120 



Mr, Smith of Oregon. The reason I asked the question is I know 

 the answer. It hasn't grown, and the purpose for my question was 

 simply that, in the distribution of blame for the salmon and other 

 problems that we have that need increased flow, from the short- 

 term agreement, there seems to be fingers pointed in every direc- 

 tion, including agriculture. I just wanted to make that point for the 

 record. 



My last question is. In making the estimate of 1,500 megawatts 

 needed by the turn of the century, did you, in your planning pro- 

 gram, estimate the additional megawatts not coming from the Co- 

 lumbia River hydro program. What the current agreement seems 

 to be saying is that there needs to be more water flowing in the 

 Columbia. Or should we be looking at additional megawatts from 

 alternative sources to relieve what, at least in the short-term, 

 seems to be an end to alleviate the flow or increase the flow, there- 

 by reducing megawatt production in the hydro production on the 

 Columbia River? 



Mr. Hardy. The 1,500 megawatts, Mr. Smith, did include I think 

 about 70 or 80 megawatts of loss from the Snake system that did 

 not include what is a much bigger number potentially from the Co- 

 lumbia system, because that wasn't finahzed yet. 



I think over the next year as we get a long-term recovery plan 

 in place, it will undoubtedly essentially codify a very substantial 

 megawatt loss, probably in the 400-500 megawatt range, maybe 

 larger. 



At that point, we will have two choices. One is to incorporate 

 that in firm planning and acquire an additional amount of re- 

 sources to meet that load. The other is to use what we call oper- 

 ational flexibility to meet it. This means that you do not seek to 

 meet that load with firm resource acquisitions and take a gamble 

 on the spot power market when you need it. This last year has 

 been very instructive in the costs of that kind of a regime. 



And there's kind of a third alternative which is to negotiate sea- 

 sonal power exchanges with the southwest, where you swap power 

 summer to winter. That can mitigate a lot of that kind of cost and 

 maybe make up the balance with some other mixed type of re- 

 source portfolio. 



But until we know what our ultimate obligation is, by virtue of 

 the long-term recovery plan, we thought it was premature to try to 

 lock into a particular solution. 



Mr. Smith of Oregon. So the 1,500 does not anticipate any miti- 

 gation to the salmon. 



Mr. Hardy. About 80 megawatts is all. Yes, sir. 



Mr. Smith of Oregon. Mr. Grace, very quickly. We discussed peak 

 power loads and needs. In your opinion, does the 1,500 megawatt 

 estimate, eliminating the salmon issue, get to where we want to be 

 with respect to peaking? 



Mr. Grace. Congressman, I don't believe it will get us there. I 

 have reservations myself. We're in serious trouble about where 

 we're at in peaking and in capacity problems. I don't think we real- 

 ly looked into those as well as we should have. 



Mr. Smith of Oregon. Where should we be? 



