Meanwhile, the Oregonian is working on an explosive story about a deputy assistant to the state undersecretary for education who did not itemize a $5 gin and tonic he was comped on a flight from Pocatello to Bozeman. Developing...

Two words. Arthur Anderson.

Capitalism at its finest.

"Capitalism at its finest."

You're right, Allan. This is a perfect example of why Portland city government should take over PGE.

Then we could all sleep easily knowing that Erik & Co. are at the helm.

"Capitalism at its finest."

Hardly -- remember that PGE is a monopoly imposed upon its market by regulation and statute. The only genuine difference between such an operation and a state- or municipality-directed monopoly is that a handful of people outside of Orygun pocket loads of cash with each billing cycle, and apparently lie about their financial status to enable rate increases.

knowing that Erik & Co. are at the helm.

Hey, give Opie his due. That free wi-fi is going to start some serious cancellations of cable and DSL internet service by Portland customers of Comcast and Qwest. I'm sure he and his buddy Marshall are doing a little superior dance -- finally, they won one.

Let's not be premature, Opie may yet snatch defeat from victory with the Metro-Fi deal.

So far, his track record with things electronic is dismal.

Or, to shorten the sentence to its essence; So far, his track record is dismal.

That free wi-fi is going to start some serious cancellations of cable and DSL internet service by Portland customers of Comcast and Qwest.

That's for sure. As soon as the umbrella reaches my house, I'll hop onto the free network and see what download speeds are. If they beat my current provider, adios.

All this talk of wi-fi, and look what pops up on my RSS feed:

Report: Municipal Wi-Fi not just another utility

"A new report warns that cities considering municipal Wi-Fi shouldn’t fool themselves into believing that the experience will be as routine as running water, gas and electricity systems. ..."

"A new report warns that cities considering municipal Wi-Fi shouldn’t fool themselves into believing that the experience will be as routine as running water, gas and electricity systems. ..."

and we all know how routine those are...

...especially water; right, Opie?

"The only genuine difference between such an operation and a state- or municipality-directed monopoly is that a handful of people outside of Orygun pocket loads of cash with each billing cycle, and apparently lie about their financial status to enable rate increases."

Yes, and that's the difference that matters. Those are the capitalists. They are not accountable to ratepayers. They are looking to maximize their return at the expense of ratepayers.

Looks like the WW hit one out of the park with this one. Sort of reminds me of how they "scooped" the Oregonian on the Goldschmidt child rape scandal. I keep wondering if the O is getting scooped, or if they deliberately don't want to investigate stories like this one because they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them so much advertising revenue. There was evidence that they knew plenty about the Goldschmid rape story, but failed to go after it for some reason. The O's selective aggressive reporting coupled with their penchant for self promotion makes me wonder if they should be lumped in with the S&P's and the Arthur Anderson's of the world.

oh well at least there is still Moodys and Fitch.

Suppose you held a hedged position in bonds issued by PGE. (A hedge here means instead a highly leveraged position.) And, their credit rating received a boost. You would potentially reap a windfall . . . all by "accident."

In the interest of transparency I would like a full list of the folks with an interest in PGE issued bonds, and I would want the list of beneficiaries traced back through the layers of incorporations back to real live people.

"I keep wondering if the O is getting scooped, or if they deliberately don't want to investigate stories like this one because they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them so much advertising revenue. There was evidence that they knew plenty about the Goldschmid rape story, but failed to go after it for some reason. The O's selective aggressive reporting coupled with their penchant for self promotion makes me wonder if they should be lumped in with the S&P's and the Arthur Anderson's of the world."

The O did touch on this story on the front page of yesterday's business section, near the fold line.

As for whether its being scooped, I think editors don't want to touch certain stories, and I am not quite sure why. I think it is partly because many news men and women seem to fancy themselves part of an artistic elite that doesn't want to get its hand dirty scooping the real stuff, so they get their wares from the PR folk who bolster their own opinions by denigrating those of other people. It gets so that the truth takes a back seat to social/political considerations.
So we loose the diaglog and interchanges that would help us better understand the world around us.

I don't think it is only the O that is guilty of ignoring/suppressing local stories, but it seems to do it with the most regularity.

