Download the full text version of the March 28 meeting.
Download the full text version of the March 28 meeting.DICK ADAMS OF THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST UTILITIES Conference Committee (PNUCC) briefed the Comprehensive Energy Review steering committee on PNUCC's transmission study, and BPA's Vickie VanZandt gave that agency's perspective on restructuring the transmission system. The committee revised the draft work group instructions, and work groups held initial meetings. All committee members were present; the audience was about 90.
Next Meeting: May 9 in Portland.Work groups will make progress reports.
Steering committee chair Chuck Collins introduced Dick Adams, executive director of PNUCC, to report on the organization's work group established last year to study transmission in a competitive environment. We have a group well established that will cooperate with the review to answer the questions in front of us, Collins said of the PNUCC effort.
Adams described the scope of the PNUCC transmission project, which started about eight months ago. We considered the Northwest system only, he said, without the rest of the West Coast or Canada. Rick Applegate asked if the decision to leave out Canada could pose problems for the study. Adams responded that no matter where you draw the boundary, there are interconnections to take into account. He said if the study area is too large, you won't get the problem solved, but it must be large enough to address the major questions.
The PNUCC study is limited to transmission issues only, and it involves utilities and BPA. Adams said the approach is to define how a transmission entity might be governed and formed and to identify the pluses and minuses of each alternative. He noted that when the study began, "our goal was more lofty," but grew "more realistic" as the study progressed.
The goals of the PNUCC study were separated into several categories: restructuring, economic, transition period and policy, and regulatory. We are using these goals to guide our work, Adams explained. The overarching goal is to follow where the national policy is heading, he said, and to ensure that whatever the solution, there are no losers.
The transmission structures PNUCC is studying covered a spectrum from "no action" to a "one owner/operator" system, Adams said. No action means nothing beyond what is already going on, he explained. In between these two "bookends" is the coordination agreement and the independent operator. Adams pointed the committee to a matrix that details the characteristics of the transmission alternatives.
PNUCC identified five major categories within the technical issues involved in a transmission restructure:
PNUCC came up with four alternative structures and compared them with regard to how they would treat the technical issues. The first, a Transmission Coordination Agreement, is a contractual arrangement among transmission owners. The owners maintain control in almost all areas, but operations are enhanced to improve efficiencies. Adams said the work group considered two forms of Independent Grid Operator (IGO): the IGO-Limited, in which operations are the responsibility of an outside party, but utilities retain ownership of the system; and the IGO-Owner, in which both utilities and the operator own transmission, but the IGO operates the system and could plan and build upgrades, if utilities decline to do so.
Under the fourth alternative, the system would have a single transmission company (Transco) owner and operator, responsible for upgrades and maintenance. Adams said that for a Transco to work, there must be "a critical mass" of facilities, but not every asset would be required in order for it to work. Not everybody would be forced to participate, but the opportunity is there, he said.
The PNUCC work group also considered the form of the governing entity -- federal, cooperative, non-profit, interstate compact, and for-profit. Any of these governance structures could apply with any ownership arrangement, Adams explained.
Adams said the legal issues seem to break down into five categories: legislative needs, regulatory approval, tax implications, mortgage indentures, and antitrust. We've taken a pretty broad look at the top 25 questions, he said, and they fall into these categories. The economic issues are primarily compensation, sources of capital, and rates. Rates are key, Adams observed, and the Northwest Regional Transmission Association has begun exploring that question.
The first point in the draft scope for the review's transmission work group is defining the system, Adams noted. He said PNUCC has explored the questions, but has no answers. The discussion of system definition always "backs into the economic questions," Adams said. What is the backbone of the grid? What facilities would an IGO have to have to operate, and what would the market need in order to have transmission access? System definition, in our discussions, ended up with economic considerations and issues such as compensation and rate design, Adams said.
PNUCC is finalizing a Phase 1 report, he stated, and that should be done in about a week. Phase 2 includes working with the comprehensive review, he said, as well as continuing to define the details and getting into the nuts and bolts of an IGO.
