252 



Comments to: The Congressional Committee on Natural Resources 



Bonneville Power Administrative Task Force 

 Congressman Peter DeFazio, Chairman 

 July 12, 1993, Portland Oregon. 



Testimony by: Bob Olsen, Commissioner 



Mason County Public Utility District 3. 



Mr Chairman and Members of the Committee: 



My name is Bob Olsen. I am an elected commissioner from Mason County Public Utility 

 District 3 in the State of Washington. We serve more than 40,000 people and are totally 

 dependent on Bonneville for our power supply. 1 appreciate your invitation to share some 

 thoughts with you regarding BPA's resource development and acquisition activities. 



You have asked whether BPA is acquiring all cost effective conservation and renewables? 

 Regrettably the answer is "no." Had they done so, we would not facing a rate hike of 

 nearly 16%. 



You are all familiar with the stated reasons for the rate increase. Our energy surplus is 

 gone; failure of nuclear facilities; poor water conditions; the sagging price of aluminum; 

 and fish costs. However, the administrator has failed to mention another very important 

 reason for the sizeable rate hike— namely BPA's failure to aggressively acquire 

 conservation in recent years. As a result, BPA is spending millions to buy power from 

 outside the region in the range of 30 to 60 mills to sell to the aluminum smelters at 18 

 mills. No wonder Bonneville has a revenue problem. 



Both BPA and the Power Planning Council have wisely concluded that conservation is 

 their resource of first choice. This approach requires aggressive programs to make our 

 homes, businesses and industries more energy efficient. Several years have passed 

 since our planning body set forth its conservation goals for the next decade. Despite that 

 passage of time— adequate programs are not currently in place and do not seem to be 

 on the immediate horizon. This is a matter of great concern. 



BPA has many programs-- but they do not always translate into action. This is a waste 

 of money and effort. BPA must find ways to market conservation more effectively. 

 Present methods are slow, unproductive and costly. BPA's centralized programs are not 

 conducive to flexibility and cannot address regional diversity. 



We have recommended Bonneville look closely at using energy service companies. 

 They offer programs that provide the financing, marketing, and take the risk. This seems 

 to be a logical approach, especially with BPA's present fiscal restraints, borrowing caps, 

 and talk of conservation budget cuts. 



