as public safety and roads.
"If customers were going to get a huge price decrease because of this, I would be more easily convinced," she said. "But I don't see the advantages."
Sten said Fowler's comments on the city's offer appear to break confidentiality vows insisted upon by Enron that have kept the city from detailing all of its case.
"I'm assuming from Ms. Fowler's comments that the confidentiality agreement no longer applies," he said. "I'm going to confirm that before making more comments.