PSE Death Spiral?

A recent Seattle Times opinion page Editorial, Clean Energy Act is Driving PSE bills skyward.  Balance must be struck” details problems with the state’s ACT.  That the 2019 Clean Energy Transformation Act (CETA) will increase the cost for PSE customers to $166
for an average home and 800 kilowatt hours a month, far more than Seattle’s $118, with the difference continuing to increase. That PSE was facing a “potential death spiral” by being a private utility with shareholders rather than a public utility requiring only a majority of three commissioners to operate.  

 

It’s not clear what the Times means by “balance” and what benefits can be expected.  Washington only emits 1.2% of the country’s 11% of planets, or ~0.12% of the total emissions.  In 2023 the EIA estimated only 9.5 million metric tons (mmt) ` of the states ~80 mmt of the CO2 emissions came from electrical energy production.  It’s unclear what part of thar PSE emitted, but any reduction would have little impact on Washington’s climate, especially since any benefit will be dwarfed by the jet stream from China’s 30% of the planet’s total emissions.  

 

Whatever the result it’s unlikely PSE will experience a “death spiral”. They also provide the area’s natural gas thgough more than 26,000 miles of PSE-owned gas mains and service lines.  That currently 800,000 gas customers in six counties use their service.  What they currently provide with “no profit” for PSE can easily be implemented with a fee increase for those using natural gas throughtout area, including Seattle.

 

What Light Rail Success?

The September 25th Seattle Times front-page Traffic Lab article reported that Sound Transit CEO Dow Constantine received a $30,000 bonus for "light rail successes." Board Chair David Somers credited Constantine with bringing stability, citing the crossing of Lake Washington and project reshuffling to control soaring costs, raising Constantine's compensation to $509,689 this year.

However, these light rail extensions have failed to generate adjacent transit-oriented development while increasing local noise levels and operating costs, especially during off-peak hours. Sound Transit continues to prioritize projects based on political preferences and borrowing capacity rather than traffic congestion reduction.

Furthermore, a $35 billion funding gap has delayed extensions to Everett and Tacoma, shortened the Ballard line, and cut planned stations and parking. Despite these setbacks, over $250 million has been spent on an in-fill Pinehurst station lacking access via parking or nearby development.

While Constantine deferred his $30,000 bonus until trains crossed the I-90 Bridge, August ridership figures showed only 13,913 boardings on the 2 Line—a small fraction of the 50,000 projected—compared to 155,167 boardings on the 1 Line. The article included details of countless Sound Transit problems: empty train derailment, stalled train after football game, dead fish from.misplaced cables. Given these results, the substantial compensation and bonus belie claims for "Light Rail Success."

Washington Supreme Court Doesn’t “Get It”

The Sept 18th Seattle Time  article “State’s high court kills natural gas initiative”, I-2066, exemplifies the state Supreme Court’s appeasing those concerned with the state’s global warming.  While several states and municipalities have passed rules prohibiting local bans on natural gas, the Climate Lab, the paper’s project that “explores the effects of climate change in the Pacific Northwest and beyond,” heralded the result.

The article claims the industry proposal to reject the initiative was “deceptively engineered with special interest dollars”.  Yet the Supreme Court “killed the initiative” not because it was “deceptive” but  because six of the nine judges ruled that it violated the state’s single-subject rule, which is intended to protect against “logrolling,” or when a law combines several different proposals to garner support — although a voter may not individually approve of all changes. 

 

 I-2066 included the following:

 Every gas company or large combination utility shall provide natural gas to all persons and corporations in their service area even if other energy sources may be available

 

A "yes" I-2066 vote  supported the following:

    Prohibiting state and local governments from restricting access to natural gas;

    Prohibiting the state building code council from discouraging or penalizing the use of natural gas in any building;

    Requiring gas companies and utility companies, or any cities or towns that provide natural gas, to provide natural gas to any person or corporation even if other energy services or energy sources may be available; 

    Prohibiting the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission from approving any multiyear rate plan requiring or incentivizing a natural gas company or utility company to terminate natural gas service or implementing requirements that would make access to natural gas service cost-prohibitive.

A "no" I-2066 vote opposed prohibiting laws and policies that would prohibit, restrict, or discourage natural gas usage.

 

One wonders what the six judges thought which part of I-2066 was “log rolling”. Those doing so weren’t named in the paper.  Recent Seattle Times front page articles have warned of the need for additional energy and PSE’s plan to use natural gas to fill a major part of that need.  The article announcing the high court’s decision only merited a A10 page article. Seattle voters who apparently rejected I-2066, approved Prop 1 and ST3 in 2016, are still waiting for light rail extensions currently scheduled for 2036. 

 

The bottom line is the Washington Supreme Court’s decision to kill I-2066 demonstrates their failure to understand the world we live in and will hopefully be quickly reversed.

Sound Transit Board’s Real Problem,

Recent Seattle Times articles and other sources have detailed examples of Sound Transit problems.  Presumably all those problems will eventually be resolved.    However, nothing has been written about Sound Transit Board’s real problem.  That their CEO and board members can only continue getting more than $200,000 annually if they continue to approve spending funds extending the transit system. They may or may not recognize 4-car light rail trains don’t have the capacity to reduce roadway congestion. That extensions beyond UW Stadium, beyond SeaTac, or across the I-90 Bridge don’t increase that capacity they only increase the operating costs.  That boardings for stations beyond those stops are also far less than Sound Transit predicted.

