Good morning, everyone, and welcome to Portland General Electric Company’s first quarter 2011 earnings results conference call. Today is Thursday, May 5, 2011. This call is being recorded, and as such, all lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. After the speakers’ remarks, there will be a question-and-answer session. (Operator Instructions) And for opening remarks, I would like to turn the conference over to Portland General Electric’s Director of Investor Relations, Mr. Bill Valach. Please go ahead, Mr. Valach.

Yes, thank you, Kelsey, and good morning, everyone. We’re pleased that you are able to join us today. Before we begin our discussion this morning, I’d like to make our customary statements regarding Portland General Electric’s written and oral disclosures and commentary. There will be statements in this call that are not based on historical facts and as such constitute forward-looking statements under current law. These statements are subject to factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements made today. For a description of some of the factors that may occur that could cause such differences, the company requests that you read our most recent Form 10-K and Form 10-Qs. The Form 10-Q for first quarter 2011 was available this morning at portlandgeneral.com. The company undertakes no obligation to update publicly any forward-looking statements whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. And this Safe Harbor statement should be incorporated as part of any transcript of this call. Portland General Electric’s first quarter earnings were released before the market opened today, and the release is available at portlandgeneral.com. Leading our discussion today are Jim Piro, President and CEO; and Maria Pope, Senior Vice President of Finance, CFO and Treasurer. Jim will begin today’s presentation by providing a general overview of the quarter’s results and our strategic capital projects. Then Maria will provide more detail around the quarterly results and key regulatory proceedings. Following prepared remarks, we will open the lines up for your questions. And now it’s my pleasure to turn the call over to Jim.

Thank you, Bill. Good morning and thank you for joining us. Welcome to Portland General Electric’s 2011 first quarter earnings call. I’m very proud of our strong operating performance during the first quarter. Through effective power supply management, we were able to economically displace a significant amount of our thermal generation with increased energy received from hydro resources and low cost purchase power. Our transmission and distribution system performed well, and we continue to focus on cost efficiency and effectiveness, keeping our operating costs in line with our 2011 general rate case. All while remaining – maintaining high levels of customer satisfaction. PGE’s net income for first quarter of 2011 was $69 million or $0.92 per diluted share compared to $27 million or $0.36 per diluted share for first quarter 2010. We are increasing our full-year 2011 earnings guidance by $0.10 to a $1.90 to $2.05 per share from the prior guidance of $1.80 to $1.95 per share. Increased guidance primarily reflects improved hydro conditions and lower purchase power costs. Now let’s move on to the economic outlook for our operating areas. We continued to experienced customer growth with the addition of 3,800 new customers since the first quarter of 2010. Oregon seasonally adjusted unemployment rate declined in March to 10% for the state and 9.6% for the Portland metro area. This compares to the U.S. average of 8.8% in March. Oregon’s decline was due to an increase in job creation, particularly with business employers. Total retail energy deliveries on the weather adjusted basis increased approximately 3.1% compared to first quarter of 2010. While we experienced increases in delivery across all customer segments, the load increase was driven primarily by one large industrial customer in the paper sector and deliveries to high tech customers. We project that weather adjusted retail…

Good morning. Thank you, Jim. Today I’ll cover our financial results for quarter, review operating performance, provide an update on key regulatory items, and conclude with our liquidity and financing. First quarter 2011 net income was $69 million or $0.92 per diluted share, compared to $27 million or $0.36 per diluted share for the first quarter of 2010. Operating results for the quarter were driven primarily by increased retail energy deliveries and decreased power costs. First quarter 2011 retail revenues increased 10% from the first quarter of 2010. This increase was primarily due to a 10% in retail energy deliveries, resulting from cooler than normal temperatures compared to unseasonably warm temperatures in the first quarter 2010. And secondarily, an increase in demand from our paper and high tech manufacturing customers. For the first quarter of 2011, weather positively impacted results by approximately $0.05 per share, compared to a negative impact of approximately $0.05 per share in the first quarter of 2010. Also contributing to the increase and retail revenues was a 3% increase in average retail prices and customer growth of 0.5%, quarter-over-quarter. Decoupling had a de minimis impact in the first quarter of 2011. This compares to a $5 million collection from customers recorded in the first quarter of 2010. Further offsetting revenues, was an aggregate $10 million effect OF regulatory items which were offset in other areas of the income statement. Purchase power and fuel expense decreased 13% quarter-over-quarter due to a 19% decrease in average variable power costs. The increased amount of energy available from regional hydro resources contributed the average cost of purchase power being 41% lower than in the first quarter of 2010. To take advantage of lower market prices, PGE’s thermal generation was economically displaced. Our thermal plants supplied 24% of PGE’s total system…

