Public Utilities Fortnightly asked eight commissioners about the demands of restructuring and about an issue particular to their state.
**********
Comments by P. Gregory Conlon, president, California Public Utilities Commission:
Question: NARUC is restructuring. What must it maintain, what must it change, and what qualities must its director have to keep it ahead of industry issues?
Response: "I think their main goal is to make sure that we're focused in Washington, particularly on the Hill and at the two regulatory agencies that we're going through fundamental restructurings with the FCC on the Telecommunications Act and the FERC on electric restructuring. I think NARUC needs to take a leadership position in both of those efforts, and I think they have."
Question: How active is your state legislature in electric deregulation? When is this participation helpful? When is it intrusive?
Response: "We just went through legislation that passed both houses unanimously. And that was the most comprehensive piece of legislation that has gone through the California legislature, I think, in the last 20 or 30 years. . . . [There were] somewhere between 200 and 300 hours of hearings. During that process, I personally and some of my fellow commissioners were there to explain to them our policy decision. . . . And when the legislation was over with, they made some changes, but the basic principles weren't touched.
"Certainly the legislation did two things we could not do. Well, we could do it, but it fortified our ability to collect stranded assets by putting it in statute a surcharge. And it also enabled the municipal utilities to become members of the ISO, which we could never have forced because we have no jurisdiction. So I think those were the two principle things that were done that were very positive. They took a lot of decisions that were before us and made a decision for us that we would have normally done through our own process, so whether you call that intrusive. . . . We had a rate proceeding on Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) that was before us, and they decided it for us. They granted PG&E a 5-percent increase for the next two years. . . . It was a quid pro quo, for, in this case, PG&E not opposing the legislation. I mean there were over 100 parties involved in this process. So everybody got something; everybody gave something up."
Question: Did industrial and residential consumers pressure you to deregulate? How do the grassroots politics in your state differ from elsewhere; what defines your political climate?
Response: "What defines our whole exercise, our whole restructuring, is our high rates and the strong cry by the large users for customer choice. Those are the two driving forces. [Residential consumers] fit in in that they will get the benefit along with the large customers of the reduction in rates that we hope to accomplish through deregulation and opening the market. But they weren't crying for it because their bills generally were not that much out of line."
Question: What are the pluses and minuses of U.S. Rep. Dan Schaefer's restructuring bill?
Response: "I really haven't had a chance to analyze it. . . . As long as the states are left with the retail function and the intrastate regulation, some overall federal policy would not be objectionable."
Question: It appears from reading the California restructuring legislation that, like in Rhode Island, the utilities got everything they wanted. Would this have happened had the interested parties worked solely with the CPUC and not with legislators?
Response: "There were 100 people in that room for . . . 200 hours, and I was there for each hour myself, personally. So there were no deals done in the dark in the booth behind the back. They were done in public. I was there. Our voice was heard. In some cases, it was rejected, and [legislators] did something differently. In some cases we hadn't acted, so it was hard to say. It was intrusive maybe, but whether they decided differently than we would have decided, we'll never know.
"I think, though, that the pressures are great. If the 100 largest industrial customers in every state want to have some kind of restructuring, there's going to be tremendous pressure put on the commission. And I think if the commission doesn't respond in some form, there will be pressure put on the legislature and I'm sure the governor's office in every state. . . . Those are the realities. I don't think it's the utilities, it's the large industrial customers driving this. . . . The utilities are probably just trying to get protection on the stranded assets as best they can. "The legislature adopted our position on the stranded assets, which is to give [utilities] 100 percent of those assets that are above market, but reduce their return by 20 percent. The legislature did not touch that decision. [The legislature and the governor] have the authority in most states to enact legislation that can override virtually any decision. So if you don't make them a player, they may get vindictive." [End of Conlon comments]
**********
Comments by Susan F. Clark, chairman, Florida Public Service Commission
Q. NARUC is restructuring. What must it maintain, what must it change, and what qualities must its director have to keep it ahead of industry issues?
A. "I think the focus should lie in providing commissioners with assistance . . . and speaking as a cohesive voice on national and international issues that affect utility service. We have to become more nimble in our ability to respond to the ever-changing regulation of utilities. And I think we're doing that. We can't wait for our meetings that we hold three times a year. [NARUC's new director] will have to have some experience in organizations that represent state interests at the national and international level. . . . I think [that] will become a more important role, because the utilities we regulate are viewing their market as a market that includes international markets."
