| Tuesday, September 9, 1997 | NORTHWEST ENERGY REVIEW |
NWPPC Conference Room, |
The Northwest Energy Review Transition Board teleconferenced with Congressional and Administration staff about electricity industry restructuring legislation and received progress reports from various groups. All members were present. The audience was about 40.
Next Meeting: October 9 in Portland.
HEADLINES_______________________________________________________________
The Outlook for Legislation in the 105th
Subscription Process: So Far, So Good?
Transition Cost Recovery Volunteers Check In
Transmission Separation Group: Full Speed on FERC
Equivalency
A Partially Closed Door for the BPA Cost Review
ORDER OF BUSINESS_____________________________________________________
The Outlook For Legislation in the 105th
Transition Board chair John Etchart explained that the teleconference?s purpose is to hear from Congressional and Administration staff and Washington, D.C. lobbyists about the timing of industry restructuring legislation. Staffer Mark Walker asked the group to address what they think will happen during the next year to year-and-a-half -- the rest of the 105th Congress. The Transition Board is shooting to have recommendations to the delegation by late March 1998 and wants to make sure its actions coincide with what?s going in Washington, D.C., he said.
Joe Kelliher, House Commerce Committee staff, said Rep. Dan Schaefer (R-Colorado) "has been chomping at the bit" to have a markup of his electricity restructuring bill, but will not do it until there is substantial support in the subcommittee [on energy and power]. Schaefer would like to avoid referrals of the bill to other committees, he stated. According to Kelliher, some committee members told Schaefer at the beginning of September they are willing to support his bill, but most also have issues they want to see worked out first. Negotiations with subcommittee members to find out what they want in a bill will soon start, he said. The House Resources Committee is likely to get a referral of the Schaefer bill if Northwest members on the subcommittee want changes in it, Kelliher said. Referrals "aren?t the kiss of death," but they can make it more difficult, he added.
There is no timeline or deadline for markup, and policy hearings on the bill will continue, Kelliher said. A hearing on the "states? rights issue" is likely on September 23 or 24, with no additional hearings scheduled, he stated. Schaefer and Rep. Tom Bliley (R-Virginia) have said that they want restructuring legislation passed in the 105th Congress, but if that is not possible, they will pick up where they left off in the next Congress. They "won?t go back to square one," Kelliher noted, telling the Transition Board, "I hope that encourages early involvement, rather than later."
Marty Kanner of the Public Power Council said he agrees with Kelliher?s assessment, and stated, "there?s progress, but some distance between here and there." Kanner noted that there are members of the House Commerce Committee from outside the Northwest who do not want a restructuring bill to go forward without addressing "the interests of the federal government." They are "protective of the Treasury" and concerned about the "proper role of the federal government," he said.
On the Senate side, there is momentum building, according to Kanner. Senator Slade Gorton (R-Washington) and Senator Dale Bumpers (D-Arkansas) are working on a revised version of Bumpers? restructuring bill. Senator Don Nickles (R-Oklahoma) is also preparing a restructuring bill, he said, noting that Nickles recently held a hearing on the topic in Oklahoma, and "seemed pretty charged up." State actions also build momentum for federal legislation, Kanner noted. Pennsylvania has passed a restructuring bill, and the entire delegation wrote to Bliley supporting a federal bill with a mandate, he said.
Another "potential driver" for legislation for the Northwest, according to Kanner, is the expiration of federal power contracts in 2001. We want to be confident that the federal government?s interests are protected and addressed, and that could be a driver for making recommendations, whether restructuring legislation is moving forward or not, he said.
Kanner pointed out that the language about BPA transmission in the Energy Policy Act was longer than the general transmission provisions affecting everyone else. That wouldn?t have happened if the Northwest had not had the Speaker of the House from Washington and the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee from Oregon, he said. As the Transition Board considers whether legislation is needed and how it should be crafted, we can?t assume "we can draft to excruciating detail," Kanner advised. Public power hopes that legislative issues will be as minimal as possible and thinks that we shouldn?t try to legislate all the details, he stated.
"Don?t sit back" -- the earlier you engage, the better off you will be, Kanner counseled. The most difficult situation is to try to get something done at the last minute, he added.
