48 



attrition, or does that mean you intend to hold where you are and 

 replace people to remain at that staffing level? 



Mr. Hardy. The former. We are already, as a result of the hiring 

 freeze, reducing permanent staffing at Bonneville, and associated 

 with the program cuts that we are now making, we will substan- 

 tially reduce both contractor and temporary employee staffing. 



WTiat I have told our employees is, if we have staffing reductions, 

 and I fully expect we will, that we will handle that to the maxi- 

 mum extent possible by attrition. I also intend to look seriously, as 

 part of our long-term competitiveness project, at potential separa- 

 tion bonuses and other kinds of programs that would provide a 

 maximum incentive so that, if we downsized, we could do that as 

 humanely as possible. We would also do it in a way that, frankly, 

 is a heck of a lot more efficient than trying to do the RIF process. 

 Let me illustrate an example to you that may seem convoluted, but 

 believe me, it is apt. 



You identify a GM-14 middle manager whose position you no 

 longer need. You institute a government reduction in force process 

 to try to eliminate that position and several others. That manager 

 exercises his or her reversion rights to the next lower position, and 

 he bumps her, bumps who, bumps who, and the person that ends 

 up going out the door is a GS-7 secretary who is probably the most 

 productive person in the organization to begin with. 



That is not a very productive process for us to engage in, so I 

 am trying to think through that a httle more carefully. In the 

 meantime, we are taking significant reductions in contractor and 

 temporary staffing because we can hire and fire at will there. With 

 full-time federal employees, we are going to do that through attri- 

 tion, but we are also going to look at these separation programs so 

 we can target that to make sure we realize the benefit of any staff- 

 ing changes we pursue. 



Mr. DeFazio. So you do have more flexibihty and you do expect 

 to be addressing the contractor level substantially in these reduc- 

 tions. 



Mr. Hardy. Absolutely. 



Mr. DeFazio. Okay. 



Mr. Williams, do you have questions? 



Mr. Williams. Thank you. 



Mr. Hardy, I thought there was real wisdom on BPA's efforts to 

 have energy savings in the various sectors through an aggressive 

 conservation effort, and I have followed that with some specificity 

 through the years, the residential sector, commercial sector, indus- 

 trial sector, and the agriculture sector. 



Where, if in any of those sectors, are most of the savings occur- 

 ring, and in which of the sectors do you think we have the most 

 room for improvement? 



Mr. Hardy. I would say the savings, in terms of dollar savings 

 as opposed to megawatt savings— let me back up. Our goal is to re- 

 tain the same megawatt acquisition targets that the Power Plan- 

 ning Council has laid out. They have identified a target of about 

 660 megawatts over the next 10 years. We think we can still attain 

 that target even with significant reductions in cost. 



I would say that the principal area that would come from is prob- 

 ably residential. Our existing residential weatherization retrofit 