Q. Are industrial and residential consumers pressuring you to deregulate? How do the grassroots politics in your state differ from elsewhere; what defines your political climate?
A. "They are indicating they believe competition in the retail market can work. And they're asking us to explore those issues or at least ask questions about how. I think it's primarily the industrial consumers because they know how much their electricity costs. . . . It's part of their everyday business decisions. And when they hear that other states are doing it or that it's been done in the United Kingdom, they certainly want us to explore whether it is something that can be implemented in Florida.
"We haven't really heard from [residential consumers] as a cohesive body. We have an office of public counsel and I'm sure, as part of his responsibility, he's keeping in touch with what is going on elsewhere, to see if there are some benefits to be gained by allowing more competition in the electric market. But he hasn't been advocating that.
Q. How active is your state legislature in electric deregulation? When is this participation helpful? When is it intrusive?
A. "They had a bill last year that would have established a task force on deregulation issues. My recollection is it didn't make it out of committee. Our state legislature views deregulation as the commission's responsibility to let them know, to educate them to what is going on as it relates to utilities. And they rely on us to keep up with changes and make an assessment of whether any changes need to be made."
"We have an extremely large senior citizen population that's very active in politics. . . . Organizations such as the AARP [American Association of Retired Persons] have state organizations that participate in our proceedings from time to time and they, too, are kind of watching other states."
Q. What are the pluses and minuses of U.S. Rep. Dan Schaefer's restructuring bill?
A. "One thing that does concern me is the timeframe that he has placed on introducing retail competition in the electric industry. There is an assumption that one size fits all. And I don't think that's the case. . . . We don't have that many large industrial consumers, so what may be appropriate for our state may be vastly different from a Minnesota or a Wisconsin."
Q. Your commission has been somewhat silent on restructuring -- why?
A. "To be clear, we are not sticking our heads in the sand. We have undertaken as a commission to educate our staff on electric restructuring issues and we have scheduled three forums for educating our staff and the commissioners. . . . That doesn't mean we haven't done other things. . . . We recently approved a flexible pricing tariff for Gulf Power Co. on an experimental basis. Florida has fairly reasonable rates. We're kind of at that midpoint, and in some cases lower. We feel like we've done a good job in regulating our electric companies up to now.
"The goal is to have fair, just, and reasonable rates, and reliable electricity. And if competition can deliver that better than we can, that's the way it ought to be then." [End of Clark comments]
**********
Comments by Ralph Nelson, president, Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Q. NARUC is restructuring. What must it maintain, what must it change, and what qualities must its director have to keep it ahead of industry issues?
A. "I think it'll help if we get somebody who has had some experience in this regulatory arena before and has dealt with some of this change. Somebody who's had some experience on the Hill. . . . [NARUC must] be willing to change with the times. And I see a great deal of change coming. . . . I think you're going to see rate-of-return rate cases for telephone and electricity go by the wayside. I don't think the organization and its structure needs to change as much as the thinking."
Q. How active is your state legislature in electric deregulation? When is this participation helpful? When is it intrusive?
A. "The leadership has appointed a committee to look at electric issues and they [held their] first meeting on September 28. So they're trying to get active and educated. "I think their participation is always helpful. We'd rather have them start early and get aware of the issues rather than just have a bill thrown down that's an up or down call. In the past, we've been over there arguing issues before a committee which isn't the optimum place. . . . You'd like to discuss the legislation before it gets to the committee."
Q. Are industrial and residential consumers pressuring you to deregulate? How do the grassroots politics in your state differ from elsewhere; what defines your political climate?
A. "Residential consumers aren't. There's some pressure from industrial consumers. They're telling us they can get a better deal if they have a choice. I'm not sure I believe it." "Our legislature is very conservative. There hasn't been a lot of money available for grassroots groups to represent themselves before our commission. . . . It's not like having TURN [California's Toward Utility Rate Normalization group] or somebody around."
Q. What are the pluses and minuses of U.S. Rep. Dan Schaefer's restructuring bill?
A. "I'm not as familiar with that bill as I'd like to be, but what's wrong with it is having a national solution. Areas of the country are so different, I don't think there's a national solution. I think it's driven by idealogy rather than a real national problem."
