177 

 Direa Service Industries, Inc 



>25 LLOYD CENTER TCWER Q 825 N.E. MULTNOMAH STREET = PQRTUVND. OREGON 97232-2150 o (503)233-4445 



Testiiiiony of 



John D. Carr, Executive Director 



Direa Service Industries, Inc. 



Before the 



Committee on Natural Resources 



Bonneville Power Administration Task Force 



Portland, Oregon 

 July 12, 1993 



Thank you for inviting me today. I am John D. Carr, Executive Direaor of 

 Direa Service Industries, Inc., an association of 11 members representing aluminum, 

 magnesium, titanium, and chemical producers who purchase electricity directly from the 

 Bonneville Power Administration. I am here today to comment on BPA's resource 

 acquisition progranL 



CONTEXT 



The passage of the Regional Power Aa in 1980 was thought to be the beginning 

 of a new era charaaerized by central planning performed by BPA and the Northwest 

 Power Planning Council, and central finding provided by BPA for new generation 

 resources and conservation investments in the Pacific Northwest. The Aa contemplated 

 that BPA would plan to meet its customers' load growth needs with a combination of 

 conservation acquisition and generation resources. The Northwest Power Planning 

 Council was tasked with planning for the region's load growth needs in a broader context 

 to msure that BPA and other utilities would use electricity efficiently and acquire 

 resources which were cost effective and most compatible wi± the environment. 



Dining the development of the Aa many conservation supporters argued that 

 efficiency programs would need kick-starting by providing large incentives to consiuners 

 in order to push the region toward a more efficient use of electricity. They further 

 argued that BPA would not only plan, but be a central funding mechanism for 

 conservation programs based on the view that BPA rates could be raised significantly 

 without having to be concerned about competitive pressures. 



Dramatic changes have occurred, however, since the passage of the Aa. Large, 

 central generation units complimented by the acquisition of cost effective conservation 

 was the blueprint of the future in the late 1970's. By 1983, this view of the future had 

 changed, exemplified best by the decision to mothbadl Supply System nuclear plants nos. 



1 &3. 



By the late 1980's, deregulation of the resoiu'ce generation market had begim in 

 earnest. Today, over one-half of the new generation developed in the United States is 



