198 



for this discussion. We aliio feei it ir. beneficial to get these "goal" 

 argurrionts out in the open, rather than hiiving theni renrein hidden in 

 discussions of various impleipentaticr. options. 



We see three general "Goal Alternatives." The first is the goals of 

 the present Act, the status quo. we are calling this the "Regional Goals" 

 cilternative. 



The second, called the "Lowest Cost" alternative is a rewrite of Sec. 



two of the Act to basically read, 



The purpose of this Act is to assure the f'acific NV the cheapest 

 possible power supply without regard to er.vircnmental cr ether 

 exterrialities, giving no advantage to conservation or renevjables and 

 protecting and enhancing fish and v;iidlif€ only to the minir^^rr- extent 

 required by law. 



The last could be celled the "Custorer Autonomy" alternative. It 



would also require amending Sec. 2 of the Act to generally say. 



The purpose of this Act is to assure customers of EPA the most freedci? 

 to make their own resource decisions without regard to any regicPial needs. 



(Obviously this third goal can also be an iirplementation option, but in 



this context we mean the goal of autcnonii' as a good in itself, not as a 



tool to achieve sorie other goal . ) 



It is obvious that many customers v.ant different goals than those in 

 the Act as the purpose of the contracts. So for their siike we urge BPA to 

 stud>' the impacts of having these different goals. How would the contracts 

 look if the Act v,«re rewritten as we've suggested? For our sake, v/e Icok 

 forward to having these different goals, which are nov; only inplicitly 

 acknowledged, explicitly discussed and defended. 



OUR BEOOMMENDATION: Scope the overarching issue — What is the purpose 

 of the Power Sales Contract? — using the three alternatives presented 

 above. 



(We believe that ultimately the public and Congress v/il] reiect any 