Thank you, Maria. First quarter 2011 performance reflects our continued focus on operational excellence, including flexibility and effectiveness in our power supply operations and prudent management of our operating costs. We are moving forward with implementation of our IRP action plan. And we will continue to position the company for future investment opportunities that deliver value to our customers and a competitive return for our shareholders. Operator, we’d now like to open the call for questions.

Absolutely. (Operator Instructions) And we’ll go first to Eric McCarthy with Praesidis Asset Management. Eric McCarthy – Praesidis Asset Management: Hi, good morning.

Good morning, Eric. Eric McCarthy – Praesidis Asset Management: Quick question, I know there is no such thing as a truly normal quarter when it comes to the variability hydro, but if you could sort of quantify the – maybe the benefit that we got from not dispatching fossils modifying [ph] hydro and put it on a sort of a normalized basis and then the same with the sales?

That is challenging question but just, I’d say there is two impacts of hydro, one is the increased generation at our hydro plants and the hydro contracts we have. And then secondly, when we have increased hydro in the region that drives down wholesale prices. So there is kind of a multiple effect to that. Maria, do you have any details on that?

Sure. And as we mentioned, the impact of the additional water flow on our hydro resources was about $4 million. And if you take a look and compare that to more normalized power prices in the region, had those been in effect, the number would have been about twice that positive impact. Eric McCarthy – Praesidis Asset Management: Okay, so…

About $8 million. Eric McCarthy – Praesidis Asset Management: Okay. The increase dispatched from the hydro or hydro resources that we benefited within about $4 million, and…

And if it had not been for the impact of hydro which would substantially reduce power prices in the Pacific Northwest, as Jim mentioned and we had more normalized those power prices over the quarter, you probably would have seen about double the impact from that hydro flow. So net about $8 million. Eric McCarthy – Praesidis Asset Management: Okay, brilliant. And then how far – what’s the PCA [ph] deadband this year which before we had to start sharing with customers?

Sure. As you know this was an initiative which we took on to reduce our breadth from the downside at our last rate case and we now deadband ranges which are between $15 million and $30 million. And as we mentioned, we’re roughly at about $19 million. So we’re estimating that we will be refunding with customers and sharing about $4 million for the quarter.

As a result of the last rate case, those deadbands are now fixed, wherein prior to the last rate case, they were kind of moving targets. $15 million is on the good side, $30 million on the negative side. Eric McCarthy – Praesidis Asset Management: Okay. So that can be broken down by quarter, it’s not – if we sort of under earn next quarter, it doesn’t bounce out of the quarter (inaudible).

It’s a full-year.

Its full-year.

It’s a full-year cap. Eric McCarthy – Praesidis Asset Management: Okay.

So it adds a little bit as a cushion [ph]. Eric McCarthy – Praesidis Asset Management: Okay. And then just to confirm, the sales were 10% overall but if we weather adjusted that, that’s about 3%, is it better?

Yes. Eric McCarthy – Praesidis Asset Management: Quarter-over-quarter.

Quarter-over-quarter. And we are estimating about 1% for the full-year. And just a cautionary note with regard to that, with the low power price, we have seen customers that are not on cost of service and impacting our bottom line pickup their usage. As Jim mentioned, it was largely high tech and then one popular paper customer. Eric McCarthy – Praesidis Asset Management: Okay, all right, thank you.

Thanks, Eric.

Our next question will come from Sarah Akers with Wells Fargo. Sarah Akers – Wells Fargo: Hi good morning.

Good morning, Sarah. Sarah Akers – Wells Fargo: On the peaking RFP, you have an online target date of 2013 to 2015. Can you comment on that timeframe in kind of what are the factors that would drive the need for ‘013 online date versus ‘015 or are there other factors like cost that come into play? And then also what is the online target date of Portland self-build option in the peaking RFP?

