PORT ANGELES — An undecided Clallam County Public Utility District Commission did not take formal action Monday on a settlement with Bonneville Power Administration that would affect power rates over the next 17 years.
For the settlement to pass, wholesale customers representing 91 percent of Bonneville’s power load — among them Clallam PUD — would have to agree to the settlement.
Because so far 6 percent of districts have voted a firm no and an additional 7.3 percent have either indicated they do not intend to act — essentially a “no” vote — or have a staff recommendation to vote no, it doesn’t look like the settlement will pass whether or not Clallam PUD voted on the issue, Fred Mitchell, power supply and utility services manager, told commissioners at their meeting.
Clallam PUD provides electricity to all of Clallam County except to customers inside the Port Angeles city limit.
The city of Port Angeles, also a wholesale buyer from BPA, is one of the 7.3 percent that has recommendation to vote no on the agreement from an advisory committee.
The City Council will consider the recommendation when it meets at 6 p.m. today in the council chambers at City Hall, 321 E. Fifth St.
Mitchell said if the settlement agreement passed among the wholesale buyers by the 91 percent and then passed through Congress, it would save the average residential customer about $30 per year on his or her electric bill. He said if litigated, there was potential to save up to $50 per year per residential customer.
Commissioner Hugh Haffner spoke in favor of signing the agreement.
“There is always the element of rolling the dice when you go the litigation route,” he said.
Although Commissioners Will Purser and Ted Simpson both spoke of wanting to vote against the settlement, both expressed concern about the settlement proceeding against Clallam PUD wishes.
The costs of that litigation would then be borne by a smaller number of utilities, as opposed to the large number now fighting Bonneville’s rates, Mitchell said.
“If it passed, Bonneville would probably treat the non-signers just like those who signed it,” Mitchell said. “But then if there were litigation and a ruling decided that they could not treat the non-signers the same, then there would probably be some other sort of litigation.”
Purser said he didn’t want his vote to be swayed based on what other agencies were doing, but that it does pose a problem.
“I’m concerned because if we vote no, we could end up in a scenario that [Mitchell] just described,” he said. “But I feel that the settlement is an injustice as well. Even so, I’m inclined to vote no.”
The city and PUD must decide whether or not to adopt the agreement by April 15. The PUD board meets again Monday at 1:30 p.m.
________
Reporter Paige Dickerson can be reached at 360-417-3535 or at paige.dickerson@peninsuladailynews.com.
