| Thursday, March 13, 1997 | NORTHWEST ENERGYREVIEW TRANSITION BOARD |
Ridpath Hotel, |
The Northwest Energy Review Transition Board discussed the separation of BPA's transmission and generation, IndeGO, BPA's near-term marketing plans, coordination with tribes, river governance, and the federal power marketing subscription process. Roy Hemmingway participated in the meeting by telephone from Washington, D.C. The audience was about 45.
Next Meeting: April 24 in Portland.
HEADLINES________________________________________________________
Separating BPA's Transmission: How and When?
- Panelists Put Their Spin on the Plan
Dick Adams of the Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference Committee (PNUCC)
Steve Waddington of the Direct Service Industries (DSIs)
Bill Pascoe of Montana Power, representing the investor-owned utilities (IOUs)
Rob Walton of the Public Power Council
John Saven of Northwest Requirements Utilities
Angus Duncan of the Columbia/Pacific Policy Institute for Energy
and the Environment
Nancy Hirsh of the Northwest Conservation Act Coalition (NCAC)
- Moving Ahead or Stepping Back?
The Latest on Ever-Growing IndeGO
Building A Box for BPA's Interim Marketing Plan
The Tribes Weigh In on Restructuring
The Process for a River Governance Process
Federal Power Marketing Subscription Group Off and Running
ORDER OF BUSINESS________________________________________________
Separating BPA's Transmission: How and When?
Staffer Dick Watson summarized a draft work plan to enable the Transition Board to address issues related to the Comprehensive Energy Review's transmission recommendations. He recapped the Review's recommendations: that the region's transmission assets, including BPA's, be put under the control of a single independent grid operator (IGO); that BPA legally separate into power marketing and transmission organizations; that BPA administratively separate these functions while legislation is under consideration; and that BPA's transmission business be subject to FERC review "equivalent to that applied to the jurisdictional utilities."
The Review's Steering Committee expected that legislation would be required to legally separate BPA's power marketing and transmission functions, Watson said. The work plan states that to succeed in the separation, the greatest possible degree of regional consensus needs to be developed, he noted.
Phase I of the work plan, according to Watson, is to establish an IGO that includes BPA. This effort is under way, and BPA is moving as quickly as possible to be a participant, he added. Phase II is to identify issues related to legal separation, Watson continued. The plan calls for a work group to be established immediately to identify principles, issues, and options for achieving legal separation. The group would identify which laws and regulations need to be changed, identify any stumbling blocks, and bring them to the attention of the Transition Board. The work group would also investigate what limited actions could be taken prior to 1998 to permit BPA's participation in the IGO, he said.
The plan anticipates that the work group would have a consensus proposal by the fall of 1997, Watson stated. He outlined eight tasks for Phase II, and highlighted Task 6, to develop a political feasibility and risk assessment of alternatives. Watson called this, "the beginning of a gut check." Task 7 is the outline of draft legislation, and Task 8, the examination of options for fatal flaws, is the "gut check," he said. Task 8, Watson noted, asks the question: "once the options are fully defined and understood, are there obstacles or risks that outweigh the potential benefits?"
Once Phase II is completed, and if legislation is judged to be in the interest of the region, Phases III and IV would encompass the drafting and passage of the legislation, Watson said. The region would move to pass the legislation by the end of 1998, he stated.
Panelists Put Their Spin on the Plan
Dick Adams of the Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference Committee (PNUCC) said that PNUCC's board recently discussed the Review's recommendation to separate BPA's generation and transmission. The thrust of the discussion was that alternatives to implement the recommendations should be identified and that a risk assessment and analysis of costs and benefits should be conducted. Then we should "see if everyone is ready to jump together or not," he said.
Steve Waddington of the Direct Service Industries (DSIs) said that Phase II of the plan should have four elements. First, the group needs to start with a discussion of the goals -- to get clear about what we are trying to accomplish in separating BPA's generation and transmission, Waddington stated. Second, a full range of options for implementing the recommendations of the Comprehensive Review needs to be on the table. This should include both legislative and non-legislative alternatives available to get the job done, he said. Near-term administrative approaches are important, and they may be a fallback if we decide not to do legislation, Waddington added.
