Council Home arrow Energy arrow Comprehensive review archive

Working Group Meeting Summaries

Number 2, May 1, 1996

[ Regional Review | Document Access | NW EnerNet ]

Attachments referred to in the text of these summaries are available. Contact Diane Ferington at the NWPPC, 1-800-222-3355 (in Portland, 222-5161)

Transmission Work Group

The transmission work group met at the PNUCC offices in Portland. The meeting began with a review of the progress made by the PNUCC work group leading up to its Phase 1 Report. Members of the PNUCC group described the goals of the group and the examination of structural and governance alternatives, pricing, operations and planning that the group has accomplished.

Structure. The PNUCC group has come to concentrate on the structure of an "independent grid operator" (IGO) and has worked on adding more definition to that alternative. The group's feeling is that structures that provide less separation of generation and transmission than the IGO option will leave utilities with a substantial burden responding to FERC regulatory requirements, (making it difficult for them to be effective competitors in the wholesale market) while the greater separation provided by full divestiture of transmission assets and formation of a TRANSCO would pose significant transition problems. The point was made that for the purposes of the Comprehensive Review, the reasons for concentrating on the IGO structure may need to be documented in more detail than they were in the PNUCC group's Phase 1 Report.

The PNUCC group has given some consideration to the organization of the wholesale market and rejected a "tight pool" or POOLCO of the general form chosen in Great Britain and proposed in California. The work plans for the Comprehensive Review include examination of this option for its possible impact on transmission operation and expansion. The Competition workgroup will also examine the wholesale market alternatives.

Pricing. The examination of alternative methods of pricing transmission services has been delegated to the Tariff work group of the Northwest Regional Transmission Association (NRTA). This work group has scheduled a two-day session April 22 and 23 to discuss in detail the major variations that have been proposed for transmission pricing. The group is collecting cost data on transmission assets; it hopes this data will support at least illustrative estimates of impacts of pricing methods on various classes of transmission customers. In general the expectation is that by July 11, we should be confident that a pricing method can be constructed, but we are unlikely to know all the specifics.

Governance. The PNUCC work group has examined five possible forms that an IGO could take: a co-op, a not-for-profit company, a for-profit company, an interstate compact, and a federal IGO. They have concentrated on the co-op, for-profit company and federal IGO alternatives. Questions being examined include any legislative changes that might be necessary, how to give IGO management appropriate incentives, and what difficulties might be involved in separation of Bonneville's transmission operations from its power marketing. A subcommittee for legal and governance question will be meeting before the next full work group meeting.

Operations. Consolidating control of the transmission system in the hands of an IGO could simplify operation significantly and reduce transactions costs between transmission owners. A subgroup is outlining specific measures that might realize these benefits, and defining facilities that are critical for system stability.

Planning. Likewise, planning expansion for the transmission system as a whole could avoid unnecessary duplication. A subgroup is working on a workable separation between an IGO and transmission asset owners of planning and acquisition responsibilities. This separation is influenced by the governance structure chosen for the IGO

Extensions of work for the comprehensive review. The work scope for the comprehensive review includes two items that were not priority items for the PNUCC group: an examination of the impact of wholesale market structure (including a POOLCO) on the transmission system, and an examination of the implications of transmission operation and management choices on the power system's ability to accomplish its public purposes. The group will take a closer look at the wholesale market structure, bringing in a knowledgeable advocate for a POOLCO, and will form a working group to look at the ability of the transmission system to support public purposes.

Federal Power Marketing Work Group

The Federal Power Marketing Work Group had its initial full day meeting Tuesday, April 9. Subsequent meetings of the Work Group will be every other Tuesday (April 23, May 7, May 21, June 4, June 18 and July 2) from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

The following dates for reports were established:

The following reports were presented and discussed:

A paper by Brett Wilcox "NEWCO PLUS: A Brief Reply" was distributed but not discussed. All of these are available from the Council's office.

The IOUs, Public Power Council and Merrill Schultz for Douglas County PUD promised materials for the April 23 meeting. Bonneville will prepare two papers as well, one expanding on the status quo and the second describing how far they think they can go in separating transmission and generation administratively.

There was a brief discussion of the interest of the bond rating agencies in the Comprehensive Review, and in particular in this work group, because of the discussions about the WPPSS debts.

Finally, there was a discussion about objectives and evaluation criteria. John Saven handed out an example to start the discussion. A subgroup will meet next week to prepare draft for the Work Group to consider at the April 23 meeting.

