On Nov. 4 we will be asked “yes” or “no” on the formation of a Whidbey Public Utility District (PUD) which, theoretically, would result in public ownership and operation of the current PSE electrical system on Whidbey Island. The PUD impetus has been generated by a political group of well-meaning individuals (“YES on Whidbey PUD”), some of whom are campaigning for appointment to the proposed PUD Commission.

Three “potential cost studies” have been presented, none independent. One is by the Washington State PUD Association; the second by an “independent” corporation with the bill paid by PSE. The third is a “preliminary feasibility study” by “YES on Whidbey PUD’’ based on previous work by an unidentified “reputable regional engineering and consulting company ”with data “tailored” for Whidbey – a collection of detailed assumptions based on unidentified sources with an implied “trust us” message.

The “Yes” group says the PSE infrastructure is worth about $57 million – the PSE funded study estimates a minimum value of $130 million. Mutually stated themes are we need a detailed feasibility study and there will be litigation, potentially big time, expensive, and taking years to resolve.

From where would the money come to pay for all that which must be done before we can ever “flick a switch” and say, “That is my power and it costs less than I have been paying PSE!”? It could start with a new property tax of up to 45 cents per $1,000 of assessed property – no additional vote of the people required!

“YES” states the initial levy will be very much lower. What real assurances are given that the levy will stay at a low rate? It only takes a two week notice of a PUD Commission meeting and one public hearing to change the levy to the highest legal limit – by vote of the commission, not the public.

“YES” believes our electricity rates could go down 20 percent when the PUD is up and running. PSE states the rate would increase by 20 percent. When could we expect that paying the PSE rates plus a levy for a number of years until the PUD is operational would be balanced out by the anticipated PUD reduced rates? How many years?

I applaud the obviously dedicated group for their efforts to bring the matter to our attention. But why didn’t they take a logical and more conventional route of presenting the matter to the Island County Commissioners, requesting the county contract for an independent expert feasibility and cost study. A short term property tax levy increase approved by the public might be needed to fund the study, but the obligation should not approach that which could be established by a PUD. After the public is informed, let there be a vote.

County commissioners and local elected officials have generally been quiet and noncommittal. Why? The county commissioners recently renewed the 20 year franchise agreement with PSE. Will this further complicate the legal scene? Did they take the PUD ballot measure into consideration when granting the franchise? We need their voices and conclusions to assist us in determining “yes” or “no.”

I fear we have been presented with the opportunity to establish a “PUD in a poke” (poke: To make a risky purchase without inspecting the item beforehand. To accept a plan without full understanding of its basis). Up or down – yes or no. It sounds great, but is it? I don’t know as yet, from independent expert sources, which way to go. Therefore I will vote no but encourage the PUD group to pursue their target with a more conventional approach.

Bruce Williams

Coupeville