GRANT COUNTY PUD

When Grant County PUD power rates are not based on costs of providing service, explanation of a proposed budget that points to multi-year rate increases creates a lack of trust.

Columbia Basin Farmers are outstanding and successful entrepreneurs. They receive a significant subsidy in their irrigation rate that is no longer warranted.

Sixty percent calculates to 1.987 cents per kWh and $11 million annually. That subsidy equates to $2,306 on my 59 hp installation and $2,478 on my 69 hp installation. How can PUD commissioners justify such a subsidy?

The District’s 2008 Fast Facts booklet shows that the average revenue per kWh for irrigation service was 2.980 cents and for residential service 4.190 cents. I understand these both are subsidized rates. However, with irrigation having three-phase service, three transformers, fewer customers per mile of line and a lower load factor, this relationship should be reversed when rates are based on costs of providing service. Subsidies do not provide incentive for conservation.

If PUD commissioners justify rate class subsidies with revenues from Surplus Power Sales, on what basis are they making their allocations? With a three/two vote the last irrigation rate adjustment reflected farm interests. Surplus Power Sales should be used to reduce Grant County PUD’s purchase power cost and not allocated directly to rate schedules. Using cost of service based rates could alleviate the rate increases you say are needed to meet an AA- bond rating.

And just maybe, the budget process, would have a greater validity.

Douglas F. Burk

Ephrata