Competition Work Group

The third meeting of the Competition Work Group was held in Seattle at the offices of Seattle City Light. Several members attended through a conference phone hookup with the Power Planning Council offices in Portland. In total, 47 people attended the meeting, either in person or electronically.

The first item of business was to review the basic information that was volunteered at the previous meeting. The group requested more information about what has been done in other countries and Terry Morlan agreed to provide it. There was also interest in a summary of the actions taken by other States which would outline and compare basic principles agreed to and actions taken. Dick Watson is preparing such a document and it will be sent to the work group. Dick Byers gave a status report on the state efforts to summarize laws and regulations affecting utilities in each state. Rick Redman is preparing a paper described as "antitrust 101" to circulate to the work group.

At the second meeting of the Competition Work Group, members were asked to come to this meeting prepared to describe efforts by retail customers to gain access to the wholesale electricity market. Three or four examples were described briefly and engendered significant amounts of discussion. The discussion touched on many issues including, antitrust concerns, effects of early access deals and various system charges on realizing competition's benefits, issues of state jurisdiction over retail access, and how changing technology might affect the retail electricity market. Larry Kitchen is providing some analysis of alternatives for providing ancillary services at the retail level, and will have a presentation at the May 3rd meeting.

One of the goals for this meeting was to get a common understanding of what retail customer market access means to working group members and what issues it raises. Maureen Carr summarized the public utility perspective as wary, but that public utilities are very interested in the economic health of their communities and generally are willing to work with individual customers to address their concerns. Jason Eisdorfer provided a statement of his concerns about retail access. These concerns included cost shifting to captive customers, inequitable sharing of the benefits of competition, the dominant focus on market price at the expense of other broader social perspectives, and concerns about quality of service, especially for low income customers. Bill Gillis provided a definition of retail wheeling which addressed some regulatory concerns. There was substantial agreement within the working group that the issues raised were important issues to address. There was far less agreement about how important these issues were expected to be.

Several used the experience in natural gas restructuring to support the belief that competition would result in reliable service and benefits for all customers. It was further argued that solutions could be found for addressing the other concerns. Some stated that retail access is going to happen regardless of the region's actions, but that some clarification of state and regional policies would result in a better transition. The issue of reciprocity, for example, was raised. It might not be desirable for one utility to open up its service territory for retail wheeling while its neighboring utility did not. Larry Kitchen stated that BPA could use some guidance from state regulators in making decisions about whether to wheel power to utility customers for alternative suppliers.

The work group was reminded that the process of restructuring is likely to be long and lumpy. There will be a need to help inform customers about the transition and how to benefit from it. It was also suggested that there are stranded benefits that may be at risk in the form of below market power costs currently enjoyed by some in the region. The investor-owned utilities seemed to be supportive of increased customer access to the electricity market, but with some caveats related to stranded cost recovery and public policy goals.

Ken Canon suggested that work group members try to put together a model of an industry structure for the next meeting. Al Alexanderson suggested not proposing a structure for which known vetoes exist, but rather try to propose a realistic solution. The models should include a discussion of issues and how the proposal addresses them.

Public Purposes Work Group

The second meeting of the Conservation, Renewables and Public Purposes Work Group was held at the Portland offices of the Northwest Power Planning Council. Work Group co-chairs Rachel Shimshak and Jim Davis presided over the meeting. A list of work group participants is appears as Attachment 1.

The first item on the work groups agenda was the discussion and adoption of a work plan and schedule. The draft plan and schedule proposed by Shimshak and Davis was adopted with one modification. It was agreed that further discussion of the Task 3 - Public purposes, obligations and cost transfers, be delayed until early May to provide time for several parties to complete analyses they have underway that addresses this question. It was also agreed that the work group's near term focus should be on completing the Task 1 and 2 which deal with conservation and renewable resources. The revised "Work Plan and Schedule" appear as Attachment 2. The final "Scope of Work" from the Steering Committee appears as Attachment 3.

Mark Sullivan indicated that in his opinion, environmental externality costs, were not adequately addressed by the work plan. He volunteered to develop some ideas on how these costs might be incorporated into the group's work products.

