Tuesday, April 22, 1997

NORTHWEST ENERGY REVIEW TRANSITION BOARD

NWPPC Conference Room,
Portland, Oregon

The Northwest Energy Review Transition Board approved a plan for BPA to market a limited amount of power before the federal power subscription process is put into place. The board took comments on issues to include in a response to the Congressional delegation’s recent letter and heard from BPA on what it plans to say at a briefing next week in Washington, D.C. All board members were present; the audience was about 55.

Next Meeting: May 15 in Spokane, Washington. The June meeting has been rescheduled; it will be June 2 in Portland.

Headlines______________________________________________________________

To Market, To Market To Sell A Few Megs

Send a Letter to Congress

BPA Makes a Case For No Legislation

Progress in the Work Group Trenches

ORDER OF BUSINESS_________________________________________________

To Market, To Market To Sell A Few Megs

Deputy administrator Jack Robertson prefaced BPA’s presentation by saying the agency has done its best since the Regional Review to be sure it is operating within the recommendations of the steering committee. At the same time, he pointed out, "market exigencies" exist, and BPA wants to have a way to deal with them. BPA has talked to customers and other interests about its interim marketing plan, Robertson reported. The plan is an effort to balance the Review’s recommendations with BPA’s need to meet its financial obligations, he stated. The need is "urgent," and "it’s important to get it right," Robertson added.

Paul Norman of BPA recapped the circumstances that prompted the interim plan. Customers have approached us wanting to purchase power for the post-2001 period, he explained. "BPA leaned toward wanting to respond to the requests," but was concerned about how that might affect the subscription process, which is being developed, Norman said. BPA decided to develop a plan to make some sales of post-2001 power "within well-defined boundaries," he stated.

BPA consulted with customers and others about the proposal, Norman said, and in doing so, learned a lot about what is going on in the marketplace. "Other marketers and IOUs are not waiting for the starting gun" to begin competing, he said, and they are "actively wooing" our customers. According to Norman, one investor-owned utility (IOU) has signed a contract with a large industrial customer of a public agency, and the customer is now seeking wheeling from BPA to serve the load. There is "an intense campaign" on the part of IOUs and marketers to develop markets, he asserted. In the past month, we have become more convinced than ever that the risk to BPA’s load is very real, Norman stated.

BPA has also been exploring the California market, which presents "a very different opportunity," Norman reported. He noted that the potential exists for making sales that would extend beyond 2001, and these could give a boost to BPA’s revenues. The agency estimates it could add up to $200 million to its reserves through such sales, Norman said.

In shopping its proposal, BPA heard a lot of concern about stranded costs, he continued. We heard that by offering contracts now, we may be giving some customers "an escape hatch" for stranded costs, Norman stated. BPA wants to be clear that the stranded cost obligation would still be present for those customers, he said. We also heard that we might create stranded costs by making sales now when the market price post-2001 is an unknown, Norman said. "Our sense is that on balance, making a limited amount of sales now is more likely to reduce the stranded cost risk than to increase it," he stated.

BPA’s proposal is to sell no more than 800 megawatts (MW) in region and 800 MW out of region, Norman said. A sale to an IOU or public agency must produce revenue equivalent to the PF rate, and the contracts must include a provision that the sale does not increase or decrease the risk of stranded cost recovery for the signer, he explained.

Todd Maddock asked about out-of-region sales. Norman said that BPA must legally restrict such sales to seven years, and he added that the purpose of such sales is to increase revenues in the near term.

John Etchart asked about BPA’s analysis of stranded costs. Norman replied that last summer, BPA looked at the question and decided that it was realistic to expect the agency could cut its costs and sell power for "two cents in 2001." The real stranded cost risk is a question of whether the market is below that -- for example at 17 mills, he pointed out. If we sell now at 21, and the market is 17 in 2001, we’ll capture 4 mills more revenue, Norman said. Our assessment is that if the market is higher than BPA, "we’re in good shape anyway," he added.

How many utilities have approached BPA? Roy Hemmingway asked. Five or six publics and Direct Service Industries (DSIs) have come forward, and there are others that we know are thinking about it, Norman responded. There is interest in roughly 500 MW, he added. What are customers seeking to achieve by buying ahead of the subscription process? Hemmingway asked. Their retail customers "are being bombarded" and getting offers from marketers that give them "up-front breaks" for purchasing, Norman responded. These are some of our most loyal customers, and they want BPA to be their supplier, he said.

