376 



to better technology and the gas company. We proposed to cut our total load growth 

 in half over the next 20 years, by investing $872 million in conservation. We 

 believed that our investment would drive down per capita consimiption faster and 

 farther than oiu- forecast. 



BPA, however, was concerned that it couldn't measure the results of our 

 investment; and that per capita consumption might go down that fast anyway, 

 because of the weather or the economy. It feared it might pay us for something it 

 could have gotten for free. BPA doesn't have a great deal of confidence in 

 conservation; Snohomish does. We've been very successful at it for more than a 

 decade. 



BPA was afraid that Snohomish might spend the money imwisely, that our 

 conservation measures might not work. BPA didn't want to take the risk; and it 

 didn't want Snohomish to take the risk either. 



I can tell you this: if we had tiered rates, we would be doing CPP today 

 without Bonneville. BPA would not have to lift a finger or spend a penny. 



But, after 18 months of "negotiations," and an ever-enlarging circle of BPA 

 persormel (who were not empowered to make decisions), CPP was ground down to 

 one-third its original size and its scope was changed beyond recognition. At this 

 point, negotiations ended. 



A centralized approach to conservation has not worked. First, there is no 

 single vantage point where one can sit and know enough about the unique 

 opportunities, circumstances, and creative ideas of each utility and its customers. 



Second, conservation technologies are moving faster than the rule-makers. 

 Ceno-alized programs take time to design, develop, and implement; too much time to 

 react to market forces. 



Third, a centralized approach to conservation requires multiple layers of 

 administration. BPA has a big staff, to tell our staff, what to tell our customers to 



