40 



Mr. Hardy. We potentially could have a role, and we are working 

 with Lower Valley to try to see if there is a set of arrangements 

 that can be mutually beneficial to Bonneville and to Lower Valley, 

 and I am hopeful that those will work out. 



Mr. Thomas. Thank you. 



I think you have a tough task, and one of them, it seems to me, 

 for many of us, is to really define the role of a public power agency. 

 It is different, and it is changing, as you have suggested, sind it 

 would seem to me that seeking to define that in fairly long-range 

 terms is kind of the first step of where you go when you make 

 major changes. 



Mr. Hardy. If we could come out of these six hearings with some 

 sense of direction on that, that would be extremely helpful to me. 



Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman. 



If I could just address one of the questions you raised, which was 

 about other PMAs, I chaired the hearings on WAPA for the chair- 

 man in the last Congress and took the lead in putting that portion 

 into the energy bill, and my recollection is that WAPA has a rate 

 that varies across the region by project, and it runs between 15 and 

 30 mills, so in some places actually their PF rate is lower than 

 BPA's and in others it is higher. They don't blend it the same way 

 BPA does and give everybody the same rate. I think mostly Mr. 

 Thomas' people are subscribing to WAPA. 



The second thing is that WAPA, with the Pick-Sloan project, has 

 gone to tiered rates. I don't know whether it is a model or not, but 

 it is certainly something to be aware of. 



At this point, what I am going to do is run and vote. I am going 

 to give the gavel to Mr. Williams, and it will be Mr. LaRocco's se- 

 ries of questions. I will be right back. 



Mr. LaRocco. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



I think I can conclude before I have to go vote, too. 



Just a couple of questions, Mr. Hardy. With regard to the chart 

 that you had up there on the changes in BPA's financial condition, 

 maybe you can help me understand with regard to increased costs 

 and fish and wildlife that you have got delineated here. What has 

 really changed here, other than no rain, since the initial proposal? 



Mr. Hardy. That is the principal change, and let me describe to 

 you why that has produced additional costs. We are not doing any- 

 thing more. We are providing the same amount of flows that we 

 were previously required to provide. It is just that the cost of pro- 

 viding those flows, the 3 million acre-feet in the Columbia and the 

 1.4 million acre-feet in the Snake, has gone up significantly, par- 

 ticularly in the Columbia. 



To provide that three million acre-feet of water in a low water 

 year, you basically have to purchase energy to assure refill of 

 Grand Coulee, which is typically the reservoir that that water 

 comes out of. 



Mr. LaRocco. So this cost is really for purchasing 



Mr. Hardy. It is purchase power cost, right, that is attributable 

 not to keeping the lights on but to providing that additional 3 mil- 

 lion acre-feet of water stored behind Grand Coulee. We purchase 

 power to serve load rather than drafting Coulee to serve load. We 

 keep that water behind the dam in Coulee, so in May and June 

 when the fish flush comes we can provide that water. 



