Welcome to the Portland General Electric Company’s fourth quarter and fiscal year 2007 results conference call. (Operator Instructions) For opening remarks, I would now like to turn the conference call over to Portland General Electric’s Director of Investor Relations, Mr. Bill Valach.

Good afternoon, everyone, I am Bill Valach, Director of Investor Relations at Portland General Electric. And we are pleased that you are able to participate with us today. Before we begin our discussion this afternoon, I would like to make our customary statements regarding Portland General Electric’s written and oral disclosures and commentaries. There will be statements in this call that are not based on historical facts and as such constitute forward-looking statements under current laws. 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, company requests that you read our most recent Form 10-K and Form 10-Qs. Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2007 will be available tomorrow 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. The Safe Harbor statement should be incorporated as part of any transcript of this call. Portland General Electric’s fourth quarter and full year 2007 earnings were released before the market opened today and the release is available at portlandgeneral.com. With the release, PGE announced earnings of $24 million or $0.40 per diluted share for the fourth quarter ending December 31, 2007 compared to $40 million or $0.64 per diluted for the fourth quarter ending December 31, 2006. Earnings for the year ending December 31, 2007 were $145 million or $2.33 per diluted share compared to $71 million or $1.14 per diluted share for the same period in 2006. With me today are Peggy Fowler, CEO and President; and Jim Piro, Executive Vice President of Finance, CFO, and Treasurer. Peggy will begin this call with an overview. Jim will then discuss in more detail our year-end and fourth quarter results, then we will open the call up to questions. Now I would like to turn it over to Peggy.

Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for joining us, we welcome you to Portland General Electric’s 2007 year end and fourth quarter earnings call. 2007 was an exciting year of progress and growth for our company. We committed to providing value to our customers and investors, and our 2007 results demonstrate that we delivered on that commitment. I am pleased to share with you our accomplishments, as well as plans for the future. As Bill mentioned earlier, we saw strong 2007 results. Today, PGE announced earnings of $2.33 per diluted share, which is on target with our 2007 guidance. PGE is reaffirming its full year 2008 earnings guidance of $1.75 to $1.85 per diluted share. 2008 guidance assumes normal hydro and plant operations. Based on our current capital forecasts, our long-term annual earnings growth expectation beginning in 2008 is 6% to 8%, which will support continued growth in our dividend. To let everyone know, PGE’s dividend policy is reviewed each May by our Board of Directors. Now I would like to review highlights from 2007 and talk about key drivers for 2008. Some of our biggest accomplishments have been in generation build out. In June, we brought Port Westward, our 406-megawatt natural gas-fired plant online. This plant came in on budget, is running exceptionally well, and has received international recognition for its engineering excellence. In January 2007, the OPUC issued a rate order proving a 2.8% price increase for Port Westward with its prices effective June 15. In December, we brought Phase I of the Biglow Canyon Wind Farm into commercial operation. This project was completed on time and on budget with an installed capacity of 125-megawatts. To cover the cost of Biglow, prices went into effect January 1, 2008 with an increase of less than 1%. We are planning…

Good afternoon, everyone, as Bill mentioned for the 12 months ending December 31, 2007 net income was $145 million or $2.33 per diluted share compared to $71 million or $1.14 per diluted share for 2006. Results for 2007 were driven primarily by increased energy deliveries, excellent plant operations, the addition of Port Westward, and three non-recurring items. The non-recurring items in 2007 totaled $0.50 per diluted share: and were a positive $16 million after tax, including interest or $0.26 per share for the deferral of a portion of Boardman’s replacement power costs incurred during it’s outage in 2005 and 2006; A positive $4 million after tax or $0.06 per share resulting from the settlement with certain Californian parties involving wholesale energy transactions in 2000 and 2001; and a positive $11 million after tax or $0.18 per share due to the full impact of Senate Bill 408 for 2007, which includes the effect of the two non-recurring items I just discussed. PGE’s net income for the fourth quarter 2007 was $24 million or $0.40 per diluted share. This compared to a net income of $40 million or $0.64 per diluted share for the fourth quarter 2006. Fourth quarter 2007 results compared to 2006 were primarily attributable to lower other income, Senate Bill 408, and two non-recurring gains that were recorded in 2006. They were, first, a positive 4 million after-tax or $0.06 per share for the deferral of a portion of Boardman’s replacement power costs; and second, a positive $11 million after tax, or $0.18 per share for the unrealized gains on derivative activities. Partially offsetting these decreases was a positive $10 million after tax or $0.16 per share related to the Senate Bill 408. Now let me provide you some additional details on our Senate Bill 408 adjustment for 2007.…