Q. Your commission recently ruled that electric deregulation was "neither feasible nor desirable." How long will you maintain this position? How can you resist change as neighboring states and federal legislators consider mandating it?
A. "I think it would require some legislative changes for us to deregulate. That's why we say it's not feasible. However, the rest of it is why we're a little pessimistic. We do have the lowest rates in the country industrial rates . . . about 23, 22 mills [per kilowatt hour]. When you take transmission and everything and try and go out and beat that, I think it's going to be very difficult. Residential customers are paying 5 cents [per kilowatt hour]. Irrigators are paying 3.5 to 4 cents. So you have to wonder what your customers are going to gain by choice other than getting some phone calls [from new electricity suppliers].
"[We're] cautiously pessimistic. We don't see what we've got to gain in this. We think if rates move toward an average, that hurts Idaho. We have a lot of industry that's here because of the low electric rates. . . . If those rates move up to an average, it could be that other considerations would cause some industry to leave the state.
"I'm sure that the legislature is going to give us some direction and we're going to follow that. But we would like to see restructuring done in a manner that . . . captures the benefits that Idaho enjoys now and keeps those benefits for a while." [End of comments by Nelson]
**********
Comments by John B. Howe, chairman, Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities
Q. NARUC is restructuring. What must it maintain, what must it change, and what qualities must its director have to keep it ahead of industry issues?
A. "I think NARUC today is serving as a very useful catalyst for the restructuring efforts of individual states. "What needs to change is already changing. . . . Members of NARUC would report that there really is a cultural shift going on within the organization. The industries we regulate are changing drastically. . . . I believe NARUC is responsive to the changes in the industry. One of the key challenges we face as a constituency in Washington is to make our voice heard. . . . I think we need to continually do a better job at forming consensus in a timely fashion and representing our views with vigor. . . . We need an executive director who can lead us effectively in that challenge."
Q. How active is your state legislature in electric deregulation? When is this participation helpful? When is it intrusive?
A. "Our department is overseen by a joint committee on government regulations. . . . I would say their interest in deregulation is accelerating. And I anticipate that in 1997 it will be a critical issue. Currently there has been a study committee that's been convened with the assignment of producing a report on electric industry restructuring by December. . . . Our legislature has given our department leeway to move forward with our rulemaking effort, but that's been with the implicit understanding, which I share fully, that we cannot carry the ball over the goal line. "The challenge that all state commissions and state legislatures face is: How far should legislatures go in enabling the restructuring process as opposed to prescribing outcomes? "[On some issues] political judgments need to be made. We've identified one with our legislature and that is how to treat the shortfall in property tax revenues that some communities may experience if generating plants located in those towns are devalued as a result of the shift to competition."
Q. Are industrial and residential consumers pressuring you to deregulate? How do the grassroots politics in your state differ from elsewhere; what defines your political climate?
A. "Yes, certainly. The principal pressure has been coming from industrial consumers. And there are, in fact, many residential consumers who question why we have to go forward with this restructuring process. There was a big political outcry earlier this year when our commission did approve a discount for one of our largest industrial customers, notwithstanding the fact that we made the commitment that the utility involved would not be able to collect the revenue shortfall from other customers."
The grassroots politics question is "a very difficult question, and one I'm almost a little reluctant to address. We are a high-cost state, but we're also a state where there's a sincere and deeply held concern about protecting and advancing environmental values. We've lost a significant amount of industrial load over the past 10 or 12 years and there's significant rate disparity between the utilities that operate in the state. All of those factors contribute to a very lively debate. . . . There's no clear consensus. But I would have to report a growing sense among those who are familiar with the issue that some type of reform is necessary."
Q. What are the pluses and minuses of U.S. Rep. Dan Schaefer's restructuring bill?
A. "Clearly the Congress is not in a position to move on the issue of restructuring this year, but I do think it has been useful to generate reaction to that bill. I think what's right about it is it identifies a critical issue that's affecting people from throughout the nation. And it is serving as a catalyst to spur forward the efforts of the states. What's wrong about it is although electric industry restructuring is an issue of national importance, that does not make it a per se federal issue."
Q. You've been involved in a coordinated restructuring process with neighboring states. Is this a model for others or could you have done it better and faster had you done it alone?