Mike Kreidler said he was interested in the implication that marketers are playing on the fact that BPA won’t have certainty about its costs in the subscription process. Norman said he had not heard any indications that marketers are "bad mouthing" BPA, but there is a lot of sales activity.

We Object

Consultant Jim Litchfield and Bob Lafferty of Washington Water Power presented a letter from seven IOUs concerned about BPA’s proposal. We recognize BPA’s need to serve its wholesale customers; the competitive market is here, Litchfield acknowledged. But we think BPA as an entity is in transition, he added, and there are several major issues for federal transmission customers.

If BPA makes marketing decisions at this time, it could result in stranded costs, Litchfield continued. It isn’t clear how or when the issue of stranded costs will be resolved, and the IOUs are concerned that BPA may attempt to transfer these costs "inappropriately" to its transmission customers, he said. BPA’s transmission system should be operated consistent with FERC Order 888, and stranded costs should be recovered from those for whom the original investments were made, according to Litchfield.

"This is allegedly a small amount of power," Litchfield said, "but to some parties it’s fairly large." This could "erode" the subscription process and make it more difficult to implement the subscription recommendations, he concluded.

Hemmingway asked if the IOUs are concerned about the size of the sale. Litchfield allowed that the extraregional portion is less problematic since it is "nonfirm power backed up by firm," and therefore "not technically part of the subscription process." The main concern is the lack of discussion about stranded costs, he stated. The risks of stranded costs "should not come back to the transmission users generally," Litchfield added.

You don’t analyze the upside in the same way BPA does, Etchart observed. For the IOUs, regulators have made it clear that "you can do what you want, but the risks will not be borne by your native customers," Litchfield responded. These transactions could be of benefit, but the customers who benefit should be ready to bear the risk, he said.

Lafferty added that "we need to roll up our sleeves" and solve the transition issues as quickly as possible. We’re not here to suggest BPA shouldn’t engage in marketing, according to Scott Brattebo of PacifiCorp. "Our focus is on stranded investment and the potential liability of the transmission system," he said.

Other Views

Nancy Hirsh of the Northwest Conservation Act Coalition (NCAC) said BPA’s proposal "deserves strong consideration." NCAC recognizes the advantages for BPA in signing contracts with some customers prior to the full subscription process, she said. We want BPA to be both a responsive power supplier and steward of public resources, Hirsh stated, adding that both interests could be protected if BPA does a limited amount of post-2001 marketing. The transactions must not restrict stranded cost recovery, she said, and must ensure that fish and wildlife (F&W) costs are covered.

Tim Stearns of Save our Wild Salmon noted that all of the speakers believe "there are underlying, outstanding issues" to resolve. "We can roll up our sleeves and address them now," or we can assure that parties will be part of any future resolution," he said. Stearns said that fish advocates are cautious about solutions until river governance is resolved, and he suggested that with Montana’s withdrawal from the Technical Management Team, "the governance crisis is coming to a head."

"BPA is offering false certainties," Stearns charged. There is no resolution of where the WPPSS or fish costs would go, he said. According to Stearns, the region needs to settle on a goal and come to agreement on major river governance actions, including John Day operations. "We need a financial package," he said, one which deals with stranded debt and subsidies in the system. He noted that some parties in the region are thinking, why not extend the fish cap? "In our view, it has been a failure," and "the governing process it is tied to has collapsed," Stearns stated. We’ve been slow to respond to the new science, he added. If the Transition Board is to be a success, you need to develop a fish package, Stearns urged.

Angus Duncan of the Columbia/Pacific Policy Institute for Energy and the Environment said the biggest problem is that BPA stands to lose market share. "When they get to 1998, there may not be anyone to sign up," he observed. Duncan said BPA is using market exigencies to defer questions that need to be handled, such as F&W costs and what kind of stranded cost mechanism to propose. We need to move sooner rather than later on these questions -- "there is a timing as well as an if question," he stated.

John Saven of Northwest Requirements Utilities likened the situation utilities face to automobile ads, in which car dealers offer to give buyers money if they purchase a car. Today, you have a very aggressive market for energy, he said. BPA’s competitors are approaching utilities and "are in their face" offering cash incentives up front, Saven reported. BPA and the utilities are not in a position to respond, Saven said, noting that if a small utility loses one industrial customer, it could drive up average system costs.

