To the editor:

Local PUD. For me, the case hasn’t yet been made.

I’ve been an island resident for over a dozen years and have been following the news and discussions surrounding this November’s vote on forming a local PUD here on Whidbey.

Though I generally support the idea of local control, for me, the case has not yet been made that a local PUD is of benefit.

One argument I’ve heard is that a local PUD could respond more quickly to winter power outages.

Being a large company, Puget Sound Energy has a much larger work force to call upon during service disruptions. I’m not sure that a local PUD could keep that many workers and equipment “on call” for those times that they are needed.

I’m reminded here of just how long it takes the “local” snowplow to come down my road (if at all) after a snowstorm. In truth (and in its defense), the county just can’t afford to keep many snowplows around when they are used so infrequently. Would a local PUD be in the same situation when responding to power outages here on the island? (It’s interesting to note also that during the last few storm seasons, other communities like Kenmore and Woodinville had outages that lasted much longer than ours.)

Another argument, and perhaps the strongest one, is the fact that the PUD would be controlled locally, and be answerable to the residents of Whidbey Island.

Local control seems like a good idea, but, unfortunately, it doesn’t always equate to good decision-making.

One example of this is the illegal sale of millions of dollars in bonds a few years ago by the Holmes Harbor Sewer District.

The sale was approved by locally-elected commissioners, despite advice to them by their attorney and the state that the sale was illegal. It seems that greed won out, despite “local” control of the district. This is an extreme example (and one that is thankfully rare) but it does point out that locally controlled utilities are not always exempt from illegal and costly mistakes.

I’ve also heard the case made that a PUD would offer cheaper rates, in part, because it could buy power wholesale, at a better rate than Puget Sound Energy.

It seems here that the “facts” are split: An independent report commissioned by Puget Sound Energy says that a local PUD would be more costly, while those favoring a PUD say that it would provide savings (and that the Puget Sound Energy report is biased). On this point, I just can’t decide, and, unfortunately, I’m not sure I’ll ever have enough information to make an informed decision.

My final though is more philosophical. I know that there may be many reasons to support a locally-controlled utility (and I’ll keep an open mind to that), just as there are arguments to be made for the economies of scale offered by a larger utility.

But if the decision is about the fact that Puget Sound Energy is not restoring power fast enough here on Whidbey, I’d have to vote no to a local PUD. I’ve decided to live here on the island, knowing full well the constraints that come with that choice: Winters are dark and cold, the roads then can be icy, sometimes the ferry stops running, the winds come up and the power goes out. These are some of the facts of island life, and I don’t think a local PUD has the power to change that, nor would I want it to.

David Freed

Clinton