VII. Issuance of the Proposed Decision
Pursuant to the schedule established by ALJ ruling dated February 2, 2001 and Section 311(d) of the Public Utilities Code, the proposed decision was issued on March 26, 2001 and parties' appeared for final oral argument (FOA) before a quorum of the Commission on Monday, March 26, 2001. Public Utilities Code Section 311(d) generally requires, in matters that have gone to hearing, a 30-day period between service of an ALJ's proposed decision and the Commission's issuance of the decision. However, Section 311(d) provides that that period may be reduced or waived by the Commission "upon the stipulation of all parties to the proceeding or as otherwise provided by law."
Although not expressly stated in Section 311(d), the 30-day period provides an opportunity for parties to comment on the proposed decision. In this proceeding, we are considering the continuation of a surcharge which, pursuant to D.01-01-018, will expire on April 5, 2001 unless the Commission orders it extended on or before then. Given that deadline and the 30-day requirement of Section 311(d), the assigned ALJ discussed with the parties at the January 10th PHC alternative schedules for the current phase of this proceeding. Under one of these, there would have been 30 days to comment on the proposed decision, but the time available to prepare for and conduct hearings and brief the matter would have been very short.
At the PHC on January 10th, the parties proposed an alternative schedule, under which the parties would waive the 30-day period under Section 311(d) and forgo the Commission's usual procedure for filing written comments on the proposed decision, as set forth in Article 19 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, in order for the amount of time available for the other steps necessary to issue a decision before April 5th to be correspondingly lengthened. All those present agreed to waive the 30-day period under Section 311(d) in order to obtain the benefits of that schedule. At the PHC, PG&E and Edison offered to send out a request for a formal waiver to all parties, and the Assigned Commissioner directed this process be undertaken in the January 26th Assigned Commissioner's Ruling. During hearing the ALJ asked parties if in light of AB1X making the EPS permanent there was a need for the Commission to act by April 5, 2001. PG&E and Edison answered affirmatively and no party objected.
Ultimately, all parties on the service list agreed to waive the 30-day period, except for one, California Association of Cogenerators (CAC). To date, CAC has not been active in this proceeding. It did not file testimony, it did not cross-examine witnesses at the hearing, and it did not file a brief. If we were to allow CAC, an inactive party, to unilaterally torpedo the agreed-upon schedule, we would be allowing it to veto the choice the active parties made: to obtain more time to prepare for hearings and to brief the matter, by waiving the Section 311(d) period. We do not view Section 311 as requiring us to give CAC this veto-power over the ability of the active parties to participate effectively. Accordingly, on the facts of this case, where there is a pre-set deadline, where the active parties have chosen to meet this deadline by waiving the 30-day period under Section 311(d) and thereby allow themselves more time to prepare for hearings and to brief the matter, we construe the requirement of 311(d) that a waiver be obtained from all parties not to refer to an inactive party that has not participated in the hearing or briefing process. Accordingly, we will reduce the 30-day advance publication period of Section 311(d) to one day, and hold oral argument on March 26th, in lieu of providing for written comments.
1. In this decision we look at one piece of the need to raise electric prices, the need to increase prices in order for Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and Southern California Edison Company (Edison) to continue to purchase power to serve their customers on a going-forward basis.
2. We will address in other decisions (1) the money needed by the California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) for its power purchases on behalf of the customers of PG&E and Edison and (2) whether customers should bear any portion of financial responsibility beyond that already in existing rates for past purchase power obligations.
3. The firm of Barrington-Wellesley Group, Inc. (BWG) conducted an independent review of PG&E, and the firm of KPMG LLP (KPMG) conducted an independent review of Edison focusing on their cash liquidity, credit capacity, and solvency.
4. The BWG and KPMG report findings regarding the utilities' cash flow difficulties and inability to obtain additional credit, generally confirm that the financial problems facing the utilities are serious in nature, and could potentially lead to bankruptcy proceedings for the utilities.
5. The utilities' financial problems involve two interrelated aspects: (1) liquidity risk, that is, the risk that insufficient cash is available to pay bills as they become due, and (2) the risk of insolvency (i.e., negative net worth whereby the sum of the utility's debts exceeds the fair value of its property).
