49 



program is a pretty expensive program, in a pretty mature market 

 and we have gotten all of the easy savings. Some reductions c£in 

 be made there; potentially in the Super Good Cents program. A lot 

 of cuts can be made in infrastructure supports and training and 

 things like that. We have a pretty well-developed conservation in- 

 frastructure already, and there are potentially some savings in 

 smaller commercial. Those are probably the areas we would be 

 looking at. 



Mr. Williams. Are you satisfied that the agriculture sector is 

 practicing appropriate conservation? 



Mr. Hardy. No. I think there is a lot more to be done in that 

 sector. It tends to be probably our most expensive sector, but it also 

 is one where the potential, from my perspective, is largely un- 

 tapped, and we need to figure out a better way to do that. 



I am uncertain, Congressman Williams, as to how these reduc- 

 tions would affect the agricultural sector. We are in the process of 

 looking at those right now. The savings there are not huge, but I 

 expect the bigger savings targets are in residential, both Super 

 Good Cents and existing residential weatherization retrofit. 



Mr. Williams. It is my understanding fi-om the staff of the task 

 force that you have been asked this question in writing, but let me 

 perhaps rephrase it and see what your answer is publicly here. The 

 task force tells us that the Washington Public Power Supply Sys- 

 tem pays its board members $500 a day plus expenses and that 

 those costs are passed on to BPA's customers. Is that true? 



Mr. Hardy. That is true. 



Mr. Williams. How much does that cost BPA and therefore its 

 customers, through, what, a 5-year period? 10-year period? 



Mr. Hardy. We have got a chart that answers that for the com- 

 mittee, and I think the combination of both reimbursement and ac- 

 tual travel and related expenses is on the order of a couple of mil- 

 lion dollars over the last 4 or 5 years. The chart is on page 20. 



[Editor's note. — See "Questions and Answers Supplement to the 

 Statement of Randall W. Hardy" in the Appendix.] 



Mr. Williams. Your staff gave it to me as well, Peter. Thank 

 you. 



$2,415,262. So you have kept track of it. I suppose that is a small 

 amount, but it is Ev Dirksen's quote about a million here and a 

 million there. I also suppose this is the type of thing that, once it 

 becomes exposed, just drives ratepayers crazy even though it is a 

 very small part? What do you think we ought to do with that prac- 

 tice? 



Mr. Hardy. I think it appropriate to reexamine that practice. 



I would observe that the Washington State governor has it with- 

 • in his unilateral authority to change that compensation level. He 

 has made several statements about his view of that, and I would 

 expect that he would follow through on that. I would hope we 

 would still retain some level sufficient to attract particularly out- 

 of-state board members if we replace some board members, but I 

 don't think that necessarily has to be $500 a day. 



Mr. Williams. You say that is Washington's governor that has 

 that authority? 



Mr. Hardy. Yes, sir. 



