121 



Mr. Grace. I couldn't tell the exact point now where we should 

 be, but I think it's something that we need to be very concerned 

 about. Mr. Duncan, do you have a thought on that? 



Mr. Duncan. Congressman, if I'm clear about the number you're 

 using, the 1,500 megawatts represents that share of what we think 

 we require in the region, which we're planning to meet through 

 conservation. But there's basically another approximately equal in- 

 crement that we would propose to meet through a variety of hydro 

 and gas-fired and other smaller resources. 



So we're talking about somewhere probably around 3,000 

 megawatts that we are projecting as a Council and I think as Bon- 

 neville that we're going to reqxiire. But the essence of our planning 

 as a Council and the essence of our planning as a region is that 

 we have a flexible planning acquisition process that will allow us 

 to acquire more than that if necessary on a relatively short-term 

 basis or back off on our acquisitions if necessary by focusing on rel- 

 atively smaller resources with relatively shorter lead times, by 

 using an options process, which Bonneville has been in the process 

 of implementing and which the Council directed them to do. 



So I guess I feel a lot more comfortable about our ability to meet 

 the loads as they vary fi-om year-to-year, as our projections have 

 been varied from year-to-year, I do agree with Mr. Grace, however, 

 that we probably are increasingly going to have to look at capacity 

 as distinguished fi*om energy requirements in the region, especially 

 in the 1-5 corridor, as the growth tends to focus there. 



Those may be as much transmission capacity issues as there are 

 generation or conservation issues. 



Mr. Smith of Oregon. I'm going to ask you, Mr. Hardy. I'm going 

 to give you a shot and you can hit it over the fence, if you like. 

 It's one of those kinds. The Northwest Power Coimcil, is it a plan- 

 ning agency or is it an implementing agency? 



Mr. Hardy. Well, it's a planning agency, but I wouldn't want to 

 confine the Council's role too rigidly. We've had a debate with the 

 Council in the last few weeks about planning versus implementa- 

 tion. 



Frankly, it's not usefiil, fi*om my perspective, to take rigid ideo- 

 logical stands on who is a planner and who is an implementor. 

 They're basically the plgmners and we're basically the 

 implementors, but there's a lot of room in between. 



We need to engage in some short-term planning and even some 

 long-term planning to do our job effectively, that fills in some of the 

 gaps. And, they need to have some oversight responsibility relative 

 to implementation. We don't want to draw two rigid lines in the 

 s£ind. 



I think this is best addressed on kind of a case-by-case basis and 

 it's best addressed in a funding sense where we're not spending du- 

 plicate monies for the same kinds of activities. That's something we 

 need to work on. 



Mr. Smith of Oregon. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, the Con- 

 gress has this debate with the Supreme Court fi*om time to time. 



Mr. DeFazio. Just to follow up on Mr. Duncan's comment about 

 the capacity. I'm ciuious. Having made that statement, how would 

 you weigh the idea of fiiel switching versus a Tenaska-type project? 

 Since you say capacity is the critical factor, can't we do more with 



