"The Grays Harbor PUD will continue to be an active participant in the Washington Public Utility Districts Association even though two other utilities in the state have tentatively decided to stop paying dues to the 75-year-old lobbying organization.
Grays Harbor currently pays about $133,000 a year to be part of the association, but those dues could be increasing..."


So I'm wondering what we actually get for that yearly dues of $133,000? It had better be a whole lot!

The association may have simply outlived its usefulness. 75 years ago was the dawn of Public Utility Districts, the first one was established in 1935. PUDs are well past their growing pains.

PUDs were authorized by initiative in 1930, the Grange Power Bill. The Grange used to be a political powerhouse but has long-since ceded that role.

So does anyone have an idea of what we're getting for the $133,000 yearly dues to this association? If expenses should be cut, seems to me this might be a good place to start.

IMO, there are at least two reasons to belong to this association: shared expertise and clout.

The collective knowledge of the staff and commissioners who come to the meetings has been invaluable. Kicking ideas around with folks in the biz is a very valuable resource that benefits ratepayers.

But, a much, much, more important reason is clout. If the Association members gather together for a common cause and use their resources efficiently the payoff of Association membership is exponetial. "$27 in '07" is an example that comes to mind easiest. That movement, initiated by Association members and funded by Association members (mostly GH ratepayers) saved the region millions and millions of dollars.

Snohomish dropped out a few years ago because they paid the lion's share of the costs and thought everything should run their way. The rest of the members thought they were equal and as a group didn't always see things Snohomish's way (Snohomish opposed "$27 in '07" for example).

As of late, it seems there are fewer commissioners willing to buck the tide and raise hell. If that remains the case, the money could be wasted.

The old Director had to be dragged to any controversial position... especially a position against the wishes of BPA. I always thought Counts, the interim Director, was capable of being a fighter. Whoever the new Director is, Counts or someone else, will determine the value of Association membership.

But, I wouldn't recommend getting out now. Watching and determining their future value is a wiser course.

OK, but why "funded by Association members (mostly GH ratepayers)"? Why did we pay a bigger share?

"Whoever the new Director is, Counts or someone else, will determine the value of Association membership."


So the determination of whether this is to be of benefit to our local PUD will be based on who becomes the Director? That sure sounds pretty "iffy" for an organization which has been getting $133,000 annually of our local PUD funds. When will we know who will become the new Director?

Because GH Commissioners saw the value in fighting BPA. The GH PUD Delegate to the Assoiciation challenged them to support the process as an Association and not worry about the potential cost (estimated to be $200,000 at the time). It ended up being a voluntary assessment rather than prorated based on the size of the utility.

GH paid about $100,000 of the approximately $200,000 and, by doing so, got the Association to go along. The result saved GH ratepayers about $3,000,000. It was a bargain. The others just didn't see it at the time. Later they did. This is an example of the "clout" I think the Association can bring. But, there is not always a Commissioner at the Association meetings who wants to fight. Often they will take the easy way out. That's why I think the new Director needs to be someone who understands the power (pun intended) a collective group of PUD Commissioners can have.

Brit, I have no idea of the timelines. But, I think the cost of remaining a member is chump change compared to the potential value of the Association. It's worth the investment.

Not "iffy" at all. Like anything in flux, it takes time to see how it shakes out. It's a cost/benefit or risk/reward situation. Is the risk (of throwing $133 grand down a rat hole) worth the reward (of a strong Association effecting policy State-wide for ratepayers)? They spent $100,000 on a program that could have failed and simply been a waste of $100,000. It succeeded and save GH ratepayers over $3,000,000. Was it a good risk? I think so.

So is sticking with WPUDA... for a while anyway.

I agree