A. "In New England, there's no choice. We have to do it this way. We are six states that constitute a single market area, the New England Power Pool. Also, we are six states with, in many respects, a common political culture. . . . The kinds of markets that need to evolve have to reflect the physical, technological, and market realities.
"Transmission is a regional service, and I fully anticipate if this restructuring is to move forward successfully that what we'll see emerge is large, regional markets that cover several states. And it's appropriate that transmission service be federally regulated and that transmission policies . . . reflect the concerns and particular attributes of different regions." [End of comments by Howe]
**********
Comments by Nancy McCaffree, chairman, Montana Public Service Commission
Q. NARUC is restructuring. What must it maintain, what must it change, and what qualities must its director have to keep it ahead of industry issues?
A. "What it must maintain is the quality of service. . . . NARUC has done an excellent job in the past of keeping us informed as to what's going on, when congressional hearings are, that sort of thing, so we could have input. The changes I see that need to be made, and I've talked to Cheryl Parrino [NARUC president] about these too, is the kind of money they spend. I think they have to take a look at how they put meetings on . . . the kind of gifts that are given out, that sort of thing."
Q. How active is your state legislature in electric deregulation? When is this participation helpful? When is it intrusive?
A. "It's covered under other committees that they do have. And I think it's something they should look at. I think legislators need a thorough understanding of what deregulation means. It's tough to get competition in Montana in anything. And I think a lot of our legislators see that also. I don't think we're going to look at total deregulation anytime soon here."
Q. Are industrial and residential consumers pressuring you to deregulate? How do the grassroots politics in your state differ from elsewhere; what defines your political climate?
A. "I wouldn't say consumers are. . . . Our large industrial group . . . feels deregulation would help them. We're pretty concerned about what it's going to mean for the residential consumer, the small businesses, if they'll really have a choice. One [group that defines political culture] is our agriculture. Our rural co-ops define a lot. Our legislators are going to listen to the co-op people, both electric and telephone, because they serve a good part of the state."
Q. What are the pluses and minuses of U.S. Rep. Dan Schaefer's restructuring bill?
A. "I'm not familiar with the bill. . . [but] federal legislation in general on restructuring concerns me. And there again, on the rural versus urban kinds of issues I really wonder if the Congressional people know what that means to very rural states. Are they really just concerned with the majority of the people and what that's going to mean to New York City or Los Angeles? It certainly doesn't look like, at least in California, that their electric restructuring is benefiting the consumer, the families. Their bills are not seeing much change at all. It's the large industrial people that are going to reap the benefits there. I think everything is kind of like swimming through tapioca right now. Just trying to see out the other end of what Congress has said we're going to do and how to get that done without hurting families, the consumer, and the small businesses."
Q. As the needs of rural and urban utilities grow further apart, can you envision a split within NARUC along those lines, with two associations formed to fill distinct needs?
A. "No, I don't see a split in NARUC over it. I certainly see NARUC sitting up and taking notice. . . . There may be some changes. They're going to have to recognize [the situation], more so than they do. And I think they're beginning to. Everything can't be run for the benefit of California. Oh, that's not a nice way to put it. But people are going to get hurt financially with deregulation if we're not very careful." [End of comments by McCaffree]
**********
Comments by James J. Malachowski, chairman, Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission
Q. NARUC is restructuring. What must it maintain, what must it change, and what qualities must its director have to keep it ahead of industry issues?
A. "NARUC must be realistic about its goals and abilities. I think its unique makeup gives us both strengths and weaknesses. . . . The diversity in the debate is the organization's strength. . . . That same diversity makes it very difficult for us to get consensus. Much of the debate in NARUC at the moment concerns increasing our lobbying effort, and everyone's pointing to the effort that took place on the telco bill. I think that's going to be more unique than the norm.
"Commissioners are politically appointed and therefore, to a great extent, politically connected. . . . We can get entry to members almost immediately on the Hill, Congress. But at the same time, that's a potential weakness as well, again because of the great diversity. Consider the situation if the NARUC position is different than the individual's or the state's position, and I'm in the minority. When I talk to my member, what will my message be? Will it be the NARUC position or the individual state position?"
Q. How active is your state legislature in electric deregulation? When is this participation helpful? When is it intrusive?
