Shining a light on PGE
Randy Leonard
This past Thursday I made the following remarks to the Public Utility Commission. It was the first of two hearings, the second one being March 25, 2006, in which the PUC will decide whether to conduct an investigation of PGE's various practices.
City of Portland
DATE: March 2, 2006
TO: Public Utility Commission
FROM: Portland City Commissioner Randy Leonard
RE: Portland General Electric
The City of Portland is initiating a process to resolve fundamental questions about PGE’s rate setting, tax collection, tax payment, and accounting practices. The answers to those questions may lead to the City of Portland exercising its authority to set rates for PGE customers residing within the City limits of Portland.
The following list outlines key areas of interest to the City of Portland that we believe should be resolved completely in any rate setting process for a public utility:
1. PGE is a profitable entity whose tax liability has been engulfed by the massive losses of its parent company Enron. However, there are multiple provisions of state law which enable the State to retain those dollars paid by ratepayers for State taxes in Oregon, instead of having them paid to Enron:
The Department of Revenue is authorized by ORS 314.280 (OAR 150-314-280(M)) to require the segregated method of reporting for a public utility. This is the alternative to the consolidated method of reporting, which is the current practice of PGE and Enron and allows PGE and Enron to combine their income for tax reporting purposes. The consolidated method in this case has reduced or eliminated any tax debt to Oregon for PGE because of substantial losses reported by Enron. Under the status quo, any PGE tax debts are paid to Enron as cash and not to State government.
Additionally, ORS 314.670 states that where the reporting requirement utilized does not fairly represent the extent of the taxpayer’s business in the State, the Department of Revenue may require separate accounting, which would dramatically increase PGE’s tax liability in the State of Oregon, since nearly all its income is derived within the State.
Finally, even though PGE and Enron have been allowed to use the consolidated method of reporting, their application of this provision under State Law is incorrect. ORS 317.710 states in section 5(a) that if two or more affiliated Corporations (in this case PGE, Enron, and all of Enron’s 346 subsidiaries) are filing a joint return for Federal tax purposes, that they shall only file a joint State return with those entities who are unitary in nature (in other words affiliated entities who engage in similar business). In the case of PGE and Enron, this provision would not have allowed the summary consolidation of Enron’s filing with PGE, but rather consolidated filing with only like companies under Enron. Available information suggests that complying with this statute would result in PGE consolidating their filing with only a small number of Enron affiliates, and it would almost certainly result in income tax due to the State.
The need for Senate Bill 408 would not be necessary were the State enforcing these provisions.
In light of these features of State Law, why wasn’t the Oregon Public Utility Commission proactive in making sure the taxes provided for in rates for the State of Oregon were paid to the State of Oregon?
2. Why would PGE be permitted to include the cost of income tax liability in rates if there is no actual or potential income tax liability to be paid by PGE?
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Policy permits an income tax allowance in rates for all entities owning utility assets ONLY if the entity has an actual or potential income tax liability to be paid. When Enron declared bankruptcy in 2002, the possibility of a potential tax liability for PGE was effectively eliminated and the PUC had basis for reducing rates by the amount of tax expense collected in rates.
3. What is the explanation for PGE retroactively more than doubling its assignment of wholesale revenue to Multnomah County in 2001?
Emails between PGE employees in 2001 demonstrate an initiative by PGE to ascribe additional wholesale revenues to Multnomah County for the purpose of elevating their Multnomah County Business Income Tax (MCBIT) liability, even though trading energy through Multnomah County is virtually unheard of. Since it is clear from the emails that PGE did not consider the MCBIT a liability, but rather an opportunity to increase their cash disbursements to Enron, the question of whether or not it is appropriate to ascribe the revenue to Multnomah County is secondary to the apparent motivation behind this change in approach.
4. Did PGE violate its fiduciary duty to the ratepayers and Multnomah County by disbursing monies collected for Multnomah County Business Income Tax (MCBIT) to Enron?
It is clear that PGE collects money for the purpose of paying the Multnomah County Business Income Tax because it is explicit as an adder on ratepayer bills. What is also clear is that PGE has paid almost no Multnomah County Business Income Tax over the past several years. This is important because by placing the adder outlining to the ratepayer exactly what amount of their payment is going to Multnomah County for taxes, PGE accepts the role as fiduciary of those monies, and should correspondingly act in scrupulous good faith and candor. If PGE has inappropriately disbursed these monies for any purpose other than tax payments to Multnomah County, they are in violation of their fiduciary duty to the ratepayers and the County.