Third, there are a lot of complicated issues surrounding the legislation, and we need to find a way to solve them, he said. Fourth, the goal of the work plan should be to seek consensus on a preferred approach arrived at by looking at the benefits and costs of all of the alternatives, Waddington stated. We're willing to put a lot of energy into this, he added.
I don't see anything inconsistent in the work plan with what you are saying, commented John Etchart. Yes, but some of the things I wanted to emphasize are "buried" in the plan, and I wanted to put my spin on it, replied Waddington.
Bill Pascoe of Montana Power, representing the investor-owned utilities (IOUs), commented that this dialogue must take place in a forum where all stakeholders are involved. I'm glad that this is a broad-based process facilitated by the Transition Board, he said. The Review's recommendation was for legal separation, and the work group should spend most of its time figuring out the complexities of legal separation, Pascoe stated. Let's focus on the nuts and bolts of this and not "redo the Comprehensive Review at the outset," he urged.
Rob Walton of the Public Power Council said the public power community is not comfortable with seeing the region rush into legislation on this complicated issue. We need to emphasize goals and alternatives -- public power is not convinced we need quick legislation on this, he said. There are administrative opportunities we should look at in the meantime, Walton added.
What's your feeling about the timetable? asked Todd Maddock. We need time to develop a regional process, Walton replied. Congress won't give us as much time as we'd like, he acknowledged. Since we haven't concluded that legal separation is the answer, we shouldn't start asking which legislation we want, Walton said.
Noting that the 1998 session of Congress is "the window," Mike Kreidler asked Walton what he saw as the timeframe. The most important thing is "for the region to get its act together" before we decide whether to legislate," Walton responded. We heard in Washington, D.C. that Representative Schaefer wants to move ahead -- that's the squeeze we have, noted Maddock. We'd be happy for public power to participate in an orderly discussion of the hard questions, such as, is it one Bonneville fund or two? said Walton. We need a deliberative process to see if we can find a consensus, he added.
What we do in the region isn't the only thing; OMB, the Treasury, and others will have significant feelings on this, Kreidler noted. We'd hate "to get behind the timeline" and have them dictating to us, he stated. To not get behind the timeline, and to not get ahead of ourselves -- that's the dilemma we're facing, said Walton.
John Saven of Northwest Requirements Utilities said the timeline and the work plan are okay, adding, I don't want to give signals to slow down. When we did the federal power marketing work in the Review, things were changing fast, and that's true in transmission, Saven pointed out. For example, we need to look at the implications of FERC Order 888A and its implications for BPA, he said. I want the study of alternatives to be broad enough for us to understand how these new issues work in the context of legal and administrative separation, Saven stated.
I assume you're still consistent with the recommendations of the Review and that your members "aren't beating you up too much for that," said Kreidler. Those are two questions, replied Saven. Yes to the first, and "day-to-day" to the second, he said.
Angus Duncan of the Columbia/Pacific Policy Institute for Energy and the Environment said the IGO makes a lot of sense conceptually to the public interest community. The trick is how it's done, and to be sure it does not compromise economic equity or environmental issues, he said. The work plan's presumptions that there will be a preferred alternative for separation, and that there will be legislation are premature, Duncan commented. There needs to be a more concerted effort to bring other parties, such as tribes and the public interest community, into this at "agenda-setting time," he suggested.
As for timing, "we'd be better off to be dressed up and have nowhere to go," than to have the window open up and have nothing to present, Duncan stated. My preference is to move faster rather than slower, he added.
Duncan listed these concerns: independence of the IGO governing board; ownership of publicly financed and publicly owned assets, such as BPA's transmission system; cost shifting; and what he called "the elephant in the living room" -- the fact that separation of generation and transmission is tied to BPA's ability to meet its financial, legal, and public purposes obligations. Any abridging of these obligations would be "a severe test," Duncan added.