Is there anything in the scope of work for our transmission work group that bothers you? Collins asked. We can help you with some of the questions; some of our material could be of value, Adams replied. The number one task is defining the system, and we've struggled with that, he continued. It seems you want to discuss pooling, Adams noted, and we have not. There's not a lot of interest in it, and there's not much we can contribute, he said. They look like the right questions, Adams concluded.
Can you give us advice about getting the process up and rolling quickly? Ken Canon asked. Adams said a good first step is to have a one-page description of "what you're doing." Narrowing the focus of the question is key, he added. If you get into "the nitty gritty," you won't get there, Adams counseled. Identify the policy questions, and focus on what the four Northwest governors need to hear from you, Adams said. He also noted that it takes staff commitment to do the work. We have 40 or 50 people in the industry working on this, and that's what has made it happen, Adams said.
K. C. Golden said he appreciated that the PNUCC work was not presented as "a fait accompli." "Surely you have some leanings," he prodded. "Where are they?" Adams said the focus on an IGO in Phase 2 is a clue to where PNUCC is leaning. "My sense is the coordination agreement doesn't quite get there, and the single owner/operator is too scary," he responded. As for governance, Adams said the federal and for-profit alternatives are natural ones to look at. The co-op has also been looked at; we've got examples of all of these, he explained.
Mike Kreidler said that rates and tariffs have the potential for being extremely sensitive issues. How much have you done with these? he asked. Adams said PNUCC had just "scratched the surface," but the regional transmission association is beginning to get into the issue. It's important to get at the options for rate design, he said. I think it would be wrong in the next 100 days to come up with "the right design" and hand it to an IGO, Adams stated. You need to get a sense of what the options are and what they would mean, he added.
Dick and PNUCC have been totally open and up-front in this process, Collins said. We talked about broadening the perspective [of PNUCC's work] to include the public interest, and I've asked K.C. and Sharon to give it that perspective, he said. Dick has been enthusiastic, Collins observed. This is a little bit different type of work group, he continued. "It's not a marriage, but it's a little more than hanging out together. It's cohabitation of some kind," Collins said. It's a collaborative effort; we're not taking over their process, he affirmed.
Bill Drummond said he was interested in building on what PNUCC has done. Your advice about narrowing the focus and issues to what we give the governors in a recommendation is essential, he told Adams.
Walt Pollock said BPA has leanings with regard to the transmission restructure, and he introduced Vickie VanZandt, vice president of the agency's engineering services, to present them. VanZandt said BPA is leaning to the IGO model. It delivers the most benefits without divesting assets -- you get most of the good without a great deal of pain, she explained. Of the IGO structures, BPA prefers the IGO-Owner. It may solve the problems of system expansion, VanZandt noted, since the IGO-Owner can build transmission, as a last resort.
FERC's draft Mega-NOPR and the proposed standards of conduct intend a stringent separation of merchant and reliability functions, VanZandt said. BPA supports and will fully comply with the deregulation initiatives, she reported. BPA has already administratively separated its transmission from its power business lines. There are separate rates, contracts, and accounting, she said. We've developed a transmission services information network (TSIN) that will be in full-blown operation in October, VanZandt said, and we have designated a transmission-only sales staff.
In October, BPA will have transmission scheduling separate from power scheduling, and will physically move the merchant function from the transmission control center, VanZandt said. There will also be a separation of support staff, although BPA will retain a single General Counsel. And there will be no preferential sharing of information across business lines, she stated.
What happens if you violate that? Canon asked. VanZandt responded that she didn't know.
BPA wants to be the region's transmission service provider of choice, VanZandt said. We recognize the restructuring is up for consideration in the review, she said, noting that BPA has heard concerns that there is no regulatory oversight and no profit motive to encourage efficiency. Do the rules apply to BPA? Yes, she said. We agree that a regional IGO should be regulated by FERC, she added. We will comply with the regulatory initiatives from FERC to the extent we can, VanZandt stated.
As for efficiency, VanZandt said performance-based regulation can be applied to a federal entity. BPA wants to throw open the borders and get as much as we can out of the system, she concluded.