Roy Hemmingway asked how the interests of constituencies outside the Northwest might affect the amount of time the Northwest has to accomplish what it wants to do. If we are well into 1999, the subscription process is "still in the infant stages," and other issues have not matured, people would get nervous, Kanner replied. The Administration doesn?t want "a repeat of the DSI contracts," where things were done at the last moment and its options were limited as a result, he said. Don?t wait for the last minute for "the knights to ride in on horseback and say we?ve solved everything," Kanner stated.
We heard at the Schaefer hearing, Kanner said, that if the Northwest wants to continue to receive the benefits of the federal system, it has to commit to repayment of the debt so that come 2001, "the government is not left holding the bag." Some may want to limit BPA?s role in the competitive marketplace, and others may want to protect their indigenous interests from outside competition, he noted. The Northeast/Midwest Congressional Caucus, which championed PMA privatization, is circulating draft legislation that calls for full cost recovery in PMA pricing, Kanner pointed out.
Gary Barbour of Enron/PGE said that Enron supports the work of the Comprehensive Review and the Transition Board and doesn?t want to be ahead of the Northwest delegation. "The odds of maintaining local control are better if you get in early," he added.
Senator Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska), chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, may want to put his mark on the restructuring debate as it unfolds, Barbour said. One thing all the members understand is that there?s a point in time when enough states have acted that Congress will have the guidance to sort out the issues, he stated. But if too many states act, Congressional action may just turn out to be "waiving reciprocity agreements among the states," he said. The question, according to Barbour, is "how fast the train should be running before you jump on." March is too late, he added.
There?s "an untested delegation right now," and they may need between December and March to get their own act together, Barbour continued. California, the Northeast/Midwest coalition, and the Edison Electric Institute are all working on BPA-related issues full time, he noted. National forces will make this coalesce faster -- it?s going faster than people realize, Barbour stated. Your recommendations are needed as early as possible so the delegation can "get comfortable with these issues," he advised.
Bob Hayes of the Direct Service Industries (DSIs) noted we could be a year away from the adjournment of this Congress. They are talking about adjourning in October, and when they come back in February, they will start work on the budget, plus it will be an election year, he said. In such a short time period, it?s questionable you could pass a bill like electricity restructuring, Hayes said. I think the likelihood of a bill passing in this Congress is relatively low, he added.
The question is what kind of a consensus does the Northwest have? "You can?t have a 65 percent consensus," Hayes stated. You are better off taking the time to come to a reasonably unified consensus and then bring it back to Washington, D.C., he recommended. A consensus in the region will influence the Administration on the question of whether BPA will be allowed to sign new contracts before 2001, Hayes suggested. There are a number of issues the region is looking at that are "already ingrained in things like FERC Order 888," he said. If the region considers actions inconsistent with that, you "give fire to other members of Congress who also want an exception"; then everyone wants exceptions, and there are all sorts of referrals to other committees, Hayes stated.
The more "draconian or exotic" provisions you come up with, the more likely they are to unravel your own coalition or create other coalitions outside the region, said Hayes. "Simplicity will serve you best," he advised. The major impetus here is not Congress -- it?s whether the Administration can sign contracts, Hayes stated. Senator Gorton will be putting in legislation and will join the debate, he added.
The strength of your consensus is particularly important to keep the delegation together and to minimize extraregional forces, stated Kanner. "Let?s not let the perfect be the enemy of the good," commented Barbour. We could wait forever, but there need to be decisions made by the Transition Board and the governors on where this is solid enough to move ahead, he continued. I don?t think we should set the expectation the delegation may not get anything by March, Barbour stated.
You said there are certain restructuring issues that factions are coalescing around that we shouldn?t swim against -- what are they? asked consultant Al Wright. The FERC 888 transmission doctrines of open access and fair return, and avoiding cost shifting are "national trends you can?t run against," was the reply. Every pending restructuring bill has expanded FERC oversight over non-jurisdictional utilities, and the topic is covered in less than four lines, said Kanner. We?ve got about 25 pages on FERC oversight of BPA in the Transmission Work Group, noted Wright. To distill those to themes would not only be useful, but a smart move, advised Kanner.
I don?t necessarily agree about the need for shortness, but as to adapting FERC jurisdiction to the Northwest system, some of what you want doesn?t seem credible, said Dan Adamson of the U.S. Department of Energy. If the point of restructuring legislation is to create a uniform national structure for transmission access, the more variation there is, the more difficult it will be for the national market to use the transmission system in the Northwest, he continued. I?ve seen the 25 pages, and I don?t think some of it will fly because it?s not consistent with a uniform national structure, Adamson said.