In our annual report last year, we said that as a midsized, vertically integrated utility, we were perfectly positioned to deliver long-term value to customers and investors. In 2007, we saw those words start to become reality. We delivered strong financial performance. To meet the growing energy needs of our customers, we brought two new generation resources online in enterprises, Port Westward and Biglow Canyon Phase I. We had excellent operational performance with all our generating plants running well. Our system exceeded aggressive reliability metrics. We continue to operate in a reasonable regulatory environment, and we received positive feedback from customers. I would like to acknowledge that our success and execution comes from an environment of teamwork and collaboration from our employees, customers and the communities we serve. Looking to the future, we will continue to meet the needs of our growing service territory through excellence in operations and rate base investment opportunities that support our core utility business, enhance service to our customers, and deliver value to our shareholders. Operator, we would now like to open up the call for questions.

(Operator Instructions) Your first question comes from the line of Brian Russo - Ladenburg Thalmann.

Could you just remind us what your allowed ROE currently is relative to the last general rate case, and then maybe what rate base we should be thinking about in the 2009 test year?

We currently have a 10.1%, and the rate base is…

$2.4 billion, roughly.

Is that the 2009 test year rate base, is that current?

That’s the 2009.

And then the guidance in 2008 of $1.75 to $1.85, does that include any kind of these one-time items that we saw in 2007?

No. They were taken out of that. If you take that out where we currently are, you get to that $1.75 to $1.85, if you take out the one-time items.

And what assumptions are you assuming with AMI and the FERC order embedded in that guidance?

It’s before the Commission right now for a decision. We have a separate tariff that they would put in place that will allow us to recover the cost of the existing meters that we would decommission, if you will, and for the cost of installing the new meters. And that tariff would go into effect when they approve the tariff, which we hope to be in the second quarter of this year. And that gets ramped in over time as we invest the capital. As I mentioned in my capital numbers, about $23 million in 2008, with the bulk of the rest of the dollars spent in ‘09 and ‘10 to put the meters in place.

And that’s $130 to $135 total.

And also I noticed C&I sales were down quite a bit in the fourth quarter, and I was wondering if you could just comment on that?

I think more than likely it was weather related, the change in open access customers.

Administrative expense, it looks like it jumped by about $20 million. I am just curious do you expect that to kind of level of as we look forward?

Well, that’s part of why we are filing a general rate increase is, we do know that healthcare continues to go up, we are continuing to see material escalation, those types of things. So we are doing everything we can to cut costs and keep expenses as low as possible, but that is a portion of why we are filing the rate case.

Your next question comes from the line Michael Lapides - Goldman Sachs.

The Boardman emissions cost, I want to make sure I heard correctly, does this mean that you won’t know until middle of ‘09, whether you have got the go ahead to go forward with that work? And if so, how locked down are your EPC contracts and vendor contracts, meaning how certain is that cost range of $170, $180 million?

We won’t know until 2009, and the costs aren’t locked down at all. And those numbers that you are using are probably for one year that you are looking at. At the PGE, what we have talked about is $300 to $400, or at the upper range even $470 to $620, but nothing is locked down there. But we do think that those are reasonable. We have spent a lot of time talking to the vendors for what we can do with the pollution control devices and believe we can do it with that. But the whole issue of working with the Department of Environmental Quality, and what’s going to be required there, and then going on to the EPA about what the final requirements will be won’t be resolved until 2009.

I was looking at page 21 of your EEI presentation, that $170 to $180 million was spread out over four years, so I didn’t – I may have misread that.

