158 



and environmental impacts to which Northwest consumers will be subjected by this 

 project. If the Council proposes to make an exception for this project, it must subject it 

 to an extraordinarily rigorous review, with' the burden of proof squarely on BPA. Yet 

 Council members have already publicly passed judgment, without having heard all the 

 evidence. Basic facts such as the price of the power and the contractual allocation of 

 fuel price risk remain secret. 



The case against Tenaska on its own strengths and weaknesses is compelling. 

 But even if Tenaska were risk-free, it would not be consistent widi the Plan. No fossil 

 fuel-fired generating resource can be regarded as consistent unless and imtil BPA has 

 demonstrated that it has done everything in its power to meet the need with higher 

 priority resources. The conservation that BPA is foregoing isn't just hypothetical 

 potential; it consists of real, immediate opportunities that people are waiting to 

 deliver, at less than the cost of power from Tenaska. At its hearing today, the Council 

 will hear a littany of frustration firom conservation providers who have tried in good 

 faith to deliver this resource to BPA. Even the Council's staff, in recommending a 

 finding of consistency, admit that BPA's commitment to fund conservation and system 

 efficiencies is "uncertain." 



If the Council finds Tenaska consistent, despite overwhelming evidence that 

 BPA is actively resisting higher priority resources, it will squander its most important 

 source of authority. The Council's exceptional planning will be critically undermined if 

 the members fail to use their one statutory means for ensuring that the Plan is 

 implemented. 



We believe in the Council. We are fortunate indeed that our power planning is 

 conducted in an open, deliberative public process by Council members who are 

 accountable to the States. We are very concerned about its capacity and its 

 willingness to take the next crucial step by using its authority to ensure that its Plans 

 are faithfully implemented. If the Council gives a green light to Tenaska, BPA will 

 acquire fossil-fueled power while less costly conservation goes begging. But frankly, 

 as damaging as that will be to the region, the greater cost will be the confirmation of 

 the growing perception that the Council has neither the will nor the ability to insist on 

 effective implementation of the Plan. 



Before concluding our testimony, we would like to respond briefly to your 

 questions regarding fuel switching and environmental costs. 



We are attaching a copy of the comments that we delivered to Congressman 

 Wyden on the subject of fuel conversion. Our essential position is this: All parties 

 agree that substantial, cost-effective fuel conversion potential exists, though the 

 estimates of how much range from hundreds of megawatts to thousands. All parties 

 also agree that large parts of this potential will not be achieved by market forces 

 alone, due to pervasive market barriers. Given those facts, fuel conversion to natural 

 gas (or solar or geothermal heat) should be considered and acquired like any other 

 resource. 



In order to acquire this resource, BPA must make some clear choices about 

 who it serves. Thus far, it has chosen to avoid any serious consideration of cost- 

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

 July 12. 1993 P»8e7 