The second item on the work groups agenda was a discussion of the cost of various "public benefits" currently provided by the region's power system. Terry Esvelt from Bonneville prefaced the presentation of the "numbers" with several caveats. First, that numbers associated with many of the "public purposes" are often very imprecise and can vary over a wide range. Second, that the numbers provided were collected in less than a week from readily available sources -- no new analysis was done, nor does BPA envision conducting any. Third, Bonneville would gladly accept assistance in completing/correcting/refining the cost estimates it has collected. Don Wolfe from BPA then proceeded to describe the data that he had collected to "add numbers" to each of the public purposes identified in Walt Pollock's memo to the Comprehensive Review Steering Committee entitled" Public Policies and Their Benefits and Costs in the Pacific Northwest Electric Power System" ( March 13, 1996). This document appears as Attachment 4. The document "References on Costs of Public Purposes" (DRAFT-April 4, 1996) distributed by Mr. Wolfe appears as Attachment 5.

During the discussion, the Work Group agreed 1) to eliminate "Non-firm power rates" and "Environmental mitigation in FERC Licenses for Non-Federal Facilities" from further consideration as a "public purposes," 2) to ask the "Competition and Customer Choice" work group to address the issues of "Utility Franchise Service Territories" and "Interclass Rates," and 3) to ask the Transmission work group to address the issue of "postage stamp rates."

Shawn Cantrell, from Friends of the Earth, presented a summary of a study prepared by FOE, Taxpayers for Common Sense and the Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition that estimated the cost of five "revenue impacting activities" of BPA that these organizations recommended for elimination. This study entitled "River of Red Ink" and the summary submitted by Mr. Cantrell appear as Attachments 6 and 7.

Glen Vanselow, of the Pacific Northwest Waterways Association, then provided an overview of the some of the costs and benefits associated with the use of the Columbia and Snake River system for navigation. He indicated that his association will be providing more information at a later date. The summary distributed by Mr. Vanselow's appears as Attachment 8.

Following considerable discussion, the work group agreed that there was a need to provide a common framework for measuring the costs of all public purposes. Darryll Oleson proposed that to the extent possible costs and benefits be reported in dollars per acre foot. Work group staff will work with Oleson and other interested parties to develop a reporting framework.

NWPPC staff member Jeff King then provided the work group with an overview of the findings regarding renewable resources contained in the recently adopted draft 1996 Regional Power Plan. He described that costs and availability of the various renewable energy resources considered in the draft plan. He also described the major factors impacting the future development of these resources. Copies of Mr. King's slides appear as Attachment 9.

Don Bain from the Oregon Department of Energy then provided a status report on the "Renewable Resource Confirmation Agenda" contained in the Council's 1991 Regional Power Plan. He noted where progress had been made and which activities were at risk. Bain distributed copies of Appendix K from the NWPPC's recently adopted draft plan which served as the background for his comments.

The Work Group will be provided with a briefing by NWPPC staff on the draft plan's findings regarding conservation at its meeting on April 10th and 11th. In preparation for that meeting work group participants were provided copies of Chapters 5 and 6 from the draft plan as well as several other "background" articles on the impact of utility industry restructuring on conservation. A listing of these articles appears as Attachment 10. Also in preparation for the next meeting, Shimshak at the suggestion of Dorothy Anderson, asked work group participants to prepare their own goals/objectives for conservation, renewables and public purposes. A portion of the next meeting will be devoted to determining the degree of agreement on these goals/objectives.

The third meeting of the Conservation, Renewables and Public Purposes Work Group was held at the Portland offices of the Northwest Power Planning Council. Work Group co-chairs Rachel Shimshak and Jim Davis presided over the meeting. A list of work group participants is appears as Attachment 1.

The first item on the agenda was a presentation by Tom Eckman. He provided an overview of the conservation assessment contained in the Council's 1996 Draft Plan. Eckman indicated that the Council identified 1535 aMW of regionally cost-effective conservation that could be achieved over the next twenty years. The Council estimates that about one-third of this conservation is likely to be developed by utilities and consumers acting in response to the market. Copies of Mr. Eckman's presentation appear as Attachment 2.

The second item on the agenda was briefing by Ralph Cavanagh from the Natural Resources Defense Council, on the current status of Conservation, Renewables and Public Purposes in the California electric industry restructuring process. Cavanagh began by indicating that the focus of the "public purpose" discussion in California was different in two fundamental respects from that in the Northwest. First, the state does not have anything similar to Bonneville, so issues of the future role of such a federal agency are not addressed. Second, the issue of how to deal with "stranded generating assets," dominates the discussions because of their sheer financial magnitude.