Nancy Hirsh of the Northwest Conservation Act Coalition (NCAC) said she was concerned about the independence of the IGO governing board and urged the work group to look at models elsewhere in the country. We want to reserve the right for BPA to use transmission revenues to meet its revenue requirement, Hirsh said.
We need to assess whether functional separation is sufficient, she continued. Why is legal separation required? Hirsh asked. Many utilities are doing a functional separation and finding it's working, she said.
Moving Ahead or Stepping Back?
It seems there's a consensus on this panel, with the exception of me, to go back to ground zero and start with all the alternatives on an equal footing, observed Pascoe. If that's so, what was the Comprehensive Review all about? We spent 10 months, and the Review voted for legal separation, Pascoe stated. The IOUs are concerned we are taking steps back rather than advancing the ball, he added.
I don't see that we're stepping back from the Review, said Kreidler. We're looking at some form of separation that can meet the needs of the DSIs, IOUs, and the public customers and also make sure that we are not abridging the concerns of those who want to ensure that BPA can meet all its financial obligations, he said.
We don't want to revisit the Review, stated Maddock. We're talking about moving forward from those recommendations, he said. I've heard that we need to find a balance between presuming that legislation is coming and being prepared if it does come, stated Etchart. My expectation is that the work group will look at legal separation, he said. The work plan's focus is to develop a way to accomplish legal separation, stated Watson.
The Review didn't resolve stranded costs and BPA's long-term obligation to meet all its costs -- that issue was punted, and it has to get resolved in some way, said Duncan. If it doesn't, a lot of other pieces "come unstuck," he added.
Our interest doesn't prejudge those issues -- we know they have to be dealt with, said Pascoe. We are not trying to back off from the Review, but until we address other issues, presuming there will be legal separation is "a non-starter" for us, commented Hirsh. Our concern is that as we study legislation, we may conclude the risks outweigh the benefits looked at by the Review, stated Waddington. It's important to look at the spectrum of solutions, he added.
This discussion shows why the Transition Board will keep this issue close to the vest, said Kreidler. The governors won't want this to slip through our fingers, he added. At some time, the feds will come and say to us, like in the Godfather movies, "either your signature or your brains will be on this paper," Kreidler quipped.
The time schedule isn't any too fast, observed Roy Hemmingway. Here in Washington, D.C., they are waiting for us to get something to them, he said. If national legislation starts to move, we are going to be playing catch up -- we have to get something done this year, Hemmingway stated.
The Latest on Ever-Growing IndeGO
Pascoe noted that in mid-February, IndeGO had 14 MOU signers, and now it has 21. New participants are in Wyoming and Colorado, he said, pointing out that IndeGO now covers eight states, including Wyoming, Colorado, most of Utah, and northern Nevada. Pascoe said there is an IGO being formed in the Southwest that will be called Desert Star.
There will be public meetings on IndeGO on March 18 in Spokane and March 19 in Salt Lake City, Pascoe said. The IndeGO board has decided to open all work group meetings to the public, he noted. Information on IndeGO is available on the Internet at www.idahopower.com; click on Transmission Services, and then IndeGO, Pascoe said.
We've made good progress on reliability -- no substantive issues remain, Pascoe stated. The issue that continues to be "a sack of snakes" is pricing, he said. We are trying hard to resolve it, and as we do, we are keeping in mind what a consultant told Montana Power when we restructured our gas business -- "don't let perfect be an enemy of the good," he said.
Our intention to file with FERC by mid-July is an aggressive target, Pascoe acknowledged. After the filing, there will be a year to get regulatory approvals in place. Two years from the date of the filing, we think we'll be ready to operate, he said.
It's important to find a way for BPA to participate in the filing, Pascoe said, adding, we think that can be done without prejudging the question of legislation. If we need to resolve all the BPA separation issues prior to letting them participate in the filing, they probably can't participate, he stated.
Two papers about the governing board for IndeGO are available on the website, Pascoe said. The proposal we will talk about at the public meetings is a seven-member board, elected by a supermajority process, he added.