Collins said the scopes of work for each of the four work groups were drafts, and he invited comments and reactions to them. He began with the Transmission Work Group. Roy Hemmingway said he had a general concern that "we don't appear to be asking the work groups for a recommendation," but only an evaluation. He said he would like to see "a sharp and clearly defined report" from the groups.
My thought was the work groups would rank-order the alternatives, Collins responded. He noted staff had cautioned that voting on recommendations within groups raised process questions about who could vote. On the other hand, if you don't have that discipline, the reports become fuzzy and ambiguous, he acknowledged.
John Saven indicated that it would be valuable to get a product that the work group says makes sense. He suggested the groups should produce a package, with the advantages and disadvantages listed. I'm interested in that package, Saven said, adding that if it leads to a recommendation, that's fine.
I like the idea of having alternatives, Applegate said. Voting in committees without a structure could be a problem and drag us into deeper debates, he added.
Hemmingway said that he recognizes the process is open. When the steering committee work is done, the political process will be open, too, he observed. The political process will not reach five conclusions, it will reach one, Hemmingway added. I'd find it useful if the work group was driving to consensus. The fact it's an open process is an even stronger reason to go for consensus, he urged. All of these views will be at work in the political process, Hemmingway concluded.
Pollock agreed it would be useful for the committee to know if there is consensus. Collins suggested the groups could offer a preferred alternative. Saven noted that the 100-day schedule is short. I don't want voting per se to get in the way of getting things clearly identified and organized, he said.
Collins asked if these comments summed up the group's feelings. Golden said he thought people were here to drive toward a common solution. I would be disappointed if all we get back from the work groups is the feelings people went in with, he stated.
Shall we leave it at "drive"? Collins asked. If we fail to achieve some consensus, we're handing ourselves a big problem that we'll have to solve in the 50-day environment, he continued. The chairs will attempt to achieve consensus and an ordering of alternatives, Collins summed up.
Applegate said that he was concerned with transmission and how the alternatives would work for fish. In separating transmission from generation, you insulate transmission from the WPPSS debt and fish and wildlife (F&W), things the power system now funds, he pointed out. We have to talk as well about insulating transmission from system obligations, Applegate said.
I see three alternatives for considering the effects on fish, Applegate continued. The first would be to separate transmission and generation without concern for the problems created for the obligations to the power system. The second would be selling the transmission system and using the proceeds to help reduce the WPPSS debt, fund F&W obligations, and provide for other public purposes. The third alternative would be to separate transmission from generation and find a way for transmission to continue to pay for public purposes, Applegate explained.
Drummond suggested the questions Applegate was raising were public purpose and belonged in that work group. The public purpose group could put something together on transmission without violating the scope of work, Collins observed. Applegate noted these were very important issues for people watching the process.
This heightens the point that this is a package deal, Kreidler said. All of it must fit together, he added. Canon noted that work groups will feed back to the steering committee and provide a cross-check on issues. In 100 days, we come back and wrestle with fitting things together, he said.
Golden suggested there were "overarching issues" that don't reside just in the public purposes group. I'd like to see the transmission alternatives evaluated according to how efficiently they achieve the public purposes, he said. That should be an explicit charge of the work groups, Golden urged.
Hemmingway said that clearly there is a large issue with whether transmission should carry costs as part of a charge for public purposes. We want to be able to tell if each alternative does it well or does it poorly, he said. Your answer may be that all five are the same in that regard, but we don't want the public policy group figuring out which, Collins observed. Is this an important issue for the transmission group? he asked. The committee responded with nods of affirmation.
Pollock said he had three concerns with the transmission scope of work. First, define what you are talking about as facilities, he suggested, noting that the definitions in the National Energy Policy Act of 1992 would be a place to start. Of transmission pricing, Pollock said, "don't take it all on; you could make it a life's work." He noted issues such as postage stamp versus congestion pricing, and "the pancaking rates" problem. Rather than working through details, Pollock urged the work group to be clear about basic logic. Third, he suggested the group have clear objectives up front. Access and pricing are two measures to use in the evaluation, Pollock concluded.