6. A significant source of cash flow should be provided in covering utility wholesale power obligations by AB1X which authorizes the California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) to purchase electric power and to sell power to retail end-use customers and to local publicly-owned electric utilities.
7. PG&E's requested two-cents per kWh rate increase is based on its proposed "trigger" mechanism which would have been activated twice since November 2000 due to the high wholesale prices that have been experienced.
8. PG&E's proposed two-cents rate increase fails to account for sources of incoming cash flow from the CDWR, income tax refunds, and other potential sources expected to become available.
9. Edison's financial witness testified that if CDWR assumes full responsibility for procurement of the utility's net short position, then its requested 20% rate increase is not necessary.
10. BWG found that PG&E would likely have positive cash reserves through at least March, 2001, and through April or May if CDWR procures PG&E's wholesale power other than existing QF and bilateral contracts.
11. Edison fails to provide any cash flow analysis regarding what portion of the two-cents per kWh increase it would actually need assuming some portion of the its net short position is procured by CDWR.
12. While there remains some uncertainty regarding the precise share of the utilities' net short position that CDWR will cover, CDWR is still making purchases that cover a substantial portion of each utility's net short position.
13. While each utility may be incurring a portion of procurement costs under AB1X, their total procurement costs may still be less than the existing utility generation rate component.
14. Between January 31 and March 8, 2001, PG&E's cash balance increased from $827 million to $2.508 billion, while outstanding obligations due and in default increased from $1.542 billion to $3.324 billion. Thus, the growth rate of cash exceeded that of debts between the end of January and early March 2001.
15. Edison's cash balance improved from $1.5 billion at the end of January 2001 to $1.6 billion by early March 2001 while debts due and in default increased from $1.24 billion to $1.77 billion over the same period. Thus, while Edison debts grew somewhat faster than cash, the overall ratio of cash to debt remained relatively stable.
16. The utilities failed to make any showing that the rate increases they seek will cause less economic disruption or hardship on the utility's customers and the state's economy than would be caused were the utility's request not granted.
17. The utilities and their shareholders have received significant financial benefit from industry restructuring thus far.
18. Disbursements from PG&E, the utility, to the parent company, PG&E Corporation (PG&E Corp.) since 1996 have been approximately $9.6 billion. Out of this total, PG&E Corp. issued has paid dividends of approximately $1.5 billion, repurchased stock in the amount of approximately $2.8 billion, and retire $2.8 billion debt.
19. Out of an approximate $5 billion in dividends and transfers received from its subsidiaries over the four-year-and-eleven-month period ended November 30, 2000, approximately $4.75 billion was attributable to Edison.
20. In D.99-04-068, the Commission prescribed that the capital requirements of PG&E, as determined to be necessary and prudent to meet the obligation to serve or to operate the utility in a prudent and efficient manner, shall be given first priority by PG&E Corporation's Board of Directors.
21. PG&E Corp. took "ring-fencing" action to separate the NEG affiliates from the financial difficulties of PG&E and Edison International took the same action to separate the Mission Group affiliates from the financial difficulties of Edison.
22. Despite the significant cash needs of PG&E, the electric utility, its holding company closed a $1 billion loan agreement in early March 2001 while allocating none of the loan proceeds to relieve the utility's cash burdens.
23. We cannot fully assess the utilities' claims of dire financial problems without considering the facts associated with all streams of revenues and costs, as well as the relationships of the utilities to their parent companies and affiliates. We will undertake this consideration in other proceedings.
24. The Commission has placed notice on its public agenda of a proposal to open a new investigation to consider whether the utilities and their corporate parents are complying with the Commission's rules regarding utility holding companies.
25. Governor Davis' administration and the Legislature are currently engaged with all three of the major electric utilities in discussions regarding remedies to deal with their financial problems, including the possible sale of transmission assets at a price above book value, and other concessions by the utilities or their corporate parents, among other things.
26. The Commission established the TCBA to track the accelerated cost recovery of generation assets and other authorized transition cost, and also established the TRA to track the residual calculation of the CTC and to ensure that headroom is properly calculated and credited to the TCBA.
