It may come as no surprise to you that PSE has several infrastructure projects in the works besides “Energize Eastside,” all with maximizing profits being foremost in its strategies to keep its investor-owner Australians and Canadians happy regardless of the massive harm they are willing to do to us here in Washington.
If we succeed in stopping Energize Eastside, and the odds are shifting in our favor on that, PSE has in its back pocket plenty more of the same 19th Century poles-and-wires projects they want to ram through before too many people wake up and realize we could simply throw them out of here. That’s right, in the 2016 general election we can vote them out and start our own King County Public Utility District (PUD), just like the good folks in Jefferson County did!
If you think the time is right to reclaim our energy future in King County so the first priority will be listening to and serving the public, and no longer allow it in the hands of arrogant, greedy and uncaring foreign investors, then check out www.kingpud.org and sign up for upcoming newsletters and our political action plans.
The fight against PSE’s insane Energize Eastside project began a dramatic new phase yesterday (June 8, 2015) when CENSE and CSEE joined forces to file a formal complaint against PSE, Seattle City Light, BPA and ColumbiaGrid for numerous violations of the Federal Power Act and Orders of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), especially FERC Orders 890 and 1000. The complaint asks FERC to stop Energize Eastside and make PSE start all over again. The reasons are many and detailed, and taking time to read the CENSE-CSEE v. PSE et al. FERC Complaint and the supporting Lauckhart Affidavit are well worth your time. Mr. Lauckhart once served as the VP for Power Planning for Puget Power & Light, PSE’s predecessor. He is one of the most knowledgeable experts in the United States in this subject area, and it will come as no surprise to you when you read that he thinks Energize Eastside is not needed, and there are cheaper, more efficient and less environmentally destructive alternatives available that must be considered. He cites with specifics five very doable examples in his affidavit.
Mr. Lauckhart’s affidavit runs to 39 pages, with references to 28 documents as attachments to his affidavit. You can download the affidavit attachments here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/mmpuekjyjjq9esi/AAAyQQkB-7PKjZhXIgRQ9uqja?dl=0.