Front Page > Issues > 2004> October

PUD campaign kicks off...yet again

By Jeff Cropp

The struggle to establish public power in Portland continues in the form of the new Central Portland People’s Utility District campaign for the May 2005 ballot. On July 16, the Willamette Electric PUD was removed from the November 2004 ballot after public power advocates were denied the opportunity to defend the constitutionality of its formation in court. As a result, supporters began gathering signatures again in early September to place the Central Portland PUD on the May 2005 ballot. The new PUD would have the same boundaries as the proposed Willamette Electric PUD, but with different chief petitioners and a slightly larger levy. Campaign volunteer Chuck Fall claims, “Public power supporters are tenacious. We refuse to let PGE/Enron and its supporters deny residents the opportunity to vote on the issue of a PUD. This campaign will continue until we’ve had the opportunity to prove our case in court, and then allow district residents to vote yes again for public power!”

In July, public power advocates managed to place the Willamette Electric People’s Utility District on the November 2004 ballot after gathering valid signatures from over 800 area voters. The Willamette Electric PUD would have encompassed eight precincts in inner east side Portland which voted an average of 57 percent in favor of the proposed Multnomah County PUD in 2003. PUD supporters were hoping to give local residents the chance to vote yes again for public power.

After WEPUD was placed on the ballot, supporters of Portland General Electric filed a lawsuit against Multnomah County. The plaintiffs complained that it would be unconstitutional to form a PUD from part of a municipality, even though that description applies to nearly half of current Oregon PUDs. These PUDs include Rockwood Water PUD, formed from parts of Portland, Gresham and Fairview; Emerald PUD, which includes portions of Cottage Grove, Veneta, Junction City and Coburg; and Columbia River PUD, which services most of St. Helens, except for a slice containing a Boise Cascade mill serviced by Portland General Electric.

WEPUD attorney Tom Nelson explains his perspective on the situation: “Justice Holmes once noted, ‘The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience.’ Neither logic nor experience supports Plaintiffs‚ interpretation of Article XI, section 12 of the Oregon Constitution. The gap between what was actually written and what must be written to compel the result plaintiffs desire is enormous.”

The plaintiffs received an expedited hearing within one week of filing the lawsuit, with Multnomah County as the defendant. The plaintiffs did not enjoin the WEPUD campaign in the proceedings, and neither the plaintiffs nor Multnomah County attempted to inform the PUD campaign of the expedited hearing date. As a result, there was no attorney present to defend the interests of the public power campaign and those voters who signed the original petition. Multnomah County Attorney Agnes Sowle submitted a response to the original complaint which stated that “the defendants take no position with respect to the plaintiffs’ constitutional argument.” Judge Janice Wilson issued a permanent injunction against the WEPUD vote appearing on the November 2004 ballot. Several weeks later, Wilson also denied the WEPUD campaign’s Motion to Intervene in the case.

Attorney Nelson will file a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment in Multnomah County Circuit Court to resolve the constitutionality issue in the PUD campaign’s favor. Once given an opportunity to present the facts of the matter, Nelson is certain that the Court will rule in favor of the new Central Portland PUD campaign. In the meantime, supporters plan to gather more than the required 629 valid signatures by the end of September. Their current goal is 1000 signatures. The estimated signature deadline for making it on the May 2005 ballot is Dec. 1, but CPPUD organizers would like to get that phase out of the way in order to focus on educating voters.

PUD campaign volunteer Kris Nelson remarked, “Our volunteers refuse to give up on this issue, and are even more driven to succeed than before. We’re looking at the bright side of the new schedule. While we hoped to be on the ballot in November 2004 when there would be the highest voter participation, there are several advantages to being placed on the May 2005 ballot. For one, there will probably only be three Portland School Board races on the ballot, instead of the Presidential race, the Portland Mayor’s race and several controversial ballot measures. That will result in far less competition for publicity, contributions, volunteers, lawn sign locations and other crucial resources for a grassroots campaign. Many former swing voters might also vote in favor of the PUD due to outrage over PGE’s complicity in denying them the right to vote on this issue. We think these factors make it even more likely that this campaign will succeed next May!”

The Central Portland PUD campaign urgently needs support in order to give inner east side residents an opportunity to vote “yes” again for public power. This is a grassroots campaign funded primarily by small contributions of $50 or less from many supporters. These donations help offset Portland General Electric’s tremendous financial advantage. The campaign also needs volunteers to help educate residents about the advantages of public power. If you’re interested in supporting the campaign, please visit www.cppud.org or call (503) 235-0962.

Jeff Cropp is a Green Party and public utility activist.