188 



Mr. DeFazio. But just on the point you raised, then, what do you 

 make of the utihties. Let's use the EWEB for an example. 



They are going out and engaging in some longer-term power ac- 

 quisition of their own at costs higher or comparable to those costs 

 of Tenaska. They have a feeling that that doesn't exactly match 

 yours in terms of where BPA is headed. I'm curious about that. 



What do you think is their motivation? You don't think this is 

 a prudent business decision on their part? 



Mr. Cavanagh. I think that EWEB and Emerald and a number 

 of other of my friends in pubUc power are hedging at the margins, 

 Mr. Chairman, but I don't think any of them is moving to replace 

 Bonneville as a wholesale supplier or to significantly reduce their 

 absolute purchases. 



Mr. DeFazio. Well, EWEB does have a goal of significantly re- 

 ducing its dependence, I think from 70 percent to 50 percent. 



Mr. Cavanagh. Sure. But in aggregate, that says its loads grow 

 over time. I think if you look at the aggregate purchases, you won't 

 find them declining. I submit further that if Bonneville's perform- 

 ance is as I expect it to be over the next couple of decades and if 

 you and your colleagues continue to defer the hobgoblin of the fed- 

 eral repayment reform initiatives, I think people will be coming 

 back to Bonneville. 



I think the principal concern folks have right now is the Federal 

 Treasury red and I would submit that the best way to defeat that 

 is to absolutely rebut the claims of those, some of them my own 

 constituents back in Washington, who say that the only way you 

 can encourage efficient use of energy in the Northwest is through 

 punitive price increases. 



Part of what we're about here, and I think part of the reason 

 why these programs are so important, is to dehver the strongest 

 possible repudiation to those of my constituents and yours who 

 hold that view. That's part of Bonneville's competitiveness, also. 



Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. Mr. Golden, do you want to comment 

 on this subject? 



Mr. Golden. Yes. I just wanted to note that Ralph talked about 

 the comparative advantage of Bonneville's regional scope. The 

 Council quantifies that comparative advantage in its current plan 

 and it's something to the tune of $2 biUion for collective regional 

 resource acquisition. 



Mr. DeFazio. I saw that in your testimony. Do you want to ex- 

 pand on this? I should have asked the Council about that. Can you 

 expand on that? 



Mr. Golden. I think primarily it's due to the fact that if we do 

 acquire resources as a region, we can acquire the least expensive 

 resources, no matter where they are, to meet loads, no matter 

 where they are. 



We can acquire energy efficiency that's cheaper than generating 

 resources in parts of the region whose own power demands might 

 not dictate that it was time to acquire that energy efficiency. But 

 because we're coordinated as a region, places where demand is ex- 

 panding have access to the energy efficiency resource region-wide. 



Mr. DeFazio. But aren't we beginning to experience east-west 

 transmission problems? Particularly, if you look at the Puget 

 Sound area and others, isn't there some need for something that's 



