90 



most prudent individual acquisitions? Because there are some peo- 

 ple out there — and you heard some of the testimony when we were 

 in Portland — ^they are going to go out and buy resources that do not 

 even seem to make real economic sense, so far as we can see. But 

 they are just bound and determined they want to get away from 

 BPA because they are upset or whatever. They are uncertain. 



Mr. Hardy. Sure, absolutely. 



Mr. DeFazio. I mean, I am not sure that the plan's charge is suf- 

 ficient to keep those people on the least-cost conservation renew- 

 able path. I mean, how does the Council feel? 



Mr. Trulove. Well, you have identified a problem that we are 

 struggling with in trying to figure out the best solution as all of 

 this evolves. It is not clear that a whole collection of individual util- 

 ity least-cost plans adds up to the regional whole. There are enor- 

 mous regional benefits from this system. I mean, we have recog- 

 nized that from everything from the coordination agreement to 

 nearly everything we have done in the history of the system. And 

 those are worth maintaining, including the obligation to fish and 

 wildlife. So a bunch of individual utility least-cost plans probably 

 are a pretty good idea for the utilities involved, but from the re- 

 gional standpoint, maybe there is another linkage that is needed. 

 I think we are still in the position of trjdng to puzzle this out and 

 look forward to working with you on it. 



The other thing it seems to me in terms of the uncertainty, what 

 would drive people away from Bonneville, there are some very real 

 things that the Congress can do, Mr. Chairman. One of the un- 

 usual uncertainties here is the constant threat of repayment re- 

 form. If we could figure a way to get beyond that, that then levels 

 the playing field, and the kinds of uncertainties people see with 

 Bonneville I think are more manageable. Actually, I think we must 

 make a more accountable sort of event. I think we can get there. 

 That is the kind of risk that we ought to be able to manage if we 

 have a regional plan that people are supporting. Not everyone is 

 going to support or feel like the regional plan is the best thing for 

 them in every aspect. But as a region together, supporting a plan 

 that is acceptable to all these different interests — and we think 

 that is sort of what the Council is trying to put together — and im- 

 plementing that plan with accountability ought to be a way for the 

 region to protect itself against unknown escalations in those costs. 

 I think we can handle that. 



Mr. DeFazio. This does go a little bit back to Mr. LaRocco's ques- 

 tion, though. I still have this concern. You know, let me just read 

 something from BPA's testimony on page 20 in the answers to my 

 questions. "A decentralized system would allow environmental val- 

 ues to be expressed at the community level. Local communities 

 would make their investment decisions based on their environ- 

 mental values and their ability to make long-term investment deci- 

 sions." Well, if you were in Idaho yesterday and you heard some 

 of the testimony I heard from some people in proximity to some of 

 those dams on the Snake River, their environmental values are not 

 too enlightened. They may have great self-interest, but I am a little 

 concerned at that sort of decentralization with no overall mandate 

 or hammer — or potential of a hammer. Let me give you one idea 

 I have. You can deal with this in the rate structure. If a utility is 