Steve Wright of BPA said the key for BPA is maintaining local control, and "if it?s a question of simplicity versus the length necessary to generate consensus, I?d support the latter." The key is getting regional consensus, and clearly, the Transition Board is "our best shot" at getting that, he said. We think things should be done as quickly as possible, Wright stated. We don?t know what will happen with legislation, but it?s possible things could start moving -- it is important to "be in the game as early as possible," he said.
It?s clear that legislation will include FERC Order 888 provisions, and we?ll have to address them, according to Wright. Another question that needs consideration is: should federal power get priority on the transmission system, and if not, how does that affect the stranded cost issue, he said. It would also be helpful to know if legislation is necessary to carry out the subscription process and if legislative proposals will result from the BPA cost review, Wright stated. It?s important that the subscription process not be held hostage to issues like stranded costs, he added. Preference is another issue that needs to be addressed, Wright pointed out.
Dan Adamson of the U.S. Department of Energy advised the board that "sooner is better than later because the real answer is that no one knows when something will happen." We agree that there will be restructuring legislation, if for no other reason than to allow states to proceed, he said. We?re better off being ready early, Adamson said.
The Northwest is in very good shape in the eyes of the Administration and on the Hill, he stated. Through the Comprehensive Review, a consensus has been reached on many issues, and you should "stay ahead" and address other issues that need consensus, like stranded costs, Adamson advised. For BPA contracts after 2001, we need to know what the stranded cost policy is, he stated. You may not need to have it legislated, Adamson suggested. Maybe you can deal with it contractually, but only if you know what the policy is, he said. March may be a little late, Adamson suggested. It depends on when people want to sign contracts with BPA, he stated.
When might we see legislation from the Administration? asked Mike Kreidler. We hope to have the results of interagency discussions on legislative needs by fall, Adamson replied. We know we need to have something ready for when something starts to move, he said. It?s not clear whether the House or Senate will move first -- it could be the Senate, Adamson stated.
What If There?s No Consensus on Stranded Costs?
Because BPA "is so big in the region," there are a lot of federal law issues in the electricity area -- that?s not true elsewhere, except in the Tennessee Valley, Adamson noted. It appears there is no consensus on how to deal with TVA?s problems or decide what it should become, observed Hemmingway. There?s considerable relief the Northwest has reached a consensus on BPA and is continuing to work on the details, he added. What if we fail to reach a consensus on a major item like stranded costs? Hemmingway asked. What you say is true about TVA, replied Adamson. Because of the Comprehensive Review?s recommendations, we were able to decide what to do with BPA early on, and it was incredibly helpful, he said. "The contrast with TVA is extremely stark," Adamson stated.
If there is no consensus on stranded costs, it will be done in Washington, D.C. by the Administration or Congress, Adamson said. We?d rather the region work this out -- it?s an intraregional cost allocation issue, he added.
A new alliance of energy consumer advocates and conservative think tanks "is beginning to show its head" with respect to the stranded cost issue, commented Barbour. They think any stranded cost recovery is cost shifting by definition, and I?m waiting to see "if they point their rifles at the Northwest," he said. They support auctioning the PMAs to the highest bidder, noted Adamson.
There?s a direct relationship between how the region addresses stranded costs and how successful the Northwest will be in Congress, said Barbour. If we try to avoid the difficult issues, we?ll get in trouble, he said. TVA has been "both a boon and a bane," said Wright. It?s a boon in making the Northwest look way out in front, but a bane in that it?s a public power entity. Some folks are trying to link the problems of TVA to BPA and questioning the role of federal power, he said. TVA is trying to do a Comprehensive Review, but they don?t have the infrastructure of the Northwest Power Planning Council, and they?re headed for a difficult political fight, Wright predicted.
In the next 10-12 years, we?ll see more and more pressure from outside the Northwest to get the federal government out of the sale of power, said Hayes, adding, it?s indoctrinated in a lot of conservatives on the Hill. They will see a lot of support for that from the business community, stated Barbour.
What?s your sense of how much deference we have to give to fish protection in carrying a solution to Washington, D.C.? asked Hemmingway. You have to give a great deal of deference, responded Adamson. The Administration wants BPA to be financially healthy and to see the region recovering salmon, he said. For legislation and the subscription process, fish is a critical component, stated Wright. I?ll add "the Jerry Maguire comment" -- "show me the money," said Hayes.
