120 



Representative Swift); 126 Cong. Rec. 9855 (Sept. 29, 1980) 

 Statement of Representative Symins) . 



That the Act gives Bonneville explicit authority to buy power 

 needed due to changes in flows is of no relevance to the question 

 of whether power purchase costs can be allocated to project 

 purposes other than power. In fact, the authority of Bonneville 

 and the other PMAs to purchase power in order to "firm up" the 

 hydroelectricity resource existed well before passage of the Act. 

 Kansas Citv Power a nd Light Co.. et al. v. McKav. 115 F. Supp. 

 402, 417 (D.D.C 1953). 1 'ment vacated on other grounds . 225 F. 

 2nd- 925 (D.C. Cir. 1955). The Act gives Bonneville the authority 

 to do many things, including contracting for new energy resources 

 and providing the benefits of preference power to residential 

 customers of investor-owned utilities. Sec. 5, 16 U.S.C. § 839c; 

 Sec. 6, 16 U.S.C. § 838d. No one would argue that because the 

 Act gives Bonneville the preceding authorities that the costs 

 related to their exercise should be assigned to a project purpose 

 other than power. Contracting for new energy resources, 

 residential exchange, and purchase power expenses due to changes 

 in flows are all costs properly assignable to power. 



As mentioned earlier it is a well settled principle of law that 

 the cost of purchase power is to be assigned to power. The 

 language of Sec. 4(h)(10)(c) of the Act does nothing to change 

 this. The Interior Committee report language on the provision 

 confirms this reading: 



The allocation of particular costs to individual projects 

 and among different project purposes, as is required bv 

 existing law, is preserved in this subparagraph to avoid 

 establishing anv pre cedent of a diff erent allocation r esult. 

 Thus, power, irrigation, navigation, recreation and other 

 project purposes will continue to bear only their 

 established shares of the total costs attributable to 

 protection and mitigation measures. H.R. Rep. No. 96-976, 

 96th Cong. 2nd. Sess, Pt. 2 at 45 (1980) (emphasis added) . 



The Act also does not give Bonneville the authority to change 

 project purpose allocations. On this point I agree with 

 Bonneville's legal opinion, which states, "Because project 

 purpose allocations for each dam are set by statute or by 

 established pre-Act method, the Administrator has no discretion 

 to change them." (pg. 10, note 8) 



Although Bonneville does not have the authority to allocate 

 purchase power costs to non-power purposes or to change project 

 purpose allocations that does not mean all Bonneville 

 expenditures related to fish mitigation measures are solely the 

 responsibility of Bonneville and its ratepayers. It may be 

 possible to apply Section 4(h) (10) (c) to fish mitigation measures 

 such as hatcheries and fish ladders, that have been entirely 

 financed by Bonneville and its ratepayers, but benefit all 

 project purposes. For example, if Bonneville spends $10 million 

 for the construction of a fish ladder at a dam where 80 percent 

 of project costs have been allocated to power, it would be 

 possible for Bonneville to allocate $2 million to other project 

 purposes that are not the responsibility of power, i.e. 

 Bonneville, to pay for. 



I'm sure that you agree that any action the Administration takes 

 in this area must be in accordance with the law. Therefore, I 

 request that the Administration, including the Office of the 

 General Counsel at the Department of Energy, the Office of the 

 Solicitor at the Department of the Interior, and the Office of 

 the Chief Counsel at the Corps of Engineers conduct a 

 comprehensive review of the Bonneville legal opinion that 

 evaluates the abovementioned legal issues. I also request that 

 the following questions be addressed as part of the 

 Administration's consideration of this matter: 



