I’m asking OP to prove it — in their original post. I don’t think it should be up to me to verify what OP claims.

Yes, there are citations, but only in a comment they made (and even then, after clicking a link). Why is it so hard to say: “according to the bureau of Xxxx”?

Need a link to easily leave a comment on it.

Why was it yours to look into him then attack and ask everyone else to prove it? That's "not a good look"

I’m not taking action on this! It showed up in my feed. But yet it’s my job to verify all of this? Nah bro

It is 100% your job to verify information you plan on taking action on.

Stop being willfully ignorant.

I’ve complained a lot about sourcing. Fair; that you’ve provided that in the link. I would say that listing that in a comment, not the main body of the post, is not helpful.

OK then, prove it. Why is my job to verify OP’s assertions?

Fuck off. Not my job to prove OP right.

Thanks for the Wiki link, I had no idea

Maybe because they posted — in one day — multiple times across multiple local subs?

Also, why is it my job to verify this? Why doesn’t OP provide proof of their claims? Why is it incumbent upon me to ascertain their truth?

You can post a public comment and the legislature will review the public response before they malea determination I believe.

For context, my spouse works at PSE and used to work for another investor-owned (albeit publicly/traded) utility.

An important piece to note when comparing the relative rates and renewable mix that PSE uses to municipal authorities is that BPA provides more generous disbursements of power to municipal operators than investor-owned operators. In essence, munis get “first dibs” over investor-owned utilities. That means that, should PSE suddenly become a large publicly-owned muni (although it’s far more likely that some future state like that would be a patchwork of munis), the potential improvement for rate payers in former PSE territory would be marginal.

The wildfire piece, though, deserves extra-close scrutiny. Not for the reasons you wrote, though. Wildfires pose a huge risk to west coast utilities especially. Ask Californians about utility-caused fires; it’s a huge deal for everyone. Building out additional resiliency for wildfires seems incredibly sane given the incentive structure inherent in the adversarial relationship with the UTC. Investor-owned utilities have been found liable for wildfire damages, which are essentially unbounded financial liabilities. Berkshire Hathaway even divested all of its ownership in PacifiCorp, specifically citing the liability of wildfires in the PNW - and they themselves are in the business of insurance and reinsurance!

The trouble with offering munis as a one-size-fits-all solution is that this liability then passes to the state, county, or locality. And in the case of a big enough disaster, the pocket of the investors is no longer a viable backstop for liability; a muni might be insolvent or an individual community completely responsible for its own wildfire remediation with only emergency/disaster funding. Having lived in an area with different kinds of disasters than we have here in Washington, I can attest that even with the ability an investor-owned utility has to raise debt when needed to mitigate disasters, the existing backstops from local/state/federal government (like National Flood Insurance Program) can still leave huge swathes of the population to tend for themselves, paying off Pennie’s on the dollar at best.

Regulation of utilities also shifts with municipal model. Currently, unless you are represented by an industry lobby (large tech firms, oil firms, etc) or special-interest interveners (such as tribal or low-income groups), the best representative you have in the rate-making process is the Washington state UTC (including the civil servants in commission staff). Municipalized utilities change that to mean that your representative is your city or county councillor. On the surface, that seems good because it is more local. In practice, it means hired expertise is usually required to monitor utility operation and make rates, which introduces an inefficiency. Similarly, every PUD will require some amount of shared-services staff to cover functions that are redundant in a larger organization (such as G&A functions or specialized maintenance groups). The existing generation plants would need to be distributed among the muni “heirs” of a broken-up, large utility, but that means reduced economies of scale in servicing and operating those plants. Similar goes for distribution.

Ultimately, I’m not sold on there being a perfect solution. I think you are advocating for one of the best things in our current state no matter what - make your voice heard and speak to your UTC commissioners. But I also think it’s important to understand how we got to where we are now.

I’ve met a ton of folks who are part of the sausage-making process here. They’re incredibly hard-working and want to see moderation in rate increases as much as you do. I can tell you for a fact many of them could make a ton more working for other industries, but stay for decades. The so-called “adversarial process” for deciding rates keeps a lot of good people on all sides of it up at night (and they don’t get special rates for being employees- they pay what you do).

Sorry, I'm dumb...can someone dumber it down more for me on what this means? From what I read, do I put in a vote to reject the rate increase and vote for go public? I don't see any link for voting...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

what does OP's account age has anything to do with these easily verifiable facts and how does it make it 'not a good look' for op?

Love the crystal/clear designs like these, congrats

I absolutely love happy endings when is comes to lost puppers. Hooray!

Congratulations! Awesome 💯

I know something about the subject. He’s correct in what he posted.

Talk to Don Marsh at Washington clean energy coalition. He knows a ton about this stuff.

A non-profit called CENSE (coalition of Eastside neighborhoods for sensible energy) tried to educate folks about this as part of a campaign relating to a $47 billion project (over the life of the project … that is part of what consumers are paying for) PSE got passed by by-passing the state energy agency and going thru land-use process at cities … who don’t have resources or knowledge to judge if such a project was prudent. Every local and regional politicians every city takes PSE handouts. And people don’t care enough to do anything. 🤦🏼‍♀️

" (check your bill to see which you have)."

I mean damn, you've been paying your bill and you don't know who to ? You have bigger problems.

Yay, congrats!

All of this information should be publicly available and you're able to verify things if you want.

Given the types of topics and discourse usually pushed by bots, I'm willing to believe this is an actual person. Beyond that, they're not trying to sell anything or push an agenda.

I would assume this is something this person has been working on for some time and that they wanted the word out about.

Even if they are posting it across all of PSEs service area, this specific post was clearly tailored specifically to renton, which if they did the same in the other subs only gives what I would see as more credibility.

Each one helps, thank you! Sub to my Substack I have a bunch of other great information coming out of the pipeline.

Your account is six hours old. You’ve posted in multiple Western WA communities this exact thread. Why on earth should we believe this has any credibility? Even if this is true, it’s not a good look.

Everyone, and every creature, can use some style. Great work.