If the region doesn?t come to grips with some of the difficult issues, we?ll take our best shot at them, said Kelliher. It?s a good reason for the region to come up with a consensus on stranded costs and debt repayment, he added.
Subscription Process: So Far, So Good?
The Federal Power Subscription Work Group has been meeting since March, and during that time, has accelerated its schedule and identified "an exhaustive list of business interests," reported Dick Adams of the Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference Committee (PNUCC). While discussions continue about a few new products, we are about to finalize a list of products and services that BPA would offer, he said. We are also looking at different business relationships that BPA and its customers could have, according to Adams.
Given the issues we?ve addressed to date, we?ve found solutions to potential obstacles, and no need for legislation for a successful subscription, he said, adding that some obstacles still need to be addressed. Adams said the next steps include: BPA starting to price products and services; decisions on alternative business relationships that support the Comprehensive Review?s recommendations; and sorting out implementation issues.
Syd Berwager of BPA went over the list of products and services the work group has put together. I think about 95 percent of the long-term products and services people want to buy are on this list, he stated. Berwager pointed out that discussions are continuing on the Public Generating Pool?s "slice of the system" product, which involves buying a slice of the system and paying a slice of BPA?s costs. We are talking about how such a product could be made operational, he said.
Adams explained the two types of business relationships the group is discussing. The first is a "commercial contract," a traditional negotiated contract with specific terms and conditions, and the second is an "umbrella/subsidiary agreement," which would "structure a long-term relationship, without committing a customer to paying costs, whatever they are and wherever they may go," he said. What discussions have you had about cost control? asked Todd Maddock. That?s the essence of getting these deals put together -- having some certainty on price is the key, replied Adams. The concept of an "off-ramp," which says "the deal?s the deal unless certain events occur" has also been discussed, he pointed out.
IOU consultant Jim Litchfield explained that under the umbrella business relationship, short-term subsidiary agreements would be negotiated bilaterally. Customers would pay above-market prices upfront, and the question is who would bear the risks until BPA costs are below market. The thinking behind this proposal is that Treasury would accept some period of risk and get paid back later, he said. What about preference customers who don?t have an agreement at the outset, but want to return later? asked Kreidler. If you opt out and assert a preference right later, that wouldn?t be a stable working relationship, replied Litchfield. That?s one of the issues that is not resolved yet, he added.
The hope is to create an umbrella relationship with enough incentive for customers to sign on for the longer term, said Adams. What if a customer wants to come back when the deal?s better? asked Kreidler. Once we get the relationships down, and one of them will probably be the umbrella, then the question will be, what is BPA?s ability to deal with those who don?t participate, said Terry Mundorf of the Western Public Agencies Group (WPAG). I expect we?ll find BPA has the statutory authority to differentiate among customers, he stated. We?ve been happy finding administrative, non-legislative fixes for those sorts of problems in the past, Mundorf added.
We?ve Only Just Begun
Steve Weiss of the Northwest Conservation Act Coalition (NCAC) presented NCAC?s "progress report," which says "so far the subscription process has been easy because the tough decisions haven?t been addressed." There are many barriers to achieving agreement on a subscription process, and NCAC is concerned certain parties see it in their interests to not come to agreement, he said. To overcome the barriers, Weiss said the Transition Board should reiterate two principles: access to the long-term benefits of the federal hydro system should only come through subscription; and absent a successful subscription process, the board will seek and support BPA authority to impose a stranded cost charge to recover any shortfalls.
Among the issues yet to be addressed by the work group, according to Weiss, are: the role of BPA; what "subscription" means; how BPA should price products; how the rights of residential and small farm customers of the IOUs should be maintained; and how customers? public purpose obligations described in the Comprehensive Review will be linked to any entitlement to the benefits of the system. While the issues are difficult, I think they can be resolved, he said. "Watch us, keep the pressure on, and don?t let us sidestep these important issues," Weiss urged the board.
Where are you on opening up other phases of the subscription process? asked Kreidler. That is one of the "implementation issues," which we are just starting to address, Adams replied. Our target is to have consensus on those issues by the first of the year, he said.
The Northwest Tour de France
The first six months of the subscription process haven?t gotten to the toughest issues, said Berwager. I liken it to the Tour de France, where some days you ride down the valleys, but eventually you?ll have to ride up the Pyrenees -- we?re just starting up the hills of the Pyrenees, he said.
