Grade: B-

Okay, the first question is pretty easy – the answer would be yes.

So basically a council member is a representative of our residents. So from this perspective, it’s clear the person stands for the best interest of the residents of Bellevue. So therefore in this case, I will say if the residents are concerned about this (as I also see myself as a resident), obviously we need to get involved. It’s not just a yes or no, because we have the authority, the council member authority. So we need to have a deeper understanding about what’s the motivation, what’s the purpose, and what’s the reason? Is there a reasonable concern? Because that’s the job off of council member to understand and address the concerns of our residents.

What specific idea of energy planning would I bring to Bellevue? Well, obviously, I’m not the energy expert, but I understand for any project that has a big impact to our neighborhood and community and the residents, we need to understand whether this is sustainable. The reason is to establish the project is not purely a commercial project, not just business. When we look into this Energize Eastside project, they talk about the need for the future. While we on the other side do a lot of study, and actually the conclusion is the opposite to what they propose or the reasoning behind that. We need to understand more now and we have a lot of expert items. I have been to a few of the hearings in City Hall and I hear both sides. One thing I noticed that a lot of a businesses were very supportive of Energize Eastside. But I would say 99% of the residents oppose it. So that made me think, why is that so different? And you can see very obviously that all the businesses are going to get the benefit of having that power established.

However, what’s the cost? The cost is on the neighborhoods, on the residents – the risk and the cost and the views and the property value. The businesses don’t bear those [costs], and those are borne by our residents here in Bellevue and also the Eastside. So therefore as a council member, we need to also question whether this project is really worth proceeding with the cost on residents. Both sides have their own argument. So in this case, we probably should bring in a third-party which has no interest to make a fair and technical judgment or evaluation to make better [decisions] for how to proceed.  As for justification for the energy project, I think that’s what I stand for.

Obviously, I’m a technical person, so I would like to see new technology, because what’s proposed is kind of old technology.  That’s the way that the economy grows: new technology is developed, and I think there are a lot of options on the table.

(see full question)

Utilities like Seattle City Light, Tacoma Power, and Snohomish County PUD are all forecasting flat or declining consumption of electricity for at least the next decade. These forecasts and Washington’s mandate to transition to a cleaner energy grid have implications for power planning. How might they influence your input to policies implemented at the city level?

Grade: B

That’s a very interesting load [forecast] and obviously looks like they’re [trending] down. PSE forecast for the Eastside is going up. They might say, “Oh this may be different for Seattle.” I will say that the population is more dense in Seattle. If they forecast consumption of power will be downwards, I would tend to believe that on the Eastside it will follow the same trend. From the Eastside perspective, I don’t believe they have any “Energize Westside” type of project. So I would think this is more objective data. I don’t like that some of the data used in Energize Eastside, they have some agenda, and in order to support that agenda, they may propose some data, which if you’re not the expert, it’s very hard to make a determination. But I think this is what I mentioned about the third party which has no interest in this context. [We should be] convinced that the reason for Energize Eastside is correct.

This data shows that we don’t actually have that need to start with. This has a bigger influence. Another factor that is very important is that they’re not using California data, or Canada, Vancouver data. The data used are for areas very close to the Eastside. So I think it is more relevant. I believe this is more objective data that should be used.

Grade: A-

I guess we have to consider the ecosystem that this project will touch because it’s not just purely the one isolated project. The consequence of cutting 300 trees – how many years before those trees grow up? Those are not recoverable, because when it’s gone, it’s gone. It impacts our environment at the cost of our city and our neighbors. I have talked to many people that are very concerned and opposed to this project. I don’t know for what reason the East Bellevue Community Council rejected it, but I assume that’s because the impact on their neighborhoods and the preservation of the trees and the green.

Back to the reason they want to have this project, if that’s truly about the needs of Eastside neighborhoods, we need to talk about whether the project serves residents. Because there are many other solutions on the table, reliable and proven by the experts, that are feasible and also can meet the needs of our power. Why do we have to use only this option? If we have established the criteria, I think that’s most important. Because maybe they didn’t tell anybody what’s the real reason behind it, but they insisted that’s the only way. As there is new technology coming, it’s very hard to believe, especially in this new area, there is only one option.

I’m an engineer. I know that when we have a problem, we always offer option A, B, and C and then the pros and cons. So that’s the way we pick what’s the best [solution] – consider the cost, consider the time, consider the quality. But not in this case. We have to consider the environment and the impact on our neighborhood. So therefore we have to say, “Hey, look, you want to have this option A, but we actually based upon certain criteria we established, we think that option B and C should be viable and also address your concern and address the problem you want to resolve.”

So in this case, let’s talk about that. If option A is strongly opposed by our neighbors, then option B and C may be something that we should focus [on]. Unless they can give some very strong argument or data to say those two are not possible, I think they should be on the table to discuss those options.

Grade: B

A private utility is a private company. They’re driven by profits. That’s the ultimate goal.

A public utility tends to be just like our other utilities: water and sewer and waste. Definitely water and sewer. It’s not profit-driven in that case. The criteria are very important, because the motivations of public and private utilities are different. The strategy and behavior will be different. For example, the private utility like PSE listens to foreign investors. They’re just like us if we are board members of PSE and we talk about this project, guess what? I think your bonus and your salary will be tied to this. We are all human beings, right? But if it’s a PUD, we see we are going to talk about the things we have a totally different criteria. Obviously data-driven will lead to a very different methodology. If it’s public that we will be completely transparent, nothing to hide, because we are the owner of this. So therefore there’s nothing [to hide]. But if we are not on the same page with the owner, they have their own benefit which is not shared with the public, then obviously the driving reason will be totally different. Sometimes we argue a lot of things. We don’t know why, and that could be the explanation.

It’s probably good, just like water and sewer, that maybe a power [utility] can be run by the public. Obviously, that’s something easier said than done, but ideally, I would consider this is feasible if PSE is a part of the City of Bellevue. I think they will probably have a very different approach in that case.