The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutex34-36.pdf231/ STOEL ~~, F;ECEiVED :LEO :"::"1 ..-, 900 S,W, Fifth Avenue. Suite 2600 Portland. Oregon 97204 main 503.224.3380 fax 503.220.2480 ZuOZ SEP 23 Aj.1 9: ATTORNEYS AT LAW c ( ! ,: j Ii"" . ' . I ,'..' - , l- UTILItiES COflHISSION www.sloeLcom ,...-", ---, c. .",,--, ,"~,,~,' September 20 , 2002 JAMES F. FELL Direct (503) 294-9343 jffellCfYstoel. com BY OVERNIGHT MAIL Jean D. Jewell Idaho Public Utilities Commission 472 West Washington Boise, ID 83702-5983 Re:Case No. PAC-E-O2- Dear Secretary Jewell: Pursuant to the Commission Staff's request at the September 10 , 2002 Evidentiary Hearing on Reconsideration in the above-referenced proceeding, PacifiCorp submits an original and eight copies of the following exhibits: Exhibit Number Description of Exhibits PacifiCorp Exhibit No. 34 Copies of two Idaho customer bills (customer-specific information redacted) with bill messages relating to this proceeding: (1) bill including bill message regarding implementation of BP A credit; (2) bill including bill message regarding implementation of power cost surcharge PacifiCorp Exhibit No. 3S Communications Package PacifiCorp Exhibit No. 36 Minutes from the August 29 2001 Customer Advisory Group meeting Oregon Washington California Utah Portlnd3-1382140A 0020017--00047 idaho \"' ,cl"tt v tu fiLED Case No. PAC-O2- Exhibit 34 lflfi2 SEP 23 At1 9: 26 IDf\HO PU!BUC UTILITIES COMMISSION 0" .. ....._,",,_....,,_.......~-,_......, .."""""",,,"",,-,," BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION PACIFICORP Late-filed exhibit per request of Commission Staff Copy of (Redacted) Customer Bills with Bill Messages September 19 , 2002 - UTAH POWER Djtri.~ioll rfPacijiCorp Any questions, t ~'IC: call: 888-221-7 0 Account Number -...... rasa I on Bill Date fcbTUllI)' 25, 2002 Account BBlanee BEGINNING I PAYMENTS! NEW BALANCE -. CREDITS + CHARGES ADJU: MENiS 68.15 I 88.75 39.28 (1.00 Thank you tor your payment on February 4. 2002 Payments Received DETAIL of CURRENT MONTH ACTIVITY ~tA..t~e6METER SERVICE PERIOD ELAPSEDl=~nM 'Tn nAVF; Jan 24, 2002 Feb 21,2002 28 Balance F~rward New Charge6 0212002 Energy Charge B P A Energy Discount for 21 day(s) B P A Energy Discount for 1 day(s) Credit IWsulting From Merger Subtolal New Charges TOTAL Residence Charges 1 OTHER CHARGES ENDING BALANCE 39. - 88. 6R. ~ER READINGS METER..iIIiT 838 38,657 1. AMOUNT USED 819 KWH $lUnil 819 614 205 KWH KWH KWH 0749040 0334210- 0024640- 0170000- 61. 20.5S - 50 - 04 . 39. 539. RETAiNTH1~'POR.TIOI'l POR VOURRfCORDS '!NO EN,'.!\.B B1t.l.II'PAYING IN PRR.$ON ____.-. UTA ----- 1'0 BOX 25~O8 SALT JJ..KE CITY ,UT 114125-0308 t:I ..... 11:1 'ili:ill\fE~miiii;iSSiif.:E1 ~~~~1~I ~0.;i!;EA~iffibhi~:~~~J \.f.'~'~5: February 25, 200~ To automaticallY. help tl1o~c: who n-:cd C1Icrgy assistllnce in your at in advance? Make sure fAymt:nt is I\(lt in tfii: above mentioned :5 i1 346~S 000 AT 0.269 0160-00 111 1".111.1,,1,.1..111 11111 11.11 11.. ~o.. c... -'tC.O H O~587CD2 CC1 147 DCCCD ij28 ~mii~t:D\Ii~4~~~i~~ ,~:~~~~f.~Qiifu~~6:~~:~:~~~~ rch 12, 2002 L: (\~~~: ~~~~i~, ; (.) : ~~ $1 , $7, $~or $101.0 your payment. Paying ..... cnt ur It WI! be ilonDled. aI.IIIII I..Amount Enc:losed UTAH POWER 1033 N1! 6TH AVE rORTI.I\ND OR 97256-0001 Exhibit No, 34 , page \ Case No. P AC-02- Copy of customer bill with bill message UT~~~~Any quo:Slions, ase call:Account Number - \2 d .ct c....\-C.O P~8" 2 012 Bill Date FcbruIIIY 25. 2002 888-221- 111~1 Period Ending Your A rage Daily KWH Usage by MonthAvg. ily Tolal Average TempI 'ture KWH KwH/Day Cost Per Day FEB 2002 FEB 2001 819 868 $1, 2101 ~ " ,. ~ J J, A = a " D J F ZIo; A new Bonneville Fower Administration aedit lakes effect Feb. 1. 2 2 lor residential and qualifying commerdal and irrigation customers. The BPA aadlt will continue for five years Want to help your nei9~bors in need stay warm this winter? So do I Utah Power. Use the endosed envelope and we ll match your Iax-deductlble donation dollar.for-dollar. t:I ... ::z:: .... I\) Exhibit No, 34, page Case No. PAC-O2- Copy of customer bill with bill message UTAH PowJ:R Ditrlsion rJf PatifiCorp 1-888-221- 70 Any questions eastl call: R (.do..~ Ac nt Balance BEGINNING : PAYMENTS! NEWBALANCE 'CREDITS + RGES + ADJ 100.86 100.86 94. Thank you lor your payment on June 27, 2002 Payments Received Summary of Current Month Activity 4~c..~Barn Schedule ~c...-\c.~ Schedule 1 Total Due on July 18, 2002 DETAIL 01 CURREN 'Zt.do.