This is the time to act, Saven urged. We’re talking about BPA going after its existing load, he observed. If BPA gets this wrong, the risk is small compared to the risk if a substantial block of power remains unsold in the subscription process, Saven said. It’s a relatively straightforward proposal, he continued, and he urged that the board act positively on it "for the sake of BPA’s loyal customers."

Terry Mundorf, representing the Western Public Agencies Group (WPAG) , said his clients shared the IOUs’ concerns about the transmission system costs. But they also see that BPA’s inaction could lead to a loss of load -- a very bad outcome, he said. If, on the other hand, BPA acts within the limits of the proposal, there is potential for a good outcome. Mundorf suggested considering the question in terms of "the dead certainty" of a bad outcome or "the risk" of a good outcome. WPAG supports a policy that allows BPA to make sales, he said. "Having this tool in the kit is a good idea," Mundorf concluded.

"We want to see the subscription process succeed," according to Steve Waddington of the DSIs. If BPA has adequate revenues post-2001, that is the solution to stranded costs, he said. In the subscription process, we have explored the commercial interests of customers, Waddington explained. I view this "presubscription" as the first step -- "it’s not incompatible with the subscription process," he said. I hope in a few months that Paul [Norman] comes back and says he has sold 800 MW, and that there’s even more interest out there, Waddington stated. "I think this is how the process will unfold," and I urge you to support the BPA proposal, he said.

Kreidler asked BPA about going with a 500 MW proposal: would this amount be adequate to fairly gauge the interest? Norman said with 500 MW, there is some possibility BPA could fulfill Waddington’s wish by selling the entire amount. Hemmingway said he did not have a problem considering the issue again if the program is a success, and he added that he was inclined to opt for the lower figure. Are you suggesting 500 MW? Etchart asked. Hemmingway said he was, and Kreidler said that was where he was leaning. Maddock agreed, saying the board had heard two points of view: the sales would be helpful and the sales would be hurtful. "I don’t think we know," he said, but "we’ll learn as we go along."

There was Transition Board consensus on 500 MW of in-region sales. The board did not alter BPA’s out-of-region sales proposal.

Robertson said he appreciated the opportunity BPA will have to test the proposal. "If the market asks for more, we’ll come back," he said. The requests for power will come to you -- you won’t launch a campaign to solicit them? Etchart confirmed.

Send A Letter to Congress

Staffer Dick Watson presented a timeline for responding to Northwest members of Congress about which of the Regional Review recommendations would require legislation. The delegation wants a response by June 1, but we won’t quite make it, he said. The schedule calls for public comment on April 22, with staff developing a draft by mid-May, Watson explained. There will be public comment on the draft at the Transition Board’s May 15 meeting in Spokane, and the draft will be revised and submitted to the governors for approval on June 3, he said.

The Transition Board proceeded to take public comment on issues for the letter.

Alfred Canada of Grants Pass, Oregon said legislation should include a prohibition on BPA engaging in activities that are not consistent with the Northwest Power Planning Council’s current power plan. He said the Council and the Regional Review had ignored one of the main sources of new energy that could help BPA meet its goal of two-cent power: solar photovoltaic resources.

Jerry Leone of the Public Power Council (PPC) said publicly owned utilities are looking at a BPA PF rate that is "at the high end of the market." If the publics sign up for wholesale power after 2001, "we can’t be sure we’ll have any customers to sell to," she said. We need flexibility in our contracts to address that, Leone urged.

Leone said that when she was in Washington, D.C. talking to the Congressional delegation, she felt members wanted recommendations in case deregulation bills sponsored by either Representative Dan Schaefer or Representative Tom DeLay start to move forward. "They want to be prepared," she said.

Leone offered three items for the Congressional letter. First, the publics believe that legally separating BPA into two entities "is not desirable," she said. Second, with regard to stranded costs, the focus should be on BPA controlling costs and not on new sources of revenue. "Cost control focuses on the disease; a focus on new revenues is a focus on the symptom," according to Leone. We need to concentrate on getting BPA’s price to the market, she added. And third, "the bottom line" for subscription is: if BPA offers products at attractive prices, there will be no stranded costs. Leone said PPC believes federal legislation could be helpful in coming up with money for salmon recovery.

