406 



are a couple other examples, but there's no real sophisticated ex- 

 amples that I've seen out there that go to my concerns. 



How do you construct it that it — it isn't a barter growth. You 

 don't want a no-growth policy — but that encourages responsible 

 growth? If you're going to have a new load, that that load be as 

 efficient as possible, but still develop — it's like a comment of an- 

 other earher witness. I'm sorry. I usually keep track of which wit- 

 ness it was. 



But one person said — maybe it was Mr. Esteves, I can't remem- 

 ber — ^but someone was talking about there is a point at which a 

 company might retrofit and that's the point at which you have to 

 make the capital available for them to become more efficient or 

 you've lost the expected life span of that equipment. 



I would look at it the same way with new load growth. If some- 

 one wants to come in and do something and particularly in a state- 

 of-the-art efficient manner, they might get one signal, and if they 

 want to come in, move in an energy monster from some other place 

 that just has high rates and bring in some inefficient technology, 

 that they're going to get another. 



I would think there would be some value to that, that we don't 

 want to just attract indiscriminate use of power. Would you agree 

 to that? 



Mr. Jones. Yes. I would agree to that, but I have a hard time 

 envisioning the tiered rate that would achieve the objective that 

 you're talMng about. 



Mr. DeFazio. Well, that's to be revealed in the next hearing. I 

 encourage you to attend. We're going to hear all about this fi*om 

 many perspectives how we're going to do this. I look forward to 

 that. 



I often wish things were less burdensome and compUcated than 

 they are. You talked about the debt and the fish and wildlife. One 

 idea that I've looked at is if there is to be any refinancing of our 

 debt or changes in terms of the Federal Government, I'd like to 

 start getting some credit for fish and wildhfe payments, because in 

 other parts of the coimtry, the Federal Government is carrying the 

 burden for — that are created by regional projects as opposed to the 

 region carrying the burden, in addition to which they want to put 

 a hydro tax or btu tax on top of. 



So we have some agreement there. But beyond that, I'm not sure. 

 I guess you're suggesting that some substantial portion of that cost 

 should be just shSted back to the Federal Government and away 

 fi-om the ratepayers 



Mr. Jones. I would suggest that the proponent agencies, the fish 

 and wildlife agencies that want these programs, support a — I don't 

 know that it has to be substantial, but some of the costs involved 

 in the programs to show that they have good conscience in what 

 they're doing. 



My perception is that the Bonneville Power Adminstration is con- 

 sidered a deep pocket for financing these programs. The state fish 

 and wildUfe agencies are having difficulties with funding from their 

 home states and they're looking at Bonneville and they're picking 

 up the chunk of the change, a large chunk of the change fi*om the 

 ratepayers. It's, indeed, a tax. 