Substantial progress has been made in both the subscription and transmission work groups, in defining products and contract flexibility, and in laying out alternatives for FERC regulation of BPA?s transmission, said Angus Duncan of the Columbia/Pacific Policy Institute for Energy and the Environment. BPA "gets strokes for product definition" and credit where credit is due, he said. But there are big tasks remaining, Duncan continued. The big issue is how to get people to sign up and carry higher costs upfront, he said. This can be addressed in the umbrella relationship, but the group hasn?t come to grips with it due to lack of clarity on BPA cost control and transition costs, Duncan stated. There needs to be progress on reciprocal rights and obligations of customers and on cost control, he said. Until we resolve governance issues, "we?ll live with muddled solutions to policy choices that affect downstream costs," and that will hamper the subscription process in the end, stated Duncan.
As for transmission, we?ll have to align ourselves with national policy and coordinate with the other processes going on, all of which relate to transition costs, Duncan said. We?ve been "backing and filling" in the work groups until all the pieces are on the table, he stated. We?ll have to make some agreements contingent on satisfactory progress on other issues, said Duncan.
What do you think about your timetable in light of what we heard on the conference call? asked Etchart. BPA and the work group members need to take credit for the progress we?ve made on putting together the product list, and we?re close on business relationship decisions, Adams replied. The work group is up to dealing with the challenges, he stated. We haven?t done implementation issues, but they are doable, given the progress to date, Adams said. I feel most of the group is ready to go faster, he added.
There has been good progress, but we are "not on an easy glide to port here," commented Duncan. The most difficult issues are still in front of us, and the board should tell the work groups to resolve them, he said. We?re not a lot closer to resolving the most difficult issues, Duncan stated.
Transition Cost Recovery Volunteers Check In
Maureen Carr of the Public Power Council (PPC) reported that the customers? working group met several times to discuss issues involved in "devising a workable, consensus-based regional approach to dealing with BPA transition costs." At the first meeting, customers defined 12 "issue categories" that need consideration before any BPA transition cost could be implemented, she said. According to Carr, the group did some brainstorming on how to define "stranded cost" as it would apply to BPA, the duration of such a cost, mechanisms for collection, and how to implement the mechanism.
At its most recent meeting, the group came up with five questions to be answered: What would trigger a transition cost for BPA? How would the amount of the payment be quantified? How would it be collected? Who would pay the transition cost? What might be the unintended consequences of implementing the various options? Carr said the group plans to meet again in the coming week.
What?s your timetable? asked Maddock. We heard a sense of urgency from the people in Washington, D.C., and the board thinks it will have to set some time limits, he said. Could you have something for us at the next meeting? Maddock inquired. No one knows what Congress will do, replied Carr. It?s unfair to have us get too far out in front, but we want to be ready when it is time, she added. As we flesh out the alternatives, we?ll set timetables for ourselves, stated Litchfield. "We want this to be ripe to work with the other processes that are out there," he said.
We need some certainty there will be a workable product at the end from what you are doing, said Kreidler. We will have a schedule for you at the next meeting, responded Mundorf. We can?t guarantee that we?ll come up with a consensus on a solution, but it?s a good faith effort from those expected to pay the bill, he said. We?ll try, and if we think we are failing, we?ll tell you, Mundorf stated.
We need you to describe the product you are working on -- is it incremental cost above market, or does it cover some of the river reconfiguration issues? said Etchart. We have five or six alternatives on the table that span the spectrum, replied Mundorf. We know the nature of the problem more intimately than we wish we did, he added. It could be a serious stranded cost problem for 30-40 years, or a relatively short-term cash flow problem, noted Carr. They require two very different solutions, she said.
NCAC Makes A Proposal
Weiss presented an 11-page NCAC stranded cost recovery proposal, which he noted has the support of fish advocates. He said BPA has four strategies to protect its interests and "weather the cash flow storm": selling futures (subscriptions); refinancing its fixed costs (Treasury deferral); reducing costs; and imposing costs involuntarily on customers (manipulating its market power or imposing a stranded cost charge).
NCAC proposes that all of BPA?s stranded costs be allocated to historic or future users, or both, but that the above-market portion of that cost be limited to give customers certainty. Customers would agree to pick up some defined maximum of BPA?s above-market costs in return for a commitment from the federal government to accept deferral with interest of any excess needed to fully fund the obligations of the system. This, according to the proposal, places some risk of cash flow on Treasury deferral, but only on certain conditions, including Treasury assurance to fishery managers and tribes that full funding for salmon restoration efforts will not be jeopardized. Payment, according to the NCAC, would be through "a combination of subscription payments and (if needed) a targeted and/or `peanut butter? transmission access charge."
