149 



saved cost-effectively and with no reduction in the quality or quan- 

 tity of energy services provided. 



Acknowledging that its estimates were cautious in 1991, the 

 Council took great pains to note that the 1,500 megawatt figure 

 was a target, not a ceiling. Bonneville has underscored that todayo 

 We've been told point blank that all cost-effective conservation will 

 be acquired. 



BPA followed this commitment by promising the "cost-effective 

 conservation will not be budget constrained." As anyone who has 

 tried to deliver conservation to Bonneville in the last few years can 

 attest, that promise is being systematically broken. This year, the 

 more ambitious utilities have exhausted their conservation budgets 

 from Bonneville in the first 4 months of the fiscal year, and we im- 

 derstand that there's been some short-term reUef from that prob- 

 lem. 



But the fact remains that in Seattle and Eugene customers are 

 lined up outside the utiUtys doors right now waiting to deliver 

 saved energy at well below the price of Tenaska, but those doors 

 are shut or only intermittently opened. 



BPA's recent conservation cuts guarantee that this situation will 

 persist for at least the next 2 fiscal years. I want to take a minute 

 to emphasize here that the conservation we're talking about isn't 

 just one more straw in the punch bowl, as the framers of the punch 

 bowl metaphor have implied. 



On the contrary, energy efficiency is the cheapest way to refill 

 that bowl. It's as if we went through all the trouble to grow the 

 fruit, to pick it, to slice it, and then squeezed out only half the juice 

 for the punch bowl. Squeezing out the other half is by far the 

 cheapest way to keep the bowl full, the Ughts on, and the motors 

 humming. And if that's a social agenda, so be it. 



Why is BPA struggling as it is on conservation? Are there flaws 

 in its program designs and decision-making processes, as some of 

 your questions suggest? Absolutely. We can and should reexamine 

 Bonneville's methods, but no method will succeed, and we concur 

 with Angus Duncan and others on this, without firm long-term fi- 

 nancial commitments to get the job done. 



BPA and its customers must be held accountable for their prom- 

 ise and their obligation under the Act to make budget available to 

 acquire all cost-effective conservation. How can we assure that ac- 

 countability? That brings us to your question about Tenaska and 

 about the Council's role. 



Later today, down the street, the Council will consider what I 

 think is its singlemost important formal authority under the Act, 

 and as Stan Grace said, they don't have many formal authorities — 

 its review of Bonneville's major resource acquisitions. 



In its review of Tenaska, the Council could establish its firm de- 

 termination to see its plan implemented or it could simply rubber- 

 stamp the project. I think Council staff have already admitted that 

 Tenaska is not the kind of resource that the plan identified for im- 

 mediate acquisition. 



Yet, Council members have already said publicly while the record 

 is still open that they plan to approve the project. As you've noted, 

 basic facts, such as the price of the power and the contractual allo- 

 cation of fuel price risks, are still secrets to us and to the Council. 