How are you engaging regulators in this? asked Maddock. We think FERC has most of the jurisdiction, and each IOU will go to its state commission and ask for its blessing, Pascoe replied.
What do you lose if BPA does not participate in the filing? asked Etchart. It would be an incomplete filing in a sense, responded Pascoe. Because BPA is such a big part of the system, the whole timeline could slip if the filing is not complete, he said.
Have you tried to address the concerns industrial users have about power quality and reliability? asked Maddock. We've had four public meetings, and industrial customers have provided comments, Pascoe replied. We think IndeGO improves reliability, he added.
Harvey Spigal of BPA said the agency supports the Review's transmission recommendations as the starting point for the work group and doesn't see the need to revisit them. The work plan is acceptable, he said. While some people have talked about proceeding without legislation, that isn't consistent with the Review's recommendations, Spigal said.
BPA did an analysis of 12 or 13 legal issues to be resolved by legislation or by contractual arrangements with IndeGO, Spigal noted. He said people have talked about whether "rifleshot" legislation, which would simply authorize BPA to join IndeGO, is sufficient. Such legislation would solve the fundamental legal problem with respect to BPA's participation in an IGO, but would not resolve all of the issues, he stated. The question is whether all the financial and other issues can be resolved by rifleshot legislation, followed by contracts -- is that feasible? Spigal said.
Spigal listed several issues, including:
- Responsibility for cost recovery, as set out in the statutes governing BPA. Could BPA, as an IGO member, recover enough revenue to cover its costs? he asked. Other cost recovery issues involve public purposes, such as fish and wildlife (F&W), and whether BPA can recover stranded costs through transmission rates.
- Enforcement of power sales contracts. If BPA became part of an IGO, it would need assurance the IGO wouldn't foreclose the agency's options to enforce its existing contractual obligations, especially through 2001, he said.
- Consistency of the IndeGO transmission rate to the DSIs with the rate provisions of the Northwest Power Act.
- Protecting the security of the WPPSS bonds if BPA became part of an IGO.
- Statutory authority in the Energy Policy Act with respect to Northwest loads.
- BPA's responsibility with respect to the return of Canadian Entitlement energy.
- Reliability.
These issues mean that BPA will need the ability to withdraw from the IGO, Spigal said. They are the same issues that arose when we talked about BPA Corporation legislation a few years ago, he noted.
I'm unconvinced that we can be part of this filing, said BPA Administrator Randy Hardy. The issues are too large and are more difficult for us than for the IOUs, he said. We'd be better off to discuss legislative separation and then do the "gutcheck" in Task 8 of the work plan, Hardy suggested. We need to assess what the other legislative risks are and then decide whether to go ahead, he stated.
We will be lucky if we have the rest of this year before we need to have a proposal on this, Hardy said. We'd best be prepared even if we decide not to go ahead, he advised.
The list of issues Harvey presented with regard to rifleshot legislation shows that "we are hopelessly conflicted" between cost recovery responsibilities and the way FERC is driving the rest of the industry, Hardy stated. The sooner we fix this problem the better off we'll be. We need to "get our heads out of the sand and roll up our sleeves" and get busy, he said.
BPA is not drafting legislation, Hardy stated, adding, "there's no draft hidden in my desk." We should start with principles, issues, and alternatives and try to build consensus and hope that the national timeframe will allow the time to do this, he said.
Are you hearing from your bosses in Washington, D.C. about this issue? asked Kreidler. The Department of Energy is in a transition and hasn't focused on this yet, Hardy replied. I want to emphasize that the status quo is not an option, and the sooner we get to work, the better, he added. Sooner rather than later is advantageous to us, Hemmingway concurred.
If IndeGO files in July and BPA can't sign the MOU, will you work with FERC on "creative ways" to allow you to maintain your options? asked consultant Al Wright. We want to participate in the filing so we can provide financial information to enable people to see the consequences of IndeGO's pricing proposal, said Spigal. The problem with a July filing is that we have a separate statutory process for transmission rates that we can't carry out by July, he noted. It's a huge amount of work to even start a 7(i) proceeding, Spigal said. He also stated that some see BPA's participation as an indication that BPA has prejudged certain issues. We're worried that we'll make concerns about BPA's participation in IndeGO worse than they are now, Spigal said.
