69 



Power Planning and Conservation Act. It should not encompass is- 

 sues extraneous to that of BPA's organizational structure, and it 

 should not diminish in any way the present level of input of cus- 

 tomers or the public at large in Bonneville's operations. 



Implemented according to these principles, we think the corpora- 

 tion status would enhance BPA's accountability by increasing its 

 responsiveness and effectiveness in carrying out its mandates. The 

 principal advantage of the government corporation would be a 

 greater flexibility in procurement, contracting, and more latitude in 

 managing personnel and eliminating overlapping responsibilities. 



I would like to give you an example from the PUD's experience 

 of frustrations resulting from BPA's current agency status. BPA 

 has a number of old distribution system substations it would like 

 to sell to the PUDs. The PUDs would like to buy them, and a num- 

 ber of such transfers have been agreed to only to be blocked by the 

 General Services Administration. GSA has overvalued these facili- 

 ties and put little or no value on BPA's being able to transfer its 

 environment and operations and maintenance costs and liabilities 

 to its customers. 



In other words, bureaucratic inertia frustrates businesslike win- 

 win arrangements for BPA and its customers and the public. We 

 believe government corporation status for Bonneville would end 

 this kind of inefficiency or at least address it more effectively. 



We do not believe corporation status would diminish BPA's abil- 

 ity to comply with mandates to meet social and environmental 

 goals. To the extent corporation status would give BPA added flexi- 

 bility and responsibility, responsiveness, the corporation would en- 

 hance BPA's ability to meet these goals. For example, BPA would 

 not have to submit environmental impact statements to the De- 

 partment of Energy for approval, and thus would be able to com- 

 plete such statements in a much more timely fashion. 



We also do not believe that changes in BPA's governing statutes 

 would be necessary or desirable if Bonneville were to be made a 

 government corporation. In fact, we feel strongly that these stat- 

 utes should not be tampered with. Legislation dealing with the con- 

 version of Bonneville into a government corporation should deal 

 solely with the narrowly defined issue of management efficiencies. 



Theoretically, special laws might be fashioned for some aspects 

 of Bonneville's administrative procedures, such as its procurement 

 and personnel practices, without creating a government corpora- 

 tion. However, it would be extremely difficult and inefficient to 

 achieve these objectives on a piecemeal basis. The changes being 

 sought in BPA's administration should be viewed in totality. The 

 government corporation is the best way to do this. 



Finally, we do not believe that Bonneville's relationship with the 

 Congress or the Northwest Power Planning Council would or 

 should change as a result of a change in BPA's structure, as has 

 been proposed. 



However, BPA would have less responsibility to the Department 

 of Energy, and the Office of Management and Budget, and the rela- 

 tionship with these agencies would change, and that is, of course, 

 the point. Bonneville's relations with its customers should change 

 in a positive way, and BPA would respond more readily to its cus- 

 tomer's needs. 