Also, journalists seem unwilling to critique the profession and themselves. This happens in law and other professions as well; I guess it's human nature. But I think professionals have a duty to try to get beyond it: to learn, grow, and to serve the public, not just their own career ambitions.

"Suppose you held a hedged position in bonds issued by PGE. (A hedge here means instead a highly leveraged position.) And, their credit rating received a boost. You would potentially reap a windfall . . . all by "accident."

This MAY work if PGE's short term paper was in a distressesd situation (its not), a credit upgrade in PGE's paper would not cause a run in the bonds price.

It looks like they are editing reports to service debt at a cheaper rate.

Grage Wine,

So I looked at your "study", a bunch of opinions by Reason magazine aren't a study, imagine that Liberatarians don't like municipal wi-fi:-)

Among the many assertions that don't pass the smell test was:

Unlike traditional government-owned utilities, the lightning pace at which broadband technology improves and prices fall is difficult for municipalities to match, according to Reason

Excuse me, when has hi-speed ever gone down? I've had broadband for 10 years and the prices are at least 25% higher now than when they started.

One of my beefs is the gaming of one's unique access to advance information, like a pending government decision.

One need only watch Trading Places to see that information can translate to money, particularly with the aid of leveraging tools.

The reason to post here is just to note these two links of interest on liability pertaining to a tip that originates from a government actor.

Trading on political information
Politicians tipping Lobbyists who tip Hedge Funds

The so-called "rating agencies" are private Wall Street corporations that sell evaluations of corporations and are paid by the same corporations that are being evaluated. They use the term "agency," I believe, to make themselves appear to have some sort of connection with government.

This conflict of interest is particularly important in the case of regulated private utilities, such as PGE. Such a utility has a strong incentive, during the late stages of rate case proceedings, to have the rating agencies issue a negative evaluation of the company, as that strengthens its arguments for a rate increase (in the perverse logic of regulated utility ratemaking). While other corporations would seek to paint an accurate or perhaps rosy picture of its prospects, the utility has the opposite incentive -- to paint a negative picture of its prospects, except if its requested rate treatments are adopted by the regulator. Adopting such favorable rate treatment is then touted as being beneficial to ratepayers, as it supposedly allows the utility to borrow more money at lower rates of interest than would otherwise by charged to a utility with weak financial prospects.

This savings on interest costs is usually very small and not remotely enough to overcome the added cost to ratepayers of the rate changes the utility advocates. Yet, this rationale provides public relations cover for regulators who wish to approve rate increases. It also leads to the circular conclusion that ratepayers are benefitted by paying higher rates now, as that somehow will lead to lower rates in the future. But, when the future arrives, the utility again argues that ratepayers are benefitted by paying higher rates now, and so on and so on and so on.

The emails between PGE and S&P appear to illustrate this. PGE management suggested to S&P that the supposedly neutral evaluation includes language stating that the "negative outlook" for PGE could be overcome, if the Oregon PUC were to adopt PGE's positions in the ongoing rate case.
S&P incorporated the proposed PGE change verbatim.

Thus, it appears that PGE successfully turned the supposedly neutral S&P evaluation into a document that affirmatively lobbies for the adoption of PGE's specific proposals in the ongoing rate case, which is nearing the final decision phase.

You Portlanders whine about PGE and 5 or 6% rate increases? Here in The Dalles we're forced to buy power forced to buy power from Wasco Electric Co-op and we have had two (2) 20% rate increases in three years
Wasco Electric Co-op is a private, non profit corporation supposedly owned by the members or stockholders (the ratepayers). Even though Wasco Electric is a state-sanctioned monopoly it is not regulated by the Oregon Public Utility commission (as if that would help anything from judging from their past performance).
Wasco Electric refuses to get the proper easements for installation of power lines, refuses to participate in candidates forums so the stockholders/voters will be informed about the board of director candidates and has threatened to sue anybody who questions anything. All of these statements are true...Please check them out for yourself.
On top of that even though the members or ratepayers supposedly own the company Oregon State Statutes (ORS62) gives the ratepayers no rights whatsoever and protects the Co-op from any oversight. For example the ratepayers cannot even find out what the manager makes in salary and benefits much less get any meaningful financial data from them.
These and many other problems have cost the ratepayers many thousands of dollars. And you think you have problems?