City Power?

Well, I see the Tribune is at it again on the City of Great Falls public utility. I hate to repeat myself, but shouldn't they have at least mentioned a) that the bill in question would have eliminated competition by requiring all small consumers to get their power from the City, and b) that the bill in question would exempt the City from PSC review to ensure reasonable rates?

At least Mike Dennison's piece acknowledged the obvious: "Whether this plant is a good idea is debatable — and that's one reason the bill failed."

If you want to persuade people, you don't do it by withholding the facts. If the Tribune Editorial Board thinks public power is a good idea, it should address all parts of the bill and then use logic to explain why a situation of no competition without ongoing review is a better idea. As a lawyer, we are not allowed to just ignore negative facts. We have to explain them. If the Tribune wants to be credible, it can't just ignore the parts of the bill that it doesn't like.

Look, public power is probably a good idea. It would be tough to imagine that it could be worse than our present situation. And I agree with the Tribune that the utilities could give a whit about us 'yahoos in the hustings.' Nevertheless, forcing consumers on board at the last minute was bound to raise some hackles. I understand that the financing entity wants the City to have 'captive' customers before it will consider the financing. If the banks are concerned, maybe we should be too.

1 comment:

SallyT said...

"If the banks are concerned, maybe we should be too.
And, keep in mind, any financing will be paid by the property owners in this town, so the city will again get us coming & going.

I would like to know, considering the city's track record, why citizens should trust the claim that power prices will be lower--especially when the State bill would have ended PSC oversight...