27. In Resolution E-3527, the Commission allowed unrecovered operating costs to be carried over in the TRA from month to month, and allowed revenues to be applied to these accumulated undercollections first before being transferred to the TCBA. In D.99-10-057 we found that no utility may carry over costs incurred during the rate freeze period to the post-rate freeze period.
28. In A.00-10-028, TURN recognizes the interaction of the TRA and the TCBA and focuses on Resolution E-3527, which stopped the transfer of any TRA undercollection to the TCBA on a monthly basis. TURN proposes that this ratemaking be revised to allow such a transfer.
29. If we were to authorize rate changes at the end of the rate freeze period to allow cost recovery of costs incurred during the rate freeze period, the utility's rates from the rate freeze period would effectively exceed those in effect on June 10, 1996.
30. If the Commission were to defer recovery of other costs incurred during the rate freeze or costs that have not been approved for recovery, the utility might be able to recover more transition costs than the statute permits.
31. The utilities' assertions regarding potential violations of the filed rate doctrine are premature.
32. Adopting the accounting change TURN seeks in A.00-10-028 corrects an anomaly that was adopted in Resolution E-3527. By requiring that either the debit or credit balance determined through the TRA calculation be recorded in the TCBA, we give full effect to the rate freeze principle, properly apply the matching principle, and adhere to the requirements of § 368(a). This approach also properly offsets generation revenues and costs of procurement.
33. Resolution E-3527 rejected the accounting approach proposed by TURN by stating that such treatment would be equivalent to treating the TRA debits as transition costs, which would be unlawful pursuant to § 367(a). The Resolution also declined to address the disposition of debits remaining in the TRA at the end of the transition period, as being beyond the scope of the Resolution.
34. Resolution E-3527 incorrectly characterized the nature of this transfer. Applying the principles set forth in D.99-10-057 and upheld in D.00-03-058 requires that we take a closer look at the accounting anomalies caused by the treatment provided for in Resolution E-3527.
35. Adoption of TURN's proposal will not treat TRA undercollections as an additional category of transition costs.
36. Transferring the TRA balance to the TCBA on a monthly basis, whether that balance is an under- or overcollection, matches costs and revenues appropriately and is consistent with AB 1890.
37. PG&E and Edison have long recognized the risk that the variable energy costs may create. The utilities have referred to this risk in several proceedings, both at this Commission and before FERC.
38. Adopting the accounting treatment proposed in A.00-10-028 will properly recognize the risk that variable energy costs may create.
39. The adopted accounting treatment is consistent with the Commission's prior actions in D.96-12-077 and D.97-11-074 and the utilities' approach to prior period undercollections in the TRA.
40. Based on the information provided in each utility's monthly TCBA report, we estimate that Edison has recorded $7.6 billion thus far in headroom revenue, gains on divested generation assets, revenues from generation memorandum accounts. These totals do not include rate reduction bond proceeds of $2.5 billion that Edison received in early 1998.
41. We estimate that PG&E has recovered $9.3 billion in headroom revenues, gains on sales of generation assets, and revenues from the generation memorandum accounts. These amounts do not include rate reduction bond proceeds of approximately $2.9 billion.
42. Transferring the TRA balance to the TCBA each month allows us to consider the net impacts of operating cost recovery and transition cost recovery. This adjustment will delay transition cost recovery. The restated TCBA for Edison will show unrecovered transition costs of approximately $3.7 billion at January 31,2001. The restated TCBA for PG&E would show approximately $6.3 billion in unrecovered transition costs at January 31, 2001.
43. While we recognize that significant amount of transition costs remain unrecovered at this time, we cannot agree that these costs are necessarily at risk.
44. The rate freeze is not terminated at this time. We find that while in D.00-02-048, the Commission ordered the utilities to properly credit the TCBA for the estimated market value of their remaining generation, the rate freeze will not and should not end until final market valuation occurs.
45. The transfer of TRA undercollections to the TCBA does not transform energy procurement costs into transition costs, but merely reduces the prior revenues recorded in the TCBA.