PGE’s share, so I didn’t pick up that 12 and 13 years. I think it was the full project cost. The other thing I would mention, Michael is that, once we get through the EPA, we will go back to the regulators and conduct some type of mini IRP process to make sure that what we do going forward is kind of blessed by the Commission.

What is the process for filling the extra 200-megawatts plus of renewable capacity that you need, what is that process for determining? And is it an RFP process, and if so when will that kick-off?

Yes. It is a RFP process. That will kick-off as soon as we have the Commission’s approval of the Integrated Resource Plan. In fact, they have actually told us, if we wanted to go earlier on it, we could, but I don’t think we are quite ready to do that. So we expect that probably in March or April, we will be able to do that. And then at the same time, we will be doing an RFP for the purchased power agreements that are a part of that. And then later on in the year towards the end of the year, we will be looking at the demand side management piece, and then next year, we will look at the capacity piece.

So when you look at the potential sites for new wind capacity, are there any sites in particular that stand out, including ones that you may own, like Biglow Canyon?

No. When we complete Phases II and III of Biglow that will use up all of our site capacity there. So there isn’t any remaining there. We would need to pick up another site. And this RFP will show what’s available out there and give us, I think, a better indication of what we might be able to do. And we also know we are going to have to do some more beyond these two to continue to meet our renewable energy standards. So we are doing a step at a time here. We have got II and III in front of us, and we are looking forward to that. We are getting pretty close to getting those contracts tied down, and then we will issue the RFP for the 218-megawatts to see what’s out there, and then we will move forward after that.

Your next question comes from the line of James Bellessa - D.A. Davidson & Company. James Bellessa - D.A. Davidson & Company: On this SB 408, I see where in the full year and in the fourth quarter, you collected or you made adjustments for the 2006 tax-reporting year, and what causes that?

Okay. If you recall last year, I think, we booked about a $40 million refund to customers that included $2 million additional for interest, so about a $42 million adjustment last year. That was based on our preliminary assessments of the rules and regulations on how we do the calculation for Senate Bill 408. As we finally got the rules finalized, we were able to refine our calculation, and we adjusted that $40 million down to $37 million. So we made an adjustment in the fourth quarter to reflect that adjustment consistent with when we made the filing to the Commission in October of 2007. That was part of it. The other $15 million for 2007 really was the result of higher taxes paid in 2007, recorded in 2007, primarily driven because of the Boardman deferral and the good results on power costs. So last year, essentially we had a downside because of the $42 million for the Senate Bill 408. And that was probably two factors: one was the Boardman outage last year, and then the ownership of Enron of Portland General during the first quarter. This year, because of the Boardman deferral and better operations we had at collection. James Bellessa - D.A. Davidson & Company: Going forward in ‘08 in your guidance of $1.75 to $1.85, there is no assumption of any benefit or detraction for SB 408, is that correct?

We don’t typically comment on the detail on each of the calculations.

It really assumes normal operations. James Bellessa - D.A. Davidson & Company: And under normal operations, you don’t have an impact from SB 408, is that correct?

Typically, it’s small, because you are closer to you normal operations. Obviously, it could be impacted if you are not earning your full rate of return, because that’s how the taxes in the rate case are determined. So I think you can have small differences, but usually they are small. James Bellessa - D.A. Davidson & Company: Now the question earlier was about AMI, Advanced Metering Infrastructure, and is that built into your $1.75 to $1.85 guidance, is there any benefit in that guidance range or is it not included yet?

No. It’s included the $23 million that’s being spent this year. But most of the spending on that will be in 2009 and 2010, and that’s built into what we project in terms of the 6% to 8%. James Bellessa - D.A. Davidson & Company: Now earlier there was a question on C&I sales, and I look at industrial sales, they were down fairly sharply in the fourth quarter and for the whole year, and you said the explanation was what?

Those customers have choice to go to another supplier under the Oregon structuring for deregulation. And more chose to take advantage of that window, than they did in 2006, because of where prices were when they made that choice. And we are held essentially neutral to that the way the regulatory framework is put in place. James Bellessa - D.A. Davidson & Company: Are you seeing any softness in industrial sales?