Rachel Shimshak said "fairness across resource types" should be added to Walt's list. That means you don't discriminate against one type of generation versus another, she said. Asked for clarification, Shimshak said, don't discriminate against intermittent versus baseload resources. As new resources such as wind come on line, there is a question about how to price transmission, she explained. Don't just put rules and prices together that deal with fossil fuels, Shimshak urged.
Canon asked, if this is different than what's needed for hydro resources? Shimshak said it is. Sharon Nelson suggested that this is a governance and accountability issue. The question is, who's going to oversee what the IGO is doing? she said.
I think we're compounding the difficulty, Saven offered. How would you manage it? Shimshak asked. Saven said that for purposes of transmission, there should be some general acknowledgment that some social purposes need to be accommodated. We have to find a balance between the policy and the technical, he said.
Shimshak said she wanted to avoid having the transmission group prematurely close doors on decisions of cost or access. I was looking for some level of flexibility, she said. Jim Davis stated that intermittent resources such as pumped storage should also be included in the discussion.
We're having an "end game discussion" here, in advance of the game, Collins asserted. Drummond said he kept thinking of Dick Adams' admonition that the groups must focus quickly. He added that in response to Applegate's point, "I see fish as one of a number of obligations," that also includes treaties, both with tribes and Canada; WPPSS; and others.
Applegate agreed. The ultimate question is: what is the ability of an alternative to carry those obligations forward? he said. Will it affect the system's ability to meet public purposes, and does it have other than kilowatt-hour-maximizing capability? Collins rephrased. Shimshak asked the work group to bear the issue in mind.
Al Alexanderson said he would like to understand what the former owner of transmission gets under various alternatives. Is it a lump sum or an annual payment? he queried. There is a potential for stranded transmission costs, Alexanderson noted, urging the group to "be clear about what they have in mind."
Is this a transitional cost issue? Canon asked. Alexanderson said his question is, what are the alternative methods for transferring transmission assets, costs, and risks to a new system? Gary Zarker said all of the groups should evaluate transition issues. You would say here is the end point, and here is what we think the steps are to get there, he explained. Collins affirmed that the charge of each work group is explicitly to raise transition issues.
Golden said he was puzzled about why an issue as important as expanding choice for all customers was under "other issues" in the scoping write-up for the Competition and Customer Choice Work Group. Alexanderson added that there seemed to be a strong conclusion in the way the scope is written -- "what can we do for the little guys, but make sure they aren't hurt too badly?" I'm glad others saw that, Jason Eisdorfer said. He suggested the market power issues be given more emphasis and that "low-income programs" be separate from low-density discounts.
Canon suggested the scope for the work group apply to more than "virtual access" customers, as stated in task one. He noted that few customers understand what the "virtual" refers to or means. Eisdorfer said he read tasks one through three as asking, is there a problem with wholesale customers getting to the retail market? It seems like a long-winded way to get there, he observed.
What if you came at it from a customer choice and retail competition angle, Canon recommended. What are the difficulties of having choice for all classes, and do those classes really desire it? he suggested. If all we're looking at is wholesale access, we'll be accused of leaving lots of folks out, Canon said. Nelson concurred that the questions "represent a supply-side orientation."
Collins directed the work group members to take on reworking the language. We have "a significant disconnect" here with what the committee members think is appropriate, he noted. He asked staffer Terry Morlan, who wrote the draft, to sit down with the group during lunch to discuss changes.
When the committee reconvened after lunch, Canon reported that progress had been made, but the work group would continue its discussions during the two-hour meeting later in the afternoon.
Saven asked that the word "principles" be deleted from the scope of the Federal Power Marketing Work Group, since that category did not appear in other work group instructions. He also said he didn't want to preclude anyone from bringing alternatives to add to the list of models in the draft scope. Collins noted that generally, the work groups have some latitude to reshape their charge. There will be check-in monthly with the steering committee, he added.
Pollock offered several suggestions. Market power as an issue, he said, is derivative of the alternatives. It needs to flow from the alternatives, Pollock stated, adding that the question of whether it exists with a particular alternative, is an issue. He said the model approach in the draft scope "has merit."
