64 



of discretionary spending. We urged Bonneville not to \ise the current rate case as a 

 vehicle to establish program spending levels that undermine or delay full 

 implementation of the 1991 Power Plan. 



The Tenaska project 



Bonneville's proposed acquisition of the Tenaska Washington II power plant and 

 proposed payment of preconstruction and investigation expenses come under the 

 purview of Section 6.(c) of the Northwest Power Act, in which the Council reviews 

 proposals by Bonneville related to resources of five years duration or longer and larger 

 than 50 megawatts of capacity. The 6.(c) review of the Tenaska plant is the third such 

 review conducted by the Council, but the first of a generating resource. As such, it 

 offers a useful example of our concerns about this process. 



Because the Council has not voted on this issue, I caimot offer an opinion as to 

 whether Bonneville should proceed with the acquisition. Council staff have reviewed 

 the proposed acquisition and payment of preconstruction and investigation expenses 

 and have recommended the Council find the proposals consistent with the 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. 



Although stand-alone combustion turbines were not specified for immediate 

 acquisition in the power plan, the staff analysis found that performance of the regional 

 power system in terms of cost, risk and environmental impacts was likely to be 

 substantially equivalent with the acquisition of Tenaska Washington II as it would have 

 been with the acquisition of higher-priority resources ~ gas-fired cogeneration, for 

 example ~ available to Bonneville at the time the decision to acquire the Tenaska 

 project was made. 



Some at Bonneville have asserted that the Council should rely solely on the 

 administrator's record of decision in determining whether the Tenaska proposals are 

 consistent with the 1991 Power Plan. The Council's adopted 6.(c) policy is clear that 

 this is not the case. In the policy statement adopted at the conclusion of the five-year 

 review of the 6.(c) policy, in 1991, we said we "may consider the record adopted by 

 the Administrator," and that we would conduct our own analysis and take public 

 comment before making a decision. We consistently said we would participate in 

 Bonneville's review process to gain as much information as possible regarding the 

 project under consideration. 



10 



