347 



It took over a year after the bids were submitted for BRA to begin serious 

 negotiations, in July 1992. After 4 months of back-and-forth but productive 

 negotiations (July - September 1992), the BPA Negotiating Team in November 1992 

 suddenly announced it was cancelling the 200,000-house lighting project negotiations, 

 that it was cancelling 95,000 of the 100,000-house "total house" programs, and that it 

 was eliminating the measures (lighting) that would provide half the savings in the 

 programs for 120,000 electric water heating customers. 



The reason given for dropping the ten 10,000 house weatherlzation proposals to 

 a single 5,000 house pilot was that the program was too large. However, Bonneville 

 did go ahead with the 200+ aMW Tenaska combustion turbine generation proposal, 

 which was a hundred times larger than the after-the-fact limits placed upon the 

 weatherlzation offer. The Negotiating Team cited uncertainty over the cost- 

 effectiveness of compact fluorescent bulbs as the reason for dropping the balance of 

 the programs. This is the same technology used by every other utility system in 

 California (and several in the Pacific Northwest), with millions distributed by these 

 utilities. This is the same technology that BPA itself, less than four months later, 

 recommended to its own employees for implementation. These is the same 

 technology in which SESCO itself proposed to invest millions of dollars for BPA 

 residential customers, with payment based solely upon metered, verified savings. 



TESTIMONY OF RICHARD ESTEVES 



Page 7 