Cavanagh then stated that four "public purposes" are being dealt with as part of the state's restructuring activities. These are energy efficiency, renewables, low income services (including both conservation and rate/bill subsidies) and "public purpose" research and development. The focus of the discussion has now move from the Public Utilities Commission to the Legislator and centers on "how to accomplish these objectives without distorting the market." One proposal (Assembly Bill -123) would establish a "non-bypassable, usage based fee" (i.e. systems benefits charge) at the retail distribution system level, not to exceed a level of 3.3 percent of revenues to pay for energy efficiency, renewables and public purpose research and development. This level was set based on historical conservation expenditures for conservation. Low income services would not be subject to this cap. Public utilities, who are not covered by the PUC, are discussing whether they should be included in the legislation, and if so whether the legislation should also set a "floor" or minimum size on the levy.

The California PUC, according to Cavanagh favors using a portfolio diversity standard to encourage renewables, while the legislature appears to favor a "buy down" of renewables to match current market price funded by the "system benefits charge."

There is as yet, no resolution on how the funds collected would be dispersed. Through 1997 the states IOU's will continue to operate their conservation programs. Cavanagh noted there is considerable concern regarding the potential for vertically integrated utilities who do not separate their distribution functions from their generation functions to use "public purpose" funds to retain and build load. Therefore, some consideration is being given to the establishment of an independent non-profit entity to administer the fund.

The work group spent the remainder of the afternoon brainstorming and discussing conservation goals and objectives. These goals and objectives are to serve as the basis for identifying the nature and function of any mechanism(s) that may be needed to achieve conservation in a restructured utility industry. Copies of the Conservation Goals and Objectives identified by the Work Group appear as Attachment 3.

The Work Group took up the third item on its agenda Thursday morning. Using the results of the prior afternoons brainstorming and discussion conservation goals and objectives, the work group developed a similar set for renewables. These goals and objectives are to serve as the basis for identifying the nature and function of any mechanism(s) that may be needed to achieve renewable resources in a restructured utility industry. Copies of the Renewables Goals and Objectives identified by the Work Group appear as Attachment 4.

It was determined that the staff and a small group comprised of the Steering Committee members on the Work Group, would attempt to distill the conservation and renewable goals and objectives down to a more manageable scale by the meeting in Spokane on April 24th and 25th. The primary focus of the Spokane meeting will be to discuss potential mechanisms that could be used to accomplish these goals and objectives.

The final item on the work group's agenda was a status report on the amount of funds being spent on low income energy assistance and low income weatherization in the four state region. Charlie Grist (ODOE/NWPPC-OR), Tony Usibelli (WSEO) and John Hines (NWPPC-MT) provided a summary of the data they had collected to date. These summaries appear as attachments 5-8. It was agreed that further efforts to refine the data should include a better accounting of funds used for low income assistance that are provided by local utilities and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) as part of its housing assistance programs.

The next Work Group meeting will be held at the Washington Water Power Company's Offices, E. 1411 Mission St., Spokane, WA. The meeting will run from 10 am to 4 pm on April 24th and 9 am to 3 pm on April 25th. Doug Young, from WWP (509-482-4521) provided a map showing the location of his company's offices (see Attachment 9).

Also distributed at the meeting were copies of two papers prepared by Alfred H. Canada that supported a goal of developing a significant quantity of solar photovoltaic power generation in the region. These appear as Attachments 10 and 11.

The fourth meeting of the Conservation, Renewables and Public Purposes Work Group was held at the Spokane offices of the Washington Water Power Company. Work Group co-chairs Rachel Shimshak and Jim Davis presided over the meeting. A list of work group participants appears as Attachment 1.

The work group's first agenda item focused on alternative views of the amount of conservation and renewable resources that might be developed as a result of market forces. Mr. Phil Sher, representing the Pacific Northwest Generating Cooperative (PNCG), and Mr. John Shearer, consultant to PNGC, provided the work group with an overview of the demand side management plan its members developed and are now implementing. The plan has 10 objectives designed to improve the efficiency of PNGC's member co-op's conservation programs. With respect to conservation, its objectives are to increase energy savings by 300 percent, while only increasing annual utility expenditures by 20 percent over the next five years. The goal is to make the conservation programs "self-supporting," i.e. not paid for by general rate revenues) over this time frame. Attachment 2 describes in more detail PNGC's "Energy Efficiency Goals & Program."

