Clallam PUD urges Port Angeles leaders to weigh post‑2028 ‘provider of choice’ changes from BPA

3673437 · June 4, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Sign Up Free
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Clallam County PUD managers briefed Port Angeles officials on the coming expiration of Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) contracts in 2028, describing new product choices, rate risks — including a new peak‑load variance charge — and deadlines for utilities to select contract options this year.

Clallam County Public Utility District executives told Port Angeles elected officials Tuesday that the region’s long‑term BPA power contracts are expiring in 2028 and utilities must decide this year which product and rate structures to take going forward. Shailesh Sherry, assistant general manager for the PUD, said the new “provider of choice” contract and its related rate methodology (PRDM) shift how BPA measures and charges for energy, demand and unusual peak loads.

Why it matters: The presentation spelled out that local utilities’ power cost exposure and economic development prospects hinge on choices made this summer and fall. Sherry said the new contract could raise rates for some utilities by as much as double‑digit percentages under earlier iterations; after advocacy the PUD negotiated caps limiting near‑term peak‑load impacts to 2% initially and 5% later in the contract period for its utility and Port Angeles.

Sherry, who leads the PUD power department, walked council members through the history behind BPA’s regional dialogue contract, the components of the new PRDM and product choices — load‑following, shaped block and slice — and the tradeoffs those choices create. He emphasized four items of particular concern to smaller coastal utilities: how BPA’s “tier 1” system size is set, allocation and “high watermark” calculations, costs for transmission to transfer customers, and the new peak‑load variance and demand charges that respond to capacity scarcity.

“We are small alone — about 3% of system load in the Olympic region — but together public power can make our voices heard,” Shailesh said. He explained that tier 1 is defined using a critical‑water baseline (historically a low water year), and that load‑shaping and demand charges will use multi‑year market forecasts and distributions that can move costs from BPA to subscribers depending on timing of peaks and market prices.

Council members raised questions about flattening load shapes through demand‑response programs, storage, and the role of local generation. Shailesh and Sean Worthington, Clallam PUD general manager, said public utilities are limited in how much conservation incentives can affect immediate market exposure because the utility’s avoided market cost (what a private utility saves by shedding load) can be far greater than the price BPA charges for tier‑1 energy. They described ongoing work with BPA on transmission planning reform and small weekly workgroups on transfer costs.

Deadlines and next steps: Shailesh cited a June 18, 2025 decision deadline to request a product choice and a December 5, 2025 final contract signing deadline for utilities that choose a POC contract. He encouraged the council to ask BPA questions and participate in regional advocacy, and PUD officials said they would continue outreach with Port Angeles staff as June and December milestones approach.

Quotes from the meeting: “With that, I jump right in to regional dialogue,” Shailesh told the assembled officials in the presentation opening. “We urge the council to be engaged and ask these questions, not just to us, but to BPA as well.”

What’s next: City and PUD leaders agreed to continue conversations and explore joint siting or collocation of new local generation to reduce exposure to PRDM‑driven charges. No formal council action was taken at Tuesday’s meeting; PUD staff asked council to consider continued engagement and coordination ahead of the mid‑ and late‑2025 decision points.

Ending: The presentation made clear that the provider‑of‑choice negotiations are technical and region‑wide; local officials said they will weigh whether to coordinate signups, pursue shared resources or ask for special treatment that protects small coastal utilities’ largely residential load shapes.