Clark McKee’s concern about owners of large, inefficient homes being burdened unduly with a tiered electrical rate system is interesting. (Aug. 29 news story: “PUD ponders rates”). However, it completely ignores the fact that for more than 20 years now (remember WPSS) anyone with any knowledge of public issues has known that electricity was not always going to be abundant and inexpensive. Those who in those years built such houses have benefited from low-cost electricity all these years. They have also been a major force in the dilemma we now face! Five-cent ice cream cones are gone forever and so is inexpensive electricity. So what are we to do?
In making any major decision one must define the goal and keep it firmly in mind. It seems to me the PUD’s goal is to raise enough revenues to pay the anticipated increases in costs in the year ahead. They estimate an increase of more than $5 million monthly. A second part of the goal could well be to encourage customers to use less electricity which in turn could cut that increased monthly expense. A rate which charges more for larger usage than for smaller would certainly encourage less wasted or unwisely used electrical electricity use. If our real goal is to meet expenses while encouraging sensible use of an increasingly precious commodity, a tiered rate fills the bill (pun intended).
Lake Stevens
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