There is a presumption in this work scope that there are benefits provided by BPA that can't be provided elsewhere, Pollock continued. Money from power sales can still be used for public purposes, he stated, and I worry that we're jumping too quickly to a system benefits charge. Let's look at other alternatives, Pollock urged. He also noted the lack of attention to coordination of the hydro system, and said the work group should take into account the federal government's responsibility in its "government-to-government" relationship with the tribes.
Golden said he hoped the group could think about how to put forward a restructuring goal that meets the environmental goals of the Regional Act. Davis responded that he wouldn't want to presume that the recommendation from this group "will sanction continuation of the Act." We may reach a different conclusion, he said. People are still pretty clear on the goals of the Act, if not the mechanisms, Golden responded.
Collins observed that the discussion was tending toward "an end game" again. If this were a purely technical process, there would be a different group here, he said.
Alexanderson raised the issues of the residential exchange and low- density discount. The scope for the Conservation, Renewables, Public Purposes Work Group should include finding alternative ways to provide the benefits of these programs, he suggested.
Shimshak said she had a problem with the summary of the steering committee's discussion of renewables as presented in the scope. She suggested deleting a sentence about preserving renewables as a long-term option, noting she was not sure "we came to that conclusion about renewables."
Eisdorfer recommended deleting the sentence on low-income energy assistance and adding a task addressing the issue. Collins said he recalled there was not much agreement on that as an appropriate topic. That leaves open the question of whether to include it, he
allowed. Pollock said he thought there was agreement on including low-income weatherization, but not on assistance to pay bills. Zarker urged that low-income assistance be listed as part of task three. Kreidler agreed that was preferable to not raising the issue. Sounds right to me, Collins assented.
Rather than say there is no task with regard to F&W, we should see if the restructured system can meet environmental externalities, Applegate suggested. We're assessing the system's ability to address externalities, he said.
Chuck Hedemark observed that the review would at some point bring in the outcome of the 180-day F&W review. I hate to spend lots of time on this, if that's what's going to happen, he said. Applegate responded that the 180-day review focuses on governing structure, not how the system can meet F&W needs.
Haven't we picked up those items with the structure? Collins asked. Public purposes don't look at structure, he added. Applegate noted that the public purposes group will need to look at what other groups are doing. Davis noted that it would be necessary to find a way to fold in the 180-day review. Let's consider this a placeholder, he said. The 180-day review is one thing; this is different, Applegate stated.
Somehow this group is getting so large; we're broadening it, Davis said. We have to bring a focus, he urged. We've asked two groups to look at F&W, Collins said. Would anyone object to including it here? It's not worth argument, he added. The work groups will have to coordinate who's doing what, Collins concluded.
Applegate went on to the topic of revenue-impacting activities, included in the draft scope under primary task three. We are going to get rough cost estimates, but what do you do about all this? he asked. He listed three options: you leave the activity in place, and explain why it is there; you figure out a way to phase it out; or you consider the effects of an across-the-board treatment. I suggest we explore these conceptual alternatives, Applegate said.
In what ways is task three insufficient? Collins asked. He noted that Hemmingway had suggested considering "the order of magnitude" of various revenue impacts. Maybe there is room for another bullet, Collins surmised. Saven said he liked Roy's suggestion about the order of magnitude. If the decision is to go further, it's our obligation to understand the issue before we make a recommendation, he said.
I'm pondering what Rick is talking about with the conceptual alternatives, Canon said. How far do you get into that? I'm concerned about whether we have the right people in the process to do that, Canon added. We can get the orders of magnitude, Pollock responded. But what to do then is a big step, he observed. For example, with irrigation, there are costs recovered through power. You could be talking about going back to Congress to re-allocate the costs, Pollock observed. If the group wants to understand these issues, it's a lot of effort, he said.
Golden suggested that there is a lot of work already done that the work group could use. Irrigation is well-known, Canon remarked. But flood control and navigation are not, he said. The power system has "lost opportunity" in providing for flood control, Collins observed. You can call it a subsidy, but if you'd been at Vanport in 1948 -- that's a hard call, he said.