5. In addition to not paying the Multnomah County Business Income Tax, has PGE been double charging the ratepayers for this tax, once in rates and again in the bill adder?
Public financial statement information about its actual effective tax rate at 46% versus an expected combined federal and state rate of 39 % suggests that PGE may have charged ratepayers in Multnomah County twice for its Multnomah County Business Income Tax liability—once in rates and again on the PUC authorized bill adder. Further, despite the potential double charging of this tax to ratepayers, the tax was never paid to Multnomah County.
6. Did PGE engage in unlawful or fraudulent trading activities that contributed to the inflated energy costs during the west coast energy crisis? Did PGE use the high cost of energy and the unstable market they helped create as a basis for a 41% residential rate increase in 2001?
In 2000, a west coast “energy crisis” occurred when Enron and subsidiary traders
engaged in market manipulation, which created artificial energy shortages and drove up energy prices. PGE traders were directly involved in “Death Star” trading schemes which contributed to this crisis. PGE went to the OPUC seeking a 41% residential rate increase in the wake of the crisis, despite a trend of substantial increases in profits between 1999 and 2001, which suggested that they were not in need of a rate increase at all.
Given the questionable need for a rate increase, and the fact that PGE was involved in fraudulent “Death Star” trades, which in part served to artificially inflate energy markets, it follows that PGE may have been motivated to pursue a rate case in 2001 to capitalize on an environment of instability in energy markets that they had a hand in creating, rather than to address new revenue requirements.
7. Is PGE now preparing to disburse $106 million in deferred taxes and $54 million in current taxes to Enron?
PGE’s September Form 10-Q shows a sudden increase in current deferred tax liability, meaning the deferred tax was owed within a year. Combined with other current tax liabilities of $54 million, this may signal an additional disbursement to Enron totaling $158 million right before the stock redistribution occurs.
Finally, We are appealing the PUC’s decision to approve the redistribution of stock from Enron to its creditors. While we are not suggesting the following as the only alternative to the plan that the PUC approved, we do believe it represents but one example of many that the PUC could have added to the approval as a condition that would have resulted in a huge benefit to ratepayers:
Proposed Alternative to PUC Approved PGE Stock Redistribution Plan:
PGE seeks their stock redistribution plan to get a “fresh start” in the wake of Enron’s unfortunate stewardship of the utility. What the OPUC should consider is how also to help the ratepayers enjoy the same kind of “fresh start.” The City of Portland has identified a reorganization approach that has all the same benefits to PGE and its shareholders that the current proposal does, plus the benefit of reduced electricity rates due to reduced tax liability, thus providing an undeniable benefit. Part of this benefit could also be dedicated to restoring the lost pensions of PGE employees.
The City of Portland’s suggested alternative reorganization is based on the following:
Revenue Ruling 63-228, provides in part:
“Where property having a fair market value is received in satisfaction of a debt, such fair market value is the unadjusted basis of the property for the purpose of computing gain or loss upon the subsequent sale or other disposition of the property. See Lawrence S. Vadner et ux. V. Commissioner, Tax Court Memorandum Opinion filed July 29, 1955, and Mary Kavanaugh Feathers v. Commissioner, 8 T.C. 376 (1947)”
In addition, Treas. reg. 301.7701-3(b)(1) and (2), provides in part:
“an eligible entity with a single owner may be disregarded as an entity separate from its owner.”
The City’s proposed course of action is to have PGE convert to an LLC (a disregarded entity) prior to its distribution to Enron’s creditors such that PGE LLC would receive a “step up” in the basis of its assets to the fair market value of the assets (as opposed to their fully depreciated value). The net benefit to ratepayers would be 40% of the amount of the step up in reduced future income taxes to PGE flowing through to them via the elimination of the deferred taxes currently listed on PGE’s balance sheet. The net benefit amounts to a rate savings estimated to be between 7 and 10%.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Mar 4, '06
Stick it to 'em, brother.
4:00 p.m.
Mar 4, '06
The PUC "hearing" on Thursday was just a staged press conference for the PUC and staff. They did not issue the "report" until a few minutes before the hearing, thus allowing no potential commenter to even read it before the hearing started and certainly not to prepared a documented refutation.
According to the PUC staff, it was perfectly OK for PGE to charge ratepayers over $800 million for income taxes that PGE never paid. The "report" contained numerous legal and factual errors as well that I will have to point out later (after the press is gone, of course, which was exactly the PUC's plan in the first place).
