395 



Page 2 

 Testimony 



If the cost of Bonneville power continues to increase at a 

 rapid rate, as is predicted, certain of the industries served by 

 public utilities in the Region may be unable to remain 

 competitive. It is no exaggeration to state that rapidly 

 increasing Bonneville power costs will result in greater 

 unemployment in our state and the Region. 



I feel that a rational approach to minimizing the projected 

 Bonneville rate increases requires an examination of the primary 

 factors that cause the increases. I offer the following thoughts 

 on this subject. 



The current state of uncertainty is totally unacceptable. 

 The Regional Power Council may be a sound theoretical concept and 

 the Council members may be making all good faith efforts to meet 

 their responsibilities, but it does not work. The control over 

 escalating rates is hindered by a political process set up by the 

 Regional Act of 1980. Let's resolve these political issues and 

 focus on controlling rates. 



We must face the fact that Bonneville cannot fund all fish 

 and wildlife programs that may be envisioned by either the 

 Council or the environmental community out of rates. Whose 

 resources are the Federal Columbia River Power System, a System 

 that provides flood control, irrigation, navigation and power 

 generation? These dams benefit the entire country and therefore, 

 are a federal asset. 



I noted in the July 7, 1993, Oregonian, Section A3, under 

 the Title "Mississippi River System Defies Corps" that "Despite 

 billions of dollars spent " 



Who is paying these bills? Are they paid for by just the 

 people on the Mississippi flood plain? Of course not. Yet, the 

 Northwest is expected to not only pay back all Federal 

 investments in the Columbia System but mitigate any damages that 

 these facilities are perceived to have caused. 



I have noted in the "Journal" July 1993, a BPA News Letter, 

 that BPA is paying for a three year program to enforce habitat 

 and harvest laws and to purchase a former ranch in Eastern Oregon 

 to provide a wildlife wetland refuge. Isn't this stretching the 

 purpose of a Power Marketing Agency beyond reason? Are other 

 PMA's funding these kinds of programs? Realistic limits must be 

 placed on the level of fish and wildlife expenditures which will 

 be funded by Bonneville. Other sources of funding must be used 

 to supplement Bonneville's contribution if the programs are 

 realistic and scientifically justified. What has to end is 

 acting on the assumption that the electrical rates can carry the 

 expenses attendant to all environmental programs. 