-~ Barn Schedule 23METER SERVICE peRIOD~d.. May 28. 2O02Jun 26.2002 29 New Ch;;uges 07/2002 Basic Charge Energy Charge Power' Cost Su rcharge . See VI 19 for 19 day (s) Rate Mitigation Adjustment for 19 day(s) Credit Resulting From Merger for 9 day(s) Credlt'Resultlng From Merger lor 1 day(s) Subtotal New Charges rO1"AL Barn Charges 1 Account Number "e.- r-: Page 1 of2 'Bill Date July 2 2002 OTHER CHARGES ENDING ANCE 94. - 1 00.136 a 100. 78. '6. 594. MONTH ACTIVITY ETER READINGS AMOUNT USE;D 16,730 17,506 176 KWH Units $fUnit 13. 776 KWH 0627S00 54. 508 KWH 0085850 508 KWH 0066330-3.37- 0170000-42- 0170000-05- 78. S78. -- -- RETAIN THISIPOIlTJON I'OR YOUR RECORDS ----- fNCi ENTIREBILt, IF "AvINa tN PERSON ----- . UTAH POWER PO DOX400 PORTI..AND OR 97207.0400 I:ttCl, ' " f$~s~,~d :~N~~~!~:~~&'iffi~. " '! \: ili:s;i~~:~ Iy 18, 2002 r: ,h t'): ~94~~(( itu t;: 23282 1.000 AT 0.292 0080. I,~I. 1111. ,1,,111,. II I,.II",I'I,III,!,II. ,1111,11.. ~Oo.. c.. ------.------ -P' H 51598832 CO~ 748 CDDDD Amount Enclosed UTAH POWER 1033 NE 6TH AVE PORTLAND OR 97256-0001 f10 Exhibit No. 34, page' Case No. P AC-O2- CoPY of customer bill with bill message UTAH POWER Di1rlsion of PllcjfjCOrp Arty queStions, i:asc call: 1-888-221- 10 ~~~ JUL 2002 JUL 2001 Account Number ~a.c:.*ed Page2012 BiU Date July 2, 2002 Barn Schedule:Your ,j9rage Dally KWH Usage by MonthPeriod Avg. airy Total AverageEnding 1emp pture KWi K'M-i/Day 2001 J A 8 0 N 0 J 10 " " " J J 2112 Recent action by the I~aho Public Utilities Commission re- set p c:es for Idaho customers effective June 8. In some cases, bills now show two additional line items: a tempor , surct'targe to reoover excess power costs; and a rate mitigation adjustment ordered by the IPUC. Typical Is In Idaho are still. on average, 17 perean! lower than in 2001. ~c."~6 May 28. 2002Jun 26 2002 New Charges 07/2002 Energy Charge Power Cost Surcharge, See Vltg for 19 day(s) B P A Energy Discount Credlt:Resulting From Merger for 10 day(s) Sublotal New Charges TOTAL CI:IargBs 2 JUL 2002 JUL 2001 ;60 EA AEADINGS 155.675 55,910 Units 235 KWH 154 KWH 235 KWH Tl6 226 Cost Per Day 'Zl $2..70 $IUnit 0982710 0085850 0334210- 0'70000- S~hc:dulc 1Your Brage Dally KWH Usage by MonthPeriod Avg. ally Total AverageEr1ding Temp ,~ture KWH KWH/Day 20b( J A a 0 N 0 J F " A " J J 2002 .... 235 480 23. 85- 14-- 16. $16. Cost Per Day $0. Exhibit No. 34, page Case No. PAC-O2- Copy of customer bill with bill message Case No. PAC-02- Exhibit 35 BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ACIFICORP Late-filed- exhibit per request of Commission Staff Communications Package September 19, 2002 UTAH POWER NEWS For information, contact: Media Hotline 800-775-7950 David Eskelsen 801-220-2447 FOR RELEASE Jan. 7 2002 Utah Power files power cost; 8PA case SALT LAKE CITY-Utah Power filed a request with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission January 7 to adjust customer rates and implement a new credit to pass through benefits from the federal hydroelectric system. The request does not ask for a permanent rate increase. In fact, if the company s overall proposal is approved, many customers will see net decreases in their bills. The company s request includes four parts: Implement an increased credit that is the result of a settlement Utah Power negotiated last year with the Bonneville Power Administration on behalf of its residential and small farm customers. Recover extraordinary power costs amounting to $38 million through a temporary 24-month surcharge on customer bills. The Idaho PUC previously allowed Utah Power to defer accounting of these costs for later regulatory treatment. Adjust individual rate classes to more nearly reflect the actual cost of service. Utah Power is also proposing a rate mitigation policy to ensure that no customer class will receive a rate increase during the period in which the power cost surcharge is in effect. While these elements would normally cause the rates of individual customers to change up or down, the rate mitigation policy would assure that, when summed together individual rate classes would not increase during the two-year surcharge period after PUC approval. In fact, those customers who qualify for the BP A credit would see an average decrease of 8 percent in their overall bill. We believe this proposal has significant benefits for Idaho customers " said Doug Larson, vice president of Regulation. "The BP A credit is a large factor in the overall effect on customers, and the Idaho PUC deserves a great deal of credit for ensuring that Idaho citizens received a fair share ofBPA benefits. The request would not result in increased general revenues for Utah Power, which has not asked for a general rate increase since 1988. The proposed,temporary surcharge is specifically to recover a portion of extraordinarily high wholesale power purchases the company made to serve Idaho customers in the past year. Utah Power is a division ofPacifiCorp, which serves 55 000 customers in southeastern Idaho. The company serves 1.5 million customers in Utah, Oregon, Wyoming, Washington, Idaho and California. 