376 



Mr. DeFazio. Okay. Mr. Piper wanted to add something. 



Mr. Piper. On the issue of the benefits of summer exchanges 

 with Bonneville, I would submit to you that as more and more non- 

 firm or secondary power is generated in the spring and summer 

 months for fish flow purposes, that the California market will be 

 less and less willing to participate in exchanges. That is, they can 

 buy the power they need to displace the higher cost resources at 

 dump rates as opposed to exchange rates. 



Mr. DeFazio. It all depends on who controls the transmission, to 

 some extent. 



Mr. Piper. Well yes, and 



Mr. DeFazio. If we have Mr. Carr's model, then we are going to 

 have trouble making seasonal exchanges. There is some question 

 there. 



Mr. Piper. It just points out the dynamics that are going on all 

 the time. 



Mr. DeFazio. Right. I think John thinks we are misunderstand- 

 ing him, and we may well be. Gro ahead. 



Mr. Carr. I am not arguing for the transmission, the total 

 transmission 



Mr. DeFazio. You are not arguing the Martha Hessey model of 

 transmission, is that what you are telling me? 



Mr. Carr. I do not think so. I think you end up getting the same 

 use of the Bonneville transmission system. All I am saying is if you 

 have a utility that is faced with the decision of purchasing their 

 own resource from an IPP or a consortium, and they decide to meet 

 their load growth with that, that they should have access to the 

 Bonneville trsinsmission system at a fair and equitable price to get 

 it in, just as if Bonneville had met that load growth with their own 

 resource and transmitted it in there. You ought to end up getting 

 the same amount of use of the Bonneville transmission system 

 going to serve the same amount of load; it is just who builds the 

 resource. So it should not change the ability of Bonneville to make 

 seasonal exchanges or any of those things, which I think all of us 

 feel 



Mr. DeFazio. Well I am not closing the door; there are some in- 

 teresting things. There is just the recently highly publicized instal- 

 lation of the new switching devices. I mean if we can actually 

 transmit more power at what is a substantial capital investment, 

 but still we can do it without the extraordinary capital investment 

 of entirely new transmission corridors, which are very problematic 

 at this point in time, then maybe, getting back the full cost of the 

 investment or maybe having the third-party financing discussions 

 we have had with utilities elsewhere, maybe BPA does not have to 

 up front those things and consortiums of utilities can look at up 

 fronting and then they can get rights to the increased trans- 

 mission. There is a whole new world out there. I just want to make 

 sure we do not destroy the one we have, as we head toward the 

 new one. That is my concern. 



Since we have three public utilities represented, the earlier dis- 

 cussion that I had about a requirement on public utilities for some 

 sort of least-cost planning, do you have any concerns about that, 

 do you understand my concern about the potential or the possibility 

 there, and what I am trying to get at? Do you have another way 



