113 



Mr, Duncan. I think that is true. I beHeve, through the staff, we 

 did request all of the data surrounding the contract and were told 

 that based on the competitive bidding process and the arrange- 

 ments with the proposers, that we could not be provided with some 

 of the data, that the agency had assured confidentiality to the pro- 

 posers, and we weren't included on the list of those who had access 

 to some of that data. 



I think our understanding, which Mr. Hardy can confirm or clar- 

 ify, is that in any subsequent 6(c) process and any subsequent ac- 

 quisition process that Bonneville undertakes that could come into 

 a 6(c) review, that the confidentiality arrangements would be rear- 

 ranged, if you will, so that the Council would have access to the 

 data that it felt it needed. 



Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Hardy or Ms. Hickey? 



Ms. Rickey. There are two different confidentiality issues going 

 on here. One is that we received over 100 proposals in the competi- 

 tive bid and the Council sought information to assure that Tenaska 

 was, in fact, the least cost. 



That one, I believe, we have dealt with effectively by giving out 

 the categories of resources and the range of costs. With the 

 Tenaska contract, we felt that the real levelized costs and the de- 

 tails of as much of the contract as we could give would be suffi- 

 cient, and we've worked very closely with the Council staff to as- 

 sure that they have the confidence in making their decisions. 



We are concerned about this issue of confidentiality. It came up 

 for the first time in this 6(c) review. So we're very concerned that 

 we're doing something that's state-of-the-art in the industry and 

 not holding things confidential that others don't hold confidential. 



We're also, on the other side, seriously concerned about not plac- 

 ing Bonneville's purchases at a competitive disadvantage. And it 

 has been indicated to us that there are a rsinge of developers who, 

 in fact, will not bid, will not make proposals to us, if we're going 

 to release their confidential information. 



So this is a current issue for us and we're exploring it to figure 

 out how to best deal with it in the future. 



Mr. DeFazio. My understanding is there is some legal precedent 

 regarding FOIAs and these sorts of things, so-called trade secrets. 

 But the problem I have here is you have a situation where private 

 utilities are more scrutinized than any public agency's decisions. 

 You have no utility over you. 



I guess as a Member of Congress, perhaps I can ask to see these 

 documents or we can subpoena the documents, but I don't feel fiiUy 

 qualified to pass on them. I think the desirable situation would be 

 that you enter into a prospective agreement with the Council re- 

 garding confidenti£il information. You designate what people within 

 the Coiuicil would be able to see it. 



Whether it's members of the Council themselves or staff mem- 

 bers or a combination thereof would be subject to negotiations. But 

 it would just increase my level of confidence and everybody else's. 

 You're getting yourselves in trouble perhaps unnecessEuily here. 



Ms. Hickey. That was an option that came up in my discussions 

 with the Oregon PUC, Ron Eachos, in particular. They said they 

 have a mechanism called the protective order where there are cer- 



