262 



on the termination of Plants 1 and 3? They made the decision, but 

 they approved the budgets for next year that includes preservation. 



There's things they've talked about for years, but the decision 

 doesn't quite get to that final bottom line where an action is taken 

 or money is not spent or money is spent. So I guess I want to be 

 optimistic, but I think I can only be it with my fingers crossed or 

 something. 



Mr. DeFazio. Anybody else want to reflect on that future or their 

 current relationships, fixture relationships? The Administrator is 

 sitting behind you, but be candid. 



Mr. Berggren. I guess I would just state that I'm optimistic 

 about Bonneville's abiUty to transform itself. Even with our re- 

 source strategy, which overtly considers a diminished dependence 

 upon Bonneville, we still see Bonneville as a very substantial, sig- 

 nificant and appropriate partner in the long-term around our capa- 

 bilities to supply energy. 



Our issues are built aroxind more diversity; not only resource 

 type, but resource supply. I think we have some sense of risk 

 around the institutional nature of Bonneville and the multitude of 

 complex issues that it has to face. We've factored that into our deci- 

 sion that we want a lower dependence upon Bonneville, but it is 

 not a decision to move away, if you will, fi'om Bonneville as a criti- 

 cal supplier or significant suppher of our power. 



I think Bonneville, Randy, in particular, and his senior staff, as 

 part of the fimction-by-fiinction review, which I'm also a part of, 

 have been very authentic and very open in listening very hard to 

 what the issues of competitiveness are and the issues that a mul- 

 titude of stake holders have in the region and are working those 

 as honestly and as directly as they can, again given the complexity 

 of these questions. 



So I don't expect to see that change overnight. I think there are 

 just too many diverse points of view held and there's too much to 

 be debated for us to expect Bonneville to look differently tomorrow 

 morning. I do believe that we're looking at a 3- to 5-year transition 

 here, which will significantly change Bonneville's role, as well as 

 the role perhaps of many of the utilities and other players in the 

 energy region, but I'm very optimistic about Bonneville's ability to 

 do that with the kind of attention they're giving to it right now. 



Mr. DeFazio. Anybody else? 



Mr. Olsen. Mr. Chairman, I read somewhere where you made 

 mention about the vision of Bonneville for the next 50 years. While 

 that's certainly important and I share your desire to look at that 

 vision, it's certainly important to look at what the vision of what 

 Bonneville has been in the past 50 or so years and what it's meant 

 to this region and what's it meant to pubUc power. 



I think if we can do as well in the next 50 years as we've done 

 in the past, I think we can declare a victory. I'm certainly encour- 

 aged. I guess I'm an optimist, too, in the sense that first you have 

 to recognize your problems and then deal with them and you also 

 have to face reality. 



I think the Administrator has certainly faced reahty, particularly 

 in making a decision to go ahead and terminate Plants 1 and 3. 

 It's really something that should have been done a long time ago. 

 We could have used that money in other areas and in much better 