30-Exhibit No. 35 , page Case No, PAC-02- Communications Package Idaho power cost; BPA case Background; Q&A for Internal use only CONFIDENTIAL DISCUSSION DRAFT Revised 8 Jan. 2002 Background and Summary Utah Power filed a request with the Idaho Public Service Commission Jan. 7 , 2002 to adjust rates and implement a new credit to pass through benefits from the federal hydroelectric system to residential and small farm customers of Utah Power in Idaho. This is the first rate filing in Idaho since the 1999 merger with Scottish Power, in which the company agreed not to file for a change in rates for two years following merger approval. The last general rate case for PacifiCorp in Idaho was in 1988. Still , the request does not increase the company s revenue requirement, so no permanent increase in rates will result. In fact, many customers will see substantial decreases. The company s proposal has four main parts: Implement an increased credit that is the result of a settlement Utah Power negotiated last year on behalf of its residential and small farm customers with the Bonneville Power Administration. Recover extraordinary power costs amounting to $38 million through a temporary 24-month surcharge on customer bills, The Idaho PUC previously allowed Utah Power to defer accounting of these costs for later regulatory treatment. Adjust individual rate classes to more nearly reflect the actual cost of service. Utah Power is also proposing a rate mitigation policy to ensure that no customer class will receive a rate increase during the period in which the power cost surcharge is in effect. Question & Answer How can rates for some customers go down if the company is collecting $38 million in extraordinary power costs? The combination of the Bonneville Power Administration credit, the new cost-of-service study and the proposed rate mitigation policy allows the company to ease the impact of these power cost increases on customers. The BPA pass-through credit spreads the benefits of federally owned hydroelectric power plants in the Columbia River system to residential and small farm customers in the river drainage area. This credit in various forms has been of benefit to Utah Power customers in Idaho since 1980. The program was recently redesigned by the BPA and was the subject of intensive settlement talks between Utah Power and BPA officials. The settlement effectively increases the benefit to qualifying residential and small farm customers. The credit appears as a separate line item on bills, Also, Utah Power has not adjusted rates according to cost-of-service since 1991. This is a complex calculation that has been the subject of a new study by the company and utility regulators. By setting rates as nearly as possible to what it'actually costs to serve classes of customers, subsidies from one customer class to another are kept to a minimum. The company s proposal is to set rates for various rate classes within 5 percent of the actual cost of service. Finally, the rate mitigation policy proposed in this filing is an effort by Utah Power to ease the impact of increased costs of providing electric service during the time the surcharge for extraordinary power costs is in place. Exhibit No, 35 , page Case No, PAC-O2- Communications Package What would be the effect on customers of this request? When the four main components are implemented , the overall effect to customers would preclude any rate increase to anyone customer class during the two-year surcharge period after PUC approval. In the first year, those who qualify for the BPA credit would see an average decrease of about 8 percent in their overall bill the first year. These are mostly irrigation and qualifying residential customers. In year two, the residential customer class will see a decrease of 15 percent from prices at the end of year