Mar 4, '06
First of all, I have withdrawn my candidacy for Erik Sten's spot on City Council, since I've received an offer in private industry that is more than an honest City Commish can earn. This is not a campaign statement, I'm just telling it like it is.
Why the Hell didn't City Hall slam PGE with condemnation when it had the upper hand in doing so? You tell me, Randy. The word in the local press was that it would send a bad message to business about coming to Portland. Get friggin' real! We're talking about Enron here, the greatest example of securities fraud and white collar crime since John McCain and Neil Bush made millions off the Savings & Loan Scandal.
In 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt finally put the big energy trusts and robber barons in their place with the Public Utility Holding Company Act and the Federal Power Act. These acts prevented the kind of abuse Enron engaged in at PGE and in California, where the company artifically created rolling blackouts that cost the state billions. That was until 1988 when oilman, George H W Bush, supported by the likes of Kenneth Lay, went on the deregulation war path. Public oversight and open bookkeeping requirements were an unnecessary burden on the highly ethical energy business they argued. In 1992, deregulation of these industries passed, and Enron began to flourish.
Randy, I have more respect for you than any other City Commish, but let's look at the big picture. The Enron guys and the people they surround themselves with are white collar criminals who have spent years perfecting the art of looting the public. Your proposal to change the PGE entity to an LLC to "step up" the basis of PGE assets to current FMV is a fair idea, but these guys don't play fair. It was a mistake not to condemn PGE immediately after Enron refused to negotiate in good faith with the City of Portland (it was also a huge mistake to send Erik Sten instead of Saltzman and Blackmer and a top notch investment banking advisor). Enron continues to give Portland the middle finger and it's high time Portland stops walking softly and starts swinging a big stick.
Mar 4, '06
Ted: too bad you dropped out when you did. And I heard you were almost certain to finish in the top eight. Damn.
Good luck working for The MAN. Hope getting rich beats saving Portland from PGE.
5:45 p.m.
Mar 4, '06
Yes, the fact is inescapable that had the PUC been doing what most of us in the public think it should have been doing, this would never have become an issue. It follows that they were going to be defensive about it.
It's never been clear to me whether their general lack of usefulness is due to problems with the laws creating the PUC or problems with the people who end up on it or both.
Dan, I'd love to see you list those legal and factual errors here.
Mar 4, '06
I have publicly supported condemning PGE for over two years.
However, It requires three votes on the city council to actually pass such a measure. There are currently only two votes on the council to condemn.
Mar 5, '06
There is one candidate in the race for city council #3 that supports condemning PGE, Lucinda Tate. She wants to be your swing vote, check out what else she believes in at www.vote4lucinda.com
Mar 5, '06
Randy:
I thought you said it wasn't about a PUD? Isn't a PUD the end result of condemnation?
You need to make up your mind: you're either a regulator or an acquirer. You can't be both if you want to be taken seriously.
Mar 5, '06
Bruce- For over two years I have said I would vote to use the power of imminent domain to acquire PGE.
Because there isn't a majority on the council to accomplish that, I am focused on remedying the mismanagement of PGE that caused me to support condemnation.
I fail to see a conflict between those two strategies.
Mar 5, '06
Commissioner Leonard:
You remember the housing inspectors that were condemning properties and then buying them at auction on the courthouse steps? I believe they were fired over the obvious conflict of interest. I believe you did the firing.
You've said that you are NOT trying to punish PGE for rebuffing the city's overture; yet that is precisely how it appears when you focus regulatory scrutiny on that entity which you would prefer to acquire. It's no different than the housing inspectors, except both parties have greater legal resources: no single moms should get evicted from their homes this time around.
You can be an honest regulator, or the front man for a P.U.D. acquisition by condemnation. Pick one.
You can't be both.
Mar 5, '06
There is an analogy to be made between the housing inspectors and PGE.
In both cases, innocent citizens who placed their trust in a person with power over their lives were taken advantage of.
My approach to the executives at PGE is no different than my approach to the housing inspectors who were taking advantage of innocent Portlanders.
And to carry your analogy one more step, there were those who defended the actions of the housing inspectors ("Gee...they are helping clean up neighborhoods, Randy") who were abusing their position and authority just as some are defending PGE now.
Mar 6, '06
The melodramatic "power over their lives" is only true for those on electric ventilators. My gas bill and combined water/sewer bill are both larger than my PGE bill, on an annual basis. My property taxes are 12 times larger than my PGE bill. That's real "power over my life"!