46. By applying the monthly TRA balance to the TCBA, ratepayers are made indifferent as to how revenues associated with the Rate Reduction Bonds are treated, and the neutrality contemplated in the Financing Orders (D.97-09-055 and D.97-09-056) will be restored.
47. Requiring the utilities to transfer the excess revenues that accrue in their generation memorandum accounts to the TCBA on a monthly basis will match the costs of procuring power with net revenues resulting from that power generation.
48. Adoption of TURN's accounting proposal does not violate the Filed Rate Doctrine since there is no disallowance of FERC-approved costs.
49. We find the record supports increasing the CARE discount from 15% to 25% and the eligibility levels from 150% of federal poverty guidelines to 175% for electric customers of PG&E and Edison.
50. CARE changes for gas customers of PG&E, SDG&E, and Southern California Gas Company should be addressed in R.98-07-037.
51. In looking at whether the rate freeze has ended, we first look to the balance in each utility's TCBA of transition costs before valuation and then determine the value of remaining non-nuclear utility generation assets that would be applied as an offset to these transition costs.
52. The rate freeze under the AB 1890 statutes cannot end until valuation of all remaining non-nuclear utility generation assets has occurred. This is because the level of Commission-authorized "uneconomic costs" which may be recovered during the rate freeze cannot be determined without netting above-market generation assets against below-market generation assets.
53. Under cost of service ratemaking the utilities have the opportunity to earn a return on the cost of their investment. Cost of service regulation has always used net book value for valuation.
54. Valuation cannot be determined by sale or divestiture under ABX6. Any appraisal done would likely take into consideration that the generation assets are dedicated to public service and Commission regulation and would use a discounted cash flow analysis that reflected cost-based prices.
55. Low income households are struggling now to meet the cost of utility energy services, which includes both their electric and gas usage bills, and we recognize that electric rate increases may occur in the near future through other phases of this proceeding, including implementation of ABX1.
56. Because we do not adopt a rate increase at this time, we need not address proposals for residential rate tiers.
57. All active parties agreed to waive the 30-day advance publication period for the proposed decision, otherwise applicable under Public Utilities Code Section 311(d), in order to obtain more time to prepare for hearings and to brief the matter.
58. CAC did not participate in the hearings, it did not file testimony nor cross-examine witnesses nor did it file a brief
59. Only one inactive party, CAC, did not agree to waive the 30-day period under Public Utilities Code Section 311(d).
60. If the Commission were to allow CAC, an inactive party, to unilaterally torpedo the agreed-upon schedule, that would allow CAC to veto the choice the active parties made: to obtain more time to prepare for hearings and to brief the matter, by waiving the Section 311(d) period.
61. Where there is a pre-set deadline for the issuance of a Commission decision, where the active parties have chosen to meet this deadline by waiving the 30-day period under Section 311(d) and thereby allow themselves more time to prepare for hearings and to brief the matter, the requirement of Section 311(d) that a waiver be obtained from all parties does not refer to an inactive party that has not participated in the hearing or briefing process.
62. All required parties have stipulated to waive the 30-day period under Section 311(d).
1. Without providing a cash flow analysis factoring in any potential financial relief from the CDWR, income tax refunds, state legislative and executive measures, and other potential sources, PG&E has failed to lay a proper foundation to support its claimed need for the two-cents per kWh rate increase.
2. Edison has failed to show that it requires a two-cents per kWh rate increase unless CDWR procures 100% of the utility's net short position.
3. The utilities have not justified their requested rate relief under the standard for just and reasonable rates set forth in Pub. Util. Code § 451.
4. There is no basis to conclude that either granting or denying the utilities' requested increase would, of itself, be the determining factor in triggering bankruptcy proceedings.
5. The Commission should further consider investigating the reasonableness of utility management actions in not acting sooner to conserve cash in view of their worsening financial problems over time. In this decision we are considering legal interpretations of the statute and the Commission's prior decisions.
6. As provided in § 330(s) and § 368(a), the Legislature was aware that costs would vary over the transition period, thus impacting the ability of the utilities to recover transition costs.
7. Pursuant to § 368(a) and prior Commission decisions, a rate freeze is just that: it is a freeze, not a deferral of costs.
