Public perception aside, we also believe the case, from the standpoint of its contents, is poorly timed. Much of the impetus behind the case seems to stem from PGE's desire to set up a mechanism to automatically enter their new power plant at Port Westward into rates, as soon as it comes on line. A couple of problems arise for CUB on this issue: this rate case goes into effect in January of next year but Port Westward is not expected to be operational until March or April at the earliest; also, it is quite possible that Port Westward's opening might not occur until the summer or fall of 2007, and other costs associated with running it might well have changed by then. CUB believes that the time to add a power plant into rates is after that plant opens, which makes much of the content of this filing premature.

PGE's rates are already among the highest in the Pacific Northwest and we are not convinced any rate hike is currently justified. Furthermore, because we know the impact that a rate increase could have on customers, we are going to go through this filing with a fine-tooth comb and question every cost. As we said earlier, it is not for CUB to set the timing of these rate cases. We simply respond to the cases as they are filed, taking in our toolkit of ratemaking experience and concern for customers' financial well-being. We will be taking apart this case and putting it back together again in arguments before the PUC that will hopefully result in a much different rate case outcome than the one PGE has requested. The standard, after all, is "fair, just, and reasonable" rates, and not a penny more.