250 



that stretching out the benefits of our hydropower system through 

 efficiency is the cheapest, most effective resource that we have. 



Conservation, energy efficiency, is an answer to our problem, not 

 one of its causes. Two examples fi"om my utility's experience with 

 Bonneville's resource acquisition processes I think demonstrate 

 some of the problems. In response to a Bonneville soHcitation, our 

 utility submitted 9 separate conservation proposals for billing cred- 

 its. 



Out of the 9 proposals, not even one contract resulted. These con- 

 servation resource proposals were burdened with unnecessary and 

 inappropriate administrative requirements and too much emphasis 

 on verification. There's an old adage that you do not fatten the pig 

 by weighing it. 



In essence, 9 conservation resources were buried by paperwork. 

 On our own initiative, Mason #3 and two other utilities approached 

 Bonneville with a proposal to implement a conservation transfer 

 program. This initiative was in response to the Power Planning 

 Council's energy plan and proposed to implement conservation at 

 no cost to Bonneville. 



The proposal called for Puget Power to pay for conservation done 

 in our service territory and, in return, Puget Power received the 

 saved kilowatt hours. Bonneville was reUeved of the cost of fimding 

 conservation, power flowed to a deficit utility, Puget Power, and my 

 ratepayers would receive conservation benefits. 



Our conservation transfer proposal was met with resistance. It 

 took more than 2 years of constant negotiations, pleadings and ca- 

 joling before a contract was finally executed. Until Bonneville can 

 find a way to respond rapidly and provide customers with proper 

 incentives for takuig the initiative to develop resources, cost-effec- 

 tive resource opportunities wiU continue to be lost to the detriment 

 of the ratepayers in the region. 



BPA's administrative processes seem to be different for genera- 

 tion as opposed to conservation. You will note that BPA moved 

 quickly to negotiate with Tenaska and others for gas-fired resource 

 options. 



I've previously referred to the Tenaska power project and have 

 just now. The case for acquiring Tenaska is flimsy, at best. The Re- 

 gional Act and the 1991 regional plan make it clear that conserva- 

 tion is the highest priority resource. Renewables are second and ef- 

 ficient thermal resources are third. 



Tenaska is none of these. It makes no sense for BPA to be spend- 

 ing hundreds of miUions of dollars to acquire Tenaska and plead 

 poverty when it comes to buying conservation, which is our cheap- 

 est, cleanest and highest priority resource. 



I would feel more charitable on this issue if BPA had firm long- 

 term commitments in place to acquire the conservation resource 

 that we are all waiting to deliver. 



The secrecy surrounding the Tenaska power project contract is 

 unacceptable. When a resource sponsor wants public money for a 

 project, they assume a responsibility to make available to the pub- 

 Uc information about the project, especially its costs. 



How do we determine it is a good project without knowing the 

 costs? The public's business ought to be public. 