I don't want to close the door on this, Applegate said. It's incumbent on us to look at the activities that are costs to the system, he urged. Given the people on the work group, we won't be short of expertise, Applegate stated. I don't agree, Saven said.
Brett Wilcox said he agreed with Applegate. We have to figure out what to do with this and get it on the table, he said. Early in our reports back to the committee, we need to find interrelationships, Wilcox added. We need to explore the significant issues, Applegate reiterated, recommending the topic be added to task three.
I'm not comfortable with "explore," Saven said. If we mean "size," that's one thing, he said. But if the thought is to get into the content of the area, I have questions about our capability to do that, Saven continued. He suggested the steering committee should approve of doing so. Collins asked if the motion should be amended to have the work group bring the issue back to the steering committee to decide about exploring beyond just identifying costs.
"I am troubled by the reluctance to look at these squarely," Applegate said. I have no doubt the power system cannot do all we want it to do, he continued. I hope we don't think we can array these things, but then say we don't have time to do anything further, Applegate admonished. I've had difficulty keeping this issue on the table, he concluded.
At some point, we'll look back at this issue, and "we'll jettison it," Drummond said. If you're worried about paying for fish, wait until we try to change the public purposes of the dams, he declared. I'll go along, but I'm convinced we'll have the same discussion again, Drummond went on. The policy, like it or not, is policy established over 75 years, he said.
I don't think it's easy, but it's important, Applegate replied. Shimshak suggested that the change proposed to the scope of work offers a way to address these issues.
"One of the hardest things to do in public policy is to get faces out of the government trough," Hemmingway stated. BPA is "loaded up with people face down in the feed trough," he said. We're not going to be able to persuade them to get out unless the issues are looked at, Hemmingway continued; I want to see this issue fully explored. Otherwise, we come out with "a set of Christmas presents we want to give ourselves," he said.
"When you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, they say the one that yelps is the one you hit," Drummond responded. So I'll rise to that bait, he said. I look at Grand Coulee, Drummond continued, and if you want to re-allocate the costs, I don't want to be part of that. The power system will take a big hit, he warned. You have to be careful with what you wish for, Drummond said.
There was a call for the question, and Applegate was asked to rephrase his proposal. If activities that cost the system are found to be significant, the work group will discuss with the steering committee whether to explore them further, Applegate stated. The motion passed.
I am troubled with the way we are defining public preference, Saven said. To me, without public preference, "I don't give a crap about the rest of this"; my bread and butter appears to be a subsidy here, he stated. I want to have a discussion of public preference and an examination of what public preference is, Saven added.
Isn't that more appropriate within federal power marketing? Shimshak asked. It needs to be highlighted as a separate discussion item then, Saven responded. Zarker suggested preference be dropped as a public purpose in the scope of work. Alexanderson said he disagreed with that. A lot of people say preference is on the table, he said. It has a link to the exchange, Alexanderson urged, and I'd like to see it dealt with in the same place.
I think we're negotiating at this level of detail before we're ready, Collins cautioned. There are people who think preference is fundamental; others think it is a subsidy, he said. By wordsmithing, we're trying to negotiate the issue, Collins pointed out. I don't understand that, Saven said.
Let's leave it in the same place, Alexanderson suggested. Kreidler said as an observer outside of a utility, he saw the issue having implications for federal marketing, as well as for system costs. It should be in public purposes, he concluded.
What change would you make? Collins asked Saven. I would include public preference in federal power marketing as a separate item, Saven replied. I want to assure it gets highlighted, he said. So we should make it a stand-alone item rather than a bullet? Collins asked. Pollock said the issue will naturally evolve in the federal marketing discussions. "It's inescapable," he stated.
Alexanderson said the group should not elevate some public purposes above others. What do you think, Sharon? Collins asked. Nelson responded that the issue of preference is going to surface in any case. Collins asked Saven to make a motion; he moved that public preference be added as a separate item among the issues for the federal power marketing work group. Zarker suggested that it then be deleted from the scope in the public purposes work group. That's a different issue, Collins said. Saven's motion carried.
