10 



change in our objectives or in the way that we're trying to approach 

 the programs. 



Most recently, in 1993, given the financial situation as well as 

 larger long-term concerns about competitiveness, we've begun to 

 think not just about acceleration, but also competitive acceleration. 

 As Randy has just said, we're really not interested at all in backing 

 away from the commitment to acquire all cost-effective conserva- 

 tion. We just feel we need to be doing that more effectively, effi- 

 ciently, and at a lower cost. 



In summary, in terms of megawatts, we've acquired 375 

 megawatts through 1992 at a cost of a little over $1 biUion. We 

 have plans to purchase all cost-effective conservation, some 670- 

 700 megawatts over the next 10 years, and that doesn't count code 

 savings that are in the range of 150-200 megawatts. 



The cost of the next 10 years looks like it might be on the order 

 of $2 billion — about double what we spent over the last decade. At 

 this point, we feel we are successfully accelerating. We've tripled 

 the megawatts acquired in 1990, and we're on target this year for 

 quadrupling those 1990 megawatts. So we feel we are successfully 

 accelerating at this point. 



We've worked closely with the Council. We feel we are definitely 

 consistent with the Council plan. In addition, we're extremely 

 proud of what we consider to be our national leadership; not just 

 in the levels of accompUshment that we're showing here, but in the 

 innovative programs that we have designed and run, and in our 

 verification of these savings as rehable savings. 



I wanted to say a few more words about how we're going to make 

 that competitiveness transition, but I'll save that and go to the 

 next chart. 



I want to talk a little bit about costs for a moment. Bonneville 

 has been actively tracking its own costs over the ten-year period of 

 doing conservation, and very recently, as a part of Bonneville's 

 competitiveness project, we have started something that is called 

 '^benchmarking" in the business and trying to track our costs 

 against the costs of other utihties. 



Before getting into the chart, I want to indicate there are a cou- 

 ple of caveats here. This comparison is really in its infancy. There 

 are not many in the business, the conservation part of the utility 

 business, at this point who have participated for more than a year 

 or two in benchmarking. So we're really struggling to figure out 

 what are the right benchmarks to use. 



If you choose one versus another, you get very different results. 

 So the struggle really matters. We're just basically trying to figure 

 out what's the right data, what's the right benchmark. 



What I'm showing you here is Bonneville compared to three 

 other large utiUties; one East Coast, two West Coast. All of them 

 have long time experience in conservation and run substantial pro- 

 grams. What the results show you is that Bonneville is 33 percent 

 of Utility A. So we're substantially lower cost. We are the same as 

 Utility B and about 10 to 15 percent higher than Utility C. 



What I would point out is that this is a particular cost mecha- 

 nism, real long-term levelized cost, that looks at how well the util- 

 ity is doing in capturing low-cost savings over the long-term. With 



