Puget Sound Energy Customers Push Back on Proposed Rate Hikes + Family Farm Takes WA Ecology

Puget Sound Energy customers are pushing back against a proposed three-year rate plan that could significantly increase electric and natural gas bills across Washington.

PSE is asking the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission to approve electric rate increases of 15.15% in 2027, 3.74% in 2028 and 8.70% in 2029. The Washington Attorney General's Office characterizes the proposal as an approximately 29% electric rate increase over the three-year period.

Natural gas rates would also increase under PSE's proposal.

More than 100 Puget Sound Energy customers attended a public hearing in Lacey, according to Washington in Focus, where ratepayers urged state regulators to reject or reduce the proposed increases.

Customers raised concerns about affordability, shareholder returns and how much Washington families are already paying for electricity and natural gas.

Washington Attorney General Nick Brown is also challenging PSE's proposal. His office argues the requested increases are excessive and says PSE's plan would collect an additional $3.396 billion from customers over three years.

The Attorney General's Office has also highlighted PSE's shareholder dividends, saying the company paid $175.9 million in dividends in 2024 and $62.9 million in 2025.

Puget Sound Energy says its three-year rate plan is needed to maintain safe and reliable service, meet growing electricity demand, modernize infrastructure and comply with Washington's clean-energy requirements.

PSE says it expects to invest more than $3.2 billion in its gas and electric systems over the next three years.

The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission will determine what rate changes, if any, ultimately take effect.

Also in today's Washington in Focus, a decades-long water-rights fight involving Fodé Farms and the Washington Department of Ecology is heading to the Washington Supreme Court.

Ron and Robin Fodé argue Ecology failed to provide required assistance before taking enforcement action and improperly relied on an unpublished deadline involving seasonal water-right transfers. Ecology disputes those arguments and says lower courts have found that its actions followed the law.