11 



respect to this objective which Bonneville has been pursuing, we're 

 doing quite well. 



If you looked at a cost factor that compared us more on a short- 

 term basis, we don't do nearly as well. We're still less than half the 

 cost of Utility A, but we're about 30 to 35 percent higher than Util- 

 ities B and C. 



Basically what we learned from this is that if you measure us ac- 

 cording to the objectives that we've had, this long-term least-cost 

 resource development, we think we're doing quite well. If you intro- 

 duce new measures, which we think might be necessary as we look 

 to a more competitive future, we think that we have got a ways to 



go- 



In addition, when you look at our staffing costs, they're 1^2-2 

 times as high as these utilities when you look at both the utilities 

 that deliver, Bonneville programs, and Bonneville's costs. 



Basically, with conservation, given the savings that I've gone 

 over and the costs, we think that we have a good track record. We 

 think we've done a good job. Some of the things that we've tried 

 haven't worked. We've often not done as good a job as we might 

 have done with our 120-plus deliverers, but we feel that we have 

 a good foundation for continuous improvement. 



Let me turn now to generation. As Randy mentioned, conserva- 

 tion, even if we purchase all the cost-effective conservation, is not 

 going to cover the kinds of deficits that we see after the year 2000. 

 So, we're essentially planning to purchase about 750 megawatts of 

 generation. 



We have about 70 megawatts of pilot projects for geothermal and 

 wind, and we intend to purchase about 800-1,000 megawatts of op- 

 tions. What I've tried to summarize on this chart is essentially the 

 projects which I would call purchase at this point, and I use the 

 word loosely. We have projects that are anywhere from being in ne- 

 gotiation, signed contracts, under construction, with some projects 

 actually on-line. 



Of the 592 megawatts that are in purchase status, all of it comes 

 from a series of processes we've run — either an unsohcited pro- 

 posal, a billing credit, the competitive bid process, and we now 

 have a new billing credit process on the street. 



The pie chart on the left shows what resources we've bought on 

 the basis of megawatts. In terms of megawatts, almost a quarter 

 of what we're intending to purchase of the 750 is exchanges. Some 

 are energy or capacity exchanges basically with California utilities, 

 some inland southwest as well. 



Another quarter of the projects are renewables, and we at- 

 tempted to make this all in blue so you could group that roughly 

 in your mind. A little over 10 percent is cogeneration and about 40 

 percent is the one large combustion turbine project. 



If you look at this group of projects purchased in a different way, 

 on a project basis, and you leave out the exchanges here, talking 

 about new generating projects that we've purchased, there are 18 

 projects total. Half of these projects are hydro. There's still a very 

 active small hydro development going on in the region. There are 

 2 each of wind, geothermal, biomass and cogen, and there's 1 large 

 combustion turbine project. 



