53 



We offer the following suggestions, which are described in more 

 detail in our written testimony. 



Bonneville should continue to provide incentives to utilities for 

 cost-efficient performance and acquiring energy efficiency. 



Bonneville's oversight of conservation programs should be 

 streamlined. 



Bonneville and its utilities should work with chains, franchises 

 and equipment manufacturers to transform the market for energy 

 efficiency. 



Bonneville should continue to allow energy service companies to 

 compete with utilities for energy efficiency contracts. 



Bonneville should make long-term funding commitments for con- 

 servation to its customer utilities. In particular, Bonneville should 

 support multi-year utility financing of conservation. 



Bonneville and its utilities shoiild develop agreed-upon protocols 

 to verify conservation performance. 



To effect these steps, Bonneville and its customers must work to- 

 ward a fair and re^istic sharing of conservation costs and risks. 

 Bonneville is a world leader in innovative transmission technology. 

 We'd like to see Bonneville exhibit the same level of innovation and 

 leadership in acquiring conservation. 



Finally, you asked specifically about the Tenaska, Washington, 

 acquisition process. Because the Council has not voted on this 

 issue, I cannot offer an opinion on whether Bonneville should pro- 

 ceed with the acquisition. However, our staff has reviewed the pro- 

 posed acquisition and recommends that the Council find the pro- 

 posal consistent with our power plan. 



The staff issue paper concludes that the project is needed, cost- 

 effective and reliable, and that it meets or exceeds all applicable 

 State, Federal and local environmental standards. 



As to the question of confidentiality in this process, we believe 

 that the intent of the 6(c) process would be best served by making 

 as much information as possible available to the Council and the 

 public. We understand that Bonneville needs to have effective busi- 

 ness relationships with potential developers. 



In the Tenaska process, Bonneville included provisions that pro- 

 hibited any release of confidential information. As a result, Bonne- 

 ville was unable to provide specific information regarding the terms 

 of Tenaska's gas supply contracts. 



Similarly, Bonneville was unable to provide bid price and system 

 cost information for all the other proposed projects in the program, 

 although they later summarized this information for us. The con- 

 fidentiality provisions hampered the Council in our own analysis. 

 We understand that Bonneville officials agreed that in the future, 

 the confidentiality provisions should be able to be relaxed \yithout 

 adversely affecting Bonneville's progress and that Bonneville in- 

 tends to change these confidentiality provisions in the future. 



The Tenaska review truly was a learning experience for all in- 

 volved. We intend to examine what was learned from the current 

 process before undertaking another review. There are other impor- 

 tant issues facing Bonneville and the region. Many assumptions 

 that underlie the Northwest Power Act have changed. We under- 

 stand future hearings of this task force will address these issues. 

 We look forward to participating. 