one. Irrigation customers will also see an average decrease of 15 percent, while commercial and industrial customers overall will see a decrease of 4 percent from prices in effect at the end of year one. Lighting customers overall will see a decrease of another 15 percent. In the third year, when the power cost adjustment and the rate mitigation adjustment expire, prices will continue to decline. Residential prices will decrease by 19 percent. Irrigators will see a decrease of 21 percent while commercial and industrial customers will see, overall , a decrease of 6 percent. Lighting customers will see, overall, a decrease of 17 percent. It should be noted that this discussion about the decreases that will be seen by customer classes reflects the effective price paid by customers, taking all adjustments into account. Does this mean rate increases are frozen for two years? Not necessarily. Utah Power continually monitors its earnings level in all states in which it serves. If earnings fall below what the company believes to be an allowed level, the company may propose a general rate case to reset base rates. What are the details of the increased BPA credit compared with the old credit? What is the amount of the power cost surcharge? For residential customers: Current Prop. Yr. 1 Prop. Yr. 2 BPA Credit (cents/kWh)3547 3421 5006 PCA Surcharge (cents/kWh)8761 3755 For irriqation customers: Current ProP. Yr. 1 ProP. Yr. 2 BPA Credit (cents/kWh)1 .1792 3005 2402 PCA Surcharge (cents/kWh)8761 3755 The decrease for the BPA residential credit in Year 2 occurs because 16 months of credit goes to customers in Year 1. BPA began providing the higher level in October 2001 , but the BPA credit increase is proposed to take effect in February 2002, hence the need for a higher level to make up for the 4 months between October and February. The irrigation credit does not decline as significantly as the residential credit because they are unaffected by the four-month October to February lag because the irrigation season largely ends by October 1. Consequently, they do not have the additional four months added in the first year. The company also has a positive balance left from the prior BPA credit of about $1.6 million due to variations in weather and the irrigation curtailment last summer that will also be distributed in the first year. The change in the power cost surcharge results from the company s proposal to recover these costs over a two-year period in which 70 percent, or $27 million, is recovered in the first year and the remaining 30 percent, or $11 million, is recovered in the second year. This 70/30 split is designed in conjunction with the rate mitigation adjustment to achieve Exhibit No. 35, page Case No. P AC-O2- Communications Package the goal of customer classes not seeing any price increases as a result of these changes in either year. 2 1 Brian Hedman e-mail 8 Jan. 2002 2 Zhang testimony Why are the three irrigation schedules being combined into one? This filing proposes combining the three irrigation schedules into one schedule. The new schedule will provide firm service. The company has chosen to make this proposal because the cost-of-service analysis indicated it could offer firm service at a price substantially below the previous interruptible service. The company believes that this combination of a price decrease with the assurance of firm service will be of value to our irrigators. Is an interruptible credit going to be offered to irrigators who prefer to remain on an interruptible schedule? Yes. The base irrigation schedule will provide firm service. For those customers who prefer to have an additional credit in return for offering to be interrupted the Company will propose a separate credit that will be in addition to the base schedule. The Company has met with irrigation representatives to begin the design of this additional credit. The credit will be optional on an annual basis with signups each fall for the following irrigation season, Why should customers have to pay for the high cost of purchased power? PacifiCorp purchases a relatively small amount of electricity from other utilities and independent suppliers in the wholesale market in order to ensure an adequate supply to meet customer demand. Costs of such purchases, as well as proceeds from sales in the wholesale market, are included in the company s net power costs. These costs are then used to determine the company s overall revenue requirements, which