18 



Shoit-tenn efBciency gains and rate relief should not be sought at the sacrifice 

 of Bonneville's long-term accountability to its shareholders: the citizens of the four 

 Northwest states and the federal government 



We have alluded to Bonneville's profoiind impact on the citizens and the 

 economy of the Pacific Northwest. Let me remind you of one of the underlying 

 principles of the Northwest Power Act, Bonneville was given additional authority to 

 expand the power system in order to meet the requirements of its customers. The 

 states clziimed a lack of involvement in major regional energy choices where their 

 citizens* interests were at risk. In response, the Act created an interstate planning 

 entity, the Northwest Power Planning Council, to govern Bonneville's acquisition of 

 major resources and to promote conservation and renewable resources through a 

 regional energy plan. This was the key provision finom the perspective of the 

 Northwest states: Bonneville got new authority to acquire resources in return for a 

 Council, appointed by the governors, with the right of advise and consent over 

 new resource acquisitions. These provisions were adopted to ensure that the 

 states had a check and balance on discussions aflecting the federal power system 

 and that states and the public had substantial participation in key energy and 

 fish and wildlife decisions. 



Bonneville officials are quick to assert that with incorporation, all of the legal 

 responsibilities will be the same, as will their relationships with the Congress, the 

 states and the Council. However, as we read their outlined proposal, the role of 

 the states and the Council is not clearly delineated. 