8. Consistent with § 368(c) and § 397, the Legislature recognized that energy procurement costs will vary and would impact transition cost recovery.
9. Our findings in D.99-10-057 were upheld in D.00-03-058 and have been upheld by the First District Court of Appeals and the California Supreme Court.
10. The Commission has devised the TCBA and TRA accounting mechanisms and it is within our purview to change these mechanisms, after proper notice and opportunity to be heard.
11. Consistent with the requirements of AB 1890, the level of recorded transition cost recovery at any given time should reflect the total revenues collected to date during the rate freeze, as well as the total costs incurred to date in providing service during the rate freeze.
12. Consistent with D.99-10-057, the rate freeze cannot end until final market valuation occurs, which must be completed by December 31, 2001.
13. Adopting TURN's proposal would not constitute retroactive ratemaking.
14. The California Supreme Court in Southern California Edison Company v. Public Utilities Commission (1978) 20 Cal.3d 813 concluded that an adjustment of rates, which does not involve general ratemaking, may be retroactive in effect without violating the rule against retroactive ratemaking.
15. Because TURN's proposed accounting change at issue does not involve general ratemaking, the Commission may adopt the change without violating the prohibition against retroactive ratemaking.
16. Even if there were a conflict between the retroactive ratemaking prohibition imposed by Section 728 and the requirement of AB 1890 that the utilities be at risk for recovery of transition costs during the transition period, the more recently enacted and more specific requirements of AB 1890 would control.
17. It is appropriate to require the utilities to transfer the excess revenues that accrue in the generation memorandum accounts to the TCBA on a monthly basis. This modification will match the costs of procuring power on a monthly basis with the net revenues resulting from generating that power. To the extent that the utilities have not recovered their costs from market revenues, any undercollections should remain in the generation memorandum accounts.
18. Because we are making no determinations of disallowances, the utilities' claims regarding unconstitutional takings and violations of the filed rate doctrine are premature.
19. Adopting TURN's accounting proposal does not impede Edison's due process rights, but is a timely exercise of Commission ratemaking authority.
20. The statutory requirements of AB 1890 are that the rate freeze remain in place for PG&E and Edison until the earlier of March 31, 2002 or the date relevant transition cost balances are zero. As set forth in D.99-10-057, for PG&E and Edison, the end of the rate freeze shall not occur before the generation assets of each utility have been market-valued except as the law or the Commission determines otherwise.
21. Despite the interaction of §§ 367(b) and 377, as revised by ABX6, the Commission still retains the discretion, even if not the requirement, to value remaining generation assets.
22. ABX6 replaces former § 377 that stated that non-nuclear generation assets were to continue under Commission regulation "until those assets have been subject to market valuation in accordance with procedures established by the commission." Section 377 no longer renders any utility generation assets "subject to valuation". Instead, it now continues Commission regulatory authority over all utility electrical generation until after the Commission has allowed disposal of any such generation assets under Section 851, and further bars disposal of any such assets until after December 31, 2005.
23. We find that net book value rather than PG&E's proposed interim estimated valuation is the appropriate interim valuation for generation assets subject to cost of service ratemaking under ABX6.
24. Because the Commission is determining a value that reflects a dedication to public service and Commission regulation, it is reasonable for the Commission to determine the assets' value to reflect that regulation.
25. It may be reasonable to determine that net book value may also meet the statutory requirements of Section 367(b) for the Commission to determine a final market value for PG&E's and Edison's non-nuclear remaining generation assets prior to December 31, 2001. Unlike prior disposition of utility assets, which were being released into the market, reliance on third party values makes little sense under present circumstances.
26. We should not make a determination of final market value without first giving notice, and an opportunity to comment, to all parties in Commission proceedings addressing this issue for PG&E and Edison. Therefore, we will provide an opportunity for comment and address final market valuation in a later decision.
27. It is reasonable to use a valuation date of January 31, 2001 for the net book value of PG&E's and Edison's remaining non-nuclear generation assets for purposes of determining here if the rate freeze has ended.