form the basis for retail rates, Wholesale purchases of electricity are a legitimate cost of providing service to customers, For most of the past decade, the wholesale power market was a very low-cost resource and helped keep rates low for Idaho customers. However, rather abruptly in 2000 a number of factors combined to produce wild fluctuations in the price of wholesale electricity throughout the West. Because these purchases were an essential part of the company s resource mix to serve Idaho customers, it is appropriate that they be part of the cost of providing service. The factors that produced these volatile prices included a shortage of hydroelectric power, an unusual number of power plants being off-line in winter 2000 and spring 2001 and a sharp increase in customer demand in the region that was masked by unusually mild weather in the previous couple of years. Shouldn t the company bear at least some of these costs? It has. The company incurred approximately $1 billion of excess power costs over the past 18 months. Of that, $300 million is outside of the deferral period and cannot be recovered by the company from customers in any of its states. Those costs will come directly from the shareholders' pockets. Cost recovery regulatory procedures prohibit the company from requesting recovery of those costs. Did California electric utility deregulation cause this problem? Not entirely. The regional shortage of electric generation capacity that caused prices to fluctuate affected California much more severely than any other state because its Exhibit No. 35 , page L.4 Case No. PAC -O2- Communications Package deregulation policy made utilities there wholly dependent on the short-term wholesale electric market for all supplies to customers. California s historically large influence on wholesale electric prices continued during this crisis, and similar problems were seen by most utilities in the West. Rate increases of 20 percent to 30 percent for both investor-owned and government-owned utilities have been seen. If Utah Power has not asked for a rate increase since 1988, how do you explain the fact that my bill has increased significantly in recent years? There are two main factors at work. Probably the biggest factor is the how the BPA credit changed. For residential and small farm customers who qualify, the previous credit program was based on the difference between Utah Power s costs and BPA's costs. As BPA's costs increased over the years, the credit available to customers declined. While bills increased, no additional revenue was received by the company. In 1996, a new method for distributing hydroelectric benefits was outlined as described below. The second factor is customer use. Customers of all kinds are using more electricity than ever before. How did the BPA credit develop? The signing of the Subscription Settlement Agreements with BPA in November 2000 brought to a close a process convened by the four Northwest governors in 1996. The governors, BPA, public and private utilities and other interested parties collaborated to develop a new method for distributing the benefits of Columbia River hydroelectric power. This process identified the "subscription" concept that was designed to spread the benefits of the federal Columbia River Power System as broadly as possible, with special attention given to residential and rural customers of the region. The subscription concept was further refined in an additional collaboration between BPA and its customers. BPA issued its Power Subscription Strategy December 21 , 1998, which was intended to implement the concept. Since then, BPA and its customers have been engaged in negotiating the agreement. Although investor-owned utilities have argued that a larger share of federal Columbia River Power System benefits should be provided to residential and rural customers in the region , the settlement is a substantial step toward spreading benefits more equitably throughout the Pacific Northwest. Previously the Residential and Small Farm Exchange Program was created by Congress in 1980. This program was in part designed to make the benefits of federally owned hydroelectric plants available to residential and small farm customers of investor-owned utilities within the Columbia River drainage area. The Residential Exchange, or BPA credit, was based on the difference between Utah Power s costs and BPA rates, and was passed on directly to residential and small farm