Condemnation is condemnation. The end target of condemnation (a house or an electric utility) doesn't justify the means. It's wrong to simply take something because your position of influence at City Hall gives you the power to do so. If you really want to stop those who are "taking advantage of Portlanders", then how about funding criminal justice in such a manner that Identity Theft and property crimes are all investigated and prosecuted. The people we matrix out of the jails are a much greater threat than any of PGE's alleged misdeeds. More importantly, only government can prosecute property crimes (by contrast, anybody can file a lawsuit against PGE).
If you want to buy PGE, then do it the old fashioned way: buy it. If it is not for sale, then you'll probably have to pay more. If you can't afford to buy an electric utility, you probably shouldn't own one.
Either way, you have ignored my central theme: you can choose to be a regulator or an acquirer. Not both. To pursue both objectives at the same time prostitutes both undertakings, and will likely lead to your failure on both counts.
I'm not trying to be argumentative; rather, I am afraid you will make it too easy for PGE to dimiss your accuasations as political posturing. If they have double billed for local taxes, or violated the law, then some redress (even rate reductions) may be justified.
If they have done nothing illegal, then leave them alone and quit wasting taxpayer dollars in a pissing contest with the largest electric utility in the state. PGE has more important priorities, and the City of Portland has bigger challenges (like how to comply with EPA Clean Water regulations in the most cost effective way possible).
A protracted legal battle with PGE will cost the City of Portland much more in terms of our reputation as an "anti-corporate" political climate than you will ever recoup in rate reductions. There simply are not sufficient large employers left in Portland to risk alienating those that remain or frightening those that may consider expanding here.
Education, transportation, housing, and public safety all matter more than PGE's rate structure, at least to this voter. I would bet that I am not alone.
Mar 6, '06
Fantastic post, WBA II.
Mar 6, '06
I'd be more enthusiastic about the City overtaking PGE if they were better able to handle their own messes re: the Tram, the Water Bureau, etc.
How much taxpayer money has been spent on this vendetta against PGE? I swear I'm beginning to think it's like Bush and Iraq except it's Sten/Leonard and PGE. Sure, Iraq had problems but the amount of money that has gone into this personal vendetta that Bush has/had for it, wasn't warranted, especially since there are so many problems here at home that need fixing. Same with the City and PGE. The amount of time and energy that has gone into fixing a problem (and not a dire one given the city's current funding issues and cuts), seems a huge waste.
Once you fix the City's problems (firefighter's pension, the tram, etc), I'll support fixing PGE but getting involved in yet another battle just doesn't seem prudent. Unless this is just a way of wagging the dog -- if we focus the public's ire onto PGE, they won't notice that we're messing up other areas...
Mar 7, '06
WBAII articulates the absolutist, knee-jerk attitude toward the Right of Eminent Domain common among rightists. PGE has been granted a protected monopoly by the state in return for operating in the public interest. It has failed at this in profound fashion. Free market power retailing simply does not work, so public ownership is the only alternative. If one does not see the difference between this case and the government seizing my home to sell to a developer in order to increase the property values, then one has little power of discernment.
Kathy repeats the Gard&Gerber, Oregonian slur about Portland's mismanagement. It would be be almost impossible to manage as poorly as PGE has. The record is clear: publicly owned power is cheaper and as just as reliable, in spite of the imperfections of government.
Mar 7, '06
Tom - How much money are you willing to spend on this vendetta that Eric & Randy have against PGE? Especially given that PGE's rates have been shown to be in line with other PUDs (not all, but some)?
And why should we trust the City to run PGE efficiently when they haven't shown prudence in their current responsibilities? The tram is a classic example. Exactly what IS the bill on that now?
If you have a kid in college who has run up massive credit card debt funding shopping trips, spring break, etc, do you hand them another credit card? Or do you tell them they need to learn fiscal responsibility and help them learn how to work down their debt? I don't know what you'd do but my experience tells me giving that kid another credit card will not lead to responsible spending.
As I said in my post, I'm not opposed to public power. I AM opposed to people that can't manage what they have taking on another large project.
Mar 7, '06
The main points Bruce Anderholt makes that reasonate with the common sense in the average person in the street, is the the question of the City finding the balance between attempts at correcting the sins of Enron/PGE and taking action on public issues for which the city is the only party that can take the lead in solving.
Examples given, like identity theft and property crime cost all of us in higher product and insurance costs. These are a huge part of my budget just like energy - of which electricity is the smallest fraction comparted to gasoline, oil, and natural gas. Save for Item 1 in Randys letter, I feel the issues the city has presently with Enron/PGE are non-issues anymore and twisting perspective on the real and pressing issues facing the city today. I have been following this rather closely and I guess, in my humble opinion, it seems pursuing further action on Enron/PGE today is political activity not consistent with public interest anymore.