Etchart said he read the letter from the House delegation to mean the region should address stranded costs. "We need to keep BPA’s feet to the fire in the market," Leone responded. "Don’t give them an out," she said.

Our objective is to make the subscription process work, Hemmingway said, adding that he believes it is the Transition Board’s charge "to put a suite of options before the policymakers."

Litchfield offered several items for the letter to Congress. One of the most important recommendations from the Regional Review was separation of BPA into marketing and transmission entities, he said. It’s important to let Congress know that you are providing leadership on the transmission work, and to indicate that separation legislation will be developed by next fall, Litchfield stated. In addition, the letter should indicate that at the board’s request, the Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference Committee (PNUCC) is hosting an effort to implement the federal power subscription recommendations of the Regional Review. The group hopes to develop a process that will preclude there being any stranded costs for BPA, he said.

It would be useful for you to communicate that Congress could help in working on a fish budget and on river governance, Litchfield continued. The board is getting ready to embark on discussions aimed at resolving these issues, he noted, and "will need the delegation to cement the deal." With regard to stranded costs, Litchfield agreed that decisionmakers will have to look at "a whole suite of options." The IOUs are prepared to work with Congress and the region to implement the Regional Review’s recommendations, he concluded.

Kreidler asked Litchfield if he felt that the stranded cost issue is so complex that "the sooner we get teed up on it, the better." Litchfield responded that failing to take the issue on right away could lead to "a crisis." The issues of stranded costs and fish spending have to come together, he continued. "Some see this as an ugly conversation that we don’t want to have. It’s an important topic, and we see it as vital to begin the discussion," Litchfield said.

Shauna McReynolds of PNUCC noted that the PNUCC Board of Directors had submitted a letter for the Transition Board’s consideration in preparing the response to the delegation.

Duncan said he agreed that it is unclear which issues will require federal legislation. It is important, he continued, to say what the delegation "should resist": privatization of the federal system and giving away regional authority to FERC.

Duncan noted that a handout describing the progress of the subscription group speaks to cost control and predictability. Ultimately there needs to be an understanding among customers about the costs they may need to deal with in signing with BPA, he advised. Customers will need a clearer picture of the risks, Duncan said, indicating that fish decisions should not "get prejudiced in the process." It is important that the subscription process move faster than its schedule indicates, he stated. A resale right that is acceptable to customers and "a plausible stranded cost mechanism" have to be part of the package, according to Duncan. Incentives need to be there to encourage people to subscribe, he added; signers need to know "they won’t be holding the whole bag for those who bail out."

Duncan concluded by saying that "there is a mismatch in timing" between getting contracts for fish projects out in 1999 and the conclusion of the subscription process. That needs to be remedied, he urged.

Hirsh said the Congressional delegation needs to be advised of the "interconnected nature of the process" among subscription, F&W, and river governance. She said she was pleased to see that a river governance meeting has been scheduled in May. Separation of BPA’s functions and river governance are linked, and governance needs to be successfully resolved before separation, according to Hirsh.

There is no process under way to determine whether the region is meeting the public purpose targets established in the Regional Review, Hirsh said, and she urged the board to begin one. With regard to stranded costs, Hirsh said "it is irresponsible not to get started" on a resolution, and suggested the board be clear about the issue in its letter to Congress.

Waddington said he wanted "to balance the comments" on stranded costs. He stated that he did not think the delegation was necessarily thinking about stranded costs in its March letter. "The big question they saw was salmon recovery," Waddington said of his conversations with members of Congress. Several people have said that having a stranded cost mechanism "as a hammer over our head" will lead to successful subscription, he continued. "I couldn’t disagree more strongly," Waddington stated. Introducing the issue now would be "the worst thing" for the subscription process, he added. "I urge you to hold your fire and wait on the processes -- they’re progressing positively," Waddington said.

Mundorf suggested telling the delegation "we may or may not need legislation" on separation of BPA, but that "good work is being done -- we’ll be back to you." He said that to begin a discussion of stranded costs now, "forces us to think about failure." Introducing the issue into the subscription work group "will alter the discussion," Mundorf said. If we delve into the mechanism, it shifts the emphasis from working on a positive resolution to finding a way "to avoid paying the costs," he said. "That’s a different discussion. It may not kill the subscription process, but it would maim it," Mundorf suggested. Tell the delegation we are trying to get the subscription process to work, he added.

