November 09, 2003
'Oregonian' Columnist Slams Head Of PGE
We've heard much from Peggy Fowler, CEO of Portland General Electric, since this month's failure of the iniatives to create a People's Utility District in Multnomah County, most of it clearly coming from a corporate script designed to spin that election as a vote in favor of continued private control of the utility.
In today's Sunday Oregonian, columnist Steve Duin takes Fowler to task, wondering just how naive PGE thinks we are:
Where do I begin sorting through the soundbites that miss or obscure the point? Approval of PGE and its employees has never been the issue for those who believe the utility and local ratepayers would be safer under public ownership than they are in the private clutches of Enron and a federal bankruptcy court.
As Bob Jenks, executive director of the Citizens Utility Board, noted, "If she (Fowler) wants to interpret the election as something meaningful, they should have run a campaign that was thoughtful and focused. They set the terms of the debate, and they set the terms around property taxes. To say this has some grand meaning about the city of Portland isn't true.
"They spent money ($1.9 million) trying to say government takeover is bad because it's going to raise your property taxes. The city of Portland is looking at a government takeover that isn't going to raise your taxes, that's not going to split the utility into pieces and which isn't about buying PacifiCorp."
Duin also has some perfectly charming information about how much the current CEO of Enron happens to be making as all of the reorganization procedures drag on, part of which is the continuing efforts by PGE to misrepresent what the City of Portland is attempting to do with its proposed buyout.
All of which means, in the end, that unless backers of a City buyout can find a way to seize control of that particular debate as soon as possible, the entire thing likely will play out as an agonizing repeat of the industry spin and faulty discussion we had to sit through regarding the People's Utiltiy District.
Such a buyout may or may not be the proper course of action. But nothing and no one would be well served by a debate on the buyout that's dominated by distortion. I would hope that even Portland residents who oppose a City buyout of PGE would have enough respect for the ability of people to comprehend the issues involved to demand that the utility stop jerking them around.
Comments (4)
jack bog on 09 Nov 2003
Some disconnected late night comments:
1. More Enron rage. Folks, the people who used to own Enron are now out of the picture. The company is in bankruptcy, which means that the people who *lent* it money are now the owners. And they've been screwed, too -- they're getting back way less in value than what they lent to that company.
2. If the idea is to get private profit out of the picture, you're tilting at windmills. The city plan will clearly involve having a private company run the former PGE assets on behalf of the city. Thus, private shareholders will continue to make big bucks off electricity in Portland. And yes, the CEO of that company will no doubt be paid a scandalous fortune. So don't get your hopes up.
3. The PUD lost by a 3-1 margin. Maybe 20% of those voting didn't see it as a vote on public power generally, or were somehow misled by the PGE misinformation. But you still lose, 55%-45%.
4. If PGE goes, you can bet Pacific Power will also move its corporate folks out of Portland. Blood is thicker than water. Who will be the last corporation in Portland?
5. Duin's become a bit of a hothead on this one. His rant on the ballot warning was ill-informed.
6. Rural PGE customers really don't want this.
Dave Lister on 10 Nov 2003
I haven't heard any rumblings to this end, but I'd like to see Pacific Power make a bid to acquire PGE. They maintain fair rates, provide good service and are not tainted by Enron. Most importantly, they know how to run an electric utility. The City does not.
jack bog on 10 Nov 2003
Great idea, Dave! Now if we could only get that message over to Scotland, and Pacific's owners...
P. on 12 Nov 2003
Retort to Jack Bog's comments
1. Enron is bankrupt, and non-Oregonian creditors suffering losses: a great reason to milk Portland ratepayers of every cent possible.
2. Private company to run a city-owned utility: exactly. This means local accountability. If the private company became corrupt, the city would not be powerless; presumably, there would be contracts with periodic renewals. The company would have to earn trust.
3. Politics: exactly. Let it remain political--the city council is elected--but let's hope the discussion looks at the real merits/problems, this time. In the recent vote, some people voted against the scary 50 cent tax increase, others voted b/c they thought the PUD was not the right way for reform. These are two No-vote sectors which could feel differently about a city-owned utility.
4. "Who will be the last corporation in Portland?" This is a tiresome, commynists-under-the-bed argument. I don't think we should base our PGE decisions based on worst case scenarios about Pacific Corp. If they can make a profit locally, they'll stay.
5. Duin a "hothead". That's an argumentum ad hominum, namecalling not debate of issues. "Without merit"--that's an assertion without explanation, an opinionated conclusion not persuasion of facts.
6. Rural--I don't know much about rural PGE customers. I'm not sure I want Portland's decisions based on a tiny minority of rural opinions. A lot of rural Oregonians hate Portland. I read letters to the Oregonian that seem to vilify us. Let's remember that Portland is the economic engine of Oregon, that our tax money leaves our pockets and flows into the rural regions. Whatever merit a city owned utility may offer should offer the same merits to the (few?) rural customers. So the city would be treating them equally. If a city owned utility did not perform well, there would be local political repercussions. We wouldn't be wondering what Wall Street is going to do to PGE.