112 

 Enclosure A 



1. Have any of the PMAs, without express direction from Congress, ever 



allocated any purchase power costs to a project purpose other than power? If 

 so, please describe each instance, the amount of purchase power costs allocated 

 to non-power purposes, and the legal basis for such an allocation. 



None of the PMAs has allocated purchase power costs to a non-power project purpose 

 absent explicit stamiory direction. Besides section 4<h)(10)(C) of the Northwest Power 

 Act, there are only two instances where Congress has allowed a PMA to allocate 

 purchase power costs to non-power purposes. First, as mentioned in your letter, the 

 Western Area Power Administration is required to treat as non-reimbursable the costs 

 of releases from Shasta Dam to reduce water temperamres downstream to preserve 

 anadromous fisheries. See Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, Pub. 

 L. No. 101-514, 104 Stat. 2074, 2092 (1991). Second, experimental flows have been 

 and will be required to test the environmental impacts of different flow regimes in the 

 Grand Canyon below Glen Canyon dam. The experimental flows have been required 

 for die supporting studies of the Glen Canyon EIS. They will be also required as pan 

 of long-term monitoring once the EIS is completed. Under sections 1805 and 1807 of 

 the Grand Canyon Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 102-575, 106 Stat. 4600, 4672, all 

 costs of the EIS, long-term monitoring, and the supporting studies of both arc non- 

 reimbursable. The costs of the piuchascd power bought only because of the 

 experimental flows, is therefore, also a cost of the supporting studies and is also non- 

 reimbursable. This is confirmed in the legislative history which states that "the 

 Secretary shall consider", to be "nonreimbursable", the "costs of the Glen Canyon EIS, 

 including the purchase of replacement energy necessitated by research flows, and the 

 costs of the long-term monitoring program . . .". S. Rep. No. 267, 102d Cong., 2d 

 Sess. 139 (1992). The said Senate report also recognizes these costs "may be 

 substantial and the benefits therefrom shared by the general public". 



2. What is the cost to taxpayers of Western's purchase power costs incurred due 

 to lost generation caused by the spill of water to protect salmon below Shasta 

 Dam? What has been the total cost of this provision to the taxpayers since it 

 was enacted? Provide an estimate of the cost that will be incurred by the 

 taxpayers due to the provision for FY 1995 to FY 1999. 



The total cost of purchase power incurred due to Shasta bypass operations is $31.3 

 million through the end of FY 1993. The estimated cost for FY 1994 is $10.5 million. 

 The FY 1994 figure is based on the July Bureau of Reclamation forecast for Central 

 Valley Project power plant operations. The cost of Shasu bypass operations including 

 acmal costs from FY 1987 through FY 1993 and estimated costs from FY 1994 through 

 FY 1999 are shown in the following table. 