Mr. Terry Esvelt, Bonneville's Vice President for Marketing, presented BPA's view of Public Purposes. He indicated that in his agency's view the determination of what constitutes "public benefits" and how those benefits are distributed needs to be publicly determined. He offered four basic premises, or goals, by which mechanisms for sustaining conservation and renewables could be judged:

Mr. Esvelt then indicated there was considerable uncertainty about how much conservation might be "left on the table," with a range between 100 and 500 aMW. After considerable discussion the consensus of the group was that market forces alone would not deliver all socially-desirable conservation. The overhead transparencies used by Mr. Esvelt are included as Attachment 3.

Mr. Dave Hewitt, representing the Northwest Energy Efficiency Council, then offered his organization's views on where the market for energy efficiency services is headed. Hewitt said his organization represents firms who are actively engaged in providing energy efficiency services for utilities and end-use customers. He indicated that as the electric industry restructures that some customer types, particularly large commercial and industrial firms, will likely have access to excellent conservation services. However, in Hewitt's view, significant barriers will continue to prevent the development of cost-effective conservation opportunities. These barriers include split incentives (owner/lessor), government paralysis, short-term ownership, cash-starved businesses, lean staffing and businesses whose focus is elsewhere. These barriers will continue to constrain conservation even in a restructured industry. Copies of the overhead transparencies used by Mr. Hewitt are included as Attachment 4.

The next item on the work group's agenda was the continuation of a discussion of conservation and renewable resources goals and objectives began at its prior meeting. Shimshak opened this agenda item with a review of the process used to consolidate the results of the group's "brainstorming" exercise at the last meeting. She indicated that a small group consisting primarily of the Steering committee members on the work group had met to review an initial draft consolidation prepared by work group staff. This sub-group's revised version of the goals and objectives were what the full group now had before them for discussion. (See Attachment 5) The work group then proceeded to discuss ways to further distinguish between goals for the region's power supply system generally and those for conservation and renewable resources specifically. It was agreed that the first goal listed for both conservation and renewable resources should be viewed as attribute desired of the region's power system. The remaining goals in the list were more directly related to the public purpose goals for conservation and renewables. Paul Murphy, representing the DSI's offered an alternative set of Goals for Conservation and Renewables. (See Attachment 6). A small group consisting of Marc Sullivan, Paul Murphy, Tom Foley, Maureen Carr, Alan Hicks, Nancy Hirsh, John Jones, John Hines, Shirley Lindstrom, Terry Esvelt and Tom Eckman volunteered to take another cut at re-drafting the goals and objectives. Shimshak instructed the group to make the goals clearer, without adding new goals.

The work group focused the second day of its meeting on alternative proposals for accomplishing the conservation and renewable resources that a unlikely to be developed by the market forces. John Esler of Portland General Electric began the discussion by presenting a proposal being developed by the region's investor-owned utilities. The goal of the IOU's proposal is to ensure that cost-effective conservation and renewable resources, as well as other "public purposes" are not sacrificed in the transition to a more competitive electricity market. The basis of this proposal is to collect funds through a non-bypassable system benefit charge to be used to carry out conservation resource development activities. The funds collected would be dispersed by a new not-for-profit entity through a competitive bid process. Conservation funded through this mechanism would be targeted on market failures and market transformation. Renewable resource development would be encouraged through state and federal tax incentives, streamlined siting requirements and voluntary "Green pricing" at both the wholesale and retail level. Copies of Mr. Esler's overhead transparencies appear as Attachment 7.

Mr. Charlie Grist, from the Oregon Department of Energy and Oregon office of the Northwest Power Planning Council, presented one of five proposals for accomplishing conservation currently being discussed in Oregon. He stated that this particular proposal grew out of discussions that originated in 1994 as a result of a "white paper" prepared by Roy Hemmingway and Dave Yaden for PacifiCorp on the future of conservation funding in a more competitive electric industry. Mr. Grist summarized the goals, objectives, governance structure and process, major functions and illustrative budget of the proposal. A summary of this proposal distributed by Mr. Grist appears as Attachment 8. Mr. Grist indicated that under this proposal a non-bypassable "meter charge" (i.e. non-volumetric) would be collected to fund market transformation efforts and to target conservation opportunities that were not being secured by the market. Renewable resource development and low income energy assistance support are not presently included in this proposal.

