The Fight for Utility Regulation
Following the city's costly struggle with a water monopoly, the Statesman warns that a new, loosely-worded electric franchise will lead to predatory billing.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
Last summer, when the new gas and electric light franchises were pending before the city council, the Statesman urged that body to insist upon maximum rates to protect the people. We predicted that a twenty-five-year franchise would be granted to the electric light company and that the people would be in the same situation they were in when the Walla Walla Water company held a monopoly. Before the August franchise vote, we noted that the vague provision that rates be 'reasonable' offered little protection, as it would require a United States Supreme Court decision to define the term. Now that the electric company has secured its long-term contract, the city can only offer relief by installing a municipal plant or granting a franchise to a competing firm with strictly defined maximum rates.
“It believes that the rights of the people should be safe-guarded when franchises are granted and that it is poor policy to lock the barn after the horse is stolen.”
This reflects the recurring civic battle between municipal control and private utility monopolies. The concern regarding 'vague' consumer protections in utility contracts is as relevant today as it was in 1904, echoing modern concerns over energy costs and corporate regulation.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.