29 



to keep such information, including annual nominal prices, exempt from public 

 disclosure. For Bonneville to remain competitive in purchasing new generating 

 resources, it must assure a similar level of confidentiality by exempting such 

 information from public disclosure. Otherwise, there is a significant risk that the 

 most competitive project developers will only bid on investor owned utility 

 projects where disclosure is protected, thereby significantly increasing resource 

 acquisition costs for BPA ratepayers. 



In the section 6(c) review process, Bonneville determined that it is not 

 necessary for a third party to know the year-by-year price structure to find that 

 Tenaska Washington II is cost-effective. The real levelized purchase price of 

 Tenaska Washington II is 29 mills/kilowatthour ($1990), which, after adjusting 

 for the various system benefits equals 25 mills/kilowatthour ($1990). Fuel price 

 risks add 2 mills/kilowatthour to the cost for a final risk adjusted system cost of 

 27 mills/kilowatthour ($1990). 



Tenaska Washington II is by definition a low-cost resource because it has a system 

 cost as low as resources identified in the Council's Power Plan for immediate 

 acquisition. The low cost resources identified in the Power Plan include not only 

 efficiency improvements and conservation, but also generating resources. 



According to the 1991 Council Power Plan, there would be no cogeneration 

 expected to be achievable in the region at nominal levelized prices of less 

 than 60 mills/kilowatthour, which is equivalent to 30 mills/kilowatthour 

 ($1990) expressed in real levelized terms. Both the real levelized purchase 

 price of Tenaska Washington II and the risk-adjusted system cost are less 

 than 30 mills/kilowatthour ($1990). In addition, the Council's own estimate 



5 



74-346 0-93-2 