But back to item 1 of Randys. Maybe our laws really do prohibit retroactive action concerning taxes and rates, but if Randys quote "The need for Senate Bill 408 would not be necessary were the State enforcing these provisions." has real merit, perhaps someone should be asking the State if there is any other company that is filing taxes, albeit leagally, BUT not in the manner consistent with what state law might allow if otherwise audited. Who knows, there may be companies filing consolidated returns where the state has the option of demanding otherwise.
Mar 9, '06
kathy,
A vendetta is about revenge. The issue with PGE is recovering what we can of our purloined money and preventing losing even more in the future. Portland's government is not perfect, but I would put my trust in a body that sometimes makes mistakes before one that works hard at extracting the most money from ratepayers, legally or not.
Dan,
You don't mind paying a PGE fraud premium? Fine, you can give them your life's savings for all I care. The cost of electric power is an important factor in the residential budgets and the cost of doing business. If WBAII's points resonate with the general public, it is because they have been inundated with Gard&Gerber orchestrated propaganda from many sides, including the editorial board of our only daily newspaper. For a take on PGE that doesn't sound like something Brian Gard wrote under contract to the Soviet Polit Bureau, look at About that $10 million smoking gun by Steve Duin.
Mar 9, '06
Kathy: it certainly looks like vendetta, or at least payback for PGE's refusal to show up at the shotgun wedding. It has everything to do with revenge.
While I have no way of knowing, I'm inclined to think that Commissioner Leonard honestly believes that PGE overcharged consumers, and is now trying to cover up their misdeeds. That violates his sense of fair play, and he's angry with them (and the PUC) for treating him so dismissively. He wants revenge, but he's smart enough to disguise it with a sort of reverse muckraking disguise (the politician serving the role of journalist outing corporate corruption).
With Commissioner Sten, I think it has everything to do with politics. He has several viable challengers running against him. Following the water billing fiasco, the failed Public Power bid, a rising anti-incumbent tsunami (Tram, anyone?): it can't look real good now that he's the longest serving member of the council (boy wonder who?). What better way to energize your lefty base than by picking a fight with the POWER COMPANY? They have all the POWER. They make those obscene profits. Their executives get paid too much. And they're a subsidiary of Enron! I'm surprised the Stenmobile isn't parked in front of PGE's headquarters blaring Pink Floyd's MONEY 24/7 in a fit of anti-capitalist rage. If you can't afford to buy PGE, then just condemn them!
Civilleti: is everybody who disagrees with you a "knee jerk rightists"? Are there any other requirements to get into that club?
Mar 10, '06
Tom -
I must take issue with a couple statements from your last point...
You said: "The issue with PGE is recovering what we can of our purloined money" Purloined means stolen. And stealing is illegal. Yet the PUC recently came out and said that PGE did nothing illegal. So end of story already! I'm not saying that they acted in a moral manner (I'm not convinced that they did), but we have set standards (laws and regulations) as to what corporations can do. If they act within those standards then we have no recourse against them. If you don't like the standards, or the regulatory body that sets the standards, then do something about that. But you absolutely cannot do what Randy Leonard (and Erik Sten?) did after the PUC ruling and say, "Okay... well... maybe it was illegal, but we still don't like it so we'll continue being jackasses." Not sure, but I think that's a direct quote. :-)
Then you follow that with: "If WBAII's points resonate with the general public, it is because they have been inundated with Gard&Gerber orchestrated propaganda from many sides". Gosh, I guess you're right.... NO ONE is able to look at the issues and form their own opinions, because all of us "general public" folks are too stupid to see beyond the G&G smokescreen. None of us have the ability to think through an issue and form our own opinions, like you do.
Well, Tom, screw you and your elitist attitude.
Mar 10, '06
Larry- I have never said anything PGE did may be legal but that I still object to it. In fact, I have said if some of what I suspect is verified by PGE's internal documents (which we will have to subpoena because PGE refuses to hand them over voluntarily)they have, in fact, violated criminal laws.
For an example, PGE hitting ratepayers twice for a Multnomah County income tax they never paid and retroactively changing their tax returns to collect the tax. Further, PGE engaged in the so called Death Star trading with Enron (buying and selling electricity circularly to from and to themselves with the end goal being to hit the ratepayers for higher electric bills).