Washington State's retail wheeling bill (SB 6006), which has passed out of the Senate energy committee, may present a challenge to BPA's transmission activities, said Kreidler. You're struggling with wholesale questions, not to mention what you'd have to do about retail wheeling. Any comments? he asked. There's a major policy issue in all four states, Hardy replied. To the degree you move to retail access prior to 2001, we want to see language that says customers should honor contracts with BPA. We don't want a federal-state collision, he stated, adding, state legislatures "are not a comfortable place for us to be."
Scheduling capability is another issue, said Hardy. This involves tracking wholesale transactions on the transmission system and deciding how to account for load balancing and who to charge for transactions, Spigal explained. A year ago, we had 500 accounts open on a single day, and today, it's 2,000, he said, adding that BPA is trying to develop a new system.
How soon will the new computer system be up? asked Kreidler. Our timeline is to do it by October, Spigal replied. It is just to track the foreseeable level of wholesale transactions, he added. When will it include retail? asked Kreidler. We're not even thinking about that yet, Spigal answered.
Gary Ely of Washington Water Power said it's important to develop an appropriate forum to move this forward and be able to look at how various interests align. He emphasized the urgency to move forward while the issues are being examined.
You should step back and look at the July filing date, suggested Saven. Once this gets sprung, he said, the utilities I represent will want to know what the results will be -- they will want the opportunity to participate and respond. If they don't get it, in front of FERC and in BPA's 7(i) process, "we'll fight this tooth and nail." It's not that I don't support IndeGO, but I didn't hear a rationale for July. If you rush to judgment and create potential enemies along the way, I'd question that, he said.
We'd like the staff to proceed with the proposed work plan on legal separation of BPA's transmission function, Etchart stated.
Building A Box for BPA's Interim Marketing Plan
The question with respect to BPA's interim marketing plan is what we do between now and when we end the subscription process, said Hardy. We want the Transition Board and customers to be comfortable with what we are doing, he said. We want to come back in April and talk with you more about what the parameters are, Hardy stated.
We are working to make the subscription process succeed, said Paul Norman of BPA. A small handful of customers are coming to us wanting a post-2001 commitment now, he explained. We lean to doing some limited business now for the post-2001 period with the publics and DSIs, Norman continued. We propose to work with customers and stakeholders to define a set of boundaries -- something that makes sense and doesn't violate the subscription process -- to bring to the April meeting, he said. We are not soliciting sales, but we want to get clear how to respond to customers who come to us and want to do business now, Norman stated. We want to establish today that there's a need for some definition for this near-term activity and that we're aimed at the right target, said Hardy.
There's a conflict between those who say it will take until 2001 to work out the subscription process and those who say they want to do something now, noted Kreidler. Continuation of contracts after 2001 would raise concerns in the F&W community that this would continue the F&W budget beyond 2001 -- there would be "angst" about that, he said. I hope such considerations will be part of what you put together, Kreidler stated. That's exactly the kind of thing we'll be addressing, responded Norman.
I see three parameters, said Hardy: How much? How long -- to 2004, 2005, or some transition period to the subscription process? And what pricing structure? If we can "build a box like that," which can meet the concerns of the F&W community and others, it would be a limited, defined amount that helps us mitigate "the post-2001" cliff we're facing, he said.
The Tribes Weigh In on Restructuring
Howard Funke, representing the Spokane and Coeur d'Alene Tribes, said the tribes in the Columbia Basin have been meeting on energy system restructuring for some time and are developing a policy on it. We are concerned about the absence of opportunities for the tribes to interface with the Transition Board on these issues, he said. He introduced other tribal representatives from the Spokanes, the Coeur d'Alenes, the Colvilles, and the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission.
The tribes, Funke said, have sought a coordinated approach in both the Comprehensive Review and the Transition Board. The tribes submitted comments during the Review, but got no reply, he said. We made overtures regarding coordination with the Transition Board process, but got no reply, Funke stated.
