89 



The CoaJition strongly endorses this Task Force's mission: 



To examine Bonneville's operations, 



To evaluate how Bonneville is meeting the mandates of the Northwest 

 Conservation Act; and 



To determine what steps to take, if any. 



We welcome this Task Force's investigation and look forward to its 

 recommendations. We are concerned that this Task Force's recommendations should 

 be the horse and the proposal to make Bonneville a government corporation is one of 

 many possible carts. This hearing is the last one for this Task Force. It seems very 

 reasonable to wait for its report and recommendations before embarking on a large 

 organizational change in the agency this Task Force is investigating. Making 

 Bonneville into a federal corporation may be a good kjea, but it is a solution to a 

 problem which your Task Force has not finished Investigating. 



We also note that it is difficult to tell whether the federal corporation is a good 

 idea or not with no concrete proposal before us. To continue the barnyard imagery: 

 so far, the proposal is a pig in a poke. 



Wrth all that said, let me emphasize that the Northwest Conservation Act 

 Coalition strongly supports Bonneville's sincere efforts to increase its efficiency! 

 Conservation is part of our name and conservation means increased efficiency. We 

 define increased efficiency as achieving goals with fewer resources. We are 

 concerned that Bonneville is not using that definition when it taJks about increased 

 efficiency. It app^rs that Bonneville is conskjering jettisoning goals in order to cut 

 costs. We absolutely reject any attempt to cut costs by abandoning long term efforts to 

 achieve least cost resource acquisition and a healthy environment in favor of short 

 term rate minimization. We are worried that Bonneville's mandates for conservation, 

 fish and wildlife, public participation and renewable energy may be considered goals 

 which can be abandoned to cut costs in the very short term. 



Our worries stem from discussions and draft papers in which Bonneville has 

 floated a number of kieas for its own reinvention. These ideas have included throw off 

 lines like. "Maybe we won1 do conservation in areas where natural gas is available,* 

 as well as exhortations to open up thinking to a future in which Bonneville has no fish 

 and wikJIife responsibilities. A draft paper on "Altemative Conservation Focus" dated 

 September 14, 1993 from Bonneville staffer, James M. Kehoe sets out a rationale for 

 paying less than half as much per kilowatt hour for conservation as for generation 

 resources, 