PGE could settle both of those issues by producing the documents -which they possess- to refute my allegations. Yet, they won't. In fact, hell will freeze over, I predict, before they voluntarily hand over documents that would actually prove the above two charges plus others that are at least as serious.
It is beyond my comprehension why anyone -except those with a financial interest in PGE- would defend the practices of a company that has so clearly broken its trust with Oregonians...and is completely unrepentant about it.
That is my definition of elitist.
Mar 10, '06
I've got tapes and emails of city Water Bureau employees conspiring with Tualatin Valley's water-from-the-Willamette workers, so that Tuala.Vall.announces pumping station maintenance outage and then 'buys on paper' Bull Run water but before accepting delivery contracts a back-sale of Willy.River water-to-come-forward in the same gallonage amounts that cancel each other out. Thus to 'churn' the water sale market and extort phony water costs from ratepayers, although no water deliveries occur.
I've got tapes and emails of city building condemnation workers colluding with contractors to corrupt abuse of office and felonious practice by none-bid agreement against the city worker bidding on this foreclosure, in quid pro quo for the contractor winning bid unopposed on that next foreclosure the public worker promises to process.
I've got tapes and emails of newspaper editors and (ad) sales exec's talking points with ad buyers and exec's at the Electric Company, to capitalize and suborn the specific editorial slant statements in the paper against the public's eminent domain right, point by point correlating to point size and column inches advertising contract price fixing.
I've got tapes and emails of Alice W. Bruce Anderholt II Larry kathy Dan insurgency planning in agency of Liars Larson to private insubordination of public broadcast license reg's by censoring and fabricating information to craft the synchronized list of words each of them can swarm-comment to flash into blogs and onto radio programming (where legitimate callers are embargoed from), inanely and incessantly repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating their secret coded messages to activate the sleeper gang by Liars Liars Liars Liars Liars talking orders.
These physical evidences should land all the above named crimefolks in prison. Like what happened to the accounting employee who embezzled off EasyStreet for years, sentenced this week to incarceration and repayment of her hundreds of thousands of dollars of theft. I don't literally have myself the tapes and emails but I can say that because open free speech doesn't hurt anything or anyone. But that does not mean the nonexistence of boxes of tapes and emails evidence. Mine, continuing among investigations, is a search for the same hidden evidence to convict them.
Like the real tapes and emails, barely ever cited in papers and broadcasting news, which we have all seen, heard, and read -- HAVEn't we ! -- documenting crimes of PGE exec's and accounting employees committing to defraud and thieve with ENRON exec's and accounting employees, and continuing to illicitly defund, for PGE=ENRON employee and exec stock-conversion conspiracy, the millions and billions of dollars of lifetime utility workers' pension funds and value. As someone above commented, the identical type of PGE=ENRON employee imprisonable crimes as goes on in the double-bubble vater bureaus' abandonment of duty, truly makes a phenomenal similarity -- I take the point PGE=ENRON is as bad as a water billing department, and that futures in prison are in it.
Hey, maybe the two water bureaus 'churning' water deliveries and rates is a copycat of ENRON=PGE imprisonable crimes.
<h1></h1>Mar 10, '06
Alice,
Vendetta? I'll show you vendetta. Vendetta is when the Portland Business Alliance joins PGE's campaign of payback to the city council. They give Gard&Gerber several hundred thousand dollars to attack the publicly-owned elections ordinance championed by Eric Sten and they bankroll Gard&Gerber vice president Ginny Burdick to run against Sten at the same time. Now that, my dear, is vendetta.
Also, everyone who disagrees with me is not a knee-jerk rightist, but I've read enough of WBAII's comments to know that he is one.
Larry,
Randy Leonard discussed the legal dimension of tax collection issue above. I won't repeat that, but this is not the only case of PGE bending, buying, and ignoring laws and regulations. They twice had their legislative lapdogs overrule the people's vote to disallow profit on non-functional facilities. They still refuse to comply with a court order to refund illegally-taken profit on the Trojan plant. They are scam artists dressed in expensive suits.
As to elitism, if it is elitist to recognize propaganda generated by expensive and sophisticated public relations campaigns, then I cop to the label and get on my knees to give thanks for my functioning bullshit detector. Did you bother to read the Steve Duin column linked to above? Compare that with the editorial output of The Oregonian on the subject. If you can't appreciate the difference between Duin's insight and the editorial board's "through the looking glass" reasoning, then, well, I guess Gard&Gerber's propaganda campaign is working its magic.