176 



SUEMETTED BY HC3N. MIKE KREIDIZR: 



ou^ationa for BP A Xdministrator RandV H>rdY 

 regarding Bonneville's current: financial condition 



April 28, 1993 ' >%.. 



1. What cuts are going to be proposed or are being considered 

 as part of the second review of program budgets? If these 

 nvtnbers are not yet available, when will they be available? 



2. What is the expected impact on Fish and Wildlife and/or 

 Conservation programs? 



3. How much of the current financial crisis has been brought on 

 by problems with Bonneville's contractors? It is my 

 understanding that some of these contractors view the money 

 they receive from Bonneville as an entitlement, and that 

 they are not very responsive when asked to account for the 

 money they have spent. It may be that some of Bonneville's 

 Fish and Wildlife and/or Conservation money could be more 

 efficiently spent either by different contractors or by 

 changes in the present contractors' methods. What are your 

 thoughts on this issue? 



4. What are your thoughts of the viability of the following 

 options to help limit the additional rate increase request 

 while retaining Bonneville's ability to meet obligations to 

 the Federal government and others? 



* One-time drought surcharge on BPA customers; 



* review of the irrigation assistance program; 



* allowing a total rate increase of more than 20% (in 

 other words, can we prevent deep cuts in the Fish and 

 Wildlife and Conservation programs if we allow a rate 

 increase of 20.5 or 21%?); 



* turning more conservation responsibilities over to 

 BPA's customers; or, 



* cutting acquisition and development programs in favor 

 of conservation for a few years. 



5. As a longer term solution, what are your thoughts on the 

 possibility of creating a board of Bonnsvilla's customers 

 (or perhaps expanding the authority of the Northwest Power 

 Planning Council) which would have more input or control 

 over BPA's finances? 