The tribes have a significant legal interest tied to the Basin and the hydroelectric system; BPA has a trust responsibility to the tribes; and the Northwest Power Planning Council has a legal responsibility to protect and enhance tribal F&W resources, Funke pointed out. The tribes think there ought to be more public education, he continued. This process is moving too fast for the public to ascertain what's happening. Not all issues are being addressed, and it's a piecemeal approach, Funke said. The tribes want to develop their own legislation on comprehensive energy system restructuring and to provide information to the public on restructuring, he added.
We get a lot of lip service on coordination, but no response to our overtures on coordination, Funke stated. The tribes have suffered tremendous losses -- they can't sit by and watch their interests cut loose in this restructuring process, he said. The tribes will work together to get a common position and will go to Congress with it, Funke indicated. The Transition Board and others in the region should consider the tribes' views and try to coordinate with them, he concluded.
The Transition Board believes it is important to have tribal involvement and collaboration, stated Maddock. Maybe we weren't successful with it in the Comprehensive Review -- an effort was made, but it didn't work as we'd hoped, for whatever reason, he said. From this point forward, we'd like to work with the tribes to bring forth a regional consensus, Maddock continued. I encourage you to continue your efforts -- we want to work with you, he said.
The Transition Board wants this to be an inclusive process, stated Kreidler, noting that there will be a meeting of the four governors in four to six weeks, which will afford the tribes an opportunity to express their concerns. The new governor in Washington State wants to meet with the tribes, possibly in advance of that meeting, he added.
It is critical that tribes have a significant role in this process, Kreidler stated. Without the tribes, we won't have a comprehensive solution, he said. Failures in the past are recognized, and we're working hard not to repeat them, Kreidler stated.
Governor Kitzhaber has a March 21 meeting with the tribes to talk about this, noted Hemmingway. With that, and the meeting with the four governors, "things are looking up" from the perspective of coordination with the tribes, he said.
Our efforts at engaging the tribal community in the Comprehensive Review were well-intended, if not successful, stated Etchart. I'm encouraged by your process, and I hope it doesn't end up being a separate overture to Congress and the federal authorities, he said. It would be better if there is one approach, but time will tell, Etchart said.
The Process for a River Governance Process
Staffer John Volkman explained that river governance involves a group of issues, all interrelated, and all difficult to resolve. The staff suggests that a representative group, including tribes and federal, state, and public interest representatives, be invited in for a discussion that would begin by posing a problem, he said. The problem is that some F&W issues need resolution if the Review's recommendations are to be implemented. For example, subscribers need certainty about future F&W costs, and F&W interests need to know how the subscribed power system will meet F&W, Endangered Species Act, and other obligations, Volkman stated.
We would not ask the group to solve the problem, but to talk about a process to do so, Volkman said. We would ask them to report to the governors on the kind of process that should be organized, he stated.
I think it is a reasonable way to proceed, stated Hemmingway. I like the "open-endedness" and asking people to come forward to help solve the problem, he added. I think it is an excellent way to start the process, commented Maddock.
Can you do this fast enough to present the recommendations at the Transition Board meeting in April? asked Etchart. I hope so, Volkman replied.
The tribes don't want a process handed to them, said Funke. If a Northwest Power Planning Council lawyer is designing a process for the tribes to interact, it's a bad beginning, he continued. The tribes need to appoint who comes and decide what will be on the agenda, Funke stated.
How would you approach this? Etchart asked Funke. The Transition Board and the tribes would agree that a process needs to be set up and request tribes to appoint their representatives and bring their issues to the meeting, Funke replied. The governors and other stakeholders would decide on their representatives and issues, he said.
If we can agree on a process, it will serve us all well, observed Kreidler. Etchart asked the staff to consult directly with Mr. Funke and try to accommodate the tribes' concerns.
