216 



combined with the recent budget constraints, has caused Bonneville to produce complex aixl 

 restrictive conservation contracts which take tremendous amoimts of BPA and other agency 

 staff time. Such conditions are not conducive to maximizing the acquisition of cost-effective 

 conservation megawatts. 



Instead of focusing on the open partnerships with its utility customers that worked so 

 well in the early 1980's, recently Bonneville seems determined to find new ways to define 

 and limit their risk through new and more complex contract mechanisms. In attempts to 

 improve our conservation acquisition partnership with Bonneville, EWEB has tried to 

 participate in Bonneville's conservation Billing Credits Proposal, the Targeted Acquisition 

 Proposal, the Coiiq)etitive Bid for Conservation Proposal, and our own proposal to fund 

 conservation by selling EWEB bonds that are already authorized by voters for that purpose. 

 None of these alternative mechanisms has yet produced a contract from Boimeville and, none, 

 except for our own proposal, would be needed if we could rediscover the partnership we had 

 in the early 1980's. The near-term budget cuts appear to heighten Bonneville's concern over 

 risk and jeopardize its chances of achieving the Power Planning Council's regional 

 conservation targets for 2000. 



Renewable Resources 



BPA should be commended for its efforts in encouraging the development of 

 renewable resources through its Pilot Geothermal Program and through its Wind 

 Demonstration Program. Through these programs, Boimeville has brought together a number 

 of regional utilities, both private aitd public, to facilitate the developmem of resources which 

 show long-term economic and environmental promise for the Pacific Northwest, yet they do 



