121 



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. 



2 . I am aware of one express direction from Congress that 

 makes federal taxpayers responsible for purchase power costs 

 incurred due to lost generation caused by the spill of water 

 to protect salmon below Shasta Dtm in California (P.L. 101- 

 514). What has been the total cost of this provision to 

 taxpayers since it was enacted? Please provide an estimate 

 of the cost that will be incurred by the taxpayers due to 

 this provision for FY 1995 to rv 1999. 



3. What is the proposed FY 1995 purchase power budget for 

 each of the federal PMAs (Bonneville, Western, Southwestern 

 and Southeastern)? Please provide an estimate of the 

 purchase power costs incurred every year by each PMA since 

 FY 1984 due to water flow regimes instituted to further non- 

 power purposes, including flood control, navigation, 

 irrigation, recreation, the protection of fish and wildlife 

 (including endangered species), and cultural resources (i.e. 

 the Grand Canyon National Park) . Please break down the 

 purchase power costs incurred by each PMA due to the 

 requirements of each non-power project purpose. 



In conclusion, I reemphasize that I have no objection whatsoever 

 to the Administration's decision to provide short-term financial 

 assistance to Bonneville for expenses related to fish mitigation. 

 I also agree that legal authority may exist for Bonneville to 

 shift certain fish mitigation costs from Bonneville ratepayers to 

 the taxpayer. As outlined in this letter, my concerns about this 

 issue are purely legal in nature. 



I would appreciate receiving a response to this letter by August 

 8, 1994. Thank you for your consideration. 



Chairman 