Marooned on Stranded Costs

Is it realistic to think that Congress and OMB will allow us to do a deal on separation without addressing the stranded cost issue? Kreidler asked. "If we go farther down the pike without this debate, I have a fear we’ll look back and say we should have started it earlier," he said. Waddington suggested that are ways to prevent cross-subsidies between BPA’s transmission and generation functions without legal separation. For instance, BPA could be put under FERC Order 888, without the downside of separation legislation, he explained.

Kreidler said he is concerned that the delegation could be put in a position of having "something shoved at them." We’re postponing the debate too long, he stated.

We have goals for separation, but there are questions about how to get there, Mundorf responded. Once we have a clear picture of where we’re going, the stranded cost discussion will occur, he said. The discussion should take place in the context of separation; injecting it into the subscription process is wrong, Mundorf observed. "If we can play for time, it’s the best thing to do. It gives the process a chance to succeed," he said. "It’s a judgment call, and it isn’t risk-free," Mundorf acknowledged.

Stearns said the Regional Review failed to address the fish issues and to prescribe the order for resolving transition matters. He said the delegation should bring the Clinton Administration "to the table" to protect its investments. An appropriate order, according to Stearns, would be to achieve a fish settlement and an agreement on funding and then resolve the stranded debt question. "Go straight on and deal with it up front" so there is a fallback if the subscription process fails, he urged. Until we’ve dealt with fish and stranded debt, Stearns said, there will be the question of whether to use transmission to carry these costs.

Saven said he represents a group of customers that feels legislation isn’t needed. Calling stranded costs "the most troubling issue," he said he did not want to see the ball on stranded costs "in play" simultaneously with developing the subscription process. If we’re trying to achieve a "we solution," that would be very challenging" -- the issue will be very contentious, Saven observed. Do you want to have "a contentious theoretical discussion" now or put a proposal together when you have more information? he inquired. Saven suggested that the date for subscribing to federal power could be moved forward , and the region would begin to see the results at an earlier stage. We’ll be in a better position to see "if this is a house or a bread basket" with regard to the subscription process, he added.

Etchart asked how a stranded cost mechanism would be derived if the need arises. Saven said the Transition Board could get preliminary information and make a policy decision. "It’s a bread-and-butter issue for you to look at," he said. "You look at the concerns of everyone, and say `this is how we’ll go,’" Saven advised.

Glen Swift, a member of the public, said he had observed that throughout the process, no one is discussing "the end user." He also said that he did not see how the subscription process would work in an era of customer choice. Swift observed that the region had enjoyed "pretty good legislation" with the Northwest Power Act, but the National Energy Policy Act had "pulled the rug out from under it." He urged the region "to get clear about what we want" and operate on "a proactive basis."

BPA Makes a Case For No Legislation

BPA will brief Congressional staffers on April 28 about the agency’s power business line, Robertson said. There are "four zones of intense interest" in BPA’s efforts to implement the Review’s recommendations, he said: the Transition Board, the House, the Senate, and the Administration. Robertson described BPA as in "the issue development phase" of implementing the recommendations, and he committed to keeping the board informed as the agency works with the Congressional delegation during the transition.

Steve Hickok, senior vice president of BPA’s power business line, presented a draft of the Congressional briefing. The draft states that BPA’s "organic statutes" capture the benefits of the Columbia River hydro system for the Northwest, and the Congressional delegation aims to preserve these benefits when BPA is separated into two entities. With regard to subscription, BPA does not see "any legal showstoppers at this time" to achieving the recommendations of the Regional Review, he said. If any arise, Hickok suggested the Transition Board should advise Congress.

BPA has frequently heard that several of the Review’s recommendations raise legislative issues, Hickok continued. He said he intends to explain in the briefing why BPA does not believe legislation is needed at this time. "We think there is an administrative playing field between the goal posts," Hickok explained. We aren’t back there to say "you’ve got to legislate," he stated.

Hickok addressed a number of issues related to separating BPA’s generation and transmission, saying he wanted to give the Congressional staffers "an idea of what they’re cleaving," with separation. He described options for the form and governance of the new entities: for example, a line agency of a federal department, or an entity under FERC jurisdiction.