28. The rate freeze concept expressed in AB 1890 and AB1X may be conceptually incompatible, particularly if headroom is not available to allow the utilities the opportunity to recover their remaining transition costs. However, until we have completed implementation of AB1X, it is premature to reach conclusions regarding the interaction between AB1X and AB 1890. We do not intend to repeal portions of AB 1890 by implication, which could occur should we find existing AB 1890 statutes inconsistent with AB1X, and to take action based on that conclusion.
29. We affirm that AB1X continues the exemption of CARE customers from the EPS based on its reference to rates in effect as of January 5, 2001.
30. It is not reasonable to exempt CARE customers from any increases that result from implementation of AB1X at this time, as that is an issue to be considered within the context of our implementation
31. AB1X refers to rates that are in effect as of January 5, 2001. Therefore, the interim surcharge the commission authorized in D.01-01-018 should be made permanent.
32. Where there is a pre-set deadline for the issuance of a Commission decision, where the active parties have chosen to meet this deadline by waiving the 30-day period under Section 311(d) and thereby allow themselves more time to prepare for hearings and to brief the matter, the requirement of Section 311(d) that a waiver be obtained from all parties does not refer to an inactive party that has not participated in the hearing or briefing process.
33. All required parties have stipulated to waive the 30-day period under Section 311(d).
34. We should require PG&E and Edison to use the net book value as the interim value for all retained non-nuclear generation assets. PG&E and Edison should adjust any and all prior amounts of estimated market values credited to the TCBA and credit only the net book value of the retained non-nuclear generation asset in the TCBA. PG&E and Edison should also perform similar adjustments in their Generation Asset Balancing Account.
35. This order should be effective today, so that these accounting modifications may be implemented expeditiously.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Pacific Gas & Electric Company's (PG&E) and Southern California Edison Company's (Edison) request for rate relief is denied.
2. The Petition to Modify Resolution E-3527, filed by The Utility Reform Network (TURN), and docketed as Application (A.) 00-10-028 is granted. The balance in PG&E's and Edison's respective Transition Revenue Account (TRA) shall be transferred on a monthly basis to each utility's respective Transition Cost Balancing Account (TCBA). This action shall be effective as of January 1, 1998.
3. PG&E and Edison shall file advice letters within 15 days of the effective date of this decision to revise their tariffs as necessary. PG&E and Edison shall attach reports that restate the TRA, TCBA, and GMA in compliance with this decision. The advice letters shall be deemed in compliance with this decision only upon the written approval of Energy Division.
4. We shall require PG&E and Edison to use the net book value as the interim value for all retained non-nuclear generation assets. PG&E and Edison shall adjust any and all prior amounts of estimated market values credited to the TCBA and credit only the net book value of the retained non-nuclear generation asset in the TCBA. PG&E and Edison shall also perform similar adjustments in their Generation Asset Balancing Account.
This order is effective today.
Dated __________, at San Francisco, California.
************ APPEARANCES ************ Gerald Lahr |
Carrie H. Allen |