Federal Power Marketing Subscription Group Off and Running
Adams described the "Draft Work Plan for Implementing Federal Power Marketing Subscription." The plan's goal is to carry out the federal power marketing recommendations of the Comprehensive Review, he said. The process has two phases. Phase 1, "Collaborative Discussion," begins with BPA and its customers discussing and defining their respective business and commercial interests as they relate to subscription. In Phase 2, "Bilateral Negotiations," BPA and customers would sit down and bilaterally negotiate terms and conditions of contracts based on the principles and approach arrived at in Phase 1, Adams explained.
Adams presented a timeline for the process that shows Phase 1 would go through mid-1999. He highlighted the "Assess Obstacles" milestone, which would occur in the fourth quarter of 1997. This is the element of the plan where parties identify if there are any "showstoppers" -- we need to know that early, Adams said.
He explained that the timeline for Phase 2 reflects that not all the parties will be ready to negotiate with BPA at the same time. Some will be able to do it as early as next year, but some won't, he said. Adams pointed out that the "Contracts Signed" portion of the timeline shows a deadline of the third quarter of 2000. This is a year prior to the expiration date for existing contracts with BPA, and thus gives both BPA and customers time to take other actions, if necessary, he stated.
Adams said the work group will meet twice a month, starting March 19. The meetings will be open to the public and advertised on the Internet on the home pages of BPA and the Northwest Power Planning Council. We'll come back and tell you how we are doing at the June 5 Transition Board meeting, he said.
Syd Berwager of BPA said the federal power marketing subscription kickoff meeting, held March 11, attracted 75 people. Todd Maddock gave a presentation on the context for the effort, he noted. Berwager said he presented a "starter list" of issues developed in conjunction with the work plan. Attendees at Tuesday's meeting added other issues to that list, he stated.
There are "a goodly number of issues" to deal with, Berwager noted, but he said, we are hearing from our customers that they are being visited every day by people who want to sell them post-2001 power. The challenge is to deal well with the issues, but not to lose sales opportunities, Berwager suggested.
I was pleased to see the turnout at the kickoff meeting, said Maddock. This effort is important and is "at the heart" of what we were trying to accomplish in the Comprehensive Review, he added. I applaud your efforts and support what you're doing, Maddock said.
What reactions have you gotten from groups other than customers? asked Kreidler. We mailed to several thousand people for Tuesday's meeting, and we attempted at the meeting to find out who wants to participate on what level, Adams responded. We are really trying to get the word out, he said. Notes from Tuesday's meeting will be posted on the Internet early next week, Berwager pointed out.
Down the road, we'll bring ideas to you on which issues we can do as a work group, and which issues others will need to deal with, Adams said. I've talked to "non-traditional customers," and there is some concern, Wright pointed out. They are going to see if they get to participate, and if not, they will come to the Transition Board, he stated.
Dick Heitman of Inland Power & Light expressed concern about "the timing and risk in a lot of this." Harvey Spigal identified the risks with respect to the transmission issue, he said, adding, "let's not rush into that." I'm not sure what the region gains out of retail wheeling, other than just giving customers a choice, Heitman added.
It's going to be difficult for rural utilities like mine, where people read their own meters, to jump into a completely open process by 1999, he continued. We need to do this in an orderly fashion, and we don't need to do it tomorrow, Heitman stated.
We have met with people who have promised us the same price as BPA and a sign-up bonus -- we met with some this morning, he noted. If the subscription process drags on, and it's the only way we can get together with BPA, it may not work, Heitman suggested. We've always been a 100 percent customer of BPA, and we want them to succeed, he said. We don't want this process to get in the way of BPA succeeding, Heitman concluded.
Nancy Hirsh of NCAC said she is not interested in the subscription process "starting at zero," and that she respects the work the Review did on transmission. A lot of progress has been made on the subscription process, and the list of "customer/constituent subscription issues" has things on it "that go back," she said. I hope we don't open up "the entire can of worms," Hirsh stated.
Noting the fourth item on the list that says "develop stranded cost mechanism if needed," Hirsh said, I hope we're not questioning whether a mechanism is needed. I hope the Transition Board will hold the subscription process to the task of having one that can be put in place if needed, she stated.
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).