customers. Prior to 1996, the credit provided a 60 percent reduction in electric prices to the average Idaho irrigation customer of Utah Power. While Utah Power did not file any general rate cases in Idaho since for more than 10 years, as BPA's prices increased, the BPA credit declined and customer bills increased. Throughout this period, no additional revenue was received by Utah Power. Exhibit No. 35 , page Case No. PAC-O2- Communications Package Case No. PAC-02- Exhibit 36 BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ACIFICORP Late-filed exhibit per request of Commission Staff Minutes from August 29,2001 Consumer Advisory Group Meeting September 19, 2002 .... . CUSTOMER ADVOCACY/ADVISORY COMMITTEE Westcoast Hotel Pocatel1o, Idaho August 29, 2001 MINUTES Present: Roy_Smith, Joyce Edlefsen, Heber Hansen, Bruce Ard, Mary ADD Mounts, G1en Pond Absent: George WUcox; Spence Horsley; Dwight Cochran; Jeff Siddoway; Cliff Long Guest: Boh LilTely, Manager of Rates and. Regulations, PacifiCorp; Ryan Hobley, Operations Manager, Idaho; Brent Barker, Commercial Account Manager Idaho; ColeeJ1 Erickson, Learning Center Advisor, Rexburg, Idaho. can to Order: /' - Chairman Roy St'l'lith called the meeting to order , WelcO1l1Cd the members, and introduced the guests- p~ous Meeting Minutes Gle.:n reviewed the minutes of the July meeting with IPUC' commissioner Dennis Hansf'.n a~ guest speaker. Mr. Hansen gave timely information OIl the staLus of electric supply in the west . the transmission system, BPNs role, neW genenltion and conservation solutions. ComDlittee B smessl Committee members were a,sked to supply email addresses, fax numbers, and work nulnbers in order to facilitate better communIcation. Meeting dates were set for the.: 2nd Thursday of October and November. procam: Bob Lively, Manager of Rates and Regulation, Pac1fiCorp, updated the committee on the statUs of whole:SIDe power prices since the skyrocketing prices through the year 2000. He explained that because 95% of PacifiCorp s load is supplied by compa11y-owned generation , they were somewhat insulated fronl these spikes in the markeL place. The company applied to the IPUC in November of 2000 to defer these excess power costs - $33 million ill, Idaho - and present a plan fo,- recovery to ;:: CI.) ...... CI.) p... ~ 0'\ 0- N "'" '"7_CI.) N '" :;.... bO 0 ~ 1-0-CI! , bO o..~ ~ '" , ~ ,- ~lJ E ~ 0 ~0.. ..... ..... z ,t+:i CI.)- 0 '" ...... j3z~ ,- CI.) ::! ..s::: '" t:: t::x: CI! ,- ~lJ:Eu Page 2 be spread over several years. The wholesale rate is noW down to 3. cents, from a high of 5 - 10 cents - still above the 2 cent rate prior to the crunch. BPA credit:Contract expired .June~ 2001; we negotiated a cash agreement thaL will assure that the credit will continue for the next 5 years. PacifiCorp agreed to take le~::i load from BPA, as they were having to buy power on the open market at high rates. StrUctural Realie:.n 111c:nt PrQposal SRPl:.PacifiCorp serve::i as a, single uLility in 6 jurisdictions - Idaho , ULah. Wyoming, Oregon, Washington, California. Polilical and economic conditions in the various states have made it necessary to realign the current business structure. Examples of difference::i; Oregon Legislature passed deregn.1ation bill; high load growth in Utah; Wyoming wants to export excess power. Other state commission:s do 1'1.ot wallt to take the risks associated wilh deregulation nor the costs of building new genenl.Lion.. SRP wlllallow each state to p1.1rSUe its own energy plan without fear of being impacted by deci~ions or needs of another state. In the proposed new strUcture , eC\~h state will have a separate electric company. PaclfiCorp will enter into long term (30 year +) CO1'ltracts to provide generation and services for each state company. The face of the compa.ny to Lhe customer will not change: retail customers will still be served locally; customer service guaran.tees, safety and reliability will continue to be of highest priority. Comoanv Update: Commission filings in all states for recovery of excess power costs Idaho hearings and workshqp September 6th and 19th in Roise Adiournment: The next meeting is scheduled for Thursdall October lly 2001 The meeting adjoumed at 6:45 p. Respectfully subn-utted, --- Glen Pond Facilitator / ReC'.ording Secretary OJ) ;::: ...... Q) ::;; N! gi 2 --;' ..... Q) N en ::;... OJ) ;::I ;....-OJ) 0O-~ ;::I en , ~ ,- ~u E. ~ 0 ~ ot:: .......... 0 en ,- .D ""';::1 ,- Q) ;::I en..t:: en s:: CC\3'- 0~u::;Eu