They justify their existence by spending hundreds of millions annually on a staff and outside advisors as to how to best implement the extensions.  Spending additional millions on various meetings and documents and reports detailing how the money is spent on the extensions, and monthly progress reports.

They justify their expansion decisions based on whether they can borrow the funds needed for the project rather than whether the benefits derived exceed their costs.  The extended time for project completion and more oversight justifies extending board management.   Again, the board’s concern with extending management enables them to simply ignore ridership records that boardings on all the extensions are far below predictions.  Instead choosing to emphasize the ability of extensions to provide areas for transit-oriented development and affordable public housing.  

The board continues to spend millions planning light rail extensions from West Seattle that require a second Duwamish waterway bridge and a second tunnel under Seattle from Ballard to Sodo.  The years required to complete the extensions will further justify the board’s existence. The board continues to ignore existing bus routes serving both areas with routes with better rider access to buses and more convenient stops for exit and return commute in Seattle.

The board presumably garners public support with financial support for Seattle Times and their Traffic Lab project for generally favorable articles on how the area's transit funds are spent. 

The bottom line is the Sound Transit Board continues to justify its existence by promoting transit expansion projects and billions of dollars adding years to the need for oversight, aided and abetted by Seattle Times. 

Sound Tansit’s Latest Sustainability Debacle

An August 20, 2026 News release of Sound Transit fall Service Change detailed their decision to use light rail trains to essentially replace all the ST Express Bus Service on routes they currently serve. The fact they chose to use light rail trains to replace bus routes throughout service area exemplifes the board’s failure to understand the need for “sustainability”.  

That “sustainability” should limit changes to what benefits transit riders.  Yet these transit changes will require riders transfer to and from trains along the route or at light rail stations to continue their commute.   Those living along the former bus routes will lose their  access to transit.  Those transferring to light rail will reduce access for current light rail riders and lose their access to more convenient locations  for egress and access in Seattle.  Replacing the bus routes along the routes into Seattle also reduces total transit capacity into the city

That sustainability should also require Sound Transit limit what current and future residents wll be forced  to pay to fund light rail operation. Doing so requires they no longer continue ST3 extensions beyond Lynnwood and Federal Way, across a second Duwamish waterway to West Seattle, or second tunnel to Ballard. That the projected costs of constructing light rail  from Kirkland to Issaquah and the  required costs for light rail train maintenance and operation will far exceed any benefits from extension.

The bottom line the Sound Transit’s decision to replace bus routes with light rail rails  is another example of their plans to spend billions if dollars on ST3  extensions that violate any rational assessment of sustainabilty.

Sound Transit’s Modern Wonder?

The August 30th Seattle Times heralded Sound Transit’s modern wonder: “How light rail floats on the lake.” It typified the paper’s Traffic Lab detailing how it “works” rather than what it “does”.  Another example of the paper’s project “that explores the region’s policies that determine how we get around and how billions of dollars in public money are spent”. 

 

The article “suggests” the Traffic Lab project receives substantial support from Sound Transit. (It's the only Seattle Times "project that doesn't mention its outside financial support.) For example, the article details how “light rail  ridership systemwide has reached 175,000, a boost of almost 50,000 boardings”. Yet neglects  to mention that Sound Transit’s 2 Line ridership reported only boarded 1375 in July. 

Multiple posts on this blog have detailed that the lack of light rail ST3 extension sustainability if it’s based on the assumption that their cost wouldn’t exceed “derived benefit”or burden our grandchildren.

 

Another example of light rail problems was the August 24th Jake and Spike, Kiro FM radio show, ‘Sound Transit is a disease’.   The two spar over whether the region’s massive transit investment is worth it.  It included the Washington Policy Center Director analysis “Transit ridership across the Puget Sound region is down 10.5% since 2015, even as the population has grown by 14% and transit funding has nearly doubled from $2.6 billion to $4.7 billion”

 

The TPC director analysis found that total boardings across Metro, Sound Transit, Community Transit, Pierce Transit, and Everett Transit dropped from 176.3 million in 2015 to 157.7 million in 2025. Even Sound Transit, which opened major light rail extensions during that period, reported a 9% decrease in passenger miles. Transit mode share now sits below 3% of all regional trips, with light rail carrying less than 1%,

 

The bottom line is the TPC report is just another example of those detailing the failure of Sound Transit’s Modern Wonder.

Sounder Sustainability”

The previous blog detailed how Sound Transit “Sustainability” should result in a transportation system whose operating costs can reasonably be expected to not be a perpetual drain on the area’s finances.  That  any system of internal accounting controls in which the cost of the system being implemented should not exceed the benefits derived. 

The 2025 Sound Transit Report published in July included a Sounder staff of 28.2 full-time equivalent positions, a cost of more than $600 million for completion and a $45.90 cost per boarding for 2025. The August release of the 62-page System Expansion Monthly Status Report included 30 pages dealing with Sounder.  Clearly considering it a priority despite the fact their Ridership for June was only 7172 average weekday Sounder boarding

Clearly Sound Transit has chosen to spend far more on Sounder than what would be reasonably considered sustainable if doing so required the cost not exceed the benefits derived.  Sound Transit service area residents deserve far better for the taxes they pay than for what they will get from Sounder