A. "It's done. There was a champion for deregulation who was a powerful member of the House the majority leader, Rep. George D. Caruolo. . . . [But] the proposal needed amendment, the legislation was flawed. The process involved the major utilities participating in forum shopping. They saw they could get a better deal in the Assembly than in the commission, and they went and then negotiated secretly and privately with the Assembly to produce a bill. Those were the fellows from Narragansett Electric, which is an affiliate of New England Electric System (NEES). And in my view, the bill minimizes the risk to the utility. It protects them against lost revenues and facilitates reduction in power costs at ratepayers' expense. It allows recovery of 100 percent of stranded investment. . . . So the bill is not a model. And I would suggest to other states that both the process and the result is not something to replicate.
"I think there are some very powerful forces at work. There are tremendous dollars at stake and public utility commissions should not be so naive as to think that these great public policy debates that we're engaging in will carry the day. . . . Restructurings that take place will be done by forging deals based on protection of the incumbents incumbent utilities. I think it's not unlike what happened when monopolies were first formed. They were for very powerful people with a lot of money at stake, who were investing heavily in distribution systems and were afraid of competition. The amount of money at stake is tremendous, and I think the only way regulators will be allowed to be involved will be based upon the extent to which they rule in favor of these powerful forces."
Q. Are industrial and residential consumers pressuring you to deregulate? How do the grassroots politics in your state differ from elsewhere; what defines your political climate?
A. "The powerful forces are beyond incumbent utilities. They include industrial customers. They include independent power producers. . . . The residential consumer's voice I don't believe is being heard to a significant, or sufficient, degree."
Q. What are the pluses and minuses of U.S. Rep. Dan Schaefer's restructuring bill?
A. "I've been so wrapped up with what's happened here, I haven't tracked that."
Q. Your restructuring process has been coordinated with neighbor states. Is this a model for others or could you have done it better and faster had you done it alone?
A. "The effort to coordinate this regionally did not happen to the degree necessary to be considered seriously. . . . In terms of other issues in terms of regional transmission groups and what's happening with the transmission system in an ISO things are continuing and working quite well. In terms of states trying to combine to produce a restructuring model for retail access despite the discussions that took place and the thought to try to approach this from a regional perspective it never developed. There was never any consensus that was brought forward. There was never any effort to model legislation . . . so the discussions about a regional approach to the issue did not develop either fast enough or specific enough to be helpful.
"When we did it on our own, our commission had hearings scheduled on the matter for much of [August] that were moot when the legislation passed. . . . We weren't allowed to go forward. I wouldn't say [I'm] bitter. I'd say 'disappointed' I think, awakened to the reality. I mean we have a utility, NEES, that had a reputation for working with commissions. A very positive regulatory relationship, finding out what commissions wanted and moving in that direction. And in this case, because there was so much money at stake to them, they basically went behind the commission's back, and privately, secretly, negotiated with the legislature. Misled us. [They] indicated they would not be doing that, and then this bill surfaced.
"They were participating in the process here at the commission. They told us they would not go and deal separately with the Assembly. And at the same time, they were apparently secretly doing so. I don't know what the prospects are for a similar restructuring model being accepted in [Massachusetts and New Hampshire]. If it's not, I don't think the Rhode Island legislation is workable. It would have to be amended." [End of comments by Malachowski]
**********
Comments by Douglas L. Patch, chairman, New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission
Q. NARUC is restructuring. What must it maintain, what must it change, and what qualities must its director have to keep it ahead of industry issues?
A. "I would suggest it really ought to maintain close contact with the commissioners who make up the organization to ensure that the states are key players in any policy matters that NARUC is going to take positions on, particularly before Congress. I see a director who needs to be in touch with the membership, and yet at the same time, someone who understands the Washington scene and how NARUC can best make its presence known."
Q. How active is your state legislature in electric deregulation? When is this participation helpful? When is it intrusive?
A. "Our legislature is very active and I would suggest probably as well educated, if not better, than any legislature in the country. . . . Their constituents, the customers of the utilities here in the state, are after them because they're concerned about high rates.
"We've tried to work very closely with the legislature to establish a roundtable on restructuring the electric industry. . . . There's an oversight committee that grew out of the major restructuring legislation that passed during the 1996 session . . . a 14-member committee. . . . They're certainly aware of what's going on, they meet regularly, they'll be monitoring what we do to carry out the legislation that passed this session. I haven't found any situations where I thought they were being intrusive."
