The Willy Week's article provided an interesting read, but, as I read the thing anyway, I could never get away from the question of whether or not what PGE did was, strictly speaking, legal - and I emphasize the "strictly speaking" bit. There's more on that here.

Even as I'm fairly convinced that both Enron and PGE maximally, and possibly unethically, leveraged their power to bill customers for taxation, their behavior is consistent with that of any other corporation: they're just seeking the greatest possible return on investment. Admitting as much doesn't mean you have to like either like or condone such behavior; so far as I'm concerned, privately-owned utilities ought to bend in their customers favor in exchange for their regional monopoly rights.

Overall, I'm not clear on how far the legal side of this can be pushed; given my impression on the flexibility of accounting rules, I'm guessing not far. The ethical side, the process of either shaming PGE into halting the practice, or prompting the political class to do it for them, that seems to be progressing tolerably well.

I don't think the issue necessarily is whether it is legal or not. The issue is whether a government granted monopoly should be able to collect taxes that they don't pay. If they are not paying the tax, they should reduce their rates.

In a sense, I agree with Kathleen. But I'm speaking only to the issue of what can be done rather than what any given person thinks should be done. If they're not actually doing anything strictly illegal, the only leverage folks have to halt the practice is political. An example of what's happened so far is the Senate bill Rick Metsger (among others, but I can't remember names) worked to pass regarding auditing of the utilities' books.

"'Simply put, Portland General Electric is not Enron,' the utility's CEO, Peggy Fowler, testified in a City Hall hearing in August 2002." (from Jaquiss' story)

Did anyone else see the movie Erin Brockovitch? Wasn't that about PGE poisoning people and covering it up--before Enron ever entered the picture?

Not Enron, indeed.

Caelan,

FYI: The compay in the movie about Erin Brockovitch was probably PG&E (Pacific Gas & Electric), a California utility.

Nonetheless, PGE is Enron. Enron is evil. Was when Public Utilitity Commission approved Enron's purhase of PGE. How do we know the PUC isn't going to allow Pacificorp to be bought by a company just as evil? What can we do about it?

Here's a two word solution: public power.

The good news is that Dr. Kenneth Lay, disgraced former CEO of Enron made MILLIONS off us sleepy Portlanders... with much of the money ending up in George W. Bush's bank account since Lay was W's biggest donor in 2000... he even gave W a ride to the inaugural on "Hooters One"... the corporate nickname for Enron's jet.

One of my neighbors in Hawthorne is one of "KennyBoy's Boyz"... a little man named Timmy Belkin... who talks too much... in court... and at the park.

Add Peggy Fowler to those who took advantage of us sleepy Oregonians. Question is are Oregonians going to let her do it again?

How do you think Peggy Fowler would look in an orange jumpsuit?

If Dan Meek is right, that sounds like theft of more than a million bucks. If I walk out of my apartment right now and go steal $20 from the Plaid Pantry, I'm doing time. What happens if you steal a million bucks? You get a big fat bonus???

We live in a screwed up world. If there is any justice in this state, there will be jail time, plus refunds, if it's found that anyone intentionally took that money. Personally, I've had enough corporate kleptocracy to last a lifetime.

Dan- You have performed a tremendous service to our community with your dogged persistence in uncovering the truth of PGE's various taxation schemes.

Thank you.

PGE may be guilty of fraud, and a few executives may go to prison, but there are more important issues here.

• PGE used its political and economic power to parasitize Oregonians long before Enron existed. Enron's ownership has been a nightmare for employees, but customers and taxpayers have only been screwed as usual.

• PGE's ability to suck up money it doesn't deserve and confiscate assets to which it has no right has always depended on the complicity of government. The legislature and OPUC have written the laws and regulations that allow such unethical behavior.

As I have written here before, the regulated monopoly model of delivering electric power does not work. Only public ownership [or possibly some very serious campaign finance reform] can prevent the perpetual robbery of serous amounts of money.

Info at Utility Reform Project and CheapPower

As Dan Meek correctly points out, and it is Dan who really ferreted this out, the mechanism employed by PGE results in Multnomah County customers paying substantially more than they would otherwise without that money going to the Multnomah County taxing authorities. It is the differnce between an unregulated business and a regulated utility. In exchange for having a built in captive set of cusotmers and guaranteed profit, the utility gives up certain otherwise legal activites. While offsetting of tax liabilities against tax losses among the PGE/Enron subsidiaries and affiliates is "legal" under IRS rules, it is inconsistent with the regulatory trade-off. The Oregon Public Uitlity Commisison determines (after extensive examination) what is the appropiate level of profit for the company. By using this strategem, PGE secretly increases its total profits at the expense of its customers.

The real issue is one of transperancy and fairness. If PGE had listed the tax on the bills as "Multnomah County tax, but of course we do not expect to actually pay this to Multnomah County due to the use of legal tax loop holes," it would be full disclosure but no one would be willing to pay it. If The PUC limited PGE's guaranteeed profit by saying that the PUC did so with the expectation that PGE would use all legal loopholes to otherwise increase its profits, PGE would howl. What PGE did was legal but not appropriate for an unregualted utiity. It was deceptive since the Commisison was not fully advised that PGE was using the strategy and thus when the PUC set the level of PGE profits it was not considered. Neither were the customers advised that the money really wasn't going to be paid to the relevant taxing authority. Given the significance of the Enron scandals, one would hope that PGE would opt for honesty and full disclosure. No matter what else, no one can argue that there was sufficnet disclosure to know what was happeneing and why.

I'd like to thank Dan Meek for all his work on this issue on behalf of the regular folks in Portland who turn on the lights and pay their bills.

Anyone who thinks CEOs worry about the little guy hasn't been in a corporate board meeting in the past 15 years.

They do not care for us, in fact many mock us since they want all of our money and nothing else.

In the meantime, we have folks like Mr. Meek (and Randy Leonard) helping, so thank you, again.

I'd like to thank Dan Meek for all his work on this issue on behalf of the regular folks in Portland who turn on the lights and pay their bills.

Anyone who thinks CEOs worry about the little guy hasn't been in a corporate board meeting in the past 15 years.

They do not care for us, in fact many mock us since they want all of our money and nothing else.

In the meantime, we have folks like Mr. Meek (and Randy Leonard) helping, so thank you, again.

I have some questions. Is PGE a taxing authority? My limited understanding is that the local taxing authorities like the county and such are the entities that have been asking PGE to be collecting taxes for them. Is this true?

If there is any basis to my thought, why would the county ask a business to perform tax collection for them when they have that right already and are exercising it already?

Once PGE collects taxes, aren't they then subject to Oregon and Federal Tax code that might compromise the intent of the county?

Are there any agreements between the county and PGE regarding these taxes? If so, why didn't the county call PGE when they failed to get revenue.

Has the county just blindly expected this as another tream of money? Could this recent issue be more a reflection of misguided intent at the county or conflicted policy than specific wrongdoing?

<h2>Too many questions.</h2>