155 



Not only have you initiated the process, but you have put it firmly on the right 

 track by asldng a series of questions that go straight to the heart of the salient issues. 



I will delay no further in responding to those questions, and I will ask for your 

 indulgence as I take a few liberties in the sequence of my responses. 



I want to take up your fourth and sixth questions first, because they set the 

 stage for a more enlightening discussion of all the rest. You asked for an assessment 

 of BPA's and the Council's performance in their respective energy resource acquisition 

 roles. It would be surprising to hear anyone offer glowing evaluations. In response to 

 a unanimously negative appraisal, you might be tempted to conclude that we need 

 fiindamentally new mechanisms, a radically different institutional framework for 

 resource planning and acquisition. We would urge you to remain open to such a 

 conclusion, but not to leap to it hastily. 



1 doubt that anyone is more deeply frustrated with the pace and ineffectiveness 

 of BPA's conservation efforts to date than we are. The mechanisms that BPA is using 

 are clearly not working well. The difficult question is whether they should be fixed or 

 abandoned. 



Our member organizations are currently engaged in a heated debate on that 

 subject. We hope to present you with a unified position when you reconvene after the 

 August recess. Personally, as someone who worked at the Tennessee Valley 

 Authority where resource development is undertaken with relatively little planning 

 and no accountability, I am inclined to believe in the basic features of the existing 

 model. And if, as we have suggested, the primary problem is not the mechanism but 

 the lack of determination to make it work, then we do not yet know how well these 

 mechanisms can function. In effect, they haven't been tried. 



We are acutely aware of the problems with existing mechanisms and 

 institutions, and we are willing to contemplate entirely new approaches. This Task 

 Force is presiding over a fierce regional debate about whether BPA should continue in 

 its role as the region's resource acquisition nerve center. We will be an active part of 

 that discussion. 



But, while we're having that discussion, we want to sound two urgent notes of 

 caution. First, some of those who challenge the existing model are simply trying to 

 protect their share of the benefits of the regional system while shirking their share of 

 the costs of keeping that system healthy. These are the same interests who 

 supported deep cuts in conservation and fish and wildlife investments in the recent 

 rate case. In describing the conservation budget cuts, BPA officials said that the 

 programs would remain intact, but that they would simply "spend the money smarter." 

 To be sure, there are efficiencies to be gained. But a precipitous 20% cut in 

 conservation budgets in the middle of a rate case is not "spending smarter." It is 

 caving in to political pressure to minimize short-term rates, pure and simple. 

 "Reform" proposals of this kind are motivated not by a desire to make the system 

 work better, but by a desire to grab the benefits and leave others to shoulder the 

 costs. 



Testimony of K.C. Golden, NCAC BPA Task Foice 



July 12. 1993 F^4 