Q. Are industrial and residential consumers pressuring you to deregulate? How do the grassroots politics in your state differ from elsewhere; what defines your political climate?
A. "Very much so. They have pressured our legislature . . . [and] us too. They are participants, intervenors in the dockets we have to deal with on these issues, and a number of small customer groups. Consumer advocates are very active. We have 400 members in our House of Representatives and we are, I think, the third largest legislative body in the free world. . . . There are only 24 members in our Senate. Particularly in the House, there's a lot of contact between constituents, ratepayers, and legislators . . . . That has an impact on how we do business here in New Hampshire."
Q. What are the pluses and minuses of U.S. Rep. Dan Schaefer's restructuring bill?
A. "It's encouraging to see somebody in Congress take the time to find out what states' concerns are with regard to restructuring the electric industry. . . . There are some aspects of the legislation that he's put forward so far that are of some concern, particularly with regard to infringement of the flexibility that we think the states ought to have."
Q. Your commission limited industry discussion to get its electric retail wheeling pilot underway. Will this decision come back to haunt you, or is it better to get experience and then revisit the rules of the game?
A. "I think it's better to get experience and revisit the rules of the game. I think we've learned a lot from competition in the pilot program. And I think one of the big benefits of it goes to the public, to the ratepayers. There's been a lot of publicity in our state about the pilot. . . . If nothing else, we have raised the consciousness of ratepayers. [End of comments by Patch]
**********
Comments by Patrick H. Wood, III, chairman, Texas Public Utility Commission
Q. NARUC is restructuring. What must it maintain, what must it change, and what qualities must its director have to keep it ahead of industry issues?
A. "Maintain the good information exchange. We really benefit from that tremendously. It's very timely, accurate. They're a good Washington presence for all the issues that have popped up.
"What it must change: probably the reflexive response to federal initiatives. The negative response: 'Don't do it, let the states do it.' Some of this stuff just isn't working with just the states doing it."
Q. How active is your state legislature in electric deregulation? When is this participation helpful? When is it intrusive?
A. "It's by nature helpful because they created us and we work really as their proxy. . . . They don't have a specific deregulation committee, but they do have an oversight committee in both our Senate and House for telecom legislation and electric regulation. And they've been very involved."
Q. Are industrial and residential consumers pressuring you to deregulate? How do the grassroots politics in your state differ from elsewhere; what defines your political climate?
A. "Yes. I assume it's price related. That probably drives most of it. I don't know that many of them are pushing it for ideological reasons, but I assume there's some of that, too. "It's probably stronger from the industrials, but I think that in the past year that coalition has broadened from the medium-sized commercial class customer on up.
"Naturally, Texas is quite a bit more conservative. . . . Government is usually looked at as a much later option than an early option in solving a problem. But it's also a pretty strong populist state . . . so a lot of the issues recognize there is a role for government."
Q. What are the pluses and minuses of U.S. Rep. Dan Schaefer's restructuring bill?
A. "It really defers the issue to the states. I think a lot of the details are going to be customized on a more geographic basis than, say, telecom reform. I think there's deference to a state's ability to craft its own destiny on these issues. I think it was a serious proposal. I was asked to testify on it in the early days before he put it out. . . . We're taking it seriously."
Q. Your commission recently became among the first in the United States to approve an ISO. Does the PUC have a role to play in regulating the ISO, or should the FERC take exclusive jurisdiction?
A. "Oh no!" he says, answering the last part of the question first. "Put an exclamation point there. Heavens no. Hell no with the appropriate valentine to Betsy Moler. . . . We're lucky in that our jurisdictional lines go up to our state borders but not beyond.
"The reason we were first, I think, is that we were wanting it, but we were lucky that we were jurisdictionally under one house. . . . It's local here. We'll be directly involved in that and I think that's proper. Texas is big enough to be a regional ISO, and I think, looking at the Pennsylvania-Maryland-New Jersey deal, regional governance of electricity probably is the way it's going to go. We've got parts of Texas that will be in multistate regions. Not every utility in Texas is in ERCOT. So we're certainly going to be interested in making sure we can play a role in those ISOs that develop in the SPP and the WSCC as well." [End of comments by Wood]
END OF ARTICLE
Articles found on this page are available to Internet subscribers only. For more information about obtaining a username and password, please call our Customer Service Department at 1-800-368-5001.