167 



can be orchestrated more etficiently by an entity with fewer conflicting interests than BPA. 

 However, river operations are largely in BPA's control and are likely to remain that way. 

 Costs that caii oe mitigated through operational and marketing changes should stay with 

 BPA as long as BPA maintains control of operations and marketing. 



Finally, we applaud the thinking behind the link between BPA's success and the resources 

 available for salmon protection. We all have a stake in BPA's success, and this would give 

 substance to that stake. However, salmon protection consistent with the Regional Act is 

 part of BPA's core mission. We cannot accept a formulation in which BPA does its job 

 after it "succeeds" financially. To us, BPA succeeds only by doing its job. If it can't do 

 that and survive financially, then one has to question the rationale for its survival. Salmon 

 protection, energy efficiency, and renewable resources are BPA's reason for doing 

 business, not just a cost of doing business, and certainly not just a bonus when BPA does 

 well financially. We do agree that superior financial performance ought to be reinvested in 

 superior performance in pursuit of the Regional Act's goals. However, acceptable 

 performance in reaching the Act's goals (including full and timely implementation of the 

 Council's Power Plan and Fish and Wildilife program) is the standard that BPA must attain 

 under all circumstances. 



3. Is there a cost too great to save a species? Our organizatioii takes no position with 

 respect to how economic considerations are factored into species protection. While the 

 question is an interesting one from the perspective of the Endangered Species Act debate, it 

 is not critical for the Columbia River salmon debate. 



Salmon are not snail darters. The ESA protects all species, on the grounds that biological 

 systems are woven together in complex ways and all life forms serve purposes beyond 

 their own survival. However, one need not subscribe to that logic in order to favor heroic 

 effons to save salmon. Salmon are much more than an "indicator species" or a link in a 

 biological chain. They are of intrinsic and incalculable cultural, economic, and spiritual 

 value to the region. That is why they are covered by a variety of laws and treaties designed 

 to ensure their protection regardless of the fate of the ESA. 



We should cenainly not have a "sky's, the limit" attitude to salmon protection that results in 

 poor program design, wasted resources, and inadequate results. But neither should we 

 balk at costs for effective programs that are well within the means a region that enjoys the 

 nation's most affordable power system. Again, the resources devoted to "spinning" the 

 costs and delaying the implementation of even the most basic and widely-supponed 

 recovery measures would be much better spent devising operations and marketing plans 

 that minimize salmon recovery costs. 



4. a)Have you done an independent assessment of the market for renewable power? 

 NCAC's Renewable Northwest Project (RNP) estimates that, in addition to the projects 

 underway today (a total of about 145 aMW), the market would have to grow by 50 to 75 

 aMW per year to provide a base for a sustainable and competitive renewable energy 

 industry in the Northwest. This would translate into a cumulative total of 450 to 600 aMW 

 of renewables by 2001 (again, including current projects). * 



In its 1991 plan, the Northwest Power Planning Council did an assessment of the possible 

 growth in the market for renewables (using stricdy economic criteria) and concluded that 

 646 aMW of wind and geothermal energy would be built by the year 2010. Some of this 

 comes on line as early as 1999, but the bulk of it doesn't materialize until after 2005.^ 



The US DOE has predicted that wind energy will provide 1% of the nation's electrical 

 production by 2010, up from about 0. 1% today. In the Northwest, that would translate 

 into about 190 aMW, or roughly 580 MW of capacity. Barron's magazine wrote favorably 

 about wind power's long-term growth potential for investors (7/15/94), and Shell Oil is 

 finding that renewables fit very prominently in its draft planning scenarios (Scientific 

 American, September 1994). 



4. b)What is the cost of power from wind and geothermal energy? Costs depend on a 

 variety of different factors including: project size, resource quality, location, ownership, 

 tax status, financing (size, rate, source, length of loan), and project life. Project costs 



