357 



impressed with the weight that utilities give to the goals of the NWPPC. Its 

 role as a moral force for promoting conservation is remarkable and 

 perhaps unmatched by any other entity elsewhere in the country. 



This is where it seems to stop. The Council does not appear to involve 

 itself in review ing the details of BPA's programs and seems very reluctant 

 to take on the BRA central planners' theories and programs. For example, 

 the NPPC staff has apparently recommended in favor of Tenaska under 

 the presumption that BRA is actively seeking all cost-effective 

 conservation. We have seen that to be false and can so demonstrate. We 

 asked to appear before the Council to update it on the progress (lack 

 thereof) of BPA's conservation bidding programs, but were told that it was 

 not of interest to the members. Furthermore, the invitation to a single 

 bidder to review BPA's activities might encourage others to seek similar 

 redress. I agree totally The Council should be the site to redress 

 problems with the resource acquisition program. The Council should do 

 more that issue platitudes about the need to secure all cost-effective 

 conservation. It must be willing to investigate those instances in which this 

 may is not occurring and to follow-up on the correction of those problems. 

 Unlike investor-owned utilities (lOUs), BRA has no actual regulatory 

 commission to monitor its conservation activities. FERC doesn't do it. 



TESTIMONY OF RICHARD ESTEVES Page 20 