Zarker moved that "public preference" be deleted on page three of the public purposes scope of work, saying, "I don't think it fits in as a subsidy."
"I think it's real ugly what's going on right now," Collins injected. The vote was four in favor, and the rest opposed. Collins immediately called for a break. When the committee reconvened, Collins apologized for his "unwarranted comment." It was probably prejudicial to the vote and the discussion, he acknowledged, and that's not what a chair is supposed to do. "I genuinely apologize if that chilled the debate -- and it probably did," Collins added.
Collins said he wanted to explain some ground rules for the work groups. You are charged with the obligation to try to drive to recommendations, he said. The membership on the work groups is completely open, Collins explained. We need to give chairs the ability to control over-representation, he added. There are no barriers to people attending a variety of the work groups; the chairs can come up with different meeting days and try to resolve that among themselves, Collins said.
A Council staff person is assigned to each group: Ken Corum to Transmission; Wally Gibson to Federal Power Marketing; Terry Morlan to Customer Choice; and Tom Eckman to Conservation, Renewables, Public Purposes. Collins said there was budget to support hiring outside consultants "at fairly modest levels." See Todd Maddock if you need someone; he's in charge of the budget, Collins announced. He asked that chairs get approval from the steering committee members in their groups before hiring consultants.
Pollock said he hoped the work groups would make use of BPA, Council, and utility resources. Nelson said state utility commissions and some of their staff members would be participating.
Collins called for a "willing suspension of disbelief," and urged the work group members to avoid the tendency to withhold in giving up a point early, which slows progress. He also said he hoped that a variety of interests would come forward with proposals, not single, narrow issues, but comprehensive plans. "We need more Wilcox papers," Collins said. We'll have trouble defining the pieces and even more trouble bringing them together, he concluded.
John Etchart reported that DOE has an ongoing interest in the review and is willing to contribute to the budget. The secretary and deputy are interested in coming out, but it doesn't appear their trip to the Northwest will work with our schedule, he said.
Kreidler suggested that work groups may want to identify an executive committee, consisting of those who will be very involved as opposed to those who will not. He also said the groups may need help with facilitation and should evaluate that up front. Kreidler pointed out the desirability of coordinating meeting schedules and locations in order to reduce travel. Collins said he would leave those decisions to the chairs.
In response to a concern raised by Zarker about the lack of Washington's investor-owned utilities on the work groups, Jim Litchfield said Washington companies would participate and are selecting representatives. Al Wright noted that the work group member list is incomplete, and more names are being submitted.
Etchart suggested committee chairs keep in touch with Steve Crow and Dick Watson on logistics. Crow noted that there are a number of free or inexpensive meeting rooms available for work group gatherings. He confirmed that the Council's conference telephone call facilities are available for the work groups' use.
Glen Swift commented that he would like to see more attention paid to the criteria for restructuring and to values and goals. You might want to look at ending up with a matrix against which you can compare proposals with values and goals, he recommended.
Steering Committee Members: Chair Chuck Collins, Colsper West Corporation; Al Alexanderson, Portland General Electric; Rick Applegate, Trout Unlimited; Ken Canon, Industrial Customers of Northwest Utilities; Jim Davis, Douglas County (WA) PUD; Bill Drummond, Western Montana Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative; Jason Eisdorfer, Citizen's Utility Board of Oregon; John Etchart, Montana Governor's Representative; Bob Gannon, Montana Power; K.C. Golden, energy consultant; Charles Hedemark, Intermountain Gas; Roy Hemmingway, Oregon Governor's Representative; Mike Kreidler, Washington Governor's Representative; Todd Maddock, Idaho Governor's Representative; Sharon Nelson, Washington Utilities & Transportation Commission; Walt Pollock, Bonneville Power Administration; John Saven, Northwest Requirements Utilities; Rachel Shimshak, Renewable Northwest Project; Brett Wilcox, Northwest Aluminum Company; Gary Zarker, Seattle City Light.
Last modified: April 2, 1996
rr7.html