The issues relating to financial matters, i.e., stranded costs, cost underrecovery, and security of Treasury payments, are "more thorny," Hickok said. For example, the taxpayer investment in generation and the WPPSS construction bonds are secured by BPA’s full capability to raise revenues generally, not just on generation. If one side under-recovers revenue, you’ve fully engaged the cost recovery issue, he pointed out.

The WPPSS bonds currently have a tax-exempt status, but there is a question of whether that would be affected "if you can no longer tell how the power is being used," Hickok said. "The delegation is already up to its ears in that question," he added.

The Issues with Subscription

Attorney Mary Beth VanBuren explained BPA’s view on a number of issues that attend the subscription process. She noted that BPA has looked at what customers have laid out in terms of the products and services they want and has found "no showstoppers." We think we can work within our administrative authorities, VanBuren said, adding that over the 16 years since the Northwest Power Act, BPA and others "have been creative" in interpreting the statutes.

Within its subscription recommendations, the Review makes reference to BPA offering service at "market-based rates" under certain circumstances. VanBuren outlined ways in which BPA could achieve this, such as developing a rate that "approximates market effect." VanBuren said BPA could address the issue of resale of federal power by adding contract provisions that would relieve customers of pay obligations under certain circumstances, and/or permitting BPA to remarket requirements power, with a credit to the customer. She noted that customers are allowed to resell "surplus" federal power with few limitations and "excess" federal power with no limitations.

The former residential exchange benefits could be extended with new power sales contracts and by selling excess federal power at a PF equivalency, VanBuren explained. BPA could limit its resource acquisition obligation by contract and/or pricing "load-growth service" in a separate bilateral agreement between BPA and an individual customer, she continued.

BPA wants to impart the idea that we have ways to accomplish what the Regional Review recommended without legislation, Hickok concluded. But you wouldn’t oppose it? Hemmingway asked. Legislation invites "the entire discussion," which could become a "rewrite of the organic statutes," Hickok replied.

"I picked up a fair amount of sentiment to rewrite the statutes," Hemmingway responded. As an interim position, this seems fine, he added.

Robertson commented that "the key to the subscription process is beginning to deal with fish costs and river governance." If we can prove we can deal with those in the region, it diminishes the possibility of dealing with them in Washington, D.C., he said.

I remember hearing WPPSS argue that the legislature should not change its borrowing authority; they didn’t want to expose the question to legislative review for fear of what would happen, Kreidler recounted. My experience is that this "fear of opening up legislation so as not to bring up other issues" may be a problem, he said. My conversations in Washington, D.C. indicate "there is significant interest in seeing substantial clarification rather than leaving things vague," Kreidler stated.

"We’ll try to be agnostic," Hickok said. If the question is, is there something we have to change? we’ll say no; but if the interest is in revising statutes, that’s different, he stated. I would hate to see the Transition Board saying one thing, and have Congress tell us that BPA is saying something else, Kreidler observed.

Etchart said he thought the Transition Board needed to see the legal analysis behind BPA’s presentation. I’ve heard these statements called "optimistic," he stated. VanBuren responded that BPA is working with Council staff on the matter. Don’t you think various parties need to see why you are saying what you’re saying? Etchart asked.

Progress in the Work Group Trenches

Consultant Al Wright said the Transmission Work Group is trying by July 1 to get a clear idea of items to be legislated. The group is focusing on two issues first: a task force is taking apart BPA’s organic statutes to find the transmission references and is identifying the contractual obligations BPA has built up over the years. The second issue is the question of "one BPA fund or two," Wright said. "The discussion started out very murky on this, but some clarity is emerging," he reported.

The work group has not dealt with the questions of structure and form for the two BPA entities, Wright continued. We have agreement with the Subscription Work Group that we will deal with the power business line structure, as well as transmission, he said. All issues of cost recovery remain -- we have yet to grapple with them, Wright added. "I’m very optimistic about the way the group is going," he said.

Syd Berwager of BPA said the Subscription Work Group has met three times and is progressing nicely. McReynolds of PNUCC said the group is ahead of schedule, having completed identifying business interests. The list is a prelude to developing descriptions of packages of products and services, she said. So far, all things are "do-able," and we’re starting to dig into the details, McReynolds reported.

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).