Paul Murphy offered the next proposal. His indicated that unlike other proposals, his approach to conservation and renewables was based on giving the market a chance to work before establishing some other mechanism. Mr. Murphy laid out the rationale for this approach in an issue paper he prepared entitled "The Case for Private Funding for Conservation and Renewables in the New Competitive Environment." (See Attachment 9.) His specific proposal is summarized in Attachment 10.

Jim Saunders and Mike Burnett, representing the Conservation and Renewable Energy System (CARES), outline their organization's strategy for accomplishing conservation and renewables in the future. The CARES' plan is to significantly lower their utilities' cost of conservation while maintaining its viability as a customer service. The specific strategy for accomplishing these goals will reduce the use and size of consumer financial incentives through direct grants/rebates, increase the use of loans or energy service charges and enhance marketing efforts. CARES is also developing a retail rate design to permit their member utilities to offer "green power."

A fourth proposal was presented by Nancy Hirsh from NCAC. Her proposal was prepared in coordination with the Renewables Northwest Project and Low income advocates. However, she noted that her proposal did not represent NCAC's official position. Ms. Hirsh proposal covered conservation, renewables and low income energy services. It proposes to collect funds through a non-bypassable system benefits charge at the retail level to be used by an independent, quasi-governmental agency to " acquire all regionally cost-effective conservation, facilitate implementation of low income energy programs, and manage market transformation programs" and support renewable resource research development and demonstration as well as distributed generation. She indicated that her proposal was to have the agency's Board of Director develop an estimate of the level of the levy needed to accomplish these goals once every three years. The summary of this proposal provided by Ms. Hirsh's appears as Attachment 11.

Brent Haddad, appearing on behalf of the Renewable Northwest Project, outlined a Renewable Resource Proposal. This proposal would use a "portfolio standard" to increase the amount of solar, wind and geothermal resources developed in the Northwest over the next decade. The proposed standard would require that all retail providers of electricity must ensure that at least 1% of the electricity they provide by 2001 is from renewables and that at least 2% of the electricity they provide by 2006 is from renewables. In order to facilitate that the standard is met in a cost-effective way, a system of tradable "Renewable Energy Credits" (RECs) would be established. A copy of Mr. Haddad's proposal appears as Attachment 12.

Ms. Shimshak also distributed a second version of a Renewable Resource proposal that relies on a systems benefit charge to pay for "above new marginal resource cost renewables and to fund R&D associated with renewables. (See Attachment 13.)

Mr. Bruce Folsom from Washington Water Power then briefly described his utilities "tariff rider" for demand side management. This rider is a non-bypassable systems benefit charge of 1.55 percent of utility revenues which is collected retail sales that is used exclusively to fund demand side management activities. He indicated that the primary benefits of this approach to funding demand side management include the fact that it is 1) competitively neutral, 2) non-bypassable, 3) stable, and; 4) does not create the potential for "stranded regulatory assets." In response to a question Mr. Folsom stated that the company had not received any criticism from its industrial customers regarding the charge. Mr. Folsom distributed a summary of the tariff rider prepared for EPRI. (See Attachment 14.)

Due to time constraints the agenda item dealing with low income energy services was deferred until the work group meeting on May 22nd and 23rd.. However, Mr. Michael Karp, from the Energy Project, distributed a resolution on "Policies to Protect the Rights of Vulnerable Customers in the Restructuring of the Electric Utility Industry" for the work groups consideration. See Attachment 15.

Ms. Shimshak and Mr. Davis then asked if there were any other parties who wished to submit proposals to the work group for achieving public purposes goals and objectives. They requested that all proposals be submitted in a standard format. Staff distributed copies of the template (See Attachment 16) to those parties who planned to submit additional proposals. Shimshak encouraged the preparation of joint proposals.

The next meeting of the Work Group will be in Portland on May 8th, the day prior to the full Steering Committee meeting. The specific location and meeting agenda will be distributed via fax. The tentative agenda includes an update on the sub-groups progress towards clarifying the goals and objectives and presentation of additional proposals for accomplishing various public purposes.

[ Regional Review | Document Access | NW EnerNet ]

Please contact feedback@newsdata.com if you have questions or comments
about this website or call Karen Hatch at 206/285-4848.

Last modified: April 4, 1996
http://www.newsdata.com/enernet/review/documents/wkgpsum2.html