As we have been looking a lot at our growth, and we look more at small commercial and small business and residential, and we continue to see about average performance, and it hasn’t caused us to make any changes to our predictions going forward. That’s about that 1.4% in numbers, and about 1.9% in load. James Bellessa - D.A. Davidson & Company: While it won’t have an impact on earnings, do you expect this Regional Power Act credit to resume anytime soon?

Your guess is probably as good as ours on that. We are working very hard to get some funds back for our residential customers, and we think that we should be able to see some of that yet this year.

You have a follow-up question from Michael Lapides - Goldman Sachs.

Can you reiterate the process for Trojan going forward; I understood the piece about the March hearing, but what comes after that?

Well, we don’t know for sure. That’s what we will find out in March. It will be a process probably of filing testimony, and what we will find out in the March timeframe or March 12 is really what that timeframe looks like. So more than likely, they will set a schedule for when initial testimony is filed, what’s followed up on it. The last information that was issued, did narrow the proceedings, and got very specific about what could be included in that. So we are hopeful that within this year, or within six months, something like that, we actually might be able to work through this process, and at least get down to more details and understanding by the various parties of where things are. So we feel very good about where this is headed. Its all back with OPUC, they are setting up a timeframe for it. It’s out of the courts, and we will see what we have got when we get the schedule, and hopefully it’s something we can get wrapped up yet this year, or at least get wrapped up for this phase up until somebody decides to finish the third try, and make a run at the courts again or file an appeal or whatever. We know it’s here for a bit, but it’s getting much closer to being resolved.

Potentially what’s the worse case outcome?

Well, PGE’s position continues to be that, we don’t think we have any refunds that we owe to the customers. The URP believes that it’s in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The OPUC staff has actually given approximate refund of about $5 million, so there is the range.

Can you define hundreds of millions?

No. We really can’t because of how you look at the calculations on the return off and the return on. We sort of think the most reasonable approach that’s been out there in terms of analysis is probably the OPUC staff, which is that $5 million number, but again we have got to work through the process on that.

And you have follow-up question from Brian Russo - Ladenburg Thalmann.

I think, you mentioned earlier that you have approval to issue a little over $200 million of debt. Can we expect you to issue that in 2008? And then secondly, would you be issuing equity as well to manage that 50% equity ratio?

No, more likely 2009 consistent with the construction of Biglow Canyon Phase II, so I think, this year we have minimal financing needs. Towards the end of this year, we will be looking at both debt and equity as we figure out the cash flows associated with Biglow Canyon Phase II, so more likely late ‘08, more likely 2009.

We will time it really based on what our need is.

Your next question comes from the line of Rudy Tolentino - Morgan Stanley.

Can you reiterate how much revenue increase that you are asking for in your rate case?

$146 million that’s split into three components basically, as Peggy mentioned. And the case will get filed tomorrow, that will be available on the website for those who want to be interested in looking at it.

And it’s full of details.

And you have a follow-up question from James Bellessa - D.A. Davidson & Company. James Bellessa - D.A. Davidson & Company: Some environmentalists say that they want to sue you about Boardman, do you have any comments?

Well, we haven’t gotten this suit yet. They have actually said they want to talk to us, so we will be talking with them. We certainly take anything like this very seriously. We have been talking to the appropriate law firms to defend us. And we think that we are still trying to assess what they are talking about in terms of the suit, and try and figure it out, and we are moving forward with our process through the bar process so that we can go ahead and make the changes we need to make to Boardman. James Bellessa - D.A. Davidson & Company: On items impacting your earnings guidance, do you have any advice on DD&A, other income, interest expense, perhaps your tax rate and things like that?

No. We don’t even typically provide that kind of detail.

And there are no more questions at this time. I would now like to turn it over to the panel for closing remarks.

Thank you for your interest in Portland General Electric Company. We invite you to join us when we report our first quarter results for 2008. If you have additional questions, please call Bill Valach, who will be available after this call. Thank you again for participating.