Katherine S. Poole |
Evelyn K. Elsesser |
Marc D. Joseph |
Michael Alcantar |
William P. Adams |
Edward G. Poole |
James Weil |
Daniel W. Douglass |
Michael Aguirre |
Barbara R. Barkovich |
Marco Gomez |
Karen Norene Mills |
Roger Berliner |
Ronald Liebert |
A Brubaker |
Ed Yates |
Jonathan M. Weisgall |
Lisa G. Urick |
Fernando De Leon |
Jennifer Chamberlin |
Theresa Mueller |
Patrick Mcguire |
Bill Mc Callum |
Tom Beach |
Frederick Ortlieb |
John M Chamberlain |
Bill Powers |
Lindsey How-Downing |
Howard Owens |
Edward W. O'Neill |
Howard Choy |
Norman J. Furuta |
Dan L. Carroll |
Diane I. Fellman |
Thomas M. Berliner |
Andrew J. Skaff |
Colin L. Pearce |
Carolyn Kehrein |
Lynn M. Haug |
Patrick Mcdonnell |
Andrew B. Brown |
Nancy Ryan |
Douglas K. Kerner |
James D. Squeri |
Jeanne M. Bennett |
James Hodges |
Michael B. Day |
Jan Smutny-Jones |
Richard H. Counihan |
William B. Marcus |
Irene K. Moosen |
Norman A. Pedersen |
Jody S. London |
Ron Knecht |
Morten Henrik Greidung |
Susan E. Brown |
William H. Booth |
C. Susie Berlin |
Christopher A. Hilen |
Patricia R. Williams |
John W. Leslie |
Jeffrey H. Goldfien |
Steven Moss |
Kevin Mc Spadden |
David J. Byers |
Scott T. Steffen |
Scott T. Steffen |
Peter Hanschen |
Terry J. Houlihan |
Sara Steck Myers |
Richard Roos-Collins |
Peter Ouborg |
Janie Mollon |
Patrick J. Power |
Aaron Thomas |
Don Schoenbeck |
Joseph M. Malkin |
James Ross |
William H. Edwards |
Steven Greenberg |
Mark R. Huffman |
Keith Sappenfield |
Arlin Orchard |
Randy Britt |
Dana S. Appling |
Andrew Chau |
Phillip J. Muller |
Justin D. Bradley |
Jeffrey M. Parrott |
Frank J. Cooley |
Judy Young |
James C. Paine |
Keith W. Melville |
James Bushee |
Gene L. Waas |
Keith Mc Crea |
Chris Witteman |
Bernardo R. Garcia |
Peter Bray |
Jerry Bloom |
Regina Costa |
Jason J. Zeller |
Robert Finkelstein |
Michael Shames |
********** STATE EMPLOYEE *********** |
Michael W. Neville |
Monica Schwebs |
Lorenzo Kristov |
Ruben Tavares |
Christopher Danforth |
Peter V. Allen |
Joseph R. DeUlloa |
Robert Miyashiro |
Audra Hartmann |
Robert Kinosian |
Kayode Kajopaiye |
Laura L. Krannawitter |
A. Kirk McKenzie |
Donald J. Lafrenz |
Anne W. Premo |
Steve Linsey |
Randy Chinn |
Jeanette Lo |
Linda Serizawa |
Kim Malcolm |
Maria E. Stevens |
Rosalina White |
Zenaida G. Tapawan-Conway |
John S. Wong |
Christine M. Walwyn |
Ed Cazalet |
Scott Blaising |
Paul A. Harris |
Mona Patel |
********* INFORMATION ONLY ********** |
Stephen Layman |
David Marcus |
Derk Pippin |
Ira Schoenholtz |
J. A. Savage |
Robert E. Anderson |
Maria Crispi |
Lulu Weinzimer |
Carl K. Oshiro |
William Dombrowski |
Nicole A. Tutt |
Alexandre B. Makler |
Joseph M. Paul |
Susannah Churchill |
Gregory T. Blue |
J. Patrick Tang |
Joseph A. Young |
John A. Barthrop |
Jon S. Silva |
Angela Oh |
Douglas E. Davie |
Susan A. Huse |
Jeffrey D. Schlichting |
Jeffrey D. Harris |
Joelle Ogg |
James Meyn |
Ralph Smith |
Gary B. Ackerman |
Karen Lindh |
Robert D. Schasel |
Richard J. Mccann |
H. Bradley Donovan |
Candace A. Younger |
Kelly R. Tilton |
Sam De Frawi |
David L. Huard |
Martin Mattes |
Randall W. Keen |
Eve Mitchell |
Linda R. Beck |
Jonathan Jacobs |
Christopher J. Mayer |
Janice Frazier-Hampton |
Robert B. Weisenmiller |
Joe Migocki |
Gary Herbert |
Niels Kjellund |
Melanie Gillette |
Lynn G. Van Wagenen |
Roger J. Peters |
G. Darryl Reed |
Ron Helgens |
Bruce Foster |
George A. Perrault |
Peter S. Goeddel |
Ed Lucha |
Stephen E. Pickett |
Carrie Peyton |
Tim Haines |
Lisa Hubbard |
Peter Fox-Penner, Ph.D. |
Tony Wetzel |
Fred Wesley Monier |
Bill C. Wells |