The timing of when those peaking resource comes on is really going to be dependent on what shows up in the RFP process, as to when those resources maybe available. To the extent, someone already has excess capacity willing to sell into the RFP, we would probably move sooner to acquire that, because we do have a shortfall on capacity. So a lot of its going to be dependent on the characteristics of the each bid in the RFP and when those resources will be available. Our general sense is that the self-build option were to be successful, we’d be looking at late ‘013 early 2014 timeframe to get a new resource built. And that’s assuming that the RFP gets completed by the first quarter of 2012. Sarah Akers – Wells Fargo: Okay, great. And then switching to renewables, given the recent improvements for wind turbine pricing, does that impact your plans or thinking on the timing of the new wind resources? And then related to that, can you discuss, kind of your ability to use the REX [ph] to meet the RES deadline and what factors you’re considering that would determine whether or not you go that route?

So let’s talk about the wind turbine, yes, wind pricing turbine, turbulent pricing of wind turbine has kind of moderated a little bit just with the exchange rate impacts as well as just the market. The timing of the RFP for renewables is really dependent and that’s identifying a good self-build option. We went through the RFP before we renew renewables, we didn’t include the self-build option and we thought the bid just were way to high and too expensive for our customers given what we thought the market value for those types of resources were. So one of the issues around the timing of the RFP for renewables is that’s been able to identify good self-build option, so that we can feel like we have a rigorous process to ensure that we get the best pricing for our customers. So that’s kind of where we are in that and we have not yet identified that self-build options, but we’re still working on some alternatives in taking to developers about that. As to the REX, in the last IRP process, the commission did want to explore our ability to use REX to meet the RES standard. And we wouldn’t do to meet a large percentage of that standard, we could use it to fill in where we’re short or where we have some holes in our commitments, our client commitments. So we are looking at that but my sense is those tend to be year to year and we would try to look at those just to fill in. But we are looking at REX also as a way to meet our compliance requirements under the renewable energy standard. Sarah Akers – Wells Fargo: Okay, great. Thanks.

Thanks, Sarah.

We’ll now here from Stefka Gerova with JP Morgan.

Good morning.

Stefka your line is open. If you’re on speaker phone, please press mute function or pickup your handset. Stefka Gerova – JP Morgan: Sorry about that.

It’s okay. Go ahead Stefka. Stefka Gerova – JP Morgan: Good morning and congratulations on strong results this quarter. I had a question about your assumptions for the full-year build load of 1% and Maria, you talked a little bit about that in your answer to Eric’s question. But I am just kind of curious what your rational is behind that assumptions given the strong pickup that we’ve seen in the first quarter, and do you expect some of the pickup on the industrial side, whether that’s from the Portland paper customers or from the high tech customers to go away for the balance of the year to not be there?

Sure.

Let me just give you a comment on the paper customer, because what we work with – we work with our paper customers to try to find opportunities for them to take advantage of low prices in the energy markets. And so they can kind of scale their production up and down based on energy pricing to help them be more competitive. That’s related to one of our paper customers. And so that can fluctuate their usage of our product, but as Maria mentioned, it produces minimal margin for the company. So Maria, would you like to give more detail on the overall load forecast?

Sure. And given the low market prices of power right now, we made estimates for the full-year looking at the opportunistic usage that we probably saw pickup in the first quarter versus what’s underlying economic growth. And we previously had accepted flat load for 2011 and have revised our estimate of 1%. But we continue to see challenges within the economy, while job growth in Oregon has improved and particularly versus the national average. We still are coming out of a very difficult recessionary period, and we believe that 1% is appropriate number.

There have been some good announcements in our service territory, as you know Intel announced a major expansion in their facilities. The solar companies are doing well in their business model. So there has been some bright signs but this is going to be a slow recovery as we work through this challenging period. Stefka Gerova – JP Morgan: Okay, fair enough. And what was the sales assumption embedded in your last rate case?

It was roughly flat load from 2010 to 2011 which is our past year. Stefka Gerova – JP Morgan: Okay, great. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you, Stefka.

(Operator Instructions)

I think we’re done.

No further questions Mr. Valach.

Okay, thank you very much everyone for attending. We appreciate your interest in Portland Generic Electric. And invite you to join us when we report on second quarter 2011 results. If you have any additional questions, please contact Bill Valach, who will be available after this call. Thank you again for joining us today.

Thank you. And again ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude our conference for today. We thank you all for your participation.