Weiss said NCAC believes developing a stranded cost recovery mechanism quickly will enhance the subscription process and reduce the amount that is stranded. We hope this can work so that fish can be recovered and Northwest ratepayers can continue to have rights to low-cost power, stated Weiss.
Transmission Separation Group: Full Speed on FERC Equivalency
Al Wright noted that the Transmission Separation Group?s original work plan called for reviewing BPA?s statutory directives and alternatives for splitting the Bonneville fund. The group has spent a lot of time reviewing the directives and has a good understanding of them, even though some interpretations are still in dispute with BPA, he reported. As for splitting the Bonneville fund, we?ve clearly determined that if you get into that, you get into the security of the Supply System bonds, and "that?s a huge black hole," Wright said. The group has decided it should avoid that question, and if we can eliminate self-dealing, increase FERC oversight, conform with national policy, and leave the fund intact, that?s the best thing to do, he stated. The more success you have in establishing FERC oversight of BPA that is functionally equivalent to the oversight of IOUs, the less concerned people will be about self-dealing and governance, according to Wright.
The group has decided to spend all of its time on FERC equivalency and has abandoned work on governance structures, he said. We won?t go back to that until we have brought you recommendations on the FERC equivalency issue, and we will do that before the end of the year, Wright stated.
The group?s paper on FERC equivalency has been turned into a matrix, which will be distributed in the next two weeks, he reported. The matrix ranges from strict equivalency to functional equivalency and addresses such issues as how BPA?s ratemaking process for transmission would work under strict FERC equivalency, Wright said. Public power, the DSIs, and the IOUs have different positions on matrix issues, he noted.
Wright said he was disturbed by something he heard during the teleconference. There seemed to be a consensus that expanded FERC oversight could be explained in four to five lines, and that therefore, "we can?t write a 25-page Northwest exception," he stated. That?s the first time I?ve heard that, and we need to talk about it, Wright said.
If the application of national transmission policy results in massive cost shifts, it?s a real big issue, commented John Saven of Northwest Requirements Utilities. Some things are worth fighting about, and the Transition Board will have to make some judgment calls about what works for the country and what works for the Northwest, he stated. I?m glad we have the chapter on FERC oversight of BPA that we have, asserted Carr. The national legislation may be only four lines, but it could result in a 2,000-page implementation plan from a regulatory agency, she said.
A Partially Closed Door for the BPA Cost Review
Staffer Dick Watson reported that the cost review management committee, which held its first meeting on August 25, is "fully engaged in the problems confronting BPA." They made numerous information requests, which staff "are scrambling to meet," he added. The committee has decided to close most of its future meetings, Watson indicated. They thought that if they were going to have the frank and comprehensive discussions needed to get at BPA?s cost reduction issues, dealing with such things as BPA?s business strategy or staff reductions, would be difficult to do in public meetings, he explained. It could jeopardize BPA?s competitive position and cause unnecessary morale problems, Watson said.
That doesn?t mean that the cost review "will go dark for the remainder of its duration," he stated. The committee will have an open review and comment period for all interested parties on its draft recommendations, Watson pointed out. The committee will continue the consultation process built into its work plan, he added. Watson noted that summaries of the meetings would be posted on the Internet. In addition, if groups want to have discussions about the review, BPA staff will try to meet those requests, he said.
I respect the need to close the meetings, and doing so makes it even more important to keep communications about it sharply focused, stated Maddock. We know there?s a lot of interest in the review, and we hope to have a lot of discussion with various interested parties, he added. Keeping the meetings closed has been accepted by outside parties because they think the outcome of the review is so important, stated Kreidler. They may not like the idea, but they want to see results from this effort, he said. It?s a departure from "our painstakingly open process," but these committee members are not accustomed to performing in public, noted Etchart. I agree it enhances the need for us to communicate with others in the region, he said.
Meeting Adjourned
Transition Board Members: John Etchart, Montana Governor?s Representative; Roy Hemmingway, Oregon Governor?s Representative; Mike Kreidler, Washington Governor?s Representative; Todd Maddock, Idaho Governor?s Representative. This meeting report is a service provided by the Northwest Power Planning Council, with financial assistance contributed by the Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference Committee (PNUCC).